The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews. A Historical Reconstruction (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction Supplements to the Jou...

Author: Sandra Gambetti

91 downloads 1127 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction

Supplements to the

Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor

Hindy Najman Department and Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto Associate Editors

Florentino García Martínez Qumran Institute, University of Groningen

Benjamin G. Wright, III Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University Advisory Board

j.j. collins – j. duhaime – p.w. van der horst – a. klostergaard petersen – j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten – j. sievers – g. stemberger e.j.c. tigchelaar – j. tromp VOLUME 135

The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction By

Sandra Gambetti

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gambetti, Sandra. The Alexandrian riots of 38 C.E. and the persecution of the Jews : a historical reconstruction / by Sandra Gambetti. p. cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ; v. 135) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-13846-9 (hbk. : alk. paper) 1. Jews—Egypt—Alexandria—History—To 1500. 2. Jews—Persecutions—Egypt— Alexandria—History—To 1500. 3. Jews—Civil rights—Egypt—Alexandria—History— To 1500. 4. Riots—Egypt—Alexandria—History—To 1500. 5. Alexandria (Egypt)— History. 6. Alexandria (Egypt)—Ethnic relations. 7. Alexandria (Egypt)—Politics and government. I. Title. II. Series. DS135.E42A43364 2009 305.892’4032—dc22 2009025041

ISSN: 1384-2161 ISBN: 978 90 04 13846 9 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Acknowledgments .............................................................................. Abbreviations ..................................................................................... Introduction ........................................................................................

vii ix 1

Chapter One

Unwrapping Philo’s Narrative .............................

13

Chapter Two The Rights of Residence of Alexandrian Jews in the Ptolemaic Period ...............................................................

23

Chapter Three The Rights of Residence of Alexandrian Jews in the Roman Period ....................................................................

57

Chapter Four

The Prefecture of Flaccus—The Early Years .....

77

Chapter Five

The Precedent for the Riots ..................................

87

Chapter Six

Spring 38 C.E. ...........................................................

137

Chapter Seven

Agrippa in Alexandria ........................................

151

Chapter Eight

The Riots of 38 C.E. ............................................

167

Chapter Nine The Cultural and Religious Background of the Riots ....................................................................................

195

Chapter Ten

The Years 39 and 41 C.E. ......................................

213

Conclusions ........................................................................................

239

Appendices Appendix One The Chronology ............................................. Appendix Two The Replacement of the Prefect of Egypt at the Emperor’s Death ...........................................................

255 273

vi

contents Appendix Three The Prefect’s Jurisdiction over Matters of Status ...................................................................... Appendix Four The Topography of Alexandria .................. Appendix Five Ethnics, Patris, and the Case of Alexandreus ...............................................................................

277 282 287

Bibliography ........................................................................................

293

General Index ..................................................................................... Index of Documentary Sources ....................................................... Index of Literary Sources ................................................................. Index of Relevant Words .................................................................

315 322 327 334

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This monograph develops from my doctoral dissertation, which was itself originally a graduate seminar paper at U.C. Berkeley. Of course, many people have crossed the path of this research during its long gestation and in all its phases. I have not kept any list, so, I must rely only on my memory, a very sore spot these days. To those who do not find their name mentioned below, please do not be offended—we will have a drink at some point, and it will be on me. My work could not have developed into this form had I not been in Egypt and Alexandria in 2001–2002. My stay in Alexandria came to be especially important. I met there Mona Haggag, who first introduced me to the city and put me in contact with the Centre d’Études Alexandrines. Jean-Yves Empereur allowed me to work in the Center’s library. At that time, the library consisted of no more than two rooms, yet it was a concentration of books, journals, offprints, maps only and exclusively on Alexandria. In short, it was an amusement park for a student with my interests. I divided my days between the Center’s library and the city, walking miles a day north-south, east-west, up and down, back and forth, trying to gain a physical sense of it and to find a relationship between what I was reading and what I was seeing. The first phase of the transformation from the dissertation into a monograph took place in the library of the Department of Ancient History of the University of Bologna, where I spent one summer in the company of my old teachers and friends. Carla Salvaterra’s proverbial wisdom does not need any additional praise here. I remember very insightful conversations at lunch on the Tour de France with Federicomaria Muccioli. A particular thought goes to Alessandro Cristofori, a real breathing bibliographical catalogue, always ready to use, whom I exploited as much as I could as I strategically sat next to him in the library for weeks. I am truly sorry for those who can never take advantage of him—you have missed the experience of a lifetime. I wish to close this note with two names: Antonio Sabattini and Erich Gruen. Antonio Sabattini has been my first teacher and laurea thesis supervisor; from him I have learned the craft, the discipline, the stubborness. Fundamentally, I would not be here writing this note for my first monograph, had I not met him in the first place. I have some

viii

acknowledgments

problems to spell anything about Erich Gruen; his help, encouragment and support in graduate school and especially during the dissertation process—and after that as well—go beyond any possible description. To Antonio and Erich this book is dedicated. Publication of this monograph was made in part possible by a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture.

ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations of authors, ancient works and modern literature in this book follow the guidelines of The SBL Handbook of Style, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson 1999. The titles of less common journals are written in full.

INTRODUCTION In the summer of 38 C.E., the multiethnic city of Alexandria in Egypt, having been under Roman rule at that time for 69 years, became a theater of severe disorder. Its well-established Jewish community was attacked and violently persecuted: shops were pillaged and destroyed, meeting houses were burnt down, and people were tortured and murdered. The Jewish politeia, the system of civic laws and regulations that allowed Jews to legally and relatively independently live according to their ancestral customs, was abrogated. Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish philosopher who lived through those events, is our only witness to these facts and he describes them in two works, In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium. With the exception of a few passages in the works of other authors, Philo remains the most important primary source for the Alexandrian events, despite some important historiographic problems. In fact, both works are incomplete—In Flaccum missing the beginning, Legatio ad Gaium the end—and the historical and manuscript traditions disagree about the reason for their composition and their place within Philo’s opus.1 The apparent fluidity of Philo’s two accounts does not provide a complete picture of the background of the events. The two treatises actually seem to respond to the needs of two different agendas. In In Flaccum the prefect of Egypt, Aulus Avilius Flaccus, subscribing to an agreement with the anti-Jewish factions of the city, is principally responsible for, even instigates, the suffering of the Jews. Legatio ad Gaium, however, is composed in a completely different key. Here the account of the riots occupies only a few paragraphs in which Gaius, the Roman emperor, is the villain, reacting to the Jews’ refusal to consider him a

1 A critical edition with a philological introduction on the manuscript tradition is found in L. Cohn and S. Reiter, Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1915) xlvii–lxxvii. Good summaries and reviews are also in H. Box, Philonis Alexandrini In Flaccum (New York: Arno Press, 1939), xxxiii–xxxvii; F.H. Colson, Philo. The Embassy to Gaius (Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press, 1962), xvi–xxi; E.M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 36–43.

2

introduction

god; the scenario is not limited to Alexandria, but extends throughout the Empire; and Flaccus is barely mentioned.2 Studies of the Alexandrian riots of 38 C.E. are an important part of a larger issue, namely the rights of Diaspora Jews in the Greco-Roman period.3 Because Alexandria is the only case for which a contemporary full description is available, it has become the terrain most frequented for scholarly discussion, in spite of all the problems briefly outlined above. Scholars have focused primarily on defining the background and searching for the causes of the riots; the initial stages of this debate were heavily influenced by the experience of nineteenth and twentieth century European Jews. At the end of the nineteenth century Schürer’s seminal multi-volume work on the experience of the Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman periods established the notion that the Alexandrian Jews held collective citizenship, which they struggled to defend.4 Nevertheless, a score of contemporary and later scholars remained skeptical.5 In 1924 Bell published P. Lond. VI 1912, better known as the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians. This document changed the documentary basis for the analysis of the riots of 38 C.E. Lines 94–95, where the emperor reminds the Jews that they live in a city that is not their own, rightly prompted the editor to affirm that the letter “disprove[s] the idea that the Jews possessed citizenship.”6 While a few scholars were still inclined

2 Good, although short, comparative comments in C. Kraus Reggiani, “I rapporti tra l’impero romano e il mondo ebraico al tempo di Caligola secondo la ‘Lagatio ad Gaium’ di Filone Alessandrino,” ANRW II 21.1 (1984): 556. 3 For an overview of the studies on Hellenistic Judaism, J.J. Collins, Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2005), 1–20; a very recent overview of Alexandrian Judaism, is in G. Schimanowski, Juden und Nichtjuden in Alexandrien. Koexistenz und Konflikte bis zum Pogrom unter Trajan (117 n. Chr.) (Berlin: LIT, 2006). 4 E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–135 A.D.), revised edition by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman (Edinbourgh: T&T Clark, 1987), III 122–123; L. Fuchs, Die Juden Aegyptens in ptolemäischer und römischer Zeit (Wien: Rath, 1924), 85 and n. 2 for previous bibliography. 5 J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain; leur condition juridique, économique et sociale (Paris: Geuthner, 1914), II 6–11; W. Schubart, “Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus,” APF 5 (1909–1913): 119–120; H. Willrich, “Caligula. Dritter Teil. VII, Die Juden,” Beiträge zur alten Geschichte = Klio 3 (1903): 403–407; Fuchs, Juden Aegyptens, 79–105; M. Engers, “Die staatsrechliche Stelung der alexandrinischen Juden,” Klio 18 (1923): 79–90; M. Gelzer, “Iulius Caligula,” RE X (1919): 381–423. 6 H.I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt. The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924), 11, 14–15.

introduction

3

to agree with Schürer’s position,7 Bell’s edition of the Letter changed the landscape of the study of the riots nonetheless.8 A new scenario, however, developed immediately before Bell’s eyes: that of Jews struggling to acquire the Alexandrian franchise.9 Victor Tcherikover entertained and developed this idea in his influential works published after World War II.10 Since then many scholars have essentially followed in Tcherikover’s steps.11 Some decades later, Mary Smallwood argued for a contrasting opinion. She denied that the Alexandrian Jews were fighting for emancipation, but continued to recognize that civic and political unrest permeated Alexandria since some Jews did want citizenship.12 Some years later Arieh Kasher, who also rejected any reference to an Alexandrian franchise for the Jews, suggested that two types of equivalent citizenship coexisted in Alexandria—one for Greeks, one for Jews—and each was framed according to their respective ethnic values.13 Kasher’s idea of double equivalent citizenship has not been widely accepted, but the emphasis that he placed on the lack of interest among Jews in any form of traditional Alexandrian citizenship has reinforced his and Smallwood’s approach, to which more recent scholarship usually refers.14 7 A. Momigliano, Claudius: the Emperor and His Achievement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1934), 96–98; G. De Sanctis, “Claudio e i giudei di Alessandria,” RFIS 52 (1924): 473–513; H. Lewy, Philon von Alexandrien von den Machterweisen Gottes: Eine zeitgenössische Darstellung der Judenverfolgungen unter dem Kaiser Caligula (Berlin: Schocken, 1935). 8 The earliest scholars to recognize the importance of the Letter after Bell’s publication, and to agree with the editor’s conclusion, were T. Reinach, “L’empereur Claude et les Juifs d’après un nouveau document,” REJ 79 (1924): 133–144 and H.S. Jones, “Claudius and the Jewish Question at Alexandria,” JRS 16 (1926): 17–35. 9 Bell, Jews and Christians, 16. 10 Reference works on the subject are V. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957–1960), II 1–66 and V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America–Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1961 [1959]), 311. 11 J.P.V.D. Baldson, The Emperor Gaius (Caligula) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934), 128; Box, Flaccum, xx, xxxvii; R. Barraclough, “Philo’s Politics: Roman Rule and Hellenistic Judaism,” ANRW II 21.1 (1984): 424ff.; S. Honigman, “Philon, Flavius Josèphe, et la citoyenneté alexandrine,” JJS 48 (1997): 62–90; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 B.C.E.–117 C.E.) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1996), 63 for scholarship overview. 12 Smallwood, Legatio, 6–11. 13 A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. The Struggle for Equal Rights (Tübingen: Mohr (Siebek), 1985), passim. For similar conclusion, working on the concept of isopolitia see K. Bringmann, “Isopoliteia in den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Juden und Griechen in Alexandreia.” Chiron 35 (2005): 7–21. 14 Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 64ff. for scholarship overview. Opinions on this subject, with different shades and emphasis, are in: A.A. Barrett, Caligula. The Corruption

4

introduction

A very recent contribution excludes any role for the Jewish struggle for civic rights, whatever that may have encompassed, and charges the Jews with a nationalist conspiracy against the Roman Empire that was led by the Jewish king Agrippa.15 The debate about Jewish political or civic rights in Alexandria has included the discussion of the laographia, the poll-tax imposed by the Romans on all of the country’s inhabitants, with the exception of the citizens of Alexandria, Ptolemais and Naucratis and a number of privileged groups. Of course the status of the Alexandrian Jews as citizens or legal residents, or whatever it may be, defines their position vis-à-vis the Roman fiscal administration. With few exceptions,16 scholars who maintain that the Jews were legal residents in Alexandria also accept the corollary, namely, that they were subject to paying the poll-tax by reason of their status. According to this view, the fiscal burden motivated them to seek a higher, tax-exempt civic status.17 Whatever a scholar’s view of the background and of the primary causes of the events might be, the subscribed dynamic of the riots centers almost invariably, in accordance with Philo’s In Flaccum, on the figure of the Roman prefect Flaccus, who was distressed by a political situation in Rome no longer favorable to him and who tried to save himself by seeking the support of local anti-Jewish groups and

of Power (New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 1989), 184ff.; P. Schäfer, Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 1997), 137ff.; J. Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt. From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 164ff.; A. Ferrill, Caligula Emperor of Rome (London: Thames & Hudson, 1991), 143–146; J.J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (Grand Rapids: Eerdsmans, 2000), 118; P. Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus. The First Pogrom (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2003), 24, 71; cf. E.S. Gruen, Diaspora. Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 2002), 54–83. 15 A. Kerkeslager, “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla in Alexandria,” JSJ 37 (2006): 367–400; on historical grounds, it is unclear how Agrippa could have been involved in a conspiracy in 38 C.E. against the Roman Empire, and then appear in Rome at Gaius’ court in 39 C.E. where he received all the territories formerly of his brother. Agrippa’s visit has been generally thought to represent the immediate cause of the riots, although the king’s real responsibilities have not been outlined with any degree of certainty; a most recent contribution on this is J.E. Atkinson, “Ethnic Cleansing in Roman Alexandria in 38,” AClass 49 (2006): 31–54. 16 For example Gruen, Diaspora, 75–77. 17 The basic argument was introduced by Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 136; 312; after him, among others, Barrett, Caligula, 185; K. Blouin, Le conflit judéo-alexandrin de 38–41. L’identité juive à l’épreuve (Paris–Budapest–Torino: Harmattan, 2005); Schäfer, Judeophobia, 65; Collins, Jewish Cult, 187–189.

introduction

5

indulging their hostility toward the Jews.18 Although a few scholars have raised doubts concerning the likelihood of such an agreement,19 Flaccus has remained the one responsible for the riots, and most of the blame has been directed at him. It was Flaccus, after all, who issued the decree that would ruin most of the Alexandrian Jews.20 All of these views minimize the role of emperor Gaius, who remains a ghost in the background; Gaius never acted directly during the riots, and the Jews were attacked for his sake.21 But the identification of the responsible party has not been limited to the dichotomy between Flaccus and Gaius. The traditional political reading of the riots, centered on the problem of Jewish citizenship or legal residence, understands the Jews as being opposed to the Greeks. The Greeks, then, attacked either the enfranchised Jews, because they did not want the Jews to share in their full political privileges,22 or the Jews seeking citizenship, because they did not want the Jews to acquire it.23

18 Baldson, Gaius, 132; Box, Flaccum, xxxix; Smallwood, Legatio, 16–17; E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 235–237; Barrett, Caligula, 186; Ferrill, Caligula; L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 114; 145; Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 52; Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 167–169; Schäfer, Judeophobia, 139–140; Collins, Jewish Cult, 184. 19 A.N. Sherwin-White, “Philo and Avilius Flaccus; a Conundrum,” Latomus 31 (1972): 820–828, followed by Gruen, Diaspora, 57; 59, and Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 57. 20 Smallwood, Legatio, 20 thinks that the Greeks forced Flaccus to issue the edict; on the emphasis of a punitive edict against the Jews and/or on Flaccus’ urge to keep public order see Kerkeslager, “Agrippa;” Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 243–244; Gruen, Diaspora, 61; W. Ameling, “ ‘Market-Place’ und Gewalt. Die Juden in Alexandrien 38 n.Chr.,” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft Neue Folge 27 (2003): 119–121. 21 The majority of scholars have refrained from building a consistent argument against Gaius, despite Philo is very vociferous on this in Legatio; this is because Gaius would attack the Jews religiously to impose his self-deification, a process that scholars historically date more than one year after the riots occurred; it is generally felt that Philo antedates this phenomenon to support his point. See Smallwood, Legatio, 3; among the latest, in the wake of her argument, Collins, Jewish Cult, 184. More on Gaius’ ruler cult below. 22 As in Schürer, History of the Jewish People, III 122–123. 23 Baldson, Gaius, 125; Box, Flaccum, xviii; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 311ff.; Smallwood, Legatio, 3; Smallwood, Jews, 235; Barrett, Caligula, 184; Ferrill, Caligula, 143; Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 115; to signal also L. Cracco Ruggini, “Nuclei immigrati e forze indigene in tre grandi centri commerciali dell’impero,” in The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome—Studies in Archaeology and History (eds. J.H. D’Arms and C.C. Kopff; Rome: American Academy, 1980), 55–76 who reads the riots in terms of class struggle between the Greek proletariat and the Jewish middle class, against which

6

introduction

In the last two decades some scholarly interest has shifted away from a political reading of the riots to interpretations privileging an ethnic and identity-oriented reading of Philo’s texts. In these cases attention has been drawn to the difficult relationships between the many ethnic groups living in Alexandria, with their different, often clashing, traditions. In particular, the Greeks’ traditional adversary, the Jews, now share center stage with the native Egyptians. The native Egyptians were envious of the Jews’ better civic condition and were nourished with centuries-old anti-Jewish folklore; thus, they also had some interest in attacking the Jews.24 The different interpretations of the Alexandrian events have been deeply affected by the unclear relationship between Philo’s two treatises, In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium. Scholars have tended to fully exploit the information provided in the first treatise, while using the other treatise with circumvention, if not skepticism. With all the caution that the use and analysis of both of Philo’s treatises necessitate, scholars have been more comfortable with following Philo’s account that blames Flaccus, rather then Gaius. The different agendas of the two works have both been rationalized on the historiographical level rather than the historical one. Philo could accuse Flaccus in In Flaccum, because at the time of composition Flaccus was already dead, while Gaius was still alive. Conversely, Philo felt free to openly accuse Gaius in Legatio because at the time of composition of this treatise the emperor was also dead; thus, Philo had nothing to fear.25 In any case the historical interpretation has never really interconnected with such a historiographical scenario.

M. Pucci Ben Zeev, “New Perspectives on the Jewish-Greek Hostilities in Alexandria During the Reign of Emperor Caligula,” JSJ 21 (1990): 227–235. 24 K. Goudriaan, “Ethnical Strategies in Graeco-Roman Egypt,” in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (eds. P. Bilde, et al.; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992), 85–87; P. Borgen, “Philo and the Jews of Alexandria,” in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (eds. P. Bilde, et al.; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992), 125–127; R. Alston, “Philo’s In Flaccum: Ethnicity and Social Space in Roman Alexandria,” G&R 44 (1997): 165–175; Schäfer, Judeophobia, 144; Gruen, Diaspora, 64ff.; M. Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Tübingen: Mohr (Siebek), 2001), 45–74; Ameling, “’Market-Place’,” passim; W. Bergmann and C. Hoffmann, “Kalkül oder ‘Massenwahn’? Eine soziologische Interpretation der antijüdischen Unruhen in Alexandria 38 n.Chr,” in Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context (eds. R. Erb and M. Schmidt; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 9–29; Blouin, Conflit judéo-alexandrin, passim; Collins, Jewish Cult, 185. 25 Summary of this in Van der Horst, Flaccus, 4–5 and Smallwood, Legatio, 151–152; 266.

introduction

7

The Present Work This work presents no alternative approach to the subject; thus, the reader will find below a very traditional political and legalistic explanation of the riots. Methodologically, the present interpretation is based on an inquiring close-up reading of Philo’s texts, both vis-à-vis the few other available pieces of evidence on the subject and against the larger historical background of the period. Philo’s statements are evaluated, without underestimating either his allusions or his silences. The nature of both of Philo’s treatises, In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium, requires such a close-up reading for several reasons. Beyond the problems related to their incompleteness and to the manuscript tradition mentioned above, Philo’s direct involvement in the riots renders his writings an item to handle with care. Philo was a historical participant in the events, in that he was an eye-witness of the riots and, in fact, the only eye-witness for modern readers. However, he was also an emotional participant, since he was a member of the Jewish community under attack and later led the delegation that met emperor Gaius in Rome in 39 C.E. in the wake of the Alexandrian events. Philo’s testimony can be compared, then, to a double-edged sword. On the one hand, he provides details that only a witness to the events can; on the other hand, his testimony may distort the events in ways that only someone who felt these events can. Consideration of both Philo’s details and possible distortions form and inform the present study. Building a background against which to understand the riots has also been extremely important in developing the present study. The political approach adopted here requires the inclusion and discussion anew of the origin and development of the Alexandrian Jewish community and its rights from the Ptolemaic through the early Roman periods. Other than the texts of Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas and a few other authors whose works are usually included in such a discussion, this work includes consistent papyrological evidence that, used comparatively, helps substantiate the reconstruction of the possible environment in which the Alexandrian Jews settled and lived.26 To be

26 This part of the research has produced two separate works; S. Gambetti, “The Jewish Community of Alexandria: The Origins,” Henoch 29 (2007): 213–240 and, although less related to the Jewish topic, S. Gambetti, “Q&A on the Foundation of Alexandria,” (forthcoming).

8

introduction

sure, this work submits no miraculous piece of new evidence; rather, it considers more numerous and known sources together to weave a fuller scenario. The reading of every piece of evidence was strictly governed by chronology. Every source, whether literary or documentary, was interpreted within the chronological range that its characteristics allowed, whether precise pieces of information were openly declared or were only extrapolated from the internal evidence. As much as possible, the reading of each source was confined to its own period, without extending its use to understand an earlier period. The same chronological principle was applied both in laying out the background against which the riots are read and in explaining the riots themselves. Starting more specifically from Philo’s treatises, this work presumes three factors. Factor 1: the Jews were not expelled from Alexandria, but were secluded in a small part of it within the city walls. This suggests that territory—the notion of “who lives where”—and not identity—the notion of the Jews qua Jews—was a key issue in the events. The relevance of territory in Philo’s account links the Alexandrian events to the city’s origins and its very nature. Founded a little more than three centuries earlier, Alexandria was, from the very beginning, a colonial settlement whose identity was defined by rational territorial subdivisions.27 The early Jewish settlement was part of such city planning and was territorially defined by it. This footprint remained through the centuries and informs the platform upon which the riots occurred. Factor 2: Philo’s vocabulary is imbued with legal quality,28 which leads us to explore the judicial environment contemporary to the events and to investigate the institutional responsibilities of individuals, as well as of collective—civic and political—bodies both in Alexandria and in Rome. Substantiating the legalistic reading of the riots led to the discovery of a coincidence—the third factor prompting this study: a trial involving two Alexandrian delegations took place in Rome before the emperor in 37, only one year before the riots, as attested to in P. Yale II 107. This difficult document has undergone several readings and editions, yet it has never been located with certainty in historical studies. The

27 P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) I 59; Gambetti, “Jewish Community,” 213–240. 28 Minimized by Alston, “Philo’s In Flaccum,” 165.

introduction

9

text’s problematic fragmentary condition has jeopardized any attempt to identify the events described or even referred to in it. Further, a few elements of its rhetoric and vocabulary have marred its reputation as a valid historical document and this has led to its being characterized as either fictional or semi-fictional. The inclusion of P. Yale II 107 in the Acta Martyrum, or Acta Alexandrinorum—a collection of papyrological texts allegedly reporting the difficult relationship between the Roman emperors and the Alexandrians notables, and generally considered to be fictional—had so far defined P. Yale II 107’s place within the pseudohistorical field.29 However, many details of the text, if read against the proper background of the first century C.E. to which it belongs, precisely reflect the Roman legal procedure of the time.30 There is no reason, therefore, to exclude P. Yale II 107 from a historical analysis, and its contribution to the historical explanation of the Alexandrian riots of 38 is highly significant. The analysis of the legal aspects of the riots led to an almost unexplored field, namely the nature of the laws applied in Alexandria. If we must trust the Athenodorus who pled his case before Trajan in Rome, the Alexandrians applied and enjoyed Athenian laws (P. Oxy. XVIII 2177, col. i, ll. 12–18).31 Scholars have used this piece of evidence to substantiate the parallel between Athens and Alexandria regarding the latter’s political institutions, particularly in reference to the subdivision of the territory into demes and the consequent organization of the

29 Editio princeps in A.v. Premerstein, Alexandrinische Geronten vor Kaiser Gaius (Giessen: Klabfleisch, 1939); later editions in H. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs: the Acta Alexandrinorum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954) 8–17; H. Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum. De mortibus Alexandriae nobilium fragmenta papyracea graeca (Leipzig: Teubner, 1961); H. Musurillo and G.M. Parassoglou, “A New Fragment of the Acta Alexandrinorum,” ZPE 15 (1974): 1–7; S.A. Stephens, Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985, 8–17) 85–97; P.A. Kuhlmann, Die Giessener literarischen Papyri und die Caracalla-Erlasse (Giessen: Übersetzung und Kommentar, 1994) as P. Giss. Lit. 4.7. A more recent overview with commentary of the Acta, including also P. Yale II 107, is in A.J. Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence in Roman Egypt: the Case of the Acta Alexandrinorum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), preceded by J. Rowlandson and A.J. Harker, “Roman Alexandria from the Perspective of the Papyri,” in Alexandria, Real and Imagined (eds. A. Hirst and M. Silk; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 79–112. All these works contain also the most important points of the discussion on the genre of the papyrus, together with complete bibliographical references. 30 S. Gambetti, “In Defense of a Historical Reading of P. Yale II 107 = P. Giss. Lit. 4.7,” ZPE 165 (2008): 191–208. 31 Acta Athenodori = Acta X [Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 61].

10

introduction

body politic.32 Yet, an analytical approach to the problem that examines whether and how the Athenian laws applied to the Alexandrian reality has never been attempted.33 In order to establish whether Athenian law could explain the legal aspects of the Alexandrian riots of 38, this work initially proceeded through a series of tentative tests, first reading the Athenian forensic literature of the fourth century B.C.E. to determine if situations, terminology and trial outcomes had any bearing on what happened in Alexandria. The results were unexpectedly encouraging. Everything that occurred in Alexandria in the summer of 38 C.E. can be explained through what is known of Athenian laws and procedures of the late Classical period. From these three factors two paths of research developed independently—one legalistic, one territorial—until they met. The thesis they produced is this: Roman rule produced an essentially idiosyncratic scenario between politics and fiscal administration. According to this scenario, civic rights were limited to legal residence, which the Romans recognized initially and collectively for the Jews on political grounds. However, this scenario came to be highly scrutinized and sometimes delegitimized on an individual basis when the strict grid of fiscal control

32 Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 93ff.; 110–112; D. Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship during the Roman Principate (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 5; 49ff.; passim. 33 And this, despite, for example, the overwhelming importance of the testimony of the witness in the Athenian court [G. Thür, “The Role of the Witness in the Athenian Law,” in The Cambridge Companion to Athenian Law (eds. M. Gagarin and D. Cohen; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 146–169] finds its evident correspondent in the Dikaiomata [F. Bechtel, et al., Dikaiomata. Auszüge aus alexandrinischen Gesetzen und Verordnungen in einem Papyrus des philologischen Seminars der Universität Halle (P. Hal. 1) (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1913)], the only extant collection of Alexandrian legal regulations and procedures from Ptolemaic times (P. Hal. 1, col. ii, l. 24–col. iii, l. 78; col. x, ll. 222–233; commentary 48–63; 125–133). See Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 110–112, who recognizes the connection in legal procedure; cf. II 210 n. 139 where however he seems skeptical on a similar text, P. Oxy. XVIII 2177 fr. 1, ll. 10–15; see other literature there. The most extensive comment on the Alexandrian law system is H.J. Wolff, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemäer und des Prinzipats (München: Beck, 2002) I 64–67, who admits the possibility of Athenian law applied in Alexandria, but tends to see a mix of Greek law coming from different locations of the Greek world rather than specifically from Athens. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri. 332 B.C.–640 A.D. (Warszawa, P.W.N.Warszawa Press, 1955), 1–55, in a chapter devoted to the interaction between Egyptian, Greek and Roman law, makes no specification on this subject; unfortunately I could not retrieve J. Velissaropoulos, Αλεξανδρινοι νοµοι· πολιτικη αυτονοµια και νοµικη αυτοτελεια της Πτολεµαικης Αλεχανδρειας (Athens: Nimikes Ekdosis Ant. N. Sakkoula, 1981).

introduction

11

was introduced. This produced constant discontent among Alexandrian citizens who, forcibly distanced from their city administration, wanted the government to act against the Jews as a group, as they were felt to be usurpers of civic rights. Gaius solved the problem judicially in 37 C.E. by siding with the Alexandrian citizens and adjudicating accordingly. In the summer of 38 C.E., according to Roman legal procedure, Gaius’ sentence was transformed into a political measure to be enforced collectively on the Alexandrian territory against the Jews, curtailing most of their rights of residence. The emperor’s new policy did not target all of Alexandria’s Jews, but only some of them who, for historical reasons, were caught between the institutional contradictions of the Roman administration and who lived in a part of Alexandria that could not guarantee them legal residence. The small part of Alexandrian territory where the Jews were clustered was the only sector legally allocated to them. Flaccus, in his capacity as Prefect of Alexandria and Egypt, simply enforced Gaius’ orders, and he accordingly implemented the new situation on Alexandria’s territory. The Alexandrian citizenry, composed not only of Greeks but also of native enfranchised Egyptians, and the rest of the Egyptian populace present in the city, participated actively in enforcing Roman orders. There was nothing the Jews could do. A final note on the use of terminology related to anti-Semitism. Scholars have frequently labeled the Alexandrian events of 38 C.E. as the first pogrom in history and have often explained them in terms of an ante litteram explosion of anti-Semitism.34 This work deliberately avoids any words or expressions that in any way connect, explicitly or implicitly, the Alexandrian events of 38 C.E. to later events in modern or contemporary Jewish experience, for which that terminology was created.35 The reason for this choice is not ideological but concrete. The reconstruction offered here, with institutional roles and responsibilities

34 Seminal work is U. Wilcken, “Zum alexandrinischen Antisemitismus,” Abh. kön. sächs. Ges. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. 28 (1909): 783–839; more recent examples of use of anti-Semitism related vocabulary are: Smallwood, Legatio, 3–28; Barraclough, “Philo’s Politics,” 427 and passim; Kraus Reggiani, “Rapporti,” 555 and passim; Gruen, Diaspora, passim; Van der Horst, Flaccus, passim; Ameling, “ ‘Market-Place’,” passim; Blouin, Conflit judéo-alexandrin, passim; Bergmann and Hoffmann, “Kalkül,” passim. For an overview of the discourse on anti-Semitism specifically related to the Alexandrian events, see Collins, Jewish Cult, 197–201. 35 I am aware that this contradicts my contributions to the Encyclopedia for AntiSemitism, ed. by R. Levy, AEO-Clio, 2005.

12

introduction

attributed differently from those other scholars have so far recognized, casts a different light on the entire historical scenario. To decide whether a word like pogrom, for example, is an appropriate term to describe the events that are studied here, requires a comparative re-discussion of two historical frames—the Alexandria of 38 C.E. and the Russia of the end of the nineteenth century. That wide and delicate a topic cannot be addressed here and will be the subject of future research.

CHAPTER ONE

UNWRAPPING PHILO’S NARRATIVE A Brief Survey of Research into the Manuscript Tradition A study of the Alexandrian riots of 38 C.E. immediately reveals a degree of ambiguity in the work of the only extant chronicler of the events, Philo of Alexandria. As scholars familiar with these events know, our knowledge is based on two of Philo’s treatises: In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium. The former, incomplete at the beginning, is completely devoted to describing the riots, while the latter is devoted to the history of the embassy to Gaius later on, though its long introduction does include a spotty summary of the riots. The incompleteness of both treatises makes it difficult to know why Philo wrote them and for whom. Eusebius, among our earliest witnesses for the Philonic corpus, writes about and quotes from the so-called historical works of Philo. In his Chronicorum, Eusebius mentions a work called Εἰς Φλάκκον in which, according to him, Philo described what happened to the Jews of Alexandria. This work could be what we know as In Flaccum. For Legatio ad Gaium the situation is more intricate. At the beginning of the second book of the Historia Ecclesiastica Eusebius writes at length about the Philonic works. Introducing Philo as an intellectual and scholar who flourished in the time of Tiberius (2.4, 2–3), Eusebius states that the Alexandrian wrote five books on the Jews in the time of Gaius. Eusebius fails to provide the title or titles, but he explains that Philo provided a detailed description of Gaius’ madness, the misery of the Jews, and his own role in the embassy to the emperor (2.5, 1). Philo, Eusebius continues, wrote accurately about the embassy to Gaius in the Πρεσβεία. He summarizes selected topics: the anti-Jewish policy of Sejanus in Rome and Pilate’s attempt against the Temple in Jerusalem, after which he quotes verbatim a passage which is actually in our Legatio, 346 (2.6, 2). It is tempting to recognize in the Πρεσβεία what we know as Legatio, not least because of the direct citation of a passage from that treatise; yet hopes immediately fade, since nowhere in Legatio do we read of Pilate’s policy in Jerusalem unless they were included in the missing part at the beginning of the

14

chapter one

treatise. Eusebius had also read about further atrocities against the Alexandrian Jews in the time of Gaius in another work, Περὶ Ἀρετῶν (2.6, 3), which is the title the manuscript tradition sometimes delivers for Legatio. Eusebius then displays his admiration of Philo by listing his works (2.18, 1–7). It is generally assumed that he was reading the pinax of Philo’s corpus or at least what was available of it in his library of Caesarea.1 Among a considerable number of religious writings Eusebius recalls a Περὶ Ἰουδαίων among the monobiblia (2.18, 6). At the end of the list he mentions a second visit that Philo had made to Rome in the time of Claudius, at which time he recited before the senate a work about the θεοστυγία of Gaius, which he entitled, Eusebius stresses, Περὶ Ἀρετῶν (2.18, 8) with flourish and irony. Whether this work is to be identified with Legatio, in which Gaius’ desire to be considered a god is described, or whether it is related to another work with the same title mentioned in 2.6, 3, we do not know. The manuscript tradition is clearly of little use in contextualizing Philo’s works. The Philonic corpus as we have it today is the outcome of several centuries of philological endeavor trying to make sense of contradicting evidence. Adrianus Turnebus pioneered the field with his editio princeps published in 1552.2 Two more centuries would pass before Thomas Mangey’s work, based on the reading of a larger number of manuscripts, was released.3 The discovery of still new manuscripts gave Leopold Cohn, Paul Wendland, and Siegfrid Reiter the input needed to revise and complete Turnebus and Mangey’s works, and between 1896 and 1913 a series of volumes appeared whose authority is so far unchallenged.4 In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium were already in the editio princeps in the form we know today. The tradition the manuscripts present is no less complicated, as there is no homogeneity in the way that the two treatises are transmitted. 1 D.T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993). 2 A. Turnebus, Philonis Iudaei in libros Mosis de mundi opificio, historicos, de legibus. Eiusdem libri singulares, Ex bibliotheca Regia. (Paris: Ex officina Adriani Turnebi typographi Regij, 1552). 3 T. Mangey, Philonis Iudaei Opera quae reperiri potuerunt omnia. Textum cum Mss. contulit, quamplurima etiam e Codd. Vaticano, Mediceo et Bodleiano, Scriptoribus item vetustis, nec non Catenis Graecis ineditis, adiecit, Interpretationemque emendavit, universa Notis et Observationibus illustravit Thomas Mangey, S.T.P., Canonicus Dunelmensis. Vol. I. II. (London: Typis Guilelmi Bewyer, 1742). 4 L. Cohn, et al., Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1896–1915).

unwrapping philo’s narrative

15

In Flaccum comes under different headings: κατὰ τὸν Φλάκκον ἤτοι περὶ πρόνοιας,5 Φλάκκος ψεγόµενος,6 ἐκ τοῦ περὶ Φλάκκου λόγου,7 εἰς Φλάκκον.8 Legatio appears as περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν Γαίον,9 περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ πρεσβεὶας πρὸς Γαίον,10 περὶ ἀρετῶν ὅ ἐστι τῆς αὐτοῦ πρεσβείας πρὸς Γαίον,11 περὶ ἀρετῶν α ὅ ἐστι τῆς αὐτοῦ πρεσβείας πρὸς Γαίον,12 Φιλόνος ἀρετῶν α ὅ ἐστι τῆς πρεσβείας πρὸς Γαίον.13 It appears that in most cases the embassy is part of the περὶ ἀρετῶν, conflating Eusebius’ two separate mentions in Historia Ecclesiastica 2.6, 3 and 2.18, 8. Reiter, in the Prolegomena to the volume containing In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium, discussed the difficulties of identifying the two works on the basis of the titles transmitted in the manuscript and literary traditions.14 Twentieth century scholars have since presented additional possible interpretations, though always following the line traced by the initial editor. The common point of reference for all is a work in five books about the Jews based on Eus., Hist. Eccl., 2.5, 1.15 The first theory was Schürer’s, who suggested that In Flaccum and Legatio were the third and the fourth books of the five-book work.16 Later Massebieau17 and Cohn18 developed a reconstruction of Legatio on the basis of the lacunae theory. According to this theory, the text of the present version of Legatio has four gaps which reflect the work’s original division into

5

Full title: ἱστορία πάνυ ὠφέλιµος καὶ τῶι βίωι χρήσιµος τὰ κατὰ τὸν Φλάκκον ἤτοι περὶ πρόνοιας; Monacensis Gr. 459, saec. XIII (A); Maritensis Est. 11 gr. 2a nr. 40, annus 1508; Venetus Gr. 41, saec. XIV (B); Oxoniensis Collegi Novi 143, saec. XVI. 6 Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 248, saec. XVI (G). 7 Parisinus gr. 453, saec. XI (C). 8 Venetus Gr. 41, saec. XIV (H); Parisinus gr. 433, saec. XVI (L); Mediceus Laurentianus plut. X cod. 20, saec. XIII (M). 9 Full title: ἱστορία πάνυ χρήσιµος καὶ ὠφέλιµος περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν Γαίον καὶ τῆς αἰτίας τῆς πρὸς ἅπαν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος ἀπέχθειας αὐτοῦ; Monacensis Gr. 459, saec. XIII (A); Maritensis Est. 11 gr. 2a nr. 40, annus 1508; Venetus Gr. 41, saec. XIV (B); Oxoniensis Collegi Novi 143, saec. XVI. 10 Venetus Gr. 41, saec. XIV (H); Parisinus gr. 433, saec. XVI (L). 11 Mediceus Laurentianus plut. X cod. 20, saec. XIII (M). 12 Mediceus Laurentianus plut. X cod. 20, saec. XIII (M). 13 Parisinus gr. 453, saec. XI (C). 14 Cohn and Reiter, Philonis Opera 1915: xlvii–lxxvii. 15 Good summaries and reviews can be found in Schürer, History of the Jewish People, III.2, 859–864; Box, Flaccum, xxxiii–xxxvii; Colson, Philo’s Embassy, xvi–xxi; Smallwood, Legatio, 36–43. 16 Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, III.2, 349–354. 17 M.L. Massebieau, “Le classement des œvres de Philon,” Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses I (1889): 65–78. 18 L. Cohn, Einleitung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos (Leipzig, 1899): 421–424.

16

chapter one

five books. In this way, Legatio would be identified with the five books known to Eusebius and Περὶ Ἀρετῶν, a title accompanying Legatio in the manuscript tradition, would be an alternative title given by Philo. While Box and Smallwood were completely satisfied with the Massebieau-Cohn theory,19 Goodenough preferred to see In Flaccum as the second treatise mentioned by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl., 2.6, 3, apparently disregarding, or at least not discussing, the fact that Eusebius gives it a different title, Περὶ Ἀρετῶν.20 Colson, having reviewed all of his predecessors’ proposals, found the lacunae theory unnecessary and proposed a tentative division of Legatio into four parts according to the sense of the content.21 Suggestions are many and the discussion still remains open today; clearly the only possible way towards a viable discussion is to revert to the content of the treatises. In In Flaccum, Flaccus is the only person held responsible for the persecution of the Jews, even though his personal actions were only partially to blame, since the actual violence against the Jews was perpetrated by a group of allies and the Alexandrian mob. While his quantitative contribution—how much he did—will be discussed in the following chapters, it is worthwhile to comment briefly here on the quality of his involvement: Flaccus, according to Philo, acted on his own behalf, not the emperor’s, although, we must add, the nature of his office compelled him to do so. According to this account, Gaius was simply a fading image in the background and his name was instrumentalized for the sake of the plan of the prefect and his allies. In Legatio, Gaius is identified as the responsible party. His guilt lay in having proclaimed himself a god, causing the desecration of the Alexandrian Jewish prayer houses in the summer of 38, the first material attack against the Jews. Flaccus is barely mentioned. From the historiographic point of view, Philo’s double standard was justified by the assumed differing dates of composition, which were separated by Gaius’ death. Philo certainly could not have accused the emperor while he was still alive and, therefore, must have composed Legatio after Gaius’ death. Conversely, In Flaccum could have been composed before Gaius’ death, since its accusation of the prefect could not possibly have offended the emperor, who had ultimately arrested Flaccus, exiled him, and ordered his execution. 19

Box, Flaccum, xxxvii; Smallwood, Legatio, 36–39. E.R. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938), 9–10. 21 Colson, Philo’s Embassy, xxiv–xxvi. 20


17

If this is true, and this work accepts this basic conclusion, the historical question enters the stage: how can one reach behind Philo’s personal concerns—and the historiographic argument based on them—in order to understand who was responsible? Was it Flaccus or Gaius? Or must they share responsibility, given the strict institutional relationship between them? Further, how should one understand the relationship between the two treatises? The analysis necessary to answer these questions must begin with In Flaccum simply because of the quantity of information that Philo submits therein. Legatio will be incorporated when the argument requires. The Complicated Frame of In Flaccum After the first five years of Aulus Avilius Flaccus’22 prefecture in Alexandria, during which he demonstrated excellent political and administrative qualities and corrected flaws in the local administration, the situation changed. Gaius’ accession to the imperial seat in 37 C.E. was, for Flaccus, an occasion of concern. He feared the possible rage of the new emperor because, when still in Rome, he had been among the accusers of Gaius’ mother Agrippina (Flacc., 9). But after the new turn in Roman politics, with the imperially ordered deaths of members of Tiberius’ circle, of which he himself was a part, and especially at the news of the deadly fate of the Roman praetorian prefect Quintus Naevius Cordus Sutorius Macro (Flacc., 10–16),23 Flaccus sought new friendships to shelter himself within the Roman political entourage. Flaccus formed alliances with his former enemies, namely the Alexandrian faction hostile towards the Jews, which was led most prominently by Isidoros, Dionysos, and Lampon (Flacc., 17–21). This faction first decided amongst themselves to attack the Jews, then privately met with Flaccus to propose a deal: they offered him control of Alexandria so that the prefect could regain Gaius’ lost favor. Initially, Flaccus unfairly judged cases involving Jews, abridged their free speech in other matters and refused them the right to petition him in person (Flacc., 24). An unexpected visit by Agrippa, a member of the Herodian family whom Gaius had appointed king of part of his

22 PIR2 I #1414 [Prosopographia imperii romani saec. I. II. III. Edita consilio et avctoritate Academiae litterarvm Borvssicae, (Berolini: De Gruyter & Co., 1933–1999)]; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 34ff. 23 PIR2 V, 3 #12.

18

chapter one

ancestor’s territory in the Levant, sparked the already tense situation. King Agrippa, en route to his new kingdom, stopped in town and was mocked by the crowd in the gymnasium (Flacc., 25ff.). The situation worsened from that point onward. The Alexandrians gathered in the theater and decided to attack the Jewish houses of prayer and to set up images of Gaius in them (Flacc., 41). A few days later, Flaccus issued an edict declaring the Jews to be foreigners and aliens. As a consequence of this edict, the Alexandrian mob attacked the Jews and their property, sequestering them in a small, patrolled quarter of the city (Flacc., 54–55). The mob tortured and killed Jews who did not comply. Flaccus later arrested some of the Jewish gerousia, the council of elders, and punished them as if they had no status or rights—as if they were common Egyptians (Flacc., 74–75). Other Jews were tortured and killed in a spectacular setting in the theater (Flacc., 84). Later, the prefect ordered a centurion to search Jewish houses for weapons, which he did not find (Flacc., 86). Jewish women were tortured in the theater and the market-place (Flacc., 95–96). Flaccus’ sudden arrest during the Jewish celebration of Succoth in the fall of 38 (Flacc., 108–115; 188–190) did not change the Jews’ miserable situation, packed into that small area of Alexandria. It meant a great deal, however, to Philo and to his search for justice—divine justice, in this case, was exacted. This is in a few words, Philo’s account. Philo wrote In Flaccum with the purpose of focusing the reader’s attention on the prefect Flaccus and placing the full responsibility for the riots and the persecution of the Jews on him. For Philo, the prefect’s decision to ally himself with a group of his former enemies, betokened by the persecution of the Jews living in the city (Flacc., 22–23), was the catalyst of the Jews’ misfortune in the summer of 38. The treatise’s narrative centers on this event, and every reported fact is woven into it. All of the subsequent events were a result of the agreement between Flaccus and the three Alexandrians and anything that Flaccus did during that summer would find its justification therein. Many modern scholars accept this construct, though some have criticized and rejected certain parts of it, particularly Philo’ s premises, which are thought to be historically untenable on the basis of external evidence. According to these views, Flaccus could have scarcely profited from an alliance with the Alexandrian anti-Jewish faction if he wanted to secure his political position in Rome. Moreover, at the beginning of his first consulate on July 1, 37, Gaius suspended the prosecution


19

of cases of maiestas, under which rubric Flaccus’ accusations against Agrippina would fall (Dio, 59.3, 6; 4, 3; 6, 2; 16, 8). Flaccus, therefore, had nothing to fear in 37 and 38 in regards to his earlier accusations of Agrippina and her circle. All of these issues will be discussed in detail in the following chapters. However, even when Philo’s premises crack under more compelling historical evidence, nowhere do we find a substantial historical revision of the rest of Philo’s narration and construct, and such criticism flags under the common acceptance of Philo’s work as a deeply apologetic, rather then historical, piece of literature. We need not necessarily stress the alleged unhistorical character of Philo’s work to identify the many flaws in his narrative. Upon a closer reading of the entire treatise, the cause-and-effect relationship initially outlined by Philo is difficult to perceive and many things requires explanation in order for his readers to understand: Table 1 1 Why did the mob vilify King Agrippa? 2 How was Flaccus involved in this?

They were envious that a Jew had been made king (Flacc., 29). The mob convinced him that the splendor of the king’s attire obscured his prestige (Flacc., 30–31). The mob perceived that Flaccus would not restrain them (Flacc., 41).

3 What was the link between the mockery of King Agrippa and the installation of Gaius’ images in the synagogues? 4 What is the link between the mob’s This was Flaccus’ second attack erection of images in the synagogues on Jewish customs after he and Flaccus’ edict? allowed the mob to desecrate the meeting houses (Flacc., 53). 5 Why did the crowd confine the Jews To pillage their property (Flacc., to a small sector of the city? 54). 6 How was Flaccus involved in this? He gave the crowd immunity (Flacc., 55). 7 Why did Flaccus arrest the members He contrived another plan to of the Jewish gerousia? damage the Jews (Flacc., 73). 8 Why did Flaccus search Jewish He invented the charge that the homes for arms? Jews had weapons (Flacc., 86). 9 Who tortured the Jewish women? Onlookers at a show (Flacc., 96).

20

chapter one

In short, Flaccus stood by more than he acted.24 Flaccus’ inaction was part of his plan to allow the crowd to attack the Jews; all of the actions the crowd did were possible because of Flaccus’ inaction. His own attack was his own contriving or invented charges. Nothing ever reveals the active partnership between Flaccus and his allies and how the alliance really worked. Isidoros, Dionysios and Lampon, mentioned first on the occasion of the stipulation of the alleged agreement, disappear from the record. Eventually, the agreement did not work, since Flaccus did not gain Gaius’ favor. In fact, the prefect was arrested a few months later and taken to Rome, where Gaius condemned him to exile and eventually ordered his death (Flacc., 108–115; 188–190). Ironically, Flaccus’ main accusers were Isidoros and Lampon, his alleged Alexandrian allies (Flacc., 125).25 This dark epilogue provided Philo with the opportunity to reframe Flaccus’ involvement and end up within the higher scope of Providence, probably the larger episteme framing the treatise: God punished Flaccus for persecuting the Jews (Flacc., 191; cf. 1). Unfortunately, Philo’s attribution of these matters to Providence does not contribute to the historical reading of the riots but rather confuses matters, since it conceals the real causes of Flaccus’ arrest and further confuses any attempt to understand and clarify the responsibility for the riots; it certainly does seal the internal mechanisms of Philo’s construct. Another episode further complicates the picture. Closely following the description of the brutalities endured by the Jews in 38, Philo recalls that the prefect had failed to forward to the emperor the Jewish decree bestowing the honors due to him (Flacc., 97). Philo was very likely referring to the honors at the accession of Gaius in the spring of 37, more than a year earlier. When Philo presents this as proof that Flaccus was already preparing his attack on the Jews in 37 (Flacc., 101), he openly contradicts his own words. In fact, according to his construct, only in 38, after the news of Macro’s death and not before, did Flaccus contrive his plan and betray the Jews to the Alexandrian anti-Jewish leaders for his own political and personal safety. According to this construct, the impetus for attacking the Jews came from the Alexandrian faction; 24

So already Gruen, Diaspora, 57–58 and passim. Gruen, Diaspora, 61–62 sees in this epilog the evidence that Flaccus was the real target of the Alexandrians, and not the Jews; Schäfer, Judeophobia, passim accepts Philo’s thesis of the agreement. 25


21

however, according to Philo’s later statement Flaccus had intended to do so all along even since 37. Thus, the necessity of the construct is undermined, for if the prefect started his machinations to hurt the Jews in the spring of 37, then the alleged agreement of 38 loses relevance. Thus, Philo’s construct in In Flaccum hardly stands, a fact which makes reading the treatise even more difficult. Philo’s personal involvement, first as a witness of the riots, then as an ambassador before Gaius (Legat., 349ff., Jos., A.J., 18.257), further adds to the suspicion that he manipulated the facts to suit his personal agenda. Therefore, the question arises: to what extent should his writing be taken into account? The answer is complex and requires distinctions. First, Philo’s writing is the only available source on the subject, therefore, the researcher is compelled to use it.26 However, the researcher is not obliged to accept the source in its entirety; reading Philo for information about events does not necessarily require the acceptance of his interpretation. In other words, historiographic critique and extensive historical investigation should come between Philo’s and a modern explanation. If Philo’s exposition of the events is insufficient to uncover the historical dynamics governing them, then a different approach is necessary. This work adopts one of the few pieces of factual information provided by Philo in his narrative as the focus of historical and historiographic research: in the summer of 38, the Alexandrian Jews were pushed into a small sector of the city, the only place where they were safe. From the outset, this passage makes clear that the problem in Alexandria was not the Jews qua Jews, but where they lived. This brings attention to the issue of ‘territory and its status,’ rather than the more common issue of ‘people and their status.’ Why in the summer of 38 was a portion of Alexandrian territory set aside to save the Jews, while the rest became off limits to them? This question requires an understanding of the city of Alexandria and its relation to its citizens and inhabitants; necessarily, the investigation must begin with the Jews’ first arrival in Alexandria.

26 Josephus’ small note in A.J., 18.257 cannot actually be of any help for historical purposes.

CHAPTER TWO

THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENCE OF ALEXANDRIAN JEWS IN THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD Josephus states that Alexander gave the Jews the right to live in Alexandria, (C. Ap., 2.36–37; 42; B.J., 2.487). Scholars have often discussed these passages and in some cases have cast serious doubts on the historical plausibility of Josephus’ testimony—a view that this work shares completely.1 If Alexander’s grant must be left within the mythological tradition to which it belongs, a passage from the Letter of Aristeas (12) deserves more credit. It refers to the arrival of the Jews in Egypt in considerable numbers as prisoners of war in the wake of Ptolemy Lagos’ campaign in Gaza in 312–311 B.C.E.2 This frequently discussed passage finds documentary corroboration in the combined reading of two lines of the Satrap stela, a hieroglyphic inscription dated August 29, 311,3 in

1 I discuss Alexander’s Jewish grant in Gambetti, “Jewish Community,” where I include the previous debate and scholarly references. 2 The passage reads: ἐκεῖνος γὰρ (scil. Ptolemy Lagos) ἐπελθὼν τὰ κατὰ κοίλην Συρίαν καὶ Φοινίκην ἅπαντα, συγχρώµενος εὐηµερίᾳ µετὰ ἀνδρείας, τοὺς µὲν µετῴκιζεν, οὓς δὲ ᾐχµαλώτιζε, κτλ., for a current translation in English: “He had overrun the whole of Coele-Syria and Pheonicia, exploiting his good fortune and prowess, and had transplanted some and made other captives.” [M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas), (New York: Harper 1951), 99; cf. similar translations in A. Pellettier, Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate, (Paris: Cerfs, 1962), 107–109, and F. Calabi, Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate, (Milano: Rizzoli, 2002), 51–53]. It must be noted that the syntax of the text does not really support the ‘some’/‘others’ translation, since the relative pronouns οὓς lacks its direct antecedent. All translators privilege the rhetorical construction of the text, based on the opposition µέν/δέ. For a historiographic discussion on Ptolemy Lagos’, later Ptolemy I Soter, campaigns of Coele Syria of 312/311 and 301 B.C.E., see Gambetti, “Jewish Community,” where I include the discussion of Josephus’ unclear testimony of the events. 3 CGC 22182, the earliest official document by Ptolemy Lagos in his capacity of satrap of Egypt; A. Kamal, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Stèles ptolémaïques et romaines (Cairo: IFAO, 1905), 168–171, pl. LVI. Earliest editions and translations of this texts are in H. Brugsch, “Ein Decret Ptolemaios des Sohnes Lagi, des Satrapen,” ZÄS 9 (1871): 1–8; and K. Sethe, Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-römischen Zeit (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904), 11–22 (= Urk. II 9); basic comments in R.S. Bianchi, “Satrapenstele,” LÄ 5 (1974): 492–493. More recent translations in U. Kaplony-Heckel, “Das Dekret des spätern Königs Ptolemaios I Soter zugunsten der Götter von Butto (Satrapenstela), 311 v. Chr.,” in Texte aus der Umwelt des alten Testaments (ed. O. Kaiser; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1985), 613–619; W.K. Simpson,

24

chapter two

which Ptolemy states that he conquered a territory called the land of the Ἰrm #w, ‘the land of the Arameans,4 and deported its monotheistic people to Egypt.5 The Jews cannot be definitively excluded from this description and Josephus confirms that Ptolemy on that occasion deported people from Samaria and from the area around Jerusalem (Jos., A.J., 12.7).6 The Letter’s reference to the use of some prisoners in the military forces to man the country garrisons is also historically plausible (12–14). Ptolemy Lagos was building his new defensive system around and along his satrapy at the time7 and needed much more personnel than was available. Sources show that he used prisoners from other Hellenistic armies for this purpose. For example, Diodorus states that in the aftermath of the battle of Gaza, Ptolemy captured 8,000 soldiers from Demetrios’ army, whom he then ordered to be distributed throughout The Literature of Ancient Egypt: an Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry (New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 2003), 392–397; cf. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 6–7 and n. 28 for a largely accepted interpretation not followed in the present work. 4 This reading is suggested and supported with abundant philological discussion by D. von Recklinghausen, “Ägyptische Quellen zum Judentum,” ZÄS 132 (2005): 149–151 and n. 18–21 for philological comparisons; already H. Goedicke, “Comments on the Satrap Stela,” BES 6 (1984): 33–34 had suggested both reading and interpretation, but without the supporting philological apparatus. The decipherment, translation and interpretation of this toponym has been a problem for philologists. For decades the preferred reading has been mer-mer-ti, translated as Marmarica, and located from Lybia to Nubia; see Brugsch, “Decret,” 3, and Sethe, Urk. II 9; J.K. Winnicki, “Militäroperationen von Ptolemaios I. und Seleukos I. in Syrien in des Jahren 312–311 v.Chr.,” AncSoc 22 (1991): 169–171 for a list of several readings and interpretations of this problematic locus. Winnicki himself prefers not to accept any reading of the toponym (167), but in his article he locates it in the Sinai on historical and topographical grounds; G. Lodomez, “De Satrapenstele,” in Zij schreven geschiedenis. Historische documenten uit her Nabije Oosten (2500–100 v. Chr.) (ed. R.J. Demarée; Leiden–Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 436 submits the reading Irmtjw without translation, explaining the linguistic problem in note k. 5 ἰn.n=f mšʿ=s(n) m t̠ #yw ḥmwt ḥnʿ nt̠r=sn m ἰsw ἰr=sn r B #kt. Von Recklinghausen, “Quellen zum Judentum,” 151 n. 28 and 30 for the rare occurrence of the script supporting the meaning nt̠r = god in the religious vocabulary of the Greco-roman time; already Goedicke, “Satrap Stela,” 34, had suggested this same reading. Von Recklinghausen, “Quellen zum Judentum,” 151 n. 29 stresses that a translation in the plural ‘gods’ is not justified in spite of the fact that some scholars [for example G. Roeder, Die altägyptische Götterwelt (Zürich: Artemis, 1959), 102 ‘mit ihren Göttern (Bildern),’ completely accepted later by Winnicki, “Militäroperationen,” 167] have been proposing it; alternative translations have been, Kaplony-Heckel, “Dekret,” 616: ‘Habe,’ and Brugsch, “Decret,” 3, ‘sammt ihren Rossen.’ 6 I distinguish this campaing in 312 from a later one in 301, when Ptolemy entered and conquered Jerusalem in Gambetti, “Jewish Community,” to which I refer for literature. 7 R.S. Bagnall, “The Origin of Ptolemaic Cleruchs,” BASP 21 (1984): 7–20.

the rights of residence—ptolemaic period

25

the Egyptian nomes (19.85, 3–4). To think that he did the same with the Jews is not particularly revolutionary.8 None of these references, however, indicate exactly where the Jews were relocated or whether any settled in Alexandria. The only mention of a connection between the Jews and Alexandria is again found in the writings of Josephus, who, in a seemingly contradictory way, states that Alexander’s successors—and in this case he must have been referring to Ptolemy Lagos, later Ptolemy I Soter, and his son Ptolemy II Philadelphos—granted the Jews a place to settle in the city (B.J., 2.488). Testing the plausibility of this or any statement on this subject requires broadening the spectrum of inquiry to include Alexandria’s early history. Mythology precludes a precise knowledge about the beginnings of Alexandria. The various recensions of the Alexander Romance9 and stories by other Greek and Roman authors,10 who relied heavily upon

8 Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 12, also on account of the use of Jewish soldiers made by previous Egyptian rulers, Egyptian and Persian alike. 9 The list of the recensions, with annotation of their respective editio princeps, is in L. Berkowitz and K.A. Squitier, eds., Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), #1386. 10 They are the vulgate authors, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus and Pompeius Trogus—the latter epitomized by the late antique author Justin—who allegedly used Cleitarchus as their main source [FGrHist 137; L. Prandi, Fortuna e realtà dell’opera di Clitarco (Stuttgart: Stein, 1996)], to whom Plutarch and Arrian must be added. The discussion on the indebtment of the vulgate authors exclusively to Cleitarchus has been particularly vivid in reference to Diodorus book 17; see initially E. Schwartz, “Diodorus,” RE V (1905): 682–683 and F. Jacoby, “Kleitarchos (2),” RE XI (1921): 622–654. Later other scholars accepted this early only-Cleitarchus theory: L. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1983 [1960]) (with some distinctions, as to whether Cleitarchus was the main or the only source), B. Welles, Diodorus VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 11–12; 17; J.R. Hamilton, “Cleitarchus and Diodorus 17,” in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Pre-history. Studies Presented to S. Schachermeyr on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday (ed. K.H. Kinzel; Berlin–New York: De Gruyter, 1977), 126–146. This scholarship has been questioned by W.W. Tarn, Alexander the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), II 68–87, who favored the possibility that Diodorus in book 17 used more than one source. In Tarn’s wake, scholars have taken their own position; in favor of the not-only-Cleitarchus theory, M.J. Fontana, “Il problema delle fonti per il XVII libro di Diodoro Siculo,” Kokalos 1 (1955): 155–190, E.N. Borza, “Cleitarchus and Diodorus’ Account of Alexander,” PACA 9 (1968): 25–45; N.G.L. Hammond, “Portents, Prophecies, and Dreams in Diodorus Books 14–17,” GRBS 39 (1998): 407–428. The conventional definition of vulgate has been deeply criticized by Hammond [N.G.L. Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great. The so-called Vulgate Authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)], but it has been on the other side defended by other scholars [A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire. The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

26

chapter two

them in addition to collecting other independent traditions, submit unclear and contradictory accounts. The only document worthy of historical consideration is, and remains, the Satrap stela, ll. 4–5,11 which states that Ptolemy Lagos transferred the capital of his satrapy of Egypt from Memphis to the fortress of Alexandria, better known up until that time as Rhakotis, “place under construction.”12 According to the internal chronology of the events listed in the stela, the date of the transfer would have been 314 B.C.E.13 The transfer of the Jews from the Levant to Egypt occurred a few years later, in 311 B.C.E. Alexandria was likely in its embryonic state, as the early name “Rhakotis” suggests, and was probably a work in progress around a fortification, as the hieroglyphic text indicates. It was the new capital of Ptolemy’s satrapy, however, and as such, it required all of the necessary elements of infrastructure, the first and foremost element being a defensive organization. The fortress of Alexandria could

1988), 8–9, and A.B. Bosworth, “Introduction,” in Alexander the Great in Facts and Fiction (eds. A.B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 6–7]. Plutarch and Arrian [Plu., Alex, 26,4; Arr., 3.1,5–2,2] are the writers who have by far earned the greatest respect of modern scholars [A.B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander. Studies in Historical Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), 8]. For the complete list of the sources on the foundation of Alexandria, which include also those authors who merely mention it, see A. Calderini, Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’Egitto greco-romano (Milano: Cisalpino–Goliardica, 1935–), 63. 11 See note 3 for bibliographical references. The texts reads: As he made his residence, named the Fortress of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Merikaamon-Setepenre, the Son of Re, Alexander, whose former name was Rhakotis, on the shore of the great green sea of the Greeks; transl. Simpson, Literature of Ancient Egypt, 393. 12 The first article to discuss the meaning of Rhakotis, and to exclude that it was an old Egyptian toponym is M. Chaveau, “Alexandrie et Rhakôtis: le point de vue de Égyptiens,” in Alexandrie: une mégalopole cosmopolite (ed. J. Leclant; Paris: Belles Lettres, 1999), 2ff.; Chaveau’s conclusions are based on the lexical analysis of L. Pantalacci, “Remarques sul les composés de type ʿ–,r #– ou –r #–ʿ– devant racine verbale en égytpien ancien,” OLP 16 (1985): 5–20; supported by C.A.R. Andrews, Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the British Museum IV: Ptolemaic Legal Texts from the Theban Area (London: Printed by order of the Trustees of the British Museum, 1990), 83, and M. Depauw, “Alexandria, the Building Yard,” Cd’É 75 (2000): 64–65. To date the most complete discussion is in K. Mueller, Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistic World (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 15–22, who, however, follows J. Baines, “Appendix: Possible Implications of the Egyptian Name for Alexandria,” JRA 16 (2003): 61–64, and does not receive Chaveau’s interpretation. ‘Rhakotis’ remained the name of the city in the demotic documents; J. Quaegebeur, “Rhakotis,” LÄ 5 (1984): 90–91. Official documents and inscriptions give however mixed results: H. Gauthier, Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenus dans les textes hiéroglyphiques (Cairo: IFAO, 1925–31), I 83; 136; II 71; III 130; V 24. 13 I discuss in detail the foundation of Alexandria and its sources in Gambetti, “Q&A.”


27

well have been one of the garrisons where Ptolemy relocated the Jews.14 A combined reading of the Letter (12–14) and Josephus (B.J., 2.488) supports this conclusion. Philo confirms it when he refers precisely to the Jews’ arrival in Alexandria at the time of the city’s foundation (Flacc., 46).15 Philo’s own admission introduces a more precise definition of the role of the Jews from the early days of Ptolemaic Egypt, the role of katoikoi (Flacc., 172). In the early Hellenistic period, katoikoi were the military colonists settled by the diadochoi and their successors in their newly conquered territories. In Egypt, papyrological and other evidence support this point for the entire Ptolemaic period, for in official documents some styled themselves katoikos, followed by their specific army unit and the extension of their allotted land.16 Indeed, Philo confirms that the Jews were still called katoikoi under Roman rule (Flacc., 172), a definition that could not refer to their military status in his own time, as the Romans had dismantled the Ptolemaic defensive system,17 but which certainly preserves their civic status from their original settlement in the early Ptolemaic period. But these were not the only Jews to arrive in Alexandria in the fourth/ third century B.C.E. The Letter (14) includes a forged royal prostagma of Ptolemy II Philadelphos that reveals that the king emancipated the Jewish captives, whom his father had enslaved in 311 B.C.E. Ptolemy II states that they were not fit for military duties and that his father did not wish to enslave them, but did so because he was overridden by his soldiers who wanted him to front payment for extra duties performed during the war.18 The issue of forgery and of dubious details aside,19 this passage depicts a situation with some historical credibility. 14

So in part Smallwood, Jews, 221 without reference to the military. Van der Horst, Flaccus, 144. An Alexandrian Jewish necropolis testifies the Jewish presence in the city since the early times: W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), xiii–xvi; #3–8. 16 See C.A. La’da, Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), passim; G.M. Cohen, The Seleucid Colonies. Studies in Founding, Administration and Organization (Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag, 1978), 31–32; M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (Paris: De Boccard, 1949), 293, 295–296; 330–331; 360–362. 17 See next chapter. 18 See Gambetti, “Jewish Community,” for previous bibliographical references on this subject. The next paragraphs summarize that article’s conclusive part of the discussion of the comparison between the Letter passage and papyrological evidence. 19 In contention are the 20 drachmae that the king, according to the Letter’s prostagma, paid the slave owners for renouncing their property. This mention prompted 15

28

chapter two

A key document for understanding this case is PER 24.552.20 The papyrus contains a royal ordinance of Ptolemy II Philadelphos in 260 B.C.E.21 concerning a class of slaves called σώµατα λαικὰ ἐλεύθερα, (col.

Ulrich Wilcken to compare the Letter with P. Grad. 1 = SB III 6275 = C.Ord.Ptol. 25 = C.Ptol.Sklav. 4 [R. Scholl, Corpus der ptolemäischen Sklaventexte (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990)]. Internal evidence imposes a date on the seventeeth year of a king, which could be either Ptolemy II Philadephos of Ptolemy III Euergetis; but the content is more evocative of similar texts of Philadelphos; see M.-T. Lenger, Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées. (Bruxelles: Academie royale de Belgique, 1964), 55. Wilcken’s comments on the correspondence between the papyrus and the Letter are explained in his letter included in the editio princeps of P. Grad. 1 [G. Plaumann, Griechische Papyri der Sammlung Gradenwitz (Heidelberg: Winter, 1914)]; early reaction to Wilken’s position are in H. Lewald, “Sul papiro Gradenwitz 1,” in Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (Milano: Aegyptus, 1925), 340–342, and in H. Liebesny, “Ein Erlass des Königs Ptolemaios II Philadelphos über die Deklaration von Vieh und Sklaven in Syrien und Phönizien. PER 24.552,” Aeg 16 (1936): 256–291; see I. Biezunska-Malowist, L’esclavage dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine. I: période ptolémaïque (Warszawa–Krakow: PAN, 1974), 20. Data are tabulated in Scholl, Sklaventexte, 213. The text is fragmentary, but a mention of 20 drachmae at l. 13, the function of which was not clear, convinced Wilcken of the correspondence between the papyrus and the text of the Letter, to the point that he suggested integrating the lacunae of the papyrus on the basis of the Letter; in this way the prostagma of the Letter became historically valuable by virtue of the fact that it helped integrate a real historical fragmentary document—the argument is circular to say the least. Today Wilcken’s position can no longer be shared, either on a methodological or especially on a historical and documentary ground. Economic data gathered from papyrological evidence shows that it is impossible that 20 drachmae was the price of a slave in the early Ptolemaic period; the prices for slaves paid during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos range from 50 drachmae paid for children to 100 drachmae or more paid for adult Syrian slaves. Once the idea that 20 drachmae was the ‘price’ is rejected, the field is clear for the evaluation of an alternative hypothesis. The publication of P. Col. inv. 480 = C.Ptol.Sklav. 5; editio princeps W.L. Westermann, Upon Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt (New York: Columbia University Press, 1929), another real prostagma on slavery dated to the beginning of the second century B.C.E., has provided clearer interpretation; in this text 20 drachmae (l. 11) is the tax paid to the authorities upon registration of the acquisition of a slave paid as one mina. This datum, beside undermining without appeal Wilcken’s ideas [Westermann, Slavery, 35–38] for the comparison with P. Grad. 1., also shows that the Letter therefore mistakenly refers to the 20 drachmae as the price paid by the king to the slave’s owner. If historical reliability should be given nevertheless to his prostagma, it should be admitted that it meant the reimbursement of the purchase taxes; so Westermann, Slavery, 40–41. However, also this hypothesis does not stand comparison with documentation; see further in the current discussion. 20 = C.Ord.Ptol. 21–22 = SB V 8008 = C.Ptol.Sklav. 3; editio princeps in Liebesny, “PER 24.552;” W.L. Westermann, “Enslaved Persons Who Are Free,” AJPh 59 (1938): 1–30. 21 The dynastic date of the document has ‘the 25th year’ of a Ptolemaic king, which could refer both to Ptolemy II Philadelphos and Ptolemy III Euergetes; however paleographical characteristics have led the editor to incline for Philadelphos: Liebesny, “PER 24.552,” 264. Scholl, Sklaventexte, 3 also inclines for a date in the reign of Ptolemy II Philadephos.


29

i, l. 33–col. ii, l. 26)—‘legally free person in condition of slavery’—22 whose status is verified for the sake of their eventual emancipation.23 The context of the papyrus clearly reveals connections to the Ptolemaic wars in the Levant and to the slave trade in which soldiers were also involved.24 PER 24.552 further depicts the practice of illegal slavery, which the authorities oppose.25 Such a context fits the passage from the Letter of Aristeas perfectly. Whether or not Ptolemy Lagos was willing to enslave some of the deported Jews, both pieces of evidence—the Letter and the papyrus— refer to Ptolemaic soldiers fighting in Coele Syria under the first two Ptolemies, all involved in the slave trade, which the now ruling king, Ptolemy II, opposed. The papyrus validates the historical situation which the author of the Letter of Aristeas reports with incorrect details.26 It is likely therefore that Ptolemy II Philadelphus freed formerly enslaved Jews and that some of them joined their compatriots in Alexandria, though not in a military capacity. Others may have arrived in 301 in the aftermath of Ptolemy I’s conquest of Jerusalem,27 but with the Levant being part of the Ptolemaic kingdom until the end of the third century B.C.E., the way was open for waves of immigration.28

22 This definition of slave is peculiar; for the general terminolgy about slaves see P. Ducrey, Le traitement des prisonnier de guerre dans la Grèce antique des origines à la conquête romaine (Paris De Boccard, 1968), 30ff. The translation ‘legally free person in condition of slavery’ is provided by Westermann, “Enslaved Persons,” 11, on the basis of comparative observation with slave terminology in papyrological texts; Westermann criticizes the translation of ‘enlsaved persons who are free’ suggested by Liebesny, “PER 24.552,” 274. Westermann’s entire article aims at pointing out the differences between this text and all the known other papyri on slavery, in which the sole concern of the administration is to levy taxes from slaves property transfer. A good overview of this papyrus, although now somewhat out of date within its fiscal context, is A. Segrè, “Liberi tenuti in schiavitù nella Siria, nella Fenicia e nell’Egitto tolemaico,” Archivio Giuridico 132 (1945): 161–182. 23 The only exception is made for those who were sold by royal auction (col. ii, l. 23–31); this regulation pertains to free people who became financially insolvent and were therefore seized in their person by the government; Westermann, “Enslaved Persons,” 11–18; Biezunska-Malowist, Esclavage, 28ff. 24 As it appears form the analysis and contextualizing of col. ii, l. 20; Gambetti, “Jewish Community.” 25 Westermann, “Enslaved Persons,” 27; Biezunska-Malowist, Esclavage, 24ff.; S. Bussi, Economia e demografia della schiavitù in Asia Minore ellenistico-romana (Milano: LED, 2001), appendix “La schiavitù in Egitto ellenistico,” 143. 26 See above n. 19 in this chapter. 27 See above n. 6 in this chapter for references on this topic. 28 Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 2; Smallwood, Jews, 221; Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 20–26.

30

chapter two

Physical Aspects of Alexandria and the Process of Jewish Settlement The Jews arrived in Alexandria, then, as the city came into being. This suggests that they witnessed the city’s building and its skyrocketing development in the early decades. Such an environment must have shaped their own experiences as well, not only at the moment of their arrival, but also, probably especially, in the following centuries. For this reason, a glimpse of what Alexandria looked like in those years is useful. We are all acquainted with an Alexandria designed on a topographical grid with all streets intersecting at 90° angles.29 The most recent excavations confirm that the Roman urban plan, the earliest awareness of which emerged from the 1866 excavations, was superimposed upon and identical in design and structure to the original Ptolemaic plan. The orthogonal plan should come as no surprise. Greek cities adopted the so-called Hyppodamic plan from the earliest times of archaic colonization and Egypt had known 90º street angles since the dynastic period.30 The Ptolemies followed a well-established Mediterranean tradition. Unfortunately, however, archaeological diagnostics cannot reveal exactly when Alexandrian topography was first rationally organized, that is, it is impossible to say when precisely during the Ptolemaic period Alexandria received the orthogonal plan. Fortunately the excavation at the Serapeum provides bits of evidence on the basis of which one can carry on a helpful, but far from conclusive, discussion. We know that the Alexandrian Serapeum underwent a major building phase during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes I (246–221 B.C.E.), whose foundation tablets emerged from the south-east and south-west corners of the temenos enclosure.31 Ptolemy III did not, however, build

29

See the topography of Alexandria in appendix 4 with map. More recent references to the Hippodamic plan around the Mediterranean are in R. Osborne and B. Cunliff, eds., Mediterranean Urbanization 800–600 B.C. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) with studies and references there; for dynastic Egypt see H.W. Fairman, “Town Planning in Pharaonic Egypt,” Town Planning Review 20 (1949): 33–51; A. Badaway, “Orthogonal and Axial Town Planning in Egypt,” ZÄS 85 (1960): 1–12; summary and discussion for Egypt and Alexandria in Mueller, Settlements of the Ptolemies, 105–111. 31 A. Rowe, Discovery of the Famous Temple and Enclosure of Serapis at Alexandria (Cairo: IFAO, 1946); for the foundation tablets I.Alex.Ptol. 13 [E. Bernand, Inscriptions Grecques d’Alexandrie Ptolémaïque (Cairo: IFAO, 2001), pl. 6]; the most recent discussion of the temple of Serapis, according to archaeological and historical data, is now in J.S. McKenzie, et al., “Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from the 30


31

on virgin soil. Archaeology has unearthed remains of other monumental buildings already in place—namely, the T-shaped and the South building—whose votive offerings were found in situ and date to the time of Ptolemy I Soter and his son Ptolemy II Philadelphos.32 The mention of the ‘Serapeum of Parmeniscos’ in a papyrus dated 243 B.C.E. confirms that there was a temple of Serapis in Alexandria at that time, regardless of whether the papyrus refers to this particular temple (P.Cair.Zen. 59335 ll. 102–103 and 128).33 Archaeological excavations have also produced evidence that the entire religious complex was aligned with the city’s topographical grid; more specifically, street R8 runs straight along the eastern enclosure wall.34 But that is not all: the T-shaped and South buildings, the two pre-existing structures on the site, were also orthogonally aligned.35 This strongly suggests that Alexandria had a rational structure from the very beginning of its existence. The chronological coordinates of the city’s first laying out, albeit weak, is of particular interest for the present argument, because the Jews, both those deployed in the garrison and those who arrived later, either by migration or in the wake of emancipation, arrived and settled in the city when and while the orthogonal plan was being deployed, and when people distributed themselves in the territory according to its rationale. How the process of settling the Jews came about is difficult to say. Neither literary nor documentary evidence can substantiate

Archaeological Evidence, with an Appendix by Günter Grimm and Judith McKenzie,” JRS 94 (2004): 73–114. 32 McKenzie, et al., “Serapeum,” 82, fig. 6; 83, fig. 7. 33 It is not compulsory to accept that this Parmeniscos is the architect Parmenion who worked under Alexander the Great (cf. Ps.-Call., Vita Alexandria Magni, I 33) as in PPtol I, 183. 34 McKenzie, et al., “Serapeum,” 75, fig. 1 and 82, fig. 6; the Roman reconstruction and enlargement of the complex between the end of the second and beginning of the third century CE will include street R8 into the enclosure, 91, fig 10. G. Caruso, “Alcuni aspetti dell’urbanistica di Alessandria in età ellenistica: il piano di progettazione,” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. Studi in onore di Achille Adriani (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1983), 52, according to whom the area of Ptolemy III’s Serapeum would occupy two side by side series of three rectangular moduls each. 35 An earlier structure, of which excavations could expose only the foundation trenches, was similarly oriented, according to McKenzie, et al., “Serapeum,” 84. It must be observed that the original excavator acknowledged a slightly different orientation of this building; see Rowe, Discovery, 53; A. Rowe and B.R. Rees, “A Contribution to the Archaeology of the Western Desert: IV. The Great Serapeum of Alexandria,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester 39 (1957): 491.

32

chapter two

any assumption, nor has archaeology unearthed any useful elements thus far. The point in question is the division of the urban territory into five sectors denominated by the first five letters of the alphabet, α through ε. Documentary evidence shows that this arrangement obtained as early as the third century B.C.E. and was never modified under the Romans.36 Literary evidence also confirms this continuity, as both Philo (Flacc., 55) and the Alexander Romance (Rec. a, I 32)37 do for Roman times.38 Of these five quarters, only δ can be located with certainty in the western side of the city, near the artificial harbor of Kibotos (BGU IV 1115, l. 40).39 Elementary consideration suggests that the naming of the quarters after the letters of the alphabet was the simplest solution in naming plots of land otherwise subdivided into a large number of convenient,

36 Although only three quarters are documented; α: P. Ent. 8, l. 7, 221 B.C.E.; β: BGU IV 1127, 18 B.C.E.; BGU IV 1117 = MChr 107, l. 8, 13 B.C.E.; I.Alex.Imp. 32 = OGIS II 705, 158 C.E.; P. Flor. III 382, l. 74, 222/223 C.E.; δ: BGU IV 1115, l. 17 and

40, BGU IV 1116, l. 7; see Calderini, Dizionario, 79–80. 37 W. Kroll, Historia Alexandri Magni (Berlin: Weidemann, 1926). 38 As stressed in Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 4, and P.M. Fraser, Cities of Alexander the Great (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 215–216, the topographical notices in the Romance describe imperial and not Ptolemaic Alexandria. The quarters of Alexandria are also known by other names, which are not found in documentary sources and are in any case late; see Calderini, Dizionario, 80ff.; these data will not be considered in this work. For a late antique testimony of the alphabetic subdivision of the city see P.M. Fraser, “A Syriac Notitia Urbis Alexandrinae,” JEA 37 (1951): 103–108; the additional data provided by this manuscript about the number of buildings for each quarter should not be considered seriously. 39 See map of Alexandria in appendix 4. For the location of δ, see below in this chapter. I.Alex.Imp. 32 = OGIS II 705, inscribed on a column used as a base for a statue, contains the dedication to Isis Plousia by the magistrate in charge of the grain provision of the quarter β. The inscription was found, apparently in situ, in 1872 during the removal of the foundation of a modern house in the center of Alexandria, together with other monumental architectural fragments which convey the idea that either a temple or a public building originally lay in that location; for details see F. Kayser, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines (non funéraires) d’Alexandrie impériale (Ier–IIIe s. apr. J.-C.) (Cairo: IFAO, 1994), 132–140. The location of the finding was certainly inside the city walls (although it is not at all clear where precisely the Hellenistic walls ran; see M.-B. El-Falaki, Mémoire sur l’antique Alexandrie (Copenhague, Muhle, 1872),12–15; M. El Aziz Negm, “Recent Activities around the Ancient Walls of Alexandria,” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-egizio (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995), 124–127, J.-Y. Empereur, Alexandria Rediscovered (London: British Museum Press, 1998), 46–53]), it would be too far fetched to identify quarter β with that location; rather it indicated where the building of the dedication was located.


33

yet anonymous, equally-shaped lots.40 In fact, colonial Alexandria could not take advantage of the strong, long-lasting connection between people and territory that gave traditional names to neighborhoods or other internal locations in old cities. Beyond speculation, comparative observations support this conclusion. In 129 B.C.E. Boethos, a royal functionary in the Thebaid, supervised the founding of a new dynastic city, Euergetis. He was in charge of apportioning the city for either commercial or living purposes. Tanoupis, a daughter of Tpheophis had been assigned a shop in the square agora, which she used as living quarters, and received a second living quarter in the δ sector when the city was still under construction—κτιζοµένη πόλις (P. UB Trier S 135–1: l. 3).41 The inclusion of a square agora in the plan strongly suggests that Boethus used an orthogonal grid to build Euergetis.42 Further, the fact that zones were already identified by letter (δ in this case) when the city was under

40 For the size and numbers of the lots see Mueller, Settlements of the Ptolemies 109 ff.; Caruso, “Urbanistica di Alessandria,” 47–49; F. Castagnoli, Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 88. 41 κατεµετρὴθη στάθµος ἐν τῇ κτιζοµένη πόληι Εὐεργετίδι ὑπὸ Βοῆθου . . . l. 5 ἐν τῇ δ . . . l. 6 Τανοῦπις Τφεώφιος ἐν τῇ τετραγώνῳ καπηλίδι {εν} οἰκητέριον. The text, together with the draft (P. UB Trier S 135–3) is published by B. Kramer, “Der Ktistes Boethos und die Einrichtung einer neuen Stadt. P. UB Trier S 135–3 und S 135–1. Teil I,” APF 43 (1997): 315–339; commentaries in H. Heinen, “Der ktistes Boethos und die Einrichtung einer neuen Stadt. Teil II “ APF 43 (1997): 340–363 and H. Heinen, “Boéthos, fondateur de poleis en Égypte Ptoémaïque,” in Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Bertinoro 19–24 July 1997 (ed. L. Mooren; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 123–153. Kramer, in the edition of P. UB Trier S 135–1 reads: κατεµετρὴθη στάθµος ἐν τῇ κτιζοµένη πόληι Εὐεργετίδι ὑπὸ Βοῆθου . . . l. 5 {εν τη δ} . . . l. 6 Τανοῦπις Τφεώφιος ἐν τῇ τετραγώνῳ καπηλίδι {εν} οἰκητέριον, emendating ἐν τῇ δ because she interprets it as an abbreviated repetition of ἐν τῇ τετραγώνῳ of a few lines below (333). The rough draft of the same text, P. UB Trier S 135–3, does not contain the expression ἐν τῇ δ, missing to specify the location of the stathmos; this is added in the original of which P. UB Trier S 135–1 is a copy. The draft also contains a fuller form of the identification of the recepient: l. 4 Τανοῦπει Τφεώφιος τῇ διατεταγµένῃ ἐν τῇ τετραγώνῳ καπηλίδι εἰς οἰκητέριον, for a translation: to Tenupis daughter of Tpheophis, who had been ordered a commercial space in the agora as a living quarter. It is not necessary to assume that also the stathmos is on the agora, the same location of the first quarter assigned to Tanupis. It must be pointed out that very likely κτιζοµένη πόλις is the original expression on which the Egyptian Rhakotis, first found in hieroglyphic in the Satrap stela about the early stage of Alexandria, was made; see Chaveau, “Alexandrie et Rhakôtis,” 8–9, n. 26; the earliest known occurrence of κτιζοµένη πόλις was in the Oracle of the Potter, P. Oxy. XXII 2332, col. i. l. 2, for which see below chapter 9. 42 Kramer, “Ktistes Boethos,” 327 for discussion and papyrological parallels to the word τετράγωνος in Hellenistic topography.

34

chapter two

construction supports the idea that such anonymous subdivision was practical and convenient from the early stages of the founding. The papyrus on the foundation of Euergetis provides a pattern for understanding the logistics applied to building new cities, and submits a good indication of the use of the territory in those circumstances. Although it dates to the second century B.C.E. it may be used to figure how Alexandria came about one hundred years or so before. It is therefore also possible that quarters in Alexandria were given letter names as soon as the city plan was conceived and laid on the ground. The Location of the Early Jewish Quarter Some Jews were assigned to the garrison upon arriving in the city at the time of its foundation. Josephus states that the diadochs assigned a quarter of Alexandria to the Jews (B.J., 2.488) and he provides more specific information when he states that the Jews settled—συνῴκιστο—in δ (Jos., B.J., 2.495).43 The location of the main Jewish quarter has been the subject of dubious interpretations for years. On another occasion, Josephus states that the Jews lived near the Alexandrian royal quarters (C. Ap., 2.33). A passage of Strabo, who visited Alexandria in the last quarter of the first century B.C.E., has been read as to locate the royal quarters on the city’s eastern coastal zone (17.1, 10). The combination of those two pieces of information has led scholars to conclude that δ was either the royal quarter in the easternmost part of the city or another quarter close to it. The archaeological discovery of a Jewish cemetery in the eastern part of the city beyond the Canopic gate44 has offered a further and final element of support.45 This conclusion disregards, however, a contract dated to 13 C.E. that mentions a carpenter shop in δ, in the area called κάµπρα near Kibotos (BGU IV 1115, l. 40). Kibotos was the box-shaped artificial harbor immediately west of the Heptastadion, the embankment connecting the island of Pharos and the mainland (Strabo, 17.1, 10). Thus, δ was not

43 For the cultural aspects of the Alexandrian Jewish settlement see Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 30–34. 44 In the modern area of Ibrahimieh; inscriptions collected in Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, #1–8, paleographically dated from the early Ptolemaic period. 45 The leading discussion on the subject is in Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 34 and n. 265; also, before him, Box, Flaccum, 99. See appendix 4 with map.


35

close to the royal quarter in the city’s eastern corner, as scholars have concluded, but in its westernmost quadrant.46 Locating the Jewish quarter on the city’s west side does not contradict Josephus’ basic information about its nearness to the royal quarters, or Strabo’s indication of their location. The map shows clearly that the area that included δ, or the area nearby, was known in Roman times as Rhakotis (Strabo, 17.1, 10). Rhakotis, ‘place under construction,’ was the convenient name Alexandria received at the early stages of its founding, until Ptolemy Lagos moved there his satrapal capital and renamed it after Alexander the Great (Satrap stela [CGC 22182], ll. 4–6). Although archaeological excavations cannot yet provide any data on that area,47 logic dictates that Ptolemy Lagos, later Ptolemy I Soter, built the royal quarter there.48 A careful reading of Strabo (17.1, 9–10) in fact reveals that there were many royal palaces along the coast of Alexandria, and not only those on the east side. Every king built his own, wanting to impress the public with a magnificence outdoing that of his predecessors. If Rhakotis is the early Alexandria, then the Ptolemies very likely allowed the Jews to settle there, in and around the fortress and in proximity of the royal palace. Josephus’ note that the Jews settled together in δ thus acquires documented historical relevance, as does the semantic field of the term he used—συνῴκιστο (BJ, 2.495).49 46 A. Adriani, Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano (Palermo: Banco di Sicilia, 1961–): C I-II 239 accepted this papyrological evidence as more trustworthy than Josephus’ passage and any interpretation of it; to my knowledge, later only F. Burkhalter and A. Martin, “Microcosmes et macrocosmes: la segmentarisation des populations: le cas d’Alexandrie,” in Mégapoles méditerranéennes: géographie urbaine rétrospective: Actes du colloque organisé par l’École française de Rome et la Maison méditerranéenne des sciences de l’homme (Rome, 8–11 mai 1996) (eds. C. Nicolet, et al.; Paris: Maisonneuve, 2000), 260 has accepted both papyrological evidence and Adriani’s contribution. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, II n. 270, 271 recognizes and discusses the problem of incompatibility between BGU IV 1115 and Josephus’ passage, but inclines to accept Josephus. 47 No archaeological excavation has taken place in this area, save sounding to outline the traces of the Heptastadium; A. Hesse, “Arguments pour une nouvelle hypothèse de localisation de l’Heptastade,” in Alexandrina I (ed. J.-Y. Empereur; Cairo: IFAO, 1998), 7–20 and A. Hesse and et al., “Geophysical Investigation for the Location of the Heptastadium in Alexandria (Egypt),” in Proceedings of the IV Meeting of the Environmental and Engeneering Geophysical Society (European Section), September 14–17, 1998 (Barcelona: Casas, 1998), 715–718. 48 Also inclining for this conclusion is J. Dillery, “Alexander’s tomb at ‘Rhacotis’: Ps. Callisth. 3. 34. 5 and the Oracle of the Potter,” ZPE 148 (2004): 253–258 who locates in Rhakotis Alexander’s tomb. 49 Smallwood, Jews, 225; Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 283 for the discussion of this term in relation to the political status of the quarter; also Blouin, Conflit judéo-alexandrin, 101, who stresses the territorial materializaton of the Jewish rights of residence.

36

chapter two

Nor is it strange that Apion disparagingly described the early settlement of the Jews in Alexandria as a place near the sea without harbors and under the blows of the waves (Jos, C. Ap., 2.33–34).50 In spite of Apion’s negative bias against the Jews in general, and here for the location of their settlement in particular, this is very likely how δ initially appeared, that is, along the coast and harborless, for the adjacent harbor of Kibotos was built at a later point in time. And when Josephus replies that they lived close to the royal quarter, he did not necessarily refer to the palaces that Strabo describes as lying at Cape Lochias,51 seen above, but to the first royal compound Ptolemy Lagos built at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. in Rhakotis.52 How the Jewish katoikoi came to physically occupy the territory can be discussed only on the basis of comparative evidence. Each soldier was certainly assigned a στάθµος, or living quarter, just as documents demonstrate for all soldiers in Egypt in a similar position. The stathmos was royal property.53 The assignee enjoyed it only as a tenant and the law forbade its sale or other disposition. At the death of the tenant, the king reclaimed the stathmos and either reassigned it to the family

50 A good translation retaining the scorn that Apion meant to convey is in J.M.G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus, Against Apion. Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2007), ad. loc. 51 Underwater archaeology has confirmed the presence of manumental building in this part of the eastern harbor; see F. Goddio, “Cartographie des vestiges archéologiques submergés dans le Port Est d’Alexandrie et dans la Rade d’Aboukir,” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1992); F. Goddio et al., Alexandria: The Submerged Royal Quarters (London: Periplus, 1998); for maps and photographs see F. Goddio, “The Rediscovery of the Sunken Cities,” in Egypt’s Sunken Treasures (eds. F. Goddio and M. Clauss; München–Berlin–Paris–New York: Prestel, 2006), 82–88; a general assessment is now in J.S. McKenzie, The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt c. 300 B.C. to AD 700 (New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 2007),19ff. 52 The location of a royal palaces in Rhakotis is also indicated in P. Ryl. IV 576. A further indication of the location of royal palaces in the area still in Roman times is in Philo, Flacc., 92, when the author describes the 10-stade long parade of the weapon Flaccus confiscated in Egypt; the weapons arrived at the river harbor in Alexandria, which was located in the southern part of Rhakotis, and were taken to the armory in the palace; 10 stades is the length of the N-S axis Josephus also indicates for Alexandria; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 183. 53 P. Petr. III 20 col ii, l. 10ff. (= C.Ord.Ptol. 5 = WChr 450 = SB VI 9454): οἱ γὰρ σ[τάθ]µοι ε[ἰσι] βασιλικοί.


37

of the deceased or to another soldier.54 Thus, the royal administration closely controlled military residents within its territory. Did the Jewish katoikoi receive a plot of land, the κλῆρος, as was customary for military colonists in the Hellenistic period?55 More specifically, the available Egyptian evidence reveals that most katoikoi, which the Jews also were, had cleruchic land.56 It is not possible to assess the criteria regulating land assignment or distribution among Alexandrians, whatever their status, for the early Ptolemaic period because the available documentation dates to the late Ptolemaic and Roman periods.57 What the documents call the Ἀλεξανδρέων χῶρα,58 a belt of cultivated land with orchard and vineyards around the city, could have been subdivided into lots and assigned to military colonists as well, but there is no evidence for this. In any case, that Jewish katoikoi had cleruchic land must be assumed. The klēros enjoyed the same status of the stathmoi: it was royal property and could not be sold.59

54 In the following texts the stathmos is left to family members: P. Petrie 2 I [W. Clarysse, The Petrie Papyri. The Wills. (Brussels: Koninlijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten, 1991)] #3, l. 80; #16, l. 22 and 77; #18, l. [11]; 22, l. [11]; #24, l. 49; 28, l. 2; #30, l. [3]. Problems concerning the assignment or the management of military quarters surface on P. Ent., 12, 13, 14 and P. Hal. 1, col. v, ll. 166ff.; Taubenschlag, Law of Egypt, 238 and notes for previous literature; more recently Kramer, “Ktistes Boethos,” 322 and n. 24–27 for additional documentation. 55 Bagnall, “Ptolemaic Cleruchs;” reference work on the subject is F. Uebel, Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter der ersten sechs Ptolemäern (Berlin: Akademie, 1968); also B. Anagnostou-Canas, “La colonisation du sol dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque,” in Grund und Boden in Altägypten. Rechtliche und sozio-ökonomische Verhältnisse. Akten des internationalen Symposions Tübingen 18–20. Juni 1990. Tübingen 1994, ed. S. Allam (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 355–374; more recently J. Manning, Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt. The Structure of Land Tenure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 178–181 within his study of land management in Ptolemaic Egypt. For Asia Minor, see Cohen, Seleucid Colonies, 45–71; R.A. Billows, Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Macedonians Imperialism (Leiden–New York–Köln: Brill, 1995), 160–169. 56 La’da, Foreign Ethnics, passim. Discussion in Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 15ff. but not specifically related to the Alexandrian Jews. 57 L. Capponi, “The oikos of Alexandria,” in Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece (eds. W.V. Harris and G. Ruffini; Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2004), 115–124; the same argument is set out in L. Capponi, Augustan Egypt. The Creation of a Roman Province (New York–London: Routledge, 2005), 113–121, but within the larger context of early Augustan Egypt. 58 Not to be confused with Alexandrian oikos, for which see references above in n. 57. 59 Manning, Land and Power, 178–181; Anagnostou-Canas, “Colonisation,” especially 361 and n. 36–40.

38

chapter two The Use of the Territory

The territorial factor was preeminent in a city like Alexandria, which was a colony of immigrants and lacked an established family heritage.60 The Ptolemies organized the city’s administrative apparatus on the basis of the principle of territoriality, laid down in the orthogonal plan. The first evidence of the application of this principle is the city’s subdivision into territorial demes, similar to what Athens adopted at the end of the sixth century B.C.E. Certainly by the mid-third century B.C.E., the Alexandrian urban population with franchise was distributed according to demes, also likely according to tribes. This is confirmed in a prostagma of the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphos or his successor Ptolemy III Euergetes I, in which citizens were ordered to identify themselves in official documents by their deme of residence, after their name and patronymic.61 Satyros’ poem On the Demes (FGrHist, 631 F 1= P. Oxy. XXVII 2465) of the same period eulogized this aspect of the city’s organization. What the subdivision of demes consisted of exactly and into exactly how many demes Alexandria was partitioned is more difficult to determine.62 In any case, the data demonstrates 60 This is a foundamental principle affirmed by Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 39, which alone should direct any analysis and understanding of the city. 61 P. Hamb., II 168, ll. 5–10 = BGU XIV 2367: οἱ δὲ πολίται τοὺς δὲ πατέρα[ς καὶ το]ὺς δήµους ἄν δὲ καὶ ἐν τῶι στρατιωτικῶι ὦσιν [καὶ τὰ τ]ὰγµατα καὶ τὰς ἐπιφορὰς; the citizens (will register) name of the father and the deme, and if they are soldiers, the unit and the rank. Cf. P. Rev. 7, 1–3. 62 The only available document upon which scholars have based any possible discussion is P. Hib. 28 (= WChr 25), paleographically dated to 265 B.C.E. [J. Seyfarth, “ ‘Frata’ und ‘fratria’ im nachclassischen Griechentum,” Aeg 35 (1955): 3–38 3–17 with restorations not accepted by Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, II 112 n. 3; see discussion in P.M. Fraser, “Bibliography: Greco-roman Egypt,” JEA 42 (1956): 110, n. 27]. This text contains data about a large, yet unnamed, city, whose territory was divided in 5 tribes, each of which was divided in 12 demes, each of which was divided in 12 phratries. The temptation to connect this text to Alexandria has been strong, driven by the identification of the 5 tribes of P. Hib. 28 with the five quarters of Alexandria [Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 39–44 is cautious but ultimately uses these data for Alexandria]. But other details, like the lack of correspondence with tribes and demes known in Alexandria [some names of Alexandrian tribes and demes are known form papyrological documentation; see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 44ff. and Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 63–68. All these data cover the entire Ptolemaic period, and therefore they do not necessarily refer exclusively to the introduction of the demes and tribes in Alexandria and their naming, as changes may have occurred through time], or the few data emerging from Satyros’ poem, discourages taking such a position [Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 50–52 inclines for Naukratis or Ptolemais]. The most exhaustive treatment on the Alexandrian demotic remains Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 38–47, who provides a list of the demes found in the papyrological documentation; it must be


39

that as early as the mid-third century B.C.E., Alexandrian citizens experienced their personal connection with the city through a strict territorial organization. This connection can be measured on the basis of other papyrological documentation. P. Hal. 1, paleographically dated to the mid-third century B.C.E.,63 contains copies of judicial and administrative regulations that had been issued up to that time and were to be enforced in Alexandria. According to this document, the Alexandrian administrative apparatus had registries in every deme, at which any real estate sale contract—for a lot of land, a house or a building site—had to be registered; this contract had to include the exact location of the transferred property (col. xi, ll. 243–259). It is important to note that, according to what the chronological coordinates corroborate, these rules went into effect at almost the same time as the planning, organization and early development of the city. Did any of this apply to Alexandria’s Jews? The answer requires distinguishing between the katoikoi of the garrison and other civilians. As seen above, lodging and land assignments strictly controlled the residence of military personnel; however, individuals also had particular registration assignments. In official documents from Ptolemaic Egypt, katoikoi identified themselves in accordance with the rules that the Ptolemaic prostagma imposed on soldiers (P. Hamb., II 168, ll. 5–10 = BGU XIV 2367),64 who had to indicate name, patronimic, patris and military company of appurtenence, with some declaring their patris to be ‘Macedonian.’65 This is particularly important because Josephus states that the Alexandrian Jews were called Macedonians (C. Ap., 2.36; B.J., 2.488). observed, though, that Fraser’s argument is based on the assumption that P. Hib. 28 describes Alexandria, a fact which is far from certain. See also more recently W. Clarysse and W. Swinnen, “Notes on some Alexandrian Demotics,” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. Studi in onore di Achille Adriani (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1983), 13–15, who make additions to Fraser’s list. A dissenting opinion on the validity of Fraser’s list is Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 51–52, whose alternative list also includes the demes known from Roman documents. 63 Bechtel, et al., Dikaiomata, 11–12. On the importance of this document see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 42. 64 [οἱ µὲ]ν στρατιώται ἀπογραφέσθωσαν τά τε ὀνόµατα [αὐτ]ῶν καὶ τὰς πατρίδας καὶ ἐξ ὧν ἄν ταγµάτων ὦσιν [καὶ ἃ]ς ἔχωσιν ἐπιφοράς; the soldiers will register with their own name, their place of origin (patris), their unit of appurtenence and their rank as well. 65 For patris see appendix 5. For the papyrological documentation see La’da, Foreign Ethnics, 167–207.

40

chapter two

The Macedonians were, of course, the core of Alexander’s and his successors’ Hellenistic army, and they likely composed at least in part the army that Alexander left behind in Egypt when he left for Asia (Curtius Rufus, 4.8, 4).66 Ptolemy Lagos certainly recruited other Macedonians in 321 from Perdiccas’ army (Diod., 18.33–37), and in 312 from Demetrios’ after the battle of Gaza (Diod., 19.93, 7). While many of those who called themselves Macedonians in the available documents could well have been ethnic Macedonians who arrived in Egypt at those times, or their descendants,67 historical sources also suggest an alternative interpretation. From the time of Alexander’s successors, soldiers of all ethnicities were armed and trained according to Macedonian practice (Diod., 19.27, 6; 29, 3; 40, 3; Pol., 5.79, 4; 82, 2; 82, 10). According to Josephus’ own words, such soldiers were called Macedonians even if they were not ethnic Macedonians (B.J., 5.460).68 A similar situation obtained in the Ptolemaic army (Pol., 5.65, 8–9; 82, 4), where the Macedonian military presence is well documented. Thus, ‘Macedonian’ is not necessarily an ethnic reference but connotes the soldiers’ professional capacity.69 In light of their military training and duty, this could have been the case for the Jews stationed in the garrison of Alexandria as well.70 From here their appellation ‘Macedonian.’ As for Jews not serving in any military capacity, documents and comparisons allow two possibilities. First, registration was likely required of everyone living legally in Alexandria, regardless of their origin or status. In fourth century Athens, foreigners were obliged to register in a city deme if they stayed longer than a determined period (Arist. Byz., 305), though they did not acquire a demotic identification, which remained

66 So J. Lesquier, Les institutions militaires de l’Egypte sous les Lagides (Paris, 1911) 2, while G.T. Griffith, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), 29–30 thinks they were mercenaries. 67 Data in La’da, Foreign Ethnics, 166–201. 68 Josephus’ evidence is late Hellenistic, but the fact that the phenomenon is attested from the beginning of the Hellenistic period allows a more general consideration of his information; Billows, Kings, 155–157. Other comments in Launey, Armées, 295–296; 330–331; 360–362; Cohen, Seleucid Colonies, 30–33. 69 Good basic comments in this sense are in Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 14–15; see C.A. La’da, “Ethnicity, Occupation and Tax-status in Ptolemaic Egypt,” EVO 17 (1994): 183–189 for similar conclusions surfacing also from demotic documents. 70 Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 191; Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 28; S. Honigman, “Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt” AncSoc 33 (2003): 80.


41

the privileged designation bestowed only upon citizens.71 Evidence of registers for Alexandria’s foreign residents also exists, where they used the designation of Alexandreus. This was very likely the identification for Jews with legal residence in the city.72 For all others, one possibility was to define themselves as Ioudaios, as many documents from Ptolemaic Egypt demonstrate.73 Clearly then, Jews were also subject to Ptolemaic control similar to what was prescribed for citizens. This is by no means exceptional, since the Ptolemies institutionalized several kinds of registers for people and property in order to control every aspect of demography and real estate within their country.74 Thus far, this study has proceeded on the assumption that Jews were not Alexandrian citizens in the Ptolemaic period. It is impossible, however, to draw any incontrovertible conclusions concerning whether the Jews did or did not collectively enjoy the full Alexandrian franchise. Josephus’ assertion that Alexandrian Jews enjoyed isopolitia with the Greeks further confuses matters (B.J., 2.488).75 From the documentary point of view, available data are too scarce to present a comprehensive picture for either scenario. In any case, it would be impossible to distinguish a Jew with franchise from any other Alexandrian citizen (except probably on onomastic grounds), since the demotic identification that Jewish citizens would have had to indicate was not ethnic but territorial. A few more things can be said, however, about the Jews and citizenship.

71

P. Gauthier, Symbola; les étrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques (Nancy: Université de Nancy, 1972), 117–118; D. Whitehead, The Ideology of the Athenian Metic (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1977), 9; now M. Niku, The Official Status of the Foreign Residents in Athens 322–120 B.C. (Helsinki: Rannikon Laatupaino, 2007), 21. 72 I discuss the meaning of Alexandreus in appendix 5. 73 There is evidence of Jews serving in the military throughout the country who would identify themselves exactly as the royal prostagma required (P. Hamb., II 168, ll. 5–10 = BGU XIV 2367): name, son of X, Ioudaios, of the X military company: La’da, Foreign Ethnics, E 874; E 887; E 895; E 899; E 901; E 907; what is generally considered ethnic, Ioudaios, in bureaucratic language corresponds in this case to the patris (discussion of patris in appendix 5). It must be considered, however, that also ‘Ioudaios’ might have contained some professional connotation, similar to ‘Macedonian.’ The date of these documents spans from the mid-third to the mid-second century B.C.E. 74 For Ptolemaic registers, see W. Clarysse and D.J. Thompson, Counting People in Hellenistic Egypt (P.Count.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) introduction, with references there. 75 For Josephus’ untechnical use of this term Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 70; Gruen, Diaspora, 71; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization; contrary Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 278ff.

42

chapter two

It is possible to conclude that the Jews never possessed Alexandrian citizenship on the basis of that very problematic text, 3 Maccabees. This work’s goal is not to discuss, or better re-discuss, the historicity (or lack thereof ) of that account or the time of its composition or authorship.76 Whether or not this story has any historical basis, whether it was composed in the Ptolemaic or Roman period, whether the author was or was not a Jew writing for a Jewish or other readership—regardless of all of these issues, the incontrovertible fact remains that 3 Maccabees presents Alexandrian citizenship as something that the Jews did not possess and the possession of which was considered to be apostasy. The text could not have been culturally viable if collective Jewish Alexandrian citizenship had been a concrete historical circumstance.77 It is not possible to determine the population of the Alexandrian Jewish community in the third century B.C.E. The numbers provided in the Letter of Aristeas (12–14)—100,000 Jews prisoners of Ptolemy Lagos in 311, 30,000 deployed in the garrisons, the rest enslaved—are not believable.78 In Philo’s Alexandria, there was an extensive presence of Jews, with two of the five quarters being called “Jewish” due to the overwhelming Jewish population and with many other Jews living elsewhere in the city (Flacc., 55). His description, however, cannot be taken into account for the city’s first century. Nevertheless, by the end of the third century B.C.E., the Alexandrian Jewish community was large enough to have the Torah translated into Greek.79

76

The most exhaustive surveys and interpretation of the historicity of 3 Maccabees are A. Paul, “Le Troisième livre des Macchabées,” ANRW II 20,1 (1987): 298–336; F. Parente, “The Third Book of Maccabees as Ideological Document and Historical Source,” Henoch 10 (1988): 143–182, to which the more recent S.R. Johnson, Historical Fiction and Hellenistic Jewish Identity. Third Maccabees in its Cultural Context (Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 2004) should be added. 77 Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 40–41 on the possible ways for Jews to acquire Alexandrian citizenship individually. 78 Ps.-Aristeas’ numbers are not trusted by Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 273; the dubious validity of numbers of deportees in historiographic accounts is discussed in H. Volkmann, Die Massenversklavungen der Einwohner eroberter Städte in der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990). 79 Philological studies have concluded on sufficiently good ground that the language of the Pentateuch included in the Septuagint correspond to a form of koinē Greek, with expressions common at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. from other texts—a language with which no Jew from Judea could have been familiar J.A.L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 148; K.H. Jobes and M. Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdsman, 2000); T.V. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. Neutral Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 262–263; summary in


43

The Second Century B.C.E. If the third century B.C.E. witnessed the building of the Ptolemaic state, the following century saw troubled times for the kingdom, from which the Egyptian Jews, including those in Alexandria, were not immune. Though the loss of Coele-Syria in 198 B.C.E. to the Seleucids was a blow to the Ptolemaic economy and hegemony, it did not sever relations between Egypt and Judea altogether. In spite of the lack of direct evidence, it is correctly alleged that the persecution of Antiochos IV and the Maccabean revolt caused many Jews to migrate to Egypt and to increase the country’s Jewish demographic presence.80 Levantine military presence increased generally and Jewish immigration was the sole reason for the growth of certain locations.81 The most relevant set of evidence concerns the arrival of Onias IV in Egypt in the mid-second century B.C.E., as Josephus recounts, when Ptolemy VI Philometor permitted him to build a military settlement at Leontopolis, including a Jewish temple. (Jos., B.J., 1.31–33; 7.421–432; A.J., 12.237–239; 387–388; 13.62–73; 20.236).82 An important collection of evidence from this period reveals the emergence of an institution in Egypt, whose characteristics bear important consequences for understanding the history of Alexandrian Jews, namely, the politeuma. The term politeuma was already a part of political discourse in the classical period, as Isocrates and Aristotle’s

S. Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. A Study on the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (London–New York: Routledge, 2001), 96–98. 80 Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 2; for the non-political aspects, Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 35–47. 81 As may be the case of Athribis: A. Kasher, “Three Jewish communities of Lower Egypt in the Ptolemaic period,” SCI 2 (1975): 113–123; Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 56–58. 82 The identification of Onias with Onias III does not stand the comparison with 2 Macc., 4, 4–7; 31–34; I accept the conclusions of E.S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” SCI 16 (1997): 47–70, with the exception of his denying the military nature of the settlement (p. 59); see Schürer, History of the Jewish People, I 47–48 for the evidence of the military settlement. The site was excavated at the end of the nineteenth century: E. Naville, Mound of the Jews and the City of Onias. The Antiquities of Tell el Yehudieh (London: Kegan, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1890); W.M.F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities (London: School of Archaeology, University College–Bernard Quaritch, 1906); epigraphic evidence is collected in Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, #29–105. The most recent contribution on the subject is L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto. Identità politica e religiosa dei Giudei di Onia (c. 150 a,C,–73 d.C.) (Pisa: ETS, 2007).

44

chapter two

treatises testify.83 Aristotle, discussing the oligarchic government of the three Greek cities of Thebes, Massalia and Heraclea on the Pontus, provided a basic description of the politeuma, distinguishing between citizens whose wealth gave to them the right to hold power and those who, though citizens, could not hold any magistracy (Arist., Pol., 1305b 12; 33–35; 1321a 30–31). Politeuma later became a constant in the vocabulary describing the political innovations witnessed by Hellenistic historians.84 Ptolemy Lagos extended the concept from mainland Greece to the part of the Hellenistic world under his rule. In the wake of post-Alexander turmoil and the early confrontation among his successors, he solved Cyrene’s internal strife with a diagramma, by which he allowed everyone born of Cyrenian parents, or of some other geographical background, to be politai, but restricted the right to participate in the city government to a politeuma composed only of citizens selected according to timocratic criteria (SEG IX 1).85 In sum, the diagramma of Cyrene, 83 E. Levy, “Politeia et politeuma chez Aristote,” in Aristote et Athenes (ed. M. Peiérart; Paris: De Boccard, 1993), 65–90; J.-P. Liou, “Aperçus sur Isocrate à la lumière de l’emploi de quelques termes du vocabularie politique,” Ktema 15 (1990): 5–14. 84 For the frequency and the use of politeuma in Hellenistic historical literature see E. Levy, “Politeia et politeuma chez Polybe,” Ktema 15 (1990): 15–26; M. Casevitz, “Le vocabulaire politique de Diodore de Sicilie: politeia, politeuma et leur famille,” Ktema 15 (1990): 27–33. A semantic analysis of the term politeuma as used in the late Classical and in the Hellenistic period is in A. Biscardi, “Polis, politeia, politeuma,” in Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983) (Napoli: Centro per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, 1984), 1201–1215; C. Mossé, “Citoyens actifs et citoyens passifs dans les cités grecques; une approche théorique du problème,” REG 81 (1979): 241–249 is the most complete study on the fortune of politeuma in the Hellenistic period. 85 For the discussion on the date of the diagramma, see E. Poddighe, “L’atimia nel DIAGRAMMA di Cirene. La definizione della cittadinanza tra morale e diritto alla fine del IV secolo a.C.,” Aevum 75 (2001): 37–55, 45–46, nn. 38–40 for references; today there is agreement on 321 B.C.E, which makes the diagramma contemporary to Antipatros’ reform in Athens. In 321 after the defeat in the Lamain war, Athens had to accept Antipatros’s obliteration of the democratic politeia. In its stead, Antipatros imposed a timocratic regime, whereby the body politic was devided into two groups, one composed of those who had a census of two thousend drachmai or more who enjoyed full political rights—they, nine thousend in number, composed the politeuma; while all other citizens were outsted from the body politic, declared enemies and invited to leave the city (Diod., 18.18, 4–6);—it was tantamount to being declared atimoi. Scholars read in Antipatros’ reform the Athenian parallel to Cyrene, whereby two classes of citizens, passive and active, remained in Athens legally [C. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Anthony (Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 1997), 44; Mossé, “Citoyens actifs,” 248; a close analysis of Antipatros’s decree is in E. Poddighe, “La natura del tetto censitario stabilito da Antipatros per l’accesso al ‘politeuma” di Atene nel 322 a.C.,” DHA 23 (1997): 47–82, with focus on the definition of τίµηµα, census]. Yet, the


45

as in other cases analyzed by Aristotle, distinguished between politeuma and politeia, whereby the first refers to active political participation, while the second is merely passive.86 No papyrological or epigraphic evidence of the Egyptian politeumata is dated or datable before the mid-second century B.C.E.87 Until recently, the best-documented politeuma was that of the Idumeans in Memphis. In this instance, the available evidence reveals that the use of ‘politeuma’ was restricted to a military settlement while the other Idumeans who lived thereabouts were mentioned as a separate body (OGIS II 737 = SB VI 8982; 112–111 B.C.E.).88 Although documentation is limited, the politeumata evidently had juridical personality and could own collective property (P. Tebt. III 700 col. ii, l. 43; 124 B.C.E.);89 they had a military origin; they were characterized ethnically;90 and, while a clear delineation is not possible, they operated in a pattern of double-tiered membership, similar to what we have already observed in the Cyrenian politeuma. The same pattern appears in the corpus of papyri from Heracleopolis that describes a Jewish politeuma that was active there in the second century B.C.E.91 The abundant documentation (in comparison with sources do not warrant the existence of the second class with restricted rights but only of a second class excluded from the government and the city altogether. 86 See Mossé, “Citoyens actifs,” for the definition of active and passive citizens. 87 They are: politeuma of the Beotians at Xois (SB III 6664 = SEG II 871; 163–145 B.C.E.), E. Breccia, “Un nuovo politeuma pseudo-etnico,” BSAA 19 (1923): 119–122; politeuma of the Cilicians in the Fayium (SB IV 7270 = SEG VIII 573); politeuma of the Cretans in the Fayium (P. Tebt. I 32 = WChr. 448; 145 B.C.E). See Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 179–181; Honigman, “Politeumata,” 67. 88 U. Rappaport, “Les Iduméens d’Égypte,” RPh 43 (1969): 73–82 not limited to the politeuma, but encompassing all the documents mentioning the Idumeans; D.J. Thompson Crawford, “The Idumaeans of Memphis and the Ptolemaic Politeumata,” in Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983) (Napoli: Centro internazionale per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, 1984), 1069–1075 and D.J. Thompson, Memphis under the Ptolemies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 99–105; Thompson Crawford, “Idumaeans,” 1072; C. Zuckermann, “Hellenistic Politeumata and the Jews. A Riconsideration,” SCI 8–9 (1985–1988): 175–176; Honigman, Septuagint, 99–100. 89 = C.Ord.Ptol. 50, a decree by Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II compelling associations in general and politeumata in the Arsinoite to alienate property; see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 122 and n. 246 for the historical background of this drastic measure. 90 Basic study in Launey, Armées, 1068ff.; for more specific discussions, see Zuckermann, “Hellenistic Politeumata,” 174ff.; Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 119; Honigman, Septuagint, 99; Honigman, “Politeumata,” 63–64. 91 J.M.S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.) (P. Polit. Iud.) (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher, 2001) for a comment see S. Honigman, “The Jewish Politeuma of Heracleopolis (review of Cowey, J.M.S.,

46

chapter two

other known politeumata) provides a more detailed picture. Magistrates called politarches and archontes, who apparently operated as primus inter pares,92 led the Jewish politeuma of Heracleopolis and petitioners addressed their complaints to them. The ethnic factor seems to be overwhelming. Out of sixteen petitioners, eleven state that they are Jews or members of the politeuma (P.Polit.Iud. 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11–14) and one petitioner can safely be considered a Jew on the basis of internal evidence (P.Polit.Iud. 3, l. 28: patrion horkon).93 The operational circumstances of the politeuma of Heraklepolis, and especially whether it existed in a military environment like all other known politeumata, must be discussed in relation to documents from the garrison at the harbor of Heracleopolis, for its phrourarchos Dioskurides had institutional prerogatives very similar to those of the politeuma’s politarchon.94 Territory should be considered first, since both jurisdictions certainly coexisted on the same or contiguous territory, with the politeuma securely located in Heracleopolis and Dioskurides’ garrison stationed at a fortress in the town’s harbor. As a matter of fact, soldiers or sailors stationed in the garrison, the harbor, or local military units wrote six of the twelve petitions addressed to Dioskurides (P.Phrur.Diosk., 1–4; 6–7) and harbor residents, two (P.Phrur.Diosk., 8; 12). Clearly, Dioskurides operated within the military context of the harbor, with his jurisdiction occasionally extending to local civilian matters. In order to evaluate the military jurisdiction of the politeuma of Herakleopolis, two documents require discussion here. The first document comes from Poluktoros, a Macedonian of the misthophoroi hippeis of Demetrios (P.Polit.Iud. 5). While his undeclared Jewishness is assumed on the basis of comparative evidence,95 as in other documented cases,

Maresch, K., Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.) (P. Polit. Iud.), Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher 2001),” SCI 21 (2002): 251–266 to which the editors responded in J.M.S. Cowey and K. Maresch, “’A Recurrent Inclination to Isolate the Case of the Jews from their Ptolemaic Environment?’ Eine Antwort auf Sylvie Honigman,” SCI 22 (2003): 307–310. See also Honigman, “Politeumata,” mainly 60–69 and passim. 92 Cowey and Maresch, Urkunden Politeuma, 10–11. 93 Two texts are broken at the top, missing the petitioner’s name and identification: P.Polit.Iud. 15, 16. 94 J.M.S. Cowey, et al., Das Archiv des Phrurarchen Dioskurides (154–145 v.Chr.?) (P.Phrur.Diosk.) (Padeborn–München–Wien–Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2003). 95 Cowey and Maresch, Urkunden Politeuma, 76.


47

he was clearly a soldier stationed in a local fort.96 The second document comes from Hyppalos, Theodotos and Polu[…], petitioners of P.Polit.Iud. 13, who could have been Jews stationed in the village of Peimpasbutis with some third Jewish company and, therefore, present in some military capacity but outside Heracleopolis itself.97 This should be enough to support a scenario in which the polituema operated in connection with, but not necessarily exclusively within, the military context. In any case, it was separated from, but homologous to, the context in which Dioscourides worked.98 It is more interesting to explore the jurisdiction of the polituema of Heracleopolis vis-à-vis its members, the surrounding Jewish villages or Jewish communities in nearby villages. Three petitioners state that they are members of the politeuma (P.Polit.Iud., 1; 4; 7: τῶν ἐκ τοῦ πολιτευµάτου). The most remarkable of these petitions is the case of Philotas. He petitions the archontes because the father of his bride did not fulfill the marriage contract and married the girl to another man (P. Polit.Iud. 4). Philotas asks the magistrates to write to “the Jews in the village,” where the bride and her father live, so that the latter can be called to justice. It may seem strange that Philotas did not mention the village by name; after all, other texts from the same archive mention Jews in other villages, some clearly related to the politeuma.99 Comparison with other politeumata in Egypt may provide a reason for this omission. As seen above, the Idumeans of Memphis were organized in a divided settlement: the polituema and the rest. The case recorded in P. Polit.Iud. 4 looks similar. The petitioner Philotas, a Jew of the politeuma, refers to his fiancée’s village as “the Jews in the village” because the village was in the same area, but not part of the politeuma. Still, clearly the politeuma had jurisdiction over them.

96 Clarysse and Thompson, Counting People, II 148–150; cf. P. Count. 1, l. 47 for other misthophoroi hippeis who pay taxes in the Arsinoite nome in the mid-third century B.C.E. However, a lexical study carried on exclusively among classical and Hellenistic historians, and not on papyri, disputes that misthophoroi are other than mercenaries; see E. Foulon, “Misthophoroi et xenoi hellénistiques,” REG 108 (1995): 211–218. 97 l. 2–3: παρὰ Ἱππάλου καὶ Θεοδότου καὶ Πολ̣υ . ν.. /[ τ ] ῶν γ̄ Ἰουδαίων τῶν ἐκ Πειµπαζβύ[τεως]. 98 Cowey and Maresch, Urkunden Politeuma, 12, assumes that it worked within the military context of the harbor; accepted by Honigman, “Politeumata,” 64. 99 It is clear that the magistrates of the polituema could seek justice in other independent villages with Jewish communities, or that the politeuma could function as an appeal or superior court after judgment was rendered in those villages: P.Polit. Iud. 6; 8; 9; 13; cf. P.Polit. Iud. 18–20.

48

chapter two Politeumata in Alexandria

If this was the situation in the chōra, Alexandria was not immune. Epigraphic documentation points to a politeuma of soldiers in Alexandria at the end of the second century B.C.E. (I.Alex.Ptol. 32; 2nd/1st cent. B.C.E.).100 The politeuma had two magistrates, a prostates and a grammateus, indicating that its internal organization extended beyond the military hierarchy. If Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II included the Alexandrian politeumata in his order to alienate property in 124 B.C.E. (P. Tebt. III 700 col. ii, l. 37), then the politeuma of the soldiers was probably not the only one in Alexandria. Documentation of a Jewish politeuma at Heracleopolis and a politeuma of the soldiers in Alexandria leads to a consideration of the politeuma of Jews there, since the Letter of Aristeas (310) does mention an Alexandrian Jewish politeuma. Scholars have debated the existence of the Jewish organization, often reaching opposing conclusions.101 The documented existence of the politeuma of Heracleopolis casts the Letter’s information in an entirely different light. That the Alexandrian Jewish community had military origins is beyond doubt. This awareness, in combination with data about other Ptolemaic politeumata, invites us to take more seriously the few words about the Alexandrian Jewish politeuma in the Letter of Aristeas. The Letter relates that the completed translation of the Torah was presented to a group consisting of the elders of the politeuma, the leaders of the 100 Bernand, Inscriptions d’Alexandrie, (= SB VIII 9812 = SEG XX 499); P.M. Fraser, “Inscriptions from Ptolemaic Egypt,” Berytus 13 (1960): 123–161 #11. See the discussion about the non-ethnic nature of this polituema in Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 89, and Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 180 who receives Fraser’s opinion but adds that it was “perhaps established as a federation of small politeumata of the ethnic type.” The text of the inscription cannot uphold with certainty any of these statements. Epigraphic documentation attests the presence of a very early politeuma in Alexandria—that of the Phrygians (I.Alex.Ptol. 74); it is however not clear what other competence this politeuma had in addition to the religious ones mentioned in the text. 101 For the negative Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 55 who thinks that it existed only in Roman times, conflating the data in Strabo (FGrHist 91 F 7 apud Jos., A.J., 14.114) on an almost independent Alexandrian Jewish community; Zuckermann, “Hellenistic Politeumata,” 181ff., who does not believe in the existence of the politeuma but retains the distinction of the Letter; for the positive Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 180; 208–211, based on the Letter and Tarn’s view that Alexandria had no polis-like constitution but was a collection of ethnic polituemata; Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 6; 9ff. and Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 297ff., on the basis of the Letter; similarly Smallwood, Jews, 226; Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 64; Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 115; Gruen, Diaspora, 74 now convinced on the basis of the data from Heracleopolis.


49

plethos, and others. The lexical and rhetorical form used to describe these first two sub-groups is clearly intended to keep the two bodies distinct (310).102 The scenario introduced in the Letter is much like the one already discussed for Heracleopolis and the other known politeumata in Ptolemaic Egypt, that is, a politeuma institutionally close to, but separate from, the rest of the Jewish community.103 The Letter does not specify how this distinction came about. A pattern can be identified, however, on the basis of comparative evidence (e.g. the politeumata of Heracleopolis and of the Idumaeans in Memphis): the Jewish garrison became the politeuma, that is, the upper tier of the community, and all other Jews living in the vicinity of the politeuma were what the Letter calls the plethos.104 Comparison with Herakleopolis also suggests that the Alexandrian Jews may have enjoyed independent legal jurisdiction for civil matters, a privilege which allowed them to avoid the Alexandrian foreign tribunal mentioned in P. Hal. 1, col. iv, l. 164. No other direct evidence supports discussion of any other aspect of the institutional or administrative organization of the politeuma or the surrounding community. Other than having separate jurisdiction, the polituema was likely instrumental in obtaining certain privileges and exemptions from obligations. For example, during the Ptolemaic period, the cavalry cleruchs and active soldiers did some public service, while also enjoying a reduced tax-rate.105 Alexandria’s Jews, Macedonians from the military point of view, were likely included in that group. The discussion of privileged tax-status, however, should not be limited to soldiers. In his effort to show that in Ptolemaic times the Jews and the Greeks enjoyed the same status, Josephus claims that Alexandria’s Jews and the Greeks share the same appellation of Hellenes (B.J., 2.487). In light of recent studies, Josephus’ claim should be compared with data from the mid-third century B.C.E. that disclose that people in the chōra who were classified as Hellenes paid a reduced salt tax and were exempt from paying the

102 Καθὼς δὲ ἀνεγνώσθη τὰ τεύχη, στάντες οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ τῶν ἑρµηνέων οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ πολιτεύµατος οἵ τε ἡγούµενοι τοῦ πλήθους, κτλ. 103 The publication of P.Polit.Iud. has fostered the possibility of the existence of the Alexandrian Jewish politeuma; the most complete argument is in Honigman, “Politeumata,” 69ff. 104 Box, Flaccum, xxv is for a distinction based on status. 105 In the Ptolemaic period the soldiers were burdened with the leiturgiai katoikountai; Taubenschlag, Law of Egypt, II 28; for tax-status, Clarysse and Thompson, Counting People, II 140; 148.

50

chapter two

one obol tax.106 At the same time, Jews in Trikomia in the Arsinoite nome of the Fayium belonged to that privileged group (P.Count., 26, col. vii–xi, ll. 109–198).107 Documents indicate that ‘Hellenes’ applied to civilians in the chōra who were also exempt from working on the dikes.108 Such a privilege distinguished Hellenes from the rest of the foreign population, and from native Egyptians, in the eyes of the Ptolemaic administration; some Jews enjoyed this status.109 If Josephus’ statement that Alexandrian Jews were called Hellenes is accurate, then it may be that Jewish soldiers and Jewish civilians paid lower taxes than other non-citizens110 and were exempt from some public service. They were not therefore at the same status level of the Greeks. Except for making military lodges (stathmoi) more freely sellable,111 the end of the second century records no relevant change for Alexandrian Jews. No real evidence exists that the Judean Egyptian War of 103–101 (the so-called “War of Scepters”) directly affected Egypt or the local Jews.112 By the time the Ptolemies lost power, Alexandria’s Jewish community had grown well beyond the area of the original garrison and its immediate surroundings. In 38 C.E. Philo reports that of the city’s

106 Clarysse and Thompson, Counting People, II 138–145; previously D.J. Thompson, “Hellenistic Hellenes: the Case of Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (ed. I. Malkin; Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 2001), 301–322. 107 The identification is mainly onomastic; Clarysse and Thompson, Counting People, II 145–148; previously W. Clarysse, “Jews in Trikomia,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists: Copenhagen, 23–29 August, 1992 (ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1994), 193–203. 108 Clarysse and Thompson, Counting People, II 140; 148. 109 Not all, though; P.Petr., II 43 = WChr 55 = CPJ I 33 clearly shows that both Jews and Hellenes paid the local tax; see J. Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Le statut des Hellènes dand l’Égypte Lagide: bilan et perspectives de recherches,” in Statut personnel et liens de famille dans les droits de l’antiquité (Aldershot–Brookfield: Variorum, 1993), 267, n. 113. 110 So already Honigman, “Politeumata,” 82. 111 K. Maresch, “Zession von Katökenland: Eine Neuedition von P. Erlangen 59,” ZPE 76 (1989): 115–120. 112 E. Van’t Dack, et al., The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103–101. A Multilingual Dossier Concerning a “War of Sceptres” (Brussel: Koninlijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 1989). The discussion is based on a disputed passage of Jordanes who reports a persecution of the Jews in 88 (which some scholars have identified with what Josephus says happened under Ptolemy VIII, C. Ap., 2 53–55); see Box, Flaccum, xix, n. 2, who thinks the passage of Jordanes is historically valuable, and Johnson, Historical Fiction, 187–188 on the implausibility of Jordanes’ account; with different conclusions I. Lévy, “Ptolémée Lathyre et les Juifs,” Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950–1951): 127–136.


51

five quarters, Jews occupied two and constituted a good portion of the population of the remaining three (Flacc., 55). It cannot be imagined that this demographic increase occurred only in the seventy years of Roman rule up to Philo’s time and only on the basis of internal growth. Rather, immigration to Alexandria must also have occurred in the centuries after the garrison and the community were first settled in the fourth and third centuries B.C.E. Certainly Jews flocked to Egypt after the Ptolemies lost Coele-Syria at the beginning of the second century B.C.E.; Josephus’ story of the Tobiads is emblematic of a phenomenon occurring at the top echelon of society (Jos., A.J., 12.154–236).113 As discussed above, the mid-second century B.C.E. also saw the arrival of Jews in the wake of the Maccabean revolt and the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty; Josephus’ account is the only literary witness to the arrival of the upper elements of Judean society, the Oniads and their followers. Beyond the high-ranking people who possessed the credentials to negotiate their stay directly with the authorities, however, average people lacking high-ranking connections, or any connections at all, may have also abandoned the homeland for Egypt to avoid contact with the new, probably hostile, Seleucid or Hasmonean ruler. It is also possible that they were simply seeking better opportunities, which could also have tempted Jews from the chōra to move to Alexandria. A question then surfaces about all the Jews who came to Alexandria in the years following the community’s early settlement and later the institutionalization of the politeuma. Josephus seems to allude to documents kept by Alexandrian Jews in their private archives by which the Ptolemies granted them residence in the city (Jos., C. Ap., 2.37).114 This is enough to support the immigrants’ legitimate presence in the city, but the question remains as to whether or not they were part of the politeuma, a difficult problem to address, let alone resolve. If the military origin and context must remain at the core of any discussion of the Alexandrian Jewish polituema, then it cannot be concluded that newcomers automatically became a part of it. It is more plausible that 113 A difficult and compelling story indeed; see Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 74–77; E.S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 1998), 99–105. 114 The letters from Alexander, which Josephus also mentions, should not be credited; see Gambetti, “Q&A” and Gambetti, “Jewish Community,” for Alexander’s minimal, if non-existent contribution probably to the founding of Alexandria and certainly to the settlement of Jews there.

52

chapter two

the politeuma was limited to the territory of the garrison, which may have itself been implemented in accordance with the military needs of the city and the country over the centuries. The immigrants settled and became part of the community around it. Strabo described the Alexandrian Jewish community of the first half of the first century B.C.E. as a body led by an ethnarch who administered civil justice for the community in seeming independence (apud Jos., A.J., 14.117).115 The Romans’ Arrival The passage from the Ptolemies to a stronger Roman hegemony was a moment of glory for the Jews.116 The Jews’ support for Julius Caesar should be understood within the context of the bellum alexandrinum, to which Josephus plainly refers (C. Ap. 2.61). Some have connected

115 Cf. Ameling, “ ‘Market-Place’,” 97, who thinks that the ethnarch was not a judge but an arbiter; similarly before him J. Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Espérances et illusions du Judaïsme Alexandrin,” in Alexandrie: une mégalopole cosmopolite (ed. J. Leclant; Paris: Belle Lettre, 1999), 142. What kind of law the ethnarch was applying is a matter of contention [introductory discussion in Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 32ff.]. While for J. Mélèze Modrzejewski, “The Septuagint as Nomos: How the Torah Became a ‘Civic Law’ for Jews of Egypt,” in Critical Studies in Ancient Law, Comparative Law and Legal History (Essays in Honor of Alan Watson) (eds. J.W. Cairns and O.F. Robinson; Oxford–Portland, 2001), 183–199 the Torah became a politikos nomos, E.R. Goodenough, The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt as Described by Philo Judeaus (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968) thinks that the law of the Egyptian Jews had imported elements from the Greek law; the comprehensive study of A.M. Rabello, “The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire,” ANRW II 13 (1980): 662–762 is of little help for the period considered in the present research. The discourse on the administration of the law in Alexandria and the Jews should consider the following documents: BGU IV 1132 = CPJ II 142, 14 B.C.E., debt; BGU IV 1151 = CPJ II 143, 13 B.C.E., debt; BGU IV 1102 = CPJ II 144, 13 B.C.E., divorce; BGU IV 1129 = CPJ II 145, 13 B.C.E., land; BGU IV 1106 = CPJ II 146, 13 B.C.E., wet nurse; BGU IV 1155 = CPJ II 148, 10 B.C.E., debt; BGU IV 1134 = CPJ II 149, 10 B.C.E., loan. These texts comes from the Abusir el-Melek fund, and are all addressed to Protarchos the head of the Alexandrian kriterion [see Schubart, “Alexandrinische Urkunden”]. They all involve Jews and gentiles; the present work excludes that the Dionysia of BGU IV 1151 = CPJ II 143 is a Jewess, as in Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 9; P.Polit. Iud. may provide new insight into the discussion; see on this R.A. Kugler, “A Loan for “Dorotheos the Jew” (P.Polit. Iud. 8): Rethinking Law and the Jews in Light of the Herakl. Papyri,” Paper presented at the XXV International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 29–August 4, 2007. The a fortiori argument that, if the Jews had their own courts, so did the Greeks of Alexandria is briefly mentioned in A.K. Bowman and D.W. Rathbone, “Cities and Administration in Roman Egypt,” JRS 82 (1992): 117. 116 Box, Flaccum, xix and notes; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 21 and n. 38–39; Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 40.


53

this passage with two other loci in the Josephan corpus, in which the historian describes the support of Antipatros and the ‘Jews of Onias’ in the Egyptian phase of the Roman civil wars.117 Such a connection is restrictive and should be revisited. The support of Antipatros’s Judean army for Mithridates, who was bringing military reinforcements to Caesar in Egypt, and the effort of Antipatros to bring the ‘Jews of Onias’ to Caesar’s side, must not be questioned. The accounts in Josephus’ Antiquitates and Bellum Iudaicum (Jos., B.J., 1.187–192; A.J., 14.127–148, 192–193; 16.52) and in Ps.-Caesar’s Bellum Alexandrinum (Ps.-Caesar, B. Alex., 26ff. ) do not, however, support the idea that these phases of the war took place in Alexandria or in its vicinity, or that the Alexandrian Jews were in any way involved. Rather, the eastern Egyptian border at Pelusium and the tip of the delta near Memphis, where Mithirdates marched his troops to cross the Nile more easily, were the locations where Antipater could display his military valor and his devotion to Caesar. Ps.-Caesar’s Bellum Alexandrinum and Caesar’s Bellum Civile (111–112) offer much more support for Josephus’ affirmations in Contra Apionem. Caesar stayed in Alexandria several months, holding only part of the city. It was here that he set up his headquarters and controlled the harbor and the sea traffic, his only avenue for external logistical support and for overcoming the siege from the city side. The confusing topographical descriptions of the texts do not allow the war theater to be identified with any certainty; however, this fact should not prevent the submission of some additional considerations. Indeed, if the sources are read in the absence of the preconceived notion that Caesar’s headquarter was located in a section of the royal palace in the eastern side of the city and if the war scenario is allowed to expand into other sections of Alexandria, then the dynamics of the conflict may become much more intelligible. It may actually be that the part of Alexandria being occupied by Caesar (B. Civ., 111) was in the western part of the city.118 This hypothesis does

117 Although with different shades: Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 284; Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 13; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 21; Barclay, Apion, ad loc. and n. 217. 118 See P. Graindor, La guerre d’Alexandrie (Cairo: Misr, 1931), at present, and to my knowledge, the only scholarly study on the Alexandrian war, who devotes a good deal of discussion to the topography of the conflict; Graindor at times entertains the possibility that Caesar was headquartered in the west, but fails to take a firm stand on it. The great bulk of works on the Alexandrian war is concentrated on the disputed/ disputable fire of the Library; see W.J. Cherf, “Earth, Wind, and Fire: the Alexandrian

54

chapter two

not clash with other pieces of information about Caesar’s headquarters that specify that he lived and fortified a small part of the palace into which he had been allowed since his arrival in the city (B. Civ., 112). Strabo relates that the palace enclosure was not limited to the eastern promontory of Lochias (see map in appendix 4), but extended through almost one third of the city, mostly along the Eastern Harbor, because every single king had built their own additions over the centuries (17.8). As stated above, Ptolemy Lagos built the early core of Alexandria in that western location of the city, which in Strabo’s time was still known as Rhakotis, the anonymous and early name of Alexandria (Satrap stela, ll. 4–5; Strabo, 17. 6). Thus, it is possible that Caesar was occupying a section of the original palace in the west. From here he could have easily set the enemy’s fleet on fire and occupied the rock of Pharos thereafter, while the harbor was still burning and fighting was raging in the city’s streets. The following phases of the war compel the reader to take even more seriously the western location of Caesar’s headquarter. Had he not had his stronghold nearby, it is clear that Caesar could not have overcome the enemy in the confrontation above, around and underneath the Heptastadium. It is also clear that Caesar’s fleet was docked and anchored now at Eunostos, the western harbor and that he needed to prevent the enemy’s ships from attacking them by crossing from the Eastern Harbor through the bridged passages under the causeway (B. Alex., 17ff.). It is certain that Caesar could not have succeeded without the support of the local population. Caesar actually praised these people for their devotion to him and, for this reason, he did not remove them from their homes, although their location is never precisely identified (B. Alex., 7, 2: magna moltitudo oppidanorum in parte Caesaris; 33, 3). Many of the Jews lived in the δ quarter near Kibotos, the artificial harbor carved out of Eunostos, the coast of the western port. Thus, it is easy to conceive that they were directly involved in the military operations, and that very likely they sided with Caesar—they were the magna moltitudo.119 Such a commitment would have required military

Fire-Storm of 48 B.C.,” in What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria? (eds. M.A.H. El-Abbadi and O.M. Fathallah; Leiden–Boston: Leiden, 2008), 55–73 for argument and references. 119 The possible identification of the magna moltitudo with the Alexandrian Jewish community was already submitted by G. Townend, Caesar’s War in Alexandria: Bellum


55

prowess, the ability to defend the place against the Alexandrian citizens on the inner city side, and assistance in securing the incoming logistical supplies from the sea; it must not be forgotten that if Caesar was besieged, the Jews were too. Loyalty to the Roman cause may have eventually prompted some form of official recognition. There is no reason, however, to assume that any Roman recognition would have extended to the award of any form of civic rights,120 as indicated by the fact that later Cleopatra VII excluded the Jews from the grain distributions that were available only to citizens (Jos., C. Ap., 2.60).121 For the remainder of the Ptolemaic period, the Alexandrian Jews remained organized in and around their politeuma. Civilians enjoyed the status of residents and tax-Hellenes; those in the garrison were Macedonians.

Civile II, 102–112; Bellum Alexandrinum 1–33, with introduction, notes and vocabulary (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1988), 40: “there is no reason to doubt of their sincerity, especially if these were mainly the Jewish community, regularly opposed to the Greeks.” Townend’s argument is however an assumption following the involvement of the Jews of Onias upon their agreement with Mithridates. 120 Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 56 correctly attributes to Augustus the stela with the Jewish rights which Josephus (A.J., 4.188; C. Ap., 2.37) attributes to Caesar; see below. 121 Cleopatra VII did not mean to discriminate against the Jews; on the contrary she adopted her predecessor’s posture toward them and dedicated a synagogue in the city: I.Alex.Ptol. 35.

CHAPTER THREE

THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENCE OF ALEXANDRIAN JEWS IN THE ROMAN PERIOD Octavian, later Augustus, was the agent of many changes in Egypt and Alexandria,1 and the Jews were not excluded.2 Augustus changed Alexandria’s status and the city lost its governmental independence with the suppression of the boulē (Dio, 51.17, 2; cf. PSI X 1160 and P. Lond VI 1912 = CPJ II 153, ll. 66–68).3 Roman authorities replaced Alexandrian authorities; the fact that the emperor was in charge of bestowing Alexandrian citizenship,4 a local prerogative in autonomous Greek cities of the eastern Empire, is the main evidence of this institutional reassessment.5 Citizens were organized around the gerousia and the gymnasium. The gerousia (P. Oxy. VIII 1089, ll. 35–36; P. Yale II 107, col. i) carried out functions that the available documentation does not

1 The main literature on the creation of the Roman province of Egypt is in A. Piganiol, “Le Statut Augustéen de l’Égypte et sa destruction,” MusHelv 10 (1953): 193–202; G. Geraci, Genesi della provincia romana d’Egitto (Bologna: CLUEB, 1983); more recent overview in Capponi, Augustan Egypt; particularly arguing for the transformation of the Egyptian administration are Bowman and Rathbone, “Cities” for a general overview of Roman Egypt from the institutional point of view see A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Rev. by Michael Avi-Yonah et al. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), 295–348. 2 A very long and detailed discussion of the situation of the Egyptian Jews, largely devoted to Alexandrian Jews under Roman rule, is in Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 48–93. 3 The debate on the suppression of the Alexandrian boulē is based, in addition to Dio’s passage cited in the text, on an emblematic passage in SHA, Vita Severi, 17,2, which seems to state exactly the contrary to what Dio says; full discussion in Geraci, Genesi, 176–182, who argues for the Augustan suppression of the Alexandrian boulē; on the contrary, for a Ptolemaic suppression, see Bowman and Rathbone, “Cities,” 118–119 and Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 115–116. Even less is known of the Alexandrian ecclesia, whose existence is often assumed e silentio: Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 116–117. 4 See appendix 3. 5 Differently Bowman and Rathbone, “Cities,” 119, who hold that the Alexandrians enjoyed self-administration even without boulē and ecclesia. As for the other city-states in the empire, it must be noted that the Roman government increasingly interfered with their internal politics and administration; data are mostly from Asia Minor, for which see S. Dmitriev, City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

58

chapter three

clarify, but very likely limited to representative and religious duties.6 The gymnasium retained only its athletic and educational prerogatives.7 Augustus certainly recognized and maintained the city’s territorial structure.8 Philo testifies that the subdivision of Alexandria into five neighborhoods of the Ptolemaic period continued to exist into the Roman period as well (Flacc., 55). In papyri of the end of the first century B.C.E./early first century C.E., citizens still identified themselves with demotic, confirming the existence of territorial demes.9 Documents also indicate that the official identification of the residents did not change, for they continued to style themselves as Alexandreus.10 There are several indicators that suggest that the politeuma survived, but with some changes. The existence of the politeuma of Alexandrian

6 M.A.H. El-Abbadi, “The gerousia in Roman Egypt,” JEA 50 (1964): 164–169 for a brief discussion of the status quaestionis and available documents; Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 163 maintains that the gerousia was a “social institution organized around a public cult . . . was not an administrative body and had no political status;” differently Bowman and Rathbone, “Cities,” 115–118, who attribute to the gerousia also administrative and political duties. 7 Alston, “Philo’s Flaccum,” passim, holds on the contrary that the Romans elevated the gymnasium in the name of the Greek origin of the polis Alexandria. Some Alexandrian Olympic victors are on record [inscriptions catalogued in L. Moretti, Olympionikai. I vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici (Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1957), 198 (index): six in the Ptolemaic period, one in the Julio-Claudian period, seventeen for later periods; discussed and tabulated in T. Scanlon, Eros and Greek Athletics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) 45; 50–52; 56–57. Three athletic competitions are attested as taking place in Alexandria in the early Roman period: the Ἄκτια, the Βασίλεια, and the ἱερόν πενταετερικόν ἀγῶνα, probably the Σεβαστά; data in L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (Roma: Signorelli, 1953) [= IAG], passim. As for athletes, see for example a Ti. Claudius Patrobius, who seems to hold both Antiochian and Alexandrian citizenship, in an inscription of ca. 60 C.E. in IAG 65. Source and references in Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 71–88. 8 Augustus’ sensibility to the control of the urban territory through its structural organization is also evident from his reform aiming at reinforcing the territorial structure of Rome itself; B. Lott, The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 9 Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 49–53; 63–70 for documents and literature. The Romans also introduced a more structured tribal division, also territorial, according to which Alexandrian citizens also identified themselves in documents. Sources do not allow dating this process before the reign of Nero. 10 The texts in question are BGU IV 1101, Augustan period; 1165, 20/19 B.C.E.; 1176, 14/13 B.C.E.; 1167 i and iii, 12 B.C.E.; 1119, 6/5 B.C.E.; the latter document is particularly interesting inasmuch as it displays two kinds of identification—Ptolemaios son of Antiaos of the deme of Temeneion, clearly a citizen, and Leon son of Theodotos Alexadreus, a resident. The rare mention of astoi, considered by some a citizenship designation, does not allow any detailed argument; see Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 197–199 for summary of discussion; also Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 13–20 with documents tabulated p. 131.

the rights of residence—roman period

59

citizens in the early decades of Augustan reign (PSI X 1160) confirms that Augustus acknowledged the polituema as a valid institution, and, despite the silence of both Philo and Josephus, there is no reason to doubt that the Jewish politeuma continued to function as well.11 By this point in time, the Jews had their own archive (CPJ II 143, l. 7); the stela that Augustus had inscribed with the rights of the Jews and had erected in Alexandria likely refers to these privileges (Jos., A.J., 4.188; C. Ap., 2.37).12 While he maintained the institution, Augustus’ reforms of the city and national government must have affected the internal structure of the Jewish polituema. The presence of Roman legions in Egypt rendered the Ptolemaic military structure redundant; Egypt was now a conquered land with no right to have an army. Roman legions were in control, some stationed at Nikopolis, just outside Alexandria (Strabo, 17.1, 12),13 and if any of Egypt’s inhabitants wished to be soldiers, then they would have to enlist in the Roman auxiliary troops like any other provincial. This meant that the garrisons scattered around the country that had controlled Egypt throughout the Ptolemaic period either no longer existed or were managed by the Roman authority. As a consequence of Augustus’ military reform, the gymnasium was compelled to give up the city-limited military duties exercised by the Hellenistic gymnasium.14 There were also consequences for the garrison in Alexandria: it was dismantled, thus, automatically changing the role of Alexandrian Jews. The suppression of the garrison deprived the Jews of the fundamental division of the Ptolemaic Jewish community: the distinction between the military-based politeuma and what the Letter of Aristeas called plethos (310) was no more. The Roman period saw the birth of a unified Jewish community.

11

Implied also in Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 118. A Jewish politeuma of the early Augustan time is known for Berenike; J. Roux and G. Roux, “Un décret du politeuma des Juifs de Bérénikè en Cyrénaique au museé lapidaire de Carpentras,” REG 62 (1949): 281–296. 12 On the stela see Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 56 for the attribution to Augustus and for rights limited to religious observance; Smallwood, Jews, 233 including also political rights; on the same line also Gruen, Diaspora, 72. 13 R. Alston, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: a Social History (London–New York Routledge, 1995), 35–37. 14 M.B. Hatzopoulos, “La formation militaire dans les gymnases hellénistiques,” in Das hellenistische Gymnasion (eds. D. Kah and P. Scholz; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004), 91–96; see below for a more thorough discussion on this subject.

60

chapter three

Augustus allowed this community to retain the status of katoikoi epitimoi (Philo, Flacc., 172),15 where katoikoi refers to retaining residence,16 very likely derived from the original military settlement. In the inscriptions of Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, katoikos often refers to a person with right of residence derived from membership in a previous military colony.17 This scenario fits the history of the

15 At least for Augustus, such a provision is in line with similar ones for the Jews of Asia Minor and Cyrene; Jos., A.J., 16.162–165; 167–170 = Pucci 22, 24, 25 [M. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World. The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius (Tübingen: Mohr (Siebek), 1998)]. It must be noted that Goodenough, Jurisprudence, 62ff., 216, on the basis of Philo, Spec. Leg., 2.128, understands the Alexandrian Jewish community of early Roman times as divided into phylai, a sort of extended family. As it is improbable that the phylai were in any way related to Biblical tribes or other social units based on aristocratic tradition, it would probably be possible to make the phylai analogous to the territorial units introduced by the Romans for the Alexandrian citizens, documented for us only from Neronian time [see Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 21–23]. Another distinction internal to the Jewish community is mentioned in t. Sukkah, 4, 6, according to which men sat in the great synagogue of Alexandria divided according to their craft [see Z.U. Ma’oz, “The Judaean Synagogue. A Reflection on Alexandrian Architecture,” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995), 195 and n. 29]. There is unfortunately no other evidence to comment on firmer ground on these topics. 16 Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 315–316 without explanation; for a denotation of this term related to residence and not to citizenship see Smallwood, Legatio, 9–10, and Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 242. 17 Although the evidence, mostly epigraphical, is difficult to interpret; A. Sugliano, “Cittadini, pareci, stranieri: le categorie giuridiche e sociali nelle città greche d’Asia Minore fra III e I secolo a.C.,” MedAnt 4 (2001): 293–324. In Greece, Macedonia and the Islands they correspond to the metoikoi of the classical polis: LSJ, s.v.; sometimes it substitutes metoikos in the sense of foreign residents as opposed to citizens; L. Gagliardi, Mobilità e integrazione delle persone nei centri cittadini romani. Aspetti giuridici. I: la classificazione degli incolae (Milano: Giuffrè, 2006), 120ff., with documents 135ff. (interesting for the present study are: Pergamon, OGIS I 338, 133 B.C.E., ll. 10–20; IEphesos Ia 8, 86–85 B.C.E., ll. 23–26). As also A.D. Rizakis, “INCOLAE-PAROIKOI: Populations et communautés dépendentes dans le cités et les colonies romaines de l’Orient,” REA 100 (1998): 599–617 discusses, it is not easy to pinpoint a meaning of the terminology related to status available mostly from inscriptions, because it varies according to the historical experience of each individual town. This is also clear from Philo’s own vocabulary, since he attributes to katoikos a meaning opposed to the one of metoikos, whereby he indicates usurpers and newcomers from outside [I. Leisegang, Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt. Indices ad Philonis Alexandrini opera (VII,2). Berlin: De Gruyter, 1930, s.v.]. In this case, Philo distances himself from the regular Athenian and koinē meaning, for which the reference work is Whitehead, Athenian Metic, 7–10. Both Gagliardi, Mobilità e integrazione, 137–138, and Sugliano, “Cittadini, pareci, stranieri,” point out the difference in the inscriptions between katoikoi and katoikountes, whereby the latter refers only to the general ‘inhabitants,’ without any hint to rights or privileges [SEG XXXIII 1036, ll. 26–30 and 1037, ll. 16–20, both


61

Alexandrian Jews perfectly, for they had been part of Alexandria’s early garrison at the time of the founding of the city.18 Philo’s katoikos corresponds to the general sense used by historians in reference to Hellenistic colonization around the Mediterranean.19 Alexandria was a Macedonian settlement and it may well be that the word’s original meaning remained part of the city’s political lexicon, indicating rights of residence granted for military duties.20 The Jews had participated in Alexandria’s early foundation, they did not acquire collective citizenship under the Romans, but simply maintained the rights that they had possessed under the Ptolemies. Confirmation of this point is found in Germanicus’ exclusion of the Jews from the grain distribution (Jos., C. Ap., 2.63),21 just as Cleopatra VII had done some years earlier. In 41 C.E., Claudius stated that Alexandria did not belong to them (P. Lond. VI 1912 = CPJ II 153, l. 95). In the Roman period, katoikoi also referred to a privileged fiscal status that granted an exemption from the laographia, that is, the poll-tax the Romans introduced around 24 B.C.E. Papyrological documentation supports this conclusion.22 The conversation between Isidoros and Agrippa before Claudius in 41 C.E. indicates that the Alexandrian Jews did not pay the laographia. To Isidoros, who argued that the Jews ought to pay taxes like the Egyptians, Agrippa replied that no ruler had ever asked them to pay.23 Thus, Isidoros inferred that the Jews, non-citizens, texts of the second century B.C.E.]. In the Roman period, however, not always so: Gagliardi, Mobilità e integrazione, 137–138; 143: katoikoi refers to foreign residents not necessarily of military origins; similar to classical metoikoi: Priene: IPriene 113, after 84 B.C.E., ll. 42–45 and 76–78. See also G.M. Cohen, “Katoikiai, katoikoi and Macedonians in Asia Minor,” AncSoc 22 (1991): 41–50. 18 See chapter 2 on the origin of the Alexandrian Jewish community with references there. 19 As discussed by Billows, Kings, 148–150; 174 and Cohen, “Katoikiai.” 20 Differently Van der Horst, Flaccus, 236, who holds that by this sentence Philo means to falsify what Flaccus had uttered in the edict, and that the Jews had full Alexandrian citizenship; the explanation of the relative value of this citizenship follows in Van der Horst’s commentary. 21 To Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 51 this is a “portent of the policy of his son, Gaius (Caligula);” not shared here (see below). 22 See below in this chapter discussion of the terminology related to tax status on the Basis of P. Lond II 257–261. 23 Acta Isidori et Lamponis (Rec. C, P. Berol. 8877 = CPJ II 156c, col. ii, ll. 29–30) = Acta IV in Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954; in this sense also Gruen, Diaspora, 77; on this document Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 313, makes no precise comments, but on the previous page he clearly states that the Alexandrian Jews did pay the laographia; see also Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 64ff.; Schäfer, Judeophobia, 155 considers both statements the result of Jewish and Alexandrian propaganda and does

62

chapter three

still had to pay. By replying that no rulers had ever asked the Jews to pay the poll-tax, Agrippa indicated that, under the Romans, the Alexandrian Jews enjoyed the privilege of ateleia.24 This was certainly an improvement of their status in comparison with the Ptolemaic period when, as military katoikoi and Hellenes, they did pay taxes, though at a reduced rate. Epitimoi may refer to all the other privileges that the Jews enjoyed: access to the regular tribunal, including the prefect’s conventus,25 and the regimen of privileged corporal punishment administered to Jews found guilty (Philo states that Jews were punished like citizens, not like Egyptians [Flacc., 78–80]).26 Augustus made no changes to the Jews’ ability to avoid participating in official city and imperial religious rituals27 or to their observance of the Sabbath, recognizing their ethē and patrioi nomoi (cf. Philo. Migr., 91; P. Lond. VI 1912 = CPJ II 153, l. 87).28 This does not mean that the Jews disregarded the authority of the emperors, but that instead of offering sacrifices to them, they offered sacrifices on their behalf (cf. Philo. Legat., 357), making vows in their

not submit any conclusion; Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 117–118 uses this exchange to confirm that the Jews paid the poll-tax, but refrains from considering Agrippa’s reply that no rulers had ever asked them to pay it; similarly Blouin, Conflit judéo-alexandrin, 64, 91–92. Others are M. Grant, The Jews in the Roman World (New York: Dorset, 1973), 122; Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 163ff. The boulē papyrus (PSI X 1061) does not apply here, since the complaint that some individuals were attempting to enter the gymnasium in order to gain citizenship and not to pay the laographia does not necessarily refer to Jews; cf. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 313–314 who does make the connection between the content of the papyrus and the Jews, in the frame of his argument on the Jewish struggle for citizenship in Alexandria; so also Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 117. 24 So Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 19 who uses the expression isoteleia with the Greek citizens of Alexandria; Gruen, Heritage, 226. 25 Taubenschlag, Law of Egypt, II 194: right to petition only to citizens and politeumata. 26 Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 316, with unclear argument; Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 69 thinks that this was a privilege limited to the Jews with Alexandrian franchise (see below ch. 8); Van der Horst, Flaccus, 172–175 with discussion on the relationship between status and punishment. 27 Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 306 underscores a silence in the source about this subject; according to this scholar, it is not an accident of sources availability, but a real proof that the authority did not clarify, leaving space for a dangerous ambiguity between the Jews and their rulers. 28 Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 306–308 in general for Diaspora Jews, not specifically for Egyptian Jews; Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 451–480 discusses religious and institutional terminology; on this topic, concerning specifically the Alexandrian Jews in 38 C.E. and after, see ch. 10 below.


63

honor that were kept in their meeting-houses (cf. Philo, Flacc., 49).29 At the death of the ethnarch (ca. 10/11 B.C.E.), Augustus imposed another reform on the Jewish community, setting at its head the collegial body of the gerousia (Philo, Flacc., 74).30 In addition to rights,31 there were duties. All Jews had to keep the riverbanks clean (Jos., C. Ap., 2.64), a public service restricted to the military and reservists under the Ptolemies. With the dissolution of the Ptolemaic army and the Jewish garrison in Alexandria, the politeuma, namely the entire civilian community, was in charge of public services. From an institutional point of view, the Jewish community was equal and parallel to the community of the Alexandrian citizens, with the exception of the gymnasium, whose membership was limited to citizens. Both had the gerousia; both were exempt from the poll-tax; and both had the same obligations and privileges in judicial matters (access to justice and more lenient forms of punishment). The only difference was that public services were imposed on Jews. But from this balanced situation, problems soon began to emerge. Chronologically, the earliest known case is that of Helenos, a Jew who petitioned the prefect Gaius Turranios between 7 and 4/3 B.C.E. (BGU IV 1140 = CPJ II 151),32 in fear of losing his patris.33 Helenos’ fears were not imagined. The scribe’s emendation of his identification formula from παρὰ Ἑλένου το(ῦ) Τρύφωνο(ς) Ἀλεξανδρέω(ς) to

29

Van der Horst, Flaccus, 147–148. Discussion on the date of the introduction of the Jewish gerousia is in appendix 2. It is doubtful whether the introduction of the gerousia was meant/felt to be a democratic reform as in Smallwood, Jews, 233; Gruen, Diaspora, 72 who does not acknowledge any change or imposition in this reform by Augustus, based on Claudius’ decree reported by Jos., A.J., 19.283. This text is of dubious authenticity; see below ch. 10. Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 10; 57 comment on the possible relationship between the ethnarch and the notables of the community. See Van der Horst, Flaccus, 168–169 for some reasons, yet not necessarily to share, motivating Augustus’ change. 31 Cf. Ameling, “ ‘Market-Place’,” 88ff., who denies that the politeuma had any rights and equates it to any religious association, a synodos or a collegium. 32 The papyrus is not dated; the date is attributable on the basis of the length of Turranius’ office between 7 and 4/3 B.C.E.; see Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 182; 186; to be more precise, the text includes events occurring in the months of Tuby (end of December-end of January) and Mecheir (end of January–end of February). Since the prefects took office traditionally in the summer, Helenos could have sent the petition to the prefect between the end of February of 6 B.C.E. and the summer of 3 B.C.E. at the latest. There is no indication for a date of 5/4 B.C.E. as in Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 2. 33 On the patris, see appendix 5. 30

64

chapter three

Ἰουδαίου τῶν ἀπὸ Ἀλεξανδρείας clearly indicates that something had happened. By styling himself Alexandreus, Helenos indicated that he was a legal resident in the city; however, the cancellation of Alexandreus substituted his residential designation for his ethnic connotation.34 In other words, he was no longer considered a resident. In the body of the text, the patris of Helenos’ father, also Ἀλεξανδρέυς (l. 3), was left unaltered, suggesting that a change had occurred in the meantime with the result that Helenos could no longer style himself as his father had. Helenos could no longer identify Alexandria as his official patris and he could not call himself an Alexandrian. Not just a matter of terminology, names signified issues of civic status and privileges related to place of residence. Although the papyrus is in terrible condition, it appears that Helenos complained against Horos, a public official. The remaining legible lines contain the statement that the petitioner had been found liable to pay the laographia, the poll-tax paid by all non-residents.35 Helenos’ concerns about losing his patris, then, were linked to paying the laographia;36 he resisted the change and requested that the prefect accept his plea. Eager to exploit Egypt to the highest degree, the Romans introduced a poll-tax, the laographia. All inhabitants between fourteen and sixtytwo years of age were required to pay it, with the exception of citizens of Alexandria, Naukratis and Ptolemais, as well as those who had been granted ateleia individually or collectively. A periodical census that counted both people and their possessions guaranteed the efficiency of tax collection.37 The administration of the census is well known to

34 Smallwood, Jews, 234 suspects Helenos and his father before him had illegally received citizenship by intruding into the gymnasium; Smallwood’s interpretation is based on a very dubious integration of the text in its most damaged section; see also Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 50 and Collins, Jewish Cult, 188–189, with no particular position taken. 35 Laographia is clearly legible at ll. 17 and 22, at line 21 it was emended by the scribe; emphasis on this point is in Smallwood, Jews, 232; this author’s opinion that only Greek citizenship could exempt individuals from the payment of the poll-tax is not shared in this work. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 312 also points to Helenos’ status in connection with the laographia, but that of citizen and not of resident; see also appendix 5. 36 See Gruen, Diaspora, 76 who considers the mention of the laographia barely relevant. 37 The two most important works on this topic are M. Hombert and C. Préaux, Recherches sur le recensement dans l’Égypte romaine (P. Bruxelles inv. E. 7616) (Leiden: Brill, 1952) and R. Bagnall and B.W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).


65

scholars, but the date of its introduction is uncertain. Literary evidence reveals that the Romans enforced the first poll-tax collection in 24 B.C.E., but the earliest documentary evidence of tax-declarations, the kat’oikian apographai, appears only in 11/10 B.C.E.38 Using the kat’oikian apographai the Roman administration compiled demographic lists of tax-liable or tax-exempt persons; these were updated by birth and death declarations that were filed on a yearly basis. The lists were collated with the complex system of demographic and territorial control that the Romans had inherited from the Ptolemaic administration. Following his arrival in Alexandria in 7 B.C.E., the prefect Gaius Turranius verified the tax-status of privileged categories and expanded liability to the laographia.39 In 11/10 B.C.E., his predecessor had called for a census, and the lists must have been completed just as Turranius arrived.40 Thus, it seems that Gaius Turranius operated on the basis of the data from that census, in which he surely found evidence of suspiciously misappropriated privileges. That Helenos’ difficulties emerged during the tenure of Gaius Turranius was therefore no accident. The content of his petition is consonant with Turranius’ policy, according to which the public functionary Horos likely found Helenos’ privileges to be unsupported and requested that he pay the laographia retroactively.41 A comparison of the content of this document with other evidence from the census administration may provide more detail concerning the context of Helenos’ situation. P. Lond. II 257–261 of Flavian times42 contains the most complete set of evidence for the process before and after submitting the tax-declaration, lists of taxpayers (the laographoumenoi), and lists of exempted persons (the katoikoi). They were compiled on the basis of the most 38

Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 2–5. Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 182. 40 Though there is no evidence for this; Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 5; it seems that the administration took no less than one year to compile the lists from the census declarations. In 4/3 B.C.E., his last year in office, Gaius Turranius called for another census. It is impossible that Helenos’ petition relates to the list from the census of 4/3 B.C.E., since it would mean that the call for the declarations, their collection, the compilation of the lists, the administration’s consequent inquiries and the inquirees’ petitions (Helenos’ in the present case) would occur in the same year. This is impossible to imagine and not supported by available evidence—although tiny. 41 Helenos was asked to pay the poll-tax from at least 24 B.C.E., the probable year of its introduction, to at least 11/10 B.C.E., the year of the census. 42 F.G. Kenyon, Greek Papyri in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1898), II 17–19 and introduction to each document in the same volume; dated between 71–73 C.E. (P. Lond II 260–261) and 94/95 C.E. (P. Lond II 257–259). 39

66

chapter three

recent census and from declarations of epikrisis, that is, documents with which the authorities evaluated declared or claimed tax privileges.43 In this regard, P. Lond II 260–261 (71–73 C.E.) list the names of those whose epikrisis had been accepted in 54/55 C.E. They also list the names of boys who were not yet subject to the poll-tax because of their youth and further subdivide the names into laographoumenoi and katoikoi according to the status of each boy’s father. One case describes a certain boy who was initially a laographoumenos, but lately a katoikos because his father, having passed the scrutiny of the epikrisis, had had his privileged tax-status officially recognized (P. Lond II 260, col. ix, ll. 124–130 and 138–142). P. Lond. II 260, col. i, ll. 1–70 indicates precisely when individuals were first classified as katoikoi, so that the origin of their privileges could be closely monitored. These documents date to a period when the census administration was well established with its procedures all in place. The same cannot be said for Gaius Turranius’ tenure, both for the lack of documents and on logical grounds, since the Romans introduced the census routine in those years. The evidence of P. Lond. II 257–261 and the pieces of information that can be collected from the early decades of Roman rule in Egypt, however, are quite similar in content. The case of Helenos is particularly indicative here. Helenos was a resident who had inherited his status from his father, like the boy of P. Lond. II 260 col. ix, ll. 124–130; 138–142. P. Lond. II 260 col. ix ll. 124–130; 138–142 indicates that the boy was able to take advantage of his father’s newly elevated status once the administration had accepted the credentials submitted by the latter. Helenos, however, underwent a demotion in status because the administration did not accept his own credentials. While the boy of P. Lond. II 260 rose from laographoumenos to katoikos, Helenos, a katoikos, was resisting the threat of demotion to laographoumenos.44

43 Collected in C.A. Nelson, Status Declaration in Roman Egypt (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1979) in general, and 36–39 for the four epikrisis filed by katoikoi, none of which are from Alexandria. 44 Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 116 holds that Helenos is applying for exemption, confirming that the Jews were basically subjected to paying taxes; Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 163ff. and Blouin, Conflit judéo-alexandrin, 64ff. read this document as evidence that Helenos was fighting to keep the Alexandrian citizenship he had inherited from his father.


67

With his right of residence in jeopardy, Helenos’ property was also in danger. The census declarations were submitted according to street45 and had to include the property rights as well.46 If Helenos were to lose his residence, which, recall, was part of the collective privilege of the politeuma, then the property rights related to that residence would also be jeopardized. In this case, his property might become adespota and fall under the jurisdiction of the Idios logos.47 The case of Helenos is unique in terms of documentary evidence. However, it could not have been the only time during those years and the years that followed that the privileges of the Jews, or everyone else, were scrutinized. According to Philo’s general admission, relentless anti-Jewish attitudes prevailed from Augustus onward, though he hastens to add that these attitudes did not always result in violence (Philo, Legat., 159ff.). It is clear from Antiquitates that Josephus was aware that many people did not believe the contents of the documents that the Persians and Macedonians had written in favor of the Jews, because they were not kept in Roman public archives, but only in private Jewish collections (A.J., 14.187). Josephus’ statement is not to be read as a general reference to the relationship between the Jews and their sovereigns, wherever the former may have lived. Only a few lines later in this same work, Josephus mentions a bronze stela in Alexandria that had been issued by Caesar (sic!) in favor of the local Jews. This suggests that he meant to refer to Alexandria as well, that the general mention of the Macedonians could include the Ptolemies, and that the Alexandrian Jews may have been among the Jews in favor of whom the Macedonians allegedly had written some letters. These letters, Josephus states, were not believed. The passage from Antiquitates is reminiscent of a commentary on Josephus’ accusations against Apion, who, writing sarcastically about

45

The declarations had no address of the household, Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 14, but P. Lond. II 260–261 are filed with the amphodarch of a street of the town of Arsinoe, suggesting that the declarations were arranged by street even if no address was included in the declarations themselves. 46 Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 13–14. It is not clear what the function was, whether also some real estate list was drawn from the census declarations, or whether independent property lists existed; topographical property listing are documented later P. Oslo III 111, 235 C.E., [Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 23]; but the tradition of the control of territory in the Ptolemaic period suggests that property lists always existed. 47 P.R. Swarney, The Ptolemaic and Roman Idios Logos (Toronto: Hakkert, 1970), 41–81.

68

chapter three

the Jews’ residence in the city, allegedly ignored the documents written by Alexander, by Ptolemy I Soter and II Philadelphos and their successors, and later by Caesar (C. Ap., 2.33–35; 37). If the passage in Antiquitates makes it clear that the stela of Caesar the Great (Augustus) was public and if Alexander’s letters and decrees are consistently dubious,48 then the Ptolemaic letters and decrees guaranteeing Jewish rights, their δικαιώµατα, must still be considered (Jos, C. Ap., 2.37). This work has already briefly mentioned them in connection with the arrival of Jews from the Levant during the Ptolemaic period following the city’s foundation and the institution of the politeuma. They may include Ptolemy I Soter’s initial settlement of Jews in the garrison; the granting of space in the quarter δ by him or his son Ptolemy II Philadelphos; or other permissions granted by later kings to individual immigrants.49 What happened to those documents when the Romans arrived and the Ptolemies fell into oblivion? Were they, or did they become, publicly available? By contrasting public with private archives, Josephus introduces the important problem of publication and ratification of documents, that is, the official recognition by Roman institutions of rights and privileges previously granted by other rulers. Documents were published in Egypt under the Ptolemies,50 and the Romans continued the practice. Ratification was part of the same process, and its necessity had been very clear to Hyrkanus II, the high priest whom Caesar in 45 B.C.E. made representative of the Jews under Roman authority in recognition of their military contribution to him during the civil wars. Upon Caesar’s death, Hyrkanus II sailed to Rome to have the senate ratify the documents legitimizing his role, so that Caesar’s successors and the Roman government would recognize the legal validity of those rights that Caesar had granted the Jews through him.51

48

See ch. 2, note 1 with references. See ch. 2. 50 F. Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im römischen Recht (München: Beck’sche, 1973) passim, 97–106 specifically for the Ptolemaic period; also W. Clarysse and M. Depauw, “Greek Registrations in Hawara,” ZPE 131 (2000): 125–128 and E. Meyer, Legitimacy and Law in the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 16–20 for the explanation of the emergence of archival practices in the Hellenistic period aimed at safeguarding the legal validity of the documents. 51 Documents and comments in this sense in Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 62–65; 412–419; differently T. Rajak, “Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews?” JRS 74 (1984): 107–123. The documents reported by Josephus clearly demonstrate that there was something that could be called a charter, according to which the High Priest Hyrkanus was 49


69

Since Egypt was not formally part of the Roman Empire at that time, the senate’s ratification of the privileges granted to Hyrkanus II and to his constituents did not affect Alexandrian Jews. Josephus and Philo later state that upon his incorporation of Egypt into the Roman Empire, Augustus did take care to safeguard the Jewish dikaia and a publicly visible stela was a record of this recognition (Philo. Flacc., 50: νοµίµοις; cf. Leg. 152–153; Jos., C. Ap., 2.37).52 Nevertheless, Josephus himself seems to have encountered difficulties in providing evidence to support his own argument. When introducing the issue of unbelieved Macedonian documents in Antiquitates, he submits a long list of public documents concerning the political relations between the Romans and the Jews in Asia Minor. He was clearly unable to provide evidence in support of the Alexandrian Jews’ relationship with the Ptolemies, apart from Caesar’s stela in Alexandria. This should indicate that a problem existed, namely that no documents were publicly available. The Roman authorities did not limit their scrutiny of privileges to the Alexandrian Jews or to Jews in general but extended it to different areas of the empire. This scrutiny coalesced under Tiberius. The clearest evidence stems from Asia Minor, with the investigation of the temples’ asylia carried out by the Roman consuls on behalf of the senate in 22 C.E. (Tac., Ann., 3.63). Among the many cases scrutinized, some were dubious. In Tacitus’ words, the privileges granted by Darius and Alexander are listed among the obscura initia of mythical and archaic times, though the historian concedes that they were more recent than others. Tacitus does not provide details concerning the final decision of the consuls and the senate, but certainly some asylia privileges were ratified and the temples’ temenoi were limited by bronze tablets containing the SC. Tacitus’ specific mention of dubious documents from Darius and Alexander cast the asylia investigation in the same light as Josephus’ complaints about unrecognized Persian and Macedonian documents. The commentary provided by Tacitus (or his source) implies

Caesar’s legitimate interlocutor for Jews living outside of Judea and was guarantor of the privileges legality that Caesar had granted them. Hyrkanus’ role was to pass down to his children. It is not clear how long the arrangement lasted; Josephus’ description of the years after Caesar’s death do not rest on the extent of Hyrkanus’ representativeness, but it seems that with the polarization of the empire between Octavian and Anthony, and the latter’s reassessment of the Levant before and after his Parthian expedition, the role of Hyrkanus vanished. There is no evidence on Hyrkanus after 30 C.E. 52 Van der Horst, Flaccus, 148–149; particularly important are the comments on the technicality of language in this matter in Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 419–429.

70

chapter three

that the legitimacy of privileges granted by pre-Roman authorities was discussed in the Roman Empire. The investigation likely prompted the ruling implemented by Tiberius, through an institutum, that refused to recognize privileges (beneficia)53 unless a Roman authority had previously ratified those same privileges to the same people (Sue., Tit., 8).54 This measure was surely intended to impose strict control on existing privileges, to reinforce the principle of ratification and to avoid automatically renewing grants at the accession of a new emperor. At first glance, this measure seemingly had no negative impact on Alexandrian Jews, since, as Philo states, Tiberius recognized the rights of the Jews, just as Augustus had before him (Flacc., 50; Legat., 153; 159). Upon closer analysis, however, it appears that some change had taken place. According to Philo’s account, Sejanus persecuted the Jews before Flaccus, though the latter was unable to harm the entire nation as the former had (Flacc., 1).55 Philo suggests that the Roman government intervened against the Jews, but he submits a confused description of Sejanus’ activity in Legat., 159–161. He first states that relentless antiJewish attitudes peaked under Tiberius by the agency of the praetorian prefect and, though Philo does not describe Sejanus’ actions, he seems to indicate that Sejanus acted against the Roman and Italian Jews. What follows, however, contradicts his first statement. He states that after Sejanus’ death Tiberius wrote to the appointed proconsuls and prefects (τοῖς κειροτονουµένοις ὑπάρχοις) everywhere in the cities, enjoining them to respect Jewish customs. The mention of Tiberius’ appointees “in the cities” suggests that Sejanus’ actions affected Jews outside of Rome and Italy.56 This last point is particularly relevant to the present study inasmuch as it implies that problems were not limited to Rome and Italy and the Jewish population therein, but extended throughout

53

For beneficia in the legal sense see OLD s.v., 2a; 3. ex instituto Tiberii omnes dehinc Caesares beneficia a superioribus concessa principibus aliter rata non haberent quam si eadem iisdem et ipsi dedissent; Suetonius does not provide any reference as to the date of this measure. 55 Van der Horst, Flaccus, 89–91 on the problems, both textual and historiographic, associated with interpreting this sentence. 56 The entire passage is certainly circumvoluted. For some comments on the rhetoric, although not clear or convincing, H.D. Singerland, Claudian Policimaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 70. 54


71

the empire. The scenario is more widespread than initially indicated by Philo. Why did Sejanus attack the Jews? The temptation to accept the interpretation provided by Philo, namely that the prefect wanted to rid himself of Tiberius’ potential allies, in case he wanted to seize power, should be avoided (Legat., 160). That Sejanus attempted to usurp the imperial power is by no means indisputable from the accounts of the available written sources and scholars have rightly submitted many bewildering scenarios.57 One need not accept that Sejanus perceived the Jews to be an obstacle to his plans, if he had any, or that they were somehow concretely involved in the Roman power struggle during those years. This is one of Philo’s strongest apologetic statements reminding the reader of the Jews’ constant loyalty to the Roman imperial power. In any case, Philo’s language leaves open the question of what really happened; his statement does not go beyond the fact that Sejanus’ wished to destroy the ethnos (Philo, Legat., 160: πλάσµατα Σηιανοῦ τὸ ἔθνος ἀναρπάσαι θέλοντος). It is difficult to believe that Tiberius would have taken pains to make his voice heard throughout the empire by issuing documents of such high legal value as imperial letters,58 simply to prevent Sejanus’ wish from becoming reality. It is more likely that plans were already being implemented and that Tiberius was compelled to act quickly and effectively in order to re-establish order. This being the case, the dynamics of such a situation can be sketched in. Philo states that at the time of Sejanus’ death, Tiberius was aware that the accusations against the Roman Jews were false: τὰ κατηγορηθέντα [. .] ψευδεῖς ἦσαν διαβολαί (Legat., 160). The institutional quality of the entire event may be indicated by the word katēgorēthenta (in its technical sense), as well as by Eusebius’ basic interpretation of the passage

57 The missing part of Tacitus’ Annals for the year 31 C.E. is in this case a major problem, and Jos., A.J. 17.181–182 is the only available account. For comments on the historical situation of these years see R. Seager, Tiberius (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 180–188; 229–230; B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician (London–New York: Routledge, 1999), 201–207; F. De Visscher, “La caduta di Seiano e il suo macchinatore Macrone,” Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medievale 2 (1960): 245–257. 58 According to Gai., Inst., I 5, the legislative nature of the emperor’s letter had never been doubted; see also S. Brassloff, “Epistula,” RE VI,1 (1907): 204–210; A.A. Schiller, Roman Law. Mechanisms of Development (The Hague–Paris–New York: Mouton, 1978), 493–497; imperial letters from the time of Augustus are collected in R.K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East. Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969) = RDGE 62; 64; 67; 68; 72.

72

chapter three

as he worked with Philo’s works on his desk in fourth-century C.E. Caesarea.59 In his Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, paraphrasing Philo’s passage, defines Sejanus’ action with the perfect infinitive of εἰσάγω (2.5, 7), a verb also used to describe actions taken in a court of law by a prosecutor.60 Sejanus had been the prefect of the praetorium since 14 C.E. and was consul together with Tiberius in 31 C.E. at the time of his downfall.61 In both these capacities, he could have laid charges before the senate, the privileged tribunal for accusations submitted by high-ranking magistrates.62 It is possible, then, that Sejanus acted officially in a court of law against the Jews. Tiberius’ letters to the cities appear to be completely incompatible with Philo’s earlier description of the events, geographically limited to Rome and Italy as they were. Further, the context indicated by the letters is different and the letters make no mention of the treason against the emperor that Philo had offered as the background of the Jews’ troubles. Tiberius ordered his subordinates to respect the Jews and their customs, but he also instructed them to punish only the guilty parties, though Philo is quick to emphasize how few in number the guilty parties were (Legat., 161). The mention of punishing the guilty few is incompatible with the two strongest arguments presented by Philo thus far, namely, the notion of false accusations, on the one hand, and support for the emperor in Rome, on the other. If the accusations had been entirely false, then the emperor would not have upheld them, even in part; and if the Jews had been protecting Tiberius’ power against treason, then there could have been no reason for the emperor to prosecute his supporters. Thus, an entirely different scenario involving justified charges against some Jews must be envisioned. The abyss between Philo’s presentation 59 For Eusebius’ use of his sources, in particular of his non-Christian sources and of Philo, see E. Carotenuto, Tradizione e innovazione nella Historia Ecclesiastica di Eusebio di Cesarea (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2001), 60; 80ff., especially 84. 60 LSJ, s.v., II 3; cf. Eus., Chron., 176 [R. Helm, Eusebius, Chronicon apud Hieronymus (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1984)]: Seianus praefectus Tiberii […] instantissime cohortatur, ut gentem Iudeorum deleat. 61 Degrassi, Fasti consolari # 784; PIR2, I # 255. 62 Upon imperial mandate, Sejanus’ could have presided also the tribunal of the cognitio extra ordinem. This would not be for him, however, an occasion to submit accusations, for according to the Roman judicial procedure a prefect or a consul could submit accusations only before a tribunal of which he was not a judge. The separation between prosecution and judgment remained also with the introduction of the cognitio; see G. Zanon, Le strutture accusatorie della cognitio extra ordinem nel principato (Padova: CEDAM, 1998). More on the cognitio extra ordinem in ch. 5 with notes and references.


73

of Sejanus’ accusations on the one hand, and of Tiberius’ measures on the other, grows even wider and Philo’s suggestion of a connection between the accusations of the former and the provisions of the latter becomes incomprehensible. The charges against the Jews, whatever they were, apparently remained in spite of Tiberius’ intervention, though the number of targets declined—all of the Jews for Sejanus, but only a few for Tiberius. Philo does not deny this. The text reports only allusions to facts, then, and not the facts themselves. Chronology may provide the first clarification. It is unlikely that Philo was referring here to the expulsion of the Jews and the Egyptians from Rome in 19 C.E. by Tiberius, a notorious episode related with different emphases in the various sources (Tac., Ann., 2.85; Sue., Tib., 36; Jos., A.J., 18.81–88; Dio, 57.18, 5a [apud John of Antioch]) and confusingly misplaced among the events of the years 26–36 C.E. by Josephus,63 for the two instances are entirely distinct. Sejanus is not mentioned in any of the available versions of the 19 C.E. episode. Instead, either the senate or the emperor conducted the investigation and inflicted the penalty on the Jews and others. Historically speaking, this is perfectly tenable. In 19 C.E., Sejanus was not yet the powerful figure described for later years. He had already been the sole prefect of the praetorium for four years, but it would not be until the early twenties (ca. 23 C.E.) that his star would rise completely and he would begin to exercise his personal power following Tiberius’ retreat to Capri in 26 C.E. Clearly, an episode that presents Sejanus as the only master at play is distinct from the episode of 19 C.E. Further, if Sejanus’ persecution of the Jews is dated to 19 C.E., then one must account for the fact that Tiberius’ countermeasures would have been delayed for twelve years to 31 C.E. Philo is clear that Tiberius’ intervention took place soon after Sejanus’ death, thus our attention should certainly focus on the last years of Sejanus’ tenure.64 This being said, a comparison with the historiographical tradition may help us to determine Sejanus’ course of action. Eusebius read in

63 Gruen, Diaspora, 267, n. 90 and references there; Singerland, Claudian Policimaking, 50, n. 42 for discussion of date and corroboration of 19 C.E.; Smallwood, Jews, 208–209; S. Cappelletti, The Jewish Community in Rome: From the Second Century B.C. to the Third Century C.E. (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 49–67. 64 Sejanus died in October of 31 C.E. (Tac., Ann., 4.8; 6.25); PIR2, # 255; Fasti Ostienses, CIL XIV 4533, col. ii 15. iii 12036, first published in A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae (Roma: Libreria dello Stato, 1947), 187–189. For this episode dated in 31 C.E., see Smallwood, Jews, 201, 209; Singerland, Claudian Policimaking, 69 with references.

74

chapter three

Philo’s Presbeia the accounts of Sejanus’ persecution of the Roman Jews and Pilate’s attempt to desecrate the Jerusalem Temple (Hist. Eccl., 2.4, 2). Whether or not to identify what Eusebius knew as Presbeia with what we know as Legatio is a critical issue.65 On the one hand, we find in Historia Ecclesiastica a verbatim quotation that corresponds to Legat., 346. On the other hand, however, there are no mentions of Pilate in Legatio. A second piece of evidence to consider is found at the incomplete beginning of In Flaccum, namely Philo’s accusation against Sejanus of attempting to destroy the entire nation (1). This cannot refer to Sejanus’ attack on the Jews in Rome and/or Italy, whatever that may have concerned. More plausible is a reference of the desecration of the sanctity of Jerusalem, as Josephus reports (A.J., 18.55–59). Philo levies a similar accusation against Gaius, who, in the summer of 39 C.E., ordered a statue of his likeness in the character of Zeus to be installed in the Temple. This would be the ruin not only of the Jews in Jerusalem, but of all Jews because once the pivotal Jewish religious location was no more, the religious condition of the Jewish Diaspora automatically became vulnerable. The Jewish patria and ethē would lose the pre-requisite for their civic and official recognition. If this is the case, then Philo implies that Sejanus was behind Pilate’s attempt to desecrate Jerusalem, the episode that Eusebius had read in Presbeia. Against this background, Philo’s description of Tiberius’ countermeasures is understood more clearly. Further, the emperor’s alleged orders to the governors of the cities not to disturb the established customs of the Jews are seen to have a narrow scope; the term that Philo uses is ethē (Legat., 161).66 It is also clear that Legat., 159–161 conflates two different episodes: the one against the Jews of Rome and Italy and the other concerning the attack on the religious customs of all the Jews, which Pilate / Sejanus triggered in Jerusalem.67 Philo’s admission that in any case there were few responsible remains enigmatic. Philo’s mention of Sejanus at the broken beginning of In Flaccum and the comparison he makes with Flaccus’ endeavours may indicate that Alexandria was not immune from Sejanus’ attacks and that Tiberius may have written a letter to the Alexandrian prefect as well. Data about

65

On this see above chapter 1. And not a general policy, as in Smallwood, Jews, 210. 67 Such an amalgamation could be the work of a copyist who left out from Legatio the events of Jerusalem; if this suggestion is accepted, then it is one more point towards the identification of Legatio with Presbeia. 66


75

who the prefect in Egypt was in the last years of Sejanus are unclear, but an imperial freedman, Hiberus, evidently held the office between 26 and 32 B.C.E.68 Tiberius’ correction of Sejanus’ policy toward the Jews came into effect after Sejanus died, just one year before Flaccus took office in Alexandria as prefect of Alexandria and Egypt. Flaccus may indeed have received or found one of Tiberius’ letters among his mandata with orders to implement the new course of action, namely, respect for the Jewish religious customs. Further, that Flaccus’ appointment in 32 C.E. was part of Tiberius’ new course of action cannot be excluded. Did Flaccus also find Tiberius’ order to prosecute the few responsible? If so, then what was the charge? Consideration of all the known details of the Alexandrian situation allows us to draw some connections. As mentioned above, Josephus states that the Jews kept documents concerning their privileges in their own archives (A.J., 14.187). This was tantamount to admitting that they could not be publicly filed in Roman archives because they lacked Roman ratification. The consequence of this could well have been that during the periodic census cycle, Jews’ declarations of epikrisis, by which they sought confirmation of their privileged status from the Roman administration, were rejected because they lacked official supporting documents. The lack of previous ratification by Roman authority deprived any status claim of its basis. The case of Helenos, whose difficult situation developed after the census of 10 B.C.E. has already been discussed. Further census calls are documented for 4/3 B.C.E., 4/5 C.E., 11/12 C.E. and 19 C.E. The Jewish religious customs are part of this scenario; individuals who could not demonstrate the legal basis of their privileged status would lose it, and with it their religious autonomy—their ethē were not recognized. These may well have been the few responsible to whom Tiberius referred in his letter to the governors of the cities after the death of Sejanus; these might have been individuals whom the Romans considered usurpers of privileges and whose religious customs could not be defended. Philo, in his vagueness, does not contest their existence. Tiberius’ provisions are indicative of an idiosyncratic Roman policy. On one side was Augustus’ political recognition of Jewish rights in

68 Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 184–185 for discussion of these uncertain years and previous bibliographical references; there is no scholarly agreement on when and for how long Hiberus was prefect of Alexandria and Egypt.

76

chapter three

the city; on the other was the singling out of cases not covered by collective political grants. The case of Helenos was likely among the earliest symptoms of that idiosyncracy; later Tiberius’ institutum and his policies of scritinizing privileges probably targeted many more. In more technical terms, if we accept the reconstruction of the origin and transformation of the Alexandrian Jewish community thus far, then the people involved were neither members of the original polituema nor their descendants. They likely arrived later during the Ptolemaic period and, if Josephus is to be believed, the rulers granted them residence singulatim. In all probability, others were there without any initial recognition at all. When the Romans arrived, they ratified the privileges originally granted to members of the politeuma. At the same time, however, the garrison was suppressed and this eliminated the distinction between the politeuma and the rest, including all those Jews who had never been members. Everyone became katoikos epitimos but not all of them could demonstrate it. The cyclical administration of the census, with the concomitant verification of the grounds for privileges, clearly exacerbated the situation on the ground and contradicted the general grant initially awarded to the Jews collectively by Augustus and Tiberius. The political goals of the general grants were not congruent with those of the fiscal administration. This idiosyncratic combination produced the scenario that made the lives of some Alexandrian Jews increasingly difficult.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE PREFECTURE OF FLACCUS—THE EARLY YEARS Whatever Tiberius’ order to Flaccus may have been, there is no reason to believe that the prefect did not implement a policy favorable to the Alexandrian Jews when he arrived in Alexandria in 32 C.E. Philo’s satisfaction with the prefect’s administration in his first years may attest to the new situation. Although he does not openly specify the reasons for his positive attitude, both the vocabulary with which he describes Flaccus’ commitment to the city and the treatise’s overall rhetorical construct and narrative structure lead to the assumption that Flaccus’ early policy reversed the previous administrative situation to the advantage of the Alexandrian Jewish community. According to Philo’s account, exemplary competence characterized the first five years of Flaccus’ tenure. Flaccus was able to knowledgeably and correctly manage even the diverse reality of Egyptian affairs, as if he were an expert, and this without the help of a superfluous mob of secretaries—περιττὸς ὄχλος ἦσαν οἱ γραµµατεῖς (Flacc., 3). Flaccus did have a council of advisers when acting in his capacity of judge and Philo states that he administered justice in the most important cases with those in charge—µετὰ τῶν ἐν τέλει. All of the prefect’s actions, intervening within the Alexandrian administrative apparatus, retaining good functionaries for the administration of justice, but discharging a superfluous assemblage of secretaries, recalls the figure of Lampon,1 one of Philo’s Alexandrian targets. The epithet that Philo reserves for Lampon, γραµµατοκύφων (“record-pourer” or “paper pouring”; Flacc., 20; 132),2 is very likely a verbal caricature of hypomnēmatographos (secretary of the tribunal), an Alexandrian administrative office.3 Philo spares no ink when charging Lampon with serious allegations of corrupting judicial minutes for bribes (Flacc., 131). His

1

PIR2 V, 1 #78. Van der Horst, Flaccus, 109–110; 212. 3 For this magistracy in early Roman time see Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 104 and n. 86. 2

78

chapter four

allegations, if proven true,4 did not prevent Lampon from making his way through Alexandria’s cursus honorum or from later holding the prestigious office of gymnasiarchos (Flacc., 130).5 His relationship with Flaccus, however, seems to have been anything but amicable. For two years Lampon fought an allegation of asebeia against Tiberius (Flacc., 128–129). Philo, in his typical vagueness, simply states that the prolonged trial was strictly the result of the will of the judge, who wished to cause difficulties for Lampon (Flacc., 129). The judge’s name is unknown, but because of the nature of the charge, he might well have been Flaccus or someone close to him. We do not know why Lampon was subjected to this investigation for two years, during which time his private finances likely collapsed (Flacc., 128), or if he had already been on bad terms with the Roman authorities. In any case, such treatment may have been sufficient reason for a bad relationship in and of itself. After the charges were dropped, Lampon became gymnasiarch, but Philo states that trouble continued to follow him. Lampon claimed that he had been compelled to accept the office in spite of his inability to take on the financial obligations of that office (Flacc., 130).6 In fact, according to Philo, Lampon’s only income came from his job as secretary of the prefect’s court of justice (Flacc., 131), a public duty that hardly paid enough to provision the Alexandrian gymnasia.7 4 See A. Kerkeslager, “The Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros from the Violence in Alexandria in 38 C.E.,” StPhilAn 17 (2005): 66–74 for a possible, but uncertain, chronology and reconstruction of Lampon’s problems. 5 Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 109–113 and n. 128; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 210–211. 6 Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 92–96; for the financial commitment connected to the gymnasiarchy, see N. Lewis, The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt (Florence: Gonnelli, 1997), 73. and P. Gauthier and M.B. Hatzopoulos, La loi gymnasiarchique de Beraia (Athens–Paris, 1993). 7 Lampon’s alleged complaint about his forced duty raises the question about the nature of the gymnasiarchy in the first century C.E., whether it was still a honos, a public duty freely accepted and conferring high prestige within the civic body, or already a munus, a compulsory public service. It is not possible to answer this question with any degree of certainty since available data show the transformation of the Egyptian honorary offices to munera only from the second century (P. Mil. Vogl., II 54; 144 C.E.); cf. however F. Kayser, “Ambassades Alexandrines à Rome (Ier–IIe siècle),” REA 105 (2003): 445 who considers Lampon’s case the first evidence of imposed office. For the office in general, Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 93; for data, mainly for later periods, N. Lewis, Inventory of Compulsory Services in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (New Havens–Toronto: The American Society of Papyrologists, 1968), s.v. γυµνασιαρχία and comments on public services in N. Lewis, Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 177–184.

the prefecture of flaccus—the early years

79

P. Oxy. VIII 10898 also testifies to Flaccus’ troubled relationships vis-à-vis certain members of the Alexandrian upper class and is the only extant document to make mention of the problems that existed between Flaccus and Dionysios, another victim of Philo’s pen (Flacc., 20).9 This very fragmented papyrus, paleographically dated to the third century C.E., reports a meeting in the Serapeum between Dionysios, Flaccus, Isidoros, another of Philo’s villains, and a member of the gerousia. In light of the precise coincidence of the people involved with Flaccus’ alleged allies in the summer of 38 C.E., it is tempting to date this document near, if not exactly to, the time of the riots.10 Yet much of the document is missing, so the dispute and its date must remain obscure. That the meeting between Flaccus and the others took place at the Serapeum reveals the nature of the dispute among them, particularly the dispute between Flaccus and Dionysios. Other documents suggest that the Alexandrians preferred to solve financial disagreements by fixing interest rates in the Serapeum (cf. P.Cair.Zen. III 59355). In the case of P. Oxy. VIII 1089, an elder evidently attempted to reconcile the dispute and gold changed hands. It is not clear who offered or received this money, whether the transaction was part of the settlement, or what the dispute concerned. However, the fixing an interest rate (l. 60: τόκον) casts the possibility of bribery, as some have believed, into doubt11 8 After its initial publication in 1911 [A.S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Part VIII (Oxford: Hart, 1911), 115–120], this text was included first by Von Premerstein in his collection of the so-called Alexandrian martyrs [A. Von Premerstein, Zu den sogenannte alexandrinischen Märtyrerakten (Leipzig: Philologus. Supplementband 16,2, 1923)], and then by Musurillo in his Acta Alexandrinorum [Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 4–7]. Particular mention should be made of Tchericover—Fuks, Corpus, II 60–64, particularly 61, where the text is included on the sole consideration that the so-called Alexandrian anti-Semites are mentioned in it, in spite of the fact that nothing in it deals with the Jews. Because if this reason they suggest a dramatic date in the winter of 37/38. Both Musurillo and Tcherikover—Fuks reject to a good extent von Premerstein’s restoration and historical interpretation of the text on the basis of their lack of ground. 9 = CPJ II 154 = Acta II; for introductory comments, Van der Horst, Flaccus, 108–109. This text has often been considered to be the testimony of the anti-Jewish agreement between Flaccus and the Alexandrians in the summer of 38; Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 166–169; Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 20–22; Smallwood, Legatio, 14–16; Smallwood, Jews, 237; D. Hennig, “Zu der alexandrinischen Märtyrerakte P. Oxy. 1089,” Chiron 4 (1974): 425–440. 10 Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 16; Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 96 who however considers this only a possible option. 11 Premerstein, Alexandrinischen Märtyrerakten, ad loc. For other interpretations see Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 102 and Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 60.

80

chapter four

and aligns the content of P. Oxy. VIII 1089 with other known cases of financial settlements.12 One cannot be certain about the historical or fictional nature of this text and of all of its details, and it is dangerous to endorse any position on the matter. Nevertheless, this papyrus is useful because it confirms that estrangement existed between Flaccus and Dionysios during the prefect’s office.13 Flaccus’ administration is known from a few other documents.14 He apparently handled fiscal matters, canceling some of the land privileges in the country (OGIS I 669).15 Other administrative actions can be dated. In 33 C.E., one year after he took office, Flaccus called for a census and declarations began to arrive in the following year.16 In 34 C.E., Flaccus attempted to quell a potential revolt; this is documented in WChr 13 and in Philo (Flacc., 92). According to the outline provided by all of the available census documentation, it was in the following year, 35 C.E., that the new lists of those who were tax-liable and tax-exempt, the katoikoi and the laographoumenoi, were ready; and it is between 33 and 35 C.E., a date established on the basis of circumstantial evidence for the moment,17 that a general protest against Flaccus broke out in the Alexandrian gymnasium. This demonstrates beyond doubt that Flaccus’ administration displeased not only individual people like Lampon or Dionysios, but also a large segment of the population.

12 It is an excessive stretch of the imagination to think that here Dionysios helps Isidoros to negotiate his personal exile and that χρῆµα of l. 26 refers to the amount of the confiscation of Isidoros’ property as in Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 64; 82. 13 Similar tone also in Gruen, Diaspora, 58 who probably goes too far in speaking of cooperation; Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 61–66, goes just as far in the other direction, proposing that Flaccus ordered the execution of Dionysios after this meeting. 14 The short list is in Van der Horst, Flaccus, 35–36; not all the author’s comments are shared here; also Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 185–186. 15 = CIG III 4957 = IGRR I 1263 = SB V 8444), Ti. Iulius Alexander’s edict of 68 C.E. (PIR2 IV, 3 #139); G. Chalon, L’édit de Tiberius Julius Alexander; étude historique et exégétique (Olten: URS Graf-Verlag, 1964), 137–143. 16 Only two declarations form this census are extant; Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 7 for synopsis. 17 This part of the present work accepts the basic chronological argument of Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” passim, who submits this date range on the basis of the similarity between the behavior that Flaccus demonstrated on this occasion and his decree against possessing weapons in WChr 13; ch. 5 below will discuss a more precise date. See Gruen, Diaspora, 61, who sets this episode in 38 C.E. after the riots, apparently not considering Philo’s indication that it happened long before.


81

According to Philo’s account, the demonstration was a result of Isidoros’ personal resentment. He is Philo’s third villain, who allegedly fell into disfavor with Flaccus and called his cohorts together at the gymnasium in order to make false accusations against the prefect (Flacc., 138–139).18 Isidoros may have resented Flaccus’ rejection; however, the events that took place in the gymnasium were far more serious than a personal matter. They constituted a civil strife, a stasis (Flacc., 140), such that Flaccus was compelled to defend his policies. To avoid arrest and its consequences, Isidoros ultimately chose exile.19 Philo likely elaborates upon his personal memories of the facts. However, he might well have had access to the official data resulting from the investigation and, in spite of his convoluted prose, the quality and quantity of the findings that he reports makes this clear. First, Flaccus was confronted in the gymnasium. This was not only an athletic and cultural place that sat at the heart of the identity of Alexandrian citizens, but also the location of the dikastērion, that is Flaccus’ court, in Alexandria (Strabo, 17.10).20 Thus, the false accusations against the prefect acquire more of a political edge and their entertaining aura diminishes, despite the fact that they were declaimed in anapests (Philo., Flacc., 139: δι᾽ ἀναπαίστων).21 Second, Philo states that the upheaval caught Flaccus and ‘the others’ (there is no indication of who they might have been) completely off guard because the demonstrators had hardly suffered and knew that the rest of the city had never been offended (Flacc., 139).22 Philo’s attempt at concealment is remarkable. In spite of the confused account, however, it is clear that the demonstrators claimed to act on behalf of a part of the city that, according to them, had been treated offensively. Philo does not provide any details concerning what offense they were protesting, but he does suggest a city divided into two opposing camps, the prefect’s accusers and his defenders.

18

On the difficult reading of this entire section see Van der Horst, Flaccus, 215ff. There is no evidence that Isidoros was the gymnasiarch on this occasion, as in Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 76; see ch. 7 for more discussion of this problem. 20 F. Burkhalter, “Le gymnase d’Alexandrie; centre administratif de la province romaine d’Egypte,” BCH 116 (1992): 345–373. 21 See F.H. Colson, Philo (Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 1954), 537; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 216. 19

22 ὡς καταπεπλῆχθαι µὴ µόνον Φλάκκον ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐπὶ τῷ παραλόγῳ καί, ὅπερ ἦν, συµβαλεῖν, ὅτι πάντως ἐστί τις ᾧ χαρίζονται, µήτ᾽ αὐτοί τι πεπονθότες ἀνήκεστον µήτε τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν εὖ εἰδότες πληµµεληθεῖσαν.

82

chapter four

Flaccus’ reaction confirmed the gravity of the situation and he took the appropriate steps in his capacity as the head of Greco-Roman Egypt’s judicial system. Following a collegial decision (ἔπειτα βουλευοµένοις ἔδοξε), he ordered preliminary arrests to be made and then proceeded to an investigation. At that, the noisy false accusations lobbied at the prefect became a sedition (στάσις) and Isidoros was no longer its sole instigator, for there were many ringleaders (ἡγεµόνας, Flacc., 140). Flaccus and his council collected enough information to call for an official summon the next day. The term that Philo uses, παραγγελία, implies that Flaccus acted according to his judicial competencies, probably within his conventus (Flacc., 141).23 The description of the paraggelia demonstrates that the matter was serious: its goal was to unmask Isidoros publicly and, Philo points out, to allow Flaccus to defend his policies and rebut the calumnies against him (Flacc., 141: ἵνα […] ἀπολογήσηται περὶ τῆς αὑτοῦ πολιτείας ὡς ἀδίκως διαβληθείς). This last sentence openly confirms the political overtones of the episode, for Isidoros and his followers were challenging Flaccus’ political administration of the city. Where the Jews stood is not known, but Philo’s attitude and derogatory rhetoric against Flaccus’ accusers suggest that they sided with the prefect. Who Isidoros’ followers were cannot be said, but Philo provides sufficient information about the environment in which he worked. Isidoros, clearly one of Alexandria’s notables, was chairman (συµποσιάρχος or κλινάρχη) of most of the local clubs (thiasoi, synodoi, and klinai)24 and the absolute obedience that he required of the members strengthened his opposition to Flaccus (Flacc., 136–137). Philo’s description of the clubs does not conceal his contempt for them: they are a disordered mob, the dregs of a mixed and promiscuous crowd (ὄχλον ἀσύντακτον καὶ πεφορηµένον ἐκ µιγάδων καὶ συγκλύδων). It is almost impossible not to see a connection between Philo’s style and vocabulary and the 23 The παραγγελία is the formal summon to appear before the prefect in his capacity of head of the juridical administration; G. Foti Talamanca, Ricerche sul processo nell’Egitto greco-romano (Milano: Giuffrè, 1974) I 79–97 and II 79–95; see also N. Lewis, “The prefect’s Conventus; Proceedings and Proceedures,” BASP 18 (1981): 124 and N. Lewis, “To the conventus by a paraggelia: the Time Factor,” JJP 33 (2003): 85–90. 24 For a discussion of the terminology, see T. Seland, “Philo and the Associations of Alexandria,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (eds. J.S. Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson; London; New York: Routledge, 1996), 112; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 95–96 for bibliographical references on associations. Of particular interest are the recent collection by J.S. Kloppenborg and S.G. Wilson, eds., Voluntary Associations mentioned above, and W.M. Brashear, Vereine im griechisch-römischen Ägypten (Konstanz: Universitätsverlag, 1993), specifically on BGU IV 1137 from Alexandria.


83

mention of Flaccus’ difficult relationship with the clubs at the beginning of the treatise (Flacc., 4). Philo states that Flaccus had to take action in order to prevent a motley mob from opposing his policies (µιγάδων καὶ συγκλύδων ἀνθρώπων ὄχλον ἐκώλυεν ἐπισυνίστασθαι) and he eventually banished them, since they bred political disorder under the guise of libations and sacrifices (Flacc., 4).25 Despite Philo’s commentary, the clubs were the most important political and social private institution of the city. By obliterating them, Flaccus had cancelled a good part of Alexandrian life.26 Philo gives no date for the suppression of the clubs, but the outcome of the gymnasium melée, with Isidoros voluntarily choosing exile instead of risking disfranchisement or death, invites one to conclude that Flaccus banished them at that point in time in order to silence the protest. This was, it is useful to recall, between 33 and 35 C.E. If we accept a date between 33 and 35 C.E. for the demonstration in the gymnasium, then it becomes only the final episode of the situation that had been developing in Alexandria from the beginning of Flaccus’ tenure. The rosy picture of the first years of Flaccus’ prefecture painted by Philo at the beginning of his treatise contains some obvious black spots. The prefect’s need to justify and to defend his government publicly and officially can only be understood within this context. Clearly, Flaccus’ administration stirred discontent. The disenchantment with Flaccus amongst the upper class of Alexandria was not limited to personal rows with particular people—Lampon, Dionysios, and Isidoros—but was widely shared. Isidoros, who was likely excluded from any involvement in the city’s administration, was certainly no longer an acquaintance of the prefect, dissatisfied with his governing policy, and in a position to involve sectors of the population. Flaccus’ policy did favor the Jews and a failure to recognize this would cast Philo’s initial limitless praise for him in a bad light. The tone Philo adopts in his description of Flaccus’ handling of the gymnasium

25 Smallwood, Jews, 236 and note 64, Van der Horst, Flaccus, 96 and Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 75 also considered Philo’s mention of the suppression of the clubs at the beginning of In Flaccus to relate to upheaval in the gymnasium. On Flaccus’ suppression of the clubs see I. Arnaoutoglou. “«Collegia» in the Province of Egypt in the First Century A.D.,” AncSoc 35 (2005): 197–216. 26 This topic is thoroughly studied, although not specifically for Alexandria, in O.M. Van Nijf, ed. The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1997); see also A. Monson, “The Ethics and Economics of Ptolemaic Religious Associations,” AncSoc 36 (2006): 221–238.

84

chapter four

upheaval supports also the conclusion that Flaccus was acting against the Alexandrians. It is clear that Philo despised the Alexandrians. However, the picture of Flaccus’ policy remains overall unclear. Flaccus did reverse Sejanus’ policy, which had targeted the Jews collectively—at least, this is what Philo evidently alludes to (Flacc., 1; Legat., 161). But it is not possible to ascertain whether Flaccus abided by Tiberius’ order to prosecute ‘the few responsible’ among the Jews. Be that as it may, a question arises at this point: in healing the wounds inflicted by Sejanus’ policy on Alexandria’s Jews, did Flaccus give the city stability? Philo’s account, as seen above, cannot ultimately conceal that he did not. Flaccus Did Not Send the Jewish Decree to Rome in 37 C.E. When Tiberius died on March 16, 37 C.E., his adopted grandson Gaius acceded to the throne. Communities around the empire traditionally voted a decree of greeting to the new emperor, which in some cases they delivered to him themselves in Rome.27 Alexandria’s Jews did the same, but, as they were unable to travel to Rome to deliver the decree to Gaius personally, Philo states that they asked the prefect to transmit it (Flacc., 97).28 Flaccus answered positively but ultimately failed to keep this promise (Flacc., 101). For Philo, this was a sign of Flaccus’ malice toward the Jews.29 For the moment, we cannot entirely exclude the possibility that Flaccus had personal reasons to harm the Jews; however, historical evidence suggests an alternative interpretation. The prefect of the imperial provinces answered personally to the emperor, particularly in Egypt, which Augustus had organized as

27 References to such decrees are collected in J.H. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1989), particularly #13, 14, 19, 23; for comments see Kayser, “Ambassades,” 443. Concerning Alexandria, the best example is probably P. Lond. VI 1912, where Claudius greets and thanks the Alexandrians for the decree that they had voted to hail his accession to the imperial chair. For other references see O. Montevecchi, “Nerone a una polis e ai 6475,” in Orsolina Montevecchi. Scripta Selecta (ed. S. Daris; Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1998), 88. 28 Differently Gruen, Diaspora, 56, who considers this to be a resolution that the Jews had prepared after the persecution to send to Gaius; the author connects this passage to Legat., 178–179, where Philo states that the Jews in Rome sent Gaius a summary of their previous supplication. 29 Accepted by Van der Horst, Flaccus, 37.


85

though it were the emperor’s exclusive personal domain.30 The prefect of Egypt received the imperium directly from the emperor and the available evidence suggests that the prefect’s power expired upon the ruler’s death. At that point, he was either confirmed by the new ruler or replaced.31 Word of Gaius’ accession reached Egypt by April (P. Ryl. II 141) and Flaccus, therefore, expected to be recalled to Rome. Logically, then, he accepted the Jews’ request to deliver their honorary decree to the emperor in person (Flacc., 97–100). Events took a different path, however. Gaius fell ill in September of 37 C.E., shortly after the end of his first consulate, and provincial affairs, including the appointment of new provincial governors, had to be postponed. In addition, Gaius sentenced Macro, who had been appointed to succeed Flaccus as prefect, to suicide later in 38 C.E. Thus, Flaccus’ return to Rome—and the delivery of the Jews’ decree—became more and more unlikely in the short term.32 Verifying Philo’s Construct A period of troubles, as well as civic and political unrest in Alexandria preceded the riots of 38 C.E. The years 32 through 35 C.E. saw Flaccus’ attempts to control the city’s different souls. The discontent that his policy caused in one part of the body politic ended in a public protest in the gymnasium. In 37, his promise to deliver the Jews’ honorary decree to Gaius vanished when his return to Rome was postponed. The riots of 38 C.E. developed against this troubled background. Two factors of Philo’s construct are therefore discredited: Flaccus’ ability to govern the city successfully and the chicanery by which he avoided delivering the Jewish decree to Gaius.

30 E.G. Huzar, “Augustus, Heir of the Ptolemies,” ANRW II 10,1 (1988): 352; for an alternative view, Geraci, Genesi. 31 See appendix 2. 32 Cf. Smallwood, Legatio, 16, who holds that Flaccus simply forgot to send the decree to Rome.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE PRECEDENT FOR THE RIOTS At Gaius’ Accession: P. Yale II 107 1 Philo identifies Gaius’ accession as the point when Alexandria’s troubles began. Flaccus received the official news not long after the actual date of the accession, by April (P. Ryl. II 141). It was then that Alexandria’s Jews had voted the honorary decree for the emperor’s accession. Since other imperial communities voted similar initiatives, this was by no means exceptional.2 Knowing that Flaccus would not allow them to travel to Rome, the Jews decided not to petition Flaccus for an embassy to deliver their decree personally (Flacc., 97). There is documentation from Roman Egypt that demonstrates that the prefect had jurisdiction over the issuing of entry and exit documents to residents and visitors, regardless of their civic status.3 Philo does not explain why the Jews would not have

1

Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, was released from the press when the present work was already in an advanced stage of revision and it was no longer possible to integrate it in the main argument. References to it are nonetheless inserted in the footnotes. It should be said, however, that none of the arguments Harker submits on P. Yale II 107, or all the other papyrological text included in this work, are accepted here. 2 In order to honor Gaius’ accessions, two embassies to Rome are documented: Syll. III 797 from Assos in the Troad, and IG VII 2711 from Acreaphiae in Beotia. For general references see ch. 4 n. 27. 3 The Gnomon of the Idios Logos lists a series of provisions on this matter, BGU V 1210 #64–69 [W. Schubart, Der Gnomon des Idios Logos (Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1919), 27–28; S. Riccobono, jr., Il Gnomon dell’Idios Logos (Palermo: Palumbo, 1950), 203)], in particular, #64; τὰ περὶ τῶν χωρὶς ἀποστόλου ἐκπλεόντων νῦν ἡγεµονικῆς διαγνώσεως [ἐ]γένετο. Similar to all the measures listed in the Gnomon, also this one is not dated; Philo’s comment, though, provides a good chronological frame to set this duty of the prefect at the beginning of the first century C.E. Among the very few extant passports from Egypt, P. Oxy. X 1271; XVII 2132 of the third cent. C.E. For some comments, see Taubenschlag, Law of Egypt, 642–643, and G. Purpura, “ ‘Passaporti’ romani,” Aeg 82 (2002): 131–155.

88

chapter five

been permitted to travel. The reason the prefect would have refused the Jewish request, had they submitted one, was that two Alexandrian embassies were already in Rome at the time, as documented in P. Yale II 107. This exceedingly problematic document is fragmented and difficult to interpret; thus, it has not received the consideration that it deserves. Instead, it has been labeled a semi-fictional text at best, beyond the possibility of profitable use. A close reading, however, can reveal important historical features.4 Before discussing it, let us review the history of its interpretation. History of P. Yale II 107 In 1928, the University of Giessen purchased a series of fragmentary papyri on the Egyptian market, initially inventoried as P. 308 A-C. Anton von Premerstein identified these fragments as belonging to the same document on the basis of their contents and hand-writing and he published them in 1939 as P. Giss. Univ. 46.5 The lamentable condition of the text did not prevent the editor from offering an initial interpretation of the most extensive fragments’ content. Based on its paleography, von Premerstein dated the document to the end of the second/beginning of the third century C.E. The few continuous passages revealed that the document reported a judicial hearing of two groups before emperor Gaius. The first group was self-defined as “Alexandrian” and the second was called “the enemies of the Alexandrians.” At the end of the hearing, an “accuser,” belonging to the second group, was condemned to be burnt. A letter from the emperor to the city of Alexandria completes the document. This was sufficient for the editor to include the document among the

4 I argue in favor of the historical evaluation of this document, discussing in some details its legal, linguistic, and rhetorical aspects in Gambetti, “P. Yale II 107.” In the following pages, I submit only a summary of that more detailed study. 5 Von Premerstein, Alexandrinische Geronten.

the precedent for the riots

89

Heidnische Märtyrerakten, or Acts of the Pagan Martyrs,6 the label introduced by Adolf Bauer some decades earlier for a series of documents recounting the disputes between Alexandrian citizens and Roman emperors.7 To move beyond this basic outline to a comprehensive contextualizing and historical interpretation of the document, however, is extremely difficult because of the large lacunae of the papyrus. Through consistent integrations, von Premerstein presented a restored version of the text with important historical implications.8 He produced a document in which two Alexandrian political personalities, Isidoros and Dionysios, already known from Philo’s In Flaccum and from other papyri,9 accused a delegation of the Alexandrian gerousia. In the editor’s opinion, the dispute before emperor Gaius concerned the legality of such an institution. Gaius accepted Isidoros and Dionysios’ plea and finally declared the gerousia illegal. His letter to the Alexandrians deprived that body of a crown of value and the unnamed “accuser,” who was a foreigner and not a citizen, was condemned to death only because he lied about his status. Von Premerstein’s interest in constitutional matters led him to develop a comprehensive argument concerning Alexandria’s institutional situation during the early Roman period. This provided a very important set of historical conclusions,10 particularly in light of the almost complete lack of first hand information on the subject. Given this reading, von Premerstein could not avoid entering the discussion of the document’s historical value: was it an official trial report or a copy of an official document that had been abridged and modified for fictional purposes? This issue was not new. Since the first publication of the so-called Acta Martyrum, scholars had observed that the paleographic date of all but one document was decades, sometimes centuries, later than the dramatic date of the events that they reported;

6

Von Premerstein, Alexandrinische Geronten, 12. A. Bauer, “Heidnische Märtyrerakten,” APF 1 (1901): 29–47; see Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 59 n. 1 for a list of the papyri called Acta martyrum with the year of their publication up to 1954; comprehensive list is now in Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 179–211. 8 Premerstein, Alexandrinische Geronten, 1–11. 9 Philo, Flacc., 20–21; 135–145; WChr. 14 + P. Lond. inv. 2785 + P. Berol. 8877 (= Acta Isidori et Lamponis = Acta IV). 10 Von Premerstein, Alexandrinische Geronten, 12–65; the editor decided to call P. Giss. Univ. 46 “Acta Gerousiae.” 7

90

chapter five

some had sought explanations for this chronological gap and had introduced the hypothesis that the Acta were historical fiction.11 Others, however, held that the documents were historical.12 Von Premerstein himself had contributed to the discussion of the documents published up to that time, arguing for their basic historicity and suggesting that the writers had compiled them from official documents from the imperial chancellery.13 Von Premerstein entertained an opposing view in his commentary on P. Giss. Univ. 46. Basing his observations upon his substantial integration of the text, he repeatedly stressed the historical character of the general frame of the papyrus. However, he also recognized the hand of the author of the papyrus in some of the most outstanding pieces of invention. This conclusion excluded the use of official documents from the imperial chancellery in favor of the consultation of a historical chronicle of Alexandria, as well as a vulgate history of the “crazy” emperor, Gaius. With respect to the purpose of the writing, von Premerstein rejected the theory, then established among scholars, that the Alexandrian leaders boasted of their opposition to the Roman emperor, the very reason Bauer called the Alexandrians of the Acta ‘martyrs’. Instead, he suggested that P. Giss. Univ. 46 had been written in order to incite Alexandrian opposition to Rome in the first place and at a time (the turn of the second/third centuries C.E.) when the Alexandrian dissent peaked in the revolt against emperor Caracalla—a political fiction, therefore, rather than genuine historical literature.14 With few exceptions,15 scholars of the following decades accepted von Premerstein’s work.

11 Among the earliest works devoted to the discussion of this issue, see R. Reitzenstein, “Ein Stück hellenistischer Kleinliteratur,” Nachr. Gött. Ges., phil.-hist.Kl. 1 (1904): 326–332; H. Niedermeyer, Über antike Protokoll-Literatur. Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen, Göttingen: 1918; A. Neppi Modona, “Protocolli giudiziari o romanzo storico?” in Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (Milano: Aegyptus, 1925), 407–438. 12 The first to see these documents as copies of official archival records was Wilcken, “Antisemitismus.” 13 Von Premerstein, Alexandrinischen Märtyrerakten. 14 Von Premerstein, Alexandrinische Geronten, 65–71. 15 Very few indeed: A. Momigliano, “Review of E.R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, New Haven: Yale University Press 1940,” JRS 34 (1944): 163–164, and H.I. Bell, “The Acts of the Alexandrines,” JJP 4 (1950): 19–42.


91

In 1954, Herber Musurillo included P. Giss. Univ. 46 in his edition of the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, a collection of all the papyri independently published up to that time, whose editors, following in Bauer’s footsteps, had adopted the Heidnische Märtyrenakten label.16 In the introduction of his commentary on the text, Musurillo maintained some distance from von Premerstein’s up-to-then almost seminal work, citing the latter’s almost-exclusive reliance upon his own restoration of the text, sometimes even modifying the original Greek, in order to reach his important and groundbreaking conclusions.17 Musurillo accepted very few of von Premerstein’s restorations with the significant consequence that von Premerstein’s argument about the institutional situation in Alexandria was thoroughly undermined.18 No significant alternative, however, emerged from Musurillo’s lectio and commentary concerning the content of the papyrus. The debate concerning the historical and/or fictional nature of P. Giss. Univ. 46, as well as of the other texts in Musurillo’s collection, remained. By the time the collection was published, different schools of thought had developed from the embryonic discussion of von Premerstein’s period. Musurillo synthesized them into four main streams of reading and interpreting the texts. In brief: a) the Historical School considered the Acta to be historical documents drawn directly from the judicial ὑποµνηµατισµοί or commentarii Caesari; b) the Formgeschichte school, comparing the literature on the passion and death of Christian martyrs and the papyri on the pagan Alexandrian martyrs, considered the Acta to be a form of literature shaped after the commentarii; c) the Tendenzschrift school read in the Acta either Jewish or anti-Semitic propaganda; and d) the Historical Romance school considered the Acta to be pure historical fiction (this included von Premerstein and his followers’ Unitarian school) and held that a single author had produced the entire Acta. Of course, each school inventoried its own variations and the different tones and shades within.19 Moving knowledgably through this intellectual jungle, Musurillo criticized the dogmatism of each of the above positions in turn by analyzing

16 Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 8–17; 105–116. This same author later published the same texts in the Teubner series, Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1961. 17 Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 106. 18 Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 8–15; 108–110. 19 Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 259–265.

92

chapter five

each text and discussing their Hellenistic/Roman cultural environment. He preferred to cast P. Giss. Univ. 46 against a different background than the one suggested by von Premerstein. Studying the style, vocabulary and grammar of the papyrus, Musurillo suggested that it followed the official protocol-form of the ὑποµνηµατιςµοί as known from the extant documentary papyri. Nevertheless, P. Giss. Univ. 46 followed this form less closely than the other Acta, particularly in relation to the frequent dialogic sequences in oratio recta.20 On the one hand, this factor would support a position favoring the historical nature of the text inasmuch as the oratio recta may report the actual exchanges in a court of justice. On the other hand, many motifs constituting the backbone of the Hellenistic novel were present as well in P. Giss. Univ. 46, and this included the dialogic sequences in the oratio recta.21 If Musurillo’s research represented a significant advance in knowledge and understanding about the Acta, it also left the student of P. Giss. Univ. 46 in a fog of indeterminism. Twenty years later, while working with George Parassoglou on the papyrological collection of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Yale University, Musurillo came across some astonishing fragments of the same papyrus housed at the University of Giessen (P. Yale inv. 1385).22 From a textual point of view, their assemblage together with the known fragments significantly modified the layout of the papyrus.23 From an editorial point of view, some of von Premerstein’s original placements were called into question. The text was now better legible, but not yet intelligible. Some years later, Susan Stephens inherited all of this in the edition of the second volume of the Beinecke Papyrological collection.24 Publishing the new text as P. Yale II 107, Stephens retained the basic textual work of Musurillo’s 1954 and 1961 editions of P. Giss. Univ. 46, as well as Musurillo and Parassoglou’s 1974 assemblage of P. Yale inv. 1385 (though she emended it according to her personal lectio when necessary). Also critical of von Premerstein’s commentary on the document, Stephens, following Musurillo’s lead, suggested some historical conjectures but stopped short of a comprehensive historical contextualization.

20 21 22 23 24

Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 251. Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 253–255. Musurillo and Parassoglou, “Fragment Acta,” inventoried as P. Yale inv. 1385. Musurillo and Parassoglou, “Fragment Acta,” 3. Stephens, Yale Papyri, 85–97.


93

In 1994, also the University of Giessen re-edited the papyri housed in its collection; the editor, Peter A. Kuhlmann, republished P. Giss. Univ. 46 with the Yale additions and renamed it P. Giss. Lit. 4.7.25 Kuhlmann’s cautious interpretation differs from his predecessors’ on only a number of textual readings and provides no significant advance in the understanding of the papyrus.

25

Kuhlmann, Giessener Papyri, 116–130.

94

chapter five A Historical Reading of P. Yale II 107 26 Col. i (P. Giss.)

] ̣σ ̣ ̣ [ ] ̣ προκα̣ θ̣ε] ̣ ̣ υτον̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] κατ̣αστὰς ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]α̣ι̣ τῇ̣ πατρί4 δι ] ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣])παυ̣σας τὰ ] ̣ ̣ [ ̣]ετ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]γρ̣άψας ἐ] Τι[β]έ̣ρ̣ι̣ο̣ς̣ Καῖσαρ· τῇ µὲ(ν) 8 ]εισ ̣[ ̣ ]̣ α̣δε θ̣εωρῆσαι ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ νεται [[µεν]] ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ δὲ κατήγορο ν αὐ]το̣ῦ̣ ἁ̣ψάµενος εἶπε(ν)· ] ̣ ̣Ἀλεξανδρέων ο 12 κύ]ρ̣ιε αὐτοκράτωρ πο—— γερό[ντω]ν ] ̣ ς̣ ἀπὸ ρογ δ]έκα καὶ ὀκτὼ µυριάδα[ς] 16 ] ̣ ̣ ηθη, τόδε εἶπ̣̣ε̣[ν] ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ περὶ τούτων ̣ ̣[ ̣ ] ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣α̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ] ̣ ̣ τὰ κ[α]τ̣α̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] 20 ] ̣ ̣ αν ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− Ca. 15 lines missing.

26 Reproduction of the text is possible courtesy of Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Yale University and the American Society of Papyrologists. Text established by Stephens, Yale Payri, 89–91.


Col. i

4

8

12

16

establishing for / to / of/ the patris ??? wrote Tiberius Caesar to consider / to observe ??? the accuser attacking him, said of the Alexandrians, lord emperor from the 173 elders 180,000 he said this about these matters ??? ??? ???

95

96

chapter five Col. ii

Yale inv. 1385 col. i

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ [ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ εἶπεν· “πλέε· τ[ ]ί γὰρ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ κυρι[ ̣ ̣ ].” ἔπλευσαν [ ] δὲ —— διὰ τοὺς ρογ —— καὶ Εὔλα λος ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ρογ καὶ ἦλ]θον εἰς Ὠστίαν. [ ̣ ̣ ]ειθεν̣κε̣[ ]σιοις –– η[ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ α[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]σαν ὄντων µ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ων ιη ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣] ̣Ῥώµην. καταβα[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ε[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ τ̣ο̣ι̣ς̣ ἀπ̣ὸ̣ τ̣ῶ̣ν ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ων συνήν[τη[σεν ι̣α ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ὁ κοιτωνίτης Τιβερίου. ο[ἱ] δὲ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ νοι αὐτὸν ἠρώτων· “τι ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] κυρι ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ εἶπεν· “τέλος ἔχει· ε[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ –— τό̣[τ᾽] ἔφη Γάϊος· “γερα[ίοι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ” ̣ ̣ καὶ “ποῦ ἐστιν” ἔφη “[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ πορ]εύεται.” οἱ δὲ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ εἰσ]ερχοµένου αυ[τ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ιγεν̣οι ̣ κύρ̣ι̣ε ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ι̣σ̣το ̣ ̣ ̣ ον ε̣ἰ̣ς̣ το ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ τιστη — χλ– ἐνιαυτοὺς [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ἐπὶ τῶ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ντων π[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ η̣ν ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ εἶ]πεν [ ̣ ]̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ ἄχθοµαι ὅτι κατη[γορ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε̣µε[ ̣]οι ἀ̣κ̣ουσοµ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] —– ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ α ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ χλ εκα[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] προση[ ̣ ]̣ ̣ ̣ η̣ρωτ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ σιν· “κύριε, χαῖρε. α̣υ̣τ̣ο̣κ[̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ Εὔλαλε, χαῖρε.” καικ̣α[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν· “ὁ κατή[γορος ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ διὰ τί τα[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]εν ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ περ πατ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]πο[ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ν οὐκ ἀπήρτ[ησα]ς ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ε ̣ ̣ κατηγοροῦµαι, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]τες· τῇ γὰρ τύχῃ οὐχ ἔνι· µε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ Ἄρειος εἶπεν· “κύρ[ι]ε, χαῖρε ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ χάρις µὲ[ν] Ἀλεξανδρέων ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε̣ ̣ [̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]τ̣ι̣ σὺ εἶ ὁ τ[ο]ῦ κόσµου

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

the precedent for the riots Col. ii

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

he said: sail, for, what they sailed 173 on behalf of the 173 and Eulalos and went to Ostia being 18 to Rome they met Tiberius’ chamberlain, and they asked him: what he said: he died / he is in charge Gaius said this: elders and he said: where is he walks as he entered Oh lord ??? 630 years ??? ??? he said I am displeased that the [accuser? listening 630 (years?) ???? lord, greetings Eulalos, greetings the accuser ??? ??? not separating I am accused, this is for, in the name of Fortune, this is not possible Areios said: lord, greetings and the grace of the Alexandrians you are the god

97

98

chapter five Col. iii (P. Yale) θεὸς καὶ τῆς πόλεως ἐκράτη[σας.” Καῖσαρ εἶπεν. “Ἄρειε, χαῖρε.” καὶ “δεύτερ[ος τί λέγεις;” Ἄρειος εἶπεν· “οὐκ οἶδα, κύριε, [ὁπόθεν λαλῶ· ε]ἰ καὶ ἕτοιµός εἰµι πρὸς ἀπολ[ογίαν κατὰ τῶν καταγόρων Ἀλεξανδρέων, [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ου φθ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ διαµάχεσ[θαι ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ”̣ Καῖσαρ εἶπεν· “τοῦ̣τ̣ο̣ µ̣ὴ̣ θεωρ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣Ἀλεξανδρέω [ ν ] ̣ [ ̣]λ̣ω.” Ἄρειος εἶ[πεν·“ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ,̣ κύριε. οὐκ ἔνι ξενι[κῷ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ καὶ διάλογος. διὸ ἐπίτρε[ψον ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ πρὸς τὸν κατήγορον α[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣” Καῖσαρ εἶπεν· “ἐπιτρέπω.” Ἄρειος δ[ὲ πρὸς τὸν κατήγορον ἀποβλέψας εἶπεν· “ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ”̣ ὁ δὲ λέγει· “τί γάρ; σὺ τοῦτο ἔξει[ς ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ”̣ Ἄρειος ε]ἶπ̣ε̣ν̣· “σ̣ὺ τῆς πατρίδος µου κ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ ἴσως κἀγὼ τῆς σῆς πα[τρίδος ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ”̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] εἶπεν· “Ἀλέξανδ[ρ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣

4

8

12

16

2 lines missing Col. iii cont.’d (P. Giss.) [ὁ κατήγορος εἶπεν· “[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ γ[ ̣ ̣ ”̣ ] Ἄρειος εἶπεν· “ἴδ[ε] δὴ ξενι[κὸς] γὰρ µάλ[α ὁ καταλαβὼν πο[λ]ειτείαν, ἀ[λλ’ ἀ]πογραφό [ µενος ἔξ̣ω.” ὥστε ἀπέδειξεν [τὸ]ν κατήγορο [ ν οὐ δίκαιον. Γάϊος Καῖσαρ ἐκ[έ]λευσεν τὸ[ν κατήγορον καῆναι . ἔγραψεν ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ἐπιστολὴ [ν ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] τ[ο]ιαύτην· [ vac? Γ]άϊος Καῖ[σαρ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τῶν] Ἀλεξαν[δρέων χα[ίρειν· ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ επιπα ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] [ ̣ ως α[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]πα[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ νον ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]ευερ ̣ ̣ [̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ τ̣[ ̣ ]̣ εγν[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ µαστ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ λ̣εµου αἰτια[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ εµο ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ βο[µ]ε̣ν Ἰσιδώρου λέξ[αντος ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ̣ ο̣[ ̣ ]̣ υ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν µὴ ἐχέτωσαν µ[ήτ]ε ἀρετῆς στέφ[α]ν̣ον

19

24

28

32


99

Col. iii

4

8

12

16

of the world and the ruler of the city. Caesar said Areios, greetings, and, what do you say [as] second (speaker) Areios said: I do not know, oh lord, from where to start speaking and if I am ready to utter a defense speech against the accusers of the Alexandrians to fight Caesar said: I do not of the Alexandrians Areios said lord, it is not possible for a foreigner and a debate. Because, (please) allow against the accuser Caesar said: I allow (it). Then Areios looking straight to the accuser said and he said: what? You let this go? Areios said: you from / of my patris in the same way also I from / of your patris said: Alexandr[ 2 lines missing

19

24

28

32

the accuser said Areios said: indeed you see, he is a foreigner, one who certainly takes advantage of civic rights, but he is registered outside. In this way he demonstrated that the accuser was not right. Gaius Caesar ordered the accuser to be burnt. He wrote a letter like this: Gaius Caesar of the Alexandrians greetings. ??? ??? ??? the cause (of the war?) as Isidoros said may they not have, nor the crown of honor

100

chapter five Col. iv

lines 1–16 missing −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ο̣το[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε̣κ̣ρ̣α̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]ι̣ν ̣[ ̣ ̣ ]καιαν[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] οσπ ̣ [ 20 ̣ ]̣ ̣οἱ δὲ ἐ[µπε]σόντες τ[ [21] -έδ]ραµον̣ [µε]θ’ ὅ πολλοὺς [ ̣ ̣ ]ν ληµφθῆναι καὶ τ[ ἀπ ] εκεφάλισεν. οἱ δὲ [ 24 ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [νητησα[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] εκαλε[σ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ σεµε[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ων ̣ [ 28 ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣αν αὐτο [̣ ̣ ̣ ] στε[ χ α ρίσα[ς] µ̣ου τη ̣ [ 32 ]̣ ̣ [ ̣ ] ̣ εσ̣[ [̣ ]̣ ι̣ε̣ν[̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ]̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ] ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ [ ] ̣ ̣ 36

the precedent for the riots Col. iv

21

24

and since they were falling were running after / with whom many ?? to be captured he beheaded. And they

101

102

chapter five The Identity of the Parties: Introduction to the Problem

Before discussing the details of the papyrus, the relevance of the text to the present study must be clarified, and that the parties involved were connected to the events discussed thus far must be ascertained. A peculiar aspect of this text, which immediately strikes the reader, is that one group contending before Gaius states that it represents the Alexandrians, while the opposing group, the enemies of the Alexandrians, is not identifiable; throughout the document, the only speaker from that group is called the κατήγορος, the plaintiff. The opinion supported in the present study is that the group opposing the Alexandrians before Gaius was composed of Alexandrian Jews and that the katēgoros was their leading representative. Unfortunately, it is impossible at this point to submit the entire argument supporting this conclusion, not because of the author’s whimsical preferences, but because the text’s fragmentary condition requires a great deal of contextualizing that cannot be presented in its entirety here. Surely the reader’s patience can abide the remainder of the discussion of this papyrus, when all the circumstances that support this conclusion are set out. Nevertheless, something can be stated at the level of a preliminary hypothesis about the mention of an Isidoros at col. iii, ll. 33–34. The appearance of Isidoros in connection with this text should attract the reader’s attention because of the possible implications directly related to the present topic of research. Recall that the sole source of information concerning Isidoros, all of which is unflattering, comes from Philo, namely In Flaccum. Familiarity with Philo, rather than the content of the text, prompted Tcherikover and Fuks to include the section of P. Giss. Univ. 46 col. iii (now P. Yale II 107, col. iii) containing Isidoros’ name in their Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (CPJ II 155), despite the fact that, as they admit, the text in no way points to the Jews.27 But is the Isidoros of P. Yale II 107, col. iii, the same Isidoros belittled by Philo? To the reader familiar with the Alexandrian events, Isidoros is better known as the target both of Philo’s invective in In Flaccum for his

27 Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 64–65: “Jews are not mentioned in the papyrus, at any rate in the parts preserved; yet the name of Isidoros justifies the reproduction here of the fragment referring to him.” Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 18 sumbits the possibility that Gaius’ adjudication of P.Giss.Lit. 4.7, the Giessen University edition of P.Yale II 107, be against the Jews, but relates it to the riots of 41 upon Gaius’ death.


103

enmity to the Jews (Flacc., 20ff.; 135ff.) and of Claudius’ accusation in the papyri collected in the Acta Isidori et Lamponis dated to May 1, 41 C.E. (Acta IV). The latter document provides the earliest chronological reference thus far to Isidoros’ presence in Rome, as he admittedly joined in incriminating Macro, who was sentenced to death in the spring of 38 C.E. (Acta IV, col. ii, ll. 16–19).28 If the Isidoros of P. Yale II 107 and the Isidoros in the Acta Isidori et Lamponis are one and the same, then the former document, dramatically dated to Gaius’ accession,29 sets him in Rome one year earlier. It also modifies the general perception of Isidoros’ whereabouts, in addition to raising further questions about his role. According to Philo, Isidoros voluntarily left Alexandria in the aftermath of the gymnasium protest. To a large extent, Philo’s narrative conceals the precise circumstances that prompted this decision; however, it seems sufficiently clear that Flaccus had accused Isidoros of fomenting an attack against him in the gymnasium (Flacc., 135–145). The date of the protest is also unknown, but a tentative date between 33 and 35 C.E. was suggested in the preceding chapter.30 Thus, this must also be the period of Isidoros’ departure from Alexandria. The precise circumstances surrounding his departure are not known. He voluntarily left the city to avoid a trial before the prefect, who then decided to take no further measures against him (Flacc., 140).31 Isidoros could therefore have gone anywhere that he wished. He may well have gone to Rome, which would likely have been the preferred choice for an upper class Alexandrian for several reasons. The foremost of these reasons was the readiness and frequency of transportation between Alexandria and Rome, by far the best in the Mediterranean because of the grain trade. As Philo’s account and terminology suggest, Flaccus acted Isidoros’ protest during the summer eastern delta conventus, which occurred at the peak of the grain transportation season between Alexandria and Puteoli in Italy. This must have been particularly advantageous

28 = WChr 14, col. ii l. 19; second recention in P. Lond., inv. 2785 col. i, ll. 13–15 [Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 18–26]; for the date of Macro’s death see ch. 1. 29 See discussion below in this chapter. 30 As argued by Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 74–83; the general conclusions of this article do not necessarily agree with the present research. 31 That Isidoros negotiated his exile, including his destination, with Flaccus, and that the prefect confiscated part of his patrimony according to the existing laws, as in Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 74–92, especially 82–85, is not supported by evidence; on this see also above ch. 4 n. 12.

104

chapter five

for someone in Isidoros’ position, who was trying to escape from arrest and a probable death sentence in Alexandria. Once in Rome, Isidoros would soon have adapted to the local environment. The grain trade stationed many Alexandrians in Rome and he might have approached them for help in learning his way around the city.32 The Egyptians in Tiberius’ retinue, who soon became close to Gaius as well,33 would have been key to introducing Isidoros to the city’s best circles and to court society since 35 C.E. at the latest, at least according to the preliminary chronology adopted so far. From a chronological point of view, therefore, historical contextualizing supports the hypothesis that the Isidoros of the papyrus could be the Isidoros of Philo’s account. In and of itself, however, this identification is not sufficient to justify his role in the trial of P. Yale II 107 and to claim that the trial involved the Alexandrian Jews; this must wait for the evaluation of some more data. Yet, Philo himself could have been the unwilling supporting witness in this case. His awareness that it would be impossible for the Alexandrian Jews to obtain permission from Flaccus to sail to Rome and to deliver the honorary decree to Gaius at his accession speaks many more volumes than his actual silence on the possible embassy allows. How could Philo and the Jews have known that Flaccus would deny their request without asking? The only possible answer is that he and the Jews must have known that at least one group of Alexandrians was already in Rome. Alexandria was a huge, multi-ethnic city.34 Many groups may have had the right to ask the prefect for permission to travel to Rome to petition 32 Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 85. Prosopographical studies on Egyptians and Alexandrians in Italy are in A. Cristofori, “L’individuazione di Egiziani ed Alessandrini nella documentazione epigraphica dell’Italia romana,” in L’Egitto in Italia dall’antichità al medioevo. Atti del III Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano. Roma, CNR—Pompei, 13–19 Novembre 1995 (eds. N. Bonacasa, et al.; Roma: CNR, 1998), 79–94 33 These are the individuals harshly portrayed by Philo, Legat., 166–178; for Helikon, the highest in rank, see J.A. Crook, Consilium principis. Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian, (Cambridge–Toronto: Cambridge University Press– MacMillan, 1955), 40, who considers him among the amici of Gaius. 34 The multi-tonal character of Alexandria emerges at the approach of every comprehensive work on the city, be it a monograph or a collection of essays; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 3–300 presents a picture of the creation of a multiethnic city. In more recent years, other studies have stressed this particular characteristic of the city under different regards: see the essays in J. Leclant, ed. Alexandrie: une mégalopole cosmopolite (Paris: Belle Lettres, 1999) and in C. Jacob, F. de Polignac, eds. Alexandria, Third Century BC. The Knowledge of the World in a Single City (Alexandria, Egypt: Harpocrates, 2000); for the funerary and artistic aspect, M.S. Venit, Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria. The Theater of the Dead (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).


105

the emperor, assuming that they had a good reason. As mentioned above, among the prefect’s duties was controlling the traffic in and out of the country and issuing visas. But were visas public domain? Were the names of travelers and the dates of their travel posted publicly as knowledge for public consumption? Publication was certainly a pivotal factor in the political and administrative life of Alexandria;35 however, it is difficult to believe that travel permits and other similar documents pertaining to the private life of individuals were posted. Both the request and the concession were filed in the public archives, of course, but that was likely the extent of the public nature of a visa. This being the case, could Philo have known that, say, the Phocaeans—to mention just one of Alexandria’s many ethnic groups—had sent an embassy to Rome, preventing the prefect from granting permission to another group to go? Apart from its diverse ethnicity, Alexandria was home to some hundred thousand inhabitants,36 a fact that would have prevented anyone—even someone of high status and familiar with the institutions, as Philo very likely was—from having knowledge about the detailed movements of his fellow citizen. The only possible conclusion is that Philo could not have known about all movements of the Alexandrians around the Mediterranean, but he knew that the prefect would reject the Jews’ request for a visa in 37 C.E. because he knew that a Jewish embassy was already in Rome. Other details in the papyrus will provide further support for this preliminary conclusion. What has been presented thus far, however, is sufficient to legitimize the inclusion of P. Yale II 107 in the present study and to proceed to its historical reading and contextualization. Reading and Contextualizing the Text The extensive lacunae of the papyrus leave many questions unanswered concerning the subject and content of the text. Nevertheless, it is possible

35

Overall study in Schwind, Publikation; see above ch. 3 n. 50. Conjecture on the number of Alexandrian inhabitants are in W. Scheidel, “Creating a Metropolis: A Comparative Demographic Perspective,” in Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece (eds. W.V. Harris and G. Ruffini; Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2004), 1–31, D. Delia, “The Population of Roman Alexandria,” TAPA 118 (1988): 275–292. Specifically on the Jewish population, estimated to be of 180,000 individuals using the datum of P. Yale II 107 col. i, Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Espérances,” 130 accepts Delia, “Population,” 287–288, out of a total Alexandrian population of 500,000–600,000; for Kayser, “Ambassades,” 446 the 180,000 are Alexandrian citizens. 36

106

chapter five

to identify three main parts: 1) an initial narrative mentioning a previous embassy to Tiberius, col. i; 2) a second embassy to Gaius, including the account of a trial and a letter to the city of Alexandria written by Gaius, cols. ii–iii; and 3) a series of unplaced fragments, col. iv; fr. a–f. Location and Date of the Trial Determining the time and place of the trial depends on the interpretation of the papyrus internal evidence. The first embassy to Tiberius of col. i cannot be dated;37 however, something more precise can be said about the second embassy to Gaius. The text reads (col. ii, ll. 4–6): Stephens’ lectio: καὶ ἦλ]θον εἰς ᾽Ωστίαν. [ . . ]ειθενκε ̣ ̣ [ ]σιοις α[ . . . . . ]σαν ὄντων µ . [ . ] . ων ιη η[ ] . . . . . . . [ . ] ῾Ρώµην.

Stephens’ edition with suggestions:38 καὶ ἦλθ]ον εἰς ᾽Ωστίαν. [ἐκ]εῖθεν κεσίοις ἀ[πήντη]σαν ὄντων µηνων ιη ἦ [ ]λθον δὲ εἰ[ς] ῾Ρώµην;

Soon after the Alexandrians reached Ostia, they met the group that they would later confront before Gaius. The restitution of κεσίοις, suppliants, at l. 24 is both linguistically plausible and historically acceptable, since an audience with the emperor required the petitioners to submit a supplication, ἱκετεία.39 The reading of “eighteen months” is 37 For some conjectures, see Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 110–111. Von Premerstein, Alexandrinische Geronten, 36–40 suggested that the Tiberius of col. i was Tiberius Gemellus, grandson of Tiberius whom he appointed Gaius’ co-heir to his estate (Philo, Legat., 23). As the story goes, Gaius seized the power by himself and took care to eliminate Gemellus soon thereafter (Philo, Legat., 25ff.). Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 106–107 commented with skepticism on Von Premerstein’s suggestion, especially since Tiberius of col. i is presented and greeted as kaisar, a title that could never have possibly referred to Gemellus. See also other comments in Stephens, Yale Papyri, 87. 38 I insert Stephens’ suggestions from her commentary into her edited text. 39 Homeric and tragic literature reveal that supplication was an ancestral religious institution of the Greeks: J. Gould, “HIKETEIA,” JHS 93 (1973): 74–103. From the beginning, though, it was clear that the suppliant expected the god to dispense justice: H.S. Versnel, “Les imprécations et le droit,” RD 65 (1987): 5–22. Athenian epigraphic documents of the fifth century B.C.E. demonstrate that by that time the hiketeia was


107

also interesting, since it indicates that the suppliants had been there for some time.40 That they all then traveled to Rome for the trial41 can be determined only after the translation and interpretation of some lines below in the text that result in two possible options. Place and Date of the Trial: Option 1—Ostia, March 18, 37 C.E. At the beginning of col. ii, one finds traces of an initial conversation between some of the ambassadors and Tiberius’ chamberlain (κοιτωνίτης), in which they likely inquired about the emperor. The chamberlain replied by the expression τέλος ἔχει· (col. ii, ll. 8–10). The editor submits that the chamberlain is announcing that Tiberius had died, according to a common translation of τέλος ἔχει preferred by the editor.42 Since Tiberius died on March 16, 37 C.E.,43 that is the terminus post quem for the dramatic date of the trial, and some have argued that it took place soon after Tiberius’ funeral on April 3.44 Tiberius’ death was officially announced in Rome on March 18 in Gaius’ letter, which Macro, then praetorian prefect, read before the senate (Jos., A.J., 18.228).45 According to our sources, the reaction to this news

a legal and political tool: R. Zelnick-Abramovitz, “Supplication and request: application by foreigners to the Athenian ‘polis’,” Mnemosyne 51 (Ser. 4) (1998): 554–573. Recently F.S. Naiden, Ancient Supplication (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) has reexamined the evidence and discussed in detail the passage from the religious to the political hiketeia in Greece and Athens; an interesting chapter is also devoted to the hiketeia to Roman magistrates, 219–279; specifically to the emperor, 234–236. 40 More on this below in this chapter. 41 Stephens, Yale Papyri, 94, n. 4, 5, 6; on Rome as uncertain final location of the trial, cf. 86: “In col. ii representatives of the Alexandrian gerousia set sail, presumably from Alexandria (ii 2), arrive at Ostia (ii 4) and proceed to Rome (ii 5?). 42 Stephens, Yale Papyri, 86; LSJ, s.v. τέλος, II 3. 43 Tiberius died at Misenum, on his way to Capri, on March 16; Levick, Tiberius, 219; Seager, Tiberius, 206; D. Shotter, Tiberius Caesar (London: Routledge, 1992), non vidi; W. Eck, et al., Das senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre (München, Beck 1996), 140 for a slightly different date. On the basis of the description of his death presented in the historical sources, scholars have attempted a clinical diagnosis; M. Pont, “Una diagnosi medica sulla morte di Tiberio,” Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia di Perugia—Studi Classici 17 (1993–1995): 311–322; G. Bonamente, “Emanuele Ciaceri e la morte di Tiberio,” Sileno 20 (1994): 19–23. 44 For some on or soon after April 3, 37 C.E., the day of Tiberius’ funeral; Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 111; Musurillo and Parassoglou, “Fragment Acta,” 2; Stephens, Yale Papyri, 87. 45 Barrett, Caligula, 50–51, episode implicitly identified with the reading of Tiberius’ will, which some date to the beginning of April, after Tiberius’ cremation and burial in the Mausoleum of Augustus (for literature see note 43 above); similar view in A. Winterling, Caligula. Eine Biographie (Ulm: Beck, 2003), 50.

108

chapter five

was vivid and involved celebrations in the streets (Jos., A.J., 18.225–233; Sue., Tib., 75). Under these circumstances had they now been in Rome, Alexandria’s ambassadors, both the newly arrived and the suppliants who were there since eighteen months, could hardly have missed such popular demonstrations. The fact that Tiberius’ chamberlain broke the news to them suggests nonetheless that they ignored the facts.46 It is more plausible, therefore, that the meeting between the two Alexandrian delegations, Tiberius’ chamberlain and Gaius occurred when Tiberius’ death was not yet a popular news, that is, before the official announcement was made on March 18, the terminus ante quem. If this is the case, then the trial could not have taken place in Rome, since Gaius entered the city only on March 28 with Tiberius’ funeral cortège (Acta Arvalium 43.15–17). Ostia, where the Alexandrians met the suppliants, is then a preferable location for the trial, if it took place between March 16 and 18. The chronological range can actually be restricted to March 18; it is actually possible that Gaius reached Ostia via Campania to be closer to Rome while Macro was reading his letter announcing Tiberius’ death to the senate on that very day. The senate then ratified the imperial powers that Macro had had the army of Misenum give Gaius by acclamation two days before (Dio, 59.1,1; Sue., Gai., 13; Acta Arvalium 43).47 It is soon after Gaius received the reassuring news from Rome that he met the two Alexandrian delegations, accompanied by Tiberius’ chamberlain. March 18, 37 C.E. is therefore the choice for the date of the trial that the interpretation of the data included in this option allows, and Ostia is the location. Therefore, the mention of Rome in col. ii, l. 6 refers to something that remains concealed in the lacunae of the text.48 Place and Date of the Trial: Option 2—Rome, March 28, 37 C.E. The date of March 18 raises however some legal problems; it is actually not clear whether the title of imperator Gaius received from military 46 But probably knew of his bad health; col. ii, ll. 8–9 may conceal a question about that, which Tiberius’ chamberlain answered. 47 Baldson, Gaius, 25; Barrett, Caligula, 53; Levick, Tiberius, 219–220; Seager, Tiberius, 206–207. 48 These lines are restored from the junction of the Giessen with the Yale fragments; even a quick look at the images (Beineke Rare Book and Manuscript Library: http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/papyrus/SearchExec.asp for fragment P. Yale inv. 1385; Universität Giessen: http://bibd.uni-giessen.de/papyri/images/pbug-inv308–a-recto.jpg for fragment P.B.U.G. inv. 308) reveals that letters have been lost and that the reading is in all likelihood permanently compromised.


109

acclamation was sufficient to confer him legal and institutional power, even after the senate confirmation: could Gaius adjudicate in any trial on March 18? This is a valid concern since the sources state that only on March 28, when Gaius entered Rome and addressed the senate for the first time, the Fathers conferred him actual institutional powers.49 This important point takes the discussion back to τέλος ἔχει of col. ii, ll. 8–10. In fact, a second possible and as well common translation of this expression refers to having authoritative power, specifically the authority to decide a judicial case.50 If this second possibility is accepted, then Tiberius’ chamberlain announced to the Alexandrians that the new emperor had now the authority to adjudicate their case—Gaius did preside the case between the two Alexandrian delegations on March 28, 37 C.E. in Rome or its immediate surrounding. The Eighteen Months The mention of eighteen months at col. ii, l. 5 provides two other important references. According to Stephens’ integrations and suggestions, they point to the time when the suppliants came to Ostia. If one counts eighteen months backwards from March 37 C.E., then one arrives at a date in the early fall of 35 C.E.—let us say September. To arrive in Ostia by September, the suppliants would have had to leave Alexandria some weeks earlier, probably in August.51 The time needed to make preparations and to obtain the prefect’s authorization then takes further back to a mid-summer date of that same year. This period is not new to this study, since, thus far, a date between 33 and 35 C.E. has been assumed for the opposition to Flaccus’ government in the Alexandrian gymnasium that led to Isidoros’ expatriation. Clearly, Isidoros was not the only one to leave Alexandria in that period; a delegation of Jews also left, crossing the Mediterranean to submit a supplication to Tiberius. Recognizing the year 35 C.E. as the chronological starting point for the Alexandrian problems that resulted in the Jewish embassy allows

49 I am following here the argument of Barrett, Caligula, 56ff.; for an alternative interpretation not accepted in the present work see A. Jakobson, H.M. Cotton, “Caligula’s Recusatio Imperii,” Historia 34 (1985): 497–503, who think that Gaius refused the full powers on March 18 to accept them ten days later. 50 LSJ, s.v. τέλος, I 2–4: already one of the suggestions in Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 115. 51 In the summer, the winds did not favor the Alexandria—Rome route; L. Casson, Ships and Seamenship in the Ancient World (Baltimore–London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995) 270–278; 289; 297–299.

110

chapter five

the recognition of another coincidence. This was also the year that the lists resulting from the census that had been called by Flaccus in 33 C.E. became available. As seen above, this was the moment when the outcome of the fiscal administration of Egypt became public, as well as the names of those who paid or did not pay the poll-tax. A picture begins to emerge: is the protest in the gymnasium led by Isidoros connected both to the census lists and to the Jewish embassy to Rome? Could it be that Flaccus’ fiscal administration was criticized and attacked in the gymnasium? Could it be that Isidoros and the part of the city that followed him were offended by the way that Flaccus was exacting fiscal revenues? And could Philo’s unspecified support for Flaccus’ cause and his bitter opposition to Isidoros and his followers indicate that the fiscal privileges of the Jews were also among the issues at stake? Could it be that on that occasion not only Flaccus, but also the Jews were attacked—either physically or politically—and for that reason Flaccus had approved their embassy to Rome to petition the emperor? The cumulative answer to all of these questions is a preliminary “yes.” Despite Philo’s rigorous silence about it, the Alexandrian political disorders, which can now be confined with some degree of certainty to the summer of 35 C.E., involved the Jews to a significant extent and Isidoros’ criticism of Flaccus’ government was directed, among possible other issues, at the way that the prefect administered Alexandria vis-àvis the Jewish presence. The second reference to the eighteen months is connected to the Roman judicial procedure, as the jurist Gaius confirms in his Institutiones. Since the passage in question is not entirely clear and has given rise to different interpretations, it is best to quote it here in its entirety (4.104–105; 109):52

52 Legitima sunt iudicia, quae in urbe Roma uel intra primum urbis Romae miliarium inter omnes ciues Romanos sub uno iudice accipiuntur; eaque e lege Iulia iudiciaria, nisi in anno et sex mensibus iudicata fuerint, expirant. Et hoc est, quod uulgo dicitur e lege Iulia litem anno et sex mensibus mori. 105. Imperio uero continentur recuperatoria et quae sub uno iudice accipiuntur interveniente peregrini persona iudicis aut litigatoris; in eadem causa sunt, quaecumque extra primum urbis Romae miliarium tam inter ciues Romanos quam inter peregrinos accipiuntur. Ideo autem imperio contineri iudicia dicentur, quia tamdiu ualent, quamdiu is, qui ea praecepit, imperium habebit . . . Ceterum potest ex lege quidem esse iudicium, sed legitimum non esse; et contra ex lege non esse, sed legitimun esse. Nam si uerbi gratia ex lege Aquilia uel Ollinia uel Furia in prouinciis agatur, imperio continebitur iudicium; idemque iuris est, et si Romae apud recuperatores agamus uel apud unum iudicem interueniente peregrini persona, etc. (emphasis mine) Translation from W.M. Gordon and O.F. Robinson, The Institutes of Gaius. Translated with introduction (London: Duckworth, 2001), 479–480.


111

104. Statutory courts are defined as being in the city of Rome or within a mile of the city, between parties who are all Roman citizens, under a single judge. Under the Julian Act on judicial procedure, unless cases are brought to judgment within eighteen months they expire. And so it is popularly said that under the Julian Act a suit dies within eighteen months. 105. Courts dependent on magistral authority are defined as courts before assessores, or those which are under a single judge but involve a foreigner as judge or party. The same definition covers any courts beyond the first milestone from the city of Rome, whether in causes between Roman citizens or foreigners. . . . 109. But note that there can be a court based on statute which is not a statutory court; conversely it can be statutory but not based on statute. For example, if an action is brought under the Aquilian or Ollian or Furian Acts in the provinces, the court will be dependent on magistral authority; the rule is the same if we raise an action in Rome before assessors, or before a single judge if a foreigner is involved, etc. (emphasis mine)

Gaius divides adjudications into two groups: statutory, which the lex Iulia iudiciorum privatorum regulated, and non-statutory, or sub imperio. The first must take place in Rome and applies to Roman citizens; the second takes place outside Rome and applies to both Roman citizens and foreigners. Location and the status of the parties appear to be extremely important; however, time, too, is important. Legitimate trials—the first group—are administered through the per formulas53 and have a statute of limitation. They must be adjudicated within eighteen months from the moment the case, that is, the litis contestatio, comes to court. If that time passes without a judgment being rendered, then the case expires. In contrast, sub imperio trials, not included in the regulation of the lex Iulia, have no such pre-determined limit. Only a magistrate with imperium could adjudicate these cases. An imperium, however, had normally a pre-determined length of less than eighteen months; thus, the trial would collapse once the imperium of the magistrate who first admitted it to court expired, whether it had been adjudicated or not.54

53 This is the procedure to which the lex Iulia refers; F. Bonifacio, “Iudicium legitimum e iudicium imperio continens,” in Studi in onore di V. Arangio-Ruiz nel XLV anno del suo insegnamento (Napoli: Jovene, 1953), 207–231; some variatons, but not as important to change the present interpretation are in M. Balzarini, “Considerazioni in tema di iudicia legitima,” in Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra (Milano: Giuffrè, 1969–1970), 449–479 especially 452. It must be noted that these two works are devoted to the discussion of the iudicia legitima, and only marginally they devote some words to the sub imperio; the same goes for the important and extensive book by M. Kaser, Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (München: Beck, 1966). 54 Bonifacio, “Iudicium legitimum,” 231.

112

chapter five

For this reason, there was no need to set an eighteen-month limit for the sub imperio. The distinction seems however to blur when a case is brought to court in the provinces. These rules only partially fit the case described in P. Yale II 107. Here we have a trial among foreigners taking place in Rome or its vicinity, which two magistrates with imperium deemed judicially appropriate: the prefect of Egypt, who must have allowed the embassy on the basis of the legitimacy of the legal claim; and the emperor, who must have confirmed the case’s legitimacy. This appears to be a sub imperio trial, legitimized by the imperium of the magistrates (Gai, 4.109), for which there was no explicit statute of limitation. Yet the mention of the eighteen months in the papyrus must not be accidental and it should be admitted that a statute of limitation applied in this case as well. There must be a reason for this. An evidently unnecessary eighteen-month statute of limitation for sub-imperio cases is understandable when the office of a magistrate with imperium was limited to a year, as, for example, in the case of the provincial governors or regular Roman officials. However, this was not the case in P. Yale II 107. The magistrates involved in this case were the prefect of Egypt and the emperor and the imperium for both of these positions was not limited to a single year. It may be, therefore, that the provision of the eighteen months, introduced by the lex Iulia for legitimate trials, applied also to the sub imperio cases when they were preliminarily approved by a magistrate with long tenure. In this way, the extension of trials ad infinitum would be avoided and a relatively expeditious administration of justice would be ensured. The jurist Gaius, focused as he was on Roman matters, may have overlooked this detail. Against this background, the picture concealed in P. Yale II 107 becomes more visible. The first group, that of the Jews, had initially submitted a supplication to Tiberius, who had accepted its legitimacy. The second group, that of the Alexandrians, reached Ostia in March 37 C.E. at the emperor’s beck to adjudicate the case before it expired. But the unexpected occurred. Tiberius’ death juxtaposed the statute’s eighteen months and the end of his own imperium and, consequently, Flaccus’ as well, who had initially sent the case to the emperor. That trial was formally dead and the one taking place before Gaius at the moment of his institutional confirmation was formally an entirely new proceeding.


113

The Dispute before Gaius After the senate confirmed his imperial powers on March 28, Gaius had full authority to adjudicate the case between the Alexandrian ambassadors, who were appearing on behalf of a body of 173 people (col. ii, —— διὰ τοὺς — —),55 and a second party, the accusers of the Alexρογ l. 3: ]ρογ andrians (col. iii, ll. 4–5: τῶν]/καταγορῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων),56 who were represented by a person always called κατήγορος, the plaintiff (col. i, l. 10; col. ii, ll. 21, 27; col. iii, ll. 11, 12, 19, 23, 24). For reasons explained above, this work assumes for the time being that this person represented the Alexandrian Jews. The fragmented condition of the text does not preclude a reasonable recognition of some of the main phases of the trial. First, the plaintiff introduced himself to the emperor and pleaded his case (col. ii, ll. —– 13–19);57 the only legible line is the χλ ἐνιαυτοὺς of l. 17. The following fragmentary lines (col. ii, ll. 20–24) very likely recorded the emperor’s acknowledgement of the plaintiff ’s grievances. This is suggested by the only legible sentence in l. 21: ἄχθοµαι ὅτι κατη[γορ, and by the refer—– —– ence in l. 23 to χλ, by which Gaius recalled the plaintiff ’s χλ ἐνιαυτοὺς 58 of l. 17. Gaius then permitted Eulalos, the defendants’ lawyer, to give his defense speech (col. ii, ll. 26ff.). He then allowed Areios, a second representative of the defendants, to intervene (col. ii, ll. 33–col. iii, ll. 6). Eventually, the emperor recognized the validity of Areios’ argument and condemned the accuser to death (col. iii, ll. 23–25). The emperor’s letter followed, announcing his sentence to Alexandria.

55 —– see Stephens, Yale For the difficulty of translating and interpreting διὰ τοὺς ρογ Papyri, 94; probably the citizens gerousia according to El-Abbadi, “Gerousia;” they may be the same ones Gaius addresses at col. ii, l. 11: γερα[ίοι. On the basis of these lines, Von Premerstein, Alexandrinische Geronten, 1–11, opened the discussion on the Alexandrian gerousia; his conclusions are no longer accepted. 56 In accordance with the general rule that did not allow individuals but only groups to appeal before the emperor; Taubenschlag, Law of Egypt, 605. 57 Stephens, Yale Papyri, 95. 58 None of the editors has suggested that these lines may report the words of the emperor; cf. Stephens, Yale Papyri, ad loc., and Kuhlmann, Giessener Papyri, ad loc. However, as suggested by Stephens, Yale Papyri, 95, the person who speaks here cannot be either one of the two Alexandrians who intervene in the following line. Since it cannot be the accuser either, as it would make no sense for him to say ἄχθοµαι ὅτι κατη[γορ, by logical exclusion, Gaius is the best candidate. More on this in Gambetti, “P. Yale II 107.”

114

chapter five

All of the details and phases in P. Yale II 107—the trial’s rapid development, with the immediate presentation of grievances, debate and sentencing taking place within a very short period—recall the form of the cognitio extra ordinem, that is, the expedited trial format introduced by Augustus.59 The cognitio extra ordinem integrated the trial’s two phases of the per formulas, namely, the in iure, the presentation and the explanation of the nature of the case, and the in iudicio, the final sentencing.60 While in the per formulas the two phases took place at different times under two different magistrates (a magistrate for the instruction in the in iure, a judge in the in iudicio), in the cognitio everything took place on the same day and before the same magistrate. This means that the litis contestatio, where in the in iure phase the plaintiff and the defendant pled their cause and presented their witnesses,61 took place before the judging magistrate. This is exactly what happened before Gaius in 37 C.E. The content of the text is much more difficult to determine. With the exception of a still obscure mention of 630 years (col. ii, l. 17),62 the

59

For discussion of the legal aspects of the papyrus, see Gambetti, “P. Yale II 107.” Scholars have also debated the concrete changes brought by the cognitio. While it is clear that now the judges are imposed on the parties by authority and no longer nominated by the accuser as formerly in the per formulas, some have thought that the structure of the trial itself, because of the fusion of the in iure and in iudicio, also underwent substantial changes. The first important contribution against that assumption is in R. Orestano, “La cognitio extra ordinem—una chimera,” SDHI 46 (1980): 236–247. There has been discussion on the relationship between the two procedures—whether there was opposition, continuity, integration; see J.N. Coroi, “Le P. Oxy. III 471. Une cognitio caesariana sous Trajan,” in Atti del IV congresso internazionale di papirologia Firenze, 28 aprile–2 maggio 1935 (Milano: Aegyptus, 1936), 415 n. 3; T. Honoré, Emperors and Lawyers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 8 stresses and limits the interference of Augustus’ cognitio in procedural and not legislative matters; M. Kaser, “Gli inizi della ‘cognitio extra ordinem’,” in Antologia giuridica romanistica ed antiquaria (Milano: Giuffre, 1968), 185, and R. Orestano, Il potere normativo degli imperatori e le costituzioni imperiali (Roma: Europa, 1937), 3–12; W. Turpin, “Formula,” “cognitio,”and proceedings “extra ordinem.” RIDA 46 (1999): 499–574. Who minimizes the notion of change and the contribution of the emperor. More recently, Zanon, Strutture accusatorie, has seen the cognitio as a trial based on the function of the accusatio, thus outlining the fundamental continuity with the per formulas, as opposed to the view of a new trial based on the inquisitio of the judge. Certainly P. Yale II 107 supports Zanon’s view. 61 For the debate on the existence of the institution of the litis contestatio in the cognitio extra ordinem of the classical period see S. Di Paola, “La ‘litis contestatio’ nella ‘cognitio extra ordinem’ dell’età classica,” Annali del seminario giuridico dell’Università di Catania, 2 (1947–48): 253–298; a later contribution, but limited to the criminal trial, is in A. Biscardi, “Sur la litis contestatio du procès criminel,” RIDA 7 (1960): 307–359. 62 But see Gambetti, “Jewish Community,” where I suggest a connection with the origin of the Jewish community of Alexandria; see also below in this chapter. 60


115

plaintiff ’s grievances are lost in the lacunae (col. ii, ll. 13–19). Gaius’ reply to him refers to the 630 years, but what he actually said is lost as well (col. ii, ll. 20–24). The intervention of Eulalos, the Alexandrians’ first spokesperson speaking as defendant, is better preserved, but his rationale is illegible (col. ii, ll. 26–31). The next exchange, first between the defendant Areios and Gaius, then between Areios and the plaintiff, is more understandable. Areios asked the emperor to allow something which he granted (col. iii, l. 10, Areios: διὸ ἐπίτρεψον; col. iii, l. 12, Gaius: ἐπιτρέπω). Following this, an exchange of roles took place: the defendant became the accuser, and the original plaintiff, now the defendant, lost his case. A Roman legal procedure called the exceptio peremptoria, which allowed the examination of legitimacy of the basis of the plaintiff ’s accusations and possibly turned it against him, explains this in technical terms.63 The argument now introduced by Areios questioned the accuser’s status (col. iii, ll. 12–23). This neither interrupted nor delayed the trial; rather, it accelerated it. The parties then addressed each other without the emperor’s intercession (col. iii, ll. 12–17), according to a custom that Quintilian called ἀντικατηγορία (Inst. 7.2, 20).64 The rapid exchange requires closer examination: P. Yale II 107, col. iii, ll. 15–16 (Areios speaks):65 ε]̣ἶπ̣ε̣ν̣· “σ̣ὺ τῆς πατρίδος µου κ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ἴσως κἀγὼ τῆς σῆς πα[τρίδος ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣” said: “you of / from my patris in the same way also I of / from your patris

63 Exceptions were already known by Cicero (cf. De inv., 2, 20, 60), but the normative description of the exceptio is in Gai, Inst., 4.119–121. Basic studies are in R. Bozzoni, Le eccezioni nel diritto romano classico (Napoli: Jovene, 1908) and A. Palermo, Studi sulla “exceptio” nel diritto classico (Milano: Giuffrè, 1956). A good entry is in W. Smith, “Actio,” in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: Murray, 1875). For further explanations on this turn of the trial and comments on this particular aspect of Roman legal procedure, see Gambetti, “P. Yale II 107.” 64 There are, however, cases in which the emperor prefers to administer the trial in a more orderly way; F. Millar, The Emperor and the Roman World (31 B.C.–A.D. 337) (London: Duckworth, 1977), 236. 65 Stephens, Yale Papyri; similarly Kuhlmann, Giessener Papyri. Differently Musurillo and Parassoglou, “Fragment Acta,” col. ii, ll. 70–71 (the accuser speaks): [ἀ]πέχου τῆς πατρίδος µου κ[………..]/[. . . .]. ἴσως κἀγὼ τῆς σῆς πα[τρίδος. . . .] stay away from my patris in the same way also I from your patris. The different lectiones do not jeopardize the basic sense of the sentence, which is safeguarded by its parallel construction.

116

chapter five

It is quite clear that the patris is the problem here. The topic of this heated exchange recalls the situation of Helenos, the Jewish resident of Alexandria, who petitioned the Roman prefect Gaius Turranius concerning his patris at the end of the first century B.C.E. (BGU IV 1140 = CPJ II 151).66 That document and its context clarifies the meaning of the patris-dispute in P. Yale II 107. In their exchange of sharp accusations about their respective patris, Areios and the accuser were disputing their respective civic definitions in the city, an issue ultimately linked to matters of status and legal residence. All of this is connected to the second legible dispute in the papyrus (col. iii, ll. 21–23). As the editors have suggested different readings, thus, it is worthwhile to examine the text of the papyrus as it is: P. Yale II 107, col. iii, ll. 21–23: ιδ[ ] δη ξενι[ ] γαρ µαλ[ ] λαβων πο[ ]ιτειαν α[ ]πογραφο[ ξω.

c. 5

]

In spite of the lacunae, the passage clearly refers to what can be referred to as matters of public law. The word politeian is almost intact and there are traces of related subjects—xeni[ ], related to foreigners, and ]pographo[, related to a register or something of that nature. The editors have supplied the missing parts thus: P. Giss. Univ. 46 (= Acta III), col. iii, ll. 21–22: ἴδ[ε] δὴ ξενι[κὸς] γὰρ µᾶλ[λον κατα-] λαβὼν πο[λ]ιτείαν ἀ[να]πόγραφο[ν c. 5 ξω.

]

See, he is a foreigner for he rather seizes unregistered civic rights P. Yale II 107, col. iii, ll. 21–23: εἶπεν· “ἴδ[ε] δὴ ξενι[κ]ὸς γὰρ µάλ[α ὁ καταλαβὼν π[ο]λειτείαν, ἀ[λλ’ ἀ]πογραφό[µενος ἔξ̣ω.”

See, he is a foreigner, since very much he is one who seizes civic rights, but he is registered outside. 66

See above ch. 3 and below appendix 5.


117

The first consideration concerns α[ ]πογραφο[. Regardless of the editors’ restorations, the word comes from apographein, a term belonging exclusively to the papyrological documentation of the Roman administration of Egypt. Musurillo suggests ἀ[να]πόγραφο[ν, attributive or predicative of πο[λ]ιτείαν, while Stephens prefers the independent adversative sentence ἀ[λλʼ ἀ]πογραφό[µενος ἔ/ξω, referring to the accuser. Musurillo’s lectio poses a problem, for the word ἀναπόγραφος, meaning unregistered, as appositive/attributive to politeia would be a hapax. In this case, the accuser, a foreigner, would in turn be accused of seizing unregistered civic rights. Stephens’ suggestion is more orthodox, since ἀπογραφόµενος is read as a predicative to a person, which is in keeping with the known use of the word as attested in the papyri.67 Apographein is the verb used to sanction a very particular kind of document in Roman Egypt, the κατ’οἰκίαν ἀπογραφαί.68 These declarations were submitted by the heads of each household at census time69 and listed the members of the household and its properties. Note particularly that the kat’oikian apographai and the notifications to the anagraphē are linked not to the temporary domicile but rather to the idia, the legal and permanent place of residence—a village, a metropolis in the chōra, or a city.70 The contexts within which the papyri use apographein validate Stephens’ restoration and offer a possible explanation for the ἔξω that she restores in ll. 22–23. By ἀ[λλʼ ἀ]πογραφό[µενος ἔ/ξω, the Alexandrian Areios was pointing out that the location of the accuser’s idia, his legal residence, was outside, an apparently sufficient reason to stigmatize him as a foreigner. If, for the moment, we must concede that what ‘outside’ refers to is likely buried in the lacunae of the papyrus, then Areios

67 Not very different is the restoration by Kuhlmann, Giessener Papyri, editing P.Giss. Lit. 4.7, who suggests ἀπογράφος, attributive of ξενικός. 68 The few declarations from Alexandria collected in P.Alex.Giss. 14–18; 22 belong to later periods. 69 Reference work on this topic is now Bagnall and Frier, Demography. 70 The documents are countless; for the sake of simplification, see P.W. Pestman, The New Papyrological Primer (Leiden–New York–Köln: Brill, 1994), #37, 41, 44, 46, 49, 51, 59, for the κατ’οἰκίαν ἀπογραφαί; #20, 31, 36, 43, 46 for ἀναγραφή; a list of the ἀναγραφή papyri of Roman time updated to 1967 is in H.W. Kraus, ᾽Aναγραφή und ἀναγραφεῖν im Ägypten der Ptolemäer auf Römer (Köln: Universität zu Köln, 1967), 91–99. On the role of census within the Roman Egyptian administration, Lewis, Life in Egypt, 156–159 and the comprehensive study by Bagnall and Frier, Demography.

118

chapter five

evidently made a successful territorial argument, which turned out to be sufficient to declare the accuser a foreigner. Areios’ final attack on residence notification was the final blow that allowed him, to quote the papyrus, to “demonstrate that the accuser was not right,” (col. iii, ll. 23–24). The accuser lost the dispute, his patris was declared fraudulent and his politeia became illegal. Whatever the original accusation the accuser submitted at the beginning of the trial, the reframing produced by the exceptio peremptoria, which Gaius allowed at Areios’ request, turned the focus of the case to the accuser’s status. The case was closed and the accuser was condemned to death. The Punishment Burning, the punishment that Gaius imposed on the accuser (col. iii, ll. 24–25), has rightly puzzled scholarly interpretation, particularly when correlated with the nature of the accusation. In 1954, Musurillo, then working on a still-incomplete text without the new Yale fragment, was certainly in a difficult position. He decisively refuted von Premerstein’s restorations and conclusion, yet offered no new ideas since he lacked material. Unable to state anything with certainty concerning the charges against the accuser, he could do little more than offer a viable hypothesis.71 His first point concerned the charge of maiestas, for which execution by fire was the customary punishment reserved for the humiliores in the second century. As Musurillo observed, this idea could have been anachronistic because no distinction was made between honestiores and humiliores at the time of the dramatic date of the trial. Instead, this idea supported the thesis that the papyrus had been written in the second century by a writer who was familiar with similar punishments and social distinctions.72 Musurillo also proposed that the accuser was charged with calumnia; however, Musurillo himself admitted that this proposition was problematic. According to Roman law, calumniatores were branded with a ‘K,’ a punishment indicated in the Greek language with the term στίζειν. A basic lexical problem, 71

Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 112–114. Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 112 observes that this would be the earliest example of crematio before “Nero’s fantastic execution of the Christians,” and the common practice of the second century onward; more straightforward is Kuhlmann, Giessener Papyri, 129, who speaks of an unhistorical exaggeration in the light of the second century practice. 72


119

therefore, complicates this interpretation, as the papyrus undoubtedly reads καῆναι, ‘to be burnt.’73 Though inconclusive, further discussion of this matter cannot ignore these issues. Ultimately, the definition of the nature of the charge and corresponding punishment contributes to the reading of P. Yale II 107 either as fiction or as a historical text. For this reason, it is important to enter deeper into this debate. The Nature of the Accusation: Arguments for and against Maiestas The suggestion that this chapter offers concerning the charges against the accuser aims at discussing the nature of the punishment on firmer ground. It must first be determined whether conviction of irregular residence fell under the umbrella of crimen maiestatis, since the development of the meaning of maiestas at the beginning of the principate allows a broadening of the scenario. In fact, the sources reveal that anything from verbal offense of the emperor to high treason could fall within its purview.74 Since this was the case, the accuser’s crime of living irregularly somewhere in the city could well have constituted crimen maiestatis. The city of Alexandria would be the first aggrieved party in line, since irregular residence, with its status-related implications and fiscal consequences, meant avoiding the payment of the poll-tax. Classical Athens had already singled out foreigners who did not pay the tax on aliens, such as motoikion, eisphora and xenika, defrauders of the state.75 Ultimately, however, such a process concerned Rome, since it cut into state revenues, blatantly ignoring the utilitas publica and flouting Rome’s maiestas.

73 LSJ, καίω, s.v. Yet semantically some observation should be allowed on the ground that καῆναι is not found to refer to the burning of people alive; in this sense, the Greek language uses κατακαίω, as exemplified in Hdt., 4.69 and Jos., B.J., 7.477–451; see Stephens, Yale Papyri, 96–97 and Kuhlmann, Giessener Papyri, 129. It must be considered that this papyrus is likely the Greek translation of the original Latin minutes, which may account for the inaccurate use of vocabulary; see complete linguistic argument in Gambetti, “P. Yale II 107”, and below in this chapter. 74 R.A. Bauman, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome (London–New York: Routledge, 1996), 50–64; Levick, Tiberius, 180–200; Seager, Tiberius, 125–137. 75 The punishment was enslavement; Whitehead, Athenian Metic, 76; S.C. Todd, “Status and Gender in Athenian Public Records,” in SYMPOSION 1995. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Korfu, 1.-5. September 1995) (eds. G. Thür and J. Vélissaropoulos-Karakostas; Köln–Weimar–Wien: Böhlau, 1997), 115; A.R.W. Harrison, The Law of Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 165; Niku, Foreign Residents, 23–24. The present work considers Athenian law to be of paramount importance for understanding the Alexandrian riots; see introduction.

120

chapter five

If this argument can stand theoretically, then possible chronological concerns should enter the discussion. Gaius suspended the trials for maiestas at his inception and seemed to keep his word for two years;76 he announced to the senate at the beginning of his first consulate in July 37 C.E., that is a little less than four months after the present trial occured, that he intended to grant a moratorium.77 Therefore, that the accuser was guilty of maiestas cannot be ruled out. The Nature of the Accusation: Arguments for and against Calumnia The charge of calumnia (Murusillo’s second hypothesis) also deserves mention here. Calumnia meant a charge of false accusation and was a criminal matter under Roman law.78 It is technically difficult to apply this definition to the case of the accuser of P. Yale II 107, since the text’s lacunae conceal the content of the accusation, as well as the defendant’s first speech. Yet the course of the trial after the exceptio peremptoria, which Gaius allowed at the defendant’s request, may leave room for a comparative interpretation. Not very many years earlier, when Rome was cleansed after Sejanus’ death, the so-called immensa strages of 33 C.E., a series of accusations for Seiani amicitia were brought before the magistrates. One of the defendants gained acquittal by admitting that he was Sejanus’ friend and noting that Tiberius was as well. The court’s positive verdict undermined the premises of the nature of the accusation and set a precedent for all similar cases, so that whoever signed a libellum accusing someone else of having being Sejanus’ friend was condemned of calumnia for “lodging charges without a reasonable expectation of success.”79 The question arises, then, whether this principle could have been brought against the accuser of P. Yale II 107, that is, whether Gaius thought that the accuser had charged the defendant—we ignore the content of the charge, remember—in spite of his awareness that his case could not be successful because of his irregular residential situation, as the outcome of the exceptio ultimately confirmed. Unlike the possible case of maiestas, a verdict in this case would focus not on the outcome of 76

Bauman, Crime, 66; Barrett, Caligula, 64. See below ch. 6 for discussion on the chronology and content on Gaius’ moratorium for the crimen maiestatis. 78 Good entry in Smith, Dictionary, s.v. More recent bibliography in Bauman, Crime, 180, n. 67. 79 I quote Bauman, Crime, 63. 77


121

the court debate—the accuser was proven wrong because of his irregular registration—but on the false implication on which it was based. Thus, the case for calumnia is weak, but remains a possibility. The Nature of the Punishment: Arguments for and against Branding and Burning the Condemned Alive The punishment for calumnia apparently changed over the centuries. Cicero seemed to allude to branding a “K” on the false accuser’s forehead (Cic., Pro Rosc. Am., 20).80 Yet in 33 C.E., some calumniatores were either banished or condemned to death81 and later Gaius not only had many people’s faces branded (Sue., Gai., 27, 3: stigmatum notis), but also sent them on to worse punishments regardless of their status. In any case, the evidence of branding in Latin texts is not conclusive82 and could hardly explain P. Yale II 107. Thus, the most viable hypothesis remains that the accuser was burned alive. The fact that crematio as a criminal punishment became common only in the second century lends support to the thesis that this text is a fiction, since, as seen above, a second century C.E. author of the papyrus would attribute to Gaius a penalty commonly exacted in his own time. This conclusion, however, does not take all of the historical evidence into account. Burning convicts alive was a practice as old as the Roman state itself.83 The XII Tables condemned arsonists to the fire (Dig., 47. 9, 9 = FIRA I 23ff.), though it is not clear whether such a provision derived from the principle of direct vengeance or divine ordeal,84 or to make the punishment fit the crime according to the logic of the contrappassum. As it stood, however, the lex Cornelia de sicarii of 81 B.C.E. confirmed it at the end of the republic, as the leges Iuliae de vii publica et privata

80

Probably on the basis of the lex Remmia; C.P. Jones, “Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,” JRS 77 (1987): 153. 81 Bauman, Crime, 63. 82 Jones, “Stigma,” 154. 83 The vocabulary used in the sources is vivicomburium, igni necari, crematio. 84 To the divine ordeal inclines the comment of E. Cantarella, I supplizi capitali in Grecia e a Roma (Milano: Rizzoli, 1991), 225–236, while for the vengeance inspired on the talio see C. Lovisi, Contribution à l’étude de la peine de mort sous la République romaine (509–149 av. J.-C.) (Paris: De Boccard, 1999), 141. More comprehensive studies are in J. Gagé, “ ‘Vivicomburium’. Ordalies ou supplices par le feu dans la Rome primitive,” RIDA 42 (1964): 541–573, G. MacCormack, “Criminal Liability for Fire in Early and Classical Roman Law,” Index 3 (1972): 382–396.

122

chapter five

of 17 B.C.E. did as well at the beginning of the empire (Dig., 48. 8, 1; 6, 5; Sent., 5, 26, 3). The case of the burning of Rome in 64 C.E., for which, in the words of Tacitus, many Christians went up in flames like nocturnal torches (Tac., Ann., 15.44), seems to fall under the rubric of contrappassum, although many have voiced doubts about the reliability of Tacitus’ account and the legality of the accusation. The cognitio extra ordinem and ordinary changes in Roman society resulted in modifications to the administration of penalties as originally imposed. The Digest collects evidence about the distinctions between penalties for people of different statuses, the honestiores and the humiliores. From the second century onwards, death by fire was restricted to the lower classes, the humiliores convicted of the crime of maiestas, while lesser penalties prevailed for others, the honestiores.85 Some room for compromise existed between the rigidity of the XII Tables and the dilemma of unequal punishments prescribed by classical jurists, with the result that punishment by fire was soon exacted for crimes other than arson. Historical records reveal nine tribunes burned alive at the beginning of the republic, apparently for political reasons (Val. Max., 6, 3, 2; Fest., s.v. Novem; Dio, apud Zon., 7, 17), and other laws appeared under the republic that prescribed the vivicomburium for other crimes, such as desertion (App., Num., 3; Dig., 48. 19, 38, 1).86 Evidence reveals that Gaius’ judicial creativity took advantage of that opening, introducing penalties that his successors maintained and reapplied.87 In 39 C.E., when he re-introduced the crime of maiestas in full,88 he had occasion to express himself at his best, at least according to our sources that are openly hostile towards him (Sue., Gai., 22ff.). In one documented case, Gaius ordered a poet to be burned alive because of his verses’ double entendre, which likely referred to the emperor himself (Sue., Gai., 27, 4: igni cremauit). This was ostensibly a case of

85 MacCormack, “Liability for Fire,” 386 on the basis of P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privileges in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 221ff. In the list of Paul, Sent., 5, 17, 3, crematio is the second of the summa supplicia; for a comment on the summa supplicia in the doctrine of the second century, see U. Brasiello, La repressione penale in diritto romano (Napoli: Jovene, 1937), 246–271; 260–264 for fire. 86 Lovisi, Peine de mort, 143. 87 Bauman, Crime, 50–67; 65–67; but not for cases tried before the senate; 180, n. 5 and 7 for sources. 88 There is consensus on the fact that only in 39 C.E. did Gaius reintroduce the investigation against maiestas. There is, however, evidence that already in 38 C.E. he had started to proceed against cases of maiestas for offenses to members of his family; see below.


123

crimen maiestatis.89 This important piece of evidence provides some historical base for P. Yale II 107, inasmuch as it demonstrates that it makes unnecessary to place the discussion in the reality of the second century, since Gaius ordered crematio only two years after the trial of 37 C.E. In addition, it must not be forgotten that the cognitio gave the magistrates, the emperor, his appointees, or the senate freedom of procedure, particularly in cases involving foreigners not protected by the ius civile, as it was the case for the trial of 37 C.E. On both legal and historical grounds, it is reasonable to conclude that Gaius may have ordered death by burning and not branding in 37 C.E. Gaius’ application of crematio for crimen maiestatis in 39 brings the hypothesis that the accuser of P. Yale II 107 was condemned for maiestas back to the forefront—one of Musurillos’ initial hypothesis. Two further suggestions should be considered here. The first concerns an episode of public punishment as a form of entertainment that was so popular in the late republic and the empire.90 An epigram by Lucillius from the time of Nero describes a public execution by fire used as a re-enactment of Heracles’ eleventh labor (Anth. Pal., 11.184): Ἐκ τῶν Ἑσπερίδων τῶν τοῦ ∆ιὸς ἦρε Μενίσκος ὡς τὸ πρὶν Ἡρακλέης χρύσεα µῆλα τρία Καὶ τί γάρ; ὡς ἑάλω, γέγονεν µέγα πᾶσι θέαµα ὡς τὸ πρὶν Ἡρακλέης ζῶν κατακαιόµενος.

Out of Zeus’ Hesperidean garden Meniscus Like Heracles before him took with his hands three golden apples Why so? When he was caught he provided a great spectacle to everybody As Heracles before him, since he burnt alive.91 Lucillius did not invent this. Instead, it very likely happened and became increasingly popular in the decades to come if what Tertullian saw one century and a half later was something similar (Tert., Apol. 15.4–5: et qui vivus ardebat, Herculem induerat). A discrepancy, however, disturbs the reader familiar with Heraclean mythology at once: nothing in the brief account of his adventures in the garden of the Hesperides implies that he was burned alive. On the

89

An exceptional punishment according to Cantarella, Supplizi capitali, 224. A most interesting study on this subject is in K.M. Coleman, “Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments,” JRS 80 (1990): 44–73. 91 Translation from Coleman, “Fatal Charades,” 60 with minor variations. 90

124

chapter five

contrary, he very cleverly escaped with his three apples (Apollod., Bibl., 2.5, 113–121). The simile of the great public spectacle is therefore a contrario: the story of Heracles was great because he could escape, the show with Meniscus was spectacular because he could not. The twisted inaccuracy in relating Heracles’ myth may only be apparent and may, in fact, conceal some interesting background. In the myth of the eleventh labor, Euristheus requires Heracles to bring to him three apples from Hera’s orchard, which was guarded by the Hesperides. Prometheus advises Heracles not to fetch the apples himself, but to have Atlas do it for him instead. Heracles follows Prometheus’ advice and eventually acquires the apples away when Atlas lays them on the ground. In an alternate version, Heracles picks the apples from the tree himself after slaying the serpent that was guarding it. Both versions suggest that Heracles, a mortal and an outsider, was not permitted to enter the garden, let alone to pick the apples. In both cases, the interdiction to access is emphasized and, in both cases, Heracles overcomes it by strength or cunning. In contrast, Lucillius’ epigram states that Meniscus was caught as soon as he reached for the apples—and was burned alive. Meniscus’ performance exhibits none of Heracles’ admirable characteristics, but that did not render the outcome less entertaining. Some have attempted to contextualize this theatrical show both historically and juridically. Some suggest that Meniscus actually stole the apples, likely from an orchard belonging to a member of the upper class, hence the garden of Zeus on the stage.92 More abstractly, however, the performance focuses on the violation of forbidden limits and being burned alive as a consequence.93 This detail is particularly interesting for the present argument, since the accuser of P. Yale II 107 was ultimately condemned to be burned alive because his residence was registered outside, that is, he had violated the limit of a particular area in Alexandria, then usurping his status. Changing status had been, after all, a crime in Roman Egypt since the time of Augustus, with several additions by his successors.94 There is an interesting parallel in Athenian law as well,

92 L. Robert, “Dans l’amphithéâtre et dans les jardins de Néron. Une épigramme de Lucillius,” CRAI (1968): 280–288; 283: Meniscus had stolen the apples from the garden of Nero; M. Guarducci, “I pomi delle Esperidi in un epigramma di Lucillio,” Rend. Acc. Naz. Linc 24 (1969): 3–8: the crime is the theft of statuary. 93 As timidly suggested by Coleman, “Fatal Charades,” 61, n. 150. 94 However, the death penalty was never contemplated BGU V 1210, #8, 18, 38, 39, 42–45, 49, 51, 53, 56; Schubart, Gnomon, 28ff., ad loc; Lewis, Life in Egypt, 18–35.


125

whereby very precise legal actions could be taken against a foreigner who exceeded the boundary of his civic status.95 The cultural, historical and legal evidence, then, allows us to conclude that Gaius deemed the accuser’s crime to fall under the broad umbrella of crimen maiestatis, likely for violating the forbidden territorial limit of the ‘outside,’ the same as the boundary of his status. The punishment, being burned alive, was no novelty; historically, it was part of the range of Roman criminal punishments and it started to be applied in the early years of Gaius in cases comparable to the one of which the accuser was found guilty. Gaius’ Letter to the Alexandrians Gaius wrote a letter to the Alexandrians (col. iii, ll. 27–35). This was not at all exceptional. Letters had for centuries been the privileged means of diplomatic communication in the Greek east between Hellenistic kings and the cities and the Romans, following in their footsteps, adopted it.96 It is very difficult to discern the contents of the letter; however, both logic and a few legible lines suggest that Gaius made the sentence and his motivation known. A number of passages allow extensive comments. Col. iii, ll. 33–34 reads: ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]βο[µ]ε̣ν Ἰσιδώρου λέξ[αντος ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ο̣[ ̣ ̣]υ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ν µὴ As Isidoros said . . . At the beginning of the discussion of P. Yale II 107, preliminary comments on Isidoros’ involvement in this case were offered. The details of his role are now in play. 95 The graphē xenias, which was instructed when a foreigner attempted to pass for a citizen, and the graphē aprostasiou, when the foreigner could not produce a prostates in court, who was his original sponsor for the registration in the deme as metoikos: Harrison, Law, 165; Whitehead, Athenian Metic, 76; Niku, Foreign Residents, 23–24; graphē doroxenia, when a foreigner had corrupted a judge in order to be declared a citizen S.C. Todd, “Status and Contract in Fourth-century Athens,” in SYMPOSION 1993. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Graz-Andritz 12.–16. September 1993 (ed. G. Thür; Köln–Weimar–Wien: Böhlau, 1994), 125–140, 134; they were all punished with enslavement. Extensive study on this subject with critical revision of existing scholarship is in K. Kapparis, “Immigration and Citizenship Procedures in Athenian Law,” RIDA 52 (2005): 71–113. 96 J.-L. Mourgues, “Écrire en deux langues: bilinguisme et chancellerie sous le Hautempire romain,” DHA 21 (1995): 105–129. Roman letters to the east from the republic and the early Roman empire are collected in Sherk, Roman Documents, 211–265.

126

chapter five

Certainly, the mention of Isidoros’ name in Gaius’ letter points to a role of some relevance. The possibility that he was the Alexandrians’ attorney97 should probably be dismissed; although P. Yale II 107 is fragmented, the debate is somehow intelligible and excludes an intervention by Isidoros. Eulalos was the first Alexandrian to speak (col. ii. l. 26–col. iii, l. 2), and Areios, as Gaius observes (col. iii, l. 2), was the second speaker (col. iii, ll. 3–6; 8–11). The dispute involving Areios and the accuser could hardly have included Isidoros’ intervention (col. iii, ll. 12–23), even considering the two lines missing at the junction of the Giessen and the Yale fragments in the middle of col. iii. An alternative suggestion is that Isidoros was mentioned in his capacity of amicus principis and, as such, as Gaius’ legal counsel. Amicus, a de facto institution of the Roman government, had been known since the republic and had become increasingly instrumental and influential during the principate. Since the time of Augustus, amici had been members of the upper class, mostly, but not necessarily, senators, Romans or not, who had the emperor’s trust and access to his personal life.98 The amici were generally also part of the consilium principis, the emperor’s counselors, who, upon request, advised him on political and legal matters. With the introduction of the cognitio extra ordinem, the consilium principis became a permanent institution at the side of the emperor.99 In this matter, however, perplexity surrounds the principate of Gaius, since he seems never to have held a regular consilium as did his predecessors (Sue., Gai., 16, 2; Dio, 59. 5,5; cf. Philo, Legat., 350ff.).100 As it was for his predecessors, however, the composition of the consilium was flexible, since the emperor determined the number of members according to the nature of the case and the competence of the councilors; a consilium could be composed of only one member.101

97

As suggested by Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 90, n. 177. Crook, Consilium principis, 21–30; F. Amarelli, Consilia principium (Naples, 1983), 85; 122–130. 99 A comprehensive description with sources and major studies until the 1970s is in Schiller, Roman Law, 466–474; the different conclusions about the progressive institutionalization of the consilium between Crook, Consilium principis, and W. Kunkel, “Die Funktion des Konsiliums in der magistratischen Strafjustiz und im Kaisergericht; II,” ZSS 85 (1968): 253–329 do not affect the present argument; more recently Amarelli, Consilia. 100 For a discussion on the consilium under the republic see Kunkel, “Funktion des Konsiliums I,” 218–244; for the time of Augustus and Tiberius see Crook, Consilium principis, 31–40; Amarelli, Consilia, 90; 106. 101 Amarelli, Consilia, 83; 97. 98


127

In a trial involving two delegations from Alexandria, Gaius may have thought that Isidoros, in view of his status and his provenance, had sufficient standing to give him sound advice. The syntax of the sentence of Gaius’ letter encourages this hypothesis, where the mention of Isidoros’ contribution is formulated in the genitive absolute. Evidence in Roman legal sources indicates that interventions by members of the emperor’s consilium, when considered valuable for assessing the sentence, were included in the sentence itself. This was frequently recorded using the ablative absolute (Dig., 49.14, 50 [Paulus., Ed. III]: Tryphonino suggerente),102 the Latin correspondent of the genitive absolute.103 It is possible to say, therefore, that Isidoros intervened in the trial involving the Alexandrian delegations officially and as the emperor’s amicus in Rome in 37 C.E. Were the Jews then Involved in the Trial? Thus far, the preliminary assumption of the present reading of P. Yale II 107 is that the text contains references to the Jews of Alexandria. Observations have been limited to noting the coincidence between Philo’s admission of the impossibility of the Jews obtaining permission to travel to Rome for Gaius’ accession and the presence of two Alexandrian embassies in Rome at that very time. Further, the patris contention between the accuser and Areios in the papyrus and similar concerns voiced by the Alexandrian Jew Helenos in his petition to the prefect at the end of the first century B.C.E. have been compared. Now the issue can be addressed as a whole. It is now possible to conclude the discussion of the suppliants’ identity and to affirm that they were Alexandrian Jews. The similarities between the vicissitudes of the Alexandrian Jew Helenos and the content of P. Yale II 107 are not mere coincidence. One may reasonably state that both documents present the same problem, both leading to the loss of status ultimately linked to residence, impending for Helenos, real for the accuser of P. Yale II 107. This residence was the core of the Ptolemies’ original grant to the Jews, which both Augustus and Tiberius had confirmed, at least according to the available sources (Philo, Flacc., 50; cf. Legat., 153; 161; Jos., C. Ap., 2.37; 72). A person with the same problem as the Jew Helenos faced could easily 102

Amarelli, Consilia, 149–153. I argue that this document is a Greek translation from a Latin original in Gambetti, “P. Yale II 107.” 103

128

chapter five

have stepped into the accuser’s shoes. Both were disputing their civic definition within the city. Another way to test the hypothesis that the Jews were party to the trial of 37 C.E. is Gaius’ refusal, at Isidoros’ suggestion, of a crown of honor from the accuser and the group that he represented; col. iii, ll. 34–35 read: ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ βο[µ]ε̣ν Ἰσιδώρου λέξ[αντος ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] ̣ ο̣[ ̣ ]̣ υ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]ν µὴ ἐχέτωσαν µ[ήτ]ε ἀρετῆς στέφ[α]ν̣ον as Isidoros said, …………….. let them not have, nor the crown of honor. The lacunae fail to conceal that Gaius likely defined the measures to adopt, of which only part is legible, at Isodorus’ suggestion. Of the first part of the sentence, only a ν of a probable accusative, dependent on the verb ἐχέτωσαν, remains. Of the last part, only the object of the provision in the accusative, ἀρετῆς στέφανον, a crown of honor, is legible, while its verb is lost at the beginning of the next column. In any case, the two negations, µὴ and µ[ήτ]ε, disclose a parallel structure that requires an imperative verb for the missing part. The plural imperative verb ἐχέτωσαν undoubtedly indicates that the emperor was addressing a group and not a single person; by extension, the missing verb denying the crown of honor must have been in the plural as well. The text does not reveal the identity of these people; however, from a logical perspective, we must assume that the group in question could be no one other than the people represented by the accuser. Before proceeding, a specification should be made to determine the direction of the investigation: if the Roman government withdrew the crown, then the chance that the Roman government awarded it in the first place is quite high. A series of problems then arise. The first one is the legal foundation of granting honor to groups in antiquity. Epigraphic evidence from the Greek east demonstrates clearly that honors and privileges were granted to subjects collectively.104 Also the Romans granted honors to cities and communities, like synodoi or collegia, case in point Augustus’ privileges

104

This is what emerges from the analysis of Attic decrees; A.S. Henry, Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees (Hildesheim–Zürich–New York: Olms Verlag, 1983), 29.


129

to the association of the Dionysiac performers. There is documentation for privileges granted for military achievements beneficial to Rome already in the republic; the cases of Sulla and the senate to the city of Stratonikeia (RDGE 18)105 and of Caesar to the tribe of the Trinovantes (Caes., B.Gall., 5.20–22) are well known.106 Although the content of these measures differed, they were based on the principle that the Roman state recognized the juridical personality of private groups and associations, which were not necessarily established at the level of political institutions, but only as civic entities, other than to cities and ethnic groups. The accuser’s group might quite conceivably have received a Roman collective honor at an earlier point in time. The second problem concerns the intelligibility of ἀρετῆς στέφανον, an expression not otherwise known in antiquity. When ἀρετή is the reason for granting a crown, the extant epigraphic texts regularly use the standard formula στέφανον ἀρετῆς ἔνεκα.107 The word order in the present papyrus does not allow the text to be restored according to the standard epigraphic expression, the incompleteness of the sentence notwithstanding, even assuming that the text continued at the beginning of col. iv.108 Therefore, the papyrus must concern something different among Roman honors. The Romans used several types of crowns in their ceremonial life, both public and private. Excluding crowns worn for religious ceremonies or weddings, we consider here only the crowns granted by the Roman authorities for military achievement. According to Aulus Gellius’ comprehensive inventory of military crowns, the most prestigious were the corona triumphalis, obsidionalis, civica, muralis, castrensis, navalis. While the corona triumphalis and obsidionalis were reserved for emperors and generals (and for this reason they stand outside the present investigation), anyone who showed honor in battle—emperors, generals, and others—could earn the remaining crowns. Either the senate or the emperor could confer the award.

105

Sherk, Roman Documents, 105–111. A good introduction to the political significance of Roman grants is in Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 43–47; 415; on the Trinovantes, but not particularly related to the present topic, see J.F. Drinkwater, “The Trinovantes: Some Observations on their Participation in the Events of A.D. 60,” RSA 5 (1975): 53–57 and R. Dunnett, The Trinovantes (London: Duckworth, 1975). 107 Henry, Honours and Privileges, 42; C. Veligianni-Terzi, Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehrendekreten der Klassischen Zeit (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997): 294. 108 Image available on the web site Giessener Papyri- und Ostrakadatenbank, fragment B recto. 106

130

chapter five

The corona muralis, castrensis, and navalis were awarded for military courage, but apparently for very specific achievements (Gell., 5, 6, 11–18). The corona civica seems to be the oldest honor and the most comprehensive one (Gell., 5, 6, 11–15).109 According to tradition, Romulus first awarded it and in the late republic Cicero received it for uncovering the Catilinarian conspiracy. We are all familiar with the corona civica with the inscription ob cives servatos that the Senate granted to Augustus in 27 B.C.E. because he had saved the state and its citizens after decades of civil wars (Res gestae divi Augusti, 34). At the beginning of the first century the jurist Masurius Sabinus assessed the legal basis for the corona civica to be conferred on those who had saved the lives of their compatriots, killed enemies, and held conquered ground. Is ἀρετῆς στέφανος the corona civica? A mere translation is of no help. Corona virtutis, the Latin literal correspondent of ἀρετῆς στέφανος, is unknown to Roman culture and ἀρετῆς στέφανος is unknown to Greek tradition in antiquity. The answer should therefore include legal, linguistic and semantic considerations. Legal considerations concern the hypothetical initial eligibility of the accuser and those he represented for such an honor. Gellius reports that the Romans conferred the corona civica and all other military honors only on cives, Roman citizens. Whatever reading of the papyrus we may suggest and/or accept, under no circumstance can we affirm that the accuser and his group entered the trial as citizens, since Roman citizenship was granted to individuals but not to groups at the beginning of the empire. As seen above, the issue before Gaius concerned residence,

109 “Civica” corona appellatur, quam civis civi, a quo in proelio servatus est, testem vitae salutisque perceptae dat. 12 Ea fit e fronde quernea, quoniam cibus victusque antiquissimus quercus capi solitus; fuit etiam ex ilice, quod genus superiori proximum est, sicuti scriptum est in quadam comoedia Caecilii: “advehuntur” inquit “cum ilignea corona et chlamyde: di vestram fidem!” 13 Masurius autem Sabinus in undecimo librorum memorialium civicam coronam tum dari solitam dicit, cum is, qui civem servaverat, eodem tempore etiam hostem occiderat neque locum in ea pugna reliquerat; aliter ius civicae coronae negat concessum. 14 Tiberium tamen Caesarem consultum, an civicam coronam capere posset, qui civem in proelio servasset et hostes ibidem duos interfecisset, sed locum, in quo pugnabat, non retinuisset eoque loco hostes potiti essent, rescripsisse dicit eum quoque civica dignum videri, quod appareret e tam iniquo loco civem ab eo servatum, ut etiam a fortiter pugnantibus retineri non quiverit. 15 Hac corona civica L. Gellius, vir censorius, in senatu Ciceronem consulem donari a republica censuit, quod eius opera esset atrocissima illa Catilinae coniuratio detecta vindicataque. Basic comments in H.O. Fiebiger, “Corona,” RE VIII (1901): 1636–1643; for the linguistic argument see Gambetti, “P. Yale II 107.”


131

a privilege granted to non-citizens; the accuser lost residence, not citizenship of any kind, let alone the Roman one. The only possible preliminary conclusion is that the group represented by the accuser could never have received the corona civica. Linguistic considerations should confront the capacity of Greek to transmit the meaning of the corona civica. The Greek language has no exact correspondent to the adjective civicus; the Greek δηµόσιος, which may appear to convey the same sense, translates instead the Latin publicus.110 On the other hand, ἀρετῆς στέφανος, an unknown expression as seen above, is not the only case of unorthodox Greek in P. Yale II 107. Other expressions in it do not sound Greek at all, like the one that Areios uses as soon as he is introduced to the emperor (col. iii, ll. 4): ε]ἰ καὶ ἕτοιµός εἰµι πρὸς ἀπολ[ογίαν. The structure of this expression is certainly canonical, particularly with respect to the usual syntactical constructions for the word ἕτοιµος, which often occur in Greek literature.111 However, no classical Greek author uses such an expression, not even other lexical forms based on ἕτοιµος with ἀπολογία or with cognates of ἀπολογ-.112 Expressions molded on the combination of ἕτοιµος with ἀπολογ- may not have a very Greek appearance; however, they closely resemble Latin indeed. The legal language of the Roman republic shows that paratus, the Latin equivalent of the Greek ἕτοιµος, was used in the expressions paratus ad causam or paratus ad dicendum (Cic., Brut., 78, 3; 263, 8). More specifically, Ulpian, active under Septimius Severus and Caracalla, quotes verbatim the iureconsult Sabinus, the already mentioned distinguished lawyer of the first half of the first century C.E. who held the ius respondendi ex auctoritate principis under Tiberius; in this passage 110

H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto: Hakkert, 1974), 35. LSJ, ἕτοιµος, s.v., II. There are other cases, all of them from Rome in the first century C.E.; Dionysios of Halicarnassos (A.R., 9.29,1—ἕτοιµος ἀπολογεῖσθαι) lived and taught rhetoric in Rome in the time of Augustus; Peter wrote what is referred to as his first letter from Rome during the time of Claudius or Nero [1 Peter, 3, 15—ἕτοιµοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν; on the authorship, date, and location of composition of 1 Peter, on the basis of both historical and linguistic arguments see K.H. Jobes, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005)]; the trial before the emperor Titus (P. Rendel Harris = Acta VI), ll. 10–11:] οὔκ εἰμι ἕτοιµ[ος]/[ ποιεῖσθαι τ]ὴν [ἀ]πολογίαν); Josephus (A.J. 15.357—ἕτοιµος εἰς τὴν ἀπολογίαν), arrived in Rome after 70 C.E. and lived and wrote there under the Flavians. The complete argument is in Gambetti, “P. Yale II 107,” where I argue that this text is a chancellery Greek translation of the minutes of the trial filed in Latin. See below. 112 Ancient Greek lawyers commonly introduced a defense speech with a conjugated form of ἀπολογίαν ποιεῖσθαι, the basic expression in Greek with some variations in the choice of the verb. In addition to ποιεῖσθαι, the ancient Greek authors may use, among others, εἰπεῖν, ἔχειν, διδόναι, λέγειν. 111

132

chapter five

Sabinus uses a conjugated form of paratus defendere esse twice.113 Therefore, ‘paratus defendere esse’ was likely in use by the first half of the first century C.E. at the latest. Although ἕτοιµός εἰµι πρὸς ἀπολογίαν of P. Yale II 107 finds no precise Latin correspondent in the extant sources, which would be paratus ad defensionem (esse), Sabinus’ extant expression confirms that Latin nevertheless provided the linguistic field that could eventually produce such a new idiom in Greek. Nor was it uncommon in the Greco-Roman world to translate Latin idioms into unorthodox Greek,114 as it is attested in republican documents that Rome sent to the eastern empire, either senatus consulta or letters of magistrates and later of emperors.115 The uniformity and the unusual Greek flavor of the texts support the idea that native Greek speakers literally translated the Latin texts at the expense of Greek idiom in order to preserve the original texts as much as possible.116 This being the cultural background

113 Dig. 43.24.3.5 = Ulpianus 71 ad ed.: Si quis paratus sit se iudicio defendere adversus eos, qui interdicendum putant, ne opus fiat: an videatur desinere vi facere? et magis est, ut desinat, si modo satis offerat et defendere paratus est, si quis agat: et ita sabinus scribit. On Ulpian’s use of his sources, see T. Honoré, Ulpian. Pioneer of Human Rights (Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 148, who thinks that Ulpian did not read Sabinus directly but took it from Celsus; however, this scholar does not specifically comment on the passage in question and its precise reference to Sabinus’ writing. More like-sounding expressions are found in other legal works that eventually flowed into Justinian’s Digest: Dig. 9.4.24 = Paulus 18 ad ed.; Dig. 2.4.14 = Papinianus libro primo responsorum; Dig. 2.9.4 = Gaius libro sexto ad edictum provinciale; Dig. 31.8.3 = Paulus 9 ad plaut.; Dig. 12.6.35 = Iulianus libro 45 digestorum. Specifically on Ulpian: Dig. 5.3.25.17a = Ulpianus 15 ad ed.; Dig. 42.3.3 = Ulpianus 58 ad ed.; Dig. 42.4.5pr. = Ulpianus 59 ad ed.; Dig. 46.7.5.3 = Ulpianus 77 ad ed.; Dig. 46.7.5.7 = Ulpianus 77 ad ed.; Dig. 10.4.3.7 = Ulpianus 24 ad ed.; Dig. 17.1.29 = Ulpianus libro septimo disputationum; Dig. 43.24.3.5 = Ulpianus 71 ad ed. On Sabinus, see T. Honoré, “Masurius Sabinus,” OCD, 935–936. 114 J.N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 468–472. 115 Collected in Sherk, Roman Documents, 197–209; letters of republican magistrates RDGE 33–60; letters of Augustus 62, 64, 67, 68; infra many other cases. The Monumentum Ancyranum is probably the most famous case, for which see Adams, Bilingualism, 469–470, with bibliography of analytical studies of the language of the Res Gestae. The main linguistic study on the language of the Monumentum Ancyranum remains A.P.M. Meuwese, De rerum gestarum divi Augusti versione graeca (Amsterdam: Teulings, 1920); now see also J. Scheid, Res gestae divi Augusti (Paris: Belle Lettres, 2007). 116 Sherk, Roman Documents, 13; Adams, Bilingualism, 470–471, and notes 214, 218; an earlier study on literal translation is S. Brock, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” GRBS 20 (1979): 69–87, especially 79–87. It is the case to mention here a further study on this subject: E. Dickey, “KYRIE, DESPOTA, DOMINE. Greek Politeness in the Roman Empire,” JHS 121 (2001): 1–11. The author suggests that the form of address κυρίε, becomes frequent at the beginning of the Roman empire initially as a translation of the Latin form domine. Such an argument may seem useful to the present


133

of the bilingual Roman empire, we can conclude that the expression ἀρετῆς στέφανος, like etoimos pros apologian, may be a translation of Latin for which Greek had no exact correspondent. This was possible because the minutes of the trial were filed in Latin and only late were translated into Greek. Even if it is still linguistically impossible to recognize any Roman honor in the ἀρετῆς στέφανος, we must surmise that semantically ἀρετῆς στέφανος could well be the corona civica or something similar. A soldier who had earned the corona civica had certainly demonstrated courage in battle, concerned not only for himself but especially for his fellow soldiers and the state. In brief, he had demonstrated excellence and honor, two qualities certainly contained in the articulate meaning of ἀρετή. From the semantic point of view, therefore, ἀρετῆς στέφανος could correspond to corona civica. Thus, two temporary conclusions have been reached: a negative one, namely that, legally speaking, an authentic corona civica could not be in view; and a semi-positive one, namely that, semantically speaking, the corona civica could be ἀρετῆς στέφανος. These conclusions should now be combined with historical evidence and the fact, indisputably attested by the papyrus, that the Roman authority did deprive the group that the accuser represented of some honor symbolized by a crown. Deprivation of honor in connection with criminal punishment was common in ancient Mediterranean legal systems. In Athens, atimia could itself be a punishment and might also include the deprivation of honor, among other things.117 In Rome, infamia—the term for this additional legal appendage—was an old degradation, according to which the condemned temporarily or permanently lost some of the honors

study, in that it would further confirm that P. Yale II 107 is a Greek translation from Latin also on the basis of the κυρίε by which the Alexandrian ambassadors greet Gaius in col. ii, l. 25 and col. iii, ll. 3 and 9. Unfortunately, in this case Dickey’s interesting study cannot be of any help. Actually, as the author herself admits, κυρίε was already part of the current Greek vocabulary, as demonstrated by the way that Philo addresses Gaius in 39 C.E. (Legat., 356; Dickey, 6); it follows that the Alexandrian ambassadors of P. Yale II 107 had very likely used κυρίε themselves, and that what they may have said corresponds to what the later translation into Greek rendered. The main argument on ἕτοιµος ἀπολογ- is, conversely, that no Greek native speaker could have used that expression because it did not exist in Greek in the first place—hence its origin as a literal translation from Latin. 117 M.H. Hansen, Apagogé, Endeixis and Ephegesis agains Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes. A Study in the Athenian Administration of Justice in the Fourth Century B.C. (Odense: Odense University Press, 1976), 18–20; Harrison, Law, 169–176 for all the testified cases of atimia.

134

chapter five

and privileges that his status guaranteed, in addition to the punishment for his crime.118 From a technical point of view, then, the deprivation of the crown of honor is justifiable and meaningful within the papyrus’ context as demotion added to the main punishment. Could this have applied to the Alexandrian Jews? As Philo points out, before the riots of the summer of 38 C.E. Alexandria’s Jews were katoikoi epitimoi (Philo, Flacc., 172),119 where epitimoi indicates that the Jews had been awarded honors and privileges. Other than the privileges discussed above,120 the word could refer to any kind of honor. In this regard, a passage from Josephus is of particular interest. In his invective against Apion, Josephus maintains that both Augustus and the Roman senate recognized the Jews’ merit by decree and letters respectively. These expressed their gratitude for Jewish support and allegiance (solacium atque fides)121 to Julius Caesar against the Egyptians (C. Ap., 2.61), when the Alexandrian Jews, as seen above, supported Caesar’s maneuvers to maintain his logistic position in the city harbor.122 Similar achievements certainly could justify military recognition by Roman authority; Roman citizens would have been eligible to receive the corona civica. The Jews could not aspire to such military honor without citizenship; yet Josephus’ own words leave open the possibility that Roman decrees and letters referred to just such an honor when he states that they confirm the Jews’ merita (C. Ap., 2.61). Merita certainly implies military valor (cf. Cic., Phil., 3.14).123 Potentially, therefore, it is possible that the Alexandrian Jews received a ἀρετῆς στέφανος/corona

118 The literature on the subject is copious; the reference work is A.H.J. Greenidge, Infamia: Its Place in Roman Public and Private Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1894), non vidi; for more specific studies in public and private law, see M. Kaser, “Infamia und Ignominia in den römischen Rechtsquellen,” ZSS 73 (1956): 220–278; M.W. Frederiksen, “Caesar, Cicero and the Problem of Debt,” JRS 56 (1966): 128–141 and M.I. Henderson, “The Process ‘De Repetundis’,” JRS 41 (1951): 71–88. 119 “[…] ὠνείδισα ποτε ἀτιµίαν καὶ ξενιτείαν αὐτοῖς ἐπιτίµοις οὖσι κατοίκοις, κτλ.”[…]; (Flaccus speaks): I cast on them (scil. the Jews) the slur that they were foreigners without civic rights, though they were residents with granted privileges, etc. 120 See above ch. 3. 121 […] nos autem maximo Casare utimur teste solacii atque fidei, quam circa eum contra Aegyptiacos gessimus, necnon et senatu eiusque dogmatibus et epistulis Caesaris Augusti, quibus nostra merita comprobantur. 122 See above ch. 2. 123 si autem militibus exquirendi sunt honores novi propter eorum divinum atque immortale meritum, ducibus autem ne referri quidem potest gratia, quis est qui eum hostem non existimet quem qui armis persequantur conservatores rei publicae iudicentur?


135

civica124 for their support to Ceasar, and they could certainly be the group from whom Gaius reclaimed it in 37 C.E. Possible additional evidence pointing to the involvement of the Alexandrian Jews at the trial of 37 could be the 630 years that the accuser mentions in his plea to the emperor (P. Yale II 107, col. ii, l. 17). Those years, subtracted from the dramatic date of the papyrus, provide a date in 594 B.C.E.,125 when Psammetichus II led an expedition to Nubia. From late Pharaonic times through the Persian period, the southernmost Egyptian garrison on the Nubian border was on the Island of Elephantine, where a Jewish contingent was stationed.126 The papyrus does not specify the context in which the accuser mentioned the 630 years, but he was possibly referring to that Jewish garrison.127

124 Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 72 n. 89 suggests that this is the crown representing the honors granted—ungranted in this case—to communities who have presented the emperor with decrees honoring his accession to the throne; it is unclear how the author contexualizes this with the text of the papyrus. 125 Stephens, Yale Papyri, 95, ad loc. 126 The papyri are collected in B. Porten, Jews of Elephantine and Arameans of Syene (fifth century BCE). Fifty Aramaic Texts with Hebrew and English Translation (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1974) now in a more recent English translation in B. Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-cultural Continuity and Change (Leiden: Brill, 1996); comments on the pre-Persian period of the garrison and the presence of the Jews in B. Porten, Archive from Elephantine. The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley–Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968); 8–19; the Jewish presence in Elephantine is emphasized by Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 21–26; before him already by Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 269–270. 127 The moving of the Jews away from Elephantine is also suggested by papyrological evidence. Jews are not attested there starting from the early Hellenistic period; rather, the earliest of a series of documents involving Greeks is dated 310 B.C.E., a fact suggesting that the garrison underwent changes and was, by that date, manned by Greek forces [P. Eleph. 1 = MChr 283 = JurPap 18, Jul/Aug 310 B.C.E.; Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 77]. The papyrus contains a wedding contract between Greeks with Greek witnesses; it is the first document discussed in U. Yiftach-Firanco, Marriage and Marital Arrangements. A History of the Greek Marriage Document in Egypt. 4th century BCE–4th century CE (München: Beck 2003), 41 and passim. It is highly possible, then, that Ptolemy Lagos transferred the Jews, who traditionally served in Elephantine, and substituted them with Greek soldiers. Given the historical context of those years, the Alexandrian destination is highly plausible for the Jewish soldiers of Elephantine. I discuss and accept this possibility in Gambetti, “Jewish Community.” For a different interpretation, see Kayser, “Ambassades,” 446–447, who, assuming that this line in the papyrus belongs to one of the Alexandrians, connects the resulting date of 594–593 B.C.E. to Solon in Athens, an Alexandrians’ attempt to make a direct connection with the Athenian legislator, particularly regarding the boulē, an institution that notoriously the Alexandrians were fighting to have reestablished.

136

chapter five Rounding up P. Yale II 107

Thus, external and comparative evidence suggest that the accuser and the supplicants of P. Yale II 107, having waited for eighteen months in Rome to meet the emperor, were Jews and that eventually they lost their case. The reason for this loss was residence; the representative of the Jews apparently registered his idia in a mistaken part of the city; his guilt extended to the entire group. For the moment, this is what the papyrus reveals about the outcome of the trial. Something more can now be said about the fragmented col. i and the summary of events at the time of Tiberius’ accession. Two phases are detectable: the first mentions a letter of the emperor (col. i, ll. 6–7); the second probably reports a meeting with Tiberius, judging from the vocative κυ]ρίε of l. 13 and εἶπε(ν) of l. 16. The matter was the patris mentioned in l. 4 (τῇ πατρίδι), the same issue later disputed between the Jewish accuser and Areios in col. iii, ll. 15–16 before Gaius. In addition, — γερό[ντω]ν of col. i, l. 14 is identical to the ρογ —— ρογ the reference to ἀπὸ — — — διὰ τοὺς ρογ of col. ii, l. 3, indicating that the same Alexandrian body who sent one delegation to Tiberius later sent another one led by Eulalos in 37 C.E., who met Gaius instead. There seems to be some important similarity and continuity between the phase over which Tiberius presided and the following one before Gaius. The dispute between the Jews and the citizens of Alexandria over patris had been brewing for some time. This also indicates that something occurred well before 37 C.E., already in 35 C.E., when the Jews left Alexandria for Rome in the wake of the upheaval at the gymnasium. Col. I contained the description of those pre-37 events. In 37 C.E., though Tiberius’ death interrupted the legal cycle of the first supplication submitted by the Jews to him in 35 C.E., the new trial adjudicated by Gaius on March 28, of which, it is important to recall, the premises introduced by the accuser are lost, is not discontinuous with the previous rounds. The exceptio peremptoria allowed by Gaius did not change the matter of contention, but only the roles in the trial—to the detriment of the Alexandrian Jews.

CHAPTER SIX

SPRING 38 C.E. As the background of the riots has been outlined in a way that openly contradicts Philo’s rosy picture, we now turn our attention to those months in the spring of 38 C.E. when the unthinkable began to take shape. The previous chapters of this work have recommended reading Philo’s version critically, not discarding what he says, but evaluating both his words and his silences against the background of external evidence. The next section follows this methodology as well. The consequences of the embassy, Gaius’ sentence and his letter open the discussion to a different reading and understanding of the riots. Before the Riots No evidence indicates when the two delegations returned from Rome to Alexandria. P. Yale II 107 is hopelessly broken or lost at the end of the fragment containing Gaius’ letter and no external evidence recalls the event. Philo does not describe life in Alexandria for the year 37 C.E., save for the news, reported only in Legatio, of Gaius’ illness and recovery. The last sailors from Rome brought this news to Alexandria in the fall of that same year before the close of the season of nautical travel (Legat., 18–21).1

1 Dio places his illness soon after the end of his first consulate [59.7, 9; cf. Philo, Legat., 14–15 for some months later, in the fall; discussion in Barrett, Caligula, 73–74; see also Baldson, Gaius, 35], which Gaius held for two months and twelve days starting from July 1, 37 C.E., as the Fasti ostienses record [A. Degrassi, I Fasti consolari dell’impero romano (Roma, 1934) = Smallwood, Documents, #31; Baldson, Gaius, 35, Barrett, Caligula, 74; Smallwood, Legatio, 165–166.] Modern scholars have discussed the nature of Gaius’ disease; see summary in Barrett, Caligula, 73, to which should be added P. Schroembges, “Caligulas Wahn. Zur Historizität eines Topos,” Tyche 3 (1988): 171–190; J. Pigeaud, “Caligula, l’empereur fou,” L’Histoire (Paris L’Histoire) 73 (1984): 26–30; D.T. Benediktson, “Caligula’s Madness. Madness or Interictal Temporal Lobe Epilepsy?” CW 82 (1988–1989): 370–375; D.T. Benediktson, “Caligula’s Phobias and Philias: Fear of Seizure,” CJ 87 (1991–1992): 159–163, for Gaius’ recovery later in the fall. The disease abated after a month or so, as the news of the emperor’s recovery arrived in Alexandria when the seas were still open for navigation, therefore no later than the beginning of November (Philo, Legat., 18; Veg., 4, 39); for the navigation

138

chapter six

Unfortunately, Gaius’ healing also bore gloomy omens. According to Philo, the new course of Roman politics in the aftermath of the emperor’s convalescence affected Alexandria negatively. Gaius’ responsibility in the deaths of Tiberius Gemellus, Macro, and Silanus receives much attention in Legatio, where they are Philo’s most effective examples of the emperor’s cruelty, a necessary character trait in one who allowed the persecution of the Jews (Legat., 28–73). In In Flaccum, those same deaths are the background of the Alexandrian political situation, and provide Philo with evidence for his construct against the prefect. Philo states that in exchange for the support of the anti-Jewish faction, Flaccus allowed them to have their way with the Jews, in order to avoid incurring Gaius’ wrath and to gain standing in Gaius’ eyes (Flacc., 10–16; 20–23). Philo lists a series of growing concerns that Flaccus felt jeopardized his position. Immediately following Tiberius’ death, the prefect allegedly feared the new emperor’s enmity because he had been among those who had accused Agrippina, Gaius’ mother, and had supported Tiberius Gemellus,2 Tiberius’ grandson, who was originally Gaius’ co-heir of the emperor’s estate, but whom later Gaius adopted and possibly coopted to the throne (Flacc., 9). In the spring of 38 C.E., Gaius ordered the death of Gemellus (Dio, 59.3; 8, 1ff.; Sue., Gai., 23, 3; Philo, Legat., 23ff.) and of Macro, the praetorian prefect and the designated Prefect of Egypt (Dio, 59.10, 6; Philo, Legat., 32ff.).3 Following their deaths, Flaccus thought that he had no protection in Rome (Flacc., 16; 22) and asked for the help of the Alexandrians. While many modern scholars accept this construct,4 others dispute the historical viability of the agreement between the prefect and the Alexandrians that Philo alleges. The main points of criticism concern the reason for Flaccus’ personal worries before and after Gaius’ illness

calendar, Casson, Ships and Seamenship, 270–299, particularly 297–299 for the route Rome–Alexandria; also F.J. Meijer, “Mare Clausum aut Mare Apertum. Een beschouwing over zeevaar in de winter,” Hermeneus 55 (1983): 2–20. 2 PIR2 IV, 3 #226. 3 Macro’s death occurred some time in the spring of 38 C.E., together with his wife Ennia’s; Baldson, Gaius, 38; Barrett, Caligula, 78. 4 Baldson, Gaius, 132; Box, Flaccum, xxxviii, despite his critical comments; Smallwood, Jews, 237; Barraclough, “Philo’s Politics,” 431; this author goes so far as to state that Flaccus delivered the government of the city to the Alexandrian leaders, 463; Barrett, Caligula, 185; Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 166; Schäfer, Judeophobia, 136–144.

spring 38 c.e.

139

and the efficacy of an alliance with the Alexandrians to improve his situation in Rome. Both points deserve re-examination. A first contradiction can be observed in Flaccus’ pro-Gemellus and anti-Agrippina political position on the one hand and Macro’s protection of Gaius on the other. Even before the fall of Sejanus in 31 C.E., Macro had protected Gaius from possible plots against him and had supported his confirmation as emperor, first by the troops and then by the senate, on March 16 and 18 of 37 C.E.5 According to Philo, however, Flaccus had supported Gaius’ rival, the emperor’s grandson Tiberius Gemellus, to the throne. Tacitus recommends disregarding this detail. According to him, only at the very end of his life did Tiberius consider the young Gemellus suitable to succeed him (Tac., Ann., 6.46, 1; cf. Philo, Flacc., 12). Flaccus, in Egypt since 32 C.E., was hardly in a position to influence matters, either before or after Tiberius died, if the notion of a court plot to put Gemellus on the throne during Gaius’ illness is historically tenable.6 If the political contrasts between Flaccus and Macro within the Roman court should be dismissed, then the alternative notion of Macro protecting Flaccus can be legitimized only on the basis of their respective roles in the post-Sejanus era of Tiberian politics. Of equestrian origin, Flaccus was an amicus of Tiberius (Flacc., 158) and received his prefecture in 32 C.E., only a year after Macro, also a knight, became praetorian prefect to replace the fallen Sejanus. The one year that Flaccus spent in Rome between Sejanus’ death in 31 C.E. and his departure for Egypt in 32 C.E.7 could have cemented a personal and political friendship between the two. A second important point regards Flaccus’ concerns manifested after Gaius’ enthronement on account of his part in the defamation of the

5

The role of Macro in Sejanus’ downfall is briefly mentioned by Dio, 58.9, 2–3; Levick, Tiberius, 174; Seager, Tiberius, 183; inclining for a more active role in Sejanus’ end is De Visscher, “Caduta di Seiano,” and F. De Visscher, “Macro, Préfet de Vigiles et ses cohortes contre la tyrannie de Séjan,” in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à André Piganiol (ed. R. Chevalier; Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1966), 761–768; for Macro’s role to ensure Gaius’ throne see Barrett, Caligula, 51–55. 6 So Barrett, Caligula, 80, and Sherwin-White, “Conundrum,” 821; cf. Smallwood, Jews, 236 who retains Flaccus’ support for Gemellus. Discussion on the historical viability of a plot to put Gemellus on the throne in Barrett, Caligula, 76–77. 7 Sejanus’ was executed in October of 31 C.E.: Tac., Ann., 4.8; 6.25; PIR2 I #255; Fasti Ostienses, XIV 4533, col. ii 15. iii 12036 (first published in Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae, 187–189).

140

chapter six

emperor’s mother Agrippina (Flacc., 9).8 Some have surmised that Philo either invented or exaggerated the matter, since Gaius cancelled trials for maiestas soon after his accession.9 Overall, were it not for certain chronological concerns, this is an appealing criticism. Gaius informed the senate of his intention to put an end to trials and prosecutions for maiestas only on July 1, 37 C.E., at the beginning of his first consulate (Sue., Gai., 15, 4; Dio, 59.4, 3).10 Some months, therefore, had to pass after the news of Gaius’ accession before news of the suppression of maiestas would have reached Flaccus in Alexandria. From early / midApril, when news of Gaius’ accession reached Egypt (P. Ryl. II 141), to mid-summer of 37 C.E., when Flaccus likely learned of Gaius’ new policy officially, Flaccus had good reason to worry. Thus, Philo is probably correct to report Flaccus’ concerns about his accusations against Agrippina as early as 37 C.E. Even assuming that Flaccus had good reason to be upset in 37 C.E., what was the reason for his alleged concerns of 38 C.E. at the news of Macro’s death? If Gaius’ suppression of the trials for maiestas had lasted until 39 C.E. (cf. Dio, 59.16, 8) as it is generally assumed, and if the claim of Flaccus’ support for Gemellus was hardly tenable, why should Macro’s death have worried Flaccus? How could Macro have protected him in, and from, Rome? Gaius’ recovery in the fall of 37 C.E. relieved the Empire, but some in Rome had little reason to rejoice. Gaius’ elimination first of his co-heir and adopted son Tiberius Gemellus, as well as the praetorian prefect Macro and Silanus,11 father of Gaius’ late first wife, shook the Roman court. Once he himself a member of the Roman court, Flaccus must have been upset to see his social environment violently changed. Among the ancient authors who wrote about those years, Dio reports an episode relevant to understanding the atmosphere of 38 C.E. and Flaccus’ feelings. 8 Philo’s words τῶν συνεπιθεµένων τῇ Γάϊου µητρί do not clarify if Flaccus played any official role in defining Agrippina’s fate at the time of her persecution in 29 C.E.; S.H. Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions. Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian (London–New York: Routledge, 2001), 146 and #14 in the prosopographical appendix, suggests that he was a delator who worked outside the regular tribunal. Sources and brief commentary in A.J. Marshall, “Women on Trial before the Roman Senate,” EMC 34 (1990): 333–366. 9 Sherwin-White, “Conundrum,” 824; Gruen, Diaspora, 7. 10 For Gaius’ first consulate Fasti Ostienses record [Degrassi, Fasti, = Smallwood, Documents, # 31]; Barrett, Caligula, 64–65. 11 PIR2 IV # 832.

spring 38 c.e.

141

Dio states that after Macro died, Gaius had many people sentenced and executed for mischief against his parents and family. Gaius gathered evidence not only from witnesses, but also from papers that, according to Dio’s own testimony, he had allegedly burned in 37 C.E. (59.10, 7–8).12 This is not, as it has been argued, a misplaced report about the reinstatement of the crime of maiestas in 39 C.E.,13 when all trials and charges were revived on the basis of these unburned papers (Dio, 59.16, 8). Instead, this is independent evidence that crimes limited to the offences to Gaius’ family, particularly his mother and his deified sister Drusilla (Dio, 59.11, 5; 10, 4), were reinstated in 38 C.E.14 Dio’s account may suggest that Macro played some role in preventing the emperor from taking similar measures.15 Thus, Dio independently offers a scenario for Rome very similar to Philo’s scenario for Alexandria, where Flaccus despaired at the news of Macro’s death (Flacc., 16). He feared the fallout of renewing the crimen maiestatis limited to offenses against the emperor’s family because of his role in the downfall of Gaius’ mother Agrippina many years earlier. The question becomes: did Flaccus make then an agreement with the Alexandrians in order to save himself? A number of issues must be addressed before answering this question. First, the available evidence is limited to Philo’s dramatization of a conversation between Flaccus and the Alexandrians. On the assumption that this conversation did take place, Philo could hardly have witnessed it. Therefore, his report should be read as an account of Philo’s historical imaginings about a conversation that could have taken place between Flaccus and the Alexandrians if or when they met. Let us consider, first, Flaccus’ personal situation in the spring of 38 C.E. It has already been established that Flaccus expected to be recalled to Rome upon Gaius’ accession. Soon after recovering from illness in the winter of 37 C.E., Gaius appointed Macro as prefect of Egypt, who was to enter this office in the coming summer. Macro’s death, however,

12 Dio presents Gaius’ family reasons as a pretext to appropriate the wealth of those he sentenced; this is probably a spin of his source. 13 So Sherwin-White, “Conundrum,” 823. 14 On this topic, Barrett, Caligula, 78, without particular comments; especially J.A. Madden and A. Keaveney, “The Crimen Maiestatis under Caligula: the Evidence of Dio Cassius,” CQ 48 (1998): 316–320, with reference to previous literature, and P.A. Brunt, “Did Emperors ever Suspend the Law of ‘Maiestas’?” in Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino (ed. V. Giuffrè; Napoli: Jovene, 1984), 469–480. 15 This is a possible interpretation from Dio’s phrasing: κακ᾽ τούτου, (59.10, 7).

142

chapter six

ultimately resulted in Flaccus’ reappointment. It is reasonable to believe that Flaccus officially learned of Macro’s death and of his reappointment through an imperial codicillus.16 The urgency of having an executive government in Alexandria and the rest of Egypt when the seas opened at the beginning of the trading season to avoid grain shortage in Italy explains Gaius’ glaring contradiction of reappointing a prefect who was already liable to trial for offenses against his family. Rome had already experienced a crisis in the grain supply in 32 C.E. (Tac., Ann., 6.13, 1) and one of the causes for this crisis may have been the instability of Alexandria’s administration during those years.17 Philo does not refer to Flaccus’ reappointment explicitly, but the way in which he frames the alleged conversation between the prefect and the Alexandrians implies as much. Their alleged agreement would have improved Flaccus’ position in the eyes of the emperor by sharing the government of the city with the Alexandrians, the Jews being the token. Philo could hardly have framed such a conversation without knowing that the prefect had been confirmed. After all, a prefect soon to depart could not, even in fiction, have undersigned an agreement that depended on his staying in the city. If it was the case that Flaccus knew that he would not soon depart from Alexandria, then why did he need an alliance with the Alexandrians to fend off prosecution in Rome? Considering his prolonged stay in Egypt, the prospect of a trial in Rome for his activity against Agrippina was, for the time, less of a possibility, though this possibility was not entirely nonexistent. The course of Roman justice would not slow on account of the accused’s residence and provincial governors could be recalled to Rome to face charges at any time, as the case of Flaccus in the fall of 38 C.E. proves. From his seat in Alexandria, Flaccus had little contact with influential Romans who could plead his case to the emperor before a could hear formal charges against him. Remaining

16 O. Seeck, “Codicilli,” RE IV,1 (1900): 174–183; V. Marotta, Liturgia del potere. Documenti di nomina e cerimonie di investitura fra principato e tardo impero romano (Napoli: Loffredo, 1999), 43; for the use of codicilli to inform designated provincial governors of their appointments, see Sue., Tib., 42, 1; Gaius is known to have used codicilli to communicate administrative appointment, Sue., Gai., 18, 2 ; 55, 1. The text of a codicillus by which Domitian informed the Prefect of Egypt of his appointment to the Roman praetorian praefecturship is in CPL 238 (literature in Marotta, Liturgia del potere, 44, n. 143). 17 Data are not clear for this period, but it seems that not a few prefects were appointed and substituted in those years; see below.

spring 38 c.e.

143

in Alexandria did not ensure Flaccus’ safety. He needed protection and finding it was a priority. Could any Alexandrian protect him? This question is typically answered negatively.18 While any single Alexandrian would likely be unable to provide this protection, a number of them probably could. Philo introduces three, apparently the leaders of the Alexandrians, in words that are far from complimentary: Dionysios, a popularity seeker; Lampon, a paper pusher; and Isidoros, a faction leader, an intriguer, a mischief maker, and a state embroiler (Flacc., 20).19 This work has already introduced Dionysios and Lampon as upper class types involved in past quarrels with Flaccus. A dispute between Dionysios and Flaccus was likely settled in the Serapeum at the insistence of a member of the gerousia, while the prefect chastised Lampon for a charge of crimen maiestatis and later made him gymnasiarch.20 If Lampon later be among Flaccus’ accusers at his trial in Rome in 39 C.E., then he must have discovered how to gain recognition at the Roman court, Gaius’ in particular (Philo, Flacc., 125; 135). As for Dionysios, two other documents dated 41 C.E. may indicate that he was also a Roman citizen, by the complete name of Gaius Iulius Dionysios, and ambassador of the Alexandrians. (P. Oxy. XLII 3021; P. Lond. VI 1912, col. ii, l. 17).21 Both Lampon and Dionysios could have possessed the necessary credentials and connections in Rome to help Flaccus. But our attention turns again to Isidoros. As seen in previous chapters, Isidoros spent his voluntary exile in Rome, sufficiently visible at court to advise Gaius and likely one of his amici. In that capacity, Isidoros had participated in the trial of Macro, accusing him at Gaius’ request (Acta, IV col. iii, ll. 5–6).22 His services to Gaius surely had earned him immunity for his crimes in Alexandria, which had resulted in his departure from that city in the first place, if he could now restart his normal life back in the city.23 This was also possible because of Flaccus’

18

Sherwin-White, “Conundrum,” 825; Gruen, Diaspora, 57.

19

δηµοκόπος; γραµµατοκύφων; στασιάρχη, φιλοπράγµων, κακῶν εὑρεταὶ, ταραξίπολις.

I borrow the translation from Colson, Philo’s Flaccus, 313–315. Other translations have been submitted, see Van der Horst, Flaccus, 109–111 for some examples. 20 See above ch. 4 21 See below ch. 10. 22 Acta Isidori et Lamponis (Rec. A, col. ii, l, 19; col. iii, ll. 3–4; Rec. B, col. I, l. 14); Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 18–26. 23 For a different view, cf. Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 74–92, who holds that Isidoros was never back in Alexandria.

144

chapter six

decision in 35 C.E. to take no steps against him, even to confiscate his property, upon his voluntary exile (Philo, Flacc., 145).24 It is ironic that Isidoros, empowered by the privileged relation with Gaius that he had built during his stay Rome, was now the most influential person in Alexandria and the only one with personal access to the emperor. For Flaccus having Isidoros on his side could have meant avoiding charges or, failing that, avoiding Isidoros’ testimony against him, as had happened to Macro. An agreement between Flaccus and the Alexandrians, with Isidoros in particular, is potentially a viable hypothesis. Could the Jews have been the token of such an alliance? Dionysios, Lampon and Isidoros’ enmity towards the Jews is documented outside Philo’s narrative. Remarks against the Jews appear in all of the papyri providing evidence of their life and political career (Acta, IV, col. iii; P. Oxy. XLII 3021, l. 12). The fact that the alliance between Flaccus and the Alexandrians could have contemplated the persecution of the Jews is also a potentially viable hypothesis. But is it historically viable? Did Flaccus actually reach an agreement with Isidoros and the other Alexandrians in 38 C.E., exchanging the Jews for his personal safety? According to Philo, the price was the Jewish presence in Alexandria and his entire account reveals that this price was exacted. The Jewish presence in the city was severely jeopardized. Yet only a few weeks after the Jewish persecution, a centurion from Rome arrested Flaccus and took him back to Rome where he was tried with Lampon and Isidoros as his main accusers (Philo, Flacc., 108–115; 125). Philo ironically, but prudently, comments on this epilogue. The fact remains, however, that Flaccus’ end is the strongest argument against the existence of any agreement between him and the Alexandrians. If any contact had occurred between Flaccus and Isidoros, rumors of this contact could have reached Philo and given him the reason for his construct, but the facts deny the possibility of any agreement.25 If they had met, and the meeting must still be part of the scenario, then

24 On this see ch. 4. Critical of the suggestion that Gaius may have rescinded Isidoros’ charges is Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 83, for whom Gaius did not have any interest in canceling his charge. 25 See Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 50 and n. 6 for Philo’s use of the rhetorical stereotype of the hostile advisor; this author opines for the complete absence of Isidoros, Dionysios and Lampon from Alexandria in 38 C.E.; Philo would only have used them to provide the frame for his conclusion on the occasion of Flaccus’ arrest. On Flaccus’ suppression of the clubs see I. Arnaoutoglou, “Colllegia” in the Province of Egypt in the First Century A.D.,” AncSoc 35 (2005): 197–216.

spring 38 c.e.

145

their motivations and conclusions were not those denounced by Philo. There was no agreement; thus, Flaccus’ behavior and actions must be explained differently. Verifying Philo’s Construct—II The two premises on the basis of which Philo blames the prefect for persecuting the Jews in In Flaccum lie in jeopardy: first, the decree honoring Gaius at his accession, which Flaccus did not personally deliver to the emperor simply because his mandate in Egypt was extended; and second, Flaccus’ non-existent alliance with the Alexandrians. Thus, we must search elsewhere for the reason behind the persecution of the Jews in the summer of 38 C.E. Problems for the Jews in Court According to Philo’s construct, the first evidence for Flaccus’ collusion with the anti-Jewish faction of Alexandria is the prefect’s partiality in legal cases involving the Jews (Flacc., 24). Now that the two most important premises of Flaccus’ alleged alliance with the Alexandrians have been undermined, Flaccus’ attitude toward the Jews in court deserves a new interpretation. In his description of the new problem, the little content in Philo’s few words may suffice in providing a basis for discussion. He states that Flaccus favored the Jews’ opponent and refused to speak with them, two postures that can be classified separately, one concerning judgment, the other concerning the right to petition the prefect personally. Philo does not explain why the claims were submitted, nor by whom, but his choice of words, τοῖς τὰς ἀµφισβητήσεις ἔχουσιν, points to something very specific. In Athenian law, the amphisbētēsis was not a general claim, such as an unpaid debt or a stolen pack animal, but a specific dispute concerning property. The technical term for this procedure is diadikasia and it was instructed whenever there were grounds to question the ownership of immovable property, particularly in cases of inheritance.26 Papyri reveal that both the Ptolemaic and the Roman

26 Harrison, Law, 215; D.M. MacDowell, The Laws of Classical Athens (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978) 103–105; 145–146.

146

chapter six

Egyptian legal systems applied this procedure.27 What Philo is saying, therefore, is that people contested the Jews’ property rights in court and that the prefect ruled in favor of the former. The way in which Philo introduces this problem leaves no room for the perception that a normal return of misappropriated property to the legitimate owners was in view. What he seems to say is that the issue was not property per se, but the Jewish ownership. This is rather unexpected because legal residence guaranteed the right of possessions to them as non citizens.28 The Jews did hold legal residence, and this is therefore what the trials ultimately questioned. The question therefore arises why anything of this sort was possible. The answer should consider one of two conditions: a) a change in the extent of Jewish privileges; b) a previous judicial sentence against the Jews that qualified as a precedent for similar cases. The first condition should probably be ruled out from the start since it is difficult to fathom that Philo, regardless of the construct that he was trying to establish, would not have informed his readers had any Jewish rights been modified, changed or even cancelled. Flaccus’ partiality in court brings the other possible condition to the fore, namely, a legal precedent allowing him to adjudicate against the Jews. To verify this possibility as a viable hypothesis, we pass through a range of issues centered on the nature of the law and the procedural regulations in early Roman Alexandria, with particular focus on the rule of precedent in judgment in antiquity. The relatively abundant literature on the laws, particularly those pertaining to procedures regulating Athenian trials, exclude a precedent ruling playing a role in defining judgment in classical Athens.29 PreRoman Egypt, like pre-Roman Alexandria, seemed to have placed no statutory value on previous sentences; the Demotic case-book found in two copies in the chōra was nothing more than a notary’s guide for writing contracts,30 not a manual for applying precedent. It is difficult to 27 Examples are: P.Oxy. III 486; SB XXII 15768; SB XX 14587; P. Mil. Vogl. III 129; BGU III 1002; PSI VII 822; specifically mentionning a διαδικασία on property, MChr. 89. 28 On this in classical law Niku, Foreign Resident, passim. 29 The list of the supporting evidence allowed in an Athenian trial is in Arist., Rhet., 1375a 22–25; cf. Rhet. ad Alex., 14–17 for a slightly different list. None of these, however, report that previous rulings could be presented in court. See S.C. Todd, “Law and Oratory at Athens,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law (eds. M. Gagarin and D. Cohen; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 107. 30 J. Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Law and Justice in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World (eds. M.J. Geller and H. Maehler; London: The Warburg

spring 38 c.e.

147

say if the arrival of the Romans changed the administration of justice in Alexandria due to the almost complete lack of papyrological evidence. The only available recourse is to examine other Egyptian documents and to attempt a comparison. The evidence offered by the hupomnēmatismoi from Roman Egypt, plentiful from the second century onward, demonstrate without any doubt that precedent played a very important role in the passing of a sentence.31 Perhaps, therefore, over time the Romans changed the procedures in a court of justice,32 though not necessarily—certainly not immediately—the law itself.33 One instance allows little doubt in the matter: the binding role of imperial constitutions. Imperial constitutions were the documents resulting from the emperor’s judicial duties, with statutory value by virtue of his imperium. Gaius, the second-century C.E. jurist, listed edicts, decrees and letters of the emperor (decreta) as binding imperial constitutions (Gai., Inst., 1.5). Together with the mandata and other forms of imperial judicial opinion, such as rescripta and subscriptiones, much in use from the second century C.E. onwards, they all had the force of law in provincial courts.34 This is interesting because an imperial decretum is part of the argument presented thus far in the present work. Gaius’ letter to the Alexandrians reported his sentence against the Jews in 37 C.E. According Institute–University of London, 1995), 7 n. 16 and 25 for references on the papyri publications and related literature; also and more specifically Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Septuagint as Nomos.” 31 R. Katzoff, “Precedent in the Courts of Roman Egypt,” ZSS 89 (1972): 256–292; H.C. Youtie, “P. Mich. inv. 148 verso: the Rule of Precedent,” ZPE 27 (1977): 124–137. 32 H.F. Jolowicz, “Precedent in Greek and Roman Law,” BIDR 46 (1939): 404. 33 According to a general imperial policy of respect for local laws; Schiller, Roman Law, 538–539. Whether such a change was the result of the influence of the Roman legal system, and not of other dynamics developed within Egypt itself, depends mostly on the interpretation of the available evidence, both from Rome and from Egypt. The argument is difficult to spell, and dangerously circular. There is no agreement amongst scholars as to whether the original Roman legal system was itself based on the statutory value of judicial sentences; Schiller, Roman Law, 264–268. As the main collection of evidence supporting the case-law theory for the empire actually stems from the Egyptian papyri, only a handful of cases are reported in the Digest; Schiller, Roman Law, 266 and Jolowicz, “Precedent,” for references; for Egypt, see R. Katzoff, “Sources of Law in Roman Egypt: The Role of the Prefect,” ANRW II, 13 (1980): 833ff. and Youtie, “Rule of Precedent.” 34 Schiller, Roman Law, 461ff., with sources and commentary; the better documented cases are the Severan responsa collected in A.A. Schiller and W.L. Westermann, Apokrimata: Decisions of Septimius Severus on Legal Matters (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954).

148

chapter six

to the definition provided by the Roman jurists of the second century C.E., the sentence uttered by Gaius should be a binding precedent for all similar cases debated in Egyptian courts, particularly in Alexandria. In practice, this means that, should any case on the same issue and between the same parties as in P. Yale II 107 be debated in Alexandria, the judge was compelled to abide by Gaius’ decision. The first objection to this hypothesis is chronological: if decreta had binding statutory value in the second century C.E., a chronological terminus imposed by the date of the jurist Gaius’ composition of his work, it does not necessarily follow that the same situation had been in existence from the beginning of the empire. But there is an earlier case. An epigraphic text dated 82 C.E. contains one of Domitian’s letters and is the earliest known document attesting the binding legal value of a decretum. This document reveals that the emperor had adjudicated a case between the Formans and the Falerians in the Picenum and later wrote to both civitates, after which local authorities published both the imperial sentences and the accompanying order of application (CIL IX 5420).35 Were the verdicts issued by emperor Gaius also binding law? Gaius’ role as judge or any other capacity is difficult to evaluate, because of the lack of evidence or the negatively-biased nature of the sources. In just such a highly biased passage, Dio states that Gaius posted the names of the people that he himself condemned, as if he feared, Dio adds malignantly, that they would not otherwise know of their fate (59.18, 2). Once Dio’s sarcasm is peeled away, what remains reveals that Gaius posted his decreta in public; this indicates that they “were on the way to acquiring the force of precedent.”36 Dio’s information can neither be dated nor related in any way to the trial of 37 C.E. Nonetheless, it demonstrates that Roman juridical practice included the idea of publishing verdicts as early as Gaius’ time, providing grounds for the application of the rule of precedent. Was Gaius’ verdict of 37 C.E. published? It is perhaps doubtful that it was posted in Rome, since it dealt with foreigners;37 but that it was 35 Epistula Domitiani ad Falerienses = FIRA I 75; ll. 6–9: quid constituerim de subsiciuis cognita causa/inter uos et Firmanos, ut notum haberetis,/huic epistula subici iussi; ll. 12–15: Imp. Caesar diui Vespasiani f…./Aug. adhibitis utriusque ordinis splen/didis uiris cognita causa inter Fale/rienses et Firmanos pronuntiavit quod/subscriptum est; the letter with the imperial sentence follow. 36 Here I quote Bauman, Crime, 65. 37 From the second century, the imperial rescripts were posted for a period at the imperial residence, whether in Rome or abroad, depending on where the emperor

spring 38 c.e.

149

posted in Alexandria is almost certain, even without direct supporting evidence. Publishing administrative and legal directives by posting them at the most visible location was customary in the Ptolemaic period and this was likely regulated by law.38 The Romans appear to have retained this custom particularly, as documentary evidence reveals, in Egypt when imperial constitutions were involved.39 Claudius’s letter to the Alexandrians in 41 C.E., only a few years after the period under consideration in the present work and partly on the same subject, was first publicly read by the prefect, then posted, ἐκθεῖναι,40 so that those who were not present at the reading could acknowledge its content (P. Lond. VI 1912, ll. 1–8).41 It is reasonable to assume that Flaccus did the same when he received Gaius’ letter, first reading it, then posting it outside the city’s main administrative building, likely within the gymnasium complex, where the prefect’s dikasterion was housed (Strabo, 17.1, 10).42 Would this have made Gaius’ letter a binding legal precedent, so that, based on his 37 C.E. sentence rescinding the residence rights of the accuser who lived ‘outside,’ any Jews living in the city, but ‘outside’ like the accuser, could have been the target of legal actions aimed at questioning their rights of residence in the city and, therefore, their entitlement to property? A conclusive answer requires a precise description of the trials, something that Philo denies his readers. In procedural terms, however, Gaius’ letter, a decretum, did extend the emperor’s decision to all cases that presented similar characteristics to the one in 37 C.E. In practice, any Alexandrian Jew who lived ‘outside’, as did the accuser in 37 C.E., could have had his property rights contested because his right of residence had become void in the first place and because the judge had to abide by Gaius’ ruling. Flaccus’ change in judicial attitude toward the Jews resulted from his statutory role as

was at the time of the writing of the rescript; U. Wilcken, “Zu den Kaiserreskripten,” Hermes 55 (1920): 1–42; Schiller and Westermann, Apokrimata, 39–42. 38 Schwind, Publikation, 97–106. 39 Schwind, Publikation, 128–176. The first to argue for regular publication of the imperial prescripts in Alexandria was Wilcken, “Kaiserreskripten,” 21ff; later Schiller and Westermann, Apokrimata, 39–42 and Schiller, Roman Law, 501 substantiated with more evidence the same principle. 40 Other verbs for posting are προθεῖναι and θεῖναι in P. Col. 123: Schiller and Westermann, Apokrimata, 42. 41 = CPJ 153; Bell, Jews and Christians, 1–37. 42 Burkhalter, “Gymnase d’Alexandrie,” 345–352. In 199–200, the rescripts Septimius Severus wrote during his stay in Alexandria were posted in the stoa of the gymnasium: P. Col. VI 123, l. 1; Schiller and Westermann, Apokrimata, 42.

150

chapter six

prefect and as representative of the imperial power in Alexandria and not from any agreement with the local anti-Jewish Faction.43 Apart from legal considerations, other historical details may substantiate and contextualize this conclusion. All imperial political and administrative practices in Gaius’ first year slowed because of his illness. Philo relates that tradesmen returning home just as the seas closed for the winter of 37 C.E. brought to Alexandria news of his recovery.44 The implication of this is that any provision ordered by Gaius after his recovery could hardly have reached the provinces any earlier or in a fast way, for the winter seas made communication very slow or impossible. The first possibility of re-establishing regular communication between Rome and Alexandria was the following spring, when winter’s end meant safer travel.45 The spring of 38 C.E. brought Alexandria the news of Macro’s death, of Flaccus confirmation in office, and probably also Gaius’ decretum and the court’s obligation to apply it. Spring brought not only correspondence, but also people, who would surely have included Isidoros, now an amicus of Gaius. The emperor’s amici needed imperial permission to leave court. Isidoros had assisted Gaius in the trial against Macro and he certainly remained in Rome until that task was completed. The Alexandrian ambassadors of the trial of 37 C.E. also likely remained and, according to custom, they were the ones who took the emperor’s response back home.46

43 Box, Flaccum, xl reads Flaccus’ legal action as to disallow one by one the usurpation of Jewish rights as they came to his notice. 44 See above n. 1. 45 Casson, Ships and Seamenship, 298 for the first vessels to leave Rome in April, and Meijer, “Mare Clausum,” 4. 46 See W. Williams, “The Publication of Imperial Subscripts,” ZPE 40 (1980): 285.

CHAPTER SEVEN

AGRIPPA IN ALEXANDRIA Flaccus’ rulings against the Jews were only the small beginnings of what was soon to come. The situation in Alexandria suddenly became critical with the arrival of King Agrippa I. After a difficult life spent between Palestine and Rome,1 Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great, found himself, after Gaius’ accession, king of the tetrarchy formerly ruled by his uncle Philip, thanks to the emperor’s friendship and benevolence (Jos., A.J., 18.237; B.J., 2.181; cf. Philo, Flacc., 25). Philo states that when Agrippa asked to leave Rome to return to his kingdom, Gaius recommended that he wait for the etesian winds and travel via Alexandria (Flacc., 26); Josephus informs us that this request was placed in the spring of 38 C.E. (A.J., 18.238).2 Philo’s words suggest that the reason for Gaius’ recommendation was speedier travel. Agrippa could hardly have refused. Doubts about this account, however, soon surface when we read, on the one hand, both of Agrippa’s almost embarking accidentally from Puteoli on an Alexandrian ship and of his secret landing at night in Alexandria to avoid being seen or recognized (Flacc., 27–28)3 and, on the other, of his official public meeting with Flaccus, clad in luxurious royal attire and accompanied by bodyguards (Flacc., 30; 32). Agrippa’s role prior to the riots should be observed more closely. Tiberius incarcerated Agrippa in 36 C.E. on the pretext of offense to his imperial persona. In reality, however, Agrippa was imprisoned because he could not repay a loan from Tiberius and the imperial family (Jos., A.J., 18.143–237).4 At Tiberius’ death, Gaius, a friend of Agrippa’s, liberated him and named him king of the territories of Panaea, Batanea,

1 D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, the Last King of Judaea (Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1990), 45–52; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 115–116. 2 Josephus says that in the second year of Gaius’ principate—starting from the middle of March 38 C.E. 3 On this unbelievable account, Box, Flaccum, xli correctly observes that the description of Agrippa’s night landing in Alexandria corresponds almost literally to the arrival of Bassus to arrest Flaccus (Flacc., 110–111); the account of Agrippa’s arrival is very likely a literary clone; on the improbability of Agrippa’s incognito also Van der Horst, Flaccus, 120–121. 4 For the life of Agrippa until his coronation see Schwartz, Agrippa I, 45–53.

152

chapter seven

Gaulanitis and Trachonitis (Jos., A.J., 18.238–239; Flacc., 25).5 That, however, was not all. Philo adds that the senate bestowed the praetorian insignia upon him (Flacc., 40). The ornamenta praetoria were a distinguished honor giving the honoree improved status and visibility, but no political rights. Wearing the latus clavus, the toga with a broad purple stripe, guaranteed visibility, as did the right to be preceded by the fasces; epigraphical evidence suggests that the honoree likely also received the right to sit on the sella curulis.6 The ornatus who wore the ornamenta praetoria looked like a praetor of the senatorial order, though he held no imperium and was not on a fast track in his cursus honorum, aimed at a senatorial seat.7 Agrippa, by virtue of the Roman citizenship that he possessed by right of descent,8 was eligible for such honor, the attributes of which he proudly displayed in Alexandria. Philo does not detail Agrippa’s parading in the city, but crafts a conversation between Flaccus and his alleged Alexandrian allies. We learn that Agrippa marched through the city with his bodyguard (Flacc., 30), probably in attire that declared his new royal status openly, but certainly with his new Roman ornamenta, including the six fasces that customarily preceded the praetors in the provinces. A particular sentence of this invented conversation clarifies the meaning of Agrippa’s new apparatus: Agrippa, Philo states, had received greater dignity of honor and prestige than Flaccus.9 The fasces, which Flaccus too could parade by virtue of his proconsular imperium, did not indicate this difference, but the latus clavus, the senatorial toga that the equestrian Flaccus could not wear, did.10 Within the Roman

5

These territories comprise the former tetrachy of Herod Philip, who died in 34 C.E.; for map Schwartz, Agrippa I, 61. 6 The most complete study on this subject is B. Rémy, “Ornati et ornamenta quaestoria, praetoria et consularia sous le haut empire romain,” REA 78–79 (1976–77): 160–198; for extensive research on the fasces and the sella curulis, distinctive emblems of Roman magistrates, see T. Schafer, Imperii insignia, sella curulis und fasces. Zur Representation römischer Magistrate (Mainz: von Zabern, 1989). 7 This is what surfaces from the careers of ornati; see Rémy, “Ornati et ornamenta,” 194ff. 8 Agrippa’s tria nomina was probably Marcus Iulius Agrippa; see Schwartz, Agrippa I. The grants Caesar gave to Antipatros, Agrippa’s great-grandfather, are recorded in Jos., B.J., 1.194; see A. Gilboa, “L’octroi de la citoyenneté romaine et de l’immunité à Antipater, père d’Hérode,” RD 50 (1972): 609–614. 9 I am paraphrasing Van der Horst’s translation; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 59. Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 52 accepts Philo’s explanation that there was envy for the Jews and their king; similarly Schäfer, Judeophobia, 139. 10 There was a fundamental distinction in the width of the purple stripe of the latus clavus and of the latus augustus, the equestrial toga; Sue, Tib., 35; Vell. Pat., 2.88,2.

agrippa in alexandria

153

hierarchy, therefore, Agrippa seemed to enjoy a status superior to that of Flaccus. What urged the senate to grant such an award to Agrippa? Only on one previous occasion had the Fathers awarded the praetorian honors to a knight, Macro, for his dutiful defense of the state during the crisis after Sejanus’ death (Dio, 58.12, 7). Before the time of Gaius, only the emperor had bestowed the ornamenta praetoria11 and always for military or political achievements that benefited the state.12 Agrippa, a Roman citizen, though not a member of the Roman hierarchy, was the first foreigner to receive praetorian honors. In previous cases, the honorees had belonged either to the senatorial or to the equestrian order.13 Why, again, had the senate granted such a privilege to him? Agrippa was in chains at Tiberius’ order for offenses to his maiestas, owed the imperial house to the point of fleeing from place to place for years in order to avoid repayment and to escape incarceration, and was free only on account of Gaius’ friendship after Tiberius’ funeral. The senate would have had trouble finding anything in Agrippa’s life to justify any honor, let alone the ornamenta praetoria. Further, the senate initiative itself was politically questionable. Agrippa was a client king from a region under tight imperial control since Augustus had organized Syria as an imperial province. In compliance with this administrative frame, at the death of the tetrarch Herod Philip, Tiberius had given control of Agrippa’s would-be kingdom to the imperial governor of Syria, in spite of the fact that that specific area was not formally a Roman province. Nothing indicates that the senate had jurisdiction over the politics there, including the bestowal of honors on an imperial client king whose title and role were in the emperor’s hands. It is more likely that the senate was simply ratifying a request, or imposition, from the emperor.14 It was Gaius who wanted Agrippa to

11 By Augustus: Marcellus (Dio, 53.28, 3); Tiberius (Dio, 54.10, 4); Drusus (Dio, 54.22, 3). By Tiberius, Sejanus (Dio, 57.19). Cases in which Dio’s language is ambiguous, but in which the contexts suggests that the honors were awarded by the emperor: time of Augustus, Germanicus (Dio, 56.17, 2), Drusus II (Dio, 56.17, 3). 12 Synoptic table is in Rémy, “Ornati et ornamenta,” 180. 13 Although Tiberius started to confer preatorian honor to non-senators (Dio, 57.19.7). 14 In spite of the description of the ancient historians, it cannot be excluded that, even when we read that the emperor bestowed the honors, the senate formally ratified it with a decree.

154

chapter seven

have praetorian honors, but not for the seak of their friendship. Gaius had already given a kingdom to Agrippa and hardly needed any further show of friendship to secure his loyalty as a the client king.15 After all, had it not been for Gaius, Agrippa would have spent the rest of his life in chains. The reason for this conferral of honors likely lies in Gaius’ request that Agrippa pass through Alexandria on his way home. Philo states that Gaius’ recommendation to Agrippa was to wait for the etesian winds and to sail along the shortest route, namely from Puteoli to Alexandria (Flacc., 26–27). In light of the unlikelihood of Philo’s account of Agrippa’s arrival in Alexandria, scholars often doubt the likelihood of Gaius’ request and even dismiss it altogether, suggesting that Agrippa had his own reasons to visit the city.16 Yet, as Gaius had a difficult political problem in need of a speedy solution, he had, in fact, good reason to send a faithful personal emissary to Alexandria.17 At the death of Macro, designate Prefect of Egypt, Gaius extended Flaccus’ office. As seen above, Flaccus received the news in the spring, but had to receive Gaius’ mandata in order to be officially reappointed, since the imperium he had received from Tiberius had expired at the emperor’s death.18 Already in the republic, the senate had begun to instruct appointed governors about administering the provinces by delivering to them a written document, the mandata senatus, when they left Rome.19 In 27 B.C.E., Augustus appropriated these senatorial prerogatives (Dio, 53.15, 4)20 and instructed pro-magistrates appointed to govern both senatorial and imperial provinces with the mandata 15

As in Rémy, “Ornati et ornamenta,” 191–194. This is the main thesis in Kerkeslager, “Agrippa,” to which refer for previous literature. 17 Agrippa was part of the imperial circle, and a friend, amicus, of the emperor’s; Philo, Flacc., 35; 40. 18 On this subject see A. Dell’Oro, “Mandata” e “litterae”. Contributo allo studio degli atti giuridici del “Princeps” (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1960), 72; Schiller, Roman Law, 516. 19 Marotta, Liturgia del potere, 31–32. Fundamental modern studies on mandata are M. Finkelstein, “Mandata principium,” Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 13 (1934): 150–169 and Dell’Oro, “Mandata” e “litterae.” The discussion converges on whether mandata had to be included among the imperial constitutions, given the fact that none of the ancient jurists’ lists does so. Modern critics now agree that mandata are imperial constitutions; see M. Talamanca, “L’attività normativa del princeps. Edicta e mandata,” in Lineamenti di storia del diritto romano (ed. M. Talamanca; Milano: Giuffrè, 1989), 409–416, and V. Marotta, Mandata principium (Torino: Giappichelli, 1991). 20 On Augustus’ appropriation of the senatorial prerogatives, see what Josephus reports in A.J., 16.166 is a part of Augustus’ mandata to C. Norbanus Flaccus, proconsul of Asia; commentary in Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 258–261. 16


155

principis.21 Prior to leaving Rome, the appointed governors received instructions from the emperor, or, if he was out of the city, from one of his delegates22 in a ceremony rich in political and religious meaning.23 Needless to say, none of the above was possible in 38 C.E., since Flaccus, the re-appointed prefect, was already in the province and no formal delivery of power and instructions by the emperor was possible.24 Gaius needed someone to deliver his mandata to Flaccus and Agrippa, who was in Rome and about to head home, filled Gaius’ need. Agrippa owed the recovery of his royal status to Gaius and his Roman citizenship entitled him to carry out political duties. Agrippa was simply the best person at that moment to deliver Gaius’ mandata. The only problem was his rank. In spite of his new royal status, the Roman ius still considered Agrippa to be a plain citizen. How, then, would it be possible for him to represent the emperor, particularly when he was to deliver imperial instructions to the prefect of Egypt, a knight? The

21 E. Noè, Commento storico a Cassio Dione LIII (Como: New Press, 1994), 135; Marotta, Liturgia del potere, 33. On the issuing of mandata by Augustus to proconsuls, in ICos 26 = IGRR IV 1044 M. Segre and R. Herzog, “Una lettera di Corbulone ai Coi,” PP 30 (1975): 102–104; G.P. Burton, “The Issuing of Mandata to Proconsuls and a New Inscription from Cos,” ZPE 21 (1976): 64 n. 9; Tiberius gave Germanicus, sent as a pro-consul to Asia, his mandata: Tabula Siarensis I ll. 15–16: procos [. . .] tractatus ex mandatis Ti. Caesari Au[; recent edition with translation and commentary in A.S.O. Gutierrez, Tabula Siarensis. Edición, tradución y comentario (Pamplona: Ed. Universidad de Navarra, 1999), 9. For mandata to legati, Tac., Ann. 2.77, 1; 4.15, 3; R.J.A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 401–402; P. Garnsey, “The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors,” JRS 58 (1968): 55, n. 32. Contra A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966), 590. 22 This is what emerges from all the source of the principate and after; list and texts of the sources in Marotta, Liturgia del potere, 38–42. 23 Symbolized also by the particular locations where it would take place, from the time of Augustus the Temple of Mars Ultor, as Dio’s account of the dedication of the temple in 2 B.C.E. allows to conjecture; Marotta, Liturgia del potere, 34 on the basis of M. Bonnefond, “Transferts de fonctions et mutation idéologique; le Capitole et le Forum d’Auguste,” in L’urbs: espace urbain et histoire (I s. ap. J.C.). Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre national de la recherche scientifique et l’École française de Rome (Rome, 8–12 mai 1985) (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1987), 251–278; Ov., Fasti, 5.553; 569–596; P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988). 24 A parallel situation could be that of Magius Maximus, whom, as Philo relates (Flacc., 74), Augustus appointed twice. Augustus’ order to institute the Jewish gerousia were included in Maximus’ second mandata. It is not possible to state with any certainty whether the two appointments were contiguous in time, as in the case of Flaccus, or whether a gap intervened between the two offices.

156

chapter seven

praetorian honors, providing him with the ornamenta that gave him nominal senatorial rank and the consequent visibility, supplied the range of political and hierarchical credentials that he needed in order to deliver Gaius’ mandata.25 Thus, Agrippa was in Alexandria in an official capacity, as the description of his street parade suggests. That Flaccus received the imperial mandata in the summer fits the Roman administrative calendar. Tiberius had ordered the magistrates of senatorial provinces to leave Rome before June 1 (Dio, 57.14, 5); his likely aim was for them to arrive at their posts by July 1, the time for the mid-year turn-over of Roman magistrates.26 There is no evidence of any similar disposition for the magistrates of imperial provinces, but those appointments likely followed the Roman administrative calendar as well. Gaius’ request that Agrippa delay his departure, take advantage of the etesian winds, and detour through Alexandria was also intended to result in Agrippa’s arrival in the city by July 1. The etesian winds start blowing in mid-June, though not at full strength. Sailing from Puteoli to Alexandria in mid-June would take a few weeks; thus, Agrippa would have arrived in the city in time to deliver the mandata to Flaccus more or less in line with the Roman administrative calendar. However, the death of Gaius’ sister Drusilla (Flacc., 56), who died in Rome on June 10, meant the interruption of public life in Rome and the empire. Gaius proclaimed a iustitium for his sister soon after she died (Dio, 59.11, 5; Sue., Gai., 24, 2);27 the length of this public mourning is unknown, but comparative observations with previous cases suggest some weeks.28 During this period, Gaius permitted only basic political and religious activity. He left for the south and spent time alone in Campania and Sicily.29 It is difficult to imagine that Gaius would have 25

Differently Van der Horst, Flaccus, 131, who holds that the ornamenta praetoria were included in the package with his kingship. 26 See T. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1887), II 256, n. 3; Marotta, Mandata, 134, n. 28. 27 Degrassi, Fasti = Smallwood #31, l. 30. 28 For other cases see G. Kleinfeller, “Iustitium,” RE X,2 (1919): 1340; W. Kunkel, Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der römischen Republik (München: Beck, 1995), 225–228; L. Vidman, “Inferiae und Iustitium,” Klio 53 (1971): 212; A. Fraschetti, “La Tabula Hebana, la Tabula Siarensis e il Iustitium per la morte di Germanico,” MEFRA 100 (1988): 867–889. Cf. Kerkeslager, “Agrippa,” who, developing on A. Kushnir-Stein, “On the Visit of Agrippa I to Alexandria in A.D. 38,” JJS 51 (2000): 225–242 argues for a short nine-day iustitium; against this see S. Gambetti, “A Brief Note on Agrippa I’s Trip to Alexandria in the Summer of 38 C.E.,” JJS 30 (2006): 1–6. 29 Barrett, Caligula, 86; Baldson, Gaius, 42–44 states that Gaius returned to Rome only in September and that only then did he declare the iustitium to be over; this is very unlikely in view of the chronology of Agrippa’s traveling; see below in this chapter.


157

allowed Agrippa, one of his closest friends at that time, to leave Rome just then simply to reach Alexandria by July 1, since that would have meant leaving Rome as the iustitium for Drusilla began. More plausibly Agrippa delayed his departure some weeks, at least until after Gaius had returned from the south. Only then did Gaius decide to allow Agrippa to leave Rome for Alexandria.30 We must also assume that the news about the iustitium took time to reach Alexandria. Communication had to be organized and crossing the Mediterranean took weeks, since on around June 10, the date of Drusilla’s death, the etesian winds were not yet at their full strength.31 The news could hardly have reached the city before late June. The same length of the iustitium in Rome was likely applied also in Alexandria, where activities were probably still limited or cancelled in late July and early August. Since Agrippa arrived when the Jewish shops were still closed in observance of the iustitium (Flacc., 56–57; Legat., 129) he must have reached Alexandria just about then. Philo states that Agrippa traveled to Alexandria from Puteoli in a few days (Flacc., 27). Pliny32 states that the eastern Mediterranean etesian winds started to blow fully at the rising of the Dog star, on or around July 21, and that the crossing to Alexandria could take less than a week (N.H., 2.19, 3–4; 47, 123–124); the reckoned record of the crossing

30 There is also another detail worth mentioning in consideration of the circumstances of Agrippa’s trip. When he arrived in Alexandria at the end of July/beginning of August of 38 C.E. to deliver Gaius’ mandata to Flaccus, the seventeenth month was expiring from Gaius’ accession in March of 37 C.E., that is, one month shy of eighteen. This work has already pointed out that the eighteen month statute of limitation for court activity was effective in 37 C.E., when the two Alexandrian delegations were in Rome for the trial reported in P. Yale II 107 (see ch. 5). It may be not too wide of the mark to observe that the same time limit may have had some implications in this case as well. This may mean that Flaccus could not have been the acting prefect for more than eighteen months and that, by this time, Gaius had to confirm Flaccus in office and to delegate to him his imperium through the delivery of his mandata. This hypothesis is, however, supported by circumstantial, not direct, evidence. 31 See comparative data in Casson, Ships and Seamenship, 298–299 and n. 9 where the author seems however to contradict himself; see below n. 34 in this chapter for discussion. Data on communications between Rome and Egypta are also in D.W. Rathbone, “The Dates of the Recognition in Egypt of the Emperors from Caracalla to Diocletian,” ZPE 62 (1986): 101–131; see aslo Kerkeslager, “Agrippa,” n. 137 for additional references. 32 PIR2 IV #493; he was prefect of the imperial fleet (certainly attested for 79 C.E.; Pliny, Ep., 6, 16, 4) moored at Misenum, only a few miles from Puteoli and he surely knew the seasonal patterns of the winds blowing in that quadrant.

158

chapter seven

from Ostia to Africa is two days.33 Agrippa surely took advantage of the meteorological circumstances and left Italy when the etesian winds were already at their full strength. We may assume, therefore, that he set off from Puteoli in the last week of July at the earliest and reached Alexandria by the end of the month, or the first week of August at the latest,34 delivering Gaius’ mandata one month later than the Roman administrative calendar demanded.35 Flaccus’ Official Confirmation in Office According to Roman ceremonial protocol, the prefect designate of Alexandria and Egypt received the mandata in Rome from the emperor, but his imperium became active only at the moment of his adventus in the city, that is, when he entered Alexandria and his predecessor departed (Dio, 53.13, 8).36 In the case of Flaccus, who was already in Alexandria

33

Casson, Ships and Seamenship, 282 n. 48 and 283 table 1. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 55 n. 66; more recently Gruen, Diaspora, 54ff. and Van der Horst, Flaccus, 116–117. Casson, Ships and Seamenship, 298–299 and n. 9 assumes that Agrippa boarded on the first ships that had spent the winter in Italy and left Puteoli for Alexandria in April at the opening of the sailing season in order to be in Alexandria in May; Casson also makes the connection with the death of Drusilla on June 10. The line of logic that Casson applies here, however, is not clear; in the same note, he states that the news of Drusilla’s death would have taken two to three weeks to reach Alexandria, therefore pointing to a date not before the end of June, establishing a contradiction with Agrippa’s presence in Alexandria in May. Rather, Agrippa may well have boarded on those ships that, having sailed from Italy to Alexandria in April–May, had already transported a load of grain from Alexandria to Italy and were ready at the end of July (by August, Casson says) to leave for Alexandria again. For a chronology of Agrippa’s travel that follows Casson and argues for Agrippa’s arrival in Alexandria in early June see Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa I”, in response to which see Gambetti, “Note on Agrippa;” Kerkeslager, “Agrippa,” 10ff. accepts Kushnir-Stein’s time frame. 35 Differently Gruen, Diaspora, 57, who sees Agrippa’s stop in Alexandria as Gaius’ attempt to calm the Jews; Schwartz, Agrippa I, 74, for whom Agrippa had his own personal business to take care of in Alexandria; Kerkeslager, “Agrippa,” who holds that Agrippa went to Alexandria for the express purpose of supporting the cause of the Jews; Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 169 affirms that Agrippa wanted to visit Philo’s brother Alexander the arabarch. 36 Cf. the edictum of S. Satidius Strabo 14–20 C.E. in J.H. Oliver, “Epigraphical Notes,” ZPE 32 (1978): 280, with reference to the imperial mandata both in Greek and in Latin. In contrast to the protocol for the investiture of the pro-magistrates to whom a senatorial province was allotted, whose powers would become executive at their profectio, i.e. at their crossing of the pomerium; Marotta, Mandata, 131; 137; the religious symbolism attached to the investiture of the magistrate and the role of the pomerium are discussed in J. Rüpke, Domi militiae: die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990), 41–47; the ius pomerii until Sulla is in 34


159

and was the successor to himself, the imperium that Tiberius gave him had expired with the emperor’s death. After an ad interim period, Agrippa delivered Gaius’ mandata, formalizing Flaccus’ new imperium. This would have been a time for Agrippa and Flaccus to meet officially and publicly with all pomp, as they did, in spite of Philo’s silence on the possible reasons (Fl,. 30–32).37 In the Gymnasium Written sources and documents from Trajan’s time report local ceremonies in provincial capitals upon the arrival of new governors; these ceremonies varied from city to city. The population was undoubtedly involved and the privileged venue was the gymnasium.38 Similarly the Alexandrians spent three days in the gymnasium to celebrate Flaccus’ taking office for a second time. On this occasion, a mob, in Philo’s words, played a theatrical scene mocking king Agrippa. We know how it was staged: a street beggar was dragged into the gymnasium enclosure, clothed in royal attire, surrounded by an improvised bodyguard and paraded around (Flacc., 34; 36–39). While the farce appeared comical and casual, it had its own precise historical logic. The way in which Agrippa was vilified in the gymnasium merits attention. The involvement of Carabas,39 the vagrant dragged into the gymnasium to impersonate king Agrippa and hailed as marin (Syrian for king), was no accident.40 Here, we have a penniless wretch taken from the street, who suddenly boasts royal attire and honors, in spite of his previous situation. All of these recalled Agrippa’s recent personal

M. Sordi, “Silla e lo ius pomerii proferendi,” in Il confine nel mondo classico. CISA 13 (ed. M. Sordi; Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1987), 200–211 and in P. Catalano, “Aspetti spaziali del sistema giuridico religioso romano,” ANRW II 16,1 (1978): 486–488 for the changes in the path of the pomerium. 37 Box, Flaccum, xli holds that Agrippa paraded in full pomp in order to intimidate the Alexandrians and Flaccus, who was already acting against the Jews in court, and to do anything to help the Jews; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 123 for summary of other interpretations. 38 The main evidence is about Ephesos; L. Robert, Documents d’Asie Mineure (Paris: De Boccard, 1987), 474; in general for the Hellenistic period M.P. Nillson, La scuola nell’età ellenistica (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1973). 39 It was probably not an accident that the beggar dragged into the gymnasium to impersonate the king had an Aramaic name; comments in this sense in Box, Flaccum, 89. 40 Alston, “Philo’s Flaccum,” 167 holds that the Jews hailed Agrippa as marin in an assertion of ethnic identity and probably “ill-defined loyalty.”

160

chapter seven

history. Loaded with debt and imprisoned for more than a year, Gaius had made him king almost overnight after the death of Tiberius and had involved the senate in bestowing upon him the highest honors, including the praetorian insignia (Flacc., 40). The Alexandrian mob hardly have put on such a show on their own. Agrippa was not known to Alexandria and he was likely familiar only to the leaders of the Jewish community, such as Alexander the arabarch, who had loaned money to him in the past (Jos., Ant. 18.159–160). His earlier visits to the city as an indebted fugitive likely escaped the attention of the general public and the Alexandrian elite. How had news of Agrippa’s royal appointment in 37 C.E. reached Alexandria? There were likely rumors, but nothing specific, as Philo would have his readers believe, about the territory that he would rule, that he would rule a great part of Syria, that this was a return to his personal history, or that he was Syrian by birth (which would explain why he had been hailed as marin) (Flacc., 39). Only someone well-acquainted with the imperial court, where Agrippa’s personal situation had changed so dramatically, could have orchestrated the farce in the gymnasium. Isidoros, again, comes under suspicion. Isidoros had been in Rome at least until the spring of 38 C.E., a possible date for Macro’s trial (Acta, IV col. iii) and he had been on good terms with the emperor. The present work has also noted Isidoros’ presence in Rome at Gaius’ accession in March 37 C.E., as the emperor’s advisor in the trial between the Jews and the Alexandrians (P. Yale II 107, col. iii, ll. 24ff.; Ἰσι/δώρου λέξ[αντος . . . . . . . . .]). Isidoros’ presence in Rome at Gaius’ accession makes him a witness, likely an eyewitness, to Agrippa’s change of fortune. Among Gaius’s first acts as emperor were the release of Agrippa from prison and the granting of a kingdom to him. Isidoros had lived close to the court and likely knew the details of Agrippa’s life and impromptu coronation; he later made use of this information in Alexandria. It is plausible, therefore, the Isidoros had arranged the mockery of Agrippa in the gymnasium. It has been surmised that Isidoros was the gymnasiarch of Alexandria in the summer of 38 C.E. and that he had orchestrated the riots in that capacity.41 The combined reading of some pieces of evidence could, in fact, support this. Interrogated in Rome by emperor Claudius early in May of 41 C.E., Isidoros is introduced as, and claims to be,

41

Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 157; Blouin, Conflit judéo-alexandrin, 111.


161

the Alexandrian gymnasiarch (Acta IV; Rec. B, col. ii, l. 34 [cf. Rec. A, col. ii, ll. 2–3]). One line in the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians praises the reform the Alexandrian ambassadors proposed to limit the gymnasiarchy to no more than three years (P. Lond. VI 1912, ll. 62–63). This line has allowed scholars to extend retroactively the principle of the three-year tenure to Isidoros’ gymnasiarchy, making him gymnasiarch from 38 to 41 C.E.42 Questions arise, however, concerning when he was designated gymnasiarch and when he entered office. Among the documentary papyri published to date, none provides data about the way in which gymnasiarchs were appointed in Alexandria.43 The best available data is drawn from a papyrus from Hermopolis dated July 24, 42 C.E., in which a person introduces himself as the gymnasiarch designate and states, among other things, that he will begin his service on August 30 of the following year (P. Lond. III 1166). This implies that he was designated in advance.44 That his tenure would begin on August 30 is also relevant, since it corresponds to Thoth 1, the first day of the Egyptian administrative calendar in Roman times (cf. P. I Paris 69).45 Reasonably, then, we can assume also that the gymnasiarch entered office on the same day in Alexandria. The riots of 38 C.E. occurred between the end of July and the end of August, that is, during the last month of the administrative year. Thus, if Isidoros had been gymnasiarch at the time of the riots, then he must have entered office the year before, that is, August 30 (= Thoth 1) of 37 C.E., and must have been appointed well before that. As this work 42 Cf. Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 157, only for the year 38 C.E., but on the basis of a dramatic date of the Acta Isidori et Lamponis (Acta IV) of 41 C.E. P.J. Sijpesteijn, Listes des gymnasiarques des metropoles de l’Égypte romaine (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967), 44, and P.J. Sijpesteijn, Nouvelle liste des gymnasiarques des metropoles de l’Égypte romaine (Zutphen: Terra, 1986), 52 lists Isidoros as gymnasiarch for the year 52 C.E., on the basis of a later date for the Acta Isidori et Lamponis. 43 P. Oxy. I 471 of the second century C.E. is the only papyrus from Alexandria mentioning the appointments of a gymnasiarch at the time of the emperor Berenicianus. Unfortunately, the document is difficult to interpret and can hardly give any further information. 44 The main task of the designated gymnasiarch was to make contracts for the oil supply to be used in the gymnasium during his year of responsibility; this is why the man of Hermopolis was designated one year before. Cf. P. Tebt. II 395. 45 See Egyptian-Roman calendar in P.W. Pestman, Chronologie Égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C.–453 ap. J.-C.) (Leiden: Brill, 1967); Lewis, Compulsory Services, 19. If more comparative data are allowed, we see that the gymnasiarch entered office on the first day of the administrative year also at Beraia, the small Macedonian town from which the gymnasiarchical laws has come to us in a superb state of conservation: Gauthier and Hatzopoulos, Beraia, l. 35.

162

chapter seven

has shown, however, Isidoros was not in the city at that point, but still exiled in Rome on account of the disorders in the gymnasium in 35 C.E. He had no real prospects of returning to Alexandria at that time, thus, he could hardly have been appointed gymnasiarch. Isidoros was the gymnasiarch in 41 C.E., at the time of the trial before Claudius that resulted in his death (Acta IV col ii, l. 3). Indeed, he need not have been gymnasiarch to have a role in Alexandrian civic life in the summer of 38 C.E. As an increasingly influential citizen, he needed no public office to wield his authority. He knew Agrippa’s personal history well enough to stage the mime ridiculing him. Honors to Flaccus As part of Flaccus’ official investiture ceremony, the Alexandrians, or better “the mob,” as Philo states, awarded honors to the prefect (Flacc., 41): ὁ ὄχλος [. . .] συρρυέντες εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ, Φλάκκον ἤδη τιµῶν ἀθλίων ἐωνηµένοι, κτλ.

The mob, running together into the theater at dawn, after they had already granted Flaccus the prizes of honors, etc. Philo’s derogatory language presents the honors to Flaccus as a prize and should be understood in the context of the alleged alliance between Flaccus and the leaders of the city’s anti-Jewish faction. The alliance aside, however, the fact remains that they did grant honors to Flaccus .46 However, if the honors granted were not Flaccus’ prize, then what were they? The prize was the way in which the city officially acknowledged Flaccus’ second mandate, honors granted by Alexandria’s citizens to the re-appointed prefect and in no way out of place. It is likely this, and not the bribery, that underlies Philo’s statement. In a city without institutional autonomy, as Alexandria was under the Romans, who was in charge of public ceremonies? The only first century C.E. representative bodies documented in Alexandria were the councils of elders, the gerousiai of the citizens and of the Jews. Augustus instituted the Jewish gerousia (Flacc., 73) and documentary evidence attesting to the citizens’ gerousia dates back as far as the Ptolemaic

46 The perfect participle ἤδη ἐωνηµένοι strongly suggests that the ceremony occurred before the meeting in the theater.


163

period (SB I 2100).47 For the Roman period, its existence is certain from P. Oxy. VIII 1089 and P. Yale II 107 of 37 C.E.48 Scholars have debated whether it was a private body or could perform official duties.49 Surely, its ability to send envoys to the emperor, as in P. Yale II 107, indicates a certain degree of representativeness that the authorities recognized. As such, it could have granted honors to Flaccus on behalf of the citizens of Alexandria. As for Agrippa, we must concede that he was present. His duty to deliver Gaius’ mandata to Flaccus compelled him to sit in the gymnasium and to attend the official ceremony. Unfortunately, he also saw himself mocked. Philo’s account offers no suggestions concerning the length of Agrippa’s stay in Alexandria, but there is no reason to believe that he lingered. Modern scholars generally agree on a short stay, excluding Agrippa’s presence at the beginning of the riots. At present, there is no reason to reject this assumption: Agrippa came to the city, delivered Gaius’ mandata to Flaccus, and left.50 Agrippa and the Alexandrian Jews In spite of the brevity of his stay, Agrippa surely found time to meet with the Jews. He likely first met with them upon his arrival in Alexandria. The requirement of authorization to enter the city makes the secret harbor approach and landing unlikely in general. It was certainly unlikely from the viewpoint of Flaccus, who was institutionally in charge of issuing entry permits, but also from that of the official in charge of the harbor, at that time likely to be Alexander the arabarch,51 Philo’s

47 El- Abbadi, “Gerousia;” Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 95–96; Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 163; a previous study is in M. San Nicolò, Ägyptischen Vereinwesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer (München: Beck, 1913): 40–42; Von Premerstein, Alexandrinische Gerontes, is no longer accepted as a valid historical discussion. 48 We should add the Hawara inscription, published by F.M. Heichenheim, “Inscriptions from the Fitzwilliam Museum,” JHS 62 (1942): 17, which mentions an ἀρχιγέρων; the date of 37 C.E. suggested by the editor is no longer accepted. 49 For the gerousia in the Hellenistic period in the Greek world, F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinwesen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909): 98–102, J.H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerousia (Baltimore: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1941). 50 Smallwood, Legatio, 251–253; Colson, Philo’s Embassy, 92. Recently Kerkeslager, “Agrippa,” 23 and passim maintained that Agrippa stayed longer and was present when imperial images were erected in the synagogues. 51 F. Burkhalter, “Les fermiers de l’arabarchie: notables et hommes d’affaires à Alexandrie,” in Alexandrie: une mégalopole cosmopolite (ed. J. Leclant; Paris: Belles Lettres, 1999), 41–54.

164

chapter seven

brother. Agrippa knew Alexander from an earlier short stay in the city in 35 or 36 C.E., when, on his way to Rome, he requested a loan to pay back part of his debt to the imperial family (Jos., A.J., 18.159–160).52 Returning to Alexandria was not an embarrassment for Agrippa at that point in his career, since, as king, he could use the kingdom’s revenues to wipe out his debts. Agrippa and the representatives of the Jewish community surely discussed the difficult situation. Aware that Flaccus had not sent their decree honoring Gaius’ accession a year earlier, the Jews requested that the king attend to it. Agrippa did so, adding, Philo relates, a note of apology for the delay (Flacc., 103). This was not the only matter that the Jews asked Agrippa to take to the emperor on their behalf. In 39 C.E., waiting in Rome to meet with Gaius,53 the Jewish ambassadors, led by Philo, intended to give to Gaius a document summarizing their suffering. Philo states that this was the epitome of a longer supplication that they had given to Agrippa when he stopped in Alexandria (ἐπιτοµή τις ἱκετείας µακροτέρας; Legat., 179). Scholars have rightly underscored the difficulty of interpreting and contextualizing this passage historically. Philo does not specify the topic of the supplication, but it is certainly not to be confused with the honorary decree that the Jews had asked Agrippa to carry to the emperor.54 What exactly this document addressed is difficult to say. If it described the persecution of the summer of 38 C.E.,55 then Agrippa had to be in the city when the persecution took place. No evidence excludes this possibility, but probability should rule it out. Considering, therefore, that Agrippa left Alexandria soon after delivering the imperial mandata to Flaccus and before the persecution began, the only possible grievance that the Jews could have asked the king to address before the emperor was Flaccus’ discrimination against them in lawsuits early in 38 C.E.56 Such was the consequence of Gaius’ verdict of 37 C.E. and its application as legal precedent. It is Gaius’ decretum

52

Schwartz, Agrippa I, 50. The embassy to Gaius is discussed in ch. 10; see appendix 1 for the chronology. 54 So Colson, Philo’s Embassy, 92 55 So Schäfer, Judeophobia, 137 with notes; Blouin, Conflit judéo-alexandrin, 87, n. 270. 56 As suggested, but not investigated by Smallwood, Legatio, 252. 53


165

and its consequences that the Jews asked the emperor to reconsider by giving Agrippa a supplication, a formal document through which provincials addressed emperors.57 They hoped that Agrippa’s position in the Roman court and his personal friendship with the emperor would improve their situation.

57

Zelnick-Abramovitz, “Supplication;” on the supplication see also above ch. 5.

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE RIOTS OF 38 C.E. In the Theater While the mockery of Agrippa was confined to the gymnasium, what followed in the theater had major consequences for the city’s Jewish community. Philo states that after three days of celebration over Flaccus’ reappointment, as argued above, the lazy mob ran together from the gymnasium into the theater at dawn1 and called for the installation of images in the Jewish meeting-houses (Flacc., 41–42).2 Given the Jewish prohibition of images of any kind (Ex., 20, 4; Deut., 4, 16–18), it goes without saying that the religious offense was serious. Such an action also breached the religious privileges that had been granted to the Jews by the Roman authorities. Thus, Philo’s outrage is justified (Flacc., 43–50). Let us by no means underestimate the fact that the call for images in the Jewish meeting-houses occurred in the theater (Flacc., 41). Certainly, the theater was a place of entertainment, but it was not only that. Evidence reveals that, like for the rest of the Hellenistic world, Alexandria’s theater was the venue for political meetings (cf. Jos., B.J., 2.491–498).3 Therefore, we must consider the hypothesis that no impromptu sunrise mob called for images in the meeting-houses, as Philo seems to

1 A meeting at dawn was not exceptional in the ancient world, particularly during the summer months, when the daytime heat would have made staying in an open space under the sun unbearable. 2 Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 53 dubious on the chronology of this event in particular due to the inconsistency of Philo’s accounts in In Flaccum and Legatio; that Flaccus proposed the erection of the images as in Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 169 is unsupported by the available evidence. 3 The theater was the place for political meetings in the Greek and Hellenistic world; see Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 121; Blouin, Conflit judéo-alexandrin, 113. It is probably to the theater that Philo himself refers when he condemns the politician who, thirsty for fame, speaks to the audience from the βῆµα (De Jos., 35: ὁ µὲν γὰρ δηµοκόπος καὶ δηµηγόρος ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὸ βῆµα, κτλ). It was in the amphitheater that the Alexandrians were holding an assembly in 66 C.E. when the Jews broke in, prompting a reaction that would develop into the riots quenched with blood by the Prefect Ti. Iulius Alexander (Jos., B.J., 2.490). See also Adriani, Repertorio, C I–II, 205–206.

168

chapter eight

indicate, but quite another kind of public meeting. The combination of all these circumstances—the public location, the delivery of the mandata, the honors to Flaccus—transform the erection of images in the Jewish meeting-houses into a political act. The first question to answer concerns the nature of the desecration, particularly the kind of images that the Alexandrians set in the meetinghouses. Philo calls them eikones, cultic imperial images.4 This episode has sometimes been connected with the development of the imperial cult and Gaius’ willingness to be considered a god, one of the most controversial issues of modern historiography on Gaius. Suetonius and Dio monopolize the available information on the subject and describe the emperor’s religious manifestations as whimsical, using them to support and sell the very popular idea of Gaius’ insanity. Philo’s Legatio openly denounces Gaius’ willingness to be a god, which spelled certain ruin for the Jews. Modern scholars have questioned the ancient authors’ approach, but have reached no consensus concerning what Gaius hoped to achieve when he dressed like a god or built temples to himself (Legat., 78–85; 86–92; 99–102; 103–110; 111–113).5

4 The basic terminological discussion is in L. Robert, Opera minora selecta. Épigraphie et antiquités grecques (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1969), 832–834: “le term εἴκονες s’applique techniquement aux “images” des empereurs, à leur portraits, exactement à leur bustes honorés d’un culte.” Philo seems to make a distinction between eikon and andrias, whereby the two are typologically different; andrias is a statue (consistently used for the statue that Gaius ordered to erect in his own likeness in the Temple of Jerusalem in 39), while eikon also represents a human being, but is clearly not a statue (Legat., 134; 138; 188; 203; 207; 220; 238; 246; 260; 265; 306; 308; 336; 337). Both of these terms carry the same divine content; both of them are used by Philo to substantiate his accusation that Gaius claimed to be a god, in the awareness of which the gentiles filled the Jewish sacred places with figurative representation of his likeness (Legat., 334; 346). The distinction drawn by modern scholars between the content and function of agalma and eikon, the first being the representation of a god, the second the likeness of a divine mortal, probably does not apply to Philo’s vocabulary [I. Leisegang, Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt. Indices ad Philonis Alexandrini opera (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1926) s.v. agalma and eikon]. 5 Barrett, Caligula, 141–153, who submits a complete argument on Gaius’ selfdeification, particularly 145ff., is very prudent not to draw any firm conclusions with respect to Gaius’ intentions on the first part of his reign; Kraus Reggiani, “Rapporti,” 559–561 n. 20 with additional sources from Roman historiography; C.J. Simpson, “The Cult of the Emperor Gaius,” Latomus 40 (1981): 140–159 stresses madness as the key to modern scholars’ lack of understanding of the Caligula phenomenon; E.G. Huzar, “Emperor Worship in Julio-Claudian Egypt,” ANRW II 18.5 (1995): 3092–3143 submits a narrative overview with some mistakes. For a different view, see I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 140–159, who explores any means to deny Gaius’ self-deification.

the riots of 38 c.e.

169

Chronology plays an important role in determining whether the Alexandrian episode in the summer of 38 C.E. might be connected to Gaius’ self-deifying effort. Gaius, as Tiberius did before him, forbade people to pay divine tribute to him in 37 C.E. at his accession (Dio, 59.4,4). According to Suetonius and Dio, he showed no self-deifying tendency in Rome and in the east prior to 40 C.E.6 Thus, modern scholars deny that the Alexandrian events were linked in any way to the living emperor’s deification and they insist that what happened inside and outside the theater was, at most, a demonstration of popular loyalty to the imperial family in keeping with the culture of the Greek east.7 Philo’s comments encourage this conclusion. He states that the desecrators used Caesar’s name as a pretext (Flacc., 42). According to some, Philo pushed the date of Gaius’ divine notions back to 38 C.E. in Legatio in order to blame the suffering of Alexandria’s Jews on him.8 There may be some truth in this, but there is also room for discussion. The account of the erection of the images in the meeting-houses, despite its brevity, is much like what happened in Jamneh, a small city in Judea, later in 38 C.E.9 There, as Philo recounts in Legatio, the gentile segment of the population erected an altar to Gaius on land that the Jews considered to be sacred. Seeing their customs subverted, they tore it down (Legat., 200–201). In keeping with his statements concerning

6 Gaius’ process of self-deification in Rome is better described in Philo, Legat., 75–113. In the same period Gaius ordered his temple to be built in Miletus; for sources see L. Robert, “Le culte de Caligula à Milet et la province d’Asie,” in Hellenica VII ( Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1949), 206–238. This evidence in particular has lead scholars to conclude that Gaius did not introduce his cult before 40 C.E.; Smallwood, Legatio, 3; 206–207; C. Gatti, “Considerazioni sul culto imperiale nel quadro della politica di Gaio,” in Religione e politica nel mondo antico. CISA 7. (ed. M. Sordi. Milano: Vita e Pensiero 1981):161–173, who however sees some signs already in 39; Simpson, “Cult;” S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge–New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 68; Barrett, Caligula, 140–144; M. Clauss, Kaiser und Gott: Herrscherkult im römischen Reich (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1999), 90–91. 7 Barrett, Caligula, 145ff.; Gatti, “Culto imperiale,” 166 maintains that Gaius decided to order his statue in the temple of Jerusalem in imitation of what the Alexandrians had done in 38 C.E.; Singerland, Claudian Policimaking, 82–83 stresses imperial assent as sufficient condition for Gaius’ implications in anti-Jewish actions in Alexandria, yet declaring that “Gaius did play a part in the suffering of Alexandria . . . in the desecration of their religious centers” without providing any additional evidence. 8 Smallwood, Legatio, 3; 206–207 and many followers, among whom Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 54. In any case, Smallwood denies that self-deification had anything to do with the Alexandrian riots, of which Gaius’ hatred for the Jews was the consequence. 9 For the chronology, see appendix 1.

170

chapter eight

the events in Alexandria, Philo blames the incident on the Greeks who were eager to flatter the emperor’s vision of himself as a god. Thus far, the idea that easterners were the initiators of this course of events leaves Gaius flattered by such eagerness, but still in the background. Dio, however, records another episode from that same time that is more difficult to minimize. The governor of Syria, Vitellius, compelled the Parthian king Artabanus to sacrifice to images of Augustus and Gaius when negotiating an agreement with him (Dio, 59.27, 3);10 this must have occurred in 38 C.E. shortly before Gaius recalled Vitellius to Rome and sent Petronius, who took office in Syria in the following spring, to replace him.11 While the request to sacrifice to Augustus comes as no surprise—Tiberius had had the senate vote his deification upon his death—the association with Gaius is out of place. In this instance, it cannot be doubted that Gaius was considered a god, since sacrifices were offered to his image and not simply on his behalf. Further, the setting was official and institutional, since a Roman official who represented the emperor imposed the sacrifice on a surrendering enemy. In short, on three occasions in 38 C.E. in the East—Alexandria, Jamneh, and Syrian Euphrates—divine honors were offered to Gaius, with one of these cases certainly being not a matter of simple loyalty, but of official policy. But this is not all. In 38/39 C.E., the Alexandrian mint issued a coin with a portrait of Gaius with a radiant crown on the obverse (RPC I i 5106).12 Similar coins were issued in Asia Minor, including one from Smyrna dated to 37/38 C.E. (RPC, I i 2474).13 The radiant crown was a divine attribute in Hellenistic ruler cults, frequently used on coins by both the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.14 Up until that time, the Romans, 10 11

καὶ θῦσαι ταῖς τοῦ Αὐγούστου τοῦ τε Γαΐου εἰκόσιν ἠνάγκασε.

Vitellius had ordered one of Artabanus’ sons to be sent as a hostage to Rome; he was present at Baiae in the spring of 39 C.E. and it is possible to believe that he arrived in Rome in late 38 or early 39 C.E. (see appendix 1 for chronology); here he greets Gaius with proschynesis (Dio, 59.27, 2–6). 12 A.M. Burnett, et al., Roman Provincial Coinage (London–Paris: British Museum— Bibliothèque Nationale, 1992–). 13 M. Bergmann, Die Strahlen der Herrscher: theomorphes Herrscherbild und politische Symbolik im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Mainz von Zabern, 1998), 127–129 and pl. 25.8 14 R.R.R. Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), 42; cf. B.E. Levy, “Caligula’s Radiate Crown,” Gazette Numismatiques Swisse 38 (1988): 101–107; and H.M. Von Kaenel, “Augustus, Caligula oder Claudius?” Gazette Numismatique Swisse 28 (1978): 39–44. For images: H. Kyrieleis, Bildnisse der Ptolemäer (Berlin: Mann, 1975), pl. 17. 1–4; 40.4; 52.1; 54.9 for the Ptolemies; E. Babelon, Catalogue


171

strictly refusing to make gods of living rulers, adopted it only for the portrait of the divine Augustus on some Tiberian coins in the east (RPC I i 2344). It is easy to attribute the flattering of emperors to the eastern traditions. Documents report embassies from the east greeting Gaius as a god at his accession and Hellenistic rulers in Asia were commonly identified with Helios, symbolized in the radiant crown.15 Yet portraits of rulers on coins did not result from the excessive flattering zeal of subjects, but from political decisions at the center. By having himself portrayed with divine attributes, Gaius clearly adopted an iconographic policy pointing to his divine persona, a breach of his immediate predecessors’ custom. Emblems of his divinity are not isolated eastern notions; they are official and all appear in 37 and 38 C.E. The possibility that Gaius introduced his cult in the east as early as 37 or 38 C.E. is very high. The events in Alexandria were therefore not isolated. Given the city’s circumstances in the summer of 38 C.E., when official ceremony was adapted in order to allow the prefect to succeed himself, it is likely that Gaius’ mandata to Flaccus—or any correspondence that the emperor sent on that occasion—included instructions on the new imperial religious policy.16 In that case, setting up his images was nothing less than the carrying out of an imperial order.17 Philo states that the crowd who staged the mime in the gymnasium was also responsible for setting the images in the meeting-houses. Derogatory qualifications for the throng abound: the opposite of composed and public-minded people, at once habitually given to idleness and eager to exert themselves in wrongdoing (Flacc., 41). Given the discussion and conclusions above, it is unlikely that “the mob” made this call. Instead, the responsibility of political leadership of some sort should be envisioned. The best candidates for this leadership would

des monnaies grecques de la Bibliothèque nationale. Les rois de Syrie, d’Arménie et de Commagène (Paris: Rollin & Feuardent, 1890), pl. 13–14; 17; 20; 23; 25–26; 28–29 for the Seleucids. 15 Barrett, Caligula, 143; Bergmann, Die Strahlen der Herrscher, 127. 16 See the mandata of Trajan, in which he lists instructions for religious festivals; CIL III supp. 7086. 17 Cf. Kerkeslager, “Agrippa,” 389–397 who inclines to read in this episode the funerary ceremony for Drusilla, with images of her and of the imperial family set in the meeting-houses. However, Legat., 346 clearly states that Gaius used images in his likeness: ᾧ χαλεπῶς ἀπεχθανόµενος τὰς µὲν ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσι προσευχὰς ἀπὸ τῶν κατ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἀρξάµενος σφετερίζεται, καταπλήσας εἰκόνων καὶ ἀνδριάντων τῆς ἰδίας µορφῆς.

172

chapter eight

be the leaders of the gymnasium, who had just orchestrated Agrippa mockery, but especially the gerousia, whose duty, as has been recalled, were likely mainly ceremonial. They called the populace to action,18 as the sequence of events in Philo’s account suggests. The Jews reacted to the attack, probably with weapons at hand (Flacc., 48),19 but they reacted in vain; meeting-houses in less populated areas, which the Jews could hardly defend, were razed (Flacc., 53; Legat., 134).20 At that point, Flaccus likely attempted to reconcile the Jews and the rest of the city; Philo makes a brief mention of this attempt much later (Flacc., 76),21 but provides no details. Rather, by ὅσα τῷ δοκεῖν, he paints Flaccus’ initiative with uncertainty and inconclusiveness, another attempt to diminish Flaccus’ ability as a governor and to emphasize once again his allegedly treacherous attitude toward the Jews. The Edict and the Jews The desecration and destruction of the meeting-houses lasted some days, after which Flaccus issued his infamous edict, punishing the Jews collectively in all aspects of their lives (Flacc., 54). [. . .] τίθησι (scil. Φλάκκος) πρόγραµµα, δι᾽ οῦ ξένους καὶ ἐπήλυδας ἡµᾶς ἀπεκάλει µηδὲ λόγου µεταδούς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκρίτως καταδικάζων. [. . .] he (scil. Flaccus) posted an edict,22 in which he denounced us as foreigners and immigrants not even giving us the right to speak, but sentencing us without a judgment.

18

Marotta, Liturgia del potere, 148. Box, Flaccum, lix–lxii, with discussion on the presence of weapons in Jewish houses; Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, extends the Jewish violent reaction to the following phases of the persecution. 20 I accept here the chronological chart, but not the consequent argument, in Kerkeslager, “Agrippa,” 372, where the author submits a sequence of events that makes sense of the apparent chronological contradiction that Philo presents in In Flaccum and in Legatio. The result is that the attack on the meeting-houses occurred in two different rounds; the first soon after the ceremony for Flaccus’ reappointment, discussed here; the second after the issuing of the edict. The locations of the two attacks also differ; see below in this chapter. 21 Differently Van der Horst, Flaccus, 172, who places this alleged attempt of reconciliation after the issuing of the edict (Flacc., 55–57); on this latter subject see below. 22 According to Mason, Greek Terms, 80; 127–128, the proper Greek translation of the Latin edictum would be διάταγµα and alternatively πρόγραµµα. More recent terminological research submits that programma specifies the public posting of a document: 19


173

Discussion of this edict begins with its vocabulary. The brief sentence in which Philo summarizes the edict’s content contains the expression ξένους καὶ ἐπήλυδας. Scholars generally accept the translation as “foreigners and aliens” (Flacc., 54),23 suggesting that the two words are synonymous and used rhetorically. This is a distinct possibility, for Philo was a very learned writer and many stylistic and rhetorical devices decorate his work. Another possibility, however, allows a different interpretation. A more precise translation than “foreigners and aliens” may be “foreigners and immigrants.”24 A cognate from the root ελυθ,25 classical Greek literature often uses ἔπηλυς to mean incomers, always in contrast to native populations (Hdt., 8.73; Aesch., Pers., 243; Suppl., 195; 401; Eur., Iph. Taur., 1021; Heracl., 257; Ion, 607; Thuc., 1.9; Xen., Oecon., 11, 4; Isocr., Panath., 124; Paneg., 4.63; Pl., Men., 237b). Thus, the expression ξένους καὶ ἐπήλυδας is not a rhetorical mannerism, for ἐπήλυδες is a specification and not simply a synonym of ξένοι. The semantic, but not lexical, background of this distinction may lie in how documents from the Ptolemaic period define xenoi katoikountes, that is, foreign residents, and xenoi parepidemountes, that is, foreigners with limited stay (UPZ 196, col. i, l. 14).26 Flaccus’ ξένους καὶ ἐπήλυδας refer to the latter. The meanings and implications of the wording of Flaccus’ edict stand out more clearly when compared with a rhetorically elaborate passage at the end of In Flaccum: Philo’s lengthy description of the prefect’s arrest and his subsequent journey to Rome and then to Andros, the Aegean island to which Gaius exiled him. On Andros, Philo has Flaccus realize the horror of his actions and express his thoughts in a speech, a purely rhetorical flourish. The speech is useless with respect to gaining knowledge about how Flaccus actually felt. Yet because they are Philo’s words, and not those of Flaccus, the passage clarifies the charges in the edict (Flacc., 172):

M. Stroppa, “Il termine ‘programma’ nella documentazione papiracea dell’Egitto Romano “Aeg 84 (2004): 177–197, particularly 177–183; hence the translation adopted here. 23 Most common reference translations: Box, Flaccum, 21: aliens and foreigners; Colson, Philo’s Flaccus, 333: foreigners and aliens; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 64: foreigners and aliens. 24 As in A. Pellettier, Philon In Flaccum (Paris: Cerf, 1967), 83. 25 P. Chantraine, Dictionaire étimologique de la langue grecque (Paris: Klinchsieck, 1990), s.v. ἐλεύσοµαι. 26 Taubenschlag, Law of Egypt, 590 and n. 33–34.

174

chapter eight

[. . .] ὠνείδισα ποτε ἀτιµίαν καὶ ξενιτείαν αὐτοῖς (scil. τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις) ἐπιτίµοις οὖσι κατοίκοις, κτλ. [. . .] I cast on them (scil. the Jews) the slur that they were foreigners without civic rights, though they were residents with granted privileges, etc. The sentence is organized around two opposing pairs of words: on one side atimia and xeniteia, on the other epitimoi and katoikoi. Atimia, with a considerable quantity of cognates, belongs to the vocabulary of the Greek city-states.27 To enumerate their occurrences, both in inscriptions and in the writings of orators, would be pointless. In traditional Athenian law,28 however, atimia had a very precise juridical definition and, as a penalty, total atimia meant the loss of political rights for a citizen who had committed a crime against the state. In Hellenistic times, atimia was inflicted on the Cyrenean citizens who had offended the state by doing manual labor (SEG IX 1, l. 47). The condition of the atimos was similar to that of the xenos, the foreigner, the citizen of another town.29 It is no accident, therefore, that Philo couples atimia with xeniteia,30 since one concept leads to the other. The opposing pair, katoikos and epitimos, is not new to this study.31 While katoikos defines legal residence, epitimos deals with everything else that allowed the Jews to form their own community. Something more about epitimos must be said at this point in order to provide 27

Atimia is well known from Homeric times, referring to aristocratic values; it shifted to political values in classical times; A. Maffi, “Ἀτιµάζειν e φεύγειν nei poemi omerici,” in Vorträge zur greichischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (ed. P. Dimakis; Köln: Böhlau, 1983), especially 252–254; M. Youni, “Different Categories of Unpunished Killing and the Term ΑΤΙΜΟΣ in Ancient Greek Law,” in Symposion 1997: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, Altafiumara, 8.–14. September 1997 (eds. Cantarella, E. & G.Thür. Köln-Weimar-Wien: Böhlau, 2001), 117–137; Poddighe, “Atimia,” 38–39. All of these studies are extremely useful for previous bibliography. 28 The basis of the Alexandrian law; see introduction. 29 Harrison, Law, 169–170; Hansen, Apagogé, 55 and n. 8; Whitehead, Athenian Metic, 10–11; MacDowell, Laws of Athens, 73–74; 220–221; Gauthier, Symbola, for a comprehensive study. 30 This is the only occurrence of ξενιτεία in Philo’s corpus, but ξένος (foreigner) and some cognates are frequently used; I. Leisegang, Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt. Indices ad Philonis Alexandrini opera (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1930): 564–565. It appears that in the rest of his work Philo consistently opposes ξένος to πολίτης (citizen). Thus, the present passage is a unique case where the condition of being foreign is lower than being a non-citizen but legal resident, i.e., from being κάτοικος. 31 See ch. 3 and ch. 5 above for discussion of the civic and political meaning of these terms in relation to the rights of the Alexandrian Jews.


175

a more specific legal and political connotation. Nowhere does Philo suggest that its basic meaning differs from that commonly found in Athenian literature, i.e. the right to privileges and honors. As such, it stands in clear opposition to atimia.32 Clearly, it refers to the privileges that the Jews possessed and enjoyed in Alexandria. These privileges had been given to them by the early Ptolemies and the Romans: religious freedom, including exemption from worshipping the local gods and participation in the ruler cult; relative juridical independence; selfgovernment for their community; privileged forms of punishment; tax-exempt status.33 Therefore, by declaring them to be immigrants, Flaccus was depriving the Jews of the privileged status that they had enjoyed theretofore. Philo refers to this prior to reporting the edict, when he states that the civic identity of the Jews as a corporate body of foreign residents in Alexandria was about to be cancelled. The vocabulary that he uses—politeia, ethē, patria, politika dikaia—leaves no shadow of doubt concerning the magnitude of the Jews’ loss (Flacc., 53).34 Philo also states that Flaccus’ edict left the Jews without legal protection, deprived of the right to speak (Philo, Flacc., 54).35 According to Athenian law, the atimos lost legal protection, particularly the right to initiate a legal proceeding or to testify in court; he could be summoned to court only as defendant.36 What Philo indicates, then, is that the declaration of atimia ended the Jews’ access to court as plaintiffs, in both current and future cases. They also automatically and summarily lost all cases of amphisbētēsis that they had been defending in vain since the

32 The opposition, apart from being suggested by the etymology of the two words, is certainly substantiated by the context of the judicial literature; cf. Dem, In Timoc., 105; comments and definition in Hansen, Apagogé, 18; 54–55. 33 For a thorough discussion of the rights of Jews in the Roman empire not limited to Alexandria, see Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights. 34 [. . .] πάλιν ἐφ᾽ ἕτερον ἐτρέπετο τὴν τῆς ἡµετέρας πολιτείας ἀναίρεσιν ἵν᾽

ἀποκοπέντων οἷς µόνοις ἐφώρµει ὁ ἡµέτερος βίος ἐθῶν τε πατρίων καὶ µετουσίας πολιτικῶν δικαίων τὰς ἐσχάτας ὑποµένωµεν συµφορὰς οὐδενὸς ἐπειληµµένοι πείσµατος εἰς ἀσφάλειαν. For a discussion of the terms, see Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, #1, 9,

19, 26, 25, 18, 21, 27, 20, 30, 24, 7 and commentary; see also below in this work. 35 µηδὲ λόγου µεταδούς, ἀλλ’ ἀκρίτως καταδικάζων. The reference translations are: Box, Flaccum, 21: not even giving us any leave to speak, but condemning us without a trial; Colson, Philo’s Flaccus, 333: gave us no right of pleading our case, but condemned us unjudged; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 64: gave us no right to plead our case but condemned us without trial. 36 Hansen, Apagogé, 56–58.

176

chapter eight

spring of that same year.37 The edict cancelled every possible judicial case in which the Jews could be actively involved. Philo’s next remark hints at this when he states that Flaccus’ edict arrogated all of the functions of a legal trial to himself: judge, witness, instructor, accuser, and agent of punishment (Flacc., 54). The role of defendant, the only role that Flaccus did not assume, was the only one left for the Jews. This is an important issue because new judicial cases that involved Jews may already have been in progress; for example, the Jews’ resistance to Gaius’ images in their meeting-houses did not pass unobserved and must have had legal consequences. Flaccus’ edict meant that those Jews targeted as immigrants could play no role in such cases; the loss of privileges proclaimed them to be guilty without judgment. This, then, is the direct effect of the edict’s use of xeniteia and atimia inflicted on them.38 The Edict and Flaccus’ Jurisdiction The issuing of the edict is perfectly in line with the ius edicendi included in the imperium that the prefect of Egypt received directly from the emperor.39 In this case, Flaccus used the edictal power to change the status of a well-defined civic group in Alexandria from residents to foreigners. Changing the legal status of a people or of groups is a political act. Did the prefect have the authority to deal with political problems of this magnitude? Could the prefect decide matters of status? Were such actions contemplated in his jurisdiction? No job description outlining the duties or the jurisdiction delegated by the emperor to the prefect of Alexandria and Egypt exists, but the available evidence is clear that he had no independent power over political affairs, let alone matters related to the status of his subjects.40 Policy was Rome’s domain.41 The sources documenting the duties

37

See ch. 6. This is comparable to Athenian law, according to which foreigners were deprived of any legal coverage unless a treatise between their mother city and Athens stated otherwise; Dem., Halon., 11–13, Halonnesos; for Athenian laws in cases of trials with foreigners without treatises, Whitehead, Athenian Metic, 6–11; 14–16; 97; Harrison, Law, I 192; Gauthier, Symbola, 144–149. 39 For the ius edicendi, see Katzoff, “Sources of Law,” 821 and passim for a list of the available edicts issued by the prefects of Egypt. 40 See appendix 4. 41 Schiller, Roman Law, 458–462; 465–466. 38


177

of provincial governors reveal that they took care to apply the rules decreed by the emperor or the senate and to administer the regions under their jurisdiction according to the instructions that their rulers had sent. Egypt was no exception, in spite of, or perhaps because of, its distinct character in comparison with the other provinces. To be sure, the prefect of Alexandria and Egypt had imperium, but with jurisdiction only in judicial, military, and administrative matters. Flaccus could not declare the Jews foreigners. It is therefore quite unlikely that Flaccus decided to change the status of the Jews’ on his own. Philo’s extreme language, then, presents the facts misleadingly and the edict itself must be read differently; what prompted the persecution of the Jews should be considered separately from its consequences. If the immediate consequences are undisputable—the edict took away the civil rights of the now-immigrant Jews—the causes remain unclear. If the edict was not Flaccus’ political initiative, then other factors are needed to clarify its provenance. Thus far, this study has attempted to introduce a reading of the riots of 38 C.E. from an institutional point of view. Up to this point, the mandata that Agrippa brought to Flaccus have been viewed as the basis for all of the events that took place in Alexandria following the arrival of the Jewish king in the city: the official meeting where Agrippa delivered Gaius’ mandata to Flaccus, the ceremony inaugurating Flaccus’ second term in office in the gymnasium, and the call to install Gaius’ images in the meeting-houses as tribute to his self-deification. The edict itself may also have arisen from Gaius’ mandata. Two considerations are useful in this regard. The first consideration supporting this hypothesis is political in nature and was introduced above: Flaccus did not have any independent jurisdiction on matters related to status. The logical consequence of this argument is that only Gaius could have ordered a change in the rights of the Jews. The second consideration is procedural in nature: if the first hypothesis is accepted, then how did the imperial mandata become the prefect’s edict? The contents of the mandata were likely general,42 not necessarily public documents. Literary and documentary evidence, however, demonstrate that they were published, at least partially, through the

42

Marotta, Mandata; Talamanca, “Attivita’ normativa,” 414.

178

chapter eight

provincial governors’ ius edicendi.43 For the Julio-Claudian period, good evidence is the edict of Sextus Sotidius Strabo Libuscidianus, governor of Asia, who also issued an edict in conformity to the mandata of Augustus and Tiberius.44 In the early second century C.E. Pliny did apparently the same (Pliny, 10,96, 7);45 an inscription of the same period from Pergamon published part of the emperor’s mandata (CIL III supp. I, 12 Asia, 7086, l. 25: κεφαλαίον ἐξ τ]ῶν καίσαρος ἐντολῶν; 113/114 C.E.). The Digest reports that Antoninus Pius as provincial governor of Asia issued an edict ex capita mandatorum (Dig. 48.3, 6, 1).46 As for Egypt, a papyrus of the second century C.E. containing an edict of the prefect Marcus Petronius Mamertinus confirms the same policy of publicizing the content of the prefect’s jurisdiction as described in the mandata by issuing an edict (P. Yale II 162).47 Did Flaccus publish the capita mandatorum in Alexandria? The research on this matter makes use of two different types of evidence related to the edict’s language and content. First of all, Philo called Flaccus’ edict a programma, a term whose use in papyrological documentation suggests that it refers specifically to posting documents in public places;48 secondly, by declaring the Jews to be xenoi kai epēludes, foreigners and immigrants, Flaccus lexically departed from using traditional Ptolemaic expressions like xenoi parepidemountes, which are more common in papyrological language.49 One must wonder why. The answer may come from comparing xenoi kai epēludes with the exact corresponding Latin expression peregrini et advenae, commonly in use in Roman rhetoric and administration (Cic., De or., 1.249; Ver., 2.4; 4.130; Fam., 7.20, 1; Tac., Dial., 7; Plaut., Men., 724; Poen., 1031). The Romans developed these two complementary concepts near the end of the republic and in the early principate in order to define individuals and their status within the diverse reality of the colonies and municipia so copiously founded before, during and after the civil wars.

43 H. Kreller, “Mandatum,” RE XIV (1930): 1015–1025; Talamanca, “Attivita’ normativa,” 416; Marotta, Mandata, 81–122. 44 Text and commentary in S. Mitchell, “Requisitioned Transport in the Roman Empire,” JRS 66 (1976): 105–131. 45 quod ipsum facere desisse post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua, et cet. 46 Literature on this subject is in Marotta, Mandata, passim. 47 Marotta, Mandata, 116–122; Katzoff, “Sources of Law,” passim. 48 Stroppa, “Il termine ‘programma’,” particularly 177–183. 49 Taubenschlag, Law of Egypt, II 23 for references.


179

The advenae, or better adventores,50 were the peregrini who lived in a town temporarily, mostly traders and businessmen who stayed only briefly. Legally, they were non-residents and, as such, peregrinantes, the juridical opposites of the incolae, who were foreigners with right of residence.51 In this sense, they are similar to the xenoi kai epēludes. Possibly, then, the formula peregrini et advenae was in the original Latin mandata and the literal translation into Greek that was read by Flaccus52 disregarded the current Egyptian idiom; it is the Greek translation of a Latin expression that Philo recorded in his treatise. This detail carries through to the third kind of evidence, the edict’s content, and supports the hypothesis that Flaccus’ edict published a capitum mandatorum. Philo states that the edict compelled Jews who had formerly lived in any of the city’s five neighborhoods to live in a small part of only one (Flacc., 55; Legat., 124). The people of Alexandria surrounded and watched them, forbidding them to set foot outside of this area and if anyone attempted to exit and was caught, brutality and death were the consequences (Legat., 128). In short, the Jews were safe only inside this small plot; outside it was certain death. This situation reproduces a pattern already encountered in this study. The conclusions of the analysis of the content of P. Yale II 107 saw the representative of the Jews declared a foreigner and condemned to death because his residence was found topographically invalid; he was registered outside. The trials of amphisbētēsis in the spring of 38 C.E., this work suggests, were the first legal application of this imperial ruling. The same thing took place, though on a larger scale, when the Jews were declared foreigners and immigrants a few months later. They were forced into a small area, outside of which they were doomed. Like for the accuser in 37 C.E., their residence was in the wrong place and therefore illegal. They were Flaccus’ target. Flaccus’ edict—declaring the Jews immigrants, invalidating their politeia, banishing them from most of the city—deprived them of their topographical link to their residence, that is, the patris for which their representative had fought so fiercely before Gaius in 37 C.E.

50 The equal value between the adventores and the xenoi parepidemountes is first discussed in E. Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung bis auf die Zeiten Justinians (Leipzig: Teubner, 1864–5), 6–7; later Rizakis, “INCOLAE,” 603, n. 13. 51 Gagliardi, Mobilita’ e integrazione, 75–80; 104–110. 52 For the literal translation of Roman documents into Greek for the eastern empire see Gambetti, “P. Yale II 107,” and references there; a brief summary is above in ch. 5.

180

chapter eight

Sequestering them into a tiny part of the city and forbidding them to live outside was nothing less than the transformation of the ruling of 37 C.E.—as delineated in Gaius’ letter, a decretum, and already law on a case-by-case basis—into a policy binding most of the city’s Jews. Up until that time, cases against them were handled individually and Flaccus ruled according to Gaius’ decretum, which he was required to do.53 The edict, however, damned not individual Jews, but most of the Jewish community. Sources suggest that so far only the emperors had dealt with the status of the Jews; first Augustus and then Tiberius had confirmed the rights of the Alexandrian Jews (Flacc., 50; cf. Legat., 153; 161).54 With the sentence of 37 C.E., Gaius established a new principle. One year later, he transformed that sentence into a general policy by order in his mandata, which Flaccus enforced. Gaius, not Flaccus, departed from his predecessors’ political posture vis-à-vis Jews living in the city. Topographical and Political Aspects of the Edict Philo does not disclose where the Jews were forcibly resettled. He only states that they overflowed beyond the gates into a nearby cemetery and the beach from lack of space (Flacc., 56; 122; Legat., 127–128). These very few pieces of information, however, strongly suggest that they were in a sector of the quarter δ,55 where the Jews had first settled at the end of the fourth century B.C.E.56 ∆ was in the area of Kibotos, near the city gate at the western end of the Canopic Way, outside of which there were many necropoleis.57 Only there, where their politeuma originally also lay, were the Jews safe in 38 C.E.

53

Differently Gruen, Diaspora, 59, for whom Flaccus tried to re-establish his authority by issuing the edict; Schäfer, Judeophobia, 139 reads the edict as Flaccus’ fulfillment of the agreement with Isidoros and the Alexandrian citizens. 54 The number of authors who have touched on this subject is enormous; I will cite only those who have studied it more extensively: Bell, Jews and Christians, 8–21; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 296ff.; Smallwood, Jews, 224–235; Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 168–357. 55 Without specifying that it was just a part of it, Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 53; Schäfer, Judeophobia, 139; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 159. 56 Already in Smallwood, Legatio, 20; cf. Box, Flaccum, xlv, 99 ad 55; also Blouin, Conflit judéo-alexandrin, 101–102. See appendix 4 for topography. 57 See map in appendix 4; discussion of the location of δ is above in ch. 2. The most recently excavated necropolis is Gabbari, for which see J.-Y. Empereur and M.D. Nenna, eds., Nécropolis 1 (Cairo: IFAO, 2001); J.-Y. Empereur and M.-D. Nenna, Eds., Nécropolis 2 (Cairo: IFAO, 2003).


181

The dynamic of the riots is intelligible only if territorial and demographic factors are considered together. Demographically, the edict did not target all of the Jews living in Alexandria, but only those declared immigrants, epēludes, living outside.58 Territorially, it is now abundantly clear that the edict did not banish the Jews from Alexandria altogether, but secluded them in a small part of the city within the city walls. Further, we can now define what the ‘outside’ of P. Yale II 107 means: outside the original Jewish quarter, where the original soldiers had settled at the end of the fourth century B.C.E., helping to colonize Alexandria at its foundation. The descendants of these people, or in any case those with legal residence in the small part of δ, were not affected; they were simply enduring a difficult moment because all the others, now immigrants, were pushed into their area.59 The distinction between colonizers and the rest was not unknown to Philo. Indeed, just before he reports the edict, he complains about the hardships that the Jews were about to suffer and admits that although some Jews had participated in founding cities and others had arrived only later, this did not mean the latter group loved their new new homeland any less (Flacc., 46). Philo is vague in his references, but it is possible to contextualize what he says with the help of other sources. External evidence limits the Jewish contribution to the foundation of cities outside of Judea to two cases: Antioch on the Orontes and Alexandria.60 While the case of Antioch will be discussed below,61 the possibility, given the context, that Philo is referring to Alexandria is more compelling. This study has already considered the early evidence of the Jews in Alexandria and submitted the conclusion that the Jews arrived at the time of the foundation and took part in it. They were colonizers. Philo knows, and covertly admits, that the distinction between colonizers and latecomers was not idle and that it played a major role in Alexandrian politics.62 This was reflected territorially as

58 For Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 170 all the Jews of the city had been thrown out of their homes. 59 In this sense, but with no specification is also one of the possible interpretations of the edicts in Box, Flaccum, xliv. What happened in Alexandria in the summer of 38 is therefore not an ethnic cleasing, as argued in Atkinson, “Ethnic Cleansing.” 60 So Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Espérances,” 137. 61 See below ch. 10. 62 This passage has been, and still is, at the center of scholarly debate in order to determine the relationship between the diaspora Jews and the city of Jerusalem, which Philo calls colonists and mother-city respectively. For a review and rationalization of scholarship see S. Pearce, “Jerusalem as ‘Mother-City’ in the Writings of Philo of

182

chapter eight

well; the situation on the ground shows that land had a precise status and implies that Alexandria had politically important internal territorial subdivisions. Flaccus’ edict restricted Jews to only the territory of the original Jewish settlement. Who Did It? If Flaccus and the three Alexandrians, Isidoros, Dionysios and Lampon are Philo’s villains at the beginning of In Flaccum, what Philo calls “the mob” seems to carry out the dirty work. “The mob” vilified Agrippa in the gymnasium, stormed into the theater clamoring to set up images in Jewish meeting-houses, sacked and destroyed Jewish religious and secular property in most of the city, and finally pushed the Jews into the small section of δ. Philo qualifies “the mob” with many derogatory expressions but never provides any precise social or civic identification. Yet the dynamic of pushing the Jews into δ and of some of the other events during this phase of the riots supply further information, pointing again to the responsibility of the people of the gymnasium. We assume that the people in the gymnasium took part in mocking Agrippa simply because it took place in the gymnasium and because Philo’s account of the forced installation of images in Jewish meetinghouses implies this as well. At this central phase of the persecution, the role of the people of the gymnasium acquires greater significance and

Alexandria,” in Negotiating Diaspora. Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire (ed. J.M.G. Barclay; London–New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 19–36. The possibility that Philo is making a strong political assertion strictly related to the contemporary problems that the Alexandrian Jews are facing is never considered; in particular see Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture, 17–44 who discusses the colonists / mother-city pair as a rhetorical construct deprived of any historical bearing; and Pearce, “Jerusalem as ‘Mother-City’,” who sees the term “colonists” used in a cultural way derived from the Septuagint, and Jerusalem as the see of the Temple, yet deprived of any territorial specification but signifying the world wide community; Honigman, “Philon,” 66, denying the historicity of the passage, considers this Philo’s expedient, together with Jos., C. Ap., 2.71–72, for a moral claim for Jewish citizenship in Alexandria. On the philosophical level, see D.T. Runia, “Polis and Megalopolis: Philo and the Founding of Alexandria,” Mnemosyne 42 (1989): 398–412, on Philo’s familiarity with the tradition of Alexandria’s foundation, not in relation to the history of the city or of the Alexandrian Jews, but used as a metaphor to explain YHWH’s creation of the cosmic megalopolis as displayed in Opif., 17–18; and S. Krauter, Bürgerrecht und Kultteilname. Politische und kultische Rechte und Pflichten in griechischen Poleis, Rom und antiken Judentum (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 410ff., where the passage is read within Philo’s political theory.


183

institutional connotations. Philo states that the crowd could patrol the sector of the city where the Jews were resettled and prevented them from leaving. Matters to address in this case are the capacity in which they did so and how well they succeeded. To patrol the area where the Jews were secluded, there must have been recognizable boundaries, either generally known or marked on the ground. Stones marking different areas of cities were common in antiquity, as evidence in Rome and Athens testifies. Rome was traditionally divided into vici, small units whose limits were marked by streets and altars to the divinity of each vicus, all of which Augustus’ reorganization of the city eventually institutionalized.63 The pomerium, the sacred line running through the city, had been retraced several times over the centuries. Whether it was always marked on the ground by border stones is disputed, but it was certainly visible if civic and religious ceremonies took place in relation to it.64 In Athens, archaeologists have unearthed border stones, horoi, marking the limits of the agorà, as well as inscribed stone markers fixed on the ground at the borders of the demes.65 The example of Athens is particularly relevant, due to the heavy influence of Athenian laws and institutions in shaping Alexandria. The city surely had civic markers to identify its internal subdivisions and contracts used neighborhood names to specify addresses.66 Necessarily, and similarly to the rest of the Alexandrian territory, the original

63

A. Mastrocinque, “I limiti degli isolati urbani a le origini della repubblica romana,” in Il confine nel mondo classico. CISA 13 (ed. M. Sordi; Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1987), 155–165; for Augustus’ urban policy and territorial subdivision in Rome, Bertlott, Neighborhoods. 64 Mastrocinque, “Isolati urbani.” 65 D. Kent Hill, “Some Boundary Stones from the Piraeus,” AJAH 36 (1932): 254–259; K. Kourouniotes and H.A. Thompson, “The Pnyx in Athens,” Hesperia 1 (1932): 90–217; B. Merritt, “The Inscriptions,” Hesperia 3 (1934): 1–114; W.S. Ferguson, “The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion,” Hesperia 7 (1938): 1–74; T.L. Shear, “The Campaign of 1938,” Hesperia 8 (1939): 201–246; B. Merritt, “Greek Inscriptions (14–27),” Hesperia 8 (1939): 48–82; B. Merritt, “Greek Inscriptions,” Hesperia 9 (1940): 53–96; H.A. Thompson, The Tholos of Athens and its Predecessors (Athens: American School of Classical Studies, 1940); B. Merritt, “Greek Inscriptions,” Hesperia 10 (1941): 38–64; M. Crosby and J. Young, “Greek Inscriptions,” Hesperia 10 (1941): 14–30; S.G. Miller, “Mortgage Horoi form the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 41 (1972): 274–281; J. Ober, “Rock-Cut Inscriptions form Mt. Hymettos,” Hesperia 50 (1981): 68–77; M.K. Langdon, “Hymettiana I,” Hesperia 54 (1985): 257–270; C.W. Hendrick, Jr., “The Thymaitian Phratry,” Hesperia 57 (1988): 81–85; M.K. Langdon, “Hymettiana III: The Boundary Markers of Alepovouni,” Hesperia 68 (1999): 481–508. 66 Calderini, Dizionario, 79–80.

184

chapter eight

Jewish quarter did not escape that custom, when the Ptolemies granted the Jews a sector in the city at its founding or soon after, especially since the area was originally a military camp with specific duties and privileges, including those of religious nature.67 It is possible, then, that in the centuries prior to the arrival of the Romans, the location of the early Jewish quarter was recognizable on the ground, though many Jews lived in other areas as well. An accurate observation of what “the mob” did in Alexandria in 38 C.E. reveals that they were patrolling an internal city border. Philo’s language describing those phases of the riots is not metaphorical, but depicts a concrete situation with strong political content: τειχήρεις ἐν κύκλῳ; περικαθηµένων; ἐπιτειχισάντων (Flacc., 62; 65). The ‘mob’ was besieging the Jews, and the use of cognates on τειχ- suggests that they were doing that according to visible marks on the territory. The presence of recognizable marks around the original Jewish quarter directs the identification of the patrollers once again towards the people associated with the gymnasium. The few bits of papyrological evidence about the Alexandrian gymnasium limit scholarly discussion to its athletic training and intellectual learning.68 If this is indeed what the documentation permits, the nature of the gymnasium in Classical and Hellenistic times points also to other duties as well. From its origin, the Greek gymnasium trained young men in the military arts. From the fourth century B.C.E. to the Hellenistic period, the ephebes’ main military duty was to patrol the boundaries of the cities and the chōra, a fact well documented in literary and epigraphic sources for Athens and for other cities, not only during the age of the independent city states, but also under foreign hegemony or domination, Macedonian or Roman.69 The facts on the ground in Alexandria in 38 C.E. point to a similar situation. The people of the gymnasium, to whom this work has so far directed attention during every phase of the

67

See ch. 3 and Gambetti, “Jewish Community.” Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 83–84. 69 For Athens, starting from the fourth century B.C.E., J. Ober, Fortress Attica. Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier 404–322 (Leiden: Brill, 1985): 87–100; Hatzopoulos, “Gymnases hellénistiques,” 94; for Athens in the Hellenistic period S.V. Tracy, “Reflections on the Athenian Ephebeai in the Hellenistic Age,” in Das hellenistische Gymnasion (eds. D. Kah and F. Schulz; Berlin: Akademie, 2004), 207–210. Also the Greek west maintained and developed military training in the gymnasium; G. Cordiano, La ginnasiarchia nelle poleis dell’Occidente mediterraneo antico (Pisa: ETS, 1997), chapter 2. 68


185

riots, played an institutional role, guarding the limits of the small part of δ, an internal city border, and enforcing the measures that Flaccus’ edict had commanded. To accept this conclusion at face value is to disregard an open contradiction. In outlining the political and military situation of Roman Alexandria, this work has stressed that Augustus suppressed all military functions in the city and set the legions to control and defend the territory. It would be strange, then, to suggest that he and his successors nevertheless permitted the people of the gymnasium to police the city. Here the alleged meeting between Flaccus and the Alexandrian notables in the spring of 38 C.E. resurfaces. While it must still be maintained that Flaccus made no alliance with Isidoros, Lampon and Dionysios for his own sake, the possibility should now be considered that, when the Alexandrians, with Isidoros at their head, returned from Rome in the spring of 38 C.E., flush with an imperially sanctioned legal victory against the Jews in 37 C.E., they were in a position to set the terms for renegotiating their role as citizens and members of the gymnasium. That may have been their moment of belated institutional victory, small but significant in the face of persistent imperial denial of the boulē that would give them full political recognition. The gymnasium had regained its main institutional function and they used it in the summer of 38 C.E.70 It is not clear, however, whether or not on that same occasion Gaius reinstated the Alexandrian clubs, as he did at some point in Rome.71 Then, as they pushed the despoiled Jews into the small part of δ, the gymnasium crowd attacked the meeting-houses of that quarter as well and hauled in images of Gaius.72 The mob, Philo relates in Legatio, lacking an appropriate image of Gaius to install in the biggest and most important meeting-house,73 dragged in from the gymnasium a rusty

70 Differently Alston, “Philo’s Flaccum,” 166–7 and passim, for whom the summer of 38 C.E. is a demonstration that the Greeks celebrated their control of the city because the Romans had given it to them from the beginning on an ideological basis. Cf. Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 93 who inclines for the Roman legions flanking the Alexandrian mob. 71 See references in Smallwood, Jews, 215. 72 For this second attack and its place in the sequence of the events of the summer of 38 C.E. see Kerkeslager, “Agrippa,” 367. 73 Probably the one mentioned in y.Sukkah, V 4.6; for some comments on this monument see Ma’oz, “Judaean Synagogue.”

186

chapter eight

bronze statue of a man (actually a woman, a Queen Cleopatra)74 on a chariot of four (Legat., 135). Again, no casual mob could have carried this out, but only people familiar with the gymnasium and possessing knowledge of the presence of an old statue of a ruler of the previous dynasty. Complete Enforcement of the Edict The Pillaging If being declared foreigners, stripped of residence privileges, and deprived of a tribunal were already hard blows for the Jews, a new woe was soon to come, as Flaccus, Philo reports, permitted the Alexandrians to pillage the Jews once they had cornered them in a small part of δ (Flacc., 54). Philo relates that they looted houses, stole furniture and sold it in the market and that Jewish shops, still closed in mourning for Drusilla, were sacked, as were the goods of Jewish traders in Alexandria’s harbors (Flacc., 56–57; Legat., 129). In this case Philo accuses Flaccus of inventing a convenient means of enriching some in the city by giving them free reins.75 The edict that labeled Jews as foreigners and immigrants also applied the label of atimoi, as Philo makes clear in the speech that he puts into the mouth of Flaccus (Flacc., 171). In Athens, atimia deprived one of legal recourse and impaired one’s right to own property, since, if challenged, that right could not be defended in court.76 The atimos, therefore, was vulnerable to any attack on his property. The situation of the Jews in Alexandria was even worse, for they had lost the right of residence altogether. This meant that anyone wishing to seize their property could do so with impunity, for the Jews could not take them to court. The circumstances made the looting of the Jewish property perfectly legal. Mutatis mutandis, the situation was the same of the cases

74 It is not clear which queen Cleopatra Philo is referring to in this case; he states that the monument in question was τῆς ἀρχαίας Κλεοπάτρας, ἥτις ἦν προµάµµη τῆς τελευταίας, to be intended as the great-grand mother of Cleopatra VII. However, since we are not sure who the mother of Cleopatra VII was [see the Ptolemaic family chart in G. Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (London–New York: Routledge, 2001) stemma 2], there can be no certainty about the identity of her ancestor; for a suggestion about Cleopatra III see in any case Smallwood, Legatio, 223 ad 135. 75 Differently Box, Flaccum, xlv, 99 and Van der Horst, Flaccus, 156–157. 76 Hansen, Apagogé, 56; see also Harrison, Law, 236, slightly different.


187

of amphisbētēsis in the spring of 38 C.E., based on Gaius’ decretum of 37 C.E. Before the edict, disputes had been debated in a regular courtroom and the Jews’ property rights were questioned and probably annulled on a case-by-case basis; after the edict, now lacking legal protection, the Jews were simply despoiled en masse. Philo states that the Jews had over four hundred of their houses destroyed (Flacc., 94).77 Using this datum to quantify both the material damages of the expulsion from most of the city and its demographic bearing is not easy.78 Philo is vague about the exact location of the houses in the city neighborhoods, so we are unable to map the whence of the expulsion, but only the whither—the small area in δ. Something can be said about the demography of the expulsion. According to papyrological census data, the average Roman Egypt urban household comprised in avarage no more than 5.31 persons. A household may have occupied only part of a house or it may have extended over more than one; thus the lack of correspondence between house and household make things more complicated. Indeed, the data for inhabitants per house reveal the presence of 7.61 to 7.78 persons.79 Multiplying these averages by Philo’s four hundred houses results in figures ranging from slightly more than 2000 to slightly more than 3000 people. This datum may not be completely representative of the real demographic magnitude of the persecution, since it is based only on the provided figure of destroyed houses. Many other Jews may have actually be expelled from their homes, without seeing them razed. The Killing Philo graphically describes the physical punishments inflicted on the Jews. The analysis of this phase requires a basic distinction among 77 There is a textual problem in this passage; the editors have supplied ἂν in order to provide the sentence with the tone of a rhetorical question: εἴ γε µὴν εἶχον ὅπλα Ἰουδαῖοι παρ᾽ αὑτοῖς, ὑπὲρ τετρακοσίας ἀφῃρέθησαν οἰκίας. See Cohn, et al., Philonis Alexandrini 1896–1915, ad loc. with apparatus; Box, Flaccum, 34; Pellettier, In Flaccum, 106; Colson, Philo’s Flaccus, 354 and note a does not accept the emendation; for summary Van der Horst, Flaccus, 185. The textual problem does not affect the numeric datum. 78 On the difficulty of interpreting this number see Ameling, “ ‘Market-Place’,” 84–85 and Van der Horst, Flaccus, 185. 79 Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 67–68; R. Alston, “Houses and Households in Roman Egypt,” in Domestic Space in the Roman World. Pompeii and Beyond (eds. R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill; Portsmouth: JRA, 1997), 33–34. It must be noticed that none of these studies present specific data on Alexandria.

188

chapter eight

the different agents, that is, those who tortured and killed many Jews. The internal chronology of Philo’s treatise suggests that the worst part of the disorders started not long after the Jews were shoved into the small section of δ. The overpopulated quarter could not support them, so the newcomers attempted to leave and to search for food in the city market (Flacc., 62–64). They were seized and underwent terrible torture that often resulted in death (Flacc., 65–72). Evidence reveals no legal action in response; the killing and torture went unpunished. By pointing his finger at those who were surrounding the Jews and inciting the mob (ὑπὸ τῶν τὴν ὀχλοκρατίαν ἐπιτειχισάντων), Philo indicates that the Jews who had attempted to escape were physically attacked (Flacc., 65). As noted above, the gymnasium crowd patrolled the boundaries of the small part of δ and were certainly among the marauders. The question arises, then, as to whether or not they had the right do so: by assaulting the Jews, did they overstep the boundaries of their institutional duties? And was the mob liable of any crime? Flaccus’ edict imposed new social, political, and territorial conditions on the immigrant Jews. This study has already pointed out the paramount importance of the territorial factor for determining the social and political conditions of the Alexandrians, including the Jews. The edict did not directly affect the Jews who registered their rights of residence in the small area of δ. The remaining Jews, however, those named foreigners and immigrants and then rounded up, disregarded the territorial factor when they attempted to exit δ, as well as their condition of atimia, which for them meant territorial limitation of their personal status. In more technical terms, by attempting to leave, they behaved as epitimoi, despite having been declared atimoi. In Athens, similar situations were punished with immediate arrest and trial. A typical case of flouting atimia was to go to the agora, which was off limits to the atimoi, even for such simple tasks as shopping; if caught in flagrante delicto, they were arrested and tried.80 A distinction is necessary here: Athenian documented cases of atimia/epitimia involve only citizens and citizens, even if under atimia, could not be

80

Hansen, Apagogé, 54; 62; 94–95.


189

seized with impunity.81 An atimos in Athens did not necessarily lose right of residence in the city and could live in his dwelling.82 The case of the Alexandrian Jews must be examined and an important distinction must be made. The Alexandrian Jews were not citizens in the first place, but foreigners with legal residence. Atimia stripped them of residence and legal protection. To continue the parallel and comparison with the Athenian scenario, their situation became similar to that of foreigners sojourning in Athens in the absence of a treaty between the homeland and the host-city guaranteeing legal protection. If they committed even the smallest crime, anyone could seize them and exact justice without recourse to Athenian law.83 The dynamics of the events in Alexandria of 38 C.E. suggest that, since the Jews had no legal protection, they were subject to apagogē, seizure and summary execution without the intervention of a magistrate. Athenian law reserved this treatment for criminals, that is, for those caught in flagrante delicto and/or having confessed to a crime.84 Philo’s account supports the plausibility of this hypothesis: according to the edict, Jews outside of δ were outlaws and by setting foot outside of that quarter they had committed a crime. The people of the gymnasium, or anybody else for that matter, had the right to seize them and to inflict on them any penalty of their choosing and, since no law protected the Jews, whatever they did was legal. Atimia and xeniteia worked against the Jews of Alexandria by removing their legal protection. Similar in logic and dynamic is an episode that Philo relates later in the treatise, namely the seizure of women in the market and their punishment in the theater. Athenian law required the identification of the person who was seized prior to the carrying out of any other prescribed action, either mere arrest or immediate execution. The impossibility

81 The extended parallel comparison between the Athenian law of the fourth century B.C.E. and the Alexandrian case of 38 C.E. should take into account the fact that never in the Athenian texts is atimia related to metoikoi [Hansen, Apagogé, 55 and n. 8; 56, and Harrison, Law, 236]. Almost all existing cases have a citizen atimos whose franchise was diminished as a penalty for financial crimes against the state [list of crimes punished with atimia in Youni, “Different Categories,” 127–128]. This distinction could be due either to the incompleteness of the available Athenian record or to the uniqueness of the Jewish situation in Alexandria. 82 Although the difficult circumstances sometimes advised him to opt for voluntary exile: Hansen, Apagogé, 58–59. 83 The legal agreements between Athens and other city-states are collected in Gauthier, Symbola. See above n. 38. 84 Hansen, Apagogé, 36–48; 52; 54; also MacDowell, Laws of Athens, 75.

190

chapter eight

of differentiating Jewish women from gentiles by external marks or attitudes85 led the captors to test them with pork (Flacc., 95–96). An Alexandrian Jewish woman caught outside of δ who refused to eat pork effectually revealed her identity and automatically confessed her guilt. Terrible punishments awaited her. Flaccus’ Institutional Interventions Flaccus first intervened institutionally against the members of the Jewish gerousia. He seized thirty-eight of the seventy-two elders and paraded them in chains through the agora to the theater (Flacc., 73–75). Philo specifies that these were were men whom the prefect had found in their own houses; among them were Euodos, Tryphon and Andron, whose houses had been looted a few days earlier (Flacc., 76). This indicates that the thirty-eight Jewish notables lived in an area affected by the edict. That they were still living in their own homes suggests that they had disobeyed the edict. Philo’s evasive language cannot conceal the fact that Flaccus had acted within his institutional capacity and in strict observance of the new situation that his edict had created in the city. Flaccus proceeded with regular arrests of the Jewish notables and presided at a formal trial against them in the theater. This emerges clearly from a careful reading of the text. The sentence στάντας ἀντικρὺ ἐχθρῶν καθεζοµένων πρὸς ἐπίδειξιν αἰσχύνης cannot mean anything but a collegial court in session, reading the notables the reasons for their arrest (Flacc., 75). Philo does not disclose the nature of the charges, but that they still lived in sectors of the city affected by the edict indicates that they had flouted their new condition of atimoi. Their situation was like all those who had been arrested outside δ. Clearly, however, the procedure applied against them was different. Athenian law again helps us to understand the nature of the procedure that Flaccus applied in this case. Evidently, atimoi commonly behaved like epitimoi. The law summoned them before a court of justice

85 S.J.D. Cohen, “ ‘Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not:’ How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity When You See One?” in Diasporas in Antiquity (eds. S.J.D. Cohen and E. Frerichs; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 1–45; I.F. Fikman, “La description physique des Juifs égyptien d’après les papyrus grecs,” in Atti del XXII Congresso internazionale di papirologia: Firenze, 23–29 agosto 1998 (eds. I. Andorlini et. al.; Firenze: Istituto papirologico G. Vitelli, 2001), 461–468 and Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Espérances,” on the lack of evidence pointing to a precise distinction from external appearance of Jews in antiquity.


191

in cases of flagrant disrespect of the atimia’s obligations, though they could not initiate legal action. The procedure required notification of the magistrate, ἔνδειξις, after which came arrest and trial. Any citizen could be a prosecutor and arrest someone, but also the magistrate in office could intervene directly (Dem., In Timocr., 164); this procedure was called ἐφήγησις.86 The situation in Alexandria reflects such a procedure; the prefect arrested the guilty, notified them the reason for their arrest, (ἐπίδειξιν; Flacc., 75), and adjudicated their case before a tribunal. The treatment that the Jewish notables received is like that prescribed by Athenian law for its atimoi. The procedure—a far cry from the immediate execution slated for the other Jews—probably derives from the dignitaries’ membership in the gerousia. In any case, Flaccus demonstrated that the edict applied to them as xenoi and atimoi by sentencing them to a punishment, as Philo explains with emphasis, reserved for commoners of the lowest sort, the Egyptians (Flacc., 75; 78–80). Philo explains that up to that time Flaccus, like his predecessors, eschewed this kind of punishment for Jews; but his language, characteristically pointing to the contrast between atimia and epitimia, reveals what the real problem was: the Jewish elders were now atimoi and were punished accordingly.87 Again, Flaccus sponsored the violent round in the theater. The torture and the crucifixion of the Jews were part of a larger organized entertainment with theatrical performances honoring the Augustan house (Flacc., 81–85). Philo wastes no words explaining who the people were and why they ended on the cross, but the nature of the punishment suggests that disobedience of atimia played an important role. Inflicting punishment in the theater introduces another feature of persecution common in the Roman world. Rome commonly made a show of executing justice and this practice was also popular in the provinces. Executions were staged in structures designed for entertainment, such as theaters, amphitheaters or odeia, and were open to the public who delighted in the suffering of the condemned. Favorite occasions were festivals and holidays, when rulers outdid themselves sponsoring lavish spectacles.88 It was no accident, therefore, that the public

86

Hansen, Apagogé, 24–25; 94–95. Honigman, “Philon,” 81 recognizes the juridical quatity of the vocabulary used here, but downplays it in favor of an explanation more focused on the private humiliation of the dignitaries. 88 See ch. 5 for references. 87

192

chapter eight

execution of Alexandria’s Jews climaxed on the emperor’s birthday (Philo, Flacc., 81). Flaccus’ second direct intervention was intended to banish weapons from Jewish houses. In this, the prefect acted with the support of the legions. The search allegedly uncovered no secret arsenals (Flacc., 86–90), but Philo’s outraged rhetoric reveals details about the reasons for Flaccus’ search and previous phases of the riots. The looting of Jewish property turned up weapons stored in the houses abandoned by Jews in the wake of Flaccus’ edict (Flacc., 94). Hoarding weapons violated Flaccus’ edict of 34/35 C.E. (WChr 13), which saw a great deal of confiscated illegal military equipment shipped up the river to Alexandria from all over Egypt (Philo, Flacc., 92–93). The presence of arms in Jewish homes surely made Flaccus suspicious, so he ordered a search of the Jewish sector of δ, an area not directly affected by the edict (Flacc., 94). Flaccus’ decision to implement arms regulations was surely a measure to prevent the situation from taking a turn for the worse. The Jews and the Alexandrians had already come to blows when Gaius’ images were set up in the meeting-houses and before most of the city became off-limits for the Jews. Now that overpopulation in the small part of δ was critical, Jews with access to arms could mean full-blown civil strife, which the prefect certainly wished to avoid. The Arrest of Flaccus As the Jews celebrated the holiday of Succoth in the fall of 38 C.E. (Flacc., 116–119; cf. BGU IV 1078),89 Flaccus was arrested. A centurion, Bassus, came to Alexandria by sea at night and took the prefect back to Rome on Gaius’ orders (Flacc., 108–115). This event opens the last part of Philo’s treatise, likely the most fascinating, but the least reliable, part of the entire work. Philo’s wonderfully crafted prose exposes the contradictions that characterize his presentation of the facts of 38 C.E. Beyond the artful chronicle of Bassus’ arrival and the crafty dramatic pathos of Flaccus’ realization that his time was up, the first concrete problem is the reason for the arrest. Philo initially seems convinced that the prefect’s treatment of the Jews was the reason for his arrest; the timing of the arrest, coinciding with the celebration of Succoth

89 Flaccus’ successor Vitrasius Pollius is attested in office on October 20, 38 C.E.; see appendix 2.


193

was, is in Philo’s view positive proof of this (Flacc., 116). In this way, Philo introduces the providentialism interspersed throughout the last part of the treatise. God’s providential intervention seems dangerously shaky, however, when Philo states that Flaccus’ accusers in Rome were Isidoros and Lampon, his political enemies in Alexandria turned allies— perhaps.90 The role of the two Alexandrians in this case not only irreparably undermines Philo’s theory that they conspired with Flaccus against the Jews,91 but also brings the reader back to Alexandria’s reality. The preconditions of the arrest did not favor Flaccus in the first place. In Rome, he was liable for siding against Gaius’ mother Agrippina, for, in 38 C.E., Gaius had reconsidered the moratorium for cases of maiestas against his own family.92 In Alexandria, any pretext would serve to rekindle the flames of unquenched enmity between Flaccus and the Alexandrians, in spite of Flaccus’ diligent enforcement of Gaius’ mandata, which doubtlessly favored them. Paradoxically, the pretext was perhaps connected to just that. Flaccus had issued the edict and had allowed the Jews to be despoiled while the iustitium for Drusilla was still in effect;93 Gaius’ orders upon his sister’s death, however, were clear: only ordinary religious and political activities were to proceed as usual.94 Flaccus did not comply, but it is difficult to say why. Whether it was his excessive zeal to obey Gaius’ will and to demonstrate his loyalty to him (his conspiracy against Agrippina aside), or whether it was his determination to defy the emperor, relying on the geographical remoteness of his post to save him, we cannot say. Certainly, however, his misdeed did not escape the notice of his enemies. Isidoros and Lampon may well have helped in drawing up the final charges:95 he had again insulted Gaius’ family.96

90 This is the key detail that has invited many scholars to read Flaccus’ arrest in a literary mode and to view Flaccus’ accusation as part of the contrappassum that Philo applies to this part of the treatise; Kraus Reggiani, “Rapporti,” 557. 91 See above ch 1. 92 See above ch. 6. 93 Contra Kerkeslager, “Agrippa,” who holds that Flaccus issued the edict soon after having declared the iustitium over; the evidence shows otherwise. 94 See above ch. 7. 95 They are delatores in Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions, 237–238 and 243–244. 96 Cf. Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” passim, but especially 59–60 and 66–74, for whom Flaccus was arrested exclusively because of Isidoros and Lampon’s accusations. P.A. Brunt, “Charges of Provincial Maladministration,” JRS 10 (1961): 189–227, includes Flaccus among the cases of provincial maladministration; for Gruen, Diaspora, 60, Flaccus was arrested because he could not control Alexandria.

CHAPTER NINE

THE CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND OF THE RIOTS Who Else Was Involved? The Alexandrian Populace and the Religious Grounds of the Riots To point exclusively to Gaius, Flaccus and the people of the gymnasium as responsible in varying capacities for the fate of the Jews would be a mistake. Certainly they were the institutional figures, but they were not the only actors involved. The identity and the motive of what Philo calls “the mob” still deserve further discussion. It is Philo who broadens the scenario and introduces the cultural and ethnic factor, when he states that the Alexandrian mob took advantage of an ancient Egyptian hatred of Jews in order to throw the city into confusion (Legat., 120). Josephus says something similar; speaking of his concerns about the life of Alexandria’s Jews, he complains of an old Egyptian enmity that, he affirms, the adoption of Egyptian mores soon transforms into action (C. Ap., 2.70). None of our authors immediately reveals the reason behind this hatred. Josephus, however, devotes a good part of the first book of Contra Apionem to refuting Egyptian calumnies against his people (C. Ap., 1.223ff.), which he attributes to Manetho, Chaeremon and Lysimachus. The following investigation begins there. The Folklore: The Jews and Seth/Typhon Both Philo and Josephus are likely referring to derogatory Egyptian versions of the Exodus story, which associated the Jews to the Egyptian god Seth/Typhon.1 Josephus knows two contradictory stories from

1 I refer to E.S. Gruen, Heritage, 41–72 for a summary of previous discussion and bibliography; J. Assmann, Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press: 1997), for an intriguing interpretation. See also Collins, Jewish Cult, 191–195 and Van der Horst, Flaccus, 25ff. for a slightly different selection of the available stories, still connected with the cultural Alexandrian environment of 38 C.E.

196

chapter nine

Manetho’s Aegyptiaka.2 He praises the first story about the Hyksos, which the Egyptian author took from Egyptian scriptures (C. Ap., 1.73–94), but sharply criticizes the other, which Manetho took from popular culture. In that story, a king Amenophis satisfied his religious ardor by expelling the leprous Hyksos from Avaris, their former city sacred to Typhon, and by confronting their leader Osarsiph, who changed his name to Moses and later led a revolt with the help of the Hyksos from Jerusalem and enforced laws alien to Egyptian customs (Jos., C. Ap., 1.233–251; 229ff.).3 Josephus read a variation of Manetho’s popular story in Chaeremon’s work.4 The goddess Isis, upset by the destruction of her temples in a recent war, recommends a king Amenophis to purify the country. He did so by collecting the sick who, under the leadership of Moses and Joseph, made an alliance with people from the east and invaded Egypt. Later, a son of Amenophis expelled the Jews to Syria (Jos., C. Ap., 1.288–292). In another variation, Lysimachos has king Bocchoris kill leprous Jews who polluted the temples or exile them to the desert in fulfillment of an oracle. Moses encouraged them to leave the place to look for inhabited cities. On their way, they plundered the Egyptian temples and finally reached Judea, where they eventually founded Jerusalem (Jos., C. Ap., 1.304–311). All of these stories belong to a very precise tradition of re-writing the book of Exodus embedded in ancient Egyptian culture. Both Amenophis and Bocchoris are familiar names in apocalyptic stories and prophecies written in hieroglyphic and demotic, from the time of the New Kingdom to the Late Period.5 In spite of the variations, surely attributable 2 The fragments of Manetho are collected in F.Gr.Hist. 609. Translations and comments are available in W.G. Waddell, Manetho (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), and, more recently, in G.P. Verbrugghe and J.M. Wickersham, Berosso and Manetho, Introduced and Translated. Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996), 95–216. 3 Scholars have debated whether the author of this story should be Manetho or a Ps.-Manetho; for the references see Gruen, Heritage, 58, n. 56. For Ps.-Manetho, see F.Gr.Hist. 610 and Waddell, Manetho, 209–211; this passage is not included. 4 The fragments of Chaeremon are collected in F.Gr.Hist., 618; major literature on this author includes P. Van der Horst, Chaeremon, Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher (Leiden: Brill, 1984); A. Barzanò, “Cheremone di Alessandria,” ANRW II 32.3 (1985): 1981–2001; M. Frede, “Chaeremon der Stoiker,” ANRW II 36,3 (1989): 2067–2103. 5 The Egyptian origin of these stories is strongly supported by Gruen, Heritage, 60–61; more recently, this subject has been further supported by J. Dillery, “The First Egyptian Narrative History: Manetho and Greek Historiography,” ZPE 127 (1999):

the cultural and religious background of the riots

197

to the fluidity of a tradition that, Manetho admits, grew outside of the official records, all of the stories preserve common features: blaming the Jews for contaminating Egypt; a connection with the Hyksos and their god Typhon or both; the invasion of Egypt and/or destruction of their temples; and the subversion of Egyptian religion. In short, the Jews are either evil people from Asia or Egyptians allied with evil people from Asia; in any case, they subverted the Egyptian ancestral religion. The literary terrain to which these stories belong was traditionally Egyptian and typically, though not exclusively, written in hieroglyphic and demotic. Yet, it spread well beyond Egypt’s physical and cultural borders.6 Tacitus apparently knew Lysimachus’ story (Hist., 5.3–4), but with additions. Among the many details that he knew about the gentile vulgate of Jewish traditions, he recounts that during their escape from the desert, the Jews found water thanks to a herd of asses that guided them to a source. When they later established their city and built a temple, they dedicated a shrine to the ass, the animal that had saved them from thirst.7 93–116. A good recent overview with abundant literature is in J.-W. Van Henten and R. Abusch, “The Jews as Typhonians and Josephus’ Strategy of Refutation in Contra Apionem,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem. Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion of the Missing Greek (eds. L.H. Feldman and J.R. Levison; Leiden–New York–Köln: Brill, 1996), 273–284. 6 The scenario of the diffusion of the Greco-Egyptian stories directly or indirectly concerning the Jews is much larger than the one that I portray in this work: see Gruen, Heritage; I limit my selection to those negative traditions that are more central to the present argument. 7 This is not the only case where the Jews are associated with an ass. Other ancient authors knew of similar traditions [for a complete list ses B.H. Stricker, “Asinarii I,” Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 42 (1965): 52–75, whose studies of the development of the role of the iconography of the ass within the early Christian tradition continues in three subsequent articles published in the same journal, entitled Asinarii II, III, IV; it is not necessary to accept all of his conclusions.] An ass with a golden head sits in the Temple in an account of Mnaseas reported by Apion, and then quoted by Josephus [C. Ap., 2.112–114; Mnaseas’ fragments are collected in FHG, 149–158 and in H.J. Mette, “Die kleinen griechischen Historiker heute,” Lustrum 21 (1978): 5–43: 39–40]; a statue of Moses holding a book and sitting on an ass is what Antiochos IV sees inside the Temple according to Posidonius [FGrHist 87; or Ps.-Posidonius. The fragment of Posidonius has recently been re-edited by W. Theiler, Posidonius. Die Fragmente (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982)]; the golden head of an ass is also in Damocritos’ work On the Jews (FGrHist 730). An ass is also present, later, in Plutarch’s treaty De Iside et Osiride, within a more articulated story, supported by some explanatory statements; Plutarch states that Jewish traditions were introduced at a certain point into the Egyptian myth of Osiris, to the extent that Typhon, brother and murderer of the god, was said to have fled after the battle with Horus, Isis and Osiris’ son, on the back of an ass for seven days, and that, having reached a safe place, he later fathered Hierosolymos and Ioudaios (De Iside, 31; cf. Quest. Conv., 4.5, 2–3). For a discussion on the development of the ass-stories linked to the Jewish tradition

198

chapter nine

The ass is part of the iconography of Seth,8 the original Egyptian name for the god that the Greeks knew as Typhon9 and the very same god with whom the Egyptian popular stories linked the Jews through their connection with the Hyksos and their city Avaris. Thus, the circle is closed. The History: Ups and Downs of Seth/Typhon In the old Egyptian tradition, Seth/Typhon10 belonged to the most ancient pantheon and played a major role in the myth of Osiris; Seth killed his brother Osiris and dispersed the parts of his body.11 Despite his evil role, Seth enjoyed a well-established place at the mythological, cosmic and geographical levels of Egyptian religion. Originating in the north-east of the delta, in the Old and Middle Kingdoms he was mainly the god of the desert, of the oasis, of the parts of the country that lay outside Egypt proper, traditionally limited to the valley of the Nile. On this account, he became the foreign god in the Egyptian pantheon and the gods of neighboring peoples—Libyans, Hittites, western Semites—were

see Van Henten and Abusch, “Jews as Typhonians.” On account of the permeability between the Jewish and the Osirian tradition, we must add Procopius, Com. ad proph. Is., ed. Chasneau, 258, about a Jewish ceremony performed in Alexandria during the flood, replicating in pagan Greek terms the originally Egyptian story of the founding of Osiris’ body at Byblos; I read this in D. Bonneau, La crue du Nil divinité égyptienne à travers mille ans d’histoire (332 av.–641 ap. J.-C.) (Paris: Librairie Klincksieck, 1964), 261; unfortunately, Chesneau’s edition is rarely available in libraries. 8 H. Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion. A Study of his Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 14 and n. 4. 9 Egyptian tbh; Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 149. Typhon is also the primeval deity of thunder and confusion of the archaic Greek pantheon, whom Zeus casts in Tartarus—qualities and curriculum also befitting the Egyptian Seth. It was Herodotus who first associated Seth with Typhon (2.144; 156). It is not important here to determine whether the early Greek mythology originally borrowed from the Egyptian one, or whether the Egyptian mythology took from the Greek one during the Hellenistic period. 10 Reference work on this subject is Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, to which the following should be added: J.-W. Van Henten, “Typhon,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (eds. K. Van der Toorn, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1657–1662; H. Te Velde, “Seth,” in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 269a–271a. I am completely indebted to those works for the following overview on Egyptian religion. 11 Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 81–98 with references to the Pyramid Texts. It was in the Third Intermediate Period, however, that the genuinely negative portraits emerged with the cosmic upheaval combined with the iconography of the ass: W. Von Spiegelberg, “Die Tefnachtosstele des Museums von Athen,” RecTrav 25 (1903): 190–198; Van Henten and Abusch, “Jews as Typhonians,” 284ff.


199

perceived as revelations of Seth,12 who, for example became associated to the Levantine god Baal through a process of syncretism.13 Seth’s fortunes, however, began to decline soon thereafter. The expulsion of the Hyksos at the end of the Second Intermediate Period produced a twofold effect detectable in the later evidence. In texts of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, the Hyksos are depicted as hateful Asiatics who invaded Egypt and ruled it from Avaris, the city that they had built in the north-eastern delta. A religious foundation supports this hatred; Egyptian texts from the eighteenth dynasty contemptuously attribute to the Hyksos a cult of Seth that disregarded all the other Egyptian gods (P. Sallier, I 1,2–3).14 This is particularly striking for two reasons. First, as the few pieces of evidence about the Hyksos reveal, it is unlikely that the Hyksos flouted the native culture and religion.15 Second, at the time that these texts were written, the cult of Seth was still practiced, at times even at the royal level. A careful reading, however, shows that the real issue in this piece of literature is not Seth qua Seth, but the fact that he was worshiped almost monotheistically, breaking the delicate cosmological balance of the Egyptian pantheon. The Hyksos were therefore Asiatic enemies who threatened Egypt both politically and religiously. The Assyrian and Persian invasions in the seventh century B.C.E. revived the old resentment against Asians, Egypt’s traditional enemies since the time of the Hyksos in the Second Intermediate Period.16 Semitic groups were among the Assyrian and Persian invading armies in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. and Jewish military contingents were later employed, for example, in Elephantine, where their

12

Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 109. M.S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 70 and n. 26. 14 Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 121; Assmann, Moses, 28. 15 The archaeological data concerning the Hyksos have recently been collected and discussed in E.D. Oren, ed. The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Philadelphia, 1997); for the ongoing excavation of Avaris, see M. Bietak, Avaris: the Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab (London: British Museum Press, 1997). 16 The Egyptian documents on the expulsion of the Hyksos, which, it must be observed, do not confirm Manetho’s version, are collected in J.H. Braested, Ancient Records from Egypt; Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquests (New York: Russell & Russell, 1962), II #8–12; V (index) for the negative rhetoric on the ‘Asiatics,’ s.v. 13

200

chapter nine

garrison lay elbow-to-elbow with the local Egyptian community.17 As a consequence, Seth, who according to Egyptian popular tradition was their Semitic divine representative in Egypt, was no longer welcome and unwanted foreigners became Sethian peoples.18 The fall of Seth is evident from many aspects, from the disuse of theophoric names to the dismissal of his cult beginning in the twentieth dynasty and lasting up to the Roman period.19 The arrival of the Greeks in the Hellenistic period did not stanch the negative tide for Seth/Typhon and the coming of more Jews under the Ptolemies only exacerbated the problem. The tradition around the Oracle of the Potter, a complex and difficult collection of texts partially known from five different fragments,20 contains a vulgate hostile to

17 The friction between the Jews and the Egyptians gravitating around the temple of Khnoum are documented in A. Crowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923): 21, 27, 30–33, 37–38, and Porten, Archive from Elephantine, passim. See additional references in ch. 5, n. 148. 18 Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 111. 19 Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 135–144, especially 139–140, with references. It apparently remained the same down to the Hellenistic-Roman period and beyond, at least according to a Greek magic papyrus with the drawing of an archer with an ass head, with the note ΣΜΕΡ∆ΑΛΕΟΣ ΗΠΥΤ[ΗΣ] ΘΕΟΣ—terrible yelling god, acrostic for ΣΗΘ—Seth, published in G. Michailides, “Papyrus contenant un dessin du dieu Seth à tête d’âne,” Aeg 32 (1952): 45–53; for later Sethian iconography see also J. Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites. The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100–300 C.E.) (Leiden: Brill, 2005), passim. Probably to be interpreted within this frame is the figurine housed in the Greco-Roman Museum of Alexandria, inv. #22236, representing a man with an ass head wearing a toga and holding a scroll. 20 P. Vindob. Graec. inv. 29787 + P. Vindob. Grec. inv. 19813 = Pack2 2486 [R.A. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt. Second Revised and Enlarged Edition (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965)]; P. Oxy. XXII 2332 [= Pack2 2487]. Two other fragments, which according to content seem to be the continuation of the three texts listed above, are PSI VIII 982 = CPJ III 520, for which see G. Bohak, “CPJ III 520: The Egyptian Reaction to Onias’ Temple,” JSJ 26 (1995): 32–41 32–41, who dates it to the middle of the second century B.C.E. An updated version of PSI VIII 982 is now available in L. Koenen, “Die Apologie des Töpfers an König Amenophis oder das Töpferorakel,” in Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem Griechisch-römischen Ägypten (eds. A. Blasius and B.U. Schippers; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 139–187, especially 162–163, n. 88, where the text is integrated with a still unpublished P. Oxy. fragment. P.Oxy. [26] 3B.52B (13) (a) is also part of the Oracle tradition, but remains unpublished; some details of its content can be found in Koenen, “Apologie,” 183–186. This article is also the most complete commentary on all the texts, with German translation and abundant references to previous literature. The most recent English translation is in A. Kerkeslager, “The Apology of the Potter: A Translation of the Potter’s Oracle,” in Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology (ÄAT 40) (ed. I. Shirun-Grumach; Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1998), 67–79. For the sake of completion, it must be added that the editors of P.Oxy. XXII, 92 n. 3 mention P. Trinity College Dublin 192(b) = Pack2 2488, which would contain ten


201

the founding of Alexandria.21 The text calls Alexandria the ‘city under construction’ (κτιζοµένη πόλις) and states that it was founded by the Typhonians, the foreigners who brought evil to Egypt (P. Oxy. XXII 2332, l. 4).22 The text also identifies the Typhonians with the ζονοφόροι (girdle-wearers). A demotic papyrus found in a Theban Hellenistic necropolis allows the conclusion that zonophoros refers to military or police attire (P. Lond. Dem. 10223, 1.4).23 Since, as seen above, folkloric tales connect the Typhonians with the Jews24 and since Jews did participate in the foundation of the city in a military capacity,25 that the Typhonian/zonophoroi are the Jews and that the Oracle of the Potter calls them evil-bearing foreigners is a plausible deduction.26 The ever-evolving Egyptian folklore targeted not only the Egyptian Jews in general, but also the Alexandrian Jews in particular.27 In addition to the explicit anti-Jewish Egyptian folk tradition, however, political development was also affected by the same phenomenon.

lines of a text related to the Oracle. This attribution may be disputed on the grounds of the excessive fragmentation of the text. 21 The story is delivered in the form of the prophetic Königsnovelle, a very popular genre in Egyptian literature since pharaonic times; for discussion of the Oracle of the Potter within this genre see Dillery, “First Egyptian Narrative History,” 102ff., with references there. 22 = Pack2 2487: ἱδρ]υθεῖσα{σα} δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν Τυ[φ]ςνίςν. Col. i, l. 2 contains the expression ktizomēne polis referring to Alexandria; see ch. 2 for discussion of this expression in connection with Rhakotis in the Satrap stela and Boethos’ foundation of Euergetis. 23 In Andrews, Demotic Papyri, #11; discussion on the meaning of ζονοφόροι in W. Clarysse, “The City of the Girdle-wearers and a New Demotic Document,” Enchoria 18 (1991): 177–178. 24 A more complete analysis of this equation is in Koenen, “Apologie,” 169ff. 25 As I discuss in Gambetti, “Jewish Community” and above ch. 2. 26 The mention of the Typhonian zonophoroi in an anti-Jewish context is contained in P.Oxy. [26] 3B.52B (13) (a), still unpublished, a text that complements the updated version of PSI VIII 982; see Koenen, “Apologie,” 183–186. A brief mention of this detail is also in D. Frankfurter, “Lest Egypt’s City Be Deserted: Religion and Ideology in the Egyptian Response to the Jewish Revolt (116–117 C.E.),” JJS 43 (1992): 209, n. 32, where the author reports from one of Koenen’s conference communication. 27 Koenen, “Apologie,” 185 and passim detects in the Oracle text two traditions: one anti-Alexandrian tradition, readable in P. Oxy. XXII 2332, sees the Greeks founder of the city as Typhonian zonophoroi; one anti-Jewish tradition, readable in the updated version of PSI VIII 982 and the unpublished P.Oxy. [26] 3B.52B (13) (a), focusing on Heliopolis, where the Typhonian zonophoroi are the Jews. In this, Koenen is followed by Frankfurter, “Lest Egypt’s City,” passim and by Van Henten and Abusch, “Jews as Typhonians,” 284; 291–292. On the contrary, it is the opinion of this work that the distinction is not necessary, since the Jews arrived in Egypt at the time of the foundation of Alexandria [see ch. 2 above and Gambetti, “Jewish Community”]; therefore, there is continuity in the negative references to the Jews in the Oracle tradition.

202

chapter nine

The endemic conflicts between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids over Coele-Syria may also have kept alive the identification of the Sethians/ Typhonians with the invaders from Asia, already well-embedded in Egyptian culture from pharaonic times. There is evidence of a Ptolemaic coronation ceremony in which the king killed Typhon as a manifestation of his victory, as a living emanation of Horus over Seth/Typhon. In the second century B.C.E. in Edfou, Upper Egypt, Ptolemy IX and his successor Ptolemy X architecturally upgraded the temple of Horus, son of Isis and Osiris. In the reliefs decorating the temple they emphasized a particular side of the myth of Osiris in which Horus, the divine correspondent of the living and ruling king, took revenge on Seth for killing his father. The sources also know of other ceremonies during which one or more Typhonians were killed or burned, in some cases to celebrate the accession of the new king.28 After the end of the New Kingdom, Seth was exclusively represented as a negative, powerful, and eventually defeated deity and was so portrayed in Edfou, confirming a long-lasting iconoclastic process.29 In sum, there were many other negative traditions in addition to those that Josephus reports; some were explicitly anti-Jewish, other less so, but all are dergatory and against people coming from the east. They all sprang from, and elaborated, the same collection of features, at times developing one aspect of the story, at other times developing another. Could those traditions include the ancient hatred against the Jews that both Philo and Josephus mention? Could they have played any role in the riots of 38 C.E.? The answer to these questions requires two sets of consideration, one cultural-chronological, the other culturaldemographical.

28 E. Hornung, Altägyptische Höllenvorstellungen (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1968), 27 and n. 12 cites Plu., Isid., 73 on the burning of two Thyphonians every year; see also Nigidius Figulus [A. Swoboda, P. Nigidii Figuli operum reliquiae: Amsterdam, 1961 (1889)], 123 for the killing of a Typhonian in the temple of Memphi at the king’s accession: Typhon interficitur in templo Aegypti Memphi, ubi mos fuit solio regio decorari reges, quae regna ineunt. Van Henten and Abusch, “Jews as Typhonians,” 290–291 among further references include anti-Typhonian texts preserved in the hieroglyphic P. Louvre 3129 and P. BM 10252 [S. Schott, Urkunden mythologischen Inhalts, VI (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1929–1939)]; the latter document mentions a date on the eleventh year of Alexander II = 312/311 B.C.E., coincidentally the same year of some of the events listed in the Satrap stela, ll. 4–6 (see above ch. 2), which include the reference to the deportation of the Jews from Judaea to Egypt. 29 On the temple of Edfou see the basic work of M. Rochemonteux and E. Chassinat, Le temple d’Edfou (Cairo: IFAO, 1892).


203

The Cultural-chronological Background: the Nile and Its Cult A premise must be submitted as a means of introduction to this new part of the investigation. Agrippa came to Alexandria at the end of July/beginning of August,30 probably not much later than July 19, the time of the rise of Sothis, the star that traditionally signaled the onset of the Nile floods; Philo actually states that the Jews were attacked during the Nile flood (Flacc., 63). The riots lasted at least until the end of August, since the Jews suffered torture up to August 31, the emperor’s birthday (Flacc., 81); the Nile flood also peaked in August.31 According to the ancestral Egyptian tradition, later enhanced by both the Ptolemies and the Romans, both the rise of Sothis and the flood peak were very religiously significant for the myth of Isis and Osiris and the cult of the Nile. As the only source of life and fertility in an otherwise desert country, the Nile shaped Egypt’s basic territorial and cosmological conceptions. At the earthly level, it subdivided the Egyptian year into three seasons according to the rise of the flood, the ebb and the backwash; at the cosmological level, it was a god and part of the Egyptian pantheon. In the earliest hieroglyphic texts, the god Hapi personifies the flood (Pyr., 292d, 564a, 1553b). Hapi is rather a second-tier god; he does represent the flood, but does not cause it. Other major gods do this, Isis and Osiris among them. Osiris is at times identified with the waters of the Nile and Isis causes the flood by the abundance of the tears that she sheds at the loss of her husband Osiris by the hand of Seth (Pyr., 265).32 The connection between Nile/Hapi on the one hand and Isis and Osiris on the other occurs within the folds of the myth of Osiris. Isis searches for her husband Osiris, killed and dismembered by his brother Seth,33 finds his limbs and reassembles them to bring him back to life. The development of the story covers an entire year and overlaps the phases of the Nile in the Egyptian calendar; Seth’s power after the murder of Osiris represents the dry season, while Isis’ search, weeping and recovery of Osiris occur in the other two. While the tears of Isis cause

30

See above ch. 7. D. Bonneau, “Le cycle du Nil; aspects administratifs à l’époque gréco-romaine,” Bulletin de la Société Francaise d’Égytpologie 120 (1991): 22. 32 Bonneau, Crue du Nil, 220; 229–242; 248; 254. 33 Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 81–98 with references to the Pyramid Texts. 31

204

chapter nine

the flood, the floodwaters reveal Osiris’ limbs; and Osiris is brought back to life during the peak of the flood—whence his identification with the water of the Nile. Sothis, the star that signals the beginning of the flood, is also the object of a pre-dynastic cult, documented by the beginning of the dynastic period as being associated with Isis (Pyr., 477).34 With the formation of the Ptolemaic kingdom, the Greeks came to terms more concretely with Egyptian practices, of which they were not entirely ignorant in any case,35 and made them their own to a good extent.36 Under the Ptolemies, the cult of the Nile received a proper iconography.37 The export of Nile water, a trade started under the Saïte dynasty (Hdt., 3.6),38 reached all the major sanctuaries of Asia Minor and the more numerous sanctuaries of Isis and Serapis around the Mediterranean.39 In Egypt, a temple with the priesthood of Νεῖλε existed at Canopus, the farthest eastern limit of the Alexandrian chōra and two third-century B.C.E. dedicatory inscriptions indicate that the cult was associated with that of Isis and Serapis (SB I 585; V 7783).40 The Nile, Isis and Serapis were not forgotten when Alexandria was topographically and politically organized: three demes, Isideios, Neileos and Serapideios (the triad most often associated with kings in inscriptions), were named after them (BGU IV 1050; P.Col. III 59; SB I 3432).41 The institution of the cult of the god Serapis in Hellenistic Egypt and especially in Alexandria was modeled after that of the Memphite god Osorapis (itself a synthesis of Osiris and Apis, or Hapi). That this cult contained features both of Osiris and other major Greek deities42

34 Bonneau, Crue du Nil, 264; it is believed that this association goes back to the fifth millennium B.C.E., when the lunar and the civil calendars overlapped. 35 This fascinating subject has been recently discussed by P. Vasunia, The Gift of the Nile (Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 2001). 36 L. Koenen, “The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure,” in Images and Ideologies: Self-Definitions in the Hellenistic World (eds. A.W. Bulloch, et al.; Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 1993). 37 On coins and terracotta figurines; D. Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt. Assimilation and Resistance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 43. 38 Bonneau, Crue du Nil, 108. 39 Study in R.A. Wild, Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Serapis (Leiden: Brill, 1981). 40 Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 263. 41 Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 45; 236. 42 On the institution of the cult in Alexandria see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 246–250; this scholar accepts the conclusion of modern studies according to which the original Memphite cult would be dedicated to Osiris-Hapi, a funerary form of the dead bull Apis. The name of the cult as Osorapis, and not as Osiris-Hapi, is already in UPZ


205

did not prevent the ancestral myth of Osiris from maintaining its own independent tradition, although Serapis, superseding to the rhythms of agricultural production—that is the meaning of his headdress, the kalathos—did have connections with the flood. Osiris’ traditional link with the inundation is still well documented, particularly in the late Ptolemaic period.43 As for the myth’s other aspects, the Ptolemies maintained the cult of Sothis and its festivities (cf. OGIS I 56, l. 36) and in Edfou, as already mentioned, they privileged the aspect of the myth of Osiris in which Horus took revenge on Seth. Literary evidence of festivals dedicated to the god Nile/Hapi abounds.44 The Romans followed and implemented the path that the Ptolemies had traced, giving to the cult of Nile/Hapi the status of national religion.45 Egypt’s economic importance to the Romans from the beginning of their rule meant that the religious tradition related to the Nile would be exploited; numismatic evidence from the time of Augustus reveals the emperor attempting to augment Nile theology with a female companion, Euthenia, the Greek counterpart of the Roman annona.46 By the time the Romans conquered Egypt, the Isis and Serapis cults had reached virtually every corner around the Mediterranean. Trade carried them to Asia Minor and around the Mediterranean basin47 and, starting with Rome, every major city had a temple dedicated to the couple Isis-Serapis.48 Osiris’ connection to the flood follows the trend already established under the previous rulers,49 as Plutarch, our main source on the subject for the period, confirms: Osiris is the flood’s 1; see R. Merkelbach, Isis Regina—Zeus Serapis. Die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt (Stuttgart–Leipzig: Teubner, 1995): #127–128. 43 Bonneau, Crue du Nil, 243; 320. 44 Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 27–80; Bonneau, Crue du Nil, passim. 45 Frankfurter, Religion, 42–46. 46 Bonneau, Crue du Nil, 330, and D. Bonneau, “La divinité du Nil sous le principat en Egypte,” ANRW II 18,5 (1995): 3195–3213 for a focus on the theological aspect of the cult of the Nile during the principate. For the monetary evidence on Euthenia, see J. Vogt, Alexandrinischen Münzen. Grundlegung einer alexandrinischen Kaisergeschichte (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1924); for other representations see Adriani, Repertorio, A II, 52–59; there is reference to an eutheniarches for the reign of Antoninus Pius, IAlexImp 32. Philo was very aware of the allure of the culture and religion of and around the Nile: S. Pearce, The Land of the Body. Study of Philo’s Representation of Egypt (Tübingen: Mohr (Siebek), 2007), 215–239, and S. Pearce, “Philo on the Nile,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World (eds. J. Frey and D. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 137–157. 47 Bonneau, Crue du Nil, 232. 48 S.A. Takács, Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World (Leiden: Brill, 1995): 27–91, for the late republic through the Julio-Claudian period. 49 Bonneau, Crue du Nil, 243.

206

chapter nine

origin; he is the water; Seth/Typhon is the drought during which Isis searches for Osiris; found and recomposed, Osiris is the flood; Sothis announces the flood and for that is worshipped; Isis is Sothis (De Iside, 21, 32–33, 38, 39, 64).50 Against such a background, the already-heavy burden of the Jews’ association with Seth/Typhon likely became a concrete threat at the time of year when the Osiris cult celebrated the identification of the god with the Nile flood, prefiguring a period of fertility. The Egyptian mix of mythology and Folklore cast the gloomy mark on the Jews by associating them with Seth/Typhon. Like Seth/Typhon was a symbol of drought, so they were interfering at the symbilic level with the year-long cosmological process of ensuring the country’s fertility. In the Hellenistic period, these traditions, once the patrimony of the ethnic Egyptians, became accessible to the new Greek immigrants and rulers. Manetho, in whose writing Josephus read those derogatory stories, translated into Greek his country’s official history, recorded and preserved in the priestly archives, as well as more popular and volatile folklore. A mutual cultural transformation of the ethnically mixed population of Ptolemaic Egypt flanked this purely intellectual operation, particularly in Alexandria, as Egyptian stories were now available to non-Egyptians. The Cultural-demographic Background: The Alexandrian Ethnic/ Religious Context Both Philo and Josephus stress the intercultural key repeatedly. Josephus states that those who embraced Egyptian mores transformed the antiJewish stories into action (C. Ap., 2.70) and Philo states repeatedly that the mob that attacked the Jews was mixed. Both provide grounds for a cultural and demographic discussion of the riots. The best ground for this is the professional and religious associations. The existence of private religious and professional associations is wellattested around the ancient Mediterranean and Egypt is no exception.51

50 On Plutarch’s sources, thought to be first century B.C.E. – first century C.E. and all belonging to Greco-Egyptian tradition, see C. Froidefond, Plutarque: oevres morales. Isis et Osiris (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1988), 45–66. 51 For a large collection of epigraphical and papyrological evidence on the associations of Greek and Hellenistic world see Poland, Griechischen Vereinwesen. For discussion, see


207

Associations are epigraphically documented in Alexandria, in both the Ptolemaic and the early Roman periods,52 though the dedicatory inscriptions sadly provide no insight into the internal regulation and relationship among associates. All of this becomes clearer outside the Alexandrian environment. Beyond mentions of associations in papyri and inscriptions, too numerous to address here, some papyri contain more detailed information about the exact constitution of the associations. Chronologically, the demotic papyri from Ptolemaic Tebtynis come first with the nomoi, the rules of the religious association of the god Sobek; they reveal that members were to strictly abide by very specific rules whose breach meant financial penalties (P. Dem. Berlin 3115; P. Dem. Cairo 30619, 30605, 31178, 30606, 31179; P. Prague; P. Dem. Lille I 29).53 No different was the world of religious and professional associations in Tebtynis around the middle of the first century C.E. (P. Mich. V 247, 248, 243, 245, 246, 244), whose nearness in time to the object of this work prompts closer study. For example, P. Mich. V 244 of 43 C.E. contains the regulations of the ἀπολύσιµοι of an imperial estate,54 which required a monthly drinking party on the days devoted to the emperor, the Sebastai,55 despite the association’s non-religious nature. Overall, the behavioral rules in these documents aim at building strong solidarity among the associates (P. Mich.V 246; 243, ll. 6–7).56 Kloppenborg and Wilson, Voluntary Associations; Van Nijf, Professional Associations. For Egypt, see San Nicolò, Ägyptischen Vereinwesen, and Brashear, Vereine. 52 Documentary evidence for the Alexandrian associations was first collected by Poland, Griechischen Vereinwesen, index, under various headings; more recently two collections of Alexandrian inscriptions have been published, and to these I will refer. For the Ptolemaic period: I.Alex.Ptol. 41, last quarter of the second century B.C.E. (Aphrodite Lampreos); #46, lower Ptolemaic period (association of landowners); #47 and n. 48, paleographically dated to the second century B.C.E. contain lists of names (members of associations?). For the imperial period: I.Alex.Imp. 46 supplemented with the new reading suggested by L. Bricault, “Notes d’épigraphie alexandrine et canopique,” ZPE 126 (1999): 186; #61, 27 C.E. synodos Thermouthiake (Isis Thermouthis? n. 62–63); #65 1st C.E. Apolloniake synodos; #70 1st cent. C.E., women’s association; #90 10/9 B.C.E., no specification; #91, 3/4 C.E., no specifications; #93, time of Augustus/Tiberius, no specifications; #96, time of Augustus, no specifications. 53 All collected, edited with translation and commentary in F. De Cenival, Les associations religieuses en Égypte d’après les documents démotiques (Cairo: IFAO, 1972). 54 Beyond the payment of the poll-tax, the status of the apolusimoi is uncertain; see E.M. Husselman, et al., Papyri from Tebtunis, Part II (Ann Arbor, 1944): 100–101. 55 On this subject see W.F. Snyder, “Progress Report on the HMERAI SEBASTAI,” Aeg 44 (1964): 145–169. 56 For a discussion of the main characteristics of the association’s nomoi in Egypt see A.E.R. Boak, “Gilds in Greco-Roman Egypt,” TAPA 68 (1937): 212–220.

208

chapter nine

From a social point of view, very little can be observed. While the associates listed in the demotic documents from Tebtynis were very likely native Egyptians, according to a straightforward deduction from the language and the cult to which they were devoted, the lists of the associates’ names in first century C.E. Greek documents from the same place are less linquistically uniform.57 People with both Greek and Egyptian names are enrolled in the same association, some with Greek surnames and Egyptian patronymics and others with Egyptian surnames and Greek patronymics (P. Mich. V 243; 246; 244; 247; 248).58 Though this may not necessarily indicate ethnicity, it is certainly a cultural indicator and shows intermingling even in small places like Tebtynis.59 In Alexandria, the very few names in the association and dedication inscriptions are all Greek. Alexandria’s cultural mix, though, is wellknown since the Ptolemaic period, particularly in the forms that Greek and Egyptian cults have assumed over the centuries.60 Intercultural translatability is characteristic of polytheistic religions61 and it affected Greek and Egyptian religions well before Alexander’s death and the settlement of Greeks and Macedonians in the country.62 Those who settled in Alexandria from its very beginning may have at first doubted, even derided the native cults, but they must have found common and interchangeable elements. The sphinxes in the Macedonian necropolis of Moustafa Pasha in Alexandria,63 one of the oldest in the city; the creation of the deity of Serapis, combining Greek elements with an existing Egyptian cult;64 and the development of the personality of 57 These documents have no list of members; sometimes the names of the chairman and of the scribe are provided, and they are Egyptian; see De Cenival, Associations, passim. 58 For Greco-Egyptian naming see J. Quaegebeur, “Greco-Egyptian Double Names as a Feature of a Bi-Cultural Society: the Case of Psosneus o kai Triadelphos,” in Life in a Multicultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond (ed. J.H. Johnson; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1992), 265–272, with references for previous and forthcoming studies. 59 De Cenival, Associations, 139. 60 The best treatment of this subject remains Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 193–286. 61 I borrow the expression ‘intercultural translatability’ from Assmann, Moses, 3, who uses it in reference to the ease with which polytheistic societies found common ground in the similarity of the characteristics of cosmic deities. 62 For a thorough discussion of this topic see S.A. Stephens, Seeing Double. Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria (Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 2003): 20–73, with references. 63 Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 33 and n. 255–256; Empereur and Nenna, Nécropolis 1, 14–15; Venit, Monumental Tombs, 44–67. 64 Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 254ff.; Merkelbach, Isis Regina, 71–86.


209

Isis, which over the centuries came to enclose all the possible aspects of Greek goddesses without losing her original characteristics,65 testify to this process. Inscriptions provide good examples of Alexandria’s religious intricacy. For example, a Serapion son of Dionysios of the deme Serapideios, therefore a citizen (by default, it is generally concluded that citizens were Greek), and his wife dedicated a statue to the god Hermanubis, a synthesis of the Greek god Hermes with the dog-headed Egyptian god Anubis (I.Alex.Imp. 66; unknown date).66 Or a Theano, a man with a Greek name, dedicated statues to the goddess Bubastis and the god Hermais, another name for the Egyptian Horus (I.Alex.Imp. 67; beginning of the Roman period). Probably the best example, however, is the inscription of Pasion, a member of the apolloniakē synodos, an association surely devoted to the cult of a Greek god, who dedicated a statue to Anubis (I.Alex.Imp. 65; first century C.E.). Creativity knew no limits, but all of the above examples illustrate how multifaceted the Alexandrian social environment might have been and how improper it is to reason according to the traditional labels ‘Greek,’ ‘Egyptian,’ etc. Traditional Greek or Egyptian religions were likely no longer practiced. Instead, people embraced newly compounded religions closer to the sensitivities produced by the situation on the ground—easy social integration.67 Furthermore, documents from the early third century B.C.E. reveal intermarriage between Greeks and Egyptians not only in Egypt, but also in Alexandria, breaking ethnic barriers very early on.68 Although no similar conclusion can be drawn from the inscriptions above, since the dedicants’ ethnicity is missing, the formation of Greco-Egyptian 65 Merkelbach, Isis Regina, 59–70; 113–120; R.E. Witt, Isis in the Graeco-Roman World (London: Thames & Hudson, 1971): passim. 66 The fact that the dedicant does not indicate the philetic suggests a date before Nero. A statue of Hermanubis was found in the Serapeum of Alexandria, where an Anubeion also stood; see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 262 and n. 570. 67 See, for example the magic papyri studied in Dieleman, Priests, 103–144, where Greek and Demotic bilingualism intermingling in the same documents is interpreted as a need to maintain the magical effect of the spell and its ritual power. 68 W. Clarysse, “Some Greeks in Egypt,” in Life in a Multicultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond (ed. J.H. Johnson; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1992), 51–56, on the basis of P. Petrie2 I 1 and P. Dem. Lille III 101, col. iii. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 71–72 thought that intermarriage between Greeks and Egyptians in Alexandria could hardly have occurred because it would have jeopardized the status of the children. We do not know if this was the consequence of the intermarriage documented in these two papyri, but we can state with certainty that intermarriage did occur.

210

chapter nine

families undoubtedly helped to create an integrated Greco-Egyptian polytheism. All of this may shed light on Philo’s scorn of the mixed and promiscuous mob. From his point of view, migades kai sugkludes, an expression that he often uses to qualify the Jews’ assailants, “the mob,” may well refer to the ease with which Greeks and Egyptians found common religious ground. Membership in a Greek cultic association did not prevent Panos from making dedications to an Egyptian god, even though this likely entailed the reverent performance of the Egyptian god’s rituals; in Pasion’s case, to Anubis, a dog deity. If this is correct, then Philo may be directing his disgust at zoolatry (Legat., 132–139), not only amongst the Egyptians as a sealed cultural-religious-ethnic enclave, but also amongst all who participated in the worship of animal deities, regardless of original ethnic distinctions. Philo’s migades kai sugkludes may also relate to the participation of ethnic Egyptians in the city’s political life, Greek in its origin, tradition and essence. In this respect, an important passage of Josephus is helpful. He opens by opposing Apion’s charge that the Jews were responsible for the Alexandrian disorders (C. Ap., 2.68). He then counters that the real troublemakers were Alexandrians like Apion, Egyptians with Alexandrian franchise (C. Ap., 2.29; 32; 41). He states that the problems for the Jews began with the inclusion of Egyptians in the body politic, something that did not occur when Macedonians and Greeks alone were citizens (C. Ap., 2.69). The Egyptians were responsible for the disorders, led the citizenry to adopt Egyptian customs and to act out the Egyptians’ old hatred of Jews (C. Ap., 2.70). Josephus provides two kinds of information, one at the upper class and institutional level, the other at the popular level. He states that some Egyptians were citizens and that Egyptian customs spread among the Alexandrian populace.69 Josephus speaks of an environment whose civic institutions were no longer exclusively Hellenic and whose population was no longer fragmented into religious and cultural clusters. We do not know if Josephus refers to a specific disturbance or whether he speaks generally, but the fact that he takes as his example Apion,

69

I do not think that C. Ap., 2.70, nequaquam populo Macedonicam habente constantiam neque prudentiam Graecam, etc. is referring physically to a non-Macedonian and non-Greek part of the population, but rather to the temper of the lower classes, regardless of their origins.


211

a contemporary of Philo and a member of the embassy opposing the Jews before Gaius in 39 C.E. (Jos., A.J., 18.257), allows us to consider the validity of his social picture for a period close to the summer of 38 C.E. and to proceed to further comparison. We commented above on Philo’s recurring reference to a mixed mob and we have seen that the extant evidence supports this picture. Culturally and religiously sophisticated, Alexandria’s prismatic society was under permanent change. Conversely, when Josephus vehemently points out that the Jews have remained uncontaminated (nostrum vero genus permansit purum; C. Ap., 2.69), he is only explaining and expanding Philo’s dichotomy of ‘us and them’ (Flacc., 43).70 This study has pointed more than once to the gymnasium’s role as catalyst in the phases prior to Flaccus’ edict and later during its enforcement. A gymnasium no longer composed exclusively of Greeks, either ethnically or culturally, must have heard the Egyptian stories about the Jews. At that point, they were no longer Egyptian popular patrimony, but part of Alexandrian elite culture, as their witnesses—Apion, Lysimachos, Chaeremon, Manseas, and many others, all literati—strongly suggest. However, it was not only a matter of elite or literati or clubs. At the peak of the flood, when the Alexandrian riots of 38 C.E. occurred (Philo, Flacc., 63), people from the surrounding flooded countryside moved to the city, crowding it and aggravating its demographic situation, producing fertile terrain for the ethnic and cultural hatred affected at that particular time by Nile cult religious passions. The Alexandrian elite easily found common operational ground with the commoners crowding Alexandria in those summer months. This could easily have produced a malleable mass of people, ready to follow leaders whose political goals coincided with their ancestral fears. When Philo states that the mob that set Gaius’ images in the meeting-houses were animals worshippers, he refers to them as well (Legat., 132–139).71 The Alexandrian clubs and associations must have played an important role as well—and it does not matter whether or not Gaius had allowed them back in 38. The solidarity that characterized the relationship among members and between members and leaders, so evident from the documents of the chōra as well as from the language with

70

Gruen, Diaspora, 64 relates this expression only to Jews and Egyptians. See Gruen, Diaspora, 64–65 for references in Jewish literature that are clearly hostile to the Egyptian. 71

212

chapter nine

which Philo, although derogatorily, describes the Alexandrian clubs and Isidoros’ civic performances—this solidarity was still there. The authority’s official recognition was not a requirement for the spirit of the clubs to come to action when required. Under this respect, the clubs were completely reclaiming that political presence in the city that Flaccus had curbed in 35. Now they had the occasion to take revenge.

CHAPTER TEN

THE YEARS 39 AND 41 C.E. Flaccus’ arrest meant no improvement for Alexandria’s Jews. Gaius immediately sent Vitrasius Pollio to replace him1 and subsequent events reveal that nothing in the emperor’s mandata to him changed anything concerning the Jews. Certainly, however, the situation did not stall completely if delegations from both Jews and Alexandrians met in Rome before the emperor in the spring/summer of 39 C.E.2 Philo led a delegation of five Jews (Legat., 370),3 while the grammarian Apion headed the Alexandrians (Jos., A.J., 18.259).4 Isidoros, who in the previous months together with Lampon had played the role of

1

See appendix 2. Discussion of chronology with bibliographical references is in appendix 1. For the embassy in antiquity: G.A. Souris, “The Size of the Provincial Embassies to the Emperor under the Principate” ZPE 48 (1982): 235–144; 3 Jos., A.J., 18.257 states that the Jewish delegation was composed of three ambassadors; Philo’s datum is more reliable; Smallwood, Legatio, 248. 4 There is no consensus about the composition of the two delegations. Kayser, “Ambassades,” discusses the criteria for the composition of embassies to the emperors, and provides a prosopography of the possible ambassadors to Gaius in 39 C.E. and to Claudius in 41 C.E. (448ff.), in the latter case an easier task thanks to the list of the Greek delegated in the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians (P. Lond. VI 1912). Josephus’ report that at his accession Claudius freed Alexander, Philo’s brother, has led some scholars to assume that Alexander was also a member of the Jewish delegation of 39 C.E. and that Gaius incarcerated him in an outburst of wrath; see Singerland, Claudian Policimaking, 8–79 and notes and Kayser, “Ambassades,” 454; contra Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 15, who, following A. Terian, “A Critical Introduction to Philo’s Dialogues,” ANRW II 21,1 (1984): 272–294, does not however exclude that Tiberius Iulius Alexander, Philo’s nephew and Alexander’s son, may have been a member of the Jewish delegation. That Lampon and Chaeremon, the intellectuals known from their anti-Jewish stories in Josehus’ Contra Apionem, were part of the Alexandrian delegation in 39 C.E., as in Barraclough, “Philo’s Politics,” 434 and Schäfer, Judeophobia, 137, is not clear. Chaeremon’s identification with the Chairemon Leonidou of P. Lond. VI 1912, l. 17 as a member of the Alexandrian delegation before Claudius in 41 C.E. is conjecture; see Singerland, Claudian Policimaking, 147 and note and Kayser, “Ambassades,” 453. It is possible to extend back the evidence of the embassy of 41 C.E. to the one who met Gaius before only assuming that the ambassadors who met Gaius never left Rome and met Claudius later. This is possible only on the basis of a second assumption: that Gaius met the ambassadors in 40 C.E. as in Smallwood, Legatio, 248–9, a chronology not received in this study. 2

214

chapter ten

Flaccus’ accuser, was also there (Philo. Legat., 355), probably once again as amicus principis.5 It has been assumed that the Jews went to Rome to beg the emperor to restore their civic rights and ancestral customs damaged in 38 C.E.,6 or to lay claim to full Alexandrian citizenship.7 Both assumptions require consideration. Procedurally, in order to obtain an imperial audience, the Jews had to submit a supplication to the emperor. One year earlier, in the summer of 38 C.E., before Flaccus issued the edict, the Jews in fact gave king Agrippa a supplication for the emperor in which they described their suffering. Although Philo does not disclose its contents, the goal was to have the emperor revise his ruling of 37 C.E. and its effects, which at that time were limited to unfavorable court rulings.8 One may plausibly conclude that Gaius received the supplication from Agrippa and that the Jews were in Rome in 39 C.E. for that reason. But evidence points in another direction. Philo states that he and his fellow ambassadors prepared and gave to the emperor a summary of that very supplication (Legat., 179).9 On the assumption that Agrippa had given it to him, this suggests that Gaius had not acknowledged it and that the Jews were not in Rome for that reason.

5 Isidoros’ capacity in this trial, in any case, is not clear. For some, he was a member of the delegation of the Alexandrians [Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 164–165; Kayser, “Ambassades,” 449–450; 458–463; Sijpesteijn, “Legatione,” 94–96; Gruen, Diaspora, 66; Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 15]. Smallwood, Legatio, 248–249, adopting a date for the meeting to 40 C.E., argues that Isidoros had time to go back to Alexandria after Flaccus’ trial and be appointed ambassador; Smallwood submits also the alternative possibility of Isidorus not going back to Alexandria but receiving orders from there to be part of the Alexandrians delegation. Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 86ff. holds that Isidoros was hired by the Alexandrians, giving Philo the occasion to call him a sycophant. Philo’s qualification of Isidoros as sycophant [for the term see N. Lewis, “On Legal Proceedings under the Idios Logos: κατήγοροι and συκοφάνται,” JJP 9–10 (1956): 117–125], an informer, is probably his way to define in a derogatory fashion his role as amicus principis; if Isidoros was accused later to be a delator, as in Smallwood, Jews, 252, and/or condemned for calumnia, as in J. Mélèze Modrzejewski, Η δίκη του

Ισιδώρου‧ ποινική καταστολή και ιδεολογική αναµέτρηση µεταξύ Αλεξανδρείας και Ρώµης (summary in French),” ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΑ ΤΗΣ ΑΚΑ∆ΗΜΙΑΣ ΑΘΗΝΩΝ, 61 (1986): 254,

Philo could have found his source of terminological inspiration from there. 6 Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 17. 7 Box, Flaccum, xlix; Smallwood, Legatio, 4; 24–25; Honigman, “Philon,” 85 discusses a political revindication. 8 See above ch. 7. 9 Cf. Smallwood, Legatio, 24, for whom the Jews prepared a new memorandum; Barraclough, “Philo’s Politics,” 434 refers only to the Jewish suffering during the summer of 38 C.E. See above ch. 7.

the years 39 and 41 c.e.

215

Even if Gaius had received the supplication, however, Roman legal procedure would have not allowed the Jews to appear before him on the basis of its content. The supplication essentially requested that the emperor revise and change his ruling of 37 C.E., but the emperor could have done nothing of the sort. The trial per formulas, of which the imperial cognitio that Gaius presided in 37 C.E. was the evolution,10 prevented the same subjects from re-appearing in court over a cause for which a trial had been instructed and adjudicated earlier—res iudicata could not be re-tried.11 The Jews, who appeared in court as plaintiffs in 37 C.E. (P. Yale II 107) and against whom the emperor had pronounced sentence on their civic rights, could not reappear as plaintiffs for recognition of the same rights two years later. The reason for their presence in Rome in 39 C.E. must be found elsewhere. Philo’s words make clear that the Jews were summoned to Rome about their rights (µεταπεµφθέντες ἀγωνίσασθαι τὸν περὶ τῆς πολιτείας ἀγῶνα; Legat., 349).12 From a procedural point of view, this changes the scenario, modifying the initial perception of the roles of the two parties in Rome. If the Jews were summoned to Rome, then the preliminary initiative was not theirs but that of their opponents, who must have submitted a petition or a supplication to the emperor. The Jews came to Rome as defendants. Philo’s description of the phases of the trial, or pseudo-trial to credit his account, is in fact the language of the defendant. From the beginning, Philo accuses Gaius of exchanging his role as judge with that of the accusers and approaching the trial with greater hostility than the accusers did (Legat., 349; 359). Logic requires concluding that the Jews were not the plaintiffs in the trial and that the Alexandrians were. What the charges were must be extrapolated from the few exchanges between Gaius and the Jews at the hearing. Philo’s hope of standing before a real court with a judge and his consilium collapsed when he saw that Gaius was managing the case wandering through the villas

10 I argue for the continuity between the per formula and the congitio extra ordinem in Gambetti, “P. Yale II 107.” 11 M. Marrone, ‘ “Res in iudicium deducta”—“res iudicata”,’ BIDR 3a ser. 37–38 (1995–1996): 63–81. 12 The verb ἀγωνίσασθαι with the cognitive accusative forms an expression that is regularly found in forensic literature; particularly connected to a defense speech is the occurrence in Pl., Apol., 34c; in general, Is., Men., 43, 6; Lys., Aerop., 39, 3; Dem., Theocr., 61, 2; Din., Dem., 2, 2.

216

chapter ten

and gardens of Meacenas and Lamia’s and evaluating their architectural conditions at the same time (Legat., 350ff.). The few questions that Gaius addressed to the Jews were aimed exclusively at evaluating whether or not they considered him to be a god (Legat., 353; 357) and he dismissed the Jews’ replies to his brief questions about other Jewish customs, such as dietary rules (Legat., 361). His inquiry about the Jews’ legal basis for their politeia (Legat., 363) sounds rhetorical since he had abolished it for most of the Jews two years earlier. Philo does not conceal the Jews’ distress during the pseudo-hearing, which was certainly aggravated by the unusual setting. There is also an uneasiness in his description of the interrogation about Gaius’ divinity; Philo confesses that silence was the Jews’ only defense for they did not answer Gaius’ questions on the subject (Legat., 360). Gaius’ disinterested dismissal of the Jews, calling them fools because they refused to recognize his divine nature (Legat., 367),13 hardly comforted the Jews, terrified as they awaited the emperor’s sentence. The palinodia, the missing part of Legatio,14 likely contained Gaius’ ruling. The last remaining lines of the treatise, however, confirm that the Jews were waiting for Gaius’ pronouncement about the Jews’ view of his divinity (Legat., 372). The matter of the hearing was primarily the recognition of Gaius’ godhead, not the Jews’ rights in Alexandria. This is also clear from Josephus’ brief account of the same event (Jos., A.J., 18.257ff.). The Alexandrians were in Rome in 39 C.E. to lay charges against the Jews because they refused to recognize Gaius’ divinity.15 The charge must be connected to Gaius’ institution of his personal cult in 37/38 C.E. and to the Jews’ reaction against the Alexandrians’ installation

13 It is understandable that Philo censures the harsh treatment that Gaius reserved for him, as mentioned in Jos., A.J., 18.260. 14 Discussion on the palinodia is in Kraus Reggiani, “Rapporti,” 575–576. It is therefore not possible to know what he decided; Smallwood, Legatio, 325. 15 Cf. Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 69, for whom the Alexandrians complained in 39 C.E. to Gaius about unworthy infiltration into the citizen body; followed by Van der Horst, Flaccus, 23–24, who seems to imply that Apion’s question about the incompatibility between the Jewish claim to have any right in the city, on the one side, and on the other their refusal to worship the Alexandrian gods (Jos., C. Ap., 2.65) was raised by Apion before Gaius; see also Gruen, Diaspora, 77–78. Josephus’ language sounds actually compelling: quomodo ergo, inquit (scil. Apion), si cives sunt, eosdem deos quos Alexandrini non colunt? If cives really refers to full citizenship, as Barklay, Apion, 204–205 maintains, Apion may not have raised the question before Gaius in 39 C.E., but on another occasion.


217

of the emperor’s images in the meeting-houses in the summer of 38. Since this had happened over the territory of the entire city, the Jews’ reaction made all of them liable under Roman law. The last phases of the meeting with Gaius in Rome in 39 C.E., however, reflect the articulate situation that Flaccus’ edict had created inside the Alexandrian Jewish community. Philo states that when the Jews were called back to receive Gaius’ ruling, some members of the Jewish delegation, knowing the emperor’s desire to be considered a god, left in despair. In this phase of the trial, Philo differentiates the members of the Jewish delegation into two groups: us and them (Legat., 372). Such a distinction can be explained on legal grounds. Placing Gaius’ image in their meeting-houses aggrieved all of Alexandria’s Jews, but they were not all in the same legal position. Jews who legally resided in that small part of δ, where neither Gaius’ ruling of 37 C.E. nor Flaccus’ edict of 38 C.E. had any direct effect, retained their juridical personality and could potentially claim the right to preserve their religious customs, though, as Philo confesses, they hardly did so in 39 C.E. Those who lived outside of δ, however, whose residence had been declared illegal by Gaius in 37 C.E. and whom Flaccus’ edict of 38 C.E. had declared immigrants, to say nothing of the atimia that the edict cast on them, had no legal recourse, no hope. They had reason to worry. They had reacted against the imperial cult in Alexandria in 38 C.E. and they could only expect the worst in 39 C.E. in Rome. The Death of Gaius and the Accession of Claudius At Gaius’ death on January 24, 41 C.E., the situation in Alexandria exploded when the Jews took arms (Jos., A.J., 19.278–279; cf. CPJ II 152). Understanding what the newly enthroned Claudius’ immediate reaction was and what occurred in the first year of his reign with reference to the Alexandrian situation involves finding a way through three separate sets of evidence: the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians, the very fragmented P. Oxy. XLII 3021, and the two edicts allegedly also issued by Claudius, as reported by Josephus (A.J., 19.279–291). Since none of them is free of problems, in order to try to simplify the process, this chapter will deal with each of them in turn, beginning with P. Oxy. XLII 3021.

218

chapter ten

P. Oxy. XLII 3021 P. Oxy. XLII 3021, paleographically dated to the first century C.E., of which only the right side of the first column is decipherable, is the beginning of a report of an Alexandrian embassy to a Roman emperor,16 in which a few familiar names figure preeminently (ll. 5–6). ]Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος ]ς Ἰσίδωρος ∆ιονυσίο(υ) The editor supplies a (υ) at the end of ∆ιονυσιο, transforming the name into a genitive, to figure like the patronymic of Ἰσίδωρος.17 The editor admits that the scribe was not very well trained and that his spelling leaves much to be desired, as in other papyri written by him.18 He then comments that the Isidoros in question was the one known by Philo and by the Acta Isidori et Lamponis (= Acta IV) and that the papyrus provides personal information about him.19 This is possible, but not necessary. The spelling of ∆ιονυσίο should rather be compared with the similar one in the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians whose scribe, also notoriously unskilled,20 wrote the name of Gaius Iulius Dionysios, member of the Alexandrian embassy, as Γάιος Ἰούλιος ∆ιονύσιο (P. Lond. VI 1912, l. 17).21 Two independent cases in which the name Dionysios is spelled ∆ιονυσιο suggest that any further supplements would likely be redundant and may even be misleading. More importantly, however, if ∆ιονυσιο is nominative in the P. Lond. VI 1912, l. 17, then it could well be the same in P. Oxy. XLII 3021. This is substantiated by the fact that a series of names in the nominative precedes ∆ιονύσιο: a Τιβέριος

16 For this reason, both P.J. Parsons, ed. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. XLII (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), 74 and more recently Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 30–31; 204–205 include this text among the Acta Alexandrinorum; since the papyrus was published in 1974, Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, could not acknowledge it. 17 Kayser, “Ambassades,” 463, accepts this lectio. 18 Parsons, ed. Oxyrinchus Papyri XLII, 69; cf. P. Oxy. XLII 3020, a text on the other side of the same papyrus and written by the same hand. 19 Parsons, ed. Oxyrinchus Papyri XLII, 74. 20 Bell, Jews and Christians, 1–4. 21 = CPJ II 153; Bell, Jews and Christians, #23, supplied (ς) of the nominative singular. See also BGU IV 1140 for the same spelling problem. The question may be asked at this point whether or not the same scribe wrote both documents. P. Oxy. XLII 3021 and P. Lond. VI 1912 have been found in Oxyrhynchus and Philadelphia, respectively, and to my knowledge a paleographic comparison of the hands that wrote them has never been conducted.


219

Κλαύδιος at l. 5, an extant ]ς at the beginning of l. 6 is also a possible nominative, and then Ἰσίδωρος immediately before. Ἰσίδωρος ∆ιονύσιο of ll. 5–6 stand therefore for two separate persons. Although the scribe did not use punctuation,22 we are certainly reading a list of the names of the members of an Alexandrian delegation.23 Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος and Ἰσίδωρος can actually assist in establishing the termini post and ante quem for the dramatic date of the papyrus. Tiberius Claudius (his cognomen is lost) could be either the fourth emperor of the Julio-Claudian family or a Roman citizen who received the franchise from him.24 Since Claudius succeeded Gaius on January 24, 41 C.E., this date represents the terminus post quem for the papyrus’ dramatic date. To determine the other chronological limit, we must first discover what the mission of the Alexandrians was. Fortunately enough, the mutilated papyrus can be read; as soon as the envoys were introduced to the emperor, the question of the Jews arose (l. 12). At this point, the many pieces of coincidental evidence make it impossible not to connect the persons and the matter mentioned in this papyrus with the anti-Jewish Alexandrians known from Philo’s In Flaccum.25 An Isidoros who complains about the Jews during Claudius’ principate could well be Philo’s Isidoros and the same Isidoros of the Acta Isidori et Lamponis (= Acta IV), as the editor suggested. It is in this document that

22

Parsons, ed. Oxyrinchus Papyri XLII, 69. Cf. also the suggestion given in A. Lukaszewicz, “Tiberius Claudius Isidorus: Alexandrian Gymnasiarch and Epistrategus of Thebaid,” in Essays and Texts in Honor of J. David Thomas (eds. R.S. Bagnall and T. Gagos; Exeter: Short Run Press, 2001), 125–129; 126. 24 Parsons, ed. Oxyrhynchus Papyri XLII, 74 is probably wrong when he affirms that “an envoy named Ti. Claudius [. . .] might appear at any time after the reign of Tiberius.” Since his adoption into the Julian family on June 27, 4 C.E., Tiberius’ nomen becomes Iulius, and it is unlikely that those to whom the citizenship is bestowed after this date acquire his original nomen. Evidence for this could be; Tiberius’ adoption of Germanicus, who became Germanicus Iulius Caesar (PIR2 IV #221); his nomen passed down to his son Gaius who succeeded Tiberius on the throne. In Alexandria there is the well known case of the Tiberii Iulii Alexandreis; for Tiberius Iulius Alexander the prefect of Alexandria see Chalon, Édit de Ti. Iulius Alexander. Claudius’ exertion in bestowing Roman citizenship with the purpose of building loyalty is well documented, although at a later stage and not in Egypt; see A.N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 237–250; however, four envoys named Ti. Claudius are mentioned in his Letter to the Alexandrians (P. Lond. VI 1912, col. i, ll. 16–19; col. v, 108). To my knowledge, no comprehensive study exists on this subject. 25 As this text was published in 1974, it is not included in Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus. 23

220

chapter ten

we read that emperor Claudius ordered him to be put to death (col. iii, ll. 55–56). The date was May 1, 41 C.E.26 The meeting of P. Oxy. XLII 3021 could have occurred only before this date. The text confirms that there was also a Dionysios with anti-Jewish sentiments with the Alexandrians and with Isidoros, thus, the identification of that Dionysios with the one known by Philo is probably correct. P. Oxy. XLII 3021 could, therefore, be the account of an Alexandrian embassy that came to Rome at the beginning of Claudius’ reign,27 between January 41 and May 1, 41 C.E. The text is too fragmentary to encourage any strong argument, but extant lines clearly mention something preexisting to the Jews—προόντα το̣ῖς Ἰουδαίοις (l. 12); the verb ‘to be deprived’ in the third person plural—νῦν ἐστέρηνται (l. 13), of which the Jews are possibly the subject; something about the gods—τῆς #τῶν θεῶν (l. 14); something about ‘their temples’— τοῖς ἱεροῖς αὐτῶν (l. 15); something else trampled—κα#τεµ#πα#τουνται (l. 16), the subject possibly being either ‘their temples’ or anything else connected to them. It is tempting to connect this information with what happened in and around the Jewish meeting-houses in the summer of 38 C.E. and with the Jews’ rebellions at the news of Gaius’ death in January of 41 C.E. The Jews appear in the preserved part of the papyrus only as a topic of discussion and never as acting ambassadors. Given the extremely fragmentary condition of the text, however, it is not possible to draw any conclusions as to whether or not they were actually present. In any case, the chronology, the topic and the actors involved compel the reader to make a connection with the Alexandrian situation and with the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians. The Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians. The letter that Claudius wrote to the city of Alexandria (P. Lond. VI 1912 = CPJ II 153)28 reports Claudius’ decision and orders on the dif-

26 In general on this trial, Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 117–140; Smallwood, Jews, 250–255, as a delator; Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Η λικη του Ισιδωρου,” 254, for calumnia. 27 Cf. Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 30–31 who argues that this text may be the amalgamation of the reports of different embassies. 28 Editio princeps in Bell, Jews and Christians, 1–37; also Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 36–55 for more recent translation and bibliographical apparatus. More recent bibliography in Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 299ff., Kayser, “Ambassades;” latest comments in Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 21–23 and passim.


221

ficult situation between the Alexandrians and the Jews after delegates from both groups pleaded their case before the emperor. The papyrus does not report the date of the letter itself, nor does it disclose when the emperor received the Alexandrian and Jewish delegations; the date on which the prefect posted it in Alexandria, November 10, 41 C.E. (col. i, l. 13), is simply the terminus ante quem.29 The Letter indicates that the initiative came from the Alexandrians on this occasion as well. Claudius addresses and thanks them for a decree that they submitted to him. The text implies that the Jews were also present, but Claudius’ greeting formula mentions no Jewish ambassador, nor does it disclose the identity of any Jewish spokesman. The Jews are part of the picture, but in the background, while Claudius reserves his formal attention for the Alexandrians. In the first three quarters of the letter, Claudius addresses the honors that the Alexandrians had offered to him and to the imperial family, as well as other religious and citizen-related matters (ll. 14–72).30 In the last part, he forcefully addresses the relations between the Alexandrians and the Jews (ll. 73–104). His language clearly demonstrates that he was presiding over a court hearing to hear both parties, at the end of which he preferred to make no final ruling on the responsibility for the new wave of disorders—or war in fact, as he specifies (ll. 73–78). Claudius’ abstention from final judgment does not, however, imply disinterest in the situation. Rather he is perfectly clear: he enjoins both sides to stop fighting (ll. 72–82). Claudius also provides further detail and gives orders about the relationship between the Alexandrians and the Jews in five points. He tells the Alexandrians just one thing: not to disturb Jews who had lived in Alexandria for a long time and to allow them to follow their religious customs (ll. 84–88). To the Jews, Claudius says four things: 1) not to busy themselves with anything beyond what they had previously had (ll. 89–90); 2) never to send two delegations again “as if they lived in two cities” (ll. 90–92); 3) not to intrude upon the gymnasium

29

Cf. Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 325 for a date in October. In the list of the Alexandrian notables whom Claudius greets, Isidoros is remarkably missing; Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 182–183 is probably correct in saying that Isidoros had already been executed in the wake of the trial of the Acta Isidori et Lamponis (= Acta IV); this scholar goes too far, however, when he adds that the missing name is also a sign of damnatio memoriae—Isidoros is not mentioned in Claudius’ letter simply because he was not there and already dead. 30

222

chapter ten

(ll. 92–95); and 4) not to invite immigrants from the rest of Egypt and Syria (ll. 96–98). To the Alexandrians: not to disturb Jews who have lived in Alexandria for a long time and to allow them to follow their religious customs (ll. 84–88) What Claudius forbade the Alexandrians to disturb were the Jewish ethē (ll. 84–85). This is much less than what all the Jews had lost in the summer of 38 C.E. Describing the situation on the eve of Flaccus’ edict, when Gaius’ images were already in the meeting-houses, Philo explains the logic of Flaccus’ action, according to a literal and inelegant translation, thus: “so that, once our ancestral and religious customs—ethē, patria—were cut away, the only things to which our life was moored, we would wait also for our participation in civic rights—politika dikaia—(to be cut off ), our last misfortune, in a way that we would be left without any rope to safety” (Flacc., 53).31 Philo distinguishes between the patria and ethē, which the installation of Gaius’ images had already abolished, and the politika dikaia, the rights of residence in the city, which Flaccus’ edict was about to abolish.32 In his letter of 41 C.E., Claudius seemed to restore only the ethē, with no mention of the rest.33 Claudius seems to make also another specification regarding the Alexandrian Jewish community, when he ordered the Alexandrians not to disturb the Jews who had lived in Alexandria for a long time (ll. 83–84). Of course, it is not possible to enter Claudius’ mind or to know exactly what ‘for a long time’ may have meant. The contextualization proposed thus far, however, points to the Jews of δ, who had inherited their rights from those who had founded Alexandria. This is perfectly in line with Claudius’ statement on the ethē: in 38 C.E., the residents of δ saw their meeting-houses violated, their ethē, but nothing else; Flaccus’ edict had not targeted their dikaia and it affected them physically only because all the Jews expelled from the rest of the city took refuge there. The

31 Different translations in Colson, Philo’s Embassy, 333 and Van der Horst, Flaccus, 64. 32 Study of these terms in Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, #1, 9, 19, 26, 25, 18, 21, 27, 20, 30, 24, 7 confirms that ethē referes to religious customs and not to other positive rights, which are referred to as dikaia in #5 (cf. #6 dikaia hase unspecified meaning). 33 So Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 49 and Gruen, Diaspora, 73; 80 without further specifications.


223

attack limited to the religious customs was directed only against them and it is to them, the Jews of δ, that Claudius restored the right to observe these customs—ethē. Had he wished to benefit all Jews, he would not have made any temporal remark and would have also included the dikaia in his restoration order in the first place. By limiting the restoration of the Jewish religious customs only to δ, Claudius means to enforce the Augustan regulations (l. 87) as contradictory as it may sound.34 The politika dikaia that guaranteed right of residence for Jews out-side of δ, had been cancelled by Flaccus’ edict. By ignoring them and stressing the ethē, Claudius separates the two issues. This is not Claudius’ whim, but a concrete dictate of Roman law. Flaccus’ edict was the political consequence of an imperial ruling, which, as res iudicata, Claudius cannot rescind.35 It was Gaius’ ruling that had restricted Augustus’ regulations; Claudius enforced what was left of them. To the Jews: not to busy themselves with anything beyond what they had previously had (ll. 89–90)36 This is the basis for all of the other decisions that Claudius made. He forbade the Jews to busy themselves with anything beyond what they previously had. The sense is not entirely clear, but the emperor implies that the Jews were overreaching. Defining Claudius’ intentions depends on the attribution of the temporal range to the adverb previously.37 It would actually be expected that Claudius reiterate the original Augustan authority that seemed to be his firm referent in all of the decisions that he announces in the Letter: the denial of the boulē to the Alexandrians (ll. 66–68), the confirmation of the ethē to the Jewish residents in δ (l. 87). He does not, however, do this; again, he cannot. 34 This mention has suggested to Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 56 that Augustus’ recognition of the Jewish rights was limited to religious practices and that this was the content of his stela known to Josephus. I disagree with this restrictive interpretation; Claudius recalls Augustus’ recognition of the Jewish ethē because this is what he himself was interested in on this occasion; it was Claudius’ selection given the situation he had to face, not Augustus’ choice. See below for more on this argument. 35 See above n. 11 in this chapter. 36 The texts reads: µηδὲ πλήωι ὧν πρότερον ἔσχον περιεργάζεσθαι, with πλήωι to be read as a dativus modi; LSJ, s.v. περιεργάζοµαι, 1; I partly adopt the translation in Bell, Jews and Christians, 29 since it emphasizes the original syntax better; πλήωι is incorrectly spelled. 37 This passage has been understood to indicate that the Jews were aiming at acquiring Alexandrian citizenship: Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 58; Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 50.

224

chapter ten

Since Gaius had changed the legal basis of the civic rights of the Alexandrian Jews by recognizing their legal presence only in the small part of δ and since the principle of the res iudicata prevented the revision of Gaius’ sentence, which modified the setting originally introduced by Augustus, ‘previously’ must forcefully refer to an earlier period, namely when the Ptolemies introduced the politeuma. Gaius’ adjudication prevented Claudius from reinstating Augustus’ general grant to the Jews. This is Claudius’ way to say that the politika dikaia are not restored to the Jews outside of δ. Claudius confirmed that the business of the Jews remained limited to what Gaius had decided: the extension of the old politeuma. The Roman authority confirmed to oppose any Jewish effort to go beyond it either physically or conceptually. To the Jews: never to send two delegations again “as if they lived in two cities” (ll. 90–92) None of this contradicts the presence of two Jewish delegations, “as if they lived in two cities” according to Claudius’ statement.38 In light of 38

Box, Flaccum, xxix accepts Willrich’s suggestions that one group asked the emperor to make some special arrangements for the Jews who wished to take part in athletic training, but not in the nude. Jews were involved in athletic training [Philo, Quod Probus, 2. 12–16; in general H.A. Harris, Greek Athletics and the Jews (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1976)], probably separate from the Greeks; the other Jewish group would be there to ask for citizenship. This opinion is partly shared by Smallwood, Legatio, 29, and Smallwood, Jews, 234–235; 248 who endorses the idea of the existence of a moderate and an orthodox party; followed by Barraclough, “Philo’s Politics,” 426–427 and Kraus Reggiani, “Rapporti,” 580; for Baldson, Gaius, 144 one group represents Jews with franchise, while the other represents the remainder of the Jewish population; Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 57 holds that the two delegations were separate by reason of status, whereby one group was acting diplomatically to negotiate citizenship; Schäfer, Judeophobia, 151 is also in favor of two parties, one attempting to improve Jewish civic rights, the other more moderate. Smallwood, Legatio, 30 and Gruen, Diaspora, 79–80, who both date the embassy to 40 C.E., identify one of the delegations as the one that met with Gaius earlier and never went back to Alexandria, to which a more militant one newly arrived is to be added; or simply presented two different points of view; Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 66ff., also incline for the presence of a military and a moderate faction, with Philo belonging to the second; Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 322–323 sees two different parties represented by the two delegations and submits the possibility that they asked for more Jews to be allowed into Alexandria; for Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 120 Claudius refers to two delegations present in front of him, one of Greeks, the other of Jews; in this scholar’s opinion Claudius was encouraging the Alexandrians and the Jews to send only one united delegation in the future; for Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 183 Claudius wanted the Jews to work out their own internal problems before appearing before him. Interesting is the suggestion of E.M. Grocholl, “ὥσπερ ἐν δυσεὶ πόλεσειν κατοικοῦντας. Anmerkung zu CPJ II 153.90f.,” ZPE 89 (1991): 75–76 who attempts to explain Claudius’ remark on the basis of the Jewish presence on the Alexandrian territory; however, the author’s conclusions are


225

the different problems that they faced—the complete loss of politeia by the Jews expelled by Flaccus, religious customs attacked for the legal residents of δ—the Jews, to their defense, had probably submitted two different agendas to the emperor. It is likely that they did this because of their negative experience before Gaius in 39 C.E., when their delegation, which included both legal residents of δ and Flaccus’ labeled immigrants, could not satisfactorily reply to Gaius’ objection because their different situations prevented them from having a unified defensive strategy. Claudius’ irritation indicates that he did not recognize two sets of problems—one of which was the politika dikaia of the misplaced Jews—but only one, which he had already addressed by showing his concern for the Jewish ethē in the small area of δ. To the Jews: not to intrude upon the gymnasium (ll. 92–95) It is even more difficult to make sense of Claudius’ mention of the gymnasium. Since the written form of the most important verb at the end of l. 92 is corrupt, the first problem stems from the basic lectio of the document. Scholars first suggested ἐπισπαίρειν,39 soon supplanted by ἐπισπαίειν, which supported the argument that the Jews had illegally intruded upon the gymnasium so that they might acquire citizenship.40 This interpretation presumed that all Jews paid the poll-tax and that the only way to avoid this degrading fiscal status was to acquire Alexandrian citizenship, the very thing that the Jews were fighting for and the cause of the problems of 38 C.E. It goes without saying that research presented thus far in this work supports none of these premises; the Alexandrian Jews did not pay the poll-tax and under no circumstances has Alexandrian citizenship been identified as an issue in the events of 38 C.E. or earlier. Yet the initial lectio ἐπισπαίρειν has been reevaluated and translated as ‘disturbing,’ which suggests that the Jews interrupted ceremonies and

insufficiently specific to be received in this work; E. Grzybek, “La répression à Alexandrie en 41 apr. J.-C. et le probleme des délégations juives envoyées à Rome (CP Jud II 152, 90–92),” RD 77 (1999): 213–222, thinks that Agrippa was leading the second embassy; Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 26 holds that the mention of the two embassies is a mistake of the copist. 39 Bell, Jews and Christians, 25; 37. 40 For complete argument Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 53 and Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 314, although he does not share Tcherikover’s suggestion; more recently in keeping with Tcherikover, Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 59; see also Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 22.

226

chapter ten

activities at the gymnasium during spectacles and ceremonies, without necessarily implying that they were attempting to usurp the status of members of the gymnasium.41 This scenario may well be part of the picture presented thus far, since the Jews, aggrieved as they were by the members of the gymnasium in 38 C.E., had good possible reason to avenge themselves by disrupting the gymnasium’s routine.42 To the Jews: enjoy your οἰκία and benefit of a large quantity of good things in a city you do not own—ἐν ἀλλωτρίᾳ πόλει (ll. 94–95) It is not necessary to reassert that this most famous line of the Letter clearly indicates that the Jews did not hold citizenship.43 What is important to discuss here is the meaning of oikia. The editor’s translation “what they possess,” has been accepted by all later scholars.44 This translation reflects the general meaning of the word,45 but a more specific one is available. Aeschines uses oikeia in opposition to allōtriāi polis (Ctes., 255) with “the meaning of a foreign city where the person in question is residing temporarily.”46 Oikia is also the household from which one descends, the lineage, the ancestry.47 Either meaning fits perfectly with the rest of the Letter. According to the first meaning, Claudius is addressing the Jews who were not residents, whom Flaccus declared epēludes, who would have been referred to as advenae in Latin, and whom the more common Greek Egyptian language called

41

Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 315–321; Harris, Greek Athletics, 91–92 accepts the lectio

ἐπισπαίρειν, but assumes that (92) “for some time the rule demanding that competitors

be Greek had come to be disregarded and . . . Jews had been entering, but . . . when the anti-Jewish feeling boiled up, the Greeks of Alexandria seized on the old tradition as an excuse to exclude them;” B. Legras, Néotês (Genève: Dorz, 1999), 256–257, rejects the lectio ἐπισπαίρειν in favor of the pristine ἐπισπαίειν, also submitting that the Jews were protesting the exclusions of their youth from ephebic competition. 42 Gruen, Diaspora, 81, thinks that the Jews took revenge against the mocking of Agrippa in 38 C.E. 43 Bell, Jews and Christians, 15. 44 Bell, Jews and Christians, 29; with some variations in vocabulary, but not in meaning Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 43; Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 326; Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 182; Gruen, Diaspora, 80; Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 22. 45 LSJ, s.v. 46 I am quoting Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 53, who reject this meaning because according to them this definition stands in contrast to Claudius’ mention of the Jews having lived in Alexandria for a very long time: “Yet Claudius could not use the word in this sense, as he himself states that the Jews were settled in Alexandria ἐκ πολλῶν χρόνων (l. 84), etc.” These scholars’ interpretation of ‘very long time’ is generic and not specific as the one submitted in this work. 47 LSJ, s.v., IV.


227

xenoi parepidemountes. Although this is the preferable interpretation, an alternative reading is possible. According to the second meaning of οικια, Claudius was referring to the descendants of the original colonizers, addressing the resident Jews who had lived in the city for a long time.48 Claudius’ vocabulary, or its Greek translation, is not general, but very specific to the Alexandrian reality. Whichever group the emperor is addressing, he confirms that there would be no departure from Gaius’ policy. To the Jews: not to invite immigrants from the rest of Egypt and Syria (ll. 96–98) Claudius’ threats against future Jewish immigration from Syria and Egypt (ll. 96–97) confirms that he endorses the principle of Flaccus’ edict, whose main target was immigration.49 The immigrants’ origin, of which the emperor is informed, nicely completes the picture of the dynamics of the phenomenon: δ, the original Jewish quarter, faced Kibotos, the harbor on the Mediterranean on the west side of the city and the terminal of the canal connecting the Nile to the Mediterranean—a great place to welcome immigrants from Egypt, sailing north on the Nile or along the southeastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea from the Levant. Conclusions After reading Claudius’ orders to both Alexandrians and Jews, the picture is as follows: Claudius restored and confirmed religious rights only to Jews with rights of residence in the small part of the δ quarter, that is, only to the descendants of the original colonizers; Claudius endorsed Flaccus’ edict by refusing to improve the civic situation of

48 Close to this sense is the translation in Smallwood, Jews, 249: (the Jews) are to rest content of their present civic status. 49 Smallwood, Legatio, 27 and Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 56 read in these lines a reference to Jews who reached Egypt early in 41 C.E. to assist the Alexandrian Jews in their fight against the Alexandrian citizens; for Bell, Jews and Christians, 17, Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 54 and Schäfer, Judeophobia, 152, this an attempt to reinforce the Jewish community in the struggle for civic rights; similarly also Blouin, Conflit judéo-alexandrin, 85. For Barraclough, “Philo’s Politics,” 428 Claudius is making a general comment.

228

chapter ten

all the other Jews and by making clear his intention to oppose Jewish immigration, a principle introduced in the edict. This reading of Claudius’ letter does not support the idea that the emperor restored the Jews’ rights on the basis of the status quo ante,50 but that he confirmed the status quo.51 Claudius did not address the politika dikaia that many of Alexandrian Jews had lost in 38 C.E. and stressed the Roman government’s opposition to Jewish immigration. The emperor reversed neither Flaccus’ edict nor Gaius’ policy in Alexandria. Claudius’ confirmation of the Jewish ethē for δ relies on his change of imperial religious policy related to the ruler cult, specifically the cult of Gaius. Since Gaius had introduced his personal cult not through a legal process, Claudius could revise and reverse it, as he did with all other similar policies that his predecessor had introduced (Sue, Cl., 11,8; Dio, 60.5, 1);52 his restoration of the ethē to Jews with long residence in δ was in line with this, as it was forbidding the Alexandrians to impose the ruler cult on them. The fate of the politika dikaia of the other Jews, however, was part of a legal procedure that was immutable under Roman law. Claudius could not and did not reinstate the rights of residence of the Jews whom Flaccus’ edict, according to Gaius’ mandata, had decreed foreigners and immigrants. The Other Evidence This was not the first time that Claudius had had to deal with the Alexandrians and the Jews that year. The emperor had certainly expressed his opinion once before to both the Alexandrian citizens and the Jews and he referred to that occasion in the Letter (l. 88: amphoteron referred to the two groups and ebebaiosa referred to his previous decision).53 It is

50

As in Smallwood, Jews, 249; Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 322; Collins, Athens and Jerusalem, 120; Singerland, Claudian Policimaking, 80–81; Bringmann, “Isopoliteia;” Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 21; 28. 51 Gruen, Diaspora, 82; for Schäfer, Judeophobia, 138; 152, Claudius settled the conflict maintaining the status quo not to give way to Jewish demands (the implication being the Jewish demand of citizenship); this author is unclear on the kind of status quo; similarly Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 314, sees an end to the Jewish fight for emancipation, and Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 60, who reads the Letter as a blow to the Jewish upper classes, as well as to those Jews who legally held the franchise. 52 Gai quoque etsi acta omnia rescindit; τὰ µὲν δὴ οὖν ὑπό τε τοῦ Γαΐου καὶ ὑφ’ ἑτέρων δι’ ἐκεῖνον οὐκ ὀρθῶς γενόµενα ἀνέτρεψε. 53 See Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 49–50, and Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 307–309 for analysis of the use of ebebaiosa and relevant literature.


229

clear from Claudius’ sentencing that on the previous occasion his decision was limited to the ethē of the Jews in δ; this was simply reiterated in the Letter. It is also clear that his orders were not very effective the first time, since he had to repeat them later. Josephus likely summarizes the Alexandrian events when he reports that the Jews revolted at the news of Gaius’ death; Claudius’ repeated orders indicates that there had been at least two phases of disorders, one before Claudius’ first orders and another prompting his repetition in the Letter. There is no undisputable evidence pointing precisely to two phases or to Claudius’ first issuing of orders, but only some texts meriting discussion. Since they must have occurred between January 24 and May 1, 41 C.E., a possible first evidence is the already-discussed P. Oxy. XLII 3021. It is not possible, however, to say much more about this text with certainty. The readable lines certainly hint at the Jews and at godly statues probably overthrown in temples. This could refer to the Jewish attempt to reinstate their own customs on their own initiative by overthrowing the images from their cult locations as a means of avenging the obliteration of their ethē in 38 C.E. If this tentative reading is allowed, as suggested earlier, then P. Oxy. XLII 3021 must certainly be included among the precedents of the Letter. It is not possible, however, to identify the precedent to which it was linked, whether to the one that prompted Claudius’ first orders, or to the one which prompted orders in the Letter. That both of Claudius’ decisions address the same subject, the Jewish ethē, makes it impossible to draw the incontrovertible conclusion that P. Oxy. XLII 3021 is the fragmented report of the Alexandrian and Jewish embassies that prompted either decision. Nor is biographical evidence on Isidoros and Dionysios of any help. The former died before Claudius wrote the Letter, his name is not listed among the Alexandrian ambassadors, but he may well have been a member of the Alexandrian delegation prompting both Claudius’ first and second issuings of orders. The same may be said concerning Dionysios, who could be identified with the Gaius Iulius Dionysios reckoned among the Alexandrians ambassadors in the Letter and strong opponent of the Jews (l. 17; Dionysos son of Theon, l. 76).54 He could also have been an advocate for the Alexandrians on both occasions. 54

Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II, 44, who could not know P. Oxy. XLII 3021, had already made this connection when commenting on the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians (P. Lond. VI 1912, col. ii, l. 17 = CPJ II 153), between the Dionysios known by Philo and the Gaius Iulius Dionysios (his tria nomina may indicate that he very likely received Roman citizenship from Gaius) of l. 17, although they observed

230

chapter ten

The second text meriting discussion comes from the pen of Josephus. He states that after armed conflict exploded upon Gaius’ death between the Jews and the Alexandrians, Claudius sent an order to the prefect to stop the war. Allegedly he also issued two edicts, one to Alexandria and Syria and one to the world (A.J., 19, 279–291). It is complicated to make an argument on the basis of Josephus’ report of the two edicts.55 Josephus states that Claudius issued the first edict to Alexandria and Syria in reply to a petition from Agrippa and Herod, the Jewish kings present at the imperial court in Rome at that time (A.J., 19.279); this scenario excludes the possibility that Claudius had received any delegation of the Alexandrians and/or the Jews, heard their supplication, and issued his orders accordingly. In short, there would be no correspondence with the course of events sketched above on the basis of Claudius’ mentions in the Letter. Yet the fact that the two kings are never mentioned in the first edict to Alexandria and Syria (A.J., 19.280–285), but only in the second one to the world (A.J., 19.288) suggests that Josephus’ introductory words are not very accurate. In fact, an analysis of the text of the first edict would indicate that Claudius had certainly met with the Jewish delegation and likely also with the Alexandrian delegation. Two-thirds of the edict consists of a list of what the Jews might have submitted to the emperor in order to support their case (A.J., 19.281–284) and, at the end of it, the emperor certainly also addressed the Alexandrians. In spite of Josephus’ misleading introduction, the first edict may relate to the historical scenario of the Letter. The premises in Claudius’ first edict are clear, but their relation to the emperor’s order are suspiciously illogical. Claudius, introducing the list with epignous, indicated that he was made aware of the following: 1) the Jews of Alexandria were called Alexandrians; 2) they were

that two other Dionysios are mentioned in the letter, Dionysios son of Theon and Dionysios son of Sabbion. Tcherikover and Fuks accept Bell, Jews and Christians, 30, who suggests that Gaius Iulius Dionysios and Dionysios son of Theon are the same person; of the same opinion also P.J. Sijpesteijn, The Family of the Tiberii Iulii Theones (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1976), 5, including him in the famous Alexandrian family of the Iulii Theones. Skepticism on this identification is found in Van der Horst, Flaccus, 109 with references for discussion. Contra Kerkeslager, “Violence in Alexandria,” 61–66, on the ground that Dionysios was already dead at that time, a conclusion not accepted in this work; see ch. 4. 55 The literature on this subject is immense; see Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 294–342, to which I am completely indebted for the basic discussion on the edict and on its terminology; Singerland, Claudian Policimaking, 14–15.


231

co-founders of the city with the Alexandrians since the early days; 3) the kings awarded equal rights to the Jews with the Alexandrians, as is evident from their letters and decrees; 4) Augustus recognized these Jewish rights and had ordered the prefect to safeguard them; 5) there had never been any dispute about their rights; 6) Augustus had not prevented the election of the ethnarch because he wanted the customs of the Jews to be observed everywhere; 7) the Alexandrians had attacked the Jews during the time of Gaius because the Jews, preserving their own religion, had refused to address the emperor as god. Given the logic of the edict, Claudius allegedly accepted all of these premises to craft his decision. Claudius then introduced his decisions with boulomai (A.J., 19.285). The emperor wanted: 1) none of the rights, dikaia, of the Jewish ethnos to be lost on account of Gaius’ insanity; 2) their previous rights, dikaiōmata, to be observed by them, while they abided by their own customs, ethē; and 3) both parties to cease any disturbance upon the posting of his edict.56 What Claudius was addressing must first be determined. Indeed, he seemed to be addressing only the sixth premise, whereby the Jews were attacked because they wished to safeguard their religious customs (tēn patrion threskeian, A.J., 19.284). This point is sufficiently addressed by Claudius’ first order about the observance of the Jewish dikaia that were lost on account of Gaius’ insanity. But then, what of the second order, addressing the Jews’ previous dikaiōmata? To what was Claudius allegedly referring here? And when he states ‘previous,’ what time frame did he have in view? Before Gaius? If this was the case, then what were the dikaiōmata to be restored, since the premises did not mention the loss of any? Not only Claudius’ orders, but also the premises listed in the first two-thirds of the edict raise questions when contextualized within the external evidence: 1) It is true that the resident Jews, as all the other residents in Alexandria, were called Alexandrians. The only direct evidence, Helenos’ papyrus (BGU IV 1140 = CPJ II 151), which, together with the other

56 Literal translation of: βούλοµαι µηδὲν διὰ τὴν Γαΐου παραφροσύνην τῶν δικαίων τῷ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνει παραπεπτωκέναι, φυλάσσεσθαι δ’ αὐτοῖς καὶ τὰ πρότερον δικαιώµατα ἐµµένουσι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἔθεσιν, κτλ.

232

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

57 58

chapter ten

data on the use of ‘Alexandrian,’ reveals that it was the designation of all the Jews.57 It is true that the Jews were co-founders of the city, but not all of them.58 Philo recognizes that the problem in Alexandria in 38 C.E. concerns the distinction between original colonists and latecomers (Flacc., 46). It is not true that in the Ptolemaic period the Jews had equal rights with the Alexandrians. The possibility of becoming citizens was open to the latter, but not to the former, on the assumption that the Jews were interested in being citizens. In any case, to Josephus’ defense, it must be observed that his ise politeia should be read with fewer legal and political constrictions. It is true that the kings were the first to recognize the civic rights of the Jews and there were likely official decrees to this effect. It is likely also true that there were other letters and documents—at least the present work has reckoned them—but Josephus presents them as liabilities because they were not officially ratified (A.J., 14.187). It is true that Augustus recognized the rights to all the Jews. It is not true that there were ever any disputes. Since the introduction of the census, the rights of the Jews had been scrutinized and questioned; a case in point was that of Helenos (BGU IV 1140 = CPJ II 151). Philo admits that since the time of Augustus the Jews had had to face opposition, culminating with Sejanus’ attack to their ethē, probably in connection with their rights of residence (Legat., 159–161); the situation did not improve in the last years of Tiberius. Augustus did not allow the election/appointment of another ethnarch, which did not seem to be a problem for Philo, although he may have had reason to be reticent on this—did he wish to demonstrate that Augustus did only good to the Jews? Josephus’ inclusion of this issue in the list may indicate that Augustus’ measures were interpreted as a blow to the Jews. It is true that the Alexandrians attacked the Jews for religious reasons in 38 C.E., but this is only half of the story. There was an edict that had abolished the civic rights (dikaiomata) of most of the city’s Jews. Were these the ‘previous dikaiomata’ that, according to Josephus, Claudius had allegedly restored to the Jews in his first edict? Why, then, were they not clearly mentioned in the premises, the logic

La’da, Foreign Ethnics, 347–355, ch. 3 and appendix 5. See above ch. 2.


233

introduction to Claudius’ decision? Assuming that this was the list that the Jews had submitted to Claudius upon Gaius’ death and assuming that they wished to improve their situation in Alexandria after two and a half years of confinement in a small quarter, why would they fail to mention the very issue that was at the basis of their misery? In sum, how should Josephus’ first edict be read and to what extent can any degree of historicity be attributed to it? Scholars have evaluated the historical validity of this edict with respect to two factors: the style and the content. While there is a consensus, though not unanimous, that the style of this edict is somewhat awkward, the content, carefully compared with that of the Letter, has mostly been deemed to be historically acceptable. The most common conclusion is that Josephus manipulated, but did not forge, a document that is either the one accompanying the Letter or the one issued before to which the Letter refers by ebebaiosa. It is this conclusion that must be confronted in the present work. If the comparison between the premises of the edict and its logical outcome, Claudius’ decision, raises some doubts, and if the contextualization of the premises aggravates the situation, then the comparison between Claudius’ decision in the edict and what he orders in the Letter results in a most radical conclusion. According to Josephus, Claudius restored to all of the Jews of Alexandria all of the dikaia and also the previous dikaiōmata. Claudius seemes to restore to the Jews all of the rights that they had possessed before Gaius. Claudius’ ‘previous’ in Josephus’ edict certainly recalls the ‘previous’ of the Letter. In the Letter, however, ‘previous’ chronologically complements the emperor’s orders on the restored ethē of the Jews of δ with respect to his conception of a Jewish community limited only to the territory of the original colonizers; while ‘previous’ in Josephus’ first edict does not refer to any of these distinctions. Instead, it presents Claudius’ decision as something that would affect all of the Jews. According to the Letter, this is precisely what Claudius did not do in 41 C.E. Josephus’ edict of A.J., 19.280–285 is plainly a forgery, inasmuch as it attributes to Claudius a decision diametrically opposed to the one presented in the Letter.59

59 See Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 305 who inclines for its authenticity; Gruen, Diaspora, 82, for whom the edict is manipulated, not forged.

234

chapter ten

Josephus’ first edict does not appear to represent a historical situation. Instead, it appears to reflect all of the topics of his apologetic discussion in the second book of Contra Apionem: the use of ‘Alexandrian,’60 the legacy of the Ptolemies, and the isepoliteia. This conclusion does not entirely end the discussion. There is a fundamental difference between the structure of the Letter and that of Josephus’ first edict. In the Letter, the emperor addresses the Alexandrians, while the Jews remain in the background. In Josephus’ edict, however, Claudius clearly addresses the Jews—the premises list a series of complaints that can only belong to them, though none of them are ever named—while the Alexandrians are included in the amphoteroi by which the emperor enjoins both groups to stop fighting. This difference prompts two comments: the first one points to Josephus’ apologetic agenda, inasmuch as he has Claudius reveal that the Jews’ problems are at the heart of his concerns; the second partially rehabilitates the historical validity of the edict, inasmuch as it may preserve the memory of the first meeting between Claudius and the Alexandrian parties when the initiative may have been the Jews’ and not the Alexandrians’—unfortunately as yet an unverifiable hypothesis. Furthermore, since the Letter reiterated the emperor’s decision of some earlier time, the content of Josephus’ first edict cannot be identified with that occasion either. It remains to be discussed why Josephus states that Claudius also sent this edict to Syria, for there is nothing concerning Syria in what he writes and everything is peculiarly Alexandrian. It would make more sense to consider that he sent to Syria the second edict (A.J., 19.286–291), which Josephus states was sent to the world. The present work will not analyze the second edict;61 suffice it to say that given the documented Gaius’ cult and the precise episodes of Jamneh and Jerusalem, Claudius, at the very least, must have sent some communication to the rest of the empire informing the governors of its cancellation. It is possible that he wrote something specifically for the diaspora Jews; Philo states that Tiberius did the same in 31 C.E. (Legat., 159–161). The peculiar case of Syria requires at present some further consideration. This is not the first time that Josephus places the Jews of Syria, especially those of Antioch, at the same level as the Jews of Alexandria; he 60

Honigman, “Philon,” 67 n. 17, for whom Jos, A.J., 19.281 on ‘Alexandrians’ is a falsification. 61 For references see Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 328–342.


235

also does this in Contra Apionem at the heart of the discussion on the legitimate use of ‘Alexandrians’ for the Jews. On that same occasion, he also states that the Jews of Antioch received their politeia from Seleucos, the founder of the city (Jos., C.Ap., 2.38–39). Data concerning Antioch are ambiguous.62 According to tradition, spanning from Strabo and Diodorus thorough late antique authors, in 300 B.C.E., Seleucia in Pieria and Antioch were founded only a few weeks apart by Seleucos I Nikator. While Seleucia functioned as the capital of Seleucos’ kingdom during his lifetime, Antioch became the official center of the Seleucid kingdom after the founder’s death. It is Antioch, and not Seleucia, that is praised by all of the sources.63 Accordingly, Seleucos peopled Antioch by transferring the inhabitants of Antigoneia, the city that Antigonos Monoftalmos had founded in the same region and named after himself in 307/306 B.C.E. (Diod. 20.47, 5–6).64 Further, contingents of Seleucos’ veterans and other groups originally from the eastern Mediterranean Greek world settled there (Malalas, Chron., 8.210; Lib., Or., 11.91–92; Strabo, 16.2, 5). Strabo also knows of the group of the oiketoroi (τὸ δὲ δεύτερον τοῦ πλήθους τῶν οἰκητόρων ἐστὶ κτίσµα), who lived in one of the quarters of the city (16.2, 4). Josephus is the only one to connect the Jews to Antioch and Seleucos I when he states that the king granted the politeia to them (C. Ap., 2.39; A.J., 12.119). While the case for the politeia in the sense of full citizenship must be dismissed65 and while no other sources mention the Jews, some reasoning on the subject is still possible. Seleucos founded Antioch in 300 B.C.E. at a critical moment in his rise to power and in the region. When in 312/311 B.C.E. Ptolemy Lagos

62 To this day, the reference work on Antioch still remains G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961); a more recent cataloguing of sources and literature, with commentary, is in G. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa (Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 2006), 80–93. 63 The sources emphasize the role of Antioch as the original capital of the kingdom, but external evidence, especially coins, suggest that Seleucia was Seleucos I capital: Downey, Antioch, 57–66. 64 It is not clear whether Seleucos destroyed Antigoneia, as Diodorus states in the same passage, for Dio, 40.29 states that the city was still in existence in 51 B.C.E. (Dio, however, does not disclose the city’s condition). 65 See Downey, Antioch, 79–80; on the ambiguity of this term in Josephus’ work see Barclay, Apion, 189. It is difficult to follow Josephus on his use of politeia; his statement that Antiochos IV Epiphanes’ successors gave the Jews the right to live freely in Antioch (B.J., 7.43), again casts doubt on his credibility.

236

chapter ten

invaded Coele-Syria for the first time, Seleucos was in his retinue and on that occasion could recover his satrapy of Babylon from Antigonos. When Ptolemy had to withdraw under Demetrios’ military pressure, he deported scores of Jews from Judaea, Samaria and the region around Jerusalem to Egypt. When in 301 B.C.E. Seleucos faced and defeated Antigonos at Ispos, Ptolemy invaded the south of Coele-Syria again for the last time. This also included the treacherous conquest of Jerusalem (Satrap stela, ll. 4–5; Diod., 19.93, 7; 20.113, 1; Jos., A.J., 12.7; Agath., F.Gr.Hist. 86 F 20; Let. Arist., 12).66 The Jews found themselves in the middle and must have played a role in all of these phases, not only as the victims of Ptolemy’s wrath, but also among the supporters and servants of Seleucos. Jews must have been among the military contingent that formed Seleucos’ army when he left Ptolemy and headed to conquer the Babylonian satrapy in 312 B.C.E. There Seleucos might also have found veteran Jews from the time of Alexander’s conquest. Those among Seleucos’ veterans who peopled the newly-founded Antioch could well have included Jews. In 300 B.C.E., when Seleucos founded Antioch, Ptolemy had just retaken the south of Coele-Syria and Jerusalem. The Jews must not have been well disposed towards him, given the way that he took the city and mindful of the mass deportation of ten years earlier; groups of civilian Jews could have preferred to pass the curtain and go north to Seleucos, formerly Ptolemy’s protégé, but now his bitter rival. The group of the oikēteroi could have included not only local people who found themselves haphazardly involved in the foundation of Antioch, but also Jewish colonizers.67

66 See discussion on the sources and the chronology of Ptolemy Lagos’s Syrian campaigns at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. in Gambetti, “Jewish Community,” 219–221. 67 G. Downey, “Strabo on Antioch: Notes on his Method,” TAPA 62 (1941): 85–95 speaks of local Aramaic-speaking people; later followed by S. Sherwin-White and A. Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis. A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire (Berkeley–Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993), 169. Downey, Antioch, 79–80 more specifically refers to Jewish soldiers. The word oiketeron generally means “inhabitants,” but in Thucydides, when used in connection with the foundation of new cities, it certainly means “colonizer (1.2, 3; 23,2; 26, 1–3);” these cases are lexically and circumstantially very similar to the one of Antioch. Differently Cohen, Seleucid Colonies, 39, who holds that these people arrived later, and J.D. Grainger, The Cities of Seleukid Syria (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 98, who holds that they were Greeks and Macedonians.


237

Philo may be making a silent allusion to Antioch and to the early presence of the Jews there when he states that some Jews arrived in the cities at the time of the foundation as colonizers at the pleasure of the founders; Philo uses the plural enias ktizomenas (Flacc., 46). This is important to observe, especially in the light of available data on the presence of diaspora Jews around the Mediterranean. At the time of Philo, Jews are attested in very many cities outside of Judaea, but not in relatively recent Hellenistic colonizations;68 thus, it is possible to consider Jewish migration but not colonization. The only places worthy of discussion remain Alexandria and Antioch.69 The location of the passage in Philo’s narrative just before Flaccus’ edict, may suggest that the Jews of Antioch were running the same risks as the Alexandrians in 38 C.E. If this were the case, then a very disputed and disputable piece of evidence must be considered in this discussion. John Malalas reports of incidents in Antioch during the reign of Gaius, whereby the Greeks attacked the Jews (Chron., 10.244, 22–245, 2).70 Malalas, who does not provide a definite chronological frame, seems to conflate in a very confusing narrative this otherwise unknown episode in Antioch with a Jewish uprising in 39–40 C.E. If Malalas’ sole evidence is too little to make a case,71 when put together with all the other pieces of evidence, which are also certainly far from being conclusive, it may nonetheless provide some reasons to believe that something similar to what happened to the Alexandrian Jews in 38 C.E. also happened to the Jews of Antioch in the same period and for similar reasons,72 probably also triggered by Gaius’ introduction of his personal cult. It is plausible, then, that Josephus paired Syria with

68

See map in Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, at the beginning of the volume. There may also be the case of the Jews that Antiochos III deported to Magnesia (Jos., A.J., 12.149–153) [J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 63; 267] which could be considered a refoundation of part of the city by the Jewish colony; however, see Cohen, Settlements Syria, 428–431, where Magnesia is not listed among the re-foundations, but 433, where population transfers (Jewish colonies in Lydia and Frigia in particular, though not very many cases are attested) are considered a factor in the Hellenistic foundation of colonies. 70 6th cent. C.E.: translations in M. Spinka and G. Downey, Chronicle of John Malalas, books VIII–XVIII; Translated from the Church Slavonic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940) and E. Jeffreys, et al., The Chronicle of John Malalas; an English Translation (Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1986). 71 On the difficulties associated with interpreting the writings of Malalas, see Downey, Antioch, 38–40. 72 Singerland, Claudian Policimaking, 82–83 and notes. 69

238

chapter ten

Alexandria in the introduction to the edict because he was aware that something had happened in Antioch as well. However, if Claudius wrote anything to Syria and to Antioch, it is unlikely that he sent any letter or edict addressing the situation of Alexandria and Antioch by the same token. The situation of Alexandria was too peculiar for its solution to be extended to any other place.

CONCLUSIONS In the summer of 35 C.E., the social temperature in Alexandria reached its boiling point when Flaccus made public the lists resulting from the census that he had called two years earlier. Protests against the prefect’s policies and attacks against the Jews followed, closing for them a period of uneasiness and uncertainty, but inaugurating one of certain disaster. The sending of the embassy to Tiberius to denounce the Alexandrians’ aggression and to request that the emperor confirm their civic rights resulted in exactly the opposite outcome. In March 37 C.E., the Alexandrian citizens succeeded in obtaining from emperor Gaius an adjudication that imposed territorial limits on the presence of the Jews in the city. Gaius’ sentence, a decretum, was to be applied later in the Alexandrian courts on a case-by-case basis and under similar circumstances. In 37/38 C.E., Gaius proclaimed his personal cult to the eastern empire, prompting the Alexandrian citizens to introduce it in their city in the summer of 38, not even making an exception for the Jewish cultic places; the meeting-houses were desecrated when not destroyed. Gaius’ mandata to Flaccus in the same summer then transformed his adjudication of one year earlier into a policy affecting most of the Jews collectively. Flaccus made Gaius’ order executive by publishing the mandata in an edict. This affected those Jews who had enjoyed legal residence in the city up to that time, but outside the small part of δ, the original Jewish settlement and location of their Ptolemaic politeuma; they were legally defined as immigrants and foreigners, dislodged from their homes and pushed into that small quarter. To the Jewish ambassadors in Rome in 39 C.E., Gaius confirmed the validity of his cult and changed neither his adjudication of two years prior nor its subsequent application. In 41 C.E., Claudius did recognize the rights of Jewish worship in the small original Jewish quarter. However, he abided by what had been established by Gaius’ adjudication of 37 C.E. and later enforced by Flaccus’ edict of 38 C.E.; he did not restore to all the Jews their civic condition according to the status quo ante, that is, before the summer of 38 C.E., denying them general legal residence in the city at large. *

*

*

240

conclusions

According to the present work, the Alexandrian events of the summer of 38 C.E. were not an extemporaneous explosion of submerged social conflict, exploited by local authorities for the good of their own political capital. They were the final act of a political and administrative situation that had been ripening in the city for decades and that came to be officially solved in 37 and 38 C.E. through judicial and political measures. Both Gaius and Flaccus shared responsibilities according to their institutional role; Gaius introduced a new policy through adjudication that he later ordered to be implemented politically. Flaccus, as the prefect of Egypt, enforced Gaius’ orders. The inquiry of this work points to an urban political struggle over the use of the territory of Alexandria and over its management, originating from the idiosyncratic characteristics of Roman rule on the city. The Roman misrule of Alexandria can be summarized in three main points: a) failing to recognize the political and civic role of citizenship; b) privileging politics that favored the interests of central Roman government and disregarding the local one; c) introducing a fiscal policy instrumental to central Roman interests, to a good extent in contradiction with local governance. Such a situation produced a chemistry that was highly damaging to the Alexandrian Jews; initially granted legal residence on a collective basis according to a political grant of the Roman government, part of them saw their rights of residence questioned and jeopardized as the result of the application of the census procedure. Decades of disputes over this subject ultimately produced the accusation of illegitimate appropriation of part of the city’s territory against many of the Jews. Central to this explanation is P. Yale II 107, a document never previously connected to the riots. The political transformation that the Romans imposed onto Alexandria from the beginning of their domination of Egypt, then, is the background and basis of the problems of the summer of 38 C.E. Having sided with the Ptolemies in all the phases of the Roman intrusion into Egyptian affairs, already since Caesar, and then with Octavian, Alexandria became a civitas dediticia and, as such, received its comeuppance. For the citizens, the obliteration of the city’s civic institutions, with the exception of a gerousia with honorary duties, meant being excluded from every decision-making process regarding their own city; the Alexandrian citizenship was maintained, but it had no political meaning. The only privilege for the Alexandrian citizens was tax and liturgies exemption. With the exception of the dismantlement of the Alexandrian garrison that the Jews had manned in Ptolemaic times, Roman rule did not bring

conclusions

241

to them any substantial change. The Roman military reform dismantled the military, which politeuma basis of the was now an all-civilian civic institution. The Romans confirmed the Jews’ rights of residence and religious autonomy and the Jews agreed to collectively take care of those canal liturgies for which the garrison had been responsible in the past. Most important of all, as legal residents, the Alexandrian Jews were not subject to the poll-tax. Augustus’ substitution of the Jewish ethnarch with a gerousia may well have been an interference into Jewish affairs, even if Philo does not admit it and Josephus protests against such a notion. Augustus had privileged the gerousia in many other cities of the east and his intervention into the Alexandrian Jewish community in 12 B.C.E. must be read as a means of homogenizing the structure of local communities for the sake of better administration, that is, easier Roman control. From an institutional point of view, the Jewish community was now equivalent and parallel to the community of the Alexandrian citizens; they had the same institutions, they were submitted to the same taxregimen, they had the same obligations and privileges with respect to judicial matters. The only difference was the liturgies. If this was not a problem for the Jews, who had never claimed any political participation, but only the relative autonomy of their community to the extent of abiding by their monotheistic religion and the laws handed down by their tradition, then it was certainly a demotion for the Greeks who, in the name of the institution of the city-state, expected to have a say in the affairs of the city. Within this frame, they were not involved in any decision related to the status of the inhabitants of the city, something any Hellenistic and later Roman city of the Mediterranean is documented as being able to do, and consequently on tax levying and the finances of the city. The citizens’ frustration is certainly documented by repeated requests to have the boulē reintroduced with the goal of controlling the demographic composition of the body politic and of the gymnasium membership, requests that the Julio-Claudian emperors denied with regularity. Alexandrian politics was the domain of the emperor’s decision-making and of the prefect’s enforcement. Part of the citizens’ frustration focused on the Jews, who were not citizens, but only residents, and whose privileged tax status was the emperor’s grant. The Roman tax administration, by questioning residence and attaching tax privileges on an individual basis—case in point, Helenos’ petition in 5/4 B.C.E.—gave ammunition to the Alexandrians’ complaints. The problem seems not to have been limited

242

conclusions

to sporadic cases; Josephus’ reference to private Jewish documents attesting Ptolemaic privileges that now had no legal value because they missed Roman public ratification speaks of a problem that goes beyond the possible individual usurpation of civic rights. This is not a sign of illegal practice on the part of some Jew, but is evidence of the idiosyncratic functioning of the Roman administration in the process of granting collective privileges, whereby particular individual cases had not received the necessary screening and evaluation. The cases of the asylia of some temples of Asia Minor and the Aegean in 23 C.E. are interesting parallels; rights that had never been questioned in 150 years of Roman rule suddenly came under the scrutiny of the administration. A twist of the situation may have occurred under Sejanus. During the last period of his tenure, when he ultimately substituted the absent, or absent-minded, Tiberius for issues not limited to the city of Rome, Sejanus changed the standard of Roman policy concerning the Jews. Philo’s unclear and, to some extent, probably willingly concealing rhetoric still indicates that Sejanus’ policy was intervening against the status of the members of the Jewish communities in the Roman empire, specifically their religious autonomy, not at the level of individuals, but targeting entire groups. Tiberius survived Sejanus for a long enough period to reverse this policy and to reconfirm the status of the Jews collectively, but at the same time to revision it on a case-by-case basis. In 35 C.E., the publication of the latest Alexandrian census lists was the occasion for the outbreak of a protest against Flaccus and his administration of the city, staged in the gymnasium. The actual content of the protest, over which Philo lay a veil of silence, lets surface that the rights of the Jews had been threatened and that Flaccus had authorized their representatives to sail to Rome to petition Tiberius against the Alexandrians. The process of examination and of acceptance of the case by the imperial court took a very long time and eighteen months later, on the verge of the expiration of the trial statute of limitation, the Roman administration finally summoned the ambassadors of the Alexandrians as defendants to give the case its due course. Unfortunately, Tiberius’ death in those very days killed the case. Gaius was now the judge and a new trial had to be instructed before him immediately. This gave the Alexandrians a strong advantage; Gaius accepted the processual exception that they submitted to him, resulting in a reversal of the case in their favor, which they eventually won. Gaius endorsed the Alexandrians’ request and confirmed that the status of

conclusions

243

the Jews was not to be determined collectively, but on the basis of the territory where they initially and historically had had their privileges granted. The rights of the Jews in Alexandria were now territorial and not personal. Gaius’ adjudication deserves some comments. He was very young, in his early twenties, and there is no evidence that he had ever held any office other than that of the quaestor. His knowledge of the law was probably the result of the years of study that every young aristocrat, certainly any male member of the imperial family, had to undergo. He, however, had no expertise or experience in the practical application of the law or the management of a trial. The trial of March 28, 37 C.E. was likely his judicial christening. Nevertheless, his sentence abided by legal principles. The basic notions that he applied were those of distinguishing immigrants, residents and citizens and their respective territorial associations; beyond the differences in vocabulary, Classical, Greco-Hellenistic and Roman political and legal experiences were acquainted with these notions, to the point that terminological interchangeability was possible among the three legal domains. When Gaius endorsed Areios’ definition of ‘foreigner’ and ‘outside’ and adjudicated accordingly, he did not force any form of Roman ius on a provincial, but applied commonly recognizable and recognized legal notions and principles, namely, that there is a strict connection between territory and status. The usurpation of rights, the charge against the Jews in 37, had been a crime against authority since the times of the introduction of civic distinctions in the early city-states. The Romans were accustomed to this as well and later included it under the omni-comprehensive umbrella of crimen maiestatis. Augustus and Tiberius certainly were aware of this, but never acted as drastically as Gaius did. The question then becomes: why did Gaius depart so abruptly from the policies of Augustus and Tiberius? Philo, who does not acknowledge the trial, accuses Gaius of explicit anti-Jewish sentiments due to the influence of Egyptian members of his court, mainly servants of some rank. Gaius’ decision to apply the penalty of fire may be connected to Ptolemaic Egyptian ceremonial practices against the Typhonians; the link between the Jews and the Typhonians is certainly attested in Egyptian popular culture. Was Egyptophilia already working in Gaius’ mind, the best example of which would be his adoption of Egyptian religious and cultural symbols in the construction of his divine persona? Was Gaius’ religious passion a valid component of his decision to disregard the precedents that his predecessors had

244

conclusions

established and to ultimately adjudicate against the Jews? Had the Alexandrians found a soft spot in Gaius’ cultural inclinations that complemented his already positive attitude towards their city, which he likely cultivated in memory of his father and his paternal ancestors? It is difficult to articulate a positive or a negative answer and to substantiate either one with evidence outside Philo’s open contempt towards Gaius, but this possibility should not be completely rejected. At the end of July/beginning of August of 38 C.E., Agrippa arrived in Alexandria with Gaius’ mandata that made executive Flaccus’ second appointment as the prefect of Alexandria and Egypt. The riots against the Jews began when Gaius’ ruler cult, communications of which Agrippa had likely delivered to the Alexandrians and their gerousia, was imposed upon the entire territory of the city with no exceptions. The Jews’ concrete and probably armed reaction in defense of their religious rights and their meeting-houses resulted in a summons to Rome in the winter of 38/39 C.E. as defendants for failing to recognize the emperor’s divinity. Apart from his plain disregard of the iustitium for Drusilla, which eventually cost him his life, Flaccus acted appropriately in 38 C.E. He initially received Gaius’ letter containing his adjudication and applied that ruling in court in the spring. When Agrippa delivered Gaius’ mandata to him, he published them in an edict (at least the item concerning the Jews), thus, transforming Gaius’ adjudication into policy. He then allowed the law to run its course. This meant compelling the Jews who lived in most parts of the city into a small part of δ and the pillaging, destruction, and sale of their property; allowing Alexandria’s inhabitants to hunt those Jews who did not abide by the edict and to punish them accordingly; trying the Jewish notables and inflicting on them the most common penalties, even in a spectacular setting. The Alexandrian legal procedure, modeled on classical Athenian law, permitted all of this. Flaccus’ edict concerned immigration. Just as the Jewish plaintiff was accused in 37 C.E. of usurping civic rights because his residence was registered ‘outside,’ so, too, did the Jews living outside the small part of δ in 38 C.E. become foreigners, immigrants and usurpers of civic rights. The notion of immigration makes no chronological distinction but only territorial. The edict targeted all of the Jews living outside of δ, with no regard for the date of their arrival in Alexandria; it is clear that the date was, in fact, irrelevant. The Jewish ambassador who died by fire in 37 C.E. in Rome must have been a conspicuous figure within

conclusions

245

the Jewish community if he had been selected for that role; this was likely the case as well for the members of the Jewish gerousia who had been arrested by Flaccus in 38 C.E. All of them belonged to the Jewish aristocracy, their prestige was likely substantiated by their long residence in Alexandria, and they all lived ‘outside.’ Thus, it was not matter of recent Jewish immigration to Alexandria, let us say, in the aftermath of the Judaean problems in the late 20s/early 30s (although its existence must be part of the scenario). It was immigration tout court that location, and not time, now defined. The Alexandrians were clearly the victors. In 37 C.E., they had for the first time an emperor receiving their complaints, endorsing them, and giving them due course, initially only legally, but later also politically. This was an important achievement for them, after decades of imperial rejection of any of their attempts to be included in the decision-making process of the administration of their city. The other significant victory was the participation of the gymnasium in the enforcement of the edict. Flaccus had agreed to it, likely simply seconding it in the presence of the imperial seal on the political promotion of the Alexandrians. This also tasted of revenge, after Flaccus had cancelled in 35 C.E. the private associations from the territory of Alexandria, the privileged environment for political activity in the city. There is no evidence to confirm that the ‘promotion’ of the Alexandrians was due to the reintroduction of the associations, something that Gaius had done for the Roman ones. Nonetheless, the Alexandrians were reasserting their power within the city; the gymnasium patrolled the small part of δ, in accordance with the military/police role that their counterparts had played in other cities during the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Isidoros certainly stood out and the success of the Alexandrians was largely the outcome of his personal achievements. During his exile in Rome, Isidoros managed to climb to the top of the social ladder and to become one of Gaius’ close acquaintances and amicus. In this capacity, he managed the Alexandrians’ business from Rome and was instrumental in crafting Gaius’ adjudication against the Jews in 37 C.E. When he returned to Alexandria in 38 C.E., with strong imperial support, he had Flaccus—who had obliterated the base of political activity and opposition in Alexandria by suppressing the clubs, of which Isidoros was the undisputed leader, whose policy Isidoros had contested and whose judicial power he had avoided through his voluntary departure from the city—firmly under his control. Regardless of whether or not the clubs could resume their activity, Isidoros, over-confident because

246

conclusions

of his imperial acquaintance, could now negotiate his own role in the city, as well as that of the Alexandrians, with the prefect, whose personal relationship with Gaius was all but reassuring. Isidoros’ spring, however, would be short-lived; Claudius would not be so well-disposed towards him and imperial orders would bring about his own death only three years later. The Alexandrians’ political fate would not be as drastic, but their ascending came, faded and disappeared very quickly. In 41 C.E., Claudius would treat them with dignified respect, but would again deny them of the boulē, the natural and final accomplishment for the completion of their political emancipation. Claudius himself, and not the Alexandrians, was in charge of the city. It is impossible to find even a faint spark of optimism in the situation in which the Jews found themselves not only in 37 C.E., but also in the following years. To begin with, everything went wrong, particularly because the new emperor, Gaius, changed the course of imperial policy by adjudication. They could not appeal and their case could not be retried. They did not have an advocate of sufficient standing to work for them in Rome. Even Agrippa, whose personal friendship with Gaius put him in an apparently pivotal role to halt the emperor’s infamous attempt to erect a statue of himself in the Temple, did not have enough power to discuss the Alexandrian problems with Gaius. If Agrippa had delivered to Gaius the supplication that the Jews had given to him in 38 C.E., then the emperor certainly did not acknowledge it. If he had exerted himself in other efforts, then the silence of the sources suggests that he was unmentionably unsuccessful. His political fortunes, on the other hand, with the extension of his kingdom thanks to Gaius’ grants, suggest that he did not annoy the emperor too much. The only clear position that he took when Claudius dealt with the Alexandrian situation was to take a stand against Isidoros’ statement on the Jews’ tax status—no emperor had ever asked them to pay taxes, he said. Then, at least according to Josephus, together with another Herodian crowned head, he solicited from the emperor a resolution for the Jews of Syria, who were also apparently victim to the frenzy for Gaius’ cult and too close to home to remain unsolved. Alexandria, on the other hand, seems never to have been among his top priorities. Gaius did not modify his Jewish policy for Alexandria in 39 C.E. when the Jews were summoned as defendants accused by the Alexandrians of not recognizing Gaius’ godhead. He confirmed that he wished to be considered a god and refused to rediscuss the Jewish politeia. What the Jews obtained from Claudius in 41 C.E. was minimal; if

conclusions

247

their ethē reacquired the official recognition of the imperial authority, galvanized by the cancellation of Gaius’ ruler cult, they would experience the concrete benefits only in the small part of δ (only there they could reopen their meeting-houses). For the rest, Claudius abided by Gaius’ adjudication and Flaccus’ edict. The Jews remained amassed in the small part of δ, becoming an easy target for the legion of Tiberius Iulius Alexander in 66 C.E. It is worth spending some extra words on Claudius’ Letter. Claudius stated that Augustus was the cornerstone for Alexandrian policy. To the Alexandrians, he confirmed the rights and privileges that the Ptolemies had granted them, so long as Augustus had ratified them as well. In this, Claudius reiterated the principle that Tiberius had introduced years before, that is, recognizing the beneficia only if a previous Roman official had done the same to the same people. However, Claudius had to receive the changes in Roman policies that Gaius had introduced with his adjudication of 37 C.E. Gaius’ ruling had partially modified Augustus’ initial grant to the Jews; thus, in accordance with the same Tiberian principle, Claudius was compelled to divide his opinion on the Jewish situation into two parts. As Augustus had affirmed the recognition of the Jewish ethē in δ, Claudius could reconfirm this; however, for the rest, Claudius could not and did not mention Augustus as his political referent, simply because by adjudication against the Jews in 37 C.E. Gaius had stated that Augustus was no longer the political referent in regards to the Jews outside of δ. The Letter depicts a situation already known for Alexandria from other sources, though not always clearly. There was certainly a problem in Alexandria concerning intrusions with respect to gymnasium membership, against which Claudius took a strong stand. This closely recalls the content of the boulē papyrus, where the Alexandrians submitted the same problem to Augustus. In neither case, however, is there evidence that the Jews were involved in this problem in any way. By no means was Claudius’ admonition to the Jewish disturbance of the gymnasium ceremonies connected to this. It is now possible to specifically address some of the issues that have been the object of scholarly discussion. These events are first and foremost about political power and the imposition of the laographia, the most important status marker in Egypt and Alexandria, over which only Roman officials had authority. Isidoros and Agrippa made this point very clearly when they debated before Claudius: for the one, the Jews should pay the laographia like the Egyptians; for the other, no

248

conclusions

Roman authority had ever asked them to do so. Flaccus’ edict, based on Gaius’ adjudication, gave the Alexandrians a great victory in terms of territorial control; those Jews who were ineligible for resident status in most of Alexandria were expelled. It is not clear, however, whether the Alexandrians also cashed the asset of the laographia. If Agrippa could state in the presence of Claudius in 41 C.E. that nobody had ever asked the Jews to pay it, then there is reason to believe that nothing had change at the fiscal level by that point in time. This may have been due to two factors. Flaccus’ edict gave the small part of δ a well-defined territorial identity. This part of Alexandria was off limits for the gymnasium people who were patrolling it in 38 C.E. and, as Claudius ruled in the Letter, their intrusion into the meetinghouses to erect images had been illegitimate and illegal. Therefore, the Jews who had legal residence in δ were unaffected; if they had never paid the laographia before, then there was no reason for them to start paying it now. Not as clear is the situation of the other Jews, those who had originally lived outside of δ. The dynamic on the ground in 38 C.E. demonstrates that δ made them physically untouchable, but were they also fiscally so? Was δ a tax haven for them as well? Theoretically, this is difficult to accept, for the Roman fiscal machine must have reckoned that they had been demoted to foreigners and immigrants. It may be, however, that in less than three years (the time period between their expulsion and Agrippa’s statement), the Roman fiscal machine, which worked on the basis of a complete cycle of fourteen years, had not yet proceeded to the actual imposition, even though the status demotion had been reckoned. The complete lack of papyrological documentation from Alexandria and the general silence of the written sources—even Philo does not go beyond the period 38–41 C.E.—aggravate the already difficult task of providing an answer to this question or reaching any conclusion. It is possible to make a firm statement concerning the other main points of discussion already introduced in the Introduction. There is no evidence, allusion, external hint, or context of any kind to support the idea that citizenship, either held, lost, or sought after, was ever a problem in 38–41 C.E. Nor does it seems that the Jewish politeia was intended to be equal to the Alexandrian citizenship. If the Alexandrian citizenship was mostly void of political meaning during the Roman period, it was because the Romans emptied it. The events of 38 C.E. demonstrate that the citizens were able to reacquire a part of their prerogatives under particular circumstances. There was no double

conclusions

249

citizenship system in Alexandria. There was one system of citizenship and the Jewish politeia was second tier. The political interpretation offered by the present work is not an alternative to the identitary reading of the events; rather, cultural and religious frictions aggravated the already highly critical situation of the Jews. History and folk tradition had repeatedly tested the odds of Egyptian and Jewish cultures and the political clashes of the Roman period had simply rekindled a fire that had never been quenched. There was reciprocal suspicion, if not open enmity, between the Jews and all those who had adopted the Egyptian culture in all its aspects. The social aspects of the riots are very articulated. It is not possible to draw a clear ethnic, cultural or political distinction between Greeks and Egyptians. More than ever, the demographic reality in Alexandria at that time was mixed. Nor should participation in the riots be limited to inhabitants of Alexandria; the peak of the flood had pushed many more people from the country to the city. Under those circumstances, Egyptian oral culture and folklore, the patrimony of a multitude deprived of cultural barriers, found a most conducive environment for fermentation. Were those stories useful for the attack on the Jews? Yes; it must have been easy to use those stories and these crowds against the Jews for the political advantage of the Alexandrians. Were these stories determinant for the identification of the Jews as the Alexandrians’ political target? No. The Alexandrians wished to recover an active political role in their city and they would have targeted any group who, in their view, had usurped civic rights to the detriment of their political standing in Alexandria. The Alexandrians had identified their enemies on the political level—the jews. This is the core of the events; culture and ethnicity were simply corollaries. What then of Philo? All that he says is true. It is true that Flaccus was contested in 35 C.E., that he would not allow the Jews to travel to Rome in 37 C.E., that he did not send their decree, that he was concerned about his future and his life, that he adjudicated against the Jews in 38 C.E., that he met the Alexandrians, that Agrippa showed off in full pomp, that Flaccus issued an edict against the Jews and that he allowed the Alexandrians to attack the Jews unchecked. The explanations that Philo provides, however, are disputable. It is not true that Flaccus sold the Jews to the Alexandrians for the sake of his own safety, that he failed to send the Jewish decree to Rome simply to portray them negatively, that Agrippa’s shows were meant

250

conclusions

to provoke Flaccus to envy, that Flaccus issued the edict in order to fulfill his agreement with the Alexandrians, or that he allowed them to attack the Jews for the same reason. The silences found throughout Philo’s writings are serious omissions—the reason for the gymnasium upheaval in 35 C.E., for Flaccus’ sure refusal to issue the visa to the Jews in 37 C.E., for Flaccus’ adjudications in 38 C.E., for Agrippa’s stop in Alexandria, for the issuing of the edict. There are, however, significant allusions—Flaccus’ policy before and in 35 C.E. were certainly pro-Jewish, the Jews knew that Flaccus could not issue their visa in 37 C.E., the Jewish internal distinction between colonizers and latecomers was at stake in 38 C.E. None of this is casual; the reasons for Philo’s selectiveness and misleading reports coincide with those generally submitted concerning the inconsistencies between In Flaccum and Legatio and their respective dates of publication. The date of publication of In Flaccum and Legatio can be discussed only on the basis of internal evidence and external contextualization. Thus far, scholars have submitted that Gaius’ death should be the chronological watershed: In Flaccum openly accuses Flaccus and not Gaius and Legatio Gaius and not Flaccus. Philo wrote In Flaccum when Gaius was still living, but Flaccus already arrested, if not executed, and Legatio after the emperor’s death. This basic frame must remain and can be further substantiated. It is easy to comment on Philo’s accusations against Flaccus. After the prefect’s arrest and exile by Gaius’ orders, no one was interested in defending him, much less attacking those who wished to put him in further disrepute in writing—Philo, in this case. After his arrest in the fall of 38 C.E., Flaccus became a free target; his personality and personal history, rather than his political duties and accomplishments could be used and misrepresented. Philo exploited these circumstances in full, crafting a frame in which the prefect, desperate to save himself from Gaius’ wrath, betrayed the Jews to their enemies without any hesitation. His deserved and providential end—arrest, exile and death—corroborate this construct. Philo could certainly not speak disparagingly of Gaius’ adjudication in 37 C.E. while Gaius was still alive. It would have been legally useless and personally dangerous as a direct attack upon the Roman empire in the person of the emperor; he himself would have incurred charges of maiestas. This is the reason why he does not openly mention any of the facts directly or indirectly connected with the causes

conclusions

251

of the trial in 37 C.E. and its aftermath. He tells only half the story of the upheaval of 35 C.E., not accidentally the events leading to Isidoros’ exile, and presents Flaccus’ edict of 38 C.E. as emerging ex nihilo. For this same reason, he describes Agrippa’s arrival as a secret and focuses on his mocking in the gymnasium, an unpleasant event, but completely inconsequential in itself. Agrippa, the most important and influential Jew of the Mediterranean was an embarrassment, if not a liability. It was he who brought the ruin of the Jews to Alexandria in the form of the mandata by which Gaius officially confirmed Flaccus’ second term, though he was certainly unaware of this at the time and did so unwillingly. The real consequences started soon after when Gaius’ cult received indiscriminate application, but especially when Flaccus published some or all of the capita mandatorum in the edictal form, for one of them was about the Jews. It is possible to suggest a more precise date of composition for Legatio: Philo wrote it not only after Gaius’ death, but also after the publication of Claudius’ Letter. Indeed, the content of Legatio corresponds exactly to the outcome of Claudius’ decisions of 41 C.E. On that occasion, the emperor recognized the ethē to the Jews of δ, but did not address their dikaia, which were never legally affected. He did not wish to have anything to do with the other Jews and their problems and precisely abided by Flaccus’ edict and Gaius’ adjudication that prompted it. Legatio, all scholars have pointed out, is about Gaius and his own cult, his responsibility for the ruin of all the Jews, but not specifically that of the Alexandrian Jews and their misfortunes of 38 C.E., to which Philo reserved only a few passages. The report of the embassy of 39 C.E. to Gaius is also reduced to only a few pages. It is understandable why Philo now accused Gaius and his cult so openly; Gaius was dead and, among his first acts as emperor, Claudius had cancelled his cult. Not as clear is why so little attention is devoted to the Alexandrian Jews in 38 C.E. At a careful reading, however, Legatio primarily reports the series of events of 38 C.E. concerning the Jews of δ being invaded by their fellows who had been expelled from the rest of the city, when the Alexandrians also erected a rusty statue dragged from the gymnasium in their main meeting-houses. Philo limits his report in Legatio to the ethē in δ, the exact limit that Claudius had set to his reconsideration of the Alexandrian situation. Since Claudius had upheld Flaccus’ edict and Gaius’ adjudication, Philo could not mention them and attribute to them the cause of the Jews’ problems. Flaccus could no longer be held responsible for anything

252

conclusions

and Gaius was now the only possible villain. Since Claudius could not and did not reject Gaius’ Alexandrian policy, however, to attack him would have been tantamount to attacking Claudius. Had Philo made negative comments against the edict, he would have run the same risks after 41 C.E. as he did before. Nor could Philo, either in In Flaccum or in Legatio, speak in any way about the politeuma; the mere mention of it would have meant acknowledging its historical foundation and giving credit to the principle that had condemned the Jews. The safest strategies now were selectivity in regards to topics—Gaius’ cult and the ethē in δ—and silence.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX ONE

THE CHRONOLOGY Table 1: The chronology of the riots. Source

What

When

Acta Fratrum Arvalium; Rome Sue., Gai., 41,1; Dio, 59.3,1–2 Jos., A.J., 18.237; B.J., Rome 2.181; Philo, Flacc., 25 Dio, 59.7, 9 Rome

Gaius emperor

March 18–28, 37

Agrippa king

Dio, 59.3; 8, 1ff.; Sue., Gai., 23, 3; Philo, Legat., 23ff. Dio, 59.8, 4ff.; Philo, Legat., 62ff. Dio., 59.10, 6; Philo, Legat., 32ff. Dio, 59.11, 5; Sue., Gai., 24, 2 Sue., Gai., 24, 2

Rome

Tiberius Gemellus dies

By end of March 37 Middle Sept./ end Oct. End of 37

Rome

Silanus dies

End of 37

Rome

Macro dies

Spring 38

Rome

Drusilla dies

June 10, 38

Rome

Iustitium for Drusilla Iustitium for Drusilla Agrippa arrives in the city

June/July 38

Riots start

End of July– beginning Aug. 38 Aug. 31, 38 Sept./Oct. 38

Cf. Philo, Flacc., 56

Where

Alexandria

Jos., A.J., 18.238; Philo, Alexandria Flacc., 26–27; cf. Pliny, N.H., 2.27, 123–124; 19, 3–4 Philo, Flacc., 41 Alexandria Philo, Flacc., 83 Philo, Flacc., 116

Alexandria Alexandria

Gaius sick

Jews tortured Flaccus arrested

July/Aug. 38 End July/ beginning Aug. 38

256

appendix one The Aftermath of the Riots

The chronology of the aftermath of the Alexandrian disorders is anything but clear in comparison with the few but almost certain pieces of evidence available for the riots themselves. Both the Jews and their opponents sent embassies to Rome. When this happened is a matter of dispute. For the sake of simplicity, scholars may be divided into two main groups. Some hold that the two embassies reached Rome in the winter of 38/39 C.E. and had to wait until Gaius returned from Germany after August of 40 C.E. to be received.1 Others hold that they arrived in the winter of 39/40 C.E., one year after the riots in Alexandria and waited some months for Gaius.2 The issue becomes much more complicated when Gaius’ order to set his statue in the temple of Jerusalem enters the picture. Although Philo and his co-ambassadors heard of it during their mission, and can therefore be considered witnesses, the subject remains historically enigmatic due to the lack of external evidence confirming its occurrence. In practice, there is a circular argument in which the chronology of the embassy and the chronology of the Jerusalem events should determine one another, yet nothing of the chronology of either of these events can be determined with certainty. In such cases, orderly caution is the best strategy. Philo, head of the Jewish delegation (Jos., A.J., 18.259), states that he and his comrades crossed the Mediterranean in the winter (Legat., 190), but he does not specify of which year, nor does he give any other indications concerning the date. The Jews, Philo states, met Gaius for the first time in Rome, but then had to follow him to Puteoli (Legat., 185) in the hopes of being received. The written sources report that Gaius went to Campania three times during his principate: the first time during the iustitium for Drusilla’s death in June/July of 38 C.E. (Dio, 59.11, 5; Sue., Gai., 24, 2); the second after he ended his second consulate at the end of January of 39 C.E. (Dio, 59.13, 7); and the third

1 P.J. Sijpensteijn, “The Legatione ad Gaium,”JJS 15 (1964): 87; C. Salvaterra, “Considerazioni sul progetto di Caligola di visitare l’Italia,” in Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba. Bilancio di un confronto. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Bologna 31 agosto–2 settembre 1987 (eds. L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci; Bologna: CLUEB, 1989), 643 and n. 64–67; Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, II 69; Gruen, Diaspora, 65–66 and n. 84; Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence, 14–17. 2 Not all scholars, though, specify that the Jews had to wait for Gaius to return from Germany: Baldson, Gaius, 134; Smallwood, Legatio, 24; Smallwood, Jews, 243; Barrett, Caligula, 188; Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 173.

the chronology

257

in the late spring/early summer of the same year, when he built the infamous bridge across the Bay of Baiae (Dio, 59.17,1) before returning to Rome in time to commemorate the late Drusilla’s birthday (Dio, 59.11,3), likely to have fallen in the first half of June.3 The sources do not mention Gaius leaving Rome after he returned to the city from Germany in August of 40 C.E.; he was assassinated on January 24 the next year. Thus, Gaius could not have met the Alexandrian Jews for the first time between September 40 and January 41 C.E., since no trip to Campania occurred in that period. June/July 38 C.E. must be ruled out as well, since Alexandria sent no embassy. If the Jewish delegation followed Gaius to Campania, then they did so in the first half of 39 C.E., either early in February or in the late spring/early summer, likely by June.4 Philo comments only that Gaius went back and forth between the many villas he owned in the region. Strangely enough, while the ostentatious construction of the bridge at Baiae occasioned sharp criticism among Gaius’ contemporaries and later opponents, Philo remains silent about it. Josephus states that in that same spring/summer, the tetrarch Antipas came to Puteoli and met Gaius at Baiae (A.J., 18.248–252). Philo’s silence on the episode requires that Josephus be included in the discussion. Josephus reports events of extreme importance that Philo completely overlooks. He begins with king Agrippa’s assumption of the throne in his kingdom in Palestine (A.J., 18.238). Josephus does not state exactly when this took place, but on the basis of In Flaccum, it is reasonable to think that Agrippa left Alexandria for Palestine in early August.5 After his arrival in Palestine, things became heated in the region. Josephus states that Agrippa’s sister Herodias, envious of her brother’s new royal status, pushed her husband, the tetrarch Antipas, to ask the emperor for equal treatment and a royal appointment. Not long afterwards, the couple sailed to Italy to submit the request to the emperor. Agrippa did not sit in contemplation, but sent his freedman Fortunatus after Antipas with a letter for Gaius, charging the tetrarch with treason. Fortunatus reached the emperor first, who was at Baiae, in Campania. Gaius read Agrippa’s letter before meeting Antipas and hearing

3 A.E. Hanson, “Caligula Months-Names in Philadelphia and related matters,” in Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983) (Napoli: Centro per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, 1984), 1111, n. 11. 4 So also Schwartz, Agrippa I, 198, although he does not further elaborate. 5 See above ch. 7.

258

appendix one

his requests and later responded to him with Agrippa’s accusations. Antipas lost his tetrarchy and was exiled to Lyon until the end of his days. Agrippa, who was not present, had Galilee added to his kingdom (Jos., A.J., 18.248).6 Philo mentions neither Antipas nor the expansion of king Agrippa’s kingdom, though he highly praises the king in In Flaccum and in Legatio. The reason for this is that these events were not part of Philo’s experience in Campania. Philo witnessed none of it; he and his co-delegates must have met Gaius in Campania at Puteoli the first time the emperor went south in 39 C.E., after he had resigned his second consulate at the end of January. They first met Gaius a little earlier in Rome late in 38 C.E. or at the beginning of 39 C.E. soon after their arrival. Then they followed Gaius in Campania. But when Gaius returned to Campania and Baiae in the spring that year, the Jewish delegation did not follow him. From this point on, Philo’s sequence of events is difficult to follow. Instead of recounting his and his colleagues’ attempts to meet Gaius, he stops abruptly and describes in detail how he heard of Gaius’ decision to set his statue up in the Temple in Jerusalem. He then presents a long digression on the painful developments of that incident. The way in which Philo proceeds does not assist the reader interested in chronology, as he clearly enriches the report with learned rhetoric and sophisticated wording, so determining ‘what-happened-when’ is difficult at times. In addition to this, a cross-check with Josephus’ report of the same episode is problematic, since Josephus sets the same episode in a different period. To understand how the two writers dealt with this story, the two accounts must be read separately, then compared to outline and discuss the main points of disagreement; only then is an attempt to sketch a chronological reconstruction possible. Thus, we turn first to Philo’s account. The Temple Affair According to Philo In Puteoli, a man, or a group of men, approached the Alexandrian Jewish delegation and told them that Gaius had ordered an image of himself in the likeness of Zeus to be installed in the Sancta Sanctorum of

6

Schwartz, Agrippa I, 56ff.

the chronology

259

Table 2: New data in bold. Source

Where

What

When

Acta Fratrum Arvalium; Sue., Gai., 41,1; Dio, 59.3,1–2 Jos., A.J., 18.237; B.J., 2.181; Philo, Flacc., 25 Dio, 59.7, 9

Rome

Gaius emperor

March 18–28, 37

Rome

Agrippa king

Dio, 59.3; 8, 1ff.; Sue., Gai., 23, 3; Philo, Legat., 23ff. Dio, 59.8, 4ff.; Philo, Legat., 62ff. Dio., 59.10, 6; Philo, Legat., 32ff. Dio, 59.11, 5; Sue., Gai., 24, 2 Sue., Gai., 24, 2

Rome

Rome

By end of March 37 Gaius sick Mid-Sept./end Oct. Tiberius Gemel- End of 37 lus dies

Rome

Silanus dies

End of 37

Rome

Macro dies

Spring 38

Rome

Drusilla dies

June 10, 38

Rome

Iustitium for Drusilla Dio, 59.11, 5; Sue., Gai., Campania Gaius travels 24, 2 alone Cf. Philo, Flacc., 56 Alexandria Iustitium for Drusilla Jos., A.J., 18.238; Philo, Alexandria Agrippa arrives Flacc., 26–27; cf. Pliny, in the city N.H., 2.27, 123–124; 19, 3–4 Philo, Flacc., 41 Alexandria Riots start Philo, Flacc., 83 Philo, Flacc., 116 Philo, Legat., 190

Alexandria Alexandria Rome

Dio., 59.13, 7; Philo, Legat., 185

Campania/ Puteoli

Dio., 59.17, 1; Jos., A.J., Campania/ 18.238–248 Baiae

June/July 38 Jun./Jul. 38 July/Aug. 38 End July/Beginning Aug. 38

End of July– beginning Aug. 38 Jews tortured Aug. 31, 38 Flaccus arrested Sept./Oct. 38 The Jewish Winter 38/39 delegation arrives The Jewish End of Jan. 39 delegates follow Gaius. Gaius meets Late spring/early Antipas. summer (by June)

260

appendix one

the Temple in Jerusalem (Legat., 188).7 The informer then explains how the emperor had reached such a decision; Gaius acted out of revenge after the Jews of Jamneh in Judaea had overthrown an altar that the local gentiles had erected to him (Legat., 198). The emperor learned of these events from Erennius Capito, the tax-procurator of Judaea, who had immediately reported to him by letter (Legat., 199). Philo’s wording is simple and vague all at the same time; it gives no hint of when the order was given, whether the messenger heard of it as soon as it was given or later, and if later, how much later. Gaius’ order placed Petronius, the governor of Syria, in a good deal of difficulty. Despite his awareness of the Jewish opposition that Gaius’ order would incur (Legat., 213ff.), after consulting with his attendants (Legat., 219), he decided to carry out the operation, but tactfully, ordering the statue to be built in Sidon, out of sight of the Jews. At the same time, he summoned the representatives of the Jews in Phoenicia to explain both his orders and his position (Legat., 221–222). Needless to say, he met with firm opposition and despair, resulting in mass demonstrations (Legat., 225–226). The Jews explained their position and asked Petronius to allow them to plead their case before the emperor in Rome (Legat., 239–241). Petronius had a difficult decision to make. After further consultation with his retinue, he decided to delay building the statue, to adopt an ambiguous and temporizing attitude towards the Jews, and to write a letter to Gaius justifying the delay of these matters with a seasonal concern: stricken, the Jews were neglecting their farms just at harvest time in the fields and orchards. This would reduce resources for Gaius’ planned trip to the region (Legat., 248–253 [= letter A]). Gaius’ reaction was utterly negative. He ordered Petronius to have the statue built at once and ridiculed his agricultural concerns (Legat., 259–260 [= letter B]). At this point, Agrippa re-enters. Philo states that not long after Gaius received Petronius’ letter, Agrippa came to Rome to greet the emperor; he knew nothing of the temple affair (Legat., 261). He soon learned of it and was shocked. It took him two days to recover himself and to summon the courage to write a letter asking that Gaius withdraw his orders (Legat., 276–330 [= letter C]). Gaius understood Agrippa’s point

7 [. . .] ἀνδριάντα κολοσσιαῖον ἐσωτάτω τῶν ἀδύτων ἀνατεθῆναι Γάιος προσέταξε ∆ιὸς ἐπίκλησιν αὐτοῦ.

the chronology

261

and position and sent a second letter to Petronius ordering him not to erect the statue in the temple, but to allow people to set up altars to him just outside the city limits undisturbed (Legat., 333–335 [= letter D]). To Philo, this was simply absurd, since it invited gentiles to erect pagan altars on sacred land, giving Gaius yet another reason to punish the Jews. Yet Philo does recognize that nothing of this sort ever happened (Legat., 336). Table A: Philo’s sequence of the temple affair. Source

Where

What

Legat., 198 Legat., 199 Legat., 199 Legat., 219ff.

Jamneh Jamneh Rome Palestine

Legat., 239–241 Legat., 248–253

Palestine Palestine

Legat., 259–260

Rome

Legat., 261 Legat., 276–330

Rome Rome

Legat., 333–335

Rome

Altars of Gaius overthrown Capito sends letter to Gaius Gaius reads letter of Capito Petronius carries out Gaius’ orders Petronius meets the Jews Petronius writes to Gaiusabout postponing the execution of the orders, because the Jews are neglecting the harvest [letter A] Gaius’ first letter to Petronius: hasten the execution of his orders [letter B] Agrippa arrives in town Agrippa’s letter to Gaius [letter C] Gaius’ second letter to Petronius: stop the statue but allow altars [letter D]

When

The Temple Affair According to Josephus Josephus’ treatment of the subject is entirely different. After the report of Antipas’ fate at Baiae, he devotes a few paragraphs to Gaius’ meeting with the Greek and Jewish delegations from Alexandria. Josephus does not state where this took place, but we know from Philo’s account that it occurred in Rome. Josephus states that on this occasion Apion, leader of the Alexandrian Greek faction, charged the Jews—all Jews, not only the Alexandrians—with being the only people in the Roman empire who

262

appendix one

did not dedicate altars and temples to Gaius (A.J., 18.258). Josephus then reports the Temple affair. Because the Jews’ attitude offended the emperor, Gaius sent Petronius to replace Vitellius as governor of Syria and gave him the orders about the Jerusalem Temple (A.J., 18.261). Leaving aside for the moment the causal relation this passage establishes, our focus remains on the chronology. Vitellius was in Jerusalem in Nisan of 37 C.E. to celebrate the Passover, when news of Tiberius’ death and Gaius’ confirmation as emperor arrived. He had the troops swear loyalty to the new ruler in Jerusalem at once (Jos, Ant, 18.124). He was next present on the Syrian Euphrates to sign an agreement with Artabanus of Parthia, according to which the Parthian king would send hostages to Rome. As one of his sons was in Gaius’ retinue at Baiae in the spring of 39 C.E. (Dio, 59.27, 3), Vitellius must have forced the agreement on Artabanus long before, in 38 C.E.8 Vitellius then disappears from the record, leaving room for Petronius who, as governor of Syria, is mentioned in connection with the Temple affair both by Philo and by Josephus. When Petronius was appointed governor and went to Syria is not attested; according to the layout of Josephus’ account, Gaius sent him to Syria soon after he heard the Alexandrian embassies. Josephus’ story of the temple affair is very detailed. According to him, Petronius and Gaius exchanged letters before the former acted to fulfill the emperor’s orders (A.J., 18.262). Petronius decided first to move with two legions to Ptolemais to spend the winter (A.J., 18.262). This is an important datum for the chronological setting, since it puts Petronius’ initial move in the summer or early fall. In Ptolemais, the governor of Syria immediately encountered strong Jewish opposition (A.J., 18.263). He left the army there and went with a few attendants to Tiberias to sound the atmosphere there and found it to be the same (A.J., 18.269ff.).

8 Josephus includes these events under the reign of Tiberius (A.J., 18.102); scholars’ questioning of this chronology and of the possibility that the agreement took place under Gaius is summarized in L.H. Feldman’s note d to the passage in his edition of Loeb [L.H. Feldman, Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Books XVIII–XIX. (Cambridge– London: Harvard University Press, 1965)]; cf. Gatti, “Culto imperiale,” 164, who inclines for a date in 39 C.E.

the chronology

263

For approximately forty days,9 the Jews manifested their concerns and intent to oppose Gaius’ order by any means. Their reaction, Josephus states, also worried Petronius from the point of view of the regional economy, since it was sowing season and the Jews were neglecting the fields (A.J., 18.272). The only Jewish notable that Josephus involves in the situation is Aristobulos, king Agrippa’s brother, who met Petronius and asked him not to carry out Gaius’ order. Apparently, Aristobulos was convincing; Petronius summoned the Jews, told them that he would abandon the initial plan and, at the same time, sent a letter to the emperor explaining his decision (A.J., 18.273–279 [= letter A1]). At this point in Josephus’ report, the action shifts from Palestine to Rome, where Agrippa attempted to convince Gaius to withdraw his decision. The king offered the emperor a lavish dinner party, which obligated Gaius to him. The emperor consented to the king’s request and canceled the order. Gaius, who had not yet received Petronius’ letter [A1], then sent him a call to halt (A.J., 18.289–300 [= letter B1]). Only then did Gaius receive Petronius’ letter, which stated that he could not carry out the emperor’s orders. Gaius saw this as insubordination and wrote back to him with the implied injunction to commit suicide [letter C1], an order invalidated only by Gaius’ assassination in January of 41 C.E. [letter D1], of which Petronius learned just in time (A.J., 18.302–305). Table B: Josephus’ sequence of the Temple affair. Source

Where

What

When

A.J., 18.248

Campania/ Baiae Rome

Gaius meets Fortunatus and Antipas Gaius meets the Alexandrian embassies Petronius sent to Syria with the orders Petronius with two legions to Ptolemais Petronius meets the Jews Petronius with small retinue meets the Jews

Spring/early summer 39

A.J., 18.257 A.J., 18.261 A.J., 18.262

Ptolemais

A.J., 18.263 A.J., 18.269ff.

Ptolemais Tiberias

Summer/early fall 39

9 Jos., A.J., 18.272 has 40 days, B.J., 2.200 has 50 days; a difference of ten days does not jeopardize the general reconstruction.

264

appendix one

Table B (cont.) Source

Where

Idem A.J., 18.272

Palestine

A.J., 18.273–279 Tiberias Idem Tiberias A.J., 18.289 Rome A.J., 18.289–300 Rome Idem Idem

Rome Rome

Idem Idem

Palestine Rome

Idem Idem

Palestine Palestine

What

When

Jews protest for more than 40 days The Jews are neglecting the sowing Petronius meets Aristobulos Petronius to Gaius: abandon the plan [letter A1] Agrippa meets Gaius Gaius to Petronius: interrupt the plan [letter B1] Gaius receives letter A1 Gaius to Petronius: suicide [letter C1] Petronius receives letter B1 Gaius killed; letter D1 sent Jan. 24, 41 to Petronius Petronius receives letter D1 Petronius receives letter C1 After Jan. 41

We can draw a circle around the data collected from Philo and Josephus thus far. Philo states that the Alexandrian Jews heard of Gaius’ order in Puteoli before their final meeting with him in Rome; Josephus states that both Alexandrian embassies met Gaius in Rome after Baiae and, again, that Petronius left Rome with Gaius’ order soon after that meeting. Philo recalls problems in Jamneh, which Josephus seems not to know; Josephus connects the Temple affair with the Alexandrian embassies; Philo locates the Temple affair at the harvest, Josephus at seedtime. Two pictures start to take form, yet blurred and seemingly not coincidental. We are still in the domain of befores and afters and the entire scenario requires further verification, especially on four subjects: the season—whether everything happened at the harvest season, as Philo states, or at seedtime, as Josephus maintains; Agrippa’s movements; the appointment of Petronius; and Jamneh. The Seasons Scholars have proposed several solutions to this problem. Smallwood, who sets everything in early winter 39/40 C.E., prefers Philo’s story, on

the chronology

265

the grounds that he was, to a good extent, an eyewitness. She reconciles Josephus and Philo’s seasonal references, claiming that in Palestine a later summer crop was commonly sown from March to May; in this way Philo’s spring/summer season overlaps with Josephus’ seedtime.10 Bilde finds Philo’s story confused when he mentions the grain harvest and the orchard harvest at the same time—two events that clearly belong to two different seasons.11 Salvaterra, partially accepting Smallwood’s argument, interprets Philo’s harvest passage as an indicator of Petronius’ worry that the unrest in the region might last until the fall, when the fruit ripened.12 An alternative historiographic explanation may find a place here. Both authors write long after the events occurred. Josephus worked on his Antiquitates at the end of the first century C.E., while Philo published his treatise after Claudius’ accession. Geographical remoteness is significant as well. Josephus wrote in Rome; Philo, in Alexandria. Moreover, each has the historiographic perspective of his own experience. Josephus, born in 37/38 C.E., learned of the events from local accounts, including details about the seasons; not only does he report Petronius’ concerns about the sowing, but also a God-sent rainstorm in a time of drought meant to help the Jews (Jos., A.J., 18.285). Josephus would hardly have found this story, whether historical or folkloric, in Rome, but rather in his personal knowledge of the events and from popular traditions. Josephus’ development of the events is more accurate. He specifies names and places, records movements—all from firsthand local information. Philo could not possibly have taken advantage of all of this. He was in Rome early in 39 C.E. and learned there of Gaius’ threat to desecrate the Temple. His account is ambiguous; part of it records the version of the events at Jamneh and the content of Gaius’ order that he heard in Campania; however, the rest of his report goes beyond that emotional moment and is clearly the result of later research; he hardly had access to such information in Puteoli, or in Rome. To be sure, he knew something and tried to craft a passionate, moving story, but the details are problematic. He vaguely locates Petronius’ first move with the

10

E.M. Smallwood, “The Chronology of Gaius’ Attempt to Desecrate the Temple,” Latomus 16 (1957): 7; 9–10. 11 P. Bilde, “The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)’s Attempt to Erect his Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem,” Studia Theologica 32 (1978): 90–91. 12 Salvaterra, “Considerazioni,” 652.

266

appendix one

army in Phoenicia, does not know of his meeting with Aristobulos in Tiberias. He states that Petronius worried about agriculture, but in the spring/summer at harvest time, because his own personal experience of the events is limited to the spring of 39 C.E. in Rome.13 A φάσιν in the middle of his account reveals that he consulted other sources, written or oral (Legat., 223). These circumstances make Josephus’ account and sequence more reliable than Philo’s. Agrippa’s Whereabouts Agrippa’s whereabouts are tied to the aftermath of his assuming the crown. When Antipas went to Rome to claim his royal rights before Gaius, Agrippa was not taken by surprise. As soon as Antipas set sail, he sent his freedman Fortunatus with charges against the tetrarch. Josephus does not specify why he did not go himself, but states that he intended to inform Gaius himself in due time (A.J., 18.247). We know what happened to Antipas: he lost his tetrarchy, was exiled to Lyon, and lost Galilee to Agrippa. All of this must have already taken place when Petronius went to Galilee to test the mood of the Jews there. In Tiberias, he did not find Antipas, who was in Rome and had probably lost his territories already; instead he found Aristobulos, Agrippa’s brother. It may seem strange that the king took no action personally in such an important matter but rather delegated a member of his family. However, it may not seem so strange in light of the fact that Agrippa was no longer in Palestine but on his way to Rome to speak with Gaius about Antipas and where he eventually formally received Galilee. He knew nothing of what was happening in his country, as Philo states (Legat., 261). His brother Aristobulos was the highest official in the region who could interact with the Roman governor. According to Josephus, he succeeded. Agrippa was therefore in Rome in the summer of 39 C.E., when he convinced Gaius to dismiss his plans for the Temple. At the same time, Gaius and Petronius’ letters crossed paths. If everything occurred in the summer of 39 C.E., then why did the effects of the failed exchange of letters between Petronius and Gaius last until the beginning of 41 C.E.? The only possible reason is that in 13 I take therefore Philo’s and Josephus’ accounts to be independent from one another. Not so Schwartz, Agrippa I, 78, who holds that Josephus summarizes Philo’s Legatio.

the chronology

267

the early fall of 39 C.E. Gaius left Rome for Gaul and Germany, to be back in Italy some time in the spring/summer of 40 C.E., and in Rome only on August 31 of the same year. Administrative and judicial activity of the emperors did not stop during military campaign,14 but delay in the delivery of correspondence was certainly common. Gaius likely did not read, or read very late, Petronius’ letter informing him that he could not erect the emperor’s statue in the Temple. If he did, he took no action. Only after he returned from Germany in the late summer of 40 C.E. did Gaius order Petronius to commit suicide. Bad weather kept the fatal letter around the Mediterranean for a month (cf. Jos., A.J., 18.305), and the governor of Syria received it after he learned of Gaius’ death. Philo knows nothing of all of this and Josephus’ account compresses events so that, as often happens in historiography, a whole year vanishes in the space of a few lines. Petronius’ Appointment and the Promulgation of the Order Petronius was certainly in Palestine in the summer of 39 C.E., a conclusion supported by the existence of a provision that Tiberius first enforced, requiring provincial governors to leave Rome in June in time to take their provincial offices by July 1 (Dio, 57.14, 5). It is possible that Petronius’ appointment occurred some time earlier in the spring and that the order to erect Gaius’ statue in the temple was issued at that time, probably included in Petronius’ mandata. Philo heard of the order in Puteoli early in the spring of 39 C.E. and this is probably the best chronological reference that we have. Jamneh Philo knows of Jamneh, but Josephus does not—at least this is what the plain reading of his text reveals. A more critical reading of Josephus’ passage on Gaius’ meeting with the Alexandrian embassies may first establish what he knew and then what he said about it. According to Josephus, Apion, leader of the Alexandrians, charged not only his Alexandrian Jewish opponents, but all Jews subject to Gaius with not paying divine honors to him (Jos., A.J., 18.257); this 14 Millar, Emperor, 229; P. Oxy. XLII 3020 contains Augustus’ reply to an Alexandrian embassy which reached him in Gaul.

268

appendix one

accusation allegedly prompted Gaius’ order concerning the Temple (Jos., A.J., 18.261). Apion juxtaposes the religious attitudes of all the other subjects who dedicate temples and altars to him with the Jews who refused to honor Gaius’ statues or swear by his name. The Alexandrian Jews’ difficulties with Gaius’ cult concerned the images and statues set in their meeting-houses, while the Jews of Jamneh were concerned about the altars that the gentiles had erected on what they considered to be sacred land. Josephus conflates these two episodes in his brief summary of the matters in contention between the Alexandrians and the Jews. He does not specifically mention Jamneh, but he knows of it and overlaps it with what he knows of Alexandria. Therefore, when he states that Gaius ordered his statue to be erected in the Temple because the Jews did not honor him, he confirms Philo’s account of Jamneh. This is chronologically relevant. The sequence of events based on Josephus’ layout concludes that the Temple affair came about after the meeting in Rome. This is likely incorrect; rather, Josephus arranges events in this precise way for the sake of argument, not chronology. His description of the meeting between Gaius and the Alexandrian embassies has Apion charge the Jews with refusing to honor Gaius as a god (A.J., 18.258). The reference to all Jews—all Jews, not just Alexandrian Jews—is the silent evidence that Jamneh is part of the picture, too. Josephus frames his argument to shift attention to the Temple affair by implying that the revolt at Jamneh prompted Gaius’ order (A.J., 18.261). Josephus also knew of Jamneh, but his chronological order should not be trusted. The Temple Affair: Summary It is now possible to create a timeline of the chronology of events in the accounts of Philo and Josephus. Gaius’ issued orders to erect his statue in the Temple in the spring of 39 C.E., allegedly in retaliation for what took place in Jamneh. Gaius must have received Capito’s letter in the spring at the latest; the procurator, anticipating bad weather, must have sent it at least some months earlier. The uproar between Jews and gentiles in Jamneh must have occurred no later than the winter of 38 C.E. After the first meeting with Gaius in Rome, the Jews followed him to Puteoli in Campania and there they learned of Gaius’ plan for the

the chronology

269

temple. Antipas and Agrippa’s freedman Fortunatus met Gaius a few months later at Baiae where the emperor decided the future of the tetrarch and his tetrarchy. Meanwhile in Rome, Petronius prepared to leave for Syria to replace Vitellius, and in Palestine, Agrippa prepared to return to Rome; Agrippa and Petronius never saw each other in 39 C.E. Petronius reached Syria and immediately set about fulfilling Gaius’ orders. He first moved very likely in the middle of the summer, when he marched to Ptolemais with two legions, an operation that lasted until late summer or early fall—in time for the sowing season, in any case—and ended with Petronius’ letter informing the emperor that he could not carry out his orders. While Petronius was in Tiberias meeting the Jews and Aristobulos, Agrippa was in Rome convincing Gaius to quash his plan. Gaius wrote to Petronius, ordering him to stop. Neither received the other’s letter in time. Gaius’ military campaign in the north delayed the definitive close of the episode until the fall-winter of 40/41 C.E., when he died. The Final Meeting With Gaius After the long Temple digression, Philo returns to his main subject, the emperor’s meeting with the two Alexandrian delegations in Rome. He does not specify when the meeting occurred. While the sequence of the account places it after the Temple story, it should be clear by now that the historical chronology rests on a different level. After Puteoli, when they heard about the Temple matter, the Jews left for Rome and did not rejoin Gaius later at Baiae. Gaius returned to Rome in June to celebrate the late Drusilla’s birthday; this is the terminus post quem of the meeting.15 One piece of evidence, however, may undermine this affirmation. During the meeting, the emperor accused the Jews of not sacrificing to him. The Jews denied it, replying that three times they had sacrificed a hecatomb for his safety, the last time for the victory in Germany (Legat., 356).16 Scholars have taken this as definitive evidence that Philo and his colleagues had to be in Alexandria to make the sacrifice when they heard of Gaius’ German campaign in late summer/early fall

15

As it appears also from Josephus’ sequence in A.J., 18.257ff. The two previous occasions may have been at Gaius’ accession in March of 37 C.E. and at his recovery in the fall of the same year. 16

270

appendix one

39 C.E. and could not have set sail to Rome any earlier.17 This argument is not compelling. Historical sources do not agree on the causes of, or the preparations for, the war. For Dio, Gaius decided to go north to make money and his decision to leave was sudden and unexpected (59.21,1–2). Suetonius tells of preparations, although unorthodox, but is vague about the causes of the campaign (Gai., 43). Most recent works downplay the authority of the ancient historians. In fact, a conspiracy against Gaius that extended from Rome to Germany prompted Gaius’ decision to lead a military campaign to the northern provinces. The usual preparations took place and both Dio and Suetonius occasionally allow details of the large number of troops drafted to surface, not the result of an improvisation.18 In addition to this, extant documents reveal that the campaign was likely planned as early as 38 C.E. (CIL VI.811) and was known throughout the empire by 39 C.E. (ILS 8791).19 Subjects could have sacrificed for a German victory any time in 38 or 39 C.E. The Jews could not, however, have performed a hecatomb sacrifice in Alexandria or anywhere else in the diaspora. Animal sacrifice was the exclusive duty of the High Priest in Jerusalem and could take place only within the Temple enclosure. When Philo gave this statement before the emperor, he was not referring to the loyalty of the Alexandrian Jews, but to that of Jews in general.20 Therefore, Jews in the diaspora may have known of the sacrifice no matter where they were. Yet the fact that Philo knew of the sacrifice sets a point in time. He could have mentioned it only before Gaius left for Germany in the early fall of 39 C.E. Josephus’ indication that Gaius met the Alexandrian delegations before Petronius’ departure for Syria becomes more interesting within the frame outlined thus far; in order to take office in his province on July 1, he had to leave Rome some weeks earlier. This is the terminus ante quem of the meeting. The embassies met Gaius on the Alexandrian events of 38 C.E. in Rome in June of 39 C.E.

17

The Alexandrian Jews sacrificed before leaving for Rome for Barrett, Caligula, 187; the same is implicit in Baldson, Gaius, 141. 18 D.W. Hurley, An Historical and Historiographical Commentary on Suetonius’ Life of C. Caligula (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993): 158–160; G. Guastella, Gaio Svetonio Tranquillo. La vita di Caligola (Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1992): 243–244. 19 D. Wardle, Suetonius’ Life of Caligula. A Commentary (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1994): 300. 20 Smallwood, Legatio, 320 ad 356 inclines for the Alexandrian Jews, although she maintains that the place of the sacrifice should be Jerusalem.

the chronology

271

Very likely Roman legal procedure compelled Gaius to meet the Alexandrian delegations before he left for Germany. The Jews had been summoned as defendants for having reacted against the installation of Gaius’ images in their meeting-houses. That event, this work submits, prompted the Alexandrians to go to Rome and lay charges against the Jews. Assuming that August 38 or around that period the Alexandrians submitted the necessary supplication to the emperor, the trial had to take place by February 40 in accordance with the statute of limitation of eighteen months applicable to the adminisration of justice. Since Gaius was about to leave for Germany at the end of the summer of 39, and probably not being sure to be back in Rome by February of the next year, he knew he had to adjudicate this case before his departure. Conclusions Table 3: New data in bold. Source

Where

Acta Fratrum Arva- Rome lium; Sue., Gai., 41,1; Dio, 59.3,1–2 Jos., A.J., 18.237; B.J., Rome 2.181; Philo, Flacc., 25 Dio, 59.7, 9 Rome Dio, 59.3; 8, 1ff.; Sue., Gai., 23, 3; Philo, Legat., 23ff. Dio, 59.8, 4ff.; Philo, Legat., 62ff. Dio., 59.10, 6; Philo, Legat., 32ff. Dio, 59.11, 5; Sue., Gai., 24, 2 Sue., Gai., 24, 2 Dio, 59.11, 5; Sue., Gai., 24, 2 Cf. Philo, Flacc., 56 Jos., A.J., 18.238; Philo, Flacc., 26–27; cf. Pliny, N.H., 2.27, 123–124; 19, 3–4

Rome

What

When

Gaius emperor

March 18–28, 37

Agrippa king

By end of March 37 Gaius sick Middle Sept./end Oct. Tiberius Gemellus End of 37 dies

Rome

Silanus dies

End of 37

Rome

Macro dies

Spring 38

Rome

Drusilla dies

June 10, 38

Rome

Iustitium for June/July 38 Drusilla Gaius travels alone June/July 38

Campania Alexandria Alexandria

Iustitium for Drusilla Agrippa arrives in the city

July/Aug. 38 End of July/beginning of Aug. 38

272

appendix one

Table 3 (cont.) Source

Where

What

When

Philo, Flacc., 41

Alexandria

Riots start

Philo, Flacc., 83 Philo, Flacc., 116 Philo, Legat., 198–199; cf. Jos., A.J., 18.261 Philo, Legat., 190

Alexandria Alexandria Jamneh

Dio., 59.13, 7; Philo, Legat., 185

Campania/ Puteoli

Cf. Philo, Legat., 188–204

Rome

Dio., 59.17, 1; Jos., A.J., 18.238–248

Campania/ Baiae Rome

Jews tortured Flaccus arrested Disorders and letter to Gaius The Alexandrian Jewish delegation arrives The Alexandrian Jewish delegates follow Gaius. Petronius appointed governor of Syria; Temple order issued Gaius meets Antipas Late Drusilla’s birthday; Gaius in Rome Gaius meets the Alexandrian embassies Petronius leaves to Syria Temple affair

End of July/beginning of Aug. 38 Aug. 31, 38 Sept./Oct. 38 Fall/winter 38

Rome

Philo, Legat.; cf. Jos., Rome A.J., 18.258–260 A.J., 18.261; Dio, 57.14, 5 Jos., A.J. 18.272ff.

Rome/ Syria Palestine

Winter 38/39 End of Jan. 39 Spring 39

Late spring/ before June) June June 39 June 39 Summer/early fall

APPENDIX TWO

THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PREFECT OF EGYPT AT THE EMPEROR’S DEATH Although we have no evidence of imperial regulation, under the JulioClaudian emperors (the period to which I am limiting my observations on this subject) there seems in fact to be a chronological correspondence between the accession of the new emperor and the appointment of the prefect of Alexandria and Egypt.1 Due to scanty evidence, the end of Augustus’ reign and the beginning of Tiberius’ require closer investigation. The first documented prefect of Alexandria and Egypt under Tiberius is M. Magius Maximus;2 a series of inscriptions in the first year of Tiberius from Karnak3 saw that he was in office in 14/15 C.E. of the Egyptian calendar (= Aug. 29, 14 through Aug. 28, 15 C.E.; Tiberius became emperor on September 14, 14 C.E.). Maximus is documented in Alexandria already after 11/12 C.E. (SB I 5235, l. 4).4 Philo states that Augustus appointed M. Magius Maximus as prefect of Egypt twice (Flacc., 74)5 and that the emperor ordered him to change the structure

1 Lists of the prefects of Egypt are available in: P.A. Brunt, “The Administrators of Roman Egypt,” JRS 65 (1975): 124–147, P. Bureth, “Le préfet d’Égypte (30 av. J.C.–297 ap. J.C.): état présent de la documentation en 1973,” ANRW II 10.1 (1988): 472–502; G. Bastianini, “Il prefetto d’Egitto (30 a.C.–297 d.C.): addenda (1973–1985),” ANRW II 10.1 (1988): 503–517, an update of G. Bastianini, “Lista dei prefetti d’Egitto dal 30a al 299p,” ZPE 17 (1975): 263–328; J. Schwartz, “Préfets d’Egypte sous Tibère et Caligula,” ZPE 48 (1982): 189–192; Capponi, Augustan Egypt, appendix 1. 2 PIR2 V,2 #89. 3 G. Wagner, “Inscriptions grecques du temple de Karnak,” BIFAO 70 (1971): 21–25. 4 Petition to the prefect Magius Maximus; unfortunately, this document is undated, but the petitioner’s mention of an event which took place on the 25th Pachon of the forty-first year of Augustus = May 25, 11/12 C.E. [T.C. Skeat, The Reign of Augustus in Egypt. Conversion Tables for the Egyptian and Julian Calendars, 30 B.C.–14 A.D. (München: Beck, 1993): 7] represents the terminus post quem for Maximus’ appointment. See Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 183. 5 But see J. Rea, “Five Papyrological Notes on Imperial Prosopography,” Cd’E 43 (1968): 365–374, who, comparing Philo’s with papyrological texts, suggests an emendation of this sentence that would exclude a first appointment. The lack of clarity in scholarly literature partially reflects the puzzle of the sources; see Bureth, “Préfet d’Égypte,” 476, who indicates the two prefectures in 10/11 and 14/15 C.E.; Bastianini, “Lista prefetti,” who indicates 12/14 C.E. for the first one, and 14/15 C.E. for the second

274

appendix two

and administration of Alexandria’s Jewish community when he was about to become prefect of Alexandria and Egypt the second time: [. . .] διὰ τῶν πρὸς Μάγιον Μάξιµον ἐντολῶν µέλλοντα πάλιν [ἀπ’] ᾽Αλεξανδρείας καὶ τῆς χώρας ἐπιτροπεύειν, κτλ.6 [. . .] orders to that effect had been given to Magius Maximus when he was about to take office for the second time as governor of Alexandria and the country [trans. Colson],7 Given Philo’s phrasing, we may assume that the mandata Maximus undoubtedly received before taking office included those instructions. Josephus recalls the same orders as part of one of Claudius’ decrees about the Alexandrian Jews (Jos., A.J., 19.282–285),8 but he attributes their execution to C. Iulius Aquila, prefect in the year 10/11 C.E.9 A little speculation might solve this disagreement. Philo states that Augustus gave orders to Maximus after the death of the genarches, the head of the Alexandrian Jewish community. Now, if Maximus had received the orders just before becoming prefect the second time, then the genarches must have died earlier, that is, while Maximus’ predecessor was still in office. Bastianini tentatively lists Pedo as prefect for the years 11 through 13 C.E., making him predecessor of Maximus and successor of Aquila.10 The evidence supporting Pedo’s prefecture is very weak; a fragmentary line of PSI X 1149 mentions Pedo’s and Maximus’ prefectures as if they were contiguous: ἡγεµονεύσαντων Πεδώνος καὶ Μαξίµου (l. 5). If it is possible that one succeeded the other, then we need not necessarily assume that it happened during Maximus’ second prefecture.11 More likely, therefore, Aquila preceded Maximus, per

one; but Bastianini, “Prefetto d’Egitto,” 504, only indicates one period, from the summer of 14 C.E. to the year 14/15 C.E. 6 The ‘[ἀπ’] ’Αλεξαδρείας’ is Mangey’s emendation; see Cohn and Reiter, Philonis Opera 1915, ad loc. But see Rea, “Imperial Prosopography.” 7 Colson, Philo’s Flaccus, ad loc. 8 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 295–327 for bibliography and commentary. 9 Two inscriptions from Alexandria confirm that he was prefect in the fortieth year of Augustus [ILS II 5797; III 9370; PIR2 IV #165], Bastianini, “Lista prefetti,” 269; Bureth, “Préfet d’Égypte,” 476; Bastianini, “Prefetto d’Egitto,” 504. 10 Bastianini, “Lista prefetti,” 269, n. 1 and 2; Bastianini, “Prefetto d’Egitto,” 504; on both occasions the author recognizes the conjectural nature of Pedo’s prefecture at this time. 11 SB III 7256 records a Q. Fresidius Pedo as epistrategos of the Thebaid in 23 C.E., when Galerius was prefect [PIR2 III #483]. It is not clear if this is the same Pedo of

the replacement of the prefect of egypt

275

Bureth’s list.12 This can explain the disagreement between Philo and Josephus; Josephus confuses the data and attributes the execution of Augustus’s reform to Aquila, when actually only the genarches died under him, probably at the end of his term. Aquila did not enforce the reform of the administration of the Jewish community. Maximus did that when he came to Alexandria, as Philo states. This means that both sources can be retained. Maximus was therefore the last prefect of Alexandria and Egypt whom Augustus appointed (11/12 C.E.) and he remained in office through the beginning of Tiberius’ principate, overseeing the inscriptions we still read in Karnak dated to Tiberius’ first year, the latest evidence for his second office.13 In 15 C.E., a year after his accession, Tiberius appointed C. Galerius prefect of Egypt.14 After Tiberius died, Gaius appointed Flaccus’ successor, Q. Nevius Cordus Sutorius Macro, some time in the winter of 37/38 C.E.; only his imperially ordered suicide prevented him from taking his post (Dio, 59.10,6)15 and allowed Flaccus, the last prefect appointed by Tiberius, to remain in office. Upon Gaius’ assassination on January 24, 41 C.E., Claudius immediately took the imperial seat. In Egypt, Vitrasius Pollio was holding office in Alexandria as Flaccus’ successor since October of 38 C.E. (BGU IV

PSI X 1149; such an identification would entail a reexaminaiton of each one’s prosopography and career in Egypt, as well as a revision of the meaning of ἡγεµονεύω in the latter document. 12 Bureth, “Préfet d’Égypte,” 476. 13 Wagner, “Inscriptions Karnak,” 25; Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 186: 14–15 CE? 14 Bastianini, “Prefetto d’Egitto,” 504. In reality, Galerius is indisputably documented only for the eighth and ninth years of Tiberius (= 22 and 23 C.E.; SB III 7256, V 7738, V 8317); yet, Seneca (Ad Helviam, 19, 4–6) talks about him as having been the prefect of Egypt for sixteen years. Such a long office perfectly fits the gap between Magius Maximus and Hiberus (31/32). The prefecture of L. Seius Strabo for the year 15 C.E., as in Bureth, “Préfet d’Égypte,” 476, and Bastianini, “Lista prefetti,” 270, is not supported by any kind of evidence. He was praetorian prefect in the first year of Tiberius (Tac., Ann., 1.7), and before 19–20 C.E. he was actually sent to Egypt, but we do not know in what capacity (Dio, 57.19, 6). Brunt, “Administrators,” 143, lists A. Aemilius Rectus as successor of Magius Maximus in the year 14 C.E. A first prefecture of Aemilius Rectus in the year 14 C.E., before the one papyrologically documented at the beginning of Claudius’ principate, is attested by Dio (57.10, 5), and is all but certain; see Schwartz, “Préfets d’Egypte,” for an assessment of the data that exclude Rectus’ prefecture under Tiberius. 15 Bastianini, “Prefetto d’Egitto,” 477, 504.

276

appendix two

1078).16 L. Aemilius Rectus, attested prefect since November 10, 41 C.E. (P. Lond., VI 1912, col., i, l. 1), apparently soon replaced him.17 As for the interim between Claudius and Nero, again there is a gap around Claudius’ death on October 13, 54 C.E. The last mention of L. Lucius Geta, the last recorded prefect under Claudius, falls on March 29, 54 C.E., after which evidence disappears until well into 55 C.E., when Nero appointed T. Claudius Balbilius prefect of Egypt (Tac., Ann., 13.11).18 Table 1: * latest evidence Emperor to emperor

Last prefect appointed by previous emperor

First prefect appointed by new emperor

Augustus to Tiberius; Sept. 14 Tiberius to Gaius; Mar. 37 Gaius to Claudius; Jan. 41 Claudius to Nero; Oct. 54

M. Magius Maximus; 11/12 A. Avilius Flaccus; 32

C. Galerius; 15

Q. Naevius Cordus Sutorius Macro; 37/38 Vitrasius Pollio; Apr. 39* L. Aemilius Rectus; Nov. 41 L. Lucius Geta; T. Claudius Balbillius; March 54* 55

Although the interpretation of the data is sometimes problematic, a pattern emerges in which the new emperor appoints a new prefect of Egypt a few months after his accession. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that a policy existed to this effect, but the fiduciary nature of the relation between the power of the emperor and that of the prefect might make the suggestion logically more acceptable.19

16 See Schwartz, “Préfets d’Egypte,” for the correction of Dio’s (58.19, 6) data concerning C. Vitrasius Pollio. His presence in the country is documented also in April 28, 39 C.E. (ILS, III 8899); Bastianini, “Prefetto d’Egitto,” 505. L. Cazzaniga, “Osservazioni sulla successione dei prefetti d’Egitto all’epoca di Tiberio,” AnalPap 4 (1992): 5–19 has rediscussed and reevaluated the prefectureship of Vitrasius Pollio known on the basis of Dio for the years 27–28 C.E.; contra Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 179–186. 17 = CPJ II 153; Bureth, “Préfet d’Égypte,” 477, 505. 18 Bastianini, “Prefetto d’Egitto,” 505. 19 O. Montevecchi, “L’amministrazione dell’Egitto sotto i Giulio-Claudi,” ANRW II 10,1 (1988): 431.

APPENDIX THREE

THE PREFECT’S JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS OF STATUS The nature of the prefect’s power is an issue almost as obscure as the one concerning the statute of the province of Egypt, of which it is part and on which it depends.1 There is nothing certain about the way in which Octavian organized the province of Egypt or whether he began to assess Roman power in Alexandria and the rest of Egypt soon after he entered the city on August 1, 30 B.C.E., as some scholars assume,2 or later. Certainly, his sojourn in and tour around the country showed him Egypt’s economic and social reality. It is unbelievable, however, that in those few weeks Octavian could have conceived how to turn a disrupted country on the verge of bankruptcy into the most important economic factor in Roman power. Within this scenario, it would be presumptuous to think that the prefect’s juridical definition and duties were stated once and for all from the outset. In fact, the documentary sources demonstrate that the name of the office evolved through time, as appears from a comparison of the inscription on the Vatican obelisk3 and the Latin in the bilingual stela of Philae of April 15, 29 (IG Philae 128).4 The shift from praefectus fabrum of the first inscription to praefectus Alexandrae et Aegypti of the second one seems to have taken several months.

1 On this subject, see the basic studies in Piganiol, “Statut Augustéen,” and Geraci, Genesi; more recently Capponi, Augustan Egypt. 2 Piganiol, “Statut Augustéen;” see also Montevecchi, “Amministrazione dell’Egitto,” 420–427. 3 IUSSU IMP(ERATORIS) CAESARIS DIVI F(ILII) C(AIUS) CORNELIUS CN(AEI) F(ILIUS) GALLUS PRAEF(ECTUS) FABR(UM) CAESARIS DIVI F(ILII) FORUM IULIUM FECIT (my bold); This inscription is not included in the CIL; for discussion of the reconstruction of this inscription and date before the early fall of 30 B.C.E., see G. Alföldy, Der Obelisk auf dem Petersplatz in Rom. Ein historisch Monument der Antike (Heidelberg: Winter—Universitätsverlag, 1990), 33–37. 4 = CIL III 14147,5 = ILS III 8995: POST REGES A CAESARE DEIVI F(ILIO) DEVICTOS PRAEFECT[US ALEX]ANDRAE ET AEGYPTI PRIMUS (my bold); the Greek reads (= OGIS II 654 = IGRR I/II 1293): µετὰ τὴν κατάλυσιν τῶν ἐν’ Αἰγύπτωι βασιλέων πρῶτος ὑπὸ Καίσ[αρος ἐπὶ] τῆς Αἰγύπτου κατασθασείς; cf. Amm. Marc., 22.16, 6: Aegyptus ipsa, quae iam inde uti Romano imperio iuncta est, regio iure regitur a praefectis; Geraci, Genesi, 166–167.

278

appendix three

What the content of the finally defined office was is a matter of debate. To be certain, the passages from Strabo (17.1, 12) and Tacitus (Hist., 1.11) should not refer to the nature of the prefect’s power when they affirm that the prefect τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως ἔχει τάξιν (has the post of the king) and that he ruled loco regum, respectively. Rather, they indicate his hierarchical position relative to the previous political situation.5 Tacitus, who records Augustus’ attribution of legis actio to him, as to Rome’s other magistrates (Ann., 12.60, 3), confirms this.6 Ulpian places the prefect of Egypt on the same level as the regular magistrates who, after their duty expired in Rome, assumed the provincial governorship as proconsuls; allegedly, the Roman government fixed the competence of the office through a legislative process under Augustus (Dig., 1.17, 1).7 Unfortunately, the dates of these provisions remain unknown, making it impossible to establish a timeline for the development of the office. In this regard, the juridical relation between the prefect and the emperor is central. Octavian annexed Egypt by right of conquest, but his political position within the Roman state was unclear, a situation which must have influenced the juridical figure of the first prefect, who received his powers directly from Octavian. Only in 27 B.C.E. did the senate ratify Octavian’s achievements and reintegrate him into the political system;8 and only in 23 B.C.E., four years later, did Augustus receive the proconsular imperium that finally defined the power of the princeps over the provinces under his personal jurisdiction, Egypt among them.9 This does not mean that the Egyptian prefect could not govern until 23 B.C.E.; the contemporary records show he was quite active in both the military and the administration.10 However, since

5 Geraci, Genesi, 135; Montevecchi, “Amministrazione dell’Egitto,” 422; good comments also in Bowman and Rathbone, “Cities,” 110. 6 Nam divus Augustus apud equestris qui Aegypto praesiderent lege agi decretaque eorum proinde haberi iusserat ac si magistratus Romani constituissent. 7 Praefectus Aegypti non prius deponit praefecturam et imperium, quod ad similitudinem proconsulis lege sub Augusto ei datum est. Some scholars have inquired as to whether lex must be intended according to its original republican meaning of a resolution voted by an assembly, or according to its late meaning of imperial constitution; discussion in H. Last, “The Praefectus Aegypti and his Powers,” JRS 40 (1954): 69–70; see also Geraci, Genesi, 143. 8 Geraci, Genesi, 142ff., among many, holds that the statute of Egypt was fixed by this time; see also Montevecchi, “Amministrazione dell’Egitto,” 423–424. 9 Huzar, “Augustus,” 353. 10 For the list of the documents from C. Cornelius Gallus (prefect 30–26 B.C.E.) to C. Petronius (prefect 24–21 B.C.E.) see Bureth, “Préfet d’Égypte,” 474–475, and Bastianini, “Prefetto d’Egitto,” 503.

the prefect’s jurisdiction over matters of status

279

the prefect of Egypt received his office from the princeps by virtue of a fiduciary mandate, to some extent the evolution of the powers of the latter must have been felt in the former’s.11 Scholars have correctly pointed out that Ulpian’s imperium quod ad similitudinem proconsulis lege sub Augusto ei (scil.: the prefect) datum est leaves much to be desired (Dig., 1.17, 1). A basic reading would suggest that the main reference is to the way in which the emperor conferred imperium to the prefect; but it is possible to extend the discussion to its content as well. The comparison between section 17 of the Digest, expressly devoted to the prefect of Egypt, and section 16, entitled De officio proconsulis et legati, reveals its explicatory limits; there are both differences and similarities between the two offices—at least according to the Digest collection.12 Yet, ad similitudinem proconsulis acquires a more poignant meaning if it is taken from the dry listing and categorization of the Digest and is historically recontextualized. It is more likely that the sentence refers to the time of the province’s first organization, when Octavian needed to leave troops behind in a still unsecured country and a general to command them on his behalf and in the name of the Roman people, with powers similar to those of the traditional proconsul.13 Although the data collected thus far outline a process for the definition of prefectal duties, they clearly demonstrate that an evaluation of the prefect’s powers cannot be limited to comparative observation. Particularly for the period of interest of this work and for the present topic, a larger collection of evidence should be considered. That neither the prefect nor anyone else could have political power in Egypt, particularly political power over people’s status, is already clear from the Augustan period, as the boulē papyrus demonstrates. In this document, the petitioners request a council in Alexandria, which would, along with other duties, determine who was part of the Greek citizens elite. Notoriously, Augustus denied the request (PSI X 1160 = CPJ II 150; 10 B.C.E.). In the middle of the first century C.E., regulating Alexandrian citizenship was still the emperor’s prerogative, as the letter

11 For interesting observations about the way in which power was bestowed by the emperor on the prefects, although pertaining to a later period, see H. Last, “Review of L.L. Howe, ‘The Praetorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian’,” JRS 34 (1944): 121–125 and Last, “Praefectus Aegypti” 71–72. 12 Last, “Praefectus Aegypti” 70–71. 13 Geraci, Genesi, 145, who deems unnecessary the suggestion that quod ad similitudinem proconsulis lege sub Augusto ei datum est is a later interpolation; previous discussion in Last, “Praefectus Aegypti” 69–70.

280

appendix three

of Claudius to the Alexandrians reveals (P. Lond., VI 1912 = CPJ II 153, col. iii, ll. 53–55; Nov. 10, 41 C.E.). The prefect intervened in the process only as executor, as did Pompeius Planta when Trajan granted Roman and Alexandrian citizenship to Harpocrates, Pliny’s therapist (Pliny, Ep., 10, 7). It was probably under the Antonines that the prefect assumed jurisdiction over cases of illicitly obtained Alexandrian citizenship (Gnomon of the Idioslogos = BGU V 1210 #40),14 but even in the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, the emperor bestowed Alexandrian citizenship.15 The prefect governed the body politic;16 he had no power to determine it.17 The Prefect’s Administrative Jurisdiction over Matters of Status The investigation should now turn to the wide field of the prefect’s duties and competencies. Other than commanding the legions stationed in the country, the prefect’s duties were entirely administrative. As the supreme head of the bureaucracy, he presided over the permanent tribunal in Alexandria and the itinerant conventus.18 A sample of available papyrological documents from those courts displays the variety of domains over which he had jurisdiction,19 but very few cases refer to 14 Riccobono, Gnomon, ad loc., and 177–178; that before this provision the jurisdiction over status was of the Idios Logos, as Riccobono maintains, is unsupported by evidence. Not discussed in O. Lenel and J. Partsch, Zum sogenannte Gnomon des Idios Logos (Heidelberg: Winter Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1920). 15 Inscription from Sardis; IAG 84; Taubenschlag, Law of Egypt, 592; G. Geraci, “La concessione della cittadinanza alessandrina ad Arpocrate egizio,” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995), 61 and n. 36 for additional literature. The most commonly quoted documents are imperial responses to embassies. The argument could be made that, since the emperor in these cases was asked to intervene, he could not do otherwise than take the initiative. Yet another question is pertinent here: why should there be embassies to the emperor in the first place if the prefect could take care of political matters related to status on his own? My answer is that such issues fell outside his jurisdiction and he, therefore, had to forward the requests to the emperor. 16 So Geraci, “Cittadinanza alessandrina,” 62. 17 The only case in which the prefect of Egypt had jurisdiction on matters related to status since the time of Augustus is the manumission of slaves, as spelled by Modestinus in Dig., 60.2, 21: apud praefectum Aegypti possum servum manumittere ex constitutione divi Augusti. 18 Montevecchi, “Amministrazione dell’Egitto,” 428; Foti Talamanca, Ricerche sul processo, for a study of the juridical aspect of the conventus. 19 O.W. Reinmuth, The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1935).

the prefect’s jurisdiction over matters of status

281

problems of status. The most relevant is BGU IV 1140 (= CPJ II 151), in which the Alexandrian Jew Helenos petitioned the prefect Gaius Turranius between 7 and 3 B.C.E., requesting an intervention concerning his personal status. Helenos did not wish to change his status, but wanted the prefect to confirm it (l. 23); the document tells nothing more than that about the prefect’s action.20 The prefect was also involved in administering the census and related status declarations. In order to acquire a picture of the economy and demography of Egypt, the Romans counted their subjects from very early in the history of the province of Egypt. Three hundred census declarations have survived, dating from 12 to 259 C.E. The census, whose existence is documented from 24 B.C.E. and in which everyone took part, was primarily intended to determine the segment of the population that paid the poll-tax.21 Every non-citizen male from fourteen to sixty-two years of age was required to pay; the fourteen year interval kept the population lists updated so that no one escaped.22 Only Roman citizens, citizens of the Greek cities of Egypt (Alexandria, Naucratis, Ptolemais and, from the second century, Antinoopolis) and Jews living in Alexandria23 were exempt from all personal taxes; other groups paid reduced rates. Birth and death declarations kept the census lists up-to-date, as did declarations of ἐπίκρισις, whose primary goal was to confirm the social status of the population vis-à-vis the poll-tax.24 One hundred declarations of ἐπίκρισις have survived, particularly from the Arsinoite and Oxyrhynchus, dating mainly from the late first to the middle of the third century C.E. For privileged families, these declarations enrolled their descendants in their elite group or confirmed their prior status; the privilege was always a reduced poll-tax rate or no tax at all. The prefect ordered both the ἐπίκρισις and the census and everyone had to comply; however, no evidence implies that his role went beyond administering the process.

20

See above ch. 3. Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 1; 3; 10, from which I take this brief overview. 22 Data are uncertain for the Augustan period, during which four censuses seem to be documented with a seven-year interval. Starting from 33/34 C.E., the census is regularly ordered every fourteen years; see Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 1–5. 23 As confirmed in P. Berol. 8877 (= Acta Isidori et Lamponis Rec. C), ll. 29–30. 24 Nelson, Status Declaration. 21

APPENDIX FOUR

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ALEXANDRIA The first modern surveys of Alexandria date back to the Napoleonic conquest of Egypt. The authors of the Description de l’Egypte took care to record, both in writing and with drawings, the condition of the vast area surrounding the Ottoman city that at that time occupied the island of Pharos and the isthmus connecting it to the mainland. Despite the state of abandonment, some architectural features of ruined monuments were visible—some even standing, and the irregular bumpy ground promised more underneath. Increased interest in Alexandria and its features followed the French wave, but no major archaeological expeditions took place until the last decades of the nineteenth century, when archaeology really emerged in Alexandria, despite the already extensive building activity that had become the basis of the modern city. In 1866, Mahmoud el-Falaky was charged with a topographical survey of the area that the ancient city occupied and he published the results in 1872. On the basis of archaeological soundings throughout the city and a survey of the coast of the eastern harbor, he traced on paper a wall encirclement and an orthogonal street grid oriented 45° west that he took to be those of the ancient Greco-Roman city. Many of his contemporaries and rivals immediately contested Falaki’s conclusion, among them Hogarth, who ridiculed Falaki’s chronology as late medieval. 1 Later Noack reconsidered Falaki’s achievement and rehabilitated his plan as Roman.2 In the first half of the twentieth century, the Museum of Alexandria led archaeological activity in the city with several important results, such as the discovery of the Serapeum.3

1 El-Falaki, Alexandrie; D.G. Hogarth, E.F. Benson, “Reports of Prospects of Research in Alexandria, in Egypt Exloration Fund, 1895, 1–33; G. Botti, Plan de la ville d’Alexandrie à l’époque Ptolémaïque; monuments et localitées de l’ancienne Alexandrie d’après les écrivains et les fouilles. Memoire presentée à la Société archéologique (Alexandrie: Carriere, 1898); see also M. Rodziewicz, “Le débat sur la topographie de la ville,” Alexandrie entre deux mondes—ROMM 46 (4)(1987): 41–42; For the most comprehensive list of publications to the 1960s see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 8, n. 31. 2 F. Noack, “Neue Untersuchungen in Alexandrien,” MDAI Athenische Abt. 25 (1900): 215–279. 3 Rowe, Discovery.

the topography of alexandria

283

Early in the 1990s a new wave of Alexandrian archaeology made headlines all over the world.4 The revived underwater survey of the city’s coastline, enormously improved by state-of-the-art electronic instruments,5 energized also surveys and excavations on the mainland—mostly salvage excavations.6 Sophisticated recording technology cannot, however, repair the manmade damage. Beginning with the transformation of the urban landscape encouraged by Mohamed Ali at the turn of the nineteenth century, Alexandria’s ancient heritage has almost disappeared.7 Falaki was probably the last person to see and record the location of collapsed capitals and standing columns. Some of those are now housed in Alexandria’s Greco-Roman Museum but most have disappeared, probably recycled as masonry in new urban works. In addition to human depredation, raised underground water levels caused by overpopulation prevents archaeologists from working in ideal conditions. Comparing ancient descriptions and archaeological data yields poor results and locating most of the monumental buildings is sometimes impossible. Nevertheless, some things can be said. The earliest confirmation came from the hill of Kom el-Dikka, a site on the south side of the Canopic street where the Polish archaeological mission has been excavating since the 1960s. They first uncovered a stratum containing a compound of public monumental buildings of the late Roman/Byzantine period with a paved street corresponding to 4 See J.-Y. Empereur, “Rapport sur les travaux menés en collaboraiton avec l’École Française d’Athènes. Alexandrie (Égypte) 1992–1993,” BCH 118 (1994): 503–519; J.-Y. Empereur, “Alexandrie (Égypte),” BCH 119 (1995): 743–760; J.-Y. Empereur, “Alexandrie (Égypte),” BCH 120 (1996): 959–970; J.-Y. Empereur, “Alexandrie (Égypte),” BCH 121 (1997): 831–847; J.-Y. Empereur, “Alexandrie (Égypte),” BCH 122 (1998): 611–638; J.-Y. Empereur, “Alexandrie (Égypte),” BCH 123 (1999): 545–568; J.-Y. Empereur, “Une fouille récente au coeur d’Alexandrie: le site du cinéma Majestic,” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider: 1995), 169–171; Empereur, Alexandria Rediscovered; J.-Y. Empereur, ed. Alexandrina I (Cairo: IFAO, 1998); R. Tomlinson, “The Town Plan of Hellenistic Alexandria,” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale italo-egizio (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995), 236–240. 5 A first underwater survey took place in the 1960s. For the new technological wave of underwater archaeology in Alexandria see Goddio, “Cartographie,” and Empereur, Alexandria Rediscovered. 6 This is the task of the Centre d’Études Alexandrine, part of the Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO), directed by J.-Y. Empereur. The institute excavated in multiple sites in the city all year round. Reports appear regularly on BCH, and on the IFAO series Alexandrina. 7 Rodziewicz, “Topographie de la ville,” 39.

284

appendix four

Falaki’s street R4, superimposed precisely on another street running several meters below, flanked by houses diagnostically dated to the early Roman period, first century B.C.E./first century C.E.8 It is clear that continuity of habitation through time respected the layout of the territory. Similar conclusions can so far be drawn from the excavations of the French archaeological mission north of the Canopic street in the area that late ancient authors called Brucchium. On the site of the former cricket ground, an east-west street 5.2 meters wide and running according to Falaki’s grid, which likely functioned from the city’s early period, was unearthed. On the same site, other phases of occupation, all from the Hellenistic period, followed the same topographical orientation.9 Similar findings reappeared at the site of the Diana Theater and at the Governmental Hospital.10 Falaki’s grid is confirmed as the basic urban structure of the city from the Ptolemaic period onward. A different story concerns the Heptastadion. Falaki traced it along the remains of the aqueduct that carried water to Pharos in Caesar’s time.11 Recent geomagnetic soundings in the modern neighborhood of Anfushi, built since the Ottoman period on the silted embankment atop the area where the Heptastadion once stood, have found instead that the causeway connecting the mainland with Pharos was a continuation of street R9, confirming that it was integrated into the orthogonal street grid.12 Alexandria is also seeing a thorough study and systematization

8

Rodziewicz, “Topographie de la ville,” 43–45. Empereur, “Alexandrie 1998,” 620–621. 10 Rodziewicz, “Topographie de la ville,” 45; Empereur, “Alexandrie 1998,” 618; M. Rodziewicz, “Ptolemaic Street Directions in Basilea (Alexandria),” in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995), 228–229. 11 El-Falaki, Alexandrie, 39. 12 Hesse, “Localisation de l’Heptastade,” 844; Empereur, “Alexandrie 1998,” 631, 636; Empereur, Alexandria Rediscovered, 57. For an extreme and utopian rationalization of the city plan see W. Hoepfner, “Von Alexandria über Pergamon nach Nikopolis. Städtebau und Stadtbuilder hellenistischer Zeit,” in Akten des XIII. Internationales Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988 (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1990), 275–285. 9

the topography of alexandria

285

of all the topographical data available13 that will soon out date Barbara Tkaczov’s wonderful work from the 1970s.14 The following map reproduces the most important results of archaeological excavations in Alexandria since Mahmoud el-Falaki, and it is limited to the features of main interest for this work.

13 Introductory report in J.-L. Arnaud, “Un outil cartographique: le cadastre informatisé d’Alexandrie,” in Alexandrina 2 (ed. J.-Y. Empereur; Cairo: IFAO, 2002), 159–175. 14 In its English translation B. Tkaczov, The Topography of Ancient Alexandria (an Archaeological Map) (Varsovie: Zaklad Archeologii Sródziemnomorskiej, Polskiej Akadmii Nauk, 1993); other important tools for the topography of the city are Calderini, Dizionario, and Adriani, Repertorio, C.

0

Serapeum

SHATBY

Map of Alexandria15

LAKE MAREOTIS

5 KM

CANAL OF ALEXANDRIA

KEY

APPROXIMATE AREAS OF CEMETERIES

EXCAVATED TOMBS

EZBET EL-MAHLOUF

CLEOPATRA

Sidi Gaber Tombs

IBRAHIMIEH

Soldiers’ Tomb

Moustapha Pasha Tombs

15 Map from J.K. McKenzie, The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt c. 300 BC to AD 700 (New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 2007), 26, figure 28, to which I added other non-archaeological data that are useful to this work.

WARDIAN

GABBARI

MINET EL-BASSAL

Alabaster Tomb

Shatby Tombs

Canopic Way

N

RA

HAD

MAFROUSA

Fort Salen Tombs

Cemeteries

WESTERN HARBOUR

Area of Rhakotis

ANFOUSHY

Area of Kibotos and б

RAS EL TIN

EASTERN HARBOUR

Cape Lochias

286 appendix four

APPENDIX FIVE

ETHNICS, PATRIS, AND THE CASE OF ALEXANDREUS Since the earliest decades of the Ptolemaic kingdom, rules were introduced to regulate people’s official identification, and were relevant on two levels. First, they homogenized the different customs of a mixed population of immigrants and locals. Second, but no less important, they made the bureaucratic net that the Ptolemies cast on the country to achieve demographic and territorial control more effective. The most relevant among the earliest regulations is a prostagma of Ptolemy II Philadelphos or Ptolemy III Euergetes. P. Hamb., II 168, ll. 5–10 (= BGU XIV 2367; cf. P. Rev. 7, 1–3) [οἱ µὲ]ν στρατιώται ἀπογραφέσθωσαν τά τε ὀνόµατα [αὐτ]ῶν καὶ τὰς πατρίδας καὶ ἐξ ὧν ἂν ταγµάτων ὦσιν [καὶ ἃ]ς ἔξωσιν ἐπιφοράς; The soldiers will register with their own name, their place of origin (patris), their unit of appurtenence and their rank as well. οἱ δὲ πολίται τοὺς δὲ πατέρα[ς καὶ το]ὺς δήµους ἂν δὲ καὶ ἐν τῶι στρατιωτικῶι ὦσιν [καὶ τὰ τ]άγµατα καὶ τὰς ἐπιφορὰς;

The citizens (will register) name of the father and the deme, and if they are soldiers, the unit and the rank. οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι τοὺς [πατέρας] καὶ τὰς πατρίδας καὶ ἐν ὧι ἂν γένει ὦσιν.

The others (will register) the name of the father, their place of origin (patris), and the group1 to which they belong 1 ‘γένος’ has received different translations; M.A.H. El-Abbadi, “The Alexandrian Citizenship,” JEA 48 (1962): 106–123 suggests ‘class’ without further specification; also Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 22 n. 73 maintains the same meaning, but according to her own reading of the Gnomon of the Idios Logos #35 BGU V 1210). The editors of this document have suggested different interpretations: Schubart, ed. Gnomon, 19: ‘Stamm;’ Lenel and Partsch, Gnomon, 27: ‘genus.’ Riccobono, Gnomon, ad loc.: ‘genus.’ Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Statut des Hellènes,” 256 n. 72 holds that under this heading individuals had to specify whether they were Hellenes or Aigyptoi; R.S. Bagnall and P. Derow, eds., The Hellenistic Period. Historical Sources in Translation (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), #125: ‘category.’ More recently Clarysse and Thompson, Counting People, II 146 n. 115 incline for ‘occupation’ on the basis of the interpretation of several documents, the most compelling of which seems to be P.Cair.Zen. III 59451

288

appendix five

The evidence leaves no room for doubts about the rulers’ determination on this matter; the authorities also regulated changes of any item composing the identification and punished arbitrary applications (BGU VI 1213 l. 3; 1250, ll. 11–13).2 Available documents precisely reflect the existence and the enforcement of these requirements. While the identification of citizens allows little for discussion—the indication of the demes clarifies the declarant’s status—there is room for discussion about the two remaining groups, the soldiers and the others,3 particularly with respect to the value of the patris. Πατρίς has the general meaning of ‘homeland’ and is largely used this way in literature.4 Documents, however, use it in a more technical sense. Patris is literally the place of origin, the place that people should say they are from. From the documents, the concept seems however to be broad; the vast majority of the available texts reveal that after name and patronymic, people list an ethnic designation, allegedly corresponding to their place of origin prior to their arrival in Egypt. This may be the case for first generation immigrants, who were born, say, in Eleutherna or Aspendos and who style themselves as, but when their descendants keep their fathers’ Greek ethnic designation, the conclusion is that patris does not necessarily always mean place of origin, as close analysis suggests. In some cases, what may sound ethnic like, for example, Hellen, does not indicate any real place of origin, past or present, or any real ancestral belonging, but rather a tax-classification (P.Count. 4; 22–23; 26).5 The Makedones are not necessarily Macedonians, but soldiers trained and armed in the Macedonian fashion.6 Emblematic of the l. 3 mentioning the genos of the hierodouloi, clearly a group defined by occupation. P. Rev, 7, 1–3 submits the more precise expression περί τι ἐκάστος πραγµατεύει, openly referring to occupation; see Bagnall and Derow, The Hellenistic Period, #114 and Thompson, “Hellenistic Hellenes,” 305. 2 Cf. C.Ord.Ptol. All. 34; 47. Thompson, “Hellenistic Hellenes,” 305; Clarysse and Thompson, Counting People, II 146 n. 114; Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Statut des Hellènes,” 244, for whom these are customs taken from classical Greece. 3 La’da, Foreign Ethnics, collects all the references for categories 1 and 3. 4 For example V. Sebillote, “La ‘patris’ grecque,” Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 10 (1999): 7–25, especially in Homer and Plato. 5 Data collected in Clarysse and Thompson, Counting People, I; discussion in II 138–147; see also La’da, Foreign Ethnics, 48–70. 6 Data in La’da, Foreign Ethnics, 166–201 for ‘µακεδών’ and 201–207 for ‘µακεδών τῆς ἐπιγονῆς;’ In the second half of the third century B.C.E., the army was reformed with the introduction of new cavalry units named after the original members; other than

ethnics, patris, and the case of alexandreus

289

volatility of the ethnic designation is a demotic document in which Ḥr–pă–ĭs.t son of P #–wr–tyw, who declared himself NHz (a Nubian) in P. dem. Ryl., 26, ll. 4–5 of 102 B.C.E., sixteen years later declared himself Perses tēs epigones in P. Grenf I 23, ll. 5–6. If he were originally an ethnic Nubian, he could become a Persian, not because he changed ethnicity, but for other reasons.7 A similar case is that of Dorotheos, a Jew who, in contracts, styles himself also as Perses tēs epigones, or of his mother Plousia, a Jewess, who, in contracts, is Gargarissa (P.Polit. Iud. 8, ll. 23–15).8 It is impossible to draw certain conclusions in an abundance of other cases. All the Athenaios or the Thessalos or the Ioudaios—are these really ethnic designations? What do they really indicate? The only possible conclusion is that one cannot say tout court that the patris indicated a geographical or ethnic qualification only.9 There are no documents dealing with people who state that their patris is an Egyptian town, not even places like Oxyrhynchus or Tebtynis, by far the richest papyrological repositories.10 On the other hand, the only new ethnic designations cognated from the names of Egyptian cities are Alexandreus, Naukratites, and Ptolamaieus,11 clearly connected to the three Greek city-states. This cannot be accidental, even when prudently recalling that the available documentation is a random sample and could misrepresent important data for a comprehensive discussion. The idea in the documents is that only people living in the

the Macedonians, the ones known are Thracians, Mysians, Persians. This suggests that these three ethnic adjectives also do not define ethnicity, but military qualifications; see Thompson, “Hellenistic Hellenes,” 306. Discussion of this topic also including the other Hellenistic kingdoms in Billows, Kings, 155–157, Launey, Armées, 295–296; 330–331; 360–362; Cohen, Seleucid Colonies, 30–33. See also above ch. 2. 7 The entire argument is in La’da, “Ethnicity.” 8 Cowey and Maresch, Urkunden Politeuma, 98–99, also for reference to the designation Perses tēs epigones; see also R. Scholl, “ ‘EPIGONOI’,” ZPE 67 (1987): 111–115, and C.A. La’da, “Who were those ‘of the Epigone’?” in Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologencongressen, Berlin 1995 (Berlin, Teubner 1997), 563–569. 9 Cf. Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Statut des Hellènes,” 248–251 states that the patris consistently reflected the origin of the individual until the end of the Ptolemies; more nuanced is the position of Clarysse and Thompson, Counting People, II 146–147. 10 Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Statut des Hellènes,” 253 argues that some individuals actually listed themselves as Apollinopolites, Memphites, and Oxyrhinchites; from the electronic consultation of a more updated word lists [http://www.zaw.uni-heidelberg .de/hps/pap/WL/WL.pdf], it appears that these and many other adjectives cognated from the name of Egyptian towns qualify nomoi and not people, on the pattern “of the Apollinopolites nomos,” etc. 11 La’da, Foreign Ethnics, 347–360.

290

appendix five

three Greek cities—Alexandria, Naukratis, Ptolemais—saw and used the patris to indicate their real place of origin. A further observation should be devoted to those who call themselves Alexandreus;12 none includes the demotic,13 automatically excluding membership in the citizen body. Further study may reveal what Alexandreus does mean. There are nuanced situations, like the case of Nikanor, who in 223/222 B.C.E. calls himself . . . the son of Menon, Alexandreus, of those not yet admitted in the deme of Ammon, of the first ones of Menelaos from Hermopolis, with one hundred arouras . . .

Nikanor is a military cleruch who, showing no demotics, is undoubtedly not a citizen, yet he anticipates official enrollment in a deme. This may suggest two different situations: he may have applied for citizenship and was waiting for the demotic enrollment that he would then use to identify himself;14 or he may have been a foreigner still in need of a territorial enrollment, like foreigners in classical Athens, which suggests that he had applied for citizenship—hence Alexandreus. In any case, if he was in line for demotic enrollment, then Nikanor must have been enrolled on some civic waiting list, regardless of the civic status that he provides. P. Hal. I col. iv, ll. 156–165 points to the practical consequences of being a ‘waiting-list’ Alexandreus. This judicial rule stipulates that when two soldiers, both pepolitographomenoi, go to court, they should go to the foreigners’ tribunal.15 The verb politographeo is uncommon, but the few literary occurrences refer to acquiring citizenship.16 We must 12 The problem of the meaning of ‘Alexandreus’ is an integral part of the discussion of Alexandrian citizenship and the status of all those who lived there. Studies have moved through a range of different degrees of citizenship, starting from the initial work by Schubart, through those of El-Abbadi and Fraser, down to that of Delia; Schubart, “Alexandrinische Urkunden,” particularly 104ff.; El-Abbadi, “Alexandrian Citizenship,” with n. 1 for bibliography until 1950; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 39–41; Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 21–28. G.M. Cohen, “Alexandreian,” in Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann (eds. R. Aslan et. al.; Grunbach: Greiner, 2002), 1065–1074. 13 La’da, Foreign Ethnics, 348–355; only papyrological evidence is considered here. 14 La’da, Foreign Ethnics, EI 52; similar cases are EI 1, EI 3, EI 42, EI 65, EI 78, EI 81, EI 84; all the Alexandreus tes epigones seem to be on the same waiting list: La’da, Foreign Ethnics, 355–357; with a few exception, all dated to the 230s and 220s B.C.E. 15 156. τῶν δὲ/ ἐν τ[ῶι] στρατ[ι]ωτικῶ[ι] τεταγµένων ὄσο[ι] ἂν/ἐν [᾽Αλ]εξα[ν]δρεία[ι] πεπο[λ]ιτογραφηµένοι/ἐν[κα]λῶσι[ν περ]ὶ κτλ., . . ./ 161. ἐ]ὰν καὶ

οἱ ἀντ[ίδ]ικοι εἐν τῶι [σ]τρατιω/τικῶι ὄντ[ες π]επολιτογ[ρ]αφηµένοι ὦ[σ]ιν, λα[µ]/ βαν[έτ]ωσαν τὸ δ[ί]καιον [κ]αὶ ὑπεχέτω[σ]αν ἐν [τοῖς]/ξεν[ι]κοῖς δικαστη[ρί]οις, κτλ. 16

LSJ, s.v.

ethnics, patris, and the case of alexandreus

291

concede, however, that P. Hal. I col. iv, ll. 156–165 does not allow such a reference; if it did, then the soldiers in questions would be regular citizens and, as such, could take advantage of the judicial apparatus reserved for citizens.17 The papyrus, however, does not say this. Instead, these soldiers must go to the foreigners’ court, even if they are enrolled on a civic list (politographeo), which clearly does not necessarily include the bestowal of full franchise. Yet, it can by surmised that enrollment on a civic list is more than a non-status; enrollment likely gave people their patris—as the Ptolemaic prostagma required their legal connection with Alexandria, which they displayed in documents by calling themselves Alexandreus. Such people were by no means citizens,18 but inasmuch as they were on some list, the city, which recognized their juridical personality, gave them the right to take advantage of existing institutions, albeit not those for citizens only. We could call them legal residents. Alexandreus, therefore, indicates someone with Alexandrian residence, but not citizenship.19 This brings to mind the case of Helenos, the Jew who petitioned the prefect Gaius Turranius at the end of the first century B.C.E. (7–3 B.C.E.).20 Helenos introduced himself as the son of Tryphonius, Alexandreus; he did not specify any deme of residence.21 A basic commentary on this document in light of the discussion outlined above can only draw the conclusion that Helenos was not a citizen,22 nor was his father before him, from whom he inherited his status. Nevertheless, his juridical personality, without which he could not have petitioned the prefect, was recognized in Alexandria. He was a resident.23

17

See comments in this line in Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 50–51 and notes. The scholarly discussion on this subject has reached different conclusions at times; see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 47ff.; El-Abbadi, “Alexandrian Citizenship;” Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 23–28. 19 That the patris is the place of the individual’s origo is stated by Taubenschlag, Law of Egypt, 585, and Schiller and Westermann, Apokrimata, 51. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 47–49 argues for a non-citizen status with some sort of privileges; Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 26 holds that it is simply a matter of more precise specification of citizenship; differently El-Abbadi, “Alexandrian Citizenship,” 111, for whom ‘Alexandreus’ is tantamount to a citizenship designation. 20 For the date of Turranius’ office see Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 186. 21 For the residential connotation of demes in Alexandria, see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 39–41. 22 Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 312 considers Helenos to be a citizen. 23 The data apparently contradict P. Hal. I 219–221 where Alexandrian citizens are referred to as Alexandreus and Alexandris. The title of the chapter “περὶ τ[ῶν] πολιτῶν ὄπως µὴ δ[ο]υλεύωσιν” clearly indicates that Alexandreus/Alexandris here are appositive 18

292

appendix five

Apart from suggesting a big political gap between an Alexandreus and a citizen, a comparison between documents and P. Hal. 1 col. iv, ll. 156–165 also reveals that the civic list was not necessarily the antechamber to automatic enrollment in a deme (i.e. that everyone enlisted would eventually be enrolled in a deme and become a citizen). Some texts submitted to the Ptolemaic administration by people identifying themselves as Alexandreus show no evidence of being soldiers or being on a waiting-list for deme assignment.24

to πολίτης and do not carry any particular political meaning in and of themselves. The official identification of residents did not change in the early Roman period; the texts in question are BGU IV 1101, Augustan period; 1165, 20/19 B.C.E.; 1176, 14/13 B.C.E.; 1167 i and iii, 12 B.C.E.; 1119, 6/5 B.C.E.; differently Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 23–28, who fundamentally accepts El-Abbadi, “Alexandrian Citizenship;” also Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 310. Smallwood, Jews, 229 holds that this mention of Alexandreus is non-technical. As for the astoi, the other qualification of inhabitants of Alexandria in the Roman period, Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 197ff. holds that the too few mentions found in documents do not allow any detailed argument; summary of discussion in Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship, 13–20 and 131 with tabulated data. 24 Schubart, “Alexandrinische Urkunden,” has introduced what Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 194–196 has developed into the “differential citizenship,” importing the concept of the constitution of Cyrene, where there were two tiers of citizens, active and passive ones [Gambetti, “Jewish Community,” for references]. While there is no evidence to assume that the Alexandrian constitution was like Cyrene’s and evidence supports the existence of only one kind of Alexandrian citizenship—the full franchise of citizens—it must be recognized that there were, on the other hand, more that one way of being non-citizens; on this cf. La’da, Foreign Ethnics, EI 23, EI 37, EI 39, EI 73.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, J.N. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Adriani, A. Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano. Palermo: Banco di Sicilia, 1961–. Alföldy, G. Der Obelisk auf dem Petersplatz in Rom. Ein historisch Monument der Antike. Heidelberg: Winter–Universitätsverlag, 1990. Alston, R. Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: a Social History. London–New York: Routledge, 1995. —— “Houses and Households in Roman Egypt.” 29–39 in Domestic Space in the Roman World. Pompeii and Beyond. Edited by Laurence, R. & A. Wallace-Hadrill. Portsmouth: JRA, 1997. —— “Philo’s In Flaccum: Ethnicity and Social Space in Roman Alexandria.” G&R 44 (1997b): 165–175. Amarelli, F. Consilia principium. Naples: Jovene, 1983. Ameling, W. “ ‘Market-Place’ und Gewalt. Die Juden in Alexandrien 38 n.Chr.” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft Neue Folge 27 (2003): 71–123. Anagnostou-Canas, B. “La colonisation du sol dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque.” 355–374 in Grund und Boden in Altägypten. Rechtliche und sozio-ökonomische Verhältnisse. Akten des internationalen Symposions Tübingen 18–20. Juni 1990. Tübingen 1994. Edited by Allam, S. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Andrews, C.A.R. Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the British Museum IV: Ptolemaic Legal Texts from the Theban Area. London: Printed by order of the Trustees of the British Museum, 1990. Arnaoutoglou, I. “«Collegia» in the Province of Egypt in the First Century A.D.” Anc Soc 35 (2005): 197–216. Arnaud, J.-L. “Un outil cartographique: le cadastre informatisé d’Alexandrie.” 159–175 in Alexandrina 2. Edited by Empereur, J.-Y. Cairo: IFAO, 2002. Assmann, J. Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 1997. Atkinson, J.E. “Ethnic Cleansing in Roman Alexandria in 38.” A Class 49 (2006): 31–54. Babelon, E. Catalogue des monnaies grecques de la Bibliothèque nationale. Les rois de Syrie, d’Arménie et de Commagène. Paris: Rollin & Feuardent, 1890. Badaway, A. “Orthogonal and Axial Town Planning in Egypt.” ZÄS 85 (1960): 1–12. Bagnall, R.S. “The Origin of Ptolemaic Cleruchs.” BASP 21 (1984): 7–20. Bagnall, R.S., & B.W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Bagnall, R.S., & P. Derow, eds. The Hellenistic Period. Historical Sources in Translation. Oxford, Blackwell, 2004. Baines, J. “Appendix: Possible Implications of the Egyptian Name for Alexandria.” JRA 16 (2003): 61–64. Baldson, J.P.V.D. The Emperor Gaius (Caligula). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934. Balzarini, M. “Considerazioni in tema di iudicia legitima.” 449–479 in Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra. Milano: Giuffrè, 1969–1970. Barclay, J.M.G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 B.C.E.–117 C.E.). Edinburgh: Clark, 1996. —— Flavius Josephus, Against Apion. Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Barraclough, R. “Philo’s Politics: Roman Rule and Hellenistic Judaism.” ANRW II 21,1 (1984): 417–553.

294

bibliography

Barrett, A.A. Caligula. The Corruption of Power. New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 1989. Barzanò, A. “Cheremone di Alessandria.” ANRW II 32.3 (1985): 1981–2001. Bastianini, G. “Lista dei prefetti d’Egitto dal 30a al 299p.” ZPE 17 (1975): 263–328. —— “Il prefetto d’Egitto (30 a.C.–297 d.C.): addenda (1973–1985).” ANRW II 10.1 (1988): 503–517. Bauer, A. “Heidnische Märtyrerakten.” APF 1 (1901): 29–47. Bauman, R.A. Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome. London–New York: Routledge, 1996. Bechtel, F., et al. Dikaiomata. Auszüge aus alexandrinischen Gesetzen und Verordnungen in einem Papyrus des philologischen Seminars der Universität Halle (P. Hal. 1). Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1913. Bell, H.I. Jews and Christians in Egypt. The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924. —— “The Acts of the Alexandrines.” JJP 4 (1950): 19–42. Benediktson, D.T. “Caligula’s Madness. Madness or Interictal Temporal Lobe Epilepsy?” CW 82 (1988–1989): 370–375. —— “Caligula’s Phobias and Philias: Fear of Seizure.” CJ 87 (1991–1992): 159–163. Benson, E.F. & Hogarth D.G. “Reports of Prospects of Research in Alexandria.” Egypt Exploration Fund 1985: 1–33. Bergmann, M. Die Strahlen der Herrscher: theomorphes Herrscherbild und politische Symbolik im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit Mainz von Zabern, 1998. Bergmann, W., & C. Hoffmann. “Kalkül oder ‘Massenwahn’? Eine soziologische Interpretation der antijüdischen Unruhen in Alexandria 38 n.Chr.” 9–29 in Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context. Edited by Erb, R. & M. Schmidt. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Berkowitz, L., & K.A. Squitier, eds. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990. Bernand, E. Inscriptions Grecques d’Alexandrie Ptolémaïque. Cairo: IFAO, 2001. Bianchi, R.S. “Satrapenstele.” LÄ 5 (1974): 492–493. Bietak, M. Avaris: the Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab. London: British Museum Press, 1997. Biezunska-Malowist, I. L’esclavage dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine. I: période ptolémaïque. Warszawa–Krakow: PAN, 1974. Bilde, P. “The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)’s Attempt to Erect his Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem.” Studia Theologica 32 (1978): 67–93. Billows, R.A. Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism. Leiden–New York–Köln: Brill, 1995. Biscardi, A. “Sur la litis contestatio du precès criminel.” RIDA 7 (1960): 307–359. —— “Polis, politeia, politeuma.” 1201–1215 in Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983). Napoli: Centro per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, 1984. Blouin, K. Le conflit judéo-alexandrin de 38–41. L’identité juive à l’épreuve. Paris–Budapest–Torino: Harmattan, 2005. Boak, A.E.R. “Gilds in Greco-Roman Egypt.” TAPA 68 (1937): 212–220. Bohak, G. “CPJ III 520: The Egyptian Reaction to Onias’ Temple.” JSJ 26 (1995): 32–41. Bonamente, G. “Emanuele Ciaceri e la morte di Tiberio.” Sileno 20 (1994): 19–23. Bonifacio, F. “Iudicium legitimum e iudicium imperio continens.” 207–253 in Studi in onore di V. Arangio-Ruiz nel XLV anno del suo insegnamento. Napoli: Jovene, 1953. Bonneau, D. La crue du Nil divinité égyptienne à travers mille ans d’histoire (332 av.–641 ap. J.-C.). Paris: Librairie Klincksieck, 1964. —— “Le cycle du Nil; aspects administratifs à l’époque gréco-romaine.” Bulletin de la Société Francaise d’Égytpologie 120 (1991): 7–24. —— “La divinité du Nil sous le principat en Egypte.” ANRW II 18,5 (1995): 3195– 3213.

bibliography

295

Bonnefond, M. “Transferts de fonctions et mutation idéologique; le Capitole et le Forum d’Auguste.” 251–278 in L’urbs: espace urbain et histoire (I s. ap. J.C.). Actes du colloque international organisé par la Centre national de la recherche scientifique et l’École française de Rome (Rome, 8–12 mai 1985). Edited by Rome: École Francais de Rome, 1987. Borgen, P. “Philo and the Jews of Alexandria.” 122–138 in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt. Edited by Bilde, P., et al. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992. Borza, E.N. “Cleitarchus and Diodorus’ Account of Alexander.” PACA 9 (1968): 25–45. Bosworth, A.B. Conquest and Empire. The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge Universoty Press, 1988a. —— From Arrian to Alexander. Studies in Historical Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988. —— “Introduction.” 1–22 in Alexander the Great in Facts and Fiction. Edited by Bosworth, A.B. & E.J. Baynham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Botti, G. Plan de la ville d’Alexandrie à l’époque Ptolémaïque; monuments et localitées de l’ancienne Alexandrie d’après les écrivains et les fouilles. Memoire presentée à la Société archéologique. Alexandrie: Carriere, 1898. Bowman, A.K., & D.W. Rathbone. “Cities and Administration in Roman Egypt.” JRS 82 (1992): 107–127. Box, H. Philonis Alexandrini In Flaccum. New York: Arno Press, 1939. Bozzoni, R. Le eccezioni nel diritto romano classico. Napoli: Jovene, 1908. Braested, J.H. Ancient Records from Egypt; Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquests. New York: Russell & Russell, 1962. Brashear, W.M. Vereine im griechisch-römischen Ägypten. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag, 1993. Brasiello, U. La repressione penale in diritto romano. Napoli: Jovene, 1937. Brassloff, S. “Epistula.” RE VI,1 (1907): 204–210. Breccia, E. “Un nuovo politeuma pseudo-etnico.” BSAA 19 (1923): 119–122. Bricault, L. “Notes d’épigraphie alexandrine et canopique.” ZPE 126 (1999): 186–188. Bringmann, K. “Isopoliteia in den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Juden und Griechen in Alexandreia.” Chiron 35 (2005): 7–21. Brock, S. “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity.” GRBS 20 (1979): 69–87. Brugsch, H. “Ein Decret Ptolemaios des Sohnes Lagi, des Satrapen.” ZÄS 9 (1871): 1–13. Brunt, P.A. “Charges of Provincial Maladministration.” JRS 10 (1961): 189–227. —— “The Administrators of Roman Egypt.” JRS 65 (1975): 124–147. —— “Did Emperors ever Suspend the Law of ‘Maiestas’?” 469–480 in Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino. Edited by Giuffrè, V. Napoli: Jovene, 1984. Bureth, P. “Le préfet d’Égypte (30 av. J.C.–297 ap. J.C.): état présent de la documentation en 1973.” ANRW II 10.1 (1988): 472–502. Burkhalter, F. “Le gymnase d’Alexandrie; centre administratif de la province romaine d’Egypte.” BCH 116 (1992): 345–373. —— “Les fermiers de l’arabarchie: notables et hommes d’affaires à Alexandrie in Alexandrie: une mégalopole cosmopolite. Edited by Leclant, J. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1999. Burkhalter, F., & A. Martin. “Microcosmes et macrocosmes: la segmentarisation des populations: le cas d’Alexandrie.” 253–279 in Mégapoles méditerranéennes: géographie urbaine rétrospective: Actes du colloque organisé par l’École française de Rome et la Maison méditerranéenne des sciences de l’homme (Rome, 8–11 mai 1996). Edited by Nicolet, C., et al. Paris: Maisonneuve, 2000. Burnett, A.M., et al. Roman Provincial Coinage. London–Paris: British Museum– Bibliothèque Nationale, 1992–. Burton, G.P. “The Issuing of Mandata to Procunsuls and a New Inscription from Cos.” ZPE 21 (1976): 63–68.

296

bibliography

Bussi, S. Economia e demografia della schiavitù in Asia Minore ellenistico-romana. Milano: LED, 2001. Calabi, F. Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate. Milano: Rizzoli 2000. Calderini, A. Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’Egitto greco-romano. Milano: Cisalpino–Goliardica, 1935–. Cantarella, E. I supplizi capitali in Grecia e a Roma. Milano: Rizzoli, 1991. Cappelletti, S. The Jewish Community in Rome: From the Second Century B.C. to the Third Century C.E. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Capponi, L. “The oikos of Alexandria.” 115–124 in Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece. Edited by Harris, W.V. & G. Ruffini. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2004. —— Augustan Egypt. The Creation of a Roman Province. New York–London: Routledge, 2005. —— Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto. Identità politica e religiosa dei Giudei di Onia (c. 150 a.C.–73 d.C.). Pisa: ETS, 2007. Carotenuto, E. Tradizione e innovazione nella Historia Ecclesiastica di Eusebio di Cesarea. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2001. Caruso, G. “Alcuni aspetti dell’urbanistica di Alessandria in età ellenistica: il piano di progettazione.” 43–52 in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. Studi in onore di Achille Adriani. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1983. Casevitz, M. “Le vocabularie politique de Diodore de Sicilie: politeia, politeuma et leur famille.” Ktema 15 (27–33)(1990). Casson, L. Ships and Seamenship in the Ancient World. Baltimore–London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. Castagnoli, F. Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Catalano, P. “Aspetti spaziali del sistema giuridico religioso romano.” ANRW II 16,1 (1978): 440–553. Cazzaniga, L. “Osservazioni sulla successione dei prefetti d’Egitto all’epoca di Tiberio.” AnalPap 4 (1992): 5–19. Chalon, G. L’édit de Tiberius Julius Alexander; étude historique et exégétique. Olten: URS Graf-Verlag, 1964. Chantraine, P., Dictionaire étimologique de la langue grecque. Paris, Klinchsieck, 1990. Chaveau, M. “Alexandrie et Rhakôtis: le point de vue de Égyptiens.” 1–10 in Alexandrie: une mégalopole cosmopolite. Edited by Leclant, J. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1999. Cherf, W.J. “Earth, Wind, and Fire: the Alexandrian Fire-Storm of 48 B.C.” 55–73 in What Happened to the Ancient LIbrary of Alexandria? Edited by El- Abbadi, M.A.H. & O.M. Fathallah. Leiden–Boston: Leiden, 2008. Clarysse, W. “The City of the Girdle-wearers and a New Demotic Document.” Enchoria 18 (1991): 177–178. —— The Petrie Papyri. The Wills. Brussels: Koninlijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten, 1991. —— “Some Greeks in Egypt.” 51–56 in Life in a Multicultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond. Edited by Johnson, J.H. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1992. —— “Jews in Trikomia.” 193–203 in Proceedings of the 20th international congress of papyrologists: Copenhagen, 23–29 August, 1992. Edited by Bülow-Jacobsen, A. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1994. Clarysse, W., & M. Depauw. “Greek Registrations in Hawara.” ZPE 131 (2000): 125–128. Clarysse, W., & D.J. Thompson Counting People in Hellenistic Egypt (P.Count.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Clarysse, W., & W. Swinnen. “Notes on some Alexandrian Demotics.” 13–15 in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. Studi in onore di Achille Adriani. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1983. Clauss, M. Kaiser und Gott: Herrscherkult im römischen Reich. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1999.

bibliography

297

Cohen, G. The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa. Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 2006. Cohen, G.M. “Alexandreian.” 1065–1074 in Mauershau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann. Edited by Aslan R. et al. Grunbach: Greiner, 2002. —— The Seleucid Colonies. Studies in Founding, Administration and Organization. Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag, 1978. —— “Katoikiai, katoikoi and Macedonians in Asia Minor.” AncSoc 22 (1991): 41–50. Cohen, S.J.D. “ ‘Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not:’ How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity When You See One?” 1–45 in Diasporas in Antiquity. Edited by Cohen, S.J.D. & E. Frerichs. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Cohn, L. Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1896. —— Einleitung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos. Leipzig, 1899. Cohn, L., & S. Reiter Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1915. Cohn, L., et al. Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1896–1915. Coleman, K.M. “Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments.” JRS 80 (1990): 44–73. Collins, J.J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Grand Rapids: Eerdsmans, 2000. —— Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2005. Colson, F.H. Philo. Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 1954. —— Philo. The Embassy to Gaius. Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 1962. Cordiano, G. La ginnasiarchia nelle poleis dell’Occidente mediterraneo antico. Pisa: ETS, 1997. Coroi, J.N. “Le P. Oxy. III 471. Une cognitio caesariana sous Trajan.” 395–434 in Atti del IV congresso internazionale di papirologia. Firenze, 28 aprile–2 maggio 1935. Milano: Aegyptus, 1936. Cowey, J.M.S., & K. Maresch Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.) (P. Polit. Jud). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher, 2001. —— “ ‘A Recurrent Inclination to Isolate the Case of the Jews from their Ptolemaic Environment?’ Eine Antwort auf Sylvie Honigman.” SCI 22 (2003): 307–310. Cowey, J.M.S., et al. Das Archiv des Phrurarchen Dioskurides (154–145 v.Chr.?) (P.Phrur. Diosk.). Padeborn—München—Wien—Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2003. Cracco Ruggini, L. “Nuclei immigrati e forze indigene in tre grandi centri commerciali dell’impero.” 55–76 in The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome--Studies in Archaeology and History. Edited by D’Arms, J.H. & C.C. Kopff. Rome: American Academy, 1980. Cristofori, A. “L’individuazione di Egiziani ed Alessandrini nella documentazione epigraphica dell’Italia romana.” 79–94 in L’Egitto in Italia dall’antichità al medioevo. Atti del III Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano. Roma, CNR—Pompei, 13–19 Novembre 1995. Edited by Bonacasa, N., et al. Roma: CNR, 1998. Crook, J.A. Consilium principis. Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian. Cambridge–Toronto: Cambridge University Press, MacMillan, 1955. Crosby, M., & J. Young. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 10 (1941): 14–30. Crowley, A. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford, 1923. De Cenival, F. Les associations religieuses en Égypte d’après les documents démotiques. Cairo: IFAO, 1972. De Sanctis, G. “Claudio e i giudei di Alessandria.” RFIS 52 (1924): 473–513. De Visscher, F. “La caduta di Seiano e il suo macchinatore Macrone.” Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medievale 2 (1960): 245–257. —— “Macro, Préfet de Vigiles et ses cohortes contre la tyrannie de Séjan.” 761–768 in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à André Piganiol. Edited by Chevalier, R. Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1966.

298

bibliography

Degrassi, A. I Fasti consolari dell’impero romano. Roma, 1934. —— Inscriptiones Italiae. Roma: Libreria dello Stato, 1947. Delia, D. “The Population of Roman Alexandria.” TAPA 118 (1988): 275–292. —— Alexandrian Citizenship during the Roman Principate. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Dell’Oro, A. “Mandata” e “litterae”. Contributo allo studio degli atti giuridici del “Princeps”. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1960. Depauw, M. “Alexandria, the Building Yard.” Cd’É 75 (2000): 64–65. Di Paola, S. “La ‘litis contestatio’ nella ‘cognito extra ordinem’ dell’età classica.” Annali del seminario giuridico dell’Università di Catania. 2 (1947–48): 253–298. Dickey, E. “KYRIE, DESPOTA, DOMINE. Greek Politeness in the Roman Empire.” JHS 121 (2001): 1–11. Dieleman, J. Priests, Tongues, and Rites. The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100–300 CE). Leiden: Brill, 2005. Dillery, J. “The First Egyptian Narrative History: Manetho and Greek Historiography.” ZPE 127 (1999): 93–116. —— “Alexander’s tomb at “ Rhacotis ”: Ps. Callisth. 3. 34. 5 and the Oracle of the Potter” ZPE 148 (2004): 253–258. Dmitriev, S. City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Downey, G. “Strabo on Antioch: Notes on his Method.” TAPA 62 (1941): 85–95. —— A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. Drinkwater, J.F. “The Trinovantes: Some Observations on their Participation in the Events of A.D. 60.” RSA 5 (1975): 53–57. Ducrey, P. Le traitement des prisonnier de guerre dans la Grèce antique des origines à la conquête romaine. Paris De Boccard, 1968. Dunnett, R. The Trinovantes. London: Duckworth, 1975. Eck, W., et al. Das senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre. München: Beck, 1996. El Aziz Negm, M. “Recent Activities around the Ancient Walls of Alexandria.” 124–127 in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-egizio. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995. El-Abbadi, M.A.H. “The Alexandrian Citizenship.” JEA 48 (1962): 106–123. —— “The gerousia in Roman Egypt.” JEA 50 (1964): 164–169. El-Falaki, M.-B. Mémoire sur l’antique Alexandrie. Copenhague: Muhle, 1872. Empereur, J.-Y. “Rapport sur les travaux menés en collaboraiton avec l’École Française d’Athènes. Alexandrie (Égypte) 1992–1993.” BCH 118 (2)(1994): 503–519. —— “Alexandrie (Égypte).” BCH 119 (2)(1995a): 743–760. —— “Une fouille récente au coeur d’Alexandrie: le site du cinéma Majestic.” 169–171 in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider: 1995. —— “Alexandrie (Égypte).” BCH 120 (2)(1996): 959–970. —— “Alexandrie (Égypte).” BCH 121 (2)(1997): 831–847. —— Alexandria Rediscovered. London: British Museum Press, 1998. —— “Alexandrie (Égypte).” BCH 122 (2)(1998b): 611–638. —— “Alexandrie (Égypte).” BCH 123 (2)(1999): 545–568. —— ed. Alexandrina I. Cairo, IFAO, 1998. Empereur, J.-Y., & M.-D. Nenna, eds. Nécropolis 1. Cairo, IFAO, 2001. —— eds. Nécropolis 2. Cairo, IFAO, 2003. Engers, M. “Die staatsrechliche Stelung der alexandrinischen Juden.” Klio 18 (1923): 79–90. Evans, T.V. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. Neutral Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

bibliography

299

Fairman, H.W. “Town Planning in Pharaonic Egypt.” Town Planning Review 20 (1949): 33–51. Feldman, L.H. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Books XVIII–XIX. Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 1965. —— Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Ferguson, W.S. “The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion.” Hesperia 7 (1938): 1–74. Ferrill, A. Caligula Emperor of Rome. London: Thames & Hudson, 1991. Fiebiger, H.O. “Corona.” RE VIII (1901): 1636–1643. Fikman, I.F. “La description physique des Juifs égyptien d’après les papyrus grecs.” 461–468 in Atti del XXII Congresso internazionale di papirologia. Firenze, 23–29 agosto 1998. Edited by Andorlini, I. & et. al. Firenze: Istituto papirologico G. Vitelli, 2001. Finkelstein. “Mandata principium.” Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 13 (1934): 150–169. Fontana, M.J. “Il problema delle fonti per il XVII libro di Diodoro Siculo.” Kokalos 1 (1955): 155–190. Foti Talamanca, G. Ricerche sul processo nell’Egitto greco-romano. Milano: Giuffrè, 1974. Foulon, E. “Misthophoroi et xenoi hellénistiques.” REG 108 (1995): 211–218. Frankfurter, D. “Lest Egypt’s City Be Deserted: Religion and Ideology in the Egyptian Response to the Jewish Revolt (116–117 C.E.).” JJS 43 (1992): 203–220. —— Religion in Roman Egypt. Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. Fraschetti, A. “La Tabula Hebana, la Tabula Siarensis e il Iustitium per la morte di Germanico.” MEFRA 100 (1988): 867–889. Fraser, P.M. “A Syriac Notitia Urbis Alexandrinae.” JEA 37 (1951): 103–108. —— “Bibliography: Greco-roman Egypt.” JEA 42 (1956). —— “Inscriptions from Ptolemaic Egypt.” Berytus 13 (1960): 123–161. —— Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. —— Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Frede, M. “Chaeremon der Stoiker.” ANRW II 36,3 (1989): 2067–2103. Frederiksen, M.W. “Caesar, Cicero and the Problem of Debt.” JRS 56 (1966): 128–141. Froidefond, C., Plutarque: oevres Morales. Isis et Osiris. Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1988. Fuchs, L. Die Juden Aegyptens in ptolemäischer und römischer Zeit. Wien: Rath, 1924. Gagé, J. “’Vivicomburium’. Ordalies ou supplices par le feu dans la Rome primitive.” RIDA 42 (1964): 541–573. Gagliardi, L. Mobilità e integrazione delle persone nei centri cittadini romani. Aspetti giuridici. I: la classificazione degli incolae. Milano: Giuffrè, 2006. Gambetti, S. “A Brief Note on Agrippa I’s Trip to Alexandria in the Summer of 38 CE.” JJS 30 (2006): 1–6. —— “The Jewish Community of Alexandria: The Origins” Henoch 29 (2007): 213–240. —— “In Defense of a Historical Reading of P. Yale II 107 = P. Giss. Lit. 4.7.” ZPE 165 (2008): 191–208. —— “Q&A on the Foundation of Alexandria.” (forthcoming). Garnsey, P. “The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors.” JRS 58 (1968): 51–59. —— Social Status and Legal Privileges in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Gatti, C. “Considerazioni sul culto imperiale nel quadro della politica di Gaio.” in Religione e politica nel mondo antico. CISA 7. Edited by Sordi, M. Milano: Vita e Pensiero 1981): 161–173. Gauthier, H. Dictionnaire des noms géographiques contenus dans les textes hiéroglyphiques. Cairo: IFAO, 1925–31.

300

bibliography

Gauthier, P. Symbola; les étrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques. Nancy: Université de Nancy, 1972. Gauthier, P., & M.B. Hatzopoulos. La loi gymnasiarchique de Beraia. Athens–Paris, 1993. Gelzer, M. “Iulius Caligula.” RE X (1919): 381–423. Geraci, G. Genesi della provincia romana d’Egitto. Bologna: CLUEB, 1983. —— “La concessione della cittadinanza alessandrina ad Arpocrate egizio in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995. Giessener Papyri- und Ostrakadatenbank. from http://digibib.ub.uni-giessen.de/cgibin/populo/pap.pl?x=u&t_regsrch=x&wertreg=ALL&wert=acta&reccheck=13 Gilboa, A. “L’octroi de la citoyenneté romaine et de l’immunité à Antipater, père d’Hérode.” RD 50 (1972): 609–614. Goddio, F. “Cartographie des vestiges archéologiques submergés dans le Port Est d’Alexandrie et dans la Rade d’Aboukir in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1992. —— “The Rediscovery of the Sunken Cities.” 73–99 in Egypt’s Sunken Treasures. Edited by Goddio, F. & M. Clauss. München–Berlin–Paris–New York: Prestel, 2006. Goddio, F., & e. al. Alexandria: The Submerged Royal Quarters. London: Periplus, 1998. Goedicke, H. “Comments on the Satrap Stela.” BES 6 (1984): 33–54. Goodenough, E.R. The Politics of Philo Judaeus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938. —— The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt as Described by Philo Judeaus. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968. Gordon, W.M., & O.F. Robinson. The Institutes of Gaius. Translated with introduction. London: Duckworth, 2001. Goudriaan, K. “Ethnical Strategies in Graeco-Roman Egypt.” 74–99 in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt. Edited by Bilde, P., et al. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992. Gould, J. “HIKETEIA.” JHS 93 (74–103)(1973). Gradel, I. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Graindor, P. La guerre d’Alexandrie. Cairo: Misr, 1931. Grainger, J.D. The Cities of Seleukid Syria. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Grant, M. The Jews in the Roman World. New York: Dorset, 1973. Greenidge, A.H.J. Infamia: Its Place in Roman Public and Private Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1894. Griffith, G.T. The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935. Grocholl, E.-M. “ὥσπερ ἐν δυσεὶ πόλεσειν κατοικοῦντας. Anmerkung zu CPJ II 153.90 f.” ZPE 89 (1991): 75–76. Gruen, E.S. “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple.” SCI 16 (1997): 47–70. —— Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley–Los Angeles– London: University of California Press, 1998. —— Diaspora. Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 2002. Grzybek, E. “La répression à Alexandrie en 41 apr. J.-C. et le problème des délégations juives envoyées à Rome (CP Jud II 153, 90–92).” RD 77 (1999): 213–222. Guarducci, M. “I pomi delle Esperidi in un epigramma di Lucillio.” Rend. Acc. Naz. Linc 24 (1969): 3–8. Guastella, G. Gaio Svetonio Tranquillo. La vita di Caligola. Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1992.

bibliography

301

Gutierrez, A.S.-O. Tabula Siarensis. Edición, tradución y comentario. Pamplona: Ed. Universidad de Navarra, 1999. Habicht, C. Athens from Alexander to Anthony. Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 1997. Hadas, M. Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas). New York: Harper 1951. Hamilton, J.R. “Cleitarchus and Diodorus 17.” 126–146 in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Pre-history. Studies Presented to S. Schachermeyr on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday. Edited by Kinzel, K.H. Berlin–New York: De Gruyter, 1977. Hammond, N.G.L. Three Historians of Alexander the Great. The So-called Vulgate Authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. —— “Portents, Prophecies, and Dreams in Diodorus Books 14–17.” GRBS 39 (1998): 407–428. Hansen, M.H. Apagogé, Endeixis and Ephegesis against Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes. A Study in the Athenian Administration of Justice in the Fourth Century B.C. Odense: Odense University Press, 1976. Hanson, A.E. “Caligula Months-Names in Philadelphia and related matters.” 1107–1118 in Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983). Napoli: Centro per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, 1984. Harker, A.J. Loyalty and Dissidence in Roman Egypt: the Case of the Acta Alexandrinorum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Harris, H.A. Greek Athletics and the Jews. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1976. Harrison, A.R.W. The Law of Athens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Hatzopoulos, M.B. “La formation militaire dans les gymnases hellénistiques.” 91–96 in Das hellenistische Gymnasion. Edited by Kah, D. & P. Scholz. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004. Heichenheim, F.M. “Inscriptions from the Fitzwilliam Museum.” JHS 62 (1942): 17. Heinen, H. “Der ktistes Boethos und die Einrichtung einer neuen Stadt. Teil II” APF 43 (1997): 340–363. —— “Boéthos, fondateur de poleis en Égypte Ptoémaïque.” 123–153 in Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Bertinoro 19–24 July 1997. Edited by Mooren, L. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Helm, R., Eusebius, Chronicon apud Hieronymus. Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1984. Henderson, M.I. “The Process ‘De Repetundis’.” JRS 41 (1951): 71–88. Hendrick, C.W., Jr. “The Thymaitian Phratry.” Hesperia 57 (1988): 81–85. Henning, D. “Zu der alexandrinischen Märtyrerakte P. Oxy. 1089.” Chiron 4 (425– 440)(1974). Henry, A.S. Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim–Zürich–New York: Olms Verlag, 1983. Henzen, G. Acta Fratrum Arvalium quae supersunt. Berlin: Raimer, 1874. Hesse, A. “Arguments pour une nouvelle hypothèse de localisation de l’Heptastade.” 7–20 in Alexandrina I. Edited by Empereur, J.-Y. Cairo: IFAO, 1998. Hesse, A., & e. al. “Geophysical Investigation for the Location of the Heptastadium in Alexandria (Egypt).” 715–718 in Proceedings of the IV Meeting of the Environmental and Engeneering Geophysical Society (European Section), September 14–17, 1998. Edited by Casas, A. Barcelona, 1998. Hoepfner, W. “Von Alexandria über Pergamon nach Nikopolis. Städtebau und Stadtbuilder hellenistischer Zeit.” 275–285 in Akten des XIII. Internationales Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988. Edited by Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1990. Hölbl, G. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. London–New York: Routledge, 2001. Hombert, M., & C. Préaux Recherches sur le recensement dans l’Égypte romaine (P. Bruxelles inv. E. 7616). Leiden: Brill, 1952.

302

bibliography

Honigman, S. “Philon, Flavius Josèphe, et la citoyenneté alexandrine.” JJS 48 (1997): 62–90. —— The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. A Study on the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas. London–New York: Routledge, 2001. —— “The Jewish Politeuma of Heracleoplis (review of Cowey, J.M.S., Maresch, K., Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.) (P. Polit. Jud), Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher 2001).” SCI 21 (2002): 251–266. —— “Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt” AncSoc 33 (2003): 61–102. Honoré, T. “Masurius Sabinus.” OCD: 936–937. —— Emperors and Lawyers. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. —— Ulpian. Pioneer of Human Rights. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Horbury, W., & D. Noy. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Hornung, E. Altägyptische Höllenvorstellungen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1968. Hunt, A.S. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Part VIII. Oxford: Hart, 1911. Hurley, D.W. An Historical and Historiographical Commentary on Suetonius’ Life of C. Caligula. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Husselman, E.M., et al., Papyri from Tebtunis, Part II. Ann Arbor, 1944. Huzar, E.G. “Augustus, Heir of the Ptolemies.” ANRW II 10,1 (1988): 344–382. —— “Emperor Worship in Julio-Claudian Egypt.” ANRW II 18.5 (1995): 3092–3143. Jacob, C., de Polignac, F. eds. Alexandria, Third Century BC. The Knowledge of the World in a Single City. Alexandria, Egypt: Harpocrates, 2000. Jacoby, F. “Kleitarchos (2).” RE XI (1921): 622–654. Jakobson, A., Cotton, H.M. “Caligula’s Recusatio Imperii,” Historia 34 (1985): 497–503. Jeffreys, E., et al. The Chronicle of John Malalas; an English Translation. Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1986. Jobes, K.H. 1 Peter. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Jobes, K.H., & M. Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdsman, 2000. Johnson, S.R. Historical Fiction and Hellenistic Jewish Identity. Third Maccabees in its Cultural Context. Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 2004. Jolowicz, H.F. “Precedent in Greek and Roman Law.” BIDR 46 (1939): 394–405. Jones, A.H.M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Rev. by Michael Avi-Yonah et. al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. Jones, C.P. “Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity.” JRS 77 (1987): 139–155. Jones, H.S. “Claudius and the Jewsih Question at Alexandria.” JRS 16 (1926): 17–35. Juster, J. Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain; leur condition juridique, économique et sociale. Paris: Geuthner, 1914. Kamal, A. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Stèles ptolémaïques et romaines. Cairo: IFAO, 1905. Kaplony-Heckel, U. “Das Dekret des spätern Königs Ptolemaios I Soter zugunsten der Götter von Butto(Satrapenstela), 311 v. Chr.” 613–619 in Texte aus der Umwelt des alten Testaments Edited by Kaiser, O. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verl.-Haus, 1985. Kapparis, K. “Immigration and Citizenship Procedures in Athenian Law.” RIDA 52 (2005): 71–113. Kaser, M. “Infamia und Ignominia in den römischen Rechtsquellen.” ZSS 73 (1956): 220–278. —— Das römische Zivilprozessrecht. München: Beck, 1966. —— “Gli inizi della ‘cognitio extra ordinem’.” 171–197 in Antologia guiridica romanistica ed antiquaria. Milano: Giuffrè, 1968.

bibliography

303

Kasher, A. “Three Jewish communities of Lower Egypt in the Ptolemaic period.” SCI 2 (1975): 113–123. —— The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. The Struggle for Equal Rights. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebek), 1985. Katzoff, R. “Precedent in the Courts of Roman Egypt.” ZSS 89 (1972): 256–292. —— “Sources of Law in Roman Egypt: The Role of the Prefect.” ANRW II 13 (1980): 807–844. Kayser, F. Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines (non funéraires) d’Alexandrie impériale (Ier–IIIe s. apr. J.-C.). Cairo: IFAO, 1994. —— “Ambassades Alexandrines à Rome (Ier–IIe siècle).” REA 105 (2003): 435–468. Kent Hill, D. “Some Boundary Stones from the Piraeus.” AJAH 36 (1932): 254–259. Kenyon, F.G. Greek Papyri in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1898. Kerkeslager, A. “The Apology of the Potter: A Translation of the Potter’s Oracle.” 67–79 in Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology (ÄAT 40). Edited by Shirun-Grumach, I. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1998. —— “The Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros from the Violence in Alexandria in 38 C.E.” StPhilAn 17 (2005): 49–94. —— “Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla in Alexandria.” JSJ 37 (2006): 367–400. Kleinfeller, G. “Iustitium.” RE X 2 (1919): 1339–1340. Kloppenborg, J.S., & S.G. Wilson, eds. Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. London–New York, Routledge, 1996. Koenen, L. “The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure in Images and Ideologies: SelfDefinitions in the Hellenistic World. Edited by Bulloch, A.W., et al. Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 1993. —— “Die Apologie des Töpfers an König Amenophis oder das Töpferorakel.” 139–187 in Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanted Texte aus dem Griechisch-römischen Ägypten. Edited by Blasius, A. & B.U. Schippers. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. Kourouniotes, K., & H.A. Thompson. “The Pnyx in Athens.” Hesperia 1 (1932): 90–217. Kramer, B. “Der Ktistes Boethos und die Einrichtung einer neuen Stadt. P. UB Trier S 135–3 und S 135–1. Teil I.” APF 43 (1997): 315–339. Kraus, H.W. (1967). Ἀναγραφή und ἀναγραφεῖν im Ägypten der Ptolemäer auf Römer. Universität zu Köln, Köln. Kraus Reggiani, C. “I rapporti tra l’impero romano e il mondo ebraico al tempo di Caligola secondo la ‘Lagatio ad Gaium’ di Filone Alessandrino.” ANRW II 21.1 (1984): 555–586. Krauter, S. Bürgerrecht und Kultteilname. Politische und kultische Rechte und Pflichten in griechischen Poleis, Rom und antikem Judentum. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Kreller, H. “Mandatum.” RE XIV (1930): 1015–1025. Kroll, W. Historia Alexandri Magni. Berlin: Weidemann, 1926. Kugler, R.A. (2007). A Loan for “Dorotheos the Jew” (P.Polit. Iud. 8): Rethinking Law and the Jews in Light of the Herakl. Papyri. Paper presented at the XXV International Congress of Papyrology, July 29–August 4, Ann Arbor. Kuhlmann, P.A. Die Giessener literarischen Papyri und die Caracalla-Erlasse. Giessen: Übersetzung und Kommentar, 1994. Kuhn, E. Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung bis auf die Zeiten Justinians. Leipzig: Teubner, 1864–5. Kunkel, W. “Die Funktion des Konsiliums in der magistratischen Strafjustiz und im Kaisergericht; I.” ZSS 84 (1967): 218–244. —— “Die Funktion des Konsiliums in der magistratischen Strafjustiz und im Kaisergericht; II.” ZSS 85 (1968): 253–329. —— Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der römischen Republik. München: Beck, 1995. Kushnir-Stein, A. “On the Visit of Agrippa I to Alexandria in A.D. 38.” JJS 51 (2)(2000): 225–242.

304

bibliography

Kyrieleis, H. Bildnisse der Ptolemäer. Berlin: Mann, 1975. La’da, C.A. “Ethnicity, Occupation and Tax-status in Ptolemaic Egypt.” EVO 17 (1994): 183–189. La’da C.A. “Who were those ‘of the Epigonè?’ ” 563–569 in Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologencongressen. Berlin 1995. Berlin: Teubner, 1997. —— Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. —— “Who were those of the Epigonè?” 563–569 in Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologencongressen. Berlin 1995. Berlin: Teubner, 1997. Langdon, M.K. “Hymettiana I.” Hesperia 54 (1985): 257–270. —— “Hymettiana III: The Boundary Markers of Alepovouni.” Hesperia 68 (1999): 481–508. Last, H. “Review of L.L. Howe, ‘The Preatorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian’.” JRS 34 (1944): 121–125. —— “The Praefectus Aegypti and his Powers.” JRS 40 (1954): 68–73. Launey, M. Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques. Paris: De Boccard, 1949. Leclant, J., ed. Alexandrie: une mégalopole cosmopolite. Paris: Belle Lettres, 1999. Lee, J.A.L. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Legras, B. Néotês. Genève: Dorz, 1999. Leisegang, I. Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt. Indices ad Philonis Alexandrini opera. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1926. —— Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt. Indices ad Philonis Alexandrini opera. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1930. Lenel, O., & J. Partsch Zum sogenannte Gnomon des Idios Logos. Heidelberg: Winter Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1920. Lenger, M.-T. Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées. Bruxelles: Academie royale de Belgique, 1964. Lesquier, J. Les institutions militaires de l’Egypte sous les Lagides. Paris, 1911. Levick, B. Tiberius the Politician. London–New York: Routledge, 1999. Levy, B.E. “Caligula’s Radiate Crown.” Gazette Numismatiques Swisse 38 (1988): 101–107. Levy, E. “Politeia et politeuma chez Polybe.” Ktema 15 (1990): 15–26. —— “Politeia et politeuma chez Aristote.” 65–90 in Aristote et Athenes. Edited by Peiérart, M. Paris: De Boccard, 1993. Lévy, I. “Ptolémée Lathyre et les Juifs.” Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950–1951): 127–136. Lewald, H. “Sul papiro Gradenwitz 1.” 340–342 in Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso. Milano Aegyptus, 1925. Lewis, N. “On Legal Proceedings under the Idios Logos: κατήγοροι and συκοφάνται.” JJP 9–10 (1956): 117–125. —— Inventory of Compulsory Services in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. New Havens– Toronto: The American Society of Papyrologists, 1968. —— “The Prefect’s Conventus; Proceedings and Proceedures.” BASP 18 (1981): 119–129. —— The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt. Florence: Gonnelli, 1997. —— Life in Egypt under Roman Rule. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. —— “To the conventus by a paraggelia: the Time Factor.” JJP 33 (2003). Lewy, H. Philon von Alexandrien von den Machterweisen Gottes: Eine zeitgenössische Darstellung der Judenverfolgungen unter dem Kaiser Caligula. Berlin: Schocken, 1935. Liebesny, H. “Ein Erlass des Königs Ptolemaios II Philadelphos über die Deklaration von Vieh und Sklaven in Syrien und Phönizien. PER 24.552.” Aeg 16 (1936): 256–291. Liou, J.-P. “Aperçus sur Isocrate à la lumière de l’emploi de quelques termes du vocabularie politique.” Ktema 15 (1990): 5–14.

bibliography

305

Lodomez, G. “De Satrapenstele.” 434–447 in Zij schreven geschiedenis. Historische documenten uit her Nabije Oosten (2500–100 v. Chr.). Edited by Demarée, R.J. Leiden–Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Lott, B. The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Lovisi, C. Contribution à l’étude de la peine de mort sous la République romaine (509–149 av. J.-C.). Paris: De Boccard, 1999. Lukaszewicz, A. “Tiberius Claudius Isidorus: Alexandrian Gymnasiarch and Epistrategus of Thebaid.” 125–129 in Essays and Texts in Honor of J. David Thomas. Edited by Bagnall, R.S. & T. Gagos. Exeter: Short Run Press, 2001. Ma, J. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ma’oz, Z.U. “The Judaean Synagogue. A Reflection on Alexandrian Architecture.” 192–201 in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo GrecoRomano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995. MacCormack, G. “Criminal Liability for Fire in Early and Classical Roman Law.” Index 3 (1972): 382–396. MacDowell, D.M. The Laws of Classical Athens. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978. Madden, J.A., & A. Keaveney. “The Crimen Maiestatis under Caligula: the Evidence of Dio Cassius.” CQ 48 (1998): 316–320. Maffi, A. “Ἀτιµάζειν e φεύγειν nei poemi omerici in Vorträge zur greichischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte Edited by Dimakis, P. Köln: Böhlau, 1983. Mangey, T. Philonis Iudaei Opera quae reperiri potuerunt omnia. Textum cum Mss. contulit, quamplurima etiam e Codd. Vaticano, Mediceo et Bodleiano, Scriptoribus item vetustis, nec non Catenis Graecis ineditis, adiecit, Interpretationemque emendavit, universa Notis et Observationibus illustravit Thomas Mangey, S.T.P., Canonicus Dunelmensis. Vol. I. II. London: Typis Guilelmi Bewyer, 1742. Manning, J. Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt. The Structure of Land Tenure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Maresch, K. “Zession von Katökenland: Eine Neuedition von P. Erlangen 59.” ZPE 76 (1989): 115–120. Marotta, V. Mandata principium. Torino: Giappichelli, 1991. —— Liturgia del potere. Documenti di nomina e cerimonie di investitura fra principato e tardo impero romano. Napoli: Loffredo, 1999. Marrone, M. “ ‘Res in iudicium deducta’—‘res iudicata’.” BIDR 3a ser. 37–38 (1995– 1996): 63–81. Marshall, A.J. “Women on Trial before the Roman Senate.” EMC 34 (1990): 333– 366. Mason, H.J. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. Toronto: Hakkert, 1974. Massebieau, M.L. “Le classement des œvres de Philon.” Bibliotèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses I (1889): 65–78. Mastrocinque, A. “I limiti degli isolati urbani a le origini della repubblica romana.” 155–165 in Il confine nel mondo classico. CISA 13. Edited by Sordi, M. Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1987. McKenzie, J.S. The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt c. 300 BC to AD 700. New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 2007. McKenzie, J.S., et al. “Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from the Archaeological Evidence, with an Appendix by Günter Grimm and Judith McKenzie.” JRS 94 (2004): 73–114. Meijer, F.J. “Mare Clausum aut Mare Apertum. Een beschouwing over zeevaar in de winter.” Hermeneus 55 (1983): 2–20. Mélèze Modrzejewski, Η δίκη του Ισιδώρου‧ ποινική καταστολή και ιδεολογική αναµέτρηση µεταξύ Αλεξανδρείας και Ρώµης (summary in French),” ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΑ ΤΗΣ ΑΚΑ∆ΗΜΙΑΣ ΑΘΗΝΩΝ, 61 (1986): 245–275.

306

bibliography

—— “Le statut des Hellènes dand l’Égypte Lagide: bilan et perspectives de recherches.” 243–268 in Statut personnel et liens de famille dans les droits de l’antiquité. Edited by Aldershot–Brookfield: Variorum, 1993. —— “Law and Justice in Ptolemaic Egypt.” 1–19 in Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World. Edited by Geller, M.J. & H. Maehler. London: The Warburg Institute–University of London, 1995. —— The Jews of Egypt. From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. —— “Espérances et illusions du Judaïsme Alexandrin.” 129–144 in Alexandrie: une mégalopole cosmopolite. Edited by Leclant, J. Paris: Belle Lettre, 1999. —— “The Septuagint as Nomos: How the Torah Became a ‘Civic Law’ for Jews of Egypt.” 183–199 in Critical Studies in Ancient Law, Comparative Law and Legal History (Essays in Honor of Alan Watson). Edited by Cairns, J.W. & O.F. Robinson. Oxford–Portland, 2001. Merkelbach, R. Isis Regina–Zeus Serapis. Die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt. Stuttgart–Leipzig: Teubner, 1995. Merritt, B. “The Inscriptions.” Hesperia 3 (1934): 1–114. —— “Greek Inscriptions (14–27).” Hesperia 8 (1939): 48–82. —— “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 9 (1940): 53–96. —— “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 10 (1941): 38–64. Mette, H.J. “Die kleinen griechischen Historiker heute.” Lustrum 21 (1978): 5–43. Meuwese, A.P.M. De rerum gestarum divi Augusti versione graeca. Amsterdam: Teulings, 1920. Meyer, E. Legitimacy and Law in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Michailides, G. “Papyrus contenant un dessin du dieu Seth à tête d’âne.” Aeg 32 (1952): 45–53. Millar, F. The Emperor and the Roman World (31 B.C.–A.D. 337). London: Duckworth, 1977. Miller, S.G. “Mortgage Horoi form the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 41 (1972): 274– 281. Mitchell, S. “Requisitioned Transport in the Roman Empire.” JRS 66 (1976): 105– 131. Momigliano, A. Claudius: the Emperor and His Achievement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1934. —— “Review of E.R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, New Haven: Yale University Press 1940.” JRS 34 (1944): 163–164. Mommsen, T. Römisches Staatsrecht. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1887. Monson, A. “The Ethics and Economics of Ptolemaic Religious Associations.” AncSoc 36 (2006): 221–238. Montevecchi, O. “L’amministrazione dell’Egitto sotto i Giulio-Claudi.” ANRW II 10,1 (1988): 412–471. —— “Nerone a una polis e ai 6475.” 83–113 in Orsolina Montevecchi. Scripta Selecta. Edited by Daris, S. Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1998. Moretti, L. Olympionikai. I vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1957. —— Iscrizioni agonistiche greche. Roma: Signorelli, 1953. Mossé, C. “Citoyens actifs et citoyens passifs dans les cités grecques; une approche théorique du problème.” REG 81 (1979): 241–249. Mourgues, J.-L. “Écrire en deux langues: bilinguisme et chancellerie sous le Haut-empire romain.” DHA 21 (1995): 105–129. Mueller, K. Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistic World. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Musurillo, H. The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs: the Acta Alexandrinorum. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.

bibliography

307

—— Acta Alexandrinorum. De mortibus Alexandriae nobilium fragmenta papyracea graeca. Leipzig: Teubner, 1961. Musurillo, H., & G.M. Parassoglou. “A New Fragment of the Acta Alexandrinorum.” ZPE 15 (1974): 1–7. Naiden, F.S. Ancient Supplication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Naville, E. Mound of the Jews and the City of Onias. The Antiquities of Tell el Yehudieh. London: Kegan, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1890. Nelson, C.A. Status Declaration in Roman Egypt. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1979. Neppi Modona, A. “Protocolli giudiziari o romanzo storico?” 407–438 in Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso. Milano: Aegyptus, 1925. Niedermeyer, H. Über antike Protokoll-Literatur. Göttingen: Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen, 1918. Niehoff, M. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebek), 2001. Niku, M. The Official Status of the Foreign Residents in Athens 322–120 B.C. Helsinki: Rannikon Laatupaino, 2007. Nillson, M.P. La scuola nell’età ellenistica. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1973. Noack, F. “Neue Untersuchungen in Alexandrien.” MDAI Athenische Abt. 25 (1900): 215–279. Noe’, E. Commento storico a Cassio Dione LIII. Como: New Press, 1994. Ober, J. “Rock-Cut Inscriptions form Mt. Hymettos.” Hesperia 50 (1981): 68–77. —— Fortress Attica. Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier 404–322. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Oliver, J.H. The Sacred Gerousia. Baltimore: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1941. —— “Epigraphical Notes.” ZPE 32 (1978): 279–280. —— Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1989. Oren, E.D., ed. The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Philadelphia, University Museum, University of Philadelphia, 1997. Orestano, R. Il potere normativo degli imperatori e le costituzioni imperiali. Roma: Europa, 1937. —— “La cognitio extra ordinem—una chimera.” SDHI 46 (1980): 236–247. Osborne, R., & B. Cunliff, eds. Mediterranean Urbanization 800–600 BC. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005. Pack, R.A. The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt. Second Revised and Enlarged Edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965. Palermo, A. Studi sulla “exceptio” nel diritto classico. Milano: Giuffre’, 1956. Pantalacci, L. “Remarques sul les composés de type ʿ–,r #– ou –r #–ʿ– devant racine verbale en égytpien ancien.” OLP 16 (1985): 5–20. Parente, F. “The Third Book of Maccabees as Ideological Document and Historical Source.” Henoch 10 (1988): 143–182. Parsons, P.J., ed. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. XLII. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974. Paul, A. “Le Troisième livre des Macchabées.” ANRW II 20,1 (1987): 298–336. Pearce, S. “Jerusalem as ‘Mother-City’ in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria.” 19–36 in Negotiating Diaspora. Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire. Edited by Barclay, J.M.G. London–New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004. —— “Philo on the Nile.” 137–157 in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Frey, J. & D. Schwartz. Leiden: Brill, 2007. —— The Land of the Body. Study of Philo’s Representation of Egypt. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebek), 2007. Pearson, L. The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1983 [1960]. Pellettier, A. Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate. Paris: Cerf 1962. —— Philon In Flaccum. Paris: Cerf, 1967.

308

bibliography

Pestman, P.W. Chronologie Égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C.–453 ap. J.-C.). Leiden: Brill, 1967. —— The New Papyrological Primer. Leiden–New York–Köln: Brill, 1994. Petrie, W.M.F. Hyksos and Israelite Cities. London: School of Archaeology, University College–Bernard Quaritch, 1906. Piganiol, A. “Le Statut Augustéen de l’Égypte et sa destruction.” MusHelv 10 (1953): 193–202. Pigeaud, J. “Caligula, l’empereur fou.” L’Histoire (Paris L’Histoire) 73 (1984): 26–30. Plaumann, G. Griechische Papyri der Sammlung Gradenwitz. Heidelberg: Winter, 1914. Poddighe, E. “La natura del tetto censitario stabilito da Antipatro per l’accesso al ‘politeuma” di Atene nel 322 a.C.” DHA 23 (1997): 47–82. —— “L’atimia nel DIAGRAMMA di Cirene. La definizione della cittadinanza tra morale e diritto alla fine del IV secolo A.C.” Aevum 75 (2001): 37–55. Poland, F. Geschichte des griechischen Vereinwesen. Leipzig: Teubner, 1909. Pont, M. “Una diagnosi medica sulla morte di Tiberio.” Annali della Facotlà di Lettere e Filosofia di Perugia—Studi Classici 17 (1993–1995): 311–322. Porten, B. Archive from Elephantine. The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley–Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. —— Jews of Elephantine and Arameans of Syene (fifth century BCE). Fifty Aramaic Texts with Hebrew and English Translation. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1974. —— The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-cultural Continuity and Change. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Prandi, L. Fortuna e realtà dell’opera di Clitarco. Stuttgart: Stein, 1996. Price, S.R.F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University, 1984. Prosopographia imperii romani saec. I. II. III. Edita consilio et avctoritate Academiae litterarvm Borvssicae. Berolini: De Gruyter & Co., 1933–1999. Pucci Ben Zeev, M. “New Perspectives on the Jewish-Greek Hostilities in Alexandria During the Reign of Emperor Caligula.” JSJ 21 (1990): 227–235. —— Jewish Rights in the Roman World. The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebek), 1998. Purpura, G. “ ‘Passaporti’ romani.” Aeg 82 (2002): 131–155. Quaegebeur, J. “Rhakotis.” LÄ 5 (1984): 90–91. —— “Greco-Egyptian Double Names as a Feature of a Bi-Cultural Society: the Case of Psosneus o kai Triadelphos.” 265–272 in Life in a Multicultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond. Edited by Johnson, J.H. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1992. Rabello, A.M. “The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire.” ANRW II 13 (1980): 662–762. Rajak, T. “Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews?” JRS 74 (1984): 107–123. Rappaport, U. “Les Iduméens d’Égypte.” RPh 43 (1969): 73–82. Rathbone, D.W. “The Dates of the Recognition in Egypt of the Emperors from Caracalla to Diocletian.” ZPE 62 (1986): 101–131. Rea, J. “Five Papyrological Notes on Imperial Prosopography.” Cd’E 43 (1968): 365–374. Reinach, T. “L’empereur Claude et les Juifs d’après un nouveau document.” REJ 79 (1924): 133–144. Reinmuth, O.W. The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Leipzig: Dieterich, 1935. Reitzenstein, R. “Ein Stück hellenistischer Kleinliteratur.” Nachr. Gött. Ges., phil.-hist. Kl. 1 (1904): 326–332. Rémy, B. “Ornati et ornamenta quaestoria, praetoria et consularia sous le haut empire romain.” REA 78–79 (1976–77): 160–198. Riccobono, S., jr. Il Gnomon dell’Idios Logos. Palermo: Palumbo, 1950.

bibliography

309

Rizakis, A.D. “INCOLAE—PAROIKOI: Populations et communautés dépendentes dans le cités et les colonies romaines de l’Orient.” REA 100 (1998): 599–617. Robert, L. “Le culte de Caligula à Milet et la province d’Asie.” 206–238 in Hellenica VII. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1949. —— “Dans l’amphithéâtre et dans les jardins de Néron. Une épigramme de Lucillius.” CRAI (1968): 280–288. —— Opera minora selecta. Épigraphie et antiquités grecques. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1969. —— Documents d’Asie Mineure. Paris: De Boccard, 1987. Rochemonteux, M., & E. Chassinat Le temple d’Edfou. Cairo: IFAO, 1892. Rodziewicz, M. “Le débat sur la topographie de la ville.” Alexandrie entre deux mondes—ROMM 46 (4)(1987): 38–48. —— “Ptolemaic Street Directions in Basilea (Alexandria) in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio. Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995. Roeder, G. Die altägyptische Götterwelt. Zürich: Artemis 1959. Roux, J., & G. Roux. “Un décret du politeuma des Juifs de Bérénikè en Cyrénaique au museé lapidaire de Carpentras.” REG 62 (1949): 281–296. Rowe, A. Discovery of the Famous Temple and Enclosure of Serapis at Alexandria. Cairo: IFAO, 1946. Rowe, A., & B.R. Rees. “A Contribution to the Archaeology of the Western Desert: IV. The Great Serapeum of Alexandria.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester 39 (2)(1957): 485–520. Rowlandson, J., & A.J. Harker. “Roman Alexandria from the Perspective of the Papyri.” 79–112 in Alexandria, Real and Imagined. Edited by Hirst, A. & M. Silk. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. Runia, D.T. “Polis and Megalopolis: Philo and the Founding of Alexandria.” Mnemosyne 42 (1989): 398–412. —— Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993. Rüpke, J. Domi militiae: die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990. Rutledge, S.H. Imperial Inquisitions. Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian. London–New York: Routledge, 2001. Salvaterra, C. “Considerazioni sul progetto di Caligola di visitare l’Italia.” 631–656 in Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba. Bilancio di un confronto. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Bologna 31 agosto–2 settembre 1987. Edited by Criscuolo, L. & G. Geraci. Bologna: CLUEB, 1989. San Nicolò, M. Ägyptischen Vereinwesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer. München: Beck, 1913. Scanlon, T. Eros and Greek Athletics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Schäfer, P. Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge– London: Harvard University Press, 1997. Schafer, T. Imperii insignia, sella curulis und fasces. Zur Representation römischer Magistrate. Mainz: von Zabern, 1989. Scheid, J. Res gestae divi Augusti. Paris: Belle Lettres, 2007. Scheidel, W. “Creating a Metropolis: A Comparative Demographic Perspective.” 1–31 in Ancient Alexandria betwen Egypt and Greece. Edited by Harris, W.V. & G. Ruffini. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2004. Schiller, A.A. Roman Law. Mechanisms of Development. The Hague–Paris–New York: Mouton, 1978. Schiller, A.A., & W.L. Westermann. Apokrimata: Decisions of Septimius Severus on Legal Matters. New York, Columbia University Press, 1954. Schimanowski, G. Juden und Nichtjuden in Alexandrien. Koexistenx und Konflikte bis zum Pogrom unter Trajan (117 n. Chr.). Berlin: LIT 2006.

310

bibliography

Scholl, R. “ ‘Epigonni’ .” ZPE 67 (1987): 111–115. —— Corpus de ptolemäischen Sklaventexte. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990. Schott, S. Urkunden mythologischen Inhalts, VI. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1929–1939. Schroembges, P. “Caligulas Wahn. Zur Historizität eines Topos.” Tyche 3 (1988): 171–190. Schubart, W. “Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus.” APF 5 (1909– 1913): 35–131. —— Der Gnomon des Idios Logos. Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1919. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–135 A.D.), reivsed edition by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman. Edimbourgh: T&T Clark, 1987. Schwartz, D.R. Agrippa I, the Last King of Judaea. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1990. Schwartz, E. “Diodorus.” RE V (1905): 682–683. Schwartz, J. “Préfets d’Egypte sous Tibère et Caligula.” ZPE 48 (1982): 189–192. Schwind, F. Zur Frage der Publikation im römischen Recht. München: Beck’sche, 1973. Seager, R. Tiberius. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. Sebillote, V. “La ‘patris’ grecque.” Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 10 (1999): 7–25. Seeck, O. “Codicilli.” RE IV,1 (1900): 174–183. Segrè, A. “Liberi tenuti in schiavitù nella Siria, nella Fenicia e nell’Egitto tolemaico.” Archivio Giuridico 132 (1945): 161–182. Segre, M., & R. Herzog. “Una lettera di Corbulone ai Coi.” PP 30 (1975): 102–104. Seland, T. “Philo and the Associations of Alexandria.” 110–127 in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by Kloppenborg, J.S. & S.G. Wilson. London–New York: Routledge, 1996. Sethe, K. Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-römischen Zeit. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904. Seyfarth, J. “ ‘Frata’ und ‘fratria’ im nachclassischen Griechentum.” Aeg 35 (1955): 3–38. Shear, T.L. “The Campaign of 1938.” Hesperia 8 (1939): 201–246. Sherk, R.K. Roman Documents from the Greek East. Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969. Sherwin-White, A.N. The Letters of Pliny. A historical and social commentary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966. —— “Philo and Avilius Flaccus; a Conundrum.” Latomus 31 (1972): 820–828. —— The Roman Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973. Sherwin-White, S., & A. Kuhrt. From Samarkhand to Sardis. A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. Berkeley–Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993. Shotter, D. Tiberius Caesar. London: Routledge, 1992. Sijpesteijn, P.J. “The Legatione ad Gaium.” JJS 15 (1964): 87–97. —— Listes des gymnasiarques des metropoles de l’Égypte romaine. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967. —— The Family of the Tiberii Iulii Theones. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1976. —— Nouvelle liste des gymnasiarques des metropoles de l’Égypte romaine. Zutphen: Terra, 1986. Simpson, C.J. “The Cult of the Emperor Gaius.” Latomus 40 (1981): 489–511. Simpson, W.K. The Literature of Ancient Egypt: an Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry. New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 2003. Singerland, H.D. Claudian Policimaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Skeat, T.C. The Reign of Augustus in Egypt. Conversion Tables for the Egyptian and Julian Calendars, 30 B.C.–14 A.D. München: Beck, 1993.

bibliography

311

Smallwood, E.M. “The Chronology of Gaius’ Attempt to Desecrate the Temple.” Latomus 16 (1957): 3–17. —— Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius, and Nero. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. —— Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium. Leiden: Brill, 1970. —— The Jews under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Smith, M.S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Smith, R.R.R. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988. Smith, W. Actio in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. London: Murray, 1875. —— A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. London: Murray, 1875. Snyder, W.F. “Progress Report on the HMERAI SEBASTAI.” Aeg 44 (1964): 145–169. Sordi, M. “Silla e lo ius pomerii proferendi.” 200–211 in Il confine nel mondo Classico. CISA 13. Edited by Sordi, M. Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1987. Souris, G.A. “The Size of the Provincial Embassies to the Emperor under the Principate” ZPE 48 (1982): 235–144. Spinka, M., & G. Downey. Chronicle of John Malalas, books VIII–XVIII; Translated from the Church Slavonic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940. Stephens, S.A. Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985. —— Seeing Double. Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria. Berkeley–Los Angeles– London: University of California Press, 2003. Stricker, B.H. “Asinarii I.” Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 42 (1965): 52–75. Stroppa, M. “Il termine ‘programma’ nella documentazione papiracea dell’Egitto Romano” Aeg 84 (2004): 177–197. Sugliano, A. “Cittadini, pareci, stranieri: le categorie giuridiche e sociali nelle città greche d’Asia Minore fra III e I secolo a.C.” MedAnt 4 (2001): 293–324. Swarney, P.R. The Ptolemaic and Roman Idios Logos. Toronto: Hakkert, 1970. Swoboda, A. P. Nigidii Figuli operum reliquiae. Amsterdam, 1961 [1889]. Takács, S.A. Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Talamanca, M. “L’attivita’ normativa del princeps. Edicta e mandata, 409–416 in Lineamenti di storia del diritto romano. Edited by Talamanca, M. Milano: Giuffrè, 1989. Talbert, R.J.A. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Tarn, W.W. Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Taubenschlag, R. The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri. 332 B.C.–640 A.D. Warszawa: P.W.N. Warszawa Press, 1955. Tcherikover, V. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America–Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1961 [1959]. Tcherikover, V., & A. Fuks. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957–1960. Te Velde, H. Seth, God of Confusion. A Study of his Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion. Leiden: Brill, 1977. —— “Seth.” 269a–271a in Oxford Encylopedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Terian, A. “A Critical Introduction to Philo’s Dialogues.” ANRW II 21,1 (1984): 272–294. Theiler, W., Posidonius. Die Fragmente. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1982. Thompson, D.J. Memphis under the Ptolemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. —— “Hellenistic Hellenes: the Case of Ptolemaic Egypt.” 301–322 in Ancient Perceptions of Greec Ethnicity. Edited by Malkin, I. Cambridge–London: Harvard University Press, 2001.

312

bibliography

Thompson, H.A. The Tholos of Athens and its Predecessors. Athens: American School of Classical Studies, 1940. Thompson Crawford, D.J. “The Idumaeans of Memphis and the Ptolemaic Politeumata.” 1069–1075 in Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983). Napoli: Centro internazionale per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, 1984. Thür, G. “The Role of the Witness in the Athenian Law.” 146–169 in The Cambridge Companion to Athenian Law. Edited by Gagarin, M. & D. Cohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Tkaczov, B. The Topography of Ancient Alexandria (an Archaeological Map). Varsovie: Zaklad ARcheologii Sródziemnomorskiej, Polskiej Akadmii Nauk, 1993. Todd, S.C. “Status and Contract in Fourth-century Athens.” 125–140 in Symposion 1993. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Graz-Andritz 12.-16. September 1993. Edited by Thür, G. Köln–Weimar–Wien: Böhlau, 1994. —— “Status and Gender in Athenian Public Records.” 113–124 in Symposion 1995. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Korfu, 1.–5. September 1995). Edited by Thür, G. & J. Vélissaropoulos-Karakostas. Köln–Weimar–Wien: Böhlau, 1997. —— “Law and Oratory at Athens.” 97–111 in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law. Edited by Gagarin, M. & D. Cohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Tomlinson, R. “The Town Plan of Hellenistic Alexandria.” 236–240 in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23–27 novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-egizio. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995. Townend, G. Caesar’s War in Alexandria: Bellum Civile II, 102–112; Bellum Alexandrinum 1–33, with introduction, notes and vocabulary. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1988. Tracy, S.V. “Reflections on the Athenian Ephebeai in the Hellenistic Age.” 207–210 in Das hellenistische Gymnasion. Edited by Kah, D. & F. Schulz. Berlin: Akademie, 2004. Turnebus, A. Philonis Iudaei in libros Mosis de mundi opificio, historicos, de legibus. Eiusdem libri singulares, Ex bibliotheca Regia. Paris: Ex officina Adriani Turnebi typographi Regij, 1552. Turpin, W. “Formula,” “cognitio,” and proceedings “extra ordinem.” RIDA 46 (1999): 499–574. Uebel, F. Die Kleruchen Ägytpens unter der ersten sechs Ptolemäern. Berlin: Akademie, 1968. Van ‘t Dack, E., et al. The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103–101. A Multilingual Dossier Concerning a “War of Sceptres” Brussel: Koninlijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 1989. Van der Horst, P. Chaeremon, Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher. Leiden: Brill, 1984. —— Philo’s Flaccus. The First Pogrom. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2003. Van Henten, J.-W. “Typhon.” 1657–1662 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by van der Toorn, K., et al. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Van Henten, J.-W., & R. Abusch. “The Jews as Typhonians and Josephus’ Strategy of Refutation in Contra Apionem.” 271–309 in Josephus’ Contra Apionem. Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion of the Missing Greek. Edited by Feldman, L.H. & J.R. Levison. Leiden–New York–Köln: Brill, 1996. Van Nijf, O.M., ed. The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Amsterdam, Gieben, 1997. Vasunia, P. The Gift of the Nile. Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 2001.

bibliography

313

Veligianni-Terzi, C. Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehrendekreten der Klassischen Zeit. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997. Velissaropoulos, J. Αλεξανδρινοι νοµοι· πολιτικη αυτονοµια και νοµικη αυτοτελεια της Πτολεµαικης Αλεχανδρειας. Athens: Nimikes Ekdosis Ant. N. Sakkoula, 1981. Venit, M.S. Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria. The Theater of the Dead. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Verbrugghe, G.P., & J.M. Wickersham. Berosso and Manetho, Introduced and Translated. Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Versnel, H.S. “Les imprécations et le droit.” RD 65 (1987): 5–22. Vidman, L. “Inferiae und Iustitium.” Klio 53 (1971): 209–212. Vogt, J. Alexandrinischen Münzen. Grundlegung einer alexandrinischen Kaisergeschichte. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1924. Volkmann, H. Die Massenversklavungen der Einwohner eroberter Städte in der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990. Von Kaenel, H.M. “Augustus, Caligula oder Claudius?” Gazette Numismatique Swisse 28 (1978): 39–44. Von Premerstein, A. Zu den sogenannte alexandrinischen Märtyrerakten. Leipzig: Philologus. Supplementband 16,2, 1923. —— Alexandrinische Geronten vor Kaiser Gaius. Giessen: Klabfleisch, 1939. Von Recklinghausen, D. “Ägyptische Quellen zum Judentum.” ZÄS 132 (2005): 147–160. Von Spiegelberg, W. “Die Tefnachtosstele des Museums von Athen.” RecTrav 25 (1903): 190–198. Waddell, W.G., Manetho. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1948. Wagner, G. “Inscriptions grecques du temple de Karnak.” BIFAO 70 (1971): 1–38. Wardle, D. Suetonius’ Life of Caligula. A Commentary. Bruxelles: Latomus, 1994. Welles, B. Diodorus VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Westermann, W.L. Upon Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt. New York: Columbia University Press, 1929. —— “Enslaved Persons Who Are Free.” AJPh 59 (1938): 1–30. Whitehead, D. The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1977. Wilcken, U. “Zum alexandrinischen Antisemitismus.” Abh. kön. sächs. Ges. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. 28 (1909): 783–839. —— “Zu den Kaiserreskripten.” Hermes 55 (1920): 1–42. Wild, R.A. Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Serapis. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Williams, W. “The Publication of Imperial Subscripts.” ZPE 40 (1980): 283–294. Willrich, H. “Caligula. Dritter Teil. VII, Die Juden.” Beiträge zur alten Geschichte = Klio 3 (1903): 397–419. Winnicki, J.K. “Militäroperationen von Ptolemaios I. und Seleukos I. in Syrien in des Jahren 312–311 v.Chr.” AncSoc 22 (1991): 147–201. Winterling, A. Caligula. Eine Biographie. Ulm: Beck, 2003. Witt, R.E. Isis in the Graeco-Roman World. London: Thames & Hudson, 1971. Wolff, H.J. Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Ägyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemäer und des Prinzipats. München: Beck, 2002. Yiftach-Firanco, U. Marriage and Marital Arrangements. A History of the Greek Marriage Document in Egypt. 4th century BCE–4th century CE. München: Beck 2003. Youni, M. “Different Categories of Unpunished Killing and the Term ΑΤΙΜΟΣ in Ancient Greek Law.” 117–137 in Symposion 1997: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, Altafiumara, 8.-14. September 1997. Edited by Cantarella, E. & G.Thür. Köln-Weimar-Wien: Böhlau, 2001.

314

bibliography

Youtie, H.C. “P. Mich. inv. 148 verso: the Rule of Precedent.” ZPE 27 (1977): 124– 137. Zanker, P. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988. Zanon, G. Le strutture accusatorie della cognitio extra ordinem nel principato. Padova: CEDAM, 1998. Zelnick-Abramovitz, R. “Supplication and request: application by foreigners to the Athenian ‘polis’.” Mnemosyne 51 (Ser. 4 ) (1998): 554–573. Zuckermann, C. “Hellenistic Politeumata and the Jews. A Riconsideration.” SCI 8–9 (1985–1988): 171–185.

GENERAL INDEX Aemilius Rectus (Lucius Aemilius Rectus) Prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 276 Agrippa I, king of part of the Levant 61 additions to his kingdom 258 arrives in Alexandria 151; 154; 156; 160; 163 arrives in Palestine 257 asks to reach his kingdom 151 attire of 151–156 becomes king 151–152 delivers mandata to Flaccus 156; 158–159 duties in Alexandria 154–156 gives Gaius Jewish supplication 214 honors to (ornamenta praetoria) 153; 156; 160 in Rome in 39 260; 263 leader of anti-Roman conspiracy 4 leaves Alexandria 163–164 leaves Rome 151; 154; 156–158 length of stay in Alexandria 163 and n. 50 life of 151–153; 163–164 marches through Alexandria 152 meets Alexandrian Jews 163–165 meets Flaccus 151; 159ff. mocked in the gymnasium 159–161 Roman citizenship of 152 Alexander the arabarch 163–164 Alexander the Great and privileges in Asia Minor 69 and rights to Jews 23; 68 Alexandria boulē of 57; 185; 223; 241; 246; 279 chōra of 37 citizenship of 57 clubs of 82; 185; 209 gerousia of 57–58; 79; 162 set images in Jewish meetinghouses 171–172 and grain shortage 142 gymnasium of 57; 159–160 and Gaius’ images 185–186 and military duties 59; 184–185 attacks the Jews 188–189 membership of 63

provisions for 78 Jews among founders of 27; 61 mob of 59–160; 162; 167; 171; 182; 185; 188; 195; 210 mourning for Drusilla 157 multiethnicity of 209–210 Oikos of 37 n. 58 origins in literature 25–26 negative tradition on 200ff. origins in Satrap stela 26; 35 Polituemata in 48ff.; 58ff. of Alexandrians 58–59 of Jews see Jews in Alexandria of Phrygians 48 n. 100 of soldiers 48 publication of documents in 149 territory of internal boundaries 183 in Philo’s treatises 8; 21 principle of territoriality 37ff. Ptolemaic control of 38–39 rationalization and subdivision of 8; 30; 38 n. 62; 58; 182; 183–184; 204 Roman control of 58; 65 territorial administrative apparatus 39 topography of (see map in appendix 4) 5 quarters 32 and n. 36; 58 Alexander’s tomb 35 n. 48 agora 190 β 32 n. 39 Canopic Gate 34 Canopic Way 180 Cape Lochias 36; 54 δ; location of 32; 34–35 (see also Jews) Eastern Harbor 54 Gymnasium 81 Heptastadion 34; 35 n. 47; 54; 284 Jewish great meeting-house 185 Kibotos 32; 34; 36; 54; 180; 227 naming quarters after letter 32ff. Necropolis of Gabbari 180 n. 57 Necropolis of Mustafa Pasha 208 Nikopolis 59

316

general index

other necropoleis (see map in appendix 4) Pharos 34; 54; 282 Rhakotis 26; 33 n. 41; 35 and n. 48; 36; 54; 201 n. 22 Royal palaces/royal quarter 35; 36 n. 52; 54 Serapeum 30–31 and n. 35; 79 street grid 30–31 theater 162; 167ff. and n. 3; 190; 191 Western Harbor (Eunostos) 54 Alexandrian laws (see also Athenian laws) Athenian origins of 9–10 enforced in 38 172–192 Alexandrians (see also Greeks of Alexandria; Isidoros, Lampon, Dionysios, Areios, Eulalos, Alexandria-gerousia, Alexandriagymnasium) and politeuma 59 attacked the Jews 210–211 at the trial of 37 (see also Trial of 37) 102; 115–118 at the trial of 39 (see also Trial of 39) 216 at the trial of 41 (see also Trial of 41) 218–220 multi-ethnic composition of 208–211 Amenophis, Egyptian king 196 Antigoneia in Syria 235 Antigonos Monophtalmos 235; 236 Antioch on the Orontes Founding of 235–236 Jews of 235–236 problems in 38 237 Antiochos IV 43 Antipatros of Judaea 53 Antipatros of Macedonia 44 n. 85 Antipas exiled in Lyon 258 sails to Rome 257 Antoninus Pius 178 Anubis 209 Apion 36; 67; 210–211; 213; 261; 267–268 Areios, Alexandrian defendant at the trial of 37 115; 117–118 Aristobulos, brother of Agrippa I 263 Artabanos, king of Parthia 170; 262

Athenian laws 145; 146; 174–175; 176 n. 38; 186; 188–189 and n. 81; 190–191 on deprivation of honors 133 on foreigners and taxes 119 on status boundaries 124–125 on trials against foreigners 125 and n. 95 Augustus (Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus) and Alexandria 57–59 and census and poll-tax 61; 64–65 and Egypt 277 and Jewish politeuma 58–59 and military reforms 59 and rights of Jews 57; 59–69 Avaris 196 Baal 199 Baiae 257 Balbilius (Tiberius Claudius Balbilius) Prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 276 Bassus, Roman centurion 192 Bocchoris, Egyptian king 196 Boethos, builder of Euergetis 33 Bubastis 209 C. Cornelius Gallo, prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 277 n. 3; 278 n. 10 C. Galerius, prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 275 C. Iulius Aquila, prefect of Alexandria And Egypt 274–275 C. Petronius, prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 278 n. 10 Caesar (Gaius Iulius Caesar) 52–55; 134; 240 Canopus 204 Capito (Erennius Capito), tax procurator of Judaea 260 Carabas 159 Chaeremon 195; 196 Claudius (Tiberius Claudius Caesar) 61 decisions prior to 41 228 and Isidorus 229 letter to the Alexandrians of 41; 217 (see also Trial of 41) on the throne 217; 219 two edicts of 41 217; 230–234 Cleopatra VII 55; 61 Coele-Syria 43; 51; 202; 236 collective responsibilities for the riots 8 commodus 280

general index Darius the Great, King of Persia And privileges in Asia Minor 69 Demetrios Poliorketes 236 Dionysios (Gaius Iulius Dionysius) 143; 182; 185 and Flaccus 79 and the Jews 144 member of Alexandrian delegation in 41 217–220; 229 (see also Trial of 41) Drusilla birthday of 257; 269 death and Iustitium; mourning for 156–157 and n. 28; 186; 193; 256 Edfou 202; 205 Egyptian anti-Jewish folk tradition 195–196 Egyptians of Alexandria attacked the Jews 6; 208–211 corporal punishment for 62 and poll-tax 61 Elephantine, Island of 135 Eulalos, Alexandrian defendants in the trial of 37 115 Euthenia 205 Flaccus (Aulus Avuilius Flaccus), prefect of Alexandria and Egypt adjudicates against the Jews in 38 145 Amicus of Tiberius 139 and Agreement with anti-Jewish Greeks of Alexandria 18–20; 138; 141–145; 152; 162; 185; 193 and Agrippina 139–140 and n. 8; 141 and Gaius’ mandata 156; 158–159; 171; 180 and Macro 139–140 and need for protection 138; 142ff. and Sejanus 74 and Tiberius’ mandata 75 and visas 105 appointed prefect 75; 77ff. arrest and trial of 143; 144; 192–193 arrests Jewish gerousia 190 attempts to reconcile the Jews 172 banishes clubs 83 calls census 80 conventus of 103 difficult political position of 5 does not send Jewish decree 20–21; 84–85 edict against weapons of 192

317

effects of the edict of 5; 180–182 demographic 181; 187 territorial 181–182; 188 enforcement of edict of 182–184 first 5 years of office of 77ff.; 84 honors for reappointment of 162 imperium of 85 institutional intervention of 190ff. issues edict 172ff.; 177–180 jurisdiction of 176ff. meets Agrippa 158ff. protest against 80ff.; 83 publishes Gaius’ mandata 178ff. responsibility for the riots of 1–6; 11; 18–19 reappointed prefect 85; 141–142; 154–155 searches for weapon by 191 Fortunatus 257; 266 Gaius (Gaius Iulius Caesar) adjudicates in 37 109; 113ff. adjudicates in 39 215–217 and Agrippa 151ff. and crimen maiestatis 120; 122; 140; 141; 193 and concilium principis 126–127 and punishment with fire 122–123 and self-deification 169–171; 216 and the law 148ff. becomes emperor 84; 106–109; 262 change of policy vis-à-vis the Jews 180 death of 217; 257 decretum of 147–148 illness of 85; 137 and n. 1; 140 mandata to Flaccus 154–156; 158–159; 171 mourns for Drusilla 156–157 orders death of Gemellus, Macro and Silanus 85; 138 and n. 3; 140–142 orders statue in Temple 74; 258ff. returns from Germany 257 responsible for the riots 1–2; 11; 16 sends Agrippa to Alexandria 154ff. travels to Campania in 39 256–258 Gaius Turranius, prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 63; 116; 281; 291 Germanicus (Iulius Caesar Germanicus) 61 Greeks of Alexandria (see also Alexandrians) agreement with Flaccus 18–20 attacked the Jews 5 Gymnasium protest

318 and clubs 83 and Isidorus 81ff. causes 110 protest against Flaccus

general index

80ff.; 83

Harpokrates, Alexandrian physician 280 Helenos son of Tryphonos 63ff.; 75–76; 116; 127; 281 Hermais 209 Hermanubis 209 Herodias 257 Hiberus, prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 75; 275 n. 14 Horos, public official of Alexandria 64–65 Horus 202; 205 Hyksos 196–199 Hyrkanus II, High Priest of the Jews 68–69 Idios Logos 67 Immigration to Alexandria 51 and Claudius 221ff. and Flaccus 172–173; 178–179 and Jews 51; 181–182 In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium 6 incompleteness of 1 interpretation of 16–17 time of composition 6; 16 Individual responsibilities of the riots 8 Isidoros 61; 79; 182–185; 218 amicus of Gaius 143; 213 and Agrippa 160–162 and Flaccus 81; 83; 192; 193 and Macro 103 and the Jews 144 death of 220 exile in Rome 83; 103–104; 143–144 gymnasiarch 160; 161 n. 42 head of gymnasium protest 81ff. in P. Yale II 107 102–103 on trial in Rome 160 role in trial of 37 125–127 (see also Trial of 37) role in trial of 39 213–214 and n. 5 (see also Trial of 39) role in trial of 41 217–220; 229 (see also Trial of 41) Isis 196; 202–205; 209 Jamneh 234; 260; 267ff. Jerusalem 74; 196; 234; 236; 262; 270 Jews of Alexandria

= Alexandreus 58; 64 = Hellenes 49–50; 55 = Macedonians 39–40; 41 n. 73 and Alexandrians 63 and citizenship 2–3; 42; 60–61 and decree to Gaius 20–21; 84; 87 and Gaius’ self-deification 267–268; 270 and gymnasium 225–226 and images in meeting-houses 167–168; 172; 185–186; 192 and Ptolemy II Philadelphos 25–27; 68 and Ptolemy Lagos / I Soter 24–27; 42; 68 and Roman authority 62 and Roman civil wars 54–55; 134–135 and Rome 52ff. and supplication of 39 164 and trial of 37 (see also Trial of 37) 8; 11;102–105; 109; 113ff.; 127 and trial of 39 (see also Trial of 39) 213–216 and trial of 41 (see also Trial of 41) 220–227 celebrate Sukkoth in 38 192 δ 180; 186; 187; 188; 189; 192; 217; 222–225; 227–228 declared atimoi 188–189 deliver decree for Gaius to Agrippa in 38 164 deliver supplication for Gaius to Agrippa in 38 164 documents of 51; 67–68; 69; 70; 75; 76 duties of 63 foreigners and immigrants 172–176; 220–228 gerousia of 63; 155 n. 23; 162; 190–191; 273–274 houses of δ searched 191 immigrants and colonizers 181–182 katoikoi/military settlers 36–37 killed in 38 187 magistrate of 63 material and demographic extent of the riots 187 meeting houses of 172 not banned from Alexandria 181 original colonizers 27; 61 politeuma 48; 59 archive of 59

general index double tier membership 49; 59; 76 elders of 48 fiscal privileges of 49 legal jurisdiction of 49 military characteristics of 49; 59 new immigrants into 51 plethos 49 pillaged property of 186 population of 42–43; 50–51 prisoners of war 42 pushed in a small part of δ in 38 179–180; 181; 183–184 rebel in 41 217 rights of 59–62; 67; 68; 75; 76; 173–175; 188–189; 191; 223–228 spectacular punishment in 38 191 settled in δ 34–36; 68 trials of 38 145–146; 164; 175–176 women seized 189–190 Joseph 196 Judaea 236 L. Seius Strabo, prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 275 n. 14 Lampon 77ff.; 143; 182; 185 and Flaccus 77–78; 192; 193 and the Jews 144 charged with asebeia 78 gymnasiarch 78 Laographia / poll-tax 4; 61–66 Legatio ad Gaium and In Flaccum 13–17 historical and manuscript tradition of 1; 13–16; 74 and n. 67 incompleteness of 1 interpretation of 16–17 time of composition of 6; 16 Lucius Geta, prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 276 Lysimachos 195–197 Maccabean revolt 43 Macro (Quintus Naevius Cordus Sutorius Macro) 275 and crimen maiestatis 141 and Gaius’ accession 107; 108; 139 and n. 5 and Gemellus 139 and Isidoros 103 and Sejanus 139 n. 5 appointed prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 85; 141

319

death of 85; 138 and n. 3; 141–142 politics of 139 trial of 143 Magius Maximus (M. Magius Maximus) Prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 273–275 Manetho 195–196; 206 Marcus Aurelius 280 Marcus Petronius Mamertinus 178 Masurius Sabinus, Roman jurist 130; 131–132 Mithridates 53 Moses 196 Nero (Tiberius Claudius Nero) Nile 203; 205

58 n. 9

Octavian see Augustus Onias IV / Oniads 43 and n. 82; 51; 53 Osarsip 196 Osiris 198; 202–203; 205 Osorapis 204 pasion 209 Pedo (Q. Fresidius Pedo) 274 and n. 11 Perdiccas 40 Petronius, governor of Syria 260; 262–267 Philo of Alexandria chastised by Gaius 215 n. 13 delegate in the trial of 39 213; 216 objectivity and distortion of 7 providence/providentialism 20; 192 witness of the riots 7 Philotas, Jew of Heracleopolis 47 Pilate (Pontius Pilatus), procurator of Judaea 74 Politeuma double tier of membership 45 ethnically characterized 45 historical overview 43–45 in classical Greek authors 43–44 in Egypt 43 of Alexandria (see Alexandrians; Jews) of Fayium (Cilicians) 45 n. 87 of Fayium (Cretans) 45 n. 87 of Heracleopolis (Jews) 45–47 and n. 99 of Xois (Beotians) 45 n. 87 the Memphis (Idumeans) 45 juridical independence of 45 military origin of 45 outside Egypt of Berenike 59 n. 11

320

general index

Pompeius Planta, prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 280 professional/religious associations 206–209 (see also Alexandia—clubs) Protarchos, head of the kriterion of Alexandria 52 n. 115 providence/providentialism 20; 192 Psammetichus II, king of Egypt 135 Ptolemaic administration, public registry 41 and n. 74 Ptolemais 262 Ptolemy Lagos / I Soter 24 n. 6; 40; 236 and Cyrene 44 and rights of the Jews 68 campaign of Gaza/Coele Syria 23 and n. 2 deports Jews to Egypt 24 enslaves Jews 42 grants Jews a location 25 offering at the Serapeum 31 recruits soldiers from Perdiccas 40 Satrap stela 23 n. 3 transfers capital to Alexandria 26 uses Jews to man garrisons 24; 27 Ptolemy II Philadelphos and rights of the Jews 68 date of prostagma (PER 24.552) 28 n. 20 grants Jews a location 25 offerings at the Serapeum 31 prostagma (forged) 27 royal ordinance of 260 BCE 28 and n. 19 ‘Status’ prostagma 38; 287 Ptolemy III Euergetes builds Serapeum 30 date of prostagma (PER 24.552) 28 n. 20 ‘status’ prostagma 38; 278 Ptolemy IV Philometor 43 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II 45 n. 89 date of prostagma of 28 n. 19 Ptolemy IX 202 Ptolemy X 202 135 Puteoli 157; 257–258; 267; 269 Rhakotis see Alexandria Riots of 38 (see also immigration) 18 months statute of limitation 110–112

and demography 181; 187 and mandata to Flaccus 154–156; 158–159; 171; 178ff. agreement between Flaccus and the Alexandrians 18–20 and territory Alexandria’s internal boundaries 183 effects of edict 181–182; 187–188 edict enforced 180–184 and Alexandrians 208–211 and Egyptians 208–211 and gymnasium 182–186; 188–189 mob 182; 185; 188; 195; 106; 210 ethnic reading of 6 flaccus and the edict 172ff.; 177–180 flaccus attempts to reconcile the Jews 72 flaccus institutional intervention 190ff. arrests Jewish gerousia 190 searches for weapon 191 images in Jewish δ meeting-houses 167–168; 172; 185–186; 192 Jews attacked 188–189 Jews foreigners and immigrants 188–189ff. Jews killed 187; 189–191 Jews’ property pillaged 186 Jews pushed in δ 179–180; 181; 183–184 legalistic reading of 8–9 political reading of 2–6; 7 research on causes of 2 responsibilities for 1–4; 8; 11; 16; passim Roman administration (see also Trial of 37) 18 months statute of limitation 110–112 fiscal administration 64–66; 80; 110 idiosyncrasy of 75 public archives 67; 68 publication of documents 149 scrutiny of privileges 69–70 Roman civil wars 52–55 Samaria 236 Sejanus, praetorian prefect in Rome 70–73; 74 attacks the Jews 70; 71 death of 120

general index Seleucia 235; 236 Seleukos I Nikator 235 Serapis 204–205; 208–209 Seth/Typhon 195–198; 202–203; 205–206 sextus Sotidius Strabo Libiscitanus, 178 Sidon 260 Smyrna 170 Sobek 207 Sothis 203 Stratonikeia 129 Sulla 127 Tebtynis 207 temple affair 258ff.; 268 Theano 209 Tiberias 262; 266 Tiberius (Tiberius Claudius Caesar) 70–72 and rights of Jews 70–76 and Sejanus 139 death of 103; 262 funeral of 108 Institutum of 70; 76 Torah translation 42 and n. 79 Trial of 37 in Rome 18 months 106–108 adjudication 109; 113ff. Alexandrians defendants 102; 115; 117–118 date and location of 106–109 Gaius’ letter / decretum 147–148 and Isidoros 125–127 Jews as plaintiffs 102–105; 127 phases of 114–120 punishment 118ff. revision of 215 return of embassies from Rome 137; 150 territorial argument 116–118

321

Trial of 38 in Alexandria and Flaccus vis-à-vis the Jews 145 and Gaius’ decretum 147–148 Trial of 39 in Rome 18 months statute of limitation 271 adjudication 215–216 Alexandrians’ supplication in 39 215 and Philo 213; 215 n. 13; 216 charges against the Jews 215; 216–217 date of 256; 258; 269–270 Jews as defendants 215; 216 reasons for 214–216 supplication of 38 214 Trial of 41 in Rome adjudication/Letter of Claudius date of letter 221 and Flaccus’ edict 223ff. and immigration 222ff.; 227 and status quo 228 orders to the Alexandrians 222–223 orders to the Jews 223–227 and Alexandrians 218ff. and Isidoros 217–220; 229 and Dionysios 217–220; 229 Jews as defendants 218ff. Trinovantes 129 Trajan 280 Typhonians 201 and n. 26–27; 202 Ulpian, Roman jurist

131–132

Vitellius, governor of Syria 170; 262; 269 Vitrasius Pollio, (Lucius Vitrasius Pollio), prefect of Alexandria and Egypt 192 n. 89; 213; 275; 276 n. 16 War of Scepters

37 n. 54; 50

INDEX OF DOCUMENTARY SOURCES Acta II III IV = Acta Isidori et Lamponis

Acta Arvalium 43. 15–17 BGU III 1002 IV 1101 IV 1102 IV 1106 IV 1050 IV 1078 IV 1115 IV 1116 IV 1117 IV 1119 IV 1127 IV 1129 IV 1132 IV 1134 IV 1137 IV 1140 IV 1151 IV 1155 IV 1165 IV 1167 IV 1176 V 1210 VI 1213 VI 1250 XIV 2367 C.Ord.Ptol. 5 21–22 25 50 All. 34 All. 47

79 n. 9 116 61 n. 23; 89 n. 9; 103; 143 and n. 22; 144; 160; 161 and n. 42; 162; 218; 219; 281 n. 23 108 146 n. 27 58 n. 10; 292 n. 23 52 n. 115 52 n. 115 204 192; 275–276 32 and n. 36 32 n. 36 32 n. 36 58 n. 10; 291 n. 23 32 n. 36 52 n. 115 52 n. 115 52 n. 115 82 n. 24 63ff.; 116; 218 n. 21; 231; 232; 281 52 n. 115 52 n. 115 58 n. 10; 291 n. 23 58 n. 10; 291 n. 23 58 n. 10; 291 n. 23 87 n. 3; 124 n. 94; 280; 287 n. 1 288 288 38 n. 61; 39; 41 n. 73; 287 36 n. 53 28 n. 20 28 n. 19 45 n. 89 288 n. 2 288 n. 2

C.Ptol.Sklav. 3 4 5

28 n. 20 28 n. 19 28 n. 19

CIG III 4959

80 n. 15

CIL III 14147,5 III supp. I,12 7086 VI 811 IX 5420 XIV 4533

277 n. 4 171 n. 16; 178 270 148 73 n. 64

CPJ I 33 II 142 II 143 II 144 II 145 II 146 II 148 II 149 II 150 II 151

II 154 II 155 II 156c III 520

50 n. 109 52 n. 115 52 n. 115; 59 52 n. 115 52 n. 115 52 n. 115 52 n. 115 52 n. 115 279 63; 116; 231; 232; 281 217 57; 61; 62; 218 n. 21; 220ff.; 276 n. 17; 280 79 n. 9 102 61 n. 23 200 n. 20

CPL 238

142 n. 16

II 152 II 153

Degrassi, Fasti consolari 784

137 n. 1 72 n. 61

Degrassi, Fasti Ostienses XIV 4533 139 n. 7 FIRA I1 I 75

23ff; 121 148 n. 35

index of documentary sources Fraser, Berytus 11 I.Alex.Imp. 32

48 n. 100

46 61 65 66 67 70 90 91 96

32 n. 36; 32 n. 39 205 n. 46 207 n. 52 207 n. 52 207 n. 52; 209 209 209 207 n. 52 207 n. 52 207 n. 52 207 n. 52

I.Alex.Ptol. 13 32 35 41 46 47 74

30 n. 31 48 55 n. 121 207 n. 52 207 n. 52 207 n. 52 48 n. 100

IAG 65 84

58 280 n. 15

ICos 26

155 n. 21

IEphesos Ia 8 IG VII 2711 IGPhilae 128 IGRR I 1263 IV 1044

60 n. 17

JurPap 18 La’da, Foreign Ethnics E 847 E 887 E 895 E 899 E 901 E 907

323 135 n. 127 288 41 n. 73 41 n. 73 41 n. 73 41 n. 73 41 n. 73 41 n. 73

MChr 89 107 283

146 n. 27 32 n. 36 135 n. 127

OGIS I 56 I 338 I 669 II 705 II 737

205ff. 60 n. 17 80 32 n. 36 and 39 45

Oliver, Greek Constitutions 13 84 n. 27 14 84 n. 27 19 84 n. 27 23 84 n. 27 P.Alex.Giss. 14–28; 2 P. Berol. 8877

117 n. 68 61 n. 45; 89 n. 9; 281 n. 23

87 n. 2 P. BM 10252

202 n. 28

P.Cair.Zenon. III 59355 III 59451

79 287 n. 1

P. Col. Inv 480 III 59 VI 123

28 n. 19 204 149 n. 42

P.Count. 1 26

47 n. 96 50

P. Dem.Berlin 3115

207

277 80 n. 15 155 n. 21

ILS II 5797 III 8899 III 8995 III 9370

274 n. 9 276 n. 16 277 n. 4 274 n. 9

IPriene 113

61 n. 17

324

index of documentary sources

P.Dem.Cairo 30605 30606 31178 31179

207 207 207 207

P.Dem.Lille I 29 III 101

207 209 n. 68

P.Dem.Ryl. 26 P.Eleph. 1

P. Flor. III 382

32 n. 36 93; 102 n. 27; 117 n. 67 88–92; 89 n. 10; 102; 116

P. Grad. 1

28 n. 19

P. Grenf. I 23

289

P. Hal. 1

P. Hamb. II 168 P. Hib. 28 P. Lond. Inv. 2785 II 257–261

P.Lond.Dem. 10223

201

P. Louvre 3129

202 n. 28

P. Mich V 243 V 244 V 245 V 246 V 247 V 248

207; 208 208 207 207; 208 207; 208 207; 208

P.Mil.Vogl. II 54 III 129

78 n. 7 146 n. 27

P. Oslo III

67 p. 46

135 n. 127 32 n. 36 37 n. 54 37 n. 54 37 n. 54

P.Giss.Univ. 46

66 66 161 2–3; 57; 61; 62; 84 n. 27; 143; 149; 161; 217; 218; 213 n. 4; 218 n. 21; 220ff; 276; 280

289

P. Ent. 8 12 13 14

P.Giss.Lit. 4.7

II 260 II 260–261 III 1166 VI 1912

10 n. 33; 37 n. 54; 39; 49; 290; 291 n. 23

P. Oxy. [26] 3B.52B (13)(a) I 471 III 486 VIII 1089 X 1271 XVII 2132 XVIII 2177 XXII 2332 XXVII 2465 XLII 3021 XLII 3021

200 n. 20; 201 n. 26 and n. 27 161 n. 43 146 n. 27 57; 79–80; 163 87 n. 3 87 n. 3 9; 10 n. 33 33 n. 41; 200 n. 20; 201 and n. 27 38 218 n. 18; 267 n. 14 143; 144; 217–220; 229 n. 21

38 n. 61; 39; 287 P.Paris I 69

161

P. Petr. II 43 III 20

50 n. 109 36 n. 53

38 n . 62 89 n. 9; 103 n. 28 61 n. 22; 65; 66

index of documentary sources P. Petrie2 I1 I3 I 16 I 18 I 24 I 30

209 n. 68 37 n. 54 37 n. 54 37 n. 54 37 n. 54 37 n. 54

P.Phrour.Diosk. 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 12

46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46

P.Polit.Iud. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20

46; 47 46 46 46; 47 46 46; 47 n. 99 46; 47 46; 47 n. 99; 52 n. 115; 289 46; 47 n. 99 46 46 46; 47 and n. 99 46 46 n. 93 46 n. 93 47 n. 99 47 n. 99 47 n. 99

P. Prague

207

P. Rendel Harris

131 n. 111

P. Rev. 7

38 n. 61; 287; 288 n. 1

P. Ryl. II 141 IV 576

85; 87; 140 36 n. 52

P. Sallier I1

199

P. Tebt. I 32 II 395 II 700

325 45 n. 87 161 n. 44 45; 48

P. Trinity College Dublin 192 (b) 200 n. 20 P. UB Trier S 135–1 S 135–3

33 and n. 41 33 n. 141

P. Vindob. Graec. Inv. 19813 200 n. 20 Inv. 29787 200 n. 20 P. Yale Inv. 1385 II 107

II 162

92 8; 9; 57; 88–93; 131–133; 147; 157 n. 30; 160; 163; 179; 181; 215 178

Pack 2 2486 2487

200 n. 20 200 n. 20

PER 24.552

28 and n. 19

PSI VII 822 VIII 982 X 1061 X 1149 X 1160

146 n. 27 200 n. 20; 201 n. 26 62 n. 23 274; 275 n. 11 57; 59; 279

Pyramid texts 265 292d 477 564a 1553b

203 203 204 203 203

RDGE 18 33–60 62 64 67 68 72

129 132 n. 115 71 n. 58; 132 n. 115 71 n. 58; 132 n. 115 71 n. 58; 132 n. 115 71 n. 58; 132 n. 115 71 n. 58

326

index of documentary sources

Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Monumentum Ancyranum) 34 130 RPC I i 2344 I i 2474 I i 5106 Satrap stela (CGC 22128)

SB I 585 I 2100 I 3432 I 5335 III 6664 III 6275 III 7256 IV 7270 V 7738 V 7783 V 8008 V 8317 V 8444 VI 8982

170 170 170 23–24; 23 n. 3; 24 n. 4; 26 and n. 11–12; 33 n. 41; 35; 54; 236 204 163 204 273 45 n. 87 28 n. 19 274 n. 11; 275 n. 14 45 n. 87 275 n. 14 204 28 n. 20 275 n. 14 80 n. 15 45

VI 9454 VIII 9812 XX 14587 XXII 15768

36 n. 53 48 n. 100 146 n. 27 146 n. 27

SEG II 871 VII 573 IX 1 XX 499 XXXIII 1036 XXXIII 1037

45 n. 87 45 n. 87 44; 174 48 n. 100 60 n. 17 60 n. 17

Syll. III 797

87 n. 2

Tabula Siarensis

155 n. 21

UPZ 1 196

204 n. 42 173

WChr 13 14 25 55 450 448

80 and n. 17; 192 89 n. 9; 103 n. 28 38 n. 62 50 n. 109 36 n. 53 45 n. 87

INDEX OF LITERARY SOURCES 1Peter 3,15

131 n. 111

3Macc.

42 and n. 76

Aesch., Pers. 243 Aesch., Suppl. 195 401 Aeschin., Ctes. 255 Amm. Marc. 22.16,6 Ant. Pal. 2.184 Apollodorus 2.5,113–121 Appian Num. 3 Arist. Byz. 305

Caes., B.Gall. 5.20–22

129

Cic., Brut. 78,3 263,8

131 131

Cic., De Inv. 2,20,60

115 n. 63

Cic., De Or. 1.242

178

Cic., Fam. 7.20

178

Cic., Phil. 3.14

134

Cic., Pro Rosc. Am. 20

121

Cic., Ver. 2.4 4.130

178 178

Curtius Rufus 4.8,4

40

Dem., Halon. 11–13

176 n. 32

173 173 173 226 277 n. 4 123 124

122 40

Arist., Pol. 1305b12 1305b33–35 1321a30–31

44 44 44

Dem., In Timocr. 105 164

175 n. 32 190

Arist., Rhet. 1375a22–25

146 n. 29

Dem., Theocr. 61,2

215 n. 12

Arrian, Anab. 3.1,5–2,2

26 n. 10

Deuteronomium 4,16–18

167

Caes., B.Civ. 111–112 112

53 54

Digesta 1.17,1 2.4,14 2.9,4

278; 279 132 n. 113 132 n. 113

328

index of literary sources

5.3,25,17a 9.4,24 10.4,3,7 12.6,35 17.1,29 31.8,3 42.4,5pr. 42.3,3 43.24,3,5 46.7,5,3 46.7,5,3 47.9,9 48.3,6,1 48.6,5 48.8,1 48.19,38,1 49.14,50 60.2,21

132 n. 113 132 n. 113 132 n. 113 132 n. 113 132 n. 113 132 n. 113 132 n. 113 132 n. 113 132 n. 113 132 n. 113 132 n. 113 121 178 122 122 122 127 280 n. 17

59.11,13 59.13,7 59.16,8 59.17,1 59.18,2 59.21,1–2 59.27,2–6 59.27,3 60.5,1 apud Zonaras 7,17

257 256 19; 140; 141 257 148 270 170 n. 11 170; 262 228 122

Diodorus 17 18.33–37 19.27,6 19.29,3 19.93,7 20.47,5–6 20.113,1

25 n. 10 40 40 40 40; 236 235 236

Din., Dem. 2,2

215 n. 12

Dion. Halic., A.R. 9.29,1

131 n. 111

Eur., Heracl. 257

173

Eur., Ion 607

173

Eur., Iph. Taur. 1021

173

Eus., Chron. 176

13 72 n. 60

Eus., Hist. Eccl. 2.4,2 2.4,2–3 2.5,1 2.5,7 2.6,2 2.6,3 2.18,1–7 2.18,8 2.18,16

74 13 13; 15 72 13 14; 15; 16 14 14; 15 14

Exodus 20,4

167

Festus s.v. Novem

122

FGrHist 86 (Agatharchides) 87 (Posidonius)

236 196 n. 7

Dio Cassius 40.29 51.17,2 53.13,8 53.15,4 53.28,3 54.10,4 54.22,3 56.17,2 56.17,3 57.10,5 57.14,5 57.18,5a 57.19 57.19,6 57.19,7 58.9,2–3 58.12,7 58.19,6 59.1,1 59.3,6 59.3,8 59.4,3 59.4,4 59.5,5 59.6,2 59.7,9 59.10 59.10,4 59.10,6 59.10,7 59.10,7–8 59.11,5

235 n. 64 57 158 154 153 n. 11 153 n. 11 153 n. 11 153 n. 11 153 n. 11 275 n. 14 156; 267 73 153 n. 11 275 n. 14 153 n. 13 139 n. 5 153 276 n. 16 108 19 138 19; 140 169 126 19 137 n. 1 138 141 275 141 n. 15 141 141; 156; 256

index of literary sources 91 (Strabo) 137 (Cleitarchos) 609 (Manetho) 610 (Ps.-Manetho) 618 (Chaeremon) 631 (Satyros) 730 (Damocritos)

48 n. 101 25 n. 10 196 n. 2 196 n. 3 196 n. 4 38 196 n. 7

FHG 149–158 (Mnaseas)

196 n. 7

Gai., Inst. I5 4.104–105; 109 4.119–121

71 n. 58; 147 110–111 and n. 52; 112 115 n. 63

Gellius 5,6,11–15 5,6,11–18

130 130

Herodotus 2.144 2.156 3.6 4.69 8.73

198 n. 9 198 n. 9 204 119 n. 73 173

Is., Men., 43,6

215 n. 12

Isocr., Panath. 124

173

Isocr., Paneg. 4,63

173

Jos., A.J. 4.188 12.7 12.119 12.149–153 12.154–236 12.237–239 12.387–388 13.62–73 14.7,2 117 14.114 14.127–48 14.187 14.192–193 15.357 16.52 16.162–165 16.166

55 n. 120 236 235 237 n. 69 51 43 43 43 52 48 n. 100 53 67; 75; 232 53 131 n. 111 53 60 n. 15 154 n. 20

16.167–179 17.181–182 18.55–59 18.81–88 18.102 18.124 18.143–237 18.159–160 18.225 18.228 18.237 18.238 18.238–239 18.247 18.248 18.248–252 18.257

329

18.257ff. 18.258 18.259 18.260 18.261 18.262 18.263 18.269ff. 18.272 18.273–279 18.285 18.289–300 18.302–305 18.305 19.278–279 19.279 19.279–291 19.280–285 19.281 19.282–285 19.283 19.284 19.285 19.286–291 19.288 20.263

60 n. 15 71 n. 57 74 73 262 n. 8 262 151 160; 164 108 107 151 151; 257 152 266 258 257 21 and n. 26; 211; 213 n. 3; 267; 269 n. 115 216 262; 268 213; 256 216 262; 268 262 262 262 263 and n. 9 263 265 263 263 267 217 230 217; 230 230; 233 230 274 63 n. 30 231 231 234 230 43

Jos., B.J. 1.31–33 1.187–192 1.194 2.181 2.200 2.487 2.488 2.490

43 53 152 n. 8 151 263 n. 9 49 39; 41 167 n. 3

330 2.491–498 2.495 5.460 7.235 7.421–432 7.477–451 Jos., C. Ap. 1.73–94 1.229ff. 1.233–251 1.233ff. 1.288–292 1.304–311 2.29 2.32 2.33–34 2.33–35 2.36 2.37 2.38–39 2.39 2.41 2.53–55 2.60 2.61 2.63 2.64 2.65 2.68 2.69 2.70 2.71–72 2.72 2.112–114

index of literary sources 167 35 40 235 n. 65 43 119 n. 73 196 196 196 195 196 196 210 210 36 68 39 51; 55 n. 120; 59; 68; 69; 127 235 235 210 50 n. 112 55 52; 134 61 63 216 n. 15 210 210; 211 195; 206; 210 182 n. 62 127 197 n. 7

Philo, Jos. 35 Philo, Flacc. 1 3 4 9 10–16 12 16 17–22 20 20ff. 20–21 20–23 22 22–23 24 25 25ff. 26 26–27 27 27–28 29 30 30–31 30–32 32 34 35 36–39 39 40 41

Letter of Aristeas 12–14 310

23–29; 42; 236 48–49; 59

Lib., Or. 11.91–92

235

Lys., Aerop. 39,3

215 n. 12

Malalas, Chron. 8.210 10.244,22–245,2

235 237

Ov. Fasti 5.553 5.569–596

155 n. 23 155 n. 23

41–42 42 43 43–50 46 48 49 50 53 54 54–55 55 55–57 56 56–57 62

167 n. 3 17; 70; 74; 84 77 83 138; 139 17; 138 139 138 17 77; 79; 142 103 89 n. 9 138 138 18 17; 145 151; 152 18 151 154 157 151 19 151; 152 19 159 151 159 154 n. 17 159 160 152; 160; 154 n. 17 18; 19; 162; 167 167 169; 171 211 167 181; 232; 237 172 63 69; 70; 127 19; 172; 175; 222 19; 186; 172; 173; 175; 176 18 19; 42; 58; 179 172 n. 21 156; 180 157; 186 184

index of literary sources 63 62–64 65 65–72 73 74 74–75 75 76 78–80 81 81–85 84 86 86–90 92 92–93 94 95–96 96 97 97–100 103 101 108–115 116 116–119 122 125 128 128–129 129 130 131 132 135 135ff. 135–145 136–137 138–139 139 140 141 145 158 171 172 188–190 191

211; 203 188 184; 188 188 19; 162; 190 63; 155 n. 24; 273 18 190; 191 172; 190 62; 191 191 191 18 18; 19 191 36 n. 52; 80 192 187; 192; 192 18; 189 19 20; 84; 87 85 164 20; 84 18; 144; 192 192 192 180 20; 143; 144 78 78 78 78 77; 78 77 143 103 89 n. 9; 103 82 81 81 81; 82; 103 82 144 139 186 60; 134; 173 18; 20 20

Philo, Legat. 14–15 18 18–20 23

137 n. 1 137 n. 1 137 106 n. 37

23ff. 25ff. 28–73 32ff. 75–113 78–85 86–92 99–102 103–110 111–113 120 124 127–128 129 132–139 134 135 138 152–153 153 159 159ff. 159–161 160 161 166–178 178–179 179 185 188 190 198 199 200–201 203 207 213ff. 219 220 221–222 223 225–226 238 239–241 246 248–253 259–260 260 261 265 276 306 308 333–335

331 138 106 n. 37 138 138 169 n. 6 168 168 168 168 168 195 179 180 157; 186 210; 211 168 n. 4; 172 185 168 n. 4 69 70; 127; 180 70 67 70; 74; 232; 234 71 72; 74; 84; 127; 180 104 n. 33 84 n. 28 164; 214 256 168 n. 4; 260 256 260 260 169 168 n. 4 168 n. 4 260 260 168 n. 4 260 266 260 168 n. 4 260 168 n. 4 260 260 168 n. 4 260 168 n. 4 260 168 n. 4 168 n. 4 261

332 334 336 337 346 349 349ff. 350 350ff. 353 354 355 356 357 359 360 361 363 367 370 372

index of literary sources 168 n. 4 168 n. 4; 261 168 n. 4 74; 171 n. 17 215 21 216 126 216 216 214 133 n. 116; 269 62 215 216 216 216 216 213 216; 217

Plu., De Isid. 21 31 32–33 38 39 64 73

206 206 206 206 206 206 202 n. 28

Plu., Quaest. Conv. 4.5,2–3

197 n. 7

Polybius 5.65,8–9 5.79,4 5.82,2 5.82,4 5.82,10

40 40 40 40 40

PPtol I 183

31 n. 33

Philo, Migr. 91

62

Proc., Com. ad proph. 198 n. 7 (Chasneau 258)

Philo, Opif. 17–18

182 n. 62

Ps.-Caes., B.Alex. 7,2 17ff. 26ff. 33,3

54 54 53 54

Philo, Spec. 1.128

60 n. 15

Pl., Apol 34c

215 n. 12

Pl. Men. 237b

173

Ps.-Call., Vita Alexandri Magni = Alexander Romance (Rec. a) I 31 32 and n. 38 I 33 31 n. 33

Plaut., Men. 724

178

Quint., Inst. 7.2,20

115

Plaut., Poen. 1031

178

Rhet. ad Alex. 14–17

146 n. 29

Pliny, Ep. 6,16,4 10,7 10,96,7

157 n. 32 280 178

Sen., Ad Helv. 19,4–6

275 n. 14

SHA, Vita Severi 17,2

57 n. 3

Strabo 16.2,4 16.2,5 17.1,9–10 17.1,10

235 235 35 149

Pliny, NH 2.19,3–4 2.47,123–124

157 157

Plu., Alex. 26,4

26 n. 10

index of literary sources 17.1,12 17.6 17.8

59; 278 54 54

Sue., Cl. 11,8

228

Sue., Gai. 13 15,4 16,2 18,2 22 23,3 24,2 27,3 27,4 43 55,1

108 140 126 142 n. 16 122 138 156; 256–257 121 122 270 142 n. 16

Sue., Tib. 35 36 42,1 75 Sue., Tit. 8 t.Sukkah 4,6 Tac., Ann. 1.7 2.77 2.85 3.63 4.8

153 n. 10 73 142 n. 16 108 70 60 n. 15 275 n. 14 155 n. 21 73 69 73 n. 64; 139 n. 7

333

4.15,3 6.13,1 6.25 6.46,1 12.60,3 13.11 15.44

155 n. 21 142 73 n. 64; 139 n. 7 139 278 276 122

Tac., Dial. 7

178

Tac., Hist. 1.11 5.3–4

278 197

Tert., Apol. 15.4–5

123

Thucydides 1.9 1.2,3 1.23,2 1.26,1–3

173 236 n. 67 236 n. 67 236 n. 67

Val. Max. 6,3,2

122

Vegetius 4,39

137 n. 1

Vell. Pat. 2.88,2

153 n. 10

Xen., Oecon. 11,4

173

y.Sukkah V 4.6

185 n. 73

INDEX OF RELEVANT WORDS (Greek words are alphabetized according to the transliteration) 18 months 109–112; 157 n. 30; 271 173 elders 136 630 years 114–115; 135 accusatio 114 n. 60 adventores 179 and n. 50 Agalma/ἄγαλµα 168 n. 4 Agōnisasthai agōna/ἀγωνίσασθαι ἀγῶνα 215 and n. 12 agora (Athens) 183; 188 Alexandreus 41; 58; 64; appendix 5 amicus principis 126 amphisbētēsis/ἀµφἰσβητήσις 145; 175; 179; 187 amphodarches/ἀµφοδάρχες 67 n. 45 anagraphē/ἀναγραφή 117 andrias/ἄνδριας 168 n. 4 antikatēgoria/ἀντικατηγορία 115 apagogē/ἀπαγογή 189 apographein/ἀπογραφεῖν 117 apolysimoi/ἀπολύσιµοι 207 aretēs stephanon/ἀρετῆς στέφανον 128; 129ff. asebeia/ἀσέβεια 78 astoi/ἄστοι 58 n. 10; 292 n. 23 asylia/ἀσυλία 69 ateleia/ἀτέλεια 62 atimos/atimia ἄτιµος/ἀτιµία 133; 174; 175; 176; 186; 188; 190; 191; 217

diadikasia/διαδικασία 145 dikaiōmata/δικαιώµατα 68 diatagma/διάταγµα 172 n. 22 dikaia/δικαία 69 dikastērion/δικαστήριον 81 ecclēsia/ἐκκλησία 57 n. 3 and 5 echtheinai/ἐχθεῖναι 149 eikon/εἴκον 168, 168 n. 4 eisphora/εἰσφορά 119 en allōtriāi polei/ἐν ἀλλωτρίᾳ πόλει 226–227 endeixis/ἔνδειξις 191 ephēgēsis/ἐφήγησις 191 epideixis/ἐπίδειξις 190; 191 epikrisis/ἐπίκρισις 66; 75; 281 epispairein/epispaiein ἐπισπαίρειν/ ἐπισπαίειν 225 epiteichisantōn/ἐπιτειχίσαντων 184; 188 epitimos/epitimia ἐπιτίµος/ἐπιτιµία 60; 174–175; 188; 191 ethē/ἔθη 62; 74; 75; 175; 222–223; 228; 231 etoimos apolog-/ἕτοιµος ἀπολογ131–133 and n. 111–113 exceptio peremptoria 115–116 and n. 61; 118; 120 fasces

boulē/βουλή

see ornamenta

57 and notes; 223; 279

calumnia 118; 120–121 census 64–66; 80; 110; 281 chōra/χῶρα 184 codicillus 142 cognitio extra ordinem 114 and n. 60–61; 122; 123; 126; 215 consilium principis 126; 215 contrappassum 121; 122 conventus 280 crematio 118 n. 72; 121 and n. 83; 123 decretum 147–148; 180; 186 delator 140 n. 8; 193 n. 95 Demotic case book 146

Gargarissa 289 genarches/γενάρχες 274 genos/γένος 287 and n. 1 gerousia/γερουσία 57–58; 63; 143; 155 n. 23; 162; 172; 190–191; 273–247 gymnasiarchos/γυµνασιάρχος 161ff.; 161 and n. 42 and 44 gymnasion/γυµνάσιον 57; 225 hiketeia/ἱκετεία 164 honestiores 118; 122 honos 78 n. 7 horoi/ὅροι 183 humiliores 118; 122 hupomnēnatismoi/ὑποµνηµατισµοί 147

index of relevant words idia/ἰδία 117; 136 igni necari 121 n. 83 imperial constitutions 147 in iudicio 114 n. 60 in iure 114 n. 60 infamia 133 inquisitio 114 n. 60 institutum 70; 76 Ioudaios/᾽lουδαίος 41 and n. 73 isopoliteia/ἰσοπολιτεία 41 and n. 75 isoteleia/ἰσοτέλεια 62 n. 24 ius edicendi 176 and n. 39; 178 ius pomerii 158 n. 36; 183 ius respondendi ex autoritate principis 131 iustitium 156–157; 193; 256 ‘k’ branding 118; 121 kaēnai/καῆναι 119 kat’oikian apographai/κατ᾿ οἰκίαν ἀπογραφαί 117 katoikos/κάτοικος 27; 36; 37; 39; 60–61; 65–66; 80; 174–175 katoikos epitimos/κάτοικος ἐπιτίµος 60; 133 katoikountes/κατοικοῦντες 60 n. 17 klēros/κλῆρος 37 ktizomenē polis/κτιζοµένη πόλις 33 and n. 41; 201 and n. 22; 237 laographia/λαογραφία 61 and n. 23; 64–66 laographoumenos/λαογραφοῦµενος 65–66; 80 latus clavus see ornamenta legal precedent 146ff. leitourgiai/λειτουργίαι 49 n. 105 lex Cornelia de sicarii 121 lex Iulia de vii publica et privata 121 lex Iulia iudiciorum privatorum 111 lex Remmia 121 n. 80 libellum 120 litis contestatio 114 and n. 61 Macedonian 39–40; 41 n. 73; 55; 288 maiestas 19; 118; 119–120; 140; 141; 193 mandata 75; 147; 154–155 and notes; 158 and n. 36; 171; 177–179; 193; 228; 267; 274 marin (Syriac) 159 metoikoi/µέτοικοι 60–61 n. 17 metoikion/µετοίκιον 119

335

migades kai sugkludes/µίγαδες καὶ σύγκλυδες 210 munus 78 n. 7 nomimoi/νόµιµοι 69 oikia/οἰκία 226–227 oratio recta 92 ornamenta 152–153; 156 and n. 25 outside 117; 124–125; 149; 179; 181; 217 palinodia 216 and n. 14 paraggelia/παραγγελία 82 paratus 131–133 patria/πάτρια 74; 175; 222 patrioi nomoi/πάτριοι νόµοι 62 patrion horkon/πάτριον ὅρκον 46 patris/πατρίς 9; 41 n. 73; 63; 64; 115–118; 136; 179; appendix 5 per formulas 114 n. 60; 215 peregrini et advenae 178–179; 226 perikathēmenōn/περικαθηµένων 184 Perses tēs epigones/Πέρσες τῆς ἐπιγονές 289 plēthos/πλήθος 59 pogrom 11 politarches/πολιτάρχες 46 politeia/πολιτεία 116; 117; 118; 179 politeuma/πολίτευµα 58–59 and n. 11; 180; 224 politika dikaia/πολιτικὰ δικαία 175; 222; 223; 228; 230 pomerium see ius pomerii programma/πρόγραµµα 172 and n. 22; 178 protheinai/προθεῖναι 149 n. 40 res iudicata 215; 223; 224 rescripta 147 Roman crowns 129–130 sella curulis see ornamenta stathmos/στάθµος 36; 37; 50 stasis/στάσις 81; 82 stizein/στίζειν 118 sub imperio 111–112 subscriptiones 147 sunōikisto/συνῴκιστο 35 teichēreis/τειχήρεις 184 timēma/τίµηµα 44 n. 85 tokon/τόκον 79 tribes 58 n. 9; 60 n. 15

336 utilitas publica

index of relevant words 119

vicus/vici 183 vivicomburium 121 n. 83; 122 xenika/ξενικά 119 xenoi kai epēludes/ξένοι καὶ ἐπήλυδες 173; 178–179; 226

xenos/xeniteia ξένος/ξενιτεία 174 and n. 30; 176; 189; 190; 191 xenos parepidemountes/ξένος παρεπιδεµοῦντες 179 n. 50; 227 zonophoroi/ζονοφόροι n. 26–27

201 and

The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews. A Historical Reconstruction (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Making History: Josephus And Historical Method (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Households, Sects, And the Origins of Rabbinic Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Building Jewish In The Roman East (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Descenders to the Chariot: The People Behind the Hekhalot Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Passover in the Works of Josephus (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, V. 75)

Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Seers, Sybils, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices And Rites In The Second Temple Period (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews

The Years of Persecution

Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19: No One Has Seen What I Have Seen (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, V. 50)

Philo's Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings, Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

On Earth As In Heaven: The Restoration Of Sacred Time And Sacred Space In The Book Of Jubilees (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Sustain Me With Raisin-Cakes: Pesikta deRav Kahana and the Popularization of Rabbinic Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

The Jewish Community of Rome: From the Second Century B. C. to the Third Century C. E. (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

And the witnesses were silent: the Confessing Church and the persecution of the Jews

The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews. A Historical Reconstruction (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Making History: Josephus And Historical Method (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Households, Sects, And the Origins of Rabbinic Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Building Jewish In The Roman East (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Descenders to the Chariot: The People Behind the Hekhalot Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Passover in the Works of Josephus (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, V. 75)

Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Seers, Sybils, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices And Rites In The Second Temple Period (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews

The Years of Persecution

Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19: No One Has Seen What I Have Seen (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, V. 50)

Philo's Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings, Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

On Earth As In Heaven: The Restoration Of Sacred Time And Sacred Space In The Book Of Jubilees (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Sustain Me With Raisin-Cakes: Pesikta deRav Kahana and the Popularization of Rabbinic Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

The Jewish Community of Rome: From the Second Century B. C. to the Third Century C. E. (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

And the witnesses were silent: the Confessing Church and the persecution of the Jews

Recommend Documents