This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/

Loyalty and dissidence in Roman Egypt : the case of the Acta Alexandrinorum.

Harker, Andrew John

The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement.

END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT

Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions:  Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).  Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.  No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above.

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 03. Oct. 2021 Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Ancient History of the University of London in 2000.

and Dissidence in Roman

The Case of the Ada Alexandrinorum.

By Andrew John Harker.

Department of Classics. King's College London.

Supervised by Dr Dominic Rathbone.

Submitted in September 2000.

(LC L Abstract,

The Ac/a Alexandrinorum are a group of 'sub-literary' texts found on papyri from the first three centuries AD in Roman Egypt, telling the stories of the trials and executions of noble Alexandrians by Roman emperors. This study is not a re-edition of the individual texts of the ActaAlexandrinorum, but an historical study of the literature. I have produced a revised list of Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper and the Ada-related literature, and discussed and clarified the historical and social content and context of all the texts. I have examined the historical development of the Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper, which I have argued were born out of the contemporary reactions towards the embassies to Gaius and Claudius. While the modern name 'Ac/a Alexandrinorum' ('the trial minutes of the Alexandrians') presupposes a documentary basis to the literature, I have questioned the attempts to classify all the Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper and Ac/a related literature as either strictly 'documentary' or 'literary' texts. This has involved re-evaluating what constituted a document in the ancient world, and examining whether there really were fixed, rigid boundaries between ancient 'documentary' and 'literary' texts. I have examined the possibility that the Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper were derived from official Roman records. I argue that the ActaAlexandrinorum were a truly popular literature with a very broad readership that covered a wide social spectrum. I have placed the literature into its wider literary context by comparing the Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper with similar literary productions from elsewhere in the empire, and taken a more complex view of 'dissidence' and this literature. In my appendices I have listed the details and editions of the individual texts and discussed suggested corrections and restorations, examined a chronological problem which is important for understanding the chronology of the earlier stories, examined the background to the Graeco-Jewish violence in Alexandria and reviewed the dubious and unidentified fragments. Table of Contents.

I. Introduction. 5.

II. The Embassies to Gaius and Claudius. 21.

III. The Acta Alexandrinorum and Acta related literature. 57.

IV. The Ada Alexandrinorurn in Context: A Literature of Dissent? 109.

V. The 'Acta Alexandrinorum' or Acta Graecorum et Romanorum? The wider

context of the ActaAlexandrinorum literature. 160.

VI. Conclusion. 218.

Appendix I: Editions of the Acta Alexandrinorum and related texts. 223.

Appendix II: AD 38/9 or 3 9/40? 254.

Appendix Ill: The Status of the Alexandrian Jews. 256.

Appendix IV: The 'dubious and unidentified' fragments. 268.

Bibliography. 274.

3 Note on Abbreviations.

Literary sources and journals are cited by their standard abbreviations, as found, for example, in OCD3. Other frequently used abbreviations are:

Acta - Musurillo, Acta Pack2 - Pack, R., The Greek and Latin Alexandrinorum, Lipe, 1961. Literary Papyri from Greco-Roman AFA - Acts of the Arval Brethren. Egypt, (second edition) Ann Arbor Agr. - Philo, de Agricultura. 1965. Alex. - Philo, Alexander. Prob. - Philo, Quod omnisprobus APM— Musurillo, The Acts of the liber. Pa gan Martyrs, Oxford, 1954 Reg.et imp.apophth. - Plutarch, Reguni GC - Oliver, reek Constitutions, et imperatorfjmn apophthegmata. Philadelphia, 1989. Spec. - Philo, de Specialibus legi bus. L.A. - Philo, Leguni Allegoriarum.

All papyri are cited according to the latest version of the Checklist of Editions of Greek and Latin Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets published on the World Wide Web. I have used the abbreviation CPJ rather than the Checklists' C.Pap.Jud. for the sake of convenience. All citations of Eusebius, Chron.Hieron. are from the edition of Helm 1984. All citations from Byzantine sources (Georgius Syncellus, John Malalas, the Chronicon Paschale) are from the Corpus Scriptoruni Historiae Byzantinae series.

4 L

Introduction.

The vast majority of the many thousands of papyri that have been recovered from ancient Egypt are documents, but roughly a tenth are literary and 'sub-literary' texts. Some of these papyri contain literary works that have survived anyway, like those of Homer and Thucydides, but others have yielded pieces of ancient literature that had not survived, such as Aristotle's Constitution ofAthens. Among this lost literature is an intriguing group of texts that have become known as the Acta Alexandrinorum or the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs. The Acta Alexandrinorum proper tell the stories of noble Alexandrians who were executed at the order of a Roman emperor. The favoured form of these stories is a record of the reception of an Alexandrian embassy or a trial scene in the imperial court, usually presented, with only a small amount of narrative, in the form of official minutes (acta).' The Acta Alexandrinorum proper tend to follow the same basic story- line. Typically a group of Alexandrian nobles travel to Rome as ambassadors. On arrival, they face an emperor who has allied himself with Alexandria's eriemies, often the Jewish community resident in Alexandria, and is hostile towards them. A bitter exchange of words follows between the emperor and the Alexandrian ambassadors as the Alexandrians bravely confront the emperor on behalf of their beloved fatherland, and scornfully attribute the emperor's hostility towards them to his lack of high birth and culture. The stories usually end with at least some of the Alexandrian ambassadors being led away to execution, recalling as they depart the long and glorious line of Alexandrian martyrs. The stories, which feature most of the emperors from Augustus to Caracalla, are very sympathetic towards the Alexandrians and their causes, and allege that the Alexandrians die as the innocent victims of imperial bias and cruelty. It is demonstrable that at least some of the stories have an historical basis, and use historical personages, but it is far from clear in any one case if we are dealing with 'history' or 'fiction', or indeed, a combination of the two. While the term 'ActaAlexandrinorum' should be reserved solelyfor the category of texts that recycle this same essential story-line, in practice it has been extended to cover numerous other pieces of related 'literary' and 'documentary' texts. Thus we find the categorisation has been used of imperial letters to Alexandria, stories of secret meetings between Alexandrians and Roman prefects, long and rhetorical apologiae delivered before emperors, accounts of imperial receptions in Alexandria, accounts of Alexandrians prosecuting Roman prefects, and so on. These texts do not conform to my definition of the ActaAlexandrinorum proper, but are often extremely similar in theme and content. For convenience, I will refer to them as the 'Ada related literature'. The Acta Alexandrinorum proper and the Ada related literature were read in Egypt from the Augustan period to the mid third century AD. Most of the extant texts come from the late second/early third century AD, but this is unsurprising, as most surviving papyri come from this period anyway. 2 Nonetheless, the fact that the older stories were being rewritten in this period, and new stories being composed, would suggest that the literature was particularly popular in the Severan period, before disappearing entirely. There can be little doubt that the literature had a very broad appeal in Egypt. Ada Alexandrinorum proper and Ada related literature have been found both in urban centres, like Oxyrhynchus, Hermopolis Magna and Panopolis, and in villages, such as Karanis and Tebtunis, both of which are situated in the Fayum. The majority of the texts come from Oxyrhynchus and the villages of the Fayum. This is to be expected, however, as these sites have yielded the most papyri. Given this rather impressive geographical spread, it is reasonable to suppose that the Acta Alexandrinorum and Acta related literature were known and read in Egypt wherever people could read. This, and the fact that the same archetypal story was recycled with different characters, suggests that the writers had found a popular, winning formula. There are several problems to be aware of when working with papyri. Papyrus was made from the fibres of a plant that was cultivated in Egypt. The fibres were made into sheets, which were then joined to form rolls, or (in the later Roman period) bound into codices. Papyrus was the ancient equivalent of paper, and was used all over the Roman Empire. However, papyri from antiquity have been preserved in a remarkably uneven pattern. For survival, papyrus needs a dry anhydrous climate, which can only be found in parts of Egypt and the Near East. If papyrus comes into contact with water, it decays almost as quickly as paper. This means that texts from

The form of the stories has inspired the convenient modem title Acta Alexandrinorum ('the official minutes of the Alexandrians'). 2 Duncan-Jones 1990: 67-73; Habermann 1998: 144-60 (especially 157).

6 the coastal city of Alexandria, where the ActaAlexandrinorum and Acta related literature must have thrived, simply have not survived. Many of the ancient centres in Egypt are now inhabited and cannot be systematically excavated. The surviving papyri therefore come from very relatively few sites. Huge numbers have been recovered from Behnesa, the site of the ancient metropolis of Oxyrhynchus, and from the villages in the Fayum. Other sites have also yielded papyri, but we still only possess a minute fraction of the millions of papyri that once existed. The papyri that have survived have often been greatly damaged by the elements. Papyrus was not intended to last for two millennia. Most of the papyri from Oxyrhynchus were found in rubbish heaps, which suggests that they had already been damaged in antiquity and discarded. Papyrus rolls were very easy to tear by accident. Some papyri have been damaged on purpose. In antiquity, when a text became obsolete, it could be erased and the papyrus reused. In modem times, once the native Egyptians realised that archaeologists would pay generously for papyri, they conducted their own illicit excavations, and sometimes tore papyri in half, or quarters, in order to double or quadruple their profits on the black market. Due to the problems of survival, not one example of the Ada Alexandrinorum literature has survived in its original entirety. At best we have several highly fragmentary columns. The longest examples are only seven or eight columns long, and even some of these columns are badly damaged. 3 At worst we have only a few lines or words (e.g. P.Aberd 136), enough to show that the text probably belonged to the Acta Alexandrinorum, but tellr us little else. The tearing up of papyri in modern times for sale on the black market has meant that fragments of the same text now belong to different collections, wkih hampers identification and study.4 While some of the Ada Alexandrinorum were written onto fresh papyrus by practised scribes, many were scrawled onto the back of already used pieces of papyrus. Both can be very difficult to read. Nowadays papyri are usually published with a photograph, a transcription, a translation and a discussion, but this was not always the case. There are many examples, particularly in the case of older texts, where readings have been modified after further study.

CPJH 158a, 159. 4 E.g. CPJH 156a (in Germany until lost) and CPJII 156d (Egypt); CPJII 158a i-ui, vi-viii (Paris) and CPJ II 158a iv-v (London); P.Giss. Univ. V 46 (Germany) and P. Yale mv. 1385 (USA); CPJJJ 159a (USA) and CPJ II 159b (London).

7 The poor physical state of the Acta Alexandrinorum leads to the rather major problem of establishing what the texts actually say. When only a handful of words, or letters of words, are visible, it is nearly impossible to read and interpret a text accurately. Scholars try to supplement the gaps, where possible. However, while in formulaic, documentary texts we can be fairly certain of what a text would have said, literary texts are far more challenging. Over the last century there has been an enormous amount of effort put into restoring sections of theActaAlexandrinorum. In 1939 Anton von Premerstein created over a hundred lines of continuous text from the badly damaged P.Giss. Univ. V 46, in which not even a single line of text survived intact. His reviewers were highly critical of this approach, and Musurillo published a more cautious version of the text in 1954. In any case, the discovery of a new fragment of the same text, P.Yale mv. 1385, proved conclusively that von Premerstein' s restored text was deeply flawed. 6 Due to the battered physical state of the Acta Alexandrinorum, it is inevitable that supplements have to be used. Unfortunately, it is invariably the case that the texts can be restored differently to produce widely opposing readings by scholars who have pre-conceived ideas about what the texts are, and restore the texts in accordance with their theories. This leaves the historian with the problem of which restoration, if any, is the right one. My method has been to use only the generally accepted supplements in this study. But I have tried to avoid being overly cautious. In some cases the gist of the text seems retrievable from the few words that remain, and I have discussed some potential supplements in the thesis. Literary papyri are difficult to date. While documentary papyri have date clauses, unless literary papyri have internal clues as to date, they can only be dated by the style of their handwriting. The obvious problems with this is that handwriting generally remains the same for a lifetime. A person, for example, who learlto write in the late Ptolemaic period might well have continued to write in the same style for the rest of his life, potentially fifty years later. It is impossible to tell 3the scribes were writing at the beginning or at the end of their careers, and there is therefore a wide margin of error (roughly fifty years) for the dating of the texts. I have followed

1940: 48-9; Musurillo 1954: 8-17. 6 Mwil10 and Parássoglou 1974:1-7.

8 the dates proposed by the editors. Even among the Ada Alexandi-inorum, however, there are examples of texts that have been re-dated after further study.7 The exact provenance of many of the Acta Alexandrinorurn is unknown. Many of the texts were bought on the black market. Even if a text is known to have come from the rubbish dumps at Oxyrhynchus, this fact in itself tells us little about the people who owned it. It was not until the controlled excavations at Karanis in the 1920s/30s that an example of the Acta Alexandrinorum could be placed into its rightful context. This fragment came from the house of a Hellenised Egyptian named Socrates. Because a lot of his other papers survive, we have a unique insight into the personality of a man who read this type of literature. Ancient historians often complain about the lack of evidence. Papyrologists complain about the sheer abundance. This causes problems because there are at least as many papyri awaiting publication as have been published, and new excavations, despite the rising water table, are yielding more. Further examples of the Acta Alexandrinorum will, inevitably, continue to turn up. While Musurillo's second edition oftheActaAlexandrinorum was in press (1961), for example, four new fragments were either identified or published. 8 Since 1961 many new fragments have of this literature have surfaced. In 1996, for example, three new Acta Alexandrinorum, which had been acquired by the collection at Berlin before World War II, were published.9 There are very probably many more Acta Alexandrinorum among the many thousands of papyri awaiting publication. Any attempt to conduct a comprehensive study of the entire corpus will invariably be quickly out of date. Since their discovery, the Acta Alexandrinorum have been the subject of enormous controversy. For the first half of the twentieth century the Ada Alexandrinorum were at the heart of an intense academic debate, and held the fascination of successive generations of leading scholars. Theories were rapidly advanced concerning their form, authenticity and purpose. As new fragments continued to surface, these theories were withdrawn and modified, and occasionally radically new ones were advanced. Papyrology is a particularly positivistic discipline. Many scholars have seen information from the Acta Alexandrinorum as historical data

7 E.g. BGU 11588, assigned in the ed.pr. to the first century AD, was re-assigned to the second or third centuryADinWilcken 1909:825. 8 POJ/ XXII 2339; XXV 2435 recto and verso, SB VI 9528. 9 BKTIX64, 115, 177.

9 that could be used to reconstruct gaps in our historical knowledge. Indeed, several details from the texts have become dangerously close to becoming historical fact. The study oftheActaAlexandrinorum began in 1892, when Ijlrich Wilcken noticed a connection between two papyri from collections in Paris and London, P.Par. 68 and P.Lond. I (p.229) 1. Both fragments appeared to report a meeting between a Jewish delegation and the emperor Trajan, and further examination revealed that the handwriting was identical, and that the two texts were part of the same papyrus roll. Wilcken argued that the text reported an historical meeting, one that was concerned with the Jewish Revolt of AD 115/6-7. He concluded that the text was a Greek account of an event from the Jewish revolt. Wilcken believed that another small fragment, recently acquired by Berlin could help to shed light upon this text, and promised to publish it soon. Three years elapsed before Wilcken published this fragment, and another related one. 1 ' A re-examination of P.Par. 68 and P.Lond. I(p.229) 1 by Reinach in the ensuing years succeeded in persuading Wilcken that there were both Greek and

Jewish delegations present before Trajan.' 2 One of the new texts, BGUI 341, corresponded closely to two columns of P.Par. 68, but was shorter, and contained material not to be found in P.Par. 68. Wilcken suggested that both P.Par. 68 and BGU I 341 were independent versions, or recensions, of the same text. In the other new text, BGUII 511, Wilcken saw an Alexandrian Greek embassy sent to Rome to complain to Claudius about the Jewish king, Agrippa II. The official tone of this fragment led him to argue that all the fragments of this literature were composed by ambassadors, who had been personally present at the hearings. The appearance of several Latin words transliterated into Greek in the texts, (e.g. J.LaTp&l)a) led him to conclude that the accounts were based on Latin originals. These originals, he suggested, were the official records of these meetings contained within the commentarii Caesaris, the emperor's personal records of such proceedings, a collection that was stored in Rome.'3 By the end of the nineteenth century, several more related texts had been published.' 4 The new texts showed the Alexandrians Isidoros and Lampon

'°Wilcken 1892: 464-80. ' The two new fragments were later republished as BGU 1341 and BGU 11511. ' 2 Reich 1893: 70-82. 13 Wilcken 1895: 481-98. ' 4 P.Cair.Cat 10448 inReinach 1895: 161-78;BGUII 588 (1898);P.Oxy. 133 (1898):

10 (P.Cair.Cat. 10448), and Appianos (P.Oxy. I 33), hurling insults at emperors and being led away to execution. These texts inspired new theories. Deissmann suggested that rather than being authentic documents, the texts were actually highly coloured, and showed immense political bias.'5 Another view combined these theories. In 1904, when von DobschUtz collected and discussed the seven texts, he described them as "partly genuine, partly falsified, and highly coloured." 16 The nature of the texts was also highly unclear. Deissmann suggested that they were fragments of a historia calamitatum written by Alexandrian Jews.'7 Schultess argued that the texts were fragments of a lost history of Alexandria.' 8 Reinach emphasised the anti-Jewish nature of the texts, and referred to them as a 'martyrology' of the Alexandrian gymnasiarchs.'9 The notion that these texts were 'martyr' literature inspired the important work of Bauer, who published a study of the relationship between these texts and the Christian martyr acts. In this article Bauer coined the name by which these texts would become known for several generations, 'Heidnische Martyrerakten' - the 'Acts of the Pagan Martyrs'.2° Bauer agreed with Reinach that the texts focused primarily on the Alexandrian Greeks rather than the Jews. Scholars in Bauer's time were examining the Christian martyr acts and dividing them into 'authentic' and 'spurious' acts. Bauer applied these same criteria to the 'pagan martyr acts'. He considered the trial of Isidoros to be authentic, the story of the embassies to Trajan to be doubtful, and the trial of Appianos "ganz unglaubwUrdig und em rhetorisches Machwerk trotz der protokollarischen Form."2 ' The form of the texts, which Wilcken had taken as the remains of official commentarli, was, in Bauer's view, a mere literary device, similar to that found in many of the legendary Christian passiones. He listed several parallels, and indicated that there was some kind of literary relationship between the 'pagan' and Christian martyr acts. Three years later, Reitzenstein went further than Bauer, expounding the view that the Acta Alexandrinorum were wholly fictional accounts, and that both the 'pagan' and Christian martyrs acts were a type of popular 'Kleinliteratur', similar to the exitus inlustrium virorum literature and other 'martyr' literature in the Roman

15 Deissmann 1898: 602-6. 16 DobschUtz 1904: 753. 17 Deissinann 1898: 602. 18 Schultess 1899: 1049-1058. ' 9 Reinach 1898: 224. 20 BaUer 1901: 29-47. 21 Bauer 1901: 33 - "a quite implausible and rhetorical effort, despite the form of the record".

11 world.22 Geffcken led this argument to its logical conclusion, arguing that the 'pagan martyr acts' were the model for the later Christian texts. 23 In response to this, Delehaye, an expert on Christian martyrology, rather indignantly argued that there was no real resemblance between the spurious 'pagan' and the 'authentic' Christian martyr acts, and concluded that any slight resemblance was because both 'pagan' and Christian martyr acts were derived from official commen/arii.24 The Christian martyr acts were most definitely not, according to Delehaye, related in any way to the 'pagan' texts. In 1909 Wilcken re-entered the debate, publishing his monograph Zum alexandrinischen Antisemitismus. While acknowledging the school of thought promoted by Bauer, Reitzenstein and Geffcken, he maintained that the texts were still primarily historical, rather than fictional. He acknowledged that the 'Pagan Martyr Acts' showed signs of a 'Rahmenerzahlung' (fictional framework), and 'Uberarbeitung' (later re-working), and acknowledged that some texts (like P.Oxy I 33) were unlikely to be based on commentarii at all. 25 Nonetheless, Wilcken argued that the texts were full of far too many contemporary details for them to be completely fictional forgeries. He returned to his original view that the texts had been written by members of the Greek delegations. Their reports were independent, but he maintained that they had used official imperial records. Wilcken also argued that the anti-Jewish sentiments clearly visible in the texts were a secondary phenomenon. They reflected contemporary feelings in Alexandria, but were not the primary purpose of the texts.26 After Wilcken, a new generation of scholars, including Weber, Schubart, von Premerstein and Bell, examined the 'pagan martyr acts', and began to emphasise the 'anti-Roman' nature of the texts. Schubart considered the texts 'political pamphlets', composed on the basis of primitive protocols. 27 Von Premerstein, who contributed heavily to the supplementation of the badly damaged fragments, advanced the theory that the Ada Alexandrinorum were provocative pamphlets directed against the ruling emperor and circulated in Egypt at times when relations between Alexandria and Rome were particularly poor. Thus they were "passionate, emotional manufactures of

22 Reiejn 1904: 326-32. 23 Geffcken 1910: 497. 24 Delehaye 1921: 150. Wilcken 1909: 836. 26 Wilcken 1909: 825. 27 Schubart 1918: 193.

12 their time."28 Their production stopped when relations were good, but when relations worsened, usually as a result of Graeco-Jewish violence in Alexandria, the texts were copied again, and even recast into new forms. He connected the composition of the earliest fragments (P.Oxy. ifi 471, P.Par. 68 + P.Lond I (j.229) 1) with unrest in Alexandria in the early second century AD. The fact that most of the known Ada Alexandrinorum at this time dated from the late-second to early third century led von Premerstein to suggest that the texts were part of a single work compiled by a same author, perhaps entitled On the bravery of the Alexandrians. The motivation of this author, he argued, was the alleged 'massacre' of the Alexandrian populace by the emperor Caracalla in AD 215. The work was intended for the wealthy Greek upper classes that were being oppressed by taxation and liturgies, the aim being to incite the Greeks against Roman authority. 29 Von Premerstein accepted the view that the 'protocol' form was merely a literary device, and as such the texts could only preserve basic historical facts.3° But at the same time he argued that BGUI 341, although belonging to the single third-century work, was based upon the earlier text (P.Par. 68

+ P.Lond. I (p.229) mv. 1), which itself was adapted from actual commentarii.31 Thus while on the one hand arguing that the texts were essentially fictional, von Premerstein acknowledged that they could have been derived from a documentary basis. After discovering and publishing a recension of the Acta Isidori in 1932, Bell took a keen interest in the texts. He collected together all known fragments and made some important observations. For Bell, the Ada Alexand.rinorum were pieces of Alexandrian nationalistic literature. The Alexandrians, who had never been contented subjects under the Ptolemies, magnified the heroism and independent spirit shown by their leading politicians, thus intensifying their hostility to Roman rule. This resentment was cherished even two centuries after their conquest. Although the city had materially benefited from Roman occupation, Bell argued that the Alexandrian people never forgot their old status as the capital city of a powerful kingdom and empire, and their resentment was fanned by the refusal of successive Roman emperors to grant the city a council (boufe). Bell rejected von Premerstein's theory of unity of authorship, pointing out the vastly differing grammatical and rhetorical styles that the

Von Premerstem 1922: 315 (translated from the German). Von Premerstein 1923: 73-5. 3°Von Premerstein 1922: 314-6. He argued that the only histoncal 'certainties' were the fact of the hearing the place and time, the persons concerned, and the final result ' Von Premerstein 1923: 64.

13 individual stories were written in. He also accepted that official acta could have been among the sources, although in their current form the Ada Alexandrinorum had been subject to much re-editing and re-working. Von Premerstein's theory had attempted to give an answer to why so many of our manuscripts belonged to the period around AD 200, but Bell pointed out that papyri from this period are more likely to have survived than from earlier times. Bell did, however, admit the possibility that hostility towards Caracalla may have increased the popularity of the pamphlets, and that old pamphlets dealing with the trials of prominent Alexandrians could have been collected together and re-edited in the early third century. Despite re-workings, Bell argued that the fragments could contain contemporary material, and thus contained vital historical information. For Bell the Ada Alexandrinorum were an important new genre of sensationalist literature, hitherto un-represented in the extant Greek literature. They were not the 'classical' works of the wealthy Hellenic elite of the empire, but were the populist literature of the time, comparable to modern tabloid journalism. These texts gave the historian a provincial's view of the Roman Empire, and were written by men to whom Rome was not a great civilising power, but an alien and oppressive conqueror.32 Bell's work and ideas had a great influence on the research of the church historian Herbert Musurillo. Musurillo published a collection, with some translations and a full commentary of all known Ada Alexandrinorum in 1954. In 1961 Musurillo's Teubner edition was published, containing some textural corrections and an additional text, but no translations or commentary. Musurillo's primary aim was to collect together a set of the re-edited texts into a manageable edition. However, Musurillo became very interested in their origin and purpose, and, inevitably, as he was a church historian, in the alleged relationship between the 'pagan' and Christian martyr acts. His commentary and appendices are thus largely devoted to these problems. Musurillo concluded that the Acta Alexandrinorum were derived from official reports, but were transformed into a type of tabloid journalistic literature for propagandist purposes. While they may indeed have been influenced by the contemporary literature of heroic deaths, their resemblance to the Christian martyr acts was slight, Musurillo argued. For Musurillo, the ActaAlexandrinorum were the product of the affronted pride of the Alexandrian aristocracy, originating in the

32 Bell 1950: 19-42.

14 Alexandrian clubs and gymnasium, written by the gymnasiarchal class indignant with Alexandria's humbling under Roman rule, the chief grievance being that Alexandria was not allowed a boule. They were written mostly as anti-Roman propaganda, but sometimes merely for mocking entertainment. To explain why some of the texts displayed no anti-Roman sentiments, Musurillo argued that there were two parties behind the promulgation oftheActaAlexandrinorum. There was the 'violently anti- Roman party', led by men such as Isidoros, and the 'conservative, pro-Roman party' led by Alexandrians who had been admitted to the Roman citizenship, like Tiberius Claudius Balbillus. The Acta Alexandrinorum ceased to be written, although not read, when Rome made peace with Alexandrian civic pride in the time of the Severans by finally granting the city a boule, and admitting the first Alexandrians to the Roman senate. Musurillo's work was favourably received in general. He remains the authoritative voice on the Acta Alexandrinorum, and the scholarly community generally accepts his conclusions. Indeed, there has been little work on the Ada Alexandrinorum since Musurillo. Those texts which definitely mention the Jews were republished in the CPJ (1957-64). The editors of the CPJ suggested that the Acta Alexandrinorum began as an Alexandrian reaction against the historical executions of Isidoros and Lampon, and continued throughout the first two centuries, the publication of each new Ada Alexandrinorum furnishing a new reason to publish revised editions of older Acta. In 1966 MacMullen included a section on the Ada Alexandrinorum in Ii his book on dissidence in the Roman Empire, Enemies q4Roman Order, and argued that they belonged to the literary manifestations of opposition to the ruling regime. During the 1980s and 1990s, individual Ada Alexandrinorum have been discussed in general works on the Roman Empire, but they have never been re-assessed in their own right. The city of Alexandria was the last capital of a Hellenistic kingdom to fall to the Romans. Nevertheless, the Romans had been heavily involved in Alexandrian politics for most of the first century BC, and the conquest and annexation of Egypt can hardly have been a surprise to contemporaries. This intense Roman involvement in Alexandrian affairs had caused a large degree of anti-Roman feeling in the city. 33 This anti-Roman feeling can only have been intensified by the abuses inflicted on the city

See p.109-112.

15 by corrupt Roman administrators. Nonetheless, it would be too simplistic to envisage that the Alexandrians bore a bitter grudge against the Romans throughout the Principate. The Roman emperors were not Greeks, but they proved no worse rulers than the Ptolemies had been, and gave numerous benefits to the city. Many individual Alexandrians, including men who were heroes in the Ada Alexandrinorum literature, received the Roman citizenship. Alexandria joined revolts and usurpations against the reigning emperor in AD 69, 175 and at several times in the third century. But these revolts were often initiated by ambitious generals, who were only too aware of the strategic importance of the city as the port of a major grain-producing province. These revolts therefore tell us little about imperial relations with Alexandria during the Principate. Octavian took no great revenge on Alexandria, despite the staunch support that the city had given to his rival Mar Antony. He announced in the city that he had spared Alexandria on account of its founder, Alexander the Great, its god Serapis, and the intervention of his friend, Areios of Alexandria. 34 Augustus actually enhanced the city's status, and either instituted or upheld many privileges. Alexandrian territory was not subject to taxation, and territory owned by Alexandrians in the Egypt,hora enjoyed a lower rate of taxation. Alexandrian citizens were exempt from the poll tax (laographia) that was levelled on all the natives of the province, and from liturgical duties in the chora. A natural reading of Pliny's letters to Trajan reveals that only Alexandrian citizens, not Egyptians, could receive Roman citizenship. 35 In effect, Alexandria was treated more like an allied city rather than a conquered one. This ensured that Alexandrian citizenship was important for status and cultural identity, and was the goal of ambitious, Hellenised Egyptians. The Romans upheld the importance of the Alexandrian citizenship and the city's institutions. The city had a (theoretically) exclusive citizen body perhaps with a the numerus clausus of 180,000 adult male citizens. 36 Entry to Alexandrian citizenship was primarily through hereditary deme registration, for which one needed two citizen parents. Within the citizen body was an elite group, the gymnasial class, entered through the ephebic training in the gymnasium. This class was also hereditary, as one needed to show both that both parents had gymnasial ancestry. The

Dio 51.16.3-4; Plut. Reg etimp. Apophth. 207.3; Plut. Ant. 80. Plin. Ep. 10.5-7, 10. Delia 1991: 39-45 offers a different explanation. Bowman and Rathbone 1992: 114.

16 Alexandrians fiercely guarded entry to their citizenship and gymnasial class, and supervising entry was the primary responsibility of the civic magistrates. Grants of citizenship could be made to outsiders by the city (e.g. to the Egyptian, Apion), and also by emperors, although, as Trajan noted, it was not imperial policy to make any grants of Alexandrian citizenship. 37 It appears that Alexandrian citizenship could also be gained via entry into the ephebate and through gaining a gymnasial education, although it is unclear' s in itself was an Augustan initiative.38 Despite enhancing the legal, fiscal and social status of Alexandrian citizens, Augustus, only too aware of the strategic importance of the city, decided that Egypt was to be governed differently from other provinces. Tacitus states that Augustus decided to keep the province under his close, personal control, appointing an equestrian official to govern it as his viceroy, because the province was "difficult of access, prolific of grain, disturbed and divided by religious and other passions, knowing nothing of laws and ignorant of magistrates."39 In practie the equestrian prefect functioned as the legati Augusti did in other provinces, and was aided by other equestrian officials in administering the province. The Ptolemaic post of Idios Logos was transformed into a position similar to that oftheprocuratorAugusii. Equestrian dikaiodotes (legatus iuridicus) and epistrategol (regional governors) were also appointed. Despite allegations of close Roman control, Alexandria enjoyed a large degree of self-administration. Roman Alexandria had no city council. Dio reports that Octavian "ordered the Alexandrians to conduct their government without councillors."40 However, it remains controversial f Octavian abolished Alexandria's council as a punishment for the city, or refused the city the permission to reconvene a council that had already been abolished in the Ptolemaic period. The Alexandrian council is not attested in the first century BC, and may well have been disbanded by Ptolemy VIII Eurgetes in the 120s BC as a punishment for the civic riots in the city during his reign. 41 The absence of a boule, the institution through which all other Greek poleis in the ancient world were run, may have dented Alexandrian pride, but the city still administered her own affairs. it had its own civic magistrates and officials. Although there was no boule, there was a council of elders, agerousia,

Pliny, Ep. 10.7. Fraser 1972: 77. 39 Tac.Hist. 1.11. ° Dio 51.17.2. 41 Bowman and Rathbone 1994: 108-9, 114 n.35.

17 apparently numbering 173, probably composed of ex-magistrates. The gerousia and the gymnasium were presumably social and honorific institutions, but in the absence of a boule took on a political role. 42 Strabo lists four civic magistracies. 43 The chief magistrate was the exegetes; the archidikastes, hypomnematographos and night- strategos performed judicial, notarial and night-watch functions respectively. Other known magistrates include the kosmetes, gymnasiarch, agoranomos, and civic priests. These magistracies were not popularly elected. The prefect could appoint magistrates, and the gerousia could probably exercise some influence in the matter. Magistracies were often held for a number of years. Members of the Alexandrian elite, like the nobles of other ancient cities, were frequently at odds with one another, split by intense personal and factional rivalries. In other ancient cities these rivalries were (in theory) controlled and resolved internally, normally by the exercise of peer pressure in their boulal. The Alexandrians requested that the Romans reinstate their council on at least two occasions during the Principate, to Augustus and Claudius. However, permission to convene a council was not granted until the Severan period. Although no Alexandrians were senators at Rome before the time of Caracalla, Alexandrians were certainly not excluded from the running of the empire, and men such as Tiberius Claudius Balbillus, Tiberius Julius Alexander, and Appian (the author) held posts in the imperial court and administration. It appears to be very much the case that a comparatively small number of rival families and factions were able to manipulate prefects into allowing their members to monopolise offices and magistracies for many years at a time. The Alexandrians did not require a boule to be able to administer the cit own affairs. They needed the boule to transfer power from a small group of the often-corrupt magistrates to the wider Alexandrian elite. Many Alexandrians presumably thought that a boule would control factional in-fighting in the city and therefore limit the need for Roman intervention into Alexandrian affairs. But the Romans considered that a boule would further feuding and public violence rather than end it. jronhe events of the third century, after a boule was finally granted, they were arguably correct. This inevitably heightened the social tensions within the city, which were already strained through the long-standing mistrust and history of poor relations with the large Jewish

42 El-Abbadi 1964: 164-9. 43Strabol7.1.12. Bowman and Rathbone 19%I: 118-9.

18 community resident in the city. 45 Thus the Roman occupation of Alexandria fuelled, and indeed added to, the existing social tensions within the city. In the Ptolemaic period the Alexandrian people had acquired a reputation for being unruly and ungovernable, and for mocking their rulers. Dio notes that the Alexandrians "are most ready to assume a bold front everywhere and to speak out whatever may occur to them." Seneca recalls that his aunt, the wife of the prefect Galerius, was well respected in Egypt, despite the province being "gossipy and ingenious in devising insults for its rulers", and taking pleasure in "even dangerous witticisms."47 The aristocratic Dio Chrysostom also emphasises, although perhaps unfairly, the moral degeneracy of the mob and their inclination towards social disorder.48 The Alexandrian demos was probably no worse than the mobs of other major eastern cities, although we hear more of the Alexandrian mob more often because of the importance of the city. In the Roman period the mob was frequently stirred into action by local politicians who played on old nationalistic urges, reminding the mob of Alexandria's traditional enmity with Rome, or with the Jews. The Alexandrian mob played a significant role in the Graeco-Jewish violence of AD 38, 66 and 115-7. Despite the general scholarly acceptance of even Musurillo's more questionable theories, there remains much about the Ac/a Alexandrinorum that is controversial and debatable. This study is not a re-edition of the individual texts of the Ac/a Alexandrinorum, but an historical study of the literature. I have produced a revised list of Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper and related literature, discussed and clarified the content and context of all the texts, and examined the historical development of the literature. While the modern name 'ActaAlexandrinorum' ('the official trial minutes of the Alexandrians') presupposes a documentary basis to the literature, I have questioned the attempts to classify all the Ac/a Alexandrinorum as either strictly 'documentary' or 'literary' texts. This has involved re-evaluating what constituted a document in the ancient world, and examining whether there really were fixed, rigid boundaries between ancient 'documentary' and 'literary' texts. I have examined the possibility of the Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper being derived from

See Appendix ifi on the background to the Graeco-Jewish dispute in Alexandria Dio 39.58.1-2. Seneca,DiaJ. 12.19.6. Barly 1993: 82-103.

19 official Roman records, and demonstrated that the literature was a truly popular literature with a very broad readership that covered a wide social spectrum. I have placed them into their wider literary context by comparing the literature with similar literary productions from elsewhere in the empire, and taken a more complex view of 'dissidence' and this literature. In my appendices I have listed the details and editions of the individual texts and discussed suggested corrections and restorations, examined a chronological problem which is important for understanding the chronology of the earlier stories, examined the background to the Graeco-Jewish violence in Alexandria and reviewed the dubious and unidentified fragments. The first scholar of the Ada Alexandrinorum, Wilcken, ended his 1909 monograph on the literature with the words: "Hoffen wir, daB dereinst em volles Licht in diese jetzt noch recht dunklen Probleme hineinleuchten wird."5° I hope that this study will go some way to fulfilling this wish.

See chapters II and p.83-92 on the AD 38 and 115/6-7 violence. On the AD 66 violence, see Joseph. RI 2.487-98. 5°Wilcken 1909: 839 - "Let us hope that one day a clear light will shine into these still unresolved problems."

20 Ii The Embassies to Gaius and ClaudIus. I. Introduction. The historical events of AD 38-41 were crucial to the development of the Acta Alexandrinorum literature. This period saw the pre-existing racial tensions in Alexandria between the Greek and the Jewish inhabitants of the city erupt into violent rioting in August AD 38. In the aftermath of this serious disturbance, both sides sent embassies to the emperor Gaius in order to obtain a ruling on the important social, political and legal issues that lay behind the Graeco-Jewish dispute. Gaius made it clear that his sympathies lay with the Alexandrian Greeks, and they consequently entertained high hopes of success. Gaius allegedly liked to advertise that he was the great-grandson of Mar Antony, whom the Alexandrians had staunchly supported in the civil war against Octavian.' In the more recent past, Gaius' father Germanicus had enjoyed a rapturous reception in the city during a visit there in AD 1 92 Several of the Greek ambassadors were well known to Gaius, and, it is claimed, had aided him in prosecuting his political enemies, including Avillius Flaccus, the prefect of Egypt at the time of the rioting. Gaius apparently planned to visit Alexandria, and the Greeks undoubtedly expected him to deliver a favourable ruling during this visit. However, Gaius was assassinated on 24th January AD 41, apparently before he could deliver a ruling. Two further embassies were despatched by both sides from Alexandria to congratulate Claudius on his accession, and also to obtain from him a ruling on the unresolved matters. Again the Alexandnan Greeks had high hopes of success, Claudius being Mar Antony's grandson and Germanicus' brother. Unlike Gaius, Claudius refused to take sides. His neutral ruling was published at Alexandria on 10th October AD 41 and was, as I will argue, issued with the sole intention of restoring the peace. These historical events prompted numerous contemporary written reactions. They also dominate the surviving Acta Alexand.rinorum stories, which were still being read over a century and a half later, and, as I will argue here, heavily influenced the rest of the ActaAlexandrinorum literature. Uniquely in this case we have contemporary reactions, accounts written in subsequent generations and also enough independent

E.g. Dio 59.20.1-2. 2 See p.63-4.

21 evidence to reconstruct historical events with reasonable accuracy. I have used this period as a case study to show how the Acta Alexandrinorum stories relate to historical fact, and also to examine the development of the traditions about this historical period. I will argue that the historical events of AD 38-41, and, more importantly, the ways in which people reacted to them, had a profound effect on the development of the Ada Alexand.rinorum literature, and help to explain why the literature developed in the way that it did.

ii. An historical reconstruction of the events of AD 38-41. The events of AD 38-41 are the subject of most of the extant Acta

Alexandrinorum proper.3 The main literary sources for the Principate in this period are unhelpful in reconstructing the history of this period. Tacitus is not extant for the reign of Gaius, but like Dio and Suetonius, he may not have considered these events worthy of inclusion. Two Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, however, devote considerable attention to Alexandrian history in this period. Philo composed two works on the plight of the Alexandrian Jews during the reign of Gaius. The In Flaccum concentrates on the role of the prefect Flaccus during the rioting in Alexandria in AD 38. The Legatio ad Gaium tells the story of the Jewish embassy sent to Gaius in the aftermath of the rioting, . which Philo himself was a member . Unfortunately, for our purposes, the embassy itself is not the main subject of the work, which largely focuses upon examplesaius' alleged mania, most notably Gaius' attempt to raise a statue of himself in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Philo may even have composed more historical works on this period. The church historian Eusebius (IV AD) states that Philo wrote five books on the fortunes of the Jews under Gaius. 4 Philo himself alludes to a third work in the last chapter of the Legatio called 'the Palinode' ('the reversal of fortune?'). 5 This book, if it was ever written, very probably told the story of Gaius' death, and maybe even the events of Claudius' reign. This would leave two books unaccounted for, although it may be the case that several books are compressed into what we now call the Legatio.6 In any case, there appear to be several, possibly extensive lacunae, in the two extant

3 BKTIX 64; CPJII 150; 154; 156a, b, c, and d; P.Giss.Lit. 4.7; P.Oxy. XLII 3021. See App. I for full details of these texts. P. Oxy. IV 683 (see App. IV) may also be related. 4 Euseb. Hist. Eec!. 2.5.1. 5 Philo Leg. 373; Smaliwood 1961: 324-5. 6 Smaliwood 1961: 36-43.

22 4

treatises, and it is possible that Philo penned more works that have not survived.7 Josephus was a Jewish historian who wrote a generation later, in the Flavian period. He includes relevant material in his two historical works, the Jewish Antiquities and the Jewish War, and also in his apologetic treatise Contra Apionem, which was written in response to anti-Jewish statements made by Greek writers, principally those of the Alexandrian Apion. In addition to these literary sources we have a papyrus 'document' normally taken to be an exact copy of a letter written by Claudius to Alexandria.8 However, as I will argue below, there are several reasons for suspecting that the copyist has excerpted and modified the contents of the original letter. The history of this period has been discussed many times by modem scholars.9 Nonetheless much of the history, and even the chronology, remains controversial. The problem is compounded by the fact that any historical reconstruction must rely heavily on information from the Acta Alexandrinorum stories, information that is of extremely dubious historicity, as I will argue below. There are some fixed points of chronology. The visit of King Agrippa to Alexandria which catalysed the violence (see below) took place in August AD 38. The riots were over by the time that the prefect Avillius Flaccus was arrested and taken to Rome, during the feast of the Tabernacles in September AD 38.10 His successor as prefect, Vitrasius Pollio, had arrived by 20th October AD 38.11 Greek and Jewish embassies left Alexandria to meet with Gaius following the arrest of Flaccus, sailing in the middle of a stormy winter.' 2 On arrival in Rome, the Jews briefly met with Gaius in the gardens of his mother Agrippina, before arguing their case fully, opposite a Greek embassy, at a later date in Rome.' 3 The date of the first meeting is controversial, but Philo clearly states that the second meeting took place after Gaius' German 27th expedition.' 4 Gaius was in Germany by October AD 39, and is not attested back in Italy until May AD 40.15 He did not enter Rome until 3 1 August AD 4ØI6 This

Ibid. 41-3. CPJII 153. The studies include: Barraclough 1984: 418-36; Kraus Reggiani 1984: 554-86; Hennig 1975: 317-35; Kasher 1985; Smaliwood 1976: 220-56; Pucci 1990: 227-35; Schafer 1997: 136-60; Schwartz 1990: 77- 89. '°PhuloFlacc. 116. BGUIV 1078. See Schwartz 1982: 190. ' 2 PhiloLeg. 190. '3 Ibid. 181 349-67. '4 mid. 356-7. ' Smaliwood 1967: no.9-10 (fragments of the AFA). 16 Suet. Gal us 49.2.

23 second meeting must therefore have taken place between September AD 40 and Gaius assassination on January 24th AD 41. It was between their two meetings with Gaius that the Jews learnt of his plan to desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem.' 7 The Jews in Alexandria rioted upon hearing of Gaius' assassination, c. February-March AD 41.18 Greek and Jewish embassies were despatched to Rome to congratulate the new emperor Claudius, and also to secure his favour. Claudius' ruling was published in Alexandria on 10th October AD 41.19 Philo tells us that the news of Gaius' accession in March AD 37 signalled danger for the prefect of Egypt, Avillius Flaccus, as Flaccus had been deeply implicated in the persecution of Gaius' family during Tiberius' reign. The situation worsened when Gaius executed Flaccus' allies, Tiberius Gemellus and Macro, early in AD 38, and Flaccus was forced into an alliance with local Alexandrian Greek politicians. These men promised to intercede on his behalf and protect him from the wrath of the emperor, in return for a boon. According to Philo, the boon was to surrender and sacrifice the

Alexandrian Jews. 2° Such pacts between Roman officials and local elites are well attested in the Roman Empire. The Cretan Claudius Timarchus, for instance, used to boast openly that it depended on him whether provincial governors received the thanks of the provincial assembly. 2 ' Flaccus presumably hoped that the alliance with the Alexandrians would prevent any complaints to Gaius, which Gaius could use as a pretext to avenge his family. Philo continues his account by relating the visit of King Agrippa Ito Alexandria. Philo states that Agrippa wished to enter the city unnoticed, but his account reveals that the Alexandrian Jews triumphantly paraded their king through Alexandria, with Alexandrians stunned by the sight of "his bodyguard of spear-men, decked in armour gilded with gold and silver." 22 This enraged the Alexandrian Greeks; they were not even allowed a council, yet the Jews were allowed to parade their own king ! The Greeks congregated at the gymnasium and staged a parody of Agrippa's parade, with a madman, Carabas, playing the role of king. Following the mock procession the Greeks burnt many synagogues and desecrated others by erecting images of Gaius in them. Flaccus allegedly turned a blind eye to this disorder, and issued an edict destroying the

' 7 Philo Leg. 186-8. 18 Joseph. AJ 19.278. ' CPJH 153 1.11-3. 20 Philo Flacc. 22-3. 21 Tac.Ann. 15.20.

24 Jew's politeia by declaring them "aliens and foreigners."23 The Jews were herded into the Delta quarter of the city. Thirty-eight members of the Jewish council were marched to the theatre where they were scourged, tortured and hung, amid a Greek celebratory festival. Further atrocities followed. Despite Philo's claims, it is very likely that the Jews responded in kind. Alexandria was in a state of anarchy for around a month. Depending as it does on Philo, it is difficult to assess the historicity of the account, and the role of Flaccus in the rioting. Flaccus was arrested in the autumn of 38 and tried by Gaius early in 39, perhaps under the pretext of maladministration. He was exiled to Andros and executed shortly afterwards. He was executed before the autumn of AD 39, as Marcus Lepidus was still alive.24 It was left to Flaccus' successor, Vitrasius Pollio, to restore order to Alexandria. Pollio immediately took the decision to refer the complicated and delicate legal, social and religious issues that lay behind the rioting to Gaius. Both embassies left Alexandria in the winter of AD 38/9.25 However, Gaius did not hear the embassies until September AD 40 at the earliest. He had therefore left an important embassy waiting for almost two years before granting it a full hearing. This seems an unnaturally long time, even though Josephus implies that emperors were generally slow to receive embassies.26 The cause of the delay was Gaius' desire to visit Alexandria to deliver a ruling in person. 27 Philo mentions that Gaius' projected visit to Alexandria was imminent while the embassies were waiting to meet him (i.e. in AD 39)•28 Gaius was forced to cancel this trip because of the urgent need to go to the northern provinces and remove a potential threat, Gaetulicus, from command of the German legions. Embassies usually followed emperors when they left Rome, but Gaius must have ordered that he was not to be disturbed by embassies whilst campaigning. 29 On his return to Rome, Gaius revived his plan to visit Alexandria. Indeed, his assassins bought forward the date of the assassination because his departure was imminent in January AD 41 30 Although he had not granted the embassies a full hearing, Gaius was certainly very familiar with

22 Phulo Flacc. 27-30. Ibid. 54. See also App. III. 24 Ibid. 151, 181. 25 See App. II. 26 Joseph. AJ 18.170. 27 Salvaterm 1989: 631-56. Philo Leg. 172, 250, 338. Cf. Suet Gaius 49.2. 29 Eg P.Oxy. XLII 3020 (discussed p51-8) an AJexandiian embassy that followed Augustus to Gaul; see also Millar 1977: 38-9. Cf. Suet. Tib. 40— Tibenus ordered that no one should petition him when he left Capn. 30 Joseph. AJ 19.81.

25 their cases, and had apparently already decided in favour of the Alexandrian Greeks. He had received a Jewish petition, 3' probably a Greek one as well, and some of the issues were probably raised during the trial of Flaccus. Gaius therefore delayed meeting the embassies because he intended to travel to Alexandria to give his ruling in person. Philo describes the meeting of the Greek and Jewish embassies with Gaius. According to this account, although Gaius was initially critical and condescending towards the Jews, he did listen to the Jews' arguments before dismissing both embassies. Philo ends the Legatio very abruptly, and leaves it unclear (perhaps deliberately) whether or not Gaius gave at least a verbal indication of his judgement. One of the Acta Alexandrinorum proper, P.Giss.Lit. 4.7, which appears to be connected to this meeting, reports that Gaius did give a decision, citing a letter of Gaius to Alexandria in which Gaius sides very firmly with the Alexandrian Greeks against their 'accusers' 32 would be tempting to connect an anti-Jewish judgement delivered by Gaius with the riot of the Alexandrian Jews early in AD 41, although Josephus attributes the riot to a celebration of Gaius' assassination.33 From comparative evidence we can calculate that news of Claudius' accession would have reached Alexandria by the end of February AD A new Greek embassy, and presumably also a Jewish one, was then sent to Rome. It remains wholly unclear what happened to the old embassies. Josephus 'cites' an edict that Claudius allegedly issued to Alexandria immediately after his accession in which Claudius sides firmly with the Jews.35 On the basis of this edict, it has been argued that Claudius saw the old embassies early in AD 41, and that following this meeting, the old embassies would have returned to Alexandria. 36 However, as there are good reasons to doubt the authenticity of this edict (see below), there is no reason to believe Claudius had ever met the old embassies. Consequently the old embassies may have remained in Rome, and at least some of the ambassadors may have teamed up with the new embassies. Later traditions place Philo in Rome during Claudius' reign, suggesting that he may

31 Philo Leg. 178. 32 PGjss Lit 4.7 iii.27-35. Joseph. AJ 19.278. See Duncan-Jones 1990: 7-29. Nero's accession was known in Egypt 35 days after Claudius' death (P.Ory. VH 1021); Galba's was known in Alexandria 27 days after Nero's death (OGIS 669); Otho's was known at Memphis 26 days after Galba's death (SB XII 11044). Joseph. AJ 19.279-85. Smaliwood 1976: 245-6; CPJII: p.49-5!.

26 have joined forces with the new Jewish embassy. 37 The Ada Alexandrinorum allege that two of the Greek ambassadors to Gaius, Isidoros and Lampon, also remained in Rome (see below). Claudius heard the new embassies at some point during AD 41. The earliest date for a hearing would have been March-April AD 41, immediately after the new embassies arrived. The date of composition of Claudius' letter to Alexandria, published in Alexandria in October 10th, cannot help us date the meeting, as other emperors also took a long time to respond to embassies of congratulation. 38 It is possible that Claudius' first appointment to the prefecture of Egypt, Aemilius Rectus, took the letter to Alexandria with him in the autumn of AD 41. The Acta Alexandrinorum stories claim that Claudius tried and executed two Alexandrian ambassadors, Isidoros and Lampon, and set their trial firmly in the context of the Graeco-Jewish dispute. This trial is not mentioned outside of the Acta literature, which has prompted some to doubt the historicity of the episode. 39 The general consensus is that the trial did take place, but when it occurred is highly controversial. The Acta Isidori dates the trial to the 5th and 6th of Pachon (April 3OthMay 1), but does not specify the year. The details in the story suggest a date of either AD 41 or AD 53, and, on balance, favour the later date. Two participants in the trial, Balbillus and Agrippa (Agrippa I), were certainly in Rome in AD 41. Another Agrippa (Agrippa II) was in Rome in AD 53, during which he intervened in a dispute between Jews and Samaritans that was heard in the imperial court. The texts only preserve the last few letters of the name of the imperial gardens where the trial allegedly took place: '[iv

Toiç . . .-]Xiavdtç KiTroLç'. There are four possibilities, the '[LuculJlan', 4' ' [Loljlian',

'[Stati]lian',42 or '[Servi]lian' gardens. 43 Claudius acquired the horti Luculliani, Lolliani and Statiliani Claudius, in AD 47/8, 49 and 53 respectively, which would undermine the case for the earlier dating. The grandest of these gardens were the

' E.g. Euseb. Hist. eceL 2.18.7-8. Cf Suda s.v. Philo Judaeus, reporting that Philo met the apostle Peter in Rome in the reign of Claudius! 28th 38 P. Oxy. XLII 3022 - Trajan became emperor on Januaiy AD 98, but his response to Alexandria was written, at the earliest, in October AD 98 (see p.75). Cf. also Smaliwood 1967: no.361 - Gaius' response to an Achaean embassy sent to congratulate him on his accession (March 28th) is dated to August 1 9th 39 Musurillo 1954: 123-4. ° Joseph. AJ 20.118-36. Also known as the 'gardens of Asiaticus' (Dio 60.3 1.5), from whom Claudius acquired them. 42 Although these gardens were better known as the horti Tauriani - ILS 5998. Less likely are the horti Scapulani and horti Siliani , both of which are only attested in the first centuiy BC - see Richardson 1992: 203-204. See Richardson 1992: 199-200 and 204 for the histoiy of these gardens.

27 Lucullan and Servilian gardens, which makes them the most plausible options. 45 For the trial to have taken place in AD 41, the setting would need to be the horti Serviliani. Unfortunately, the history of these gardens is unclear. They are not attested as an imperial possession until the Neronian period. However, it is unclear.if Nero acquired them from M. Servilius Nonianus (cos. AD 35, d. AD 6O), or ithey became an imperial possession earlier. Tiberius, for example, may have acquired them from

Servilius Vatia. 48 The identification of two senators who appear in the text is equally inconclusive in regard to dating the trial. 'T[a]rquinius' and 'Aviolaos' have been identified as M. Tarquitius Priscus and M. Acilius Aviola, two senators who were active in the AD 50s. 49 The identifications are not secure, however. 'Aviolaos' could also plausibly be identified as the consul of AD 24, who was proconsul of Asia in 38/9, and 'T[a]rquinius' could be an otherwise unknown senator. While these internal details, on balance, suggest a later dating, the content of the trial strongly favours the earlier dating. The trial is billed as the dispute of Isidoros against King Agrippa. Isidoros certainly had cause to complain about Agrippa I, whose triumphal parade through Alexandria was the catalyst of the rioting, but, as far as we can tell, there was no such dispute with Agrippa II. Sections of the trial also appear to concern the rights and status of the Alexandrian Jews, which, as we know, Claudius dealt with decisively in the year AD 41. As far as we know, he never re-addressed this issue. 5° While this would support the earlier dating, it is unfortunately unclear the 'Jewish problem' actually played a major role in the historical trial. References to the 'Jewish problem' may be later, unhistorical additions, as, in fact, all the other 'details' in the story may be. Ultimately we cannot date the trial on the basis of the internal evidence. Nevertheless, while the trial may indeed have taken place later in Claudius' reign, by making the 'Jewish problem' a vital component in the trial scene, the writer(s) clearly wanted Isidoros' trial to be seen against the historical background of AD 38-41.

45 Plut. Luc. 39.2. The Servilian gardens were a favourite haunt of Nero. Tac.Ann. 15.55; Suet. Ner. 47.1. 47 Tac.Ann. 14.19. 48 P1R' S 430. 49 TaC. Ann. 12.59; 14.46; Aviola was consul in AD 54.

28 iii. The members of the embassies and issues discussed by the ambassadors. Josephus states that the Greek and Jewish embassies to Gaius consisted of three men each, but names only the Greek Apion and the Jew Philo as delegates. 5' Philo, however, states that the Jewish embassy had five members, and, as he was an ambassador himself, is presumably correct. 52 He names none of his colleagues, but reveals that Isidoros was a member of the Greek embassy. 53 It is likely that Lampon and Dionysios, two leading Alexandrian politicians mentioned by Philo, were among Isidoros' colleagues. Philo 's brother, Alexander, may also have been a member of the Jewish embassy. 54 Alexander was certainly in Rome at the time, for Gaius imprisoned him, but he may have been in Rome on private business. 55 Philo's nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, may be another possibility. 56 Philo was chosen as an ambassador presumably because he was a rich, prominent and influential member of the Alexandrian Jewish community. 57 His brother was a Roman citizen and his nephew was betrothed to Agrippa' s daughter Berenice. He was a prolific writer in Greek, and probably had oratorical training. Philo was a Jew steeped in Greek culture. He was apparently familiar with the writings of Demosthenes, using Demosthenes rare term of insult grammatokuphon towards Aeschines to describe Lampon (see below). 58 Philo was consequently as cultured as the Alexandrian Greek ambassadors. Apion, son of Poseidonios, was an Egyptian who had been granted Alexandrian citizenship. 59 After this he had moved to Rome and taught rhetoric under Tiberius and Claudius. During Gaius' reign he travelled around Greece, lecturing on Homer. 6° He was presumably chosen for his oratorical ability, his culture and reputation. His debating skill is presumably reflected in his nickname 'quarrelsome' (pleistoneikes).6' He composed an Egyptian History, and is said to have written a book Against the Jews. 62 Sections of his Egyptian History are cited in Josephus' Contra Apionem.

° CPJII: p.68-9. See App. ifi. 51 Joseph. AJ 18.257. 52 PhiloLeg. 371. 53 Jbid. 355. Turner 1954: 58; Smaliwood 1976: 242 n.87. Joseph. AJ 19.276. 56 Terian 1984: 290. ' Goodenough 1926: 77-9. Demoslhenes 18.209; see Thomas 1989: 71. 59 Joseph. Ap. 2.32. 60 Seneca, Ep. 88.40. 61 See Jacobson 1977: 413-5. 62 Clement, Strom. 1.21.101.3-4. These may be the same work, an anti-Jewish histoiy of Egypt.

29 Isidoros, Lampon and Dionysios were, according to Philo, popular Alexandrian politicians, and were very much involved in inciting the riots of AD 38. According to Philo, Dionysios was a popularity-seeker (demokopos), Lampon a record-porer (grammatokuphon), and Isidoros a faction leader, busy-intriguer, mischief contriver and state-embroiler (stasiarchos, philopragmon, kakon eurgetes, taraxipolis). Philo does not mention Dionysios again, although he reappears in several Ada Alexandrinorum stories. According to Philo, Isidoros had organised anti-Flaccan protests and demonstrations in the early AD 30s. 63 When Flaccus learnt who was responsible, Isidoros left Alexandria and spent several years in voluntary exile. On Gaius' accession, Isidoros returned to Alexandria. He played a key role in negotiating the 'boon' with Flaccus. In return for a vote of thanks by the Alexandrians, which Isidoros could help secure, Flaccus hoped to be protected against Gaius' wrath (see above). Isidoros allegedly played a key role in inciting the riots in August AD 38. The Acta Alexandrinorum state that Isidoros was a gymnasiarch, that he been sent on an earlier embassy to Gaius, and that he was involved in the fall of Gaius' Praetorian Prefect, Naevius Macro.64 When Flaccus was arrested, Isidoros, along with Lampon, travelled to Rome to prosecute him. 65 The evidence would suggest, therefore, that Isidoros was well known to Gaius, having met him on at least one occasion before this embassy. Lampon, like Isidoros suffered under Flaccus' early prefecture. In this period he spent two years accused of 'impiety' against Tiberius, presumably by his political opponents. His judge (Flaccus?) had deliberately prolonged the affair to keep Lampon fearfl.il of the outcome, but Lampon eventually won his case. The expense of the case allegedly left him bankrupt, and he protested against Flaccus' appointment of him as gymnasiarch, complaining that he did not have sufficient finds for the office. Before his gymnasiarchy, Lampon had taken down the minutes of trials in the prefect's court, presumably as an official Roman appointed scribe, and had allegedly doctored court records in return for bribes. The point of Philo's insult grammatokuphon could very well be that, like Aeschines, Lampon was a public secretary. Alongside Isidoros, Lampon prosecuted Flaccus in AD 39.

63 p Flacc. 135-45. CPJ II 156a ii.2-3; CPJH 156b ii.7 (gymnasiarch); P.Giss.Lit. 4.7 iii.33-4 (earlier ambassador(?)); CPJ II 156bi.14 (Macro-seep.51, 54). 65 Philo Flacc. 125-6. Phulo Flacc. 125-34.

30 The names of the twelve members of the Greek delegation sent to congratulate Claudius on his accession are listed in Claudius' letter: Tiberius Claudius Balbillus, Apollonios son of Artemidoros, Chaeremon, Marcus Julius Askiepiades, Gaius Julius Dionysios, Tiberius Claudius Phanias, Pasion, Dionysios son of Sabbion, Tiberius Claudius Archibios, Apollonios son of Ariston, Gaius Julius Apollonios, and Hermaiskos.67 The embassy was impressive in both size and culture. No less than six members were Roman citizens, and the high standing of others known from other sources. The probable leader of the embassy, Balbillus, is a well-known historical figure.68 The son of Tiberius' astrologer, Thrasyllus, Balbillus enjoyed a distinguished equestrian career, which is recorded in an inscription at Ephesus. He held positions in Alexandria and Rome (in charge of embassies and Greek replies). He even went to Britain with Claudius and was singled out for special honours in Claudius' British triumph. 69 Balbillus was Nero's first prefect of Egypt. 7° He remained prominent in the imperial court, and was a valued astrological adviser to both Nero and Vespasian. Vespasian even allowed the Ephesians to found annual games, the Barbillea, in his honour.7' Members of Balbillus' family were also highly prominent in the imperial court. His niece Ennia Thrasylla was the wife of Gaius' praetorian prefect, Macro, and allegedly the mistress of the emperor himself. 72 His daughter, Claudia Capitolina, had 'royal blood' suggesting that Balbillus' family had links with a royal dynasty, possibly the house of Commagene. Balbillus' granddaughter Julia Balbilla accompanied Hadrian to Egypt in AD 130. Chaeremon, an Egyptian who had acquired the Alexandrian citizenship, was a famous author. He is called 'Stoic', 'philosopher' and 'sacred scribe' in our sources. Later authors cite from now lost works by Chaeremon entitled Egyptian History,

Concerning Comets, a work on hieroglyphics and a grammatical treatise. 73 The Suda

67 CPJII 153 1. 16-20. The general consensus is that the four Balbiffi mentioned in sources for the first-centuiy AD are the same man. See Pflaum 11960: no.15; Magic 1950: 1398-1400; Cramer 1954: 92-140; Syme 1958: 508-9; Rathbone, article forthcoming. On the separatist viewpoint see Stein 1933: 121-36 and PIR2 B 38 and C 813. 69 Smallwood 1967: no.261a-b. ° Tac. Ann. 13.22. ' Suet. Ner. 36.1; Dio 65.9.2. On the Barbillea, see Bnmet 1997: 137-8; Frisch 1974: 162. 72 Philo Leg. 39-40, 61; Tac. Ann. 6.45; Suet Gaius 12.2; Dio 58.28.4. See Barzanô 1985: 1981-2001; Willem van der Horst 1984: 8-45 collects all extant citations from Chaeremon's works.

31 implies that Chaeremon was the director of the Alexandrian Museum. 74 His career in the service of Rome appears to have begun after, and presumably as a result of, this embassy to Claudius, and he was appointed tutor to the youthfbl Nero. 75 It has also been suggested that Chaeremon was also a member of the embassy to Gaius, but there is no evidence for this.76 None of the other ambassadors are as readily identifiable. A (probable) relative of M. Julius Askiepiades, Tiberius Julius Asklepiades, is attested as a gymnasiarch and archigeron (chief of the elders) in this period. 77 One of the Dionysioi could be the Alexandrian politician mentioned by Philo. It has been suggested that Dionysios, son of Theon, may belong to the aristocratic Alexandrian family mentioned in documents from the Augustan to the Hadrianic period, whose members were all called either 'Dionysios' or 'Theon'. 78 Phanias and Hermaiskos, may be the ancestors of two later Alexandrian ambassadors. 79 The family of Pasion, son of Potamon, may be referred to in Nero's letter to Alexandria (see p.66), and may also be related to Potamon an Alexandrian

philosopher of the Augustan period mentioned in the Suda. 8° But these names are all too common for complete certainty. Most of the members of this embassy belonged to the circle of Alexandrian Greek intellectuals, and several were connected with the Museum. The Alexandrians undoubtedly felt that men of this calibre would gain the favour of Claudius. The names of the Jewish ambassadors are conspicuously absent from the copy of Claudius' letter. One possible candidate could be Philo's nephew, Ti. Julius Alexander, as, like Chaeremon, he also entered the Roman imperial service shortly after the embassy, holding the equestrian post of epistrategos of the Thebaid in AD 42.81 All that we know about the Jewish ambassadors is that the Jews were chastised by Claudius for sending "two embassies, as though they lived in two cities, a thing which has never been done before."82

Suda s.v. Dionysios of Alexandria, son of Glaucon. Suda s.v. Alexander the Aegean. 76 Willem van der Ilorst 1984: xi n.22. " See Heicheiheim 1942: 17. 78 Musurillo 1954: 102-4. Sijpesteijn 1976: 5. This family may also be related to the Alexandrian Stoic ?hulosopher of the Augustan period - Suda s.v. Theon of Alexandria the Stoic philosopher. 9 Julius Phanias and Hermaiskos in CPJ 11157. ° Suda s.v. Potamon of Alexandria. 81 Terian 1984: 291. 82 cpj 153 1.90-1. On the two embassies, see p.38.

32 Modern suggestions about the aims of the Greek and Jewish embassies to Gaius and Claudius depend Largely on interpretation of the Jewish question at Alexandria.83 Philo states that the Jewish embassy to Gaius prepared a statement concerning their "sufferings and claims."84 Their sufferings obviously refer to the Jews' harsh treatment in Alexandria during the riots of AD 38, the desecration of their synagogues, and perhaps also Flaccus' edict denouncing the Jews as aliens and foreigners, that allegedly destroyed their politeia. What constituted their 'claims' is far more controversial. Clearly the Jewish exemption from the imperial cult was one of the major issues discussed, as both Philo and Josephus' accounts of the meeting with Gaius heavily focus on this. 85 Philo reports Gaius' decision on this matter: "I think that these men are not so much criminals as lunatics in not believing that I have been given a divine nature". Although Philo does not explicitly say so, the preceding phrases ('God took pity on us and turned Gaius' heart to mercy', 'he (Gaius) became gentler') imply that Gaius verbally confirmed the Jews' exemption from the imperial cult. Philo elsewhere mentions that one of the 'claims' was "showing that we are Alexandrians" and reports that Gaius asked the Jews to speak about their politeia.86 It remains unclear if Philo's embassy merely wanted a return to the situation pre-AD 38, or to improve the status of the Alexandrian Jews, or, indeed, both. 87 The purpose of the Greek embassy to Gaius was presumably to defend their part in the rioting of AD 38 and to ensure that the Jews did not improve their current status. The Acta Alexandrinorum stress the concerted effort of the Greek ambassadors to downgrade the status of the Alexandrian Jews. Both the embassies to Claudius had the formal purpose of congratulating him on his accession. Both embassies also raised the issues on which Gaius had apparently not given a formal ruling. The novelty of these embassies was that the Jews had to defend themselves for their role in the riots of AD 41, for which the Greeks, particularly Dionysios, attempted to gain retribution. Claudius' response in his letter implies that the Jews were attempting to improve their status on this occasion. It also reveals the additional requests made by the Greeks. They asked for permission to set up honours for Claudius, to make several changes in the structure of civic magistracies, to convene

See App. Ill. 84 Philo Leg. 178; cf. Ibid. 195, mentioning 'both' the embassies' aims. 85 Joseph. AJ 18.257-60; Philo Leg. 355-67. 86 Philo Leg. 363; cf. Ibid. 193-4. 87 See App. lU.

33 a boule, and to prevent non-citizens from irregularly obtaining Alexandrian citizenship by enrolling in ephebic training. The terms of Claudius' ruling as preserved in the 'documentaiy' version of his letter were neutral, but the tone of this version strongly favours the Greeks (see p.3 8). Claudius accepted some of the honours offered to him by the Greeks and amended the method of appointment for some civic magistrates. But he refused to hold an enquiry into the rioting of AD 41, and refused them permission to convene a council. While the Jews escaped censure for the riots, and had their pre-AD 38 legal, social and religious status restored, they were warned, in very harsh words, not to try and improve their current status. Both embassies had therefore partly achieved their aims. But while Claudius allowed all those currently registered as ephebes, including Jews, to retain their citizenship (CPJ 11153 1.53-6), he denied future generations the opportunity to enter the gymnasium. This is surely the meaning of his prohibition to the Jews in 1.92- 3. The Jews were ordered "not to struggle(?) in the games presided over by the gymnasiarchs or kosmetes."88 Claudius thus banned future generations of Jews from gaining Alexandrian citizenship via the ephebeia. The Jews were to enjoy what they already had (pre-AD 38), and not to strive for more, especially as they were living in 'a city not their own'. The Jews were not to invite other Jews from Syria into the city, as presumably they had in the AD 41 riots. If they disobeyed, Claudius would proceed against them as though they were stirring up a plague for the whole world. Claudius therefore simply restored the pre-AD 38 situation, and did not address the problems causing the divisions in Alexandria. Although Graeco-Jewish violence is not attested again in Alexandria until AD 66, this probably had more to do with the firm attitude adopted by the prefects appointed by Claudius and Nero rather than Claudius' 'settlement'.

iv. The traditions concerning the embassy to Gaius and Claudius. These historical events were the inspiration for an enormous amount of literary activity. Soon after the actual events individual members of the embassies composed their own accounts of events. 'Documents' concerning these events were also being 'copied' and circulated in this period. Remarkably, the events of AD 38-41 continued to be important over one hundred and fifty years later and dominate the Ada

88 For the problem of the word '1r1oTraiELv' see App. I. I have taken it to mean 'not to struggle in', i.e. 'nottotakepartin'—seeHarris 197: 92.

34 Alexandrinorum literature that was being composed and circulated in the late second/early third century AD. I will review the traditions here in chronological order. I have already noted, in my introduction, the controversy caused by the alleged 'documentary' nature of the Acta Alexandrinorum literature, in particular their alleged dependence on official minutes. I will examine this theory in chapter IV (p.1 12-126), but will pay particular attention here to the 'literary' or 'documentary' nature of the written traditions concerning the events of these years. There are three partially extant contemporary literary responses, those of Philo, Chaeremon and Apion. Philo's relevant works must have been completed soon after the actual events. Already an 'old man' at the time of his embassy, Philo died during the AD 40s. There is, however, no reason to believe that Philo read his Legatio before the Senate in the early days of Claudius' reign, as Eusebius alleges. 89 Philo's account of the meeting of the two embassies before Gaius warrants closer attention, as it is very close in form and subject matter to the Acta Alexandrinorum proper. The account is presumably based upon his personal recollection of the meeting, which is presented as a trial scene, with the Jews bravely confronting the tyrant Gaius on behalf of their fellow Jews. Philo records part of the meeting in the form of minutes, recording what was allegedly said in direct speech. Philo is clearly very selective in what he would have us believe was said, as what he does record would only take, at the most, a few minutes to have taken place. Philo' s trial scene is far more than even a selective record of what was allegedly said, and Philo incorporates several important themes into his record. These themes are also to be found embedded in the Ada Alexandrinorum proper, albeit with the bias reversed. Philo's main theme is that Gaius was not a serious emperor because he did not grant the Jews a formal hearing. Gaius apparently heard the embassy while he was inspecting repair work in the gardens of Maecenas and Lamia, two separate gardens that were relatively close together in Rome. It is impossible to say whether or not this is a historical fact, as emperors often held meetings in imperial gardens. 9° However, it is interesting to examine how Philo exploits this. Philo complains that the Jews should have been heard in a courtroom, not a garden, and uses the setting to imply that Gaius did not grant them a fair hearing.9' Gaius often viewed dramatic productions in

89 See above n.37. 9°Millar 1977: 22-3. ' Phulo Leg. 349-5 1.

35 gardens, and Philo compares the hearing to this. He describes the Jews as the 'princip actors' in the 'drama' being 'staged'; the hearing is described as a cross between a theatre and a prison; and the Jews were mocked like the actors in mimes were mocked.92 The mockery of the hearing was complete when the emperor assumed the role of accuser, rather than judge.93 The setting of the trial in the Ac/a Isidori is also in imperial gardens and Claudius assumes the role of accuser rather than judge in the story. It would therefore appear that the same literary device is being employed. Philo stresses throughout his account that the emperor is in league with the enemy, making the result of the trial a foregone conclusion. The Alexandrian Greeks, he alleges, had bribed Gaius' influential freedman, Helicon, and he makes several allusions to this compact between the emperor and the Alexandrian Greeks. 94 This literary device is frequently employed in the Ac/a Alexandrinorum stories. In the Ac/a Isidori, for example, it is King Agrippa who has turned the emperor against Isidoros. The portrayal of the hostile emperor Gaius in Philo's trial scene is therefore extremely similar to the portrayal of emperors in the Ac/a Alexandrinorum. Philo frequently refers to the danger he and his fellow ambassadors were facing and frequently alludes to himself being on the brink of martyrdom. He alleges that he would gratefully have died for the cause of the Alexandrian Jews. After the Jewish ambassadors learnt of Gaius plans for the Temple in Jerusalem, they considered facing the emperor and seeking a 'glorious death'. After their second meeting with Gaius, Philo alleges that he would gladly have given his life to restore even a single Law of the Jews. 95 On both occasions, however, Philo decided that it would not be advantageous to throw his life away for nothing. The Alexandrian Greeks, however, in the Ac/a Alexandrinorum stories, are only too willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause of their fatherland. Therefore, like the authors of the ActaAlexand.rinorum, Philo portrays the meeting of his embassy before the emperor as a trial scene, and incorporates many of the themes of the Ac/a Alexandrinorum, albeit reversed, in his account. The parallels are such that if fragments from this section of the Legatio were discovered on papyri from Roman Egypt, then they would undoubtedly be mistaken for Ac/a Alexandrinorum. This strongly suggests that the Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper were being developed in this period, and that Philo was not only familiar with this literature,

Ibid. 351; 359; 368. Ibid. 359-60. Ibid. 172; 354.

36 but also part of this developing process. The first ActaAlexandrinorum proper stories were presumably therefore being written in this period. The earliest surviving example is P.Oxy. XLH 3021, copied a generation later, in the late first century AD. These historical embassies clearly caused great controversy both in Alexandria, and among other Greek and Jewish communities. The status of the Alexandrian Jews, one of the major issues raised by both embassies, figured heavily in the Histories composed by two of the Alexandrian ambassadors of this period, Apion and Chaeremon. Both writers' works have been lost, and are preserved only in carefully selected passages in Josephus' apologetic Contra Apionem, many probably cited out of their correct contexts. The only fragment of Chaeremon's preserved is an anti-Jewish version of the Exodus story, but Josephus concentrates heavily on refuting the claims of Apion. Apion's recorded criticisms of the Jews fall into three distinct categories: a revision of the Exodus story, an attack on the Alexandrian Jews' right to claim Alexandrian citizenship, and a general disparagement of the sanctity of the Jewish Temple and religious customs. Josephus states that "Apion has composed a charge against us quite as though he were conducting a law suit."96 Apion had, of course, helped to compose a lawsuit against the Jews as a member of the Greek embassy of AD 38/9-40, and his work therefore may well reflect at least some of the historical charges levelled against the Jews by the Greek embassy to Gaius. 97 Apion may even have claimed that he was recording the actual prosecution speech, giving his historical account an additional air of authenticity. As well as these contemporary literary works, 'documents' relating to these historical events were also circulating in Roman Egypt. The 'documentary' version of Claudius' letter to Alexandria was recovered from the papers of a Hellenised Egyptian named Nemesion, a local taxation official in the village of Philadelphia in the Arsinoite nome. His copy of the letter was clearly made for his own private use and was scribbled onto the verso of a papyrus that had already been used for a tax register, around a list of names which had been written before the copy was made. Nemesion was clearly not an Alexandrian citizen, nor had any direct links with the city. Several of his fellow villagers had business interests with Alexandria, and one at least did not trust

Ibid. 192; 369. 96 Joseph. Ap. 2.4. See App. III.

37 the Jews.98 Nemesion is very likely to have shared the prejudices of his fellow villagers. I believe that the presence of the letter among Nemesion's papers shows both that the stories of the embassies were clearly widely popular in Egypt, and that the population of Roman Egypt was very much taking sides in the Graeco-Jewish dispute at Alexandria. Nemesion's sympathies undoubtedly lay with the Alexandrin Greeks. When we take this into account we must question how accurately he 'copied' the letter, or if, indeed, he copied an already 'edited' version of the letter. There are some striking omissions from this 'copy' of the letter, suggesting that it is an excerpt rather than a verbatim, direct copy. Nemesion's version omits, for example, the date-clause of the letter itself. While it lists all the Greek ambassadors, the names of the Jewish ambassadors are notably absent, despite the fact that Claudius speaks directly to the Jews in a section of the letter. It has been noted many times that Nemesion's copy is very careless, his so-called 'slips of the pen' frequently rendering sections of the text highly ambiguous and unintelligible. 99 I have also argued above that Claudius, intent on restoring the peace, delivered a neutral settlement. Yet the letter as we have it strongly favours the Greeks. They are given a mere verbal slap on the wrist, while the Jews are castigated and given a series of prohibitions. One of the most enigmatic sections of the letter refers to two Jewish embassies which have annoyed çlaudius. Previous explanations of the presence of two Jewish embassies are not plausible, including the generally accepted solution, that the Jews sent two embassies to Claudius, one representing the Hellenised Jewish elite, the other serving the interests of the lower orders of the Alexandrian Jewry.'°° This is highly implausible because the Jews must have realised that such an approach would irritate Claudius, and prejudice him against their case. I would suggest that our copyist, by excerpting and modifying this section of the letter, has left this remark more obscure than it was originally. The omission of a few words or lines and the modification of several verbs could well be responsible for this effect. This, of course, raises the problem of how 'documentary' this version of Claudius' letter is, which I will discuss below. Copies of a piece of Acta related literature and what would appear to be an Acta Alexandrinorum proper which relate to the embassies were made in this period. CPJII 150 was copied in the first half of the first century AD, and P.Ory. XLII 3021 slightly

See p.127-8. Bell 1924: 2; CPJII: p.37. '°° See the discussion in CPJII: p.50-3; Smallwood 1976: 248.

38 later, in the latter part of the first century. CPJII 150 preserves the final section of a speech of an Alexandrian Greek ambassador to an unknown emperor in which he lists the advantages that having a boule would bring both to Alexandria and to the emperor. There is no consensus on the identity of the emperor. The three likely candidates are Augustus, Gaius and Claudius.'°' The badly damaged final three lines could very well be used to argue that the Alexandrian was addressing Gaius:

"Caesar said: I I will come to a decision on these matters [...c.25 letters missing...] to Alexandria [...c.25 letters missing.. .1." The phrase 'to Alexandria' could indicate the intention to go to Alexandria. Gaius and Nero are the Julio-Claudian emperors known to have contemplated visiting Alexandria, and, as I have argued above, Gaius intended to visit Alexandria and deliver his ruling in person. It would, of course, be very surprising if the Alexandrian Greeks had not requested a boule from an emperor who was the great-grandson of Marc Antony, the son of Germanicus, and was clearly well disposed towards them. Claudius is an equally possible candidate, as the text could very well refer to the emperor sending something, such as a letter, or instructions to his prefect, to Alexandria. Indeed, the striking parallels between the requests made by this Alexandrian embassy, and the answers given by Claudius in his letter suggests that the 'Caesar' ofCPJII 150 is Claudius. 102 The speaker argues that a boule could scrutinise candidates for the ephebate and prevent evasion of the poll tax, and therefore prevent Caesar losing revenue, the Alexandrians argue. By regulating their own citizenship, the Alexandrians could prevent uncultured and uneducated men from acquiring it and being sent on embassies. By having an annually chosen boule, whose secretary would present its proceedings for scrutiny once a year, the Alexandrians would be able to control the nomination and behaviour of its magistrates. In his letter Claudius answers these concerns. The sons of slaves who gained citizenship through the ephebeia were to have their citizenship removed. The priests of the temple of the imperial cult in Alexandria shall be elected rather than appointed, and Claudius limits magistrates to only holdt office for three years, to ensure that they behave "more moderately. for fear of being called to account for abuses of power." He also instructs his prefect to investigate whether a boule would really profit Alexandria and himself. While CPJH 150 has no definite mention of the Jews we have only one column of the text, and it is likely that

101 The case for the emperor being Augustus is discussed on p.62. l02 Musmillo 1954: 88; Kasher 1985: 312-3.

39 the references to the 'ignoble' 'uncultured and 'uneducated' were intended to refer to the Jews. CPJII 150 would therefore appear to be a reasonably accurate record of the arguments delivered by the Alexandrian Greek embassy to Claudius requesting that the emperor allow the Alexanclrians to convene a boule. The writer of CPJ II 150 has recorded a long speech of an ambassador rather than the abbreviated minutes containing the gist of the speech. It is taken to be a verbatim copy of the actual speech made by an Alexandrian ambassador and often referred to as a 'document'. The case for the text being a 'document' relies heavily on the supposition that the 'numbers' at the head of the column are a type of ancient file reference (see p.1 24). The language is literary (e.g. epitropos rather than hegemon for 'prefect'), but an orator delivering a speech to an emperor would naturally use literary language. In 1.13 the copyist firstly wrote 'nTE àaOEV1ç iç', then amended the second word to 'd)OE-róg', then deleted the entire phrase. It is impossible to tell if this is simply an error, or if the copier was freely adapting and improving the original speech. From the closeness of the contents to what we know the Alexandrians requested from Claudius' letter, this text would appear to be a version of the speech made to Claudius, although it is, of course, highly debatable how closely the writer adhered to the original speech. P.Oxy. XLII 3021 preserves seventeen line-endings of a single column containing an account of the meeting of Alexandrian Greek and Jewish ambassadors with an emperor. In the extant section the emperor enters, perhaps with Agrippa, and takes his seat (I. 1-2).'° After this the imperial advisers enter (1.3). The following three lines announce the entrance of the Greek ambassadors. Only three names of the ambassadors are preserved: Tiberius Claudius [Balbillus(?)], Isidoros and Dionysios.104 In the following line the ambassadors of the Jews enter, but there is no room for them to be named individually in the way that the Alexandrian Greeks are. Greetings are then offered to the emperor, who perhaps asks: "Ambassadors of Alexandria, [what] do you say [about] the Jews?" The remainder of the column could be the speech of the Greek embassy: "We [beseech(?)] you, lord Augustus... [the rights] pre-existing for the Jews... now deprived.., of the gods... in their temples... are trampled..."

See note in App. I. '° See note in App. I.

40 The subject matter of the speech is therefore the status of the Alexandrian Jews and the presence of Isidoros and perhaps Balbillus would suggest that this is an account of the rival embassies meeting Claudius. The Alexandrian Greeks appear to be arguing that the pre-existing rights of the Alexandrian Jews have been abolished (by Flaccus), and may aim their attack against Jewish impiety. The Jews trample upon convention by reffising to worship the emperor as a god in their temples. How could they therefore

claim Alexandrian citizenship?'° 5 It is less likely to be speech of the Jews. The writer, who omitted to name the Jewish ambassadors, was presumably uninterested in what they said. The text is presented in the form of official minutes (ada). While this text does describe the reception of the embassies by Claudius, too little survives to be completely sure that it is an early version of the Ada Isidori. However, the text does use the same dramatis personae as the Acta Isidori and it is evident that the writer is conveying the same anti-Jewish sentiments that we find in the Acta Alexandrinorum proper. As in Nemesion's version of Claudius' letter, the writer does not individually name any of the Jewish ambassadors. This would suggest that even if the account was based on official minutes, there has been a lot of editing and adapting. The speech of the Alexandrian ambassador is about the issues of the day, and, significantly, there is an attempt to present a case against the Jews. Josephus, writing in the last decade of the first century AD, attests a significant development in the evolution of the traditions about the embassies. He devotes a chapter to the reception of Philo' s embassy before Gaius. Josephus states that Apion delivered his prosecution speech, then Philo attempted to make the defence: "But Gaius cut him short, told him to get out of his way, and, being exceedingly angry, made it clear that he would visit some outrage on the Jews. Philo, having been treated with arrogantly left the room"106 The account is so different from Philo's own version of this meeting that Josephus must have used a different source. Josephus (or his source) turns the meeting into a battle between the two leaders of the embassies, Apion and Philo, and depicts Philo enjoying a private interview with Gaius, during the course of which he is insulted. The stories of the embassies were clearly continuing to circulate in this period and were being

An argument forwarded by Apion; Joseph. Ap. 2.65. '°6 Joseph. AJ 18.259-60.

41 developed. Significantly, Josephus felt the need in the AD 90s to refute claims made by Apion about this period in his Contra Apionem. Josephus does not mention the embassies to Claudius, but instead 'cites' two edicts issued by Claudius, presumably in response to these embassies. The first edict is addressed to 'Alexandria and Syria', the second 'to the whole world'. Josephus' narrative would imply that these edicts were issued immediately after Gaius' death. However, it is difficult to reconcile the pro-Jewish/anti-Greek tone of these edicts with the pro-Greek/anti-Jewish tone of Nemesion's version of Claudius' letter, written only a few months later, and, indeed, with the historical, neutral ruling that Claudius delivered. The usual solution to the contradiction is the assumption that Claudius met the embassies who were sent to Gaius immediately after his accession, and delivered his pro-Jewish edicts, before meeting new embassies from Alexandria later in the year and issuing an entirely different ruling in his letter.'° 7 This assumption is highly implausible. When Josephus' 'citation' of Claudius' 'edict to Alexandria and Syria' is examined in detail, it becomes apparent that it is no more than an abbreviated, amended version of Claudius' letter to Alexandria. According to Josephus, Claudius stated that he knew that the Alexandrjan Jews were fellow colonisers with the Alexandrian Greeks and were given 'equal civic rights' by the Kings, as their documents have shown, a claim that Josephus repeats throughout his other writings.' 08 Claudius acknowledges that these Jewish rights have been preserved and never disputed by Roman emperors, adding that when the leader of the Alexandrian Jewish community, the ethnarch, died during Aquila' s prefecture (AD 10-il), Augustus allowed another ethnarch to be appointed. Claudius lays blame solely on the Greeks for the rioting of AD 38, and describes Gaius' policy towards the Jews as 'folly' and 'mad'. He restores the Jews' 'rights' and 'former privileges' and allows them to abide by their own customs and follow their ancestral religion unhindered. He then addresses both the Jews and Greeks of Alexandria: "I enjoin upon both parties to take the greatest precaution to prevent any disturbance arising after the posting of my edict."°9 The second edict, allegedly delivered to the whole world, allows all other Jews in the empire to enjoy the restored status of the Alexandnan Jews.

I° See p.26-7. 108 See App. III. '° Joseph. AJ 19.279-85.

42 What is striking is that in both edicts, Claudius merely restores the Jews of Alexandria to their pre-AD 38 status in very vague terms. Josephus' Claudius only explicitly refers to the restoration of religious rights for the Jews. Their political rights and status, the major issue raised by both sets of embassies, is, rather bizarrely for an official edict, not mentioned at all. There is also a striking factual error in the 'edict to Alexandria'. Philo states categorically that when the Jewish ethnarch died in c. AD 10- 11, a council of Jewish elders, rather than another ethnarch, was appointed. The ethnarch was therefore not replaced, as Josephus' edict Claudius' apportioning of the blame for the rioting of AD 38 in the edict is a complete reversal of the policy adopted in his letter, where he refuses to even investigate the rioting of AD 41. Nemesion's version of Claudius' letter repeats the only claim of Josephus' edicts, namely that the pre-AD 38 status of the Jews was restored. There are also other significant parallels between Josephus' edicts and Nemesion's version of Claudius' letter. The edict was sent to Alexandria and Syria; the letter prevents Alexandrian Jews from inviting their Syrian kinsmen into the city. Both edict and letter were written in response to the AD 41 rioting. In both documents Claudius warns both sides not to cause further strife in the city. An edict, in any case, would have been sent to the city in the form of a letter. Josephus' first edict would therefore appear to be a pro-Jewish version of Claudius' letter. 111 For the apologetic purposes of Josephus (or his source), it was unnecessary to record the whole letter. Josephus therefore excerpted and amended the sections of the letter that were favourable to the Jews. Josephus' citation of these 'documents' is therefore highly arbitrary. Even referring to these edicts as 'documents' would appear to be straining modern definitions of the word. Josephus, however, claims elsewhere in his work that he has cited all his documents, including these edicts, completely verbatim, and even challenges his readers to look up his documents to check their authenticity."2 However, in many of his other 'documents' there are a great number of instances of textual corruption, examples where the names of officials and dates are obviously false, and the style and language are so widely removed from that found in inscriptions that their authenticity must be

I0 Philo Flacc. 74. Joseph. RI 7.409-19 shows that the Jewish gerousia was in charge of Jewish affairs in the AD 70s. " First suggested in Musurillo 1954: 120 n.4, and argued at length in Hennig 1975: 327-30 and Schwartz 1990: 99-106. 112 Joseph. AJ 14.188; 266.

43 doubted." 3 Josephus is entirely open about his work being both apologetic and selective. He states that his practie in 'citing' from documents has been to refrain

"from citing them all ( ucivmw Trapá0EaLc) as being both superfluous and disagreeable"." 4 The original Greek leaves it unclear whether Josephus chose not to cite all the available 'documents' on a particular subject, or all of a single 'document'. In the case of Claudius' edicts the latter seems highly probable. After all, if anyone did trouble to look up Claudius' letter, they would find that Claudius had indeed confirmed the pre-AD 38 rights and privileges of the Jews. It is clear, then, that Josephus' definition of a 'document' differs radically from what modem commentators would consider a document. The last attested stages in the development of the traditions about the embassies appear in the ActaAlexandrinorum proper stories, preserved in copies that were made in the late second/early third century AD. These Ada Alexandrinorum proper relate the stories of rival embassies before Tiberius and Gaius, the meeting of Flaccus with several Alexandrian heroes, the reception of Alexandrian ambassadors (probably) before Claudius. The culmination of the traditions is the story of the trial of Isidoros and Lampon, the so-called Acta Isidori. P. Giss.Lit. 4.7, which reports the meetings of two rival embassies before Tiberius and Gaius, is very badly preserved. 115 Not one single line of the five columns (at least) of text is preserved intact. The story begins in Rome with an Alexandrian ambassador petitioning Tiberius. A rival embassy, referred to only as 'the accusers' throughout the text, is also present and one of its spokesmen drops to his knees and speaks to Tiberius (i. 11-2). The nature of the Alexandrian speech is not clear. Their spokesman states: "Lord emperor [we are sent] by the 173 elders", (that is, the Alexandrian council of elders - i.13-4), and there is a reference to '180,000', presumably the theoretical numer us clausus of Alexandrian citizens (see introduction). The scene in col. ii is Alexandria, and the council of elders give orders to a new embassy, headed by a certain Eulalos. The text later reveals that Areios and Isidoros were also members of this embassy. The elders order Eulalos to sail to the emperor in Rome (ii. 1-2). The ambassadors sailed "on behalf of the 173" and arrived at Ostia (ii.3- 4), from where they journeyed to Rome to meet the chamberlain of Tiberius (ii.6-8).

113 Moehring 1975: 124-58. 114 Joseph AJ 14.266. H5 For previous work on this text see list of editions in App. I.

44 The Alexandrians inquire after the emperor's health, but are informed that he is dead (ii.9-1O). They are then admitted to Tiberius' successor, Gaius, along with their rivals, the accusers. In the following (badly damaged) lines the Alexandrian Greeks appear to introduce Gaius to the nature of the case (ii. 11-25). Gaius exchanges greetings with Eulalos and Areios (ii.25-6, 33), with Areios adding that Gaius has the gratitude of the Alexandrians, and that Gaius is the 'god of the world and has bught 'this city' (i.e. Rome) under his rule' (ii.34-iii. 1). Gaius responds: "Greetings Areios for a second time", which would imply that Areios was already known to.him. As heir apparent, Gaius may have been present at the hearing before Tiberius in col.i, or the section of the text containing Areios' first meeting with Gaius could be missing. Areios' badly damaged speeches show that the dispute between the rival embassies concerns the Alexandrian citizenship. The Alexandrian Greeks are resoundingly victorious: "[Areios(?)] said: 'See then, this foreigner, receiving unregistered citizenship...' and he showed the accuser to be unjust."6 The 'accusers' are therefore 'foreigners'. Gaius sentenced at least one of the accusers to be burnt alive and wrote a letter to Alexandria. All that remains of the letter are Gaius' greetings to the city, a mention of benefactions, the curious phrase "the cause of the war" (To[ Tro]X[ou a'LT'La), and Gaius' decision, on the advice of Isidoros, to exclude a section of the populace from having the crown of valour (àprlç aT4Pavoç). Stephanoi were heavily associated with the gymnasium. They were the prizes of athletic competitions, and part of a gymnasiarch's robes of office. Gaius would therefore appear to prohibit a section of the populace from entering the gymnasium. Col. iv, which follows on directly from this letter, refers to some kind of violence. The references to 'falling upon' (iv.21), 'running' (iv.22) and the phrase "[after] which, [he ordered] many [of them] to be seized and [many of these] he beheaded" (iv.22-4) could certainly belong to an account of the AD 38 rioting. If fragment 'c' also belongs to this column, which is possible, the reference to 'the theatre', which played a central role in the rioting of AD 38, also suggests this. The theatre was where the parade of Carabas was staged and where the Jewish elders were flogged. Fragments 'a' and 'b', which combine to form the head of a further column, appear to concern Flaccus. Someone, presumably Flaccus, has 'survived [the reigns of

" 6 PGISSL1( 4.7 iii.20-4.

45 two] Caesar[s]'.' 17 The column continues that the 'prefect [of Egypt and] Alexan[dria] has become [?] by the imperial succession', which could certainly apply to Flaccus' change of fortunes after Tiberius' death. The Alexandrians in this story are in Rome twice, where they meet Tiberius and Gaius, apparently in order to resolve the same case, proving that the rival embassy, the accusers, are not Alexandrian citizens. The accusers are never named, but it is highly probable, given the historical background of the period, that the 'accusers', foreigners who are claiming to be Alexandrian citizens, are Jews. The dramatic date of the story is c. March 37, as it is set around the death of Tiberius and accession of Gaius. However, this causes enormous historical problems. The second embassy went to Rome, via Ostia, expecting to meet with Tiberius. Yet Tiberius was on the island of Capri at this time. The phrase in Gaius' letter "the cause of the war" is extremely problematic. The only event that could be described as apolemos in Alexandria in this period, the riots of AD 38, had not yet happened. Gaius' letter banning a group, presumably the accusers/Alexandrian Jews, from being allowed to wear the 'crown of valour', barr.ig them from entering the gymnasium. In punishing a Jew (or Jews) for falsely claiming Alexandrian citizenship, and barring Jewish entry into the gymnasial games, Gaius' judgement is remarkably similar to that later issued by Claudius in his letter. Therefore, while the content of Gaius' letter as cited in this text suggests that this story concerns the Alexandrian Greek and Jewish embassies to Gaius, the writer has set the story before these had even left Alexandria, in AD 37. This story therefore presents serious problems of history and chronology, casting considerable doubt on the documentary character of the text, which is presented in the form of official minutes. The most likely explanation to these problems is that the author knew of three Alexandrian embassies to Rome in this period. One met Tiberius, a second congratulated Gaius on his accession (this may be the occasion of the first meeting between Gaius and Areios), and a third was despatched in the aftermath of the rioting of AD 38. However, the writer combined the stories of the three embassies for dramatic purposes. This author was not concerned with, or perhaps even ignorant of, historical accuracy. Even though Tiberius was on Capri in AD 37, as far as the writer of this text was concerned, an Alexandrian embassy would always meet the emperor in Rome. It is striking how similar the story is to the historical events under Gaius and

117 Supplements from von Premerstein 1939: 11.

46 Claudius. In each case the former emperor (Tiberius/Gaius) dies before giving a satisfactory judgement. A new embassy is sent from Alexandria, and it is left to the successor (Gaius/Claudius) to issue a judgement in the form of a letter to Alexandria, letters that contain strikingly similar rulings regarding barring Jewish entry into the gymnasium. One wonders if the writer has actually made a serious chronological error, or, more probably, deliberately adapted the tale of the three embassies to mirror the events under Gaius and Claudius for dramatic purposes. Unlike the other Acta Alexandrinorum stories concerning the events of AD 38-41 copied in this period, however, the Alexandrian Greeks win their case, and it is their opponents who are led away to execution. CPJ 11154, a fragmentary text from Oxyrhynchus, concerns a meeting between the Alexandrians Dionysios and Isidoros, with the prefect Flaccus, at the Alexandrian Serapeum. The extant fragment begins with Flaccus hurrying to the Serapeum, after having arranged some 'business'. The two Alexandrians enter the temple, with a certain Aphrodisia. An elder begs Dionysios not to struggle against Flaccus, enigmatically mentioning 'your journey', and begs Dionysios to sit down in counsel with the Alexandrian elders, but Dionysios refuses. Flaccus emerges and informs the pair that the 'business' has been arranged. In the fragmentary remains that follow, a Prokathemenos, possibly a temple official, or a member of the Alexandrian gerousia, prays that Lord Serapis will not allow any harm to come to Dionysios and Isidoros. A sum of five talents in gold is counted out in the middle of the sanctuary, and references are made to interest (tokos) and also a 'return' (KaTPX€ [-1). It seems odd that Dionysios is expected to struggle against Flaccus when they have apparently pre- arranged some business. The warning of the elder is therefore likely to be a dramatic device to enhance the tension of the story. Our understanding of this story is greatly hampered by the fact that we do not know what the 'business' was. Von Premerstein suggested that the Alexandrians were paying Flaccus for an exit permit to travel to Rome.' t8 Musurillo suggested Flaccus was either engaging in usury, or receiving a bribe to turn a blind eye to the persecution of the Jews."9 We are also hampered by the fact that we do not know the outcome of the story. While the extant section is clearly set in Alexandria, the dramatic setting is likely to have moved to Rome later in the story (cf. the reference to a journey), although

118 Von Premerstein 1923: 4-14. 119 Musurillo 1954: 95.

47 it remains unclear whether it would have been Flaccus or the Alexandrians facing the wrath of an emperor. Dionysios is the most prominent character in the extant section, and, as Musurillo speculated, the text may report the early stages of an Ada Dionysii.'2° The roles of Flaccus and the Alexandrian leaders in the events of AD 38-4 1 were of great interest soon after the events themselves, as Philo' s In Flaccum shows. This text shows that their actions were still being written about and embellished 150 years later. The literary character of the text is evident. After all, in this case there can have been no one to record the minutes of what was spoken between the parties. BKTIX 64, a badly abraded late second-century AD fragment from the Fayum, appears to tell the story of three Alexandrian ambassadors, Balbillus (ii. 15), Theon (ii.10, 14) and Athenodoros (ii.21) facing an emperor. From the appearance of Balbillus, the most likely dramatic date would be AD 41, and the emperor therefore Claudius. The scene in what remains of col. i would appear to be Alexandria; the scene in col. ii Rome (cf. the mention of 'Rome' in col. ii. 9). The mentions of a crowd (i. 16) and perhaps running (i. 17 - [.]öpap.a[..], cf. P.Giss.Lit. 4.7 col. iv.22 (above)) could very well belong to a description of crowd violence in Alexandria. The mention of 'orders' (i.8) and the command to 'turn [someone?] over to the emperor' or 'send [something?] to the emperor' (i. 18)121 could suggest we have a scene similar to that in P.Giss.Lit. 4.7 iii. 1-3, where the elders give orders to an embassy prior to its despatch to Rome. The remains of the second column record a hearing before the emperor Claudius, who is simply referred to as 'Lord'. The hearing is presented in the form of official minutes (ada). Theon speaks to the emperor about a 'registration' (ii. 10-1 1), and there are two mentions of a 'return' (ii.12, ii.18), the first being a 'return to the fatherland'. There are further mentions of something being established for the common care (ii. 15-6) and 'the Alexandrian fortune (lyche)' (ii. 16-7), but the context remains unclear. Athenodoros is not listed as an ambassador in Claudius' letter, but is perhaps mentioned in a section of an Acta Alexandrinorum story set in the Trajanic period which refers back to something that happened 'in the time of the divine Claudius'.'22 The dramatic setting of the text and the content of the speeches of the Alexandrian ambassadors, which presumably concern regulation of the registration for Alexandrian

120 Musurillo 1954: 94. Dionysios also appears in otherActaAlexandrinorum stories set in this period: P.Ox XLII 3021 and perhaps also P.Oxy. N 683 (discussed in App. IV). 121 Both àvaT[p]ov and àva[i]ov are possible.

48 citizenship, suggest that this is a version of the story of the Alexandrian Greek embassy to Claudius in AD 41. The story uses several phrases that appear in other Ada Alexandrinorum proper stories that were copied at the same time, the late second/early

third century.'23 However, what is unusual about this story is that Isidoros, the standard Alexandrian hero of the stories set in this period, is notably absent, from the extant section, at least. The text, as we have it, focuses solely on the activities of other Alexandrian ambassadors, Balbillus, Theon and Athenodoros. The traditions about the embassies preserved in these three texts are therefore very diverse. P. Giss.Lit. 4.7 appears to be a fantastical combination of the stories of several Alexandrian embassies to Rome. The Alexandrians in this case are in no danger whatsoever of losing their case. Indeed, through the endeavours of their spokesman Eulalos ('sweet-speaker') they comfortably win their case. In CPJII 154 we appear to have a story about Flaccus, Isidoros and Dionysios, which, from the reference to Dionysios' forthcoming(?) journey is very probably a prelude to a trial scene in Rome. I have already stressed their literary nature. BKTIX 64 would appear to report the historical embassy to Claudius led by Balbillus in 41. Too little remains of the text to conclude that it is either 'documentary' or 'literary'. Nonetheless, the two mentions of 'returning' does indicate that this text is a rather dramatic, literary version of the meeting. The ambassadors could be discussing the possibility that they would not return to their fatherland (i.e. that they could be martyred in Rome). The traditions about the embassies culminate in the stories of the trial of Isidoros and Lampon (CPJII 156a, b, c and d). All are of unknown provenance, although CPJ Ill 56b may come from Panopolis, and all are of the same approximate date, the late second/early third century AD. CPJH 156a and d are from the same papyrus roll. While the former contains the initial stages of the trial, the latter tells the final stages, with an unknown amount of text missing in the interval. CPJII 156b overlaps CPJII 156a ii.5-19, with several minor differences, and continues the story after 156a breaks off. CPJII 156c is a debate between Isidoros, Agrippa, Balbillus, and perhaps

Apion,' 24 on the status of the Alexandnan Jews. The second column of CPJ II 1 56c begins with Isidoros praising a comment just made by Balbillus. All that can be gleaned from this speech, probably running from the

122 CPJII 157 iv.17-9. Perhaps 'Claudius [said to] Athen[odoros]...'. 123 E.g. -rj 4X1Y€L (col. i.15), rraTp'Lç(col. 11.12); cf. CPJU 156b ii.17, i.7-8. 124 CPJ II 156c i. 17 perhaps mentions '[P]oseidom[os]', which was the name of Apion's father.

49 highly fragmentary i.6-17, are mentions of the 'the race [of the Jews?]' (i. 13-4) and taxation (i. 15). But while Balbillus has spoken well, Isidoros objects to remarks that Agrippa has made concerning the Jews. Paralleling a remark of Claudius in his letter, he accuses the Jews of trying to stir up the entire world, and urges Claudius to consider not each individual Jew, but the entire body of them. They are 'not of the same nature as the Alexandrians', but are more like the Egyptians. Are the Jews not therefore on the same level as those who pay the poll-tax? Agrippa retorts by stating that while the Egyptians have taxes levied upon them, no-one has levied taxes on the Jews. The fragment ends with Balbillus accusing Agrippa of'insolence'. What is immediately noticeable is how similar the Isidoros of this text and Philo's Isidoros sound.' 25 It seems clear that in our fragment the two Alexandrians were attempting to persuade Claudius to downgrade the Jews to the level of Egyptians, and therefore to status of poll-tax payers. The tone of this text is markedly different from that of the other fragments of Isidoros' trial. It does not fit neatly into the trial of Isidoros as reported in the other three fragments, and is written in a different style. Clearly, then, there was no canonical account of the trial of Isidoros. The author has taken a more historical approach, and was clearly well informed about the first-century AD Graeco-Jewish quarrels. The writer was clearly concerned with reporting the case of the Alexandrian Greeks against the Jews. In doing so, he even picks up the standard first-century AD slur against the Jews, that they intended to stir up the whole world, a slur that is not only found in Claudius' letter, but also in Acts.'26 The story of the trial in CPJH 156a, b and d begins with a fragmentary private discussion between Claudius and his advisers, presumably his consilium. Two senators, 'Tarquinius' and Aviolaos, rise and give their opinions to Claudius before he summons the Alexandrian ambassadors and postpones their hearing until the following day. Only the line endings of this column survive, so it is impossible to accurately reconstruct what the senators say. Von Premerstein restored 'Tarquinius' speaking against the Alexandrians, and 'Aviolaos' speaking on their behalf.' 27 It has been suggested that 'Tarquinius' actually spoke on behalf of the Alexandrians.' 28 The phrase 'on behalf of his [fatherland]' appears once, and there are at least two references to 'fighting' or

125 Philo cites a speech of Isidoros in Phulo Leg. 355-356. 126 Cf. CPJII 153 1.98-100; also Acts 17:6 and 24:5. 127 Von Premerstein 1923: 23-4.

50 'contending' (i.7, i.1O). I find it likely that both senators spoke in favour of the Alexandrians, as later in the story the senators appear to be friendly towards the Alexandrians, agreeing that Isidoros deserved a day for a hearing because of what sort of man he was (i.e. a noble). Col.ii sets the scene for the trial, introduced as the case of Isidoros, gymnasiarch of Alexandria against king Agrippa. Josephus, as I noted above, also depicts the hearing of an embassy as a battle between the two leaders. It is set in one of the imperial gardens, and twenty senators, sixteen of whom were consulars, were present, acting as Claudius' cons/hum, and the women of the court also attended the hearing. Isidoros began by urging Claudius to consider the sufferings of his city, and Claudius responded that he would grant him a day. But Isidoros is not given the opportunity to speak, and is warned by Claudius not to slander his friend Agrippa. For Isidoros has already caused the deaths of two of his friends, Theon the exegete and '[Najevius', a prefect of Egypt and commander of the camp in Rome.' 29 The account continues in CPJII 156b. Isidoros asks why Claudius cares for a 'three-obol (i.e. worthless?) Jew' like Agrippa. Claudius retorts that Isidoros is being insolent, but the sense of the following lines of this column too fragmentary to yield any sense. CPJII 156b col.ii is highly fragmentary, but several words and phrases are recoverable. There are two mentions of the temples of the imperial cult (ii.6, ii. 18). Isidoros is presumably referring to Jewish impiety, and their refusal to sacrifice to the emperor. Isidoros tells Claudius: "I am bught here,' 3° a gymnasiarch of Alexandria, fifty-six years old, a Greek [by race(?)]... an orator...', and with his right hand.. .he threw off his cloak.. Isidoros is then led away in the robes of a gymnasiarch, with Claudius repeating his warning that Isidoros must not abuse his friend (ii. 19-22). The sense of these lines become clear when we compare them to a scene from a later story, CPJII 159 (see p.53 n.137). The trial continues in CR111 156d, after a lacuna of unknown length. Isidoros states that his fatherland has chosen him as ambassador.'32 Lampon, who has now joined him, tells Isidoros that he has already chosen his own death (i.e. to die for his

128 CPJ11• p.72. 'See p.54 on Naevius Macro. more likely 'I am led away to death' - see note in Appendix L 131 CPJJJ 156b ii.7-1O.

51 fatherland). Claudius accuses Isidoros of killing many of his friends, to which Isidoros responds that he had been serving the interests of the then-ruling princeps, Gaius. He adds that he would be willing also to denounce Claudius' enemies. 133 This prompts the following exchange: "Claudius Casear: 'Isidoros, you really are the son of an actress!' Isidoros: 'I am neither a slave nor the son of an actress, but a gymnasiarch of the glorious city of Alexandria. But you, on the other hand, are the cast-off son of the Jewess Salome!" Lampon urges Isidoros to stop: "Lampon to Isidoros: 'What defence (topos) can we offer to a deranged king?" Claudius orders that the Alexandrians be led away to execution. The executions are mentioned in other stories. Another Alexandrian 'martyr', Appianos states that Isidoros and Lampon were executed, along with a certain Theon.' 34 There is also a reference to something occurring 'in the reign of the divine Claudius', perhaps these executions, in another Alexandrian tale.'35 Another story mentions the 'Claudian [...... ]', which could also refer to the executions. 136 These versions of the Acta Isidori are presented in the form of trial minutes (acta). However, the 'documentary' character of the Acta Isidori becomes questionable when we take into account the numerous parallels between the Ada Isidori and other Ada Alexandrinorum proper (see e.g. p.107). There are also several major themes written into the trial scene, also suggesting that the versions of the Acta Isidori are literary compositions rather than the verbatim copies of documents. The trial is portrayed as highly unfair. The verdict is a foregone conclusion and the emperor will not even listen to the arguments of the Alexandrians. There are clear anti-Jewish overtones written into the accounts. It is a Jew, Agrippa, who is portrayed as the main opponent of Isidoros. When Isidoros describes Agrippa as a 'three-obol' Jew, Agrippa is not simply a worthless member of the race of the Jews, but a member of a worthless race. Isidoros' final retort to Claudius implies that, from an Alexandrian Greek point of

132 See note in App. I. While this passage could be interpreted as presenting Isidoros in a contemptuous light (cf. Tac. Ann. 13.43, where the prosecutor Suilhius tried to defend his actions by stating that he had loyally obeyed the previous emperor), I think that we are intended to sympathise with Isidoros here. CPJII l59biv.6-7. ' 35 CPJII 157 iv.18. ' 36 CPJII l58aiv.13.

52 view, it was worse to be the cast-off son of a Jewess than the son of an actress (i.e. prostitute). The writer intended to portray Claudius in a highly negative manner. Claudius is a tyrant who has pre-judged the case, and will not even listen to the arguments of the hero, Isidoros. Claudius is a 'deranged king' and executes the two Alexandrians. Claudius was Marc Antony's grandson through his mother, Antonia. The implication of the 'cast-off son of the Jewess Salome' retort is surely that Claudius cannot be the legitimate heir of Marc Antony because he sides with the Alexandrian Jews instead of the Greeks. While, as I have argued above, Claudius issued a neutral ruling to the Alexandrian Graeco-Jewish dispute, these stories portray the emperor abandoning the Alexandrian Greeks and siding firmly with the Jews. The most prominent theme in these stories is Alexandrian nationalism. Isidoros' strong association with his fatherland is emphasised through the story. He is referred to as an ambassador, and claims that his city chose him as ambassador. He calls himself 'gymnasiarch of the glorious city of Alexandria'. Although Philo mentions that Lampon held this office (see p.30), he does not say that Isidoros did, and the author may have invented this detail to ftirther emphasise Isidoros' close connections with Alexandria. In a scene with strong parallels with another Acta Alexandrinorum proper story, Isidoros dramatically throws off his cloak and (presumably) demands to die in his robes of office, as he is subsequently led away to execution in the robes of a gymnasiarch.'37 The symbolism is clear. Isidoros was executed as a representative of Alexandria, and in executing him, Claudius was showing his hostility towards the city. Whereas the first-century Acta Alexandrinorurn and Acta related stories, CPJ II 150 and P.Oxy. XLII 3021, show an attempt to construct a case against the Jews, with the exception ofCPJII 156c, the author(s) of the Acta Is/don have made little attempt to do this. Instead the accounts centre on the bitter exchanges between Isidoros and the emperor, and on glorifying the deaths of the Alexandrian heroes. The clear signs of later reworking also imply that the Acta Is/don are primarily literary compositions. The emperor, for example, was not referred to as 'king' until the third century AD. The reference to the 'three-obol' Agrippa may also be an example of later editing. Previous solutions to explain the significance of this obscure word are not very convincing.'38 While it may simply mean 'worthless', it is hard to disassociate the

137 Cf. CPJII 159b ii. 14-iii.7. ' CPJII: p.77 a18 lists the suggestions.

53 mention of a Jew and a financial sum in the period when our copies were made from a reference to the Jewish tax. This degrading form of taxation was imposed in the Flavian period. Jews each had to pay to Rome the two denarii, which they had previously sent to the Temple in Jerusalem, and also a further denarius, which they had previously donated as a gift to the priests (the so-called terumot).'39 So all in all the Jews had to pay three denaril, which could explain the reference to a 'three-obol/thruppenny bit Jew'. The extant versions of the Ada Isidori have therefore been heavily re-written, and incorporate the same themes and language present in other Acta Alexandrinorum proper. The story of a brave Alexandrian boldly representing his city while facing a hostile emperor had clearly become a standard typology by the third century AD. Isidoros acts and sounds like other Alexandrian heroes. Claudius acts and sounds like the other Roman emperors in this literature. By the late-second/early-third century the basic story line of the Acta Alexandrinorum stories had therefore become very standardised and the characters had become stock caricatures. The scant regard for history and chronology shown by the writers of these versions of the Acta Isidori also shows them to be 'literary' rather than 'documentary'. While, for example, the writers of the Acta Isidori would like to ascribe NaLvius Macro's death to the machinations of Isidoros, it is very difficult to see how this could be the case. Macro was executed early in AD 38,140 a time when Philo alleges that Isidoros was busy stifling up anti-Jewish feeling in Alexandria. Macro was also executed before he took up the prefecture of Egypt, yet he is designated in the text as 'prefect of Egypt'.'4' While we know that Isidoros participated in the downfall of Flaccus, the writers of the Acta Alexandrinorum attempt, unhistorically, to assign the fall second Roman prefect to their hero Isidoros. We can also compare the portrayal of Theon in the stories copied c. AD 200. According to Claudius in the Acta Isidori, Isidoros was responsible for Theon's death. Yet in the Ada Appiani, Appianos places Theon alongside Isidoros and Lampon as an Alexandrian hero who died in the reign of Claudius. Indeed, in BKTIX 64, Theon features alongside Balbillus in the role of an Alexandrian hero. By the third century the traditions had become so diverse that it was unclear who had killed Theon. Indeed the literature was so diverse that different writers

See Mon 1980: 64-70. 140 Schwartz 1982: 191 dates the fall of Macro to c. Januaiy AD 38. 141 Dio 59.10.6; PhiloFlacc. 16; Leg. 32-62; Suet Gaius 26.1.

54 could tell the same story of the Alexandrian embassy to Claudius, emphasising the role of different heroes, Isidoros and Lampon, or Balbillus and Theon. However, it would be wrong to dismiss the Ada Alexand.rinorum proper as baseless literary fantasy. Despite their obvious reworking and literary characteristics, these later stories do appear to incorporate contemporary material. The third-century writers of the Acta Isidori would be unlikely, for example, to simply invent the two senators who speak on behalf of Alexandria. 'Tarquinius' and 'Aviolaos' do appear to be historical personages, no matter how garbled their names are. Sections of the Acta Isidori also take the form of first-century AD trial records by, for example, naming a speaker but omitting a verb of speaking (e.g. "Claudius Caesar: 'say nothing..." etc.) While this does not necessarily mean that sections of the trial were based on official records, it does suggest that sections had been originally written in the first century AD. V. Conclusions. The historical events of AD 38-41 inspired many contemporary written responses and also dominated the Ada Alexandrinorum proper stories. Although several pieces of the Acta related literature pre-date AD 38, most notably the stories of the Alexandrian embassies to Augustus (see p.57-62), the reactions to these historical events dictated how the literature was to evolve and heralded the rise of the Ada Alexandrinorum proper. It was more than the presumably historical executions of Isidoros and Lampon that lay behind the evolution of the literature. The historical events that preceded the executions, particularly the Graeco-Jewish violence in Alexandria, were a major factor, and are frequently referred to in the stories. The literature was therefore very much born out of the anti-Jewish feeling in Alexandria arising from the violent rioting in AD 38 and AD 41, and the great expectations entertained by the Alexandrian Greeks that their embassies would triumph decisively over the Jewish embassy. Initially the embassies inspired the composition of literary 'histories' and the circulation of 'documents' relating to the events, such as Nemesion's version of Claudius' letter, and probably also the copy of the speech delivered by an Alexandrian ambassador to Claudius (CPJH 150). As Philo's Legatio shows, it was hardly the aim of these contemporary writers to produce objective versions of hearings in the imperial court, and, indeed the writer of the earliest extant ActaAlexandrinorum proper, P.Oxy. XLII 3021, certainly betrays his pro-Greek sympathies. The unifying element of these contemporary 'literary' and 'documentary' texts is that they all contain contemporary,

55 historical detail. Even the writer of P.Oxy. XLII 3021 at least attempts to construct a case against the Jews based on historical fact. The controversy about the embassies was still raging a generation later. Josephus reported the traditions that had evolved by his time about Philo's embassy, which, as I noted, are markedly different from Philo's own account. He also felt it necessary to refute the claims made by the Alexandrian ambassador Apion and to report a pro-Jewish version of Claudius' ruling regarding the status of the Jews in Alexandria. The traditions about the embassies continued to develop throughout the second century and are embedded in the Acta Alexandñnorum proper stories. By the third century there had been a significant development in the portrayal of these traditions. Historical accuracy was no longer important, and the traditions were diverse, anachronistic, unhistorical and occasionally contradictory. Historical characters were transformed into stock caricatures. There is little to distinguish either Isidoros or Claudius from the other Alexandrian martyrs or emperors in the ActaAlexandrinorum proper. Despite the diversity of the content in the Acta Alexand.rinorum proper, there does appear to have been a conscious effort to adapt the earlier traditions to produce the same essential trial scene, showing the Alexandrian heroes bravely opposing tyrannical Roman emperors and the Jews on behalf of their fatherland. I have discussed the 'documentary' and 'literary' nature of all the traditions above. What is immediately evident is that many of the traditions do not neatly fall into either of these categories. The 'documentary' copy of Claudius' letter and Josephus' edict of Claudius are both excerpted, abbreviated and amended versions of the original letter, making it difficult to classify them as strictly documentary. Chaeremon composed a literary history, which took the form of a 'document', a prosecution speech. The writers of the early versions of the ActaAlexandrinorum proper and Ada related literature certainly took a more historical approach than the writers of the later versions. But this does not necessarily mean that these texts can be classified as documents. The Ada Alexandrinorum proper, as I have argued, have many fictional elements, and should therefore be classified as literature. However, they are documentary in form. If official documents (ac/a) do lie behind these stories (on which see p.1 12-26), it could be argued that in rewriting and fictionalising these documents, the authors of the Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper were treating their 'documents' in the same way as Nemesion and Josephus treated the letter of Claudius.

56 IILb

The Ada Alexandtinorum and Ada related literature,

In this section I will discuss the remaining Acta Alexandrinorum proper and the Ada related literature in chronological order of their dramatic dates. I will discuss and clarify the content of the texts in the context of their contemporary historical background and in the context of contemporary literary traditions originating in Alexandria. I will also comment on the nature of the texts, and discuss whether a text is a document or a piece of literature.

i. Augustus to Nero.

Two, or perhaps three, texts purport to be records of the meetings between Augustus and Alexandrian embassies. P.Oxy. XLII 3020 preserves the upper portions of two columns of text. Col. i preserves a letter of Augustus to Alexandria and col. ii records Augustus' meeting with an Alexandrian embassy in 10/9 BC. P.O.xy. XXV 2435 verso records a meeting between Augustus and an Alexandrian embassy in AD 12/3. The emperor mentioned in CPJII 150 is often considered to be Augustus, but the evidence for this identification is weak. I have argued in the previous chapter that the emperor is more likely to be either Gaius or Claudius. All three of these papyri are written in hands of the first half of the first century AD. P.Oxy. XLII 3020 was copied onto the recto of a papyrus. P.Oxy. XXV 2435 verso and CPJH 150 were both copied onto papyri that had already been used. The earliest date that P.Oxy. XXV 2435 verso could have been copied is AD 19 (see p.58). The letter of Augustus to Alexandria is poorly preserved. The opening formula is similar to other extant letters of Augustus, differing only in its address to the demos of the city rather than the 'archons, council and demos' because Alexandria, of course, had no council in this period.' The date clause reveals the letter was written in 10/9 BC, during an imperial visit to Gaul. 2 Little remains of the rest of the letter: "The envoys whom you sent came to me in Gaul and delivered your commissions and also informed me of the things which seem to have aggrieved you in previous years..."

E.g. GC 6-7 (letters of Augustus to Cnidos and Sardis). 2 On the visit, see Dio 54.36.4; Oros. Adv.pagan. 6.2 1.22.

57 The grievances of the Alexandrians and Augustus' responses to these are not preserved, but the former are hinted at in col. ii. Col. ii preserves a fragmentary speech delivered to Augustus by an unnamed exegetes, the spokesman for the Alexandrian delegation. He states that the business of the embassy will be divided up among himself and his colleagues. Theodoros will speak about Egypt, Ha[rp(?)]okrates about the Idioslogos, and he himself will speak about the city. The remainder of his speech is very fragmentary, but the editor of P.Ory. XLII restored the following sense: "[We have come] not to defend ourselves but to [claim our rights] We know too little about Alexandrian history in this period to speculate about what the Alexandrians needed to defend themselves against. The complaint concerning Egypt is also unclear, but the purpose of the exegete's speech may well have been to request a boule for the city. The problem concerning the Idioslogos may have been that the official was actively confiscating land owed to Caesar, 4 but, as the Gnomon of the Idioslogos clearly shows, the jurisdiction of this official was much wider than this. The Gnomon was first drafted under Augustus, although many sections were added into it later; ai1 is partially preserved in two papyri. 5 The first half of the extant document (sections 1-70) deals mainly with infringements to social legislation affecting Roman and Alexandrian citizens. Section 40 states that jurisdiction over the procedures concerning niht'aneer the Alexandrian citizenship has now been given to the prefect, implying that the Idioslogos had previously judged this type of case. The Alexandrian complaint might therefore concern the interference of the Idioslogos in matters of Alexandrian citizenship. P.Oxy. XXV 2435 verso reports the meeting of an Alexandrian embassy with Augustus in Rome in year 42 of Caesar (AD 12/3). It is written on the back of a papyrus recording a speech given by Germanicus in Alexandria in AD 19, and was presumably copied after this time. The absence of Germanicus from the proceedings 29th implies that the meeting took place between 1 January and August AD 13, when Germanicus was visiting Gaul. The text gives a very precise date and setting for the meeting. It is 4th (or 24th) of the month of [?]. It is 9 o'clock in the morning and

3 P.Oxy. XLII: p.74. 4 P.Oxy. XLII: p.70. 5 P.Oxy. XLII 3014 (I AD); BGUV 1210(11 AD).

58 Augustus receives the envoys in the temple of Apollo in the Roman library. 6 The text lists the names of apparently nine members of the imperial consilium who were present: "There sat with him (Augustus): Tib[e]rius C[aesar] and D[r]usus, son of Caesar, and [Va}l[e]rius Messalinus Corvinus, [Ateiu(?)]s Cap[ito], Len[tulus(?)] Autur(?), [--jus Ma[s]o[ni]us, Titus [--linus [--]o, Marcus Avidius Organius, [--]sianus T[--]us." This imperial consilium has been identified with the select council of twenty instituted by Augustus in AD 13. This council had three permanent members, Augustus, Tiberius and Germanicus. The other members, who served for a year at a time, were the consuls of the year, the consuls designate (or suffect consuls?), Augustus' grandchildren and whoever else Augustus chose to appoint. The decisions of this council had the same standing as those made by the senate. 7 Several members of this consilium are well known contemporary historical figures. Corvinus was consul in 2 BC, governor of Illyricum in AD 6, and received ornamentalia triumphalia at Tiberius' triumph. It was Corvinus who proposed in the senate that the oath of loyalty should be sworn annually to Tiberius in AD 14.8 Two Capitones were politically active in this period, Gaius Ateius (suffect consul AD 5) and Fonteius (suffect consul AD 12). Ateius, who became a prominent figure in Tiberius' court, is the more likely. 9 Cornelius Lentulus Augur, a wealthy senator, was politically active in this period.' 0 'Organius' has been identified as Urgulanius, possibly a relation of Livia's companion, Urgulania." Only the preliminary stages of the hearing are recorded. The spokesman of the delegation, a certain Alexander, states that his city has sent him on a mission to offer honours to the emperor and he delivers the 'decrees' to Augustus. Livia, Tiberius and a recent victory are praised before the main business of the embassy begins. Only the preliminaries of the Alexandrians' speech are preserved, telling us little about the purpose of the embassy: "Timoxenes, an orator: 'Lord Augustus, as much [...] as you grant to the [...], we beg that you grant just as much to your Alexandrians today. For although we are here to make a request

6 Au met a Jewish embassy at the same locations in 4 BC (Joseph. Af 17.301; BJ 2.81). Dio. 56.28.1-3. 8 Tac.Ann. 1.8. 9 Bowinan 1976: 154. Ateius Capito was present at the drafting of two Senatus consulta in AD 19, the SC de Cn.Pisone (where Corvinus was also present) and Sherk 1988: no.35 (a measure forbidding members of the elite taking part in public perfonnances). On Ateius' career in the imperial court, see Baunian 1989: 25-62. '°Tac,Ann. 3.59; Suet. Tib. 49. "Tac.Ann. 2.34; 4.21-2.

59 of you, the truth is that with all zeal [our city] is worshipping your most sacred [fortune] and... The text is punctuated by shouts of 'Good luck! Good luck!' from an audience, possibly consisting of other ambassadors, or a crowd in Rome. Timoxenes is otherwise unknown, but it has been suggested that Alexander could be Philo's brother, Tiberius Julius Alexander. 12 In one of Philo's dialogues, Alexander states that when he was sent to Rome as an ambassador, he saw the games with the wild beasts while waiting for a hearing, and tells a story about the trained elephants that he witnessed at Germanicus' consular games (AD 12).13 While Tiberius Alexander was therefore undoubtedly in Rome as an ambassador in this period, he is unlikely to be the Alexander of this text, who is clearly a representative of the Alexandrian Greeks. It would be more likely for Tiberius Alexander, a very pious Jew who had made generous personal donations to the Jewish Temple, to act as a representative of the Alexandrian Jews. Elsewhere in his works, Philo alludes to a Jewish embassy that met Augustus in this period. He states that under Aquila's prefecture (AD 10-11) the Alexandrian Jewish ethnarch died and that Augustus gave orders to Magius Maximus, as he was about to take office (AD 14-5) to allow the Jews to institute a council of elders to replace the ethnarch and lead the Alexandrian Jewish community.'4 This implies that an Alexandrian Jewish embassy approached Augustus on this subject lZn the period AD1O-1 l4-5, and this is therefore very probably the occasion of Tiberius Alexander's embassy. The Alexandrian Greek embassy may perhaps have been a result of the success of the Alexandrian Jewish embassy. The Alexandrian Greeks already had their own council of elders (gerousia), but the Jewish council was officially recognised by Augustus and given an explicitly political role in running the Alexandrian Jewish community. The purpose of the Alexandrian Greek embassy may therefore have been to request a boule for Alexandria from Augustus, on the basis that he had allowed a Jewish council to take on an important political role. If this was the purpose of the embassy, then the Alexandrian Greeks were unsuccessful. The issue of the Alexandrian Jews' ethnarch and council remained central to the Graeco-Jewish quarrels in first-century AD Alexandria, as Josephus' version of Claudius letter to Alexandria reflects.'5

' 2 P.Oxy. XXV: p.111-2. ' 3 Philo,Alex. 54; 27; On Germanicus' games, see Dio 56.27.4-5. 14 Philo Flacc. 73-4. ' Joseph. AJ 19.280-5.

60 To what extent, then, are these texts documents? The exegetes' speech in P.Oxy. XLII 3020 is written immediately after what appears to be an authentic imperial letter. The text appears to record a verbatim oration in direct speech, rather than the abbreviated minutes of the exegetes' speech. The exegetes, after initially praising Augustus by calling him 'unconquered hero', proceeds with quite brusque language, as the ambassadors in the Acta Alexandrinorum proper do. Nonetheless, the subject matter is clearly historical and deals with what the Alexandrians at the time considered injustices. P.Oxy. XXV 2435 verso has the appearance of a documentary record of the embassy's proceedings. However, the text is clearly not an official document. We know the quorum and composition of the imperial consilium from Dio. The consuls and suffect consuls of AD 13, who should have been present as part of the consilium were C. Silius Caecina Largus, L.Munatius Plancus, {--] Favonius, and possibly M.Lollius. The consuls designate in AD 13 were Sex.Pompeius and Sex.Appuleius. None of these men are in the text. The names of only nine members of the consilium, ten with Augustus, are preserved, and their names are heavily abbreviated. There is no patronymn, tribe, and often, nopraenomen. The names are also frequently garbled, e.g. Organius for Urgulanius, Autorus for Augurus. Musonius, it should be noted, was a much more common name than Masonius in this period. As Tiberius' son, Drusus cannot have been referred to as the 'son of Caesar' in an official document made in AD 13. As it is unlikely that a writer would invent the names of the Roman councillors, the text is likely to have derived from a contemporary source, although this source is unlikely to have been an official Roman source. 16 The writer has clearly abbreviated and garbled the list of Roman councillors, which shows that however documentary the appearance of the text, it has been edited. The copy was made some years after the meeting; the terminus post quem for this copy of the text is AD 19, the earliest possible date for the text on the recto to have been copied. We can perhaps narrow down the date of the copy even further. Drusus' name is presumably cited immediately after Tiberius' in this highly selective list of names because the text was written at a time when Drusus was expected to be Tiberius' heir, that is between AD 19 and 26. The writer has added at least two personal touches to the 'document'. He has called Drusus 'son of Caesar', as was natural during Tiberius' reign, and has punctuated the text with the shouts of a crowd. The same writer also inserts the shouts of a crowd into the text

16 See p.112-126.

61 on the recto (see p.64-5). This is clearly a literary device, and adds a sense of drama to the proceedings. If the crowd of this text was indeed composed of Roman bystanders, then the text has thematic links with later Acta Alexand.rinorum proper, which allege that the proceedings of Alexandrian embassies attracted great crowds, and caused controversy in Rome.'7 While the objectives of both embassies are not entirely clear, it would appear, particularly if the subject of the Alexandrian boule were raised, that they were not successful. In deciding whether to classify P.Oxy. XLII 3020 and XXV 2435 verso as literary or documentary, it must be emphasised that stories of the receptions of unsuccessful Alexandrian embassies in the imperial court were being circulated in the

Egyptian chora.' 8 It is not unreasonable to suppose that the writers, as well as adding their own personal touches to the texts, made further editorial amendments, making the texts more sympathetic to the cause of the unsuccessful Alexandrians. I would therefore classify the texts as neither strictly documentary nor literary. They are documentary in form, but have literary elements. CPJ 11150 is often considered to report the speech of an Alexandrian embassy to Augustus. However, the evidence for this is weak. The first editors dated the text to 30 BC on the grounds that Augustus was the only emperor to be called 'Caesar' in official documents, because of their interpretation of Dio 51. 17..2 as Augustus abolishing the Alexandrian boule, and on a dubious restoration of col. ii.21-3.'9 However, emperors are often referred to as 'Caesar' in literary and sub-literary pieces, such as the ActaAlexandrinorum. 2° The date is clearly not as early as 30 BC because Ptutpo5t the speech presumes longstanding Roman abuses and institutions (e.g. the laographia). I have argued in the previous chapter that the emperor is more likely to be Gaius or Claudius than Augustus. A Greek papyrus from the Fayum written in a hand of the late I BC-early I AD contains a copy of part of Augustus' funeral oration for Agrippa, which he delivered in the Roman forum, in Latin, in 12 BC.2' There are several peculiarities of translation in the text (e.g. 'Olympiada' for 'quinquennium'), but these are problems of translation, and cast no serious doubts on the authenticity of the text. This text is therefore an

17 E.g. CPJII 157, 159. See p.126-36 on the question of why people in the chora were reading this literature. 19 Norsa and Vitelli 1930: 9-12. 20 E.g. CPJII 157. 21 P.KOIn VI 249; Dio 54.28.3-4.

62 example of how a verbatim copy of a speech made in Rome could be recorded and circulated around the empire.22 P.Oxy. XXV 2435 redo purports to record verbatim a speech delivered by Germanicus on his entry into Alexandria. Germanicus was the first blood descendant of Mark Antony to visit Alexandria. He entered the city in AD 19 as heir apparent to the Roman empire and, unsurprisingly, received a rapturous reception.23 Germanicus' trip to Alexandria is mentioned in our main historical sources for the period. Tacitus tells us that while he was sent to the eastern provinces with a maius imperium to deal with problems there, he stopped off at Alexandria 'to look at antiquities'. He certainly did visit the main tourist sites in Egypt, but in Alexandria he did not act like a tourist. He walked through the city in Greek dress, and to relieve a famine he opened the public granaries, lowering the price of corn. Tacitus also implies some sinister intent by adding 'multaque in vulgus grata usurpavit'. 24 Suetonius ascribes his trip to news of the famine.25 Apion, as cited by Josephus, adds that Germanicus refused to issue grain to the Alexandrian Jews. 26 Germanicus' visit to Alexandria caused great controversy in antiquity. Tiberius heavily criticised Germanicus for acting unconstitutionally and breaking the Augustan rule preventing senators from entering the province without imperial authority. Both Tacitus and Suetonius imply that Tiberius' alleged involvement in the 'murder' of Germanicus was a result of the visit to Alexandria.27 The story of a rift between Tiberius and Germanicus intensified by the Alexandrian visit is still accepted by some scholars, although other explanations have been forwarded as to why Germanicus neglected to gain Tiberius' permission to enter Egypt.28 P. Ory. XXV 2435 redo begins with the Alexandrian exegetes proclaiming that he has given the 'emperor' two decrees. The remainder of the text is taken up by a rather waffling, rhetorical speech by Germanicus, punctuated by favourable cries and applause from an enthusiastic Alexandrian crowd. Germanicus tries to quieten the crowd so that he can speak and asks them to wait until after he has spoken until they give their approval! His 'father' Tiberius has sent him to set in order several overseas provinces, a difficult command that has separated him from his family. He has come to

See p.112-126. On his date of arrival see WeingArtner 1969: 64-7; Hallinann 1986: 169; Barnes 1989: 251-2. 24 Tac. Ann. 2.59-61. Suet. Tib. 52.2. Joseph. Ap. 2.63. 27 Tac. Ann. 2.59; 3.16; Suet. Tib. 52.2-3. Weingartner 1969: 40; Fishwick 1973: 255-6; Hennig 1972: 349-65; Thomas 1971: 236-7.

63 Alexandria so that he might 'see the city'. He has found Alexandria 'brilliant', but expected no less from a city founded by Alexander the Great. The text would appear to be a verbatim copy of what Germanicus actually said. The waffling nature of the speech suggests that Germanicus was not expecting to deliver a speech and had not prepared one. Germanicus was thinking as he spoke, unnecessarily mentioning, for example, the names of all the relatives that he was (allegedly!) missing in order to allow himself time to think of what to say next. SB I 3924, written in a semi-literary hand of the early first century AD, preserves two edicts issued by Germanicus during his visit to Egypt. In the first, Germanicus orders that no-one, except his secretary Baebius, is to order requisitions for his visit. He will pay for those ordered by Baebius, since illegal requisitions are an act of robbery.29 Germanicus' second edict was issued in response to the proclamations, presumably in Alexandrian, of Germanicus' divinity. Germanicus states that while he enjoys the goodwill shown towards him, he finds their shouts, which are only appropriate for his father and grandmother 'the tme saviour and benefactor of men', rather odious. Whatever merits Germanicus may have are due to Tiberius and Livia' s divinity. If the Alexandrians do not obey him, he will not appear before them as often. The ancient traditions firmly connect Germanicus' visit to Egypt with his subsequent 'murder'. It is not relevant here whether or not Germanicus actually remained loyal to Tiberius. The historical tradition concerning the trip has ominous overtones, and the texts showing that Germanicus was proclaimed a god in Alexandria and called 'emperor' during his visit add to these. Both the texts would appear to be documents. However, in the case of the speech, although the writer apparently records a verbatim speech, he adds his own personal touch, the dramatic cries of the enthusiastic crowd. Any further editorial amendments are undetectable in both texts. Germanicus' controversial visit clearly spawned local literary traditions. Pliny reports one such tradition. Germanicus, he states, consulted the Apis bull about his future. The bull was consulted by being offered food, and would lead the inquirer into one chamber for a positive prognosis and into another for a negative one. However, according to the tradition reported by Pliny, the bull refused to even take food from Germanicus, thus prophesing his fate. 3° Pliny's tale belongs to the Serapis miracle stories (see p.69), a literary genre that was particularly popular in Alexandria.

29 Baebius had also been involved in the organisation of Germanicus' games in AD 12 - Philo Alex. 27. 30 Plin. NH 8.185.

64 The main Ada Alexandrinorum involving Gaius and Claudius have been discussed in chapter II. There is one fi.irther text which may relate to Claudius. P.Med mv. 68.53, of unknown provenance, contains a speech on the recto accusing a certain Postumus of mal-administration, and interfering in the appointment of magistracies: ". . . Postumus. For when he assumed the position, he removed those people who had been put into office on merit and those who had received their positions from their fathers and grandfathers. He appointed unsuitable and desperate men, having sold all things guarded carefully for all time; and in this way he ordered that the fittest and most useful administrators be removed, for the purpose of robbery." The text on the verso is written in the same hand, but it is uncleart forms part of the same speech or is a separate administrative document. It mentions the apodemios (the official term for the prefect's absence), registers and records, a strategos and a royal scribe. The hand is dated by the editor to between c.50 BC —50 AD. The edpr. identified 'Postumus' as Rabirius Postumus, the dioiketes of Egypt under Ptolemy XII Auletes who was prosecuted at Rome for res repetundae, despite noting the thematic similarities between this text and the ActaMaximi stories, which tell the story of the prosecution of the prefect Vibius Maximus by Alexandrian citizens (see p.76-80).3' However, these similarities suggest that 'Postumus' is more likely to be the prefect of AD 45-8, Gaius Julius Postumus. The fate of Postumus after his prefecture is unknown. It is therefore impossible to tell this text formed part jgof a prosecution speech that was delivered to Claudius by an Alexandrian embassy, or f it is a fictional speech. The text is rhetorical (c.f. the use of men.. .de...), but a prosecution speech would naturally be rhetorical. The 'documentary' or 'literary' nature of the text is therefore unclear. Nero currently only has a cameo role in the Acta Alexandrinorum proper, with a story set in the Flavian period referring back to something that happened in the (Alexandrian?) gymnasium when Nero was alive. 32 Three related Neronian documentary texts survive, an edict announcing Nero's accession and imperial letters to Alexandria and to the 6,475 of the Arsinoite nome. P.Ocy. VII 1021 a small scrap of papyrus in a small cursive hand of the first century AD announces Claudius' death and Nero's accession. The numerous corrections and modifications and the repetitive way that Nero's accession is announced may suggest that the text is a draft of an accession edict emanating from either the prefect or the local stra/egos:

' Balcom 1993: 3-20; 1994: 219-222. Cf. Cicero Rab.Post.

65 "The expectation and hope of the world has been declared emperor, the Good Spirit (Agathos Daemon) of the world and the source of all good things, Nero has been declared emperor." Agathos Daemon was a patron god of Alexandria. The edict also announces a public celebration. People are to give thanks to the gods and to wear garlands in Nero's honour. Nero's letter to Alexandria was copied onto the verso of a first century AD account (PUG 110). While Nero's full titulature is reasonably preserved, only the following remains of the rest of the letter: • . concerning Potamon, son of Bokkas and his sons.. .1 have often heard from his letters concerning. . .1 maintain that, having judged as a valid command... my decision...and of the younger Potamon when they became..." The letter ends with the statement that it was displayed (or perhaps read out) publicly in the Alexandrian agora. Nero appears to make a decision on some issues that have been put to him by a certain Potamon, apparently not in person, but in the form of letters. The name is too common for certain identification, but Potamon could be a relation of an ambassador from Claudius' letter, Pasion son of Potamon, or the Neronian official who had been one of the strategoi of the city, exegete and hypomnatographos by AD Nero's titulature is accurate and there is no reason to suppose that the text is anything other than a copy of a contemporary document. SB XII 11012 is a copy of a letter of Nero to Ptolemais Euergetis, the urban centre of the Arsinoite nome. The letter was written in response to an embassy of at least six men who went to Rome to congratulate Nero on his accession. The beginning of the letter is lost, but what remains shows that the delegation offered Nero honours, including a gold crown (which was declined), and received confirmation that the status and position of the ruling class of the Arsinoite nome, the 6,475, were to remain unchanged. The letter also reveals that Claudius had also upheld these privileges, also at the beginning of his reign. These three documents are not ActaAlexandrinorum, but show that documentary records, such as accession edicts and imperial letters, were circulated around the Egyptian chora.

32 PQ XX 2264 col.i 2-3 (see p.71-3). P.Oxy. XLIX 3463.

66 ii. From the Flavians to the Antonines. Alexandria played a significant role in the mainstream history of the Principate in this period. The second century of Roman occupation in Egypt began with the city of Alexandria supporting a rebellious Roman general, Vespasian, and ended in the same way, with the city supporting the unsuccessftil usurpation of Avidius Cassius in AD 175. During this period four emperors (or their heirs) made visits to the city; Vespasian, Titus, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. The period saw three major Jewish revolts against the Roman Empire, in AD 66-70, 115/6-7, 132-5, in the second of which the Alexandrian Jews were heavily involved. The period also witnessed three very decisive Roman victories against the Jews, and the Romans imposing a harsh settlement on all the Jews of the empire, including those who had not participated in the revolt. The most humiliating and degrading of the terms forced upon the defeated Jews was the order to pay the Jewish Temple taxes to Rome in the form of a capitation tax levied on the whole Jewish race. The Flavian emperors feature in several Acta Alexandrinorum proper and related literature. Two badly damaged texts (SB XVI 12255 and SB VI 9528) report incidents from Vespasian's visit to Alexandria in AD 69-70, a visit that is also reported in the mainstream literary sources for the principate. 34 A private letter refers to Titus' entry into the city in April P.Oxy. XX 2264 reports a speech from the trial of a certain Diogenes before Vespasian. Titus appears in two texts, one of which certainly is a trial scene. A letter of Domitian to the prefect Maximus announcing his promotion to the praetorian prefecture also survives (see p.'74-5). SB XVI 12255, of unknown provenance, is written in a hand of the late first century AD. It is in such a poor state of preservation that the text could be plausibly restored in many different ways.36 Consequently the dramatic date is not clear. The most likely dramatic date is either Tiberius Alexander's announcement of Vespasian' s accession to the Alexandrian populace shortly after 1 July 69, or Vespasian's entry into Alexandria in the autunm of 69. I believe that the latter is more likely. The frequent use of the vocative case (e.g. 1.11, 15, 21) would suggest that Vespasian was personally present, although the use of this case could equally belong in the context of an oath of allegiance. However, the phrase [dç] rtv iróXu', suggesting that someone was

Tac. Hist. 2.79; 4.81-2; Suet. Vesp. 6-7; Dio 66.8.1-9.2; Joseph. B] 4.616-8; cI. also Philostr. VA 5.27- 38. 35 P.Oxy. XXXIV 2725.

67 actually entering the city, and a plausible interpretation of the participle va-rXXwv as meaning 'visiting' imply that Vespasian was personally present.37 I interpret the text as reporting Tiberius Alexander's reception of Vespasian, punctuated throughout by the shouts of an enthusiastic crowd. The scene takes place in the hippodrome, lying just outside the western gates of the city, where a huge crowd had gathered. The scene is therefore comparable with the announcement of Vespasian's accession by his general Mucianus in Antioch, where a 'fawning crowd' gathered in the theatre of the city. 38 Tiberius Alexander and the crowd greet Vespasian in honorific terms, and the crowd gives its thanks to Tiberius Alexander, presumably for the role he played in Vespasian's accession. The words of Tiberius Alexander, the crowd and (later) Vespasian all appear to be reported in direct speech: "[Tiberius Alexander(?) :} 'In health Lord Caesar [...] [...Vesp]a[s]ian, the one saviour and b[enefactor] I .visiting(?)... 'I [The crowd(?):] 'Guard him for us.. .Lord Augustus, benefactor, the [new] Ser[apis]. . . son of Ammon.. .we give thanks to Tiberius [Alexander]. In the remaining lines the 'divine Caesar' appears to speak, returning the greeting 'In health' (19) but it is unclear what else he says. Line nineteen has been restored as "eEoc Ka'iaap E[tTr] ô-rL {ryia[iv-}". The first editor restored e['iir} the rare documentary abbreviation of dTrEv, although this abbreviation was not in common use until the third century AD. The more obvious restoration would be the more literary term [4], overlooked by the editor because he considered the text a document rather than a literary text. It is difficult to class the text as either a 'document' or a simply fictional story. While it would be possible for the actual words of Tiberius Alexander and Vespasian to be recorded verbatim, as the speech of Germanicus was, it is unlikely that a large, excited crowd would cry out the same thing all in unison for a scribe to neatly record in the text. The text also appears to use the literary term [4r]. At the same time it is difficult to dismiss it as simply fiction. The appellations used by the Alexandrian crowd are also reflected in the mainstream historical sources for Vespasian' s reign. Vespasian also received the epithet 'the one saviour and benefactor', for example, on his entry to Rome.39

36 See note in App. I. See note in App. I. 38 Tac. Hist. 2.80. 39 Joseph. BJ7.71.

68 Vespasian' s visit to Alexandria, like Germanicus, inspired literary traditions. The appellation 'the new Serapis' from SB XVI 12255 must be seen in the context of these traditions, and the alleged 'miracles' surrounding Vespasian' s visit to the Alexandrian Serapeum. Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio report essentially the same story of how when Vespasian visited the Serapeum alone he saw a vision of his freedman, Basilides, who he knew to be miles away from Alexandria, paying homage to him. Vespasian took this as a positive omen as Basilides' name was closely linked to the Greek word for king. Sure enough, news of Vitellius' defeat reached him as he left the temple. The sources then relate how two men approached Vespasian at the bidding of the god Serapis and asked him to cure their ailments. According to Tacitus, Vespasian was astounded by their request, and consulted his advisers regarding the possibility of hii being able to cure the men. They responded that Vespasian's touch would be effective, if the god intended it to be. Vespasian made physical contact with both men, and both were instantaneously cured.4° The accounts differ on certain details, but are close enough to deduce a common source. The source of these stories is unlikely to be Vespasian himself. After all a 'royal, healing touch' was a very un-Roman concept, and it is unusual in miracle stories for the healer to be reluctant. Yet Tacitus stresses Vespasian' s hesitation and reluctance. The source of the stories was, I believe, local Alexandrian traditions. Serapis was the focus of a great number of miracle stories. The stories of his miracles were written down and copies were kept in libraries in his temples. 4' Professional story-tellers (aretalogoi) publicised the miracles of Serapis. The stories of Vespasian' s miracles in Alexandria may therefore draw on this religious aretlogica1 literature.42 The tales were evidently known by the writer of SB XVI 12255, who also drew on the Serapis aretlogy in his record of Vespasian's entry into Alexandria. SB VI 9528, a small scrap from the Fayum written in a hand of the late first century, preserves part of a speech delivered by the newly acclaimed Vespasian to the Alexandrians. Vespasian informs the Alexandrians that he is delighted to hear that he has assumed care of public affairs, in accordance with the decrees of the senate and with ç'€\L' thep, inanimity of the army. He mentions that he has always held an exceptionally favourable disposition towards the city, and that the Alexandrians should

40 Tac. Hist. 4.81-2; Suet. Vesp. 7.1-3; Dio 66.8.1. An example is partially preserved in P.Oxy. XI 1382. 42 HeWiC 1968: 67.

69 entertain the highest expectations. These are the sentiments traditionally expressed by a ruler to his subjects soon after his accession. 43 While Vespasian is being liberal with the truth when he states he had the backing of the senate, he did have the support of the eastern legions and those in Egypt. Because Vespasian did not have the support of the whole army at the time of the speech, it must have been delivered soon after his entry into the city, late in AD 69. The amount of contemporary detail would suggest that the text is a verbatim record of an actual oration delivered by Vespasian. The positive depiction of Vespasian in both texts suggests that they contain authentic and contemporary material. The mainstream historical sources for the Principate appear to pick up on more negative, local Alexandrian traditions concerning the latter stages of Vespasian' s visit to the city. Dio reports that the Alexandrian populace turned against Vespasian. They had expected great rewards for supporting Vespasian' s usurpation, but instead had had additional levies made on them. Dio relates that Vespasian raised many new taxes, from sacred and profane sources, and even revived some that had fallen into disuse and was taunted by the Alexandrian mob: "Six obols more you demand of us" they shouted at him. Titus allegedly intervened, preventing Vespasian doing any more than fining the Alexandrians. But the Alexandrians continued to berate Vespasian, shouting to Titus: "We forgive him; for he does not know how to be Caesar!" The outcome of this episode is not known. Dio merely states that Vespasian "restored order to Egypt" and left. Suetonius reports a similar tradition: "[The Alexandrians] persisted in calling him [Vespasian] Kybiosactes the surname of one of their kings who was scandalously mean".45 This comparison between an unpopular Ptolemaic king and Vespasian must have originated in Alexandria. We see the same type of comparison made by the Alexandrians between Ptolemy VIJT Eu ergetes and Caracalla (see p.1 03, 149-154). The Alexandrians had been instrumental in both the accessions of the mean Kybiosactes ('salt-fish dealer') and Vespasian. Kybiosactes had only survived a week as king. The Alexandrians had regretted their choice, because of Kybiosactes' vulgarity and lack of culture, and Queen Berenice had him executed. The implication of this comparison is

43 E.g. Trajan in P.Oxy. XLII 3022. Dio 66.8.2-9.2. Suet. Vesp. 19.2. 46 Dio 39.57.1-2; Slntho 17.1.11.

70 that the Alexandrians also regretted making the uncultured Vespasian 'king'. These negative traditions very probably circulated in some kind of literary form in Alexandria before reaching the attention of both Suetonius and Dio. XOV 212, A private letter, found at Oxyrhynchus, addressed to two brothers named Adrastos and Spartics and written on 29th April 71) mentions Titus' entry into Alexandria on 25th April 71, an event which the writer himself personally witnessed. The writer gives a brief description of Titus' movements in the city: "And Lord Caesar entered on the 2 hour of the 3O [He first went] to the camp [...] then to the Serapeum, and from the Serapeum to [the] hippikos (=Hippodrome?)..."

He then tells his friends that when he sees them next they will know the dKTa TV

TLp.Gw of Titus' visit, that is (literally) 'the official record of the honours' given to Titus. The âKTa TV T4IV of Titus' visit were therefore presumably a document recording the honours given to Titus by the city, presumably similar in form to P. O.xy. XXV 2435 recto and SB XVI 12255 recording the honours given by the Alexandrians to both Germanicus and Vespasian. It is unclear whether the anonymous writes friends were interested in the visit simply because it was an imperial visit, or because of what occurred during the visit. Both Suetonius and Josephus mention this visit of Titus to Alexandria. Suetonius reports that Titus was suspected of wanting to revolt against his father and that he "strengthened this suspicion on his way to Alexandria by wearing a diadem at the consecration of the Apis bull at Memphis."47 Josephus mentions that immediately before his visit to Alexandria, when Titus was in Antioch, a crowd of Antiochenes gathered to greet him. However "their acciamations were accompanied by a running petition to expel the Jews from the city." When Titus refused this they asked instead that the civic privileges of the Jews be removed, but Titus again refused, and set out for

Egypt.48 Josephus states that a similar scene occurred at Alexandria: "[When] the Alexandrians and the Antiochenes asked that the Jews should no longer continue to have their rights of citizenship, they did not obtain their requests."49

P.Oxy. XX 2264, from Oxyrhynchus and written in a hand of the late second century, preserves the tops of five fragmentary columns, although the first and fifth are

Suet. Tit. 5.3. Joseph. BJ 7. 100-11, 116. 49 Joseph. AJ 12.121-4.

71 in extremely poor states of preservation. It contains a highly rhetorical speech delivered to Vespasian by an Alexandrian(?) embassy that has sailed to Rome at the trial of a certain Diogenes. The text has been interpreted as either a defence or prosecution speech. 5° In fact, some sections appear to defend Diogenes, and others condemn him, suggesting that a rival delegation is also present. The text begins by describing an incident that took place in a gymnasium when Nero was alive. The incident probably occurred in the Alexandrian gymnasium, although Nero did have a gymnasium built in Rome in AD 61.' The Neronian incident, which is unfortunately not described, took place twelve years ago (ii.5-6), which would make Vespasian the emperor hearing this case. The dramatic background of the current trial is that Diogenes had somehow been involved in the incident under Nero twelve years ago, and been punished, and is now in trouble again for allegedly slandering Vespasian. The argument of the defence is that because Diogenes had not actually criticised Nero, despite Nero's many faults, he could never even consider censuring the virtuous Vespasian: "Diogenes neither criticised then nor criticises now. (Perhaps the latter's death too should have been avenged). 52 Have faith in his present silence! For twelve years ago he did not criticise Caesar, although he had in him a judge easily angered, naturally biased against the rich, easily irritated against those of any standing at all (i.e. the nobility). He did not criticise Caesar, though he might have spoken twelve years before.., but said nothing..." The speaker appears to continue his defence of Diogenes in col. iii. Diogenes has already suffered greatly. Diogenes is not present, and has not sailed with them; he was perhaps in exile. In col. iv a prosecutor appears to take over, and an impending execution is hinted at: "[Lord]. . . spend your time on this decision. It is your life that is slandered, your [throne] that is censured. The man telling these lies against you must not live!" In col.v there is an allusion to a 'treacherous accusation' involving money, perhaps recalling Vespasian's unpopular financial arrangements in Alexandria. The 'Diogenes' of this text has been identified as the Cynic philosopher of this name mentioned by Dio. This man entered the theatre and denounced Titus' relationship with the Jewess Berenice in AD 75. For this outrage, Vespasian had him

See note in App. I. ' Tac. Ann. 14.47.

72 publicly scourged, and no doubt exiled. 53 Dio states that his accomplice was a certain Heras. Roberts has suggests that Heras could be identified with the Alexandrian Heraios, who turns up in several Acta Alexand.rinorum stories. 54 However, Heraios appears in stories dramatically set around thirty years after this story. While this would make Roberts' identification unlikely, I have already notthe changing role of Theon in the Claudian stories. While the identification of Diogenes as the Cynic philosopher is possible, the thematic links between this story and other Acta Alexandrinorum suggest that he is an Alexandrian. Diogenes and his co-defendants may have had some connection to the stasis attested in Alexandria early in Vespasian's reign. Eusebius' Chronological Canons places an Alexandrian stasis under the year 7355 It is the general consensus that Dio Chrysostom's Oration to Alexandria was delivered in the Vespasianic period. 56 Eusebius' stasis may be identified, the recent revolt mentioned in Dio's oration that was put down by a Roman named 'Conon', possibly a textu a! corruption for the early Flavian prefect Colon. 57 The text is rhetorical, as orations WLI*41 should be. It is therefore impossible to tell i'the text is a verbatim record of an oration, or a literary creation. P.Harr. 11240, written inand of the mid second century AD, and perhaps from Oxyrhynchus, partially preserves the middle portion of a single column containing a trial scene set before Titus. The dramatic setting of the text is unclear. There are mentions of the magistrates, the Alexandrians, a certain Hermias, a certain Ku[. . . Jius, Titus Caesar, [....]ius and Vestinus. The latter two are perhaps present as members of Titus' consilium, and Vestinus could be the Neronian prefect of Egypt. The extant section mentions Titus in the role of judge (c.f. line 4 - 'I will judge all things'), and preserves an exchange between Titus, Hermias and Ku[. . . ]ius. "Hermias: 'Lord [...} Let K[u. . .]ius make his defence speech!' Titus Caesar: '[Ku.. .]ius, make your defence speech.' Ku[. . .]ius: 'I am not ready [to make] my defence speech." Hermias is probably an Alexandrian, but it is unclear if he is defending or prosecuting Ku[. . .]ius, who, in the extant section at least, appears to be the person on trial. Ku[.. .]ius is likely to be a Roman name such as Curtius or Quirinius. This text may

context of this sentence is unclear and it could be translated differently. Dio 66.15.4-5. P.Oxy. XX p.130 n.4. Euseb. Chron. Vespasian year 5 (p.188). 56 Jones 1973: 302-9; 1997: 249-53. For another view see Sidebottom 1992: 407-19. Dio Chiys. Or.32.71-2.

73 therefore tell the story of the Alexandrians denouncing an allegedly corrupt Roman official. It is unclear whether the text is a contemporary document or a story. The participants all speak in the form of trial minutes, and the text follows first-century AD practice by not introducing the direct speech with a verb of saying (see p.1 13-4). The characterisation of Titus in the extant section is not noticeably negative. Titus may also appear in one of the dubia et incertaActaAlexancfrmnorum if Musurillo's supplement in P.Oslo ifi 170 1.10 'TLT[oç]' is correct. Unfortunately, too little survives of this small scrap of papyrus (8.6 x 2.3 cm) to ascertain whether or not it really does belong to the Ada Alexandrinorum. C.Pap.Lat. 238, a fragmentary text from the Fayum written in Latin in a hand of the late first century AD, purports to be a copy of a letter of Domitian to a certain Maximus, who has been identified as L. Laberius Maximus, prefect of Egypt in 823.58 The letter is badly damaged in places, but it appears that Domitian wrote to his 'dear Maximus' to inform him of a promotion: "I have not been satisfied to crown your distinguished career with the prefecture [of Egypt], but [when] I transferred Julius [...... ] into the most honourable order [when he made use of his own entreaties] and had long been desirous [of the transfer], I immediately considered your most devoted [loyalty and industry] and have made you colleague [and partner] of[...... ]scus..." Domitian ends by urging Maximus to hurry to his side in Rome. It was originally thought that Maximus was being promoted to the consulship of AD 84 alOngside Pedanius Fuscus. 59 It is now generally accepted that Maximus was being promoted to the praetorian prefecture as a colleague of Cornelius Fuscus, who is attested in this office in 83, replacing a certain 'Julius' in this role. 6° It is generally accepted that 'Julius' is Julius Ursus, an ex-prefect of Egypt, who evidently went on to hold the praetorian prefecture, and was then admitted to the senate (the most honourable order).6' Dio mentions that an Ursus was a prominent member of Domitian's court. He relates the story that Domitian almost executed Ursus for not showing pleasure at the exploits of his sovereign. Ursus was allegedly saved by the intervention of Julia and then made consul.62 The consul lists show that '[-]rsus' was suffect-consul inc. May 84.63 Dio's

58 On the text see KOrtenbeutel 1940; Stem 1940: 51-60; Wilcken 1941: 167-8; Syme 1954: 116-9. 59 KOrtenbeutel 1940. 60 E.g. Juvenal4.111. 61 Ursus' prefecture of Egypt has been placed variously in 79/80, 83/4, 84/5 (Bureth 1988: 480; Bastianini 1988: 507). On the basis of this letter, he must have been prefect in 79/80. 62 Dio 67.3.1, 67.4.2.

74 stories are anecdotal, but suggest tension between Domitian and Ursus. It has been suggested that the letter reveals the demotion of Julius Ursus, albeit 'veiled in bland, diplomatic language'. Ursus, it would appear, has been displaced to make way for Maximus. Although the letter suggests that he was desirous of the move, Ursus is in reality being moved aside, his 'demotion' to the senate compensated for by a suffect consulship. The first line of the text declares that it is a 'copy of a letter' (exemplum codiciiorum), implying that this is a verbatim copy of an official document. How such a letter written by the emperor to the prefect came to be accessed by a villager living in the Fayum remains unclear. The fact that the copy was made at all shows that the writer had a lively interest in the careers of two ex-prefects of Egypt within the imperial court. We could compare P.Hibeh. II 215 which describes the post-Egypt career of another ex- prefect, Tiberius Julius Alexander, who was also promoted in the imperial service. Several Acta Alexandrinorum and pieces of Ada related literature are set during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. P.Oxy. XLII 3022 preserves the opening part of a letter of Trajan to Alexandria, written in response to an Alexandrian embassy sent to congratulate him on his accession, and to receive Trajan' s confirmation that the rights and privileges of the city would be upheld. Trajan confirms the benefactions that his divine 'father' Nerva conferred on the Alexandrians' early in his reign: "I too, having a personal feeling for you, commended you firstly to myself, then also to my friend and prefect Pompeius Planta, in order that he might see with every care to your undisturbed tranquillity and your food-supply and your communal and individual rights." The date clause states that the letter was written when Trajan held the tribunician power for second time (between October and 9th December 98), a surprisingly long time after Trajan came to power on 28th January 98.65 Trajan's sentiments towards Alexandria are comparable with those of other emperors on their accessions. 66 The letter therefore looks genuine, despite an error made by the copier in Trajan' s titulature. Trajan is described simply as 'consul', although he first held the consulship in AD 91, and would have described himself as 'consul for the second time' in the original letter.

63 McCrumandWoodhead 1961:no. 56. Syme 1958: 635-6. 65 But cf. the time it took Claudius to reply to an embassy sent to congratulate him on his accession. E.g. Claudius (CPJ 11153); Vespasian (SB VI 95289); the usurper Avidius Cassius (SB X 10295).

75 Several pieces of Acta related literature tell the story of the trial of a prefect named 'Maximus'. Several Maximi held the prefecture of Egypt, M. Magius Maximus (AD 14-5), L. Laberius Maximus (82-3), and C. Vibius Maximus (103-7). It is generally accepted that the stories refer to an historical trial of C.Vibius Maximus, denounced before Trajan by an Alexandrian delegation. Vibius Maximus' career is not very well documented. Pliny, Martial and Statius all had a friend named Vibius

Maximus.67 This man had a military background and was a cultivated literary figure who had been the prefect of an ala in Syria and was composing an epitome of world history. 68 An inscription reveals that a Vibius Maximus had also been the prefect of a cohort in Dalmatia in July 9369 It is the general consensus that these Vibii Maximii were all the same m, a man interested in literary pursuits with a military background who became a Trajanic prefect of Egypt. 7° The most likely date for an historical trial would be between AD 107.$. Some inscriptions of Vibius Maximus suffered abolitio nominis, suggesting that he suffered some kind of disgrace. 7' While it may be the case that this disgrace was the result of an historical Alexandrian impeachment, we cannot discount the possibility that some (or indeed all) of the stories concerned with the trial of Maximus may be fictional, exploiting a common Roman name. The Acta Maximi are preserved in four, or perhaps five, texts. The most substantial, P.thy. ifi 471, preserves six columns (four of which are reasonably intact) containing a vicious prosecution speech against Maximus. P.Schub. 42 contains an exchange between three of the Alexandrian ambassadors prosecuting Maximus in the presence of Trajan. Ada XXI and BKT IX 177 are poorly preserved scraps of papyrus that would appear to belong to the ActaMaximi. Ada XXII mentions a 'Maxi[mus?]' (col.i.5). However, the text is very badly damaged, making the nature of its contents, and its context, unclear. Consequently Acta XXII may not relate to the ActaMaximi. Three of the Alexandrian prosecutors of Maximus are named in P.Schub. 42 as Heraios, '[Ju?]lius Diodoros' and Eudaemon the archidikastes. 72 While Diodoros is otherwise unknown, Heraios is mentioned in another ActaAlexandrinorum story. 73 He

67 Pun. Ep. 3.2; 9.1; Martial 1.69; 2.18; 10.77; Statius, Si/v. 4.7. 1-56. Statius, Si/v. 4.7.45-56. 69 C1L III dipL XVI 38. 70 Although White 1973: 295-301 argues the case for the separatist viewpoint. " JGR 11148 (dated 14.5.109), 1175 (dated 30.8.103), 1351. 72 Eudaemon is also presumably the archidikastes mentioned in P. Oxy. 111471 vi.7. 73 P.Oxy. XVIII 2177.

76 was probably a leading scholar at the Alexandrian Museum. 74 Several Eudaemones are mentioned in our sources. Hadrian had a courtier of this name. 75 An equestrian named Eudaemon was an Alexandrian and followed a distinguished career. He was a 'procurator of the district of Alexandria', a procurator of the Greek and Latin libraries and in charge of Greek letters. He also held procuratorships in several eastern provinces. 76 Valerius Eudaemon was prefect of Egypt in AD 14 1/2. A certain Eudaemon was also an archidikastes in AD 143. The first three Eudaemones are very probably the same man, probably the Alexandrian archidikastes of the ActaMaximi who began his career in the imperial service under Trajan, perhaps as a result of the successful prosecution of Maximus. He was favoured by Hadrian and appointed prefect of Egypt by Hadrian's successor, Antoninus Pius. This man, however, can hardly have been demoted to the post of archidikastes in AD 143. This Eudaemon may perhaps have been a relative of the Eudaemon of the ActaMaximi, but the name is very common. Perhaps another prosecutor is referred to in P.Oxy. ifi 471 col.vi.3-4: Valerius Callinicus, a philologer from the Museum. P.Oxy. ifi 471 was copied in the mid second century AD. It is written in a literary hand, and is heavily punctuated, like a literary work. The extant text begins in the middle of the prosecutor's speech. He addresses Trajan ('Lord') and introduces further charges against Maximus to the emperor, charges that he will prove to be true with documentary evidence, which is apparently read out at several points in the trial (e.g. col. ii. 15, ii.3 1-iii.4). The main charges against Maximus in the extant section are that he is engaged in usury, that he has interfered in the appointment of Alexandrian magistracies and that he has taken an improper interest in a young boy. The prosecutor alleges that Maximus forced debtors to pay him interest even before they had received their loan, and produces letters written by Maximus to prove this (col. ii.5-15). The prosecutor also producing a document stating that Maximus has interfered with the appointment of the Alexandrian magistrates: "Berenicianos is to be gymnasiarch up to the emperor's nineteenth year, and Anicetos up to the twenty-ninth year." The prosecutor implies that Maximus had accepted bribes in return for securing these extraordinarily long terms of office. The rest of the extant speech concerns a

Musurillo 1954: 159. SFIA Hadr. 15.3; M.Aur. Med 8.25. 76 1LS 1449, SB I 3998. 77 SB III 6291, BGUIII 741.

77 denouncement of Maximus' relationship with a wealthy seventeen-year-old boy, who allegedly shamelessly emerged every morning from Maximus' bedchamber, and even accompanied him on official business. Other isolated accusations are that Maximus has confiscated the property of the poor, and once executed a man in the theatre for not wearing the correct white garments. White garments were associated with the gymnasiarchy, but it is not clear if the prosecutor accuses Maximus of executing a gymnasiarch. The speech is rhetorical, as one would expect a prosecution speech to be. It therefore remains unclear if this text preserves the verbatim record of an historical prosecution speech or if it is to some extent fictional. Of the four columns partially preserved in P.Schub. 42, only sections of col.iii are in a reasonable state of preservation. The text, of unknown provenance, was copied in the mid second century. The extant column preserves an exchange between Heraios, '[Ju?}lius Diodoros' and Eudaemon the archidikastes in the presence of an emperor, who is addressed as 'Lord'. Only Heraios' initial speech and Eudaemon's speech are reasonably well preserved: "Heraios: 'You are obviously worthy of the embassy. Like odourless wine in no matter what jar you do not show [emotion(?)] after flattery. But now we have passed from opposition to refutation.' [..fragmentary speeches of Diodoros and Heraios(?) again. ..]. Eudaemon the archidikastes: 'I especially ought to make an accusation against Maximus. During my term he has been known to order young boys to be trained in the gymnasium until their eleventh year, and one of these was my Theon..." The correct translation and meaning of Heraios' highly obscure speech is unclear. Musurillo's explanation, that the ambassadors were flattering the emperor by comparing his temperament to that of odourless wine, seems bizarre and implausible. 78 It may be the case that Heraios is insulting Maximus here, although the context of his criticism is lost. Diodoros appears to back up Heraios by claiming that something would have prevailed if: "he (Maximus(?)) had not been countered by the opposition of Heraios". Eudaemon echoes the claims of the prosecutor of P.Oxy. ifi 471 that Maximus was interfering in Alexandrian institutions, in this case the ephebeia. Other sections of the text mention 'the fatherland' (i. 10), 'silver' (iv. 11 - perhaps referring to usury) and 'fire' (iv. 16). Whereas P.Oy. III 471 presents the prosecution in the form of a long,

78 Musurillo 1954: 159.

78 rhetorical prosecution speech delivered (in the extant section at least) by a single speaker, this version presents it in the form of trial minutes, with the accusations made by several of the Alexandrian prosecutors. Presumably the long, rhetorical prosecution speech, is the more historically accurate. Nonetheless, the existence of recensions that are so vastly different in form shows that there was no single canonical version of the Ada Maximi. Three further texts may be related to the ActaMaximi. The text on the redo of Acta XXI, a small fragment (8 x 2.6 cm) of unknown provenance, mentions a bedchamber (Kovrthv), 79 a young man and a prefect in successive lines (4-6). This would accord well with one of the accusation levelled against Maximus in P.Oxy. III 471. However, just as the charge of interfering in Alexandrian magistracies was levelled against other prefects as well as Maximus (e.g. Postumus, see p.65), a charge of indecency with a youth may equally well have been levelled against another prefect. BKT IX 177 is from the Fayum and was copied in the third century. The text is written on both the redo and the verso. The redo mentions the son of someone (3), 'goodwill' (4), 'Caesar' (5), and '[my(?)] friend Maxim[us]' (6). The verso appears to continue the story, but all that remains are references to a proclamation(?), someone speaking using the verb EI.1TEV (4), and a reference to someone being 'more zealous'. It would appear from the use of the verb eIITE1) that this version oftheAclaMaximi adhered to the format of trial minutes. Too little remains to be entirely certain of what is happening in this small fragment. The Alexandrians were perhaps reminding Trajan of their goodwill towards him, accusing Maximus of improper relations with the son of someone and Trajan asking the Alexandrians what they have to say about his friend, Maximus. The theme of the Alexandrians bravely prosecuting a prefect who was a friend of the emperor recurs in otherActaAlexandrinorum stories.80 Acta XXIII, a series of badly damaged fragments from Karanis copied in the mid second century AD, may also belong to the Acta Maximi. However, the text is so badly damaged that although a 'Maximus' is mentioned, it is not clear if Maximus is actually on trial, or, indeed, if the text concerns Vibius Maximus at all. From the references to 'sailing' (fr. A.3, E.1) and the addresses to a 'Lord' (fr. II col.ii 12), it wouldkthat the text reports a trial before the emperor in Rome. The nature of the trial is not clear. In

79 Although 'chamberlain' (K0LTWV[h-rlc]) is also possible. The emperor's chamberlain appears in P.Giss.Lit. 4.7 u.S. P. Oxy. XXXIV 2690.

79 the extant sections the defendants appear to be Alexandrian youths (ephebes). In one

Li _)t' section, a woman appears to pleat the emperor on behalf of her young son: "She was untied by [them] and holding her [son], she leapt out, approached [him] and said: 'I have (a son) who has not yet reached puberty (xüJ I1EXX411i3ov)." The context of her plea is unclear. The references to striking against (fr. II col.ii. 16), being surrounded(?) in a circle (col. iii.2-3), breastplates (col. iii.6), guards (col. iii. 10) and military cloaks (chiamydes) (fr. ifi 1.8) suggest some kind of militaryresponse by the Roman army to unrest in the city. The theatre, which played a prominent part in the great Graeco-Jewish disturbances in Alexandria in the first century AD, is somehow involved (fr. ifi 1.2). It has been suggested that the mention of arabarchoi implies the involvement of Jews, but this post, although held by some Jews, was not an exclusively Jewish office. It may even have been a Roman equestrian position. In one section it is claimed that 'he led.away the children'; the verb àTrâyw elsewhere in the Acta Alexandrinorum conveys the sense of 'leading away to death'. 8' The dramatic setting of this text is therefore unclear. If the text does indeed belong to the Acta Maximi, then it would aHethat Maximus was prosecuted in the aftermath of a serious disturbance in the city, perhaps involving the Jews, during the course of which he had had some youths executed. There are other possible dramatic settings. The nature of the text is also unclear due to its fragmentary state. The text appears to be narrative in places, rhetorical in others and uses direct speech in others. CPJ 11157 tells the story of rival Greek and Jewish delegations that travelled to Rome to meet Trajan, during the course of which Trajan allegedly quarrelled with, and presumably executed, one of the Alexandrian ambassadors, Hermaiskos. This text was copied in the third century and was found at Oxyrhynchus. The lower portions of four columns of writing are preserved. As the setting is stated to be Rome, an historical trial would have to have taken place at some point between AD 99-113 (omitting 10 1-2 and 105-6, when Trajan was campaigning in Dacia). The names often Alexandrian ambassadors and seven Jewish ambassadors are given at the start of the text. The Alexandrian ambassadors were Dionysios, Salvius Julius, Salvius Timagenes, Pastor the gymnasiarch, Julius Phanias, Philoxenos the gymnasiarch- elect, Sotion the gymnasiarch, Theon, Athenodoros, and a certain Paulos of Tyre, who had offered his services to the Alexandrians. Hermaiskos' name was presumably listed in the missing

See App. IV n.4.

80 portion of the column. It is difficult to identify the ambassadors with certainty because names such as Dionysios, Theon and Hermaiskos were very common among the Alexandrian elite. 82 Salvius Julius may be the famous jurist of the Hadnanic period, Salvius Julianus. 83 Philoxenos may be the Alexandrian professor mentioned in a letter of the late first century AD. The Suda mentions an orator named Paulos of Tyre who "went on an embassy to the emperor Hadrian on behalf of the metropolis of Tyre."85 Paulos, Theon and Athenodoros reappear in other Ada Alexandrinorum proper stories set under Trajan and Hadrian. 86 The embassy was full of the most prominent Alexandrians of the day, with two gymnasiarchs, a gymnasiarch-elect, and Dionysios 'who held many procuratorships'. A letter of Trajan(?) cited in P.Oxy. XVIII 2177 refers to the men who have acted as ambassadors on behalf of their own city with 'the most learned Paulos' asphilologoi. If it is right to connect this letter with the embassy of CPJ II 157, then the ambassadors of this text would have had strong links with the Alexandrian Museum. None of the six named Jewish ambassadors, or their advocate, Sopatros of Antioch, are otherwise known. The extant section of the text states that the Jewish envoys followed the Alexandrian Greeks to Rome, arriving just after winter. Each party had b, ught with them their 'gods'. The Alexandrians carried a bust of Serapis, the Jews probably carried some sacred scrolls. Trajan appointed a day on which he would hear both sides speak. The text claims that the Jews spent the intervening period persuading the empress Plotina to turn the senators in the imperial consilium and Trajan against the cause of the Alexandrian Greeks. Plotina was allegedly successful, and the Alexandrians entered to a frosty reception. Trajan refused to return their greetings and said: "You say 'hail' to me as though you deserved to receive a greeting - after what you have done to the Jews!..." The remains of the third column preserves an exchange between Trajan and the Alexandrian Hermaiskos in which Hermaiskos angers Trajan with his insolence. The hearing is then allegedly interrupted by a miracle. The bust of Serapis began to sweat,

82 See Musurillo 1954: 172-4 on possible identifications. Suggested in Weber 1915: 51 n.5; on Julianus' career see Bauman 1989: 235-63. 84 p), XVffl 2190. It is not clear if this is the Claudius Philoxenos oIBGUI 73 and 136, aprefecl cohortis and archidikastes who later became a member of the Alexandrian museum. Suda s.v. Paulos of Tyre. 86 CPJ II I 58a (Paulos and Theon); P. Oxy. XVIII 2177 (Paulos, Athenodoros).

81 allegedly causing panic and tumult in Rome, with the populace fleeing to the hills. 87 Serapis' intervention is unlikely to have saved Hermaiskos. The remains of col. iv refer to chains, further abuse and something that happened in the time of the divine Claudius, probably the execution of Isidoros and Lampon, implying that the story ended with Hermaiskos' execution. The text contains the themes found in most of the Ada Alexandrinorum that were copied in the third century. The emperor has firmly sided with the Alexandrian Jews against the Alexandrian Greeks. Hermaiskos' insolence to Trajan is coupled with very anti-Jewish sentiments: a ço"I "It grieves us to see your imperial council (na) filled with impious Jews" "Is the name of the Jews not offensive? You should therefore help your own people (i.e. nobles) rather than y advocate for the impious Jews!" The claim that Trajan' s consilium, was filled with Jews is fantastical. Only four senators with Jewish ancestry are attested in this period, and three of these men were descendants of Herod Agrippa. 88 Like the claim of Isidoros, that Claudius was the son of a Jewess, the claim was probably invented by the author to explain Traj an's alleged favouring of the Jews. Even in the small section of dialogue that is preserved, Hermaiskos' high birth and status are emphasised: "Caesar said: 'This is the second time I am telling you, Hermaiskos. You are answering me insolently, taking advantage of your birth! The alleged intervention of Serapis in the story picks up a motif of the Flavian stories, the Serapis aretlogical literature (see p.69). The text is clearly not a document. The details of the hearing, the exact setting, the time and date, and the members of Trajan's consilium are not given. The text frequently breaks into narrative, and does not adhere very closely at all to the format of trial minutes. Because of this the exact dramatic setting and nature of the Greco-Jewish dispute is unclear. The extant dialogue focuses on the exchange between Trajan and Hermaiskos and the business of the embassies is never alluded to. If the accepted dramatic date of c. 110-3 is correct, then this text would show that there were strong

87 Statues sweating, and coming to life in general, was a bad omen; e.g. Verg. Aen. 2.173-4; Suet. Gal us 57.1. Smallwood 1976: 391 n.8. There may have been more, however, if there is any historicity behind Donutian charging prominent Roman nobles with 'drifting into Jewish ways' - Dio 67.14.1-2; 68.1.1-2; Suet. Dom. 12.2.

82 Graeco-Jewish tensions in Alexandria in this period. However, the only known Graeco- Jewish violence in Alexandria under Trajan is the Jewish revolt of AD 115-7. It is not inconceivable that this was the historical stasis behind CPJII 157. Several of the ambassadors mentioned in this text reappear in another Ada Alexandrinorum story set in the aftermath of the Jewish revolt (CPJII 158a, see p.86-91). The Greeks were also accused of doing wrong to the Jews during the revolt, most notably in P.Mil. Vogi. 1147 (see p.85-6), which would explain Trajan's opening remark to the Greeks in CPJII 157. There would be several historical problems accepting that CPJ II 157 was dramatically set after the Jewish revolt. Trajan, after all, never returned to Rome after the revolt, and the emperor ofCP.Jll 158a would appear to be Hadrian. A later writer, however, may have been unconcerned with, or ignorant of, these facts, and used the Jewish revolt as the dramatic setting for his story. Several pieces of the Acta Alexandrinorum and Ada related literature are dramatically set in the aftermath of the Jewish revolt. The Jews of Alexandria, Egypt, Cyrenaica, Palestine and Mesopotamia revolted against the Roman Empire in the last years of Trajan' s reign. The generally accepted date of the revolt is AD 115-7, but the sources are unclear as to when, and even where, the revolt began. 89 It had been crushed by the time of Trajan's death (8th August 117). Eusebius is the earliest and frillest literary account for the revolt in Egypt and Alexandria: "In Alexandria and Egypt. . . as though they had been seized by some terrible spirit of rebellion, they rushed in sedition against their fellow Greek citizens, and increasing the scope of the rebellion, in the following year started a great war while Lupus was governor of Egypt. In the first engagement they happened to overcome the Greeks who fled to Alexandria and captured and killed the Jews in the city..." Eusebius continues that the Jews in the chora rallied under a leader named Lucuas. The Roman general Marcius Turbo finally ended the revolt by force. 9° Xiphilinus' excerpt of Dio focuses on how the Jews in Cyrenaica gathered under the leadership of a certain Andreas and deals primarily with the alleged atrocities perpetrated by the Jewish rebels. 9' Orosius states that the Greeks defeated the Jews in Alexandria in a pitched battle.92 The Alexandrian historian Appian relates how he personally narrowly escaped

89 revolt began in Alexandria in 115 according to Euseb. Thst. eccl. 4.2.1-4. Euseb. Chron. Trajan year 17 states that it began in Libya in 114; Dio 68.32.1-2 places the revolt in the last months of 116. 90 Eusth.Hist. eccl. 4.2.1-4. 91 Dio 68.32.1-2. Oros. Adv.pagan. 7.12.6-7; 7.27.6.

83 the clutches of Jewish rebels in the Egyptian Delta during the revolt. Elsewhere he refers to the period as "the time when Trajan was exterminating the Jews in Egypt."94 The ferocity of the Jewish revolt in Alexandria and Egypt is reflected in the sources.

Documents attest high Roman casualties. 95 Appian tells us that the Jews destroyed the

Nemesion, and damage is also attested to the Serapeum. 96 Jewish sources date the destruction of the great Alexandrian Synagogue to this period. 97 Eusebius reports that "Hadrian rebuilt Alexandria after it was destroyed by the Jews."98 The literary tradition therefore states that the Jewish revolt in Alexandria was bloody, but brief, with the Greeks inflicting the coup d'etat upon the Jewish rebels there, and lays the blame for the violence solely with the Jews. The Acta Alexandrinorum and Acta related literature concerning the revolt report different traditions, which are much more historically plausible. These traditions state that it was the Romans rather than the Greeks who put down the revolt in the city, and suggest that Greek provocation played a role in the outbreak of the Graeco-Jewish violence, as it had in AD 38 and While the number of casualties sustained by the Jews is not known, our sources imply that many Jews were slaughtered. However, unlike other Jewish communities in the chora, the Alexandrian Jews were not wiped out, however heavy their casualties.'00 Further violence in the city, perhaps involving the Jews, is attested in the early years of Hadrian's reign. The Historia Augusta states that the violence was caused by the discovery of a new Apis bull. 10' An extract of Dio's account preserved in an excerpt of Petrus Patricus states that Hadrian quelled the fighting in the city by sending a strongly worded letter to the city: "The Alexandrians had been rioting and nothing would make them stop until they received a letter from Hadrian rebuking them."°2 Jewish sources attribute a slaughter of Jews in Alexandria to Hadrian's reign:

FHG V LXV (a fragment from the lost LiberArabicus 24). 94 App. BCIV. .90. 95 PS1 IX 10'(=Fink 1971: no.74); P. Vindob. L 2 (=Fink 1971: no.34); Gilhiani 1966: 91-7; Kasher 1976: 156-8. App. BCiv. 2.90; Rowe and Rees 1956/7: 496. Suk. 5.55b-c (trans. in Alon 1964: 404). Euseb. C/iron. Hadrian year I (p.197). Jerome's version of the Chronicle, perhaps mistakenly, states that the damage had been done not by Jews but Romans. See P.Mil. yogi. 1147 and CPJ 11 158a (below). '°°For the effect of the revolt on the Jewish community at Oxyrhynchus, see Kasher 1981: 150-7. 101 SHAHadr. 12.1-2. ' °2 Dio 69.8.la. (Petrus Patricus, Erc. Vat. 108).

84 "The emperor Hadrian... slaughtered in the city of Alexandria two times sixty myriads, which is twice as many Jews as made the original exodus from Egypt."°3 "The emperor Hadrian. . . came and seized Alexandria in Egypt.. . (posting soldiers at the rear of the Jews, he) butchered them until not one was left alive.. . They shed their blood like water."°4 This tradition also occurs in the Byzantine writer Georgius Syncellus: "Hadrian punished the Jews who were revolting against the Alexandrians."°5 Leglo XXII Deiotariana, attested in Egypt in AD 119, after the Jewish Revolt (BGUI 140), disappears from record during the 120s. It has been suggested that this legion was wiped out in the Alexandrian civil riots of this period.' 06 The private letters of a common soldier named Terentianus written from Alexandria to his family in the cliora may concern this period. Terentianus refers to the 'uproar and anarchy in the city' that the soldiers were trying to suppress. He himself had been injured in the 'uproar', and at the time of writing the danger was such that none of the soldiers 'were able to pass through the camp gates (at Nicopolis)'.'°7 P.Mil. Vogi. 1147 purports to be a 'copy' of an edict of a prefect written in response to serious Graeco-Jewish violence in Alexandria. It was found in Tebtunis, a village in the Fayum, and is written in a semi-literary hand of the second century AD. The text preserves four columns of writing, although only the third and fourth are reasonably well preserved. Col. iv ends with an unfortunately illegible date clause: 'year 19 of[...... ]us, Phaophi 16.b08 From the presence in the text of several ambassadors from the Acta Hermaiski, which are set under Trajan, the date clause very probable refers to Trajan's reign, that is the 14th October AD 115.109 The prefect at this time was Rutilius Lupus. The edict was written in the aftermath of the violence, and aimed at maintaining peace. The fragmentary remains of the first two columns reveal that there has been an incident in the theatre, involving a triumphal procession, instigated by a certain 'Antonin[us]'. The prefect is highly critical towards the 'few' Alexandrian Greeks who are persisting in making retaliatory attacks against the Jews.

103 Gittin 5Th (trans. in Mon 1964: 402). "Seder Eliyahu Rabbah (trans. in Mon 1964: 404). 105 Syncellus, CSHB 19: 659. 106 Bowersock 1970: 37-47; Mor 1986: 267-78; Schwartz 1989: 101-2; Strobe! 1988: 268-9. But for a different view, see Keppie 1990: 54-61. 107 P.Mich. VIII 477, 478. '° See note in App. I.

85 He acknowledges that most of the troublemakers are slaves, but holds their masters responsible for their actions. The prefect announces that a special judge is to be sent by the emperor to punish those who are guilty of retaliatory violence, and urges order to be restored to the city; "Let there be an end of those who say, some truly, some falsely, that they have been wounded and demand justice violently and unjustly. For there was no need to be wounded. Some of these errors could perhaps have had an excuse before the battle between the Romans and the Jews, but now they are purposeless judgements." The date of the edict, October 115, is extremely close to the generally accepted date of the outbreak of the Jewish revolt and it is therefore extremely likely that this is the Graeco-Jewish violence referred to in this edict, even though the edict contradicts the accepted historical traditions. Eusebius, presumably following local literary traditions, stated that the Alexandrian Greeks decisively defeat the Jews in a pitched battle in the city. The edict more plausibly suggests that, as in AD 38 and 66, the Romans sided with the Alexandrian Greeks against the Jews when violence broke out in the city. It was the Romans rather than the Greeks, as we would expect, who decisively restored order to the city, although the Greeks continued to make retaliatory attacks on the Jews. The edict looks like an authentic document. Indeed the Alexandrian Greeks in the Ac/a Pauli et An/oniniani refer to a memorandum ofLupus "in which [he ordered them to hand over] weapons and withdraw", which would aptly describe this edict."° If it the edict is indeed a copy of a contemporary document, then the semi-literary hand that the copy was made in suggests that the 'document' was being circulated as if it were a piece of literature. It is not therefore unlikely that sections of the original text have been rewritten and, to some extent, fictionalised. There are considerable links of subject matter of this edict with the Ac/a Pauli et Antoniniani (see below). While these links could be used to show the essential historicity of both the edict and this particular Ac/a Alexandrinorum story, they could equally be used to show that both have fictional elements. The Ac/a Pauli etAntoniniani are reported in three papyri. Two fragments from collections in Paris and London, which were originally part of the same papyrus roll, are now published as CPJ II 158a. The text was written in a hand of the early second

' °9 ForthedateseePucci 1989; 34. 110 CPJII l58aiv.3-5.

86 century on both sides of the papyrus. This combined text preserves the remains of eight columns of writing. The Parisian fragment preserves six columns, the London fragment two. The text on the recto (cols. i-iv) tells the story of the early stages of the trial, the text on the verso (v-viii) the latter stages. The Parisian and London fragments do not follow on directly from each other. There are therefore possible extensive lacunae after the cols. iii, iv, and v. 111 CPJII 158b, from the Fayum, was copied in the third century and preserves a different version of the section of the trial reported in CPJII 158a cols.

11-111. The trial scene of CPJ H 15 8a is set at some point after the edict reported in P.Mil. Vogi. 1147. In the ensuing period the emperor's special judge, whose arrival was imminent in P.Mil. Vogi. 1147, had arrived in Alexandria and allegedly punished sixty of the Alexandrian Greeks whose slaves were involved in retaliatory violence. CPJII 158a tells the story of an Alexandrian Greek embassy that travelled to the emperor to protest against the severity of these punishments, accompanied by an opposing Jewish embassy that apparently considered that the special judge had been too lenient. The emperor's name is never mentioned, and could theoretically be either Trajan or Hadrian. For Trajan to be the emperor concerned, then the embassies must have met him in the east, before the end of the Jewish revolt. Hadrian would therefore be a more plausible candidate, as the likely setting for this story is Rome. The emperor at one point mentions his 'Dacian campaigns', which suggests that the trial took place after Hadrian's campaign against the Dacian tribe the Roxolani in AD 119. The first four columns in CPJII 158a focus on the emperor questioning the Alexandrian Greek ambassadors, Paulos, Theon and Antoninus, and their Jewish counterparts concerning the events leading up to the initial Graeco-Jewish violence. Paulos and Theon apparently refer to the incident mentioned in P.MIL VogL 1147 involving the theatre and the triumphal parade: "Paulos gave evidence concerning the 'king' whom they paraded and how he proclaimed 'year one'(?), and Theon read the edict of Lupus in which he ordered them to bring to him the man from the stage and from the mime mocking the 'king'..." The incident was probably similar to the Alexandrian mockery of King Agrippa I in AD 38. Philo describes how the Alexandrians on that occasion staged a mock-parade of their own through Alexandria, with a madman Carabas playing the role of King

"I See note mApp. I.

87 Agrippa. In this case an actor apparently played the role of king. The Alexandrians scornifilly proclaimed 'year one' of this king. Given that this incident appears to have upset the Jews, the 'king' could be one of the messianic leader figures whom the Jews later rallied behind during the Jewish revolt. The Alexandrians appear to be trying to defend their mock parade, with Theon claiming that the prefect Lupus had already dealt with the situation, by arresting the actor who had played the role of the 'king'. The remains of the column mention something that happened during the emperor's Dacian campaign and 'the sixty men'. This would appear to be a reference to the punishment of sixty Alexandrians by the emperor's special judge (see below). Col. ii begins with Hadrian addressing the Jews. According to Musurillo's restoration of the text, he tells them: "Caesar to the Jews: 'I have learnt [from Lup]us where the [revolt] and war first began." The war apparently began during the apodemia, the official term for the prefect's absence from the city; he was presumably on one of his routine tours of the province. The Jews accuse the Alexandrians of seizing some Jews from prison and wounding them. The emperor's reply is that he has investigated their claims, and will not punish all the Alexandrians, but only those responsible. The rest of the column is badly damaged, but the gist of the last ten lines, preserving a speech of one of the Alexandrian ambassadors, can be tentatively restored on the basis of the better preserved third- century recension, CPJH 158b: "[Paulos(?)]: 'Emperor, the Alexandrians did not [...roughly 25 letters missing...] many were punished; sixty [Alexandrians and their] slaves. The Alexandrians [were exiled and their slaves(?)] beheaded."112 The punishment of the Alexandrians and their slaves is not entirely clear. The idea that the Alexandrians were exiled comes from a later passage in the same speech, where Paulos(?) states: "Even though it was expected that some men would have been [exiled(?)] from Alexandria, they were nonetheless not seized by us, as they say, but by them, and this occasioned a false accusation against us." 3 Now all the slaves who fled to their masters intending to secure complete safety were lught to justice by them and punished."

" 2 s citation is from CPJH 158b 1.5-9. The underlined sections are all that is preserved of this speech in CPJII 158a ccl. ii.23-7. 113 flj is the sense of the passage suggested by Musurillo 1954: 190.

88 Paulos(?) may even be answering the accusation of the Jews that the Alexandrians had seized Jews from prison, which would make the men to be exiled from Alexandria Jews. The actual text concerning the punishment of the Alexandrians and their slaves reads: "The Alexandrians [...roughly 27 letters missing...] were beheaded." It would also be extremely unusual for slaves to be executed by decapitation, as the restored text suggests. The standard punishment for slaves in the Roman period was crucifixion."4 Von Premerstein' s alternative restoration is therefore highly plausible: "The Alexandrians, [their slaves having been crucified,] were beheaded."5 The line immediately following this appears to mention lamentations and mourning ('the tears [shed(?)] for all men') which would support this interpretation. The lower half of this column is badly damaged and the sense lost. There are several references to slaves, and Hadrian states that his prefect had written an edict relating to the issue at dispute, presumably the extent of the slaves' involvement in the violence. After a lacuna of unknown length, the trial continues on the recto of the London fragment. The Alexandrian Greeks appear to defend their refusal to surrender their weapons, and are severely criticised for this by Hadrian: "Theon read [the memorandum] of Lupus in which [he ordered them to hand over their] weapons and withdraw.. .[Caesa]r: '[he had the authority(?)] to demand your [weapons]..." Von Premerstein's restored the following line as the emperor continuing to castigate the Alexandrians: "You had [a sufficient number of guardians] in the legions!"6 This restoration has been proved wrong by the re-reading of the word that von Premerstein read for 'legions'. Nevertheless, the mention of soldiers and praetonans in the following lines suggests that the gist of von Premerstein' s restoration is correct. After another lacuna, the story continues on the verso of the London fragment (col. v). The badly damaged column perhaps contains the citation of a document, possibly a letter (cf. the apparent date clause in col. v.11 - '[year x of Hadrian(?)]us Caesar'), and may be addressed to Hadrian's first prefect of Egypt '[Ram]mius'

" Gamsey 1970: 126-9. " von Premerstein 1922: 290. 116 Von Premerstein 1922: 268-9.

89 Martialis (3). This could conceivably be the letter written by Hadrian to Alexandria mentioned in Petrus Patricus' epitome of Dio (see p.84). Little sense can be made of the traces, but there may be a reference to the special judge that was sent to Alexandria."7 The story continues on the verso of the Paris fragment (col. vi-viii) after another lacuna. Col. vi reports a speech of Antoninus in which he accuses the prefect of not forwarding the letters of the Alexandrian Greeks from the emperor: "For when we were in such pressing circumstances and so many letters had been sent to you saying that he (the prefect) had ordered the impious Jews to transfer their residence to a place from which they could attack and ravage our well-named city. If not a line of this matter fell into your beneficent hands, then the reason for your august words is clear. It is obvious that this has been done against you to prevent you from having evidence of the woes that have befallen us." The accusation against the prefect for withholding letters is clear, but the complaint concerning his actions towards the Jews is not. The only reference we have to a prefect 'settling' the Jews in any single area of the city is Flaccus' herding the Jews into the Delta quarter in AD 38. The writer may be alleging that a similar incident has occurred, or Antoninus could be complaining about the 'delta' quarter, and requesting, particularly in the aftermath of the Jewish revolt, that Hadrian expel the Jews from the city. The column ends with Hadrian's verdict: "Caesar: 'Let Paulos go; but have Antoninus bound! In the remains of col. vii Antoninus is tortured. There is no reason to believe that he was tortured for information, as Musurillo thought. It was standard Roman practice to torture the condemned prior to execution."8 Antoninus suffered the brutal punishment known as the 'wooden horse' (equus), but other Alexandrians also appear to have suffered: "They (the soldiers?) leapt towards us... when Antoninus was bound, the emperor's [magistrates] ordered them (the soldiers?) to punish the ca[ptives] and to [suspend] Antoninus from the wooden beam and to burn his bones [with fire] and torture [him]..." The remains of the rest of the column mention a 'decree against the Jews' and the sixty Alexandrians, but the context is unclear. Little is preserved of the story in col. viii.

Col. v.9: '[uejp4Odç uirb'; ci. P.MIL yogi. 1147 col. iii 16: "uirà Katuapbç...Trq.t40vTa'. Musurillo 1954: 193; ci. the punishment of Jesus pnorto his execution.

90 TheActaPauli etAntonini have some of the classical ingredients of the Acta Alexandrinorum proper. The story of rival Greek and Jewish delegations confronting the emperor recurs many times in the literature (e.g. CPJ 11156, 157). The emperor would appear to be siding with the Jews against the Greeks in the story, and sentences at least one Alexandrian Greek, Antoninus, to death. The participants all speak in the form of minutes, although the writer also employs indirect speech and narrative. The Alexandrian Greeks are very anti-Jewish ('impious Jews') and very patriotic ('our well named city'). The text would appear to report the torture of Antoninus in very dramatic terms. But the text has been seen as different from other ActaAlexand.rinorum. There are no memorable and abusive exchanges between the emperor and the Alexandrians. The text instead focuses entirely on the case at hand and the issues of the day, with documents such as the edicts of Lupus being read out at intervals in support of the case. Hadrian is not explicitly portrayed as a tyrant, in the extant sections at least. He even tells the Jews that he will only punish those Alexandrians who are guilty. Although the writer has adopted a more historical approach than some of the other writers of the Ada Alexandrinorum proper, and concentrated on some of the issues of the day, CPJII 158a is clearly not a verbatim, balanced 'documentary' record of what was said at the presumably historical hearing. The constant use of the first person plural, and observations such as 'the emperor spoke without deliberation', are clearly intended to give the impression that the account originated from a writer who was personally present at the hearing, and based his account on his own personal recollections. While this is not impossible, it is more likely that the writer takes on the role of narrator, similar to the ones found in the Greek novels. The Greek ambassadors are named individually, for example, while the Jewish ambassadors are simply called 'the Jews'. The speeches of the Jewish ambassadors are considerably shorter than those of the Greeks. There are striking parallels with the traditions concerning the Graeco-Jewish violence of AD 38: the parading and mocking of a Jewish 'king', the settling of Jews in a section of the city, as Flaccus had done in 38, the mention of a decree against the Jews, as Flaccus had issued. Unless we assume that history did indeed repeat itself, the writer must have deliberately inserted these elements into his account. Despite its documentary veneer, CPJ 111 58a is therefore to a large extent fictional. Only a single column of the third-century recension of the Acta Pauli ci Antonini, CPJII 158b, is preserved. The text corresponds roughly with cols. u-ui of CPJII 158a. Apart from heavily abbreviating most of the direct speech, the writer has

91 omitted the speeches of Hadrian in CPJII 158a ii.1-7 and the Jews in ii.13-21. He therefore omits Hadrian telling the Jews that he knows exactly where the revolt and war began, his naming of the Greek Anthimos as an initiator of violence, and the Jewish side of the argument. The result is that the text is less concerned with the historical issues of the day, and, of course, that the case against the Alexandrians is systematically removed. Consequently readers would be more sympathetic towards the fate of the Alexandrians and their slaves, and consider the emperor more unreasonable in punishing the Alexandrians. Hadrian also appears to be the emperor in P. Oxy. XVIII 2177, which tells the story of an Alexandrian/Athenian embassy petitioning an emperor to "send back to us these noble men." The emperor is simply called 'Caesar' throughout the story, but the recitation of a letter of Trajan by the Alexandrian/Athenian embassy during the course of the hearing suggests that the emperor is Hadrian. The dramatic setting is unclear, and there are no internal indications whether the exiled nobles were Alexandrian or Athenian, or even what they have done. The extant section shows the emperor questioning the involvement of Athenians in Alexandrian business. A letter of Trajan is cited, apparently in support of the Alexandrian/Athenian case, and the emperor discusses the matter with his council. While the outcome remains unclear the mention of an execution ([Oft]vaTo[c]) suggests that the story ended in the same way as other Ada Alexandrinorum proper, with at least some of the ambassadors facing martyrdom. The content of the letter of Trajan is not entirely clear. Trajan refers to the ambassadors who acted on behalf of their own city with the most learned Paulos. The letter mentions 'recklessness', 'insolence', a rather reluctant sign of imperial goodwill to the city (Alexandria or Athens) and the description of the ambassadors as 'philologoi'. Given the tone of the letter, the term may not be complimentary: "Academics!" would perhaps be an accurate translation of the term. It is not clear why such a hostile letter was read out apparently in support of the Alexandrian/Athenian cause. The purpose may have been to assuage Hadrian's obvious irritation at foreigners appearing on the embassy, although Trajan (and indeed Hadrian) had previously received Alexandrian embassies on which Paulos of Tyre had served (CPJH 157, 158). The text is discussed in more detail on p.200-202. Several other documentary and sub-literary texts from Roman Egypt feature Hadrian. Trajan died on the 8th August 117. The next day Hadrian's adoption was

92 11th, announced, and on the news of his death was circulated around the empire." 9 On 25th August, the prefect of Egypt Martialis officially informed the stralegoi in the province of the accession, and declared festivals.' 20 One such celebration was a play that took place in the Apollonopolite-Heptacomii nome celebrating Trajan's deification and Hadrian's accession. The following extracts come from a partially preserved scene from this play: "Apollo: 'Having just mounted aloft with Trajan in my chariot of white horses, I come to you, people.. . to proclaim the new ruler Hadrian, whom all things serve on account of his virtue and the genius of his divine father.' The people: 'Let us make merry, let us kindle our hearts in sacrifice, let us surrender our souls to laughter..."2' Hadrian visited Egypt and Alexandria in AD 130 as part of his tour of the provinces. The visit is mentioned in the mainstream literary sources of the Principate and in contemporary documents. From these sources it would appear that Hadrian first spent several months in Alexandria before touring the province.' 22 The tour of the chora is most famous for the death of Hadrian's male companion, Antinoos, who fell (or was pushed!) into the Nile on the 24th October AD 130, which led to the founding of the city of Antinoopolis six days later.' 23 The visit was a peaceful one, and no violence is attested in Alexandria during the visit. The Historia Augusta states that Hadrian took a particular interest in the Alexandrian Museum: "At the Museum in Alexandria he posed numerous questions to the professors and, after posing them, supplied the answers himself."24 The imperial visit inspired numerous literary and sub-literary works. The introductory narrative of a magical papyri tells the story of Hadrian witnessing a 'spell of attraction' at Heliopolis: "Pachrates the prophet of Heliopolis revealed it [the spell] to the emperor Hadrian, revealing the power of his own divine magic. For it attracted in one hour, made someone sick in two, destroyed in seven, and sent the emperor himself dreams as he thoroughly tested the whole truth of the magic within his power. And

119 Dio 69.1-4; SHA Hadr. 4.4-10. ' 20 P.Oxy. LV 3781. 121 P.Giss.Lit. 4.4. 122 On the visit and tour see: Birley 1977: 235-58; Van Gronigen 1957: 253-6; Sijpesteijn 1969: 109-118; 1991: 89-90; Lewis 1993: 29. Bernand A. andE. 1960: no's. 28-31, and also perhaps 11-2, 32 and 60 were written onto the 'singing statue of Memnon' by members of Hadrian's entourage. ' 23 Dio 69.11.2-4; SHA Hadr. 14.5-7; Aur.Vict Caes. 14.5-7. Euseb. Chron. Hadrian year 13 (p.200). 124 SHAHadr. 20.2.

93 marvelling at the prophet, the emperor ordered that he should receive a double fee."25 A poet named Pancrates, possibly identical with the prophet Pachrates,' 26 presented Hadrian with a poem about a hunt of Hadrian with his male companion Antinous, and asked that a flower should be named Antinoeus after the emperor's favourite. Athenaeus gives an account of this hunt, and cites a section of the poem. Hadrian was delighted by this and granted Pancrates 'the favour of free meals in the Museum'.127 Further fragments have been found on a papyrus of the early second century from Oxyrhynchus.'28 A prose work on papyrus discovered at Tebtunis written in the early second century was probably also offered to Hadrian in this period, as it elaborates on the Antinoan lotus, and parallels it with other flowers named after beautiful youths, like Narcissus and Hyacinthus.' 29 Hadrian's freedman Mesomedes and an orator named Numenius offered Hadrian a hymn and a consolatio to Antinous.'3° The Alexandrian poet Dionysios produced a work entitled 'Guide to the inhabited world' in 1,200 hexameters. He gained Hadrian's approval by referring to the river Rhebas, a river in Antinous' homeland as 'the fairest that sweeps the earth' 131 An Alexandrian writer named Aelius Sarapion is said to have written a panegyric to Hadrian and a work On the Alexandrian boule, which may have been delivered to Hadrian at this time.' 32 This shows that the issue was clearly still important and still in the minds of the Alexandrian populace. P.Fay. 19, from Bachkias in the Fayum, purports to be a deathbed letter of Hadrian to his heir, Antoninus Pius. Hadrian writes that he is being released from life, and is going to give Antoninus an account of his life. Only the preliminary stages of the account survive, showing Hadrian comparing his own age with the ages reached by his natural parents. The letter has a certain similarity with a poem allegedly written by Hadrian on his deathbed, reported in the Historia Augusta, and has been connected to a letter reported by Dio, in which Hadrian expressed his despair at desiring to die, yet being unable to.' 33 It has been suggested that P.Fay. 19 is an extract of Hadrian's

' 25 Pap Graec.Mag. N 2441-2621. 'Bir1ey 1997: 244. 127 Athenaeus 15.677 d-f. 'P.Oxy. VIII 1085. ' 29 PMiI yogi. I 20. This 18 x 18 cm fragment is from second-centuiy AD Tebturns. '3° Sudas.v. Mesomedes; Lebek 1973: 101-37. 131 Birley 1997 252-3 and n.38. Dionysios' poem is accessible in Brodersen 1994. 132 Suda s.v. Aelius Sarapion. 133 SHAHadr.25.9; Dio 69.17.2-3.

94 autobiography,' 34 although it does seem likely that Hadrian writing or speaking to Antoninus on his deathbed would have been a popular topic for declamation. The fragment attests what the Acta clearly show, that people in Egypt took a strong interest in the happenings in the imperial court. Moving on to the Antonines, P.Oxy. XLVII 3361, a small fragment (13 x 13 cm) from Oxyrhynchus, written in a hand of the mid second century may be apiece of the Ada Alexandñnorum literature. The edpr. described the text as an imperial decree (constituio) of Antoninus Pius. However, an imperial rescript or decree would simply list the emperor's titulature then proceed to the matter at hand. A rescript or decree would not go into the detail that this text does. The text gives a setting, a date and a list of persons present who were consulted by the emperor, before proceeding to the matter at hand. It therefore looks rather like the introduction to court proceedings in Rome. The dating is Roman style dating, rather than the Greek style dating formulae that is usually found in theActaAlexandrinorum.'35 After a line that could be restored as a consul dating, the text reads: "...in Rome, the kalends of April..." The remainder of the text gives Antoninus' thu titulature and names the members of the imperial consilium who were present and consulted by the emperor in this matter: "[The emperor] Caesar T[itus Aelius Hadrianus] Antoninus Augustus Pius, son of the divine Hadrianus, grandson of the divine Trajanus [Parthicus], descendent of the divine Nerva.. . Marcus Aulerius (=Aurelius) [Verus Caesar] and Lucius [A]urelius Comodus (=Commodus) [his]' 36 sons... and each order of the [illustrious] men. . . having been taken into consultation..." The text breaks off after referring to the case or judgement against a certain Claudius. It is therefore unclear if the text preserves the opening section of anActaAlexandrinorum story, or is a record of unrelated court proceedings in Rome. Despite the garbling of the names of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus the text would appear to be documentary. The Latin dating formulae and the clear Latinisms used in the text certainly suggest that the text was copied from a direct translation of a Latin and possibly official source.' 37 If the text does indeed belong to the Acta Alexandrinorum, the case may be related to a rebellion attested in Egypt under Antoninus Pius. A prefect L. Munatius Felix had been

' E.g. Bollansée 1994: 279-302. ' 35 E.g. CPJII l56acol.i.20-ii.1 ed.pr. restoring the text as an imperial decree, supplements 'my sons' here. 137 Thomas 1972: 103-12; see also p.112-126.

95 killed in the rebellion, immediately prior to the issuing of an edict by the new prefect Sempronius Liberalis in 154.138 However, details of the rebellion, and its disruption to the grain supply in Rome, are unclear, and only given in later sources.139 Three texts relate to the two historic revolts that occurred in Egypt during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the revolt of the Boukoloi and the usurpation of Avidius Cassius. P.Sianfordinv. G93bv is a small (9.5 x 7 cm) fragment from the Fayum, written on the verso of a list of names in a hand of the mid second century AD.' 4° It is a sub-literary text, apparently an cx eventu prophecy relating to the revolt of the Boukoloi.'4' The text 'predicts' that "there will be a revolt in Egypt" (3), and that there will be an execution or a death (5). It also mentions a king (i.e. the emperor) (6), a war or a city (8 - pole[-]), and the word "Boukol[-]", which can only refer to the Boukoloi. What is remarkable about this 'prophecy' is that it is given a very exact date: "Year fourteen of [Marcus Aurelius Antonin]us Augustus",' 42 when the moon is in Leo (1-2). The revolt of the Boukoloi (AD 172/3) did indeed occur near the fourteenth year of Marcus Aurelius (AD 173/4). The king referred to in the text could perhaps be the usurper Avidius Cassius, who revolted against Marcus in the following year, AD 175. This ex eventu prophecy would therefore appear to be literary invention based loosely upon contemporary historical events. 143 Two papyri relate to Avidius Cassius' attempted usurpation, which lasted for just over three months in AD 175.' P.Amst. I 27 is an edict of the prefect Calvisius Statianus proclaiming Cassius' accession:

"[Gaius Calvisius Sta]tianus prefect of Egypt says: [Every person] shall celebrate on the occasion of the accession to the throne of [our] Lord [the eternal] Emperor Caesar Gaius Avidius [Cassius, of] all [men] the most conspicuous [benefactor] and all the gods [will] forever keep him unharmed [and unconquered] for us for the..." Cassius was presumably a 'conspicuous' benefactor due to the role he had played as governor of Syria in suppressing the revolt of the Boukoloi.

BGUll 372 (see rev. edn. in Strassi 1988). ' 39 Mb11s CSFJB 31: p.280 gives a rather confused account of the rebellion. SHA, AnL Pius 8.11 and Aur.Vict.] Epit. de Caes. 15.9 refer to the grain shortage in Rome. f4°Published (with plate) in Shelton 1976: 209-213. On the revolt see Dio 71.4; Schwartz 1973: 191-8. 142 The restoration '[the month of Nejos Sebastos year fourteen' (28th October26th November) is unlikely as the year normally precedes the month in dating formulae. 143 See also p.142 on this text ' On Cassius' revolt see Dio 72.17, 22.1-30.4; SHAMarc. 24.5-25.2;AvidCass. passim; Birley 1987: 184-93. On Marcus' subsequent visit to Alexandria, see SHA, Marc. 26.1-3.

96 SB X 10295 is a copy of a letter written by the newly acclaimed Cassius to the Alexandrians: • . Alexandrians.. . bearing [in] your hearts that goodwill toward me, you were steadfast in the [same] attitude. With good fortune, I am coming to you, having been elected by the very noble soldiers, with the intention of presenting myself to the position auspiciously among you. And starting with you especially, by entering into the power of doing good, [I shall offer to my pa]ternal city as much as it is right to offer her." The author is proved to be Cassius rather than another usurper by the reference to Alexandria as his 'paternal city'. 145 Cassius was born there in AD 130, during the prefecture of his father Heliodoros. There is nothing to suggest that the two texts are anything other than copies of contemporary documents. The sentiments expressed in Cassius' letter are very similar to those expressed a century earlier in the copy of Vespasian' s speech to the Alexandrians (see p.69-70). Ch.L.A. IV 268, a poorly preserved papyrus written in a hand of the late second century in Latin on the verso of accounts written in Greek, would appear to concern an Alexandrian embassy to Commodus. From Commodus' titulature, the text is set during the first eleven years of his reign (AD 180-91). Two words in fr. U reveal the nature of the text: 'b[-]llum' (6) and '[-]egation' (10). Whilst 'b[e]llum' ('war') is a possible restoration, it seems most likely that a petition ([li]b[e]llum) was being delivered to the emperor by an embassy ([l]egation). Fr. II 1.5: 'tibi gratias agamus' certainly looks like the diplomatic greeting of an embassy. A hint at the business of the embassy is perhaps revealed in the first fragment: 'bu[-]'. There are few Latin words beginning with 'bu[- 1'. The suggested possibilities are that the text refers to the revolt of the Boukoloi, or to the remote Dacian tribe of the Bun, who Dio states sent envoys to Commodus.' However, it seems unlikely that the affairs of this tribe would be of any more than marginal interest to the people in Egypt. The most likely restoration is therefore: 'bu[Ie]' the Latinised spelling of the word boule. The fragment may therefore concern an Alexandrian embassy meeting Commodus on the matter of an Alexandrian boule. The fact that the fragment is in Latin suggests an official Roman documentary source. The first line: 'from the acta senatus' (ex act/s in sen[atju) would appear to confirm this.'47

'45 Bowman 1970: 20-6. 'Talbert 1988: 142-4. Dio72.3.1-2. See also p.117-8 on this text.

97 CPJ H 159 is the best preserved of the extant Ada Alexandrinorum proper, and contains almost the whole of six consecutive columns. The text tells the story of the trial of Appianos before an emperor. The emperor is never named, but is said to be the son of an 'Antoninus'. This Antoninus was a 'philosopher', 'not avaricious' and 'good', a description that would make Commodus, the son of Marcus Aurelius, most likely to be the emperor of the text. There is no internal evidence for when the trial allegedly took place. There is not enough evidence to connect the Ada Appiani with any historical event from Commodus' reign, such as the corn 'shortage' of AD 190 engineered by the praefectus urbi, Papirius Dionysius, to overthrow the praetorian prefect, Cleander, or Commodus' alleged reorganisation of the Alexandrian fleet to ensure a regular grain supply to Rome.'48 The extant Acta Appiani begin at an already advanced stage in the trial. The dialogue reveals that the Alexandrian gymnasiarch and ambassador Appianos is in trouble for spreading rumours accusing Commodus of hoarding grain in order to sell it at an enormous profit. Commodus summons the executioner and Appianos is led off to execution. On his way to execution Appianos passes a dead body and a certain Heliodoros. The exact identity of this man is not clear, but he is clearly a man of influence whom Appianos thinks could intervene on his behalf: "He saw Heliodoros and said: 'Have you nothing to say Heliodoros, at my being led away to execution?' Heliodoros said: 'To whom can we speak, if we have no one who will listen? On, my son, go to your death! Yours shall be the glory of dying for your dearest fatherland! Do not be distressed... Commodus suddenly recalls Appianos, without explanation. There follows another dialogue between Commodus and Appianos, with Appianos maintaining an insolent tone: "Appianos: 'You father, the divine Antoninus, was fit to be emperor. Look, you, firstly he was a philosopher, secondly he was not avaricious, thirdly, he was good. But you have precisely the opposite qualities: you are tyrannical, dishonest and crude!" Commodus orders Appianos to be led away again, although he grants Appianos the right to die in his robes of office. Appianos dons his gymnasiarchal robes and is led through the streets of Rome crying:

'On Papirius Dionysius and Cleander see Dio 72.12-3; Herodian 1.12-3, SHA, Comm. 6.11-7.1; Suda s.v. eloidorese; Whittaker 1964: 348-69. On the fleet, see SHA, Comm. 17.7-8.

98 "Come, Romans, and see the spectacle of a lifetime: an Alexandrian gymnasiarch and ambassador led away to execution!" An evocatus and a consul report to Commodus that Appianos has succeeded in winning the support of the Roman populace, and that they are murmuring in complaint against his execution. Commodus orders Appianos to be lught before him again. Appianos enters the courtroom as insolently as he left: "Who has recalled me when I was about to bow down before my death for a second time, and before all those who have died before me, Theon and Isidoros and Lampon? Was it the senate, or you, brigand-leader (i.e. tyrant)! In the following exchange Appianos contrasts his own high birth and nobility with the emperor's lack of nobility. It is not clear if Appianos is actually questioning Commodus' legitimacy as Marcus' son, or if he is simply stating that as a Roman, Commodus is culturally inferior to himself as an Alexandrian Greek.' 49 The text breaks off with Appianos attempting to prove his point by referring to something that happened in the time of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. It is difficult to imagine that an historical trial before an emperor would ever take the form and tone that the Ada Appiani does. Apart from a single reference to illegal profiteering by the emperor, there is no attempt to construct a case in defence of the Alexandrian, and the author concentrates almost entirely on the exchanges of abuse between Appianos and Commodus. If there ever was an historical, documentary basis to this story, it has been lost through later rewriting. The parallels between this story and otherAclaAlexandrinorum are striking and are discussed below (p. 107). BGUII 646 contains a copy of a prefect's letter to Alexandria announcing Pertinax' s accession, which was subsequently sent to the strategoi in the Arsinoite nome. The text is clearly a document and similar in tone to other accession edicts.

iii. The Severans. The Severan period provides the dramatic setting for several Acta Alexandrinorum and Acta related literature. The period clearly also inspired numerous local Alexandrian literary traditions, which I will discuss, along with the history of this period, in chapter IV (p.143-155). A series of documentary papyri, the Severan apokrimata report several legal decisions made by Severus and Caracalla during their

'49 Merkelbach 1994: 471-2 suggests Commodus' legitimacy as Marcus' son is being questioned, citing SHA Marc. 19.7 and 29.1-2 as examples of Conunodus' mother's fickleness.

99 visit to Egypt (AD 199-200). Several of the apokrimata and edicts issued by Caracalla during his infamous visit to Alexandria in AD 215 are extant. The Ada Heracliti are preserved in a papyrus from Hermopolis Magna and report the apparently historical trial of the prefect Heraclitus. The Severan apokrimata report legal judgements delivered by Severus and Caracalla while in Alexandria and Egypt. They are addressed to private individuals and are rather laconic. There is no salutation, no preamble, and only the bare-bone of the ruling is given.' 50 Other imperial responsa, some of which were issued on other occasions and were addressed to communities, are much filler.' 5 ' The apo/crimata often contain more than one decision. P.Col. VI 123, for example, contains thirteen subscripts on a variety of subjects. The fact that the same subscript is often preserved in different papyri shows that the decisions circulated widely around Egypt.' 52 The decisions continued to be used for a considerable period. P.Flor. ifi 382 contains a petition of AD 222/3, which cites some Severan apokrimata among the array of precedents for immunity from liturgical duties.'53 The imperial decisions were posted publicly in the stoa of the gymnasium in

Alexandria.' 54 Copies could then be made and circulated around the c/ioTa. However, it is not very clear who was collecting and reading these decisions. It would have been in the interests of lawyers and petitioners to make copies of the decisions. P.Flor. III 382 shows that this did happen. However, the apokrimata are often so laconic that they would have no practical value whatsoever without a copy of the petition that it answered. The following response, for example, could have served no practical purpose at all: "To Aurelius Artemidoros, Aurelius Anubion and the others: Obey the findings." On the other hand, some imperial decisions appear to go into far too much detail. P.Oxy. XLII 3019 preserves excerpts from the minutes of a court hearing between Severus and a communal embassy from the Egyptians: "Caesar took his seat in the court-house with his friends and those who had been summoned to the council and ordered that the

°E.g. P.Oxy. VII 1020; BGUI 267; P.Stras. I 22; BGUH 473; P.Col. VI 123; P.Amhers(. 1163; P.Oxy. XII 1405; P.Oxy. XLIII 3105; P.Flor. ifi 382. 151 P.Aberd. 15; P.Oxy. XLII 3018, 3019; SB N 7366; P.Mich. IX 529; P.Oxy. LX 4068. ' 52 Eg the same decisions are preserved inP.Amherst 1163 1.1-6 and P.Col. VI 123 1.8-10. 153 On the apokrimata see Westennann and Schiller 1954; Lewis 1978: 261-78; Williams 1974: 86-103. 154 P.Col. VI 123 1.11-2.

100 envoys of the Egyptians, who were putting forward their common requests should be called in." The petition of the Egyptians is described in indirect speech. The decision of the emperor merely occupies the last three lines of the column. Another decision records in direct speech the advice given to Caracalla on the matter at hand by a certain Lollianus, and his decision. This particular response is preserved in two papyri, one from the Michigan collection and one from the Berlin collection. The numerous textu a! differences between the two texts show that the copiers of these decisions were not particularly concerned with textual accuracy (see p.1 19). From the number of imperial decisions that have survived, it is unlikely that they were read by lawyers alone. Some may have been copied by people in the chora who were interested in what Severus and Caracalla were doing and saying during their visit to Egypt. These documentary texts, therefore, may have been circulated around Egypt as a form of literature. The Ada Heracliti tell the story of the presumably historical trial of the prefect Septimius Heraclitus, which took place in AD 215/6.' The extant copy of the text comes from Hermopolis Magna, and, as it is written on the recto (the verso is blank) in a cursive hand of the early third century, is almost contemporary with the trial. There are several corrections inserted in the margin in a second hand, including what would apparently be the title of the work: 'C(aesar) against [Hera]clitus' (K Trpbç ['Hpd]KXc!.T).' 56 The two extant columns are badly damaged and fragmentary, making it difficult to see what is being said. The presumable setting of the trial is Alexandria. As with the ActaMaximi, P.Med mv. 68.53 (the Acta Postumi(?)), and P.Wy. XXXIV 269O,' it is likely that Alexandrians were involved in the prosecution of the prefect. The content of the trial scene is not entirely clear, but would appear to concentrate on Heraclitus' handling of the recent rioting in Alexandria.' 5 The column begins with a prosecutor(?) reading out a memo against Heraclitus(?), apparently showing "how he burnt the man abus[ing and doing violence against] beloved Serapis". There are references to a centurion (1.5), twelve statues destroyed in a workshop (1.6), and great(?) statues that were at Canopus (1.7-8). These were presumably statues of

155 See p. 143-55 on the historical background of the irial. 'Musuril10 1954: 79 suggests that this is the likely reading. 157 On this text, see App. IV. 158 On which, see p.142-55.

101 Caracalla, possibly in the guise of Alexander the Great, destroyed in the rioting.' 59 The exchange is highly fragmentary, but Caracalla appears to be highly critical of Heraclitus' suppression of the rioting: "[Antoninus Augustus said:] 'So you ordered [....] to be [...... Heracli[t.us said: 'I did not order ...] to be [...?...], but [...... ]' [Antoninus Augus]tus said: 'You have killed [...... ]' [Heracleitos saud: 'I did not [...... 1" There are further mentions of workers, tradesmen, temple robberies, and new figures are introduced, Herarchos, Italicus and an unnamed centurion. An exchange from col. i.30- ii. 1 enigmatically mentions 'the thirty [men(?)]': "[Heraclitus said:] 'The centurions ought to have [...?...]. [A]ntoninus Augustu[s said:] 'The centurions [ought to have(?)] le d to you a[ll the me]n, not just the thirty [men(?)]" The subject of col. ii 1-10 would appear to be the part that slaves have played in the violence. The content of the rest of the column is not clear. There are several references to embassies, and a letter(?) that has been written (1.15-6), but the context of the peculiar phrases "to have sent embassies and revolted" (1.14) and "the forbidden embassy" (1.31) is wholly unclear. Herarchos refers to a decapitation in col. ii. 11, but it is not clear if it is Heraclitus' execution, or his own, that he is referring to. The extant sections of the Acta Heracliti adhere rigidly to the form of trial minutes. This has led commentators, including Musurillo, to argue that the text is a document, a verbatim record of the historical trial devoid of any literary colouring, and therefore not part of the Ada Alexand,-inorum.'6° However, the Acta Heracliti have numerous thematic links with other Ada Alexandrinorum. The mention of Serapis may suggest the same links with the Serapis aretological literature that we find in other Acta Alexandrinorum. Tradesmen (linen weavers) appear as agitators in a first-century Acta Alexandrinorum story and slaves acting on behalf of their masters were heavily implicated in the violence that lay behind the Acta Pauli et Antonini of AD 115.161 As noted previously, the theme of Alexandrians prosecuting a prefect recurs many times in the literature. Even in the extant fragment, there are bold exchanges between the participants, some of which are highly reminiscentspeeches in other Ada

' 59 Herodian 4.8.1-3; Dio 77.7.1. Herodian describes how the faces of these statues were split in hail so that half showed Alexander, half Caracalla ' 60 Musurillo 1954: 229-32. 161 P.Oxy. XXII 2339; P.Mil.Vogl. 1147; CPJH 158 a andb.

102 Alexandrinorum. We could compare, for example, the speech of Herarchos with a speech of Paulos in CPJH 158a: "Herarchos said: 'Before [my/his(?)] decapitation, listen so that you may learn "Paulos: 'So listen to me Caesar, as to one who may not live another day! The Acta Pauli et Antonini mentions 'the sixty men', sixty Alexandrians who were punished; this story appears to mention 'the thirty [men(?)J'. As I will argue in chapter IV (p.143-55), contemporary Alexandrian traditions compared Caracalla to the infamous Ptolemy VIII Eurgetes, and these traditions played an enormous role in the formulation of the stories about Caracalla's 'massacre' in Alexandria. In the Ada Heracliti there are already hints of this comparison, namely in the pulling down of statues of the king/emperor and the involvement in violence of trade associations against which measures were to be taken. It is very likely that the Ada Heracliti were influenced by these Alexandrian traditions. Despite their documentary form, therefore, the Ada Heracliti are, to a probably large degree, fictitious. P.Bon. 15 is a thin strip from the middle of a column of writing broken off on all sides written in a hand of the third century. The text is headed by Caracalla's titulature. On the basis of this, it is generally accepted to be a copy of an imperial edict, although the first editor did not rule out the possibility that the text may record a trial scene. The only firm evidence for the date is the terminus post quem provided by the epithet 'Arabicus', which Caracalla assumed in AD 213/4. The subject of the edict would appear to be Caracalla's 'massacre', suggesting a date of AD 215/6. Caracalla mentions that he is angry (1.4), and also mentions statues (1.4) and something being burnt (1.10). He may also perhaps refer to "all floreigners]"(l.6).' 62 The heading of the text with Caracalla's fill titulature gives it the appearance of a document.' 63 However, Caracalla's titulature is expressed in a rather odd manner. All that can be seen of the titulature on the papyrus is:

"[Anto]ninus Pius, Ara[bicus] I Lucius Septimius S[everus]." Between the two lines is an interlinear correction reading 'Adiabenicus Maximus'.' We possess hundreds of documents on papyri and inscriptions bearing Caracalla's titulature. However, it is difficult to see how Caracalla's normal titulature of 'Parthicus

162 Perhaps 'irdvrwv [vvJ'. See p.142-55 on the involvement of the xenoi in these events. 163 See note in App. I on the restored titulature. 164 Shelton 1980: 179.

103 Maximus, Britannicus Maximus, Germanicus Maximus' could have been turned into the form we find here. This text would also be the first example of Caracalla being called 'Adiabenicus Maximus' during his lifetime. Caracalla was actually only called 'Adiabenicus Maximus' posthumously. Elagabalus, for example, called 'his father' Caracalla this in his own titulature.' 65 P.Bon. 15 is therefore not a verbatim copy of an edict issued by Caracalla in AD 215, and was presumably written after Caracalla' s death. The dubious titulature casts doubt on the authenticity of the contents of the text. P.Bon. 15 is therefore to some extent fictitious, despite its attempt to look like a contemporary document. Another example of an 'improved' edict may be the third edict of Caracalla preserved in P.Giss.Lit. 6.3. This edict preserves extracts from an order to expel the Egyptians from Alexandria, with a long list of exceptions. In the final section of the edict, following an omission of some of the edict, marked out by the phrase 'after other matters', comes a crushing condemnation of Egyptian culture: "The true Egyptians can easily be recognised among the linen weavers by their accent, or through their [obviously] alien appearance and dress. Moreover the way that they live, with their far from civilised manners, reveals them to be Egyptian peasants." I think that this section of the edict is likely to be an interpolation. A slightly different version of the second decree on the papyrus, P.Giss.Lit. 6.2 the so-called 'Amnesty' decree, is preserved at Oxyrhynchus showing that the official text was altered during copying. 166 It is not plausible that Caracalla would issue such a sweeping condemnation on Egyptian culture, particularly when, earlier in the edict, he notes that many Egyptians perform excellent services for the city. The condemnatory view of Egyptian culture, which is very close to the view of the Egyptians expounded in the Acta Alexandrinorum, may well be an interpolation, based upon what Caracalla allegedly said earlier on in the edict. The similarity in the language of the beginning and end of the edict supports this idea: "All Egyptians who are in Alexandria and particularly the peasants who have fled from elsewhere and can be easily recognised (diapç dpLaKEaOaL &n'airrai) are by all means to be expelled." "The true Egyptians can easily be recognised (TTLy€LVthCYKEGOa1 &vavrai d4.tapóic)."

165 E.g. CIL VIII 10267; Shelton 1980: 181. XXXVI 2755.

104 None of the Ada Alexandrinorum proper are set later than the Acta Heracliti in dramatic date. However, 'copies' of documents such as imperial letters and accession edicts continued to be made and were circulated throughout the third century. P.Bub. I 4 is a composite roll made up from mainly administrative documents belonging to the sirategos of the Bubastite nome in the fourth year of Elagabalus (AD 220-1), Aurelius Heracleides. Col. xxx is a copy of a letter of the prefect announcing the publication of an imperial letter. This letter itself is 'copied' in Latin in col. xxix. The letter is very fragmentary and the contents seem bizarre. It would appear to be addressed to the Roman senate. There is mention of a marriage (1.2), a woman who wants to give a son to the emperor (1.4), the praetorian guard (1.7), and the emperor's bedroom (1.8). The text could refer to the adoption of Alexander Severus in AD 221, which would make the woman mentioned Severus' mother, Mamaea, but is more likely to refer to Elagabalus' infamous marriage to a vestal virgin, Julia Aquilia Severa.' 67 This marriage was met with great disapproval by the people of Rome, and particularly by the praetorians, who forced Elagabalus to divorce his wife. The text, as restored by Rea, could refer to this enforced divorce: "For she, who wished [to give] to you a son [of mine] as a fitting (or future) emperor and to win favour for herself through her honourable character, and through [whom], as it behoves me to pass over the rest in silence, my most valiant and loyal [soldiçrs, including the] praetorians. . . [have found(?)] me [able to refuse nothing they ask(?)], shall not remain in my bed-chamber". The strategos' interest in the letter may have been purely practical. Elagabalus may, for example, have intended to levy wedding 'gifts' from his subjects for his subsequent remarriage to Annia Faustina almost immediately after the divorce.' 68 The edict of the prefect announcing publication of the letter and the fact that the letter is written in Latin would suggest that it is a verbatim copy of an imperial letter. However, it is difficult to imagine that any emperor would have written a letter that showed him so clearly at the mercy of his soldiers, let alone allow such a letter to be published. It is very tempting therefore to suppose that the content of the original letter has been significantly edited, and kept for the strategos' entertainment. Stories of Elagabalus' illicit marriage and sexual deviance were certainly popular in Egypt. Two astrological texts use the unflattering formulae year x 'of the impious little Antoninus' and 'of

167 Rea 1993: 129-30. 168 Rea 1993: 132.

105 Antoninus 6 Kópu4oc' (perhaps translating as 'the catamite' or 'virgin raper') to refer to Elagabalus' reign.'69 A list of kings and emperors simply calls Elagabalus 'the other' ('homosexual').'7° The epithet 'impious little' is the exact reverse of 'Pius Maximus'. The Alexandrians are frequently attested to have mocked their rulers by reversing their epithets, and Elagabalus' unfortunate title may well have originated from Alexandrian literary traditions.'7'

P.Mich. mv. 3627 mentions a projected visit of Alexander Severus to Alexandria and Aia.172 It is not clear if the visit ever actually took place. If the visit did occur, it would have taken place in AD 231-3, when a dux, M.Aurelius Januari us was in Egypt, possibly to arrange the imperial visit as well as make preparations for the Persian campaign.'73 An historical visit to Alexandria may well be the source of the tradition reported by the Historia Augusta that Alexander was mocked in Alexandria for his Syrian lineage and priesthood of the god Elagabalus: "The people of Antioch and of Egypt and Alexandria had annoyed him with jibes, as is their custom, calling him a Syrian synagogue chief and a high priest."74 Several imperial letters and accessions edicts have been preserved. An edict of the prefect announces the accession of Maximinus Thrax.' 7 The covering letter of an accession edict for Gordian I and II has survjved.'76 A badly damaged letter of Gordian to the Alexandrians also survives.' 77 Little remains of the actual letter itself, but there is the mention of a new tax being levied, perhaps on the cancellation of contracts. P.Oxy. XII 1407 contains four imperial documents, the first dated to AD 258, the last under Aurelian. The nature of these is unclear, but the third is an imperial letter, perhaps addressed to Alexandria. iv. Conclusion. The categorisation Ada Alexandrinorum has been used of a wide range of literary and documentary texts. Among these is a core of texts telling the stories of the trials of Alexandrians before emperors, the ActaAlexandrinorum proper. In my

P.Ocy. XLVI 32981.2, 3299. 1.2 See Lukasiewicz 1992: 43-6; 1994: 93. ' 70 P.Oxy. XXXI 2551 1.20. E.g. The Alexandrians called Ptolemy VIII 'Malefactor' (ka/cergetes) rather than 'Benefactor' (eurgetes). ' 72 Thomas and Claiysse 1977: 195-207. ' 73 1b1d. 198-9; Parsons 197Q 389-97. ' SHAA/ex.Sev. 28.7. ' 75 SB 1421. ' 76 P.Oxy. LI 3607. '"SB XX 15145; see Lewis and Stephens 1991: 169-76.

106 introduction, I offered a working definition of this core of texts, that now needs refining in the light of the above review. The Acta Alexandrinorum proper do indeed tell the story of Jewish and Greek delegations before an emperor who sides with the Jews and executes at least some of the Alexandrian ambassadors. In a typical story the Alexandrians emphasise their high and noble culture, status and descent (€&yv€ia), and hurl abuse at the emperor, most of which is anti-Jewish. As I have observed during my review, there are striking similarities between many of the Ada Alexandrinorum proper. For example, exceedingly similar scenes occur in both the Ada Isidori and Appiani. Both Isidoros and Appianos are led away to execution and recalled by the emperor. Appianos demands that Commodus allow him to die in his gymnasiarchal robes (CPJ II 159b ii.14-iii.7). This is surely what happens in CPJII 156b ii.7-1O. Appianos states that he himself has noble rank, but that the emperor does not (CPJ H 1 59b iv. 15-v. 6), in a fashion highly reminiscent of the 'slave-girl'/'cast-off son of the Jewess Salome' exchange in the Ada Isidori. Both Isidoros and Appianos imply that the emperor is the unworthy heir of a worthy ruler, Mark Antony and Marcus Aurelius. There are remarkable similarities of phrase in the two stories. Heliodoros' aside to Appianos is extremely similar grammatically to Lampon's final aside to Isidoros:

'To whom can we speak, if we have no-one who will listen?' (Ttvl xoIJ.ev. XaXaai itii OVTE Tbl) dKoiovra).178 cfeiee to a deranged king?' (Ti. yIp cWo (opcv i irapa4povouivri aaiX4 TÔ1TOV &Sóvai).'79 The allegation that the execution of the Alexandrians stirred up the Roman populace recurs in both the Ada Hermaiski and Appiani. Musurillo also observed other linguistic and stylistic similarities between these stories.' 8° The writers of these stories were clearly familiar with other, similar stories, and were deliberately adapting their stories to parallel each other. Yet, even among the core of Acta Alexand.rinorum proper there is considerable variation of content, tone and emphasis. While most of the authors focus solely on the Alexandrian heroes and omit details of the names of the emperor's advisers, the exact setting of the trial and even the exact historical circumstances of the trial, others adopted a more historical approach. Others tell the stories of the trials in the form of long, rhetorical apologies, rather than the form of abbreviated minutes. Some texts use vastly more narrative than others do. Some stories do not have any anti-

CPJII 159b i.10-11. CPJII 156d 14-5. '80 Musurillo 1954: 211.

107 Jewish overtones. In some of the stories, the Alexandrians win. The only common theme running through the whole group of core texts is that they all glorify Alexandria and the city's heroes. On the fringes of this core of texts are a number of others with considerable links of content and form with the AclaAlexandrinorum proper. To this group of texts, which I have called the Acta related literature, belong, for example, the stories of Alexandrians prosecuting prefects before emperors, the stories of unsuccessful Alexandrian embassies to emperors, the stories of emperors visiting Alexandria. I have observed the links of these stories with the ActaAlexandrinorum proper in the above review. The stories concerning the prosecutions of the prefects, for example, are obviously written up and greatly dramatised in the same way as the Acta Alexandrinorum proper are. The primary focus of these texts is often on the Alexandrians who are prosecuting the prefect, who are portrayed as risking their lives prosecuting the friend of the emperor on behalf of their fatherland. In historical terms, it is difficult to attribute the fates of the prefects to the Alexandrian prosecutors. Gaius, for example, was following his own agenda in executing Macro and Flaccus, despite the eagerness of the writers of the ActaAlexandrinorum and Acta related literature to attribute the fall of the prefects to these Alexandrian heroes. I observed in chapter II that the categorisation of the texts as either literature or official documents was extremely problematic. I have observed in the above review that it is often impossible to categorise a text as a document as opposed to a piece of literature, and vice versa. Roman Egypt was clearly a very document orientated society, where genuine edicts and letters were copied and circulated around the province. Yet it is sometimes the case that the documents have been so inaccurately copied, abbreviated, amended, and rewritten that they are so obviously not verbatim copies of documents that it is difficult to refer to them as strictly documentary. I return to the problem of a documentary source for the literature in chapter IV.

108 Iv.

The Actt'i Alexandiinorum in Context: A Literature of Dissent?

i. The Ptolemaic back2round. By 31 BC there was already a long history of chequered relations between Alexandria and Rome. Direct political contact between Rome and Alexandria began in 273 BC, a time at which Alexandria was at the height of its power and the ruler of her own empire, when Ptolemy H received a formal grant of Roman amicilia. However, it was not until the reign of Ptolemy VI (18 1-45 BC), by which time Rome had become a formidable power in the eastern Mediterranean, that Rome began to actively intervene in Alexandrian and Egyptian affairs. In 168 BC the mere threat of Roman intervention saved Egypt from invasion. The Roman general Popilius Laenas drew a circle around the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes in the sand, and instructed him not to step out of the ring until he had replied to the senate's order for him to break off the war with Egypt. Antiochus withdrew. By the second century BC the Alexandrians were no longer the contented subjects of benevolent rulers, but a 'king-making mob', or óxxoc as Polybius calls it. Polybius gives a vivid account of the power of the Alexandrian mob in 203-2 BC. When Ptolemy IV died, a palace clique headed by Sosibius, Agathocles and Agathoclea murdered his wife Arsinoe, and declared themselves regents of their infant heir, Ptolemy V. In anger at the murder of Arsinoe, the Alexandrians gathered from all parts of the city calling for the infant king to appear before them and retribution for the Arsinoe. The regents, and those connected to the plot, were brutally lynched by the mob.' In 80 BC a similar lynching occurred. The Roman general Sulla had sent Ptolemy X to Alexandria as king, but he enraged the mob by murdering his co- ruler/wife Berenice within days of their marriage. The mob dragged him out of the palace to the gymnasium and assassinated him. The sources reveal how the Alexandrians mercilessly mocked their unpopular kings. They gave Ptolemy VIII the epithets 'Physcon' ('Potbelly'), 'Tryphon' (conveying the meanings 'magnificent' and also 'decadent') and 'Kakergetes' ('malefactor' instead of Eu e, etes, 'benefactor'). 2 Ptolemy X was called 'Lathyrus' ('Chick-pea') and Ptolemy XIII 'Nothos' ('Bastard').

'Polyb. 15.30-3. 2 On Ptolemy Physcon see p.148-54.

109 The last century and a half of Ptolemaic rule in Egypt saw Rome heavily interfering in the dynastic disputes of the Ptolemaic rulers, who became increasingly subordinate to Roman power. In 164 BC the populace of Alexandria expelled Ptolemy VI and elevated his brother Ptolemy VHI to the throne. Ptolemy VI appealed to Rome and was reinstated as ruler, the Roman dispensation being maintained until the king died in 145 BC. 3 The encroaching influence of Rome became all the more obvious in the first century BC. Regions of the Ptolemaic empire were annexed by the Romans (e.g. Cyprus in 60 BC) and many of the later Ptolemies were wholly dependent on Roman power. Ptolemy XIT Auletes ('the flute player') paid a substantial subsidy to Rome for most of his reign, purchasing the status 'friend and ally of the Roman people' for 6,000 talents in order to prevent the annexation of Egypt. When the Alexandrian populace expelled him in 58 BC, Auletes fled to Rome, where Pompey recommended to the senate that he be restored to the throne. 4 The Alexandrians sent an embassy of 100 citizens led by a certain Dio to plead to the senate against Auletes' restoration. The senate effected Auletes' restoration, but nearly all of the Alexandrian ambassadors, including Dio, were murdered. 5 The culprit was presumably Auletes himself, but Romans were apparently involved. The prosecutors of Caelius alleged that he was implicated in an attack on the Alexandrian embassy at Puteoli and the murder of Dio.6 Auletes eventually paid the Roman general Aulus Gabinius a bribe (reportedly 10,000 talents) to re-install him on the Alexandrian throne. When Auletes died in 51 BC he made the senate the executors of his will. The fear and hostility that the Alexandrians were feeling towards Rome in this period is neatly summed up by the account in Diodorus of a lynching of a Roman dignitary in the city that he had personally witnessed in 59 BC. 7 Later in the same decade the Roman Rabirius Postumus, appointed as 'finance minister' (dioiketes) to recover the money owed to Pompey and other Romans, was ignominiously driven from Egypt. In 50 BC the two sons of the governor of Syria, Bibulus, who were sent to recall Gabinius' troops from Alexandria to fight the Parthians, were summarily executed in the city. 8 Julius Caesar's personal intervention in the dynastic quarrel between Auletes' heirs, Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIII, caused the Alexandrian War of 48/7 BC. During the war Caesar not only lost

Diod.Sic. 31.18. Plut. CatMin. 35; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.70. See Siam-Davies 1997: 306-40. Dio 39. 13-14; Strabo 17.1.11. 6 Cic. Pro Caelio 10.23-5; Har.resp. 34. ' Diod.Sic. 1.83.8.

110 many soldiers, but also found himself besieged in the Royal palace by the Alexandrian populace. The last of the Ptolemies, Cleopatra VH ruled well, regaining wealth and territory that had been lost to Egypt. Through Caesar and MarAntony, Cleopatra and the Alexandrians entertained dreams of ruling the Roman Empire. But this was not to be. Alexandria fell to the victorious Octavian Caesar, destined never to regain her pre- eminence or empire. These historical events presumably formed the content of contemporary Alexandrian histories and literature. To my knowledge, only two examples of these local histories have survived. The first survives on a papyrus written in a hand of the first century BC. It appears to be an extract from a narrative history, relating the peaceful dispersal of a crowd disturbance in Alexandria which, from the reference to 'queens', probably occurred during 58 BC: "The next day even more people assembled at the. . . gate and shouted out for the queens and their troops. When the strategos arrived together with Chairas the court clerk and the visitors from Alexandria, they were told about numerous other wrong doings by Hermaiskos and his men against everybody. They insisted that they would not resume any work either private or public unless the strategos sent a report to the queens and the diolketes and Hermaiskos and his men were kept out of the district. And when the strategos and the others went on appealing to them and promised to report what had been 1ught to their notice, the crowd dispersed."9 The second example was copied in the second century AD. It has been argued that the text refers to the preparations of a Roman prefect, identified as Cornelius or Aelius Gallus, for a military expedition following the death of Cleopatra Vll!° This is far from clear, and the story could well refer to an episode from Ptolemaic history: ". . .He sent for.. .to revolt, and because of this he forged [weapons] more than sufficient, and [the] fleet of [Cleo]patra, (which), after her death, as was likely, had been neglected, he again equipped, (and) he set up garrisons at entrances to the country and everything that pertained to war he made ready, with the result that.. . having understood that.. .the Egyptians around Thebes were more warlike than the others, he first urged them to go willingly on the expedition, but when they did not..."

8 CaesarBCiv. 3.110; Val.Max. 4.1.15. 9 BGU VIII 1762. '° Treu 1973: 221-33; Lewis 1975: 295-303. "P.Oxy. XXXVII 2820.

111 If, as is likely, Dio's embassy to Rome in opposition to Auletes, was the subject of a similar account, then there would already have been a literary/historical tradition of Alexandrian embassies journeying to Rome and being executed while acting on behalf of their city.

ii. The sources of the Ada. Justin and Tertullian, two second-century Christian writers, refer to a document called the Acta Pilati, a copy of the minutes taken at the trial of Jesus before Pilate. Tertullian adds that Pilate sent this 'document' to Tiberius in Rome, along with a detailed account of Jesus' miracles.' 2 The historicity of this story is very questionable, and it is unclear whether such a document ever existed. Nonetheless, these writers both assumed, first, that the minutes of the trial would have been recorded, and, second, that a copy of the document would have been stored in Rome, with the emperor's papers, where it could be accessed. This assumption, that trial minutes (acta) were meticulously recorded and stored among the emperoi?s papers (the imperial commentarii) in Rome has important implications for the Acta Alexandrinorum literature. Wilcken's original view, that the Acta Alexandrinorum were copied directly from the imperial cornmentarii, is now no longer accepted. Nonetheless, the general consensus, as argued by Musurillo, is that the Ada Alexandrinorum were based on the official trial minutes stored in Rome, which were reworked to a greater or lesser extent by later writers. 13 There is very good evidence from Roman Egypt that trial minutes were recorded and kept for trials that were heard in Egypt. There is less direct evidence for the taking of minutes in the imperial court, but the evidence that there is suggests a similar practice operated for trials heard in the imperial, and senatorial, court. The problem therefore becomes one of accessibility, and whether the assumption that emperors would hand over copies of their own records to either the victorious or aggrieved party is plausible. Musurillo's suggestion, that the Alexandrians may have obtained the records by bribing those who had access to them, as later Christians allegedly did, is not wholly convincing. 14 I will also examine an alternative possibility, that the Alexandrian

'2 JustinIApoI. 35;48;TerLApoL 5.2; 21.24. ' Musurillo 1954: 25 1-2. Musurillo 1954: 252 ni. See also Bisbee 1988: 28-32.

112 ambassadors made their own records, and assess the availability of such records within Alexandria's city archives. There is very clear evidence that trial minutes were taken and kept in Roman Egypt. Philo relates the story that one of the roles of the notorious Lampon had been to stand beside the Prefect and record minutes while he was giving judgement.' 5 We also have hundreds of papyri containing the minutes of hearings before magistrates from Roman Egypt. These records show very clearly the way in which trial minutes were recorded. In a typical trial record, there would be four main sections, an introduction

(cap Ut) , the body of the trial, the judgement of the magistrate (Icrisis), and any other concluding matters.'6 The introductory sections of the trial records in Roman Egypt were reasonably standardised. They tended to begin with an extract phrase, stating from where the record was copied. The most common formulae from the trial records in Roman Egypt were "from the minutes ( 6iviaTLaIwv)" or "copy of the minutes (àvi{ypa4ov fYrró.tvIpaTLainiw)" of the presiding magistrate. The name of the magistrate, with his full titulature, was then usually given.' 7 The date was given, usually in the Greek form of 'year x of x Caesar, month x, day x', rather than a Roman consular dating.' 8 The location of the trial was indicated, sometimes very specifically.' 9 There was usually a

'presence' phrase, listing those who were present at the hearing. 20 The introductory formula usually ended by presenting the participants in the trial. The most usual formula, and the only one found in trial records of the first century AD, was "the case of x against (irpôç) y."2' Over the course of the second and third centuries, other more elaborate formulae became common, such as "rrI TGv KaTd x iTpbçy."22 The trial minutes record the hearing either in the form of a narrative summary, or, more usually, in the form of speeches, recorded in direct speech, between the magistrates and participants. This was presented in the record by the speaker's name followed by direct speech, or with the speech introduced by a verb of saying, usually

EITrEV. It was common practice in the first century AD not to include a verb of saying in the records. After c. AD 130 it was usual for verbs of saying to be used. In the third

' 5 PhiloFlacc. 131. 16 full details, see Coles 1966: Bisbee 1988; Haensch 1992: 209-317. 17 E.g. SB V 8261. ' 8 E.g. BGUII 587 1.1. 19 Eg BGU 1347 'in Memphis'; SB V 8261 'in the temple'. 20 E.g. P.Fouad2l. 21 E.g. P.Oxy. 137.

113 century, the abbreviation dTr (= €iircv) was frequently employed. 23 The record of the hearing therefore follows the pattern: "x said: '... 'y said: '...'." Narrative or indirect speech was sometimes used to summarise lengthy, legal arguments, or unimportant speeches. The magistrates often ordered documents to be read out as evidence, usually using a form of the verb àvayvyvuaicu.24 The judgement was usually presented in direct speech and was very abrupt and to the point. Scribes did not record every single word that was said at the hearing. This was possible, theoretically, through the use of shorthand. Cicero had introduced shorthand in Rome, according to Plutarch, and Greek shorthand is attested on a papyrus of the Trajanic period.25 However, advocates were usually allowed a generous amount of time to speak, and to record every single word would be very time-consuming, and would produce extremely long records. Our records, as we have them, would only take a few minutes at most to read. Coles argues that although scribes probably did record the entire speeches of advocates, they compressed them enormously when writing up the minutes. Scribes therefore only recorded the very basic gist of the lengthy speeches. The use of direct speech was therefore an artificial device introduced by a third party to deliberately shorten the record.26 These records served very practical purposes. The parties involved could use a copy of the minutes as evidence of the judgement, and friture generations used these records as legal precedents. 27 Because most of the extant trial minutes from Roman Egypt are private copies, it would appear that they were relatively easy to obtain. In a second-century AD hearing, for example, a certain Dionysia was able to produce three earlier trial records, dated from AD 87, 128 and 135, as precedents to support her case. Extracts from an account of expenditure show that records could be retrieved from libraries for a small fee: ". . .To notaries for writing two commentarii 16 obols. . . To a searcher of the Prefect's library, 10 obols.. . to search for two commentarii of the archidicastes, 4 obols. . . for the commentarii of Munatius Felix.. . and for an extract.

22 Eg P.Oxy. 11237. 23 Bisbee 1988: 55. 24 E.g. P.Fam.Tebt. 19. Plut. Cat.Min. 23. Sen. Apocol. 9 is the first evidence for shorthand under the Principate. P.Brem. 82 is an example of Greek shorthand. Coles 1966: 15-19. 27 Katzoff 1972: 256-92. P.Oxy. XIV 1654.

114 The vast majority of the trial minutes from Egypt concern cases of civil law. There is only one extant example, to my knowledge, of the trial minutes of a criminal case, where the defendant(s) appear to be facing torture and execution. 29 This example suggests that the minutes of cases concerning criminal law were not recorded any differently from cases of civil law. There is also evidence for the taking of minutes in the imperial court. In 6 BC Augustus referred the questioning (by torture) of the slaves of a man accused by an embassy of Cnidians to his amicus Asinius Gallus. Following this, Augustus wrote to the Cnidians stating: "I have sent you also (a copy of) the interrogations themselves."30 Tiberius had the minutes of Drusus' last hours recorded, to show how his grandson had denounced him. 3 ' Nero published the confessions of the Pisonian conspirators.32 The jurists often cite the minutes of hearings involving the emperor. Marcellus reports a hearing before Marcus Aurelius in AD 166: "Vibius Zeno said: 'I beg you, Lord Emperor, to hear me patiently; what will you decide about the legacies?' Antoninus Caesar said: 'Do you think that the testator wished his will to be valid when he erased the names of the heirs?' Cornelius Priscianus the advocate of Leo said: 'It was the names only of the heirs he erased."33 The Codex Justinianus cites in direct speech the words spoken by Caracalla to a certain Julianus in the imperial court, suggesting that the source is the minutes of the hearing: "Antoninus Augustus said to him: 'I restore to you your province with all your rights', and added 'moreover that you may know what it means to be restored to all your rights, I hereby reinstate you in your offices, your rank and all your other privileges."34 There is further evidence from the century. The record of Diocletian' s reception of an embassy from Antioch begins with the phrase "part of the ac/a of the Augusti Diocletian and Maximian." The abbreviated minutes of the speech of the Antiochene spokesman and Diocletian' s response are then given. 35 The minutes of a hearing before Constantine are also recorded, with Constantine speaking in Latin and a female litigant

29 PAnI H 87 (late ifi AD). 3° GC 6 1.27-8. 31 Tac. Ann. 6.23-4. 32 Tac. Ann. 15.73. Dig. 28.4.3. See Brunt 1966: 80-1. Cod. Just. 9.51.1. 35 Jbid. 10.47.2.

115 speaking in Greek.36 A passage from the Tabula Banasitana shows the level of detail in the imperial records. Marcus Aurelius and Commodus wrote to a procurator asking for information that could "be recorded in our commentarii." There follows an extract from the imperial commentarii, recording the grant of Roman citizenship to various members of a tribe called the Zegrenses. The extract is authenticated with the statement: "Copied down and checked from the commentarii of persons granted Roman citizenship." Appended below are the names of the libertus who made the copy and twelve imperial an;ici who witnessed the copy being made. The prelude to the extract gives the precise date of the grant (6th July 177), and the place where it was granted, Rome.37 The historical sources of the Principate frequently refer to the emperor's papers (commentarii). The term commentarii covers a range of written notes, including, for example, schools pupils' notes, diaries, household accounts and transactions. Nonetheless, a natural reading of the sources suggests that trial records were among the collection of imperial documents kept exclusively by the emperor. Gaius. allegedly burnt the commentarii relating to the trials of his relatives under Tiberius. 38 Nero ignored Suillius' plea that he had acted as a prosecutor at Claudius' bequest because he had read in Claudius' commentarii that Claudius never instigated accusations against anyone. 39 In AD 70 Junius Mauricus suggested to Domitian that the imperial commentarii should be made available to the senate, so that the names of accusers could be known. 4° Domitian allegedly read nothing except the papers and minutes (commenlarii et ada) of Tiberius. 41 When a man petitioned Hadrian to release his father from exile, Hadrian replied: "Let me look up the commentarii, while you make it your business to approach me again."42 During his governorship, Pliny doubted the authenticity of some documents that were presented to him, including an Augustan edict and some imperial letters. He consulted Trajan, because he the emperor would have genuine copies in his scrinia (collection of

Cod Theod. 8.15.1. The Tabula Banasifana - See Sherwin-White 1973: 86-98 and Williams 1975: 37-78. Suet. Gaius 15.1; Dio 59.4.3; 10.8; 16.3. 39 Tac.Ann. 13.43. ° Tac. Hist. 4.40. ' Suet. Dom. 20. 42 One of the Sententiae Hadriani in Corp. Gloss. Lat. III 33.26-36. See also Lewis 1991: 278.

116 letters or books). Trajan replied that he had found nothing relevant in the commentarii of his predecessors.43 The evidence therefore suggest that minutes of hearings in the imperial court were taken and stored in the same way as they were in Roman Egypt. In all probability, the magistrates of Roman Egypt modelled their form of recording minutes on imperial practice. Trial minutes taken in Ptolemaic Egypt tend to record dialogue in indirect speech. In the imperial period dialogue was most often recorded in direct speech. The most likely cause of this change is that the magistrates of Roman Egypt adopted central imperial practice. Another possible central official Roman source for the Ada Alexandrinorum could be the acta senatus. This could, of course, only apply when proceedings took place in the senate. Ch.L.A. IV 268, which I have argued on p.97 tells the story of an Alexandrian embassy speaking to Commodus on the subject of a boule, begins with the phrase 'from the acta senatus' (ex actis in sen[at]u). This suggests that the emperor received the Alexandrian embassy in the senate, and that the proceedings were recorded in the acta senatus. Little is known for certain about the circulation, form and extent of the ada senatus. In 59 BC Julius Caesar arranged to have the acta senatus and the ada of the people made public: "[Caesar] was the very first person to arrange that daily records of the Senate and people should be compiled and published." Suetonius also tells us that Augustus limited the circulation of the ada senatus.45 By the time of Nero, the record was apparently circulated in the provinces. Thrasea Paetus' accuser mentions: "In every province and army, the journal of the Roman people (diurna populi Romani) is read with special care to see what Thrasea has refused to do!" Responsibility for the maintenance of the record presumably lay with the holder of the office ab actis senatus, a post attested from AD 29. The scattered references to the record suggest that it was a rather full, detailed account of all business that took place in the senate. Suetonius mentions that

Pun. Ep 10.65-6. Suet. lvi. 20. White 1997: 73-84. On the populi diurna acta see Baldwin 1979: 189-203. ' Suet. Aug. 36. Tac. Ann. 16.22.

117 the trial of C. Laetorius was 'recorded in the ada senatus' .' Tacitus mentions that he found Anicius Cerealis' proposal to erect a temple to Nero in "the commentarii of the senate."48 Pliny informed Tacitus of an event that might be worthy of inclusion in his histories: "I am sending you this account although the incident can hardly have escaped your watchful eye, since it appears in the publica ada."49 Fronto stated that he needed to honour Marcus Aurelius with an oration, so that his praise "Should not lie hidden away in the ada senatus."50 It seems unlikely, however, that everything was recorded verbatim in the acta senatus, although this would have been possible with the use of shorthand. It seems most likely that the ada senatus would have followed the model of imperial minute taking, recording the proceedings in heavily abbreviated direct speech. The appearance of the word dixit in Ch.L.A. IV 268 suggests that this section of the ada senatus contained edited speeches, written in the form of minutes. Tacitus' description of Junius Rusticus, certainly implies that an ab actis senatus had an editorial function: "[Rusticus was] chosen by the emperor to write up the senate's proceedings and thus believed to have insight into the recesses of his mind."5' The Sc de Cn.Pisone certainly implies that the way senatorial business acta was recorded was based on the practi,e used in the imperial commen!arii. The extract begins with by giving a date (4th day before the Ides of March), a place (the portico near the temple of Apollo) and a list of those present at the writing. It is also possible that the acta senatus contained a mixture of verbatim and edited speeches. The most important speeches, such as those from the emperor, may have been recorded verbatim; those of less important figures edited and compressed. We should note that the only surviving example of ada from ancient Rome, the acta of the Arval brethren, are not rigidly standardised into one form or another, and the ada senatus may not have been either.52 Ch.L.A. IV 268 shows that the ada senatus was accessible in the provinces. It has been suggested that several papyri from Roman Egypt and an inscription from

' Suet Aug. 5. Tac.Ann. 15.74. 49 Plin. Ep. 7.33. 5° Fronto,AdM.Caes. 2.1.1. Tac.Ann. 5.4.

118 Dmeir in Syria were copied from the imperial commenlarii, which would suggest that the imperial commentarii were equally accessible in the provinces. P. Oxy. XLVII 3361 appears to be an extract of a trial in the imperial court, translated from a Latin original (see p.95). The imperial commentarii could be a possible source. P.Oxy. XLII 3019 is 9th a copy of a verdict given by Severus in Alexandria on May 200 to a communal embassy from the Greek metropoleis. A petition concerning swineherds is cited, and the emperor's decision followed in a missing portion of the column. Although the text is written in Greek, it takes a very Roman form, and the date formula is Roman. The editor suggests that it was adapted from a Latin original, the most likely source being the emperor's own commentarii. 53 Two papyri report a response of Caracalla on the subject of the monodesmia tax.54 The precise wording of the two texts is not entirely identical, but the response is given in the form of speeches by an advocate Egnatius Lollianus and Caracalla, both preserved in (presumably abbreviated) direct speech. The form of the response suggests that it is possibly derived from imperial commentarii. SB IV 7366 preserves a decision by Severus and Caracalla on the old claims of thefiscus. 55 The fragment of the copy ends with a statement of authenticity, similar to that in the Tabula Banasitana. Pompeius Liberalis has checked the document, and five Romans, one of whom was an imperial procurator in Egypt, have attached their seals to it. While Oliver thought that the document was an authenticated copy of an imperial rescript, Williams has suggested that it is an official transcription of an oral pronouncement by Severus, taken from the imperial commentarii.56 Two columns of an inscription from Dmeir survive, reporting the minutes of a hearing before Caracalla in 216. The introductory formula is given in Latin. The dating formula is clearly Roman, and even Roman abbreviations, such as VE

(eminentissimi yin) are used. Although the parties speak in Greek, the speakers are always introduced with the Latin verb dixit. The Latin source and the form of the

52 On the acta senatus, see Talbert 1984: 303-37; on the Arval acta, see Beard 1985: 114-62. P.Oxy. XLII: p.67-9. 54 P.Mich. IX 529 1.25-3 8, P.BeroL mv.7216 (with photograph in Aegyptus 45, 1965, plate 8). The two are republished as GC 267. On these papyri see widerek 1975: 293-98; Lewis 1976: 320-30; 1980: 127- 33; 1987: 49-53; Oliver 1978: 139-40; 1981: 133-6. 55 P.Berol. mv. 7346 was first published in Frisk 1928: 282-4, then as SB IV 7366, then GC 243. Oliver 1976: 370-2; Williams 1976: 235-45. SEG XVII 759. See Roussel and de Vischer 1942/3: 173-200; Oliver 1974: 289-94; Williams 1974: 663-7.

119 record have led commentators to identify the inscription as a copy from imperial commentarii.58 The interest in the Dmeir inscription is not just the possible origin of the record. The speakers, like those in the Acta Alexandrinorum, are blunt and rude to the emperor during the course of the hearing. The extant section of the inscription contains a debate between two advocates, Lollianus and Aristaenetus, on the validity of Caracallaeven hearing the case. The prefect had already passed a mling on the case, which made a direct appeal to the emperor technically inadmissible. Aristaenetus objects very rudely to Caracalla hearing the case. The case should not be heard, he argues, but Caracalla has said 'if you wish me to hear it, I will hear it'. This criticism annoys Caracalla: "[Caracalla said:] 'Does he say 'I find fault with you' to the emperor? Do you not wish me to hear this matter?' Aristaenetus said: 'That is what I say (Xy)." When Caracalla asks him in what respects he could be criticised for hearing the case, Aristaenetus wisely remains silent, and allows his rival Lollianus to speak. The two orators were both members of the imperial court. Egnatius Lollianus enjoyed a splendid career, spanning from a legateship in Galatia in 218 to prefecture of the city in 254, and inscriptions call him 'first of the orators'. 59 Julius Aristaenetus may be C. Sallius Aristaenetus, a curator viae and luridicus, who is called 'the greatest orator' in an inscription. 60 Their familiarity with Carcalla may be why their outspokenness was tolerated. Nonetheless, the example shows that rudeness could occur in the imperial court, and, if the inscription does indeed derive from an official source, that such insolence was recorded in the official minutes. However, it is not entirely certain that these documents were copied from the imperial commentarli. The method of recording minutes was so standardised in this period that anyone who was familiar with the form of records could produce their own minutes. There are three extant versions of a hearing before the prefect Caecina Tuscus concerning the status of army veterans in Egypt in September AD 63. Two are copies of official versions, and one is unofficial, presumably made by a participant. 6' The official version gives the date 0f4th September 63, gives the venue as the Great Atrium, lists those present, and gives Tuscus' verdict in direct speech. The unofficial version records

E.g. Crook 1955: 82-4. 59 5EG11652 1.8-10. 60 1LS 2934. Philostr. J/5 2.11 mentions a Byzantine orator named Aristaenetus. 61 Official - P.Fouad 21; SB VIII 9668 preserves the end of a copy of this text, with a few slight variations. Unofficial - SB V 8247.

120 a series of meetings with Tuscus. 62 For the 4th September it is recorded that the veterans met Tuscus in the Great Atrium, and Tuscus' words are again recorded in direct speech. While the gist of the two versions of Tuscus' speech is similar, the unofficial version is blunter. The official version omits, for example, Tuscus' parting comment to the veterans: "Dismiss, each to his home, and don't be idle!" An official and an unofficial version of the minutes come from the archive of an army veteran of the first centuly AD, L. Pompeius Niger, who may well have been one of the petitioners. Niger needed a copy of Tuscus' judgement as evidence of his personal status. He presumably wrote the unofficial version himself, or acquired it from a fellow petitioner, to act as evidence of his status until he could obtain the official version. Niger, like anyone else familiar with what trial minutes looked like, could very easily produce his own minutes. Therefore it remains impossible to tell if any of the 'documents' discussed above really were derived from the emperor's records, or were made by participants. In any case, all the extant supposed extracts from the imperial commentaril concern matters of civil law, which the emperors may well have been prepared to hand over to participants. One suspects that the emperor's records of capital trials would be much less accessible. After all, the emperor's court acquired a reputation as a place where matters were 63 'brought to light and concealed' Tacitus' surprise that Tiberius published the I .*b'Ou verbatim minutes of Drusus' death (see p.11 5) suggests that emperors only rarely did this, and only when they had something to gain. In this case, Tiberius wanted to prove that Drusus had denounced him, and that his grandson's death was warranted. Detailed records of proceedings in Rome and in the imperial court could find their way to the provinces. P.KOln VI 249, from the Fayum, is an apparently verbatim copy of Augustus' funeral oration for Agrippa, delivered in the Roman forum in 12 BC. 64 We also have bronze tablets from Spain containing the senatus consulta detailing honours passed for Germanicus in AD 19, and one containing the official version of the trial of elder Piso for the murder of Germanicus. 65 However, there is little doubt that these documents were officialistributed around the empire, to honour Augustus' friend Agrippa and to assuage the evident popular interest in the trial of the 'murderer' of the

62 See Welles 1938: 4 1-9. 63 Phulostr. VA 7.17. Dio 54.28.3-4.

121 popular Germanicus. Emperors had nothing to gain from publishing the trials of the Alexandrians, and there is therefore no reason to believe that they would. Like other ancient cities, Alexandria would have made and kept records of the city's dealings with emperors. The city of Aphrodisias, for example, could inscribe a selection of imperial letters to the city going back to the Augustan period onto a third- century 'archive wall' in their theatre.66 The large number of surviving imperial letters to cities in Roman Egypt suggests that imperial letters were archived and accessible in the province. 67 It appears that the Alexandrians also recorded and preserved records of important events taking place in the city. As I observed earlier (p.71), the 'minutes of the honours' (bcTa ThW TqI(7v) of Titus' visit to the city were recorded and sent to

Adrastos and Sparticos.68 Several other pieces of the Ada related literature may be based upon the recorded minutes of events in the city. These would include the waffling speech of Germanicus, the record of Vespasian' s entry into the city and the speech delivered by him there, and perhaps also the trial of the prefect Heraclitus. 69 It is not clear whether these ada are official city records, or the unofficial minutes taken by interested bystanders. In any case, official records of such events were recorded, presumably in the form of minutes, and archived among the city's records, where they served a very practical purpose. The Alexandrian embassy to Claudius in AD 41 used Alexandria's reception of Germanicus as an example of Alexandria's loyalty to the emperor's family, and through this attempted to win Claudius' favour. Claudius' response may indicate that the embassy had actually read out a version of Germanicus' speech to support their claim: "To pass over other instances [of Alexandrian devotion to the imperial family] and mention the latest, the best witness is my brother, Germanicus Caesar, who addressed you in the most sincere language."7° As the letter to Adrastos and Sparticos shows, the minutes of important events in Alexandria, whether they were official or unofficial minutes, were very accessible to those in the chora.

65 Tabulae Siarensis and Hebana; on the Sc de Cn.Pisone see Griffin 1997: 249-63. Reynolds 1982; cf also Jones 1971: 161-83 for an inscribed letter of Marcus Aurelius to Athens. 67 For a list of extant imperial letters to the urban centres in Roman Egypt see Hoogenclijk and van Minnen 1987: 68-9. P.Oxy. XXIV 2725. 69p (),, XXV 2435 recto, SB XVI 12255, SB VI 9528, SB VI 9213. On these texts see p.63-4, 67-9, 101-103. 70 CPJII 153 1.25-7.

122 As I noted above, people who were familiar with the form of trial minutes could very easily make their own. As I observed in chapter H ambassadors did record their meetings with emperors in their writings. Philo wrote an account of the meeting of his embassy with Gaius in the form of trial minutes, presumably based upon his personal recollection of the meeting. The Alexandrian Greek ambassadors Apion and Chaeremon may also have recorded their respective meetings with emperors in their Egyptian histories. This theory, that the Ac/a Alexandrinorum were derived from accounts made by ambassadors, would explain why the literature has the form of trial minutes, but records information in such a way that makes an official source unlikely. Some of the Ac/a Alexandrinorum and related literature contain information that we would expect to find in official minutes. Some report the date of the hearing. P.Oxy. XXV 2435 verso has a very specific date: "Year 42 of Caesar, month [-], day [-], the ninth hour." 5th CPJII 156a i.19-20 is dated 'year [one(?)] of Claudius Caesar Augustus, Pachon'. A date appears to have been given in P. Oxy. XX 2264 col. i.2, 'the [-] year of Nero'. Those present at the hearing are often listed. P. Oxy. XXV 2435 verso lists some members of Augustus' consilium present at the hearing. CPJII 156a ii.5-8 (=CPJH 1 56b i. 1-4) tells us that twenty senators, sixteen men of consular rank, and the women of the court attended Isidoros' trial. P.Oxy. XLII 3021 notes that the emperor's assessors are present, and lists the names of the Alexandrian ambassadors. CPJII 157 col.i lists the Alexandrian Greek and Jewish ambassadors. The location is sometimes recorded. The events of P. Oxy. XXV 2435 verso took place in the Roman library, in the Temple of Apollo. CR111 156a ii.4-5(CPJII 156b i. 1) tells us that Isidoros' trial took place in the '[-]lian gardens'. CPJII 156a ii.2-4 describes the participants: "The case of Isidoros, gymnasiarch of Alexandria against King Agrippa..." Documents are read out in several of the trial scenes.71 Nonetheless, the Ac/a Alexandrinorum usually record dates in their Greek form, rather than using the Roman consular dating. The SC de Cn.Pisone shows that when listing those persons present, in this case at the writing of the senalus consul/urn, official Roman records would list the names of each man's father and tribe in addition to his praenomen, nomen and cognomen. This information is not only omitted in those lists of persons present in the Ac/a Alexandrinorum and related literature, but the Roman names

123 are frequently garbled as well (e.g. Organius, Aviolaos, Tarquinius). Those present would surely be listed in order of status in Roman records. Yet in the Acta Isidori, those of consular rank are mentioned after the other senators. While these could perhaps be explained as problems of abbreviation and translation, they are errors that would understandably be made in the minutes taken by Greek ambassadors. Minutes taken by Alexandrian ambassadors may have been archived in Alexandria, where they would have been accessible. Comparative evidence from other cities shows that documents were archived and could be retrieved by a system of file references. An inscription from Caere refers to the "daily record book (commentarium) of the municipality of Caere", and cites a section "from page 27, chapter 6.72 An inscription from Sardinia cites a ruling that was written "on the fifth tablet, in chapters 8, 9 and 1 Two pieces of Ada related literature, which report the proceedings of Alexandrian embassies in Rome are headed by numbers, which may be file references. P.Oxy. XXV 2435 verso begins '[...... ]K[.]X yr'. This is taken as '[roll no. x] column 80 (K[o]X(iIiaToc) rr'. The second column of the extant fragment ofCPJII 150 is headed by the letters 'p. K3'. These need not be file references, however, as the letter 8 written at the foot of the fourth column of the rather fictional P.Giss.Lit. 4.7 would very much appear to be the number of the column rather than a file reference. Wilcken used the numerous Latinisms in the ActaAlexand.rinorum as evidence for an official Roman source. However, it is likely that the trials in Rome would have been conducted in the native language of the emperors, Latin. Augustus, for example, when giving a speech in Greek, would always write it in Latin and have it translated into Greek.74 P.Oxy. LI 3614 reports that Severus: "Delivered a judgement in his own tongue, after deliberating with friends." A Greek rescript from Antoninus to an Egyptian begins with the phrase 'as faithful a translation from Latin as possible'.75 It is not implausible that some emperors would allow the famous Greek orators of the day to speak in Greek. Tiberius, for example, was fluent in Greek.76 Turner has argued that the speech of an Alexandrian ambassador

E.g.P.Oxy. ffl471;SBV19213. 72 CIL XI 3614. Smaliwood 1967: no. 392. Suet. Aug. 89. 75 P.Harr. 167. 76 Suet. Tib. 71.

124 in CPJ 11150 is actually a Greek translation from a Latin original.77 The Latinisms in the stories need not, however, imply the use of Roman records, as the bilingual Greek ambassadors could presumably take minutes in Latin as well as Greek. I find it very likely therefore that records of Alexandria's dealings with emperors, such as the ambassadors reports of their hearings with emperors and imperial letters, were archived in the city, where they were readily accessible. I think that the writers of the Acta Alexandrinorum did use the city archives as a source. Nonetheless, the writers did not simply produce verbatim copies of the citi' records. The notion of deliberately altering and falsifying such records was by no means an alien concept. Philo accuses Lampon of doing this: "[Lampon] stood beside the governors while they were giving judgement, and took down the minutes of cases... He would then expunge some of the evidence or deliberately pass it over and sometimes insert statements that had not been made, sometimes too, tamper with the documents by remodelling them and rearranging them and turning them upside down."78 Other ancient writers who can be shown to have used documents also did not simply copy them out. There are two occasions where Tacitus certainly did use the ada senatus as a source. In Annals 2.23-4, Tacitus 'cites' a speech of Claudius delivered in AD 48. A record of the same speech has been found inscribed at Lyons. 79 The inscribed version is considered to be a faithful, verbatim record of the speech taken from the ada senatus. Tacitus had clearly seen the record of this speech in the ada senalus, as some phrases are cited verbatim. However, while Tacitus' version presents Claudius' main arguments, it is greatly reworked, with the contents of the speech re- ordered and condensed. Claudius' ramblings and diversions are omitted. 8° Tacitus had also clearly seen the SC de Cn.Pisone, but again does not simply reproduce the document verbatim in his writings. 81 Josephus also appears to excerpt and modify from documents concerning the status of the Jews in the ancient world. 82 The writers of the Ada Alexandrinorum proper would have found the outline of the proceedings of their embassies in Rome archived in their city records, and undoubtedly breathed fresh life into them, as other ancient writers did. The extent to which the writers rehydrated the

Turner 1955: 119-20; 1955: 304-5. 78 Philo Flacc. 131. Srnallwood 1967: no.369. 80 See Huzar 1984: 627-32. Griffin 1997: 258. 82 See p.42-4 and App. III.

125 accounts that they found is shown both in the numerous contradictions in the stories, and the large amount of narrative in them. The recording of minutes was very standardised during the Principate, with provincial magistrates, the senatorial court and the Alexandrians themselves all following imperial practice. This would suggest, as I have argued, that the most likely source for the Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper are the minutes of hearings taken by the Alexandrian ambassadors themselves. The only official Roman source for the stories would be the ac/a senatus, but this record could obviously only apply when emperors received embassies, or conducted trials, in the senate. These contemporary records are likely to be the basis of the Ac/a Alexandrinorum and Ac/a related stories. Nonetheless, the writers clearly did not adhere very closely to the records, particularly in the case of theAc/aAlexandrinorum proper. This core group ofAc/aAlexandrinorum proper have only very tentative links with the contemporary records from which they were originally derived. iii. The Authorship and Readership of the Ac/a Alexandrinorum. Musurillo developed the theory that the Acta Alexand.rinorum literature originated in the Alexandrian clubs and gymnasia, and were secretly passed around the Alexandrian gymnasial class 'for private recitation'. They were therefore written by the Alexandrian elite exclusively for other members of the Alexandrian elite. According to this theory, the texts have only been found in the chora because they belonged to Alexandrians living there. Musurillo cites the example of the family of the Alexandrian Gaius Julius Theon, who owned land at Oxyrhynchus.83 The Alexandrian elite during the principate were certainly involved in producing literary works on Alexandria, and on Greek and Roman history in general. Aelius Sarapion produced a work entitled On the Alexandrian boule in the Hadrianic period. Appian wrote extensively on Roman history. A certain Callinicus of Petra presented a history of Alexandria in ten books to Zenobia in the third century. In agreement with the essence of Musurillo's theory, I have suggested that the stories originated in the writings of Alexandrian ambassadors, such as Apion and Chaeremon, although his theory about the readership of the stories needs modification. It is often difficult even to locate the provenance of an Ac/a Alexandrinorum. The provenance of papyri acquired from the black market is unknown, and even when a papyrus is labelled 'from

83 Musurillo 1954: 273-4. Suda s.v. Sarapion, Aelius s.v. Callinicus, Galus. See also Cameron 1967: 382-4; Stoneman 1992: 131.

126 the Fayum', this tells us very little about the people to whom the text belonged. Nonetheless, in recent years several ancient archives have been reconstructed. Among several of these archives have been pieces of the Ada Alexandrinorum and related literature, allowing us a unique insight into the type of person who was reading these stories. This survey demonstrates that the readership of the Acta Alexandrinorum covered a much wider social spectrum than Musurillo's theory allowed for, and also casts doubt on the traditional view that the Ada Alexandrinorum stories were read because they were 'dissident' literature. Nemesion of Philadelphia. CPJII 153, the 'copy' of the letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians, was copied by Nemesion son of Zoilos personally, in his own hand. Nemesion lived in Philadelphia, a large village in the Arsinoite nome, in the first century AD. The village had been founded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and was occupied well into the Byzantine period. From the other papers belonging to his archive, we kncw a great deal about Nemesion. 85 Nemesion was a local tax collector. His archive shows that he collected capitation taxes in the years AD 44/5, 48-9 1 and 55/6 and 57/8, and very probably in other years as well. He was also involved in other business ventures, such as lending money at interest and farming. 86 Nemesion was one of the most influential men in Philadelphia at the time, and clearly a prominent member of the village elite. We can identify some members of his circle of friends. Herakleides, the local komogrammateus, counted Nemesion among his most trusted friends, and often asked Nemesion for favours. On one occasion, for example, he wrote asking Nemesion to send vine-cuttings to the regional strategos, to keep the lines of communication open. 87 Another member of the village elite, Sarapion, was a wholesale dealer. A letter of his to a slave acting as his business agent in Alexandria, dated to 4th August AD 41, shows us the contemporary mood of the village. 88 Sarapion warns his slave: "Like everyone else, you too beware of the Jews!"89 Sarapion clearly disliked the Jews. Nemesion presumably shared Sarapion's feelings. After all, Nemesion' s copy of the letter, or the already doctored version that he copied,

85 See Hanson 1979: 60-74; 1984: 1107-1118; 1988: 261-77; 1989: 429-40. E.g. SB IV 7465; SB XIV 11585. 87 SB XIV 12143. On the Philadelphian origin of the letter, see Butin and Schwartz 1985: 127-9. CPJH 152 recto 1.23-6.

127 is very anti-Jewish, particularly when compared to Josephus' pro-Jewish version (see p.Y7-8, 42-4). Nemesion was reasonably well educated and literate in Greek, although he was often careless in writing Greek. Bell wrote that although Nemesion "wrote [in] a good practised hand, [he was] careless". Other commentators have also criticised Nemesion's poor spelling, poor penmanship and careless abbreviations. 90 Nemesion was a wealthy man, by village standards. The minimum poros for a taxation official was 600 drachmae. 9' Other than this, however, there is no indication of his actual holdings. The property of a certain Horion, another member of the village elite, who occasionally served alongside Nemesion as a tax collector, had holdings worth an estimated 4,500 drachmae, which perhaps gives an indication of Nemesion's wealth.92 Nemesion presumably made a sizeable amount from tax collection. Even when the post of prakior became a liturgical duty, probably in the early second century AD, it was only held for three years at a time. The fact that Nemesion so frequently took up the post and spent as much time tax collecting suggests that it was profitable. Nemesion frequently made use of the Romans in his business dealings. On the 24th July 46, a villager, Psonsneus, swore to the representatives of a centurion '[...]ttius Catullus' that he would either turn over his parents to Nemesion, or pay off his parents' debt, with interest, within twenty-five days. 93 In AD 49, Nemesion requested that the Prefect Vergilius Capito write to the local centurion, Clodius, to compel his colleague Horion to return to his duties of tax collecting, which he had been neglecting.94 Nemesion also petitioned another Prefect, Balbillus, on at least one occasion. 95 He also regularly hired Roman soldiers and bodyguards to help him collect the taxes.96 Nemesion was an opportunistic, ruthless businessman. He was a powerful and an influential member of the village elite with important contacts outside Philadelphia, which he frequently employed to further his own interests, and those of his village. Adrastos and Spartacos. P. Oxy. XXXIV 2725 is addressed to two brothers who live in the chora. The anonymous author, who writes mainly about business affairs, is presumably their

9°Bell 1924: 2; CPJ II: p.37. ' Lewis 1982: 42. P.Gen. II 911.20-2. P.CoI. mv.90. See Hanson 1989: 434 n.18. P.Mich. X 582. SB IV 7462.

128 business agent in Alexandria. He promises to send the pair the àKTa TV T11.LV of an event that he has personally witnessed in Alexandria, the entry of Titus Caesar. 97 The identity of Adrastos and Sparticos is not clear. They could be Alexandrian citizens living in Oxyrhynchus (as their very Greek names would imply), or well-off, Hellenised Egyptians from this urban centre. Socrates of Karanis. Karanis was a large village situated on the north-east border of the Fayum, comparable in size with Roman Pompeii. The village was occupied from the first century BC. The population can be roughly estimated from the surviving tax rolls. In 145-6 the overall population was around 3,316; in 171-4 the number had declined to between 1,907 to 2,135 •98 Karanis was, in general terms, a poor community, although some villagers had acquired wealth. The village was economically dependent on agriculture. The site was deserted in the Byzantine period when the settled area in the Fayum contracted. Acta XXII was among over two hundred papyri fragments recovered from the house labelled B17 by excavators at Karanis. 99 Measuring around 120 square metres, B 17 was one of the largest and grandest residences in Karanis. The texts reveal that the house, and consequently Acta XXII, belonged to a man named Socrates.'°° As well as the fragments found inside his house, several other papers that clearly belonged to Socrates' archive were found in adjoining houses, or on the street outside his house. We therefore know a great deal about the owner of an example of an Acta Alexandrinorum proper. Socrates was a collector of taxes in Karanis during the second century AD. Documents attest that Socrates also acted as a census official at least twice in his career. 10' Socrates also leased out public land.'°2 It seems likely that he also owned land himself, although there is no direct evidence of this. Socrates was born in the AD 90s into a family of metropolite status. He first became involved in tax-collection in the early second century AD. 103 He lived in Karanis for about thirty-five years. The texts

E.g. SB XIV 11585; P.Mich. X 577; SB IV 7461. P.Princ. 113 shows Nemesion paying for bodyguards and their travel expenses. Seep.71. Alston 1995: 118-23. On this text, see p.79-80. '°°On Socrates' archive see Strassi Zaccaria 1991: 245-62; van Minnen 1994: 237-49; 1998: 132-3. 101 Van Minnen 1994: 242 n.67. 102 P.Mich. IX 564, P.Mich. VI 419; P.Kar.Goodsp 78. '°3 P.Mich. VI 383, BGUX\' 2534.

129 from his house all belong to the period AD 135-171. It seems likely that he died in the early 170s. Socrates was one of the two sons of Sarapion (I) and Thatres. His family roots lay in the metropolis of Arsinoe. His brother, Sarapion (II), was one of the sitologoi in charge of the granaries of Karanis.'° 4 Socrates had three children, Sarapion (ifi), Socrates (II) and an unnamed daughter. Socrates' two Sons took over his official roles when he died. Sarapion (III) became a tax collector, and Socrates (II) became a laographos, a census official.'°5 Socrates' 'wife' Gemella was a Roman citizen, presumably the daughter of a veteran who had settled in Karanis. They apparently never married, presumably because of the rigid Roman social legislation, which placed enormous financial penalties on the unions of Egyptians and Roman citizens. To protect the Roman citizenship of his sons, Socrates did not appear on their birth certificates. His sons were registered with 'father unknown' (ex incerto patre).'°6 His daughter must also have been registered in this way, as she proceeded to marry a

Roman, Valerianus. 107 Gemella does not appear to have lived with Socrates, and the pair may well have separated. Socrates was clearly an influential member of the village elite, and like Nemesion, he had wider connections. The son of a certain Taesis, who owned house B 1, was a naval recruit in the Roman army, and he advised his mother to use Socrates to send messages to Italy. 108 It was to Socrates that a villager Artemis wrote when she needed help with a court case in the 'city', presumably either Alexandria or Ptolemais

Euergetis. 109 The daily entries in Socrates' tax-rolls reveal a lot about the nature of his tax collection. Every day he collected from a small number of people at Karanis. From the tax rolls it is estimated that Socrates would have cashed around 10,000 drachmae annually for himself."° This was a huge amount of money, and far, far more, for example, than a typical Roman soldier would have earned."1 Socrates was able to live a life of relative leisure, attaining a ripe old age, and spending his time reading pieces of Greek literature. As well as Ada XXII, he owned

' °4 P.Mich. VI 392-3. ' °5 BGUIII 819, P.Aberd. 35(202/3); BGUII 577 (201/2), BGUI 97(202/3). '°6 P.Mich. ifi 169. '°7 P.Mich. VIII 505, 506 are letters from Valerianus to his father-rn-law. '°8 P.Mich. Vifi 490. '°9 P.Mich. VIII 507. 110 Schuman 1975: 23-66. Roman soldiers earned 300 denarii annually, afler the Domitianic pay rise.

130 several grammatical papyri and some of the works of Menander." 2 Many of his neighbours were also in the habit of reading Greek literature. To give but a few examples, fragments of the Alexandrian poet Callimachus' Aitia were found in house B2, (opposite Socrates' house), and a fragment of the iliad was found in house B7,

'Gemella's house'."3 Given the fact that several texts clearly belonging to Socrates' archive were found in adjacent houses, it may be the case that the Callimachus fragment belonged to Socrates' archive." 4 In any case, Socrates was certainly in the habit of reading Callimachus, and had almost certainly read the Aitia (see below). Socrates' tax rolls, into which he entered accounts daily, give us a unique insight into both his personality, and the level of his education." 5 Even for a Hellenising Egyptian, Socrates was astonishingly well educated. His tax rolls show that he was fluent in Egyptian and Greek. In the tax rolls, Socrates meticulously recorded the name of a landowner, and where it applied, followed this by the name of the tenant in brackets. Socrates often recorded Greek translations of Egyptian names. Thus the Egyptian Touamkiamoul, meaning 'Camel-eater', was recorded as Ka.tEXo4xtKoç, and Petsesi ('the bitter one') as 'HlKpóç'." 6 A particularly revealing entry is 'Dios son of Pampin'."7 Pampin was Egyptian for 'the one of mice', (i.e. a mouse-catcher). A typical Greek translation of Pampin would be MuoOip€unç, MvoOiipaic, or Muâypa. But Socrates chose to name him 'Av&KTilc. The interest in this word is is rarity. It only occurs in a verse of Callimachus cited by the orator Julius Pollux." 8 From this citation, the word has been inserted into Callimachus' Aitia, fragment 177, line 3319 This is not a word that men of average education would ever have read, let alone used. It also appears that Socrates could read Latin too. as several Latin documents were found in his house. 120 It seems very unlikely that Socrates owned a piece of the ActaAlexandrinorum proper because he harboured a grudge against the conquerors. It is clear from his

' 12 The grammatical papyri (PMich. my. 471 la and P.Mich. inv.4693) are both unpublished. The Menander text, published in Gronewald 1986: 1-13, is written on the back of a first century document 113 The Callirnachus fragment is edited in Lloyd-Jones and Parsons 1983: 118-22 (no.276). The Homer fragment (PMich. inv.4768) is published as P.Mich. XVIII 759. 114 Van Minnen 1994: 237. 115 Youtie 1970: 545-5 1. 116 Touamkiamoul: P.Mich. IV 223.1821, P.Mich. IV 224.2187 is KaIlEXO4xlKoc in P.Mich. IV 225.2549. Petsesi: P.Mich. N 223.2472 is HLKpóç in P.Mich. N 224.1846, 2652, 3175. Pampin: P.Mich. IV 224.2437, 3381, 3616, 5115, 5870. ' Julius Pollux 10.156. U9 The word can also be restored into a papyrus preserving this section of the A itia, PSI Xl 1218 fragment a, L33.

131 archive that Socrates saw himself as a Greek. As a 'Greek', Socrates was presumably very interested in the stories of the Alexandrians Greeks, and it was partially through his expressions of Hellenic culture, such as the reading of popular Greek literature, that Socrates maintained his position of pre-eminence in village life. The Tebtunis Fragment.

P.Mil. Vogi. 11 47, a Prefectural edict concerning the disturbances in Alexandria under Trajan, was among the roughly seven-hundred and fifty literary and documentary papyri discovered in the famous cellar (can/ma) of papyri at Tebtunis by Achille Vogliano in 1934.121 However, as the can/ma has the appearance of a papyrus dump, rather than a private library, identification of the owner is difficult.'22 Gallazzi has suggested that the papyri were in the cellar waiting to be destroyed. 123 The majority of the documents in the cellar were initially assignedthe archives of three members of the Tebtunian village elite, Kronion and Pakebkis and Laches. However, further study has shown that the papers in the cellar also belong to the archives of other men, such as Diogenes and Turbo, and the descendants of Laches.' 24 Some of the papers assigned to the archives of the Laches', Kronion and Pakebkis could also be assigned to the archives of other men.' 25 Because the cellar strongly resembles the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchus in purpose, it is currently impossible to attribute P.Mil. VogI. 1147 to any of the archives from the cellar. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to suppose that the owner of P.Mil. yogi. II 47, like the other men represented in the texts from the cellar, was part of the Hellenising village elite, who owned the literary works that were found in the cellar, such as the Diegeseis of the poems of Callimachus.'26 Some owners of Ac/a related literature. The owners of several pieces of Ac/a related literature can be identified. P.Giss.Lit. 4.4, a fragment from a play commemorating Trajan's deification and Hadrian's accession, belongs to the archive of Apollonius, stralegos of the Apollinopolis-Heptakomias region in the early second century, who played a role in the suppression of the Jewish Revolt.'27

' 20 Pjj,ch VII 442; 449. 121 Cazzaniga 1937: 159; Gallazzi 1990: 283-8. 122 Clarysse 1983: 43-61. 123 Gallazzi 1990: 284. 124 See Gallazzi 1990: 287; Clarysse and Gallazzi 1993: 63-8. 125 Gallazzi 1990: 287 lists the tests that may not belong to the archives of Pakebkis and the Lacheis. 126 P.Mil.Vogl. 118. 127 See p.93.

132 The verso of SB X 10295, a copy of the letter of Avidius Cassius to the Alexandrians contains an address: "To Apollinarios, councillor and [ambassador]." Bowman has suggested that Apollinarios is the Antinoopolitan councillor of P.Oy. VI 933, who may perhaps also be the president of the Antinoopolitan boule attested in W.Chr. 27.128 P.Bub. I 4 xxix, a peculiar letter of Elagabalus, was part of a composite roll formed by the pasting together of numerous documents. The documents in the roll are mainly the correspondence between Septimius Arrianus the dioiketes and Aurelius Heracleides, the strategos of the Bubastite nome. The Oxyrhynchus. Hermopolis. and 'Panopolis' fragments. The Oxyrhynchus papyri mainly come from rubbish dumps, which tells us very little about their owners. The editors only very occasionally give fuller details on precise find spots. P.Oxy. XIII 1612, an oration on the imperial cult, for example, was found with P.Oxy. XIII 1606-8, and was among the first of three large finds of literary papyri in 1905-6. CPJII 159 and 157 have close inventory numbers (2435 and 2436), but this only shows that they were acquired by the British Museum at the same time, rather than found together. SB VI 9213 was discovered at Tuna el-Gebel, in the cemetery of Hermopolis Magna. No further details are given about what other texts, if any, SB VI 9213 was found with.'29 The 'Panopolis' fragment, CPJII 156b (part of the Acta Isidori) was bought at the black market at Akhmin, the ancient city of Panopolis in 1926.'° This actually need not necessarily be its original provenance, and in any case, this tells us nothing about the owners of this text. General conclusions. Ancient 'books' were usually written in columns along the fibres (recto) of a papyrus, which would then be stored in a roll. The verso, where one would need to write across the fibres, was usually left blank, as this side of the roll would be damaged during storage. During the first three centuries there was a growing trend towards the more practical and economical code; where texts were written on both sides of the papyrus. The pages were then bound together to form the ancestor of the modern book.

'Bowman 1970: 20-6. 'Although for a general overview of the literary papyri from Hermopolis Magna, see van Minnen and Worp 1993: 151-86.

133 Among the higher echelons of society, the use of the verso was frowned upon. It was seen as a sign of poverty and stinginess.' 31 There are even several apologies for using the verso in private letters.'32 Nonetheless, literary texts were frequently written on the verso of a papyrus in Roman Egypt. Some of the Ada Alexandrinorum literature is written on the recto alone, in very neat, well practised hands, and these examples may very well have been 'library' copies, owned by the very rich. In P.Med. mv 275, for example, the letters are carefully and well-formed, and the writer has even left spaces between the words, and added punctuation. 133 There are several other examples where the writer has clearly spent a large amount of time copying the piece carefully, has opted to write on a new roll and not used the verso. However, the vast majority of the Ada Alexandrinorum literature was scribbled onto the verso of an already used piece of papyrus. Several writers even chose to use both sides of the papyrus for the same story (e.g. P.Oxy. XXII 2339, BKT IX 177 and CPJII 158a). The writer of P.O.xy. 2435 wrote separate stories on the recto and verso respectively. The owner of P.Erl. 16 copied a trial scene onto the recto, but then later copied a literary work onto the verso. 134 This would suggest that these papyri were used as leaves, and stored flat, rather than in roll form. There are also cases of the Acta Alexandrinorum literature being written onto papyri that were made up of discarded records that were cut to size and pasted together to form a new roll (e.g. CPJ II 159). It has been argued that CPJII 150 is a case of eschatokoiion.' 35 However, it is more likely that the text is another example where the owner pasted together already used pieces of papyri to form a roll onto which he could copy the text. It would be reasonable to suppose that the men who chose to write Acta Alexandrinorum literature on the recto alone were of a higher social and economic status than those who chose to use the verso, or on sheets made up from pasted together scraps of papyri. As a general rule this may be correct. However, as Socrates of Karanis was a wealthy member of the village elite, it is surprising to find, for example, that his copy of Menander was scribbled onto the verso of accounts. Nor should we

130 Bell 1932: 5. '' Martial Ep. 8.62, Juvenal 1.5-6, Lucian, Vit.auct. 9. ' 32 P.Gen. 152 1.3-4. ' Daris 1973: 237-8. 134 The verso is published as P.ErI.5. It comes from Iscorates, adNicoclern 12-13. Bell 1949: 167-9; Bastianni 1987: 2, n.12.

134 expect to find papyri pasted together to form new sheets. But we do.' 36 This is all the more surprising when a stack of his unused papyri were also found in his house.'37 Therefore we cannot tell if men of low social and economic status owned examples of the literature, or rich misers. This survey demonstrates that the owners of the Ada Alexandrinorum literature belonged to a wide social spectrum, encompassing the provincial aristocracy, city dwellers and villagers too. This challenges the view that the Acta Alexand.rinorum were highly charged political pamphlets, circulated secretly among the Alexandrian clubs by members of the gymnasial class. Socrates stored his Acta Alexandrinorum proper alongside his copies of Menander, and (probably) Callimachus. The Acta Alexandrinorum and related literature from Tebtunis and Oxyrhynchus were found among literary texts in their respective papyri dumps. Several related pieces of literature also belonged to men who were part of the Roman administration. This suggests the Ada Alexandrinorum were never circulated in a clandestine manner. While some of the fragments are very likely to have belonged to Alexandrians who owned land and lived in the chora, whenever we can actually identify the owner, he is a man like Nemesion or Socrates, a Hellenised native Egyptian. This raises the rather interesting question of why the natives were interested in this literature, particularly when one of the themes of the Acta is eugeneia, the nobility and high birth of the Alexandrians, and particularly when the Alexandrian heroes show their disdain for the native Egyptians. Isidoros, for example, compares the 'poll-tax payers' with the Jews.'38 What appeal did this literature have for men such as Nemesion and Socrates? Nemesion and Socrates were men with Hellenic aspirations. It is therefore not surprising that they looked up to Alexandria, one of the major centres of Greek culture in the ancient world in the Roman period. Through their Greek education and culture, they perhaps entertained thoughts of following the paths of the Egyptians Apion and Chaeremon, and becoming Alexandrian citizens. This desire for upward social mobility and the Egyptian fascination with Alexandria is reflected in several private letters. In a letter of the second or third century, a youth from the chora, Theon, writes to his father, who was visiting Alexandria. The boy sarcastically thanks his father for not taking him.

'For the Menander fragment see p.13 1 n. 112. For his pasting together of papyri see Van Minnen 1994: 242 n.67. 137 Van Minnen 1994: 247.

135 If he does not take him next time he will not write or speak to him again, or say goodbye to him, or greet him, or take his hand. He tells his father that her mother has told someone in the town that 'it quite upsets him to be left behind'. He ends with the threat that if his father does not send him a lyre from Alexandria, he will not eat or drink!'39 A letter of the first century AD from a certain Neilos, an Egyptian studying in Alexandria to his father in the chora, Theon, shows that Alexandria was the city to which aspiring Hellenes in the chora resorted to for their higher education. Neilos speaks of Alexandria with awe, and clearly identifies himself with the Alexandrians, despite his own provincial origins. For example, he 'despairs' that one teacher in Alexandria, Didymus, who "used to be a mere provincial teacher (choras kathegetes) sees fit to compete with the rest." 14° The Ammonius of P. Oxy. XIV 1681 who tells his brothers that he is not an inhuman Egyptian may well be another example of an upwardly mobile Egyptian. The Acta Alexandrinorum were certainly not exclusively intended for the eyes of the Alexandrian elite. The interest in the chora of the highly romanticised stories of Alexandrian nobles travelling to Rome and confronting emperors was generated primarily by the owners' feelings of affinity with Alexandria, and the status that the public expression of their Greek culture gave them in their own communities. There is no sign that the Acta Alexandrinorum were read in the chora by bitterly anti-Roman men. Nemesion and Socrates, for example, had benefited enormously from the Roman conquest, and held minor Roman administrative posts. These men also presumably read the Acta Alexandrinorum and related literature because, above all, the stories were entertaining. These Hellenising Egyptians in the chora were among those re-writing and keeping alive the stories of their heroes in the Alexandrian aristocracy. It is, we should note, typical in popular literature that there is a wide social gap between heroes and readers. iv. Other Literature of Loyalty and Dissent in Roman Eyyt. (a) Mime Literature. Mime literature was incredibly popular in the ancient world, particularly in Alexandria. Cicero said:

138 CPJII 156c ii.8-1O. '39 P.Oxy. 1119. ' 40 P.Oxy. XVIII219Oi.27-30. See Rca: 1993: 75-88.

136 "It is the home of every sharp practice, every deceit; it is from its inhabitants that the writers of farces draw all their plots."14' Mime literature could be used to express loyalty, as the play commemorating Hadrian's accession shows. 142 But mimes could also be used to express dissent. In Rome the leading actors in the farces (mimi) used their popularity with the Roman populace as protection and filled their performances with innuendoes and jokes aimed against the contemporary political environment and emperors.'43 Mimes are frequently mentioned in Alexandria in connection with the Graeco- Jewish violence of the first and second centuries AD. Mimes were probably a feature of the entertainment organised by Isidoros to mock Flaccus, in the early AD 3Os.' Mime writers were employed for the lampoons against Agrippa I: "They (the Alexandrian mob) spent their days at the gymnasium jeering at the king and bringing out a succession ofjibes against him. In fact they took as their instructors the authors of mimes and jests."45 The parading of 'King Carabas' through the streets of Alexandria was essentially a public mime performance.' 46 Philo claims that mimes and dancing in the theatre accompanied the public torture and crucifixion of Jews during the riots of AD 38.' Another 'king mime', presumably also intended to mock the Jews, occurred on the eve of the Jewish revolt according to an Acta Alexandrinorum story.' 48 The theatre, where mimes were performed, is often mentioned in the literature.'49 Musurillo noted the possible influence of mime literature on the Acta Alexandrinorum. He suggested that the dramatic exchanges between the Alexandrians and the emperors, the soliloquy-like death speeches delivered by some Alexandrians and the obvious caricaturing may have been influenced by the mime. But Musurillo did not emphasise the influence, considering the Acta Alexandrinorum to be significantly more serious in tone than surviving examples of (often frivolous) mime literature preserved on papyri.' 50 However, there is no way of telling how representative the surviving mime literature actually is. There are other signs of mime-literature influence

Cic. Rab.Post. 35. Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.86, 89. '42 PGISS L't 4.4. 143 E.g. Suet Tib. 45; Gal us 27; Ner. 39; Ga/b. 13; Vesp. 19; SHA, Marc. 29.1-2. ''4 Phi1oFlacc. 138-40. ' 45 Ibid 34. 'Ibid. 36-9. Ibid. 85. 'CPJII l58acol. i.1-7. ' 49 E8 P. Giss.Lit. 4.7 unnumbered fr. L 13; P. Ory ifi 471 1.106; Acta XXII ft. ifi 1.2.

137 on the Ada Alexandrinorum stories. The calls of a crowd punctuates several stories (as the cries of a crowd in the theatre accompanied mime performances), the asides between ambassadors, and the continual entrances and exits of the ambassadors who are condemned to death, recalled, condemned again, recalled, etc. The dramatic device of the continued entrances and exits, building up the final death scene, suggests that the stories may even have been performed as mimes in the theatre and gymnasium. (b) Oracular literature. Oracles had a long tradition of being used as resistance literature in the ancient world. Several oracles that originated in the east in the Hellenistic and Roman periods convey very strong anti-Roman sentiments. Like the Ada Alexandrinorum, these oracles have been seen as a literary manifestation of provincial dissidence. As such, the oracular literature of Roman Egypt offers an interesting comparison to the Ada Alexandrinorum. Prophetic literature clearly upset the rulers of Roman Egypt, and it was periodically suppressed, most often at the accession of a new ruler. A prefectorial edict of AD 199 banned this "dangerous inquisitiveness." The penalty for ignoring this order was death.'5' Phiegon of Tralles, a Greek freedman of Hadrian, preserves several anti-Roman prophecies from the Hellenistic period in his collection of miracle stories.' 52 Phlegon' s interest was primarily in the story into which the prophecies had become incorporated, which contained several miracles, rather than the prophecies themselves. Nonetheless, he does cite several prophecies predicting that the Greek gods would send powerful armies to destroy and enslave the Romans, warning the Romans of the dire fate that awaited them unless they abandoned the conquest of the east. The references to historical events in the individual prophecies show that they were composed at various points between the war with Antiochus HI and the successes of Mithridates in 89/8 BC. These prophecies were circulated in the east as 'resistance literature' and were designed to comfort the Greeks in the face of Roman aggression by assuring them that the Romans would one day suffer an unpleasant fate. Oracular literature was widely read during the Principate. The Sibylline Oracles are the best-attested example. An official collection of Sibyllina was stored in Rome, allegedly since the time of Tarquinius Priscus, and was consulted in times of crisis. The

' 50 Musurillo 1954:248. P.Coll.Youtiel3O;see Rca 1977: 151-6. 152 Gauger 1980: 225-61; Hansen 1996: no. 3.

138 Romans were well aware that oracles could be used as anti-Roman propaganda. Augustus ordered the destruction of more than two thousand prophetic verses, including some Sibyllina, because they were politically subversive.' 53 Dio preserves an anti- Roman oracle reputed to be Sibylline in origin, predicting the destruction of Rome, which Tiberius went to great lengths to prove fake.'54 None of the official collection has survived, but twelve books of unofficial

Sibylline Oracles have, numbered Books 1-Vifi and XI-XIV. 155 They contain a range of prophecies written and re-written at various points between the mid-second century BC and the seventh century AD. Roughly half of the corpus is believed to have been written by Jews in Egypt (Books Ill, V, XI-XIV). The glowing praise of Alexandria (e.g. Book XI 232-5; XIII 43-9) implies that some books were written in Alexandria. The prophecies are eschatological in outlook, looking towards the coming of a saviour figure and a utopian end-time, a new Golden Age. Books XI-XIV are ex eventu 'prophecies', outlining history from the biblical flood until the Arab conquest. These books were not a single composition, but part of an ongoing tradition that was regularly updated. These Sibylline Oracles contain bitterly anti-Roman verses. Book ifi 350-80 predicts that Rome will repay three times as much tribute as she has taken from her subjects, that twenty times the number of Romans who have enslaved others will be enslaved, and that the mighty city of Rome will be as inconspicuous as a common street. This oracles ends predicting that bad government, blame, envy, anger, folly, poverty, murder, strife, robberies "and every evil in those days" will end when Roman rule does. Book V bitterly censures the Romans for their immoral behaviour, particularly adultery and homosexuality, their 'murderous heart' and 'impious spirit', and because they destroyed the Jewish Temple (160-1). The oracle predicts that: "Mingled with burning fire (Rome will) inhabit the lawless nether region of Hades." Book VIII also predicts the destruction of Rome: "No longer will Syrian, Greek or foreigner, or any other nation, place their neck under your yoke of slavery. You will be utterly ravaged and destroyed for what you did. Groaning in panic, you will give until you have repaid all."

Suet. Aug. 31.1; Dio 54. 17.2. Dio 57.18.3-5. ' 55 Books IX-X merely repeat verses from VI-Vifi.

139 The ex eventu 'prophesies' in Books XI-XIV depict certain emperors in highly negative terms, but the tome is positive in general. Several of these Oracles show the contempt of their Alexandrian Jewish writers for the Alexandrian Greeks and the Egyptians. Book V 487-9 predicts the doom of Serapis, and Book VII 20 foretells that "men will drive out Apis". Book V 52-110 and 179-285 predict doom and destruction in Egypt and the destruction of the Pharaonic capital city Memphis. The extant Sibylline Oracles therefore reflect the traditional prejudices of their Alexandrian Jewish writers. There is contempt for the Egyptians and Alexandrian Greeks, and, in the earlier books, a far more bitter hatred for Rome than can be found in any of the Acta Alexandrinorum. In these early oracles the downfall of the Romans is eagerly anticipated, but set in a vague, distant future, and attributed to a shadowy saviour figure, or to God. It is unclear how popular the Sibylline Oracles were in Roman Egypt. There is only one extant fragment, to my knowledge, dated to the second century To judge from the surviving number of versions, the Oracle of the Potter was a very popular form of prophetic literature in Roman Egypt. The Oracle of the Potter is part of a long literary tradition of Egyptian nationalistic propaganda, exemplified by works such as the Oracle of the Lamb to Bocchoris and the Demotic Chronicle, which were written in the Pharaonic and Ptolemaic periods. Slightly differing recensions of the oracle itself survive in two fragmentary papyri, P.Rain. mv. 19813 and P.Oxy. XXII 2332 (both III AD). P.Graf mv. 29787 (II AD) contains the introductory narrative to the oracle.'57 The oracle is attributed to a potter who lived in the reign of King Amenhotep, a pharaoh of the Eighteenth dynasty (1550-1300 BC). The potter (a human incarnation of the Egyptian creator god Chnum) was taken before the king of Helios (Egypt). He fell into a deep trance in the king's court and delivered a prophecy concerning the bleak future of Egypt. The king ordered his scribes to write down "all that would befall Egypt in a sacred book." These versions of the oracle are very hostile towards the Alexandrian Greeks. The oracle predicts that under the rule of 'the Typhonians', the followers of Seth, Egypt will be destroyed. These Typhonians are called 'the belt-wearers', referring to the Greek style of dress, and come from the 'city by the sea', which is currently 'being

'56p o5i0jj 14. ' These were published (with plates) in Koenen 1968: 178-209. See also Koenen 1977: 249-54; 1984: 9-13.

140 The oracle reflects the Egyptian resentment at Alexandria eclipsing the old Pharaonic capital, Memphis, as the foremost city in Ptolemaic Egypt. The oracle predicts a bleak, anarchic future for Egypt under the rule of the Alexandrians, and looks forward to a time when "the city of the belt-wearers will be abandoned" and become "a fisherman's drying place." The oracle predicts that a saviour king will come and end the rule of the Greeks. The Oracle was a fluid tradition that was regularly updated. Several further pieces of oracular literature use extremely similar language and terms to the Oracle of the Potter, and appear to be updated versions of the oracle composed in the Roman period.'59 The most substantial of these are PSI VIII 982 and P.O.y. id., which contain the same oracle, with minor textual variations. 160 The Oracle predicts: "The temples (will belong) to the horses [because of the] factions of the troops. Attack the Jews! Do not allow your city to become abandoned! Your largest temple will be a sandy exercise court for horses! They (the Jews) will commit injustice. Not prophets, but law-breakers and those who, because of the wrath of Isis, have previously been driven out of Egypt, will settle in Heliopolis."6' P. Oxy. med. continues the gloomy prophecy: "In the time [of the Typhonians] and Belt-Bearers [Egypt will be] suffering [ills through the terrible deeds committed] against [her. The city will be a] drying place for fishermen!"62

The word 'I3aa[LXEIc(?)]' in PSI VIII 982 suggests that these versions of the oracle also look towards the coming of a saviour king. It is wholly unclear who the Typhonians are in these updated oracles. The destruction of Alexandria is still hoped for, but it is the Jews who are depicted as the main enemy of Egypt in the extant sections. If the Jewish defilement of Heliopolis, the first city of Egypt (Memphis?), is taken as literal, rather than metaphorical, these sections may have been written in connection to the Jewish Revolt.'63 The Typhonians may even be Romans. The hand is too early for the prophecy to refer to Diocletian's camp at Luxor, where a magnificent temple did indeed become the base of cavalry and infantry units. Nonetheless, the troops are very likely to

'58 This section was presumably composed in the early Ptolemaic period, while Alexandria was being founded. '59 PS1 VIII 982 (ifi AD); P.Oxy. [261 3B.52.B (13) (a) (II AD) - hereafter: P.Oxy. med.; PSI VII 760 (IH-IV AD), a small fragment from Dublin Iranscribed in P.Oxy. XXII: p.92; Coles 1970: no.7 (j).254-6). '° I have used the texts of PSI VIII 982 and P.Oxy. med. presented by L.Koenen at the 'Oxyrhynchus: A city and its texts' conference held at Oxford and London on 15-8 July 1998. P. (1y. med consists of three fragments of 21,8, and 15 lines. PSI VIII 982 corresponds almost exactly with P.Oxy. med. fr. 19-21. 161 P.Oy. med. fr. 112-9; PSI VIII 982 1.3-10. '62 P.Oxy. med. fr. 11111-15.

141 be Roman troops, and they are criticised, perhaps for allowing the Greeks to hold chariot races in a land previously dominated by temples honouring the Egyptian gods. In all likelihood, the Typhonians in these updated oracles are Jews, but the oracles also contain strong anti-Alexandrian Greek and anti-Roman sentiments. Another later interpolation in the Oracle of the Potter can be found in its narrative ending. P.Rain. mv. 19813 ends with the words: "The apology of the Potter before King Amenophis (Amenhotep), translated to the best of ability (€pw€uiivii I(aTà Tb &n/aTóv), concerning the future of Egypt." The phrase "translated to the best of ability" is frequently found in documents of the Roman period.' 64 Defence speeches (apologiai) were delivered at trials. The writer therefore uses this 'documentary' veneer to claim that he has reported the actual words spoken by the potter at his 'trial' before King Amenhotep. The Oracle of the Potter therefore shows, firstly, that anti-Jewish literature was popular in Egypt, and secondly, that the 'trial-scene' façade was a common literary device employed by writers in Roman Egypt. Several other prophecies from Roman Egypt show a certain discontent with the ruling regime. P.Stanford mv. G93bv and P.Oxy. XXXI 2554 are both ex eventu prophecies, telling 'history' in the form of a prophecy. Whereas the 'king' in the Sibylline Oracles and the Oracle of the Poller is a vague, shadowy figure, these prophecies are extraordinarily specific about the identity of the 'king'; he is an emperor. P.Stanford mv. G93bv (H AD), discussed previously (p.96), is a prophecy concerning the usurpation of Avidius Cassius. The oracle predicts that "there will be a revolt (tarache) in Egypt" (3), a death (5), and the coming of a king (6). The text is clearly an ex eventu prophecy, as the date of the events is given in very precise detail: 'Year 14 of [Marcus Aurelius Antonin(?)]us Augustus]' (AD 173-4). The mention of the moon being in Leo suggests that the very day of the Earache was given. P.O.uy. XXXI 2554 (III AD) was copied onto the verso of a literary work.'65 The five fragments consist of annual predictions, each of which is dated with astrological precision and by the annual rise of the Nile, calculated not only in cubits, but also in palms and digits too. The author must therefore have been speaking of very specific years, and very specific events that could be proven to have happened on a certain date. The prophecy uses

163 Frankfurter 1992: 203-20. 1 E.g. BGU III 1002 1.1. 165 p Cy. XXXI 2546, a fragment of Manetho's Apotelesmatica.

142 bleak terms reminiscent of the Sibylline Oracles and the Oracle of the Potter and predicts famine, war, sickness and ill fortune for the rich. The most intriguing prediction is that: "The king will leave his throne and another will overpower him, that is the king will die in his own house. . . after this the king will be great and punish his adversaries.. From the astrological date in fr. ifi 14-8, it would appear that the text 'predicts' the death of Septimius Severus in AD 211.167 The fact that the author describes the years under Roman rule in such bleak terms implies that this Egyptian prophecy was anti- Roman in outlook. Oracular literature was written in Greek, and therefore presumably read by the educated Hellenising Egyptians, the same people who were reading the Ada Alexandñnorum literature. Just as the Acta Alexandrinorum proper reflect the nationalistic prejudices of the Alexandrian Greeks, the oracular literature reflects the prejudices of its writers. The Sibylline Oracles, mainly composed by Alexandrian Jews, are bitterly anti-Roman, anti-Alexandrian Greek and anti-Egyptian. The yersions of the Oracle of the Potter are anti-Alexandrian, and the versions updated in the Roman period match the Acta Alexandrinorum in their anti-Jewish tone, and also contain anti-Roman sentiments. Several other oracles composed in the Roman period also contain anti- Roman sentiments. In general terms, the oracular literature is much more hostile to Rome than the Acta Alexandrinorum. The calls for the destruction of Rome and the enslavement of the Romans in the Sibylline Oracles go far beyond any of the quips and jibes directed towards Roman emperors by the Alexandrians. The Romans certainly recognised that oracular literature was dissident and, as I noted above, periodically suppressed it. v. TheActaAlexandrinorum and the Severans: The popularity and decline of the Ada Alexandrinorum. Most of the surviving Acta Alexandrinorum proper were copied in the Severan period (c. AD 200-240). While this in itself is unexceptional, given the pattern of survival in papyri, it is clear that the Acta Alexandrinorum were thriving in the Severan period and that the old stories were being rewritten and updated. This once prompted the theory that the Acta Alexandrinorum were composed by a single author in the early

P.Oxy. XXXI 2554 ft. I ii.7-9; 13-4 167 P.Oy. XXXI: p.81-3.

143 third century, possibly in connection with Caracalla's visit to the city in AD 2 15.168 This theory of single authorship is no longer accepted, as examples of the literature have also now been found from the first and second centuries AD. However, the reasons for the clear popularity of the literature in the Severan period, and its consequent disappearance, warrant closer examination. I will argue here that the popularity and decline of the literature in this period cannot be ascribed to a single historical event, such as Caracalla's visit to Alexandria in AD 215, but lie rather in the social, legal and administrative initiatives of the Severan period. The mainstream literary sources for the period discuss the visit of Severus and Caracalla to Alexandria and Egypt (AD 199-200), and the infamous visit of Caracalla to Alexandria in AD 215. Unfortunately, while Dio, Herodian and the Historia Augusta all had a certain amount of respect for Severus, they are highly negative towards Caracalla, portraying him as a stereotypical, mad tyrant.' 69 The original text of Dio's account is lost, but three epitomes of his account of Caracalla' s visit to Alexandria are preserved in the writings of Petrus Patricus, the Exc. Va!., and Xiphilinus. 170 Several later Byzantine writers, Georgius Syncellus, Malalas, the Easter Chronicle and the Suda also refer to the visits, apparently drawing upon earlier traditions. The literary accounts of Severus' visit can be combined to produce a straightforward and coherent narrative history. However, the literary sources for Caracalla's visit are highly conflicting and contradictory, making it difficult to reconstruct what actually happened. This does not simply result from the deliberate bias of the writers. Underneath their accounts would appear to be equally conflicting and contradictory local Alexandrian traditions that were generated by the imperial visit and 'massacre'. Several 'documents' supplement this literary evidence. Documentary papyri help in dating the two imperial visits. The extant apokrimala and responsa of Severus and Caracalla enable us to see some of the judicial activities undertaken by the emperors during their visits. For Caracalla's visit to the city there are also several edicts issued by Caracalla and the fragmentary story of the trial of the prefect Heraclitus. The historical value of these is difficult to ascertain, because, as I argued in chapter ifi, the same Alexandrian traditions responsible for shaping the subsequent literary traditions about Caracalla' s visit also appear in the Acta Heracliti. Inevitably, then, a reconstruction of

Von Premerstein 1923: 73. 169 On the careers and works of these writers see Miltar 1964; Dc Blois 1998: 3415-23; Syme 1971. 170 On the epitomes, see Millar 1964: 1-4.

144 the history of Severan Alexandria, and particularly for Caracalla' s visit, must rely heavily on speculation based upon historical probability and comparative evidence. There is also an inscription dedicated to Caracalla by the Alexandrians during the visit, dated to March 11th 216.'' Unfortunately the significance of the inscription is difficult to determine. In the inscription Caracalla is called kosmokrator and philoserapis. While this could suggest that he was on good terms with the Alexandrians at this time, casting doubt on the stories of a massacre, it could also belong in the context of appeasing the emperor in the aftermath of a massacre. After triumphing in the civil wars of AD 193-7, Septimius Severus visited Alexandria in AD 199-200 accompanied by his sons, Caracalla (as co-ruler) and Geta. The imperial party arrived in Egypt in November AD 199.172 Severus is first attested in Alexandria on the 18th December 199, and last attested in the month of Pharmouthi (March 27th_April 25th) 200. 173 The literary sources state that imperial party also toured Egypt. The length of the tour is unclear, but Severus was in Antioch by January 1st AD 202. 174 It is thought that Severus repaired the singing statue of Memnon at Thebes, although the repairs did not silence the statue as was once thought.'75 Severus arrived in Alexandria immediately after punishing Antioch for supporting Pescennius Niger in the recent civil wars. Severus reduced the status of the city in the province of Syria, and promoting a rival city, Laodicea, to a higher status. Antioch was deprived of its title 'metropolis', its position as first city of Syria, and the local Olympic festival was removed from the city, and combined with the festival at Issus. Antioch was to be a village (Kth1r1) of Laodicea. Laodicea was also given the title 'metropolis', the ius Italicum, made the capital of Syria Coele ob belli civilis merita. Laodicea was given new public buildings and the city became the home of the principal eastern mint. It was not until AD 202 that Severus' anger abated, and he placed Antioch on the same level as Laodicea, giving it the status of a colony.'76 Alexandria had also supported Pescennius Niger. Malalas and the Suda preserve the tradition that Severus' entry into Alexandria was greatly marred by an inscription erected above the gates that read:

171 SB14275. 172 L'is 1979: 253-4. It had been previously thought that he arnved earlier in the year - Hannestad 1944: 194-222. ' 73 P.Flor. ifi 382; P.Oxy. XII 1405, BGUH 473. ' SHA Sev. 16.8; Barnes 1989: 255-6. 175 Dio 75.13.1-2; SHA Sev. 17.2-4; Théodoridès 1989: 267-82; but see Bowersock 1984: 21-32. 176 See Downey 1961: 239-43 for full details. See also Downey 1937: 141-56; Ziegler 1978: 493-514.

145 "This is the city of Niger." When Severus expressed his anger at this impertinence, the Alexandrians replied: "We know that we say that this is the city of Lord Niger. But you are the Lord of Niger!"77 It is implausible that the prefect would have allowed this to happen. An edict suppressing prophetic literature prior to the visit suggests that he paid close attention to ensuring that the visit ran smoothly.' 78 Nonetheless, the later sources, perhaps drawing on local Alexandrian traditions, considered Alexandria's support for Niger a cause of tension during the visit. Did Severus therefore enter Alexandria with the intention of punishing the city in the same way as he had punished Antioch? The evidence shows Severus courting the Alexandrian populace and passing measures that were to Alexandria's advantage, suggesting that this was not the case. He took part in the worship of Serapis.' 79 Malalas states that he gave new baths to the city, and the Easter Chronicle's confused account adds that Severus furnished Alexandria with a new gymnasium, and a great temple called the Pantheon.' 8° Severus also gave the Alexandrians permission to convene a boule: "He (Severus) then gave the Alexandrians the privilege of a council, for they were still without any public council, just as they had been under their own kings, and were obliged to be content with the single governor appointed by Caesar. Besides this he changed many of their laws."8' Documentary evidence shows that the Alexandrian boule came into existence between Pachon (April 26-May 25) AD 200 and Pauni (May 26-June 24) AD 201.182 Documentary evidence, above all the apokrimata, show that Severus passed a series of measures that were to the benefit of Alexandria and Egypt. Severus "remitted the penalties imposed upon Alexandrians and Egyptians", presumably granting a remission of the financial penalties for taxes in arrears. 183 Other documents show Severus cancelling some of the old claims of thefiscus, legislating to prevent abuses by tax collectors and granting amnesty from delinquent taxes, in an aftempt to persuade tax- evaders to return to their idia.'84

Sudas.v. Severus emperor of Rome. Also M1a1'c CSI-IB 31: p.293. ' 78 P.ColLYoutie 130. ' 79 SHASev. 17.4. 180 Malalas CSHB 31: p.293; ChroaPasch. CSHB 8: p.496-7. 181 SHASev. 17.2-4;cf Dio5l.17.3-4. 182 SB V 7817. P.Col. VI 123 1.5-7; Westermann and Schiller 1954: 52-3. '84 SB IV 7366; P.Mich. IX 529; SB I 4284; P.Oxy. XLVII 3364; P. Westminster CoIl. 3.

146 However, Severus did take several measures that were to the detriment of Alexandria. The privilege of the boule was greatly tarnished by the fact that boulai were also simultaneously granted to all the metropoleis of Egypt.'85 While this recalls the policy Severus followed in Syria, by raising the status of Antioch's rival city, Laodicea, it was not intended as a punishment for Alexandria. 186 Severus and Caracalla also passed a law concerning the position of the Jews in their cities at some point between AD 198-211, perhaps even in Alexandria. This law allowed Jews to hold municipal offices without imposing obligations that affected their superstitio.' 87 This law negated the main argument used by the Alexandrians in the past to show that the Jews could not possibly have been citizens ofthepolis, and may even implicitly have allowed the Alexandrian Jews to become citizens. The law can only have been received unfavourably by the Alexandrian Greeks, and presumably raised the problem of the status of the Alexandrian Jews once again. Caracalla visited Alexandria in AD 215 as sole emperor, and allegedly ordered his troops to massacre the youth of the city. What actually happened in Alexandria in AD 2 15-6 is confused in the ancient sources, and remains controversial among modern historians.'88 The literary sources stress that Caracalla was unpopular in Alexandria before his infamous visit. After Severus' death in AD 211, Caracalla allegedly murdered his half-brother Geta. The sources stress that the 'murder' was strongly disapproved of across the empire, particularly in the east. Herodian reports that the brothers were planning to split the empire between themselves, Caracalla .ruling in the west and Geta in the east, with either Alexandria or Antioch as his imperial capital.'89 Caracalla did not improve his reputation in the east by rigorously enforcing the damnatio memoriae of Geta.'9° In AD 213/4 an imperial freedman, Caracalla's dance- teacher Theocritus, allegedly caused controversy in Alexandria while making arrangements for the imperial visit.'9' Dio states that a certain Flavius Titianus: "While governing (irLTpoTrEiuw) in Alexandria, offended him in some manner, whereupon Theocritus, leaping from his seat, drew his sword. And at that Titianus remarked 'That too you did like a

185 Bowman 1971: 15-9. '86 Jbid. p.126-7 on the reasons for granting boulal. 187 Digest 50.2 .3 .3. 188 E.g. Lukasziewicz 1989: 491-6; 1990: 341-7; Buraselis 1995: 166-88; 1998: 300; Favuzzi 1998: 251- 6. 189 Herodian 4.3.5-7. '9° On the darnnatio in Egypt see BGU XI 2056 and Mertens 1960: 541-552. 191 Lukaszewicz 1994: 566-8.

147 dancer'. This angered Theocritus and he ordered Flavius to be slain".'92 It is unclear who Titianus was, and what position he held at Alexandria. Several Titiani are known in Egypt in this period.'93 Although Dio implies that Titianus was in charge of the city, the term 'epitropos' could be used of a number of procuratorial posts in the province. Lukaszewicz has argued that the execution of Titianus provoked a negative reaction in Alexandria, and connects the 'forbidden embassies' mentioned in the Ada

Heracliti with an Alexandrian complaint to Caracalla over Theocritus' behaviour.' 94 In all probability, the ban on sending embassies, if historical, was probably because Caracalla did not want to waste time on business that could be settled during his visit to Alexandria. It is therefore unclear if Caracalla really was unpopular in Alexandria prior to his visit. This alleged unpopularity was presumably back-projected into the sources following Caracalla' s infamous visit to Alexandria. Caracalla arrived in Alexandria late in AD 215. Several oaths, dated 24th27th November 215, promising to send requisitions for the imperial visit to Pel .usium, suggest that Caracalla had not even reached Pel usium by this date, and that he did not arrive in Alexandria until December.' Caracalla is last attested in Alexandria in February/March 216.196 He was back in Syria by 27th May 216.' It is unclear if he spent the whole of this short visit in Alexandria, or visited other places in the province. It is no longer thought that Caracalla planned to return to Alexandria after he had left.'98 The main literary sources, Herodian, Dio-Xiphilmus and the Historia Augusta, produce highly conflicting accounts of what happened during this short visit, which are impossible to conflate into a single, credible narrative. All three allege that Caracalla ordered large-scale massacres of the Alexandrian populace, but differ immensely on the details of the supposed massacres. The Historia Augusta states that Caracalla summoned the Alexandrians to the gymnasium and heaped abuse upon them. He ordered all who were physically able to be enrolled for military service, but then had them executed, "following the example of Ptolemy Euergetes (Physcon)." Caracalla also commanded his troops to conduct a

1 Dio 77.21.2-4. 193 See Lewis 1963: 257-61; Gilliam 1964: 293-9. 194 Lwi 1994: 568. 195 P.Oxy. LI 3602-5. 'P.Oxy. XLIII 3090. SB 14275 also implies this. ' 97 SEG XVII 759; also P.Oxy. XLIII 3091. 198 See Schwartz 1959: 120-3; Whitehorne 1982: 132-5.

148 wider massacre in the city.' 99 The interest of the Historia Augusta's account is the comparison with Ptolemy VIII. Physcon had also allegedly conducted a massacre in the city in the 120s BC. Valerius Maximus states: "He surrounded the gymnasium crowded with young people, killing all those that were inside, some with weapons, some with fire. ,,200 Like Caracalla, Physcon had also allegedly executed a rival to the throne, his own son Memphites. In anger at this, the Alexandrians had torn down statues of Physcon; the Acta Heracliti (see p.101-103) allege that the Alexandrians tore down statues of Caracalla.20' This comparison is more likely to be the work of Alexandrian writers than,1 he ill-informed Historia Augusta.202 The Historia Augusta therefore draws heavily upon Alexandrian traditions. The historicity of this tradition is difficult to eMf access as it remains unclear 4rf the comparison was justified, or ct the Alexandnans deliberately adapted the events of Caracalla's visit to parallel closely events in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy Vifi Physcon. According to Herodian, Caracalla went to Alexandria under the pretext of seeing the city founded by Alexander the Great and to sacrifice to the god Serapis. However, Herodian alleges that Caracalla really visited the city in order to massacre the Alexandrians: "The reason for his concealed antagonism was that he kept receiving reports. . .that the Alexandrians had actually been making great fun of him. It was a natural feature of the people to indulge in lampoons and repetition of many pungent caricatures and jokes belittling the authorities, since they are considered very witty by the Alexandrians, even if libellous to the victims. The witticisms that really irritate are those which expose the truths of one's shortcomings." Herodian alleges that Caracalla was ridiculed primarily for the murder of Geta, but also for his relationship with his mother, whom the Alexandrians allegedly dubbed Jocasta.203 Other jokes ridiculed Caracalla for his obsession with the Greek heroes Alexander and Achilles.

SHAM.Ant. 6.2-3. Val.Max. 9.2.5; see also Athenaeus 4.184 (citing Menecles of Barca); Strabo 17.1.12; Polyb. 34.14. 201 Fraser 1972: 121 with a237-8, cf. Diod.Sic. 34/5 14 on the murder of Memphites. Cf. The comparison of Vespasian and Kybiosactes (p.70-i). 203 This not only refers to the fact that Julia Domna had two warring sons, but also implied incest.

149 Caracalla assembled the youth of the city in an open plain, saying that he intended to enrol them into a phalanx in honour of Alexander. 204 Caracalla had already taken a similar measure in Thrace, where he enrolled men into a 'Macedonian phalanx'. Dio notes that this force of 16,000 men was called 'Alexander's phalanx'. 205 Caracalla walked among the men, speaking words of encouragement to each individual, in a scene that is very similar to Herodian's description of Severus' disarming of the

Praetorians. 206 Then he gave his soldiers the order to encircle the youths and slaughter them. A serious massacre followed in the city. Caracalla then left Alexandria. 207 The Suda reports the same tradition as Herodian, describing the massacre of 'Alexander's phalanx' in its brief resume of Caracalla's reign.208 In his epitome of Dio, Xiphilinus states that, in spite of his affection for Alexander, Caracalla "all but utterly destroyed the whole population of Alexander's city."209 Dio-Xiphilinus gives the same reason for the massacre as Herodian. Caracalla had allegedly heard "that he was ill-spoken of and ridiculed for various reasons, not least the murder of his brother." Caracalla initially concealed his wrath. However, after a magnificent banquet, he ordered his reception committee to be executed. He then ordered a wider massacre, "after first notifying all the inhabitants (of the city) to remain at home."21° Dio-Xiphilinus implies that Geta's murder was somehow connected to the massacre. The order for the massacre was given from the Serapeum, after Caracalla had dedicated the sword that had killed Geta to Serapis there. 21 ' After describing the massacre in highly rhetorical terms, Dio-Xiphilinus report that Caracalla wrote to the Roman Senate justifying his actions (see below), and describes the punitive measures imposed on the city in the aftermath of the massacre: "Foreigners (voL) were all expelled, except for the merchants. . . Next he abolished the spectacles (Oai) and 'public messes' (rnxJalT'La) of the Alexandrians and ordered that Alexandria be divided by a cross wall and occupied by guards at frequent intervals."212

204 Herodian 4.9.4-5. Cf. Suet Ner. 19.2: Nero had created a new legion, called 'a phalanx of Alexander'. 205 Herodian 4.8.1-3; Dio 77.7.1-2; 77. 18.1. 206 Herodian 2.13. 207 Herodian 4.8.6-9.8. 208 Suda s.v. Antoninus emperor of Rome. 209 Dio 77.22.1-23.4. "° Similar measures were taken in AD 66 to control the Graeco-Jewish noting. 21! Dio 77.23.2-3. 212 Dio 77.23.3.

150 In an earlier passage, Dio-Xiphilinus attributes the banning of aucTcrLT 'La to Caralla's hatred for Aristotelian philosophers: "Towards.. . the Aristotelians he showed bitter hatred, even going as far as to ban their books and in particular he abolished their aucrci'a in Alexandria and all other privileges that they enjoyed' 213 It is difficult to combine these accounts into a credible narrative. In Dio- Xiphilinus and Herodian, Caracalla entered Alexandria planning to massacre the populace, because they had mocked him, particularly over the execution of Geta. The Historia Augusta and Herodian, but not Dio-Xiphilinus, insist that Caracalla assembled the youth of the city into a phalanx and executed them before ordering a general massacre in the city. Dio adds another massacre to this, that of Caracalla' s reception committee. Three distinct massacres are not historically plausible. Other versions of the 'massacre(s)' complicate this picture even further. Both the Exc. Va!. and Petrus Patricus' epitomes of Dio regarding the 'massacre' differ enormously from Xiphilinus'. The Exc. Va!. states that Caracalla wrote to the senate saying that he was performing rites of purification in Alexandria, but was really sacrificing the Alexandrians to himself. 214 Petrus Patricus' epitome, compared here to Xiphilinus', also gives a very different version of Caracalla' s letter to the senate: "He (Caracalla) slaughtered so many people that he did not even venture to say anything about their number, but wrote to the senate that it was of no interest how many of them or who had died, since all had deserved to suffer this fate."215

"After he had put to death the multitude of Alexandrian contractors (pyoXá3oL), Antoninus wrote to the Senate: 'It makes no difference at all how many of them were killed. For all deserved to suffer their fate."216 Dio-Patricus therefore states that Caracalla did not order a large-scale massacre of the Alexandrian population, but executed a number of Alexandrian tradesmen (pyoXá3oL). Syncellus' later account also suggests that the 'massacre' was not altogether unjustified: "When he came to Alexandria. . . he destroyed a great crowd on account of public disorder (&i crTâcJlv 8rfl1oT1Kv)."217

213 Dio 77.7.2-3. 214 Exc. Va!. 392 (p.757)Dio 77.23.2. 215 Dio 77.22.3. 216 Pe Patricus, Exe. Vat. 149. 217 Syncellus CSHB 19: p. 672.

151 Eusebius also briefly refers to the violence in the city, but does not refer to it as a massacre: "No small warfare broke out again in the city."218 Several other pieces of evidence would support Dio-Patricus' interpretation of the 'massacre' as the suppression of a riot caused by tradesmen. The edict of Caracalla expelling Egyptians from Alexandria has been linked to Dio-Xiphilinus's statement that foreigners were expelled from the city in the aftermath of the massacre. 219 The edict is primarily directed against the Egyptians who have been stirring up trouble in the city (Tapâaaouai -rtv iróXiv). Caracalla specifically rebukes one group of Egyptian tradesmen, the linen weavers, perhaps suggesting that they had been involved in some kind the rioting. According to Dio-Xiphilinus, in the aftermath of the 'massacre', Caracalla also banned spectacles and ouaaLT'La. The term cruaat-ria usually means 'banquets' or 'public messes'. Taken together with Dio-Xiphilinus' statement that Caracalla took action against the Aristotelian philosophers, it is usually assumed that Caracalla abolished the coveted right of the Aristotelians to dine in the Museum. 220 However, the term cYucraLT'La can also mean 'clubs', 'guilds', and I find it more

likely that Caracalla took action against trade-guilds in the city. 22' Although Dio knew of other Greek equivalents for the Latin collegia, he does uses the term O1XJ0LT'La in this sense. In a passage that corresponds with Suetonius' reporting Augustus' laws concerning collegia, Dio states that Augustus dissolved some auaaLTta, and restricted the meetings of others. 222 The Romans associated collegia with political strife, and often suppressed them. Trajan, for example, refused Pliny's request to convene a guild of firemen in Nicomedia: "It is to be remembered that this sort of society ha'e greatly disturbed the peace of your province.. .Men who are banded together for a common end will all the same become a political association before long."223

It is well attested that guilds were hotbeds of unrest in cities. 224 Ptolemy Vifi, wh"the Alexandrians consideredike Caracalla, also took measures against associations in the

218 Euseb. Hist. eccl. 6.19. 16. 219 PGiSS Lit 6.3. 220 Favuzzi 1998: 251-6. 221 Buraselis 1995: 166-88; 1998: 300. 222 Dio 54.2; Suet. Aug. 32.1. 223 Pun. Ep. 10.33-34. 224 Eg Linen weavers at Tarsus (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21.3; Jones 1978: 80); Bread sellers at Athens (Philostr. l'Y 1.23) and Ephesus (Abbott and Johnson 1926: no.124); Silversmiths at Ephesus (Acts 19: 23-41). Cf. P.Oy XXII 2339 (App. IV).

152 city.225 There are numerous parallels for city-guilds being suppressed immediately following outbreaks of violence. Following serious violence between Pompeii and Nuceria in the first century AD, the senate banned Pompeii from holding games for ten years and dissolved all illegal associations within the town. 226 Marcus Aurelius punished Antioch for adhering to the cause of Avidius Cassius by banning "shows, meetings and every kind of public reunion."227 Caracalla therefore presumably attempted to pacify Alexandria by abolishing the guilds of tradesmen who had been particularly active in the recent disorders. The Acta Heracliti are set against the background of this disorder in Alexandria. The story does appear to be based upon an historical trial. Heraclitus is first attested as prefect in March 215. He had been removed from office by early 216. The appointment of the former iuridicus, Antinous as temporary prefect, before Valerius Datus took over in the spring of 216 suggests that the removal was very sudden. 228 The most likely explanation for his sudden removal from office is that Heraclitus was executed by Caracalla, as a direct result of this trial. Given Caracalla's date of arrival in Alexandria, the trial must have taken place in December 215/January 216. The story of Heraclitus' trial refers to trouble in the city involving tradesmen. The story claims that statues (presumably of Caracalla) were destroyed in workshops, and mentions contractors (pyoXd43oi), and perhaps guilds (a5a[T]a[aLç(?)] col. ii.22).229 A Latin document concerning a unit of the Roman army in Egypt may be associated with this rioting. 230 In the document Heraclitus orders various men to move to different units. The document also states that seven soldiers have been killed in action, and one invalided out of the army. The deaths of soldiers and the need to bring various units up to strength, which was presumably the cause of Heraclitus' reshuffling of his men, could certainly belong in the context of the suppressing violence in the city. The mention of soldiers getting money in col. iii could also refer to an imperial congiarium, which often took place during imperial visits. This would all suggest that there was a serious outbreak of violence in the city soon after Caracalla's arrival. The principal offenders may have been tradesmen, but it

725 p Tebt. ifi 700. He passed measures on associations including gymnasia and politeumata, ordering the leaders to alienate certain properties or be executed. 226 Tac Ann. 14.17. 227 SHA Marc. 25.8-9. See Downey 1961: 227-8. 228 See Bureth 1988: 491 and Bastianini 1988: 5 12-3 on the dates of Datus' prefecture. 229 See p.101-103. 230 P.Brooklyn Museum 24. See Thomas and Davies 1977: 50-61.

153 is highly likely that some innocent Alexandrians were injured and killed as the troops quelled the disturbance. The catalyst for this may have been Caracalla's attempt to consecrate the murder of Geta in the Serapeum. As the tradesmen played a key role in the rioting, they were singled out for punishment in the aftermath of the riots, and their trade guilds dissolved. It is difficult to speculate on what happened beyond this. As I argued earlier (j).101-lO3, 148-9), the contemporary literary reactions to Caracalla's visit, such as the Ac/a Heracliti, were already heavily influenced by the comparison of Caracalla with the unpopular Ptolemy VHI Euergetes, and it is a distinct possibility that history was amended to make this parallel even closer. It was these contemporary reactions, which inspired the formation of the later 'historical' traditions that lie behind the accounts of Herodian, the Historia Augusta and Dio, which blamed Caracalla for massacring the Alexandrian populace. The probably historical story of the creation of an Alexandrian phalanx became confused with the story of the 'massacre' in these Alexandrian traditions that preferred to credit Caracalla with an unjust massacre of the population of the city rather than the justified crushing of a riot. P.Giss.Lit. 6.3, the edict of Caracalla expelling Egyptians from Alexandria, is usually connected with Dio-Xiphilinus' statement that all foreigners were evicted from the city as part of Caracalla's punitive measures in the aftermath of the 'massacre'. The edict claims to have been written while the emperor was in Alexandria (cf. 'here' in col. ii 26), so between December 215-April 216, and was presumably addressed to the prefect (either Antinous or Datus). However, the tone of the decree is far from punitive, unlike the measure announced by Dio-Xiphilinus. Caracalla orders the expulsion of the uncultured, Egyptian peasants, but lists numerous exceptions. Egyptian pork merchants, river-men and those who bring reeds for heating the baths are specifically exempted. Also exempted are those who bring bulls to Alexandria for the worship of Serapis, tourists, those who come to Alexandria to see the 'brilliant city' and appreciate a 'civilised existence', and businessmen. In other words, Caracalla was expelling only those Egyptians who had nothing beneficial to offer the city. 23' In ridding the city of the Egyptian peasants who, as the Ac/a Alexandñnorum show, the Alexandrian populace considered 'uncultured', Caracalla was passing a measure beneficial to the Alexandrians.232

231 Lukaszewicz 1990: 341-7. 232 Eg the contempt for 'poll tax payers' (i.e. Egyptians) in CPJ II 156c ii.8-10.

154 A more precise date for the issuing of the edict is possible. Lukaszewicz has attempted to date the expulsion order to March 216 by connecting it with an edict of the prefect Valerius Datus issued in the spring of216, which ordered everyone to return to 5th their idia.233 A petition dated to the June 216 states that the petitioner, who had fled his village to avoid the burden of a liturgy, had returned to his village as a result of Datus' edict.234 Lukaszewicz has suggested that a priest from Soknopaiou Nesos, who petitioned the strategos on 7th April 216 about a theft which occurred while he had been absent in Alexandria, also returned to his idia as a result of Datus' edict, although this is not entirely certain. 235 The emphasis in the edict of not hindering those Egyptians involved in the preparations for the Serapeia could imply that it was issued in the months immediately preceding the great annual festival of Serapis, on the 25th April. It is very probable that Caracalla, an attested devotee of Serapis, stayed in Alexandria to celebrate this festival before he left for Syria. He may have issued the order to clear the city for this festival, hoping to prevent a recurrence of the crowd trouble. The expulsion edict does not therefore appear to be directly connected to the punitive measures imposed in the aftermath of the rioting early in Caracalla's visit. Similar expulsion orders are known from previous reigns. In an edict of AD 104, the prefect Vibius Maximus ordered everyone to return to their homes in order for the census to be carried out. Like Caracalla, he too made special provision for those xenoi who were present in Alexandria: "Knowing, however, that some of the people from the country are needed by our city, I desire all those who have a special reason for remaining here to register themselves before.. . Festus, prpfeclus alae."236 Sempronius Liberalis issued an edict on the 29th August 154 ordering everyone to return to their idia, following a rebellion in Egypt in 153_4.237 Liberalis' edict was primarily aimed against those who fled their idia in order to avoid liturgies or taxation

(dvaKexwpflKóTEc). Caracalla, as co-ruler with Severus, and as sole emperor, had already issued edicts ordering all men to return to their idia.238 P.Giss.Lit. 6.3 may even have formed part of a re-enactment of these edicts, or have been issued in anticipation of the census of 216.

Lukaszewicz 1988: 346-7, 1990:129-32. 234 BGuI 159. BGUI 321, 322. 236 Se/Pap II 220. BGU II 372. Cf. P.Fay. 24, a local official swears he has publicly posted Liberalis' 'letter'.

155 The Acta Alexandrinorum literature, as I have observed, was particularly popular in the Severan period, but apparently not after it. What, then, was it about the Severan period and the third century AD that not only saw the sudden great interest in the literature, but also the end of it? Whatever happened during Caracalla' s visit to the city certainly led to the creation of numerous, conflicting local traditions, traditions that became incorporated into the equally conflicting accounts of the mainstream ancient historians. Although the evidence best supports the theory that Caracalla's 'massacre' was actually the quelling of a riot, the exact series of events remains too unclear to ascribe the popularity of the Acta Alexandrinorum literature to this single event. Musurillo argued that the Acta Alexandrinorum literature disappeared as a direct result of Rome making peace with Alexandria's civic pride by granting the city a boule. A letter from Oxyrhynchus, written in the third century AD, refers to a serious war in 'the city' (probably Alexandria), reporting that: "Now its cannibalism, not war!"239 It is impossible to identify which 'war' this letter refers to because third-century Alexandria was plagued by a series of violent disturbances. There were serious riots in Alexandria during Macrinus' reign, which forced the prefect Basilianus to flee from the city. 24° A serious 'polemos' against the Christians accompanied Rome's millennium festival in AD 248.241 Further anti-Christian violence in Alexandria followed Decius' edict of AD 249 instructing all the inhabitants of the empire to sacrifice to the gods of Rome.242 There was more violence against the Christians in the late 250s during Valerian's 'persecution'.243 Eusebius' citations of the letters of Dionysios bishop of Alexandria reveal that there was war, famine and a serious plague in Alexandria in the early 260s, but the order of the events is very conftised. 2 Eusebius gives only a tentative glimpse of this stasis, during the Roman siege of the Bruchium district, the section of Alexandria housing many major buildings, and the seat of the Alexandrian boule. Eusebius' interest in the siege is the brave actions of the Christian Anatolius, who managed to save large numbers of Christians and pagans by arranging with the unnamed Roman general to allow safe passage to deserters from the district. Anatolius convened a session of the Alexandrian boule within the Bruchium district and proposed

238 P.Oxy. XLVII 3364; Thomas 1975: 210-21; SB I 4284; P. Westminster CoIl. 3; P.Giss.Lit. 6.2. 239 P.Oxy. XLII 3065. 240 Dio 78.35.1-3. 24! Euseb. Hist. ecci. 6.41.1-9; Sibyilme Oracle 13.50-3, 74-8; Potter 1990: 240-1, 252-3; Oost 1961: 1- 20. 242 Euseb. Hist. eccL 6.41.10-42.6, 44; On the edict, see Knipfing 1923: 345-90; Rives 1999: 135-54. 243 Euseb.Hist. ecci. 7.10-11.

156 surrender to the Romans. The councillors angrily rejected his proposal, but acceded to Anatolius' request to allow non-combatants to leave Bruchium. 245 The cause of this stasis and the outcome of this siege are unknown, although they may have been connected to the revolt of Macrianus and Quietus and the alleged revolt of the prefect Aemilianus. 2 The literary sources allege that there were further revolts in the city during the reigns of Claudius II and Aurelian, the first related to the Palmyrene invasion of Egypt.247 Aurelian allegedly laid waste to the walls of Alexandria, and the district of Bruchium, in quelling this revolt. 248 There were two further revolts under the tetrarchs. It is not clear if Alexandria was involved in the first of these, which saw an emperor (Galerius?) raze Busiris (or Boresis?) and Coptos to the ground and campaign in southern Egypt. 249 But Alexandria rebelled against central Roman authority in AD 296/7, supporting the usurpation of Domitius Domitianus. Diocletian personally recaptured the city after a long siege.25° The history of third-century AD Alexandria does not therefore support the theory that Rome made peace with Alexandria's civic pride at the beginning of the third century. In my opinion, the turbulent third century can hardly have failed to produce any local, contemporary literature. P.Oxy. XX\TII 2466, written in a hand of the third century, appears to be one such local history, and tells the story of an Arab invasion of Egypt, led by a certain 'Webelis'. The editor states that the hand is too early for 'Webelis' to be the Palmyrene leader, Vaballathus. The story therefore presumably refers to another episode from third-century history. I believe that the reasons for the decline of the Acta Alexand.rinorum literature lie more in the social, administrative and legal initiatives passed in the Severan period. As I noted above (p.147), the Severan ruling allowing the Jews to hold civic positions without the necessity of participating in civic cults must have provoked a serious reaction in Alexandria, and must be partially why the literature was so popular in this period. Previous commentators, who prefer instead to emphasise the 'anti-Roman' nature of the stories, have played down the 'anti-Jewish' nature of the Acta A lexandrinorum literature. However this literature was born out of the Graeco-Jewish

244 See Strobel 1993: 185-2 10. 245 Euseb. Hist. ecci. 7.32.7-12. 246 Oost 1961: 1-20. The evidence for the revolt of Aemilianus is dubious - SHA Gall. 4.1-2, 5.6, 9.1; Tyr.Trig. 22. 247 Zosimus 1.44; SHA Claud. 11. 248 Amm. Marc. 22. 16.15. 249 See Bowman 1984: 33-6; P.Oxy. 143.

157 violence in first century AD Alexandria, as I argued in chapter II. It is hardly coincidental that most of the surviving stories involve the Jews, and the anti-Jewish nature of the stories was surely a major factor in the popularity of the literature in the chora, particularly after the Jewish revolt. The course of the Jewish revolt in the chora is known primarily from a series of letters from the archive of Apollonios, a strategos from the Apollinopolite-Heptacomite nome. 251 Not unsurprisingly, the revolt stirred up enormous anti-Jewish feeling in the chora. The letters in Apollonios' archive refer to the 'impious Jews'. Apollonios' mother considered the Jews to be cannibals and warned her son to avoid being roasted! Many local Egyptians aided the Romans in suppressing the revolt. In one battle near Hermopolis Magna the Egyptian force was "beaten and many were killed".252 Almost a century later the Oxyrhynchites felt that they could secure imperial favour by reminding Severus and Caracalla that they had aided the Romans in the war against the Jews. Their petition reveals that 'even a century after the revolt had ended, the Oxyrhynchites still celebrated the day of the Jewish defeat as a festival. 253 Under these conditions, a literature with strong anti-Jewish overtones, such as the Ada Alexandrinorum was bound to be popular. As I noted in chapter IV (p.1 40-1), the equally anti-Jewish versions of the Oracle of the Potter were also popular in this period. The claim in so many of the ActaAlexandrinorum stories, that the emperor was prejudiced in favour of the Jews against the Alexandrians, if not simply dismissed as mere fantasy, may even have been interpolated into the old stories as a result of the Severan ruling. As no papyri have been recovered from Alexandria itself, all the waning number of finds of the Acta Alexandrinorum demonstrates is that the literature was no longer popular in the chora. As I observed above (p.126-136), Hellenised Egyptians were reading the literature as a means of social climbing. However, during the third century AD, Alexandria's status within Egypt was changing. The initiatives of the Severan period partially reflect this change, and also partially accelerated the process. Septimius Severus granted all the cities in Egypt the right to convene boulai, greatly diminishing the importance of the institution of Alexandria's own council. In AD 212 Caracalla issued the so-called Constitutio Antoniniana, a decree granting Roman citizenship to all the inhabitants of the empire. His motivation for this, according to Dio, was primarily

250 See Schwartz 1975 and Thomas 1976: 25 3-79 on this revolt. 251 These letters are among the documents collected in CPJ II 43 6-50. 252 CPJII 438.

158 financial. 254 This unintentionally eroded one of the privileges of Alexandria, the exclusive right to obtain Roman citizenship, because it was no longer necessary for provincials to court the Alexandrian citizenship as a route to the Roman citizenship. Another privilege, the exemption from the poll tax, was also lost when this tax was phased out in the mid-third century. 255 Alexandria was now no longer 'the city' of Egypt, but the prima inter pares. When then did the literature decline in Alexandria itself? By the AD 250s, the literature had very much lost its raison d'être. The Greeks in Alexandria had a new enemy, the Christians. The Greeks persecuted the Christians in much the same way as they had the Jews in the first two centuries AD, and were even perhaps joined in this by the Jews of the city. The Christian-pagan quarrels in the city dominate the history of Byzantine Alexandria. We should also note that the Byzantine period witnessed the amphitheatres and racetracks eclipse the gymnasia and theatres as focal points of Greek culture. This would have led to the decline of the literature, especially if, as I have argued above, the literature was performed in public. The literature disappeared in Alexandria, I would estimate in the second half of the third century AD. The growing popularity of the Christian Martyr Acts and other similar literary forms served to fill the void left by the disappearance oftheActaAlexandrinorum literature.

3 cpjn 450. 4 Dio 77.9.5. 5 Bowman and Rathbone 1992: 127.

159 V.

The 'Ada Alexandrinorum' or Ada Gruecorum et Romanorum? The wider context of the Ada Alexandrinorum literature.

The AciaAlexand.rinorum have always been considered a purely Alexandrian phenomenon, born out of the unique social problems in Alexandria, and the unique political problems between Alexandria and Rome. However, as I will argue below, the Ada Alexandrinorum have considerable links with other contemporary literature in the wider Mediterranean world. Nobles from other Greek cities often appear as heroes in the Alexandrian stories. The disputes between other Greek cities and Rome were written up in a remarkably similar way to the Acta Alexandrinorum. By comparing the Acta Alexandrinorum proper with contemporary stories of Romans, Greeks, Jews and Christians bravely confronting Roman prefects and emperors, I will argue that the Ada Alexandrinorum are part of a much wider literary phenomenon. I. The Acta Alexandrinorum and contemporary trial scenes. In chapter IV I examined the evidence for the dependency of the Ada Alexandrinorum on official acta. Here I will examine how Romans, Greeks, Jews and Christians depicted their heroes standing up to the Roman authorities in their martyr literature. There is no consensus on the interrelation of these martyr literatures. Some scholars have argued that there are strong literary relationships between some of the stories. It has been suggested, for example, that the Acta Alexandrinorum provided the literary model for the acta Christianorum (see p.11 -2). Literary dependence between these martyr literatures, however, is difficult to prove and it remains unclear if these martyr stories are simply independent, scattered tales, or if they ever developed into a definite literary form, a type of ancient Kleinliteratur.' I will compare the martyr literatures here to the Ada Alexandrinorum, pointing out the similarities and differences. I will argue that there are enough similarities to suggest that the Acta Alexandrinorum come from the same literary environment as the other martyr stories and literatures, and belong to the same literary phenomenon that pitted noble Greeks and Romans, Jewish sages and Christians before the Roman authorities.

'Reitzenstem 1904: 326-32.

160 i. Classical Greece. Trial literature in the Graeco-Roman world became popular following the controversial trial and execution of the Athenian philosopher Socrates in 399 BC. Soon after his death, both Plato and Xenophon composed pro-Socratic defence speeches, the Apologia and the Memorabilia respectively. A certain Polycrates wrote a (now lost) anti-Socratic prosecution speech, probably in 3 93/2, entitled the Accusation of Socrates.2 In the following centuries many other defences of Socrates were composed.3 A Defence of Socrates was ascribed to Lysias, giving rise to the anecdote that Lysias had composed a speech before Socrates' trial and offered it in vain to Socrates. 4 Some of these writers could have known what was actually said at Socrates' trial. Plato and Xenophon may even have been spectators. No writer however simply transcribes the historical prosecution speech or apology, but each uses his rhetorical skills to embellish the speeches and emphasise their personal biases. The practice of composing literary prosecution and defence speeches became popular in fourth-century BC Athens, even when no actual trial had taken place. A fragmentary papyrus from second-century AD Karanis contains a defence speech for Theramenes. 5 A line of the papyrus almost exactly parallels a section from the prosecution speech of Theramenes in ps.-Lysias 12.69, suggesting that both authors used the same source in composing what were probably political pamphlets.6 Ps.- Lysias XIV and XV are very hostile prosecution speeches of Alcibiades, and may have been written as responses to apologial of Alcibiades. This form of trial literature continued to be popular in the Principate. The composition of prosecution and defence speeches, of Alcibiades in particular, was a popular exercise in rhetorical schools.7 Although Socrates was tried by a democratic court, he became the prototype of a long line of sages and wise men who confronted tyrants. The story of Socrates therefore became a paradigm for opposition to tyranny, and the story of his trial became the literary template for much subsequent trial literature. However, most of the trial literature composed under the Principate does not take the form of long defence or prosecution speeches, but uses a terse question-and-answer format. It is most likely that

2 This work is referred to in Diogenes Laertius 2.39-40; Isocrates, Bus. 4; Ael. Var.Hisl. 11.10. See also Chroust 1955: 1-77. See 011ather 1938: 204. 4 Cic.DeOr. 1.231. 5 P.Mich. mv. 5982; see Merkelbach and Youtie 1968: 161-9; Henrichs 1968: 101-8. Breitenbach 1989: 121-35 argues that the author was Ephorus. 6 Andrewes 1970: 35-8.

161 the shortening of the speeches in trial literature, allowing more interplay between the speakers, was a development of the Hellenistic period. An example is the story of the trial of the gymnosophists before Alexander, which is preserved on two papyri and in

Plutarch.8 According to the story Alexander told the gymnosophists that he would execute the first who answered him badly and ordered the eldest to act as a judge. He briefly asked each gymnosophist a question and received a short answer. ii. Rome of the Principate. The Romans had a martyr literature that began with Cato (the younger), who committed suicide in 46 BC rather than receive a pardon from Caesar. Plutarch relates his last hours. While his friends gathered for dinner, Cato removed himself to his room, and read a copy of Plato's Phaedo. After discussing with philosophers the necessity of seeking salvation, he retired to his chambers and thrust a sword into his side. 9 Cato's nephew, Marcus Junius Brutus, one of Caesar's assassins, followed Cato's example, and killed himself after the defeat at Philippi. These suicides earned them the undying glory of martyrs. They had fallen with the Republic. Their names became associated with the 'glorious' Republican past, and they came to embody Republican virtues. The suicides of Cato and Brutus prompted many political pamphlets. Following the model of the fourth-century BC Athenian trial literature, these pamphlets took the form of defence and prosecution speeches. Cicero, Brutus and an Epicurean philosopher named Fabius Gallus composed eulogistic apologies of Cato, which, in praising Cato, also attacked Caesar. Caesar himself, his general Aulus Hirtius and Augustus wrote Anticatones.'° All are now lost. It is clear from the references to Caesar's Anticato in later writers that Caesar composed a bitter prosecution speech against Cato, primarily attacking his character. Tacitus puts the following words into the mouth of Cremutius Cordus: "When Cicero praised Cato to the skies, the dictator Julius Caesar reacted by writing a speech against him - as in a lawsuit" (velut apud iudices).'t The composition of Catones and eulogies of Brutus continued under the principate. While it was, of course, possible to admire Cato and Brutus as distinguished

E.g. P.Stras. mv.Gr. 2346 (V AD) = Pack2 2497. Published in Lewis 1936: 79-87. 8 Wilcken 1923=Manteuffel 1930: no.11 (1 BC); PSI VII 743 (I AD); Plut. Alex. 64. Pint. Cat.Min. 68-70. '°On these works see Dyroff 1908: 587-604; Jones 1970: 188-96; Tscheidel 1981 collects all testimonies and citations of Caesar'sAnticato. On Augustus' work see Suet. Aug. 85.1. "Tac.Ann. 4.34.

162 Romans, because the praising of Cato and Brutus invariably meant attacking the Caesars, the composition of such accounts was politically dangerous. Some noble Romans were prosecuted for composing eulogies of Cato and Brutus. In AD 25 Cremutius Cordus was tried in the senate for writing a pamphlet praising Cato and Brutus as 'the last of the Romans'.'2 Cassius Longinus was punished for having a bust of Brutus' accomplice, Cassius, in his house bearing the inscription 'to the leader of the cause' (ducipartium). 13 Thrasea Paetus, Curatius Maternus and Munatius Rufus all wrote lives of Cato.'4 Paetus was forced to kill himself (although for other reasons), Maternus was executed and Rufus was exiled. Albucius Silus narrowly escaped punishment for invoking a statue of Brutus.' 5 Whether these eulogies were intended to offend the Caesars is unclear, but senators could use charges of Catonism as a pretext for prosecuting their senatorial enemies. Thus, while the pretext for Cremutius Cordus' trial was his pro-Brutus and Cassius writings, Seneca claims that the real reason was Sejanus' spite.'6 In return for exposing alleged enemies of the regime, these men could expect imperial favour, promotion and financial rewards. The accusers of Thrasea and Soranus, for example, received five million sesterces each.'7 First-century AD Rome had numerous political martyrs. The most famous were Seneca, Thrasea Paetus, Barea Soranus, the Helvidii Prisci (elder and younger), Herennius Senecio, Arulenus Rusticus and the many others whose fates have been preserved by Tacitus and other writers. Most of these martyrs belonged to the reigns of Nero, Vespasian and Domitian. These martyrs are often alleged to have belonged to a 'Stoic resistance'. However, Stoicism, one of many philosophies popular among the Roman elite, did not necessarily encourage opposition to the Principate, or induce its members to be subversive or disobey emperors. It is true that some prominent nobles who were Stoics criticised individual emperors, but there was no clearly organised 'Stoic' resistance among the Roman elite.'8 Just as charges of Catonism fuelled the prosecution speeches of the delatores, so too did charges of Stoicism. Thus the pretext

12 Suet. Tib. 61.3; Tac. Ann. 4.34; Dio 57.24.2. 13 Dio 62.27.1-2; Tac. Ann. 16.7. 14 Plut CatMin. 25.1, 37.1-2; Val. Max. 4.3.2; Tac.Dial. 2. 15 Suet. Rhet. 6. 16 Sen. Dial. 6.22.4. 17 Tac.Ann. 16.33. 18 Brunt 1975: 7-39; Wistrand 1979: 93-101.

163 for Thrasea trial was both Catonism and Stoicism, but in reality a personal grudge between Thrasea and his prosecutor, Cossutianus Capito lay behind the trial.'9 The so-called exitus literature played a key role in the literary expression of Roman political opposition to the Principate. Pliny frequently refers to this literature in his letters. He states that an equestrian official, Titinius Capito, celebrated the lives of his greatest heroes, Brutus, Cassius and Cato, in verse and greatly admired the Romans executed by Nero. He even raised a statue to one of Nero's victims in the Roman forum. 2° Pliny mentions his intention to attend a reading of Capito's work "on the deaths of famous men (exitus inlusirium virorum), some of whom were very dear to me."2 ' Pliny names another author of exitus literature, Gaius Fannius, who died before completing "a history of the various fates of those put to death or banished by Nero."22 Exitus literature was clearly widespread and popular and many Roman nobles composed eulogies of Rome's political martyrs. Pliny himself and Herennius Senecio both composed lives of Helvidius the elder and Arulenus Rusticus composed a eulogy of

Thrasea. 23 Both Martial and Statius composed literary tributes to Lucan. 24 Persius left behind some encomiastic verses on the elder Arria after his death in 62.25 When Tacitus refers to 'catalogues' of trials, he may be referring to exitus literature.26 Unfortunately, not one example of exitus literature has survived. For an assessment of its form, style and content we are therefore forced to turn to writers who were familiar with it, such as Tacitus, Pliny and Epictetus. As its name suggests, exitus literature focused on the death of the hero. The death scene was therefore more important than a trial scene. Indeed, trials did not always precede the deaths of the Roman martyrs. If the Roman knew that he was likely to lose his case he often committed suicide before a trial took place. There was a very practical reason for this. As the defendant was dead before ajudgement was pronounced, he died an innocent man, and could expect the emperor to show clemency to his family, and, in particular, to allow them to inherit his property. 27 Tacitus gives an excellent indication of the dramatic death scenes that could be found in exitus literature. The influence of the

'9 Tac.Ann. 16.21. 20p1in Ep. 1.17.3-4. 21 Ibid. 8.12. 22 Ibid 5.5. Ibid. 9.13; Dio 67.13.1-3; Tac.Agr. 2; Suet. Dom. 10.3. 24 Martial,Ep. 7.21-3; Stat. Silv. 2.7.1. " Suet. Vita Persi. 26 TaC Ann. 6.7. 27 Cf. the suicide of Gallus, prefect of Egypt in 26 BC.

164 traditions of Socrates and Cato on the 'noble deaths' of, for example, Seneca and Thrasea Paetus are explicit. Seneca was dining with friends when a guard of Nero arrived informing him that he must die. Tacitus records his last words and attempted suicide. When this failed to work, hemlock "the poison with which Athenians condemned to death [i.e. Socrates] were executed" had to be administered. 28 When news arrived of his fate, Thrasea too was dining with distinguished company, and was engaged in conversation with the philosopher Demetrius, debating the nature of the soul, as Socrates in Plato's Phaedo, which was read by Cato immediately before his suicide. Withdrawing to his chambers, he cut his veins. His last words were defiant: "This is an offering to Jupiter the Liberator!" Other Tacitean heroes, for example, Julius Vestinus and Ostorius Scapula are given the same 'noble death', a vital component of the exitus literature.29 Nonetheless, when trials did actually take place, it appears that trial scenes were included in exitus literature. As in the Ada Alexandrinorum, these trials are reported in direct speech. Pliny eltes from the trial of Fannia, Helvidius the younger, Herennius Senecio and Arulenus Rusticus before Domitian in AD 93. Senecio, on trial for composing a life of Helvidius the elder, said in his defence that Fannia had requested him to write it: "Mettius Cams [prosecuting] demanded in a threatening tone if this was true. She replied that it was. Had she lent Senecio her husband's commentarii? 'Yes'. Did her mother know of this? 'No."3° Pliny may also cite from an exitus account of the trial of Caecina Paetus and Arria. Paetus had joined Scribonianus' revolt, and both were taken before Claudius determined "to die a glorious death". Arria stabbed herself and handed the dagger to her husband. Pliny preserves her last words: "It does not hurt, Paetus", and states that their story "was widely famous".3' Epictetus preserves a dialogue between Paconius Agrippinus and an informer, in which Agrippinus accepted news of his exile as calmly as the yin magni accepted news of their fates: "Someone came to him and told him, 'you have been condemned'. 'To exile,' he said, 'or to death?' 'To exile.' 'What about my

Tac. Ann. 15.624 Tac. Ann. 15.68-9; 16.14-15. °Plin.3 Ep. 7.19.5. Ibid. 3.16.

165 property?' 'It has not been confiscated.' 'Well then, let us go to Arica and take our lunch there."32 Although, in general the Romans were more restrained in their outspokenness than the Alexandrians, there are examples of Roman being rude to emperors. Helvidius was openly critical of Vespasian in the senate house, and Dio reports one quarrel between them, following Helvidius' criticism of Vespasian's choice of successor: "Vespasian left the senate in tears saying: 'My successor shall be my son or no one at all."33 Epictetus' record of an imagined confrontation between Helvidius (the Elder) and Vespasian, based upon a 'dialogue' between Cicero and Caesar in 49 BC, may be reminiscent of the type of dialogue that once filled the exitus literature.34 The historical setting for the dialogue is Vespasian's order that Helvidius should not attend meetings of the senate. In Epictetus' dialogue, Helvidius replied: "It is in your power not to allow me to be a member of the senate, but so long as I am one I must attend its meetings." "Very well then, but when you attend hold your peace." "Do not ask for my opinion and I will hold my peace." "But I must ask for your opinion." "And I must answer what seems to me right." "But if you speak, I shall put you to death." "Well, when did I ever tell you I was immortal?"35 The Roman martyr literature was a phenomenon of the first century AD only. By the late first century AD, prominent writers were criticising the worthless sacrifices of the martyrs. Tacitus ends his eulogy of Agricola not with a trial and noble death scene, but a bitter attack on the Roman martyrs: "To me those are not heroes who gain fame by a vote-winning dth (ambitiosa morte inclaruerunt). My hero is he who can win praise without death."36 Tacitus uses the terminology of electoral bribery (ambitus), claiming that the heroes of exitus literature were illegally and unfairly winning glory through their martyrdom. Martial and Epictetus also criticise pointless martyrdom. 37 Whether Tacitus really disproved of the martyrs of exitus literature is debatable. There is little criticism of them in the Annals. Tacitus' 'disapproval' needs to be seen in the context of his

32 App. Epict. diss. 1.1.28-31. OnEpictetus see Starr 1949: 20-9; Millar 1965: 141-8. Dio 65.12. Cic.Ad.Att. 9.18.1. 35 App.Epict. diss. 1.2.19-24. 36 Tac. Agr. 42. E.g. Martial, Ep. 1.8; App. Epict. diss. 1.1.26-7.

166 defence of Agricola, and, by implication, all like himself (and Pliny) who survived (and prospered) under the reign of Domitian. The sources suggest that the Roman martyr literature were short pamphlets, episodic and eulogistic, focusing primarily on the death scene of the martyr. The martyr s' last words were recorded, as were their noble death by their own hand. There would seem to be little similarity between these stories of Romans who nobly take their own lives with little protest and those of the Alexandrians who are dragged to their executions while abusing the emperors. Nonetheless, when there was a trial, it was recorded in the same format in both the exitus literature and the Ada Alexandrinorum. Some Romans, like the Alexandrians, were impertinent to the emperor, but in general, the Roman martyrs were more restrained. iii. Emperors and their Greek subjects. The stories of the confrontations of noble Greeks and Roman emperors owe an enormous debt to a rhetorical topos of the Hellenistic period, the theme of the brave philosopher facing a tyrant. Plutarch reports the meeting between Alexander and the philosopher Diogenes. When Alexander asked if he would like anything, Diogenes replied: "Yes. Stand a little out of my sun." 38 Diogenes Laertes reports a series of anecdotes on this topos in his biographies of philosophers. Callisthenes, he states, was not afraid to speak to Alexander with too much freedom of speech (parrhesiastikoteron). 39 Plato bravely confronted Dionysius, tyrnat of Syracuse. When Dionysius told him: 'You speak like an old dotard', Plato responded: 'And you like a tyrant'.4° There are numerous examples of noble Greeks bravely standing up to Roman emperors, and, in doing so, being as rude and disrespectful as the Alexandrian Greeks are. I have paid particular attention in the following survey to the longest extant examples of Greeks confronting Roman emperors, outside of the Ada Alexandrinorum proper, the L1fe of Secundus the Silent Philosopher and Philostratus' Life of Apollonios of Tyana. The historical sources reveal that emperors were often confronted by outspoken Greeks. Some emperors punished the rude Greeks, others ignored them. A Spartan noble accusing Eurycles before Augustus was unsparing and tiresome in his

38 P1utA/ 14.2. Diog.Laert. 5.4-5 (cf Arr. Anab. 4.10-14). ° E.g. Diog.Laert. 3.18-9; see also ibid. 9.59; 9.26.

167 outspokenness, and was imprisoned for his rudeness. 4' Nevertheless, Augustus cultivated a reputation for overlooking the insolent behaviour of outspoken Greeks: "Augustus never punished anyone for showing independence of mind on such occasions or even behaving insolently."42 Indeed, when the Alexandrian historian Timagenes fell out with Augustus and composed anti-Augustan histories, Augustus endured his attacks good-naturedly, and refused to have him expelled from the city. 43 Claudius allegedly allowed a Greek litigant to call him 'both an old man and a fool' without punishing him, and Vespasian "bore the frank language of friends, the quips of pleaders and the impudence of philosophers with the greatest patience." The most outspoken Greeks of the first century AD were the Cynics. These street-corner philosophers were renowned for being abusive, and match the Alexandrians' insolence towards emperors. Demetrius, whom Gaius had tried to bribe to keep silent, was the most prominent cynic in first-century AD Rome. He was eventually expelled in AD 66, and again in 71, for exasperating Vespasian. 45 Several of his confrontations with emperors are recorded. He allegedly told Nero: "You threaten me with death, but nature threatens you."46 When he met Vespasian abroad, he refused to rise in his presence and even snarled out an insult. 47 During another confrontation, Vespasian is alleged to have retorted to Demetrius: "You are doing everrthing to force me to kill you, but I do not slay a barking dog." 8 Suetonius records that a Cynic philosopher, a certain Isidoros, criticised Nero. 49 Under Vespasian a Cynic named Diogenes slipped into Rome, entered the theatre and denounced Titus and the Jewish princess Berenice. He was flogged for his insolence. His companion, Heras, was executed for a similar denunciation. 5° Lucian tells the story of a fictional second-century AD Cynic, set in the reign of Antoninus Pius. Peregrinus

41 Plut Reg. et imp.apophth. 207.14; cf. CPJ II 157 - the Alexandrian Hermaiskos relies on his birth to protect him from Trajan. 42 Suet.Aug. 54. Raaflaub and Salmons 1990: 442-3. Suet. Claud. 15.4; Vesp. 13. See Kindstrand 1980: 83-98. App.Epict. diss. 1.25.22. Suet. Vesp. 13. Dio 66.13.2-3. Suet. Ner. 39. 50 Dio 66.15.4-5.

168 sailed to Italy after a stay in Alexandria, his time there being spent as a disciple of the Cynic Agathobolus: "Straight off the boat" says Lucian, "he began a campaign of invective, especially against the emperor."5' Philostratus gives many examples of Greeks acting boldly in the presence of the emperors in the Lives of the Sophists, written c.AD 230-8. Philostratus clearly admired those Greeks who were not afraid to speak their mind before an emperor. He relates a meeting between himself and a sophist named Claudius Aelianus. Aelianus had just completed 'an indictment of Gynnis' ('the womanish-man', the emperor Elagabalus). Philostratus told him: "I should admire you for it if you had indicted him while he was alive.' For he said that while it takes a real man to curb a living tyrant, anyone can trample on him when he is down."52 Philostratus relates how a sophist named Alexander went on an embassy to Antoninus Pius on behalf of his native city, Seleucia. When he felt that Pius' attention was beginning to wane, Alexander called out: "Pay attention to me Caesar!" Pius was so angered by this rudeness that he retorted: "I am paying attention, and I know you well. You are the fellow who is always arranging his hair, cleaning his teeth, and polishing his nails, and always smells of myrrh!"53 Philostratus tells the story of a confrontation between Herodes Atticus and Marcus Aurelius. Having just suffered the deaths of his companions, Herodes was not thinking clearly as he met the emperor. As soon as he saw Marcus he began to insult him with 'an aggressive and unguarded tongue', before stalking out of the courtroom, long before his allotted time was up. The prefect, Bassus, said that Herodes evidently wished to die for his behaviour.54 Philostratus is appalled by Herodes' conduct, not for his rudeness as such, but because, as a sophist, Herodes should have been able to manage his anger and put his words into figured speech. 55 Another Greek, Philiscus, offended Caracalla so much by his casual manner and his barrage of interruptions, questions and abuse during a trial that Caracalla exclaimed: "His hair shows what sort of man he is (i.e. effeminate), his voice what sort of orator."

Lucian, De rnort.Peregr. 18. I'S'2.31. 53 Jbid. 2.5. Cf. Caesar to the Alexandrian Flennaiskos in CPJ II 157 iii.3-4: "You must be eager to die, having such contempt for death as to answer me with such insolence." Philostr. E'S 2.1.

169 Unlike Alexander and Herodes, Philiscus was punished for his insolence and deprived of his exemption from liturgies.56 Hadrian allegedly quarrelled frequently with the Greek intellectuals in his court. 57 The best attested argument is his quarrel (or quarrels) with the Hellenised Gaul, Favorinus. The nature of the dispute(s) is unclear, and the three versions of it differ considerably. 58 According to Dio and Philostratus, Favorinus entered the courtroom to petition Hadrian on behalf of his fatherland. However, as he suspected that he would not only lose his case, but be insulted as well, he merely said that his teacher had told him in a dream to serve his country as well as himself Whatever the nature of the dispute(s), there was clearly a serious rift between Hadrian and Favorinus. A work of Favorinus' entitled On exile has been found on a papyrus of the third century AD. 59 In this work, Favorinus claims to have been exiled to Chios by a tyrant for bravely expressing his freedom of speech, suggesting that the quarrels with Hadrian may have resulted in Favorinus' exile. While it is perhaps possible to dismisxt as an exercise in sophistic declamation, two other pieces of evidence suggest that Favorinus suffered some kind of punishment. Philostratus' account reveals that the Athenians pulled down a statue of Favorinus, considering that he no longer enjoyed imperial favour. One of the two speeches attributed to Favorinus in the corpus of Dio Chrysostom states that a statue at Corinth was also pulled down because of a scandalous charge against him.6° Hadrian also allegedly quarrelled with Dionysios of Miletus, and punished him by promoting his rival Heliodoros. Dionysios allegedly told Heliodoros: "Caesar has the power to grant you money and honour, but not to make you an orator."6' Dio relates Hadrian's dispute with the Greek architect, Apollodoros. While Trajan had been discussing architectural plans with Apollodoros and Hadrian had interupted, Apollodoros had reorted: "Go away and draw your pumpkins. You do not know anything about this!"

56 Jb1d 2.30. See Bowersock 1969: 5 1-3; Swain 1989: 150-8; Stertz 1993: 6 12-28; Bowie 1997: 1-15. Dio 69.3.3-6; Philostr. VS 1.8; SHA Hadr. 15.13. 59 P.Marm. 1 (see Roberts 1955: plate 18). 60 Dio Chiys. Or. 37. Favorinus is also considered to be the author of Or. 64. 61 Dio 69.3.5.

170 Hadrian allegedly bore a grudge, and could not tolerate Apollodoros' outspokenness (parrhesia) when he became emperor. When Hadrian sent his plans for the Temple of Venus and Rome to the exiled architect, Apollodorus' curt disapproval allegedly led to his execution in the 1 20s.62 The Historia Augusta states that Hadrian argued with Eudaemon and Heliodoros, reducing Eudaemon to poverty and provoking Heliodoros with a 'highly defamatoiy letter'. 63 The Suda adds that Hadrian exiled a Greek historian named Cephalion.64 The sources greatly exaggerate the extent of these quarrels. Favorinus had regained imperial favour by the 140s. 65 Hadrian appointed Dionysius to several procuratorships and enrolled him as a 'fellow' of the Alexandrian museum. 66 The historicity of Dio's anecdote about Apollodoros is extremely dubious. 67 Both Eudaemon and Heliodoros became Hadrianic prefects of Egypt. Many of these anecdotes probably originated from the 'philosophers' themselves, and their followers. Favorinus, in particular, liked to advertise that he lived dangerously and took a firm stance with the emperor. The stories of his confrontations with Hadrian probably come from his (lost) memoirs, in which he dramatised his dealings with the emperor.68 The story of his court appearance before Hadrian has certain similarities with martyr literature, with Favorinus outwitting his judge with a quick-witted answer. 69 The Life of Secundus tells the story of the confrontation between Secundus and Hadrian, followed by a series of twenty philosophical questions and answers. 7° It is generally accepted that the story is based, however loosely, on an historical meeting between Hadrian and a philosopher named Secundus, but the identity of our Secundus is not clear. Given that our story is set in Athens, Secundus may be the Athenian orator mentioned by IPhilostratus and the Suda, although the obvious difficulty with this identification is that while this Secundus was a great speaker, the Secundus of this story had taken a vow of silence. 71 Although the earliest complete version is preserved in a

62 Dio 69.4.1-5. 63 SHAHadr. 15.1-5. Suda s.v. Cephalion or Cephalon 65 Gellius, NA 2.26.1; 4.1.1; 20.1.1. Phi1ostr. J'1.22. 67 Ridley 1989: 551-65. Bowie 1997:5, 11. Anderson 1986: 1. 701 have used the text of Peny 1964: 68-9 1. ' Philostr. VS 1.26; Suda s.v. Secundus.

171 seventeenth-century manuscript, the discovery of a section of the life on a papyrus of the third century AD gives a terminus ante quem for its original composition.72 The story of Secundus' encounter with Hadrian acts a framework for the series of questions and answers that follow it. The story focuses on Hadrian testing the resolve of Secundus to remain eternally silent. Despite Hadrian's attempts to make him speak, Secundus maintained his silence "neither ashamed nor afraid of the emperor".73 Hadrian grew angry and summoned an executioner: "I do not want any man to live who refuses to speak to emperor Hadrian. Take him away and punish him!"74 However he secretly ordered the executioner to attempt to make Secundus speak on the way to execution. If Secundus spoke, he was to be executed. When the executioner failed to make Secundus speak, he returned him to Hadrian. Marvelling at Secundus' resolve, Hadrian communicated with him through writing tablets. Secundus answered Hadrian's questions, and his books were deposited in the Sacred Library at Hadrian's bequest. It has been noted that the story of Secundus is similar in form and spirit to the Acta Alexandrinorum proper.75 The hero is haled before an emperor, and questioned. In the face of death, Secundus continues, martyr-like, to defy Hadrian's command to speak. Until we learn of Hadrian's plan, the emperor is portrayed as an unreasonable tyrt. Like the Alexandrian martyrs, Secundus is idealised and dramatised as a man who fearlessly accepts death in defence of his principles and in defiance of the emperor. His resolve to remain silent is seen by the emperor as defiant impudence. As in the Alexandrian stories the emperor's words are recorded in direct speech. Philostratus was commissioned to compose the Life of Apollonios of Tyana, an apparently historical sage of the late first century AD, by the empress Julia Domna, and finished the work around AD 217. According to Philostratus, Apollonios voiced his opposition to the regimes of Nero and Domitian. He reports that under Nero Apollonios was taken before the consul of AD 66, Telesinus, and the Praetorian Prefect, Tigellinus, but was released both times. Under Domitian, he was taken before the emperor himself

72 PROSSGeOrg 117 (provenance unknown) preserves three columns corresponding closely to Periy 1964: 72 1.20-74 L3; 741.6-14; 74 L17-20. Peny 1964: 72 1.8-9. 74 Perry 1964: 72 L14-5. Perry 1964: 6-8, Daly 1939: 51.

172 This final trial scene in particular has numerous similarities with those in the Ada Alexandrinorum proper. According to Philostratus, Apollonios was arrested for insulting a statue of Domitian. A friendly Praetorian prefect, Aelianus, was unable to procure Apollonios' freedom, and he was sent to jail to await trial. Domitian sent an informer into the jail to gather evidence against Apollonios, but Apollonios told the spy: 'I will make my criticisms of the emperor to his face!' (7.27). In a pre-trial hearing, Domitian revealed his hostility towards Apollonios. Seeing this, Apollonios remarked that he ought not to be his judge, because he is already convinced of his guilt. Domitian remarks that he already knows how Apollonios' trial will end, and subjects him to petty tortures (7.32- 4). The trial scene takes up most of Book VIII. The trial was a public one, and many prominent figures were present to see Apollonios be convicted. Apollonios was so contemptuous of Domitian that he did not even look at him. When his accuser ordered him to keep his eyes on "the god of all mankind", Apollonios looked upwards, to show that he was looking at Zeus. Philostratus states that Apollonios had prepared a (lengthy) defence for himself, and includes the undelivered apologia in 8:7. The speech was never delivered because the emperor instead addressed short questions to Apollonios: Why does he wear conspicuous clothing, why is he called a god, how did he predict the Ephesian plague, for whom did he sacrifice a young boy? Apollonios' answers to each question are curt, and win the applause of the audience. Seeing this, Domitian acquits Apollonios. The exchanges are memorable, and Apollonios' clearly mocks and outwits Domitian: "Tell me,' he (Domitian) said. 'You went out of your house on a certain day and you travelled into the country and sacrificed the boy. I would like to know for whom.' Apollonios, as if he were rebuking a child, replied: 'Good words, I beseech you. For if I did leave my house, I was in the country. And if this was so then I did offer a sacrifice. And if I offered it then I ate of it. But let these assertions be proved by trustworthy witnesses!" Apollonios ends by delivering a damning condemnation of Domitian's reign: "The cities are ruined, the islands full of fugitives, the mainland of groaning, the armies of cowardice, the senate of suspicion", before miraculously disappearing from the courthouse, citing Iliad 22.13: "You will not kill me, since I am not mortal".

173 There are abundant similarities between the story and the Acta Alexandrinorum proper. The meetings with Telesinus, Tigellinus and Domitian all take the form of the short questions and answers, rather than long apologiai. During these questions, Apollonios outwits his judge, and is often rude either about the emperor, or to the emperor's face. While Nero and Domitian are the stereotypical tyrannical emperors that we find in the Acta, the surrounding Romans (Telesinus, Aelianus) are friendly to Apollonios. 76 Apollonios, like the Alexandrian Appianos, delivers a stinging criticism of the ruling regime. 77 Apollonios' tale also ends with a miracle.78 The Sententiae Hadriani are preserved among a miscellany of texts presented in parallel columns in both Greek and Latin, the purpose being to aid the learning of both languages.79 They relate several civil law legal cases that were personally judged by Hadrian. The collection is ascribed to a grammarian named Dositheus, but is considered to have been prepared in the early-third century AD. What is immediately noticeable is that the Sententiae conform to the form of contemporary records of proceedings, and therefore have the same form as the Acta Alexandrinorum. For example, a mother has b, ught her son before Hadrian to complain of neglect: "The son, present, said: 'My lord emperor, I do not recognise her as my mother.' Hadrian said: 'If you do not recognise her as your mother, I do not recognise you as a Roman citizen."8° It is highly unclear.if the texts are authentic records of cases heard by Hadrian. If they are rhetorical invention, it is significant for our purposes that an author in the third century chose this format to tell his stories. The Greeks in these stories of their heated confrontations with emperors therefore often match the Alexandrian heroes in their rudeness and tack of respect towards emperors. This is particularly true of the Cynics, and previous scholars have noted that the slogans of these cynics could have influenced the writers of the Acta literature.81 Cynic philosophers were popular in Alexandria. Dio Chrysostom states that the city contained "no small number of that sect", and that they hung around on street corners, stringing together the type of rough and insolent jokes that belonged in a

76 Cf the friendly senators at the trial of Isidoros CPJ H 156a i and ii 13-5. CPJII 159b ii.6-13. Cf the miracle of CPJ II 157 iii 13-8 (see chapter ifi). On these texts see Schiller 1971: 303-306; Lewis 1991: 267-80. 80 Corp. Gloss. Lat. ifi 36.49-37.15. Cited mLewis 1991: 275-6. 81 Wilcken 1909: 836 n.l; Rostovtzeff 1957: 112, 520.

174 market place.82 The two most developed stories of such confrontations, those of Secundus and Apollonios, have particularly notable similarities with the Acta Alexandrinorum literature. We should note that these tales of Greeks facing emperors were composed and circulated in the same period that the Ada Alexandrinorum were at the height of their popularity. Philostratus composed and circulated both his biographies of the Sophists and Apollonios in the first half of the third century. The papyrus copy of the Life of Secundus was copied and circulated in Egypt in the third century. The presence of Favorinus' On exile in Egypt in the third century makes it likely that stories of his quarrels with Hadrian would also have been of interest in Egypt in this period. This shows that tales of Greeks confronting emperors were highly popular in the third century, and that there was a thriving literary activity producing works similar in form and tone to the Acta Alexandrinorum in this period. iv. The Jewish Traditions. The Jewish writers of 2 and 4Maccabees, Philo, Josephus and the writers of several Talmudic tales tell the stories of Jews confronting tyrants and Roman emperors. A favoured form of these stories is a trial scene or a dialogue, recording what was allegedly said in direct speech. These Jewish tales were composed in the same period as the Ada Alexandrinorum, and therefore offer an interesting comparison. The trial scenes in 2 and 4 Maccabees are set against the historical background of the Maccabean revolt of 164 BC against the Seleucids who had occupied Judaea. Both books contain an account of the trial of a certain Eleazar, and of a mother and her seven sons before King Antiochus IV, and their subsequent martyrdom. The identities of the writers, the exact dates of composition and places of origin remain unclear. It is generally accepted that Hellenised Jews wrote both books. 2 Maccabees is believed to have been composed in the period 124-63 BC. The date of composition of 4 Maccabees, originally titled On the supremacy of reason, remains unclear. Eusebius states that Josephus wrote it, but a recent stylistic analysis confirms the suspicions of the majority of scholars, that Josephus is unlikely to have been the author. 83 It has been argued that 4Maccabees was composed before AD 7O. However, the most recent

82 Dio Chrys. Or. 32.8-9. Euseb. Hist. eccL 3.10.6; Williams 1992: 105-49. Bickerivann 1976: 275-81; but see the criticisms of Williams 1992: 117-20.

175 research places its composition in the second century AD, contemporary with the early Christian martyr acts. 85 Only a basic version of the trial scene is given in 2 Maccabees 6:16-7:42. Eleazar spits out the pork he was being forced to eat, preferring to leave "to the young a noble example of how to die a good death" (6.28). He is brutally executed. Seven brothers and their mother are subsequently arrested and taken before Antiochus for refusing to eat swine. In turn each speaks to Antiochus. Each brother refuses to comply with Antiochus' demands, exasperating the king, and each is then brutally murdered, along with their mother. The story is greatly expanded in 4Maccabees. The author begins by setting the scene: "The tyrant Antiochus, accompanied by his councillors, sat in judgement on a certain high place with his troops drawn up around him in full armour." Eleazar is the first to be bught before the tyrant (5-7:23). There follows a dialogue between the two, in which our author allows Eleazar to justify his position in not eating swine, before his execution. The pattern of his death is followed seven times by the brothers, each of whom engages in lengthy exchanges with Antiochus, refuses to succumb, and ebruta1ly executed. While in the earlier version of the trial the focal point is the martyrdom of the Jews, in 4 Maccabees much more emphasis is placed on the trial itself. In the same manner as a Roman emperor, Antiochus sits in a makeshift courtroom, surrounded by his assessors and guards. Antiochus, referred to as lyrairnos throughout the account, is a far more central figure, commanding the debate with Eleazar and the seven brothers. The writer of 4Maccabees had a clear purpose in retelling the famous story, to show that reason can withstand torture, and can overcome any passion. He could have chosen any number of others ways to present his thesis, but chose to present it in the form of a trial scene. In my opinion, he chose the form of the popular fiction of his day to expound this thesis. Instead of producing a long, rhetorical, philosophical tract on the virtue of Reason, he chose to use the famous story of the nine Maccabean martyrs, and make his philosophical statement through the wholly invented dialogue between Antiochus and the martyrs.

85 Van Henten 1986: 136-49.

176 The trial scene in Philo's Legatio has already been discussed (j.3S-7), and the reports in Josephus of the confrontations between rival embassies before emperors will be discussed later in this chapter (p.205). Jewish Rabbinical literature often records the confrontations between Jewish sages and Roman nobles, on many occasions the emperor, and the stories of Jewish embassies to Rome. The Rabbinical literature primarily focuses on Jewish traditional law (halakhah), but also on Jewish history (haggadah). Around AD 200 these traditions were collected into the Mishnah, which formed the basis of two later collections of halakhah and haggadah, the Palestinian (Ill-IV AD) and Babylonian (V- VI AD) Talmud. Both of these are rich in haggadic material. 86 This haggadic material is largely unhistorical and belongs to the realms of folklore and legend. The Talmudic literature frequently records dialogues between Jewish sages and Roman nobles, such as those between Rabbi Akiba and Tineius Ruths. They also contain dialogues between Jewish sages and Roman emperors. The most famous examples of these are Vespasian's meeting with Rabbi Johann ben Zakkai, in which Zakkai predicts Vespasian' s accession,88 and the dialogues between 'Antoninus son of Asvems' and Rabbi Judah har-Nasi. Opinion is divided between whether or not the emperor is Marcus Aurelius, son of Verus, or Caracalla, son of Severus. Caracalla is more likely, given that the literary traditions attribute a more positive attitude towards the Jews to him. 89 Nonetheless, it may well be the case that if there is indeed any historical basis to these stories, then the meetings of the Rabbi with several emperors are combined to form these legends. In the dialogues the Rabbi excels the emperor in wisdom and moral stature, but relations between the two are good. The subject matter of some of these dialogues is historical, but is mainly anecdotal and legendary.9° The Talmud contains several instances of Jewish martyrdom at the hands of emperors, and in these stories we see certain similarities with the Acta Alexandrinorum proper. The following extracts are from a story set in Egypt during the Jewish revolt of 115/6-7, recorded in the Palestinian Talmud: "In the days of Trajan the wicked, a son was born to him on 9th Ab,91and they [the Jews] were fasting. His daughter died on the

86 See Schürer 1973: 68-118. See Herr 1971: 123-50. Aboth de Rabbi Nathan version A chapter 4 p.22 (trans. in Schäffer 1995: 137-8). Marcus: Amm. Marc. 22.5.5; Caracalla: SHAM.Ant. 1.6. 9° See Wallach 1940/1:259-86; Smaliwood 1976: 485-6; Birley 1987: 193; Avi-Yonah 1962: 38-41. 91 The anniversaiy of the destuclion of the Temple.

177 feast of Hannukkah. His wife sent him a message saying: 'Instead of subduing the barbarians, come and subdue the Jews who have rebelled against you.' He thought that the trip would take ten days, but he came in five. On arrival he found them studying the Torah and immersed in the following verse 'the Lord shall bring a nation against thee from afar, from the end of the earth, even as the eagle glides.'92 He said to them: 'Why are you so occupied?' They said to him: 'With so and so (i.e. the verse).' He said to them: 'It refers to a certain person who thought that it would take ten days to make the trip, and I arrived in five days.' He set the Legions around them and killed them. [Trajan] said to the women: 'Obey my legions, and I shall not kill you.' They said to him: 'What you did to the ones who have fallen, do also to us who are yet standing.' He mingled their blood with the blood of their men, until the blood flowed into the ocean as far as Cyprus.93 The story is clearly fictional. Trajan and Plotina were childless, and Trajan himself never personally set foot in Egypt. It has several interesting points of comparison to the Acta Hermaiski, also set under Trajan.94 In both accounts, it is the empress Plotina who is instrumental in turning the emperor against the Greeks/Jews.95 Both accounts involve sea journeys, Rome to Egypt, Egypt to Rome. Both accuse Trajan of not doing his duty. The Alexandrian Hermaiskos tells Trajan that he "ought to help his own people [i.e. nobles]" rather than "play advocate for the impious Jews."96 For the Jews, Trajan should be campaigning against barbarians, not Jews. The respective gods play a role in each story. Serapis' statue ominously begins to sweat,97 and the Jews are depicted here as reading the Torah. Despite Serapis' intervention, Hermaiskos was probably martyred. The Jews also here suffer the same fate. Both stories are told using interchanging direct speech. The similarities do not suggest literary dependence. But it is clear that the same ideas influenced both the Ada Alexandrinorum literature and the popular literature circulating in the same period in Palestine. Trajan and Hadrian reappear as villains martyring Jewish sages elsewhere in the Talmud. By the time that the Babylonian Talmud was composed, the 'legend of the ten martyrs' had grown. According to this legend the Romans decided to execute ten Jewish sages. The sages calmy accepted their fate and all ten were individually tortured

Deuteronomy 28:49. Palestinian Talmud, Sukkah 5:1, 55B; (trans. in Mélèze-Modrezejewski 1995: 209-13). AsnotedinLoewe 1961: 105-22. CPJII 157 ii.8-14. CPJII 157 iii.10-3. CPJII 157 iü.14.

178 and executed at the emperor's order. While the list of the ten martyrs differs considerably in the various sources, the accounts may have a historical basis in the executions of the Trajanic and Hadrianic period.98 Two of the ten martyrs were the brothers Pappus and Lullianus, who were allegedly executed by Trajan during the 'war of Kilos' (the Jewish revolt AD 115/6- 7)99 The following account of their trial is given: "When Trajan sentenced Pappus and Lullianus his brother to death in Lydia, he said to them: 'Are you of the same people as Hanniah, Mishael and Azariah? Let your God deliver you from my hand!' They said to him: 'Hanniah, Mishael and Azariah were worthy men and Nebuchadnezzar worthy to have a miracle performed through him. You, however, are a wicked king unworthy that a miracle should be performed through you. And we deserve death by the hand of heaven. If you do not kill us, god has many destructive agents. . . which could harm us. But the end will be that God will exact vengeance from you for our blood.' The story ends with the statement "It was reported that before he had left that place there arrived messengers from Rome who split his skull open."°° This final statement is very probably based on the fate of Quietus, executed by order of the senate early in the reign of Hadrian, but the rest of the account is fictional as other Talmudic traditions show Pappus and Lullianus active under Hadrian. What is noticeable, however, is that the events leading up to Pappus and Lullianus' fictional execution were encapsulated in a trial-scene dialogue between the emperor and the accused, with the pair being particularly rude to the 'wicked' and 'unworthy' king judging them. Rabbi Akiba was one of the ten martyrs. He was allegedly tried by Tinneius Rufus in connection with the Bar Kochba revolt.' 0' He was found guilty, and brutally executed, by having the flesh torn from his body. But Akiba remained calm to the end. His level of endurance prompted Rufus to retort: 'Are you a wizard, or totally insensitive to pain?' 'I am neither' answered Akiba, and gave a death-bed statement of his faith.'°2 The Talmudic literature also preserves the stories of Jewish embassies to Rome. Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai went on a Jewish embassy to Rome. On arrival in Rome he found the emperor's daughter possessed by a demon. In return for exorcising the

See Zeitlin 1945/6: 1-16. 'Kitos' (L. Quietus(?) or Quintus M. Turbo(?)) refers to the Roman general who crushed the Jewish revolt. See Rokeah 1972: 79-84. °o Sifra, Emor 9.5 (trans. in Herr 1972: 107). '°' But see Schilffer 1980: 113-30 on Akiba's connection to the revolt.

179 demon, Simeon and his fellow ambassadors were offered anything they liked from the imperial treasury. They hunted there for the emperor's 'anti-Jewish directive', and destroyed it. 103 The tale is of course legendary rather than historical, explaining why relations between Rome and the Jews improved under the Antonines, but it is noteworthy that the Jews, like the Alexandrians, were composing fictional stories about their embassies in this period. The evidence therefore shows that Jewish writers also used the trial scene format to compose the stories of their martyrs, although there is little actual interrogation in the Jewish trial scenes, and considerably more emphasis on the actual martyrdom itself. Nonetheless, there are particular similarities with the Alexandrian stories in the trial scene in Philo's Legatio and the Talmudic story of Trajan's arrival in Egypt. v. Christian Literature. A large amount of the Christian literature that was composed and circulated in the same period as the ActaAlexandrinorum was constructed around dramatic trial scenes. I will discuss here the accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, the trial scenes in Acts, the apocryphal Acts and the Christian martyr acts. All these were composed and circulated in the same period as the ActaAlexandñnorum.. While our knowledge of early Christianity in Egypt is poor, the evidence suggests that the story of Jesus' trial and execution would have reached Egypt by the 40s AD. The apostle Paul did not visit Alexandria according to Acts, although one of his companions at Ephesus and Corinth, Apollos, was a native Alexandrian. 104 A variant text of Acts adds that

Apollos 'was instructed in the word in his fatherland'.' 05 Eusebius (IV AD) reports that Mark bC1 ught Christianity. . to Egypt and preached his gospel there.106 He dates Mark s arrival to JJ) 43107 A letter of Clement of Alexandria states that Mark wrote a second gospel, the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark, during his visit there.'° 8 The arrival of the story of Jesus' trial to Egypt was therefore probably contemporary with the first Alexandrian 'martyr acts', the stories of the trial of Isidoros and Lampon. During the reign of Tiberius, the Roman procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, tried and executed a Jew named Jesus. The trial of Jesus is referred to in several

'°2 Mishnah,Nazir7.1. (Tmns. inLibennan, 1939/44: 420). ' °3 Babylonian Talmud: Me 'iIah 17a-b. See Loewe 1961: 114-5. 104 Paul visited Corinth c.51/2-52/3: Ephesus c.55. 105 'Western' Acts 18:25. ' °6 Euseb. Hist. eccl. 2.16. ' °7 Euseb. Chron. Claudiq year 3 (p.l79). '° Smith 1973; Elliott 19: 148-9.

180 Roman, Jewish and Syrian sources, and there are no good reasons to doubt that there was an historical trial. Josephus mentions that following the accusations of the Jewish authorities, Pilate had Jesus crucified.'°9 Tacitus states that 'Christus.. . suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators Pontius A note in the Jewish Talmud preserves a much different tradition: "On the eve of the Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged [on a cross]. A crier had gone before him for forty days, saying: 'Here is Jesus the Nazarene, who is to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and led Israel astray. Let all those who know anything in his defence come and plead for him.' But no-one was found to take his defence."11' The following excerpts are from a letter of a Syrian Stoic, Mara ben Serapion, to his son, most probably written in the second century: "What good did it do the Athenians to kill Socrates, for which deed they were punished with famine and pestilence.. . Or what did it avail the Jews to crucify their wise king, since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on? The Athenians died of famine.. .the Jews were slaughtered and driven from their kingdom, everywhere living in dispersion."12 The main literary accounts for the trial itself are the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The order in which they were written and dates of composition remain highly controversial. The general (but not universal) consensus is that they were written in the order Mark-Matthew-Luke-John. The only firm piece of evidence for their dates of composition is P.Ryl. ifi 457, a fragment of a copy of John made in the early second century. From this terminus ante quem, and the belief that Mark was written shortly after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the generally accepted dates of composition are AD 70 forMark, 80 for Matthew, 85 for Luke and 90 for John."3 Despite the traditional association of the writers of the gospels with disciples and associates of Jesus, the writers remain anonymous. All that we can deduce about them is that they were Hellenised Jews living in the Greek east. Later traditions reported that Mark was composed either in Rome or Alexandria (see below),

109 Joseph. AJ 18.63-4. See Barns 1987: 338-48 on the Testimonium Flavianum. "°Tac.Ann. 15.44. BSanhedrin, 43a (trans. in Légasse 1997: 4-5). 112 Cureton 1855: 43-8 (cited in Ldgasse 1997: 3-4). 113 As reported in theABD ifi: p.912-32 (John); IV: p.397-403 (Luke); 541-557 (Mark); 622-41 (Matthew).

181 but the place of origin of the other gospels is unclear. The writer ofLukelater composed Acts and appears to have been the most Hellenised of the gospel writers."4 Several so-called 'apocryphal' gospels also have accounts of the trial. These have generally acquired a reputation of being later, secondary and spurious adaptations of the canonical gospels. However, this consensus has been constantly challenged since the 1 960s. The second-century Church Fathers certainly did not consider them spurious, and frequently cited them." 5 Several agrapha, ('unwritten' sayings of Jesus, i.e. sayings not found in the canonical gospels) are even to be found in the New Testament, and probably come from apocryphal collections." 6 There are numerous extant fragments of apocryphal gospels." 7 Many of the fragments on papyri are from the early second century, and were therefore copied long before the development of the canonical New Testament." 8 Although the extant manuscripts of some apocrha are dated centuries after the canon was formed, they certainly existed much earlier. The Gospel of Peter, for example, was only known from an eighth-century manuscript until two second-century fragments of it were discovered at Oxyrhynchus. 19 It has even been argued that some apocryphal gospels predate the canonical gospels. 12° More research is clearly needed on the relationship between the canonical and apocryphal gospels.' 2 ' However, what is important for present purposes is that the apocryphal gospels were being written and circulated alongside the canonical ones at a time before the concept of canonisation had developed. These apocryphal gospels were certainly very popular, and, to date, there are more copies of early apocryphal gospels attested in Egypt than canonical ones. The gospels do not fall neatly into any one genre of ancient Graeco-Roman literature. Despite certain similarities with Graeco-Roman literature, such as ancient biographies, an incredibly popular form of ancient literature, it is unlikely that the

114 See ABD N: p.398-401 ('Luke as an historian'). 115 E.g. van den Hock 1996: 43-62 on Clement's use of apocryhpa. 116 Elliot 1 99k: 26-30 lists twelve examples of the agrapha (non-canonical sayings of Jesus). No.1-4 are from Acts and the letters of Paul. 117 Lost gospels: see Elliot 199: 3-25; gospels surviving on papyrus see Elliot 199k: 31-45; 135-41 (Gospel of Thomas); 150-8 (Gospel ofPeter). 118 E.g. P.Egerton. 2; P.KOln VI 255; the Secret Gospel ofMark. On the development of the Canon see Grant 1965. " 9 P. Oty. XLI 2949; P.Oxy. LX 4009. 120 E.g. Crossan 1985. 121 See Porter 1997: 795-803.

182 gospels were initially conceived as biographies.' 22 In fact, they are unlikely to have been planned at all, but gradually developed in the decades following Jesus' death. Each gospel consists of two major parts. The first is a collection of the sayings and miraculous deeds of Jesus. It is thought that this collection was circulated first, both in oral and written forms. As the collection developed, more narrative was introduced to string the sayings and miracles together. The collecting together of the sayings of wise men is a well-attested phenomenon in the Graeco-Roman period. Numerous writers, for example, including Plato and Xenophon, preserved the sayings of Socrates, and later writers preserved the sayings of Epicurus (kuriai doxai). Any Greek or Roman hearing the sayings of Jesus would consider him a philosopher. As the letter of Mara ben Serapion (above) shows, it was natural for contemporaries to see Jesus in the same light as philosophical figures, such as Socrates. Contemporaries of Paul in Athens considered him to be a philosopher, expounding the doctrine of his master.' 23 The gospels were partly written to show that Jesus was not simply another philosopher or magician. The second part of the gospels focus on the story of Jesus' trial before Pilate, and his crucifixion. It seems likely that the writers placed so much emphasis on the trial scenes to answer emphatically the main criticism of anti-Christian polemical writers, namely that Jesus was not a messiah, but a common political rebel. The trial scenes claim that the Romans did not condemn Jesus, exc tating the Romans, particularly Pilate, from blame, and laying responsibility firmly with the Jews. In Luke, for example, it is the Jews who choose to free a murderer, Barabas, instead of Jesus, and the

Jews instead of the Romans, who lead Jesus away to execution.' 24 However, as the anti-Christian rhetoric emphasised,' 25 Jesus suffered crucifixion, and crucifixion was a penalty that could only be inflicted by the Romans. Crucifixion was the most cruel and degrading form of punishment used by the Romans, and as such, reserved solely for the lower classes (in theory at least),' 26 and reserved for very specific crimes, such as treason and armed insurrection. 127 Judea was a particularly volatile region in the first century AD, and 'brigands', as Josephus calls them, popular leaders, often with

122 On the literaiy environment of the New Testament writings, see Aune 1987. Burndge 1992 suggests that the gospels belong to the genre of ancient biography. 1 Acts 17: 17-21. '24 Lu1 23:25-6. ' E.g. the writer cited in Lactant. Div.inst. 5.3.4; See also Horbuiy 1984: 183-95. ' 26 8ut cf Suet. GaIb. 9; Joseph. RI 2.308. 127 On the punishment see Hengel 1977 and Garnsey 1970: 126-9.

183 messianic claims, frequently disturbed the peace.' 28 In the eyes of contemporary Romans, Jesus would have been seen as just another rebel leader with the potential to initiate a revolt against Rome. There are hints throughout the gospels that Jesus was tried as a political rebel. Luke lists several political charges against Jesus. The Jewish authorities, he claims, stated: "We have found this man subverting our nation, forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and claiming to be Christ, a king." Later they add that Jesus "stirs up the people all over Judea with his teaching." 29 Jesus' offence against the Roman state was his claim that he was 'king of the Jews'. As John makes the Jewish crowd say "Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar".'3° Jesus was dressed as a 'king' prior to execution and mocked.' 3' Over his cross the Romans erected a placard proclaiming "Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews". Jesus was sentenced to death because, by styling himself 'king of the Jews', he was guilty of rebellion against Rome. It was standard Roman practie to publicise a man's crime in this way.'32 The gospel-writers consistently deny that Jesus was a political rebel, and emphasise that he was compliant with the Roman regime. When the Jews approached Jesus and asked if it was right to pay tribute, Jesus replied "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's." The reply is slightly ambiguous, but not openly rebellious.'33 Jesus also advised that if a man asked a person to walk one mile with him, the person should walk two. 134 This clearly refers to the highly unpopular Roman practice of requisitioning, and again, is conformist. The clearest case is the trial scene in John, where the writer explains that Jesus' kingship is not an earthly, political claim, and therefore not damaging to the Romans. The denial of this charge is also why the Gospels exonerate Pilatus from responsibility for Jesus' death, and portray him as a sympathetic figure who wants to help Jesus instead of the inflexible, harsh and antagonistic procurator mentioned, albeit with some probable exaggeration, by Philo and Josephus.'35

' See Crossan 1991: 137-67, 45 1-2; for the case of one 'brigand', Theudas, see Joseph. AJ2O.97-9;Acts 5:36. ' Luke 23: 2-5; See Schneider 1984: 403-14. 130 John 19: 12. 131 Mark 15: 16-29; Matthew 27:27-3 1; Peter 6-8. Cf. the remarkably similar story of the 'crowning' of Carabas in Philo Flacc. 36-9, which precipitated the Alexandrian riots in AD 38. 132 C[ Suet. Gal us 32.2; Dom. 10.1; Dio 54.7; Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.1.44. 133 Mark 12:13-7; Matthew 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-6; Thomas 100; P.Egerton 2 ft. 2 recto. See also Bruce 1984: 249-63. 'Matthew 5:41; cE Luke 6:29. 135 Phulo Leg. 301; Joseph. BJ2.169-77;AJ 18.55-64, 85-7. See also Bond 1998.

184 The writers of the Gospels, and indeed the rest of the New Testament, transform Jesus' death from the execution of a failed apocalyptic prophet into the self-sacrifice of a righteous individual who redeemed the world through his own sacrificial death. They unanimously proclaim that Jesus' death was a heroic martyrdom. They emphasise, particularly in Matthew and John, that Jesus deliberately chose a path that would lead to his own death. Matthew records that a disciple attempted to obstruct Jesus' arrest: "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus told him. "Do you not think that I cannot appeal to my father and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?"36 In John Jesus states: "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own free 137

Whereas Mark and Luke use the verb 'to expire' to record Jesus' death, Matthew and John use the phrases 'he gave up' and 'handed over' his spirit respectively.'38 Following this, Paul often uses the phrases "he gave himself' or "handed himself over"

to describe Jesus' death.' 39 The depiction of Jesus as an heroic martyr is reminiscent of the tales of other Graeco-Roman heroes. Achilles, for example, could have left Troy safely, but chose to remain there and win glory, but never return home. Socrates chose not to go into voluntary exile before his trial, or let his friends break him out ofjail. It is possible that the writers of the gospel were influenced by the stories of Graeco- Roman heroes. The idea that death could be vicarious recurs prominently in these tales."° Nonetheless, the influence of Graeco-Roman concepts on the writers of the gospels remains controversial. The concept that Jesus' death was a saving event may well have developed independently. After all, the vicarious sacrifice of a first-born son was a traditionally Jewish concept (cf. the biblical story of Joseph, and other Jewish 'martyr' stories).'4' Second-century Church Fathers presumed that the minutes of Jesus' trial would have been kept, and could have been accessed (see chapter IV). Nonetheless, even if they had known of such an account, the Gospel writers do not seek to give an accurate record of the Roman trial, as I have argued, but use it to disprove the idea that Jesus was

' 36 Mafthew 26:52-4. ' 37 John 10:18. ' 38 Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; Matthew 27:50; John 19:30. "9 E.g. Ephesians 5.2. 140 See Williams 1975: Seeley 1990; de Jonge 1988: 142-5 1. 141 Levenson 1993.

185 a political rebel and portray him as a heroic martyr. Nonetheless, the form of the trial strongly recalls that of trial minutes (ada). John attempts to give his version an exact setting "early in the morning" outside Pilate's Praetorium.'42 The trial scene is also told in direct speech, with abrupt, terse questions and answers exchanged between Pilate and Jesus. The account in the three synoptic Gospels is brief. Pilate's initial question "Are you the king of the Jews" is answered with the ambiguous "You say it." Jesus then says nothing for the rest of the trial. But John develops the trial into a memorable exchange between Pilate and Jesus. John's Jesus often answers Pilate's questions with questions of his own, just as the defendants in the Ada Alexandrinorum often do. In John, Jesus answers Pilate's initial question with the retort: "Is that your own idea, or did others talk to you about me?" The remainder of John's dialogue is concerned with showing that Jesus' kingship was not an earthly, political claim, and therefore no challenge to Roman authority. The dialogue ends with Pilate questioning "What is truth?" which is often seen as his inability to understand what Jesus was claiming, or an ironic jest. As well as the similarity in form with the Acta Alexandrinorum, we could compare the shouts of the Jewish crowd that punctuate the passion narratives with the shouts of the Alexandrian crowd that appear in two of the Acta related stories.'43 The development of the trial scene did not end with John. As the apocryphal gospels differ in their presentation of other canonical episodes, it stands to reason that their accounts of the trial scene would also differ. Unfortunately the extant fragments of the apocryphal gospels relate episodes either immediately before or after the trial itself, making comparison impossible.' Pilate became an important figure in the eastern church, and a saint in the Coptic church. The trial scene was developed to exonerate him further from blame in Coptic apocryphal gospels.' 45 The so-called Acta Pilati also shows this trend.' The trial is expanded enormously in this text, primarily through the insertion of dialogue between Pilate and the Jewish authorities, which further incriminates the Jews and exonerates Pilate. Jesus is also allowed to answer Pilate's

'42 John 18:28. '43 Mark 15:13-14;Matthew 27:24-5; Luke 23:20-23; John 19:14-15. P.Oxy. XXV 2435 recto and verso; SBXVI 12255. The 'Fayum fragment' is the last supper (immediately before the trial); Peter opens with Pilate washing his hands (immediately after the trial). '45 Revillout 1904: no.10, 11. The former isa dialogue between Jesus and Pilatus in the praetorium, based loosely on John, but greatly expanded. The latter is a dialogue between them set before the Jewish crowd. ' On the Ada Pilati see Cameron 1982: 163-82; Elliot 199k: 169-85.

186 final question by claiming 'truth is from heaven'. Although the first manuscript of this apocryphal gospel is from the twelfth century, Justin and Tertullian (II AD), and Eusebius and Epiphanius (IV AD) all refer to works of this name. 147 In all probability there were several independent works under this name circulating by the second century AD. The exoneration of Pilate inspired a huge amount of literature, including the story of Pilate's own trial, the ParadosisPilati.'48 While the earliest manuscript is from the twelfth century, it is considered that the traditions on which this story is drawn are contemporary with the rest of the Pilatus literature, roughly the second century AD.'49 Historically, Pilate was sent to Tiberius in Rome to answer the charges levelled against him by the Samaritans, but it is unclear if any trial ever took place.' 5° In the Paradosis, however, the trial is set in Rome, before 'Caesar'. The short, terse dialogue between Pilate and Caesar serves to exonerate Pilate further from blame for Jesus' death, and incriminate the Jews: "Caesar commanded Pilate to stand forward and said to him: 'How could you dare to do such a thing, you most impious one? by daring to do an evil deed you have destroyed the whole world.' Pilate answered: 'Almighty king, I am innocent of these things; it is the multitude of Jews who are reckless and guilty... etc."151 Thus again we have a case of another Christian writer telling the story of Pilate's alleged trial by encapsulating the drama into a trial scene. The development of the trial scene of Jesus offers a comparison to the trial scenes in the Acta Alexandrinorum. The comparison is mainly superficial, primarily the form in which the story is told, and the fact that none of the trial scenes are simple objective accounts of the trial. Christological, apologetic and polemical themes are built into the accounts, just as other, rather different themes are built into the trials in the Acta Alexandrinorum. Paul, the hero of Acts, is tried on several occasions by the Roman authorities. It is believed that Acts was written in the late first century AD by the author of Luke. 'Luke', as I have previously noted, exhibits the most influence of Hellenism in his works. It has been noted how similar the plot of Acts, with the hero wandering the

147 JustinlApol. 35.9; 48.3; TerLApol. 5.21; Euseb. Hist.eccl. 1.9.3-4; 9.5.1; Epiphanius, Haer. 50.1. 148 Elliot 1994208-11. 199) 164-225. ° Joseph. AJ 18.88-9.

187 Mediterranean, is to that of the Greek novels.' 52 There are at least two variant texts of Acts, the 'Alexandrian' text, which is in common usage, and the longer 'Western Acts'.'53 'Western Acts' cannot simply be dismissed as a secondary adaption of the Alexandrian text, and it seems likely that both versions are redactions of Acts, with the Alexandrian text perhaps closel to the original.' 54 Like the text of the Acta Alexandrinorum stories, the text of Acts was therefore redacted in antiquity. The climax of Acts is Paul's trials before Felix and Festus. Historically, these would have taken place in the late AD 50s to the early 60s, as Felix came.to office c. 52, and Festus held the office from 60-2.'" 'Luke' makes extensive use of legal terms in his account of the trials. On the basis of this, and the fact that the trial before Felix immediately follows the citation of an official letter of Claudius Lysias, it has been argued that 'Luke' used the official trial minutes in composing his account.' 56 It is more likely, however, that 'Luke', like the authors of the Acta Alexandrinorum proper, l *CèL \.& imitated the style of acta rather than,,ctually used them. The trial before Felix takes the form of a prosecution speech by Tertullus, followed by Paul's apology. The trial before Festus proceeds with short, interchanging dialogue, during which Paul appeals to Caesar.' 57 Before he is sent to 'Caesar', he is bught before Festus and Agrippa H. An exchange in the dialogue in this trial is highly reminiscent io a scene from an example of the Acta Alexandñnorum: "Festus shouted: 'You are mad (iia(v ) Paul. Your great learning has driven you mad.' Paul said: 'I am not mad (oi iiatvopxii), most excellent Festus. What I am saying is both true and reasonable (aw4poaviç)' ,,158

"The emperor: 'Appianos, we are accustomed to chasten those who are both mad (p.awol.thvouç) and have lost their senses (throvevoiithvovc aw4 poviC€w) ... ' Appianos: '...1 am neither mad nor have lost my senses (orn€ p.a'lvoIJ.aL OIYTE àTrov€vóp.aL). I make an appeal on behalf of my noble rank and [privileges(?)]' ,,159

151 Paradosis Pilati 2-3. ' 52 Peo 1994: 239-54. 153 Cf also P.Oxy. XIII 1597 (rn-N AD) from an abnormal recension of Acts. 154 See Head 1993: 415-44. 155 Tac. Hist. 5.9; Joseph. AJ20.137-8. 156 Winter 1993: 305-36. 157 On which see Garnsey 1970: 75-6. 26:24-5. 159 CPJII 159b iv.9-v.2.

188 The mania/sophrosyne contrast in both passages has been noted previously by scholars.'6° We find the same theme in later Christian martyr acts (see p.1 95, 197). The parallel is not such that we can talk about literary dependency. It may be the case that the author of the Acta Appiani (composed post-AD 180) borrowed the theme from Acts. However, he may well have recycled the theme from an earlier Ada Alexandrinorum story. The fact that both 'Luke', the author of the Ada Appiani, and also the authors of the Christian martyr acts use the same theme in their trial scenes suggests that these works were all composed in the same literary environment. The ApocryphalActs, like the apocryphal gospels, were written pre- canonisation. Their popularity among sects later deemed to be heretical, like the Manichaeans, played an enormous part in their eventual exclusion from the canon. Despite this, the numerous manuscripts and the fact that they were translated into so many ancient languages attest that they remained incredibly popular. The five major acts tell the stories of the martyrdoms of the apostles, Paul, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas. In a work written between AD 198-206, Tertullian provides us with a terminus ad quem for the Acts of Paul. 161 The general consensus is that the Acts of Peter, Paul, John and Andrew were composed in the period AD 150-200 and that Thomas was composed in the early third century.' 62 The authors remain anonymous. They were probably independent, but must have known of each other's work, as all the Apocryphal Acts follow the same essential storyline. This typically involves the central apostle travelling widely, preaching and converting many to Christianity. During their travels the apostle offends an important figure, who consequently ensures that the apostle is martyred. Thus like the Acta, the ApocryphalActs show limited variation upon the same theme, and a lack of literary sophistication. The authors of the Apocryphal Acts found a winning formula and stuck to it. The Acts ofAndrew, Peter and Thomas have trial scenes before Roman magistrates, but the Acts of John and Paul have trial scenes before emperors. Nero also makes a cameo appearance in the Acts ofPeter. The most serious problem in the study of the Apocryphal Acts is that the manuscripts date from considerably later than the supposed date of composition. Many changes were made to these texts over the centuries. Some sections, for example, were rewritten, re-edited and even detatched and circulated separately. The constant

°Conze1mann1987:212. 161 Tert. De bapt. 17.5; Hilhorst 1996: 150-63.

189 revisions and partitions make literary assessments of these Acts, and ultimately a comparison with the Acta Alexandrinorum, extremely difficult. For many later redactors, the trial scenes themselves were of little consequence and far secondary to the actual fact of the martyrdom of the heroes itself. The development of the apocryphal Acts of John remains controversial. Episodes that clearly belonged to these Acts were omitted by later redactors and consequently slipped out of the manuscript tradition. An episode, for example, related in a fourth-century papyrus fragment does not appear in later manuscripts.' 63 Another example may perhaps be the so-called Acts of John in Rome.' The two extant versions of these Acts, probably first composed in the fourth century AD, 165 tell the story of John being taken before the imperial court, where he was tried by Dornitian and exiled to Patmos. It is unclear whether the Acts of John in Rome were orijally a part of the Acts of John. In any case, it is clear that by the end of the second century AD, traditions were circulating that John had been tried by Domitian. Tertullian, writing c. AD 200, knew a story about John being dropped into a boiling vat of oil before his exile, but was unsure if John's punisher had been Domitian in Rome or a proconsul in Asia.'66 It is, of course, impossible to tell how closely the writer of the extant Acts of John in Rome adhered to these early traditions. In the extant version John is not dropped into boiling oil, but forced to drink poison, which, naturally, cannot kill the hero of the tale. The interest of this trial scene is that despite the obvious difference in the theological content, the form of the speeches is the same as that which is found in the Ada Alexandrinorum. The short, terse, interchanging dialogue follows the pattern "Domitian said. . . John said..." and is usually introduced by the verb elpen. John, like the Alexandrian gymnasiarchs, confronts Domitian without fear. The Acts of Paul were widely popular in antiquity. The author may well have known of the work of 'Luke', as Paul follows a similar path around the empire in both Acts and the Acts of Paul. The author of the Acts of Paul continues the story after Acts ends, by recounting the trial of Paul before Nero.'67 Paul's martyrdom begins with the death of Patroclus, one of Nero's cup-bearers, who is accidentally killed while listening

62 See Elliot l99: 229-30; 231-6; 303-6; 350-2; 390-2;440-1 for ancient testimonies, manuscripts and dates. '63 P.Oxy. V 850. The most recent edition and discussion of the text is in Junod and Kaestli 1983: 835-86. 165 Junod and Kaestli 1983: 857-8. 'Tert. De Praescr.haeret. 36.2. For the later traditions on John's trial before Domitian see Euseb. Hist. eccl. 3.18; Chron. Domitian year 14 (p.11)2); Jerome, Comm. on Matt. 20.23; see also Fitton 1974: 193-4.

190 to Paul preaching. Paul resurrects Patroclus, which angers Nero, and he orders a persecution. Paul is bught before him in chains. The trial scene is recorded briefly: "Paul was bught to him and he [Nero] insisted that he should be executed. And Paul said 'Caesar, I live not merely for a short time for my kin. If you have me executed I shall rise again and appear to you..." 68 The tale ends happily when Paul does indeed return to life after decapitation, and Nero, in awe, abandons the persecution. While this story is of little historical value, it is significant to note that the traditions and legends concerning the death of Paul came to be reported in a trial scene. Nero also makes a cameo appearance in the Acts of Peter. The Acts allege that Peter's preaching led him into conflict with two prominent figures, Agrippa and Albinus. He was taken before Agrippa and sentenced to be crucified upsidedown. Nero was angry with Agrippa for executing Peter as he had wished to inflict more cruel punishments upon him. According to this story Nero had a vision of Peter and subsequently called off the persecution.'69 The traditions and legends behind the Acts of John and Paul came to be written down in the form of trial scenes before Roman emperors, or other Roman officials. It is likely that the trial scenes would be more substantial were they preserved in their original form, but the focus of our extant manuscripts is clearly on the miracles of the Apostles, their suffering, death and inevitable resurrection. Any potential links with the Ada Alexandrinorum would therefore perhaps be stronger if the Apocryphal Acts had survived in their original form. Nonetheless, some links remain. The role of Agrippa in Peter's martyrdom in the Acts of Peter has been examined recently.' 7° Karasszon concludes that this Agrippa is undoubtedly a fictional character, but nonetheless is roughly based upon the historical figure of Agrippa I. The historical Agrippa I was a major character in the Acta Isidori, in which he is also cast in the role of the villain. Philostratus' biography of Apollonios of Tyana, the first century AD sage who wandered around the empire performing miracles before he was taken before an emperor and tried, also provides a thematic link. In composing such a biography, Philostratus must have been familiar with the gospels and other early Christian material, and the comparison of Apollonios with Jesus and other apostolic figures was clearly intentional.

167 Bauckham 1993: 105-52 suggests that the author of the Acts ofPaul may have continued Acts. ' The Martyrdom ofPaul 4. (Elliot 19: 387). '69 Acts ofPeter 36-41 (Elliot 199k: 424-6).

191 The Christian martyr acts all follow the same essential story-line. Christians are taken before a Roman judge, where they are ordered to sacrifice to the emperor. They always refuse, and after a dialogue between them and their judge, the Christian is martyred. The acta Christianorum, like the Acta Alexandrinorum, are written in the form of tnal minutes (acta), although some adhere more closely to this format than others. Like the Alexandrian acts, they tell the story of the hero's trial and execution through lively exchanges between martyr and judge. Whereas the Alexandrians usually face the emperor, the Christians usually face their subordinates, such as provincial governors. The supposed relationship between the Christian and 'pagan' martyr acts was the subject of a lively debate in the early twentieth century (see p.11-2). Musurillo, who examined both sets of Acts, concluded that there were some similarities between them, but that these were primarily superficial. Both were constructed around dramatic trial scenes, with great emphasis laid upon the exchanges and aphorisms. The 'martyrs' all displayed the same heroic contempt for death. The Roman officials presiding over the trials are caricatured, as in the Alexandrian stories, but are, in general, depicted as friendly Pilate-type judges. For Musurillo the two sets of Acts were worlds apart. Any superficial similarities between them were due to the fact that both Alexandrian and Christian communities had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and independently strove to preserve the memory of their heroes in the same way.'71 The acta Christianorum were composed and circulated in the same period as the Acta Alexand.rinorum. Yet whilst the popularity of the latter waned in the third century, the composition of the Christian acts continued for centuries. However the Christian acts did not simply displace the Acta Alexandrinorum. By the time Christianity really took off in Alexandria, the late third/early fourth century, the Ada Alexandrinorum were already defunct. Although the Christian acts did not therefore cause the decline of the Ada Alexandrinorum, Christian martyr literature is likely to have filled the literary void left by the decline of the Acta Alexandrinorum. From the fourth century onwards the Christian martyr acts, hagiographical stories and also the Coptic martyrdoms became very popular in Egypt."2

' 70 Karasszon 1988: 21-8. '' Musurillo 1954: 262. 172 On the Egyptian Coptic martyr acts see Reymond and Barns 1973.

192 A major problem in the study of the ada Christianorum is that the original texts rarely survive in their original form. The Christian acts are set in the period from c. AD 100 to the Diocletianic persecutions. It seems likely that the stories of the martyrs would have been composed soon after they had been martyred. Yet in almost all cases, the earliest extant manuscripts of the stories come from many centuries after the martyrdom itself. It is undeniable that later redactors have embellished, amended and improved the original stories. In the case of the Acts of Justin, for example, the martyrdom (c. AD 165) survives in three very different versions, in manuscripts ranging from the eight to the twelfth century. The manuscript tradition of the Acts ofApollonius also differs greatly from the version known to Eusebius in the fourth Eusebius' Apollonius was a Roman and was tried at Rome by the praetorian prefect Perennis (c. AD 190-5), yet the manuscripts report that Apollonius was an Alexandrian tried by a proconsul in Asia. The obvious problem of comparing the Acta Alexandrinorum to such a heavily redacted literature is that any potential links may have been lost through the later re-workings and editing. The second major problem is the canonisation of the acta Christianorum. Ruinart's seventeenth-century edition of the ada Christianorum collected around 130 acts. Musurillo's 1971 edition collected only twenty-eight. The difference in size is the result of centuries of theological scholarship aimed at differentiating between 'genuine', 'historical' acts, derived from minutes taken down at the trials themselves, and 'false', 'sp urious' ones. The canonisation of the Christian acts has been an incredibly arbitrary process. After all, there are clearly fictional elements in the allegedly historical acts (e.g. the miracles in the Acts of Polycarp). In the case of the 'historical' Acts of Justin, it is unlikely that any of the three vastly differing recensions is the 'authentic' one, based upon the original trial minutes. Even if we could prove that the acta Christianorum were dependent on official acta, which is as debatable as the relationship between the Acta Alexandrinorum proper and acta, it is unlikely that there has not been any editing. In my opinion, some of the acta Christianorum deemed false and spurious are no more so than many 'historical' acts. The Acts of Phileas, to be discussed below, were considered 'spurious' until a papyrus contemporary with the date of his martyrdom was found.' 74 Now, equally rashly, they are deemed more 'authentic'.

Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.21. ' 74 Musurillo 1971: xlvi-xlvii dates the hand of P.Bodm XX to the early IV AD.

193 The tone of the Christian acts is indeed very different from that of the Ada Alexandrinorum. The Alexandrian heroes and the Christian martyrs were certainly promoting very different types of arête. Religion is the focus of the Christian acts. Apart from the appearances of the Alexandrian god Serapis in several of the stories, the ActaAlexandrinorum are unconnected to religion. The story of Jesus also had a profound effect on the acta Christianorum. If a Roman magistrate in an acta Christianorum is portrayed positively, it is surely because a writer is interpolating the later Pilate traditions into the account. The later writers of the acta Christianorum tend to focus primarily not on the trial scene dialogue, but on the martyrdom itself, where, typically, miracles surround any attempt to execute the almost super-human martyrs. These problems would make any direct links between the Acta Alexandrinorum and the acta Christianorum even more remarkable. Nonetheless, there are firm links between the two sets of Acts. The most obvious similarity is the form of the trial scenes. Like the Alexandrian acts, the Christian acts look like official trial minutes. The stories are told through terse dialogues in the form of direct speech, following the pattern 'A said.. .B said...'. Some acts, such as the Acts of the Sciiitan martyrs, the Acts of Cyprian, the Acts of Ignatius, and the Passion of St. Dioscoros, adhere rigidly to this form.'75 While most of the Christian trials take place before provincial governors, some are set before emperors. The Acts of Ignatius, for example, allege that Ignatius was tried by Trajan. P.Bodm. XX, the papyrus copy of the Acts of Phileas, allows us to compare an acta Christianorum in its original form, before it was reworked in later centuries, with the Ada Alexandrinorum. The trial was set in Alexandria, before the prefect Culcianus (in office c. AD 300-4). The hand of P.Bodm. XX is almost contemporary with this, and the author is notably far more interested in the trial-scene dialogue than Phileas' actual martyrdom. What is particularly striking is that Phileas and Culcianus use the same words and themes that we find in some oftheActaAlexandrinorum proper. The Acta Christianorum usually begin with the judge asking the martyr his name, and being told 'I am a Christian'. Yet Culcianus opens the dialogue by telling Phileas "You have

killed many men (iToXXoic àTthKTELvaç)" by not sacrificing. He continues that a certain Pierus had saved many by submitting. The same phrases recur in the Ada Isidori.

Claudius tells Isidoros "You have killed many (1T0XX0Iç àTrIcr€1vaç)." Isidoros states

175 See Musurillo 1971: no.6, 16; P.Oxy. L 3529 (Pass.St.Dioscoros) IV AD; Bisbee 1988: 133-62 argues for the rehabilitation of the 'spurious' Acts ofignatius.

194 that he had merely submitted to the will of Gaius in doing so. Thus the same words are followed in both cases by the mention of an act of submission, using variants of the verb

Tâ-rru). 176 Phileas proudly describes himself as one of the "archontes of Alexandria", just as the heroes of the Ada Alexandrinorum proper proudly emphasise their high status as gymnasiarchs and ambassadors of the city.' 77 Culcianus also tells Phileas "If you were one of the uncultured. . .1 should not spare you", and remarks that Phileas possesses "such abundant resources that you can nourish and sustain not only yourself but an entire city" emphasising that Phileas also belongs to the cultured, well-born class. 178 Both the trials of Appianos and Phileas raise the theme of sophrosyne. We find the following exchange in the Acts of Phileas: "The prefect: 'Can you be reasonable?' Phileas answered 'I am always reasonable (au4pov), and I exercise myself in good sense."179 Appianos twice appeals on behalf of his 'nobility' and '[privileges(?)]' ([ilpocn-IKóv]Toc).18° If the correct restoration is ' [dvrlKóv]mw' rather than '[Trpoai]Kóv]Twv', there is another direct link with a passage in the Acts of Phileas: "It is in sparing myself and those who belong to me (àvTlKóvmw - i.e. my people) that I do not sacrifice."81 Appianos would therefore also be appealing on behalf of his people. Just before he is

executed, Appianos begs Commodus to "Grant me one thing" (Ka T0I7TO fiiv xdpLaal); the request is repeated by Phileas (Ka'L at' tci TotrTo ápiaai).'82 There are also links between other Alexandrian and Christian acts. Several ada Christianorum are as anti-Jewish as the Acta Alexandrinorum.'83 Similar phrases are often used. Trajan says to the Alexandrian Hermaiscos "You must be eager to die, having such contempt for death as to answer even me with such insolence"; Perennis says to the Christian Apollonius "You will be glad to die, having taken this decision, Apollonius."84 While the Christian martyrs are usually more reserved than the pagans, this is not always the case. The martyrs in the Acts of Tararchus, Probus and

176 'pj H 156d L4-6; Acts ofPhileas ü.5-6. The phnise also perhaps recurs in SB VI 9213 Lii. ' 77 Acts ofPhileas i.2-3.24. ' CPJ II 159b iv. 15-v.8; Acts ofPhileas xL9-1 1; 1.2. See above p.188 for the relevant passage from theActaAppiani, andActs of Phileas ii.12-4. CPJII 159b iv.15-v.2; v.6-8. '81 Acts ofPhileas iv. 14-6. 182 CPJ II 159b ii. 15-ui. 1, Acts ofPhileas xi.4-5. E.g. Acts ofPolycarp, Martyrdom of St.Pionius. 184 CPJ II 157 iu.3-4, Acts ofApollonius 29.

195 Andronicus are very rude to their judge.' 85 Carpus is also insolent. He tells the proconsul that he will not sacrifice to demons and their deceptive appearances (i.e. emperors), and calls for the emperor to be destroyed: "May the gods be destroyed who have not made heaven and earth."86 Apollonius speaks disrespectfully of Commodus, who merely rules on earth by the will of God.'87 Like the Alexandrian heroes, the Christian Andronicus emphasises both his noble status and that of his city: "I am noble (dxy€vç) and son of the foremost city of Ephesus."88 The Christian martyrs, like the pagans, are also tortured prior to execution. Antoninus suffered the punishment known as the equus, where he was tied to a wooden beam, with torches lit underneath and to the sides.' 89 A torture scene is an integral part of the Christian acts.' 9° Some Christians even suffered the same penalty as flØfljfl5•l9 In the Ada Appiani, Appianos emphasises the contrast between a 'king' and a 'tyrant': "The emperor said: 'Now you know whom you are speaking to don't you?' Appianos: 'Yes. Appianos speaks to a tyrant (tyrannos).' The emperor: 'No, to a king (basileus)."192 Appianos later calls Commodus a 'brigand leader' (lestarchos).'93 The same themes recur in two Christian acts. Theodoretus draws the same distinction between king and tyrant: "Theodoretus: 'It is written that the heart of a king (rex) who acknowledges God is in the hand of God, but the heart of a tyrant (lyrannos) who worships idols is not.' Julian said 'Fool, you speak to an emperor (imperator), not a tyrant."94 The 'brigand' theme occurs in the Acts of Achatius, where the term 'Dalmatians' refers to Diocletian and his colleagues: "Martianus said: 'Either sacrifice or die!'

185 E.g. Acts of Tararchus, Probus andAndronicus 7-9. 186 Martydom ofSt Carpus, Papylus andAgathonice 9. ofApollonius 9. of Tararchus, Pro bus andAndronicus 3. 189 CPJII l58avii.3-8. '90 E.g. Martyrdom ofPionius 20. ' Letter ofPhi leas 29-30. ' CPJII 159b ii.3-6. CPJII 159b iv.8. 194 Psion ofSt. Theodoretus 2.

196 Achatius replied: 'That's just how Dalmatians act, trained in the art of •,,,195 The theme of mania/sophrosyne, already noted in the Acta Appiani, Acts and the Acts of Phileas, recurs in other Christian acts. In one exchange in the Maryrdom of Pionius, the verb used (vrovoop.ai) is the same as in the Acta Appiani. "[The torturer]: 'Change your mind! Have you lost your senses (àTrovEvórIlkaL)?' Pionius: 'I have not lost my senses (oi diioi'evóiiai). ,196 The Christian acts also frequently incorporate miracles and the gory descriptions of the eventual martyrdom into their stories. There is a gory torture scene in CPJII 158a, and a miracle occurs in one of the latest versions of an Acta Alexandrinorum - the sweating of the statue of Serapis.' 97 It is probable that if more of the Acta Christianorum existed in their original form, and more of the Ada Alexandrinorum texts themselves, that many more direct parallels could be found. vi. Conclusion. To conclude, there a a series of stories of Greeks, Romans, Jews and Christians bravely confronting Roman emperors or prefects with considerable similarities in form, content and tone to the Acta Alexandrinorurn proper. These literatures also exhibit considerable differences. This is unsurprising, given the different agendas behind the promulgation of the literatures, whose heroes promote widely differing types of virtue. The stories that are closest in literary terms to the Acta Alexandrinorum are the stories of other Greeks confronting emperors, and, some of the Christian martyr acts, particularly the Acts of Phileas. These trial literatures were a genuinely popular empire-wide literary form. They were not over-sophisticated in literary terms and as such appealed to a wide audience. It remains unclear if these are all just scattered tales with coincidental links, or if the stories ever crystallised into a clearly definable literary form that we could call 'ancient martyr literature'. Ultimately there is not enough firm evidence to prove or disprove literary dependence between any of these literatures. The evidence rather suggests that these trial literatures were all being composed in the same literary environment by writers who were all very familiar with the judicial processes of the Roman government. Rather than one set of stories being dependent on another, the stories are probably mutually influential, and the writers freely borrowing ideas and even phrases from other types of contemporary popular literature.

' 95 ActaAchati 3. Martyrdom ofSt.Pionius 20.2-3.

197 H. The Ada Alexandrinorum literature in context: links with the wider Mediterranean world.

i. The foreign characters in the Ada Alexandrinorum. Nobles from other Greek cities appear frequently in the Acta Alexandrinorum literature. Ephesians, Tyrians, Athenians and Antiochenes serve on Alexandrian embassies and are given a prominent role in the stories. While it was the greatest honour to act as an ambassador for one's own fatherland, nobles often did act for other cities. Sometimes they may have received pay for their services, or other honours, such as the citizenship of the city.'98 Ephesus, the first city of Asia Minor in the Roman period, is the probable fatherland of the family of Tiberius Claudius Balbillus. This character, whose glittering career in the imperial service has already been discussed in chapter II, plays a prominent role as an Alexandrian hero in the Acta Alexandrinorum stories set under Claudius.'99 To summarise, Balbillus is thought to be the son of Tiberius' astrologer, Thrasyllus. He inherited the Roman citizenship from his father. Balbillus acted as an Alexandriart ambassador in AD 41, won accolades for a period of military service in Britain, and held several posts in the imperial administration. These posts included several procuratorial posts in Alexandria and the prefecture of Egypt from AD 54-9. He remained an influential imperial adviser under the Flavians. Balbillus is often considered to be a native Alexandrian. Balbillus' father Thrasyllus met Tiberius while studying on Rhodes, but his native city, although assumed to be Alexandria, is actually unknown. Balbillus was greatly honoured by Ephesus. The two honorific inscriptions erected there in his honour could simply indicate that he had held a procuratorial position in Asia, or had acted as an ambassador on behalf of Ephesus.20° However, the fact that Vespasian allowed the Ephesians to found annual games in Balbillus' honour called the Barbillea would suggest that he was actually a native Ephesian. 20' It is likely that Balbillus was awarded the Alexandrian citizenship for his services to the city. Balbillus is therefore likely to be an early

CR111 157 iii.14 (see p.80-3). CL Joseph. Ap. 2.29 - the Egyptian Apion was awarded Alexandrian citizenship for his services to the city. P.Oxy. XLII 3021(?), CPJH 156c,BKTIX64. 200 Smallwood 1967: no. 261a-b. Cf Tyre honoured Tiberius Julius Alexander in an inscription following his procuratorship in Syria. 201 Dio 66.9.2.

198 example of a man who held the citizenship of several Greek cities, a well-attested second-century AD phenomenon. Balbillus' descendants married into other prominent families in Greek cities. By the second century Balbillus' dynasty had strong family links with Sparta, Athens and Corinth.202 lyre was a major city in Syria, and under Severus became the capital of Syria Phoenice. An Alexandrian, Tiberius Julius Alexander, was honoured as a patron of Tyre in an inscription there. 203 Paulos of Tyre acted as an ambassador for Alexandria, and features prominently in several Ada Alexandrinorum stories set in the early second century AD. It is stated in the ActaHermaiski that Paulos of Tyre had offered his services as advocate to the Alexandrians. 204 Paulos does not have a speaking role in the extant version of this hearing. A 'Paulos' reappears in CPJII l58a, again representing the Alexandrians. Musurillo rejects the identification of these Pauloi as the same man.205 Nonetheless, as several of the ambassadors from the Acta Hermaiski reappear in CPJII 158a, the identification is very probable. The author ofCPJH 158a also differentiates Paulos from the other ambassadors (cf col. 1.10 'Paulos and the others'), suggesting this Paulos was not an Alexandrian himself. Paulos' prominent role on the embassy is shown from the latter stages of the story, where he narrowly escapes torture and execution, unlike the unfortunate Antoninus. Paulos declares in col. vi. 1-5: "My only concern is for the grave in Alexandria which I expect to have. Advancing as I am towards this, I shall have no fear of telling the truth!" The scene would appear to be similar to one that we find in P.Oxy. XVIII 2177 (see below), and Paulos is probably responding to a question from the emperor along the lines of: 'What is a Tyrian doing here on an Alexandrian embassy?' Paulos' claim could then be construed as a statement of his commitment to the Alexandrian cause. The fact that Paulos expected to have a grave in Alexandria suggests that he had also been granted the Alexandrian citizenship for his services to the city. Paulos' name appears twice in P.Oxy. XVffl 2177.206 This section of the text appears to cite a letter from Trajan to the Alexandrians(?), perhaps, as I suggested in chapter III, sent as a reply to the embassy ofCPJII 157. While Paulos may therefore be mentioned in respect to his activities under Trajan, it is tempting to suppose that he was

202 Spawforth 1978: 249-60. 203 Barzanô 1988: 523-4; Rey-Coquais 1978: 71. 204 CPJJJ 157 1.9-11. 205 Musurillo 1954: 187.

199 present at this hearing before Hadrian. The case for Paulos' presence is bolstered by the most likely supplement '[T]yrian bravery' ([T]piac àv6[p]€'iaç) in col. i.3. The evidence therefore suggests that Paulos of Tyre became a stock character in the A c/a A/exancfrjnorum literature, and played as big a role in the stories set in the early second century as Balbillus had in those set in the time of Claudius. Tyrians may also appear in P. Oxy. XLH 3023 (discussed p.202-3). The editor suggestthat the supplement "Tyr[ians]" in col. i. 12 is more probable than the alternative "tyr[ant]".207 Like Alexandria, Athens had a long history of chequered relations with Rome. The city had supported the losing side in three Roman civil wars in the first century BC. Unlike Sulla, however, Julius Caesar and Octavian refrained from violently punishing the Athenians. Nonetheless Caesar imposed enormous fiscal penalties on the cities that had supported Pompey, and also took back his gift of fifty talents, donated to fund the construction of a new agora.208 Augustus initially followed a policy of clemency towards Athens. 209 However, the sources report periods of poor relations between Athens and Augustus. In 22/1 BC Augustus confiscat Aegina and Eretria from Athens, and removed the city's privilege of selling Athenian citizenship. While Augustus was in Athens a statue of Athena allegedly turned west and spat blood. Augustus took this as a great insult and spent the remainder of the winter on Aegina.21° The cause of the dispute is unclear. Plutarch attributes Augustus' hostility to the Athenians' support for Antony, but this is unlikely, given the previous decade of good

relations. 211 There was reconciliation, and normal relations are attested for Augustus' next two recorded visits to Athens. 212 Later sources preserve the tradition that there was a serious uprising in Athens near the end of Augustus' reign. 213 A 'legate of Augustus and Tiberius' attested at Athens in this period was apparently sent to resolve the

crisis. 214 Consequently, Achaea was incorporated into the imperial province of Moesia. An Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper, P. Oxy. XVHI 2177, written in the third century AD, prominently features an Athenian, Athamas, who acts on behalf of the

206 p, XVIII 2177 fr. I ii.36-7 ([Pau-] I lou) and ii.46 (Pa[ulolu). 207p , XLII: p.80. 208 Hoff 1989: 1-8. 209 Eg Plut. Ant. 68.4. 210 Dio 54.7.1-3. See Bowersock 1964: 120-1. 21! Plut. Reg.et Imp.Apophth. 207.13. 212 Dio 54.9.7-10; 54.28.3. 213 Euseb. C/iron. Augustus year 52 (p.170); Syncellus, CSHB 19: p.602; Oros. Adv.pagan. 6.22.1-2; Syme 1979: 199-204. 214 See Bowersock 1964: 207-10; Ehrenberg 1953: 938-44.

200 Alexandrians. The first editors suggested that the other ambassador, Athenodoros, was also an Athenian. 215 Athamas does not appear elsewhere in the stories, but the name Athenodoros occurs in stories set both in the Claudian period and the early second century.216 Given the tendency of the Acta Alexandrinorum literature to use stock characters, the Athenodori of P.Oxy. XVffl 2177 and CPJII 157 are likely to be the same man. Philostratus mentions a sophist of this name who studied in Athens, but as the name was very common among the Greek elite, certain identification is impossible. 217 The origin of Athenodoros therefore remains unclear. The dramatic setting of the story is unclear. The emperor is likely to be Hadrian (see p.92), and the purpose of the embassy is to procure the return of some exiled Alexandrian or Athenian nobles. If the former, the Alexandrians may have asked the Athenians to petition Hadrian on their behalf, knowing that he held Athens in high regard. During the proceedings, a letter of Trajan to the Alexandrians(?) was read out in support of the case of the Alexandrian/Athenian embassy.218 The writer of the story greatly emphasises the fellowship, and common cause, of the Athenians and Alexandrians. The extant text begins with the emperor appearing to question the presence of Athenians on an Alexandrian embassy rather brusquely: "You are ambassadors of an alien city?" The emperor later asks ironically: "Do the Athenians have the same laws as the Alexandrians?"219 Athamas' response to the former question emphasises the fellowship between the cities: "We are not ambassadors of an alien city, but our own. Caesar, the cities are of the same stock!"22° Again emphasising the Alexandrian-Athenian ties of kinship, Athenodoros claims that the cities share the same laws. He states that they share 'the strongest' of the laws, and that both have a good blend of harsh and lenient laws. The reference to lenient laws may have been intended to remind the emperor of clemency, which from a reference to an execution later in the story, does not appear to have been shown. The remainder of the story is fragmentary. A letter of Trajan is read out, perhaps to show that another foreigner, Paulos of Tyre, had acted as an ambassador for

215p ' XVIII: p.96. Musurillo 1954: 196. 216 BKTJX64 11.21; PJH 1571.9. 217 Philostr. V2.14. 218 See p.92 on this letter. 219 P.Oxy. XVffl. 2177 i.4-5, 12-5. 220 Pm)' XVIII 2177 i.5-8.

201 Alexandria. The emperor summons his consilium and Athamas and asks him which city was responsible for the petition. The outcome of the story is unclear. From Athenodoros' statement "Lord, I am here to answer my own charge", it would appear that he is the ambassador who was in trouble with the emperor and was to be executed. Nevertheless, some of the (other?) Athenians on the embassy may have shared his fate. Athenians may appear in another Ada Alexandrinorum story. Musurillo suggested that the phrase 'KXrn&oç 'A0i1v[-]' in the Ada Hermaiski referred to Alexandrians citing Claudian legislation concerning Athens to support their case.221 However, as an Athenodoros appears as an ambassador to Claudius in BKTIX 64, the most likely restoration is 'Claudius said [to] Athen[odoros]'. There is no record of any conflict between Rome and Antioch until the revolt of Avidius Cassius. However, as at Alexandria, there were serious tensions between the Greeks and Jews in Antioch in the Roman period. The underlying cause of these tensions in both cities is likely to be similar. Josephus makes the unlikely claim that the Antiochene Jews enjoyed the same civic privileges as the Antiochene Greeks. 222 In fact, the Jews in Antioch probably enjoyed a status similar to that of the Jews in Alexandria (see Appendix III). There were serious outbreaks of Graeco-Jewish violence in Antioch in 39/41-2, 66 and 7Ø223 Titus enjoyed a magnificent reception at Antioch while en route to Alexandria. However, the "acciamations were mingled with a constant appeal for the expulsion of the Jews." Titus refused to drive the Jews out of the city, and refused to remove their civic privileges. 224 In Alexandria Titus refused a similar appeal by the Alexandrian Greeks. 225 An Antiochene, Sopatros, acted as advocate for the Alexandrian Jews in CPJ II 157, but it is not explicitly stated that any Antiochene ever aided the Alexandrian Greeks. However, in a rather fragmentary text, which has many characteristic features of an Ada Alexandrinorum proper, it is Antiochenes who are incurring the wrath of an emperor (see below). ii. Other cities, other Ada? P.Oxy. XLII 3023, a fragmentary text from Oxyrhynchus written in a hand of the second century AD, appears to tell the story of an Antiochene embassy to Rome.

CPJII 157 iv.17; Musurillo 1954: 178. 222 Joseph. RI 7.44. "Mala1as, CSIIB 31: p.244-5; Joseph. BJ7.41-62,; Downey 1961: 192-4, 204-5. Joseph. BJ7.100-11; Downey 1961: 203. Joseph. AJ 12.121-4.

202 The Antiochenes do not appear in the story as the allies of Alexandria. It is, in fact, the Antiochenes who are defending themselves against charges: "Caesar said: 'What do the Antiochenes say in answer to these claims?' Claudius Atilianus replied: 'Most divine of emperors, do you (?) trust this claim as if it were a true one..."226 The identity of the Antiochene spokesman is unclear. He is unlikely to be the consul of AD 135, P.Calpurnius Atilianus Atticus Rufus, or the two imperial procurators from the second century, C.Aurelius Atilianus and Julius Villius Atilianus. 227 An Asiarch named Aurelius Aelius Attalianus is known, and it is more likely that the Atilianus of the text is a member of the Syrian provincial aristocracy.228 P.Oxy. XLII 3023 therefore appears to record the minutes of a hearing before an emperor in which an Antiochene delegation defends itself against the accusations of a rival embassy, presumably comprising Antiochene Jews. The dramatic date is unclear, but the story is probably related to one of the recorded periods of Graeco- Jewish violence at Antioch. The significance of the text is that the Antiochenes occupy the same role in the story as the Alexandrians do in the Acta Alexandrinorum proper, and face a hostile emperor. This story was found not at Antioch, but in Oxyrhynchus. The first editor suggested that the Graeco-Jewish violence at Antioch led to the Antiochenes developing a similar literature to the Acta Alexandrinorum, and that the Alexandrian Greeks took a brotherly interest in them. 229 Both Alexandria and Antioch undoubtedly kept themselves informed of what was happening in other cities regarding the status of the Jews. During Titus' visits to Antioch and Alexandria we . perhaps see a co-ordinated attempt by the two cities to deprive the Jews of their civic rights. Philo implies that the Greeks and Jews from other parts of the empire carefully monitored the events in Alexandria. The Alexandrian Jewish delegates in AD 38 assumed that an adverse decision by Gaius would signal attacks on Jewish religious liberty and the civic rights of Jews everywhere.23° Both Antiochenes and Alexandrians would therefore be extremely interested in a literature involving the emperor hearing cases between Greeks and Jews. Logic suggests that if the story of an Antiochene embassy facing an emperor was being read in Oxyrhynchus, the ActaAlexandrinorum would have been read outside

226 P.Oxy. XLII 3023 u.4-11. 7 PIR2 C 250; PIR2 A-B: A 1461; PJR1 P-Z: V 438. Magic 1950: 1604; on the post of the Asiarch see p.449-50. 229 P.Oxy. XLII: p.78. °Phi10 Leg. 371.

203 Egypt. It would not be surprising, for example, to discover Antiochenes reading the Ada Alexandrinorum literature. Dio's anecdote of the statue of Athena spitting towards Rome (see p.200) is highly reminiscent of an episode in one of the Acta Alexandrinorum stories, the scene in CPJ II 157 where the Alexandrian god Serapis comes alive, creating panic in Rome. It is most probable that this anecdote originated in Athens. It must have been circulated widely for Dio to incorporate it into his histories. It is tempting to speculate that this anecdote was circulated in an Athenian literature similar to the Acta Alexandrinorum. PSI XI 1222, a late second-century AD text of unknown provenance, records the speech of an advocate to an unidentified emperor on behalf of a certain Didymus. The advocate states that he is representing his fellow citizen, Didymus, an eminent man. As the emperor already knows, Didymus has held 'two great magistracies' in his fatherland. Indeed the advocate continues: "You appointed him magistrate, and you saw him twice when he came as an ambassador with both crowns." Didymus is described as an orator and an elder, and had previously acted as an advocate in cases judged by the emperor, speaking loudly and clearly in the emperor's presence, and enjoying the freedom of speech that the emperor allowed to all those speaking before him. Little remains of the second column. It therefore remains unclear who Didymus was, what he had done, and when the trial took place. The vocabulary of the speech is similar to that of the Acta Alexandrinorum literature. Both the advocate and Didymus emphasise the status of their fatherland (pains), and also the high status of Didymus in their city. We know that there were prominent men in Alexandria named Didymus. 23 ' Indeed, the reference to Didymus' 'crowns' could imply that he was a gymnasiarch, as stephanoi were part of the gymnasiarch's official robes of office. Alexandria certainly had the magistracies that could be referred to as megistai archai. Nonetheless, emperors were reluctant to interfere in the internal running of Alexandria, and, as far as we know, never appointed

city magistrates. 232 Trajan was particularly cautious in even granting the Alexandrian citizenship to Pliny's masseur. 233 The only appointments emperors made in Alexandria

An Alexandrian scholar in P.Oxy. XVffl 2190; a gymnasiarch in Kayser 1994: no.39. 232 Although, as noted in chapter ifi (e.g. p.76-SO), prefects did interfere in the appointment of magistracies, and emperors may also occasionally have done so. 233 P1m. Ep. 10.7.

204 were connected to the Alexandrian Museum. 234 In contrast, imperial involvement in the appointment of magistrates in other cities in the Greek east is well attested. Hadrian, for example, is frequently found commending candidates for magistracies in other Greek cities, such as Athens and Ephesus. 235 The use of Attic Greek was a feature of the Second Sophistic, and the Atticising Greek used in the story (e.g. perittos for perissos) may indicate that Didymus and his lawyer were sophists from a Greek city in the eastern empire.236 Josephus frequently mentions Jewish embassies that went to Rome. His story of rival Samaritan and Jewish embassies meeting Claudius has numerous similarities with the Ada Alexandrinorum, in particular the Ada Isidori. 237 The background to this meeting was serious Samaritan-Jewish violence. Because the Roman procurator Cumanus had firmly sided with the Samaritans, allegedly in return for a bribe, many Jews had been killed. Both parties complained about the other to the governor of Syria, Quadratus, who decided to refer the matter to the emperor. He sent Cumanus to Claudius in Rome along with two rival delegations. Claudius assigned a day for the case. His freedmen and friends strongly favoured the case of Cumanus and the Samaritans, who Josephus believes would have won, had it not been for the intervention of Agrippa II. Agrippa entreated the empress Agrippina to persuade Claudius to give the matter more careful consideration. Claudius consequently found in favour of the Jews. The Samaritan delegates were executed and Cumanus was exiled.238 There are historical similarities between this hearing and the Ada Isidori. Both cases were tried by Claudius, and were occasioned by age-old anti-Jewish tensions. Cumanus, like Philo's Flaccus, is portrayed by Josephus as the ally of the enemy of the Jews. The way Josephus tells the story is highly reminiscent of the Acta stories. Claudius' advisers are on the side of the Samaritans; in CPJII 156a i, the two senators appear to favour the case of the Alexandrians. The Samaritans were assigned a day for their hearing; Claudius granted Isidoros a day. The Roman officials, Flaccus and Cumanus are both exiled, the losing delegates executed, and the Jews' case won through the intervention of an Agrippa. Neither affair attracted the attention of mainstream Roman history. Tacitus merely notes that the long-standing feud between Jews and

1 E.g. Philostr. iS' 1.22; 1.25. E.g. Smallwood 1966: no.72. On the prevalence of Atticisms in the Second Sophistic see Anderson 1993: 87-94. 237 Joseph. AJ2O.1 18-36. 8 Joseph. BJ 2.245 states that three Samaritans were executed.

205 Samaritans erupted into plunder and occasional battles because of the contempt for both parties of Cumanus and Felix. 239 The Jews only won their case by exerting their influence over Agrippina. This also allegedly happened in CPJII 157, where the Jewish delegates approached the empress. Trajan consequently opposed the Alexandrians, "having already been won over by Plotina."24° The Acta Alexandrinorum literature therefore has considerable links with the wider Mediterranean world. The literature prominently featured characters from other eastern centres, such as Ephesus, Tyre, Athens and Antioch. Other cities also preserved the stories of confrontations between their prominent nobles and emperors in a form that is remarkably similar to that of the Acta Alexandrinorum. This would imply that the Acta Alexandrinorum are not as unique as has been previously supposed, but, as I suggested earlier in this chapter, belong to a much wider literary phenomenon. The fact that people in Roman Egypt were reading stories about foreigners, such as Didymus, Antiochenes and Athenians (e.g. the story of Secundus, p. 171-2) confronting emperors would imply that the Acta Alexandrinorum stories would have been read outside Egypt. Throughout the Principate the major Greek centres of the Eastern Empire were in close contact with one another, closely watching developments in other centres which may have affected their own status. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that centres such as Antioch, and perhaps Athens, apparently developed literature similar to the Acta Alexandrinorum. iii. The Acta Alexandrinorum in the context of the 'Hellenic renaissance'. During the Principate Greek culture enjoyed a renaissance. Following the practice of many Republican generals, Augustus and his successors gathered many cultured Greeks in their court. These Greeks enjoyed enormous imperial patronage, were appointed to the highest posts in the imperial service, entered the senate, became consuls and were the generals of Roman armies. By AD 143, a Greek, Herodes Atticus, was eponymous consul of the Roman Empire. It is the general view that the deliberate promotion of Hellenic culture by emperors gradually eroded the age-old distrust and antipathy between Greeks and Romans, and heralded an age of Graeco-Roman political and cultural unity. Thus a Graeco-Roman elite was formed, a happy partnership, allegedly described with only a little exaggeration by the Greek orator Aelius Aristides

9 Tac.Ann. 12.54. 240 CPJH 157 ii. 13-4.

206 in his To Rome. Rome was therefore a common fatherland, bringing great benefits to its subjects.24' However, the 'Hellenic renaissance' has deeper implications. With the prominent flourishing of Hellenic culture, Greeks became increasingly more self- conscious of their own culture and heritage. They looked backed at their glorious past with despair as they reflected on their current status as the subjects of a non-Greek and therefore barbarian race. MacMullen saw the 'Hellenic renaissance' as a primarily anti- Roman movement: "Rome's internal enemies were.. . Greeks of the upper class, defending the purity of their cultural inheritance." "The Second Sophistic [was] perfectly harmless on the surface, but anti-Roman in its implications, since its intent was the reassertion of Hellenism".242 A fictional representative of extreme Hellenism, Proteus Peregrinus, openly advocated rebellion against Rome. 243 Plutarch reveals that Greek nobles could "stir up the masses by foolishly urging them to imitate the deeds, spirit and actions of their ancestors."21 Recent studies have highlighted an undercurrent of Greek hostility, alienation and ambivalence towards Rome in the writings of even those Greeks whose perspective is considered to be loyalist (see below).245 The Acta Alexandrinorum proper must be seen in the context of this flourishing of Greek culture. The heroes of the Alexandrian stories are certainly acutely aware of their Hellenic heritage. Isidoros proclaims: "I am... a Greek [by race(?)].. . an orator!"2 The major themes of the stories are heavily influenced by Hellenic ideals. The emphasis of the high status of the Alexandrians who are steeped in Greek culture, and their love of their fatherland, which is, for example, comparable with the patriotism of the heroes of the Greek novels (see p.209). Tied into the emphasis on dryv€ia in the stories is the promotion of the Hellenic habit of outspokenness (Trappia'a); the Alexandrians rely on their noble status to protect them, however insolent they are.247 The Ada Alexandrinorum stories are therefore heavily influenced by the Hellenic ideals

241 E.g. Forte 1972. 242 MacMullen 1966: 189, 244. 243 Lucian, De rnort.Peregr. 18, 33. 244 Plut. Prae.ger.reip. 814a-c. 245 Swain 1996; see also Veyne 1999: 510-67. 246 CPJH 156b ii.7-9.

207 that were being promoted throughout the renaissance. I will examine here the Hellenic sentiments expounded in other contemporary literary productions, which were also influenced by the renaissance. One result of the renaissance was the so-called Second Sophistic. Philostratus coined this term in his Lives of the Sophists to denote what was primarily a rhetorical movement. Many of Philostratus' sophists managed to obtain imperial patronage and moved in a world of splendour and prosperity. 248 Although they were primarily teachers of rhetoric, the sophists were very active in producing literature in this period, particularly declamations. These declamations were fictional legal pleas on mythological, imaginary, or, more usually, historical themes. In delivering historical declamations, the sophist would impersonate an important figure from Greek history, usually the classical period. The sophist was supposed to extemporise, and not only take into account the historical situation, but also the details, the personality and emotion of the character they were impersonating. They also had to imitate the language of the classical period. It is greatly debated among modern scholars why the greatest orators of the age wasted their time on such frivolity. It is most probable that declamations were great performances, bringing the past to life, and attracted great audiences by playing on the audience's nostalgic interest in the past.249 Declamations were particularly popular in Alexandria. A young man studying in Alexandria in the late first century AD excused the fact that he had missed so many lectures, claiming that he could learn as much attending the public declamations in the city!25° The ActaAlexandrinorum literature needs to be seen in the context of this climate, where fictional legal pleas were popular and glorified famous Greek historical figures. The writers of the ActaAlexandrinorum proper were composing their own fictional trial scenes, glorifying Alexandria's own heroes and glorious past. This is why, for example, the Alexandrian Appianos refers to those Alexandrians who died before him, and lectures Commodus on Alexandria's glorious past, starting with the story of Caesar and Cleopatra.251

247 Eg CPJ II 157. For examples of non-Alexandrian Greek irappipia in the imperial court, see p.1 19- 20, 167-75. 248 The Sophists were, by no means, the only prominent Greek orators in this period - see Bowie 1982: 29-59; Brunt 1994: 25-52. 249 Schmitz 1999: 71-92. Cf Plut. Prae.ger.reip. 814a-c. 250 P.Oxy. XVIII 2190, with Rea 1993: 75-88. 251 CPJII 159bv.11-4.

208 Another significant area of literary production was the Greek novel, which flourished in the period of c. AD 50-250, roughly the period of the renaissance. It is unclear how representative of the genre the surviving Greek novels are. The fragments of novels on papyri imply that the tone, content and range of the Greek novel were much wider than the extant novels would suggest. The extant novels all tell the same IC- essential story of two young Greek aristocratg lovers, who are separated, and finally reunited after adventures spread across the Mediterranean. Like the historical sophistic declamations, the novels were so popular and appealed to Greeks, and aspiring Hellenes, because they were filled with traditional Hellenic cultural ideals. Reading a novel and listening to a declamation about the Greek past were a way for aspiring Hellenes to express their Hellemc culture. Musurillo briefly compared the Greek novels with the Ada Alexandrinorum. The similarities he found were that both sets of heroes are passionately patriotic and proud of their high birth (c&yveia), and that there is a melodramatic emphasis on a glorious death. 252 To these can be added a further superficial similarity - the apparent use of a narrator in one of the Alexandrian stories, CPJII 158a. We find sentiments similar to those we find in the Ada Alexandrinorum in the writings and orations of other Greek writers of the period, including, surprisingly, the works of the 'loyalist' writers (see below). An anonymous oration preserved on a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (III AD) is highly critical of the imperial cult. 253 The speaker heavily criticises a Nicaean who has invented rites to be performed to Caesar. The speakers states that a Nicaean invented these rites, not his own people, which is to their credit. He continues: "Let the rites be his, and let them be performed among his people alone!" The text breaks off with the speaker alleging that he does not wish to commit sacrilege to Caesar, and suggesting a way of not depriving Caesar of immortality. The editor suggested that the speaker was not necessarily wholly opposed to the imperial cult, but objected to new practices introduced into the cult. However, the mention of Nicaea strongly recalls Dio's statement that the first stage in the development of the imperial cult was the erection of temples to Julius Caesar in Ephesus and Nicaea, which shortly

252 Musurillo 1954: 252-8. 253 P.Oxy. XIII 1612.

209 preceded the establishment of temples to Augustus himself at Perga mum and Nicomedia.254 The imperial cult and the appropriateness of worshipping a living man were a major issue in the Greek east in this period. The theme occurs in one of the Acta Alexandrinorum proper. Appianos states: "Who recalls me for a second time from bowing down (upoaKuvotlrrn) before death and those who have died before me, Theon and Isidoros and Lampon!" The choice of phrase is hardly accidental. The implication is that although Appianos considers Death and other Alexandrians heroes worthy ofprosicynesis, the emperor is not. This view of the imperial cult is not atypical of contemporary Greek thought. Dio perhaps reflects third-century Greek opinion on the imperial cult in his speech of Maecenas to Augustus: "Permit no exceptional or prodigal distinction to be given you. . . Never permit gold or silver images to be made. . . Neither should you permit the raising of a temple to you.. .It is virtue that makes many men like gods and no one was ever elected a god."255 Arrian, who composed his history of Alexander in the second century AD, includes a long discourse on prostration, praising the courtier Callisthenes who disproved of this 'servile behaviour', and stated emphatically that there was a difference between honouring a man and worshipping a god. Arrian's personal comment on the affair shows his own disapproval of the imperial cult: "It is enough I think once a man has consented to enter a king's service, that he should exalt his masters as much as he can, while at the same time preserving a decent modesty in his own behaviour."256 There are thematic similarities between the sentiments expressed in the Ada Alexandrinorum literature and the published views of Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, Aelius Aristides and Philostratus. 257 This is somewhat surprising. These four writers, whose works are usually considered 'loyalist', were members of the wealthy Hellenic elite who benefited enormously from Roman rule. These writers all ended their lives as Roman citizens, and several were personal friends of emperors, who lavished further wealth and honours upon them. Nonetheless, these writers bitterly criticise the contemporary

2 Dio 5 1.20.6-9. 255 Dio 52.35.3-4. 256 Aff. Anab. 4.9.13. For other Greek attitudes towards the imperial cult see Bowersock 1973:177-212.

210 political environment, urge cities to limit the need for Roman intervention in Greek affairs by promoting concord, portray 'tyrannical' Roman emperors in very negative terms, and emphasise that emperors need Greek education and culture. Aelius Aristides' oration To Rome is often taken to represent the feeling of the educated Greek

elite of the period. 258 However, it is far from clear if the oration even reflects Aristides' own opinions. The enthusiastic praise of Rome in this oration, delivered in Antoninus Pius' imperial court, could perhaps better be taken as representative of what an ambitious young orator felt that the imperial family wanted to hear. 259 Other

commentators have stressed the rhetorical nature of the oration, 26° and noted that the speech is entirely lacking in interest in Rome as a city and in Roman history. Aristides' interest and outlook, as his other orations clearly reveal, is wholly in Hellenic things, heavily influenced by the writers of classical Greece.261 Despite the obvious interest and respect for Roman history and culture that he shows in his Parallel Lives, Plutarch is very blunt about the realities of Roman power and government in his treatise Political Advice. He laments that Greece has now been enslaved. Whereas in fifth-century Athens, Pericles could say: "Pericles, you are ruling free men, Greeks, Athenians, fellow citizens", a politician under the empire must say to himself: "In authority, you are under authority, ruling a state controlled by proconsuls

and procurators of Caesar." 262 Greek politicians must behave with moderation, and not take excessive pride in their citizen's crown, since he can see the boots of Roman soldiers just above his head. If they fail to recognise "the limits of the authority granted by those in control", they should expect "the dread chastiser, the axe, the cutter of the

neck."263 Plutarch also warns politicians that they must even obey Roman magistrates

whose behaviour is insulting. 2M Dio Chrysostom also feels that Greece is enslaved and is very critical of the contemporary administration. He mainly directs his criticisms towards corrupt Roman governors, an unfortunate symptom of Roman rule. He criticises the Rhodians for their excessive servility to Rome, citing their policy of re- using statues of ancient Rhodian heroes for new Roman benefactors. Later in the same

257 For full details on the lives and works of these writers see Jones 1971; 1978; Behr 1968; 1981-6; Anderson 1986. E.g. Oliver 1953: 871-1003. Swain 1996: 275. 260 Eg Bowersock 1969: 45, a 'multitude of commonplaces'. 26! Swain 1996: 254-97; See Stertz 1994: 1248-1270. 262 Plut. Prae.ger.reip. 813e. 3 Jbid. 813f. 264 Ibid 816e-817c.

211 oration, he alludes to the Roman peace, the clearest benefit that Roman rule offered, for which the Greek should have been most appreciative. 265 He refers to: "The peace and the slavery, of which all pray for the first, peace, while the other is no longer a sign of baseness."266 Dio Chrysostom chastises his native Prusans for believing promises for benefactions made by previous governors: "You are mad and deluded making yourselves so dependent on men like that, cultivating people so low.. ,,267 He also lists several accusations levelled against him by his personal enemies. He was charged with: "With having persuaded a bad governor to torture the demos, to exile the greatest number he could, even to execute some.. . Further, with collaborating even now in everything with the tyrant of our province."268 The context of the speech shows that Dio Chrysostom wished these charges to be applied to his enemies rather than himself, demonstrating the corrupt nature of the Roman administration in the province. Plutarch blames the 'enslavement' on Greek factionalism. Factions within cities and provinces were continually referring matters that could be dealt with internally to the Romans, thereby bringing on "a reproach of slavery." 269 Plutarch urges the promotion of concord, which would limit Roman intervention in Greek affairs. Internal regulations would ensure that there would be "no need of outside doctors and

medicines."270 There is no need, although the leg is tied, to offer the neck. The factions were playing into the hands of the Romans, making them "masters of more than they

themselves want."271 Plutarch is well aware that, because of their factionalism, the Greeks were currently not capable of governing themselves: "Of freedom, our peoples have as much as those in control allow them, and more would perhaps not be better."272 Nonetheless the plea for concord suggests that he envisaged a time when Greece would once again be autonomous, and free of Roman rule. Dio Chrysostom also urges

Nutton 1978: 210. 2 DioChrys. Or. 31.125. 267 Dio Chrys. Or. 45.4-5. 268 Dio Chrys. Or. 43.11-2. 269 Nut. Prae.ger.reip. 814e. 270 ibid. 815c. ' Ibid. 814f. 272 Ibid 824c.

212 concord between the Greeks for this very reason. Dio urges the Tarsians not to refer their quarrel with Mallus, regarding the status of 'first-city' of the province to the Romans. The concern is, in any case, foolhardy, as "leadership and rule are in the hands of others". Their dispute is that "of fellow-slaves quarrelling with each other over reputation and primacy." 273 He also warns the Nicomedians and Nicaeans to stop their squabbling. The provincial council would only be able to function against corrupt Roman officials if the cities were unified. If there were disunity, a corrupt official would simply exploit the factionalism, and escape prosecution: "Are you not aware of the tyranny that your factionalism gives to those who rule you?"274 While the Greeks fight for a mere title, the Romans are laughing at this 'Hellenic failing' (factionalism). The promotion of concord is the major theme of Aelius Aristides' orations to cities. Aristides applauds Greek unity against Persia, but attributes Philip of Macedon's conquest of Greece on factionalism. With this conquest "all those great things sank under ground like water." 275 He is particularly critical of the major source of factionalism between the major cities in Asia, the quest for 'primacy': "Why are we fighting over a shadow?"276 These 'loyalist' writers also portray some emperors in negative terms. Plutarch says several unfavourable things about Augustus in the Parallel Lives. 277 Although Plutarch depicts Nero as a base tyrant, he had some affection for the emperor who proclaimed at the Isthmus on 28th November 67 that Achaea was to be freed from direct rule and tribute.278 Plutarch portrays Vespasian as cruel and unhappy. 279 Dio Chrysostom clearly hated Nero, whhe depicts as depraved. 280 Philostratus asserts that with the exceptions of Augustus and Claudius, all the Julio-Claudian emperors were harsh tyrants who shamed Rome, and, as I noted earlier in chapter V (p.172-4), portrays Nero and Domitian as tyrants in a similar way to the Acta Alexandrinorum. Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom and Philostratus all assert that Romans need to be educated by the Greeks in the art of kingship. Plutarch's Discourse to an Unlearned Prince concerns rulers in general, although it is possible that he delivered the oration to

273 Dio Chiys. Or. 34.51. Dio Cluys. Or. 38.36. 275 Ael.Aristid. Or. 23.51. 276 Ibid 63. 277 E.g. Pint. Cic. 46.1; Brut. 27; 46.2; Ant. 22.1-2; 53. 278 Piut. Defrat.amor. 488a; De garr. 505c; De sera num.vind. 567f. 9 Piut Amat. 771c.

213 Trajan. 28' Dio Chrysostom composed four orations on kingship, some of which he may have delivered to Trajan. He certainly liked to boast that he had instructed an emperor on kingship. 282 In these orations, Dio Chrysostom frequently combines flattery with strong criticisms of prospective bad behaviour, so that we cannot tell if the emperor is being praised or urged to become what he is not. The ideas that are expressed regarding kingship imply that Dio Chrysostom never considered Trajan to be an ideal monarch, or even close.283 He explicitly states that the Romans need to be instructed in Greeks ethics: "Only then will your city be great and strong, and rule according to truth. For now at any rate its greatness is suspect and not aX all safe."284 Philostratus only portrays emperors in favourable terms if they had allowed Greeks to lecture them on kingship. Philostratus includes an unhistorical debate between the Greeks Dio Chrysostom, Euphrates and Apollonios of Tyana in the presence of Vespasian on kingship. His hero Apollonios also sends Titus to be instructed on kingship by the Greek philosopher Demetrius, when Titus asks the sage how he should rule his empire.285 The implication of this need for Greek culture and education, is that the Romans are, by race, culturally inferior to the Greeks, and need Greek moral guidance for running their empire. In this age of flourishing Hellenism, Greeks were looking back at their past with a nostalgic pride, and viewed their present subjugation to the Romans as a less worthy age. Except for the Roman peace, applauded by Aristides, other merits of Roman rule are hardly touched upon in the writings of these Greeks. There is little evidence to suggest that any of these writers saw themselves as part of a common cultured Graeco- Roman elite. None of the writers surveyed show any influence of Roman culture, and, with the exception of Plutarch, no interest in it. Lurking behind all these Greek writers is an ardent Hellenism, and sadness that Greeks were now the subjects of a race of barbarol. The writers hope for concord, which would produce a unified, strong Greece in the future, but realised that for the present the Romans were there to stay. Their

°Dio Cluys. Or. 2 1.8-10. Jones 1971: 30. 2 Dio Chrys. Or.57. 10-12. Swain 1996: 192-206. 4 Dio Chrys. Or. 13.34. Philostr. VA 6.31.

214 writings consequently urge the Roman emperors to adopt Greek culture and education, so that they will be ideal kings on the Greek model, rather than tyrants. These ideals and concepts can also be found in the Acta Alexandrinorum. Isidoros tells Claudius: "I am not a slave, but a gymnasiarch of the glorious city of Alexandria!"286 The outcome of the trial, with his ensuing execution, shows that he was indeed a slave, to be disposed of in any way the emperor wanted. The need to promote internal concord, and prevent constant Roman intervention in Alexandnan affairs was the historical reason behind the Alexandrians wanting a boule. Alexandria wanted less Roman intervention in their internal civic affairs. The emperors in the Ada Alexandrinorum proper are typically portrayed as tyrannical, uncultured, cruel rulers who lack the prerequisite of good rulers, nobility and culture (eugenela). The texts telling the stories of Alexandrians prosecuting Roman prefects depict the Roman administration as thoroughly corrupt. The Alexandrian complaints about the prefects typically involve the prefect's interference in office holding at Alexandria and, in the case of Maximus at least, acceptance of bribes and behaving inappropriately. Several Alexandrians also tell emperors how they should behave. Hermaiskos lectures Trajan on his duties to help 'his own' (i.e. nobles), rather than Jews. 287 Isidoros also appears to ,,288 remind Claudius of his duties: "You must not.. Appianos' contrast of the qualities of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and his lecturing Commodus on Alexandrian history, may partially have been for instructive purposes. In light of the similarities with other trial scenes written in the same period (see above) and with the sentiments of even 'loyalist' Greek writers, we need to take a much more sophisticated view of the Acta Alexandrinorum as 'dissident literature'. The Acta A lexandrinorum proper and pieces of the Acta related literature are considered 'anti- Roman' because the Alexandrian heroes criticise emperors and prosecute corrupt Roman prefects. However, it must be stressed that in the Severan period, when most of the extant Ada Alexandrinorum proper were copied, Philostratus criticised past emperors with the full support of the Severans, his literary patron being the empress Julia Domna. Even Marcus Aurelius is critical of his predecessors. He warns himself:

286 CpJll 156d8-ll. CPJII 157 iii.11-13. 288 CPJII 156b ii.11.

215 "Take care not to be 'Caesarised' (àirófcaLaapO1c). Stay simple, good, pure, serious, free from affection, a friend of justice, a worshipper of the gods, kind affectionate, strenuous in all proper acts."289 Suetonius and Tacitus, Romans themselves, have much worse things to say about emperors than any of the Ada Alexandrinorum. Although the emperors in the Acta Alexandrinorum proper are usually stock caricatures of tyrants, the literature is not uniformly hostile to all emperors and prefects. Gaius emerges with much credit in a story where the Alexandrians decisively win their case.29° The Roman senators who advise Claudius to hear Isidoros' case, and agree that the noble Alexandrian deserves a day for his hearing, are also portrayed positively.29' Although Appianos' comments are intended to emphasise Commodus' unsuitability to rule, Marcus Aurelius is praised in glowing terms: "Your father, the divine Antoninus was fit to be emperor. Listen clearly, first of all he was a philosopher; secondly he was not avaricious, thirdly he was good. But you have precisely the opposite qualities. You are tyrannical, dishonest and crude!"292 With the exception of Commodus, all the insults and criticisms directed at emperors usually stem from their support for the Jews in the Acta Alexandrinorum proper. Isidoros delivers one of the most memorable insults in the whole literature to Claudius: "You are the cast-off son of the Jewess Salome!" When one of the worst 'anti-Roman' insults in the literature essentially involves the Alexandrians telling the emperor 'you are a Jew', it must be doubted whether the anti- Jewish sentiments in the literature really are a secondary phenomenon. After all, stories of the contests between Alexandrian Greek and Jewish embassies dominate the literature, and the stories are in many places much more hostile to the Jews than they are to the Roman emperors. The portrayal of emperors as 'base tyrants' is actually very inconsistent in the literature. In ordering Trajan to help "his own" rather than the Jews, the Alexandrian Hermaiskos states explicitly that the emperor is actually noble, like the Alexandrian Greeks. Nowhere in the Ada Alexandrinorum literature do we find calls for the overthrow of Rome, or the enslavement of the Romans, as we find, for example, in the Sibylline Oracles (see p.139-40). We should expect dissident literature to upset the rulers of the Roman Empire, and be banned, as indeed prophetic literature often was.

M.Aur. Med 6.30. °P.Giss.Lit. 4.7. 291 CPJII l56aii.13-5.

216 There is nothing to suggest that the Ada Alexandrinorum literature ever upset anyone. If, as I suggested earlier (p. 13 6-8), the Acta Alexandrinorum were performed in public, this further erodes the argument for the literature being dissident. Rather than seeing the Ada Alexandrinorum as "the most violent of anti-Roman propaganda", 293 they are better seen as a by-product of Hellenistic thought and ideals of the period, and not widely divorced from other contemporaiy Greek literary productions.

292 CPJII 159b ii.6-13. 3 Musuril10 1954: 258.

217 VI.

Conclusion.

Musurillo pioneered the view that the Acta Alexandrinorum were a political pamphlet literature, the literary expression of a discontented, bitterly anti-Roman Alexandrian elite, who wrote to stir up opposition and anti-Roman feeling in Alexandria, 'campaigning', as it were, for the restoration of the Alexandrian boule. Although basing their stories on the official minutes of historical trials in the imperial court, the writers of the ActaAlexandrinorum twisted these records for their own anti- Roman propagandist purposes, producing a unique literary phenomenon. Through examining the individual stories and placing the literature into its wider literary context, I have argued for a different interpretation of the Acta Alexandrinorum. I began my study by clearly differentiating between the Ada Alexandrinorum proper and the literature related to them. I have argued that the Acta Alexandrinorum proper and the Acta related literature belong to a spectrum of writings about the politics of Alexandria under Roman rule. These writings ranged from 'copied' documents and historical writings to almost novelistic literary compositions. While many pieces of the Acta related literature belong nearer the fonner end of this spectrum, the Acta Alexandrinorum proper clearly belong at the laffer end. However, as I noted during my review of the texts, many pieces of the Acta related literature share common literary themes with the Ada Alexandrinorum proper. Indeed, the characterisation of the brave Alexandrian ambassadors who prosecute Roman prefects on behalf of their fatherland is often similar to that of those Alexandrians who face Jewish embassies in the imperial court. The literary phenomenon certainly dates from the early Principate, as the stories featuring Augustus show, and apparently had Ptolemaic literary precedents (see p.109- 112). I have emphasised the role of the embassies to Gaius and Claudius in the development of this literature. The embassies spawned a great literature that began in the AD 40s with the historical writings of Philo, Apion and Chaeremon, and continued throughout the next two centuries, as shown by the writings of Josephus and the Ada Alexancirinorum proper. As I demonstrated in Chapter II, it is extremely difficult to recreate the actual events of the years AD 38-41 from these sources. However, the serious historical and chronological discrepancies reveal much about how the people of

218 Roman Egypt reacted to the events of these years, and about what they wanted to believe and make their history. The result of this is that the ActaAlexandrinorum proper record diverse traditions, reproducing the same essential story-line, emphasising the cultural superiority of the Alexandrian Greek heroes, who bravely oppose Alexandrian Jews and tyrannical Roman emperors on behalf of their beloved fatherland. The stories give the impression that the Alexandrian Greeks win their cases, but are still condemned to death as the victims of imperial favour to the Alexandrian Jews. The historicity of this alleged imperial favour is difficult to uphold. Whenever serious violence erupted in the city, the Roman prefect always sided with the Alexandrian Greeks against the Jews. The Alexandrian Jewish community suffered terribly in AD 38, 66 and 115/6-7. While in the Acta Isidori Claudius is firmly allied with the Alexandrian Jews, in historical terms this 'alliance' was his refusal to side with the Alexandrian Greeks against the Jews, as Gaius had done. The Ada Alexandrinorum are usually seen as highly charged political pamphlets, written to promote anti-Roman feeling in the city. It is also thought that the anti-Jewish sentiments in the stories are a secondary phenomenon, the Alexandrian Greeks covertly voicing their opposition to Rome by attacking their alleged protégés, the Jews, whose position in Alexandria rested solely upon Roman support. I have argued that the literature is actually not opposed to all things Roman, and observed that the supposed main impetus behind the literature, the quest for a boule, is notably absent from the later Acta Alexandrinorum proper stories. I have also pointed out that the literature is much more hostile to the Jews than the Romans in places, suggesting that the anti-Jewish sentiments are not a secondary phenomenon in the literature. But the stories are not primarily anti-Jewish either; and they are also anti-Egyptian. The stories actually revolve around the Alexandrian Greek heroes, their services to their fatherland and their spectacular, glorious deaths. I have argued that Alexandria was not a remote, isolated city that had unique problems with Rome, but very much part of the wider Hellenic Mediterranean world. The Alexandrian Greek heroes of the Acta Alexandrinorum are acutely aware of their Hellenic heritage. Indeed, the emphasis in the stories on the differences between the Alexandrian heroes and the non-Greek barbaroi, Romans, Jews and Egyptians, who are all 'not of the same nature' as the Alexandrian Greeks, serves as a way of defining Alexandrian Greek identity. The promotion of the glorious city of Alexandria and her heroes is very much the driving force behind the literature. The casting of the Romans and Jews as the judges and

219 accusers of the Alexandrian heroes certainly would not have worked if there were no history of long standing tension between the Alexandrian Greeks and the Romans and Jews. Nonetheless, the literature hardly promotes further anti-Romanism or anti- Judaisism. There were, after all, many more direct ways of doing this. As I observed in Chapter IV (p. 138-143), several pieces of Oracular literature do predict and look forward to the destruction and overthrow of the Romans, and call for its readers to 'attack the Jews'. Nonetheless, it remains the case that the literature is, in places, extremely critical and hostile towards certain emperors, who are usually portrayed as stereotypical tyrants in the stories. To what extent, then, can this literature be described as dissident? The answer lies in where the boundaries between the extremes of loyalty and dissidence should be drawn. Unlike Oracular literature, there is nothing to suggest that the Ac/a Alexandrinorum were ever recognised by the Roman authorities as expressions of dissent and suppressed. As I observed in Chapter IV (p.135-6), mimes which were openly and publicly performed in Alexandria covered much the same subject matter as the ActaAlexandrinorum proper, and the theatrical elements in the stories may even suggest that the Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper themselves were performed publicly. Philostratus composed the trial scenes in his life of Apollonios of Tyana, which was commissioned by the empress Julia Domna, for the entertainment of the Severan court. This suggests imperial toleration of literature similar in tone and content to the Ac/a AlexancJrinorum proper, despite the emperor presumably realising that Philostratus portrayed emperors such as Nero and Domitian in a stock, caricatured manner that could easily be used against the reigning emperor. It should also be noted that emperors often chose to denigrate their predecessors as a way of defining their own regimes. The Acta Isidori are very critical of the 'deranged' Claudius. However, insults such as this cannot be considered as expressions of dissent if they were added early in Nero's reign, when Seneca, for instance, wrote the Apocolocyntosis, a work far more hostile to Claudius than the Ac/a Isidori, to amuse Nero's court. While the modern title 'Ac/a Alexandrinorum' ('the trial minutes of the Alexandrians') presupposes an official documentary basis to the literature, I have argued that none of the Ac/a Alexandrinorum proper, and few pieces of the Ac/a related literature, are documents. Yet they cannot easily be dismissed as fiction either. I have demonstrated that there was not a fixed, rigid boundary between ancient documents and literary texts, and that the Acta Alexandrinorum proper, and many pieces of the Ac/a

220 related literature belong to the grey area between the extremes of 'documents' and 'literature'. I have argued that the only minutes that could possibly lie behind the Acta Alexandrinorum proper and related literature are the reports filed in the archives in Alexandria by ambassadors who returned to Alexandria. Yet in rewriting, fictionalising and rehydrating the reports that they found in the Alexandrian archives, the writers of the ActaAlexandrinorum were not treating their documents any differently than other ancient writers, such as Josephus or Tacitus, treated their documentary sources. I have demonstrated that the Acta Alexandrinorum were part of a much wider literary phenomenon than has previously been supposed, rather than a unique literary form, borne out of the unique political problems between Rome and Alexandria. Although the question of whether the Ada Alexandrinorum were part of a clearly definable literary genre of ancient martyr literature remains to be answered, Romans, Greeks, Jews and Christians all produced mutually influential literary works similar in form, tone and content to the Acta Alexandrinorum proper during the Principate. It is also likely that other cities in the Greek east of the empire, such as Antioch, developed their own Ada literature. I have also argued that many of the themes and sentiments running through the Acta Alexandrinorum are far from unique, and can also be found in the works of other contemporary writers, including those who are usually considered to be 'loyalist' writers. One point that I have argued deserves particular stress. It appears that the Ada Alexandrinorum proper and Acta related literature, apparently like the similar literature produced elsewhere in the empire, were a truly popular literature with a readership that covered a wide social spectrum in Roman Egypt. The stories of Alexandrian nobles confronting Roman emperors in the imperial court were not being read by an Alexandrian clique, but by men such as Nemesion of Philadelphia and Socrates of Karanis. These men were reading the stories partly because they saw themselves as Hellenic by culture. It was through such activities as reading the Ac/a Alexandñnorum, a literature that focused heavily on defining a Hellenic identity, that these men exhibited their own cultural identity, and maintained their positions of pre-eminence in their village societies. But they were reading the stories because, above all, they were entertaining. I have concluded that it was not because of Rome's political 'concessions' to Alexandria in the Severan period that the Acta Alexandrinorum literature waned in popularity in the third century AD. The decline was caused by the changing status of Alexandria within the province of Egypt, and the diminishing importance and relevance

221 of 'the city' to the lives of men such as Nemesion and Socrates. The Constitutio Antoniniana and the 'third-century crisis' must also have contributed to the end of the literature. The stories, which are built around the premise of a stable, ordered society ruled by the Romans, seem very out of place in a world where even the Greeks are now 'Romans', and in a period when there was a genuine, well-founded fear that the Roman empire would be overthrown. Egypt, after all, spent a few years of the third century under Palmyrene rule. Since Wilcken identified the first examples of this literary phenomenon over a century ago, it has been known variously as the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, the Acts of the Alexandrian martyrs and the Acta Alexand.rinorum. All of these designations carry misleading connotations. The first two conjure up notions of religious conflicts, and the third that the texts actually are acta, that is, verbatim copies of the official minutes taken during the actual trials themselves. While I have referred to them by their most commonly known designation, the Acta Alexandrinorum, a more accurate reflection of what the texts actually are could be given by calling them the Alexancfrian Stories.

222 Appendix I.

Editions of theActaAlexandrinonim and related texts.

The texts are listed in the order followed by the BL rather than the Checklist, as the Checklist lists corpora (e.g. CPJ) separately. I have listed the measurements of the papyrus, the style of writing and other peculiarities of the text, the date, the provenance, details of other editions and of plates or photographs. I have chosen to designate the texts by either their most comprehensive or most recent papyrological edition. I have only included BL references that offer new readings or textu a! suggestions to the designated edition. The texts are dated by the style of their handwriting, as given by the editors. I have listed separate fragments that form part of the same text under the same entry. I have divided the texts into the categories (A) for the Acta Alexandrinorum proper and (B) for the Acta related literature, following the criteria set out in Chapters I and III. Dubia et incerta are all counted as Acta related literature, unless they explicitly refer to a trial of Alexandrian nobles in the imperial court.

B!. RAbeni 117. The papyrus is 2 x 2.8 cm and 6.7 x 2.9 cm and is written in a 'calligraphic hand', according to the edpr. Date: lAD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in 1939 as P.Aberd 117. Pack2 2784. Plate: P.Aberd plate 3. B2. AcIaXX. The papyrus is 4.8 x 4.5 cm. It is written in a round, oval, semi-literary hand on the verso of an early second-century document. Only six lines from the middle of a column of writing are preserved. The papyrus is broken off on the left and right sides and at the bottom. The text is from the Rendel Harris collection. Date: Late II AD. Provenance: Unknown, but the editors of P.Harr. H state that most of the papyri from the Rendel Harris collection come from Oxyrhynchus.

223 Text: Musunilo published the fragment as APM and Ada XX, designating the text as P.Rendel Harris med. (a), (no inventory number given). Pack2 2240. B3. Ada XXL The papyrus is 8 x 2.6 cm. It is written on the recto in an oval, upright, semi- literary hand. It is broken off on all sides. The text on the verso remains unidentified. Only a thin strip from the middle of a column of writing is preserved, broken off on all sides. The text is from the Rendel Harris collection. Date: Late II AD. Provenance: Unknown, but the editors of P.Harr. II state that most of the papyri from the Rendel Harris collection come from Oxyrhynchus. Text: Musurillo published the fragment as APM and Acta XXI, designating the text as P.Rendel Harris in. (b), (no inventory number given). Pack2 2241. Al. Acta XXII. The papyrus consists of three large fragments measuring 13.9 x 14.7, 14.4 x 10.9, 7.7 x 5.5 cm respectively, and twelve smaller fragments (a-l) measuring. These smaller fragments measure: a - 1.1 x3.9 cm; b - 1.7 x 6.6 cm; c —2 x 3.2 cm; d - 1.8 x 8 cm;e-1.9x3.2cm;f-1.2x2.lcm;g-1.2x1.7cm;h-0.6x1.8cm;i-1.2x2.6 cm; j - 1.2 x 2.1 cm; k - 1.1 x 1.6 cm; 1— 2.6 x 6.9 cm. The text is very poorly preserved. Fr. I and II are both broken off on the left and right sides and probably also at the bottom. Fr. III is broken off on the left and right sides and at the top. The smaller fragments are all broken off on all sides except fr. c, which is complete at the right and fr. 1, which is complete at the bottom. It is written on the recto in a small, upright round hand. The verso (unpublished) was later used for accounts in the early third century. Van Minnen 1994: 244 revealed that it was excavated from house B17 at Karanis, the home of a local taxcollector named Socrates (see p.129-32). The text is from the Michigan Collection. Date: Early H AD, probably the reign of Hadrian or slightly later. Provenance: Karanis. Text: Musurillo has published the text twice, in Musurillo 1957: 185-90 and as Acta XXII, designating the text as PMich. mv. 4800. Pack2 2242. From the digital image published on the World Wide Web, it would appear that fragments c and d have now been assigned to fragment I, col. i on the basis of fibre realignment.

224 Plate: A series of digital images of the redo and verso of the text are published on the World Wide Web as part of the APIS project at: http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/ under the APIS Item no. P.Mich. mv. 4800.

B4. P.AmsL I 27. The papyrus is 6.5 x 6.7 cm. It is written on the redo of a re-used papyrus, which shows traces of a text that has been washed off. The hand is described as not very accomplished. Date: April AD 175. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in Sijpesteijn 1971: 186-92 as P.Amsterdam mv. 22; SB XII 10991; P.Amst. I 27. Plate: ZPE 8 (1971) plate 2. P.Amst. plate 14. B5. BGU 11588. The papyrus is 7 x 8.5 cm. It is broken off on the top and left side. Date: Late II AD. Provenance: Fayum. Text: Published in 1898 as BGU H 588 (P.Berol. mv. 7362). Republished in Wilcken 1909: 825-6, and as APM and Acta XII. Pack2 2233. A2. BKTIX 64. The papyrus is 22.5 x 26.3 cm. There are the remains of two complete columns of writing, but the text is very badly damaged and abra ded. It is written on the verso. The recto contains the remains of an unpublished document. The hand is desced as similar to P. Giss. I 40. Date: Late II AD. Provenance: Fayum. Text: A transcript of the text (P.Berol. mv. 2116 lv) was published in 1996 as BKTIX 64. The papyrus is very badly abra ded, and on the basis of the plate, some of the letters appear to have been misread. The reading GEpUIIJWV in i. 15 is highly doubtfiul. From the plate [.Jwy pv or aç[.]u içv would appear possible. The damage to the text is such that even a thorough re-edition would not significantly improve the text. Plate: BKTIX plate 32.

225 A3. BKTIX 115. The papyrus is 8.9 x 7.9 cm. We have the remnants of the upper portions of two columns. It is written on the redo in a fluid hand, sloping slightly to the right. The verso contains an unpublished document. Date: Late 11-early ifi AD. Provenance: Fayum. Text: A transcript of the text (P.Berol. in 212 lir) was published in 1996 as BKTIX 115. Plate: BKTIX plate 53. B6. BKT IX 177 redo and verso. The papyrus is 5.1 x 4.2 cm. The editor states that the text comes from a codex. However, there are no signs of a binding, and it seems that the text is just written on both sides of the papyrus, like many other examples of the Acta Alexandñnorum literature. It is written in a neat hand, described as being similar to P.Köln. 111127. Date: 111 AD. Provenance: Fayum. Text: A transcript of the text (P.Berol. mv. 21273) was published in 1996 as BKTIX 177. Plate: BKTIX plate 74. B7. P.Bon. 15. The papyrus is 6.8 x 22. It is written on the verso and broken off at the sides and the bottom. The redo (P.Bon. 14) contains a letter dated AD 104/5. The writing is in well-formed and regular uncials. Date: ifi AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in 1953 as P.Bon. 15. Republished as GC 270. The edpr. restored the imperial titulature of 1.1-2 as: "[The emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Anto}ninus Pius, Ara[bicus, Adiabenicus, Britannicus,] [Parthicus Maximus, Felix Augustus, son of the divine Caesar] Lucius Septimius S[evems Pertinax]." The edition of GC (BL 9.38) restored: "[The emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Anto]ninus Pius Ara[bicus Adiabenicus Parthicus Maximus Britannicus] [Maximus Germanicus Augustus says: 'The divine] Lucius

226 Septimus S[everus Pius my father.. . ]."

There is an interlinear correction between 1.1-2, which the edpr. read as '[...Iau jniv'L '. However, Shelton 1980: 179-82 (BL 8.65) has re-read the interlinear correction as: 'A6L 3Tv1Kôç MYLaTQc. While this secures the presence of the title Adiabenicus Maximus in the titulature as a whole, it shows that both the restorations of the edpr. and GC are incorrect. B8. P.Bour. 7. The papyrus is 13.5 x 10 cm. It is written on the verso of a second century office record in a small, oval, semi-cursive hand. The recto has been published as P.Bour. 47. Date: Late 11-early III AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in 1927 as P.Bour. 7 (mv. 10). Republished as APM and Ada XVI. Pack2 2237. B9. P.Bub. 14 XXiL This column forms part of a composite roll of thirty-nine columns, made from pasting together a series of separate documents, many of them concerning administrative business. The roll belongs to the papers of the strategos of the Bubastite 28th nome, and the documents range in date from 29th August 220— August 221. This column is written in Latin in a cursive hand. Date: AD 220-1. Provenance: Bubastos. Text: Published in 1990 as P.Bub. 14 xxix. I have used the revised text published in Rca 1993: 127-33 (BL 10.32). Plate: P.Bub. I platel9. BlO. CkLA. IV 268. The papyrus consists of nine small fragments that have been combined to form four main fragments, measuring 10.5 x 9.5, 14.5 x 11.5, 14.5 x 4.5, and 11.5 x 5 cm. The text is written in Latin on the verso. The recto contains accounts in Greek. The text is now housed at the Bodleian Library, Oxford. It is not clear if the four fragments b 4ng to the same column. Fr. I has an upper margin, and probably preserves the top- left hand side of the column. Fr. 11 has a margin on the right hand side. Fr. ifi has a

227

lower margin, and could join onto the bottom of ft. I, as in the edpr.. There is no obvious way to join ft. II and IV to this, however. Date: Late Il-early ifi AD. Provenance: Fayum. Text: The text was acquired in the nineteenth century and sold to the Bodleian Library, Oxford in 1896. Published in 1967 as Ch.L.A. IV 268. I have followed the revised text published in Talbert 1988: 137-47. Plate: C/I.L.A. IV p.88 has a clear facsimile of the text; ZPE 71(1988) plate 8-9. Bli. CPJII 150. The papyrus is 16.5 x 22.7 cm. The text preserves one column of writing, although there are traces of a previous column, written in a narrow, upright semi-cursive hand. There is a join between the two columns, where two sheets of papyrus were glued together. The writing on the first column is on the redo, while the writing on the final column is on the verso. The recto of this final column is occupied by accounts. Date: First half of I AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in Norsa and Vitelli 1930: 9-12. Republished as SB IV 7448; PSI X 1160; APM and Acta I; CPJII 150. Pack2 2215. The text is also listed as Pap. Flor. XXX 113. The edition of PSI X 1160 offers a plausible restoration of ii. 16-20, which I believe captures the gist of the passage, if not the actual words: diot,i[€v ov eIvai] 15 TlJ 13ouXii KaT'v1au-rôv ydv[EcrOa]1 Ka'L p.e[Ti TOY VLcWTOv] d0iniaç &Sóvai T(3V &aTrETrpa[y.LvcUv. TráVTuW 8 TOT(i)V] TOY ypaLa-ra -riç 13ouXiç KaAOY [1T1IJ.€XEia0aL, óTrwç KaTà TOY] Trpoop1óp.Evov póvov [Kaara 'y'1v1rai. Cri.t'iac 8 Tri-] &6oj.vç T011 XP6YOY TOtTO[V T1]pi$loucJL, Ka'I. €'i vUi' ài.X€ia] 20 yE(Y€TaL TGflJ vómw, &aTro[Ta aiYTOKpâTwp.]

"We [therefore] ask [that it be permitted] for the council to convene annually, and at the end [of each year] to submit a report of [all] its transactions, and [to ensure] that the secretary of the council is serving a good purpose, [in order that all things happen] at the appointed time, [and that it (i.e., the boule) might watch out for the penalties] to be given at this time, [and watch out for anything] that happens [contrary] to the laws, o master [emperor]." CoI.ii.22-3 have caused much speculation. All that can be read from the papyrus is:

228 "Caesar said: [...vacat(?) . . . 11 1 will come to a decision about these matters [...roughly twenty letters missing...] to Alexandri[a roughly twenty letters missing. . . -}."

Norsa and Vitelli 1930: 9-12 suggested: 1TEp'1 ToIrrcA)v 8iaA ioQiai ir€i8àv TrpGTOv] I €tç 'AX€IvSp€[iav iravX0u).] Musurillo 1954: 92 (BL 3.228) suggested: 1TEp1. Tofrru)v &aA1nIJo[11aL ical dTróKpLp.a iT14xü] E'Lç 'AAEth'8pe[1av]. BL 6.185 lists a suggestion by Amusin: TrEp'l TO(.JTWV &aXiuJio[iiai KcfL T TT1TpOTr4] I 'AXEth18pE[Lav ypâco 'Lva]. It is not clear if any of these are right. All that is certain is that the text refers to someone or something going to Alexandria. The emperor could be sending, for example, a letter or a person (e.g. a new prefect). As noted in Swarney 1970: 60-1, 1.4-6 should be translated: "If anyone be unreasonably burdened by taxes exacted by the Idioslogos, or any tax agent who may be oppressing the people..." rather than ". . . or by any other tax agent..." Plate: Facsimile in BSAA 25 (n.s.vii) 1930. Montevecchi 1973: plate 30. Pap.Flor. XXX plate 102. B12. CPJII 153. The papyrus is 29 x 116.5 cm. It is carelessly written on the verso of a tax- register. There is a list of names inserted the wrong way up between the second and third columns. Hanson 1984: 1108 reveals that it belongs to the archive of a local tax collector, Nemesion. Date: Mid I AD. Provenance: Philadelphia. Text: Published by Bell in 1924 as P.Lond VI 1912 (inv.2248). It has been republished and commented on many times since then (see CPJII: p.36-7 for full bibliography). Other editions include Charlesworth 1939: 1 and 2; Sel.Pap. 11212; CPJ II 153; Smaliwood 1967: no.370; Jones and Milns 1984: 79; Braund 1985: no.571; Levick 1985: no.120; White 1986: no.88; Sherk 1988: no.44; GC 19; Pestman, Prim. 1; Pestman, Prim. 2 16. Since the edition of CPJII 153, several suggestions have been made for the garbled words in 1.80 and 92. It has been suggested that the unknown Greek word read as ai0d8iov in 1.80 in the ed.pr. is either ai.OaSEtav 'If you do not stop this stubborn emnity' (BL 3.199) or a1Oriiov (ii&q1.iEp>óv): 'If you do not immediately stop this emnity' in GC 19 (BL 9.148).

229 The edpr. read 1.92 as Laira'ipçLv, noting that 'the reading is not quite certain'. This verb is extremely rare, attested only once, in Plutarch, de.fort.Alex. 1.3 with the meaning 'to palpitate, to be in alarm'. Amusin (BL 4.46) followed by Kasher (BL 8.194-5), have accepted this reading, rather implausibly giving the verb the sense 'to harass', and suggests the Jews were causing crowd disturbances in the Alexandrian gymnasium.' GC (BL 9.148) suggests that the original reading rLaTraipiv should be interpreted as Tr€LLJ1TEpELV (= 1T€LcthpTrELv), which would give the sense 'to enter unlawfully in addition', 'to intrude'. Most scholars, however, have adopted the reading 1TLaTraçLv (= TrELa7ra'LEw), 'to intrude', which is the interpretation I adopt. The most plausible sense of this verb is 'to struggle in', i.e. 'take part in.'2 Plate: Hanson 1984: p.1109 has a photograph of the first column. Bell 1927: plate 1, Jones and Milns 1984: 121 and Modrejewski 1995: 148 have photographs of the last column. B13. CPJ 11 154. The papyrus is 25 x 14.1 cm. Only a section of the middle of three columns is reasonably well preserved. There are also several smaller detached pieces. The text is written on the verso of second century accounts in a narrow, upright semi-literary hand. The text is now housed at the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Date: Early Ill AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1911 as P. Oxy. VIII 1089. Republished as von Premerstein 1923: 4-14; APM and Ada II; CPJII 154; Hennig 1974: 425-6. Pack2 2217.

The readings S'x[ó] ic '[o]c in 1.32 and 6[]av[oT]çt in 1.33 are highly doubtful, as the editors note.3 The most likely reading for the former would be

SEp[ó]1.LEv[oJc (=8€óp€voç).4 ('The old man threw himself to his knees, imploring Dionysios, saying...'). It has been suggested that 'wretched Dionysios' (S[i]crT[T1v]) is a good alternative for 'Lord Dionysios'; but Dionysios is the central character, and perhaps the hero of the piece, making this unlikely. 5 Hennig 1974: 425-6 makes plausible suggestions for 1.39 and 47. At 1.39 he suggests Ei)OETftJ[U)] - ' I will arrange it', rather than d.OETiç - 'you counsel well', a reading previously suggested in

'Kasher 1985: 314-21. 2 Harris 197k: 92. 3 CPJH: p.63. 4 Koenen 1968: 254-5. Schwartz 1955: 152; Koenen 1968: 254-5.

230 Musurillo 1954: 101. At 1.47 he suggests: [ô] i4vi]w - 'I swear', a reading previously suggested in von Premerstein 1923: 9. The reading of 1.37-8 is controversial. This section is transcribed as: 11 aou TropEuO€vToç ..E.aTp.44Lev. Musurillo (1954: 6) notes a suggestion by Roberts: oo iiop€u0in-oç 4TEtp]a 'rrpQ&SQIIEV. Koenen (1968: 254-5) has suggested aoii iiopeu0irroç f[ idç] àTPQXIII€V. Von Premerstein suggested T crot, Trop€UOvToç i[ uiç lTIaTp[dcJl] 44a]i thv or [G]iiv. The ed.pr. interpreted the sense as 'what do we gain(?) by your journey?'. CPJII: p.64 notes that [1T]aTp[181] would be an attractive supplement. However, beyond mentioning 'your journey' and possibly 'the fatherland', the meaning of the sentence is very unclear. A4. CPJ 11 156a and CPJ 11 156d. CPJII 156a is 19 x 14.5 cm and preserves the line endings of one column and the line beginnings of a second. CPJII 156d is 19.3 x 10.6 cm, and preserves seventeen continuous lines of a column. Wilcken 1896: 1618 established that the texts are part of the same roll. An unknown number of columns is missing between the two fragments. The text is written on the verso of second-century AD accounts in a good-sized semi- uncial hand. CPJ 111 56a was stored in Berlin before being lost during World War 11. CPJII 156d is stored in Cairo, Egypt. Date: Late 11-early ffi AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: CPJH 156a was first published in Wilcken 1895: 486-7; then in 1898 as BGUIJ 511 (P.Berol. mv. 7118). CP.J11 156d was first published in Reinach 1895: 161-78, and listed as P.Cair.Cat 10448 in 1903. The combined text was published in Wilcken 1909: 80 1-2; WChr. 14, von Premerstein 1923: 23-4; APM and Ada IVa.i-iii; CPJII 156a and d; Smaliwood 1967: no. 436; Jones and Milns 1984: no.93; Braund 1985: no.575; Sherk 1988: no.45; Pack2 2219. CPJ 11 1 56a col. ii is restored reasonably accurately on the basis of a similar recension of the same text (CPJH 156b). Von Premerstein 1923: 23-4 completely restored col. i, but his supplements have not been adopted by later editors. Sijpesteijn 1982: 98 n.7 (BL 8.95-6) suggested that Claudius' best attested titulature should be restored in col. i. 19-20: '[Year one(?) of Tiberius Claudius Caes]ar Augustus [Germanicus emperor]'. The supplement is slightly long, but Sijpesteijn overcomes this by reverting to Wilcken's longer supplements for col. i.17-8 (1909: 801-2). The CPJ's supplement of '[Augustus]' in col ii. 2 is unlikely, and makes the line overly long.

231 Musurillo 1954: 20 has plausibly suggested for CPJ 11 1 56d 1.1: [i] Trpa3ea [xELpoTóvi1aEv1 f lTaTp[c - "[Isidoros?]: '[My] city [has chosen me as] ambassador". 1.2 is best translated "Lampon to Isidoros: '[I] have [already] chosen (rather than 'foreseen') [my] death.'. Lampon has chosen to die for his city. Musurillo suggested at 1.12-3 Kal. dTru)XELaç [LKp]n[aE]oç - "Hence, (I say), alas for the perdition of rule!" The sentence literally means "And so (I say), what a waste (that you) hold power!" Plate: Bell 1927: plate 2 (CPJJJ 156a only). A5. CPJH 156b. The papyrus is 18 x 12 cm. It is written on the verso of a second century account in a narrow, sloping, irregular semi-cursive. The text preserves the line endings of one column and the line beginnings of a second. Date: Late 11-early Ill AD. Provenance: Purchased on the black-market at Akhmin (Panopolis), which is considered to be its place of origin. Text: Published in Bell 1932: 5-16 (P.Lond inv.2785). Republished as APM and Ada lYb; CPJII 156b; Smaliwood 1967: no. 436; Braund 1985: no.575; Sheik 1988: no.45. Pack2 2221. The text of the first column can be reasonably accurately restored on the basis ofCPJII 156a. Musurillo 1954: 137 suggests for ii.8-12 (Isidoros speaking): "I am bought here(?), a gym[nasiarch of Alexandria], 56 years old, a Greek [by race.' And then the] orator [tore off] his cloak with his right hand [and] threw [himself to the ground]". Musurillo argues that 'the orator' is a spokesman for Isidoros. However, I think that we have a scene similar to one from CPJ 11 159. irdyoiiai is likely to be a corruption of ã.iráyo.iai ('I am lead away to death') a word that frequently appears in this literature. Isidoros is describing himself as an orator, I believe, and tears off his cloak, demanding to be led away in his gymnasiarchal robes, as Appianos does in CPJII 159. This interpretation is confirmed by a later passage (ii.46-7) describing Isidoros 'being led away to death in the robes [of a gymnasiarch]'. Plate: APF 10 (1932) plate 1.

232 A6. CPJJI156c. The papyrus is 11.5 x 11 cm. It is written on the verso of a second century account in carefully produced book uncials. The name of each speaker stands on a separate line above each speech. Date: Late fl-early ifi AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in Uxkull-Gyllenband 1930: 604-79 (P.Berol. mv. 8877). Subsequent editions include Neppi Modona 1932: 17-24; APM and Ada We; CPJ II 156c; Smaliwood 1967: no. 436; Braund 1985: no.575; Sherk 1988: no.45; Pack2 2220. A7. CPJ H 157. The papyrus is 15.8 x 53.9 cm. Four consecutive columns are preserved, written on the verso of a copy of a second century lease from the Antonine period. The bottom margin is preserved, but the tops of columns are lost. The first column was probably the first of the roll. There are also four smaller unplaced fragments. The text is written in a round, upright semi-cursive book-hand. Date: Late fl-early III AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1914 as P.Oxy. X 1242. Listed as P.Lond.Lit. 117 (mv. 2436) and republished as APM and Acta VIII; CPJ 11157; Smallwood 1966: no. 516; Jones and Milns 1984: no.103; Pack2 2227. West 1971: 164 suggests that the author has muddled the verb thrcwràw - 'to go to meet' with àv-racirdop.ai - 'to receive kindly' ii. 16-7. The text would consequently read àvn1c

A8. CPJ H 158a redo and verso. The papyri published as CPJII 158a are from collections stored in Paris, and London. The Paris fragments measure 18.2 x 10.3 and 20.7 x 15.2 cm and combine to form six columns, three consecutive columns on both the recto and the verso (CPJ II 1 58a cols. i-ui, vi-viii). The London fragment measures 11 x 5.5 cm and adds two further columns, one on both the redo and verso (CPJH 158a cols. iv-v). Wilcken established that the papyri were originally came from the same papyrus roll in 1892. The text is written in a a sprawling semi-cursive that at times imitates book-hand.

233 Date: Early II AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: The Paris fragments were published in 1865 as P.Par. 68. The London fragment was acquired by the British Museum in 1821, and published as P.Forshall 43; P.Lond I (p.229) 1; P.Lond.Lit. 118. The Paris and London fragments are published as a combined text in Wilcken 1892: 465-80; Wilcken 1909: 807-2 1; von Premerstein 1922: 266-316;APMandActaIX; CPJII 158a; Smaliwood 1966: no. 517 (only the Paris fragments). Pack2 2228. The content suggests that the text on the redo precedes the text on the verso. However, the Paris and London fragments do not follow on directly from one another, and it is not clear if the Paris fragment precededs the London fragment or vice versa. The two possible combinations are: Paris recto (cols. i-ui)6 [lacuna] London recto (col. iv) [lacuna] London verso (col. v) [lacuna] Paris verso (cols. vi-viii).

London recto (col. iv) [lacuna] Paris recto (cols.i-iii) [lacuna] Paris verso (cols. vi-viii) [lacuna] London verso (col. v). Von Premerstein and Musunllo adopt the latter scheme. However, on the basis of the subject matter of the columns, I have followed Wilcken and the editors of CPJ in adopting the former scheme. The fragmentary nature of the text has prompted much speculation. Schwartz 1984: 130-2 argues that the text tells three separate stories. On the basis of two repeated phrases from col. i (Paris recto) and col. iv (London recto), he argues that col. iv is a separate recension of col. i. The repetitive phrases are:

- eu)[v] I ii€ p. TOfrr[O]y 61dTa àv'yvw [To1] I ionrou - 9w ãvy[u I I [-roy rno.IvflhiaTL]cTI1OV Ao&rrou

- TOt) (ITFO I [o]iciv?ç Ka'L ic p.'iiou 3aaiXa

- Tr€p'L TOt) (ITFO aK11vlc I [iza'l. K p.iIou aaiXu]ç They are clearly not direct repetitions, and the different content of each column shows that that they are not simply recensions of each other. Other Ada Alexandrinorum also contain repetitive phrases. 8 Schwartz's argument for the text on the verso being a separate story is weak and is based solely upon his observation that the prominent ambassadors on the redo are Theon and Paulos, and Antoninus on the verso. However

6 The columns are deignated by the numbers assigned in CPJII 158a CPJH 158a i3-5 and iv 2-3; i6-7 and iv. 11-12. 2 E.g CPJH l56aii.16-8andCPJll 156d3-4.

234 Paulos also appears prominently on both the recto and verso, and Antomnus could appear in one of the many lacunae on the recto. I have therefore treated the text as a single story, as the fact that they it was written onto the same roll of papyrus would suggest. There has been much speculation on the text since the edition of CP1 Based upon a photograph of the Paris fragment, the editor of P.O:y. LV read the first fourteen lines of col. i as: [lla]UXog TrEp'I. TOU 13acYLXu)c hi[E6eLa-] TO () 'rrpofryayov KcfI. Toç ci [K€t-] [v]o àvqy[óp]cix€, Ka'i Tb] €pt TO&T[O]U 8LáTa àyvu) [To} 5 AOTrOU, () lTpO&yEil) ai)[T]o)c [flIthXEuE, xxeuáZwv Tbv thrb [a] criv c ical K P1I.IOU 3aciXa. [o]rroç f11.iu)V, Ka'i 6 ai.TOKpdTU)p [flaXcw6'iaacv diTthv TrpÔc 10 [H]aXov Ka'i Toi)ç ipETpoUç, [T]cltrra V Tdtç T[o]lafrraiç trq- [pa]TáEa[L] ydvETaL, LO 61 [Ka'L] v T &IKLKQ)L iroXi[u]i [ó] rro []O

The emperor reminiscing in this way would be very bizarre. Hadrian may actually be referring to violence that happened in Alexandria while he was in Dacia. From the reference to the 'sixty men' later in the column, it may be the case that violence accompanied the judgements of the emperor's 'special judge'. Schwartz 1984: 130-2 (BL 8.96) restores col. ii 22-30 based on the third-century recension of the story, CP.JII 158b. He restores: 22 [Ulauxoç airrOKpd'rup, 'AXE1aV8pELç [!c ] Tdç [ lToXXdi tcaTa]KpL0v-

235 25 [icc Fjaav 1covTa 'AXEaJv6pE'tç [Ka'1 OL TOTÜM' SotXoi, cat ot] y ['AAcaii8p(uz e13ij&r,aa]v ol [&] [SoXoi atrrv àTrEIEcfrxMcJ1O[Taav,] [j.iri8€vbcicw a ] 30 [ dvmw airnv] The underlined letters can be read in the third-century recension, CR111 I 58b. All that remains of line 27 on the papyrus is '[...]Tov[...], suggesting that Schwartz's restoration for this line at least is incorrect. CPJ II 1 58b, on which Schwartz's restoration is based, is also heavily restored, and in other places heavily abbreviates and omits material from CPJJI 158a. The idea that the Alexandrians were exiled and their slaves beheaded, which the restoration suggests, is discussed below under CPJ II 15 8b, and in the thesis. Pucci 1983: 95-104 and 1984: 119-24 (BL 8.96) makes three suggestions for the text. She suggests that the 'kyrios' in col. ii is the prefect rather than the emperor and suggests that in col. v 3 '[ici'i]pi€' should be read for Musurillo' s suggestion '[Pap.]p.i€ and at v 11 '[KXau&]ou Kataapoç' should be restored instead of Musurillo's '[TpaLav]oO Katcrapoç'. Col. ii 5 refers to something being shown to the kyrios

([àrr]c8e'i th T Kup'Lc)) on the subject of where the war began. This seems likely to refer to a document or letter shown to the emperor at the hearing rather than a reference to the prefect. From the plate, [KI]pLE is palaeographically impossible. The letter before 'i' cannot be 'p'. As Musurillo thought, it is very probably an 'p.'. The last suggestion is not impossible, but I have argued in the thesis that col. v is more likely to preserve a document, perhaps a letter, possibly of Hadrian. It has been thought that the 'Claudianos' (KAau&avoti) mentioned in col. iv was a Roman individual. I think it is an adjective, referring to the Claudian something. In CPJ II 153 we have references to the Claudian peace, and Claudian tribe (KXau&aviç E'ipivrç, 4uXw KXau6Lavàv). Consequently we could have a reference to, e.g. 'the Claudian war' (KXau&avo TroXp.ov), the Graeco-Jewish conflict of 38-41, called the 'Claudian war' as the issues behind the conflict were addressed by Claudius. Plate: P.Par. plate 45. P.Lond Atlas 1146. A9. CPJH158b. The papyrus is 11 x 9 cm. It is written on the recto only. Date: Early ifi AD. Provenance: Fayum.

236 Text: Published in 1895 as BGUI 341 (P.Berol. inv.81 11). Republished in Wilcken 1895: 482; 1909: 821-2; von Premerstein 1922: 302-5; APMand Acta IXb. Pack2 2229. I discuss the restoration for 1.8-9: "The Alexandrians were [exiled, their slaves] beheaded" in the thesis. AlO. CPJJJ 159a and CPJII 159b. CPJII 159a is 15 x 14.5 cm and preserves the remains of a column of writing, with the extreme line endings of another column to the left. CPJII 159b follows directly on from CPJII 159a and is 15 x 44.7 cm. It preserves another four columns, with the line beginnings of a fifth. The text is written on the verso of a strip of papyrus that is made up of sheets of discarded records, cut to size and pasted together. The redo (P.Oxy. XIV 1648) is a register from the reign of Commodus. The hand is an irregular, round, upright book-hand. Date: Early ifi AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: CPJII 159b was first published in 1898 as P.Oxy. I 33. This text was republished in Wilcken 1909: 822-5; WChr. 20; von Premerstein 1923: 28-45 and listed as P.Lond.Lit. 119 (mv. 2435). CPJII 159a was first published in Welles 1936: 7-23 as P. Yale mv. 1536. A combined text was published as I4PM and Acta XI; CPJ II I 59a and b; Levick 1985: no. 204. Pack2 2232. I have followed the numbering of the columns in CR1 II. Hence I refer to the columns as CPJ 111 59a i-u and CR! II 1 59b i-v rather than cols. i-vu. Musurillo's supplements for CPJ H 159b i.1 and ii.1 (BL 3.128) are included in the footnotes to CPJII 159. Schwartz 1984: 207-9 suggests that [àv1Kov]Twv could be restored at b v.1 and v.7 rather than [Trpcx71Kov]m)v. Oliver 1974: 293 n. 1 offers a better translation for CPJ II 1 59a ii. 14-b i. 1. As he is led away Appianos turns to a corpse and says: "0 corpse, when I reach my country (d.c -dii.' thpav), I shall tell Heraclianos my father...". However, the Acta Alexandrinorum would express this meaning using the formula d.c rtv lTaTptSa. Oliver notes a sense of the word thpa that is attested in SEG )(Vll 759 1.33: 'Your objection has an appointed time for a hearing' (Trapaypa4 xthpav x€i). The sentence would therefore translate "0 corpse, now that I have been to my appointment in court, I say to my father Heraclianos. . . The correct translation of the phrase dç àrr'avoç in b iii.9-10 is controversial. Bjorck 1948: 72-4 (BL 7.126) suggests: 'Come Romans. See a person without parallel

237 (une personne sans pareil), a gymnasiarch and ambassador of Alexandria, led away to death!' Musurillo and CPJ translate 'Come Romans, and see a unique spectacle, an Alexandrian gymnasiarch and ambassador led to execution!' The phrase (literally 'the one of a lifetime') is best translated 'Come, Romans. Behold the spectacle of a lifetime, an Alexandrian gymnasiarch and ambassador led away to death!' Plate: CPJ ifi plate 3 shows P. Oxy. I 33. TAPA 67 (1936) plate 1 shows P. Yale mv. 1536. B14. CPJffl 456. The papyrus is 2.9 x 1.9 cm. It is written in an upright, round, semi-literary hand. Date: Late 11 AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in 1939 as P.Aberd. 136. Republished as APM and Acta XV and CPJ ifi 456. Pack2 2236. Plate: P.Aberd plate 3. B15. CPap.LaL 238. The papyrus is 22 x 15.4 cm. It is written in a cursive hand in Latin. Date: Late I-early II AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: First published in Körtenbeutel 1940 as P.Berol. mv. 8334. Republished as CPL 238; Jones and Milns 1984: no.85; Sherk 1988: no.98. Plate: KOrtenbeutel 1940: plate 1. B16. P.ErL 16. The middle of a column of 27 lines is preserved. It is written on the recto in a careful hand. The verso was later used for a literaiy work in the early third century (P.Erl.inv 5 verso = a fragment of Isocrates, adNicolem 12-3).

Date: Late 11-early ifi AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in 1942 as P.Erl. 16 (=P.Erl. inv.5 recto), and republished as APM and Ada XIV. Pack2 2235. B17. P.Fay. 19. The papyrus is 22 x 10.3 cm. It is written on the verso of a tax list, and consists of fifteen incomplete lines in a clear cursive hand. At the bottom of the papyrus, the first five lines are repeated in a larger irregular uncial. The first editor suggested that

238 the first text was written by a schoolmaster to be copied by a pupil. It is now stored at the Oriental Institute Museum of the University of Chicago. Date: Mid - late II AD. Provenance: Bakchias in the Fayum. Text: Published in 1900 asP.Fay. 19. Republished as Smallwood 1966: no.123; Jones and Milns 1984: no.105; Pernigotti and Capasso 1994: 36-7. Pack2 2116. Plate: Pernigotti and Capasso 1994: plate 57. B18. P.Fay. 217. The papyrus is 9.7 x 8.5 cm. It is written on the verso of an account in a semi- literary hand. Date: Late II AD. Provenance: Fayum. Text: Published in 1900 as P.Fay. 217. Republished as APM and Ada XIII. Pack2 2234. B19. P.Giss.Lit 4.4. The papyrus is 11 x 13 cm. It is written on the redo in a literary hand with some cursive elements. It is from the archive of Apollonius, stategos of the Apollonopolite nome. Date: II AD (from the content, after AD 117). Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in 1910 asP.Giss. 13 (inv.20). Republished as WChr. 491; Smaliwood 1966: no.519; Jones and Milns 1984: no.102; Pestman, Prim. 2; Pestman, Prim. 2 29 II; P.Giss.Lit. 4.4. Plate: P.Giss.Lit. plate 7. Roberts 1955: plate iSa. All. P. Giss.LiL 4.7. The papyrus consists of two large fragments, now in the collections of the Universities of Giessen and Yale, measuring 28.5 x 42 and 12 x 14.5 cm. There are several smaller detached fragments, whose positioning in the text is not clear. A (7 x 6.9 cm) and B (2.1 x 7.4 cm) are thought to be the left and right hand sides of the top of a further column. Further fragments are C (1.5 x 5.3), D (2.2 x 2.9), E (0.7 x 3), F (1.7 x 2.8) and an unnumbered fragment (4 x 9.3). The papyrus is very badly damaged, and we cannot determine if we have four, five, or six columns among the extant fragments. The Yale fragment is believed to fit between column ii and iii, forming the top of column iii. It is written on the recto only in an oval, sloping, semi-literary hand.

239 Date: Late II AD. Provenance: Unknown, but the Giessen fragment was purchased in the Fayum, which may be its place of origin. Text: The Giessen fragments were first published in 1939 as P.Giss. Univ. V 46, and largely restored by von Premerstein. More conservative editions were published as APM and Ada ifi. This fragment is catalogued as Pack2 2218. CPJII 155 reprinted a conservative version of P.Giss. Univ. V iii.20-35. P.Yale. mv. 1385 was incorporated into the Giessen fragment in Musurillo and Parássoglou 1974: 1-7. The combined text was published in 1984 as P.Yale. II 107 and 1994 as P.Giss.Lit. 4.7. Delia 1988: 286 publishes a suggested restoration for col.i 11-6 by Koenen, but the suggestion is omitted from the latest edition of the text. Plates: P.Giss.V plate IX-XL shows the Giessen fragments. IX shows I and ii. X shows iii and iv and the unnumbered fragment (misplaced). XI shows a, b, c, d, e, and f. ZPE 15 (1974) plate la shows P.Yale mv. 1385. P.Yale II plate Vll shows both the Giessen and the Yale fragments. P. Yale H plate Vifi shows the other fragments. B20. P.Giss.LiL 6.3. The whole papyrus is 27 x 46 cm and contains 'copies' of three or four decrees of Caracalla. It is written in a third-century cursive hand on the redo only. Date: Early-Ill AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: First published in 1910 as P. Giss. I 40 iii 6-29 (i. 15). Republished as W.Chr. 22; Se!. Pap. H 215; GC 262; P.Giss.Lit. 6.3; Buraselis 1995: 185 (with 167 n.5). The correct reading of 1.27-8 remains highly controversial. The lines read: 'For the true Egyptians can easily be recognised among the linen weavers 4xiJvi W.uw [...oi E1V óJE1ç TE Ka'L axLa. T1 1E iccil. Cu4.] far removed from that of the city dwellers, shows them to be Egyptian peasants'. The three controversial words are 4xivi, [...]oi and w[.]. The edpr. and WChr. 22 suggested these words were 4xv i [8X]dt and w[i'i]. Schubart (BL 1.170) restored

[aiT]dL. Wilcken 1924: 98, n.2 (BL 2.2.66) read 4xovtv and restored [8iX]oi.

Sel.Pap.11 215 (BL 8.137) suggested 4xzvi fi, [8rX]cii afrroIç> and (u4]. GC (BL 9.93) reads 4xov'i . Buraselis 1995: 185 (BL 10.78-9) says i, [Sr1X]c5i. and Cw[i] but at 167 n.5 suggests that 4iwvtv and [SiX]oi are more preferable, and that

Cwft] is an unecessary amendment for Cw[i]. P.Giss.Lit. 6.3 reads 4wv f, [ai.JT]di.

240 and None of these readings dramatically alters the sense of the passage, which remains a bitter condemnation of Egyptian culture. Plate: P.Giss.Lit. 1994: plate 15. B21. P.Harr. H 173. The papyrus is 6 x 18cm. It is written on the recto only in a cursive hand. Date: Early ifi AD. Provenance: Unknown, but the editors of P.Harr. H state that most of the papyri from the collection come from J.Rendel-Harris' expedition to Oxyrhynchus in 1923. Text: Published in 1985 asP.Harr. 11173 (P.Harr. mv. 659). Plate: P.Harr. H plate 16. Al2. P.Harr. 11240. The papyrus is 5.2 x 9.6 cm. It is written in a small, rounded, upright hand on the verso of a second century account. Date: Early 11 AD. Provenance: Unknown, but the editors of P.Harr. 11 state that most of the papyri from the collection come from J.Rendel-Harris' expedition to Oxyrhynchus in 1923. Text: Published in Roberts 1949: 79-80, and republished as APM and Acta VI. The text is catalogued as P.Harr. 11 240 (P.Harr. mv 658), but a text is not given. Pack2 2224. Plate: P.Harr. 11 plate 14. B22. P.Köln VI 249. The papyrus consists of two fragments P.Koln mv. 4701, measuring 10.3 x 10.5 and P.Köln mv. 4722, measuring 5 x 5 cm. These combine to form a column of writing. There are traces of a second column. It is written on the redo only (the verso is blank). Date: Early I AD. Provenance: Fayum. Text: P.Koln mv. 4701 was published in Koenen 1970: 217-83, with further corrections in Gray 1970: 227-3 8. This section of the text was republished as P.KOln I 10; GC 294; Ehrenberg and Jones 1975: 366. Gronewald 1983: 61-2 revealed that P.Koln. mv. 4722 was the line endings of 1. 11-14. The combined text was published as P.Koln VI 249; SB XVI 13033; Sherk 1984: no.99; Braund 1985: no.7; Sherk 1988: no.12. Plate: ZPE 52 (1983) plate 8. B23. P.Med. mv. 68.53.

241 The papyrus is 13 x 10.5 cm. It is written in an irregular, semi-literary hand, with cursive elements. The bottom eleven lines are preserved on the recto, with the line beginnings missing. There are traces of a second column to the right. The verso deals with bureaucratic matters. Date:Early-mid lAD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in Balconi 1992: 2 19-22. A revised text was republished in Balconi 1993: 3-20. Plate; Aegyptus 73 (1993): p.S and 19 (recto and verso respectively). A13. P.Megi mv. 275. The papyrus is 7 x 7.5 cm. The papyrus is torn on all sides. It is written in a documentary hand of the second century on the recto only. The copy is a very careful one, and the scribe has even left spaces between the words. Date: Early 11 AD. Musurillo 1976: 337 dates the hand to the Hadrianic period. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in Daris 1973: 237-8. B24. P.MiL Voj'L 1147. The papyrus is 39.5 x 23 cm. It is written only on the recto in a semi-cursive hand. Date: Early H AD. Provenance: Tebtunis. Text: Published in Cazzaniga 1937: 159-67. Republished as APM and Acta IXc; CPJII 435; P.Mil. yogi. 1147; Smaliwood 1966: no.55; C.Pap.Hengstl 17; Sherk 1988: 129c. Pack2 2230. The date clause at the end of the edict reads: 'Year 19 of...... os, [Phao(?)]phi 16'. The editor of P.MIL Vogi. 1147 suggests that the first letter of the name could be 19th read as q, which would date the edict to the year of' '4[Spiav]bç', that is AD 136. However, Pucci 1983: 99-100 n. 17 (BL 8.220-1) reports that Gallazi and Bastianini have re-read the traces as Tpqcwou (=Tpa€ (bqyo), which dates the edict to year 19 of Traj an, AD 115. However, from a photograph, the date clause seems to reads 'Year 19 of Caesar (icq.qqpoç) [Phao(?)]phi 16'. 'Caesar' is used elsewhere in the text to refer to the current emperor. Although 'Caesar' by itself in date clauses normally only refers to Augustus, I maintain my view, argued on p.85, that the emperor concerned is Trajan.

242 A date clause for Trajan's reign simply reading 'Year 19 of Caesar' is, of course, not documentary, but, as I have argued, the edict is not strictly a document. Plate: Cazzaniga 1937 plate 1 shows the last two columns. B25. P.Osloffll7O. The papyrus is 8.6 x 2.3 cm. Fourteen lines of the middle of a column are preserved, written in a small, round, upright semi-literary book-hand. Date: Late IL-early ifi AD. Provenance: Privately purchased from a native of Behnesa in 1928, and possibly originated from Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1936 as P.Oslo ifi 170. Republished as APM and Ada XVII. B26. P.Osloffll78. The papyrus is 6.6 x 8.5 cm. It is written in a large, clear literary hand. Date: II AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1936 as P.Oslo ifi 178. B27. P. Oxy. ifi 471. The papyrus is 30.5 x 46.5 cm. It is written on the recto only in an upright, oval, literary hand, and is elaborately punctuated, like a literary work. The text is now housed in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Date: H AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1903 as P.Oxy. ifi 471. Republished as APM and Acta VII: ActaMaximi I. Vandoni 1964: no.55 republishes several lines of the text (1.100-1, 106- 7). Pack2 2225. I have used Musurillo's text. B28. P.Oxv. IV 683. The papyrus is 9.3 x 4.4 cm. It is written on the recto in rather small, round uncials. On the verso are two lines in cursive from the Severan period. Date: Late H AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1904 as P. Oçy. IV 683. Pack2 2859. B29. P.Oxv. VII 1021. The papyrus is 13.5 x 5.9 cm. It is written in a small, cursive hand. Date: Mid lAD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus.

243 Text: Published in 1910 asP.Ory. VII 1021. Republished as WChr. 113; Charlesworth 1939: 13; Sel.Pap. 11235; Smaliwood 1967: no.47; C.Pap.Hengstl 10; Sherk 1988: no.61. B30. P.Oxv. Xffl 1612. The papyrus is 28.2 x 12 cm. One column of forty lines and the beginnings of the lines of a second column are preserved. A small, detached fragment also exists. Written on the recto only in a not very elegant, sloping hand. It was found among the literary papyri unearthed in 1905-6. Date: Early ifi AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1919 as P.Oxy. Xffl 1612. Pack2 2517. Plate: Wittek 1969: plate 8. A14. P.Oxv. XVIII 2177. Fr. I is 13.2 x 16.7 cm (two columns). There are a further two columns on fr. II. There are also two further scraps (fr. ifi and IV). It is written on the recto only in a regular, narrow, sloping, literary hand. Date: Early ifi AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1941 as P.Oxy. XVIII 2177. Republished inP.Schub.: p.87- 90; APM and Acta X. Pack2 2231. Musurillo 1954: 201 discusses the problem of fr. II ii.13-4. He suggests that either ot Tp'1T li[6XEL avX]Xal3óvrec (those helping from the third city) or di 1:r.TpI4TrYrç Tr[6XEI auX}Xaóvr€c (those helping the accursed city) are possible, but both offer problems of reading and interpretation. Plate: P.Oxy. XVIII (1941) plate 13 shows fr. I. A15. P. Oxv. XX 2264. The papyrus is 40.3 x 14.3 cm. Five incomplete columns are written on the verso of a land register in a cursive hand. Date: Mid - late II AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1952 asP.Oxy. XX 2264. Republished asAPMandActa V. Pack2 2222. The edpr. interpreted the text as a defence speech, Musurillo as a prosecution speech. This has affected their translations. At ii. 19-20, e.g. Roberts translates: 'For twelve years ago he did not criticise Caesar'; Musurillo: 'Did he not criticise Caesar twelve years ago?'

244 Col. iii. 9-10 reads: EL &n.'aTOv v i.jicrOGaaL iIi]ov afrró ('If only it were possible to hire the public executioner"). Musurillo suggests arro for arr6v ('to hire his executioner'). Zucker 1958: 257 (BL 4.64) suggests airthv ('to hire himself as executioner'). The original interpretation of the word as a{rróv is most likely, but the sense of the sentence, indeed, the whole column, remains very unclear. B31. P.Oxy. XXII 2339. The papyrus is 41.5 x 11 cm. The lower part of a roll made by joining four sheets of papyrus survives. On the redo are two columns, on the verso only one, with wide spacing to the left and right. The arrangement suggests that there were only three columns, with the redo preceding the verso, but the text breaks off mid sentence. It is written in an irregular cursive hand. Date: LatelAD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1954 as P.Oxy. XXII 2339. B32. P. Oxv XXV 2435 reck'. The papyrus is 14.5 x 26 cm. One column of writing in a medium sized, roughly formed hand, halfway between literary and cursive is preserved. Date: First half of the I AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1959 as P.Oxy. XXV 2435 redo. Republished as Weingartner 1969: 73-4; Ehrenberg and Jones 1975: no.379. Jones and Milns 1984: no.91; GC 295; Braund 1985: no.557; Sherk 1988: no.34a. Pack2 2216. Henrichs 1969: 150 suggests Weingartner's reading [v]xaic for [d]xdIc at 1.27: 'multiplied through being stored in your hearts', rather than 'prayers'. Plate: P.Oxy. XXV (1959) plate 12. Weingartner 1969: plate 1. Turner 1987: plate 57 is a clear photograph of the first eight lines. B33. P.Oxv XXV 2435 verso. The papyrus is 14.5 x 26 cm. One column of writing is preserved. It is written in the same hand as P.Oxy. XXV 2435 recto. Date: First half of I AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1959 as P.Oxy. XXV 2435 verso; Braund 1985: no.556; Ehrenberg and Jones 1975: no.379; Jones and Milns 1984: no.91; Sherk 1984: no.111; Sherk 1988: no.25; Pack2 2216. Bowman 1976: 154 (BL 7.150) suggested that

245 '['ATdo(?)]V Kai1Lii[v]9ç' could be read at 1.37. From the plate, the name following could be restored as Av[-rXou] ivTopoc (= Aryoupoc). The name 'Lentulus' is often abbreviated in Greek in this way, (e.g. Res Gestae ch.6). See chapter ifi on Cornelius Lentulus Augur. Heicheiheim (BL 7.150) has suggested that 1.40 qj.qov could be read as <€>iavov. However, there are numerous other ways in which the traces could be read, and it is unlikely that the equestrian Sejanus was a member of this senatorial committee. Barns 1961: 80 makes suggestions for 1.42 and 1.5 1-8. His reading of 1.42:

[KlpLc 3quT cie is very plausible. The passage would consequently translate: 'Lord Augustus, my city sent me.' He suggests for 1.5 1-8: 51 iiciyr€uaç (=LKeTckJac) ci (=dircv) [dL Trp]a3 (= rrpa13cic) 6 3qJTóc €'i6cv afrriv [ ]ETr'4yaOu)L rr'àya0oi IIETà S [Tatrr'd (=drrcv)] Tip-ovoç 1jT(Up &Tfll) )ca Tdtç 55 [OcdI]ç Toiç ([7r]Qvpq'LoLç irapa (=irapxcic) arrov8iv (We are here?) K]ipic I3aaTE i-oaau [-rv Kal.] TcSic acStç ' av8peiicri 8eoith[[y. .]]"° [a iTa]paaxc[]y mtcpv. However €1. as an abbreviation for EIITEP is highly unlikely in this text. When Augustus speaks in 1.52, for example, no verb of saying is employed. I think the original reading of 1.51 as referring to a victory (vuicr) is more likely than Barnes' supplement. Turner 1963: 346 approves of the emendation 1Tapxc1c airou8iv, but expresses little confidence in the other suggestions. With the ed.pr. reading of 1.56 as c [x1oii[ Oa] rather than 'we are here', the sense of Timoxenes' speech could be: "[We worship you], Lord Augustus, with as much zeal as is granted to the heavenly [gods]; just so much also we beg that you grant your Alexandrians today.'

Plate: P.Oxy. XXV plate 13. B34. FOxy. XXXIV 2690 The papyrus is 7.5 x 17 cm. Two columns are preserved, written on the verso of a late second century land register. It is broken off on three sides, but there is a margin of 2 cm at the top. The hand is oval and sloping. Date: ifi AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus.

Text: Published in 1968 as P.Oxy. XXXIV 2690.

Plate: P.Oxy. XXXIV plate 3.

246 B35. POxv. XXX1V 2725. The papyrus is 16 x 13.3 cm. It is written in a cursive hand of the late first century. Date: 29th April AD 71. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1968 as P.Oxy. XXXIV 2725. Other editions include Jones and Milns 1984: no.94. Miller 1978: 139 has suggested: TTOV v TrapqiI3oX, 1J[1Ta KoóJpTav d.c Eapaiftov thrb Tc)i) apaTr'Lou d.c T[tvJ LITTrLKb[U ToiJpLirv restoring a military inspection of the city: Titus visited the soldiers at the camp (Nicopolis), then a cohort at the Serapeum, then a cavalry squadron. But this is not very plausible. Titus would appear to have followed his father's route through the city. Youtie (P.Chcy. XXXIV: p.129) restores: 1TTOV v apE3oX, ijç [LT'thra]VTav (=àirairnv) E'iç apaiftov àTrb TO apaTr'Lov c'iç -r[b] LTrTrLKb[v àiif1X0]ev Plate: P.Ory. XXXIV plate 8; Jones and Milns 1984: p.149. B36. P Oxv XLII 3020. The papyrus is 22 x 9.8 cm. There is also a small, detached, unreadable fragment. The first fragment contains the upper part of two columns, both almost full width. The hand is an irregular, half cursive. Written on the recto only. Date: First half of the I AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1974 asP.Oxy. XLII 3020. Col. i is republished as GC 5; Sherk 1984: no.100; Braund 1985: no.555. Plate: P.Oxy. XLII (1974) plate 10. A16. P.Oxv.XL113021. The papyrus is 6 x 13 cm. It is written on the verso of a scrap of papyrus in a semi-cursive hand. Date: Late TAD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1974 asP.O.xy. XLII 3021. Hennig 1975: 320 (BL 7.155) makes a suggestion for 3-4, based on a section of a later version of the Ac/a Isidori, CPJ II lS6aii.5-6: [LETâJ Tatrra v (=dL) qu[v]KaQth- [voi. atrr4) auyKX1T1KO'L I1]ETà TatTa e'icr?iXOav.'

247 Hennig also suggests that 1.10 ([ ]aLwv X&YET€) refers to a speech of the emperor: '[ambassadors] of the Jews, speak!' However, a more likely reading for 1.9-10 would be: '[the emperor:] 'Ambassadors of the Alexandrians, [what do] you say [concerning the] Jews?' (['AXE]av8puw ipa13tç I [Ti 1TEp). T)V 'IouS]a'iwv XyETE).9 The first editor noted that: ['A'yp'irr]ijaç was a likely reading at 1.3 ('[the emperor entered with Agrip]pa and sat down.') Lines 5-6 introduce and name the Greek ambassadors. The editor read: '[ ] Ti.3pioç KXai&oç I [ ] ç I 'L&Jpoç iLovucY'io

Trajan]'. At 1.2-3 he suggests 'AAE[ av8p- J uw rjj Tr6XEL x(a'LpELv)]; at 1.3-4 [1iGv àrro- 8eXop.vo]ç'; at 1.5 '[eioia]v'; at 1.8 [veK]a. Several of these were suggested in the footnotes of the ed.princeps, but the original editor stated that [vEK]a was not a possible reading at 1.8. Plate: GCplate 3. B38. P. Oxy. XLII 3023. The papyrus is 15.5 x 12 cm. The remains of two columns are preserved on the recto. The verso was later written on, but this text remains unidentified. Date: II AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in 1974 as P.Oy. XLII 3023.

9 Cf. P.Oxy. XLII 3023 ii.4-5: 'what do the Antiochenes say concerning these claims'.

248 B39. P.Oxv.XLV113361. The papyrus is 13 x 13 cm. It is written on the redo only. The hand slopes to the left, and the individual letters have cursive forms. Date: Mid II AD, Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in Thomas 1972: 103-12. Republished as SB XII 11069; P.Oxy. XLVII 3361; GC 163. Plate: BICS 19 (1972) plate 7.

B40. P.RyL II 437. The papyrus is 10.8 x 6 cm. It is written in a careless, semi-cursive hand on the recto only. Date: I AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in 1915 as P.Ryl. 11437. Republished as APM and Acta XIX. Pack2 2239. B41. SB 13924. The papyrus is 28 x lOS cm. It is written on the recto only in a semi-cursive hand that at times imitates book-hand. Date: Early I AD (after AD 19). Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in Wilamowitz and Zucker 1911: 794-82 1. Republished as SB I 3924; Weingartner 1969: 108-9, 124-5; Sel.Pap. 11211; Ehrenberg and Jones 1975: 320b; the second edict is published as Jones and Milns 1984: no.78; Braund 1985: 558; Sherk 1988: no.34b; GC 16-7.

The reading of 1.42-3 has proved controversial. The ed.princeps read: T& & f1I tTEpa h' V191TcpcTq (=bTroTrapaLT'L) rriv -rIç K€LVuW OELóTTlToc. Kalbfleisch 1942: 374-6 (BL 3.168) read the garbled phrase as iriip€aix, and Post 1944: 80-2 (BL 3.168) as evXoyalTapE'rr<óp.Eva>. Wilcken 1928: 49 simply read

'. Oliver 1971: 229-30 (BL 6.127) suggested v Xo'yq> iráp€pyd - 'The deeds reputed as mine are but an additional working of their divinity', and this reading is now generally accepted. Plate: Wilamowitz and Zucker 1911 plate 5. Poethke 1967: 148.

249 B42. SB VI 9213. The remains of two columns, roughly 17cm high, are preserved. It is written in a neat cursive hand on the redo only. Date: First half of the ifi AD. Provenance: Hermopolis Magna. Text: Published in BenoIt and Schwartz 1948: 17-33. Republished as APM and Ada XVIII; SB VI 9213. Pack2 2238. BenoIt and Schwartz 1948: 26 offer a restoration of i.3 1-ii.5, but none of the subsequent editions have adopted their restored text. B43. SB VI 9528. The papyrus is 9 x 13 cm. It is broken off on the top, below and to the right. It is written in a careless hand with cursive elements. Date Late I-early II AD. Provenance: Fayum. Text: Published in Gerstinger 1958: 195-202 as P.Graec. Vindob. 25.787. Republished as SB VI 9528 and GC 297. The restoration of Jones 1973: 309 (BL 7.209) for 1.6 [T&v KoLv]&v is generally accepted. B44. SBX 10295. The papyrus consists of two fragments measuring 14.3 x 14 cm and 3.2 x 2.1 cm. It is written on the redo. The verso contains a single line of writing, apparently an address (see chapter IV). It is written in a semi-literary hand, with infrequent ligatures and only occasional cursive forms. Date: Late 11 AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published in Barns 1966: 14 1-6. Republished and discussed in Rca 1967: 391-6; Parsons 1967: 397-401; Bowman 1970: 20-26; GC 185; Schwartz 1985: 122-4. I have emplyed Bowman's interpretation of the text as a letter of Avidius Cassius (BL 6.163-4). Schwartz 1985: 122-4 reargues that case that the writer was Alexander Severus (BL 8.358). Plate: .JEA 52 (1966) plate 35; JRS 60 (1970) plate 4; Bowman 1986: plate 27. B45. SBXII 11012. The papyrus is 27 x 16.2 cm. The tops of two columns survive. It is written on the verso in a semi-literary hand with cursive elements. Date: Mid - late I AD. Provenance: Fayum.

250 Text: Published in Montevecchi 1970: 6-7 (PivIed mv 70.01). Republished in Montevecchi 1971: 293-9; SBXH 11012; Braund 1985: no.592; Sherk 1988: no.62;GC 39. There has been some controversy over the correct reading of i.6-8. The edpr. read: 'XpvaoW aT[4av]ov TrquJiá ye Xapta[aea]c' or 'XapLa[aeaJc'.

Turner 1975: 11 n.32 (BL 7.224) suggested: 'pvooW crT[4av]ov I'> TrL4aT€ xapiorñ[piolv' . The correct reading, I believe, was published in Souris 1989: 52 (BL 9.271-2): 'puaon/ aT[4)av]ov <ôv> T1JJaTE XaPL "[ao1]cL..' The passage therefore translates as: 'I will be freely returning the gold crown, which you have sent.' BL 7.224 also reports an amendment by Cifoletti for co. ii 9 who suggested 'ci[Tro}&Xo[,J.al]' for the 'd[va]&o[i.iai]' of the edpr.. The edition of the GC (BL 9.271-2) also suggests at i.11: 'ôht[oi 'vcitç]' rather than the 'o[eiç (= bieIç) oh' of the ed.pr.. Plate: Aegyptus 50 (1970) plate 1. Montevecchi 1973: plate 42. B46. SBXIV 11915. The papyrus is 5.5 x 5.5 cm. It is written on the recto only in a small, round, cursive hand. Date: Early - mid II AD (Musurillo 1964: 147-9). Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in 1920 by N.Chaviaras in 'Ap,y. 'Eq5. 1920 p.'73, with a new edition republished by A.Chatzes in the same volume p.75. republished in 1939 as P.Athen. 58; Musurillo 1963: 16-9, and 1964: 147-9; Paràssoglou 1976: 56-7; SB XIV 11915. I have used the text of SB XIV 11915, which is based on the revision of the text in Parássoglou 1976: 56-8 (BL 7.231). Plate: Paràssoglou 1976: 60. B47. SB XVI 12255. The papyrus is 21.5 x 7.5. It is written on the redo in a tidy uncial with cursive elements. The verso contains an account, in a hand of a later period. The text partially preserves the middle section of a column of writing. Date: Late I AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in 1939 as P.Fouad 8. Republished as APM and Acta Vb; CPJ II 418a; SB XVI 12255; Merkelbach 1958: 111-2, McCrum and Woodhead 1961: no. 41; Sherk 1988: no.81. Pack2 2223.

251 The text is highly fragmentary and can be restored in numerous different ways. I have therefore chosen to adopt the conservative text of SB XVI 12255. Coles, Geissen and Koenen 1973: 235 (BL 7.74) re-examined the original papyrus and have made the following amendments: 1.3 [To]jç 'Pwia['iouc], 1.4 [ laT[.JcT[.]cr-rov [ 1,1.6 []aTdvruv, 1.7 .i rather than i, 1.8 IçaT'5XOV, at 1.13 ó toç b th'aTXXuv, and at 1.16 suggest the supplement [ri àXi1O€i]c "Aiiwvoç iithç. The supplement àp[airic b voç] suggested in Nock 1957: 118 (BL 4.31) is generally accepted. Montevecchi 1981: 155-70 has suggested a plausible sense for the participle àvaTXXuw. In SB 14284, Severus and Caracalla are described as 'rising (dvaTE[Xav-reç) through (i.e. visiting) their Egypt', and Montevecchi suggests a similar use of the verb in this text. Musurillo 1954: 30-1 and Jouguet 1940: 201-20 (BL 3.59), and the edition of McCrum and Woodhead (BL 5.32) and Koenen 1968: 256 (BL 6.40) offer different potential supplements. Plate: Wellesley 1975: plate 6. Burr 1955: Front-piece. B48. P.Schub. 42. The papyrus is roughly 28 cm long. It is written on the recto only, with a little punctuation and documentary abbreviations. Musurillo reports that it has now been lost. Date: H AD. Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in 1950 as P.Schub. 42. Republished as APM and Acta VII: Acta Maximi II. Pack2 2226.

B49. PSI XI 1222. The papyrus consists of two fragments measuring 9.5 x 17.5 and 2 x 5 cm. It is written on the recto only. Date: Late H-early ifi AD. Provenance: Oxyrhynchus. Text: Published inBolelli 1934: 15-7, then in 1935 as PSI XI 1222. Pack2 2522. Merkelbach 1958: 115 offers the following plausible restoration of i.3-7: v[TEt0-] [EP] TV 1TPOOLRIUfl) 1 PXóI 111) [?iv]. aT[i 'yap anh11OEc &iracyi -r[oic o1')K K ir]a- paKX1Jeu)ç p.óvov à)X[à ica. &'i8]- aç.

252 B50. PUGI1O. The papyrus is 30 x 13 cm. The rectangular papyrus was made by gluing two pieces of papyrus together. To the left of the join are the remains of what appears to be a financial document, on the left is the Letter of Nero to the Alexandrians. It is written in a hasty, untidy hand. Date: Mid - late I AD (after 55). Provenance: Unknown. Text: Published in Traversa 1969: 718-25 (as PUG inv.8562). Republished as SBX 10615; Bingen 1969: 151-2;PUGI 10;GC33. The edition of GC (BL 9.36 1), incorrectly I think, amends the titulature in 1.1-2 from 'Nero Claudius, son [of the divine Claudius], descendent of the divine [Caesar] Augustus' to 'Nero Claudius [Caesar Augustus], son [of a god], descendant [even by birth] of the divine Augustus'. Williams 1975: 42 n.1 1 (BL 7.274) suggests '4[v€yvth]aori' at 1.18 instead of '[poET]0r'. if this supplement is correct, the letter would have been 'read out' publicly in the agora rather than 'displayed'. Plate: Amelotti and Migliardi 1970: plate 1; PUG I: plate 7.

253 Appendix!!.

AD 38/9 or 39/4w

Philo states that the embassies left Alexandria 'in winter', but does not specify whether the year was AD 38/9 or 39/40.' Modern scholarship favours the latter date2 The only chronological indication given by Philo is that the Jewish embassy learnt of Gaius' plan to desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem while they were pursuing him Gaius in Campania, shortly after their first brief meeting with him. 3 This meeting would need to have occurred in AD 40 if the embassies had left in the winter of 39/40. However, Gaius was campaigning in the northern provinces from the autumn of AD 39 until at least the spring of AD 40. He is not attested back in Italy until the end of May 40. The whole Temple affair would then need to be squashed into the second half of AD 40. The accounts of Philo and Josephus prove that this simply cannot be the case, not least because of the time it would have taken for the letters of Petronius and Gaius to reach their destinations. Consequently Gaius must have formulated his plan before he left Italy in AD 39. Philo's embassy must therefore have learnt of the scheme in AD 39, and, consequently, must have been in Rome before the autumn of AD 39. An analysis of the entire Temple affair is unnecessary here, as only the date at which the affair began is relevant. 5 Both Philo and Josephus provide dates for Jewish demonstrations in Phoenicia opposing Gaius' scheme. Philo places a demonstration in Phoenicia in the spring of AD 40.6 Josephus refers to demonstrations at two Phoenician cities, Ptolemais and Tiberias, the latter of which occurred in the autumn. 7 Josephus explicitly states that the Temple affair began in the autumn of AD 39 when Gaius despatched Petronius from Rome to replace Vitellius as governor of Syria with the brief to erect Gaius' statue in the Temple. Josephus continues that Petronius gathered some troops and marched to Ptolemais where he intended to spend the winter of AD 39/40. Petronius must have remained at Ptolemais for some time, as Josephus states that he

'Philo Leg. 190. 2 The case for 39/40 is expounded in Baisdon 1934: 19 and Smallwood 1957: 3-17; 1961: 47- 50; 1976: 243. 3 Philo Leg. 181-9. Smaliwood 1967: no.10 (fragment of the AFA). On the events of the Temple affair see Smallwood 1957; 3-17; Schwartz 1990: 77-89. 6 Philo Leg. 249. ' Joseph. AJ 18.263, 270.

254 wrote a letter to Gaius from there, and remained there until he received a reply. 8 He then proceeded to Tiberias and wrote another letter to Gaius in the autumn. Josephus depiction of the Temple affair as a long, drawn out incident is supported by the other literary sources. Tacitus, for example, states that the Jews took up arms against Gaius.9 Philo also implies that the affair was lengthy, and frequently refers to Petronius' delaying tactics. 10 In any case, for Petronius to have prepared his army and for there to have been massive demonstrations in Phoenicia by the spring of AD 40, as Philo states, Gaius' orders must have been given in the autumn of 39 before he left for his northern campaigns. Gaius' presence in Campania in the summer/autumn of AD 39, when he constructed a bridge of boats over the Bay of Naples is also confirmed by other sources. 11 Consequently the embassies must have left Alexandria in the winter of AD 3 8/9.

8 Ibid. 18.261-2. 9 Tac. Hist. 5.9. '°E.g. Philo Leg. 220-2 on the delay caused by commissioning a new statue of Gains. "Dio 59.17; Suet. Gaius 19.3.

255 Appendix III

The Status of the Alexandrian Jews,

The status held by the Alexandrian Jews was a highly contentious issue in antiquity, as the embassies to Gaius and Claudius show, and remains highly controversial in modern scholarship. A major problem is that we do not have full details about Augustus' settlement of Egypt. Augustus introduced a state-imposed social hierarchy in Egypt, with political, administrative, fiscal and legal privileges for the highest social classes. Roman citizens and the citizens of the Greek cities in Egypt (Alexandria, Ptolemais, Naucratis and later Antinoopolis) topped this social hierarchy, and enjoyed numerous privileges. Most notably, they were exempt from payment of the poii tax. The inhabitants of the chora formed the lowest freeborn status group. They were classed simply as 'Egyptians', although the residents of the nome capitals, the metropolites, were given the privilege of paying a slightly reduced rate of poll tax. The Jews in the cliora were also legally classed as 'Egyptians'. However, it is not entirely clear how the numerically significant Jewish community at Alexandria, around a fifth to a third of the population according to modern estimates, fitted into this civic stratification. The ancient evidence is polemical. Philo and Josephus expound the Jewish side of the argument, and speak in terms that would imply that the Jews enjoyed Alexandrian citizenship, and were therefore among the highest social group in the province. The

Greek arguments, preserved in the writings of Apion, Chaeremon and the Ada Alexandrinorum vehemently deny this claim, and instead compare the Jews with the 'Egyptians', that is the lowest social group in the province. The 'documentary' evidence is also unhelpful as neither Josephus' two edicts of Claudius nor Nemesion's 'copy' of Claudius' letter are wholly faithful to the original text of the letter, as I have argued in chapter II. The only neutral document is therefore a petition written by an Alexandrian Jew in the Augustan period.' However, the significance of this document is highly debatable. Modern scholarship has offered three main hypotheses. The general consensus in the early twentieth century, based solely on the writings of Philo and Josephus, was

CPJII 151.

256 that the Alexandrian Jews all held the Alexandrian citizenship. 2 After the publication of Claudius' letter in 1924 this consensus was reversed. The Alexandnan Jews did not hold the Alexandrian citizenship, but were actively pressing for this privilege to be granted to all the Jews resident in the city. 3 The latest proposal is that all Diasporan Jews, including the Alexandrian Jews, were organised into officially recognised independent political associations called politeumata. The Alexandrian Jews, it is argued, did not strive for the Alexandrian citizenship. Indeed, they did not even want the citizenship, as this entailed participating in the civic cults of the city, which Judaism prevented them from doing. The Jews strove only to make the rights of their Jewish politeuma equal to those of the Greek citizen body. According to this theory the Graeco-Jewish dispute in Alexandria was therefore caused by the Jews attempting to improve the standing of their politeuma, and the Greeks attempting to abolish these politeuma rights. The politeuma theory at first attracted great support.4 More recently it has been heavily criticised by scholars who point out that those politeumata attested in the Hellenistic period either have the technical sense of a ruling class within a city, or are private, voluntary social associations. 5 Neither the Jews nor their enemies ever use the term 'the Jewish polite uma'. Indeed, the Jews always refer to themselves as 'the crowd' or 'the gathering' (synagoge). There are only three references to Jewish politeumata, two at Berenice in Cyrene and one at Alexandria. The Berenicepoliteumata would appear to be administrative bodies of Jews rather than the whole body of them. 6 The passage in Pseudo-Aristeas referring to the Alexandrian Jewish politeuma lists four distinct groups of Jews from among the 'multitude': the priests, the elders of the translators, the elders of the politeuma and the leaders of the multitude.7 The Alexandrian Jewish politeuma would therefore not appear to refer to the whole body of Alexandrian Jews, but a restricted group of them. I will argue that the evidence does not support the view that the Alexandrian Jews held the Alexandrian citizenship as a body. Instead, I will argue that the Alexandrian Jews were organised into an officially recognised community with

2 E.g. Juster 1914. See Bell 1924: 10-6 for this stage of the debate. E.g. Bell 1924: 16. Smallwood 1976: 227-30; Kasher 1985, passim. Biscardi 1984: 1201-15; Zuckermann 1985-8: 171-85; LUderitz 1994: 183-225; Thompson Crawford 1984: 1069-75. 6 LUdeñ 1994: 2 10-22. Letter ofPseudo-Aristeas 308-10.

257 significant and specific privileges, regardless of whether or not this community was termed apoliteuma in antiquity. I will first examine the evidence for the status of the Alexandrian Jews, then how this status was a major factor in the Graeco-Jewish violence of the first century AD. Augustus had no reason to punish the Alexandrian Jews by classing them among the lowest social group in Egypt. The Jews had actually been of great service to Rome in the preceding years. When Gabinius led a Roman army into Egypt in 55 BC it was the Jewish garrison at Pelusium that gave him passage. 8 When Augustus' adopted father Julius Caesar was besieged in the city by a rising of the Alexandrian populace, it was a Jewish force at Heliopolis, followed by one at Memphis that allowed Mithridates' relieving army to enter the city. 9 Josephus hints that the Jews also offered aid to 10 Augustus against Antony. Augustus was therefore more likely to grant the Alexandrian Jews a privileged status. Philo and Josephus should be good witnesses to the status of the Alexandrian Jews. Philo was himself an Alexandrian Jew, and Josephus had visited the city at least once.' 1 However, both writers employ highly ambiguous terms to describe the status of the Alexandrian Jews. Polites in an official sense can only mean a citizen of apolis, but informally can simply mean 'resident'. Politeia (with the related ise politeia) can range in meaning from 'citizenship', 'constitution', 'civic rights' to 'way of life'. The term 'Alexandrian', with the official meaning of an Alexandrian citizen, could also informally be used to describe a resident of Alexandria. It could be the case that Philo and Josephus were writing for an audience who were familiar with the situation at Alexandria, and would interpret the terms they use correctly, making it unnecessary for them to precisely define the status of the Alexandrian Jews. A more cynical view would be that they chose to use deliberately ambiguous terms because the status of the Alexandrian Jews was already disputed in antiquity in their highly polemical and apologetic histories. On several occasions Philo calls his fellow Jews 'Alexandrians'.' 2 He also frequently refers to the politeia of the Alexandnan Jews.' 3 Unfortunately, for our purposes, Philo does not record the second part of the hearing before Gaius, in which

8 Joseph. Af 14.99; BJ 1.175. Joseph. Al 14.127-36, 193; RI 1.187-92; C.Ap. 2.61. '°Joseph. C.Ap. 2.61, speaking of the Jews' 'services' to Octavian. "Joseph. Vita 415-6. 12 E.g. Philo Leg. 183; 194; Flacc. 80.

258 the Jews spoke about their politeia. However, Philo makes it explicitly clear in two passages that 'Jewishpoliteia' is not the same as Alexandrian citizenship. Philo remarks that in issuing the edict renouncing the Alexandrian Jews as 'foreigners', Flaccus destroyed "our ancestral customs and our participation in political rights."4 Philo also stresses that if his embassy to Gaius did not succeed: "What political right [of the Jews] (politikon dikaion) would not be overthrown? Both the specifically Jewish traditions and their general rights vis-à-vis each individual city (ta koina pros ekastas ton poleon dikaia) would be overthrown, shipwrecked, and sent to the bottom of the sea."5 For Philo, the Jewish politeia would not appear to be citizenship of a Greek city, but the Jewish right to observe their ancestral customs and the right to exercise their political privileges, as granted and safeguarded by the emperors. In a speech attributed to the Flaccus, Philo appears to reveal the true status of the Alexandrian Jewish community. Flaccus allegedly lamented treating the Jews as 'foreigners without civic rights' rather than 'privileged residents' (epitimoi katoikol), implying that the Alexandrian Jews were privileged residents of the polls of Alexandria, who enjoyed some civic rights.'6 Josephus uses the same ambiguous terminology. He also states that the Jewish residents of other Greek cities in the east, such as the Antiochene Jewish community, enjoyed the same status as the Alexandrian Jews. Josephus states that the Jews were among the original founders of Alexandria and mentions three times rights granted to them by Alexander the Great. Alexander, he alleges, granted the Jews the right to reside in Alexandria with the status of Macedonians. They were given the right to reside in Alexandria on terms of equality (isomoiria) with the Greeks of the city. They were made politai with equal citizen rights (isopoliteia) to the Macedonians.' 7 He also refers to letters of Alexander, Ptolemy son of Lagos and a bronze stele set up in Alexandria by Julius Caesar recording Jewish rights and declaring the Jews to be politai.'8 Josephus also records that Ptolemy Soter granted the Alexandrian Jews isopoliteia with the Greeks of the city, and 'citing' the edict of Claudius states that the 'kings' granted the Alexandrian Jews ise politeia with the Greeks.'9 However, Josephus also speaks of the

13 Philo Leg. 193, 349, 363. 14 Philo Flacc. 53-4. Philo Leg. 371. 16 Philo Flacc. 172. 17 Joseph. Ap. 2.35; BJ2.487;AJ 12.8. ' Joseph. AJ 14.188,Ap. 2.36-7. 19 Joseph. AJ 12.7-8; 19.28 1.

259 Alexandrian Jews in terms that would suggest they were not citizens. Hence they are 'the Jews living in Alexandria called Alexandrians', 2° the 'Jewish race', 2' or simply 'the Jews of Alexandria' 22 A comparison with what Josephus alleges was the status of the Jews in Antioch, Cyrene, loma and Sardis reveals that despite the use of the same deliberately ambiguous terminology, the Jews resident in these cities did not hold the citizenship of their poleis. Josephus gives two contradictory versions of the status of the Antiochene Jews in three passages. While he states that Seleucus I granted the Jews politeia in the cities that he founded in Syria and Asia Minor, he later states that the successors of Antiochus Epiphanes granted the Jews citizen rights on a par with the Greeks. 23 Josephus' two versions of the petition of Antiochene Greeks to Titus show that he does not use the ambiguous term politeia to mean 'citizenship'. Whereas in the first version the Antiochenes asked Titus to abolish the Jewish politeia, in the expanded version Josephus reveals that they actually requested that Titus destroy the bronze tablets on which the rights (dikaiomata) of the Jews in the city were inscribed. 24 Josephus claims that the Jews of Cyrene were granted isonomia with the Greeks by the kings.25 However, he inadvertently contradicts this by citing the authority of a certain Strabo of Cappadocia, who clearly differentiates the Jews from the citizen body by dividing the population of Cyrene into four distinct groups: citizens, farmers, resident aliens and Jews. 26 It is debatable whether or not Josephus and Philo were being wilftully deceptive, or that they considered Judaism as a constitution (politeia), and applied the term in this sense. Josephus does, after all, state that Jewish politeia is enshrined in a book, as Judaism is in the Torah. 27 What Josephus means by 'politai' and 'polileia' can be gleaned from his discussion of the Jews in lonia and Sardis. Josephus gives two versions of a dispute between the Jews of lonia and their neighbours, which was adjudicated by Marcus Agrippa in 14 BC. In the first version the Jews petitioned Agrippa, claiming that Antiochus son of Seleucus had granted them politeia, which the lonian Greeks were attempting to deprive them of. Agrippa decided to preserve the

20 Joseph.AJ14.113;Ap. 2.44. 21 Joseph. A.! 19.285. Joseph. Ap. 2.55. Joseph. A..! 12.119; Ap. 2.39; BJ 7.43-4. 24 Joseph. AJ 12. 121; BJ 7. 100-11. Joseph. AJ 16.160. 26 Jbjd 14.114-5.

260 status quo in lonia, which meant that the Jews were free to pursue their ancestral customs.28 The implication is that the Jews' politeia was their right to pursue their ancestral way of life. This is explicitly clear in the second version, where Agrippa confirms Jewish privileges. There is no mention of politeia in this version.29 Josephus relates how 'the Jewish politai' at Sardis approached the council and people of the city, asking for confirmation of their privileges. They asked that: "In accordance with their accepted customs [they may] come together and have a communal life and adjudicate suits among themselves and that a place be given to them in which they might gather together with their wives and children and offer their ancestral prayers and sacrifices to God. ,,30 The privileges were granted. Clearly the Jews in Sardis were not citizens of the poiis, despite being described aspolitai. They did not ask for the privileges of citizens, but for their ancestral privileges. The documentary evidence and the polemical writings of the Alexandrian Greeks confirm this interpretation of the evidence of Philo and Josephus. Claudius' letter tells the Jews to enjoy what they already possess (i.e. the rights and privileges of their community) in a 'city not their own', which can only mean that the Alexandrian Jews were not Alexandrian citizens. The fact that a scribe corrected the status of an Alexandrian Jewish petitioner in CPJ II 151 from 'Alexandrian' to 'Jew from Alexandria' show that an Alexandrian citizen and a 'Jew from Alexandria' were not the same thing (see below). The Alexandrian Greek Apion emphasises the foreign origin of the Alexandrian Jews and questions their right to call themselves 'Alexandrians'. Through a distorted examination of the Alexandrian Jews in the Ptolemaic period, Apion claimed that the Alexandrian Jews were unpatriotic, continually disloyal to their rulers and had rightfully been denied certain privileges enjoyed by Alexandrian citizens. He cites as an example the refusal of both Cleopatra and Germanicus to distribute rations of corn to the Jews. The fact that the Jews refused to worship the Alexandrian gods, and their responsibility for recent disturbances make it absurd for some Jews to claim they were Alexandrian

27 Joseph. AJ 4.194, 302-4; see also Rajak 1998: 228. Joseph. AJ 12.125-6. 29 Ibid. 16.27-61. 30 Ibid. 14.259-61.

261 citizens, Apion argues, and their failure to worship the emperor shows their seditious nature.3' Josephus' counter-arguments to Apion's claims are weak. Significantly, Josephus could pick and choose those statements of Apion that he could easily refute. However, Josephus' main tactic was to present Apion as a bitter, unpleasant and inaccurate writer, whose work could not be trusted. To this end, Josephus repeatedly refers to Apion' s 'Egyptian' origins and nationality. His attempts to argue against Apion are unconvincing. While he admits, for example, that Cleopatra and Germanicus did withhold corn from the Alexandrian Jews, he claims that this was only because there was not enough corn to distribute to everyone. 32 In fact, this was probably because the Jews were not full citizens. The Jews in Alexandria, and indeed other Greek cities in the east, therefore were not citizens of their cities, but were residents with extensive privileges. During the principate, emperors consistently upheld these privileges. These privileges included the right to follow Jewish ancestral customs, which involved allowing the body of Jewish residents in a city a measure of independence and autonomy. In Alexandria, for example, the Jewish residents were allowed a governing body of elders. This body was initially headed by an ethnarch, but, when the first ethnarch died, during the prefecture of Aquila (AD 10-11), Augustus allowed a council of elders (gerousia) to replace him.33 Citing Strabo of Cappadocia, Josephus claims that the Alexandrian Jews have: "Their own ethnarch who governs the people and adjudicates law suits and supervises contracts and ordinances, as if he were the head of a sovereign state."34

Documentary evidence reveals that the Jews had their own record office. 35 Other privileges involved being allowed to send their own embassies to Rome. Philo reveals that the Alexandrian Jews shared the 'privilege' of Alexandrian citizens of being beaten with the flat of a sword rather than flogged, as the Egyptians were.36 The extent of other civic privileges enjoyed by the Alexandrian Jews remains unclear. I find it likely that, like the citizens of Alexandria, they enjoyed exemption from the poii tax, and also enjoyed the potential to become Roman citizens. In a

JOSeP1LAP. 2.33-78. 32 Barclay 1998: 194-22 1. Philo Flace. 74. Joseph. AJ 14.117. 35 BGUIV 1151 1.7-8. 36ph110 Flacc. 789.

262 petition to an Augustan prefect an Alexandrian Jew named Helenos complained that he was being forced to pay the poii tax (CPJH 151). He listed four arguments to support his exemption. His father was an Alexandrian (1.3). He has had a Greek education (1.6), presumably as an ephebe (1.14) at the gymnasium (1.13). He has always lived in Alexandria and faces the possibility of being deprived of his fatherland if an adverse judgement is given. Finally, he states that he is over sixty years old, and therefore exempt on the grounds of old-age. If taken at face value this petition would therefore suggest that the Alexandrian Jews were not exempt from the poll tax. However, there are several reasons for thinking that Helenos is being liberal with the truth in order to improve his chances of success. For example, he initially described himself as an 'Alexandrian', although a scribe later changed this to a more exact definition of Helenos' status - 'a Jew from Alexandria'. What makes the value of the evidence of this petition so debatable is our ignorance over Helenos' precise status and the constitution of the Alexandrian Jewish community. It is likely that the Romans forced the Alexandrian Jewish community to be registered in the same way that Alexandrian citizens were, in order to prevent Jews from the chora claiming the privileges of the Alexandrian Jewish community. If so, then a member of the Alexandrian Jewish community would presumably require both parents to have been registered as members of the community. It could be the case that Helenos' father, probably an Alexandrian Jew like Helenos rather than an Alexandrian citizen himself, had married a Jew from the c/iora. The result of this would be that despite his residence in Alexandria, Helenos was barred from the privileges of the Alexandrian Jewish community. Alternatively, Helenos may well have been a fully registered member of the Alexandrian Jewish community who was being unfairly pestered by an overzealous governmental official. We could compare, for example, the plight of those veteran soldiers who frequently complained that their rights and privileges were being breached.37 A rather decisive piece of evidence on the Alexandrian Jews' exemption from the poli tax comes from a piece of the Acta Alexandrinorum literature. Isidoros argues that the Jews 'are not of the same nature as the Alexandrians', and suggests that they are rather 'on the same level as those who pay the poli tax' (i.e. the Egyptians). Significantly, Isidoros claim is that culturally the Jews were more like Egyptians than

See Alston 1995: 60-9.

263 Alexandrian rather than that they were actually subject to the poll tax. Agrippa reflites this statement by claiming that although the Egyptians have taxes levied on them, no one has imposed taxes on the Jews. In their attempt to downgrade the Jews to the lowest social status in Roman Egypt, the writers of this version of the anti-Jewish Acta Isidori cannot have failed to mention that the Jews were subject to the poii tax if this really were the case.38 Another privilege of the Jewish community may have been the potential to acquire Roman citizenship. We know from the story of Pliny's masseur Harpokras that Egyptians needed to gain Alexandrian citizenship before they could be made Roman citizens.39 From this it is commonly assumed that the Alexandrian Jews would have had to acquire the Alexandrian citizenship prior to Roman citizenship. Nonetheless, as I have argued, the status of the Alexandrian Jews was far higher than that of the Egyptians. Because emperors could award the Roman citizenship to whomever they chose, it is likely that the Alexandrian Jews could be awarded the Roman citizens\ without having to hold Alexandrian citizenship first. Several Alexandriati Jews did acquire the Roman citizenship. Philo' s brother Alexander was a Roman citizen and passed this status on to his three children, Marcus and Tiberius Julius Alexander, and a daughter who mothered Alexander's grandson, Julius Lysimachus. 4° If the post of 'customs officer' (Arabarch) was a Roman equestrian post in this period, which remains unclear, another Alexandrian Jew named Demetrios had also acquired the Roman citizenship.4' The community of Alexandrian Jews therefore enjoyed significant privileges, which were guaranteed and upheld by the emperors. This status became a major factor in the Graeco-Jewish violence of the first-century AD. The writings of Apion show that the Alexandrian Greeks resented the fact that the Jews had acquired their privileged status through betraying the city to the Romans on at least two occasions in the first century BC. For their treachery the Jews were even allowed a council of sorts (gerousia), while Augustus denied the Alexandrian Greeks the right to convene a boule. It would appear that a significant number of Jewish individuals in Alexandria were attempting to improve their current status. These Jews were acquiring the Alexandrian citizenship through the ephebate, playing a role in the running of the polls and enjoying

38 CPJII 156c ii.8-10. 39 Plin. Ep. 10.5-7. ° See the genealogical table in Terian 1984: 283.

264 the Greek athletic festivals in the city, but, significantly, refusing to take part in the civic cults of the city. Hence Apion's objection that the Jews should consider themselves Alexandrian when they do not worship the Alexandrian gods.42 It is argued that the Alexandrian Jews would not want Alexandrian citizenship or a Greek education, or to attend such Greek institutions as the theatre as this would conflict with their religious loyalties. 43 However, the evidence against this is overwhelming. Many individual Jews wanted to play a role in the running of the polls. We find, for example, in year five of Trajan (AD 101/2) three Jews tending the Alexandrian granaries as three of the sitologoi. The fact that Claudius warns the Jews to be content with their current privileges in his letter implies that Jews were aiming to improve their civic status and acquire the citizenship. The outrage in a piece of Ada related literature, that the 'uncultured men' (i.e. Jews) were infiltrating the citizen body suggests the phenomenon not uncommon. 45 Philo's loyalty to Jewish cuStoms and traditions can hardly be questioned. Philo, however, attended banquets7 frequented the theatre, where he heard concerts and watched plays, 47 watched boxing and wrestling matches,48 and was an ardent fan of the horse races at the hippodrome. 49 It seems clear from his writings that Jews took part in the triennial festivals arranged by the city. Philo warned that these festivals bought licentiousness and rivalry. Jews should avoid taking part, but if they could not, they should try and lose. 50 Philo's disproving remarks on Graeco-Jewish intermarriage would also suggest that this was not uncommon in Alexandria.5' He criticises those Jews who pursue their education in order to hold office under the rulers, and condemns those who have deserted the Jewish way of life. 52 Nonetheless, Philo also praises those Jews who give their children a Greek gymnasial education. 53 We should note that the Jewish petitioner Helenos not only had a Greek name, but also completed a Greek education as an ephebe in the gymnasium. Whether or not Philo ever acquired the Alexandrian citizenship remains unclear. However, there

41 Joseph. AJ 20.147. 42 Joseph. Ap. 2.65. Smallwood 1961: 13-4. 44 CPJII 428. 45 CPJII 150 u5-6. Phulo LegAl!. 3.155-9. Philo Ebr. 177; Prob. 141. Philo Prob. 26. 49 PhiloProv. 2.58. °PhlloAgric.5 110-21. 51 Philo Spec. 3.29. 52 Philo Leg.All. 3.167; Migr. 89-93.

265 is little doubt that Philo's social life did not conflict with his Jewish beliefs, and it would seem likely that many Jews in Alexandria would aspire for citizenship to take as full advantage of the city's amenities. Citizenship of a great city such as Alexandria bught enormous social status. We can compare, for example, the apostle Paul: "I am a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city."54 Impressed by his status, the soldiers allow him to speak. This situation is confirmed elsewhere in the eastern empire, where we find Jews holding the citizenship of Greek cities, and even holding magistracies and enjoying the Hellenic social life of their cities. In Cyrene we find several Jewish gymnasial graduates.55 We also find a Jew acting as one of the nomophylakes in Cyrene. 56 Jews had long been competing in gymnasia and enrolling in the ephebeia. In 175 BC, when the high priest, Jason set up a gymnasium and ephebate in Jerusalem, many Jews were keen to take part in this lifestyle. They neglected their sacrifices as they hurried to take part in 'unlawful activities' (i.e. nude wrestling and athletics).57 The Antiochene Jews were firm fans of horse racing. Their adherence to the 'blues' allegedly caused the Graeco-Jewish riots there in AD 3 There is good literary evidence that the Jews in the empire often viewed and competed in Greek sports festivals. 59 Graeco-Jewish intermarriage was not uncommon. The disciple Timothy was the son of a Greek father and a Jewish-Christian mother. 6° We should note too that Greeks in the east were not unwilling to admit Jews to their gymnasium. Even in Alexandria, Jews could not have enrolled in the ephebate without the approval of the Greek magistrates responsible for supervising entry. What inflamed the Graeco-Jewish violence was the fact that the status and position of the Alexandrian Jews was ultimately dependent on the goodwill of the Roman emperor. In the first century AD the Alexandrian Greeks witnessed Jewish expulsions from Rome, Gaius' attempt to desecrate the Jewish Temple, the brutal crushing of a revolt in Judea, the destruction of the Jewish Temple, and the imposition

53 Philo Spec. 2.229-30; Pray. 2.44-6. 54 Acts 21:39-40. GJZC 6, 7c. 56CJZC8. 2 Macc. 4.7-14. Malalas CSHB 31: p.244-5. E.g. Harris 1976: 29-50. 60 Acts 16.1-3.

266 of the Jewish tax.61 This, not unnaturally, suggested to them that the imperial authorities could be persuaded to remove the privileges of the Jews and downgrade them to the status of 'Egyptians'. Their attempt to do this under Gaius might well have succeeded, and in AD 66 Nero sided with the Greeks of Caesarea against their Jewish neighbours 'annulling the grant of equal civic rights to the Jews' there. 62 The Alexandrian Greeks enjoyed some limited successes. As I argued in chapter II, Claudius' ruling in AD 41 in theoiy barred entry to Alexandrian citizenship for future generations of Jews. The Romans sided with the Alexandrian Greeks in the Graeco- Jewish rioting in AD 66 and again in the Jewish Revolt of 115/6-7. However, ultimately their attempts to preserve the 'purity' of their citizen body failed. Between AD 198-211 Severus and Caracalla passed a law (or perhaps even ratified an pre- existing one) which allowed Jews to hold municipal offices without imposing obligations that affected their superstitio.63 This should have stopped Alexandrian legal objections to Jewish citizens, and may even have implicitly allowed the Alexandrian Jews citizenship. With the Constitutlo Antoniniana all Jews in the empire became Roman citizens anyway. These last two imperial measures lcught the issue of the status and rights of the Alexandrian Jews to light once more, and is surely one of the prime factors in the popularity of the Acta literature in the Severan period (see p.143- 59).

61 E.g. Jews expelled from Rome under Tiberius (Suet Tib. 36), Claudius closed down synagogues (Dio 60.6.6-7); on the Jewish tax see Alon 1980: 64-70. 62 Joseph AJ 20.183. 63 Digest 50.2.3.3.

267 Appendix IV.

The 'dubious and unidentified'

For the sake of completeness, I append the following survey of the dub/a et Incerta. In some cases not enough of a text is preserved to prove conclusively that it should be categorised as an Acta Alexandrinorum proper, or as a piece of Acta related literature. In other cases the text clearly does belong to the literature, but the dramatic context is unclear. The dubia et incerta add little to our knowledge of the literature, but are additional evidence for how widespread and popular this literature was in Roman Egypt. 1. P.Aberd 117 is a small scrap (2x 2.8, 6.7 x 2.9 cm) from the Fayum and is written in a hand of the early first century AD. It mentions a 'war' (polemos), using the same term that is often used to describe the Graeco-Jewish violence in Alexandria, and appears to be in the form of a dialogue (ef. the accusative plural 'you', suggesting direct speech). This could very well belong in the context of an Acta Alexandrinorum.

2. Acta XX, a small fragment (4.8 x 4.5 cm) from the late second/early third century AD uses similar vocabulary to the ActaAlexandrinorum literature. It mentions the 'emperor and lord' (1.3), and two names 'Hime[ros(?)]' (1.2) and 'Archias' (1.5). They are unknown elsewhere in the literature, but may be Alexandrian(?) ambassadors. The plural 'Augusti' (1.6) could suggest a dramatic setting in a joint reign, but a reference to a policy followed by previous emperors is just as likely. 3. BGUII 588 is a small fragment (7 x 8.5 cm) from the Fayum. •The text refers to a group of people, presumably the Alexandrian Greeks, who are 'destroying themselves' (1.3), and someone who has become angered by their conduct (1.7). This person has treated them with charity rather than justice (1.8), but will no longer if the Alexandrians do not stop abusing him (1.9). The identity of this person is revealed as the 'king of the Romans' (1.10), and Vespasian would be a likely candidate.' While this could belong in the context of a trial scene before an emperor, it may belong to an unknown Oration to Alexandria. Dio Chrysostom, for example, says many similar things. 2

'The emperor is referred to as basileus elsewhere in the literature; e.g. CPJ II 1 56d L 15; CPJ II 159b ii.6. 2 Dio Chrys. Or. 32.69-71; 95-6.

268 4. BKTIX 115, a small fragment (8.9 x 7.9 cm) of the late second century from the Fayum, mentions the Jews, an edict of'[Lu(?)]pus',3 a certain 'Heracleid[es}', and an emperor, merely called Caesar. There is a possible mention in col.i of a war (pok[mosJ), and the letters 'array[ }' in col. ii.9 are very likely to be from the verb àTrdyu, which elsewhere in the literature conveys the meaning 'to lead away to death' . The Heracleides may perhaps be the Alexandrian citizen mentioned inP.Ory. IV 706. This Heracleides was involved in a case before Lupus in AD 115. The nature of the case remains unclear, but Lupus appears to give an adverse judgement, basing his decision on the differences in the laws governing Egyptians and Alexandrians, and threatens to have someone beaten if further complaints are made. 5. P.Bour. 7, a small fragment (13.5 x 10 cm) of the late second century AD, appears to concern a trial (cf. col. i.9 - 'indictment'). There is also a mention of 'privileges and benefits' (col. ii.4), 5 an embassy and someone having judged a case "showing that the number of those [-] from the race of the Greeks alone. ,,6 The case therefore appears to have concerned Greek privileges and status, a favourite subject of the Acta Alexandrinorum. Other sections mention 'the Egyptians' (cot. ii.!) and a certain 'Rubrius' (col. i.4). Four Rubrii are known from other sources. Rubrius Barbarus was a Prefect of Egypt (13/12 BC). An eques named Rubrius was tried under Tiberius.7 Two Rubrii Galli, possibly a father and son, were suffect consuls under Nero and Trajan. While the context remains unclear, three fragmentary lines from col. ii hold the key to the understanding of the text: 'To have sent an embassy to -] I -stus, [-rus I having judged...' (TrpEaI3EIa1 Trpôç Tbv [-] I Kp'wav-roç To [-] pou). Musurillo suggested that an embassy was sent to a first-century AD prefect Modestus, who is known only from a passage in the Suda. 8 KOrte more plausibly suggested that an embassy was sent to an emperor (TrpOç TOY [E3a-j crrbv). Korte also suggested the supplement '[Isidolrou', and suggested that the text referred to an emperor judging or condemning Isidoros, the Alexandrian ambassador of AD 38-41. However, the Greek

3 Edicts of Lupus are referred to in CPJH 158a 1.4-5; iv.3. E.g. CPJH 156b ii.7(?), 19-20; CPJII 159a n.13; b 1.8; ii. 14-5; iii.3-4; iii 10. same phrase is used in Claudius' letter - CPJII 153 L55. 6 P.Bour. 711.8-10. 1 Tac.Ann. 1.73. Suda s.v. Epaphroditus. On 'Modestos' see Cairns 1999: 2 18-22. 9 KOrte 1927: 265.

269 does not support this view, as the genitive participle krinantos would need to agree with the accusative '[-}ston'. Krinantos more probably begins a genitive absolute phrase, with '[-]rou' the subject rather than the object of the verb. While it is possible that the prefect Rubrius Barbarus made a decision on Greek privileges and honours, such as decision is more likely to have been made by an emperor ([Ka'iaajpoç). The text would therefore appear to concern an Alexandrian embassy to an emperor on the subject of the privileges and honours of the Alexandrian Greeks. 'Rubrius' is most probably present as a member of the imperial consilium. 6. Only a tiny scrap (2.9 x 1.9 cm) of CPJffl 456 remains, preserving five lines from the middle of a column. The vocative 'Lord' and the word 'Jews' suggest that the scrap is a piece of Acta Alexandrinorum literature. The presence of the Jews would suggest a pre-Hadrianic dramatic setting. 7. The vocabulary of P.Erl. 16 makes it clear that we are dealing with a trial scene, but it remains unclear if our fragment is an ordinary copy of judiciary proceedings, or part of the ActaAlexandrinorum literature. It was copied onto the redo in the second century and the verso was later used in the third century for a literary work. There is little to connect the text to the Ada Alexandrinorum, other than the setting for the scene, the 'nekropolis', a suburb in Alexandria used for the burial of the dead and Musurillo's restoration of 1.19 to mention an emperor: '[&6]óvai. TI 6 K[1pLoç}'.'° 8. P.Fay. 217, from the Fayum, is a small fragment (9.7 x 8.5) from the late- second century AD. The first four lines mention 'neighbours', 'entrances and exits', 'the elders demanding' something, and a slow enquiry. There are references to 'the kind Emperor' (1.8), and 'Caesar comes' (1.5). There is also a reference to death expressed in a rather literary fashion (Tot ou Tp1a)." The presence of the elders and the emperor suggests that this is a piece of the Acta, particularly if the restoration of line eight is correct: '[you abuse] ([Xoi8op€Jiç) the good emperor!' But the dramatic setting of the text remains obscure. Musurillo suggested that the mention of entrances and exits could indicate that the fragment concerned 'the illegal profit made on

'°Musurillo 1954: 73. The same phrase in found in the life of Secundus the silent philosopher, Perry 1964: 72 124 - see p. 171-2.

270 Alexandrian shipping by Roman officials'.' 2 The phrase 'Caesar comes' could refer to an imperial visit to Alexandria. 9. P.Harr. II 173 is a small fragment (6 x 18cm) of unknown provenance, written in the first half of the third century AD. Its content remains unclear, although the suggestion that it is part of a novel has now been dismissed.' 3 The edpr. noted a similarity in language with Dio Chrysostom and the Alexander Romance, but considered the text more likely to be either an historical narrative, or a semi-official transcript of judicial proceedings. The latter is most likely, as the first-person verbs suggest a type of dialogue. The language also has similarities with the Acta Alexandrinorum literature. The text mentions an inquiry (1.4, cf. P.Fay. 217 1.4), a foul slanderer or a destroyer (X3frrrp) who defends someone (1.5-7), and the 'more educated' (1.10). Hellenism and 'Alexand[ria}' are mentioned in quick succession (1.11- 2). There are further references to prostration (1.13), sovereignty (1.14), and someone who is a 'Greek by birth'. This could certainly all belong in the context of a trial scene of Alexandrians before an emperor or a prefect. The praise of Greek culture and the insistence, presumably by the defendant, that he is a Greek by birth has many parallels elsewhere in the ActaAlexandrinorum.'4 10. The subject of P.Med mv. 275 appears to be a trial before an emperor. The eight incomplete lines from the middle of a column in this small fragment (7 x 7.5 cm) mention persons that we usually find in an Ada Alexandrinorum story. There are references to the emperor (1.8), the 'Romans' (1.1), the 'magistrates of the Alexandrians' (1.2), and the 'accuser' (1.5). The only other story to mention an 'accuser' is P. Giss.Lit. 4.7, and this text may be a version of the same trial-scene. The references to some people 'approaching', something that is 'to be handed over to them', and a change of 'rank/dignity' (àIwp.a IIETao[X-]) tell us nothing about the text's dramatic context. 11. P.Oslo ifi 178, a small (6.6 x 8.5 cm) second-century AD fragment, mentions 'lord' and 'Alexand[ria]', which could belong in the context of an Ada Alexandrinorum. However, the text yields little else. 12. P.Oxy. VI 683, a small text (9.3 x 4.4 cm) from the late second century AD, refers to an emperor (kurios), citizenship (politeia), an 'embassy' (presbeu[-]) and a certain 'Dionysi[os]'. If it is right to connect this fragment with the Acta

' 2 M10 1954: 223. 13 Morgan 1998: 3386. ' 4 E.g. CPJII 156b u.8-9.

271 Alexandrinorum, it most probably refers to the series of events from AD 38-41, when an Alexandrian named Dionysios was very active in the attempt to keep Alexandrian citizenship exclusive. 13. A trial in Alexandria is the subject of P.Oxy. XXII 2339, written in a hand of the late first century AD. The 'trial' takes places before Roman authorities, either the emperor, or more probably the Prefect (cf. col. ii.4 - 'hege[m]on[os(?)]'). We begin with a pronouncement of the Roman authorities, who intend to behead two men, at least one of whom is likely to have been an Alexandrian Greek, Apollo[dotos] (or Apollo[doros]) and Poteirius. 15 Despite the fact that Alexandrians were (theoretically) exempt from being scourged with whips, the Roman magistrate states that the prisoners will be flogged, but that the law (on exemption from flogging) will not be abandoned. In col.ii one of the men defends his actions. He has been away, and did not know the terms of 'the edict'. He was actually about to send a petition about the 'uncultured' men (the Jews?). Col.iii is more enigmatic. Someone, or some people, are about to be crucified, and has promised to bring 'the other weavers' into a state of disaffection. The text breaks off with the revelation that magistrates are being held in 'the (Alexandrian) citadel', possibly the summit where the Serapeum stood. The dramatic context is very unclear. The scene is clearly Alexandria, and the trial was, if historical, probably occasioned by Graeco-Jewish violence (polemos). The dramatic setting is therefore likely to be in AD 38, 66 or even during the Jewish revolt, given the margin of error for dating literary papyri. Philo states that Flaccus tortured Jews in the theatre before crucifying them in AD 38.16 However, the Ada Alexandrinorum stories concerning the Jewish revolt mention that a special judge was despatched to Alexandria to pass judgement on the Alexandrians and their slaves who were involved in anti-Jewish violence. I have suggested earlier (p.88-9) that the slaves may have suffered crucifixion on this occasion, which would make the aftermath of the Jewish revolt in Alexandria a very plausible dramatic setting for this trial. 14. P.Oxy. XXXIV 2690, from third-century century AD Oxyrhynchus, preserves only the extreme line-endings of one column and the line-beginnings of a second. The text appears to concern a speech before the imperial court, the subject of which is the impeachment of a Roman official. The edpr. has plausibly restored col. ii as a speech of an emperor.

'5 Beheading was a common form of execution under the Principate - see Garnsey 1970: 124 n.2. '6 Philo Flacc. 84-5.

272 The Roman official on trial would appear to be the prefect of Egypt. While the edpr. translated 'hegemon' in col. ii.2 as 'leader', the word is frequently used in the

Acta Alexandrinorum literature to refer to the prefect.' 7 The prefect is said to be a friend of the emperor, presumably by the prosecutors (cf. col. i.3 - 'your friend'), and much of the emperor's speech is concerned with proving that he will take no account of their friendship during the trial. Cal. ii begins with the statement that the.prefect believed he had found in the emperor a friendly judge. But the emperor firmly rebukes this. The position of judges and associates are different. While it is right for an emperor to make gifts of gold, silver, ivoly and land to friends, once a trial is announced, the names of the parties published, advisors summoned, the water-clocks started and speeches begun the emperor is no longer a friend, but a judge. Nothing now matters except truth and justice, and judging whether a person is deserving of pardon or punishment. This text would therefore appear to belong to the group of Acta related stories concerning the prosecution of a Roman prefect by Alexandrian citizens. Unfortunately, there are no hints in the extant section to the identity of the prefect.

15. P.Ryl. 437 is a tiny scrap (10.8 x 6 cm) from the first century AD, preserving ten lines from the middle of a column. It almost certainly involves a trial (cf.

1.5 - krisis). There are mentions of someone deriving profit, people 'doing wrong' or 'being rogues' (KaKoTroLa) and something that is 'unprofitable' (iipaKToc). There is also a reference to someone coming 'to the ship'. The blank line in line two is possibly due to the name of a speaker being inserted at the beginning of the line, recalling the layout of CPJII 156c and P.Schub. 42. Ultimately there is not enough of the text remaining to conclude that the text is definitely an Ada Alexandrinorum. If it were then the accusations levelled would be consistent with accusations of corruption against a Roman official. 16. Musurillo suggested that SB XIV 11915, a small fragment (5.5 x 5.5 cm) of the early second century AD referred to the violence in Alexandria in the Hadrianic

period.' 8 However, the text has since been revised with new readings that would suggest that it is actually part of a petition rather than an example of the Ada Alexandrinorum.'9

17 E.g.Acta XXI L6; P.Mil.VogI. 1147 iii. 17; P.Giss.Lit. 4.7 fr. a 1.5. ' 8 Musurillo 1963/4: 16-9; 1964: 147-9. ' 9 Parássoglou 1976: 56-8.

273 Bibliography.

Abbott, F., and Johnson, A., MunicipalAdministration in the Roman Empire, New York, 1926. Alcock, S., Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece, Cambridge, 1993. Alexander, P., 'Letters and speeches of the emperor Hadrian', HSCP 49 (1938) 141- 77. Alon, G., The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 G.E.) I-il, Jerusalem, 1984. Aiston, R., Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History, London, 1995. Ameling, W., 'Augustus und Agrippa. Bemerkung zu PKO1n VI 249', Chiron 24 (1994) 1-28. Amelotti, M., and Migliardi, L., 'Nerone agli Alessandrini', SDHI 36 (1970) 4 10-18. Anderson, G., Ancient Fiction: The Novel in the Graeco-Roman World, London, 984. Philostratus: Biography and Belles Letires in the Third Century A.D., London, 1986. The Second Sophistic: A Guttural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire, London, 1993. Andrewes, A., 'Lysias and the Theramenes papyrus', ZPE 6 (1970) 35-8. Applebaum, S., Jews and Greeks in Ancient Gyrene, Leiden, 1979. Aune, D., The New Testament in its Literary Environment, Philadelphia, 1987. Avi-Yonah, M., Geschichte der Juden im Zeitalter des Talmud in der Tagen von Rom undByzanz, Berlin, 1962.

Bagnal, R., 'I papyri e la storia', in (ed.) Cavalla, E., Crisci, G., Misseri, G., Pintaudi, R., Scrivere Libri e Documenti net MondoAntico, Florence (1998) 55-66. Egypt in Late Antiquity, Princeton, 1993. Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History, London, 1995. Balconi, C., 'La prefettura d'Egitto di C. Galerius', Atti delXVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia III, Naples (1984) 1099-1105. 'Rabirio Postumo dioiketes d'Egitto in P.Med. mv. 68.53?', Aegyptus 73 (1993) 3-20. 'Rabirio Postumo dioiketes d'Egitto: Prima testimonianza papiracea',

274 2()th Proceedings of the International Congress of Papyrologisis, Copenhagen (1994) 219-222. Baldwin, B., 'The ada diurna', Chiron 9 (1979) 189-203. Baisdon, J., 'Notes concerning the Principate of Gaius', iRS 24 (1934) 13-24. Bammel, E., The trial ofJesus, London, 1970. 'The titulus', in (ed.) Bammel, E., and Moule, C., Jesus and the Politics of his Day, Cambridge (1984) 353-64. 'The trial before Pilate', in (ed.) Bammel, E., and Moule, C., Jesus and the Politics of his Day, Cambridge (1984) 415-51. Baras, Z., 'The Testimonium Flavianum and the martyrdom of James', in (ed.) Feldman, L., and Hata, G., Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, Leiden (1987) 338-48. Barclay, J., Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-i 17 CE), Edinburgh, 1996. 'Josephus v. Apion: Analysis of an argument', in (ed.) Mason, S., Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, (Journalfor the Study of Pseudepigrapha supplement series 32), Sheffield academic press (1998) 194- 221. Barigazzi, A., 'Favorino di Arelate', ANRWII 34.1(1993) 556-81. Barnard, L., 'St. Mark and Alexandria', Han'. Theol. Rev. 57 (1964) 145-50. Barnes, T., 'Legislation against the Christians', JRS 58 (1968) 32-50. 'Imperial campaigns AD 285-3 ii', Phoenix 30(1976)174-93. 'Trajan and the Jews', JJS 40 (1989) 145-62. 'Emperors on the move', JRA 2(1989)247-61. Barns, J., Review of P.Oxy. XXII, JHS 76 (1956) 119-20. Review ofP.Oxy. XXV, illS 81(1961)179-80. 'A letter of Severus Alexander', JEA 52 (1966) 14 1-6. Barraclough, R., 'Philo's politics. Roman rule and Hellenistic Judaism', ANRWH 21.1 (1984) 417-553. Barrett, A., Caligula: The Corruption of Power, London, 1989. Barrow, R., Plutarch and his Times, London, 1967. Barry, W., 'Aristocrats, orators and the "mob": Dio Chrysostom and the world of the Alexandrians', Historia 42 (1993) 82-103. Barzanô, A., 'Cheremone di Alessandria', ANRWII 32.3 (1985) 198 1-2001.

275 'Tiberio Giuiio Alessandro, Prefetto d'Egitto (66/70)', ANRWII 10.1 (1988) 5 18-80. Bastianini, G., 'Lista dei prefetti d'Egitto dali 30a at 299", ZPE 17 (1975) 263-328. 'La maledizione di Artemisia (UPZ I 1): un Trperr6KoXXov', Tyche 2 (1987) 1- 3. 'Ii prefetto d'egitto (30 a.C. - 297 d.C.): Addenda (1973-1985)', ANRWII 10.1 (1988), 503-17. Bauer, A., 'Heidnische Martyrerakten', APF 1 (1901) 29-47. Bauckham, R., 'The Acts of Paul as a sequel to Acts', in (ed.) Winter, B., and Clarke, A., The Book ofActs in its Ancient Literary Setting, (The Book ofActs in its First Century Setting I), Carlisle (1993) 105-52. Bauman, R., Lawyers and Politics in the Early Roman Empire: A Study ofRelations Between the Roman Jurists and the Emperors from Augustus to Hadrian, Munich, 1989. Beard, M., 'Writing and ritual: A study of diversity and expansion in the ArvalActa', PBSR 53 (1985) 114-62. Behr, C., Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales, Amsterdam, 1968. P.AeliusAristides: The Complete Works I-il, Leiden, 198 1-6. Bell, H., Jews and Christians in Egypt: The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy, (P.Lond Vi), Oxford, 1924. Juden und Griechen im rOmischen Alexandreia: Eine historische Skizze des alexandrinischen Antisemitismus, (Beihefte zum Alten Orient, heft 9), Leipzig, 1926. 'A new fragment of the Ada Isidori', APF 10 (1932) 5-16. 'The problem of the Alexandrian senate', Aegyptus 12 (1932) 173-84. 'More Pagan 'Acts of the Martyrs', CR 54 (1940) 48-9. 'Anti-semitism in Alexandria', JRS 31(1941)1-18. 'The ConstitutloAntoniniana and the Egyptian Poll tax', JRS 37 (1947) 17-23. 'A note on P.S.I. 1160', JEA 35 (1949) 167-69. 'The Acts of the Alexandrines', JJP 4 (1950) 19-42. Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt, Liverpool, 1954. Bell, H., and Skeat, T., Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri, London, 1935. BenoIt, P., and Schwartz, J., 'Caracalla et les troubles d'Alexandrie en 215 après J.-

276 C.', Et de Pap. 7 (1949) 17-33. Bernand A., and E., Les inscriptions du Colosse de Memnon, Paris, 1960. Bickerman, E., 'The date of Fourth Maccabees', Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, New York (1945) 105-112, (rev.) in (ed.) Bickerman, E., Studies in Jewish and Christian History I, Leiden (1976) 275-8 1. Bingen, J., Review of Musunilo 1957: 185-90, Chron. d'E 33 (1958) 279-80. Review of Traversa 1969: 718-25, Chron. d'E44 (1969) 151-2. Birley, A., Marcus Aurelius: A Biography, (2 edn.) London, 1987. The African Emperor, Septimius Severus, (2 edn.) London, 1988. Hadrian: The Restless Emperor, London, 1997. Bisbee, G., Pre-Decian Acts ofMartyrs and Commentarli, Philadelphia, 1988. Biscardi, A., 'Polls, politeia, politeuma' , Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Naples (1984) 1201-15. BjOrck, G., '?iç àii' aL3voç', Eranos 46(1948) 72-4. Boer, W., 'Trajan's deification and Hadrian's succession', Anc. Soc. 6 (1975) 203- 212. Bollansée, J., 'P.Fay. 19, Hadrian's memoirs, and imperial epistolary autobiography', Anc. Soc. 25 (1994) 279-302. Bond, H., Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, Cambridge, 1998. Bowersock, G., 'Augustus on Aegina', CQ 14 (1964) 120-1. 'C.Marcius Censorinus, Legatus Caesaris', HSCP 68 (1964) 207-10. Augustus and the Greek World, Oxford, 1965. Greek Sophisis in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1969. 'The annexation and initial garrison of Arabia', ZPE 5 (1970) 37-47. 'Greek intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century A.D.', in (ed.) den Boer, W., Le Culte des Souverains dans l'empire Romain, Entretiens 19, Geneva (1973) 177-2 12. 'The miracle of Memnon', BASP 21(1984) 21-32. 'The mechanics of subversion in the Roman provinces', in Opposition et resistances a l 'empire d 'Auguste a Trajan, (Fondation Hardt pour 1 'étude de l'Antiquité Classique Entretiens tome 33) Geneva (1987) 291-3 17. Martyrdom andRome, Cambridge, 1995. Bowie, E., 'The importance of Sophists', YC1S27 (1982) 29-59. 'Hadrian, Favorinus, and Plutarch', in (ed.) Mossman, J., Plutarch and his

277 intellectual World, London (1997) 1-15. Bowman, A., 'A letter of Avidius Cassius?,' JRS 60(1970) 20-6. The Town Councils of Roman Egypt, Am. Stud. Pap. 11, Toronto, 1971. 'Papyri and Roman imperial history, 1960-75', JRS 66 (1976) 153-73. 'Two notes', BASP 21(1984)33-8. Egypt after the Pharaohs. From Alexander to the Arab Conquest, 332 BC - AD 642, Berkeley, 1986. Bowman, A. and Rathbone, D., 'Cities and Administration in Roman Egypt', JRS 82 (1992) 107-127. Boyarin, D., 'Martyrdom and the making of Christianity and Judaism', Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998) 577-627. Braund, D., 'Berenice in Rome', Historia 33 (1984) 120-3. Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 BC-AD 68, London, 1985. Breitenbach, H., 'Der Michigan-Papyrus 5982 uber Theramenes. Historische Probleme und Autorschafl', HistoriaEinzelschrften 60 (1989) 12 1-135. Brodersen, K., Dionysius von Alexandria: Das Lied von der Welt, Hildersheim, 1994. Browne, G., and Henrichs, A., 'A papyrus of Aristides, Panathenaikos (P.Mich. 6651)',ZPE2(1968) 171-5. Bruce, F., 'Render to Caesar', in (ed.) Bammel, E., and Moule, C., Jesus and the Politics of his Day, Cambridge (1984) 249-63. Brunet, S., 'The date of the first Balbillea at Ephesus', ZPE 117 (1997) 137-8. Brunt, P., 'Charges of provincial maladministration under the early Principate', Historia 10 (1961) 189-227, (repr.) Brunt, P., Roman Imperial Themes, Oxford (1990) 53-95. 'The 'fiscus' and its development', JRS 56 (1966) 75-9 1, (repr.) Brunt, P., Roman Imperial Themes, Oxford (1990) 134-62. 'The administrators of Roman Egypt', JRS 64 (1974) 124-47 (repr.) Brunt, P., Roman Imperial Themes, Oxford (1990) 2 15-54. 'Stoicism and the Principate', PBSR 43 (1975) 7-39. 'The bubble of the Second Sophistic', BICS 39(1994) 25-52. Buraselis, K., 'Zu Caracallas Strafmal3nahmen in Alexandrien (215/6). Die Frage der Leinenweber in P.Giss. 40 II und der .syssitia in Cass.Dio 77(78).22.3', ZPE 108 (1995) 166-88.

278 'Eine Notiz zu Augustus, Caracalla und den syssitia in Cassius Dio 54.2.3 und 77(78).22.3, ZPE 124 (1998) 300. Bureth, P., 'Le préfet d'Egypte (30 ay. J.-C.-297 ap. J. -C.): Etat present de Ia documentation en 1973', ANRWH 10.1 (1988) 472-502. Burr, V., TiberiusJuliusAlexander, Bonn, 1955. Burridge, R., What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, Cambridge, 1992. Butin, J., and Schwartz, J., 'Post Philonis legationem', Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 65 (1985) 127-9.

Cairns, F. 'Epaphroditus, 4aLvlavoKoptoLç and 'Modestus' (Suda € 2004)', ZPE 124 (1999) 2 18-222. Cameron, A., 'The date of Porphyry's KATA XPITIANN', CQ 17 (1967) 3 82-4. Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium, Oxford, 1976. Cameron, R., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts, Philadelphia, 1982. Cazzaniga, I., 'Torbidi giudaici nell'Egitto Romano nd secondo secolo di Cristo: un papiro della R.Università di Milano', Annuaire de 1 'Institut de Philologie et d 'Histoire Orientales et Slaves 5 (1937) 159-67. Charles, R., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English I-il, Oxford, 1913. Charlesworth, J., 'New Testament Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha', ANRWII 25.5 (1988) 3919-3968. Charlesworth, M., Documents illustrating the Reigns of Claudius and Nero, Cambridge, 1939. Chroust, A., 'Xenophon, Polycrites and the 'indictment of Socrates", Classica et Mediaevalia 16 (1955) 1-77. Clarysse, W., 'Literary papyri in documentary

279 66. Coles, R., Geissen, A., Koenen, L., 'Some corrections and notes to P.Fouad.', ZPE 11 (1973) 235-9. Collins, J., 'Sibylline Oracles (second century B.C. - seventh century A.D.): A new translation and introduction', in (ed.) Charlesworth, J., The Old Testament Pseudepi,grapha I: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, London (1983) 317-472. 'The Sibylline Oracles', in Stone, M., (ed.) Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Philadelphia (1984) 357-381. 'The development of the Sibylline Tradition', ANRWII 20.1 (1987) 421-59. 'Seers, the Sibyl and the Potter: Political propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt' in (ed.) Collins, J., Sybils and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism, Leiden (1997) 199-210. Conzelmann, H., Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, (2nd edn.), Philadelphia, 1987. Cramer, F., Astrology in Roman Law and Politics, Philadelphia, 1954. Crespo, E., 'La carta de Claudio a los Alejandrinos>> (P.Lond 1912): Un tipo de koiné en el Egipto de época de Claudio', Minerva 2 (1988) 213-3 1. Crook, J., 'Titus and Berenice', AJPh 72 (1951) 162-75. Consilium Principis: Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augusus to Diocletian, Cambridge, 1955. Crossan, J., Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contour of Canon, Minneapolis, 1985. The Historical Jesus: the Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, Edinburgh, 199 1. Cureton, W., Spicilegium Syriacum: Containing Remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose and Mara ben Serapion, edited with an English translation and notes, London, 1855.

Daly, L & Suchier,W., Altercatio HadrianiAugusti etEpictetiphilosophi, (Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 24), Illinois, 1939. Daris, S., 'P.Med. inv.275: Framrnento paraletterario?'. ZEE 12 (1973) 237-8. De Blois, L., 'Emperor and empire in the works of Greek-speaking authors of the third century AD', ANRWH 34.4 (1998) 3391-3443.

280 De Jonge, M., 'Jesus' death for others and the deaths of the Maccabean martyrs', in (ed.) Hilhorst, A., et al. Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocrha/ Literature in Honour ofA.F.J. Klijn, Kampen (1988) .142-51. Delehaye, H., Les Passions des Martrys et les Genres Littéraires, Brussels, 1921. Delia, D., 'The population of Roman Alexandria', TAPA 118 (1988) 273-92. Alexandrian Citizenship During the Roman Principate, Atlanta, 1991. Deissmann, A., 'Neuentdeckte Papyrus-Fragmente zur Geschichte des griechischen Judenthums', Theologische Literaturzeitung 23 (1898) 602-6. Derchain, P., and Hubaux, J., 'Vespasien au Sérapéum', Latomus 12 (1953) 38-52. Deubner, L., 'Bemerkung zu einigen Jiterarischen Papyri aus Oxyrhynchos', Sitzungsberichte der Heidelburg akademie der Wissenschafien phi/os. -histor. Klasse 102 (1919) 3-13. DobschUtz, E. von., 'Jews and anti semites in ancient Alexandria', Am. Journ. Theol. 8 (1904) 728-5 5. Downey, G., 'Malalas on the history of Antioch under Severus and Caracalla', TAPA 68 (1937) 141-56. A history ofAntioch in Syria From Seleucus to the Arab conquest, Princeton, 1961. Ancient Antioch: A Condensed Version of a History ofAntioch in Syria From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton, 1963. Droge, A., & Tabor, J., A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Jews and Christians in Antiquity, San Francisco, 1992. Duncan-Jones, R., Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy, Cambridge, 1990. Dyrofi A., 'Caesars anticato und Ciceros Cato', RheinischesMuseumfurPhilologie 63 (1908) 587-604.

Ehrenberg, V., 'Legatus Augusti et Tiberii', Studies presented to David Moore Robinson II, Missouri (1953) 938-44. Ehrenberg, V., and Jones, A., Documents Illustrating the Reigns ofAugustus and Tiberius, (eni., ed., repr. with addenda added by Stockton, D.), Oxford, 1976. El-Abbadi, M., 'The gerousia in Roman Egypt', JEA 50(1964)164-9. Elliott, J., The Apociyphal New Testament, Oxford, 1993.

Favuzzi, A., 'Ancora su Caracalla e i syssitia degli Alessandrini', ZPE 121 (1998)

281 25 1-6. Feldman, L., and Reinhold, M. (ed.), Jewish Lfe and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings, Edinburgh, 1996. Finkeistein, L., Ak/ba) Scholar, Saint and Martyr, Philadelphia, 1962. Fishwick, D., Review of Weingartner 1969, iRS 63 (1973) 255-6. Fitton, J., 'Domitian and Saint John in Malalas', Byzantion 44(1974)193-4. Forte, B., Rome and the Romans as the Greeks Saw Them, (Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 24), 1972. Frankfurter, D., 'Lest Egypt's city be deserted: Religion and ideology in the Egyptian response to the Jewish revolt (116-117 CE.)', ifS 43 (1992) 203-220. Fraser, P., 'The Alexandrian view of Rome', BSAA 42 (1967) 1-16. Plolemaic Alexandria 1-ifi, Oxford, 1972. Frede, M., 'Chaeremon der Stoiker', ANRWII.36.3 (1989) 2067-2 103. Freedman, D., (ed.) The Anchor Bible Dictionary 1-VI, New York, 1992. Frisch, P., 'Nemeseia und Barbilleia in Smyrna', ZPE 15 (1974) 162. Frisk, H., 'Vier Papyri aus der Berliner-Sammlung', Aegyptus 9 (1928) 281-95. Fuks, A., 'The Jewish revolt in Egypt (A.D. 115-7) in light of the papyri', Aegyptus 33 (1953) 13 1-58. 'Aspects of the Jewish revolt in A.D. 115-117', iRS 51 (1961) 98-104.

Gallazzi, C., 'La "cantina dei papiri" di Tebtynis e ció che essa conteneva', ZPE 80 (1990) 283-8. Garnsey, P., Social Status and Legal Privileges in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1970. Gauger, J. -D., 'Phiegon von Tralleis, mirab. Ill. Zu einem Dokument geistigen Widerstandes gegen Rom', Chiron 10 (1980) 225-6 1. Geagan, D., 'Roman Athens: Some aspects of life and culture 186 B.C.-A.D. 267', ANRWII7.1 (1979) 371-437. Geffcken, J., 'Die Christlichen Martyrien', Hennes 45 (1910) 48 1-505. Gero, S., 'Apocryphal Gospels: A survey of textual and literary problems', ANRWII 25.5 (1988) 3969-3996. Gerstinger, H., 'Neue Texte aus der Sammiung Papyrus Erzberzog Rainer in Wien', Anzeiger 95 (1958) 19 1-202. Gilliam, J., 'The plague under Marcus Aurelius', AJPh 82 (1961) 225-5 1. 'Valerius Titianus', Mnemosyne ser.IV 17(1964)293-9.

282 'An Egyptian cohort in AD 117', Historia-Augusta-Colloquium Bonn 1964/5, Bonn (1966) 91-7. Goar, R., The legend of Cab Uticensis from the First Century B. C. to the F/ih CenturyA.D., Brussels, 1987. Goodenough, E., 'Philo and public life', JEA 12 (1926) 77-9. Grabbe, L., Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian volume II: The Roman period, Minneapolis, 1992. Grant, M., The Jews in the Roman World, London, 1973. Grant, R., The Formation of the New Testament, London, 1965. Greek Apologists of the Second Century, SCM, 1988. Gray, E., 'The imperium of M. Agrippa. A note on P.Colon. inv.nr . 4701', ZPE 6 (1970) 227-38. Griffin, M., 'Philosophy, Cato and Roman suicide', Greece andRome 33 (1986) 64- 77, 192-202. 'The Senate's story', JRS 87 (1997) 249-63.

Grocholl, E.-M., 'cSo'1TEp v Svad TóXecT€u' KaToiKovTaç: Anmerkung zu CPJ II 153.90 f, ZPE 89(1991) 75-6. Gronewald, M., 'Em neues Fragment der Laudatio Funebris des Augustus auf Agrippa', ZPE 52 (1983) 6 1-2. 'Menander, Epitrepontes: Neue Fragmente aus Akt ifi und IV', ZPE 66(1986) 1-13. Grosso, F., La Lotta Politica al Tempo di Commodo, Torino, 1964.

Haas, C., Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict, London, 1997. Habermann, W., 'Zur chronologischen Verteilung der papyrologischen Zeugnisse', ZPE 122 (1998) 144-60. Haelst, J. van, Catalogue des Papyrus Littéraires Jufs et Chrétiens, Paris, 1976. Haensch, R., 'Das Statthalterarchiv', Zeitschrfl der Savigny-Sty'l'ungfiir Rechtsgeschichte 109 (1992) 209-317. Halfmann, H., Itinera Principum: Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Romischen Riech, Stuttgart, 1986. Hannestad, K., 'Septimius Severus in Egypt. A contribution to the chronology of the years 198-202', Classica etMediaevalia 6 (1944) 194-222.

283 Hansen, W., (ed.), Phiegon of Tralles 'Book ofMarvels, Exeter, 1996. Hanson, A., 'Documents from Philadelphia drawn from the census register', Actes dii Xve Congrès International de Papyrologie H, Brussels (1979) 60-74. 'Caligulan month-names at Philadelphia and related matters', Atti delXVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia HI, Naples (1984) 1107-1118. 'The keeping of records at Philadelphia in the Julio-Claudian period and the "economic crisis" under Nero', Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress ofpapyrology II, Athens (1988) 261-77. 'Village officials at Philadelphia: A model of Romanisation in the Julio- Claudian period', in (ed.) Criscuolo, L., and Geraci, G., Egitto e Storia Antica dall'Ellenismo all'EtàAraba, Bologna, CLUEB (1989) 429-40. Harris, B., 'Stoic and cynic under Vespasian', Prudentia 9 (1977) 105-14. Head, P., 'Acts and the problems of its texts', in (ed.) Winter, B., and Clarke, A., The Book ofActs in its Ancient Literary Setting, (The Book ofActs in its First Century Setting 1), Carlisle (1993) 4 15-44. Heichelheim, F., 'The Greek inscriptions in the Fitzwilliam Museum', JHS 62 (1942) 14-20. Helm, R., Eusebius Werke VII: Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Berlin, 1984. Hengel, M., Crucdlxion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, London, 1977. Hennig, D., 'Zur Agyptenreise des Germanicus', Chiron 2 (1972) 349-65. 'Zu der alexandrinischen Martyrerakte P.Oxy. 1089', Chiron 4 (1974) 425- 40. 'Zu neuverOffentlichen BruckstUcken der xActa Alexandrinorum>>', Chiron 5 (1975) 317-35. Henrichs, A., 'Zur Interpretation des Michigan-Papyrus Uber Theramenes', ZPE 3 (1968) 101-8. 'Vespasian's visit to Alexandria', ZPE 3 (1968) 5 1-80. 'Monumentum aere perennius (zu P.Oxy. 2435)', ZPE 4 (1969) 150. Herr, M., 'The historical significance of the dialogues between Jewish sages and Roman dignitaries', Scripia Hierosolymitana 22 (1971) 123-50. 'Persecution and martyrdom in Hadrian's days', Scripta Hierosolymitana 23, (1972) 85-125.

284 Hithorst, A., 'The Apocryphal Acts as Martyrdom texts: the case of the Acts of Andrew', in (ed.) Bremmer, J., The Apocryphal Acts ofJohn, (Studies on the ApocryphalActs of the Apostles 1), Pharos (1995) 1-14. 'Tertullian on the Acts of Paul', in (ed.) Bremmer, J., The ApocryphalActs of Paul and Thecla, (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles II), Pharos, (1996) 150-63. Hoff, M., 'The early history of the Roman Agora at Athens', in (ed.) Walker, S., and Cameron, A., The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, (ICS bulletin supplement 55), London (1989) 1-8. Hoogendijk, F., and van Minnen, P., 'Drei kaiserbriefe Gordians ifi', Tyche 2 (1987) 41-74. Hopkins, C., 'The date of the trial of Isidorus and Lampon before Claudius: B.G.U. II, 511 and P.Cair. 10448', YC1S 1 (1928) 171-7. Horbuiy, W., 'Christ as brigand in ancient anti-Christian polemic', in (ed.) Bammel, E., and Moule, C., Jesus and the Politics of his Day, Cambridge (1984) 183- 95. Ruzar, E., 'Claudius - the Erudite Emperor', ANRWII 32.1 (1984)611-50. 'Augustus, heir of the Ptolemies', ANRWII 10.1(1988) 343-82. 'Alexandria adAegyptum in the Julio-Claudian age', ANRWII 10.1(1988) 619-68.

Jacobson, H., 'Two notes', AJPh 98 (1977) 413-6. Jackson, S., 'Apollonius and the emperors', Hermathena 137 (1984) 25-32. Jones, B., The Emperor Titus, New York, 1984. Jones, B., and Milns, K, The Use ofDocumentaiy Evidence in the Study ofRoman Imperial History, Sydney, 1984. Jones, C., 'Cicero's Cato', RheinischesMuseumfurPhilologie 113 (1970) 188-96. Plutarch and Rome, Oxford, 1971. 'A new letter of Marcus Aurelius to the Athenians', ZPE 8 (1971) 161-83. 'The date of Dio of Prusa's Alexandrian Oration', Historia 22 (1973) 302-9. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, Cambridge, 1978. 'Egypt and Judea under Vespasian', Historia 46 (1997) 249-53. Jones, H., 'Claudius and the Jewish question at Alexandria', JRS 16 (1926) 17-35. Jouguet, P., 'Vespasien acciamé dans l'hippodrome d'Alexandrie', Mélanges de

285 Philologie, de Littérature et d 'Histoire Anciennes Offerts a A.Ernout, Pans (1940) 201-10. Józefowicz-Dzielska, M., 'La participation du milieu d'Alexandrie a la discussion sur l'idéal du souverain dans les deux premiers siècles de l'Empire Romain', Eos 44 (1976) 43-58. Junod, E and Kaestli, J., Acta Johannis: Textus, Alii, Commentarius, Indices, (Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum 2), Turnhout, 1983. Juster, J., LesJufs clans l'Empire Romain I-H, Paris, 1914.

Kannengiesser, C., 'Athanasius of Alexandria vs. Anus: The Alexandrian crisis', in (ed.) Pearson, B., and Goehning, J., The Roots ofEgyptian Christianity, Philadelphia (1986) 204-15. Karasszon, I., 'Agrippa, King and Prefect', in (ed.) Bremmer, J., The ApocryphalActs ofPeter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism, Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 3, Peeters (1998) 2 1-8. Karlbfieisch, K., 'Das Rätsel im zweiten Erlass des Germanicus', Hermes 77 (1942) 374-6. Kasher, A., 'The Jewish attitude to the Alexandrian Gymnasium in the first century', AJAH 1(1976)148-61. 'Some comments on the Jewish uprising in Egypt in the time of Trajan', ifS 27 (1976) 147-58. 'The Jewish community of Oxyrhynchus in the Roman period', JJS 32 (1981) 150-7. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights, TUbingen, 1985. Katzoff, K., 'Precedents in the courts of Roman Egypt', Zeitschrfl der Savigny- StftungfurRechtsgeschichte 89 (1972) 256-292. Kayser, F., Recueil des Inscriptions Grecques et Latines (non funeraires) d'Alexandrie Impériale (ler-IlIer s apr. J.-C.), Cairo, 1994. Keppie, L., 'The history and disappearance of the legion XXII Deiotariana', in (ed.) Kasher, A., Rappaport, U., Fuks, G., Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays, Jeruslaem (1990) 54-61. Keresztes, P., 'The Jews, the Christians and emperor Domitian', Vig. Chr 27 (1973) 1-28.

286 Kindstrand, J., 'The date of Dio of Prusa's Alexandrian Oration - a reply', Historia 27 (1978) 378-83. 'Demetrius the Cynic', Philologus 124 (1980) 83-98. Klijn, A., 'Jewish Christianity in Egypt', in (ed.) Pearson, B., and Goehring, J., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, Philadelphia (1986) 161-75. Knipfing. J., 'The libelli of the Decian persecution', Han'. Theol. Rev. 16 (1923) 345- 90. Koenen, L., 'Die Prophezeiungen des "Topfers", ZPE 2 (1968) 178-209. Review of CPJ H, Gnomon 40(1968)250-9. 'Die Laudatio Funebris des Augustus thr Agrippa aufeinen neuen Papyrus (P.Colon. inv.nr. 4701)', ZPE 5 (1970) 2 17-83. 'Summumfastigum. Zu der Laudatio Funebris des Augustus (P.Colon. inv.nr. 4701, 11ff.)', ZPE 6 (1970) 239-43. 'The prophecies of a Potter: A prophecy of world renewal becomes an apocalypse', Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology, (Am. Stud. Pap. 7), Toronto (1970) 249-54. 'A supplementary note on the date of the Oracle of the Potter', ZPE 54 (1984) 9-13. Korte, A., 'Litera.rische Texte mit Ausschlul3 der Cliristlichen', AFF 7 (1924) 225-5 8. 'Literarische Texte mit Ausschlul3 der Christlichen', APF 8 (1927) 25 1-72. 'Literarische Texte mit AusschluB der Christlichen', APF 13 (1939) 78-132. KOrtenbeutel, H., 'Em Kodizill eines rOmischen Kaisers', Abhandlungen der Preufiischen Akademie der Wissenschafien Jahrgang 1939 Philosophisch- historische Kiasse nr. 13, Berlin, 1940. Kraus Reggiani, C., 'I rapporti tra l'impero romano e ii mondo ebraico al tempo di Caligola secondo la 'Legatio ad Gaium"di Filone Alessandrino', ANRWII 21.1 (1984)554-86. Kuhn, H., 'Die kreuzesstrafe während der frUhen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums', ANRWH 25.1 (1982) 648-793.

Lampe, G., 'The trial of Jesus in the Ada Pilati' , in (ed.) Bammel, E., and Moule, C., Jesus and the Politics of his Day, Cambridge (1984) 173-82. Lebek, W., 'Em Hymnus aufAntinoos (C.Mitford, The Inscriptions of Kourion no.104)', ZPE 12(1973)101-37.

287 Lee, G., 'Eusebius on St.Mark and the beginnings of Christianity in Egypt', St.Patr. 12(1975)422-31. Légasse, S., The Trial of Jesus, (tr. Bowden, J.), London, 1997. Levenson, J., The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacr/Ice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven, 1993. Levick, B., The Government of the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook, London, 1985. Claudius, London, 1990. Levine, L., Caesarea under Roman rule, Leiden, 1975. Levinskaya, I., The Book ofActs in its Diaspora Setting, (The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting 5), Carlisle 1996. Lewis, N., 'Greek literary papyri from the Strassbourg collection', Et. de Pap. 3 (1936) 46-92. 'The non-scholar members of the Alexandrian Museum', Mnemosyne ser.iv 16 (1963) 257-61. 'A fragment of a Severan constitution' BASP 6 (1969) 17-9. Papyrus in ClassicalAntiquity, Oxford, 1974. 'The Severan edict of P.Mich. 1X 529', C/iron. d'E 50 (1975) 202-6. 'P.Oxy. 2820: Whose preparations?' GRBS 16 (1975) 295-303. 'The Michigan-Berlin Apokrima', C/iron. d'E 51(1976) 320-30. 'The imperial apokrima', RJDA3 25 (1978) 26 1-78. 'When did Septimius Severus reach Egypt?' Historia 28 (1979) 253-4. 'Further thoughts on the Michigan-Berlin apokrima', in (ed.) Pintaudi, R., Miscellanea Papyrologica, (Pap.Flor. 7), Florence (1980) 127-33. The Compulsory Public Services ofRoman Egypt, (Pap.Flor. 11), Florence, 1982. 'The Michigan-Berlin Apokrima: Iterata invita', APF 33 (1987) 49-53. 'Hadriani sententiae' GRBS 32 (1991) 267-80. 'Local provisioning of official visits', BASP 30 (1993) 29. Lewis, N., and Stephens, S., 'Six fragments from the Yale collection', ZPE 88 (1991) 169-76. Lieberman, S., 'The martyrs of Caesarea', Annuaire de / 'Instilut de Philologie et d 'Histoire Orientales et Slaves 7 (1939/44) 395-446. 'Roman legal institutions in early Rabbinics and in the acta martyrium', Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 35 (1944-5) 1-57.

288 Limongo, D., 'La diffusione dei Vangelli in Egitto (secc.I-VIII): Osservazione sul Vangelo secondo Marco', Anal.Pap. 7 (1995) 49-62. Lloyd-Jones, H., and Parsons, P., Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin, 1983. Loewe, R., 'A Jewish counterpart of the Acts of the Alexandrines', JJS 12 (1961) 105-21. Lopez Garcia, A., 'PL11.Palau Rib 18: Martyrium Pauli, 118-22', ZPE 110 (1996) 132. 'Corrigenda zu Band 110 (1996), s.132 (PLit.Palau Rib. 18)', ZPE 112 (1996) 202. LUderitz, G., 'What is the Politeuma?' in (ed.) Willem van Henten, J., and Willem van der Horst, P., Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, Leiden (1994) 183-225. Corpus judischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaika, Wiesbaden, 1983: Lukaszewicz, A., 'Alexandrie sous les Sévères et l'historiographie', in (ed.) Criscuolo, L., and Geraci, G., Egitto e Storia Antica dall 'Ellenismo all 'Eta Araba, Bologna, CLUES (1989) 491-6. 'Quelques remarques sur l'expulsion des Aigyptiol d'Alexandrie', Symposion 1988: Vortrage zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, Cologne (1990) 34 1-7. 'Some Berlin papyri reconsidered', ZPE 82 (1990) 129-132. 'Antoninus the KOPT4O: (Note on P.Ory. XLVI 3298.2)', JJP 22 (1992) 43-6. 'Alexandrie Romaine: Quelques aspects du commerce a la lumière des documents', JJP 23 (1993) 105-113. 'Theocritus the dancer', Proceedings of the 2Oh1 International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen (1994) 5 66-8. 'Remarques sur les rapports entre les elites urbaines de l'Egypte et la dynastie des Sévères', JJP 24 (1994) 87-95.

MacMullen, R., 'Nationalism in Roman Egypt', Aegyptus 44 (1964) 179-199. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest andAlienation in the Empire, Cambridge, 1966. Maehler, H., 'Egypt under the last Ptolemies', BICS 30 (1983) 1-16. Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the end of the Third Century after Christ I-H, Princeton, 1950.

289 Manteuffel, J., De Opusculis Graecis Aegypti et Papyris, Ostracis Lapidibusque Collectis, Warsaw, 1930. Marlowe, J., The Golden Age ofAlexandria, London, 1971. Marx, F., 'Tacitus und die Literatur der exitus illustriorum virorum', Philologus 92 (1937) 83-103. McCrum, M., and Woodhead, A., Select Documents of the Principates of the Flay/an Emperors, Cambridge, 1961. Meier, J., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, New York, 1991. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, J., 'Le procès d'Isidôrus: droit, penal et aifrontements ideologiques entre Rome et Alexandrie sous l'empereur Claude', Praktika tês AkadêmiasAthênôn 61(1986)245-75. 'Trajan et les juifs. Propagande alexandrine et contre-propagande rabbinique', Problèmes d 'histoire du christian/sine 17, Brussels (1988) 7-31. The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, (tr. Cornman, R.), Edinburgh 1995. Merkelbach, R., 'Literarische Texte unter Ausschlul3 der christlichen', APF 16 (1958) 82-129. 'Commodus war kein eiryvç: zu den Acta Alexandrinorum XI Musurillo = Pap. Oxy. I 33:ActaAppiani', ZPE 100 (1994) 471-2. Merkelbach, R., & Youtie, H., 'Em Michigan-Papyrus Uber Theramenes', ZPE 2 (1968) 161-9. Mertens, P., 'La damnatio memoriae de Géta dans les papyrus', Hommages a Leon Herr,nann, (Collection Lalomus 64), Brussels (1960) 541-52. Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio, Oxford, 1964. 'Epictetus and the imperial court', JRS 55 (1965) 141-8. The Emperor in the Roman World, Ithaca, 1977. Miller, M., 'A new record of Titus' return to Alexandria after the sack of Jerusalem (April 25 A.D. 71), Ancient World 1(1978) 137-40. Mime, H., Catalogue of the Literaiy Papyri in the British Museum, London, 1927. 'Papyri of Dio Chrysostom and Menander', .JEA 16 (1930) 187-93. Minnen, P. van., 'House to house enquiries: An interdisciplinary approach to Roman Karanis', ZPE 100 (1994) 227-5 1. 'Boorish or bookish? Literature in Egyptian villages in the Fayum in the Graeco-Roman period', JJP 28 (1998) 99-184.

290 Minnen, P. van., and Worp, K., 'The Greek and Latin literary texts from Hermopolis', GRBS34 ( 1993) 151-86. Moehring, H., 'The Ac/a pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus: A study in Hellenistic and modem apologetic historiography', in (ed.) Neusner, J., Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studiesfor Morton Smith at Sixty III, Leiden, (1975) 124-58. Montevecchi, 0., 'Nerone a una polis e ai 6,475', Aegyptus 50 (1970) 5-33. 'Vespasiano acclamatio dagli Alessandrini: Ancora su P.Fouad 8', Aegyptus 61(1981)155-70. 'Ii significato delI'età neroniana secondo i papiri greci d'Egitto', in Neroniana 1977, Actes du 2e Colloque de la Société Internationale d'Etudes Néroniennes, Adosa (1982) 4 1-54. 'L'amministrazione dell'Egitto sotto i Giulio-Claudio', ANRWII 10.1(1988) 412-471. Lapapirologia (2nd edn.), Milan, 1988. Montevecchi, 0., and Geraci, G., 'Documenta papyracea inedita ad Neronis atque Othonis principatus pertinentia in papyris Mediolanensibus reperta', A/c/en des XIII Internationalen Papyrologen/congresses, Marburg/Lahn 2-6August 1971, Munich (1974) 293-307. Mor, M., 'Two legions - the same fate? (The disappearance of the legions JX Hispania and XXII Deiotariana)', ZPE 62 (1986) 267-78. Morgan, J., 'On the fringes of the Canon: Work on the fragments of ancient Greek fiction 193 6-94', ANRWII 34.4 (1998) 3293-3390. Moscadi, A., 'Note a PLond. 1912', Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 47 (1975) 236-50. Murray, 0., Review of MacMullen 1966, .JRS 59 (1969) 261-5. Musurillo, H., 'The pagan acts of the Martyrs', Theological Studies 10 (1949) 555-64. The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs: Ac/a Alexand.rinorum. Edited with Commentary, Oxford, 1954. 'A new fragment of the Acta Alexandrinorum', iRS 47(1957) 185-90. Ac/a Alexandrinorum: De Mortibus Alexandriae Nobilium - Fragmenta Papyracea Graeca, Leipzig, 1961. 'Report of Professor H.A. Musurillo, S.J.: P.Atheniensis 58', BASP 1 (196314) 16-9.

291 'P.Athen.58, a new Alexandrian fragment?' C/iron. d'E 39(1964)147-9. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs: Introduction, Texts and Translations, Oxford, 1972. 'Christian and political martyrs in the early Roman Empire: A reconsideration', in (ed.) Pippidi, D., Assimilation etRésistance ala Culture Gréco-Romaine dans le Monde Ancien, (Travaux du Vie Congrès International d'Etudes Classiques, Madrid, Septembre 1974), Paris, (1976) 333-42. Musurillo, H. and Parássoglou, G., 'A new fragment of the Acta Alexandrinorum', ZPE 15 (1974) 1-7.

Neppi Modona, A., 'Protocolli giudiziarI o romanzo storico? (I cosI detti <>)', Raccolta di Scritti in Onoro di Giacomo Lumbrusco, (Aegyptus via Borgonu ovo 25), Milan (1925) 407-38. 'Ii nuovo frammento berlinese degli <> (P.8877)', Aegyptus 12 (1932) 17-24. Nock, A., 'Deification and Julian', JRS 47 (1957) 115-23.

Norsa, M., and Vitelli, G., 'Resoconto di una 7TpEcrELa di Alessandnini ad Augusto', BSAA 25 (1930) 9-12. 'Sul papinio della I3ouXli d'Alessandnini', BSAA 27 (1932) 1-16. Nutton, V., 'The beneficial ideology', in (ed.) Garnsey, P., and Whittaker, C., imperialism in the Ancient World, Cambridge (1978) 209-221.

O'Callaghan, J., 'Dos nuevos textos anónimos (P.Palau Rib. inv.25 y 350), Aegyptus 70 (1990) 53-5. Oldfather, W., 'Socrates in court', Classical Weekly 31(1938) 203-11. Oliver, J., 'The i3ouXi papynis',Aegjq.itus 11(1931)161-68. The Ruling Power: A Study of the Roman Empire in the Second Century after Christ through the Roman Oration ofAelius Aristides, TAPS n. s. 43 (1953) 871-1003. 'On the edict of Germanicus declining divine acciamations', Rivista Storica dell'Antichigà 1(1971) 229-30. 'Minutes of a trial conducted by Caracalla at Antioch in AD 216', Mélanges Offertsa Georges Daux, Paris (1974) 289-94.

292 'A parallel for the Tabula Banasitana', AJPh 97 (1976) 3 70-2. 'The Michigan-Berlin Apokrima', ZPE31 (1978) 139-40. 'The Monodesmia response of Caracalla', ZPE 42 (1981) 133-6. Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri, Philadelphia, 1989. Oost, S., 'The Alexandrian seditions under Philip and Gallienus', CPh 56 (1961) 1- 20.

Pack, R., 'Two sophists and two Emperors', CPu 42 (1947) 17-20. The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt, (2nd edn., rev. and eni.), Ann Arbor, 1965. Parássoglou, G., 'Miscellaneous notes on some P.S.A. A/hen' , Hellenika 29 (1976) 47-60. Parsons, P., 'A proclamation of Vaballathus?', Chron. d'E 42 (1967) 397-401. 'Philippus Arabs and Egypt', JRS 57(1967)134-41. 'M.Aurelius Zeno Januarienus', Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology, (Am. Stud Pap. 7), Toronto (1970) 3 89-97. Pearson, B., 'Earliest Christianity in Egypt: Some observations', in (ed.) Pearson, B., and Goehring, I., The Roots ofEgyptian Christianity, Philadelphia (1986) 132- 59. Pernigotti, S., & Capasso, M., Bakchias, una Cittâ delDesserto Egiziano che Torna a Vivere, Naples, 1994. Pervo, R., 'Early Christian fiction', in (ed.) Morgan, J., and Stoneman, R., Greek Fiction: The Greek Novel in Context, London (1994) 239-54. Pflaum, H., Les Carrières Procuratoriennes Equestres sous le Haut-Empire Romain 1-ifi, Paris 1960-1. Phillips, E., 'Three Greek writers on the Roman Empire', Classica etMediaevalia 18 (1957) 102-119. Pobee, J., Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul, (Journal for the Study of the New Testament supplement series 6), Sheffield, 1985. Poethke, G., 'Vom Papyrus zum Papier', DasAltertum 13 (1967) 146-64. Porter, S., 'The Greek Apocryphal Gospels Papyri: The need for a critical edition', Ak/en des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin 1995, (Archiv furPapyrusforschung, Beiheft 3), Leipzig (1997) 795-803.

293 Post, L., 'A new reading of the Germanicus papyrus', AJPh 65 (1944) 80-2. Potter, D., Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: A Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, Oxford, 1990. Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius, Cambridge, 1994. Powell, J., The Evolution of the Gospel, London, 1994. Premerstein, A. von, 'Alexandrinisch und jUdische Gestandte vor Kaiser Hadrian', Hermes 57 (1922) 266-3 16. 'Zu den sogenannten alexandrinischen Martyrerakten', Philologus, Supplementband 16, Heft 2, Leipzig, 1923. 'Das Datum des Prozesses des Isidorus in den sogenannten heidnischen Martyrerakten', Hermes 67 (1932) 174-96. Review of Uxkull-Gyllenband 1930: 664-679, Gnomon 8 (1932) 201-6. 'Alexandrinische Geronten vor Kaiser Gaius: Em neues BruchstUck der sogenannten Alexandrinischen MartyrerAkten', (P.Giss. Univ. V 46), Giessen, 1939 (repr. Milan, 1973). Pucci, M., 'Alexandria ad Aegyptum: 117-1 19 A.D.', Scrip/a Classicalsraelica 5 (1979-80) 195-205. La Rivolta Ebraica al Tempo di Traiano, Pisa, 1981. 'La nvolta ebraica in Egitto (115-17 d.C.) nella storiografia antica', Aegyptus 62 (1982) 198-202. 'C.PJ. 11158, 435 e la rivolta ebraica at tempo di Traiano', ZPE 51(1983) 95- 104. 'CPJII, pap.n. 158, pap.n. 435 e la rivolta ebraica al tempo di Traiano', At/i delXVllCongresso Internazionale dipapirologia Ill, Naples (1984) 1119- 1123. 'Greek attacks against Alexandrian Jews during emperor Trajan' s reign', Journal for the Study ofJudaism 20 (1989) 31 -48. 'New perspectives on the Jewish-Greek hostilities in Alexandria during the reign of emperor Caligula', Journalfor the Study ofJudaism 21(1990)227- 235.

Questa, C., 'Sul Pap.Oxy. 2435', Rivis/a di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 3 (1961) 126-7.

294 Quet, M., 'L'inscription de Vérone en l'honneur d'Aelius Aristides et Ic rayonnement de la seconde sophistique chez les 'Grecs d'Egypte', Revue des Etudes Anciennes 94 (1992) 379-401.

Raaflaub, K., and Salmons, L., 'Opposition to Augustus', in (ed.) Raaflaub, K., and Toher, M., Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations ofAugustus and his Principate, London (1990) 4 17-54. Rajak, T., Josephus: The Historian and his Society, London, 1983. 'Was there a Roman charter for the Jews?' iRS 74 (1984) 107-23. 'Jewish rights in the Greek cities under Roman rule: A new approach', in (ed.) Green, W., Approaches to Ancient Judaism V: Studies in Judaism and Its Greco-Roman Context, Atlanta (1985) 19-35. 'The Against Apion and the continuities in Josephus' political thought', in (ed.) Mason, S., Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, (Journalfor the Study of Pseudepigrapha, supplement series 32), Sheffield (1998) 222-46. Rathbone, D., 'The dates of recognition in Egypt of the emperors from Caracalla to Diocletianus', ZPE62 (1986) 101-3 1. 'Egypt, Augustus and Roman taxation', Cahiers dii Centre Gustave-Glotz 4 (1993) 81-1 12. Rea, J., 'A letter of Severus Alexander?' Chron. d'E 42 (1967) 391-6. 'A new version of P.Yale mv. 299', ZPE 27(1977)151-6. 'A letter of the Emperor Elagabalus', ZPE 96 (1993) 127-33. 'A student's letter to his father: P.Oxy. XVIII 2190 revised', ZPE 99 (1993) 75-88. Reinach, T., 'Juifs et Grecs devant un empereur romain', RE.J27 ( 1893) 70-82. 'L'empereur Claude et les Antisémites Alexandrins d'après un nouveau papyrus', REJ31 (1895) 161-78. 'Nouveaux documents aux Juifs d'Egypte', RE.J37 ( 1898) 218-25. Reinmuth, 0., 'The edict of Tiberius Julius Alexander', TAPA 65 (1934) 248-59. Reitzenstein, R., 'Em Stuck hellenistischer Kleinliteratur', Nachrichten von der Gesellschafi der Wissenschaften zu Gottigen, philologisch-historische Kiasse heft i (1904) 326-32. Revillout, E., LesApocryphes Copies, Paris, 1904. (Repr.as Patrologia Orientalis tome H fasc. 2 no.7, Brepolis, 1985.)

295 Rey-Coquais, J., 'Syrie Romaine de Pompée a Dioclétien', JRS 68 (1978) 44-73. Reymond, E., and Barns, J., Four Marlyrdoms from the Pierpoint Morgan Coptic Codices, Oxford, 1973. Reynolds, J., Aphrodisias and Rome, (JRS monographs 1), London, 1982. Richardson, L., A New Topographical Dictionary ofAncient Rome, London, 1992. Ridley, R., 'The fate of an architect; Apollodoros of Damascus', Athenaeum 67 (1989) 551-65. Rives, J., 'The decree ofDecius and the religion of Empire', JRS 89 (1999) 135-154. Roberts, C., 'Titus and Alexandria; A new document', JRS 39 (1949) 79-80. GreekLiterary Hands 350 B.C. —A.D. 400, Oxford, 1955. Rogers, R., 'A group of Domitianic treason trials', CPh 55 (1960) 19-23. Rokeah, D., 'The war of Kitos; Towards the classification of a philological-historical problem', Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972) 79-84. Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, (2nd edn., rev, by Fraser, P.), Oxford, 1957. Roussel, P., and de Visscher, F., 'Les inscriptions du Temple de Dmeir; Le procès devant Caracalla', Syria 23 (1942/3) 173-200. Rowe, A., and Rees, B., 'A contribution to the archaeology of the western desert IV; The great Serapeum of Alexandria', Bull. Rylands Libr. 39 (1956/7) 485-520. Royse, J., 'The Oxyrhynchus papyrus of Philo', BASP 17 (1980) 155-65. Rupprecht, H., Review of the Oxyrhnychus papyri XLVII, Zeitschr/I der Savigny- Stfiungfur Rechtsgeschichte 98 (1981) 401-5. Russell, D., Review of Jones 1971, JRJS' 62 (1972) 226-7. Plutarch, London, 1973. Greek Declamation, Cambridge, 1983.

Salvaterra, C., 'Considerazioni sul progetto di Caligola di visitare Alessandria', in (ed.) Criscuolo, L., and Geraci, G., Egitto e Storia Antica dali 'Ellenisino all'EtàAraba, Bologna, CLUEB (1989) 631-656. Schafer, P., 'Rabbi Aqiva and Bar Kokhba', in (ed.) Green, W., Approaches to Ancient Judaism II, Michigan (1980) 113-130. The History of the Jews in Antiquity: The Jews of Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest, Harvard Academic publishers, 1995. Judeophobia: Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World, London, 1997.

296 Schiller, A., 'Sententiae Hadriani de rei militari', Sein und Werden im Recht, Festgabefiir Ulrich von Lübtow, Berlin (1971) 295-306. Schmidt, M., 'Zur Kritik Neros im zehnten Buch der 'Pharsalia' (Lucan.. 10,35sq./89sq.-P.Oxy.Vll 1021,8sqq.)', ZPE 49 (1982) 45-50. Schmitz, T., 'Performing history in the Second Sophistic', in (ccl.) Zimmermann, M., Geschichtsschreibung undpolitischer Wandel im 3.Jh.n.Chr., (Historia Einzelschrften 127), Stuttgart (1999) 7 1-92. Schneider, G., 'The political charges against Jesus (Luke 23:2)', in (ed.) Bammel, E., and Moule, C., Jesus and the Politics of his Day, Cambridge (1984) 403-14. Schubart, W., Einfuhrung in die Papyrusicunde, Berlin, 1918. Review of Musurillo 1954, Gnomon 27(1955)212-3. Schultess, 0., 'Rezensionem und Anzeigen the Oxyrhynchos Papyri I, Wochenschrft für kiassiche Philologie 39 (1899) 1049-58. Schuman, V., 'The income of the office of HpdKTop€ç 'ApyupLKGv of Karanis A.D. 172-3', RASP 12 (1975) 23-66. Schurer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC - AD 135), (ed., tr., rev. Vermes, G., and Millar, F., Edinburgh, 1973-86. Schwartz, D, Agrippa I. The Last King of Judaea, Tubingen, 1990. Schwartz, J., Review of Musurillo 1954, Chron. d'E 30 (1955) 148-53. 'Note sur le séjour de Caracalla en Egypte', Chron. d'E 34 (1959) 120-3. 'Nouveaux aperçus sur l'Egypte au temps de Marc-Aurèle (16 1-80)', Anc. Soc. 4(1973)191-8. L. Domitius Domitianus: Étude Numismatique et Papyrologie, Brussels, 1975. 'Préfets d'Egypte sous Tibére et Caligula', ZPE 48 (1982) 189-192. 'Quelques Réflexions a propos des ActaAlexandrinorum', ZPE 57 (1984) 130-2. 'Vestiges Alexandrins dans quelques Acta Martyrium' , BASP 21(1984)207- 9. 'L'empereur Alexandre Sévère, le SB X 10295 et le P.Fay. 20', ZPE 61 (1985) 122-4. 'Oü a passé la legio XII Delotariana?' ZPE 76 (1989) 101-2. Seeley, D., The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept of Salvation, (Journalfor the study of/he New Testament, supplement series 28), Sheffield, 1990.

297 Shelton, J., 'An astrological prediction of disturbances in Egypt', Anc. Soc. 7 (1976) 209-213. 'A fictitious edict of Caracalla?' ZPE 39 (1980) 179-82. Sherk, R., 'The last two lines of the laudatiofunebris for Agrippa', ZPE 41(1981) 67-9. Rome and the Greek East to the death ofAugustus, (Translated documents of Greece and Rome 4), Cambridge, 1984. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, (Translated documents of Greece and Rome 6), Cambridge, 1988. Sherwin-White, A., Review of Musurillo 1954, .JHS 76 (1956) 145. 'Philo and Avillius Flaccus: a conundrum', Latomus 31(1972) 820-8. 'The Tabula of Banasa and the Constitutio Antoniniana' , JRS 63 (1973) 86- 98. Siani-Davies, M., 'Ptolemy XII Auletes and the Romans', Historia 46 (1997) 306-40. Sidebottom, H., 'The date of Dio of Prusa's Rhodian and Alexandrian Orations', Historia 41(1992) 407-19. Sijpesteijn, P., 'The Legationes ad Gaium', JJS 15 (1964) 87-97. 'A new document concerning Hadrian's visit to Egypt', Historia 18 (1969) 109-18. 'Edict of C. Calvisius Statianus (P.Amsterdam inv.Nr.22)', ZPE 8 (1971) 186- 92. The family of the Tiberii Zulu Theones (P. Theon), (Stud Amst. 5), Amsterdam, 1976. 'More remarks on some imperial titles in the papyri', ZPE 49 (1982) 97-111. 'Another document concerning Hadrian's visit to Egypt', ZPE 89 (1991) 89- 90. Skeat, T., and Wegener, E., 'A trial before the prefect of Egypt Appius Sabinus, c. 250 AD (P.Lond. inv.2565)', JEA 21(1935)224-47. Smallwood, E., 'The chronology of Gaius' attempt to desecrate the Temple', Latomus 16 (1957) 3-17. Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium: Edited with an Introduction, Translation and commentary, Leiden, 1961. Documents illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, Cambridge, 1966.

298 Documents Illustrating the Principa/es of Gaius, Claudius and Nero, Cambridge, 1967. The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocktian: A Study in Political Relations, Leiden, 1976, (repr. 1981). 'Philo and Josephus as historians of the same events', in (ed.) Feldman, L., and Hata, G., Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, Leiden (1987) 114-29. Smith, M., Clement ofAlexandria anda Secret Gospel ofMark, Cambridge, 1973. Souris, G., 'The size of provincial embassies to the emperor under the Principate', ZPE 48 (1982) 235-44. 'Notes and corrections to imperial letters I', Hellenika 40 (1989) 50-61. Spawforth, A., 'Balbilla, the Euiyclids and memorials for a Greek magnate', Annual of the British School at Athens 73 (1978) 249-60. Starr, C., 'Epictetus and the tyrant', CPh 44 (1949) 20-9. Stein, A., 'Balbillus', Aegyptus 13 (1933) 123-3 6. 'Zu dem kaiserlichen Ernennungsschrieben in P.Berol. 8334', Aegyptus 20 (1940) 5 1-60. Die Prafe/cten von Agypten in der rOmischen Kaiserzeit, Bern, 1950. Stemberger, G., 'Die Beurteilung Roms in der rabbinischen Literatur', AIVRWH 19.2 (1979) 338-96. Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism I: From Herodotus to Plutarch, Jerusalem, 1974. Stertz, S., 'Aelius Aristides' political ideas', ANRWII 34.2 (1994) 1248-1270. 'Semper in omnibus varius: The Emperor Hadrian and intellectuals, ANRWII 34.1 (1993) 612-28. Stoneman R., Palmyra and its Empire: Zenobia 's Revolt against Rome, Ann Arbor, 1992. Strassi, S., 'Problemi relativi alla diffusione delle disposizione amministrative nell'Egitto romano', ZPE 96 (1993) 89-107. Strassi Zaccaria, S., L 'editto diMSemproniusLiberalis, Trieste, 1988. 'Prosopografia e incarichi amministrativi a Karanis nel II sec. D.C. Proposte interpretative', ZPE 85 (1991) 245-62. Strobel, K., 'Zu Fragen dei frUhen Geschichte der rOmischen Provinz Arabien und zu einigen Problemen der Legionsdislokation im Osten des Imperium Romanum zu Beginn des 2. Jh.n.Chr.', ZPE 71(1988) 251-80.

299 Das Imperiurn Romanum urn "3.Jahrhunderr": Model! einer historischen Krise? Stuttgart, 1993. Swain, S., 'Favorinus and Hadrian', ZPE 79(1989)150-8. 'Hellenic Culture and the Roman heroes of Plutarch', JHS 110 (1990) 126-45, repr. (ed.), Scardigli, B., Essays on Plutarch's Lives, Oxford, (1995) 229-264. Hellenisin and Empire: Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek World AD 50-250, Oxford, 1996. Swarney, P., The Ptolemaic andRoman Idios Logos, Am. Stud Pap. 8, Toronto, 1970. widerek, A., 'Le mime grec en Egypte', Eos 47 (1954/5) 63-74. 'Une nouvelle copie de P.Mich. IX 529 25-38', Proceedings of the XJV International Congress of Papyrologists, 1974, London (1975) 293-98. Syme, R., Review of Stein 1950, JRS44 (1954) 116-9. Tacitus I-il, Oxford, 1958. Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta, Oxford, 1971. 'The Greeks under Roman rule', Roman Papers II, Oxford (1979) 566-81. 'Problems about Janus', AJPh 100 (1979) 188-2 12. 'Greeks invading the Roman government', Roman Papers IV, Oxford (1988) 1-20.

Tajra, H., The Trial of St.Paul, (Wissentschaflliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament reihe 2; 35), TUbingen, 1989. Talbert, R., The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton, 1984. 'Commodus as diplomat in an extract from the Acta Senatus' ZPE 71(1988) 137-47. Taylor, L., Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, Berkeley, 1949. Tenan, A., 'A critical introduction to Philo's dialogues', AIVRWII 21.1 (1984) 272- 94. Philo, Alexander vel De Ratione quam habere etiam bruta animalia (de animalia) e versione armeniaca (Philo d'Alexandrie 36), Paris, 1988. Théodoridès, A., 'Pèlerinage au Colosse de Memnon', Chron. d'E 64 (1989) 267-82. Thomas, J., Review of Weingartner 1969, lEA 57 (1971) 236-7. 'An imperial Constitutio on papyrus', BICS 19 (1972) 103-112. 'A petition to the prefect of Egypt and related imperial edicts', JEA 61(1975) 210-221.

300 'The date of the revolt of L.Domitius Domitianus', ZPE 22 (1976) 253-79. Thomas, J., and Clarysse, W., 'A projected visit of Alexander Severus to Egypt', Anc. Soc. 8 (1977) 195-207. Thomas, J., and Davies, R., 'A new military strength report on papyrus', JRS 67 (1977) 50-61. Thomas, R., Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens, Cambridge, 1989. Thompson, D., 'Egypt, 146-31 B.C.', CAHIX2(1994)310-26. Thompson, L., 'Domitian and the Jewish tax', Historia 31(1982) 329-42. Thompson Crawford, D., 'The Idumaean of Memphis and the Ptolemaicpoliteumata', Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di papirologia Ill, Naples (1984) 1069-75. Toynbee, J., 'Dictators and philosophers in the first century A.D.', Greece and Rome 13(1944)43-58. Traversa, A., 'Un rescritto di Nerone', Hommages àMarcelRenardll, (Collection Latomus 102) Brussels (1969) 718-25. Trebilco, P., Jewish Communities inAsia Minor, Cambridge, 1991. Treu, M., 'Nach Kleopatras Tod (P.Oxy. 2820)' Chiron 3 (1973) 221-33. Tscheidel, H., Caesars "Anticato": Eine Untersuchung der Teslimonien und Fragmente, Darmstadt, 1981. Turner, E., 'Roman Oxyrhynchus', JEA 38 (1952) 78-93. 'Tiberius Julius Alexander', JRS 44 (1954) 54-64. 'An Augustan document recovered', JRS 45 (1955) 119-20. Review of Musurillo 1954, CR 5 (1955) 304-5. Review of Musurillo 1961, CR 13 (1963) 345-6. Greek Papyri: An Introduction, Oxford, 1968. The Papyrologist at Work, (Greek, Roman and Byzantine Monographs 6), Durham, 1973. 'Oxyrhynchus and Rome', HSCPh 79 (1975) 1-24. Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, (2nd edn., ed., rev, and eni. by Parsons, P., JCS Bulletin Supplement 46), London, 1987.

Uxkiull-Gyllenband, W., 'Em neues BruchstUck aus den sogenannten heidnischen Märtyrerakten', Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der

301 Wissenschaften Philosophischen-historischen Kiasse 28 (1930) 664-679.

Valantasis, R., The Gospel of Thomas, London, 1997. Van den Hoek, A., 'Divergent Gospel traditions in Clement of Alexandria and other authors of the second century', Apocrypha 7 (1996) 43-62. Vandoni, M., Feste Publicche e Private nei Documenti Greci, Milan, 1964. Van Gronigen, B., 'Preparatives to Hadrian's visit to Egypt', Studi in Onôre di A.Calderini eR.Paribeni H, Milan (1957) 253-6. Veyne, P., 'L'identité grecque devant Rome et l'empereur', REG 112 (1999) 5 10-67. Volterra, E., Review of P.Oxy. XXV, lura 2 (1960) 262-4.

Wallach, L., 'The colloquay of Marcus Aurelius with the Patriarch Judah I', Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 31(1940/1) 259-86. Weatherly, J., Jewish Responsi bully for the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts, (JSNT 106), Sheffield, 1994. Weber, W., 'Eine Gerichtsverhandlung vor Kaiser Traian', Hermes 1(1915) 47-92. Weingartner, D., Die Agyptenreise des Germanicus, Bonn, 1969. Welles, C., 'The immunitas of the Roman legionaries in Egypt', JRS 28 (1938) 41-9. 'A Yale fragment of the Acts of Appian', TAPA 67(1936) 7-23. Wellesley, K., The long yearA.D. 69, London, 1975. West, S., 'A note on P.Oxy. 1242 ('ActaHermaisci'), ZPE 7(1971)164. Westermann, W., 'Tuscus the Prefect and the veterans of Egypt (P. Yale mv. 1528 and P.Fouadl 21)', CPu 36 (1941) 21-9. 'Alexandria in the Greek papyri', BSAA 38 (1949) 36-50. Westermann, W., and S chiller, A., Apokrimata. Decisions of Septimius Severus on Legal Matters, (P.Col. VI), New York, 1954. White, J., Lightfrom Ancient Letters, Philadelphia 1986. White, P., 'Vibius Maximus, the friend of Statius', Historia 22 (1973) 295-30 1. 'Julius Caesar and the publication of ada in late Republican Rome', Chiron 27 (1997) 73-84. Whitehorne, 3., 'Did Caracalla intend to return to Egypt?' C/iron. d'E 57 (1982) 132- 5. Whittaker, C., 'The revolt of Papirius Dionysius A.D. 190', Historia 13 (1964) 348- 69.

302 Wilamowitz-Moellendorfl U. von, and Zucker, F., 'Zwei Edikte des Germanicus aufeinem Papyrus des Berliner Museums', Sitzungsberichte der Preufiischen Akademie der Wissenschaflen zu Berlin 38 (1911) 794-821. Wilcken, U., 'Eine ActenstUck zum jUdischen Kriege Trajanas', Hermes 27 (1892) 464-80. 'Alexandrinische Gesandtschafien vor Kaiser Claudius', Hermes 30 (1895) 481-98. Review of Reinarch 1895: 161-78, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrfien 16 (1896) 1617-1621. Zum alexandrinischen Antisemitismus, Abhandlungen der Philologisch- historischen kiasse der Koniglich Sachsischen Gessellschafi der Wissenschaften 27, Leipzig (1909) 783-839. 'Alexander der Grol3e und die indischen Gymnosophisten', Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzung der philosophische- historischer kiasse 23 (1923) section 22 150-183. 'Papyrus-Urkunden', APF 7 (1924) 67-114. 'Zum Germanicus-papyrus', Hermes 63 (1928) 48-65. 'DerJ3ouXi1 -Pap.',APF9 (1930) 253-6. 'Urkunden-Referat',APF 14(1941)151-80. Willem van der Horst, P., Chaeremon, Egyptian priest and Stoic philosopher, Leiden, 1984. Willem van Henten, J., 'Datierung und Herkunfi des Vierten Makkabäerbuches', in (ed.) Willem van Henten eta!., Tradition andRe-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian literature: Essays in Honour of Jurgen C.H. Lebram, Leiden (1986) 136-49. 'Das jUdische selbstverstandnis in den áltesten Martyrien', in (ed.) Willem van Henten, J., Die Enistehung derjudischen Martyrologie, Leiden (1989) 127-61. Williams, D., Stylometric Authorship Studies in Flavius Josephus and Related Literature, (Jewish Studies Volume 12), Lamp eter, 1992. Williams, M., 'Domitian, the Jews and the 'Judaisers' - a simple matter of cupid/las and maiestas', Historia 39 (1990) 196-211. The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans: A Diasporan Sourcebook, London, 1998.

303 Williams, S., Jesus 'Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept, (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2), Montana, 1975. Williams, W., 'Caracalla and the rhetoricians: A note on the cognitio de Goharienis', Latomus 33 (1974) 663-7. 'The Libellus procedure and the Severan papyri' JRS 64 (1974) 86-103. 'Formal and historical aspects of two new documents of Marcus Aurelius', ZPE 17 (1975) 37-78. 'Two imperial pronouncements reclassified', ZPE 22 (1976) 235-45. 'Caracalla and the authorship of imperial edicts and epistles', Latomus 38 (1979) 67-89. Willrich, H., 'Zum Brief des Kaisers Claudius an die Alexandriner', Hermes 60 (1925) 482-9. Winter, B., 'Official proceedings and the forensic speeches in Acts 24-6', in (ed.) Winter, B., and Clarke, A., The Book ofActs in its Ancient Literary Setting, (The Book ofActs in its First Century Setting I), Carlisle (1993) 3 05-36. Winter, P., On the Trial ofJesus, Berlin, 1961. Wistrand, E., 'The stoic opposition to the principate', Studii Clasice 18 (1979) 93- 101. Wittek, M., Album de Paléographie Grecque: Specimens d 'Ecritures Livresque dii lit Siècle avant J C. au XV1JP Siècle Conserves des Collections Belges, Gand, 1967. Woolf, G., 'Becoming Roman, staying Greek: Culture, identity and the civilising process in the Roman east', PCPhS 40 (1994) 116-43. Worp, K., 'Die veröffentlichten P.Cair.: Eine Konkordanz', ZPE 91(1992) 95-8. Wroe, A., Pilate: The Biography of an Invented Man, London, 1999.

Youtie, H., 'Callimachus in the Tax Rolls', Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology, (Am. Stud Pap. 7), Toronto (1970) 545-51.

Zeitlin, S., 'The legend of the ten martyrs and its apocalyptic origins', Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 36 (1945/6) 1-16. Ziegler, R., 'Antiochia, Laodicea und Sidon in der Politik der Severer', Chiron 8 (1978) 493-5 14. Zucker, F., 'Urkunden-Referat', APF 16 (1958) 214-67.

304 Zuckerman, C., 'Hellenistic politeumata and the Jews: A reconsideration', Scripla Classicalsraelica 8-9 (1985/8) 171-85.

(W

305