This important text, paleographically dated to the second ...



# 019

READING P. YALE II 107

Between History, Law, and Literature*

CONTENT

Introduction 2

P. Yale II 107 3

The present investigation 4

P. Yale II 107 4

The content 4

Historical reading 5

The date 5

The people involved 5

The dispute 9

Historical contextualization 17

The small quarter 19

The prefect’s jurisdiction on matters related to status 23

Legal reading 28

The form 28

The content 30

The letter 33

From Gaius’ epistula to Flaccus’ edict 35

Conclusions 37

Select bibliography 39

INTRODUCTION

In 1939 Anton von Premerstein published as P. Giss Univ. 46 a papyrus the University of Giessen had purchased on the Egyptian market some years before.[1] The same text was re-edited some decades later by Herbert Musurillo.[2] Twenty years later Musurillo, together with George Parassoglou, found that the fragment P. Yale inv. 1385, purchased on the market by the Beineke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale, complemented P. Giss Univ. 46.[3] Susan Stephens has edited in 1985 the two complementary texts as P. Yale II 107;[4] almost a decade later the same texts appeared in a new edition of the Giessen University collection as P. Giss. Lit. 4.6.[5]

From the very beginning, all the editors classified the text among the so called Acta Alexandrinorum. The texts collected under this name are papyri, generally highly fragmentary and of uncertain provenience, which, in the majority of the cases, contain the accounts of trials of eminent Alexandrian citizens at the Roman imperial court; regularly the Alexandrian lose their cases and are condemned.[6]

In spite of the historicity of the people involved in these trials (the name of the emperors and of the defendants are known to history through other sources), no precise historical background can be determined for those papyri. This situation has left scholars and empty handed on the one side, but on the other hand they were free to frame different questions.

In the course of more than a century, scholars have debated on the historical or fictional nature of those texts. Chronology has provided much material for discussion; in fact, all the papyri are paleographically dated to the late 2nd / 3rd century C.E., and contain events dramatically dated much earlier. Motivations justifying this chronological gap have been found, according to he majority of scholars, in the emergence in Alexandria of a literary genre containing anti-Roman propaganda and exalting the patriotism of the Alexandrians.

The form of the texts supported the fiction-hypothesis. As a matter of fact, all the texts reports court disputes between the emperors and the defendant Alexandrians in a very informal language, with very fast exchanges of questions and answers, sometimes with offensive attributes thrown from one part to the other. Comparison with literary genres like Hellenistic comedy and especially theatrical mimes, infamously very common in Alexandrian in the Roman period, gave more validity to the fiction-hypothesis. Those who did not agree with a complete unhistorical reading of the papyri would consider the possibility that those texts were fictional re-elaboration of official trial reports—they would become known as Protokoll-Literatur.

P. Yale II 107

In spite of its very fragmentary conditions, P. Yale II 107 seems to contain all the ingredients for a fictional interpretation; within that frame it has so far been considered. The texts is paleographically dated between the second half of the second / beginning of the third century C.E.; for what it is possible to read, it contains an exchange of accusations before the Roman emperor Gaius. Interpretations of the content range from pale historical hypothesis to arguments on its highly fictional nature.[7]

The present investigation

In this paper I will try to juxtapose different readings of the text. Most of the following pages will be devoted to providing the papyrus with a historical as well as legal reading and contextualization of the content of the text. Against this background and in consideration of the chronological gap between the dramatic date of the content and the paleographical date of the text, I will then raise again the question of the historical / fictional nature of the text vis-à-vis the historicity of its content; now that the content of P. Yale II 107 has a recognizable historical background, is its text bound to be bound to it? Can the text be detached from its content and have an independent life? Is a rigorous and traditional historical reading of the content incompatible with other non-historical reading of the text? Can multiple interdisciplinary approaches (in this case historical, legal, and literary) cooperate for a more comprehensive understanding of the papyrus in its two basic components—its content and its text?

P. YALE II 107

The content

This text is an account, of two embassies from Alexandria before the Roman emperors. Despite the numerous mutilations of the text, it is possible to discern three main parts: 1) a first embassy before Tiberius, col. i; 2) a second embassy before Gaius, cols. ii-iv; 3) a series of unplaced fragments.

Historical reading

The date

The determination of the dramatic date of this text is dependent upon the interpretation of internal evidence. While it is not possible to date the first embassy to Tiberius,[8] something more precise can be said about the second embassy to Gaius; in fact, at the beginning of col. ii we can read traces of an initial conversation between some of the ambassadors and Tiberius’ attendants announcing Tiberius’ death (col. ii, l. 8-10). Gaius is thereafter the only interlocutor to the ambassadors, addressed by them as the only emperor.[9] We are therefore in the first weeks or months of Gaius’ principate, in the spring / summer of 37 C.E.[10]

The people involved

The extensive fractures of the papyrus leave the reader with numerous unanswered questions about the subject of the text, but there seems to be at least some literary consistency; both the first and the second embassy rest on the same theme of the Alexandrians having to face ‘the accuser,’ an individual never otherwise named (col. i, l. 10; col. ii, ll. 21, 27; col. iii, ll. 11, 12, 19, 23, 24). The Alexandrians who appeared before Tiberius were envoys of the 173 members of the gerousia, the assembly of the elders (col. i, l. 3: épÚ rog gerÒ[ntv]n), and on behalf of the same body speak also the ambassadors appearing before Gaius (col. ii, l. 3: ]rog diå toÁw rog.)[11]

The investigation on the identity of the people involved cannot be separated from that of the content of the papyrus. Only two names are readable of the representative of the gerousia, Eulalos, the first to greet Gaius, and Areios, the main interlocutor of ‘the accuser’ (col. ii, ll. 3, 26; col. iii, ll. 2, 3, 8, 12).

Although ‘the accuser’ has no name, something more can be said about him. First of all, in accordance with the general rule which did not allow individuals but only groups to appeal before the emperor, [12] he may be there by himself, but he represents a group; actually Areios opens his address to Gaius saying that he is ready to utter a defense speech against the accusers (col. iii, ll. 4-5: katå t«n] / katagor«n ÉAlejandr°vn). Whom does ‘the accuser’ represent, then?

Basing their argument on Areios’ reiterated charges that ‘the accuser’ is a foreigner (col. iii, ll. 9, 21: jenikÒw), the editors have suggested that he was probably an Egyptian or a member of another non-citizens group who wanted to pass for an Alexandrian.[13] In the absence of any other alternative indication in the text, this is a legitimate suggestion, which must however be tested against the last readable lines of col. iii. This part reports, or better, due to the extensive mutilation of the papyrus, reported, the letter Gaius wrote at the end of the hearing, which contained his decision on the matter, after he had condemned ‘the accuser’ to be burnt. The last two lines, the only readable ones, have the following provision (col. iii, ll. 34-35):

ÉIsi-

d≈rou l°j[antow […..] . o[..]u[….]n mØ

§x°tvsan, m[Æt]e éret∞w st°fanon

as Isidoros said, ……………..let them not have, nor the crown of honor.

The emperor orders that a group, indicated by the plural negative imperative mØ §x°tvsan—let them not have— not be granted something lost in the lacuna, and a crown of honor. We do not know who these people are, but logically we have to assume that, as Gaius wrote the letter after the hearing was over and the sentence spelled out, the group in question cannot be anything else than the people ‘the accuser’ represented.

This kind of language is not new to the diplomatic vocabulary of antiquity, and the granting of honors to collective subjects, mainly to states, is very well attested epigraphically.[14] The same cannot be said for the expression éret∞w st°fanon—crown of honor, as the papyrus has it;[15] however, in defense of our papyrus, we should point out that its fragmentary conditions do not allow us a complete reading of the papyrus. We should therefore stick to the fact that, in our case, a crown of honors of some sort is denied to some group. We should at this point raise the question to which foreign group Gaius’ provisions can apply, whether to the Egyptians living in Alexandria, to whom the Roman administration allowed only the lowest possible collective and personal status, or to another ethnic group; could such groups be the subject of deprivation of an honor, a provision that clearly implies that they could potentially be granted one? To which other Alexandrian groups should we then turn to?

Alexandria had been a very cosmopolitan city from its foundation, and people from different ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds gathered together and maintained their own legal and religious traditions.[16] However, already the earliest Ptolemies worked on the juridical level to unify the legal system of the numerous Greek communities, to have eventually three legal jurisdictions in Egypt: the laws of the Greeks, the laws of the Egyptians and the laws of the Jews.[17] Ethnic groups remained, but only as private religious associations.[18]

Gaius’ mention of Isidorus in the letter (col. iii, ll. 33-34), the same Alexandrian enemy of the Jews we know from Philo (Fl., 22-23; passim), should at this point attract our attention. It is on the sole basis of this mention that Tcherikover and Fuks included P. Giss. Univ. 46 col. iii (now = P. Yale II 107, col. iii) in their Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (CPJ II 155), in spite of the fact that, as they rightly point out, the text has no indication pointing to the Jews.[19] As a matter of fact Isidorus’ contribution in this case seems to be all but marginal, if actually Gaius accepts his suggestion to deny the crown of honor to the group ‘the accuser’ represents. Is Isidorus’ involvement in this case, in the light of his known enemity to the Jews, enough for us to assume by default that ‘the accuser’ is a Jew and represents the Jews living in Alexandria? Probably not, if this is taken as an isolated point—which it is probably not.

The Jews have been the only group whose organization had remained unique in the city; their politeuma, a semi-independent political and judicial enclosure very similar to a mini-state,[20] had enjoyed a good level of independence up to the Roman period and, although the Jews were only residents and not citizens in Alexandria, they had enjoyed a close relationship with the Roman rulers since the time of Julius Caesar. To go into more detailed observations, Philo calls the Jews §pit€moi –granted honors(Fl., 172), and the tima€ --honors, implied in this term were granted by the imperial authority. The collective granting / denial of honors to them would be in agreement with the ancient Greek diplomatic tradition of granting honors and privileges to states; to them a crown of honor could very well refer. Some observations about the main readable instances of the content of the text may help to substantiate this, which, for the moment, remains a plausible supposition.

The dispute

In a dramatic passage of the papyrus, the elder Areios and ‘the accuser’ arrive at the following exchange of accusations:[21]

P. Yale II 107, col. iii, ll. 14-16 (ed. Stephens 1985; Areios speaks):[22]

e]‰pen “sÁ t∞w patr€dow mou k[………..]

….] ‡svw kég∆ t∞w s∞w pa[tr€dow …..”

said: “you of my patris

in the same way also I of your patris;

the matter is actually quite clear, as it revolves around the patris.

Patr€w has the general meaning of homeland, and as such is employed in literature and documents alike; however, in the latter it is also used in a more technical sense. P. Hamb. II 168, a decree of the time of Ptolemy II or III, gives instruction on how one should register himself in public documents.[23] After the instructions given to people under military service, royal regulations come for the citizens and people of other status:

Ofl d¢ pol€tai (scil. épograf°syvsan) toÁw d¢ pat°ra[w ka‹ to]Áw dÆmouw ên d¢ ka‹ §n t«i strativtik«i Œsin [ka‹ tå t]ågmata ka‹ tåw §piforåw

The citizens (will style themselves with) name of the father and the deme, and if they are soldiers, the unit and the rank

Ofl d’ êlloi (scil. épograf°syvsan) toÁw [pat°raw] ka‹ tåw patr€daw ka‹ §n œi íg g°nei Œsin.

The others (will style themselves with) the name of the father, the patris and the class to which they belong.[24]

While for the citizens it suffices to indicate the patronymic and the deme in which they are registered, all the others, who as non-citizens are not registered in any deme, must write, after the patronymic, their patr€w, the homeland, and their class. While the topographical aspect of the deme is well attested throughout antiquity,[25] the technical meaning of patris has to be clarified.

Very few documents are extant which can show how the Ptolemaic rule was applied by Alexandrian citizens and not, but they are significant. For example, in P. Eleph. 3 of 285-4 B.C.E, which was probably written before the issuing of the royal decree, the declarant styles himself simply as Athenagora Alexandrian (ÉAyhnãgoraw ÉAlejandreÊw), and it is difficult to understand what Alexandrian stands for, whether as an ethnic or a topographical indication. But in P. Rein. 9 of 112 B.C.E., well after the publication of the decree, a witness of a contract calls himself Heroides son of Herakleides Alexandrian (ÑHr≈idhw ÑHrakle€dou ÉAlejandreÊw), while another witness styles himself as Arimmas son of Diunysios of the deme of Chariste (ÉAr€mmaw Dionus€ou XaristÆriow). If we have to interpret the status of these two people according to the decree, Heroides, who does not mention a deme, is a non-citizen living in Alexandria, while Arimmas is an Alexandrian citizen, and correctly declares the deme.[26] Contrary to any logical expectation, therefore, ‘Alexandrian’ denotes the patris, and indicates the topographical designation of a non-citizen.[27]

Very concerned about his patris was Helenos, the Jew resident in Alexandria who in 5/4 B.C.E. petitioned the Roman prefect Gaius Turranius (BGU IV1140 = CPJ II 151). In this document, probably written not by the petitioner himself but by a scribe,[28] Helenos writes that (ll. 5-7):

[…] kinduneÊv oÈ mÒnon t∞w patr€dow sterhy∞-

nai, éllå ka‹, ktl.

I fear not only to be deprived of my patris, but also, etc.

At this point the papyrus is very badly preserved and the continuation of Helenos’ claims are obscure, but on two occasions the word laographia, the poll-tax connected to the status of all the inhabitants of Egypt, which only the citizens with full francise were exempted from paying, is still clearly legible (ll. 17, 22). [29] Helenos’ concerns about his patris are then somehow linked to the payment of the laographia, i.e. to a change of status. And his fears are not illusory. In fact, he introduces himself by the formula ‘from Helenos son of Tryphon Alexandrian,’ with name, patronimic and patris, place of residence, precisely as the Ptolemaic decree required.[30] Later, ‘Alexandrian,’ his patris, is crossed over by somebody, probably a clerk in the Alexandria chancellery, and substituted by ‘a Jew of those from Alexandria,’ the ethnic connotation. It is worth noticing that the patris of Helenos’ father, who also is said to be Alexandreus (l. 3), is left untouched, suggesting that a change overcame in the meantime according to which Helenos was no longer allowed to style himself in the same way his father used to do. Helenos may no longer officially indicate Alexandria as his homeland, and may not call himself Alexandrian; his residential designation is now substituted by his ethnic connotation—ethnicity seems to have become pre-eminent over topography. [31] This is not just a matter of terminology, but, as we perceive from this papyrus, issues of civic status related to topographical residence are signified by a name—Alexandrian.[32]

If this document can give any elucidation to the meaning of the patris-dispute in P. Yale II 107, from which we actually started our discussion, it is that it is not completely deprived of any foundation to see it as an issue involving the citizens and the Jews living in Alexandria. A person with the same problems Helenos had to face could easily step into ‘the accuser’s’ shoes. The two disputants of P. Yale II 107 are fighting over their reciprocal civic definition within the city, an issue ultimately linked to matters of status and residence in it.

All this is not unconnected with the second readable dispute in the papyrus (col. iii, ll. 21-23):[33]

P. Yale II 107, col. iii, ll. 21-23 (ed. Stephens 1985):

‡d[e] dØ jeni[kÚw] går mãl[a ı kata-

lab∆n po[l]ite€an, é[llÉ é]pografÒ[menow ¶-/ jv.

See, he is a foreigner, since very much he is one who seizes a citizenship (politeia), but he is registered outside.

Central to Stephens’ suggestion is the word énapografÒmenow, unregistered, a term belonging by all means exclusively to the papyrological documentation of the Roman administration of Egypt.[34] According to this reading, the dynamic of the exchange sees then the Alexandrian succeed to stigmatize ‘the accuser’ as foreigner, with an outside registration—which raises the question: outside of what?[35]

This, for the moment, open question should not prevent us from attempting some steps forward. For sure we can say that ‘the accuser’ is now accused of seizing unlawfully civic rights which should not belong to him. The envoy of the gerousia, by demonstrating that he is a foreigner, has him lose them (col. iii, ll. 23-24). ‘The accuser’ has lost his dispute, his politeia becomes illegal, and with it also his patris, his topographical link to Alexandria,[36] about which he had argued against his opponent. And, as he was there to fight on behalf of those who had sent him, he loses on behalf of them as well. Gaius’ order to burn ‘the accuser’ (col. iii, ll. 24-25)[37] should then be considered a bad omen for all the people on whose behalf he was acting as an envoy. And these people are those to whom Gaius denies the crown of honor in the letter he writes at the conclusion of the hearing.

We have then to raise again and finally the question whether ‘the accuser’ could be a Jew and the people he represents the Jews of Alexandria. We may dare say that it might well be. Helenos’ petition tells us that problems concerning residence and civic status might well have existed in the city from the Augustan period. We have also already seen that, on political ground, the group to whom the emperor denies the crown of honor could be that of the Jews. But there is a piece of evidence which makes this supposition more convincing. When the Jews of Alexandria decreed honors to Gaius for his accession (March 37), Philo says that they decided to ask the prefect of Egypt Flaccus to take care of the decree’s transmission because, if they had asked to bring it to the emperor themselves, he would not have given them permission (Philo, Fl., 97). The prefect had actually jurisdiction on the issuing of documents allowing residents or visitors to enter or to leave the city (BGU V 1210 # 64).[38] The reason why the prefect would have taken a decision in this direction is that two Alexandrian embassies were already in Rome at the time of Gaius’ accession to the throne, as documented in P. Yale II 107. By reporting this Philo confirms that he was aware of the embassies in Rome; were the Jews not involved, it is improbable that he knew of them.

HISTORICAL CONTEXTUALIZATION

In the summer of 38 C.E., one year after the Alexandrian embassies appeared in Rome before the emperor Gaius, Alexandria became a theater of severe social disorder. The Jewish community was attacked and violently persecuted by anti-Jewish segment of the population: shops were pillaged and destroyed, synagogues burnt down, people tortured and murdered. The Jewish politeia, the system of laws and regulations which allowed the Jews to govern themselves in relative independence according to their ancestral customs, was abrogated by Flaccus, the Roman prefect of Egypt.

The first public act that really damaged the Jews collectively was Flaccus’ edict in the summer of 38 (Fl., 54):

[…] t€yhsi (scil. Flãkkow) prÒgramma, di’ o� j°nouw ka‹ §pÆludaw ≤mçw épekãlei mhd¢ lÒgou metadoÊw, éll’ ékr€tvw katadikãzvn.

[…] he (scil. Flaccus) issued an edict[39] in which he denounced us as foreigners and aliens not even giving us the right to speak in our defense, but condemning us unjudged.

The drastic provisions of the decree can be better understood if read comparatively. In a rhetorically elaborate text at the end of the same treatise, Philo describes at length Flaccus’ arrest in the fall of 38 and subsequent journey first from Alexandria to Rome, and then from Rome to Andros, the Aegean island where Gaius condemned him to exile. Philo voices Flaccus’ thought by presenting it in the form of a direct speech, a pure rhetorical demonstration of no use for knowing what Flaccus actually felt. Yet, exactly because it reports Philo’s words, it is very important, as it explains what changes the edict of 38 entailed (Fl., 172):

“ […] »ne€disa pote étim€an ka‹ jenite€an aÈto›w (scil. to›w ÉIouda€oiw) §pit€moiw oÔsi kato€koiw, ktl.”

[…] I cast on them (scil. the Jews) the slur that they were foreigners without civic rights, though they were residents with granted privileges, etc.

ÉAtim€a – deprivation of privileges – and §pitim€a – the condition of enjoying privileges – with a considerable quantity of cognates, belong with full title to the vocabulary of the Greek city-states. To enumerate the cases when and where they occur, both in the inscriptions and in the writing of the political orators, would be a pointless exercise. The semantic field to which they refer is one of civic and civil rights.[40]. The opposition of jenite€a – living abroad, being foregner – and kãtoikow –resident– is more compelling. In the present passage the condition of being foreigner is a degradation from a non-citizen condition, i.e., from being kãtoikow, a resident.[41] Interpreted in this way, this passage can be used to explicate the words with which Philo presents the edict; in the summer of 38 the Jews are declared foreigners and aliens from a previous condition of legal residents.

Flaccus, therefore, deprived the Jews of the privileged status they had enjoyed up to that time. The Ptolemies had allowed the Jews to live in Alexandria according to their ancestral customs. These privileges consisted primarily in residence together with religious and juridical independence, but not in any form of citizenship.[42] Augustus and Tiberius, according to what Philo says, had confirmed them (Fl. 50; cf. Leg., 153 and 161), in addition to allowing the Alexandrian Jews not to pay the poll-tax.[43]

Needless to say, these are important problems that can be studied and commented upon under many respects;[44] for the moment I will limit my observations to two issues: a) the situation on the ground after the issuing of the edict; b) the competence of the edict’s issuing authority. The determination or the change of status of individuals or groups is a political act. Had the prefect the power of dealing with political problems of this significance? Could the prefect decide about matters of status, to the extent of determining who was what? Was this kind of action included in his jurisdiction?

The small quarter

As an immediate consequence of Flaccus’ decree, the Jews were relegated to the extremity of the city. The Alexandrian mob prevented the Jews from stepping outside of this area; if they tried they would be dead (Philo, Leg., 128). This small quarter was close to the city gates which led to the beach (Philo, Fl.,122); because the neighborhood was too small for the great number of people forced to stay there, the Jews had to pour out to the beaches, to the mountain of rubbish and to the cemetery nearby (Philo, Fl., 56; Leg., 127). The mention of the city gates, of the cemetery, and of the beach are good starting point for the location of the quarter on a map (see attached map).

Archaeology has unearthed two main cemeteries, with tombs dating from the early Ptolemaic and Roman periods, both outside the western sides of the city,[45] and outside the eastern wall and beyond cape Lochias, the promontory of the palatial area (Strabo, XVII 1, 9); further east, archaeologists also found a Jewish necropolis.[46] From the archaeological and topographical pint of view, therefore, the small quarter could be located on both sides on the city, although the Jewish cemetery casts good probability on the eastern side.

In spite of the lack of precise information from Philo, scholars have generally identified the small quarter with Delta, one of the five neighborhoods designated after the first five letters of the alphabet into which the city was divided (Philo, Fl., 55; Ps.-Callisth., I 32, 9).[47] This conclusion builds exclusively upon an expanded reading of some literary, yet in itself inconclusive, evidence (Jos., B.J., II 495; Ap., II 33-35). Scholars have also located Delta in the eastern part of the city, close to the Jewish necropolis and to the beach.[48] To support their conclusion, they call into question a passage in Josephus’ Contra Apionem, where the author claims that Alexander gave the Jews the area close to the royal palaces (Ap., II 33-35), where actually the eastern corner of the city is.[49] However, our skepticism should arise when Josephus says that the quarter where the Jews lived was not close to any cemetery (Ap., II 35). Our skepticism is confirmed when we read a very precise documentary piece of evidence which contradicts completely this entire argument. In a papyrus containing a contract dated 13 C.E. (BGU IV 1115, l. 40) there is the mention of a carpenter shop in the Delta, located in the area called kãmpra near Kibotos. We know that Kibotos was the box-shaped artificial harbor immediately West of the Heptastadion, the embankment connecting the island of Pharo with the mainland (Strabo, XVII 1, 10). Contrary to scholars belief, Delta was therefore not on the eastern corner of the city close to the royal quarter, but at the furthermost western part of it.[50]

Is this the quarter where the Jews where clustered in the summer of 38? The few evidence we have would suggest so. Delta is very close to the western necropolis and to the western gates, a particular which recalls Philo’s account of the Jews pouring to the nearby cemetery because of lack of space.[51] If this temporary conclusion is true, why that one should be the area where the rights of residence of the Jews were safeguarded after the proclamation of the edict by Flaccus? Why there and not somewhere else?

The location of the Delta at the westernmost corner of Alexandria compels a comparison with the evidence related to the foundation of the city and the early establishment of the Jewish community there. The area of the city where Delta lies is actually the historical core of Alexandria. We read in the Satrap Stela, that Ptolemy, still in his capacity of satrap of Egypt, transferred the capital from Memphis to the village of Rhakotis, and renamed it Alexandria. [52] Rhakotis remained historically identified with the neighborhood south of Kibotos (cf. P. Ryl., 576; III cent. B.C.E.). Still in Roman time Rhakotis was the name of one of the neighborhoods of the city above the ship-houses (Strabo, XVII 1,6; 9; 10), exactly where Delta is located.

The evidence for the establishment of the Jewish community in the city is somehow contradictory. Josephus knows two different stories, but it seems that, after Alexander, Ptolemy I and / or Ptolemy II allowed the Jewish final settlement (B.J., II 487; Ap., II 33; Ant., XII 7; cf. Ap., II 37; 72), a version partially confirmed in the Letter of Aristeas (Arist., 12-20; passim).[53] Regardless for the moment of who established the Jewish rights of residence in the city, it is important to notice that Josephus indicates the Delta as the area the kings gave to the Jews (Jos., B.J., II 495).[54] The location of the Delta at the westernmost limit of the Alexandria of the first century C.E. is in agreement with the sources on the beginning of the city; Strabo says that Alexandria began to exist from Rhakotis, a village above the harbors (Strabo, XVII 1,6; 9; 10), and the Satrap Stela confirms this information; It is logical therefore that the early Ptolemies settled the Jews close to this area.

If the argument so far exposed in this paper is accepted, in the summer of 38 the Jews were therefore clustered in the quarter where they originally settled and where originally the Ptolemies granted them their rights of residence. Only that area could in 38 safeguard their politeia;[55] the rest of the city was off limit for them.

The prefect’s jurisdiction for matters related to status.

How could this happen? Why did the prefect issue a decree in such sense, depriving the Jews of their status? Could he intervene in matters related to status in such a drastic way?

The nature of the prefect’s power is an issue almost as obscure as the one concerning the statute of the province of Egypt, of which it is part, and on which it depends. [56] There is nothing certain about the way Octavian organized the Province of Egypt, or whether he started to assess the Roman power over Alexandria and the rest of Egypt soon after he entered Alexandria on August 1, 30 B.C.E, as scholars generally assume.[57] It is unbelievable that in the few weeks he stayed in Egypt, Octavian was able to conceive of how to make of a disrupted country on the verge of bankruptcy the most important economic factor in Roman power. Within this scenario, it would be presumptuous to think that the juridical definition and the duties of the prefect were stated once and for all from the beginning.[58]

Under this regard, it is important to take a look at the juridical relation between the prefect and the emperor. Octavian proceeded to the annexation of Egypt according to the right of conquest, but his own political position within the still republican Roman system was unclear. The juridical figure of the first prefect, who received his powers directly from Octavian, must have been influenced by such a situation. Only in 27 B.C.E. did the Senate ratify Octavian’s achievements and reintegrate him within the political system;[59] and only four years later, in 23 B.C.E., did Octavian, now Augustus, receive the proconsular imperium that would finally define the power of the princeps over the provinces under his personal jurisdiction – and Egypt was among them.[60] But since the prefect of Egypt received his office from the princeps by virtue of a fiduciary mandate, the development of the powers of the latter must have been felt in the former.[61] Particularly for the period of interest of this work and for the present topic, a collection of evidence should be considered.

That the prefect or anybody else was not supposed to have political power in Egypt, and especially political power concerning the status of people, is already clear from the Augustan period, as the Boulè papyrus shows. In this document, the petitioners submit the request for a council in Alexandria, who would, along with other duties, also have that of determining who was to be part of the Greek elite. Notoriously, Augustus denied the request (PSI 1160 = CPJ II 150). Still in the middle of the first century C.E. the bestowing of privileges related to the Alexandrian gymnasium and to the Alexandrian citizenship was a prerogative of the emperor, as the letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians lets us understand (P. Lond., 1912 col. iii, ll. 53-55 = CPJ II 153; Nov. 10, 41 C.E.). The prefect intervened in the process only in his capacity of executor, such as Pompeius Planta when Trajan granted Roman and Alexandrian citizenship to Pliny’s therapist Harpocrates (Pliny, Ep., 10, 7). It is probably under the Antonines that the prefect received the jurisdiction on cases of illegitimate intrusion into the Alexandrian citizenship (Gnomon of the Idioslogos = BGU V 1210 # 40),[62] but still in the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, it was the emperor who bestowed the Alexandrian citizenship.[63] It was therefore the emperor who determined the composition of the body politic; the prefect only controlled it.[64]

This last aspect is more extensively documented. In his capacity of supreme head of the entire bureaucracy, the prefect presided over the permanent tribunal in Alexandria and the Egyptian itinerant court—the conventus.[65] The sample of available papyrological documents from these two courts displays a variety of domains over which he had jurisdiction,[66] but very few cases can be traced back to problems related to status. The most relevant among those is BGU IV 1140 (= CPJ II 151), in which the Alexandrian Jew Helenos in 5 / 4 B.C.E. petitioned the prefect Caius Turranius, asking for his intervention concerning his personal status. But Helenos does not want his status to be changed, rather he wants it to be confirmed (l. 23); nothing more than this can be extrapolated from the document about the prefect’s future action.[67]

The prefect was especially involved in the administration of the census and related status declarations.[68] The census lists were regularly updated by declarations of birth and death, as well as by declarations of epikrisis, the primary goal of which was to confirm the social status of the population vis-à-vis the payment of the poll-tax.[69] It was the prefect who ordered both the epikrisis and the census, and to his order all the declarants had to comply; but there is no evidence that his role went beyond the pure administration of the process.

It is therefore very unlikely that Flaccus decided on his own accord to issue the decree that would change the status of the Jews from residents to foreigners in the summer of 38. By virtue of the powers delegated to him by the emperor, Flaccus could not declare the Jews foreigners. If the issuing of the edict cannot be attributed to Flaccus’ political initiative, to what then can it be ascribed? Other factors should be included into the picture.

In order to answer this question, I suggest to set a comparative parallel between the dispute before Gaius in Rome in the spring of 37 as reported in P. Yale II 107, and the situation in Alexandria in the summer of 38 and. As seen earlier, the core of the dispute before Gaius was about the patris; the ‘accuser,’ whom this paper argues to be a Jew, loses his case on behalf of those he represents, specifically he loses his politeia, because found guilty to be “registered outside.” We left this part of the paper with the open question: outside of what? Again, in the summer of 38 the Jews are pushed into the quarter where originally their rights of residence had been granted to them. Their politeia was nullified outside that area.

The two cases are very similar; in both of them the Jewish politeia is limited by the “outside.” It is the central hypothesis of this paper that Gaius’ adjudication in the spring of 37 represents a legal precendent paving the way to the prefectal decree of the summer of 38. In order to prove this hypothesis it is necessary to proceed to the legal reading of P. Yale II 107.

LEGAL READING OF P. YALE II 107

The form

In spite of the frequent lacunae in the text, it is clear that the papyrus contains a dialogue between the two parts, the “accuser” and the Alexandrians, with some intervention of the emperor in his capacity of judge. With the introduction of the dispute in the cognitio extra ordinem during the principate, the accuser and defendant had the possibility to argue their own respective cases in their own words before the emperor.[70]

A similar sequence of exchanges can be found in a Syrian inscription reporting the minute of a trial before Caracalla in 216 C.E. at Antioch. This text was carved in two copies on stones of the podium and the antae of the temple of Gohar, present Dmeir. According to the editors of the two inscriptions, the Greek of the texts is not formal but closer to the spoken language and some confusion of names is probably due to the not entirely comprehensible stenographic notes. [71] Legal literature of Roman time indicates that an a cognitionibus would take stenographic notes of the trial, and that a digest was compiled later by the a commentaries.[72] This inscription support the possibility that the dispute of P. Yale II 107 reflects trials notes.

The stenographic notes of the trial of 37 must have included also formulation of the sentence and the text of the epistula, which were both read aloud in court at the end of the trial. In the epistula of P. Yale II 107 Gaius mentions Isidorus, known as an Alexandrian enemy of the Jews. The lexical form of the mention is in the genitive absolute (corresponding to the ablative absolute of the available Latin evidence), and its position falls just before one of the emperor’s provisions. These are two important points; we know from Latin documents that the opinion of imperial councilors were reported in the ablative absolute, of which the genitive absolute is the Greek correspondent; the opinion Isidorus gave to Gaius is cited as supporting the final imperial decision. All this suggests that Isidorus was part of the consilium principis, the body of councillors (amici) of the ruler who from Augustus on would assist the emperor in his political and judicial task.[73]

The content

From the very beginning, all the editors who in succession have worked on P. Yale II 107 could not escape notice that the papyrus reports a trial before the emperor.[74] On the basis of our knowledge of Roman law and juridical system something more precise can be spelled out.

What we have in P. Yale II 107 is a report—whether official or not will be discussed later—of a cognitio caesariana or extra ordinem, the imperial tribunal instituted by Augustus at the beginning of the principate. In this assize the emperor was the supreme judge who adjudicated, both on first degree and on appeal, outside and in addition to the institutional juridical system the principate inherited from the Republic. The competence of the imperial tribunal was unlimited, as both Roman and Italian, as well as provincial cases could be tried; it was in his capacity of supreme judge that the emperor could delegate his jurisdiction to the senatorial or lower courts, depending on the nature of the cases.[75]

The case in P. Yale II 107 does not leave any doubt about the area of competence; Egypt was an imperial province with special status and any case originating there was competence of the emperor. Hard to say from the papyrus whether we are here in front of a first degree case or of an appeal. The fragmentary status of the documents precludes us from reading most of the first two columns which probably contained details elucidating on this matter. The only thing quite clear is that the emperor Tiberius had intervened on the same matter. As it is impossible that an emperor could judge in appeal to a sentence adjudicated by his predecessor (the sentence of the imperial tribunal was final), we can postulate two scenarios: a) the present case seeks a first degree adjudication; b) the present case seeks an appeal to a sentence previously uttered in Alexandria for a case similar to one already adjudicated by Tiberius.

The matter of the case is not at all clear. The historical reading of the document so far presented has focused on the patris-dispute, the only quasi-readable fragment of the papyrus. These lines are crucially important in the papyrus, as they report the conclusion of the trial and the sentence; it is the patris-dispute which determines the death sentence. However this does not necessarily mean that the patris was the reason why the two parts, the representative of the Alexandrian council of elders on the one side, and the representative of the Jews on the other, came to Rome. Evidence from Roman legal literature shows that a trial could end if one of the parts was found guilty of any other crime; the illegitimacy one of the parts determined the outcome of the final judgement.[76]

By virtue of his auctoritas, the emperor had the ability to enforce the current law, or to introduce a new one.[77] About the present case, and on the basis of the historical interpretation so far presented, the question immediately arise why Gaius recognized limits—what we have defined as the “outside”—to the validity of the patris and of the politeia of the representative of the Jews; was he applying an existing law, or was he introducing a new one?

The only possible example to recall is a case tried in the Senate of Rome in 22-23 C.E. concerning temple privileges in Asia Minor. Tacitus, our sole and somehow introverted chronicler, reports that immunity privileges granted to temple authorities by rulers prior to the coming of the Romans in the region were easily confirmed if already recognized by Roman authorities in the recent past, but were questioned if no such documentation existed. Tacitus does not take care to tell us in which direction the adjudication published in the Senatus Consultum went, but the principle driving the investigation is very important for the present case (Tac., Ann., II 60ff).

In a heated passage against the enemies of the Alexandrian Jews, Josephus says that the rights of the Jews granted them by the Ptolemies were not recognized because not published (Ant., XIV 187-188; cf. Ap., II 37). We are here in front of a situation very similar to that of Asia Minor: privileges granted by rulers prior to the Roman domination are questioned—this in theory. However, in practice some problems arise.

The Jewish privileges in Alexandria had been confirmed both by Augustus and by Tiberius, as Philo refers (Fl. 50; cf. Leg., 153 and 161); Augustus had published the confirmation by erecting a stela in Alexandria, so dear to Josephus because visible to all (Ap., II 37). Where is the problem then? The problem very likely rests on the territorial emphasis of the imperial act of recognizing of the Jewish privileges, rather than in the concept of confirmation at large.

In Roman, as well as in Greek, tradition a stela has value not only for the content of its inscription, if there is any, but also, and probably especially, for the location where it stands. A stela dictates the limits of validity of the content of its inscription.[78] Now the logical question is, where did Augustus erect the stela inscribed with his confirmation of the privileges of the Jews? Where did it mark the limits of those privileges on the Alexandrian territory? Considering the situation on the ground in Alexandria in the summer of 38, this question is more than pertinent. Was the “outside” mentioned in P. Yale II 107 and implicit on the Alexandrian ground in the summer of 38 determined by the location of the Augustan stela?

We do not have an ultimate answer to this question. What we can say is that both Augustus and Tiberius showed patronage towards the Jews probably in recognition of their pristine loyalty: the Jews had militarily sided with Octavian against the Ptolemies during the Egyptian part of the Roman civil war. Both Augustus and Tiberius could decide to apply particular policies in the name of their imperial auctoritas.

With the adjudication of 37 Gaius distances himself from the Jewish policies of his two predecessors. By interrupting the imperial patronage for the Jews and siding with the Alexandrians he signals from the very beginning of his reign that his policy about Alexandria, and very likely about Egypt, is going to be different. As different seems the punishment Gaius inflicted to the “accuser.”[79]

The letter

At the end of the hearing Gaius write a letter, epistula, to the Alexandrians. The content has disappeared in the lacunae of the text, and the only readable portion mentions a not better identified crown of honor probably to be denied to the Jews, according to the argument presented in this paper. No more than this can be said on the subject.

The epistula is the diplomatic means the emperor uses to make his decision public. In legal terms, the content of the letter is a decretum, one of the known forms of imperial constitutions.[80] Scholars have discussed the legal value of the decretum, whether it has the force, or is the source, of law.[81] Available evidence suggests that the decretum itself had the force of legal precedent but not necessarily the force of law. This means that in case of similar cases tried in an Alexandrian court, Gaius’ decision as spelled in his decretum had to be used to support the final decision of the judge;[82] however, the decretum could not be applied outside the court of law as any executive piece of legislation.

Although we do not know what Gaius’ epistula really contained, and especially when it arrived in Alexandria, we have evidence of its possible effects. In Philo’s words, at the beginning of 38 Flaccus, in his capacity of prefect of Alexandria head of the Egyptian judiciary, failed to show impartiality in cases concerning the Jews denying them permission to petition him in person (Fl., 24); in practical terms this means that the Jews had not the occasion to present their reasons, and their cases were lost from the beginning. Such a situation is in strong contrast with Flaccus’ attitude towards the Jews up to that time, which, in Philo’s words, was irreproachable. What the judicial cases in question were about we do not know, but the fact the Jews were not allowed to petition the prefect is a sing of a breach of their privileges. The only evidence we have of questioning or damaging of Jewish rights prior to that time is the trial before Gaius in the spring of 37 and the letter following in which a crown of virtue, certainly a form of honor and privilege, is denied to them. But this is not enough to justify Flaccus’ decree and the almost complete oblitaration of the Jewish privileges in the city.

FROM GAIUS’ EPISTULA TO FLACCUS’ DECREE

If the interpretation of this paper is accepted, the reason why the Jews lose their case in Rome in 37 and the dynamic of the consequence of Flaccus’ decree in 38 follow the same pattern—they both spin around the “outside.” As Gaius’ epistula had not force of law, it could not prompt Flaccus’ issuing the decree, but only individual court decisions. Flaccus’ needed an executive order to issue the decree; this has to be identified with Gaius’ mandata.

At Gaius’ accession in 37, Flaccus expected to be replaced;[83] the emperor had actually appointed Macro as next prefect of Alexandria and Egypt (Dio, LIX 10, 6; Philo, Leg., 32ff). However, first Gaius’ illness in the fall of 37 (Dio LIX 7, 9) and subsequently Macro’s death in the winter or early spring of 38,[84] prompted a change of plans, to the effect that Gaius reconfirmed Flaccus in office. Flaccus received Gaius’ mandata, the imperial orders concerning the administration of the province, [85] from king Agrippa on behalf of the emperor in the summer of 38, days before the riots in Alexandria started.[86]

According to legal Roman studies, imperial mandata were imperial constitutions which legally bound the province for which they were issued. Governors would take care to publish the capita mandatorum immediately after they would take office in the form of edicts.[87] What we understand of the sequence of the events in Alexandria in the summer of 38 reflects precisely these guidelines. Soon after having being confirmed in office and having received the mandata by Agrippa, Flaccus issued the edict which would obliterate the Jewish rights of residence in most of the city. The j°nouw ka‹ §pÆludaw / foreigners and alien reported by Philo could have well been a capitum mandatorum.

A linguistic observation could be put forward to substantiate further this point; the Latin language, in which Gaius’ mandata were certainly written, knows the expression peregrini et adveniae, foreigners and immigrants (Cic., De Or., I 249). J°nouw ka‹ §pÆludaw is the literal translation of that expression; j°now correspond certainly to peregrinus, and §pÆluw in the sense of immigrant is widely used in Greek literature (Aesch., Suppl., 195; 401; 611).[88] The hypothesis that Philo is actually citing verbatim the edict of the prefect, translated into Greek from the original Latin, can therefore be sustained.

In Gaius’ mandata the “outside” acquires a new status. While in the epistula it was the content of a measure with application limited to the walls of a court house, in the mandata, and subsequently in Flaccus’ edict, “outside” becomes law for the city of Alexandria at large binding all the Jews residing in it.

CONCLUSIONS

P. Yale II 107, in spite of its fragmentary conditions, can be read against a historical and juridical background. Specifically, if read in connection with the Alexandrian events of the summer of 38, it provides the conditio sine qua non for the outbreak of the riots themselves; if Gaius had not adjudicated in that particular sense in 37, his mandata of 38 to Flaccus would never have contained any order which, translated into a prefectal edict, would cast disgrace onto the Jews. The hypothesis that the content of the papyrus is fictional should therefore be abandoned. However, does the historicity of the content determine also the nature of the text of the papyrus? Is the papyrus historical on the ground that its content is? Does history kill the text?

The historical and legal readings so far exposed do not solve the problem of the chronological gap between the dramatic date of the content and the later date of the writing of the papyrus. Why should we have a copy of a report of events of the 1st century still copied two centuries later? Who needs this? What kind of situation (social, political, literary) does this papyrus, not its content, reflect? A historical reconstruction of the content of the papyrus cannot answer these questions.

The content of the papyrus is not fictional? Is the papyrus as well? Some details of the content of the papyrus can provide some clues on this issue. The dialogic form of the content is not fictional, but could well come from the real court exchanges between the parts involved; the inscription from Dmeir shows that trial minutes could be published as confused, informal and inaccurate as they were. However, also considering that we are reading from the real minutes of the trial of 37, and we are therefore in the realm of history, the frame in which they are contained poses some questions. For example, in one of the few readable line of the beginning of col. ii, it seems we have the report of a sailing trip, supposedly the traveling of the embassies, or of one of the embassies, from Alexandria to Rome. It is highly possible that this part was not included in the official minutes of the trial.

Similar considerations can probably be put forth for the formulation of the final sentence. After the last exchange between “the accuser” and the Alexandrian, Gaius utters the death sentence for “the accuser.” The papyrus does not have it in the direct speech, as one would expect form stenographic notes, and as we for example have in the trial of Isidorus and Lampon before Claudius some years later (Chrest., 14, col. iii, ll. 17-18). In our case we simply have “Gaius Caesar ordered to burn the accuser.” Why should we have such a change of form? Is the stenographer abandoning here the rigor with which he should be working, or is it that later, when the papyrus is written, the original form was reshaped into a more narrative frame?

It is clear that in the case of P. Yale II 107 history does not kill the text. The multiple questions still imbedded in the form of the text require analysis and approaches other than the search for a factual background. All the issues scholars have tried to address when no historical background had been identified for the content, remain valid more than ever for the text. The two have independent, although connected, existence.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adriani, A. Repertorio d'arte dell'Egitto greco-romano. Palermo: Banco di Sicilia, 1961-.

Amarelli, F. Consilia principium. Naples, 1983.

Bagnall, R., and B.W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Edited by P. Laslett, R. Schofield, et al., Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time, 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Barrett, A.A. Caligula. The Corruption of Power. New Haven - London: Yale University Press, 1989.

Bastianini, G. "Il prefetto d'Egitto (30 a.C. - 297 d.C.): addenda (1973-1985)." ANRW II, no. 10.1 (1988): 503-517.

Bell, H.I, ed. Jews and Christians in Egypt. The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924.

Bianchi, R.S. "Satrapenstele." LÄ 5 (1974): 492-493.

Box, H. Philonis Alexandrini In Flaccum. Edited by W.R. Connor, Greek Texts and Commentary. New York: Arno Press, 1939.

Brugsch, H. "Ein Decret Ptolemaios' des Sohnes Lagi, des Satrapen." ZÄS 9 (1871): 1-13.

Bureth, P. "Le préfet d'Égypte (30 av. J.C. - 297 ap. J.C.): état présent de la documentation en 1973." ANRW II, no. 10.1 (1988): 472-502.

Buti, I. "La "cognitio extra ordinem": da Augusto a Diocleziano." ANRW II, no. 14 (1982): 29-59.

Centola, D.A. Il crimen calumniae. Contributo allo studio del processo criminale romano. Napoli, 1999.

Chaveau, M. "Alexandrie et Rhakôtis: le point de vue de Égyptiens." In Alexandrie: une mégalopole cosmopolite. Paris, 1999.

Coroi, J.N. "Le P. Oxy. III 471. Une cognitio Caesarianasous Trajan." In Atti del IV congresso internazionale di papirologia, 395-434.

Cowey, J.M.S., and K. Maresch. Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3 - 133/2 v. Chr.) (P. Polit. Jud), Papyrologica Coloniensia 29. Wiesbaden, 2001.

Crook. Consilium principis. Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian, 1955.

Daverio Rocchi, G. "I segni di confine nello spazio della polis. Gli horoi dell'agora di Atene." In Religione e citta' nel mondo antico. Atti CeRDAC (Centro Ricerche e Documentazione sull'Antichita' Classica), 281-292. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1984.

———. Frontiera e confini nella Grecia antica. Roma: Erma di Bretschenider, 1988.

Delia, D. Alexandrian Citizenship during the Roman Principate, American Classical Studies, 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

El- Abbadi, M.A.H. "The Alexandrian Citizenship." JEA 48 (1962): 106-123.

Empereur, J.-Y., and M.-D. Nenna, eds. Nécropolis 1. Edited by J.-Y. Empereur, Études Alexandrines 5. Cairo: IFAO, 2001.

Fiebiger, H.O. "Corona." RE 8 (1901): 1636-1643.

Fitzpatrick-McKinley, A. "Synagogue Communities in the Greco-Roman Cities." In Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, edited by J.R. Bartlett, 55-87. London - New York: Routledge, 2002.

Foti Talamanca, G. Ricerche sul processo nell'Egitto greco-romano, Publicazioni dell'Istituto di diritto romano e dei diritti dell'Oriente Mediterraneo, 48. Milano: Giuffré, 1974.

Fraser, P.M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Geraci, G. Genesi della provincia romana d'Egitto. Edited by G. Susini, Studi di storia antica, 9. Bologna: CLUEB, 1983.

———. "La concessione della cittadinanza alessandrina ad Arpocrate egizio." In Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. I centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 23-27 Novembre 1992. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egizio. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1995.

Gruen, E. Diaspora. Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge - London: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Harker, A.J. "Loyalty and Dissidence in Roman Egypt: the Case of the Acta Alexandrinorum." University of London, 2001.

Henry, A.S. Honours and Privileges in Athenians Decrees. Hildesheim - Zürich - New York: Olms Verlag, 1983.

Horbury, W., and D. Noy. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Hornung, E. Altägyptische Höllenvorstellungen, Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenshaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 59.3. Berlin, 1968.

Huzar, E.G. "Augustus, Heir of the Ptolemies." ANRW II, no. 10,1 (1988): 344-382.

Kasher, A. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. The Struggle for Equal Rights, Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum. Tübingen: Mohr, 1985.

Katzoff, R. "Sources of Law in Roman Egypt: The Role of the Prefect." ANRW II, no. 13 (1980): 807-844.

Kuhlmann, P.A., ed. Die Giessener literarischen Papyri und die Caracalla-Erlasse. Giessen, 1994.

Lanata, G. Gli atti dei martiri come documenti processuali. Milano: Giuffrè, 1973.

Last, H. "Review of L.L. Howe, 'The Preatorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian'." JRS 34 (1944): 121-125.

———. "The Praefectus Aegypti and his Powers." JRS 40 (1954): 68-73.

Leisegang, I. Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt. Indices ad Philonis Alexandrini opera. Edited by L. Cohn and P. Wendland. I-VII vols. Vol. VII,2, Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1930.

Lenel, O., and J. Partsch. Zum sogenannte Gnomon des Idios Logos. Heidelberg: Winter Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1920.

Manfredini, A.D. "Criminie pene da Augusto ad Adriano." In Res publica e princeps. Vicende politiche e ordinamento guiridico da Cesare ad Adriano. Atti del convegno internazionale di diritto romano (Capanello 1994), edited by F. Milazzo, 219-250. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1996.

Mariette, A. Monuments divers. Recueillis en Égypte et en Nubie. Paris, 1872, 1889.

Marotta, V. Mandata principium. Torino, 1991.

Mason, H.J. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, American Studies in Papyrology, 13. Toronto: Hakkert, 1974.

Mélèze Modrzejewski, J. The Jews of Egypt. From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Mommsen, T. Disegno del diritto pubblico romano: Celuc, 1973 [1943].

Montevecchi, O. "L'amministrazione dell'Egitto sotto i Giulio-Claudi." ANRW II, no. 10,1 (1988): 412-471.

Moretti, L. Iscrizioni agonistiche greche. Roma, 1953.

Musurillo, H. Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

———, ed. The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs: the Acta Alexandrinorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954.

Musurillo, H., and G.M. Parassoglou. "A New Fragment of the Acta Alexandrinorum." ZPE 15 (1974): 1-7.

Nelson, C.A. Status Declaration in Roman Egypt, American Studies in Papyrology, 19. Amsterdam: Hakkart, 1979.

Olivier, J.H. "Minutes of a Trial Conducted by Caracalla at Antioch in a.D. 216." In Mélenges helléniques offerts à George Daux, 289-294. Paris: De Boccard, 1974.

Perseus Project - dictionary Entry Lookup [cited. Available from .

Piccaluga. Terminus. I segni di confine nella religione romana. Roma, 1974.

Piganiol, A. "Le Statut Augustéen de l'Égypte et sa destruction." MusHelv 10 (1953): 193-202.

Premerstein, A. (von), ed. Zu den sogenannte alexandrinischen Märtyrerakten, Philologus. Supplementband 16,2, 1923.

———, ed. Alexandrinische Geronten vor Kaiser Gaius: Ein neues Bruchstuck der sogenannten Alexandrinischen Martyrer-Akten. Vol. 5, Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Giessener Universitatsbibliothek. Giessen, 1939.

Premerstein, A. von. "A cognitionibus." RE IV (1901a): 221-222.

———. "A commentariis." RE IV, no. 1 (1901b): 759-768.

Pucci Ben Zeev, M. Jewish Rights in the Roman World. The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

Reinmuth, O.W. The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian, Klio, 34. Leipzig: Dieterich, 1935.

Riccobono, S., jr. Il Gnomon dell'Idios Logos. Palermo: Palumbo, 1950.

Schiller, A.A. Roman Law. Mechanisms of development. The Hague - Paris - New York: Mouton, 1978.

Smallwood, E. M. The Jews under Roman Rule. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.

———, ed. Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970.

Stephens, S.A., ed. Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Vol. 2, American Studies in Papyrology, 24. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.

Talamanca. Elementi di diritto privato romano. Milano: Giuffre', 2001.

Taubenschlag, R. The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri. 332 B.C. - 640 A.D. Warszawa, 1955.

Tcherikover, V. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America - Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1961 (1959).

Tcherikover, V., and A. Fuks. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957-1960.

Veligianni-Terzi, C. Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehrendekreten der Klassischen Zeit. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997.

-----------------------

* This paper is a draft of a chapter for a larger work preliminarily entitled The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews. A Historical Reconstruction; manuscript submission date to Brill Academic Publisher is fixed for Dec 2005.

[1] Premerstein (1939): 2-71.

[2] Musurillo (1954): 8-17.

[3] Musurillo and Parassoglou (1974).

[4] Stephens (1985).

[5] Kuhlmann (1994).

[6] In the following paragraphs I provide a succinct summary of the state of the studies; bibliography, including the basic works on the 19th century, can be found in Premerstein (1923), Premerstein (1939), Coroi, Musurillo (1954), Musurillo (1972) Lanata (1973), Harker (2001).

[7] Premerstein (1939), Stephens (1985), Harker (2001).

[8] For some conjectures, see Musurillo (1954): 110-111. Premerstein (1939): 36-40 suggested that the Tiberius of col. i was Tiberius Gemellus, grandson of Tiberius and by him appointed as Gaius’ co-heir to the throne (Philo, Leg., 23). This suggestion is untenable; see Musurillo (1954): 106-107 and Stephens (1985): 87.

[9] Kur€e (col. ii, ll. 15, 33; col. iii, ll. 3, 9), god of the cosmos and ruler of the city (col. ii, l. 35- col. iii, l. 1).

[10] For some on or soon after April 3, 37, day of Tiberius’ funeral; Musurillo (1954): 111; Musurillo and Parassoglou (1974): 2; Stephens (1985): 87.

[11] On the basis of these line Premerstein (1939) inaugurated the discussion on the Alexandrian gerousia; his conclusion are no longer accepted. For the difficulty to translate and interpret diå toÁw rog see Stephens (1985): 94.

[12] Taubenschlag (1955): 605.

[13] Musurillo (1954): 107; Tcherikover and Fuks (1957-1960): II, 66, n. 21; Stephens (1985): 96, ad loc; Premerstein (1939): ad loc.

[14] This is what emerges from the analysis of Attic decrees; Henry (1983): 29.

[15] When éretÆ is the reason for the granting of a crown, the extant epigraphical texts repeatedly present the standard formula st°fanow éret∞w ¶neka; Henry (1983): 42; Veligianni-Terzi (1997): 294. No corona virtutis or éret∞w st°fanow as such are known from antiquity; see Fiebiger (1901).

[16] Fraser (1972): I 38 and passim.

[17] See Fraser (1972): 54, 107 for Egyptian laws and courts, and 55l, 689-700 for Jewish laws and courts; 110-112 for the politikoi nomoi, the laws of the city and the royal provisions of Dikaiomata (P. Hal., 1); Mélèze Modrzejewski (1997): 100 for the translation of the Torah and 104-106 for the Jewish and Egyptian laws.

[18] Called politeumata; in Alesandria they were frequent and generally represented associations of private citizens around a cult; see Smallwood (1976): 226-228, particularly n. 35; Fitzpatrick-McKinley (2002): 55.

[19] Tcherikover and Fuks (1957-1960) II: 64-65.

[20] Discussion on the subject in Tcherikover (1961 (1959)): 297ff; Fraser (1972): 57-58; Smallwood (1976): 225-250; Kasher (1985): 233ff.; Gruen (2002): 74. A recently found papyrus from Herakleopolis on the local Jewish politeuma has shed light on this kind of organization, which, institutionally, is very similar to that of Alexandria; see Cowey and Maresch (2001).

[21] Musurillo – Parassoglou 1975 in P. Yale inv. 1385, col. ii, ll. 70-71 have the following reading (the accuser speaks): [é]p°xou t∞w patr€dow mou k[………..] / [….]. ‡svw kég∆ t∞w s∞w pa[tr€dow ….]; stay away from my patris / in the same way also I from your patris.

[22] = P. Giss. Lit. 4.7 in Kuhlmann (1994).

[23] Same text in BGU XIV 2367, both texts are of the third century B.C.E.

[24] The translation of g°now as ‘class’ is suggested both by El- Abbadi (1962): 109 and Delia (1991): 22 n. 73 on the basis of Gnomon # 35 (BGU V 1210).

[25] Fraser (1972): I 39-41.

[26] For the Alexandrian demes see Fraser (1972): I 44-47.

[27] For Fraser (1972): I 47, Alexandreus indicates a status different from that of a demesman; Delia (1991): 27, suggests that Alexandreus applies to non citizens but defines their ethnic identity.

[28] The same hand wrote also BGU IV 1130, a document completely unrelated to the present one; see Tcherikover and Fuks (1957-1960): II, 29 for references. The fact that this may not be the official document but only a draft of it does not undermine my argument.

[29] The Jews were not citizens but only residents in Alexandria (see below). In Acta Isidori et Lamponis (Rec, C, P. Berol. 8877, col. ii, l. 29-30) it is clearly stated that no ruler had ever asked the Jews of Alexandria to pay the poll-tax.

[30] Of this same group of Alexandrian documents found at Abusir el-Melek, the following report the declarants styling themselves in the same way: BGU IV 1101, May 13, 13 B.C.E.; BGU IV 1119, 6/5 B.C.E.; BGU IV 1127, Feb. 1, 18 B.C.E.; BGU IV 1165, Dec. 20/Jan. 19 B.C.E.; BGU IV 1167, Feb. 24, 12 B.C.E.

[31] Delia (1991): 26 thinks it is just a matter of more precise specification.

[32] The problem of “who is Alexandreus?” is integral part of the discussion on the Alexandrian citizenship and the status of all those who lived in it; emphasis on this problem is in Jos., Ap., II 38 and in the alleged decree of Claudius Josephus report in Ant., XIX 280-285. For the major literature, see El- Abbadi (1962), and Delia (1991): 21-28.

[33] Musurillo 1954 in P. Giss. Univ. 46, col. iii, ll. 21-22 has the following reading: ‡d[e] dØ jeni[kÚw] går mål[lon kata-] / lab∆n po[l]ite€an é[na]pÒgrafo[n c. 5 ] / jv (see, he is a foreigner for he rather seizes an unregistered citizenship). The word énapÒgrafow as appositive / attributive to politeia would be a hapax; in this case ‘the accuser,’ a foreigner, would in his turn be accused of seizing civic rights which are unregistered—which raises the question: what unregistered civic rights may they be?

[34] Perseus Project - dictionary Entry Lookup : s.v. The documents in questions are all kat’ofik€an épografa€, census property declarations; the most relevant for this study are those from Alexandria collected in P. Alex. Giss., 14-18; 22. The only literary source is Hyp., IV 34, still on administrative issues.

[35] Not very different is the restoration by Kuhlmann (1994) editing P. Giss. Lit. 4.7, who suggests épogrãfow, attributive of jenikÒw.

[36] The connection between patris and politeia does not emerge from the papyrus and is probably lost in the two missing lines in col. iii between l. 17 and l. 19. However, according to the reading of patris I have suggested so far, I consider it to be one of the privileges contained in the politeia.

[37] According to Stephens (1985): 97, citing Koenen in Hornung (1968): 27-8, a penalty reserved to the enemies of the ruler.

[38] Riccobono (1950): 203. As all the measures listed in the Gnomon, also this one is not dated; Philo’s comment though provide a good chronological frame to set it at the first century C.E.

[39] PrÒgramma is a technical Greek word translating the Latin edictum. See Katzoff (1980): 819, and Mason (1974): 80.

[40] This is the only occurrence of jenite€a in Philo’s corpus, but j°now – foreigner – and some cognates are frequently used. It appears, though, that in the rest of his work Philo consistently opposes j°now to pol€thw – citizen: Leisegang (1930): 564-565.

[41] For a denotation of this term related to residence and not to citizenship see Smallwood (1970): 9-10, and Kasher (1985): 242.

[42] Smallwood (1976): 229-230; Kasher (1985): passim.

[43] This is firmly stated by king Agrippa in 41 in Rome at Isidorus’ trial in Rome before the emperor Claudius (Acta Isidori et Lamponis, Rec. C, P. Berl., inv. 8877, ll. 28-30 = CPJ, II 156c). Different was for their fellow-nationals in the rest of the country; see Kasher (1985): 98-105, and Mélèze Modrzejewski (1997): 163.

[44] The number of authors who have touched this subject is enormous; I will cite only those who have devoted to it more extensive study: Bell (1924): 8-21; Tcherikover (1961 (1959)): 296ff.;Smallwood (1976): 224-235; Kasher (1985): 168-357.

[45] In the area of Gabbari, recently thoroughly excavated; see Empereur and Nenna (2001).

[46] Inscriptions collected in Horbury and Noy (1992): # 1-8, paleographically dated from the early Ptolemaic period.

[47] The leading discussion on the subject is in Fraser (1972): 34 and n. 265; see also before him Box (1939): 99 ad 55.

[48] Already in Box (1939): 99 ad 55, subsequently confirmed in the extensive discussion of Fraser (1972): I 35; Smallwood (1970): 217 ad 127; Kasher (1985): 249.

[49] Box (1939): 99 ad 55; Fraser (1972): I, 35 and II n. 182, 270, 271; Kasher (1985): 247, 249.

[50] Only Adriani (1961-): C I-II, 239 accepted this papyrological evidence as more trustworthy than Josephus’ passage and any interpretation of it. Fraser (1972): II n. 270, 271 recognizes and discusses the problem of incompatibility between BGU IV 1115 and Josephus’ passage, but inclines to accept Josephus.

[51] This area is therefore the Delta where Ti. Iulius Alexander attacked the Jews in 66 (Jos., B.J., II 495), it is here that many of the Jews remained after 41, even after the pacification attempted by Claudius (P. Lond., 1912 = CPJ II 153), and

[52] The inscription was found in Cairo at the end of the nineteenth century; it is now housed in the Egyptian Museum (CGC 22182). It is written in hieroglyphic script with no known Greek or Demotic version. The inscription is dated November 9, 311 B.C.E; at ll. 19-20 it reads “Il (sc. Ptolémé) a établi sa résidence, dont le nom est “la fortresse du Roi de Haute et Basse Egypte Setepenkarê - Mériamon, fils de Rê, Alexandre” sur les rivages de la Ouadj-our des Haou Nébou (i.e. the Mediterranean sea) son nom précédent étant Rakôté;” translation Chaveau (1999): 2. See Bianchi (1974); Brugsch (1871); Mariette (1872, 1889): 14.

[53] See Tcherikover (1961 (1959)): 324 and n. 81, agreed by all.

[54] sun–kisto (they settled [in the colony]); see Kasher (1985): 283 for a discussion of sun–kisto in relation to the political status of the quarter.

[55] A suggestion in this sense, although not discussed or documented, is already in Smallwood (1970): 20; cf. Box (1939): 99 ad 55.

[56] On this subject see the basic studies in Piganiol (1953) and Geraci (1983).

[57] Piganiol (1953); see also Montevecchi (1988): 420-427.

[58] The documentary sources show in fact that the final name of the office was the result of an elaboration through time. The shift from praefectus fabrum to praefectus Alexandrae et Aegypti took very likely several months (cf. the inscription on the obelisk in the Vatican, probably to be reckoned among the earliest ones, and the Latin in the bi-lingual stela of Philae of April 15, 29 B.C.E. [IG Philae 128]). The hierarchical position of the prefect is better described by Strabo, XVII 1, 12: tØn toË basil°vw ¶xei tãjin; and Tacitus, Hist., I 11: loco regum. See Geraci (1983): 135; Montevecchi (1988): 422. That the content of the office of the prefect of Egypt was probably defined through a legislative process taking place in Rome is suggested by Ulpian, Dig., I, 17,1: […] imperium […] lege sub Augusto ei [scil. Preafecto] datum est, et. cet. There is discussion whether this passage has been object of a later interpolation; see Last (1954): 69-70 and Geraci (1983): 143.)

[59] Geraci (1983): 142ff., among many, thinks that by this time the statute of Egypt was fixed; see also Montevecchi (1988): 423-424.

[60] Huzar (1988): 353. This does not mean that the prefects down to 23 B.C.E. were prevented from accomplishing their gubernatorial duties; actually the records from the period show their extensive activity both in the military and in the administrative field; for the list of the document from C. Cornelius Gallus (prefect 30-26 B.C.E.) to C. Petronius (prefect 24-21 B.C.E.) see Bureth (1988): 474-475, and Bastianini (1988): 503.

[61] For interesting observations of the way power was bestowed by the emperor on the prefects, although pertaining to a later period, see Last (1944) and Last (1954): 71-72.

[62] Riccobono (1950): ad loc., and 177-178 (that before this provision the jurisdiction over status was of the Idios Logos, as Riccobono maintains, is unsupported by evidence); not discussed in Lenel and Partsch (1920).

[63] Inscription from Sardis; Moretti (1953): n. 84, C, ll. 10-13, non vidi; Taubenschlag (1955): 592; Geraci (1995): 61 and n. 36 for additional literature.

[64] So Geraci (1995): 62.

[65] Montevecchi (1988): 428; Foti Talamanca (1974), for a study of the juridical aspect of the conventus.

[66] Reinmuth (1935).

[67] A lot has been written on this document, on the difficulty of interpreting it, due to its fragmentary state and its several corrections and re-writing. The editorial efforts of several scholars have not been sufficient to provide a consistent text; the recognized illogicalities have been taken as a sign “typical of the Jews in this period who went to all possible lengths in their struggle for emancipation;” as held by Tcherikover and Fuks (1957-1960): II 30, only by virtue of the mention of the poll-tax. See Tcherikover and Fuks (1957-1960): II 29-30, for bibliography and summary of interpretations; see also Kasher (1985): 201-203, and, more recently, Gruen (2002): 76ff.

[68] In order to have the economic and demographic picture of Egypt under control, the Romans started to count their subjects very early in the history of the province of Egypt; Three hundred census declarations have survived, dating from 12 to 259 C.E. Bagnall and Frier (1994): 1. The primary aim of the census, to which all the inhabitants of the country were obliged to comply, was to determine the segment of the population on which to exact the poll-tax, whose existence is documented from 24 B.C.E. to 248 C.E; Bagnall and Frier (1994): 3; 10. Every non-citizen male between fourteen to sixty-two years of age was eligible to pay it; the fourteen years interval census system allowed the update of the population lists in a way that no one could escape. Data are uncertain for the Augustan period, during which four censuses seem to be documented with a seven-year interval. Starting from 33/34 C.E., the census is regularly ordered every fourteen years; see Bagnall and Frier (1994): 1-5. Only the Roman citizens, the citizens of the Greek cities of Egypt and the Jews living in Alexandria were exempted from every form of personal taxation.

[69] Nelson (1979). One hundred declarations of §p€krisiw have survived, especially from the Arsinoite and Oxyrhynchus, dating mainly from the late first to the middle of the third century C.E. For a family member belonging to a privileged group, the function of these declarations was to enroll the descendents in the same group, or to confirm the status declared previously; the privilege in question was always to pay a reduced poll-tax rate, or not to pay it at all.

[70] Foti Talamanca (1974): vol. II, p. 26.

[71] Olivier (1974), particularly 291.

[72] Premerstein (1901a), Premerstein (1901b), Schiller (1978): 486.

[73] Crook (1955), Amarelli (1983).

[74] Von Premerstein, Musurillo, Stephens, Kroll

[75] Buti (1982): 31; 35

[76] Centola (1999)

[77] Mommsen (1973 [1943]), Schiller (1978), Buti (1982): 35, mainly on the basis of his proconsular imperium and tribunicia potestas.

[78] For the tradition in the Greek East both in the Classical and in Roman time see Daverio Rocchi (1984) and Daverio Rocchi (1988); Alexandrian laws were of Athenian origins (P. Oxy. 2177, ll. 13-15), but, like the rest of the empire, in the course of time Roman juridical principles influenced her legal system. For a cross cultural study, see Piccaluga (1974).

[79] The nature of the cognitio extra ordinem allowed the emperor to introduce new crimes and new punishments: Amarelli (1983), Manfredini (1996): 223, from Augustus on the emperor is free to condemn and to acquit.

[80] Whenever a provincial governor would ask the emperor for a legal advise, the emperor would reply with an epistula. In this case the epistula itself was one of the imperial constitution and had legal validity (Gai., Inst, I 5.); however its force was limited to the issue which was meant to address. Pliny’s letter exchange with Trajan are the best example of this procedure (especially X 65-66). The emperor may order that his letter be publicly posted at destination (BGU I 140); see Schiller (1978): 496; 512.

[81] Buti (1982): 31 the decretum coming from a cognitio extra ordinem introduces “imperial law.”

[82] Buti (1982): 36, producing in this way imperial jurisdiction: Talamanca (2001): 20-22.

[83] Given the fiduciary nature of the office of the prefect vis-à-vis that of the emperor, every new emperor would appoint a new prefect of Egypt soon after his accession.

[84] Barrett (1989): 78.

[85] In 27 B.C.E., Augustus instituted the practice of sending mandata to his provincial magistrates (Dio, LIII 15, 4). Augustus’ mandata to C. Norbanus Flaccus, proconsul of Asia, is reported by Jos., Ant., XVI 166; commentary in Pucci Ben Zeev (1998): 258-261. According to Riccobono (1950): 83 in Egypt the mandata principium were collected in the Gnomon of the Idios Logos (BGU V 1210); but contra see Marotta (1991): 5 and n. 6 for previous studies.

[86] This is why king Agrippa stopped in Alexandria, at Gaius’ request (Philo, Fl., 26-27), on his way to his Palestinian kingdom.

[87] Marotta (1991): 16-21.

[88] The list of the occurrences is much longer and covers a range of works from tragedy to poetry to prose.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download