Th e Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews:

A Historical Reconstruction

Supplements

to the

Journal for the Studyof Judaism

Editor

Hindy NajmanDepartment and Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto

Associate Editors

Florentino Garca MartnezQumran Institute, University of Groningen

Benjamin G. Wright, IIIDepartment of Religion Studies, Lehigh University

Advisory Boardj.j. collins j. duhaime p.w. van der horst

a. klostergaard petersen j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten j. sievers g. stemberger

e.j.c. tigchelaar j. tromp

VOLUME 135

Th e Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews:

A Historical Reconstruction

By

Sandra Gambetti

LEIDEN BOSTON2009

Th is book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gambetti, Sandra. Th e Alexandrian riots of 38 C.E. and the persecution of the Jews : a historical reconstruction / by Sandra Gambetti. p. cm. (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ; v. 135) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-13846-9 (hbk. : alk. paper) 1. JewsEgyptAlexandriaHistoryTo 1500. 2. JewsPersecutionsEgyptAlexandriaHistoryTo 1500. 3. JewsCivil rightsEgyptAlexandriaHistoryTo 1500. 4. RiotsEgyptAlexandriaHistoryTo 1500. 5. Alexandria (Egypt)History. 6. Alexandria (Egypt)Ethnic relations. 7. Alexandria (Egypt)Politics and government. I. Title. II. Series.

DS135.E42A43364 2009 305.8924032dc22

2009025041

ISSN: 1384-2161ISBN: 978 90 04 13846 9

Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Th e Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to Th e Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments .............................................................................. viiAbbreviations ..................................................................................... ixIntroduction ........................................................................................ 1

Chapter One Unwrapping Philos Narrative ............................. 13

Chapter Two Th e Rights of Residence of Alexandrian Jews in the Ptolemaic Period ............................................................... 23

Chapter Th ree Th e Rights of Residence of Alexandrian Jewsin the Roman Period .................................................................... 57

Chapter Four Th e Prefecture of FlaccusTh e Early Years ..... 77

Chapter Five Th e Precedent for the Riots .................................. 87

Chapter Six Spring 38 C.E. ........................................................... 137

Chapter Seven Agrippa in Alexandria ........................................ 151

Chapter Eight Th e Riots of 38 C.E. ............................................ 167

Chapter Nine Th e Cultural and Religious Background of the Riots .................................................................................... 195

Chapter Ten Th e Years 39 and 41 C.E. ...................................... 213

Conclusions ........................................................................................ 239

Appendices Appendix One Th e Chronology ............................................. 255 Appendix Two Th e Replacement of the Prefect of Egypt

at the Emperors Death ........................................................... 273

vi contents

Appendix Th ree Th e Prefects Jurisdiction over Matters of Status ...................................................................... 277

Appendix Four Th e Topography of Alexandria .................. 282 Appendix Five Ethnics, Patris, and the Case of

Alexandreus ............................................................................... 287

Bibliography ........................................................................................ 293

General Index ..................................................................................... 315Index of Documentary Sources ....................................................... 322Index of Literary Sources ................................................................. 327Index of Relevant Words ................................................................. 334

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Th is monograph develops from my doctoral dissertation, which was itself originally a graduate seminar paper at U.C. Berkeley. Of course, many people have crossed the path of this research during its long gestation and in all its phases. I have not kept any list, so, I must rely only on my memory, a very sore spot these days. To those who do not fi nd their name mentioned below, please do not be off endedwe will have a drink at some point, and it will be on me.

My work could not have developed into this form had I not been in Egypt and Alexandria in 20012002. My stay in Alexandria came to be especially important. I met there Mona Haggag, who fi rst introduced me to the city and put me in contact with the Centre dtudes Alexandrines. Jean-Yves Empereur allowed me to work in the Centers library. At that time, the library consisted of no more than two rooms, yet it was a concentration of books, journals, off prints, maps only and exclusively on Alexandria. In short, it was an amusement park for a student with my interests. I divided my days between the Centers library and the city, walking miles a day north-south, east-west, up and down, back and forth, trying to gain a physical sense of it and to fi nd a relationship between what I was reading and what I was seeing.

Th e fi rst phase of the transformation from the dissertation into a monograph took place in the library of the Department of Ancient History of the University of Bologna, where I spent one summer in the company of my old teachers and friends. Carla Salvaterras proverbial wisdom does not need any additional praise here. I remember very insightful conversations at lunch on the Tour de France with Federi-comaria Muccioli. A particular thought goes to Alessandro Cristofori, a real breathing bibliographical catalogue, always ready to use, whom I exploited as much as I could as I strategically sat next to him in the library for weeks. I am truly sorry for those who can never take advan-tage of himyou have missed the experience of a lifetime.

I wish to close this note with two names: Antonio Sabattini and Erich Gruen. Antonio Sabattini has been my fi rst teacher and laurea thesis supervisor; from him I have learned the craft , the discipline, the stubborness. Fundamentally, I would not be here writing this note for my fi rst monograph, had I not met him in the fi rst place. I have some

problems to spell anything about Erich Gruen; his help, encouragment and support in graduate school and especially during the dissertation processand aft er that as wellgo beyond any possible description. To Antonio and Erich this book is dedicated.

Publication of this monograph was made in part possible by a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture.

viii acknowledgments

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations of authors, ancient works and modern literature in this book follow the guidelines of Th e SBL Handbook of Style, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson 1999. Th e titles of less common journals are writ-ten in full.

INTRODUCTION

In the summer of 38 C.E., the multiethnic city of Alexandria in Egypt, having been under Roman rule at that time for 69 years, became a theater of severe disorder. Its well-established Jewish community was attacked and violently persecuted: shops were pillaged and destroyed, meeting houses were burnt down, and people were tortured and mur-dered. Th e Jewish politeia, the system of civic laws and regulations that allowed Jews to legally and relatively independently live according to their ancestral customs, was abrogated.

Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish philosopher who lived through those events, is our only witness to these facts and he describes them in two works, In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium. With the exception of a few passages in the works of other authors, Philo remains the most impor-tant primary source for the Alexandrian events, despite some impor-tant historiographic problems. In fact, both works are incompleteIn Flaccum missing the beginning, Legatio ad Gaium the endand the historical and manuscript traditions disagree about the reason for their composition and their place within Philos opus.1

Th e apparent fl uidity of Philos two accounts does not provide a complete picture of the background of the events. Th e two treatises actually seem to respond to the needs of two diff erent agendas. In In Flaccum the prefect of Egypt, Aulus Avilius Flaccus, subscribing to an agreement with the anti-Jewish factions of the city, is principally respon-sible for, even instigates, the suff ering of the Jews. Legatio ad Gaium, however, is composed in a completely diff erent key. Here the account of the riots occupies only a few paragraphs in which Gaius, the Roman emperor, is the villain, reacting to the Jews refusal to consider him a

1 A critical edition with a philological introduction on the manuscript tradition is found in L. Cohn and S. Reiter, Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1915) xlviilxxvii. Good summaries and reviews are also in H. Box, Philonis Alexandrini In Flaccum (New York: Arno Press, 1939), xxxiiixxxvii; F.H. Colson, Philo. Th e Embassy to Gaius (Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press, 1962), xvixxi; E.M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 3643.

2 introduction

god; the scenario is not limited to Alexandria, but extends throughout the Empire; and Flaccus is barely mentioned.2

Studies of the Alexandrian riots of 38 C.E. are an important part of a larger issue, namely the rights of Diaspora Jews in the Greco-Roman period.3 Because Alexandria is the only case for which a contemporary full description is available, it has become the terrain most frequented for scholarly discussion, in spite of all the problems briefl y outlined above.

Scholars have focused primarily on defi ning the background and searching for the causes of the riots; the initial stages of this debate were heavily infl uenced by the experience of nineteenth and twentieth century European Jews. At the end of the nineteenth century Schrers seminal multi-volume work on the experience of the Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman periods established the notion that the Alexandrian Jews held collective citizenship, which they struggled to defend.4 Nevertheless, a score of contemporary and later scholars remained skeptical.5 In 1924 Bell published P. Lond. VI 1912, better known as the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians. Th is document changed the documentary basis for the analysis of the riots of 38 C.E. Lines 9495, where the emperor reminds the Jews that they live in a city that is not their own, rightly prompted the editor to affi rm that the letter disprove[s] the idea that the Jews possessed citizenship.6 While a few scholars were still inclined

2 Good, although short, comparative comments in C. Kraus Reggiani, I rapporti tra limpero romano e il mondo ebraico al tempo di Caligola secondo la Lagatio ad Gaium di Filone Alessandrino, ANRW II 21.1 (1984): 556.

3 For an overview of the studies on Hellenistic Judaism, J.J. Collins, Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (LeidenBoston: Brill, 2005), 120; a very recent overview of Alexandrian Judaism, is in G. Schimanowski, Juden und Nichtjuden in Alexandrien. Koexistenz und Konfl ikte bis zum Pogrom unter Trajan (117 n. Chr.) (Berlin: LIT, 2006).

4 E. Schrer, Th e History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.135 A.D.), revised edition by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman (Edinbourgh: T&T Clark, 1987), III 122123; L. Fuchs, Die Juden Aegyptens in ptolemischer und rmischer Zeit (Wien: Rath, 1924), 85 and n. 2 for previous bibliography.

5 J. Juster, Les Juifs dans lEmpire romain; leur condition juridique, conomique et sociale (Paris: Geuthner, 1914), II 611; W. Schubart, Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus, APF 5 (19091913): 119120; H. Willrich, Caligula. Dritter Teil. VII, Die Juden, Beitrge zur alten Geschichte = Klio 3 (1903): 403407; Fuchs, Juden Aegyptens, 79105; M. Engers, Die staatsrechliche Stelung der alexandrinischen Juden, Klio 18 (1923): 7990; M. Gelzer, Iulius Caligula, RE X (1919): 381423.

6 H.I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt. Th e Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924), 11, 1415.

introduction 3

to agree with Schrers position,7 Bells edition of the Letter changed the landscape of the study of the riots nonetheless.8 A new scenario, however, developed immediately before Bells eyes: that of Jews strug-gling to acquire the Alexandrian franchise.9

Victor Tcherikover entertained and developed this idea in his infl u-ential works published aft er World War II.10 Since then many scholars have essentially followed in Tcherikovers steps.11 Some decades later, Mary Smallwood argued for a contrasting opinion. She denied that the Alexandrian Jews were fi ghting for emancipation, but continued to recognize that civic and political unrest permeated Alexandria since some Jews did want citizenship.12 Some years later Arieh Kasher, who also rejected any reference to an Alexandrian franchise for the Jews, suggested that two types of equivalent citizenship coexisted in Alexan-driaone for Greeks, one for Jewsand each was framed according to their respective ethnic values.13

Kashers idea of double equivalent citizenship has not been widely accepted, but the emphasis that he placed on the lack of interest among Jews in any form of traditional Alexandrian citizenship has reinforced his and Smallwoods approach, to which more recent scholarship usually refers.14

7 A. Momigliano, Claudius: the Emperor and His Achievement (Oxford: Claren-don, 1934), 9698; G. De Sanctis, Claudio e i giudei di Alessandria, RFIS 52 (1924): 473513; H. Lewy, Philon von Alexandrien von den Machterweisen Gottes: Eine zeitgenssische Darstellung der Judenverfolgungen unter dem Kaiser Caligula (Berlin: Schocken, 1935).

8 Th e earliest scholars to recognize the importance of the Letter aft er Bells publica-tion, and to agree with the editors conclusion, were T. Reinach, Lempereur Claude et les Juifs daprs un nouveau document, REJ 79 (1924): 133144 and H.S. Jones, Claudius and the Jewish Question at Alexandria, JRS 16 (1926): 1735.

9 Bell, Jews and Christians, 16.10 Reference works on the subject are V. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum

Judaicarum (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19571960), II 166 and V. Tche-rikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of AmericaMagnes Press, Th e Hebrew University, 1961 [1959]), 311.

11 J.P.V.D. Baldson, Th e Emperor Gaius (Caligula) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934), 128; Box, Flaccum, xx, xxxvii; R. Barraclough, Philos Politics: Roman Rule and Hellenistic Judaism, ANRW II 21.1 (1984): 424ff .; S. Honigman, Philon, Flavius Josphe, et la citoyennet alexandrine, JJS 48 (1997): 6290; J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 B.C.E.117 C.E.) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1996), 63 for scholarship overview.

12 Smallwood, Legatio, 611.13 A. Kasher, Th e Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Th e Struggle for Equal Rights

(Tbingen: Mohr (Siebek), 1985), passim. For similar conclusion, working on the con-cept of isopolitia see K. Bringmann, Isopoliteia in den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Juden und Griechen in Alexandreia. Chiron 35 (2005): 721.

14 Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 64ff . for scholarship overview. Opinions on this subject, with diff erent shades and emphasis, are in: A.A. Barrett, Caligula. Th e Corruption

4 introduction

A very recent contribution excludes any role for the Jewish struggle for civic rights, whatever that may have encompassed, and charges the Jews with a nationalist conspiracy against the Roman Empire that was led by the Jewish king Agrippa.15

Th e debate about Jewish political or civic rights in Alexandria has included the discussion of the laographia, the poll-tax imposed by the Romans on all of the countrys inhabitants, with the exception of the citizens of Alexandria, Ptolemais and Naucratis and a number of privi-leged groups. Of course the status of the Alexandrian Jews as citizens or legal residents, or whatever it may be, defi nes their position vis--vis the Roman fi scal administration. With few exceptions,16 scholars who maintain that the Jews were legal residents in Alexandria also accept the corollary, namely, that they were subject to paying the poll-tax by reason of their status. According to this view, the fi scal burden moti-vated them to seek a higher, tax-exempt civic status.17

Whatever a scholars view of the background and of the primary causes of the events might be, the subscribed dynamic of the riots centers almost invariably, in accordance with Philos In Flaccum, on the fi gure of the Roman prefect Flaccus, who was distressed by a political situation in Rome no longer favorable to him and who tried to save himself by seeking the support of local anti-Jewish groups and

of Power (New HavenLondon: Yale University Press, 1989), 184ff .; P. Schfer, Judeo-phobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (CambridgeLondon: Harvard University Press, 1997), 137ff .; J. Mlze Modrzejewski, Th e Jews of Egypt. From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 164ff .; A. Ferrill, Caligula Emperor of Rome (London: Th ames & Hudson, 1991), 143146; J.J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (Grand Rapids: Eerdsmans, 2000), 118; P. Van der Horst, Philos Flaccus. Th e First Pogrom (LeidenBoston: Brill, 2003), 24, 71; cf. E.S. Gruen, Diaspora. Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (CambridgeLondon: Harvard University Press, 2002), 5483.

15 A. Kerkeslager, Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla in Alexandria, JSJ 37 (2006): 367400; on historical grounds, it is unclear how Agrippa could have been involved in a conspiracy in 38 C.E. against the Roman Empire, and then appear in Rome at Gaius court in 39 C.E. where he received all the territories formerly of his brother. Agrippas visit has been generally thought to represent the immediate cause of the riots, although the kings real responsibilities have not been outlined with any degree of certainty; a most recent contribution on this is J.E. Atkinson, Ethnic Cleans-ing in Roman Alexandria in 38, AClass 49 (2006): 3154.

16 For example Gruen, Diaspora, 7577.17 Th e basic argument was introduced by Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 136;

312; aft er him, among others, Barrett, Caligula, 185; K. Blouin, Le confl it judo-alexan-drin de 3841. Lidentit juive lpreuve (ParisBudapestTorino: Harmattan, 2005); Schfer, Judeophobia, 65; Collins, Jewish Cult, 187189.

introduction 5

indulging their hostility toward the Jews.18 Although a few scholars have raised doubts concerning the likelihood of such an agreement,19 Flaccus has remained the one responsible for the riots, and most of the blame has been directed at him. It was Flaccus, aft er all, who issued the decree that would ruin most of the Alexandrian Jews.20 All of these views minimize the role of emperor Gaius, who remains a ghost in the background; Gaius never acted directly during the riots, and the Jews were attacked for his sake.21

But the identifi cation of the responsible party has not been limited to the dichotomy between Flaccus and Gaius. Th e traditional political reading of the riots, centered on the problem of Jewish citizenship or legal residence, understands the Jews as being opposed to the Greeks. Th e Greeks, then, attacked either the enfranchised Jews, because they did not want the Jews to share in their full political privileges,22 or the Jews seeking citizenship, because they did not want the Jews to acquire it.23

18 Baldson, Gaius, 132; Box, Flaccum, xxxix; Smallwood, Legatio, 1617; E.M. Small-wood, Th e Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 235237; Barrett, Caligula, 186; Ferrill, Caligula; L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 114; 145; Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 52; Mlze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 167169; Schfer, Judeophobia, 139140; Collins, Jewish Cult, 184.

19 A.N. Sherwin-White, Philo and Avilius Flaccus; a Conundrum, Latomus 31 (1972): 820828, followed by Gruen, Diaspora, 57; 59, and Collins, Athens and Jeru-salem, 57.

20 Smallwood, Legatio, 20 thinks that the Greeks forced Flaccus to issue the edict; on the emphasis of a punitive edict against the Jews and/or on Flaccus urge to keep public order see Kerkeslager, Agrippa; Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 243244; Gruen, Diaspora, 61; W. Ameling, Market-Place und Gewalt. Die Juden in Alexandrien 38 n.Chr., Wrzburger Jahrbcher fr die Altertumswissenschaft Neue Folge 27 (2003): 119121.

21 Th e majority of scholars have refrained from building a consistent argument against Gaius, despite Philo is very vociferous on this in Legatio; this is because Gaius would attack the Jews religiously to impose his self-deifi cation, a process that scholars historically date more than one year aft er the riots occurred; it is generally felt that Philo antedates this phenomenon to support his point. See Smallwood, Legatio, 3; among the latest, in the wake of her argument, Collins, Jewish Cult, 184. More on Gaius ruler cult below.

22 As in Schrer, History of the Jewish People, III 122123.23 Baldson, Gaius, 125; Box, Flaccum, xviii; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization,

311ff .; Smallwood, Legatio, 3; Smallwood, Jews, 235; Barrett, Caligula, 184; Ferrill, Caligula, 143; Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 115; to signal also L. Cracco Ruggini, Nuclei immigrati e forze indigene in tre grandi centri commerciali dellimpero, in Th e Seaborne Commerce of Ancient RomeStudies in Archaeology and History (eds. J.H. DArms and C.C. Kopff ; Rome: American Academy, 1980), 5576 who reads the riots in terms of class struggle between the Greek proletariat and the Jewish middle class, against which

6 introduction

In the last two decades some scholarly interest has shift ed away from a political reading of the riots to interpretations privileging an ethnic and identity-oriented reading of Philos texts. In these cases attention has been drawn to the diffi cult relationships between the many ethnic groups living in Alexandria, with their diff erent, oft en clashing, tradi-tions. In particular, the Greeks traditional adversary, the Jews, now share center stage with the native Egyptians. Th e native Egyptians were envious of the Jews better civic condition and were nourished with centuries-old anti-Jewish folklore; thus, they also had some interest in attacking the Jews.24

Th e diff erent interpretations of the Alexandrian events have been deeply aff ected by the unclear relationship between Philos two trea-tises, In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium. Scholars have tended to fully exploit the information provided in the fi rst treatise, while using the other treatise with circumvention, if not skepticism. With all the cau-tion that the use and analysis of both of Philos treatises necessitate, scholars have been more comfortable with following Philos account that blames Flaccus, rather then Gaius. Th e diff erent agendas of the two works have both been rationalized on the historiographical level rather than the historical one. Philo could accuse Flaccus in In Flac-cum, because at the time of composition Flaccus was already dead, while Gaius was still alive. Conversely, Philo felt free to openly accuse Gaius in Legatio because at the time of composition of this treatise the emperor was also dead; thus, Philo had nothing to fear.25 In any case the historical interpretation has never really interconnected with such a historiographical scenario.

M. Pucci Ben Zeev, New Perspectives on the Jewish-Greek Hostilities in Alexandria During the Reign of Emperor Caligula, JSJ 21 (1990): 227235.

24 K. Goudriaan, Ethnical Strategies in Graeco-Roman Egypt, in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (eds. P. Bilde, et al.; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992), 8587; P. Borgen, Philo and the Jews of Alexandria, in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (eds. P. Bilde, et al.; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992), 125127; R. Alston, Philos In Flaccum: Ethnicity and Social Space in Roman Alexandria, G&R 44 (1997): 165175; Schfer, Judeophobia, 144; Gruen, Diaspora, 64ff .; M. Niehoff , Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture (Tbingen: Mohr (Siebek), 2001), 4574; Ameling, Market-Place, passim; W. Bergmann and C. Hoff mann, Kalkl oder Massenwahn? Eine soziologische Inter-pretation der antijdischen Unruhen in Alexandria 38 n.Chr, in Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context (eds. R. Erb and M. Schmidt; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 929; Blouin, Confl it judo-alexandrin, passim; Collins, Jewish Cult, 185.

25 Summary of this in Van der Horst, Flaccus, 45 and Smallwood, Legatio, 151152; 266.

introduction 7

The Present Work

Th is work presents no alternative approach to the subject; thus, the reader will fi nd below a very traditional political and legalistic explana-tion of the riots. Methodologically, the present interpretation is based on an inquiring close-up reading of Philos texts, both vis--vis the few other available pieces of evidence on the subject and against the larger historical background of the period. Philos statements are evaluated, without underestimating either his allusions or his silences. Th e nature of both of Philos treatises, In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium, requires such a close-up reading for several reasons. Beyond the problems related to their incompleteness and to the manuscript tradition mentioned above, Philos direct involvement in the riots renders his writings an item to handle with care. Philo was a historical participant in the events, in that he was an eye-witness of the riots and, in fact, the only eye-witness for modern readers. However, he was also an emotional participant, since he was a member of the Jewish community under attack and later led the delegation that met emperor Gaius in Rome in 39 C.E. in the wake of the Alexandrian events. Philos testimony can be compared, then, to a double-edged sword. On the one hand, he provides details that only a witness to the events can; on the other hand, his testimony may distort the events in ways that only someone who felt these events can. Consideration of both Philos details and possible distortions form and inform the present study.

Building a background against which to understand the riots has also been extremely important in developing the present study. Th e political approach adopted here requires the inclusion and discussion anew of the origin and development of the Alexandrian Jewish com-munity and its rights from the Ptolemaic through the early Roman periods. Other than the texts of Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas and a few other authors whose works are usually included in such a discus-sion, this work includes consistent papyrological evidence that, used comparatively, helps substantiate the reconstruction of the possible environment in which the Alexandrian Jews settled and lived.26 To be

26 Th is part of the research has produced two separate works; S. Gambetti, Th e Jewish Community of Alexandria: Th e Origins, Henoch 29 (2007): 213240 and, although less related to the Jewish topic, S. Gambetti, Q&A on the Foundation of Alexandria, (forthcoming).

8 introduction

sure, this work submits no miraculous piece of new evidence; rather, it considers more numerous and known sources together to weave a fuller scenario.

Th e reading of every piece of evidence was strictly governed by chro-nology. Every source, whether literary or documentary, was interpreted within the chronological range that its characteristics allowed, whether precise pieces of information were openly declared or were only extrapo-lated from the internal evidence. As much as possible, the reading of each source was confi ned to its own period, without extending its use to understand an earlier period. Th e same chronological principle was applied both in laying out the background against which the riots are read and in explaining the riots themselves.

Starting more specifi cally from Philos treatises, this work presumes three factors. Factor 1: the Jews were not expelled from Alexandria, but were secluded in a small part of it within the city walls. Th is suggests that territorythe notion of who lives whereand not identitythe notion of the Jews qua Jewswas a key issue in the events. Th e relevance of territory in Philos account links the Alexandrian events to the citys origins and its very nature. Founded a little more than three centuries earlier, Alexandria was, from the very beginning, a colonial settlement whose identity was defi ned by rational territorial subdivisions.27 Th e early Jewish settlement was part of such city planning and was territo-rially defi ned by it. Th is footprint remained through the centuries and informs the platform upon which the riots occurred.

Factor 2: Philos vocabulary is imbued with legal quality,28 which leads us to explore the judicial environment contemporary to the events and to investigate the institutional responsibilities of individuals, as well as of collectivecivic and politicalbodies both in Alexandria and in Rome.

Substantiating the legalistic reading of the riots led to the discovery of a coincidencethe third factor prompting this study: a trial involving two Alexandrian delegations took place in Rome before the emperor in 37, only one year before the riots, as attested to in P. Yale II 107. Th is diffi cult document has undergone several readings and editions, yet it has never been located with certainty in historical studies. Th e

27 P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) I 59; Gambetti, Jewish Community, 213240.

28 Minimized by Alston, Philos In Flaccum, 165.

introduction 9

texts problematic fragmentary condition has jeopardized any attempt to identify the events described or even referred to in it. Further, a few elements of its rhetoric and vocabulary have marred its reputation as a valid historical document and this has led to its being characterized as either fi ctional or semi-fi ctional. Th e inclusion of P. Yale II 107 in the Acta Martyrum, or Acta Alexandrinoruma collection of papyrological texts allegedly reporting the diffi cult relationship between the Roman emperors and the Alexandrians notables, and generally considered to be fi ctionalhad so far defi ned P. Yale II 107s place within the pseudo-historical fi eld.29 However, many details of the text, if read against the proper background of the fi rst century C.E. to which it belongs, precisely refl ect the Roman legal procedure of the time.30 Th ere is no reason, therefore, to exclude P. Yale II 107 from a historical analysis, and its contribution to the historical explanation of the Alexandrian riots of 38 is highly signifi cant.

Th e analysis of the legal aspects of the riots led to an almost unex-plored fi eld, namely the nature of the laws applied in Alexandria. If we must trust the Athenodorus who pled his case before Trajan in Rome, the Alexandrians applied and enjoyed Athenian laws (P. Oxy. XVIII 2177, col. i, ll. 1218).31 Scholars have used this piece of evidence to substantiate the parallel between Athens and Alexandria regarding the latters political institutions, particularly in reference to the subdivision of the territory into demes and the consequent organization of the

29 Editio princeps in A.v. Premerstein, Alexandrinische Geronten vor Kaiser Gaius (Giessen: Klabfl eisch, 1939); later editions in H. Musurillo, Th e Acts of the Pagan Martyrs: the Acta Alexandrinorum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954) 817; H. Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum. De mortibus Alexandriae nobilium fragmenta papyracea graeca (Leipzig: Teubner, 1961); H. Musurillo and G.M. Parassoglou, A New Fragment of the Acta Alexandrinorum, ZPE 15 (1974): 17; S.A. Stephens, Yale Papyri in the Bei-necke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985, 817) 8597; P.A. Kuhlmann, Die Giessener literarischen Papyri und die Caracalla-Erlasse (Giessen: bersetzung und Kommentar, 1994) as P. Giss. Lit. 4.7. A more recent overview with commentary of the Acta, including also P. Yale II 107, is in A.J. Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence in Roman Egypt: the Case of the Acta Alexandrinorum (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 2008), preceded by J. Rowlandson and A.J. Harker, Roman Alexandria from the Perspective of the Papyri, in Alexandria, Real and Imagined (eds. A. Hirst and M. Silk; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 79112. All these works contain also the most important points of the discussion on the genre of the papyrus, together with complete bibliographical references.

30 S. Gambetti, In Defense of a Historical Reading of P. Yale II 107 = P. Giss. Lit. 4.7, ZPE 165 (2008): 191208.

31 Acta Athenodori = Acta X [Musurillo, Acta Alexandrinorum 1954, 61].

10 introduction

body politic.32 Yet, an analytical approach to the problem that examines whether and how the Athenian laws applied to the Alexandrian reality has never been attempted.33

In order to establish whether Athenian law could explain the legal aspects of the Alexandrian riots of 38, this work initially proceeded through a series of tentative tests, fi rst reading the Athenian forensic literature of the fourth century B.C.E. to determine if situations, ter-minology and trial outcomes had any bearing on what happened in Alexandria. Th e results were unexpectedly encouraging. Everything that occurred in Alexandria in the summer of 38 C.E. can be explained through what is known of Athenian laws and procedures of the late Classical period.

From these three factors two paths of research developed indepen-dentlyone legalistic, one territorialuntil they met. Th e thesis they produced is this: Roman rule produced an essentially idiosyncratic scenario between politics and fi scal administration. According to this scenario, civic rights were limited to legal residence, which the Romans recognized initially and collectively for the Jews on political grounds. However, this scenario came to be highly scrutinized and sometimes delegitimized on an individual basis when the strict grid of fi scal control

32 Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 93ff .; 110112; D. Delia, Alexandrian Citizenship during the Roman Principate (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 5; 49ff .; passim.

33 And this, despite, for example, the overwhelming importance of the testimony of the witness in the Athenian court [G. Th r, Th e Role of the Witness in the Athenian Law, in Th e Cambridge Companion to Athenian Law (eds. M. Gagarin and D. Cohen; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 146169] fi nds its evident correspon-dent in the Dikaiomata [F. Bechtel, et al., Dikaiomata. Auszge aus alexandrinischen Gesetzen und Verordnungen in einem Papyrus des philologischen Seminars der Universitt Halle (P. Hal. 1) (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1913)], the only extant collec-tion of Alexandrian legal regulations and procedures from Ptolemaic times (P. Hal. 1, col. ii, l. 24col. iii, l. 78; col. x, ll. 222233; commentary 4863; 125133). See Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 110112, who recognizes the connection in legal procedure; cf. II 210 n. 139 where however he seems skeptical on a similar text, P. Oxy. XVIII 2177 fr. 1, ll. 1015; see other literature there. Th e most extensive comment on the Alexandrian law system is H.J. Wolff , Das Recht der griechischen Papyri gyptens in der Zeit der Ptolemer und des Prinzipats (Mnchen: Beck, 2002) I 6467, who admits the possibility of Athenian law applied in Alexandria, but tends to see a mix of Greek law coming from diff erent locations of the Greek world rather than specifi cally from Athens. R. Taubenschlag, Th e Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri. 332 B.C.640 A.D. (Warszawa, P.W.N.Warszawa Press, 1955), 155, in a chapter devoted to the interaction between Egyptian, Greek and Roman law, makes no specifi cation on this subject; unfortunately I could not retrieve J. Velissaropoulos, (Athens: Nimikes Ekdosis Ant. N. Sakkoula, 1981).

introduction 11

was introduced. Th is produced constant discontent among Alexandrian citizens who, forcibly distanced from their city administration, wanted the government to act against the Jews as a group, as they were felt to be usurpers of civic rights. Gaius solved the problem judicially in 37 C.E. by siding with the Alexandrian citizens and adjudicating accordingly. In the summer of 38 C.E., according to Roman legal procedure, Gaius sentence was transformed into a political measure to be enforced col-lectively on the Alexandrian territory against the Jews, curtailing most of their rights of residence. Th e emperors new policy did not target all of Alexandrias Jews, but only some of them who, for historical reasons, were caught between the institutional contradictions of the Roman administration and who lived in a part of Alexandria that could not guarantee them legal residence. Th e small part of Alexandrian territory where the Jews were clustered was the only sector legally allocated to them. Flaccus, in his capacity as Prefect of Alexandria and Egypt, simply enforced Gaius orders, and he accordingly implemented the new situ-ation on Alexandrias territory. Th e Alexandrian citizenry, composed not only of Greeks but also of native enfranchised Egyptians, and the rest of the Egyptian populace present in the city, participated actively in enforcing Roman orders. Th ere was nothing the Jews could do.

A fi nal note on the use of terminology related to anti-Semitism. Scholars have frequently labeled the Alexandrian events of 38 C.E. as the fi rst pogrom in history and have oft en explained them in terms of an ante litteram explosion of anti-Semitism.34 Th is work deliberately avoids any words or expressions that in any way connect, explicitly or implicitly, the Alexandrian events of 38 C.E. to later events in modern or contemporary Jewish experience, for which that terminology was created.35 Th e reason for this choice is not ideological but concrete. Th e reconstruction off ered here, with institutional roles and responsibilities

34 Seminal work is U. Wilcken, Zum alexandrinischen Antisemitismus, Abh. kn. schs. Ges. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. 28 (1909): 783839; more recent examples of use of anti-Semitism related vocabulary are: Smallwood, Legatio, 328; Barraclough, Philos Politics, 427 and passim; Kraus Reggiani, Rapporti, 555 and passim; Gruen, Diaspora, passim; Van der Horst, Flaccus, passim; Ameling, Market-Place, passim; Blouin, Confl it judo-alexandrin, passim; Bergmann and Hoff mann, Kalkl, passim. For an overview of the discourse on anti-Semitism specifi cally related to the Alexandrian events, see Collins, Jewish Cult, 197201.

35 I am aware that this contradicts my contributions to the Encyclopedia for Anti-Semitism, ed. by R. Levy, AEO-Clio, 2005.

12 introduction

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

CHAPTER ONE

UNWRAPPING PHILOS NARRATIVE

A Brief Survey of Research into the Manuscript Tradition

A study of the Alexandrian riots of 38 C.E. immediately reveals a degree of ambiguity in the work of the only extant chronicler of the events, Philo of Alexandria. As scholars familiar with these events know, our knowledge is based on two of Philos treatises: In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium. Th e former, incomplete at the beginning, is completely devoted to describing the riots, while the latter is devoted to the history of the embassy to Gaius later on, though its long introduction does include a spotty summary of the riots. Th e incompleteness of both treatises makes it diffi cult to know why Philo wrote them and for whom.

Eusebius, among our earliest witnesses for the Philonic corpus, writes about and quotes from the so-called historical works of Philo. In his Chronicorum, Eusebius mentions a work called in which, according to him, Philo described what happened to the Jews of Alexandria. Th is work could be what we know as In Flaccum. For Legatio ad Gaium the situation is more intricate.

At the beginning of the second book of the Historia Ecclesiastica Eusebius writes at length about the Philonic works. Introducing Philo as an intellectual and scholar who fl ourished in the time of Tiberius (2.4, 23), Eusebius states that the Alexandrian wrote fi ve books on the Jews in the time of Gaius. Eusebius fails to provide the title or titles, but he explains that Philo provided a detailed description of Gaius mad-ness, the misery of the Jews, and his own role in the embassy to the emperor (2.5, 1). Philo, Eusebius continues, wrote accurately about the embassy to Gaius in the . He summarizes selected topics: the anti-Jewish policy of Sejanus in Rome and Pilates attempt against the Temple in Jerusalem, aft er which he quotes verbatim a passage which is actually in our Legatio, 346 (2.6, 2). It is tempting to recognize in the what we know as Legatio, not least because of the direct citation of a passage from that treatise; yet hopes immediately fade, since nowhere in Legatio do we read of Pilates policy in Jerusalem unless they were included in the missing part at the beginning of the

14 chapter one

treatise. Eusebius had also read about further atrocities against the Alexandrian Jews in the time of Gaius in another work, (2.6, 3), which is the title the manuscript tradition sometimes delivers for Legatio.

Eusebius then displays his admiration of Philo by listing his works (2.18, 17). It is generally assumed that he was reading the pinax of Philos corpus or at least what was available of it in his library of Cae-sarea.1 Among a considerable number of religious writings Eusebius recalls a among the monobiblia (2.18, 6). At the end of the list he mentions a second visit that Philo had made to Rome in the time of Claudius, at which time he recited before the senate a work about the of Gaius, which he entitled, Eusebius stresses, (2.18, 8) with fl ourish and irony. Whether this work is to be identifi ed with Legatio, in which Gaius desire to be considered a god is described, or whether it is related to another work with the same title mentioned in 2.6, 3, we do not know.

Th e manuscript tradition is clearly of little use in contextualizing Philos works. Th e Philonic corpus as we have it today is the outcome of several centuries of philological endeavor trying to make sense of contradicting evidence. Adrianus Turnebus pioneered the fi eld with his editio princeps published in 1552.2 Two more centuries would pass before Th omas Mangeys work, based on the reading of a larger number of manuscripts, was released.3 Th e discovery of still new manuscripts gave Leopold Cohn, Paul Wendland, and Siegfrid Reiter the input needed to revise and complete Turnebus and Mangeys works, and between 1896 and 1913 a series of volumes appeared whose authority is so far unchallenged.4 In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium were already in the editio princeps in the form we know today.

Th e tradition the manuscripts present is no less complicated, as there is no homogeneity in the way that the two treatises are transmitted.

1 D.T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993).

2 A. Turnebus, Philonis Iudaei in libros Mosis de mundi opifi cio, historicos, de legi-bus. Eiusdem libri singulares, Ex bibliotheca Regia. (Paris: Ex offi cina Adriani Turnebi typographi Regij, 1552).

3 T. Mangey, Philonis Iudaei Opera quae reperiri potuerunt omnia. Textum cum Mss. contulit, quamplurima etiam e Codd. Vaticano, Mediceo et Bodleiano, Scriptoribus item vetustis, nec non Catenis Graecis ineditis, adiecit, Interpretationemque emendavit, universa Notis et Observationibus illustravit Th omas Mangey, S.T.P., Canonicus Dunel-mensis. Vol. I. II. (London: Typis Guilelmi Bewyer, 1742).

4 L. Cohn, et al., Philonis Alexandrini. Opera quae supersunt (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 18961915).

unwrapping philos narrative 15

In Flaccum comes under diff erent headings: ,5 ,6 ,7 .8 Legatio appears as ,9 ,10 ,11 ,12 .13 It appears that in most cases the embassy is part of the , confl ating Eusebius two separate mentions in Historia Ecclesiastica 2.6, 3 and 2.18, 8.

Reiter, in the Prolegomena to the volume containing In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium, discussed the diffi culties of identifying the two works on the basis of the titles transmitted in the manuscript and literary traditions.14 Twentieth century scholars have since presented additional possible interpretations, though always following the line traced by the initial editor.

The common point of reference for all is a work in five books about the Jews based on Eus., Hist. Eccl., 2.5, 1.15 Th e fi rst theory was Schrers, who suggested that In Flaccum and Legatio were the third and the fourth books of the fi ve-book work.16 Later Massebieau17 and Cohn18 developed a reconstruction of Legatio on the basis of the lacu-nae theory. According to this theory, the text of the present version of Legatio has four gaps which refl ect the works original division into

5 Full title: ; Monacensis Gr. 459, saec. XIII (A); Maritensis Est. 11 gr. 2a nr. 40, annus 1508; Venetus Gr. 41, saec. XIV (B); Oxoniensis Collegi Novi 143, saec. XVI.

6 Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 248, saec. XVI (G). 7 Parisinus gr. 453, saec. XI (C). 8 Venetus Gr. 41, saec. XIV (H); Parisinus gr. 433, saec. XVI (L); Mediceus Lau-

rentianus plut. X cod. 20, saec. XIII (M). 9 Full title:

; Monacensis Gr. 459, saec. XIII (A); Maritensis Est. 11 gr. 2a nr. 40, annus 1508; Venetus Gr. 41, saec. XIV (B); Oxoniensis Collegi Novi 143, saec. XVI.

10 Venetus Gr. 41, saec. XIV (H); Parisinus gr. 433, saec. XVI (L).11 Mediceus Laurentianus plut. X cod. 20, saec. XIII (M).12 Mediceus Laurentianus plut. X cod. 20, saec. XIII (M).13 Parisinus gr. 453, saec. XI (C).14 Cohn and Reiter, Philonis Opera 1915: xlviilxxvii.15 Good summaries and reviews can be found in Schrer, History of the Jewish

People, III.2, 859864; Box, Flaccum, xxxiiixxxvii; Colson, Philos Embassy, xvixxi; Smallwood, Legatio, 3643.

16 Schrer, Th e History of the Jewish People, III.2, 349354.17 M.L. Massebieau, Le classement des vres de Philon, Bibliothque de lcole des

Hautes tudes, Sciences Religieuses I (1889): 6578.18 L. Cohn, Einleitung und Chronologie der Schrift en Philos (Leipzig, 1899): 421424.

16 chapter one

fi ve books. In this way, Legatio would be identifi ed with the fi ve books known to Eusebius and , a title accompanying Legatio in the manuscript tradition, would be an alternative title given by Philo. While Box and Smallwood were completely satisfi ed with the Masse-bieau-Cohn theory,19 Goodenough preferred to see In Flaccum as the second treatise mentioned by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl., 2.6, 3, apparently disregarding, or at least not discussing, the fact that Eusebius gives it a diff erent title, .20 Colson, having reviewed all of his prede-cessors proposals, found the lacunae theory unnecessary and proposed a tentative division of Legatio into four parts according to the sense of the content.21 Suggestions are many and the discussion still remains open today; clearly the only possible way towards a viable discussion is to revert to the content of the treatises.

In In Flaccum, Flaccus is the only person held responsible for the persecution of the Jews, even though his personal actions were only par-tially to blame, since the actual violence against the Jews was perpetrated by a group of allies and the Alexandrian mob. While his quantitative contributionhow much he didwill be discussed in the following chapters, it is worthwhile to comment briefl y here on the quality of his involvement: Flaccus, according to Philo, acted on his own behalf, not the emperors, although, we must add, the nature of his offi ce compelled him to do so. According to this account, Gaius was simply a fading image in the background and his name was instrumentalized for the sake of the plan of the prefect and his allies. In Legatio, Gaius is identifi ed as the responsible party. His guilt lay in having proclaimed himself a god, causing the desecration of the Alexandrian Jewish prayer houses in the summer of 38, the fi rst material attack against the Jews. Flaccus is barely mentioned.

From the historiographic point of view, Philos double standard was justifi ed by the assumed diff ering dates of composition, which were separated by Gaius death. Philo certainly could not have accused the emperor while he was still alive and, therefore, must have composed Legatio aft er Gaius death. Conversely, In Flaccum could have been composed before Gaius death, since its accusation of the prefect could not possibly have off ended the emperor, who had ultimately arrested Flaccus, exiled him, and ordered his execution.

19 Box, Flaccum, xxxvii; Smallwood, Legatio, 3639.20 E.R. Goodenough, Th e Politics of Philo Judaeus (New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1938), 910.21 Colson, Philos Embassy, xxivxxvi.

unwrapping philos narrative 17

If this is true, and this work accepts this basic conclusion, the histori-cal question enters the stage: how can one reach behind Philos personal concernsand the historiographic argument based on themin order to understand who was responsible? Was it Flaccus or Gaius? Or must they share responsibility, given the strict institutional relationship between them? Further, how should one understand the relationship between the two treatises? Th e analysis necessary to answer these ques-tions must begin with In Flaccum simply because of the quantity of information that Philo submits therein. Legatio will be incorporated when the argument requires.

The Complicated Frame of In Flaccum

Aft er the fi rst fi ve years of Aulus Avilius Flaccus22 prefecture in Alex-andria, during which he demonstrated excellent political and admin-istrative qualities and corrected fl aws in the local administration, the situation changed. Gaius accession to the imperial seat in 37 C.E. was, for Flaccus, an occasion of concern. He feared the possible rage of the new emperor because, when still in Rome, he had been among the accusers of Gaius mother Agrippina (Flacc., 9). But aft er the new turn in Roman politics, with the imperially ordered deaths of members of Tiberius circle, of which he himself was a part, and especially at the news of the deadly fate of the Roman praetorian prefect Quintus Naevius Cordus Sutorius Macro (Flacc., 1016),23 Flaccus sought new friendships to shelter himself within the Roman political entourage. Flaccus formed alliances with his former enemies, namely the Alexan-drian faction hostile towards the Jews, which was led most prominently by Isidoros, Dionysos, and Lampon (Flacc., 1721).

Th is faction fi rst decided amongst themselves to attack the Jews, then privately met with Flaccus to propose a deal: they off ered him control of Alexandria so that the prefect could regain Gaius lost favor. Initially, Flaccus unfairly judged cases involving Jews, abridged their free speech in other matters and refused them the right to petition him in person (Flacc., 24). An unexpected visit by Agrippa, a member of the Herodian family whom Gaius had appointed king of part of his

22 PIR2 I #1414 [Prosopographia imperii romani saec. I. II. III. Edita consilio et avc-toritate Academiae litterarvm Borvssicae, (Berolini: De Gruyter & Co., 19331999)]; Van der Horst, Flaccus, 34ff .

23 PIR2 V, 3 #12.

18 chapter one

ancestors territory in the Levant, sparked the already tense situation. King Agrippa, en route to his new kingdom, stopped in town and was mocked by the crowd in the gymnasium (Flacc., 25ff .).

Th e situation worsened from that point onward. Th e Alexandrians gathered in the theater and decided to attack the Jewish houses of prayer and to set up images of Gaius in them (Flacc., 41). A few days later, Flaccus issued an edict declaring the Jews to be foreigners and aliens. As a consequence of this edict, the Alexandrian mob attacked the Jews and their property, sequestering them in a small, patrolled quarter of the city (Flacc., 5455). Th e mob tortured and killed Jews who did not comply. Flaccus later arrested some of the Jewish gerousia, the council of elders, and punished them as if they had no status or rightsas if they were common Egyptians (Flacc., 7475). Other Jews were tortured and killed in a spectacular setting in the theater (Flacc., 84). Later, the prefect ordered a centurion to search Jewish houses for weapons, which he did not fi nd (Flacc., 86). Jewish women were tortured in the theater and the market-place (Flacc., 9596). Flaccus sudden arrest during the Jewish celebration of Succoth in the fall of 38 (Flacc., 108115; 188190) did not change the Jews miserable situation, packed into that small area of Alexandria. It meant a great deal, however, to Philo and to his search for justicedivine justice, in this case, was exacted. Th is is in a few words, Philos account.

Philo wrote In Flaccum with the purpose of focusing the readers attention on the prefect Flaccus and placing the full responsibility for the riots and the persecution of the Jews on him. For Philo, the prefects decision to ally himself with a group of his former enemies, betokened by the persecution of the Jews living in the city (Flacc., 2223), was the catalyst of the Jews misfortune in the summer of 38. Th e treatises narrative centers on this event, and every reported fact is woven into it. All of the subsequent events were a result of the agreement between Flaccus and the three Alexandrians and anything that Flaccus did dur-ing that summer would fi nd its justifi cation therein.

Many modern scholars accept this construct, though some have criticized and rejected certain parts of it, particularly Philo s premises, which are thought to be historically untenable on the basis of external evidence. According to these views, Flaccus could have scarcely profi ted from an alliance with the Alexandrian anti-Jewish faction if he wanted to secure his political position in Rome. Moreover, at the beginning of his fi rst consulate on July 1, 37, Gaius suspended the prosecution

unwrapping philos narrative 19

of cases of maiestas, under which rubric Flaccus accusations against Agrippina would fall (Dio, 59.3, 6; 4, 3; 6, 2; 16, 8). Flaccus, therefore, had nothing to fear in 37 and 38 in regards to his earlier accusations of Agrippina and her circle. All of these issues will be discussed in detail in the following chapters. However, even when Philos premises crack under more compelling historical evidence, nowhere do we fi nd a sub-stantial historical revision of the rest of Philos narration and construct, and such criticism fl ags under the common acceptance of Philos work as a deeply apologetic, rather then historical, piece of literature.

We need not necessarily stress the alleged unhistorical character of Philos work to identify the many fl aws in his narrative. Upon a closer reading of the entire treatise, the cause-and-eff ect relationship initially outlined by Philo is diffi cult to perceive and many things requires explanation in order for his readers to understand:

Table 1

1 Why did the mob vilify King Agrippa?

Th ey were envious that a Jew had been made king (Flacc., 29).

2 How was Flaccus involved in this? Th e mob convinced him that the splendor of the kings attire obscured his prestige (Flacc., 3031).

3 What was the link between the mockery of King Agrippa and the installation of Gaius images in the synagogues?

Th e mob perceived that Flaccus would not restrain them (Flacc., 41).

4 What is the link between the mobs erection of images in the synagogues and Flaccus edict?

Th is was Flaccus second attack on Jewish customs aft er he allowed the mob to desecrate the meeting houses (Flacc., 53).

5 Why did the crowd confi ne the Jews to a small sector of the city?

To pillage their property (Flacc., 54).

6 How was Flaccus involved in this? He gave the crowd immunity (Flacc., 55).

7 Why did Flaccus arrest the members of the Jewish gerousia?

He contrived another plan to damage the Jews (Flacc., 73).

8 Why did Flaccus search Jewish homes for arms?

He invented the charge that the Jews had weapons (Flacc., 86).

9 Who tortured the Jewish women? Onlookers at a show (Flacc., 96).

20 chapter one

In short, Flaccus stood by more than he acted.24 Flaccus inaction was part of his plan to allow the crowd to attack the Jews; all of the actions the crowd did were possible because of Flaccus inaction. His own attack was his own contriving or invented charges. Nothing ever reveals the active partnership between Flaccus and his allies and how the alliance really worked. Isidoros, Dionysios and Lampon, mentioned fi rst on the occasion of the stipulation of the alleged agreement, disappear from the record.

Eventually, the agreement did not work, since Flaccus did not gain Gaius favor. In fact, the prefect was arrested a few months later and taken to Rome, where Gaius condemned him to exile and eventually ordered his death (Flacc., 108115; 188190). Ironically, Flaccus main accusers were Isidoros and Lampon, his alleged Alexandrian allies (Flacc., 125).25 Th is dark epilogue provided Philo with the opportunity to reframe Flaccus involvement and end up within the higher scope of Providence, probably the larger episteme framing the treatise: God punished Flaccus for persecuting the Jews (Flacc., 191; cf. 1). Unfor-tunately, Philos attribution of these matters to Providence does not contribute to the historical reading of the riots but rather confuses matters, since it conceals the real causes of Flaccus arrest and further confuses any attempt to understand and clarify the responsibility for the riots; it certainly does seal the internal mechanisms of Philos construct.

Another episode further complicates the picture. Closely following the description of the brutalities endured by the Jews in 38, Philo recalls that the prefect had failed to forward to the emperor the Jewish decree bestowing the honors due to him (Flacc., 97). Philo was very likely refer-ring to the honors at the accession of Gaius in the spring of 37, more than a year earlier. When Philo presents this as proof that Flaccus was already preparing his attack on the Jews in 37 (Flacc., 101), he openly contradicts his own words. In fact, according to his construct, only in 38, aft er the news of Macros death and not before, did Flaccus contrive his plan and betray the Jews to the Alexandrian anti-Jewish leaders for his own political and personal safety. According to this construct, the impetus for attacking the Jews came from the Alexandrian faction;

24 So already Gruen, Diaspora, 5758 and passim.25 Gruen, Diaspora, 6162 sees in this epilog the evidence that Flaccus was the real

target of the Alexandrians, and not the Jews; Schfer, Judeophobia, passim accepts Philos thesis of the agreement.

unwrapping philos narrative 21

however, according to Philos later statement Flaccus had intended to do so all along even since 37. Th us, the necessity of the construct is undermined, for if the prefect started his machinations to hurt the Jews in the spring of 37, then the alleged agreement of 38 loses relevance.

Th us, Philos construct in In Flaccum hardly stands, a fact which makes reading the treatise even more diffi cult. Philos personal involve-ment, fi rst as a witness of the riots, then as an ambassador before Gaius (Legat., 349ff ., Jos., A.J., 18.257), further adds to the suspicion that he manipulated the facts to suit his personal agenda. Th erefore, the ques-tion arises: to what extent should his writing be taken into account? Th e answer is complex and requires distinctions. First, Philos writing is the only available source on the subject, therefore, the researcher is compelled to use it.26 However, the researcher is not obliged to accept the source in its entirety; reading Philo for information about events does not necessarily require the acceptance of his interpretation. In other words, historiographic critique and extensive historical investigation should come between Philos and a modern explanation.

If Philos exposition of the events is insuffi cient to uncover the histori-cal dynamics governing them, then a diff erent approach is necessary. Th is work adopts one of the few pieces of factual information provided by Philo in his narrative as the focus of historical and historiographic research: in the summer of 38, the Alexandrian Jews were pushed into a small sector of the city, the only place where they were safe. From the outset, this passage makes clear that the problem in Alexandria was not the Jews qua Jews, but where they lived. Th is brings attention to the issue of territory and its status, rather than the more common issue of people and their status. Why in the summer of 38 was a portion of Alexandrian territory set aside to save the Jews, while the rest became off limits to them? Th is question requires an understanding of the city of Alexandria and its relation to its citizens and inhabitants; necessarily, the investigation must begin with the Jews fi rst arrival in Alexandria.

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

CHAPTER TWO

THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENCE OF ALEXANDRIAN JEWS IN THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD

Josephus states that Alexander gave the Jews the right to live in Alex-andria, (C. Ap., 2.3637; 42; B.J., 2.487). Scholars have oft en discussed these passages and in some cases have cast serious doubts on the his-torical plausibility of Josephus testimonya view that this work shares completely.1 If Alexanders grant must be left within the mythological tradition to which it belongs, a passage from the Letter of Aristeas (12) deserves more credit. It refers to the arrival of the Jews in Egypt in considerable numbers as prisoners of war in the wake of Ptolemy Lagos campaign in Gaza in 312311 B.C.E.2 Th is frequently discussed passage fi nds documentary corroboration in the combined reading of two lines of the Satrap stela, a hieroglyphic inscription dated August 29, 311,3 in

1 I discuss Alexanders Jewish grant in Gambetti, Jewish Community, where I include the previous debate and scholarly references.

2 Th e passage reads: (scil. Ptolemy Lagos) , , , , ., for a current translation in English: He had overrun the whole of Coele-Syria and Pheonicia, exploiting his good fortune and prowess, and had trans-planted some and made other captives. [M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas), (New York: Harper 1951), 99; cf. similar translations in A. Pellettier, Lettre dAriste Philocrate, (Paris: Cerfs, 1962), 107109, and F. Calabi, Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate, (Milano: Rizzoli, 2002), 5153]. It must be noted that the syntax of the text does not really support the some/others translation, since the relative pronouns lacks its direct antecedent. All translators privilege the rhetorical construction of the text, based on the opposition /. For a historiographic discussion on Ptolemy Lagos, later Ptolemy I Soter, campaigns of Coele Syria of 312/311 and 301 B.C.E., see Gambetti, Jewish Community, where I include the discussion of Josephus unclear testimony of the events.

3 CGC 22182, the earliest offi cial document by Ptolemy Lagos in his capacity of satrap of Egypt; A. Kamal, Catalogue gnral des antiquits gyptiennes du Muse du Caire. Stles ptolmaques et romaines (Cairo: IFAO, 1905), 168171, pl. LVI. Earliest editions and translations of this texts are in H. Brugsch, Ein Decret Ptolemaios des Sohnes Lagi, des Satrapen, ZS 9 (1871): 18; and K. Sethe, Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-rmischen Zeit (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904), 1122 (= Urk. II 9); basic com-ments in R.S. Bianchi, Satrapenstele, L 5 (1974): 492493. More recent translations in U. Kaplony-Heckel, Das Dekret des sptern Knigs Ptolemaios I Soter zugunsten der Gtter von Butto (Satrapenstela), 311 v. Chr., in Texte aus der Umwelt des alten Testaments (ed. O. Kaiser; Gtersloh: Gtersloher, 1985), 613619; W.K. Simpson,

24 chapter two

which Ptolemy states that he conquered a territory called the land of the rm #w, the land of the Arameans,4 and deported its monotheistic people to Egypt.5 Th e Jews cannot be defi nitively excluded from this description and Josephus confirms that Ptolemy on that occasion deported people from Samaria and from the area around Jerusalem (Jos., A.J., 12.7).6

Th e Letters reference to the use of some prisoners in the military forces to man the country garrisons is also historically plausible (1214). Ptolemy Lagos was building his new defensive system around and along his satrapy at the time7 and needed much more personnel than was available. Sources show that he used prisoners from other Helle-nistic armies for this purpose. For example, Diodorus states that in the aft ermath of the battle of Gaza, Ptolemy captured 8,000 soldiers from Demetrios army, whom he then ordered to be distributed throughout

Th e Literature of Ancient Egypt: an Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobi-ographies, and Poetry (New HavenLondon: Yale University Press, 2003), 392397; cf. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, I 67 and n. 28 for a largely accepted interpretation not followed in the present work.

4 Th is reading is suggested and supported with abundant philological discussion by D. von Recklinghausen, gyptische Quellen zum Judentum, ZS 132 (2005): 149151 and n. 1821 for philological comparisons; already H. Goedicke, Comments on the Satrap Stela, BES 6 (1984): 3334 had suggested both reading and interpretation, but without the supporting philological apparatus. Th e decipherment, translation and interpretation of this toponym has been a problem for philologists. For decades the preferred reading has been mer-mer-ti, translated as Marmarica, and located from Lybia to Nubia; see Brugsch, Decret, 3, and Sethe, Urk. II 9; J.K. Winnicki, Militrop-erationen von Ptolemaios I. und Seleukos I. in Syrien in des Jahren 312311 v.Chr., AncSoc 22 (1991): 169171 for a list of several readings and interpretations of this problematic locus. Winnicki himself prefers not to accept any reading of the toponym (167), but in his article he locates it in the Sinai on historical and topographical grounds; G. Lodomez, De Satrapenstele, in Zij schreven geschiedenis. Historische documenten uit her Nabije Oosten (2500100 v. Chr.) (ed. R.J. Demare; LeidenLeuven: Peeters, 2003), 436 submits the reading Irmtjw without translation, explaining the linguistic problem in note k.

5 n.n=f m=s(n) m t #yw hmwt hn ntr=sn m sw r=sn r B #kt. Von Recklinghausen, Quellen zum Judentum, 151 n. 28 and 30 for the rare occurrence of the script sup-porting the meaning ntr = god in the religious vocabulary of the Greco-roman time; already Goedicke, Satrap Stela, 34, had suggested this same reading. Von Reckling-hausen, Quellen zum Judentum, 151 n. 29 stresses that a translation in the plural gods is not justifi ed in spite of the fact that some scholars [for example G. Roeder, Die altgyptische Gtterwelt (Zrich: Artemis, 1959), 102 mit ihren Gttern (Bildern), completely accepted later by Winnicki, Militroperationen, 167] have been propos-ing it; alternative translations have been, Kaplony-Heckel, Dekret, 616: Habe, and Brugsch, Decret, 3, sammt ihren Rossen.

6 I distinguish this campaing in 312 from a later one in 301, when Ptolemy entered and conquered Jerusalem in Gambetti, Jewish Community, to which I refer for literature.

7 R.S. Bagnall, Th e Origin of Ptolemaic Cleruchs, BASP 21 (1984): 720.

the rights of residenceptolemaic period 25

the Egyptian nomes (19.85, 34). To think that he did the same with the Jews is not particularly revolutionary.8

None of these references, however, indicate exactly where the Jews were relocated or whether any settled in Alexandria. Th e only men-tion of a connection between the Jews and Alexandria is again found in the writings of Josephus, who, in a seemingly contradictory way, states that Alexanders successorsand in this case he must have been referring to Ptolemy Lagos, later Ptolemy I Soter, and his son Ptolemy II Philadelphosgranted the Jews a place to settle in the city (B.J., 2.488). Testing the plausibility of this or any statement on this subject requires broadening the spectrum of inquiry to include Alexandrias early history.

Mythology precludes a precise knowledge about the beginnings of Alexandria. Th e various recensions of the Alexander Romance9 and stories by other Greek and Roman authors,10 who relied heavily upon

8 Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 12, also on account of the use of Jewish soldiers made by previous Egyptian rulers, Egyptian and Persian alike.

9 Th e list of the recensions, with annotation of their respective editio princeps, is in L. Berkowitz and K.A. Squitier, eds., Th esaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), #1386.

10 Th ey are the vulgate authors, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus and Pompeius Trogusthe latter epitomized by the late antique author Justinwho allegedly used Cleitarchus as their main source [FGrHist 137; L. Prandi, Fortuna e realt dellopera di Clitarco (Stutt-gart: Stein, 1996)], to whom Plutarch and Arrian must be added. Th e discussion on the indebtment of the vulgate authors exclusively to Cleitarchus has been particularly vivid in reference to Diodorus book 17; see initially E. Schwartz, Diodorus, RE V (1905): 682683 and F. Jacoby, Kleitarchos (2), RE XI (1921): 622654. Later other scholars accepted this early only-Cleitarchus theory: L. Pearson, Th e Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1983 [1960]) (with some distinctions, as to whether Cleitarchus was the main or the only source), B. Welles, Diodorus VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 1112; 17; J.R. Hamilton, Cleitarchus and Diodorus 17, in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Pre-history. Studies Presented to S. Schachermeyr on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday (ed. K.H. Kinzel; BerlinNew York: De Gruyter, 1977), 126146. Th is scholarship has been questioned by W.W. Tarn, Alexander the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1948), II 6887, who favored the possibility that Diodorus in book 17 used more than one source. In Tarns wake, scholars have taken their own position; in favor of the not-only-Cleitarchus theory, M.J. Fontana, Il problema delle fonti per il XVII libro di Diodoro Siculo, Kokalos 1 (1955): 155190, E.N. Borza, Cleitarchus and Diodorus Account of Alexander, PACA 9 (1968): 2545; N.G.L. Hammond, Portents, Prophecies, and Dreams in Diodorus Books 1417, GRBS 39 (1998): 407428. Th e conventional defi nition of vulgate has been deeply criticized by Hammond [N.G.L. Hammond, Th ree Historians of Alexander the Great. Th e so-called Vulgate Authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)], but it has been on the other side defended by other scholars [A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire. Th e Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

26 chapter two

them in addition to collecting other independent traditions, submit unclear and contradictory accounts. Th e only document worthy of historical consideration is, and remains, the Satrap stela, ll. 45,11 which states that Ptolemy Lagos transferred the capital of his satrapy of Egypt from Memphis to the fortress of Alexandria, better known up until that time as Rhakotis, place under construction.12 According to the internal chronology of the events listed in the stela, the date of the transfer would have been 314 B.C.E.13

Th e transfer of the Jews from the Levant to Egypt occurred a few years later, in 311 B.C.E. Alexandria was likely in its embryonic state, as the early name Rhakotis suggests, and was probably a work in progress around a fortifi cation, as the hieroglyphic text indicates. It was the new capital of Ptolemys satrapy, however, and as such, it required all of the necessary elements of infrastructure, the fi rst and foremost element being a defensive organization. Th e fortress of Alexandria could

1988), 89, and A.B. Bosworth, Introduction, in Alexander the Great in Facts and Fiction (eds. A.B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 67]. Plutarch and Arrian [Plu., Alex, 26,4; Arr., 3.1,52,2] are the writers who have by far earned the greatest respect of modern scholars [A.B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander. Studies in Historical Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), 8]. For the complete list of the sources on the foundation of Alexandria, which include also those authors who merely mention it, see A. Calderini, Dizionario dei nomi geografi ci e topografi ci dellEgitto greco-romano (Milano: CisalpinoGoliardica, 1935), 63.

11 See note 3 for bibliographical references. Th e texts reads: As he made his residence, named the Fortress of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Merikaamon-Setepenre, the Son of Re, Alexander, whose former name was Rhakotis, on the shore of the great green sea of the Greeks; transl. Simpson, Literature of Ancient Egypt, 393.

12 Th e fi rst article to discuss the meaning of Rhakotis, and to exclude that it was an old Egyptian toponym is M. Chaveau, Alexandrie et Rhaktis: le point de vue de gyptiens, in Alexandrie: une mgalopole cosmopolite (ed. J. Leclant; Paris: Belles Lettres, 1999), 2ff .; Chaveaus conclusions are based on the lexical analysis of L. Pan-talacci, Remarques sul les composs de type ,r # ou r # devant racine verbale en gytpien ancien, OLP 16 (1985): 520; supported by C.A.R. Andrews, Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the British Museum IV: Ptolemaic Legal Texts from the Th eban Area (London: Printed by order of the Trustees of the British Museum, 1990), 83, and M. Depauw, Alexandria, the Building Yard, Cd 75 (2000): 6465. To date the most complete discussion is in K. Mueller, Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistic World (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 1522, who, however, follows J. Baines, Appendix: Possible Implications of the Egyptian Name for Alexan-dria, JRA 16 (2003): 6164, and does not receive Chaveaus interpretation. Rhakotis remained the name of the city in the demotic documents; J. Quaegebeur, Rhakotis, L 5 (1984): 9091. Offi cial documents and inscriptions give however mixed results: H. Gauthier, Dictionnaire des noms gographiques contenus dans les textes hiroglyphiques (Cairo: IFAO, 192531), I 83; 136; II 71; III 130; V 24.

13 I discuss in detail the foundation of Alexandria and its sources in Gambetti, Q&A.

the rights of residenceptolemaic period 27

well have been one of the garrisons where Ptolemy relocated the Jews.14 A combined reading of the Letter (1214) and Josephus (B.J., 2.488) supports this conclusion. Philo confi rms it when he refers precisely to the Jews arrival in Alexandria at the time of the citys foundation (Flacc., 46).15

Philos own admission introduces a more precise defi nition of the role of the Jews from the early days of Ptolemaic Egypt, the role of katoikoi (Flacc., 172). In the early Hellenistic period, katoikoi were the military colonists settled by the diadochoi and their successors in their newly conquered territories. In Egypt, papyrological and other evidence support this point for the entire Ptolemaic period, for in offi cial docu-ments some styled themselves katoikos, followed by their specifi c army unit and the extension of their allotted land.16 Indeed, Philo confi rms that the Jews were still called katoikoi under Roman rule (Flacc., 172), a defi nition that could not refer to their military status in his own time, as the Romans had dismantled the Ptolemaic defensive system,17 but which certainly preserves their civic status from their original settle-ment in the early Ptolemaic period.

But these were not the only Jews to arrive in Alexandria in the fourth/third century B.C.E. Th e Letter (14) includes a forged royal prostagma of Ptolemy II Philadelphos that reveals that the king emancipated the Jewish captives, whom his father had enslaved in 311 B.C.E. Ptolemy II states that they were not fi t for military duties and that his father did not wish to enslave them, but did so because he was overridden by his soldiers who wanted him to front payment for extra duties performed during the war.18 Th e issue of forgery and of dubious details aside,19 this passage depicts a situation with some historical credibility.

14 So in part Smallwood, Jews, 221 without reference to the military.15 Van der Horst, Flaccus, 144. An Alexandrian Jewish necropolis testifi es the Jewish

presence in the city since the early times: W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), xiiixvi; #38.

16 See C.A. Lada, Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), passim; G.M. Cohen, Th e Seleucid Colonies. Studies in Founding, Administration and Organiza-tion (Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag, 1978), 3132; M. Launey, Recherches sur les armes hellnistiques (Paris: De Boccard, 1949), 293, 295296; 330331; 360362.

17 See next chapter.18 See Gambetti, Jewish Community, for previous bibliographical references on this

subject. Th e next paragraphs summarize that articles conclusive part of the discussion of the comparison between the Letter passage and papyrological evidence.

19 In contention are the 20 drachmae that the king, according to the Letters pros-tagma, paid the slave owners for renouncing their property. Th is mention prompted

28 chapter two

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

Ulrich Wilcken to compare the Letter with P. Grad. 1 = SB III 6275 = C.Ord.Ptol. 25 = C.Ptol.Sklav. 4 [R. Scholl, Corpus der ptolemischen Sklaventexte (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990)]. Internal evidence imposes a date on the seventeeth year of a king, which could be either Ptolemy II Philadephos of Ptolemy III Euergetis; but the content is more evocative of similar texts of Philadelphos; see M.-T. Lenger, Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolmes. (Bruxelles: Academie royale de Belgique, 1964), 55. Wilckens com-ments on the correspondence between the papyrus and the Letter are explained in his letter included in the editio princeps of P. Grad. 1 [G. Plaumann, Griechische Papyri der Sammlung Gradenwitz (Heidelberg: Winter, 1914)]; early reaction to Wilkens position are in H. Lewald, Sul papiro Gradenwitz 1, in Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (Milano: Aegyptus, 1925), 340342, and in H. Liebesny, Ein Erlass des Knigs Ptolemaios II Philadelphos ber die Deklaration von Vieh und Sklaven in Syrien und Phnizien. PER 24.552, Aeg 16 (1936): 256291; see I. Biezunska-Malowist, Lesclavage dans lgypte grco-romaine. I: priode ptolmaque (WarszawaKrakow: PAN, 1974), 20. Data are tabulated in Scholl, Sklaventexte, 213. Th e text is fragmentary, but a mention of 20 drachmae at l. 13, the function of which was not clear, convinced Wilcken of the correspondence between the papyrus and the text of the Letter, to the point that he suggested integrating the lacunae of the papyrus on the basis of the Let-ter; in this way the prostagma of the Letter became historically valuable by virtue of the fact that it helped integrate a real historical fragmentary documentthe argument is circular to say the least. Today Wilckens position can no longer be shared, either on a methodological or especially on a historical and documentary ground. Economic data gathered from papyrological evidence shows that it is impossible that 20 drachmae was the price of a slave in the early Ptolemaic period; the prices for slaves paid during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos range from 50 drachmae paid for children to 100 drachmae or more paid for adult Syrian slaves. Once the idea that 20 drachmae was the price is rejected, the fi eld is clear for the evaluation of an alternative hypothesis. Th e publication of P. Col. inv. 480 = C.Ptol.Sklav. 5; editio princeps W.L. Westermann, Upon Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt (New York: Columbia University Press, 1929), another real prostagma on slavery dated to the beginning of the second century B.C.E., has provided clearer interpretation; in this text 20 drachmae (l. 11) is the tax paid to the authorities upon registration of the acquisition of a slave paid as one mina. Th is datum, beside undermining without appeal Wilckens ideas [Westermann, Slavery, 3538] for the comparison with P. Grad. 1., also shows that the Letter therefore mistakenly refers to the 20 drachmae as the price paid by the king to the slaves owner. If historical reliability should be given nevertheless to his prostagma, it should be admitted that it meant the reimbursement of the purchase taxes; so Westermann, Slavery, 4041. However, also this hypothesis does not stand comparison with documentation; see further in the current discussion.

20 = C.Ord.Ptol. 2122 = SB V 8008 = C.Ptol.Sklav. 3; editio princeps in Liebesny, PER 24.552; W.L. Westermann, Enslaved Persons Who Are Free, AJPh 59 (1938): 130.

21 Th e dynastic date of the document has the 25th year of a Ptolemaic king, which could refer both to Ptolemy II Philadelphos and Ptolemy III Euergetes; however paleo-graphical characteristics have led the editor to incline for Philadelphos: Liebesny, PER 24.552, 264. Scholl, Sklaventexte, 3 also inclines for a date in the reign of Ptolemy II Philadephos.

the rights of residenceptolemaic period 29

i, l. 33col. ii, l. 26)legally free person in condition of slavery22 whose status is verifi ed for the sake of their eventual emancipation.23 Th e context of the papyrus clearly reveals connections to the Ptolemaic wars in the Levant and to the slave trade in which soldiers were also involved.24 PER 24.552 further depicts the practice of illegal slavery, which the authorities oppose.25

Such a context fi ts the passage from the Letter of Aristeas perfectly. Whether or not Ptolemy Lagos was willing to enslave some of the deported Jews, both pieces of evidencethe Letter and the papyrusrefer to Ptolemaic soldiers fi ghting in Coele Syria under the fi rst two Ptolemies, all involved in the slave trade, which the now ruling king, Ptolemy II, opposed. Th e papyrus validates the historical situation which the author of the Letter of Aristeas reports with incorrect details.26

It is likely therefore that Ptolemy II Philadelphus freed formerly enslaved Jews and that some of them joined their compatriots in Alex-andria, though not in a military capacity. Others may have arrived in 301 in the aft ermath of Ptolemy Is conquest of Jerusalem,27 but with the Levant being part of the Ptolemaic kingdom until the end of the third century B.C.E., the way was open for waves of immigration.28

22 Th is defi nition of slave is peculiar; for the general terminolgy about slaves see P. Ducrey, Le traitement des prisonnier de guerre dans la Grce antique des origines la conqute romaine (Paris De Boccard, 1968), 30ff . Th e translation legally free person in condition of slavery is provided by Westermann, Enslaved Persons, 11, on the basis of comparative observation with slave terminology in papyrological texts; Westermann criticizes the translation of enlsaved persons who are free suggested by Liebesny, PER 24.552, 274. Westermanns entire article aims at pointing out the diff erences between this text and all the known other papyri on slavery, in which the sole concern of the administration is to levy taxes from slaves property transfer. A good overview of this papyrus, although now somewhat out of date within its fi scal context, is A. Segr, Liberi tenuti in schiavit nella Siria, nella Fenicia e nellEgitto tolemaico, Archivio Giuridico 132 (1945): 161182.

23 Th e only exception is made for those who were sold by royal auction (col. ii, l. 2331); this regulation pertains to free people who became fi nancially insolvent and were therefore seized in their person by the government; Westermann, Enslaved Persons, 1118; Biezunska-Malowist, Esclavage, 28ff .

24 As it appears form the analysis and contextualizing of col. ii, l. 20; Gambetti, Jewish Community.

25 Westermann, Enslaved Persons, 27; Biezunska-Malowist, Esclavage, 24ff .; S. Bussi, Economia e demografi a della schiavit in Asia Minore ellenistico-romana (Milano: LED, 2001), appendix La schiavit in Egitto ellenistico, 143.

26 See above n. 19 in this chapter.27 See above n. 6 in this chapter for references on this topic.28 Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus, I 2; Smallwood, Jews, 221; Barclay, Mediterranean

Diaspora, 2026.

30 chapter two

Physical Aspects of Alexandria and the Process of Jewish Settlement

Th e Jews arrived in Alexandria, then, as the city came into being. Th is suggests that they witnessed the citys building and its skyrocketing development in the early decades. Such an environment must have shaped their own experiences as well, not only at the moment of their arrival, but also, probably especially, in the following centuries. For this reason, a glimpse of what Alexandria looked like in those years is useful.

We are all acquainted with an Alexandria designed on a topographi-cal grid with all streets intersecting at 90 angles.29 Th e most recent excavations confi rm that the Roman urban plan, the earliest awareness of which emerged from the 1866 excavations, was superimposed upon and identical in design and structure to the original Ptolemaic plan. Th e orthogonal plan should come as no surprise. Greek cities adopted the so-called Hyppodamic plan from the earliest times of archaic colonization and Egypt had known 90 street angles since the dynastic period.30 Th e Ptolemies followed a well-established Mediterranean tradi-tion. Unfortunately, however, archaeological diagnostics cannot reveal exactly when Alexandrian topography was fi rst rationally organized, that is, it is impossible to say when precisely during the Ptolemaic period Alexandria received the orthogonal plan. Fortunately the excavation at the Serapeum provides bits of evidence on the basis of which one can carry on a helpful, but far from conclusive, discussion.

We know that the Alexandrian Serapeum underwent a major build-ing phase during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes I (246221 B.C.E.), whose foundation tablets emerged from the south-eas