The Acts of the pagan martyrs : Acta Alexandrinorum

Citation preview

Σιν ACTS OF THE PAGAN MARTYRS ACTA

ALEXANDRINORUM

THE ACTS ΟΕ THE PAGAN MARTYRS ACTA ALEXANDRINORUM EDITED

WITH

COMMENTARY BY

HERBERT

A. MUSURILLO,

OXFORD AT THE

CLARENDON 1954

PRESS

».].

4 Oxford University Press, Amen House, London E.C. GLASGOW BOMBAY

NEW

TORONTO

YORK

CALCUTTA

MADRAS

WELLINGTON

MELBOURNE

KARACHI

CAPE

TOWN

IBADAN

Geoffrey Cumberlege, Publisher to the University

PRINTED

IN GREAT

BRITAIN

PREFACE Ir is with great diffidence that one attempts to follow in the footsteps of Ulrich Wilcken, who was the first to make a com-

prehensive study of the Acta Alexandrinorum in his now famous monograph, Zum alexandrinischen Antisemitismus (1909). But in view of the many new fragments discovered since then and

the enormous literature that has grown up about the ‘Acts of the Pagan Martyrs’, it was deemed wise to attempt a complete

critical edition of all the relevant fragments together with a reassessment of the entire problem. ‘All history’, said Benedetto Croce, ‘is contemporary his-

tory.’ Indeed, another story could be written about the scholarship that has developed around the Acta and the reasons why each group of scholars found the subject particularly relevant. I myself can date my interest in the problem—or perhaps one should rather say mystery—from the time I first read C. B. Welles’s article on the Acta Appiani (TAPA, 1936). For here two fascinating problems were interconnected: the question of the connexion between the Pagan Acts and the Christian, and, most intriguing of all, the problem of the origin and the

purpose of the Acta Alexandrinorum. And although the chief purpose of the present study is to offer a critical edition of the texts with a commentary, it will be seen that the commentary itself as well as the appendixes represents a constant searching for any evidence that might throw light upon the mystery.

The problem of the possible influence of the Pagan Acts upon the Christian was by far the easier task. For, though I have attempted to draw all possible parallels, I realized more and more that, except in the ways I shall indicate, the influ-

ence was indeed slight.

The more difficult and more exacting problem was that of the authorship of the Acta. In the first place, an examina-

tion of the style, vocabulary, grammar, and rhetoric of the various fragments forced me to the general conclusion—with certain possible exceptions that will be noted later on—that the Acta could not be a single work. And the increasing number

vi

PREFACE

spots’, conof fragments, as well as the diversity of the ‘find, possible source firmed this opinion. In my search for a προγυµνάσµατα, rical rheto an examination of the Mime, the

although and the Hellenistic novel yielded no definite key—

will be seen the results of my researches in this direction ndix III. Appe in ally especi throughout the commentary and very looked least at y iciall One explanation which superf d seeme , source Cynic a of promising, M. Rostovtzeft’s theory single no that fact, in saw, I to fall apart on analysis, and led ready-made solution would serve. The clue which finally to nce refere n’s Appia was path me on what I feel is the right with taken be this if ally especi Isidorus in the Acta Appiani, at Philo’s remarks on Isidorus’ influence in the Greek clubs the ted sugges which ed emerg ts Alexandria. Further elemen in modifications of my final views: especially the prominence as lus, Balbil and ius Dionys like s the Acta of Roman citizen ly possib (and us Herae and Tyre of well as the rhetors Paulus Aelius Theon), who were apparently in good favour at Rome. Last of all, the concession of a Boule by Septimius Severus and the Constitutio Antoniniana were also facts which seemed to fit into the puzzle. How all these elements were to be reconciled—if indeed I have succeeded in reconciling them—will be seen in the final appendix. Besides the many new fragments, all of the older texts have been thoroughly revised. So far as possible I have tried to study the originals (e.g. those in London, Oxford, Paris) ; for most of the others I have had to be content with photographs,

although the Cairo fragment (Acta Heracliti) and the papyri originally in Berlin were completely inaccessible. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Mr. C. H. Roberts, Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, who

originally suggested the subject for my doctoral thesis and

read and revised it while in manuscript; without his innumerable suggestions and invaluable assistance my task would not have been possible. I should also like to thank the Trustees of the Egypt Exploration Society for permission to use the Oxyrhynchus fragment, the so-called Acta Diogenis. Professor W. Schubart was also kind enough to allow me to

use his transcript of a lost German fragment (Acta Maximz 11) ;

PREFACE

vii

and Professor H. C. Youtie of Michigan graciously sent me photographs of possible Acta fragments in the Ann Arbor collection. I wish also to acknowledge my gratitude to the following

scholars: Mlle C. Préaux and Dr. Jean Bingen for a new photograph and transcript of the Brussels fragment (P. Fayum 217); Mr. M. N. Tod, who gave me so much of his valuable time on certain epigraphical difficulties ; Professor I. Cazzaniga of Milan, who gave me great assistance on PRUM;; Professor C. Bradford Welles of Yale University, for information on the Yale fragment; the lamented Paul Peeters of the Bollandists; and to Mr. T. C. Skeat, Dr. A. Momigliano, Professor R. Pfeiffer, Dr. Paul Maas, Professor G. D. Kilpatrick, and Mr. P. M. Fraser for many valuable suggestions and references. Lastly, I should thank Sir Harold Bell for his kind

interest and assistance throughout the course of my research; it will be clear how much my book owes to his preliminary studies. M. J. Vandier and Mme Noblecourt of the Egyptological Department of the Louvre greatly facilitated my work on the Acta Pauli; Dr. J. Schawe, Librarian at Giessen, procured some excellent photographs of the Giessen fragment; and Professor Leiv Amundsen kindly sent me photostats of several

fragments in the Oslo collection. Space forbids my mentioning the names of all those who encouraged my work, especially those to whom I dedicate this book, FRATRIBUS AULAE

BEATI

AC

SOCIIS

EDMUNDI

ST. ANDREW-ON-HUDSON, N.Y. ASD

MEIS CAMPION

38

κ. αι. ο Ae eS

a Rt hed

2

ew

Ιλ μη

a

rie |

ey :

...

ή

; F

:

ο

-

ος

ια.

a

ie

Ge ο

νο

hua”

ver

a

Μ

ο.

ων

ὧν,

ο".

hob

4

q

=

’

ο

—

μάς

κ

πμ ο

να

Sands

if ;

ik δι

ί

e

ea

ο... ο οσοι ο. ;

a

=

ox

‘ =

κ

P i

’

ὦ ae anys μην

TL

OUR

ῤ

en

he : κε

Υψ

aaa eas

ο

‘sia Wier

reds paiohl

=!

ry ;

siti λος 4 ι ae

κα, κλπ κά

ο)

Ν

ο...

me

ο.

:

a

Αφ πο.

η

πα dali ε νὰ 9 ών τν το η

i

ο ο. Bo αυτry: ΑΝ 4

| uesae 7

Sra

‘eat a a

,

he

i

ο

ed

a4a νι’ Pet;

=

9

ας,

μι

ες

δα. Hs Shes = He

he Seth yt aiee

pwr

re

Pk

bes

7

a

CONTENTS SYMBOLS

AND

I. THE

TEXTS

I

ABBREVIATIONS

xi

. PSI 1160: The ‘Boule Papyrus’

11

. P. Oxy. 1089: The Interview with Flaccus

111

. P. bibl. univ. Giss. 46: The ‘Gerousia Acta’

IV.

. Acta Isidori

18

VA

. P. Oxy. ined.: Acta Diogenis (?)

VB

. P. Fouad 8

27 30

. P. Rendel Harris: Acta Hermiae (?) . Acta Maximi

32

44

IXA

. P. Oxy. 1242: Acta Hermaisci . Acta Pauli et Antonini

IXB

. BGU 341

VI VII VIII

1xc. Ρ. R. Univ. Milano (PRUM) x XI

DUBIOUS

33 49 58

. P. Oxy. 2177: Acta Athenodort

59 61

. Acta Appian

65

AND

UNIDENTIFIED

FRAGMENTS

BGU 588

71

XIII.

Ρ.

Fayum 217

72

XIV.

P. Erlangen n. 16

73

P. Aberdeen 136 P. Bouriant 7

74

XII.

XV. XVI. XVII.

P. Oslo. 170

XVIII.

Acta Herachiti

. P. Rylands 437 XI . P. Rendel Harris ined. (a) and (0)

XIX XX—-X

19 76

Li 80 δι

x

CONTENTS

II. GCOMMENTARY SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The “Theon-Dionysius Family’ (u, P. Oxy. 1089) The Penalty (im, P. Giss. 46) The Imperial Chancery and the Privy Council (SP Oxy 277)

83 102 το 202

APPENDIXES 1. Grammatical Observations

235

11. The Tradition of Martyr Literature

236

111. Mime, Protocol, and Novel

247

1v. The Controversy on the Acta Alexandrinorum

259

v. The Acta and the Cynics SELECT

267

BIBLIOGRAPHY

278

PROSOPOGRAPHIA

281

INDEXES

284

A, B: GREEK

INDEX C: INDEX TO AND APPENDIXES

THE

COMMENTARY :

296

SYMBOLS

AND

ABBREVIATIONS

Aj

JosEpHus, Antiquitates Iudaicae.

Antis.

American Journal of Philology. American Journal of Theology. A. VON PREMERSTEIN,

A

>

a

ld

~

‘

A

A

bY

4

/

A

a

{ep

~

A

A

A

x

/

/

3

/

a

>»

?

/

e

”

ς

/

/

ee

/

τινος πράκτορος ἀνθρώπουὶς΄ διασείοντος, συνερχοµένη ἡ βουi) πρὸς τὸν σὸν ἐπίτροπον συνεπισχύηι τοῖς ἀσθ[ε]γοῦσι, καὶ μὴ 9 4

>

LA

ee

4

/

ς

δι ἐρημίαν βοηθείας τὰ col τηρεῖσθαι δυνάµενα ὑπὸ τῶν τυχόντων ἀνθρώπων διαφορηθῇ. ἔτι δέ, εἰ δέοιτο πρεσβείαν πρὸς σὲ πέµmew, αὕτη προχειρίζηται τοὺς ἐπιτηδείους, καὶ [μήτε ἀσε-] 3

/

a

”

/

>

/

/

4

A

,

µνός τις ἐκπορεύσηται [μήτε εὔθετός τις] µήτε ε[ὔθετός τις] ,

>

΄

la

Hel

/

κ

50

/

ὢν φεύγηι τὴν τῆς πατρίδος ὑπηρεσίαν. ἀξιοῦμ[εν οὖν ἐξεῖναι] n

/

5498

A

nl

/

ς

/

B

3

-

4.

>

-

I

PSI 1160

2

15 τὴν βουλὴν Kar’ ἐνιαυτὸν γίνε[σθα]ι καὶ με[τὰ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν] ] ο, εὐθύνας διδόναι τῶν διαπεπρᾳ|γµένων τὸν] ο. 19 τὸν γραμματέα τῆς βουλῆς καλὸν | ] £227 εἰ χρόνον προσοριζόµενον ] 24 ο. διδοµένηι τὸν χρόνον τοῦτο[ν ] 20 ο. 25 γίνεται τῶν νόµων, δέσπο[τα blank? -Kaioap εἶπεν" | περὶ τούτων διαλήμψο[μαι εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρε[ιαν A

Col. tt 3. γρᾳ[φήν, τὴν] (Bell) seems almost certainly right. 5. From the traces ἀ[κ]έραιον seems more likely; although a[«]fparoy, as the 4. κατα{βαρὶβαροῖτο Oliver. editors suggest, is not impossible. 8. (rods) ἀνθρώπους W(ilcken). 11. ὑτῶν p. 11. διαφορηθῇ is the editors’ correction for διαφορηση (9); but although the last η was made haltingly, I do not agree with the editors that it was corrected 19 f. ἀσε]]μνός suppl. S(chubart). from αι. διαφορῆται Oliver. 13. ἐκπορεύσηται corrected from εὐπορεύσεται. In the parenthesis which follows, ἀσθενής had been corrected to εὔθετος. At the end, suppl. edd. 14. The editors suggest ἀξιοῦμ[εν ody? κελεῦσαι], the κελεῦσαι having been proposed by S. But the suggestion adopted in the text, I feel, is less awkward. 15. με[τὰ τὸν ἐνιαυτόν] W. με[τ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν τάς] S. 16. [τῷ σῷ ἐπιτρόπῳ καί] W., but many other supplements are, of course, possible.

19. SiSopern~ sop. -μενηι edd. -μενη η (= 7 or 7), W.

TRANSLATION

‘,

. It is necessary for us to speak at some length. I submit,

then, that the Senate will see to it that none of those who are

liable to enrolment for the poll-tax diminish the revenue by being listed in the public records along with the ephebi for each year; and it will take care that the pure (?) citizen body of Alexandria is not corrupted by men who are uncultured and uneducated. And if anyone be unreasonably burdened by taxes exacted by the Idiologus or by any other tax-agent who may be oppressing the people, the Senate, in assembly before your Prefect, might

lend support to the weak and prevent the income that could be preserved for you from being plundered by anyone at all, simply through lack of a remedy. Again, if there should be need to send a diplomatic mission to you, the Senate might elect those who are suitable, so that no one ignoble (?) might make the journey

I

PSI

1160

3

and no one who is capable might avoid this service to his native city. “We ask, then, that it be permitted for the Senate to convene

annually, and at the end of each year to submit a report of its transactions. .. .’ Caesar said: ‘I shall come to a decision about these matters. .. .”

(4)

11 Γ ο . 1089: The Interview with Flaccus col. i

Ίνα Ἱερασ Ίμαι

Ίαν

Ίν

Ine

Ίμω

τι Ίν

jov Ἴωα

5

]yo

Ίβου 1:

15

Ίδωσ Ἴοιμεν Jo

Ίκει Juv

le

Ίν hee Ίν ].e

20

Ἶρισ

το

ls

24

24a

Ίατοι

Ίου

σα σ’ moa σ ho

jv

col. ii

ἀνέρχεται] Ne

οὖν ὁ Φλάκκ[ος

C

24j

25

εἰς τὸ Σ]αραπεῖον iKE=

λεύσας ἐν κρυπ]τῷ ἑτοιμ]άζεσθαι ᾿τὸ΄ χρῆμα.

ἀνέρχεται δὲ κ[αὶ] 6 ᾿Ισίδωρος σὺν τῇ Abaked!

\

ὃν

κ

9

/

A

a

35

φροδισίᾳ κα[ὶ] τῷ Διονυσίῳ, ἐντὸς δὲ τοῦ vew ε[ἰ]σελθόντες {δε} ὁ ᾿ Ισίδωρος /

\

n~

/

2

Ν

\

καὶ ὁ Διονύσιος προσεκύνησαν. καὶ A

oe,

,

ιά

30

τότε ἔριπψεν ἑαυτὸν [6 γ]εραιός, γονυ=, κλινὴς δ᾽ ἐχ[ό]μεγ]ο]ς [τ]οῦ Δ[ι]ονυσίου λέγων, ἰδού, δ[έ]σπίοτ]ᾳ Διονύσιε, avty

We

ς

A

ς

/

τικρὺ τοῦ Σᾳ[ρά]πιο|ς] 6 γεραιός: μὴ βιάζου πρὸς τὸ[ν] Φλ]ά]κκον, ἀλλὰ σὺν τοῖς γέρουσιν [κα]θί[ζ]ανε. ἡ cod πορευθέντος ..ε.ατρ..ϕ.µεν; µετα-

35

Ῥ. OXY. 1089

5

νόησον, τέκ[νον] 4[ι]ονύσιε. 6 δὲ ἀντεῖev εὐθετῖς, [ἀλλὰ ἐμ]ὲ δεύτε[ρ]ον μὴ βούλει ἀρνήσ[ασθαι τὸ]ν Φλάκκον; et δεῖ τῇ νέᾳ σ[ελήνη σ]ὺν αὐτῷ εἶναι, εἶμ[ι] ἐλε[υθ]ε[ρίως. ἐ;πῆλθεν 6 Φλάκκος κᾳ[ὶ] ᾖδ]ὼ[ν τὸν ᾿Ισί]δίω]ρον εἶπεν" τὸ μὲν [χρῆ]μ[α ἔτοι]μ]ό]ν ἐστιν. τίς λοιπὸν ἡμῶ]ν..... ένωνε. ευειν ση ε.. «(hoses «Ἰ.ε..ν 6 προκαOnpevols εἶπεν. .]λ[.].ω οὖν σὲ τ[ὸ]ν [κ]ύρ[ιο]ν Σάρίαπιν μηδὲ]ν κακὸν ποι[ety] ᾿[σιδώρῳ καὶ Διο]νυσίῳ. ὀμνυfeo σἱοὶ Ἕν εις... Ίᾳ.αι ἐμὲ τῷ σῷ. [6] δὲ Διον[ύσιος εἶπεν] µηδέποτε fe όνπρ.,..... ]...€v αὐτὸν eis

ΓΕ

[

ος

οἱ

4ο

45

5ο

es tele} epearrov ὃς

— tho[v ᾿Πρ]ί]δωρον οὐδὲ

[Φλάκ]κος [.]Ao[..... ].[...-] τὴν τῆς τη-

55

[ων ἀ]λήθειαν δω[σ]..[...«] ὑπὲρ τοῦ «[...]ws τάλαντα πέντ]ε ὅλ]ᾳ ἐν χρυσῷ [ἐξα]ριθμῆσαι τα[Ό]τα [π]ροθέμενοι κα[τὰ µέ]σον τοῦ ἱεροῦ .[...].σοι 6 Ἰσίδωρος [....]y9n παρακ[....)|.. τὸν τόκον αλλον... Ἱκατέρχε[...] [ ο. 18 ]1.τὸν ᾿Ισίδίω-] [ρον iG 7 Ae Ί [ 0. 1. ofan tebe]

6ο

col. iii

af τί [ [ [-Jef

κεί

65

dual [.]ησω[ [.Ἱερπ[ [.Jeol [.]r.[

Ίο

75

6

P. OXY. 1089

II

Unlocated Fragments Frag. a

Frag. 5

qf

|

]..[

ΙΕ!

Ίπν[

τα ].σ.[

bal Ίρντ[

Ίν[

5

:

le J. °

F

Frag. ¢

Jo.[ 9

.

é

}r-[ .

9

lof

: .

LI]. 24a-i not transcribed by GH. 24j. Suppl. Wilcken. 27. The mark like a circumflex accent over the initial a of Ἀ]φροδισίᾳ (9) probably indicates that the a is the beginning of a word to be finished on the following line. 34. η of µή corrected. 36. [κα]θ[έζ]ανε R. On the basis of GH’s reading, [..]6[..]ay, I had suggested [κα]θ[ισ]αι, but there is obviously a trace after Jay, and the ν seems certain. At the end of the line, τί aod, the reading accepted in the text of GH, is not as good (I think) as their second suggestion, ῃ σοῦ. 37. After -θεντος, ῃ or 9; and between the ῃ and the final µεν there were about 11 or, granting a bit of wrinkling in the papyrus, 12 letters. For the ending R. has suggested προδιδοµεν. Perhaps we may read θᾷτε[ρ]α προδίδομενξ 39. εὐθετῖς (1. εὐθετεῖς) GH. But edferio[w: add’ ἐμ]έ is also possible and, I think, better. 41. τῇ νέᾳ (sc. Aphrodisia) o[juepov von P. 42. ἐλε[υθ]ε[ρῶς von P. 44. Suppl. von Ῥ. 45. ¢.eve. GH: ‘between ε and evew two upright strokes which would suit 7 or µ; or the doubtful ¢« may be read by the help of one of these strokes as 0, θιευειν. ει, er, or η are possible in place of the preceding ec.’ It may be added that the papyrus is wrinkled here, and there may be space for two letters before evew. But τᾳμιεύειν seems excluded. 47. ‘Apparently not κελεύω᾽ GH. 48. [κ]ύρ[ιο]ν Zapf R. [..]v.ov Σαρ GH. µηδέ]ν suppl. H.M.

49. Ἰσιδώρῳ καί R.

52. Ἰουπρί R. Ἰεγποί GH.

56 f. ἔ(κ)[[πλο]ος von P. 57. Ίως R. Jos GH. ὅλ]α suppl. von Ῥ. 58. [ἐξα]ριθμῆσαι von Ῥ. 73. τ]ερπν (?), connecting perhaps with Frag. ὅ, 2. TRANSLATION

(LI. 25 ff.) Flaccus went then to the Serapeum, after giving orders that the business be arranged secretly. Isidorus also went up to the Serapeum with Aphrodisia and Dionysius, and entering

1

P. OXY.

1089

7

the sanctuary, Isidorus and Dionysius made a reverence to the god. Just then the old man threw himself down, and clinging to Dionysius on bended knee, he said: ‘Dionysius, my lord, behold me an old man in front of Serapis. Do not try to struggle against Flaccus, but sit down in counsel (?) with the elders. . . . Change your mind, Dionysius, my son.’ Dionysius replied: ‘You counsel well (2); but surely you do not want me to refuse (?) Flaccus again. If I (?) am to meet him by the full moon (?), I shall go, and willingly.’ Flaccus came up, and seeing Isidorus, he said: ‘Well, the affair is all arranged (?)....’

(8)

111 P. bibl. univ. Giss. 46: The ‘Gerousta Acta’ TRANSCRIPT

col. 1 Joo. .[ Ί.προκαθε τομ ον. Ἱκαταστασ Neva ος Ίντηπατρι

]. Το letfos on ce Ἰγραφασε[ Ίτι.Ἱεριρσκαισαρτημε Ίεισ.[. .Ἰαδεθεωρησαι ]....[. Ίσυμνεται ev σος δεκατηγορον Ἰτουαψαμενοσειπε Ἰ.ᾳαλεξανδρεων ο Ἴριεαυτοκρατωρ πο Ἰ.ισ απο poy γερο[.. .]ν εκακαιοκτω μυριαδᾳ[.] Ἰ.«ηθη τοδεειπε[.] ]....mepyroutwr. .[.]

1ο

15

20

(Probably about 15 lines lost) col. ii

6.8

ο. 8

ἍἡἹ..ροσειπεν πλεετ[ Ίνκυρί].]. επλευσαν[

III

P. BIBL.

UNIV.

GISS.

46

[ ¢.7 poy δια τουσ poy καιευλ.[ [ ¢.6 Ἰθονεισωστιαν[. .]ειθενκεῖ Gh ses Ίσαν ovrwvp.[. wv τη η[ δευ[..Ίρωμηνι καταβα[.]λουσιγε[

(25)

απονοντισιων συνην].]. . ενια[ οκοιτωνιτηστιβεριου/..Ίδε... .[ νοιαυτργηρωτωντιδ...]κυριί ειπεντελοσ εχει | ο. 15

Ἴτρ.εφη yaioo yepal

ο. 15

και που εστιν εφη[

ο. 17

(30)

[...]everau οιδε[ G17 [. . ]oepyopevov α.[ 6:27 [.Jevreyevouroxupte. . .[ c.9 15 [.«].τιστογητονειστο.[ ο.9 [.«]ιντιστηχλ ενιαυτους[ ο. 9 [......].[.. ].emirwy[ o 14 οτε Ἰ.ντωνπί ο. 16 20 Cesare |v. .[...- perl c.9 δν τόνς Ίαχθομαι οτικατη[ ο. 6 σα Ἰεμε[.]οιακουσομί ¢.6 νο: ].[.]α[.]ι. .[.]σι. xA εκα[ ο. 6 Ενα, | προση].]τωῳπραιτω ο.6 προ Jow κυριεχαιρεαεευοκ ο. 6 25 Bs Lowe op Ἱευλαλεχαιρεκαισα[ ο. 8 κ τη Ίν οκατη[ ο η ως i Me Se POG τὸ πα σι οὐ ay reer Tee) nr fa οσς ο 17 ~ ecateral c.6 Jey τη Ίπερ πατ[ ο] ] 30 13 Ίπο[...Ἰνουκαπηρτ[...].σ

ΙΙ

ᾖἹε.ρκατῃγορουμαιτουτεστψ

10

Ίτεστηγαρτυχηουχενι µε Ἴαρειοσειπεν κυρ]. Ίεχαιρε 1 χαρισμε[.Ίαλεξαν Ἅᾖετα[....].ησυειοτ].]υκοσμου

©

17 See SEA SRE οο 10Ο

(margin)

35

(35)

(40)

(45)

(50)

(55)

P. BIBL.

UNIV.

GISS.

III

46

col. 11

ο

|

εν]

Ἰκαιεί

το a iagt

Ῥο σι 4 [avon Pont) |

| |

| Ἔταρ.ε ; von P. ει ο

|

Japp Slowey,

(60)

|oourov.[ ].νησεναλε[

|

πα

Ίνγεκεινων;

Ίε. .υμεινου.[ Ίε.υμοσελί Ἰισκαλω!

10

(65)

20

(75)

25

(80)

30

(85)

35

(9ο)

].ovdyA0. [

Τηγλ.{ ]. dearpol (About 6 lines lost here)

een ρα «οσειπεν/. ειπεν ιὸ[.].ηξενι[. ..]γαρμαλί λαβωνπο[.Ίειτειαν al... ]moyagol Ew ωστεᾳπεδειξεγ/..]νκατηγορ.[ καιον γαϊοσκαισαρεκ[.λευσεντο -nyopov καηναι εγραψενολί πιστολή[ ο. 7 Ίτ.]ιαυτην [ ἍἉἸαλεξαί c.12 [.Ἰαϊοσκα ων χα c.12 emma ο, 15 .wo al ].[.- rt νον... .[ ϱ.19 ἍἹευερ [..]z[.-leyo[ ο 12 |.paor.[ «ο. 14 λεμουαιτια Ἱ.εμο. εντ κει lala Ἴβο[.]εν

«ῴρουλέέ[

sc. 14,

ο. ὃ ο. 5 ο. 5 ο. 5 ο. 5 ο. 5 ο. 5 ο. 5 ο. 5 ο. 5 ο. 6 ο. 4 ο. 3 ἴσι

κο. - Jul... «Ίνμη

εχετωσανμ[. .Ἱεαρετησστεφ|.Ίνον (margin)

P. BIBL.

UNIV.

GISS.

46

11

col. iv

(Lines 1-16 missing) νο τς [ ο 11 [

Ἰ.«οτοί Jexpa..[

6. 11

ο. 14-18?

Jol

[....|xasap[.... oor. [εν]νοιδεε[... Ἰσοντεστί [.«Ἰραμογ|... ]θοπολλουσ[ [.« Ἰνλημ[.Ἴθηναι καιτ [.«Ἱεκεφαλισεν οιδε[ [ .«Ίνητησα [ .«]εκαλε[ [ .«ισεμε[ [ων.

20

(110)

25

(115)

ο

ο

35

(135)

[

[.«].αναυτομ[ [:«]στε[

ο

χαρισᾳ[.Ἰμουτηγ]........ [.].[.]. εσ.ιεγ[

| Frag. ἆ νά. !

_-9ff.]. arf

ενορία

Sane

8

πε

(margin) col. v (Frag. a+)

-επιζησαστησ[ “κρατειδεκαι[ νοστελευτη] παντωνανε[ εγενετοηγεμ[ υποτουδιᾳδεχ[

1ο ο. 14 ο. 14 κατ” ¢. 12 οι Τα

τς τος | Frag. f oe |_vonPP.|

Ἰ.ασκαισαρ] ο. 53 Ἱ. κατηγ[ Ἰαλλααρ[ Ἰλογιαντ[ 5 (199) Ἰαλεξαγ| Ἴμονιαν

leash :

:

19

P. BIBL. UNIV.

:

III

GISS. 46

Unlocated Fragments

1 apl

lores

el

Ἰσιαλεέ[

Ίωσαδει[

Jerr-[

Jevauz[

Ἰοσί

}..[ BR

].-[

}ror.[

ip

6

d

ο

Wal

IPA

}..[ Noe

πο»

‘

Ἰποζεισ[

Ἰατηγο[ ]-rel TEXT

col. i

δι πιστολὴνἳ η

Joo. .[ Ί.προκαθετομ. | καταστὰς συ. ο ἐ]ν τῇ πατρίον σος Ίπαυσας τὰ πο μονο Ἴγραψας €Τι[β]έριος Kaioap: τῇ1 pe(v Ίεις.[..Ίαδε θεωρῆσαι ες. [.Ίσυμνεται [μεν] ].... δὲ κατήγορον αὐ]τοῦ ἀφάμενος εἶπε(ν)" ].a Ἀλεξανδρέων ο κύ]ριε αὐτοκράτωρ, πο].us ἀπὸ poy γερό[ντω]ν δ]έκα καὶ ὀκτὼ μυριάδᾳα[ς] Ἰ..ήθη, τόδε εἶπε[ν] ].... περὶ τούτων ..[.] ]....ov ἀριθμ[ὸν. .] Ἱ.. τὰ κ[α]τα[....] ].εαν.ί ο 7]

(Probably about 15 lines lost)

5

το

15

20

Ῥ. BIBL.

[ ¢.8

UNIV.

GISS.

13

46

col. ii ]..pos εἶπεν' πλέετ[ε

νο τὸ]ν κύρι]ο]ν. ἔπλευσαν [οὖν [ ¢.7 ] poy διὰ τοὺς poy καὶ Εὔλα[λον [ ¢. 4 A]Oov eis ᾽ Ωστίαν. [ἐκ]εῖθεν κε[ αι. Ἴσαν ὄντων μυ[ρ]ίῳν τη xf δευ[τέ]ρῳ μηνὶ καταβά|λ]λουσῳ ef ἄπονον. Τισίων συνήν[τ]ησεν ια] ὁ κοιτωγίτης Τιβερίου. [οἱ] δὲ ἀσπα[σάμε-] vou αὐτὸν ἠρώτων: τί δ[ρᾷ ὁ] κύρι]ος; 6 δὲ εἶπεν" τέλος ἔχει εἶ ο. 15 ] ToT ἔφη Γαῖος γεραιοῖς. ο. 12 ] καὶ ποῦ ἐστιν; ἔφη [ ο. 17 ] [...]everau οιδεί . ο. 17 Ί [εἱ]σερχομένου αὖ[τ ο. 16 εὖ[π]εν' τί γένοιτο, κύριε ...[ ο. 9 ] [.«].τιστον ἢ τὸν εἰς το. [ ο. 9 ] [ὀρ]ρντίστη χλ ἐνιαυτοὺς [ ο. 9 ] ees ].[..] ἐπὶ τῷ yl ο. 14 ] eer Ί.ντων π[ ο. 16 ]

[οτί Ἰην. .[...«Ἡ ἐπ

69

|

feeed ey pee Ἰάχθομαι ὅτι Katr[yop...] νο. Ἰεμε[.Ίοι ἀκουσομ[...... ] eres Le[olals leevlede LA exalsc...0s ] [rawacaehs ] προσῆ|ν] τῷ πραιτω[ρίῳ....] κ seΊσιν, κύριε, χαῖρε a {¢} εὐοκ]ᾶτος ree 1 Εὔλαλε, χαῖρε. Καϊσα[ρ....... ] [ ο τη Ίν 6 κατή/γορος..] [ Cl | Bia τίτα......Ὀ lev [ erry ὑ]πὲρ πατ[ρίδος.. . | [ €. τα Ίπο[...]ν οὐκ ἀπήρτ[ησα]ς [ ¢.11 Je.o κατηγοροῦμαι, τοῦτ ἔστιν

[ [ [

(25)

1ο

(30)

15

(35)

20

(40)

25

(45)

30

(50)

35

(55)

¢.10 Jres: τῇ γὰρ τύχῃ οὐχ ἔνι µε ¢.9 ]Apevos εἶπεν' κύρ[ι]ε, χαῖρε cry ] χάρις pe[v] Ἀλεξαν-

[δρέων..... Ίετα[....].η σὺ εἶ ὁ τ]ο]ῦ κόσμου

P. BIBL.

UNIV.

GISS.

111

46

col. ili (Frag. ϱ)

[σω]τὴρ καὶ [εὐεργέτης ?] Ίσι Ἀλεξ[ανδρε-

Jerr.[ Ίποτ.[ [δεσ]πόζεις [ κ]ατηγο[ρ

]. trol

]

] καὶ εἰ Ίαν π[

Ἰαρμί Ἰοῦτο [ το]σούτου.[ ].νησεν Ἀλε[ξανδρε-

5

(6ο)

Ίων ἐκείνων [ Ίε.. ὑμεῖν οὐ.[ Ίε.υμος “EALAnv? ε]ἰσκαλῶ [

(65)

].ον δηλο.[ ] ἡ γλῴ[ττα

τ]ὸ θέατρο[ν (About 6 lines lost) «ος εἶπεν] - ο Ι9 bl ο. 8 ] εἶπεν: idle] δὴ ξενι]κὸς] γὰρ μᾶλ[λον κατα-] λαβὼν πο[λ]ιτείαν ἀ[να]πόγραφοῖν ο.5 | ἕω ὥστε ἀπέδειξεν [τὸ]ν κατήγορο[ν οὐ δί-] καιον. Γαῖΐος Καΐσαρ ἐκ[έ]λευσεν τὸ(ν] κατήγορον καῆναι. ἔγραψεν ολ..... ἐ-] πιστολὴ[ν τῇ πόλει (?)] τ]ο]ιαύτην" [blank 2] [Γ]ᾳΐος Καΐ[σαρ τῇ πόλει τῶν] Ἀλεξαν] δρέ-] ων χα[ίρειν........ ] ἐπιπα ο. 5 ] .ws αἱ ο. 15 Lol cape 5. νου... ο. 19 ] εὐερίγε-....] [πι να ο. Ἰυμαστ.[....] λεμου αἴτια «ο 14 Ἰ.εμο.[..] ΡΗΝΟ σι Ἰβο[μ]εν ᾿Ισιδώρου λέξίαντος......... ].of[.- ul... lv μὴ ἐχέτωσαν µ[ήτ]ε ἀρετῆς στέφ[α]νον

(75)

(8ο)

30

(85)

35

(99)

III

P. BIBL.

UNIV.

GISS.

46

—

15

col. iv (Lines 1-16 missing) ο τω 82 Ἰ.«οτο ο. 14-18? ο it) ο Ἱεκρα.[ ο tte oilot [....]xavay[.... loo. [..].owe ἐμπε]σόντες τ[ [-έδ]ραμον [με]θ) ὃ πολλοὺς [ [ωε]ν λημ[φ]θῆναι καὶ τ[ [ἀπ]εκεφάλισεν. οἱ δὲ [

[.ες «Ἰνητησα[

] 20

(110)

25

(115)

30

(120)

35

(125)

[... ]εκαλε[σ[... Ἰνσεμε[ eed αἱ

[..] αν αὐτομ[

[ω.]στε[

χαρίσᾳ[ς] µου τὴψ[ [.].[.]. εσ.ιεν.[

-$ ζ[η]μίανί eoeceeeeee

col. v

(Frag. a)

(Frag. 5)

-ἐπιζήσας τῆς [ ΄ ο 12 ].as Καισαρ[ ο. 63 |] ]. κατηγ[ορούμε-] κρατεῖ δὲ καὶ [ ο. 14 Cris ] άλλα αρ[ vos τελευτη[ 0.0 ἀπο]λογίαν τί (130) πάντων ἀνε[ ἐγένετο ἡγεμ[ὼν Αἰγύπτου καὶ] Ἀλεξαγ[δρείας 2 ὑπὸ τοῦ διαδεχ[οµένου τὴν ἡγε]μονίαν [ φον Ισ το} /

3

Col. t oe

see

1. Most probably the first line of the column. Judging from cols. ii-iii, we may reckon an average of 29-34 letters per line.

P. BIBL. UNIV. GISS. 46

16

SS

TT

9. Ίρτιμ[ von P., but this is possibly a misprint (in Eberhart’s transcription).

be 7. The first letter may possibly be », but hardly 0; the fourth letter may also

6. There are probably no letters at the end of this line. ϱ. συµνεται: 5ο, too, von P. (for aijovyrirar), but the µ is very odd, and, if we should read it at all, the copyist may possibly have begun to write ν. R(oberts) 10. περὶ δέ von P. suggests συλενεται. 12. Και]σᾳρ von P., but judging from the facs., there is no trace of p. 16. ευπε[ von Ε. 14. Ίας ἀπὸ von P., but Ja is hardly likely. 19. Suppl. von P. 18. ἔσον ἀριθμ[όν] (von P.) is not impossible.

Col. i 1. Jupos [δ]ὲ εἶπεν von Ῥ. From Il. 1 to 9 there are about 2-4 letters lost at the right side of the column. 3. After Ευλ traces of what seems to be A, but may well be a. 6f. ἔ[ργον οὐκ] | κτλ. von P. Ρ. µ[υρ]ίων von P. 7. Τισίων (1. Τεισίων), von P.’s second suggestion, would seem more probable from the facs. than Πίστων, the reading adopted in his text. At the end of the line he would restore ἰα[τρός]. 11. 7é7’: the presence of the paragraphus makes the ending -τοις perhaps unlikely. Von P.’s π[ροσέ]φη seems not only too long, but does not suit the traces.

17. Jou: τιστη may also be read (R.) ; certainly not κτιστη, and before ντιστη possibly 9. Perhaps [εὐκατα]φρ]ογτίστη or the like? 23. [πρὸ]ς [β]α|σ]ἡλεῖς] von P., but the letter before a is hardly β. 24. The reading in the text is due to R. προσῄ[ει] 7 πραιτ[ωρία] von P. Possible also is προσῇ[σ]αν πραιτῳ{ (R.). 31. eyd (1. ἐγώ) von P. 25. Perhaps 1. 6 {ε) εὐοκ[ᾶτος]. 32. Ίτες tn: Ίτε χρῃ is also possible (R.) ; but von P.’s τελεζῖνται Would seem to be entirely excluded by the facs. 32. ody ἔνι (= ἔνεστι] R. οὐδενί is just barely possible, the fibres being slightly out of line at this point. ody ἑνί von P. Col. iit The position of ll. 1-13 are due to Ibscher’s reconstruction on the basis of the alignment of the fibres. Von P.’s joining of Frag. ο is very plausible; but I cannot be certain of his suggestion with regard to Frag. ε (see the transcript).

Thus von P. joins the three fragments along iii. 2 as follows: οὑτω]σὶ Ἀλεξ[ανδρέων λαμ]πρὰν π]ό]λιν]. 8. ε[ὐθ]υμεῖν von P., but the trace of a diaeresis (ὕμειν) would seem to exclude this. 9. ἔ[τ]υμος "Ελ[λην] von Ῥ., but Ίεβυμος (R.) seems more likely from the facs. 11. αὐ]τὸν δῃλο[ἔ] von P., who restores: ξένον γὰρ αὐτ]ὸν dnro[t τό | τε Bap-

βαρικὸν σχῆμα καὶ] ἡ γλῶσσα]. 91. ide] δὴ ξενικός] von P. 23. κατηγορ[ίαν οὐ δί]|καιον von P.; but from the facs. κατήγορρ[ν would seem more likely. 25. [ὅμως] von P., does not suit the traces. 26f. Suppl. von P. 28. ἐπιπα : von P. ἐπιγνούς]. 2g. At the beginning of the line, probably πως. 29. a8: 1. πᾳ(ρά) Kalbfleisch. πα[ραβαί]|νονίτες] von P. 31. θα]υμαστο[ is possible. 31 f. Von P.’s τ]οῦ πο|λ]έμου αἰτία[ν] is not unlikely, but other restorations are possible. 33. κατελά]βο[μ]εν von P.

111

Ῥ. BIBL.

UNIV.

GISS.

46

17

Col. iv

21. oie offers various possibilities, Suppl. Kalbfleisch. - 21f. von Ῥ. restores: με]θ ὃ πολλοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκέλευ]σε]ν λημ[φ]θῆν αι καὶ τ[ούτων πλείους | ἀπ]εκεφάλισεν. 30. δι]ὰ τί αὐτομ][όλησας] von P. (departing, however, from Eberhart’ s transcription). 34. σ probably corrected from ι. Suppl. von Ῥ. 36. The § here in the lower margin possibly indicates the number of this column (4). Col. v (col. x, von P.) Kalbfleisch joined the two fragments with a lacuna of about 12 letters (von P. allowing only 9); we follow his reconstruction of Il. 5-6, which form the clue to the join. 7- After g[, von P. here inserts Frag. J, with the following restoratio n:

[στρατι]ᾶ]ς Να[ι]υ[έ]ου [Σ]ερ[τωρίου Mdxpwvos . . alt

5498

Cc

(18)

IV Acta Isidort Recension A (Chrest. 14) col. i ᾿]σίδ]ωρον. Ταρκύνιος Ῥαΐσ]αρι ἀναστὰς Ίιτον ὅλην τὴν Ίον ποιήσεις ὑ]πὲρ πατρίδος Ίμεν ὑπὲρ ἠγω]νίζετο, δίκαιον ἦν ἀναστὰς] δὲ Ἀουϊόλαος συνκληἐστ]ιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ικὸς ἀγω][ί]ζετα[ι]. διὸ ἐρωτῶ |.7w τοῦτο τὸ ἅπαξ 1.τοῦ τηλικούτου π]ολὺ προσηκούσης Ίς, εἰ μὴ οὗτοι παρεΊν συμβουλίῳ ] ἐκάθισεν. ἐκλήθησαν [Ἀλεξανδρέων πρέσ]βεις, καὶ µετετάξατο [ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ «is αὔ]ριον ἀκοῦσαι αὐτῶν. [L vy Κλαυδίου Kaicalpos Σεβαστοῦ | Παχὼν é. [

[ [συνκλητικὸς...

ς

A

,

4

10

ἩὭρπιι SS Ἡπω

15

ντ ee At i a a

20

col. ii ἡμέρα [δε]υτ[έ]ρα: Παχὼ[ν 5.] ἀκούει Κλαύδιος Καϊσα[ρ τὸ τοῦ ᾿ Ισιδώρου] γυμνασιάρχου πόλεως Ἀ[λεξανδρέων]

κατὰ Ἀγρίππου βασιλέω]ς ἐν τοῖς λιανοῖς κήποις, συνκα[θημένων αὐτῷ]

-] 5

(25)

IV

ACTA

19

συνκλητικ]ὢ]ν εἴκο[σ]ι, π[ρὸς δὲ τούτοις] ὑπατικῶν δέκα ἕξ, πα[ρουσῶν δὲ καὶ] τῶν ματρωνῶν εἰσ.ι τὸ τοῦ] ᾿Ισ[ι]δώρου. ᾿Ισίδωρ[ο]ς ἐν πρ]ώτοις ἔλεγεν'] κύριέ µου Kaicap, τῶν γονά[των σου δέομαι] ἀκοῦσαί µου τὰ πονοῦν[τα τῇ πατρίδι.] ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ' µερίσω σο[ι ταύτην τὴν] ἡμέραν. συνεπένευ[σαν καὶ οἱ συνἡμέρ Ἱ καθήµενοι [π]άντες σ[υνκλητικοὶ εἰδότες ὁποῖό[ς ἐσ]τιν ἁ[νὴρ ὁ ᾽Ισίδωρος.] ] / Κλαύδιος Καΐ[σαρ' μηδὲν κατὰ τοῦ ἐμοῦ [φίλου εἴπῃς: ἄλλους γάρ] ] µου δύο φίλ[ους ἀνῄρηκας ἤδη" Θέωνα ἐξηγη[τὴν καὶ Ναίυιον ἔπαρχον] ie

4

e

907

΄

ISIDORI

.

al

/

1Ο

(30)

A

>

>

>

z

A

ei

/

(35)

4

col, ili [.... le mpéoBeal........... ] ἡ πατρίς. [{ά]μπων τῷ ᾽Ισ[ιδώρῳ ...... 1 ἐφεῖδον [ῆδη] τὸν θάνατ]ον ..... Γλαύ]διος Καΐσαρ'

(40)

[πολ]λούς µου φίλους ἀπέκτ[ει]νας, ᾽ Ισίδωρε. [Ισί]δωρος: βασιλέως ἤκουσα τοῦ τότε [ἐπ]ιτάξαντος. καὶ σὺ λέγε τίνος θέλεις [κα]τηγορήσω’. Κλαύδιος Καΐσαρ' ἀσφαλῶς [él μουσικῆς ef, ᾿Ισίδωρε; ᾿ Ισίδωρος: [ἐγ]ὼ μὲν οὔκ εἰμι δοῦλος οὐδὲ µουσικῆς 10 [υζ]ός, ἀλλὰ διασήµου πόλεως [Ἅ]λεξανἱδρ]εί[ας] γυµνασίαρχος. σὺ δὲ ἐκ Σᾳλώμη[ς] [τ]ῆς ᾿[ουδα[ίας υ]ὸς [ἀπό]βλητος. διὸ ‘kai’ ἀπο[.] .ειας ἐπ]...]ατηή[..]ως. ἔφη «Ιάμπ]ων [τ]ῷ ᾽᾿Ισιδώρῳ: τί γὰρ ἄλλο ἔχομεν ἢ παρα[φ]ρονοῦντι βασιλεῖ τόπον διδόναι; 15 [Ε]λαύδιος Kaioap: οἷς προεκέλευσα [τ]ὸν θάνατον τοῦ ᾿ Ισιδώρου καὶ «.άμπων]ος] Col. t (BGU 511)

1. Ταρκύζτλιος von Ῥ.

1 f. Suppl. Re(inach).

3. Before τον, ο or w rather than a W(ilcken).

(45)

(50)

(55)

90

ACTA

6. Perhaps εἶ] µέν (so too, von P.).

IV

ISIDORI

7. [πατρίδος Re.

8. ἀναστὰς] δέ von Ῥ. δε. W. Perhaps Aovtodraf{os} or 6s H.M. 9. ἐστ]ιν Re. era 10. ἀγω]ν[ί]ζετα[ι] von P., after Schubart’s revision of the original (‘Vor

eine Spur, die z. B. entweder ζ oder &, vorher, durch kleinen Raum getrennt,

p sein kénnte. Die Lesung ζετα oder éera zwingt zu der Annahme, einem Riss, der auf a folgt, ein « verschwunden

dass in

ist. . . . Das Ganze

also:

Ἰρ[.]ζετα[ι]. . . . Selbst ἀγων]έζετα[ι] ist mdoglich’ (AM, pp. 22 f.). 11. Perhaps [σε, κύριε (so too von P.). Before τω, possibly ο, not v: W. 16. [6 αὐτοκράτωρ ἐπὶ βήματος] von P. 15. ely W. 17. [οἱ τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων πρέσ]βεις W. 18. Suppl. Re. [Κλαύδιος Kaicap W. and von Ῥ. 19. The year was probably abbreviated L (W.); it is restored, with von P., in accordance with the generally accepted date. 20. Von P. accepts [Γερμανικοῦ]. Perhaps also [Σαρματικοῦ τι Col. it (BGU 511) 3. Suppl. W. Ἀ[λεξανδρείας] Re. ο. [Σεβαστὸς "Ia8dpou] W. 4f£. Aovxovdl|Acavots W.; Σερουι-] R.; Aod-] or Στατι]λιανοῖς von P. 5. Suppl. Re. 6. Suppl. R.; τ[ούτων 5é?] Bell; z[...., ἐν τούτοις] W. 4. Suppl. Bell, comparing P. Lond.; πα[ρούσης Σεβαστῆς µετά] W. 8. After εισ, not a W. Perhaps εἰσ[εᾶσθαι H. M. 9. ἤρξατο λέγων] Bell, but I think this too long for the lacuna. 12. Suppl. Re. µερισω corr. from µεριζω. 10-11. Suppl. Bell. 13. Suppl. Bell (following Re.) ;δὲ καί] suppl. W. 15. Bell’s reading and supplement. 16. μηδὲν ὑπερθετικόν (?) Bell; ὑπὲρ Θέωνος Crénert. 17 ff. Suppl. Bell. Col. itt (P. Cairo Inv. 10448) 1. Perhaps [ἐμ]ὲ πρέσβεα [ἐχειροτόνησεν] ἡ π., or the like. G. D. Kilpatrick has privately suggested [πέντ]ε πρέσβεα[ς, but since the more common form of the acc. plur. seems to have been (at this time) πρέσβεις, the sing. is perhaps more likely. 2. The best restoration of this and the following line is perhaps (cf. Wilcken, Antis.): ἐγὼ μὲν] ἐφεῖδον | [ήδη] τὸν θάνατ[ὀν µου. L. ἐπεῖδον. θάνατ[όν σου Weber. 8. ᾿Ισίδωρε; interp. H. M. The supplements [dvev] μουσικῆς and [κεν]ός (1. το), originally adopted by W. (Antis.), following Re., have since been 11. εἔαλωμη[ς] P. abandoned by all who have examined the original. 12, υ]ἱὸς [ἀπό]βλητος or even [ὑπό]βλητος, Bell, after a revision of the original. Earlier conjectures had been: ὧ]ς [ἀπό]βλητος Re. ;ef ὑπό]βλητος Weber, and after him, υἱό]ς [ὑπό]βλητος Lietzmann (who, like von P., wrongly attributes this suggestion to Reinach). ἡμῖ]ν [διά]βλητος (von P.) is very unlikely. 12f. The reading is according to de Ricci (Chrest. 14). At the end of 1. 12, dm’ ofilx]etas (1. οἰκίας) von P., after which Re. suggested ἐπικρατήσεως. I suggest, with all reserve, the exclamation καὶ ἀπῳ]λείας ἐπικρατήσεωςή But see the Commentary. 15. διδοναι corr. from διδεναι.

iv

ACTA

ISIDORI

οι

Recension B (P. Lond. Inv. 2785) col. i baa cere ste -λια]νοῖς [κή]ποις συγ[καθη-] [μένων αὐτῷ σ]υνκλητι[κῶ]ν Κε, ὑπατι[κῶν δέκα ἕξ ὁμ]ιλουσῶν δὲ ματρωνῶν [Sige te seacns ] 76 τοῦ ᾿Ισιδώρου.-[6 δὲ ᾿ Ισίδωρος πρ]ῶτον λόγον ἤρξατο, λε[γων' κύριέ µου Kaiclap, τῶν γονάτων σου δέ-

5

ἵομαι ἀκοῦσαί µ]ου τὰ πονοῦντα τῇ πα-

[τρίδι. Κλαύδιος] Καΐσαρ: µερίζω σοι τὴν ἡ[μέραν. συνεπένευσα]ν καὶ of συνκαθήµενοι [πάντες συνκλητικοί,] εἰδότες οἷός ἐστιν ἀνὴρ [6 ᾿ Ισίδωρος. Κλαύδι]ος Katcap: μηδὲν ὑπερθεπμ τοῦ ἐμοῦ] φίλου εἴπῃς. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλους ρε ass µου δύο φί]λους ἀνῄρηκας: Θέων[α] [γὰρ ἐξηγητὴν καὶ Να]ίυιον ἔπαρχον Αἰγύπτου

[τὸν καὶ ἡγεμονεύ]σαντα τῆς Ῥώμης τῆς [παρεμβολῆς ἤδη ἀν]ήρηκας, καὶ τοῦτον τὸν [ἄνδρα διώκεις. ᾿Ισίδ]ωρος" κύριέ µου Καΐσαρ, τί [μέλει σοι ὑπὲρ Ἀγρίπ]που ᾽ Ιουδαίου τριωβολείου οραμ ην. Ίλαι. Κλαύδιος Kaicap: τ[ί] [drs ; αὐθαδέστατος] ef πάντων ἀνθρώπων [ ο. 18 ἐ]κείνῃ εἰρηκέναι.--[7Ισίδωρος"..........] οὐκ ἀρνήσομαι κα[ ¢. 90. Ju ἠσυχάζει--[

6. 20

Ἱερ τύψας ειχί

[ [oap,

6. 20

1 ᾿Ολύμπιε KaiΊσου

Ins col. ii

owl I,σ[ιδωρ-

10

"15

20

25

ACTA

22

IV

ISIDORI

30

τί

εἶπεν] τὸν καὶ πρ] περὶ τὸν Σεβαστ[ὸν ἐπάγομαι γυμ[νασίαρχος Ἀλεξανδρείας, ἐτῶν vs, Ελλ[ηνὁ

;

A

\

35

ῥήτωρ τῇ δεξι[ᾷ es

A

~

τὸ ὑμάτιον ἔρριψεν καὶ elev: ov δεῖ e€.[ Κλαύδιος Kaiolap: ᾿]σί[Slwpe, ἐπὶ τὸν Θέ[ωνα µήτε ‘Pdpnv µῄ[τε Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ᾿]σίδωρος: ἐπὶ Tol γυµνασίαρχος Ἀλεξ[ανδρείας xn τῇ φύσει τή ἑπτὰ Σεβαστεῖα τὶ σας οὐκ ἐὰν µε δι άἆπαγόµενον ἐν σχ[ήµατι γυμνασιαρχικῷ [Ελα]ύδιος Kaicap: [ ᾿]σίδωρε, ]σίδῳ]ρε, κατὰ τοῦ ἐμοῦ φίλου εἴπηις Q

ο

>

A

40

45

50

Supplements are by Bell, unless otherwise noted. 4. Perhaps here [εἰσθεᾶσθαι] or the like; cf. Chrest. 14. ii. 8. 5. L. λόγων (Bell). 6. The first ν of γονάτων has been remade. 7. The cantinuation of the tail of the a at the end of the line with the decorative hook is probably merely a filling-in stroke, as Bell rightly surmised. 8. µερίζω: as Bell notes, there is a ‘long spur from the top horizontal stroke [of the {] downwards . . . and I am by no means certain that it was not the intention to correct it to σ’. 11 f. Bell restored μηδὲν ὑπερθε[[τικὸν κατά κτλ.]; ὑπὲρ θέ[[σιν] H. J. M. Milne; Crénert’s suggestion, ὑπὲρ Θέ][ωνος], seems to me somewhat more likely; but see Commentary. 18. τριωβολί(αι)ου Bell. 20. Bell’s supplement here was [φῄς; ἀναιδέστατος]. 91. Perhaps [αὐτοκράτορι παρρησίᾳ ἐ]κείνῃ, κτλ. 24. The υ of τυψας corrected, possibly from ε; or possibly τυ is corrected from π (Bell). 32. πρ[ότερον (?)] Bell. 85. ‘EA[nvixod γένους. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα 6] Bell; but see Commentary.

IV

ACTA

ISIDORI

23

45. ἐπὶ τὰ Σ. is possible (Bell). 46. ἐᾷν µε δι[δάσκειν Bell; instead of εαν, one could also read ετι (Bell).

49. Bell again restored here [μηδὲν ὑπερθετικόν (?)].

Recension C' (P. Berol. 8877) col. i

Ίσιναρχα (6 δεῖνα)

]

Ίεται, ὅτι ἄπο ἄ]λλο τι νῦν Ἰ.ετο (6 δεῖνα) ἹΊαις γεναμενΊρῃς κατε|v Φασιν 1 αὐτοῦ πόλει ε]ἰσεκλήθησαν | ἄπο τινος ] ἔθνος τὸ )]ουδαικὸν (3) Ἀλεξα]νδρέων τ]ελοῦσι τοῦ -ειλικκύκασι ᾧ ]Πρσειδῶνι

5

το

15

col. ii

— *Ioiswpos — κ[αλὰ] λέγει, κύριε Σέβαστέ, Β]άλβιλλος;] [περὶ τ]ῶν σῶν πραγμάτων. τ[οὐναντίον] [cot δέ,] Ἀγρίππα, πρὸς ἃ εἶση[γεῖ περὶ ᾿Ιου-] [δαίων] ἀντικαταστήσομαι. ἐνκ[αλῶ αὐτοῖς]

20

[ταράσ]σειν. δεῖ δὲ τὸ Kar’ ἕκα[στον ....] [σκοπ]εῖ[ν] τὸν ὄχλον. οὔὕκ εἰσιν Ἀλεξανδρεῦσιν]

25

[ὅτι κ]αὶ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην [θέλουσι]

ACTA

24

ISIDORI

ὁμοιοπαθεῖς, τρόπῳ δὲ Αἰγυπτ[ίων ......] οὔκ εἶσι ἴσοι τοῖς Popov τελ]οῦσι; | — Aypinnas — [Αϊ]γ[υπτ]έοις ἔστησαν φόρους [o]é ἄρχ[οντες] [..].[.].[...]v: τούτοις δὲ οὐδείς.

IV

30

— BadBirdos — ide ἐπὶ π[ηλί]κην τόλµην 7) θε[ὸς αὐτοῦ 7]

1. Ίσιναρχα: perhaps the vocative of a noun like γερουσιάρχης. ο. Here and in Ἱ. 6 (as UG suggested), most probably the names of the speakers. 6. Perhaps [Βάλβιλλος]. 8. Suppl. H. M. 11. Here (or in the following line) perhaps [(οἱ) πρέσβεις]. 14. [Ιουδαίων] suppl. UG. 16. Less probably Ἴκυγασιω (UG). UG suggested some form of the verb κυκάω (i@, ‘you mix with poison’?). w is very doubtful (UG). But the perfect of ἕλκω would be more likely ;movable ν is most likely omitted. 19-32. Supplements by UG unless otherwise noted. 20. τ]οὐναντίον] R. 22. evx[: x is more likely than µ (UG). 23. Ίαγτ]σι is also possible (UG). I prefer [θέλουσι] to UG’s [ἐπιχειροῦσι]. 24. ταράσ]σευ:

Ἴσειυ very doubtful, but better than Ἴυσαν or Ἴχειν (UG).

kat’ ἕκαστον (or ἕκαστα) is possible: H. M. éxalorov παρέντα] UG. 26. ὁμοῖοι] UG; ζῶσι] R. 8ο. At the beginning of the line probably a gen. plur., but not ὤλεξανδρέων, *Iovdaiwv or ‘Pwyaiwy (UG). I suggest 4ἰγυπτίων. 32. ἰδέ UG. For Ἴκην, Ίμην is also possible (UG).

TRANSLATION

Col. 1. 16.ff. The Alexandrian envoys were summoned and the

emperor postponed their hearing until the following day. The fifth day of Pachon, in the (thirteenth?) year of Claudius Caesar Augustus ....

Col. ui. The sixth day of Pachon: the second day. Claudius Caesar hears the case of Isidorus, gymnasiarch of Alexandria, v.

King Agrippa in the. . . gardens. With him sat twenty senators (and in addition to these) sixteen men of consular rank, the women of the court also attending . . . Isidorus’ trial. Isidorus was the first to speak: ‘My Lord Caesar, I beseech you to listen to my account of my native city’s sufferings.’ The emperor: ‘I shall grant you this day.’ All the senators who were sitting as assessors agreed with this, knowing the kind of man Isidorus was. Claudius Caesar: ‘Say nothing . . . against my friend. You

IV

ACTA

ISIDORI

25

have already done away with two of my friends, Theon the exegete and*. < ..

Col. «i. Lampon to Isidorus: ‘I have looked upon death . . ..’ Claudius Caesar: ‘Isidorus, you have killed many friends of mine.’ Isidorus: ‘I merely obeyed the orders of the emperor at the time. So too I should be willing to denounce anyone you wish.’

Claudius

Caesar:

‘Isidorus, are you really the son of an

actress?’

Isidorus: ‘I am neither slave nor actress’s son, but gymnasiarch of the glorious city of Alexandria. But you are the cast-off son of the Jewess Salome! And therefore. . .’ Lampon said to Isidorus: ‘We might as well give in to a crazy Emperor.’ Claudius Caesar: “Those whom I told (to carry out) the execution of Isidorus and Lampon . ..’ Recension B (P. Lond. 2785) Col. i....in the... gardens. With him sat twenty senators,

sixteen men of consular rank, women of the court also attending . .. Isidorus’ trial. Isidorus began by saying ‘My Lord Caesar, I beseech you to hear my account of my native city’s sufferings.’ The emperor: ‘I grant you this day.’ All the senators who were sitting as assessors agreed with this, knowing the kind of man Isidorus was. Claudius Caesar: ‘Say nothing . . . against my friend. You

have already done away with two of my friends, Theon the exegete and Naevius, prefect of Egypt and prefect of the pretorian guard at Rome; and now you prosecute this man.’

Isidorus: ‘My Lord Caesar, what do you care for a twopennyhalfpenny Jew like Agrippa?’ Claudius Caesar: ‘What? You are the most insolent of men to Speak < 2/0. Recension C' (P. Berol. 8877)

Isidorus: ‘My Lord Augustus, with regard to your interests, Balbillus indeed speaks well. But to you, Agrippa, I wish to retort in connexion with the points you bring up about the Jews. I accuse them of wishing to stir up the entire world. .. . We must consider the entire mass. They are not of the same temperament as the Alexandrians,

but live rather after the fashion of the

ACTA

26

ISIDORI

IV

Egyptians. Are they not on a level with those who pay the polltax?’

Agrippa: ‘The Egyptians have had taxes levied on them by

their rulers. . . . But no one has levied taxes on the Jews.’ Balbillus: ‘Look to what extremes of insolence either his god Or...

(27)

VA

P. Oxy. ined.: Acta Diogenis col. i [

ο. 12

1 ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῶν

[ ας ly ἐτῶν Νερῶνος [ ο. 11 γ]έγονεν' ζῶντος [αὐτοκράτορος Ν]ερῶνος πρὸς γυ[μνάσιον..... .].ῃ ἀθλητῶν [ 6: τὰ ] ἄνδρας . .[ [ ο. 12 ]. ἄλλαις παρα [ Galt ]. εἴκοσι οὐκ é[ 6. το Jou καταβαι[ν- ο 11 Ίς εἰς τὸ γυµνά[σιον τὸν ἐπι]στάτην ἐρευYO ος ον» Την οὕτως τι

[ [

5

10

«12 Ἱ. vel «10 Jeol col. ii

Διογένης, µήτε τότε µεμφάµενον μήτ᾽ ἄρτι µεμφόμενον. ἔδει μὲν yap lows ἐκδικηθῆναι φθαρέντα καὶ τοῦτον. ἀλλὰ πίστευσον αὐτοῦ τῇ νῦν σιωπῇ. πρὸ δώδεκα ἐτ(ῶν) ἀρ᾽ οὐκ ἐμέμψατο Καίσαρα, ἔχων δικαστὴν ὀργιζόµενον ἡδέως, εὐφυῆ κατὰ πλουσίων, εὐπαροξυντὸν ”

Δ

Δ

Le

”

>

ς

/

lod

>

\

”/

2

15

20

/

x

a

ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁπωσδήποτε εὐσχήο

GS

4

¢€

/

?

/

polvas]; οὐκ ἐμέμφατο Kaicap|a]

[;] 25

ACTA

28

DIOGENIS

Vv

e[....] εἰπεῖν προ]...].εκας. τί

[δὲ οὐ]δὲν ἐλάλεις;.;/

¢.9

|

οο

]

[..---Jeuen--]-@f col. iii

οὐκ ἔχων, πάντα ταῦτα παθών, οὐ πάρεστιν, οὐ πέπλευκεν, iv’ ἐκεῖθεν ἔξωθεν µακρόθεν ἀπεστραμμένος κλαύσῃ. el yap ἔδει µόνον ἐκδικήσαντα τὴν ὕβριν εὐθὺς ἀπολέσθαι, µόνον ἀκολουθῆσαι µέχρι τῆς κολάσεως, ἰδεῖν ἄποπνεiv: εἰ (yap) δύνατον ἦν μισθῶσαι δήµ[ι]ον αὐτόν. ἀλλὰ cot μένει καὶ τό[τ]ε ἐκεῖνος αὐτός ..[ [...... π]έπονθε καὶ τ....] >

”

ο)

ο

/

A

/

9

b)

8

A

”

/

A

‘

”

,

4,

/

90

Vd

3

2

4

/

2

»

A

,

>

35

,

40

col. iv [(?) κύριε, τὴν σὴν]

40a

ἡρωΐδα ψυχήν, εὐκαίρησον €.

oh

/

5

/

εἰς ταύτην τὴν διάγνωσιν" 6 ads λοιδορεῖται Bids, 6 ads ἐνκαλεῖται [θ]ρόνος. οὐ δεῖ ζῆν τὸν ἐπὶ ood ταῦτα ψευδόµενον. οὐκέτι σου τιμῶμεν τὰς ἀκοάς, οὐδ᾽ εἰ φειδόµεθά σου τῆς τῶν ἠθῶν ἀρχαιότη‘ros’. GAA’ εἰ μὲν ἐκείνοις τοῖς ἀνωτέρω προφετεύχθης [.. ]pov[. Jov8[....]vooar[...]. [ ο, 14 ].εφω[. .]. [ roe ] ἠθου[ς. . ] e

.

‘

4

aA

>

>

>

,

A

3

/

ε

\

45

-

5ο

Vv

ACTA

DIOGENIS

29

col. v

ἀργύριον ἀπολελύσθαι .[ ἔνκλημα διπλο[ὂν

55

τῶν ὁποι]...].[.]χ.ε[

θες

η

Ἡ-

δὲ τῶν ελυ[..«].[ μεῖζον ἀκόλο[υ]θον [.μ.[

πρῶτον καὶ αιγ/..]ᾳσει.[

60

τὸ πρῶτον ἵνα τύχη καὶ [

τῆς ἀκολουθεια. ε[. . |p|

δε μὲν Civ pal...].[ ο σε... 9

9

.

.

Ὡ

1. We may estimate a lacuna here of about 12 letters, since the average line seems to be about 21 or 22 letters, in spite of a good deal of variation. g. ἀγ]ῶνι, or perhaps σὺν Νερ]ῶνι. 13. Before γε there appears to be a slight space, and R. suggests Ne[pav. 19 ff. For the punctuation of these lines see the Commentary. In 1. 20 R. would read ἐτ(ῶν y)dp, ending in 1. 25 with a full stop instead of a question mark. It would appear that after δώδεκα in 1. 20 the copyist wrote ἔτη by mistake, and after deleting the final letter forgot to make the correction. 21. It is just possible that we should transpose the words as follows: δικαστὴν εὐφυῆ | ὀργιζόμενον. 26. At the end of the line .εκα ἔτι is also possible. 38. αὐτόν: an error for αὐτοῦὃ 3g. After αὐτός traces of one letter, then part of a high transverse stroke before the lacuna. 44. R. at first read χρόνος, and the slight trace of ink perhaps favours this reading; but θρόνος is not impossible and gives a better sense. 46 ff. R. takes this as a question. 49. The marks at the beginning of the line may indicate a sense division or (at least those in the margin) corrector’s symbols. 50. After προφ, perhaps a 7 erased. 51. If § is right, then τ]όνδ[ε suggests itself. 52. Not σ]τεψω; the first letter would appear to be p or 7. 58. Instead of ελν[, perhaps ετυΓ. 56. Instead of Ίχ, A is also possible. 62. ἀκολουθεῖ or possibly ἀκολουθεία (1. ἀκολουθία). The trace following it would hardly suit s. TRANSLATION

(1. 15 ff.) ‘. . Diogenes, neither criticizing then nor criticizing now. Perhaps he too should have been punished and put to death. But believe in his present silence. Twelve years ago, did

80

ACTA

DIOGENIS

Vv

he not criticize Caesar, though he had in him a judge of kindly disposition, easily angered against the wealthy, readily aroused

against those who were in any way of noble rank? Did he not criticize Caesar ...? (1. 29 ff.) ‘. . . Bereft, after suffering all this, he is not present; he has not sailed—in order that there, afar off, beyond the

bourne, he might mourn in his retreat (?) Would that he could have punished his pride and straightway died! Would that (we) could

have accompanied him to his execution and seen him breathe his last! If only it were possible to hire his very executioner! But

even then for you there remains... (1. 41 ff.) ‘... (my Lord,) your heroic spirit; turn your mind to this consideration: it is your life that is being attacked; your throne (?) that is being indicted. The man who thus tells lies about you should not continue to live. For no longer do we

honour your reputation—even if we excuse you for your oldfashioned ways. But if you had met those of earlier times (?).. .’

VB

P. Fouad 8 We append here the text of P. Fouad 8, with some of the latest readings suggested by P. Jouguet in Mélanges Ernout, Paris, 1940, pp. 201 ff. Although the text is relevant, there is no con-

vincing reason for thinking that it is part of the Acta Alexandrinorum. Perhaps a fragment from an oration, it appears to belong to an account of Vespasian’s reception at Alexandria.’

Ίτοί

Ἶρι Ἀλεξα[νδρ

].βωμα[

Ίστον . κ[

κ

εεε]ρις συνῃ|

5

εὐθ]ὺς ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ pl eis] τὴν πόλιν τῶν ὄχλ[ων ™ Compare the poetic piece celebrating the accession of Hadrian, P. Giss. 3 (Chrest. 491) in the edition of G. Manteuffel, De opusculis graecis Aegypti, Warsaw, 1912, n. 12. Cf. also the various directives for such celebrations, e.g. P. Oxy. 1021 and BGU 646.

ACTA

DIOGENIS

Jal ?]z ὅλον τὸν ἱππόδρομον [ ] ὅτι ὑγιαίνων, κύριε Καΐσα[ρ Οὐεσπ]α[σ]ιανὸς εἷς σωτὴρ καὶ ε[ὐεργέτης Ἰο...ος σ᾿ ἀνατέλλων ef Ja φύλαξον ἡμεῖν αὐτ[ὸν (9) κύρι]ε σεβαστέ, εὐεργέτα, Σάρίαπις

31 10

15

Ἱ.. Άμμωνος vids καὶ ἁπλ[ εὐ]χαριστοῦμεν Τιβερίῳ [

Ἱ. Τιβέριος ηπ[. .Ἱτισε[ ]θεὸς Kaicap ε[. .] ὅτι ὑγια[ιν ]. θεὸς Καΐῖσαρ Οὐ[ε]σπασια[νὸς

20

lus, κύριε σεβαστὲ Ο[ὐεσπασιανέ (3) Supplements by the editors (Jouguet and Guéraud).

2. Τιβέριο (9) The edd. presume that the name occurs here.

9. Before τῶν a space. 8. µ[ετέβη ἐκ Σχεδίας J(ouguet). 11. Perhaps [βασιλεύοις] or the like: H. M. 10. ἐνέπλησ]α[ν] (8’) ddov J. 13. Perhaps Ἰὁ ὄχλος J. ε[ἰς Beovs]? J. 18. ἡπ[εν] = εἶπεν J. Possibly ἠπ[ήρ]τισε (= ἀπήρτισε)ῖ H. Μ. 19. ein] J.

(32)

Wel P. Rendel Harris: Acta Hermiae (ed. C. H. Roberts, JRS xxxix [1949], pp. 79 1.) ] ἀρχόντων |v Ἀλεξανδρείας Τίτος | Katcap: ἀλλὰ κοινῇ

δι]ακρίνω τὰ πάντα Ί.κα, µάλιστα δὲ ἐμὸς Ί.τα. “Eppias: κύριε

5

] ἀπολογείσθω ο]

] Τίτος Kaicap-[

|]

te, ἀπολογοῦ. Ku[

|

κύριε, | οὔὕκ εἰμι ἔτοιμ]ος] [ποιεῖσθαι τ]ὴν [ἀ]πολογίαν. Τ[ίτος] [Kaicap: ] τόπον πεποίη/µαι] Ἴνου καὶ Οὐηστε[ίνου] κ]αὶ τούτου θει;

[τος

µάρ]τυς τοῦ péAdlov-| ].εσθαι π΄λὴνκ

10

]

15

Jroy| Supplements by Roberts, unless otherwise noted. 3. Suppl. H. M.

5. Before κα, a is possible.

6. “The missing letter at the beginning of the line is probably: or ο: R 9. Kup. The asterisk was undoubtedly, as the editor suggests, used to indicate the omission of the double point. 11. “Perhaps τὴν ἐ]μήν . .. . The supplement at the end is speculative; -. 7 (€.g. ποι]εισθαι) could be read for 7’: R. 12. So R. Skeat privately suggested ἔργον ἄ]τοπον πεποίη[ται]; and Bingen τοῦτο κτλ. πεποίη[μµαι] (‘I considered this absurd’). 14. ‘Or -αιτου (termination of a proper name). The last two letters of the line were either smudged or half-heartedly erased’: R. 16. “The initial letter is either κ or x’: R.

(33)

VII Acta Maximi (P. Oxy. 471-+Griech. lit. Pap. n. 42) Acta Maximi I (P. Oxy. 471) col. i Faint traces of the ends of lines

col. ii

καὶ [τῶν] ἀρχαίων ἀπρ[στε-] ) ρεῖτ[αι. δι]ὸ [π]ροσθήσω τι, κύριε, περ[ὶ οὗ] θαυµάσεις, οἶμαι, καὶ

ἀπι[στήσ]εις ἕως ἂν τὰ γράμ3

/

ο

vn

A

/

µ[ατα ἀνα]γνῶμεν. τόκον κατέκρινεν ὑ(πὲρ) οὗ µηδέπω χρό~ νου λαβόντες ἔνιοι τὸ δάνειον ἦσαν. τί φησιν; ἀποδη[μοθν]τες ἠγνοήσατε τὰς [π]ερὶ τούτων γεγραμµένας ὑμ[εῖ]ν ἐπιστολάς; ἄμεινον 8” αὗται καὶ σαφέστερον τὴν περὶ τοῦτο ἀκρίβειαν καὶ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν Makip[olv δηλώσουσιν. ὁ μὲν yap τελευταῖος ὑπο/

ς

ς

a

>

\

Kd

>

/

/

8

\

/

1Ο

”

/

μνημα[τ]ισμὸς [ἔ]πισφραγίζει τὴν σπουδὴν αὐτοῦ A

>

καὶ τὸν ἔρωτα τὸν πρὸς τὸ µειρά[κι]ον. θλιβοµέ3 ‘ > ~ e \ νων γὰρ (ἡμῶν), ἐπειδὰν ἀπαλ-

[λ]αγῆι τῆς ἐ[π]αρχείας, εἶτα

5498

Ρ

20

34

ACTA

MAXIMI

Vil

Peat ] τοὺς τόκους levee seen Ἱ.ετα[.] παντὸς 25

πόρους Ίν διαδοκος) ].¢p διατάσ[σει τὰς γυμνα]σιαρχίας

[ἐπι]γηρητα[ἔ]ς" εἰς μὲν

go

[16] ἐν[νεακαιδ]έκατον [ἔ]τος τοῦ] κυρίου ΒερνεικιαWe [..]..ad...veras..7w τῶν πώποτε [....]..[.] «lat γ]υμνασιάρχων καὶ ypa-

ἵμα]τ]έω]ν κ[αὶ τῶ]ν τῆς γ[υμ]νασιαρχίᾳς

35

[ἐπιτηρητῶν....].[...].....[...

col. iii vos ἔ[σται] γυμνασίαρχο[ς], τὸ δὲ ἔνατον καὶ ε[ίκο-] στὸν ἈἈνείκητος [γυμνα-] σιαρχήσει. ταῦτ[α δὲ ἐκ] τίνος αἴτ[ί]ᾳς σ[εσίγη-] κας; ἐξαπατηθ[ῆναι] ἢ καὶ δωρεὰ[ς λαβεῖν] φήσεις; συνφέ[ρει τοί-] νυν τοὔλαττο[ν µόν]ον ὁμολογεῖν. ἡμεῖς 5° οὐκ εἰληφέναι σε μισθὸν [ἀλλὰ δε]δωκέναι paper. τ[έ] γάρ; ἑπτακαιδεκαετὴς fetta = ee ος 7 [π]αῖς πᾶσαν ἡμέραν ἐδείπνει παρὰ σ]οί]. τούτων ἕκαστος ὁσάκις ἠξιώθη μεταλαβεῖν ἑστιάσεως---Ν

34

A

/

Siew.

A

Ν

x

?

/

/

>

/

>

aA

”

ς

4

/

A

/

40

/

[ή

ς

A

>

ς

ε

45

?

A

/

?

50

lA

[ο]ὐδὲ γὰρ ῥᾳδίως ἐκβασι-

λισθεὶς ἅπαξ τὰ τοιαῦ-

55

VII

ACTA

MAXIMI

τα ἐχαρίζου---τὸν maida ἑώρακεν ἐν τῶι [σ]υνποσίwe καὶ μετὰ τοῦ π[α]τρὸς καὶ µόνον. ἑώρακε δὲ καὶ [βλ]έμμα ἀναίσχυντον καὶ διαπομπὰς ἀναισχύντου(ς) ἐραστῶν δᾳσείων. τί δέ; πᾶσαν ἡμέ[ρ]αν 7>

/

τε

‘

>

\

A

A

A

/

55

a

/

A

SAP:

>?

A

~

\

6ο

/

[σ]πάζετο. µαρτύρονται, κύριε, τὴν σὴν τύχην͵ [εζ] μὴν ἀναμενόντων αὐτῶν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν

65

(Traces of 4 lines in cursive) col. iv καὶ θυραυλούντων, ἐκ τοῦ] κοιτῶνος ἐξίοντα τὸν maida ἑωρακέναι µόν[ον] rt

e

νά

/

[ου] σύνβολα δεικνύντα

75

τῆς πρὸς τοῦτον ὁμιλίας. ἅπαξ γὰρ ἐν ἔθει τῆς α[ἰσ]χύνης γενόµενον,

εὔμορφον καὶ πλούσιον ”/

A

vA

80

µειράκιον ἐθρύπτετο καὶ ἐξύβρι]ζ]εν, ὥστε ἄντικρυς ἁπάντων συνπαίζειν καὶ ἐ[έ]ηρτῆσθαι τῶν χειρῶν [Εὐ]τύχου τοῦ κοι-

85

τωνίτου καὶ γέλωτα

πολὺν καὶ ἀνειμένον ἐν µέσοις τοῖς ἀσπαζοµένοις γελᾶν. ἦν δὲ οὐA

A

K ἀσύνετον,

»

/

9 ωστε

και

\

ACTA

36

VII

MAXIMI

ἐπίδειξις ἦν αὐτῶι πρὸς

go

τοὺς δανειζοµένους 5 ἃa ἔπραττεν. τί Fy οὖνpepe.ὁ κατηφὴς σὺ καὶ ὑπεραύ[σ]τηρος οὐκ ἐκώλυες; [εαν[|ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὲν πένης ἄνθρωπος [ἐν] εὐτέλεσιν ἱματίοις ἐντύχηι σοι, τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν avaλη[μ]φθῆναι κελεύεις. καὶ τὸν οὐκ ἐν λευκαῖς ἐσθῆσιν τοσᾳ[ύ]τ[ο]υ δευτέρου [[τοκου|| 4

/

A

A

Ν

A

κ

/

vA

LA

?

3

A

>

95

100

A

πλήρη

τούτου τόκου [που||τὸ συµ2

/

\

καὶ η πρὸς

πλήρη τῇ Tis [η.... Ρα] [... Ίντρικης τῇς [..]ωσυ. ware [..]

105

col. v [ely θεάτρῳ καθίσᾳ[ντα] παρέδωκας els θ/ά]ν[ατον]. ἀγένειον δὲ καὶ ο[..]..ν

ἔτι καὶ εὔμο[ρφον µ]ειράκιον ἐν τῶι [πραι]τωρίῳι

Ilo

πᾶσαν ημ]έ]ρα[ν τ]ηρῷν οὐκέτι ἔπεμπες [ἐπὶ τὰ] διδασκαλε[ῖ]α Kalt] τ[ὰς προ-] σηκούσας τοῖς γ[εανί]ᾳ[ις] τριβ/ά]ς. πόσῳ δι[καιότε-]

“pov ἂν ἐμέμψω τὸῖν μὴ (?)] τα[Ό]τᾳ πα[ι]δαγωγ[οῦν-] τα πᾳτέρα καὶ .[......

115

ACTA

VII

MAXIMI

37 120

περ]ι]πα[τ]εῖς ὅλην [τὴν Ai-] γυπτ[ον σὺν] µειρ[ακίῳ.]

195

"οὐ μὴν eis [τὸ] τοῦ .[..... ἀγοραίου κριτηρ[ίου βῆμα (?)] ἑπτακαιδεκαετ[ὴς παῖς ἔσ-] πετό σοι; τί οὖν; καὶ ἐν Μέμ-] det καὶ ἐν Πηλουσίῳ [καὶ] ὅποι tot” ἦσθα, Μ[ά]έΤιμε,] | συμπαρῆν. οἱ μὲν [ἄλλοι] x πάντες περιιστάμ|εθα] τάς τε ἀποδημία[ς καὶ] τὰς κρίσεις, ὥστε µ].... x οἱ μὲν ἄλ[λο]ι πάντες περ[ιιστά-] µεθα tals ἀ]ποδημί[ας...... ] ἀπέσφαξεν τ............ Ί

190

195

eof

col. vi

.t[..--].-reg[.].[-- +++.

140

dpa γὰρ τὴν εὐσέβ[ειαν] Μαξίμου σκόπει. Ο[ὐαλέ-] pws Καλλί[ν]εικός τ]ις τῶν] ἀπὸ ἸΜουσείου φιλ[ολόγων,] ἄρξέας δὲ καὶ τὴν .[...... ἀρχιδικαστῶν ασ]......

145

κα ἐπὶ παιδε[ίᾳ ἐνπειρίᾳ δεί

ἄλλως δὲ οὐκί σώματι κεχρηµ: έν-

150

38

ACTA

MAXIMI

VII

ἠξιώθη παρ[ τῶν τοιούτ]ων

σιων αφ κρείνειν .[ αὐτῶι θαρ[

155

τὴν ἐπιστ]ήμην κε τὴν σᾖ[ν

της ἐπ[

ἐργο[ [-JéL

160

[--].[ [.-].[ .

.

.

.

.

All supplements by GH, unless otherwise noted. 2. δι]ό suppl. Crénert (Stud. Pal. iv. 92 ff.). 6. ου (p) = ὑ(πὲρ) οὗ Wilcken, followed by GH in P. Oxy. v (1908), p. 314 = GH?). 18. δουλην GH; δουδην (P) = σπουδην GH?, following a suggestion of S. de Ricci. 21. (ἡμῶν) Crénert, followed by GH?. 24. παντός Cronert, followed by GHz2. 28 f. Suppl. Crénert. 33. ἀλᾳζογείας (Sherwin-White) seems very likely. 41 f. Suppl. Fuhr, Berl. phil. Woch. xxiii (1903), 1484. 49. τί γάρ; interp. H. M.; cf. 63 and 129. 62. δᾳσείων Mussehl, Hermes, Ixi (1926), 111 (= δασέων). δο[λ]είων Wilcken, followed by GH?. 63. τί δέ; interp. H. M. 67. αυτων corr. from ημων. 74. μόν[ον] | [συ] GH; μόν[ον] | οὐ or µόν[ον οὐ] | [ουῇ Crénert. But there is hardly room after µόν[ον], and οὐ (75) is certainly deleted—possibly through a mistake of the corrector. 89. ὥστε Pp. 116. Suppl. Crénert. 122. After Je three heavy dots, p. 128 f. [εἵ]]πετο Wilcken, Crénert. 129. τί οὖν; interp. H. M. 131. Suppl. Wilcken, followed by GH?. 142 f. ΟΓὐαλέ]ιριος Wilcken, followed by GH2. 144. Suppl. H. Μ. φιλοσόφων] GH. 145 ff. Wilcken suggested καὶ τὴν τ[ῶν ἐκεῖ] | ἀρχιδικαστῶν ἀρ[χὴν ἔτη S€]|xa ἐπὶ παιδε[ίᾳ τε καὶ ἐπὶ] | ἐνπειρίᾳ. 148. δὲ [οὐδενὸς δεύτερος] Crénert. 149. οὐκ [ἀμόρφφῳ] Crénert. 151. map’ [αὐτοῦ περί] (Wilcken, Crénert) is very likely. 152 f. συµπο]]σίων Crénert ;ἀφροδι]]σίων Wilcken. 153-7. Crénert suggested ἃ φ[αίνοιτο λέγειν. ὁ δὲ] | κρείνειν ο[ὐ θέλων μόλις εἶπεν] | αὐτῶι' θάρ[ρων, κύριε, διὰ] | τὴν ἐπιστ[ήμην...... 1 | κε τὴν σν ἐρώτησιν (?)]. But it is to be noted that after κρείνειν (1. κρίνειν) (154) perhaps κ[αί (GH?) ;in Il. 155 f., εἶπεν] | αὐτῶι θάρ[ρει is not unlikely. 160-2. After these lines (not transcribed by GH) the papyrus breaks off.

VII

ACTA

99

MAXIMI

Acta Maximi IT (Griech. lit. Pap. n. 42) col. i

col. 11 (margin)

(About 35 lines missing) : : : : :

Ἰ.ᾳ γὰρ

].egTo

Ίκ

lov

]

14

(About το lines missing)

]

]ν

ull

Ἰβερὸν καὶ

κ

Ίτιᾳι γὰρ

ἐ]γγύς εἰσι(ν) ].ov τῆς 1 δυνηθῶ... τὴν πα]τρίδα Jov συκο(Possibly 2 or 3 lines missing)

25

a

κὶ

10

κ[ [ a τ.[...«]κα[ τω!

30

τί pov Keil σοῦ τὴν O[

35

ω λυπου[ γορικον [

col. iti *Hpatos* ὅτι μὲν βλεπόµενος ἄξιος εὖ τῆς πρεσβείας, ὡ[ς] ἐν ποταπῶι κούφωι ἄνοσμος οὗνος οὐκ αἰσθ[άν]ε[ι] μετὰ τὴν κολακείαν' [νῦν δ᾽ εἰς] ἔλεγξιν µετέβηµεν [ἐέ ἐναντι]ῴσεως. [λέει Ίλιος Διόδωρος γυµ(νασίαρχος)" ] κύριε, βραδύτης περε [ριεγένετ᾽ ἄν,] εἰ µή τι ἔβλαψεν [αὐτὸν ἡ ἐνα]ντίωσις “Ἡραίου.

40

45

5ο

ACTA

40

Vil

MAXIMI

[ο ]..[..]. τῶν οὐσῶν [....Kab ἡμι]σέας' καλῷ yap’ Εν ο mente Ίαι τόπον ἔχεις ος Ίψητα[..... ls ὑποθέσεις. Εὐδαίμω[ν] ἀρχιδ[ικαστής)" ἐγὼ π]εριττῶς ὀφείλω Makiµου κατηγορεῖν, ἐπεὶ δοκεῖ ) ἐπ᾽ ἐμοῦ κεκελε]υκέναι ἀλείdew τ[οὺς νέους] ἕως ὥρας ἑνδεκάτη[ς, ὧν καὶ ὁ υἱός] µου Θέων ἐγένετο ...... ἀ]λλ᾽ ἐπεὶ ae

Je} 3

aA

A

/

/

a

>

σ

/

e

60

ᾗ ὠφέλ[ εια......... Ίλιαν ἐ-

.- Tol

ο. 17

]

[ εις ὑπ

] ο. 12

ἡ]συχῆ

65

ε[ επί

ο, τὸν [ τροφ[ τῶν [

70

Ῥω-]

μα(ῳ[ν ἐξ οἷ[κ-

νηα[ ἑαυτ[ ρίουπί

κυ-]

75

ἀργυρ[ιδόσε[ πρεσ[βεσικ.[ εσθα[ι πυρὶ [

80

VII

ACTA

MAXIMI

41

The supplements in the text are by S(chubart), unless it is otherwise stated. 5. βλα]βερόν or φο]βερόν: S. 6. Possibly αὐ]τίᾳι. 1Ο. τήν suppl. H. M. 13. ] εἰς τόῖ 31 f. Perhaps οὔὕ]ίτω. 36. Possibly ᾧ λυποζ[νται or the like. 36 f. κατη]]γορικόν (‘informer’), or the like. 40. os] ἐν. 5. originally read ¢ [8] ἐν, on the basis of which Roberts suggested ο[ἴδ]εν (followed by a stop). Later, however, in a private communication, Schubart agreed that perhaps ᾧ[ς] could be read. Before it, therefore, there must be some sort of punctuation. 41 f. αἰ]σθ[άν]ε[ι] very doubtful: S. It may be that αἰ]σχ[ύν]ε[ι] is a possible 44. [ἐξ ὑποθ]έσεως is also possible: S. alternative. 45. ᾽Ιού]λιος or Κλαύ]διος, but not ὐρή]λιος: S. 46. Perhaps [ἀλλὰ ἡ σή,] κύριε. 47. Suppl. 5. πε[[ριέμεινεν ἄν] is perhaps too long. 49. Obviously a name is missing here, possibly “Hpaus. 50. Possibly [pa σύ] here, introducing a question. 52. (Zahl καὶ ἡμι]σέας”: S. yap? or, more probably, yap’: p. As S. suggests, the stroke is most probably that used from about the end of the second century to separate double consonants within a word; hence here it may have been used in error, the following word having begun with p. Ρα. Not κ]αί; but ἐλέγέ]αι is possible: S. 54. τὰ[ς ἐμά]ς would be too short for the lacuna: S. Perhaps we may supply τὰ[ς αὐτά]ς. 57. Perhaps «ἐ)λδόκει. 74. Perhaps vials. 58. κεκωλ]υκέναι is also possible: S. 75. The supplement (S.) is probably right; but before it we should perhaps add the more usual τοῦ. 78. δόσε[ως]: S. Many other supplements are possible, as e.g. ἐπι]]δόσε[ις]. 79. πρεσ[βεία: S. 80. Perhaps there is some form of σικχάνω or μνησικακῶ here. Before -εσθαι, most probably a vowel. TRANSLATION

A, Max. I (P. Oxy. 471) ‘., . And he is deprived of his property. Wherefore I shall bring forward

an additional point, my Lord, which will un-

doubtedly arouse in you disbelief and scepticism, until we read the documents. He forced people to pay him interest even for a period in which, in some cases, they had not as yet even received the loan. And what is his reply? That you were absent at the time and hence were unaware of the letters that had been written you on the matter. But these will demonstrate quite clearly Maximus’ craft and cunning in this connexion.”? ‘Now the last document clearly sets a seal on the devotion d, and love he felt for the boy. While we are being oppresse

whenever he leaves the province (?) . . . “Berenicianus is to be 1 At this point various letters and documents are read,

42

ACTA

MAXIMI

VII

gymnasiarch up to the Emperor’s nineteenth year, and Anicetus

up to the twenty-ninth year”. Why have you been silent about

this? Will you reply that you were misled, or that you received

bribes? Surely it would be more advantageous for you to admit

the lesser crime. But my contention is not that you accepted bribes but that you offered them.

‘Further, a seventeen-year-old boy used to dine with you every day. Everyone of these men here, whenever they were invited to partake of a banquet (and you did not share these favours easily, once you had attained your regal rank)—everyone of these men

would see the lad at your drinking-party, sometimes with his father and sometimes alone. They would see, too, the shameful glances and shameful behaviour of these male lovers. ‘Again, he used to pay his respects to the prefect every morning. These men testify by your genius, my Lord, that while they would

be outside his door awaiting his greeting they would see the boy coming out of his bed-chamber, all but bearing the signs of his

familiarity with him. For once this handsome, wealthy youth had become familiar with shame, he became more and more

depraved and insolent: so much so that before everyone he used to sport with Eutychus the chamberlain and cling to his hands, and burst into loud and unrestrained laughter right in the midst of Maximus’ clients. And far from being innocent, he used to give

an exhibition to Maximus’ debtors of what he had been doing. ‘And you, with your severe bearing and austere looks, why did you not try to stop him? No, but if a beggar in poor clothing petitions you, you confiscate his property with that of his wife and friends. And the man that sat in the theatre without white garments you condemned to death. Yet this beardless and . . ., yes, and handsome boy you kept in the Palace every day and would no longer send him to school or to those exercises which

are proper for the young. How much more you would have blamed his father—and justly—for not training him in this FESPCCE G07.

‘You travel about the whole of Egypt in this lad’s company. Why, even in the seat of justice at the public Assizes this seventeenyear-old child was with you! Yes, and at Memphis and Pelusium and wherever you went, he was your companion. All the rest of us shun (?) your official tours and the Assizes, so that...’ 4. Max. II (Griech, lit. Pap. η. 42) (LI. 38 ff.) Heraeus: ‘For obviously you are worthy of the

VII

ACTA MAXIMI

43

embassy; like odourless wine in no matter what jar it is kept (?), you do not show emotion (?) after flattery. But now we have passed from prosecution to refutation. .. .’ Diodorus, the gymnasiarch: ‘Your patience would have prevailed, my Lord, if he had not been checked by the opposition of Heraeus (?).’ (LI. 55 ff.) Eudaemon, the archidicastes: ‘I especially ought to make an accusation against Maximus, for during my term he has been known to order (?) the young boys to be trained in the gymnasium until their eleventh year, and one of these was my

Pheow.: 2.

(44)

VIIl P. Oxy. 1242: Acta Hermatsct col. i

{αμ

Ν

9

A

A

:

ΤΙ.

gL ¢.21 Ἅμοσ[.].νOley eee Ία.[...'Διον]ύσιος 6 ἐν πολλαῖς ἐ[πιτρο]παῖς γεν[ό]μενος, καὶ Ladrovios, ᾽Ιού[λι]ος Σαλούΐος, Τειμµαγένης, Πάστωρ γυµνασίαρχος, ᾿ Ιούλιος Φανίας, Φιλόξενος ἀ[π]οδεδειγμένος γυμνασίαρχος, Σωτίων γυµνασίαρχος, Θέων, Ἀθηνόδωρος, Παῦλος Τύριος τῷ γένει αὐθαίρετος συνήγορος ὑπὲρ Ἀλεξανδρέων. ταῦτα µαθόντες ot ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, καὶ αὐτοὶ τοῦ ἰδίου ἔθνους προχειρίζονται πρέσβεις, χειροτονοῦνται δὲ δίµων, Γλαύκων, Θεύδης, ᾿Ονίας, Κόλων, ᾿Ιάκουμβος, καὶ Σώπατρος Ἀντιοχεὺς τῷ γένει συνήγορος ὑπὲρ ᾿Ιουδαίων. ἀνάγονται μὲν οὖν τῆς πόλεως, ἕκαστοι βαστάζοντες τοὺς ἰδίους θεούς, Ἀλεξανδρεῖς /

a

32907

vA

e

”

>

10

/

3

iv

5

AY

/

>

~

/

15

/

col. ii bo

στο

Holic?

GORE Le) ie πε

ο.

[οο, iG, [ins ΙΡΗ JOG a MTEL [......].[...].of. uf. Jv.[..] µεταδίδωσ[ι] τοῖς σὺν αὐτοῖς λό[γω]ν, καὶ λήξαντος τοῦ χειμῶνος ὁρμίζοντ[αι εἰ]ς τὴν Ῥώμην. ἔμαθεν 6 αὐτοκράTwp ὅτι πάρ[εισι] πρέσβεις ᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ Ἀλεξανδρέων, alt ἐ]τάξαίνγτο τὴν ἡμέραν (ὄγτε ἀμφοτέρων ἀκούσεται. [7] δὲ Πλωτεῖνα ἀπαντᾷ τοὺς συνκλη-

20

25

VIII

P, OXY.

1242

45

τικοὺ[ς] π]αρ]αγενέσθαι κατὰ Ἀλεξανδρέων καὶ τοῖς ᾿]ουδ[α]ίοις βοηθῆσαι. καὶ πρῶτοι εἰσελθό(ν)τες οἱ ᾿]ουδαῖοι ἀσπάζονται τὸν αὐτοκράτορα Τραιανόν' 6 δὲ Καΐσαρ εὐμενέστατα αὖτοὺς ἠσπ[άσ]ατο, καὶ αὐτὸς ἤδη προπεπεισµέvos ὑπὸ [τ]ῆς Πλωτείνης. per’ α(ὐ)τοὺς εἰσέρχονται Ἀ[λ]εξανδρέων πρέσβεις καὶ ἀσπάζονται τ[ὀ]ν αὐτοκράτορα: 6 δὲ οὐκ ἀπηντήσατο, GAN’ [εἶ]πεν' χαιρετίζετέ µε ὡς ἄξιοι τυγχάνοντ[ες] τοῦ χαίρειν, τοιαῦτα χαλεπὰ τολµήσαντε[ς] ᾿ Ιουδαίοις; ἀλλὰ πορεύεσθαι καὶ

30

35

col. ili ]

c. 26

veces NOL,

Heriot

η εκδ ουρίας το νο) ον το 40 θανάτου τοῦ .[...] μελε[τ]ᾷς τὸ θανεῖν καταφρο[νήσ]ας ὥστε κἀμοὶ αὐθάδως ἀποκριόμενος. Ἑρμαΐσκος εἶπ[εν'] ἀλλὰ λυπούµεθα ὅτι τὸ συνέδριόν σου ἐπλήσθη τῶν ἀνοσίων ᾿]ουδαίων. Καΐσαρ εἶπεν" ide δεύτερόν σοι λέγω, ‘Eppatoxe: αὐθάδως ἀποκρίνῃ πεποιθὼς τῷ / > ει] ld / 4 ο) ε / A 45 σεαυτοῦ γένει. Ἑρμαϊσκος εἶπεν' τί αὐθάδως ἀποκρι3 A / / / 2 / νοµαι, µέγιστε αὐτοκράτωρ; δίδαξόν µε. Kaioap ο)εἶπεν" ε / ? / > / / A @ τὸ συνέδριόν µου ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐποίησας. Ἑρμαϊΐσκος" ὅτι οὔκουν χαλεπόν ἐστι τὸ ὄνομα τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων; ὀφείλεις οὖν πάλι τοῖς σεαυτοῦ βοηθεῖν καὶ μὴ τοῖς ἀνοσί50 ου ots ᾿]ουδαίοις συνηγορεῖν. ταῦτα λέγοντος ς Ἑρμαΐσκ 4 / 2 a) / A ς πρέσοἱ ον ἐβάσταζ ἡ τοῦ Σαράπιδος προτομή ἣν Bets αἰφνίδιον ἕδρωσεν, θεασάµενος δὲ Τραιανὸς ἀπεθαύμασ[ε]ν: καὶ μετ᾽ ὀλίγον συνδρομαὶ ἐγένοντο eis [τὴν 'Ῥώμην, κραυγαί τε πανπληθεῖς ἐξεβο55 ὢντ[ο κ]αὶ πά|ν]τες ἔφευγαν εἰς τὰ ὑψηλὰ µέρη τῶν λό-[ἴφων] /

ή

>

/

‘

a

0

,

>

a

>

Sia

SNe

col. iv

[ean καὶ 7[

>

/

la

/

P, OXY.

46

VIII

1242

ποτ[ κλυ[ σου.[ ναι τ]

60

.-¢[ δεσ[ τεσ[

65

ωσ[

an al ral αλλ[.].η καὶ τηλικαύτη| τας. Κλαύδιος Ἀθην[ ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ Κλαυδίου [ λέγει: ἀνάξιοι μὲν uf σρυσιν γὰρ αἰὰν λοιδορί πων εἶναι καπ.[... τί ον τῆς ὄψεως [... lel σεβεῖς ὄντες [

70

75

Unlocated Fragments Frag. i

ief lal Frag. ii

Frag. iii

lof πι Frag. iv

Jef

10

jul Ἰ{

el

VIII

P. OXY.

1242

47

1. [ἀρα]β[ά]ρ[χη]ς, Hunt’s conjecture (in a marginal note written in his own copy), is not unlikely. 2f. Probably [ή]νυ]σμέν[ος] or the like. πεπυσµένος or ἐψευσμένος are too long for the available space. 10. αυθαιρετος corr. from αυθερετος. 18. After this line (presumably at the head of col. ii), Schmidt would restore [μὲν τὴν Σαράπιδος προτοµήν, ᾿Ιουδαῖοι δὲ | τὰ ἑερὰ βιβλία, or the like. : 25. ἡμέραν. The original reading of GH, χώραν, is rightly corrected by Milne, Cat. Lit. Pap. n. 117. (δὺτε is probably the best emendation for the superscript τε. On the basis of the original reading, GH had suggested (ia)re. . . ἀκούσεσθαι: Wilcken τῇ: Schmidt (καὶ 6)re. 28. a of βοηθῆσαι corr. from ε. w of πρωτοι corr. from ο. 31. ἠσπ[άσ]ατο, interp. H. M. καὶ αὐτός, ἤδη GH. 32. εισερ- corr. from εισηρ-. 37. GH: 1. πορεύεσθε, but see Commentary. 40. At the end of this line, as well as 42, there are lacunae in the papyrus, but there were probably no more letters. 41. GH: probably ἀποκρίνεσθαι. After it, probably a question-mark. 48. GH accent οὐκοῦν, but see Commentary. 71. GH: Ἀθην[όδωρος ()]. 73. αναξιοι corr. from αναξειοι. 74. Probably 1. édv. 76 f. [ἀ]]σεβεῖς GH. 77. οντες corr. from οντος.

TRANSLATION

(LI. 3 ff.) . . . Dionysius, who had held many procuratorships, and Salvius, Julius Salvius, Timagenes, Pastor the gymnasiarch,

Julius Phanias, gymnasiarch,

Philoxenus the gymnasiarch-elect,

Theon,

Athenodorus,

Sotion the

and Paulus of Tyre, who

offered his services as advocate for the Alexandrians. When the Jews learned this, they too elected envoys from their own group,

and thus were chosen Simon, Glaucon, Theudes, Onias, Colon, Jacob, with Sopatros of Antioch as their advocate. They set sail,

then, from the city, each party taking along its own gods, the Alexandrians (a bust of Serapis, the Jews. . .). (LI. 21 ff.) ... He conversed with their companions; and when the winter was over they arrived at Rome. The emperor learned that the Jewish and Alexandrian envoys had arrived, and he appointed the day on which he would hear both parties. And Plotina approached (?) the senators in order that they might

oppose the Alexandrians and support the Jews. Now the Jews, who were the first to enter, greeted Emperor Trajan, and the

emperor returned their greeting most cordially, having already been won over by Plotina. After them the Alexandrian envoys entered and greeted the emperor. He, however, did not go to meet them, but said:

‘You say “hail” to me as though you deserved to receive a greeting—after what you have dared to do to the Jews!...’

48

Ῥ ος,

1242

VIII

(Ll. 40 ff.) [Trajan:] “You must be eager to die, having such

contempt for death as to answer even me with insolence.’ Hermaiscus said: ‘Why, it grieves us to see your Privy Council filled with impious Jews.’ Caesar said: ‘This is the second time I am telling you, Hermaiscus: you are answering me insolently, taking advantage of your birth.’ Hermaiscus said :‘What do you mean, I answer you insolently, greatest emperor? Explain this to me.’ Caesar said: ‘Pretending that my Council is filled with Jews.’

Hermaiscus: ‘So, then, the word “‘Jew” is offensive to you? In that case you rather ought to help your own people and not play the advocate for the impious Jews.’ As Hermaiscus was saying this, the bust of Serapis that they carried suddenly broke into a sweat, and Trajan was astounded when he saw it. And soon tumultuous crowds gathered in Rome and numerous shouts rang forth, and everyone began to flee

to the highest parts of the hills... .

(49)

IX Acta Pauli et Antonini P. Lond. 1 Recto

col. iv (Wilcken) [ Cats 1 Kaicap: καὶ o2f..] [ ο. 15 Ίων Θέων ἀνέγγ]ω] [τὸν ὑπομνηματι]σμὸν «Ιούπου ἐν [du ἐ-] [κέλευε παραδοῦναι] τὰ ὅπλα καὶ ἀναχίω-] [pete κε Καἴσα]ρ' ποίας ἔσχεν ἀφο[ρ-] 5 ας εν, Ίν ἀπαιτεῖν ὑμᾶς [ ο. 15 Ja εἴχατε' θέλετε [ ο. 15 Ἰνομένους στρατιFOTOS os νε ες πραιτ]ωριανοὺς καὶ η.[; [ ¢..13 ἐρ]ωτήσω 6 τινες 10 [ ο. 15 ] περὶ τοῦ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς [καὶ ἐκ µίµου βασιλέω]ς ἀ[[πε]κριβέστε[ρον ο. 15 ] καὶ Κλαυδιανοῦ [ Ίε...ντω[ί

}.-¢f

15

P. Louvre col. i

[Πα]ῦλος περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν... .] [.].0 ὡς προήγαγον καὶ ἐτοσφ[.. .] [.]o ἀνηγ]όρ]ευσε, καὶ Θέω]ν περὶ τούτ[ο]υ διάτα γμα΄ ἀνέγνω [τοῦ] {ούπου, ὡς προάγειν αὐ[τ]οὺς [ἐ]κέλευε χλευάζων τὸν ἀπὸ [σ]κηνῆς καὶ ἐκ µίµου βασιλέα. [ο]ὔτως ἡμῶν, καὶ 6 αὐτοκράτωρ [ἐ]σχείν]δίασεν εἰπὼν πρὸς 5498

E

5

(90)

ACTA

58ο

ιο

PAULI

[1Γαῦλον καὶ τοὺς ἡμετέρους [τ]αῦτα: ἐν ταῖς τ/ο]ιαύταις πᾳ[ρα]τάξεσ[ι] γίνεται ἐμοὶ «η [..] ἐν τῷι Δακικῷι πολέμ[ω]ι [ [.«Ίατοσ[. .Ἴθυλει τις τῶν πε]. . «] [..Ἴρων [..].ων ἐκεῖ aror[....] [..Ἱκεν[. .] ἄνδρας ἕ τὸν [άριθ-] pov .[..].ελεσι µόνοις [....] [.Ίέιου.[.Ίας τι σχεῖν ἀντ[... «] [.].One [...Ίκαι Κα[ι νεος...» Ί

ο

πο

(25)

15

(30)

20

(35)

[.εειλε:[» ποσο sites σος. ] [|e τότε [alpOpledsae essees es| [.Jae κ[ 6 Ί

[έγ]γυοῖν (ϐ)

ε

]

[..wv. [

6427

|

[.-]wo.[ [.- ]oul

ο ο

] ]

(40)

(Probably 1 or 2 more lines)

Col. ii a[mexpivato| Kaicap ᾿Ιουδαίοις' ἔμαθον οσο ος ].ov τω θονηιαρχηι τῆς ντος ] καὶ τοῦ πολέμου ἤρξηται ος,

(45)

]. ὀλίγα καὶ πε[ρ)ὶ τοῦ Ἀνθίμου

ον. ἀπ]εδείχθη τῶι κυρίωι ἐφ᾽ οὗ 5 [ων 6 πόλεμ]ος ἐκινήθη, ὅτι καὶ µε[στνεο ] ἀποδημίαν ταῦτα ἐγένετο. ᾿Πουδαῖοι' ἐκ] κωστωδίας ἥρπασαν καὶ [σοκ Ίτας ἐτραυμάτισαν. K[atcap: περὶ] τῶν πάντων συνέγνων' 10 [οὐ πᾶσιν (?) Ἀλε]έανδρεῦσι ἀλλὰ τοῖς ποιήἴσασι ταῦτα] δεῖ ἐ[πε]ξέρχεσθαι.

(50)

(55)

ACTA

IX

PAULI

51

[*Lovdatoten. ος scr ] ἀνόσ[ια] Θέων ἐμ[φαίνει (2)... .ν.. αὐτο]κράτωρ, χάρις σου [ ο. 14 χρόνον: ἃ περὶ τοὺς [ ο. 15 Ἰ. μᾶλλον αὐτῶν [ ο. 13 γίν]ωσκε ws πιστευ[ ο, 15 ] ἡμῖν περὶ ὧν ἐ[ ο. 15 Ίειν φθονων

[

6 17

[γ-

ο. 18

ἀγ]αθοὶ ὁλί-

Ίψε. (slight space) [Ἀντωνεῖνος (?)- κύριε, Ἀλε]ξανδρεῖς [οὐκ ο, 18 | τοῖς [ τη κατα]κριθέν[τες ἦσαν ἑξήκοντα Ἀλεξα]νδρεῖς [καὶ of τούτων δοῦλοι, καὶ οἱ] μὲν A

ς

,

-

[Ἀλεξανδρεῖς

[

95ου

Ν

όσες.

e

15

(60)

20

(65)

A

oe

(70)

6. 23 (One or possibly 2 lines lost)

col. ili ἢ τὸ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις [διδόμε-] νον δάκρυ προπεμ[ψάντων]: ὥστε εἰ τινας ἔδε[ι ἐκβλη-] θῆναι ἀπὸ Ἀλεξανδρε[ίας .. «] οὐδὲ ἧττον καὶ οὐ[χ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν] ἁρπασθέντας, ὥς [φασιν, ἀλλὰ] ὑπὸ τούτων ἡρπάγησ[αν] εἰς ἡμετέραν συκο]φαντίαν.] ὅσοι μὲν τελέως δια[σωθησό-] µενοι πρὸ[ς] τοὺς κυρί[ους κατέ-] φυ[γ]ον, αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ αὐτῶν προ-] παρεστάθησαν καὶ [ἐκολάσθη-] e

dL 6

Ν

/

ς

(75)

4

(80)

σαν.

[Πουδαῖοι: κύριε, ψεύδον[ται λέγον-] τες, οὐδ᾽ ὅσοι ἦσαν ἄν[δρες ἴσασι.]

(85)

ACTA

ΙΧ

PAULI

Kaicap ᾿Ιουδαίοις' φανε.[...... 1 ατους οὐ δύνασθε δε|...... «] p’ εἰσιν Ἀλεξανδρεῖς [...... «] ves Ἀλεξανδρεῖς εὐχ[ονται ..]

πεποιηκέναι ἢ ἀλλου[.......] ὁ ἔπαρχός µου ἐν du ἔ[γραψε δια-]

(9ο) 90

τάγµατι δηλοῖ δυνᾳ[..... σολ) µων εἶναι. καὶ γὰρ το]....... | ἁμαρτάνοντας Sov[Aous... .]

εἰκός' πάντας γὰρ κα[.......]

(95)

25

Ἕλληνες καὶ ἐγὼ αὐτὸς [...... «] [τ]οὺς ἀχρείους δούλους [.......] [.Ίχωι περὶ τῶν Kw.[..... ..] [τ]αῦτα, καὶ πόσοι εκη.|....... ]

[..]s πεποιηκότες ἐκολ]άσθησαν] [δι]ότι [ἐ]κολάσθησαν [....... τς

(100) 30

(An unknown number of columns lost) col. vi

Παῦλος: ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ τάφος µοι µόνος πεφρόντισται, ὃν νοµίζω καταλαβεῖν. ἐπὶ τοῦτον δὲ πορευόµενος οὐ δειλιάow σοι τὴν ἀλήθειαν εἰπεῖν. οὕτως ἄκουσόν µου, Kaicap, ὡς μεθ) ἡμέραν μηκέτ᾽ ὄντος. [Ἀ]ντωνεῖνος": κύριέ µου Kaicap, μὰ τὴν σὴν τύχην ἀληθῶς λέ[γ]ει ὡς wel?” ἡμέραν μίαν µηκέτι wv. εἰ γὰρ τοσούτων /

a

\

,

\

τε

Δ

4

>

A

/

7

>

ϱ

/

(105)

A

?

/

A

4,

0

A

5

α

>

(110)

A

10

ἐπι σ]τολῶν σοι πε[μ]φθεισῶν

ἐπειγόντων ἡμᾶς ὡς διέταξ᾽ ἀνοσίους ᾿]ουδα[ί]ους προσκατοικεῖν οὗ οὐ παρᾳβόλως 9

5

” εσχον

/

>

a

τν

(115)

/

>

> / αναπιπτειν

/

και

\

πο-

15

ACTA PAULI

Ix

53

λεμεῖν τὴν εὐπρ[ο]σώνυμον ἡμῶν πόλιν, περὶ τούτων

(120)

οὐδεμίαν ἐπιστολὴν €?

,

tJ

A

>

δέξω εἰς τὰς εὐερ[γ]εσίους

20

σου χεῖρας, ἐξ ὧν φανερόν ἐστιν περὶ τῶν αἰδεστάτων

σου λόγων. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι

(125)

καὶ τοῦτο πεποίητᾳι κατὰ σοῦ

µήδεμίαν ἀπόδειξιν €χων τῶν πρὸς ἡμᾶς γε/

>

ig

25

”

γενηµένων π[ημ]άτων.

(130)

Kaicap: Παῦλος [μὲν ἀ]φείσ-

θω, Ἀντων[νεῖνος dé

col. vil δεθήτωι [........ π]ροσπ[ηδ]ῷσιν ἡμᾶς FOULS .......; Ί.τοις [...].s κατὰ τὸ παρὸν [..... Ἀντω]νείν[ου δ]εθέντος, αἱ σεβαρ[ταὶ ἀρχαὶ κε]λεύρ[υσι] τοῖς πρὸς τοὺς δε[σµίους τὸν] Ἀντῳ[νεῖ]νον κολάζειν κα[ὶ κρεµάσασ]θαι ὑπὸ ξύλον

(135) 5

καὶ ὑποκα[ίειν πυρὶ τὰ α]ὐτοῦ ὀστέα Katt) βαA

‘

/

κε

a

>

A

/

>

σάνεισον Π...... .-ώ]μοσο ” [ουδαῖον τοῦτον φ[........ Ἱ.ριν ἀλλουτρίου πρὸς AV cacseses Ίος πρέσβεα γεyernp[evov ....] κα[ὶ] φανερός ἐστιν ἀνόσια π]οιήσας ..... ].vw[..] ἄρξας κα1. ψ[ή]φίι]σμα κατὰ ο. 16 θ.[ ] € τῶν 15 ο. ᾿]ρ[υδαίων (3) ἐν στόJ. ο.1ο Ἀ[λεξανδρέων (?) Ἰέμψατο c. 20 plate ὸς σε]βαστ 18 ο. τι[ i ο. 26 κ[ °

°

9

9

9

e

(Probably about ro lines lost)

°

(149) 10

(145) 15

ACTA

54

IX

PAULI

col. viii

ταῦτα τ[

e-

(150)

ας

{

πιγνοὺς [

[.-Jws [

γεγενημ]έν-

Π[αὔ]λος [

15 (165)

([εο]σεβ]

Ἀντωνε[ινἀναιρέθῃ|

ν[. «|. ευ]

(155)

µέλλωι .[

σ[. «Ἴμοι.[ [..elorw [

µε βλεπ[

20

[... Ἰθεο[ [...].goal

σως εἰ

τοῖς ορ[

(170)

[---]uod.[

διαταξ[ ται εν κινδυ[ν-

(160)

[ο ιεα

[ .«]επα[

25

[- - Javel

8[.. ]oo.[

(175)

(Probably about 3 lines lost) (An unknown number of columns lost) P. Lond. Inv. 1 Verso

col. v (Wilcken)

[ται

el ley.net Ίρ εἰς otav Ῥάμ]μιε, θήσονΊ.ντο δυσὶ

ς« ἐάσω

5

(180)

1ο

(185)

|s ὑποφε-

Ίν.[.]η καὶ μεθ) ἡ]μέρας 0. πε]μφθεὶς ὑπὸ 2 / ἐ]ναντίας

γει-

(9) Τραιαν]οῦ Καίσαρος: ἀ]νθρώποις ] πολλάκις

[η] καὶ

IX

55

ACTA PAULI Ἰαφέρονται Ἰ ταῖς Kad? ἡμῶν Ίναβασειν.[..]

15

(19ο)

Col. iv (P. Lond. Inv. 1, recto) 2. εν corrected. I. οὐ δέ] Milne. 4. avax{ is quite possible ;hence Milne’s supplement. the line. 7. ερχατε Milne. There is probably nothing lost at the end of after θέλετε, lacuna the In . Jopiavovs than likely more seems ς g. Ίωριανου ? o(i)rwes Perhaps 10. probably no letters lost. Col. i (Wilcken = W.) ο. 2. For [.].ο, το is quite possible. Weber suggested ἐν[έθε]τ] f, but in this case it is 2f. ἐτωθά[σαν[τ]ο von P., after Weber and Vollgraf noted that at the end of very difficult to explain the corruption. It is to be are lacunae of about three there short, onally excepti were they unless 2-4, Il. 9. x of Ἴσχενδιασεν appears to have been remade. 7. µειμου Pp. letters. following ε is made larger. the 11. After ταῦτα, a space; isjoined to the following 12. εµου.η W.; but the ο is not closed at the top and v. of instead « be thus might which letter, read a{¥)rés (14) and 14. Possibly Ἰατος (so W.). Perhaps we should a{d)rov (15). of two oblique strokes, 17. Possibly κ[αί]. Before ελεσι, remains of the bottom µ. even or 7, ν, suit would which r, togethe close ¢ are below µ of previous 18. Possibly no letters before ἔιου, as traces of the y 7, but hardly ν in this possibl stroke, tal horizon line. After ἔιου a short high e. possibl also is hand, and at the end of the line αυτ] σα W.; but ο after κ is very 19. The traces suit ἐκέ[λε]νσα better. ἐκ[όμ]ι v. ly certain almost σα, unlikely, and before one would expect a more 20. Before Om, a high oblique stroke; though is the most likely ;hence (W.) Ίκαι y. curved stroke, ε or even x is not unlikel ble. unsuita is P.) (von [αἶ]σαι Ίμπεν[. «]εξεί W.; but for the first 21. The entire line is very much abraded. Before ror possibly a. 23. Ἰωνει. four letters Reinach had read faint. The traces might even 25. This line, left unread by W., is very 28. Ίπυ[ is also possible. suit Ίτυσ[.

Col. tt

n has slightly longer lines than Judging from the lacuna in ]. 10, this colum letters. 31 to 28 about from varies and the preceding very possible. Hence von P.’s is 7 but ly, unlike seem A 2. Before ov, τ and ht that there was a corthoug once had I Πλ]ούτῳ seems excluded. Although should be restored as lines the that now ruption here for τῷ εὐθηνιάρχῃ, 1 feel τῆς | [ταραχῆς τε] καὶ τοῦ ἀρχὴι me πόθεν ou Aov}r τοῦ [ἀπὸ | follows: ἔμαθον κτλ. πολέμου ἤρξατο' | [ἔγραψέ µο]ε ὀλίγα, ιασ]τάς is possible; so also BGU g. [σαρκασθέν]τας von P., but, ε.δ., [στασ 341, 3 below.

56

ACTA

PAULI

ΙΧ

98. Spaces at the end of Il. 9 and 12 possibly indicate the end of a speech; 1. 13 probably began farther to the left. 10. a of πάντων corrected. 17. Before oxe, possibly ι or w, and after it perhaps a or w, but not +. Hence my supplement. 27. ΊἼτιου. W. read ].ου. Ἴπου is less likely but possible. Col. tit 7. τούτων apparently corr. from Ταύτων. 9. µ of μέν corr. 1908, Traces in the right margin are probably not letters, although they do resemble λ[/[ε[. 16. After dave, possibly σ. « and p seem definitely excluded. 17. L. α(ὐτούς?

19. W. and von P. read Ἀλαξανδρεῖς (sic), but the form of the second a is not clear and may well be the more cursive ε written somewhat carelessly. In fact, from this line down the hand becomes more cursive in character.

23. At the end, το or even τα] is not impossible. But το[ύτους τούς] would seem a trifle long for the line. 28. Possibly κῳφ[τωδιῶν 29. ἐλήφ[θησανί is also possible. 31. κ of JxoAac- corr. There were perhaps no letters in the lacuna after it; and although the papyrus breaks off, there were probably no more lines. Col. vi

The hand on the verso is at times definitely less cursive than that of the recto, but it seems undoubtedly that of the same copyist. 7. µηκέτι ὄντος W., but though there is a tear in the papyrus I could see no trace of 1, 7 being in ligature with ο. 19. ο of ἐπιστολῶν apparently corr. from w. 18. From this line to the bottom of the column we have an instance of separation of syllables within the same word, possibly due to vertical defects in the papyrus at this point. 27. π[ημ]άτων suppl. von P.; though the lacuna would seem to demand three letters, the 4 may have been broad or the syllables somewhat separated. Col. vit

The lacuna down the centre of this column represents the verso of the 8-10-letter lacuna in col. ii. 1-12. 1. Suppl. von P. 2. Before τοις, a, A, σ, possible. 5-6. Suppl. H. M. 8. Ἴμοσο (left unread by W.) is odd; but σο is certain. 9. Possibly Ἱεριν, hardly Ίπριν. L. ἀλλστρίου. 12. Perhaps Ίτιω or Ἰειω. Ίνω (W.) is less likely. 13. Traces here make ψ[ή]φ[ι]σμα likely. 14. The numeral before τῶν would seem to be é corrected apparently from p. 15. Before ev, o is just possible. 17. το or τῳ[ is possible. 18. At the end of the line, an upright stroke which would fit ¢, η, or ν. Col. viti

6. af or z[. g. After op, w, or « possible. 13. After σο, « or v is possible; hence perhaps δ[ιὰ] ao.

IX

ACTA

PAULI

57

17. The slight stroke before @ is probably a slip of the pen, due to the indentation. 18 ff., not transcribed by W., are very badly rubbed. Possible readings are also: 20 Ίσῃν; 22 Jnoa; 23 Ἰωφ. In Ἱ. 23, perhaps [of ὀ]μόφυ[λοι. Cf. Philo, Leg. 45. 355, CR, p. 220 (where Isidorus applies this adjective to the Jews). Col. v (P. Lond. Inv. 1 verso) It had occurred to me that col. v might really be a broken-off part of col. viii, in such wise that v. 1-7 could be placed along the right edge of viii. 8-24. Two joins are plausible: v. 3 θήσον[ται (viii. 11), and v. 4 δυσὶ | xw5v[vors? (viii. 12) ; and the space at the end of v. 8 fits well with the indentation of viii. 16-17. However, I do not yet see how v. 10 νει- can be followed by viii. 18 >[..]. 1. Perhaps nothing lost in the lacuna after αν; hence ἀνέγνων or the like is not impossible. 2. ofav is very doubtful. Skeat had privately suggested gAoy. In any case, 4. Before vro, perhaps a. ο and ν seem fairly clear. 5. ἐάσωι. Here Skeat has suggested κἀχώι. Although the line is much abraded, it seems clear that the σ (if it be a σ) is slightly angular—which does, however, occur in this hand. The first letter, if it be κ, is very odd. Kenyon had originally 6. Milne’s reading here, Ἰυε[ι]ν, is very dubious. read Ἱ..αγιωι (?). 1Ο. ve. If not the beginning of a name—perhaps Nép|ova—this might possibly be vei|«n (1. νίκη). 11. Τραιαν]οῦ after Wilcken’s suggestion. The high point at the end of the line, unusual in this papyrus, may be merely a drop of ink. 13. Ίαλλα..οι καί Kenyon. 14. Milne ἐ]μφέρονται, but I do not think it likely. 16. Or possibly Jvaxagew. Kenyon had read Jvaxare.[...]; Milne’s ἀγα]νακτεῖν 17. Possibly even] ἐάσω. must be due to an error.

TRANSLATION

Col. 1 Paulus (spoke) about the king, how they brought him forth and (mocked him?) ; and Theon read the edict of Lupus ordering them to lead him forth for Lupus to make fun of the king in the stage-mime. After we had thus (testified?), the emperor took occasion to remark to Paulus and our people as follows: “During

such disturbances .. . during the Dacian war..

..’

Col. 12 Caesar answered the Jews: ‘I learned . .. The Jews: ‘They seized them from the prison and ... wounded them.’ Caesar: ‘I have investigated all these matters (?), and not (all?) the Alexandrians but only those who are responsible should be prosecuted. . . .’ >

ACTA

58

PAULI

IX

Col. itt. 5-15 ες so that if some were to be exiled from Alexandria, they were nonetheless not seized by us, as they allege, but by them, and this occasioned a false accusation against us. Now all (the slaves) who had fled to their masters intending to secure complete safety were brought to justice by them and punished.’ The Jews: ‘Sir, they are lying: they do not know how many men there were.’ Cols. vi—vit

Paulus: ‘My only concern is for the grave in Alexandria which

I expect to have. Advancing as I am towards this, I shall have

no fear of telling you the truth. Listen to me then, Caesar, as to one who may not live beyond the morrow.’

Antoninus: ‘My Lord Caesar, I swear by your genius he speaks

the truth as one who may not live another day. For when we

were in such pressing circumstances and so many letters had been sent you saying that (the prefect) had ordered the impious Jews to transfer their residence to a place from which they could easily attack and ravage our well-named city—if not a line on this matter fell into your beneficent hands, then the reason for your august words is clear. It is obvious that this has been perpetrated against you, to prevent you from having any evidence of the woes that have befallen us.’ Caesar: ‘Let Paulus go; but have Antoninus bound... .’

Acta Pauli, Recension B: BGU 341 (IX B) πα]ύσασθαι σιω[π]ησαντ/ Ίτων ἐνίστασο pl ᾿]ουδαῖοι;] [ἐκ κωστω]δίας ἤρπασαν καὶ σ.[........ τας ἐτραυμάτισαν. Kai-] [σαρ: συν]έγνων' οὐκ Ἀλεξ[ανδρεῦσι πᾶσιν (3), ἀλλὰ τοῖς ποιήσασι ταῦτα δεῖ]

[...] πολ[λ]άκις ἐπεξέρχεσθ[αι Ἀντωνεῖνος (95): 1] 5 [αὐτο]κράτω[ρ], Ἀλεξανδρεῖς οὐκ «| [πολ]λοὶ κατ[α]κριθέντες ἦσαν ἑξ[ήκοντα Ἀλεξανδρεῖς καὶ οἱ τούτων] [δο]ῦλοι,

καὶ of μὲν Ἀλεξανδρεῖς

[ἐξεβλήθησαν,

οἱ δὲ δοῦλοι

αὐτῶν ar-| [εκ]εφαλίσθησαν, μηδενὸς τῶν af

ΙΧ

ACTA PAULI

59

[...].dvrwv αὐτῶν εἲ τὸ πᾶσιν δ[ιδόµενον ἀνθρώποις δάκρυ προ-] 10 [πεμ]ψάντων' ὥστε et τινας ἔδει [ἐκβληθῆναι ἀπὸ Ἀλεξανδρείας οὐ-] [δὲ]ν δὲ ἧττον, ὥς φασιν, τοὺς ἁρπασ[θέντας οὐχ UP’ ἡμῶν ἀλλὰ] [ὑπὸ] τούτων ἡρπάγησαν εἰς ἡμετέρα[ν συκοφαντίαν. ὅσοι μὲν τε-] [λέω]ς δ[ιασωθησόµενοι πρὸς τοὺς ἰδί[ους κατέφυγον, αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ av-| 15 [τῶν] π[ρο]παρεστάθησαν καὶ ἐκολάσθησα[ν [......] ἔγ[ι]οι (?) περιπ..... a teeyWR aresμαι 1. σιω[π]ῆς. ἀντ[εῖπον δὲ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι: von P. 8. σᾳ or σε W. σᾳρκασθέντας von P. 2. Perhaps |. ἐπίστασοξ H. M. 4. δεῖ] here, von P. πᾶσιν (?) H. M. 5. [ὡς] πολ[λ]άκις von P. In the lacuna at the end, Wilcken and von P. both supply Ἀντωνεῖνος (?)]. 6. οὐχ Fpmacav W. ovk ιο or π[: Schubart-Plaumann. Hence οὐκ ἐσ[ήνεγκον βίαν von P. 7. [...].0...«pévres W. The text is that of von P., based on a private communication from Schubart, supplying the missing letters, adding: ‘Der erste Buchstabe kann A, x, κ, allenfalls auch p sein.’ (Hermes, loc. cit. 289.) 10. πᾶσιν ᾖνθρώποις W. But Schubart-Plaumann read δ] or A. Suppl. von P. 19. καὶ ody ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀλλ”) Wilcken. οὕτως κακῶς, αὐτοί] von P. 15. π[ρο]- suppl. von P. ; 16. Ἰοαί W. οι or, better, og: Schubart-Plaumann.

IX Cc PRUM (‘Torbidi Giudaict’) Ἰ, πὂρ Kal? ἡμῶν

col. ii. 28

col. ili ἑτοιμ[ά]ζου[σι] καὶ σίδηρον. οἶδα ὅτι εἰσὶν [ὀ]λίγοι. ἀλ[λ] ἐγφέρουσιν αὐτοὺς [οἱ] πλε[ί]ονες [κ]ᾳὶ τρέφουσιν οἱ κρείσσον[ε]ς, ἀγοράζοντες τὸ μὴ λοιδορεῖσθαι, τὸ μὴ διαρπάζεσ[Ola τὸ ἐν ὀλίγο[ι]ς μεισούμεν[ο]ν ο[ὑ]κ ἀδί[κ]ως ὅλης πόλεώς ἐστιν ἔνκλημα. οἶδα

5

ᾳ

ὅτι ἐν τούτοις πλείονές εἶσιν δοῦλοι' διὰ τοῦτο οἱ δεσπόται λοιδοροῦντα[ι]. πᾶσιν οὖν ἐγὼ παραγγέλλω μὴ προσποιεῖσθαι ὀργὴν ἐπιθυμ[ί]ᾳ κέρδους. γεινωσκέτωσαν

10

5

6ο

PRUM

ὅτ[ι] οὐκέτι αὐτοὺς ἀγνοοῦμεν. μὴ πιστευέτωσάν µου τῇ εὐπετίᾳ μηδὲ Tals ..ταις ἡμέραις ..[....]rov ἐβιασάμη[ν . «Ἴρειν ὅσα εὐθέως ἐδυ[νά]μ[η]ν ε.[..] Aew ..δεν.[

κατ[η]γορεῖν θ[έ]λει τ[ε]νός, ἔχει δικαστὴ[ν]

IXc

15

ὑπὸ Καίσαρος ἐπὶ τοῦτο πεµφθέντα. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡγεμόσιν ἔξεστιν ἀκρίτους ᾱ-

πο[κ]τεῖναι, ἀλ[λ]ὰ καὶ κρίσις ἴδιον ἔχει χρόν[ο]ν, ἴδιον τόπον ὡς ἴδιον τύπον κόλα[σ]ις. παυσάσθωσαν of τε ἀλη-

20

θῶς of τε ψευδῶς τραυματίας έαυτοὺς εἶναι λέγοντες καὶ βιαίως dua καὶ ἀ[δίκω]ς ᾿δ[ί]κην΄ ἐπαιτοῦντες. μὴ τραυ-

µατίζεσθαι γὰρ ἐξῆν. Twa τῶν ᾱµαρτηµάτ[ω]ν tows ἀπολογίαν ἔχειν edvvato πρὸ τῆς Ρωμαίων

25

col. iv

π[ρ]ὸς ᾿Ιουδαίρυς µάχης. νῦν

δὲ µά[ταια] κἱριτή]ριᾳ, ἃ καὶ πρότερον οὐκ ἐξῆν.

Ι. Tparavod Φαῶφι ts

30

Col. itt 2. Cazzaniga: ἀγεγφέρουσιν...[δ] ἴδι]όν ἐ[στι]ν, τρέφουσιν. The text adopted is that of Skeat (FEA xxv. 79). L. ἐκφέρουσιν. 5. L. pucovpevor. 6. After ἔνκλημα, a point of interrogation: Préaux. 7. The second ε in πλείονες has been corrected from a; above it a or ε has been deleted. 19. µου τῇ εὐπετίᾳ would seem to be the only plausible restoration (and Cazzaniga informs me that Schubart had already suggested it to him privately in 1938). Schubart had also suggested ταῖς ῥηταῖς or λιταῖς, of which I should prefer the latter. 13. Perhaps ὅτ[ι πρῶ]τον? 13f. ἐβιασάμη[ν τη]ρεῖν ὅσα... ἐδυ[νά]μ[η]ν ἐγβα]λεῖν Schubart. Instead of Cazzaniga’s ἐ]ρεῖν, εὑ]ρεῖν is also possible; but Schubart’s restoration would seem practically certain. 14. ..dev.[.] Cazzaniga. Skeat suggested (εἴ τις); Schubart (privately, to Cazzaniga) [ἀλ]λ᾽ εἴ [τις]. The traces (from the facs.) are very ambiguous, and perhaps we should read: [ἀλ]λ᾽ ἐ[ά]ν τ[ις]/...θ[έ]λει (= θελῇ). 15. β[έ]λει τ[ι]νός: Skeat, Schubart. 25. ἀπολογίαν (av)? Collart. 28. Suppl. Cazzaniga. Col. tv

2. Suppl. Paribeni. 4. Tpqayod Schubart and Bell in private communication to Cazzaniga, and from the facs. this would seem more likely than Ἀδριανοῦ.

(61)

κ P. Oxy. 2177: Acta ΑἰΠεποάοτί TEXT

Frag. 1

col. i ere πό]λεως κ[...]ὼν πέριξ κυκλαμήν ...... Ί(ν) [.]ευ[. ..].υριας ἀγδ[ρ]είας. ᾿Καΐσαρ: ὑμεῖς τῆς ἀλλοτρίας πρεσβευταί ἐστε. Αθάμα[ς]: ovK ἐσμεν ἀλλοτρίας πόλεως πρεσβευταὶ ἀλλὰ idia[s]: “Kal γὰρ συνγενὴς ἡ πόλις. ᾿Καΐσαρ: Ἀθηνόδωρόν pot τις καλεσάτω. Ἀθηνόδωpos: πάρειµι, κύριε, ἰδίας ἀκούων ὑποθέσεως. Katcap: τοῖς γὰρ αὐτοῖς νόµοις χρῶ(ν)ται Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ Ἀλεξά(ν)δρεῖς; Ἀθηνόδωρος" πάν[των] yap νόµων ἰσχυρότε[ροι ὄ]ντες τὴν εὐκρασία(ν) [τῆς] φιλανθρωπίας ἔχουσι(ν). [... Ἀθην]όδωρος τέκγα ~ σος Ίτα δηµόσ][ι]α τεσFemoscars ].9 δοξα[... .Ίτρος

eee

η

σον.» Ί

20

Ps ος

6ο

211)

[

ο. 16

Ἱπρ[.]

[

ο. 18

Ἰφ

col. ii

κα[. ]ελ[ ἐπιστολῆς [

ο. 14 ο. 10

] ]

ἀντιβαλὼν [

ο. 10

]

j—

—

25

σσ

ἐπιστ[ολὴ Τραιανοῦ"] Αὐτοκρά[τ]ωρ [Kaicap Τραι-] avos Σεβα|σ]τὸ[ς Γερμανικὸς] Δακικὸ[ς] τοῖς οτι | τοῖς εἰδόσι τὰ [διατεταγμέ-] να εὐχερὲς ἦν «ο 11 ] θρασυτολµίαν [..... an’| λ᾽ ὥσπερ brép [..... πόλε-] ως ἐπρεσβεύ[σασθε ...... ] λου [λ]ογιωτάτου [.... οὐ-] κ ἂν ἔσχον ὑμ[....... (Φ)εὔ-] νοιαν ἐλέγέαι[ι........ ] φιλόλογοι eypdlibare. ἔγνω-] σται μὲν ἡ ἐμ[ὴ ἀνεξι-] κακία, καὶ ὑμε[ῖν σημεῖον δί-] δωµι τῆς eis ὑμ]ᾶς φιλαν-] θρωπίας καὶ οὐ

6. 9

µα[..]. ὑμῶν τα πα[...]ν τούτου pl [.... εὐσε]βεῖς .[ να. ιν κα[

ο. 8 ο. 6 ο. 6 ο6

ας

ο. 8

ος ].a [

30

35

40

45

ο) Ld he hh

x

Ῥ ΟΧΥ.

2177

63

Frag. 2

col. i Ἰ(ν)

col. ii 5ο

ιπα[

Co1s

τοὺς]

55

il:

map ἡμῖν εὐγενεῖς οὐ[δ᾽ ἐρ-]

jee

pwpevous ἡμῖν ἀπό[στει-]

μα Ίκᾳ

Nov: ‘Hpaiov γάρ εἰσιν ᾿εὐα[γεῖς]΄ µα[θη-] tai. ὁ δὲ Καΐσαρ ἀναγνο[ὺς] τὴν γραφεῖσαν ἐπιστο[λήν,] µετακαλεσάµενος επ[.. .] [συν]κλητικοὺς καὶ τοὺς [ἐδί-] [ου]ς φίλους, ἐκέλευσε[...]

6ο

νο Ίτην καὶ Ἀθάμαγ[/τα] [ἀχθ]ῆναι καὶ ἔφη αὐτ[οῖς"] [τόδε τὸ] βιβλίδ[ι]ον ἡ πόλ[ις] [ἔπεμ]ψεν ἢ οἱ ..τριτηπ[. . «] [συλλα]βόντες:, Ἀθάμας: vl. . | (Perse? lwe.[... vn... ]

Frag. 3

Frag. 4 ].of

Ἴνοι api

Ίατοις pf

] γὰρ ἡμ[ πε]ρὶ τούτῳ[ν Ίπυνθα[ν-

65

75

Jus tol, Ἰτυχοῦσιί Jew οὐ πρᾳ[ κατ]ηγορεῖτ[ θά]νατο]ν (9) ]..u

Supplements by R(oberts) unless otherwise noted. 2 f. Possibly [σημεῖο]ν |[τ]ούτων] κυρίας. 1. Perhaps κ[ρατ]ῷν. 18. [διά] or [ἐκ] S(chubart). 8. Καΐσαρ (A. H. M. Jones): καιγαρ p.

80

PROXY ae2ld7

64

19. τεκµα- less likely (R.).

x

20 f. réa|[capa S.

31. [Ἀθηναίοις] rather than [Ἀλεξανδρεῦσι] (R.). [ἀγνοοῦσι καί] S. 33. [καταγνῶναι] S. 32. Suppl. O. M. Pearl. 35. [ἰδίας πόλε]]ως (R.) seems most likely. 36 f. IIav]|ov most likely, as perhaps below, 1. 46 Πα[ύλο]ν. S. suggests διὰ Παύ]]ου (708) [λ]ογιωτάτου. 38 Ε. εὔ]νοιαν, διά]νοιαν are possible; ἀγχί]νοιαν 5. 42. ὑμε[ῖν, λόγον δὲ δί-] 5. 404. ἔγρα[ψαν ὡς ἔ][σται 5. 56. οὐ[δ᾽ ἐρ-] suppl. Welles. 58. εὐα[γεῖς] H. M.; εὐα[γεῖςῷ εὐά[γωγοιῇ 5. 61. Perhaps ἐπ[ειτα] (R.) ἑπ[τά] 5. 68. Suppl. H. Μ. 67. Perhaps οἱ ἐπιτρίζπ)τῃ π[όλει].

TRANSLATION (LI. 4 ff.) Caesar: ‘You are ambassadors of an alien city.’

Athamas: ‘Not of an alien city, but of our own. For the city is akin (to ours).’ Caesar :‘Have someone summon Athenodorus for me.”* Athenodorus: ‘Here I am, my Lord, to answer my own charge.’ Caesar: ‘Is it true that the Athenians have the same laws as the Alexandrians>’ Athenodorus: ‘It is; and they are stronger than all other laws, having a happy admixture of clemency.’ (11. 58 ff.) ‘, .. Send these men of noble birth back to us, even if they be unwell; for they are the blameless (?) disciples of Heraeus.’ Caesar read the letier they had written, and after summoning some senators and his own friends, he ordered... and Athamas to be brought before him and said to them:

‘Was it the city that sent this petition, or. . .?’ 1 Perhaps at this point Athenodorus is brought in.

(65)

XI

Acta Appian P. Yale Inv. 1536 col.

i

col, il

έ]δωκε

Ἴμενον Ίντες Ίμαν δὲ Ίενος τι 1.σιυλ.νᾳ Ίτι προσ

Anmavos ε[ἶπεν" 6:10 ] aot ὅπως of 6. 19 ] χονται, οἴτινες.......... π]υρὸν [ πεμπόµενοι eis τὰς ἑτέρᾳς πό]|λεις] τοῦ τετραπλοῦ πωλοῦσι ἵνα σώσῳ[σι)]

(15)

ο

/

5

>

lol

A

eee

-

a

/

er

’

ἃ ἐδώκασι. αὐτοκράτωρ εἶπεν: Kali] (20) “a

25

Jey

>

A

10 leks. έπ]εμπε µεεἶ]πεν ] αὐτοκράτ[ο-] Ίαν. [ 15 (margin)

>

/

3

A

tis] ἐσ[τ]ιν 6 τὰ χρήματα λαμβάγωγ; Ἁππιανὸς εἶπεν' σύ. [αὐτ]οκράτωρ' καὶ τοῦτο πέπεισαι; Ἁππιανός: οὔ, ἀλλ ἠκούσαμεν. αὐτοκράτωρ' καὶ πρὸ τοῦ /

Ίων επῳ

4

ε

“A

i

/

/

/

3

/

4

>

>

σε πεισθῆναι οὐκ ὤφιλας τοῦτον τὸν (25)

λόγον ἀποφήνασθαι. σπεκουλάτωρ. Ἀππιανὸς ἀπαγόμενος καὶ ἰδὼν veκρὸν εἶπεν: ὦ νεκρέ, γενάµενός µου eis τὴν χώραν λέγω 'Πρακλειανῷ

(margin) P. Oxy. 33

col. i [π]ατρί µου καὶ [...]ή..... ] ὅτι

(30)

µήτε χρείαν [...]o.[..... Ίᾳι [..1σ..δέσι.ς η νι ελνπε ‘ees ]..αμε[... .Ἴνοσ.[.]εν κἀyo γὰρ κα[...... Ίν[...«] αὐτοῦ γε ταῦτα λέγον[το]ς, στρ/]α]φεὶς καὶ ἰδὼν 'Ἡλιόδωρον εἶπεν' "Ηλιόδωρε, ἀπαγομένου µου οὐδὲν 5498

Ε

5 (35)

ΑΟΤΑ

66

ΧΙ

ΑΡΡΙΑΝΙ

[α]

λαλεῖς; ᾿Ηλιόδωρος εἶπεν" καὶ τίνι ἔχομεν λαλῆσαι μὴ ἔχον[τ]ες τὸν ἀκούοντα; τρέχε, τέκνον, τελεύτα. κλέος σοί ἐστιν ὑπὲρ τῆς γλυκυτάτης σου πατρίSos τελευτῆσαι. μὴ ἀγωνία"

10

(40)

col. ii καὶ [.......-] Ko.[.. Jas σε διώκω ἐκ π.[. εν ενος Ίανῳ αὐτοκράτωρ µετεκ[α]λέσατο αὐτόν. αὐτοκράτωρ εἶπεν" viv οὐκ οἶδας τίνι [λα]λεῖς; Ἀππιανός: ἐπίσταμαι" Ἀπ[πι]ανὸς τυράννῳ. αὐτοκράτωρ: [οὔκ,] ἀλλὰ βασιλεῖ. Ἅππιαγός" τοῦτο μὴ λέγε' τῷ γὰρ θεῷ Ἀντωνείνῳ [τ]ῷ π[ατ]ρί σου ἔπρεπε αὐτοκρατορεύειν. ἄκουε, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἦν] φιλόσοφος, τὸ δεύτερον ἀφιλάργυρος, τ[ὀ] τρίτον φιλάγαθος' cot /

οφ

38:

>

3

x

cf

A

/

Γον

/

/

(45)

3

5 (50)

”/

10

2εν

τούτων τὰ ἐναντία ἔνκειται, τυρανvia ἀφιλοκαγαθία ἀπαιδία. Kaicap ἐ/ TN > a a 3 κέλευσεν αὐτὸν ἀπαχθῆναι' Ἅππιavos ἀπαγόμενος εἶπεν' καὶ τοῦτο A

-

(55)

15

col. iii ἡμῖν χάρ[ισ]αι, κύριε Kaicap. αὐτοκράτωρ' τί; Ἁππιανός: κέλευς

-

/

>

/

(ώς

΄

a

5)

,

(60)

/

a

σόν µε ἐν TH εὐγενείᾳ µου ἆπαχθῆναι. αὐτοκράτωρ' ἔχε. Ἀππιανὸς λαβὼν τὸ στρόφ{ελιον ἐπὶ τῆς κεφα[λ]ῆς ἔθηκεν, καὶ τὸ φαικάσ[ιο]ν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας θεὶς ave4

y

ee

\

/

4

>

βόησεν [μ]έσης 'Ῥώμης' συνδράµε-

5 (65)

ACTA

ΑΡΡΙΑΝΙ

67

τε, Ῥωμ[α]ῖοι" θεωρήσατε ἕνα an’ αἰῶvos ἀπαγόμ[ενο]ν γυμνασίαρχον καὶ πρεσβευτὴν Ἀλεξανδρέων. 6 ἠβο[κᾶτο]ς εὐθὺς δραᾳμὼν παρέθετο [τῷ] κυρίῳ λέγων" κύριε, κάθῃη; ‘Pwpaiοι γονγύζο[υσ]ι. αὐτοκράτωρ: περὶ τίνος; 6 ὕπατος" περὶ τῆς ἀπάξεως

10 (70)

15

col. iv

τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρέως. abroxpatwp* µεταπεμφθήτω. Ἁππιανὸς A

2

(75)

εἰσελθὼν εἶπεν" τίς ἤδη τὸν δεύ>

\

5

/

”

A

re

τερόν µου ἆδην προσκυνοῦντα ~ καὶ τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ τελευτήσαντας, Θέωνά τε καὶ ᾿]σίδωρον καὶ Adp3

5

A

/ > πωνα, µετεκαλέσατο; apa ἡς

(8ο)

σύνκλητος ἢ σὺ ὁ λῄσταρχος; vs

Aa

Αα

/

αὐτοκράτωρ": Ἁππιανέ, (ε)γώθαprev καὶ ἡμεῖς µαινοµένους καὶ ἀπονενοημένους σωφρονίζειν: ε)

U4

x

/

te

10

λαλεῖς ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ἐγώ σε θέλω λα-

(85)

λεῖν. Ἀππιανός"' νὴ τὴν σὴν τύχην οὔτε µαίνοµαι οὔτε ἀπονενόA

x

/

\

4

4

΄

ηµαι, GAN’ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ εὐγε>

ae.

\

~

>

~

15

>

col. v

velas καὶ τῶν ἐ[μοὶ προσηκόντων] ἀπαγγέλλω. αὐτ[οκράτωρ' πῶς; Ἀππιανός: ὡς εὐγ[ενὴς καὶ yupvaci-| αρχος. αὐτοκράτω[ρ' φὴς οὖν ὅτι ἡμεῖς] ἀγενεῖς ἐσμεν; [Ἀππιανός"' τοῦτο μὲν] οὐκ ο[δ]δα: ἐγὼ [ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ] >

/

\

a

i

ς

εὐγενείας και TWV [ἐμοὶ προσηκόν-] 2

/

A

~

2

Ν

των ἀπαγγέλλ[ω. αὐτοκράτωρ'] νῦν οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι [ 65.22

/

]

(90)

aA

5 (95)

ACTA

68

XI

ΑΡΡΙΑΝΙ

Anmavés: τοῦτο μ[ὲν εἰ ἀληθῶς οὐκ of-| Sas, διδάξω σε. πρῶτον μὲν Καΐσαρ έ-] σωσε Ἰλεοπάτρ[αν

6. 10

]

το (100)

ἐκράτησέν βασιλείας, καὶ ὡς λέγου-] ] ο. 8 at τινες, ἐδανείσατο /

>

/

P. Yale, col. i (Supplements by Welles.) 6. ‘At the beginning, possibly oy better than σι. What looks like v at the end is more probably a. The ν is certain.’ (Welles in a private communication.) 11. π]εμπεμε- Welles; but unless we may read π]εμπομε[ίν-, I prefer the worddivision of the text. 13. αὐτοκρατ-

Welles;

but there is a small

lacuna

in the text, and

the

copyist is usually careful about syllable-division. Col. it 6. Perhaps ἃ (δ)εδώκασι. 3. Welles has suggested πάπ]υρον. g. At the end of this line there would seem to be (from the facs.) a slight horizontal continuation stroke. It is just possible that it is the tail of an a, and 14. Perhaps 1. γεναµένου. that we should read ἀλλ[ά]. P. Oxy. 33, col. t 1. καὶ [...]. GH; instead of «, it would seem that y is also possible. g. The a above λαλεῖς may be abraded, but it would seem to have been erased. These superscript a’s (i. 9, ii. 14, iii. 3, v. 13) present a problem, and

in only one place (iii. 3) does one appear to be associated with a correction. It

is not impossible that it is a corrector’s symbol, e.g. ἀ(νέγνων). Col. it 4. [νῦ]ν οὐκ GH.

Col. tit 3. v of ἐν corrected from υ. 5. στροφεῖον GH; the present form is also adopted by Lietzmann. 13. κάθῃ; as a question, is better here. Col. iv

3. Wilcken would correct to τὸ δεύτερον. Col. v

The supplements adopted are from the edition of GH. For von Premerstein’s see the Commentary.

6. Before ἐγώ (which is written with a larger ε), a space. GH would place the stop after ἐγώ. g. [ἀγενεῖς ἐσμεν] GH. [ἀφιλάργυροί ἐσμεν] von P. (and Lietzmann). [βασιλεῖς ἐσμεν] Reinach. 14. Suppl. Schultess (and Wilcken). GH: ἐδάνεισε.

ΧΙ

ACTA

APPIANI

69

TRANSLATION Fe Yale 0.93 ff. Appian: ‘. . . who sending the wheat (?) to the other cities, sell it at four times its price, so as to recover their expenses.’

The emperor Appian said: The emperor: Appian: ‘No, The emperor:

said: ‘And who receives this money?’ ‘You do.’ ‘Are you certain of this?’ but that is what we have heard.’ ‘You ought not to have circulated the story

without being certain of it. (I say,) executioner!’ As Appian was being taken off to execution he noticed a dead body and said: ‘Ah, dead one, when I go to my country, I shall tell Heraclianus (P. Oxy. 33) my father and .. .’ And while he was saying this, turning around he saw Heliodorus and said: ‘Have you nothing to say, Helio-

dorus, at my being led to execution?’ Heliodorus said: “Το whom can we speak, if we have no one who will listen? On, my son, go to your death. Yours shall be the glory of dying for your dearest native city. Be not distressed; . . .’

The emperor (then) recalled Appian. The emperor said: ‘Now you know whom you are speaking to, don’t you?’ Appian: ‘Yes, I do: Appian speaks to a tyrant.’ The emperor: ‘No, to an emperor.’ Appian: ‘Say not so! Your father, the divine Antoninus, was fit to be emperor. For, look you, first of all he was a philosopher ; secondly, he was not avaricious; thirdly, he was good. But you have precisely the opposite qualities: you are tyrannical, dishonest, crude!’

Caesar (then) ordered him to be led away to execution. As Appian was being taken, he said: ‘Grant me but one thing, my Lord Caesar.’ The emperor: ‘What?’ Appian: ‘Grant that I may be executed in my noble insignia.’ The emperor: ‘Granted.’ Appian (then) took his fillet and put it on his head, and putting

his white shoes on his feet, he cried out in the middle of Rome: ‘Come up, Romans, and see a unique spectacle, an Alexandrian

gymnasiarch and ambassador led to execution!’ The evocatus immediately ran back and reported this to the

70

ACTA

APPIANI

XI

emperor, saying: ‘Do you sit idle, my Lord, while the Romans murmur in complaint?’ The emperor: ‘What are they complaining about?’

The consul: ‘About the execution of the Alexandrian.’ The emperor: ‘Have him brought back.’

When Appian had come in, he said: ‘Who is it this time that called me back as I was about to greet Death again and those who died before me, Theon and Isidorus and Lampon? Was it the Senate or you, you brigand-chief?’

The emperor: ‘Appian, I am accustomed to chasten those who rave and have lost all sense of shame. You speak only so long as I permit you to.’ Appian: ‘By your genius, I am neither mad nor have I lost my sense of shame. I am making an appeal on behalf of my noble rank and my privileges.’ The emperor: ‘How so?’

Appian: ‘As one of noble rank and a gymnasiarch.’ The emperor: ‘Do you suggest that I am not of noble rank?’

Appian: ‘That I know not; I am merely appealing on behalf

of my own nobility and privileges.’

The emperor: ‘Do you not know then that. . .?” Appian: ‘If you are really not informed on this matter, I shall

tell you. To begin with, Caesar saved Cleopatra . . . (and then he) got control of the empire and, as some say borrowed... .’

(71)

DUBIOUS

AND UNIDENTIFIED FRAGMENTS XII BGU 588

[ [ [ [ [ [ [π[τέραν [ [

πας Ἴσασθε σωπ]αρ᾽ ὑμῖν φιλτάτων pel, Ίν πορθοῦντες ὑμᾶς' οἱ γὰρ ] καὶ ἔργον καὶ πάθος ἔχειν ἐμαµε]ταφοράν, τὰ ναυτικὰ ἀ]πὸ λιμένος οὔτε ἀνθρω] παροξυνθεὶς eis τὴν ὑμεάνθ]ρωπον μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ δίκαιον Ίν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκέτι ἀπειλῆς λοιἈλεξ]αγδρεῖς βασιλεὺς Ῥωμαίων

5

10

4f. Perhaps ἔμα[[θον] or the like. BL i. 543 ναυτικὰ 5. Suppl. H. M. ναυτικ[αταπ]]α Schubart-Plaumann in ann. t—Plaum Schubar suppl. (?)] [καταπα6. [τα] πα- Wilcken. 8. [τὸ φιλάνθ]ρωπονῇ would appear to be a το. After Ἀλεξ]αγδρεῖς, a full stop: Wilcken. There margin after Ἱ. 10.

(752)

XIII P. Fayum 217 col. i

col. ii

Ἰμένους γείτονας ἀν[α]κα-

[

Ίας εἰσόδους καὶ ἐξόδους

[

ἀπ]ᾳιτούντων γερόντῳν Ί βραδέα ζητήματα Ἱέρχεται Kaicap π[ρ]οσαποἐκ] νηπίου. ] τοῦ βίου τέρµα δ[ι]καίως Ίις αὐτοκράτορι χρηστῷ Ἱκαγ[. .Ίτι

[ σ[ nl [ pl πι [

5

το

15

I, 3. Suppl. B(ingen). 3. Ἰήτουντων with Ίαιτουντων possible, B. 5. Perhaps a stop after ἔρχεται. 5f. Perhaps Καΐσαρ' π]ρ]οσαπο[[λογοῦ] R. 6. Suppl. H. M. The space following suggests a new speaker or a new narrative paragraph in the next section. 8. Aowdopelis? R.

(73)

XIV P. Erlangen n. 16

eae Ἰνεκρ[ο]πολε[ Ίτο δεδώκασι]

] τοῦ καλουµ|ένου

5

(Traces of 4 lines)

Ἰμενηί

Ίτητου mpl (Traces of 1 line) Ίνομεν.[ (Traces of 5 lines)

Ίοναιτιοκ] ών ἀδ]ελφὸς τὸ σὸν .[ ]. παρεῖναι .[

20

ἔναρχος εἶπ(εν) . ουδερ[ ««νοσι, εἰ προδῶι.. .[ eee

eee

ek

καὶ ἄκουσον ᾧν Aey... at

...@aou Kav μὴ τοι. 1. σὺ ποδ[ or ο[υ]ς ὑποδ[ S(chubart). 13. Perhaps xpi]vopev.[? 3. Perhaps τοῦ]το. 19. S. divides Ίον αἰτιοκ[, but, e.g., διδ]όναι τι 6 κ[ύριος2 is also possible. 23. δεῖγμα or δέδειγµα[ι S. 21. τόσον is also possible: S. 24. Before ἔναρχος, apparently not yupvaciapyos : S. 26. ὧν Aéy_w? S. 25. Perhaps χεχονόσιξ

25

(74)

XV Ρ. Aberdeen 136 κ]υρίφ[ ].ov yalp Ίοντες το[ Ἰ τοὺς ᾽Ιουδ[αίους Ίτων τῆς [

ee

1. Ἱ.ριῳ Turner, suppl. Roberts.

ert

4. ἴουδι p.

(75)

XVI Ρ. Bouriant 7 col. i ]. ἐκ Ἴνομε|wa οὐ | Ῥουβρίου | ἄκου|v ἐκ τῶν γ]όμων ην κεγ]ραφὴν

col. ii

5

10 [Α]ἰγυπτίων [ οὐ-] εκτ. vag [δ]ὲν ἧσσον τῶν | τιµίων καὶ φιλανθρῴ[πων κωλυθέντος περὶ τοῦ { 15 πρεσβεῦσαι πρὸς τὸν ἔπᾳ]ρχον στον, κρίναντος το.[ ρου τὸν {7} τόδε δηλώ[σαντα τὸν ‘EAAn-| ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ [ νικοῦ γένους µόνον τε[ (margin)

Supplements by C(ollart), unless otherwise noted. 5. Before ακου a space. 6. Ίν ἐκ τῶν C.; πλεο]νεκτῶν seems excluded by the space before των. 13. Suppl. H. Μ. 11. Πι]νας C. 7. Suppl. H. M. 15 f. Μόδε]]στονῖ R. 15. Suppl. H. M. τὸν αἱ C. 17. τόν] suppl. Ἡ. Μ. 164. ᾿]σιδώ]ιρου Korte. 18. Suppl. Ἡ. Μ.; there are perhaps no other letters to be restored in the lacuna.

(76)

xl P. Oslo. 170 JL ].pear, Jews Sool

Ίον ἐργὶ ].va ταυίτ] σὺν ὅπλ[οις (2) ]. ἀναμί πό]λεως yu[vΊ.υτοι οἱ [ Ἰέαι τιτ[

5

To

Ἱ.ευτα.[ ]. ἐθαυ]μαἼδοκει[

1[ . Ἱδριαν is possible. . The edd. divide Jew ιζω[» but there is probably some form of ζάω here. . ].ναπις edd. But the τ seems certain. av R. . SoR. συµπα[ edd. vp Ano ο ο]υτοι edd. But before συ, hardly ο, perhaps v. Possibly πι]νυτοί. 10. After Ίέαι it is just possible that there is a slight space; the following initial τ, unlike others in the text, has a slight hook (τ). Perhaps we should restore Τίτ[ος. 11. So R. eral edd. After τα, not ι, possibly 7.

(77)

XVIII ‘Acta Heracliti’ (Et. de Papyrol. vii. 17 ff.) col. i ].. ἀναγε[ι]νώσκω τὰ ὑπομνήμ[ατα ......«Ίυσει Ίαντα πῶς ἔκαυσεν τὸν λοιδ[οροῦντα καὶ βιά]ζοντα Ja τοῦ φιλοῦντός σε Σαράπιδ[ος Ἴραπισ ἀ]ντεχῶσιν tv” "Ἡράκλειτος [ Ja ποιη] δεινὸς ἑκατόνταρχος 6 τὸ γράμ[μ]ᾳ πεπιστευµένος 5 Adar εἰκόνες κεῖνται ἐν τοῖς [ἐργ]αστηρίοις εἰς τὰ δώδεκα ἐν | Κανώβῳ ἔέω τῶν ἐργαστηρ[ίων] eva εἰσὶν εἰκόνες Ίν καὶ µεγάλαι εἴκονες' "Ηράκλειτος εἶπεν' ἐνῆσαν Ἀντωνῖνος Σεβαστὸς elev] ἐκέλευσας οὖν [........«««].« «γαι ἢ οὔ; ᾿Ηράκλει10 τ]οῖς ἐντοτέροις .. τος εἶπεν' οὐκ ἐκέλευσα vat, ἀλλὰ µετε[ Ἀντωνῖνος Σεβασ]τὸς εἶπεν. ἀπεκῖ ο.1ο Ηράκλειτος ε]ῖπεν' οὐκ ε. Ἀν]τωνῖνος Σεβαστ[ος εἶπεν' ........ "Ηρ]άκλειτος εἶπεν" ] Ἀντωνῖνος Σ[εβαστὸς εἶπεν' .......].αχη εἴζασ) ασας΄ αὐτὰς

Ίπον "Ηράκλειτο[ς εἶπεν" ἐργ]ατεία [.. ]]ἦσαν αὖ]..c προφέθη.α 15 Ἀντωνῖνος Σεβασ]τὸς εἶπεν' ἕτεραι γὰ[ρ "Ηρά]κλειτος εἶπεν" τ]ο πεπληρωμένον a.[ ] Ἀντωνῖνος Σεβαστὸ[ς εἶπεν' .......«]..' 'ΗράκλειἸ..σουτ.ακ...' Ἀντω[νῖνος Σεβαστὸς εἶπ]εν' τος εἶπεν ὕ]πόμνημα ‘Hpapxos α[ 90 Ίον τοὺς ἐργολάβους π[ Jov καὶ τῶν ᾿]ταλικοῦ [ |v ἀναγκαίως ἐμ[

Japa ᾿]ταλικὸς np Jou dvayvwob[evtos? "Ἠρ]αρχος ἀνέγνοι τ[ὰ ὑπομνήματα ] πρόσελθε' Ἀντων[ἴνος Σεβαστὸς εἶπεν' ἐκέλε]υσα τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ κ[ ἐ]ξουσίας οὐκ ἐπεζητ[ Ίος ἱε]ροσυλία γείνεται τηλικ[αύτη ile Ἀντωνῖνος |]Σεβαστὸς εἶπεν' ἀκο[. Γι aE ἑκατ]όνταρχοι ὤφειλον [ ἑκατον]ταρχο[ ]. Ἀ]ντωνῖνος Σεβαστὸ[ς εἶπεν:

κ’ πρὸς Ἰκλ...:

col. ii dyew πρὸς σὲ π]άντας το]ὺς οὐ τριάκον[τα χωρὶς

ὑπομνημάτω]ν'

Ἀντωνῖνο[ς

25

30

Σεβαστὸς εἶπεν" (9) ἐκ κατασκευ-

XVIII

HERACLITI

ACTA

78

(35) doparos αὐτὰ π[....Ίατα λέγουσιν καὶ .[ νον. ᾿Ηράκλειτο[ς εἶπε]ν' διὰ τί δούλους [ 5 ἀναγνωσθέγ[τ.. Ἀ]ντωνῖνος Σεβα[στὸς εἶπεν λεγα διὰ τί δραπ[έτας]; “Hpapxos elev: [ ας δραπετῶν [.... prov: Ἀντω[νῖνος Σεβαστὸς εἶπεν: ἡγέμων οὐκ ἂν οὕτως ἔκρινεν' “H[papxos (3) εἶπεν: (49) σκολασα. εὑρήσεις αὐτοκράτωρ Ἀ[ντωνῖνος Σεβαστὸς εἶπεν" 1ο τις ἐν Ἀλεξ[αν]δρείᾳ σήμερον χρηµατ[ [.]ιον ἢἤ τι ἄλλο; "Ηραρχος εἶπεν" προ.[ κε-] φαλαίου ἄκουσον ἵνα µαθῇς ὅτι pol Ἀντωνῖνος Σεβαστὸς εἶπεν" ἄλλο .[ (45) ves πρεσβεῦσαι καὶ στασιάσαι ἐπα.] 15 sees [. ἔγγραψα αὐτῷ ὅτι εἰ μὲν ἐνεκ[ [.]....[.....] αὐτοὺς ἔτι ἃ ὕστερον ἐγρ[αψ σ.[ | πάντων πρεσβείαν ἀπο[ (50) ]. πρεσβεύειν ἦσαν 6..[ pel 2

3

-

4

af [

&

>

Ww

ae

>

\

>

η

20

ε.[ ε.πῳσυσ.α[

ἀπ]ό]ρρητον πρε]σ]βε[ίαν

(55)

ο[.Ίαν ἀναγνωφθέντος: Αντων[ῖνος Σεβαστὸς εἶπεν" οµ..ου τότε γενοµένου καὶ ἀποί 25 πυνθάνοµαι μηδὲν ἀγαθὸν γε[ ἃ δεῖ μαθεῖν παρὰ πᾶσιν εἰ οὖν S[ ed βουλεύσασθαι αἱ μὲν γὰρ πληρωσά]μεναι ἔ-] (6ο) µελλεν πληροῦν. ἐγδικήσω τὴν .[ καὶ ὑπέστητε τότε εἰσελθεῖν εἰπό[ντες a-| πόρρητον ἡμῖν πρεσβείαν ἐνεξ[ οι “a

A

χο

A

/

Δ

/

col

>

>

A

x

>

/

>

Note: The notes are by the editors, unless otherwise stated. Col. ἑ 1. lets (?) rather than |ng. There is a diaeresis above initial υ (as in il. 16; and initial in i. 21, 23). 2. I have printed the supplement Ao.d[opodvra, κτλ., from the editors’ suggestion.

XVIII

ACTA

HERACLITI

79

6. -δεκα extends beyond the ordinary length of the line; it is an addition apparently by the same hand that inserted the marginal annotations at col. ii. 1 {. 7. Perhaps supply [ζερα, [Σεβαστεῖα, or the like: H. Μ. g. ]...ναι: Ίσειναι is possible. 1Ο. [ούκ ἐκέλευσα]: H. M. The editors note the presence of a number of dots over ἀλλὰ µε. L. ἐνδοτέροις. 11. The editors suggest here a form of ἀποκρύπτω. 13. Perhaps Ἴλαχη or [δι]ῥάχη. 14. Perhaps ἐργ]άλεια (Bell). 141. Possibly ad|rat (sc. εἰκόνες): H. M. 15. Perhaps ]Aae προφέθη.α; the second last letter has been corrected. 16. a.[: perhaps az, az, or just possibly apz[. 18. The editors suggest here Ύγισουτι or ανσουτι followed by ἃ κἀγῴ (or axAnp?). 24. Perhaps [ὑπομνηματισμ]οῦ: H. Μ. 25. Suppl. H. M. 81. At the end, ].a: (?). Col. tt 1 f. Margin: according to the editors, the traces do not suit the obvious Κ{αΐσαρ) πρὸς | [Ηρά]κλειτον, but one feels that something like this was in the text. 2f. I have printed the editors’ suggestion ἐκ κατασκευ]]άσματος. 3. Perhaps a[pdypjara. πλάσμ]ατα: edd. 6. λεγα: the editors suggest δου]|λεία. Possibly there is an error here for λέγε. 7. The editors print αὔ]ριον and (ll. 10 f.) suggest αὔ]ρ]ιον. 8. After ἔκρινεν, a space. The supplement, not printed by the editors, would appear very probable. 14. At the end, perhaps (though very doubtfully) ἐχραφ[; in any case, after a, a stroke which could belong to ¢ or ψ, unless perhaps it is actually part of a p, ¢, or ψ following ἄλλο of the preceding line: so edd. 15. At the beginning, almost certainly κ... .[, the second letter being a (?) rather than λ. 16. At the beginning, perhaps ]qv. .[. 18. μεῖ rather than po. 22. πῳ may perhaps be του, and before a, perhaps σ (?) : so edd. Possibly we 25. Apparently not op(e)iAov. Perh. should read εἴπω σὺ cealut-?

όμοιουᾷ

(8ο)

XIX P. Ryl. 437

η! oer au?

space)

|

ἐὰν ο|ὂ]ν xpol veow εὐπρακ[τ κρίσιν λέγῃς .[ i}

/

ὠφεληθήσετ[αι ἐὰν κακοποιῷ]σι

καὶ ἄπρακτα τ[ εἰς πλοῖον ἐλ[θ εἴην δὴ καὶ εἰ [ mW

Ν

A

»

10

Ll. 1-2, 10 were not transcribed by the edd. 2. Most probably the ending of a future tense; this would fit in with the rest of the fragment. The space following suggests a change of speaker (whose name may have been indented, as in P. Berol. 8877, above). _ 8. οὖν seems the only likely supplement. 4. εὔπρακ[τα edd. 5. Aeyn edd. 7. Kkaxorrovo{ edd. 10. The optative is unexpected here; perhaps ἄν in the previous line.

very doubtful and perhaps written over a correction.

καὶ

(81) XX

P. Rendel Harris ined. (a) (margin) |v way παρουσ.[ Ίτης πρὸς τὸν “Ipe[pov? αὐτοκρ]άτορα καὶ κύριον [ ].[.]vov θεοῦ πρὸ } [ἐτῶν5

Ίε Ἀρχίας γενό]μ]εῖνος

5

σεβ]αστοὶ προστ[

I. πᾶν apparenily corrected from πᾶς. At the end, af is more likely than ᾖ. 4. Ἴνον. Certainly not ἵε]ρον. At the end, the prolongation of the top of the y suggests that a word beginning with zpoy- is less likely. 5. γένη[ται could also be read. 6. προστ[άται is a tempting possibility.

5498

G

(89)

ΧΧΙ

Ρ. Rendel Harris ined. (0) Recto

Verso

Jone Ἰτομοί Ίνησε-

Jes τ.[ ] πασα[ Joon γραἱ

Ίκη

] κοιτων/.

Ί.ν.σκω[ 1 ἡγεμών] Ίοις μὲν [

5

Ίστω τεκ[ διατ]άγματα [ Ίναι παρ

ἵδανες [ Ἴιανον Ίκο. .[

? Φαμ]ενὼθ [ 10

15

Ἰσδιστί τ]ῷ θεῷ [

20

Ίμενος κ Recto

4. A form perhaps of κοιτωνίτης. 5. Just possibly γ]ωῴσκω, although the space between ν and o seems too narrow for either w or η. Better perhaps is νε]ανίσκω]. 8. τεκ[ν- or τεκ[μ- suggest themselves.

( 83 )

Il. COMMENTARY

I

PSI 1160: The ‘Boule Papyrus’ THE

TEXT

Tus large papyrus, measuring 16-5 x 23 cm. and written in an early Roman hand, was first edited by G. Vitelli and M. Norsa in BSAA ν.». vii (1930), pp. 9-12 (with a collotype reproduction) and later in PSI x (1932), n. 1160." Its provenance is unknown; acquired originally from an Egyptian collection in 1930, it is now in Florence in the collection of

the Societa Italiana.

The text consists of remains of two columns written in a narrow, upright, semi-cursive hand. On the recto (of col. ii)? are some accounts of apparently uncertain date. The editors inclined to date the text to the first century B.c. But in such texts where there is an apparent attempt to imitate the standard bookhand, dating can be very difficult, and in the case of PSI 1160 doubt has been expressed in many quarters. Bell, for example, felt that the writing was ‘hardly earlier than

Tiberius’, and in this I should incline to agree with him. If we

compare the hand with other examples from about the end of the first century B.c.,3 I think that we may reasonably date PSI 1160 later—say, in the first half of the first century A.D. 1 See also SB 7448 and Norsa, Scritture documentarie, Rome, 1933, tav. 11a. 2 The sheet on which col. i was written had been glued to that of col. il in such a way that the writing of col. i is along the fibres and that of col. ii across the fibres. Bell has suggested that this second sheet, probably the last, may have been the protocollon of a roll: GEA xxx (1949), pp. 167-9. 3 Cf., for example, Norsa, Scrit. letteraria, Florence, 1939, tav. 74, 4 B.C. ;Ee

Merton 8, pl. 11, of A.D. 3/4. Both Wilcken and Schubart had expressed the opinion that the hand of PSI 1160 could belong to the time of Claudius.

I

COMMENTARY

84

Without repeating the palaeographical description given by Norsa (esp. in ο. docum. 11a), we may add that besides occasional spacing there is no other sign of punctuation; a hook-like mark (1. 20) is probably a paragraphus; the diaeresis is used once to mark a peculiar correction (1. 10); s-adscript, sometimes intrusive, is used; and there are signs of the longtailed, space-filling ε at the ends of lines (esp. in cols. iand ii. 6). INTERPRETATION

OF

THE

TEXT

The editors in their various editions of the text, as well as in an article in BSAA ix (1932), pp. 1-16, have persistently held to their original interpretation of the papyrus. If we may be permitted some simplification, their position can be summed up as follows: (1) The text is considered to be an excerpt from official Egyptian archives—or at least a copy of such an excerpt—and in no sense

a semi-literary text comparable to the Acta Alexandrinorum. ‘The numerals at the top of col. ii indicate the volume and page of the official τόμος συγκολλήσιµος. (9) It is an account of an audience given by Octavian, shortly

after the fall of Alexandria in 30 B.c., to prominent Alexandrians somewhere in Egypt. (3) The dramatic date is, in Miss Norsa’s own words: ‘prima della abolizione definitiva della boule, cioé, quando, in seguito alla caduta di Alessandria, la boule era sciolta ο semplicemente sospesa di convocazione’.' In this view, therefore, Alexandria offi-

cially had a Senate at the time of its capture (1 Aug. 30 B.c.) 12 the delegation of PSI 1160 were merely hoping to forestall the threat-

ened abolition of their Boule—which took place finally under Augustus (according to the editors’ interpretation of Cassius Dio aly). Among papyrus,’

the various scholars who commented on the the first real note of disagreement came from

™ Quoted by Wilcken, Archiv, ix (1930), p. 254. 3 Jouguet rightly rejected the editors’ theory that the Alexandrian Senate might have been instituted by Antony and Cleopatra: see BAO xxx (1931), p- 527, n. 2.

3 Cf. G. de Sanctis, Atti R. Acc. Torino, xv (1930), pp. 513-15, who, though agreeing with the editors in most points, felt that the document did seem to

presuppose

the Senate as actually non-existent. Wilcken, Archiv, ix (1930),

1

PSI 1160

85

Schubart.' Following the suggestion of earlier scholars, that the Alexandrians had already lost their Senate under the Ptolemies—perhaps under Ptolemy VIII Euergetes IT (145116 B.c.)—Schubart took the view that the envoys of PSI 1160 were pleading for the reorganization of a non-existent Boule.? Further, mistrusting the dating of the papyrus, he went so far as to suggest that the emperor in question might even be Claudius; in which case the papyrus would definitely link up with Claudius’ Letter to the Alexandrines. Bell? and J. H. Oliver* took up a position very nearly approaching Schubart’s, although they disagreed with his view that the papyrus was an excerpt from an official document ;

instead, both were inclined to regard it as a semi-literary piece similar to the Acta Alexandrinorum. Norsa and-Vitelli5 then undertook the task of refuting the position of Schubart, Bell, and Oliver, and were seconded in this by Wilcken.® Wilcken, in particular, in reply to Oliver’s contention that the word ἐπίτροπος (for ‘prefect’ of Egypt) was an indication of a literary text, made the very plausible ΡΡ. 253-6, for the most part defended the editors’ interpretation, although he suggested that the date of the hand might be later. 1 Forsch. u. Fortschr. vi (1930), ΡΡ. 274.f., and BAO xxx (1931), pp. 407-15. It was in the latter article that Schubart developed his novel interpretation of the Dio passage, already intimated in his note in Gnomon, i (1925), p. 32 n. We shall consider this farther on. 2 There is no real evidence for Mommsen’s view, later taken up by Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization (19307), p. 161, that Alexander’s foundation was not a polis, i.e. lacked a Boule; cf. also Tarn (19523), p. 185. See P. Jouguet, Trois études, pp. 118 Π., and ‘Les Assemblées d’Alexandrie a l’époque ptolémaique’, BSAA xxxvii (1948), pp. 71 ff.; Bell, Egypt, p. 52. Unfortunately our only epigraphical evidence for an Alexandrian Boule in Ptolemaic times is an inscription from s. iii/ii Β.α., whose provenance was disputed (Alexandria, according to Botti; Rhodes according to Wilhelm, who later withdrew the suggestion) : see SB 3996 (Breccia, Iscr. greche, n. 164); G. Plaumann, Klio, xiii (1913), ΡΡ. 485 ff.; Segré, BSAA xxxii (1938), pp. 135 f. It is a decree of the demos and Boule of an unnamed city, but the restoration Ἀλεέαν]δρέων appears quite certain. For a discussion of the evidence, see Jouguet, Trois études, loc. cit., and his article in BSAA, loc. cit. Cf. also Jones, CERP, p. 471, n. 7, and p. 329 (the restoration of the Boule by Septimius Severus c. 119/200), and Wilcken, Archiv, vii (1924), pp. 84 f. F. Smolka, in Eos xxxiv (1932/3) adds little to the controversy. Curiously enough, Carcopino in REA Ἱκὶ (1949), p. 309 still held the theory that Augustus suppressed the Boule, adding that it was restored even 3 FEA xvii (1931), p. 126. before the time of Severus. 4 Aeg. xi (1930/1), pp. 161-8, with a note by Bell, p. 168.

5 BSAA xxvii (1932), pp. 1-16.

6 Archiv, x (1932), pp. 255 f.

COMMENTARY

86

I

suggestion that in the early period of the Roman domination the definite term was not yet fixed.!

In an important article in Aegyptus? Bell brought the pro-

blem once again up to date. Without repeating all his arguments, it may be useful to summarize his conclusions: (1) The text would appear to be a semi-literary piece based on

official commentarii, like the Pagan Acts of the Martyrs. Not only

the content but the handwriting as well points in this direction.

(2) As for the dating of the hand, Bell wrote: ‘The last three

lines . . . recall to my mind rather the hands seen in documents

from the latter part of Augustus’ reign or the early years of Tiberius’ (p. 176) ; a date in Claudius’ reign, however, could not be excluded. (3) The document seems to suggest that the Senate was, at the time, non-existent; but this does not, of course, solve the question of Augustus’ alleged dissolution of the Senate, since the papyrus

might still be an account of an audience with Claudius, as Schubart suggested (p. 179).

Bell then went on to examine the three critical passages that deal with the Alexandrian Senate: SHA Sev. 17; Cassius Dio li. 17, and P. Jews 1912, 66-72. With regard to the crucial Dio passage, Bell at the time agreed, in the main, with Schubart’s view? that nothing can be deduced from Dio about

Augustus’ abolition of the Boule: what Dio meant was that Augustus refused the Alexandrians merely the privilege of becoming senators at Rome+—a privilege not granted until Caracalla’s reign. In any case, Bell felt that Claudius’ words in P. Jews 1912 were decisive in this matter: if Augustus had abolished an existing Boule, Claudius could hardly have failed to exploit such a powerful argument. Summing up his position once again, Bell concluded® that

PSI 1160 was a semi-literary text, based on official Acta, which records the pro-

ceedings of an Alexandrian embassy to Octavian, either during 1 Loc. cit., p. 255. But see my note (1. 9, p. 990) below. 2 ‘The Problem of the Alexandrian Senate’, Aeg. xii (1932), pp- 173-84. See also his more recent article, ‘The Acts of the Alexandrines’, 770 iv (1950), Ρρ. 25-27. 3 Advanced in BAO xxx (1931), pp. 412 Π. * Thus (following Schubart) interpreting the words ἄνευ βουλευτῶν πολιτεύεσθαι ἐκέλευσε. But Bell has since, as he has privately informed me, withdrawn this view. 5 Loc. cit., p. 184; cf. 178, loc. cit., p. 26.

1

‘

PSI

1160

87

his stay in Egypt or more probably at a later period, or just possibly of an embassy to Claudius, sent to ask for the grant of a senate.

Although I am inclined to share Bell’s view on the Boule

papyrus, I have some misgivings about Schubart’s interpreta-

tion of the Dio passage. As P. Viereck has pointed out,’ the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the Dio passage is that Augustus not only refused the Alexandrians the privilege

of becoming Roman senators but also the permission to have

their own Senate. In conclusion, Viereck makes the following comments on the Boule papyrus: (1) Alexandria had no Senate when Octavian captured it in 30 B.C. 52

(2) PSI 1160 is not a semi-literary text but the authentic record of an audience with Octavian and thus confirms the Dio passage ; (3) Claudius’ Letter indicates that he must have been ignorant of this request and of Augustus’ refusal: the petition was probably forgotten with so many of the others which were made at the beginning of the principate.? CONCLUSION

Despite Viereck’s conviction, the problem of PSI 1160 is

s the ~ not so easily solved. In the first place, there still remain not, of impression that the piece is semi-literary. This need event; the course, cast any doubt upon the historicity of the

ιῶν papyrus might well have belonged to the category of πρεσβε

and thus συναγωγοί, ‘Collections of Reports on Embassies’,*

of the might represent an early stage in the transmission various Acta texts. an In the second place, I should still be inclined to follow is us papyr early suggestion of Schubart’s,’ that the Boule ¥ Λερ. xii (1932), ΡΡ. 210-16. ὑμῖν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων βασιλέων, 2 Cf. Ρ. Jews 1912, 66 f.: 6 τι µέν ποτε σύνηθες k that οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν is Vierec with agree not do I r, Howeve οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν. g to say’, i.e. ‘whether nothin have ‘T rather means it ; a confession of ignorance nt: I am following irreleva is kings, t ancien a Senate existed or not under your of Egypt, p. 283. History Milne, also Cf. on’. traditi Roman taken up by Jouguet, ‘Les 3 Aeg., loc. cit., Ῥ. 215- Viereck’s view has been 75 f. ΡΡ. (1948), xxxvii BSAA Assemblées d’Alexandrie’, works) ;see also p. 249, η. 1, 4 Diog. Laert. v. 80 (enumerating Aristotle’s p. 471, 0. 75 And adopted, for example, by Jones, CERP, below.

88

‘COMMENTARY

I

definitely to be linked with Claudius’ Letter to the Alexandrines, and that it preserves the actual proposal which Claudius refused in A.D. 41. The reasons for this are admittedly not completely convincing, but they may be summarized as follows: (a) It would appear from the text that Roman domination has already become familiar to the Alexandrians: the taxes, the power of the prefect, the procedure for choosing ambassadors to Rome. (6) The complaint about fraudulent admission to the ephebate (PSI, 3 ff.) is again resumed by Claudius in Ῥ. Jews 1912, 53 Π., and also perhaps in his wish that the Jews should not engage in the cosmetic games (P. Jews 1912, 92 ff.). (c) The advantages that an Alexandrian Boule would bring to Rome as well as Alexandria would correspond very well with Claudius’ disclaimer in P. Jews 1912, 69 f. (ἄδηλον εἰ συνοίσει τῇ πόλει καὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς πράγµασι).Ι

(d) Finally, this dating somewhat weakens the difficulty with regard to Claudius’ alleged ignorance of any previous proposal ;? for without the support of PSI 1160, the Dio passage alone need not demand that the Alexandrians had sent an embassy to Augustus with a formal petition for a Senate. Col. 1. 24 would appear to be the end of the column. Col. 1% 1. # κβ. These letters have presented a puzzle. The editors, followed by Wilcken, held that they indicated respectively the topos and κόλλημα of the original archives from which the papyrus

was copied. Bell (Aeg. xii, 1932, pp. 175 f.) suggested that the a might be in a different hand and hence could have been written on the page before the roll was used for the present document; the κβ, on the other hand, written by the scribe of PSI 1160, would

indicate the number of the column. Although I do not feel that the ji was indeed made by a different hand, it is difficult to make 1 So too Jones, loc. cit. An alternative, of course, would be that the Alexan-

drians used the same sort of reasons with Claudius as they (presumably) did with Augustus. * Cf. esp. P. Jews 1912, 69: καινοῦ δὴ πράγματος viv πρῶτον καταβαλλομένου.

1

PSI 1160

89

a suggestion. The only other plausible interpretation of ᾷ is µ(ηνός). I would like to see in κβ, the 22nd, one of the ἡμέραι XeBaorai—see especially W. F. Snyder, Aeg. xviii (1938), p. 204—but too much

would have to be understood, and perhaps the letters do, after all, represent the position of the document in a public or private archive or library. 2. φροντιεῖν ἵνα, κτλ., apparently governs the subjunctive throughout (as Bell suggested), unless we assume in Il. g ff. that the subjunctives stand for imperatives.

4. εἰ µή τι. The τι is probably otiose; cf. also Max. I. 47. The orator here begins an enumeration of the advantages that an Alexandrian Senate would bring to Rome as well as to Alexandria. They are: (i) The Senate would stop illicit enrolment in the ephebate, thus protecting the purity of Alexandrian citizenship (11. 2-6) as well as the civitas Romana.

(ii) It would report to the prefect any exploitation in the matter of taxes, thus protecting Rome’s revenues (6-11). (iii) It would control the selection of those who went to Rome as envoys to the imperial court (11-14). On this point cf. Schubart, Forsch. u. Fort. vi (1930), pp. 274 f., and BAO xxx (1931), Ρ. 410. ἐφήβους. The usual age for registration in the ephebate in

Egypt seems to have been 14 years: cf. P. Jouguet, La Vie municipale, pp. 150 ff.; Wilcken, Grundziige, i. 1, pp. 140 ff. For further

literature on the ephebate see J. Oehler, RE v (1903), 273746; E. Ziebarth, Aus dem griech. Schulwesen (Leipzig, 19147), esp. pp. 82 ff.; R. Taubenschlag, pp. 58 ff.

The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, ii,

On the illegal registration of ephebes by parents who were noncitizens see also P. Jews 1912, 53 ff., and Bell’s note ad loc. According to the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, n. 44, the penalty was confiscation of a sixth of one’s property. Cf. also n. 40, and see the commentary of Uxkull-Gyllenband (Berlin, 1934), Ρ. 26. The process of acquiring citizenship at Alexandria was apparently similar to that which obtained at Athens: but even at Athens there appears to have been some relaxation during the Roman period. Ordinarily citizenship would be obtained either by birth or through an official grant; and admission to the ephebate (at the age of 18 in Athens) presupposed the citizenship of the parents, requiring that the candidate be previously enrolled in the records of a particular deme. But according to a recent study by O. W. Reinmuth,

9ο

COMMENTARY

I

‘The Ephebate and Citizenship in Attica’, TAPA Ixxix (1948), p. 224, it would appear that at Athens ‘shortly after 39/8 [B.c.], all ephebes, whether of Attic or non-Attic origin, were ipso facto regarded as citizens. Enrollment in the ephebia became a third way by which the right of citizenship could be achieved.’ However this was achieved at Alexandria—whether by bribery or by falsification of the records—it undoubtedly gave Alexandrian

citizens more cause for alarm because of the infiltration of Jewish and Egyptian elements into the gymnasium. If the envoys of PSI 1160 intended this as a complaint (at least in part) against the

Jews, then this might well be a partial explanation of Claudius’ reference to the Jews’ engaging in the cosmetic games (P. Jews

1912, gI f.). For a further discussion of the problems connected with Alexandrian citizenship see Schubart, Archiv, v (1909), pp. 81 ff.; Jones, CERP, p. 304 and n. 8; Reinmuth, TAPA lxxviii (1947), ΡΡ. 433 nS and Taubenschlag, The Law, ii, pp. 23 ff. and pp. 58 ff. 4. Ὑρα[φήν, τὴν] πρόσοδον. Bell’s suggestion here is most convincing from every point of view. I find it difficult to follow the editors in their view, BSAA viii (1932), p. 6, that the legates are

speaking in terms of the Ptolemaic census and tax and not of the Roman λαογραφία. In the latter case, of course, the dramatic date could hardly be earlier than 24/3 B.c., the probable date of the introduction of the Roman

poll-tax by Augustus

(cf. Wallace,

Taxation in Egypt, p. 116). That a regular Ptolemaic poll-tax (called σύνταξις) existed is possible; but I cannot resist the impression that the legates are here speaking of abuses which arose during the Roman administration. For the controversy on the poll-tax see C. Préaux, Les Ostraca grecs . . au Musée de Brooklyn (New York,

&c., 1935), pp- 28 ff, on which see the review by Bell, EA xxiii (1937), Ppp. 135 ff.; Wallace,

Taxation, pp. 116 Π., and ‘Census

and Poll-Tax under the Ptolemies’, A7P ix (1938), pp. 418 ff.; Préaux, L’Economie royale des Lagides (Brussels, 1939), pp. 380 ff.; Bell, ‘The Constitutio Antoniniana and the Egyptian Poll-Tax’, 7RS

xxxvii (1947), pp. 17 ff. The entire question was again reviewed by Tcherikover in 77P iv (1950), pp. 179 ff. See also P. Ryl. 667, in which the word λαογραφία occurs, dated by the editors to the end οἱ. ii B.c. 8. πράκτορος. On the possible extension of the meaning of the word see P. Ryl. 595, Introduction. 9. ἐπίτροπον. If the papyrus dates from the time of Octavian, the official term may not have become fixed, as Wilcken suggested.

1

PSI 1160

gt

On the other hand, it must be recalled that (presumably) an Alexandrian advocate is speaking and even at a later date he might avoid the official term, as Philo does so often in Jn Flaccum _cf. Stein, Die Préfekten, p. 26. 11. διαφορηθῃ. On the crime of extortion (διασεισµός) see Uxkull-Gyllenband, Der Gnomon des Idios Logos, ii (Berlin, 1934), p. 50, n. 3, pp. 71 ff.; Taubenschlag, The Law, i, pp. 342 f. In connexion with the Edict of Tiberius Julius Alexander (OGJS 669) see especially Bell, “The Economic Crisis in Egypt under Nero’, FRS xxviii (1938), pp. 1-8; for later bibliography see S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris romani anteiustiniani, i (Florence, 19417), p. 318. Once again the abuses mentioned would seem to suit a later period. 13. The copyist first wrote μήτε ἀσθενής τις, then changed the second word to εὔθετος, and finally decided to delete the entire phrase, enclosing it in parentheses. It is from this that the editors

have rightly restored ε[ὔθετός τις] at the end of the line. It is just possible that the scribe was freely adapting a document which

contained the word ἀσθενής; I think it more likely, however, that he was led into error by the previous ἀσθενοῦσι (I. 9). 14. φεύγηι thy. . . ὑπηρεσίαν. A suggestion that serving on an embassy was already being considered almost as a liturgy. The experience which the orator seems to reveal with this type of evasion is perhaps another indication of a later date. For the expression cf. Chariton vi. iv. 10, where for πρὸς ὑπηρεσίαν we should, I think, read πατρίδος ὑπηρεσίαν.

14 ff. Now follows a Summary of the Proposed By-Laws of the

the Senate. Here again there is no hint that we are dealing with

reconstitution of an already existing Boule or even (as Norsa suggested) of one but recently dissolved. See Bell, Aeg., loc. cit., p. 179. 16Η. For various attempts to reconstruct these lines see Norsa—

Vitelli, PSI 1160 and note ad loc. 18. προσοριζόµενον χρόνον, ‘for a determined (definite) period’ t, or, just possibly, ‘for a period to be determined’. Cf. Schubar BAO, loc. cit., p. 411 n. a1 ff. Norsa-Vitelli (followed by Viereck) suggest

Καΐσαρ εἶπεν [blank space μαι ἐπειδὰν πρῶτον περὶ τούτων διαλήμψο[ ἐπανέλθω. ν δρε[ια εἷς Ἀλεξάν I do not But obviously many other supplements are possible. that the 5) 11 p. us, (Claudi tion conten iano’s understand Momigl

92

COMMENTARY

I

emperor’s reply here makes it unlikely that this is an account of the embassy of Α.Ρ. 41. Even if the text has not been re-worked, the verb διαλήµψομαι (‘I shall come to a decision’) is non-committal,

and the supplement could well be, for example, καὶ ἀπόκριμα πέµψω] |eis κτλ., or the like, referring to a written reply.

(93)

IT

P. Oxy. 1089: The Interview with Flaccus THE

TEXT

Founp in the great papyrus-treasure from Behnesa (along with so many other fragments of the Acta Alexandrinorum), P, Oxy. 1089 was first edited in 1911. Measuring 25 x14°1 cm., the

torn, discoloured, and badly abraded fragment contains the remains of three columns;

there were also several smaller

detached pieces. The present text is based on a personal revision of the original with the assistance of C. H. Roberts; it is now in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, as MS. gr. class. d. τοι (P). In general appearance, the narrow, upright hand (written on the verso of a second-century land-survey) recalls other literary or semi-literary texts of the early third century. Gren-

fell and Hunt dated the hand ‘probably from the third century’. But even the first half of the third century would not be an unreasonable date. There is no evidence of spacing in our text. But the scribe used the diaeresis over initial ι and v; there-is a stroke like

a circumflex accent (1. 27), probably to indicate syllable

division ;some marginal marks of doubtful significance (ll. 26, 32) are probably a corrector’s symbols; and the space-filling e with the elongated middle stroke is used at the ends of 11. 20, 25, 28, 51, 56. INTERPRETATION

OF

THE

TEXT!

At the beginning of col. ii Flaccus is pictured proceeding

to the Temple of Serapis, after giving orders, probably to ! There are brief notices on the text by Kérte and Wilcken in Archiv, vi (1913), pp. 247 and 289. Von Premerstein’s far-reaching efforts to restore the text were considered unconvincing by Bell (cf. Fuden u. Griechen, pp. 21 f.), but his historical notes in AM, pp. 4-14, are valuable. He was followed for the most part by Neppi Modona, Raccolta Lumbroso (Milan, 1925), pp. 411-133 further discussion of the text can be found in P. Giss. 46 (Giessen, 1939),

94

COMMENTARY

II

some of his principales, to arrange some ‘business’ secretly. The two Alexandrian leaders, Isodorus and Dionysius, likewise

make their way plan. They are connected with her relationship

to the Serapeum, obviously by a prearranged accompanied by a woman who was possibly Isidorus (note the position of her name) ; but to the story is hardly clear. It is rash to con-

clude, as some do, that she was to be given over to Flaccus by way of bribe or pledge. Her presence here might be merely fortuitous and she may not be connected with the Flaccus

incident at all. Unless the author has slurred the point, she

does not seem to have venerated the god’s statue with the men. The meeting with Flaccus is apparently supposed to seem casual; the Greeks pay their respects to Serapis in the usual way. But ‘the elder’! is aware of their intentions: apparently disregarding Isidorus, he directs his petition to Dionysius, obviously the leader in the affair. But his attempt to dissuade Dionysius is unsuccessful. The prefect’s appearance at this juncture seems abrupt; unless this is due, once again, to the author’s style, it may be an indication (as GH had suggested) that Flaccus had been in hiding. The ‘business’, he informs them, has been arranged : he is now ready to begin negotiations. Here someone breaks in, possibly a temple official; he beseeches the prefect not to harm Isidorus and Dionysius and reinforces his petition with an oath. But here the text becomes unintelligible: all we can follow is that five talents in gold are to be counted out in the middle of the temple, and there is mention of a certain amount of interest.3 This is all that the papyrus tells us and it is very

little. PP. 32-35, 38-40; and see in this connexion

K. F. W. Schmidt’s review in

Phil. Woch. (1940), p. 268. Cf. also Bell, 77P iv (1950), 27-29. τ On the identification of 6 γεραιός, see the note on 1. 32, p. 100 below. In any case it is hardly likely that he was a Jew. 2 Though we have no evidence that Dionysius was ever tried before the Roman authorities, the present fragment might well have been part of Acta Dionysii, since he seems to be the main character in the story. His prominence is probably due to the fact that he was a Roman citizen and Isidorus was not. On the association of these two classes in the Acta see pp. 276 ff. below. 3 The fact that the scene is laid in the Serapeum need not arouse disbelief. For an instance of the solemnization of a contract by making it in the Serapeum

see P. Cairo Zen. 59355, with the comments by Wilcken, Archiv, vii (1924),

95

P. OXY. 1089

11 Von

Premerstein’s

theory

(hitherto

accepted

by many

scholars), that the Greeks were paying Flaccus for an exitpermit in order to go to Rome, was based largely upon his own restoration of ll. 56 f., and this, as we shall see, cannot stand (see the note ad loc.). Flaccus is obtaining a favour for

Dionysius (and Isidorus), a favour for which the Greeks are

apparently to pay dearly; but what it is we cannot say. Obviously the arrangement would appear to be disreputable, as Dionysius has already refused to meet the prefect on a

previous occasion, and now he prefers to keep his own counsel

rather than consult the Alexandrian gerousia. Was Flaccus charging a price for his connivance in the Jewish persecution? Or, as I am more inclined to believe, is the Prefect here pictured as engaging in usury?? P.

OXY.

1089

AS

HISTORY

Although Wilcken held that the Acta were in general based on authentic commentarii and described them as ‘[historische] Einlagen innerhalb einer Rahmenerzahlung’,? yet in the case

of the present fragment he admitted ‘hier haben wir zum

erstenmal ein Stiick, das ganz der Rahmenerzahlung angehért’.3 For it is obviously difficult to imagine how P. Oxy. 1089 could be based on any sort of written ‘protocol’. So, too, von Premerstein noted that the details of this episode ‘haben einen unverkennbaren Zug ins Romanhafte’.* Yet in his latest monograph, on P. Giss. 46 (the Gerousia papyrus), he inclined to consider it more as an historical document, dating it April/September A.D. 37 in order to link it up more closely

with the embassy to Gaius in P. Giss. 46.°

Law, i, pp. 77 ff.; W. Kunkel, ZSS li (1931), Ρ. 262, and Taubenschlag, The see hus Oxyrhync at Serapeum the in made loan a of Ρ. 390. For an instance Ῥ, Oxy. 269 (A.D. 57). 5 ff. 1 Cf. the charges against the prefect C. Vibius Maximus in Max. I. 289. Ῥ. (1913), vi Archiv, 3 837. p. 2 Antis., f., follows 4 AM, p. 14. Cf. Bell, 77P iv (1950), Ρ. 29. Box, Jn Flaccum, pp. lvi basis of von Premerstein for the most part and suggests that the historical part of the P. Oxy. 1089 was ‘a certain tendency to draw together on the interests of governor and the nationalist spokesmen in a matter wherein the we are the Jews were affected’. But since the evidence of the Gerousia papyrus not certain that P. Oxy. 1089 concerns the Jews at all. now be questioned. 5 All of von Premerstein’s conclusions, however, must

See p. 106 below.

96

COMMENTARY

II

‘The dramatic date of P. Oxy. 1089 presents a problem: certainly it must fall between the year 32 (or 33), the beginning of Flaccus’ prefecture, and October Α.Ρ. 38, when he was ignominiously brought back to Rome. But a point that has been overlooked by many scholars is the fact that some time during this period Isidorus, arrested by Flaccus for the slanderous lampoons he had instigated, was forced to flee from the city.t Nowhere does Philo say definitely that Isidorus ever returned to Alexandria; he merely mentions the fact of his presence in Rome in the winter of 38 for Flaccus’ trial.” Hence, although it is not certain that Isidorus was present at Alexandria for the pogrom of summer, A.D. 38,3 it may be inferred with some probability from Philo’s remark that Flaccus at this time made friends with those whom he had hated.* Now it is perhaps reasonable to suppose that Isidorus’ trial and exile took place in the early part of Flaccus’ prefecture, about the time of the prefect’s suppression of the clubs and associations® (over which, Philo tells us,° Isidorus had had

absolute control). Presuming, then, that Isidorus returned for the Jewish persecution of the year 38, we are left with two plausible periods for the dramatic date of P. Oxy. 1089: the beginning of Flaccus’ prefecture, i.e. about 32/3 ; or the period of anti-Semitic tension, 37/8. For some time must be allowed for Isidorus’ exile from Alexandria if Philo’s testimony is to be respected. CONCLUSION

All things considered, it would appear impossible to make the dramatic date more precise until we are able to understand the events of P. Oxy. 1089; and here, if we honestly put aside ' Flace. xvii. 139; CR, p. 145. The reason for the lampoons, according to Philo, was Isidorus’ anger with Flaccus because he was not being treated by the prefect with the same respect as before. 3 Μα. xv. 1253 OR, p. 143. 3 For Philo (Flacc. iv. 20; CR, p. 124) merely speaks of the leaders of the anti-Semitic faction as ‘demagogues like Dionysius, record-porers like Lampon, rebel-leaders like Isidorus’ ()Ισίδωροι στασίαρχαι), where the emphasis is more on the type than the individual. * Flacc. iv. 18; CR, p. 124. 5 Flacc. i. 4; CR, p. 121. 6 Flacc. xvii. 137; CR, p. 145.

P. OXY.

11

1089

97

all speculation, we really do not know what is taking place. Von Premerstein’s theory of the exit-permit lacks any foundation in the text. Again, although one might like to see in it the back-stair story of the Jewish pogrom of A.D. 38, we cannot exclude the possibility that P. Oxy. 1089 is merely an account of Flaccus’ illegal or usurious negotiations with the Alexandrian Greeks. In either case, however, the more likely date would seem to be ο. 37/8. With regard to the historicity of the document, I cannot

feel that we have sufficient evidence to condemn it out of hand as romanhaft. Although it is true that Philo tells us nothing of Flaccus’ venality, he does suggest the complete degeneration of the prefect’s character after the accession of Gaius.’ Again, the choice of the Serapeum as the scene of the negotiations might well have been a relic of an earlier legal custom, as we have noted above.‘In fine, despite the obvious literary

colouring of P. Oxy. 1089 and its apparent lack of dependence

upon written protocols, one feels that one must suspend judgement on the extent of its historicity until such time as we have a clearer picture of its contents. Col. i Many supplements are possible, of which the most interesting would be, for example, g f. Bov|A- (?) ; 16 ἥρ]ωα (?) 521 €]pes (with which compare Paul. vii. 9) ; 24. κυρ]ίῳ (1). Col. 12 25. Φλάκκ[ος].

Aulus

Avillius Flaccus, eques and amicus of

Tiberius, was appointed prefect of Egypt late in A.D. 32 or perhaps

early in the year 33. Most of the details of his life are drawn from Philo. For a discussion, see von Rohden, RE ii (1895), 2392, n. 33 L. Cantarelli, I Prefetti d’Egitto, n. 14; PIR 13 A 1414; Box, Jn Flaccum; Stein, Die Prafekten, pp. 26 f. Embarking on a new era of reform in Alexandria, Flaccus inbegincurred the hatred of the Greek nationalist leaders from the the forbade and ions ning: he suppressed their clubs and associat 94/5). A.D. 13, Chrest. (cf. s unlicensed possession of lethal weapon partyRidiculed by the Alexandrians at the instigation of the later but exiled, and trial to brought him had he , leader Isidorus 5498

1 Flacc. iv. 18; GR, p. 123. H

COMMENTARY

98

[

11

seems to have been reconciled with the anti-Semitic faction on the eve of the Jewish pogrom of 38. Falling from Gaius’ favour, Flaccus was arrested at Alexandria in October 38; banished to the island of Andros, he was finally murdered by Gaius’ henchmen probably ο. 39/40. Although in Flaccus’ disgrace Philo saw the punishment of divine providence for his complicity in the Jewish

persecution, Philo nevertheless praises him for his efficiency as an administrator, especially in the early part of his prefecture. 26. ἑτοιμ]άζεσθαι,

the editors’ restoration, seems

better than

von P.’s épy|d£ec8a:—even though the former may be a trifle long for the lacuna. 27. Ἰσίδωρος, the Alexandrian demagogue, 6 πικρὸς συκοφάντης, leader of Alexandria’s associations and anti-Semitic faction (cf. Philo, Flacc. xvii. 135-7; CR, p. 145). If the commonly accepted

dating of the Acta Isidori is correct (A.D. 53), since Isidorus gives his age then as 56 (P. Lond. 35), he must have been born ο. 5/4 B.C.

After his troubles under Flaccus, Isidorus undoubtedly returned to Alexandria: we hear of him again as a member of Apion’s embassy in Rome in the year 38 or 39 (Philo, Leg. xlv. 355; OR,

Ρ. 220); cf. Acta Isidori, my note on P. Berol. 22, below. Philo tells us nothing about Isidorus’ official position during Flaccus’ prefecture, and Stein is somewhat rash in presuming that he had been gymnasiarch at that time: RE ix (1916), 2061 f. Executed most probably under Claudius, he was revered at Alexandria as a political martyr along with Lampon and Theon (if we can believe

P. Oxy. 33 iv. 6). Of his descendants we have no information ;but one would suspect that his line did not completely die out amid the political factions at Alexandria. An advocate named ‘Isidorus the younger’ appears in a trial in Α.Ρ. 133 (P. Oxy. 237 vii. 25), and one named simply Isidorus in a trial, possibly at Alexandria, in

A.D. 160/2 (P. Oxy. 653 = Mitteis, Chrest. go). 27. Aphrodisia is a name that is common enough in the papyri and elsewhere. Von P. had suggested that she was an hetaera or slave (possibly Isidorus’ own) whom the Greeks were offering to

Flaccus as a kind of bribe or pledge (AM, p. 7). On this class of women in the papyri, see Lea Bringmann, Die Frau im ptol.-kaiserl. Aegypten, Diss. Bonn, 1939, pp. 119 ff.; and for an hetaera of this name,

cf. K. Schneider’s article in RE viii (1913),

1363. But

Aphrodisia may have been a nobly born lady of Isidorus’ family or circle and, as we have suggested above, may have had no connexion with the interview at all. An Alexandrian citizen of this name is mentioned in JG iii. 2245.

11

Ῥ. OXY.

1089

99

28. Διονυσίῳ. This name was, like Theon, common at Alexandria

—see below, pp. 102 ff.—but he is probably to be identified with the demagogue mentioned by Philo as an associate of Isidorus and Lampon

(Flacc. iv. 20; CR, p. 124); in all likelihood this is

C. Julius Dionysius, Roman citizen and one of the leaders of the Greek embassy to Claudius in A.D. 41. 28 ff. It is possible that Aphrodisia, having entered the temenos with the two men, may not actually have entered the Temple building—aunless this is due to the writer’s oversight. For the earlier literature on the Serapeum, see E. Breccia, Alexandrea ad Aegyptum, Bergamo, 1922, pp. 110 ff.; Wilcken, UPZ i, pp. 92 ff.;Calderini,

Diz. geog. i, pp. 140 ff. On the excavations, see A. Wace in ZHS Ixv (1945), pp. 106 ff. ;A. Rowe, ‘Discovery of the Famous Temple

and Enclosure of Serapis at Alexandria’, Annales du Service, Suppl. 2 (Cairo, 1946). It is now clear that the Serapeum of Ptolemaic and Roman times goes back no farther than Ptolemy III; if we are to believe the almost universal tradition that the cult was introduced by Ptolemy I Soter, we must assume either that Serapis began as a Nebengott or else that Soter constructed a temporary

building of wood in Rhakotis or elsewhere. On Parmenion (or Parmeniskos), to whom the construction of the Serapeum is attributed, see Wilcken in Archiv, vii (1924), pp. 77 f.; H. Riemann, ‘Parmenion’, RE xviii (1949), 1 567 Π., η. 5.

According to the later story (derived ultimately, perhaps, from a priestly tradition) which we find reflected in Plutarch, De 19. et Osir. 28 and Tacitus, Hist. iv. 83 f., the introduction of the cult was occasioned by a preternatural dream in which Ptolemy was urged to fetch the god’s statue from Pontus; and Ptolemy’s theological advisers at the time were reputed to be the Eumolpid Timotheus and the Egyptian priest Manetho. Whether or not, as some (e.g. G. Lippold) have argued, the statue-type was derived from Asia Minor, most would admit since the study of Wilcken in UPZ that Serapis was merely a Hellenized form of the Egyptian deity Osorapis. For the earlier literature on the problem of the origin of the cult, see Roeder, RE, 2te R. i (1920), 2394 ff.; G. Lippold, ‘Sarapis u. Bryaxis’, in Festsch. Arndt (Munich, 1925), pp. 115 ff, Anm.

1; Wilcken,

UPZ i, pp. 18 ff., 80 ff.; Visser,

(ον u. Kulte im ptol. Alexandrien, pp. 20 ff.; Τ. A. Brady, “The Reception of the Egyptian Cults by the Greeks, 330-30 B.C.’, in Univ. Missouri Studies, x (1935), η. 1; Jouguet, Ττοῦ Etudes, pp.

121 ff., and ‘Les premiers Ptolémées et l’Hellénisation de Sarapis’, Hom. Bidez et Cumont (1949), ii, pp. 159-66; Bell, Egypt, pp. 38 ff.;

COMMENTARY

100

II

HTR xli (1948), pp. 9 ff.; Η. C. Youtie, ‘The Kline of Sarapis’, 4 Alexandrie’, CE Sarapis de culte du Genése E. Kiessling, ‘La xxiv (1949), pp. 317 ff; M. Nilsson, Gesch. Gr. Rel. ii (1950), pp. 148 f. 30. προσεκύνησαν. ‘Made a reverence’, i.e. to the statue of the god. The cult statue in the Serapeum most probably represented the god solemnly enthroned, clad in chiton and himation, his head

crowned with a modius; the left hand rested upon a sceptre, the right, most probably, on the tricephalous Cerberus. See the description in Breccia, Alexandrea, pp. 111 ff. Despite the confused tradition —e.g. in Clement, Protr. iv. 48 (Stahlin, GCS, p. 37. 8 ff.)—the

statue was most probably the work of Bryaxis of Caria. See C. Robert, RE iii (1899), 916 ff., and especially W. Amelung, ‘Le Sarapis de Bryaxis’, Rev. Arch. 45 s., ii (1903), pp. 177 ff., and Ausonia, iii (1908), esp. 115 ff.; see also G. Lippold, Festsch.

Amdt, pp. 115 ff.; G. Pesce, BSAA x (1939), pp. 651: T. A. Brady, HSC li (1940), pp. 61-69;

J. H. Jongkees, FHS Ixviii (1948),

pp. 28 ff.; Riemann, RE xviii (1949), 1568; R. Pettazzoni, Mél. Picard (1949), ii, pp. 803 ff. g0f. ἔριπψεν ἑαυτόν. Cf. the note on P. Lond. 37, below; and

on prostration in the novel, p. 254. Cf. especially the scene in Heliodorus’ Aethiopica vii. 8 (189. 7 ff.), where Calasiris enters the Temple of Isis: ῥίπτει μὲν αὑτὸν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον, τοῖς δ᾽ ἴχνεσι προσφὺς

τοῦ ἀγάλματος. 31 f. γονυκλινής, now omitted from LSJ; the earliest literary use would appear to be Eusebius, Vita Const. iv. 67. 1 (ed. I. Heikel, 1902).

32. 6 Ὑεραιός, sc. ἐγώ, ‘old man as I am’, the regular construction: cf. Sophocles, Ο.Τ. 1153, 1323. He was most probably a member of the Alexandrian gerousia, and perhaps a relative or friend of Dionysius. I had earlier thought that he was a particular person named “The Old One’ and was possibly connected with

the temple as a κάτοχος. I find now that this interpretation had already been suggested by W. L. Westermann, BSAA xxxviii (1949), ΡΡ. 3-17, esp. pp. 12 f., although his restoration of P. Oxy. 1089, 47 f. τ[ὀ]ν [κάτ]οχον Σαρ[άπιος], cannot stand in the light of the present revision of the text. It seems more likely, however, that he was a member of the Alexandrian gerousia, especially in the

light of Ρ. Giss. 46. (See my Introductory Note on this text, below.) In view of this, I think that the older interpretation, viz. that ‘the

elder’ was a Jew, must now be abandoned; in the older view, the presence of a Jew in the Serapeum had always been a difficulty.

11

Ῥ. OXY.

1089

101

34Ε. μὴ βιάζου πρός, κτλ. GH took this as ‘do not force your way to Flaccus’, and so too von P., AM, p. 5. Perhaps we should translate: ‘Do not try to struggle against Flaccus’, i.e. such tactics would be useless. Cf. Chariton i. 11. 1: ἐβιάζοντο πρὸς κθμα καὶ πνεῦμα.

36. τοῖς γέρουσιν. The ‘elders’ here referred to would seem to be a definite body, i.e. the Alexandrian gerousia of which we have evidence in P. Giss. 46. 36f. Attempts to restore these lines successfully have thus far been hopeless. One difficulty is that we do not know whether πορευθέντος refers to past or future. 38. téxvov. Suggesting, of course, that Dionysius is not past middle age. Cf. also P. Oxy. 33 i. 11 and (possibly) Athen. το. The word is frequently found in the novelists as a term of affection used (in direct address) by elderly persons to young men and women:

e.g. Chariton vu. vii. 4; Heliodorus iii. 17 (94. 6 f.), vi. 9 (169. 12), vii. 21 (206. 6). Cf. also the remarks of A. D. Fitton Brown on Soph. Ο.Τ. 1: CR N.S. ii (1952), ΡΡ. 4 ff. 39. εὐθετῖς. If the (second) person is correct, one would expect some such meaning as ‘you counsel wisely’, but it is unparalleled (so far as I know). Perhaps we should read εὐθετίσ[ω (‘I will take care of it’?), and follow with ἀλλ᾽ ἐμ]έ, κτλ. If, as seems likely, «Φλάκκον is object of the infinitive and not (as von P. and

Neppi Modona take it) its subject, the text would imply that Dionysius had already failed to comply with Flaccus’ demands on a previous occasion. 41. véa σ[ελήνῃ. Although the phrase seems odd here, I think it is better than von P.’s interpretation of the line with σ[ήμερον. The αὐτῷ seems to refer to the prefect, but the entire sentence remains obscure. 42. ἐπελθών may imply that Flaccus had been in hiding (so GH); certainly the phrase ‘seeing Isidorus’ suggests that Flaccus had expected to deal with Dionysius alone. Hence, perhaps, he begins by the vague reference, τὸ xpfjya—following von P.’s successful restoration of the line. 45. λοιπόν. For the use of this word (= ἤδη), see D. Tabachoig, vitz, Etudes sur le grec de la basse époque (Uppsala—Leipz

1943),

n Pp. 32; it is frequently used by the author of the Alexander-Roma Tatius Achilles (ed. Kroll, Hist. Alexandri Magni, index, s.v.) and (cf. Sexauer, Der Sprachgebrauch des . . . Tatius, p. 60). ᾳι ε. ευειν: see Pal. Notes. One is tempted to restore ἡμῶ[ν βούλετ] l. doubtfu are traces the but Ὦ), πορθµεύειν (sc. τὸ χρῆμα

102

COMMENTARY

II

46f. προκα|θήμενο [5]. LI. 48 {. indicate that Flaccus cannot be speaking (as von P. interprets this passage). One would expect here some reference to a temple warden or to some other official (e.g. ὁ προεστώς). But there is no evidence for the use of προκαθή-

µενος in a technical sense; however, Bell has privately suggested that the word might refer to the ‘president’ of the gerousia. 56f. Von P.’s emendation, ἔ(κ) |[πλο]ος, is impossible. Not only is the word too long for the lacuna, but the ε is certainly at the end of 1. 56, its middle bar being extended in the usual space-filling

flourish. The theory of an exit-permit is indeed attractive, but it cannot be based upon this passage. Regulations covering departure from Alexandria were evidently stringent from at least the middle

of the second century B.c. (cf. Strabo ii. 3. 5, 101 C), and we know that in Roman times the penalties for slipping through the harbour control without an exit-permit (ἀπόστολος) were serious: see the Gnomon (ed. Seckel and Schubart, Berlin, 1919), nn. 64, 66, 68,

and the commentary of Uxkull—Gyllenband (Berlin, 1934), pp. 63 ff. For further references, see Reinmuth, The Prefect of Egypt, pp. 32 f., and Taubenschlag, The Law, ii, pp. 62 ff. 57- Five talents in gold (the equivalent, at this period, of about 6ο talents in silver: cf. Segré, Metrologia, pp. 427 ff.) would be a

large amount for a private person, and more probably the money is to be paid on behalf of a group or association. In the latter case,

the episode might well be connected with Flaccus’ suppression of the Alexandrian clubs. In this connexion it may be noted that Diodorus informs us that the king’s annual revenue from somewhat more than 300,000 free inhabitants of Alexandria amounted to more than 6,000 talents

(presumably in silver): Diod. Sic. xvii. 52. 6. But the phrase is obscure; for recent interpretations, see Wilcken, Griech. Ostraka,

i, p. 415; Wallace, Taxation, p. 343 and note, p. 492; Préaux, L’ Economie royale, pp. 425 ff. And on the population of Alexandria, see SEHHW ii, pp. 1138 Π., and Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization3, p. 185. SUPPLEMENTARY

NOTE

Theon—Dionysius Family Besides the individual references, see in general W. Weber, Hermes, 1 (1915), pp. 49 f.; Bell, Ρ. Jews, pp. 29f., and Visser, Gétter und Kulte, pp. 111, 117. We shall list only the more important references to Alexandrians, or persons possibly active in Alexandria,

P. OXY.

11

103

1089

during the period relevant to the Acta. An asterisk designates those names which actually occur in the Acta. Theon I.

C. Julius Theon, who flourished under Augustus and held the offices of high priest and hypomnematographus at Alexandria ; he was the father of C. Julius Theon (2), who held property at Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy. 1434, 9 ff.).

. C. Julius Theon, son of Theon 1. Cf. also perhaps the land-

owner ‘Theon, son of Theon’ of P. Ryl. 145 (A.D. 38). . Theon, father of Dionysius, the envoy of Claudius’ Letter to the Alexandrines in A.D. 41 (P. Jews 1912, 76). See Dionysius 1. s . Theon the exegete, apparently a friend of the Emperor Claudiu

(hence perhaps a Roman citizen), and one of the alleged victims of Isidorus’ denunciations (Chrest. 14 ii. 19 ; P.Lond. 13). . Theon, a political martyr of Alexandria revered along with Isidorus and Lampon (P. Oxy. 33, iv. 6). Probably identical with Theon 4.

. Theon, archidicastes in Α.Ρ. 58 (P. Oxy. 268, 1). Cf. Otto, Priester u. Tempel, 1, Ῥ. 197 0. . Theon, Alexandrian legate in the reign of Trajan (Herm. 7). . Theon, probably advocate for the Alexandrians in the Acta Pauli (iv. 2, i. 3, ii. 13) in the reign of Hadrian. _ Aelius

Theon

of Alexandria,

author

of various

rhetorical

treatises, who flourished ο. A.D. 100. See the Suda (ed. Adler, 5. ii. 702, 17); C. Wendel, RE, 2te R. v (1934), 9037-54, 0.

Perhaps the same as Theon 8. . Theon, son of Eudaemon the archidicastes,

Max.

I, 6ο {.

a (c. 107/9). hidiex-arc eum, n of the Serap II. Julius Theon, priest and warde 13ff. castes and actual hypomnematographus of P. Tebt. 286, Bell as 7, Theon with cal identi s (after a.D. 121). Perhap suggests. Dionysius who 12, 13. Two Theons, father and son of C. Julius colossus as on Memn the of inscribed his name on the left leg after A.D. long not s’, icaste archid ‘father and son of Theon 8345. SB = 1196 i. IGR = 682 OGIS = 130: CIG iii. 4724 Apion of essor 14. Theon, son of Artemidorus of Tarsus and predec 9. n. , 2054-9 RE as head of the Museum: see Wendel, and former 15; Theon, also called Anthos, son of Ammonianus 315, A.D. (PSI omos agoran and h Alexandrian gymnasiarc

137/8).

104

COMMENTARY

11

16. Theon, a lecturer at Alexandria: P. Oxy. 2190, 14 (lates. ii). 17, 18. ‘Theon, son of Theon, ex-gymnasiarch’, BGU 832, 16,

¢. A.D. 113, place unknown. Dionysius 1. C. Julius Dionysius, legate in A.D. 41 (P. Jews 1912, 17), probably identical with Dionysius son of Theon (1. 76). 2. Dionysius, son of Sabbion, envoy with Dionysius 1 in A.D. 41

(P. Jews 1912, 18). 3. Dionysius, demagogue and leader of the anti-Semitic faction at Alexandria (Philo, Flacc. iv. 20; CR, p. 124). Most probably identical with Dionysius 4, and possibly with Dionysius 1. *4. Dionysius, Alexandrian leader who negotiates secretly with Flaccus in P. Oxy. 10809, a friend of Isidorus and a man not

beyond middle age. 5. Dionysius, son of Glaucus,

a disciple of Chaeremon;

he

flourished from the reign of Nero to Trajan’s time, holding the positions of a bibliothecis, ab epistolis graecis, ad responsa graeca, and ad legationes. See the Suda (Adler, ii. 109. 32), and

PIR 11.3 D 103. Identified by Weber with Dionysius 6; and wrongly (I think) with Dionysius 1 by Sherwin-White in BSR xv (1939), Ῥ. 22, n. 70. Cf. also A. Stein, Der τῦπι. Ritierstand (Minch. Beitr. x), Munich, 1927, p. 411, n. 2; H. G, Pflaum, Les Procurateurs équestres sous le Haut-Empire

romain (Paris, 1950), p. 176. *6. Dionysius, ‘of many procuratorships’, one of the chief envoys of the Acta Hermaisci. Possibly identical with the foregoing. 7. C. Julius Dionysius, archidicastes, who wrote his name on the Memnon colossus (SB 8345) ;cf. Theons 12, 13, above.

8. C. Fulius Dionysius Honoratus, clarissimus vir, priest of the Domus Augusta, CIL vi. 2021 (ο. A.D. 180/4): cf. PIR ii. I 194.

In view of the frequency of these names, especially that of Theon, it is difficult to be certain of many of the proposed identifications. What does seem to emerge, however, is the fact that the envoys mentioned in the Acta Alexandrinorum came from the circle of Alexandria’s highest officials and that some of them perhaps had

property and connexions at Oxyrhynchus and other cities of the chora.

(105)

III

P. bibl. univ. Giss. 46: The ‘Gerousia Acta’ THE

TEXT

P. bibl. univ. Giss. 46, a papyrus belonging to the Ludwig-

Universitat, Giessen (Inv. P. 308), was first edited by Anton von Premerstein (whose notes were published posthumously by Karl Kalbfleisch) in Mitteil. aus d. Papyrussammlung der Giess. Universitatsbibliothek, v, 1939 (‘Alexandrinische Geronten vor Kaiser Gaius’). It consists of eight fragments containing five or more columns of text, the largest fragment (A, cols. i-i1) measuring 28-5 X21°5 cm. The palaeography was the work of H. Eberhart; and Kalbfleisch edited von Premerstein’s commentary and reconstruction of the text, with occasional notes of his own in brackets. In my revision I have relied on the excellent photographs supplied by the present librarian of Giessen, Dr. J. Schawe, and I have thought it useful to print a diplomatic transcript.

The papyrus is written (only on the recto) in the oval,

sloping hand familiar from other semi-literary texts of the same period. The scribe, however, was more practised than the one who wrote P. Oxy. 1089 and there are in P. Giss. more cursive elements. The hand is difficult to date precisely. Eber-

hart dated it to the beginning of the third century (and this would better suit von Premerstein’s hypothesis). But my im-

pression is that an earlier date cannot be excluded, e.g. the middle or second half of the second century.

The publication of the text in 1939 was followed by a great

number of reviews;! and it is an odd fact that most of the t e.g. (the asterisk indicates the more important), H. Volkmann, «Ν. Jahrb. kl, Alt. iii (1940), p. 268; J. Vogt, Theol. Lit.-zeit. Ixv (1940), pp. 251 f.; *Bell, CR liv (1940), pp. 48 f.; *P. Collart, REG liii (1940), pp. 250f., and Rev. de Philol. xv (1941), Ῥ. 573 Pellegrino, Riv. di fil. class. xviii (1941), p. 308; Engers, Museum, xlviii (1941), Ρ. 57: *K. F. W. Schmidt, Phil. Woch. \xi (1941), ΡΡ. 266-9; H.C. Youtie, CW xxxv (1941), Ῥρ. 29-31; A. Korte, Archiv, xiv (1941), pp. 132f. ; *N. Lewis, AFP Ixiii (1942), pp. 494 ff.; E. C. Colwell, GP xxxvii (1942), pp. 160 f.; W. Ensslin, Gnomon, xix (1943), pp. 169f.

III

COMMENTARY

106

reviewers, with the exception of Bell, Collart, and Momigliano

(in a note in JRS xxxiv[1944], pp.

114 1.), completely accepted

yon Premerstein’s text. Now experience has shown that far-

reaching restorations are scarcely ever justified ; but in this case we find even the Greek text changed apparently to suit

the editor’s restorations (e.g. at ii. 9, 16 Ε., 345 iv. 30), and the scribe’s punctuation ignored, as Bell shrewdly noted, at least nine times (e.g. 1. 123 li. 5, 6, 7, 24, 27, 325 iii. 2, 90). And although it may seem unfair to attack a posthumous publication, yet it must be pointed out that most of the ‘new evidence’ found in P. Giss. came largely from von Premerstein’s often questionable handling of the text. ‘Much of the volume’, said Bell, ‘is but wasted labour.’ Hence, of von Premerstein’s fine major conclusions, viz. (1) Alexandria’s proposed gerousia of 173; (2) the existence of a popular assembly of 180,000 ; (3) an allusion to the suicide of Gemellus ; (4) the appearance of Cassius Chaerea; and (5) the exposure of an accuser as non-Greek, Bell would accept only (1) and (5) as probable in part.! Such criticism was only fair, and it was in view of this that a complete revision of the text seemed

imperative. THE

INTERPRETATION

OF

THE

TEXT

According to von Premerstein, col. i contained an account of a denunciation submitted by the Alexandrian Isidorus and a certain ‘accuser’ to the Emperor Gaius in the presence of Tiberius Caesar Gemellus. Their object, he assumed, was to inform Gaius of a secret and illegal election of a gerousia of 173 by the Alexandrian popular assembly of 180,000 citizens. Hence he would date this event in September A.D. 37, ie.

between the accession of Gaius and the suicide of Gemellus (presumably announced in ii. 10). It is true that there is a reference to 173 elders and to the number 180,000 (denarii,

&c., or men, we are not told). But with regard to the presence of Gemellus, I cannot but share the misgivings of Colwell

(loc. cit.) and Bell. The detail of his suicide is due entirely to von Premerstein’s questionable reconstruction of ii. 10; and α See also his article in J7P iv (1950), pp. 2g f.

III

P. BIBL.

UNIV.

GISS.

46

107

the words Τιβέριος Καΐσαρ in col. i (in these documents which are, at the very least, imitations of official records) would favour the presumption that it is actually the Emperor Tiberius who is speaking here, however we may have to explain the dramatic date. Col. ii. 1-10 recounts the Alexandrians’ voyage to Rome

via Ostia. We hear of ‘the 179) again, of a person probably named Eulalus (as again in ii. 26), and once more of ‘the 180,000”. It would appear that the delegation had to wait at least a month at Ostia; and finally they are greeted by a cubicularius of Tiberius, probably named Tision. In ii. 11 Gaius is abruptly introduced, and one would suspect that the docu-

ment has here undergone abridgement—a fact which the pre-

sence of the paragraphus might confirm. Then come a series of salutations: and there is mention of Eulalus, an unnamed ‘accuser’, and a certain Arius. The 630 years of ii. 17, 23

probably do refer backward, and the editor’s suggestion, that

they indicate the time elapsed since the first settlement of

Greeks at Alexandria in the sixth century B.c., seems highly probable.' Next follows a speech delivered perhaps by Arius, in which the emperor is hailed as Lord of the world, Saviour and

Benefactor (ii. 33 ff.; cf. P. Fouad); and one gains the im-

pression that this portion of the text at least was not written in a spirit of anti-Roman propaganda.

The ‘accuser’ condemned in col. iii would appear to be

either an Egyptian or perhaps merely not a citizen of Alexandria. His charge, whatever it was, is thrown out of court and he is ordered by Gaius to be burnt or tortured.” Gaius then addresses a letter to Alexandria (in which there is a 1 Cf. Strabo xvii. 1. 6, 792 C., where he refers to the founders of the colony as of πρότεροι τῶν Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεῖς. If von Premerstein’s theory is right (pp. 40-42, followed by Youtie, Lewis, Schmidt, and others), the Alexandrians the would here be made to trace their origins back to the 26th Dynasty in reign of Psamatik II (594-589) ; it is to his reign that the Abu-Simbel inscrip4). tions most probably belong (SIG 1.3 1, and Tod, Greek Hist. Inscr. i, 1946,? η.

303 f. and n. 6; For the literature, see von P., loc. cit.; Jones, CERP, pp.

ff. R. M. Cook, ‘Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt’, JHS lvii (1937), pp. 227 and 2 Bell, however, takes καῆναι to mean ‘branding’, FFP iv (1950), p. 30, be might law Roman to according res Calumniato may very well be right. branded with the letter K or suffer other penalties. See pp. 112 ff., below.

III

COMMENTARY

108

reference to Isidorus) demanding that a certain group ‘should

not receive the crown of valour’ (iii. 35).

But of the other scraps little can be made, despite the in-

genious efforts of von Premerstein to join them and reconstruct

the sense. His suggestion (followed by Kalbfleisch and Schmidt) that col. iv concerned Flaccus’ relationship with the Alexandrians, and that the last column contained their accusation against him, has little to support it from the text. Schmidt’s observation, that the events of P. Oxy. 1089 may fall between

P. Giss. cols. iv and v, is interesting but can hardly be sub-

stantiated. THE

PROBLEM

OF

THE

ALEXANDRIAN

GEROUSIA

Although P. Giss. 46 is hardly, as von Premerstein felt, ‘das ausschlussreichste Bruchstiick’ of all the Acta-fragments,

something can indeed be learnt from it. Besides the indica-tion that the conflict between Alexandria and Rome as reflected in the Acta Alexandrinorum went back at least to the time of Tiberius, it offers further evidence for an Alexandrian gerousia.! Now the Alexandrian Jews, though not full citizens, did have their own gerousia, granted by Augustus and presided over perhaps by the ethnarch or genarch.? It is also clear that the Alexandrian Greeks had a gerousia in Ptolemaic times, although the exact date is uncertain. Now evidence has been Cf. von P., pp. 57 ff. See also E. G. Turner, Archiv, xii (1937), pp. 179 ff, and P. Ryl. 599 (A.D. 226); the papyrus suggests that age and social status were the only important requirements for admission to the Alexandrian gerousia as well. For the gerousiae of the Hellenistic-Roman world see Chapot, La Province romaine proconsulaire d’Asie (Paris, 1904); Jones, GC, pp. 225 f.; J. H. Oliver, ‘The Sacred Gerusia’, in Hesperia, Suppl. 6 (1941), whose conclusions have been rightly questioned by, for example, Jones, RS xxxiv (1944), pp. 145 f., and Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Ῥ. 1534. 2 On the Jewish gerousia see Box’s edition of In Flaccum, pp. 102 f. On the problem of the Jewish citizenship see Bell, P. Jews, pp. 11 ff., and Box, ibid., pp. xviii-xxx (with the literature there cited). Cf. also H. A. Wolfson, Philo. Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Harvard,

1927), i, pp. 397 ff.

3 We have what is probably an honorary decree of this body (of s. ii/i B.c.) : E. Breccia, Iscr. greche e lat. n. 162 = Strack, Archiv, iii (1906), p. 138, n. 21, as well as a Ptolemaic dedication to a certain Lycarion, archigeron (SB 9100). See von P., p. 57, and Jouguet, in BSAA xxxvii (1948), pp. 75 ff. Archigeron was originally, I presume, an honorary title acquired after a certain number of years of service in the gerousia. Later, however, it seems to have designated an Official status. See Gothofredus’ comment in the following note.

111

Ῥ. BIBL.

UNIV.

6155.

46

109

accumulating to show the existence of such a body under the principate:! viz. P. Oxy. 1089, P. Giss. 46, and an Hawara inscription in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.? The in-

scription, probably from the first century A.D., mentions a certain T. Julius Asclepiades, gymnasiarch and archigeron (whatever this title may mean), who might well have been related to the M. Julius Asclepiades of Claudius’ Letter to the

Alexandrines. But. the inscription cannot be precisely dated. Now if, as seems probable, the Alexandrians lost their Boule under the Ptolemies about the second century B.c. (as Schubart and Jouguet were inclined to believe), what is to be said about the character of the gerousia in late Ptolemaic and Roman times? The evidence is scanty, but we should probably not be far from the truth if we imagine the Alexandrian gerousia not as a merely social body; very likely, though having no authority in law, it had come to exercise, by custom, a considerable moral influence on civic affairs.? Certainly it

would appear that only such a gerousia would have been

Cf, Momigliano’s note in 785 xxxiv (1944), pp. 114 f., correcting CAH x, p. 296. I cannot, however, share his view—common since San Nicolé’s deg. Vereinswesen, i (Munich, 1913), pp. 41 f—that the imperial constitution of Arcadius and Honorius (A.D. 396) incorporated into Cod. Theod. xiv. 27. 1 (= Cod. Iust. i. 4. 5) de alexandrinae plebis primatibus, refers to archigerontes of the gerousia. Not only is the text itself obscure, but the sixteenth-century jurist Denis Godefroy (Gothofredus) in his commentary on the passage (Codex Theodosianus, in the gth edition of Antonius Marvillius, Leipzig, 1741, ν, pp. 303 f.) felt certain that the archigerontes here did not refer to the gerousia or ‘principales curiae alexandrinae seu quinque Summates ordinis alexandrini . . verum quasi principes summoque honore et loco inter artifices’ ;and hence he interprets the decree to mean that the elders and administrators of the artisans are to be chosen only from the body of the artisans. If this is so, the archigerontes ergasiotanorum of the decree would have little if anything to do with the Alexandrian body we are discussing. San Nicold rejects Gothofredus’ interpretation out of hand without offering any reason (p. 42); but until the obscurity of the passage can be effectively clarified, I cannot feel that it should a be adduced as evidence for the existence of an Alexandrian gerousia (as continuation of the Ptolemaic-Roman body) in the fourth and fifth centuries of the present era. The new version of the Codex Theodosianus by Clyde Pharr (Princeton, 1952), Ρ. 422, sheds no light on the difficulty. 2 First published in 1927 and re-edited by F. Heichelheim, HS Ixii (1942), P.’s conΡ. 17. It is unfortunate that Heichelheim relied so heavily on von Α.Ρ. 38. clusions; there is no evidence for placing the archigeron’s death in 3 This concept of the gerousia, though applicable to Alexandria, I should general (as hesitate to extend to the gerousiae of the Greco-Roman world in p. 217. Turner, Archiv, loc. cit., seems to do). Cf. Chapot, La Province romaine,

COMMENTARY

110

η

permitted by Rome before the restoration of the Boule in the time of Severus: and at Alexandria nothing more than this is demanded by the relevant papyri and inscriptions. In von Premerstein’s view, the gerousia of P. Giss. 46 was

illegally elected in a.D. 37 to fill a need felt since the suppression of the Boule (loc. cit., pp. 58 f.), and the papyrus gives an

account of the denunciation of this election before the Emperor Gaius, and of Gaius’ subsequent ‘declaration of nullity’. But there is no indication, from the fragments we have, of anything of the kind. Nor may we even suggest that there is any evidence here of a gerousia functioning secretly in lieu of a Senate. Whereever there is any reference to this body (e.g. P. Oxy. 1089, 36; P. Giss. i. 14, ii. 3, 11), it would seem that it is being taken completely for granted as an established institution. One may venture to suggest that at Alexandria the gerousia may have served as a buffer between Rome and the Greek politeuma; that it was responsible for the sending of representatives to Rome; and to its influence may be due the psephismata' of Ῥ. Jews 1912, 20 (and possibly Paul. vii. 13). At any rate, it would seem best to retain the hypothesis that Alexandria had a gerousia all through the early principate, and that, despite temporary changes due to the absence of a Senate, it was fundamentally of the social type connected with the

gymnasium.? THE

DRAMATIC

DATE

If we presume that it is really the Emperor Tiberius who appears in col. i, several possibilities suggest themselves:

(1) that the audience took place before Tiberius’ departure for Campania and Capreae in Α.Ρ. 26;

(2) that the hearing took place outside of Rome, some time between 26 and 37; or, finally, (3) that the speech of Tiberius is sheer fiction. There is evidence that Tiberius conducted hearings outside of Rome: for instance, Eutychus, the coachman-valet of 1 See, however, Jones in ZEA xxiv (1938), pp. 65 f. 2 See Turner, Archiv, loc. cit., and cf. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia, p. 35 and inscr. nn. 49-51. It is quite possible that the Acta Alexandrinorum owed their preservation in many cases to members of this body. See below, pp. 273 ff.

111

Ῥ. BIBL.

UNIV.

6155.

46

11

Agrippa I, accused of stealing his master’s clothing, was dispatched to Capreae for trial; Tiberius, however, postponed

it until (about September of 36) he had returned to his Tusculan villa on the mainland. Lying at his ease upon a litter,

he listened to Eutychus’ accusation of Agrippa and, on the strength of this, sent word to Rome that Agrippa be imprisoned.! Hence, although it is difficult to imagine all the

details, one need not suppose that the events related in Ῥ. Giss. col. i necessarily took place before Tiberius’ retirement in 26.3 If col. i mentions Tiberius, it might well be his death (or the accession of Gaius) that the cubicularius came to announce. It is possible that the Alexandrian envoys arrived shortly after Tiberius’ death, 16 March a.p. 37; hence their audience with

Gaius may not have taken place until after 3 April, the day of Tiberius’ public funeral.3 In this view there would be no need to link up these events with those of P. Oxy. 1089, nor with the embassy of Philo and Apion,* nor again with Isidorus’ denunciation of Flaccus at Rome, although the latter possibility is not unlikely. We might thus construct a tentative chronology for this period : The death of Seianus and succession of Macro as A.D. 81 prefect of the pretorian guard (cf. Jos., 47 xviii. 186, and see below on P. Lond. 14). Appointment of Flaccus as prefect of Egypt. His 32/3 edict against clubs and associations, probably in

the early part of his prefecture. 1 See Josephus, AF xviii. 183 ff., and cf. Balsdon, Gaius, pp. 118 f.; Jones, The Herods of Fudaea, pp. 188 ff. 2 For the literature on Tiberius, see R. S. Rogers, Studies in the Reign of Tiberius (Johns Hopkins, 1943) ; E. Ciaceri, Tiberio, Successore di Augusto (19447) ; D. M. Pippidi, Autour de Tibére (Bucharest, 1944), with review by Balsdon,

FRS xxxvi (1946), pp. 168 ff.; C. H. V. Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial

Policy, 31 B.C.-A.D. 68 (London, 1951), pp. 79 ff. 3 On the death of Tiberius, see F. B. Marsh, The Reign of Tiberius (Oxford, 1931), pp. 256 Π., and Balsdon, Gaius, pp. 21 ff, On the reign of Gaius, besides Balsdon, and Charlesworth in CAH, see Homo, Hist. romaine, iii (Paris, 1941), pp. 236 ff., and Sutherland, sup. cit., pp. 105 ff. It is an odd fact that there are as yet no Alexandrian coins certainly from Gaius’ reign: see Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins, p. xxi; Vogt, Alex. Miinzen, i, pp. 22 f. 4 Most probably in the winter of Α.Ρ. 38, although the arguments for 39 are not negligible. See Box, In Flaccum, pp. xxxif.; Balsdon, FRS xxiv (1934), ΡΡ. 13-24; von P., sup. cit., pp. 36 ff., with Kalbfleisch’s notes.

III

COMMENTARY

112

Bétween 32/8

The events of Ρ.ΟΧΥ. 1089 and Isidorus’ voluntary

ο. Sept./Oct. 36

some time during this period. Tiberius’ hearing of Eutychus at his Tusculan villa (AF xviii. 183 ff.). [Possibly at this time the

16 Mar. 37 28 Mar.

events of P. Giss. col. i.] Death of Tiberius ; Gaius’ dies imperii two days later. Gaius enters Rome. State funeral on 3 April.

exile from Alexandria

Aug. 38 Oct. 38

(Philo, Flacc. xvii. 145)

[Probably shortly after this, the events of P. Giss. cols. ii. 11--ν.] The Jewish pogrom at Alexandria.

The arrest of Flaccus. Taken to Rome at the beginning of winter (Flacc. xv. 125), he finds

Isidorus and Lampon already there. Winter, 38 (or Departure of the two embassies for Rome: possibly 39)

| Jewish

under

Philo,

the Alexandrian

the

under

Apion and Isidorus (Philo, Leg. xxix. 190; CR, Ρ. 190; Jos. AF xviii. 257).

SUPPLEMENTARY

NOTE

The Penalty (11. 25) In the course of the hearing, as we have seen, Gaius orders a certain accuser to be burnt (καῆναι). Now false accusers (calumniatores) in Roman Law might be branded with the letter K or suffer other penalties.‘ Here, however, the very brevity of the phrase

(unless we are to assume an inaccurate translation from the Latin) and the treatment that the incident receives would seem to suggest

that the penalty was neither branding nor torture but crematio or burning alive. If so, it would be the earliest instance, so far as I know, of this form of execution. We had known of Nero’s fantastic

execution of the Christiani (Tac. Ann. xv. 44), and the practice was to become more common after the burning alive of the Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, most probably in the year 156.” With the gradual emergence of the distinction between honestiores and 1 See Mommsen, Strafr., pp. 490 ff., where, however, he notes the rarity of branding. 2 Mart. Polycarpi 12. 3 ff. (Knopf-Kriiger). On the penalties inflicted on the Christian martyrs, see H. Leclerq, ‘Martyr’, DACL x (1931), 2425 ff. Cf. Strafr., p. 923.

III

Ῥ. BIBL.

UNIV.

GISS.

46

113

humiltores in the second century Α.Ρ., execution by fire became a form of supplicium reserved for the latter class. There were various ways of carrying out the crematio. The condemned might be tied or nailed upon wood, sometimes with a gag in his mouth (to prolong the torture, as the ancients thought’), and then a fire would be lighted beneath and around him.? But even in the Acta Alexandrinorum the penalty of P. Giss. appears to be unique. The fire applied to Antoninus in Paul. vii

(see infra, ad loc.) was probably only for the purposes of quaestio. The form of execution actually inflicted upon Isidorus, Lampon, Appian, or any of the others we have no way of knowing; in fact the other cognitiones recorded in the Acta may not have resulted

in the death penalty at all. Again, we are far from certain about the reasons which brought the ‘pagan martyrs’ to Rome (with the exception of the Prefect Maximus), or the precise charges on which they were condemned. Many scholars have suggested mazestas* and it should be taken into

consideration. Ulpian defined it as ‘quod adversus populum Romanum vel adversus securitatem eius committitur’ (Digesta xlviii. 4. 1). But the application of the term in the early principate was hardly so clear; the emphasis began to shift, undoubtedly as a result of the lex Julia, from the populus Romanus to the person and

household of the princeps, and thus the term was extended to include adultery with a member of the imperial family (under Augustus), as well as any insult to the imperial images (under Tiberius). Penalties extended from simple relegatio to loss of caput with confiscation of property and damnatio memoriae. But the increase in the number of trivial accusations under Tiberius and the abuse of the law by unscrupulous déelatores caused many of the emperors officially to ‘ignore’ charges under this head, at least in so far as it might concern the veneratio principi debita. If we may believe the See J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Problems of the Roman Criminal Law (Oxford, 1912), ii, pp. 170 ff., and especially G. Cardascia, ‘L’Apparition dans le droit des classes d’Honestiores et d’Humiliores’, Rev. hist. de Droit, xxviii (1950), pp. 305 ff., and V. Brasiello, La repressione penale in diritto romano (Naples,

1937), esp. pp: 292 ff.

ne

2 Cf. Lucian, De morte Peregrini 21. 345 (Jacobitz, iii, p. 272). 3 See Mart. Polycarpi 15. 13 Pass. Perp. et Felic. 11. 93 Acta 5. Pionii 21, and other places cited by Leclerq, loc. cit., and DACL ii (1910), 7ο ff. 4 See Digesta xlviii. 4 (ad legem Iuliam maiestatis) ; and for the recent literature, see Kiibler, RE xiii (1928), 542-59; Marsh, The Reign of Tiberius, esp. pp. 289 ff. ; Charlesworth, CAH x (1934), ΡΡ. 626 ff.; and F. Vittinghoff, Der Staatsfeind in der rom. Kaiserzeit (Berlin, 1936). Cf. also R. S. Rogers, Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius, Amer. Philol. Assoc. Mon. vi, 1935. 5498

I

114

COMMENTARY

Ii!

s, at least testimony preserved in Dio, such emperors were Claudiu

Titus at the beginning of his reign (Ix. 3. 6), Vespasian (Ixv. g. 1), cf. and 4, 6. (Ixviii. Trajan (Ixvi. το. 1), Nerva (Ixviii. 1. 2), and Pliny, Ep. x. 82). In view of the lack of more precise indications in the Acta fragments, we cannot be certain that we are always dealing with the

same charge, much less in all cases with maiestas. It is true that some of the emperors, like Gaius, Nero, and even Claudius, would be willing to use any stick to beat a dog. But at the same time, for such insignificant trouble-makers as the Alexandrians—at least in

the case of those who did not possess civitas romana—Rome might

not have troubled to formulate a legal charge; and the condemna-

tions which did result (outside of the possible instances of calumnia) were most probably merely an exercise of the emperor’s coercitio.* Col. 2 6f. Kalbfleisch’s supplement ἐ[[πιστολήν], followed by von Premerstein, is quite plausible here. αχ. [6 δὲ τῶν γονάτων αὐ]τοῦ, von P., comparing P. Lond. 64. 14. ἀπὸ poy. Note the omission of the article here (as probably in ii, 11), though not in ii. 3. Usage was inconsistent.

15. It isnot unlikely that the figure 180,000 here is the same as

that mentioned in ii. 5 (where 10,018 is also possible), in which

case the missing noun is either masculine or neuter. It is upon this

that von P. based his theory of a popular assembly of male adult Alexandrian citizens (in his edition, pp. 42 Π.), which is followed by Taubenschlag, The Law, ii, p. 14. But other possibilities (including a reference to a sum of money) are not unlikely.

Col. 17 1. ]..pos . Von P. suggests Satyrus, Tityrus, or Philargyrus. ᾿Ισίδ]ωρος is not impossible from the facsimile. The scene would seem to be in Alexandria, but the context is difficult to restore.

2f. Von P. restores: [οὖν οἱ |πρῶτοι τῶν] poy. Von P.’s translation of διά here, as ‘representing’, is most odd, and Mayser ii. 2, p. 426, which he cites, really offers no parallel. 4. On the name Eulalus as a cognomen of imperial freedmen, see von P., pp. 17f. It is quite possible that he was indeed an Alexandrian rhetor, advocate for the elders. ! ΟΕ, for example, Strachan-Davidson, i, pp. 96 ff. For the Roman policy towards Christians, see Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government, esp. pp. 41 ff., and H. Last, ‘The Study of the ‘‘Persecutions” ’, ZRS xxvii (1937), pp. 80-92.

111

Ῥ. BIBL.

UNIV.

6155.

46

115

8. Tision was apparently either the chief valet (a cubiculis) or one of his subordinate cubicularit. On this office in the imperial household, see Rostovtzeff, RE iv (1901), 1734 ff.; Diz. epig. ii (1910),

1280 ff.; and A. M. Duff, Freedmen in the Early Roman

Empire (Oxford, 1928), pp. 146 f. Tision is otherwise unknown ;on Tiberius’ doctor, Charicles, see Tac. Ann. vi. 50. Von P. presumes, of course, that it is the valet of Tiberius Gemellus.

g. The restoration here would appear almost certain. 10. τέλος ἔχει. Either ‘is dead’ (τέλος being taken as the object),

or possibly ‘holds the power’ (restoring perhaps €[repos]?). Von P.’s restoration, é[@avev αὐτ]ό[χειρ], is quite unconvincing. II. yepa[tots] is most probable. For the omission of the article

cf. Herm.

24, 33. H. C. Youtie

had suggested the vocative

γερᾳ[ιοί].

16. Von P. would emend the text to πιστόν and (17) πιστή. 25. Perhaps φη]σίν or λέγου]σι. Von P.’s suggestion that Chaerea is being addressed here (by Gaius, as κύριε!) is rather fantastic, although the text does offer a problem. The reading is

undoubtedly αεευοκ[ατος]. Whether or not we assume that there

has been a dittography, the first ε is clear and can hardly stand for 7 (centurio) as von P. suggested (loc. cit., p. 21). 32. οὐχ ἔνι (= οὐκ ἔνεστι), Roberts’s suggestion, seems most likely, though ἑνί cannot be excluded. 33. Arius is otherwise unknown, but there is plausibility in von

P,’s suggestion that he might have been a descendant of the Alexandrian Stoic, Arius Didymus, Augustus’ tutor, on whose account he allegedly spared Alexandria in go B.c.; for the refer-

ences, see von Arnim, RE i (1894), 626, n. 12, and PIR i.” A 1035.

An Arius son of Arius was strategus of the Tentyrite nome in A.D. 42: H. Henne, Liste des Stratéges, Cairo, 1935, Ρ. 39. For the name, cf. also Visser, Gétter und Kulte, p. 106, s.v.

Col. 12 For the reconstruction of this column, Ibscher was the first

to suggest that the piece containing ll. 1-13 belonged here, on the basis of fibre-alignment (see von P., pp. 22f.). Von P. then attempted to fit in frags. c and ¢ on the left side of the column— ‘was der Versuch einer Erganzung als richtig erwies’. Though I think that the location of frag. ¢ is very likely, I cannot feel con-

fident of the restoration of 6, and so have printed it separately. Experience has shown how very difficult it is to reconstruct, on the basis of fibres, the sometimes rather thick papyri of the Roman period.

COMMENTARY

116

III

‘13. τ]ὸ. θέατρον, von P., which he takes to mean here ‘the audience’ at the hearing. More likely meanings here are ‘theatre’ or ‘amphitheatre’. It is not impossible that there is a reference to some disturbance at Alexandria; see Dio Chrys. Or. xxxii. 51, where he

mentions a special Roman guard assigned to the theatre. The Dionysiac theatre at Alexandria was situated not far from the

harbour: see Calderini, Diz. geog., pp. 114 f. On the scourging of the Jewish gerusiasts there on Gaius’ birthday, 31 Aug. Α.Ρ. 38, see Philo, Flacc. 73 ff. (CR, pp. 133 Π.), and Box’s note ad loc. 19f. Talos, von P., rejected by Kalbfleisch.

ax. ξενι[κός], von P., assuming it to be a substantive (= pere-

grinus?), but I know of no parallel.

25. On the problem of the penalty, see p. 112, above. Col. iv Ll. 23-24 certainly suggest some sort of disturbance at Alexandria—in which possibly slaves were involved, as in the Acta Pauli and PRUM—but there is hardly enough to hazard a

restoration. I cannot feel confidence in the editor’s suggestion (followed by Schmidt, Lewis, and others) that cols. iv-v concern Flaccus’ relations with the Alexandrians. Col. v

Ibscher’s reconstruction of col. v (called col. x by von P.) from

frags. a and ὁ is not unlikely; the key to the joining of the two pieces is obviously 1. 6. 1. ἐπιζήσας. On the usage of this verb with the genitive, see Kalbfleisch’s note in von P., pp. 29 f. The paragraphus below this

word may indicate abridgement (cf. also ii. 10). 2ff. According to von P., this would be part of the speech of one of Flaccus’ accusers. 6. διαδεχ[οµένου, κτλ. This phrase would seem here to refer to the imperial succession (cf. Josephus, A7 xviii. 224) rather than

to the succession of prefects (or the appointment of a vice-Prefect). On the latter usage, see Reinmuth, The Prefect, pp. 7 f., and AFP Ixxiii (1952), pp. 425 f. 7. Von P.’s introduction of Macro here, restoring with the help of frag. f, is highly questionable. See, however, his historical note, pp. 30 ff. On Macro, see below on P. Lond. 14, p. 136.

(117)

IV Acta Isidort THE

TEXT

THERE exist at present three recensions of the Acta Istdori: the Berlin-Cairo fragment (A), the London fragment (B), and the Berlin fragment published by Uxkull-Gyllenband (C). Recension A

This consists of two fragments from different parts of the same roll (BGU 511+P. Cairo Inv. 10448= Chrest. 14). It is written in an oval, upright bookhand of the semi-literary variety. The upper and lower margins of cols. i-ii (BGU) and the lower margin of col. iii (P. Cairo) are preserved. The text is on the verso of some accounts from the age of the Antonines and was dated by Wilcken not earlier than a.D. 200, although I think that a date late in the second century cannot be excluded. The provenance of both fragments is unknown. Chrest. 1411 therefore, comprises two fragments:

1. BGU 511, first edited by Wilcken, Hermes, xxx (1895),

pp. 481 ff., and later (with an improved text) in Antis.,

pp. 800 ff., and Chrest. 14 i-ii. The fragment measures 19 X 14°5 cm. See the facsimile published by Bell, Juden und Griechen, pl. 2. A final revision was made by Schubart

1 Both texts were once again reprinted by H. Lietzmann in his Griech. Papyri, Kleine Texte 14 (Bonn, 1934*), but the editor unfortunately had not taken into account the many emendations that have been added since 1910. An important early commentary on the Acta Isidori was that of E. von Dobschiitz, AFT viii (1904), pp. 733 ff. The historicity of the fragments with reference to the protocol-form was first studied by H. Niedermeyer, Uber antike Protokoll-Literatur, 1918. Besides Wilcken’s Antis., pp. 800 ff., see also von P., AM, pp. 15 ff., whose commentary is closely followed by Neppi Modona, Raccolta Lumbroso, pp. 413-20, and R. Matta, Didaskaleion, N.s. iv (1926), i, pp. 71-95. On the problem of the date, see Clark Hopkins, “The Trial of Isidorus and Lampo before Claudius’, YCS i (1928), pp. 171-7, and von P., ‘Das Datum des Prozessus des Isidoros’, Hermes, Ixvii (1932), pp. 174-96. In general, see also Bell, 7FP iv (1950), ΡΡ. 19 ff.

COMMENTARY

118

IV

(cf. von P., AM, p. 22) before the papyrus disappeared from Berlin during the last war.

2. P. Cairo Inv. 10448, formerly in the museum at Gizeh (cote xxxi. 132), and now in the Egyptian Museum at

Cairo. First discovered by P. Jouguet, it was published by T. Reinach, REF xxxi (1895), pp. 161-78. Reinach

established the fact that it came from the same roll as BGU 511, and this was later confirmed by Wilcken with the help of a photograph. Wilcken published an im-

proved text in Antis., pp. 800 ff., and again (after a

revision by S. de Ricci) in Chrest. 14 ΠΠ. The text was again revised by Bell (cf. 785 xxxi [1941], p. 12 η.)

during a visit to Cairo. Recension B P. Lond. Inv. 2785 (now in the British Museum) was first published by Bell in Archiv, x (1932), pp. 5-16 (with a facsimile). Purchased by Bell at Akhmim, its provenance is un-

known. For a review see Neppi Modona, Aeg. xii (1932), pp. 333-8. The text, on the verso of a second-century document, is in a narrow, sloping, irregular semi-cursive. The hand

is most probably (as Bell dated it) from the early third century. Recension C P. Berol. Inv. 8877, formerly in Berlin, was first published by Uxkull-Gyllenband in SB Preuss. Ak. Wiss. 1930, N. 28, ΡΡ. 604-79. This fragment, measuring 11-5 X 11 cm., is written in a hand of the late second or early third century on the verso of an account of earlier date. See the reviews by Bell,

FEA xvii (1931), p. 126; Momigliano, Rend. Pont. Acc. Arch. vii (1932), pp. 117-27; Neppi Modona, Aeg. xii (1932), pp. 17-24; von P., Gnomon, viii (1932), pp. 201 f. There is an

English translation in Jones, The Herods of Fudaea, pp. 220-2 ; Bell, 11Ρ iv (1950), pp. 32 f. PROBLEM OF THE DATE The question of the date of the Acta Isidort was first tentatively settled in favour of A.D. 53 by Wilcken in Hermes, xxx

(1895), pp. 487 Π., especially on the basis of his restoration

BY

ACTA

ISIDORI

119

πα[ρούσης Σεβαστῆς] in Chrest. 14 ii. 7, and [AovkovA]|Acavois in ii. 4 f. The first, of course, suggested Julia Agrippina’s interference in State affairs' and hence a date after Α.Ρ. 48—or rather 50, when she was voted the title of Augusta? Furthermore, the Lucullan gardens were acquired for Messalina by

Claudius in a.v. 47/8 (Tac. Ann. xi. 1). Hence, Wilcken argued,

the Agrippa present at the trial must have been Agrippa 11, ii. since his father had already died about Α.Ρ. 44 (Jos. BF the with well very in fit would this fact, 219). As a matter of

detail noted by Josephus (Bf ii. 245, AF xx. 134 f.), that

trial Agrippa II had happened to be present in Rome for the inter52, A.D. in , Cumanus s of the ex-procurator Ventidiu ceding, with the help of Agrippina, on behalf of the Jews.’ of the This would place the Isidorus trial in April/May either been have ons restorati s Wilcken’ h year 52 or of 53. Althoug been have evidence of pieces other and definitely rejected

be discovered, it is to this dating that we shall ultimately

forced to return.

of Theodore Reinach, on the occasion of his publication ed reject the Cairo fragment in REF xxxi (1895), PP- 168 ff.,

ent was that Wilcken’s dating in favour of a.p. 41. His argum

person to be Agrippa I would have been the more plausible

that he had been connected with the Alexandrians’ trial, and ination and the in Rome in 40/1 at the time of Gaius’ assass the gardens in accession of Claudius. As for the name of names could be question, Reinach pointed out that other

persuaded equally restored.* Although Wilcken was for a time

5; Cassius Dio lx. 33. 71 See, for example, Tac. Ann. xii. 37, xiii. ii. 1 425 and Lackeit in REx PIR. see ina, Agripp On 2 Tac. Ann. xii. 26. (1917), 909-14, π. 556. hus (47 xx. 1 37), it would appear that Felix succeeded 3 According to Josep winter of 52/3. Tacitus here seems Cumanus as procurator of Judaea in the preserve the more accurate tradimay but 54), xii. hopelessly confused (Ann. n. 143 Momigliano, CAH x, 570, Ῥ. i, tion: see Schiirer, Gesch. jtid. Volkes, , xl (1949) pp. 1 ff. We are not told the p. 853; M. Aberbach, Jew. Quart. Rev. 52 (47 xx. 195 ἐν τῇ 'Ῥώμῃ τυγχάνων), in Rome in was II reason why Agrippa (cf. ibid. 138). We do not know the 53 in time but he must have left some it were late in 52, it is possible that if exact date of Cumanus’ trial, but even d of in the spring of 53. instea it, before place took affair the Isidorus the Servilian gardens—although le, examp for ted, 4 Reinach had sugges nt of the year 65 (Ann. xv. 553 accou his in us these are first mentioned by Tacit 296 ff. pp. , and cf. Hist. iii. 38). Cf. REF xxxiv (1897)

190

COMMENTARY

IV

by Reinach’s arguments, he finally returned to his original view, chiefly because of his opinion that Agrippina was present at the trial. Von Premerstein in AM (1922) was the next to advance further arguments in favour of A.D. 53. First of all, he urged, the gardens might have been the Lollian, acquired in 49 (Tac. Ann, xii. 22), or the Statilian, acquired precisely in 53 (ibid. 59).? Following a suggestion of Reinach’s, he proposed that the ‘Aviolaos’ of the Acta might be M’. Acilius Aviola, consul of 54: as consul designatus he could well have been a member of the imperial consilium in 53. Further, von Premerstein sought to identify “Tarquinius’ with M. Tarquitius Priscus. Tarquitius had prosecuted T. Statilius Taurus, under whose proconsulship he had served as legatus in Africa; and it was after Statilius’ forced suicide in 53 that Agrippina obtained the Statilian gardens. In the same year, however, Tarquitius himself was expelled from the Senate odio delatoris (Ann. xii. 59). Hence von Premerstein’s suggestion was very tempting: Isidorus’ trial took place in the Statilian gardens just before Tarquitius’ expulsion from the Senate, in the presence of Agrippina and the ladies of the

court. Claudius’ Letter to the Alexandrines, published in 1924, added new elements to the problem. The date of the letter’s promulgation at Alexandria by the Prefect L. Aemilius Rectus

was 10 November 41.4 Now if Isidorus’ trial took place in * That

Wilcken’s

restoration

was

false, however,

seems

clear from

the

London fragment published in 1932; but her presence might perhaps be inferred from the mention of ματρῶναι. Cf. von Ῥ., Hermes, Ixvii (1932), pp. 189 ff. 3 For the sources, see G. Lugli, ‘Horti’, Diz. epig. ii (1922), 993 ff., and cf. in general P. Grimal, Les Jardins romains a la fin de la république et aux deux premiers siécles de l’Empire (Paris, 1943). * The correction of Tarquitius for Tarquinius had already been suggested by Reitzenstein, SB Heid. Ak. Wiss. iv (1913), Abh. 14, p. 42, and Weber, Hermes, 1 (1915), p. 69. The reading, however, is certain, as can be seen from

the facsimile published by Bell (Juden und Griechen), and was confirmed by Schubart’s re-examination of the original (cf. AM, p. 22). * For the chronology of the early events of this year, see von P., Hermes, Ixvii (1932), pp. 184 f. Bell in P. Jews, p. 15, inclined to the view that the imperial letter quoted by Josephus, 47 xix. 280-5, was a separate edict written before P. Jews 1919 (cf. ll. 87 f.). So, too, H. S. Jones, ‘Claudius and the Jewish Question at Alexandria’, 7RS xvi (1926), pp. 25 ff.; M. Engers, Klio xx (1926),

IV

ACTA

ISIDORI

191

April/May of 41, it is difficult to understand how Claudius should make no explicit reference to it and should, moreover,

manifest such apparent friendliness to the Greeks after con-

demning two of their most prominent representatives. This was Bell’s argument, and it still seems to be the decisive point.?

Again, as G. De Sanctis first pointed out*—and in this he

was followed by Neppi Modona, Momigliano (Claudius, 95 Π.), Matta, and others—according to Claudius’ letter, Alexandrian civil magistracies were to be limited thenceforward to a term of three years (P. Jews 1912, 62 Π.), and this would probably include the gymnasiarchy. Hence if Lampon were gymnasiarch in A.D. 38 (cf. Philo, Flacc. xvi. 130; CR, pp. 143 f.), he would have had to relinquish the office at least by 10 November 41, and only after this date could Isidorus have been appointed. There is no evidence, moreover, for the existence of more than one gymnasiarch at Alexandria before the early second century. As a matter of fact, Philo, in his In Flaccum and. Legatio (written perhaps before Α.Ρ. 42), nowhere refers to Isidorus as a gymnasiarch (although he did organize lampoons in the gymnasium) ; contrariwise, in the Acta, Lampon never has this title. If then the gymnasiarchy was included among the πολιτικαὶ ἀρχαί of P. Jews 1912, the only reasonable conclusion would be that Isidorus’ trial did not take place in A.D. 41. In 1930 Uxkull-Gyllenband (whom we shall hereafter refer to as UG), on the occasion of his publication of P. Berol. 8877,

attempted to turn the scales in favour of the earlier dating, following a line also taken by Clark Hopkins.’ Uxkull-Gyllenband reinforced the American’s arguments with new ones

ing, pp. 173 ff.; von P., loc. cit., pp. 183 f. But the arguments are still unconvinc the gives really papyrus London the that possible and it would appear quite to believe original text of the edict which Josephus reworked. I find it difficult of each that there were two separate edicts written within such a short time and Jews between dispute the settle to prefect, ian Alexandr other to the respected. Greeks, and appealing to Augustan policy that Jewish rights be 291, also seems V. Μ. Scramuzza in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, v, p. to share this view. 1 Cf. Wilcken, Archiv, vii (1924), Ῥ. 310. been 2 In Riv. di fil. lii (1924), ΡΡ. 473 ff The argument has, however, challenged by von P., loc. cit., pp. 185 f., and others. 3 ‘The Trial of Isidorus and Lampo’, YCS i (1928), pp. 171-7.

122

COMMENTARY

IV

derived from the Berlin fragment. They may be summarized

as follows: 1. Granting the presence of Tarquitius Priscus, it is possible that he was

a member

of the consilium in 41 as praetor

(Hopkins, p. 174; UG, p. 670). 2. ‘Aviolaus’ might well be the elder Aviola, who had been proconsul of Asia in 38/9 (Hopkins, p. 175; UG, p. 670).

3. Too much emphasis should not be placed on Wilcken’s restorations (which presume the presence of Agrippina). 4. UG’s most important argument is the appearance of Balbillus in the Berlin fragment; and he would like to see a connexion with Claudius’ praise of Balbillus in P. Jews 1919. Thus Isidorus’ embassy, in his view, would have visited Claudius shortly after Balbillus’, and the latter would have remained at Rome for Isidorus’ trial (pp. 671 Π.). 5. That the execution of the two Alexandrians is not mentioned explicitly by Claudius is a piece of obvious tact (p. 677) ; and as a matter of fact UG considered the incident delicately

referred to in the words (80 ff.): ‘I shall be forced to show what a benevolent ruler can be when pushed to just wrath.’! 6. UG suggests that it is not unlikely that the deaths of Isidorus and Lampon were mentioned in the lost portions of the treatise περὶ ἀρετῶν (p. 678).? 7. UG’s final argument is based on his impression that the * This argument, it may be noted, is hardly convincing. Claudius’ remark, seen in its context, is obviously directed against any future disturbances, and, taken with the whole friendly tone of the letter, suggests rather that Claudius, the benevolent new princeps, had not as yet taken any punitive action against the Alexandrians. 3 Following here the older theory of Schiirer, Gesch. iii.4 525 ff. Most scholars today would incline to the view of Massabieau and Cohn, that Philo wrote two distinct works, the second of which (now represented by the Legatio) may originally have been in five books. For a discussion, see Balsdon, Gaius, pp. 221 f.; Box, In Flaccum, pp. xxxiii ff.; Schmid—Stahlin, Gr. Lit. ii. 1, pp. 625 8. Momigliano, Rassegna mensile di Israel, ν (1930-viii), pp. 275 ff.; Leisegang, RE xxxix (1941), 42 ff. But whatever view one holds in this matter—and I am inclined to follow Leisegang’s conclusion that we cannot yet effectively settle the controversy—it would still appear odd that Philo should not have referred to the punishment of Isidorus and Lampon, had he known of it at the time of In Flaccum. As it is, he seems to know nothing of Isidorus’ life after his participation in Apion’s embassy (in 98/9); whereas in the case of Gaius’ bodyguard, Helicon, he adds that he received his retribution later under Claudius (Leg. xxx. 206; CR, p. 194), i.e. perhaps in 41 or 42.

IV

ACTA

ISIDORI

123

Agrippa of P. Berol. must be Agrippa I; the fragment reveals

the profound hatred of the Greeks for Agrippa as well as his own partiality towards Alexandrian Jews; taking this with our comparative lack of evidence about Agrippa II (the author felt), these details would seem to be more applicable

to Agrippa I (pp. 678 f.). Uxkull-Gyllenband’s arguments were sufficiently answered by von Premerstein in Hermes, lxvii (1932), 174-96, and since then the date Α.Ρ. 53 has been more and more accepted by scholars.! CONCLUSION

It has become clear that Claudius’ Letter is the most important factor in the dating of the Acta Isidori. The references to Tarquitius and Aviola, the problematical gardens, and the

presence of the Roman ladies—all of these can be made to fit either view. The choice lies between Agrippa I in a.D. 41 or Agrippa II in Α.Ρ. 52/3. The entire presupposition of any argument, however, is that cal, the cognitio Caesariana recorded in the Acta Isidori is histori

and that it can be fitted into a scheme of events of which we P. Jews 1912 is a part. In the majority of cases, it is true, mentioned have been able to identify situations or personages

in the various Acta. The particular difficulty of the Acta Isidori is the fact that (apparently) such an important action other involving an Agrippa should have been omitted by our things which sources, and especially by Josephus, who records

Agrippa would seem to be far more trivial in connexion with and Alexandria. anonymous It would be very tempting to imagine that the

y invented pamphleteer(s) who composed the Acta Isidori merel

the death of two the action against Agrippa in order to invest In this view, sm. heroi Alexandrian scoundrels with an aura of History of Egypt, pp. 20f.; 1 e.g. Momigliano, Claudius, p. 353; Milne, ff.; Bell, 785 xxxi (1941), 220 pp. Herods, The Jones, 145; Balsdon, Gaius, p. Ρ. 176, n. 2. Besides (1932), Ixvii Hermes, P., p. 11, and others cited by von scholars, so far as I know, who Uxkull-Gyllenband and C. Hopkins, the only Aeg. xiii (1933), PP- 33! f., and still retained the date A.D. 41 were Stein, ch had since changed his view: Reina 348. P, (1934) P. M. Meyer, ZSS liv f. cf. REF Ixxix (1924), pp. 141

124

COMMENTARY

IV

it‘might be suggested that Isidorus and Lampon, returning

to Rome sometime after Flaccus’ downfall perhaps on the occasion of an embassy, got into difficulties with Claudius and perished ignominiously—with so many other forgotten political prisoners—at Rome. If the action were invented, the author(s), writing, say, a generation after the actual event, might not scruple to involve Agrippa I, whose Roman connexions and anti-Alexandrian sentiments were well known. Thus the actual date of Isidorus’ trial might have been some time between the close of 41 and the death of Agrippa I

(43/4)—even though Agrippa were out of Rome at the time. All this, however, is speculation. And it would seem more cautious to suggest that no certain conclusion can be reached until further evidence is unearthed. In the meanwhile, following the presumption that the events and characters of the Acta are historical, we may say that the more probable date of the Acta Isidori is 30 April-1 May of the year 53 or, just possibly, 52—that is, during the period of Agrippa II’s presence at Rome for the trial of Ventidius Cumanus. On the other hand, it may not be impossible to explain the omission of the incident by Josephus. We know that, besides enjoying imperial patronage, Josephus was greatly admired

by Agrippa II, who undertook to read the various books of the Bellum Iudaicum as they came from Josephus’ pen (Jos. Vita 365). Presuming therefore that the material was available,’ it is quite possible that Josephus deliberately omitted the incident—either because of the unpleasant reflection it might have cast upon the name of Agrippa, or perhaps simply

because he thought the Isidorus trial too insignificant for his consideration.

THE

GONDEMNATION

OF

ISIDORUS

AND

LAMPON

We have already considered the career of Isidorus in connexion with P. Oxy. 1089. As for Lampon, Philo tells us that

he had held the office of hypomnematographus in the Prefect’s

* We cannot exclude the possibility that the authentic records of the Isidorus trial were destroyed or perished accidentally ; cf., for example, the fire which destroyed the Capitoline archives in 69, Tac. Hist. iii. vat,

IV

ACTA

ISIDORI

125

Chancery (Flacc. xvi. 131; CR, p. 146); but we may question his accuracy when he asserts that Lampon was responsible for so many deaths by manipulating the public records that he

was nicknamed καλαµοσφάκτης, the ‘pen-slayer’ (ibid. xvi. 182; CR, p. 144). Appointed gymnasiarch against his will,

he was later imprisoned for two years at Rome under Tiberius —probably ο. 36/8—on a charge of ἀσέβεια (xvi. 129 f.; CR, pp. 143 8); but he was ultimately released and appears at Rome again to testify against Flaccus in the autumn of 38. Along with Isidorus and Dionysius, he is painted by Philo as a type of unscrupulous demagogue and anti-Semite (iv. 20;

GR, p. 124). But how he became involved in Isidorus’ case

against Agrippa in 52/3 remains a mystery. Again, it is difficult to see why Isidorus and Lampon were condemned. But it would appear that in the course of the Alexandrian ambassadors’ audience with Claudius, Agrippa’s name was so linked by Isidorus to the ‘subversive’ activities of the Alexandrian Jews that it was tantamount to a charge

of maiestas; for Claudius does imply that Isidorus was seeking

nothing less than Agrippa’s life. Why, then, the reversal of roles? Some punishment of the prosecutor would be in order if Claudius were satisfied that Isidorus in his charge was guilty of calumnia;2 and, in any case, Claudius would only be too eager to avail himself of the opportunity of getting rid of two

wily scoundrels who had been in Rome’s black books for some time. Momigliano singles out this decision against Isidorus as an instance of Claudius’ conflicting policy towards Judaism:

Jews, ¥ On the problem of the gymnasiarch’s term of office, see Bell, P. pp. 35f., and p. 121 above. And on the gymnasiarchy in general, see van f.; Jones, Groningen, Le Gymnasiarch, esp. pp. 90 Π.; Box, In Flaccum, pp. 115 GC, pp. 220 ff. cer2 I owe this suggestion to Sherwin-White, and I now feel it is almost H. Dessau, tainly right. Cf. p. 112 above. For other attempts at a solution, cf. and Lampon Gesch. rim. Kaiserzeit (1924-30), ii. 2, p. 676, n. 2 (that Isidorus misdemeanor), had been brought to Rome for trial on the charge of some language taken and Neppi Modona, Raccolta Lumbroso, p. 41, n. 1 (Isidorus’ had adopted reign his of beginning the at y apparentl Claudius é). as lése-majest must certainly this but 6), 3. lx. Dio (cf. harges maiestas-c the policy of ignoring ’ record of have been changed as time went on. For one account of Claudius (Johns Hopkins, executions, see T. DeCoursey Ruth, The Problem of Claudius 1916), pp. 80 ff.

IV

COMMENTARY

196

suspicious of it as a religious-political movement, he is quick

to intervene on behalf of what he feels are Jewish civil rights."

Again, Claudius’ attitude towards the Alexandrian officials is interpreted as an indication of his policy of centralization, and

as a deliberate attempt to weaken the last vestige of autonomous administration at Alexandria. But this latter conclusion, though certainly not implausible in itself, does appear to go beyond the meagre evidence of the Acta Istdort. AGRIPPA

II

We shall give here an abridged stemma of the Herod family? in order to facilitate our references to them: Antipater

|

Herod (1) the Great Mariamne (1)

Elpis

Aristobulus τBerenice (1)

|

Mariamne (2)

Salome (2)

Agrippa I= Cypris

te

ς (2)

Berenice (1)

Herod (9)

|

Herod (4), K. of Chalcis pera pia

|

Salome (1)

Agrippa IT

|

Herodias= Herod

(2)

Salome (3)

Berenicianus ™ Claudius, p. 35. On Claudius in general, see PIR ii.2 C 942; Charlesworth, CAH x (1934), pp. 667 ff; V. M. Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius (Harvard, 1940), with the review by Momigliano, 75 xxxii (1942), pp. 125 ff.; E. T. Salmon, A History of the Roman World, 30 2.c-4.v. 138 (London, 19502), pp. 157 ff.; Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy, pp. 123 ff. 3 Claudius, pp. 67 f. Scramuzza’s remark (op. cit., p. 78) that ‘Isidore and Lampon insisted in their defence that they were trying to uphold Greek culture’ must be based on a misunderstanding of the text; so, too, cf. Rostovtzeff’s view, p. 265, n. 5, below.

* See W. Otto, RE Suppl. ii. 2 (1913), 1-200; Jones, The Herods of Fudaea; Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, pp. 24 ff.; A. Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem, 19472); and see also G. H. Macurdy, Vassal Queens and Some Contemporary Women in the Roman Empire (Johns Hopkins, 1937), ap ee On Agrippa I and Agrippa II, see also the relevant articles in PIR an :

IV

ACTA ISIDORI

127

T. Reinach,! dating the events of the Acta Istdori to A.D. 41, originally supposed that the Agrippa there mentioned was M. Julius Agrippa I, son of Aristobulus and Berenice (1). His

grandmother, Salome (1), Herod the Great’s only sister, bequeathed much of her property to Livia (Josephus, BF ii. 167) ; and his mother, Berenice (1), was apparently on familiar

terms with Claudius’ mother, Antonia Minor (cf. 47 xviii. 143). Agrippa I grew up at Rome in the company of Claudius and Tiberius’ son Drusus, and it was then undoubtedly that he learned the trick of flattering the vanity of emperors for his own purposes. Imprisoned by Tiberius, he was freed at the accession of Gaius, who sent him back to his kingdom with many tokens of his esteem. It was his return via Alexandria in A.D. 38 that set off the spark of anti-Jewish feeling during the last year of Flaccus’ prefecture.” Present at Rome in 40/1 for the death of Gaius and the accession of Claudius, he received the province of Judaea as his kingdom just three years before

his death.

M. Julius Agrippa II, only a boy at his father’s death in 44 (cf. Josephus, BF ii. 219; AF xix. 354), must have been in the twenties at the time of his visit to Rome in 52/3: at this time, after assisting at the trial of Ventidius Cumanus, he returned home with the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias (BF ii. 245; AF xx. 134). Some years later we find him in Jerusalem after a brief visit to Alexandria in 66 (to congratulate Ti. Julius

Alexander on his prefecture) ; here in the course of a speech of pacification to his own people, he cites (according to

Josephus) the example of Egypt who “does not hold Roman domination in contempt despite the fact that it has a powerful spur (or centre?) of revolt in Alexandria (ἀποστάσεως κέντρον) by reason of the wealth and number of its people’ (B7 ii. 385).

Friendly with Titus and Vespasian, we find him again in

Rome

about Α.Ρ.

75 with his sister Julia Berenice’—that

And, following him, Schiirer, C. Hopkins, Uxkull-Gyllenband, A. Stein, and P. M. Meyer. con2 See Box, Jn Flaccum, pp. x! ff., whose criticism of Willrich’s view is ; vincing. 3 On Berenice, see PIR ii. I 431; Wilcken, RE iii (1899), 287 ff.; Macurdy, probably op. cit., pp. 84 ff. The Julia Berenice of Ρ. Hamb. 8. 2 (A.D. 136) was . a descendant

COMMENTARY

128

κ.

EV

‘Kleopatra in Kleinen’ as Mommsen called her. Criticism of

Berenice and Titus at this time was to lead to the execution

of the Cynic Heras (Dio Ixvi.15.5). Agrippa never married; after living at Rome with his sister he died most probably in

A.D.100—according to the testimony of Justus of Tiberias.' This is the man, then, if our presumptions are right, who was involved in the Isidorus trial of 52/3. Outside of the reference quoted above, we have no other record of his dealings

with Alexandria; but it is likely that the Alexandrian Greeks had as little love for him as they had for his father. THE

QUESTION

OF

SALOME

This leads us to a discussion of Chrest. 14 iil. 11 f., where Isidorus calls Claudius (following Bell’s reading) ‘a cast-off son of the Jewess Salome’. There were at least three women of this name who should be considered in this connexion :

Salome (1): only sister of Herod the Great. At Rome to contest her brother’s will in 4 B.c., she was later to bequeath her property to Livia in return for imperial favours. It is conjectured that she died in Α.Ρ. 10, about the age of 60. See PIR iii. S 74; Stahelin, RE, ate R. (2) li (1920), 1995-7, n. 1 Salome (2): Daughter of Herod the Great by Elpis (cf. Jos. BF i. 563); little is known of her life save that she was married to one of the sons of Pheroras, the brother of Herod the Great. C. Hopkins, who suggests this Salome, must be confused when he states that she was the wife of Pheroras and later of Aristobulus (son of Herod the Great) : YCS, loc. cit., p. 176. Cf. PIR S 75; RE, 1997, n. 2. But I think there is hardly any question of her being concerned in the Acta Isidori. o Quoted by Photius, Bibl., cod. 33. Although the original edition of Josephus’ Vita and AF must have appeared in 93/4 when Josephus was 56 (47 20. 267), references to Agrippa’s death (Vita 359) or to his incestuous relations with Berenice (47 20. 145) could well have been inserted in a second edition and hence do not prove that Agrippa was already dead by 93/4, as Rosenberg (RE, ‘ Agrippa’) and Holscher (RE, ‘Josephus’) assume. See Schiirer, Gesch. jiid. Volkes, i (3/4. Aufl.), pp. 599 f., and, more recently, Momigliano in CAH x (1934), p. 886, whose view is controverted (wrongly, I think) by A. H. M. Jones, ZRS xxv (1935), Ρ. 231.

IV

ACTA ISIDORI

129

Salome (9): Daughter of Herodias and Herod (2), it was she undoubtedly who danced before Antipas for the head of John the Baptist (cf, for example, Mark vi. 22 ff., where she is unnamed); she was later married to Aristobulus, son of Herod of Chalcis and Mariamne. See PIR S 76; RE, 1997.£., 2. 3.

Most commentators have felt inclined to see in the Acta Isidori a reference to Salome (1), for of the three, so far as the evidence

goes, she was most involved in Roman

affairs."

Stahelin, in RE, hesitated between Salome (1) and Salome (3). Von Premerstein, in AM, attempted to restore the text of Chrest. 14 ili. 12 as [ἡμῖ]ν [διά]βλητος--Ύοι have been set against us(?) by the Jewess Salome’—and suggested that Salome (3) was meant, citing her husband Aristobulus’ friendship with Nero (47 xx. 13). Unfortunately this restoration, awkward enough as Greek and palaeographically unsatisfactory, has been adopted by some scholars.

But the problem has, I feel, finally been solved by Bell’s

revision of the Cairo fragment (see JRS xxxi[1941], p. 12 n.), which we follow in our text; according to this, the sense cer-

tainly is ‘you are the cast-off (or supposititious) son of the Jewess Salome’. This reading finally confirms a conjecture of Lietzmann’s, which was also suggested, in part, by Weber (Hermes, loc. cit.).2 The importance of the new reading is that the only likely person in this case could be Salome (1), the sister of Herod—even though she would have been too old at Claudius’ birth to have been seriously liable to the charge. Because of this difficulty some scholars? have suggested that the reference to Salome (1) here is a mistake—either of Isidorus’ or the author’s—for her daughter Berenice (1), the mother of Agrippa I. We know, of course, of the friendship between Berenice and Claudius’ mother, Antonia Minor

1 So Wilcken, Phil. Woch. xvii (1897), p. 411; Reinach, REF xxxiv (1897), p. 298; Weber, Hermes 1 (1915), Ρ. 59, 0. 1. 2 The reading vid]s [ὑπό]βλητος is wrongly attributed to Reinach by von Premerstein and Bell. See Reinach’s disclaimer, REF lxxix (1924), p. 142. It apparently originated with Lietzmann himself (Griech. Papyri, 19107), although he again, by a misunderstanding, seems to have attributed it to Reinach. 3 J. C. Naber, ‘De Iudaeo Agrippa et Iudaea Salome’, Aeg. xii (1932), pp. 329 ff., and Jones, The Herods, p. 222. 5498

K

IV

COMMENTARY

190

(Josephus, 47 xviii. 143) ; and Naber goes so far as to suggest

that Agrippa I may have been born at Rome.

Though the suggestion is tempting, it is not at all necessary

when we consider the type of literature with which we are

dealing. For whether we consider the remark as historical or merely as an interpolation ofan anonymous diaskeuastes writing

perhaps a generation or more later, there would be just sufficient justification for taking it as a reference to Salome (1). It had been, perhaps, a vulgar gibe that circulated about the

streets and clubs of Alexandria—and there must have been a

good many about the birth of the ‘crazy’ Claudius—and in

such assertions one hardly need look for historical exactitude." THE

PROBLEM

OF

TI.

CLAUDIUS

BALBILLUS*

The dispute on the identity of this person has been well exposed by A. Stein, ‘Balbillus’, Aeg. xiii (1933), ΡΡ. 123-36, and it is not essential to our purpose here to reopen the discussion. For the sake of clarity, however, we may enumerate the following references to the various Balbilli: I. (a) Barbillus, an astrologer, honoured by Vespasian with a special festival at Ephesus (Dio Ixvi. ο. 9); probably the same as (b) Balbillus, the astrologer consulted by Nero (Suet. Nero 36. 1). See PIR 1. B 38. Il. Τι. Claudius Balbillus, prefect of Egypt under Nero from A.D. 55 to Oct. (?) 59, known apparently as a pedant and scholar. For the sources, see Cantarelli, n. 21; Stein, loé. cit., pp. 123 1.3 PIRGa.* C.8igs sicin ο Prafekten, p. 33. 1 So, too, Bell, FRS, loc. cit., p. 12 n. 3 See F. Cumont,

‘Astrologues

romains

et byzantins.

i. Balbillus’,

Mél.

@arch. et d’hist. xxxvii (1918-19), pp. 33 ff.; C. Cichorius, Rém. Studien (1922), Ρρ. 393 Π.; Bell, P. Jews, p. 29; H. Stuart Jones, FZRS xvi (1926), pp. 18 f.; Rostovtzeff, JEA xii (1926), pp. 24 ff.; A. Piganiol, M4él. Glotz (Paris, 1932), Ἡ, pp. 723-30; von P., Hermes Ixvii (1932), pp. 178 f.; A. Stein, Aeg. xiii (1933), pp. 123 ff. and 331 f.; Momigliano, CAH x, p. 708; E. Hohl, GGA xvi (1926), pp. 138 ff.; Sherwin-White, BSR xv (1939), p. 21, n. 68, on which see Momigliano, JRS xxx (1940), p. 213; Stein, Die Prdafekten, p. 33; Magie,

Roman Rule in Asia Minor, pp. 1398 ff.

IV

ACTA

ISIDORI

13!

III. Τι. Claudius Balbillus, eques (and son of a Roman citizen), honoured at Ephesus in two inscriptions: see 1. Keil, Forschungen in Ephesos, iii (1923), pp. 127f,, n. 41 (Greek), n. 42 (Latin, composed after the death

of Claudius). See also PIR ii.2 C 813. From the Latin inscription we learn that he served as tribune under

Claudius in Britain and held various procuratorships at Alexandria. IV. (a) Ti. Claudius Barbillus of Claudius’ Letter to the Alexandrines (P. Jews 1912, 16, 36, 105), in which he is specifically singled out as the emperor’s friend. He is most likely identical with (b) Balbillus of the Acta Isidori (P. Berol. 8877), who is on friendly terms with both Isidorus and the

emperor, although hostile to Agrippa.

Stein, against the majority of scholars who have considered the can but the

problem, drew the following conclusions : the astrologer (I) hardly be identical with any of the others; it is possible doubtful that the prefect of Egypt (II) is identical with procurator (III) honoured at Ephesus; and, lastly, Stein

would deny that the Alexandrian (IV) is to be identified with

any of the others. With regard to Balbillus I, III, and IV, however, Stein’s conclusions have been questioned by A. N. Sherwin-White.' Stein had argued that it seemed unreasonable to suppose that the Alexandrian Balbillus, despite his importance at Alexandria in A.D. 41, would have had to serve in the army in Britain and go through the equestrian cursus from the beginning. Sherwin-White’s point, that this was precisely imperial policy,” is most convincing ;and although I still feel that the astrologer is not to be connected with the others, I see no difficulty in identifying the Balbillus of P. Jews 1912 and the Acta Isidori (C)3 with the prefect of 55 and the procurator honoured at Ephesus. τ΄ In his article ‘Procurator Augusti’, BSR xv (1939), Ρ. 21, η. 68, cited with approval by Momigliano, FRS, loc. cit. 2 See the parallels quoted, BSR, loc. cit. 3 It should be noted that we need not infer from the Ephesian inscriptions to that Balbillus was actually born at Ephesusas, for example, H.S. Jones seemed as do, FRS xvi (1926), loc. cit. Secondly, the office of the Ephesian Balbillus

132

LV

COMMENTARY

᾿Ολύμπιε Καΐσαρ (P. LOND.

25 1.)

This mode of address, occurring in a badly torn portion of

the papyrus, may well be of importance for the date of

composition of recension B.! Judging from extant coins and inscriptions, the title ᾿ Ολύμπιος was not commonly used of the emperors until the reign of Hadrian. Before that, we find it only in a few inscriptions from Lesbos in honour of Augustus, not only after his death (JGR iv. 11, 72, 76), but also perhaps while he was still alive (16 xii. 2, 656). As a cognomen of Hadrian, however, the title is found practically everywhere in the Greco-Roman world,? especially after his dedication of the temple (or, at least, of the cella of the temple) of Zeus Olympius at Athens in the winter of A.D. 128/9.3 For here it was that Hadrian placed a statue of Zeus Olympius, perhaps with a statue of himself as σύνναος Atds.* After Hadrian the title again becomes extremely rare, and I find it used only of the following emperors: Antoninus Pius: LeBas, Voyage Arch. ii. 192. Commodus: on two coins from Ephesus in the British Museum, a gold drachm and a half-drachm: B.M. Cat. xvi (1892), Ionia, nn. 255-6. Caracalla: in an inscription from Gortyn, Crete, dated in A.D. 213/7 by R. Paribeni, Mon. ant. R. Acc. der Lincet, xviii (1907), pp. 317 f. [procurator sacrarum] aedium divi Augusti . . . et lucorum sacro[rumque omnium] at Alexandria would fit in very well with the proposal, mentioned in P. Jews 1912, 42, of dedicating certain groves in honour of Claudius. This, like the suggestion with regard to the statue of Pax Claudiana Augusta, may also have

been initiated by Balbillus. For a discussion of the possible connexion of the Acta Alexandrinorum, and particularly recension C of the Acta Isidori, with the pro-Roman party at Alexandria, see pp. 275 ff. 1 Cf. von P., Hermes Ixvii (1932), p. 175 n. 2 See P. Riewald, De imperatorum romanorum cum certis dis et comparatione et aequatione (Diss. Halle, 1912), pp. 291, 332 Π., and cf. also A. C. Raubitschek,

AFA xxxix (1945), pp- 128-33.

3 See W. Weber, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus (Leipzig, 1897), esp. pp. 207 ff.; B. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Hadrian (London, 1923), pp. 118f. For further literature on Hadrian, see pp. 197 ff., below. * Dio lxix. 16.1; SHA Hadr. xiii. 6. Nock suggests that the image was a cultstatue of Zeus with Hadrian’s features: cf. HSC xli (1930), p. 32. ,

IV

ACTA

ISIDORI

133

It is admittedly difficult to draw any certain conclusion from this evidence. First of all, popular usage of a title so often preceded its appearance in a public inscription. Secondly,

the occurrence of the epithet in the Acta might be due to a stage of redaction much later than the first copy. All in all, however, one is inclined to think that the phrase ᾿Ολύμπιε Kaicap does suggest that an important redaction of the Acta Isidori took place under Hadrian, possibly during the aftermath of the Jewish rising at Alexandria. Acta Isidori: Recension A (Chrest. 14) 1. Ταρκύνιος. Most scholars now agree that this is most prob-

ably an early corruption for Tarquitius. M. Tarquitius Priscus was

legatus in Africa under the proconsul T. Statilius Taurus whom, at the instigation of Agrippina, he prosecuted in Α.Ρ. 53. After

Statilius’ suicide and the seizure of the Statilian gardens by the emperor in A.D. 53, Tarquitius was expelled from the Senate in the same year (Tac. Ann. xii. 59). Reinstated under Nero, he was proconsul of Bithynia and Pontus, but was himself condemned for extortion in A.D. 61 to the delight of many senators (Ann. xiv. 46). See PIR iii. T 20; Fluss, RE, 2te R. viii (1932), 2394f, n. 9; Stein, Aeg. xiii (1933), Ρ. 131 nm. Reinach held that a senator actually named Tarquinius was not out of the question, RE XXxi (1895), Ρ. 172. Although von Premerstein’s supplements (AM, pp. 23 f.) cannot be accepted, his suggestion that Tarquitius is here attacking Isidorus and siding with Agrippa (as one would expect of a creature of Agrippina’s) is interesting. Cf. also his article in Hermes, loc. cit., pp. 193 f.

See Niedermeyer, Uber antike Protokoll-Literatur, pp. 22 ff., for a treatment of the proceedings of the consilium here; cf. also Josephus’ account of a consilium held by Augustus in the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine (B7 ii. 81 ff.). 8. Ἀουϊόλαος. Granting 52/3 as the probable date of the trial, this is most likely M’. Acilius Aviola, cos. ord. of 54, proconsul of Asia in 65/6, and curator aquarum 74-79. See von Rohden, RE i (1894), 253 f., n. 22; PIR i.” A 49; Stein, Aeg. xiii (1933), Ρ. 1325 von P., Hermes Ixvii (1932), pp. 194 ff; Magie, Roman Rule in

Asia Minor, p. 1582. αχ. τοῦτο τὸ ἅπαξ. Probably ‘at this time’: cf. 2 Kings xvii. 7, and see S. G. Kapsomenakis, Voruntersuchungen zu einer Grammattk der Papyri, pp. 50 f.

COMMENTARY

134

IV

15. Von P. suggested συλλαλήσας οὖ]ν συμβουλείῳ. For parallels see Wilcken, Archiv v (1913), pp- 232 f. 18. Just possibly [Γερμανικοῦ Σαρματικοῦ], as, for example, in P. Brit. Mus. III, n. 1178, 8 f., and elsewhere.

Col. i 1. It is likely that an earlier column was headed ἡμέρα πρώτη. 6. I find Bell’s reading here, τ[ούτων δὲ], difficult, because in

P. Lond. the consulares are listed—perhaps mistakenly—as though they came in addition to the senators. II. τὰ πονοῦν[τα τῇ πατρίδι]. A curious expression, but from

the London fragment there would seem to be no other alternative. τὰ πονόεντα (from πονόεις ‘toilsome’) should perhaps be read. 16. The restoration of this line has long been a stumblingblock. In P. Lond. 11, the corresponding place, we have ὑπερθε-

at the end of the line, which Bell restored as ὑπερθε[τικόν], in the sense of ‘extravagant’, ‘rash’ (see his note ad loc.) ; recently, however, he has expressed dissatisfaction with it: FEA xviii (1932), p. 86. H. J. M. Milne had suggested ὑπὲρ θέσιν; J. C. Naber, the vocative "Ὑπερθεραῖτα. Crénert’s ὑπερ Θέωνος seems the most

likely (meaning, of course, ‘about Theon’, not ‘in favour of Theon’) ; yet in the present version at least (Chrest. 14) the following xara is awkward. Possibly the solution is that the two recensions differed here—as they do in other places. Hence it is possible that we should restore Chrest. 14 as follows: Μαἴ[σαρ' ᾿Ισίδωρε, μηδὲν εἴπῃς]

κατὰ τοῦ ἐμοῦ [φίλου Θέωνος' ἄλλους γὰρ] and Ῥ. Lond.,

Kaicap: μηδὲν ὑπὲρ Θέ[ωνος τοῦ ἐμοῦ] φίλου εἴπῃς, κτλ. 19ο. On Theon, see above, p. 103.

Col. wi 1. Possibly the conclusion of a speech by Isidorus.

2. Λάμπων τῷ Ἰσιδώρῳ. Note the inconsistency in the use of the article, as frequently in the Acta. Cf. 1. 14 below. Lampon’s remarks might be a reference to his two-year imprisonment under Tiberius when, as Philo tells us (Flacc. xvi. 129 f.; CR, p. 143), the judge caused constant delay in order to keep him in anxiety over his fate as long as possible. At this point in the proceedings Agrippa seems to have disappeared from the scene and the trial may now

ACTA

IV

ISIDORI

135

have been held intra cubiculum principis. Cf. A. Hermiae 3, p. 149 below. 5 ff. Isidorus’ last appeal for mercy. Speeches such as this, which do not seem to us to enhance the glory of the Alexandrian heroes, first inclined Wilcken to believe in the fundamental his-

toricity of the Acta Isidori. 7. κατηγορήσω. Deliberate subjunctive; for similar constructions (θέλω or βούλομαι with subjunctive, in a question), see Matt. xiii, 28, xxvii. 17; Luke xviii. 41; John xviii. 39.

7Ε. ἀσφαλῶς, κτλ. This sentence, which abruptly interrupts the

trend of the conversation, is perhaps better taken as a question. Cf. Naber, Aeg. xii (1932), Ρ. 332. We have an instance of such an irrelevant question interrupting a conversation when Diogenes asks Alexander (Dio Chrys. Or. iv. 18) od ἐκεῖνος ef Ἀλέξανδρος, ὃν λέγουσιν ὑποβολιμαῖον;

ϱ. οὕκ εἰμι δοῦλος, κτλ. This insistence upon εὐγένεια is a frequent motif in the Acta Alexandrinorum as it is in the Hellenistic Greek novel. ΟΕ, for example, Herm. 44f.; P. Oxy. 33 iii. 3 ff; P. Lond. 35, and see below, p. 253. In Chariton’s novel, εὐγένεια is the hallmark

of good breeding:

πατρίδος, γονέων ἐστέρημαι,

µόνην οὐκ ἀπολώλεκα τὴν εὐγένειαν, Says Callirhoe (Chariton m1. 1ο], 11f. This ‘feminist’ interest is another recurrent note in the

of Acta: cf, the mention of the ladies at the trial, the influence the in Caesar and ra Plotina in Herm., the reference to Cleopat

Acta Appiani. Apart from the interest in the chronique scandaleuse as such, the purpose of these references would seem to be to suggest among the weakness of the Roman conquerors. As the saying went

well-born Greeks (Chariton vu. ii. 4), φύσει δέ ἐστι τὸ βάρβαρον γυναιµανές. ἐξαλώμης (p): for a note on this mode of writing, which, although an error here, recalls the classical period, see Tod, AFP Ixvii (1946), ΡΡ. 329-33: to 12. Isidorus’ final remark must have been violent enough d, restore be er Whatev f. 16 iii. in e sentenc provoke Claudius’ final lacunae. there is hardly room for either a verb or a pronoun in the ἐπ[ι(gen.) ας ἀπῳ]λεί Perhaps we have an exclamation: διὸ καὶ i.e. rule!; of on perditi the for κρ]ατή[σε]ως: ‘Hence (I say) alas ty’ authori e suprem our in come have we ‘to what a sorry state s genitive (having such a ruler as Claudius). The genitive is perhap Chariton δεινῆς, of cause, as often in exclamations; cf. ὢ τυραννίδος text. the of ν. κ. 5. But something may have fallen out

196

COMMENTARY

IV

τί ἄλλο ἔχομεν, κτλ. Lampon’s remark has something of the flavour of the aphorism that was so popular with the rhetoricians and the romantic writers: cf. Chariton vi. vii. 3, οὐδένι γὰρ ἔξεστιν ἀντεῖπειν βασιλέως κελεύοντος. For the types and uses of the γνώµη,

see Aphthonius, Progymn. 4 (ii. 25, Spengel). And for the commonplaces on tyrants, see p. 239 below.

14f. παρα|φρονοῦντι. Cf. Antonia Minor’s comment on her son, quoted by Suetonius (Claud. iii. 2): ‘nec absolutum a natura, sed tantum inchoatum.’ For a discussion of Claudius’ ailment, see

T. De Coursey Ruth, The Problem of Claudius (1916), and E. F. Leon, ‘The Jmbecillitas of the Emperor Claudius’, TAPA Ixxix

(1948), pp. 79-86.

'

16. προεκέλευσα. Apparently hapax legomenon, but see the corrupt entry in Hesychius s.v. προκλήδην (ed. Schmidt, 1280, 39) where προκελεῦσαι is cited. The trial perhaps did not end here and there may have been further postponements. That Isidorus and Lampon were finally executed by the Romans is suggested by P. Oxy. 33 vi. 4 ff.

Acta Isidori: Recension B (P. Lond. Inv. 2785) Variations from the text of Chrest. 14 ii, some of which have

already been noted, are not important: note the use of the numeral (1. 2) ; omission of the article with ματρωνῶν (though inconsistency in this matter suggests that the change was insignificant) ; abridgement of formulae (1. 6); use of the present (1. 8, probably left unchanged—but see Bell’s note) ; possible variation of Il. 11 f. (see my note on Chrest. 14 ii. 16 f.). 14. Να]ίυιον. Identified by Bell as Naevius Sertorius Macro, friend of Flaccus and successor to Sejanus as prefect of the pretorian guard (A.D. 32-38). Gaius, becoming suspicious of Macro’s

growing power, forced him to commit suicide with his wife Ennia Naevia in 38, after designating him prefect of Egypt (cf. Suet. Calig. xxvi. 1; Philo, Leg. viii. 59, CR, p. 166; Dio lix. το. 6). It is difficult to imagine that this would still be on Claudius’ mind in

52/3. At any rate, though we have no other evidence of Isidorus’ implication in Macro’s disgrace, it is not impossible that Isidorus did involve Macro in his denunciation of Flaccus. But here again

there may be an exaggeration of Alexandria’s influence in Roman affairs. On Macro, see Cantarelli, n. 143, PIR ii. N το; Stein, RE

Xxxil (1935), 1565-8; Balsdon, Gaius, pp. 38 f.;Stein, Die Prafekten, Ῥ. 28 (whose doubts about the reference here have been convincingly answered by Bell, CR n.s. ii [1952], p. 104).

IV

ACTA ISIDORI

137

16f. The lines suggest that Isidorus was seeking nothing less than Agrippa’s death. If so, the view that Isidorus and Lampon

were condemned for calumnia gains further support; cf. pp. 112 and 125 above. 18. τριωβολείου most probably (τριωβολίου [p]), although Bell’s suggestion, τριωβολιζαίδου, is also possible. On the expression, cf. οὐκ ἄξιος τριωβόλου, in A. Otto, Die Sprichwérter der Rimer (Leipzig, 1890), p. 351. Rostovtzeff’s suggestion, that the word may here

have an obscene connotation, cannot be disregarded—despite von Premerstein’s strictures (see Bell, loc. cit., pp. 11 and 16)—for Agrippa remained unmarried and had been accused of sexual abnormality: see p. 128, n. 1 above. It may be noted in this connexion that, despite Claudius’ many sexual aberrations, it is not recorded that he succumbed to the vice of many another emperor :

see Suet. Claud. xxxiii. 2 and cf. Ruth, The Problem of Claudius,

ΡΡ. 39 ff. 34. Isidorus’ complaint here has somewhat of a parallel in Appian’s (P. Oxy. 33 iii. 8 ff.). It is tempting to see in ἐπάγομαι an error for ἀπάγομαι; but it probably is correct (perhaps merely ‘to be haled into court’). See Bell’s note, p. 13. 35 ff. Perhaps the advocate retained by Isidorus tore his himation as a sign of despair (or protest), and threw himself upon the

ground before the emperor. Such scenes are frequent in the Greek

novels: cf. especially Chariton v. ii. 4 and Heliodorus vi. 8 (167. οι ff.), and see p. 254 below. In this case, one might restore: ἐτῶν vs, ἙΕλλ[ηνικὸς τῷ γένει. καὶ τότε 6] | ῥήτωρ, τῇ δεξι[ᾷ

περιρρηέάµενος . . «] |τὸ ἱμάτιον, ἔρρι[πψεν ἑαυτὸν χάµαι] |καὶ εἶπεν, κτλ.

45. ἑπτὰ Σεβαστεῖα. There may have been a definite charge

made here against Isidorus in connexion with emperor-worship, but unfortunately the significance of the reference is not clear.

There is evidence for many Augustea throughout Egypt, e.g. at Arsinoé, Dendera, Elephantine, Oxyrhynchus. See F. Blumenthal,

Hermopolis, Memphis, and “Der ag. Kaiserkult’, Archiv ν

(1911), pp. 317 ff.; RE Suppl. iv (1924), 821-3; WB iii, Abschn. 12, s.v. Καισαρεῖον. For the Augusteum at Alexandria, where Augustus was worshipped as ἐπιβατήριος θεός, see Kubitschek, ‘Alexandreia’, RE i (1894), 1387; Breccia, Alexandrea ad Aegyptum, pp. 92 f. ; Calderini, Diz. geog., pp. 118 ff.; Bell, P. Jews, p. 35. Cf. also the oration on emperor-worship in P. Oxy. 1612 and the remarks on p. 144 below.

“COMMENTARY

198

IV

Acta Isidori: Recension C (P. Berol. 8877) From the mere difference in format and style we cannot be certain that we have here, as the editor first suggested, another (perhaps longer) recension of the Acta Isidort. It is likely, however, that these external differences were not due merely to the copyist ; hence, failing the evidence of corresponding passages, we shall go on the presumption that the Berlin fragment is a distinct recension from A and B.

Col. 2 Little can be made of this column. Ll. 2 and 6 seem to have contained the names of speakers, especially 1. 6, since a hyphen or

dash is still visible in the space. UG, taking 1. 13 as referring to the Jews, suggested that the lost speech dealt with Jewish-Alexan-

drian opposition. 6. The name missing here may be Balbillus. Cf. 1. το. 15. A reference, perhaps, to the dispute on the poll-tax, as in Il. 29 ff. 17. The name Poseidon is unexpected here. A section of Alexandria jutting into the harbour was called Posidium apparently

because of a temple to Poseidon which was located there (Strabo

xvii. 1. 9; 704). Poseidon first appears on Alexandrian coins (as

Poseidon Isthmius) in 66/7, after Nero’s victories in the Isthmian games: see Vogt, Alexandrinische Miinzen, i, pp. 11, and Milne, Coins, p. 268; he later appears

under

Milne, Catalogue, index s.v. See also Calderini, Diz. geog., pp. Visser, Gétter und Kulte, pp. 30, 96 f.

137 ες

Catalogue of Alexandrian

Hadrian in 111/2: see Dattari, Numi Augg. Alex. n. 1449, and

Col. 19. Β[άλβιλλος] is the most plausible supplement here; hence

his speech probably occupied the previous column, from 1. 7 onwards. 22. ἀντικαταστήσομαι. Cf. ἀντικατάστασις, P. Jews 1912, 75. Isidorus’ speech here recalls a similar one in Leg. xlv. 355 (CR,

p. 220. 11-16), where Isidorus, as a member of Apion’s embassy (in 38 or 39), launches his attack upon the Jews as follows: ἔτι μᾶλλον, ἔφη, δέσποτα, µισήσεις τοὺς παρόντας καὶ τοὺς ὧν εἶσιν ὁμόφυλοι,

ἐὰν yas τὴν εἰς σὲ κακόνοιαν καὶ ἀσέβειαν. ἁπάντων γὰρ ἀνθρώπων ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας τῆς σῆς θυσίας ἀναγόντων εὐχαριστηρίους, οὐχ ὑπέµειναν οὗτοι μόνοι θύειν' ὅταν δὲ οὗτοι λέγω, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους Ιουδαίους

συμπαραλαμβάνω.

IV

ACTA ISIDORI

139

23 f. ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην, κτλ. A stock accusation against the Jews during this period. Cf. P. Jews 1912, 98-100, and for parallel passages see S. Lésch, Epistula Claudiana (Rottenburg, 1930). For a recent and, I think unwarranted, revival of the theory that the

passage in P. Jews 1912 refers to the Christians, see H. Janne, ‘Impulsore Chresto’, Mél. Bidez, ii (1934), pp. 552f., and ‘La Lettre

de Claude

aux Alexandrins

et le Christianisme’,

Mél.

Cumont (Brussels, 1936), pp. 273 ff. 27. oUK εἶσι toot, κτλ. Although I think that the evidence favours Bell’s view that ‘the poll-tax was not a political impost intended to mark the inferior status of the Egyptians’ (7RS xxxvii [1947], p. 23), yet it is only natural that those who, like the

Alexandrians, enjoyed exemptions would tend to look down on those who did not. Isidorus’ remarks suggest (a) that the Alexandrian Jews enjoyed a status inferior to the Greeks, and (6) that the Alexandrian Greeks did not pay the tax; but, it must be noted, he does not say that the Jews actually paid the poll-tax as such—even

though an explicit statement of this fact (if it were true) would have been a perfect climax to his argument. Now if Agrippa’s startling remark, τούτοις δὲ οὐδείς, is to be taken as historical (and the presumption is that it is), it must follow either that Alexandrian Jews did not pay the poll-tax or that they paid it under a formality

which set them apart from the Egyptians and was more in accord with their privileged status. It seems clear that, outside of Alexandria, Jews were not exempt (cf. Tcherikover, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, English summary, p. 14). But within Alexandria itself the case is not so clear: cf. Fuchs, Die Juden Agyptens, p. 108 ;Box, In Flaccum, p. xxx. Some, like Neppi Modona, who still cling to De Sanctis’s view that the Alexandrian Jews enjoyed Alexandrian citizenship, suggest that exemption would be more in accord with their status: cf. Aeg. xii (1932), Ρ. 93. Others, however, like Bell (Egypt, p. 70) and A. Segré (Few. Soc. Studies, vi [1944], Ῥ. 382), incline to believe that the Alexandrian Jews were not exempt. Whatever Agrippa’s remark

may

have meant,

it certainly seemed

preposterous

to

Balbillus, perhaps because he felt that Agrippa was merely quibbling. Roberts has suggested to me that perhaps Agrippa meant that the Jews did not pay the poll-tax qua Jews, i.e. in virtue of their nationality. This seems a very likely explanation, but I think that the text means more than this; and I venture to suggest that the Alexandrian Jews, in virtue of their privileged status, did not pay a strict capitation tax as such. It is not impossible that the

140

COMMENTARY

IV

Jewish politeuma had agreed to pay Rome a fixed µερισµός, the distribution of the tax being settled by the Jewish gerousia or the Jews themselves. In this way the forms would have been preserved and both Jews and Greeks could feel that their respective privileges had not been impaired.

29. of ἄρχοντες. Notwithstanding UG’s hesitation, it would seem that the phrase here refers not to the κοινόν of civic magistrates but to the true rulers of Egypt, the Romans.

(141)

V

Ρ. Oxy. ined.: Acta Diogents THE

TEXT

The text, which has been part of the Oxyrhynchus collection, was first noticed by Roberts, and it is to him and to the kindness of the Committee of the Egyptian Exploration Society that I owe the opportunity of including it in the present study. Measuring 40-3 X 14°3 cm., the papyrus contains our text on the verso; on the recto is a second-century land-register from Oxyrhynchus. The hand is of the round, upright literary variety, and should not be later than the second half of the second century.

It would appear that we have here a fragment of a speech

of prosecution against a person (or persons) accused of criticizing and spreading falsehood about the emperors (cf. Il. 20 Π., 42 ff.). It is most likely that several persons are involved, one of whom is at the time of the speech in voluntary exile (Il. 31 ff.) ; perhaps a third in the group had already been put to death (cf. 17 f.). But there is still much that remains uncertain; and I have called the fragment Acta Diogenis for the sake of convenience; whether the Diogenes of Ἱ. 15 was actually one of the defendants we do not know. At any rate, the speech is delivered in the presence of one of the emperors who has been attacked (Il. 42 ff.); and one of the accused (whether present or absent) has apparently been guilty of a similar attack upon a previous emperor some twelve years before (ll. 19 ff.). Now it would appear from col. i that, though Nero is already dead, his memory is still fresh. The gymnasium referred to might conceivably be the

one Nero had built at Rome in Α.Ρ. 61 (Tac. Ann. xiv. 47).

Allowing for the passage of the twelve years of ll. το f., it

would appear reasonable to suppose that the emperor before whom the speech was delivered is Vespasian. Various details would seem

to confirm this assumption.

First of all, the

ν COMMENTARY 149 reference to the emperor’s attitude towards wealth and position (22 ff.) would suggest that the defendant’s criticism had been

philosophic and possibly of the Stoic-Cynic variety. This could easily be associated with Vespasian’s expulsion of the StoicCynic philosophers in A.D. 71 (Dio Ίαν]. 13), the condemnation of Helvidius Priscus ο. 75 (Dio lxvi. 12. 2 f.; Suet. Vesp. 15), and the punishment of Diogenes and Heras for criticizing Titus about the same time (Dio lxvi. 15. 5). Secondly, the

orator’s description of the emperor in ll. 48 ff., ‘his oldfashioned ways’ (if we interpret the lines correctly), recalls Tacitus’ remark in the Annals (iii. 55): ‘praecipuus adstricti moris auctor Vespasianus fuit, antiquo ipse cultu victuque.’ The emperor referred to in Il. το Π., criticized twelve years

previously, would then be Nero. Thus the rhetor’s description of the emperor’s attitude towards the wealthy and the honestiores might perhaps be a reference to Nero’s imprudent largesses and his confiscation of certain nobles’ property to swell the State Treasury.! VESPASIAN

AND

ALEXANDRIA*

In order to situate the speech more definitely against its historical background, it will be well to review the relations between the Emperor Vespasian and Alexandria. It was on 1 July 69 that Ti. Julius Alexander, prefect of Egypt, had his soldiers take the oath of allegiance to Vespasian, and it was from this date that the emperor was to reckon his tribunicia potestas (Tac. Hist. ii. 79). It was not, however, till the early part of A.D. 70 that the new princeps ' See, for example, Tac. Ann. xiii. 31, with the commentary of Furneaux (19072). On Nero’s confiscation of estates, see Suet. Nero xxxii. 2, Dio lxi. 5. 5 see also Carcopino in Mél. d’arch. et d’hist. xxvi (1906), pp. 435 ff., and Momigliano in CAH x (1934), p. 724. 3 On Vespasian in general, see Weynand, RE vi (1909), 2623 ff.; W. Weber, Josephus und Vespasian (Berlin, 1921), esp. 168 ff.; Milne, History of Egypt, pp. 29f.; ΡΙ 1.3 F 398; Charlesworth, CAH xi (1936), pp. 1 ff.; Homo, Hist. romaine, iii (Paris, 1941), pp. 336 ff.; Salmon, A History of the Roman World, pp. 211 ff.; Wirszubski, Libertas, pp. 143 ff. On Vespasian’s attitude towards belles lettres, see M. Woodside in TAPA Ixxiii (1942), pp. 123-9, and see also R. Herzog, ‘Urkunden zur Hochschulpolitik’, SB Preug. Ak., phil.hist. ΚΙ. xxxii (1935), pp. 967-1019.

ν

ACTA DIOGENIS

143

was able to visit Alexandria, accompanied by Josephus (Vita 75). Both Cassius Dio and Tacitus record the alleged cures Vespasian worked at Alexandria in the name of Serapis,

‘quem dedita superstitionibus gens ante alios colit’ (Tac. Hist. iv. 81; cf. Dio lxvi. 8. 1 f.). In the first flush of excitement at the visit of the emperor whom they felt they were the first to acknowledge, the Alexan-

drians doubtless expected Vespasian to shower them with favours

(Dio, ibid.). It was probably about this time that

there occurred the demonstration semi-literary papyrus, P. Fouad 8, to our text.’ Here the enthusiastic as Serapis, Son of Ammon, Saviour

recorded in the curious which we have appended populace hail Vespasian and Benefactor. But such

flattery was not destined to last, and their hymns of praise were soon to change to vicious lampoons. For their benefactor only increased the taxes ;? and by way of further economies he sold or leased a large section of the Royal Palace (Dio Ixvi.

8. 4). The Alexandrians in turn called him Cubtosactes or ‘Saltfish-monger’ (Suet. Vesp. xix. 2) ; they insulted him in ana-

paests ;and there is the story that even when Titus interceded with his father on their behalf, the mob continued with their demonstrations, shouting ‘We forgive him, for he doesn’t know how to be an emperor!’ (Dio lxvi. 8. 6). At Rome Vespasian continued to be a target of criticism.3 The Stoic-Cynic philosophers, expelled at the suggestion of

Mucianus, might well have included some with Alexandrian

connexions. Unfortunately we do not know the background of the two Cynics, Diogenes and Heras, who were condemned for criticizing Titus and Berenice in Α.Ρ. 75. Diogenes was scourged and set free; Heras, however, was decapitated (Dio

Ixvi. 15. 5). It would be interesting to speculate on the possibility that the Acta Diogenis concerned this Diogenes and his 1 Supra,

V A, and cf. Jouguet, La Domination romaine, pp. 44 ff. See also

Bell, 77Ρ iv (1950); P- 35:

2 On Vespasian’s tax, which probably flowed into the fiscus Alexandrinus, see M. S. Ginsburg, Jew. Quart. Rev. xxi (1930), p. 286, n. 26, and Wallace, ο Taxation, p. 346 and n. 3 Whatever be the truth of Rostovtzeff’s contention that Stoic-Cynic criticism at Rome was occasioned by Vespasian’s dynastic intentions (cf. Storia econ. e sociale, p. 132), it seems clear that such lofty motives were not operative at Alexandria.

144

COMMENTARY

Vv

circle; but the evidence is far too slight to lead us very far. Another Cynic named Isidorus, who gets into history through

the files of Suetonius (Nero xxxix. 3), was expelled from Rome

for his criticism of Nero; but we do not know whether he ever returned to harass the Flavians. The present speech recalls similar pieces in the papyri.' It is markedly rhetorical? in a tawdry way, and may well have been based on an oration actually delivered at Rome and later reworked for interested friends at Alexandria. It is difficult to determine whether or not this is another fragment of the Acta Alexandrinorum.3 Certainly what we have does not suggest anything like a eulogy of Alexandrian patriotism; in fact, we do not even know which of the people concerned were Alexandrians. Again, if we are meant to be sympathetic with the orator’s point of view, the piece is hardly anti-Roman in character.* However, because of its connexion with the criticism of Roman domination in the Greek-speaking world, we cannot be far wrong in associating it with the Acta literature. For if our interpretation is right, the Acta Diogenis would bring to light new evidence on Vespasian’s conflict with Alexandria and possibly with a class that had been inspired by the slogans of Stoic-Cynic philosophers. α Besides Acta Maximi I, cf., for example, PSI 1222 (discussed below), and P. Oxy. 1612, a peculiar oration on emperor-worship delivered perhaps at Alexandria in the second century, in which the speaker cautiously attacks certain rites in vogue at Nicaea. Cf. the remarks by Nock, Sallustius, pp. lxxxix f., and see p. 137 above. Roberts has ingeniously suggested that P. Oxy. 1612 may belong to the Acta literature, but the connexion is not yet clear.

2 Note the use of anaphora in ll. 20 Π., 30 Π., 33 ff., 43 ff., with frequent asyndeton; isocolon in ll. 43 ff. Though we cannot be confident that the speech is a translation from a Latin original, there may be some Latin influence, e.g. πρὸ δώδεκα ἐτῶν» (Il. 19 f.) ; note also the striking lack of connective particles,

although this can be paralleled in the speeches of insignificant rhetors preserved in the protocols. which contains the exordium of a speech of defence on behalf of an aged rhetor named Didymus. Among the points that the speaker makes is Didymus’ excellent reputation not only as an envoy but also in the discharge of the two most important magistracies of his native city. It is possible that ἡ πατρίς refers to Alexandria; and the emperor in question was perhaps Trajan: cf. 24 f., ἅπασι µεταδίδως τοῖς λέγουσι πα[ρ]ρησίας. + But from this point of view it might be associated with the pro-Roman party at Alexandria who were also interested in the propagation of the Acta: see the discussion below, pp. 275 ff.

Vv

ACTA

DIOGENIS

145

It should be noted, however, that even if we are to class the

present document with the other Acta fragments, this would hardly settle the general question of the possible Cynic inspiration of the entire collection, according to the theory of M. Rostovtzeff.! For even supposing that one of the persons on trial in the Acta Diogenis were a philosopher of the StoicCynic school—and the evidence admittedly is slight enough— there are serious difficulties against the extension of this hypothesis to the Acta literature as a whole. At any rate, the new papyrus, as a fragment of the Unterhaltungsliteratur which so interested the upper classes at Alexandria during this period, probably formed, with the other fragments of the Acta Alexandrinorum found at Oxyrhynchus, part of the library of some educated Greek of that town.? 3. Possibly ταῦτα γ]έγονεν. 8. Perhaps γεγονὼς ἔτη] εἴκοσι or the like. The orator may be

portraying the intimacy between Nero and the accused, saying that they had even engaged in gymnastic games together. On

Nero’s visit to a gymnasium at Naples, see Suet. Nero xl. 4. II. ἐπι]στάτην.

Possibly some

sort of superintendent

of the

gymnasium is intended here. 15. For Alexandrians

named

Diogenes,

see Visser, Gétter u.

Kulte, p. 110. On the Cynic Diogenes, scourged with Heras, see the Introduction. The grammarian, Diogenes of Rhodes (Suet. Tib. xxxii), would undoubtedly be too early for this date. For the obscure Claudius Diogenes of Aphrodisias

unknown date, see not be corrected; clause. 17. ἐκδικηθῆναι. be taken here and

(Caria), a senator of

PIR ii.2 C 851. The nominative Διογένης need it stood perhaps as subject in a subordinate It is difficult to decide whether this verb is to in ll. 33 f. as ‘punish’ (as I have taken it) or

‘avenge’. Besides LSJ, cf. Bauer, Wérterbuch zum N.T., s.v., and

G. Bjorck, Der Fluch des Christen Sabinus (Uppsala, 1938), pp. 81 f. The difficulty in justifying the meaning ‘avenge’ in the passage below, Il. 35 ff., has inclined me to taking it as ‘punish’ in both passages. 1 For a discussion see pp. 267 ff. below. 2 On relations between Alexandrian philosophers and Oxyrhynchites, see the letter of Theon to Heracleides, PRUM ii. (ed. A. Vogliano), with the remarks of Wilcken in Archiv xii (1936), pp. 80f. Cf. p. 274, below. 5498

L

146

COMMENTARY

ν

‘19f. The curious phrase πρὸ δώδεκα ἐτζῶν» (= ante duodecim annos) must belong to the following question and not to τῇ vov σιωπῇ. Postponement of dpa in questions is, of course, not uncommon: cf. GP, pp. 46 ff. Taking the sentence as a question brings out the contrast between the previous conduct of the accused and his νῦν σιωπή. Roberts, however, would prefer to take the

sentence as a positive statement, reading δώδεκα ἐτςῶν y>dp, κτλ. arf. The Greek is awkward here and (if we are not to assume that the speech is a poor translation from the Latin) possibly some words have been displaced : perhaps we should transpose as follows : δικαστὴν εὐφυῆ,

| ὀργιζόμενον .. . κατὰ κτλ. If not, εὐφυῆ κατὰ

πλουσίων is an odd phrase (‘by nature opposed to the wealthy’ ?). ἡδέως perhaps = libenter or facile. On the epistolary phrase ἡδέως ἔχειν (= ‘to be well disposed’), see H. A. Steen, “Les Clichés épistolaires dans les lettres sur papyrus grecques’, Classica et Mediaevalia i (1938), p. 130.

31ff. These words would certainly seem to suggest that the accused (or an absent accomplice) is still in voluntary exile. This

may account for ‘his present silence’ (19). 33. ei γὰρ, κτλ. A conflation of two constructions: εὖ yap past indic. and ede.+-infin. 35 ff. The unexpected shift of subjects is awkward. It is not clear

whether the guilty person himself or someone else is to punish (or avenge?) his ‘pride’. Perhaps suicide is hinted at, instead of which the accused had chosen relegatio. If ὕβρις refers to his insulting the

emperor, then ἐκδικέω here must mean ‘punish’, and so I have taken it. 37. εἰ (yap). Though I know of no parallel, it is just possible that the orator felt that γάρ could have been supplied from 1. 33; the scribe, however, is careless in other places.

38. Perhaps we should correct here to δήµιον αὐτοῦ. Antisthenes is reported to have said that tyrants are worse than executioners, for the latter only execute the guilty (Stobaeus, Flori. xlix. 47).

42. διάγνωσιν, not (as often) cognitio; a less technical sense is demanded here, e.g. ‘thought’, ‘consideration’. 43. Possibly a deliberate paronomasia here: 6 ods and ὅσος.

(147)

VI P. Rendel Harris: Acta Hermiae TEXT

The papyrus (from the Rendel Harris Collection in Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham) was first identified and edited by Roberts in FRS xxxix (1949), 79 f.; a small piece, measuring

5:29 Χ9:6 cm., it is broken off at the bottom and on both sides. Our text is written on the verso of a second-century account in a small, rounded, upright hand, and could not have been written, in the opinion of the editor, ‘much, if at all, after the middle of the second century’. The text is carefully written: there is punctuation by means of spacing and the double point; a corrector has inserted an asterisk (1. 9) to indicate

the omission of a colon. The fragment, small though it is, is acutely interpreted by Roberts: “Titus appears to be defending the procedure of this or some other trial against Hermias (presumably the leader of the Alexandrians), who demands (whether in sympathy or malice is not clear) that a third party, perhaps a Roman, be allowed to make his defence ;however, the latter declines’ (loc. cit:;'p79). The dramatic date will fall within the reign of Titus (1 July 79-13 Sept. 81)—Vespasian, I think, being out of the question, since he is never referred to merely by his praenomen in coins or inscriptions. It is difficult to say what the occasion of the Acta was. Suetonius tells us that Titus, despite his faults, was ‘natura autem benevolentissimus’ (Tit. viii. 1), ‘amor et deliciae generis humani’ (ibid. i. 1). So, too, Cassius Dio records that he killed no one during his reign (Ixvi. 18. 1), and, like his father, did not recognize the charge of maiestas

(ibid. 19. 1). It is true, however, that Heras and Diogenes had been punished by Vespasian for their criticism of Titus,

and Alexandrians too may well have taunted Titus as they did his father.

148

VI

COMMENTARY

About Hermias nothing is known. As a Greek name it 15 common enough.! Curiously enough, it also occurs in Jewish inscriptions (perhaps for ‘Jeremiah’), in Egypt? as well as in the Jewish catacombs of Rome.’ The name of the third party probably begins with Kv- and ends in -ιος (note -ιε in Ἱ. 9), suggesting perhaps a Roman name such as Quirinius (or, besides those mentioned by the editor, Curiatius, Curtilius, Curtisius, &c.; see PIR ii.2 ο 1604 ff.); he may well have been some Roman official in Egypt under the Flavians. As for Vestinus, we have the following possibilities: i. L. Julius Vestinus, prefect of Egypt, 28 July 59/60-7 July 61. See PIR ii. I 408; Stein, RE x (1917), 870-2, n. 529; Cantarelli, n. 22; Reinmuth, p. 132; Stein, Prdfekten, pp. 34 f. He was praised by the Emperor Claudius in the speech from the Lyons Table as equestris ordinis ornamentum (see CIL xiii. 1668, col. ii. 11 f.), and as prefect of Egypt he was careful to allow the Claudian exemptions in taxes which had been ignored by others (see Alexander’s edict, OGIS 669, 27 ff.). Tacitus notes that Vespasian put him in charge of the reconstruction of the damaged Capitol (Hist. iv. 53). And as a worthy and respected eques, it is not unlikely, if he were still alive, that he would have been called in by Titus for advice on Alexandria, where he had been prefect some twenty years before. ii. A Vestinus of noble descent mentioned by Martial (iv. 83) as dying before reaching old age (cf. PIR ii. V 304). Nothing else is known of him. iii. L. Julius Vestinus, high priest at Alexandria under Hadrian,* and M. Vestinus Atticus, the consul executed by Nero in A.D. 65,5 need not be considered. In all probability, therefore, it is the Prefect Vestinus whose name is mentioned. It is not impossible, then, to imagine that Hermias is denouncing some Alexandrian official, perhaps in connexion with the Claudian tax-exemptions which had been 1 For Alexandria, see Visser, Gétter u. Kulte, p. 113. On Aristotle’s friend, the great Hermias of Atarneus, around whose death so many

legends grew,

see D. E. W. Wormell, YCS v (1935), pp. 57 Π., and cf. p. 237, n. 5, below.

2 Fuchs, Die Fuden Agyptens, p. 145. 3 J. B. Frey, Corpus Inscr. Iud., nn. 26 and 220. 4 See PIR ii. I 409; Kroll, RE x, n. 530.

5 Cf. PIR ii. I 410.

VI

ACTA HERMIAE

149

confirmed by Ti. Julius Alexander’s edict in a.p. 68.1 But the evidence for Titus’ relations with Alexandria? is too meagre

to enable us to make any further precisions. 8. It may be, as the editor suggests, that Titus is here fore-

stalling an accusation that imperial cognitiones were conducted intra cubiculum principis, as they sometimes were in Claudius’ reign (cf.

Tac. Ann. xi. 2). On this abuse, condemned by Nero in the inaugural speech supposedly composed: by Seneca, see Ann. xiii. 4, and cf. the note by Furneaux (Oxford, 1907”) ii, Introd., pp. 55 {.,

and Momigliano, CAH x (1934), p. 707. 4. Supply perhaps [μὲν ἐγώ].

5. Perhaps [ὥσπερ ἑώρ]ᾳκα or the like. After ἐμός one is tempted to supply ἔπαρχος. The editor suggests φίλος, with a proper name. Πλά]ντα does not seem to fit the traces. 4. At the beginning of the line, possibly [μου Kaicap].

13- Perhaps Τιβερ]ίου, referring to the policy of Ti. Julius Alexander and Vestinus in carrying out Claudius’ directives for Alexandria. See the Introduction. (On the use of Tiberius’ praenomen alone, cf., for example, P. Fouad 8, 18, above.) 14. Perhaps there is a reference, in this line, to one of the deified

emperors (e.g. Claudius or Vespasian). 15. µάρ]τυς. On this supplement, see Roberts’s note: ‘With µάρ]τυς, Καΐσαρ may be in agreement; with µέλλ[οντος, ἀγῶνος

may be supplied.’ 16. κ[. Perhaps here again the name of the other party involved in the trial. 1 For the literature on the edict, see Riccobono, Fontes iuris romani, i, p. 318.

2 See especially Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins, p. 13, and Vogt, Alex. Miinzen, i, pp. 444. On Titus in general, see H. Price’s edition of Suetonius’ Titus (Diss. Univ. of Pennyslvania, 1919); Henderson, Five Roman Emperors (Cambridge, 1927), pp. 7 ff.; Charlesworth, CAH xi (1936), pp. 19 ff.; Homo, Histoire romaine, pp. 371 ff.; H. Bardon, Les Empereurs et les lettres romaines (Paris, 1940), pp. 274 ff.; Salmon, History of the Roman World, pp. 222 ff.

(150)

Vil Acta Maximi INTRODUCTORY

In their introduction to the text of P. Oxy. 471 in 1903,

Grenfell and Hunt had suggested that the fragment might

indeed belong to the Acta literature. Despite Wilcken’s objection in Archiv iii (1906), pp. 117 f., many scholars had agreed with the editors. Von Premerstein, for example, including it in his treatment of the Acta Alexandrinorum (AM, p. 70), held that it was a political pamphlet, though not part of the Caracallan recension of the Acta which, he assumed, was made about A.D. 215. In this he was followed by Neppi Modona

(Raccolta Lumbroso, p. 438). But whether one held with Grenfell and Hunt that the speech was not perhaps historical, or with Wilcken that it was delivered at an actual trial, one might have been inclined to

reject its connexion with the Acta for several reasons. It was, first of all, quite different from the others in style; there was no evidence of narrative or dialogue, as in the other pieces. Secondly, it did not seem to betray any of the typical motifs of the Acta, e.g. Alexandrian patriotism and anti-Roman pro-

paganda. For prima facie it is a speech of prosecution against a Roman official and its main burden is obviously the proof of his malfeasance in office.

But it would appear that both views were right. For in 1949 Schubart communicated a most interesting discovery: a fragment, from a lost German collection, containing the minutes of a trial in which Maximus is accused by the Greeks. According to Schubart, the fragment is written in a hand that is of approximately the same date as P. Oxy. 471, though by a different scribe. Further, Heraeus, one of the principal speakers, is almost certainly the person mentioned in the libellus which is read by the emperor in the Acta Athenodori

(1. 58). Hence, although the exact details of the Maximus trial

VII

ACTA

MAXIMI

161

still remain obscure, the connexion between the two docu-

ments seems reasonably certain, and we shall henceforward refer to the Oxyrhynchus fragment and the lost German papyrus (as Schubart has suggested) as Acta Maximi I and II

respectively. THE

TEXTS

Acta Maximi I

P. Oxy. 471, now in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, as MS. gr. class. a. 10 (P), is a large papyrus measuring 30°5 x 46°5 cm., and written on the recto only in an upright, oval, literary hand of about the middle or the second half of the second century.! Of the six columns which we have, there remain of the first only traces and occasional ends of lines; and there are annotations in a definitely cursive hand at the foot of cols. ii-v.

The text is heavily punctuated—possibly to assist public reading. We find the high point most frequently; the low point (53, 56) to indicate a parenthesis : occasional spacing;frequent paragraphi; χ to indicate a footnote (133); an accent and spiritus asper once (89). The text has been corrected by a

second hand—possibly the same that wrote the annotations —and occasional high points and v-adscripts have been added. Corrections and restorations were proposed by Wilcken,

Archiv iii (1906), 117f., and iv (1908), 381 f.; by Cronert, Stud. Pal. iv. 92; some of these were accepted by the editors in P. Oxy. v (1908), p. 314 (to be referred to as GH?) and

most were reprinted in BL i. 4 (1922), p. 322.” Acta Maxim IT

Schubart’s lost fragment, written (only on the recto) in a

hand of about the same date as P. Oxy. 471, was about 28 cm. long. There is little punctuation; and the text is unique in

employing documentary abbreviations for γυμνασίαρχος (I. 4.5) and ἀρχιδικαστής (1. 55). Its close adherence to the protocol style is reminiscent of the Acta Pault. 1 ‘Probably from the time of Hadrian or the age of the Antonines’ (GH). 2 The article on P. Oxy. 471 by J. N. Coroi, Atti IV Congr. Pap. (Milan, 1936), ΡΡ. 395 Π., contains a very useful bibliography.

155

COMMENTARY

VII

The Historical Background of Max. I and II It would seem practically certain that the Maximus men-

tioned in P. Oxy. 471 is the same as the person who figures in

Max. II. And the Maximus of P. Oxy. 471 would certainly be the prefect: he lives in the praetorium (Max. 1, 110); he makes regular inspection-tours (Il. 124 ff.) ; he has the power over life and death (1. 107).

This is most likely C. Vibius Maximus, prefect between April 103 and 26 March 107.! He was a friend of Pliny (Zp. iii. 2 and probably ix. 1), Martial (xi. 106; i. 7), and Statius, and was known to be writing an epitome of world history (Statius, Silv. iv. 7. 54 ff.). We know that he had been praefectus alae in Syria (Silv. iv. 7. 45 Π.), and we have a military diploma dating from 13 July a.p. 93 which mentions him as praef. coh. III Alpinorum in Dalmatia (CIL iii dipl. xvi. 38). It was probably in the summer of 95 that Statius sent his friend an ode to celebrate the birth of a son.? What other honores Maximus

held we do not know; and the earliest possible date for his successor in the prefecture is 27 March—28 August 107 (P. Amh. 64. 15). That his inscriptions suffered abolitio nominis seems clear from JGR i. 1148 (14 May 109), 1175 (90 Aug. 103), and 1351. According to our papyri it would appear that Maximus was prosecuted at Rome de repetundis. Although we do not know which process* was applied in his case, it is clear that the 1 See PIR iii. V 389; Cantarelli, η. 36; Lacey, Equestrian Officials, p. 6; Stein, Die Prafekien, pp. 50-53. For Maximus’ literary connexions, see F. Vollmer’s edition of Statius (1898), pp. 483 f. on Silv. iv. 7. Recently J. Schwartz has challenged this identification and suggested, without convincing proof, that the prefect on trial was the son of the prefect of 103-7, suggesting that the son’s name can be restored in an inscription dated 24 Jan. Α.Ρ. 126; see CE liii (1952), pp. 254 f. But even granting that the erased name is P. Vibius Maximus (which is no more than a guess), Schwartz’s suggestion that Maximus senior’s inscription suffered erasure par ricochet is not very convincing. 2 Silv. iv. 7, and see Vollmer, p. g. Statius refers in Silv. iv. 7. 58 ff. to Maximus’ father who apparently participated in Domitian’s campaign against the Sarmatae; see Vollmer, ad loc.

3 Boeckh, Stein, and Milne are obviously right here in taking the defaced name to be that of Maximus and not Similis (Letronne’s view). In this case we may infer that Maximus’ damnatio was not known at Akhmim until after 14. May 109—unless we assume that the inscription was composed in two different parts and the final section, with the date, not inserted until later.

* It may well have been the shorter process allowed by the s.c. Calvistanum of4 B.c. (SEG ix. 8. 85 ff.).

VII

ACTA

MAXIMI

153

orator of Max. I is attempting to strengthen his case by accusing Maximus of usury, interference in Alexandrian magistracies, and corruption of a noble youth (stuprum). The penalty, besides infamia and repayment of funds, may in Maximus’ case have included relegatio; in any case, the damnatio memoriae suggests that a serious view was taken of Maximus’ crime, even though there seems to be no question

of maiestas.1 The dramatic date of the trial may be generally inferred

from Maximus’ promise to his candidates for the office of gymnasiarch quoted in Max. I, 30 Π.:

(From the ninth) to the nineteenth year of the Emperor, Berenicianus will be gymnasiarch; and (from the nineteenth) to the twenty-ninth, Anicetus. The prefect’s promise would therefore have been madesome time before Trajan’s ninth year (i.e. 29 Aug. 105-28 Aug. 106)?— and this fits in with the known dates of Maximus’ prefecture. Further, since Trajan actually enjoyed no more than twenty regnal years, we may presume that the speech of Max. I was delivered in Trajan’s lifetime. The extortion trial therefore must have occurred some time between 26 March 107 (when Maximus was still in office) and the autumn of 113 (when Trajan departed for the Parthian campaign); and we may say with some probability that it occurred between late 107 and 109, that is to say,’as soon as possible after Maximus was

relieved of office.

Of the Greeks present at the trial, Diodorus, Heraeus (see note on II, 38 below), and Eudaemon, we know very little. And the identification of Eudaemon the archidicastes presents 1 For a discussion of the problems connected with the quaestio de repetundis, see Mommsen, Strafrecht, pp. 705-32 ; Strachan-Davidson, Problems of the Roman Criminal Law, ii, pp. 1-15; J. Stroux and L. Wenger, ‘Die Augustus-Inschrift ...von Kyrene’, Abh. Bay. Ak. xxxiv. 2 (1928), pp. 112 ff.; W. W. Buckland, ‘Civil Proceedings against Ex-Magistrates in the Republic’, 75 xxvii (1937), pp. 37-473 L. Wenger, Institutes of the Roman Law of Civil Procedure (transl. by O. H. Fisk), New York, pp. 43 f. and n. 48a; A. N. Sherwin-White, ‘Poena legis repetundarum’, BSR xvii (1949), pp- 5-25, with the literature cited. 2 Or alternatively, if the trial is to be placed in Hadrian’s reign (with J. Schwartz), the gth year would be 29 Aug. 124-28 Aug. 125. Cf. supra,

Ρ. 152, n. I.

154

COMMENTARY

VII

a difficult problem.! The following groups of references have been associated with this name: I. Eudaemon, friend of Hadrian’s before his accession (‘prius conscium imperii ad egestatem perduxit’), SHA Hadr. xv. 3; cf. the Eudaemon mentioned by

Aurelius, Med. viii.

25, as one of the ‘clever’ persons

of the past. II. Eudaemon, eques, honoured in several inscriptions, whose cursus honorum began under Hadrian. The name is lost in ILS 1449 (= CIL iii. 431), but Hirschfeld’s restoration in the parallel JGR iii. 1077 is undoubtedly right. From these it is gathered that he had been proc. ad dioecesin Alexandriae, proc. bibliothecarum graec. et lat., ab epistulis graecis, as well as procurator in several eastern _ provinces.”

III. Valerius Eudaemon, Prefect of Egypt ο. 141/2-26 August 142; see Stein, Die Prafekten, pp. 74 ff. IV. Eudaemon, archidicastes of SB 6291 (20 Feb. 143) and BGU 741 (A.D. 143/4). Except that he had been kosmetes, nothing is known of him. V. Eudaemon, archidicastes of Max. II. Most scholars have tended to identify I, II, III, and IV. It is very likely that I and II are the same; for after Eudaemon’s loss of favour under Hadrian, it is not unlikely that he was rewarded with the prefecture of Egypt by Antoninus Pius. But he can hardly have been the archidicastes and ex-kosmetes of 143/4. Indeed, the name is common enough in the papyri: for Alexandria, see Visser, Gétter u. Kulte, p. 114. ‘What are we to say, then, of Eudaemon V, the archidi-

castes of Max. II? The following are some of the possibilities: (1) He ts the ex-kosmetes of 143/43; in which case, (2) Maximus’ trial fell some thirty years after his pre-

fecture—but this is hardly likely; * On (Valerius) Eudaemon, see PIR ii. E 79; Cantarelli, n. 44; Otto, Priester und Tempel, i, pp. 175, 198; Reinmuth, p. 134; GH in P. Oxy. iii, Ρ. 175; Stein. RE vi (1909), 884, n. 4, and R. Hanslik, RE, ate R. vii (1948), 2496, η. 149; W. Hiittl, in Antoninus Pius (2 v., Prague, 1936, 1933), ii, p. 73 Stein, Prafekten, pp. 74-76. 3 'To these references add perhaps SB 3998.

VII

ACTA

MAXIMI

155

(0) there were two prefects named Maximus,’ one on trial in 107/9, the other in 143/4—but this again is

not only unlikely a priori, but now definitely excluded by the list of prefects (from Mamertinus to Felix) given in P. Ryl. 678 (a.p. 150);

(c) Eudaemon assisted at the trial of 107/9, but his title was not inserted in the document until 143/4; (d) Eudaemon held the office of archidicastes twice

within forty years—but this is not likely. (2) Eudaemon is not the archidicastes of 143/4, but another of the same name, in office c. 107/9;? possibly they were relatives.

In view of the facts, it would seem more likely that there were at least three men of this name: the prefect of Egypt and friend of Hadrian (I, II, III); the archidicastes and exkosmetes of 143/4 (IV); the archidicastes of 107/9 (V). In conclusion, then, it would seem almost certain that the two fragments, Max. I and II, concern the trial de repetundis of the Prefect C. Vibius Maximus, which took place at Rome probably ο. 107/9. Though it is the only piece whose central character is a Roman, its preservation was undoubtedly due to the nature of the accusations and to the participation of Alexandrians in the proceedings. Further, it is very likely that Max. I has undergone considerable revision—some of the notes at the foot of the columns appear to be alternative readings— and for the present text a collation may have been made with a copy of the rhetor’s original speech. Max. I, on the other hand, is probably closer to the original protocol of the

trial.3 1 Not counting the hypothetical Maximus of 124-6, suggested by Schwartz: cf. p. 152, Π. 1. 2 Against Schubart, Griech. lit. Pap., p. 91, who goes so far as to suggest that Maximus’ trial dragged on till ο. 143/4. 3 Prof. H. C. Youtie has kindly sent me a transcript of an unpublished papyrus in the Ann Arbor collection (P. Mich. Inv. 4800) written in a semicursive hand of the second or early third century, which appears to be an to account of a trial and in which the name Maéi[p- (col. i. 5) occurs. But due the prominence in the text of ephebes, children, and a particular woman who the claims to have a son µελλέφηβον (col. iv. 4), I doubt whether it belongs to

Acta literature.

156

COMMENTARY

VII

Acta Maximi I (P. Oxy. 471) 1. ἀρχαίων, ‘property’. Cf. Dem. Olpnth. i. 15 τῶν a. ἀπέστησαν, of bankruptcy. 48. γράμματα, i.e. the documents which are to be read in the pause after 1. 15.

5. On rates of interest in the provinces, see Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, pp. 1572 f. 8. τί φησιν; A rhetorical question; Maximus, of course, is intended. 9. The plural here might apply to the emperor alone or to the emperor and his court. Apparently the prefect had intercepted letters of complaint from the Alexandrians (cf. a similar charge in Paul. vi. 11 ff.), and later alleged Trajan’s absence—undoubtedly during the Dacian campaigns—as the reason why they were not

answered. 16f. 6 τελευταῖος ὑπομνηματισμός. Indicating that documents had just been read. ὑπομνηματισμός here means any sort of ‘document’ which had been kept in the archives. 20. τὸ µειράκιον. Mentioned previously

either in the cross-

examination or in an earlier part of the rhetor’s speech. Seventeen years of age (49 f.), of wealthy parents (79), he had been kept from

school by Maximus (110 ff.) and entertained daily in the praetorium; his father was perhaps drawn into this position either through fear or avarice

(cf. 78, 118 ff.). There is no reason to

suspect that the boy was Theon, son of Eudaemon the archidicastes of Max. II, 60. It is to be noted that stuprum cum masculo was punishable in law, but the strict delict was cum puero praetextato: cf. Mommsen, Strafrecht, pp. 703 ff. go. We have no other information on the nature and function

of these τῆς γυµνασιαρχίας ἐπιτηρηταί, ‘superintendents (?) of the gymnasiarchy’; undoubtedly they had some duty in connexion with the list of possible candidates. 33-36. The annotation here, as at the foot of col. v, seems to be not so much a correction as an alternate form of the main text perhaps due to the original rhetor. It is thus one of the earliest examples of ‘double recension’. 30-32, 37-40. Apparently Maximus’ own words quoted from witnesses. The name Anicetus is common enough, but Berenicianus would seem to be a Jewish cognomen; cf. Berenicianus son

of Herod of Chalcis and Berenice, Jos. 47 xx. 104, BF ii. 221 (cf. PIR 1.2 B 109). C. Julius Alexander Berenicianus was proconsul of Asia ο. 132-3; cf. p. 169 below.

ACTA

vil

Maximus

was

157

MAXIMI

apparently interfering in the nomination

of

gymnasiarchs ;but whether he was selling the office to friends or, as seems more likely, forcing those to become gymnasiarchs who did

not pay a certain fee, is difficult to determine. In the latter case he would perhaps be liable to a charge of concussio: cf. Strafrecht, pp. 716 f. The implied tenure of office here is ten years—although Claudius seems to have reduced it to three (see p. 121 above). Note that at this time (ο. 107/9) there was apparently still but one

gymnasiarch at Alexandria. On the nomination and election of

Egyptian magistrates, see A. H. M. Jones, JEA xxiv (1938), pp. 65 ff. 428. The implication of these charges is not entirely clear. The speech, though loosely constructed, resembles the rhetorical exercise of invective (ψόγος) : cf., for example, Aphthonius, Progymn. 9 (ii. 40, Spengel). We may make the following division: 2-5. Address to the emperor. 5-8. On Maximus’ practice of usury. 8-11. His suppression of Alexandrian letters of complaint. 11-15. Citation from the records.

16-27. His interest in an Alexandrian youth. 28-40. His interference in the appointment of gymnasiarchs. 40-48. Apostrophe to Maximus. He did not receive bribes, but gave them.

49-135. Narrative: Maximus’ corruption of the youth.

Digressions: 94-101, 106 f., instances of Maximus’ cruelty

in Egypt. 132-8, Maximus’ negligence in connexion with

the conventus.

141 ff. Charge connected with Callinicus, ‘scholar of the Museum’. 474. This rhetorical antithesis at the expense (it would seem) of the sense, makes the prosecutor’s position difficult to grasp. funds Giving gifts in itself would not be punishable unless State (e.g. end illegal some unless or ation, authoriz without were used

the orator is concussio) were in view. It is possible, however, that

referring here to the favours showered on the youth.

and after 54-56. οὐδὲ. . . ἐχαρίζου. The low points used before

hesis. this clause in the papyrus are used to indicate the parent underlies 54. ἐκβασιλισθείς would seem to be the verb which εται" ἐκβολίζ : 23) 487, t, the curious entry in Hesychius (ed. Schmid eis βασιλέως ἔθη τρέπεται. 62. δασείων,

Mussehl’s suggestion, seems

form, see Mayser, i. 2, Ρ. 56.

best here.

For the

158

COMMENTARY

VII

- 63. τί &€; would seem to be a more plausible punctuation ; the following clause thus becomes an additional charge, instead of a question.

ἠσπάζετο, i.e. at the prefect’s morning ἀσπασμός (salutatio). 65. τὴν σὴν τύχην. Cf. Paul. vi. 9: P. Oxy. 33 iv. 13. 748. μόν[ον] | [οὐ]. There is no room at the end of the line here for [οὐ]; and the following οὐ seems certainly erased. It would appear that µόνον does not go with παῖδα; the punctuation would also be against this. The meaning one would expect is ‘all but bearing the signs’, &c. Very probably the οὐ in 1. 75 was mistakenly

deleted by a corrector who did not appreciate the nuance of the Greek. 84. Eutychus was also the name of Agrippa’s ‘gentleman’ ; see p. 111 above; cf. also Suet. Aug. xcvi. 2, Calig. lv. 2. 92. τί οὖν, κτλ., making a question of the entire sentence, is perhaps better than reading τί οὖν; οὐκ ἐκώλυες, κτλ. κατηφὴς σὺ καὶ ὑπεραύ[σ]τηρος. A reference, perhaps, to the appearance of ‘Stoic’ gravity assumed by the Roman official in public. On this sort of hypocrisy the remarks of Juvenal are apropos: Sat. ii. 8-9. 05. πένης ἄνθρωπος, κτλ. Doubtless an actual occurrence—as

also the incident referred to in 1ΟΙ ff. On the prefect’s criminal jurisdiction, see Reinmuth, The Prefect, pp. 115 ff. 101. ἐν λευκαῖς ἐσθῆσιν. The wearing of festal clothes had perhaps been ordered by the prefect on the occasion of a celebration in the Dionysiac Theatre, possibly for Trajan’s birthday. For a parallel, cf. the condemnation of the man who appeared at a marriage feast without the ἔνδυμα γάμου (Matt. xxii. 13); and Nero’s punishment of a woman at one of his recitals (Suet. Nero XXxii. 3). ° 102-5. Beyond a possible mention of Maximus’ usury, it is difficult to see how these lines fit in. They may perhaps belong to

a different document. 108. Perhaps 6[pa]foy (= ὡραῖον). 124ff. Maximus took the boy along with him to the conventus and probably also on his inspection-tours. The usual periods for the conventus were about January for Pelusium, February to March for Memphis, and June to July for Alexandria. See Wilcken, Archi iv (1908), pp. 315 ff., and ibid. vi (1920), pp. 373 ff.; see also Reinmuth, The Prefect, pp. g8—105, and Coroi, ‘L’Organisation judiciaire sous pp. 632 ff.

le Principat’,

Actes

V’ Congrés

(Brussels,

1948),

VII

ACTA

MAXIMI

159

138. ἀπέσφαξεν. A reference perhaps to a murderer whom Maximus neglected to punish. 142f. Thereference to Valerius (?) Callinicus, one of the φιλόλογοι

of the Museum (cf. on Athen. 40, below), is obscure; perhaps he had held the office of archidicastes, as Wilcken suggests, Archiv iii (1906), p. 117. Acta Maximi II 38. The appearance of Heraeus here sheds some light on a passage in Athen. 56 ff., where Alexandria (presumably) 15 demanding back certain hostages on the grounds that they are Heraeus’ disciples. Evidently he is a rhetor—possibly a φιλόλογος at the Museum—and doubtless enjoying imperial favour. See the note on Athen. 40, below. His tone in this document suggests a position

of prominence on the Alexandrian delegation attending Maximus’ trial: possibly he was their advocate, but there is hardly sufficient evidence to ascribe to him the speech of Max. I. 39. The force of the ὅτι is not clear. érw-recitativum is unparalleled

in the Acta fragments. Perhaps it is causal, either in answer to some question, or at least in connexion with some remark that preceded. βλεπόμενος, almost = ‘obviously’. 40. &[s] ἐν ποδαπῶι,

κτλ. The entire section offers difficulty.

So far as I know there is no certain parallel for the use of ποδαπός as an indefinite (= ὁστισδήποτε). Preisigke’s example (P. Oxy. 1678, 16, an illiterate letter of s. iii) is not convincing. Readings such as ὅ[ς] ἐν or ὁ [8’] ἐν (as Schubart at first inclined to read) would seem to offer greater difficulty. Roberts’s suggestion, ο[ἶδ]εν, though somewhat long for the space, is very plausible. 41. κούφωι, the substantival use (= κεράμιον). pas4rf. αἲ|σθ[άν]ε[ι]. Perhaps ‘show emotion’, ‘react’. In a sage pointed out to me by Pfeiffer, Athenaeus

(i. 32 B), citing

mixing Theophrastus’ De odoribus (51), mentions a custom of sharp, with ote, Heracle or smooth, odourless wines, like Erythrean The both. of es qualiti best the e combin fragrant ones in order to the to ed compar is g trainin early n wherei or, famous Stoic metaph Hor. cf. here; first wine poured into a jar, does not seem relevant omnis probus Ep. i. 2. 69, Quint. 1. 1. 5, and especially Philo, Quod is simply s Heraeu that r, howeve ii. 15 (CR vi, p. 4). I think, in thin stored are wines t fragran when that referring to the fact the ting penetra ), flattery the (here here atmosp vessels, a warm no has wine a if s vessel, will make the bouquet stronger; wherea it stored: is it jar of type what bouquet, it makes no difference in t. fragran will not be any more or less

160

COMMENTARY

VII

«44. ἐναντίωσις. If the reading is right, it may refer to a speech of prosecution, as opposed to ἔλεγξις or refutation of Maximus’ defence.

45. Diodorus is not otherwise known. A Valerius Diodorus is

mentioned in the Suda as the son of Vitrasius Pollio (who flourished under Hadrian), and author of a lexicographical work on the Attic orators: see Schmid, RE v (1905), 708, n. 46. 49. Very probably Heraeus’ name is to be supplied here. 56ff. The precise point of Eudaemon’s complaint is obscure.

én’ ἐμ[οῦ] suggests that Maximus’ interference took place during Eudaemon’s term of office (probably as archidicastes), but we do not know enough about the educational system of Alexandria to determine exactly what the irregularity in Maximus’ action was. It may well be that Maximus’ interference in the training of the youth was connected with his alleged corruption of the young boy in Max. I (cf. esp. ll. 110 ff.). The context seems to suggest that there was at Alexandria, besides the division of ἔφηβοι, a younger group of παῖδες who were trained at the palaestra or the gymnasium,

as they were in other Greek cities. The normal age for beginning this training in the younger group seems to have been about 7

years, but there were cases where the time was postponed: see E. Ziebarth, Aus dem griech. Schulwesen (Leipzig, 19147), p. 83, n. 1. On the gymnasium, see also J. Oehler, RE vii (1912), 2004-26;

K. F. W. Schmidt, Das griech. Gymnasium in Agypten (Halle, 1926) ; T. A. Brady, ‘The Gymnasium in Ptolemaic Egypt’, Univ. of Missouri Studies, xi (1936), n. 3, pp. 9-20; Jones, GC, pp. 220 ff. ; Taubenschlag, The Law, ii, pp. 58 ff.; Marrou, Histoire de [’Education, pp. 165 ff. 82. πυρί. A reference perhaps to some penalty or torture inflicted by Rome or by Maximus—or possibly to a conflagration

somewhere in Egypt during his prefecture.

(161)

VIII Ρ. Oxy. 1242: Acta Hermaisct THE

TEXT

P. Oxy. 1242 was first edited in 19141 and acquired by the British Museum in 1922 (as P. Lond. Inv. 2436). Measuring 158 X 53°9 cm., the papyrus contains the remains of four consecutive columns written across the fibres. On the recto are some copies of lease contracts dating from the age of the

Antonines. The bottom margin is preserved; but all the tops — of the columns are lost and the number of missing lines cannot

be determined. The clear blank space to the left of the first column (7 cm.) would seem to indicate that col. i was actually the first of the roll. The text is written in a round, upright

bookhand (with semi-cursive elements) of the late second or

early third century.? It is a firm practised hand, but there is evidence of more speed and less care than is usual in the better

literary texts. INTERPRETATION

OF

THE

TEXT

Wenger (Krit. Vierteljahrschr., loc. cit.) has suggested that we have here an instance of a cognitio extra ordinem, occasioned perhaps by a formal denuntiatio filed by the Alexandrians. Certainly the presence of the advocates seems to suggest that the

occasion was more than a mere diplomatic mission. At any

rate, it would appear that when the Jews heard of the Alexandrian démarche, they too decided to send an embassy to Rome

1 See also Milne, Catalogue of Literary Papyri in the British Museum (1927), n. 117. The best study of the text was made by Weber, Hermes 1 (1915), ΡΡ. 4792, and on this is based much of the later work, e.g. Matta in Didaskaleion (1926), ii, pp. 48 ff. See also K. F. W. Schmidt, GGA, 1916, pp. 402 f.; L. Wenger,

Krit. Vierteljahrschr. f. Gesetzgeb. u. Rechtswiss. liv (1919), ΡΡ. 30-35;

Wilcken, Archiv, vi (1920), p. 419; Neppi Modona, Raccolta Lumbroso, pp. 420-395 Bell, 77P iv (1950), ΡΡ. 35f. See also Weinreich, Neue Urkunden zur Sarapisf.; Religion, pp. 18f.; Niedermeyer, Uber antike Protokoll-Literatur, pp. 27 Milne, History of Egypt, p. 38. 2 ‘Probably the third century’ (GH). 5498

M

162

COMMENTARY

VIII

and perhaps filed a counter-denunciation. The precise state

of affairs which led to this conflict will be considered later

under the question of the dramatic date. In the interpretation of the Acta Hermaisct there are three peculiar elements which have served as a basis for discussion: the characterization of Trajan;! the Jewish sympathies of Pompeia Plotina, and the miracle of Serapis. The portrait of Trajan is surely a caricature. As we know, Trajan’s sense of justice was strong. Cassius Dio informs us of his oath not to shed innocent blood (Ixviii. 15. 3), and we know from his letter to Pliny (Ep. x. 82) that he continued Nerva’s policy with regard to charges of maiestas. ‘The fact that the anonymous pamphleteer(s) thought the story would be credible suggests not only the downright tendentiousness of the

piece, but also perhaps the possibility that the present version

of the text was composed—or reworked—some time after Trajan’s death. As for Pompeia Plotina, Cassius Dio says that ‘she so conducted herself throughout the entire reign that there might be no criticism’. But it is not impossible that our text represents a less favourable tradition with regard to Plotina due to the suspicion surrounding her role in the adoption of Hadrian.? With regard to her alleged Jewish sympathies, however, there is no other evidence. It is possible that a general accusation of favouritism towards the Jews, which was certainly given support by Nero’s wife Poppaea (cf., for example, Josephus, AF xx. 195, Vita 16),3 was also extended to Plotina; on the © On Trajan in general see PIR iii. V 575; Salmon, History of the Roman World, pp. 274 ff.; Homo, Histoire romaine, pp. 417 ff.; P. Graindor, Athénes de Tibére 4 Trajan (Cairo, 1931); F. A. Lepper, Trajan’s Parthian War (Oxford, 1948); J. Carcopino, ‘L’Hérédité dynastique chez les Antonins’, REA lxi (1949), pp. 272 ff. The treatment of the Acta in Paribeni, Optimus princeps (1927), i, pp. 195 Π., is most inadequate. 2 See Carcopino, REA Ixi (1949), pp- 283f. On Plotina in general, see Paribeni, Optimus Princeps, ii, pp. 304 ff.; on Plotina’s connexions with the Epicurean school at Athens, see P. Graindor, Athénes sous Hadrien (Cairo, 1094), Ρ. 204, and add the bibliography given by Riccobono, Fontes iuris romani, i, Ῥ. 430 (with addendum). 3 On Poppaea Sabina, see PIR iii. P 630; Juster, Les ζω, i, p. 2753 and cf. Weber, Hermes, loc. cit., pp. 66 f. Some scholars have followed Lightfoot’s suggestion that Poppaea was a Jewish proselyte: see Scramuzza: in JacksonLake, The Beginnings of Christianity, part I, v, p. 287, and H. J: Cadbury,

Vill

P. OXY.

1242

163

other hand, however, it is not impossible that there is an

element of truth in this detail of the Acta Hermaisct. As for the Serapis miracle, the more common view is that we are here dealing with ‘pure Hellenistic romance’ (Niedermeyer) ; and it is not unlikely that the compiler(s) of the piece were influenced by an earlier ‘aretology’, whether oral or

written.! In an attempt to explain the phenomenon of sweating statues, Plutarch in his Coriolanus (xxxviii. 1 f.) ventures to suggest that the moisture came from a kind of mould which developed on the statues. At the same time, Plutarch admits, the gods may well employ just such natural phenomena in order to reveal their intentions to men. In his Alexander (xiv. 8-9) he records the sweating of the statue of Orpheus at Leibethra. Although most of the observers were filled with fear at the time, he tells us, Aristander interpreted it as a good omen for Alexander, saying that it meant his exploits would give future writers ‘something to sweat over’ (πολὺν idpuv . . . παρέξουσι). Not all, however, considered such omens as propitious. The Byzantine writer, Joannes Lydus*,(a.D. 5. vi), in his De ostentis, proem. 8 (ed. C. Wachsmuth, BT 18072, p. 16), merely asserts, without explanation, that sweating or weeping statues signify internal? strife :ὅταν μὲν «γὰρ» ἱδροῦν ἢ δακρύειν δοκῇ ἀγάλματα ἢ εἰκόνες . . . στάσεις ἐμφυλίους ἀπειλεῖ. It would appear, then, that the meaning of the omen in the present document must be interpreted according to the ibid., p. 321. Against this view, however, see Henderson, The Life and Principate

of the Emperor Nero, p. 467, and Momigliano in CAH x (1934), Ρ. 715It should be noted that the Alexandrian accusation with regard to Plotina may well be connected with the popular view that Jewish proselytizers had been especially successful in influencing Roman women ; see, for example, W. A. Heidel, ‘Why Were the Jews banished from Italy ?”, AP xlvii (1920), pp. 38-47, although I should not agree with all his conclusions. 1 I use the English word aretology (for the German Aretologie) to denote a miracle-tale composed by priests or votaries (e.g. in thanksgiving for a divine favour) in connexion with a particular cult. On such aretologies, see R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzéhlungen (1909), pp. 9 ff.; and for recent literature G. Manteuffel, De opusculis graecis Aegypti (Warsaw, 1930), pp. 22 ff. and nn. 3-6. Cf. also E. Peterson, Eis Theos. Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichiliche Untersuchungen (Gottingen, 1926), pp. 216 ff. That libraries had copies of such aretologies we know, for example, from Aristeides, Or. xlv. 29 (Keil), and P. Oxy. 1382, 19 f. 2 On the date of Lydus, see F. X. Délger, Phil. Woch. Ixii (1942), pp- 667-9. 3 That is to say, ἐμφύλιος, ‘within the family, race, or nation’,

164

context.

COMMENTARY

3

It occurs precisely while Hermaiscus

VIII

is pleading

with Trajan to help ‘his own people’ instead of the Jews; its result is to throw the people of Rome into panic. Hence the

meaning intended by the author would seem to be a divine confirmation of Hermaiscus’ statement, accompanied by a threat of divine vengeance on Rome, should Trajan reject the Alexandrians’ plea. This would be sufficient to explain the episode. It is just possible, however, that there are overtones, as Weinreich suggested, of a religious conflict, and

that the author meant to imply the superiority of Serapis

over Jahweh. In any case, these considerations suggest a more advanced stage in the history of the textual evolution of the Acta Hermaisci, and they arouse definite suspicions with regard to the authenticity of the entire Serapis episode.? THE

DRAMATIC

DATE

Since Wilhelm Weber’s article in Hermes (1915), three arguments have been used to determine the date of the Acta Hermaisci, viz. the Serapis miracle, the fact of Trajan’s hostility towards the Greeks, and the suggestion of a Jewish-Greek conflict at Alexandria. Listing the various Alexandrian coins of Trajan’s reign which have images of Serapis on the reverse, Weber attempted to link the events of the Acta with one dated in the year 111/12 (Hermes, loc. cit., p. 72): the device is a bust of Serapis supτ΄ Cf. also I. Heinemann, ‘Antisemitismus’, RE Suppl. v (1931), 18. K. Schmidt (GGA, sup. cit.) suggested that the miracle possibly foreshadowed the Jewish rising of 115/17. And Prof. G. D. Kilpatrick privately suggested to me that the event may have been prognostic of the destruction of the Serapeum, which took place, according to the view of A. Wace, during the Jewish rebellion : cf. Rowe, Annales du Service, Suppl. ii (1946), pp. 62 ff. But even if we could attribute a vaticinium ex eventu to this type of literature, I feel that my own interpretation is more in keeping with the general context of the Acta Hermaisci. For similar miracle

tales connected

with statues, see C. Clerc, Les théories

relatives au Culte des images chez les auteurs grecs du Ime siécle apres 7. C. (Diss. Paris, 1915), pp. 45 ff. On Cynic opposition to image-worship, see ibid., pp. 114 ff. The episode in the Acta Hermaisci is to me one of the definite indica-

tions that the Acta literature was not directly due to Cynic influence: see the discussion on pp. 267 ff. below. In this connexion, G. Manteuffel’s attempt to see a prophecy in PSI 982 is not, I think, successful: see Mél. Maspero ii (1934/7), pp. 119-24, and cf. p. 182, n. 2 below.

VIIl

P. OXY.

1242

165

ported by two winged nikai above a globe.! Weber would

like to believe that this coin reflects the ‘victory of Serapis’ on the occasion of the Alexandrian embassy. But granting that Rome would have condoned the striking of a coin com-

memorating such a humiliating event, the argument in any case appears of little weight. For first of all, as Weber himself would have admitted, the figure of Serapis occurs frequently on coins throughout this period, and there is no cogent reason

for linking it with this particular incident. Secondly, it would seem to presuppose some historical foundation for the Serapis miracle—which few would be prepared to defend. Further, we are not even certain that the carrying of the bust (as well as the object the Jews had with them) to Rome was really an

historical fact. For if the propaganda miracle is apocryphal, as we have suggested, it may well be that the entire description of Jews and Greeks ‘carrying their gods’ was similarly a product of the author’s imagination.

In the second and third arguments for the date, based on

Dio Chrysostom’s Oratio alexandrina, we are on slightly firmer ground. H. von Arnim dated the speech about 105/112,” and this is likely enough. From internal evidence, first of all, he was inclined to place it after the Kingship speeches (Or. iti, the latest, being dated perhaps ο. A.D. 104), and before Trajan’s

departure for the Parthian war in 113. Dio in Or. xxxii. 95 speaks of Trajan’s benevolence and consideration (ἐπιμέλεια)

for the Alexandrians, as manifested in his gifts of fountains and monumental gateways (προπύλαια). Now there is a fountain

depicted on the reverse of a coin from the 12th year of Trajan’s reign (29 Aug. 108-28 Aug. 109) ;? and hence Weber (p. 79)

supposed that Dio’s speech was delivered after the year 108. Presuming, then, that the Alexandrian speech was delivered about 108/112 and more likely towards the beginning of this period, Weber argued that the Acta Hermaisci must be later, I See Dattari, Numi Augg. Alexandrini (2 v., Cairo, 1901), e.g. tav. xxiii, n. 1304 bis. See also Vogt, Alex. Miinzen (1924), i, pp. 65 Π., who follows Weber’s theory on p. 89. 2 Leben u. Werke des Dion v. Prusa (Berlin, Weidmann, 1898), pp. 435 ff. On Dio, see also W. Schmid in RE v (1905), 848-77, n. 18, and SchmidStahlin, ii. 1 (1920), ΡΡ. 361-7, with the literature there cited. 3 Dattari, n. 1101, tav. xxviii.

166

COMMENTARY

VIII

since it reflects a change in the emperor’s attitude towards the Alexandrians and, on their side, a total forgetfulness of Trajan’s

past ἐπιμέλεια. In the light of this, therefore, Weber thought that the Acta might confidently be placed between the spring of 111 and the spring of 113. In criticizing this argument, it should be stated at the outset that even if one could take Dio’s speeches seriously, and even if one could date the period of Trajan’s benevolence towards Alexandria before the year 108 (and neither this suggestion of Weber’s nor von Arnim’s date is certain), it is still not im-

possible that the Alexandrians should have had difficulties

with the emperor precisely during this period. Even with a benevolent emperor, Dio reminded them (Or. xxxii. 69), they ‘did not know how to be good subjects’. ‘Even now,’ he says, ‘though you have such reasonable rulers, you have incurred their suspicion, so that it was deemed necessary to have a stricter guard than previously. And this you have brought on not by conspiracy but by your insolence (ἀγερωχία)᾽ (Or. xxxil. 71). Hence it would appear that, considering the unpredictable temperament of the Alexandrians, and taking into account the likelihood that the anonymous pamphleteer exaggerated Trajan’s hostility, one cannot certainly exclude the possibility that the embassy visited Rome during the early part of Trajan’s reign. The last argument for dating the Acta is their suggestion

of a definite Jewish-Greek conflict in Alexandria. For this reason some have wished to date the Acta as late as possible, ο. 113, in order to bring them closer to the period of the Jewish rising of 115/7. This theory, it must be admitted, is very attractive and has much in its favour; but at the same time

we cannot be certain that the tension reflected in the Acta did not occur even earlier in Trajan’s reign. As a matter of fact, if Trajan’s bias in favour of the Jews is historical, then perhaps the earlier date would be the more likely. For the Jewish

rising that began at Cyrene and spread to Alexandria was in fact a rebellion against Rome. Recently Bell, following another suggestion of Weber’s, has supported the view that the Acta reflect a Jewish-Greek

conflict at Alexandria referred to by Dio Chrysostom in Or.

Ῥ. OXY.

Vill

1242

167

xxxii.! Granting that the oration is dated 108/12, it is argued | that the disturbance would have preceded it, and that the

Acta Hermaisci would then have taken place either prior to, or

almost contemporary with, Dio’s oration. But even presuming that Dio’s remarks can be related to definite historical events, there is no evidence that they refer here to a conflict with the Jews. There are general references to a disturbance; in Or. xxxii. 95 (von Arnim), after recalling his Trajan’s benevolence towards Alexandria, Dio urges the way this ‘in that so ), hearers to good behaviour (εὐταξία of emperor might not repent of what he has done, in view this that appear would It ι). what has happened? (ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγονόσ was the reason for the stationing of soldiers in the theatres sly’ (ibid. 51) and ‘the more careful guard than previou ce’. (ibid. 71), due to their ‘insolen which It is not clear whether this trouble is the same as that not was ntly appare latter the Dio calls a ταραχή (ibid. 71) ; hurland g jeerin after , drians too serious, since the Alexan Again, ing slops, immediately turned to revelry (ibid. 71). sion, succes in nts incide these even though Dio mentions all 15 71) xxxii. Or. (of ταραχή the it is questionable whether

reference the same as the πόλεμος (of ibid. 72). In the latter

command of he specifically mentions a Roman force under the a band ing oppos wn), unkno a certain Conon (otherwise

at first in(πλῆθος) of unarmed Alexandrians. Conon was d

spirits incite clined to treat them as children; but unruly ‘you had a that Dio, says was, the Greeks, and the result realization’ to came feared you taste of war, and the things

(ibid. 72).

to the same But even granting that all of these references are

Although disturbance, nowhere is there a reference to the Jews. vincing, uncon what some s alway an argument from silence is

ved, Dio would it would seem that if the Jews had been invol is no sufficient there case any In have at least hinted at the fact. h-Greek conJewis the with h reason for connecting Dio’s speec

flict mentioned in the Acta Hermaisct.

xxxi (1941), P. 143 FFF iv (1950), P- 35s

+ Fuden u. Griechen, p. 343 FRS So too Rostovtzeff, Storia economica, dating the disturbance about A.D. 110. p- 134-

168

COMMENTARY

VIII

Our conclusion then would be that the evidence advanced

for a more precise dating of the Acta Hermaisci cannot stand. Hence until further evidence is forthcoming, it would seem safest to retain the more general dating, i.e. some time before

Trajan’s departure for the Parthian campaign in the autumn of 113.

THE ‘COUNCIL OF JEWS’ Hermaiscus’ accusation (Il. 42 f.) that Trajan’s Privy Council was filled with Jews obviously reflects Alexandrian propaganda: it was a popular explanation for Rome’s policy vis-a-vis the Alexandrian Greeks and her favouritism towards the Jews. ‘Factisch ist es unmoéglich’, said Weber (Hermes, loc. cit., p. 65), ‘dass Juden in dieser Zeit im Senat sitzen’.! But the question need not, I think, be restricted to senators: for equites

could serve on the consilium; and freedmen of the imperial household would sometimes be closely allied with it as members of the Secretariat.? Particularly in cases which concerned the welfare of the Jews, it is quite likely that the emperors would have called in some prominent Jew (such as Josephus, with Roman citizenship), in order to arrive at a more just appreciation of their status at Alexandria.

How far the Jews had penetrated into official life at Rome during this period is most difficult to say. We know that one of Tiberius’ freedmen, a wealthy Samaritan, had lent Agrippa I a million sesterces.3 Josephus himself was first introduced to Poppaea Sabina through Halityros, a Jewish actor who was a favourite of Nero’s.4 And the Epaphroditus, to whom he dedicated several of his works, may well have been a proselyte, even if he is not identical with Nero’s secretary.5 * The earliest reference to Jewish senators appears to be Jerome, Jn Isai. xviii. 66 (PL xxiv. 672 ο), where he speaks of ‘filii Israel senatoriae . . . dignitatis’ appearing at the Last Judgement. 2 On the consilium, see pp. 202 ff. below. 3 On this “Thallus’ (if Hudson’s emendation is right), see Jos. AF xviii. 167; cf. Stein, RE 2 R. ix (1934), 1226f., and H. A. Rigg, HTR xxxiv (1941), pp. 111-19. 4 Jos. Vita 16. 5 On Nero’s a libellis, see Tac, Ann. xv. 55; Suet. Nero xxxix. 3, Dom. xiv. 4;

Dio'Ixvii. 14. 4; and PIR iii2 E 69. Stein, RE v (1905), 2710f., as well as Holscher, RE ix (1916), 1934 Π., identifies him with Josephus’ patron.

Vill

P. OXY.

1242

169

Josephus himself, granted civitas romana by Vespasian, very probably lived till the early years of Trajan’s reign.!

The Herod family, of course, had always been on intimate terms with the imperial household ;and there is good evidence for believing that some of their descendants became successful Roman magistrates. We have references to a King Alexander whose son, C. Julius Agrippa, was quaestor of Asia ;? probably

a member of the same family was C. Julius Alexander Berenicianus,? proconsul of Asia ο. 132/3. But Roman policy towards the Jews was almost wholly pragmatic. Despite the patent fact that, juridically speaking, the official attitude under the early principate tended to support Jewish privileges, yet at least from the time of Tiberius* and Gaius,’ opposition was steadily mounting against Judaism as an uncompromising nationalistic and religious force. With the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius® and Nero’s condemnation of the Christians in A.D. 64,7 it became, 1 The extant recension of Josephus’ Vita mentions no emperor beyond Domitian, but it is not unlikely that there was a second edition of it after Α.Ρ. 100, i.e. after the death of Agrippa II. Cf. Momigliano, CAH x (1934), p. 886, and supra, p. 128, η. I. 2 OGIS 429, and see Groag, RE x (1917), 143 and 150-3. Cf. H. Dessau, ‘Die Herkunft der Offiziere und Beamten, &c.’, Hermes xlv (1910), p. 20; B. Stech, Senatores romani qui fuerint inde a Vespasiano, &c. (Klio, Beiheft x), Leipzig, 1912, η. 282; C. S. Walton, ‘Oriental Senators in the Service of Rome’, FRS xix (1929), p. 61; Jones, The Herods, p. 261. In P. Ryl. 166 (A.D. 26) we have a reference to C. Julius Alexander, a wealthy property-owner. 3 Probably consul in 116, he may have fought with Trajan in the Parthian

campaign: for the references, see Dessau, loc. cit.; Stech, n. 1527; RE, 157 f.;

Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, ppv. 1479 f. 4 On the expulsion of Jews under Tiberius, see Nock in CAH x (1934), Ῥ. 495. In general, see E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government (London, 1925), pp. 14 ff.; cf. La Piana, HTR xx (1927), pp. 183 ff., and, on the Jews, pp. 341 ff. 5 See Balsdon, Gaius, pp. 111 Π., and Box, In Flaccum, esp. pp. xviii ff. 6 The decree referred to by Suetonius, Claud. xxv. 4 (impulsore Chresto), and apparently by Acts xviii. 1 f. and Orosius vii. 6. 15 (where it is dated in the year A.D. 49), is not mentioned by Josephus, Eusebius, or Tacitus. Unless we are to postulate two different decrees, an entry in Dio (Xiphilinus) Ix. 6. 6 for the year 41 would seem to suggest that an expulsion decree was revised in favour of a mere prohibition of assembly. See K. Lake in The Beginnings of Christianity, loc. cit., pp. 459f., and for a summary of the vast literature on the problem see H. Janne, ‘Impulsore Chresto’, in Mél. Bidez (1934), ii, ΡΡ. 531-53. However we interpret the passage in Suetonius, it would at least appear to be evidence for the public confusion with regard to Judaism and Christianity during this period. 7 Cf. Tac. Ann. xv. 44; Suet. Nero xvi. 2. For a discussion on the Neronian

VIII

COMMENTARY

17ο

perhaps, more and more difficult to practise the vita Judaica in any form. There were, of course, individual exceptions when it suited Roman convenience or in the case of Jews who had become romanized. Claudius, for example, despite his edict

of a few years before, still favoured Agrippa II in his punish-

ment of Isidorus (if the dating is right) and his condemnation of Ventidius Cumanus in A.D. 53. Nero and Poppaea had their Jewish favourites, as we have seen. Flavius Josephus and his family were honoured successively by Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, and probably Trajan. Vespasian himself, despite his imposition of the Jewish head-tax, was not only Josephus’ patron and benefactor, but furthered the ambitions of the renegade Jew, Ti. Julius Alexander.! Very possibly Ti. Julius Alexander, procurator of Crete under Trajan? and Ti. Julius Alexander

Julianus,

a senator

under

Trajan,3

were

the

prefect’s

persecution see Momigliano, CAH x (1934), pp- 887 f.; cf. also H. Last, 715 xxvii (1937), Ρ. 89; A. G. Roos, ‘Nero and the Christians’, Symbolae van Oven, 1946, pp. 297-306; F. W. Clayton in CQ xli (1947), pp. 81 ff; E. Griffe, ‘Le Christianisme en face de l’Etat romain’, Bull. Litt. ecclés. iii (1949), pp- 129-45On the relevance of Letter xii of the so-called correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul (the only evidence for the implication of the Jews in the burning of Rome) see A. Kurfess, Mnémosyne, 3™° s., vi (1938), pp. 261-72. 1 Epistrategus of the Thebaid in a.p. 42, he became procurator of Judaea ο. 45, minister bello datus under Corbulo in 63, prefect of Egypt between 66 and spring of 70, and again general staff officer under Titus at the siege of Jerusalem. His brother Marcus, if actually betrothed to Agrippa II’s sister Julia Berenice, died perhaps before the actual marriage. His father Alexander had been a favourite of Claudius and Antonia Minor. For the literature, see PIR

ii. I 92; Cantarelli, n. 25; Reinmuth, The Prefect, p. 132, and TAPA lIxv (1934), pp. 248 ff.; L. Lepape, in BSAA xxix (1934), pp. 331-413; Sherwin-White, BSR xv (1939), Ρ. 21, n. 68; Nock, CR lvii (1943), pp. 78 f.; Stein, Prafekten, pp. 37 f. For convenience we subjoin the following stemma: Alexander Lysimachus the arabarch Berenice = Marcus

Philo Judaeus Ti. Julius Alexander X? Ti. Julius Alexander Julianus

2 CIL iii Suppl. 7130, a dedication at Ephesus to Ti. Julius C. f. Alexander. For another Ti. Julius Alexander, eutheniarch of the β Quarter in Alexandria (A.D. 158/9), see the inscription quoted by Wilcken, Ostraka, i, p. 823. 3 See the references in RE, loc. cit., 158 f., n. 61.

VIII

P. OXY.

1242

171

descendants—and, in fact, Julianus may have been a member

of Trajan’s consilium at the time of the Acta Hermaisci. Thus far, however, it has been a question merely of those of Jewish blood. But Hermaiscus’ remark might possibly have been meant as well for those Roman citizens who had been

taking up ‘Jewish ways of life’ either as Jewish proselytes or

as Christians. It was under Domitian that Vespasian’s /iscus Judaicus was rigorously enforced, and that a system arose whereby anyone suspected of being a proselyte could apparently be denounced.! It is under Domitian, too, that we have our first definite evidence of a Roman of senatorial rank being executed, allegedly, for vita Iudaica. We have the evidence of Dio, preserved by Xiphilinus (lxvii. 14. 1-2), that Flavius Clemens, consul for the year 95, a cousin of Domitian’s and the husband of Flavia Domitilla, (probably) Domitian’s niece, was condemned ‘on a charge of atheism, a charge on which a number of others were convicted who had been drifting into Jewish ways of life’ (ἐς τὰ τῶν ᾿ Iovdaiwy ἤθη ἐξοκέλλοντες) «2

Whether Flavius Clemens and his wife were actually Chris-

tians or merely sympathetic with Judaism or Christianity is

immaterial to our present discussion. The incident is at least an indication of the extent to which the vita Iudaica—however this may be interpreted—had penetrated the ranks of Roman nobility as early as the year 95. Besides the evidence from Nerva’s coinage (of the years

96/7) that he mitigated the abuses connected with the fiscus

Tudaicus,3 we know that he also refused to recognize the charges

© Suet. Dom. xii. 2, and cf. Last, ZRS xxvii (1937), Ρ. 91. 2 That Flavius’ wife was a Christian was commonly held since the discovery of of ILS 8306 ( = CIL vi. 16246) in connexion with the so-called Catacomb P. Styger, Domitilla ; but that the case is not entirely clear has been indicated by to Flavius Die rém. Katakomben (Berlin, 1933), pp- 63 ff. For the references actually Clemens, see PIR ii F 170, RE vi (1909), 2536 ff. That Flavius was and more a Jewish proselyte was held by Juster, Les Juifs, i, p. 257, n. 1, Era, i, p. 349. recently by Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian e, 1927), (Cambridg Emperors Roman Five , Henderson in discussion Cf. also the . 46 Π. one must not ee ae the coin legend, ‘Fisci Iudaici Calumnia Sublata’, for there is conclude that Nerva had completely abolished the Jewish tax; listed ostraca the See 16. 1 year the to up least at paid was evidence that the tax Taxation, pp. 170-6; by Fuchs, Die Fuden Agyptens, pp. 105 ff. ; and cf. Wallace, G. Manteuffel, Tcherikover, The Jews in Egypt, Eng. summary, pp. 14 f., and

172

COMMENTARY

VIII

of maiestas and vita Iudaica (Dio Ixviii. 1. 2); and hence it is

not unreasonable to suppose that during his reign, as well as Trajan’s, it became easier for an occult Jewish proselyte, or

perhaps even a Christian, to hold a responsible position in the government—although

admittedly there is no evidence for

this until much later. At any rate these few indications, fragmentary though they admittedly are, would seem to suggest that there may have been some foundation for Hermaiscus’ exaggerated charge.

Undoubtedly there had been rumours at Alexandria to explain the influence that the Jews seemed to enjoy at Rome, despite their generally depressed condition in the Empire. These rumours might well have referred to the families of Herod, Tiberius Alexander, and Flavius Josephus, as well as those Roman proselytes or Christians ‘who had been drifting into Jewish ways of life’. To the well-born Greeks of the provinces still unfamiliar with Christianity, the distinction would be insignificant. 3. [Διον]ύσιος. See pp. 102 ff. above. If Bell is right, he would be the grandson of C. Julius Dionysius of Claudius’ Letter to the

Alexandrines. Weber suggested that he was to be identified with the Dionysius, son of Glaucus, mentioned in the Suda, who had held various procuratorships from the time of Nero till the reign of Trajan, and this is not unlikely, although the name Glaucus

presents difficulties if we would link him with the Theon—Dionysius line. Sherwin-White, I think, goes too far in wishing to identify him both with the son of Glaucus and with the Dionysius of Claudius’ Letter: see his article in BSR xv (1939), Ρ. 22, Π. 70.

4. καί. Implying, I think, that the legates whose names followed were subordinate to Dionysius, the doyen of the embassy and (most probably) a Roman citizen. Whether or not Hermaiscus’ name was originally included in this list we do not know; it is not impossible

that he had already been detained at Rome for other reasons. It would appear that in this action against the Jews, Alexandrians who possessed Roman citizenship joined forces with those who did

not. See pp. 275 ff. below. Journ. Fur. Pap. iii (1949), pp. 110 ff. For an interpretation of the coin evidence, see H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire, iii (London, 1936), pp. xlvii f., and RIC ii, p. 221. On the jiscus Iudaicus in general, see Rostovtzeff in Diz. epig. and RE, s.v.; Juster, Les Juifs, ii, pp. 282 ff.; M. S. Ginsburg, ‘Fiscus Judaicus’, Few. Quart. Rev. xxi (1930), pp. 281-91.

VIII

P. OXY. 1242

173

5. In the division of the names in this line we have followed

the editors. These were the possibilities: (a) Salvius, Julius Salvius, Timagenes (GH): making twelve envoys in all (including Hermaiscus, excluding Paulus). This division has in its favour the position of the name Julius as a proper gentilicium, suggesting that one Salvius had Roman citizenship and the other had not. (6) Salvius Julius (= Julianus?), Salvius Timagenes (Weber, loc. cit., p. 51), making eleven envoys. A certain Salvius

Timagenes is mentioned as priest and archidicastes in P. Tebt. 435, 1 (s. ii/iii); but the form Salvius Julius is odd. (c) A final possibility cannot be ruled out, i.e. Julius Salvius and Salvius ‘Timagenes. The evidence on the whole, I think, favours the editors’ original interpretation. On the other legates we may note:

Athenodorus: may possibly be the person who figures in the Acta Athenodori ;

Salvius, Julius, Pastor suggest possible Roman connexions, and this was perhaps the reason why they were chosen to accompany Dionysius; Phanias: related perhaps to the Ti. Claudius Phanias of P. Jews 1912,

18; a rhetor of this name

appears in a case before

the prefect Lupus in a.p. 117 (BGU 114, 6) ; Timagenes: besides the archidicastes mentioned above, we find in the Suda (Adler, iv. 549. 14 ff.) a reference to an Alexandrian rhetor of this name, famous for his sharp tongue;__, Sotion: on the Stoic philosopher of this name, the teacher of Seneca, see PIR iii. S 572 and RE, ate R. iii (1929), 1238 f.; Philoxenus: for an Alexandrian Philoxenus, see SB 4982 (5. ii/ iii); cf. also SB 5041; a Flavius Philoxenus was epistrategus

of the Thebaid ο. 118 (P. Bremen 17. 4 in Archi iv [1908],

pp. 385 f) ;

Paulus of Tyre, as Weber was the first to point out, was most probably the rhetor of this name mentioned in the Suda (Adler, iv. 69. 16 ff.): Τύριος ῥήτωρ γεγονὼς κατὰ Φίλωνα τὸν Βύβλιον: ὃς ἐπὶ “Αδριανοῦ τοῦ βασιλέως πρεσβεύσας µητρόπολιν τὴν Τύρον ἐποίησε. ἔγραψε τέχνην ῥητορικήν, προγυμνάσµατα, µελέτας. Paulus was perhaps one of the φιλόλογοι, mentioned

in the imperial letter in Athen. (cf. ll. 36f., 46), who were

ordinarily in favour at Rome. I do not think, however, that

he is to be identified with the central character of the Acta Pauli: see the discussion on pp. 187 ff. below. The adjective

174

COMMENTARY

VIII

αὐθαίρετος is significant of the strong bond of kinship (συγγένεια: cf. Athen. 8) that existed among all true Hellenes of the Roman Empire. Very probably, as Wenger has suggested, Paulus offered his services gratuitously. 11 ff. If the detail is authentic, it is possible that the number of Jewish envoys (seven, inclusive of the advocate) was chosen for mystical reasons. See, for example, the representations of the sevenbranched candlestick on Jewish sarcophagi and in Jewish catacombs: DACL viii (1928), 229 ff. Cf. also W. R. Dawson, “The Number Seven in Egyptian Texts’, Aeg. viii (1927), pp. 97-107. Of the seven names, the only clearly Jewish ones are Simon,

Jacob, and Onias. The name Onias (‘Jahweh is kind’) was common among priestly families under the Ptolemies: see RE xviii. 1 (1942),

474 ff. Weber and Fuchs (Die Juden Agyptens, p. 24) have doubted

whether the advocate Sopatros of Antioch was Jewish, but in view of the circumstances I think the presumption is that he was. Alexandrians of this name are mentioned in the Coan inscriptions

collected by Paton and Hicks, nn. 167, 206. The name Θεύδης is, so far as I know, unparalleled and may very well be an error for the more common

Θευδᾶς;

for the latter

name, cf. SB 5025-6. Theudas was also the name of a Jewish rebel massacred along with his

followers in a Messianic uprising ο. A.D. 45/6 under the procurator Cuspius Fadus (Josephus, 47 20. 98). According to Eusebius, HE ii. 11, he is

to be identified with the Theudas mentioned in Acts v. 36. For the controversy, see Schiirer, Gesch. jiid. Volkes, 14, p. 566; A. C. Headlam in Dict. of the Bible, iv (1902), 750; A. C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford, 1933), pp. liv f.

14f. ᾿Ιάκουμβος. A new form of this name: cf. Preisigke, WB, s.v., and H. Wuthnow, Die semit. Menschennamen (Leipzig, 1930),

ΡΡ. 55 1. 18. τοὺς ἰδίους θεούς. K. F. W. Schmidt was the first to suggest

(GGA, sup. cit.) that the Jews were carrying their sacred books or a roll of the Torah; cf. also Weber, Hermes, loc. cit., p. 56, n. 1. It is indeed difficult to imagine that the author or authors of the

Acta should have referred to this object as the ‘god’ of the Jews. On the other hand, it seems hardly likely that he would have been so ignorant of Jewish custom as to portray them carrying an image

of Jahweh. On the prohibition of images (Exodus xx. 4), see Josephus, ο. Ap. ii. 191. For a discussion, see Juster, Les Fuifs, i, Ρ. 350, η. 1; Wolfson, Philo, i, p. 29, η. 22; and especially Edwyn Bevan, Holy Images (London, 1940), esp. pp. 46 ff.

VIII

Ρ. OXY.

1242

175

It is quite possible that the entire episode is fiction, invented to enhance the superiority of Serapis in the theophany that follows. At any rate, it would appear that the author(s) used the generic term θεοί for both the bust of Serapis and the roll of the Law, for want of a more precise term with which to describe what seemed to be a Jewish cult-object. It would go beyond our province here to enter into a discussion of the Jewish concept of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Cf., for example, St. Paul in 2 Tit.

iii. 16 (πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος); and even to Jews like Philo, the Pentateuch had, in the scheme of divine revelation, a special place: see Wolfson, Philo, i, pp. 184 f. Roberts has suggested that

the Jews may have carried the roll of the Torah in a small ark

(κιβώτιον) ; the evidence for such small arks can be found in E. L. Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (Schweich Lectures; London, 1934), pp. 52 f. arf. peraSiSwo[t] τοῖς σὺν |αὐτοῖς λό[γω]ν. “He converses with their companions’, an idiom found in the novelists, e.g. Helio-

dorus i. 22 (27, 18). The editors’ supplement λό[γο]ν should be corrected. Matta, Didaskaleion, loc. cit. ii, p. 56, supposes that the

prefect of Egypt is speaking here. 22. καὶ λήξαντος τοῦ χειμῶνος. In view of the sea voyage, one

might be tempted to translate, ‘after the storm was over’, but the

same expression is found, e.g. in Josephus (B7 iv. 658), clearly referring to the winter. The Jewish embassy under Philo also sailed from Alexandria in midwinter (Leg. xxix. 190; CR, p. 190). Many estimates have been given for the time required for a normal sea

voyage from Alexandria to Rome; see Box, Jn Flaccum, pp. 84 ff.; L. Casson, ‘Speed under Sail of Ancient Ships’, JAPA Ixxxii

(1951), Pp. 136 ff.

23. ὁρμίζονται . . . ἔμαθεν. From 1]. 12 to 35 we have a good example of the juxtaposition of the historical present and the

aorist somewhat reminiscent of the style of the Synoptic Gospels. See Mayser, ii. 1, p. 131, and Debrunner-—Blass, n. 321.

τὴν Ῥώμην. Actual usage of the article varied and it is difficult

again to formulate a rule. ‘Pan, for instance, has the article once

See in 1. 54, but is without it in P. Lond. 41 and P. Oxy. 33 iii. 8. Mayser, ii. 2, pp. 6 ff. 24. The mention of the Jews here first (and in 1. 28) is perhaps deliberate, in order to suggest the influence the Jews were reputed to have at Rome. 25. ἡμέραν Cn. Titinius Capito, who had served Domitian,

Nerva, and Trajan in the

capacity of ab epistulis® (a position which offered peculiar advantages), was engaged in composing Exitus inlustrium virorum—a collection of martyr tales written, as Pliny informs us, in the manner of laudationes funebres.’? Although we should not exaggerate the importance of such works, undoubtedly Pliny himself made good use of them; and, if we may judge from Pliny’s own references,® some

of those who figured in these works were doubtless (among the occist) Herennius Senecio, L. Iunius Arulenus Rusticus, Helvidius I Ep. vii. 19.5. Cf. Dio Ixvii. 13. 2; Tac. Agric. xlv. 1. The following stemma will indicate the fortunes of this interesting family (O = occisus; R = relegatus ; S = suicide) : Arria Maior (9) == Caecina Paetus (5: A.D. 42) Arria Minor (R) = Ῥ. Clodius Thrasea Paetus (6: A.D. 66) Fannia (R) = Helvidius Priscus (R; Ο: ο. A.D. 75) Helvidius Priscus iunior (O: ο. A.D. 93) 2 Ep. ix. 19. 1 (i.e. Helvidius the Younger). 3 Ibid. 2 ff. On the Stoic opposition of this period, see Pohlenz, Die Stoa, i, pp. 284 ff. It is unnecessary here to enter into a discussion of the reasons for the disaffection of the Stoics to the principate; like the Alexandrian opposition, it served merely as a minor irritant without producing any lasting change. 5 Ep. v. 5. 34 See C. Wirszubski, Libertas, esp. pp. 167 f. 6 ILS 1448. Cf. R. H. Lacey, The Equestrian Officials of Trajan and Hadrian ῥ κ (Diss., Princeton, 1917), η. 6, pp. 3 f. Ep. iii. 11. 3. 7 Ep, viii. 12. 4-5. 5498

R

APPENDIX

242

_Priscus; and (among the relegati) Rusticus’ brother Iunius Mauri-

cus, Pomponia Gratilla, Arria Minor, and her daughter Fannia. Relevant also is, I think, Pliny’s moving account of the double suicide of Caecina Paetus and his wife Arria Maior,’ as well as

his story of the burial alive of the Vestal Virgin Cornelia by order of Domitian.” A different mood, however, is marked by the writings of Philo-

stratus the Elder.? It is possible that he drew, from sources of the

type we are discussing, collections of tales which glorified the philo-

sopher’s opposition to authority, and particularly perhaps in the lives of Favorinus, Herodes Atticus, and Philiscus.* Yet the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, published probably not long after Α.Ρ. 217,

seems almost like a parody on the traditional martyr literature.

Philostratus gives us many scenes in which the prowess of the seer

is revealed to the discredit of Roman officialdom. But by this time the sting is gone:5 for the caricature of the Roman emperors of the ancien régime was surely meant to amuse rather than offend the

benevolent court circles for which Philostratus wrote. Nero is one of Apollonius’ special targets: when the seer is brought before the Prefect Tigellinus on a charge of maiestas—a charge, in Philostratus’ eyes, so typical of the early principate—he declares that

Nero holds no terrors for him. ‘You think Nero is worth singing,’ he says; ‘I think he’s better left unsung!’® Domitian becomes another stock character on Philostratus’ little stage: while Domi-

tian is pictured as boiling with wrath, Apollonius taunts him by praising the reign of Nerva.’” αι Ep. iii. 16. 6. Cf. the suicide of Seneca and his wife’s attempt to die with him: Tac. Ann. xv. 63; Dio Ixii. 25.

2 Ep. iv. 11. 5 ff. On Cornelia, cf. also Suet. Dom. viii. 4. 3 On Philostratus (II), see F. Solmsen, RE xx (1941), 136-74, n. 10, and K. Gerth in Bursians Fahresber. cclxxii—cclxxiii (1941), pp. 228 ff. + On Favorinus, see the edition of P. Vat. Gr. 11 by Vitelli and Norsa, 1931 ; see also K. Gerth in Bursians Jahresber., loc. cit., pp. 146 Π., to which add the comments by Momigliano in Riv. stor. ital. Ix (1948), pp. 430 ff. On the trial of Herodes Atticus before Marcus Aurelius, see Philostratus,

Vitae soph. ii. 1

(Kayser, ii, pp. 66 f.); on Philiscus and Caracalla, see ibid. ii. 30 (ii, p. 122). For the more recent literature on Herodes Atticus, see Gerth, Bursians Jahresber., loc. cit., pp. 159 Π., and J. H. Oliver, The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Law (Johns Hopkins Press, 1950), esp. pp. 109 ff. 5 For

some

minor

criticism

of Roman

administration,

see the so-called

Letters of Apollonius of Tyana, e.g. Epp. 30 (Kayser, i, pp. 351 f.) and 54 (i, p. 358). The denunciation of the Greek practice of adopting Roman names in Epp. 71-72 (i, p. 356), and Vita Apol. iv. 5 (i, p. 127) may go back to an authentic tradition, but the criticism must have seemed ‘quaint’ in Philostratus’ day. 6 Vitaiv. 44 (i, p. 163) ; and cf. v. 28 (i,p.186). 7 Vita vii. 33 (i, pp. 287 f.).

ΤΗΕ

TRADITION PAGAN

OF

MARTYRS

MARTYR AND

LITERATURE

— 243

CHRISTIANITY

Thus far we have been treating the literary tradition within which the Acta Alexandrinorum grew and flourished. And it is a curious fact that it is just about the time of Philostratus that the

period which produced the Acta comes to a close. However, before leaving our present theme it will be of interest to follow the tradition of ‘pagan martyrdom’ as it is reflected in the writings of the early

Church." During the crucial period of persecution some of the early _ Fathers would urge Christians to imitate the example of their pagan forebears. Some of the instances cited are indeed curious, and it is clear that the pagan models were not to be emulated in every respect.

This appeal to pagan examples is perhaps most prominent in Tertullian, especially in his pre-Montanist period. In his 4βο-

logeticum, for instance, composed probably towards the end of the year 197, he cites the following exempla:? C. Mucius

Scaevola;

Empedocles;

M. Atilius Regulus;

the

philosopher Anaxarchus (executed by Nicocreon of Salamis) ; an unnamed Attic prostitute? who bit off her tongue and spat it in the tyrant’s face rather than reveal certain secrets; the

philosopher Zeno of Elea. It is this passage that he concludes with the famous words, ‘Semen | est sanguis Christianorum’. In Ad nationes, written perhaps in the same year, his examples are:+ Regulus; regina Aegypti; the wife of Hasdrubal;

the Attic

α For the development of the meaning of the word µάρτυς, see the controversy between Holl and Reitzenstein in Hermes lii (1917), pp. 301 ff. and 442 ff., where most of the earlier literature is cited ; see also F. Dornseiff, ‘Der Martyrer: Name and Bewertung’, Arch. Rel.-Wiss. xxii (1923/4), PP- 133-533 H. Delehaye, Les origines du Culte des martyres (Brussels, 1912), ΡΡ. 26 f., and Sanctus, 1927, p. 99; H. Strathmann in Kittels Theol. Wéorterbuch zum N.T. iv (1939), ΡΡ. 477 ff. (with his note on the Acta Alexandrinorum, p. 484, η. 23)3 E. Giinther, Μάρτυς: Die Geschichte eines Wortes (Gutersloh, 1941). 2 Apol. 1. 5-9 (ed. J. Martin, 1933). In this connexion it is interesting to compare Seneca’s selection of exempla from Roman history: see A. Klotz, Hermes xliv (1909), pp. 198-214, and R. Helm, Hermes Ixxiv (1939), pp. 13054. Cf. also H. W. Litchfield, ‘Exempla Virtutis in Roman Literature’, HSC

xxv (1914), pp. 1 ff.

Boe

3 Probably the Leaena of Pausanias i. 23, executed under Hippias. Cf. also Athenaeus xiii. 596 F, and Lactantius, Div. inst. i. 20. 3 (ed. S. Brandt, CSEL 4 Ad. nat. i. 18 (ed. J. Borleffs, Leiden, 1929). xix).

244

APPENDIX

_ prostitute. And finally in the Ad martyras (written perhaps ο. 202 /3) we find the longest list of exempla :* Lucretia; Scaevola; Heraclitus of Ephesus; Empedocles; Pere-

grinus Proteus, ‘qui non olim se rogo immisit’ ;? Dido 13 the wife of Hasdrubal; Cleopatra; the Athenian prostitute. Finally, Tertullian, after recalling the Spartan practice of ritual scourging, concludes, ‘Si tanti vitrum, quanti margaritum!’

There are also some intéresting passages in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria. In exhorting the Christians on the subject of

martyrdom, he warns

them not to emulate those who, like the

Gymnosophists, leap to their own deaths; ‘these do not save the true meaning of martyrdom . . . but deliver themselves to a futile fire.’* None the less, the faithful were urged to take profit from the tales of pagan martyrs ;and among the examples Clement cites there are a few that we have seen from Tertullian. He mentions the philosopher Zeno ; the man (whom he calls ‘Herarchus or Demulus’) who bit off his tongue and spat it into the tyrant’s face; the stories about Theodotus the Pythagorean and Praylus the disciple of Lacydus, ‘as told by Timotheus of Pergamum in his book περὶ τῆς τῶν φιλοσόφων ἀνδρείας and Achaechus in τὰ ἠθικά”.Σ Although one would have liked to find some reference, at least in Clement,

to the Acta Alexandrinorum, his silence is perhaps another indication that the Acta were merely private pamphlets composed and copied for a particular group. But the sympathetic attitude that we find towards pagan heroes in Tertullian and Clement, like so many other views of theirs, did

not prevail, and in no other ecclesiastical writer are the tales of T Ad mart. 4 (ed. F. Oehler, Leipzig, 1853), pp. 11 f. 2 Cf. also Athenagoras, Legatio 26 (ed. Schwartz, 1891), and see p. 269 below. 3 Dido and Lucretia also serve as examples in the later Montanistic work, De exhort. castitatis 13 (ed. E. Kroymann, Leipzig, 1942). 4 Strom. iv. 17. 1-3 (Stahlin, GCS, p. 256. 11 Π.), where he may have Peregrinus in mind. Cf. also St. Paul’s passage on charity, 1 Cor. xiii. 3, where it is possible that he is thinking of the Gymnosophists. A consideration of those Christians who anticipated their martyrdoms by rushing to their deaths would take us far beyond our present scope. Authentic cases were apparently not too frequent: e.g. Apollonia of Alexandria, in Dionysius of Alexandria ap. Euseb. HE vi. 41. 7 (ed. Schwartz, GCS, p. 602. 8 ff.) ; Pelagia of Antioch, in Ambrose, De virginibus iii. 7, and Chrysostom, De s. Pelagia virgine hom. 1 (PG 1. 579 Π.). On this question Augustine prudently remarks (De civ. Dei i. 26), ‘De his nihil temere audeo iudicare’, and suggests that their action was due to divine inspiration. 5 Strom. iv. 56 1-2 (Stahlin, p. 274. 1 Π.).

THE

TRADITION

OF

MARTYR

ΙΙΤΕΕΑΤΟΕΕ

245

pagan mattyrs so prominent.' What was to be the more common view in the Church is reflected in Justin? and St. John Chrysostom. In his sermon on the martyr St. Babylas,? Chrysostom takes a rather rigorous view of the philosophic martyrs of antiquity. Christian martyrs, he says, are not like those Greek philosophers, who never expressed themselves with due moderation, but always more or less than was proper;

and hence it is that they won

a reputation not for

fortitude but rather for futile suffering. This was the final verdict of early Christianity; and we do not find it reversed until the Divina Commedia of Dante, where such

a prominent place is given to Vergil, Zeno, Seneca, Socrates, and the rest. A study of the phenomenon of martyrdom in the heretical sects (e.g. the Donatists) would go beyond the scope of this book. By way of conclusion, however, it will not perhaps be irrelevant to add one last story of a pagan martyr, Hypatia of Alexandria.‘

This noble lady, daughter of Theon the mathematician, was admired even by Christians for her virtue, although looked on with some suspicion by them because of her profession of Neoplatonism. One of her disciples was Synesius of Cyrene, later to be converted and consecrated bishop of Ptolemais by Theophilus of Alexandria.§

Her assassination is still much of a mystery: in March (Lent) of A.D. 415, Socrates tells us, during one of those riots which were frequent at Alexandria even during Christian times, a mob led by a certain lector named Peter took hold of Hypatia by force, dragged her to a church called the Caesareum, and there tore her limb from

limb. Undoubtedly her friendship with the Roman Prefect Orestes, t Among ‘pagan martyrs’ Arnobius mentions Pythagoras, Socrates, and Regulus, Adv. gentes i. 40 (ed. A. Reifferscheid, CSEL iv);but cf. his general attack on pagan philosophers, ibid. ii. 10-11. 2 Cf. II Apol. x: ‘No man was ever so convinced of Socrates’ doctrine as to die for it.’ For Minucius Felix, Socrates is scurra Atticus, Oct. xxxviii. 5 (ed. C. Halm, GSEL ii). Cf. also Lactantius, Div. inst. iii. 20. 15 (ed. S. Brandt, CSEL xix), although he praises Socrates and Plato as reges philosophorum, ibid. iii. 17. 29. Socrates wins his highest praise from St. Augustine, De civ. Dei viii.3. 3 In S. Babylam 7 (PG lii. 543). 4 The earliest source is Socrates, HE vii. 15; for a discussion of the evidence, see K. Praechter, RE ix (1914), 242-9. 5 It was Theophilus (d. 412) who led the Christians against the Temple of Mithras at Alexandria and razed the Serapeum. In the ensuing riot—reminiscent of the Greek—Jewish στάσεις of the first century—many, both pagans and Christians, were killed (Soc. HE v. 16). See also Milne, History of Egypt, pp: 95 ff. On the evidence for Theophilus’ destruction of the Serapeum, see A. Rowe, Annales du Service, Suppl. ii (1946), pp. 43 ff.

946

APPENDIX

τα bitter opponent of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria,’ was partly the occasion for this scandal; but that the bishop was directly connected with the murder of Hypatia has never been shown.” ¥ Only a short time before, while Orestes was in office, Cyril had ordered the Christians to destroy the synagogues in retaliation against the Jews for the burning of a Christian church. In the heat of the conflict many on both sides were killed, Jewish homes were pillaged, and many Jews were driven out of the city (Soc. HE vii. 13). See Bell, Fuden und Griechen, pp. 46-48, and FRS xxxi (1941), pp. 16-18. For the recent literature on the relations between Jews and Christians, see M. Simon, Verus Israel (Paris, 1948), and especially B. Blumenkranz, Die Judenpredigt Augustins (Basler Beitrage zur Geschichtswissenschaft, Band xxv; Basel, 1946); cf. also R. Wilde,

The Treatment of the Fews

in the Greek Writers of the First Three Centuries (Cath. Univ. Patristic Studies, Ixxxi; Washington, D.C., 1949) (with the review by R. Arbesmann, CW xlv [1952], pp. 120 f.). 2 See Praechter, RE, loc. cit. On further relations between pagan philosophers and Christianity, see the (somewhat unsatisfactory) account of de Labriolle, La Réaction paienne (Paris, 1942), pp. 482 ff. Cf. also J. Maspero, ‘Horapollon et la fin du paganisme égyptien’, BAO xi (1914), pp. 163 ff.; C. H. Roberts on P. Merton 49. 8.

(347)

APPENDIX

III

Mime, Protocol, and Novel In the previous Appendix I have suggested that, though the Acta

Alexandrinorum are in so many respects a unique phenomenon, they are none the less the product of their environment. Now I propose to investigate the possibility of a more direct and immediate influence, that of the contemporary mime, the protocol, and the novel,

and thereby I hope to bring out the characteristics by which, again, the Acta differ from all three.

A. The Mime

Cicero had said of Alexandria: ‘illinc omnes praestigiae, illinc,

inquam, omnes fallaciae, omnia denique ab eis mimorum argumenta nata sunt.? But the force of Cicero’s condemnation has only been brought home to us in recent times. The mimes of Herodas and the other mimic fragments offer ample evidence of the quality—or, rather, lack of quality—of the Greek mime in the Hellenistic— Roman period. And Dio Chrysostom in his Oration to the Alexandrians suggests the pernicious effects of Alexandria’s excessive patronage of this form of entertainment.’ It was a commonplace that the Alexandrians loved the theatrical.

Philo, in particular, notes the ‘mimicking’ of the Jews who had

been tortured and executed during the pogrom of August 38 ;*

and the mimes that followed the public exhibition and torture

of Jews in the theatre may well have been travesties of the outrages that had been committed against them.> It is quite

probable that mimes were a feature of the entertainment organized by Isidorus to ridicule Flaccus ;° at any rate, we know that mime-writers were employed for the lampoons against Agrippa I.” Versuch 1 See H. Reich, Der Mimus: ein literdr-entwicklungsgeschichtlicher e Danza’, (Berlin, 1903), 1. 1, esp. pp. 142 ff.; T. Grassi, ‘Musica, Mimica preserved in Studi Scuola Pap. iii (1920), pp. 111-35. For the mimic fragments ΡΡ. 41 Π., 1930), (Warsaw, graecis opusculis De l, the papyri, see G. Manteuffe 1942), nn. and nn. 12 ff.;D. L. Page, Greek Literary Papyri (Loeb Library, 73-792 Pro Rabirio Post. 35. 4 Flacc. ix. 72; CR, p. 199. 6 Ibid. xvii. 139; CR, p. 145.

3 Or. xxxii. 86, 89, and passim. 5 Ibid. x. 85; CR, p. 195. 7 Ibid. ν. 94: CR, p. 126.

248

APPENDIX

It would appear that a well-known entertainment at Alexandria was the ‘king-mime’. Such a mime was organized by the Alexandrians to welcome Agrippa I when they crowned the simpleton Carabas with papyrus and worshipped him in the gymnasium with cries of ‘Our Lord!’! A similar king-mime apparently was enacted to ridicule the Jewish King Lukuas of Cyrene (Paul. i. 11 ff.) and was partly the occasion of the riots mentioned in the Acta Pauli. Oddly enough, Philo compares the Emperor Gaius’ treatment of the Jewish embassy of Α.Ρ. 38/9 to a mime, noting Gaius’ curious

conduct and his ridiculous remarks.” Turning then to the Acta Alexandrinorum, perhaps it would not be too rash to suggest that the anonymous authors were sometimes influenced by the mime in certain details of characterization

and treatment. Some passages of the Acta lend themselves particularly to this hypothesis. There is, for example, Appian’s dramatic apostrophe to the dead body at Rome, the spirited exhortation of Heliodorus, and Appian’s tragic speech clad in fillet and gymnasiarch’s sandals. There is Paulus’ ‘death speech’ and Atheno-

dorus’ eulogy of Greek law. Then there are the verbal exchanges between Isidorus and Claudius, Trajan and Hermaiscus, Athenodorus and Hadrian (?). There is, lastly, the obvious caricature

of the various emperors with their women; crude dictators who hardly know how to rule the world they have conquered, they are uncertain of how to handle their victims, fearful of the

populace, using the executioner as their last resort. In marked contrast to this stand the courage and integrity of the Alexandrians, their culture and εὐγένεια in the face of injustice and torture.

All of these dramatic elements could well have been brought out by a spirited public reading in the gymnasia or the clubs. Resemblances, of course, must not be pressed too far. The obvious difference that the Acia reveal, in contrast to the pieces of popular mime

recovered from the papyri, is the lack of any note of frivolity or amusement. The Ασία are filled with a tragic σπουδή; Alexandrian εὐγένεια is treated as a serious thing. But it is none the less quite conceivable that in the creation of what was, in point of fact, a new

literary form, the authors of the Acta would be influenced in some degree by what they had previously known to be a successful mode of literary expression. * Flace. vi. 36-39, 127, and for a discussion of the king-mime (with reference to the mockery of Jesus in the Gospels) see the note of Box, pp. οἱ f. 2 Leg. xlv. 3593; CR, p. 221: τὸ πρᾶγμα pipela τις ἦν.

MIME,

PROTOCOL,

AND

NOVEL

249

B. The ‘Protocol’!

In the various protocols extant in the documentary papyri we may note, in general, the following elements: (a) The κεφάλαιον (caput). This often contains a statement of the type of the document (e.g. whether an excerpt from official archives or merely a copy) ; next there is often the date; and then the names

of the persons involved in the case (e.g. 6 δεῖνα πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα) and the name of the official before whom the case was tried. (b) The record of the speeches 1. The name of the official presiding, often with his title, is usually given;also the names of the parties involved and the

rhetors representing them. 2. The words of the official are usually (though not always) given in direct discourse; but often the speeches of the parties involved are given in indirect discourse.

See, for example,

BGU 114, 388; Mitteis, Chrest. 84; P. Oxy. 237. 3. A variety of verbs are used to introduce the speeches (e.g. εἶπεν, ἀπεκρίνατο, προσέθηκεν), or the verb may be simply

omitted. 4. Except when dealing with the speeches of rhetors, the testimony is usually brief. The more

‘literary’ expressions and

particles are rare. The remarks of the persons involved are usually brief, prosaic, and businesslike. Introductory or narrative sections are reduced to a minimum.

1 On the relation between

the protocols and the Acta, cf. Wilcken, Aniis.,

pp. 828 ff.; Niedermeyer, Uber antike Protokoll-Literatur, passim; H. Delehaye, Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (Brussels, 1921), pp. 174 ff. In this connexion should be mentioned another lesser-known genre which perhaps influenced the composition of the Acta, the so-called ‘Report on an Embassy’, which must go back at least to the days of Classical Greece; cf. Diog. Laert. ν. 80, and P. Col. Zen. ii, p. 7. Cf. p. 87 above. The various speeches in the Acta offer little enough scope for the student of ancient rhetoric; but one can sometimes detect the influence of the so-called

‘progymnastic’ writers, e.g. Hermogenes, Theon, &c., on whom see L. Spengel, Rhetores graeci (BT, 1853-6), R. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer (ed. 2 by C. Hammer, 1901), and S. Bonner, Roman Declamation (Univ. Liverpool Press, 1949), passim. On the commentarii, see Humbert, DS i (1875), 46 ff.; Diz. epig. ii (1892), 537 ff.; von P., RE iv (1991), 726 ff.;Wilcken, Philologus liii (1894), pp. 80 ff.; E. Bickermann, 4eg. xiii (1933), ΡΡ. 333 Π. On

the Roman

archives, see Cuq,

‘Mémoire

sur le Consilium

Principis’,

; sup. cit.; M. Memelsdorff, De archivis imperatorum romanorum (Halle, 1890) Dziatzko, RE ii (1895), 553-64; Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten,

pp. 324 ff.

250

.

APPENDIX

(c) The κρίσις of the presiding magistrate, usually very briefly. In addition, we sometimes find

(d) The σφραγίς, the magistrate’s official approval of the report (e.g. ἀνέγνων), and

(ο) The ὑπογραφή of the court-scribe or copyist (e.g. ἔγραφα). In this connexion it is to be noted that the protocols are regularly written in the ordinary cursive,! with abbreviations of the documentary sort.

The Acta Alexandrinorum, on the other hand, present the following

peculiarities : (a) The caput. It is only in Chrest. 14 ii. 1 ff. that we have anything of this kind. In some of the fragments there is great emphasis placed upon the greeting exchanged between the emperor and the delegates: Herm. 28 ff., P. Giss. ii. 25 ff.; cf., in this connexion, the so-called

‘Legionaries’ Audience’, P. Yale Inv. 1528, 13 f. (b) Record of the Speeches

1. The name of the magistrate. In the Acta, the emperor’s name is given only in P. Giss., Acta Isidori, A. Hermiae, the protocolfragment Heracl., and in the narrative (not the dialogue) portions of Herm. It is completely omitted from the extant

portions of PSI (though here, of course, the omission might be justified), Paul., Athen., Acta Appiani, and P. Fay. This is a very important difference,” I think, and a clue to the extent of the reworking of the various fragments. 2. In the dialogue portions two points are to be noted: (a) the

defendants’ speeches in the Acta are never? given in oratio 1 Exceptions are P. Flor. 61 (Norsa, Scritt. lett. tav. 12a) and P. Yale Inv. 1528 (ed. Welles, ZRS xxviii [1938], pp. 41 ff.). On the latter, see Wilcken, Archiv xiii (1938), pp. 237 ff.; L. Wenger, ZSS lix (1939), pp. 37 ff., and Archiv ut sup., pp. 262 f. P. Yale Inv. 1528 is important from our point of view in that it is an account of several judicial hearings of Α.Ρ. 63 which were copied and adapted by the parties involved either as a record or for their own propaganda purposes. It would appear that we have a copy of the official minutes of at least one of these hearings in P. Fouad 21. See W. L. Westermann, ‘Tuscus the Prefect and the Veterans in Egypt’, CP xxxvi (1941), pp. 21-29. It is undoubtedly the same process at work in the evolution of the various fragments of the Acta Alexandrinorum. On the question of the various types of ‘copies’ of an official document, see Β. Kiibler, ‘”Jcov und dvriypadov’, ZSS

lili (1933), pp. 64-98.

3 On the use of βασιλεύς (Emperor), see Index B below, and the Introduction to BGU 588, p. 221. * For an exception, see Paul. i. 1-6. In the ordinary protocols the speeches of the parties involved were often shortened or given merely in summary

MIME,

PROTOCOL,

AND

NOVEL

251

obliqua; and (b) when the introductory verb is not omitted,

εἶπεν is regularly employed.* 3. On the whole, grammar and style are fairly simple, although there is a wider vocabulary and a more ample use of particles than one finds in the ordinary protocols. Here and there, as

we have noted throughout the Commentary, we meet certain expressions which savour more of a literary text. This ‘literary colouring’, difficult to define, varies with the nature

of the fragment (see below), and even, in some cases, within the same fragment (e.g. the narrative, dialogue, or rhetorical sections). (ο. Decision: traces in P. Giss. iii. 24 f.; Chrest. 14 ii. 16 f.; Paul.

vi. 28 f. (d) and (e) missing. In connexion with the script it should be noted that, of the fragments printed in the present collection,

only PRUM

and

Heracl. are clearly in the documentary hand. Documentary abbreviations are usually not found.” With regard to the relationship between the Acta Alexandrinorum

and the protocols, we may, by way of summary, reduce the fragments to the following general categories:

i. Those that adhere more strictly to the protocol form: Max. II, A. Hermiae, Paul. (and its derivative, BGU 341), and, to a lesser extent, P. Giss.

ii. The rhetorical fragments: PSI, Diog., Max. 1, and perhaps BGU 588, P. Fay., and P. Ryl.

iii. Documents that have been reworked and fictionized in varying degrees, viz. (a) the Acta Isidort, Athen., and, to a greater extent, (b) Herm., and the Acta Appiani. iv. Documents not based on protocols: P. Oxy. 1089.

ν. Documents of dubious classification: P. Fay., P. Oslo., P. Bour., and P. Aberd.

vi. Documents probably not to be classed with the Acta Alexandrinorum: P. Fouad, PRUM, P. Erl., and Heracl.

Of these fragments, therefore, it would appear that those listed d under ‘ii’ were in some way associated with the speeches delivere rhetors’ the on based partly perhaps and s hearing at the actual we notice a tendency fashion. In the Acta, on the other hand, e.g. in BGU 341, . speeches ians’ Alexandr the but to shorten all 13, Athen. 65, 1 Exceptions are ἀπεκρίνατο, Paul. ii. 1 (2); ἔφη, Chrest. 14 iii. P. Giss. ii. 11 (?). iii. 29 (?). 2 Exceptions are P. Erl., 24, Max. II, 45, 55, and P. Giss.

252

APPENDIX

private copies; those under ‘i’ and ‘iii (a)’ (and Heracl.) were undoubtedly based on private copies of the official protocols ;* those under ‘iii (b)’? probably derive only partly and indirectly from written documents; and ‘iv’ (P. Oxy. 1089) was perhaps based on oral tradition. C. The Greek Novel*

In previous treatments of the pagan Acts enough has not been said of the influence of the novelistic tradition upon the style of the redactors of the primitive materials. Although admittedly, in many cases, the resemblances will be seen to be superficial, it will none the less be profitable to draw up a list of some of the motifs which occur repeatedly in the novel and compare them with similar themes in the Acta Alexandrinorum. In the case of the latter we shall 1 In this connexion we may add that the Alexandrians perhaps obtained their copies in much the same way as the Christians did. St. Augustine, for instance, informs us that access could easily be had to the public archives: contra Cresconium iii. 70, PL xliii. 539 f.; cf. Eusebius, HE vii. 11. 18 (Schwartz, p. 660. 18 ff.). A passage in Prudentius, however, suggests that Roman officials at times tried to suppress copies of the commentarit which had got into the hands of Christians (perhaps because they feared that changes were being made): Peristephanon 1. 74-78 (ed. Bergman, CSEL Ixi). A copy of the Acts of the martyrs Tarachus and companions was allegedly obtained by bribing a speculator: see Passio Tarachi, &c., proem., ed. T. Ruinart, Acta prim. mart. sincera et selecta (Paris, ed. 2, 1713), p. 422 (see the later editions of these Acts in Acta Sanct. Bolland. Oct., v [1786], 566 ff., and Ruinart, ed. 5, Regensburg, 1859, pp. 373 ff.). For a striking description of the commentarienses during a martyr’s trial, see Asterius of Amasea, Hom. 11 (In laudem sanctae Euphemiae), PG xi. 336. 3 Besides E. Rohde’s classic Der griechische Roman und seine Vorldufer (Leipzig, 1876; 3rd ed. with appendix by W. Schmid, 1914), see also the relevant articles in RE and in Schmid—Stahlin’s Griech. Lit. ii. 2 (1924); see also K. Kerenyi, Die griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1927). For discussions of the various problems, see T. Sinko, ‘De ordine quo erotici scriptores graeci sibi successisse videantur’, Eos xli (1940/6), fasc. i. 1, pp. 23-45; R. Helm, Der antike Roman (Berlin, 1948), especially with the review by R. M. Rattenbury in Gnomon xxii (1950), pp. 74-77; F. Zimmermann, ‘Zum Stand der Forschung tiber den Roman in der Antike’, Forsch. u. Fortschr. xxvi (1950), pp. 59-62; E. H. Haight, CW 46 (1953), pp. 233 ff. For the text of Chariton I have used the critical edition of Warren E. Blake (Oxford, 1938); for Xenophon of Ephesus and Longus, the editions of G. Dalmeyda (Budé, Paris, 1926 and 1934 respectively) ; for Heliodorus, the Budé edition by Rattenbury, Lumb, and Maillon (Paris, 1935-43), though I have cited, for the sake of convenience, from the edition of I. Bekker (BT, 1855) ; for Achilles Tatius, the edition of R. Hercher (BT, 1858/9), although the Loeb edition (S. Gaselee, 1916) has been helpful. Finally, for the papyrus fragments, I have used the texts of Lavagnini (BT, 1922) and F. Zimmermann, Griech. Romanpapyri (Heidelberg, 1936).

MIME,

PROTOCOL,

AND

NOVEL

253

' also add a summary of the ‘propaganda motifs’ which will serve as a basis for later considerations.

MOTIFS FROM THE NOVEL i, PATRIOTIC MOTIFS 1. Pride of birth (εὐγένεια) See in general Chariton 1. i. 6, 11. i. 5, ΤΠ. i. 6, VI. iv. 10, vii. 10;

Heliodorusi.4 (8. 1of.), i. 8 (11. 18 ff.), i. 20 (26. 16), 1. 26 (32. 7 f.). There is a general pride in the fact of Greek birth, and an attribution of good qualities to the Hellene in contrast with the alleged inferiority of the non-Hellene. Specifically: (a) Pride in Greek language and distinctive dress: Heliodorus ii, 21 (58. 25 Π.). (b) Mutual sympathy among Greeks from different cities: Chariton 11. v. 8; Heliodorus i. 26 (32. 7 f.). (c) Contempt for the non-Hellene, the ‘barbarian’: Chariton VII. iii. 8-10, ν. xi. 6. 2. Greek piety (εὐσέβεια)

In most of the novels, hero and heroine manifest special devotion to certain gods or to local divinities. In Heliodorus prominence is given to Helios (and cf. the role of Isis in vii. 8 [189. 7 ff.]); in Chariton to Aphrodite; in Longus to Pan and the nymphs of Mytilene; in Xenophon of Ephesus to Artemis and Isis; in Achilles Tatius to the Alexandrian Serapis (cf. υπ επ, 3. Love of native city (τῆς πατρίδος ἔρως) Cf. Chariton m1. i. 6, νι. vii. 10; Achilles Tatius v. i. 3, ii. 1 ff.

ii. THE PATHETIC OR ‘DEATH-MOTIF’

(πάθος)

This is perhaps one of the main features of the Hellenistic novel (cf. Anthol. Pal. ix. 203. 6): a melodramatic emphasis on death, torture, attempted suicide, ordeal by fire, &c. Cf., for example, the

attempted crucifixion of the hero in Chariton Iv. ii. 6; the near

death of the heroine in Heliodorus vii. 9 (232. 4 ff.), x. 7 (279. 5 Π.). Note also: (a) Torturing, with fire and whips: Xenophon of Ephesus 11. vi. 2; scourging and the rack: Chariton m1. ix. 7 ff.;imprisonment and other hardships: Heliodorus viii. 6 (225. 3 ff.).

,/

APPENDIX

954

Cf. also Achilles Tatius vii. 12 and Apuleius, Metam. iii. 9,

x. 10. (b) Aphorisms on death (γνῶμαι). Death only an incentive to courage: Chariton vu. ii. 4; a glorious death overshadows

all one’s past: ibid. ντ. vii. 4. lil. OTHER

MINOR

PARALLELS

WITH

THE ACTA

Rhetorical appeals, &c.; the introduction of various preternatural phenomena: these have been adequately treated by Rohde

and others and need no further elaboration here. In connexion with the descriptive technique, one might compare the practice of the rhetorical ἔκφρασις in Hermogenes, Progymn. x and Theon, Progymn. xi (ii. 168, 118f., Spengel). Cf. also E. Peterson, Eis Θεός (Gottingen, 1926), esp. pp. 195 ff. Specifically, however, we may note

:

1. The use of trial scenes Chariton 1. v. 2 Π., v. vi. 11 ff.; Heliodorus viii. 9 (229. 28 ff.); Achilles Tatius vii. 7-12, viii. 8-10. The king consults a council made up of his friends: Chariton v. viii. 6. Device of postponing sentence (for suspense): Chariton v. viii. 9; Heliodorus viii. 9 (233. 13); Achilles Tatius vil. 12. 2. Scenes of violent emotion (a) Tearing of the himation: Xenophon of Ephesus 111. viii. 2, x. 2; Chariton v. ii. 4; Heliodorus vi. 8 (167. 21 ff.). [Cf. P. Lond. 36 ff. (?).]

(b) Throwing oneself upon the ground: Xenophon of Ephesus Il. 1. 1, vili. 1; Chariton 1. i. 14, Vv. ii. 4, Vil. vi. 10; Helio-

dorus vii. 9 (189. 31) ;Longus 11. xxi. 3. [Cf Ρ. Oxy. 1089, 31 and P. Lond. 36 ff. (?).]

(c) Emotions of crowds: shouting and running, Chariton I. v. 15; shouting and stamping feet, ibid. v. ix. 5; shouting in astonishment, ibid. 111. iv. 1, v. ili. 3. See also Heliodorus

vill. 9 (232. 19 ff.), x. 7 (278. 26f.), x. 9 (281. 18 ff); Longus 11. xiv. 2. [Cf. Herm. 52 ff., and P. Oxy. 33 iii. 7 Π.] MOTIFS

FROM

THE

ACTA

i. PATRIOTIC MOTIFS 1. Pride of birth Isidorus (Chrest. 14 iii. 9 f.; P. Lond. 34 f.); Appian (P. Oxy. 33 lil. 3 ff.) ;Hermaiscus (Herm. 44.f.) ; ‘pure’ Alexandrian citizen-

MIME,

PROTOCOL,

AND

NOVEL

255

ship v. the uncultured, PSI, 5 f. Kinship between Greeks of different cities (Athen. 6 Π.); cf. Paulus, ‘voluntary’ advocate, Herm. 10. The noble disciples of Heraeus, Athen. 56 ff. Pride in Greek education -PSI, 3 ff.; P. Oxy. 33 ii. 7 ff.; cf. the references in Max. I, 112 f . 2. Greek piety

Reverence for Serapis in P. Oxy. 1089, 30, 34, 47 f.; the Serapis miracle in Herm. 51 ff. Cf. also the contempt for the Jewish God in P. Berol. 32; and possible reference to a denial of Greek funeral rites in Paul. 11. 1 ff. 3. Love of Alexandria

Paul. vi. 1 ff., 17 f.; P. Oxy. 33 i. 12 ff.; Chrest. 14 ii. 11, iil. 10. Cf. also PSI, 3 ff.; Athen. 15 ff. (Alexandrian citizenship and laws) ;

PSI, 14 (civil service). 4. Greek ‘Outspokenness? (παρρησία) P. Lond. 11; Chrest. 14 iii. 11 f.; Diog. 20 ff. (0), 44: Herm. 40 f.;

Acta Appiani, passim. Cf. Athen. 34 (θρασυτολµίαν). 5. Pride of office Especially Appian, P. Oxy. 33 iii. 5 ff, v. 34. Cf. Isidorus in Chrest. 14 ΠΠ. 1Ο; P. Lond. 34; the pride of the legates in Athen. 2 ff. ; the importance of nomination in PSI, 11 ff. Note the mention of the specific offices held by the envoys in Herm. 3 ff.;opposition to Maximus’ interference in Alexandrian offices, Max. I, 30 ff. Cf.

PSI 1222 (p. 144, n. 3 above). li. THE

PATHETIC

OR

MARTYR-MOTIFS

6. The ‘death-motif’ in the Acta Lampon’s despair in Chrest. 14 iii. 2f., iil. 13 ff.; Hermaiscus’

obstinacy in Herm. 40 ff. ; Paulus’ thought of his Alexandrian grave, Paul. vi. 1 f£.; Appian’s apostrophe to the corpse, P. Yale, Π. 14 8 Cf. also P. Fay. 7 (τοῦ βίου τέρμα). 7. Injustice of the Romans (a) Lampon’s remark in Chrest. 14 iii. 13 ff.; Heliodorus’ despair, P. Oxy. 33 i. rof.; Appian’s appeal for his rights, Acta Appiani, passim. Apparently arbitrary punishment of Greeks: Max. I, 94 ff.; torturing of Antoninus, Paul. vi. 28 ff.

256

APPENDIX

(b) The Greeks are always portrayed as respectful to the emperors until provoked: cf. Chrest. 14 ii. 10; P. Oxy. 33 iv. 13 ff.; Paul. vi. 8 ff.; Herm. 45 f. 1, PROPAGANDA

MOTIFS

8. Anti-Semitism

The reference to Salome, Chrest. 14 iii. 11 f.; ‘rubbishy’ Agrippa, -P. Lond. 18. The ‘impious’ Jews: Herm. 42 ff.; Paul. vi. 14; disturbers of the whole world, P. Berol. 27; mere taxpayers like the

Egyptians, ibid.; contempt shown for their God, ibid. 32. Their

harsh treatment of Alexandrians, Paul. ii. 1 ff.; possible reference to their illegal entrance into the ephebate, PSI, 3 ff. Anti-Semitism

secondary to the Greek complaint against the Romans: cf. Herm.

48 ff. (‘You should help your own people and not side with the impious Jews’). g. Anti-Roman bitterness

(a) Injustice of the Romans: cf. 7 above. (6) Roman tyranny: P. Oxy. 33 ii. 5, and cf. Chrest. 14 iii. 141. Maximus compared to a king, Max. I, 54 f. (ο. The emperors’ ignoble birth: Chrest. 14 iii. 11 f.; P. Oxy.

33 Vv. 4 Π. (d) Roman avarice: P. Yale, ii. 6 ff.; Max. I, 5 ff.; perhaps the

whole of P. Oxy. 1089. (e) Weakness of the Roman people: their consternation at the Serapis miracle, Herm. 51 ff. ; their confusion and murmuring

in P. Oxy. 33 iii. 13 ff. (f) Criticism of Roman government: Maximus’ apparent neglect of duty, Max. I, 124 ff.; implied in the eulogy of Greek law, Athen. 15 ff.; influence of Plotina and a ‘Jewish’ consilium on the course of justice in Herm. Cf. 7 (a)

above.

|

(6) Weakness of the Roman emperors : postponements of decision (in the case of Appian; perhaps also in the case of Isi-

dorus and Hermaiscus); arbitrary changes of decision: Paul. vi. 28 f. Influenced by Jews: cf. 8 and 9 (f) above. Influenced

by freedmen:

perhaps

Acta Appiani,

passim.

Influenced by women: cf. references to Salome, Plotina.! ' A significant element in the Acta is a certain ‘feminist’ interest: cf. the references to Aphrodisia, the matronae at Isidorus’ trial, Salome, Plotina, Cleopatra. It is very possible that the affaire between Titus and Berenice was _ also referred to in a lost fragment.

MIME,

PROTOCOL,

AND

NOVEL

257

Lacking culture: P. Oxy. 33 ii. 13. Cf. possible references to emperors’ lustfulness in Ῥ. Lond.

8; and

add

(per-

haps) the reference to Aphrodisia in P. Oxy. 1089, and the charges against Maximus with regard to the Alexandrian

emperors obscure.

youth.

The

(probably

reason

Nero

for the attack

and

Vespasian)

against

the

in Diog. is

A comparison of these two lists will reveal, I think, the chief similarities and differences between the Acta and the Hellenistic novel. And although the influence of the novel or the novelistic tradition is indeed slight enough, from the parallels cited above there would appear to be some affinity between the style of the Acta and that of the novelists, especially Chariton and Heliodorus.' Indeed it is reasonable to suppose that the authors or redactors of

the various fragments would be influenced in some measure by the style of the vast Unterhaltungsliteratur so popular during this period.

Rather than ‘style’, perhaps ‘tone’ would be the better word: for it is clear that the parallels, such as they are, indicate not so much a similarity of expression (save in a very few cases) but rather a

similarity of feeling and emotion, and particularly in the matter of Hellenic piety and patriotism. But it is especially the propaganda motifs, anti-Semitic and anti-

Roman, which set the Acia in a class apart, not only from the novel but also from the mime and the simple protocol. With regard to

the question of anti-Jewish feeling, it should be remarked that this motif is found only in those fragments in which Jews are actually concerned (e.g. Acta Isidori, Paul., Herm.), and hence is not to be

considered a characteristic mark of the Acta Alexandrinorum in general. Secondly, I do not believe that anti-Semitism was merely ‘eine sekundare Nebenerscheinung’,

as Wilcken once wrote.” It

was this and more: for the Acta reflect tensions which actually existed at Alexandria and which became more acute at certain times. The anti-Semitic overtones in the Acta, where they exist, 1 This is not to suggest that any particular novelist had a direct influence upon the Acta. Speaking of the novels in general, Rattenbury has said (Gnomon xxii [1950], p. 76): ‘That the sophistic romances stereotyped material which had found a place in earlier Greek literature of various sorts can hardly be disputed, but it is difficult to point to any particular source.’ But ‘sources’ need not always be written. A study of the Acta suggests that a search for these sources will only lead us to the popular Hellenistic Kleinliteratur; of this undoubtedly only a fraction was ever transcribed, and of this by far the greater part has perished. _ 2 Antis., p. 825. Cf. also pp. 263 f. below. 5498

5

258

APPENDIX

represent perhaps a more primitive stage in the textual evolution of the Acia.* But it is particularly the anti-Roman bitterness—to be found in no other extant literature to such a degree—which has led recent scholars to classify the Acta as the most violent of anti-Roman propaganda.’ Here especially do we see the hand of the redactor— although it is admittedly difficult to put one’s finger on the stage at which these elements first made their appearance. Some (for example, the angry remarks of Isidorus) were undoubtedly authentic even if they were not confided to the official Roman record of the trials; some at least must have existed from the time of the first Alexandrian version of the various Acta; and still others

were perhaps due to the later reworking and recopying of the Alexandrian texts. But a discussion of the motives which lay behind the preparation and propagation of the Acta Alexandrinorum must be left for a later Appendix. ' There is, however, no need to suppose that the Acta were based on antiSemitic source material, as Momigliano once suggested in his Claudius, p. 35 and note. Cf. p. 263, below. 2 See H. Fuchs, Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt, p. 57. On provincial opposition to the Roman Empire, see Sherwin-White, The Roman. Citizenship; pp. 263 ff., but it is to the work of Fuchs (unwieldy though it is) that one must refer’ for a more extensive treatment of the ‘whispers of protest’? against the Roman régime. The fierce denunciation that we find in Tacitus, Agric. xxx, although it smacks of the declamatio, undoubtedly reflects an authentic undercurrent of hostility that was present as well in other provinces during the early principate. In Lucian, of course, criticism of Rome (e.g. the theory of ‘power’ v. ‘culture’), though strong, is quite secondary to his main purpose. In general, see Fuchs, op. cit., Index, s.v. “Lukian’. And on the Nigrinus in particular, see C. Gallavotti in Atene e Roma, n.s. xi (1930), pp. 252 ff.; A. Peretti, Luciano. Un intellettuale greco contro Roma (Florence, 1946), and see especially the review by Momigliano in Riv. stor. ital. Ix (1948), ΡΡ. 430-2. On the Stoic opposition and the tradition of Apollonius of Tyana, see pp. 240 ff. above. On the criticism of Rome in the Sibylline writers, see SherwinWhite, op. cit., pp. 263-5; Fuchs, op. cit., Index, s.v. ‘Orac. Sib.’; A. Peretti,

La Sibilla babilonese nella propaganda Ellenistica (Florence, 1943), esp. ΡΡ. 464 ff. Though it would, of course, be a mistake to identify Augustine’s civitas terrena completely with the Roman Empire, the most telling criticisms against Rome were none the less embodied in his De civitate Dei.

(259)

APPENDIX

IV

The Controversy on the Acta Alexandrinorum: THE

HISTORICAL

SCHOOL

From the time of the first studies on the subject, Wilcken, Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Mommsen, Deissmann, and T. Reinach all con-

sidered the Acta as fundamentally historical documents. Wilcken, in his publication of the Berlin fragment of the Acta Isidori in 1895,” first referred to them as extracts from ὑπομνηματισμοί, commentarit Caesaris, and his view was that they had been published by members of the Jewish or Alexandrian delegations on their return from Rome. A similar line was taken by Wilamowitz in his review of P. Oxy. 33,3 by Mommsen in his Strafrecht,* and by von P. in an

early article in Pauly—Wissowa.> A similar position was adopted by T. Reinach, who pointed out that the Acta confirmed for the first time many of the details mentioned by Philo.® L. Wenger further suggested that they may have been composed by such eyewitnesses as Paulus, the advocate of the Acta Hermaisci.” Deissmann, however, was the first to see in the Acta historical accounts with a political bias. In his review of P. Oxy. 33,° he

suggested that they were fragments of a Jewish Historia calamitatum,

The following is a list of the various fragments with the year of their publication; the year in which a fragment was identified is added in parentheses if this was later than the year of publication; an asterisk marks the fragments first identified in this study. 1929 (1931) PSI 1160 P. Lond. Inv. 1 1839 (1895) P. Yale 1536 1936 P. Louvre (Paul.) 1865 (1895) 1936 * Ῥ. Oslo. 170 1895 Chrest. 14 P. Aberd. 136 1939 (1949) 1895 BGU 341 Ῥ. Oxy. 2177 1941 1898 (1909) BGU 588 1942 P. Erl. 16 1898 P. Oxy. 33 1948 Heracl. 1900 (1918) P. Fay. 217 1949 A. Hermiae 1903 P. Oxy. 471 1951 Max. ΠΠ IQII P. Oxy. 1089 A Diog. 1914 P. Oxy. 1242 * Ῥ Harr. (ο), (ϐ) 5 Ἡ τοις P. Ryl. 437 P. Bour. 7 1926 (1927) 2 Hermes xxx (1895), pp. 496 ff. 4 GGA (1898), p. 690. 3 ΟΡ. cit., p. 265, n. 1. 5 s.y. ‘Commentarii’, RE iv (1901), 737. ° REF xxxi (1895), pp- 176 f. 7 Krit. Vierteljahrsb. f. Gesetzg. und Rechtswiss. liv (1919), Ῥ. 358 Theol. Lit.-Zeit. xxiii (1898), pp. 602 ff.

APPENDIX

260

probably originating from the Jewish Alexandrian community

about A.D. 200. Reinach, on the other hand, referred to them as a

‘martyrology’ based on the tribulations of the Alexandrian gymnasiarchs.! And, finally, O. Schultess advanced the view that the Acta were fragments of a lost History of Alexandria.” This historical approach initiated by Wilcken—whose intuitions

were so often right—is still dominant among recent scholars, although certain adaptations have had to be made since the studies of the proponents of what we may term Formgeschichte (i.e. Bauer, Reitzenstein, Geffcken, Holl). In reply to the criticisms of this school, Wilcken took the line that, although basically historical,

the Acta showed evidence of (a) Rahmenerzahlung or a fictional framework; (b) Uberarbeitung or reworking at various stages; and (c) the possibility that some pieces, like P. Oxy. 1089, might not be based on the commentarii at all.3 Despite the difficulties involved in this view, I think that, with sufficient allowance made for the

influence of political propaganda, it will be seen to be the most satisfactory of all. THE

CHRISTIAN

MARTYR

ACTS:

FORMGESCHICHTE

Although the term Formgeschichte has been applied specifically to a certain trend in Gospel criticism (under the inspiration of Dibelius, Bultmann, and others), I feel it may well be borrowed to characterize a somewhat similar movement that began about the turn of the century in the study of the Christian martyr-Acts and

their relationship to the pagan-martyr literature. The trend was begun, I believe, by Adolf Bauer in his article in Archiv.* So, too,

to continue the parallel, there has been a similar movement of Enimythologisierung, or an attempt to disengage the historical sub-

stratum of the pagan Acts. In Bauer’s view, the very element that Wilcken held as a relic

of the official commentarii was rather a mere literary form, similar to that which we find in many of the legendary passiones of the Christian martyrs. Although actual parallels were indeed few, Bauer did succeed in indicating that some relationship existed

between the Christian and pagan acts. With regard to the specific

1 REF xxxvii (1898), p. 224. 3 Wschr. fiir klass. Phil. xvi (1899), pp. 1056 f.; cf. p. 220 above. 3 Antis., p. 836. See also Mitteis, Hermes xxxiv (1899), pp. 90 f., and Aus den griech. Papyrusurkunden (Leipzig, 1900), pp. 10 ff. In his study of the protocol, Niedermeyer concluded that the Acta Isidori and Acta Appiani were basically historical and that the Acta Hermaisci were ‘fiction in the Hellenistic spirit’.

* i(1901), pp. 29-47.

CONTROVERSY

ON

THE

ACTA

ALEXANDRINORUM

261

fragments, on Bauer’s criterion (mainly his impression that certain speeches could not have been actually delivered before the em-

peror) the Acta Isidori were historical, the Acta Appiani certainly

fiction, and the Acta Pauli doubtful. The Acta Appiani were for Bauer a form of political fiction, reflecting ‘einen letzten Nachhall des demokratischen Tyrannenhasses’, and ‘den selbstbewuBten Biirgerstolz der alexandrinischen Griechen’.! Shortly afterwards Reitzenstein put forward the view that both

pagan and Christian Acts were remains of a popular Kleinliteratur, similar to the Exitus inlustrium virorum and other ‘martyr’ literature current in the Roman

world.? Others, however, went farther.

Johannes Geffcken, in a series of articles on the Christian martyrActs, took a double line: he not only attempted to derive the radical notion of µάρτυς from Stoicism, but suggested that the pagan

martyr-Acts had actually been the model for the Christian.? For Geffcken, the Christian Acts were, like the pagan, ‘dramatisierte

Apologetik’. Others who held similar views were Karl Holl* and Wolf Aly.5 In the face of this criticism, the Bollandist, H. Delehaye, in Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires,° was greatly exercised over

what he took to be an attack upon the authenticity (not to say sincerity) of the earliest Christian martyr-Acts. Delehaye had, of course,

always distinguished between the historical and fictional passiones, but he could see no real resemblance between the Christian and the so-called pagan Acts; and considering those fragments which had been published at the time (Acta Isidori, Appiani, and Pauli) he

concluded: ‘les assimilations que l’on a imaginées manquent . . . de fondement.”” The slight resemblances which were thought to exist could have been due to the fact that both pagan and Christian Acts were derived from authentic commentari. The Stoics, he con-

cluded, were neither the precursors of the Christian martyrs nor were the Christian Acts modelled upon the pagan.’ Although it may be rightly urged that Pére Delehaye was somewhat too sweeping in ruling all influence out of court, it must be

admitted that Geffcken’s view has not been borne out by the facts. 1 Loc. cit., p. 46. 2 Nachr. Gott. (1904), pp. 326 Π.; cf. SB. Heid. iv (1913), ΑΡΗ. 14, pp. 39 ff. 3 ‘Die christl. Martyrien’, Hermes xlv (1910), p. 4973 cf. ‘Die Acta Apollonii’, Nachr. Gétt. 1904, pp. 262 ff. 4 ‘Die Vorstellung vom Martyrer und die Martyrerakte in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung’, Neue Jahrb. kl. Alt. xxxiii (1914), pp. 521 Π., esp. p. 531. 5 §B. Heid. v (1914), ΑΡΗ. 2, pp. 43 ff. 6 Brussels, 1921, pp. 150 ff.

7 Op. cit., p. 173.

_ 8 Sanctus (Brussels, 1927), p. 99.

262

:

APPENDIX

- The intoxication of the first discoveries naturally led to exaggeration. But now, even to the most biased scholar it must appear that to find actual parallels between the pagan and Christian martyr acts is difficult if not impossible; and the early studies of Bauer and Reitzenstein gave the impression that far more could be discovered than actual research has eventually achieved. There are, of course, certain obvious similarities ; these are: (1) the use of the dramatic ‘protocol’ style; (2) the emphasis on lively verbal exchanges and aphorisms; (3) the display of heroic contempt for death (although the motives of the Christian are obviously different) ; (4) rather long, irrelevant speeches delivered by the martyrs; and, lastly, (5) the caricature of Roman officialdom. But these parallels are mostly external ;and with regard to the last

two points, it is only in the later and admittedly fictional Christian passiones that there is any basis for comparison at all." But in reading the Christian martyr-Acts one cannot but be impressed by the fact that here one is in an entirely different world. And the similarities that do exist can, I feel, be explained by what I have elsewhere

called ‘the theory of the two milieus’.? For it is a fact of common experience that similar stimuli operating upon somewhat similar

environments can be expected to produce somewhat similar effects;

there is no need to postulate any interdependence. Now both the Alexandrian Greeks—whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter—and the early Christians received harsh

treatment at the hands of the Romans; in many cases the same penalties were inflicted by the same tribunals; and, above all, both communities were desirous of preserving an account of their

heroes’ tribulations for the edification of posterity. Further, it may

not be too rash to suppose that the Christians were inspired in their

attempts to obtain and adapt the copies of the commentarti by the knowledge that this had been successfully done before. That the early Christians were often encouraged by the example of their heathen forebears in other respects is, I think, clear from the

patristic texts we have quoted.’ But to postulate further dependence would surely seem simply to strain the evidence. 1 Lack of restraint on the part of the martyrs and vituperation of Roman officials are usually confined to the unauthentic acts: see L. E. Morawitzky, Die Kaiseridee in den echten u. unechten' Martyrerakten der Christenverfolgung des Decius (Diss., Breslau, 1909), pp. 8ο ff. 2 See my article, “The Pagan Acts of the Martyrs’, Theological Studies (Maryland, U.S.A.), x (1949), ΡΡ. 555 ff. A. Ronconi, ‘Exitus inlustrium virorum’, Stud. ital. di fil. class. xvii (1940), pp. 1 ff., exaggerates the dependence of the Christian martyr-Act upon the pagan. 3 See also p. 252 n. 1, above.

CONTROVERSY THE

ON ACTA

THE AS

ACTA

ALEXANDRINORUM

HISTORICAL

263

ROMANCE

All indications point to the fact that the Acta Alexandrinorum cannot be completely relegated to the class of fiction or historical romance. The condemnation of the Acta Appiani by Bauer, the Acta Hermaisci by Niedermeyer, and the entire collection by Momigliano (at least at one time)’ has not been supported by more recent research. According to Momigliano’s earlier view, the fragments of the Acta were merely episodes of a storia romanzesca, linked together by an imaginative thread; it was useless to try to read into them any

hidden religious or political ideas. However, this extreme view was

not shared by any other scholar; Momigliano himself seems to

have withdrawn it,? and actually this interpretation has fallen out of favour. There is no need, then, to discuss this hypothesis farther. For outside of the Serapis episode of Herm. and the possible fictional embroidering of the Acta Appiani and some of the other fragments, I think that most scholars would now admit that the influence of the novel is for the most part of a superficial and external kind: viz. in the matter of vocabulary and in the predominance of Greek nationalistic and religious motifs. TENDENZS CHRIFT

As early as 1889 Deissmann had suggested the possibility of a Jewish propaganda source. Now although this view has been definitely seen to be false, some scholars have suggested at one time or another that the Acta were anti-Semitic propaganda: so T. Reinach,? von Dobschiitz,t Momigliano,* and, in a more outspoken

fashion, L. Fuchs.® But granting the presence of anti-Semitic motifs, it is to be doubted whether anti-Semitism is really a primary factor in the © Acta Alexandrinorum. In the few fragments in which the Jews are concerned (Acta Isidori, Herm., Paul.), anti-Semitism is not so much a propaganda motif of the Acia literature as an authentic reflection of the actual situation at Alexandria. The Acta reveal better than τ In his review of Uxkull-Gyllenband’s publication of Ῥ. Berol. 8877 in Rend. Pont. Acc. Arch. vii (1932), ΡΡ. 117-27: 2 In Claudius, p. 135: ‘The Acts .. . are fabricated on the basis of authentic documents.’ Cf. also ibid., p. 35 and note. 3 In his earlier articles in REF, quoted above. 5 Claudius, p. 35 and note, 4 AFT viii (1904), pp. 738 ff

6 Die Juden Agyptens in ptol. und rom. Zeit, esp. p. 78.

264

APPENDIX

_anything else the typical injustices which the Jews were forced to suffer during the early principate. But whether or not one should

follow Wilcken’s suggestion,’ that the anti-Semitism of the Acta is merely a secondary phenomenon, there is surely no foundation for the view that anti-Jewish feeling was the ultimate source of their inspiration. On the contrary, it is obvious from the list of motifs listed in the

previous Appendix that the Acta Alexandrinorum are tendentious writings of a primarily anti-Roman character. This view had already been suggested by Wilcken, Bauer, and Weber. Weber was the first, I think, to call the Acta a Tendenzschrift: the authors had

merely employed the protocol form to clothe the narrative of the tribulations of the Alexandrian party.? And Schubart had called them political pamphlets? composed by ‘ein geschickter Literat’

on the basis of the primitive protocols.* In 1923 von P. advanced the theory that the various fragments (with the exception of Paul. and P. Oxy. 471) were parts of a single work by one author, composed shortly before the Caracallan massacre of A.D. 215. According to this theory, the work, entitled perhaps περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων ἀνδρείας, was intended for the

wealthy Greek upper classes who were being oppressed by the increasing weight of taxation and liturgies;> its aim was not to

inspire Hellenic ideals but to incite the Greeks against Roman authority.® Von P. was not clear, however, on the historicity of the Acta. He

seems to have accepted the view that the protocol form was merely a literary device;’ and although he conceded that BGU 341 and Paul. were derived from the commentarii, he suggested that the composer of the work of a.p. 215 derived his facts merely ‘durch verdiinnte Zwischenquellen’.® In view of this, the only details that * Antis., p. 825, followed by Tcherikover, The Jews in Egypt, Eng. summary, Ρ. 19, and Bell, 77P iv (1950), p. 42. Even in the most anti-Semitic piece, the Acta Hermaisci, the fact that this element is secondary is suggested by Herm. 48-50; see pp. 177 and 256 above. ? Hermes, loc. cit., p. 76 (comparing Philo’s Flacc. and Leg.) ;and cf. p. go, η. 3 (where he objects to the term ‘martyr-Acts’—not, in my view, with complete justification). 3 Amt. Ber. aus den kin. Sammlungen xxxix (1918), p. 151. 4 Einf. in die Papyruskunde (Berlin, 1918), p. 193. 5 Ibid., pp. 74 ff. 6 AM, p. 73; it is a ‘Hetz- und Werbeschrift’, p. 75. 7 Hermes lvii (1922), p. 314. 8 AM, p. 64. BGU 341 was, for von P., part of the single work written ο. 215, whereas Paul. was an earlier, separate piece, adapted from the actual commentarit.

CONTROVERSY

ON

ΤΗΕ

ACTA

ALEXANDRINORUM

265

could be trusted as historical were the various Hauptmomente of the episodes,’ i.e. (1) the fact of the hearing; (2) the place and time; (3) the persons concerned; (4) the final result. Von P.’s theory of the unity of the Acta had in general found favour with many scholars, e.g. P. Peeters,? A. Kérte,3 K. Schmidt,‘

and others.5 Some, like F. Bilabel,° E. Meyer,7 C. B. Welles,® and W. Schubart,° considered it probable without definitely committing themselves. A few, however, continued to adhere to Wilcken’s view that the various pieces were separate pamphlets: such were T. Reinach,!° Neppi Modona,"! and Bell.’? Reinach set

the tone for this school of chorizontes by labelling von P.’s hypothesis as ‘plus ingénieux que probant’ ; and one important weakness | in the theory, he pointed out, was the fact that in no case do we

have an instance of enjambement, or the overlapping of two episodes.’ CRITICISM

OF

THE

PREVAILING

VIEWS

Von P.’s theory did attempt to give an explanation of the fact that the majority of the Acta fragments date from the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. But too much em-

phasis should not be laid on general dating (varying sometimes as much as a century); and further, it is now clear that many

fragments of earlier date cannot be made to fit into this general scheme at all, for example, PSI, Diog., Acta Hermiae, Max. I and II, Paul., and the Rendel Harris fragments. Finally, with the

discovery of many new fragments written by different hands, I

Cf. AM, p. 61; an exception is made, however, for P. Oxy. 1089 which he considered ‘romanhaft’. 3 Archiv xiii (1938), p. 114. 2 Anal. Bolland. xliii (1925), p- 143. 4 Phil. Wschr. xi (1941), pp. 266 ff. Seg. A. Jiilicher, Theol. Lit.-Zeit. 1923, pp. 373 £3; C. Weynand, Hist. Jahrb. Gorres-Ges. xlv (1925), p. 83; W. Ensslin, Gnomon xix (1943), pp. 169 ff. 6 Phil. Wschr. xlvii (1927), pp. 836-9. 7 Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, iii, p. 541 and note. 8 TAPA lxvii (1936), p. 51, n. 41; cf., however, his note in AFP Ixxi (1950), pp. 109 f. ο Cf. his Griech. lit. Pap. (Berlin, 1950), p. 84. 1 Raccolta Lumbroso, p. 438. ιο REF, Ixxix (1924), p. 138, η. 2. 12 Archiv x (1932), pp- 5 f. However, in a lecture delivered at Oxford in November 1948 Bell suggested a modified codification theory. In the printed account of the lecture he argued that if the compiler ‘confined himself in the main to a mere collection of material (a supposition which the case of the Paulus and Antoninus Acta makes unlikely) the resulting work would be something like Hakluyt’s Principal Voyages; if his editorial activity was sufficiently drastic a better analogy would be Malory’s Morte Πατ’ Z7P iv (1950), Ρ. 24. 13 REF, loc. cit.

266

APPENDIX

-do not think anyone now would suggest that the single work

postulated by von P. and the Unitarian school was completely transcribed as many times as we have separate fragments.

Again, from the point of view of content, although certain general motifs do recur, there is no peculiar phrase or ‘mannerism’ which

would permit us certainly to detect the hand of a single author or

compiler, even in the longer fragments where there would seem to be an attempt at a more literary style.’ In general, as we have seen, the differences in the fragments are striking. Some show little or no trace of anti-Roman feeling (e.g. P. Giss., Diog., PSI) ; others seem far closer to the style and manner of the original protocols. And far from there being evidence of enjambement, we have indications of the contrary: the last column of PSI would appear to

be the end of this particular roll, just as the first column of Herm. certainly must have been the beginning of that one. In the present state of our knowledge, therefore, we seem to be forced back to Wilcken’s conclusion that we are dealing funda-

mentally with separate accounts which somehow evolved by various stages from the primitive copies. Alexandrian writers may well have been employed to touch up these accounts from time to time: one, in fact, the author of the present version of the Acta Appiani, may have known of the existence of other pieces (e.g.

the Acta Isidori), and may actually have had a hand in the extant redaction of the Acta Hermaisci. But there does not seem to have been any codification in the sense suggested by von. P., nor can the Acta Alexandrinorum be considered a single work.” Similarities, such as there are, can be sufficiently explained by the hypothesis that these propaganda pieces emanated from a definite group or

circle at Alexandria over a period of many years, and were intended for the same sort of interested parties in Alexandria and the χώρα. What these circles were, and whether (according to Rostovtzeff) they came under Stoic-Cynic influence, we propose to discuss in the following Appendix. t So, too, Schubart, Griech. lit. Pap., p. 83. The only exception is the possible influence of the author of the Acta Appiani upon our extant recension of the Acta Hermaisci. See p. 211 above. 2 Von. P.’s theory of historical Hauptmomente, however, still remains valuable, although it cannot be accepted in its exclusive sense; for many of the minor details and speeches in the various fragments may also have been authentic, and we cannot formulate any strict a priori rule. So, too, his labelling of the entire collection as a Werbe- und Verhetzungschrift is far too categorical and sweeping to cover all the different kinds of fragments. See pp. 274 ff. below.

( 267)

APPENDIX

V

The Acta and the Cynics REITZENSTEIN, Geffcken, and others, as we have seen, inclined

to consider the Actawithin the general tradition of a popular martyrliterature—a tradition which was largely dominated by Stoic ideals. But M. Rostovtzeff was the first to suggest the possibility of direct Cynic influence upon the composition of the Acta Alexandrinorum."

Wilcken, in a footnote in Antisemitismus,? referred to the theory in

passing, conceding that ‘the slogans of Cynic opposition to Roman dictatorship were familiar to these noble Alexandrians’; and he

went on to suggest that whatever Cynic influence might be detected

in the Acta would be due to later redaction. The Cynic theory seems also to have found favour with L. Wickert, the German translator of Rostovtzeff’s Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire.

Rostovtzeff stressed the fact that Cynic street-philosophers ex-

ercised a great influence over the restless mob at Alexandria; and it was his impression that some of the passages in the Acta were reminiscent of the Cynic diatribe: e.g. Appian’s criticism of Com-

modus,‘ Isidorus’ contempt for Claudius.’ The references indeed are meagre; but since Rostovtzeff believed that the Acta constituted a single work codified towards the end of the second century, all the other fragments were fitted into the general scheme.° This is not the place to enter into a discussion of Rostovtzeff’s theory of the cultural decline of the Roman Empire (a theory which I should be prepared, with reservations, to accept), with which, he felt, the Cynic explanation of the Acta Alexandrinorum was in admirable agreement. Apart from other difficulties, he has, I feel, completely misunderstood the basic political conflict reflected in the pagan martyr-Acts. However, passing over this point 1 First suggested in the Russian periodical Mir Bozhij, 1901, the theory was developed in his Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (1926), pp. 112 f. by and 520, n. 17, and advanced without change in the German edition (transl. sociale Wickert, 2 v., Leipzig, 1930) and the Italian edition, Storia economica e dell’ impero romano (Florence, 1946), esp. Ρ. 135 and note. 2 Antis., p. 836, n. 1. 3 L. Wickert, ‘Princeps und Basileus’, Klio xxxvi (1943), Ρ. 16. 4 Storia economica, p. 146 n. was 5 Ibid., p. 135 n. In suggesting that Isidorus’ opposition to Claudius abandoned based on cultural grounds, Rostovtzeff was relying on the now 135 n. reading of Chrest. 14 iii. 8, [άνευ] µουσικῆ». 6 Cf. Storia economica, p.

268

APPENDIX

.for the moment, let us examine what is known of Cynic influence at Alexandria, to see whether it offers a sufficient basis for Rostov-

tzeff’s hypothesis. Dio Chrysostom, that most amiable of neo-Cynics, delivered his

great Discourse to the Alexandrians (Or. 32) perhaps some time between A.D. 105 (or, if Weber is right, 108) and 112, One should not, of course, rely too heavily on Dio as an historical source; he

does, however, reflect at times an authentic picture of his own age. At any rate, in his role of Trajan’s messenger of goodwill to the Alexandrians, he proposes to discuss with them the reasons for their traditional unruliness. There were four groups, he suggests, that influenced Alexandrian life and morality at that time:* 1. Despairing philosophers (ἀπεγνωκότες), who no longer appear. in public (8); like the philosopher Theophilus, they keep silent, since they feel the situation is incurable (cf. 97).

2. The professors of the lecture-halls (8), who preach merely to an élite. 3. The Cynics (9), who with their scurrilous jokes on street

corners and at temple gates merely increase the insolence of the mob. 4. The littérateurs (10), the rhetors and poets, who strive merely to further their own interests.” What Alexandria needed, but did not have, was the man of good-

will who would not fear to come forward and speak the truth (Or. 32. 11). And Dio modestly suggests—not without a touch of the Schuldialog—that he has been chosen by some god to fill this role (12). But what was the type of Cynicism’ that had an influence at ΟΥ. 32. 8-11 (von Arnim). On this speech, see also Héistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King, pp. 160 ff. 3 The special influence of the ‘poets’ is due to the fact that the Alexandrians are always ready for a song (71) ; their greatest amusement is the mime (86, 99); they worship the popular actors of the day (50), and they are always ready to listen to these artists who ‘like rotten cooks’ are always looking for new ways to serve up old dishes (62). To this spirit of ‘novelty without originality’, one suspects, was due in part the creation of the Acta; cf. p. 248 above. 3 On Cynicism in general, see J. Bernays, Lukian und die Kyniker (Berlin, 1879) ;Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonas von Karystos (Phil. Untersuch. Heft iv, 1881), Excurse 1, 3, 4; E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, m. i (Leipzig, 1903*); J. Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes (Heidelberg, 1909); H. Helm, “‘Kynismus’, RE xxiii (1924), 3 ff; A. Oltramare, Les origines de la Diatribe romaine; Nock, Sallustius, pp. xvii ff.; Dudley, History of Cynicism; F. Sayre, Diogenes of Sinope (Baltimore, U.S.A., 1938); W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 1948), ii, pp. 400 ff.; R. Héistad, op. cit.

THE

ACTA

AND

THE

CYNICS

269

Alexandria? Dio, although by his own admission a follower of the Cynic ideal, does not class himself with the beggars who amused the crowds at Alexandria. This extreme type of Cynicism is well portrayed in the dialogues of Lucian,’ and particularly in De morte Peregrini.? Peregrinus, surnamed

Proteus, after many

a wild adventure

(including a suspicious conversion to Christianity), came finally to Alexandria about the year 150 to become the disciple of the Cynic Agathobulus. There he lived for some time in the practice of ‘the extraordinary Cynic austerity, shaving his head on one side and smearing his face with dirt’; during his street-corner appearances, along with other obscene antics he would allow passers-by to flail

his buttocks with a stick. From Alexandria he made his way to Rome, where he did not hesitate to take advantage of the indulgence of Antoninus Pius by reviling him publicly ;his only punishment was expulsion by the praefectus urbi.t Turning up in Greece,

he preached revolt against Rome, and finally closed his career by a theatrical self-immolation during the Olympic games of A.D. 165.5 An interesting commentary on the principles’ that lay behind such conduct is offered by Lucian in his dialogue, Philosophers for Sale. The Cynic Diogenes (who is on sale for two obols) is made to sum up his philosophy to the prospective buyer. He puts himself forward as the prophet of ἀλήθεια and παρρησία. If any man will accept his way of life, he must strip himself of all luxury, devote himself to πόνος, sleep on the ground, drink nothing ©

1 On Lucian, see Helm, RE xiii (1927), 1725 ff.; M. Caster, Lucien et la pensée religieuse de son temps (Diss., Paris, 1937)2 On Peregrinus, see H. M. Hornsby, “The Cynicism of Peregrinus Proteus’, Hermathena xlviii (1933), pp. 65-84; Kurt von Fritz, RE xix (1938), 656-63; M. Caster, op. cit., pp. 237 ff.; K. Gerth in Bursians Gahresber. cclxxiicclxxiii (1941), pp. 210 f.; P. de Labriolle, La Réaction paienne (Paris, 1942), pp. 97 ff.; R. Peck, “The Volatilization of Peregrinus Proteus’, A7P Ixvii

(1946), pp- 334-45-

3 De morte Per. xvii. 341 f. (Jacobitz, iii, p. 277). 4 Ibid. xviii. 342 (Jacobitz, iii, p. 277). 5 It is not unlikely, in view of the character of Peregrinus, that there was an element of the erotic in this act. I am inclined to disbelieve the theory that it was inspired by the example of Christian martyrdom, but see Hornsby, Hermathena, loc. cit., esp. pp. 82 ff. The Cynics pretended to contemn physical pain: cf. Lucian, Vit. auct. ix. 549 (Jacobitz, i, p. 234), and Nigrinus 27 (Nilén, futile : p. 65); but there is evidence that they considered Christian martyrdom Diss. iv. 7. see the Christian Acta Apollonii 33 (Knopf-Kriiger), and Epictetus, 6f. (Schenkl?, pp. 417 f.). 6 Vitarum auctio viii. 549 (Jacobitz, i, p. 233).

270

APPENDIX

but water, renounce marriage and children and native city.’ Finally,” You must be insolent and bold, insult everyone from top to bottom, kings as well as private persons. . . . Let everything about you be wild and savage; and let there be no room for modesty, kindness, moderation. . . . Do boldly before all what another would refrain from doing in private, and choose the most fantastic modes of sexual outlet. Certainly, if we are to believe the tales preserved by Diogenes Laertius and Stobaeus, there must have been a good measure of truth in Lucian’s caricature. But even making allowances for exaggeration, this Cynic spirit _— would appear to be diametrically opposed to that pride of birth, that pride in Alexandria and its culture, which we find in the Acta Alexandrinorum. In fact, if we may believe Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes used to say that ‘all those things like birth and reputation were merely the external trappings of malice’.3 As for devotion to one’s πατρίς, Diogenes, as we know, took a strong line: he was opposed to all participation in political life;+ and, asked what his

native city was, he replied that he was κοσµοπολίτης.Σ And the attitude of his disciple Crates was similar.°

In the Acta, too, we find a certain piety towards the gods, and to Serapis in particular. Diogenes—even if we pass over his irreligious and immoral mode of life—laboured to free men from religion.” His irreverence towards the gods was proverbial,® and t Vitarum auctio ix. 549 (Jacobitz, p. 234). 2 Ibid. x. 550 (Jacobitz, p. 234). Cf. also Oltramare, Les origines de la Diatribe romaine, pp. 51 f . 3 Diog. Laert. vi. 72. 4 Ibid. 29. 5 Ibid. 63; and cf. Lucian, Vit. auct. viii. 549 (Jacobitz, p. 233). 6 Diog. Laert. vi. 93. Cf. Oltramare, op. cit., p. 60. However, this is not to attribute to the Cynics any positive notion of the ‘unity of mankind’ or a theory of ‘world brotherhood’. Whatever be the ultimate origin of this notion, I think that most would now agree that the Cynic doctrine of kosmopoliteia was purely a negative one, of a piece with their attempt to destroy traditional values (παραχάραξις); and as a protest against the responsibilities of citizenship in a particular State, it was surely a corruptive influence. As W. W. Tarn has well said, Cynicism ‘as a system never constructed anything, anything which affected men otherwise than as individuals’. See his Alexander the Great, ii, pp. 400 Π., where the recent literature on this controversy is summarized. Cf. also Sinclair, Hist. Greek Pol. Thought, pp. 244 f. 7 Diog. Laert. vi. 37; see also Oltramare, op. cit., pp. 641. Cf. Antisthenes’ attitude towards the Orphics (Diog. Laert. vi. 4). 8 Ibid. 37. On Cynic opposition to image worship, see E. Bevan, Holy Images, pp. 65 Π., and cf. p. 164, n. 1, above.

THE

ACTA

AND

ΤΗΕ

CYNICS

271

Serapis, too, was an object of his contempt.’ His more ardent disciples acted in like manner. Even Julian the Apostate criticized Oenomaus of Gadara (a Cynic who flourished apparently under Hadrian) for attacking veneration of the gods and respect for law, divine or human.” This is surely not the philosophy, if philosophy it was, that inspired the noble ambassadors and gymnasiarchs of the Acta, whose glory it was to die for their native city, Alexandria. Obviously they must have known of the Cynics who preached in Alexandria; but their actions, I feel, and much more the composition of the Acta, cannot be explained by an appeal to Cynic influence. But there was another group of philosophers and rhetoricians who were sympathetic with some of the Cynic doctrines and yet despised the disgusting beggary of Peregrinus and his kind. They hardly formed a homogeneous school; and ‘moderate Cynics’ or ‘reform Cynics’ are merely convenient labels. Dio Chrysostom is perhaps the best example of this group; another is Epictetus’ friend, Demonax of Cyprus, whose philosophy was ‘mild and gentle and joyous’.? It is this moderate stream of Cynicism that we find to a certain extent in the writings of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.* But, whatever their relation to Diogenes, it would be a dis-

tortion of the truth to attempt to group all these ‘moderates’

together, or to attribute to them as a body the doctrines we find

reflected in the writings of Dio Chrysostom, as some scholars appear to do. Dio, however, was, in a sense, typical: his philosophy was based on the virtues of sincerity, honesty, obedience to authority. Harsh treatment at the hands of Domitian did not embitter him towards the Roman Empire in general; rather he became, with Aelius Aristeides, one of its greatest propagandists in the Greekspeaking world. Although a true provincial and loyal to his native city, Prusa, we find him in favour at Rome,

as a liberal who

appreciated the benefits of the principate and attempted to promote a spirit of co-operation among the Greek provinces of the Empire. Dio’s teaching on the nature of the benevolent ruler has become

t Ibid. 63. 2 Julian, Orat. vii. 209 b (ed. Hertlein, i, p. 271). For evidence of certain cit., relaxations from this anti-religious point of view, see Hornsby, loc.

pp. 77 ff.

civitas 3 Lucian, Demonax g (ed. Nilén, p. 76). Even his criticism of the inand restrained is 85), p. (Nilén, 40 Demonax in Romana, preserved direct 4 On Epictetus and Marcus, see Pohlenz, Die Stoa, i, pp. 327 ff.

272

APPENDIX

classic and need not be developed here. It is especially in that he portrays the good ruler as true shepherd of his father and friend to his subjects; he refuses to flatter the he shares his men’s toil and enjoys the praise of honest and

Oration i flock, a masses ; truthful

men. As in the vision of Heracles, wherein the hero was offered

a choice between Tyrannis and Basileia,? it is clear where the good ruler’s choice must lie. Further (in Or. 3), the good ruler will not have too much leisure and relaxation, although of friendship and goodwill he is entitled to more than his share. The tyrant, on the other hand, will be the most friendless of men. But I think it will be apparent that the Acta Alexandrinorum, even

if we could consider them as a single work (and it is clear that we cannot), do not fit in with either of these Cynic tendencies: the extreme represented by Peregrinus, or the moderate represented by Dio. One may admit the possibility of overtones of Cynic themes: the class of Greeks and rhetors with whom we are here dealing would have known of these from the lecture halls or the temple gates of Alexandria. Again, isolated references to philosophers do, perhaps, occur in the Acta, as we have seen. The

Heraeus of Max. II and Athen. may have had philosophic connexions; in the newly discovered Acta Diogenis, it is possible that the criticism of the emperor was of the Stoic-Cynic variety. But these vague details are hardly sufficient to justify Rostovtzeff’s all-

embracing hypothesis. When all is said, we must remind ourselves that one need not have been taught by the Cynics to appreciate the difference between Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, or to suggest that Claudius was insane and a sympathizer with worthless Jews. It remains true, admittedly, that the Acta come within the

general tradition of martyr literature, which was fed largely— though not exclusively—by tales of Stoic heroes. But in view of the evidence, I do not think that we may attribute their immediate

origin to Cynic or Stoic-Cynic inspiration. Much of the ‘philosophy’ of the Acta would appear to go no deeper than the commonplaces of the rhetorical manuals or the novel. And the prominence of Alexandrian culture and patriotism, which is almost a leitmotiv of the Acta, should incline us to seek the source of influence else-

where. Indeed, we should not perhaps be far from the truth if we ' Cf. Hoistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King, pp. 184 ff. On Dio’s relation to the political theory of the so-called Neopythagoreans, see L. Delatte, Les Traités de la Royauté d’ Ecphante, Diotogéne et Sthénidas (Liége, 1942), pp. 151 f. For a sound estimate of the Neopythagorean political fragments, see Sinclair, Hist. Greek Pol. Thought, pp. 293 ff. 2 Cf. Prodicus ap. Ken. Mem. Π. i. 21-34.

THE

ACTA

AND

THE

CYNICS

273

looked for this source among the Alexandrian Greeks of the gymnasiarch class, a class that must have felt keenly, at least before

Septimius Severus, Alexandria’s lack of autonomy and its subjection to a ‘barbarian’ world-power. A

POSSIBLE

SOURCE:

THE

ALEXANDRIAN

CLUBS

In reading through the Acta, one is struck by the recurrence of the names of men precisely from this gymnasiarch class: Isidorus,

Lampon, Theon, Dionysius, Appian—all men who filled Alexandria’s highest magistracies, were perhaps members of the gerousia, and often acted as Alexandria’s representatives at the imperial court. In the Acta Appiani Appian’s reference to the three earlier

.

political ‘martyrs’ is significant: it was inserted to interest those who knew these names by heart—possibly even their descendants at Alexandria." The centre of social life for the Greek upper classes at Alexandria was the clubs and the gymnasium, with which the gerousta was most

probably associated. As we have seen, Isidorus in his day had had control of the city’s associations, and they would assemble to do his bidding; and, despite Flaccus’ edict, Isidorus had apparently used his influence in the clubs to hire men to compose scurrilous jokes at the prefect’s expense.? And we may well suppose that many

of these associations would

be the most severe in their

denunciations of Roman domination; for they represented the last vestige of an outmoded, Hellenic way of life, a way of life based (when all is said) upon the autonomy of the πόλις. It may be, then, that we are to look for the source of the Acta Alexandrinorum precisely in the families and circle of such men as Isidorus, Lampon, Theon, and Dionysius*—or at least members 1 Alexandrian Greeks took pride in the fact that their relatives and ancestors had held high office in the city: cf. SB 8780 (Α.Ρ. 170, in honour of Apollon, high priest of the Augusti; Breccia, Iscr. greche, n. 72, pp. 53 f.; Ricci, Archiv

ii [1902], p. 444, n. 66; JGR i. 1060). 2 Philo, Flacc. xvii. 138-9; CR, p. 145. Cf. also Caracalla’s suppression of the Peripatetic clubs, Cassius Dio Ixxvii. 7. 3, and see above, p. 231. For clubs and associations of this period organized with a view to entertainment, see San Nicold, Ag. Vereinswesen (Munich, 1913-15), i, ΡΡ. 58 ff., 208 f.; and for the more recent literature on clubs, see Roberts, Skeat, and Nock, ‘The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos’, HTR xxix (1936), pp. 39 ff.; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, iii, pp. 1590 ff.; Taubenschlag, The Law, ii, pp. 65f., and 77Ρ iii (1949), ΡΡ. 200 f. For an association of philosophers who honour a rhetor, Aelius Demetrius, as their teacher, see Breccia, Iscr. greche, n. 146 (probably S$. 41). is connexion with the preservation of the papyri at Oxyrhynchus, it is 6498

T

APPENDIX

274

- of their class and their clubs. Educated Greeks with pride of blood, influential and perhaps wealthy, they could, like Isidorus, control the clubs and hire men to compose these pieces from the scraps of reports or from copies of the actual commentarii.1 They would be prepared ‘for private circulation only’—for private recitation, perhaps, at home or in the local clubs or gymnasia. The texts would have been adapted with additions and changes by various hands with varying degrees of competence: bits of hearsay would be inserted; certain speeches would be expanded to suit the interests of the prospective audience in Alexandria and the χώρα. In some, for instance Max. I, perhaps, and PSI, the original rhetor, who had

been associated with the proceedings, might have a hand in the

redaction ;in another, i.e. the Acta Hermaisci, a tale from an older aretology would be interpolated; finally, in the Acta Appian, a

rhetor or φιλόλογος would be given more or less a free hand in adapting the primitive materials and might be employed to touch up one or two of the earlier pieces.” But such private texts would perhaps never get into the great libraries and hence would remain largely unknown to the professional historian.

In some such way as this, I feel, the elements of our problem must be explained. The various pieces were separately composed and adapted at various dates in the first and second centuries; a good number, if not all, emanated from the same general class at Alexandria, in close association with the Hellenic clubs and perhaps the gerousia; various versions undoubtedly existed through-

out this period and would be circulated among sympathetic friends and relatives in the χώρα; and, finally, it is not impossible that fresh copies of some of the texts were made under the supervision

of these same groups some time in the early part of the third century. THE

ULTIMATE

PURPOSE

OF

THE

ACTA

What then is to be said of the final aim of the Acta Alexandrinorum? As we have seen, there is no evidence for considering the interesting to note that C. Julius, the son of C. Julius Theon, archiereus and hypomnematographus at Alexandria about the beginning of the first century. A.D., held property at Oxyrhynchus (see P. Oxy. 1434, 9-17). And Oxyrhynchite Greeks loyally celebrated the repression of the Jewish rising of 115/17 (P. Oxy. 705, 31-35). It was undoubtedly through such families in the χώρα, who had connexions in Alexandria, that our present copies of the Acta were made and preserved. As we know, Oxyrhynchites borrowed books from Alexandrian philosophers (like the Theon of PRUM a, ed. Vogliano, 1935). t With the distinctions made above, p. 251.

3 e.g. the Acta Hermaisci.

See pp. 211 f. and 266 above.

THE

ACTA

AND

THE

CYNICS

275

fragments as parts of a single compilation, much less as a literary whole. And in view of the varying influences which affected individual pieces, it would appear impossible to assign any single specific purpose to all of them. Obviously the anti-Roman motif bulks largest in most, though not all, of the fragments; but it might be argued that it is questionable whether all these various bits of scandal, hearsay, and insignificant criticism were pointed towards any definite end. It is frequently a difficult task to determine when a piece of

literature has been written primarily for propaganda (the literary characters being mere pawns in the presentation of a thesis), and when its aim is primarily entertainment, though with sharp political overtones. There are no rules for solving such problems: one can only judge by the general tone of the work and by the pro-

minence and definiteness of the political or sociological motives involved. In the case of the Acta Alexandrinorum, although the known

evidence is available to all, the final key is still wanting ;and hence diverse conclusions based on identical evidence will largely be due to subjective approach.

In the first place, I think that it must be admitted that the evidence thus far accumulated would incline us to believe that the

majority of the Acta fragments may be described as ‘reworked

protocols’, based ultimately (directly or indirectly) upon, or in

imitation of, the copy of the legal proceedings, or the copy of the

‘Report of an Embassy’, made by the parties involved. Thus it would appear wrong to describe the ‘protocol form’ as merely a literary device. Secondly, a study of the motifs which occur so frequently in the Acta indicates that they were intended to nourish the current prejudices of the interested circle—prejudices of an

anti-Roman as well as an anti-Semitic nature—and to stir up their pride in an irretrievable past. The Hellenes of Alexandria and the

χώρα doubtless projected themselves into the characters of their

heroes, and these were idealized as victims in an attempt to pre-

serve their Hellenic integrity against the encroachments of a ‘bar-

barian’ civilization. The Acta Alexandrinorum reflect the dualism of Roman society and thus would appear to fit in with the conflict— or, rather, with one of the many conflicts—experienced by intel-

lectuals of the first two centuries of the Roman Empire.’ But a closer examination of the Acta would lead us to another and very important conclusion. It is, I think, that the interested 1 Cf. Caster, Lucien et la pensée religieuse de son temps, pp. 370 ff., and Momigliano, Riv. stor. ital. Ix (1948), p. 432. Cf. also p. 258 n. 2, above.

276

APPENDIX

‘groups that propagated the Acta were themselves divided into two factions: the one, a violently anti-Roman party led by such men as Isidorus, Hermaiscus, and Appian; the other, a conservative, more pro-Roman party, led by Alexandrians who enjoyed Roman

citizenship, such as C. Julius Dionysius and Ti. Claudius Balbillus. The latter group would undoubtedly be seconded by such rhetors and φιλόλογοι as Heraeus and Paulus of Tyre—and possibly Valerius Callinicus and Aelius Theon—who were presumably on good terms with Rome'—although I have no doubt but that the ‘scholars of the Museum’ were split into factions as well.

Although the two factions, ‘Right’ and ‘Left’, were at times overtly hostile towards each other (and this would explain the death

of Theon the exegete), they shared a common love for Alexandria ; and the fact of their co-operation is clear from their activity on various diplomatic missions as well as their common policy towards the Alexandrian Jews. Both parties would be interested in the preservation and reworking of the protocols, but with this diffe-

rence: it would naturally be the anti-Roman faction that encour-

aged the more vicious pieces? (e.g. the Acta Isidori, Acta Hermaisci,

Acta Appiani, and perhaps P. Oxy. 1089) ; whereas the pro-Roman party would probably promote those which were less offensive and of more general interest to the Greeks as a whole (e.g. PSI, P. Giss., Diog., Max. I and II, Paul., Athen., and perhaps BGU 588). The

aim of both parties was, in the last analysis, propagandist; but the former sought directly to stir up a spirit of bitterness against Rome and to foster this spirit where it already existed; the latter,

confused in their aims, would perhaps be sympathetic with the view of the anti-Roman faction, but at the same time as Roman

citizens and civil servants they would naturally incline towards a more moderate point of view. But although they differed in their attitude towards Rome, the two political factions at Alexandria were, I think, united at least

upon one important point. The fact that none of the (certain) fragments of the Acta Alexandrinorum extend in dramatic date beyond the reign of Commodus would lead us to suspect that one of the chief political grievances which lay behind the propagation of the

Acta was Rome’s persistent refusal to grant a Boule. Alexandrians who were not Roman citizens would naturally feel this more; but both parties, ‘Right’ and ‘Left’, would here find common ground. 1 See the note on Athen. 40, p. 201 above. 2 Or a more anti-Roman recension of a particular piece, e.g. recensions A and B of the Acta Isidori as opposed to (the more pro-Roman ?) recension C, Ῥ. Berol. 8877.

THE ACTA AND THE CYNICS

277

After the concession of a Senate by Septimius Severus in 199/200'— when it suited Rome’s book—overt opposition to Rome gradually declined, and with it the power of the anti-Roman faction in the gerousia and the clubs. But that the interest in the tale of Alexandria’s

struggle for political autonomy still survived is suggested by the fact that chapters of the story were still copied and preserved in private libraries in the χώρα even after their original purpose had ceased to exist. I This concession, in Alexandria’s case, should be taken together with the

relaxations reflected in the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212 and the admission of (apparently) the first Alexandrian to the Roman Senate and consulship, Aelius Coeranus: see Dio Ixxvi. 5. 5, and PIRi.2 A 161.

(278)

SELECT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. General Works on the Acta Alexandrinorum

A. Bauer, ‘Heidnische Martyrerakten’, Archiv i (1901), ΡΡ. 39-47. H. I. Bett, ‘The Acts of the Alexandrines’, 77P iv (1950), ΡΡ. 19-42. E. von Dosscutitz,

‘Jews and Antisemites in Ancient Alexandria’, AFT viii

:

(1904), ΡΡ. 728-55.

R. Marra, ‘Gli Atti dei Martiri Alessandrini: Saggio storico-filologico’, Didaskaleion, n.s. iv (1926), fasc. i, pp. 69-106; fasc. ii, pp. 49-84. A. Momictiano, ‘Un nuovo frammento dei cosi detti “Atti dei martiri pagani’’’, Rendiconti Pont. Acc. di Archeol., n.s. vii (1932), pp- 119-27.

A. Νερρι Mopona, ‘Protocolli giudiziari ο romanzo storico?’, Raccolta Lumbroso,

Milan, 1925, pp. 407-38. H. ΝΙΕΡΕΕΜΕΥΕΕ. Uber antike Protokoll-Literatur, Diss., Gottingen, 1918. A. von PREMERSTEIN,

Alexandrinische Geronten vor Kaiser Gaius. Mitteil. aus der

Papyrussamimlung der GieB. Universitatsbibliothek ν, GieBen, 1939 (published by K. Kalbfleisch). —— ‘Alexandrinische Gesandte vor Kaiser Hadrian’, Hermes lvii (1922), pp. 266-316. Zu den sogenannten alexandrinischen Martyrerakten. Philologus, Supplementband xvi, Heft ii, Leipzig, 1923. T. Rermacn, ‘L’Empereur Claude et les Juifs d’aprés un nouveau document’,

REF Ixxix (1924), pp. 113-44.

R. Rerrzenstet,

‘Ein Stiick hellenistischer Kleinliteratur’, Nachr. Gott. Ges.,

phil.-hist. ΚΙ., 1904, Heft i, pp. 326-32. W. WeseR, ‘Eine Gerichtsverhandlung vor Kaiser Traian’, Hermes | (1915), ΡΡ. 47-93. C. Braprorp WELLES, ‘A Yale Fragment of the Acts of Appian’, TAPA Ixvii

(1936), pp. 7-23-

U. Ὑνπιακεν, ‘Zum alexandrinischen Antisemitismus’, Abh. kén. sachs. Ges. Wiss., phil.-hist. K1., xxvii (1909), pp. 783-839. B. On Judaism H. I. Bex, ‘Antisemitism in Alexandria’, JRS xxxi (1941), pp. I-19. Jews and Christians in Egypt, London, 1924. Fuden und Griechen in rém. Alexandria, Beihefte zum Alten Orient, Heft ix, Leipzig, 1926. H. A. Fiscuen, ‘Martyr and Prophet (A Study in Jewish Literature)’, Few. Quart. Rev. xxxvii (1946/7), pp. 265-80, 363-86. L. Fucus, Die Fuden Agyptens in ptol. und rém. Zeit, Vienna, 1924. E. R. Gooprenoucu, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, Bollingen Series xxxvii, Pantheon Books, 1953. I. ΗΕΙΝΕΜΑΝΝ, ‘Antisemitismus’, RE Suppl. ν (1931), 3-431. Juster, Les Τις dans Empire romain, Paris, 1914. G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, Harvard University Press, 3 vols., 1927-30, esp. vol. i (grd imp., 1932). R. H. Prerrer, A History of New Testament Times, New York, 1949.

M. Rapin, The Jews among the Greeks and Romans, Philadelphia (U.S.A.), 1915.

SELECT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

279

J. M. Rots, Greek Papyri Lights on Jewish History, Diss., N.Y. Univ., 1924. E. Scutrer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Fesu Christi, 3/4. Aufl., Leipzig, 1901-9. V. M. Scramuzza, ‘The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors towards Judaism’, in Jackson-Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, vol. v,

London, 1933, ΡΡ. 277-097.

A. 9εσπὰ, ‘The Status of Jews in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt’, Jewish Social Studies (New York), vi (1944), ΡΡ. 375-400. V. TcHERIKOVER, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, Jerusalem, 1945. H. A. Woxrson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Harvard University Press, 1947.

C. General Works on the Period of the Acta 1. P. V. D. Batspon, The Emperor Gaius (Caligula), Oxford, 1934. H. I. Betz, Egypt from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest, Oxford, 1948. G. Borssrer, L’ Opposition sous les Césars, Paris, 1875. H. Box, Philonis Alexandrini in Flaccum, Oxford, 1939.

des BollanH. DELEHAyve, Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires, Société

distes, Brussels, 1921. R. Duptey, A History of Cynicism, London, 1937. Fucus, Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt, Berlin, 1938. G. Harpy, Christianity and the Roman Government, London, 1925. Horsrap, Cynic Hero and Cynic King, Uppsala, 1948. in ihrer Hott, ‘Die Vorstellung vom Martyrer und die Martyrerakte 521-56. pp. (1914), xxxiii Altertum, kl. Jahrb. Neue ung’, Entwickl gesch. n, 1951. A. C. Jounson, Egypt and the Roman Empire, Univ. of Michiga Rome, ii), Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian (Econ. Survey of Ancient Johns Hopkins, 1936. 1937A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford, 1940. Oxford, , Justinian to r Alexande —— The Greek City from —— The Herods of Fudaea, Oxford, 1934. siécles apres GAG, Ῥ. Joucuer, La Domination romaine en E:gypte aux premiers Alexandria, 1947.

D. H. E. R. K.

_— La Vie municipale dans Egypte romaine, Paris, 1911.

Trois études sur ’Hellénisme, Cairo, 1944. te des Nationalbewuftseins, J. Jévuner, Hellenen und Barbaren. Aus der Geschich , Leipzig 19293. the First Centuries of the G. La Prana, ‘Foreign Groups in Rome during Empire’, HTR xx (1927), ΡΡ. 183 ff. Univ. Press, 1950. D. ΜΑαΙΕ, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton Paris, 1950. té, Pantiqui dans ion l'éducat de Histoire H.-L. Marrou, London, 19243. 1. G. Mine, A History of Egypt under Roman Rule, ment, Oxford, 1934. A. MomicuiAno, Claudius: the Emperor and His Achieve 1933. d, Oxfor sion, Conver Nock, A. D. dge, 1926. Sallustius: Concerning the Gods and the Universe, Cambri romaine, Lausanne, A. OLTRAMARE, Les origines de la Diatribe

1926.

from Greco-Roman Egypt, Univ. R. A. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts i) 1732 nn. (esp. 1952 Press, an of Michig iche und religionsgeschichtliche E. Peterson, Els Θεός. Epigraphische, formgeschichtl Untersuchungen, Gottingen, 1926.

280 M. ~ R. D. M.

SELECT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Poutenz, Die Stoa, Gottingen, 2 vols., 1948-9. Rerrzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzahlungen, 1909. W. ΒΙΡΡΙΕ, The Martyrs, A Study in Social Control, Chicago Univ. Press, 1931. Rosrovtrzerr, A Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1926. Third edition: Storia economica e sociale dell’ Impero romano, Florence, 1946.

W. Scuusart, Agypten von Alexander dem Grofen bis auf Mohammed, Berlin, 1922. A. Ν. SHeRwin-WuirteE,

The Roman Citizenship, Oxford, 1939.

T. A. ΘΙΝΟΙΑΙΕ, A History of Greek Political Thought, London, 1952.

A. Stein, Die Prafekten von Agypten in der rom. Kaiserzeit, Berne, 1950 (with corrections by J. Schwartz, CE lii [1951], pp. 439 ff.; H. I. Bell, CR n.s. ii [1952], pp. 103 ff.; Ο. W. Reinmuth, 47P Ixxiii [1952], pp. 418 f£.). W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation, London, 19523 (with G. T. Griffith).

R. TauBenscHiac, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, vol. i, New York, 1944; vol. ii, Warsaw, 1948. C. E. Visser, Gotter und Kulte im ῥίοί. Alexandrien, Diss., Amsterdam, 1938. S. L. WaALLAcE, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian, Princeton Univ. Press, 1938. O. Wernreicu, Antike Heilungswunder: Untersuchungen zum Wunderglauben der Griechen und Romer, GieBen, 1909. — Neue Urkunden zur Sarapis-Religion, Tiibingen, 1919. W. L. Westermann, ‘Alexandria in the Greek Papyri’, BSAA xxxviii (1949), Pp. 3-17.

C. Wirszusskt, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome, Cambridge, 1950.

(281)

PROSOPOGRAPHIA Agrippa: M. Julius Agrippa II, IV A. ii. 4; IV B. 18; IV C. 20, 27. Anicetus: candidate for the gymnasiarchy, VII A. 39. Anthimus (= Anthemas, Anthianus?): IX A. ii. 4. Antoninus (θεός) : the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, XI B. ii. 8. Antoninus: the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Caracalla, XVIII. i. 12,

13, 17, 26, 32; ii. 2, 5, 7, 9 (?), 13, 24.

Aphrodisia: companion of Isidorus, IT. 27 f. Appian: son of Heraclianus, Alexandrian gymnasiarch and envoy under Commodus, XI A. ii. 1, 8, 9, 13; ΧΙ B. ii. 4, 5, 6f, 14 f15 ili. 2, 5; iv. 2,

ϱ, 133 ν. 3-

Archias: XX. 5. Arius: Alexandrian envoy under Gaius, III. iii. 33. Athamas: envoy at Rome for Alexandria (though perhaps an Athenian), X. 5, 64, 68. Athenodorus: Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 9; perhaps identical with the Athenodorus of X. 9, 10 f., 15, 19. Aviolaos: Roman senator on Claudius’ consilium, IV A. i. 8; probably M’. Acilius Aviola.

Balbillus: Alexandrian spokesman, IV C. 19 (?), 31; probably Ti. Claudius Balbillus. Berenicianus: candidate for the gymnasiarchy, VII A. 35 f.

Callinicus, Valerius (?): a scholar of the Museum, VII A. 143 f. Claudianus: IX A. iv. 13; probably the Lycian Claudianus, Roman senator. Claudius: the Emperor, IV A. ii. 2, 16; iii. 3, 7, 16; IV B. 11, 19, 39, 483 VIII. 72 (θεός), perhaps 71. Cleopatra: Cleopatra VII, daughter of Ptolemy Auletes, ΧΙ B. v. 12. Colon: envoy for the Alexandrian Jews under Trajan, VIII. 14.

Diodorus (Julius or Claudius): gymnasiarch, VII B. 45. Diogenes: V A. 15. Dionysius: companion of Isidorus, II. 28, 30, 32, 33, 38, 49, 51. Probably C. Julius Dionysius. Dionysius: Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 3. Eudaemon: archidicastes, VII B. 55. Eulalus: III. ii. 3 (?), 26. Eutychus: chamberlain to Maximus, Prefect of Egypt, VII A. 84.

Flaccus: A. Avillius Flaccus, Prefect of Egypt, II. 25, 35, 40, 42 f., 55 (1). Gaius: the Emperor, III. ii. 11; iii. 24, 27. Heliodorus: XI B. i. 7, 7 f., 9. Heraclianus: father of Appian, XI A. ii. 15.

282 .

PROSOPOGRAPHIA

Heraclitus: Aurelius Septimius Heraclitus, Prefect of Egypt, XVIII. 98, 12, 14, 16, 17f.5 ii. 4.

i. 4, 8,

Heraeus: VII B. 38, 48; probably the same as the Heraeus of X. 58. Herarchus: XVIII. 1. 19, 25 (?); ii. 6, 8 (?), 11. Hermaiscus: Alexandrian on trial before Trajan, VIII. 41, 44, 45, 47, 50Hermias: VI. 6. Himerus (?) : XX. 2. Isidorus: Alexandrian gymnasiarch, II. 27, 43 (?), 49 (?), 54 (?), 59, 62 4. (?); III. iii. 33 f. (?); IVA. ii. 2, 9 (bis); ili. 2, 4, 5, 8 (bis), 14, 17; TV B. 4, 17, 29 (?), 39 f., 42, 49 (bis); IV C. 17; ΧΙ B. iv. 6. Italicus: High-priest at Alexandria under Caracalla, XVIII. i. 23. Jacob: envoy for the Alexandrian Jews under Trajan, VIII. 14 f. Julius Phanias: Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 6. Julius Salvius: Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 5 (the line being read with GH: ‘Salvius, Julius Salvius, Timagenes’; and not with Weber: ‘Salvius Julius, Salvius Timagenes’). Julius Vestinus see Vestinus. Lampon: ex-gymnasiarch on trial with Isidorus before Claudius, IV A. iii. 2, 13, 17; XI Biv. 6f. Lupus: M. Rutilius Lupus, Prefect of Egypt, ΙΧ A. iv. 3, i. 5. Maximus:

C. Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt, VII A. 15, 131 (?), 1423

VII B. 564.

Naevius: Naevius Sertorius Macro, IV B. 14 (?). Nero: the Emperor, V A. 2, 4. Onias: envoy for the Alexandrian Jews under Trajan, VIII. 14. Pasion: Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 6. Pastor: Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 6. Paulus: a rhetor of Tyre, VIII. 9. Paulus: on trial before Hadrian, ΙΧ A. i. 1, το; vi. 1, 28; viii. 16. Phanias: see Julius Phanias. Philoxenus: gymnasiarch-elect and Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 7. Plotina: Pompeia Plotina, wife of Trajan, VIII. 26, 32. Rammius: Ο.. Rammius Martialis, Prefect of Egypt, IX A. v. 3 (?). Rubrius: XVI. 4; probably P. Rubrius Barbarus, Prefect of Egypt. Salome: IV A. iii. 11; probably the sister of Herod the Great. Salvius: see Julius Salvius. Salvius: Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 5. See note under Julius Salvius. Simon: envoy for the Alexandrian Jews under Trajan, VIII. 13. Sopatros: native of Antioch, advocate for the Alexandrian Jews under Trajan, VIII. 15. Sotion: gymnasiarch and Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 8. Tarquinius: Roman senator on Claudius’ consilium, IV A. i. 1; probably for M. Tarquitius Priscus.

PROSOPOGRAPHIA

283

Theon: Alexandrian exegete, IV A. ii. 19; IV B. 13, 40 (?). Theon: Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 7. Theon :reader of documents in IX A. iv. 2, i. 3, ii. 131 probably an Alexandrian rhetor. Theon: son of Eudaemon the archidicastes, VII B. 60 f. Theon: Alexandrian hero venerated with Isidorus and Lampon, XI B. iv. 6; probably Theon the exegete. Theudes (for Theudas?): envoy for the Alexandrian Jews under Trajan, VIII. 14. Tiberius: Ti. Julius Alexander, Prefect of Egypt, V B. 2 (B27 588: n, Tiberius Caesar: probably the Emperor (and not, with von Premerstei Tiberius Gemellus), III. i. 7; ii. 8. Julius Timagenes: Alexandrian envoy under Trajan, VIII. 5. See note under Salvius. Tision: chamberlain to Tiberius, III. ii. 7 (?). Titus: the Emperor, VI. 8, 11 (?); XVII. το (?). 4 (?); Χ. Trajan: the Emperor, VIII. 30, 52; IX A. v. 11 (?); IX CG. iv. 28 ff. (?).

Valerius (?) Callinicus: see Callinicus. Vespasian: the Emperor, V B. 20, 21 (?). Vestinus: probably L. Julius Vestinus, Prefect of Egypt, VI. 13. Unnamed Persons

II. 31, 34. ὁ γεραιός: probably a member of the Alexandrian gerousia, 5. i. XVIII. ἑκατόνταρχος: ITI. ii. 25. 6 ἡβοκᾶτος: at court of Commodus, ΧΙ B. iii. 10 f. Cf. also ὁ κατήγορος: III. i. 10; ii. 27 (?)5 ili. 24 f. 6 προκαθήµενος: II. 46 f. 6 ῥήτωρ: advocate for Isidorus, IV B. 36. σπεκουλάτωρ: at court of Commodus, XI A. ii. 12. ὁ ὕπατος: consul under Commodus, XI B. iii. 15.

(284)

GREEK

:

INDEX

Omitted from the index are words that have been completely restored; also (with a few significant exceptions) the article, personal pronouns, καί and οὐ. Text ΙΧ C (PRUM) has not been indexed. * denotes ἅπαξ λεγόμενα.

INDEX Ἀθηναῖος, X. 14.

8; VIII. 30, 43; 46; ΙΧ A. iv. 1, ii. 1, το(ῦ, τά. τα, νι. 6. 5. -ὃ ν. II; X. 4, 9, 12, 59; MLB. it τα,

Αἰγύπτιος, IV C. 26; XVI. το.

Αἴγυπτος, ἡ, IV B. 14; VIL A. 124 f. Ἀλεξάνδρεια, I. 23; III. v.5 (?); IVA. iii. 10 f.; IV B. 43; VI. 2; LX A. iii. 4, vi.

iii. 1; XIII. 5. Κάνωβος, XVIII. i. 7.

1; XVIII. ii. 10.

Ἀλεξανδρεύς, I. 5 (-etwv); III. 1. 12, ii. 34.f., iii. 27f.; IV A. ii. 3 (9): IV C. 14, 25 (?); VIII. 18, 24f,, 27, 333 IX A. ii. 11, 22 (= ΙΧ B. 4. 6), 55, . πθ, τος Boos ΧΙ Β. iii. 11, iv. 13 XII. 1ο. Appov, V B. 16. Δακικός, IX A. i. 133 Χ. 31.

᾿]ουδαῖος, IV A. iii. 12; IV B. 18;

VIII. 11, 16, 28, 29, 37, 39, 43,

47, 48, 50; LX A. ii. 1, iii. 14, 16, vi. 14, vii. 8, 14 (9): XV. 4. Μαῖσαρ, I. 21; III. i. 12, ii. 26, ili. 24,

ΤΝ Αα

ο

Μέμφις, VII A. 129 f. (?). Movoeiov, VII A. 144. ᾿Ολύμπιος (of the emperor), IV B. 25. Παχών, TV A. i. 20, ii. 1. Πηλούσιον, VII A. 130. Ποσειδῶν, IV C. 17 (?). Ῥωμαῖος, plur., VII B. 71 f. (?); XI

Ἕλλην, III. iti. 9 (9): IX A. iii. 26. Ἑλληνικός, IV B. 353 XVI. 18 f. (?).

Vien

A

Qin) sullen 2

10, 16, iii. 3, 7, 16; IV B. 6 (?), 8, II, 17, 19, 25f. (?), 39, 48; V A.

21, 25; V B. 11, 19, 21, 253 VI. 3,

B. iii. 9, 13 f.3 XII. το.

Ῥώμη, ἡ, IV B. 15; VIII. 23, 54. art. om., IV B. 41; ΧΙ B. iii. 8. Σαλώμη, IV A. ΠΠ. 17. Σαραπεῖον, II. 25. Zdpams, II. 34, 48; V B. 15; VIII. 51; XVIII. i. 3. Σεβαστεῖον, IV B. 45. ScBaords, see Index B. Φαμενώθ, ΧΧΙ. το (?).

ἸΩστία, III. ii. 4.

INDEX ἀγαθός, IX A. ii. 20 (?) ; XVIII. ii. 26. ἀγένειος, VII A. 108. ἁγενής, XI B. ν. 5. ἀγνοέω, VII A. ο. ἀγοραῖος, VII A, 127. dyw, X. 65 (?); XVIII. ii. 1. ἀγωνιάω, ΧΙ Β. i. 14. ἀγωνίζομαι, IV A. i. 7 (9), το (2).

B

ἀδελφός, XIV. οι (2). ᾷδης, ΧΙ B. iv. 4. ἀθλητής, V A. 5. ἄθρεπτος, I. 6. αἰάν = ἐάν (?), VIII. 74. Ἐαϊδέστατος, IX A. vi. 22.

αἰσθάνομαι, VII B. 41 f. (?). αἰσχύνη, VII Α. 78.

GREEK αἰτία, VII A. 41; VII B. 6 (?). αἰφνίδιον, adv., VIII. Ρο. αἰών, XI B. iii. ϱ f. ἀκέραιος, I. 5 (?). ἀκοή, plur., V A. 46. ἀκολουθέω, V A. 35, 62 (2). ἀκόλουθος, V A. 5ο. ἀκούω, IIT. ii. 22 (?); ΤΝ A. 1. 18, ii. 2, 11, lii. 5; VIII. 26; IX A. vi. 6; TESS XT Alt τος 0X0 Bias τα, ii. 9; XIV. 26; XVIII. i. 30 (?), li. 12. ἀκρίβεια, VII A. 13 f. ἀκριβέστερον, adv., IX A. iv. 12 f. (?). ἀλείφω (‘train’), VII B. 58 f. ἀλήθεια, II. 56; IX A. vi. 5. ἀληθῶς, IX A. vi. ο. ἀλλά, II. 35, 61; III. v. 3 (?); IVA. 11. 10; V A.

18, 38, 49; VI.

3;

VII A. 94; VII B. 61; VIII. 35, ο). 4ο. EX ALi.

113 Χ. πι XI B:

ii. 6, iv. 15: XII. 9; XVIII. i. 10. ἄλλος, III. v. 3 (?); IV A. ii. 17, iii. 14; IV B. 12; IV C. 4; VA. 7; VII A. 1396; XVIII. ii. 11, 18. Κως, VII A. 149. ἀλλότριος, IX A. vii. 9; X. 4 f., 6. dpa, VII A. 141. ἁμαρτάνω, IX A. iii. 24. ἄμεινον, adv., VII A. 12. ἀμφότερος, VIII. 25. ἄν, VIIA., 4,116; X. 38; XVIII. ii. 8.

ἀναβοάω, XI B. iii. 7 f. ἀναγιγνώσκω, VII A. 5; IX A. iv. 2, i. 4; Χ. 59; XVIII. i. 1, 24, 25, ii. 5, 24. ἀναγκαῖος, I. 2. -ws, XVIII. i. 22. ἀνάγομαι (‘set sail’), VIII. 16 f. ἀναγορεύω, IX A. i. 3. ἀνάγωγος, I. 6. ἀναιρέω, IV B. 13, 16(?); ΙΧ A. Vili. 5. ἀναίσχυντος, VII A. 6ο, 61 {. ἀναλαμβάνω (‘confiscate’), VII A.

9ο f.

ἀναμένω, VII A. 66. ἀνάξιος, VIII. 73. ἀναπίπτω, IX A. vi. 16.

ἀναπόγραφος, III. iii. 22 (?). ἀνατέλλω, V B. 13. ἀνδρεία, X. 3.

ἀνεξικακία, X. 41 f. (1).

INDEX

285

ἀνέρχομαι, II. 27. ἀνήρ, I. i. 16; IV A. ii. 15 (?); IV By 103, Vi A. 63 IX Αα. 16, iii: 15(?), vii. 10. ἄνθρωπος, I. 6, 8, 113 IV A. i. 9; IV B. 20; VII A. 95; VII B. 50;

ΙΑ.

αν 123X168 0):

ἀνίημι, VII A. 86. ἀνίστημι, IV A. 1. 2. ἀνόσιος, IX A. ii. 13, vii. 12. of the Jews, VIII. 43, 49 f.; [IX A. vi. 14. ἄνοσμος, VII B. 41. ἀντεῖπον, II. 98 f. ἀντέχω, XVIII. i. 4. ἀντιβάλλω, X. 27. x ἀντικαθίστημι, TV . 22. ἀντικρύ, II. 33 f. ἄντικρυς, VII A. 81 f. ἀνωτέρω, adv., V A. 50.

ἄξιος, VII B. 39; VIII. 35. ἀξιόω, I. 14: VIIA. 52, 151. ἀπαγγέλλω (= appello), XI B. ν. 2, 8. ἀπάγομαι (= ducor), XI A. ii. 133 ΧΙ B. i. 8, ii. 14, 15, iii. 3 f., 1Ο. ἀπαιδία (= Χἀπαιδεία ϱ), XI B. ii. 13. ἀπαιτέω, IX A. iv. 6; XIII. 3 (?). ἀπαλλάττω, VII A. οἱ f. ἀπαντάω, VIII. 26, 34 f. (mid.). ἁπαξ, IV A. i. 11 (τοῦτο τὸ ἆ.). with

Ρίο., VII A. 55, 77. Ἀάπαξις (‘execution’), XI B. iii. 15. ἀπαρτάω, III. ii. 30 (?). ἀπαρτίζω, V B. 18 (?). ἅπας, VII A. 82.

ἀπειλή, XII. ο (?). ἀπιστέω, VII A. 4. ἀπό, III. i. 14; IV C. 3, 12; VII A. 144; [X A. iv. 11, i. 6, iii. 4; ΧΙ

B. iii. 9; XII. 6 (?); XVI. 18. ἀπόβλητος, IV A. iii. 12 (?). ἀποδείκνυμι, III. iii. 23; VIII. 7; 1X A. ii. 5 (?). ἀπόδειξις, ΙΧ. A. vi. 25. ἀποδημέω, VII A. 8 f. ἀποδημία, VII A. 134, 137; LX A. il. 7. ἀποθαυμάζω, VIII. 53. ἀποκεφαλίζω, III. iv. 24 (?); TX B. gf. (?). ἀποκρίνομαι, VIII. 41, 44, 45 f. ἀποκτείνω, IV A. iii. 4. ἀπόλλυμι, V A. 94. ἀπολογέομαι, VI. 7, 9. ἀπολογία, III. v. 4 (?); VI. 11.

INDEXES

286

: ἀπολύω, V A. 54. ἀπονοέομαι, XI B. iv. 11, 14 1. ἄπονος, III. ii. 7. | ἀποπνέω, V A. 36 f. ἀπόρρητος, XVIII. ii. 23, 30 1.

ἀποστέλλω, X. 57 f. (?). ἀποστερέω, VII A. 1 {. ἀποστρέφω, V A. 91. ἀποσφάττω, VII A. 158. ἀποφαίνω, mid., XI A. ii. 12. ἄπρακτος, XIX. 8. ἅπτω, mid., III. i. 11. dpa, V A. 20 (?); XIB. iv. 7; XVIII. 1. 23 (?). ἀργύριον, V A. 54; VII B. 77. ἀρετή, ΠΠ. 11. 35. ἀριθμός, III. i. 18(?); IX A, i. 16 f. (9): XVI. 18. ἀρνέομαι, II. 40; IV B. 22. ἁρπάζω, IX A. ii. 8, iii. 6, 7 (= IX B. 9. 13, 19). ἄρτι, ν Α. 16. ἀρχαῖον, τό, plur., VII A. 1.

ἀρχαιότης (= antiquitas?), V A. 48 f. ἀρχή, IX A. ii. ο (?). ἀρχιδικαστής, VII A. 146; VII B. 55. ἀρχιερεύς, XVIII. i. 27. ἄρχω, VII A. 145; IX A. vii. 12. mid., IV B. 5; IX A. ii. 3 (?). ἄρχων, plur., IV C. 29; VI. 1.

ἀσθενέω, I. 9. ἀσθενής, I. 13 (del.). ἀσπάζομαι, III. ii. 8f.(?); VII A. 63 f., 87 f.; VIII. 29, 31, 33 f. ἀσπασμός (= salutatio), VII A. 67. ἀσύνετος, VII A. 89. ἀσφαλῶς, IV A. iii. 7. αὐθάδως, VIII. 41, 44, 45. αὐθαίρετος, VIII. 10. αὔριον, IV A. i. 18 (?). αὐτοκρατορεύω, XI B. ii. 9. αὐτοκράτωρ, III. i. 13; V B. 8; VIII. 46; IX A. ii. 14; ΙΧ B. 6; X. 29; XI A. i. 19 f,, ii. 6, 8, 10; ΧΙ B. ii. 2,°3, 6, iii. 5, 14, iv. 1, 9, v. 2 (?), 43 XIII. 8; XVIII. ii. 9; XX. 3 (?). w. art. IV A. ii. 12; VIII. 23, 29f.; IX A. i. 8. αὐτός (‘same’), X. 13. intens., V A. 39, perh. 38; VIII. 31, 38; IX A. iii. 26.

as pron., II. 41, 52; III. i.

11 (9), ii. 9; IV A. i. 18; perh.

IV GC. ιο; VA.

19; V B. 14 (?)3

VII A. 12, 18, 67, 90, 93, 99, 1555 VIII. 12, 22, 30f., 32; IX A. i. 5,

14 (?), 15 (2), το (?), ii. 16, 11, 11 (bis), 17 (2), να. 7 (9): IX B. 10; X. 65; ΧΙ Β. 1. 5, ii. 3, 14; XVIII. i. 13, ii. 3, 15, 16. ἀφίημι, IX A. vi. 28 {. (?). ἀφιλάργυρος, XI B. ii. 11. *ddiroxayabia, XI B. ii. 19. ἀφορμή, IX A. iv. 5 f. (?). ἄχρειος, IX A. iii. 27 (4. δοῦλοι). βασανίζω, IX A. vii. 7 f. βασιλεία, XI B. ν. 13. βασιλεύς, IV A. ii. 4, iii. 5, 15: IX A. i. 1, 7. of the emperor, IV A. iii. 5,15; ΧΙ B. ii. 6; XII. το.

βαστάζω, VIII. 17f., 51. βιάζω, XVIII. 1. 2 (9). mid., II. 34 f. βιβλίδιον (= libellus), X. 66. Bios, V A. 43; XIII. 7. βλάπτω, VII B. 47. βλέμμα, VII A. 6ο. βλέπω, VII B. 39; IX A. viii. 7 (?). βοήθεια, I. το. βοηθέω, VIII. 28, 49. βουλεύω, mid., XVIII. ii. 28. βουλή, I. 8 f., 15, 17.

βραδύς, XIII. 4. βραδύτης, VII B. 46. γάρ, I. 2; ΠΠ. iii. οἱ: IV A. iii. 145 IV B. 12; VA. 17, 33; VIIA. 16,

21, 49, 54, 77, 141; VII B. 6, 12, 52; VIII.

74; ΙΧ

A. ili. 23, 25,

Vi. II, 235) κ. (8), το, του δο, Πο (5) ΧΡ. 1 5 υπ ο τη ος XV. 2 (?); XVIII. i. 15, ii. 28. γέ, XI B. i. 6. γείτων, XIII. 1. γελάω, VIT A. 88. γέλως, VII A. 85. γένος, VIII. 9, 15, 45; XVI. 19. γεραιός, II. 31, 34; III. ii. 11 (?).

γέρων, plur., II. 36; III. i. 143 XIII.

8. γίγνοµαι (or γίν-), I. 6, 15, 20; III. ii. 15, v.53; VA.3; VILA. 78; VIIB.

61 (?); VIII. 4, 53 f.; ΙΧ A. i. 12, ii. 7, vi. 26f., vii. 10 f., viii. 3; XI A. ii. 143 XVIII. i. 29; XX. 5 (?).

GREEK γιγνώσκω, ΙΧ A. ii. 17 (9); Χ. 4ο. γλυκύτατος, XI B. i. 13. γλῶττα, IIT. iii. 12 (?). γογγύζω, XI B. iii. 14. yovu, IV A. ii. 10; IV B. 6. γονυκλινής, II. 31 f. γράμμα, XVIII.i. 5; plur., VIIA. 4f. ypapparevs, I. 17; VILA. 34f. (?).

γραφή, I. 4 (?); XVI. 9 (?).

γράφω, III. 1. 6 (?), 11. 25; VII A. 10f.; X. 40, 60; XVIII. ii. 15, 16 (?). γυµνασιαρχέω, VII A. 39 f. (?). γυµνασιαρχία, VII A. 29 (?), 35. γυµνασίαρχος, IV A. ii. 3, Π. 115

IV B. 34 (?), 4218: VII A. 34, 373

VII B. 45; VIII. 6 ff. (ter); XI B. iii, το, v. 941. (?). γυμνάσιον, V A. 4f. (?), το f. (?). γυνή, VII A. 98. δάκρυ, IX A. iii. 2. δανείζοµαι, VII A. οι; ΧΙ B. v. 14. δάνειον, VII A. 7 f. δασύς, VII A. 62 (?). δέ I. 6, 11; II. 27, 28, 29, 32, 38, 51; iV Avia G, io 115 IV B. ο. LV GC.

24, 26, 30; VI. 5; VII A. 12, 38,

46, 59, 63, 88, 108, 145, 149; VIII. 26, 30, 34, 52; IX A. vi. 4, 29 (1)/

IX B. 12; Χ. 5ο; ΧΙ] A.i. 4 (?). δεῖ, II. 41; 1V B. 38; IV C. 24; V A. 17, 32, 44;

IX

A.

ii. 12, iii. 3

(= IXB. 11); XVIII. ii. 27. mid., 1. rr. δείκνυµι, VII A. 75. δειλιάζω, IX A. vi. 4 f. δεινός, XVIII. i. 5. δειπνέω, VII A. 50 f. δέκα, ITI. i. 15. δέκα εξ, IV A. ii. 7. δεξιά, IV B. 96. δεσπόζω, III. iii. 5 (?). δεσπότης, voc., I. 20; II. 33. δεύτερος, III. ii. 6 (?); IVA. ii. 1 (?) 5 VII A. 102; ΧΙ B. iv. 3f. neut. as adv., II. 39; VIII. 43; XI B. ii. 10 (τὸ δ.). δέχομαι, IX A. vi. 19 f. δέω, IX A. vii. 1, 3 (?). mid., IV B. 6f. (?). δή, XIX. το (?).

INDEX

287

δῆλος IX A. vi. 23. δηλόω, VII A. 15; IX A. iil. 22; eX Vie: ; δήµιος, V A. 98. δηµόσιος, I. 4; X. 20 (?). διά, w. acc., I. 10; III. ii. 3, 28; XVIII. ii. 4, 6. διάγνωσις, V A. 42. διαδέχοµαι, IIT. ν. 6 (?). διάδοχος, VII A. 27 f. διακρίνω, VI. 4. διαλαµβάνω, I. 22. διαπομµπή, plur., VII A. 61. διαπράττω, I. 16. διασείω, I. 8. Sudonpos, IV A. iii. 1ο. διασῴζω, IX A. ili. of. (?) (= ΙΧ 8. 14). Sudraypa, IX A. i. 4, iii. arf. (?); XXI. ο (?). διατάττω, VII A. 28 f. (-co-); ΙΧ A. vi. 13. διαφορέω, I. 11. διδασκαλεῖον, plur., VII A. 113. διδάσκω, VIII. 46; ΧΙ B. v. 11.

δίδωµι, I. 16, το; II. 56 (?); IV A. iii, 15; VII A. 48; IX A. iii. OR NE BS 4ο. πι Απο, ii. 6; XIV. 3. δίκαιος, III. iii. 23 f. (?); IV A. 1. 73 XII.

8.

adv.,

XIII.

7;

comp.,

VII A. 115 f. (?). δικαστής, V A. 91. διό, IV A. i. το, iii. 12; VII A. ο (?). διότι, ΙΧ A. iii. 31 (?). διπλοῦς, V A. 55. διώκω, XI B. ii. 1.

δοκέω, VII B. 57; XVII. 19 (?). δόέα, X. 21.

δοῦλος, IV A. iii. 9; IX A. iii. 24 (?), 27; IX B. 8 (?); XVIII. ii. 4. δραπέτης, XVIII. ii. 6, 7. δράω, III. ii. 9 (?). δύναμαι, I. το; VII B. ϱ (?); TX A. iii. 17. δύνατος, V A. 37. δύο, IV A. ii. 18; IX A. v. 5. δώδεκα, V A. 20; XVIII. i. 6. δωρεά, VII A. 43. ἐάν, VII A. 94; VIII. 74 (?); XIV. 27 (kav); XIX. 3, 7.

INDEXES

288 τ. ἑαυτοῦ, II. 31; VII B. 75 (?).

édw, IV B. 46; IX A. v. 5 (?)5 XVIII. i. 13 (?). ἔγγυον, IX A. i. 25 (?). ἐγγύς VII B. 7. ἐγδ-, see ἐκδ-. ἐγκαλέω, IV C. 22 (9): VA. 44. ἔγκειμαι, XI Β. ii. 12. ἔγκλημα, V A. 58. ἔθνος, of the Jews, ΤΝ C. 13; VIII. 12. ἔθος, VII A. 77 (ἐν ἔθει γίγνοµαι w. gen., ‘become accustomed to’). €0w, ΧΙ B. iv. 9 f. εἴ (= ἤ) see 7. εἰ, 1.6, 113 Il. 40; IV Α.1. 14; VA.

VIII, ο ος. XIB? i XVIII. ii. 9ο. εἰσηγέομαι, IV C. οἱ (?). εἰσκαλέω, III. iii. 10; TV C. 11. εἴσοδος, XIII. 2. εἶτα, VII A. 22 (?).

3;

ἐκ, IV A. 11. 8, 113; VII A. 72; VII

πο (= Ισ Β.Π) ασ «Ην. 25 (?); XVIII. ii. 15, 27; XIX. 10 (?). εἰκός, IX A. iii. 25.

B. 733 TX Al. 4, vi. 213 ΙΒ. η: 2; XVI. 1 (?), 6. ἕκαστος, IV C. 24; VII A. 52; VIII. 17 (= ἑκάτερος). ἑκατόνταρχος, XVIII. i. 5, 31 (2), 32 (?). ἐκβάλλω, IX A. iii. 3 f. (?). *éxBaoditw, VII A. 541. ἐκβοάω, VIII. 54 f. ἐκδικέω, V A. 17, 33 f.; XVIII. ii. 29 (ἐγδ-). ἐκεῖ, IX A. i. 15 (2). ἐκεῖθεν, III. ii. 4; V A. 31 (= ἐκεῖ).

εἴκοσι, IV A. ii. 6; VA. 8.

ἐκεῖνος, III. iii. 7; IV B. οι: V A.

εἰκοστός, VII A. 98 f. (?).

39, 49ἐκπορεύομαι, I. 13. ἐλαττόω, I. 5 (-σσ-) ἐλάττων, VII A. 45. ἔλεγξις, VII Β. 43. ἐλέγχω, X. 39. ἐλευθερίως, II. 42 (?). ἐμαυτοῦ, ΠΠ. 53; ΧΙ B. iv. 15. ἐμός, IV A. ii. 17; IV B. 50; VI. 5; Χ. 41. ἐμπειρία, VII A. 145. ἐμπίπτω, III. iv. 21 (?). ev, II. 26; IV A. ii. 9; IV B. 47; VII A. 57, 77, 87, 101, 106, 110, 1303 VII B. 40; VIII. 3; IX A. iv. 3,

33) 37, 47, 49; VII B. 47; IX A.

εἰκών, XVIII. i. 6, 7, 8

εἰμί, I. 143 II. 41, 443 III. ii. 5, 31, 35; IV A. i. 7, ii. 8, 9, 15, iii. 8, 95 IV B. 10, 20; IV C. 25, 27; VA.

37; 90, 75) 11,

VI. 10; VII A. 8, 37 (?), 88, 131; VII B. 7, 39, 51; VIII. 48, 773 IX A. iii. 15, 18, 23, vi. 7, 22, vii. 11, viii. 20 (?); IX B.

73 Χ. 5 6, 17, 33;58; ΧΙ A. il. 75 ΧΙ B. 1. 12, ii. 10, v. 5; XVIII. i. 7, 14, ii. 18; XTX. το.

εἶμι, IT. 42. εἶπον, I. 2, 21; II. 43; III. i. 11, 16, li. 1, 10, 33, 1. 20, 21; IV B. 12, 31, 38, 50; V A. 26; VIII. 35, 41,

43, 45, 46; IX A. i. ο, vi. 5; XI Ali, 12)(?), 11.16, θά

πἹΡδαι

Q, li. 3, 15, iv. 33 XIV. 24; XVIII. i. 8, 11 (bis), 12 (bis), 15, 16, 18 (9),

30, ii. 4 (?), 6, 11, 13, 30.

eis, I. 23; IL. 25, 523 III. ii. 4, 16; V A. το, 42; VII A. 30, 107, 126; VII B. 65 (?); VIII. 23 (?), 553 IX A. iii. 8 (= ΙΧ B. 13), vi. 20, Vi 23%. {ας ΙΑ. απ. 4. XI ης XVIII. i. 6; XIX. 9. preg. use, VIII. 54; ΧΙ A. ii. 15. els, V Β. 12; IX Α. vi. το; XIB. iii. 9 (ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος). εἰσέρχομαι, II. 29; III. ii. 14 (9):

i. τσ, το du. 21, Vi. ας Ες

τη κα

B. iii. 3; XVIII. i. 6, ii. το. ἐναντίος, IX A. v. το; XI B. ii. 12. ἐναντίωσις, VII B. 44 (?), 48 (?). ἔναρχος, XIV. 24. évatos, VII A. 38. ἑνδέκατος VII B. 59 f. ἐνδότερος, XVIII. i. 10 (ἐντ-). ἔνειμι, ITT. ii. 32 (Gu?) ;XVIII. i. 8. ἔνθα, XVIII. 1. 7. ἐνιαυτός, I. 15: III. ii. 17.

ἔνιος, VII A. 7; TX B. 16 (?). ἐνίστημι, IX B. 2. eVK-, SCE ἐγκ-. ἐννεακαιδέκατος, VII A. αι. ἐνπ- see ἐμπ-.

INDEX

GREEK

289

ἐντός, w. gen., IT. 28. ἐντότερος, see ἐνδο-. ἐντυγχάνω, VII A. 97. ef, IV A. ii. 7 (δέκα εξ). ἐξαλώμης = ἐκ Σαλώμης, IV A. iii. 11. ἐξαπατάω, VII A. 42. ἐξαριθμέω, II. 58 (?). ἐξαρτάομαι, VII A. 83.

ἔργον, XII. 4. ἐρευνάω, V A. 11 1, (9). ἐρημία, I. 19. «έρχομαι, ΠΠ. ii. 4; XIII. 5. ἐρῶ, IV B. 21 (? εἰρηκέναι). ἔρως, VII A. το.

ἔξειμι, VII A. 73.

ἐσθής, plur., VII A. τοι. ἑστίασις, VII A. 53. ἕτερος, XI A. ii. 4 (= aAdos) ; XVIII.

ἐρωτάω, III. ii. 9: IVA. i. 10; IX A.

iv, 10.

ἐξηγητής, IV A. ii. το. ἑξήκοντα, IX Β. 7 (?).

ies!

ἔξοδος, XIII. 2.

ἔτι, I. 113; VII A. 109; XVIII. ii. 16. ἑτοιμάζω, II. 26 (?). ἔτοιμος, II. 44 (?); VI. το. ἔτος, 1.3; V A. 2, 20 (?); VILA. 32. ed, IX A. vi. 17 (?) ; XVIII. ii. 28. εὐαγής, X. 58 (?). εὐγένεια, XI B. iii. 3 (‘noble insignia’), iv. 15 f., v. 7. εὐγενής, Χ. 56; ΧΙ B. v. 3. εὐεργέσιος, ΙΧ. A. vi. 20. εὐεργέτης, III. iii. 1 (?); V B. το (?),

ἐξουσία, XVIII. i. 28. ἐξυβρίζω, VII A. 81. ἔέω, w. gen., XVIII. i. 7.

ἔέωθεν, V A. 31 (= ἔξω). ἐπάγομαι, IV B. 34. ἐπαρχία, VII A. 22. ἔπαρχος, IV B. 14; IX A. iii. 21. ἐπεί, VII B. 57, 61. ἐπείγω, IX A. vi. 13. ἐπειδάν, VII A. οι. ἐπεξέρχομαι, ΙΧ A. ii. 12 (= IX B.5). ἐπέρχομαι, II. 42. ἐπί, I. 2, 4; III. ii. 18; IV B. 40, 425 IV GC. 32; V A. 1, 24, 45; VILA. 147; VII B. 58; VIII. 72; ΙΧ A. ii. 5, vi. 3; ΧΙ B. iii. 6, 7, iv. 12. ἐπιγιγνώσκω, IX A. viii. 1 f. (?). ἐπίδειξις, WII A. go. ἐπιζάω, III. v. 1. ἐπιζητέω, XVIII. i. 28 (?). ἐπιμέλεια, VII A. 14. ἐπίσταμαι, XI B. ii. 5. ἐπιστάτης, V A. 11 (?). ἐπιστήμη, VII A. 156 (?). ἐπιστολή, III. i. 6 f. (9), iii. 25 {. (?)5 VILA. 11; IX A. vi. 12, 19; X. 26, 28 (?), 6ο. ἐπισφραγίζω, VII A. 17 f. ἐπιτάττω, IV A. iii. 6. ἐπιτήδειος, I. 12. ἐπιτηρητής, VII A. 9ο (?). ἐπιτροπή, VIII. 4 (?). ἐπίτροπος, I. 9. ἔπομαι, VII A. 128 {. (?). ΄ ἑπτά, IV B. 45. ἑπτακαιδεκαετής, VII A. 49, 128. ἐραστής VII A. 62. ἐργαστήριον, XVIII. i. 6, 7. ἐργατεία, XVIII. 1. 14. ἐργολάβος, XVIII. i. 20. 5498

15. εὐθετέω (or εὐθετίζωξ), II. 39. εὔθετος, I. 13 (bis). εὐθύνη, plur., I. 16. ed0us, V A. 34; V B. 8 (?); ΧΙ B. iii. 12.

εὐκαιρέω, V A. 41. εὐκρασία, X. 17. εὐμενέστατα,

adv., VIII.

go.

εὔμορφος, VII A. 79, 109. εὐοκᾶτος (evocatus), 111. ii. 25 (?). εὐπαρόξυντος, V A. 23. εὔπρακτος, XIX. 3 (?). *ednpoodvupos, IX A. vi. 17 {. εὑρίσκω, XVIII. ii. 9. εὐσέβεια, VII A. 141. εὐσεβής, X. 47 (2). εὐσχήμων, V Α. 24 Ff. εὐτελής, VII A. 96. εὐφυής, V A. 22. εὐχαριστέω, V B. 17.

εὐχερής, X. 33-

εὔχομαι, ΙΧ. A. iii. 19 (?).

ἔφηβος, I. 3.

ἐφοράω, IV A. iii. 2. ἔχω, II. 32; III. ii. 10, iti. 353 V A. 21, 29; VII B. 53; IX A. iv. 5, 6, i, 18, vi. 16, 25 f.; X. 18, 38; XI B. i. τος, iii. 4; XII. 4. U

INDEXES

290

(= δύναμαι), IV A. iii. 14; ΧΙ B. i. 10. ἕως, conj., with ἄν, VII A. 4. prep., w. gen., VII B. 59. tdw, V A. 3, 44, 63; XVII. 3 (?). ζημία, III. iv. 34 (?). ζήτημα, XIII. 4. ἤ, disj., I. 7 (bis); 111. ii. 16; TV C. 32; VILA. 43; IX A. iii. 1 (= IX B. 10), 20; X. 67; XI B. iv. 8; XVIII. i. 9, Π. 11. compar., IV A. 11, 14 XII. 8. 9, II. 36 (?); VII A. 66 (?); ΙΧ A. vi. 11 (?). ἠβοκᾶτος (evocatus), XI B. iii. το f. (?). ἡγεμονεύω, IV B. 15 (?). ἡγεμονία, III. v. 6 (?). ἡγεμών, IIIT. v. 5 (?); XVIII. ii. 8; ΧΧΙ. 6. ἡδέως, adv., V A. 22. ἤδη, VIII. 31; ΧΙ Β. iv. 3. ἦθος, V A. 48, 53 (?). ἡμεῖς = ἐγώ, XI B. iii. 1, iv. 10; perh. VII A. 46. ἡμέρα, IV A. ii. 1, 13; VII A. 50, 63, 111; VIII. 25; 1X A. vi. 7, 10, v. 8.

ἡμέτερος (of the Alexandrians), TX A. i. 10, iii, 8 (= IX B. 13); cf. ἡμεῖς, IX A. i. 8. ἡρωϊς (adj., fem. of ἡρωϊκός), V A. 41. ἡσυχάζω,

IV B. 23.

ἡσυχῆ, VII B. 65 (2). ἧττον, IX A. iii. 5 (= ΙΧ B. 12); XVI. 12 (-σσ-).

θρόνος, V A. 44 (?). θρύπτω, VII A. 8ο. θυραυλέω, VII A. 72. ἴδε, III. 11. 2; IV C. 32; VIII. 43. ἴδιος, VIII. 12, 18; IX B. 14: X. 7, 11. ᾿ἶδιος Adyos, I. 7. ἰδού, II. 33. ἑδρόω, VIII. 52. ἵερον, τό, 11. 59. ἱεροσυλία, XVIII. i. 29. ἱμάτιον, IV B. 37. plur. (‘clothes’), VII A. 96. ἵνα, I. ο: V A. 31, 61; ΧΙ A. ii. 55 XVIII. i. 4, ii. 12. ἱππόδρομος, V B. 10. ἴσος, IV C. 27. -ws, V A. 17. ἵστημι, IV C. 29. ἰσχυρότερος, X. 16 f. κάθηµαι, XI B. iii. 13. καθιζάνω, II. 36 (?). καθίζω, IV A. 1. 16; VII A. 106. καθίστηµι, III. i. 9. xai, ‘emotive’

use, XI A and XI B

passim; perh. VIII. 41. κἀγώ, ΧΙ B.i.4f. κἀμοί, VIII. 41. κάν XIV.

27. καίω, ITI. iii. 25; XVIII. i. 2. κακοποιέω, XIX. 7. κακός, II. 48. καλέω, IV A. 1. 16; VII A. 52; X.

10; XIV. 5. : καλός, I. 17; IV C. 19 (8); VII Β. 52. κατά, w. gen., IV A. ii. 4, 173 V A. 22; VIII.

27; IX A. vi. 24, vii.

θάνατος, IV A. 1. 3, 17; VII A. 13, Vi 18. We ace., Its, 15 seLk: 107 (?); VIII. 40, 82 (9); X. 82 (?). 58 f. (?); IV C. 24; TIX A. vii. 2. καταβαίνω, V A. of. θαυμάζω, VII A. 3; XVII. 12 (?). θεάοµαι, VIII. 52. καταβάλλω, IIT. ii. 6. θέατρον, 111. iii. 13 (?); VII A. 106. καταβαρέω, I. 7. θέλω, IV A. iii. 6 (w. subj.); ΙΧ A. κατακρίνιω, VIL A. 5 f.; IX B.7 (= IX iv. 7; ΧΙ B. iv. 12. A, ii. 24 f. [?].) θεός, IV C. 32; VIII. 18; ΧΧΙ. οι. καταλαμβάνω, III. iii. οἱ f. (?); TV B. (= divus), VIII. 72 (Claudius); | 51; IX A. vi. 3. XI B. ii. 7 (M. Aurelius). of living καταφεύγω, ΙΧ A. iii. 10f. (?). emperors, V Β. 19, 20 (Vespasian?). καταφρονέω, VIII. 40. θεοσεβής, IX A. viii. 17 (?). κατέρχοµαι, 11. 61. θεωρέω, III. i. 8; ΧΙ B. iii. g. κατηγορέω, III. ii. οἱ (2), 31, ν. θλίβω, VII A. 20f. (2). 2f.(?); IV A. ii. 73 VII B. 57; θνήσκω, VIII. 40. Χ. δι (2). θρασυτολµία, X. 34. κατηγορία, ITI. iii. 23.

GREEK κατήγορος, III. i. 10, ii. 27, iti, 24 f.

κατηφής, VII A. g2 f.

κεῖμαι, XVIII. 1. 6. κελεύω, II. 25 f.; III. iii. 24; VII A. 100; VII B. 58 (?); IX A. i. 6, vii. 43 Χ. 6ο. 260 Bis 19 £5 ili, of.: XVIII. i. 9, 27 (?). κεφάλαιον, τό, XVIII. ii. 11 f. (9). κεφαλή, XI B. iii. 6. κῆπος, plur., IV A. ii. 5 (= IV B. 1). κιέω, IX A. ii. 6.

INDEX

σοι

λευκός, VII A. τοι. λήγω, VIII. 22. λῄσταρχος, XI B. iv. 8. λιµήν, XII. 6. λογιώτατος, X. 37. λόγος, I. 7; IV B. 5; VIII. 22; IX A.

vi. 23; XI A. ii. 12. "Ιδιος A. I. 7. λοιδορέω, V A. 43; XVIII. i. 2 (?). λοιπόν (= 75n?), IT. 45. λόφος, VIII. 55 (?). λυπέοµαι, VIII. 42; VII B. 36 (2).

κλαίω, V A. 32. κλέος, XI B. 1. 12.

xowds, VI. 3. κοιτών, VII A. 73. κοιτωνίτης, III. ii. 8; VIL A. 84 f. κολάζω, IX A. iii. 12 f. (?) (= ΙΧ B.

15), 30, 31, Vii. 5 f.

κολακεία, VII B. 42. κόλασις, V A. 36. κόσμος, 111. ii. 35. κοῦφον, τό, VII B. 41. κρατέω, III. v. 2; XI B. ν. 19. κραυγή, VIII. 54. κρίνω, VII A. 154(?); XVI. 16; XVIII. ii. 8. κρίσις, VII A. 135; XIX. 5 (?). κριτήριον, VII A. 127. κρύπτος, II. 26. κυκλαµίς, X. 2. κύριος, II. 48 (?); III. i. 13, ii. 2, 9, 15, 25, 33; 1V A. ii. 10; IV B. 17; EV

ἃᾱ

τος: ν

Ba

τι,

το),

245

VI. 6; VII A. 2, 32, 65; VII B. 46, 74f.(?); IX A. ii. 5, 1. 10, 14, vi. 8; X. 11; XI B. iii. 1, 13

(bis); XV. 1 (?); XX. 9. κωλύω., VII A. 94; XVI. 14. κωστωδία (custodia), 1X A. ii. 8 (= IX B. 3). λαλέω, V A. 27; XI B. i. 9, 10, ii. 4, iv. 12, 12 f.

λαμβάνω, III. iv. 23; VII A. 7, 473 ΧΙ A. ii. feXI B. iii. 5. λαογραφέω,I λέγω, IT. 99: iit. iii. 34; IV A. iii. 6; Ε.Σ, ο ινα 19; VIII. 44, 5ο, 733. IX A. iii. 141. (?); vi. 103 Sade Ot. ie τος 13, v. 13 f.(?); XVIII. ii. 3,6 (?); XIX. 5.

pd, IX A. vi. 9. pabnrys, X. 58 f. (?). µαίνοµαι, XI B. iv. 10 f., 14. µακρόθεν, V A. 30f. μάλιστα, VI. 5. μᾶλλον, ΙΧ A. ii. 16; XII. 8. µανθάνω, VIII.

11, 23; ΙΧ A. il. 1;

XVIII. ii. 12, 27. μαρτύρομαι, VII A. 64. µάρτυς, V A. 15. ματρῶνα (matrona), IV A. ii. 8 (= IV B a) péyas, XVIII. i. 8. μείζων, V A. 59. μέγιστος (of the emperor), VIII. 46. µειράκιον, VII A. 20, 8ο, 109 f., 125. µείς, µηνός, 111. ii. 6. µελετάω, VIII. 49. µέλλω, I. 3; VI. 15; ΙΧ A. vill. 6; XVIII. ii. 28 f. µέμφομαι, V A. 15, 16, 20, 25; VII

A. 116. ee II. 44) ΠΠ. i. 7, ii. 34; IV A.

. 6, iii. 9; V A. 17, 49, 63 (?)5

VII A. 16, 30, 95; VII B. 39; VIII. 17, 73; IX A. ii. 26 (= IX B., θ), πο αν OSI Bove 10 (?); XVIII. ii. 28; XXI. 7. pew, V A. 38. µερίζω, IV A. ii. 12 (= IV B. 8). µέρος, VIII. 55. µέσος, II. 59 (?); VII A. 87; XI B. iii. 8. µετά, w. gen., VII A. 58. w. acc., VII B. 42; VIII. 32, 53; IX A. ii. 6 f. (?), vi. 7, 10. peraBaivw, VII B. 43. µεταδίδωμι, VIII. οι (?). µετακαλέοµαι, X. 61; ΧΙ B. ii. 2f,, lv.

7.

µεταλαμβάνω, VII A. 53.

INDEXES

292 ‘ peravoew, II. 37 f. µεταπέµπω, XI B. iv. 2. µετατάττω, IV A.i. 17. µεταφορά, XII. 5 (?). µέχρι, w. gen., V A. 95.

aA

py, I. 3, 97 ΠΠ. 34, 39, 465 ΠΠ. i. 34; IV A. i. 14; VII B. 47; VIII. 49; XI B. i. 10, 14, ii. 7; XIV. 27-

Poids IV B. 11; IX A. vi. 25; IX B. 9; XVIII. ii. 26. µηδέποτε, II. 51. µηδέπω, VII A. 6. µηκέτι, ΙΧ. A. vi. 7, 11. μήν, VII A. 66, 126 (οὐ μ.). pyre, I. 13 (bis); III. iii. 35 (?); IV B. 41 (bis); V A. 15, 16; ΧΙ B. i. 2. pipos, IX A. i. 7. µισθός, VII A. 47. µισθόω, V A. 37. μολύνω, I. 6.

pdvos, V A. 33, 35; VII A. 45, 59, 74; 1X A. i. 17, vi. 2; XVI. 19.

μουσική, ἡ, IV A. iii. 8, 9. μυριάς, III. 1. 15. µύριοι, III. ii. 5. ναυτικόν, τό, XII. 5. veavias, VII A. 114 (?). νεκρόπολις, XIV. 2 (?). νεκρός, XI A. ii. 13 f. (bis). νέος, II. 41. νεώς, IT. 29. vq, XI B. iv. 13. νήπιος, XIII, 6. νομίζω, IX A. vi. 2 f. νόμος, I, 20; X. 13, 16; XVI. 7 (?). νῦν, IV C. 4; V A. 19; XI B. ii. 4, ν. 9. ενικός, III. iii. 21 (9). ξύλον, IX A. vii. 6.

οἶνος, VII B. 41. olos, IV B. 10; IX A. v. 2 (2). ὀκτώ, III. 1. 15. ὀλίγος, VIII. 53; IX A. ii. 4, 20 f. (1). ὅλος, II. 57 (?); IVA. i. 3; IV C. 23; VB. 10; VIIA. 124. ὁμιλέω, IV B. 3. ὁμιλία, VII A. 76 f. ὄμνυμι, II. 49 f.; IX A. vii. 8 (2). ὁμοιοπαθής, ΤΝ C. 26. ὁμολογέω, VII A. 46. ὅπλον, ΙΧ A. iv. 4; XVII. 6 (?). ὅποι (= ὅπου), VIL A. 131 (6. ποτέ). ὁποῖος, IV A. ii. 15. ὅπως, w. subj., XI A. ii. 2. ὁπωσδήποτε, V A. 24. ὁράω, IT. 43 (?); V A. 36; VII A. 57, 50,745 1. 11,>412,;

13, 17, 30, 32, li. 5, 133 XX. 6 (1).

σήμερον, XVIII. ii. 10. σιγάω, VII A. 41 f. (2). σιωπάω, IX B. 1 (?). σιωπή, V A. 19. σκηνή, LX A. iv. 11, i. 7. σκοπέω, IV C. 25 (?); VILA. 142. ods, I. i. 22, 9; II. 50; IV C. 20; V A. 43 (bis); VII A. 65, 157 (2): IX A. vi. 9; ΧΙ B. iv. 13; XIV. 21. σπεκουλάτωρ (speculator), XI A. ii. 12. σπουδή, VII A. 18 (?). στασιάζω, XVIII. i. 14.

στέφανος, 111. iil. 35. στρατιώτης, IX A. iv. 8 f. (?). στρέφω, XI B. i. 6. στρόφειον (= στρόφιον), XI B. iii. 5. συγγενής, X. 8. συγγιγνώσκω (= cognosco?), IX A. il. 10 (= IX B. 4). συγκάθηµαι, IV A. ii. 5 (= IV B. 1 f.

[?]), 13£ (= IV B. 9).

συγκλητικός, IV A. i. 81. (9), ii. 6 (= IVB. 2), 14 (?); VIII. 26f.; X. 62. σύγκλητος, ἡ, XI B. iv. 8. συκοφαντία, IX A. iii. 8 (?). σύμβολον, VII A. 75. συμβούλιον, IV A. i. 15. συµπαίζω, VII A. 82 f. συµπάρειµι, VII A. 132. συµπλήρης, VII A. 103 f. συµπόσιον, VII A. 57f. συµφέρω, VII A. 44. συνγ-, συνκ-, see συγγ-, συγκ-, and for συνβ-, συνπ-, see συµβ-, συµπ-. ovr, II. 27, 35, 41; VIII. 21; XVII. 6. συναντάω, III. ii. 7.

GREEK

INDEX

295

συνδρομή, VIII. 53. συνεγγράφω, I. 4. συνέδριον, VIII. 42, 47. συνεπινεύω,1Ν A. ii. 13 (= IVB.9[?]). συνεπισχύω, I. 9. συνέρχοµαι, I. 8. συνηγορέω, VIII. 50. συνήγορος, VIII. το, 16. συντρέχω, XI B. iii. 8 f. oxe{v}dialw, IX A. i. ο.

τόκος, II. 60; VII A. 5, 23, 102 (del.), 103. τολµάω, VIII. 36 f. τόλμη, IV C. 32. τόπος, IV A. iii. 15; VI. 12 (?); VII B. 53. τοσοῦτος, III. iii. 5; VII A. τος (?); IX A. vi. 11. τότε, II. 31; ΤΠ. ii. 11 (?); IV A. iii.

σχῆμα, IV B. 47 (?).

XVIII. ii. 25, 30. τραυµατίζω, ΙΧ A. ii. 9. τρέχω, III. iv. 22 (?); XI B. i. 11, iii. 12. τριάκοντα, XVIII. ii. 1. τριβή, VII A. 115. τρίτον, adv., XI B. ii. 11. τριωβολεῖος, IV B. 18. τρόπος, IV C, 26. τυγχάνω, I. 10; V A. 61 (?); VIII.

σῴζω, XI A. ii. 5; ΧΙ B. v. 11 Ε. (?). σώμα, VII A. 150. σωτήρ, III. iii. 1 (?); V B. 12. σωφρονίζω, XI B. iv. 11.

τάλαντον, 11. 57. ταράττω, IV C. 24 (9) (-σσ-). τάττω, VIII. 25. τάφος, IX A. vi. 1. τε, VILA. 1343 VIII. 54; ΧΙ B. iv. 6. τέκνον, II. 38; X. 19 (9); ΧΙ B. i. 11. τελευταῖος, VII A. 16. τελευτάω, III. v. 3 (?); XI B. 1. 12, 14, iv. 5. τελέω, IV C. 15 (2), 27. τελέως, IX A. iii. 9. τέλος, III. ii. 1ο. τέρμα, XIII. 7 (τοῦ βίου τ.). τετραπλοῦς, XI A. ii. 5. τηλικοῦτος, IV A. i. 12; VIII. 70; XVIII. i. 29. τηρέω, 1. 10; VITA. 111. τίθηµι, IX A. v. 3f. (9): XI B. iii. 6, 7. τιµάω, V A. 46. τίµιον, τό, XVI. 13. τις, indef., I. 3, 7, 8, 13 (ter); IV CG. 4; VILA. 2, 143 (?); IX A. iv. 10, 1, 18, iii. 9 (= ΙΧ B. 11)5 Χ. το; XI B. v. 14; perh. XVIII. ii. 11. otiose, ἵνα µή τι, I. 33 ef µή τι, VII A. 47. τίς, interrog., II. 36, perh. 44; III. ii. 9, 15, 28; IV A. iii. 6, 14; IV B. 17, 19; perh. IV GC. 12; VA.

26; VII A. 8, 41, 49 (?), 63, 92,

129; VIII. 45; XI A. ii. 7; ΧΙ B. i. 10, ii. 4, iii, 2, 15, iv. 3; XVIII. ii. 4, 6, perh. 10. τοίνυν, VII A. 441. (?). τοιοῦτος,

III. iii. 26; VII

A. 564.

152; VIII. 36; IX A. i. 11.

53 VA. 15, 39 (?); IX A. i. 23 (0)

35f.; X. 79 (?).

τύπτω, IV B. 24. τυραννία, XI B. ii. 12 f. τύραννος, XI B. ii. 5. τύχη, III. ii. 32; V A. 61 (?). (= genius), VII A. 65; IX A. vi. ο: ΧΙ B. iv. 13 f. ὕβρις, V A. 34. ὑγιαίνω, V B. 11, 19. vids, IV A. iii. το (?), 12(?); VB. 16. ὑμέτερος, XII. 71. ὑπάρχω, I. 5 f. ὑπατικός, IV A. ii. 7 (= IV B.2 f.[?]). ὕπατος, 6, XI B. iii. 15. ὑπέρ, II. 56; III. ii. 29; IV A. i. 5, 65 IV B. 11 (?); VII A. 6; VIII. 10, 16; X. 35; XI B. i. 13, iv. 15. ὑπὲρ πατρίδος (Alexandria), III. ii. 29; IV A. i. 5; XI Β. 1. 19. Ἀὐπεραύστηρος, VII A 93 f. ὑπηρεσία, I. 14. ὑπό, I. 7, το; III. v. 6; VIII. 32; IX A. iii. 7, 11, vii. 6, v. 9. ὑπόθεσις, VII B. 54: Χ. 12. ὑποκαίω, IX A. vii. 7 (?). ὑπόμνημα, XVIII. i. 1, 19, ii. 2. ὑπομνηματισμός, VII A. 16 f.; IX A. iv. 3 (?). ὕστερον. adv., XVIII. ii. 16. ὑφίστημι, XVIII. ii. 30. ὑψηλός, VIII. 55.

INDEXES

296

«φαικάσιον, XI B. iii. 7. φανερός, IX A. vi. 21, vii. 11. φείδοµαι, V A. 47. φεύγω, I. 14; VIII. 55. φημί, I. 2; ΠΠ. ii. 11, 12; IV A. iii. 13; IV C. ο: VII A. 8, 44, 48; IX B. 12; X. 65. φθείρω, V A. 18. Φθονέω (or φθόνος), IX A. ii. 19. Φιλάγαθος, XI B. ii. 11. φιλανθρωπία, X. 18, 43 (3). Φιλάνθρωπον,

τό, XII.

8 (?); XVI.

13 (?). Φιλάργυρος, XI B. ii. 11. φιλέω, XVIII. i. 9 φιλόλογος, VII A. 144 (5): Χ. 40. φίλος, IV A. ii. 18 (= IV B. 19). iii. 4; IV B. 12, 50; X. 63. φίλτατος, XII. 2. φιλόσοφος, XI B. ii. 10. φόρος, IV C. 27, 29. φροντίζω, I. 2; IX A. vi. 2. φυλάττω, V B. 14. φύσις, IV B. 44. χαιρετίζω, VIII. 35. χαίρω, III. ii. 25, 26, 33, iii. 28 (?) VIII. 36. χαλεπός, VIII. 36, 48. χαρίζοµαι, VII A. 56; ΧΙ B. iii. 1. χάρις, III. ii. 343 DX A. ii. 14.

INDEX

χειµών (‘winter’), VIII. 22. χείρ, VIL A. 84; IX A. vi. οι. χειροτονέω, VIII. 13. χλευάζω, IX A. i. 6. χράοµαι, VII A. 150; X. 194. χρεία, XI B. i. 2. χρῆμα, ΠΠ. 26, 44 (8). plur., XIA. ii. 7. χρηστός (of the emperor), XIII. 8. χρόνος, I. 18, 19; V A. 43 (?); VITA. θες κ Α. το. χρυσός, II. 57. χώρα, XI A. ii. 15. χωρίς, w. gen., XVIII. ii. 2. ψεύδοµαι, V A. 45 f.; IX A. iii. 14. ψήφισμα, IX A. vii. 13 (?).

ψυχή, V A. 41. ὦ, ΧΙ A. ii. 14. wpa, VII B. 59.

patos, VII A. 108 (2). ds, VII B. 40(?); VIII. 35; ΙΧ Α.Ι. ο, στη sO (— oe Dede) ae 6, 10, 13; ΧΙ B. v. 3. ὥσπερ, > 35ὥστε, III. iii. 23; VILA. 81 (w. infin. 2,

89, 135; VIII. 41 (9): ΙΧ A. iii. = EX Ἡ. στ]. ὠφέλεια, VII B. 62 (?). ὠφελέω, XIX. 6.

L_ (‘year’), III. ii. 23.

C: INDEX TO THE GOMMENTARY AND APPENDIXES

Acts of the Apostles, 169, 174, 189, 217. Agrippa I, M. Julius, 111, 126 ff, 248 f. Agrippa II, M. Julius, 119, 124 ff, 137, 170, 256. Alexander the Great, 85, 135, 163, 192, 199, 230, 232, 237f. Alexander-Roman, 101, 223. Alexandria: Boule (Senate), 83 ff, 110, 199, 275 ff. Caesareum, church of the, 245. citizenship, 89, 108, 254. f.; see also Jewish citizenship, civitas Romana. clubs, 97, 102, 130, 231, 273 f.

Alexandria (cont.): gerousia, 95, 100 f., 106 Π., 194, 273,

277. gymnasiarchy, 121, 125, 153, 156f., 216, 273.

gymnasium, 160, 274. harbour, 102, 222 f.; see also ships. Jewish gerousia, 108. Jewish Quarters, 185 f. Jews at, 90, 94.f., 96f., 100, 108, 112, 116, 138 f., 156, 162 Π., 260, 263 f.

liturgies, 91, 125. Museum, 103, 159, 201, 276; see also political parties, ‘Scholars of the Museum’.

INDEX

TO

Alexandria (cont.): political factions

COMMENTARY at, see political

parties.

Posidium, 138. prison, 190. senators at Rome, 86, 277.

Serapeum,

93f., 998, 183, 243,

2453 see also Serapis.

synagogues, 246.

temple of Mithras, 245. temple of Nemesis, 183. theatre, 116, 167. anti-Roman propaganda, 128 f., 256 ff., 275 ff. anti-Semitism,

129,

166f.,

168 ff,

185 f., 256 Π., 263 f., 274, 276. Antisthenes, 146, 218. Antoninus 269.

Pius, emperor,

132, 206,

Apollonius of Tyana, 242. aretology, 163, 274. Aristotle, 148, 237.

AND

APPENDIXES

297

114, 120f., 125 f., 129, 136f., 149, 169, 202 f., 218, 226, 256, 272. Clement of Alexandria, 100, 244. Cleopatra VII, 84, 220, 244, 256. commentaritenses, 252. commentarit, 21'7, 249 Π., 259 ff., 274. Commodus, emperor, 132, 206 ff. consilium, imperial, 133, 168 ff., 176, 202 ff. costume, Greek, 137, 199, 216, 254. Chrysippus, 215, 237. Cynics, 128, 142, 143 ff., 147, 164, 237, 267 ff.; see also Antisthenes, Dio Chrysostom, Diogenes, Lucian, Oenomaus, Peregrinus. Cyril of Alexandria, St., 245 f. damnatio memoriae, 113, 152 f. Dio Chrysostom, 135, 165 ff., 271. Diogenes of Sinope, 135, 269 f. Domitian, emperor, 171 f., 240 ff.,

271.

Aristotelian clubs at Alexandria, 231,

273.

‘atheism’, charge of, 177. Athens, 89, 132, 178, 196 f., τοῦ f.

Augustine, St., 239, 244, 245, 258. Augustus, emperor, 84, 90, 115, 132, 202, 226. Avidius Cassius, 207 ff.

embassies, reports on, 87, 249, 275. Entmythologisierung in the Acta, 260. ephebate, 89 f., 155, 160. Epictetus, 237, 239. equuleus, 193; see also torture. exemplum, 243 ff. Favorinus, 215, 242.

Balbillus, problem of, 190 f. Barlaam and Foasaph, 236.

‘feminist’? interest in the Acta, 118 f., 128 f., 162, 256.

Bell, H. I., theory of the Acta, 106,

fibre-alignment of papyri, 115. τοις Alexandrinus, 143; Tudaicus, ΕΕ Flavius Clemens and Domitilla, 171. Formgeschichte in the Acta, 260 ff. Freudian interpretation, 236 f., 269.

186, 265. Bion of Borysthenes, 239. Bollandists on the Acta, 261, 265.

burial customs, 190 f., 214.

98,

calumnia, 107, 112, 114, 125. Caracalla, emperor, 86, 132, 193, 2209 ff. catacombs: Christian, 171; Jewish, 174. Christians, 112 f., 139, 169 Π., 171 Π.,

gardens, imperial, 120, 123. Gospels, parallels and citations from

193, 218f., 236, 243 Π., 252, 260 Π.,

the, 129, 135, 158, 175, 190, 213,

Gaius (Caligula), emperor, 107 ff., 136, 169, 203. Gallienus, emperor,

95, 98,

198 f.

269; persecution of, 112, 169 ff., 193, 262; martyr-Acts, 176, 193, 918 f., 252, 260 ff. Chrysostom, St. John, 245.

248. Gothofredus, Dionysius, 107 f. grain-supply, Egyptian, 207,

civitas Romana, 89, 168 f., 276, 277. Claudius, emperor, 83, 85 ff., 98 f.,

Greeks in Egypt, 107. Gymnosophists, 237, 244.

212 f.; see also navicularii, ships.

210,

INDEXES

298

‘ Hadrian, emperor, 132, 154, 181 Π., 196 Π., 202 f., 222, 241, 248, 271.

Helvidius Priscus and his circle, 241 f. Hermias of Atarneus, 148, 237; see also Aristotle. Hermippus of Smyrna, 237 f. Herod the Great, the family of, 126 ff. honestiores and humiliores in Roman law, 112 f., 193, 219.

Horace on the vir bonus et sapiens, 239. Hypatia of Alexandria, 245 f. images, attitude of Ancients towards, 164, 174. f., 270. Imperial Bodyguard, 203, 213. — Chancery, 197, 202 ff. Jewish citizenship at Alexandria, 109. — martyrs, 238 f.; see also Maccabees.

— payment of poll-tax at Alexandria, 199 f. — rising, 133, 181 ff., 274. — Scriptures, 174 f. Jews at Rome,

148, 168 ff.; see also

catacombs. Josephus, 120 4., 124, 128, 169.

Justin Martyr, 245. Juvenal, 158, 214. ‘king-mime’, mime.

258, 269f.;

novel, the Hellenistic, 100, 136, 178,

252 Π., 257, 263. Oenomaus of Gadara, 271. ‘Olympian Caesar’, 132 f. papyrus-trade, 207, 212. patriotism (‘love of native-city’), 144,

101, 215, 253, 255, 2575; see also Lucian, De patria. Peregrinus Proteus, 244, 269, 271. Philo Judaeus,

111 f., 122, 159, 206,

237, 259Philostratus the Elder, 242. Plato, 190, 237, 245. Pliny the Younger, 240 ff. political parties at Alexandria,

94,

97 f., 132, 144, 172, 201, 219, 275 ff.

anew 99, 139 f. oseidon, 138.

Potter’s Oracle, The (PSI 982), 164, 177, 182. Premerstein, A. von, theory of the ΄ Acta, 106 Π., 264 ff. progymnastic writers (Hermogenes, Theon, Aphthonius), 103, 136, 157,

184, 189, 248; see also

Lex Iulia maiestatis, 113. [Longinus], 215. Lucian,

Nerva, emperor, 114, 171, 241. ‘Nerva’, as nomen of Trajan or Hadrian, 197.

De patria,

178, 187, 200, 215, 239, 249, 254-

γνώµη, 136, 254; ἐγκώμιον, 200, 206; ἔκφρασις, 178, 254; θέσις, 200; παράδειγµα, 220 (see also exemplum) ;

σύγκρισις, 215; ψόγος, 157. 191,

215; see also patriotism. Lydus, Joannes, on miracles, 163. Maccabees, martyrs of the, 238 f. maiestas, 113 f., 125, 147, 153, 1935 209, 218; see also Lex Iulia,

Marcus Aurelius, emperor, 154, 206f., 214, 216, 242. mime at Alexandria, 184, 189, 247 ff. Momigliano, A., theories of the Acta,

QI, 125, 258, 263. navicularii, 212; see also ships. Neopythagoreans on Kingship, 200,

272. Nero, emperor, 112f., 114, 141 Π., 144, 149, 158, 162, 169 f., 257.

Ptolemies, 85, 90, 100, 220.

Quintilian, 214. relegatio, 153, 241. Roman fora, 178, 213 f., 216. — gymnasium under Nero, 141. — legions in Egypt, 187 f., 250. — Senate, 133, 201, 218. Rostovtzeff,

M., theory of the. Acta,

137, 145, 267 ff. St. Paul, Epistles of, 175, 201, 244; so-called correspondence with Seneca, 170. ‘Scholars of the Museum’ (φιλόλογοι), 173, 201, 211 f., 215, 234, 274, 276. Scriptores historiae Augustae, 198, 207 f.

INDEX

TO

COMMENTARY

Seneca, 149, 242 f., 245; see St. Paul. Septimius Severus, emperor, 85, 199,

277.

Serapis, 93, 99 f., 163 f., 174 {., 253,

255, 271; see also Alexandria: Serapeum; aretology. ships and voyages, 175, 210, 212, 233. Socrates, 237, 245. Stoics and Stoicism, 159, 197, 237, 239, 261 Π., 271; see also Chrysippus, Epictetus, Helvidius Priscus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca.

Stuprum, 153, 156. suicide, 106, 136, 146, 237, 244. Tacitus, 99, 142 f., 240, 258. Tertullian, 243 f.

AND

APPENDIXES

299 Theophilus of Alexandria, 245 f. Tiberius, emperor, 83, 86, 107 ff, 125, 134, 169, 202 f. Tiberius Gemellus, 106, 115. Titus, emperor, 114, 127f., 143, 146 ὃς 228, 256. torture, 112, 193, 253f.; see also equuleus. Trajan, emperor, 162 ff., 196 Π., 241. “two milieus’, theory of the, 262.

Vespasian, emperor, 114, 127, 141 f.,

239 f., 257. Wilcken, U., theory of the Acta, 257, 260 f., 266.

wine in jars, metaphor of, 159.

PRINTED GREAT

IN

BRITAIN

AT THE UNIVERSITY

PRESS

OXFORD BY CHARLES

BATEY

PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY