The great battles of the Corinthian War admirably served the Persian king's purposes. Those Greek states opposed to Sparta had won some of the big encounters but not the war. In the process all of Greece weakened and distracted itself. Nonetheless, Thebes had re-established its authority in most of Boeotia, and Athens threatened to rebuild its fifth-century empire. The astute Spartan Antalcidas realized that some sort of victory remained possible only when his countrymen abandoned their anti-Persian policy. With Spartan blessing and indeed encouragement he arranged with King Artaxerxes a solution that for them both promised a satisfactory end of the war. In 386 the King sent his satrap Tiribazus to present the Greeks with his peace demands. The Spartans duly summoned all of the belligerents to send delegates to Sparta to hear and ratify the document. The number and identities of the Greek embassies that thereby convened are unknown. Yet in addition to those of the major powers, many other Greek states had good reason to participate not only because to some extent all had become involved in the nine-year conflict but also because the entire outcome would affect them all. Territorial disputes would surely arise, and no significant party would wish to remain voiceless in an assembly intended to resolve these matters.

When Agesilaus as king, not Antalcidas despite his diplomatic success, convened the session at Sparta, Tiribazus presented the King's seal and read his message.

INTRODUCTION

The term Acta Alexandrinorum has been extended to cover a wide range of ‘documentary’ and ‘literary’ texts which concern the politics of Alexandria under Roman rule. Among these writings are a core group which conform to the definition of the Acta Alexandrinorum proper given in chapter 1: capital trials of Alexandrians citizens in the imperial court reported in the form of minutes. I refer to the other similar literary forms as Acta related literature. The Acta Alexandrinorum proper and Acta related literature range from apparently verbatim copies of documents through historical writings to literary compositions similar to novels.

In this chapter I will list, survey and discuss the Acta Alexandrinorum and Acta related literature. I have divided the texts into categories for ease of discussion, although some texts could legitimately be placed into more than one of these. I begin at what should be the ‘documentary’ end of the spectrum of these writings, examining copies of official documents, ‘documents’ and ‘literature’ inspired by imperial visits to Alexandria, and reports of Alexandrian embassies to Rome. I end at the ‘opposite’ end of the spectrum with the three types of trial scenes commonly associated with this literature: the ‘trials’ of prefects and the trials of Alexandrians set firstly in Alexandria and secondly in Rome. This latter group includes the Acta Alexandrinorum proper.

THE ACTA ALEXANDRINORUM PROPER AND ACTA RELATED LITERATURE

The vast majority of the many thousands of papyri that have been recovered from ancient Egypt are documents, but roughly a tenth are literary and ‘sub-literary’ texts. Some of these contain works which had survived anyway, such as those of Homer and Thucydides, but others have yielded lost pieces of ancient literature, e.g. Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. Among this latter group are a series of texts that have become known as the Acta Alexandrinorum or the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs.

The Acta Alexandrinorum tell the stories of the heroic deaths of Alexandrian Greek nobles. The favoured form of these stories is a record of their trial scene in the imperial court, usually presented as the official minutes (acta), with only a small amount of narrative. The Acta Alexandrinorum recycle the same archetypal story where a group of Alexandrian ambassadors travel to Rome and, on arrival, face a hostile emperor who has allied himself with their enemies, usually the Jewish community resident in Alexandria. A bitter exchange of words follows between the emperor and the Alexandrians, who bravely defy the emperor on behalf of their beloved fatherland, and scornfully attribute his hostility towards them to his lack of high birth and culture. The stories usually end with at least some of the Alexandrians being led away to execution, recalling as they depart the long and glorious line of Alexandrians who have died before them in a similar fashion.

The status held by the Alexandrian Jews, the primary cause of the violence between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria, was a contentious issue in antiquity and remains controversial among modern scholars. A major problem is that the full details about Augustus' settlement of Egypt have not survived. Augustus imposed a social hierarchy in Egypt with political, administrative, fiscal and legal privileges for the highest social classes. Roman citizens and the citizens of the Greek cities in Egypt (Alexandria, Ptolemais, Naucratis and later Antinoopolis) topped this social hierarchy, and enjoyed numerous privileges, including exemption from the poll tax. The residents of the nome capitals, the metropolites, paid a slightly reduced rate of poll tax, but the inhabitants of the chora, classed simply as ‘Egyptians’, formed the lowest freeborn status group. The Jews in the chora were also legally classed as ‘Egyptians’. How the large Jewish community at Alexandria, around a fifth to a third of the population according to modern estimates, fitted into this civic stratification is unclear.

The ancient evidence is polemical. Jewish writers, such as Philo and Josephus, speak in terms which would imply that the Jews enjoyed Alexandrian citizenship and were therefore among the highest social group in the province. The Greek writers, such as Apion, Chaeremon and the authors of the Acta Alexandrinorum, vehemently deny this claim, and instead equate the Jews to the ‘Egyptians’, i.e. the lowest social group in the province. The ‘documentary’ evidence does little to illuminate the situation.

Musurillo pioneered the view that the Acta Alexandrinorum were political in character, the literary expression of a discontented Alexandrian elite, who wrote pamphlets to stir up opposition and anti-Roman feeling in Alexandria, ‘campaigning’, as it were, for the restoration of the Alexandrian boule. Although basing their stories on the official minutes of historical trials in the imperial court, the writers of the Acta Alexandrinorum twisted these records for their propagandist purposes, producing a unique literary phenomenon.

Through examining the individual stories and placing the literature into its wider literary context, I have argued for a different interpretation of the Acta Alexandrinorum. I began my study by clearly differentiating between the Acta Alexandrinorum proper and the literature related to them. I have argued that the Acta Alexandrinorum proper and the Acta related literature belong to a spectrum of writings about the politics of Alexandria under Roman rule. These writings ranged from ‘copied’ documents and historical writings to almost novelistic literary compositions. While many pieces of the Acta related literature belong nearer the former end of this spectrum, the Acta Alexandrinorum proper belong at the latter end. However, as I noted during my review of the texts, many pieces of the Acta related literature share common literary themes with the Acta Alexandrinorum proper. Indeed, the characterisation of the brave Alexandrian ambassadors who prosecute Roman prefects on behalf of their fatherland is often similar to that of those Alexandrians who face Jewish embassies in the imperial court.

For the sake of completeness, I append the following survey of the dubia vel incerta, fragmentary texts which either may belong to the Acta Alexandrinorum literature because they use the same ideas, terminology and format found in other examples of the literature, or do belong but provide no dramatic context. The dubia vel incerta add little to our knowledge of the literature, but are further evidence for how widespread and popular this literature was in Roman Egypt.

1. P.Aberd. 117 is a small scrap (2 × 2.8, 6.7 × 2.9 cm) from the Fayum and is written in a hand of the early first century ad. It mentions a ‘war’, using the term polemos, which is used elsewhere in the literature to describe the violence between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria. The accusative plural ‘you’ suggests direct speech, and that the text may have taken the form of a dialogue.

2. Acta xx, a small fragment (4.8 × 4.5 cm) from the late second–early third century ad, uses terminology found in examples of the Acta Alexandrinorum literature. It mentions the ‘emperor and lord’ (l. 3) and ‘the emperors’ (sebastoi), perhaps a reference to a policy followed by previous emperors or an indication that this text reports events from a joint reign. The characters Hime[rus(?)] (l. 2) and Archias (l. 5) are not known elsewhere in the literature but may be Jewish and Greek ambassadors.

In this chapter I will examine the historical background to the Acta Alexandrinorum literature. I will initially explore the origins of the literature by looking at the possibility that documents, such as trial minutes, were among the sources used by its writers, who I will suggest may have been Alexandrian Greek ambassadors. I will then focus on the extent to which the Acta Alexandrinorum should be considered dissident literature by looking at the readership of the stories and comparing them with known literary expressions of dissent from Roman Egypt, such as mimes and oracles. I will propose that the Acta Alexandrinorum may not have been a unique Alexandrian phenomenon by looking at similar literary production from other Greek centres which had close links to Alexandria. I will end by challenging the view that events in Alexandria under the Severans led to a surge in popularity of the stories and their subsequent decline.

THE SOURCES OF THE ACTA ALEXANDRINORUM LITERATURE

Justin and Tertullian, two second-century ad Christian writers, refer to a document called the Acta Pilati, a copy of the minutes taken at the trial of Jesus, which Pilate allegedly subsequently sent to Tiberius in Rome. The historicity of this story and the existence of such a document is questionable. Nonetheless, these writers assumed that minutes of the trial (acta) would have been recorded and that a copy of the document would have been stored among the emperor's papers (the imperial commentarii) in Rome, where it could be accessed.

CONTEMPORARY TRIAL LITERATURE

Tales of brave men resisting tyrants feature prominently in the literature of the Principate. In particular there are numerous accounts of men suffering punishments, ranging from torture and death to exile, at the hands of the emperor. Many of these stories contain the elements present in the Acta Alexandrinorum stories: the brave hero is taken before a tyrant; the trial; the threats of death; courageous resistance to the tyrant; torture; execution. I hope to shed light on the character of the Acta Alexandrinorum stories by comparing them with the trial scenes found in the contemporary literature of Rome and its empire, such as the accounts of the trial of Socrates, the narratives of Stoic opposition to Roman emperors, the tales of Greek philosophers confronting Roman rulers, Hellenistic and Rabbinical texts on Jewish figures who stood up to oppressors, the stories of Jesus' trial, and the acts of the Christian martyrs. These texts are recognised as dissident literature and have, as I will argue, numerous similarities with the Acta Alexandrinorum stories. I will also examine the links between the Acta Alexandrinorum literature and the biographies, treatises and novels of the Second Sophistic, and discuss the extent to which these connections set it apart from resistance or dissident literature of the Roman Empire.

The term ‘martyr’ refers to a person who dies an heroic death, preferring to die rather than comply with the demands of the authorities, usually represented by a tyrant figure.

The texts are listed in the order followed by the BL rather than the Checklist, as the Checklist lists corpora (e.g. CPJ) separately. I have listed the measurements of the papyrus, the style of writing and other peculiarities of the text, the date, the provenance, details of other editions and of plates or photographs. I have chosen to designate the texts by either their most comprehensive or most recent papyrological edition. I have only included BL references that offer new readings or textual suggestions to the designated edition. The texts are dated by the style of their handwriting, as given by the editors. I have listed separate fragments that form part of the same text under the same entry.

P.ABERD. 117

The papyrus is 2 × 2.8 cm and 6.7 × 2.9 cm and is written in a ‘calligraphic hand’ according to the editio princeps.

1. Date: First century ad.

2. Provenance: Unknown.

3. Text: Published in 1939 as P.Aberd. 117. Pack2 2784.

4. Plate: P.Aberd. plate 3.

ACTA XX

The papyrus is 4.8 × 4.5 cm. It is written in a round, oval, semi-literary hand on the verso of an early second-century document. Only six lines from the middle of a column of writing are preserved.

1. Date: Late second century ad.

2. Provenance: Unknown, but the editors of P.Harr. ii state that most of the papyri from the Rendel Harris collection come from Oxyrhynchus.

3. Text: Musurillo published the fragment as APM and Actaxx, designating the text as P. Rendel Harris ined.

INTRODUCTION

The historical events of ad 38–41 feature prominently in the surviving Acta Alexandrinorum stories. In ad 38 there was violent rioting in Alexandria between the Greeks and Jews of the city. In the aftermath of this disturbance both sides sent embassies to Rome charged with persuading Gaius Caesar to give a ruling on the issues lying behind the dispute which was favourable to themselves and detrimental to their opponents. The Alexandrian Greeks entertained great expectations of success. Gaius was well disposed towards them and showed great respect for his great-grandfather Mark Antony, whom they had supported in the civil wars of 31–30 bc. Gaius' father Germanicus had enjoyed a rapturous reception from the Greeks when he visited the city in ad 19. Several of Gaius' influential advisers were Alexandrian Greeks themselves and were sympathetic towards their embassy. Gaius stressed his love for the city and his desire to visit it. Moreover Gaius adopted several policies later in his reign that were damaging to the Jews in the empire.

However, the Alexandrian Greek embassy was not successful. Gaius was assassinated on 24 January ad 41 apparently before he could deliver a written ruling. Both sides dispatched further embassies to congratulate his successor Claudius on his accession and to obtain a decision on the unresolved matters. Again the Alexandrian Greeks had high hopes of persuading an emperor who was Mark Antony's grandson and Germanicus' brother to support them.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia? nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palati, nihil urbis uigiliae, nihil timor populi, nihil concursus bonorum omnium, nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus, nihil horum ora uultusque mouerunt? patere tua consilia non sentis, constrictam iam horum omnium scientia teneri coniurationem tuam non uides? quid proxima, quid superiore nocte egeris, ubi fueris, quos conuocaueris, quid consili ceperis quem nostrum ignorare arbitraris? o tempora, o mores! senatus haec intellegit, consul uidet; hic tamen uiuit. uiuit? immo uero etiam in senatum uenit, fit publici consili particeps, notat et designat oculis ad caedem unum quemque nostrum, nos autem fortes uiri satis facere rei publicae uidemur, si istius furorem ac tela uitemus. ad mortem te, Catilina, duci iussu consulis iam pridem oportebat, in te conferri pestem istam quam tu in nos omnes iam diu machinaris.

An uero uir amplissimus, P. Scipio, pontifex maximus, Ti. Gracchum mediocriter labefactantem statum rei publicae priuatus interfecit, Catilinam orbem terrae caede atque incendiis uastare cupientem nos consules perferemus? nam illa nimis antiqua praetereo, quod C. Serui-lius Ahala Sp. Maelium nouis rebus studentem manu sua occidit. fuit, fuit ista quondam in hac re publica uirtus ut uiri fortes acrioribus suppliciis ciuem perniciosum quam acerbissimum hostem coercerent. habemus senatus consultum in te, Catilina, uehemens et graue; non deest rei publicae consilium neque auctoritas huius ordinis; nos, nos, dico aperte, consules desumus.

Tandem aliquando, Quirites, L. Catilinam furentem audacia, scelus anhelantem, pestem patriae nefarie molientem, uobis atque huic urbi ferro flammaque minitantem ex urbe uel eiecimus uel emisimus uel ipsum egredientem uerbis prosecuti sumus. abiit, excessit, euasit, erupit. nulla iam pernicies a monstro illo atque prodigio moenibus ipsis intra moenia comparabitur. atque hunc quidem unum huius belli domestici ducem sine controuersia uicimus. non enim iam inter latera nostra sica illa uersabitur; non in campo, non in foro, non in curia, non denique intra domesticos parietes pertimescemus. loco ille motus est, cum est ex urbe depulsus. palam iam cum hoste nullo impediente 10bellum iustum geremus. sine dubio perdidimus hominem magnificeque uicimus, cum illum ex occultis insidiis in apertum latrocinium coniecimus. quod uero non cruentum mucronem ut uoluit extulit, quod uiuis nobis egressus est, quod ei ferrum e manibus extorsimus, quod incolumes ciues, quod stantem urbem reliquit, quanto tandem illum maerore esse afflictum et profligatum putatis? iacet ille nunc prostratus, Quirites, et se perculsum atque abiectum esse sentit et retorquet oculos profecto saepe ad hanc urbem quam e suis faucibus ereptam esse luget. quae quidem mihi laetari uidetur, quod tantam pestem euomuerit forasque proiecerit.

CATILINARIAN

Following a visit by assassins to his house on the pretext of the morning salutatio, C., as consul, summoned a meeting of the senate to the temple of Jupiter Stator that same day (8 or possibly 7 November; cf. appendix 2). The speech for this occasion was written up and published (cf. the Introduction section 4) and is known as the First Catilinarian. It has as its subject not a bill proposed for enactment but rather Catiline himself and his future.

C. was evidently launched on a narrative of the frustrated assassination attempt (cf. 2.12.5–7 hesterno die, Quirites, cum domi meae paene interfectus essem, senatum in aedem Iouis Statoris conuocaui, rem omnem ad patres conscriptos detuli) when Catiline entered the chamber; our speech responds to Catiline's arrival; cf. Stroh (2000) 70. This scenario will account for the focus on Catiline as principal addressee of the speech, the other senators' shunning of Catiline, and the fact that the speech contains only two brief references to the attempted assassination (§§9.11–13 and 32.3).

C. described the effect of the speech this way: L. Catilinam … ex urbe uel (1) eiecimus uel (2) emisimus uel (3) ipsum egredientem uerbis prosecuti sumus (Cat. 2.1.1–4; see ad loc.).