Egypt and Egyptians had a very bad reputation in imperial Rome. Tacitus (Hist. 1.11) spoke of Egypt as ‘‘a province which is difficult to access, productive of great harvests, but given to civil strife and sudden disturbances because of the fanaticism and superstition of its inhabitants, ignorant as they are of laws and unacquainted with civil magistrates’’ (tr. Moore, LCL), and Livy (38.17.11) sadly observed that the Macedonian population in Egypt ‘‘degenerated’’ into Egyptians. Josephus, a noble Jew who followed Vespasian and Titus after the fall of Jerusalem of ad 70, attacked his rival, the Alexandrian anti-semite Apion, by saying that ‘‘we refuse to call you all Egyptians, or even collectively men, because you worship and breed with so much care animals that are hostile to humanity’’ (C. Ap. 2.66, transl. Thackeray, LCL) and Juvenal (15.11.13), who went to Egypt as a soldier under Hadrian, tells tales of Egyptian cannibalism in the Thebaid. In the fourth century, the Historia Augusta (Quadriga tyrannorum, 7-8) calls the Egyptians ‘‘fickle, irascible, vain, offensive,’’ and even insinuates that they had sexual intercourse with chickens!
From the political point of view, the whole province of Egypt was infamous for being inclined to revolution. Seneca (Ad Helviam matrem 9) described it as a traitorous province. The city of Alexandria had a reputation for being unstable, a reason, perhaps, why the Alexandrian citizens were not allowed, from Ptolemaic times up to Septimius Severus, to have their own city council. Documents show that on different occasions Alexandrian delegations asked the Roman emperors to restore their boule, but were always unsuccessful (cf. PSI 10.1160, the ‘‘Boule Papyrus’’). The ‘‘terror of Egypt’’ was a strong theme in Roman imperial propaganda, probably determined by the leading role of the country in the exportation of the grain supply to Italy, and, in addition, by the extreme wealth of Alexandria, an international financial and commercial center that linked Egypt to both the Roman West and, through the Red Sea, to India. Whoever managed to gain military control of Egypt, whether a Roman or a foreign leader, would have become a serious threat to the stability of the empire.
After Augustus few emperors bothered to go and visit Egypt. Imperial visits mostly served to regain control of the country, when there were internal squabbles, to resolve problems connected with famines and grain supply, or to seek the support of the troops stationed there. The first member of the imperial family who went to Egypt after Augustus was his nephew Germanicus, who in 19 helped the population during a famine by opening the granaries destined to serve the exportation of corn to Rome. He was applauded by an excited crowd in the hippodrome of Alexandria and was offered divine honors, which he refused in an official edict, preserved on papyrus (SB 1.3924, SelPap 2.211.31ff). An extract from an official collection of imperial receptions (POxy 25.2435 recto) registers, in a lively style, the salutations and cries of the Alexandrian crowd, the words of the Alexandrian chamberlain, and the improvised speech of Germanicus, trying not to be interrupted by the crowd: ‘‘if you really want me to talk to you, be quiet and let me finish.’’ The news did not please Tiberius, who accused Germanicus of breaking the law by entering Egypt without his consent, but he was probably more worried by the possibility that Egypt, with no Prefect at the time, might fall in the hands of the charismatic general (Tacitus Ann. 2.59; Purpura 2002). A new Prefect, Galerius, was sent to Alexandria from Sicily in the record time of one week, and Tiberius reduced the legions garrisoning Egypt from three to two, to prevent insurrections. One year later Germanicus died in Syria, a death which, as Tacitus insinuates, Tiberius had ordered. The following Prefect, Avillius Flaccus (32-3), also prohibited the retention of weapons, for fear of insurrections and raided the houses of the Alexandrian Jews in search of presumed, but non-existing, hidden arms.
During the Prefecture of Flaccus the relationship between Jews and Greeks got worse, and on the occasion of a visit of king Agrippa of Judaea in 38 the Alexandrian Greeks took revenge on he Jews. In 39 both an Alexandrian and a Jewish delegation left Egypt for Rome, where they were received by Caligula. The spokesman of the Greeks was the grammarian Apion, while the Jews were defended by Philo. But the emperor neither gave a full response to the delegations, nor visited Alexandria as he had planned, as he was assassinated in the theatre in January 41. Claudius responded to the Alexandrian delegations in a letter, preserved on papyrus (CPJ2.153) and in Josephus (Ant. 19.380-9), where he promised that the rights of the Jews would be maintained, in the manner prescribed by Augustus and by the Ptolemaic kings before him, and exhorted the Jews to be content with what they had ‘‘in a city not their own.’’ He also warned the Jews not to invite other Jews from overseas and compared this clandestine immigration to a world-wide disease. It is uncertain whether he alluded to the Jewish extremists who might come to Alexandria to fight the street-war against the Greeks, or to the beginning of Christian preaching.
The difficult relationship between Jews and Greeks in Alexandria under Caligula and Claudius is reflected and documented in an exceptionally colorful way in an interesting and enigmatic genre, the Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs or Acta Alexandrinorum preserved in the papyri (Musurillo 1954; Harker 2008). These are fragments of the proceedings of fictitious trials of Alexandrian magistrates before various Roman emperors, from Claudius to the Severans. In these proceedings, which pretend to be documentary reports, but are actually political pamphlets, the Alexandrian magistrates show off their nationalistic and anti-Jewish feelings, which are instrumental to their opposition to Rome. In these works, both the emperors and the senate are constantly accused (in shockingly violent tones) of being philo-Judaic. In one fragment Claudius insults the gymnasiarch: ‘‘Isidorus, you are really the son of an actress,’’ and Isidoros replies: ‘‘I am neither a slave nor the son of an actress, but a gymnasiarch of the glorious city of Alexandria. But you are the cast-off son of the Jewess Salome!’’ (CPJ2.156d; Harker 2008: 42-3).
Neither Claudius nor Nero visited Egypt, although Nero had actually planned a trip to Alexandria, and even banished a friend of his, the Prefect C. Caecina Tuscus, for daring to use the baths that had been built for the expected visit (Suetonius Nero 35.10; Dio 62.18.1). A papyrus letter of Nero addresses a delegation from the capital of the Fayum, Ptolemais Euergetis, which included members of the 6475 katoikic soldiers of that district. The surviving part of the letter starts with the last part of a list of honors that the delegation offered to the emperor, to congratulate him on his accession, which he refused by using a formula (probably introduced by Augustus) for accepting or rejecting honors. The letter and the embassy were probably connected with an official selection of the Greek elites in Egypt, aiming to keep the Greek class separated from the rest of the population (Montevecchi 1970; Hanson 1988: Bussi2008).
From the end of the reign of Nero up to the rise of Vespasian Egypt was governed by Tiberius Julius Alexander, a nephew of Philo, who abandoned Judaism to follow the equestrian career. His edict of 68 is an example of how the Prefect tried to fight the socio-economic problems of such a delicate period at the fall of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (OGIS 2.669; Chalon 1965). Despite Alexander’s long list of reforms, on problems such as the burden of taxes and corvee works imposed on the Egyptian farmers, and despite his claim to report these problems to the new emperor, the edict boils down to the question of cancelling the arrears of taxation and does not introduce radical changes. It emerges that Roman provincial governors proceeded by trial and error rather than by radical reforms, and this conservatism probably mirrors the general trend of the Roman imperial period, while the ‘‘great policyforming debates’’ between the emperor and his advisers, often evoked by modern scholars, probably never took place (Sherwin-White 1966).
The ‘‘year of the four emperors,’’ ad 69, opened people’s eyes to a ‘‘secret of empire’’: the Roman emperor could be elected outside Rome (Tacitus Hist. 1.4). Egypt was at the center of this phenomenon, when Vespasian was acclaimed as the new emperor by the troops in Alexandria, with a little help from Tiberius Julius Alexander. An extract from an official chronicle of imperial receptions (PFouad 8; CPJ 2.418a) describes the arrival of Vespasian in Alexandria and his encounter with the crowd that swarmed into the hippodrome and greeted the emperor as ‘‘savior and benefactor’’ in the Hellenistic fashion, and as ‘‘Son of Ammon’’ and ‘‘Rising Sun’’ in the Egyptian tradition (Montevecchi 1981). Despite the documentary style of this chronicle, that gives an impression of a truthful and immediate account, this text is contradicted by the literary sources, which claim that the Alexandrians insulted and ridiculed Vespasian (Dio 65.8; Suetonius Vesp. 19.2). Even Josephus (Vit. 415-16; Bell. 7.116), who was on the staff of Vespasian at the time, omits to chronicle Vespasian’s visit to Alexandria, perhaps not to embarrass him by showing his past as a rebellious general and usurper. It is likely that Tiberius Julius Alexander, and Vespasian himself, probably supervised and checked whatever piece of news was written in Alexandria. Sometimes, on the other hand, documents help us provide reliable dates. In a private letter (POxy 34.2725) of 29 April 71, a man informs his son or brother in Alexandria that ‘‘the lord Caesar entered the city on 25 April 71 at seven in the morning.’’ The emperor is Titus, returning from Palestine after the conquest of Jerusalem (Suetonius Titus 5, Jos. Bell. 7.116). After the fall of Masada in 73 the Jewish revolt spread in North Africa, especially to Cyrenaica where the rebels could count on a rich and numerous Jewish community. To quell the revolt, Vespasian traveled in person to North Africa and also ordered that the Jewish temple of Leontopolis near Heliopolis in Egypt be shut and then razed to the ground for fear that it could became the center of new Jewish uprisings. Egypt, once again, was one of the most dangerous areas of the empire, and Alexandria the focus of anti-Roman feelings.
In the period between 116 and 117 Egypt was the theatre of a violent revolt of the Jews against the Greeks and the Egyptians, and at the same time against the Roman government. The Graeco-Roman literary sources, for instance Appian of Alexandria, an Egyptian contemporary, tell us the story from the point of view of the winners, while the point of view of the Jews emerges only from one passage in rabbinical literature (Appian, Arabicus Liber fr. 19 = Stern 1980: Vol. 2, 185-6 fr. 348; Bell. Civ. 2.90 = Stern 1980: vol. 2,187 fr. 350. Pucci Ben Zeev 2005). The documentary papyri preserve a lively and effective account of the disasters of the war. Through them we hear the voices of women, who wrote the correspondence personally, as the men were all away from home. Eudaimonis, the mother of the strategos Apollonios, complains that she could not find help in weaving, because of the scarcity of labor available during the war and talks about the damages to the fields and villages, the consequences for trades, and the lack of food supplies that made living even more difficult (CPJ2.438.1-6). She even discarded religion: ‘‘be sure that I shall pay no attention to God until I get my son back safe’’ (CPJ2.442.25-8). Other documents show that the main foodstuffs were scarce. At Oxyrhynchos there was no bread (POxy 12.1454) and at Apollinopolis the price of wine became astronomical (PGiessen 79). When the Jews were defeated in battle the Greeks offered sacrifices to thank the gods (CPJ2.439.8-10), and when the revolt was bloodily repressed Roman forces, annihilating the Jewish presence in Egypt, the Greeks instituted a festival to commemorate the event, which was celebrated for more than 80 years (CPJ2.450.ii.33-35).
When Hadrian came to power in 118, both the empire and Egypt were in deep socio-economic and military crisis, giving rise to his decision to inaugurate a period of peace and reconstruction, which he occupied travelling throughout the empire, from North Britain to Cyrenaica (Birley 1997; Galimberti 2007). In 130 Hadrian visited Egypt, calling at all the main cities during his Nile cruise (Birley 1997: 235-56). The chronicles of Hadrian’s voyage on the Nile, including Yourcenar’s famous Memoirs of Hadrian, are all overshadowed by one main incident: the death of beautiful Antinous, the emperor’s boy-lover, who drowned in the river in mysterious circumstances, perhaps, as was rumored, in a voluntary sacrifice to save the reputation of the emperor. Next to the site of the incident, opposite Hermopolis, Hadrian founded a Greek city called Antinoopolis and instituted the cult of Antinous, which thereafter spread throughout the Mediterranean. At Alexandria Hadrian promoted a massive building program, including new official archives, such as the Hadrianeion, that helped to centralize bureaucracy (Burkhalter 1990), but also temples, fortifications, baths, and palaces, all in the Graeco-Roman style. He also built temples in the traditional Egyptian style (as did Augustus and other emperors before him), and restored many buildings that had been damaged in the Jewish revolt under Trajan (Boatwright 2000; Bowman 1992 and 2000; McKenzie 2007). The provinces needed to be reassured of the grandeur of the Roman empire.
However, the long story of Egyptian insurrections was not over. Under Hadrian’s son Antoninus in 153 new riots broke out in Alexandria, in which the Prefect L. Munatius Felix was killed, and under Marcus Aurelius, in 172, there was a major
Figure 10.1 Relief from the north side of the temple of Khnum, LatopoUs (Esna) showing the emperor Trajan (98-117) in a traditional Pharaonic pose subduing the enemies of Egypt. Courtesy Alan K. Bowman.
Figure 10.2 Trajan’s kiosk at Philai, built in the early second century ad, a watercolor by David Roberts, Sketches in Egypt and Sudan 1846. Courtesy Alan K. Bowman.
Insurrection, the so-called revolt of the boukoloi, (usually translated to ‘‘herdsmen’’), guided by the Egyptian priest Isidoros. Disguised in female clothes, the boukoloi approached a centurion pretending to be their own wives offering gifts, and, after killing him, they sacrificed the body, took an oath on his entrails, and ate them. Isidoros managed to defeat the Romans in battle and had almost conquered Alexandria, when Avidius Cassius, the son of a Prefect of Egypt, sent from Syria, managed to divide the rebels and defeated them in several battles (Dio [Xifilinus] 71.4; HA M. Ant. 21.2; Avid. Cass. 6.7). In 175, however, Avidius Cassius went to Alexandria, and his troops declared him emperor (SB 10.10295; Bowman 1970; Syme 1988). Marcus Aurelius spent the winter in Alexandria quelling the sedition.
The reign of Septimius Severus at the beginning of the third century marked an important turning point in Egyptian history. A petition of some farmers ( PCattaoui 2; SB 1.4284) recalled the visit of Septimius Severus and Caracalla in admiring terms: ‘‘When the most sacred emperors... arose like the sun in Egypt.’’ Once again, the imperial visit was dictated by the need to resolve a crisis. Severus’ reforms are preserved by a large papyrus roll containing 31 brief apokrimata, or ‘‘imperial rescripts,’’ issued by Severus during his three-day stay in Alexandria in 202 (Westermann 1954). The most important change was what modern scholars call ‘‘municipalization,’’ that is, the introduction of city councils or boulai, the Greek equivalent of Roman municipal senates, both in Alexandria and in the capitals of the Egyptian districts. The process affected the administration of the cities, which were now governed by an assembly of liturgical councillors (that is, selected on the basis of their wealth), who were responsible for the collection of taxes (Bowman 1971; Bagnall 1993). In addition, Severus was the first emperor who allowed the Egyptians to enter the Senate of Rome - a revolutionary move that finally canceled one of the most ‘‘racist’’ policies of Augustus. As to religion, Severus was less open-minded. Fearing, perhaps, the increasing power of Christians in Egypt, he suppressed the influential Christian School of Alexandria and made conversions illegal, creating a large number of martyrs (Clement Strom. 2.20; Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 5.26; 6.1).
Severus’ infamous son Caracalla is remembered above all for his Constitutio Antoniniana of 212, an edict that extended Roman citizenship to all the male adult population of the empire, excluding peregrini dediticii (‘‘rebellious’’ freedmen, who were forever debarred from the Roman citizenship), and which is preserved on papyrus (PGiss40; Montevecchi 1988, Lukaszewicz 1994). This provision may have been issued in order to improve the economy by levying the inheritance tax and all the other taxes imposed on Roman citizens, and probably looked less important to contemporaries that it does to us. The change is signalled in the papyri by the sudden and massive presence of people called Aurelius, the name that symbolized Roman citizenship and that was adopted by all before their own individual name. Around 216 Caracalla struck a serious blow at Alexandrian culture by closing the theatres and suppressing the syssitia, the dining rights of the scholars at the Museum. The last emperor of the Severan dynasty, Severus Alexander (222-35), visited Egypt, or at least planned to do so, as a papyrus document informs us, in order - as always - to stop the excessive fiscal and liturgical impositions (Thomas and Clarysse 1977). In fact, as soon as the new council-based system was established in Egypt, a terrible crisis pervaded the country.
An attempt of reform was made by Philip the Arabian (244-9), who aimed to increase the revenue, despite the fact that his procurators proclaimed to be ‘‘lightening the burden of all Egyptians, worn down as they are by the limitless liturgies’’ (POxy 33.2664; Parsons 2007: 172). Egypt had always been the milch-cow, and, when Rome had more need of supply than usual, emperors looked to it. However, in the third century Egypt ‘‘was in no condition for further milking,’’ as the financial crisis of the imperial government aggravated the already difficult internal situation (Parsons 1967: 140). Many documents relating to the town councils of Oxyrhynchos and Hermopolis evoke an atmosphere of crisis (Bowman 1992), and in 247/8 Oxyrhynchos suffered a shortage of food (PErl 18). The new taxation was resisted and population declined. The crisis affected also the middle class and the once privileged categories: around 260 an Oxyrhynchite teacher complains that his salary, when he is so fortunate as to get it, is in sour wine and in grain which has been eaten by worms and asks for a small plot of land in order to be able to carry on his job, (PCollYoutie 60). The conflict between tax collectors and the population was violent and seemed intractable (Youtie 1967; Badian 1972). Failure to collect and deliver all the taxes due could lead to trial, fines, and confiscation of one’s property by the treasury, hence the diffused social discontent which caused revolts and internal squabbles in the villages. The census returns cease after 257/8, and no censuses were taken after the third century. Paradoxically, however, archaeological excavations seem to point to a third-century boom of civic, Roman-style buildings, such as porticoes, processions places, gymnasia, baths, and theatres (Bowman 2000). One explanation for this apparent contradiction is that public works were an area in which the councils were autonomous, and civic pride may have played a role. After the failure of Philip’s reforms, Aurelian and Probus made new efforts. Aurelian hoped to revive agriculture throughout the empire by reorganizing Nile transports, and Probus worked on the system of dykes and canals, but the crisis would not go away (HA Aurelian 47; on transport, see Adams 2007). In 273 Aurelian razed to the ground the Museum to punish the Alexandrians for a revolt, and the scholars either fled the country or sought refuge in the smaller library of the Serapeum. The cultural focus of the ancient Mediterranean had been destroyed, and a new more brutal and militarized age began.
World History
