APPENDIX TO IN FLACCUM
§ 1. Sejanus. According to Eus. Hist. Eccl. ii. 5, Philo related in his “Embassy” that “Sejanus, who had the greatest influence with the Emperor, was zealous to destroy utterly the whole Jewish nation.” In Legatio 160 he says that Sejanus brought charges against the Jews in Rome, the falsity of which was recognized by Tiberius after Sejanus’s fall and execution. Sejanus had invented these calumnies because he knew that the Jews would defend the Emperor against his treason. I have not seen elsewhere any support of these statements.
§ 10. (Tiberius Gemellus.) Gemellus was the son of Drusus, Tiberius’s son who had died in A.D. 23. He was therefore one of the γνήσιοι while his cousin Gaius was the son of Germanicus, Tiberius’s nephew, who had been adopted (θετός) into the Gens Julia. The story of the murder of Gemellus, or, more strictly speaking, his enforced suicide, is told by Philo in Legatio 22–31. Philo is somewhat inaccurate in speaking of him as κοινωνὸς τῆς ἀρχῆς here and in Legatio 23, 28. Tiberius had left his property to the two equally, but had said nothing about the succession to the principate. This, however, might be taken to imply that he wished the two to share the sovereignty, and Gemellus’s partisans, no doubt, claimed that this was his rightful position. Indeed, though Gaius obtained from the senate the cancellation of the will, he according to Philo declared his wish that Gemellus should ultimately be his partner, but that as he was a mere child (he was actually 17 or 18, and only seven years younger than Gaius), he needed to be educated for this and he therefore made him his adopted son.
There seems to be another inaccuracy in the statement that Gaius’s mother, Agrippina, was put to death. She and her son, Nero, had been condemned and exiled in A.D. 33. The statement made by both Tacitus and Suetonius that she starved herself to death seems to be generally accepted, though Tac. Ann. v. 25 suggests that possibly food was refused her.
§ 20. Dionysius. Dionysius is presumed to be identical with the Gaius Julius Dionysius or Dionysius son of Theon, mentioned in the recently discovered letter of Claudius, see the text with translation and commentary in H.$I.$Bell’s Jews and Christians in Egypt, pp. 23 ff. The letter was written in answer to the embassy sent by the Alexandrians, primarily to congratulate Claudius on his accession, but also to present their defence for the recent anti-Jewish disturbances. Dionysius is named among the ambassadors and also the zeal with which he pleaded his case is especially mentioned.Our knowledge of Isidorus and Lampo is not confined to the activities described by Philo, see Introduction, pp. 299 f. They reappear in another interesting document. This is a fragment of what Bell calls the Alexandrian Propagandists’ Literature, known as the “pagan acts of the martyrs.” This fragment probably belongs to some twelve years later. It appears that Isidorus, now gymnasiarch, and Lampo are still the protagonists of the Greek cause. They have brought charges against Agrippa the Second, but have lost their case and are themselves put to death. In this literature the arch-rogues and villains have become the true patriots who with-stand the pernicious influence of the Jews and the tyranny of Rome.
In another fragment, apparently of the same type, described by Box, p. Ivi, Dionysius appears with Isidorus as having an interview with Flaccus, in which they procure from him a permit to leave the country. This does not appear to do more than confirm Philo’s statement that Dionysius was one of Isidorus’s leading supporters.
§ 25. Agrippa. Agrippa the First is a subject of a long biographical notice in Jos. Ant. xviii. 6 and other notices elsewhere, but he is also well known to multitudes, who have never heard of Josephus, from Acts 12. He is the Herod who figures there as persecutor of the early church and dying miserably. A grandson of Herod the Great, his early life was one of extravagance, and when reduced to destitution he had on a visit to Alexandria borrowed a large sum from Philo’s brother, the alabarch Alexander. This visit is mentioned by Philo in § 28, though he discreetly says nothing of the circumstances. At Rome he had made friends with Gaius but got into trouble with Tiberius and was imprisoned. But Gaius on his accession released him and gave him as Philo tells us the territory which Philip had ruled as tetrarch as well as the title of king. Philip, the “best of the Herods,” had died three years before and Tiberius had annexed the tetrarchy to the province of Syria, but under the condition that the revenues should be kept separate, and these presumably fell into Agrippa’s hands. Josephus adds that Gaius gave him at the same time the tetrarchy of Lysanias, and, finally, after Gaius’s death, Claudius gave him also Judea and Samaria, so that he held all the dominions over which his grandfather had ruled. Agrippa’s loyalty to his nation appears again in Legatio 261–332, where Gaius while praising his candour blames him for his complaisance (ἀρέσκεια) to his fellow nationals, thus agreeing with the author of the Acts when he tells us how Agrippa slew James the brother of John with a sword, and because he saw that it pleased (ἀρεστόν ἐστι) the Jews proceeded further to take Peter also.
§ 45. (κατάλυσις.) Up to this point we should think that the overthrow or destruction consisted in the desecration caused by the installation of the images. But in § 53 this is expanded into “Flaccus seizes them without even leaving them their name.” And in Legatio 132 the Alexandrians, thinking that Gaius would approve their action, destroy and burn all the synagogues in which the Jews did not make an effective resistance and installed the images in the others. How are we to reconcile these statements? I should suggest as most probable that Flaccus had merely ostentatiously abstained from interfering when the Alexandrians tried to install the images by force. These attacks resulted in riotous conflicts in which many synagogues actually were destroyed, and the statement quoted above from § 53 merely means that the Jews felt that they had lost their holy houses and considered that Flaccus was ultimately responsible. On the other hand, H.$I.$Bell in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. x. p. 310, takes the statement in § 53 more literally and says that Flaccus forbade the Jews the exercise of their religion, closing the synagogues. See also note on § 54.§ 48. (Footnote a, p. 328.) When I wrote this note I had not sufficiently considered Box’s translation and note. He translates “they have no sacred precincts in which they could set forth their gratitude” and gives as a note “the Jews of the Diaspora had no temples,” i.e. the προσευχαί are not ἱεροὶ περίβολοι, whereas I understand Philo to say that they are holy until they are desecrated. His explanation has the great merit that he gets rid of the difficulty mentioned in my footnote, but it seems to me to raise other difficulties. It is true that the synagogues were not temples, that is to say sacrifices could not be offered in them, but that they were ἱεροὶ περίβολοι is implied by the very fact that they could be desecrated. Box seems also to suggest a distinction between the pagan temples and the synagogues in that inscriptions to benefactors could not be placed in them, and loyalty could only be shown by dedications and emblems in honour of the imperial power. I dare say he may have evidence of this, but it seems rash to assume that the phrase ἐνδιαθήσονται τὸ εὐχάριστον would not apply to dedications and emblems. If it does not, then neither were the Jews deprived of the means of showing their loyalty, for they never had it. I still prefer my view and explain the μόνοι ἀπεστεροῦντο to mean that the Jews were the only people who would be deprived of their places of worship by the introduction of images and thus also be deprived of the means of showing their gratitude. It is badly and obscurely expressed, but so is much in these sections.
§ 54. (The edict.) The purport of this is obscure and I can do little more than record some recent suggestions on the subject. Box, p. xliv, looks upon it as a pronouncement that the Jews would retain only legal rights assured by a competent authority, and that every merely prescriptive right or concession would be withdrawn. Among these were the right to live in other quarters than the one originally granted, and the privilege of being beaten by blades, mentioned in § 78. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius, p. 132, says that the Alexandrians pleaded that the Jews had no right to live in Alexandria at all and that what Flaccus did was to lay down that this right was limited as above. I do not know what evidence he has that the Alexandrians proposed anything so extreme. Both these views imply, I suppose, that when Philo says that the edict deprived the Jews of their political rights in general, it is merely a rhetorical exaggeration.
The fact that the edict was issued a few days after the demand for desecrating the synagogues suggests that the two things are connected. Accordingly Bell in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. x. p. 310, says that Flaccus welcomed the proposal and on the inevitable refusal by the Jews branded them as aliens and intruders. This hint started the pogrom, the blame for which Flaccus cast on the Jews and in consequence closed the synagogues. Box and Balsdon, so far as I can judge, would hold that these two things were separate though practically simultaneous attacks organized by the Alexandrians.
Another possibility, more or less favoured by Bell, in his Jews and Christians, p. 16, is that at the bottom of both, but kept in the background by Philo, is a claim made by the Jews of full citizenship. This may have been formally made by the Jews or formally repudiated by the Alexandrians; if so, the edict is exactly what it stated, a specific answer to a specific question. The Jews are aliens and incomers and, as Claudius worded it some years afterwards, live in a city “which is not their own.” It need not, though it may have added, “but there are certain ancient privileges which they may retain.” In this case, the two things have the very close connexion, that the Alexandrians strengthened their case by bringing out the disloyal refusal of the Jews to give the honours to the Emperor which the true citizens give.
§ 56. Drusilla. The mourning for Drusilla is not the ordinary tribute to the death of a royal person. She was especially beloved by Gaius, who was believed to live incestuously with her, and on her death he proclaimed a iustitium, during which it was a capital crime to laugh, bathe, dine, with parents or wife or children (Suet. Gaius 24).
§ 130. Great expenses of the office. “The gymnasiarch had to maintain and pay the persons who were preparing themselves for the games and contests in the public festivals, to provide them with oil and perhaps with the wrestlers’ dust, also to adorn the gymnasium or the places where the agones took place” (Dict. of Ant.). This is said of Athens, but the statement here and the particular expense of the oil mentioned in De Prov. 46 show that much the same held in Alexandria. Bell (Camb. Anc. History, vol. x. p. 299) says that in the capitals of each nome in Egypt the Roman rule established a superior class known as the Gymnasium Class and “only members of this were entitled to that education in the gymnasium which was as much the hall-mark of social superiority as a public school education has been in England.” If this is to be extended to Alexandria, we can understand that the official who catered for so select a body would naturally feel bound not to skimp the expenses. Lampo’s protest is perhaps to his credit.
§ 131. (εἰσάγων ὡς or εἰσαγωγέως.) Mr. Box is too modest over this emendation; textually it is obviously satisfactory, getting rid of a serious, if not a fatal, difficulty, at a minimum cost. In his note in Class. Quart. 1935, he refers to papyri for the use of the term εἰσαγωγεύς. I am not sure that these help him as far as the functions are concerned, but they show, at any rate, that the word was in use in Egypt, and if so it is only natural that the persons who εἰσάγουσι τὰς δίκσς should be called εἰσαγωγεῖς. He quotes also a parallel from Lucian, which is worth quoting for itself, though since Lucian does not actually use the word εἰσαγωγεύς it does not strengthen his case. Lucian, Apol. 12, says that he at one time held a post in Egypt, which was important, lucrative, and likely to lead to high promotion. In this he introduced the cases (εἰσάγει τὰς δίκας), assigned the order, taking minutes of the proceedings (ὑπομνήματα τῶν πραττομένων καὶ λεγομένων γράφεσθαι), arranged (ῥυθμίζειν) the speeches of the pleaders, preserved the decisions of the magistrates, clearly, faithfully and accurately, and transmitted them to be kept for ever.
§§ 136, 137. (κλίνη and κλινάρχης.) On the question of the exact meaning of these terms, the lexicon speaks with uncertain sound. The original L.$& S.$gives for the second “one who takes the first place,” with reference to this passage. The revised repeats this misleading, indeed, erroneous entry, but adds (for κλίναρχος) “president of an Isiac fraternity.” For κλίνη the original edition noted ἱερὰ κλίνη, the lectisternium or pulvinar deorum of the Romans,” and the revised while repeating part of this has added the example κλίνη τοῦ κυρίου Σαράπιδος, and finally κλίνη is used “generally for a banquet.” Under πρωτοκλίναρχος, a word unknown to the original edition, it gives “president of a κλίνη, i.e. a religious association.” This and the other references added by the revised are all from papyri or inscriptions. Stephanus gives nothing on the subject; Box adds more references from similar sources. The natural conclusion seems to be that originally the couch is that on which the divine image is laid (cf. the couch of Adonis in the fifteenth Idyll of Theocritus), and the extensions to the festal meeting and further to the associates themselves are quite intelligible. The present passage suggests that the religious side was often left very much in the background. The words are untranslatable, “couch” is meaningless, and the substitution of “divan” on the grounds that the word connotes both a couch and a collection of people is perhaps not much improvement.§ 138. (ἀλειφόβιος.) A rare word of which only one other example from a fragment of Aristophanes is cited. Hesychius explains it as πένης. L.$& S.$regards it as a contemptuous term for ἀλειπτής or the menial serving an ἀλειπτής, and so Bekker’s Anecdota 382. 17 τὸν περὶ παλαίστραν ἀναστρεφόμενον καὶ ὑπηρετοῦντα.§ 139. (Anapaests.) It certainly seems that this term may be applied to verse which is not anapaestic in the regular sense, though it does not follow that it connotes ribald verse in general. The Greek ear could find in certain metres and rhythms, as in music, something undignified and suited to burlesque, and these are called anapaestic, presumably because anapaests often predominated in them. So Demetrius, De Eloc. 189, speaks of σύνθεσις ἀναπαιστικὴ καὶ μάλιστα ἐοικυῖα τοῖς κεκλασμένοις καὶ ἀσέμνοις μέτροις. So it is applied to the parabasis in the Old Comedy even to the parts which are not anapaestic (see several examples in Stephanus). L.$& S.$revised notes its special application to “ribald and satirical” verse and cites two examples. The first, Plut. Per. 33, consists of regular anapaests. In the second, from Dion Cassius 65. 8, the Alexandrians taunt Vespasian: and, though Titus appeases his anger somewhat, still continue. Their first refrain is ἓξ ὀβόλους προσαιτεῖς and the second αυγγιγνώσκομεν αὐτῷ· οὐ γὰμ οἶδε καισαρεύειν. Here only the first words of the second piece are anapaestic, but Vespasian is said to have been enraged not only by the substance of what they said, but ἐκ τοῦ κατακεκλασμένου καὶ ἀναπαίστου. Here κατακεκλασμένου, like κεκλασμένοις in the quotation from Demetrius, indicates something lacking the proper seriousness and dignity. Cornutus 30 seems to equate the “anapaestic” with the iambic, which also often indicates a lampoon. He derives θρίαμβος from θροεῖν and ἰαμβίζειν and then adds ὅθεν καὶ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τῶν πολεμίων θριάμβοις πολλοῖς ἀναπαίστοις σκώπτοντες χρῶνται.§ 141. (Subject of προσαναμάττεσθαι.) The use of these compounds of -μάττομαι is somewhat uncertain. The only one listed by Leisegang is ἐναπομάττομαι. Of his ten examples of this seven are middle in the sense of “receiving the impression,” but three, namely, Quod Deus 43, Mos. ii. 76 and Spec. Leg. i. 47, have an active sense of “giving the impression.” In other compounds I have noted ἀναμάττομαι De Virt. 24 and De Aet. 2, both in the sense of receiving, also ἀπομάττομαι De Virt. 207. L.$& S.$gives our word as = “besmirch in addition,” clearly taking ἀγνωμοσύνην as subject. No doubt this is possible, but the mass of evidence as far as I can judge is in favour of τοὔνομʼ.§ 162. (σφδφᾴζειν.) A favourite word with Philo. It is badly dealt with in Leisegang’s index, which though frequently missing an example or two is generally near enough to completeness to enable one to decide how Philo uses the word. Here he has listed five examples, namely, De Cher. 36, De Mig. 156, De Abr. 257, De Virt. 128 and Quod Omn. Prob. 39. In addition to these I have noted eight, some from Siegfried, and probably there are others, possibly many. For the use of other students I give the references: De Ebr. 121, Mos. i. 170, Spec. Leg. iv. 81, De Virt. 30, De Praem. 140, and in this volume besides this passage Flacc. 18 and 180, also Legatio 184. Only in De Praem. 140 is bodily struggling necessarily implied and in most of them it would be grotesque.