258793676 Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla in Alexandria

1 Allen Kerkeslager, “The Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros from theViolence in Alexandria in 38 CE,” SPhA 17 (2005) forthcoming. As in that study, theneutral ethnic-geographical connotations of “Judean” are preferred to avoid anachro-nisms sometimes introduced by the religious connotations in “Jew”; see Kerkeslager,“Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity in Hellenistic and Early Roman Egypt,” inDavid Frankfurter, ed., Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt (RGRW 134; Leiden:Brill, 1998) 99-225, esp. 222-23; cf. the problems in Gideon Bohak, “Good Jews, BadJews, and Non-Jews in Greek Papyri and Inscriptions,” in B. Kramer et al., eds., Aktendes 21. internationalen Papyrologenkongresses (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1997) 1.105-12. For eventsin 38 and bibliography, see Pieter W. van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom;Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 2; Leiden:Brill, 2003) 1-53. On Roman issues, see Sandra Gambetti, The Alexandrian Riots of 38C.E. and their Implications for the Experience of the Jews of the Diaspora: A Historical Assessment

AGRIPPA AND THE MOURNING RITES FOR DRUSILLA IN ALEXANDRIA

by

ALLEN KERKESLAGERSaint Joseph’s University

Summary

Philo’s descriptions of the outburst of violence in Alexandria in 38 sug-gest that he was trying to distract attention away from some crime againstRome committed by the local Judeans. Careful analysis of the chronol-ogy suggests that this crime was a dramatic violation of the Alexandrianfunerary celebrations for Drusilla, the sister of the Roman emperor Gaius.The edict of Flaccus and subsequent violence against the Judeans was apunitive response to this crime. The entire sequence of events was fullyin harmony with normal Roman legal and administrative policies.

Introduction

A recent article on the violence against the Judeans of Alexandriain the summer of 38 has suggested that the current focus on the impetusprovided by pre-existing ethnic conflicts should be replaced by an exam-ination of the dynamics of Roman imperialism.1 The present study willilluminate some of these dynamics by reconstructing the chronology of

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Journal for the Study of Judaism, XXXVII, 3Also available online – www.brill.nl

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 367

368 allen kerkeslager

(Ph.D. Dissertation; Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley, 2003), which isnot yet available to me but (based on contact with the author) will take a differentapproach from mine. I am grateful for suggestions from Erich Gruen and Pieter vander Horst, as well as respondents at the Annual Meeting of the Society of BiblicalLiterature in Atlanta, November, 2003, where some of these ideas were first presented.

2 On literary issues, see, e.g., Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 11-15; Martin Meiser,“Gattung, Adressaten und Intention von Philos ‘In Flaccum’,” JSJ 30 (1999) 418-30;Matthew Kraus, “Philosophical History in Philo’s In Flaccum,” SBLSP 33 (1994) 477-95.

3 E.g., Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 114-23; Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The LastKing of Judaea (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1990) 74-76.

4 Admitted even by Philo in Flacc. 31; Legat. 250-51 (which indicates the benefits ofthe northern route for a large royal retinue). Cf. fear of open sea in Synesius Epist. 4.Herod’s beneficence along the northern route secured his trade in both directions;Josephus BJ 1.280-81; 1.424; Ant. 14.377-78; 16.16-20, 147-49. See Alla Kushnir-Stein,

the brief period in 38 during which the Herodian king Agrippa I wasin Alexandria, where he temporarily debarked en route from Rome tohis new kingdom in Palestine.

This chronology suggests that Agrippa’s visit overlapped the Alexandrianmourning rites for Drusilla, the sister of the Roman emperor Gaius.The devastating violence against the Judean community in 38 mayhave been a formal Roman response to an insult to the imperialhousehold that occurred during these mourning rites.

1. Conspiracy and Concealment

Cautious literary analysis of Philo’s descriptions of events in 38 mustprecede using them in historical reconstruction.2 Such analysis quicklyreveals that Philo strenuously defended Agrippa from accusations ofplotting against Rome. But Philo maintained a wall of silence aboutthe specific activities that elicited these accusations.

(1) Scholars often note that the In Flaccum attempts to deflect chargesaway from Agrippa.3 Many assume that these charges emphasizedAgrippa’s insensitivity during his visit to Alexandria. But Philo’s opponentsconcentrated on the more incriminating question of why Agrippa haddecided to come to Alexandria in the first place.

The In Flaccum introduces Agrippa not with his arrival in Alexandria,but with his earlier planning while still in Rome (Flacc. 25-28). This isbecause Agrippa’s choice to pass through Alexandria on his way toJudea was easily misconstrued. Ancient travelers normally preferred thesafer northern routes to Judea that allowed more immediate access toharbors.4 Philo’s justifications for Agrippa’s route are so unconvincing

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 368

“On the Visit of Agrippa I to Alexandria in 38 AD,” JJS 51 (2000) 227-42, esp. 227-35; despite Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 116-17; against E. Mary Smallwood, TheJews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 238;Schwartz, Agrippa, 75.

5 Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,” 231-32; cf. Louis E. Lord, “The Date of JuliusCaesar’s Departure from Alexandria,” JRS 28 (1938) 19-40, and the difficulties withthe etesians in Demosthenes Or. 8.14; Caesar BC 3.107; Lucian Nav. 9; Chio Epist. 13.2;Polybius 5.5.6; Pliny Ep. 10.15; Tacitus Ann. 2.98. Spectrographic images of wind pat-terns in late June illustrate the force of the northerly winds against Egypt at the timeof Agrippa’s journey; e.g., www.nrlmry.navy.mil/~medex/tutorial/signatures/sig_ete.html.This force was even used to explain the Nile inundation; e.g., Herodotus 2.20; DiogenesLaertius 1.37; cf. below.

6 Schwartz, Agrippa, 74-75.7 Possible reasons include discharging a debt or the betrothal of Berenice; Josephus

Ant. 18.159-60; 19.276-77; cf. Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 120-23; Schwartz, Agrippa,74-77. No violent precedents suggest that Agrippa planned to aid local Judeans; againstKushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,” 238-42. Anthony A. Barrett, Caligula: The Corruptionof Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 80, suggests Agrippa was sent toinvestigate Flaccus. But imperial freedmen in Egypt could have done better spying.

that they only reveal his desperation and, in consequence, the cogencyof his opponents’ charges.

Philo repeatedly insists that Agrippa came to Alexandria because theemperor himself suggested that it would provide a faster route to Judea(Flacc. 26, 28, 31-32). However, Agrippa’s previous year of dawdlingin Rome indicates that neither he nor Gaius were overly concernedwith delays in Agrippa’s arrival in Judea. Philo also pleads that Agrippa’sroute allowed him to capitalize on the strong summer winds out of thenorthwest (“the etesians”; Flacc. 26). But a more northerly route wouldhave circumvented the need to await a rare lull in these same windswhen trying to sail out of the Alexandrian harbor to proceed onwardto Judea.5 Philo also claims that Agrippa was so concerned with a fastjourney that he originally had hoped to slip quickly in and out of thecity unobserved (Flacc. 27-28). But this claim is belied by the ostentatiousdisplays of Agrippa’s bodyguard (Flacc. 30; cf. 37-39).6

Philo’s strained apologetic for Agrippa’s choice of routes indicatesthat some ominous accusation was aimed at Agrippa’s motives for com-ing to Alexandria. Preoccupation with motives might suggest that Agrippaand the Judeans of Alexandria were being accused of plotting in advancethe civic disruption that followed Agrippa’s arrival. Probably the rea-son Philo did not cite the innocuous personal reasons for Agrippa’svisit is that this only would have supported accusations that Agrippaalready had been colluding with the troublesome local Judeans beforehis journey.7 Philo’s repeated emphasis on the emperor’s role in Agrippa’s

mourning rites in alexandria 369

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 369


8 This crucial distinction between this day and previous days is often blurred; e.g.,John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996) 53. Nothing supports Colson’s“rioters” in the LCL translation of Flacc. 37.

plans indicates that the most serious of these accusations must haveimpugned Judean loyalty to the emperor. Philo’s opponents may havejustified their attacks on the Judeans as an attempt to suppress a Judeanconspiracy against Roman rule.

(2) Deeper exploration into this alleged conspiracy is difficult becausePhilo’s description of Agrippa’s visit in the In Flaccum obscures the cir-cumstances of Agrippa’s departure. Agrippa still seems to have beenin the city during the mocking parody that exploited the beggar Karabasin the gymnasium (Flacc. 33-40). Aside from the insult to Agrippa andpotential harm to Karabas, this was merely a crude piece of impromptuentertainment in one architecturally confined location. No riot or civicdisorder actually occurred until the day the crowds in the theater calledout for installing images in the synagogues (Flacc. 41-52).8 Philo abruptlybecomes rather vague precisely at the point in which he begins todescribe this day. He also quickly launches out of his descriptive modeinto a bombastic tirade against Flaccus. This conveniently obscuresAgrippa’s silent disappearance from the narrative. Philo only returnsto his description of events after a mysterious hiatus that embraces “afew days” after the desecration of the synagogues (Ùl¤gai ≤m°rai; Flacc.

53-54).The abruptness and intensity of Philo’s flight into invective suggests

that the day the crowds assembled in the theater might contain thepivotal catalyst for all of the subsequent events. At the same time Philo’stirade distracts attention from the paucity of details that he actuallysupplies about this day. It is impossible to avoid the impression thatPhilo wanted to hide something about the very day that may be thekey to understanding the violence in 38.

(3) Philo’s guilty silence is also evident when Agrippa briefly reappearsin Flacc. 97-103. In this passage Philo flashes backward in time to eventsthat preceded the violence. Probably one reason Philo deferred thissecond reference to Agrippa until after the very end of the narrativeof the violence in Flacc. 41-96 was to reaffirm the false impression thatthere was no causal relationship between Agrippa’s visit and the ini-tial civic disorder. This second appearance of Agrippa, like the first,

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 370

9 E.g., Van der Horst, Flaccus, 134, 139; Smallwood, Jews, 239 note 73; E. MarySmallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium: Edited with an Introduction, Translation andCommentary (2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 19-20, 45-47; Herbert Box, Philonis AlexandriniIn Flaccum: Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1939) lvii-lxii.

10 Discussed below.11 Judeans were unable to prevent the plundering of the very synagogues that the

crowds chose not to burn in Legat. 134, so this restraint was not inspired by Judeanresistance like that implied in Flacc. 41-52; contra Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 19-20,46; Box, In Flaccum, lix-lx. The restraint was probably due to crowded neighborhoods,which could spread fire to other parts of the city.

conveniently omits any reference to the circumstances of Agrippa’sdeparture.

(4) Philo’s description of the violence in the Legatio completely omitsthe visit of Agrippa and the initial installation of images in the synagogues.The latter omission is easily obscured because scholars routinely har-monize Philo’s account of the initial desecration of the synagogues inFlacc. 41-52 with his account of the more devastating attacks on thesynagogues in Legat. 132-37.9 One problem with such harmonization isthat it can only be achieved by accusing Philo of ignoring chronologicalorder in one of the two accounts. This fault is usually attributed tothe Legatio because of suspicions aroused by its effort to shift blame forthe violence to the emperor in distant Rome. But assuming such chrono-logical inconsistency between the two accounts does not eliminate thedifferences that stand in the way of harmonizing them. For example,the account in Flacc. 41-52 only mentions a desecration and rededica-tion of synagogues by crowds from the theater. In contrast, the accountin Legat. 132-37 indicates a much more violent program of destructionand burning by gangs that had already looted Judean homes and mur-dered Judeans. Furthermore, the account in Flacc. 41-52 hints that theJudeans violently resisted the initial insult to their synagogues.10 In con-trast, the account in Legat. 132-37 implies that the synagogues wereravaged with impunity.11

These and other differences become moot if one simply reads sequen-tially through Philo’s two major descriptions of the violence by aligningthem according to the points in which they closely parallel each other.This allows both accounts to be followed in a straightforward chronologicalorder without misrepresenting the details of either one. The result isclear from the following table:


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 371


12 On Legat. 119-21, cf. Gaius Inst. 1.13-15; rebellious subject peoples ( peregrini dediticii )held status equivalent to manumitted disgraced slaves (dediticii ).

13 Contrast Flacc. 41-52, which makes precisely this argument; see below.

In Flaccum Legatio

Agrippa’s journey and public activity (25-40)

Crowds from theater install unidentified “images” and rededicate synagogues (41; cf. 53)

A “few days” pass (54)Edict of Flaccus reduces Judean Judeans treated as if status

status (53-54) reduced (119-21)12

Judeans expelled from homes; homes Judeans expelled from homes; looted as in war (55-66) homes looted as in war (121-28)

Judeans from regions outside city killed (129)

Judeans burned; outrage of corpses Judeans burned; outrage of corpses (68-71) (130-31)

Gangs who had ravaged Judean homes and killed Judeans proceed to pillage, burn, or rededicate synagogues with “images of Gaius” and “statues”(132-37)

Further details; subsequent violence (72-96)

In this reading of the parallels, the installation of the images mentionedin the In Flaccum clearly took place before the notorious edict of Flaccus.In contrast, the far more devastating attacks on the synagogues describedin the Legatio must have occurred after this edict.

This reveals that the Legatio completely omits the day of the fatefulassembly in the theater. This provides additional evidence that Philowanted to hide something about this day. Eliminating this day fromthe Legatio deprived Philo of an opportunity to argue that subsequentJudean violence was a justifiable response to the initial provocation.13

Philo partly compensated for this loss by describing later attacks thatwere much more devastating. But his omission created a risk for hiscredibility. In place of the actual prelude to the violence, he substi-tuted a rather different prelude that overplayed the responsibility of

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 372

14 Pace the role of the emperor emphasized in Gambetti, Alexandrian Riots.15 E.g., Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 41, 253; notes by F. H. Colson on Legat. 179-80

in the LCL translation. Smallwood finds evidence of a lacuna between Legat. 179 and180 in a purported shift in the identity of the referents of the first person plural. Butthis is unnecessary, as is clear from her failure to propose a lacuna to explain the sim-ilar shift between the last lines of Legat. 178.

16 Noted by Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 47; Box, In Flaccum, xlii-xliii, lix-lx (althoughunconvincingly trying to extract evidence of resistance more from the Legatio than Flacc.43-48); Sterling Tracy, Philo Judaeus and the Roman Principate (Williamsport, PA: Bayard,1933) 25-29; but frequently overlooked; e.g., by Victor Tcherikover, CPJ 1, pp. 65-68.

the emperor (Legat. 8-118; cf. 346).14 The quiet desperation in Philo’seffort to obscure the day of the assembly in the theater suggests thatsome incriminating events on this day were the Achilles heel of hisrhetorical panoply.

(5) The one brief reference to the visit of Agrippa that does appearin the Legatio once again betrays a reticence to speak about whatoccurred during this visit. In this reference, which appears in Legat.

179-80, Philo’s language abruptly becomes so terse that scholars duti-fully ruminate over the possibility of a lacuna in the manuscripts.15 Butthe striking parallel with the unannounced disappearance of Agrippafrom the In Flaccum suggests that the abrupt silence in Legat. 179-80may be intentional. Philo may have been trying to hide something.

2. Clues to Chronology

The previous discussion suggests that the key to Philo’s guilty silencemay be incriminating events that occurred on the day the crowds inthe theater called for installing images in the synagogues (Flacc. 41).Philo’s desperate apologetic for Agrippa indicates that Agrippa was stillpresent in the city on this day. The same conclusion is suggested byPhilo’s strategy of concealing Agrippa’s departure rather than simplyaffirming that Agrippa had left the city before this obscure day. ButPhilo says nothing that would indicate that Agrippa remained inAlexandria much beyond this day. Thus it was probably the events ofthis day that provoked Agrippa’s embarrassed departure from the city.Agrippa probably left Alexandria no later than the day “a few days later”on which Flaccus publicly announced his notorious edict (Flacc. 54).

One clue to the hidden incriminating events is Philo’s hints that theJudeans violently resisted the installation of the images (Flacc. 43-50).16

Philo tacitly warns that offending the Judeans in Alexandria mightarouse the hostility of all of the Judeans in Egypt, whose numbers he


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 373


17 On the numbers, see Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 136.18 In the temple crisis; Legat. 207-208, 214-17, 220, 249, 256, 301, 334-35.19 Erwin R. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1938) 8; Tracy, Philo Judaeus and the Roman Principate, 28-29.20 The possibility usually is ignored or dismissed; e.g., Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus,

155-57; Tcherikover, CPJ 1, pp. 65-66; Box, In Flaccum, xliv. Even when a punitiveeffect is admitted, the primary motivation is not viewed as any actual crime; e.g., AryehKasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (TSAJ 7;Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1985) 21, 243-44, 260. A secondarily puni-tive element (though only related to general Roman policies) is suggested in WalterAmeling, “‘Market-Place’ und Gewalt: Die Juden in Alexandrien 38 n.Chr.,” WürzburgerJahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 27 (2003) 71-124, esp. 119-21.

21 Philo Flacc. 25-28, 31. E.g., Schwartz, Agrippa, 55 note 66; Smallwood, Jews, 237-38; Box, In Flaccum, xl, 85.

inflates to make this threat seem more ominous (Flacc. 43).17 He alsocautions that destroying ancestral customs is “not profitable” (oÈ lusi-tel°w; Flacc. 43). He also chides Flaccus for not warning the crowds ofthe signs of danger (pronohtikã), which implies that the Judeans hadwounded or killed some of them (Flacc. 43). He also refers to “conflict”(stãsiw) and “civil wars” (§mful¤oi pol°mioi) between Judeans and theiropponents (Flacc. 44). He even argues that a Judean revolt across theentire empire would be justified if their traditions were attacked on abroader scale (Flacc. 46-48). Similar threats appear in the Legatio.18 YetPhilo’s rationalizations of Judean resistance climax in despair over theinescapably negative impression that this resistance created (oÈk ésfal¢w§nantioËsyai; Flacc. 52). This implies that Philo’s enemies appealed tothe initial Judean resistance to justify the subsequent more devastatingattacks on Judeans

A few of the earliest studies of these events suggested that the Judeanresistance might have constituted a crime against the Roman statesufficient to identify the edict of Flaccus and subsequent violence aspunitive in nature.19 This possibility has never been explored becauseit was quickly submerged under the view that the edict was inspiredby pre-existing ethnic conflicts over Judean rights.20 This is a testimonyto the success of Philo’s rhetorical strategy of concealment. The mag-nitude of the Judean crime only becomes clear after establishing a pre-cise chronology for Agrippa’s visit.

(1) The arrival of Agrippa usually is dated on the basis of Philo’sclaim that Agrippa did not depart from Rome until after the rise ofthe “etesians” (now called “Meltimi” winds).21 The apologetic motivesbehind this claim cast doubt on any conclusions that rest entirely on

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 374

22 Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,” 228-37.23 For descriptions, charts, and images, see naval and sailing websites; e.g., www.greece-

sailing.co.uk/weather.html; www.nemoc.navy.mil/pages/medports/Haifa/Hp_prot.html;www.nrlmry.navy.mil/~medex/tutorial/signatures/sig_ete.html.

24 The fuzzy seasonal boundary led some to distinguish an earlier period of “pre-cursors” from the etesians themselves; e.g., Aristotle Mete. 2.5 (361b.22-24); AdamantiusJudaeus De Vent. 40-42; Galen, In Hippocratis Epidemiarum 3 Comm. 3 (ed. Kuhn) 17a.657;Pliny NH 2.123-24.

25 But often with “precursors” before the etesians; e.g., Aristotle Mete. 2.5 (361b.35-36); Galen In Hippocratis Epid. 3 Comm. 3 (ed. Kuhn) 17a.657; Pliny NH 2.123-24 (twodays after Sirius). Note also Eudoxos ( July 17) and Callippus ( July 20) in GeminusCalend. 99-100 (ed. Aujac); cf. the summary and equivalents in Benedict Einarson andGeorge K. K. Link, Theophrastus: De Causis Plantarum (LCL; Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1976) xlix-lii.

26 Aristotle Met. 2.5 (362a.29-30); cf. less precisely, Pliny NH 5.55-57.27 Philo Mos. 1.114-15; cf. Flacc. 63.28 Herodotus 2.20; Diogenes Laertius 1.37; Diodorus Sic. 1.38.1-39.6; Plutarch De

Iside 39.366C-D; Strabo Geo. 17.1.7 (C793); Seneca Nat. 4a.2.23-25; Pliny NH 5.55-57.29 The inundation begins in late May or early June at Aswan; Mamdouh Shahin,

Hydrology of the Nile Basin (New York: Elsevier Science, 1985) 526-27. But the flood doesnot reach the delta until a month later, so an author in Egypt could justify almost anydate in June.

this approach.22 But an additional problem with this procedure is thelack of precision in its results.

The term “etesian” (yearly) refers to the phase in which the prevailingnorthwesterly winds over the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean reachtheir peak consistency and intensity. Among the factors that contributeto this phenomenon is the emergence of a low pressure zone overTurkey that draws in air from the high pressure areas over the Balkans.23

The temperature differential that sustains these and other dynamicsrises in late spring and declines in early autumn. The gradual natureof this seasonal change left ancient authors with broad latitude forsubjectivity in correlating the rise of the etesians with other predictablephenomena.24

Some of these authors dated the rise of the etesians as late as therise of the Dog Star (Sirius).25 This was fixed at July 17 or slightly laterdepending on the location of the observer. Others identified the riseof the etesians with the summer solstice on June 21.26 Philo himselfbelieved that the etesians already were in full force before this point.27

This is probably because Philo, like some others, associated the rise ofthe etesians with the beginning of the annual Nile inundation.28 Thisrelationship connected the rise of the etesians to any of a number ofdates in June.29 Ancient affirmations that the period of safest sailing


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 375


30 Similarly, Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,” 237. Cf. Vegetius Res. Mil. 4.39.31 RPC 1.4973; cf. Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,” 236-37. For the coins, see

Ya’akov Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba ( Jerusalem:Yad Ben-Zvi and Nyack: Amphora, 2001) 91-92 and plate 52 no. 112.

32 BMCRE Caligula nos. 36-37, plate 28.4; RIC 1.17 no. 26, plate 7.33 Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse ( JSPSup 30;

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 285-86; Schwartz, Agrippa, 57-58, 73; AllaStein, “Some Notes on the Chronology of the Coins of Agrippa I,” Israel NumismaticJournal 5 (1981) 22-26.

34 Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,” 236-37.35 Correctly, Andrew Burnett, “The Coinage of King Agrippa I of Judaea and a

New Coin of King Herod of Chalcis,” in H. Huvelin, M. Christol, and G. Gautier,eds., Mélanges de Numismatique Offerts à Pierre Bastien (Wetteren: Numismatique Romaine,1987) 25-38 and plates 3-4, esp. 28; Schwartz, Agrippa, 73; admitted even by Stein,“Some Notes,” 25, for a “Year 5” coin.

36 C. H. V. Sutherland, “Early Imperial Mints in the Western Provinces: The Directionof Coin Types,” Numismatica e Antichita Classiche 12 (1983) 151-57; C. H. V. Sutherland,“The Purpose of Roman Imperial Coin Types,” Revue Numismatique series 6, vol. 25(1983) 73-82.

37 R. A. G. Carson, Coins of the Roman Empire (New York: Routledge, 1990) 228, 244;Barbara Levick, “Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage,” Antichthon 16 (1982) 104-16;

began near the end of May assume a consistency in the winds thatwould even justify dating the rise of the etesians to the end of May.30

Appealing to the rise of the etesians to date Agrippa’s departurefrom Rome thus produces a range from the end of May to the mid-dle of July. Philo’s rhetorical needs even might have compelled him tostretch these limits. Other data are needed to arrive at a more precisedate for Agrippa’s journey.

(2) Ambiguities also undermine recent efforts to date Agrippa’s arrivalby appeal to a Judean coin series that includes a reverse type por-traying the three sisters of Gaius.31 This reverse type was clearly basedon an earlier Roman prototype dating to 37-38.32 The attribution ofthe Judean series to Agrippa’s “Year 2” fixes its date to the periodfrom October 37 to October 38.33 Its image of Drusilla has led to theconclusion that Agrippa already must have passed through Alexandria,arrived in Judea, and completed arrangements for minting this cointype before hearing the news of the death of Drusilla.34

One problem with this approach is that the transmission of thereverse type from Rome to Judea has no necessary connection toAgrippa’s own journey.35 Imitation of Roman prototypes was ofteneffected by the transmission of exemplars or even dies of Roman coinsdirectly from the mint in Rome to mints in the provinces.36 The Romanmint ultimately was controlled by officials who worked closely with theemperor.37 The exemplars or dies for the entire Judean series thus easily

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 376

David W. MacDowall, “The Organisation of the Julio-Claudian Mint at Rome,” in R. A. G. Carson and Colin M. Kraay, eds., Scripta Nummaria Romana: Essays Presented toHumphrey Sutherland (London: Spink and Son, 1978) 32-46; R. A. G. Carson, “Systemand Product in the Roman Mint,” in R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland, eds.,Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1956) 227-39. For direct intervention of emperors in monetary policies and even cointypes, see, e.g., Res Gestae 24.2; Suetonius Aug. 41, 52; Tib. 48.1; Nero 25.1-2; TacitusAnn. 6.17; Dio 53.22; 58.21.5. For others, see C. H. V. Sutherland, Roman History andCoinage 44 BC-AD 69: Fifty Points of Relation from Julius Caesar to Vespasian (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1987).

38 Probably at Agrippa’s initiative, though the emperor could directly control thepolicies of both the Roman and provincial mints, as in Erik Christiansen, The RomanCoins of Alexandria: Quantitative Studies (2 vols.; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1988); cf.the centralization in Sutherland, “Early Imperial Mints,” 151-57; Sutherland, “Purpose,”73-82.

39 Suetonius Gaius 15.3; Dio 59.3.4; 59.9.1-2.40 Dio 59.9.1-2. Cf. Suetonius Tib. 54.1; Barrett, Caligula, 62-63.41 Schwartz, Agrippa, 73.42 Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 287.43 RPC 1.4977; cf. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins, 94-95 and plate 52 no. 117.

See Nikos Kokkinos, Antonia Augusta (2nd ed.; London: Libri, 2002) 101-103, 265-67.

may have been designed for Agrippa under the emperor’s patronageand then forwarded to Judea either by Agrippa or by the emperor’sstaff.38 This could have happened either while Agrippa was still inRome or at any time after his departure up until Drusilla’s death. Itis even possible that Agrippa affirmed his oath of loyalty “to Gaiusand his sisters” by a flattering request to imitate the Roman prototypewhen it first appeared.39 This might date the Judean series to not longafter the consular oaths on January 1 of 38.40 Furthermore, since thisseries may have been Agrippa’s first issue of coins, a long delay seemsunlikely. Probably he ordered it minted long before his departure fromRome.41

Even if one insists on dating the Judean series after Agrippa’s arrivalin Judea, any possible relationship between the minting of the Judeanseries and the arrival of the news of Drusilla’s death in Judea is moretenuous than the chronological limit her death imposed on the mintingof the original Roman prototype. For example, one plausible reasonfor Agrippa to mint this series even after Drusilla’s death is that Agrippamay have chosen this reverse type precisely for the purpose of honor-ing Drusilla as soon as possible after his arrival in Judea.42 Concretesupport for this proposal even might be found in Agrippa’s later choiceto mint a coin honoring Drusilla in his fifth year (fall of 40 or winterof 40-41).43 This delay could be explained if the easily available Romanprototype that gave Drusilla the central position among the sisters of


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 377


44 Susan E. Wood, Imperial Women: A Study in Public Images, 40 B.C.-A.D. 68 (MnemosyneSupp. 194; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 238-42; Wood, “Diva Drusilla Panthea and the Sistersof Gaius,” AJA 99 (1995) 457-82, esp. 470-76. Distinctions between the living and deadon these statues need not have always appeared in the small field of a coin’s reversetype.

45 Cf. Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,” 235-37; Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 287.46 Often noted without elaboration; e.g., Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 159-60; Joseph

Giaus was quickly copied in 38 primarily in her honor. Such a posthu-mous use of an image with both the living and dead sisters togetherwould parallel the ongoing presence of statues of Drusilla and otherdeified individuals in figural groups after their death.44

The only certainty about the date of the Judean series is that it mustfall in the period from October 37 to October 38 and after the creationof the Roman prototype. This series is of no value in dating Agrippa’svisit to Alexandria.

(3) The most promising procedure for narrowing the range of datesfor Agrippa’s visit is to begin by working backward through the variousdatable events mentioned by Philo. Philo indicates that the violencehad dissipated when Sukkoth was celebrated in late September or thefirst half of October (Flacc. 108, 116-24). But it was still at its peak onthe birthday of Gaius on August 31 (Flacc. 82-83). Moving backwardfrom this point one arrives at Philo’s statement that the Judeans ofAlexandria were still mourning the death of Drusilla when Flaccusissued his fateful edict (Flacc. 53-57). The day on which the crowdsassembled in the theater apparently occurred “a few days” before this(Ùl¤gai ≤m°rai; Flacc. 41, 53-54). The day of this assembly was itselfpreceded by a short period in which Agrippa was publicly active inthe city (Flacc. 30-39, 103).

Nowhere in Philo’s description of Agrippa’s public activity is thereany hint of mourning for Drusilla. This suggests that news of Drusilla’sdeath arrived in Alexandria in the short interval between Agrippa’spublic activity and the day on which Flaccus issued his edict.45 Theonly day that Philo singles out in this interval is the day the crowdsassembled in the theater.

This raises two possibilities. First, Agrippa may have been in Alexandriawhen news of Drusilla’s death arrived. Second, the events of the dayof the assembly in the theater may have been closely related to thearrival of this news and the subsequent mourning for Drusilla.

Analysis of this period of mourning may provide a fruitful avenuefor attaining greater precision in the chronology of events in Alexandria.46

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 378

Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (Philadelphia:Jewish Publication Society, 1995) 170.

47 E.g., Barrett, Caligula, 86.48 Dio 59.10.8-12.1; Suetonius Gaius 24.2.49 Briefly denied by S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia

Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 75. But see below and generalconsiderations in Mary Beard, John North, and Simon Price, Religions of Rome (2 vols.;Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 1.313-63; Andreas Bendlin, “PeripheralCentres—Central Peripheries: Religious Communication in the Roman Empire,” inHubert Cancik und Jörg Rüpke, hrsg., Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion (Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 35-68. For Roman influence on funerary ritual in Alexandria, seeMarjorie Susan Venit, Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria: The Theater of the Dead(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 19, 129-45, 154-56, 161, 165-66.

50 Dio 59.11.3; Peter Herz, “Diva Drusilla,” Historia (Wiesbaden) 30 (1981) 324-36.51 E.g., Tacitus Ann. 1.16; ILS 139 (CIL 11.1420); ILS 140 (CIL 11.1421); S. C. de

Pisone 57-70; Tabula Siarensis; Tabula Hebana; Suetonius Claud. 1.3; cf. similarly, ServiusAen. 6.325. On honorary tombs in general, see Cicero Phil. 9.13-17; cf. Penelope J. E.Davies, Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to MarcusAurelius (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004) 13-74.

52 E.g., ILS 140 (CIL 11.1421), lines 7, 25, 40-59; cf. Tabula Siarensis 2a.1-7; cf. BrianRose, Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997) 19, 223.

53 E.g., P. Köln 6.249 (SB 16.13033). See Ludwig Koenen, “Die ‘Laudatio Funebris’des Augustus für Agrippa auf einem neuen Papyrus,” ZPE 5 (1970) 217-83 and Taf.8a, esp. 245-51.

Determining the nature and duration of this period may be possiblethrough comparison with the mourning rites for Drusilla in Rome. Thelegitimacy of such a comparison is most vividly demonstrated by Philo’sclaim that the Judean shops were closed in mourning for Drusilla (Flacc.

56). It is sometimes recognized that this may indicate the observanceof a iustitium, i.e., a period in which public business was officially sus-pended.47 This would provide a precise parallel to the iustititium thatGaius had ordered in Rome immediately after Drusilla’s death.48

Such close imitation of Roman funerary ritual is indeed quite likely.49

The Roman Senate formally recommended that other cities imitate thehonors voted to Drusilla during her funeral.50 Funerary honors thatemperors and other members of the imperial family received outsideRome included the erection of false tombs similar to imperial tombsin Rome, the observance of a iustitium, civic votes to establish a cultor annual holiday, and celebration of rituals like those celebrated inRome.51 These honors often followed the arrival of news of the deathwith a stunning immediacy.52 Eulogies recited in imperial funerals inRome seem to have circulated widely and quickly, possibly for read-ing in provincial ceremonies.53


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 379


54 Strabo 17.1.12 (C797); OGIS 656 (IGRR 1.1072; CIL 3.6588; SB 5.8785); P. Lond.6.1912.1-11; Pliny NH 5.57 (prefect’s royal cult function); outside of Egypt, e.g., SEG23.206; OGIS 458 (Sherk RDGE 65). See Price, Rituals and Power, 65-77; FrançoiseDunand, “Culte royal et culte impérial en Égypte: Continuités et ruptures,” in GünterGrimm, Heinz Heinen, und Erich Winter, hrsg., Das Römisch-Byzantinische Ägypten (Mainzam Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1983) 47-56; Oscar William Reinmuth, The Prefect ofEgypt from Augustus to Diocletian (Klio Beiheft 34; Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,1935) 2-7. On orders for a iustitium, cf. Tacitus Ann. 2.82; 3.2-6; Dio 59.10.8-12.1;Suetonius Tib. 52.1; Gaius 24.2; CIL 6.895 (31195).

55 Below; correctly, though without sufficient effort to grapple with the complexities,Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,” 235.

56 E.g., Barrett, Caligula, 86-89 (until September 23 in Rome); Mélèze-Modrzejewski,Jews of Egypt, 170 (ongoing in August in Alexandria); Clara Kraus Reggiani, “I rap-porti tra l’impero romano e il mondo ebraico al tempo di Caligola secondo la ‘Legatioad Gaium’ di Filone Alessandrino,” ANRW 2.21.1 (1984) 554-86, esp. 555, 577 (ongo-ing in August in Alexandria); J. P. V. D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius (Caligula) (Oxford:Clarendon, 1934) 43-44 (until September 23 in Rome).

57 Fasti Ostienses June 10, 38 in E. Mary Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principatesof Gaius, Claudius and Nero (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) p. 28.

58 Dio 59.10.8-12.1 (Drusilla). Cf., e.g., Appian BC 1.105-106 (Sulla); Polybius 6.53-54 (nobles); Plutarch Caes. 83-84 (Caesar); Dio 56.31.2-43.1; Suetonius Aug. 100(Augustus); Tacitus Ann. 2.72, 82-83; 3.1-7 (Germanicus); Dio 75.4.1-5.5 (Pertinax);Herodian Hist. 4.2.1-11 (Septimius Severus). See Davies, Death and the Emperor, 8-11;Harriet I. Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford: Clarendon,1996) 91-127; Javier Arce, Funus Imperatorum: Los funerales de los emperadores romanos (Madrid:Alianza, 1988); Simon Price, “From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecrationof Roman Emperors,” in David Cannadine and Simon Price, eds., Rituals of Royalty:Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)

The frequency with which provincial governors presided over activ-ities of the imperial cult suggests that Flaccus himself immediately ini-tiated the Alexandrian honors to Drusilla by ordering a iustitium.54 Theleading role of Flaccus and other local Roman officials in the subsequentceremonies assured that the iustitium for Drusilla in Alexandria wouldhave been comparable in nature and length to her iustitium in Rome.

3. The Iustitium for Drusilla in Rome

The iustitium for Drusilla in Rome may have lasted for nine days ora comparably short length of time.55 Unfortunately, the chronology ofevents in both Rome and Alexandria often has been clouded by asser-tions that it lasted much longer.56

Drusilla had died in Rome on June 10.57 Her funeral closely followedthe patterns of the funeral of Augustus and other elite Roman funerals.58

This included public ceremonies in the Forum and a procession to theCampus Martius for cremation. The Senate then formally authenticated

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 380

56-105; Wilhelm Kierdorf, “‘Funus’ und ‘consecratio’: Zu Terminologie und Ablauf derrömischen Kaiserapotheose,” Chiron 16 (1986) 43-69.

59 Dio 59.11.1-5; Seneca Apoc. 1. Cf. Dio 56.43.1-4; 56.46.1-47.1; Tacitus Ann. 12.69;13.2; Seneca Apoc. 3-12; which show that deification was more fundamentally linked todeath than cremation; cf. Tertullian Ad Nat. 1.17.

60 AFA 46e.12-13 in Guil. Henzen, Acta Fratrum Aravalium Quae Supersunt (Berolini:Georgii Reimeri, 1874) 46e.12-13, 164; widely accepted, e.g., John Scheid, Romulus etses Frères: Le Collège des frères Arvales, modèle du culte public dans la Rome des empereurs (Rome:École Française de Rome, 1990) 422-24; Peter Herz, “Die Arvalakten des Jahres 38 n.Chr.: Eine Quelle zur Geschichte Kaiser Caligulas,” Bonner Jahrbücher des RheinischenLandesmuseums 181 (1981) 89-110, esp. 96-97, 102 (with photograph); Aelius Pasoli, ActaFratrum Arvalium Edidit Quae Post Annum MDCCCLXXIV Reperta Sunt (Studi e Ricerche 7;Bologna: Cesare Zuffi, 1950) 9e.12-13, p. 113.

61 E.g., Barrett, Caligula, 86-89; Balsdon, Emperor Gaius, 43-44; less clearly, Herz,“Arvalakten des Jahres 38,” 95-102.

62 Satirically illustrated in Seneca Apoc. 8-12. See Dio 56.46.2; Suetonius Aug. 100.2-4;Kierdorf, “‘Funus’ und ‘consecratio’,” 43-69. Cf. older legal formalities in Diodorus Sic.17.115.6; Appian BC 2.148.

63 Correctly, Kierdorf, “‘Funus’ und ‘consecratio’,” 43-61; against Arce, Funus Imperatorum,125-31, whose position is undermined by his later discussion of the consecratio ceremony;pp. 131-57.

64 Suetonius Claudius 11.2; AFA 55.15-19; cf. Scheid, Romulus, 422-23, for the date;Kierdorf, “‘Funus’ und ‘consecratio’,” 59-61.

65 Tacitus Ann. 12.69; 13.2; Seneca Apoc. 3-12; Kierdorf, “‘Funus’ und ‘consecratio’,”51-55.

her ascent from the pyre to join the gods and voted to celebrate herapotheosis in a later ceremony known as a consecratio.59 Based on a con-jecture used to fill a lacuna in the records of the Arval priests of DeaDia, the consecratio for Drusilla is customarily dated to the birthday ofAugustus on September 23 of 38.60 This has led eminent historians toconclude that the iustitium for Drusilla lasted from June 10 until September23.61 This cannot be correct.

Arguments for this conclusion often confuse the possible celebrationof Drusilla’s consecratio on September 23 with the original date in whichDrusilla was deified by a vote of the Senate. Deification (divam appel-

lare) was a change in legal status granted by a decree of the Senate(senatus consultum).62 The consecratio was the later public ceremony thatintroduced the deceased into the cultic honors already granted by theSenate’s decree.63 The distinction between the Senate’s legal act andthe later cultic act is evident in the delay between the Senate’s formaldeification of Livia in early 41 and the celebration of her consecratio onJanuary 17 of 44.64 It is also implied in the Senate’s deification ofClaudius, which occurred even before his funeral, cremation, or anyother cult ceremony.65 Confusion between the Senate’s decree and theconsecratio arises because in the second century the assimilation of the


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 381


66 See Kierdorf, “‘Funus’ und ‘consecratio’,” 61-69. Contrast the confusion in Arce,Funus Imperatorum, 129-57; even in Elias Bickerman, “Consecratio,” in Willem den Boer,ed., Le Cultes des Souverains dans l’Empire Romain (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 19;Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1973) 3-37; Bickermann, “Die Römische Kaiserapotheose,”AR 27 (1929) 1-34. The distinction is not always apparent; e.g., Justin Apol. 1.21; butstill maintained; e.g., Marciana, Fasti Ostienses for 112 (diva cognomen granted on dayof death, not later cremation); E. Mary Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates ofNerva, Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge: University Press, 1966) 32; Pertinax, Dio 74.17.4with 75.4.1-5.

67 Kierdorf, “‘Funus’ und ‘consecratio’,” 49, 58-59. This resolves the problem notedin John Humphrey, “The Three Daughters of Agrippina Maior,” AJAH 4 (1979) 125-43, esp. 138. It is the most natural reading of Seneca Apoc. 1; Dio 59.10.8-12.1; SenecaDial. 11.17.4-6 (Cons. Polyb.); cf. Suetonius Gaius 24.1-2. Kierdorf points out that theSenate decreed that a consecratio should occur (·nÉ éyanatisyª) but did not actually per-form the cultic act; Dio 59.11.2.

68 Scheid, Romulus, 422-23.69 Dio 59.10.8, 11.5-6; Suetonius Gaius 24.2.70 See more fully below.

consecratio ceremony to the cremation ceremony frequently brought thelegal act of the Senate into close temporal proximity to the cultic actof consecratio.66 In the first century the date of the consecratio still had nonecessary connection to any element of the funeral or mourning rites.

Probably the senatus consultum that deified Drusilla and accorded hera later consecratio was voted immediately after her cremation in June of38.67 Seneca’s description of the temples and shrines (templa ac pulvinaria)being built for Drusilla during the summer of 38 confirms that she hadalready been deified well before her consecratio on September 23 (Dial.

11.17.5 [Cons. Polyb.]). As in the case of Livia, the date chosen to cel-ebrate Drusilla’s consecratio was intended to affirm a dynastic associationbetween the reigning emperor and Augustus, not mark a stage in thepublic mourning rites.68

Consequently, there are no grounds for assuming a necessary cor-relation between the date of Drusilla’s consecratio and the end of heriustitium. The assumption of such a correlation may have been inspiredpartly by Seneca’s description of the cruelty Gaius showed while hewas mourning outside of Rome during the summer of 38 (Dial. 11.17.4-6[Cons. Polyb.]). This recalls the descriptions of the rigorous enforcementof Drusilla’s iustitium inside the city in Dio and Suetonius.69 But Senecaattributes Gaius’ behavior to whim rather than the legal stipulations ofa iustitium. Hence this erratic behavior probably should be assigned toan extended period of private mourning after the end of the publiciustitium.70

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 382

71 E.g., Granius Licinianus Ann. 36.27-28.72 E.g., Dio 56.43.1; cf. Gaius’ private mourning in Suetonius Gaius 24.2; Seneca

Dial. 11.17.4-6 (Cons. Polyb.).73 E.g., Granius Licinianus Ann. 36.27-28; Dio 56.43.1; 58.2.2; Dionysius Hal. Ant.

Rom. 5.48.4.74 E.g., Livy 3.5.5, 14; 3.27.2; 6.7.1; 7.6.12; 7.9.6; 7.28.3; 9.7.8; 10.4.1; 10.21.3, 6;

cf. 7.1.4; 26.26.9; Lucan BC (Phars.) 2.18; Cicero Har. 55; Planc. 33; Phil. 5.31; 6.2;Suetonius Galba 10.2. Strikes and states of emergency were sometimes manipulated forpolitical reasons; e.g., Appian BC 1.55-56; Cicero Red. Sen. 6; see Andrew Lintott, Violencein Republican Rome (2nd edition; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 149-74.

75 See previous note; also, e.g., Cicero Har. 55; ILS 140 (CIL 11.1421), lines 20-31;Tabula Hebana 54-59; S. C. de Pisone 57-70; cf. Plutarch Tib. Gr. 10.

76 Livy 10.21.3, 6.77 E.g., Livy 9.7.8; Lucan BC (Phars.) 2.18-67.

A number of points suggest that the iustitium for Drusilla was rela-tively short.

(1) By its very nature, a iustitium could only last a few days. Eventhough a iustitium could initiate a long period of mourning, it must bedistinguished from any fuller period of mourning.71 As will becomeclear below, the iustitium is more properly related to the funeral thanany extended period of mourning that followed. For Roman men thelength of a period of mourning seems to have varied widely beyondan expected minimum of a few days.72 For women the total period ofmourning typically lasted for a year.73 This is in sharp contrast withthe potential length of a iustitium.

Originally a iustitium was a formal state of emergency in RepublicanRome after a military defeat or major threat that demanded an immediatelevying of troops.74 A iustitium was announced because the city’s sur-vival depended on the suspension of any activity that might distractfrom the urgent situation at hand. This justified the interruption ofjudicial process, closure of the treasury, shutting down of auctions, for-bidding of contractual activity such as the payment of debts, delay inmajor private ceremonies such as weddings, and cessation of manyother business activities.75 The obvious pragmatic obstacles to normallife created by these restrictions made it impossible to maintain themfor a long period. This is clearly illustrated when Livy cites a iustitiumof 18 days to emphasize the remarkable effort devoted to an excep-tional military threat.76 He assumed that his readers would view thisas an extraordinarily long iustitium.

The frequent observance of a iustitium in response to military defeataccorded the practice a coincidental association with mourning overthe recent deaths of the fallen heroes.77 Thus it was natural that as


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 383


78 E.g., Appian BC 1.105-107; Granius Licinianus Ann. 36.27-28; Tacitus Ann. 1.16,50; 2.82; 3.2, 6-7; Suetonius Tib. 52.1; SHA Marcus Aur. 7.10-11; S. C. de Pisone 57-70.The entire context of the iustitium announced in ILS 140 (CIL 11.1421), lines 20-22,draws on the imagery of an emergency measure and civic disaster. On Sulla, see Arce,Funus Imperatorum, 17-34.

79 E.g., Cicero Har. 55; Planc. 33; Phil. 5.31; 6.2; Suetonius Gal. 10.2; cf. Aulus GelliusNA 20.1.42-43.

80 ILS 140 (CIL 11.1421), lines 20-22; Fasti Cuprenses Feb. 21, 4 CE (CIL 9.5290) inVictor Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus andTiberius (2nd edition; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955) 39; Augusto Fraschetti, “La TabulaHebana, la Tabula Siarensis e il Iustitium per la Morte di Germanico,” MEFR 100 (1988)867-889, esp. 871-72; Ladislav Vidman, “Inferiae und Iustitium,” Klio 53 (1971) 209-12.

81 Cf. below on Tiberius and Germanicus.82 E.g., Appian BC 2.143; Dio 54.35.4-5; 56.31.2-33.6; Tacitus Ann. 1.8.; 5.1. For

Drusilla, see Dio 59.11.1.83 On the various displays, e.g., Polybius 6.53-54; Appian BC 1.105-107; Dio 56.34.1-

42.4; 59.11.1-6; 75.4.1-5.5; Tacitus Ann. 3.2-6; Herodian Hist. 4.2; Suetonius Gaius5-6; Suetonius Vesp. 19.2; Seneca Apoc. 11-12; Propertius 2.13b.1-8; Diodorus 31.25.2.

84 Flower, Ancestor Masks, 93. E.g., Servius Aen. 6.218; Tacitus Ann. 4.8; Seneca Dial.10.20.3 (Brev. Vit.); see more fully below.

early as the funeral of Sulla in 78 BCE, the close association betweenthe welfare of the city and uniquely powerful political figures oftenresulted in the observation of a iustititum after their death.78 But thecontinuing application of the iustitium to genuine states of emergencyprevented this from dissolving the normal assumptions about the restrictivenature and short duration of a iustitium.79

(2) By the time of the death of Gaius Caesar (son of Augustus) in4 CE, the customary duration of a funerary iustitium apparently wasidentified with the period from the announcement of death to thedeposit of the deceased’s ashes in the tomb.80 In the case of deathsoutside Rome, the arrival of the corpse or ashes in Rome probablyreplaced the announcement of death in marking the beginning of aiustitium.81 In either scenario, the standard length of a iustitium wouldhave been just as short as any traditional iustitium declared in an actualstate of emergency.

The news of the death of a major figure in the imperial family wouldhave quickly resulted in a preliminary meeting of the Senate and theemperor’s family to hear the deceased’s will and to plan the funeral.82

Preparation for the military parades, theatrical displays, and other pub-lic activities that occurred during the funeral required at least a fewdays.83 During this time (the collocatio) the corpse would have beenmourned while lying in state.84 This period was followed by the public

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 384

85 Dio 56.42.3-4.86 E.g., Appian BC 3.2-3; Suetonius Caes. 84.5; Dio 56.42.3-4. Cf. Vergil Aen. 5.64-

66, 104-105, 761-62.87 E.g., Dio 69.10.3 (Xiph.); Servius Aen. 5.64.88 E.g., Polybius 6.53-54. See Davies, Death and the Emperor, 8-11; Arce, Funus Imperatorum,

18-57; Price, “From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult,” 56-91; Heinrich Chantraine, “ ‘Dopplebestattigung’ römischer Kaiser,” Historia (Wiesbaden) 29 (1980) 71-85.

89 Counting inclusively in Roman fashion; cf. Beard, North, and Price, Religions ofRome, 2.60-69; H. H. Scullard, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press, 1981) 43-46. The similarity was widely recognized; e.g., the pun abouta bad market-day cook (nundinalis cocus) and a funeral feast (novendialis) in Plautus Aul.324-25; Pompeius Festus Verb. 173.

90 Not four days as in Barabara Levick, Tiberius the Politician (2nd edition; New York:Routledge, 1999) 70, 247. Counting inclusively in Roman fashion, Fasti Ostienses for 37indicates six days from the arrival of the corpse of Tiberius in Rome (IIII K. Apr., i.e.,March 29) through his funeral (III Non. Apr., i.e., April 3); Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents,43. Fasti Ostienses for 112 indicates six days from the death of Marciana (IIII K. Septembr.,i.e., Aug. 29 [ Julian]) to her cremation (III Non. Sept., i.e., Sept. 3); Smallwood, Nerva,Trajan and Hadrian, 32. The first and last of the six days would only be partial days,so the actual time might have been as few as five 24-hour periods. Further, the last ofthe six days would have been the first day of the vigil over the ashes.

91 Dio 56.42.3-4.

funeral and cremation. After cremation, the imperial family’s vigil overthe smoldering embers lasted until the deceased’s ashes were finallygathered for procession to the tomb.85 Like the preparatory period, thisvigil lasted a few days.86 Probably in most cases the total time requiredfor a iustitium that lasted from announcement of death until entombmentof the ashes fell within a range from one to two weeks.

(3) An additional factor in the preferred length of a iustitium for amember of the imperial household in the first century may have beenthe customary nine days observed in funerals of the Roman nobility.87

The influence of this model was probably inescapable because imperialfunerals had evolved directly out of these older Republican patterns.88

The nine days required for a full cycle of the Roman market sequenceprobably created social habits that further enhanced the influence ofthis model.89

Probably this was already implied in the practice of observing a iusti-tium from announcement of death until entombment. At least two earlyimperial funerals indicate that the preparatory period between theannouncement of death and cremation might last as many as five orsix days.90 In the case of the funeral of Augustus, it is also certain thatthe subsequent vigil before entombment lasted for five days.91 But thisvigil seems to have been abnormally long. At least by the second cen-tury the collocatio frequently lasted seven days while the following vigil


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 385


92 Servius Aen. 5.64; not even two full days: cremation on eighth day and entombmenton ninth. Cf. the seven days in Servius Aen. 6.218; Herodian Hist. 4.2.

93 Tiberius died March 16 in 37; Tacitus Ann. 6.50; Suetonius Tib. 73.1; Fasti Ostienses;Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, 43. As the above note indicates, six days followed hiscorpse’s arrival in Rome before his cremation. The entombment of his ashes must havefollowed shortly thereafter.

94 For two periods, see Fraschetti, “Tabula Hebana,” 867-89, with qualifications below.95 Fasti Antiates Oct. 10, 19; Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, 53; cf. Tabula Siarensis

2a.1.96 Tacitus Ann. 2.82; Fasti Ostienses Dec. 8, 19 in Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, 41.

Fraschetti, “Tabula Hebana,” 868-71, 886-89, suggests that the parallel between date ofdeath (VI idus Oct.) and date of beginning the iustitium (VI idus Dec.) was intentional andthus indicates a delay between arrival of news of death and the iustitium. But 60 daysis reasonable for news to travel from Antioch to Rome at this time of year, so thedelay could not have been long; cf. Lord, “Date,” 19-40.

97 Against Vidman, “Inferiae und Iustitium,” 211, and Stefan Weinstock, “ThePosthumous Honours of Germanicus,” in Raymond Chevallier, ed., Mélanges d’archéologieet d’histoire offerts à André Piganiol (Paris: S. E. V. P. E. N., 1966) 891-98.

98 Tacitus Ann. 2.83-88. Tabula Hebana 54-57, indicates that the temples were openfor business during the interval, which normally was not the case during a iustitium;Fraschetti, “Tabula Hebana,” 872-84; cf. ILS 140 (CIL 11.1421), lines 20-23; S. C. dePisone 61-65.

lasted only two days.92 This confirms the ongoing vitality of the pat-tern of nine days, which must have exerted at least some influence onfirst-century examples in which the full sequence from announcementof death until entombment is not clear. This pattern probably appliedeven in the case of Tiberius. Despite the long delay after his death inMisenum, the period from the arrival of his corpse in Rome until theentombment of his ashes must have been comparable to nine days.93

One demonstrable instance of a iustitium of nine days is the first oftwo separate periods of mourning in Rome for Germanicus, the fatherof both Gaius and Drusilla.94 Germanicus died in Antioch on October10 in 19 CE.95 The arrival in Rome of news of his death was followedby an order to begin a iustitium on December 8.96 The practice of end-ing a iustitium with the entombment of the deceased’s ashes has some-times led to the mistaken conclusion that this iustitium lasted until afterGermanicus’ wife Agrippina arrived in Rome with his ashes at the endof March or beginning of April.97 But the pragmatic obstacles to a longiustitium make this impossible. Official business clearly was resumedbetween the iustitium in December and Agrippina’s arrival in the spring.98

Tacitus does mention the end of a iustitium after the entombment ofGermanicus’ ashes (Ann. 3.6-7). But Tacitus also explicitly refers toofficial orders that probably mark the beginning of this iustitium shortly

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 386

99 Uncertainty is apparent in Tacitus Ann. 3.1, probably as a result of the delay inthe reception of news of Agrippina’s arrival. But clear indications of official orders inAnn. 3.2 probably indicate a genuine formal iustitium, not simply a “spontaneous” unofficialone, pace Fraschetti, “Tabula Hebana,” 884-89.

100 The precise duration of this iustitium is unclear because of a lacuna in the text;Tabula Hebana 54-57. But no precedent prevents it from being one day or just a fewdays, contra Weinstock, “Posthumous Honours,” 893-94.

101 E.g., Twelve Tables in Cicero De Leg. 2.60; Tacitus Ann. 3.5.2. See Chantraine, “ ‘Dopplebestattigung’,” 79-85.

102 Tabula Siarensis 2b.11-31.103 Suetonius Gaius 6.104 E.g., Herodian Hist. 4.2; cf. Servius Aen. 5.64; 6.218. On the continuity of second

century practices with Republican practices, see Chantraine, “ ‘Dopplebestattigung’,” 73-84; against Bickerman, “Consecratio,” 14-25; Bickermann, “Römische Kaiserapotheose,”1-31.

105 Correctly, Hugh Lindsay, “Eating with the Dead: The Roman Funerary Banquet,”in Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen, eds., Meals in a Social Context: Aspects ofthe Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press,

after Agrippina’s arrival in Italy (Ann. 3.2).99 These orders seem to havebeen a natural extension of plans that the Senate had already madein December to initiate a iustitium sometime after the arrival in Romeof the ashes of Germanicus.100 Hence the iustitium in late March orearly April must be regarded as a separate iustitium from the earlierone in December. This division of the funerary rites for Germanicusinto two widely separated periods simply followed models already devel-oped in Republican Rome to accommodate deaths that occurred greatdistances from the city.101

The iustitium for Germanicus that began on December 8 continuedat least until December 16, when Tiberius delivered a eulogy and anhonorific decree was voted by the Senate.102 These activities must havecoincided with the end of this iustitium because Suetonius suggests thatan order for the resumption of business (which was ignored) precededthe Saturnalia on December 17.103 This would indicate a iustitium ofprecisely nine days, i.e., Dec. 8-16.

The traditional observance of nine days of mourning continued toshape the length of a iustitium in the second century, by which timethe period of watching over the corpse or a wax image substitute wasstandardized at seven days.104 Since the first and last of the traditionalnine days of an elite funeral in the Republican period were distinguishedfrom the intervening seven by distinctive funerary rites, the celebrationsattached to this period of seven days apparently extended the totallength of time to maintain the original pattern of nine days.105 The


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 387


1998) 67-80; against J. M. C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1971) 50-51.

106 Dio 59.10.8-12.1; Suetonius Gaius 24.2.107 Dio 59.11.6; cf. 59.10.8; Suetonius Gaius 24.2.108 See Arthur Keaveney and John A. Madden, “The Crimen Maiestatis under

Caligula: The Evidence of Dio Cassius,” CQ 48 (1998) 316-20; Peter A. Brunt, “DidEmperors Ever Suspend the Law of ‘Maiestas’?” in V. Giuffre, ed., Sodalites: Scritti inonore di Antonio Guarino (Biblioteca di Labeo 8: Napoli: Jovene, 1984) 1.469-80.

109 Dio 59.12.1; cf. Suetonius Gaius 24.2.110 E.g., Barrett, Caligula, 86, despite the contradiction this creates with his claims

about the genuine gravity of the situation; less clearly, Herz, “Arvalakten des Jahres38,” 95-96, 102.

111 Dio 59.10.8-12.1; Suetonius Gaius 24.2.112 Tacitus Ann. 2.82; Fraschetti, “Tabula Hebana,” 869-70.113 Gaius chose Drusilla as his heir; Suetonius Gaius 24.1; see Wood, “Diva Drusilla

continuing vitality of the Republican pattern of nine days of mourningprobably assured the impact of this pattern on the duration of the iusti-tium for Drusilla.

(4) Attributing a short length to the iustitium for Drusilla also providesthe most natural reading of the ancient testimony to its observation.Dio and Suetonius indicate that this iustitium included the expected sus-pension of official business and prohibitions against bathing, banqueting,and other activities deemed inappropriate to either mourning or a tra-ditional state of emergency.106 Violators of these restrictions were chargedwith crimen maiestatis, i.e., treasonable impiety.107 Despite modern claimsto the contrary, Gaius probably had not suspended the laws pertainingto this crime.108 Their rigorous application to violations of the restrictionsof Drusilla’s iustitium resulted in the execution of at least one haplesstransgressor.109 As in the Republican period, simple pragmatic obstaclesprevented the observance of such restrictions for very long.

Those who assume a long iustitium have attempted to circumventthese pragmatic obstacles by suggesting that the iustitium for Drusillawas not enforced.110 This seems rather dubious. It requires an outrightdismissal of the explicit statements of Dio and Suetonius.111 It alsoignores the history of using the iustitium as an accepted emergency mea-sure. The death of Drusilla’s popular father had even been followedby a spontaneous iustitium before the formal one was announced.112 Thiswould imply sincere official and public support for enforcing any restric-tions Gaius imposed in honor of Drusilla. Furthermore, Drusilla’s iusti-tium acquired a genuine gravity from the troubling dynastic crisis createdby her death.113 Assuming a short iustitium eliminates the need for thetenuous claim that her iustitium was not enforced. The extended period

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 388

Panthea,” 458-61. Hence the sudden short-lived marriage in Dio 59.12.1; 59.23.7;Suetonius Gaius 25.2; cf. Pliny NH 9.117-18. This practical need even might have ledGaius to marry within a week of Drusilla’s funeral; cf. Dio’s “a few days” (Ùl¤gai≤m°rai), which might refer to the short iustitium; pace Barrett, Caligula, 89. But Gaius’private mourning might be against this; next note.

114 Suetonius Gaius 24.2; Seneca Dial. 11.17.4-6 (Cons. Polyb.); cf. Dio 59.11.1.115 John Scheid and Henri Broise, “Deux nouveaux fragments des Actes des Frères

Arvales de l’année 38 ap. J.-C.,” MEFR 92 (1980) 215-48, frags. B + d.26-30.116 Dio 59.11.5. Fraschetti, “Tabula Hebana,” 872-84, notes that temples normally were

closed during a iustitium; cf. ILS 140 (CIL 11.1421), lines 20-23; Tabula Hebana 54-57;S. C. de Pisone 61-65.

117 Barrett, Caligula, 86; implicitly, Herz, “Arvalakten des Jahres 38,” 95-96, 102.118 Above; cf. also Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,” 235-37.119 So Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 287; contra Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,”

240-42, who argues from the coinage that Agrippa had left Alexandria before this.

of private mourning that was often observed by family members afterthe end of a iustitium is sufficient to account for Suetonius’ descriptionof the hasty withdrawal of Gaius into Campania and Seneca’s descriptionof his subsequent erratic behavior.114

The most decisive evidence for the short duration of Drusilla’s iusti-tium appears in the fragmentary records of the Arval priestly collegefor June 26 of 38.115 These refer to routine festival celebrations thatwould have directly violated the iustitium for Drusilla.116 This has beenused to support claims that this iustitium was not enforced.117 But themost parsimonious interpretation of this evidence is that the iustitiumwas over. It ended no later than June 25.

The combination of all of the preceding considerations would suggestthat Drusilla’s iustitium in Rome lasted for nine days. It almost certainlydid not last much longer than this because it was over by June 25.One cannot be too far wrong if one assigns it to the period of June10-18.

4. The Iustitium for Drusilla in Alexandria

Analogy with practices in Rome confirms our earlier suggestion thatthe public activity that immediately followed Agrippa’s arrival inAlexandria must have preceded Drusilla’s iustitium in Alexandria.118 Noneof this activity is likely under the restrictions of a iustitium. It nowremains to explore the circumstances in Alexandria when the iustitiumbegan.

(1) Agrippa was probably still in Alexandria. Agrippa’s arrival probablydid not precede the iustitium for Drusilla by very long.119 For Agrippa’s


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 389


120 Vegetius Res. Mil. 4.39.121 E.g., Flacc. 48-51, 56, 97-103, 125; Legat. 133-61, 163, 165, 231-32, 236, 279-80,

335, 355-57.

arrival to precede the announcement of Drusilla’s death he would havehad to depart from Rome at least a few days before Drusilla died onJune 10. But the previous discussion suggests that one cannot dateAgrippa’s departure from Rome much earlier than this if there is anycredibility in Philo’s claim that Agrippa awaited the etesian winds. Itis also unlikely that Agrippa would have left Rome much before thelast week of May, when the period of safest sailing began.120 These factors place Agrippa’s departure from Rome in the last week of Mayor the first week of June. Since he departed from Rome only a fewdays before Drusilla died, his arrival in Alexandria could only havepreceded the news of her death by a few days. This increases theprobability that the intended length of his visit had not been completedwhen news of Drusilla’s death arrived. Further analysis confirms this point.

(2) A number of considerations suggest that Flaccus issued his edictin conjunction with ceremonies marking the official end of the iustitiumin Alexandria (Flacc. 53-57). Philo indicates that Judean shops wereclosed in observance of this iustitium when this edict was announced(Flacc. 56). This is only one of many examples in which Philo createsan implicit contrast between Judean piety toward the emperor and thepurported impiety of the enemies of the Judeans.121 Philo’s pervasiveinterest in drawing this contrast makes it rather surprising that he didnot more fully exploit the severity of the iustitium to bring a witheringaccusation of impiety (crimen maiestatis) against Flaccus and the Alexandriancrowds. For example, Philo complains about the injustice of the judicialprocedures behind the edict of Flaccus (Flacc. 53-55). But he strangelydoes not make the more fundamental accusation that official businessof this kind violated the iustitium. In the same way, Philo’s implicit com-plaint about the impiety of the Alexandrian crowds does not explicitlyaccuse them of violating the iustitium.

Philo probably does not make these accusations because no suchviolation occurred. Few prefects would have blatantly violated theirown orders for a iustitium for Drusilla. In addition to their own loyal-ties, other Roman officials could too easily inform against them. TheAlexandrian crowds also probably would not have violated the iustitium

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 390

122 Dio 59.10.8-12.1; Suetonius Gaius 24.2; for violating the prefect’s order, see Gnomon37 (BGU 5.1210.106-108).

123 For Germanicus, e.g., P. Oxy. 25.2435; cf. Sel. Pap. 2.211 (SB 1.3924); TacitusAnn. 2.59. For Gaius, e.g., BMC Alexandria Supp. 2641 (Christiansen); Brooks EmmonsLevy, “Caligula’s Radiate Crown,” Schweizer Münzblatter 38 no. 152 (November 1988)101-107, distinguishes divine sanction from divinity, but this was blurred in provincialmints. Note the months named Gaius, Drusus, and Drusilla by 39/40 CE; Ann EllisHanson, “Caligulan Month-Names at Philadelphia and Related Matters,” in Atti delXVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (3 vols.; Napoli: Centro Internazionale per loStudio dei Papiri Ercolanesi, 1984) 3.1107-18.

124 The belief that Judeans fasted on the Sabbath may have helped Philo exploit thisappearance; e.g., Strabo 16.2.40 (C763); Suetonius Aug. 76.2; Petronius frag. 37 (GLAJJ195).

125 E.g., Tabula Siarensis 2b.11-31, which probably marked the end of the first iusti-tium for Germanicus, and Tacitus Ann. 3.6-7, which marked the end of the second (dis-cussed above).

126 Virgil Aen. 5.64-70, 104-764; Servius Aen. 5.64; cf. Lucian Luct. 23; Cicero ProMilone 86; for the funerary feast (novendialis), see Horace Epod. 17.48; Petronius Sat. 65.10;Tacitus Ann. 6.5; Quintilian Decl. Maior 12.23. On the setting on the ninth day afterdeath (rather than after entombment), cf. Lindsay, “Eating with the Dead,” 69, 72-76;against Toynbee, Death and Burial, 50-51. Military displays were, however, often part ofthe funeral itself; e.g., Appian BC 1.105-107; Dio 59.11.1-2 (Drusilla’s funeral); 75.5.5.

without sufficient reason to risk the brutal penalty for this crime.122

Such a violation would have marked a dramatic break with their pre-vious fanaticism toward the family of Germanicus.123

Philo’s description of the activities of Flaccus and the crowds canbe reconciled with Philo’s claim about the closure of the Judean shopsif the iustitium was officially over when Flaccus issued his edict. Oneway this might have occurred is if the last day of the iustitium was coin-cidentally followed by a Sabbath. This would have effectively extendedthe appearance of mourning for an additional day in the Judean com-munity.124 The edict of Flaccus thus might have been issued on aSabbath that followed the last day of the iustitium.

A more likely alternative is that Flaccus issued his edict only momentsafter announcing the end of the iustitium. Since a iustitium normallyended with the entombment of the deceased’s ashes, its end was prob-ably announced by the presiding magistrate during this ceremony.125

This ceremony also probably initiated the feasts, military displays, ath-letic contests, and gladiatorial combats that often marked the ninth dayof a funeral of the Roman nobility.126

The last day of the iustitium in Alexandria probably would have beenmarked by a similar ceremony to mark the end of the iustitium. Theshops of Judeans and other inhabitants of the city would have beenclosed during this ceremony. But once the ceremony reached the point


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 391


127 Cf. the practice of holding court on nundinae (market days); Scullard, Festivals andCeremonies, 44-45. See above on the similarity between the nine days of mourning andthe full cycle of nundinae.

128 Flacc. 54-61; Legat. 121, 128-31. On the displays, see above. Note especially the“Troy” exercise, the name of which recalled the paradigmatic sacked city; Virgil Aen.5.545-603; at Drusilla’s funeral, Dio 59.11.2.

at which Flaccus pronounced the iustitium over, nothing would haveprevented him from making a routine judicial pronouncement whilethe crowds were still assembled.127 The crowds also would have beenfree to leave the assembly to attack Judeans before Judean shops hadreopened. The zeal with which these attacks were carried out mighteasily have been inspired by the festive atmosphere that followed theend of the iustitium. Philo’s comparison of the attacks to the sacking ofa city and his references to the impunity with which the crowds carriedout these attacks might even suggest that they were an officially approvedextension of the military displays normally celebrated on the ninth dayof an elite funeral.128 The ability of the crowds to respond to the edictof Flaccus on a collective scale and with such immediacy almost requiresthat it was announced in a large assembly of this kind.

This also might explain Philo’s complaint that the edict announceda judicial verdict reached without allowing the Judeans to plead theircase (Flacc. 54). The Judeans would have found it difficult to influencethe decision of Flaccus if it was preceded by a iustitium in which judicialbusiness was formally suspended. Flaccus apparently believed that theneed to address some purported Judean crime was so urgent that hemade it the first order of business the moment the iustitium was over.This would suggest that the Judean crime may have occurred duringthe iustitium itself.

(3) These factors suggest that the iustitium for Drusilla in Alexandriamay have been the context for the initial assembly of the crowds inthe theater (Flacc. 41). If the previous discussion is correct in suggest-ing that Flaccus issued his edict on the last day of the iustitium, the“few days” that preceded this edict must have included some or all ofthe nine days of the iustitium (Flacc. 53-54). Since the day of the initialassembly in the theater is the immediate reference point for the beginningof this sequence of “a few days,” one is led naturally to the conclusionthat this assembly occurred near the beginning of the iustitium. Sinceour initial discussion suggested that Agrippa was still in Alexandria onthe day of the assembly in the theater, the inescapable conclusion isthat he was present for the beginning of the iustitium.

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 392

129 E.g., Vergil Aen. 5.42-50, 64-66, 104-105; 6.252-58; Plutarch Sulla 38.2; ServiusAen. 5.64; SHA Alex. Sev. 29.2; Mark 16:1-2.

130 Arce, Funus Imperatorum, 22. Richard Alston, “Philo’s Flaccum: Ethnicity and SocialSpace in Roman Alexandria,” Greece and Rome 44 (1997) 165-75, attributes this planningto a mob rather than Flaccus. But see Kerkeslager, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, andIsidoros.”

131 Cf. above.132 On the indefensible inferences often made from these hints, see Kerkeslager,

“Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros.”133 The symbolic value of such insults not only initiated some conflicts among the

elite, but expressed or exacerabated others; e.g., Tacitus Ann. 2.55-3.18; S. C. de Pisone.134 For exploiting funeral orations and displays, see, e.g., Appian BC 2.143-47;

3.2-3; Cicero Brut. 61-62; Livy 8.40.4-5; Dio 59.3.8; Suetonius Gaius 15.1; Tacitus Ann.3.4. Cf. the prefect’s self-serving introduction in P. Lond. 6.1912.

(4) This proposal immediately clarifies a number of features in Philo’sdescription of events. For example, it would explain both the presenceof the crowds in the theater and the timing of their assembly, whichwas “in the early morning” (§j •vyinoË; Flacc. 41). This is precisely thetime of day at which rituals for the dead were often celebrated.129 Thissetting also required prior planning.130 If news of Drusilla’s death hadarrived in Alexandria on an earlier day, it probably would have beenfollowed by the prefect’s order for a iustitium and arrangements for pub-lic funerary ceremonies.131 These considerations would suggest that thecrowds in the theater either were gathered to observe the beginningof the iustitium or to celebrate the subsequent funerary ceremonies. Theleading role of the prefect in either case might explain why Philolaunched into his longest and most vituperative tirade against Flaccusexactly at the point in which he began to describe the day of theassembly in the theater.

Philo seems to attribute the violence partly to an insinuating speechFlaccus delivered on this day (Flacc. 51; cf. 41, 43, 44). Philo artfullydistracted attention from the source of the prefect’s animosity by hint-ing that he was bribed (Flacc. 41, 51).132 But Philo’s earlier apologeticfor Agrippa reveals a friction between Agrippa and Flaccus that mightbetter explain this animosity (Flacc. 29-40). Philo’s effort to attributethis tension to the jealousy of Flaccus inadvertently suggests that Agrippahad encroached on the delicate protocols of elite honor.133 ConsequentlyPhilo’s allusions to an insinuating speech may indicate that Flaccusretaliated with subtle insults against Agrippa and the Judeans while hepresided over the initial funerary ceremonies for Drusilla.134 The extremevolatility of these ceremonies is suggested by other elite funerals andmourning rites, which variously incited riots, mutinies, and attacks on


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 393


135 E.g., Appian BC 1.107; 2.146-48; 3.2-3; Suetonius Caes. 82-85; Gaius 4-6; cf.Tacitus Ann. 1.8; 1.16; 2.82-83; Dio 74.13.1-5. See H. S. Versnel, “Destruction, Devotioand Despair in a Situation of Anomy: The Mourning for Germanicus in TriplePerspective,” in Giulia Piccaluga, ed., Perennitas: Studi in onore di Angelo Brelich (Roma:Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1980) 541-618.

136 Suetonius Gaius 4-6; Tacitus Ann. 2.82-84; 3.1-7; see Versnel, “Destruction, Devotioand Despair,” 541-618. On Germanicus in Egypt, e.g., P. Oxy. 25.2435; cf. Sel. Pap.2.211 (SB 1.3924); Tacitus Ann. 2.59-61; Suetonius Tib. 52.2; later honors, Hanson,“Caligulan Month-Names at Philadelphia,” 3.1110-13.

137 D. W. Rathbone, “The Dates of the Recognition in Egypt of the Emperors fromCaracalla to Diocletianus,” ZPE 62 (1986) 101-31, suggests 20-25 days. But (as Rathboneadmits) examples may extend beyond this range; e.g., probably 28 days ( June 9-July6 of 68) in OGIS 669 (SB 5.8444, depending on whether courier who brought edictalso first brought news); 35 days to Oxyrhynchus (Oct. 13-Nov. 17 of 54) in P.Oxy.7.1021 (Sel. Pap. 2.235). Agrippa’s own journey took longer than “swift rumor” or officialcouriers, especially if he went overland from Rome to Puteoli; cf. Horace Sat. 1.5.Impossibly low limits of the ranges in Lionel Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the AncientWorld (2nd ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995) 278-99 (14-21 days),and Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994)151-55 (10-21 days), are based on record journeys and do not sufficiently account forthe stage from Rome to Puteoli (e.g., Pliny NH 19.3-4).

138 Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 287, dates the arrival of Agrippa to mid-June becausehe dates the arrival of news of Drusilla’s death to “between 20 and 23 June.” But thisis almost impossibly fast; cf. previous note.

temples and cult objects.135 Given this volatility and the fanaticism withwhich Germanicus and his family were hailed during their tour ofEgypt, even the most subtle hints about Judean disloyalty to this familyeasily could have provoked hostilities more violent than the disordersthat erupted in Rome after the arrival of news of the suspicious deathof Germanicus.136

(5) The chronology of these events can now be assigned to specificdates. News traveled from Rome to Alexandria in about 20-30 daysunder summer wind conditions.137 This would suggest that the iustitiumfor Drusilla’s death in Rome on June 10 began in Alexandria sometimein the period July 1-10.138 If it lasted for nine days, its end can probablybe dated within the range of July 9-18. Assuming that Agrippa’s arrivalin Alexandria preceded the news of Drusilla’s death by only a shorttime, his arrival can be dated to the last week of June or the first weekof July. He was still present for the beginning of the iustitium and thesubsequent funerary ceremonies in the theater. These ceremonies probablyoccurred in the first half of Drusilla’s iustitium after four or five daysof preparation. Probably these ceremonies were the catalyst for theevents that implicated Agrippa and the other Judeans in a conspiracyagainst Rome.

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 394

139 E.g., Van der Horst, Flaccus, 134; Ameling, “‘Market-Place’ und Gewalt,” 119;Erich S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 2002) 55-64; Smallwood, Jews, 239-40; André Pelletier, In Flaccum:Introduction, Traduction et Notes (Paris: Cerf, 1967) 73.

140 E.g., Twelve Tables in Cicero De Leg. 2.60; Tacitus Ann. 3.5.2; Herodian Hist.4.2.1-11, after death in Britain (cf. SHA Sept. Severus 24.1-2); for an embalmed body;Tacitus Ann. 16.6 (cf. 16.21); after more than two months, Dio 75.4.1-5.5 (cf. 74.10.3,13.2, 17.5); slave’s absent body, ILS 7212 (CIL 14.2112) 3.3-4. See Chantraine, “‘Dopple-bestattigung’,” 75-85; Kierdorf, “‘Funus’ und ‘consecratio’,” 51-52, 59-69; both of whomcorrect Bickerman, “Consecratio,” 14-25; Bickermann, “Römische Kaiserapotheose,” 1-31.

5. Philo’s Terminology for the Images

Comparison with Roman funerary rites clarifies the implications ofthe Judean response to the installation of images in their synagogueson the day of the assembly in the theater. The term (efikÒnew) that Philouses for these “images” in Flacc. 41 is strikingly vague. Scholars routinelyassume that they were images of the emperor because of the clear ref-erences to the emperor’s images in the Legatio (e.g., Legat. 134, 346; cf.137).139 But our previous demonstration that the Legatio omitted anyreference to the initial day these images were installed indicates thatthey must be analyzed with greater attention to the immediate contextin the In Flaccum.

In Flacc. 41-52 Philo establishes a number of parallels between theimproper installation of the images and the proper Judean use of thesynagogues. These include the crowd’s “employing trickery by trans-forming the name of Caesar into a covering (prokãlumma)” (Flacc. 42).This phrase is deceptively opaque. It only attributes the images withsome undefined relationship to the emperor. Philo also mentions Judean“piety to their benefactors” and “honor to our masters” (Flacc. 48-49).Both of these phrases are striking in their use of the plural. The samecollective honors are implied in his phrase “reverence toward theAugustan house” (Flacc. 49). Philo’s preference for vague terminologyappropriate to the imperial household as a whole can be accountedfor if the images were representations of various members of the entireAugustan household and its illustrious ancestors.

This is precisely what one would expect during a local adaptationof the funeral for Drusilla. The use of images of the deceased and hisor her ancestors during elite Roman funerals in the Republican periodmade it easy to employ images of the deceased as a substitute for thecorpse in the case of deaths distant from Rome or in other situationsin which the corpse was unavailable.140 This practice, later called a


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 395


141 For the terminology, see SHAPertinax 15.1; SHA Sept. Severus 7.8; ILS 7212 (CIL14.2112) 3.4; cf. similarly Servius Aen. 6.325.

142 Cf. Tacitus Ann. 2.73; see fully Flower, Ancestor Masks.143 In general, see Wood, Imperial Women, 1-26; Rose, Dynastic Commemoration, 3-10,

57-59. In Alexandria, e.g., Dio 51.12.1-2 with 51.15.5; Strabo 17.1.9 (C794); Philo Legat.150-51; Pliny NH 35.9-11; André Bernand and Etienne Bernand, “Un procurateur deseffigies impériale à Alexandrie,” ZPE 122 (1998) 97-101. Cf. the procession in SEG11.923 (Gytheum) 24-33.

144 Wood, Imperial Women, 207-208; e.g., Pliny NH 34-35; Tacitus Ann. 5.4.145 E.g., Suetonius Caes. 84.1; Herodian Hist. 4.2; Dio 75.4.1-5.5; cf. Polybius

6.53-54; Suetonius Vesp. 19.2. Probably none of imperial family’s ancestral masks wereavailable unless there was a relative in Alexandria with a traditional atrium. But masksand costumes were typical of ancient rituals; e.g., Apuleius Met. 11.8-17.

146 E.g., Appian BC 2.146-47; Dio 56.34.1-3; Tacitus Ann. 3.2; Herodian Hist. 4.2;Dio 75.4.1-5.5; cf. Polybius 6.53-54.

147 E.g., BMCRE Caligula 81-87; RIC 1.118 no. 42, plate 8; Suetonius Gaius 15.1;Claud. 11.2.

148 Cf., e.g., Dio 56.34.1-3; Tacitus Ann. 3.5, 76; 4.9; Pliny NH 35.4-11.

“funeral of images” ( funus imaginarium), may have provided a model forprovincial funerary rites in the imperial cult.141 Traditional Roman wax masks of the imperial family were probably unavailable inAlexandria.142 But busts of the imperial family that could be used infunerary rituals were easily accessible in the Alexandrian theater, agora,library, and Caesareum.143 Privately owned imperial images, such asbronze busts, painted wooden panels, small figurines, cameos decoratinghomes or used as jewelry, and coins were also readily available forpersonal ritual activity.144 Philo’s use of the metaphor of a cloth curtainor veil (prokãlumma) to describe the exploitation of the various possibleimages by the crowd becomes a poignant twist of irony when read inthe context of the veils, shrouds, and costumes used in imperial funeraryrites (Flacc. 42).145

Images of Drusilla would have been given special prominence in herfunerary rites. One may have been borne in procession on a couchsuch as was used in other imperial funerals.146 One also may haveappeared in a chariot or special carriage as in the posthumous cele-brations of Agrippina’s memorial, Drusilla’s birthday, Livia’s consecratio,and similar rituals.147 But the Alexandrian ceremonies also would haveproudly displayed images of legendary ancestors such as Romulus andAeneas, immediate family members such as Germanicus and Gaius,and a host of other male and female figures from the entire history ofthe Julio-Claudian dynasty.148

This broad scope of images indicates that any violent Judean responseto the installation of these images in the synagogues would have con-

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 396

149 See further below.150 The unidentified “mounted man” in Philo Legat. 134 probably was Augustus,

Germanicus, or some other figure that Philo dared not specify.151 Total 18X: Legat. 134, 138, 151, 188, 203, 207 (2X), 220, 238, 246, 260, 265,

306, 308, 334, 335, 337, 346; but never in In Flaccum. Occasionally éndriãw was usedfor statues of women; LSJ s.v. Absent from In Flaccum is joãnon, a wooden image, Legat.98, 148, 292; êgalma, a cult statue, Legat. 98, 148, 292; cf. Legat. 210; cf. Price, Ritualsand Power, 176-79. Even efik≈n is generally avoided in In Flaccum; cf. Legat. 134, 138,210 (metaphorically), 334, 346; Flacc. 41.

152 Without a senatorial damnatio memoriae; Dio 60.4.5-6; Barrett, Caligula, 177-80.153 Dio 59.10.8-12.1; for other elite females, e.g., Suetonius Caes. 6.1; Dio 54.35.5;

cf. Suetonius Gaius 10.1; Tacitus Ann. 3.76. Cf. Davies, Death and the Emperor, 67-74,102-19; Flower, Ancestor Masks, 91-158.

stituted an outrage against the entire Julio-Claudian dynasty.149 Philo’sdesperate effort to hide this perilous odium explains his choice of vaguelanguage for these images. In the Legatio, the same purpose was achievedby focusing primarily on images of Gaius.150 Even the term that Philoused most frequently for images in the Legatio surreptitiously directedattention away from the funeral of Drusilla because of the deceptivelymasculine implications of its etymology (éndriãw).151 This stratagem wasmuch safer than the calculated use of ambiguity in the In Flaccum

because Claudius already had ordered the destruction of images ofGaius by the time the Legatio was written.152 In both texts Philo wastrying to obscure an act of Judean impiety that had implications muchbroader than any insult to Gaius.

6. The Judean Crime

The guilty silence of Philo is now easily explained. In the contextof the mourning rites for Drusilla, the Judean insult to her images wasthoroughly damnable from the perspective of almost any configurationof Roman, Greek, and Egyptian piety. But it also was tantamount toa declaration of war against Rome.

The legitimacy of the Julio-Claudian dynasty was emphasized in therecitation of its divine heritage in formal eulogies, the visible displayof images of its members during the funeral celebration, the militarystandards carried by soldiers in the funeral parades, and the ritualsaffirming the apotheosis of Drusilla.153 Hence the Judean outrage againstthe images of Drusilla and other members of the imperial householdwas an implicit denial of the legitimacy of rule by the Julio-Claudiandynasty. The Roman Senate’s earlier denunciation of Cnaeus Piso’s


JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 397


154 S. C. de Pisone 68-70; consecration is here literally antequam in deorum numerum refer-rentur.

155 Dio 59.11.2-5; Seneca Apoc. 1. Cf. Tabula Siarensis and Tabula Hebana; FergusMillar, “Imperial Ideology in the Tabula Siarensis,” in Julian Gonzalez y Javier Arce,Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas,1988) 11-19.

156 As is clear from the S. C. de Pisone and other decrees on the imperial family; seeGreg Rowe, Princes and Political Cultures: The New Tiberian Senatorial Decrees (Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 2002).

157 Dio 59.11.2. Cf. Arce, Funus Imperatorum, 17-57; on military displays, see above.158 For these issues, see Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World

(Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1998).159 E.g., Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 86-139, 284-87, 291-304, 351-52; Mireille Hadas-

Lebel, “L’éducation des princes hérodiens à Rome et l’évolution du clientélisme romain,”in Menachem Mor, Aharon Oppenheimer, Jack Pastor, and Daniel R. Schwartz, eds.,Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah, and theTalmud ( Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003) 44-62; for his coins, see Meshorer, Treasury ofJewish Coins, 90-102 and plates 52-53 and esp. Burnett, “Coinage of King Agrippa,”36-37. These issues raise doubts about claims that Agrippa was a champion for DiasporaJudeans; against Kushnir-Stein, “Visit of Agrippa,” 237-42; Schwartz, Agrippa, 90-106.Such claims are partly inspired by Rabbinic evidence; but see Schwartz, Agrippa, 116-

insult to the images of the dead Germanicus “before they had beenconsecrated” clearly indicates that an assault on Drusilla’s images alonewould have been understood as a violation of “the deity of the divineAugustus” (numen Divi Augusti ).154 In addition, the Senate had acted inconcert with the larger Roman electoral assembly in recommendingthat the Roman honors to Drusilla be replicated in the provinces.155

Consequently the Judean response to Alexandrian honors to Drusillawas a direct affront to the Senate and the entire Roman people ( popu-lus Romani).156 This was further emphasized in the probable similaritiesbetween the Alexandrian adaptation of Drusilla’s funeral ceremoniesand a military triumph, which epitomized the “glory of the Romanpeople” (maiestas populi Romani ).157 The Roman officials who had orches-trated the Alexandrian ceremonies thus had witnessed a violent Judeanrepudiation of some of the most vivid symbols of Roman rule. Thisautomatically cancelled Roman guarantees of Judean rights, which wereconditioned by an assumption of Judean loyalty.158

Agrippa’s presence added a breathtaking scope to the Judean threatbecause it implied a Judean rally around an alternative to the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Agrippa himself probably did not lift a finger to helpthe local Judeans when the synagogues were desecrated. This wouldhave been consistent with his family’s Hellenized Phoenician heritage,his own Roman grooming, and various testimonies to his obsequiousbehavior as a Roman puppet.159 But the Judean nationalism aroused

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 398


30, 157-71; David Goodblatt, “Agrippa I and Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,”Jewish History 2 (1987) 7-32. Correcting the misinterpretations of Philo and other sourcescited for these claims must be deferred to a separate study.

160 Philo Flacc. 86-94; cf. Chrest. Wilck. 13, which threatens execution for bearingarms.

161 See Reinmuth, Prefect of Egypt, 4-6. E.g., Velleius Paterculus 1.10.1-2; SuetoniusCaes. 35.1; Dio 51.17.1-2; Tacitus Ann. 2.59; Josephus BJ 2.382-86; 4.605-20. Disruptinggrain shipments during the revolt in 116-117 is the implied strategy in CPJ 2.438, 439,441; Appian Arab. Lib. F19 (GLAJJ 348); Dio 68.32.2-3; Eusebius HE 4.2.3; OrosiusHist. 7.12.8.

162 Similarly, CPJ 2.156c (Musurillo, Acts, no. 4c), lines 22-24; cf. CPJ 2.153 (P. Lond.6.1912), lines 98-100. Cf. the illuminating parallels in S. C. de Pisone 12-70.

163 Josephus Ant. 19.354-55. Cf. Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 252, 277.

by the displays of his well-armed bodyguards would have lent credibilityto charges that Agrippa had intentionally incited revolutionary behaviorin the city’s Judeans. The large number of Judeans in the city addeda threatening gravity to these accusations. Flaccus’ search for weaponsin Judean homes was a legally justified attempt to eradicate this danger.160

This clarifies Philo’s tortuous defense against accusations that behindAgrippa’s choice of a circuitous route through Alexandria was a Judeanconspiracy against Rome. Judean revolutionary activity in Alexandriaeasily would have been construed as a plot to threaten the stability ofthe entire empire. The strategic value of control of the grain shipmentsthat moved through the Alexandrian harbors to the rest of theMediterranean was widely recognized. Securing these grain shipmentsplayed a decisive role in Roman relations with the Ptolemies, the con-vulsive wars that preceded the annexation of Egypt in 30 BCE, theformulation of administrative policies for the new province, the civilwars of 68-69 CE, and the Judean revolt in 116-117 CE.161 Philo cov-ered up the Judean outrage that followed Agrippa’s arrival because itwas being used to justify accusations that Agrippa and the Judeans hadbeen conspiring to disrupt “the entire Roman world” (˜lh ≤ ofikoum°nh).162

Agrippa himself was not confident that his loyalty to Gaius wouldbe assured simply by a guilty silence. So he quickly demonstrated hisloyalty when his wife gave birth to a daughter sometime in 38 aftertheir arrival in Judea.163 The daughter’s name? Drusilla.

Conclusions

This study has numerous implications that can only be outlinedbriefly here.

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 399


164 For this and alternatives, see O. F. Robinson, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995) 74-81; Keaveney and Madden,“Crimen Maiestatis under Caligula,” 316-20; on tensions over images, Levick, Tiberiusthe Politician, 180-200; for fundamental assumptions, Brunt, “Did Emperors Ever Suspendthe Law of ‘Maiestas’?” 469-80; Richard A. Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the RomanRepublic and Augustan Principate ( Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1967) viii-ix, 1-15. But the actual charge may have been rather general; cf. Rowe, Princes andPolitical Cultures, 11-12 on S. C. de Pisone.

165 Philo’s Greek need not be an exact translation, though prÒgramma is indeed thelanguage of proscription; e.g., Plutarch Sulla 31.2-32.2. For the equation of hostis withj°now, see Cicero De Offic. 12. For peregrini dediticii, see Gaius Inst. 1.13-15. Cf. Philo’scomparison of the Judeans to punished slaves in Legat. 119 and to the punished Flaccusin Flacc. 170-72.

166 As in Appian BC 2.130-32, 139, 145; cf. oaths in ILS 8781 (OGIS 532; Phazimon,Paphlagonia); Syl. (3) 797 (Assos); SEG 18.578 (Palaipaphos on Cyprus); ILS 190 (CIL2.172; Aritium, Lusitania); CIL 11.5998a (Sestinum, Umbria); Peter Herrman, Der römis-che Kaisereid: Untersuchungen zu seiner Herkunft und Entwicklung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck undRuprecht, 1968) 122-29.

167 Philo Flacc. 73-96. On administrative duties, see Reinmuth, Prefect of Egypt, 59-118. For legal procedures, compare the creation of a “Judean account” in the Judeanrevolt of 116-17; P. Köln 2.97; SB 12.10892, 10893; CPJ 2.445, 448; 3.454; P. Giss. 4(Chr. Wilck. 351); see Joseph Mélèze-Modrzejewski, “ÉIoudaîoi éf˙eirhm°noi,” in GerhardThür, ed., Symposion 1985 (Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 1989) 337-61; Anna •widerek, “ÉIoudaÛkÚwlÒgow,” JJP 16/17 (1971) 45-62.

(1) The Judeans in 38 had “diminished the glory of the Roman peo-ple.” This made them guilty of treasonable impiety (crimen maiestatis pop-

uli Romani minutae).164

(2) The edict of Flaccus was an appropriate punitive response fromthe standpoint of Roman legal and administrative policy. It was a “pro-scription” ( proscriptio) that reduced Judeans to the status of outlaws andhumiliated foreign rebels (hostes et peregrini dediticii ).165

(3) The subsequent violence was a legal consequence of the edict.Flaccus, the Roman military, and the Alexandrian crowds honoredtheir oaths to the emperor, in which they had pledged to fight againsthis enemies.166 The prefect devoted the following months to register-ing confiscated Judean property and other administrative tasks result-ing from the proscription.167

(4) Subsequent conflicts over Judean rights in Alexandria may indi-cate the result, not the cause of the events in 38. Assumptions aboutJudean rights may need thorough reexamination.

JSJ 37,3_341_367-400 6/29/06 3:54 PM Page 400

258793676 Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla in Alexandria

Documents

philos flaccus

roman issues

early roman egypt

dynamics of roman imperialism

edict of flaccus

roman emperor gaius

pieter vander horst

jewish pilgrimage