User:Ixna/sandbox

In reference to the use of the word pogrom to explain this event we mean the original Russian meaning of ‘destruction’ not what is adapted in European language  . Comparing it with later pogroms is misleading, there is no-anti-Jewish preaching or theories of racial inferiority and it comes from a totally different background, one that has to be complex and specifically Alexandrian because it is not occurring elsewhere in the 1st century CE. Furthermore, we are discussing Jew-hatred and anti-Jewish and not using modern anti-Semitic language.

Context and Culture: Jewish Community in Alexandria
Famine, seeking refuge, and movement of mercenary troops among others were reasons for the migration of Jews to Egypt. Philo refers precisely to the Jews’ arrival in Alexandria at the time of the city’s foundation. Many were military colonists that settled in the newly conquered region seeking a path to advancement. They were known as Katoikoi and had cleruchic or land granted to them as a reward for their service. Greek culture permeated into all regions under Greek control to increase the efficiency of administration and ultimately to maximise revenue. The poleis needed to encourage Greek immigrants to settle in them and thus became islands of cultural influence. The Jews played a role in Alexandria’s foundation and witnessed the city’s rapid development. This must have shaped their own experiences at the moment of their arrival and the following centuries, as in antiquity generally, the older your foundation myth, or the further back you could trace your roots, the more legitimacy you had.

Jews were highly integrated into the multicultural city of Alexandria. They constituted just one ethnos, ethnic group with their own distinctive customs, out of many across the ancient world. The Jewish garrison became the politeuma, emerging in the 3rd century BC and constituting the upper tier of the community (enjoying limited autonomy, juridical personality and ownership of collective property). All other Jews living in the vicinity of the politeuma were the plethos. They often took Greek names and were able to embrace Greek culture without the loss of their own, as being learned in the Greek language and thought was the key to climbing the ranks of society. Synagogues bore the name of both their donor and Ptolemy, making it possible to be attend the local synagogue and continue to be a royal subject of Ptolemy. Some even rose to very high positions within the monarchy. Dositheos son of Drimylos was record keeper and secretary to the king and he eventually became priest of the cult of Alexander, one of highest honours in the service of the Ptolemy’s. Such a position would not have been open to a native Egyptian. This likely incited resentment of the Jewish population amongst the native Egyptians and may have contributed towards the ancient Egyptians dislike of the Jews and resulting anti-Egyptian folklore.

Under the Romans the line between citizens and non-citizens became more sharply drawn to increase their revenue. The Jews energetically began to seek citizenship rights to attain the status of the privileged Greeks. Augustus’ reforms of the city and national government must have affected the internal structure of the Jewish politeuma. There were also consequences for the garrison in Alexandria. It was dismantled, thus, automatically changing the role of Alexandrian Jews. The suppression of the garrison deprived the Jews of the fundamental division of the Ptolemaic Jewish community: the distinction between the military-based politeuma and the Plethos. The Roman period saw the birth of a unified Jewish community.

While under Greek rule the Jews had their own ethnarch - governor, judge-type figure that was discontinued under Augustus in 11-12 C.E and replaced by a gerousia, council of elders. The laographia (Roman poll tax) created the perception that the Jews were equal to the Egyptians and it can be inferred that such a demotion in status was a source of embarrassment and aggravation to the Jews.

Anti- Jewish Egyptian folklore often equated Jews with foreigners bringing evil into Egypt. Philo speaks of the problems for Jews beginning with the inclusion of Egyptians in the body politic and may have led to citizens to adopting Egyptian customs and acting out their ancient hatred of Jews. A gymnasium no longer composed exclusively of Greeks, either ethnically or culturally, must have heard the Egyptian stories about the Jews. Josephus states that some Egyptians were citizens and that their customs spread among the Alexandrian populace. He speaks of an environment whose civic institutions were no longer exclusively Hellenic and whose population was no longer fragmented into religious and cultural clusters. Political development may have been affected by these phenomena, as political and religious spheres were inseparable, and provides grounds for a cultural and demographic discussion of the riots.

Philo
Genre

Philo’s In Flaccum is an historical treatises and a piece of apologetic writing. Legatio ad Gaium is his only other known historical work. If we consider the question regarding why he changed from philosophical and exegetical treatises we are presented with the same issue he was, the historical circumstances in which he lived. Although he is writing a historical piece of literature his main concern remains that of a theological nature “Thus he became an indubitable proof that the Jewish people had not been deprived of the help of God” (Flacc. 191). This theological concern is reflected in the diptych structure of the treatise(see: Appendix A) in which the first half of In Flaccum elaborates on the suffering of the Jews which is mirrored by Flaccus’ suffering in the second half. Thus some scholars have interpreted Philo’s work as a plea for divine justice, a piece of consolation literature to convince those that are doubting God that he will intervene. Modern scholarship has argued over whether or not In Flaccum is part of a larger theme that Philo had been working on. That is, if the book was part of a series concerning the persecution of the Jews with the theme of divine providence and retribution, yet as no material evidence of Philo’s exists we cannot know if such a conjecture is accurate (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.5.1). This hypothesis has been criticized by some scholars because Legatio ad Gaium does not allude to In Flaccum, in fact the two books contradict each other.

Themes

There are two main themes to Philo’s In Flaccum, providence and justice, loyalty to Rome and the baseness of Egyptians. The theme of providence and justice is based on the conviction that the nation is under the special providence of God where the enemies of Judaism are the enemies of God and their punishment is a divine visitation. This concept is not unusual in antiquity and can be seen in many other ancient sources where violent death of those who fought against or resisted the deity, as exemplified by Cambyses in Herodotus (H. 3.64). In was part of an older Jewish tradition of divine punishment, the Egyptian Pharaoh in book of Exodus, Hamran in book of Esther, Antiochus IV in 2 Maccabees 9 as well as part of a modern discourse, Apion in Josephus (C. Ap. 2. 143). This was a time in history where people were questioning their belief in God and Philo insists that justice becomes manifest in Gods actions against his opponents or the enemies of his people. The theme of loyalty to Rome and the baseness of Egyptians attempts to prove that Jews are more congenial to Romans than others and share with Romans their scorn for Egyptians. Philo emphasises that Egyptian violence is because of their character and that a strong Roman government was needed to keep them in check, as “jealousy is part of the Egyptian nature” and “in their ancient, and we might say innate hostility to the Jews” (Flacc. 29). This is the only evidence that Philo gives us on why the riots occurred but he never mentions the source of this enmity.

Ancient Historiography

Ancient historiography often conveyed a message, be it moral, philosophical, religious, anti-religious and the events narrated were used for this purpose. People undoubtedly expected Philo to exaggerate although he had to remain true to his events because much of his audience were eyewitnesses. In Flaccum is an excellent example of non-dramatic history verses non-rhetorical history, for example the inner monologues of Flaccus are an invention but serve his theological diptych concern (Flacc. 170). It is a dramatic or rhetorical historiography evoking the audiences emotions for the deity and yet it is more than a theology because he had more than one audience in mind. Philo attempts to appeal to the Roman and general non-Jewish audience. Evidence of this exists in his tendency to explain aspects that any Jewish person reading the text would already know, the Jewish customs of Sukkoth (Flacc. 116), who the Jewish King Agrippa was (Flacc. 25), that papyrus was native to Egypt (Flacc. 37) and that there were five districts where the Jews lived (Flacc. 55). To this audience Flaccus’ ruination and death were meant as a warning. Furthermore, Philo presents the Jews as the ideal, loyal subjects and if they were denied their synagogues they were denied their way of showing piety to their Roman benefactors (Flacc. 48). Horst postulates that integrating the Jews into a Roman discourse and suggesting a Jewish congeniality was the original work of Philo. Therefore, In Flaccum is a mixed work, it is a historiography, a pastoral theology, an apologetic writing and a theodicy. Due to the fact that it contextualises Alexandria in the summer of 38 CE we can use it as a source of history if we remain critical of the work. Writing in antiquity is vastly different from today, it is not unusual for a book to be both historical and detached. We know very little from other sources to compare and contrast it with and need to be critical because as invalid examples do exist, as in his use of numbering the people at a million Jews in his day (Flacc. 43; similarly he claims in Virt. 64 that the Jews are the most numerous people in the world).

Key Events leading up to the riots
Greek Nationalist Alliance with Governor Flaccus

During the early part of 38 CE the Greek nationalist party Lampo and their leader Isidorus used the governor of Alexandria's, Flaccus’ precarious position with the Roman Emperor Gaius to establish supremacy over the Jews. Posing as his allies they offered to protect Flaccus against the anticipated attack from Gaius by getting the Greeks of Alexandria to "act as his advocate" (Flacc. 18-24) in exchange for the "surrender" of the Jews (Flacc. 41). That is, Flaccus' verdict on the question of Jewish status in the city as well as possibly curtailing the rights of the politeuma. Flaccus began to keep his concordat by showing bias against the Jews in lawsuits or at least refusing them preferential treatment (Flacc. 24). Possibly, Flaccus had hoped that after a gradual loss of privileges the Jews would yield to a formal statement about their status without protest. However, this was “rendered impossible by the events which followed the visit of Jewish king Agrippa I to Alexandria in August 38”.

Jewish King Agrippa I Visit to Alexandria 37 CE

Originally Agrippa I attempted to keep his presence in Alexandria anonymous yet the Alexandrian Jews learned of it and, puzzled by the recent change in Flaccus' attitude towards them, seized the opportunity of enlisting assistance from a friend of the emperor. Eventually they persuaded Agrippa to post a duplicate copy of Flaccus' declaration to Rome along with a letter on their position in Alexandria detailing the unprecedented treatment which they had recently been receiving from Flaccus (Flacc.103; Leg.178-9). Perhaps it would have been prudent for Agrippa to have utilised the time it would take for the message to be received from Rome and acquired a temporary improvement in the Jews' conditions by pressuring Flaccus in private and stressing his own influence with Gaius. Alas Agrippa and his bodyguard employed the time to assemble an 'ostentatious' parade through the city streets. The parade incited the resentment of the kingless Greeks rather than pacifying them and instead of mitigating Flaccus' treatment of the Jews it reinforced it by convincing Flaccus, who had been persuaded by the Lampo that it had been designed to show him in bad light and that such an act of disrespect bespoke his dismissal (Flacc. 29-31).

Carabas Incident

As a consequence of this potential flippancy from the Jews Flaccus made no attempt to prevent the Greek counter-demonstrations. At first, a mob collected in the gymnasium and chanted gibes and taunts against Agrippa. Then, when this went unpunished, an effigy of the Jewish parade was staged: the local half-wit, known as Carabas ("Cabbage") was dressed up as the sovereign, taken in procession to the gymnasium (The Greek cultural centre was a normal venue for anti-Jewish sentiment) and there hailed with shouts of "Marin" (Aramaic for "our king"), while court ceremonial was performed around him (Flacc. 32-40).

Diminished Jewish Status

The Greek mob, further emboldened by their impunity after the Carabas incident took advantage of the governor’s impotency to attack the Jewish community as a whole. Ignoring that Judaism was protected by Roman law, they bereaved the Jews the use of their synagogues, possibly with Flaccus' complicity (Flacc 41-53). In relatively gentile parts of Alexandria they burnt/demolished synagogues while in the two more populous "Jewish districts"(i.e. where attempts at destruction might have been successfully resisted) they made places of worship inoperative by hanging portraits of Gaius in them (Leg. 133-4). Soon after, Flaccus undermined the politeuma and issued a statement declaring that the Jews were "aliens and foreigners" in Alexandria. This degraded Jews from their previous legal status of resident aliens, on which the existence of the politeuma depended, to that of outsiders without the right of domicile. Legally they could now be expelled. However the expulsion of such a large multitude was probably not feasible, and therefore the Jewish area of dwelling was drastically diminished and hampered to the "Delta" section where most Jews resided in (Flacc. 53-4).

The Alexandrian Riots of 38 CE
An anti-Jewish mob soon developed putting Flaccus' ruling into effect. The horde hounded Jews from other parts of the city into the quarter, torturing and massacring many before they could take refuge there, as well as looting Jewish shops and over four hundred abandoned houses. Those who could not live in the quarter were forced to live near the cemeteries and rubbish-dumps, creating overcrowded slums and exposure on the seashore led to an epidemic. Poverty became chronic as normal trades and professions could no longer carry on and when food ran short, Jews who ventured out to the city markets in search of supplies were executed while Jewish merchants arriving in Alexandria were strong-armed out of their goods and slaughtered (Flacc. 53-4). After a futile effort for peace by negotiation with the Jewish leaders (Flacc. 76) Flaccus arrested thirty-eight members of the gerousia (Flacc. 74). On Gaius' birthday, the 31st of August the prisoners were marched through the streets to the gymnasium where the thirty-eight elders were whipped, some to death. This punishment stressed the new humiliation of the Jews; since Flaccus' promulgation had reduced them to their bare judicial rights, they had forfeited their position (which had been held by custom not law) of exemption from the punishment of thrashing to which the un-emancipated Egyptians were liable. Other Jews were tortured and hanged in the theatre, while Jewish women were forced to eat pork and tortured if they refused (Flacc. 74-85, 95-6). After the riots a brief respite existed although the Jewish patriarchs who had survived the whipping remained in custody, perhaps as hostages for Jewish passivity or as a gesture towards the Greeks. By mid-October, during the Feast of Tabernacles, a detachment of soldiers arrived from Rome with a warrant for Flaccus' arrest.

The Consequences of the Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E
38 C.E. and the immediate aftermath:

Order was restored by the new prefect Vitrasius Polio and the Jews had time to regroup after the violence. The Jews may have begun to accumulate weapons in order to fight back should hostilities break out once more . However, the tense feeling would not be dissipate. Emperor Gaius Caligula refused to settle the matter of the rights of the Jewish communities in Alexandria, despite the delegations lead by Philo and Apion.

38 - 41 CE: During this period Philo leads a delegation to Rome. The Emperor Gaius Caligula is unsympathetic.

Riots of 41 CE:

After Caligula's death further riots broke out between September and October of 41 CE ; an expression of the built up tensions in the city. News of Caligula's death reached Alexandria in mid-February 41 CE and the Jews regained courage, they re-armed themselves and attacked the Alexandrians in order to avenge the pogrom (Josephus, Antiquities 19.2786 ). This indicates that the Riots in 38 CE were still affecting the tensions in the city. Claudius ordered the prefect to use Roman troops to quell the violence, and at the same time applied himself to a thorough clarification of the rights of the Jews in Alexandria.

A trial between King Agrippa I and the Alexandrian Leaders Isidorus and Lampo occurred on the 30th of April 41 CE. Agrippa was acquitted and Isidorus and Lampo were executed for their part. This caused more strain and ill-feeling in the streets of the city. Alexandrians took to the streets in new wave of violence in September and October of 41 CE.

The Letter of Claudius: Claudius restored the old privileges to Alexandria's Jews but he explicitly ordered the Jews not to agitate for more privileges then they formerly possessed, presumably maintaining the poll tax. At the same time he urged the Alexandrians to show themselves forbearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in the same city, and dishonour none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their god, but allow them to observe their customs.

The Period from 41 to 66 CE was dominated by relative peace and stability.

Riots of 66 CE:

Tiberius Julius Alexander, the nephew of Philo was appointed prefect of Egypt by Nero in 66 CE. Soon after another confrontation occurred between the Alexandrians and Jews (Josephus J.W. 2.490-98). It began during an assembly in the amphitheatre and then spilled out into the city. Tiberius Alexander called in the legionaries to put it down. Consequently, the Jews, who were confined to the Delta Quarter, were set upon by legionaries. The Romans plundered their possessions, burned down their houses and killed old and young alike. Josephus reports that 50'000 Jews were killed, although this is likely an exaggeration.

The Letter to Nero:

In 66 CE, the representatives of the Alexandrian polis sent a delegation to Rome to attempt to deny the Jews their rights in the city, as had happened in Caesarea Maritima earlier that year (Josephus, J.W. II 490). Nero had decided to rescind the equal rights declaration in Caesarea and announced it was a Greek controlled polis.

66 CE:

66 CE was the year of the Outbreak of the Great Revolt.

Appendix A
Diptych Structure

1. Flaccus’ persecution of the Jews (1-96)

1-7: Flaccus’ promising start

8-20: Flaccus’ degeneration

21-24: Flaccus begins to injure the Jews

25-35: King Agrippa

36-40: Karabas

41-44: The overtures to the pogrom

45-52: The Jewish point of view

53-96: The pogrom at its height

2. Punishment and death of Flaccus (97-191)

97-103: The declaration of loyalty

104-118: Flaccus’ arrest

119-124: Gratitude for Flaccus’ arrest

125-145: Lampo and Isidorus

146-161: Flaccus on trial

162-180a: Flaccus at Andros

180b-190: Caligula has Flaccus killed

191: Epilogue