Representations of Alexandria in Classical Latin Literature

A navegação consulta e descarregamento dos títulos inseridos nas Bibliotecas Digitais UC Digitalis, UC Pombalina e UC Impactum, pressupõem a aceitação plena e sem reservas dos Termos e Condições de Uso destas Bibliotecas Digitais, disponíveis em https://digitalis.uc.pt/pt-pt/termos. Conforme exposto nos referidos Termos e Condições de Uso, o descarregamento de títulos de acesso restrito requer uma licença válida de autorização devendo o utilizador aceder ao(s) documento(s) a partir de um endereço de IP da instituição detentora da supramencionada licença. Ao utilizador é apenas permitido o descarregamento para uso pessoal, pelo que o emprego do(s) título(s) descarregado(s) para outro fim, designadamente comercial, carece de autorização do respetivo autor ou editor da obra. Na medida em que todas as obras da UC Digitalis se encontram protegidas pelo Código do Direito de Autor e Direitos Conexos e demais legislação aplicável, toda a cópia, parcial ou total, deste documento, nos casos em que é legalmente admitida, deverá conter ou fazer-se acompanhar por este aviso. Representations of Alexandria in Classical Latin Literature Autor(es): Pimentel, Maria Cristina de Castro-Maia de Sousa Publicado por: Edições Afrontamento; CITCEM - Centro de Investigação Transdisciplinar «Cultura, Espaço e Memória»; Centro de Estudos Clássicos e Humanísticos; Alexandria University; Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra URL persistente: URI:http://hdl.handle.net/10316.2/36157 DOI: DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.14195/978-989-26-0966-9_3 Accessed : 14-Apr-2018 02:29:42 digitalis.uc.pt pombalina.uc.pt alexandrea ad aegyptVm the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity ROGÉRIO SOUSA MARIA DO CÉU FIALHO MONA HAGGAG NUNO SIMÕES RODRIGUES alexandrea ad aegyptVm the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity ROGÉRIO SOUSA MARIA DO CÉU FIALHO MONA HAGGAG NUNO SIMÕES RODRIGUES alexandrea ad aegyptVm the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity ROGÉRIO SOUSA MARIA DO CÉU FIALHO MONA HAGGAG NUNO SIMÕES RODRIGUES y ROGÉRIO SOUSA MARIA DO CÉU FIALHO MONA HAGGAG NUNO SIMÕES RODRIGUES alexandrea ad aegyptVm the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity CITCEM y ISBN 978-972-36-1336-0 9 789723 613360 Alexandria endures in our imagination as the first model of cultural interaction – of cosmopolitanism, to use both classical and contemporary terminology – and as the cultural and intellectual capital of the ancient world. The intermingling of races and beliefs, and the exchange of ideas, undoubtedly produced the knowledge that modern scholarship still celebrates. This book is a testimony that the values embodied by Alexandria and its Library continue to inspire noble minded scholars whose pursuit for knowledge transcends boundaries and time. The breadth and scope of the papers presented do credit to the spirit of Alexandria – its multiculturalism, and its passion for science and scholarship. The book in our hands confirm that the multiculturalism of the Ancient World, rippling out from Alexandria to extend throughout the Hellenistic period and beyond, is as valid now as it was then – perhaps more so today, when globalization has given a new meaning to the internationalism envisioned by Alexander the Great centuries ago. Now, with the “clash of civilizations” dominating our discourse, it is pertinent to remember the lesson Alexandrea ad Aegyptum taught us: that the interaction between cultures can only lead to the betterment of the human condition and carry us to heights unimagined. Ismail Serageldin Librarian of Alexandria The excellent contributions gathered in this book dedicated to the city of books, Alexandria, are undoubtedly traced along the lines of Amr and John’s dialogue. Intolerance, which is borne almost always out of ignorance, threatens continuously the peaceful meeting and coexistence of peoples and cultures nowadays. Alexandria, its people and books remind us that the search for dialogue, the reflection on the forms of unity in diversity are at the same time our greatest heritage and the most dramatically pressing agenda. Gabriele Cornelli University of Brasilia Abstract: Our paper intends to focus on Alexandria after the Roman annexation: what traces of its splendour and glory do we find in classical Latin literature? What repercussions of the changes suffered after 30 B.C. called the attention of these authors? What did the Romans think of the inhabitants of Alexandria, and what relationship did they have with the history of that part of the world? Greek literature is rich in information on Egypt and Alexandria, but from this image of a magnificent city that the Greeks have left us, what do the Latin authors echo? What is made of its population, Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, people coming from all parts of the world? The portrait we can trace is, of course, imperfect. To get as close as possible to Roman Egypt, we would have to rely on the information provided by Greek Literature, by Papyrology, Numismatics, Epigraphy, Archaeology, reading ostraka, etc. We will try, however, to list this information according to different thematic areas, such as: The description of the city; The wonders of Alexandria; The way the Alexandrians are seen and portrayed by the Roman authors; The history of Alexandria and its relations with Rome; What the Romans got from Egypt and Alexandria; What the Alexandrians got from the Romans; The attraction of Alexandria and Egypt among the Romans. When, on August 1 of the year 30 B.C., Octavian, having taken Alexandria, entered the city on foot, while engaged in casual conversation with one of the Museum’s philosophers, his attitude was characteristic of the meticulousness with which, at this time, a certain 48 REPRESENTATIONS OF ALEXANDRIA IN CLASSICAL LATIN LITERATURE MARIA CRISTINA DE CASTRO-MAIA DE SOUSA PIMENTEL University of Lisbon. Centro de Estudos Clássicos (University of Lisbon). amount of political stage managing took place in order to build up the reputation and political power of public figures. Augustus’ gesture had the appearance of a peaceful entry, a mission of somebody who was not coming to annex or subjugate the ancient and splendid land of the Pharaohs and the Ptolemies, and its capital Alexandrea ad Aegyptum, the magnificent city which Alexander, in the already distant days of 331 B.C., had dreamed of and ordered to be built. Defeated, Mark Anthony took his own life and Cleopatra VII, the seductive and stubborn queen of Egypt, proud of her ancestral lineage and with her ambitions thwarted, avoided, also by suicide, the unbearable humiliation of coming to join, alive, the triumphant procession, which, as she knew well, the winner of Actium was to celebrate in Rome. Octavian, certain that Egypt was irreversibly under Roman rule, goes on to attach it to the already vast territories of Rome, and gives it special administrative status, which will ensure control of what is now the largest source of income, in assets and in taxes, among all the provinces under the aegis of the princeps. But what did that peaceful entry mean for Egypt and specifically for Alexandria? What happened afterwards to the city which was the second metropolis of the world, surpassed only by Rome? What destiny did the annexation trace for the province and its inhabitants? It is true that Rome was not an alien power in Egypt. Ever since, in the 3rd century B.C., King Ptolemy II sent an embassy to Rome, which the Romans reciprocated, the path was open for Rome to recognise itself the right, during the following two centuries, to intervene in the frequent dynastic conflicts or against external threats (whether upon request or by clauses set forth in the testaments of the kings of Egypt, or whether by Rome’s own decision). Thus, Egypt was turned into a protectorate that very soon, because of its wealth and commercial potential, became an attractive target for men with imperial aspirations. A long series of diplomatic episodes and some bloody military conflicts, such as the war of Alexandria, which, a little more than two decades before the annexation of the province, Julius Caesar had taken on in order to restore Cleopatra on the Ptolemaic throne, had marked the history of the already declining Lagid Dynasty and contributed to the image that the Egyptian and Greek populations had of Rome – a negative image which allowed them to foresee that their impending destiny was the loss of autonomy and freedom. In 30 B.C., therefore, Octavian lays the groundwork for the administration of Egypt and its capital city. He takes advantage of the complex bureaucratic structure with its strong hierarchies, inherited from the Ptolemaic Dynasty, and makes the adaptations that he deems necessary. In a word: what works, according to the pragmatic and efficient perspective of the Roman centralised power, remains; what does not work or does not serve the interests of the Romans, is cancelled and replaced. Important additions are made, such as the institution of the praefectus Alexandriae et Aegypti, an eques who represents and answers only to the emperor, having vested in him extraordinary powers to ensure supervision of all political, economic, legal, social and even military functions. Octavian, who retains direct power over the new province, immediately takes precautions, aware of the danger 49 representations of alexandria in classical latin literature that the control of Egypt could represent for Rome, if somebody, put in charge of the administration of the province, plotted or headed a seditious movement or merely decided to oppose Rome, cutting off its grain supply, the base for the survival of the plebs and, thus, the guarantee of its remaining under control and away from riots and social unrest. Octavian Augustus was so certain that he needed to prevent members of the highest social strata from accessing Egypt, where they could conceive and execute plans of insurgency, that he forbade senators and knights of senatorial status to enter Egypt without the express and prior authorisation of the princeps. Let us focus, then, on Alexandria after the Roman annexation: what traces of its splendour and glory do we find in classical Latin literature? What repercussions of the changes suffered after 30 B.C. called the attention of these authors? What did the Romans think of the inhabitants of Alexandria, and what relationship did they have with the history of that part of the world? Let us recall that Strabo (Book 17) gave us the most complete description of the capital of Egypt, a city he saw with his own eyes, and with which he felt fascinated, a few years after its annexation by Rome. Diodorus Siculus (17.52), who had also visited Alexandria, expresses, although more succinctly, the attraction that the city, so beautiful and organized, exerted on those who saw it. Other authors, such as Theocritus in the celebrated Idyll XV, show us the hustle and bustle of a city full of people, involved in religious ceremonies or other celebrations, in a vibration of life that still touches us today. Greek literature is rich in information on Egypt and Alexandria, but from this image that the Greeks have left us, what do the Latin authors echo? What is made of the Museum, its two libraries – the principal and the one of the Serapeum – the royal palace, the Sema, the tomb of Alexander, the wide and perpendicular streets, the five districts named after the first five letters of the Greek alphabet, the two sea ports and the channel that brought the waters of the Nile, the tower of the island of Pharos which guided sailors and shone its light in a radius of fifty kilometres, and of the heptastadion which connected the island to the mainland? What is made of its population, Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, people coming from all parts of the world, with their frequent conflicts but also with the inevitable crossing of cultures that was enriching for all? The perspective of Latin authors is naturally consistent, in most cases, with what we would expect from people who belong, with more or less explicitly stated pride, to the nation that was victorious at Actium and had conquered the world, and who believed themselves to be the keepers of civilization in its purest and highest form. The portrait we can trace is, however, imperfect. To get as close as possible to Roman Egypt, we would have to rely on the information provided by Greek Literature, by Papyrology, Numismatics, Epigraphy, Archaeology, reading ostraka, etc. Let us try, however, to list this information according to different thematic areas. 50 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY In Latin literature, as far as we know, only Ammianus Marcellinus (22.16), as late as the 4th century A.D., gives us a description of Alexandria, which he calls the «pearl» of all cities. He tells us of its numerous and magnificent constructions, built thanks to the generosity of Alexander and the art of the architect Dinocrates. He mentions its beautiful and great walls and the abundance announced at the time of its foundation by portents of future wealth. He reminds us of the mild climate, the healthy breezes and the invariably clear sky. He recalls the high tower called «Pharos», which, with gross anachronism, he attributes to Cleopatra, who, according to him, planned and built it in the port, to provide assistance to ships with its light, and thus put an end to the hitherto frequent shipwrecks. He celebrates the heptastadion, notable not only for its length but also for the speed with which it was constructed, according to him also by Cleopatra. He alludes to the temples with the high ceilings, such as the Serapeum, superb in its rooms filled with columns, with statues that appeared to be alive, and so decorated with works of art that after the Capitol in Rome there was, in his opinion, nothing more wonderful in the face of the earth. Finally, he speaks of the two libraries of the city, which were invaluable and in which had been deposited thanks to the efforts of the Ptolemies seven hundred thousand volumes, he then refers to the fire that consumed them during the war of Alexandria, when the city was sacked by Julius Caesar. Ammianus also speaks of Canopus, a town twelve miles from Alexandria, situated in a pleasant and salubrious location, where everybody experienced the feeling of being away from worldly things. In the context of this extensive digression, which had begun with an overview of Egypt, its fauna and the major monuments, the administrative divisions and its special type of government by a praefectus, its cities, and the bizarre way of writing of the Egyptians, there are also references to the huge expanse of Alexandria, which was reached not gradually, as it happens with ordinary cities, but right from the outset. The historian also notes that at the time of emperor Aurelian, when conflicts between citizens became devastating battles, the city ended up, plagued by continuous internal unrest, having its walls in ruins and suffering the loss of a part of the city where many illustrious men lived from time immemorial. Of these, the historian evokes some names from ancient times, to affirm immediately afterwards that, in his time, in Alexandria there were still many who had distinguished themselves in the Arts, Geometry, Music, Astronomy, Mathematics, Divination, and above all, Medicine. At the end of this curious digression and before reminding us, rather simplistically, that in Antiquity the whole of Egypt was a monarchy allied with Rome, converted into a province under the rule of Octavian after the defeat of Anthony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium, Ammianus draws a sketch of the physical characteristics and character of the Egyptians, saying that they are almost all swarthy and have quite dark skin, looking a little sad, slender, dry, hot-headed, rebellious and very insistent when they complain about something. He also notes that they refused to pay taxes, and that they 51 representations of alexandria in classical latin literature endured physical punishment for not doing so. The worst tortures could not make them confess their crimes. As a necessarily brief comment, we can say that what calls our attention in this excursus is what we read of the survival, however diminished but still evident, of the grandeur of yesterday, as well as the distrusting and xenophobic perspective of somebody who sees «the Other» as people in obstinate rebellion and infringement, people who do not fit the standards of civilization imposed by Rome to the world. Also significant is the default reading of the political regime under which Egypt lived throughout its history, as only the monarchy’s alliance with Rome is evoked, and then the submission to Augustus after the resounding victory of Actium. In this view, Ammianus is the heir of all the Latin literary tradition that precedes him. THE WONDERS OF ALEXANDRIA Roman authors are not sparing in their praise of the beauty and grandeur of the capital of Egypt. Among others, the Bellum Alexandrinum (3.1) speaks of the «[V]rbs fertilissima et copiosissima». Cicero, in De Lege Agraria (2.43) uses three superlatives to describe Alexandria and Egypt: «[urbis] copiosissimae; opulentissimi [regni]; pulcherrimorum [agrorum]»1.The lighthouse on the island of Pharos, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, also could not have left the Romans indifferent. Pliny (NH 36.83), for example, praises the «turris a rege facta in insula Pharo», and, with instructive zeal, tells us that the cost of the work rose to 800 talents. The royal palace, which had attracted the admiration of Theocritus, is the subject of description in Lucan (BC 10.111-126), who evokes, although with no direct knowledge, the wealth and grandeur of the building and its decoration. The mausoleum of Alexander, in the interior of which reposed the body of the city’s founder, had been laid to rest, embalmed and anointed with honey (cf. Statius, Silu. 3.2.118), and which was also the tomb of the Ptolemies, is equally mentioned by several Latin authors, such as Lucan (BC 10.1-51). Inevitably, the fabulous Library of Alexandria elicited references in classical Latin literature. Seneca, in a moralist tone, evokes the burning of the collection of more than forty thousand uolumina in 47 B.C., that is, during the war of Alexandria. He does not attach liability to Caesar, but, while acknowledging that it was pulcherrimum regiae opulentiae monumentum (Tranq. 9.5), he gives a verdict consistent with Stoic obedience which leads him to say that, if there are those who praise such magnificence, he himself does not see in it neither cura nor elegantia, but only a studiosa luxuria: so many books and so much wealth 52 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity 1Cf. also NH 5.62-63: not stopping short of an encomium, Pliny does not fail to consider worthy of praise (iure laudetur in litore Aegyptii maris Alexandria) the capital of Egypt, whose boundaries and shape he briefly describes, also including a reference to the extent of the royal palace, which occupied one fifth of the city. were just in spectaculum, meant as the ornament and ostentation of power. Vitruvius (7.4-5) speaks in a more detached tone and praises the intentions of the founder of the Library, who must have acted with infinito zelo, eager to expand the practice of reading and the knowledge of great works and to spread culture. Regarding the controversial issue of the burning of the Library, which some attribute to an involuntary act of Julius Caesar and others think that never even happened, the information actually found in Latin literature does not allow us to clarify the truth of the matter. Florus (2.13) sticks to the non-specific statement that Caesar, in order to repel the onslaught of the enemy, set fire to buildings (without saying which) near the place where he was in the city, as well as to the arsenal and the port, and then took refuge on the island of Pharos. This version derives directly from what Caesar himself had written (BC 3.111), which speaks of setting fire to the ships for defence purposes, but does not say whether the fire spread and consumed the Library. The omission is perhaps not surprising: if it indeed had happened in this way, Caesar, the general and man of culture, would not have a reason to be proud of the incident. To defend his image, he would have tried to conceal such misfortune. As we have seen, Ammianus Marcellinus (22.16.13) links the burning of the Library to the sack of the city carried out by Caesar, and refers to the destruction of seven hundred thousand volumes. This is also the number mentioned by Aulus Gellius (NA 7.17.3): this erudite man does not err in attributing the founding of the Library to the Ptolemies, and makes a point of mentioning that the fire occurred during the sack of Alexandria in the war started by Caesar, but that there was no express order to ignite it, immediately adding the hypothesis that the auxiliary soldiers were the ones to do so. The natural characteristics that made Alexandria a city ideally suited to occupy the place of prominence it held also did not escape the attention of the Latin writers. As good Romans, aware of the strategic importance of geographic location, they often referred to the fact that Alexandria was closed up and naturally defended against attacks and enemy incursions. The Bellum Alexandrinum speaks of this favourable location using the word claustrum (26.2) to refer to the advantage of the city being guarded by the island of Pharos from the side of the sea, and by Pelusium from the side of the land2. THE ALEXANDRIANS: TREACHEROUS, INDOMITABLE, CONFRONTATIONAL, AMBITIOUS, INSOLENT AND PROFLIGATE This is the image of the Alexandrians in particular, and the Egyptians in general, that emerges from Latin literature and comes from texts even prior to the annexation. The 53 representations of alexandria in classical latin literature 2The same word is used, and with exactly the same intention, by Liv. 45.11.5; Luc., BC 10.509; Tacitus, Hist. 2.82; and Suet., Vesp. 7.2. author of the Bellum Alexandrinum describes them as aptissimi ad proditionem (cf. 7.3), calls them fallaces and temerarii (7.2) – repeating the adjective fallax in 24.1 (fallacem gentem) – people who always think in one way and act in another (24.1: semperque alia cogitantem alia simulantem). Seneca (Breu. 13.7) underlines the perfidia that characterised the Alexandrians, evident in the brutal and treacherous murder of Pompey3. Cicero, for example, in the Pro Rabirio Postumo (34-36) speaks of the insolence of the Alexandrians, and criticises their os and the audacia with which they now assert what they have just denied. He disparages their lying, impertinence, and the constant prestigiae and fallaciae, which they use and abuse4. A passage by Frontinus (1.1.5), from his chapter De occultandis consiliis, is significant. Here he recounts that Caesar, while preparing the war of Alexandria, suspicious of its inhabitants but wanting to appear aloof and disinterested, and while inspecting the city and its defences, surrendered to licentioribus conuiuiis, to riotous banquets, pretending he was captivated by the charms of the city and that he had allowed himself to take on the habits and lifestyle of its inhabitants – attached to the deliciae Ovid speaks of (Tristia 1.2.80) and the otia laeta which Valerius Flaccus celebrates (5.422). Frontinus then turns to attack the Alexandrians, seen as a people abandoned to the most common pleasures5. Viewed with surprise and some irony or disgust, the Romans also refer to the incestuous relations, which, they said, were common in Egypt. Seneca speaks (Apoc. 8.2-3) of incest between siblings, obviously alluding to royal marriages, but generalising the practice to the entire city of Alexandria. There are also various statements about the confrontational and hot-tempered character of the Alexandrians. One example is what is said of the Egyptians, and applies to the natives of Alexandria, in the Historia Augusta (Tyranni Triginta 22): they were people who put the state at serious risk for minor things. To lighten up the dark colours of this portrait, there are, however, authors who do not hide certain qualities and skills of the Alexandrians. A doubt remains, nevertheless, whether such praise does not often serve above all for the aggrandisement of those who won and dominated over them. In the Bellum Alexandrinum (3.1; 13.2; 16.5) it is said that they are homines ingeniosi atque acutissimi, possessed of such naturalis sollertia that they were able to reproduce everything they saw the Romans doing, and then imagine sponte sua many attack and defence mechanisms, as well as how to distinguish themselves in the war at sea. The characterisation we get in the Historia Augusta (Quadrigae Tyrannorum 9.8) is of an industrious and hard-working people. An alleged letter of Hadrian is reproduced here, which speaks of Alexandria as a thriving city, rich and fertile, where nobody 54 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity 3Cf. also B. Al. 24.3; Prop. 3.11.33; Sen., Ad Marc. 20.4. 4Cf. also Sen., Ad Helu. 19.6; Quint. 1.2.7; Suet., Vesp. 19.2. 5Cf. Juv. 6.82-84 and, on Canopus, Prop. 3.39; Sen., Epist. 51.3; Juv. 15.46. able to the Alexandrians and his wish to go as unnoticed as possible. Germanicus knew that he had entered Egypt without the consent of Tiberius. And when Tiberius found out about it, he complained of the affront to the Senate (Suetonius, Tib. 52.2) and severely criticised Germanicus for the indignity of wearing the pallium, when he was meant to wear exclusively the toga, and, above all, for having infringed the instituta of Augustus. Tiberius’ animosity against his adopted son grew bigger every day. Unaware of the criticisms hanging over him, Germanicus went through Egypt, as was his desire, visiting the most beautiful or historically important places. He departed from Canopus and went up the Nile. He saw Thebes, admired the hieroglyphics on the monuments, wanted to have the script deciphered for him, visited the Colossus of Memnon, the pyramids, the artificial lakes that received the waters of the Nile, the island of Elephantine, Syene (which is now the beautiful Aswan). In a word, a journey in which we imagine his awe at the wonders which still impress us so much today. Tacitus does not mention, however, an episode which took place during this trip, when Germanicus visited Memphis. The temple of the Apis bull, which he naturally wanted to visit, was located here. Whoever went to this temple used to feed the bull and gather, from the animal’s reaction, positive or adverse omens. The bull turned his snout away from Germanicus, and refused to eat the food that he was giving him in his hand. The account is from Pliny (NH 8.185), who notes that the bad omen was confirmed shortly afterwards by the death of Germanicus, which by all accounts seems to have been ordered by Tiberius. Tacitus, who in the Annales comes clearly in favour of Germanicus and paints with dark colours the character of Tiberius, as an underhanded and cruel despot, suppresses this episode, as he would not have wanted to recall that in Egypt the gods could just as much ordain emperors as announce a tragic destiny. So we are left with the benevolent image of a Germanicus who is generous, educated, awake to what is most beautiful in the world, willing to break the toughest rules to satisfy his intellectual curiosity. For the reader he becomes, thus, a kind of symbol for everybody who is left enchanted by the mystery and grandeur of the Egyptian civilisation. 61 representations of alexandria in classical latin literature