¹ Lefkowitz, Mary R., Heroines and Hysterics (Bristol, 1981)Google Scholar, vii: ‘No great ancient writer devoted himself or herself to the task of writing a woman's biography.’

² Wyke, Maria, The Roman Mistress: Ancient and Modern Representations (‘Meretrix regina: Augustan Cleopatras’) (Oxford, 2002), 195–243 Google Scholar.

³ The subject of Josephus's treatment of Cleopatra is rarely studied in detail: notable exceptions include Becher, Ilse, Das Bild der Kleopatra in der griechischen und lateinischen Literatur (Berlin, 1966), 63–8Google Scholar; van Henten, Jan Willem, ‘Cleopatra in Josephus: From Herod's Rival to the Wise Ruler's Opposite’, in The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed. Hillhorst, Anthony and van Kooten, George H. (Leiden, 2006), 115–34Google Scholar; Kasher, Aryeh, King Herod: A Persecuted Persecutor: A Case Study in Psychohistory and Psychobiography (Berlin, 2007), 126–54Google Scholar.

⁴ See, for example, Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), s.v. ‘Cleopatra’; Louis H. Feldman, ‘Pro-Jewish Intimations in Remarks’, Anti-Jewish, in Feldman, Louis H., Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Leiden, 1996), 177–236 Google Scholar (214–16); Huß, Werner, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332–30 v. Chr. (Munich, 2001), 754–5Google Scholar; and the more detailed attempt to show Cleopatra's antipathy towards Jews in Capponi, Livia, Il Tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto: Identità Politica e Religiosa dei Giudei di Onia (c. 150 a.C.–73 d.C.) (Pisa, 2007), 115–19Google Scholar. Against the construction of Cleopatra as anti-Jewish, see, for example, brief remarks in Tcherikover, Victor A., ‘Prolegomena’, in Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, i, ed. Tcherikover, Victor A. in collaboration with Alexander Fuks (Cambridge, MA, 1957), 55;Google Scholar Mélèze-Modrzejewski, Joseph, ‘La dernière chance des Juifs d'Egypte’, L'Histoire, 238 (Dec. 1999), 48–9Google Scholar (49); Gambetti, Sandra, The Alexandrian Riots of 38 c.e. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction (Leiden, 2009), 55 Google Scholar n. 121; Roller, Duane W., Cleopatra: A Biography (Oxford, 2010), 103–4Google Scholar.

⁵ For an authoritative overview, see Mélèze-Modrzejewski, Joseph, The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian (Princeton, 1995)Google Scholar.

⁶ Propertius, Elegies Book 3.11, 40: ‘una Phillipeo sanguine adusta nota’.

⁷ Roller, Cleopatra, 131.

⁸ Josephus, Apion 2.56–61.

⁹ The Against Apion must post-date the publication of Josephus's Antiquities, referred to at Apion 1.1; 2.287, and known to have been completed in 93/94 ce (Josephus, Antiquities (Ant.) 20.267): for detailed discussion, see Barclay, John M. G., Against Apion: Translation and Commentary (Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, x, ed. Steve Mason; Leiden, 2007)Google Scholar, xxvi–viii.

¹⁰ Rajak, Tessa, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (2nd edn; Oxford, 2002), 226–9Google Scholar. On the Roman context of Flavian propaganda: Millar, Fergus, ‘Last Year in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome’, in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, ed. Edmondson, Jonathan, Mason, Steve and Rives, James (Oxford, 2008), 101–28Google Scholar; Mason, Steve, A History of the Jewish War, a.d. 66–74 (New York, 2016), 3–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, in relation to the Against Apion, Barclay, Against Apion, xxxvi–xliv.

¹¹ On the alignment of the Against Apion with Roman values, political and cultural: Goodman, Martin, ‘Josephus’ Treatise Against Apion ’, in Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, ed. Edwards, Mark J., Goodman, Martin, Price, Simon and Rowland, Christopher (Oxford, 1999), 45–58 Google Scholar; Barclay, Against Apion, 167–9, 362–9. On the apologetic character of the work: Barclay, Against Apion, xxx–vi.

¹² Josephus, Apion 1.219–2.286; as ‘refutation’, cf. 2.1, ἀντίρρησις, ‘counter-statement’; on his purpose in writing, cf. especially 1.1–5; 2.1–7, 287–96.

¹³ Ibid . 2.2–144, cf. 148, 295.

¹⁴ Ibid . 2.56.

¹⁵ Ibid . 2.56: ‘Is (Apion) autem etiam ultimae Cleopatrae Alexandrinorum reginae meminit, ueluti nobis improperans quoniam circa nos fuit ingrata’ (my emphasis).

¹⁶ Ibid. 2.60.

¹⁷ Thackeray, Henry St J., Josephus, i: The Life. Against Apion (London and Cambridge, MA, 1926), 315 Google Scholar.

¹⁸ A notorious example involves the claim that Apion's expositions of Homer owed their authority to a tutorial with the spirit of Homer in the underworld (Pliny, H.N. 30.18). On the figure of Apion: Barclay, Against Apion, 170–1, with detailed bibliography.

¹⁹ The remains of Apion's works are collected in FGrHist. 616.

²⁰ Josephus, Apion 2.10, cites a passage about Moses from the third book of Apion's Aigyptiaka. Following Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights 5.14.4), Apion's Aigyptiaka comprised 5 volumes; Tatian (Discourse to the Greeks 38) refers to volume iv of the same work.

²¹ Josephus, Apion 2.32–78.

²² Josephus, Ant. 18.257–60. Philo wrote an extended account of his embassy to Gaius, but does not name Apion among the members of the opposing Alexandrian embassy: Philo, Embassy to Gaius, esp. 178–206, 349–73.

²³ On the crisis of 38 ce and its wider context, important recent studies include Barclay, John M. G., Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 bce –117 ce ) (Edinburgh, 1996), 48–71;Google Scholar Gruen, Erich S., Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA, and London, 2002), 54–83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van der Horst, Pieter, Philo's Flaccus: The First Pogrom. Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden, 2003)Google Scholar; Schimanowski, Gottfried, Juden und Nichtjuden in Alexandrien: Koexistenz und Konflikte bis zum Pogrom unter Trajan (117 n.Chr.) (Berlin, 2006)Google Scholar; Gambetti, Alexandrian Riots.

²⁴ On which, see, for example, Philo, On the Decalogue 58–81.

²⁵ Philo, Embassy to Gaius 350.

²⁶ Ibid . 138–40.

²⁷ Cf. Barclay, Against Apion, 188–9, 202 n. 214.

²⁸ On the Latin translation of Josephus's Apion (and Antiquities), commissioned by Cassiodorus, see the summary overview, with key bibliography, in Barclay, Against Apion, lxii. Critical edition: Boysen, Karl, Flavii Iosephi Opera ex Versione Latina Antiqua, vi: De Iudaeorum Vetustate sive Contra Apionem (Vienna, 1898)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Josephus, Apion 2.56 (tr. Barclay, adapted).

³⁰ Ibid . 2.57–9.

³¹ Ibid . 2.60 (tr. Barclay, adapted).

³² Thackeray, Josephus, i, 316 n. 2.

³³ Thus, the Blum/Reinach rendering of Apion 2.60: ‘elle ne vit plus d'espoir pour elle que dans le suicide’: Flavius Josèphe, Contre Apion, Texte Établi et Annoté par Théodore Reinach et Traduit par Léon Blum (Paris, 1930), 69; cf. Siegert's rendering of the same lines: ‘Zuletzt aber. . .ist sie so weit gegangen, ihr Heil davon zu erwarten, dass sie sich mit eigener Hand selbst. . .umbrächte’: Flavius Josephus, Über die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums: Contra Apionem, i, ed. Folker Siegert (Göttingen, 2008), 169. With regard to the Latin, Siegert justly notes (ibid.) that ‘Das wäre für die königliche Hand viel Arbeit gewesen’!

³⁴ Josephus, Apion 2.61.

³⁵ Contra the attempt by Volkmann to read Josephus's paraphrase of Apion as the words of Cleopatra herself, interpreted psychologically: ‘“I would have conquered, if I had been able to destroy all the Jews”. These despairing words of Cleopatra's show that she felt she was surrounded by difficulties and treachery’; cf. Hans Volkmann, Cleopatra: A Study in Politics and Propaganda (1958), 199.

³⁶ Barclay (Against Apion, 202, n. 213; cf. lxiv, the reading Iudaeos is ‘just possible’) offers an interpretation of the text as it stands, suggesting the possibility that some (but certainly not all) Jews may have been killed in the purge (reported in Cassius Dio 51.5.4–5) directed against some leading citizens in Alexandria, after the Battle of Actium and news of the defection of Herod and other client kings to Octavian. Plutarch, on the other hand, observes that the news of defections did not much disturb Antony (Antony 71.1–2). If there was a purge in Alexandria at this time, following Dio, there is no evidence that it specifically targeted Jews, let alone ‘the Jews’ as a collective. No mention is made of such an event in Herod's post-Actium speech before Octavian (30 bce), in which, as king of Judaea, he claims to have proved himself a loyal ally to Antony in advising him to kill Cleopatra (Josephus, War 1.389–90; Josephus, Ant. 15.191–2). Given the various claims attributed to Herod about Cleopatra's hostility to himself and to Judaea, one would expect that his account of her atrocities would include reference to a massacre of Alexandrian Jews, but it does not.

³⁷ Josephus, Apion 2.60.

³⁸ Ibid . 2.62: ‘omnibus Ptolomaeis’; cf. Apion 2.48, on the exceptional kindness of almost all the Macedonian kings towards the Jews, as a fact ignored by Apion.

³⁹ Josephus, Apion 2.63–4 (tr. Barclay, adapted). Josephus's brief treatment of this episode gives no sense of how problematic it in fact was in the context of imperial politics. According to Tacitus (Annals 2.59), Germanicus visited Egypt without the permission of the emperor Tiberius, and, while there, lowered the price of corn by opening the state granaries; his entry into Egypt transgressed the strict Augustan prohibition of entry into Egypt, without the emperor's permission, by senators and equestrians of the higher rank, and earned Germanicus a severe rebuke from Tiberius. See further Goodyear, Francis R. D., The Annals of Tacitus Books 1–6, ii: Annals 1.55–81 and Annals 2 (Cambridge, 1981), 372–80Google Scholar. Suetonius (Tiberius 52.2) gives a severe famine as the motive for Germanicus's visit, an explanation that probably derives from the supporters of Germanicus in defence of his reputation, and against Tiberius. In the papyrus record of Germanicus's speech in Alexandria on the reasons for his visit, no reference is made to a famine (P. Oxy. 2435), perhaps because the measures he took in the grain distribution may have benefited only the citizen body, a small part of the population to be addressed. On the other hand, a distribution given only to a small minority is not likely to have lowered the price of grain, and might suggest that a much larger part of the population benefited; cf. Dieter Georg Weingärtner, Die Ägyptenreise des Germanicus (Bonn, 1969), 94. In that case, the exclusion of the Jews would indeed appear as a deliberately hostile act in the time of Germanicus.

⁴⁰ In the Hellenistic context, cf. the grain law of Samos (Syll.³ 976 = Bagnall and Derow no. 75; c. 250 bce).

⁴¹ Wilcken, Ulrich, ‘Zum Germanicus Papyrus’, Hermes, 63 (1928), 48–65 Google Scholar (52–3); cf. Reinach, Contre Apion, 69 n. 3; Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Tübingen, 1985), 341; Barclay, Against Apion, 202 n. 214; Gambetti, Alexandrian Riots, 55. An alternative view speculates that Cleopatra's grain distribution took place on the Sabbath, thereby excluding observant Jews: Schimanowski, Juden, 155; cf. Philo's praise for Augustus who ensured that Jews entitled to the monthly corn doles at Rome might receive them on a day other than the Sabbath (Embassy to Gaius 158). We do not know, however, whether a similar right existed at Alexandria: cf. Miriam Pucci ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World (Tübingen, 1998), 439.

⁴² Seneca, Natural Questions 4.2.16; Appian, Civil Wars 4.61; OGIS 194.14–20 (39 bce, Thebes).

⁴³ C. Ord. Ptol. 73 = BGU 1730 (27 Oct. 50 bce).

⁴⁴ Thompson, Dorothy J., ‘Cleopatra VII: The Queen in Egypt’, in Cleopatra Reassessed, ed. Walker, Susan and Ashton, Sally-Ann (2003), 31–4 (32) Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ C. Ord. Ptol. 75–6 (12 Apr. 41 bce), cf. Bingen, Jean, ‘Les ordonnances royales C. Ord. Ptol. 75–76 (Héracléopolis, 41 avant J.-C.)’, Chronique d’Égypte, 70 (1995), 206–18;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Thompson, ‘Cleopatra VII’, 32–3.

⁴⁶ Barclay, Against Apion, 200 n. 194.

⁴⁷ The reign of Herod: Josephus, War 1.203–673; Josephus, Ant. 14.158–17.208.

⁴⁸ Tutor to the children of Antony and Cleopatra: FGrHist. 90, T2. Herod's Memoirs: Josephus, Ant. 15.174; FGrHist. 90 Fr. 135. On the life and works of Nicolaus of Damascus: Emil Schürer (revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black), The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, i (Edinburgh, 1973), 28–32; cf. 50–2 on Josephus's use of Nicolaus in the War and the Antiquities.

⁴⁹ Tal Ilan, ‘“Things Unbecoming a Woman” (Josephus, Ant. 13.431): Josephus and Nicolaus on Women’, in Ilan, Tal, Integrating Women into Second Temple History (Tübingen, 1999), 85–125 Google Scholar (111, 113).

⁵⁰ Hyrcanus II: Schürer, History i, 267–80.

⁵¹ Josephus, War 1.187–94; Josephus, Ant. 14.127–55.

⁵² Josephus, War 1.242–7; Josephus, Ant. 14.324–6. Josephus places the appointment, it should be noted, in the context of the beginning of Antony's relationship with Cleopatra: at Daphne by Antioch, with Antony ‘already enslaved to love for Cleopatra’ (Josephus, War 1.243); or at Tarsus, when Antony ‘was taken prisoner through love’ (Josephus, Ant. 14.324). On the assassination of Antipater by Malichus, a supporter of Hyrcanus: Josephus, War 1.226–37; Josephus, Ant. 14.277–93.

⁵³ Antigonus: Schürer, History, i, 281–6. A prisoner of the Parthians, Hyrcanus II's position as high priest was terminated following his deliberate mutilation, performed by Antigonus in order to disqualify Hyrcanus from resuming the high priesthood (Josephus, War 1.270; Josephus, Ant. 14.366).

⁵⁴ Josephus, War 1.277–85; Josephus, Ant. 14.370–89; Tacitus, History 5.9 (Herod receives his throne from Antony); cf. the accounts of Herod's appointment as king in Strabo, Geography 16.2.46; Appian, Civil Wars 5.75. Cleopatra received Herod in Alexandria as he sought refuge from the Parthian invaders: Josephus, War 1. 278–9; Josephus, Ant. 14.374–6. Her positive reception of Herod reflects loyalty to Antony, but also contrasts with the rebuff given to Herod by Malchus, the Nabatean king, who refused Herod assistance (allegedly for financial motives) at this time: Josephus, War 1.274–7; Josephus, Ant. 14.370–3.

⁵⁵ Josephus, War 1.328–57; Josephus, Ant. 14.394–491.

⁵⁶ Marriage to Mariamme proved a source of terrible division in Herod's household (so Josephus, War 1.432–3), and fatal for its Hasmonean members: in addition to the assassination of Aristobulus, Herod ordered the execution of Hyrcanus II (30 bce), Mariamme (29 bce), Alexandra (28 bce?), and his own sons by Mariamme (7 bce). On Herod's suspicions, encouraged by his mother and sister, of Cleopatra's involvement in the breakdown of his relations with Mariamme: Josephus, War 1.439–40. Given that Herod had recently ordered the killing of Mariamme's brother, she already had good grounds for ‘hatred’ of Herod. Contrary to Herod's supposed thoughts, Cleopatra is hardly likely to have encouraged Antony's involvement with the beautiful Mariamme.

⁵⁷ Josephus, Ant. 15.23–32. Alexandra's challenge to the legitimacy of Herod and promotion of the Hasmonean cause through Mariamme, after the killing of Aristobulus: Josephus, Ant. 15.63, 73.

⁵⁸ Josephus, Ant. 15.45–8.

⁵⁹ Josephus, War 1.437; Josephus, Ant. 15.23–79.

⁶⁰ Josephus, Ant. 15.62–5, 75–7, 79.

⁶¹ Josephus, Ant. 15.254–8; cf. Jan Willem van Henten, Judean Antiquities, xv: Translation and Commentary (Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, viib, ed. Steve Mason; Leiden, 2014), 177–80. The continuation of the narrative, in which Salome denounces Costobarus to Herod for a further act of treason, makes clear Costobarus's alliance with pro-Hasmonean sympathisers: Josephus, Ant. 15.259–66.

⁶² Josephus, War 7.300–3.

⁶³ Herod blamed his absence from the battle on Cleopatra, who was allegedly behind Antony's commissioning of Herod with a campaign against Malchus, king of the Nabateans: Josephus, War 1.364–5, 440; Josephus, Ant. 15.108–60, esp. 110. Antony's motive for the campaign was the disloyalty of Malchus, as reported to him by both Herod and Cleopatra: Josephus, Ant. 15.110. In the case of Herod, Malchus owed him huge sums in arrears for the tribute owed to Cleopatra for the lease of their lands: Josephus, Ant. 15.106–8 (on Herod's earlier plans to attack Malchus on this account), 132–3. Herod also seems to have considered Cleopatra responsible for the demise of Malchus (Josephus, War 1.440), though the latter's fate after 30 bce is unknown. The role of Malchus in a plan to give refuge from Herod to the aged Hyrcanus II led to the latter's execution after the Battle of Actium (Josephus, Ant. 15.167–78; spring 30 bce).

⁶⁴ Josephus, War 1.388–91; Josephus, Ant. 15.187–201.

⁶⁵ On Herod's acquisitions, resulting from Cleopatra's fall (territory and men, comprising 400 Gauls who had served as Cleopatra's bodyguards): Josephus, War 1.396–7; Josephus, Ant. 15.217; cf. Tacitus's brief note confirming that, post-Actium, Augustus extended Herod's territory (History 5.9.2). At the site of Nicopolis, founded by Octavian near Actium to celebrate his victory over Antony and Cleopatra, Herod funded the construction of most of the public buildings (Josephus, Ant. 16.147). On the site of Strato's Tower, added to Herod's kingdom by Octavian (Josephus, War 1.396; Josephus, Ant. 15.217), Herod founded the city of Caesarea Maritima in honour of his patron (Josephus, Ant. 16.136–41). The flattering note on Roman approval of Herod's generosity in this venture no doubt reflects Herod's own propaganda and the reality that the extension of his territory resulted, at least in part, from the loss of Cleopatra's: ‘And they say that Caesar himself and Agrippa often remarked that the extent of Herod's realm was not equal to his magnanimity, for he deserved to be king of all Syria and Egypt’ (Josephus, Ant. 16.141).

⁶⁶ Josephus, Apion 2.56.

⁶⁷ Müller, J. G., Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion: Text und Erklärung (Basel, 1877), 251 Google Scholar; cf. Thackeray, Josephus 1, 315; Barclay, Against Apion, 200 and n. 193.

⁶⁸ Oxford Latin Dictionary (2nd edn, Oxford, 2012), i, 997–8, s.v. ‘ingratus’; cf. Flavius Josephus, ed. Siegert, 169 (‘dass sie undankbar zu uns war’).

⁶⁹ Restoration of Ptolemy XII/assistance to Gabinius and Mark Antony: Josephus, War 1.175; Josephus, Ant. 14.99. Restoration of Cleopatra VII/assistance to Mithridates of Pergamum, ally of Julius Caesar: Josephus, War 1.187–90; Josephus, Ant. 14.127–39, cf. 14.139, citing Strabo.

⁷⁰ Josephus, War 1.279; cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.375–6.

⁷¹ In Josephus's account of the reception of Herod in Rome in 40 bce, he reports that Octavian, even more than Antony, was in favour of Herod's promotion to kingship because of the loyalty shown by Herod's father to Julius Caesar, the ‘father’ of Octavian, in the course of the Egyptian campaign (Josephus, War 1.283; Josephus, Ant. 14.383). Antony, too, is said to have supported Herod because (among other things) of the memory of Antipater's hospitality (xenia) in Judaea in the course of the Judaean campaign led by Gabinius (Josephus, War 1.244, 282; Josephus, Ant. 14. 381, cf. 14.84–6, 326).

⁷² Josephus, Ant. 15.88–103, expanding Josephus, War 1.359–61; cf. van Henten, ‘Cleopatra in Josephus’, 126–30; idem, Judean Antiquities, xv, 59–103.

⁷³ Josephus, Ant. 15.89–95.

⁷⁴ Cassius Dio 50.25.4–5; 50.26.2.

⁷⁵ Josephus, War 1.360; Josephus, Ant. 15.97–103. The Antiquities account of Cleopatra's supposed attempt at seducing Herod, in the context of Cleopatra's visit to Judaea, follows the model of Octavian's vilification of Cleopatra as arch-seductress; in any case, her dependence on Antony, by whom she was then pregnant with a third son, makes such a scenario implausible: cf. Roller, Cleopatra, 121.

⁷⁶ Josephus, War 1.361; Josephus, Ant. 15.94–6 (with wrong chronology); Plutarch, Antony 36.3–4; Cassius Dio 49.32.4–5; Porphyry in FGrHist. 260, Fr. 2.17; Hölbl, Günther, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (London and New York, 2001), 241–4Google Scholar; Roller, Cleopatra, 90–101.

⁷⁷ Porphyry in FGrHist. 260 Fr. 2.17; BGU 14.2376 (35 bce; Year 2).

⁷⁸ Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth, ed. Susan Walker and Peter Higgs (2001), 233–4, nos. 214–17 (Chalcis), 221–2 (?), 232–4 (Cyrene?).

⁷⁹ Thompson, ‘Cleopatra VII’, 31. Cleopatra Thea: Whitehorne, John, Cleopatras (London and New York, 1994), 149–63Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Hölbl, History, 241; Pouilloux, Jean, ‘Deux amis: le stratège Diogénès fils de Nouménios et le gymnasiarque Stasicratès fils de Stasicratès’, in Praktika tou Protou Diethnous Kyprologikou Synedriou, i (Leukosia, 1972), 141–50;Google Scholar Van’t Dack, Edmond, ‘Notices Cypriotes’, in Studio Paulo Naster Oblata II: Orientalia Antiqua, ed. Quaegebeur, Jan (Louvain, 1982), 321–6Google Scholar (323); Schrapel, Thomas, Das Reich der Kleopatra: Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den ‘Landschenkungen’ Mark Antons (Trierer Historische Forschungen; Trier, 1996), 259 Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Plutarch, Antony 36.3–4; cf. Cassius Dio 49.32.4–5; Pelling, Christopher B. R., Plutarch, Life of Antony (Cambridge, 1988), 217–18Google Scholar; Reinhold, Meyer, From Republic to Principate: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 49–52 (36–29 b.c. ) (Atlanta, GA, 1988), 63–5Google Scholar.

⁸² Hölbl, History, 242, citing Christ, Karl, Krise und Untergang der römischen Republik (2nd edn; Darmstadt, 1984), 448 Google Scholar; cf. Pelling, Life of Antony, 217.

⁸³ Josephus, War 1.360–3; Josephus, Ant. 15.93–6; Plutarch, Antony 36.3. On Cleopatra's alleged ambition for the whole of Herod's kingdom or for Malchus's kingdom of Nabatea, by fomenting conflict between the two: Josephus, War 1.365, 367; Josephus, Ant. 15.115–16.

⁸⁴ Josephus, War 1.362–3; Josephus, Ant. 15.106, 132. Herod's annual income is estimated at 1,050–2,000 talents: Rocca, Samuel, Herod's Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World (Tübingen, 2008), 208 Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Cleopatra's dowry: Josephus, Ant. 12.154; cf. Polybius 28.20.9; Appian, Syrian Wars 5; see further Schwartz, Daniel R., ‘Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?’, in Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, ed. Goodman, Martin (Oxford, 1998), 47–61 Google Scholar. The Tobiads as tax-collectors for the Ptolemaic monarchy: Josephus, Ant. 12.160–223.

⁸⁶ Some scholars identify evidence for Jewish representation of Cleopatra VII, including Jewish support for the queen against Rome, in the Third Sibylline Oracle. On this question, I follow Erich Gruen's analysis of the evidence which finds no reference to Cleopatra here: ‘Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the Third Sibylline Oracle’, in Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, ed. Goodman, 15–36 (25–7). Relevant to the history of Jewish reception of Cleopatra, but not considered here, are references to the queen in rabbinic literature; see further Geiger, Joseph, ‘Cleopatra the Physician’, in Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture, ed. Berger, Shlomo, Brocke, Michael and Zwiep, Irene (Dodrecht, Boston and London, 2001), 28–32 Google Scholar; Ulmer, Rivka, ‘Cleopatra, Isis, and Serapis’, in Ulmer, Rivka, Egyptian Cultural Icons in Midrash (Berlin, 2009), 215–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁷ CIL iii Suppl. no. 6583 = OGIS no. 129 = JIGRE no. 125 = Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1996) no. 228.

⁸⁸ Rigsby Asylia, 540–73.

⁸⁹ Ibid . 540.

⁹⁰ Ibid . nos. 219–28, a corpus of eleven grants of asylia from Ptolemaic Egypt; additional evidence for such grants is supplied by references to other temples already in possession of the grant of asylia (e.g. Rigsby, Asylia no. 219).

⁹¹ Rigsby, Asylia no. 19, Temple of Horus (Ptolemy X, 96 bce).

⁹² E.g. Rigsby, Asylia no. 221, Temple of Isis Sachypsis (Theadelphia; Ptolemy X, 93 bce). In addition to temples of Egyptian gods (Horus, Isis, Ammon and various manifestations of the crocodile god Sobek), grants of asylia are also known for Magdola's temple of Heron, a Thracian god whose cult was probably founded in Egypt by military settlers under the early Ptolemies (Rigsby, Asylia no. 220), and for Theadelphia's temple of the Greek god Heracles Callinicus (no. 222).

⁹³ C. Ord. Ptol. 67 = Rigsby, Asylia no. 226.

⁹⁴ Thompson, ‘Cleopatra VII’, 33.

⁹⁵ Βασιλίσσης καὶ βασιλέως προσταξάντων ἀντὶ τῆς προανακειμένης περὶ τῆς ἀναθέσεως τῆς προσευχῆς πλακὸς ἡ ὑπογεγραμμένη ἐπιγραφήτω· [vacat] βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος Εὐεργέτης τὴν προσευχὴν ἄσυλον. Regina et rex iusser(un)t (text follows JIGRE no. 125, based on CIJ 2, no. 126).

⁹⁶ On the Jewish significance of proseuche: Horbury, William and Noy, David, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: With an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica (Cambridge, 1992), 14 Google Scholar; Noy, David, ‘A Jewish Place of Prayer in Roman Egypt’, Journal of Theological Studies, 43 (1992), 118–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levinskaya, Irina, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, v: Diaspora Setting (Grand Rapids, MI, and Carlisle, 1996), 213–25Google Scholar, correcting LSJ s.v. προσευχή.

⁹⁷ A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, revised and edited by Frederick William Danker (3rd edn (BDAG); Chicago and London, 2000), 963, s.v. συναγωγή; cf. Fine, Steven, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period (Eugene, OR, 1997)Google Scholar, 25–33; Runesson, Anders, The Origins of the Synagogue: A Socio-Historical Study (Stockholm, 2001), 436–59Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ See, however, Rigsby's doubts about the authenticity of the claim that asylum was originally granted to the proseuche at the time of its dedication, because (1) this is the only example known from Ptolemaic Egypt in which royal permission is given for the renewal of a grant of asylum (though Rigsby notes the not wholly dissimilar example from Nysa in modern Turkey of the restoration of a temple's documents to the record office (Rigsby, Asylia no. 186); and (2) based on the fact that a date of 116 bce or earlier would make this the first known example of an asylum decree in Ptolemaic Egypt (but not necessarily by more than twenty years), with the suggestion that it is unlikely that the first known grant should be for a Jewish institution rather than an Egyptian temple; and (3) on the supposed improbability of a scenario in which any religious institution might be granted asylum from the time of its original dedication: Rigsby, Asylia, 572; idem, ‘A Jewish Asylum in Greco-Roman Egypt’, in Das Antike Asyl: kultische Grundlagen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung und politische Funktion, ed. Martin Dreher (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 2003), 127–41 (135–8). These points do not, in my view, prove the inauthenticity of the grant of asylum under Ptolemy Euergetes. On the early date, it is clear from the Amnesty Decree issued by Ptolemy VIII, Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III that certain temples in Egypt already enjoyed the privilege of asylum, which the Decree aims to protect (C. Ord. Ptol. 53=P. Tebt. i 5, ll. 84–5; 118 bce). The grant of asylum to a new temple is exemplified in the case of the temple of Isis near Ptolemais (Rigsby, Asylia no. 226, see above), which received from Cleopatra VII the grant of asylum at a time close to its foundation. Rejecting the claim that the proseuche received a grant of asylum under Ptolemy VIII, Rigsby argues that ‘the claim of Euergetes's grant of asylum to the synagogue will be a fabrication of the first century b.c., in imitation of the report about the Temple in 1 Maccabees’ (Rigsby, Asylia, 572, referring to 1 Maccabees 10:31). This seems an unnecessarily complicated hypothesis.

⁹⁹ Bohak, Gideon, ‘Ethnic Continuity in the Jewish Diaspora in Antiquity’, in Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, ed. Bartlett, John R. (London and New York, 2002), 175–92Google Scholar (186).

¹⁰⁰ Cleopatra III: e.g. I. Alex. Ptol. no. 30 (112 bce). For the brief period of co-rule of Cleopatra II, Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX, with both queens given precedence in the naming sequence: Hölbl, History, 205, with reference to P. Rylands dem. iii.20 (116 bce). Cleopatra I: for evidence of her preeminence, as regent with her son Ptolemy VI, in official documents: Whitehorne, Cleopatras, 86–7.

¹⁰¹ E.g. P. Bon. 10 (46/45 bce); P. Oxy. 14.1629 (45/44 bce); P. Ryl. iv.582 (42 bce); C. Ord. Ptol. 75–6 (41 bce); OGIS 194 (39 bce); P. Cair. Dem. 31232 (37/36 bce?); BGU xiv.2376 (35 bce). See further Bingen, Jean, Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture. Edited with an Introduction by Roger S. Bagnall (Berkeley, 2007), 63–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 67–71; originally published as ‘La politique dynastique de Cléopâtre VII’, Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1999), 49–66; Ricketts, Linda M., ‘A Chronological Problem in the Reign of Cleopatra VII’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, 16.3 (1979), 213–17Google Scholar; Linda M. Ricketts, ‘The Administration of Ptolemaic Egypt under Cleopatra VII’ (Ph.D., Minnesota, 1980), 11–44.

¹⁰² Identification with Cleopatra VII: Hermann Dessau in Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3.2 (1916), clxxi; Jean Bingen, ‘L'asylie pour une synagogue CIL III Suppl. 6583–CIJ 1449’, in Studio Paulo Naster Oblata II, ed. Quaegebeur, 11–16 (with a decisive refutation of Mommsen's influential argument (1881), predating the publication of most of the relevant documentary evidence for Ptolemaic Egypt, in which he identified the queen and king with Zenobia and Vallabath of Palmyra during their brief period of control in Egypt (270–2 ce)); Boffo, Laura, Iscrizione Greche e Latine per lo Studio della Bibbia (Brescia, 1994), 113–20Google Scholar; Rigsby, ‘A Jewish Asylum’, 131–3. Cf. the attempted revival of Mommsen's theory by Bowersock, Glen (‘The Miracle of Memnon’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, 21 (1984), 21–32)Google Scholar, dismissed in Bingen, Hellenistic Egypt, 71 (originally published as ‘Cléopâtre VII Philopatris’, Chronique d’Égypte, 74 (1999), 118–23).

¹⁰³ The documentary evidence is listed in Zsuzsanna Szántó, ‘The Jews of Ptolemaic Egypt in the Light of the Papyri’ (Ph.D., Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, 2016), 180, which adds PSI Congr. xvii 22 (Fayum, 114 or 78 bce) to Tcherikover's earlier summary of the documentary evidence for Egyptian proseuchai (‘Prolegomena’, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, i, 8). CPJ 1, no. 138, a fragmentary papyrus record of unknown provenance, deals with a resolution agreed at ‘a meeting in the proseuche (συναγωγῆς ἐν τῆι προσευχῆι)’, dated on palaeographical grounds to the reign of Cleopatra VII (cf. Noy, ‘A Jewish Place’, 119 n. 9). On the literary evidence, including rabbinic literature: Levine, Lee I., The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven and London, 2005), 82–96 Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Rigsby, Asylia, 572.

¹⁰⁵ Philo, Embassy to Gaius 134–5, on the violations perpetrated by Alexandrian enemies of the Jews within the ‘largest and most distinguished (ἐν τῇ μεγίστῃ καὶ περισημοτάτῃ)’ of the Alexandrian prayer-houses (38 ce); on the colossal size of the ‘great synagogue’ of Alexandria, cf. the later rabbinic traditions recorded in t. Sukkah 4.6; y. Sukkah 5,1, 55a–b; b. Sukkah 51b.

¹⁰⁶ On the discovery of the inscription: Rigsby, ‘A Jewish Asylum’, 127.

¹⁰⁷ Rigsby, Asylia, 571–3; idem, ‘A Jewish Asylum’.

¹⁰⁸ Josephus gives conflicting accounts of the appearance of the temple: (1) as modelled on the Jerusalem temple (Josephus, War 1.33; 7.428, 431–2 (intended as a rival to the Jerusalem temple); cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.388; 13.63, 67; 20.236); (2) as ‘not like that in Jerusalem’ (Josephus, War 7.427). Other signs of the magnitude of the temple include reference to its similarity to a tower built of massive stones, sixty cubits high (Josephus, War 7.427); its extensive lands, donated by Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II (Josephus, War 7.430); the foundation of a fortress or small town (πολίχνη) associated with the temple (Josephus, War 1.33). Josephus varies the terminology for the temple, using, apparently without significant distinction in meaning: (1) ναός (e.g. Josephus, War 7.427; Josephus, Ant. 13.63; 20.236); (2) ἱερόν, ‘holy place’ (e.g. Josephus, War 7.431; Josephus, Ant. 12.388; 13.70–3). Josephus locates the temple at Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis, c. 20 miles from Memphis (Josephus, War 7.426; Josephus, Ant. 13.65, 70), known as ‘the temple (νεώς) of the Jews in the so-called district of Onias’ (Josephus, War 7.421); but the exact site of the temple, following its destruction by Roman forces in the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt (Josephus, War 7.420–1, 433–6; 73/74 ce), has not been found. That territory within the Heliopolite nome was identified as ‘the land of Onias’ is known not only from Josephus's sources, including Strabo (Josephus, War 1.190; Josephus, Ant. 13.287, citing Strabo), but also from the epitaph of Arsinoe, associated with the cemeteries at Tell el-Yehoudieh (c. 20 miles north-east of Cairo), who names ‘the land of Onias’ as her birth-place (JIGRE no. 38). The archaeological site of Tell el-Yehoudieh has yielded a large corpus of Greek epitaphs, of which more than 50 per cent may be judged to include distinctively Jewish names; this site of Jewish settlement corresponds to at least part of Onias's foundation; cf. Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, xvi–xix; Capponi, Il Tempio di Leontopoli, 207–11.

¹⁰⁹ On Onias IV as founder of the temple of Leontopolis under Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II: Josephus, Ant. 12.387; 13.62–73 (contra Josephus, War 7.423, which attributes the foundation to Onias III, father of Onias IV); cf. Bohak, Gideon, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Atlanta, GA, 1996), 19–27 Google Scholar; Gruen, Erich S., ‘The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple’, Scripta Classica Israelica, 16 (1997), 47–70 Google Scholar (55); Capponi, Il Tempio di Leontopoli, 39–59. Against the current majority view, Meron M. Piotrkowski argues for Onias III as the founder of Leontopolis, against the background of political crisis in Judaea and the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Antiochus IV, who had deposed Onias III as Jerusalem High Priest (175 bce; cf. Josephus, War 1.33; 7.423): ‘Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period’ (Ph.D., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 2014).

¹¹⁰ See Whitehorne, Cleopatras, 101–3 (Onias IV), 106–7 (on Josephus, Apion 2.53–6); 139–46 (Chelkias and Ananias).

¹¹¹ Josephus, Apion 2.49.

¹¹² Ibid . 2.50–2.

¹¹³ Josephus, Ant. 13.285–7; cf. 13.351–5; Van't Dack, Edmond, ‘Les armées en cause’, in The Judean–Syrian–Egyptian Conflict of 103–101 b.c. A Multilingual Dossier concerning a ‘War of Sceptres’, ed. Dack, Edmond Van't, Clarysse, Willy et al. (Brussels, 1989), 127–36Google Scholar (129–31).

¹¹⁴ Josephus, Ant. 14.127–39. According to Josephus, Ant. 14.127, Antipater acted under orders from the Jerusalem high priest Hyrcanus. Somewhat different is the account in Josephus's War (1.187–94), in which Antipater receives the credit for persuading the Egyptian Jews to cooperate in assisting Julius Caesar and his allies. Neither Jewish leader is mentioned in the Caesarian account of the Alexandrian War, though reference is made there to the post-victory rewards made by Caesar to his allies; cf. Alexandrian War 26–8, 65, 78; Schürer, History, i, 270–1.

¹¹⁵ Caesar's restoration of Cleopatra with her second brother, Ptolemy XIV, in Alexandria: Alexandrian War, 33.

¹¹⁶ Thompson, ‘Cleopatra VII’, 33.

¹¹⁷ The earliest dated examples are from the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes (r. 246–221 bce) and his wife Berenike II: e.g. ‘On behalf of king Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy, and queen Berenice his wife and sister and their children, the Jews in Crocodilopolis (dedicated) the proseuche’ (JIGRE no. 117; cf. no. 22). A century later, the same formula is used in dedications made ‘on behalf of’ Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and his co-rulers, Cleopatra II (‘the sister’) and Cleopatra III (‘the wife’) (co-rule, 124–116 bce) (JIGRE nos. 24, 25). In other cases, dedications made ‘on behalf of king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra’ leave unclear the exact identification of the rulers (JIGRE nos. 27, 28; and cf. the fragmentary remains of JIGRE nos. 9, 14). The honorific dedication is a distinctive phenomenon of Egyptian Jewry under Ptolemaic rule, reflected, for example, in the petition presented to Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II for the building of a Jewish temple at Leontopolis (Josephus, Ant. 13.67). On the unusual character, in the context of the practice of the Jews of antiquity, of making dedications on behalf of the ruler: Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 84.

¹¹⁸ On the use of the dedicatory formula in dedications to Greek and Egyptian deities: Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols.,Oxford, 1972), i, 226–7. The practice implies recognition that, though the cult of the Ptolemies was introduced under Ptolemy II Philadelphus alongside that of Alexander, the ‘divine’ rulers were not ‘fully gods’: Dorothy J. Thompson, Memphis under the Ptolemies (2nd edn; Princeton and Oxford, 2012), 125–6.

¹¹⁹ Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, i, 116. In the case of non-Jewish Greek dedications, Fraser notes that the dedicatory formula, known from other Hellenistic kingdoms, was especially prominent in Ptolemaic Egypt, particularly in Alexandria. In the time of Cleopatra, see I. Fay. 3, 205 = Rowlandson no. 12 (Arsinoite nome, 51 bce): ‘On behalf of (ὑπέρ) Queen Cleopatra the goddess Philopator, the place of the association of (Isis) Snonaitiake, of whom the president is the chief priest Onnophris. Year 1, Epeiph’ (the Greek inscription accompanies traditional, Egyptian religious iconography).

¹²⁰ Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, i, 282–3.

¹²¹ The absence of a dedication to the Ptolemaic ruler is seen (among other data) as confirming a Roman date for the dedication by Papous of a proseuche ‘on behalf of (ὑπέρ) himself and his wife and children’ (JIGRE no. 126).

¹²² Ibid. 13, based on the reconstruction by David M. Lewis (CPJ 3, no. 1432), here adapted, with my underline in the English translation of letters too damaged to read in the Greek equivalent (with damaged letters in square brackets). The final letters, designating the Egyptian month, here identified as Mecheir, allow for the alternative reading of the month Mesore (Adam Łajtar, Review of Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, in The Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 24 (1994), 57–70).

¹²³ An impressively strong consensus dates JIGRE no. 13 to 37 bce: Strack, M. L., ‘Inschriften aus ptolemäischer Zeit’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 2 (1903), 559 Google Scholar n. 41; Breccia, Evaristo, Iscrizioni Greche e Latine (Cairo, 1911)Google Scholar, no. 41; CIJ 2, no. 1432; CPJ 3, no. 1432; Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 91; Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 19 (a ‘tentative date’ of 37 bce); I. Alex. Ptol. no. 35. Alternatively, 36 bce: Botti, Giuseppe, ‘Bulletin Épigraphique’, Bulletin de la Société archéologique d'Alexandrie, 4 (1902), 85–107 Google Scholar (86); Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, i, 282, ii, 2, 441, n. 766. An identification with the fifteenth year of Cleopatra III (as proposed by Willamowitz-Möllendorf, Ulrich, ‘Alexandrinische Inschriften’, Sitzungberichte der kgl. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin, 49 (1902), 1093–9Google Scholar (1094)) puts the dedication just prior to the year of the queen's assassination (101 bce). The inscription, however, lacks the double date expected for the era of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy X Alexander, i.e. ‘the thirteenth year’ of Ptolemy X, as noted by Strack, ‘Inschriften aus ptolemäischer Zeit’.

¹²⁴ In terms of the identification of the group behind the proseuche, the extant letters of the inscription suggest the name Alypos as the benefactor responsible for the building of the proseuche. The name is not otherwise known to have been used by Jews in Egypt, though the Greek epithet alypos, ‘without pain’, ‘one who causes no pain’, is associated with Jews buried in the necropolis at Leontopolis (Tell el-Yehoudieh) (JIGRE nos. 74 (Marion) and 98 (Sabbataios), both probably of the Augustan period). Variants of the name (Alypis, Alypius) are known to have been used by Palestinian Jews of a later period (Beth She'arim 196; CIJ 2, no. 502). Alypios has been proposed as a possible alternative reading for the name in JIGRE no. 13: see, for example, Horsley, Greg H. R., ‘Towards a New Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum? A propos W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt ’, Jewish Studies Quarterly, 2.1 (1995), 77–101 Google Scholar (89); against, Bernand, Étienne, Inscriptions Grecques d'Alexandrie Ptolémaïque (Cairo, 2001), 101 Google Scholar, commentary on l. 5. The inscription represents the only example from Ptolemaic Egypt of the patronage of a proseuche by an individual benefactor: Claussen, Carsten, Versammlung, Gemeinde, Synagoge: das hellenistisch-jüdische Umfeld der frühchristlichen Gemeinden (Göttingen, 2002), 91 Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ Philo, Embassy to Gaius 132.

¹²⁶ Ibid . 138. In the confrontation between Gaius and Philo's embassy over Gaius's plans to put a statue of himself as a god in the Jerusalem temple, Gaius (so Philo) rejected the value of the Jews’ offerings to God (in the Jerusalem temple) ‘on behalf’ of the emperor, ‘For you have not sacrificed to me (οὐ γὰρ ἐμοὶ τεθύκατε)!’ (Embassy to Gaius 356–7).

¹²⁷ Plutarch, Antony 10.6.

¹²⁸ Ibid. 25.1.

¹²⁹ Pelling, Life of Antony, 16–18, 26–31; Brenk, Frederick E., ‘Plutarch's Life “Markos Antonios”: A Literary and Cultural Study’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part ii: Principat, vol. xxxiii: Sprache und Literatur, vi (Berlin and New York, 1992), 4348–4469 Google Scholar, indices 4895–915.

¹³⁰ Roller suggests that the source for this anecdote ‘was presumably someone in regular contact with the queen and her court, perhaps Nikolaos of Damascus or Sokrates of Rhodes’: Cleopatra, 169.

¹³¹ Plutarch, Antony 27.4–5.

¹³² Ibid . 25.2.

¹³³ Ibid . 25.2.

¹³⁴ Ibid . 28.1.

¹³⁵ Ibid . 27.3. The adjective appears only here in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae corpus, perhaps a sign of the influence of an oral tradition? Other sources contradict Plutarch's testimony in emphasising Cleopatra's beauty as part of her fatal attractiveness: cf. Cassius Dio 42.34.5. On Plutarch's use of λέγεται (‘it is said’), and similar impersonal expressions: Cook, Brad L., ‘Plutarch's Use of λέγεται: Narrative Design and Source in Alexander ’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 42 (2001), 329–60Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ Plutarch, Antony 27.4–5; cf. Plutarch, Caesar 49.2 on the supposed power of Cleopatra's presence over Julius Caesar in Alexandria.

¹³⁷ Schuller, Wolfgang, Kleopatra: Königin in drei Kulturen. Eine Biographie (Hamburg, 2006), 40–1Google Scholar.

¹³⁸ See the useful discussion in Roller, Cleopatra, 46–50. Antony's alliance with the Median king, Artavasdes, included the betrothal of their children (Plutarch, Antony 53.12; Cassius Dio 49.40.2).

¹³⁹ Cleopatra's supposed linguistic skills are comparable (given the ‘many other’ languages she is credited with) to those attributed to Mithradates VI of Pontus (120–63 bce), whose ability as king of twenty-two tribes to give judgements in as many languages, without an interpreter, earned him the admiration of Pliny for such remarkable powers of memory: Pliny, Natural History 7.88; 25.6; cf. variations on this tradition in Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds and Sayings 8.7.16; Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 17.17.1–2; cf. Strobach, Anika, Plutarch und die Sprachen: ein Beitrag zur Fremdsprachenproblematik in der Antike (Stuttgart, 1997), 160 Google Scholar (‘Solche Berichte über Sprachgenies gab es öfter in der antiken Literatur’). It is not impossible that Cleopatra and her supporters promoted her linguistic skills in deliberate emulation of Mithradates, cf. Roller, Cleopatra, 3, 49–50; for a more sceptical view, Pelling, Life of Antony, 191.

¹⁴⁰ Roller, Cleopatra, 43–51.

¹⁴¹ Cleopatra's ability to speak directly with ‘Hebrews’ is treated as positive evidence of her relationship with Jews in, for example, Heinen, Heinz, ‘Onomastisches zu Eiras, Kammerzofe Kleopatras VII’, Zeitshcrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 79 (1989), 243–7Google Scholar; republished in Heinen, Kleopatra-Studien: Gesammelte Schriften zur ausgehenden Ptolemäerzeit (Konstanz, 2009), 176–81 (181); note Stern's comment on Plutarch, Antony 27 that, despite the testimony of Apion in Josephus, ‘there is no reason to assume that she was consistently anti-semitic’: Stern, Menahem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols., Jerusalem, 1974–84)Google Scholar, i, 568.

¹⁴² Roller, Cleopatra, 47.

¹⁴³ Plutarch, Convivial Questions 671c.

¹⁴⁴ On Plutarch's source for the description of the Jerusalem temple in this context: Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, i, 546.

¹⁴⁵ Plutarch, Convivial Questions 669d,e; 670d; 671c.

¹⁴⁶ Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, i, 559: ‘Plutarch belongs to the generation of writers who started to use “Hebrews” instead of or together with “Jews”’ (see references on 559). From the early Hellenistic period on, the term Hebraios/oi is used by Greek-speaking Jews to designate both themselves and their ancestors; cf. BDAG, s.v. Ἑβραῖος; Harvey, Graham, The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew, and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Leiden, 1996), 104–47Google Scholar. In some contexts, ‘Hebrew/s’ clearly refers to a particular territory (e.g. Tacitus, Histories 5.2; Pausanias, Description of Greece 5.7.4); or to the speakers of a specific language (e.g. Philo, Moses 2.32; Josephus, War 6.97; Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet 13).

¹⁴⁷ On whether Josephus spoke Hebrew as well as Aramaic: Rajak, Josephus, 230–2.

¹⁴⁸ Plutarch refers to ‘Herod the Jew’ as part of the alliance that sent forces to Antony at Actium: Plutarch, Antony 61.3.

¹⁴⁹ Eiras: Prosopographia Ptolemaica 14720. Other ancient sources that name Eiras with Charmion as among Cleopatra's companions: Pseudo-Plutarch, Proverbs of the Alexandrians Fr. 45, l. 1 (Eiras was tasked with the care of Cleopatra's hair while Charmion dealt with the queen's nails; the same in Zenobius, Epitome of Didymus’ and Lucillus Tarrhaeus’ Collections of Proverbs 5.24 who, however, gives the name Naera instead of Eiras); Zonaras, Epitome of Histories 2.432, l. 30 (closely follows Plutarch, Antony 85.7). Naera (Νάηρα) and Charmion: Zenobius, Epitome 5.24. Naeira (Νάειρα) and Charmion: Galen, 14.235–6.

¹⁵⁰ Plutarch, Antony 60.1 (tr. Bernadotte Perrin, adapted).

¹⁵¹ Cassius Dio 50.24.1–30.4; cf. also the articulation of the theme of Antony as ‘slave’ to ‘the Egyptian woman’ (48.24.2), and of Antony's own effeminacy (γυναικίζει, 50.27.6).

¹⁵² Horace, Epode 9, 11–16 (tr. Niall Rudd).

¹⁵³ Strabo 17.1.12.

¹⁵⁴ Plutarch, Antony 60.1.

¹⁵⁵ Pelling, Life of Antony, 264. Reference to Potheinos seems to be either an error or a deliberate confusion with the courtier of Ptolemy XIII. The eunuch Potheinos was a figure remembered as hostile to Rome; influential in promoting the cause of Ptolemy XIII against his sister Cleopatra, Potheinos was executed on the orders of Julius Caesar, 48 bce (Plutarch, Caesar 49.2–3; Cassius Dio 42.36.1–3).

¹⁵⁶ Cf. Kleiner, Diana E. E., Cleopatra and Rome (Cambridge, MA, and London, 2005), 242–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Evidence for female ‘hairdressers’ is relatively rare, cf. LSJ s.v. κουρεύτρια, which lists Plutarch, Antony 60, as the source for this feminine form. In the context of early Ptolemaic Egypt, a tax-register for the Fayum village of Lysimachis includes a woman named Kleopatra, listed as a (masculine) ‘hairdresser (κουρεύς)’ (P. Count. 26.320 (254–231 bce)); cf. Clarysse, Willy and Thompson, Dorothy J., Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt, ii: Historical Studies (Cambridge, 2006), 203 Google Scholar. Plutarch nearly always refers to the (male) hairdresser as a prime example of the purveyor of gossip through their ability to mix with the powerful and the servant class: Nicias 30.2; On Talkativeness 508f–509b. In the same context, Plutarch mentions Julius Caesar's barber (κουρεύς), a slave (οἰκέτης), who served as Caesar's spy in Ptolemy XIII's Alexandria (Caesar 49.2). The tradition transmitted in Pseudo-Plutarch, Proverbs of the Alexandrians 45, also makes Charmion the queen's manicurist.

¹⁵⁷ Contra ancient and modern acceptance of this role for Eiras: Pseudo-Plutarch, Proverbs of the Alexandrians Fr. 45, l. 1; Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen, 336, s.v. Εἰράς, ‘Haarkräuslerin der Kleopatra’.

¹⁵⁸ Plutarch, Antony 85.7; cf. Cassius Dio 51.14.3, who does not name the two θεράπαιναι who die with Cleopatra. Plutarch's narrative of Cleopatra's death does not make clear until the end that the two women who alone accompanied the queen in her mausoleum were Charmion and Eiras (Plutarch, Antony 77.2; 79.2–3; 84.3). Furthermore, Eiras and Charmion are almost certainly to be identified with the unnamed female companions of Cleopatra who accompanied Cleopatra and served to reconcile the queen with Antony on the voyage home after the Battle of Actium (Plutarch, Antony 67.6); cf. Pelling, Life of Antony, 307.

¹⁵⁹ Plutarch, Antony 86.7: ἐντίμου δὲ καὶ τὰ γύναια κηδείας ἔτυχεν αὐτοῦ προστάξαντος. Eiras and Charmion belong among the ‘Dames du Cour’ (otherwise mostly represented by courtesans of the Ptolemaic kings) in the Prosopographia Ptolemaica, ed. Willy Peremans, Edmond Van't Dack, Willy Clarysse, Loe de Meulemeester-Swinnen and Hans Hauben (Leuven, 1950–81); cf. Daniel Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties (1999), 217, who notes that the trade of hairdresser is also abusively associated by Tlepolemos with the courtesans of Ptolemy IV Philopator (Polybius 15.25).

¹⁶⁰ Plutarch, Antony 85.8.

¹⁶¹ In some post-Plutarchian versions of Cleopatra's death, the name Eiras is replaced by other names: Νάηρα, ‘Naera’ (Zenobius, Epitome 5.24), or Νάειρα, ‘Naeira’ (Galen 14.235). Pseudo-Plutarch (Proverbs of the Alexandrians 45) and Zonaras (Epitome of Histories 10.31), however, follow Plutarch in preserving the name Eiras. The name Charmion, by contrast, remains fairly stable in the tradition (cf. Καρμιόνη in Galen etc.). Nevertheless, Charmion is another rare female name; cf. P. Mich. 4.223 (Valeria Charmion; ce 172, Karanis).

¹⁶² The closest female parallel is Εἰραΐς from fourth/third century bce Anthedon in Boeotia (iiib, no. 24690; noted in Hannah M. Cotton et al., Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, i: Jerusalem. Part 1, 1–704 (henceforth, CIIP) (Berlin and New York, 2010)), 314. Two second-century bce inscriptions from Pamphylia attest Εἴρας (in the genitive Είραυ) as a male name (Lexicon of Greek Personal Names vb, s.v. Εἴρας).

¹⁶³ Noy, David and Bloedhorn, Hanswulf, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis , iii: Syria and Cyprus (henceforth IJO) (Tübingen, 2004), 115–16Google Scholar, commenting on Syr72ⁿ = CIIP i, 1, no. 291.

¹⁶⁴ Stud. Pal. 20.26, an example of the name Eiras in a non-Jewish context, cf. Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 121. In other evidence, the name Eiras is no longer read in the revised edition of Stud Pal. 22.101 (second century ce; Fayum); and from the graffito carved on the Memnonion at Abydos (332 bce – ce 284?), ‘Eiras and Helene were here!’, Eiras is taken to be male (I. Memnonion 131.1).

¹⁶⁵ P. Vindob. Sal. 19; see Heinen (‘Onomastisches zu Eiras’, 179) on the possibility of reading Εἰρᾶ as a variant of Εἰρᾶς.

¹⁶⁶ JIGRE no. 52. The epitaph was recorded in situ in 1887; cf. Naville, Edouard, ‘The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias’, Egypt Exploration Fund, 7th Memoir (1890), 14 Google Scholar, pl. iv n.

¹⁶⁷ On the Jewish context of the burials at Tell el-Yehoudieh, cf. Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, xviii: more than 50 per cent of the names given in the epitaphs are ‘distinctively Jewish’; others include many names (including Eirene) known to have been much used by Jews without being distinctively Jewish; the same family can include members with Jewish, Egyptian and Greek names; while ‘the community may not have been exclusively Jewish. . .there are no reliable grounds for identifying any non-Jewish minority which may have been buried at the site’.

¹⁶⁸ CIIP i, 1, no. 291 = IJO, Syr72ⁿ; cf. Ilan, Tal, ‘The Ossuary and Sarcophagus Inscriptions’, in The Akeldama Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, ed. Avni, Gideon and Greenhut, Zvi (Jerusalem, 1996), 57–72 Google Scholar (59, no. 3); Tamar Shadmi, ‘The Ossuaries and the Sarcophagus’, ibid., 41–55 (43, Fig. 2.7; Ossuary 11; ed. pr.); Gatier, P.-L., in Bulletin Épigraphique, 654 (1997), 596–7Google Scholar, no. 654. My thanks to Meron Piotrkowski for advice on this topic.

¹⁶⁹ Cotton et al., CIIP i, 1, nos. 309–10; cf. their observation that the family buried with Eiras in Cave 2 ‘seems to have had a predilection for names based on Eros’, and that Eiras is similar sounding.

¹⁷⁰ IJO 116; CIIP i, 1, no. 314.

¹⁷¹ CIIP i, 1, no. 304, ‘Ariston from Apamea’.

¹⁷² On the basis of new readings, CIIP i, 1, 310, revise the arguments for the inscriptions’ Syrian origin as given in the editio princeps, cf. Ilan, ‘The Ossuary’.

¹⁷³ Cotton et al., CIIP i, 1, 310.

¹⁷⁴ Εἰρᾶς as hypocoristic form: suggested by David M. Lewis, in Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, iii, ed. Victor Tcherikover, Alexander Fuks and Menahem Stern, with an Epigraphical Contribution by David M. Lewis (Cambridge, MA, 1964), 148; argued in detail by Heinen, ‘Onomastisches zu Eiras’, 176–81. Heinen (178–9) notes the use of hypocoristic name forms of other individuals within Cleopatra's court or administration (e.g. the queen's male servant Saras (Sarapion) mentioned in Cicero, Atticus 15.15.2), while rare hypocoristic forms of feminine names ending in -ᾶς appear, for example, in the names Κλεοπᾶς/Κλεοπᾶτος (Kleopas) (I. Philae 1.29; Philae, first century bce) and Κλευπᾶς (Kleupas) (CPJ 3, no. 1530b = JIGRE no. 99; Tell el-Yehudieh; mid-second century bce – early second century ce; 7 bce?), both derived from the name Κλεοπάτρα (Kleopatra). In the same context, one should also note Heinen's decisive refutation of earlier attempts to interpret the significance of the name Eiras, including his critique of the entry in the standard lexicon by W. Pape ( Benseler, G. E.), Wörterbuch der grischischen Eigennamen (3rd edn; Braunschweig, 1911)Google Scholar, s.v. Εἰράς = ‘Wollkopf’ (‘Woolhead’, based on τὸ εἶρος = ‘wool’).

¹⁷⁵ Heinen, ‘Onomastisches zu Eiras’, 181 (my tr.).

¹⁷⁶ Ibid., 179; Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, 138 (noting, on the basis of the evidence available before 1992, that Salome is not attested in Greek transliteration in Egypt with the possible exception of treating the name Salamis as a variant form (JIGRE no. 48)). Gerard Mussies treats Eirene as an example of ‘foreign names used by Jews’, and specifically of names translated from the Hebrew: ‘Jewish Personal Names in Some Non-Literary Sources’, in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. Jan Willem van Henten and Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden, 1994), 242–76 (245). The fact that Eirene is a well-established Greek (non-Jewish) name does not render unlikely the adoption by Jews of the name as equivalent to Salome, despite the doubts expressed by Ilan, Tal, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part III. The Western Diaspora 330 bce –650 ce (Tübingen, 2008)Google Scholar, 416. On the extreme popularity of the name Salome, cf. Ilan, Tal, ‘Notes on the Distribution of Jewish Women's Names in Palestine in the Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods’, Journal of Jewish Studies, 40 (1989), 186–200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷⁷ Heinen, ‘Onomastisches zu Eiras’, 181: ‘Die Frage, ob Eiras, die Zofe Kleopatras, eine Judin gewesen ist, läßt sich anhand der uns zur Verfügung stehenden Quellen nicht entscheiden.’

¹⁷⁸ The suggestion of Eiras's Jewish origins is noted, for example, in the authoritative collection Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook, ed. Jane Rowlandson (Cambridge, 1998), 41, in which Eiras represents the only case-study of a (possibly) Jewish woman in the Ptolemaic era.

¹⁷⁹ The known names of Cleopatra's administrators reveal little of their identity and may well have included individual Jews: most of the administrators have Greek names though a number also have Egyptian theophoric names, cf. Roller, Cleopatra, 107–8; for a list of administrators from the reign of Cleopatra VII, see Ricketts, ‘The Administration’, 137–49. The name of the scribe (grammateus) who posted the royal prostagma protecting the shipping of wheat (BGU viii.1730, 27 Oct. 50 bce; see above p. 37), Onias (Ὀνίας) of the Herakleopolite nome, points to his Jewish identity; cf. Ilan, Lexicon, 671–2, s.v. ‘Honi’ no. 5, ‘Jewishness is indicated by name’ (672).

¹⁸⁰ Philo, Embassy to Gaius 138.