LEEST, VANDER J., Lucian in Egypt , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:1 (1985:Spring) 
p.75 

Lucian in Egypt 

J. vander Leest 

E'YW 'YOVV, El UKEt/Jaw, SO~atJ..L' av uoe. Oll 'TO UJ..LI.KpO'Ta'TOv 
'T71'> Al:YV'Tr'TUx8 'Tav'T'TJ'> apX71'> E'YKEXEe.pW-au(Jae., 'Ta,> StKa,> 
, , "t;''''''' , '(J' \ El.Ua'YEl.V Kat 'Ta",w aV'Tat'> 'T'TJV 7TpOU'TJKovuav E7Tt'Tt, EVat Kat 

'TWV 'Trpa'T'TOJ..LEVWV Kat AE'YOJ-LEVWV a7Ta~a7TCiv'Twv V7TOjLVi]­
J..La'Ta 'YPChPEu(Jat Kat. ni,> TE P'TJTOPEia,> 'TWV 8e.KawAo'Y0Vv'TWV 
• (J .. :Y \ \ "'" , \ \ .l..J. pv ~EtV Kat 'Ta,> TOV apXOVTO,> 'YVWUEe.,> 7TpO'> 'TO ua~U'Ta-

~ " a' ",...." 'TOV aJ..La Kat aKptfJEUTa'TOV UVV 'Tr1.U'TEI. 'T"{I jLE'YI.U'T"{I Sta-
.l..\' \ s:,s:,' s:, , \ \ .1 , 
o/v~aT'TEtv Kat 'TrapautuOvm, u'TJJ..LOU~ 7TPO" 'TOV aEl. x.pOVOV 
a'TrOKHUOf..d.va,> .... (Lucian, Apology 12) 

For if you consider it, you will see that not the smallest part in the 
administration of Egypt has been entrusted to me, for I am desig­
nated to introduce the cases, to assign the order, to draw up a 
record of all that is done and said, to shape the speeches of the 
lawyers, to preserve very clearly and accurately the decisions of the 
magistrate with all faithfulness, and to pass these decisions to 
public record to be kept for all time .... 

As early as the seventeenth century, scholars suggested that the 
post held by Lucian in Egypt was that of V'TrOjLv'TJJ..La'To'Ypac/>o". Since 
that time, this view has been accepted by many.l These early discus­
sions, however, have gone virtually unheeded since H.-G. Pflaum 
argued that Lucian's position was actually that of archistator praejecti 
Aegypti,2 an identification accepted without question in most recent 
scholarship.3 As a result, little attention has been paid to P. Meyer's 

1 The early history of this idea, plus an examination of some of its drawbacks, can be 
found in A. Thimme, Quaestionum Lucianearum capita quattuor (Gottingen 1884) 12-
24; among those who accepted that Lucian was tnrof.LvTJIJ.llro'Ypaq)()() were von Premer­
stein, RE 4 (1900) 764 s.v. "a commentariis," and O. W. Reinmuth, The Prefect of 
Egyptfrom Augustus to Dioc/etian (=Klio Beih. 34 [1935]) 12. 

2 H.-G. Pflaum, "Lucien de Samosate, Archistator Praefecti Aegypti, d'apres une 
Inscription de Cesaree de Mauretanie," Me/Rome 71 (1959) 281-86 (=Scripta Varia I: 
L 'Afrique Romaine [Paris 1978] 155-60). 

3 Those accepting Pflaum include PIR2 L370; J. Schwartz, Biographie de Lucien de 
Samosate (= ColI.Latomus 83 [1965]) llf; G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the 
Roman Empire (Oxford 1969) 114 n.6; and B. Baldwin, Studies in Lucian (Toronto 
1973) 17. The identification of Lucian as iJ'rrof.LvTJIJ.llro'Ypacpo() has been maintained by 
J. F. Gilliam, "Ala Agrippiana and Archistator," CP 56 (1961) 103 (Addendum), and 
C. P. Jones, "Two Enemies of Lucian," GRBS 13 (1972) 486. 

75 



LEEST, VANDER J., Lucian in Egypt , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:1 (1985:Spring) 
p.75 

76 LUCIAN IN EGYPT 

proposal that the office in question was that of Eiua-YW"YE~.4 One ex­
ception was H. Box, who strengthened Meyer's proposal by an emen­
dation in the text of Philo.6 This paper will reconsider these three 
possibilities, presenting some further evidence that may add to the 
argument in favor of Eiua-yw-YE~, while demonstrating that neither 
lnrOILVTJJ,UlTo-ypacpo') nor archistator prae!ecti Aegypti can be correct. 

Meyer and Box both drew attention to the almost identical func­
tions ascribed by Philo to an Alexandrian Greek named Lampo, who 
lived during the reign of Tiberius: 

, \ ,.... ~ , ~,~, Y f !r 
7rPOUEU'TWf; 'Yap 'TOI.~ '71'YE/-WUI.V, 07T'O'TE oI.Ka':!OtEV, 1J7TEJLV'71~'T~E'ro 

'Ta~ 8iKa~ Eiua'Ywv w.; EXWV 'Ta~l.v ... (In F1acc. 16.131). 

One major difficulty with this passage has been that the phrase, ~ 
EXWV Taec.v, could not be translated with any sense. Box offered the 
simple and appealing emendation Eiua-YW"YECIJ') for Eiua-ywv ~, which 
not only makes sense of the passage, but also provides a title for 
Lampo's office.6 The verbal parallels with the passage in Lucian and 
the general similarity in duties are striking. Both Lucian and Lampo 
are said to have introduced, arranged, and recorded court cases. But 
while Lucian says that he faithfully upheld his great responsibilities, 
L ( '~'A.1I..!. • ". , ampo 0 uE 'P'V~TTEtV E7T1.Tpa7TEt,) TTJV ava-YKaWTaTTJV 7TapaKaTa-
(J ' , ~, ".,. ,..,. , , 1 r::'1 

TJKTJV, Ta utKaw Kat Ta,) E7T av-rOt') OCTtWTaTa,) -YVWJ,Ul,), n nacc. 
16.134) betrayed his trust by altering the details of cases and re­
versing the verdicts of the prefect, selling these illegal changes for a 
profit. This scheme succeeded because, given the large number of 
cases heard, Lampo could assume that the details of each one would 
not be remembered.7 These parallels leave little doubt: Lampo and 

4 P. Meyer, P.Hamb. I 18. 
S H. Box, "Philo: In Flaccum 131," CQ 29 (1935) 39f. 
6 Box's reading has won general approval from students of Philo: note the comments 

of F. H. Colson in the Loeb Philo IX (London/Cambridge [Mass.] 1941) 536; and it 
has been accepted by the most recent editor of In Flaccum, A. Pelletier, Les Oeuvres de 
Phi/on d'Alexandrie 31 (Paris 1967). Pelletier (1640 maintains, however, that Eiuu-yw­
'YE~ need not have been the official title of the person who fiUed this role, referring 
to Pflaum's argument for archistator. This misconception is probably derived from 
Pflaum's statement (supra n.2: 284) that Lucian's duties had not been connected with 
those of the archistator Apollonius (P.Oxy. II 294) because it was not recognized that 
"Ie fonctionnaire dit dO'UYWYE~ •.. portait en realite Ie nom d' archistator." Pflaum 
gives no discussion of the position of dO'u')'WYE~, and I can find no reason to suppose 
that both titles ever referred to the same official. 

7 The evidence available for the Roman administration of justice in Egypt confirms 
the severe case load and the prefect's heavy dependence on his subordinates. For a 
recent discussion of the volume of paper-work involved in a conventus and how it was 
handled, see N. Lewis, "The Prefect's Conventus," BASP 18 (1981) 119-29. Given 
this situation, the emphasis in both authors on the great trust involved in the positions 
of Lampo and Lucian cannot be seen as exaggeration. 



LEEST, VANDER J., Lucian in Egypt , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:1 (1985:Spring) 
p.75 

1. VANDER LEEST 77 

Lucian, although active about one and a half centuries apart, held the 
same post in Egypt. If Box is correct and Lampo was Ei<Ta'YWYEv~, so 
was Lucian. 

Confirmation is hampered by a lack of documentary evidence re­
lating to this official: most is Ptolemaic in date,8 when this official 
acted as a clerk in the court of the chrematistai. But while the titles of 
many positions in the Ptolemaic bureaucracy were retained and incor­
porated into the Roman system in Egypt, it is often difficult to tell to 
what extent the duties of the functionaries were modified. In the case 
of the Ei<Ta'Yw'YE'i~ there are very few references in the Roman period, 
and it is certain only that these clerks could operate on two different 
levels within the Roman administration: on the staff of a strategos 
and on the staff of the prefect himself.9 

The first published papyrus to mention an Ei<Ta'Yw'YE~ on the staff 
of a prefect (P.Hamb. 18) dates from the reign of Elagabalus. Here, 
this official and his staff are involved in the classification of various 
types of documents: petitions to the prefect with the official receipts, 
instructions from the prefect, and letters of commission. While secre­
tarial, these duties are much broader than the strictly judicial role 
described by Philo and Lucian, and might thus be seen as an obstacle 
to the argument that Lampo and Lucian were Ei<Ta'YWYE'i~.lO Yet the 
late date of this document suggests that these expanded duties could 
have been given to the Ei<Ta'Yw'YE~ after the extensive changes in the 
administration of this province during the third century. Alternatively, 
this papyrus might indicate that there were several officials with this 
title whose duties fell within slightly different spheres of activity. 

A recently re-edited papyrus, dating from about the same period as 
Lucian's term in Egypt,l1 provides more promising material, includ­
ing an introduction to extracts from a report of proceedings heard 

8 P.Amh. II 33; P.Fay. I 11; P.Grenf I 40; for other references see Schulthess, RE 
Suppl. 3 (1918) 425-27 s. v. "Eio-a-YWY6~," and P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 
(Oxford 1972) I 112, II 204 nn.16O and 162. 

9 P.Fay. I 23a shows one on the staff of a strategos (as also probably P.Oxy. XLII 
3062). 

10 Meyer, in publishing P.Hamb. 18, was the first to suggest that Eio-a-YWYE~ was the 
post held by Lampo and Lucian. But as the duties of the Eio-a'YW'YE~ and lnroJ.J,V'Y/#J.CtTO­
-YpUcpo<; could not be clearly defined on the basis of the limited number of documents 
then available, it was difficult to separate these two officials. Thus, A. Stein, Unter­
suchungen zur Geschichte und Verwa/tung Aegyptens unter romischer Herrschaft (Stuttgart 
1915) 187-206, argued that since the duties described in P.Hamb. 18 went beyond the 
judicial ones described by Philo and Lucian, the Eio-a-YWYEv~ was a different functionary 
in the office of the prefect, and that Lampo and Lucian had been tnroJ.J,VTJJ.LUTo-ypacpoL. 
But it will be shown below that the latter possibility cannot be supported. 

11 P.Stras. 179 + P.Daris inv. 38, in S. Daris, "Ricerche di papirologia documentaria, 
II," Aegyptus 63 (I983) 122-28. 



LEEST, VANDER J., Lucian in Egypt , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:1 (1985:Spring) 
p.75 

78 LUCIAN IN EGYPT 

before the prefect during a conventus .12 In the list of assessors who 
accompanied the prefect (his a1JJL{30vAWV) is found the Ei<Ta'Ycu'YE~ 
C. Julius (or Junius) Gelo,l3 While the introductory formulae in this 
papyrus are consistent with those found in other examples,14 an 
unusual phrase occurs just before the body of the trial: raio~ 'IovAw~ 
rEWuV Ei<Ta'Ycu'YEv[~] lnrE'Ypat/la. This should mean that Gelo signed 
the record of proceedings, endorsing its accuracy.15 Although, to my 
knowledge, such a phrase is unique in the introduction of reports of 
proceedings, there are other papyri in which this type of official cer­
tification is marked in the concluding section.16 These authenticating 
signatures usually belonged to the court scribe or to the copyist 
responsible for making the specific copy in which they occur. But the 
endorsement by the Ei<Ta'Ycu'YE~ Julius Gelo appears to offer a signifi­
cant parallel to the duties attested for Lampo and Lucian (TeVV 7TpaT-

, '\ ' • /::' ., ',1,. () A I TOjLEVCUV Kat I\E'Y0jLEVCUV a1Ta~a7TaVTCUV V7TOJLVTJJLaTa 'YpaopEO' at, po. 
12) ~ in particular, anyone responsible for such verification would also 
have had the opportunity to make the kind of illegal changes Philo 
attributed to Lampo. 

If Lampo and Lucian held the same post, it must have been a posi­
tion in the provincial administration that could be filled either by a 
native Alexandrian or by a Romanized Greek from the banks of the 
Euphrates who had arrived in Egypt as part of the retinue of a pre­
fect. The office of Ei<Ta'Ycu'YEv~, to judge from our present knowledge 
of its function, seems to allow this possibility. As the prefect would 
need to rely on the expertise of resident Alexandrians to help him 
administer a system with which he probably had little experience,17 
the use of qualified locals wherever possible would be logical. But at 
the same time there is nothing to indicate that strictly local knowl­
edge was essential for the specific duties of Ei<Ta'Ycu'YE~, and thus it 
would also be a suitable post for the prefect to fill by patronage.1S It is 

12 On this class of papyri see R. A. Coles, Reports of Proceedings in Papyri (= Pap. 
Brux. IV [1966]). 

13 Unfortunately very little is known about the appointment or the function of the 
assessors; see T. C. Skeat and E. P. Wegener, "A Trial Before the Prefect of Egypt 
Appius Sabinus, c. 250 A.D.," lEA 21 (1935) 240. It is impossible to say whether the 
inclusion of an Eiua'}'W')'E~ among them was unusual. 

14 Coles (supra n.l2) 29-38. 
15 P.Ryl. II 77 shows an exegetes and a gymnasiarch making a similar verification by 

signing the record of a disputed election to municipal offices. 
16 Coles (supra n.12) 52-54. Often UVE'}'VWV is used to indicate that the report has 

been read (e.g. P.Oxy. VIII 1102 and XII 1420); P.Fouad 21 is signed E'}'paljla. 
17 See P. A. Brunt, "The Administrators of Roman Egypt," JRS 65 (1975) 124-47. 
18 On such appointments see Fronto, Ep. Ad Pium 8 (Naber); cj. R. P. Saller, Per­

sonal Patronage Under the Early Empire (Cambridge 1982). In P.Stras. 179 + P.Daris 



LEEST, VANDER J., Lucian in Egypt , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:1 (1985:Spring) 
p.75 

J. VANDER LEEST 79 

possible that there was more than one Ela-a'Yw'YEv~ serving on the 
staff of a prefect at the same time, and there may even have been a 
mixture of local and foreign administrators acting in this capacity. 

While the argument in favor of Lucian as Ela-a'Yw'YE~ is still far 
from certain, reconsideration of the other two identifications adds to 
its probability. The office of 1nrOJ..'lll1J..ulTo'YpacfJo~ was the highest 
municipal magistracy in Alexandria,t9 and there is no known in­
stance in which it was filled by a non-Alexandrian. Even in the third 
century, when the reorganization carried out by Septimius Severus 
seems to have established lJ7TOJ..'ll"flJ..l,aTo'Ypacpol. in each of the nome­
capitals, and some who had held office in other towns in Egypt are 
also found holding posts in Alexandria, no native of another province 
can be shown to have held this particular office. As for the second 
century, ten of the fourteen known lmo!J..V"fIJ..l,aTo'YpacpoL are clearly 
native Alexandrians, seven of whom are known to have held other 
offices in that city.20 Moreover, most lmo!J..V"fIJ..l,aTo'Ypacpol. also held 
other, more junior, posts in the municipal ranks and had family 
connections with other office-holders. Indeed, the higher offices at 
Alexandria tended to be shared by a number of prominent local 
families. 21 It would thus be inconsistent with what we know of the 
position to find Lucian serving as imO!J..V"fIJ..l,aTo'Ypacpo~. In the case of 
Lampo, Philo tells us that he had been gymnasiarch after acting as 
secretary in the court of the prefect (In Flacc. 16.128-34). The office 
of gymnasiarch was several rungs below that of V1TO!J..V"fIJ..l,aTo'Ypacpo~, 
and while many documents cite V7T'O!J..ll"flJ..l,aTo'Ypacpol. who are former 
gymnasiarchs, none refers to a gymnasiarch who had previously been 
imOJ,LVTJI.L(XTo'Ypac/>o". Finally, what we know of the functions of the 

inv. 38 (supra n.1l), it is impossible to say how C. Julius Gelo came to Egypt, or what 
his origins were. Daris says" ... indubbia e l'origine provinciale del personaggio. Non 
si conoscono altri esempi di f eiAWV." For the name f eLAwv or Gelo the doubt about 
origins must be maintained, even if feiAwv was an alternative form of feAwv (although 
this seems unlikely for this period; see F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of 
the Roman and Byzantine Periods I [Milan 1976] 256-59). feiAwv, however, could 
be a Greek transliteration of the Latin name Gillo, which is attested (see PIR2 
F542-44), and may mark an Italian origin. I wish to thank Professor C. P. Jones for 
this suggestion. 

19 For the order of municipal offices at Alexandria cf. P.Oxy. XII 1412. 
20 We have no indication of the origins of the other four (P.Mert. 19; P.Kijln 143; SB 

7434; P.Oxy. 1102; P.Ross.Georg. 11.20), but there is no reason to doubt that they too 
were residents of that city (note the discussion of the 1I'TroJLVTJf..UXTo'Ypacpo<; in F. Oertel, 
Die Liturgie [Leipzig 1917] 351-54). 

21 For One family whose members held a variety of government positions in Alexan­
dria over a period of time, cf. P. J. Sijpesteijn, ed., The Family of the Tiberii lulii The­
ones (=P.Theon., Stud.Arnst. 5 [1976]). 



LEEST, VANDER J., Lucian in Egypt , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:1 (1985:Spring) 
p.75 

80 LUCIAN IN EGYPT 

lnrO!-,V'TIf.UXToypacf>o<; is inconsistent with the duties described by Philo 
and Lucian, for the lnro!-,V'TIf.UXToypacf>o<; is portrayed as a judge with 
authority delegated by the prefect.22 Altogether, the evidence is con­
clusive: it is unlikely that either Lampo or Lucian could have held the 
post of lnro!-,V'TIf.UXToypacf>o<;. 

The meagre evidence relating to the archistator praefecti Aegypti has 
been collected and discussed by J. F. Gilliam.23 Here only two ques­
tions need to be considered: whether the courtroom duties described 
for Lampo and Lucian can also be seen in the evidence relating to 
the archistator; and whether the careers of Lampo and Lucian are in 
any way similar to those of known archistatores, so that there exists a 
reasonable expectation of their being promoted to such a post. 

Pflaum connected Lucian to this post on the basis of one papyrus 
(P.Oxy. II 294, dated A.D. 22) in which an Egyptian, concerned about 
a case soon to go before the court of the prefect, is urged by his 
friends to join the household (YEvEu(JaL OUcWKO<;) of the archistator 
Apollonius so that he may enter the proceedings with him. But surely 

'\ this refers to physical entry into the hearing with Apollonius (~i'va 
uVv ailTC~ E'1TL 8WAOYLU,.wV f~[(J]w) in order to convey the impression 
of having some favor with this official-something very different 
from Lucian's role in introducing cases (Ta<; 8iKa<; Ew-aYELv). Thus 
there is no obvious tie between the roles of Apollonius and Lucian. 

A second papyrus in which an archistator is named (P. Oxy. XXXVI 
2754, dated A.D. 111) also shows this official involved with the pre­
fect's administration of justice.24 This document preserves a pre­
fectural edict concerning legal procedure. While there is some diffi­
culty with the text, the section in which the archistator is mentioned 
indicates the prefect's concern with cases left unsettled at a previous 
conventus; he adds his plans to ensure that the same situation should 
not occur during the upcoming conventus. The archistator Julius Maxi­
mus is presented as an official with significant rank and power­
indeed, he is called a cpiA.o<; of the prefect. In an effort to clear up the 
backlog of cases, the prefect directs those involved to petition the 
archistator, who by this directive seems to be delegated to act as 

22 P. Tebt. I 286; P.Oxy. VIII 1102; P.Mil.vogl. IV 230; P.Stras. I 22. This also seems 
to have been the function of the Ptolemaic lm0f.LVT/J.UXToypacpoc;: cf P. Tebt. 61 and 64; 
B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, "Ptolemaic Papyri in the Gizeh-Museum," ArchP 1 
(1900) 157-62. 

23 Supra n.3. 
24 This papyrus was published after Gilliam's article, but it does not affect his conclu­

sions. For further comment see N. Lewis, BASP 9 (1972) 29-31, and 13 (1976) 7f. 
Both Lewis and the editors of P.Oxy. 2754 refer to Gilliam, but neither note nor dis­
cuss Pflaum's proposal that Lucian held this post. 



LEEST, VANDER J., Lucian in Egypt , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:1 (1985:Spring) 
p.75 

1. VANDER LEEST 81 

judge. This must have been a temporary duty for the archistator, as 
future cases not heard at the conventus were to be judged before the 
nome-strategos. Hence it is unclear how this instance is related to the 
regular duties of any official. Nevertheless, the impression given of 
Julius Maximus is that of a man with considerably more authority 
than Lampo or Lucian ever possessed. 

Ultimately, neither of the papyri in which archistatores are por­
trayed in legal roles present any close parallels with the duties of 
Lampo and Lucian. In fact the evidence for the archistator suggests 
that any courtroom duties he might have had must have been of 
secondary importance.25 Gilliam noted that the statores were some 
sort of military police, and that the archistator probably had a largely 
military function overseeing these and possibly some other soldiers as 
well.26 This aspect may receive partial confirmation by P.Oxy. II 294, 
which also states that two officials were under arrest until the trial 
unless they could persuade the archistator to give security for them. 
Releasing prisoners on bail would seem a proper concern for the head 
of a police force. Another reference to an archistator connected with 
the army is found in an inscription from about the middle of the 
second century detailing the career of L. SeptHmius] Petro lnianus].27 
Although it gives no indication of the duties of the archistator, this 
inscription reveals a case where the post was held as part of an eques­
trian career that was largely military. 

In arguing that Lucian was archistator, Pflaum states that, like Pe­
tronianus, he had just completed the tres militiae and was subse­
quently promoted to this higher equestrian poSt.28 While this progres­
sion is certainly possible, the lack of evidence pointing to any previous 
military experience for Lucian raises some doubt. At the same time, 
there are many indications that appointments to the staff of a provin­
cial governor were often made through patronage, rather than regular 
advancement.29 Although Lucian refuses to defend his acceptance of a 
post in Egypt out of admiration for his patron (Apoi. 9), this refusal 
itself indicates that a patron-client relationship was involved. Thus, 
whatever his post in Egypt, Lucian need not have followed the pattern 
of Petronianus in being promoted to it through the equestrian cursus. 

25 Gilliam (supra n.3) 102 n.l0. 
26 Gilliam (supra n.3) 101. 
27 H. d'Escurac-Doisy, Me/Rome 69 (1957) 137-50 (c! AEpigr [1958] 156); this 

inscription is the starting-point for both Pflaum and Gilliam. On Petronianus, see now. 
H. Devijver, De Aegypto et Exercitu Romano sive Prosopographia Militiarum Equestrium 
(= StudHell 22 [Louvain 1975]) no. 104. 

28 Pflaum (supra n.2) 284. 
29 Saller (supra n.18) 130-34 and 157-59. 



LEEST, VANDER J., Lucian in Egypt , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:1 (1985:Spring) 
p.75 

82 LUCIAN IN EGYPT 

In fact, although Lucian was certainly a Roman citizen and might 
have held equestrian rank, it seems unlikely that he held any post in 
Egypt within the cursus at all. There is no evidence that Lampo was a 
Roman citizen, still less that he enjoyed equestrian status; 30 even 
Pflaum does not include him among the archistatores. Yet, as we 
have seen, the posts of Lampo and Lucian must have been the same; 
and since it is impossible for Lampo to have been archistator, Lucian 
could not have held that post either. 

In sum, it is clear that Lampo and Lucian could not have held the 
office of lmoJ..'V1]f..UXToypacpo<;, nor could they have been archistatores. 
If Box's emendation for the text of Philo In Flacc. 16.131 is accepted, 
the possibility that these two men filled the post of EUraywYEV<; seems 
enhanced. The other evidence presently available for this post sug­
gests no reason to dispute this identification.31 

THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 

March, 1985 

30 His early career is detailed by Philo, In Flacc. 16.128-34; his trial and execution 
along with his fellow Alexandrian, Isidorus, is detailed in H. A. Musurillo, The Acts of 
the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford 1954) 18-26. 

31 I am grateful to Professor C. P. Jones for his constructive criticism.