Between the good king and the cruel tyrant

Résumé 0

After the reign of Augustus at the latest, the inhabitants of the Roman provinces were by and large convinced that the emperor was a crucial force in the legal process and – with time, effort, and connections – one might be able to receive a hearing from this highest of judges. The emperor, if he so wished, was the law, even in the provinces. However, the perception of the emperor, much like that of Roman power in general, varied greatly between observers, from unquestioning praise to descriptions of cruelty. When approaching these descriptions, it becomes apparent that they were intended for different audiences, from local partisans to Roman officials, and even the emperor himself. It could be said that by praising the emperor as right and just, the provincials may have hoped to persuade him to act that way. The purpose of this essay is to explore this narrative dichotomy in the textual tradition in and around the text known as the Acta Isidori, part of a third-century corpus now called the Acta Alexandrinorum. The text is presented as a transcript of a trial held before Claudius in Rome, relating to the complex and long standing conflict between the Jewish and Greek inhabitants of Alexandria. This text, purporting to be from the trial between King Agrippa and Isidorus, an ambassador of the Greeks, clearly shows the propagandist value and the difficulties faced by both those approaching the emperor, and the emperor himself, in projecting his power. The aim of the chapter is to explore the role of the narratives of kingship in the legitimation and delegitimation of imperial power in the provinces as it manifested itself in the jurisdiction of the Roman emperor.