Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T13:52:10.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Alexandria ad Aegyptum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Extract

In JRS xxxiii, 58, Dr. F. Schulz writes: ‘The place is Alexandria or, as our documents always put it, Alexandria ad Aegyptum. This is a translation of the Greek’ Ἀλ. ἡ πρὸς Αἰϒύπτῳ which occurs in pre-Roman times. The legal meaning in the period of our documents is nothing else but “Al. in Aegypto”’; and in a footnote he states: ‘Wilcken's opinion … is not acceptable’.

This statement, which is utterly contrary to the prevailing view, gave me, I confess, something of a shock, for I had myself more than once made the assertion that Alexandria was, for the Romans, not officially a part of Egypt; but so dogmatically was Dr. Schulz's obiter dictum formulated that I was so far shaken as to make up my mind to investigate the point before again committing myself. I was at the time too much occupied with other work to do so, but recently I have had an opportunity to examine the evidence, and I think it desirable to place the result of this examination on record without delay.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © H. I. Bell 1946. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 131 note 1 Ed. ἐ̣υ̣‘γ’(ενὴς?) μητρο ‘π’(ολῖτις). The other (and later published) instances make the reading given above practically certain.