Paedagogus des Clemens Alexandrinus, Anberg, 1905; CESSI C., Vita ed arte ellenistica, Cataria, 19:0; PERDRIZET P., Bronzes grecs d'Egypte de la collection Fouquet. Introduction, p. X et suiv.

Alexandrian Art. The honour of having restored to credit the art of Hellenistic times is in great part due to Th. Schreiber, who has attempted to demonstrate in several learned publications, that the art of that period deserved neither the silence nor the indifference with which it had been treated up to our days. The researches that Schreiber (died 1912) undertook, with incontestable erudition and competence, led him to the conclusion that Hellenistic Art is essentially or exclusively an Alexandrian Art. (The period between the death of Alexander the Great and the Roman Conquest of the lands of the Classic Orient is called the Hellenistic epoch). Schreiber maintains that the capital of the Lagides was the centre of the origin and diffusion of all the new tendencies of Hellenistic Art and that the city had a very great and important influence over Roman Art. According to this theory, the whole or nearly the whole of the series of Hellenistic reliefs (picturesque) are assigned to an Alexandrian origin; nearly all the products of toreutic art (metal vases, chasing etc.) of that same epoch are thought to have been made in Egypt; Alexandria too is regarded as the birth-place of mural-painting and of mosaics. According to Schreiber, Alexandrian sculpture possesses very definite characteristics, of which the most essential are the poetry of space, refinement, and life. By the side of an idealistic school which had as its distinctive features picturesqueness in bas-relief, and an extreme softness as well as a tendency towards the shading away of outlines in other branches of sculpture, there existed a second school animated by a pitiless sentiment for truth and an acute realism, characterised by a predilection for "genre-subjects and for the grotesque. Many archaeologists are in favour of this theory, as, for instance, MM. Courbaud, Col. lignon, Amelung, and Diehl; other scholars have not accepted Schreiber's ideas. Adolf Holm, Dragendorff, Wickhoff, Wace, Klein, Cultrera think that the poetry of space as well as refi nement were in existence before the foundation of Alexandria ; that the influence of that city upon the origin and development of the different styles of mural decoration, an argument to which Schreiber attached great importance, must have been very small, and in any case, considerably less than the influence exercised by the Greek towns of Asia Minor. These scholars also add that Alexandria was not the natural home of the pastoral poetry of the IIIrd century B. C.; that the Ptolemies rather favoured

Egyptian than Greek Art; that the picturesque reliefs present hardly any Egyptian motif or element; that not one of these reliefs has been found in Egypt; and finally that softness, vagueness of form, the Praxitelean sfumalo were not the exclusive property of Ptolemaic sculpture. (Sfumato blending of light and shade »).

In short, the adversaries of Schreiber's theory deny any special importance to Alexandrian Art of the Hellenistic Period and maintain that Alexandria, instead of being the unique centre of the Greek Art of that epoch, was neither the only one nor the most important. The essential characteristic of Hellenistic Art was its Cosmopolitanism...... «By studying this art as a whole, it will be seen, I believe, that it forms one homogeneous block, such as Early Christian art, Byzantine Art, and the Art of the Thirteenth Century ». If the question be considered on general lines and as a whole, I believe that this judgment, pronounced by Paul Perdrizet, approaches very closely to the truth.

Most probably, the characteristics of Hellenistic Art were. not derived exclusively from Alexandria, or Antioch, or Pergamos etc., but developed at one and the same time in the different great centres of civilisation, without any one of these exercising an absorbing or predominant influence over the others, all in fact having undergone modifications through their reciprocal contact. Thus art, in the different kingdoms of the Diadochi, assumed a uniform physiognomy which does not permit us to ascribe its origin to any single centre and does not justify us in calling it by the name of any Hellenistic capital in particular. This conclusion does not deny, but, on the contrary, admits the fact that Alexandria had a considerable artistic production. It is indeed impossible to deny that certain products of Hellenistic Art (some earthenware, for instance), are specifically Alexandrian, nor should one forget certain creations of Alexandrian Art due to the fusion or juxtaposition of the indigenous with the Greek civilisation. On the other hand, it is true that Roman Art did not draw its only sustenance from Alexandria; it was also influenced by the art of Asia Minor and of the islands; but it is absurd to attempt to deny the importance of the numerous traces of undoubtedly Alexandrian elements that are to be met with in Roman Art.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. — SCHREIBER TH., Die Brunnenreliefs aus Pal. Grimani (1888) - Die hellenistische Reliefbilder (1889). (Two folio volumes (Plates). Schreiber died before the text was printed) - Die Alexandrinische Torcutik (1891) Der Gallierkopf des Museums in Gizeh bei Kairo (1896) - Studien über das Bildniss Alexanders des Grossen (1903) - Ueber den Charakter der alexan

drinischen Kunst (1909 - Actes du deuxième Congrès international d'Archéologie); COURBAUD, Le bas-relief romain à représentations historiques (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 1899, fasc. 81); COLLIGNON M., Histoire de la sculpture grecque, vol. II, chap. IV; AMELUNG W., Dell'arte alessandrina a proposito di due teste rinvenute in Roma (Bull. della Comm. Arch. comunale di Roma, 1897, p. 110-142); DIEHL CH., Manuel d'art byzantin, chap. III; HOLM AD., Griechische Geschichte, Band IV; DRAGENDORFF, Die arretinischen Vasen und ihr Verhältnis zur augusteischen Kunst in the Bonner Jahrbücher, 163; WICKHOFF, Wiener Genesis, 2, Wien, 1895; WACE J. B., Apollo seated on the Omphalos (Annual of the Brit. Sch. at Athens, n. IX, 1902-03, p. 211-242); EDGAR C. C., Greek Sculpture. Catalogue général du Musée du Caire; KLEIN, Geschichte der griechischen Kunst, Band 3; CULTRERA G., Saggi sull'arte ellenistica e greco-romana, I. La Corrente Asiana, Roma, 1907; PERDRIZET P., Bronzes grecs de la collection Fouquet, Paris, 1911. See also SIEVEKING, Brun Bruckmann Denkmäler, p. 621; LECHAT, Revue des Etudes anciennes, 1911, p. 147; STUDNICZKA F.. Das Symposion Ptolemaios II, Leipzig, Teubner, 1914; CASPARI F., Das Nilschiff Ptolemaios IV in the Jahrbuch des deutschen arch. Instituts, 1916 (XXI), p. 1-74; PAGENSTECHER R., Alexandrinische Studien, Heidelberg, Winter, 1917; ID., Ueber das landschaftliche Relief bei den Griechen, ibidem, 1919.

Form of government. Alexandria was chosen as the capital of the dominions subject to the power of the Ptolemies, and therefore possessed superb palaces and a strong garrison used as the royal guard.

This royal residence was governed by a captain of the town who, at first, only entered on his functions during the absence of the king, though finally his office became permanent. There is every reason to believe, in consequence of the analogies presented between this office and that of the imperial praefectus urbis (prefect of the town) that the лi s лóhεws was rather the chief of the police than the military commandant of the town. Towards the close of the Ptolemaic epoch and during the Roman epoch, he bore the title of στρατηγὸς τῆς πόλεως. Alexandria, it seems, at the Ptolemaic epoch had no municipal senate (Bový). Amongst the high magistrates, either those who were specially charged with the administration of the town, or those who, while residing there, exercised functions affecting the whole kingdom, attention should be drawn to the exegetes (he wore the purple, he represented the national traditions, he watched over the interests of the town and was the high priest of the cult of Alexander); the archidicast or chief judge; the hypomnematograph or secretary general; the night strategus; the νομοφύλαξ, the θεσμοφύλακες, the ἀστυνόμοι, the ταμίαι; the alabarch, a kind of financial officier, and probably the gymna siarch. The greater part of the official acts were proclaimed in the agora, where a place was set apart for taking solemn oaths. The powers of these magistrates were not defined by a constitutional law but by a series of special laws, by veritable portofolios attached to each magistrature to fix its rights and

obligations. It appears that in judicial matters Alexandria was absolutely independent of the royal power.

From the date of the conquest of Alexandria by Octavian Augustus, August Ist B. C. 30, Egypt ceased to be an independent state and became an ordinary province of the Roman Empire, but was subjected to a special form of government. Egypt, as it were, formed a private property of the Emperor, who in his capacity as successor of the ancient sovereigns exercised his authority over the country by means of a procurator or vice-roy (Praefectus Aegypti). The Prefect of Egypt had his residence in Alexandria. The former magistrates of the Ptolemaic epoch were retained but beside them were placed numerous imperial officers such as the juridicus Alexandriae, the procurator ducenarius Alexandriae idiologus, the procurator Neaspoleos et Mausolei Alexandriae etc. etc.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Given by WILCKEN, in Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, I, p. 2 and p. 28. Add: JOUGUET, La vie municipale dans l'Egypte romaine, p. 71 et suiv.; Dikaiomata, Auszüge und Verordnungen in einem Papyrus des philolog. Seminars der Universitäts Halle (Pap. Hal. 1), Berlin, 1913; Cp. GLOTZ G., in the Journal des Savants, 1913, P. 22 ff.; MARTIN V., Les Epistratéges. Contribution à l'étude des institutions de l'Egypte gréco-romaine, Genève, 1911; STEIN A., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens unter römischen Herrschaft, Stuttgart, 1915; cp. also LESQUIER J., Les institutions militaires de l'Egypte sous les Lagides, Paris, 1911; ID., L'armée romaine d'Egypte, d'Auguste à Dioclétien, Caire, 1918.

Commerce.

As regard commerce, it is known that Alexandria for several centuries was the centre of the world. The Ptolemies did much to connect Egypt with the regions of the Red Sea and of the Indian Ocean. In the reign of Ptolemy Soter voyages of exploration had already begun; and during the reigns of Ptolemy Philadelphos and Ptolemy Euergetes numerous commercial factories were established along the coasts of the Red Sea Arsinoe, near the Bitter Lakes, Berenice, near the topaz quarries, Soteira, Ptolemaïs, Theron (the point of departure for elephant hunting) etc. To connect the Red Sea with Alexandria, the canal that Darius I had cut from the eastern branch of the Nile towards the Bitter Lakes (at that epoch these lakes were still in direct communication with the Red Sea) was deepened and made navigable, even for large cargo boats. Philadelphos also had made a road between Coptos, in the Thebaid, and Berenice. Consequently Alexandria, provided with an excellent, safe, and large port, at the entrance of which the Lagides had erected the celebrated lighthouse (which gave its name to all other lighthouses) connected by a navigable canal and by

Lake Mariout with the rich districts lying inland, and placed in easy communication with the Red Sea, realised all the conditions favourable to becoming the centre of universal commerce. The rare and precious merchandise of Africa and of the East flowed steadily into the capital of Egypt, whence it was exported to Europe and to the other countries of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Silver vases from Alexandria have been discovered as far away as Hungary, and it is well-known that Olbia and other towns of Southern Russia felt the influence of the new capital of the Hellenistic world. It is easy to explain how Strabo and Cicero could affirm that the commerce of expor tation was much more considerable in Alexandria than that of importation. In reality the goods that Egypt had to introduce for the requirements of its inhabitants were small in quantity. The country imported chiefly raw material, such as was lacking in the land, in order to work it up and then export the finished product.

In the IIIrd century B. C. Rome entered into commercial communication with Egypt, and, political relations aiding, commerce underwent such development that at the time of Cicero there was a regular service of numerous ships plying between Pozzuoli and Alexandria. The principal products exported were glass-ware, crystals, papyrus, linen garments, carpets, the famous Alexandrina beluata conchyliata tapetia, ivory, jewels, precious vessels, pommades, wheat, salted meat, toys, slaves, rare or wild beasts, and lastly and most important, books. Bankingbusiness itself would require too long a discourse. It will suffice to recall that Alexandria was the head-quarters of a Central Bank for the whole kingdom and that banks were numerous and considerable in the chief districts of the provinces and in the most important towns.

Although the import trade was much inferior to that of export, this does not imply that it was neglected. It is sufficient to mention one detail of a certain significance: up to our days and in spite of centuries of spoliation and dispersion we have found and still find, by thousands, inscribed handles belonging to amphorae which were used for the transport of certain commodities from Rhodes, Thasus, Cnidus, and Crete. The amphora handles from Rhodes are very numerous, overwhelmingly so in proportion to the others; there will be twenty from Rho⚫ des for each one from Thasus or Cnidus. We need not speak of Alexandria's commerce with the country districts, or with the towns in the interior, but naturally the metropolis was their principal and favourite market. Papyri tell us that the country