ments are buried under deep layers of earth, below water level and inaccessible to the excavator's pick?

It must be acknowledged that Mahmoud-El-Falaki did his wok honestly, and with abnegation and zeal. He succeeded in drawing up a plan of the ancient town (fig. 24) which has since been generally accepted, (cf. fig. 25), and for which pɔsterity owes him thanks. Nevertheless, while recognizing the merits of this learned and conscientious scholar, we must confess that an attentive examination of his plan and of the accompanying memoir inspires some doubts about his method and some reservations about his results (1). From 1878 to 1888, a Greek Doctor, Dr. Tassos Néroutsos, kept a record of all the chance discoveries made in Alexandria. He was a good Greek and Latin scholar and a distinguished epigraphist. Consequently, though he personally never undertook any excavations, yet his articles and his memoir on Ancient Alexandria (Paris, 1888) contain a great deal of useful information and a great many observations that are nearly always correct (fig. 26). Doctor Giuseppe Botti, who was appointed in 1892 to be curator of the Graeco-Roman Museum that had just been founded, did not confine himself to making excavations for the enrichment of his Museum; he was always careful to show the bearing of his finds on the topography of the ancient town.

The result of his observations and researches was a new Plan of the Town of Alexandria at the Plolemaic Epoch (1898). This plan (fig. 27) though it holds to the rectangular arrangement of the streets differs from El-Falaki's plan in many essential points and in a number of other details. Botti himself knew the actual writings of the classic authors, and he took account of the discoveries made in the last quarter of the century (of little consequence, however, from a topographical point of view). But in consequence of the impossibility he experienced of verifying the greater part of his deductions or conjectures on the site of the city itself, the plan he drew out is far from being as sure and exact as one could desire. We must not forget to add the names of two amateurs, Count Alex Max de Zogheb, and Admiral Sir Massie Blom.

(1) MAHMOUD-EL-FALAKI, Mémoire sur l'ancienne Alexandrie, Copenhagen, 1872. Perhaps Hogarth's judgment in the Archaeological Report of Egypt Exploration Fund, 1894-96, p. 17, is too severe, but in spite of certain results of Noack's excavations (See THIERSCH, Die Alexan. Koenigsnecropole) it is difficult to call it inexact: The character of my report being what it is, it fortunately does not enter into my province to deal at length with the resear ches of Mahmoud-El-Falaki.... I am glad therefore that I can avoid basing my own work on his. I feel the greatest uncertainty as to his rectangular map of the city >.

field, to those of El-Falaki, Néroutsos and Botti, as prominent among those who have sought to contribute to the study and knowledge of Alexandria by observation at first hand.

European archaeologists who have had the opportunity of carrying out excavations here and there within the city territory and of examining any particular topographical problem have not been numerous. We may mention the names of Mr. D. G. Hogarth, Professor Noack, and Professor Thiersch. Considerable both in number and quality are the scholars who have studied the topography of Alexandria independently of any examination of the sites and who have based their conclusions exclusively on the texts of the ancient authors and on the results of modern excavations. It will suffice to recall the names of Lumbroso, Wachsmuth, Puchstein, and Ausfeld. The learned and methodical works of these men of science are naturally very appreciable, but (as was indeed inevitable) they cannot throw all the required light on the subject, and they do not allow us to verify definitely, on the actual ground, the results obtained from literary tradition. In concluding this short bibliographical analysis I do not venture to say that I myself hope to arrue at more certain results than my predecessors.

On the contrary, I desire to lay stress on the fact that Alexandrian topography presents enormous difficulties and enigmas which are today, and may be even in the future, insolvable, and in consequence any plan of ancient Alexandria must be considered only as approximate, conjectural and provisional. This point of view must never be lost sight of. As far as I am concerned, while drawing attention to the places where the principal monuments of which antiquity has left us a record were, as I think, approximately situated, I shall confine myself to pointing ont the precise spots where monuments of some importance have been found.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. GRATIEN LE PÈRE, Mémoire sur la ville d'Alex., Description de l'Egypte, t. 18, État moderne p. 283-496; SAINT-GENIS, Description des antiquités d'Alex. et de ses environs, ibid., t. 5, p. 181 sq.; MAHMOUD EL-FALAKI, Mémoire sur l'antique Alex., Copenhague, 1872; T. NÉROUTSOS BEY, L'ancienne Alexandrie, Paris, 1888; BOTTI, Plan d'Alex. à l'époque plolémaïque, Alex., 1898; LUMBROSO G., L'Egitto dei Greci e dei Romani, Roma, 1892; LUMBROso G., Descrittori italiani dell'Egitto e d'Alessandria; ERDMANN, Zur Kunde der hellenistischen Städtegründungen, Strassburg, 1883, p. 17 sq.; NOACK F., Neue Untersuchungen in Alex, Athen-Mitteil., 1900, p. 215 sq.; WACHSMUTH, Zur Geschichte Alex., Rhein. Mus., 35, P. 448-455; Zur Topog. Alex., ibid., 42. P. 462-464; Diabathra in Alex., ibid., 43, p. 306-308; AUSfeld, Neapolis und Brucheion in Alex, Philologus, 63, P. 491 497 (cfr. WILCKEN, Archiv, IV, p. 232); zur Top. v. Alex. und Pseudo-Callisthenes, Rhein. Mus., 55, P. 348-384; der griech. Alexanderroman, Leipzig, 1907, p. 137 sq. See also the article Alexandria in the Real Encyclopädie of Pauly-Wissowa (Puchstein); the article Alexandrie in the Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Chrétienne (Leclercq).