Lost in translation: The Hellenization of the Egyptian tradition

Alexandrea ad aegyptvm the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity editors rogério sousa maria do céu fialho mona haggag nuno simões rodrigues Título: Alexandrea ad Aegyptum – The Legacy of Multiculturalism in Antiquity Coord.: Rogério Sousa, Maria do Céu Fialho, Mona Haggag e Nuno Simões Rodrigues Design gráfico: Helena Lobo Design | www.hldesign.pt Revisão: Paula Montes Leal Inês Nemésio Obra sujeita a revisão científica Comissão científica: Alberto Bernabé, Universidade Complutense de Madrid; André Chevitarese, Universidade Federal, Rio de Janeiro; Aurélio Pérez Jiménez, Universidade de Málaga; Carmen Leal Soares, Universidade de Coimbra; Fábio Souza Lessa, Universidade Federal, Rio de Janeiro; José Augusto Ramos, Universidade de Lisboa; José Luís Brandão, Universidade de Coimbra; Natália Bebiano Providência e Costa, Universidade de Coimbra; Richard McKirahan, Pomona College, Claremont Co-edição: CITCEM – Centro de Investigação Transdisciplinar «Cultura, Espaço e Memória» Via Panorâmica, s/n | 4150-564 Porto | www.citcem.org | citcem@letras.up.pt CECH – Centro de Estudos Clássicos e Humanísticos | Largo da Porta Férrea, Universidade de Coimbra Alexandria University | Cornice Avenue, Shabty, Alexandria Edições Afrontamento, Lda. | Rua Costa Cabral, 859 | 4200-225 Porto www.edicoesafrontamento.pt | geral@edicoesafrontamento.pt N.º edição: 1152 ISBN: 978-972-36-1336-0 (Edições Afrontamento) ISBN: 978-989-8351-25-8 (CITCEM) ISBN: 978-989-721-53-2 (CECH) Depósito legal: 366115/13 Impressão e acabamento: Rainho & Neves Lda. | Santa Maria da Feira geral@rainhoeneves.pt Distribuição: Companhia das Artes – Livros e Distribuição, Lda. comercial@companhiadasartes.pt Este trabalho é financiado por Fundos Nacionais através da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia no âmbito do projecto PEst-OE/HIS/UI4059/2011 contents PREFACE Gabriele Cornelli MOVING FORWARD Ismail Serageldin ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION 9 13 15 PART I: ALEXANDRIA, A CITY OF MANY FACES 19 On the Trail of Alexandria’s Founding Maria de Fátima Silva The Ptolemies: An Unloved and Unknown Dynasty. Contributions to a Different Perspective and Approach José das Candeias Sales Representations of Alexandria in Classical Latin Literature Maria Cristina de Castro-Maia de Sousa Pimentel Amimetobiou, the One «of the Inimitable Life»: Cleopatra as a Metaphor for Alexandria in Plutarch Nuno Simões Rodrigues PART II: THE MULTICULTURAL EXPERIENCE IN ALEXANDRIAN ARTS AND SOCIETY Alexandria’s Revolutionary Role in North-South Navigation and Trade Mostafa El-Abbadi Cosmopolitan Trends in the Arts of Ptolemaic Alexandria Mona Haggag The Polyvalent Nature of the Alexandrian Elite Hypogea: A Case Study in the Greco-Egyptian Cultural Interaction in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods Kyriakos Savvopoulos Identity and Cosmopolitism: The Jewish Politeuma of Alexandria Delfim F. Leão Festive Alexandria: Mobility, Leisure, and Art in the Hellenistic Age Luísa de Nazaré Ferreira PART III: MUSES, BOOKS AND SCHOLARS Apollonius of Rhodes and the Universe of the Argonautica Maria do Céu Fialho Callimachus and the New Paths of Myth Marta Várzeas Tradition and Identity in Lycophron Jorge Deserto 5 20 35 48 62 75 76 83 101 122 134 145 146 153 161 Manetho and the History of Egypt Luís Manuel de Araújo The Alexandria of Philo in Philo of Alexandria Manuel Alexandre Jr. The Elements of Euclides: The Cornerstone of Modern Mathematics Jorge Nuno Silva and Helder Pinto PART IV: TRADITION IN TRANSITION Zeus Kasios or the Interpretatio Graeca of Baal Saphon in Ptolemaic Egypt Alexandra Diez de Oliveira «Lost in Translation»: The Hellenization of the Egyptian Tradition Rogério Sousa Was Sarapis of Alexandria a Multicultural God? Alla B. Davydova The Cult of Isis in Rome: Some Aspects of its Reception and the Testimony of Apuleius’ Asinus Aureus Cláudia Teixeira A Timeless Legacy: The Calendars of Ancient Egypt Telo Ferreira Canhão Hypatia and the Idiosyncrasies of Christianity in Egypt – A Study of the Events Occurred at Easter 415 A.D. in Alexandria Paula Barata Dias The Great Advances in Mathematics in the Context of Alexandrian Culture Carlos Gamas 4 171 196 211 221 222 230 265 271 283 302 320 CONCLUDING Between the Museum and the Library of Alexandria Maria Helena da Rocha Pereira 331 EPILOGE Bibliotheca Alexandrina: Beginning Anew Sohair F. Wastawy 339 ILLUSTRATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY 345 371 332 340 PREFACE alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity It is December 22nd of the year 640 A.D.: Alexandria is sieged and captured by Emir Amr Ibn al-As, who, having resisted two attempts by Emperor Eraclius of Constantinople to recapture the city, sends Califa Omar the following words: “we have conquered the great city of the West!” And he keeps a promise: to make the city “accessible from all sides, like the house of a prostitute”, thus destroying its walls and doors. This conquest marks the destruction of whatever was left from the collection of parchments and the end of an extraordinary cultural experience that deeply branded centuries of Mediterranean culture, vividly described by Timon of Phlius (3rd century A.D.), who referred to it ironically as a place inhabited by “well nourished bookworms scribbling endlessly and waging a constant war of words with each other in the Muses’ birdcage”. But during its conquest and the destruction of its collections, Alexandria reveals itself yet again as a city of varied, crossing cultures. The sage Ibn al-Qifti mentions in his Ta’rikh al-Hukama (history of the sages) a lengthy dialogue that would have taken place after the conquest, between the Emir Amr Ibn al-As and a well-known Aristotelian commentator, in all likelihood the Christian John Philoponus, also called John the Grammarian. The Emir, a highly intelligent and cultured man, engaged in sophisticated logical-theological debates about the trinity with John. John’s monophysitism brought them closer, although even a light trinity such as John’s was virtually unacceptable to the Emir: the latter, fiercely loyal to Islamic monotheism, would not easily accept John’s rather undogmatic arguments in favour of a real trinity. Not surprsisingly, unity and multiciplicity, the one and the multiples would have been these two men’s topic of discussion: they are in Alexandria, the city of difference and unity. The debate on trinity is a discussion about the possibility of the co-existence of unity and multiplicity. Therefore, what we might view as a sterile conversation about almost nothing turns out to be a reflection on life itself and the survival of a political project such as the project of Alexandria, always endangered by accusations of excessive openness (what a prostitute!) and by attempts to reduce this radical diversity to the common denominator of only one culture and the souls that shaped it throughout the centuries. No other city had its fate marked to such an extent by books as Alexandria. Again a single book promoted dialogue between the two men: the Pentateuch. The dialogue between the two intellectuals did not, of course, save the Library – otherwise, such a dialogue could not have taken place. As such, the story about the conversation between the Christian grammarian and the Muslim Emir, while the outside world watched the destruction, is the proof that Alexandria’s legacy survived its books. In spite of the destruction, the intercultural and erudite dialogue proceeded, as a form of resistance to barbarity and agendas other than those concerning truth and beauty. 6 preface The excellent contributions gathered in this book dedicated to the city of books, Alexandria, are undoubtedly traced along the lines of Amr and John’s dialogue. Intolerance, which is borne almost always out of ignorance, threatens continuously the peaceful meeting and coexistence of peoples and cultures nowadays. Alexandria, its people and books remind us that the search for dialogue, the reflection on the forms of unity in diversity are at the same time our greatest heritage and the most dramatically pressing agenda. Gabriele Cornelli University of Brasilia 7 MOVING FORWARD alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity The founding of Alexandria in 331 B.C.E. was a momentous event in the history of mankind. Alexander's dream was to create an international city, a space where people from all over the known world would live and work together for the development of the human mind. Alexandria therefore endures in our imagination as the first model of cultural interaction – of cosmopolitanism, to use both classical and contemporary terminology – and as the cultural and intellectual capital of the Ancient World. The intermingling of races and beliefs, and the exchange of ideas, undoubtedly produced the knowledge that modern scholarship still celebrates. For centuries Alexandria ruled the Mediterranean not just through its wealth and military power, but also with its intellectual achievements which came to fruition at the ancient Library of Alexandria. It was there that scholars gathered from the four corners of the world to push the boundaries of human knowledge and unleash the human mind on myriad quests. To this day it symbolizes the noblest aspirations of the human mind, global ecumenism, and the greatest achievements of the intellect. In Science, Mathematics, Astronomy and the humanities, the mark of Alexandrian scholarship and discoveries is to be found everywhere. The ancient Library of Alexandria was not just a repository of scrolls, valuable though those might have been. It was a centre of learning and of excellence, as we would today call it. It did not survive the turmoil of conflict and bigotry, or even the scars of time and natural disasters (for no physical remains exist), but its legacy lived on. Sixteen hundred years after its final collapse, the dream of its revival became a reality and it was resurrected, through international efforts, on the shores of the Mediterranean, just a stone's throw away from where its famed predecessor had stood. The new Library of Alexandria is a bold evocative building, but like its namesake, it is much more than a building and is not just a library. Born digital, it has risen to the challenges of the modern times and aspires to be a library for the new digital age. It is also, like the ancient Library, a centre of learning and dialogue, a space for intellectual debates (encouraging especially the youth), scholarship, and the arts, as well as a meeting place for North and South, East and West. Equipped with state-of-the-art technology and conference halls, it is a vast cultural complex with its own orchestra, museums, permanent as well as temporary exhibitions, research centres and publications. As it celebrates its tenth anniversary this October, the new Library of Alexandria can look back with pride upon the large strides it has taken towards promoting culture, dialogue and scholarship, reassuring its ancestor that ideas never die, and that though men may expire and buildings may perish, great minds are immortal. This conference, and its proceedings, are a testimony that the values embodied by Alexandria and its Library continue to inspire noble minded scholars whose pursuit for knowledge transcends boundaries and time. The breadth and scope of the papers presented do credit to the spirit of Alexandria – its multiculturalism, and its passion for science and scholarship. All this would not have been possible without the enlightened leadership of the first Ptolemies, who translated Alexander's dream in ways that may have exceeded his 10 forward expectations. The genius of the site, Alexander's choice, allowed the city to accumulate immense wealth through maritime trade, and this in turn allowed the Ptolemies to channel funds towards culture. It was they who laid the foundations of enlightenment, symbolized by the Pharos, the Museion and the Library. Under their aegis, scholarship and science – the product of foreign and local minds working together – made immense leaps in all areas. Callimachus, especially revered in the new Library of Alexandria, not only revolutionized poetry but also classified books according to author, title and subject, thereby establishing library science. Euclid's book continues to be taught to this day, a record that has yet to be broken! And Philo's early attempt at reconciling philosophy with religion set a tradition that also continues to engage philosophers and theologians. Indeed, Alexandria's importance in philosophy, Judaism and Christianity is a matter for deep scholarship, but this conference pays attention to the especial role Alexandria played in spreading the cult of Isis throughout the world, making her the most popular deity of ancient times. Cleopatra herself often assumed the role of Isis (thus providing a marvelous example of cultural interaction) during festivals and religious ceremonies. She was the last of the Ptolemies and the Hellenistic age came to an end with the asp bite that ended her life. Yet her magic, like that of the city which she ruled, lives on. The Hellenistic age may have officially ended with Octavian's victory, but it never died. The proceedings in our hands confirm that the multiculturalism of the Ancient World, rippling out from Alexandria to extend throughout the Hellenistic period and beyond, is as valid now as it was then – perhaps more so today, when globalization has given a new meaning to the internationalism envisioned by Alexander the Great centuries ago. Now, with the «clash of civilizations» dominating our discourse, it is pertinent to remember the lesson Alexandrea ad Aegyptum taught us: that the interaction between cultures can only lead to the betterment of the human condition and carry us to heights unimagined. September 2012 Ismail Serageldin Librarian of Alexandria 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity We must acknowledge a vast team of specialists who generously accepted our challenge and contributed to this project with studies revolving around Classical Studies, Egyptology, Art History, Archaeology, Literature, Mathematics, among others. We are deeply indebted to all members of the team involved, especially to Dr. Ismail Serageldin, to Professor Gabriele Cornelli, to Professor Mostafa el-Abbadi and to Professor Maria Helena da Rocha Pereira, who gifted us with their priceless contributions. Not surprisingly, the multitude of perspectives provided by this multidisciplinary approach was easily harmonized in a coherent publication, which certainly manifests on itself the multidimensional character of Ancient Alexandria. We have to acknowledge the collaboration of the curators of the Museums that helped us to publish the small collection of objects included in this book: Dr. Teresa Elena Cinquantaquattro and Dr. Stefania Saviano (Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali – Soprintendenza Speciale per i beni archeologici di Napoli e Pompei), Dr. Ruth Janson (Brooklyn Museum), Dr. Agnes Brand (Römisch-Germanisches Museum, Köln), Dr. Jonas Ryborg (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen), Dr. Sayed Hassan and Dr. Ghada Tarek (Cairo Egyptian Museum), Dr. Maria José Albuquerque (Museu Nacional de Arqueologia de Lisboa), Dr. Alexandre Lourenço (Reitoria da Universidade do Porto), Dr. Maria Rosa Figueiredo (Museu Calouste Gulbenkian) and, last but not the least, the Photographic Services of the Bristish Museum. We also would like to acknowledge Professor Dominic Rathbone and Professor Roger Bagnall for the possibility to reproduce in this book the map of ancient Alexandria first published in Egypt: From Alexander to the Copts. We are also indebt with Dr. Julia Harvey and Dr. Cristina Pimentel who also contributed with excellent photographs by their own. This publication is only possible thanks to the institutional and financial support of the Centro de Investigação Transdisciplinar «Cultura, Espaço e Memória» and Centro de Estudos Clássicos e Humanísticos da Universidade de Coimbra. We are deeply in debt to their directors and to their staff, namely to Paula Montes Leal for the generous and endless support that they dispensed us, and specially as to Dr. Gaspar Martins, who encouraged this project from the first moment. We also have benefited from the generous collaboration of Sara Rodrigues, who reviewed and uniformized the quotation notes, and Sara Melo dos Santos who reviewed some of the texts. 14 INTRODUCTION alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity The project of a collective work on multiculturalism in Ancient Alexandria was born more than a decade ago when the new Bibliotheca Alexandrina was founded. The idea of recreating the spirit of a long lost mythical institution of knowledge was on itself attractive enough to justify such a study. However, political events gave to this idea more than a commemorative character: multiculturalism is on the very core of problems that affects our global contemporary world. Thus, to examine the conditions of multiculturalism in Ancient Alexandria seemed an excellent way to reflect on the historical processes that shape identity and culture. The editorial board of this book, gathering scientists from Portugal and Egypt aimed to provide a publication that could reflect the heterogeneity and multiculturalism of Ancient Alexandria by means of a multitude of perspectives which could only take form through a multidisciplinary approach. Thus, the primordial goal of the editorial board was to drive the attention of scholars to the epistemological need of a multidisciplinary approach to grasp such a complex object of study as it is the Alexandrian culture, multidimensional and multicultural in nature. The studies compiled in this volume are presented in four sections. In each of these sections we tried, as much as possible, to keep a multidisciplinary perspective thus avoiding the traditional arrangement of the subjects in classical, egyptological or literary studies which so often creates on going difficulties to the perception of the Alexandrian Hellenism’s specifities. The first section is dedicated to the several stages of Alexandria’s History, from its very foundation to the Roman occupation. The second section is specifically concerned with the multicultural identity of Alexandria and with its consequences in Art and Society. The third section is dedicated to the scholarly tradition of Alexandria that included Literature and Science, both from ancient Greek and Egyptian authors. The fourth section includes studies on the processes of change and revision of ancient traditions in a multicultural context. A concluding chapter presents a broader and integrative approach of the essential features of Alexandrian Hellenism. However heterogeneous the studies compiled in this volume may be, this selection is far from being exhaustive and certainly many other aspects of the Alexandrian culture could be included. This volume is therefore a first attempt to achieve this ambitious purpose and we would expect that it could be followed by many other studies and publications. In fact, few places in the world seem to have been so much rooted on a multicultural ground as Alexandria always did. From its own beginning, multiculturalism performed a pivotal role on its vitality in such a manner that the dialogue between the cultures of the Ancient World always figured as its natural vocation. The geographic location of the city, on Egyptian ground, propelled its role as a cross-road of Africa, Asia and Europe. Here, Hellenistic civilization seemed to find the most suitable ground to give rise to an open multicultural society which relied on its Museum as much as on its harbour, in such a way that 16 introduction health and knowledge always seemed as two sides of a coin. We may in fact recognize in Ancient Alexandria all the features of a globalized culture. In spite of its tremendous success, Alexandrian multicultural civilization was short lived. Obviously it depended upon political factors that could not last under the highly centralized Roman domination. From then on, identity and citizenship became rigidly codified according to Roman one-sided rules which rapidly led to the transformation of Alexandria from a major cross-road of Antiquity to a dangerous melting pot of cultures imprisoned within its walls. Minorities were thus condemned to live their culture not within the open possibilities of the politeuma but within the rigid walls of the ghetto. From then on, the agony of Alexandria superbly reflects the decline of the multicultural Hellenistic civilization. After a long period of decline, the rise of modern Alexandria reflected again the revitalization of the Mediterranean which prospered with the Suez Canal. More than two thousand years after its foundation by Alexander, in the beginning of the 20th century, the city found itself before its natural vocation as a cross-road of cultures: Egyptians, Turks, Jews, English and French rebuilt the city’s long lost multicultural character. Although it succeeded to face two world wars, multiculturalism would be deeply challenged with the scars left by the effects of the Cold War in the political map of the Middle East. Furthermore, the cosmopolitan role of the city as a turntable between the three continents that border the Mediterranean, could not prosper in the context of a strangled sea that became a wall to divide the European Community from its African neighbours. In the global world where we live in, we can recognize many of the cultural features that sprung in Ancient Alexandria. The primordial role performed by Science in the shape of a global community is one of the most striking features of our times. Equipped with the resources provided by contemporary technology, scientists meet at a global forum and share common humanistic and universal values, regardless of their nationality or religion. In a very concrete way, scientists of our times can see themselves as heirs of the Alexandrian universal spirit. In our times it is true that the impact and acceptance of the global culture in local communities was frequently balanced with the growing of importance of religious traditions. As happened in Ancient Alexandria, religion performs an important role in the strengthening of local identity, especially when the meeting of civilizations becomes maculated by military operations. Now that a decade is completed after the foundation of the new Bibliotheca Alexandrina, we present this book as the reminder of the extraordinary relevance of the perennial multicultural civilization of Ancient Alexandria for the understanding our global heritage. In a way, with all its contradictions, our global world is perhaps the fully expression of the Universalist multicultural vision that rose in Alexandrea ad Aegytum. Only today the challenges that arose in Alexandria become truly universal. The Editors 17 The city of Alexandria (BAGNALL, RATHBONE, 2004:52) PART IV TRADITION IN TRANSITION «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION ROGÉRIO SOUSA Centro de Investigação Transdisciplinar Cultura, Espaço e Memória (University of Oporto). Abstract: Starting with the guidelines that can help us to understand the framework of demotic culture during Greco-Roman Period this chapter is focused on the Egyptian background behind the multicultural tradition that rose in the Serapeum of Alexandria. Despite of its Hellenistic atmosphere, the Alexandrian Serapeum was the cradle of a new multicultural tradition: within its sacred precinct Greco-Egyptian deities received cult in the temple of Sarapis, while a multicultural community of scholars was actively engaged in the creation of a vast repertoire of texts and iconography. With its roots grounded on the Egyptian wisdom, such tradition was expressed in Greek or demotic philosophical discourses and was in use by a wide multicultural population, reaching so disparate territories as the Egyptian oasis of the Western Desert or the shores of the Atlantic. For more than three thousand years, the Egyptian civilization developed a unique culture which, although firmly grounded on its Nilotic background, would have a bold impact, not only among its African neighbours, but also in some of the cultures of the Ancient Near East. And yet, with the exception of political propaganda, it seems that Egypt never aimed to seek an audience in what concerns cultural exchange with its neighbours. Acculturation of local populations apparently occurred massively in Nubia, but no particular efforts seem to have been made to adapt the Egyptian culture and cults to the Nubian population. On the contrary, the foundation of Egyptian temples on occupied territories underwent a massive and deep Egyptianization of Nubia, to such an extent that, in the 25th Dynasty, Nubian 230 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION Pharaohs felt themselves entitled to remind the Egyptians of the «Egyptian» ways. As to the Asian neighbours, economic exchanges certainly led to the diffusion of Egyptian motifs, particularly as regards the use of Egyptian iconography in the decoration of objects. Nonetheless, the true Egyptianization seems restricted to the ruling elite: the children of the Asian city rulers were brought to Egypt to be educated in the royal kep itself in order to be instructed in the Egyptian culture, knowledge and literature1. In spite of the restricted target of this acculturation, it certainly played a very important role in the diffusion of Egyptian wisdom and religious literature in the Near East. It is a strong possibility that this phenomenon may have created intellectual circles outside the borders of Egypt that were familiar with Egyptian literature. Such cultural trend eventually led to the translation of the Egyptian texts themselves, a phenomenon particularly clear in Israel, where such translation seems to have been the result of the scholarly work of biblical writers and not so much the result of Egyptian scholars aiming to reach foreign audiences2. EGYPTIAN TRADITION IN NEW CONTEXT: THE ALEXANDRIAN MULTICULTURALISM Even according to contemporary definitions, Alexandrian society was fully multicultural: it «was at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit»3. It is in this context that we assist, apparently for the first time, to a new cultural trend which consisted in the «translation» of the Egyptian tradition itself. Hellenistic language and culture was sought, in Greco-Roman Egypt, as a way to spread autochthonous ideas and cults to a foreign, wider audience. It is with no surprise that we detect the first attempts of this cultural trend in the Hellenization of the iconography of the Egyptian gods. At the time of the Macedonian conquest, Memphis was the most important Egyptian city and, certainly for that reason, its local cult of Osirapis, a funerary manifestation of Apis, supposed to be the embodiment of the Ba (divine power) of Ptah, became the main source of inspiration for the new syncretic cult of Sarapis promoted by Ptolemy I. From then on, the once purely Egyptian deities manifested themselves with Hellenized names, such as Sarapis, Isis and Harpokrates (from the Egyptian Horpakhered, «Horus-the-child») and were fully rendered in Greek iconography4. 1 SHAW (ed.), 2002: 245. The influence of Egyptian wisdom literature on biblical texts is detectable not only in the translation and adaptation of some of its texts but also in the influence of Egyptian in the Hebrew language. See SHUPAK, 1993: 348. 3 BLOOR, 2010. 4 Already in the Late Period, religious syncretism was as distinctive feature of Egyptian religion, which undoubtedly paved the way for the syncretic identification of Egyptian deities with Greek gods under Ptolemaic rule. 2 231 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity Once clad with Greek identities, these deities were soon escorted by other GrecoEgyptian deities such as Agathodaimon (the Egyptian god Shay, «Fate»)5, Hermanubis (resulting from the identification between Hermes and Anubis), Cerberus (the Greek guardian of the Hades equated with Anubis), Sirius (the star-goddess Sopdet) or Thermouthis (the Hellenized serpent-goddess Renenutet). These cults not only resulted from a process of translation of the Egyptian tradition into Greek language and imagery, as they were the object of syncretic assimilation with Greek divinities as well. Without discarding the direct involvement of Egyptian priests in this «translation» process, still, it is a strong possibility that the Greeks themselves were actively involved as well. After all, Greek interest in the Egyptian gods is at least as old as the conquest of Egypt by Alexander. A temple of Isis at Piraeus is attested as early as the same year of the conquest of Egypt (332 B.C.)6. Under Ptolemaic rule, however, these cults soon became the very expression of the multicultural character of Alexandria. The interaction of Greek and Egyptian traditions was brilliantly used by the Ptolemaic kings to empower their political and religious status in ways that would be difficult to achieve if they followed the traditional Macedonian ideology alone. In fact, Hellenization of the Egyptian deities involved a reversed process of Egyptianization of Hellenistic rulers7. Alexander started this process by adopting the horns of Amun in his own iconography and by making himself depicted in Egyptian temples, such as in the Luxor Temple, with the typical pharaonic regalia. Macedonian kings and Roman emperors followed his example, particularly in the walls of the newly built Egyptian temples, depicting themselves as «true» Pharaohs. Through this Egyptianization, Macedonian rulers gained divine status and achieved a broader acclamation of their «universal» power. Thus, Alexandrian multiculturalism must always be understood at the light of the political ideology of the Ptolemaic kings who search for their own «universal» acclamation. With this ideological purpose in mind, Alexandrian art increasingly blurred the frontiers between the Egyptian and the Greek style. Royal statues once again give us a number of different examples of this phenomenon with Ptolemaic kings and queens adopting the hieratic attitude and regalia of the Egyptian tradition, while displaying a fair naturalistic portrait. The once purely Egyptian deities were also the object of intriguing sculptures, displaying a subtle combination of the Greek canon of proportions with the Egyptian hieratic attitude. One of the finest statues of this kind was recently found in the sunken site of the ancient Pharos lighthouse and it depicts the goddess Isis who, in spite of the hieratic attitude and Egyptian dress, presents an unexpected dynamism wisely achieved by means of the «wet drapery» that reveals her sensual body magnificently recalling the myth of 5 HORNUNG, BRYAN, 2007: 211. HORNUNG, 2001: 64. 7 SALES, 2005: 52. 6 232 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION Aphrodite born from the sea. Reversely, some Greek sculptures – while displaying the typically Praxitelean smoothness – present an outstanding sense of sacredness achieved with the «solarization» of the forms, usual in royal or divine Egyptian statues. With time this trend evolved significantly and gave rise to the production of pieces that displayed an even more complex and deeper symbiosis. Such is the group statue depicting Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene, the sons of Cleopatra and Antony: the twins are represented as the personifications of the Moon and the Sun depicted within the coils of two snakes. While the boy has a sun-disc on his head, the girl boasts a crescent and a lunar disc. Both discs are decorated with the wedjat-eye. This interesting composition mingles Egyptian symbols (wedjat-eye, the cobras and the side-lock of the boy) with the Greek representation of the sun and the moon as a couple (note that in Egypt the moon did not have a female connotation). Even the dual identity of the Alexandrian deities themselves reflected this search for universalism. Mingling attributes borrowed from Ptah, Osiris, Amun, Zeus, Poseidon and Hades, the all-encompassing solar-chthonian god Zeus-Sarapis took his seat as cosmocrator, the supreme god of a truly multicultural Pantheon8. Isis reinforced her status of universal goddess, absorbing the qualities of Hathor and Nut, but also Demeter and Athena9, and soon enough she would be called «the one who is all»10. As to Harpokrates, being himself designated by many Hellenized names such as Harsiese (from the Egyptian name Horsaiset, «Horus son of Isis»), or Harendotes (from the Egyptian form Hornedjitef, «Horus the savior of his father»), was also the object of syncretic identification with the Greek Herakles, sometimes depicted wearing the typical mace of this mythic hero11. Not surprisingly, in this syncretic process of «translation» and assimilation, the former Egyptian deities gained the status of truly universal gods. The newly founded Alexandrian cults – either divine or royal – were thus generating the culture cement that could bring together the multicultural population of Alexandria under the universal sovereignty of the Ptolemaic kings. Furthermore, textual evidence, such as the famous Rosetta Stone or the Canopus Decree, fully documents a «bilingual» culture and society and may be seen as the very symbol of Alexandrian Hellenism. However, this «bilinguism» was not only the result of a sociological reality: either in texts or in iconography, Alexandrian «bilinguism» always expresses the search for universalism. If nowadays it is difficult to have a clear idea of how deep multiculturalism was imprinted in the buildings of ancient Alexandria, its necropoleis provide a vivid glimpse on such cultural «bilinguism». It should be noted that, particularly in the funerary realm, such approach between the Greek and the Egyptian traditions was almost impossible to achieve, 8 WITT, 1997: 53. Even outside Egypt, the cult of Isis was rapidly associated with the Greek cults of Athena and Demeter as it is showcased in the Iseum of Dion in Macedonia. 10 HORNUNG, 2001: 64. See also in this respect the article of Mona Haggag, supra in this volume. 11 CORTEGGIANI, 1986: 176. 9 233 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity given the profound differences that separated their conceptions of the afterlife12. The arriving Hellenistic settlers brought with them their own traditions of funerary monuments and rituals, usually involving cremation or urn burials. Such burials can be found in Alexandria with cinerary urns placed in loculi, rather than the corpse13. Sometimes it is possible to detect in the same tomb the use of cremation and inhumation, some of the latter with mummified bodies14. Curiously enough, in a land where burning of the corpse was considered the ultimate punishment, new funerary practices were rapidly adopted merging both Classical and Egyptian traditions15. The catacombs of Kom el-Shogafa are famous for its hybrid style of the decoration showcasing the diffusion of Egyptian iconographical elements in Alexandrian tombs16. In this respect, a secondary group of tombs positioned around the so-called «Hall of Caracalla» presents particularly interesting features for our discussion. From the cloister of eight rock-cut tombs, only two (tombs 1 and 2) still display some of the original decoration painted on the white stuccoed walls. These tombs date back to the Roman occupation (late 1st century or early 2nd century A.D.) and each wall is divided in two registers. Those from the upper register are depicted in Egyptian style, whereas those from the lower register are depicted in pure Greek style. The surviving features of their iconographic program are similar, although presumably executed by different artists17. In the upper register, the central wall features the typical embalming scene of Osiris (Fig. 1): the god lies on a bed while Anubis performs the funerary rites before Isis and Nephthys, who protect the mummy of Osiris with their wings. Horus stands behind the two goddesses. The left wall depicts Thoth standing before an enthroned Osiris, while the right wall presents the resurrection of Osiris depicted in standing position between two enthroned deities. The lower register is decorated with scenes related to the myth of Persephone. In the central wall, Hades is depicted on his chariot, taking Persephone in his arms while Artemis, Athena and Aphrodite watch the event (Fig. 1). In the left wall, Persephone rests in a luxurious garden with flowers, sources, nymphs and a river-god. In the right wall (only the decoration of tomb 2 remains), Persephone is depicted coming out from the underworld in the cave of Eleusis, assisted by her mother Demeter (left), Hermes (center) and Hecate (right)18. 12 Seemingly such Egyptianization can be detected in the theme of the weighing of the heart, already in Homer. See RODRIGUES, 2006: 247-258. 13 Tomb BI at Gabbari presents a vast number of loculi some of which held both cremations and inhumations. DODSON, IKRAM, 2008: XXVIII. 14 Tomb BI at Gabbari. DODSON, IKRAM, 2008: XXVIII. 15 DODSON, IKRAM, 2008: 292-293. 16 VENIT, 2002: 124-145. See also in this volume the article of Kyriakos Savvopoulos. 17 GUIMIER-SORBERTS, 1998: 34-37. 18 GUIMIER-SORBERTS, 1998: 34-37. 234 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION Fig. 1: Kom el-Shogafa, Hall of Caracalla, tomb 2, central wall. Such program clearly documents that the hybrid Greek-Egyptian style displayed in most of the tombs of Alexandria was not merely a question of fashion. It shows that the myths of Osiris and Persephone were being taken as parallel mythic cycles, both expressing the idea of resurrection. We could say that, at the level of iconography, these tombs display the same bilingual culture that created the Rosetta Stone. However, an important distinction must be made: while the official Ptolemaic documents merely looked for an equality of status, the «bilingual» tombs of Kom el-Shogafa attest a deeper inquiry. In other words, it is clear that in Roman Alexandria both traditions became the object of a search for meaning, perhaps looking for an universal interpretation of their myths, thus attesting that the search for universalism was no longer just a matter of political ideology and fully become a distinctive feature of the Alexandrian culture. THE EGYPTIAN NECROPOLEIS IN GRECO-ROMAN PERIOD The Hellenization of the Egyptian tradition, merging both Classical and Egyptian motifs, did not remain restricted to Alexandria. This process started immediately in the context of the Egyptian necropoleis themselves, where tomb decoration, extremely rare in 235 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity Fig. 2a: Kom el-Shogafa, Hall of Caracalla, tomb 1 (left wall) and tomb 2 (rigth wall). 236 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION Fig. 2b: Kom el-Shogafa, Hall of Caracalla, tomb 1, central wall. Ptolemaic Egypt, also displays such an erudite combination of Egyptian and Hellenistic features, as it is the case of the rock-cut tomb of Siamon (Siwa oasis) dating from the early Ptolemaic times, where the deceased, depicted in Greek fashion, participates in the Egyptian funerary rites, such as the Opening-of-the-mouth ritual, or in the traditional scenes of the afterlife, such as the weighing of the heart. In fact, interest in syncretic approaches can be detected in Egyptian sources from the very beginning of Macedonian occupation. The most remarkable example in this respect is the tomb of Petosiris, high priest of Thoth under Ptolemy I (in Tuna el-Gebel). The tomb chapel is designed as a temple, presenting two styles of decoration. The pronaos of the tomb is decorated with the Egyptian mundane themes related to the activities of the daily life, but the human figures are depicted in Greek clothing and attitudes, while in the inner room the decoration is purely Egyptian style and it is exclusively devoted to religious and sacred motifs19. Although mingling the Greek and Egyptian styles, we detected in the tomb of Petosiris a veiled tension between the two traditions: while a strong sense of sacredness is associated with the Egyptian style, the Greek fashion is somehow diminished and publicly 19 BAGNALL, RATHBONE, 2004: 167. 237 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity «mocked» by its identification with peasants and shepherds, the lowest social stratum of the Egyptian society. This particular trend of «syncretism» was short lived: in Ptolemaic times, monumental tombs decorated in Egyptian style fall in disuse, due to a profound change of patterns in the use of Egyptian necropoleis. The reuse of earlier sepulchers for collective burials is now the rule, sometimes with addition of new chambers provided with the typical individual loculi of Greco-Roman tombs. In some regions, such as in the Fayum, mummies apparently remained for considerable periods among the living, perhaps housed inside a wooden shrine kept at home or in a public repository. Periodically these bodies were removed to the necropolis but not to be buried in an individual or family tomb but to be piled together in mass brick-lined burial pits20. Burial practices also underwent a process of profound change with the evergrowing importance of collective burials and cheaper mummification techniques which, for the first time in ancient Egypt, originated a true democratization of the necropoleis, a phenomenon in which the Hellenistic element seems to have played a decisive role since, against the usual practice, Greeks and Romans settlers did search for mummification21. The disparate use of mummification by the Greek and the Roman elite is one of the most striking phenomena of cultural «contamination» of the Hellenic population by Egyptian burial practices. However, while adopting mummification, the new settlers also transformed it: the attention of the embalmers shifted from the preservation of the corpse itself to its external appearance: it is not uncommon that beautiful wrappings hide crude and inferior procedures of preservation of the corpse22. It is not surely coincidental that with the Greek era the development of cartonnage adornments of the mummy has been greatly expanded. Beautifully painted collars, pectorals or mummy-masks were fixed to the mummy, usually showcasing traditional Egyptian motifs such as the four Sons of Horus, Anubis, winged goddesses and sacred scarabs producing a colourful and beautiful effect suitable for public display before burial. In the mummy-masks it is worthy to note the depiction of curly hair over the forehead of the deceased, a typical Hellenistic motif introduced in royal portraits since the Ptolemaic Period23. While the decoration of the masks tends to observe the Egyptian idealized style, mummy-masks and portraits become progressively more naturalistic thus suggesting a stronger attachment to the everyday existence than before. Many of these masks show the deceased in Greek garments with Egyptian motifs relegate to subordinate positions24. The Greek or Roman elements, such as hairstyle, short beard or clothing, seem to be included 20 DODSON, IKRAM, 2008: 297. TAYLOR, 2001: 87. 22 TAYLOR, 2001: 91. 23 WILDUNG, REITER, ZORN, 2010: 179. IKRAM, DODSON: 1998: 187-188. 24 TAYLOR, 2001: 243. 21 238 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION in the funerary equipment in order to display the high rank of the deceased and may not be related at all to his ethnic identity. The Greek element thus became omnipresent in the autochthonous necropoleis. The opposite process also occurred with Egyptian motifs integrated into typically Greek funerary materials. In Terenouthis (Kom Abu Billo) were found carved stelae dating from the late 1st to early 3rd centuries A.D. These gravestones represent the deceased, clad in Greek garments, with hands raised in worship (as an orans) or reclining at a banquet, perhaps their own funerary banquet. Besides the inscription with the name and date of death of the deceased, iconography often includes Egyptian features such as architectonic elements and gods (especially in their animal form)25. Eventually, these processes evolved to the full manifestation of a multicultural identity. Funerary shrouds dating from the Roman Period, present a full combination of the complex and multicultural set of ideas and artistic styles that coexisted in Greco-Roman Egypt. The deceased, depicted at the center of the shroud, wears a Hellenistic garment and his depiction is naturalistic, following the style of the Roman portraits – such as it occurs in the contemporary «Fayum portraits». At his left side figures the jackal-headed god Anubis and at his right side stands Osiris (depicted as an Egyptian mummy but in full frontal view). At the background, small depictions include mummification and judgment scenes typical of the Egyptian funerary tradition. Most significantly, the deceased holds a papyrus scroll or a bunch of flowers, suggesting his identification either with a Greek Philosopher (papyrus scroll) or with a justified Osiris (bunch of flowers). Shrouds like these fully attest that a fully multicultural identity was achieved, at least in the realm of the funerary beliefs26. The local funerary traditions thus document the magnitude of multiculturalism in later Egypt. It should be noted that such processes occurred quite naturally and didn’t necessarily require the adoption of non-Egyptian features. It could manifest itself simply in the way how pharaonic tradition was adopted and adapted for contemporary use. Anthropoid coffins, for example, fell progressively out of use: mummies of the Greco-Roman Period relied on the elaboration of their wrappings and cartonnage equipment turning the anthropoid coffins obsolete27. Sarcophagi, on the other hand, were still being used, although seldom for an individual: more often they were used as shrines or «pavilions» for the public display of mummies, according to «evidence that mummies remained for some time accessible to the living before consignment to the necropolis»28. Even religious beliefs were under revision: for the first time, female anthropoid coffins of Ptolemaic or early Roman times 25 BAGNALL, RATHBONE: 2008: 81. MÁLEK, 2003: 356. 27 IKRAM, DODSON: 1998: 241. 28 IKRAM, DODSON: 1998: 273. 26 239 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity describe the deified female deceased as «Hathor», as opposed to the traditional male title «Osiris» always used as a funerary title both for men and women29. The patterns of use of the necropolis were changing: now it was no longer confined to the funerary use and more and more it was becoming a public space, we almost could see it as a funerary «forum» or «agora», where very popular cults took place. The animal cults, already important in the Late Period, attracted to the necropoleis a multitude of pilgrims from Egypt and the Mediterranean that visited their renowned oracles, such as occurred in the Serapeum at Saqqara30. Deified sages were also the object of very popular cults as healing deities, such as the cult of Imhotep (equated with Asklepius) in the Asklepeum in Saqqara and, together with Amenhotep son of Hapu, in the former funerary temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari (Thebes). Surprisingly enough Greek «prophets» were allowed to live and work in the oracles of the Egyptian necropoleis. During the 2nd century B.C. we know that Ptolemaios, a son of a Macedonian general, lived in Saqqara in the vicinity of the temple devoted to the Canaanite goddess Astarte. There he worked as a dream interpreter in the sanatorium of the Asklepeum, the temple of the deified Imhotep31. Also found at Saqqara, a painted limestone trade sign, now in Cairo Egyptian Museum (27567) presents the image of an Apis bull and a Greek inscription: «At the god’s command I interpret dreams. Good fortune. The interpreter is a Cretan»32. Apparently, Greek dream interpreters were favored in Egyptian oracles, perhaps due to the health of Greek customers. Egyptian necropoleis thus reveal that multiculturalism did not manifest exclusively in the changes detected in the production of the funerary artifacts or in the design of tombs. It deeply affected local traditions which, in turn, were also open to new inputs and absorbed influences selectively showcasing vivid interest on innovative features, as has it always occurred in Pharaonic Egypt33. As a consequence of the new demographic influx, the use of Egyptian necropoleis was now deeply contaminated by Hellenistic social patterns. Multiculturalism was now a distinctive feature of Egyptian funerary practices. EGYPTIAN TEMPLES IN GRECO-ROMAN PERIOD Temples of the Ptolemaic and Roman times are the result of an extensive temple building program, probably initiated by the Egyptian priests themselves34. All over Egypt temples were built or expanded, such as the temples of Hathor at Dendera, Khnum at Esna, 29 Such is the case of the coffins from Akhmim. WALKER, HIGGS, 2001: 109. TAYLOR, 2001: 255. 31 CHAVEAU, 2000: 130-140. 32 BAGNALL, RATHBONE, 2004: 91. 33 SOUSA, 2011c: 131-150. 34 FINNESTAD, 1997: 185. 30 240 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION Horus at Edfu, Sobek and Horus at Kom Ombo and Isis at Philae. Although apparently conforming to the Egyptian tradition, the late temples clearly display a renovation of the «classical» model. Sacred precincts present a number of architectonic distinctive features, such as the typical screen wall of the pronaos, or the conception of the innermost sanctuary as an independent structure erected within the main building and, last but not the least, the so-called «birth houses» erected in the vicinity of the main temple35. Nevertheless, the most distinctive feature of the new style of temples is its decoration. The walls of these temples are heavily decorated with texts and iconography and they can be seen as huge reservoirs of the Egyptian knowledge. The texts carved on the walls are apparently extracts from the collection of books kept in the temple archives, and they are representative of the entire spectrum of ancient Egyptian religion and scholarly learning. Monumental inscriptions refer to rituals and myths but also to calendars, astronomy or medical tools. Later temples are literally the translation of temple’s knowledge into architecture and through them cultic knowledge preserved in books could be transformed into action through the appropriate rites36. In fact, temples of Greco-Roman Egypt are all about knowledge. It would be difficult to see in this renovation of the Egyptian temples some kind of influence by the Greek occupants. And yet, in spite of the royal support37, they fully represent a reaction towards the Greek culture. As a local reservoir of the Pharaonic knowledge, each temple literally «petrified» the local tradition into a complex set of buildings. Certainly this role was reflected in the importance of sacred books as well. In each temple, a local selection of sacred books was enshrined in a small library that codified the entire treasury of relevant knowledge for that particular community38. The sacred libraries of Edfu and el-Tod still display a catalogue of the books they hold. These catalogues reckon 42 books in each temple and correspond to a local canon intending to represent the universe in book form39. Obviously they do not reflect the entire corpus of texts available in the «Per Ankh» or the House of Life – the school and the library of the temple – which was certainly much more extensive40. The scribes and scholars of the House of Life were called by the Greeks hierogrammateis. Some 35 FINNESTAD, 1997: 185. ASSMANN, 2002: 419. 37 The Ptolemies followed a dual policy toward the great Egyptian temples. On the one hand, the temples political and economic power was decisively curtailed. On the other hand, the Ptolemies supported the extensive program of building and rebuilding Egyptian temples. FINNESTAD, 1997: 233. 38 ASSMANN, 2002: 412. 39 Mirroring the 42 provinces of Egypt, the canon of 42 books described in the reliefs of the sacred libraries reflects the desire of self-segregation and canonization. Forty-two was in fact allusive to the 42 nomes of Egypt, thus suggesting the identification between the books and the world. ASSMANN, 2002: 413. 40 Therefore we should distinguish the sacred libraries (positioned inside the temple) from the archives of the House of Life (positioned in a separate building probably used also as a school). 36 241 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity were priests, all were guardians of liturgical and other kinds of texts, coping and commenting on them, but were also involved in the administration and management of temple’s properties. They worked in temple annexes that housed the libraries and served as places of studying and writing41. This community had his own way of life characterized by asceticism and contemplation, forming what can be seen as a «textual community»42. Late Egyptian temples were certainly not isolated from the rest of the society. However, while most of the sectors of the Egyptian society revealed a notorious openness to the Hellenistic element, in the context of the Egyptian temples the response to foreign occupation took form in the tendency toward self-segregation. The development of cryptography is precisely a distinctive feature of the intellectual culture of later Egyptian temples. The result was the exponential growth of the repertory of signs with almost every religious center developing its own cryptic system43. In spite of the desire for self-segregation, the temples of later Egypt were important socioreligious forums for exchanging religious beliefs among large numbers of people, and of course the frequent temple festivals became lively meeting places for the population of neighbouring towns. Popular devotional activities took place around the temple, often assisted by priests. Many people came specifically for dream interpretations or oracles. Others visited, often from great distances, to seek medical help at those temples reputed to be centers of healing. Within the precincts of Hathor’s temple at Dendera there was a sanatorium with baths and probably also facilities for healing incubation. Oddly enough, such devices are typical of the sanatoria from the Hellenistic sacred precincts (Epidauros), thus revealing an unexpected Greek «contamination» of the Egyptian temples44. This «contamination» shows that even inside the sacredness of the temple’s precinct, other intellectual forces were at work. In our view, the source for this trend could not be other than the House of Life. Egyptian temples of Greco-Roman Period housed complex multidimensional communities which were simultaneously involved in the retrograde search for the «right» knowledge and in the prospective transformation and recreation of the temple, i.e., the «world». These two tendencies reflected in two cultural trends. One, enclosed within the secrecy of ritual practices, involved a centripetal phenomenon of self-segregation and manifested itself in a canon of texts kept secret in the sacred library of the temple. The other, centrifuge in nature, grew up in the open and broader context of the «House of Life» and was open to the influxes of the (multicultural) community that surrounded the temple. 41 FINNESTAD, 1997: 228. ASSMANN, 2002: 418. 43 ASSMANN, 2002: 418. 44 FINNESTAD, 1997: 236. 42 242 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION These two literary trends were always active in Egyptian religion and can be assigned respectively to the cult activities in stricto sensu (ritual and magical texts) and to the wisdom tradition (theological texts)45. As a reflex of this «dual» definition of the Egyptian religion, its Hellenization must be seen as a dual process as well: one based on ritual knowledge of the sacred libraries of the temple and the other grounded on the theological texts of the House of Life. THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION: DEMOTIC CULTURE IN THE GRECO-ROMAN PERIOD In close association to the Hellenization of the Egyptian intellectual tradition is its own «demotization». This process is again better illustrated in the funerary context. Perhaps as a result of the new cultural influxes detected in local necropoleis, changes deeply affected the funerary literature. During the second half of the Ptolemaic Period, there was a significant decline in the production of the Book of the Dead manuscripts, while other funerary compositions rose in production – such as the Documents of Breathing and the Book of Traversing Eternity. The reasons for this decline are difficult to grasp but it is possible that purchasers preferred their Netherworld guides to be written in contemporary demotic language, which of course originated less sacred artifacts than if written with hieroglyphic or even hieratic scripture. Yet, these demotic objects were preferred and regarded by customers as more useful, since they could understand them46. The adoption of the Documents of Breathing thus supposes not only a different social organization of the necropoleis47 but a new intellectual trend that aimed to expressed itself in a living language rather than a sacred but unintelligible script. It is worthy to note that during Greco-Roman Egypt, scribes were using four different writing systems: demotic and Greek for everyday purposes, and hieroglyphic and hieratic for religious purposes. Only erudite scholars could understand the Egyptian language cyphred both in the hieroglyphic and hieratic writing48. Demotic, on the contrary, must be seen as the priviledged interface for the cultural interaction between Pharaonic tradition and Hellenism. In fact, ordinary scribes used demotic and Greek. In the Egyptian temples some of the priests knew Greek and maintained contact with Greek scholars. Egyptian tradition in the Ptolemaic Period was vigorous and in full dialogue with much of the Hellenistic thought49. We have to keep in mind that, legendary or 45 ASSMANN, 2001: 3-7. MUNRO, 2010: 59. 47 Because they were written in demotic, it is also possible that these texts could have been copied without a formal supervision of professional priests or a temple: they could have been handed down simply by scribes working in the necropolis. 48 ASSMANN, 2002: 414-415. 49 FINNESTAD, 1997: 228. 46 243 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity not, contact with Greek scholars begun long before the conquest of Alexander, thus originating the appearance of Egyptian motives in Greek texts, such as it occurred in Plato’s or in Herodotus’s writings. After the Macedonian invasion, however, Ptolemaic rulers actively encouraged the composition of scholarly works devoted to the Egyptian tradition, such as the historiographical work by Manetho, a priest of the temple of Re in Heliopolis, which constitutes a remarkable example of this new cultural trend. Although commissioned by Ptolemy II, such work can be properly considered as one of the first native attempts to translate autochthonous Egyptian tradition to a highly receptive Hellenistic audience. It is to be noted that such translation required the work of an indigenous scholar knowledgeable in the pharaonic tradition and learned in Greek language as well, and – most certainly – well acquainted with Greek historical literature, such as Herodotus’s writings50. Egyptian scholars thus become active in the construction of a new civilization that aimed to reach universalism by means of its bilingual culture. This same period witnessed to the increasing production of naturalistic «portraits» of sages: aging men displaying high social status and severe dignity. Some of them stand among the most accomplished sculptural works of Egyptian Art, depicting men with bold heads, hieratic attitude and clad with a long garment typical of the priests. These «wise men» present a very naturalistic rendering of the anatomical structure of the face and head, also displaying vivid «psychological» portraits. One could think of Hellenistic influence in the anatomical representation of aging men but such naturalism is also detected in purely Egyptian sculpture51. This is perhaps one of the most extraordinary corpus of Egyptian sculpture and surely reflects the important role performed by «sages» in Ptolemaic Egypt52. This veneration for the wise men extended to and perhaps was inspired by the deification of the sages of the past. We have already mentioned the popularity and boldness of the cults of Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu. This veneration is well documented in Egyptian demotic literature where sages from the past became the heroes of tales. These tales tell us that the special status of these men is specifically due to their knowledge on the sacred texts. In the demotic Story of Setne Khaemwas (Khaemwas was son of Ramses II and high priest of Ptah at Memphis,) the hero searches for a divine book written by Thoth «with his own hand». The book had the power to reveal «how it is possible by one magic formula 50 See supra in this volume, the article of Luís Manuel de Araújo. This naturalistic trend is detected as far as the 4th Dynasty in the royal statues of Menkhaure, but also in private statues, such as the bust of Ankhaf. Naturalistic royal portraits were also produced in the 12th Dynasty, especially under Senuseret III and Amenemhat III and in the 18th Dynasty, during the reign of Akhenaten, with special emphasis to the famous head of Nefertiti or Queen Tiy. See WILDUNG, REITER, ZORN, 2010: 84. The later example is particularly interesting for our discussion since it showcases the face of a «wised» woman who has grown old. 52 MÁLEK, 2003: 347. This type of statues were also carved with pure Hellenistic portraits, such as it occurs in the statue of Hor, priest of Thoth (see WALKER, HIGGS, 2001: 182-183), where the influence of Roman portraiture seems to have been very skillfully merged with the Egyptian sculptural tradition giving. 51 244 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION to enchant the sky, the earth, and the infernal regions, the mountains and the seas, to understand the language of the birds and reptiles, and then by a second formula to recover one’s own identity»53. The search for knowledge thus reflects, in the demotic tradition, the quest for magical power, both contained and revealed by the sacred books. The attribution of the authorship of the sacred books to Thoth is proverbial in ancient Egyptian literature and it can be traced back as far as the Middle Kingdom. In the tale Khufu and the Magicians, the great magician Djedi is supposed to be gifted with great magical power because «he knows the number of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth. Now the majesty of King Khufu had been spending time searching for the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth in order to copy them for his temple»54. The search for secret texts related to Thoth is a traditional motif of the Egyptian literature and it can be found in funerary texts, as well. Several chapters of the Book of the Dead were supposedly «miraculously» found by the prince Djedefhor, son of the king Khufu (4th Dynasty), also taken as a great magician, at the feet of a statue of Thoth, or in a secret chamber of his temple in Hermopolis55. Written in demotic, the Book of Thoth reveals a later development of this intellectual trend. It was probably written in the 1st century A.D.56. Thoth imparts information regarding the netherworld, ethics, the sacred geography of Egypt, secret language and mysteries. Most interestingly, the text displays many correspondences with the Hermetica57. Such demotic text was clearly written by Egyptian priests, using Egyptian language to express their own tradition and, yet, it reveals knowledge akin to the hermetic tradition, which is traditionally considered a purely Hellenistic product. Although the influence of Egyptian tradition in Hermetic texts has been greatly overlooked58, today, however, it is acknowledged that hermetic texts made use of genuine Egyptian knowledge59. The Corpus Hermeticum comprises 18 Greek treatises and the Latin Asklepius, dating back from the 1st to late 3rd century A.D. Some of these texts are of a theological-philosophical nature, while others comprise magical, astrological or alchemical content60. In spite of the massive destruction of Hellenistic texts, we can still have a glimpse nowadays on what once must have been an immense literary corpus. When we consider 53 This tale is written in a demotic papyrus found at Thebes in the tomb of a Coptic monk. It is dated from the Ptolemaic Period. See SALEH, SOUROUZIAN, 1987: nº 262. 54 LICHTHEIM, 1975: 118 55 See rubrics of chapter 30-b and chapter 64 of the Book of the Dead. 56 JASNOW, ZAUZICH, 2005: 68 57 HORNUNG, 2001: 48. 58 Festugière greatly contributed to strengthen this idea, highlighting the predominance of Greek philosophical elements and reducing Egyptian influence to merely decorative motifs. EBELING, 2007: 9. 59 However, the genuinely Egyptian concepts of the Hermetic tractates have been stressed after the discovery of the manuscripts of Nag Hammadi. EBELING, 2007: 30. 60 EBELING, 2007: 9. 245 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity the hermetic texts found in the library of Nag Hammadi, it becomes clear that such texts document the existence of an intellectual tradition that expressed itself in demotic, Greek61 and Coptic62, with the texts from the Corpus Hermeticum as its later product. As the new findings suggest the Hermetica were not an isolated corpus and must be seen in a broader cultural perspective. For commodity, although they are usually used exclusively to designate the texts from the Hermetica, we will keep the Modern designations of «hermetic texts» or «Hermeticism», while referring to this broader multicultural intellectual trend highly dependent on the native demotic tradition, keeping in mind that such designations were not in use in Antiquity. The content of the hermetic texts is heterogeneous and, in spite of the Hellenistic atmosphere, it can be traced back to traditional Egyptian motifs. It is clear that the Asklepius and its apocalyptic prophecy is a later product of pure Egyptian tradition that began with the Admonitions of Ipuwer, the Prophecy of Neferti and similar texts from the Middle Kingdom63. This literary tradition continued on to the Ptolemaic Period with texts such as the Nectanebo’s Tale, the Demotic Chronicle, the Prophecy of the Lamb or the Oracle of the Potter. Compositions such as the Asklepius suggest a strong Hellenized context, which perhaps, even in the 3rd century, could only have been possible in Alexandria. However, autochthonous cultural centres should have played an important role in the creation of such tradition. The Memphite temple of Ptah was perhaps one of the most likely contexts for the development of such demotic intellectual tradition64. This could explain many of the key features of hermetic theory, starting with Hermes Trismegistus himself. In fact, in the Hermetica, Trismegistus does not emerge as a god, but as a Philosopher instead, a supersage mixing the features of Plato, Moses and, above all, the deified Egyptian sage Imhotep (c. 2650 B.C.) who lived under the reign of Djoser Netjererkhet and performed such important tasks as the king’s chief physician, high priest of Heliopolis and builder of the first pyramid ever erected in Egypt, the Stepped Pyramid at Saqqara. In later times, Imhotep was not only believed to be the founder of Egyptian wisdom and regarded as the very prototype of the sage, but also, from the 26th Dynasty onwards, he became a god in his own right. In Ptolemaic times, he was equated with the Greek god Asklepius and received cult as a healing deity. Finally, in the hermetic texts Hermes Trismegistus figures as a deified Philosopher, resulting from the Hellenization of the Egyptian cult of Imhotep. On the other hand his name fully displays his hybrid origin: he combines the Greek god Hermes with Thoth’s epithet, «three times great», thus fully embodying the multicultural archetype of sacred wisdom – both Greek and Egyptian. 61 This is the case of the Hermetica. A significant number of hermetic texts found in Nag Hammadi, some of them belonging to the Corpus Hermeticum, were also written in demotic and Coptic. 63 HORNUNG, 2001: 51. 64 LLOYD, 2002: 414. 62 246 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION Although grounded on a demotic tradition, the Hermetica, as we know them, present Egyptian content fully expressed in a philosophical discourse, which in itself is a Greek innovation. Hence, such texts could only have been the result of a close cooperation between Greek philosophers deeply akin to Egyptian tradition and Hellenized Egyptian scholars. The Alexandrian Serapeum emerges again as the melting pot for the development and blooming of this multicultural intellectual trend. THE ALEXANDRIAN SERAPEUM AND THE CREATION OF A «UNIVERSAL» TRADITION As we already mentioned, Alexandrian gods attained the status of universal deities. Regardless of its origin, the universal character of Sarapis is usually seen as the result of the syncretic assimilation of several supreme gods as Hades, Zeus, Osiris and Helios. Nevertheless the characterization of Sarapis presents a much better correspondence with the divine definition of one particular Egyptian god, Ptah. Conspicuously overlooked by scholars, Ptah presents all the aspects of the divine definition of the Alexandrian deity and it was surely in this god that Sarapis found his archetypes. As a chthonian god, Ptah was a god of the underworld and as such he was the provider of the people of Egypt. The god presided over the fertility of the land and the growth of vegetation – one of his epithets was exactly the «Granary of Tatenen». His chthonian character gave him power over minerals that provided rich materials as stones and metals. But, above all, Ptah was the supreme god, creator of all living things but also a funerary deity with Osirapis as his manifestation. In spite of his chthonian definition, this supreme god also gained solar connotations when he became equated with Shu – the Heliopolitan god of light and divine utterance. As early as the New Kingdom, Ptah fully achieved the status of a supreme deity, thus paving the way for the proclamation of Sarapis as cosmocrator, the universal deity gifted with solar and chthonian attributes65. The foundation of the cult of Sarapis occurred between the reigns of Ptolemy I and II, between 285 and 282 B.C. The earliest dedication found at the site of the Alexandrian Serapeum dates back to the reign of Ptolemy II, with the formal sanctuary being dedicated under Ptolemy III66. When a fire destroyed the temple in 181 A.D., it was rebuilt (by 217 A.D.) on a still larger scale67. The great Serapeum of Alexandria was one of the most important monuments of ancient Alexandria, with its imposing buildings dominating the acropolis of the city. In the 65 SOUSA, 2011b: 168-172. Tacitus (Histories 4.84) states that Ptolemy III was responsible for the dedication of the cult statue in Alexandria, since he financed the building stages of the main temenos and temple. WALKER, HIGGS, 2001: 73. 67 BAGNALL, RATHBONE, 2004: 60. 66 247 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity Roman times two monumental staircases led to the sacred precinct. Columned porticoes elegantly framed the sacred precinct, displaying fine and exquisite decoration, which included selected artworks both from the Greek world and Egypt, making this complex renowned through the Roman Empire as one of the most splendid places on earth. Inside the main temple stood the famous chryselephantine statue of the god by the Athenian sculptor Bryaxis. Ptolemaic iconography of the god included a lotus-crown, beard and carefully divided fringe. It is only later in the Roman Period that the god is shown with a modius (corn-measure representing the importance of Egyptian corn to the feeding of the people of Rome)68 on his head and is accompanied by Cerberus, the three-headed dog gatekeeper of the underworld69. In the Ptolemaic temple Sarapis was depicted enthroned – as the statue of Zeus at Olympia, perhaps holding a cornucopia or a sceptre – but sources from Roman times suggest that the statue of Sarapis depicted the god in standing position holding a staff and a cornucopia70. The iconography of the god included a subtle feature, seldom noted: his lips are depicted open, as if speaking, probably alluding to his oracular reputation, as opposed to the Hellenistic iconography of Harpokrates – who raises his finger before the lips to impose silence in face of the mystery. The statues of Sarapis are meant to «speak» thus illustrating the recreation of the world with his divine utterance – like Ptah, who created the world with his Tongue. Not to be overlooked are the underground galleries excavated within the area of the sacred precinct. As Kyriakos Savvopoulos and Robert Bianchi accurately point out, these galleries should not be taken as premises for the Library Daughter, as it is so often repeated71. It is a possibility that some of them could have been used as catacombs for sacred animals thus replicating the chthonic passages of the Serapeum at Saqqara. A square pit excavated in the western side of the temple gave access to the northern underground galleries. One of these galleries was probably used as a crypt for the cult of Apis. It was excavated beneath the Temple of Sarapis itself and it held a black diorite statue representing Sarapis in his Apis bull incarnation with the sun-disk between his horns; an inscription dates it to the reign of Hadrian (117-38). However, at least some of these galleries may have been used for the celebration of the mysteries of Sarapis as well. Echoes of these rituals have been handed down to us by written sources, such as the Asinus Aureus, but glimpses on the death and resurrection of Sarapis 68 Note that, already in the Shabaka Stone, Ptah is referred to as the corn-provider of Egypt (Shabaka Stone, 61). See SOUSA, 2011b: 67. 69 WALKER, HIGGS, 2001: 73. 70 The statue of Sarapis found in Cortina (Crete), was probably a copy of the Alexandrian statue. The same composition is reproduced in the Roman coins from the reign of Trajan. See BAKHOUM, 1995: 63. It may refer either to a new statue of Sarapis in the Serapeum or to another statue of the god that received cult in Alexandria. 71 SAVVOPOULOS, BIANCHI, 2012: 56. 248 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION can also be observed in Hadrian’s Serapeum at Villa Hadriana where it was recreated in the statuary group that once decorated its inner rooms: here again figures the Apis bull along with the deified Antinoo – here identified with the reborn sun. South to the Temple of Sarapis was excavated an imposing L-shaped underground passage that seems to have been used for such rituals. The underground galleries lead to a puzzling structure: a platform rising from a large basin excavated right in the central area of the court, probably working as a sacred lake. Resembling to the crypts of the Osireum in Abydos – also provided with a L-shaped underground passage giving access to a ritual island – this structure probably replicated in the Serapeum the chamber for the resurrection of the god. For this reason, this «island» figure as the most suitable place for the erection of the most of the Pharaonica found at the site72, such as monumental diorite scarab, depicting the rebirth of the sun god73. Besides the cultic facilities, the Serapeum was composed of a complex of buildings displayed around the central court. In the great central court stood, already in Roman times, the Diocletian Column (the so-called Pompey Column), on top of which probably stood a statue of Sarapis-Helios. The column stood in front of a large lustral basin used for purification rituals. It was probably in the porticoes displayed around the central court that it was installed the library (the «daughter» of the Great Library) provided with lecture rooms, and smaller shrines. Facilities for pilgrims, such as the sanatorium and rooms for incubation, were certainly associated with the complex, as well. To our perspective, in spite of the Hellenistic atmosphere of this complex, the Alexandrian Serapeum was fully working as any other contemporary Egyptian temple: besides the temple itself, where the divine cult was performed, the sacred precinct involved a complex system of crypts, facilities for its library/school and premises for pilgrims. The main difference between the Serapeum and the Egyptian autochthonous temples was the multicultural nature of the former: within its sacred precinct Greco-Egyptian deities received cult, while a multicultural community of scholars associated to the «House of Life» (i.e. the LibraryDaughter) was undergoing the creation of an open multicultural wisdom tradition. With its roots grounded on the Egyptian demotic wisdom, such tradition was now expressed in Greek philosophical discourses. 72 The creation of a «pure» Egyptian temple in the context of the Roman Serapeum could have been created as the result of the «Egyptianization» of Alexandria and its sacred places apparently promoted under Roman rule. See SAVVOPOULOS, BIANCHI, 2012: 20-25. 73 Such position of the sacred scarab is known from the sacred lake at Karnak. See SOUSA, 2007: 279-302. 249 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity HERMETICISM AS A MULTICULTURAL «PARADIGM» Archaeological evidence suggests that Memphite priests were particularly connected with the Alexandrian Serapeum. Among these testimonies figure the statues of the Memphite priest Psentais, depicted in Egyptian style74 and the Shabaka Stone (716-702 B.C.). This remarkable inscription was originally erected in the sacred precinct of Ptah in Memphis, from where it was taken in Ptolemaic times in order to be sent to the Alexandrian Serapeum, a suitable place for such monumental «book». The inscription of the Shabaka Stone was certainly regarded, already at that time, as a major work of autochthonous theological tradition. In order to estimate the impact of this composition in the Egyptian cultural milieu of Greco-Roman Period, we have to keep in mind both the boldness of the role of the temple of Ptah in later Egypt and the prestige of the text itself, which, already at that time, embodied the quintessence of Egyptian theological thought75. Although we don’t have any direct quotation of this Egyptian text from ancient authors, either Egyptian or Greek, the cosmogonic vision of the inscription written on the Shabaka Stone is strikingly akin to the gnostic character of Alexandrian philosophical thought: Heart took shape in the form of Atum, Tongue took shape in the form of Atum. It is Ptah, the very great, who was given (life) to all the gods and their kaw through this heart and through this tongue 76. In this text, the Supreme Being is Ptah who conceived the world in his Heart (i.e. mind – suggesting a parallel with the Greek concept of the divine nous) and created it with his Tongue (i.e. word – thus with strong correspondence with the divine logos). Thus heart and tongue rule over all limbs in accordance with the teaching that it is in every body and it is in every mouth of all gods, all men, all cattle, all creeping things, whatever lives, thinking whatever it wishes and commanding whatever it wishes. (…) Sight, hearing, breathing – they report to the heart, and it makes every understanding come forth. As to the tongue, it repeats what the heart has devised. Thus all the gods were born and his Ennead was completed. For every word of the god came about through what the heart devised and the tongue commanded77. 74 See supra in this volume, the text of Kyriakos Savvopolus, note 343. See also SAVVOPOULUS, BIANCHI, 2012: 116. SOUSA, 2011b: 112-120. 76 Shabaka Stone (55), in LICHTHEIM, 1975: 54. 77 Shabaka Stone (55), in LICHTHEIM, 1975: 54. 75 250 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION With this statement the ancient writer aims to suggest that all living creatures were shaped according to the same «plan» conceived in the heart, i.e. the mind or intellect, of the creator god. This is the basis for one of the most important key-features of Hermeticism: the equivalence between man, understood as the microcosmos, and the Universe, the macrocosmos78. Thanks to their divine source, all living creatures are related to the mind of the creator. Between men, in particular, justice is a matter of obedience to a natural law. One should do what is loved (by god): Justice is done to him who does what is loved, and punishment to him who does what is hated. Thus life is given to the peaceful, death is given to the criminal79. Already in Shabaka Stone we detect the ontological bonds which tie the «individual intellect to the universal Intellect and, in this way, the individual self to the infinite or absolute Self»80. From this vision results a «hieroglyphic» perspective of the world: all existing things compose a living text, the cosmos, in which each being is the earthly embodiment of a divine idea or plan81. The world is literally understood as a book whose «hieroglyphs» are the very living beings created by god, himself: He is Tatenen, who gave birth to the gods, and from whom every thing came forth, (…) thus is recognized and understood that he is the mightiest of the gods. Thus Ptah was satisfied after he had made all things and all divine words (lit.: hieroglyphs)82. Moreover, man is invested with a special responsibility for he is able to create «hieroglyphs» in the world, thus completing by means of his work the great creation of Ptah. Such vision is absolutely clear in the hermetic texts as well. It is therefore a strong possibility that the Shabaka Stone was regarded by Alexandrian scholars as a «Tabula Smaragdina» avant la lettre and that a congruent literary corpus might have been taken as the bulk of their «translation» work either in demotic or in Greek. It was probably in the multicultural context of the Serapeum that it became possible the creation and diffusion of Hermeticism, as «universal» tradition. The Library-Daughter of Alexandria must therefore be seen as a Hellenized «House of Life» of the Serapeum with Hermeticism as its multicultural, thus universal, intellectual tradition. 78 According to Hermetic texts, the «first human was formed by Nous, the creator of the world. The man himself functioned as a creative demiurge». In HORNUNG, 2001: 52. 79 Shabaka Stone (55), in LICHTHEIM, 1975: 54. 80 FILORAMO, 1999: 139. 81 SOUSA, 2011b: 99-103. 82 Shabaka Stone (55), in LICHTHEIM, 1975: 55. 251 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity One of the main problems raised by this hypothesis is the conspicuous absence of references to Sarapis in the hermetic texts. In spite of that, numerous references are made to Isis, Horus, Thoth (Tat) and Imhotep (Asklepius). The supreme god is always referred to as the Universal Intellect (nous) and not as a concrete manifestation of a particular god that received cult. Curiously enough, also in this respect the hermetic tradition follows the Egyptian wisdom tradition from the «Houses of Life» of the Pharaonic temples. Although omnipresent in these texts, the identity of the supreme god is always left open, referring to the supreme god as an unnamed deity. The reason to left open the identity of the supreme god would be again the sake for universalism: as any other Egyptian wisdom tradition, Hermeticism was not restricted to a specific cult or temple83. As we have mentioned, the characterization of the supreme god in the Hermetica presents a striking correspondence with the divine definition of Ptah in the Egyptian theological texts. With this equivalence in mind, we should thus question ourselves if the supreme god that received cult in the Serapeum could have any parallel with the Memphite creator god. In fact, Ptah presents all the aspects of the divine definition of Sarapis. As a chthonian god, Ptah was a god of the underworld and as such he was the provider of the people of Egypt. The god presided over the fertility of the land and the growth of vegetation – one of his epithets was exactly the «Granary of Tatenen» – and it was precisely this aspect that was symbolized by the modius in the Roman iconography of Sarapis. In spite of his chthonian definition, Ptah also gained solar connotations when he became equated with Shu – the Heliopolitan god of light and divine utterance – reminding the identification between Sarapis and Helios. But, above all, Ptah was the supreme god, creator of all living things, the universal deity gifted with solar and chthonian attributes84. Together with Osaripis, his chthonian manifestation, this god provided the nuclear elements for the cult of Sarapis. THE UNIVERSE IN SYMBOLS: THE IMPACT OF THE HERMETIC PARADIGM Accordingly to the heterogeneous community that created it, the Hermetic paradigm used a system of symbols and metaphors that combined key-elements taken from the Greek, Egyptian and Chaldean traditions in order to produce a philosophic discourse. The most important fact to retain about the Hermetic view of the world is the deep bond between man, taken as a microcosm, and the world, the macrocosm, with all its stars and 83 84 Cf. HORNUNG, 2001: 53. SOUSA, 2011b: 168-172. 252 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION planets. The combination of Egyptian and Babylonian astrological motifs performed a very important role in the creation of a new syncretic view: Thus derives the influence of these (decans) in everything that happens (…). Overthrow of kings, revolts of cities, famines, plaques, receding of the sea, earthquakes; nothing of these, my son, occurs without their influence85. It should be noted that, already in Pharaonic Egypt, the decans86 (the 36 stars that rule the Egyptian calendar) were connected with the concept of shai, «fate»87. Later, in Ptolemaic times, the decans figure in Egyptian temples as divine beings that have power over water and wind. They bring fertility to the fields, but they also cause illness and sudden death88. The decans also influence certain parts of the body, a belief that would play its role in Alexandrian Hermeticism, where it forms part of the correspondence between the macrocosm and the microcosm89. This theory of the decans was thus combined with the twelve signs of the Zodiac, adopted from Chaldean tradition early in the Ptolemaic Period90. This view of the Cosmos was grounded on a hierarchy of celestial spheres that ascended from the earthly realm to the Supreme Being: the zodiac (the «circle of animals»), the Sun and the Moon were closer to the Earth, followed by the sphere of the planets and, further away, by the decans that preceded the supreme sphere of the Whole91. This appealing vision gave rise to a new iconographic theme abundantly depicted in pure Egyptian canon, as well as in Greek style, and even in hybrid Greco-Egyptian style. While the famous astronomical ceiling of the Temple of Dendera magnificently showcases the monumental rendering of this new concept in Egyptian style92, the ivory astrological tablets found in Grand (France) display exactly the same concepts in Greek fashion (Fig. 3)93. Here the sky is divided into 85 Book of the Thirty-six Decans, Frag. VI, in EBELING, 2007: 23. They are already mentioned in the Pyramid Texts, but the system of the 36 decans was not developed until the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom. The main source of information regarding them is a series of coffins from Asyut, where they are connected with the regeneration of the dead. See also in this volume the article of Telo Canhão. 87 HORNUNG, 2001: 28-29. Particularly in the Third Intermediate Period and in the Late Period, decans start to be depicted on amulets, as protective deities. 88 HORNUNG, 2001: 29. 89 In European Modern Hermeticism the parts of the body are ruled by the planets, which seem to be a later development of this concept. 90 EBELING, 2007: 22. Also MAHÉ, 1998: 60. See also MOYER, 2011: 237-238. 91 MAHÉ, 1998: 62. Note that in the pharaonic Egypt such theory of the planets is lacking. See HORNUNG, 2001: 28. 92 In the central disk there are 36 decans depicted around the circumference, evoking the 360 days of the year. On the inside are twelve signs of the zodiac, together with constellations such as the Great Bear. Five planets are represented: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The conjunction of planets and starts depicted in the zodiac is used to date it from about 50 B.C. ANDREU. RUTSCHOWSCAYA, ZIEGLER, 1997: 210. This depiction, now in the Louvre Museum. See also HORNUNG, 2001: 31. On the other hand Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt has argued for an Egyptian origin of the signs of the Zodiac, connecting them with the cycle of the sun and Osiris. See DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT, 2004: 308-319. 93 MAHÉ, 1995: 40. 86 253 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity Fig. 3: Ivory astrological tablets found in Grand (Vosges). three concentric areas: at the center of the composition stand the Sun and the Moon, followed by the twelve signs of the Zodiac and, in the third circle, the thirty-six decans which, although their names have been written in Greek, kept their Egyptian iconography, some of which depicted with animal heads94. This same iconographic thopos figures in the Egyptian coffins from the Greco-Roman times as well. Traditionally, Nut, the Egyptian goddess of the sky, is the main figure depicted in the interior walls of the coffins. However, even when produced in Egyptian style, some coffins present a new version of this theme: the goddess is surrounded by the signs of the zodiac. We can find similar astronomical lids as early as in the Royal Sarcophagi of the New Kingdom. However, such early depictions display the decans around Nut’s body, instead of the zodiac. In the Theban coffin of Soter, Nut is surrounded by the signs of the zodiac, the Egyptian goddesses of the hours and the position of the planets (noted in demotic) as well, thus indicating the horoscope of Soter, dated from 93 A.D.95. 94 95 See KÁKOSY, 1982: 163-191; QUACK, 1995: 97-122. HORNUNG, 2001: 32. 254 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION The expression of this «hermetic» thopos in such a multitude of styles and contexts fully attests the multicultural character of the hermetic tradition and shows that this Hellenized tradition had a strong diffusion both in Egypt, thus in purely autochthonous Egyptian circles, and in the entire Mediterranean as well. Usually seen as having little influence on local Egyptian traditions, Hermeticism seems, on the contrary, to have been widely diffused in autochthonous communities, both in the necropoleis and in the temple communities, revealing that the new cultural inputs were integrated into local traditions. The reverse movement is also attested with Egyptian motives being adapted to purely Hellenistic contexts. In fact, Greek sources provide striking elements that showcase unexpected interations with the Egyptian tradition. This is the case of the Hellenistic statuary groups depicting a child and a goose96. Although any relevant feature of the iconography of Harpokrates is explicitly introduced in these groups, the fact is that an important corpus of Hellenistic depictions of the god Harpokrates includes the riding of a goose. In the Egyptian tradition the goose was the symbol of the god Geb (the primordial god of the earth) and it is with this reading that it appears together with Isis97. However, the goose also stood for the god Amun and, in this context, it evoked the creation of the world, which started with its gaggle. It is certainly this later reading that is illustrated in the group statues: the child (probably stands as symbol for the solar rebirth of Sarapis) «strangles» the bird in order to make it gaggle, thus making the world to become. Thus, it is a strong possibility that the anecdotic gesture depicted in the statue hides a religious «mystery». Those examples illustrate the impact that the Alexandrian Serapeum must have had in the creation of erudite and subtle play of symbols, thus showcasing the wide diffusion of its religious paradigm in the Alexandrian cultural circles. Not to be overlooked is the diffusion of such knowledge among the Greek philosophical schools of the Serapeum. More than a philosophical school – a concept that would have been strange to the Egyptian tradition – Hermetic «paradigm» acted as a multicultural, thus «universal», corpus of erudite knowledge. As such it certainly had a profound impact on neoplatonists, especially on Porfirius and Jamblicus, but also on the emerging religious communities, such as the gnostic sects or even the Coptic monachism. It was probably the universalism of its wisdom tradition that made the cult of Sarapis the common denominator for the Alexandrian complex and rather heterogeneous religious scene. Such striking ability was seen, even for an erudite Roman as the Emperor Hadrian – also akin of the Sarapis’s mysteries – as an evidence for the decadence of Alexandrian culture: 96 See the article of Luísa da Nazaré Ferreira, supra in this volume. Such Hellenistic depictions derive from the Egyptian depictions of Nut and Geb in cosmetic spoons. See WALKER, HIGGS, 2001: 106-107. 97 255 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor. There those who worship Sarapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Sarapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Sarapis, by others to worship Christ98. The priests of Sarapis were thus seen as keepers of a sacred knowledge that was probably regarded by the multicultural population of Alexandria as a «universal» tradition. ALCHEMY AS MYSTIC CRYPTOGRAPHY As any other Egyptian temple, it is also likely that the Serapeum could have held a «cryptographic» tradition that revolved around magical books and cult initiation. Clement of Alexandria reckons, at the beginning of the 3rd century, 36 books of Hermes carried in an Egyptian cult procession – priceless information that shows that these «philosophical» texts were used in the context of a cult99. Therefore it is nothing but natural that also the Serapeum possessed a collection of such sacred books, at the image of the autochthonous temples themselves who kept them in sacred libraries. Indeed we know for a fact the Hermetica also present «technical» texts, most of them concerned with astrological and magical procedures aiming to achieve practical results – such as healing from diseases100. In order to understand the development of this kind of texts, we have to keep in mind the reputation of the Serapeum as a healing complex where incubation took place. The mandatory reference in Alexandrian alchemy is Zosimus of Panopolis (Akhmim), the first renowned alchemist, who lived in the late 3rd and the early 4th century A.D.101. Like the hermetic tractates, the texts attributed to Zosimus of Panopolis reflect the multicultural environment of Alexandria and he himself revealed a multifaceted identity: he was a Gnostic Christian but nevertheless revealed a natural affinity with the hermetic, Zoroastrianism and Mithraism doctrines. His texts reveal that he revered alongside with Hermes Trismegistus, Zoroaster, Agathodaemon, and the Persian Ostanes. 98 Historia Augusta 8. These books included divine hymns and royal biographies, astrological tractates, education and cult practices, laws, gods and the training of priests. See EBELING, 2007: 9. 100 Deriving from temple practices and rituals, these technical Hermetica became, in medieval and modern times, the very core of alchemy and for this reason they can be properly seen as the ancestors of the modern alchemic texts. 101 Other Egyptian sages were active, such as Petasius, Phimenas and Pebechius. One of the latest was Stephanus of Alexandria who lectured on alchemy in the 7th century. HORNUNG, 2001: 34. It is interesting to note that, unlike the Hermetic texts, who are attributed to a mythic author, the alchemic works are attributed to historical sages. 99 256 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION Not surprisingly, although deriving from ancient temple practices, «technical» Hermetica reveal a strong affinity with the experimental spirit of the Alexandrian Museum. Alchemy involved complex technical and laboratory procedures seeking to achieve manipulation of the properties of matter. Alchemists look for the specific effect that planets had in the occurrence of certain diseases, aiming, on the other hand, to detect the most suitable treatments to restore the «cosmic» balance of the body, taken as a replica of the Universe. The correspondences between the planets and the plants provided the bases for the supposed therapeutic effects of the latter102. Minerals and metals were also associated with the decans, creating a bridge between astrology, alchemy and medicine103. In Hermeticism, these Egyptian notions were combined with the Greek idea of heimarmene, «fate», or ananke, «destiny»104. This pharmacology combined astrology with ‘botanical’ and mineral knowledge, which could only have been possible in the context of the Alexandrian Museum. As the nature of the universe and human nature had a strong affinity with each other, the alchemist longed for accomplishing the transmutation of the four elements in order to produce a fifth element, that of the aether or spirit, which held in itself the secret of life. In modern times, this work was symbolized in the production of the Philosophical Stone, or Lapis, the quintessence that resulted from the harmonious union between the elements of matter and spirit105. There is debate over the extent to which the theory of the four elements did exist in ancient Egypt106. Although reference to physical elements, such as air, light or water, can figure in the funerary texts, only seldom are they quoted together. In fact only one of such attestations is known to us: Words spoken by Osiris, the foremost of the Amentit, the great god: offerings are given to him in Abidos. He gives light (fire), bread, breeze and water to the Osiris Mistress of the House, songstress of Amun-Re, Shedsutauepet107. Although remarkable, this allusion can hardly be taken as an evidence for an Egyptian theory of the four elements. While most of the Egyptian sources do not give us a clear indication in this respect, Greek sources are, on the contrary, quite prolific. Greek influence in the adoption of the four elements seems more likely. The oldest known alchemical texts already reveal the concern to synthesize quicksilver and precious metals. Although rooted in the Hermetic tradition, alchemic works are not 102 EBELING, 2007: 22. HORNUNG, 2001: 30. 104 HORNUNG, 2001: 30. 105 SIMON, 2004: 169. 106 HORNUNG, 2001: 40. 107 Inscription 1 (lid), coffin of Shedsutauepet (A.110) in the Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa. 103 257 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity philosophical discourses and they seem strongly akin to the Greek context of Alexandria. The standard alchemic work, Physica kai Mystika of Pseudo-Democritus, offers instructions on the imitation or preparation of precious metals from base ones. Gold or the Philosopher’s Stone is to be prepared from lead: success will be achieved through a process by which the metal turns successively black, white, yellow and red108. It is important to state that such «laboratorial» activities were also performed in autochthonous temples of Greco-Roman Egypt109. Far from the Hellenized Alexandrian alchemists, a sacred «laboratory» is found in the Ptolemaic temple of Edfu. Its texts, carved under Ptolemy VI, include a number of formulas for preparing incense and ointment for the divine statues. Various mixtures were to be heated and reheated at two-days intervals: when it is hot, add 2 kite (1 kite = 9 g) of each of all kinds of precious stones, namely, of gold, silver, genuine lapis-lazuli, genuine red jasper, genuine green feldspar, turquoise, genuine faïence, and genuine carnelian, crumbling each of these especially fine 110. Also in the Greco-Roman temple of Hathor at Dendera, a special chamber, the «House of Gold», was designed for the preparation of sacred substances used in worship. The texts mention Thoth as the divine «alchemist» responsible for these activities. The goddess Hathor says: «Receive these costly materials of the mountains to carry out every work in the House of Gold»111. Alexandrian alchemists and Egyptian priests of Greco-Roman Egypt were seemingly working under a similar inspiration. In fact, long before Greco-Roman times, we know for a fact that the use of gold and other precious materials in Egypt performed magical purposes, especially in the funerary context. The «House of Gold», the royal funerary chamber, does not necessarily indicates that such room was filled with gold but rather that a magical phenomenon was supposed to occur: the identification of the Sun (materialized in gold) and the Pharaoh that attested his transformation in an immortal being112. The same reading of the magical purpose of gold can be detected in alchemy113. The equation between the creation of gold and the inner transformation is already attested in Pharaonic Egypt. For the Egyptians, minerals were living entities. Lapis-lazuli «grows» like a plant 114 and gold «emerged» (besi) from the Nun, in the depths of the earth. 108 EBELING, 2007: 25. EBELING, 2007: 17. Also HORNUNG, 2001: 35. 110 HORNUNG, 2001: 37. 111 (Dendara VIII 132, 3-8), in HORNUNG, 2001: 37. 112 AUFRÉRE, 1991: 376-390. 113 AUFRÉRE, 1991: 362-366. 114 Pyramid Texts, § 513. 109 258 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION The same verb, besi («to emerge» or «to introduce»), had an important religious meaning as well, since, in Pharaonic times, it stood for the initiation of the king (or priest) in the divine realm. Through initiation, the Pharaoh was transformed into a divine being, thus achieving immortality. This event was clearly equated with the almost miraculous emergence of gold from the darkness of the earth115. Not surprisingly, this phenomenon was particularly meaningful for the Memphite tradition, where the priests of Ptah presided over the work of goldsmiths, surely involving the technical process of their work within a symbolic framework116. It is already clear to the reader that, at least in its later use, the ‘laboratorial’ alchemical language consisted in a ciphered allegory for an inner or «mystical» transformation. In the context of alchemy, mystical experiences are allegorically translated into chemical language to cover a Gnostic redemptive path117. It should be noted that the use of allegory is by no means stranger to the spirit of Alexandrian culture118. In many ways, the allegorical interpretation provided a semantic «translation» of the texts and revealed, through the philosophical approach, the true hidden meaning of the text. The distinction between a literal sense of reality and a deeper, hidden meaning, which can be accessed through its allegorical interpretation, is a distinctive feature of Alexandrian culture and it can be seen as the intellectual ground of its multiculturalism. The alchemical metaphors used a similar process. Allegorical language is composed of images borrowed from laboratory techniques in order to keep the secrecy of their message untouched. In this respect the discourse of alchemy clearly betrays its Egyptian background and takes further on the same cryptographic process that was being developed in the autochthonous temples. The allegorical interpretation of alchemy aims to conceal its message rather than to reveal it, thus showcasing the same desire of self-segregation detected in cryptographic and cultic texts. While trying to unravel the secrets of nature (pretty usual attitude for the scholars of the Museum), alchemist aimed to preserve its sacredness by keeping them secret. It is precisely in this pursuit for secrecy that alchemy reveals its Egyptian roots which always have been eminently esoteric119. 115 SOUSA, 2009: 32; See also KRUCHTEN, 1989: 150. AUFRÉRE, 1991: 362-366. 117 HORNUNG, 2001: 40. 118 The translation of the religious texts from other traditions did not occur only for the sake for knowledge from the part of the Greek sages. It served practical purposes, especially to the ethnic community which they belonged to: the translation of the biblical texts has to be related with the illiteracy of the Alexandrian Jews on Hebrew as well. However, this «translation» process evolved into a deeper level, when an allegorical interpretation took place over these translated texts, as if the Greek translation would be regarded as insufficient to reach the true meaning of the texts. 119 In order to preserve its sacredness the text must conceal it following a distinctive feature of the Egyptian sacred texts. LOPRIENO, 2001: 30-32. 116 259 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity The need for secrecy around the alchemical opus is better understood when we attend to the equivalence established between alchemic transformation and the myth of Osiris. In fact, Zosimus of Panopolis explicitly refers to the alchemical process as an «Osirification»120. The alchemical process thus appears to be grounded in the mythic archetype of death and resurrection of Osiris: the corpse of the king, Osiris, undergoes a decaying process (the nigredo) and engenders his heir, Horus, in whom he will live again. Mummification was the inspiration for the alchemic quest121: death triggered the decomposition process, the nigredo, but sage manipulations of the corpse through chemical operations culminated in spiritual rebirth. When seen in this light, the alchemic opus should be concluded with a ceremony somehow equivalent to the Egyptian Opening-ofthe-mouth funerary ritual, which allowed for the rebirth of the deceased122. During this ritual, a heart scarab is often positioned over the mummy to symbolize the awakening of the deceased and his rebirth123. Although in Greco-Roman Egypt such objects were largely in disuse in mummification, as many other aspects of the Egyptian funerary beliefs, their symbolism might have been transferred to the earthly life124. It is therefore a possibility that their symbolism was now seen at the light of the inner transformation that occurred in the heart of the alchemist, the true Lapis, as the concluding result of the opus125. The modern quest for the Philosophal Stone, the «stone that is not a stone, a precious substance of no value in many ways and report, known and familiar to all»126, should then be seen as a later reminiscence of the Egyptian heart scarab, understood as metaphor for the awakening and illumination of the heart, i.e., the divine mind127. This gnostic «osirification» should lead the alchymist to a spiritual rebirth, leading him to see god and to unveil the ultimate nature of things. Although the laboratorial quest may seem conspicuously absent, a similar process of transformation was expected to occur during the initiation to the cults of Isis and Sarapis described in Apuleius’ Asinus Aureus. As the alchemic initiates, Lucius witnesses a change not only of his body, but also of his mind 120 HORNUNG, 2001: 39. Crypts dedicated to Osiris reflect the mortuary aspect of the late Egyptian temples. FINNESTAD, 1997: 214. Such «Osirian» reading of the alchemical process is therefore based on identification between the laboratorial processes of alchemy and the mummification ritual. See ASSMANN, 2002: 409-411. 122 Such ritual is described in the Book of Thoth where the neophyte is the object of a ritual similar to the Opening-of-themouth. See JASNOW, ZAUZICH, 2005: 59. 123 One should here recall the important Egyptian symbols for the heart: the heart amulet and the heart scarab. See SOUSA, 2011a: 37-44. 124 Indeed in Ptolemaic times, the heart amulet was mainly used as a symbol of the divine children and was often depicted in Egyptian temples built during this period. See SOUSA, 2010: 81-91. 125 For the pharaonic symbolism of the cardiac amulets see SOUSA, 2011a: 37-45. 126 SIMON, 2004: 154. 127 Such change of interpretation can be witnessed in the Egyptian iconography of the heart amulet as well, since in the Ptolemaic Period, the heart amulet is no longer used in the funerary contexts, but in close association with the cult of Horpakhered, thus as symbol of enlightment. SOUSA, 2010:81-91. See also SOUSA 2011a:10, 48-49. 121 260 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION and life as opposed to the traditional hero of the Hellenistic novels who, at the end of many vicissitudes, has not changed128. One could expect that the initiation to the Alexandrian cult of Sarapis could involve a longer and much more demanding period of learning, where alchemic knowledge would take a very important part of the priestly training, as it happened in the contemporary autochthonous temples. Although following a model of priestly initiation well known in the Pharaonic tradition, the «mystery» cults of Isis and Sarapis developed in Alexandria obviously present associations with the Eleusian mysteries as well. As we have seen, particularly in the context of the Alexandrian Serapeum, the Eleusian mysteries and the Osirian myth were the object of close association. Hellenized cults of Isis and Sarapis were adopted by and necessarily adapted to the urban culture of the Roman Empire. Such version of inner regeneration transcended completely the borders of Egypt and spread out through the Roman Empire propelled by the diffusion of the cults of Sarapis and Isis as far as the shores of the Atlantic. Perhaps Panóias, Vila Real, Portugal, the Roman complex dedicated to Sarapis, witnessed similar rituals but it would be difficult to expect in such remote sanctuary the same degree of complexity that could have been found in the Serapeum of Alexandria. And yet, together with a striking symbiosis with local Neolitic traditions, it displays – however simplified they might have been – the key-features of a Serapeum. CONCLUSION All sectors of Egyptian sociocultural life underwent change during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods: economy, government, demography, religion. Granted, the social and cultural contexts had always been changing, and the temples had continually adapted. Political and historical studies on this period stress the openness of the cultural and sociological milieu of Ptolemaic Period as opposed to the increasing tensions emerging in Egyptian society during Roman domination, most of them related to the definition of citizenship. Cultural identity is a much broader concept, involving social practices and cultural beliefsystems. Adopting Egyptian beliefs does not mean do became Egyptian, and most certainly many of the new settlers that adopted mummification as burial practice did not hesitate to define themselves as Greek or Roman citizens. The same probably could be said of the Egyptian priests that wrote their texts in Greek. The religious scene during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods was diverse and complex. Egyptian tradition existed side by side with non-Egyptian traditions, or mingled with them to produce new gods, new cults, and new cultic communities, especially in Memphis 128 FILORAMO, 1999: 148. 261 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity and in the cities newly founded such as Alexandria, Antinoopolis and others. Important Ptolemaic and Roman temples existed in all major towns dedicated to foreign deities – Jewish religion had been practiced in Egypt since the 6th century B.C. and in the Roman Period many Christian churches were established. The patterns of interaction and relationship between the various cults are difficult to grasp129. Starting as a political «tool» used by the Ptolemaic rulers, Hellenization of the Egyptian cults aimed at the integration of the multicultural society and had important consequences both in the affirmation of the universal character of the dynasty and in the diffusion of the autochthonous beliefs, particularly those related to the afterlife, into a wider multicultural audience. Religious and literary sources suggest that the limits that once distinguished Egyptian cultural tradition from the Greco-Roman thought became more and more blurred up to the point that the classification of a particular text or artifact as «Egyptian» or «Greek» can be a difficult if not impossible task130. At first, the Hellenization of the Egyptian tradition involved the adoption of Greek language and iconography but it progressed into more subtle and deeper ways by the adoption of the Greek language and the philosophical methods for the very expression of the Egyptian theology and wisdom. The effectiveness of such process could only have been possible thanks to the increasing «demotization» of the Egyptian culture in the Greco-Roman Period: in fact Pharaonic legacy was already under «translation» into Demotic language when the Macedonians installed themselves in Egypt. This phenomenon, detectable in the local intellectual centers, particularly in the temple of Ptah in Memphis, launched the bases for the Hellenization of the Egyptian tradition in the context of the newly founded city of Alexandria. Attending to the high degree of the cultic and magical knowledge revealed in hermetic texts and iconography, it does not seem excessive to admit that they should be attributed to a multicultural community composed of Hellenized Egyptian priests and Greek scholars as well who were carrying out much more than just a process of translation of texts. They were expressing the contents of the Egyptian theological thought, not only in Greek language or images, but also recurring to Greek philosophical concepts, myths and methods. During this process, the Egyptian background might seem to be lost in translation. Nevertheless, Hermetic texts must be properly seen as the result of an autochthonous and multicultural tradition born from the demotic background of the local Egyptian temples and fully matured in Alexandria: demotic in content, Greek in language and discourse, Hermeticism longed for universalism, thus in perfect alignment with the multicultural trend of ancient Alexandria. Adopting elements and images from other (familiar) traditions, such as the Persian or the Jewish, it not only mirrored the richness of the cultural influx that charac129 130 FINNESTAD, 1997: 234. See the article of Kyriakos Savvopoulus, supra in this volume. 262 «LOST IN TRANSLATION»: THE HELLENIZATION OF THE EGYPTIAN TRADITION terized Ptolemaic Egypt as it fully expressed its own search for universalism131. Possibly for this reason, it seems that interaction with the Egyptian demotic tradition of the local temples and necropoleis has originated a constant influx in both directions with hermetic features being also integrated in demotic texts. Once established, Hermeticism do seems to have truly played the role of a paradigm for local autochthonous cult centers as well, thus irradiating the new multicultural corpus of texts and knowledge to all over Egypt. Notwithstanding differentiations among the various categories of Egyptian priests, they acted in many respects as a socioreligious group and they met regularly in synods132, which could make easy the diffusion of such ideas and texts. Once formulated in Greek or demotic, the ideas of the Hermetic «paradigm» revealed to be perfectly compatible both with the Alexandrian cults and with the traditional Egyptian cults as well. One could say that Hermeticism could have been seen in Antiquity as a corpus of concepts working as a «paradigm», a bulk of erudite knowledge that was able to inspire the intellectual activity of Greek Alexandrian philosophers, Hellenized priests of the Alexandrian temples and Egyptian priests of the autochthonous temples. This multicultural «paradigm» combined elements from all the ancient traditions and originated a great diversity of textual and iconographical expressions – from philosophical discourses to tomb decoration. In this scenario, the Alexandrian Serapeum emerges as the cradle of this new multicultural tradition. With its roots grounded on the Egyptian wisdom, the sages of the Library-Daughter expressed this new tradition in Greek or demotic philosophical discourses. In spite of the Hellenistic features of its gods, the cult performed at the Serapeum involved a ritual initiation grounded on a multicultural worldview, the hermetic «paradigm», which preserved quite remarkably its Egyptian background and was encoded on alchemic procedures aiming at the awakening of the neophyte. In spite of and perhaps because of that, the tradition forged in the Alexandrian Serapeum would be in use by a wide multicultural population and would reach territories far beyond the borders of Egypt itself, eventually leading to the diffusion of these cults through the entire area of the Mediterranean. The difussion of the Alexandrian cults thus involved a complex set of notions related to temple architecture, ritual initiation and knowledge – the latter provided by philosophical texts (such as those later collected in the Corpus Hermeticum) while ritual initiation would be attained through training on magical procedures (encoded in alchemical and magical texts). Although clearly grounded on a genuine Egyptian conceptual framework, hermetic paradigm must be seen as the result of the cultural elite, which, regardless of their ethnic or 131 EBELING, 2007: 30. During a long period under the Ptolemies, they were expected to meet in annual conventions to discuss with representatives of the state matters pertaining to politics and cultus. FINNESTAD, 1997: 228. 132 263 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity cultural origin, and even their priestly or profane duties, could look into Hermeticism as a source for knowledge and wisdom. It is difficult to know how aware ancient writers, whether Greek or Egyptian, were in regard to the definition of Hermeticism as a philosophical tradition on its own. Such definition would be superfluous, at least to the Egyptian sages. Perhaps it is this typically open Egyptian attitude towards knowledge that explains the huge success of Hermeticism in the Hellenistic world and the adoption of its elements by different philosophical schools and even by different (and antagonist) religious sects. Identity in Greco-Roman Egypt and particularly in Alexandria is a multicultural phenomenon. The «bilingual» culture of the Ptolemaic Period evolved more and more progressively into the constitution of a global cultural paradigm, Greek in expression, but multicultural in content. The Alexandrian Serapeum fully expressed this bilingual civilization both through its cult and its culture. Much research is still needed in order to have a clearer picture on the interaction of the Egyptian autochthonous culture with the Greco-Roman thought. The fact is, even after the complete destruction of the Alexandrian Serapeum, its legacy has been able to survive. Both Alchemy and Hermeticism would reveal themselves as two long last traditions that would mock the frontiers of space and time: they would be able not only to widespread their influence long beyond the borders of Egypt as they would have an important role to play in the «awakening» of knowledge both in the medieval Islamic world and in modern Europe. 264 BIBLIOGRAPHY alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity ADLER, L.; LÉCOSSE, E. (2010) — Dangerous Women. The Perils of Muses and Femmes Fatales. Paris: Flammarion. ADRIANI, A. (1936) — La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha. «Annuaire du Musée Gréco-Romain (1933/341934/35)». Alexandria: Musée Gréco-Romain. ADRIANI, A. (1938) — Sculture del Museo Greco-Romano di Alessandria. V. Contributi all’iconografia dei Tolemei. «Bulletin de la Sociéte Archéologique d’Alexandrie». Alexandrie: Société de Publications Égyptiennes, vol. 32, p. 77-111. ADRIANI, A. (1948) — Testimonianze e Monumenti di Scultura Alessandrina. «Documenti e Ricerche d’Arte Alessandrina». Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, vol. II. ADRIANI, A. (1952) — Necropoles de L’ile de Pharos. I. Section de Ras el Tine. «Annuaire du Musée GrécoRomain». Alexandria: Musée Gréco-Romain, vol. 4, p. 48-54. ADRIANI, A. (1966) — Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano. Palermo: Fondazione Ignazio Mormino del Banco di Sicilia, Serie C, vol. I-II. ADRIANI, A. (1972) — Lezioni sull’Arte Alessandrina. Napoli: Libreria Scientifica Editrice. ALEXANDRE JUNIOR, M. (1999) — Rhetorical Argumentation in Philo of Alexandria. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ALEXANDRE, M. (1967) — Les Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. In MONDESERT et al., eds. — Les Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie: de congressu eruditionis gratia. Introd., trad. et notes par Monique Alexandre. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, vol. 16. ALLEN, J. P. (2000) — Middle Egyptian. An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ALVAR, J. (2008) — Romanising Oriental Gods. Myth, Salvation and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis and Mithras. Leiden, Boston: Brill. (Col. «Religions in the Graeco-Roman World», H. S. Versnel, D. Frankfurter, J. Hahn, eds., volume 165). ALVAR, J. (2008) — En los límites de la Ekúmene: viajes, exploraciones y periplos en el apogeo de Alejandría. In RUBIO TOVAR, J.; VALLEJO GIRVÉS, M.; JAVIER GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN, F., eds. — Viajes y visiones del mundo. «Mediterranea», 14. Madrid-Málaga: Ediciones Clásicas-Canales 7, p. 96-97. ANDERSON, G. (1993) — The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire. London & New York: Routledge. ANDRE, J.-M.; BASLEZ, M.-F. (1993) — Voyager dans l’Antiquité. Paris: Fayard. ANDREU, G.; RUTSCHOWS-CAYA, M.-H.; ZIEGLER, C. (1997) — Ancient Egypt at the Louvre. Paris: Hachette. ANDRONIKOS, M. (1978) — The Royal Caves at Vergina. Athens. ARAÚJO, L. (2001) — Onomástica real. In ARAÚJO, L., dir. — Dicionário do Antigo Egipto. Lisboa: Editorial Caminho, p. 642-649. ARAÚJO, L. (2003) — O túmulo de Petosíris: expressão da confluência cultural greco-egípcia. In VENTURA, A., org. — Presença de Victor Jabouille. Lisboa: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, p. 313-344. ARAÚJO, L. (2010) — A Coleção Egípcia do Museu de História Natural da Universidade do Porto. Porto: Fundação da Universidade do Porto. ARAÚJO, L. (2011) — Os Grandes Faraós do Antigo Egito. Lisboa: A Esfera dos Livros. ARGOUD, G. (1998) —Science et Ingénieurs Alexandrins. In EMPEREUR, J.-Y. et al., eds. — La Gloire d’Alexandrie. Paris: L’Oeil, Hors Série, p. 118- 133. ARNALDEZ, M. R. (1961) — Introduction Generale. In Les oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, vol. I. ARNALDEZ, M. R. (1967) — Brève Introduction au Colloque. In Philon d’Alexandrie: Lyon 1-15 Septembre 1966. Paris: Éditions do Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. ARNOLD, D. (1999) — Temples of the Last Pharaohs. New York: Oxford University Press. 372 BIBLIOgraphy ARNOTT, W. G. (2000) — Hero(n)das. «The Classical Review». Cambridge: Classical Association, vol. 50, issue 1, p. 16-18. ARROYO DE LA FUENTE, M. A. (2002) — El culto isíaco en el imperio romano. Cultos diarios y rituales iniciáticos: iconografía y significado. «Boletín de la Asociación Española de Egiptología». Madrid: Asociación Española de Egiptología, vol. 12, p. 207-232. ASHOUR, S. (2007) — Representations of Male Officials and Craftsmen in Egypt during Ptolemaic and Roman Ages: A Study in Plastic Arts. Alexandria: Alexandria University. Ph. D. Dissertation. ASHTON, S.-A. (2001a) — Identifying the Egyptian-style Ptolemaic Queens. In WALKER, S.; HIGGS, P., eds. — Cleopatra of Egypt: from History to Myth. London: British Museum Press. ASHTON, S.-A. (2001b) — Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt: The Interaction between Greek and Egyptian Traditions. BAR International Series 923. Oxford: Archaeopress. ASHTON, S.-A. (2003) — Faïence and the Ptolemaic Royal Cult: Further Fragments and Thoughts. In BONACASA, N.; DONADONI R., A; AIOSA S.; MINÀ, P., eds. — Faraoni come dei. Tolemei come Faraoni: Atti del V Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano. Torino, Palermo. ASHTON, S.-A. (2004) — The Egyptian Tradition. In HIRST, A.; SILK, M., eds. — Alexandria Real and Imagined. Aldershot: Ashgate, p. 15-40. ASHTON, S.-A. (2006) — Ptolemaic Alexandria and the Egyptian Tradition. In HIRST, A.; SILK, M., eds. — Alexandria, Real and Imagined. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, p. 15-40. ASHTON, S-A. (2005) — Roman Egyptomania. London: Golden House Publications. ASSMANN, J. (2001) — The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press ASSMANN, J. (2002) — The Mind of Egypt: History and meaning in the time of the Phraohs. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press. ATHANASSIADI, P., ed. (1999) — Damascius, the Philosophical History. Athens: Apamea Cultural Association. AUFRÉRE, S. (1991) — L Univers Minéral dans la Pensée Égyptienne. Cairo: Institut Français d Archaeologie Oriental, 2 vols. AWAL, (1966) – «Apollonius» Argonautica: Jason as anti-hero. Yale Classical Studies 20, p. 111-169. BAGNALL, R. S. (1976) — The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt. Leiden; E. J. Brill. BAGNALL, R. S. (1988) — «Greeks and Egyptians: Ethnicity, Status, and Culture». In FAZZINI, R.; BIANCHI, R., eds. — Cleopatra’s Egypt. Age of the Ptolemies. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, p. 21-27. BAGNALL, R. S. (1996) — Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.BAGNALL, R. S. (2003) — Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. BAGNALL, R.; RATHBONE, D. (2008) — Egypt: From Alexander to the Copts – An Archaeological and Historical Guide. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. BAKHOUM, S. (1995) — Les edifices Alexandrins d apres les documents monetaires. «Les Dossiers d Archeologie». Dijon: Éditions Faton, 201, p. 62-65. BARNES, T. (1993) – Theology and politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University press. BASTET, F. L. (1962) — Untersuchungen zur Datierung und Bedeutungen der Tazza Farnese. «Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot Bevordering der Kennis van de Antike Beschaving». Leuvein, vol. 37, p. 1-24. BEARD, M.; HENDERSON, J. (2001) — Classical Art: From Greece to Rome. Oxford: University Press. BEAUMONT, L. (2003) — The Changing Face of Childhood. In NEILS, J.; OAKLEY, J. H., org. — Coming of Age in Ancient Greece. Images of Childhood from the Classical Past. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, p. 58-83. BEAZLEY, J. D.; ASHMOLE, B. (1966) — Greek Sculpture and Painting to the End of the Hellenistic Period. Cambridge: University Press. BERGMANN, B. (1995) — Greek Masterpieces and Roman Recreative Fictions. «Harvard Studies in Classical Philology». Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, vol. 97, p. 79-120, esp. 98-102. 373 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity BERGMANN, M. (2010) — Sarapis im 3. Jahrhundert v.Chr. In WEBER, G. — Alexandreia und das ptolemäische Ägypten. Kulturbegegnunen in hellenistischer Zeit. Berlin: Verlag Antike, S. 109-131. BERNAND, A. (1996) — Alexandrie la Grande. Paris: Hachette. BERNAND, A. (1998) — Histoire: Période Ptolémaïque. In LECLANT, J., ed. — Dictionnaire de l’Égypte ancienne. Paris: Encyclopaedia Universalis / Albin Michel, p. 179-204. BERNAND, E. (2001) — Inscriptions grecques d’Alexandrie ptolemaique. Le Caire: Institut Francais d’Archeologie Orientale. BEVAN, E. (1968) — The House of Ptolemy. History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Chicago: Argonaut. BEYE, R. (1982) — Epic and Romance in the Argonautica of Apollonius. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. BIANCHI, R. S. (1988) — The Pharaonic art of Ptolemaic Egypt. In BIANCHI, R. S.; FAZZINI, R., eds. — Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies. New York: Brooklyn Museum, p. 55-80. BIANCHI, R. S; FAZZINI, R., eds. (1988) — Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum. BIEBER, M. (1961) — The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. New York: Columbia University Press. BIETAK, M. (2010) — From where came the Hyksos and where did they go? In MAHÉ, M., ed. — The Second Intermediate Period (Thirtheenth-Seventheenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Leuven, Paris, Walpole: Uitgeverij Peeters and Departement Oosterse Studies, 192, p. 139-181. BIETAK, M. (2011) — The Aftermath of the Hyksos in Avaris. In SELA-SHEFFY, RAKEFET, TOURY, eds. — Culture Contacts and the Making of Cultures: Papers in Homage to Itamar Even-Zohar. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University – Unit of Culture Research, p. 19-65. BILLINGHURST, J. (2004) — Temptress: from the original Bad Girls to Women on Top. Vancouver: Greystone Books BING, P. (1998) — La culture littéraire d’Alexandrie au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. In EMPEREUR, J.-Y. et al., eds. — La Gloire d’Alexandrie. Paris: L’Oeil, Hors Série, p. 133-135. BING, P.; UHRMEISTER, V. (1994) — The Unity of Callimachus’ Hymn to Artemis. «Journal of Hellenic Studies». London: Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. vol. 114, p.19-34. BINGEN, J. (2007) — Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. BLANCHE-BROWN, R. (1957) — Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics and the Alexandrian Style. Cambridge, Massachusets: Archaeological Institute of America. («Monographs on Archaeology and Fine Arts», 6). BLOEDOW, E. F. (2004) — Egypt in Alexander’s Scheme of Things. «Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica». Urbino: Universitá di Urbino, vol. 77/2, p. 75-99. BLOOR, K. (2010) — The Definitive Guide to Political Ideologies. Milton Keynes: AuthorHouse. BOMHARD, A.-S. (1999) — Le Calendrier Égyptien: Une œuvre d’éternité. London: Periplus Publishing London Ltd. BONACASA, N. (1960) — Segnalazioni Alessandrine II: Sculture minori del Museo Greco-Romano di Alessandria. «Archeologia Classica». Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, vol. XII, p. 170, tv. L-LX. BONACASA, N. (1995) — Alessandria capitale del’Egitto dei Tolemei. In DI VITA A.; ALFANO, C., eds. — Alessandro Magno: Storia e Mito. Milano: Leonardo Arte, p. 67-79. BONNER, C. (1946) — Harpokrates (Zeus Kasios) of Pelusium. «Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens». Athens: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. 15, nr. 1 (JanMar), p. 51-59. BONNET, C. (1987) — Thyphon et Baal Saphon. Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the first millennium B.C. «Studia Phoenicia V., Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta», vol. 22. Leuven: Peeters Publishers. 374 BIBLIOgraphy BORCHHARDT, L. (1930) — Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten in Museum von Kairo. 2. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo. BORCHHARDT, L. (1937) — Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und privatleuten im Museum von Kairo, CGC 1294 I-III. Berlin. BOTHMER, B. V. et al. (1960) — Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period 700 B.C. to A.D. 100. New York: The Brooklyn Museum. BOTTI, G. (1897) — Fouilles à la colonne Théodosienne (1896). Mémoire présenté à la Société Archéologique. Alexandria. BOTTI, G. (1899) — L’Apis de l’empereur Adrien Trouvé dans le Sérapeum d’Alexandrie. «Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie». Alexandrie, vol. 2, p. 27-36. BOTTI, G. (1902) — Premiere visite à la nécropole d’Anfuchy a Alexandrie. «Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie». Alexandrie: Société de Publications Égyptiénnes, vol. 4, p. 13-15. BOUCHÉ-LECLERCQ, A. (2003) — Histoire de la Divination dans l’Antiquité. Divination Hellénique et Divination Italique. Grenoble: Éditions Jérôme Millon. (Collection «Horos»). BOULANGER, A. (1923) — Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d’Asie au IIe siècle de notre Ére. Paris: E. de Boccard. BOWERSOCK, G. W. (1969) — Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press. BOWMAN, A. K. (1996) — Egypt after the Pharaohs. 332 B.C.-AD 642: from Alexander to the Arab Conquest. Berkeley: University of California Press. BOYER, C. B. (1991) — A History of Mathematics. New York: Wiley. BRADY, T. A. (1978) — Sarapis and Isis. Collected Essays. Chicago: Ares. BREASTED, J. S. (1905) — Ancient Records of Egypt. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, vol II. BRECCIA, E. (1914) — Alexandrea ad Aegyptum: Guide de la ville ancienne et moderne et du musée graecoromain. Bergamo: Officine dell’Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche. BRECCIA, E. (1922) — Alexandrea ad Aegyptum: A Guide to Ancient and Modern Town, and to its Graeco-roman Museum. Bergamo: Officine dell’Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche. BRECCIA, E. (1926) — Le rovine e I monumenti di Canoo, Teadelfia e il tempio di Pneferos, Monuments de l’Égypte Greco-romaine I. Bergamo: Officine dell’Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche. BRECCIA, E. (1930) — Terrecotte figurate Greche e Greco-Egizie del Museo di Allessandria. Bergamo: Officine dell’Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche. BRIER, B.; HOBBS, H. (1999) — The Ancient Egyptians. Westport, Connecticut/London: The Greenwood Press. BRIOSO SÁNCHEZ, M. (1998) — Calímaco. In LÓPEZ FÉREZ, J. A., ed. — Historia de la Literatura Griega. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra, p. 795-802. BRIOSO SÁNCHEZ, M. (2003) — Apolonio de Rodas. Las Argonáuticas. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra. BROWN, T. S. (1965) — Herodotus speculates about Egypt. «American Journal of Philology». Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, vol. 86, p. 60-76. BRUNN, H. (1889) — Geschichte der griechischen Künstler. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Ebner & Seubert, 2 vols. BUDGE, E. A. W. (1902) — Books on Egypt and Chaldaea: A History of Egypt under the Saites, Persians, and Ptolemies. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co, vol. VII. BUDGE, E. A. W. (1914) — Egyptian Sculpture in the British Museum. London: British Museum. BULLOCH, A. W (1985) — Callimachus. The Fifth Hymn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BURKERT, W. (1985) — Greek Religion. Translated by John Raffan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, p. 176-177. BURKHALTER, F. (1992) — La Maison Égypte. In JACOB, Christian; POLIGNAC, F., eds. — Alexandrie IIIe siècle av. J.-C. Tous les savoirs du monde ou le rêve d’universalité des Ptolémées. Paris: Éditions Autrement, p. 185-198. 375 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity BURTON, D. (2007) — The History of Mathematics, An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill. BURTON, J. (1995) — Ekphrasis and the Reception of Works of Art. In BURTON, J. B., ed. — Theocritus’s Urban Mimes. Mobility, Gender, and Patronage. Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford: University of California Press, p. 93-122. BUXTON, R., ed. (1999) — From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CAGNAT, R. (1905) — Le Casios et le lac Sirbonis. «Comptes-Rendues des Séances de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres». Paris: Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 49e année, nr. 6, p. 602-611. CAMP, J. M. (2004) — The Archaeology of Athens. New Haven: Yale University Press. CANHÃO, T. F. (2006) — O calendário egípcio: origem, estrutura e sobrevivências. «Cultura, Revista de História e Teoria das Ideias». Lisboa: Centro de História e da Cultura/Universidade Nova de Lisboa, vol. 28, p. 3961. CANHÃO, T. F. (2012) — O Conto do Náufrago (edição bilingue). Lisboa: Centro de História da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa. CARREIRA, J. N. (2011) — Historiografia. In ARAÚJO, L. (dir.) — Dicionário do Antigo Egipto. Lisboa: Editorial Caminho, p. 426-427. CARTER, G. F. (1975) — Egyptian Gold Seekers and Explorations in the Pacific. «The Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications». Danvers: Epigraphic Society, vol. 2, nr. 27 (February), p. 1-10. CASSIN, B. (2000) — Sophists. In BRUNSCHWIG, J.; LLOYD, G. E. R., eds. — Greek Thought: A Guide to Classical Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p. 957-976. CASSON, L. (1994) — Travel in the Ancient World. Baltimore-London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. CASSON, L., ed. (1989) — The Periplus. Princeton: Princeton University Press. CAVARZERE, A.; ALONI, A.; BARCHIESI, A. (2001) — Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire. Oxford: Rowman & Litlefield Publishers. CAVERO, J. B.; MORILLO, S. B.; HERMIDA, J. M. (2007) — Plutarco: Vidas Paralelas. Madrid: Gredos. CHAMOUX, F. (1981) — La Civilisation Hellénistique. Paris: Arthaud. CHARBONNEAUX, J. (1958) — Sur la signification et la date de la Tasse Farnèse. In Monuments et Mémoires Publiées par l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Paris: Fondation Piot, vol. 50, p. 85-103. CHARLES, R. H. (1916) — The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu: Translated from Zotenberg’s Ethiopic Text. Reprinted 2007. Merchantville: Evolution Publishing. CHAUVEAU, M. (1992) — Ptolémée II, le Philadelphe. In JACOB, C.; POLIGNAC, F., eds. — Alexandrie IIIe siècle av. J.-C. Tous les savoirs du monde ou le rêve d’universalité des Ptolémées. Paris: Éditions Autrement, p. 138151. CHAUVEAU, M. (2000) — A vida quotidiana no tempo de Cleópatra (180-30 a.C.). Lisboa: Livros do Brasil. CHAUVIN, C.; CUSSET, C. (2008) — Lycophron. Alexandra. Paris: L’Harmattan. CHOMSKY, N. (1993) — Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. CIAFARDONE, G. (2010) — Retractações Ciceronianas – considerações sobre Cícero e a Adivinhação. Lisboa: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa. Master dissertation. CLARYSSE, W. (1985) — Greeks and Egyptians in Ptolemaic Army and Administration. «Aegyptus». Milan: Università Catolica del Sacro Monte, vol. 65, p. 57-66. CLARYSSE, W. (1992) — Some Greeks in Egypt. In JOHNSON, J. H., ed. — Life in Multicultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, p. 51-56. CLAUSS, J. J. (1993) — The best of the Argonauts. The redifinition of the epic hero in Book I of Apollonius’ Argonautica. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. CLAYTON, P. (2004) — Crónicas dos Faraós. Reis e Dinastias do Antigo Egipto. Lisboa: Editorial Verbo. 376 BIBLIOgraphy CLAYTON, P. A.; PRICE, M. J., eds. (1988) — The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. London: Routledge. CLÉDAT, J. (1909) — Recherches et fouilles au Mont Casios e au lac Sirbonis. «Comptes-Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres». Paris: Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 53e année, nr. 10, p. 764-774. CLÉDAT, J. (1913) — Le Temple de Zeus Kassios à Péluse. «Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte». Caire: IFAO, XIII, p. 79-85. CLÉDAT, J. (1919) — Notes sur l’isthme de Suez [§ I-VII] [avec 1 planche]. «Bulletin de L’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale». Caire: IFAO, 16, p. 201-228. CLÉDAT, J. (1920) — Notes sur l’isthme de Suez [§ VIII-XI] [avec 2 planches]. «Bulletin de L’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale». Caire: IFAO, 17, p. 103-119. CLÉDAT, J. (1921) — Notes sur l’isthme de Suez [§ XII-XV] [avec 1 planches]. «Bulletin de L’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale». Caire: IFAO, 18, p. 167-197. CLÉDAT, J. (1923) — Notes sur l’isthme de Suez [§ XIX] [avec 4 planches]. «Bulletin de L’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale». Caire: IFAO, 22, p. 135-189. CLÉDAT, J. (1923) — Notes sur l’isthme de Suez [§ XVIII]. «Bulletin de L’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale». Caire: IFAO, 21, p. 145-187. CLÉDAT, J. (1923) — Notes sur l’isthme de Suez [§ XVI-XVII] [avec 1 planche]. «Bulletin de L’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale». Caire: IFAO, 21, p. 55-106. COHEN, A.; RUTTER, J. B., eds. (2007) — Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy. «Hesperia», Suppl. 41. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. COOK, A. B. (2010) — Zeus: A study in Ancient Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CORNELLI, G. (2011) — O Pitagorismo como categoria historiográfica. Coimbra: CECH. CORTEGGIANI, J.-P. (1986) — L Égypte des Pharaons au Musée du Caire. Paris: Hachette. CORTEGGIANI, J.-P. (1998) — Les Aegyptiaca de la fouille sous-marine de Qaitbay. «Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie». Paris: Société Française d’Égyptologie, vol. 142, p. 25-40. COUCH, J., ed. and transl. (1847) — Pliny’s Natural History. London: Wernerian Club, vols. 1-37. CUNNINGHAM, I. C. (1966) — Herodas 4. «Classical Quarterly». Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 16, p. 113-125. CUNNINGHAM, I. C. (1971) — Herodas: Mimiambi. Edited with Introduction, Commentary and Appendices. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. CUSSET, C.; PRIOUX, É., eds. (2009) — Lycophron: éclats d’obscurité. Saint-Etienne: Presses Universitaires de Saint-Etienne. DACOS, N.; GIULIANO, A.; PANNUTI, M. (1973) — Il Tesoro Lorenzo il Magnifi o I: Le gemme. Florence: Sansoni. DASZEWSKI, W. A. (1994) — The Origins of Hellenistic Hypogea in Alexandria. In MINAS, M.; ZEIDLER, J., eds. — Aspekte spätägyptischer Kultur: Festschrift für Erich Winter zum 65. Geburtstag. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, p. 51-68. DAVID, A. R. (1999) — Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DE RYNCK, P. (2009) — Understanding Paintings. Bible Stories and Classical Myths in Art. London: Thames & Hudson. DEAKIN, M. (2007) – Hypatia of Alexandria: Mathematician and Martyr. New York: Prometheus Books. DEAKIN, M. (2007) — Hypatia of Alexandria: Mathematician and Martyr. New York: Prometheus Books. DEPEW, M. J. (1989) — Aitia in Callimachus’ Hymns. California: Diss. DEPEW, M. J. (1998) — Aitia and Mimesis in Callimachus’ Hymns. In HARDER, M. A.; REGTUIT, R. F.; WAKKER, G. C., eds. — Callimachus (Hellenistica Groningana). Groningen, p. 57-71. DEPEW, M. J. (2004) — Gender, Power and Poetics in Callimachus’ Book of Hymns. In HARDER, M. A.; REGTUIT, R. F.; WAKKER, G. C., eds. — Callimachus II. Leuven: Peeters, p. 117-138. 377 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity DEPUYDT, L. (1997) — Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt. Leuven: Peeters Publishers & Department of Oriental Studies. DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT, C. (2004) — Le Fabuleux Heritage de l Égypte. Paris: Éditions Télémaque. DIAS, P. B. (2010) — Introductory Notes. In FREIRE, J. — The Latin version of the Apophtegmata Patrum by Pascásio de Dume. Coimbra: Classica Digitalia, CECH, p. XVII-XXIII; XXXI-XXXV. DIGNAS, B. (2007) — A Day in the Life of a Greek Sanctuary. In OGDEN, D., ed. — A Companion to Greek Religion. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, p. 163-177. DIJKSTRA, B. (1988) — Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-Siècle Culture. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. DODSON, A.; IKRAM, S. (2008) — The Tomb in Ancient Egypt. Cairo: Thames & Hudson. DOMMERMUTH-GUDRICH, G. (2004) — Mythes. Les plus célèbres mythes de l’Antiquité. Translation by Christine Monnatte. Paris: Éditions de la Martinière. DÖRIG, Jose (1995) — Lysippe et Alexandrie. In BONACASA, N. et al., eds. — Alessandria e il Mondo Ellenistico-Romano, Centenario del Museo Greco-Romano, Alessandria 1992, Atti del II Congresso Internationale Italo-Egiziano. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, p. 299-304. DROUGOU, S.; SAATSOGLOU-PALIADELI, C. (1999) — Vergina: Wondering through the Archaeological Site. Athens. DUBOIS, P. (2007) — Reading the Writing on the Wall. «Classical Philology». Chicago: University of Chicago Press, vol. 102.1, p. 45-56. DUCAT, J. (1995) — Grecs et Égyptiens dans l’Égypte lagid: hellénisation et résistance à l’hellénisme. In Entre Égypte et Gréce. Actes du colloque du 6-9 octobre 1994. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, p. 68-81. DUGAC, P. (2003) — Histoire de l’Analyse. Paris: Vuibert, p. 8-18. DURRBACH, F. (1922) — Choix d’Inscriptions de Delos 108 (127-116 B.C.). Paris: Éditions Leroux. DWYER, E. J. (1992) — The Temporal Allegory of the Tazza Farnese. «American Journal of Archaeology». Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, vol. 96, p. 255-82. DZIELSKA, M. (1995) — Hypatia of Alexandria. Cambridge-Harvard: Harvard University Press. DZIELSKA, M. (2009) — Hipácia de Alexandria. Lisboa: Relógio d Água. EBELING, F. (2007) — The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus: Hermeticism from Ancient to Modern Times. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. EL-ABBADI, M. (1993) — Geographical Explorations. In DOSHI, S., ed. — India and Egypt, Influences and Interactions. Bombay: Marg Publications, p. 22-37. El-ABBADI, M. (1998) — La Bibliothèque d’Alexandre. In EMPEREUR, J.-Y. et al., eds. — La Gloire d’Alexandrie. Paris: L’Oeil, Hors Série, p. 112. EL-ABBADI, M. (2000) — On the Transmittance of Egyptian Learning into Greek. In HAWASS, Z. & BROCK, L. P., eds. — Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptology. Cairo, New York: American University in Cairo Press, 2nd vol., p. 53-58. El-ABBADI, M. (2002) — The Ancient Library: Intellectual beacon. In HAWASS, Zahi, ed. — Bibliotheca Alexandrina. The Archaeology Museum. Cairo: The Supreme Council of Antiquities, p. 47-49. EL-ATTA, H. A. (1992) — The relation between the Egyptian tombs and the Alexandrian Hypogea. «Études et Travaux». Varsovie: Centre D’Archeologie Mediterraneenne de L’Academie Polonaises des Sciences, vol. 16, p. 11-19. EMPEREUR, J. Y.; NENNA, M. D. (2001) — Necropolis 1. Cairo: IFAO. EMPEREUR, J. Y.; NENNA, M. D. (2003) — Necropolis 2. Cairo: IFAO. EMPEREUR, J.-Y. (1996) — Alexandrie: Égypte. «Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique». Athens: École Française d Athènes, vol. 120, p. 959-70. EMPEREUR, J.-Y. (1998a) — Alexandria Rediscovered. London: British Museum Press. 378 BIBLIOgraphy EMPEREUR, J.-Y. (1998b) — Alexandrie Rédecouverte. Paris: Fayard. EMPEREUR, J.-Y. (2001) — Alexandrie. Hier et demain. Paris: Gallimard. EMPEREUR, J.-Y. et al., eds. (1998) — La Gloire d’Alexandrie. Paris: L’Oeil, Hors Série. ERMAN, A. & RANKE, H. (1976) — La civilisation égyptienne. Paris: Payot. ERRINGTON, M. (2009) — A History of the Hellenistic World 323-30 B.C. London: Blackwell Publishing. ERSKINE, A. (1995) — Culture and power in Ptolemaic Egypt: the Museum and Library of Alexandria. «Greece & Rome». London: The Classical Association, vol. 42, p. 38-48. ERSKINE, A. (2002) — Life after death: Alexandria and the body of Alexander. «Greece & Rome». Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press, vol. 49 (2), p. 163-179. ERSKINE, A., ed. (2003) — A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. ESPOSITO, E. (2010) — Herodas and the Mime. In CLAUSS, J. J.; CUYPERS M., eds. — A Companion to Hellenistic Literature. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, p. 267-281. EVES, H. (1964) — An Introduction to the History of Mathematics. Eastburn: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. EVES, H. (1990) — An introduction to the History of Mathematics. 6th ed. Pacific Grove: Thomson. Brooks/Cole. FAIN, G. L. (2004) — Callimachus’ Hymn to Artemis and the Tradition of Rhapsodic Hymn. «Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies». London: University of London, vol. 47, p. 45-56. FANTHAM, E.; FOLEY, H. P.; KAMPEN, N. B.; SHAPIRO, H. A. (1994) — The Hellenistic Period: Women in a Cosmopolitan World. In FANTHAM, E.; KAMPEN, N.; FOLEY, H., eds. — Women in the Classical World: Image and Text. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 136-182. FANTUZZI, M.; HUNTER, R. (2004) — Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. FELDMAN, L. H.; REINHOLD, M. (1996) — Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans. Primary Readings. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. FENET, A. (2005) — Santuaires marins du Canal d’Otrante. In DENIAUX, E., dir. — Le Canal d’Otrante er la Mediterrenée: Colloque organisé à l’Université de Paris X – Nanterre (20-21 novembre 2000). Bari: Edipuglia srl, p. 39-49. FERREIRA, J. R.; FERREIRA, L. N., eds. (2009) — As Sete Maravilhas do Mundo Antigo: Fontes, fantasias e reconstituições. Lisboa: Edições 70. FERREIRA, L. N. (2009) — Turismo e património na Antiguidade Clássica: o texto atribuído a Fílon de Bizâncio sobre as Sete Maravilhas. In OLIVEIRA, F.; TEIXEIRA, C.; DIAS, P. B., coords. — Espaços e paisagens. Antiguidade Clássica e Heranças Contemporâneas. Línguas e Literaturas. Grécia e Roma. Coimbra: APEC/CECH, vol. 1, p. 73-78. FIALHO, M. C. (2005) — Novas tendências narrativas nas Argonáuticas de Apolónio de Rodes. In OLIVEIRA, F.; FEDELI, P.; LEÃO, D., coords. — O romance antigo. Origens de um género literário. Coimbra-Bari: Instituto de Estudos Clássicos e Dipartimento di Scienze della’Antichità, p. 33-47. FILORAMO, G. (1999) — The Transformation of the Inner Self in Gnostic and Hermetic Texts. In ASSMANN, J.; STROUMSA, G., eds. — Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions. Leiden, Boston, Köhln: Brill. FINNESTAD, R. (1997) — Temples of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods: Ancient traditions in new contexts. In SHAFER, B., ed. — Temples of Ancient Egypt. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, p. 185-238. FITTSCHEN, K. (1983) — Zwei Ptolemäerbildnisse in Cherchel. In BONACASA, N.; DIVITA, A., eds. — Alessandria e il Mondo Ellenistico-Romano. Studi in onore di A. Adriani. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, vol. 4, p. 165-171. FOWLER, B. H. (1989) — The Hellenistic Aesthetic. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. FOWLER, D. H. (1990) — The Mathematics of Plato’s Academy. A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Clarendon Press. FRASER, P. M. (1972) — Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford: Clarendon Press, vol. I-III. FREIRE, F. (1872) — Memória Histórica da Faculdade de Mathematica. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade. 379 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity FROST, H. (1975) — The Pharos Site, Alexandria, Egypt. «International Journal of Nautical Archaeology». London: Nautical Archaeological Society, vol. 4, p. 126-30. FRY, G. (1984) — Philosophie et mystique de la destinée. Etude du thème de la Fortune dans les Métamorphoses d’Apulée. «Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Clássica». Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore, vol. 18, p. 137-170. FÜRTWÄNGLER, A. (1900) — Die Antiken Gemmen: Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im Klassischen Altertum. Leipzig und Berlin: Gesecke & Devrient, 2 vols. GADD, C. J. (1971) — The Cities of Babylonia. In EDWARDS, I. E. S.; GADD C. J.; GARCÍA GUAL, C. (1988) — Pseudo-Calistenes: Vida y hazañas de Alejandro de Macedonia. Madrid: Gredos. GALLO, P. (2009) — Il contributo della ricerca italiana allo studio dell’area canopica. In FERRO, L.; PALLINI, C., eds. — Alessandria d’Eggitto oltre il mito: Architettura, archeologia, transformazioni urbane. Mondovi: Araba Fenice, p. 48-54. GAMBETTI, S. (2009) — The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: a Historical Reconstruction. Leiden: Brill. GARDINER, A. (1961) — Egypt of the Pharaohs. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. GARNER, E. (1885) — A Statuette Representing a Boy and Goose. «Journal of Hellenic Studies». London: Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, vol. 6, p. 1-15. GARZÓN DÍAZ, J. (2008) — Geógrafos Griegos. Escílax de Carianda, Hannón de Cartago, Heraclides Crético, Dionisio, hijo de Califonte. Oviedo: KRK Ediciones. GASPARRO, G. S. (2005) — The Hellenistic face of Isis: Cosmic and saviour goddess. In BRICAULT, L.; VERSLUYS, M. J.; MEYBOOM, Paul G. P., eds. — Nile into Tiber. Egypt in the Roman World. Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis studies. Leiden-Boston: Brill, p. 40-72. GEISSEN, A. (1983) — Katalog Alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen der Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln I-V. Opladen. GIANOTTI, G. F. (1986) — «Romanzo» e ideologia – studi sulle Metamorfosi di Apuleio. Napoli: Liguori. GIBBON, E. (1782) — History of the Decline and Fall of Roman Empire (with notes by the Rev. H. H. Milman). Boston: Phillips, Sampson and Company. GIGANTE LANZARA, V. (2000) — Licofrone, Alessandra. Milano: BUR. GINER SORIA, M. C., int. and transl. (1982) — Filóstrato, Vidas de los Sofistas. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. GONÇALVES, C. H. B.; POSSANI, C. (2009) — Revisitando a descoberta dos incomensuráveis na Grécia Antiga. «Matemática Universitária», 47 (Dez.). São Paulo: USP, p. 16-23. GOLDEN, M. (1997) — Change or Continuity: Children and Childhood in Hellenistic Historiography. In GOLDEN, M.; TOOHEY, P., eds. — Inventing Ancient Culture. Historicism, Periodization, and the Ancient World. London and New York: Routledge, p. 176-191. GOLDHILL, S. (1994) — The Naive and Knowing Eye: Ekphrasis and the Culture of Viewing in the Hellenistic World. In GOLDHILL S.; OSBORNE, R., eds. — Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture. Cambridge: University Press, p. 197-223. GOLDHILL, S. (2007) — What is Ekphrasis for? «Classical Philology». Chicago: University of Chicago Press, vol. 102.1, p. 1-19. GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN, F. J. (1997a) — La ruta de los sabios. Topico y verdad del viaje a Egipto a lo largo de la cultura griega. «Aegyptiaca Complutensia». III. Egipto y el exterior. Contactos e influencias. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá, p. 163-185. GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN, F. J. (1997b) — Alejandría, la ciudad de las maravillas. In Ciudades del mundo antiguo. Madrid: Ediciones Clásica, p. 63-81. GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN, F. J. (2008) — El viaje a los confines. Reflejos y fantasías de una imagen arcaica del orbe. In RUBIO TOVAR, J.; VALLEJO GIRVÉS, M.; GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN, F., eds. — Viajes y visiones del mundo. Madrid-Málaga, p. 66-78. 380 BIBLIOgraphy GÓMEZ ESPELOSÍN, F. J.; PÉREZ LARGACHA, A. (1997) — La Biblioteca ideal. In Egiptomania. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, p. 74-91. GORDON CHILDE, V. (1933) — Notes on Some East Iranian Pottery. «Egypt and the East», 1-2 (March-June), p. 15-25. GOUDRIAAN, K. (1988) — Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, Publisher. GOW, A. S. F. (1965a) — Theocritus. Edited with a Translation and Commentary. Vol. I: Introduction, Text, and Translation. Cambridge: University Press. GOW, A. S. F. (1965b) — Theocritus. Edited with a Translation and Commentary. Vol. II: Commentary, Appendix, Indexes, and Plates. Cambridge: University Press. GRAF, F. (1999) — Zeus. In TOORN, V.; BECKING, B.; DER HORST, P., eds. — Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, p. 934-940. GRAINDOR, P. N. (1939) — Bustes et Statues-Portraits d’Égypte romaine. Cairo: Imprimerie P. Barbey. GREY, C., PARKIN, A. (2003) — Controlling the Urban Mob: the Colonatus Perpetuus of CTh 14. 18.1. «Phoenix». Toronto: Classical Association of Canada, vol. 57, p. 284-299. GRIFFIN, J. (1999) — Latin Poets and Roman Life. London: Duckworth/Bristol Classical Press. GRIFFITHS, F. T. (1981) — Home before lunch: The emancipated woman in Theocritus. In FOLEY, H. P., ed. — Reflections of Women in Antiquity. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, p. 247-273. GRIGGS, W. (1990) — Early Egyptian Christianity from its origins to 451 C.E. Leiden: Brill. GRIMAL, N. (1988) — Histoire de l’Égypte Ancienne. Paris: Fayard. GRIMAL, N. (1996) — Fouilles sous-marines à l’est du fort Qaitbay, 1995. «Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale». Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, vol. 96, p. 563-70. GRIMM, G. (1998) — Alexandria: Die Erste Königsstadt der Hellenistischen Welt. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. GRIMM, G.; IBRAHIM, M.; MOHSEN, M.; JOHANNES, D. (1975) — Kunst der Ptolemäer – und Römerzeit im Ägyptischen Museum Kairo. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. GRIMM, G.; JOHANNES, D. (1975) — Kunst der Ptolemäer und Römerzeit in Ägyptischen Museum Kairo. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. GUIMIER-SORBETS, A.-M. (2007) — L’image de Ptolémée devant Alexandrie. In Images et Modernité Hellénistiques: Appropriation et Représentation du Monde d’Alexandre à César (Colloque international). Rome: Collection de L’École Française de Rome, vol. 390, p. 163-76. GUIMIER-SORBERTS, A.-M. (1998) — Les peintures de la necrópole de Kôm el-Chougafa: Une forme originale de syncretisme religieux. «Le Monde de la Bible». Paris: Bayard, vol. 111, p. 34-37. GUIMIER-SORBETS, A. M. (1999) — The Function of Funerary Iconography in Roman Alexandria. In DOCTER, R. F.; MOORMANN, E. M., eds. — Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Classical Archaeology: Classical archaeology towards the third millennium: reflections and perspectives. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum, p. 180-182. GUIMIER-SORBETS, A. M. (2003) — Les decors de plafond dans les tombes hellénistiques d’Alexandrie: Un nouvel esai d’interpretation. In EMPEREUR, J. Y; NENNA, M. D., eds. — Necropolis 2. Cairo: IFAO, p. 589-631. GUIMIER-SORBETS, A. M.; NENNA, M. D. (2003) — Le lit funeraire dans les necropoles alexandrines. In EMPEREUR, J. Y.; NENNA, M. D. — Necropolis 2. Cairo: IFAO, p. 589-631. GUIMIER-SORBETS, A. M.; SEIF EL DIN, M. (1997) — Les deux tombes de Persephone dans la necropole de Kom el-Chougafa a Alexandrie. «Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique». Athens: École Française d Athénes, vol. 121, p. 355-410. GUIMIER-SORBETS, A. M.; SEIF EL DIN, M. et al. (2001) — La decor peint des tombes B1, B2 et B3.2: Le decor des dispositifs de fermature des loculi. In EMPEREUR, J. Y.; NENNA, M. D., eds. — Necropolis 1. Cairo: IFAO, p. 129-136. GUIMIER-SORBETS, A.-M.; SEIF EL DIN, M. (2001) — Les peintures de la necropole Kom el-Chougafa a 381 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity Alexandrie: Elements de methode pour la lecture iconorgaphique et l’interpretation du style «bilingue». In BARBET, A., ed. — La Peinture funeraire antique IVe siècle av. J.-C.-IVe siècle apr. J.-C. Paris: Éditions Errances, p. 129-136. HAASE, F.-A. (2009) — Style and the ‘Idea’ of the Sophists in the Time after Plato. The Impact of Form-Typology in Sophistic Teaching and Writing on Interdisciplinary Scholarly Work. «Ágora: Estudos Clássicos em Debate». Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro, vol. 11, p. 33-54. HALL, T. P. (1996) — Traditional Egyptian Christianity: A History of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Greensborough: Fisher Park Press. HAMMOND, N. G. L. (2008) — Cambridge Ancient History. 3rd ed. Cambridge: University Press, vol. 1.2. HANSON, J. A., ed. (1989) — Apuleius Metamorphoses. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press. (Loeb Classical Library). HARDER, M. A.; REGTUIT, R. F.; WAKKER, G. C., eds. (1993) — Callimachus. Hellenistica Groningana 1. Groningen. HARDER, M. A.; REGTUIT, R. F.; WAKKER, G. C., eds. (2004) — Callimachus II. Leuven: Peeters. HARDER, M. A. (1992) — Insubstantial Voices: Some Observations on the Hymns of Callimachus. «Classical Quaterly». Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 2, p. 384-394. HARDY, E. (1933) — National elements in the career of St. Athanasius. «Church History» 1. Cambridge University Press, American Society of the Church History, vol. 2, p. 188-191. HARTOG, (1991) — Le Miroir d’Hérodote: essai sur la représentation de l’autre. Paris: Gallimard. HAYES, W. C. (1959) — The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. HEATH, T. L. (1956) — Euclid, The Thirteen books of the Elements. 2.ª ed. New York: Dover Publication Inc., vols. 1, 2 and 3. HEATH, T. H.; DENSMORE D., ed. (2007) — Euclid’s Elements. 3rd ed. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Green Lion Press. HECKEL, W.; YARDLEY, J. C. (2004) — Alexander the Great. Historical sources in translation. Malden: Blackwell. HEGERMANN, H. (1989) — The Diaspora in the Hellenistic age. In DAVIES, W. D.; FINKELSTEIN, L., eds. — The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge: University Press, p. 115-167 [repr. 2007]. HENGEL, M. (1989) — The interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in the pre-Maccabean period. In DAVIES, W. D.; FINKELSTEIN, L., eds. — The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge: University Press, p. 167228. HEYOB, S. K. (1975) — The Cult of Isis among Women in the Greco-Roman World. Leiden: Brill. HIMMELMANN, N. (1983) — Alexandria und der realismus in der griechischen Kunst. Tübingen: Wasmuth. HIRSCH-DYCZEK, O. (1983) — Les représentations des enfants sur les stèles funéraires attiques. Warszawa-Kraków: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. HODGKIN, L. (2005) — A History of Mathematics. Oxford: University Press. HÖLBL, G. (2001) — A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. Trans. de T. Saavedra. London & New York: Routledge Ltd. HOLLIS, A. (2007) — Some Poetic Connections of Lycophron’s Alexandra. In FINGLASS; COLLARD; RICHARDSON, eds. — Hesperos. Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M.L. West on his Seventieth Birthday. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 276-293. HOPKINSON, N. (1984) — Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus. «Classical Quarterly». Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 34, p. 139-148. HORNUNG, E. (2001) — The Secret Lore of Egypt: Its impact on the West. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. HORNUNG, E.; BRYAN, B. (2002) — The Quest of Immortality: Treasures of Ancient Egypt. Washington: National Gallery of Art. 382 BIBLIOgraphy HUMMEL, P. (2006) — Lycophron. Cassandre. Chambéry: Comp’Act. HUNTER, R. (1993) — The Argonautica of Apollonius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HUNTER, R. (2003) — Literature and its Contexts. In ERSKINE, A., ed. — A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Malden: Blackwell Publishing: p. 477-493. HUNTER, R.; FUHRER, T. (2002) — Imaginary Gods? Poetic Theology in the Hymns of Callimachus. In Callimaque. Sept Exposés Suivis de Discussions. Vandouevres: Fondation Hardt, p.143-175. HURST, A. (2008) — Lycophron. Alexandra. Paris: Les Belles-Lettres. HUTCHINSON, G. O. (1990) — Hellenistic Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. IKRAM S., DODSON, A. (1998) — The Mummy in Ancient Egypt: Equipping the Dead for Eternity. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. JACOB, C. (1991) — La leçon d’Alexandrie. In FIGUIER, R., ed. — La Bibliothèque: Miroir de l’âme, mémoire du monde. Paris: Autrement Éditions. (Series «Mutations», nr. 121). JACOB, C. (1992) — Un athlète du savoir: Ératosthêne de Cyrène. In JACOB, C.; POLIGNAC, F., eds. — Alexandrie IIIe siècle av. J.-C. Tous les savoirs du monde ou le rêve d’universalité des Ptolémées. Paris: Éditions Autrement, p. 113-127. JACOB, C.; POLIGNAC, F. (1992) — Le mirage alexandrin. In JACOB, C.; POLIGNAC, F., eds. — Alexandrie IIIe siècle av. J.-C. Tous les savoirs du monde ou le rêve d’universalité des Ptolémées. Paris: Éditions Autrement, p. 15-21. JASNOW, R. ; ZAUZICH, K.-T. (2005) — The Ancient Egyptian Book of Thoth: A Demotic Discourse on Knowledge and Pendant to the Classical Hermetica. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, vol. II. JESUS, C.; FERREIRA, L., eds. (2010) — Festea: Tema Clássico. Dez anos de teatro de tema clássico (1999-2008). Coimbra: CECH/Classica Digitalia, p. 96-97. JOHNSON, J. H. (1986) — The role of the Egyptian priesthood in Ptolemaic Egypt. In LESKO, L. H., ed. — Egyptological studies in honor of Richard A. Parker. Hannover and London: Brown University Press, p. 70-84. JOHNSON, P. (2002) — The neoplatonists and the mystery schools of the Mediterranean. In MACLEOD, R., ed. — The Library of Alexandria: Centre of learning in the Ancient World. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, p. 143-162. JOHNSTON, D. (1999) — Roman Law in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. JONES, H. L. (1967) — The Geography of Strabo VIII. London and Cambridge: Loeb. JOSEPHSON J. A. (1997b) — Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period Revisited. «Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt». New York: American Research Center in Egypt, vol. 34, p. 1-20. JOSEPHSON, J. A. (1997a) — Egyptian Royal Sculpture of the Late Period 400-246 B.C. Abteilung Kairo 30. Mainz: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. JOSIFOVIC, St. (1968) — Lykophron. In Realencyclopädie der Classichen Altertumwissenschaft. Supp. 11. München: coll. 888-930. KÁKOSY, L. (1982) — Decans in Late-Egyptian Religion. «Oikumene», vol. 3, p. 163-191. KÁKOSY, L. (1983) — Die Kronen in spätägyptischen Tetenglaugen. GRIMM, G.; HEINEN, H.; WINTER E., eds. — Das Römisch-byzantinische Ägypten. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, p. 57-60. KASEMAR, A., ed. (2009) — The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KATER-SIBBES, G.; VERMASEREN, M. J. (1978) — Apis I: The Monuments of the Hellenistic-Roman Period from Egypt. Leiden: Brill. KATZ, V. (1993) — A History of Mathematics. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. KATZ, V. J. (2004) — A History of Mathematics, brief edition. London: Addison Wesley. KAZHDAN, A. (1991) — The Oxford Dictionnary of Byzantium. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. KENNEDY, G. A. (1972) — The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3 vols. KERKHECKER, A. (1999) — Callimachus’ Book of «Iambi». Oxford: Oxford University Press. 383 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity KISS, Z. (1976) — Notes sur le portrait impérial romain en Egypte. «Metteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts», Abteilung 31. Kairo: Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, p. 293-302. KITCHEN, K. (1986) — The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.), 2nd ed. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. KLEIN, A. E. (1932) — Children Life in Greek Art. New York: Columbia University Press. KNOX, A. D. (1922, repr. 1966) — Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments. With notes by Walter Headlam. Cambridge: University Press. KOSMETATOU, E. (2000) — Lycophron’s Alexandra Reconsidered: The Attalid Connection. «Hermes». Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, vol. 128.1, p. 32-53. KRUCHTEN, J.-M. (1989) — Les Annales des Prêtres de Karnak (XXI-XIII Dynasties) et Autres Textes Contemporains Relatifs à l Initiation des Prêtres d Amon (avec un chapitre archéologique par Thierry Zimmer). «Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta», 32. Lovain: Departement Oriëntalistiek. KUBIAK, W. (1967) — Les Fouilles Polonaises à Kôm El Dick. «Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie». Alexandria: Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie, vol. 42, p. 47-80. KUZNETSOVA, T. P. (1998) — Os mosaicos com motivos báquicos da Península Ibérica: contribuição para o estudo diacrónico dos seus significados. Lisboa: Universidade de Lisboa. KYRIELEIS, H. (1975) — Bildnisse der Ptolemäer. Berlin: Mann. LA ROCCA, E. (1984) — L’età d’oro di Cleopatra: Indagine sulla Tazza Farnese. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. LA’DA, C. A. (2002) — Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt. Leuvein: Peeters. LA’DA, C. A. (2003) — Encounters with Egypt: The Hellenistic Experience. In MATHEWS, R.; ROEMER, C., eds. — Ancient Perspectives of Egypt. London: UCL Press. LASSERRE, F. (1964) — The birth of Mathematics in the age of Plato. London: Hutchinson & CO. LAISNÉ, C. (1995) — L’Art Grec. Sculpture, peinture, architecture. Paris: Terrail. LALLOT, J. (1992) — Zénodote ou l’art d’accommoder Homère. In JACOB, C.; POLIGNAC, F., eds. — Alexandrie IIIe siècle av. J.-C. Tous les savoirs du monde ou le rêve d’universalité des Ptolémées. Paris: Éditions Autrement, p. 100-113. LAMBIN, G. (1992) — La chanson grecque dans l’antiquité. Paris: CNRS Éditions. LAMBIN, G. (2005) — L’Alexandra de Lycophron. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. LARKIN, W. (1994) — The Broken-Lintel Doorway of the Ancient Egypt and its Decoration. New York: New York University, Institute of Fine Arts. Dissertation. LAUBSCHER, H. P. (1982) — Fischer und Landleute: Studien zur Hellenistische genreplastik. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern. LAWRENCE, A. W. (1927) — Later Greek Sculpture and its Influence on East and West. London: J. Cape. LAZEMBY, F. D. (1949) — Greek and Roman Household Pets (in two parts). «Classical Journal», 44.4: 245-252, 44.5. Illinois: Classical Association of the Middle West and South, p. 299-307. LEÃO, D. F. (2005) — Alexandre Magno: da estratégia pan-helénica ao cosmopolitismo. In CASANOVA, A., coord. — Atti del convegno internazionale di studi «Plutarco e l’età ellenistica». Firenze: Università degli Studi di Firenze, p. 23-37. LEÃO, D. F. (2009a) — Do polites ao kosmopolites. «Anuario de Estudios Filológicos». Universidade de Extremadura, vol. 32, p. 157-174. LEÃO, D. F. (2009b) — The tyrannos as a sophos in the Septem Sapientium Convivium. In FERREIRA, J. R.; LEÃO, D., TRÖSTER, M.; DIAS, P. B., eds. — Symposion and Philanthropia in Plutarch. Coimbra: Classica Digitalia, p. 511-521. LEÃO, D. F. (2012) — A Globalização no Mundo Antigo: Do polites ao kosmopolites. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. LEÃO, D. F.; MANTAS, V. G. (2009) — O Farol de Alexandria. In FERREIRA, J. R.; FERREIRA, L., orgs. — As sete maravilhas do mundo antigo. Fontes, fantasias e reconstituições. Lisboa: Edições 70, p. 107-125. 384 BIBLIOgraphy LEFEBVRE, L. (2009) — Polybe, Ptolémée IV et la tradition historiographique. «ENIM: Égypte Nilotique et Méditerréene». Montpellier: Institut d Égyptologie François Daumas, vol. 2, p. 91-101. LESKY, A. (1995) — História da literatura grega. Trad. do al. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, p. 822-834. LEGRAND, Ph.-E. (1946) — Bucoliques Grecs. Tome I: Théocrite. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. LEHMANN, K. (1945) — A Roman Poet Visits a Museum. «Hesperia». Athens: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 14.3, p. 259-269. LÉVÊQUE, P. (1987) — O Mundo Helenístico. Lisboa: Edições 70. LEVET, J.-P. (1997) — Un savant d’Alexandrie: Eratosthene (IIIe siècle avant J.-C.). Un regard d’aujourd’hui. «Le Monde Copte». Paris: S.I.P.E., 27-28. p. 45-58. LEWIS, N. (1986) — Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt. Oxford-New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press. LICHTHEIM, M. (1975-1976-1980) — Ancient Egyptian Literature. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 3 vols. LIPINSKI, E. (1995) — Dieux et déesses de l’Univers Phénicien et Punique. Leuven: Peeters. LITTMANN, E.; MEREDITH, D. (1954) — Nabatæan Inscriptions from Egypt – II. «Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies». Cambridge: School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 16, nr. 2, p. 211-246. LLOYD, A. B. (2002) — The Ptolemaic Period (332-30 B.C.). In SHAW, I., ed. — The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 395-421. LLOYD, A. B. (1982) — Nationalist propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt. «Historia. Journal of Ancient History». Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, p. 33-55. LLOYD, A. B.; FRASCHETTI, A. (1996) — Erodoto Le Storie, II: L’ Egitto. Milano: Fondazione Lorenza Valla. LÓPEZ SALVÁ, M. (1992) — Isis y Serapis. Difusión de su culto en el mundo grecorromano. «Minerva», vol. 6, p. 161-192. LOPRIENO, A. (2001) — La Pensée et l Écriture: Pour une analyse sémiotieque de la culture Égyptienne. Paris: Cybele. LOWE, L. (1986) — The Orient as Woman in Flaubert’s «Salammbô» and «Voyage en Orient». «Comparative Literature Studies». The Pennsylvania State University, vol. 23/1, p. 44-45. LOWELL, E. (2001) — Callimachus Iamb 4: From Performance to Writing. In CAVARZERE, A.; ALONI, A.; BARCHIESI, A., eds. — Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefiled Publishers, p. 77-98. LUCAS, A. (1989) — Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. 4th ed. London: Edward Arnold. LYDAKIS, S. (2004) — Ancient Greek Painting and Its Echoes in Later Art. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum. MACKENDRICK P. (1989) — The Philosophical Books of Cicero. London: Duckworth. MARLOWE, J. (1971) — The Golden Age of Alexandria. From its Foundation by Alexander the Great in 331 BC to its capture by the Arabs in 642 AD. London: Victor Gollancz Limited. MAHÉ, J.-P. (1982) — Hermès en Haute Égypte. Quebec: Les Presses de l Université Laval, 2 vols. MAHÉ, J.-P. (1995) — Hermès Trismegiste, Philosophe Alexandrin. «Les Dossiers d Archeologie». Dijon: Éditions Faton, vol. 201, p. 38-43. MAHÉ, J.-P. (1998) — De Thot à Trismegiste. «Les Dossiers d Archeologie». Dijon: Éditions Faton, vol. 236, p. 60-69. MAJCHEREK, G. (2003) — Kom El-Dikka: Excavations and Preservation Work, 2002/2003. «Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean». Warsaw: Warsaw University Press, vol. XV, p. 25-34. MALAISE, M. (2007) — La diffusion des cultes isiaques: Un problème de terminologie et de critique. In BRICAULT, L.; VERSLUYS, M. J.; MEYBOOM, PAUL G. P., eds. — Nile into Tiber. Egypt in the Roman World. Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis studies. Leiden-Boston: Brill, p. 19-39. 385 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity MÁLEK, J. (1997) — La division de l’histoire d’Égypte et l’Égyptologie moderne. «Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie». Paris: Société Française d’Égyptologie, vol. 138, p. 6-17. MÁLEK, J. (2003) — Egypt, 4000 Years of Art. London: Phaidon Press. MANNING, J. G. (2010) — The Last Pharaohs. Egypt under the Ptolemies, 305-30 B.C. Princeton: Princeton University Press. MARCUS, R. (1957) — Flavius Josephus. Jewish Antiquities, books XII-XIV. English translation. London: Loeb. MARCUS, R. (1958) — Flavius Josephus. Jewish Antiquities, books IX-XI. English translation. London: Loeb. MARINCOLA, J., rev. and introd. (2003) — Herodotus. The Histories. London: Penguin Classics. MARLOWE, J. (1971) — The Golden Age of Alexandria. London: Victor Gollancz Limited. MARQUES, S. H. (2006) — Sonhos e Visões na Tragédia Grega. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra. MARTIN, R. et al. (1970) — La Grèce Hellenistique. Paris: Gallimard, collection L’Univers des formes. MASON, S. (2007) — Josephus. Against Apion. Translation and commentary. Leiden: Brill. MCKENZIE J.; GIBSON S.; REYES A. T. (2004) — Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from the Archaeological Evidence. «Journal of Roman Studies», 94, p. 73-121. MCKENZIE, J. (2003) — Glimpsing Alexandria from Archaeological Evidence. «Journal of Roman Archaeology». Portsmouth: vol. 16, p. 35-63. MCKENZIE, J. (2007) — The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt: c. 300 B.C. to A.D. 700. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. MCKENZIE, J. S.; GIBSON S.; REYES, A. T. (2004) — Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from the Archaeological Evidence. «The Journal of Roman Studies». London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, vol. 94, p. 73-121. MENDELSON, A. (1982) — Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria, Monographs of the Hebrew Union College. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. MENON, E. K. (2006) — Evil by Design: The Creation and Marketing of the Femme Fatale. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. MERKELBACH, R. (1963) — Die Erigone des Eratosthenes: Nacherzähling und Würdigung. In Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni. Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, p. 469-526. MERKELBACH, R. (1973) — Die Tazza Farnese, die Gestirne der Nilflut, und Eratosthenes. «Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde». Leipzig: Akademie Verlag, vol. 99, p. 116-27. MERZBACH, U. C.; BOYER, C. B. (2011) — A History of Mathematics. 3rd ed. New Jersey: John Willey & Sons, Inc. MIELI, A. (1945) — Panorama general de Historia de la Ciencia. I. Mundo Antiguo. Buenos Aires: Espasa-Calpe Argentina. MINEUR, W. H. (1984) — Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos. «Mnemosyne», Supplement 83. Leiden: Brill. MITCHELL, L. M. (1883) — A History of Ancient Sculpture. London and New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company. MODRZEJEWSKI, J. M. (1995) — The Jews of Egypt. From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Illinois: Varda Books (eBook repr. 2001). MOMIGLIANO, A. (1942) — Terra marique. «The Journal of Roman Studies». London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, vol. 32, p. 53-64. MOMMSEN-KRUEGER, ed. (1904, 2000) — Codex Theodosianus. Berlin-Hildesheim: Weidmann. MONTEIL, P. (1968) — Théocrite. Idylles (II, V, VII, XI, XV). Édition, introduction et commentaire. Paris: PUF. MORENO, P. (1994) — Scultura Ellenistica. Roma: Libreria dello Stato, 2 vols. MØRKHOLM, O. (1991) — Early Hellenistic coinage from the accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-188 a.C.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MORRISON, A. D. (2007) — The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 386 BIBLIOgraphy MOSSÉ, C. (1992) — Démétrios de Phalère: un philosophe au pouvoir. In JACOB, C.; POLIGNAC, F., eds. — Alexandrie IIIe siècle av. J.-C. Tous les savoirs du monde ou le rêve d’universalité des Ptolémées. Paris: Éditions Autrement, p. 83-92. MOSSMAN, J. M. (1995) — Tragedy and Epic in Plutarch’s Alexander. SCARDIGLI, B., ed. — Essays of Plutarch’s Lives. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press. MOYER, I. (2011) — Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. MUNRO, I. (2010) — The evolution of the Book of the Dead. In TAYLOR, J., ed. — Journey through the Afterlife: Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, p. 54-79. NAEREBOUT, F. G. (2005) — The temple at Ras el-Soda. Is it an Isis temple? Is it Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or neither? And so what? In BRICAULT, L.; VERSLUYS, M. J.; MEYBOOM, P., eds. — Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World. Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis studies. Leiden-Boston: Brill, p. 506-554. NAEREBOUT, F. G. (2010) — How do you like your Goddess? From the Galjub Hoard to a general vision on religious choise in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. In BRICAULT, L.; VERSLUYS, M. J., eds. — Isis on the Nile: Egyptian Gods in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Proceedings of the IVth International Conference of Isis studies. Universite de Liege, November 27-29 2008, Michel Malaise in honorem. Leiden: Brill, p. 55-74. NAIRN, J. A.; LALOY, L. (1928) — Herondas: Mimes. Texte établi par J. A. Nairn et traduit par L. Laloy. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. NAOUM, D.-C. (2008) — The Hellenisation of Isis and the spread of the cults. Liverpool: Universidade de Liverpool. Ph. D. Dissertation. NAVARRO GONZÁLEZ, J. L.; MELERO, A. (1981) — Herodas: Mimiambos; Fragmentos Mímicos; Partenio de Nicea: Sufrimientos de Amor. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. NEILS, J.; OAKLEY, J. H., org. (2003) — Coming of Age in Ancient Greece. Images of Childhood from the Classical Past. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. NEWMAN, J. H. C. (1997) — L’école d’Alexandrie, précurseur de l’université moderne. «Le Monde Copte». Limoge, vol. 27-28, p. 129-132. NIEHR, H. (1999) — Baal-Zaphon. In TOORN, V.; BECKING, B.; HORST, P., eds. — Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, p. 152-154. NIEHR, H. (1999) — Zaphon. In TOORN, V.; BECKING, B.; HORST, P., eds. — Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, p. 927-929. NOCK, A. D. (1971) — Religious developments from the close of the Republic to the Reign of Nero. In The Cambridge Ancient History – The Augustan Empire 44 B.C.-A.D. 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 465-511. NOSHY, I. (1937) — The Arts of Ptolemaic Egypt: A study of Greek and Egyptian influences in Ptolemaic architecture and sculpture. London: Oxford University Press. OGLE, M. B. (1925) — Vergil’s Conception of Dido’s Character. «Classical Journal». Illinois: Classical Association of the Middle West and South, vol. 20/5, p. 261-270. OTTO, W. & BENGTON, H. (1938) — Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemaerreiches. München: Verlag der Bayer. OVERBECK, J. (1882) — Geschichte der griechischen Plastik. 3rd ed. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 2 vols. PAGENSTECHER, R. (1919) — Nekropolis: Untersuchungen über Gestalt und Entwicklung der alexandrinischen Grabanlagen und ihrer Malereien. Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient. PARKER, G. (2002) — Ex Oriente Luxuria: Indian commodities and Roman Experience. «Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient». Leiden: Brill, vol. 45/1, p. 40-95. PARKER, R. A. (1971) — The Calendars and Chronology. In: HARRIS, J. R., ed. — The Legacy of Egypt. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 387 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity PARKER, V. (1998) — Tyrannos. The semantics of a political concept from Archilochus to Aristotle. «Hermes». Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, vol. 126, p. 145-172. PEARCE, S. J. K. (2007) — The Land of the Body: studies in Philo’s representation of Egypt (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. PELLING, C. B. R. (1994) — Plutarch. Life of Antony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PENSABENE, P. (1983) — Lastre di chiusura di loculi con naiksoi egizi e stele funerarie con ritratto di Museo di Alessandria. In ADRIANI A. et al. — Allessandria e il Mondo Ellenistico. Studi di onore di Achille Adriani. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, vol. I, p. 91-119. PEREA YÉBENES, S. (2004) — Zeus Kásios Sózon y Afrodita Sózousa, divinidades protectoras dela navegación. A propósito de dos cepos de anclas romanas procedentes de Cabo de Palos. «Mastia: Revista del Museo Arqueológico Municipal de Cartagena». Cartagena: Museo Arqueológico Municipal, 3, p. 95-112. PETRIE, W. M. F.; GRIFFITH, F. L. (1885) — Tanis, part II. London: Trübner & Company. PETRIE, W. M. F.; GRIFFITH, F. L.; MURRAY, A. S. (1888) — Nebesheh and Defenneh. London: Trübner & Company. PFEIFFER, R. (1949-1951) — Callimachus. Oxford: R. Pfeiffer, 2 vols. PFEIFFER, R. (1968) — History of Classical Scholarship. From its Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PFEIFFER, S. (2008) — The God Serapis, his Cult and the Beginnings of the Ruler Cult in Ptolemaic Egypt. In MCKECHNIE, P.; GUILLAUME, P., eds. — Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World. «Mnemosyne» supplements. History and archaeology of classical antiquity 300. Leiden-Boston: Brill, p. 387-408. PFROMMER, M. (1999) — Alexandria im Schatten der Pyramiden. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. PLATT, V. (2010) — Art History in the Temple. «Arethusa». Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, vol. 43.2, p. 197-213. POLLARD, J. (1977) — Birds in Greek Life and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson. POLLINI, J. (1992) — The Tazza Farnese: Augusto Imperatore ‘Redeunt Saturnia Regna!’. «American Journal of Archaeology». Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, nr. 96, p. 283-300. POLLITT, J. J. (1986) — Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. POLLITT, J. J. (1990) — The Art of Ancient Greece: Sources and Documents. Cambridge: University Press. POMEROY, S. B. (1975, reprinted 1995) — Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves. Women in Classical Antiquity. New York: Schocken Books. PORADA, E. (1985) — The Cylinder Seal from Tell el-Dab’a. «American Journal of Archaeology». Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, vol. 88, nr. 4, p. 485-488. POSENER, G. (1970) — Calendrier. In POSENER, G., éd. — Dictionnaire de la civilisation égyptienne. Paris: Fernand Hazan, p. 40. POULSEN, F. (1938) — Den hellenistiske Kunst. Copenhagen: Povl Branners Forlag. POWELL, B. B. (2004) — Homer. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. PRÉAUX, C. (1939) — L’Économie Royale des Lagids. Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. PRÉAUX, C. (1965) — Polybe et Ptolomée Philopator. «Chronique d’Égypte». Bruxelles: Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, vol. 79, p. 364-375. PREISIGKE, F., ed. (1913-22) — Sammelbuch Griechischer Unkunden aus Aegypten. Berlin: K. J. Trübner. PRIETO, M. L . (1999) — Longo Dafnis y Cloe; Aquiles Tacio Leucipa y Clitofonte. Madrid: Ediciones Akal. QUACK, J. F. (1995) — Dekane und Gliedervergottung. «Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum». Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, vol. 38, p. 97-122. QUIRING, H. (1952) — Die Goldinsel des Isidor von Sevilla. «Aegypter der 20 Dynastie als Entdecker und Kulturbringer in Ostasien». Quartalsheft. Gotha: Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 96 Jahrgang, 2, p. 93-5. RACHET, G., dir. (1987) — Astronomie. In Dictionnaire de l Égypte ancienne. Paris: Éditions du Félin, p. 44-45. 388 BIBLIOgraphy RACHET, G., dir. (1987) — Calendrier. In Dictionnaire de l Égypte ancienne. Paris: Éditions du Félin, p. 58-59. RATNAGAR, S. (2001) — Understanding Harappa Civilization in the Greater Indus Valley. New Delhi: Tulika. REDFORD, D. B. (1986) — Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books. A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. SSEA Publications, 4, Mississauga: Benben Publications. REED, J. D. (2000) — Arsinoe’s Adonis and the Poetics of Ptolemaic Imperialism. «Transactions of the American Philological Association». Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 130, 319-351. REID, J. D. (1993) — The Oxford Guide to Classical Mythology in the Arts, 1300-1990s. New York-London: Oxford University Press, vol. I, p. 25-40. RICE, E. E. (1983) — The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus. London: Oxford University Press. RICHTER, G. M. A. (1987) — A Handbook of Greek Art. 9th ed. London: Phaidon Press Ltd. RIDGEWAY, B. S. (2000) — Hellenistic Sculpture: the Styles of ca. 200-100 B.C. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. RIDGWAY, B. S. (2006) — The Boy Strangling the Goose: Genre Figure or Mythological Symbol? «American Journal of Archaeology». Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, vol. 110, p. 643-648. RIGGS, C. (2006) — The Beautiful Burial in Roman Egypt. Art, Identity, and Funerary Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. RINGGREN, H.; BOTTERWECK, G.; FABRY, H.-J., ed. (2003) — Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing, vol. XII. RIST, J. M. (1965) — Hypatia. «Phoenix». Toronto: Classical Association of Canada, vol. 19, nr. 3, p. 214-225. ROBERTSON, M. (1981) — A Shorter History of Greek Art. Cambridge: University Press. ROCCATI, A. (1977a) — Nuove Epigrafi Grechi e Latine da File. «Année Epigraphique», 838-9. Paris: Collège de France. ROCCATI, A. (1977b) — Nuove Epigrafi Grechi e Latine da File. «Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum». Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 28, nr. 1485. ROCHA PEREIRA, M. H. (2002) — Estudos de História da Cultura Clássica II – Cultura Romana. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. RODRIGUES, N. S. (1999) — O Judeu e a Egípcia: o retrato de Cleópatra em Flávio Josefo. «Polis. Revista de Ideas y Formas Políticas de la Antigüedad Clásica». Madrid: Universidad de Alcalá, vol. 11, p. 217-259. RODRIGUES, N. S. (2001) — Alexandria. In ARAÚJO, L. (dir.) — Dicionário do Antigo Egipto. Lisboa: Editorial Caminho, p. 46-48. RODRIGUES, N. S. (2004) — Subtilezas orientais no Satyricon de Petrónio. «Cadmo». Lisboa: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, vol. 14, p. 77-95. RODRIGUES, N. S. (2005) — Um olhar a Oriente: imagens do mundo semítico na literatura grega, dos Poemas Homéricos a Xenofonte. In FIALHO, M. C.; SILVA, M. F.; ROCHA PEREIRA, M. H., coord. — Génese e consolidação da ideia de Europa. Vol. I: de Homero ao fim da época clássica. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, p. 335-365. RODRIGUES, N. S. (2006) — Um tema egípcio na Ilíada: a Kerostasia. In Estudos de Homenagem ao Professor Doutor José Amadeu Coelho Dias. Porto: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, p. 247-258. RODRIGUES, N. S. (2007a) — Entre Europa e Io: elementos orientais na arte grega arcaica e clássica. In RAMOS, J. A.; ARAÚJO, L. M.; SANTOS, A. R., orgs. — Arte Pré-Clássica. Lisboa: Instituto Oriental da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, p. 323-346. RODRIGUES, N. S. (2007b) — A Donzela de Marfim. A agalmatofilia como representação estética na Antiguidade Clássica. «Artis». Lisboa: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, vol. 6, p. 61-71. RODRIGUES, N. S. (2007c) — Iudaei in Vrbe. Os Judeus em Roma de Pompeio aos Flávios. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian e Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. ROSTOVTZEFF, M. (1955) — Die hellenistische Welt: Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft. Tübingen: Kohlhammer, 3 vols. 389 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity ROWE, A. (1942) — Kom el-Shukafa, in the light of the excavations of the Graeco-Roman museum during the season 1941-1942. In «Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie», vol. 35. Alexandria: Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie, p. 3-45, pl. 1-XV. RUNIA, D. T. (1986) — Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Leiden: Brill. RUNIA, D. T. (1989) — Polis and Megapolis: Philo and the founding of Alexandria. «Mnemosyne». Leiden: Brill, vol. 42, p. 398-412. SÁ, C. (2000) — A Matemática na Grécia Antiga. In ESTRADA, M.; SÁ, C.; QUEIRÓ, J.; SILVA, M.; COSTA, M., coord. — História da Matemática. Lisboa: Universidade Aberta. SAÏD, E. W. (2003) — Orientalism. London: Penguin. SALAC, A. (1922) — Zeus Kasios (en grec). «Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique». Athens: École Française d Athènes, vol. 46, p. 160-189. SALEH, M., SOUROUZIAN, H. (1987) — The Egyptian Museum: The Official Catalogue. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. SALES, J. C. (2001) — Astrologia. In ARAÚJO, L. (dir.) — Dicionário do Antigo Egipto. Lisboa: Editorial Caminho, p. 120-121. SALES, J. C. (2001) — Calendário. In ARAÚJO, L. (dir.) — Dicionário do Antigo Egipto. Lisboa: Editorial Caminho, p. 165-167. SALES, J. C. (2001) — Listas reais. In ARAÚJO, L. (dir.) — Dicionário do Antigo Egipto. Lisboa: Editorial Caminho, p. 509-511. SALES, J. C. (2001) — Maneton. In ARAÚJO, L. (dir.) — Dicionário do Antigo Egipto. Lisboa: Editorial Caminho, p. 538-539. SALES, J. C. (2005) — Ideologia e Propaganda Real no Egipto Ptolomaico (305-30 a.C). Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian e Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. SALES, J. C. (2006) — A condição multicultural da antiga cidade de Alexandria. «O Estudo da História». Lisboa: Associação de Professores de História, nr. 6, p. 57-76. SALES, J. C. (2007) — Gregos versus Egípcios na Alexandria ptolomaica: o caso excepcional do culto a Serápis. In NOGUEIRA, A. F., coord. — Otium et Negocium. As antíteses na Antiguidade. Faro: Nova Veja, p. 367-381. SALES, J. C. (2008) — Poder e Iconografia no antigo Egipto. Lisboa: Livros Horizonte. SALES, J. C. (2010a) — Lutas Sociais e Políticas no Egipto Ptolomaico. O cisma dinástico de Horuennefer e Ankhuennefer. In SANTA BÁRBARA, M.L., coord. — Identidade e Cidadania. Da Antiguidade aos nossos dias. Actas do Congresso. Porto: Papiro Editora, vol. I, p. 417-434. SALES, J. C. (2010b) — A batalha de Ráfia (217 a.C.) e o «nacionalismo» egípcio do Período Ptolomaico. In SANTOS, A.; VARANDAS, J., coord. — A Guerra na Antiguidade. Lisboa: Centro de História/ Editora Caleidoscópio, vol. III, p. 151-173. SALES, J. C. (2011) — A obra de Maneton e o culto alexandrino a Serápis: dois instrumentos de organização da memória ptolomaica. «Discursos. Língua, Cultura e Sociedade», III série. Lisboa: Universidade Aberta, nr. 3, p. 61-87. SANDMEL, S. (1979) — Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. SANTOS, M. (2006) — Os contornos do tempo: calendários na Roma Antiga. «Cultura, Revista de História e Teoria das Ideias», nº 28. Lisboa: Centro de História e da Cultura/Universidade Nova de Lisboa, p. 119-129. SAUNERON, S. (1970) — Astronomie. In POSENER, G., éd. — Dictionnaire de la civilisation égyptienne. Paris: Fernand Hazan, p. 30. SAUNERON, S. (1988) — Les Prêtres de l’Ancienne Égypte. Paris: Perséa. SAVOIE, D. (1988) — Calendrier. In LECLANT, J., dir. — Dictionnaire de l Égypte ancienne. Paris: Enciclopædia Universalis/Albin Michel, p. 102-103. SAVVOPOULOS, K. (2010) — Alexandria in Aegypto: The use and meaning of Egyptian elements in Hellenistic and Roman Alexandria. In BRICAULT, L.; VERSLUYS, M. J., eds. — Isis on the Nile: Egyptian Gods in Hel- 390 BIBLIOgraphy lenistic and Roman Egypt. Proceedings of the IVth International Conference of Isis studies. Université de Liege, November 27-29 2008, Michel Malaise in honorem. Leiden: Brill, p. 75-86. SAVVOPOULOS, K., BIANCHI, R. (2012) – Alexandrian Sculpture in the Graeco-Roman Museum. Alexandria: The Alexandria and Mediterranean Research Center. SCHAFF, P. ed. (2007) — Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. SCHIAPPA, E. (1999) — The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece, New Haven & London: Yale University Press. SCHLUMBERGER, D. (1970) — L’Orient hellenisé: L’art grec et ses héritiers dans l’Asie non méditerranéenne. Paris: Albin Michel. SCHREIBER, T. (1885) — Alexandrinische Sculpturen in Athen. «Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts: Athenische Abteilung». Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, vol. X, p. 380-400. SCHULZ, R.; SEIDEL, M. (1997) — Ägypten: Die Welt der Pharaonen. Cologne: Köneman. SCHWARTZ, D. R. (2009) — Philo, His Family, His Times. In KAMESAR, A., ed. — The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SCHWEMER, D. (2008) — The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthese, Recent Studies. Part II. «Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions». Leiden: Brill, 8 (1), p. 1-44. SCOLNIC, B. E. (2005) — If the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea where are the Phaoraoh’s chariots? Exploring the historical dimension of the Bible. Studies in Judaism. Oxford: University Press of America. SCOTT, K. (1933) — The political propaganda of 44-30 B.C. «Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome». Ann Arbour: The University of Michigan Press, vol. 11, p. 7-49. SERAGELDIN, I. (2002) — Bibliotheca Alexandrina. The rebirth of the Library of Alexandria. Alexandria: Bibliotheca Alexandrina. SERVAIS-SOYEZ, B. (1981) — Adonis. In AA.VV., Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, I.1: 222-229, I.2. München: Artemis Verlag, p. 160-170. SEYMOR-SMITH, M. (2007) — Os 100 livros que mais influenciaram a Humanidade: a história do pensamento dos tempos antigos à actualidade. 7th ed. Rio de Janeiro: DIFEL. SHAW, I., dir. (2002) — The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SHAW, I.; NICHOLSON, P. (1995) — Astronomy and Astrology. In SHAW, I., dir. — British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. Londres: British Museum Press, p. 42-43. SHAW, I.; NICHOLSON, P. (1995) — Calendar. In SHAW, I., dir. — The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. Londres: British Museum Press, p. 58-59. SHAW, I.; NICHOLSON, P. (1995) — Manetho. In SHAW, I., dir. — The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press, p. 169. SHELTON, J. (1988) — As The Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social Historv. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SHUPAK, N. (1993) — Where Wisdom can be found? The Sage s Language in the Bible and in Ancient Egyptian Literature. «Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis», nr. 130. Fribourg, Göttingen: University Press, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. SILVA, C. C. da (2008) — Magia erótica e arte poética no Idílio 2 de Teócrito. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra. SIMON, B. (2004) — The Essence of the Gnostics. London: Eagle Editions. SKINNER, M. B. (2001) — Ladies’ Day at the Art Institute. Theocritus, Herodas, and the Gendered Gaze. In LARDINOIS, A.; MCCLURE, L., eds. — Making Silence Speak. Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, p. 201-222. SLINGS, S. R. (2004) — The Hymn to Delos as a Partial Allegory of Callimachus’ Poetry. In HARDER, M. A.; REGTUIT, R. F.; WAKKER, G. C., eds. — Callimachus II. Leuven: Peeters, p. 279-298. SLY, D. I. (1996) — Philo’s Alexandria. London, New York: Routledge. 391 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity SMITH, J. M. (1992) — The foundation of cities in Greek Historians and Poets. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press. SMITH, M. (2009) — The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3-1.4, vol. 2, Supplementus to Vetus Testamentum [114]. Leiden: Brill NV. SMITH, R. R. R. (1988) — Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SMITH, R. R. R. (1991) — Hellenistic Sculpture: A Handbook. London: Thames & Hudson. SMITH, R. W. (1974) — The Art of Rhetoric in Alexandria: Its Theory and Practice in the Ancient World. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. SMITH, W. S. (1958) — The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt. London and New Heaven: Yale University Publishers. SNIJDER, G. A. S. (1939) — Mitteilungen aus dem Allard Pierson Museum. 1. Hellenistisch-römische Porträts aus Ägypten. «Mnemosyne», vol. 7. Leiden: Brill, p. 241-280. SOARES, C.; CALERO SECALL; I., FIALHO, M. C. (2011) — Norma & Transgressão II. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, p. 59-91. SOHNSEN, F. (1979) — Isis among the Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvad University Press. SORABELLA, J. (2007) — Eros and the Lizard: Children, Animals, and Roman Funerary Sculpture. In COHEN, A.; RUTTER, B., eds. — Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy. Athens: American School of Classical Studies, p. 353-370. SOUSA, R. (2007) — O edifício de Taharka no lago sagrado de Karnak: simbolismo e função ritual. RAMOS, J.; ARAÚJO, L. SANTOS, R., cood. — Arte Pré-Clássica: Colóquio comemorativo dos vinte anos do Instituto Oriental da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa. Lisboa: Instituto Oriental, p. 279-302. SOUSA, R. (2009) — Alexandria: A Encruzilhada do Conhecimento. Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, Biblioteca Digital. Porto: Fundação da Universidade do Porto. SOUSA, R. (2010) — Symbolism and Meaning of the Cornice Heart Amulets. «Chronique d Égypte». Bruxelles: Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, vol. 85, p. 81-91. SOUSA, R. (2010) — The Coffin of an Anonymous Woman from Bab el-Gasus (A.4) in Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa. «Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt». San Antonio, Cairo: American Research Center in Egypt, vol. 46, p. 185-200. SOUSA, R. (2011a) — The Heart of Wisdom: Studies on the heart amulet in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Bristish Archaeological Reports. («International Series» 2211). SOUSA, R. (2011b) — O Livro das Origens: A inscrição teológica da Pedra de Chabaka. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. (Col. «Textos Clássicos»). SOUSA, R. (2011c) – «Área de acesso reservado»: Tradição e mudança na organização da necrópole tebana. CEM 3, p. 131-150. SOUSA, R. (2012) — Em busca da imortalidade no Antigo Egipto: Viagem às origens da civilização. Lisboa: Editora Ésquilo. SOUSA, R.; SILVA, J., coords. (2013) — Serápis nos confins do Império: O complexo sagrado de Panóias. Vila Real: Câmara Municipal de Vila Real, Direcção Regional de Cultura do Norte. STAMBAUGH, J. E. (1972) — Sarapis under the early Ptolemies. Leiden: E. J. Brill. STANWICK, P. E. (2002) — Portraits of the Ptolemies: Greek Kings as Egyptian Pharaohs. Austin: University of Texas Press. STERN, J. (1999) — Rationalizing Myth: Methods and Motives in Palaephatus. BUXTON, R., ed. — From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 215-222. STEWART, A. (1996) — The Alexandrian Style: A Mirage? TRUE, M.; HAMMA, K., eds. — Alexandria and Alexandrianism. California: Getty Trust Publications, p. 231-46. 392 BIBLIOgraphy SVENSSON, L.; GRANT, P. J. (2003) — Guia de Aves. Guia de campo das aves de Portugal e Europa. Portuguese edition coordinated by Luís Costa. Lisboa: Assírio e Alvim. TAKÁCS, S. (1995) — Isis and Serapis in the Roman World. Leiden: Brill. TAYLOR, I., ed. (1858) — The Jewish War of Flavius Josephus. Boston: John P. Jewett and Company. TAYLOR, J. (2010) — Journey through the Afterlife. London: The British Museum Press. TAYLOR, J. (2001) — Death and the Afterlife in ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press. TAYLOR, J. E. (2003) — Jewish Women Philosophers of First-Century Alexandria: Philo’s ‘Therapeutae’ Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press. TCHERIKOVER, V. (1979) — Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. New York: Athenaeum. TEIXEIRA, A. (2007) — Casamento, adultério e sexualidade no Direito Romano: o caso particular das Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus e Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis. RAMOS, J. A.; FIALHO, M. C.; RODRIGUES, N. S., eds. — A sexualidade no Mundo Antigo. Lisboa: Centro de História da Universidade de Lisboa, p. 361-366. TEIXEIRA, C. (2000) — A Conquista da Alegria. Estratégia apologética no Romance de Apuleio. Lisboa: Edições 70. TEIXEIRA, C. (2007) — Estrutura da Viagem na Épica de Virgílio e no Romance Latino. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia. THIEL, J. (1966) — Eudoxus of Cyzicus: A Chapter in the History ofthe Sea Route round the Cape in Ancient Times. Groningen: J. B. Wolters. THISSEN, H. J. (1980) — Manetho. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, vol. III, cols. 1180-1181. THOMPSON, D. W. (1936, reprinted 1966) — A Glossary of Greek Birds. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung. THOMSON, D. B. (1973) — Ptolemaic Oinochoae and Portraits in Faience, Aspects of the Ruler-Cult. Oxford: Oxford University Press. THOMSON, D. B. (1978) — The Tazza Farnese Reconsidered. MAEHLER, H.; STROCKA, V., eds. — Das Ptolemäische Ägypten: Akten des Internationalen Symposions, 27-29 September 1976 in Berlin. Mainz am Rhein: Philippe von Zabern, 112-22. TKACZOW, B. (1993) — The Topography of Ancient Alexandria (An Archaeological Map). Warsaw: Polskiej Akademii. TKACZOW, B. (2010) — Architectural Styles of Ancient Alexandria. Elements of Architectural Decoration from Polish Excavations at Kom el-Dikka (1960-1993). Varsovie: Centre d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences. TOMILSON, R. A. (1984) — The Ceiling of Anfushi II.2. BONACASA, N. et al., eds. — Alessandria e il mondo Hellenistico-Romano II. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. TOORN, K.; BECKING, B.; HORST, W., eds. (1999) — Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd edition. Leiden: Brill. TURNER, E. G. (1975) — Oxyrhynchus and Rome. «Harvard Studies in Classical Philology». Harvard: Harvard University Press, vol. 79, p. 1-24. ULLMAN, B. L. (1957) — Cleopatra’s Pearls. «Classical Journal». Illinois: Classical Association of the Middle West and South, vol. 52/5, p. 193-201. VAN BUREN, A.W. (1938) — Pinacothecae: With Especial Reference to Pompeii. «Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome». Ann Arbour: The University of Michigan Press, vol. 15, p. 70-81. VAN’T DACK, E. (1989) — Toujours le testament d’un Ptolémée Alexandre. In VAN’T DACK, E.; CLARYSSE, W.; COHEN, G.; QUAEGEBEUR, J.; WINNICKI, J. K., coord. — The Judean-syrian-egyptian conflict of 103101 B.C.: A multilingual dossier concerning a «War of Sceptres». Brussel: Comité Klassieke Studies, p. 23, 156-161. 393 alexandrea ad aegyptvm: the legacy of multiculturalism in antiquity VANDERSLEYEN, C. (1995) — L’Égypte et la Valée du Nil. De la Fin de l’Ancien Empire à la Fin du Nouvel Empire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. VENIT, M. S. (1988) — The Painted Tomb from Wardian and the Decoration of Alexandrian Tombs. «Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt». New York: American Research Center in Egypt, vol. 25, p. 7191. VENIT, M. S. (1993) — The Landscape of Life. Allegory and Allusion in an Alexandrian Tomb Painting. «Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie». Alexandria: Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie, vol. 45, p. 383-390. VENIT, M. S. (1997) — The Tomb of Tigrane Pasha Street and the Iconography of Death in Roman Alexandria. «American Journal of Archaeology». Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, vol. 101, p. 701-729. VENIT, M. S. (1999) — The Stagni Painted Tomb: Cultural Interchange and Gender Differentiation in Roman Alexandria. «American Journal of Archaeology». Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, vol. 103, p. 641-649. VENIT, M. S. (2002) — Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria: The Theater of the Dead. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VENIT, M. S. (2010) — Referencing Isis in Tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt: tradition and innovation. In BRICAULT, L.; VERSLUYS, M. J., eds. — Isis on the Nile: The cults of Egyptian gods in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Proceedings of the IVth International Conference of Isis studies, Universite de Liege, November 27-29 2008. Michel Malaise in honorem. Leiden: Brill, p. 89-119. VERCOUTTER, J. (1992) — L Égypte et la Valée du Nil. Des origines à la Fin de l’Ancien Empire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. VERRETH, H. (2006) — The Northern Sinai from the 7th Century B.C.E. till the 7th A.D.: A Guide to Sources. Leiden: Brill, vol. II. VEYNE, P. (1982) — L’homosexualité à Rome. «Communications», vol. 35. p. 26-33; VIDAL, C., ed. (2002) — Maneton, Historia de Egipto. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. VIERROS, M. (2005) — Greek or Egyptian? The Language Choice in Ptolemaic Documents from Pathyris. In DELATTRE, A.; HEILPORN, P., eds. — «Et maintenant ce ne sont plus que des villages…»: Thèbes et sa region aux époques hellénistique, romaine et byzantine. Actes du colloque tenu à Bruxelles les 2 et 3 décembre 2005. Bruxelles: Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, p. 73-86. VON BOMHARD, A. S. (2000) — The Egyptian Calender. In HAWASS, Z.; BROCK, L. P., eds. — Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptology. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, p. 137-45. WACHSMANN, S. (2009) — Seagoing ships and seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. Texas: Texas A&M University. WADDELL, W. G., ed. (1980) — Manetho. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Londres: William Heinemann Ltd. WALDSTEIN, C. (1892) — Herondas IV. «The Classical Review». Cambridge: Classical Association, vol. 6.3, p. 135-136. WALFORD, E., ed. (1855) — Epitome of The Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, compiled by Photius, Patriarc of Constantinople. London: Henry G. Bohn. WALKER, S.; HIGGS, P., eds. (2001) — Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth. London: Bristih Museum Press. WARMINGTON, E. H. (reprinted 1967) — The Geography of Strabo VIII. London / Cambridge: Loeb. WELLENDORF, H. (2008) — Polemy’s political tool: religion. «Studia Antiqua. A Student Journal for the Study of the Ancient World». Provo: Brigham Young University, vol. 6, nr. 1, p. 33-40. WELLES, C. B. (1962) — The Discovery of Sarapis and the Foundation of Alexandria. «Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte». Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, vol. 11, p. 271-298. 394 BIBLIOgraphy WEST, S. (1983) — Notes on the Text of Lycophron. «Classical Quarterly». Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 33.1, p. 114-135. WEST, S. (1984) — Lycophron Italicised. «Journal of Hellenic Studies». London: Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, vol. 104, p. 127-151. WEST, S. (2000) — Lycophron’s Alexandra: Hindsight as Foresight Makes no Sense? In DEPPEW; OBBINK, eds. — Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons and Society. Cambridge Mss.: Harvard University Press, p. 153-161. WHITEHORNE, J. (1995) — Women’s Work in Theocritus, Idyll 15. «Hermes». Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 123.1, p. 63-75. WHITMARSH, T. (2005) — The Second Sophistic: Greece and Rome – New Surveys in the Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. WIELDUNG, D.; REITER, F.; ZORN, O. (2010) — Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Saatliche Museen zu Berlin. Berlin: Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Saatliche Museen zu Berlin. WILKINSON, T. (2005) — Early Dinastic Egypt. 3rd. ed. London: Routledge. WILLIAMS, C. A. (1995) — Greek Love at Rome. «Classical Quarterly». Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 45/2, p. 517-539. WILLIAMS, C. A. (2010) — Roman Homosexuality. Oxford: University Press. WILLIAMS, R. D. (1990) — The Sixth Book of the Aeneid: Oxford Readings in Vergil’s Aeneid (ed. E. L. Harrison). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 191-207. WINSTON, D. (1981) — Philo of Alexandria: «The Contemplative Life», «The Giants», and Selections. New York: Paulist Press. WINTER, B. W. (2002) — Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Jewish-Claudian Movement. Grand Rapids, MI & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WITT, R. E. (1997) — Isis in the Ancient World. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. WOLFSON, H. A. (1962) — Philo. Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Cambridge: MS, Harvard University Press, 2 vols. YOYOTTE, J. (1988) — Le Zeus Casios de Péluse à Tivoli: une hypothèse [avec 4 planches]. «Bulletin de L’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale». Cairo: IFAO, 88, p. 165-180. YOYOTTE, J. (1998) — Pharaonica. In GODDIO, F. et al., eds. — Alexandria: The Submerged Royal Quarters. London: Periplus, p. 199-220. ZANKER, G. (2004) — Modes of Viewing in Hellenistic Poetry and Art. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. ZIEGLER, K. (1934) — Theon 15. In AA.VV., Paulys-Wissova Realencyclopädie Der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag, v. 2, p. 2075-2080. ZIEGLER, K. (1969) — Lykophron. In AA.VV., Der Kleine Pauly, t. III. Stuttgart, coll. 815-816. 395