Description: The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World by Luciano Canfora, Translated by Martin Ryle. DESCRIPTION: Softcover (205 pages). Publisher: University of California Press (1990). Dimensions: 9 x 6½ x ¾ inches; ¾ pound. The Library of Alexandria was one of the wonders of the Ancient World, and it has haunted Western culture for over 2,000 years. The Ptolemaic kings of Egypt - successors of Alexander the Great - had a staggering ambition: to house all of the books ever written under one roof. The idea of the universal library and its destruction still has the power to move us. But what was the library, and where was it? Contemporary descriptions are vague and contradictory. Luciano Canfora resolves these puzzles in one of the most unusual books of classical history ever written. He recreates the world of Egypt and the Greeks in brief chapters that marry the craft of the novelist and the discipline of the historian. Anecdotes, conversations, and reconstructions give “The Vanished Library” the texture of a novel, yet Canfora bases all of them on historical and literary sources in this elegant piece of historical detective work. As the chilling conclusion to this elegant piece of historical detective work he establishes who burned the books. CONDITION: VERY GOOD. Unread (and in that sense "new") but slightly age-blemished softcover. University of California (1990) 205 pages. Unblemished, unmarked, virtually pristine in every respect except for the fact that there are very faint, very small, almost indiscernible tan-colored age spicules to the top and (to a lesser extent) the fore-edge surfaces of the massed closed page edges. Oftentimes referred to as "foxing", these tiny, faint spicules are not visible to the individual open pages, only to the massed surface of the closed page edges (oftentimes referred to as the "page block"). And they're very faint, almost indiscernible to the fore-edge surface of the massed closed page edges, and very faintly discernible (with close scrutiny) to the top surface of the massed closed page edges. I'd also mention that if you examine the book's covers edge-on (i.e., looking not "along the edge", but at the actual edge of the covers), they too are tanned (the fore-edge and top edges). Otherwise from the outside the book evidences only veyr faint edge and corner shelfwear to the covers. Inside the book is pristine. The pages are clean, crisp, unmarked, unmutilated, tightly bound, unambiguously unread. From the outside the edge and corner shelfwear to the covers shelfwear is principally in the form of faint crinkling to the spine head, spine heel, and the four open cover corners (or "tips" as they are oftentimes referred to). The worst of it is at the lower open corner of the back cover, which has a tiny 1/4 inch half-formed corner crease (crinkled but not bent over). Except for that, the edge and corner shelfwear is very faint. And when we say "very faint", we mean just that, literally (and yes, we're nitpicking). However it is our duty (in the interest of full disclosure) to describe any blemish, regardless of how faint it is. But except for that lower open corner of the back cover, in order to discern the shelfwear you have to hold the book up to a light source and scrutinize it quite intently to discern the faint crinkling. Except for the fact that the book does evidence some very faint age-spicules ("foxing"), the condition of the book is (otherwise) consistent with new stock from a traditional brick-and-mortar shelved bookstore environment (such as Barnes & Noble, Borders, or B. Dalton, for instance) wherein new books might evidence very faint shelfwear, simply due to routine handling. Satisfaction unconditionally guaranteed. In stock, ready to ship. No disappointments, no excuses. PROMPT SHIPPING! HEAVILY PADDED, DAMAGE-FREE PACKAGING! Meticulous and accurate descriptions! Selling rare and out-of-print ancient history books on-line since 1997. We accept returns for any reason within 30 days! #1647.1c. PLEASE SEE IMAGES BELOW FOR SAMPLE PAGES FROM INSIDE OF BOOK. PLEASE SEE PUBLISHER, PROFESSIONAL, AND READER REVIEWS BELOW. PUBLISHER REVIEW: REVIEW: The Library of Alexandria, a “Wonder of the Ancient World”. What was it? Where was it? Did it exist at all? Contemporary descriptions are vague and contradictory, but Luciano Canfora resolves these puzzles in one of the most unusual books of classical history ever written. Recreates the world of ancient Egypt, describes how the Library of Alexandria was created, and speculates on its destruction. Luciano Canfora teaches at the University of Bari and is the editor of the journal Quaderni di Storia. A specialist in ancient literature, he has published a history of Greek literature and studies of Thucydides. REVIEW: The Library of Alexandria, one of the wonders of the Ancient World, has haunted Western culture for over 2,000 years. The Ptolemaic kings of Egypt, successors of Alexander the Great, had a staggering ambition: to house all of the books ever written under one roof, and the story of the universal library and its destruction still has the power to move us. But what was the library, and where was it? Did it exist at all? Contemporary descriptions are vague and contradictory. The fate of the precious books themselves is a subject of endless speculation. Canfora resolves these puzzles in one of the most unusual books of classical history ever written. He recreates the world of Egypt and the Greeks in brief chapters that marry the craft of the novelist and the discipline of the historian. Anecdotes, conversations, and reconstructions give “The Vanished Library” the compulsion of an exotic tale, yet Canfora bases all of them on historical and literary sources, which he discusses with great panache. As the chilling conclusion to this elegant piece of historical detective work he establishes who burned the books. REVIEW: Luciano Canfora teaches at the University of Bari and is the editor of the journal Quaderni di Storia. A specialist in ancient literature, he has published a history of Greek literature and studies of Thucydides. TABLE OF CONTENTS: The Pharaoh's Tomb. The Sacred Library. The Forbidden City. The Fugitive. The Universal Library. 'I leave my books to Neleus'. The Symposium. In the Cage of the Muses. The Rival Library. Reappearance and Disappearance of Aristotle. The Second Visitor. War. The Third Visitor. The Library. The Fire. The Dialogue of John Philoponus with the Emir Amrou Ibn el-Ass While Amrou Prepared to Burn the Library. Part 1- References. Gibbon. The Dialogues of Amrou. Resvisions of Aristeas. Aulus Gellius. Isidore of Seville. Livy. Conjectures. Hecataeus. The Elusive Library. The Soma of Rameses. Kadesh. Strabo and Neleus. Library Traditions. Conflagrations. Epilogue. PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS: REVIEW: Canfora, an expert in ancient literature and a professor at the University of Bari (Italy), has created a loving, anecdotal ramble through that fabled store of classical learning, the Library of Alexandria, its history and destruction, probably not, in Canfora's opinion, during Caesar's campaign but some 300 to 400 years later, as the Arab world began to encroach on a crumbling Roman Empire. The author stops along the way to consider some germane (and some tangential) subjects: the fate of Aristotle's writings, the rival library at Pergamum, Ramses II's victory over the Hittites at Kadesh, the creation of the Septuagint. Nonetheless Canfora makes clear the importance of the Library. No matter how much was destroyed, far more was conserved--or created--by the scholars and copyists who worked within its confines. REVIEW: Canfora guides us through the labyrinth of traditions about the library, reawakening for us the myth of the world's memory safeguarded in a single place for an elite of intellectuals. This mystery has awaited, for a long time, a historian with the temperament of a writer as well as that of a scholar, and it has found its ideal match in Luciano Canfora. REVIEW: “The Vanished Library” is an extraordinarily innovative work of ancient history. It is not just that the book engages with cultural debates outside the field of Classics. Canfora is also experimenting with new ways of writing the history of the Classical world. “The Vanished Library” is staking a claim for the reintegration of ancient history into the contemporary cultural agenda. In the Anglo-American context such reintegration is definitely overdue. [London Review of Books]. REVIEW: Canfora, an expert in ancient literature and a professor at the University of Bari (Italy), has created a loving, anecdotal ramble through that fabled store of classical learning, the Library of Alexandria, its history and destruction, probably not, in Canfora's opinion, during Caesar's campaign but some 300 to 400 years later, as the Arab world began to encroach on a crumbling Roman Empire. The author stops along the way to consider some germane (and some tangential) subjects: the fate of Aristotle's writings, the rival library at Pergamum, Ramses II's victory over the Hittites at Kadesh, the creation of the Septuagint. To avoid further distractions on this peripatetic journey, Canfora reserves the exegesis of historical sources to the second half of the book. An admittedly murky subject, Canfora nonetheless makes clear the importance of the Library. No matter how much was destroyed, far more was conserved--or created--by the scholars and copyists who worked within its confines. [Publisher’s Weekly]. REVIEW: An immensely fascinating book. Instead of trying a literary fiction or a pure biography, Mr. Canfora has opted to string together a number of anecdotes from various early sources to tell the story of the Library of Alexandria. I would highly recommend this short book to anyone learning or teaching about the reality behind the legend of both the library and the city of Alexandria. REVIEW: This is a clever reconstruction of the probable history of the scholarly community that we describe as the "Library at Alexandria" generally regarded as the focus of Hellenistic scholarly activity. There is a historical sketch of its provenance and a reasoned history of its survival until its likely dispersal and destruction. The Author has also provided a lengthy discussion of the various references to the library and the reasons why the various authors recorded the information they have passed to us. It is a clever and informative discussion. there is also discussion of the rivalry with the library at Pergamum. This book is definitely a keeper. REVIEW: A somewhat unusual history, in that it consists of a series of rather loosely connected episodes relating to the famous library of Alexandria, starting with a visit by Hecataeus of Abdera to the tomb of Rameses II and ending with the caliph Omar's command to burn the contents of the library on the grounds that if the books contradicted the book of the Prophet, they deserved to be destroyed, and if they were in accordance with the book of the Prophet, they were superfluous and therefore deserved to be destroyed. The final episode in the series, "The Dialogue of John Philoponus with the Emir Amrou Ibn el-Ass while Amrou prepared to burn the Library", could easily have been a story written by Borges. REVIEW: Fascinating and well researched work on the library in Alexandria. REVIEW: Everything you ever wanted to know about the lost Library at Alexandria. A fascinating read. REVIEW: This mystery has awaited, for a long time, a historian with the temperament of a writer as well as that of a scholar, and it has found its ideal match in Luciano Canfora. REVIEW: A fluid, distinctive, and highly intelligent portrait of Caesar in his times READER REVIEWS: REVIEW: This is far more than the story of the mysterious library at Alexandria, and more than merely a fascinating literary and historical detective story. Herein one learns about such things as the competition between the libraries at Alexandria and Pergamum, and how the latter was forced to develop parchment technology which despite its apparent relative crudity produces a more durable product. The analysis of the fire which Caesar set, burning up 70,000 books which were apparently just commercial products, is another fascinating subtext - I mean, who knew that there were commercial publishing houses in Egypt which were selling books to the Romans? Most importantly, one can begin to follow the manner in which literary and historical scholars transited the Mediterranean, how the conquest of Egypt by Alexander and the subsequent reign of the Ptolemies fostered the accumulation of the library, how the contents thereof including the writings of Aristotle which lie at the very core of Western civilization transited from Greece to Egypt to Rome...and all of that in the first 100 page section of this remarkable book. The second section of the book, which details the historical sources for the author's analysis, is nearly beyond the reach of anyone other than a specialist in ancient history. But it provides yet another fascinating subtext much akin to trying to solve a centuries-old murder with only traces of hearsay information. For any given claim, such as the actual location of the library, the author gathers together the claims of the available testimonials and the timelines in which they were made, and then tries to extract therefrom which authors used what earlier sources. Then he looks for how the claims and descriptions can be reconciled to each other, even considering differences in language. It is hard for me to imagine how one could accumulate the necessary knowledge to even attempt such a task... But somehow he manages, and the verdict does seem clear, despite the efforts of later apologists - including Gibbon, who does not acquit himself well on this issue despite his reputation for profundity - to whitewash the facts and transfer the blame. The Library, which apparently was not an actual separate building as anyone would expect, but just a collection of scrolls piled on shelves in a long hallway - although there were tens if not hundreds of thousands of them - were burned up by the Moslem conqueror of Egypt, Amrou el-Ass (and I am not making that up) on the orders of the second Caliph, Omar, who - and this bigoted quality of thought will sound very familiar to anyone familiar with our contemporary Taliban - said that since all knowledge is contained in the Koran, if the books in the library agreed with the Koran they were superfluous, and if they disagreed they were heretical, so they should be destroyed in either case. And so, el-Ass used them to heat the 4,000 baths of Alexandria, requiring several months to burn them all - which, as they say in the FBI, "sounds like the moose-head truth" - i.e., it is a combination of details that *nobody* could have fabricated. REVIEW: I found this book both informative, as well as, a joy to read. That is because most of it reads more like a novel than a formal academic study. This is done to put the reader into the overall cultural mindset of Alexandria and the library at various points in it's almost 1000 year history. Having done my own research on this topic in college I can vouch for the accuracy and completeness of the author's research. The truth is that there is very little surviving hard data about this institution (and absolutely no surviving archeological evidence.) There is however an original revelation that the layout of the Museum may very well have imitated that of the Ramesseum at Thebes. This is due to the fact that the Greek rulers of the Ptolemaic period adhered closely to classical Egyptian forms, at least in a superficial and material manner. This book clears up some popular misconceptions. First of all, there was no "library" as a separate institution or structure. It was always an inseparable part of the overall Museum. Secondly, the Museum was in no sense a secular institution. It was truly a temple to the Muses, and Holy Wisdom, with sacred functions. Even under Roman control it continued to be administered by a priest. Finally, it would seem that the Romans had nothing to do with the burning of the Museum, indeed there was no damage during the Roman conquest. The greatest damage is shown to have been done in late antiquity at the hands of Christian fanatics. Like so many similar of cases of the mindless destruction of our classical heritage. REVIEW: Almost certainly, no other ancient institution has caught the modern imagination so much as has The Library of Alexandria. Begun around 300BC, this remarkable establishment became the center of learning and scholarship in the Mediterranean world for hundreds of years thereafter. Our debt to the great library is incalculable; to it we owe the Septuagint (the Greek translations of the Old Testament), the standardization of Homer and Hesiod to their final forms, and the survival of the great Greek thinkers (Plato, Aristotle) to modern times. The beginnings of modern thought; science, philosophy, mathematics, medicine, can all be traced to this unique collection and the people who were a part of its scholarly society. It was the home to writers and thinkers that we are familiar with (Polybius, Appollonius Rhodius) and to far more that we are not but should (Theophrastus, Neleus). And its demise ranks as one of the greatest tragedies in Western history. In "The Vanished Library" Luciano Ganfora gives a popular account of the history of the Library, from its founding and shadowy beginnings, all the way up to its decline and destruction centuries later. But what makes this book interesting is that Ganfora resists the temptation to slip into the academic spouting of facts, figures, and theories at every opportunity. Rather, his aim is to not only show the reader the library, but to give one a feel for what it was like to be there, to work among the thousands of scrolls, and to live the life of the ancient Greek scholar. Ganfora's research is grounded firmly in the original sources, many of which he discusses at length in the book's appendix and several of which he quotes at length. The book sometime feels like a novel, because Ganfora frequently adopts a storyteller's tone in order to illustrate some aspect he wishes us to explore. Occasionally, Ganfora also digresses into some of the more controversial areas of the Library's history; he argues, for instance, that Caesar's sacking of Alexandria during the Roman Civil Wars did not destroy the library as many scholars insist, but rather destroyed an annex that was used to house finished scrolls meant for export across the Mediterranean (the Library being also a major source for the dissemination of literary works across the known world). But none of this detracts from the book itself. It does a very good job of introducing one to the subject of the Library and what we know about it, and makes for a rather delightful read along the way. Ganfora's book is easy to read for the layperson. One could read it cover-to-cover in literally a single sitting. And I think Ganfora does a great job of evoking the sense of just what the Library was like. For this reason I would recommend this book along with "The Shores of Wisdom" Both work as complementary pieces and are mutually complimentary as well as each covering subjects the other does not. REVIEW: Three hundred years before Christ the Ptolemy dynasty of Egypt used their enormous wealth to undertake a breathtaking enterprise, the creation of a great library to contain every book ever written. An immense "museum" was constructed in Alexandria, stuffed with millions of scrolls, the vast wealth of human literature of every type. Scholars translated the scrolls into Greek, and then later into Latin. These included religious texts from Judaism, Zoroastroism, plays, poetry, histories, epics, speeches, philosophy. Humanity's greatest achievements were archived deep within the Ramses II sarcophogous, next to the famous statue of Ozymandius. In the year 48 AD Alexandria was sacked by Julius Caesar. The fire from burning ships in the harbor spread to the town and burned the great library, incinerating the great treasure of human writings. Luciano Canfora teases threads from the many accounts of the almost mythical story to arrive at an unorthodox conclusion, that the most valuable papyrus scrolls remained within the dilapidated tomb for another six centuries. Ultimately the final 54,000 surviving books were burned at the order of Muslim conquers in order to heat the town's baths. Today we possess only a few scraps, copied from the few moth-eaten and almost unreadable scrolls that escaped destruction. Canfora's beautiful story blends fictional re-enactment with careful research to create a compelling and magical account of what may be civilization's greatest catastrophe. REVIEW: I honestly enjoyed this book. At first it seems quite disjointed and jumpy, more a series of random anecdotes than any sort of linear history. However, it builds as it goes along. The anecdotes become engrossing and amusing, and eventually a lot of it fits together to make some important points. It refutes the idea that the library was burned by Caesar, or that it even contained its original collection by the time it was burned by conquering Moslems. It also gives a picture of how and where the library was housed within the palace walls, which has often been a subject of confusion. The topic is overall fascinating, so that even those of us who aren't familiar with the many classical names that flit in and out of these chapters can get something out of it all. This may not be the definitive book on the subject, but it is well worth perusing. REVIEW: I just couldn't put it down. The first chapters are puzzling and one wonders why Canfora chose this unusual structure for his book. But like a suspense writer, he gives the reader one clue after another and suddenly everything makes sense. In retrospect one even beliefs that this study could not have been written in a more succinct and lucid way. I finished the 200 pages in five hours and felt like I had read a whole library. REVIEW: This is not a work for the person who likes watered-down beer. It is a critical examination of some aspects of the history of the Library of Alexandria, its strengths and weaknesses, its destruction, its relation to other libraries in Egypt and beyond. Along the way, Canfora offers a solution to the riddle of the library of Ramses II, and he roughs up some historians who badly need it, like Diodorus Siculus and Gibbon, and he offers imaginative reconstructions of events. Several interesting points are explored: the political tilt of Hecataeus (accounting for his view that ancient law-givers of Greece got their laws from Egypt); the fabrications of Diodorus Siculus; etc. Diodorus is revealed as the scamp he was. Though claiming a methodology from Polybius (he even cadged Polybius' introduction, word for word), Diodorus never made any of the trips he claimed to have made, with the exception of Egypt. There, he weaves in Hecataeus' description of Ramses II's temple (including its vagaries), and presents it as his own observation, based on representations from the Egyptian priests there. Of course, Diodorus' history is one long cadging, as Pliny pointed out, but this episode brings into question whether he ever used priests as informants. He has the priests telling him that Egyptians colonized all the Mediterranean and even Babylonia, and that Ramses II fought in Bactria (Afghanistan!!). This one-ups Hecataeus' politically inspired fabrications. The relationship to the more extreme current Afro-centric views is obvious, because Diodorus is one of their linchpins. Even Diodorus' description of the palace at Alexandria doesn't contain a description of the Museum (and thus, not the library) -- was this because he was relegated to the daughter library of the Serapeum, or because he wanted to obscure the fact that he was writing (contra to his Polybian assertions) a library dissertation built exclusively on the work of others? A real treat, from a first-class scholar. REVIEW: The vanished library is the Library of Alexandria in Egypt. This institution was the most famous library in antiquity. The book is divided into two parts. This first part is a history of the classical world from the 3rd Century BC, when the library was founded, to the 3rd Century AD, when it was destroyed by fire. The second part is Canfora's commentary of the sources we have on the existence of the library in other ancient documents existing at the present time. The library had originated in the foundation by Ptolemy I Soter of the "Museum", a community of learned men in Alexandria organised like a religious cult. Ptolemy, a Macedonian, was a general of Alexander the Great who became, after Alexander's death late in the 4th Century BC, the ruler of Egypt and founder of the so-called Ptolemaic dynasty. Alexandria had always been a centre of Hellenistic influence in Egypt, having had a significant Greek presence since the 6th Century BC. Ptolemy had his library modeled on that of Athens, and in fact hired a former ruler of Athens, Demetrius Phalereus, as its first curator. Thus it reflected the highest literary achievement of the ancient world. The library would obtain any book it could lay its hands on (a good way was to borrow that of traders visiting the city), copy it, and lay it up in its collection. In time it had scrolls from all over the Hellenistic world as well as translations of other important pieces of ancient literature, notably the Septuagint, which was the Greek translation of Old Testament. Museum scholars would sometimes specialize in collecting rare works of poetry, gradually establishing a canon of them so that we owe our knowledge of this aspect of Hellenistic culture to the tastes of the Librarians. It is clear that when it was destroyed, a great deal of the thought of people like Aristotle, thinkers affecting the way we live in the late 20th Century, which had been written down and eventually found its way to the Library, went up in flames as well. Had the library survived, Western philosophy may have taken a different turn as the thinking of philosophers was influenced by what has not been lost. The Library thus can be compared to a kind of ancient World Wide Web, in which information in the form of scrolls was available from all over the world, with the president-priest in charge of the Library faculty a classical version of Bill Gates by providing the standards for information exchange. For example, works obtained by the Library, when copied out, would be subjected in the process to a standardized process of division into a number of "Books" , or parts of equal length, and that standards of punctuation and accentuation would apply in the Greek text. New works, like Microsoft's proprietary software such as the Encarta '95, would be produced from the scrolls as his disposal, notably a bibliography compiled by a poet named Callimachus which was known to have survived into the Byzantine era (post 476 AD) as a standard reference work on Greek literature. The difference between the Library and the Web is that everyone on the Web is continually backing up their files and that, in our great Information Age, knowledge is not to be found on papyrus but on 3.5 inch disks. There is no one natural calamity which could affect intellectual life like the destruction of the Library because information is so de-centralized now. So, for example, say there is an earthquake which flattens Tokyo. One of the world's principal stock exchanges is located there. Now, even if the Tokyo Stock Exchange' own computers are wiped out in the tragedy, somewhere in the world some broker or trader's computer will have recorded the last sale price for just about every stock traded there, so when the Exchange officials attempt to re-open the market they will be able to re-build their systems using that information which has been preserved. Or the Stock Exchange, forseeing the possibility of such as disaster, could establish backup computer facilities on Okinawa, which they would simply feed into their new computers without having to bother to ask other firms. Thus, we see that the 20th Century equivalent of the fire in Alexandria, caused by the civil war that raged over the Roman world at the time of Aurelian, would have to be a nuclear holocaust which wiped out just about every form of life on earth, not just intellectual life. In which case, having backed up our files will not be much help. REVIEW: Canfora was a Professor of Classical Philology at the University of Bari. He represents a clear strand in Italian academia, deploying a parade of abstruse scholarship to support a big populist argument. His biography of Caesar presents him as a public-benefit patriarch. Here, Canfora tries to investigate the Library of Alexandria - why it was created and what happened to it. There are 200 pages of fairly big text split into 14 small chapters - mostly starting from a quotation from a source or debating a technical point, often supported with reference to German, French or Italian books from a lifetime or two ago. The first half is the story and the second half is an analysis of the 'sources' - though it doesn't feel like there is a huge difference when you read these chapters. The big stories do come across, though they are mainly constructed from these detailed points glued together with bold conjecture. I am a sucker for this kind of thing, and Canfora is one of best writers of this - along with Umberto Eco and Roberto Calasso. I was a pig in clover here. I had read it back in 1991 and recently got another copy. Here's a fairly typical sentence: 'A native and inhabitant of Alexandria, Didymus had never felt impelled to visit Rome, and he knew almost nothing of the school of Pergamum'. Marvellous! Some of the library-themed things he wrote about include: - The origin of the word 'apotheke' (from the Greek word 'theke' meaning a 'shelf' - Herodotus first used it in this sense when describing books in the Pharaonic tombs). - The disappearance of Aristotle's library (most of the works we have are his lecture notes, not his published books) and its reappearance after the Roman general Sulla captured Athens a couple of centuries later (this is a good bit). - The cultural ambitions of various Egyptian Ptolemies (from around 300-50BC). - The setting and the layout of the 'Temple of the Muses' (lots of 'bold conjecture' here, based upon an attempt at planning it out using Strabo's description). - The various destructions of the library - though he denies Julius Caesar's reported destruction of the library actually happened - ending with its final burning after capture by Caliph Omar's Muslims ('Aristotle's books were the only ones spared'). REVIEW: This is the kind of book that makes you want to find out more about this library and the happenings in and around Alexandria Egypt. I liked the style of short chapters, each covering a specific moment in history and the players involved. It reads like an unfolding mystery. Having read the other reviews I realize that there is some speculation and some leaps of faith, but, it definitely held my interest and seemed totally believable. Highly recommended for anyone even casually interested in this period of history. REVIEW: This is history in the form of investigative narrative. The author presents sixteen narratives about the Library of Alexandria constructed from classical sources including Homer, Plutarch and Diogenes. He goes on to present commentaries on sources of information about the Library ranging from Gibbon to a discussion of the archaeologists knowledge of the construction and plan of the library. The combination is both a fascinating and unique approach to the history of one of the wonders of the ancient world. REVIEW: This is two books in one - a historical story which takes up the 1st 100 pages and short historical background on individual topics and historical written references which take up the final 97 pages. The story is easy to read, although unsurprisingly, somewhat jumpy as it spans about 1500 years of history. The second half of the book would be a good starting point for scholarly research, but is more like Cliff Notes written for the non-scholar. REVIEW: I read this book to account for my lack of adequate knowledge of the context of the fate of the Library at Alexandria, as a primer really. I learned a lot, and I can see myself going back and rereading sections to refine and strengthen my sense. I think the overriding impression is the need to always remember how little verifiable definitive history is available to tell the story of what happened and when. There are many threads of active debate surrounding issues that collectively paint the broader picture of this institution's considerable relevance, and its enduring value as a symbol of mankind's need to know. REVIEW: A fascinating string of well-researched anecdotes, full of violence and politics and life. Consensus has moved on somewhat from the book's conclusions about the library's ultimate fate, but this read is nevertheless awe-inspiring for any book-lover who wonders how books intersected with everything else in ancient European culture. REVIEW: Canfora's erudition is impressive! Even though the reading is very pleasant, it cannot be described as simple due to the countless references to sources and historiography that were contemporary. The glossary at the end of the book helps reading at many points. In addition to dealing with the library (or libraries) of Alexandria at various points in history, you can learn a lot about book culture and the practice of book production in antiquity. REVIEW: Most history books present a story of what happened. In doing so they often gloss over the uncertainties and minimize the ambiguities. This book, in contrast is the story of the processes of studying history. Lucianoo Canfora presents the pieces of the puzzle of the (possible) burning of the Library of Alexandria, points out the contradictions, and then let the us draw our own conclusions. I wish more history books were written this way. REVIEW: REVIEW: From the beginning of this book, we are treated to historical references [in order of their occurrance] to the famous Library at Alexandria, with an eye toward clearing up the fundamental mysteries surrounding it: where was the Library located? What was its place in ancient culture? And, finally, when and how many times was it really destroyed? An enjoyable and profound read, part history, part mystery; a refreshing change from the dry texts of collegiate studies. A book that engages the imagination as well as the intellect. An excellent piece of detective work. I loved it. REVIEW: "The Vanished Library" is an unconventional book. The subject is discussed scientifically and comprehensively. The first half of the book contains different small chapters that at first sight only connect loosely, but together they make sense and they provide a comprehensive discussion of the fate of the Alexandrine library throughout Antiquity. The second part discusses the sources used in the first part, but in fact it is a continuation of the discussion on a different level. Professor Canfora addresses intelligent and independently thinking readers, he seems to be giving a master class. He puts his readers to work, they have to reflect on the subject themselves, weigh the arguments and draw their own conclusions. Not the easiest reading, but rewarding. Independently of the main subject of the book, on different occasions Canfora shows the common practice of altering, forging and interpolating books in Antiquity, which is an important additional insight. REVIEW: This book falls under poetic history. Although the author is infinitely familiar with the topic there are no footnotes as a far as I can recall, merely the mental reconstruction of the climate and purposes of the Alexandrian library. It was a project of the Ptolemy's, confusing because they recycle the same names for generations. Alexandria was the site of a Roman intelligence gathering project for militaristic ends-if one can control the memory of a people or their religion victory was certain. This is the site of the Septuaguint, composed by Jewish scholars from an oral tradition and Hebrew documents into Greek. The Letter of Aristeas, falsely named because it is more a novel than a letter, tells the story of the Setuaguint.For anyone who had enjoyed the concept of the Alexandrine library as destroyed by war, as a symbol of the destruction of human efforts by ambition. REVIEW: A concise history of the greatest library in the ancient world containing information on the number of scrolls in its collection, the design of the building and the notable figures who came into contact with it and the story of its ultimate fate allowing the reader to move at a fast page turning novel like pace. REVIEW: I found this to be an excellent resource in dispelling the myths about the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. I also learned about the fate of many of Aristotle’s works of which I was unaware previously. Very informative! REVIEW: A concise history of the greatest library in the ancient world containing information on the number of scrolls in its collection, the design of the building and the notable figures who came into contact with it and the story of its ultimate fate allowing the reader to move at a fast page turning novel like pace. REVIEW: This book is astounding. I came away feeling that I knew way too much about the library at Alexandria. Canfora's passion for the subject is evident, and he seasons his account of the library and its death with personal intensity. The resultant detail is thorough and masterful. REVIEW: The library of Alexandria was one of the greatest achievements of humanity. And here Canfora documents all the ancient accounts of the library. REVIEW: This book is a history of the library of Alexandria which contained the writings of the ancient world. It is a story that readers cry over. The last chapter is particularly horrifying. How small can man's mind be? REVIEW: More like a set of individual historical references / discussions on the Library of Alexandria throughout history. Not a bad book if you are interested in the history of the Library and want a better understanding of what it really was and it's fate. REVIEW: More like a set of individual historical references and discussions on the Library of Alexandria throughout history. A great book if you are interested in the history of the Library and want a better understanding of what it really was and it's fate. REVIEW: A wonderful book about the lost Library of Alexandria. REVIEW: I’ve read this book several times and always enjoy it. I wish treasures of the ancient world were digitally recorded before lost forever. REVIEW: This is such a great read, it is hard to place it down when you start reading! REVIEW: About the lost library of Egypt. Very well done, and full of facts and history. REVIEW: While not overly scholarly, it still presents some valuable information with decent sourcing. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: ANCIENT ALEXANDRIA EGYPT: Alexandria is a port city located on the Mediterranean Sea in northern Egypt. It was founded in 331 BC by Alexander the Great. It is most famous in antiquity as the site of the Pharos, the great lighthouse. The Pharos of Alexandria was considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. It was not only the lighthouse itself which was famous, it was as well the nearby legendary library. The Temple of Serapis, or the “Serapion”, was also a part of the library complex as well. The city of Alexandria was the ancient world’s pre-eminent seat, as well as once, the largest and most prosperous city in the world. It also became infamous for the religious strife which resulted in the martyrdom of the philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria in 415 AD. The city grew from a its origin as a small port town to become the grandest and most important metropolis in ancient Egypt. After conquering Syria in 332 BC Alexander the Great swept down into Egypt with his army. He founded Alexandria in the small port town of Rhakotis by the sea and set about the task of turning it into a great capital. It is said that he designed the plan for the city which was so greatly admired later by the 1st century (BC) Greek historian Strabo who wrote, “…the city has magnificent public precincts and royal palaces which cover a fourth or even a third of the entire area. For just as each of the kings would, from a love of splendor, add some ornament to the public monuments, so he would provide himself at his own expense with a residence in addition to those already standing…” The palaces and grand homes Strabo mentions did not exist at the time Alexander founded the city. Although he was greatly admired by the Egyptians Alexander left Egypt only a few months after his arrival. Though declared a demi-god by the Oracle at Siwa, Alexander chose not to remain in his new capital city of Alexandria. Alexander instead marched on Tyre in Phoenicia. It was left to his commander Cleomenes to build the city Alexander had envisioned. Cleomenes accomplished a great deal. However the full expansion of Alexandria came under the rule of Alexander’s General Ptolemy and the Ptolemaic Dynasty (332-30 BC) which followed. After Alexander’s death in 323 BC Ptolemy brought Alexander’s body back to Alexandria to be entombed. Following the wars of the Diodachi Ptolemy began to rule Egypt from Alexandria supplanting the old capital of Memphis. Until its destruction by Alexander Tyre had been an important city in the region for trade and commerce. After its destruction by Alexander Alexandria filled the void which had been left. Carthage as well benefited by Alexander’s sack of Tyre, becoming one of the most prosperous cities of the Mediterranean. However Carthage was still a young port town when Alexandria began to thrive. The earth 20th century historian and scholar Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian wrote, “Under the Ptolemies, a line of Greek kings, Alexandria soon sprang into eminence, and accumulating culture and wealth, became the most powerful metropolis of the Orient. Serving as the port of Europe, it attracted the lucrative trade of India and Arabia. Its markets were enriched with the gorgeous silks and fabrics from the bazaars of the Orient. Wealth brought leisure, and it, in turn, the arts. It became, in time, the home of a wonderful library and schools of philosophy, representing all the phases and the most delicate shades of thought. At one time it was the general belief that the mantle of Athens had fallen upon the shoulders of Alexandria…” The city grew to become the largest in the known world at the time. It attracted scholars, scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, artists, and historians. The 3rd century BC Greek mathematician and Astronomer Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth to within 50 miles at Alexandria in the 3rd century BC. The 3rd century BC Mathematician and “Founder of Geometry” Euclid taught at the university there. The 3rd Century BC Greek great mathematician and astronomer Archimedes may have taught there and was certainly studied there. The greatest engineer and mathematician of his day, 1st century Greek engineer and mathematician Heron was born and lived in Roman-era Alexandria. Hero was credited with amazing feats in engineering and technology including the first vending machine, the force-pump, a windmill/windwheel, and a theater of automated figures who danced. The Library of Alexandria was begun under Ptolemy I, who ruled Egypt from 305-285 BC. It was completed by his son and successor, Ptolemy II, who ruled from 285-246 BC. Ptolemy II sent invitations to rulers and scholars around the known world asking them to contribute books. According to historians there was room for up to 70,000 papyrus scrolls. Most of the items were purchased for the library by Ptolemy II. However other means were sometimes used. In order to procure coveted works all ships entering the harbor were searched. Every book found was taken to the Library where it was decided whether to give it back or confiscate it and replace the original with a copy. No one knows how many books were held in the library at Alexandria but estimates have been made of 500,000. It is said that Mark Antony gave Cleopatra 200,000 books for the library but this claim has been disputed since antiquity. The historian Mangasarian wrote, “…after its magnificent library, whose shelves supported a freight more precious than beaten gold, perhaps the most stupendous edifice in the town was the temple of Serapis. It is said that the builders of the famous temple of Edessa boasted that they had succeeded in creating something which future generations would compare with the temple of Serapis in Alexandria.” “…This ought to suggest an idea of the vastness and beauty of the Alexandrian Serapis, and the high esteem in which it was held. Historians and connoisseurs claim it was one of the grandest monuments of Pagan civilization, second only to the temple of Jupiter in Rome, and the inimitable Parthenon in Athens. The Serapis temple was built upon an artificial hill, the ascent to which was by a hundred steps. It was not one building, but a vast body of buildings, all grouped about a central one of vaster dimensions, rising on pillars of huge magnitude and graceful proportions.” “Some critics have advanced the idea that the builders of this masterpiece intended to make it a composite structure, combining the diverse elements of Egyptian and Greek art into a harmonious whole. The Serapion was regarded by the ancients as marking the reconciliation between the architects of the pyramids and the creators of the Athenian Acropolis. It represented to their minds the blending of the massive in Egyptian art with the grace and the loveliness of the Hellenic…” When Carthage rose to the height of her power Alexandria was relatively unaffected as trade had long been established and the city posed no threat to the sea power of the Carthaginians. The fall of Carthage followed the Punic Wars against Rome (264-146 BC). Rome became supreme and Alexandria fell under Roman sway. Still Alexandria city remained prosperous and continued to attract visitors from all over the world. The increasing tensions in Rome between Julius Caesar and Pompey first impacted Alexandria negatively in 48 BC. Though the city certainly experienced its share of problems prior to this date, it remained a stable environment. Following the Battle of Pharsalus at which Caesar defeated Pompey, Pompey fled to Alexandria seeking sanctuary. Pompey was killed by Egypt’s co-regent Ptolemy XIII. Whether real or feigned Caesar arrived in Egypt and claimed outrage at the death of his adversary, former friend and ally. He then declared martial law, took over the royal palace, and sent for the exiled co-regent Cleopatra VII. In the civil war which ensued much of Alexandria was burned. According to some scholars this included the famous library. Of course Julius Caesar and Cleopatra had a notorious and famous relationship. Two children followed, and Cleopatra took up residence in Rome. Caesar was of course assassinated in 44 BC in Rome. His right-hand man Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) became Cleopatra’s consort and left Rome for Alexandria. The city became his base of operations over the next thirteen years. Ultimately he and Cleopatra and their combined Roman/Egyptian forces were defeated by Octavian Caesar and his Roman forces at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. The following year Cleopatra and Antony both committed suicide. With the death of Cleopatra VII the Ptolemaic line came to an end. Octavian became the first emperor of Rome and took the title “Augustus”. Alexandria now became merely a province of the Roman Empire under the rule of Octavian Caesar Augustus. Augustus consolidated his power in the provinces and had Alexandria rebuilt. Scholars who argue against Julius Caesar’s role in the burning of the great library point to the fact that there is evidence it was still extant under the reign of Augustus. Visitors were still attracted to the city as a seat of learning. Alexandria was again ruined in 115 AD in the Kitos War. The city was again rebuilt by the Emperor Hadrian. Hadrian was a man of learning and naturally then took great interest in restoring Alexandria. According to tradition the Septuagint was composed in Alexandria. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Bible. It is traditionally believed that this was completed in 132 AD.. Thus the Bible could take its place among the great books of the library in the city. Religious scholars were said to frequent the library for research. Alexandria had long attracted people of many different faiths who vied for dominance in the city. Under Augustus’ reign there were disputes between Jews and pagans. As Christianity grew in popularity the Christians added to the degree of public unrest. Eventually the Roman Emperor Constantine passed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. The edict decreed a public policy of religious tolerance. As a consequence of the edict Christians were no longer liable for prosecution under the law based merely on their faith. The Christian community began to not only demand more religious rights, but more vigorously attack Jews and “Pagans” who subscribed to either the Roman and/or Egyptian religions. From a historical perspective it seems clear that the viewpoint demonstrated by the Christian community was that while Christians were by edict allowed their religious freedom, Jews and Pagans were not. Alexandria had heretofore been a city of prosperity and learning. Instead it no devolved into an arena of religious contention between the new faith of the Christians and the old faith of the pagan majority. The Christians increasingly felt bold enough to strike at the symbols of the old faith in an attempt to topple it. The historian Magasarian wrote, “...It is not so much religion that makes the character of a people, as it is the people who determine the character of their religion. Religion is only the resume of the national ideas, thoughts, and character. Religion is nothing but an expression. It is not, for instance, the word or the language which creates the idea, but the idea which provokes the word into existence. In the same way religion is only the expression of a people's mentality. And yet a man's religion or philosophy, while it is but the product of his own mind, exerts a reflex influence upon his character. The child influences the parent, of whom it is the offspring; language affects thought, of which, originally, it was but the tool. So it is with religion. The Christian religion, as soon as it got into power, turned the world about…” Perhaps nowhere more than in Alexandria was this turn-about more apparent. Under the Theodosius I, who reigned as Roman Emperor from 379-395 AD, paganism was outlawed and Christianity encouraged. In 391 AD the Christian Patriarch Theophilus followed Theodosius’ lead and had all the pagan temples in Alexandria destroyed or converted into churches. By the year 400 AD Alexandria was in constant religious turmoil. In 415 AD this resulted in the murder of the Neo-Platonic philosopher Hypatia. According to some scholars, this was when a Christian mob burned down the great Library of Alexandria and completely destroyed the Temple of Serapis. Alexandria declined rapidly after this date. Scholars, scientists, and thinkers of all disciplines left the city for safer locales. After the rise of Christianity the city became steadily impoverished, both financially and culturally. Increasing the city became a battlefield for warring faiths, with little tolerance for differing religions. Alexandria was conquered by the Sassanid Persians in 619 AD. The Christian Byzantine Empire under the Emperor Heraclius reclaimed the city in 628 AD. But Alexandria was again lost to invading Arab Muslims under Caliph Umar in 641 AD. The forces of the Christian Byzantines and the Muslim Arabs then fought for control of Alexandria as well as greater Egypt until the Arabian forces prevailed in 646 AD. Egypt fell under Islamic rule. The churches were destroyed or transformed in mosques. Christian legend claims that it was at this time that the great library was burned by the Muslim conquerors. However the historical evidence contradicts this self-serving whitewash and points to the Christian riots of 415 AD instead. What was not destroyed by war was taken down by nature and, by 1323 CE, most of Ptolemaic Alexandria was gone. The great lighthouse was steadily destroyed by earthquakes as was much of the port. In 1994 the first discoveries were publicized of a number of relics, statuary, and buildings discovered beneath the water in the harbor of Alexandria. These have been steadily excavated by Professor Jean-Yves Empereur and his team who continue to bring to light the lost golden age of Alexandria [Ancient History Encyclopedia]. The Lighthouse of Alexandria (“Pharos)”: The Lighthouse of Alexandria was built on the island of Pharos outside the harbors of Alexandria, Egypt roughly between 300 and 280 BC. The construction was during the reigns of the Kings Ptolemy I and II. With a height of over 330 feet (100 meters) the lighthouse was so impressive that it was included onto the established list of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Although now lost, it stood for over 1600 years. Its lasting legacy is that it gave its Greek name “Pharos” to the architectural genre of any tower with a light designed to guide mariners. The lighthouse is oftentimes credited with influencing later Arab minaret architecture. It certainly created a whole host of copycat structures in harbors around the Mediterranean. After the pyramids of Giza the lighthouse was the tallest man-made structure in the world. Alexandria in Egypt was founded by Alexander the Great in 331 BC. Thanks to its two natural harbors on the Nile Delta, the city prospered as a trading port under the Ptolemaic dynasty and throughout antiquity. The Ptolemaic Dynasty was founded by one of Alexander’s Generals, Ptolemy, and Ptolemy and his successes ruled Egypt from 305 to 30 BC. Alexandria was a cosmopolitan city with citizens from all over the Greek world. The city had its own assembly and coinage and became a renowned center of learning. Around 300 BC Ptolemy I Soter commissioned the building of a massive lighthouse to guide ships into Alexandria. Of course it was also intended to provide a permanent reminder of his power and greatness. The project was completed some 20 years later by his son and successor Ptolemy II. The structure only added to the impressive list of things to see at the great city which included the tomb of Alexander, the Museum (an institution for scholars), the Serapeum Temple, and the magnificent Library of Alexandria. According to several ancient sources the lighthouse was the work of the architect Sostratus of Cnidus. However he may rather have been the project’s financial backer. The structure was located on the very tip of the limestone islet of Pharos facing the harbors of Alexandria. These two natural harbors were the Great Harbor and the whimsically named Eunostos or 'Harbor of Fortunate Return'. The mainland was linked to the island of Pharos by a causeway, the Heptastadion. This was about three-quarters of a mile long (1.2 kilometers). A written account by someone of the name Poseidippos informs history that the lighthouse was intended to guide and protect sailors. To that end the lighthouse was dedicated to two gods, Zeus Soter (Deliverer). The dedication dedicatory inscription on the tower was made with foot-and-one-half (1/2 meter) tall letters. The second god is uncertain, but it was possibly Proteus. Proteus was the Greek sea god also known as the 'Old Man of the Sea'. The lighthouse at Alexandria was certainly not the first such aid to ancient mariners. However it was probably the first monumental one. The north Aegean island of Thasos for example was known to have had a tower-lighthouse in the Archaic Period. Beacons and beacons and landmarks were widely used by cities to help sailors across the Mediterranean. Ancient lighthouses were built primarily as navigational aids for where a harbor was located rather than as a warning of hazardous shallows or submerged rocks. However because of the dangerous waters of Alexandria’s harbor the Pharos actually performed both functions. The 1st century (BC) Greek historian Strabo made the following observations on Pharos: “…This extremity itself of the island is a rock, washed by the sea on all sides, with a tower upon it of the same name as the island, admirably constructed of white marble, with several stories. Sostratus of Cnidus, a friend of the kings, erected it for the safety of mariners, as the inscription imports. For as the coast on each side is low and without harbors, with reefs and shallows, an elevated and conspicuous mark was required to enable navigators coming in from the open sea to direct their course exactly to the entrance of the harbor…” The exact design of the lighthouse is unfortunately not made clear by ancient writers. Their descriptions are often vague, confusing, and conflicting. Most sources do agree that the tower was white, making it more visible. Most sources also agree that the lighthouse had three floors. The bottom floor was rectangular, the middle floor octagonal, and the to/p floor round. Most (but not all) sources agree that there was a statue of Zeus Soter on the top. Later Arab writers describe a ramp rising around the outside of the lower part of the tower and an internal staircase to reach the upper levels. Modern historians have debated the height of the tower. Estimates range from 100 to 140 meters (330 to 460 feet). In either case the Pharos would have been at the time the second tallest architectural structure in the world after the pyramids at Giza. A fire was kept at the top of the tower to make it visible at night. However whether this was so from the outset is debated by historians. This is largely because the earliest references to the Pharos in the works of ancient writers make no mention at all of a light. Later sources do describe the Pharos as a lighthouse and not merely a landmark tower useful only during daylight. The flame would likely have been produced by burning oil as wood was scarce, The flame and several other points regarding the lighthouse are mentioned in the following description by the 1st century AD Roman writer Pliny the Elder: “…The cost of its erection was eight hundred talents, they say; and, not to omit the magnanimity that was shown by King Ptolemæus on this occasion, he gave permission to the architect, Sostratus of Cnidos, to inscribe his name upon the edifice itself. The object of it is, by the light of its fires at night, to give warning to ships, of the neighboring shoals, and to point out to them the entrance of the harbor...” According to later Arab sources, there was even a mirror to reflect the flame over a greater distance out to sea. Presumably of polished bronze the mirror may also have functioned as a reflector of the sun. The tower appears on Roman imperial coinage of the city from Domitian to Commodus (81 to 192 AD). The coins clearly show a large, narrow-windowed tower with no light visible. The tower is topped with a monumental statue and two smaller figures of Triton blowing a conch shell. These coins show the entrance to the tower being at the very base while later Arab descriptions have it higher up. The Pharos also appeared in mosaics and sarcophagi throughout antiquity, confirming its wide fame. Some of the monuments of the ancient world mightily impressed visitors from far and wide with their beauty, artistic and architectural ambition, and sheer scale. Their reputation grew as 'must-see' (“themata”) sights for the ancient traveler and pilgrim. Seven such monuments became the original 'bucket list' when ancient writers compiled shortlists of the most wonderful sights of the ancient world. The writers included such ancient notables as Herodotus, Callimachus of Cyrene, Antipater of Sidon, and Philo of Byzantium. The Lighthouse of Alexandria made it onto the established list of Seven Wonders albeit rather later than the others, because it was such a tall and unique structure. The tower’s design was copied to protect harbors and mariners throughout the ancient world. It became so famous as a lighthouse that the term “pharos” has been applied ever since to any such tower intended to aid shipping. “Pharos” is still the term for a lighthouse in many modern languages. Alexandria continued to prosper as part of the Roman Empire. It was the second most important city in the Roman world and the most important port in the eastern Mediterranean. Earthquakes, especially in 796 AD, 950 AD, 1303 AD, and 1323 AD badly damaged the Lighthouse of Alexandria over the centuries. Six years after the earthquake of 950 AD the lighthouse partially collapsed. However there are records of regular repairs and extensions. For example, a domed mosque was added to the top part around 1000 AD. A major reconstruction occurred around 1161 AD under the Muslim Fatimids. Some historians suggest that the tower had an influence on Arab minaret architecture. It is perhaps not coincidental that the Arabic word for minaret and lighthouse is the same: “al-Manarah”. The lighthouse disappears from the historical record after the 14th century, presumably finally toppled by another earthquake sometime in the 1330s AD. The tower’s granite foundations were reused in the Qait Bey Fort, built in the 15th century AD. The sea level has risen since antiquity. The ground upon which the lighthouse stood is now beneath the harbor’s waters. Modern marine archaeology in the area has discovered two monumental figures of Ptolemy I and his queen, Berenice. They may well have once belonged to the tower and its immediate vicinity. Many stone fragments from the lighthouse have also been found. Finally, as an interesting footnote, the Lighthouse of Alexandria might have been a much-copied veritable wonder but it was not always successful in helping mariners. Marine archaeologists have discovered over 40 wrecks in the area of the ancient harbor of Alexandria. On the other hand who can say how many more disasters there would have been without the great lighthouse guiding ships safely into the port [Ancient History Encyclopedia]? The Ptolemaic Dynasty: The Ptolemaic dynasty controlled Egypt for almost three centuries, from 305 to 30 BC. It eventually fell to the Roman Empire. While they ruled Egypt the Ptolemies they never became “Egyptian”. Instead they isolated themselves in the capital city of Alexandria, a city envisioned by Alexander the Great. The city was Greek both in language and practice. There were no marriages with outsiders or to Native Egyptians. Brother married sister or uncle married niece. The last Ptolemaic monarch was Queen, Cleopatra VII/ She remained Macedonian but spoke Egyptian as well as other languages. Except for the first two Ptolemaic pharaohs, Ptolemy I and his son Ptolemy II, most of the family was fairly inept. In the end the Ptolemies were only able to maintain their authority with the assistance of Rome. One of the unique and often misunderstood aspects of the Ptolemaic dynasty is how and why the Ptolemies never became Egyptian. The Ptolemies coexisted both as Egyptian pharaohs as well as Greek monarchs. In every respect they remained completely Greek, both in their language and traditions. This unique characteristic was maintained through intermarriage. Most often these marriages were either between brother and sister or uncle and niece. This inbreeding was intended to stabilize the family. Wealth and power were consolidated. Although it was considered by many an Egyptian and not Greek occurrence, the mother goddess Isis married her brother Osiris. These sibling marriages were justified or at least made more acceptable by referencing tales from Greek mythology in which the gods intermarried. Cronus had married his sister Rhea while Zeus had married Hera. Of the fifteen Ptolemaic marriages, ten were between brother and sister. Two of the fifteen were with a niece or cousin. Cleopatra VII was the subject of playwrights, poets, and movies. She was last Ptolemaic Monarch to rule Egypt. However Cleopatra VII was not Egyptian, she was Macedonian. According to one ancient historian she was a descendant of such great Greek queens as Olympias, the overly-possessive mother of Alexander the Great. However Cleopatra VII was also the only Ptolemy to learn to speak Egyptian and make any effort to know the Egyptian people. Of course Ptolemaic inbreeding was less than ideal. Jealousy was rampant and conspiracies were common. Ptolemy IV supposedly murdered his uncle, brother, and mother. Ptolemy VIII killed his fourteen-year-old son and chopped him into pieces. Rewinding to the origins of the dynasty brings us to the sudden death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC. His death brought chaos and confusion to his vast empire. Alexander died without naming an heir or successor. Instead history has him saying instead that the empire was left 'to the best'. Those commanders who had faithfully followed him from Macedon across the desert sands of western Asia were left to decide for themselves the fate of the kingdom. Some wanted to wait until the birth of Roxanne and Alexander’s son, the future Alexander IV. Others chose a more immediate and self-serving remedy, which was to simply divide Alexander’s empire amongst themselves. The final decision would bring decades of war and devastation. The vast territory was split among the most loyal of Alexander’s generals. They included Antigonus I (“the One-Eyed”), Eumenes, Lysimachus, and Antipater. Last was Ptolemy, often referred to as the 'most enterprising' of Alexander’s commanders. Ptolemy I Soter lived from 366 to 282 BC. The suffix appellation “Soter” meant “savior”). Ptolemy was a Macedonian nobleman. According to most sources he was the son of Lagos and Arsinoe. He had been a childhood friend of Alexander. He was Alexander’s official taster and bodyguard. He may even have been related to Alexander. Rumors abounded that he was the illegitimate son of Philip II, Alexander’s father. After the death of Alexander Ptolemy had led the campaign to divide the empire among the leading generals and in the partition of Babylon. To his delight Ptolemy received the land he had always craved, Egypt. In Ptolemy’s eyes Egypt was the ideal land, rich in resources. After years of oppression under the Persians the people of Egypt had welcomed Alexander and his conquering army. The Persian conquerors had been intolerant of the Egyptian customs and religion. Alexander was far more tolerant. Alexander publicly embraced their gods and prayed at their temples. He had even built a temple to honor the Egyptian mother goddess Isis. In Egypt Ptolemy saw vast potential, for himself. There was wealth beyond measure. That wealth was largely derived from agricultural production. Egypt’s borders were easy to defend. Libya lay to the west, Arabia to the east. He was not forced to be dependent upon the good will of the collegial commanders who had also served Alexander. Furthermore Egypt was on friendly terms with his homeland of Macedon. While the partition may have granted Egypt to Ptolemy, there were some who did not trust the cagey commander. Chief amongst those was Perdiccas, the self-appointed successor to Alexander. Cleomenes of Naucratis was had been named the Egyptian finance minister by Alexander. He was appointed by Perdiccas as an adjunct or hyparchos to keep watch (spy) on Ptolemy. Realizing Perdiccas' ploy, Ptolemy knew he had to free himself of Cleomenes. He accused the unwary minister of 'fiscal malfeasance' - not a completely trumped-up charge - and had him executed. With Cleomenes gone Ptolemy could then rule Egypt without anyone watching over his shoulder. In so doing Ptolemy would establish a dynasty that would last for almost three centuries until the time of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII. During Ptolemy’s four-decade rule of Egypt he would put the country on sound economic and administrative footing. After the death of Cleomenes Ptolemy began quickly and firmly to consolidate his power within Egypt. His sole purpose was to make Egypt great again. Reluctantly however he became involved in the ongoing Wars of the Successors. These were the destructive wars between Ptolemy’s colleagues, Alexander’s former generals who had each received portions of Alexander’s empire. While Ptolemy I did not deliberately seek territory outside Egypt, he would take advantage of a fortuitous occurrence if given the chance. Ptolemy occupied the island of Cyprus around 318 BC. Another opportunity found him fighting a Spartan named Thribon who had seized the city of Cyrene on the North Africa coast. After a quick, decisive victory Ptolemy turned the fallen conqueror over to the city who promptly executed him. Unfortunately Ptolemy could not avoid some involvement with the other commanders. He gave refuge to Seleucus and later supported Rhodes against the invading forces of Demetrius the Besieger, son of Antigonus. And there was his ongoing rivalry with Perdiccas. The hostility did not subside when Ptolemy stole Alexander’s body as it was being transported to a newly built tomb in Macedon. As the king’s chiliarch (or adjutant, commander) Perdiccas had established himself securely after Alexander’s death. Perdiccas had always hoped to reunite under his control what had been Alexander’s Empire before it had been parceled out. Perdiccas possessed Alexander’s signet ring as well as the Alexander’s remains. The intention was to return Alexander’s remains to Macedon for internment. However at Damascus the body inexplicably disappeared. Ptolemy had stolen and taken the body to Memphis. From Memphis Alexander’s body was taken to Alexandria. It was interred in a golden sarcophagus which was displayed in the center of the city. Perdiccas to say the least was outraged. However to those in Egypt the legitimacy of the Ptolemaic Dynasty lay in its connection to the fallen king. Even in death Alexander played a major role in both the Egyptian and Ptolemaic imagination. And Alexandria was the city conceived by Alexander. However the theft of Alexander’s body was too much for Perdiccas. The long simmering animosity boiled over into a war between Perdiccas and Ptolemy which lasted from 322 to 321 BC. Perdiccas attempted three military assaults on the Ptolemaic pharaoh. However all three attempts to cross the Nile into Egypt failed. After the loss of over two thousand soldiers his army had had enough and executed Perdiccas. There were few if any tears shed among the other collegial former commanders of Alexander. Perdiccas had not been very popular with any of them. Ptolemy I died in 282 BC. He named his son Ptolemy II Philadelphus as his successor. “Philadelphus” translates to “sister-loving”. The younger Ptolemy had served as co-regent with his father since 285 BC, when he was 23. Ptolemy II would rule until 246 BC. He married Arsinoe I, the daughter of the Thracian regent/king Lysimachus. Lysimachus you’ll recall was one of Ptolemy I’s colleagues, another former general for Alexander. Lysimachus had married Arsinoe II, the daughter of Ptolemy I and his mistress Berenice around 300 BC. The marriage was for the purpose of maintaining the alliance between Ptolemy and Lysimachus. The marriage took place after the death of Lysimachus’s first wife. It was a marriage he would regret. Probably to secure the throne of Thrace for her own son Arsinoe II convinced her husband to kill his presumptive heir and oldest son by his first marriage. The trumped-charges used for justification were treason. But though we can presume Arsinoe’s motives, we cannot be certain. It is certain that the murder of the popular young commander caused uproar among many of his fellow officers. After the death of Lysimachus, Ptolemy I would marry Lysimachus’s widow Arsinoe II, who was also his sister. Unlike many of his successors Ptolemy II expanded Egypt with acquisitions in Asia Minor and Syria. Egypt also reclaimed the Greek/Hellenic colonial city Cyrene in Libya. Originally Cyrene was a Libyan colony of the island of Thera. Cyrene had declared independence from Ptolemaic Egypt. Ptolemy II also fought two wars known as the “Syrian Wars”. They were fought against Antiochus I and Antiochus II. Antiochus I was another of Alexander’s generals and thus collegial to Ptolemy I. Ultimately Ptolemy II would marry his daughter Berenice to Antiochus II. Unfortunately Ptolemy II also fought the Chremonidean War against Macedon from 267-261 BC. Ptolemy’s forces failed in that endeavor. In Egypt Ptolemy II established trading posts along the Red Sea. He also completed construction on the Pharos, and enlarged the library and museum at Alexandria. To honor his parents Ptolemy II established a new festival, the Ptolemaeia. According to history Ptolemy II was one the last truly great pharaohs of Egypt. Many of those Ptolemies who followed failed to strengthen Egypt both internally and externally. Jealousy and in-fighting were common. Upon the death of Ptolemy II in 246 BC, Ptolemy III Euergetes came to the throne. “Euergetes” translates to “benefactor”. Ptolemy III ruled until 221 BC. He married Berenice II who was from the Greek city of Cyrene. Among their six children were Ptolemy IV and a princess also named Berenice. The sudden death of Princess Berenice brought about the Canopus Decree in 238 BC. Among other proclamations she was honored as a goddess. Another proclamation was the decree of for a new calendar, one that included 365 days with one additional day every four years. However the new calendar was not adopted. In 246 BC Ptolemy III invaded Syria to support Antiochus II in the Third Syrian War against Seleucus II. Antiochus II was Ptolemy’s brother-in-law, i.e., his sister’s husband. However Ptolemy III gained little from the war other than the acquisitions of a few towns in Syria and Asia Minor. His successor and son was Ptolemy IV Philopator. “Philopater” translates to “father-loving”. Ptolemy IV ruled from 221 until 205 BC. Keeping with family tradition, he married his sister Arsinoe III in 217 BC. He gained a small degree of success in the Fourth Syrian War which was conducted from 219 to 217 BC against Antiochus III. However Ptolemy IV was otherwise largely ineffective. His only other accomplishment was the building of the Sema. The Sema was a tomb to honor both Alexander and the Ptolemies. Ptolemy IV and his wife were both murdered in a palace coup in 205 BC. Ptolemy V Epiphanes was the son of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III. “Epiphanes” translates to “made manifest”. Ptolemy V ruled from 205 to 180 BC. Due to the sudden death of his parents inherited the throne as a small boy 5 years of age. At age 17 he married the Seleucid princess Cleopatra I in 193 BC. Unfortunately war and revolt by Seleucid and Macedonian kings with hopes to seize Egyptian lands followed his ascension. Following the Battle of Panium in 200 BC Egypt lost valuable territory in the Aegean and Asia Minor, including Palestine. In 206 BC dissidence arose in the Egyptian city of Thebes, and it would remain outside Ptolemaic control for twenty years. Ptolemy V’s successor was Ptolemy VI Philometor. “Philometor” translates to “mother-loving. As did his father he began his reign as a small child. He ruled alongside his mother until her unexpected death in 176 BC. Ptolemy VI married his sister Cleopatra II and began his tumultuous reign. He had a seriously troubled relationship with his brother, the future Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II. Egypt was invaded twice between 169 and 164 BC by Antiochus IV, whose army even approached the city of Alexandria. With the assistance of Rome Ptolemy VI regained nominal control of Egypt. However ruling alongside his brother and his wife his reign remained characterized by unrest. In 163 BC his brother and he (Ptolemy VI and the future Ptolemy VIII) finally reached a compromise whereby Ptolemy VI ruled Egypt while his brother ruled Cyrene. In 145 BC Ptolemy VI died in battle in Syria. Intervening the reign of Ptolemy VI and his brother Ptolemy VIII one presumes would be a Ptolemy VII. However little is known of the reign or person known as Ptolemy VII. Indeed it is not even certain that a Ptolemy VII ever really reigned. However it is certain that upon the death of Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VIII stepped onto the throne in 145 BC. Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II was the younger brother of Ptolemy VI. “Euergetes” translates to “benefactor”. In true Ptolemaic fashion he married his elder brother’s widow, Cleopatra II. However in short order he replaced Cleopatra II with her daughter (his niece) Cleopatra III. A civil war ravaged Egypt lasting from 132 to 124 BC. The capital city of Alexandria which happened to hate Ptolemy VIII was particularly devastated. It was not uncommon for the residents of Alexandria to dislike the reigning Ptolemy. There was little love lost between the city’s citizens and the royal family. This intense loathing brought about extreme persecution and expulsion for the inhabitants of the city. Finally, an amnesty was reached in 118 BC. Ptolemy VIII was succeeded by his eldest son in 116 BC. Ptolemy IX Soter II ruled from 116 to 80 BC. “Soter” translates to “Savior”, but Ptolemy IX was also known as “Lathyrus”, which translates to “Chickpea”. Like many of his predecessors he would marry two of his sisters. The first was Cleopatra IV, mother of Berenice IV. The second was Cleopatra V Serene who gave him two sons. He ruled jointly with his mother Cleopatra III until 107 BC. In 107 BC he was forced to flee to Cyprus after being overthrown by his brother, Ptolemy X. He regained the throne in 88 BC when in Egypt his brother Ptolemy X was expelled from Egypt and lost at sea. Restored to Egypt’s throne, Ptolemy IX would rule until his death in 80 BC. The next few Ptolemies made little impact if any on Egypt. For the first time Rome played a major role in the affairs of Egypt. Rome was a rising power in the west. Ptolemy X Alexander I was the younger brother of Ptolemy IX. He had served as governor of Cyprus until his mother brought him to Egypt in 107 BC. Once in Egypt his mother engineered replacing Ptolemy IX on Egypt’s throne with Ptolemy X. In 101 BC he supposedly murdered his mother Cleopatra IV. He then married Berenice III, daughter of his niece Cleopatra V Serene. He ruled Egypt until 88 BC. In 88 BC Ptolemy X left Egypt after being expelled and was lost at sea. Ptolemy X was succeeded briefly by his youngest son, twelve-year-old Ptolemy XI Alexander II. Ptolemy XI ruled for eight years. He was placed on the throne by the Roman general Cornelius Sulla after the young Ptolemy XI agreed to award Egypt and Cyprus to Rome. Ptolemy XI ruled jointly with his step-mother Cleopatra Berenice until he murdered her. Unfortunately he was then himself murdered by the Alexandrians in 80 BC. Replacing Ptolemy XI was Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos (also known as “Auletes”). Ptolemy XII was another son of Ptolemy IX. He married his sister Cleopatra Tryphaena. Unfortunately his close relationship with Rome caused him to be despised by the Alexandrians, and he was expelled from Egypt in 58 BC.<> Ptolemy XII regained Egypt’s throne with the assistance of the Roman Syrian governor Gabinius. From that point onward he was only able to remain in power through his ties to Rome. Even then those ties required constant renewal through bribery as the Roman Senate actually distrusted him. The next pharaoh Ptolemaic Pharaoh was Ptolemy XIII, who ruled only through 47 BC whereupon he was executed at age 16. Ptolemy XIII was the brother and husband of the infamous Cleopatra VII. His time on the throne was short-lived consequence of his unsuccessful alliance with his sister Arsinoe in a civil war. They chose to oppose both Julius Caesar and Cleopatra in a fight for the throne. Initially Ptolemy XIII he had expected to gain favor with Caesar when he killed the Roman general Pompey, who had sought refuge in Egypt. Ptolemy XIII presented Pompey’s severed head to Caesar. However, the Roman commander grew irate because he had wanted to execute Pompey himself. In the civil war which ensued Ptolemy XIII’s army was defeated after an intense battle. Ptolemy XIII himself drowned in the Nile River when his boat overturned. His sister Princess Arsinoe was taken to Rome in chains. She was later to released. Following Ptolemy XIII was another brother Ptolemy XIV. Ptolemy XIV served briefly as governor of Cyprus. He later married his sister on the wishes of Caesar. He ruled for three years until his abrupt death in 44BC at age 15. His death is attributed by many historians to being poisoned upon the orders of his infamous sister Cleopatra VII. The last pharaoh of Egypt was Cleopatra VII, who is known to history as simply Cleopatra. She ruled Egypt for 22 years and controlled much of the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Like many of the women of her era she was highly educated. Cleopatra VII had been groomed for the throne by her father Ptolemy XII in the traditional Greek (Hellenistic) manner. She endeared herself to the Egyptian people. She accomplished this by participating in many Egyptian festivals and ceremonies. She was also the only Ptolemy to learn the Egyptian language. Cleopatra also spoke Hebrew, Ethiopian, and several other languages. To secure the throne after defeating her brothers and sister in the civil war, she realized she had to remain friendly with Rome. Her relationship with Julius Caesar has been the subject of dramatists and poets for centuries. With the death of Caesar and the balance of power in Rome in question she had the misfortune of siding with the Roman general Mark Antony. Antony and Cleopatra lost it all at the Battle of Actium. She failed to find compassion in Octavian, the future Emperor Augustus. She was left with no other exit other than suicide. Cleopatra VII had a son with Caesar, Caesarion (Ptolemy XV), Caesarion was put to death by Octavian as otherwise Octavian’s status as their heir to Julius Caesar could be challenged. Cleopatra VII’s other children, Alexander Helos, Cleopatra Serene, and Ptolemy Philadelphus were younger and were brought to Rome to be raised by Octavian's wife. As with the rest of the Mediterranean, frequently described as a Roman lake, Egypt submitted to Roman rule. The power of the Ptolemies ended. One of the most significant features of Ptolemaic rule had been its policy of Hellenization. Hellenization included the integration of Greek language and culture into Egyptian daily life. There was no attempt on behalf of the Ptolemies or the Hellenic population of Alexandria to become assimilated into Egyptian civilization. At the very outset of Ptolemaic rule one of Ptolemy I’s first moves was to relocate the center of government. The traditional location for the center of Egyptian government was at Memphis. Memphis would remain the religious center of Egypt. However the center of government was relocated by Ptolemy I to the newly built city of Alexandria. Alexandria had a more strategic location, much closer to both the Mediterranean Sea and Greece. Because of this move Alexandria grew into more of a Greek rather than Egyptian city. In fact the Ptolemies would rarely leave the city. Even when they did leave it was only to take a pleasure cruise down the Nile. As with much of the former Alexandrian empire, Greek would become the language of government and commerce. Ptolemy I also established Alexandria as the intellectual center of the Mediterranean when he built the massive library and museum there. While the museum provided seating for quiet reflection, the library amassed a collection of thousands of papyrus scrolls. The library and museum attracted men of philosophy, history, literature, and science from all over the Mediterranean. Ptolemy I’s advisor on the project was Demetrius of Phaleron. Demetrius was a graduate of Aristotle’s Lyceum in Athens. The Library at Alexandria truly became a center of Hellenistic culture. Unfortunately the library and its contents were destroyed in a series of fires. Traditionally this is believed to have occurred during its years under Roman control. However many historians believed that the destruction of the library occurred centuries later. In any event, it was eventually lost. In the city’s harbor Ptolemy I began the construction of the Pharos. This was a massive lighthouse eventually completed by his son Ptolemy II. This unique lighthouse was an immense structure of three stories. Its beacon was visible for miles and was lit both day and night. Alexandria’s Lighthouse eventually became one of seven wonders of the ancient world. Aside from Alexandria was built in Upper Egypt. Though less glamorous than Alexandria, Ptolemais was founded as a center for the influx of newly arrived Greek residents. It may appear that Ptolemy I intended to transform Egypt into another Greece. Nonetheless in many ways he respected the Egyptian people. He recognized the importance of religion and tradition to their society. Both he and his successors supported the many local cults. To curry favor and keep peace with the temple priests he restored numerous religious objects stolen by the Persians. The old Egyptian gods were respected. One did not want to anger the gods. No matter what culture they belonged to, foreign gods could still possess power. Nonetheless two new cults arose in Ptolemaic. The first was dedicated to Alexander the Great. This cult served as a channel for the Greek population to continue expressing their continued loyalty to the Ptolemies. A second cult never gained traction. It was devoted to the god of healing Serapis. Temple priests of both cults remained as a part of the ruling class. This was yet another inducement to maintain their allegiance to the Ptolemies. While the capital may have been moved to Alexandria many of the Egyptian scribes had difficulty writing in Greek. Nonetheless overall the basic administrative structure was retained. Egypt had a closely controlled economy. Much of the land was of royal ownership. Permission was needed to fell a tree or even to breed pigs. Record keeping was important. All land was regularly surveyed and livestock inventoried. Naturally since Egypt had an economy based on agriculture, taxes were based on a periodic census thus land surveys were essential. Under Cleopatra VII there was a salt tax, a dike tax, and even a pasture tax. Fishermen even had to relinquish twenty-five percent of their catch [Ancient History Encyclopedia]. Ptolemy I Soter: Ptolemy I Soter was one of the former generals of and successor kings to the empire of Alexander the Great. He lived from 366 to 282 BC. He was not only king of Egypt but also the founder of the Ptolemaic Dynasty. The dynasty would reign over Egypt for over 300 years, and included the infamous Cleopatra VII. Ptolemy was a Macedonian nobleman, son of Lagos. Rumors circulated however that he was actually the illegitimate son of Alexander’s father Phillip II. This possibility would of course if true, made him Alexander’s half-brother. Ptolemy was older than Alexander and many of the other generals who followed Alexander into Persia. Nonetheless he became a close friend, advisor and later one of Alexander’s seven personal bodyguards. Following Phillips II’s death at the hands of Pausanias, Alexander embarked on his quest to meet, defeat and conquer Darius III and the Persian Empire. Historians are in disagreement concerning Ptolemy’s role in the Persian campaign. However they do agree that he did participate in a number of battles. This disagreement stems from the fact that Ptolemy was also a historian of sorts. Ptolemy’s biography of Alexander may have exaggerated his own contributions. Ptolemy’s name first appears during Alexander’s defeat of Memnon at Halicarnassus. Memnon was a Greek mercenary general in the service of Persia. Supposedly Alexander left Ptolemy with a force of 3000 men to finish subjugating the city while he moved on to Gordium. Ptolemy next appears at the battles of Issus and Gaugamela. At Issus he served in the left flank under the command of Parmenio. Next the Persian king Darius III was found dying after his defeat at Gaugamela. His assassin Bessus was identified. It was Ptolemy who was sent to collect the assassin. He brought him to Alexander naked, in chains, and wearing a dog collar. In Persepolis Ptolemy was linked to the burning of the city. At one of Alexander’s celebrations, Ptolemy’s mistress Thais suggested the palace should be burned. In his World History the 1st century BC Greek Historian Diodorus made mention of this incident: “…When the Companions were feasting, and intoxication was growing [...] a violent madness took hold of these drunken men. One of the women (Thasis) declared that it would be Alexander’s greatest achievement in Asia to join in their procession and set fire to the royal palace. [...] Others joined in the cry and said that only Alexander was worthy of this deed [... and] a quantity of torches was quickly collected. [...] The king led them to the revel, with Thais the courtesan conducting the ceremony. She was the first after the king to throw her blazing torch into the palace…” Although his role is unclear, most historical accounts are in agreement that Ptolemy was with Alexander in both Egypt and India. He was in Egypt in 332 BC at Siwa and Memphis. However Ptolemy’s “History of Alexander” has him playing a vital role in a number of conflicts in India. Other accounts not written by Ptolemy attribute Ptolemy as only a minor if not insignificant participant. One story which may or may not be true has Ptolemy’s life being saved during the campaign into India. After Ptolemy was struck by a poisoned arrow, it was Alexander who saved his life by using various native herbs to extract the poison. It was during this time that a failed conspiracy to kill Alexander was discovered. And at this time Ptolemy was named one of the king’s personal bodyguards. When Alexander died in 323 BC, the fate of the empire was left in the hands of Perdiccas. Perdiccas was Alexander’s cavalry leader. He had been handed Alexander’s signet ring on the king’s deathbed. This could have been construed as a transfer of power. Perdiccas wanted to keep Alexander’s empire intact, undivided. He suggested to Alexander’s other generals that everyone wait until after the birth of Alexander and Roxanne’s child (the future Alexander IV) before naming a successor. Ptolemy was completely against this idea and led a campaign to divide the empire among the leading generals. Ptolemy got his wish and received in the division his first choice – Egypt. The alliances that would be formed among these new satraps were tenuous and both war and peace would reign for 30 years. These battles became known as the Diadochi or “Successor Wars. The one common theme among these “kings” was that no one liked Perdiccas. Perdiccas in turn disliked Ptolemy above all others. It was obvious that these two men would never agree. This was even more evident when Ptolemy stole Alexander’s remains. Perdiccas had sent Alexander’s body to be interred in a newly constructed tomb in Macedonia. However Ptolemy hijacked the body when it arrived in Damascus. Diodorus’s history recorded this theft: “…Ptolemy, moreover, doing honor to Alexander, went to meet it with an army as far as Syria and, receiving the body, deemed it worthy of the greatest consideration. He decided for the present not to send it to Ammon, but to entomb it in the city that had been founded by Alexander himself…There he prepared a precinct worthy of the glory of Alexander in size and construction…” Perdiccas resented this theft. He immediately took action, attacking Egypt. This attack however would be his downfall. He led his troops on three separate missions into Egypt, failing each time to cross the Nile. With this failure and a loss of 2,000 soldiers his men revolted and executed him. Unlike Alexander’s other former generals, Ptolemy’s major concern and ambition did not go far beyond the borders of Egypt. While he became involved in the infighting among the others and eventually acquired lands in the eastern Mediterranean, his major concern was Egypt. When Antigonus I invaded Babylon, Seleucus I Nicator sought asylum in Egypt with Ptolemy. However after Ptolemy’s defeat of Antigonus’ son Demetrius I of Macedon at Gaza, Seleucus was able to return to Babylon. Following a brief peace, Ptolemy was involved in a series of conflicts with both Antigonus and Demetrius. Ptolemy finally managed to aid in their defeat and Antigonus’ death at Ipsus in 301 BC. By then Ptolemy had assumed the title of king as well as being named Soter meaning “savior” for his defense of Rhodes against Demetrius. During Ptolemy’s rule of Egypt, he put the country on a sound economic and administrative footing. Ptolemy did not want to fall under the influence of the priests and officials at Memphis. Thus Ptolemy’s first decision was to move the country’s capital to Alexandria. Situated on the Mediterranean Sea it was a better strategic location. It provided easier access to both the sea and his homeland of Greece. Because of this move, Alexandria became more of a Greek rather than Egyptian city. Greek became the language of both government and commerce. Amazingly the only member of the Ptolemaic Dynasty to ever learn Egyptian was Cleopatra VII [Ancient History Encyclopedia]. Ptolemy I: While he gave respect to the Egyptian priests and even rebuilt temples destroyed by the Persians, he believed he needed another way to connect with the Egyptian people. One of his first actions was to establish a cult of Alexander. By doing this he established himself as a legitimate heir. Alexander became a “state god” and his “priest” the highest clerical position in Egypt. Next Ptolemy he created a new religion with a new god Serapis, the god of healing. This new religion was a combination of both Greek and Egyptian influences, although the Egyptians saw it as more Greek than Egyptian. It never achieved much success, and government funding sustaining it was eventually withdrawn. Ptolemy made Alexandria the intellectual center of the Mediterranean when he built a massive library and museum there. The museum contained a covered arcade, seating for quiet contemplation, as well as a dining hall. The library contained thousands of papyrus scrolls and attracted men of literature and science from all over the Mediterranean area for years to come, Euclid and Archimedes were two of the more notable patrons. The library and museum complex became the center of Hellenistic culture. Ptolemy also began the construction of the Pharos, a lighthouse which was eventually completed by his son Ptolemy II. The Lighthouse of Alexandria was a massive structure of three stories with a statue of Zeus atop. A beacon was visible for miles and was lit day and night. It became one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. Ptolemy died in 282 BC. However his descendants would rule Egypt for almost 300 years until it was conquered by the Romans. After his death Ptolemy was deified and a festival was held in his honor for years to come. [Ancient History Encyclopedia]. Caesarion: The Ill-Fated Son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra: Ptolemy XV Caesar “Theos Philopator Philometor”. The latter portion of the name translates to “the Father-loving Mother-loving God”. However he was better known by his unofficial nickname “Caesarion”, or “Little Caesar” in Greek. Caesarion lived from 47 to 30 BC and was the eldest son of Cleopatra VII. Caesarion was the last Ptolemaic king of Egypt. History assumes him to have been the son of Julius Caesar. Caesar of course had an intermittent affair with Cleopatra from the time of their meeting in 47 BC until his death in 44 BC. Caesarion reigned as Cleopatra's co-ruler from 44 to 30 BC when Cleopatra committed suicide. Although practically an exile Caesarion was upon his mother’s suicide technically sole ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. However he was executed by Octavian several weeks after his mother’s suicide. Octavian was Julius Caesar's grand-nephew, later to become the ruler of all Rome from 27BC through 14AD as “Augustus Caesar”. Ptolemy Caesar XV was born to Cleopatra VII in the summer of 47 BC. As a member of the Macedonian Ptolemaic dynasty Caesarion was of predominantly Greek descent on his mother’s side. He had no Egyptian ancestry. An Egyptian stele from the Serapeum in Memphis is usually interpreted as recording his birth date on June 23, 47 BC. This was a few months after the Roman dictator Julius Caesar had departed from the country. Caesar had fought to restore Cleopatra to the throne in the Alexandrian War, which lasted from September 48 through January 47 BC. Caesar and Cleopatra had a famously scandalous affair which caused Caesar to linger in Egypt for a few months after the war was concluded. Cleopatra maintained that her son had been fathered by Julius Caesar. Caesar himself on the other hand denied or attempted to skirt around the scandalous issue of in public. According to the 1st century AD Roman historian Suetonius Caesar permitted Cleopatra to give Ptolemy XV his name. However Caesars was legally unable to accept the boy as his own son. According to Suetonius, “…finally he [Caesar] called her [Cleopatra] to Rome and did not let her leave until he had ladened her with high honors and rich gifts, and he allowed her to give his name to the child which she bore. In fact, according to certain Greek writers, this child was very like Caesar in looks and carriage…” After Julius Caesar's assassination on March 15, 44 BC the issue of Caesarion’s paternity was raised by Caesar’s friends and associates. This issue was raised despite the fact that the status of Octavian as Caesar's legal heir was clear. The politically charged question remained open as supporters of Octavian actively denied that Caesar had fathered Caesarion. Detractors of Octavian actively promoted Caesarion as Caesar’s son. Mark Antony declared to the senate that Caesar had indeed actually acknowledged the boy as his son. Antony stated that Caius Matius, Caius Oppius, and other friends of Caesar knew this. Given the absence of evidence to the contrary it is generally assumed that Caesarion was indeed Julius Caesar’s biological child. However alternate theories have been put forth regarding Caesarion’s paternity and the issue remains somewhat controversial. It has been suggested that Julius Caesar was infertile as he only acknowledged one biological child in his entire life. It wasn’t for lack of effort however. Julius Caesar was married three times and engaged in numerous extramarital affairs. On the other hand a low birth-rate was typical of the Roman aristocracy at this time. It is also plausible that Caesar may have had illegitimate children that went unrecognized such as Junia Tertia. Furthermore, Cleopatra was not reputed to have had any lovers prior to meeting Caesar. If factual this would preclude any alternate candidates for Caesarion's paternity. Cleopatra visited Rome with her younger brother and nominal co-ruler Ptolemy XIV on at least two occasions. Ptolemy XIV ultimately died from poisoning in 44BC at the age of 15 or 16. Most historians attribute the act to Cleopatra. Upon the death of her younger brother Cleopatra became sole ruler of Egypt. The Egyptian royal family is known to have visited Rome in 46 BC and again in 44 BC. They resided in Julius Caesar’s villa in the Horti Caesaris both times. During this time Caesar and Cleopatra maintained an affair which became the subject of scandal in Rome. Caesarion almost certainly accompanied his mother in 46 BC. However contemporary sources only record his presence in Rome in 44 BC at the time of and following Julius Caesar's assassination. In 46 BC Caesar dedicated a temple in the Forum Julium to Venus Genetrix, the patron of maternity and marriage. Caesar was supposedly descended from Venus Genetrix through his mythological ancestor Aeneas. Aenas was a demigod linked to the founding of Rome. Caesar made the controversial choice to unveil a gilded statue of Cleopatra as Isis-Venus within the temple during its dedication. The birth of Caesarion has been cited as a possible occasion to inspire the dedication of this politically charged artwork. A mosaic excavated from the House of Marcus Fabius Rufus in Pompeii. The mosaic is believed to depict this statue. It ostensibly portrays Cleopatra and Caesarion as the mother-son duo of Venus and Cupid. The placement of this statue in the Temple of Venus Genetrix drew a connection between Caesar’s supposed heritage as the descendant of Venus and Cleopatra's alleged status as the reincarnation of Isis-Venus. Julius Caesar was assassinated by a group of senatorial conspirators on March 15, 44 BC. Cleopatra remained in Rome long enough for Caesar’s will to be read. To her disappointment Caesarion was not acknowledged by Caesar. According to his will Caesar posthumously adopted his grand-nephew Octavian (the future Octavius Caesar Augustus). Cleopatra fled Rome within a month of Caesar’s assassination, taking with her two-year-old Caesarion. This would be Caesarion’s last visit to Rome as he never returned to the city in later life. Caesarion was raised in Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria was the capital of Hellenistic culture at the time. Caesarion had few Egyptian or Roman influences in his upbringing. Most of Caesarion’s childhood was quite secure due to the relative stability of his mother's reign. In spite of his illegitimacy, Caesarion’s role as Cleopatra’s successor seems to have gone unchallenged in Egypt. Like most princes of the Ptolemaic Dynasty Caesarion would have been trained in the arts of rhetoric, oration, politics and philosophy. Caesarion’s personal tutor during his adolescence was a Greek scholar named Rhodon. Little is known of Rhodon’s career. This was in sharp a sharp contrast to the illustrious career of Philostratus, Cleopatra’s childhood tutor. It was also in contrast with Nicolaus of Damascus who tutored Caesarion’s younger siblings before becoming one of the most influential historians of the 1st century BC. Caesarion’s own mother, Cleopatra, was yet another influence on his intellectual development and that of his siblings. A skilled politician and orator Cleopatra was credited with speaking eight languages and authoring works on topics such as medicine and pharmacology. The death of Julius Caesar left Cleopatra in a weakened political position. She had lost her strongest ally in Rome. However Cleopatra was able to carefully maintain a conciliatory relationship with both of the primary factions arising from the assassination of Caesar. On one hand were the “Liberators”, led by the assassins of Caesar. On the other hand was the “Second Triumvirate”, consisting of Marc Antony (formerly Caesar’s lieutenant), Octavian, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. Lepidus was a Roman general and statesman who had previously been a close ally of Julius Caesar. By the summer of 43 BC Cleopatra had begun to ally with the Second Triumvirate. In particular she focused on gaining the favor of the leading triumvirs Marc Antony and Octavian. The alliance between Cleopatra and the Second Triumvirate was key to her agenda of spreading her sphere of influence over the former extent of the Ptolemaic Empire. It would only be with the support of Antony and Octavian that she would be able to re-establish control over territories like Cyrene and Phoenicia. Cleopatra’s younger brother Ptolemy XIV died suddenly in 44 BC. It was rumored that Cleopatra had poisoned her adolescent brother to remove any threat to her rule. Shortly after Ptolemy XIV’s death, Caesarion was proclaimed king and became Cleopatra’s new co-ruler. This succession was officially recognized by the Roman Senate in early 43 BC thus ensuring the legitimacy of Caesarion's official reign. Artistic representations of Cleopatra and Caesarion deliberately paralleled the relationship between the Egyptian goddess Isis and her son Horus. In Egyptian mythology Isis was the maternal protector of her son Horus. Horus became the rightful king of Egypt after the violent assassination of Horus’ father Osiris. Caesarion’s alleged status as Julius Caesar’s son brought Cleopatra into conflict with Caesar’s adopted son and heir Octavian. Partly as a result of this rivalry Cleopatra chose to ally with Octavian’s rival Mark Antony. Mark Antony had taken control of Rome’s eastern provinces after Caesar’s death. To this end, Cleopatra met with Antony in the Anatolian city of Tarsus in 41 BC. She invited the triumvir to visit her in Alexandria during the winter of 41 BC. Antony left Egypt before the end of the year of 40 BC and strengthened his alliance to Octavian by marrying Octavian’s newly widowed sister Octavia. Antony had two daughters with Octavia, but he maintained contact with Cleopatra. At the age of ten Caesarion accompanied Cleopatra on a journey to Antioch where they met with Antony in late 37 BC. With the consent of Octavian, Antony granted Cleopatra control over additional territories in Cyrene, Cilicia, Crete and the Levant. Antony and Cleopatra were married sometime between 37 and 34 BC. This was a situation that caused a scandal in Rome as the Roman triumvir remained married to Octavia until 32 BC. Cleopatra had a total of three children with Mark Antony, including twins Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene in 40BC, and Ptolemy Philadelphus in 36BC. None of those three offspring made it into the new millennium. All three most likely died in their thirties. In 34 BC an elaborate coronation ceremony known as the “Donations of Alexandria” was performed in the Egyptian capital. With carefully staged pomp Mark Antony celebrated a Roman triumph following his campaigns in the East and bestowed further Roman territories into the control of Cleopatra. However the “donations” were more in the nature of stagecraft than of substance. The ceremonial significance of the proceedings exceeded the actual transfer of territory which occurred. Out of the territory "donated" to the Ptolemaic Kingdom, most were either already under Ptolemaic rule or under the control of Rome's rival, the Parthian Empire. Antony's cession of Libya, Egypt, Coile Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia, and Cyprus to Cleopatra was purely symbolic as she already ruled these territories. Media and Parthia were firmly under Parthian control and Antony's bestowal of these territories was hypothetical. At best they could be secured after some future conquest. This left the provinces of Syria, Asia and Bithynia as the only territories ceded in the Donations of Alexandria which had actually been under Roman rule. The Kingdom of Armenia can also be added to the list of Roman territory ceded to the Ptolemaic Kingdom as Antony had conquered the kingdom earlier that year. The Donations of Alexandria doubled as a triumphal celebration of the conquest. Fourteen year old Caesarion was elevated above all his siblings and declared King of Kings while his mother was named Queen of Kings. In addition to this Antony declared Caesarion to be Julius Caesar’s true son. This act earned the enmity of Octavian who was keen to reserve that title for himself. Antony formally granted Cleopatra and Caesarion dominion over an empire theoretically stretching from India to the Hellespont. Within this empire Cleopatra’s children by Mark Antony were granted their own dominions. Alexander Helios was declared king of Armenia, Media and Parthia. Again, the latter two kingdoms were still unconquered by Antony. Cleopatra Selene was declared queen of Cyrene. Ptolemy Philadelphus was declared king of Phoenicia, Syria and Cilicia. Caesarion may have been his mother’s equal in name, but at least until he came of age he was still subject both to her and to Mark Antony. At the Donations Caesarion’s throne was lower than his mother’s. Mark Antony who held no royal titles sat on an equal level with the queen. This balance of power had already been hinted at by the portrayal of Antony on coins minted by Cleopatra in the East. It was also affirmed by Antony’s role as Dionysius, consort to Cleopatra’s Isis during the ceremony. The Donations themselves were not a significant relinquishment of Roman hegemony in the East to Ptolemaic rule. Rather they were but an attempt to reconcile Roman authority with the monarchical traditions of the Near East and Northeast Africa. Antony this propped up Cleopatra's claim to the former empires of her Ptolemaic and Seleucid ancestors. Antony’s intent was to reinforce Roman influence over the East and weaken Parthian claims over the region. There was a distinct lack of substantive change to the status quo following the Donations of Alexandria. However there were grandiose ceremonies and titles conferred to Antony and Cleopatra’s children. The territorial claims made by Cleopatra and Antony were far-reaching. These elements inadvertently ensured a harsh reaction to this event in Rome. The Donations of Alexandria launched an intense propaganda war between Antony and Cleopatra in the East and Octavian in Italy. Caesarion’s claims as Julius Caesar’s biological son were raised by Antony. This claim prompted Octavian’s supporters to deny his paternity and accuse Antony of becoming corrupted by Oriental ways. In 32 BC Antony formally divorced Octavia. Octavia was Octavian's sister, and had been married to Mark Antony since 40 BC. The divorce effectively severed the last thread of the alliance between Antony and Octavian. That same year Octavian illegally seized Antony’s will from the Temple of Vesta. Octavian revealed the contents of this will which confirmed Caesarion as Caesar’s son. The will also formally acknowledged Antony’s children by Cleopatra as his lawful heirs. Most scandalously the will also declared his intentions to be buried with Cleopatra in Egypt. Octavian further accused Cleopatra of corrupting and manipulating Mark Antony with an agenda to rule as queen over the Roman Republic. The Roman Senate declared war on Cleopatra in the spring of 32 BC. The justification employed was Cleopatra’s increasing influence over Antony and her anti-Roman agenda. In reality the declaration of war was the result of political tensions between Antony and Octavian. Both had contended for recognition as Caesar’s successor for more than a decade. At the decisive Battle of Actium in 31 BC Antony and Cleopatra’s naval forces were defeated by the forces of Octavian and his admiral Agrippa. Antony and Cleopatra fled to Alexandria where they began preparing to carry on their war with Octavian. Caesarion came of age in the summer of 30 BC at which point he was enrolled in the lists of the gymnasium. Far from a mere athletic facility the gymnasia of the Hellenistic world were important centers of social life where intellectual and physical talents were trained. In the Greek communities of Ptolemaic Egypt enrollment in the gymnasium signified a young man’s entry into life as an adult citizen. The 1st Century Greek Biographer Plutarch recorded that, “…[Antony] turned the city to the enjoyment of suppers and drinking-bouts and distributions of gifts, inscribing in the list of ephebi the son of Cleopatra and Caesar, and bestowing upon Antyllus the son of Fulvia the toga virilis without purple hem, in celebration of which, for many days, banquets and revels and feastings occupied Alexandria…” This enrollment was a landmark moment in the life of Caesarion as he entered manhood in the eyes of his peers. This signified the incipient assumption by Caesarion of his rule and role as Ptolemaic King. As these joyous events were unfolding, Antony and Cleopatra’s efforts to carry on the war with Octavian were becoming increasingly hopeless. In an effort to maintain morale the worst news was deliberately withheld from the Alexandrians while the city was maintaining a festive mood. In August of 30 BC Octavian invaded Egypt. Octavian’s forces were engaged by Antony’s forces in a number of futile battles. Cleopatra feared that Octavian would remove his last rival by having Caesarion killed. Accordingly Cleopatra made plans to send her first-born away with a large amount of wealth. Caesarion was sent to the Dodekaschoinos in Ptolemaic Nubia. There Caesarion would be able to depart from one of the Red Sea port cities which conducted trade with Arabia and the Indian subcontinent. Hellenistic contact with the East had been well established for centuries. Caesarion would have been able to live comfortably there, far from the reach of Octavian. On August 1, 30 BC, Octavian captured the city of Alexandria. Antony committed suicide by falling on his sword that same day. Cleopatra committed suicide on August 12 to avoid being paraded through Rome in Octavian’s triumph. Shortly afterwards Octavian invited Caesarion to return and rule Egypt as a client-king in his mother’s stead. Caesarion’s tutor Rhodon advised Caesarion to return to Egypt and accept the crown that Octavian offered. It is unknown whether Caesarion’s tutor betrayed him or earnestly believed that Octavian’s offer was genuine. Arieus Didymus was a former patron of the Alexandrian court who had joined Octavian’s cause. He is credited with convincing Octavian that Caesarion was too great of a potential threat to be allowed to remain alive. To this end, Plutarch reports that Arieus told Octavian, “…not a good thing were a Caesar too many…” Rather than being welcomed into the country with open arms, Caesarion was intercepted on the road and slain by Roman soldiers. His death ensured that Octavian would have no rival, either as ruler of Egypt or the perceived heir of Julius Caesar. Egyptian chronologies record the brief reign of Caesarion after the death of Cleopatra. However this was really a bureaucratic fiction which bridged the gap between Cleopatra and Roman Egypt. Instead of the lofty legacy his mother intended Caesarion would be remembered by historians as the last Pharaoh of Egypt. His untimely death heralded the end of the Ptolemaic Kingdom [Ancient History Encyclopedia]. Hypatia of Alexandria: Hypatia was a much loved pagan philosopher of Alexandria, Egypt. In a sense she has long been acknowledged as the symbol of the passing of the old ways and the triumph of the new. Hypatia lived from 370 to 415 AD. She was the daughter of Theon, the last professor of the Alexandrian University. The university was associated closely with the famous Library of Alexandria. Theon was a brilliant mathematician who closely copied Euclid's Elements and the works of Ptolemy. He also “home-schooled” his daughter in mathematics and philosophy. In turn Hypatia helped her father in writing commentaries on these works. In time she wrote her own works and lectured extensively. She became a woman of note in a culture dominated by male writers and thinkers. Since its founding by Alexander the Great Alexandria had long been a seat of learning. As well it was a place of pilgrimage for philosophers and thinkers from all over the known world. The great Library was reputed to possess over 20,000 scrolls and books. It was a major attraction for intellectuals, most of whom were moneyed. Alexandria was therefore a prosperous pagan city in the year 415 AD. However for the past 15 of those years Alexandria had increasingly become a divided city. Jews were fighting in the streets with adherents of the new religion of Christianity as well as with those of the traditional Graeco-Roman and Egyptian Pagan beliefs. All parties were drawing their battle lines. Nowhere was the divide more clearly seen in 415 AD than between Orestes, the Pagan Prefect of Alexandria and Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria. Cyril had actually led Christian mobs against the Jews of Alexandria, looting their synagogues and expelling them from the city). Orestes maintained his Paganism in the face of Christianity and cultivated a close relationship with Hypatia. Cyril seemingly held Hypatia responsible for Orestes' obstinate refusal to submit to the 'true' faith and become a Christian. Tensions between the two men and their supporters grew increasingly high. Each brushed off the other's advances of reconciliation and peace. Hypatia was a remarkably gifted woman. Being a woman she was essentially excluded by the conventions of the time from intellectual pursuits. Her life demonstrated how all difficulties yield to a strong will. By all accounts Hypatia was a beautiful, chaste and brilliant woman. Even her detractors, and later defenders of Cyril, admitted she was a virtuous, wise and noble philosopher. The historian Durant calls her "the most interesting figure in the science of this age" and wrote that, "She was so fond of philosophy that she would stop in the streets and explain, to any who asked, difficult points in Plato or Aristotle". However not all viewpoints concerning Hypatia were as charitable. According to one account, “…in those days there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through Satanic wiles. And the governor of the city [Orestes] honored her exceedingly; for she had beguiled him through her magic. And he ceased attending church as had been his custom....And he not only did this, but he drew many believers to her, and he himself received the unbelievers at his house…” It did not matter that such reports of magic and satanic wiles were not true. Nor was it true that the governor Orestes was a pagan, not a Christian. And it evidently did not matter the nobility and virtue possessed by Hypatia. According to one historian, one day in 415 AD, "as Hypatia was returning home, she was set upon [by a Christian mob], torn from her carriage and dragged into a church, where she was stripped naked and battered to death with roofing tiles, 'and while she was still feebly twitching they beat her eyes out'. They then orgiastically tore her body limb from limb, took her mangled remains out from the church, and burned them…” Other historical accounts add that “the monks asked her to kiss the cross, to become a Christian and join the nunnery, if she wished her life spared. At any rate, these monks, under the leadership of St. Cyril's right-hand man, Peter the Reader, shamefully stripped her naked, and there, close to the altar and the cross, scraped her quivering flesh from her bones with oyster shells. The marble floor of the church was sprinkled with her warm blood. The altar, the cross, too, were bespattered, owing to the violence with which her limbs were torn, while the hands of the monks presented a sight too revolting to describe." The historian Will Durant summarizes from the records of the time, "…pagan professors of philosophy, after the death of Hypatia, sought security in Athens, where non-Christian teaching was still relatively...free…" Not only the philosophers, but all intellectuals fled the city of Alexandria. The destruction of the Serapeum had already been initiated and largely carried out by Cyril's uncle Theophilus some 25 years earlier. According to some historical sources however the process was completed as the Temple of Serapis was destroyed completely at this time. According to many other sources the Great Library and University were burned with all the scrolls on the shelves. According to the Christian whitewash accounts of the time Orestes became reconciled to Cyril and converted to Christianity. This ended the strife in the streets of Alexandria between the supporters of Alexandria’s Archbishop Cyril and the city’s Governor Orestes. Cyril himself was never charged with the murder of Hypatia though. In fact according to his apologist, John of Nikiu, after Hypatia’s death, “…all the people surrounded the patriarch Cyril and named him 'the new Theophilus'; for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city". Cyril was eventually made a saint and Alexandria became an important center for the Christian faith. Borrowing a phrase from the historian Will Durant, "…the passage from philosophy to religion, from Plato to Christ" was complete. However Alexandria never recovered from the Christian riots. It went into a sustained economic decline which lasted for many centuries, and in so doing lost its pre-eminence in the ancient world. ANCIENT ROMAN SHIPWRECKS IN THE PORT OF ALEXANDRIA: Ahram Online reports that three Roman shipwrecks and an ancient Egyptian barque dedicated to Osiris were discovered in ancient Alexandria’s eastern harbor in the Mediterranean Sea. Mostafa Waziri, secretary-general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, said the joint team of researchers, made up of scientists from the ministry’s department of underwater archaeology and the European Institute of Underwater Archaeology, recovered a crystal head thought to represent Marc Antony, and gold coins dating to the reign of Emperor Augustus. Wooden beams and pottery may represent the site of a fourth shipwreck. [Archaeological Institute of America]. SHIPPING & RETURNS/REFUNDS: We always ship books domestically (within the USA) via USPS INSURED media mail (“book rate”). Most international orders cost an additional $19.99 to $53.99 for an insured shipment in a heavily padded mailer. There is also a discount program which can cut postage costs by 50% to 75% if you’re buying about half-a-dozen books or more (5 kilos+). Our postage charges are as reasonable as USPS rates allow. ADDITIONAL PURCHASES do receive a VERY LARGE discount, typically about $5 per book (for each additional book after the first) so as to reward you for the economies of combined shipping/insurance costs. Your purchase will ordinarily be shipped within 48 hours of payment. We package as well as anyone in the business, with lots of protective padding and containers. All of our shipments are fully insured against loss, and our shipping rates include the cost of this coverage (through stamps.com, Shipsaver.com, the USPS, UPS, or Fed-Ex). International tracking is provided free by the USPS for certain countries, other countries are at additional cost. We do offer U.S. Postal Service Priority Mail, Registered Mail, and Express Mail for both international and domestic shipments, as well United Parcel Service (UPS) and Federal Express (Fed-Ex). Please ask for a rate quotation. Please note for international purchasers we will do everything we can to minimize your liability for VAT and/or duties. But we cannot assume any responsibility or liability for whatever taxes or duties may be levied on your purchase by the country of your residence. If you don’t like the tax and duty schemes your government imposes, please complain to them. We have no ability to influence or moderate your country’s tax/duty schemes. If upon receipt of the item you are disappointed for any reason whatever, I offer a no questions asked 30-day return policy. Send it back, I will give you a complete refund of the purchase price; 1) less our original shipping/insurance costs, 2) less any non-refundable fees imposed by eBay Please note that though they generally do, eBay may not always refund payment processing fees on returns beyond a 30-day purchase window. So except for shipping costs and any payment processing fees not refunded by eBay, we will refund all proceeds from the sale of a return item. Obviously we have no ability to influence, modify or waive eBay policies. ABOUT US: Prior to our retirement we used to travel to Eastern Europe and Central Asia several times a year seeking antique gemstones and jewelry from the globe’s most prolific gemstone producing and cutting centers. Most of the items we offer came from acquisitions we made in Eastern Europe, India, and from the Levant (Eastern Mediterranean/Near East) during these years from various institutions and dealers. Much of what we generate on Etsy, Amazon and Ebay goes to support worthy institutions in Europe and Asia connected with Anthropology and Archaeology. Though we have a collection of ancient coins numbering in the tens of thousands, our primary interests are ancient/antique jewelry and gemstones, a reflection of our academic backgrounds. Though perhaps difficult to find in the USA, in Eastern Europe and Central Asia antique gemstones are commonly dismounted from old, broken settings – the gold reused – the gemstones recut and reset. Before these gorgeous antique gemstones are recut, we try to acquire the best of them in their original, antique, hand-finished state – most of them originally crafted a century or more ago. We believe that the work created by these long-gone master artisans is worth protecting and preserving rather than destroying this heritage of antique gemstones by recutting the original work out of existence. That by preserving their work, in a sense, we are preserving their lives and the legacy they left for modern times. Far better to appreciate their craft than to destroy it with modern cutting. Not everyone agrees – fully 95% or more of the antique gemstones which come into these marketplaces are recut, and the heritage of the past lost. But if you agree with us that the past is worth protecting, and that past lives and the produce of those lives still matters today, consider buying an antique, hand cut, natural gemstone rather than one of the mass-produced machine cut (often synthetic or “lab produced”) gemstones which dominate the market today. We can set most any antique gemstone you purchase from us in your choice of styles and metals ranging from rings to pendants to earrings and bracelets; in sterling silver, 14kt solid gold, and 14kt gold fill. When you purchase from us, you can count on quick shipping and careful, secure packaging. We would be happy to provide you with a certificate/guarantee of authenticity for any item you purchase from us. There is a $3 fee for mailing under separate cover. I will always respond to every inquiry whether via email or eBay message, so please feel free to write.
Price: 21.99 USD
Location: Lummi Island, Washington
End Time: 2024-09-21T19:19:47.000Z
Shipping Cost: 5.99 USD
Product Images
Item Specifics
Restocking Fee: No
Return shipping will be paid by: Buyer
All returns accepted: Returns Accepted
Item must be returned within: 30 Days
Refund will be given as: Money back or replacement (buyer's choice)
Format: Oversized softcover
Length: 205 pages
Dimensions: 9 x 6½ x ¾ inches; ¾ pound
Publisher: University of California (1990)
