Prefect Of Egypt Research Articles

35. Acta Alexandrinorum

Edition of a tiny fragment that sheds new light on the charges leveled against C. Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt under Trajan in AD 103–107. Vibius was accused of maladministration, of interfering in the appointment of Alexandrian magistracies as well as in Alexandrian institutions (such as the ephebeia), and of having an improper affair with a young boy. It is tempting to recognize a reference to the latter in our fragment.

A Note on the Augustal Prefect of Egypt

The evidence concerning the creation of the Augustal Prefecture and the Egyptian diocese is complex and apparently contradictory , and has led to the establishment of two incompatible dates in standard works of reference.

The Non-Appearance of the Phoenix at Tacitus Annals 6.28

The Non-Appearance of the Phoenix at Tacitus Annals 6.28 Elizabeth Keitel Book 6 is the stepchild of the first hexad of the Annals, little studied and even less appreciated, perhaps because of the large lacuna which breaks the continuity of the narrative after book 4, perhaps because of its allegedly static and monotonous content summarized thus by Syme: “The concluding book of the hexad carries a dreary epilogue down to the extinction of the old emperor, with many prosecutions and deaths, with little extraneous or antiquarian matter for variegation.” 1 But let us consider here the placement and function of one minor episode in book 6, the alleged appearance of the Phoenix in Egypt. Paulo Fabio L. Vitellio consulibus post longum saeculorum ambitum avis phoenix in Aegyptum venit praebuitque materiem doctissimis indigenarum et Graecorum multa super eo miraculo disserendi. de quibus congruunt et plura ambigua, sed cognitu non absurda promere libet. sacrum Soli id animal, et ore ac distinctu pinnarum a ceteris avibus diversum consentiunt qui formam eius effin{x}ere; de numero annorum varia traduntur. maxime vulgatum quingentorum spatium; sunt qui adseverent mille quadringentos sexaginta unum interici, prioresque alites Sesoside primum, post Amaside dominantibus, dein Ptolemaeo, qui ex Macedonibus tertius regnavit, in civitatem, cui Heliopolis nomen, advolavisse, multo ceterarum volucrum comitatu novam faciem mirantium. sed antiquitas quidem obscura: inter Ptolemaeum ac Tiberium minus ducenti quinquaginta anni fuerunt. unde nonnulli falsum hunc phoenicem neque Arabum e terris credidere, nihilque usurpavisse ex his, quae vetus memoria firmavit. confecto quippe annorum numero, ubi mors propinquet, suis in terris struere nidum eique vim genitalem adfundere, ex qua fetum oriri: et primam adulto curam sepeliendi patris, neque id temere, sed sublato murrae pondere temptatoque per longum iter, ubi par oneri, par meatui sit, subire patrium corpus inque Solis aram perferre atque adolere. haec incerta et [End Page 429] fabulosis aucta: ceterum aspici aliquando in Aegypto eam volucrem non ambigitur. 2 (Ann. 6.28) Previous scholarly discussion of this episode has not answered two basic questions: why the historian has placed it in 34 C.E., when Pliny the Elder (NH 10.2) and Dio (58.27.1) date it to 36, and why Tacitus devotes a whole chapter to what may have been a non-event, since he suggests that there was no genuine appearance of the bird in Tiberius’ time. These questions lead inevitably to a discussion of the role of this episode in the structure of book 6 and its relationship to the book’s predominant themes. I propose that Tacitus has placed the Phoenix in the year 34 to highlight two important concerns in book 6: the destruction of the nobility, and the unnatural cruelty of Tiberius and his heir, Gaius. Let us first address the question of Tacitus’ source or sources. Hahn may well be right that the source was an antiquarian work like that of Pliny the Elder, though not Pliny himself (praebuitque materiem doctissimis indigenarum et Graecorum multa super eo miraculo disserendi, Ann. 6.28.1). However, because Dio also reports the Phoenix, Hahn believed that it was already noted by the annalistic tradition when it reached Tacitus. Townend believed that Tacitus would not deliberately shift the Phoenix if he had found it clearly dated in his main annalistic source. Rather, the historian discovered this information, without any precise indication of the year, in a semihistorical work by Tiberius Balbillus, a former prefect of Egypt and probably the son of Thrasyllus, Tiberius’ astrologer. Then Tacitus simply inserted it at the first convenient place. We know from Pliny that Claudius displayed a Phoenix at Rome as part of his Secular Games, though no one believed it genuine (NH 10.2.5). So it is also possible that Tacitus, a member of the quindecimviri sacris faciundis in 88 C.E., when they were in charge of Domitian’s Secular Games (Ann. 11.11.1), might have had access, in the records of his priestly college, to a discussion of the possible link between the Egyptian Great Year and the Roman saeculum. This would have led him to conclude that the report of the Phoenix of the last years of Tiberius’ reign could not have been genuine, and it...

Aurelius Neilammon alias Hierax and Caecilius [Cons]ultius, Prefect of Egypt, in a Case of Extortion (P.Strasb. VI 560)

P.Strasb. VI 560 is a papyrus, difficult to read, but interesting. It contains a reference to an otherwise not attested Prefect of Egypt, and to a person weIl known from other papyri. Its subject matter is a case of extortion. However, contrary to what has been suggested, no connexion between this and the subject of those other papyri can be made.

The Origin and Nature of the German and British Fleets

The character and origin of the Roman naval forces outside Italy in the early Principate is obscure. They are usually referred to as ‘provincial’ fleets: they appear on the military diplomas only rarely. The earliest of these refers to classici who were discharged from a fleet in Egypt in A.D. 86; since the diploma was only issued after a minimum of 26 years' service, the fleet can presumably be dated to 60. Its existence under Nero is confirmed by an inscription recording a sub-prefect of the classis Alexandriae of the time and an edict of a prefect of Egypt in 63 referring to the personnel of the fleet. So far as the northern provinces are concerned, the Classis Flavia Moesica is so named on a diploma of 92. The recipients may have started their 26 years' service in other formations; but it is equally possible that they entered directly into the Moesian fleet in 66, which can then be presumed to have been in existence under Nero.

A Latin Papyrus with a Recruit's Request for Service in the Auxiliary Cohorts

Publication of a papyrus from the later years of Trajan, found at Theadelphia, which preserves a draft letter in Latin from a recruit to the Prefect of Egypt. The writer asks to be enrolled in the auxiliary cohorts, which shows that probatio in the Roman army was for a specific branch, such as the legions, the alae, the cohorts, or the fleet. Letters of recommendation were required, even if written by the applicant himself.

Discharge Certificates of the Roman Army

One of the most interesting documents to emerge from Egypt is a wooden tablet from the Fayum (PL XXX). The main text of the tablet reads: M. Acilio Avaviola et Pansa cos. pridie nonas lanuarias T. Haterius Nepos praef. Aeg. L. Valerio Nostro equiti alae Vocontiorum turma Gaviana emerito hone-stam missionem dedit This may be translated: ‘In the consulship of Manius (not Marcus) Aviola (not Avaviola) and (Corellius) Pansa (i.e. A.D. 122), on the day before the nones of January (i.e. on 4 January), T. Haterius Nepos, the Prefect of Egypt, gave an honourable discharge to L. Valerius Noster, time-expired cavalryman of the ala Vocontiorum, from the troop formerly commanded by Gavius.

A Petition to the Prefect of Egypt and Related Imperial Edicts

A Petition to the Prefect of Egypt and Related Imperial Edicts

A Petition to the Prefect of Egypt and Related Imperial Edicts

A Petition to the Prefect of Egypt and Related Imperial Edicts

A Letter of Avidius Cassius?

SUMMARYTo major suggestions have been advanced about the text of SB 10295. First, that the letter is not complete; the text now extant constitutes the end of a letter written in a single column containing not more than two or three lines above the present remains. Second, that the addressee, Apolinarios, is identical with the addressee of P. Oxy. 933, who was a bouleutes of Antinoopolis and a and that the title should be restored in SB 10295. Possibly he is also identical with a known president of the boule of Antinoopolis in the later second century. It has been suggested that Apolinarios went on an embassy to Alexandria in the spring of an unspecified year in connection with the accession of a new emperor. As a corollary to these hypotheses, it has been argued that the emperor concerned is in fact Avidius Cassius. Nothing in the text precludes this, and three references support it very strongly: namely, the distinction between ‘election’ and ‘accession to the close ties with Alexandria and the fact that Avidius Cassius' father was a prefect of Egypt, and finally the date. Objections which have been raised against previous theories do not hold for this one, and there is no reason (palaeographical or other) why SB 10295 should not date to A.D. 175.

A Letter of Avidius Cassius?

To major suggestions have been advanced about the text of SB 10295. First, that the letter is not complete; the text now extant constitutes the end of a letter written in a single column containing not more than two or three lines above the present remains. Second, that the addressee, Apolinarios, is identical with the addressee of P. Oxy. 933, who was a bouleutes of Antinoopolis and a and that the title should be restored in SB 10295. Possibly he is also identical with a known president of the boule of Antinoopolis in the later second century. It has been suggested that Apolinarios went on an embassy to Alexandria in the spring of an unspecified year in connection with the accession of a new emperor. As a corollary to these hypotheses, it has been argued that the emperor concerned is in fact Avidius Cassius. Nothing in the text precludes this, and three references support it very strongly: namely, the distinction between ‘election’ and ‘accession to the close ties with Alexandria and the fact that Avidius Cassius' father was a prefect of Egypt, and finally the date. Objections which have been raised against previous theories do not hold for this one, and there is no reason (palaeographical or other) why SB 10295 should not date to A.D. 175.

Mark Antony in Alexandria—A Note

The lively interest shown by Professor Last in the study of Roman Egypt is typified not only by his active interest in the Egypt Exploration Society but also by several articles in the field, among them that recently published on the powers of the Prefect of Egypt (JEA, 40, 1954, pp. 68 ff.). I hope that this note concerning Mark Antony will be of interest to him.

Studies in Byzantine Economy: Iugatio and Capitatio

Diocletian imposed on the whole Roman Empire two new taxes, the iugatio, to be exacted from the cultivated land, and the capitatio, to be exacted from the agricultural population. The reform was effected in Egypt, and presumably in the whole Roman Empire, in the year 297 A.D., as shown by an Edict of Aristides Optatus, prefect of Egypt.

The Appointment of a Guardian by the Prefect of Egypt

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Appointment of a Guardian by the Prefect of EgyptHenry A. SandersHenry A. Sanders Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Archaeology Volume 46, Number 1January–March 1942 The journal of the Archaeological Institute of America Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/499111 Copyright © 1942 by the Archaeological Institute of America. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Oscar William Reinmuth

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsThe Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Oscar William Reinmuth William F. EdgertonWilliam F. Edgerton Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Classical Philology Volume 32, Number 2Apr., 1937 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/362021 PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian

The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian

The Rôle of Basilides in the events of A.D. 69

In the establishing of Vespasian on the imperial throne an important part was played by Ti. Iulius Alexander, the prefect of Egypt. Before any decisive step was taken by Vespasian, the Egyptian prefect had deliberated with either Mucianus or Vespasian, or with both, and had pledged his support. The prefect was, moreover, the first to have his soldiers take the oath of allegiance to Vespasian, on July 1st, 69. The die was cast by Vespasian at the conclusion of a conference held with Mucianus at Mt. Carmel, and it is only reasonable to suppose that Ti. Iulius Alexander had a representative at this all-important meeting. I suggest that there was such a representative, a certain Basilides, concerning whom we have considerable information.