Pkogkess of Egyptology.
The other articles in the Archiv are shorter. M. Lesquier 26 examines
the old problem of the calendar in Ptolemaic Egypt, with special reference
to some double dates in the reigns of Euergetes and Philopator; but the
results are still bewildering and unsatisfactory. Prof. Eostowzew27 dis-
cusses some points in connection with the subject of the trade of Grasco-
Eoman Egypt with the east and south; his article is based upon a book
by M. Chwostow which I have not been able as yet to see, a history of
the eastern trade of Egypt in the Grasco-Eoman period. The veteran Prof.
Lumbroso 28 continues his series of notes on miscellaneous topics connected
with Egypt. The remaining articles are juristic, and will be mentioned
Ptolemaic history is represented among the minor publications of the
year by a study by L. Pareti29 of the obscure questions associated with the
names of those phantom kings, Ptolemy Eupator and Ptolemy Neos
Philopator. The conclusion favoured by Pareti is that both princes were
sons of Philometor; that Eupator was first associated on the throne with
his father, but predeceased him; that Neos Philopator was then taken into
partnership and outlived his father, but was subsequently murdered by
Euergetes. An appendix gives a table of the various orders in which these
names stand in the lists of the deified Ptolemies. For Eoman Egypt a
useful piece of work has been done by Prof. L. Cantarelli,30 in drawing up
a catalogue of the Prefects of Egypt. In this he has of course been
considerably indebted to the previous list of S. de Eicci. Only the first
part (from b.c. 30 to a.d. 283) is as yet published; each Prefect is treated
separately, and the evidence with regard to him is fully set out.
Dr. P. Koschaker 31 has published the first part of a monograph o.i the
Archidicastes. He regards this officer as having been in Ptolemaic times
merely an Alexandrian magistrate, whose functions were extended by the
Eomans to include the custody of the central office of archives at Alexandria
for the whole country. He is not prepared to accept Otto's identification
of the Archidicastes with the president of the Museum. He collects the
evidence of the papyri bearing upon the organisation of the archives in
Egypt; and the continuation of the treatise will complete this subject, and
also treat of the judicial and administrative functions of this officer.
Another study of magisterial functions is contained in a treatise by S.
Waszynski on the court mentioned in the Magdola Papyri under the
name of the kolvov St,KaaT>']pi,op (or koivoSlklov, the expansion of the
abbreviation being doubtful). The treatise itself is apparently in Polish, but
a full summary of its conclusions has been published in French.32 Waszyn-
ski regards this court as identical neither with that of the XaoKplrai, which