THE .

:lIO~\KO~ OF ALEXANDRIA
By P. 1\1. FRASER
Two fragments of Xenocrates of Aphrodisias, the Greek doctor of the first century A.D.
renowned for his work on drugs (sometimes of the most repellant kind) and dietetics, 1
refer to a 8toA.Kos, a slip\Yay for ships, at Alexandria. These passages have never, to the
best of my knowledge, been utilized for the topography of the city, and since recent
excavations have revealed the remains of the diolkos at Corinth, z it is worth while
dra\\-ing attention to its Alexandrian counterpart, even though \Ve cannot learn any-
thing about its construction.
The two passages are preserved by Oribasius, the physician of Julian the Apostate,
in his larplK~ avvaywy~, ':Medical Compendium', the work to \Vhich we O\Ve much of
our knO\vledge of Greek medical writers whose treatises are othenvise lost. They are
both concerned with dietetics.
The first passage is Coll. Med. II, 58, 54-55 (CMG VI, l, l): y{vovrat 8€ Kat y€v77
\ I<;: \ - <;: I).. <;: \ I\ \ I\ < < ' A I ' -
7TEl\WplOWV TE Kal XYJ/LWV' OlQ'!-'OpOl OE 7TOlKll\al Kal UTpoyyvl\al WS al EV t.JlKaiapxl'} EV TCfl
~
A ovKplV({> I \ I
l\aKK({> Kal
\
EV
'
rep
- ' >,1 \
EV .t:t/\Es avopEl'}
{; <;: I \ I \
l\l/LEVl · yl\VKElal yap Kat EVXVl\Ol. ai o
\ \ " \ C <;:' <
V7TEp
\

<Papov Kat rov L1 {oAKov r~v TE y€</>vpav Kat T~v vijaov E7TlfL~KElS, TpaxE'tat, f3aA.avols EOlKVtat
8pvtvats, f.µ,</>Epws </>77yo'ts Tov f.x'tvov </>Epoµ,Evat.
The second is ibid. II, 58, 129: at 8€ yAvKvµ,ap{OEs xapdaTEpat Twv AEwaTpaKwv Koyxwv,
<I <;: \ \ I<;: <;: \ \ I <;: \ \ f ~ >f<;: < \ I<;: \ f
77rrovs oE 7TEl\wpwwv. olal\l\arroval oE Kara T07Tovs TOlS ElOEUl, ws 7TEl\wpwEs Kal XYJ/Lal,
\ f I - C \ \ ' - ' •A \ {; <;: I \ I " < <;: \ \ \
7TOlKll\l'} Kal UX7J/LaTlUfL({>' al fLEV yap EV T({> EV .t:l./\EsavopEl'f l\lfLEVl aplUTal, at OE 7TEpt TOV
A' \ \ ,n I \ ',J,. , I \ ~
t.JWl\Kov Kat 'I'apov Kai YE'!-'vpav E7TL/L7JKElS Kat rpaXElat.
The first passage may be translated thus:
'And there are (different) species of both mussels and clams; some are spotted and
round as are those in Dicaearchia [Puteoli] in the Lucrine Lake and in the harbour of
Alexandria: these are sweet and succulent. But those beyond Pharos and the Diolkos
and the Bridge and the Island are longish and prickly, resembling acorns of the oak,
with a calyx like that of the acorn of the wild oak'.
The second thus:
'And the glycymarides [a kind of cockle] are more pleasant than the smooth-shelled
cockles, but are inferior to the pelorides [the mussels mentioned in the previous
passage]. Like the pelorides they vary in respect both of colour and shape in different
localities. Those in the harbour of Alexandria are the best, while those in the neighbour-
hood of the Diolkos and the Pharos and the Bridge are longish and prickly.'
These passages contain a number of difficulties, but before we can attend to them we
must remove one possible source of confusion. Apart from the Diolkos of Corinth only
1
For Xenocrates see Allbutt, Greek J1edicine at Rome, 382, and for his use by Pliny see \Vellmann, Hermes,
42 (1907), pp. 614-29.
2
For the Corinthian diolkos see Verdelis, Ath. 1vlitt. 71 (1956), 50-59.
 THE LilOAKO:L OF ALEXANDRIA 135
one other diolkos is known, namely, the False Mouth (1l'EV8oaToµwv) of the Kile
recorded by Ptolemy (iv, 5, 10) as lying between the false mouth of Pineptimi (other-
wise unknown) and the Pathmetic mouth. The same Llto,\Kos- is recorded by Stephanus
of Byzantium in two different places (s.vv. J1f38YJpa and 'QpEos-), in each case to instance
the ethnic derivation Llto,\Kos--Llw,\K{TYJS'. To judge by its name (as we must surely do,
when the name is so descriptive) this Llto,\Kos- \Vas a strip of land at the silted-up mouth
of some small branch of the Nile (Ptolemy does not record by name a branch which
flows through Diolkos), across which ships were transported to the neighbouring
Mediterranean coast. 1 Stephanus's Llw,\KLTYJS' is a purely grammatical form, and gives
no ground for supposing that there \vas an urban settlement there. It is, in any case,
quite clear that Xenocrates's 8{o,\Kos- is somewhere in the neighbourhood of Alexandria
(a point to which we shall shortly return), and that it has nothing whatever to do with
the false mouth of the Nile. \Ve may therefore consider Xenocrates's statement without
paying further heed to Ptolemy or Stephanus.
As to the reliability of Xenocrates's statement there can surely be no doubt. The
information it provides is obviously based on intimate kno\vledge of Alexandria (though
not necessarily knowledge at first hand), and the places named self-evidently real.
Their introduction would otherwise be pointless.
In other respects, however, the passages, so simple at first sight, are far from clear.
There are difficulties both of orientation and specific identification. First, the word
<Papas-. This can itself equally well refer either to the island as a ·whole or to the light-
house at its eastern extremity, the two meanings being distinguished by gender,~ <l>apos-
a
denoting the island and <l>apos- the lighthouse. 2 Here no article is used in either passage,
and this would in itself rather lead us to expect that the reference is to the island. How-
ever, the first passage contrasts v{jaos- and <l>apos-, and since v{jaos- by itself in Alexandria
refers invariably to Pharos,3 this determines that the reference is to the lighthouse, and
it is further legitimate to conclude that the same meaning is valid for the second
passage. What bearing this has on the general orientation of the description we shall
consider later.
Next, what is meant by yE<f>vpa, the Bridge? This is evidently so well-known as to
need no further identification, and one would be inclined on this account to regard it
as a synonym for the Heptastadion, the embankment linking the city and the island,
which Strabo describes as a dike or embankment (xwµa) serving as a bridge (yE<f>vpa).4
However, the matter is not so simple as this. The embankment, as \Ve know from
various writers, and in particular from Strabo, was pierced at either extremity (that is,
at a point close to the city and another close to the island) by two covered watern-ays
1
Ball, Egypt in the Classical Geographers, 127-S does not consider the literal meaning of the term when he
says of the mouth that it was 'doubtless the place of outflow of only a minor stream'.
2
Cf. Wachsmuth, Rh. Mus. 42 (1887), 462.
3 See, e.g., Strab. 792c; Aristeas, 301; Joseph. AJ XII, 103; Bell. Alex. 17 and passim.
4 Loe. cit. r, OOTOt (the two harbours) 8€ aWEXELS" EV j3a8n EKElt'<p, Tc{i E1TTaaTaO{l:J KaAovµ.El''{J xwµ.an Ot<p-

y6µ.EVOt atr' UVTOV trapaKELVTat" TO 8€ xwµ.a EaTtl' a1TO T~S ~;rdpov y€<f;vpa E1T~ T~l' !'~aov KaTa TO Ea1TEpwi· ai!T~s
µ.epos- EKTETaµ.E»YJ, 8vo Ota1TAOV') atroActtrovaa µ.6i·ov Eis TOV Evi·6aTOv AtµEl'a, KUL avTOVS" y<yE,Pvpwµ.erovS""
1iv 8' ov y€,Pvpa µ.6vov E1TL ~v ~aov TO €pyov TOVTO, llia KUL vopaywywv, OT€ y< 0KELTO.
 P. M. FRASER
(8uf7TAovs-) giving passage from the one harbour to the other. Either of these bridges
might be described as a y€<Pvpa, and the northern one was in fact specifically so called.
A passage in the Letter of Aristeas, 1 no mean authority on local Alexandrian matters,
while establishing this latter usage complicates the matter still further. Describing the
journey of Demetrius of Phaleron and the Translators from the mainland to the island
he says 8u~t\8ovawv 8€ TpLwv ~fupwv 7Tapat\af3wv avTovs- o L177µ,~Tpws- Kat 8LEA8wv To Twv
<
E7TTaaTa 8'LWV avaxwµ,a
' I TTJS-
- eal\aaa77s-
)I 7Tpos- TYJV v77aov, Kal 8Lat-'as- TYJV YE-pvpav
I \ - I QI l,J..
\
Kal\ 7Tpoa-
d8wv ws- E7TL Ta f3opELa µ,€p77 ... , that is, 'Demetrius crossed the seven-stade embank-
ment of the sea to the island, and crossed the bridge and came to the northern parts'.
Here, unless the author is guilty of a gross tautology, the y€<Pvpa is distinct from the
Heptastadion. Furthermore, the version of the letter given by Josephus, 2 which is
admittedly not free from misunderstandings and errors, makes the distinction even
clearer, for he says 8wf3as 7Tpos- T~v y€<Pvpav. Here the preposition 7Tpos- surely indicates
that the bridge is regarded as a separate structure from the embankment, and would
justify the supposition that the embankment itself terminated in another bridge which
formed the actual link between it and the island. This y€<Pvpa, 'the bridge', would then
probably be that referred to by Xenocrates.
However, this is not certain. The author of the Bel/um AlexandrinumJ suggests that
the y€<Pvpa may in fact refer to the bridge over the 8ur7TAovs- at the northern end of the
embankment, rather than to a separate bridge. He invariably calls the Heptastadion
itself the moles, and refers continually both to the 8uf7TAovs- and to the bridge over it as
pons. 4 Had there been an entirely separate bridge, such as the Letter of Aristeas at least
permits us to suppose, it is difficult to see how he could have avoided mentioning it
either for its own sake or so as to distinguish it from the other bridges. The most prob-
able explanation of the words of Xenocrates, therefore, seems to be that he is referring
to the bridge over the 8u:f7TAovs- at the northern end of the Heptastadion, and that it is
to this bridge that the Letter of Aristeas also refers. It is not difficult to imagine that the
'bridge' at the northern end would in the course of time acquire an independent
notional existence from the Heptastadion itself, which consisted otherwise, with the
exception of the corresponding opening at the southern end, of an unbroken dam. In
any case, it is clear from Aristeas that the y€<Pvpa, whether we regard it as a separate
structure or not, is at the northern end of the Heptastadion, and this is sufficient for
our present purpose.
Finally, the 'island', ~ v7]aos-. As already noted, in Alexandria ~ vfjaos- is invariably
used of Pharos, 5 and there is no likelihood that it refers to any other island, for example
An tirr hodos.
The places named are, then, the lighthouse, the diolkos, the bridge at the northern
end of the Heptastadion and the island itself. The more general question of orientation
1
Arist. Ep. 301. 2 Loe. cit.

J Bell. Alex. IJ-2 l, the account of the battle for Pharos and the Heptastadion. There is now a useful edition
of the Bell. Alex. by J. Andrieu (Les Belles Lettres, l 954); the standard critical account of the whole campaign
is that of Graindor, La Guerre d'Alexandrie (Ree. Trav. pub!. par la fac. des lettres, Univ. Egypt., 7, 19 3 1);
for the battle for the Heptastadion see ibid. 107 ff.
4 See chs. 17-21, passim. s See above, p. 135 n. 3.
 THE .610/\K02 OF ALEXANDRIA 1 37

remains. In both passages Xenocrates contrasts the marine creatures of the harbour
with those of the Pharos-Diolkos-'Bridge' -island area. In the first he says that, in
contrast to the sweet and digestible mussels to be found in the harbour, those 'beyond'
({rrdp) Pharos, etc., are longish and prickly; and in the second that the cockles in the
harbour are very good, whereas those 'in the neighbourhood of' (1TEpt) the Diolkos,
Pharos, and the Bridge are longish and prickly. Evidently Xenocrates did not regard
the second region which he describes as being in the harbour, while the vrr€p and vijaos-
of the first passage suggest that he had in mind an area out to sea beyond Pharos. If
so, the natural interpretation \Vould be that the series of points, Diolkos-Pharos-Bridge,
was on the north side of the island, \vhere substantial harbour-works have been
traced. 1 This, however, seems quite out of the question for the points named: there is
no place here where a 8to>..Kos- \Vould fulfil any function, and the 'Bridge' is certainly
not in this area. Of course, Xenocrates may have had two quite different areas in
mind-one out to sea north and west of the island and the lighthouse, and the other in
the area designated by the terms of reference Diolkos and the Bridge-but it seems
more likely that he is speaking, however vaguely, of a single area. \Ye may rather sup-
pose that he is, as it were, looking west from the Great Harbour and regarding Eunostus,
the western harbour, together with a vague north-western extension, as the area
'beyond' the island, lighthouse, diolkos, and bridge. This seems the most probable
explanation of both passages; the relative unimportance of the western harbour at this
time being probably sufficient reason for the periphrastic phraseology. 2 Xenocratcs,
then, is thinking particularly of the western end of the 8to>..Kos- and of the bridge as
the habitat of the inferior molluscs in question. The close connexion of the bridge and the
diolkos being further assured by the copula TE linking them in the first passage, the
most probable site for the latter is at the southern tip of the island, close to the northern
end of the Heptastadion, where the distance to be traversed was about 700 metres.
This seems as far as we can go \vith regard to location.
The question now arises of the date of construction of the diolkos. Here we find our-
selves involved in arguments from silence which are particularly difficult to evaluate
in the face of the general uncertainty of detail. Nevertheless it is difficult to feel that
they are wholly lacking in force. The Heptastadion is described by Strabo as consisting
of an embankment which acted as a bridge from the mainland to the island, and it
carried an aqueduct (v8paywywv), 'when it (the island) was inhabited' (oTE YE cPKEtT0).3
It contained in his day the two bridges \vhich we have seen to have been placed one at
either end of the embankment, by which ships passed between the Great Harbour and
Eunostus. If the 8to>..Kos- was closely associated with the Heptastadion it is surely
strange that he does not proceed to mention it at this point, and his silence at least
raises the possibility that it did not exist at the time. Again, no reference to the diolkos
I See Jondet, Les Ports submerges de l'ancienne ile de Plzaros (:\Iemoires presentes a l'Institut egypt., 9, 1916),

passim; Kees, RE, s.v. Pharos (1), cols. 1857-8.

2 This is shown very clearly by Josephus, a contemporary of Xenocrates, for in his account (BJ n-, 607-15)

of the harbour of Alexandria he ignores altogether Eunostus, and two generations earlier Strabo, though he
duly records its existence and its relation to the great harbour, gives no details at all regarding it.
3 Seep. 135 n. 4.

B 9820 T
 P. M. FRASER
occurs in the detailed description of the fighting on the island and the Heptastadion
given by the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum. This too is very surprising if the slip-
way was located somewhere close to the island and the Embankment, both of which
were scenes of bitter fighting. The silence both of Strabo and of this author raises the
presumption that the diolkos existed neither at the time of the Alexandrian War nor
in that of Strabo's residence in Alexandria twenty-five years later.
Strabo tells us that the aqueduct operated when the island was inhabited, and goes
on to say that the island had been laid waste by Julius Caesar, and was now inhabited
only by a few fishermen. 1 Nevertheless, there was evidently some improvement in its
condition in the course of the first century A.D., 2 and it is possible that the construction
of a slipway at the northern end of the Heptastadion was part of this improvement. It
is probably useless to speculate why this was done. Certainly it would be rash to assume
that the northern bridge of the Heptastadion had ceased to operate: the alternative
route provided by the diolkos would enable small craft to avoid currents round the
bridge when seas were high, or when large craft were using the waterways.
I Strab. in continuation of the passage quoted on p. 135 n. 4: viiv o' ~p~µwaEV aOT~V 0 8Eos Ka'i:aap EV Tep

7Tpos J4/..Egavop£as 71"oMµ<t> TETayµEV1)V µETa TWV {3aatMwv· o/..lyot o' olKOVUl 7Tpos Tep m)pycp vavT£KOt avOpES.
2
There was an important fiscal post on Pharos in the Roman period: see Calderini, Dizionario, 160. For
the statue in honour of Claudius erected there (as also at Taposiris and Pelusium) see P.Lond. 1912, 47.