E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

sive Cairum[fontem recensere]

Care, usor ignote, adest attestatio? IacobusAmor 18:31, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fustat & Babylon[fontem recensere]

Fusṭāṭ is actually supposed to be derived from Fossātum... whether or not that name is actually attested in Latin writings, I cannot say, but I would be surprised if no Greek or Latin source of the period mentions it. Fusṭāṭ/Cairo also happens to be founded near the site of the ancient Egyptian city which the Greeks and Romans called Babylon (Aegypti), and in fact I can cite an eighth century coptic document (P.KRU 5 v, if you're interested), which still refers to it by that name. So the name Babylon should probably get more mention than it currently has. --Iustinus (disputatio) 14:37, 26 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cairus quae olim Babylon
I have yet to find an attestation of Fossatum in Latin, but Φόσσατον seems to be well attested in 7—8th century Greek papyri, so I think it's safe to say that Fossatum is the legitimate Latin name of Fusṭāṭ. Note also that the equation of Cairo and Babylon-of-Egypt does seem to have been forgotten either: Fasciculus:Cairo map1549 pagano.jpg, en:Babylon Fortress. --Iustinus (disputatio) 15:04, 27 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a quote from William of Tyre who says it is popularly called "Babylon", but elsewhere he seems to use it to refer to Fustat, as in "Babylonia et Cahere". He also mentions Alexandria, Bilbeis, and Damietta. The French crusade chronicles also refer to "Babilone" or "Babiloinne" (Jean de Joinville for example). Adam Episcopus (disputatio) 10:57, 28 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, Bilbeis is truly obscure to those of us who study antiquity. Trismegistos mentions no sources on it or from it *except* for William! en:Bilbeis does list a coptic name, but that gets be nowhere (and I do have to wonder if it's right: Phelbs > Bilbeis... where did that diphthong excresce out of??)
I find it interesting that although William uses the name Babylon, he claims that the name was not in use in antiquity.
--Iustinus (disputatio) 17:57, 28 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, btw, do you know what that Macer represents? --Iustinus (disputatio) 18:00, 28 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that's just the Arabic for Egypt (Miṣr), which also referred to Cairo at the time. Interestingly that would suggest that William thought "s" (well, ṣ) could be represented by a Latin "c"! Unfortunately the online text of William is from the Patrologia edition, which was actually taken from the 1611 Bongars edition. I would like to see what textual variants are noted in the 1986 edition, which I will check when I get a chance...that sound was often represented in medieval Latin by a "ç" or something like it. Adam Episcopus (disputatio) 20:53, 28 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, I should have known! One of my sources claims Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ can be used the same way. I wonder if this ultimately comes from "of Egypt." BTW, en:Coptic Cairo#History --Iustinus (disputatio) 03:37, 29 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I finally remembered to look this up, and the only manuscript variant for these names in William of Tyre is "Chaere" for Cahere (which I suppose is a spelling error rather than a variant). Adam Episcopus (disputatio) 00:42, 26 Martii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://systop.hypotheses.org/journees-detude-2/23-24-nov-2012-paris-decrire-imaginer-construire-lespace... too bad Adam isn't in France anymore! --Iustinus (disputatio) 17:22, 1 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! Adam Episcopus (disputatio) 21:59, 1 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?[fontem recensere]

@Andrew Dalby, Alexander Gerashchenko, Amahoney: Could we please look to put some semi-protection on this page. Thanks. Billinghurst (disputatio) 23:57, 8 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Factum est. --Aylin (disputatio) 07:32, 9 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]