Starting from the premise that intellectuals not only provide expert knowledge, but also propose political ideas, e.g. when serving a ‘classe dominante’ (11–14), Livia Capponi has chosen to focus on politically influential or ambitious intellectuals in Greco-Roman Egypt. She rightly stresses the importance of Egypt's multi-ethnic population and the impact of the conquest in 31 b.c. Therefore, chs 1–5 give not only a chronological overview from Augustan to Severan times, but also examine political goals, options and discourses. C. highlights Greek and Greco-Egyptian intellectuals like Asclepiades of Mendes, Timagenes, Apion, Balbillus, Chaeremon and the Acta Alexandrinorum. Jewish positions are somewhat neglected, though, for example, the final passages of Philo's De legatione ad Gaium (349–73; for E. R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus (1962), 59, ‘definite political propaganda’) even parallel the structure of the Acta Isidori.

Less convincing are conclusions based on biographical data, especially where direct evidence is lacking and interpretive reconstructions take over. For example, for the identity of Balbillus (96–103), C. follows Cramer's maximalist position (n. 97; actually that of C. Cichorius, RhM 76 (1927), 102–5) against the minimalist position of Stein (PIR² B 38; C 812–13) and others (e.g. D. J. Geagan, AJPh 100.2 (1979), 283), who are not mentioned. C. calls Balbillus the ‘figlio dell'astrologo di Tiberio, Trasillo di Efeso’ (98). But Cichorius’ argument for this family connection depends on linking Tac., Ann. 6.22 and Suet., Nero 36, despite Tacitus’ omission of the son's name, and is hence uncertain, as is Thrasyllus’ connection with Ephesus: his name is only restored in I.Eph. 3042.3, like Balbillus’ name in I.Smyrna 619. According to Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, Thrasyllus joined Tiberius in Rhodes; his native city is not mentioned. Müller (FHG 3, 501–4) and H. Tarrant (Thrasyllan Platonism (1993), 7) suggested Mendes, PIR ² T 190 Alexandria.

Inaccuracies like this become serious in C.’s final chapter on the Alexandrian Museion, where she argues against the views of P. Fraser (Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972), 68, 87, 808–10) and N. Lewis (Collected Papers (1995), 94–8, 257–74). Here are three examples. First, C. sees in Chaeremon and Dionysius, son of Glaucus, ‘a capo del Museo’ (252–3), following Pflaum and others (n. 18). Pflaum's position is actually that of Schwartz (RE Chairemon (7)) and G. H. Klippel (Über das Alexandrinische Museum (1838), 76), and it has been rejected by prosopographists since W. Otto (Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Ägypten (1908), i.199; cf. PIR ² D 103) as overrating the ties between the Museion and local teachers. The key passage, Suda Δ 1173 [Adler], mentions Dionysius as μαθητὴς δὲ Χαιρήμονος τοῦ ϕιλοσόϕου, ὃν καὶ διεδέξατο ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ — nothing about the Museion, in contrast to Θ 205: Θέων (= Theon mathematicus), ὁ ἐκ τοῦ Μουσείου. Schwartz’ position follows a certain image of the Museion in assuming that Alexandrian scholars had necessarily to be members, not just locals.

Second, according to C. (253–4), the Salvius Timagenes from P.Tebt. 435 was archidikastes and hiereus, a member of the Museion, and identical with a Salvius Timagenes from the Acta Hermaisci. But P.Tebt. 435 mentions him only as an archidikastes, not as a member, and the word hiereus, though likely, is in fact a restoration in the papyrus text. To regard this Salvius Timagenes as a member of the Museion because he was archidikastes and hiereus may have been inspired by Otto (Priester und Tempel, i.166, 197–9), for whom the ἐπιστάτης τοῦ Μουσείου was simultaneously hiereus of the Museion and archidikastes; but as sources on archidikastai have increased, Otto's suggestion has generally been rejected: most archidikastai were not members. As for the Acta Hermaisci, both Hunt (P.Oxy. 1242) and Musurillo punctuated the relevant line (5/6) as Σαλούιος, Ἰού[λι]ος Σαλούιος, Τειμαγένης (‘Salvius, Julius Salvius, and Timagenes’). In reading ‘Salvius Timagenes’, C., contrary to her notes, in fact follows Weber's punctuation (Hermes 50 (1915), 51–2: Σαλούιος Ἰού[λι]ος, Σαλούιος Τειμαγένης). Both are equally possible. Thus, Salvius Timagenes from P.Tebt. 435 should neither be taken for a member of the Museion, nor linked with the Acta. The only member mentioned in the Acta Alexandrinorum is Valerius Callinicus.

Third, C. counts the archiiatros Gellius Maximus among the members of the Alexandrian museion (262); though the location of the museion is not specified in SEG 54.1368–70, 50.1312 and CIL 3.6820, all the relevant inscriptions were found in Pisidian Antioch, and Ephesus, Smyrna and Alexandria have all equally been proposed as the location of the relevant museion. The Ephesian museion seems especially likely, as there were many doctors there, including another archiiatros, Statilius Kriton (I.Eph. 719). C.’s remark ‘Gellio Massimo fu amico e medico personale di Marco Aurelio’ seems to be based on SEG 54.1369, l.1–7: Λ(ούκιον) Γέλλιον | Μάξιμον ϕίλον | καὶ ἀρχιίατρον | τοῦ Κυρίου | ἡμ[ῶν Μ(άρκου) | Αὐρη]λίου | Ἀντ[ωνείνου Σε(βαστοῦ)] (the restoration is secure: SEG 50.1312). But Caracalla, Elagabalus and Severus Alexander had the same tria nomina; and since L. Gellius Maximus, ‘ὁ ἰατροῦ υἱὸς’, was killed as a usurper in a.d. 218 (Dio 79.7.1–2), this ‘M. Aurelius Antoninus Augustus’ has usually been identified with Caracalla. C. does not say why she rejects this commonly accepted identification, or why Maximus necessarily belonged to the Alexandrian museion.

C.’s book as a whole raises important perspectives. The first chapters in particular have the merit of acknowledging the positions of Greeks and Greco-Egyptians in a wider context than just the uproar of a.d. 38. Other interpretations should be revised and some assumptions clarified in more detailed future studies.