Berenice II Euergetis: Essays in Early Hellenistic Queenship 113749462X, 9781137494627

Table of contents :
Front Matter....Pages i-xiv
Introduction....Pages 1-6
Magas, Apame, and Berenice II....Pages 7-22
The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II....Pages 23-40
Berenice II in Art and Artifacts....Pages 41-70
Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices....Pages 71-115
Conclusion....Pages 117-130
Back Matter....Pages 131-245

Citation preview

QUEENSHIP AND POWER

Series Editors: Carole Levin and Charles Beem This series brings together monographs, edited volumes, and textbooks from scholars specializing in gender analysis, women’s studies, literary interpretation, and cultural, political, constitutional, and diplomatic history. It aims to broaden our understanding of the strategies that queens—both consorts and regnants, as well as female regents— pursued in order to wield political power within the structures of male-dominant societies. In addition to works describing European queenship, it also includes books on queenship as it appeared in other parts of the world, such as East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Islamic civilization. Editorial Board Linda Darling, University of Arizona (Ottoman Empire) Theresa Earenfight, Seattle University (Spain) Dorothy Ko, Barnard College (China) Nancy Kollman, Stanford University (Russia) John Thornton, Boston University (Africa and the Atlantic World) John Watkins (France and Italy) Published by Palgrave Macmillan The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History By Charles Beem Elizabeth of York By Arlene Naylor Okerlund Learned Queen: The Image of Elizabeth I in Politics and Poetry By Linda Shenk “High and Mighty Queens” of Early Modern England: Realities and Representations Edited by Carole Levin, Jo Eldridge Carney, and Debra Barrett-Graves The Monstrous Regiment of Women: Female Rulers in Early Modern Europe By Sharon L. Jansen The Face of Queenship: Early Modern Representations of Elizabeth I By Anna Riehl Elizabeth I: The Voice of a Monarch By Ilona Bell Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth Edited by Alice Hunt and Anna Whitelock The Death of Elizabeth I: Remembering and Reconstructing the Virgin Queen By Catherine Loomis

Queenship and Voice in Medieval Northern Europe By William Layher The Foreign Relations of Elizabeth I Edited by Charles Beem The French Queen’s Letters: Mary Tudor Brandon and the Politics of Marriage in SixteenthCentury Europe By Erin A. Sadlack Wicked Women of Tudor England: Queens, Aristocrats, Commoners By Retha M. Warnicke A Monarchy of Letters: Royal Correspondence and English Diplomacy in the Reign of Elizabeth I By Rayne Allinson Three Medieval Queens: Queenship and the Crown in Fourteenth-Century England By Lisa Benz St. John Mary I: Gender, Power, and Ceremony in the Reign of England’s First Queen By Sarah Duncan The Last Plantagenet Consorts: Gender, Genre, and Historiography, 1440–1627 By Kavita Mudan Finn Fairy Tale Queens: Representations of Early Modern Queenship By Jo Eldridge Carney Mother Queens and Princely Sons: Rogue Madonnas in the Age of Shakespeare By Sid Ray The Name of a Queen: William Fleetwood’s Itinerarium ad Windsor Edited by Charles Beem and Dennis Moore The Emblematic Queen: Extra-Literary Representations of Early Modern Queenship Edited by Debra Barrett-Graves The Queens Regnant of Navarre: Succession, Politics, and Partnership, 1274–1512 By Elena Woodacre Queenship in the Mediterranean: Negotiating the Role of the Queen in the Medieval and Early Modern Eras Edited by Elena Woodacre The Queen’s Mercy: Gender and Judgment in Representations of Elizabeth I By Mary Villeponteaux Titled Elizabethans: A Directory of Elizabethan Court, State, and Church Officers, 1558–1603 Edited by Arthur F. Kinney and Jane A. Lawson

Elizabeth I’s Foreign Correspondence: Letters, Rhetoric, and Politics Edited by Carlo M. Bajetta, Guillaume Coatalen, and Jonathan Gibson The Man behind the Queen: Male Consorts in History Edited by Charles Beem and Miles Taylor Berenice II Euergetis: Essays in Early Hellenistic Queenship By Branko F. van Oppen de Ruiter

This page intentionally left blank

BERENICE II EUERGETIS ESSAYS IN EARLY HELLENISTIC QUEENSHIP Branko F. van Oppen de Ruiter

BERENICE II EUERGETIS

Copyright © Branko F. van Oppen de Ruiter, 2015. Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2015 978-1-137-49461-0 All rights reserved. First published in 2015 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.

ISBN 978-1-137-49462-7 (eBook) ISBN 978-1-349-69735-9 DOI 10.1057/9781137494627 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Oppen de Ruiter, Branko F. van, 1970– author. Berenice II Euergetis : essays in early hellinistic queenship / Branko F. van Oppen de Ruiter. pages cm—(Queenship and power) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Berenice, Queen, consort of Ptolemy III, King of Egypt, approximately 270 B.C.–221 B.C. 2. Berenice, Queen, consort of Ptolemy III, King of Egypt, approximately 270 B.C.–221 B.C.—Influence. 3. Queens—Egypt—Biography. 4. Ptolemy III Euergetes, King of Egypt, -221 B.C.—Marriage. 5. Egypt—Kings and rulers—Biography. 6. Power (Social sciences)—Egypt—History—To 1500. 7. Women— Political activity—Egypt—History—To 1500. 8. Ptolemaic dynasty, 305 B.C.–30 B.C. 9. Egypt—Civilization—332 B.C.–638 A.D. I. Title. DT92.O67 2015 932.021092—dc23

2015000097

A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Knowledge Works (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: July 2015 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

For Wim de Ruiter who liked to watch the stars

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

List of Plates, Figure, and Tables

xi

Abbreviations

xiii

Introduction

1

1 Magas, Apame, and Berenice II

7

2 The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II

23

3

41

Berenice II in Art and Artifacts

4 Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

71

Conclusion

117

Appendices

131

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.7.1–3

131

Text and Translation of the Coma Berenices

133

Lunar Phases 246–245 BCE

144

Time Table, 323–221 BCE

146

Notes

149

Bibliography

201

Index

229

This page intentionally left blank

PLATES, FIGURE, AND TABLES

Plates 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16

(a) Head of Zeus-Ammon, AU tetradrachm (b) Head of Apollo Carneus, AR didrachm (c)Horseman, AU tetrobol (a) Portrait of Ptolemy Soter, AE diobol (b) Portrait of Ptolemy Soter, AE diobol (c)Basilissa Berenice, AR didrachm (a and b) Portrait of Berenice II, AR Pentakaidekadrachm (a) Youthful Berenice, AV mnaieion (b) Portrait of Berenice II, AV mnaieion (c)Berenice II portrait, AU trihemiobol (a) First Portrait of Ptolemy I, AV stater (b) Portrait of Arsinoe II, AV mnaieion (c) Radiate Portrait of Ptolemy III, AV mnaieion Berenice II as Agathe Tyche, faience oenochoe (a) Head of Ptolemaic queen, limestone (b) Head of royal woman, terracotta (c) Ptolemaic queen, faience oenochoe (d) Ptolemaic queen, faience alabstrum Ptolemaic queen, white marble Possible portrait of Berenice II, polychrome marble (a) Cameo of Ptolemaic queen, pyrope garnet (b)Royal portrait ring, bronze Mosaic with square emblema, signed by Sophilus Detail of mosaic with round emblema (a) Ptolemy III and Berenice II on relief scene of Euergetes Gate, Karnak (b) The Zodiac of Dendera, sandstone bas-relief Dedicatory inscription, nummulitic limestone “Berenice” by Carriera, pastel on paper “Chioma di Berenice” by Borghi, white marble

43 44 46 48 51 53

56 58 59 61 62 63 65 67 68 69

xii

Plates, Figure, and Tables

Figure 4.1

The Planisphere Zodiac of Dendera

94

Tables 2.1 C.1

Cyrenean “Libya” portrait coinage, ca. 282–205 BCE Age at first marriage

28 125

ABBREVIATIONS

AD

A. J. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia I: Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C.( Vienna,19 88) J.B Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to ANET3 the Old Testament (3rd ed.; Princeton, 1969) J.D .B eazley, Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters (2nd ed.; ARV2 Oxford, 1963) BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (Ecole Francaise d’Athenes, Paris) BCHP I. Finkel and R. J. van der Spek (eds.), Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period( forthcoming); available from http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/ chronicles/chron00.html; Internet; accessed October 2012 BD Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, ed. by C. Andrews, trans. by R. O. Faulkner (Austin, 2001) BM Britisch Museum (London) BMC Cyr. E.S .G .Ro binson, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyrenaica( London, 1927) BMC Ptol. R. S. Poole, British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins: The Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt( London, 1883) CIHA M. Hoskin( ed.), The Cambridge Illustrated History of Astronomy( Cambridge, 1997) CNG Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. (London); visit at http://www.cngcoins.com; Internet; accessed August 2014 Corp.Sum.Lit. Corpus of Sumerian Literature (Oxford, 2003–2006); available from http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/; Internet; accessed November 2012 CT Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, 3 vols., trans. by R. O. Faulkner (Oxford,19 73–1978) CVA Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, ed. by E. Pottier et al. (Paris etc., 1922–)

xiv

Abbreviations

Descr. Eg. DNM Ptol. EAT GRMA HA HAMA Hist. Num.2 LIMC Louvre MFA MMA MNE MUL.APIN NNC ODA Pyr. RMM Sv. VMGE VR

Description de l’Égypte, ou Recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Egypte pendant l’expédition de l’armée francais( Paris,18 09–1828) A.K romann and O. Mørkholm (eds.), The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum 40 Egypt: The Ptolemies (Copenhagen, 1977) O. Neugebauer and R.A. P arker, Egyptian Astronomical Texts( London, 1969) Graeco-Roman Museum (Alexandria) Heritage Auctions (Dallas); visit at http://www. ha.com; Internet; accessed August 2014 O. Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy( Berlin 1975) B. V. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1911) Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Zürich, 1981-) Musée du Louvre (Paris) Museum of Fine Arts (Boston) Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) Museo Nazionale Etrusco, Villa Giulia (Rome) H. Hunger and D. Pingree, MUL.APIN: An Astronomical Compendium in Cuneiform (Horn, Austria, 1989) The National Numismatic Collection, the Central Bank of The Netherlands (Amsterdam) I.Rid path (ed.), Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy (Oxford, 1997) Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, trans. by R. O. Faulkner (Oxford,19 69) Royal Museum of Mariemont (Belgium) J.N .S voronos, Τὰ νοµίσµατα τοῦ Κράτους τῶν Πτολεµαίων (Athens, 1904–1908) Museo Gregoriano Egiziano (The Vatican) Th. G. Pinches, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. 5 (London, 1884)

INTRODUCTION

B

erenice II Euergetis (267/6–221 BCE) is one of the betterknown Ptolemaic queens, though a biographical sketch of what is known about her would take up no more than a single paragraph. Her father was Magas of Cyrene and her mother the Seleucid princess Apame. Berenice was briefly wed to Demetrius the Fair before marrying Ptolemy III of Egypt, whom she bore six children—including Arsinoe III and Ptolemy IV. While her husband invaded Syria during the Laodicean War, the queen remained in Alexandria overseeing the government of the kingdom. She offered a lock of hair to all the gods in the temple of Arsinoe II (Philadelphus) Zephyritis for the king’s swift and safe return from his foreign military campaign. After its mysterious disappearance, the lock was identified as a new constellation among the stars—a constellation that is still named Coma Berenices (“The Hair of Berenice”) in her honor. Coins were minted featuring her portrait and legend, rather than that of the king, with the Horn of Plenty on the reverse symbolizing the abundant wealth of the reign. Together with her husband she was worshipped as the Theoi Euergetai (“Benefactor Gods”) and she received an Egyptian titulature that assimilated her with the Egyptian goddesses Bastet, Hathor, Mut, and Neith. During their rule Ptolemaic Egypt was free of war and reached the height of its imperial power, stretching across the Eastern Mediterranean north into the Black Sea and Asia Minor, east into Syria and Mesopotamia, south into Nubia, and west into Libya. At the death of Ptolemy III, the clique around Sosibius—tutor of Ptolemy IV—had Berenice and other members of the royal family murdered. She was, in short, queen at an important juncture in early Hellenistic history. Studying details of her life will therefore greatly enhance our understanding of the position and patterns of Ptolemaic queenship and power. This brief biographical portrait, however, already contains several modern interpretations. Ancient sources generally name Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II as her parents, thus making her the sister of her husband. But why would Ptolemy III and Berenice II pretend to be

2

Berenice II Euergetis

siblings? Was it merely court etiquette adhering to the ideology of royal incest promulgated by their predecessors? Modern scholars not only affirm that Magas and Apame were Berenice’s parents, but also hold that the latter were married shortly before the First Syrian War (ca. 275/4 BCE), while claiming Berenice was born as late as 267/6 BCE. When exactly she married Ptolemy III is a matter of scholarly debate, too, as is the extent of her power as queen in Egypt. Did she offer her lock of hair as queen regent for her husband’s homecoming or in the king’s presence upon his victorious return? In the following essays I will try to answer these and various other questions regarding the genealogy, chronology, history, and ideology of the life and times of Berenice II Euergetis. Outside of specialist circles, moreover, Berenice remains fairly unknown. No doubt this is in large part due to the scarcity of extant sources. For this reason it is impossible to write anything approaching a narrative of her life. Apart from brief studies by Grace H. Macurdy (Hellenistic Queens, 1932) and Sarah B. Pomeroy (Women in the Classical World, 1994), we had to wait for the recent full-scale biography by Dee L. Clayman (Berenice II and the Golden Age of Ptolemaic Egypt, 2014), the first single-volume treatment of the queen in any modern language.1 The present collection of essays intends to contribute to bringing Berenice II at least under wider academic attention. Even if there is little source material, it remains important to ascertain in so far as possible the historical facts about her life and assess her influence in the unfolding events of the time. This book not only presents a thorough reevaluation of the factual data but also offers a renewed estimation of the (often ignored or underestimated) role and function of (early) Hellenistic queenship. Much work indeed needs yet to be done in the study of Ptolemaic chronology and ideology, but the main significance of this collection lies in the (re-) appraisal of dynastic relations and marital practices, of female agency and the often questionable reasoning of modern scholarly assumptions. This collection, then, follows up on the works on Hellenistic queens by scholars such as Sarah Pomeroy, Elizabeth Carney, Ludwig Koenen, and Jan Quaegebeur.2 Building upon their work, the following chapters reexamine the few known events of Berenice’s life until the early reign of Ptolemy III, as well as her influence and authority in Cyrene and Egypt. The relatively unexplored nature of the topic is sufficient justification for researching the subject. Moreover, modern scholarly assumptions have all too often been repeated for generations—at

Introduction

3

times despite contradictory evidence or even in light of newly found documents. Part of the problem furthermore lies in the fact that our understanding of the ancient evidence involves various areas of expertise. These interrelated studies on Berenice II rely especially on literary, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence in order to illuminate Berenice’s status and position. Such evidence includes Egyptian and Cyrenean coinage; the Canopus Decree of the Egyptian priestly synod, which provides Berenice’s official titulature; and of course Callimachus’s Coma Berenices. Apart from ancient Greek and Latin, sources used in this research were also written in several other ancient languages, such as Egyptian and Akkadian, and even Prakrit. Interpreting the divergent types of evidence therefore requires special fields of expertise such as historiography, epigraphy, papyrology, numismatics, genealogy, chronology, and even astronomy, in addition to competence in history and classics, not to mention Egyptology and Assyriology. Callimachus’s poem, known as Coma Berenices, has been transmitted only in a fragmentary state and scholars debate whether the poet perhaps revised his work when he included it in his collection of Aetia. Catullus did compose a Latin translation of the poem, which at times seems to stay as close to the original as possible. When passages of Callimachus’s text have not survived, though, one can only guess how faithful Catullus’s rendering was. Both versions of the Coma Berenices lie at the heart of any appraisal of the queen’s agency. Readers should therefore always keep in mind that a measure of interpretation is involved in the presentation. For that reason the Greek and Latin versions, as well as translations are appended to this collection for easy consultation. The essays in this book form part of a preliminary study of Ptolemaic dynastic relations and marital practices. In her article on the royal sibling incest of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, Carney suggested that a monograph-length study on the subject would be very helpful.3 Now 25 years later, such a monograph still does not exist. Aspects of Ptolemaic dynastic relations had been treated in earlier studies by Max Strack, Evaristo Breccia, Jakob Seibert, and more recently by Daniel Ogden.4 The need for such a study became acutely apparent in the course of my doctoral research on the religious identification of Ptolemaic queens with Greek and Egyptian goddesses such as Aphrodite, Demeter, Isis, and Hathor.5 Rather than a monograph, I have chosen to commence on a series of separate articles or essays focusing on individual cases that allow for further examination

4

Berenice II Euergetis

of related issues, such as chronology and genealogy, dynastic succession and legitimation, royal ideology and deification. *

*

*

The first essay in this collection, “Magas, Apame, and Berenice II,” includes a substantial exploration of early Hellenistic chronology. For, the question about Berenice’s birth date will lead to an examination of early third century history, including the date of her parents’ marriage and of Magas’s death, the First Syrian War, Magas’s attempted invasion of Egypt, the Chremonidean War, and the episode of Demetrius the Fair in Cyrene, among other events. This exploration offers significantly different interpretations of the absolute and/or relative chronology of these events than the common scholarly reading of Pausanias (our main source for much of this period). These conclusions are important not only for our understanding of factual, historical data, but also for issues such as genealogy and marital practices. Additionally, I will discuss the influence young Berenice exerted in Cyrenaica before marrying the Egyptian king. That marriage is the main subject of the second essay. After the death of her father Magas and her brief marriage to Demetrius the Fair, Berenice II wed Ptolemy III, and together they were proclaimed to be children of the Theoi Adelphoi (“Sibling Gods”) Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. Exploring the course of these events is again important not only for a better understanding of early Hellenistic chronology, genealogy, and marital practices, but also for Berenice’s status and position in Cyrene and Egypt. In fact, documents such as Callimachus’s Coma Berenices and the Canopus Decree reveal (thus far unnoticed) ideological ramifications of her marriage to the Ptolemaic king. The events leading up to her marriage indeed reveal that Berenice was an assertive woman, capable both in military and political affairs from a young age. A brief interlude will present iconographic material that pertains to the life and times of Berenice II. The selected evidence ranges from Cyrenean and Alexandrian coinage, portraits in sculpture and mosaics, relief scenes and an inscription, as well as Ptolemaic vases and signet rings. Additionally, two modern works of art will pass the review to illustrate Berenice’s long afterlife. The last and longest essay is entitled “Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices.” There have been few attempts at analyzing the possible astronomical implications of Callimachus’s Coma Berenices,

Introduction

5

apart from calculating the constellation’s heliacal rising and proposing an Isiac or Hathoric symbolism.6 This essay places the poem as well as the catasterism in astronomical, historical, ideological, and religious contexts. Connecting the Coma Berenices with Near-Eastern astrology (e.g., the Dendera zodiac) and religious symbolism will also shed more light on some poetic themes and patterns of queenship. In this chapter, I will pay particular attention to the themes of eroticism, female agency, dynastic legitimization, and royal deification. *

*

*

The collection of essays on Berenice II you have before you came about as a bit of an excursion from my study of the life and cult of Arsinoe II Philadelphus. The first two essays were originally written with the intention to publish them separately as articles in academic journals. It was only after one of the journals’ editors brought up the idea that it dawned on me to bundle three essays together into a single volume. The first essay particularly owes much to the encouragement of the late Chris Bennett, while the last essay could not have been written without the assistance of Teije de Jong and Mathieu Ossendrijver. For their comments and suggestions I am furthermore delighted to extend my deepest gratitude to Elizabeth D. Carney, Catharine C. Lorber, Sarah B. Pomeroy, Dorothy J. Thompson, Bert van der Spek, and Katelijn Vandorpe. Several attendees at the conference The Many Faces of a Hellenistic King (Durham University, November 11–12, 2011) offered pertinent remarks on my talk, “Lamentation in EarlyPtolemaic Cult,” which has been partially incorporated into the last essay. Although they have all greatly helped improve the arguments presented in this collection, needless to say, I remain responsible for all the remaining faults. During very difficult times, both economically and personally, I have been fortunate to be surrounded by supportive friends. I am especially happy that I have been able to rely on the angelic patience of Stéphanie Bersée. With the good things in life, it has been my experience, unfortunately also come the bad. I have traveled back and forth across the Atlantic and in so doing had to miss friends and relatives on the other side. I am sad to have missed out on important events in their lives, weddings, births. And all too soon some of them pass on—as my dear friend Glenn Maynard Palmer (1965–2010). Of all the people I wish could still be here, I dedicate this collection to my father, Willem de Ruiter (1944–1979), with whom I have never

6

Berenice II Euergetis

been able to share any of my accomplishments. I do hope that from where ever he may now be, he looks on with pride. *

*

*

As a postscript I should add a note about the recently published synodal Decree of Alexandria (243 BCE), edited by El-Masry, Altenmüller, and Thissen (2012). This remarkable and historically significant decree was kindly brought to my attention by Bennett, before his untimely passing, after closing the manuscript of these essays. For the present purpose, what strikes me as important is first of all the confirmation that Ptolemy III did succeed his father on 25 Dios = 7 Choiak of regnal year 39 of Ptolemy II (ca. January 28, 246 BCE). Secondly, the decree provides us with the information that Berenice II’s birthday fell on 9 Audnaios. Assuming she was born in 267/6 BCE and that Audnaios corresponds with the Babylonian month Ṭebētu (rather than Kislīmu) gives a birthday of ca. December 25 (give or take a day). I believe we can furthermore gauge from the decree that the Laodicean War was already over by 243 BCE, and did indeed last no longer than a year.7 Moreover, just as Ptolemy III is formally declared the “heir of the Theoi Adelphoi,” the king and queen are incorporated into the dynastic cult as the Theoi Euergetai and Berenice II is officially proclaimed the king’s “sister and wife,” conforming to the royal ideology presented on the Canopus Decree.

CHAPTER 1

MAGAS, APAME, AND BERENICE II*

I

t is commonly taken as a fact that Magas of Cyrene was married to Apame, the daughter of Antiochus I and Stratonice, shortly before the First Syrian War, ca. 276/5 BCE, and that their daughter, Berenice II, was still a teenager when she married Ptolemy III around the time of his accession to the throne in early 246 BCE. This chapter addresses various problems with these two assumptions and offers several possible solutions. Apart from the dates of Magas’s marriage to Apame and of the birth of Berenice II, I also discuss the dates of Magas’s death, the accession of Ashoka Maurya, Apame’s birth, the First Syrian War, the Chremonidean War, and Egypt’s alliance with Carthage, which are all to some degree a matter of scholarly debate. Additionally, I examine whether Apame was indeed Berenice’s mother. I also reexamine Pausanias’s unclear timeframe about related events, which will give occasion to reconsider Berenice’s marriage to Demetrius the Fair and her mother’s involvement in that affair, as well as Magas’s motives behind eventually betrothing his daughter to Ptolemy III. This chapter thus explores the complexities of the chronology of various important events of the early third century BCE, and attempts to reveal some of the underlying assumptions in modern scholarship. It is odd, to say the least, that Berenice would be a mere teenager at the time of her father’s death, if her parents had been married for 30 years.1 The notion that she was still a young girl when she married Ptolemy III derives from a reference in Catullus’s translation of Callimachus’s Coma Berenices: “Truly from young girlhood I knew you to be high-spirited. Have you forgotten the noble deed by which you gained your royal marriage, which none would dare for making you stronger?”2 This “noble deed (bonum facinus)” is usually understood to refer to the death of Demetrius the Fair with whom Berenice was briefly married after Magas’s death.3 That bonum facinus is then

8

Berenice II Euergetis

presumed to have taken place when Berenice was still a “small maiden (parva virgo),” even though Catullus does not say that explicitly.4 It certainly does not follow that she was still young when she was married to Ptolemy III. This would seem to be a case of drawing more conclusions than the evidence allows—evidence moreover that takes poetic license (always assuming that Catullus translated Callimachus faithfully). While most historians now date Magas’s death to 250/49 BCE,5 it is important to note that an earlier date of 259/8 BCE has also been proposed and remains current among numismatists.6 On this latter reckoning, Berenice would have been born sometime in the mid270s—thus shortly after the conventional date of her parents’ marriage—and she would still have been a teenager when her father died. Porphyry (ap. Euseb. Chron. I: 237) dates the death of Demetrius the Fair to the second year of the 130th Olympiad (259/8 BCE). Athenaeus (12.550B), citing Agatharchides of Cnidus, gives 50 years for Magas’s rule in Cyrene. While it is certain that Magas did not reign as an independent king for five decades, adding the evidence of Porphyry and Agatharchides gives an accession date of 309/8 BCE. This date is seemingly confirmed by a reference in the Suda (s.v. “Δημητρίος”) that Ptolemy I subjugated Cyrene after the revolt of Ophellas in 308 BCE.7 However, Pausanias (1.6.8) claims that Magas captured Cyrene in the fifth year after a rebellion, which he seems to date after the death of Antigonus I at the Battle of Ipsus (301 BCE).8 In the same passage, Pausanias also implies that Magas’s capture of Cyrene occurred after Ptolemy regained Coele-Syria (302/1 BCE) and Cyprus (295 BCE), and restored Pyrrhus in Epirus (297 BCE). It should, moreover, be pointed out that Porphyry-Eusebius inserted his discussion of Demetrius in a passage on Macedonian kings, between Antigonus II Gonatas and Antigonus III Doson.9 While he correctly dates the death of Antigonus II to the first year of the 135th Olympiad (240/39 BCE) and that of Antigonus III to the fourth year of the 139th Olympiad (221/20 BCE), he mistakenly dates the death of Philip V to the second year of the 159th Olympiad (143/2 BCE), rather than the 150th (179/8 BCE). A similar scribal error might then account for attributing the death of Demetrius the Fair to the wrong Olympiad (Ol. 132, 2 = 251/50 BCE).10 This solution would place Magas’s death ca. 252/1 BCE, which would accord with the round number of 50 years for his rule in Cyrene since ca. 300 BCE—that is, he would have died in the 49th or 50th year since gaining his governorship. PorphyryEusebius, furthermore, claims that Demetrius conquered Libya and

Magas, Apame, and Berenice II

9

captured Cyrene, gained control of all of his father’s possessions, and ruled for ten years. It should be clear, then, that he confused or conflated Demetrius the Fair and Demetrius II, who died in 229 BCE (Ol. 137, 3) ten years after succeeding his father Antigonus II. Thus, if Magas gained his Cyrenean governorship after the Battle of Ipsus and died in 259/8 BCE, one would expect Agatharcides had given a rounded number of 40 years. Unless we suppose that Agatharcides’s number was misquoted by Athenaeus, or that the 50 years refers to the time Cyrene was under Ptolemaic control at Magas’s death, a later date of his death ca. 252/1 BCE would seem more likely.11 The date of Magas’s death is further complicated by a reference to envoys sent to the Greek kings Antiochus, Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magas, and Alexander on the 13th Rock Edict of the Mauryan king Ashoka.12 This edict has often been adduced to prove that Magas was still alive in the mid-250s BCE.13 Apart from Magas, the identity of these Hellenistic kings depends on the time when Ashoka’s edicts were published. Mauryan chronology is difficult to relate to other secure events. There is thus an obvious danger of circular reasoning, when Magas’s death is calculated from the reference in Ashoka’s edict, while Ashoka’s accession is calculated from Magas’s death. The last-mentioned date in these inscriptions is 13 years after Ashoka’s anointment (abhishēka),14 which was said to have occurred in the fourth year after the death of his father Bindusara. According to Buddhist tradition, Bindusara reigned for 25 or 28 years—with the latter number apparently attributing the interim until Ashoka’s anointment to Bindusara’s reign. The same sources state that Bindusara’s father Chandragupta ruled for 24 years. From these traditional years of kingship, it can then be deduced that, if Chandragupta’s assumption of power took place ca. 322/1 BCE, Bindusara succeeded his father ca. 299/8 BCE and died ca. 275/4 BCE.15 Ashoka was thus anointed king ca. 272/1 BCE—a date that has been variously placed anywhere between 277 and 264 BCE.16 From the 13th Rock Edict it may be assumed that his mission to the Greek kings had returned by the time of his fourteenth regnal year ca. 259/8 BCE; elsewhere the edicts imply that missions were not sent earlier than ten years after his abhishēka (262/1 BCE).17 On this reckoning, therefore, any objections against dating the death of Magas to 259/8 BCE cannot rely on Ashoka’s Rock Edicts. Even if Chandragupta’s reign is moved by one or two years (to 321 or 320 BCE), that would not exclude the possibility that Ashoka’s mission to the Greek kings had already returned to India by the time of the edicts’ publication (whether or not news of Magas’s death had

10

Berenice II Euergetis

reached Ashoka). If this calculation is correct, the other Hellenistic kings can only be Antiochus II Theos (r. 262/1–246 BCE), Ptolemy II Philadelphus (r. 284/2–246 BCE), Antigonus II Gonatas (r. 277/6–239 BCE), and Alexander II of Epirus (r. 272–240/39 BCE18).19 Incidentally, an alternative datum to fix early Mauryan chronology is based on the Singhalese tradition that Ashoka’s consecration as king occurred 218 years after the death of the Buddha Siddhartha Gautama.20 This argument is put forth with great erudition by the Dutch Indologist Pierre Eggermont in his Leiden dissertation, The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya (1956), in which he dates both Ashoka’s accession and anointment to 268 BCE (reckoning the fouryear interim between Bindusara and Ashoka as a Singhalese fabrication). I am in no capacity to challenge the validity of his various intricate calculations. Suffice it to say that the date of Buddha’s death is itself a matter of great scholarly debate (as is the tradition of 218 years passing between his death and Ashoka’s consecration), with most opinions now ranging between 483 and 380 BCE—viz., more than a century of discrepancy. Another problem is that Apame’s parents, Antiochus I and Stratonice, were married ca. 294/3 BCE, and so Apame must have been the first or second child for her to be nubile ca. 276/5 BCE.21 This is not impossible, but unlikely. The names of Antiochus I’s other children, Seleucus, Antiochus, Laodice, and Stratonice, are all dynastic; respectively named after their paternal grandfather (Seleucus), paternal great-grandfather (Antiochus), paternal great-grandmother (Laodice), and maternal great-grandmother (Stratonice), while Apame was named after her paternal grandmother, the daughter of the Sogdian nobleman Spitamenes. It is certainly common that the first daughter would be named after her father’s mother, but since Apame is a Persian name, it may perhaps be that preference was given to traditional Greek names first. Additionally, her name itself might perhaps indicate that she was not the eldest daughter. For in Avestan (Persian) apama- means so much as “the latest, youngest” (child or nestling) and is as much a name as a term of endearment.22 Furthermore, Porphyry-Eusebius names Stratonice before Apame, implying that the former was the elder sister.23 Apame, it would seem, was rather one of Antiochus’s later children than one of his first. It is possible, however, that one or more of his children were not with Stratonice, but with another wife, Nysa.24 Porphyry-Eusebius (loc. cit.), for what it is worth, does not mention Seleucus and Laodice as children of Antiochus and Stratonice. There is unfortunately insufficient

Magas, Apame, and Berenice II

11

evidence to substantiate this or to ascertain the date of Antiochus’s marriage to Nysa, but it may be inferred to have taken place in the late 280s BCE.25 If Apame was the daughter of Stratonice, as seems most probable, it would seem more likely that she was herself born in the 280s.26 This would make it hardly possible for Apame to have been married to Magas ca. 276/5 BCE, although they could have been betrothed around that time. Literary evidence, it should be pointed out, does not name Apame as Berenice’s mother, but actually Arsinoe.27 When calling her the daughter of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, Hyginus (Poet. Astron. 2.24) is merely conforming to the official Ptolemaic protocol, though, in which Berenice II is presented as the wife and sister of Ptolemy III, the heir of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II.28 It is certain that neither Ptolemy III nor Berenice II were children of Arsinoe II. Hyginus is definitely wrong about Berenice’s paternity. Justin (Epit. 26.3.2), however, confirms that Magas of Cyrene was Berenice’s father, which is moreover attested epigraphically.29 Nevertheless, Justin, too, calls Berenice’s mother Arsinoe. Niebuhr’s hypothesis that Magas was married to Arsinoe I, after she was exiled to Coptus by her husband Ptolemy II (mid-270s BCE), might then explain how Berenice was still a teenager at her father’s death.30 Bennett explored this possibility at length, only to reject it in the end.31 His conclusion is based on two major points. Firstly, Appian (Syr. 1.3) relates that Antiochus III declared to Roman envoys that he was already a relative of Ptolemy V, even before the latter’s marriage to the former’s daughter Cleopatra. Such a statement would be meaningless unless Apame was the mother of Berenice II. Ptolemy V and Antiochus III thus were cousins once removed. Secondly, and more importantly, a scholion on a fragment of Callimachus explicitly names Magas and Apame as the parents of Berenice II.32 That does not leave out the idea that Apame took on a Ptolemaic name at some point after her marriage.33 Renaming royal wives certainly was not an uncommon feature in the Argead royal house.34 Most historians, nonetheless, suppose that Justin was merely confused.35 The only source for the date of Magas’s marriage to Apame is Pausanias (1.7.3): “Magas, who was already married to Apame, the daughter of Antiochus, son of Seleucus (Μάγας δὲ ἤδη γυναῖκα ἔχων Ἀπάμην Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Σελεύκου θυγατέρα), persuaded Antiochus to break the treaty which his father Seleucus had made with Ptolemy and to attack Egypt.”36 From this statement, historians have concluded that the marriage took place before the First Syrian

12

Berenice II Euergetis

War, as a dynastic alliance to underwrite the treaty between Magas and Antiochus.37 As will be discussed below, Pausanias’s chronology is not always accurate or at least is at times confused, but here it is enough to realize that the entire interpretation hinges on the word ἤδη (“now, already; forthwith, immediately”). Pausanias (or his source) may have inadvertently drawn the wrong logical conclusion. A betrothal may have occurred at this time, as said, but that does not preclude the possibility that the marriage happened at a later time. Magas and Antiochus may have realigned after the First Syrian War and strengthened their bond with a marital alliance. It should also be stressed that, if taken literally, Pausanias’s statement means that Magas was married before he persuaded Antiochus to attack Egypt so that the wedding was not a warrant for any treaty between them, but rather the grounds of their loyalty.38 Let us now study Pausanias’s passage in which he mentions Magas’s marriage to Apame.39 After discussing the career of Ptolemy I (1.6) in fairly chronological order, Pausanias continues his narrative with Ptolemy II (1.7). He mentions the following events (with conventional dates BCE parenthetically): [1.7.1] the marriage of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II (ca. mid-270s);40 the execution of Argaeus (ca. 282/1 or after?);41 the transfer of Alexander the Great’s body from Memphis to Alexandria (ca. mid 310s?);42 the execution of an unnamed son of Ptolemy I and Eurydice (possibly Meleager) for fomenting revolt in Cyprus (282/1 or after?);43 the rebellion of Magas (ca. 275);44 [1.7.2] the rebellion of Galatian mercenaries in Egypt (ca. mid-270s);45 [1.7.3] Magas’s marriage to Apame (ca. 276/5); Antiochus I’ attack on Ptolemaic possessions (the First Syrian War, 274–272/1);46 Ptolemy’s insufficient support for Athens against Antigonus Gonatas (the Chremonidean War, ca. 268–261);47 and Ptolemy’s children with Arsinoe I (ca. 285/4–280/79).48 Even a casual glance at the dates of these events indicates that Pausanias’s narrative is not chronological: it starts with Arsinoe II and ends with Arsinoe I. It has therefore been proposed that Ptolemy’s actions are listed in order of iniquity, beginning with his worst crime, that of the incestuous marriage, then the fratricides, the suppression of rebellions, and ending with the failing support for Athens.49 This leaves unexplained, however, the odd mention of the relocation of Alexander’s body (which could hardly have been considered even impious) between two fratricides, the digression about Magas, or the victory over Antiochus (which surely cannot be considered a crime). It is important to emphasize, moreover, that most, if not all, of these dates are conjectural and often

Magas, Apame, and Berenice II

13

based solely on the passage in question. The danger of circular reasoning is then very real. *

*

*

No literary account survives of the first conflict between Ptolemy II (r. 284/2–246 BCE) and Antiochus I (r. 281–261 BCE), which Droysen termed the “First Syrian War,” and which historians have divided into two phases.50 A reasonably secure timeframe, however, can be gleaned mostly from epigraphic and numismatic evidence, by relating the relative chronology of one contemporary source with that of another. After the sudden death of Seleucus I (r. 305–281 BCE) at the hands of Ptolemy Ceraunus, Ptolemy II was able to fortify his control in the Aegean,51 Ionia,52 Caria,53 Lycia and Pamphylia,54 Cilicia,55 Syria and Phoenicia.56 Meanwhile, Antiochus was in great difficulty recovering his father’s kingdom, when revolts broke out in Persia and Syria, and the Seleucid army was defeated by the alliance of Ariarathes II of Cappadocia and Orontes III of Armenia (281–280 BCE).57 Subsequently (279–275 BCE), Antiochus was engaged in battle with the Northern League, Nicomedes of Bithynia, the invading Galatians, and Antigonus II Gonatas.58 Among the many battles Antiochus had to fight in his first years, we may also assume military confrontations with Ptolemy.59 The Egyptian king, for his part, was not so heavily distracted that he was unable to afford sending an army into Nubia around this time.60 Pliny (Nat. Hist. 6.58) also tells of a Ptolemaic envoy dispatched to India, but the date is uncertain. The first phase of the war, then, appears to have been no more than a brief Ptolemaic operation into Seleucid territory, ca. 281/0–280/79 BCE.61 Ptolemy’s initial aggression is believed to have been the casus belli for Antiochus.62 This second phase of the war, or the First Syrian War proper, is supposed to have forced Ptolemy into the defensive. Contemporary Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions, however, provide a different view of the opening stage of the war.63 The Pithom stele records that Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II were present personally to defend the Egyptian eastern border against a foreign invasion (November 274 BCE).64 A Babylonian astronomical diary (BM 92689) relates that, after spending at least two years in Asia Minor, Antiochus arrived in Syria from Sardis to fight off Ptolemaic troops already stationed there.65 At the beginning of the campaign season (March/April 273 BCE), land was confiscated and property was made subject to taxation by the king’s treasury,66 the satrap of Babylonia

14

Berenice II Euergetis

sent support from Babylon and Seleucia, including 20 Indian elephants from the Bactrian satrapy, and the Seleucid stratēgos levied troops for a month and brought them to Syria.67 Polyaenus (4.15; if this stratagem indeed belongs to this period) furthermore reports a ruse by which Antiochus was able to capture the city of Damascus, which was garrisoned by the Ptolemaic stratēgos Dion.68 Finally, the Saïs stele reports a great Ptolemaic victory in Asia on land and by sea, employing a large fleet, chariots, cavalry, and infantry.69 The date of this victory is not stated explicitly, but from internal evidence must have occurred before 265 BCE.70 It remains unclear how long the second stage of the war lasted. Historians have postulated that the two kings concluded a peace treaty sometime around 272–271 BCE, but it may well have been earlier (273/2 BCE) or later (271/0 BCE).71 Ptolemy seems to have lost little of his overseas’ territory, except perhaps for Damascus and Marathus.72 In this context we may also mention the alliance between Egypt and Rome after the defeat of Pyrrhus in Italy (273 BCE).73 His victory over Antiochus, moreover, allowed Ptolemy to order an expedition along the Red Sea coast (ca. 270–269 BCE).74 Contemporary sources, in short, indicate that Ptolemy made the first move against Syria, that Antiochus (still occupied with affairs in Asia Minor) was taken by surprise and quickly needed to muster forces against the Egyptian troops.75 Scholars presume that Pausanias is correct that the wedding of Magas and Apame took place before the First Syrian War and that Magas’s attempted invasion of Egypt occurred prior to Antiochus’s march against the Ptolemaic troops in Syria mentioned above.76 They do not agree with Pausanias, though, that it was Magas who instigated Antiochus’s attack on Ptolemy II.77 In light of the years of turmoil in his kingdom that had barely stabilized by 276/5 BCE, it remains difficult to understand why Antiochus would be tempted to attack Egypt, let alone take the initiative and convince Magas in joining him. For his part, Magas did declare his independence from Egypt and proclaimed himself king, but the exact point in time is uncertain.78 One may wonder, too, what Magas’s ultimate aim was other than establishing his independence, as he could have hardly expected to usurp the Egyptian throne with his limited means.79 At any rate, he advanced against Egypt, captured Paraetonium, a border fort between Libya and Egypt, and moved farther eastward toward a town west of Taposiris Magna.80 Meanwhile Ptolemy awaited Magas’s army behind a fortification (perhaps at Taposiris itself), but before engaging him in battle, Magas was forced to return as a revolt had broken

Magas, Apame, and Berenice II

15

out among the Marmaridae, a Libyan nomadic tribe who inhabited the region between Apis and Euesperides in Cyrenaica.81 Ptolemy himself was confronted with a rebellion among his Galatian mercenaries, which he annihilated by chasing them onto a deserted island in the Sebennytic branch of the Nile.82 Apart from the implication in Pausanias, nothing connects Magas’s aborted campaign against Egypt with the war between Ptolemy and Antiochus, or provides an incontrovertible date. It is nevertheless peculiar that Antiochus did not simultaneously advance against Egypt, and unclear why Magas did not subsequently resume his attempt to seize Egypt, if the purpose of the alliance between Antiochus and Magas had been a twopronged attack as so many historians presume (but which Pausanias does not even imply).83 The presence of Galatian mercenaries among Ptolemy’s troops dates the conflict at least after their first entrance into the Greek world, ca. 280/79 BCE.84 One other inference might be made from Callimachus’s Hymn to Delos, in which Apollo prophesizes a victory for Ptolemy II against the Galatians. The poem makes no mention of Arsinoe II, from which it has been adduced that the queen had died by the time of Callimachus’s composition.85 In fact, this inference could be taken further to indicate that Arsinoe herself had passed away before Magas attempted to invade Egypt, which would place the conflict in the 260s BCE, during the time of the Chremonidean War. *

*

*

Could it be that Magas encouraged Antiochus to attack Egypt while Ptolemy’s forces were engaged against Antigonus and that Magas married Apame at that time perhaps to underwrite his alliance with Seleucid Syria? If, as suggested, Apame was born in the (late) 280s BCE, she would have reached marriageable age in the early 260s BCE. The Chremonidean War—that is, the war in which Pausanias (1.7.3) claimed Ptolemy sent insufficient support to defend Athens— would have provided Magas and Antiochus with a perfect opportunity to exploit Egypt’s vulnerability. The treaty, negotiated on the Athenians’ behalf by Chremonides—after whom the war is named— was concluded in the archonship of Peithidemus (269/8 BCE86).87 For Athens and Sparta, and their Greek allies, the aim was to free Greece from Macedonian hegemony, especially after the death of Pyrrhus of Epirus (272 BCE).88 Perhaps Ptolemy II joined the Greek alliance at the instigation of his sister Arsinoe (to whom the Decree

16

Berenice II Euergetis

of Chremonides refers) in hopes of reestablishing her son with Lysimachus in Macedon and Thrace.89 For during this very time this son, also called Ptolemy, was raised as joint ruler in Egypt (267 BCE).90 Arsinoe, however, had already passed away by then (July 268 BCE).91 From the sparse literary and epigraphic testimonies, an absolute chronology cannot be secured for the Chremonidean War, the alliance led by Athens and Sparta with Ptolemy II against Antigonus II Gonatas.92 The Spartan king Areus fought against Antigonid troops around the Isthmus of Corinth, probably in successive campaign seasons.93 Meanwhile the Ptolemaic fleet operated around the Attic coast under admiral Patroclus,94 who could not prevent pirates from raiding the countryside.95 Antigonus then faced a mutiny among his Galatian mercenaries at Megara, whom he evidently massacred to a man (267/6 BCE).96 Areus fell in battle at Corinth against the Macedonian forces (266/5 BCE).97 While laying Athens under siege, Antigonus was forced to retreat to Macedon as his kingdom was attacked by Alexander II of Epirus (265/4 BCE or later).98 When Alexander was driven from Macedon with the help of Demetrius (probably one of Antigonus’s brothers),99 Antigonus returned to Attica and starved Athens into surrender (263/2 BCE).100 Chremonides and his brother Glaucon left Athens for Alexandria to serve the Egyptian king.101 When or if Antigonus negotiated peace terms separately with Ptolemy II is unclear.102 Fighting may have continued in central Greece and the Aegean islands (263/2–261/0 BCE).103 No literary source relates the Seleucid stance during the Chremonidean War.104 It is safe to say, however, that Antiochus would be more inclined toward Antigonus, who sometime in the midor late 270s BCE was married to Phila, the half-sister of Antiochus I.105 Conversely, at least a latent hostility will have persisted toward Ptolemy, and Antiochus may have been preparing to regain Ptolemaic possession in the Near East (which eventually his successor Antiochus II attempted unsuccessfully during the Second Syrian War, 259–253 BCE).106 That Antiochus’s hold over his kingdom had stabilized by the early 260s BCE can be gauged from Babylonian chronicles documenting restoration projects at Esagila (the temple of Marduk in Babylon) and Ezida (the temple of Nabu in Borsippa), which had long been in a state of disrepair.107 An astronomical diary records that Antiochus was encamped in Coele-Syria in 271/0 BCE.108 Lehmann, moreover, has long ago interpreted a passage of the Babylonian Cylinder of Antiochus (BM 36277) as indicating that the Seleucid king was again preparing for a military engagement in early 268 BCE.109 Lehmann’s

Magas, Apame, and Berenice II

17

inference would be consistent with Pausanias’s account if Magas encouraged Antiochus to attack Egypt around this time.110 Whatever Antiochus’s stance may have been during the Chremonidean War, an alliance with Magas would further strengthen his position against Egypt, and conversely an alliance with Antiochus would have offered Magas his best chance to claim his independence. For both sides the alliance would serve diplomatic, political, and military purposes. Rather than during the First Syrian War, as scholars have deduced from Pausanias, Magas’s abortive invasion of Egypt took place during the Chremonidean War. For his part, Antiochus may have refrained from attacking Ptolemaic possession in Syria for reasons that can only be guessed at (e.g., the continued threat of the Galatians)111 unless, of course, Pausanias’s account (1.7.3) of Antiochus’s failed campaign against Egypt should also be dated to the time of the Chremonidean War (rather than the First Syrian War).112 There is, however, a corollary to that supposition. For, if Magas’s march against Egypt took place during the Chremonidean War, then Ptolemy’s suppression of the rebellious Galatians must perforce be dated to the same period. This would consequently mean that public celebrations of this victory must be from that time or after (post 268/7 BCE).113 As suggested above, Callimachus’s Hymn to Delos might be adduced as evidence that Ptolemy’s victory occurred after Arsinoe’s death. The hymn’s “prophecy” of the king’s victory also alludes to the “hateful shields” of the Galatians.114 The same oblong shield (thyreos) is featured prominently in the decoration of the Ptolemaeum in Limyra. Scholars tend to connect that structure rather with Ptolemaic military support against the invading Galatians in the early 270s BCE than Ptolemy’s own success against his insubordinate mercenaries.115 I should add, nevertheless, that as a cult structure dedicated to the Theoi Adelphoi, the shrine cannot antedate Ptolemy’s royal marriage to Arsinoe II (ca. 278–274 BCE) while the official cult of the Sibling Gods was instituted at Alexandria later still (ca. 272 BCE). Additionally, thyreoi hung in the royal pavilion and were carried at Ptolemy’s grand procession described by Callixenus.116 If those shields held any Galatian connotation, it has escaped Callixenus’s attention, for he makes no mention of their significance. The date of this pomp festival is notoriously controversial, which only complicates the matter further.117 There is just another inference, though, that might be adduced from numismatic evidence. Among the coinage of Ptolemy II a series of gold, silver, and bronze was marked with a thyreos in the reverse field.118 Mainly bronze specimens of the coinage have been

18

Berenice II Euergetis

found in Attica and are assumed to be connected to the Ptolemaic military presence during the Chremonidean War. There is a possibility, then, that the coinage minted in support of the war effort in Greece commemorated the king’s victory against his own mercenaries in Egypt.119 Conventionally, to be sure, this series been dated to the mid-270s BCE, on the grounds that the shield commemorated the king’s repression of the Galatian uprising.120 Ptolemy must have been hard pressed by Magas’s attempted attack, as his fleet was operating in the Aegean. That he was in shortage of troops can also be gathered by the Galatian mercenaries he had to recruit for warding off Magas’s forces. When Pyrrhus of Epirus had requested support for his Italian campaign (ca. 281/0 BCE; i.e., at the time of the Ptolemaic campaigns in the first phase of the First Syrian War), Ptolemy II could still afford to provide his brother-in-law with 5,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry, and 50 elephants.121 The sources adduced above evince that Ptolemy had sent a substantial force against Antiochus on land and sea during the second phase of the First Syrian War. The threat from Cyrene and potentially from Syria may then explain why Ptolemy could not provide sufficient support to his allies in the last stages of the Chremonidean War—especially after Sparta’s defeat and Areus’s death.122 Magas’s failed foray may also have drawn Ptolemy closer to Carthage.123 When Ptolemy offered his arbitration between Rome and Carthage (252/1 BCE; that is, after the Second Syrian War), he referred to his mutual alliances with both powers.124 Ptolemy’s alliance with Carthage must then predate the First Punic War (264–241 BCE) and was perhaps concluded around the time of his treaty with Rome.125 It would likely include the return of the territory annexed by Ophellas (ca. 310 BCE), when the Cyrenean border had moved 1,100 stades (ca. 135 miles) to the west at the expense of Carthage—while by ca. 220 BCE that border was back to its previous position.126 Magas’s unsuccessful march against Egypt would provide a further occasion for a Ptolemaic treaty with Carthage. The hypothesis proposed here is the following: At the onset of the Chremonidean War, Magas and Antiochus allied against Ptolemy, and the former married the latter’s daughter (say, 268 BCE). When Magas attacked Egypt (say, 267 BCE), Ptolemy was hard pressed for troops and recruited an additional 4,000 Galatian mercenaries to defend his country. In order to strengthen his position against Cyrene, Ptolemy concluded a treaty with Carthage (say, 267/6 BCE). After Areus’s death (266/5 BCE), Ptolemy was unable to reinforce his Greek allies, for fear of another attack by Magas and/or Antiochus.

Magas, Apame, and Berenice II

19

It was thus not for want of Ptolemaic commitment that the allies lost the war against Antigonus. Admittedly, no direct testimony can substantiate this chronology reconstruction. Circumstantial evidence, however, makes this course of events plausible and appears to make sense of the unclear timeframe in Pausanias’s passage. As a corollary, it would then also appear that, instead of a prolonged military engagement spanning several years, the First Syrian War was rather a series of smaller conflicts, ca. 281/0–280/79 BCE and ca. 274/3–273/2 BCE, and perhaps also ca. 271/0 BCE. If, indeed, Magas married Apame ca. 269/8 BCE, their daughter Berenice would in fact have been still a teenager at her father’s death ca. 252/1 BCE. Berenice would thus have just reached marriageable age when her father realigned with Ptolemy II, at which time she was betrothed to the Lagid heir, the future Ptolemy III.127 One might wonder why Magas had such a change of heart after wresting his independence from Ptolemaic sovereignty and negotiating a pact with Seleucid Syria.128 All Justin relates is that before he died, Magas betrothed Berenice, his only daughter, to the son of Ptolemy II in order to end their strife.129 Not only was Berenice Magas’s only daughter, so far as evidence allows, she was his only (surviving) child.130 Thus, upon Magas’s death, Cyrene would have fallen into a state of anarchy in which the kings of Egypt, Syria, and Macedon may all have staked their claim—not to mention Carthage. Ptolemy at least could maintain that Cyrene had been part of the Lagid Empire before Magas’s independence, while Antiochus would wish to defend his sister and Magas’s widow Apame in Cyrene. Historians, moreover, have long taken for granted that Magas was forced to accept Ptolemy’s suzerainty after his defeat even if he was strictly left independent.131 A statue of Ptolemy was set up in the temple of Apollo in Cyrene, which honors the king as “son of Soter” (his father’s cult title), an appellation he appropriated since 259/8 BCE.132 Such an honorific dedication seems to confirm a rapprochement between the two kings. Perhaps Magas’s choice was further guided by Ptolemy’s alliance with Carthage, as well as Ptolemy’s recent victory in the Second Syrian War. Additionally, one might add that toward his end, Magas apparently suffered from severe obesity due to an alleged life of luxury and over-indulgence.133 We thus come to the aftermath of Magas’s death (ca. 252/1 BCE), the episode of Demetrius the Fair,134 which is considered the noble deed by which Berenice gained her royal marriage to Ptolemy III when she was still a young girl (“parva virgo”).135 According to Justin

20

Berenice II Euergetis

(Epit. 26.3.3–8), Berenice’s mother (whom, as we saw, he calls Arsinoe) invited Demetrius, the son of Demetrius I Poliorcetes and Ptolemaïs, to become king in Cyrene by marrying the young woman (“virgo”).136 In her choice of a husband, Apame did not opt for a Seleucid, such as her brother Antiochus II (286–246 BCE) or his son Seleucus II (ca. 265–226 BCE).137 The Macedonian royal house, however, was related to the Seleucids, for Antigonus II was married to Apame’s half-sister Phila, and Demetrius II was recently married (in 255 or 253 BCE) to her full sister Stratonice.138 Justin actually does add that Apame had sent for Demetrius the Fair precisely because he was the son of Ptolemaïs, the daughter of Ptolemy I and Eurydice.139 Apame may then have made a deliberate move against Ptolemy II, not only to breach the agreement between her husband and the Egyptian king, but to opt for a scion of the rival collateral branch of the Lagid royal family. Justin then continues that Demetrius infuriated the populace and the army with his arrogance and insolence toward his wife and mother-in-law, and toward the army.140 Moreover, he charmed Apame, a woman of about his age, and commenced an affair with her.141 A plot was hatched to catch them in flagrante delicto. Demetrius was slain in bed with Apame, while Berenice looked on and encouraged the assassins to spare her mother.142 With the approval of the Cyreneans Berenice then renewed her betrothal to Ptolemy (III).143 Their eventual marriage was most likely concluded shortly after his accession yet before the outbreak of the Third Syrian War (246 BCE).144 This date will be the subject of the next chapter. *

*

*

The initial purpose of this essay was to establish the date at which Berenice II was born. This seemingly simple question has led to a chronological exploration of various important events during the early third century BCE. In summary, I submit the following conclusions: Berenice II, the daughter of Magas and Apame, was born ca. 267/6 BCE, shortly after her parent’s marriage ca. 269/8 BCE. Magas could not have married much earlier, as is often supposed, because Apame was probably not born before ca. 285 BCE, and possibly even later. This marriage is then unconnected to the First Syrian War (274/3–273/2 BCE), but occurred around the time of the Chremonidean War (269/8–261/0 BCE). Contemporary evidence shows that Ptolemy II instigated the conflict with Antiochus I, not only in the preliminary phase (281/0–280/79 BCE), but also during the First Syrian War

Magas, Apame, and Berenice II

21

proper. Egyptian troops had already marched into Syria (274/3 BCE) before Antiochus returned from Sardis (March 273 BCE) so that Magas cannot have been the one who convinced Antiochus to attack Egypt at this time. Moreover, the Seleucid king had more pressing matters at hand in Asia Minor, including the Galatian invasion, which makes it unlikely he would agree to an otherwise unprovoked war with Egypt. Magas’s failed attack on Egypt (ca. 268/7 BCE), furthermore, drew Ptolemy closer to Carthage, and an alliance between the two may be dated before the First Punic War (264–241 BCE) and probably after Ptolemy’s treaty with Rome (273 BCE). Sometime in the late 250s BCE, that is, between the end of the Second Syrian War (259–253 BCE) and his death (ca. 252/1 BCE), Magas betrothed his daughter Berenice to the Lagid heir, the future Ptolemy III, to secure the continuation of his kingdom and prevent a state of anarchy in Cyrene. In a decided move against Egypt, Magas’s widow Apame then offered her daughter in marriage to Demetrius the Fair (ca. 251/0 BCE). Demetrius’s apparent contempt for the Cyrenean people and army, not to mention his affair with his mother-in-law, soon led to his assassination. Berenice then renewed her betrothal to Ptolemy III and their wedding took place before the Third Syrian War (246–245 BCE145). In short, Berenice was about 16 or 17 years old when Magas passed away, and about 20 when she married Ptolemy. This chapter illustrates one of the fundamental problems in Hellenistic history, besides the scarcity of sources, namely the various ancient languages in which they are written. In the course of this research we have come across evidence, not only in ancient Greek and Latin, but also in Egyptian and Akkadian, and even in Prakrit. It goes without saying that the nature and difficulty of this evidence makes research a daunting task. Few scholars, if any, can claim to be specialized in all these fields. Correlating incidental statements in the ancient sources proves to be rather complicated, so that the wide range of conclusions derived from the available evidence is by itself rather to be expected. More problematic, for the present topic, is the tendency among Classical scholars to force the evidence in support of their interpretation of Pausanias, not only when the passage under question is riddled with confusion, but also when other evidence is plainly contradictory. It is clear that Pausanias’s timeframe of the reign of Ptolemy II is ambiguous to say the least, and apart from the odd mention about the body of Alexander the Great, there is a fairly long digression about Magas and Antiochus. In light of such ambiguities it is methodologically unsound to connect the dynastic alliance

22

Berenice II Euergetis

between Magas and Antiochus causally with the First Syrian War (which, at any rate, Pausanias does not claim). The present essay, then, also serves as a warning about the intricacies of Hellenistic chronology and genealogy in general. In the study of Ptolemaic marital relations certainly much remains uncertain and much work still needs to be done. Personally, I would not be surprised if the conclusions offered here would be challenged—and I would welcome further investigations in the various aspects I have addressed—as I am well aware that many, if not all, of my suggestions remain at best conjectural.

CHAPTER 2

THE MARRIAGE OF PTOLEMY III AND BERENICE II*

B

efore his death, Magas of Cyrene betrothed his daughter Berenice to the Egyptian heir, the future Ptolemy III. Magas’s widow Apame, however, offered her daughter to Demetrius the Fair, the son of Demetrius I Poliorcetes. As a result of his insolence, Demetrius was assassinated and Berenice renewed her engagement to the Ptolemaic prince. Historians disagree whether the wedding took place before or after Ptolemy III succeeded to the throne, but for some time between Demetrius’s death and Ptolemy’s accession the Cyreneans established an independent republican government. After their marriage, Ptolemy and Berenice were officially proclaimed the children of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, the Theoi Adelphoi (“Sibling Gods”), even though Arsinoe was the mother of neither, and Berenice was not her husband’s sister. Their wedding was celebrated in poetry—such as Callimachus’s Coma Berenices and an anonymous epithalamium. While the relative chronology of most of these events is not itself particularly controversial, the exact dating remains conjectural in each instance, except the accession of Ptolemy III. We shall see that there are two schools of thought for dating Magas’s death and for Berenice’s marriage to Ptolemy III. This chapter explores the extant sources, including numismatic and epigraphic evidence, to place the events related to the betrothal and eventual marriage of Ptolemy and Berenice on a more secure footing. I also take the opportunity of examining what these events reveal about Berenice. The last part aims to offer an explanation why Ptolemy and Berenice were officially presented as children of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, as well as what may be inferred from her appearance in Egyptian documents. As such, my purpose is to improve our understanding of early Ptolemaic chronology, genealogy, and queenship.

24

Berenice II Euergetis

As we saw in “Magas, Apame, and Berenice II,”1 there is no secure evidence for the date of Magas’s death.2 Agatharchides’s statement (ap. Athen. 12.74 [550B]) that he died after having ruled as king (basileusanta) for 50 years in Cyrene is in itself inaccurate. If Magas claimed his independence from Ptolemaic Egypt at all, this must have been sometime in the 270s or 260s BCE when he unsuccessfully marched on Ptolemy II. Pausanias relates (1.6.8) that Ptolemy I installed Magas as governor after a five-year rebellion in Cyrene. He places this rebellion around the period of the Battle of Ipsus (301 BCE), when Ptolemy also regained Coele-Syria (302/1 BCE) and Cyprus (295 BCE), and restored Pyrrhus in Epirus (297 BCE).3 In other words, when this rebellion began and when Magas recaptured Cyrene for Ptolemy is not at all clear. Historians must then resort to speculations for dating Magas’s death. One train of thought, now mostly rejected, reasons that the Cyrenean rebellion Pausanias referred to must be Ophellas’s Carthaginian adventure (310–308 BCE) and thus arrives at 259/8 BCE for the date of Magas’s death.4 This date is seemingly confirmed by Porphyry (ap. Euseb. Chron. I: 237), who places the death of Demetrius the Fair in the second year of the 130th Olympiad (=259/8 BCE).5 Additionally, Justin (Epit. 26.2.8–3.2) records that around the time of Magas’s death, Alexander II of Epirus regained his kingdom, which he lost to Antigonus II Gonatas during the Chremonidean War (ca. 263/2 BCE). Obviously, this calculation of Magas’s death does not square well with Pausanias, as Ophellas’s adventure neither lasted for five years nor can be considered a rebellion. Moreover, Diodorus (whose work survives for the period up to 301 BCE) makes no mention of Magas’s appointment as Ptolemaic governor in Cyrene. The argument now commonly accepted suggests that after the Battle of Salamis (306 BCE), in which Egypt lost Cyprus to Demetrius I Poliorcetes, the Cyreneans revolted and claimed their independence (ca. 305–300 BCE), which thus offers 250/49 BCE as the date of Magas’s death.6 While this calculation appears more satisfactory, it explains neither Porphyry’s date for the death of Demetrius the Fair nor the impossibly long period in which Epirus would have been in Antigonid power (viz., ca. 263/2–250/49 BCE). Moreover, as historians have conventionally dated the marriage of Magas and Apame before the First Syrian War (i.e., ca. 276/5 BCE), it is odd to say the least that their only (surviving) child was a mere teenager at her father’s death some 25 years later.7 In the previous chapter I have proposed to date Magas’s marriage to Apame around the time of the Chremonidean War (ca. 269/8 BCE), giving a birth date of ca. 267/6 BCE for Berenice.8

The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II

25

Justin’s statement about Alexander of Epirus cannot be reconciled with Ashoka’s Buddhist mission to Hellenistic kings (including Alexander and Magas), which on any reckoning must have occurred between 262/1 and 250/49 BCE, that is, exactly when Justin implies Epirus was under Antigonid power.9 Perforce Justin must be mistaken. While Porphyry’s passage about Demetrius the Fair is obviously confused, as it conflates this Demetrius with Demetrius II, it would be simple enough to amend his date with Niebuhr to the second year of the 132nd Olympiad (251/0 BCE), placing Magas’s death ca. 252/1 BCE.10 *

*

*

None of the surviving sources gives adequate indication of the timeframe of the episode of Demetrius the Fair in Cyrene.11 After her father’s death, Berenice was offered by her mother Apame to this Demetrius so that he would become king.12 Justin (Epit. 26.3) leaves the impression that the subsequent events, leading up to Demetrius’s assassination, occurred over a relatively short period, but that may very well be due to the brevity of his summary account. If anything can be gleaned from Porphyry-Eusebius (loc. cit.), it would be that Demetrius’s takeover involved a coup of some sort, as the passage states that he conquered Libya and captured Cyrene, implying military force. There are no Cyrenean coins or inscriptions bearing his name that could throw any light on the matter.13 An argument from silence, however, is inadvisable for this particularly obscure period. On the common assumptions that Magas married Apame ca. 276/5 BCE and that the former died 250/49 BCE, we are required to brush aside as poetic license our sources’ insistence that Berenice was still a young girl at the time.14 If the suggestion is correct, however, that Berenice was born ca. 267/6 BCE, she would have been between 14 and 18 years of age at the time of the Demetrius affair (depending on whether we date the events to 251/0 or 250/49 BCE). Conversely, should we accept the “high chronology” for Magas’s death, Berenice would have been as young as seven—that is, not even nubile (itself another argument against dating these events to 259/8 BCE). Despite the evidentiary ambiguities, it would appear more plausible to place the episode of Demetrius the Fair in 251/0 BCE, when Berenice would have been about 16. Throughout her recent biography of Berenice II, Dee Clayman appears to be making much out of whole cloth how the Demetrius

26

Berenice II Euergetis

Affair in Cyrene required efforts of exoneration in Alexandria through the involvement of Berenice’s compatriot Callimachus and even invoked censure from some quarters, most notably from Apollonius of Rhodes.15 There is certainly no evidence that the incident haunted Berenice for the rest of her life. Clayman’s attempts to demonstrate that allusions to rape and murder in the works of Callimachus and Apollonius were meant to bring to mind Berenice’s guilt in the brutal death of her husband are contrived fabrications, based on farfetched interpretations of supposed correlations between history and poetry, and therefore remain unconvincing. Clayman wishes to insinuate that perhaps Magas never betrothed his daughter to the future Euergetes, that perhaps Apame never seduced Demetrius, and that Berenice perhaps never spared her mother. If the sparse evidence (mostly Justin) is indeed of such questionable veracity, however, that renders speculations about the true nature of events in Cyrene rather fruitless. When Demetrius was assassinated—on account of his insolence toward the people, the army, as well as the royal family—Cyrene fell into a state of civil strife.16 Polybius and Plutarch, in two nearly identical passages (derived from Phylarchus), relate that the Cyreneans invited the Arcadians Ecdemus and Demophanes as champions of their freedom (eleutheria) and lawgivers of their new constitution (eunomia).17 What is known about these two men, unfortunately, offers no conclusive evidence to date their arrival in Cyrene: they were exiled by Aristodamus, the tyrant of Megalopolis (post 265 BCE); they studied with the skeptic philosopher Arcesilaus at the Academy (post 264 BCE); they intrigued unsuccessfully with the Spartan king Acrotatus II against Aristodamus (ante 255 BCE); they helped Aratus expel Nicocles, the tyrant of Sicyon (251 BCE); they succeeded in assassinating Aristodamus (ca. 251 BCE); and afterwards they became the tutors of Philopoemen (post 238 BCE).18 What can be gathered from the sources, though, is that neither Apame nor Berenice was involved in the constitutional reforms at Cyrene. Additionally, while Berenice renewed her engagement to Ptolemy III—according to Justin (Epit. 26.3.6) with the approval of the Cyreneans—Ptolemy II, we are led to believe, did nothing to curb the Cyreneans’s claim to independence. On the “high chronology” for this episode (ca. 258/7 BCE), it might be proffered, Ptolemy was too heavily distracted by the joint efforts of Antiochus II Theos and Antigonus II Gonatas in the Second Syrian War (259–253 BCE) to afford any immediate intervention in Cyrene.19 Yet even on the “low chronology” (ca. 250 BCE) and after Egypt’s

The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II

27

victory against Syria, it remains difficult to explain why Ptolemy II did not attempt to return Cyrene under his direct control. Numismatic evidence attests to the existence of a koinon (republic or federation) at Cyrene, which most scholars date to the period between Demetrius’ death and the accession of Ptolemy III.20 According to Beloch, nonetheless, it was Demetrius himself who invited Ecdemus and Demophanes to Libya as constituent lawgivers for the Cyrenaican federation.21 On his hypothesis Magas died in 250 BCE, and Ptolemy recaptured Cyrene and married Berenice upon the death of Demetrius in 247 BCE, placing the republican episode in between. Several eminent numismatists, conversely, have put the koinon in the (early) reign of Ptolemy III.22 Tarn, for his part, speculated that Berenice ruled with the future Ptolemy III as Egyptian vassal king from Demetrius’s death until the Cyrenean independence (ca. 259/8–253? BCE) and that the reunification of Egypt and Cyrene took place sometime after the king succeeded to the Egyptian throne (ca. 244 BCE).23 More recently, Buttrey has examined the coinage of Cyrene anew and proposed a sequence of four groups: (1) issues with the head of Ptolemy I or Berenice I, and Magas’s monogram (ca. 261/0–258 BCE); (2) issues with the head of Ptolemy I on the obverse and the head of Libya on the reverse, without Magas’s monogram (258–ca. 250 BCE); (3) issues with the legend ΚΟΙΝΟΝ (ca. 250–247/6 BCE); and (4) issues with the head of Ptolemy I and Libya of a second group (post 247 BCE).24 The wide disagreement among scholars about the relative and absolute chronology of the Cyrenean coinage should be a clear warning against dating any of the events under question on the basis ofn umismatice videncea lone. With that caveat in mind there are nevertheless a few more considerations to take into account about Cyrenean coinage (Plates 3.1 and 3.2). The relative chronology of the early bronzes with the head of Libya should be as shown in Table 2.1.25 Certainly the issue (1) with the silphium and cornucopia, and probably that (2) without the silphium, but with the cornucopia or dikeras might seem to precede the issues (3 and 4) with Magas’s name in the legend as the latter shows signs of erasure in which the name of Ptolemy was retouched into that of Magas.26 (The issues of the koinon were overstruck on 1–2 as well.)27 It should be noted, however, that Buttrey cogently reasons that these erasures are modern alterations—thus removing every evidence that Magas ever minted coins in his own name. The issues (5 and 6) with the central depression are conventionally dated to the reign of Ptolemy III (246–222 BCE) and therefore precede that (7) with the moneyer’s

Table 2.1

(1)

Cyrenean “Libya” portrait coinage, ca. 282–205 BCE

Obv.

Rev.

Head of Ptolemy I (with diadêma and aegis)

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Head of Libya (with taenia), silphium and cornucopia (marks)1 Similar (without silphium), cornucopia or dikeras (mark)2 ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΑΓΑ* Head of Libya (with taenia), silphium and cornucopia (marks)3 * ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ erased Similar4

(2) Similar (3)

Similar

(4) Similar* * Different portrait features from preceding (5) Head of Ptolemy I* (with diadêma and aegis) * With central depression (6) Similar* * With central depression (7) Similar* * Some without central depression

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Head of Libya (with taenia), silphium and cornucopia (marks)5 Similar, dikeras (mark)6 Similar7 ΣΕ or ME (monogram)* * Dated to Ptolemy IV

1 BMC Ptol. 83, nos. 28–30, pl. 19.4 (dated to 174–164); Sv. no. 854, pls. 34.1–2; BMC Cyr.8 2, no. 39; DNM Ptol. nos. 440–441; Buttrey 1994, 139; id. 1997, 38; Asolati 2011, 28, no. 65 (dated to Ptolemy III). The scarcity of this issue is explained by its subsequent reuse. 2 BMC Ptol. 39, nos. 17–18, pl. 6.10; Sv. nos. 855–859, pls. 34.3–11; BMC Cyr. 80, nos. 30–31, pl. 30.12; DNM Ptol. nos. 438 and 446; Buttrey 1994, 139; id. 1997, 38; Asolati 2011, 27, no. 60 (grouping this together with the following two). 3 BMC Ptol. 38, no. 11, pl. 6.7; Sv. nos. 860–861, pls. 34.12–15, 16; BMC Cyr. 81, no. 32, pl. 30.14; cf. Buttrey 1997, 37 (suggesting that the legend was retooled in modern times). 4 BMC Ptol. 38, no. 12, pl. 6.8; Sv. no. 860(d), pl. 34.15; MacDonald 1899–1905, III: 575, no. 61, pl. 92.17; BMC Cyr. 81, no. 33, pl. 30.13 (attr. portrait features to Ptolemy II); cf. Buttrey 1997, 37 (supra); Clayman 2014, 31. 5 BMC Ptol. 38, nos. 13–16, pl. 6.9; Sv. nos. 865–874, pls. 34.22–39; BMC Cyr. 81, nos. 37–38; DNM Ptol. nos. 442–445; Buttrey 1994, 139; id. 1997, 38; Asolati 2011, 28, nos. 62, 63B, 64B, 66, fig. 7.4. 6 BMC Ptol. 39, nos. 19–22; Sv. nos. 866, 870, pls. 34.24, 31–32; BMC Cyr. 81, nos. 34–36, pl. 31.3; DNM Ptol. nos. 437–439; Buttrey 1994, 139; id. 1997, 38; Asolati 2011, 28, nos. 62, 63A, 64A. 7 BMC Ptol. 76–77, nos. 89–91, pls. 18.5–6; Sv. 1152; BMC Cyr. 83, nos. 48–50 (dated to Ptolemy IV–Ptolemy VII); Asolati 2011, 30, 135A–B;c f.S v.n os.9 91–994.

The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II

29

monogram ΣΕ (vel sim.), which is now dated to the reign of Ptolemy IV (222–205 BCE) (Plate 3.2(b)).28 One further clue may perhaps be gleaned from the presence of the dikeras, the double horn of plenty that was created for the deification of Arsinoe II (ca. 271/0 BCE).29 For, the presence of that symbol on Cyrenean coins must connote good relations with Alexandria during the second half of the reign of Ptolemy II (ca. 271/0–246 BCE).30 As for the Berenice types, the first to consider shows an unveiled, youthful female portrait with melon coiffure and diadēma on the obverse, with the legend ΒΕΡΕΝΙΚΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ and the monogram of Magas ( vel sim.) on the reverse (Plate 3.2(c)) struck at Euesperides.31 Control marks include the silphium, cornucopia, and trident, among other symbols. The youthful portrait features preclude the identification of the queen with Magas’s mother Berenice I (born no later than ca. 340/39 BCE), while the absence of the woman’s veil may indicate her unmarried status.32 An attribution to Magas’s daughter Berenice II is thus, in my mind, evidently more plausible. The series would then seem to celebrate her engagement to Ptolemy III and may be dated to the 250s BCE. According to Poole, a more regal type was issued (of uncertain mint), doubtless after Magas’s death, which shows the queen with stephanē, diadēma, and necklace on the obverse, the same legend on the reverse, around a filleted cornucopia, without control marks.33 Whether this type should be dated before or after the Cyrenaican republic cannot be ascertained, although the later period would seem preferable as similar types were issued at Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy III. These latter types show Berenice with veil (but without stephanē), as well as with diadēma and necklace on the obverse, and also has a filleted cornucopia on the reverse (Plates 3.3 and 3.4).34 The horn is here flanked by either two six-rayed stars or (wreathed) pilei (caps of the Dioscuri). The reference to the Dioscuri is in all likelihood an allusion to the apotheosis of Arsinoe II, in which Castor and Pollux had snatched her away into heaven—just as in the catasterism of the Coma Berenices, Berenice’s lock of hair was snatched away by Zephyr and placed among the stars.35 Numismatists have shown that no coins after the time of Magas are found at the site of Euesperides, the westernmost town of the Cyrenean Pentapolis.36 The absence of later coins would seem to prove that the resettlement of the town occurred soon after Magas’s death, rather than after the reunification with Egypt as has often been assumed.37 This is significant enough for the present study in

30

Berenice II Euergetis

that Berenice, for whom the new settlement (mod. Benghazi) was named, did indeed fulfill an important role in the administration of Cyrenaica after her father’s death. According to Solinus (27.54), she was in fact involved in the fortification of the city walls.38 An epigram by Callimachus might indicate that the old site was not abandoned without forceful means: Ὁ Λύκτιος Μενείτας τὰ τόξα ταῦτ᾽ ἐπειπών ἔθηκε·“ τῆ, κέρας τοι δίδωμι καὶ φαρέτρην, Σάραπι· τοὺς δ᾽ ὀϊστοὺς ἔχουσιν Ἑσπερῖται.” The Lyctian Menitas dedicated his bow with these words: “Here, I give you the horn and quiver, Sarapis, but the Hesperitans have the arrows.”39

Whether fictional or an actual dedicatory inscription in honor of the Graeco-Egyptian deity Sarapis, the poem can be taken as evidence of the recruitment of Cretan soldiers in Cyrenaica—with which Callimachus, a Cyrenean by birth, must have been familiar.40 *

*

*

We thus come to the date at which Ptolemy III married Berenice II.41 While most scholars now presume that the wedding took place around the time of Ptolemy’s accession (246 BCE),42 some have placed it shortly after the death of Demetrius the Fair.43 Whether they married then or Ptolemy III merely joined his fiancée Berenice in Cyrene, proponents of the “high chronology” of Magas’s death should however take into account that before her father’s death Berenice had been betrothed to the Ptolemaic heir, who was known officially as “Ptolemy the Son.”44 For earlier historians, the solution was simple: this joint ruler of Ptolemy II (267–259 BCE) was none other than Ptolemy III, and his disappearance from the official Egyptian documents is explained by his appointment as Ptolemaic deputy (governor or viceroy) in Cyrene at the side of Berenice.45 Various reasons have been offered (on which we need not dwell) to further explain a prolonged delay (258–246 BCE) until the formal wedding; where these scholars believe the Demetrius Affair and the Cyrenean Republic fit into the story remains unclear. However, most if not all explanations for the sibling marriage between Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II (of which there are legion)46 lose any validity if the king would indeed have appointed the son of his repudiated first

The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II

31

wife Arsinoe I as his joint ruler within a year after the death of his sister-wife.47 Other suggestions—with little credence—include that this son of Ptolemy II was an otherwise unknown child with Arsinoe I, with Arsinoe II, or with one of his many mistresses.48 The most common view now, though, is that Arsinoe II convinced Ptolemy II to appoint her son with Lysimachus as heir to the Egyptian throne.49 If that interpretation would prove to be correct, it would be a strong case against the “high chronology” of Magas’s death, for it would imply that Berenice was first engaged to the son of Arsinoe II and later married the son of Arsinoe I, or that Ptolemy II betrothed the son of Arsinoe I to Magas’s daughter while the son of Arsinoe II was ruling jointly in Egypt.50 Even dating the marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II on the “low chronology” of Magas’ death, that is, soon after Demetrius’s assassination dated to ca. 250/49 BCE,51 lacks any basis in the surviving sources. The common objection is Callimachus’s Coma Berenices (as translated by Catullus), in which the king and queen are described as recently married before the onset of the Third Syrian War (246 BCE): qua rex tempestate novo auctus hymenaeo vastatum finis iuerat Assyrios at that season when the king, august from his new nuptial, had gone to waste the Assyrian borders.52

It could be argued that Catullus is here taking poetic license.53 Before dismissing our only contemporary testimony, however, we should like convincing arguments to the contrary. It remains possible that Ptolemy III did join his future bride in Cyrene, but did not yet marry her. It is tempting to speculate that Ptolemy II negotiated (or enforced) some kind of accommodation in Cyrenaica by establishing Ptolemy III as his provincial governor—just as Ptolemy I had installed his stepson Magas as stratēgos or satrap there.54 On the chronology proposed above, in which Magas passed away 252/1 BCE, the episode of Demetrius the Fair took place 251/0 BCE, and the shortlived Cyrenean republic lasted 250/49–249/8 BCE, Ptolemy III could then have joined his future bride in Cyrene 249/8 BCE. Unless tangible evidence emerges to the contrary, it seems most likely that Ptolemy III formally married Berenice II shortly after his accession (January 246 BCE) yet before the outbreak of the Third Syrian War (October 246 BCE).55 He was about 37;56 she was about 20.

32

Berenice II Euergetis

They are known to have had six children, all born apparently within the span of less than a decade. An inscription on a monumental statue base from the Aetolian Thermum lists, from left to right: King Ptolemy (III), Ptolemy (IV), Queen Berenice (II), daughter of King Magas, Arsinoe (III), Berenice (Parthenus), the lost name of a son (Lysimachus?), Alexander, and Magas.57 Ptolemy IV is given a prominent position between the king and queen, marking him as the heir apparent and thus the eldest son. The queen is followed by her two daughters, evidently in descending birth order. It is reasonable to interpret the placement of the three remaining sons as indicative of their birth order as well. There are, however, as far as I can see, three options: the three remaining sons are all born after the prematurely deceased Berenice; they are placed together in descending order, just as the daughters are grouped together; or the sons are ordered in ascending age. I would favor the latter option as that would offer a more aesthetically pleasing perspective, with the smallest child (Berenice) in the middle and the statues on either side increasing in size and/or scale. The placement of Ptolemy IV on the viewer’s left significantly sets him apart from his brothers, between his parents, and against the symmetry of the perspective provided by the increasing size of the statues fanning out from the center. He is thus marked out as heir apparent by three different means. The positioning of male figures thus suggests a relative birth order of the sons as Ptolemy (IV), Magas, Alexander, and Lysimachus(?). This sequence, moreover, accords well with the regular dynastic practice of giving names, in which the first son is named after his paternal grandfather (Ptolemy) and the second after his maternal grandfather (Magas); the same applies to the daughters, in which the first is named after her paternal grandmother (Arsinoe) and the second after her maternal grandmother (Berenice); the two remaining sons are most likely named for Alexander the Great (founder of the new Egyptian capital Alexandria) and Lysimachus of Thrace, the father of Arsinoe I and the husband of Arsinoe II.58 (Lysimachus was also the name of Ptolemy III’s younger brother.) From the Canopus Decree it is known that Berenice Parthenus died at a young age in March 238 BCE, so her birth must be dated ca. 239/8 BCE or earlier. Magas must be born no later than 240 BCE, since he had military experience before he was killed in the palace purge of 222/1 BCE, and had been sent to Asia Minor after the death of Seleucus III (223 BCE).59 The two other sons are otherwise unknown. From a similar, but more fragmentary, Delphic inscription Bennett deduced that

The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II

33

Arsinoe (III) was the first born child, so that I would propose the following order (and tentative dates BCE) of births: Arsinoe (246/5), Ptolemy (244), Magas (243), Alexander (242), Lysimachus (241), and Berenice(2 40/39).60 This remarkably rapid succession of children, six in perhaps as many years after their parents’ marriage, has drawn the attention of Criscuolo.61 She reckons that Ptolemy III married Berenice II in Cyrene, after the death of Demetrius (249 BCE), which would spread the births of their children over two or three more years. To substantiate her claim, Criscuolo also refers to the reconstitution of the Ptolemaea in honor of Apollo, Artemis, and Leto.62 She does, however, offer little to explain the connection between the Ptolemaea (or Apollo, Artemis and Leto, for that matter) and the wedding of Ptolemy and Berenice.63 Moreover, she makes no mention of the Cyrenaican federation which could hardly have occurred if Ptolemy III was present in Cyrene—placing it between Demetrius’s death and Berenice’s marriage, that is, within the same year, would be highly improbable.64 Whatever the case may be, an important argument against any hypothesis dating the marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II before his accession is that apart from Ptolemy I and Ptolemy IX, none of the Ptolemaic kings were wed before they succeeded to the throne—whether as co-regent or as sole ruler.65 It would therefore require special pleading to make a case that Ptolemy III deviated from this norm. *

*

*

About half a year after Ptolemy III came to the throne in Egypt, the Seleucid king Antiochus II Theos died (August 246 BCE) in Ephesus.66 At the end of the Second Syrian War he had married the daughter of Ptolemy II, Berenice, on the condition of repudiating his first wife Laodice (252 BCE).67 The succession crises that erupted in Syria between Laodice and Berenice drew in Ptolemy hoping to assert his sister’s claim to the Seleucid throne for her infant son Antiochus (b. 251 BCE).68 In her husband’s absence, Berenice II was left in command of the Lagid court as queen regent.69 She demonstrated her acumen when unrest brew among the native Egyptians in the Nile delta because of low inundation and the consequent threat of famine by arranging the importation and free distribution of grain, for which the synod of native priests expressed their gratitude.70 It is during her regency, too, that Berenice began issuing gold and silver pentadrachms

34

Berenice II Euergetis

in her own name, with her veiled portrait on the obverse and on the reverse the horn of plenty amid symbols of the Dioscuri. These coins may or may not have intended to allude to the queen’s divine status as did the coins of Arsinoe II with the dikeras on the reverse which they imitate—they do at least appear to prepare her subjects for what is to come. Upon her arrival in Alexandria, in short, Berenice manifested herself—as she had done in Cyrene—as an assertive, incisive, and effective ruler.71 Two poems survive that celebrate the royal wedding of Ptolemy III and Berenice II.72 Callimachus’s Coma Berenices, insofar as it is transmitted through Catullus’s Latin translation, recalls the “bonum facinus” by which Berenice procured her marriage.73 This “noble deed” is often understood to refer to the assassination of Demetrius the Fair, caught in flagrante delicto with Apame.74 Hyginus, however, reports that Callimachus had called her “high-spirited (magnanima),” because she had saved her panicking father in battle.75 Catullus playfully alludes to the “sweet scars of the nocturnal struggle” that her “dear brother (frater carus)” Ptolemy “waged for the spoils of her virginity.”76 The occasion of the poem, nonetheless, was not so much this “new nuptial (novus hymenaeus),” but the lock of hair the queen vowed at the shrine of the goddess Arsinoe (Philadelphus) Zephyritis for the king’s safe return from Syria.77 Significantly, the Coma Berenices additionally alludes to the “sweet love (dulcis amor)” which causes the moonless nights when Selene visits Endymion on Mt. Latmus.78 The poem praises the queen’s faithful devotion to the king, reprimands adulterous wives, and urges brides to revere chaste wedlock, so that love and harmony may persevere.79 Though not an actual epithalamium, Callimachus-Catullus offers an elegant commendation of the queen’s bravery and virtue. A second, anonymous, poem (misattributed to Crinagoras) celebrates the reunification of Egypt and Libya (i.e., Cyrenaica) upon the marriage of Ptolemy and Berenice: Ἄγχουροι μεγάλαι κόσμου χθόνες, ἃς διὰ Νεῖλος πιμπλάμενος μελάνων τέμνει ἀπ’ Αἰθιόπων, ἀμφότεραι βασιλῆας ἐκοινώσασθε γάμοισιν, ἓν γένος Αἰγύπτου καὶ Λιβύης θέμεναι. ἐκ πατέρων εἴη παισὶν πάλι τοῖσιν ἀνάκτων ἔμπεδον ἠπείροις σκῆπτρον ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέραις. Great bordering regions of the world, which the swelling Nile cuts off from the black Ethiopians,

The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II

35

you have by marriage made your sovereigns common to both, founding Egypt and Libya into a single entity. May these children of princes, because of their fathers, once more hold a steadfast scepter over the Two Lands.80

The last word (amphoterai) appears to be a play on the Two Lands of Upper and Lower Egypt as much as it refers to Egypt and Libya. Notice, also, that the king and queen are here not depicted as siblings. That Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II set a precedent of sibling marriage is obvious from the fact that most subsequent kings were wed to their sister or at least their closest female relative. The only exception, apart from Ptolemy III and Berenice II, is the marriage of Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I (who were third cousins).81 With the passing of time royal sibling marriages doubtless gained ever-increasing importance, which may have played an additional role in the official presentation of Berenice II and Cleopatra I as “sister and wife” of their husbands.82 That the first Lagid sibling marriage did set a precedent does not imply, however, that Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II actually meant to establish a dynastic policy.83 If so, Ptolemy II would have engaged his children Ptolemy III and Berenice (Phernophorus) to marry, instead of using the latter in the dynastic alliance with Antiochus II as part of the settlement after their military conflict.84 Macurdy suggested that Arsinoe II intended to have her son by Lysimachus marry this Berenice.85 They may well have been betrothed during the co-regency of Ptolemy the Son. Tantalizing as Macurdy’s suggestion is, it is nevertheless unverifiable.86 Again, if the continuation of brother–sister marriage had been so important to Ptolemy II, he would have saved his daughter for her brother. Instead, he arranged a Seleucid marriage for her while engaging his son to marry the daughter of Magas around the same time (253/2 BCE). Whatever motives Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II may have had to marry each other, diplomatic considerations trumped the continuation of the practice in the next generation. What Ptolemy II, nevertheless, did do is formally proclaim his children with Arsinoe I as those of Arsinoe II—an act no doubt meant to legitimize their position (not only that of Ptolemy III, but certainly that of Berenice Phernophorus, too), with the consequence of relegating his repudiated first wife to oblivion.87 If royal incest was not so important to Ptolemy II, then, it is all the more striking that Ptolemy III and Berenice II did adhere to this ideology of consanguinity. Scholars have a tendency to gloss over the

36

Berenice II Euergetis

official presentation of the third Ptolemaic royal couple as siblings as being mere court protocol or etiquette. That this will not suffice as an explanation should by now be clear. Before exploring the possible significance of this feigned sibling marriage, let us remember that Ptolemy III and Berenice II gave their children perfectly regular dynastic names that reveal their actual genealogy, including the rebellious Magas and perhaps the father of the repudiated Arsinoe I, Lysimachus.88 As we saw, Ptolemy already was portrayed in the Coma Berenices as Berenice’s “frater carus.” With Cameron, I would date the poem, as well as the formal presentation of Conon’s astronomical “discovery” alongside the poem’s reading to 245 BCE when Ptolemy had been required to interrupt his Syrian campaign due to the native unrest discussed above.89 In his Victoria Berenices, commemorating the queen’s victory in the chariot race at the Nemean Games (243/1 BCE), Callimachus furthermore addressed Berenice as “Bride (nympha), holy blood of the Sibling-Born Gods (Kasignētōn Theōn).”90 Evidently, the Homericizing “Kasignētoi Theoi” is an erudite pun on the cult title of the “Theoi Adelphoi (Sibling Gods),” Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, who are thus portrayed as Berenice’s parents whose divine blood now flows in her veins. Just as the veiled portrait coins of Berenice with the cornucopia on the reverse, Callimachus’s poems were part and parcel of the sacralization and eventual deification of the royal couple. Not only in Alexandrian poetry, but also in the preamble of official documents and on inscriptions such as that of Adulis and the Canopus Decree was Berenice II styled “sister and wife (Gk. adelphē kai gynē; Eg. senet hemet)” of Ptolemy III; were the royal couple proclaimed as children of the “Sibling Gods (Gk. Theoi Adelphoi; Eg. Netjeru Senu)”; and were they incorporated together into the dynastic cult as the “Benefactor Gods (Gk. Theoi Euergetai; Eg. Netjeru Menechu)” from 244/3 BCE.91 For Ptolemy III, as said, this fictitious affiliation served to evade the blemish of illegitimacy, as his mother had been repudiated and banished to Coptus (mod. Qeft, in Southern Egypt) due to an alleged conspiracy against the king,92 and after he himself had been removed from court and raised on Thera.93 Only after the termination of Ptolemy the Son’s co-regency (259 BCE)—and likely before his eventual establishment in Telmessus (256 BCE)—was Ptolemy III recalled to Egypt to be acknowledged as heir apparent and promised to Berenice II in marriage.94 Whatever may have motivated the dynastic fabrication of Ptolemy III’s affiliation with Arsinoe II, the full-scale absorption of Berenice II into the Lagid house remains to be explained. In this context it is pertinent that Cleopatra I, too, was occasionally styled

The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II

37

“sister” as well as “wife” of the king, though not as methodically as Berenice II.95 As the only child of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III, Ptolemy V did not have the option of taking his sister to wife. In a remarkable reversal of the Second Syrian War, then, the Seleucid princess Cleopatra, daughter of Antiochus III the Great, was engaged to the Ptolemaic heir as part of the settlement of the Fifth Syrian War (202–195 BCE).96 Dynastic legitimization does not sufficiently account for their feigned consanguinity. Both marriages were political in nature—marital alliances according to the contemporary dynastic pattern. Berenice may have desired to deny her mother Apame, who had opposed her Ptolemaic betrothal. In Cleopatra’s case both her parents were still very much alive, so that her adoption into the Lagid house may have served to isolate the court from Seleucidin terference.97 At the time of Ptolemy III’s accession there were immediate, pressing reasons to strengthen the position of Berenice II at court. She was left in command as regent, while Ptolemy III invaded Syria in support of his sister, when a native uprising erupted. Her wholesale adoption into the Lagid family thus served to legitimize her position of power and authority in face of this crisis.98 Similarly, Cleopatra I is first called the king’s “sister and wife,” when Ptolemy V confronted the rival Pharaoh Anchwennefer in the Thebaïd (191/0 BCE).99 She may then have been absorbed into the royal house, like Berenice II, at an urgent time of political instability. As Beyer-Rotthoff astutely observes, the queen became a full-fledged member of the royal house, as “sister” of the king—in addition to his “wife”—and thus a sovereign in her own right.100 This recognition of the queen’s authority is substantiated by the evidence of their titulature. Female members of the Lagid house were addressed with the Greek “basilissa (royal woman)” since the time of Berenice I, including the prematurely deceased Philotera and Berenice Parthenus, and, as we have seen, Berenice II during her father’s lifetime.101 More significantly, Berenice II and Cleopatra I shared Egyptian titles such as “Heqat (Female Ruler),” “Tjatyt (Female Vizier),” “Neb(t) Tauy (Lady of the Two Lands),” and “Pera‘at (Female Pharaoh),” that had rarely if ever been conferred upon Egyptian queens before.102 Additionally, both were considered the “Daughter of Thoth,” the “Sister-Wife of the Son of Ra,” and “Female Horus.”103 Furthermore, Berenice II and Cleopatra I were given an otherwise unique, nearly identical “Name of the Two Ladies of the (Brave or Beautiful) Subjects.”104 Her Two Ladies Name describes Berenice

38

Berenice II Euergetis

as “Made strong by Neith, the Lady of Saïs, and honored by Bastet, Mut and Hathor with their beauty,” and she is called “Effective of Counsel.”105 For Cleopatra I, the Two Ladies Name is (strangely) abbreviated to “Neith, Lady of Saïs, Makes Her Brave, Hathor Honors Her with Her Love.”106 Neith, Bastet, and Hathor were each identified with Tefnut, who in the myth of the Solar Eye was fetched from far-off by her brother Shu-Harueris to rejoin her father Ra and the gods of Egypt—just as Berenice and Cleopatra came from outside Egypt.107 The priests who bestowed these titles doubtless chose this abundance of associations to express the nature of the queens’ divine authority. More concretely, the Canopus Decree issued after the synod of Egyptian priests (238 BCE) praised the benevolence of the royal couple, their efforts in relieving the suffering of the populace when famine threatened after a low Nile inundation, their abundant provisions for the sacred animals (particularly Apis and Mnevis), and their rich endowments of the native temples.108 Consequently, the priests decreed to multiply the honors paid to the Benefactor Gods, and their “parents (Gk. goneis; Eg. qema-zen),” the Sibling Gods, as well as to their “ancestors (Gk. progonoi; Eg. iry-zen),” the Savior Gods.109 We thus see a close connection between benefactions, consanguinity, and salvation expressed in the divinity of the ruling king and queen. Berenice’s ritual importance is furthermore illustrated on the upper field of the Kom el-Hisn stele (i.e., the Canopus Decree) and on the Theban Euergetes Gate (mod. Karnak, Plate 3.13(a)).110 On these scenes Berenice II is shown wearing a ceremonial robe that might be interpreted as the equivalent or counterpart of the king’s ChebSed dress.111 In the Pharaonic period, such highly visible depictions of royal women were exceptional, with Nefertiti and Nefertari as examples.112 *

*

*

In conclusion, the marriage of Ptolemy III (ca. 283/1–222 BCE) and Berenice II (ca. 267/6–221 BCE) was a dynastic alliance with significant political and ideological ramifications. Their marriage brought about the reunification of Cyrenaica and Egypt and initiated a time of stability in which Egypt was at the height of its imperial power with two highly capable rulers on the throne. Let us reiterate the chronological timeframe as presented above: Ptolemy III, who had been banished to Thera in his youth, was recalled to Egypt after his

The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II

39

father’s co-regency with the son of Arsinoe II came to an end due to the latter’s rebellion (259/8 BCE). Around the same time as his sister Berenice Phernophorus was married to Antiochus II, Ptolemy III was engaged to Berenice II, the daughter of Magas (ca. 253/2 BCE). After governing Cyrene for five decades, Magas died (252/1 BCE). His widow Apame, however, annulled her daughter’s betrothal and invited Demetrius the Fair to marry Berenice instead and become king in Cyrene. This episode did not last for very long, as Demetrius was assassinated due to his affair with Apame and his regal presumptions toward the people and army of Cyrene (251/0 BCE). Civil strife was ended when the Cyreneans invited Ecdemus and Demophanes to constitute a confederate republic (250/49–249/8 BCE). An accommodation was then reached (whether through diplomatic or military means) between Egypt and Cyrene in which Ptolemy III was perhaps installed as governor beside his future bride (249/8 BCE). The accession of Ptolemy III (January 246 BCE) was soon followed by the new king’s formal wedding to Berenice II. When he embarked on the Third Syrian War (246–245 BCE), she was left in command as queen regent in Egypt. They had six children born about a year apart, including the future Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III. The events leading up to her marriage with Ptolemy reveal that Berenice was an assertive woman, capable in both military and political affairs from a young age. Before her father’s death she may have commanded an army on the battlefield. At the age of about 16 or 17, she overturned Demetrius’s coup in Cyrene by having him caught in her mother’s bed and killed. She renewed her engagement to the Egyptian heir and was involved in the refoundation of Euesperides, renamed after herself. Remarkably, Berenice was hailed basilissa on coins even in her father’s lifetime, and various issues were struck into the reign of Ptolemy III with her name and title on the reverse. In her husband’s absence, she ably administered affairs at the Alexandrian court and assisted in relief efforts at a time of critical food shortage. Plus, she claimed a victory in the chariot race at the Nemean Games. It should come as no surprise, then, that she was praised for her virtue and valor, her magnanimity and benevolence in Alexandrian poetry and priestly decrees alike. While Berenice’s marriage was politically motivated, her designation as “sister-wife” of Ptolemy served more than practical purposes. The appellation “sister (Gk. adelphē; Eg. senet)” was neither a term of endearment nor mere court etiquette as most scholars would have it. As in the case of Cleopatra I, Berenice’s full-fledged adoption into

40

Berenice II Euergetis

the Ptolemaic dynasty implied a renunciation of her original family relations. It is no coincidence that the court faced native unrest both in the reign of Ptolemy III (an uprising in the Nile delta due to the threat of famine) and in that of Ptolemy V (the Theban rebellion of rival pharaohs). The feigned consanguinity strengthened the queen’s position in face of such challenges as she acquired authority equal to that of her husband. It is no coincidence that Berenice II and Cleopatra I shared an impressive and almost unique series of titles, which the Egyptian priests bestowed upon them as an expression of their sacralized sovereignty. As Berenice was incorporated into the dynasty of the deified Lagids, the synod of Canopus paid thanks to her abundant provisions of benevolence in terms in which benefaction and salvation were associated with her royal consanguinity. The study of Hellenistic history, especially the third century BCE, is hampered by the scarcity and ambiguity of the surviving sources. Understandably, scholars are required to resort to speculations in piecing together historiographic, epigraphic, numismatic, and other evidence. In light of the nature and difficulty of the sources, and the various specializations involved, disagreements are only to be expected. If anything, I have aimed to illustrate the wide range of interpretations and assumptions in dating the death of Magas, the episode of Demetrius the Fair, the Cyrenaican republic, and the marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II. As part of a study of Ptolemaic marital relations, the present essay, then, also serves as a warning about the intricacies of Hellenistic chronology and genealogy in general—an area in which much work remains to be done.

CHAPTER 3

BERENICE II IN ART AND ARTIFACTS*

B

erenice II Euergetis has left her mark not only in ancient artifacts and works of art, but also in modern art. Numismatic evidence often gives us the only securely identified portraiture of Ptolemaic kings and queens. Coinage is therefore often employed for assigning sculptures to members of the royal house. An element of subjectivity is well-nigh unavoidable in this process, in which scholars should tread with caution. Objects in different media and material will pass the review in this iconographic section, in part to illustrate where possible aspects of the discussion in the other essays and also to illuminate the world in which Berenice lived at the courts of Cyrene and Egypt. Two examples of modern art dedicated to Berenice will have to suffice here. For, no attempt has been made at comprehensiveness as that would veer too far from the purpose of the present study. *

*

*

Ancient Cyrene (in present-day Libya), the birthplace of Berenice II, was famous for its silphium, a now-extinct plant perhaps related to fennel or celery.1 The plant—or rather its heart-shaped fruit (phyllon) and resin—was used for culinary and medicinal purposes and was the most important export item of the region. Silphium was worth its weight in silver, the Roman saying went. The Cyreneans considered it the gift of Apollo Carneus, who—after seizing the nymph Cyrene off to Libya and founding a city along the coast in her honor—bestowed the plant to the new inhabitants. Unsurprisingly, the silphium features prominently on the coinage of ancient Cyrene. On a particularly beautiful example, a very finely detailed tetradrachm (dated ca. 435–331 BCE), the flowering plant can be seen on the reverse (Plate 3.1(a)), with the legend “KYPANA

42

Berenice II Euergetis

(Cyrene)” in the field. The obverse depicts a bearded and horned head of Zeus-Ammon in three-quarter view looking slightly to his right, within a border of laurel wreath. Under his curved ram’s horns, he wears a headband (taenia) from which appears to coil an upright Egyptian cobra (uraeus). Likewise the silphium plant appears on silver didrachms dated to the governorship of Berenice’s father Magas (early third century BCE), with a coiled snake to the left and a minter’s monogram (I, П, O) to the right, plus the legend “KYPA (Cyrene)” in the field (Plate 3.1(b)). The obverse shows the head of Apollo Carneus. The locks of his hair, as well as his facial features, resemble the quality of the Alexandrian coinage of Ptolemy I (about which more below). The obverse of Cyrenean gold tetrobols (dating to ca. 300 BCE) bears a Macedonian horseman riding to the left, wearing a military mantle (chlamys) and a broad hat (petasos), within a circular border (Plate 3.1(c)). The sun with eight rays is visible behind him. The rider is a common theme on ancient Macedonian coins. The reverse again shows the silphium plant, with left in the exergue the legend “KYPA” (Σ, Ω, I). The monogram may and right the minter’s monogram perhaps be read as Sosis, which was a rather common name in Cyrene and apparently of high ranking status, as a priest of Apollo is known by that name.2 Another common numismatic Cyrenean series dating from the reign of Ptolemy II (r. 284–246 BCE) through Ptolemy IX “Lathyrus” (r. 116–81 BCE) depicts the head of Ptolemy I on the obverse and the personification of “Libya” on the reverse.3 On rare bronzes, Soter, facing right, wears a thin diadēma over his curly locks and an aegis over his shoulders (Plate 3.2(a)). The draped bust of Libya wears a taenia over her long corkscrew locks. In the field are a filleted cornucopia (to the left) and a silphium (below). Around her head the legend reads: “ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ (of King Ptolemy).” Similar bronze diobols (Plate 3.2(b)) have an apple branch (to the left) and dikeras (to the right) as symbols, plus the minter’s monogram ΣΕ or ΜE (vel sim.), which dates this issue to the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (r. 221–204 BCE). Of particular interest for the present study of Berenice II are silver didrachms with an obverse female portrait, struck at Euesperides (Plate 3.2(c)). Her bust is draped but her head unveiled. Her melon coiffure is bound with a diadēma of which the ends flow above the nape of her neck. Her youthful face is characterized by a strongly sloping brow over a deep set orbit with a small pointed eye; a straight

Plate3.1

(a) Head of Zeus-Ammon, AU tetradrachm (28 mm, 9.38 g, 6 h), ca. 435–331 bce, Cyrene; CNG no. 310, lot 509.4 (b) Head of Apollo Carneus, AR didrachm (20 mm, 7.53 g, 12 h), ca. 300–275 bce, Cyrene; CNG no. 318, lot 356.5 (c) Horseman, AU tetrobol (14 mm, 2.84 g, 12 h), ca. 305–300 bce, Cyrene; NNC inv. GR-10301.6 (a and b) Courtesy of Victor England, the Classical Numismatic Group. (c) Courtesy of Paul Beliën, Curator, National Numismatic Collection, Central Bank of The Netherlands.

Plate3 .2

(a) Portrait of Ptolemy Soter, AE diobol (26 mm, 13.16 g, 1 h), ca. 246–222, Cyrene; CNG no. 96, lot 596.7 (b) Portrait of Ptolemy Soter, AE diobol (26 mm, 17.25 g, 12 h), ca. 221–204 BCE, Cyrene; CNG no. 73, lot 504.8 (c) Basilissa Berenice, AR didrachm (20 mm, 6.49 g, 9 h), ca. 258–252 BCE, Euesperides; CNG no. 825086.9 (a-c) Courtesy of Victor England, the Classical Numismatic Group.

Berenice II in Art and Artifacts

45

and sharp nose with a slender nostril; and a small mouth over a round chin. The reverse bears the legend “ΒΕΡΕΝΙΚΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ (of Queen or Princess Berenice)” on either side of a resting club, all within a wreath. Control marks include the silphium, cornucopia, or trident, plus the monogram of Magas, (vel sim.) and the mint letter П (or ПY). Her status as basilissa during her father’s governorship is noteworthy and appears to advertise her recent engagement to the Lagid heir, the future Ptolemy III (r. 246–222 BCE).10 Among the largest silver coins ever struck in Antiquity are the splendid pentakaidekadrachms (viz., worth 15 silver drachms, a full 4 cm in diameter) issued in the name of Berenice II, which are also among the most individualized Hellenistic numismatic portraits (Plates 3.3(a) and 3.3(b)).11 The queen’s head, facing right within a dotted border, is covered by a veil, underneath which her hair is fashioned in melon coiffure, pulled into a chignon and bound with a diadēma—with a tiny curl before her ear. Her bust is draped with a garment (peplos), and she wears a precious necklace. Her portrait presents a curving brow over a wide open globular eye with thin lids; a pointed nose with small nostril; a small mouth over a round, slightly protruding chin; a heavy under chin; and a hint of a Venus ring in her neck. While individualized—and the basis of all other identifications of works of art attributed to Berenice II—the facial features should not be understood as purely realistic. The luminous idealization of her powerful expression, especially the globular eyes, clearly intimates the queen’s divine authority. The reverse legend, as on the Cyrenean coins, is BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ BEPENIKHΣ, here around a delicately detailed cornucopia overflowing with a grape bunch, pomegranate, pyramidal cake, and ear of grain. The horn, bound with a royal fillet of which the ends flow down sinuously, is flanked by two laureate caps (pilei) associated with the Dioscuri. The reverse also has a dotted border. The allusion to the Dioscuri brings to mind the Apotheosis of Arsinoe by Callimachus, in which Castor and Pollux snatched Arsinoe away and placed her among the stars.12 The Dioscuri were likewise believed to have carried off their sister Helen.13 In his Coma Berenices, Callimachus relates how the lock of Berenice’s hair was snatched away by Zephyr and placed among the stars. Both sides of the coinage thus promulgate the lifetime deification of Berenice II. The occasion for this and other gold and silver issues struck in the name of Berenice II has conventionally been brought into connection with the expenses of the Laodicean War.14 This coinage consistently

Plate3 .3

(a and b) Portrait of Berenice II, AR Pentakaidekadrachm (40 mm, 52.91 g, 12 h), ca. 246–204 BCE, Alexandria; CNG no. 83 (Triton XIII), lot 1361.15 Courtesy of Victor England, the Classical Numismatic Group.

Berenice II in Art and Artifacts

47

portrays her as a middle-aged woman. Yet, if we accept her birth date as (December) 267 BCE, she would have been merely 20 years of age at the start of that war (October 246). A middle-aged appearance would then seem incongruous, if we were to expect a realistic portraiture of a young woman in her 20s. Moreover, Lorber demonstrates forcefully that control marks—such as the XP (chi-rho) and the ΣΕ (sigma-epsilon) monograms—tie at least some of the issues to bronze emissions from later into the reign of Ptolemy III and arguably into that of Ptolemy IV (i.e., 230s–210s BCE). Besides the Cyrenean coins discussed above, a youthful portrait of Berenice II does appear on rare gold mnaieia (worth a hundred silver drachms). These coins exhibit a very fine portrait of the veiled and filleted head of the queen, facing right (Plate 3.4(a)). Her brow is nearly arching over her large eye with rather thick lids; her perfectly straight nose does have a slender nostril, but not a pointed tip; the lips of her small mouth are gently closed; her chin protrudes, but she has no double chin; she wears an eardrop and a necklace. The cornucopia, overflowing with somewhat different fruits, is again bound with a royal fillet of which the ends flow gracefully. Instead of two wreathed caps, however, there is single bee in the left field, which is a common mint mark of the city of Ephesus in Asia Minor. The precise date of this Ephesian issue, however, remains unclear, but the surrender of the city during the Laodicean War (245 BCE) seems the most plausible occasion.16 Gold mnaieia were also minted at Alexandria with the middle-aged portraiture of Berenice II wearing veil, diadēma, jewelry, and peplos (Plate 3.4(b)). On the reverse the ends of the royal fillet fall straight down in a twist. The field exhibits no symbols or control marks. Gold trihemiobols have the veiled and filleted head of Berenice II on the obverse, within a dotted border (Plate 3.4(c)). The reverse, similarly with a dotted border, shows the cornucopia bound with a fillet of which the ends hang straight down. The horn of plenty is here flanked on either side by a star with six rays. These stars, like the laureate caps of the Dioscuri on the silver pentakaidekadrachms, call to mind the catasterism of Coma Berenices and similarly advertise the divinity of the queen. Among the Successors of Alexander the Great (356–323 BCE), Ptolemy I—the first Lagid king of Egypt and grandfather of Ptolemy III—was the first to issue coins displaying his own portrait (Plate 3.5(a)). On gold staters (on a reduced weight of ideally 7.12 g), struck mostly at Alexandria (as well as Cyrene and Euesperides) (ca. 298/7–295/4 BCE),

Plate3 .4

(a) Youthful Berenice, AV mnaieion (27.63 g), ca. 245–240 BCE, Ephesus; HA no. 3016, lot 23094.17 (b) Portrait of Berenice II, AV mnaieion (27.79 g, 12 h), ca. 246– 204 BCE, Alexandria; CNG 83 (Triton XIII), lot 1360.18 (c) Berenice II portrait, AU trihemiobol (11 mm, 1.072 g, 12 h), ca. 246–222 BCE, Alexandria; NNC inv. GR-08771.19 (a) Courtesy of David S. Michaels, Director of Ancient Coins, Heritage Auctions. (b) Courtesy of Victor England, the Classical Numismatic Group. (c) Courtesy of Paul Beliën, Curator, National Numismatic Collection, Central Bank of The Netherlands.

Berenice II in Art and Artifacts

49

the obverse portrays the highly individualized profile of Ptolemy I facing right, which would remain the standard numismatic type on Ptolemaic silver until the reign of the last Hellenistic ruler, Cleopatra VII (r. 51–31 BCE). His distinctive facial features include the crooked eye brow, aquiline nose, small mouth with pursed lips, and especially the heavy jaw with the protruding chin. Ptolemy wears the royal fillet (diadēma) in his curly locks—which are stylized much like those of Apollo on the Cyrenean coins of Magas from approximately the same period (Plate 3.1 (b))—and the protective aegis around his neck. Hardly any less remarkable is the striking reverse that sports a charioteer in a quadriga of elephants.20 The charioteer most likely represents Alexander the Great, as he not only holds the reigns and a scepter in his hand, but also a thunderbolt. The latter attribute, commonly associated with the sky god Zeus, also appears on the famous Porus medallions, which—like the elephant—invokes the great Macedonian king’s triumphal return from India. Various monograms in the exergue of the different mints indicate whether the coin was struck at Alexandria or Cyrene. The portrait coinage of Berenice II was evidently modeled after that of her predecessor, Arsinoe II Philadelphus (318/1–268 BCE), the sister and (second) wife of Ptolemy II (r. 284/2–246 BCE). On the superbly crafted gold mnaieion marked Θ on the left of the obverse, within a dotted border, Arsinoe’s veiled head, facing right, wears a crown (stephanē) and has her hair fashioned in melon coiffure, with little curls over her forehead, tied into a chignon at the back (Plate 3.5(b)).21 Behind her is a lotus-tipped scepter in the background. The reverse with the legend “APΣINOHΣ ΦIΛAΔEΛΦOY (of Arsinoe Philadelphus),” similarly with a dotted border, depicts a dikeras (double horn of plenty), overflowing with cakes, grape bunches, and various other fruits. The fringed ends of the royal fillet bound around the horns flow down sinuously. Her formidable profile is characterized by a sharply downward sloping brow over wide-open globular eyes with heavy lids; a straight and pointed nose with a small nostril; a small mouth with pursed lips; a small round, protruding chin; and her neck is marked by three Venus rings. The overall impression is that of a mighty, middle-aged, fairly corpulent queen. Aside from idealizing—though individualized—characteristics, Arsinoe’s godly status is often emphasized by a small curved ram’s horn below her ear. The ram’s horn was previously thought to refer to Libyan Zeus-Ammon,22 but as Quaegebeur has pointed out, a reference to the Ram God of Mendes would be indelibly more appropriate for Arsinoe,

50

Berenice II Euergetis

who was honored with the title “Beloved of the Ram” of Mendes.23 Ram’s horns were, furthermore, part of Arsinoe’s unique Egyptianstyle crown, consisting additionally of the Lower-Egypt Red Crown of Geb, two plumes of Amun (-Min), and the solar disc enclosed by the cow’s horns of Isis-Hathor, atop the vulture cap of Mut.24 The lotus scepter behind Arsinoe’s profile might represent an Egyptian attribute of divinity, as floral staffs were, indeed, common divine attributes in Egyptian tradition. Arsinoe’s statues did depict her with such scepters.25 Close parallels exist in Greek art of female deities wearing a crown and a veil, and holding a lotus scepter. Dione of Dodona appears to have provided the model. For King Pyrrhus of Epirus (r. 295–272 BCE), the son-in-law of Ptolemy I, struck silver tetradrachms with an enthroned Dione (evidently based on a cult statue), wearing a polos and holding a lotus scepter.26 The only other Greek goddess who was represented with the three attributes of lotus scepter, crown and veil was Hera.27 The portrait coinage of Arsinoe II, consequently, promulgated the deified queen as the wife of Zeus-Ammon or Amun-Min, assimilated with the Ram of Mendes, the daughter of Cronus and Rhea or Geb and Mut, and was hence identified simultaneously with Hera-Dione and Isis-Hathor.28 As a last outstanding specimen of numismatic portraiture, it would seem appropriate noting here the gold mnaieion series struck in the reign of Ptolemy IV in honor of his father Ptolemy III (Plate 3.5(c)).29 The obverse with a dotted border boasts the lustrous bust of the king, facing right. His shortly cropped hair is bound by a diadēma of which the ends hang straight down in the nape of his neck. The royal fillet is, moreover, surmounted by a radiate crown. The king’s bust is covered with an aegis bound by coiling serpents. Over his far shoulder Ptolemy furthermore holds a trident tipped with a lotus bud. The reverse, again with dotted border, bears the legend “ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ (of King Ptolemy),” around a cornucopia, which is overflowing with grapes, pomegranate, cake, and grain, and is also ornamented with a radiate crown. The tasseled ends of the fillet bound around the horn once more flow graciously. The field is marked by the minter’s monogram (ΔI) at the tip of the cornucopia. The array of divine attributes—the aegis of Zeus, the trident of Poseidon, the crown of Helius, the horn of plenty—presents the corpulent king as all-powerful god (pankratōr), guarding land, sea and sky, and bringer of abundance (viz., Aeon Plutonius, “Eternity of Opulence”).30 *

*

*

Plate3 .5

(a) First Portrait of Ptolemy I, AV stater (17 mm, 7.08 g, 12 h), ca. 298/7–295/4 BCE, Alexandria; CNG no. 84, lot 751.31 (b) Portrait of Arsinoe II, AV mnaieion (27 mm, 27.74 g, 12 h), ca. 254/3 BCE, Alexandria; HA no. 3026, lot 23220.32 (c) Radiate Portrait of Ptolemy III, AV mnaieion (28 mm, 27.80 g, 6 h), ca. 217 BCE, Alexandria; HA no. 3021, lot 21274.33 (a) Courtesy of Victor England, the Classical Numismatic Group. (b and c) Courtesy of David S. Michaels, Director of Ancient Coins, Heritage Auctions.

52

Berenice II Euergetis

Besides the numismatic evidence, faience wine pitchers (oenochoae) additionally provide securely identified portraits of Berenice II, among other Ptolemaic queens (Plate 3.6).34 They show the queen standing in relief between a crenelated, horned altar (bōmos kerouchos) and a pillar (baitylos) on a semicircular platform. She wears a veil over the back of her hair, which is drawn in a melon coiffure and tied into a chignon. Berenice is clothed in a sleeveless long undergarment (chitōn) and a draped overgarment (himation), rolled under her bosom; the toes of her unshod feet are just visible underneath her dress. She carries a cornucopia in her left arm, while stretching forth her right arm to perform a libation on the altar with the shallow bowl (phialē) that she holds in her hand. Egyptian faience, a quartz ceramic in lustrous shades of blue and green (in imitation of precious turquoise), was used since Pharaonic times for ritual vessels, statuettes, and other artifacts.35 This traditional Egyptian technique and material was appropriated for a Graeco-Macedonian audience in a Hellenistic style, in a classical Greek shape, for the worship of Ptolemaic queens. On the specimen shown here the queen has a tall forehead above wide arching brows over bulging, pointed eyes with thick, incised lips. She has a strong straight nose with slender nostrils (the tip of which was damaged in the mold). Her small puckered mouth has full lips and marked corners. Her small round chin is not particularly prominent. That is to say, her facial features only faintly resemble those known from Berenice’s coinage. The coroplast (likely modeling from originals in precious metal) was more concerned to express the queen’s idealized corpulence than to render an accurately realistic portrait. Ptolemaic oenochoae were produced in great quantities for use during religious festivals to bring wine libations on behalf of the good health of the Lagid house, viz., the reigning king and queen, their children, and their ancestors. The shoulder of this and similar vases bear the inscription, “ΒΕΡΕΝΙΚΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ ΑΓΑΘΗΣ ΤΥΧΗΣ (of Queen Berenice Agathe Tyche),” which assimilates the queen, as bringer of prosperity and abundance, with the goddess of Good Fortune.36 On these relief scenes, Queen Berenice is portrayed as participating in her own cult bringing a wine libation for herself and her husband the king on the altar of the “ΘΕΩΝ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΩΝ (of the Benefactor Gods).” She thus reciprocates the worship she receivedf romt hep opulace.

Berenice II in Art and Artifacts

Plate3 .6

53

Berenice II as Agathe Tyche, faience oenochoe (22.2 × 14 cm), ca. 245–200 BCE, Egypt; Getty inv. 96.AI.58. Courtesy of the J. Paul Getty Museum, Open Content Program.

As Ptolemaic oenochoae were mass-produced and frequently offered as funerary gift to the dead, a great many have survived and can be found in museum collections around the world. When merely fragments remain, without the explicit identification of the

54

Berenice II Euergetis

corresponding inscription, recognizing the particular queen in question based on stylistics aspect alone becomes more difficult. One such fragmentary example (Plate 3.7(c)), now held in the collection of the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam, depicts an elongated but corpulent mature queen—much in the style of Berenice II—wearing a semicircular stephanē, rather than a diadēma or a veil, in her melon coiffure, dressed in a chitōn and a himation, rolled below her bosom and draped in unnaturally crisscrossing folds. Her facial features, however, are fairly indistinct due to the overuse of the mold. The face appears to have a narrow forehead, over widely curving brows; her small eyes have very heavy lids; her thin straight nose has tiny nostrils (the tip is damaged); her small mouth has pursed lips; she has a small round, projecting chin, with slanting jaws and a heavy neck. Dorothy Burr Thompson and Helmut Kyrieleis have been tempted to attribute this light-green sherd to Arsinoe III (246/5–204), the sister and wife of Ptolemy IV.37 Another faience sherd in Amsterdam, from an alabastrum (perfume flask), shows a female figure, dressed in a knotted mantle over her sleeved garment, carrying a cornucopia in her left arm (Plate 3.7(d)).38 What makes the fragment unique, however, is not the dress,39 but the figure’s gesture of the right arm. For she does not stretch forth her arm to pour a libation from a phialē, but rather raises her hand to the side of her head. The palm of her hand is not upright—as if in greeting or prayer—nor cupped—as if to listen—neither is it pulling her hair—as if in mourning. In fact, her right palm is level—as if she were meant to carry something in her hand.40 On the basis of stylistic and portrait features D. B. Thompson was inclined to date the piece to the second century BCE, and suggested that the figurine most probably represents Cleopatra I.41 As she could not sufficiently explain all the piece’s details, she concluded that, “perhaps it is merely a popular rendering of the famous episode of the Rape of the Lock” (of Berenice).42 Her profile portrays an almost round oval face, smooth cheeks, sharply curved brows, small almond-shaped eyes with thick ridged lids, long and thin pointed nose, pursed lips, small pointed and projecting chin, and strong neck, which seem to compare very favorably to the numismatic portraiture of that queen.43 A small grayish limestone head (broken off at the neck), which like the preceding pieces from the Allard Pierson Museum, previously belonged to the collection of Egyptologist F. W. von Bissing (1873–1956), may well be a portrait of Berenice II (Plate 3.7(a)).44 Her hair, bound by a diadēma, is parted in the middle and drawn

Berenice II in Art and Artifacts

55

back in waves, resembling the melon coiffure. The back of her head, however, is hardly worked at all, leaving the impression that a veil in another material (plaster or cloth) was originally attached to the woman’s head. Her face is characterized by a narrow forehead over gently sloping eyebrows. Her almond-shaped eyes, with very heavy, incised lids, are rendered asymmetrically: her left noticeably larger than her slightly drooping right eye. Her mouth is pursed sternly; her round chin does not protrude as usual; her cheeks and jaws are likewise well rounded. One more head in Amsterdam (similarly broken off at the neck) might be noted in the present study (Plate 3.7(b)).45 The figure is fashioned from solid, molded terracotta of light reddish-brown, slightly micaceous Nile silt, detailed with a sharp modelling tool before baking. Her wavy hair, without a fillet, is rendered impressionistically and is parted in the middle and drawn into a coil at the nape of the neck. Although she lacks any royal attributes, her mature facial features would seem too individualized not to represent a member of the Lagid house of the third century BCE. She has a flat forehead, arching brows over deep-set, small, pointed eyes, with very thick upper lids; her strong straight nose has slender nostrils (the tip is damaged); her small mouth has a gentle smile; she has round cheeks, pointed jaws, and a round, but hardly projecting chin. Identifying sculptural portraiture, in fact, proves to be rather problematic when a head or bust is found without its original context. Opinions tend to diverge, as an element of subjectivity comes into play, when hoping to recognize individuals on the basis of facial characteristics known best from gold or silver coinage and/or scenes on ritual vessels. A good case in point is the white marble female head from the Alexandrian Sarapeum, now in the Graeco-Roman Museum (Plate 3.8).46 Due to its masterful quality, dated to the second half of the third century BCE, and the headband in her melon coiffure, every connoisseur agrees that the head must portray an Egyptian queen of the early Hellenistic period. No consensus has been reached which of the queens (or princesses) of this period she may represent—with suggestions ranging from Berenice I to Cleopatra II. The Alexandrian portrait may be described as delicate yet vigorously moving. Her tragic pathos is enhanced by the angle at which the face bends to her right as well as the marked asymmetry in her features. She has a fairly narrow forehead; her right brow arches strongly over an upward glancing, almond-shaped eye with thin, incised lids; her left brow slopes down over a drooping, large round eye with thin

Plate3 .7

(a) Head of Ptolemaic queen, limestone (h. 5.9 cm), ca. 250–150 Egypt(?); APM inv. 7840.47 (b) Head of royal woman, terracotta (h. 4.2 cm), ca. third century BCE, Egypt; APM inv. 14.157.48 (c) Ptolemaic queen, faience oenochoe (13.6 × 5.7 cm), ca. third century BCE, Egypt; APM inv. 7577.49 (d) Ptolemaic queen, faience alabstrum (7.2 × 3.9 cm), ca. 225–175 BCE, Egypt; APM inv. 7583.50

BCE,

(a-d) Courtesy of Wim M. H. Hupperetz, Director, the Allard Pierson Museum, the archaeological museum of the University of Amsterdam.

Berenice II in Art and Artifacts

57

lids; her once strong nose is now fairly damaged; her small mouth has an upper lip like a cupid’s bow; the left corner curves gently upwards, the right is pursed sternly; her lower lip is full; the small round chin is fairly prominent; while her left jaw is nearly square, her right, though heavy, is more pointed; and her fleshy neck has hints of two Venus rings. That is to say, while the left side of the face (the viewer’s right) exposes a dramatic, rather melancholy young woman; the right side presents a divinely powerful, nearly masculine mature woman. Although regularly identified as Berenice II—intuitively based perhaps on the (viewer’s) left, mature side—Kyrieleis is more inclined to recognize the likeness of Arsinoe III in the Alexandrian portrait51—perhaps leaning more to the (viewer’s) right, youthful side. As Bianchi has pointed out on various occasions, this lack of consensus appropriately illustrates the inadequacy of the methods employed for attributing Hellenistic royal portraits.52 An accurate, realistic likeness was hardly an ancient artist’s aspiration, but rather an idealized individualization which expressed the subject’s most desired qualities. Here the queen’s divine authority is emphatically combinedw ithh erh umans ensuality. Another female head that has been identified as Berenice II is the magnificent polychrome marble portrait now in Mariemont, Belgium (Plate 3.9).53 The head, broken off at the neck and intended for an approximately life size, standing statue, was excavated in a sanctuary at Hermopolis Magna (mod. Ashmunein). Since both the provenance and the gilding point to a religious context, the sculpture can only have represented a deified queen, set up in place of worship for cultic purposes. If stylistic features may be taken as a clue, a female member of the royal house from the later third century BCE becomes most likely—despite the lack of royal attributes or an identifying inscription. Within the context of the ruler cult, an accurate lifelike portrait cannot be expected. Instead, her likeness is manifestly idealized befitting a goddess. The top and back of the head were originally finished in plaster, and she probably wore a veil. Her fairly narrow, flat forehead is delineated by gently curving brows. Her sharply pointed almondshaped eyes have ridged eyes lids; the upper lids pass over the lower lids at the outer corners of her eyes. Her distant glance gives her a serene expression. Her full, round face has a strong, straight, and prominent nose with small nostrils. She has a full, slightly open mouth with soft fleshy lips. Her round chin protrudes from her heavy jowls. Especially noteworthy are the many traces of paint that

58

Plate3 .8

Berenice II Euergetis

Ptolemaic queen, white marble (h. 46cm), ca. 250–200 BCE, Alexandria; GRMA inv. 3908.54 Courtesy of Kyriakos Savvopoulos and Robert S. Bianchi, the GraecoRoman Museum, Alexandria.

still remain: small curls over the forehead, eyebrows, eye lashes, and pupils are detailed in black; the hair and eyebrows have traces of reddish brown; there is red on the lips; and traces of gilding indicate that the face was once fully or partially covered with gold leaf. Her

Plate3 .9

Possible portrait of Berenice II, polychrome marble (h. 32 cm), ca. 246–221 BCE, Hermopolis Magna, Egypt; RMM inv. B.264.55 Photograph by M. Lechien © Royal Museum of Mariemont; courtesy of Annie Verbanck-Piérard, Curator, Graeco-Roman Department.

60

Berenice II Euergetis

facial features do seem to resemble those of the numismatic portraiture of Berenice II. If ascribing Hellenistic sculptural portraiture proves difficult, identifying miniature portraits becomes even more problematic— especially in the case of jewelry. An exquisitely carved rosé to red garnet gem, for instance, now held at the Getty Museum in Malibu, depicts a relief bust of the head of a woman considered to represent Berenice II (Plate 3.10(a)).56 She wears a veil over the back of her hair which is fashioned in a wavy melon coiffure bound by a fillet and drawn back into a chignon. Her carefully rendered facial features include a fairly flat forehead; nearly straight slanting eye brow; a wide open, almond-shaped eye with a sharp point; a thick, curving upper lid sloping over a thin, incised lower lid; slightly sagging orbital skin; a bulging cheek almost touching the small nostril of her thin nose; full lips of a small mouth curving downwards; and a flat chin curving into a hint of an double chin. As the subject can only be a member of the Lagid house, an identification with a Ptolemaic queen or princess of the third century BCE appears inescapable, and Berenice II remains the most likely candidate. Intaglio and cameo signet rings of this type, with the draped bust of a veiled female head with melon coiffure, have survived in great numbers and various precious materials—as well as in bronze and iron, ivory, and bone.57 They have been found throughout the Ptolemaic sphere of influence—even in the Black Sea littoral. Such signet rings were probably given by the court to officials who represented Ptolemaic power beyond Alexandria and abroad. A fragmentary bronze example, with a greyish-green patina, its hoop missing and some chipping around the edges, portrays precisely such a relief bust, within an oval bezel (Plate 3.10(b)). The draped and filleted queen, her hair in melon coiffure, may well represent Berenice II,58 but a posthumous bust of Arsinoe II should not be excluded. *

*

*

At the site of ancient Thmouis (mod. Tell el-Timai), close by Mendes in the eastern Delta, two well-preserved, nearly identical mosaics were found during expeditions between 1918 and 1923.59 Both feature a remarkable female head, one within a square frame (Plate 3.11) and the other within a round frame (Plate 3.12). On both mosaics the woman looks slightly to her right with large bulging, wide open eyes. She wears golden pendants in her ears and a fine necklace; additionally

Plate3 .10

(a) Cameo of Ptolemaic queen, pyrope garnet (1.8 cm), ca. 225–200 BCE, Alexandria (?), Egypt; Getty inv. 81.AN.76.59.60 (b) Royal portrait ring, bronze (h. 2.9 cm, 16.51 g), ca. third to second century BCE (provenance unknown); CNG no. 288, lot 746. (a) Courtesy of the J. Paul Getty Museum, Open Content Program. (b) Courtesy of Victor England, the Classical Numismatic Group.

62

Berenice II Euergetis

Plate3 .11

Mosaic with square emblema, signed by Sophilus, ca. 250–200 BCE, Thmouis; GRMA inv.2 1.739.61 Photographs by A. Pelle © Centre d’Études Alexandrines/CNRS; courtesy of Jean-Yves Empereur, Director.

she wears a red tunic (chitōn) underneath a silver suit of armor inlaid with gold, over which she wears a purple mantle (chlamys) with white ends, fastened with a golden brooch (fibula). On her back she carries a round shield (aspis) that is lined with leather and decorated with golden patterns on the inside. Over her left shoulder she holds a mast fitted with a yardarm from which flow the tasseled ends of the royal fillet (diadēma) with white and silver bands. Most noteworthy, perhaps, is the prow of a ship that she wears

Berenice II in Art and Artifacts

63

as a crown. Although poorly visible on reproductions, the prows on the two mosaics are decorated with rows of dolphins and sea serpents, herald’s staffs (caducei) and horns of plenty (cornucopiae).

Plate3 .12

Detail of mosaic with round emblema, ca. 200–150 BCE, Thmouis; GRMA inv. 21.736.62 Photographs by A. Pelle © Centre d’Études Alexandrines/CNRS; courtesy of Jean-Yves Empereur, Director.

64

Berenice II Euergetis

While initially identified as a personification of Alexandria, or a representation of the Tyche of Alexandria, Daszewski (1985) has convincingly argued for an identification with Berenice II. The combination of military and naval symbols (viz., cuirass and shield, prow and mast), together with royal attributes (viz., purple chlamys and white and silver diadēma) certainly evince a Ptolemaic significance expressing the glory and victory of the Lagid empire. The globular eyes are comparable to Ptolemaic numismatic portraiture of Arsinoe II and Berenice II; the jewelry is similar to that of Berenice II and Arsinoe III on their respective coins. The deified queen is thus portrayed with idealizing, rather than realistic facial features (viz., corpulent face with globular eyes and protruding chin) that intimate her divine power. Berenice’s husband, Ptolemy III, erected an impressive gateway (propylon), lined with sphinxes, leading to the enclosed and columned hall (hypostylos) left unfinished by Nectanebo I (Nekhtnebef; r. 380– 362 BCE). This hall stands to the south of the Chonsu Temple, which was originally constructed under Ramses II (Ramesses; r. 1279–1213 BCE), and which itself is part of the vast temple complex at ancient Thebes (mod. Karnak) in Upper Egypt. Dedicated to Amun-Ra, Mut and Chonsu, this vast complex was begun during the reign of Sesostris I (Senusret; r. 1971–1926 BCE). The so-called “Euergetes Gate” itself measures over 20 meters (65+ ft.), its lintel adorned with a large winged solar disc, and is decorated with hieroglyphs and relief scenes depicting the king before various gods, including the “Theoi Adelphoi (Sibling Gods)”—Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. Of particular interest for the present subject is the relief on which the king and queen appear on the godly side of the scene, receiving millions of years of rule from the falcon god Chonsu, who stands before them (Plate 3.13(a)).63 Ptolemy III is clad in the Pharaonic Cheb-Sed dress, while Berenice II wears a ceremonial robe that is wrapped over her shoulder and tied between her breasts. Close by present-day Dendera (Tentyris in Greek; Ta-ynt-netert or Iunet in Egyptian) near Qena in Upper Egypt, on the edge of the desert lies the chiefly Graeco-Roman temple complex dedicated to the sky goddess Hathor—although the Sixth-Dynasty Pharaoh Pepi I (r. 2332–2283 BCE) already built on the site.64 The temple walls of the main temple of Hathor are decorated, among others, with relief scenes showing Cleopatra VII (r. 51–30 BCE) and her son Caesarion.65 Within the main temple, shrines or chapels were reserved for the worship of individual Egyptian gods such as Isis and Osiris, Ihy and Harsomtus, Ra and Sokar, besides Hathor herself. The ceiling of the

Plate3 .13

(a) Ptolemy III and Berenice II on relief scene of Euergetes Gate, Karnak.67 (b) The Zodiac of Dendera, sandstone bas-relief (2.53 × 2.55 m), ca. 50 BCE, Dendera; Louvre inv. D 38.68 (a) Courtesy of Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, University of Edinburgh. (b) Engraving from Descr. Eg., Antiquité 4 (1817), pl. 21; courtesy of Bibliothèque et Centre de recherche en informatique, MINES ParisTech.

66

Berenice II Euergetis

chapel for the commemoration of the resurrection of Osiris, on the roof of the temple, was adorned with a circular sandstone bas-relief (dated ca. 50 BCE) that illustrates the vault of heaven with the constellations including the 12 signs of the zodiac (Plate 3.13(b)).66 Most signs are still easily recognizable (Aries, Taurus, Cancer, Leo, Libra, Scorpius, Sagittarius, Capricorn, and Pisces); others are rendered in Egyptian iconography (e.g., the Nile god Hapy, pouring water from two vases, representing Aquarius). This famous Zodiac of Dendera, now at the Louvre in Paris, is invaluable for documenting the adoption of neo-Babylonian astronomy in Hellenistic Egypt. Ptolemy III and Berenice II appear frequently in epigraphic material from Egypt and abroad attesting to the (lifetime cult) of the “Theoi Euergetai.”69 Indeed, the famous Canopus Decree (dated 238 BCE) informs that the synod of priests who met in that city (mod. Abuqir) just to the northeast of Alexandria gathered “in the temple of the Benefactor Gods at Canopus.”70 Another inscription from the same city commemorates a dedication made by one Artemidorus: ΣΑΡΑΠΙΔΙ ΚΑΙ ΙΣΙΔΙ ΚΑΙ ΝΕΙΛΩΙ ΚΑΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΩΙ ΚΑΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΙ ΒΕΡΕΝΙΚΗΙ ΘΕΟΙΣ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΑΙΣ ΑΡΤΕΜΙΔΩΡΟΣ ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΓΥΛΙΩΤΗΣ “Artemidorus, the son of Apollonius, from Bargylia, [set this up] to Sarapis, Isis and Nilus, as well as to King Ptolemy (III) and Queen Berenice (II), the Benefactor Gods.”71

Canopus, named by the ancient Greeks after the helmsman of the Spartan king Menelaus because he was believed to have died along the coast there from snakebite, was sacred to Osiris.72 The local emanation of the god was worshipped in the shape of a human-headed jar, which referred to the sacred water of the Nile and its flooding, with which Osiris Hydreus was associated. Artemidorus’s dedication to Sarapis, Isis, and the personified Nile might indicate a joint worship of these gods, with statues of the reigning king and queen set up in the same sanctuary as “synnaoi theoi (temple-sharing gods).”73 As the exact provenance of the inscription is unknown, it cannot be determined whether the dedication was erected in the main temple of Osiris, a separate temple of Sarapis, or the above-mentioned temple of the Benefactor Gods. Of interest, too, is that the no doubt

Berenice II in Art and Artifacts

Plate3 .14

67

Dedicatory inscription, nummulitic limestone (17 × 33 cm), ca. 246–222 BCE, Canopus; GRMA inv. 18.402.74 Courtesy of Kyriakos Savvopoulos and Robert S. Bianchi, the GraecoRoman Museum, Alexandria.

wealthy dedicant hails all the way from Bargylia (mod. Boğaziçi) in Caria (between Iasus and Myndus, in Asia Minor, mod. Turkey). *

*

*

Due to the welcome reception of Catullus’s Coma Berenices among Renaissance artists, Berenice II remained for long a beloved subject in modern works of art. For instance, one of the characters in The Masque of Queens (1609)—a play composed by Ben Jonson (1572–1637) for Queen Anne, the wife of King James I—was called Berenice. She was also the subject of several works by the prominent Italian Baroque painter Bernardo Strozzi (ca. 1581–1644). Indeed, Berenice’s afterlife in modern art is worthy of a separate in-depth study. Two further examples will here have to suffice. Venetian Rococo artist Rosalba Carriera (1673–1757), who pioneered portraiture in pastel (rather than oil painting), preferred

Plate3 .15

“Berenice” by Carriera, pastel on paper (45.7 × 34.5cm), ca. 1741, Venice; gift of Mrs. William D. Vogel in memory of her mother Mrs. Ralph Harman Booth; DIA inv. 56.264.75 Courtesy of Pamela Marcil, Public Relations Director, Detroit Institute of Arts.

Plate3 .16

“Chioma di Berenice” by Borghi, white marble (h. 190 cm), ca. 1878, Milan; Lucien Arkas Collection.76 Courtesy of Sotheby’s, London.

70

Berenice II Euergetis

for its appealing softness and intimacy, created a “Berenice” (ca. 1741) on gray-blue laid paper, mounted onto thin canvas (Plate 3.15). Berenice, with large pendants in her ears, is here shown about to cut her braided hair with a pair of scissors. The sitter of the portrait is Caterina Sagredo Barbarigo (flor. 1730–1750), considered one of the most famous and most beautiful Venetian patrician noblewomen of the eighteenth century. Barbarigo was the hostess of a well-respected literary salon, known for her intellectual interest, and a skilled rider—much like Berenice herself. Barbarigo was the model of several portraits by Carriera in pastel as well as oil paint. Demonstrating superb qualities and talent, Ambrogio Borghi (1849–1887) reached great fame in his short life. His exquisite “Chioma di Berenice,” exhibited at the Exposition Universelle of 1878 in Paris, truly embodies the pinnacle of late-nineteenth-century Italian sculpture (Plate 3.16). With outstretched arms overstepping the gilded gray veined marble column and wooden base, the work stands just under three meters tall. The masterful verisimilitude of the female figure’s erotic anatomy, with her sensuously supple skin, is astoundingly moving. The body’s graceful movement is enhanced by the fluttering curls of her long tresses flowing down her back. Details allude to the setting of the subject: the Egyptian shape of the column, decorated with ankh signs; a golden winged solar disc with double uraei on the base; her necklace with winged solar disc and ushabty; the vulture cap on her head; and behind her on a rocky shape at her right foot the implements of the offering she is about to bring to the gods. “Chioma di Berenice” was hailed with panting praise by art critic and director of the École des Beaux-Arts Charles Blanc: Le corps de la statue est d’une beauté si parfaite, qu’on la croirait moulée sur la plus belle jeune fille de toute Italie. The body of the statue is of such a perfect beauty, that one would believe it was molded from the most beautiful young girl of all Italy.77

The sculpture was part of the Zomzée collection, from where it was acquired in 1904 by a Monsieur Rouleau, who had a special alcove constructed in his private residence in Brussels. There the “Chioma di Berenice” remained until it was consigned for auction at Sotheby’s in 2011, where it was acquired by Lucian Arkas.78

CHAPTER 4

ASTRONOMY AND IDEOLOGY IN THE COMA BERENICES*

ἦ με Κόνων ἔβλεψεν ἐν ἠέρι τὸν Βερενίκης βόστρυχον ὃν κείνη πᾶσιν ἔθηκε θεοῖς

B

erenice II dedicated a lock of her hair to all the gods in the temple of Arsinoe-Aphrodite on Cape Zephyrium for the safe return of Ptolemy III from the Laodicean War in Syria. Said temple had been established in honor of Arsinoe II by admiral Callicrates near the Canopic mouth of the Nile (ca. 270–268 BCE). While the queen’s action is usually understood as a gesture of personal devotion to her husband, it also carried a potently public, political, and religious message. The Alexandrian poet Callimachus composed an aetium in which he explained how after the ceremony the queen’s lock was carried off by a gentle breeze and placed among the stars as a new constellation, which the mathematician Conon subsequently discovered in the sky. Unfortunately, only a fragment of Callimachus’s original, entitled Coma Berenices (or Βερενίκης πλόκαµος), has been transmitted. Catullus rendered the poem into Latin, which often appears to stay as close to the Greek as possible. There are, however, several considerable deviations between Catullus and Callimachus. The phrase “βουπόρος Ἀρσινόης” (l. 45), for instance, is absent in the Latin; the meaning of Catullus’s “sidera cur iterent” (l. 93) is unclear, and while various emendations have been suggested, nothing comparable seems to have been present in the Greek; Catullus did not translate the last couplet (ll. 94-a–b), of which little survives in the original, so that it remains unclear who addresses these lines (“[χαῖρε] φίλη τεκέεσσι . . . ”) and to whom. Most modern commentators assume that Callimachus composed two versions of the poem—one perhaps for the formal presentation of the catasterism and another after he

72

Berenice II Euergetis

bundled his second collection of aetia. Evidently, the fragmentary papyrus thus contains the initial version, while Catullus apparently translated the revision. Whatever the truth about the discrepancies between Callimachus and Catullus, historians should thus be careful relying solely on the Latin when the Greek is wanting. The Coma Berenices, significantly, is the only canonical constellation named after a historical person, who was moreover still very much alive when the asterism was identified. In his seminal essay “The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure” (1993), Ludwig Koenen argues that “the deification of the queen is anticipated by the catasterism of the lock.”1 We should indeed further contextualize the Coma Berenices within the framework of the Ptolemaic ruler cult, and recognize that rather than the eponymous constellation, deification in fact provides the poem’s raison d’être. To this end, I will examine various astronomical, historical, chronological, and ideological aspects related to the circumstances surrounding Berenice’s offering. While Berenice II is the subject of this essay, our object is to establish greater accuracy in the details of the events and to defend the argument that the queen played an important role in shaping her own deification. Before proceeding, an advance warning about ancient astronomy is in order.2 Before Galileo, all astronomy was based on naked-eye observations augmented by calculations plotted on celestial globes and astrolabes. Visibility of stars depends on a combination of factors: their apparent magnitude, local atmospheric conditions, the observer’s latitude, and so forth. Due to the Earth’s axial tilt, the north celestial pole (currently at Polaris) appears to rotate in a circle over a period of almost 26,000 years, that is, the Great Year. (Thus, Thuban in Draco was the pole star about 3000 BCE.) This same process, called precession, also causes the apparent retrograde motion of the stars—as a result of which the timings of the solstices and equinoxes change in relation to fixed stars. The heliacal rising and setting of stars, similarly, shifts relative to the seasons. Consequently, in Sumerian times (5th–3rd millennium BCE) Aquarius marked winter solstice and Leo summer solstice, while Taurus marked the vernal equinox and Scorpius the autumnal equinox. From Taurus the vernal equinox shifted into Aries (2nd–1st millennium BCE) and is now in Pisces. This retrograde shift of the solstices and equinoxes in relation to the signs of the zodiac occurs over a period of approximately 2,148 years per constellation (when dividing the Great Year into 12 for each sign). Another effect of the axial tilt is that the visibility of certain stars low in the sky gradually changes over

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

73

time, that is, the “zone of avoidance” where southern stars cannot be seen from northern latitudes. Historically, Hipparchus (fl. 150–125 BCE) is known to have recognized the precession of the equinoxes and criticized his predecessors for reporting astronomical observations that were erroneous: in his time they were already some two millennia out of date.3 Modern scholars will therefore be advised not to expect the greatest accuracy when studying astronomical observations, such as heliacal risings, from the early Hellenistic period. *

*

*

The constellation of Coma Berenices has been reckoned among the modern canon of 88 constellations at least since Tycho Brahe’s star catalogue (1602), although it was already included on celestial globes by Caspar Vopel (1536) and Gerardus Mercator (1551).4 In modern astronomy, Coma Berenices is an asterism in the northern sky, which consists of some 40 quite faint stars and further contains the north galactic pole. The constellation’s three main stars (α, β, and γ) have an apparent magnitude between 4.25 and 4.354, while others with a magnitude of 5 or 6 are barely visible to the naked eye. Most of these stars are members of the Coma star cluster (also designated Melotte 111), a nearby open star cluster (approximately 290 light-years away) of rather recently formed stars (approximately 450 million years ago) with a magnitude of 5–10.5 As a separate constellation, Coma Berenices was first identified in honor of Berenice II. The astronomer and mathematician responsible for this identification, Conon of Samos, was active during the midthird century BCE in Alexandria, where he befriended the scientist Archimedes (ca. 287–ca. 212 BCE).6 Conon is credited with composing a seven-volume De Astrologia (long since lost), is attributed recording solar eclipses, lunar phases, seasonal indications (parapegma), the rising and setting of stars, and the movement of constellations, and is said to have made observations not only in Alexandria, but also in Sicily and Italy. He apparently died at a relatively early age. In antiquity, Coma Berenices seems to have consisted of the same three stars counted as main stars in modern astronomy.7 Some ancient authors, however, included seven stars among the asterism.8 In his Almagest, Ptolemy strangely described the constellation as shaped as an ivy leave, while it should more obviously be called triangular.9 Although some ancient sources do state that the constellation can be found “above the lion’s tail,” I have not been able to confirm

74

Berenice II Euergetis

the notion—often repeated in modern literature—that the stars were originally part of the constellation of Leo whether in Greek, Egyptian, or Mesopotamian astronomy.10 In addition to the five planets visible with the naked eye, Classical Greek astronomy recognized only a few named stars, constellations, and star clusters, such as Sirius, Orion, Ursa Major (or at least the Starry Wain), Boötes (or at least Arcturus), and the Pleiades.11 The 12 signs of the zodiac and other asterisms were adopted in the fourth century BCE from the Babylonian system particularly through the work of Eudoxus of Cnidus (fl. 380–355 BCE).12 Stars and constellations received names derived from Greek mythology with the implication that these asterisms physically or spiritually represented the mythic figures after which they were named. The importance cannot be overstated that Coma Berenices is the only canonical constellation ever named after a living historical figure. After his death, the soul of Julius Caesar was indeed believed to have ascended into heaven as a comet visible in the Roman night sky.13 That belief, however, was part of Caesar’s posthumous deification some two centuries after the catasterism of the Lock of Berenice and the lifetime cult of the “Benefactor Gods (Theoi Euergetai)” Ptolemy III and Berenice II. In the De Astronomia attributed to Hyginus (first/second century CE), we read that Berenice had vowed that she would sacrifice a lock of hair if Ptolemy would return from the East victoriously. The text continues: Wherefore she placed the hair, consecrated by this vow, in the temple of Venus Arsinoe Zephyritis, but on the following day it could not be found. When the occurrence made the king anxious, Conon [ . . . ], hoping to gain the king’s favor, said that he had seen the hair established among the constellations and pointed out seven stars without a definite shape which he supposed to be the hair.14

From the various factual errors within the same passage it ought to be clear that we cannot safely trust this account of the historical circumstances surrounding the catasterism of Coma Berenices at face value. For instance, following the official protocol, the author calls Berenice the sister of Ptolemy, and the daughter of Ptolemy (II) and Arsinoe. He states that the king “set out to attack Asia (Asiam oppugnatum profectus esset)” just “a few days after (paucis post diebus)” their marriage. Also compare the two statements that the constellation was “without definite shape (quasdam vacuas a figura)” yet was

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

75

also “arranged in a triangle (in triangulo collocatae).” We therefore have reason to reexamine the course of these events. *

*

*

In “The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II,” we have seen that Ptolemy and Berenice were most likely married shortly after his accession to the Egyptian throne (January 246 BCE).15 More than half a year later, the Seleucid king Antiochus II died in Ephesus (late? July 246 BCE).16 News of his death reached Babylon on the 20th of Abu 66 SE (August 19, 246 BCE)17 and may have taken an additional week to reach Alexandria.18 Upon the news of Antiochus’s death, the son of Laodice, Seleucus II, was immediately recognized as king in Babylon.19 Berenice Phernophorus, the sister of Ptolemy III and widow of Antiochus II, however, rivaled Laodice’s claim and asserted her son’s right to the succession based on the conditions of her marriage to the Seleucid king.20 For, after the Second Syrian War (259–253 BCE), Ptolemy II had stipulated that Antiochus could marry Berenice on the condition that the Seleucid king would divorce from Laodice and would recognize Berenice’s eldest son as his heir over the head of Seleucus( II).21 One would expect Ptolemy III to spend about a month mustering forces on the scale of the subsequent campaign. The Egyptian king was besieging Seleucia-on-the-Euphrates (sic), perhaps a resettlement of Sippar, by Kislīmu 66 SE (November 26–December 25, 246 BCE), and Babylon itself by Ṭebētu 66 SE (December 26, 246–January 23, 245 BCE).22 One may thus place Ptolemy in Coele-Syrian Seleucia and Antioch in late October or early November 246 BCE.23 I would therefore propose to date Ptolemy’s departure from Alexandria to early October 246 BCE.24 Modern scholars disagree whether Berenice dedicated her lock for or upon the safe return of her husband; in other words, whether the sacrifice took place in the autumn of 246 or sometime in 245 BCE. It is important to sort out this modern confusion not only for the sake of chronological and factual accuracy, but also to gauge the queen’s actions, and the extent of her independent agency. Below we will have occasion to look in more detail at the chronological indications in Catullus’s version. According to Hyginus, the king had returned from his campaign when the queen sacrificed her lock. It remains uncertain, however, to what information he had access besides Callimachus’s poem,

76

Berenice II Euergetis

or if he supplied the rest himself. The Ptolemaic army besieged Babylon from the 15th of Ṭebētu 66 SE (January 9, 245 BCE) and entered the city on the 26th (January 20). They were still there in Šabāṭu (January 24–February 22) or Addaru (February 23–March 22, 245 BCE). The chronicle that reports this conflict from the Babylonian perspective breaks off before the end of the campaign, but it appears that by the summer of that year the Egyptian army had fully retreated from the region, when Seleucus II was formally recognized in Babylonia.25 Two late authors claim that Ptolemy III was forced to interrupt his Syrian campaign due to unrest (seditio) in Egypt.26 Unfortunately, neither author gives any clue exactly when or why this native uprising occurred. Combining other evidence, however, draws a picture of piracy and brigandage in the Nile delta as a result of a poor flood season (mid-July through mid-November) and the consequent threat of famine.27 The extractions for the military campaign will not have improved the socioeconomic situation in the country. The Canopus Decree (238 BCE) expresses the priestly synod’s gratitude toward the king and queen for averting starvation through the importation and distribution of grain.28 Scholars do not agree whether the poor inundation happened in the summer of 246, 245 BCE, or later still.29 From the 24th of Ṭebētu (January 18, 245) onwards, at any rate, the aforementioned Babylonian chronicle refers to a commander of the Egyptian troops, rather than the king himself.30 This commander may be the Xanthippus who (according to Jerome) had been installed as Ptolemaic governor of Mesopotamia.31 If so, we might surmise that Ptolemy III returned to Egypt after handing over military command to Xanthippus in January 245 BCE.32 The birth order of the children of Ptolemy III and Berenice II suggested in “The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II” remains inconclusive in terms of absolute chronology. The eldest, Arsinoe III, must, nevertheless, have been born somewhere between late 246 and mid-245 BCE. (That is to say, she must have been conceived in the period after her parents were married and before her father embarked on his Syrian campaign, viz. February–September 246, and born nine months later, viz. November 246–June 245.) The birth of her brother Ptolemy IV, however, cannot be dated with any precision, although it probably happened in the summer of 244 BCE. Unless there were twins among the other children, namely, we must account for four more births (those of Magas, Alexander, “Lysimachus,” and Berenice) before 238 BCE. What we can deduce from the birth of their

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

77

children is that, apart from a separation in 246/5 BCE, Ptolemy III and Berenice II were frequently together during these years to allow for this rapid succession of births.33 Let us now turn to see if we can gather any chronological clues from the poem Coma Berenices—if not from Callimachus’s original, at least from Catullus’s Latin translation. As modern commentators have noted before, the poet telescopes events by having the king depart on his Syrian campaign shortly after his wedding, and having the queen offer her sacrifice immediately thereafter.34 Unfortunately much of the first 43 lines of Callimachus’s original are lost, so that we have to rely on Catullus’s translation precisely at this important historical point. Consequently, it remains impossible to determine whether the apparent ambiguity about the moment when Berenice II offered her lock is due to Catullus or was present in Callimachus’s version as well. After praising Conon for his vast astronomical wisdom, Catullus introduces the poem’s subject, “the lock from the head of Berenice,” “whom to many of the goddesses, she had pledged, stretching forth her smooth arms.”35 Although the verb polliceor can mean “to pledge” in the sense of “to promise, vow,” the meaning here clearly is “to hold forth” in the sense of “to offer.” To complete the image the poet adds that the queen stretched out her arms—a gesture of offering, not of vowing. In other words, the gist is that Berenice dedicated a lock of hair (shortly) after Ptolemy had departed and had not yet returned from Syria. After a mournful interlude, addressing the queen’s grief over her separation from her husband, Catullus states unequivocally that the lock was offered (pollicita) for the king’s safe return: atque ibi me cunctis pro dulci conjuge divis non sine taurino sanguine pollicita es, si reditum tetulisset. And there to all the gods for your sweet husband you offered me not without the blood of bulls, so he should hasten his return. (ll. 33–35)

Confusingly, just two lines later Catullus contradicts himself by implying that the lock was sacrificed after the completion of the war, in fulfillment of the queen’s former vow: “This being done [scil., the campaign], I am given as due to the celestial assembly and dissolve your former vows with a new offering.”36

78

Berenice II Euergetis

Part of the chronological confusion doubtless stems from the fact that Callimachus could not have written the poem until after Ptolemy III had indeed returned, and had “added captured Asia to the borders of Egypt.”37 One might be tempted, however, to understand the statement that “captured Asia” had been “added to the borders of Egypt” as an indication that, while the king had returned to Egypt, the war itself had not yet ended. If so, that would place the poem’s composition in the first half of 245 BCE—for by July of that year (at the latest) the Ptolemaic army had quit Babylonia.38 Incidentally, this information gleaned from the Babylonian chronicle demonstrates that the Laodicean War lasted less than a year (October/November 246–June/July 245 BCE)—instead of several years, as is commonly assumed by modern historians.39 Seleucus’s attempt in subsequent years to win back territory in Coele-Syria remained unsuccessful.40 Trogus speaks of war between Ptolemy and Seleucus in Syria, and Justin adds that the latter was defeated in battle by the former. Whether Seleucid forces actually waged war with the Ptolemaic army or rather with stationed garrison troops, cannot be so easily determined. Seleucus was soon distracted by the secessionist uprising of his younger brother Antiochus Hierax in Asia Minor. Consequently, Ptolemy was able to negotiate peace terms that were highly in his favor. Ptolemaic forces may have subsequently been operating along the Asia Minor coast. The only conceivable reason to prolong the military conflict between Ptolemy III and Seleucus II (in my mind) is to add Hierax’s seccession as a second phase to the Third Syrian War, with the Laodicean War as the first phase. While Catullus contradicts himself whether Berenice dedicated her lock of hair before or after Ptolemy III came back from Syria, one might prefer giving more weight to the gesture depicting the queen stretching forth her arms to bring the sacrifice for the sake of the king’s safe return. We will nevertheless have to look for other clues, beyond our own personal predilection as to what seems most appropriate. For this we might begin by investigating the possible astronomical indications in the poem itself. One first such hint might be glimpsed from the reference to the moon goddess: Triviam furtim sub Latmia saxa relegans dulcis amor gyro devocet aereo Sweet love calls Trivia from her airy circuit, banishing her secretly to the rocky cave of Latmus (ll. 5–6)

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

79

Trivia (Hecate in Greek myth) here is an emanation of Selene, and the lines allude to the aetiology of the new moon. For at this time Selene was believed to visit her earthly lover Endymion on Mt. Latmus in Caria (Asia Minor).41 If this were to be taken as an indication of time, it could mean that the catasterism of the Lock of Berenice occurred during new moon.42 Naturally, we would have to know the month and year before we could calculate relevant lunar phases.43 There is a frustratingly obscure mention of Selene’s brother Helius farther on in the poem, at the point from where Callimachus’s original is preserved: [ἀμνά]μω[ν Θείης ἀργòς ὑ]περφέ[ρ]ετ[αι], βουπόρος Ἀρσινόης μετρός σεο, καὶ διὰ μέ[σσου] Μηδείων ὀλοαὶ νῆες ἔβησαν Ἄθω. which the bright son of Theia traverses, the bull-piercing cusp of your mother Arsinoe, when the deadly Median ships sailed mid through Athos. (ll. 44–46)

Unfortunately, the reference to the “bull-piercing cusp (or spit)” is missing in Catullus’s translation: ille quoque eversus mons est, quem maximum in oris progenies Thiae clara supervehitur, cum Medi peperere novum mare, cumque juventus per medium classi barbara navit Athon. Even that mountain was overthrown, the greatest on the shores which the bright son of Theia traverses, when the Medes created a new sea, and their youth with their barbarian division sailed mid through Athos. (ll. 43–46)

Could it be that Catullus changed the line, because he did not understand the reference, or did Callimachus revise it for his supposed second edition? Whichever the case may be, Huxley argues that the allusion describes Mt. Athos as the bull-piercing spit of Arsinoe, because the mountain lies in Acte, the easternmost peninsula of the Chalcidice in Macedonia, which was once home of Arsinoe’s first husband King Lysimachus.44 In Sophocles’s expression “Mt. Athos casts its shadow on the back of the Lemnian bull.”45 This expression, however, applies only at sunset, as the island of Lemnos lies to the east of the Chalcidice.

80

Berenice II Euergetis

The scholiast on the Coma Berenices adds the further explanation that “cusp” here means “obelisk.”46 As Koenen explains, this clue invokes Egyptian symbolism in which the first rays of the sun were thought to strike the tip of the obelisk.47 In front of the temple of Arsinoe in Alexandria, moreover, stood an obelisk.48 The “obelisk” Mt. Athos, in other words, functions as a territorial marker connected with Arsinoe, whose “bull-piercing cusp” catches the first sun rays in the morning and casts long shadows across the Aegean in the evening. As Mt. Athos lies in the northern Aegean, it remains difficult to see from what perspective Helius could be said to circle around or traverse it—unless, perhaps, we are meant to see the mountain through the eyes of the Lock of Berenice up in the northern sky. The image seems most appropriate, though, around summer solstice (June 27/26, 246/245 BCE). Another involved imagery in the poem that may include an astronomical indication of time is the catasterism of Coma Berenices itself. We are told how the queen offered her lock of hair in the temple of Arsinoe at Cape Zephyrium, but that a gentle breeze snatched the lock away, bathing it in water and driving it through the humid air to place it as a new constellation in Cypris’s lap or bosom. Callimachus calls Zephyr “kinsman (γνωτός)” of Ethiopian Memnon, son of Tithonus and Eos.49 The allusion perhaps allows the poet to call to mind the colossal statues near Egyptian Thebes that were associated with Memnon at least since the time of Herodotus (2.106); the Ethiopian king, of course, also fought on the Trojan side, and gained immortality after he was slain by Achilles.50 The cardinal and seasonal wind gods, however, were neither from Ethiopia nor sons of Tithonus, but of Eos and Astraeus.51 The westerly wind Zephyr was associated with the soft breezes of spring and early summer; Notus was connected with the hot winds of late summer from the south and the rain storms of autumn; the easterly wind Eurus was originally not associated with any season; and Boreas was identified as the cold and violent winter storms from the north. Since it is Zephyr who is said to snatch the lock into the sky, one might be tempted to interpret the statement as a hint of the season, namely spring or early summer, in which the catasterism occurred. It has also been suggested that the erudite allusion to Zephyr’s kinship with Memnon through their mother Eos, the goddess of dawn, must be taken as a clue to the hour at which the lock was snatched away, namely about sunrise.52

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

81

To return to the celestial ascension of the lock of hair, the mention of “humid air” after “bathing in water” before taking its place “among the immortals” would seem an appropriate description of the constellation’s course through the night sky.53 That is to say, the poet envisions how the lock became a constellation, by flying off from the temple, through the water of the ocean and the humid air above the horizon, across the sky among the immortals. Simultaneously, this aetiology of the lock’s catasterism might point to a time when the constellation actually does appear above the horizon. In fact, Stephanie West suggests that the imagery was meant to allude to the heliacal rising of Coma Berenices.54 For, a constellation’s heliacal rising is the time when it is again visible in the night sky shortly before dawn after it has been invisible for a certain period at least during part of the night. West follows Lobel, who was informed that the heliacal rising of the constellation occurred on September 3/4, 246 BCE at the latitude of Alexandria.55 Taking into account the poor visibility at sunrise of the constellation (of 4th to 6th magnitude stars), West argues that Conon would have allowed for several days to elapse before presenting his astronomical “discovery” to the queen. As proposed above, though, Ptolemy III was most likely still mustering forces in September and left Egypt only in early October 246 BCE. West’s information is unfortunately not entirely accurate, because it does not seem to be based on calculations from naked-eye observation. The ancient constellation of Coma Berenices (α–γ Com) would actually have been visible in the northern sky at the latitude of Alexandria (31° 12ʹ N) at least during some part of the night throughout most of the year.56 The first star of the constellation that would become visible in the northeastern morning twilight sky about one hour before sunrise (heliacal rising) was γ Com on September 1/2, while α Com was the last of the three main stars to appear on September 20/21, 246 BCE. Conversely, γ Com was the first star to disappear in the northwestern evening sky about one hour after sunset (heliacal setting) on September 6/7, while the last one was β Com (V = 4.25) on September 25/26, 245 BCE, which is also the brightest of the constellation. One should note that the dates of first and last visibility have several days to a week of uncertainty due to variations in the atmospheric conditions (i.e., weather).57 Significantly, only α Com was wholly invisible at night for about two weeks from September 6/7 to 20/21, 246/245 BCE.

82

Berenice II Euergetis

If we wish to time Conon’s discovery of the new constellation to its heliacal rising, we would have to date the event to late September. Such a date, however, would not fit the proposed time at which the king departed Alexandria for his Syrian campaign. The timing of Berenice’s dedication at the constellation’s heliacal rising, moreover, could hardly have been coincidental. So, one would also have to argue that the queen chose the time of her offering precisely to correspond with the heliacal rising of the constellation named in her honor. In other words, we would have to construe an elaborate scheme in which the whole event was invented from the start, rather than created after the disappearance of the lock. I would rather offer an alternative explanation for the poetic imagery of the lock passing through the sky. For, if Callimachus meant to describe the actual course of the constellation at night, instead of the (imagined) mythological catasterism, one has to account for the poet’s full depiction: the lock of Berenice’s hair being bathed in water, driven through the humid air and placed among the immortals. At the heliacal rising the constellation is merely visible above the horizon about an hour before sunrise (ca. 5:30 am, local time, in September). The elevation at which the stars of Coma Berenices become visible above the horizon—in northeastern direction (azimuth = 54º)—depends on both the magnitude of the stars and the local atmospheric conditions. During clear nights the atmosphere of Alexandria may be characterized by an average visual extinction of 0.35 magnitudes in Zenith. In other words, the constellation is never visible with the naked eye directly above the horizon—that is, historically its stars cannot ever have been seen to actually emerge from the sea. The individual main stars of the constellation become visible (over a period of about three weeks) before morning twilight at an elevation between ca. 18º and 20º above the horizon (arcus visionis). In short, due to the poor visibility of the constellation’s stars—not to mention the fact that only one of them is wholly invisible for less than two weeks a year—its heliacal rising is hardly a remarkable (and barely noticeable) event. Would we wish to see Coma Berenices move upward through the sky—as Callimachus portrays—we should better wait for some time late in winter, from January through March 245 BCE. The constellation is in fact best seen in the Northern hemisphere in the month of May during the early evening (i.e., after Coma Berenices reaches upper culmination in April at midnight, itself not an event that stands out), but by that time it rather moves downward across the sky toward the

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

83

northwest. By September one star after another would start to disappear over the course of about three weeks in the northwestern evening sky about one hour after sunset. By February or March 245 BCE, at any rate, Ptolemy III may already have returned to Egypt. Catullus refers to the constellation of the Herdsmen as “slow Boötes, who scarcely late at night dips in deep Oceanus.”58 The expression leaves the erroneous impression that the constellation is nearly circumpolar (i.e., that it remains visible at night throughout the year). From the latitude of Alexandria, however, Boötes does appear to “dip” below the horizon. Around the time of 246/5 BCE, Arcturus (α Boo, δ = +32) would have culminated near midnight for a period of about two weeks around April 1. The first bright star of the constellation to disappear in the northwestern evening sky an hour after sunset about mid-September 246/5 BCE (depending on atmospheric conditions) was η Boo; and the last to reappear in the northeastern morning sky an hour before sunrise around October 10 was ζ Boo. The reappearance of Arcturus, one of the brightest stars (V = –0.04 mag) in the night sky, around mid-September was cautiously observed in Antiquity—as it signaled the coming of tempestuous weather.59 Thus, if the poet meant to imply that Boötes was visible at the time of the dramatic events, they should have occurred between late October (246 BCE) and early September (245 BCE). Callimachus’s oblique allusion to Corona Borealis (bordering Hercules and Boötes) might perhaps be taken as another astronomical indication of time intending to suggest that it was visible during the events in question.60 The small constellation, however, is always visible in Alexandria at least during some part of the night throughout the year. The reference can, therefore, not be taken as a significant chronological clue. In fact, we should verify the visibility of all constellations mentioned in the poem, so as to check whether they synchronize significantly.61 Due to their low declination, the equatorial constellations of the zodiac are only visible at any given latitude for part of the year. There is only the briefest mention of Leo in Catullus (l. 65)—the line in Callimachus’s original is lost. From Alexandria in Egypt (mid-third century BCE), Leo was best viewed from mid-winter through early spring. Its midnight culmination occurred in early February (α Leo); the constellation was (partially) invisible from June until September.62 We will return later to the possible meaning of the poet’s portrayal of Virgo as the Rhamnusian Maiden (ll. 65 and 71). The constellation was partially visible during the whole year, with its midnight culmination

84

Berenice II Euergetis

around mid-March. From mid-August its stars began to set below the horizon after dusk and from late October they rose again before dawn.63 The situation is a little more complicated for Ursa Major (“Lycaon’s daughter Callisto”).64 Its most recognizable feature, the Big Dipper (the “Starry Wain” or “Plough”), is visible throughout the year anywhere in the Northern hemisphere. For, the seven stars of this asterism (α-η UMa) are circumpolar. For this reason, the ancient Greeks called the constellation not only “Ἄρκτος (Bear)” or “Ἄμαξα (Wagon”), but also “Ἑλίκη (Spiral).”65 Due to its large size and the divergence of its stars’s declination, the entire (modern) constellation would not have been visible in Alexandria throughout the year. It would have been best viewed from mid-winter through early summer, with midnight culmination occurring around mid-February, but between July and August some of its fainter stars would have dropped below the horizon. Combining this information tells us not only that from mid-June at least through early September most of the constellations under question would have been (partially) invisible, but also that the best time to see them all in the early evening sky would have been in the month of May—just as Coma Berenices itself. Incidentally, new moons occurred on April 20, May 19, and June 18 in 245 BCE.66 Stephanie West suggests that, given the prominence of Aphrodite in the poem, one would also expect the planet Venus to play a part in the Lock’s catasterism. (Note, however, that the poem makes explicit reference neither to the planet nor to the Morning or Evening Star.) West holds that around 10/11, September 246/5 BCE Venus passed from Leo to Virgo (Right Ascension (RA) = 12h), “but was invisible, as the sun was also in Virgo.”67 (The sky is divided into 24 hours, starting at the Vernal Equinox, with each point measured eastward along the equator in RA.) Regardless of the fact that it could hardly have been significant for Callimachus to inform his readers that the Morning Star was invisible, West nonetheless finds confirmation of her calculation that the heliacal rising of Coma Berenices occurred about September 3. She points out that Callimachus’s allusion to the “pure bosom of Cypris”68 should be understood in a half-literal sense, just as the term was used for the sea and sea-goddesses like Thetis.69 That is to say, she believes that the poet described how the wind placed the queen’s lock in the “humid air” above the sea. West also takes Callimachus’s “ostentatious erudition” of calling Zephyr “the kinsman of Ethiopian

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

85

Memnon” (l. 52) as an indication of the hour at which the wind god snatched the lock of hair away. For, since both Memnon and Zephyr are sons of Eos, the goddess of dawn, she suggests that the event must have occurred around the morning twilight (again, a seeming confirmation of her belief that the events coincided with the constellation’s heliacal rising). As noted, West’s calculation of the heliacal rising of Coma Berenices is unfortunately mistaken, as of the three main stars of the constellation, only α Com would have been wholly invisible at night to the naked eye from about September 8 to 20, 246/5 BCE. To this observation I should hasten to add that the planet Venus would have been visible from Alexandria in the eastern sky as the Morning Star from about January 20, to October 6, 246 BCE. (West is thus mistaken in believing that the Morning Star was invisible in early September because the Sun was in Virgo.) The planet then remained invisible for two months to reappear as the Evening Star on the western horizon shortly after sunset about December 6, 246 BCE. From about August 7 to 26, 245 BCE, Venus would again be invisible, after which it would appear again as the Morning Star. (Due to atmospheric conditions these dates all have an uncertainty of about a week in both directions). For an observer in Alexandria, Venus had entered the zodiacal sign of Leo about August 18 and Virgo September 11, 246 BCE; it then passed into Libra around October 5, and (invisibly) into Scorpius by October 29 and Sagittarius by November 22; the planet would move into Capricorn about December 16, into Aquarius around January 9, 245 BCE and Pisces around February 2, Aries by February 26, Taurus by March 22, Gemini on April 16, and Cancer on May 13; Venus would enter Leo once more about June 11, going into retrograde from the evening station about July 30 until the morning station around September 10, 245 BCE. In short, it is not evident that Venus’ celestial course through the signs of the zodiac was of any relevance to Callimachus. As such, West’s idea that the planet played a role in the aetiological myth of the catasterism would seem to be an over-interpretation of the poem. To summarize our findings so far, there are no unequivocal chronological indications in the Coma Berenices that could be gauged from the astronomical conditions described in the poem. There is, nevertheless, a confluence of hints that imply a date in the month of May, when all mentioned constellations around Coma Berenices would actually have been visible in the evening sky over Alexandria in 245

86

Berenice II Euergetis

BCE. From the poem alone it cannot be deduced whether Berenice II

dedicated her lock of hair for or upon the safe return of Ptolemy III from his Syrian campaign. If the internal evidence of Callimachus’s Coma Berenices cannot help us determine whether the queen made her sacrifice before or after the king’s return, it might prove beneficial taking a wider look at offerings of hair so as to contextualize both the poem and the events it describes. Throughout the ancient Mediterranean, namely, the cutting and offering of tresses were often performed as rituals marking an existential transition or a pledge for salvation.70 As a sign of mourning, this ritual is well attested for ancient Greece.71 Grave-marking amphorae offer visual representations of the tearing of hair dating from the late geometric (eighth century BCE) through the archaic and classical periods.72 Scenes of cutting hair are well known, too, for instance from the Iliad—commemorating the deaths of Patroclus and Hector—or from Euripides’s tragedies.73 Hair offerings are found in Pharaonic tombs, although it does not appear that Egyptians sheared or tore their hair as a sign of mourning.74 In the Ptolemaic period, however, it seems that the native population did adopt the Greek custom of offering shorn hair to the dead.75 A Ptolemaic alabastrum (perfume flask) in the Allard Pierson Museum (Amsterdam) might be interpreted as portraying Cleopatra I ritually tearing her tresses in mourning for the deceased Ptolemy V (pl. 7d).76 On closer inspection, however, the queen does not appear to pull her hair at all, and the significance of her gesture remains unclear. Occasional references, for instance, in the Hebrew Bible to the shaving of hair indicate that in the Near East, too, this was a sign of deep sorrow.77 Ancient rites of passage could similarly be accompanied by dedications of hair.78 Dedicatory epigrams in the Anthologia Palatina, for instance, confirm that girls marked their transition into marriageable age by sacrificing their locks to Artemis, while boys marked their adolescence by offering the shavings of their first beard to Apollo; other deities could likewise receive hair offerings.79 Egyptian boys and girls wore a “lock of youth” on the side of their otherwise shaven head, which they dedicated upon entering puberty; hair offerings could also be made in fulfillment of prayers, for instance, after delivery from illness.80 Dedications of hair locks were, furthermore, associated with the transition into married life, which was a time of particular anxiety for young women—as the myths of Persephone or Iphigenia so clearly evince.81 An epigram of Damagetus commemorates that Arsinoe III dedicated a lock of her hair to Artemis on the

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

87

occasion of her wedding to her brother Ptolemy IV.82 The sacrifice signified the bride’s marital commitment: for by cutting off her “maiden hair” she showed her willingness to enter into marriage and womanhood. The dedication of locks, in other words, marked chief stages of a woman’s existence. Hair offerings were, in fact, the most commonly pledged (substitute) sacrifice through which the dedicant surrendered part of himself or herself to a higher power.83 Ritual tearing, shearing, cutting, and/or offering of hair locks, to sum up, was a widespread ancient rite of passage marking times of existential transition and/or crisis such as adolescence, marriage, deliverance, or death. In that respect, Berenice’s votive offering of her lock of hair would be more fitting as prayer for the salvation of Ptolemy, rather than as thanksgiving for his deliverance from peril. Recently Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones and Stephanie Winder proposed that the queen’s dedication at the temple of Arsinoe Zephyritis was accompanied by a lavish ceremonial procession.84 This tempting suggestion shifts our perception of the offering as a mostly private affair at the shrine of her deified “mother” to a conspicuous public event involving citizens and dignitaries. Unfortunately, Llewellyn-Jones and Winder decided that the exact timing of the ceremony and dedication is unimportant for their purpose. I believe, however, that it would be of utmost importance whether such a public ceremony was held in the king’s absence or in his presence. It would have been a significant exercise of female authority if the former was indeed the case, and in an investigation of Berenice’s queenship this question has to be settled. In the absence of supporting evidence for such a procession it is hazardous to speculate too much, but one would assume that Berenice headed the ceremony, attended by priests and high-ranking courtiers, followed by privileged members of the citizenry, and observed by the general populace. Perhaps the procession departed from the royal palace and proceeded to the temple at the Canopic branch of the Nile, some 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) away, a voyage that would take some five or six hours on foot. At this juncture we should also consider several other historical implications of the timing of Berenice’s dedication. Sometime between November 246 BCE and June 245 BCE, the queen would have given birth to her first child, Arsinoe III. The presence of the new born princess would have added poignancy to her mother’s prayer for the king’s salvation. During the flood season (the months after the summer solstice),85 that year’s low inundation would begin to cause

88

Berenice II Euergetis

anxiety that the harvest would prove poor, too.86 The queen’s timing of the sacrifice—say, between November and February—might then have coincided with the spread of this bad news, in an effort to quench growing unrest. Seen in that light, Berenice’s wish for Ptolemy’s safe (and swift) return would have been particularly pertinent. The birth of a princess rather than a prince who could succeed his father may have added to the uncertainty, at court as well as among the populace. I should note that the formal presentation of Conon’s astronomical identification may not have taken place as closely upon Berenice’s dedication as the poem appears to suggest. The reader remembers that the opening lines of the Coma Berenices also telescope events as if they took place shortly after another, while they demonstrably occurred months apart—namely the marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II and the opening of the Syrian War. Similarly, the queen may have dedicated her lock sometime after the king had departed, while the official presentation of the catasterism happened in the king’s presence, after he had returned from Syria. In fact, Alan Cameron precisely proposes to date Callimachus’s Coma Berenices and its public performance to the time after Ptolemy III was recalled to Egypt, which he dates to the summer of 245 BCE.87 A new possibility then presents itself. Up till now I have considered that Callimachus meant to describe the astronomical features of the visible night sky around the time Berenice II dedicated her lock of hair at the temple of Arsinoe Zephyritis. Instead we may now consider the possibility that the poet actually was describing the astronomical conditions at the time of Conon’s formal presentation. (It may even be that the poet confused the two periods, because we have no way of knowing to what extent Conon assisted Callimachus with the astronomical observations described in the Coma Berenices.) I could therefore offer the interpretation that the queen brought the sacrifice after the king had left Egypt, perhaps with her new born child present, possibly to stem the rising unrest due to the low Nile inundation (ca. November 246 to February 245); Conon and Callimachus jointly presented the catasterism of the Lock of Berenice after Ptolemy III had returned from Syria (ca. March–June 245). *

*

*

In addition to historical and chronological aspects, the Coma Berenices also permits an interpretation of ideological implications of the

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

89

poem’s themes.88 One of the more puzzling sections in the poem concerns the contrast between ointments and perfumes (ll. 76–88).89 The Lock complains: ἀσχάλλω κορυφῆς οὐκέτι θιξόμενος, ἧς ἄπο παρθενίη μὲν ὅτ’ ἦν ἔτι πολλὰ πέπωκα λιτά, γυναικείων δ’ οὐκ ἀπέλαυσα μύρων. I am vexed that I may no longer touch her head, from which I had no enjoyment of womanly myrrh, though when she was a maiden I drank much plain. (ll. 76–78)

As Lorna Holmes explains, the contrast between the “plain oil” of maidens and the “lush perfumes” of married women draws on the distinction between virginal chastity and sensual seduction.90 In Callimachus’s Hymnus in Lavacridum Palladis, Pallas Athena prefers “manly olive oil” and “simple unguents” as well as a comb. Perfumes, mixed unguents, alabaster flasks, and mirrors are the prerogatives of Aphrodite.91 Koenen elaborates, moreover, that the lines insinuate that Berenice II properly conducted herself as a goddess, both before and after her marriage to Ptolemy III.92 She first acted bravely, as a true Athena, defending her chastity and fidelity, and subsequently became a true Aphrodite, gracious and attractive—“still moist with perfume.”93 I should add that the Egyptian counterparts of Athena and Aphrodite are Neith and Hathor. Berenice II was closely associated with these goddesses in her official Two Ladies Name, in addition to Bastet and Mut. Bastet’s name was written with the hieroglyph for “ointment jar” (и, bȝs); her name could therefore be understood to mean “She of the Ointment Jar.” (We are reminded of the Ptoelmaic alabastra here.) The Queen had also revealed herself as a true Mut, in that she had given birth to the King’s first child, Arsinoe III. The queen thus manifested her manifold divine nature, not only as true Neith (Athena) and Hathor (Aphrodite), but also as Bastet (Artemis) and Mut (Demeter). Before the formal closing, the Lock then implores his queen to offer generous gifts (largis muneribus) for placating the goddess Venus (ll. 89–92). The goddess—Callimachus calls her Cypris—may here be identified with Arsinoe Zephyritis. Libations and animal sacrifices were part and parcel of Ptolemaic rituals, such as the Genethlia (royal birthday) and the Panegyris (religious gathering), not to mention the

90

Berenice II Euergetis

Lagid ruler cult.94 Faience wine pitchers (oenochoae) depict deified queens (Plates 3.6 and 3.7(c)) offering libations from a shallow bowl (phialē) on a crenellated altar (bōmos).95 Perfume flasks (alabastra) were perhaps used in royals cults (Plates 3.7(d)), too, for pouring libations of scented oils.96 Egyptian temple-scenes provide depictions of Ptolemaic kings bringing offerings and libations to their divine ancestors.97 The offering of aromatics—incense, perfume, wine, and so forth—was a sacrament in both Greek and Egyptian culture, a ceremony of consecration, which at once had therapeutic, cathartic, and apotropaic aspects.98 The sacramental offering, burning, and/or pouring of fragrant substances, in short, stimulated a consecrated ritual atmosphere in the Lagids’s worship. Venus and her concomitant prerogative eroticism embody an obvious poetic theme in the Coma Berenices. The opening lines move from the celestial sphere that Conon so famously observed to the terrestrial realm of Carian Mt. Latmus, where ageless and deathless Endymion sleeps forever in his cave (ll. 5–6).99 Selene’s periodic visits during the moonless nights, the poem elucidates, are provoked by “sweet love (dulcis amor)” for her once-mortal lover. The moon goddess’ descent from the heavens is an appropriate reversal of the motion the Lock of Berenice will experience ascending to its place among the immortals. The poem then continues by praising the love of Ptolemy and Berenice in ardent terms. It playfully alludes to the “sweet scars (dulcia . . . vestigia)” the king incurred in his “nocturnal struggle, which he waged for the spoils of her virginity” during their wedding night (ll. 11–14).100 The poem dwells on the amorous pleasures that attract newlyweds on their “pure bed (casto . . . cubili)” (ll. 79–88 at 83). It commends the queen for her devotion when her husband “went forth to fight grim war” and she grieved for their “mournful parting” (ll. 19–25).101 The conflation of amorous and military metaphors is certainly pertinent against the backdrop of the Syrian War. However, the poem also draws out the contrast between love and war—naturally in favor of the former. Lastly, in Catullus’s translation, Venus herself appears as the goddess who joins together newlyweds, like Ptolemy and Berenice, in their bridal chamber (ll. 15–18). The poem comprises an unequivocal celebration of the royal marriage, even though it is not an actual epithalamium (ll. 11–35). After the intricate aetiology of chaste unguents and sensual perfumes, which also contrasts marital fidelity and adultery (ll. 76–88), Venus is invoked one more time as Berenice’s protectress.102

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

91

Although the Coma Berenices was ostensibly occasioned by Conon’s discovery and served to praise the king and queen for their love and devotion, on another level the theme of grief runs through the poem as well. In Catullus’s translation there is a teasing quip about the shy tears newlyweds shed in their bridal chamber (ll. 15–18). Such tears, the poem continues, are trivial compared to the queen’s mourning upon the king’s departure (ll. 19–32). Berenice II was consumed with grief, anxious with her whole breast and “bereft of sense.”103 Likewise, the hair that remained on the queen’s head yearned for the lock she had dedicated to all the gods.104 The Lock of Berenice proclaims its own lament as well, vowing it parted from the queen’s head unwillingly and takes no delight in its catasterism among the ancient stars (ll. 39–41 and 71–76).105 Finally, in incredible hyperbole, it implores the heavens to implode so that Aquarius and Orion become neighbors and shine reversely.106 Such an expression of mourning, as I will discuss below, was an important ritual of the royal cult. It is no surprise that dynastic legitimacy and descent play an additional role in the Coma Berenices. Significantly, Callimachus at this early date in the reign of Ptolemy III already adheres to Berenice’s feigned affiliation with the royal house. There is no mention of Magas and Apame. Instead, the divine Arsinoe is called Berenice’s “mother,” and her husband Ptolemy her “dear brother.”107 In “The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II” we saw that this contrived consanguinity would have strengthened the queen’s position at court (in light of her husband’s absence and rising unrest among the populace) by sacralizing her authority.108 In this context it is important, too, that the poem refers only to the divine Arsinoe in the guise of Aphrodite Zephyritis, and leaves her brother and husband Ptolemy II unmentioned. In fact, matrilineal descent is emphatically expressed or implied throughout the Coma Berenices. There is Theia, daughter of Gaia and Uranus, mother of Helius and Selene.109 Her son is not even mentioned by his name, but rather by his maternal descent (l. 44). The references to Zephyr and his Ethiopian kinsman Memnon (l. 52) remind the reader that they have their mother in common—viz., the goddess of the dawn, Eos, herself daughter of Theia.110 The brief allusion to Tethys (l. 70), the “greying” sea goddess, might call to mind that she is also a daughter of Gaia and Uranus, the sister-wife of Oceanus, and the mother of the chief rivers, such as the Nile.111 The invocation of the Rhamnusian Maiden (l. 71) may have been a hint that in some accounts Nemesis rather than Leda was the mother of Helen.112 To

92

Berenice II Euergetis

be sure, fathers are not ignored entirely—for Ariadne is referred to through her father Minos, king of Crete (l. 59)113 and Callisto is called daughter of Lycaon, king of Arcadia (l. 66). The implication, nonetheless, of the relation expressed between Berenice II and Arsinoe II is that the queen inherits her divinity from her (deified) “mother.”114 In connection with the emphasis on matrilineal descent, one should note the attention paid to female agency. First and foremost, of course, in this respect is the role played by Cypris (AphroditeVenus), who is said to place the new catasterism among the ancient stars (l. 64). The divine Arsinoe II, Lady of Zephyrium, instructed her winged steed Zephyr to snatch the queen’s hair from her Canopic shrine (ll. 53–54).115 We should bear in mind, too, that Selene was responsible for the immortalization of her lover Endymion (ll. 5–6) and that it was Eos who raised Orion among the stars (l. 94)—yet it was Zeus who placed Callisto in the sky (l. 66) and Zephyr who carried the Lock away (ll. 52–55). Needless to say, the central figure of the poem is Queen Berenice II, who shows her devotion by dedicating her lock to all the gods and by bringing many other offerings to Arsinoe Zephyritis and Aphrodite Cypris. Such an emphasis on the role of female figures, in short, intimates the central role played by Ptolemaic queens in the sacralization of royal authority. Unsurprisingly, astronomy provides another significant theme in the Coma Berenices. Apart from the eponymous catasterism, the poem references the constellations Ursa Major and Boötes, Leo and Virgo, Corona Borealis, Aquarius and Orion. Several mythic figures may have astronomical importance worth examining as well, such as Selene, Tethys, and Cypris. In considering this symbolism, we should also take into account possible Mesopotamian and/or Egyptian influences, in hopes of deciphering the poem’s often mystifying meaning. In so doing I intend to reveal explanations of allusions that have thus far remained obstinately obscure. Catullus places Coma Berenices correctly between its neighboring constellations: Virginis et saevi contingens namque Leonis lumina, Callisto juncta Lycaoniae, vertor in occasum, tardum dux ante Booten Touching the light of the Virgin and the raging Lion, and joining Lycaon’s daughter Callisto, I turn to my setting, leading before slow Boötes. (ll. 65–67)

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

93

These lines are unfortunately wanting in the fragmentary remains of Callimachus’s original. We cannot tell, therefore, whether Callimachus gave a similar description of Coma Berenices’s location in the sky. The reader might well wonder, though, whether the poet intended to give more than an indication of the Lock’s celestial position. Conon himself might have also chosen to set the new asterism between the constellations of Virgo, Leo, Ursa Major, and Boötes for a reason.116 Conon’s new catasterism, as Catullus aptly phrased it, is “touching the light of the Virgin” (l. 65). In Greek mythology the constellation of Virgo is usually identified with a divine personification of Justice or Vengeance.117 These maiden goddesses include, among others, Nemesis (Retribution), daughter of Nyx (Night);118 Rhamnusis, a local emanation of Nemesis, who was the daughter of Oceanus according to the Athenians;119 Adrasteia (Inevitability; an epithet of Nemesis), variously a Cretan nymph, daughter of King Melisseus, and nurse of Zeus on Mt. Ida, or the daughter of King Adrastus of Argos who raised an altar to Nemesis on the Asopus River;120 Astraea (Starry Maiden), daughter of the Titan Astraeus and Eos, thus sister of Zephyr and the other cardinal wind gods;121 as well as Dike (Justice), daughter of Zeus and Themis (Divine Right).122 Since Virgo was thought to bear an ear of grain (Spica: α Vir) in her hand, the goddess could naturally be associated with Demeter (Ceres), the goddess of cereal crops.123 In her emanation of Thesmophorus, Demeter was herself conceived as “Law-Giving.”124 Perhaps not insignificant in this context may be that in Egypt Isis adopted the same epithet.125 On the Dendera Zodiac Virgo is similarly depicted as a goddess holding an ear of grain (Figure 4.1 and Plate 3.13(b)).126 According to Hyginus the constellation was set among the stars by Apollo, because she was his prematurely deceased daughter, Parthenus (Maiden), with Chrysothemis (Golden Justice).127 That tale would offer yet another appropriate example of the celestial ascension of a mythic figure in the form of a catasterism. One more tradition should be addressed regarding the identity of the celestial maiden, namely the curious myth of Icarius and Erigone.128 According to this tradition, the Attic hero Icarius, who had learned how to make wine from Dionysus himself, was killed by shepherds who thought he tried to poison them with the intoxicating drink. Icarius’s faithful dog Maera led Erigone to her dead father’s body. In her misery she lamented her father’s death and hanged herself on a nearby tree. As punishment, Dionysus afflicted all Athenian daughters with suicidal madness, which Apollo proclaimed could

94

Berenice II Euergetis

Figure4 .1

The Planisphere Zodiac of Dendera; taken from Bentley 1825, pl. 8

only be stopped by expiating the deaths of Icarius and Erigone. The Athenians decreed libations during the grape harvest and instituted the Feast of Swinging (Aiōra) in Erigone’s honor.129 Subsequently, Zeus placed Erigone among the stars as Virgo, Icarius as Boötes or Arcturus (α Boo), and Maera as Canicula (Procyon: α CMi). From a fragment of another poem, it is clear that Callimachus was indeed familiar with Erigone’s violent death.130 It remains unclear, however, whether he intended his audience to recall the story, or what its significance may have been for Queen Berenice. With such confusion regarding Virgo’s identity one should, in fact, like to know which emanation Callimachus had in mind. The

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

95

poet may have wished his educated audience to make their own associations. His invocation of Rhamnusis (l. 71), nevertheless, can hardly have been accidental. The famous statue of Rhamnusian Nemesis— made after the Battle of Marathon (490 BCE) by Pheidias, or one of his students, in Parian marble—was adorned with a crown of deer and images of Nike (Victory), carrying a branch in her left and a cup in her right hand.131 Pausanias adds that the statue did not have wings, as later became customary.132 The constellation of Virgo derives from Babylonian astronomy, in which she is identified with Shala, the goddess of cereal crops, and Spica is interpreted as “Furrow (Šer’u).”133 Like Ishtar, Shala was also a vengeful goddess of warfare, and we may here see the origin of the confusing variety of figures identified with the astral maiden. The goddess was associated with Wrath and Fertility, aspects not personified by a single deity in Greek or Roman mythology—hence the identification with Nemesis (Justitia) as well as Demeter (Ceres) and/or Isis. To this I should add that the Babylonian star catalogue placed the mother goddess Zarpanitu, consort of Marduk, carrying the “Frond of Erua,” behind the tail of the Lion.134 The palm frond might in turn be related to the (palm or other) branch that Virgo at times bears in her left hand as an attribute of Victory (Nike). We may additionally compare Shala with the Egyptian goddess of warfare, Neith, who the Greeks in turn identified with Athena (Parthenus, “the maiden”).135 The references to Virgo (the Rhamnusian Maiden), in short, allow for a plethora of associations in which the celestial virgin is represented as Bringer of Grain, Retribution, Justice, and Victory. As such, the constellation was variously identified with Nemesis, Dike, Nike, Demeter, and/or Isis. These are, of course, very opportune paradigms for the divine queenship of Berenice II. Regarding the “raging Lion” ancient Greek and Roman sources agree that this constellation represents the Nemean lion that Hercules strangled as the first of his Twelve Labors.136 Leo is associated with the “dog days” of the summer heat, as traditionally the sun is believed to enter its sign around the same time that Sirius’s heliacal rising announced the inundation of the Nile (ca. July 21/22).137 In Sumerian times (fifth to third millennium BCE), due to precession, Leo actually marked the summer solstice.138 From old the constellation was considered the “King of Beasts” and had regal associations.139 It was to “Zeus the Savior (Sōtēr)” that Hercules was said to have sacrificed after slaying the monster and it was Zeus, the king of Olympus, who had put the lion among the stars.

96

Berenice II Euergetis

In Babylonian astronomy the constellation was designated “Nēšu (or UR.A, Great Lion)” and its brightest star in its breast (α Leo) was known as “Lugal (King),” which was rendered Basiliskos in Greek and Regia in Latin.140 The modern term by which the star is now known, Regulus, was first coined by Copernicus.141 Similarly, on the Dendera Zodiac the sign is depicted in the shape of a striding lion on whose shoulder a king can be seen seated on a throne.142 The powerful imagery of the King of Beasts is obviously meaningful for the Lagids’s royal ideology. In fact, Ferro and Magli contend that the main urban orientation of Alexandria was based on the alignment of the rising of Regulus on the birthday of Alexander the Great (July 20).143 In a fragment of the lost Astronomia (cited both by ps.-Eratosthenes and Hyginus), Hesiod identified the Great Bear (Ursa Major; Arktos) with the Arcadian nymph Callisto.144 She was the daughter of King Lycaon and hunting companion of Artemis. Zeus had seduced her while she was bathing, but when she was near giving birth to his child, the eponymous hero Arcas, the enraged Artemis transformed her into a she-bear. She was eventually raised into the heavens by Zeus. (The tale is thus a founding myth, meant to illuminate how Arcadia was named after Arcas, the bear-child.) Callimachus, like Theocritus, was evidently familiar with this version.145 We may safely assume that Catullus’s version remains faithful to the original. The seven bright stars that make the Starry Wain (or Big Dipper) were similarly conceived of as Wagon (Margídda) in Babylonian astronomy.146 The constellation was associated with Ninlil (“Lady of the Field”), who was seduced by Enlil (“Lord of the Air”) while bathing in the river near Nippur as a maiden and who subsequently gave birth to the moon god Nanna-Sin.147 Perhaps, at a superficial level at least, the Sumerian Myth of Enlil and Ninlil inspired part of the Greek myth of Callisto and Arcas. In Egyptian astronomy, conversely, the Big Dipper is commonly represented as Ox-Thigh (Meschetyu); on the rectangular Dendera Zodiac as one-legged ox surrounded by seven stars; while the Small Dipper (Ursa Minor) can be recognized on the circular Dendera Zodiac in the Adze below the Jackal.148 Early texts, however, refer to two adzes or other adversaries that threaten to hack up the sky.149 These adversaries were subsequently assimilated with Seth and Horus.150 Their animosity represented the eternal conflict between order and chaos. Its influence on Callimachus is hard to discern. At any rate, the myth of the chaste huntress Callisto, unwittingly seduced by the Olympian king and set among the stars, is a suitable

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

97

image for the Queen who is called “high-spirited” (l. 26), praised for her fidelity and is the mother of the king’s child.151 Next, the Lock of Berenice is placed before Boötes (l. 67), whose name is usually derived from “βοῦς (ox)” and “ὡθεῖν (to drive, push)”—hence “Oxen-Driver or Ploughman.”152 As the name indicates, the ancient Greeks viewed Boötes as driving the Starry Wain or Plough. According to Hyginus, he was Philomelus, son of Demeter and Iasion, but while his brother Plutus (“Wealth”) was rich, he was compelled to plow the field with two oxen and the yoke he invented.153 Confusingly, however, like the Starry Wain was associated with Callisto, the Ploughman was also associated with Arcas, as Aratus explains: ἐξόπιθεν δ᾽ Ἑλίκης φέρεται ἐλάοντι ἐοικὼς Ἀρκτοφύλαξ, τόν ῥ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐπικλείουσι Βοώτην, οὕνεχ᾽ ἁμαξαίης ἐπαφώμενος εἴδεται Ἄρκτου. καὶ μάλα πᾶς ἀρίδηλος: ὑπὸ ζώνῃ δέ οἱ αὐτὸς ἐξ ἄλλων Ἀρκτοῦρος ἑλίσσεται ἀμφαδὸν ἀστήρ. Behind Helice, borne as if driving is Arctophylax, whom men call Boötes, since he seems to touch the Wain-like Bear. And though all very bright, beneath his girdle spirals a star more brilliant than the others, Arcturus himself. (Phaen. 91–95)154

The club-wielding Arctophylax (“Bearward”) is Callisto’s son Arcas, who unwittingly pursued his mother into the shrine of Zeus on Mt. Lycaeum. Various versions of the myth include human sacrifices to Zeus performed by Callisto’s father Lycaon. Zeus punished him by transforming him into a (were-) wolf (Grk. λύκος) and sending the deluge to destroy human kind. Arcas was changed into a constellation together with Callisto by Zeus. In some versions, however, he was translated into the sky as the Lesser Bear (Ursa Minor), and then Boötes was identified as representing Erigone’s father Icarius.155 The notion of the oxen-driving plowman Boötes is doubtless connected with the Mesopotamian conception of the constellation as “Yoke (Sum. SHU.DUN; Akkad. Niru).” While the Starry Wain was associated with Ninlil, so the Yoke was associated with Enlil.156 In ancient Egyptian astronomy, the image of the female Hippopotamus (Reret) stands before the Ox-Thigh; the headings identify the constellation as Isis. It has variously been interpreted as corresponding with Boötes, Coma Berenices or Draco, or a combination thereof.157

98

Berenice II Euergetis

On the Dendera planisphere a bull-headed figure carrying a scythe appears between the Ear of Grain (Virgo) and the Scales (Libra).158 Though a scythe, of course, is not a plow, the rustic element might offer a connection with Boötes. The crescent moon on his head instead of horns might be an indication that the figure was associated with the moon god Thoth. It may be tempting to recognize Boötes in this enigmatic figure, but his placement underneath, instead of above Virgo and Libra, is problematic. Other tentative identifications include Centaurus with the Southern Cross.159 Aubourg, conversely, recognizes Boötes in the Harpocrates figure above the scales of Libra.160 Whether or not any of the Egyptian asterisms correspond with Boötes, in other words, is far from clear. Taken together the myths about the constellations surrounding Coma Berenices do not appear to build up into a single imagery. Llewellyn-Jones and Winder propose that the Hathoric model of queenship provides a key to Callimachus’s poem, but refrain from offering their interpretation of the constellations’s significance. Various elements do converge, both between different constellations and between different traditions (Greek, Babylonian, and/or Egyptian) —at times in unexpected ways. I have referred to the Starry Wain and the Oxen-Driver, the Wagon and the Yoke, the Plough and the Adze, the Great Bear and the Bearward, the Ear of Grain and the Palm Frond, and the King of Beasts, the Lion; to Callisto and Arcas, Icarius and Erigone, Artemis and Nemesis, Dike and Nike, Demeter and Isis, Hercules, Horus and Seth, Neith and Thoth, Enlil and Ninlil, Shala and Zarpanitu, as well as Marduk. Τhe signs of Leo and Boötes represent the paragon of royalty and the consort of the female figure, respectively. That is not to say that Callimachus expected his audience to recognize all such associations, or that the poet was familiar with all of them himself. The investigation of the astronomical symbolism does actually offer a key to unlock the possible significance of the constellations mentioned in the Coma Berenices. For in her Two Ladies name, Berenice II was assimilated to goddesses such as Neith, Bastet, and Mut.161 Neith, Lady of Saïs, goddess of warfare and hunting, was identified with the Greek goddess Athena, and may be compared to the Mesopotamian Ishtar-Shala.162 In her leonine form, fierce Bastet was a war goddess, too, while in her feline form gentle Bastet was a protectress of kingship, women, and children.163 For that reason, the Greeks equated her with Artemis.164 The vulture goddess Mut personified motherhood, was the patroness of queenship, and by the

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

99

Ptolemaic period had merged with Isis and Hathor. As mother goddess, she corresponds with Zarpanitu as well as Demeter. A network of associations does connect this divine “constellation” of female figures as personifications of motherhood, fertility, hunting, warfare, victory, justice, and/or royalty. Important themes further include virginity and sexuality, death and childbirth, grief and vengeance. The imagery of these Bringers of Grain, Retribution and Law significantly converges on sacral queenship. We should allow for the possibility that this conflation corresponds with the henotheistic syncretism of Isis-Hathor. Callimachus’s Coma Berenices similarly praises the Queen for her nobility and bravery, her piety and chaste devotion, her grief and loveliness. Berenice II is portrayed in the poem as acting as the female figures that surround the newly created eponymous constellation. The astronomic symbolism intimates that the Ptolemaic king and queen, by virtue of their benevolent actions, deserve worship like the deities with whom they are assimilated or identified. Without meaning to present the Coma Berenices as an outright propaganda piece, the poem’s intention must have been to augment the popular enthusiasm for the deification of the Ptolemies. Particularly meaningful, in that respect, is that Callimachus chose to focus his attention on the exemplary position of the queen and her public role within the royal ideology. If we wish to find any Hathoric aspects in the poem, we should look for direct references to Aphrodite, or the Roman version, Venus. The goddess, indeed, appears three times by that name in Catullus’s translation and once merely as “the goddess (diva).” The first allusion is in the digression about why newlyweds hate Venus and shed tears on their wedding night (ll. 15–18). Next, Zephyr is said to place the Lock of Berenice in the “pure bosom of Venus (Veneris casto collocat in gremio)” (l. 56), while just a few lines later the goddess herself is said to place “a new constellation among the ancients (sidus in antiquis diva novum posuit)” (l. 64). This contradiction derives directly from Callimachus’s original, in which the goddess is twice called Cypris. To add to the confusion, the poem also relates that it was the Lady of Zephyrium who had sent forth Zephyr (l. 57), the horse of Arsinoe (l. 54). Callimachus called Arsinoe the “mother” of Berenice (l. 45). The sphere of the goddess’s influence is extolled in the digression about ointments and perfumes (ll. 77–88). Lastly, Berenice II is encouraged to placate the goddess Venus with festal lamps (l. 90). Since the Lady of Zephyrium is none other than Arsinoe in the guise of Aphrodite,

100

Berenice II Euergetis

the poem presents a rather puzzling conflation of diverse names for the same deity: Arsinoe Zephyritis-Aphrodite Cypris. According to West, as we saw, the “pure bosom of Cypris” (l. 56) refers to the sea and portrays Aphrodite as a sea goddess.165 Both the Greek κόλπος and the Latin gremius, it should be noted, literally denote “folds,” such as those of clothing, and by extension connote “bosom or lap.”166 In Callimachus, as elsewhere, the term might also be used as a euphemism for the womb or female genitalia.167 West points to the verb λούειν (“to bathe”; l. 63) that was also used to describe the apparent rising of constellations and other heavenly bodies from the ocean (horizon).168 She envisions Zephyr snatching the Lock of Berenice from the shrine at Cape Zephyrium and taking it eastwards into the sea. That such an action would render the new constellation invisible does not seem to trouble West. Callimachus continued that—after bathing in the water of the ocean—the lock was placed among the ancient stars—that is, in the (night) sky, rather than in the sea.169 Tethys is invoked just a few lines later as sea goddess to whom all stars are restored by day.170 Unless we are to understand an implied assimilation of Tethys and Cypris, it would seem inopportune to present two different maritime deities. We need to consider what else Callimachus may have meant with the phrase, the “pure bosom of Cypris.” In what other sense could the bosom or lap of Venus designate the position of Coma Berenices? In addition to her erotic and maritime aspects, Aphrodite did also possess celestial qualities in her Uranian figuration.171 The goddess was traditionally associated with the Morning and Evening Star (the planet Venus). Callimachus could therefore hardly have envisioned Aphrodite’s bosom (lap or womb) as (part of) the night sky. Again, Berenice’s deified “mother” Arsinoe Zephyritis is identified with Aphrodite Cypris. In the Apotheosis Arsinoes, Arsinoe II herself is snatched away by the Dioscuri, who placed her beneath the Starry Wain.172 In that respect, the “chaste bosom” could well refer to Arsinoe in the guise of Aphrodite.173 The poet employed the epithet “violet-girdled (ἰόζωνος)” for Arsinoe, which further assimilates her with Aphrodite.174 In a literal sense, Coma Berenices is located in (or above) the lap or bosom of Virgo. We would then have to understand a series of assimilations in which the latter constellation is identified with Demeter, and she with Isis, who is then equated with Hathor and she in turn with Aphrodite (Venus). For only through such mental gymnastics could we arrive at an association between Cypris and

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

101

Virgo. Callimachus’s reference remains rather abstruse. The position of the new asterism, moreover, is not only described as the “pure bosom of Cypris.” Significantly, the Lock is also located “among the immortals”—in addition to its astral place among the many ancient lights of heaven.175 The only way we can begin to make sense of Callimachus’s confounding phraseology is if we include Egyptian beliefs in our interpretation. In Egyptian theology the goddess of the sky, Nut, was considered the mother of the stars.176 She was revered as “She Who Covers the Sky” and “She Who Holds a Thousand Souls.”177 She was the consort of Geb, the god of earth, and mother of Isis, Osiris, Seth, and Nephthys. Despite their religious provenance, Nut and Geb were identified by the Greeks with Rhea and Cronus.178 Commonly, the night sky was depicted as the star-spangled nude body of Nut arching protectively over the earth. Like Greek myth Egyptian thought held that the earth was surrounded by water that separates earth from the sky.179 Nut was believed to give birth to the stars at dusk and swallow them at dawn.180 What is more, the night sky could also be represented by a cow, the animal associated since the beginning of Egyptian history with Hathor.181 In fact, one of Hathor’s titles was “Lady of Heaven (Nebt Nut),” which presents her as the Celestial Cow.182 A close connection, therefore, existed between Nut and Hathor. By referring to the goddess as “Cypris,” Callimachus reminded his audience that Aphrodite was born from the froth of Uranus’s castrated member that Cronus had thrown into the ocean—whence she landed on Cyprus.183 He could not have expressed this notion differently, for in Greek mythology (as in most other religions) the sky deity, Aphrodite’s father Uranus, is male. When Callimachus maintained that the Lock of Berenice was placed in the “pure lap of Cypris,” he must have had Aphrodite Urania in mind: a Greek emanation of the sky goddess, Nut-Hathor, who nightly brings forth the stars from her womb. The Coma Berenices alludes to several additional astronomical features, besides the constellations around the eponymous asterism. The first heavenly body Catullus signifies by a divine name, rather than by an actual term, is the moon (ll. 5–6). Trivia was not only equated with her Greek counterparts Hecate and Selene, though, but also with Artemis.184 “Trivia” was rather considered an aspect or epithet of Diana (Artemis). Since the lines have not been preserved in the lacunose original, it is impossible to determine by which name

102

Berenice II Euergetis

Callimachus referred to the moon goddess. In his Hymnus in Dianam, he hints at an amalgamation of Artemis with the moon, just as he identified Apollo as Phoebus.185 From the association with Endymion we may safely surmise that he had Selene in mind here. By the “golden crown” of the “Minoan Bride” (ll. 59–60), the constellation Corona Borealis is meant. For, Ariadne was the daughter of King Minos and Pasiphaë (herself the daughter of Helius).186 She left Knossos with Theseus, after he had slain the Minotaur, but then grieved deeply when he secretively abandoned her on Naxos: No longer keeping the delicate ribbon on her blonde head, Nor covered by the light vestment that veiled her bosom, Nor her milky-white breasts bound with smooth girdle.187

Finding her there on the island, deserted and lamenting, Dionysus made her his wife.188 Accounts vary exactly how her crown came to be fixed in the heavens. It was said that it was Zeus who immortalized Ariadne, or Dionysus for his love set her crown among the stars, or, again, it was Artemis. Ariadne provides a fitting parallel for the Lock of Berenice, both in her mourning and in the catasterism of her crown. There might even be an implied parallel between Ariadne and Berenice II, who had been abandoned by Demetrius, but then became the wife of Ptolemy III. The Titanis Tethys, as we have already seen, was the daughter of Uranus and Gaia, the sister-wife of Oceanus, and the mother of rivers such as the Nile.189 Apart from the poet’s apposite balancing of Tethys (l. 70) after mentioning Oceanus (l. 67), the astronomic importance of the sea goddess is twofold: The poem calls to mind the image of the stars returning to the Titanis. Though no more than a hint, this imagery is similar to the notion of the Egyptian sky goddess Nut swallowing the stars at dawn. Additionally, according to Greek mythology at Hera’s bidding, Tethys had prevented Callisto and Arcas (Ursa Major and Boötes) from dipping into the all-encircling ocean.190 Perhaps another clue can be found in the Orphic Hymn to Tethys, in which the sea goddess is called the mother of Aphrodite.191 Callimachus in this way expresses the notion that the stars pass through the lap of Aphrodite at night and return to Tethys by day. The constellation Aquarius that the Lock bids to shine next to Orion (l. 94) has been associated with water from Sumerian times.192 In that period (4400–2200 BCE) the sign identified as GU.LA marked the winter solstice. The name of this obscure deity (possibly meaning

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

103

“The Great”) perhaps was or became an epithet of Enki (Ea), god of water and wisdom, who plays an important role as savior of humankind in the Sumerian deluge myth.193 In Babylonian astronomy this beneficent god was conceived as pouring streams of water from two vases over the three fish of Pisces and Piscis Austrinus. An identical figure can be found on the Dendera Zodiac behind the goat-fish of Capricorn, representing the Nile god Hapy.194 The Greeks in turn connected the constellation (Hydrochoös, “Water-Pourer”) with Deucalion, the hero who survived the flood with his wife Pyrrha, after Zeus unleashed his anger at Lycaon for offering him human flesh.195 The reference to Aquarius, therefore, allowed Callimachus to draw a connection with the stories of Callisto and Arcas. In northern latitudes, Aquarius would have been best visible at night from mid-July through mid-August, and would have been (partially or completely) invisible in the night sky over Alexandria from about January 1 through February 20, 245 BCE.196 Egyptians connected the constellation with the annual Nile flooding, since the Inundation Season (mid-July through mid-November) corresponds with the period in which the constellation could be seen clearly in the heavens. If we wish to explain the desire for Aquarius and Orion to shine near each other, we would have to consider what they may have represented for Callimachus. They stand 90° apart in westward direction (RA: Aqr = 23h; Ori = 5h). So the usual explanation that the Lock hopes for the heavens to collapse is not entirely convincing.197 For that one would expect asterisms that stand 180° apart, such as Aquarius and Leo (RA: 11h), or Orion and Ophiuchus (RA: 17h). Callimachus must have had another reason, besides metrical convenience, for choosing Aquarius and Orion. In Greek myth Orion was a handsome hunting companion of Artemis.198 After threatening to slay every beast on earth, he was stung by a giant scorpion—and together the mighty hunter and the scorpion were ranked among the constellations. To some extent, then, Callimachus might have intended Orion as a male counterpart of Callisto. He may also have remembered Orion’s brief affair with Merope, the daughter of King Oenopion of Chios (himself the son of Dionysus and Ariadne).199 In Babylonian astronomy the asterism was called “The True Shepherd of Heaven (SIPA.ZI.AN.NA; Akk.: Shitaddalu),” who was associated with Papsukkal, the Messenger of Anu and Ishtar.200 There are, in other words, no immediate connections between the Greek and the Babylonian conceptions of the constellation.201

104

Berenice II Euergetis

Egyptian theology, conversely, held that Orion was the Ba (“soul”) of Osiris, and nearby Sirius (Grk.: Sothis) that of Isis.202 This identification was already current in the Pyramid Texts, where Horus is said to be born from Isis-Sothis (Eg.: Sopdet) and Osiris-Orion (Eg.: Sah).203 On the Dendera Zodiac, Osiris can be recognized before the heraldic falcon of Horus and the astral cow of Isis-Sothis (Figure 4.1 and Plate 3.13(b)).204 In the Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys, Isis sang to her brother: Your sacred image, Orion in heaven, rises and sets every day. I am Sothis, following him, and I will not leave him.205

The “Dog Star” Sirius (α CMa) is the brightest star in the firmament and easily found by following Orion’s “belt” southward. The latter constellation is best seen in the Northern hemisphere from November through February and is entirely invisible in the summer months (May–July). Since in Antiquity Sirius’s helical rising (mid-July) preceded the Nile flood, the star of Isis was believed to announce the annual overflowing of the river.206 The natural cycles of astral rising and setting, of seasonal drought and flooding, and of death and resurrection were embodied in Egyptian religion by Osiris. The Lock’s confounding request to let Aquarius and Orion shine reversely as neighbors can finally be illuminated.207 The wish it expresses is for the Nile flood to be abundant. For after all the experienced grief, an abundant flood will bring rejoice to the children of Egypt.208 Not only would such an allusion have been appropriately erudite, it would have also been politically opportune. For, the country had been plagued by a poor inundation and consequent social unrest in the king’s absence, as Ptolemy III invaded Syria. One more topic should be discussed in terms of royal ideology in the Coma Berenices, namely the poem’s central focus on deification.209 Its importance for the early Ptolemaic ruler cult has not escaped scholarly attention, but various aspects do require further examination in this light. Few commentators, for instance, have paid heed to the theme of grief in the Coma Berenices.210 As stated above, the poem addresses the theme from various vantages: newlyweds, Queen Berenice, the Lock and his “sisters.” We also have had occasion to examine more implicit allusions to lament, such as that of Ariadne and possibly Erigone, too. One might additionally recall the mourning of Demeter (for Persephone), of Aphrodite (for Adonis), of Isis (for Osiris), and even of Ishtar (for Dumuzi).211 As if to emphasize

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

105

its thematic significance, the Coma Berenices in Callimachus’s original ends with a signal for jubilation or rejoice (χαῖρε, l. 94a). Its antithesis, lamentation, should in fact be understood as the last rite in the divinization of the Ptolemaic king and queen. The Lagid ruler cult was in effect the raison d’être for the Coma Berenices. This may be gleaned not only from the theme of grief, but also from the offering of hair locks, baring of breasts, the libation of fragrant oils, and the sacrifice of bulls—not to mention the identification of the queen mother Arsinoe Zephyritis with Aphrodite Cypris. Seen through this light, aspects of the poem that otherwise remain obscure or trivial become illuminated in all their absolute seriousness.212 Allusions to tears and separation are not only playful teases; gestures of cutting hair and baring breasts are not only signs of love and devotion; offerings of perfumes and blood are not only acts of religious fidelity; these are all funerary rites, commemorating the earthly passing of loved ones. These were final rites accompanying the immortalization of the Ptolemies. In line with the ideological importance of lamentation, the Coma Berenices should also be interpreted as presenting catasterism literally as a mode of apotheosis, rather than just a metaphor of deification.213 That is to say, beyond and besides offering elusive allusions that suggest allegories of deification and immortalization, the poem is also (and more particularly) an aetiology of the entrance of individual members of the royal house into their ancestral pantheon. The poem elaborately describes the celestial ascension of the new constellation and thus anticipates the apotheosis of the reigning king and queen; it promotes the divinization of their predecessors—most notably Arsinoe II, and in so doing promotes the deification of the Ptolemies. The reader remembers how the Coma Berenices, after a formal praise of Conon, suitably begins with an allusion to Selene’s love for Endymion during every new moon phase. The ageless and deathless lover, forever sleeping in a cave on Carian Mt. Latmus, offers a fitting introduction to the theme of immortalization.214 The reference to the Crown of Ariadne answers Selene’s monthly descent from the heavens with a reversed motion into the night sky. Simultaneously, Corona Borealis, like Ursa Major and the other mentioned constellations, supplies obvious parallels for the catasterism of Coma Berenices. The ancients believed that setting these constellations among the stars rendered Ariadne and Callisto immortal. I need not remind the reader of all the various other examples discussed

106

Berenice II Euergetis

above of mythological figures who lived forever as constellations in the sky. Ancient Egyptian religion held a similar belief that the souls of the deceased shine in heaven as stars.215 Initially, as the Pyramid Texts evince, this belief applied to the pharaohs alone.216 Callimachus had expressed the same notion in his Apotheosis Arsinoes, in which the divine Arsinoe II was placed beneath the Starry Wain.217 The Coma Berenices, by implication, intimates the deification of Berenice II along the same model. The theme of immortalization also elucidates why Zephyr is described periphrastically as “kinsman of Ethiopian Memnon” (l. 52). This son of Tithonus and Eos had joined the Trojan War against the Greeks, but was slain by Achilles.218 The Ethiopian king was carried off the battlefield by his half-brothers Zephyr and Boreas, and their mother’s tears obtained Memnon’s immortality from Zeus.219 Zephyr himself is invoked as “gentle wind (θῆλυς ἀήτης),”220 “whirling his spotted (or dappled) wings (κυκλώσας βαλιὰ πτερὰ)” (l. 53).221 The wind god is “gentle” (in part at least) because his coming signals the mild spring season. Zephyr was proverbially “gentle” in contrast with the violence of the cold northerly storm, personified by Oreithyia’s rapist Boreas.222 The adjective θῆλυς (“female”) is the complement of ἄρσην (“male”), and carries sensual connotations such as “soft, gentle, tender, delicate, weak” and so forth.223 By calling the wind god “gentle,” Callimachus may therefore simultaneously have hinted at the erotic connotation. Zephyr’s wings “whirl or circle” swiftly like those of eagles in Archilochus’s proverbial expression, or like words and love travel about.224 The erudite pun furthermore involves Balius (“Dappled”), the offspring of Zephyr and the Harpyia Podarge, Achilles’s immortal steed that flies as swiftly as the westerly wind.225 And like a panting horse, Zephyr drives the Lock through the humid air, “with a breeze (ora b reathing).”226 Moreover, the wind that whirls his swift, dappled wings is called “the Locrian horse of Arsinoe with the violet girdle (ἵππος ἰοζώνου Λοκριδὸς Ἀρσινόης)” (l. 54).227 I have already explained that the epithet “violet-girdled” assimilates Arsinoe with Aphrodite.228 Less evident is whether “Locrian” applies to Arsinoe or (possibly through substitution) to Zephyr, and in either case what its significance would be.229 The ancient Locrians lived in two regions in central Greece, separated by Doris and Phocis.230 Opus, the chief city of Eastern Locris, was home of Deucalion, the forefather of the Hellenes.231 In the archaic period, the Locrians established a colony in Magna Graecia (ca. 680 BCE), known as Epizephyrian Locris (Ἐπιζεφύριοι

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

107

Λοκροί; mod. Locri in Calabria).232 From the Alexandrian perspective it would then seem fitting to refer to Zephyr as hailing from Locris (as the westerly wind naturally blows from the West) and arriving at Arsinoe’s temple on Cape Zephyrium. One might additionally consider a more sinister association between Zephyr (as cardinal wind and direction) and its cognate “ζόφος (nether darkness, gloom).”233 The word is used to describe the gloom and darkness of the underworld of Hades.234 More generally, it denotes the “dark quarter,” that is, the West,235 where the sun sets— thus “dusk” as the opposite of “dawn (ἠώς).”236 The imagery expresses the notion that Zephyr, the westerly gentle breeze, hails from the realm of dusk and gloom, the angel of death, who snatched Berenice’s lock away, carrying it off on its swift whirling, dappled wings through the water of the ocean and the humid air into the heavens among the ancient stars. This series of vivid similes is particularly poignant in light of the apotheotic ascension of the Ptolemies. The dead are often borne off by two winged figures in ancient Greek art and poetry: not only by the twins Hypnos and Thanatos (“Sleep” and “Death”), but also by Himeros and Eros (“Longing” and “Desire”), and—what is more important for the present purpose—by Boreas and Zephyr, as well as the Dioscuri, Castor and Pollux.237 For instance, after he was killed by Patroclus, the sons of Nyx (“Night”), Hypnos and Thanatos, carried Sarpedon off the Trojan battlefield to Lycia.238 The scene is, of course, the subject of the famous Euphronius krater (ca. 515 BCE; now in the National Etruscan Museum, Rome).239 Boreas and Zephyr, as seen, similarly carried Memnon away.240 On Douris’s beautiful “Memnon Pietà” (ca. 490/80 BCE; now in the Louvre), it is winged Eos who holds her dead son’s body.241 Achilles, furthermore, prayed to the wind gods to flare up Patroclus’s funeral pyre, “even promising fair offerings.”242 In Hera’s seduction of Zeus on Mt. Ida, incidentally, her accomplices were Nyx and Hypnos, Eros and Himeros, Aphrodite and Hephaestus.243 Castor and Pollux, likewise, bear Arsinoe II up into heaven, in Callimachus’s Apotheosis Arsinoes, just as they had saved their sister Helen after she had been abducted by Theseus.244 Theocritus picked up the same theme of angelic agents of ascension when describing the tableau at the royal palace in his Adoniazusae.245 Aphrodite and Adonis recline in an embrace on their couch with purple coverlets “softer than sleep (μαλακώτεροι ὕπνω).”246 Meanwhile, “boyish Erotes fly over like hatchling nightingales that fly in a tree from branch to branch, putting their fledgling wings on trial.”247

108

Berenice II Euergetis

The couch, moreover, depicted Ganymedes borne off by two eagles to become the cupbearer of Zeus on Olympus.248 The tableau, in other words, is simultaneously a wedding, a funeral, and a scene of apotheosis.249 Emily Vermeule reveals the erotic undertow of the imagery in which the deceased are borne on Wings of Death.250 The insatiable Sirens were commonly depicted in Greek art as human-headed birds, and can often be found as decorative motive on tombs.251 Similarly, the Sphinx was a guardian spirit of the cemetery, but also preyed on young men, carrying them off (ἀποφέρουσα) “in a swift-winged lion-footed stroke.”252 Attic grave markers in the shape of phallus-birds further illustrate in more humorous fashion the Greek association between the wings of death and sexual desire.253 The Harpyiae (“Snatchers”), sisters of Iris, by their name alone, personify the rapaciousness of winged demons.254 These female-headed mythological birds not only snatched the victuals off King Phineus’s table, but also mated with the wind-gods Boreas and Zephyr, pursued young (dead) men, and carried them off to the Elysian Fields.255 Boreas violently seized King Erechtheus’s daughter Oreithyia when making her his wife, while his brother Zephyr carried off his beloved Hyacinthus.256 The wind gods’ mother, unquenchable Eos, ravished handsome youths, such as Orion and Tithonus, as well as Cephalus, Cleitus, and Phaethon, while she was also amorously linked to Ares and Astraeus.257 Although more popular in Roman and Mediaeval times, Succubae were winged female figures of mythology, who forced themselves upon unwitting travelers sleeping by the roadside.258 This felt connection between love and death is expressed by verbs such as ἁρπάζειν (“snatch away, seize, carry off”), commonly employed to describe the abductions of Persephone, Ganymedes, Tithonus, and others.259 Egyptians used similar language to describe dying as being taken (ἰṯἰ, nḥm) or snatched away (ʽwȝ, ḫnp).260 Arsinoe II was said also to be “stealthily seized (κλεπτομένα)” from earth and “snatched away (ἡρπάσθαι)” by the Dioscuri.261 It is tempting to propose an emendation of ἤ[λ]ασε (“drives”) to ἤ[ρπ]ασε (“snatches”) so as to conform the Coma Berenices to this image (l. 55).262 But it is difficult to fit two letters in the lacuna of the text. Winged deities, art any rate, were believed to prey on mortals to gratify their desires and snatch them away from their earthly life. Ancient Egyptian religion also recognized a connection between wings and death. Isis and Nephthys were often shown protecting Osiris’s body with their wings.263 At times, they lamented Osiris in

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

109

the shape of hawks (Nj). The Ba (bȝ) was conceived as a human-headed bird (ȅ), ascending into the starry heavens after death to shine bright like an oil lamp ( ).264 The Greek iconography of the Harpyiae and the Sirens may well have been adopted from the Egyptian depiction of the Ba.265 Gods were believed to have Bau (bȝw), too. I have already had occasion to mention the belief that the constellation Orion was the Ba of Osiris, and the Dog Star Sirius that of Isis.266 The Mendes stela proclaims that the Ba of Arsinoe II had physically ascended into heaven.267 In the shape of the Udjat (wḏ3t), the “Hale Eye” (Ĉ) of the sun god, Ra’s Solar Eye was illustrated with falcon markings, and not infrequently with wings.268 The Canopus Decree assimilates the prematurely deceased princess Berenice (Parthenus) with the Eye of Ra.269 She was believed to be borne on angelic wings when she joined the company of the gods and “entered into heaven.”270 Myths of divine rape, in sum, draw an image of erotic abductions in which the deceased are snatched away from their transient earthly life on angelic wings of death to an everlasting afterlife. Callimachus’s aetiology of the catasterism of Coma Berenices follows an analogous program in which the eponymous Lock is carried aloft and set among the ancient stars. The poem’s dense allusions to ascension emphasize the apotheotic atmosphere. This celestial ascent is accompanied by mourning and other funerary rituals—such as libations and sacrifices, bearing of breast and offerings of hair—that enhance the sacred ambience. By offering catasterism as a mode of apotheotic ascension, that is, the poem anticipates the deification of Ptolemaic kings and queens. *

*

*

Ostensibly, the Coma Berenices was occasioned by Conon’s astronomical discovery of a new constellation. The identification has remained canonical to this day. It bears repeating that Coma Berenices is the only asterism named after a historical person, and that she, Queen Berenice II Euergetis, was still alive at the time. Let me now present my conclusions. One of the main objects of this essay has been to sort out the chronology of historical events surrounding the offering of Berenice’s lock of hair in the temple of Arsinoe Aphrodite on Cape Zephyrium. Picking up from the preceding essay, we have seen that Ptolemy III and Berenice II probably married shortly after his accession to the throne (January 246 BCE). The king embarked on his Syrian campaign

110

Berenice II Euergetis

later that year (ca. October), after the death of Antiochus II (July) led to a succession crisis in the Seleucid royal house between Laodice and Berenice Phernophorus (August/September). Ptolemy III arrived in Coele-Syria (October/November) and from there marched to Mesopotamia (November/December) and commenced to lay siege to Babylon itself (January 245 BCE). In Egypt a poor flood season (July–November) provoked social unrest, aggravated perhaps by the military and financial extractions posed upon the population in preparation for the king’s foreign campaign. Possibly to quench this brewing unrest, the queen offered a lock of hair in a grand ceremony at the Canopic temple of Arsinoe Zephyritis for the swift and safe return of her husband (ca. November 246–February 245 BCE). Around that time Berenice II may also have given birth to her first child, Arsinoe III (ca. November 246–June 245 BCE), who could thus have been in attendance at the ceremony. The queen’s failure to deliver a crown prince to guarantee the dynastic succession could have added to the critical situation at home. It is not unlikely that Conon’s discovery of the queen’s lock of hair was contrived at court from the beginning, rather than afterwards when the lock had supposedly disappeared from the shrine. In Babylonia, meanwhile, Ptolemy III appointed Xanthippus as chief commander of the army (ca. January 18, 245 BCE). There is no reason to believe that the Ptolemaic army remained in Mesopotamia for much more than another half year (ca. July/August). After the king’s return to Egypt (ca. February/March), Conon and Callimachus officially presented their astronomical discovery during a public evening ceremony in which they could point out the new asterism among the ancient stars (ca. May 245 BCE). They may have chosen a moonless night for the purpose (viz., ca. May 19). Another aim has been to examine any possible astronomical clues that Callimachus may have incorporated into his poem. I have searched for chronological indications and conclude that the planet Venus certainly plays no role and that other hints hardly converge on a clearly identifiable date. The heliacal rising of Coma Berenices itself, for instance, cannot have been a significant event, because shortly before dawn the constellation is very poorly visible with the naked eye. Moreover, Ptolemy III had barely left Egypt when the three main stars were all visible again an hour before sunrise (October). The constellations surrounding Coma Berenices—Leo and Virgo, Boötes and Ursa Major, as well as Corona Borealis—are best visible together in the early evening in spring (especially April–May) at the

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

111

latitude of Alexandria. The reference to Zephyr, the gentle westerly breeze associated with spring and early summer would confirm such a date. Conversely, most of the mentioned constellations would have been (partially) invisible from mid-June through mid-September. If the allusion to the new moon should be taken as another indication, then we arrive at May 19, 245 BCE (or thereabouts), for the day on which the inauguration of the eponymous asterism was publically presented to Ptolemy and Berenice. The allusive imagery discussed in this essay draws a picture of what I have coined “apotheotic ascension”—that is, the Lagids’s celestial entrance into their ancestral pantheon. After their earthly passing Ptolemaic royal women, such as Arsinoe Philadelphus, Berenice Euergetis, and Berenice Parthenus, were thought to join their immortal predecessors by being snatched away and raised into the heavens on angelic wings of death. The Coma Berenices presents an aetiology of catasterism that anticipates the deification of the queen after whom the eponymous constellation is named. According to this aetiology, the queen had pledged a lock of hair for the king’s victorious return from Syria and offered it to Arsinoe-Aphrodite in the temple at Cape Zephyrium. When the lock mysteriously disappeared from the shrine, the explanation was that Zephyr, the westerly wind blowing from Epizephyrian Locris, had carried it away on its swiftly whirling, spotted wings, bathed it in the ocean’s water, drove it through the humid air, and set it among the immortal stars in the heavens. The apotheotic ascension into the Lagid pantheon was accompanied by appropriate funerary rituals. Grief is an important poetic theme running through the Coma Berenices. Even the (possible) hints to Erigone and Ariadne may include references to their misery. Perhaps modern readers are troubled by the inconsistency of mourning for the death of kings and queens who, even in their lifetime, were worshipped as gods. This seeming inconsistency, at least, might explain why ritual lament is such a little examined aspect of the Ptolemaic ruler cult. This essay has rather argued that lamentation expresses the funerary element of deification. The earthly passing of divine rulers could also be accompanied by rituals such as hair offerings, the baring of breasts, libations of perfumes, wine and blood, bull sacrifices, and so forth. Such rituals consecrated the royal ceremonies and thus enhanced the sacralization of the Lagid cult. The catasterism of Coma Berenices, in other words, is not just a metaphor or model for the queen’s deification. It is, in fact, a mode or method by which the Ptolemies joined their ancestral pantheon.

112

Berenice II Euergetis

Ludwig Koenen and Hans Hauben are among the few scholars to recognize the ideological importance of Callimachus’s Coma Berenices. The integral interpretation given above demonstrates that apotheosis and lamentation are indeed the poem’s main themes. Rather than centering on divine kingship, however, it would be more astute to emphasize that the poem focuses on the concept of divine queenship. This is not only expressed through the identification of Arsinoe (II) Zephyritis with Aphrodite Cypris, although Arsinoe’s contribution to the Lagid cult is unmistakable. Callimachus presented her as the “mother” of Berenice II and the agent of the Lock’s catasterism. Arsinoe herself was carried aloft and set beneath the Starry Wain by the Dioscuri. The Canopus Decree, incidentally, expressed a similar belief about the Ba of princess Berenice Parthenus, who was thought to have ascended into heaven as the winged Solar Eye of Ra. An attentive reader of the Coma Berenices might recall that Selene brought about the immortalization of her human lover Endymion, while Eos, the mother of Memnon and Zephyr, did the same for handsome Orion. For an evaluation of Berenice’s queenship, the most important conclusion is that she did indeed lead a public ceremony in her husband’s absence. A plausible scenario would be that she not only planned the procession from the palace to the temple and the offering of a lock of hair at Arsinoe’s shrine, but also the subsequent disappearance of her offering and its fabricated discovery among the stars. Such a scenario indicates a close cooperation between the queen and her courtiers, scientists such as Conon and a poet such as Callimachus, and very likely with native priests as well. In so doing she demonstrated her authority—however much dependent on that of the king—and her acumen in attempting to avoid a native revolt. Significantly, the formal presentation of the catasterism in the king’s presence suggested the queen’s divinity (without a word about the king’s godliness). Through various hints and insinuations in the Coma Berenices, the queen is namely identified or associated with goddesses in such a way as to suggest that she composes herself as a true goddess. The poem weaves together strings of symbolism conveying divine paradigms. The puzzling passage about perfumes and ointments implies that the queen had conducted herself as Athena before her marriage and as Aphrodite afterwards. It cannot be coincidence that her Two Ladies Name assimilates Berenice II with Neith and Hathor, as well as with Bastet and Mut.

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

113

Bastet, to be sure, was the personification of ointment (Eg. bȝs) and was identified with Artemis. The latter appears in the poem in her lunar guise, as Hecate (Trivia) was considered an emanation of Selene. Her hunting companion, Lycaon’s daughter Callisto, shines among the constellations as Ursa Major. Like her Greek counterpart, Bastet could be gentle and protective, but also fierce and wrathful. Callimachus’s identification of the Starry Maiden (Virgo-Astraea) with Rhamnusian Nemesis centers about the themes of vengeance and retribution, justice and victory. The zodiacal sign of the Maiden ultimately derives from Ishtar-Shala, but compares favorably, too, with Neith, the Egyptian goddess of hunting—like Artemis—and of warfare—like Athena. Berenice II proved herself a true Mut by giving birth to six children between the time of her wedding to Ptolemy III and the Canopic Synod (246–238). The vulture goddess was the patroness of queenship and by the Ptolemaic period had assimilated with Isis-Hathor. For her part, Isis, like Demeter, was worshipped as Bringer of Law and of Fertility. The Ear of Grain (Spica) was as much her attribute as her Ba was identified with Sothis (Sirius). In the distance we might also perceive the figure of frond-carrying Zarpanitu, the consort of Marduk. The royal marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II, as portrayed in the Coma Berenices, is blessed with love and affection, prerogatives of Aphrodite. Their marriage, moreover, is construed as consanguineous, like that of the Theoi Adelphoi, and thus similarly sacred. With Llewellyn-Jones and Winder, we may rightly suspect that the queen’s portrayal is informed by Hathoric symbolism. Aphrodite’s Uranian aspect is underscored by calling the night sky “the pure lap of Cypris.” Since the goddess is associated with the planet Venus, however, this phrase can only be understood through an interpretatio graeca of the goddess Hathor, the Celestial Cow, Lady of Heaven, Nut. This evocative web ties together love and war, hunting and farming, heaven and earth, life and death in a syncretic dialogue with the multicultural population of Alexandria. The goddesses, in short, with whom Berenice II is thus identified embody eroticism, motherhood, fertility, hunting, warfare, victory, and justice. These are religious paradigms of female royalty with the henotheistic figure of IsisHathor at its focal point. The Coma Berenices ties together many poetic, mythological, and astronomical strands that connect lamentation, catasterism, and deification with various cyclical conceptions. These cycles include the stars’ nightly motion across the sky and sea (Cypris and Tethys);

114

Berenice II Euergetis

the rising and setting of constellations (Oceanus); the movements of the sun and moon with their seasons and phases (Helius and Selene, Theia’s offspring); and so forth. Such a conception of time involves intimate associations between love and life, sleep and death, prayer and thanksgiving, peril and salvation, grief and joy, war and victory, among others. Hauben is certainly correct in stressing the cosmic implications of the Canopus Decree, which manifests Ptolemy III and Berenice II as protectors of universal order.271 Life follows death, just as dawn follows night. Egyptian religion held that stars pass through the body of Nut, the goddess of heaven. Callimachus adapted this image by setting the Lock of Berenice in Cypris’s pure lap, while by day the stars return to graying Tethys. The Nile flood follows the rising of Orion, as announced by Sirius, and lasts from the time of Leo until Aquarius. Osiris, whose soul shines in Orion, was identified with Dionysus, who set the Crown of Ariadne among the stars and made her immortal. Isis-Sothis (Sirius) was the mother of Osiris’s son Horus, the paragon of royalty—like Leo, the King of Beasts. The Water-pourer Aquarius represents the flood, not only of the Nile, but also the Great Flood. Natural cycles of astral rising and setting, of seasonal drought and flooding, of death and resurrection were embodied in Egyptian religion by Osiris. Callimachus’s allusions to Leo, Aquarius, and Orion, in sum, evoke elements that lie at the heart of Egyptian life and belief, and that were historically of great concern to the native population at an uncertain time after an insufficient inundation. As an aside to the main topics of this essay it may prove beneficial to make a few topographical remarks. While the territorial references in the Coma Berenices have received a fair share of attention from modern scholars, a more general conclusion has seemed to elude most commentators. It can hardly be coincidental that the poem contains allusions to the four cardinal points: Asia or Assyria (scil., Syria) in the East (ll. 12 and 36); Mt. Latmus and Mt. Athos in the North (ll. 5 and 46); Epizephyrian Locris in the West (l. 54); and Ethiopia in the South (l. 52); with Cape Zephyrium on the Canopic branch of the Nile in the center (ll. 57–58). Two of these allusions stake continental claims in Asia and Egypt, comparable to the Adulis Monument. Asia, in this context, refers to the Middle East—as the continent beyond the Indus valley in the east and the mountain range stretching from the Caucasus and the Himalayas in the north was hardly known—if at all. Similarly, Ethiopia should be understood as a synonym for the whole African continent as all of the land south of the deserts and cataracts

Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices

115

of Egypt and Libya was unknown. Caria, of course, lay in the heart of the Ptolemaic overseas naval power. In contrast, the references to the Chalcidice and Magna Graecia would appear to stake claims in European territory. Three of these territorial markers—Mt. Athos, Epizephyrian Locris, and Cape Zephyrium—are moreover explicitly connected with Arsinoe II. If the hints to the Alexandrian obelisk (“Arsinoe’s cusp”) and the Theban colossus attributed to Memnon were indeed intentional, then the poem includes two more proud indications of the power and glory of the Ptolemaic empire. The present interpretation of the catasterism of Coma Berenices allows us an altogether brief glimpse of an important moment in Ptolemaic history. At a time when unrest began to brew among the Egyptian population due to the poor Nile inundation, the queen planned a grand ceremony in the king’s absence that insinuated her own divinity. Her prayer for her husband’s swift return perhaps offered him an opportunity to return victoriously from a faltering military campaign that had failed to accomplish its objective. In close collaboration with Conon and Callimachus, probably together with the native priests who would later conceive the queen’s official titulature, the deification of Berenice II Euergetis was thus formally presented to the multicultural, cosmopolitan public in Egyptian Alexandria.

CONCLUSION

T

he preceding essays share two primary aims: to place the dates surrounding the life of Berenice II Euergetis on a more secure factual and historical footing, and to study early Hellenistic dynastic relations and marital practices. Such a purpose additionally involves examining aspects of early Ptolemaic chronology and genealogy, as well as issues including royal succession, legitimacy, ideology, and deification. It bears repeating that in these areas of study much is still uncertain and much work is yet to be done. In light of the nature of the extant sources, the intricacies of the matters at hand, and the various specializations involved in the interpretation, I would not be surprised if some of my conclusions will be met with disagreement. Some of my suggestions certainly remain only conjectural. The study of Hellenistic history is severely hampered by the scarcity, diversity, and ambiguity of the evidence, not to mention the various ancient languages in which they were written. If anything, I hope to have illustrated the wide range of interpretations and assumptions underlying both the ancient sources and modern scholarship. It may prove beneficial in conclusion to summarize this collection’s findings, beginning with an account of the established biographical data about Berenice II. She was born ca. 267/6 BCE, perhaps about December 25, as the daughter of Magas of Cyrene and the Seleucid princess Apame. Toward the end of his life her father reconciled with his half-brother Ptolemy II Philadelphus (ca. 253–252 BCE), i.a., by engaging Berenice to be married to the Lagid heir, the future Ptolemy III Euergetes. After Magas’s death ca. 252/1 BCE, nonetheless, his widow invited Demetrius the Fair to claim kingship in Cyrene and marry Berenice. Demetrius for his part did not last very long. His regal assumptions, plus his contempt for the Cyrenean people and army, if not his extra-marital affair with the queen mother, soon led to his assassination ca. 251/0 BCE. After the short-lived Cyrenean republic (250/49–249/8 BCE), Berenice then renewed her Ptolemaic betrothal while her fiancé was installed as Egyptian viceroy.

118

Berenice II Euergetis

Their wedding was solemnized shortly after his accession to the Egyptian throne ca. January/February 246 BCE. The marriage not only brought about the reunification of Cyrene and Egypt, but also ushered in a period of peace and prosperity in Egypt in which the Ptolemaic empire reached the zenith of its wealth and power. They had six children in about as many years and were officially incorporated into the royal cult as Theoi Euergetai (“Benefactor Gods”) ca. 244/3 BCE. In the late 240s BCE, Berenice won the chariot race at the Nemean Games, and possibly the Olympic Games as well. [Callim. Vict. Beren.] After Ptolemy III died—apparently of natural causes (late 222 BCE)—Berenice II was poisoned on Sosibius’s orders (early 221 BCE) at the age of 45. [Polyb. 15.25.2.] Other members of the royal family fell victim to the tutor of Ptolemy IV Philopator. So far, this biographical sketch generally conforms to scholarly opinion (give or take some minor details). My research has also led me to draw conclusions, however, that differ significantly from modern scholarship. For instance, Magas could not have married Apame much before the birth of their daughter Berenice, because Apame herself was born no earlier than ca. 285 BCE. This birth date certainly rules out a marriage ca. 276/5 BCE, as is commonly supposed, when Apame would not have been nubile. Redating this marriage to ca. 269/8 BCE at least has the benefit of avoiding the otherwise suspicious long period between the wedding and the birth of their only child. I see no reason, moreover, to question the assertion that Berenice saved her panicking father and commanded an army on the battlefield. [Hyg. Astr. 2.24.] While nominally independent, Magas had coins issued on which his daughter was hailed basilissa—a statement that attests to her importance in the diplomatic and dynastic relations between Cyrene and Egypt. She conspired to have her husband Demetrius assassinated by having him caught in flagrante delicto in her mother’s bed. She was responsible for the refoundation of Euesperides, which she renamed after herself. Similarly, I have no doubt that Berenice II served as queen regent in Alexandria when Ptolemy III embarked on his unsuccessful Syrian campaign to save his sister and secure his nephew’s accession against the schemes of Laodice, the repudiated wife of Antiochus II Theos. In close collaboration with her advisors, with Conon and Callimachus, not to mention the priesthood, she organized a public ceremony in which she sacrificed a lock of hair to all the gods at the Canopic shrine of Arsinoe Zephyritis for the swift and safe return of the king (ca. November 246–February 245 BCE). After Ptolemy’s

Conclusion

119

homecoming the catasterism of Coma Berenices was formally presented in Alexandria (ca. May 245 BCE, perhaps about the nineteenth). Coins were minted that anticipated the queen’s divinity, assimilated her with her predecessor Arsinoe II, and associated her with the prosperity symbolized by the cornucopia on the reverse. Berenice II cannot be held responsible, furthermore, for the poor Nile floods in the early reign of Ptolemy III (ca. 246–244 BCE). She was no doubt personally involved in relief efforts in a time of mounting social unrest due to threatening food shortages. In short, I believe that Berenice proved herself an assertive woman and capable ruler. *

*

*

Regarding political and military historical chronology, the preceding essays have likewise submitted arguments that do not always follow the established scholarly doctrines. Many of my suggestions, to be sure, remain speculative and do require further study. Nevertheless, my sense is that the arguments do deserve repeating here. I am surprised, for instance, that Grainger does not discuss what could be considered the preliminary phase of the First Syrian War otherwise called the War of Syrian Succession. This first phase actually contradicts his claim that the kings involved with the Syrian Wars never broke their peace treaties as long as they both lived. It would have therefore behooved Grainger not to ignore the issue. In this period, ca. 281/0–280/79 BCE, the Ptolemaic sphere of influence expanded at the expense of the Seleucid empire. Whether or not Ptolemy II and Antiochus I Soter were actually engaged in battle, the Ptolemaic imperial expansion is part of the ongoing political and military confrontation between the two kingdoms. Ptolemy I Soter had first laid claim to territory along the Near-Eastern and Asia-Minor coast— territory that was not assigned to him at Babylon as satrap of Egypt, but that he acquired through the use or show of military force. By fortifying his control along the eastern Mediterranean coast, Ptolemy II breached the agreement his father had made with Seleucus I Nicator, the first moment he could take advantage of Seleucid weakness. During the First Syrian War proper Ptolemy II was similarly responsible for instigating battle. He had already arranged the defenses of his country (November 274 BCE) and his troops had already marched into Syria (winter 274/3 BCE), before Antiochus I could return from Sardis (March 273 BCE). The Seleucid king had been engaged in urgent matters in Asia Minor, not in the least the Gallic

120

Berenice II Euergetis

invasion, which furthermore would have made it strategically dangerous to have provoked war with Egypt. Rather than facing the threat of a two-front war from Cyrene and Syria, Ptolemy took the initiative and invaded Seleucid territory. Antiochus was undoubtedly thrown into the defensive. Land was confiscated, troops were levied for a month, support and elephants were sent for from Bactria. Peace was agreed to (probably earlier than modern historians tend to maintain, viz. 273/2 BCE) on terms favorable to Ptolemy II, who could thus claim a grand victory. [Cf. the Saïs stele.] It is probably no coincidence that Rome made an alliance with Egypt around the same time (273 BCE), that is, after Pyrrhus of Epirus had been defeated in Italy. Antiochus’s precarious situation in the 270s BCE would also seem to preclude any kind of agreement with Magas to invade Egypt in a two-pronged attack. What, moreover, would the purpose have been? To carve up the country would have been impossible, and Antiochus would have gained little from replacing Ptolemy II with Magas, regardless of their marital alliance. Contrary to what modern scholars have deduced from Pausanias’s unclear passage (1.7.1–3), it would seem more reasonable to assume that Magas’s failed attempt to march against Egypt took place in the early 260s BCE. For by then the Seleucid kingdom had stabilized, while the Ptolemaic forces were otherwise engaged in Attica against the Macedonian troops of Antigonus II Gonatas during the Chremonidean War (269/8–261/0 BCE). The Athenian Chremonides had negotiated an alliance with Ptolemy II and King Areus of Sparta for the liberation of the Greek mainland from Macedonian hegemony. Areus fought successive campaign seasons around Corinth against the Macedonian forces until he fell in battle (266/5 BCE) and the Spartans withdrew from the alliance. Meanwhile, the Ptolemaic fleet under admiral Patroclus could not prevent pirates from raiding the Attic countryside. Antigonus for his part was first distracted by a rebellion of his Gallic mercenaries (267/6 BCE) at Megara, and then retreated from besieging Athens as Alexander II of Epirus had invaded Macedon (ca. 264 BCE). Eventually, Antigonus was able to starve Athens into surrender (263/2 BCE), while fighting may have continued in central Greece and the Aegean islands in subsequent years. It is quite unlikely that Magas strengthened any possible diplomatic relations with the Seleucids through a marital alliance in the mid-270s BCE. Antiochus’s daughter Apame would only reach marriageable age after the First Syrian War and then would still have been

Conclusion

121

very young (i.e., in her early teens). Pausanias (1.7.3), moreover, does not claim there was a connection between Magas’s march against Egypt and his marriage to Apame. Rather, he maintains that Magas was married to Apame at the time when Antiochus marched against Egypt. I have proposed that it was the Chremonidean War that provided them the perfect opportunity to take advantage of Egypt’s weakness. What remains uncertain is whether Pausanias’s description of Antiochus’s failed campaign against Egypt should be dated to the 260s BCE, or that the passage is merely confused and out of chronological order. (If the former, historians should perhaps add a third phase to the First Syrian War.) At any rate, Magas’s attack came to naught due to a revolt among the nomadic Marmaridae in Libya, while Ptolemy faced an uprising among his Gallic mercenaries. Although Ptolemy could do little more than to accept Cyrene’s independence, Magas was eventually forced to acknowledge Egypt’s suzerainty. Ptolemy, furthermore, was able to form an alliance with Carthage, in addition to his treaty with Rome, likely before the First Punic War, viz. in the mid-260s BCE. The Second Syrian War (259–253 BCE; not discussed in detail) should probably be connected to the end of Ptolemy’s joint rule with the son of Arsinoe II and the latter’s rebellion (259 BCE). Ptolemy III was recalled from Thera and was engaged to be married to Berenice around the same time that his homonymous sister was given into marriage to Antiochus II (summer 252 BCE). Antiochus was required to repudiate his wife Laodice and disown their son Seleucus, which set the stage for the Third Syrian War, also known as the “Laodicean War.” The chronology suggested in the last essay for the military conflict between Ptolemy III and Seleucus II also differs slightly from modern scholarship. After news reached Alexandria about the precarious position of Berenice Phernophorus and her son in Antioch, Ptolemy mustered forces for about a month in Egypt and marched into Coele-Syria (October 246 BCE). Having reached Antioch he discovered the fate of his sister (November), then moved into Mesopotamia (November/ December) and commenced the siege of the Seleucid capitol Babylon (January 245 BCE). When Ptolemy was recalled due to social unrest in Egypt, he installed his governor Xanthippus (perhaps the same mercenary general who earlier commanded the Carthaginian forces in the First Punic War) as commander-in-chief of the Ptolemaic army (January 245 BCE). Ptolemy returned to Alexandria and claimed great successes. [Cf. the Adulis Monument.]

122

Berenice II Euergetis

By the summer of 245 BCE the Egyptian troops had evacuated Mesopotamia. The “Laodicean War” had been a Ptolemaic failure to the extent that Ptolemy had not been able to save his sister and secure her son’s claim to the Seleucid throne. Seleucus II attempted to regain lost territory in Coele-Syria, but was ultimately unable to achieve much. [Just. Epit. 27.2.] Whether the Seleucid forces were actually engaged in battle with the Ptolemaic army, rather than the stationed garrison troops is a question that would require further examination. Similarly unclear is how long this floundering Seleucid campaign lasted. The secessionist ambitions of his younger brother Antiochus Hierax in Asia Minor certainly soon distracted Seleucus. Peace was brokered that was highly in Ptolemy’s favor. The Ptolemaic kingdom was at the height of its imperial power. This brief account of the first three Syrian Wars has brought to light a degree of confusion in modern scholarship, which no doubt is partially a problem of semantics or terminology. Numbering the confrontations chronologically and/or identifying “phases” of these “wars” might at least help in differentiating between long-term conflicts and short-term campaigns. Using a phrase such as “Syrian Wars,” however, implies a unity in origins and motives, in cause and effect. Historically it is evident that military engagements continued to occur between the two kingdoms over the control of the eastern Mediterranean coast. The conflict went back to the territorial claims staked by Ptolemy I and continued even after the Seleucid kingdom had been extinguished until the time of Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Historians, in my opinion, would be advised to reconsider the terminology as well as the chronology of this recurring warfare over control of the eastern Mediterranean coast. Why are the four campaigns of Ptolemy I excluded (318–301 BCE)? Why not consider Ptolemaic imperial expansion during the Seleucid succession crisis (281/0–280/79 BCE) as a preliminary phase of the First Syrian War? Should we deduce from Pausanias that Antiochus I attempted to regain Syria while Ptolemy II was involved in the Chremonidean War (ca. 268/7 BCE), and thus add a third phase to the First Syrian War? Should Seleucus’s floundering campaign in Coele-Syria be considered part of the Third Syrian War, perhaps as a second phase, or should we consider the “Laodicean War” separately? In any case, when did Seleucus march into Syria and how long did his campaign last? These and other questions about the Syrian Wars arise from the present study. It has not been my aim to offer answers to all

Conclusion

123

these questions. I do hope my research may serve as a contribution to reopen the investigation. *

*

*

In order to better appraise my findings regarding early Hellenistic marital practices and place the dynastic relations into a wider context, I will give a summary and introduce some new material in the following discussion. Magas was the eldest child of Berenice I with her first husband Philip, an otherwise unknown Macedonian.1 Magas was remarkably named for his mother’s father, and was probably born about 325/4 BCE. According to the conventional date of his wedding to Apame (ca. 276/5 BCE), he would have been around 50 years old. Apame, however, was probably not born before ca. 285 BCE, and thus would not have reached marriageable age until the later 270s BCE. She was the daughter of Antiochus I and Stratonice I, who were married on their part ca. 294/3 BCE. Based on the assumptions that the Seleucids followed regular dynastic naming practices at the time, gave preference to Graeco-Macedonian names, and that Stratonice was the mother of most if not all of Antiochus’s known children, I have argued that Apame must have been born after her siblings Seleucus (293/2–266 BCE), Stratonice (ca. 290–238 BCE), and Antiochus II (286–246 BCE); her (half?) sister Laodice may have been born later (ca. 281/0 BCE). On this reckoning, then, the wedding of Magas and Apame took place at some time before the Chremonidean War, say ca. 269/8 BCE, when he would already have been in his mid- to late fifties and she about 16 or 17. Incidentally, Apame was given the name of her father’s mother, wife of Seleucus I and daughter of the Sogdian nobleman Spitamenes. Berenice was evidently her parents’ only (surviving) child. She was named after her grandmother Berenice I. (If she had any siblings, the extant sources remain silent.) Berenice Phernophorus was given into marriage to Antiochus II in 252 BCE, around the time that her namesake was engaged to Ptolemy III. The daughter of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I was similarly named after Berenice I. (Magas and Ptolemy II, to be sure, were half-brothers from the same mother, but from different fathers.) The birth date of this Berenice is uncertain (ca. 279–275 BCE), so her age at first marriage is difficult to determine (viz., anywhere between 23 and 27). Antiochus II, at any rate, had already been married to (his half-sister?) Laodice since his joint rule with his father ca. 267/6 BCE. [Polyaen. 8.50.] He was the second son of Antiochus I and, like his

124

Berenice II Euergetis

father, named after the forebear of the Seleucid dynasty; Laodice for her part was named after the mother of Seleucus I. When her father passed away in his 70s, Berenice was indeed still young—no more than 16 years of age. Demetrius the Fair was perhaps 20 years her senior. He was, in fact, about the same age as his motherin-law. Apart from his supposed good looks and Antigonid descent, Apame may also have preferred him for her daughter because he was the son of Ptolemaïs, daughter of Ptolemy I and Eurydice. That is to say, the queen mother may have deliberately chosen a scion from the rival collateral line of the Lagid house that Ptolemy II had tried so hard to annihilate. Demetrius was one of his father’s last children and shared his name. He was first married ca. 264/3 BCE to the Larissan noblewoman Olympias, the mother of Antigonus III Doson. Berenice II was about 20 when she remarried (January/February 246 BCE); Ptolemy III was ca. 38 at the time. He was the first child of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I, and it was his first and only marriage. Patently he postponed his marriage until his succession was secured, so as to guarantee the legitimacy of his royal offspring. Unless there were twins among their children, Berenice bore her husband six children at intervals of just a little over a year: Arsinoe III (November 246– June 245 BCE); Ptolemy IV (May/June 244 BCE); Magas (July/August 243 BCE); Alexander (September/October 242 BCE); “Lysimachus” (November/December 241 BCE); and Berenice (January–March 239 BCE). Admittedly, there is some risk of circular reasoning in the suggested birth order, but the names would appear to follow expected dynastic practices. This birth order, nevertheless, appears to be substantiated by epigraphic evidence. From the discussed cases we can draw up a table of the respective age at which they first married (Table C.1). Most notable is the wide range for male age at first marriage between 19 and as old as 57 years, with an average of 30. For women this range lies between as young as 14 and 27, with an average of 19. The average age difference comes to 11 years, while Magas may have been four decades older than Apame. In both male and female cases there is one significant outlier. Magas had probably waited until the time of his claim to kingship before he first married. In the case of Berenice Phernophorus, the situation is complicated by her mother’s removal from the Alexandrian court. Evidently, Ptolemy II postponed his daughter’s engagement until after the death of his second wife, Arsinoe II, and his joint rule. Perhaps he had also waited until an opportunity arose for a suitable dynastic alliance. Should we discount these two exceptional cases,

Conclusion

125

TableC .1 Agea tf irstm arriage Male

Age (years)

Female

Age (years)

Ptolemy II

23–24

Arsinoe I

15–20

Magas Antiochus II

55–57 19–20

16–17 ca. 15 23–27

Demetrius the Fair PtolemyI II Ptolemy IV Average

21–22 ca.38 23 30

Apame Laodice Berenice Phernophorus Olympias of Larissa BereniceI I Arsinoe III

? 14–16 24–25 19

the male age range of the remaining cases would fall between 19 and 38, with an average age of first marriage at 25 years, while the female range would come between 14 and 25, with an average of 17/18; this would decrease the average age difference to eight years. Although the discussed cases offer only a small sample of Hellenistic royal marriages, it is important to point out that while on average the male age at first marriage conforms to general expectations, the female age lies significantly higher. What little demographic evidence is available seems to indicate that men customarily first married in their late 20s or early 30s in ancient Greece.2 Male members of the Argead household, however, seem to have married in their early 20s.3 Most early Hellenistic kings discussed in this collection fit that royal pattern. Only Magas and Ptolemy III married (much) later. Conversely, girls reached marriageable age in their early teens (ca. 12 years of age) and were usually married in their mid-teens in ancient Greece.4 (Elite girls were possibly married off even earlier in Imperial Rome.5) While evidence of Macedonian royal women is sparse, female members of the Argead household seem to have married later, in their late teens or early 20s.6 The early Hellenistic royal women by and large fit the Argead pattern. Only Berenice Phernophorus and Arsinoe III were married after their teens, while the other examined cases were married in their mid- to late teens. It may be of note, at least, that none of the queens were first married in their early teens, even though they would have become nubile at the age of 12. This is important to keep in mind, insofar as modern historians tend to allow for the possibility

126

Berenice II Euergetis

that Hellenistic princesses were married off at such an early adolescent age, while the cases in which the birth date is reasonably well known indicate that they were more generally first married in their later teens or early 20s.7 *

*

*

The engagement of Berenice II to Ptolemy III, some time before her father’s death, had important and unforeseen political ramifications that illustrate the precarious nature of dynastic alliances. When Magas betrothed his daughter to the Lagid heir, his aim must have been to secure the continuation of his kingdom and prevent a state of anarchy in Cyrene after his death. There are a few further conclusions, however, that should also be drawn from this engagement. Foremost, of course, is that the marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II would eventually result in the reunification of Egypt and Cyrene. [Anth. Pal. 9.235.] Magas apparently remained king until his death. That is to say, his kingdom was not directly integrated as province (satrapy) into the Ptolemaic empire. Yet, the Cyrenean king probably had to acknowledge Ptolemaic suzerainty in some way (as the Berenice coinage would seem to corroborate). Apame could therefore offer kingship to Demetrius the Fair. [Just. Epit. 26.3.3.] His takeover nonetheless caused serious dissent among the Cyrenean people. He evidently captured Cyrene by use of military force, and he perhaps even tried to replace the Cyrenean army with his own. [Euseb. Chron. I: 237.] The populace may have consented to the reunification with Egypt, but the Antigonid coup may also have stirred fears of Ptolemaic military intervention. Demetrius’s affair with his mother-in-law could only have further outraged the people with his flagrant contempt. Civil strife ensued after his death. Some elements among the Cyrenean people must have felt that the assassination of Demetrius provided the perfect opportunity to reestablish their independence as an autonomous republic. Berenice, nonetheless, is said to have renewed her engagement to Ptolemy III with the explicit approval of the Cyrenean people. [Just. Epit. 26.3.5.] It remains difficult to understand how the Cyreneans could simultaneously have approved of the Ptolemaic betrothal (and thus the eventual reunification with Egypt) while desiring to set up an independent government. The brief attempt at Cyrenean autonomy (250/49–249/8 BCE), in other words, was possibly cut short by some sort of diplomatic accommodation or military intervention, which likely enforced

Conclusion

127

Ptolemaic suzerainty—including the renewal of Berenice’s engagement to the Lagid heir. Her fiancé, Ptolemy III, probably joined her in Cyrene as viceroy (stratgos or satrap) on his father’s behalf. The familial relations among the Hellenistic kingdoms are to modern standards remarkably, perhaps even shockingly close. Ptolemy III and Berenice II were first cousins, as they shared the same grandmother, Berenice I, and their fathers were half-brothers. Ptolemy Ceraunus was briefly married to his half-sister Arsinoe II, after the death of her first husband Lysimachus. Antiochus II may also have been married to a half-sister, Laodice, before repudiating her in favor of Berenice Phernophorus. None of these marriages, of course, were as endogamous as the sibling incest of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, or (two generations later) that of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III. Ptolemaic brother-sister marriage has already received much scholarly attention.8 Yet the phenomenon of royal incest deserves further examination, both in-depth on an individual, case-to-case basis, and in-breadth in a wider cross-cultural framework. The present volume, however, is not the place to delve into speculations on the matter. What I do feel is important to emphasize that both Ptolemy III and Berenice II were officially proclaimed children of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. This allowed for a formal presentation of three generations of unbroken succession from Ptolemy I and Berenice I onwards. In the next generation, this practice was continued when the Alexandrian court required Ptolemy IV to marry his sister Arsinoe III. The ideological adherence to royal consanguinity (kasignēsia), meant not only that Berenice’s parents were renounced, but also that Ptolemy’s mother Arsinoe I was relegated to oblivion. The king’s succession may have required some justification, since his mother had been banished and he himself had been removed from court in his youth. Dynastic legitimation, however, does not sufficiently explain the queen’s full-fledged absorption into the Lagid house. The queen’s designation as the king’s “sister-wife” was evidently early, because even in the lacunose Coma Berenices Callimachus called the deified Arsinoe Berenice’s “mother” (l. 45). Clearly, the appellation served more than practical, political purposes. It certainly served to strengthen her position at court, especially during the absence of her husband and in light of growing unrest due to the threat of food shortage. She also acquired royal authority equal to that of the king—authority that was similarly expressed through an unprecedented series of Egyptian royal titles as well as the impressive Two Ladies Name the

128

Berenice II Euergetis

Egyptian priests bestowed upon her. Her portrait coinage as well as Callimachus’s poems in her honor alluded to Berenice’s sacral sovereignty that was officially declared through the cult of the Theoi Euergetai since 244/3 BCE. *

*

*

Thus far it has escaped scholarly attention that the astronomical and mythological symbolism exposed in the Coma Berenices can be drawn in immediate connection with the queen’s unique Two Ladies Name. In this collection I have illuminated a remarkable convergence of associations focusing on her divine queenship. Her Egyptian titulature assimilates Berenice II with Neith, Bastet, Mut, and Hathor, while Callimachus’s poem compares her (directly or indirectly) with their Greek counterparts Athena, Artemis, Demeter, and Aphrodite. This web of religious identifications presents the queen as Bringer of Love and Prosperity, Benevolence and Salvation, Vengeance and Victory, Law and Order—that is, as the Protectress of Egypt, of kingship and of dynastic succession. I have furthermore argued that Berenice, like Tefnut in the myth of the Solar Eye, was fetched from afar by her brother to join the gods of Egypt. The Solar Eye, in turn, is one of the paradigmatic winged agents that transports Ptolemaic queens and princesses into heaven where they shine forever in the sky. After their earthly passing, in other words, the deceased royal women were believed to join the Lagid pantheon while their Ba’s shine as stars in the firmament. Behind Callimachus’s confounding depiction of the constellations passing through the pure lap of Aphrodite at night and returning to Tethys by day, we can see the Egyptian sky goddess Nut, Lady of Heaven, also conceived of as the Celestial Cow Hathor. Isis was likewise believed to shine in the sky as Sirius and announce the rising of Osiris-Orion, when the sun was in Leo and the Nile began to overflow. The river’s annual flood would be retreating at the end of the Inundation Season when Aquarius was best seen in the evening sky over Egypt. The desire for Aquarius to shine beside Orion incidentally voices the wish for the flood to be abundant and save the populace from starvation. It can be no coincidence, then, that Berenice’s eponymous constellation voices this wish at a time when the inundation had in fact been poor and the threat of famine became very real. The catasterism of Coma Berenices itself is the most obvious mode of apotheotic ascension. This heavenly assumption, the final

Conclusion

129

sacrament of deification, was accompanied by rites of lamentation, the beating and bearing of breasts, the tearing and cutting of hair, offerings of blood, wine and perfumes, as well as other lavish sacrifices. The Canopus Decree would eventually convey an intimate relation between royal benevolence, consanguinity, and salvation as manifestations of sacral king- and queenship; and with it the priestly synod confirmed the incorporation of the Theoi Euergetai into the native temples. The Coma Berenices, however, had already anticipated the queen’s deification years before. The poem did so in language and imagery that was doubtless recognizable to the Greek and Macedonian population, but that on further scrutiny adapts aspects of Egyptian theology and Near-Eastern astronomy well suited for the multicultural cosmopolitan metropolis of Alexandria. *

*

*

Reviewing the evidence regarding the life and times of Berenice II Euergetis should also allow for an evaluation if not of her personality or character, at least of the status and authority of her queenship. From her parents, she received a royal education for a prominent political position. She was a trained horseback rider and commanded an army on the battlefield as a teenager when her father was panicked by the enemy’s numbers. Growing up in a nominally independent kingdom, she could learn the trades of diplomacy and manipulation from her father and mother. Magas had wrested a measure of independence by exploiting his overlord’s weakness, while Apame asserted herself by breaking off her daughter’s betrothal to the Lagid heir and inviting an Antigonid prince instead. Berenice conspired to have her first husband assassinated and then renewed her engagement to the Egyptian crown prince. She was personally involved in the refoundation of a city renamed in her honor. Her status as royal woman, though publicly proclaimed on Cyrenean and Alexandrian coins, was nonetheless not secure until after the Laodicean War. With advisors at court, meanwhile, she arranged for a public ceremony praying for the victorious return of her husband. The subsequent presentation of Conon’s astronomical discovery of the catasterism of the queen’s lock not only celebrated her marriage and devotion to the Ptolemaic king, but also—and more importantly—anticipated her eventual deification. Together with her husband the queen arranged for relief efforts to prevent famine among the population, for which they were hailed “Benefactor Gods.” Unlike his father or his son, Ptolemy III

130

Berenice II Euergetis

was married only once and had no known mistresses. She participated in chariot races in both the Nemean and Olympic Games, and won. Berenice II was praised for her virtue and valor, her magnanimity and benevolence in Alexandrian poetry, as well as priestly decrees. She was, in sum, a royal woman who demonstrated her authority in military and political affairs both in Cyrene and in Egypt.

APPENDICES

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.7.1–3 1. οὗτος ὁ Πτολεμαῖος Ἀρσινόης ἀδελφῆς ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἐρασθεὶς ἔγημεν αὐτήν, Μακεδόσιν οὐδαμῶς ποιῶν νομιζόμενα, Αἰγυπτίοις μέντοι ὧν ἦρχε. δεύτερα δὲ ἀδελφὸν ἀπέκτεινεν Ἀργαῖον ἐπιβουλεύοντα, ὡς λέγεται, καὶ τὸν Ἀλεξάνδρου νεκρὸν οὗτος ὁ καταγαγὼν ἦν ἐκ Μέμφιδος· ἀπέκτεινε δὲ καὶ ἄλλον ἀδελφὸν γεγονότα ἐξ Εὐρυδίκης, Κυπρίους ἀφιστάντα αἰσθόμενος. Μάγας δὲ ἀδελφὸς ὁμομήτριος Πτολεμαίου παρὰ Βερενίκης τῆς μητρὸς ἀξιωθεὶς ἐπιτροπεύειν Κυρήνην— ἐγεγόνει δὲ ἐκ Φιλίππου τῇ Βερενίκῃ Μακεδόνος μέν, ἄλλως δὲ ἀγνώστου καὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ δήμου—, τότε δὴ οὗτος ὁ Μάγας ἀποστήσας Πτολεμαίου Κυρηναίους ἤλαυνεν ἐπ᾽ Αἴγυπτον. 2. καὶ Πτολεμαῖος μὲν τὴν ἐσβολὴν φραξάμενος ὑπέμενεν ἐπιόντας Κυρηναίους, Μάγᾳ δὲ ἀπαγγέλλεται καθ᾽ ὁδὸν ἀφεστηκέναι Μαρμαρίδας· εἰσὶ δὲ Λιβύων οἱ Μαρμαρίδαι τῶν νομάδων. καὶ τότε μὲν ἐς Κυρήνην ἀπηλλάσσετο· Πτολεμαῖον δὲ ὡρμημένον διώκειν αἰτία τοιάδε ἐπέσχεν. ἡνίκα παρεσκευάζετο ἐπιόντα ἀμύνεσθαι Μάγαν, ξένους ἐπηγάγετο καὶ ἄλλους καὶ Γαλάτας ἐς τετρακισχιλίους· τούτους λαβὼν ἐπιβουλεύοντας κατασχεῖν Αἴγυπτον, ἀνήγαγε σφᾶς ἐς νῆσον ἔρημον διὰ τοῦ ποταμοῦ. καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐνταῦθα ἀπώλοντο ὑπό τε ἀλλήλων καὶ τοῦ λιμοῦ. 3. Μάγας δὲ ἤδη γυναῖκα ἔχων Ἀπάμην Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Σελεύκου θυγατέρα, ἔπεισεν Ἀντίοχον παραβάντα ἃς ὁ πατήρ οἱ Σέλευκος ἐποιήσατο συνθήκας πρὸς Πτολεμαῖον, ἐλαύνειν ἐπ᾽ Αἴγυπτον. ὡρμημένου δὲ Ἀντιόχου στρατεύειν, Πτολεμαῖος διέπεμψεν ἐς ἅπαντας ὧν ἦρχεν Ἀντίοχος, τοῖς μὲν ἀσθενεστέροις λῃστὰς κατατρέχειν τὴν γῆν, οἳ δὲ ἦσαν δυνατώτεροι στρατιᾷ κατεῖργεν, ὥστε Ἀντιόχῳ μήποτε ἐγγενέσθαι στρατεύειν ἐπ᾽ Αἴγυπτον. οὗτος ὁ Πτολεμαῖος καὶ πρότερον εἴρηταί μοι ὡς ναυτικὸν ἔστειλεν ἐς τὴν Ἀθηναίων συμμαχίαν ἐπ᾽ Ἀντίγονον καὶ Μακεδόνας· ἀλλὰ

132

Appendices

γὰρ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ οὐδὲν μέγα ἐγένετο ἐς σωτηρίαν Ἀθηναίοις. οἱ δέ οἱ παῖδες ἐγένοντο ἐξ Ἀρσινόης, οὐ τῆς ἀδελφῆς, Λυσιμάχου δὲ θυγατρός· τὴν δέ οἱ συνοικήσασαν ἀδελφὴν κατέλαβεν ἔτι πρότερον ἀποθανεῖν ἄπαιδα, καὶ νομός ἐστιν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς Ἀρσινοΐτης Αἰγυπτίοις. 1. This Ptolemy fell in love with Arsinoe, his full sister, and married her, thus acting against Macedonian customs, while he followed that of the Egyptians. Secondly, he put to death his brother Argaeus, who was, it is said, plotting against him; and he it was who brought down from Memphis the corpse of Alexander. He also put to death another brother born of Eurydice, on discovering that he was inducing a revolt among the Cyprians. Then Magas, the half-brother of Ptolemy, who had been entrusted with the governorship of Cyrene by his mother Berenice—she had borne him to Philip, a Macedonians, but otherwise of no note and one of the commoners—induced the Cyreneans to revolt from Ptolemy and struck against Egypt. 2. While Ptolemy fortified the border and awaited the approach of the Cyrenians, Magas was informed while on the march that the Marmaridae had revolted—the Marmaridae are nomads of Libya. Ptolemy resolved to pursue, but was checked owing to the following circumstance. When he was preparing to meet the approach of Magas, he engaged mercenaries, including some four thousand Gauls. Discovering that they were plotting to seize Egypt, he led them through the river to a deserted island. There they perished at one another’s hands or by famine. 3. Magas, who was already married to Apame, daughter of Antiochus, son of Seleucus, persuaded Antiochus to break the treaty which his father Seleucus had made with Ptolemy and to strike against Egypt. When Antiochus resolved to attack, Ptolemy dispatched forces against all the subjects of Antiochus, pirates to overrun the lands of the weaker, and an army to hold back the stronger, so that Antiochus never had an opportunity of attacking Egypt. I have stated earlier how this Ptolemy sent a fleet to help the Athenians against Antigonus and the Macedonians, but it did very little to save Athens. His children were by Arsinoe, not his sister, but the daughter of Lysimachus. His sister who had wedded him happened to die childless before this, and there is in Egypt a district called Arsinoites after her. —Trans. adapted from W. H. S. Jones, Loeb ed. 1918.

Appendices

133

Text and Translation of the Coma Berenices Text and translation of both Callimachus’s Coma Berenices and Catullus’s Carmen 66 are appended here side by side as supplements; for critical apparatus and commentary, i.a., see: R. Pfeiffer 1949– 1953, I: 112–123; Lee 1990, 104–111, 171–172; Marinone 1997, 62–233; Trappes-Lomax 2007, 208–219; Clayman 2014, 187–190; www.catullusonline.com.

134

Appendices

Callimachus, Coma Berenices Πάντα τὸν ἐν γραμμαῖσιν ἰδὼν ὅρον ἧι τε φέρονται ........ ...

2

Having studied all the drawings in the sky, such as they revolve ........ ...

........ ...

3

........ ...

........ ...

4

........ ...

........ ...

5

........ ...

........ ...

6

........ ...

ἦ με Κόνων ἔβλεψεν ἐν ἠέρι τὸν Βερενίκης βόστρυχον ὃν κείνη πᾶσιν ἔθηκε θεοῖς ........ ...

7

Conon saw me in the sky, Berenice’s curl, which she offered to all the gods ........ ...

1

8 9

........ ...

10

........ ...

........ ...

11

........ ...

........ ...

12

........ ...

........ ...

13

........ ...

........ ...

14

........ ...

........ ...

15

........ ...

........ ...

16

........ ...

........ ...

17

........ ...

........ ...

18

........ ...

Appendices

135

Catullus, Carmen 66 Omnia qui magni dispexit lumina mundi, qui stellarum ortus comperit atque obitus, flammeus ut rapidi solis nitor obscuretur,

2

ut cedant certis sidera temporibus,

4

ut Triviam furtim sub Latmia saxa relegans dulcis amor gyro devocet aereo:

5

idem me ille Conon caelesti in lumine vidit e Beroniceo vertice caesariem fulgentem clare, quam multis illa dearum levia protendens brachia pollicita est,

1

3

6 7 8 9 10

qua rex tempestate novo auctus hymenaeo vastatum finis juerat Assyrios,

12

dulcia nocturnae portans vestigia rixae,

13

quam de virgineis gesserat exuviis.

14

estne novis nuptis odio Venus? anne parentum frustrantur falsis gaudia lacrimulis,

15

ubertim thalami quas intra limina fundunt? non, ita me divi, vera gemunt, juerint.

11

16 17 18

He who discerned all the lights of the vast heavens, who learnt the risings of the stars and their settings, how the flaming sheen of the swift sun is obscured, how the constellations recede at set seasons, how sweet love calls Trivia from her aery circuit, banishing her secretly under the rock of Latmus – that same Conon saw me among the celestial light, the lock from the head of Berenice, shining brightly, whom to many of the goddesses she had pledged, stretching forth her smooth arms, at that season when the king, august from his new nuptial, had gone to waste the Assyrian borders, bearing the sweet scars of the nocturnal struggle, which he waged for the spoils of her virginity. Is Venus hated by brides? and do they deceive the joys of parents with false tears, which they shed plentifully between the thresholds of their chambers? So may the gods help me, they groan not truly.

136

Appendices

........ ...

19

........ ...

........ ...

20

........ ...

........ ...

21

........ ...

........ ...

22

........ ...

........ ...

23

........ ...

........ ...

24

........ ...

........ ...

25

........ ...

. . . . . . . . . . .

26

. . . . . . . . . . . [high-spirited]

........ ...

27

........ ...

........ ...

28

........ ...

........ ...

29

........ ...

........ ...

30

........ ...

........ ...

31

........ ...

........ ...

32

........ ...

........ ...

33

........ ...

........ ...

34

........ ...

........ ...

35

........ ...

........ ...

36

........ ...

........ ...

37

........ ...

Appendices id mea me multis docuit regina querellis

19

invisente novo proelia torva viro.

20

et tu non orbum luxti deserta cubile,

21

sed fratris cari flebile discidium.

22

quam penitus maestas exedit cura medullas, ut tibi tunc toto pectore sollicitae

23 24

sensibus ereptis mens excidit! at ego certe 25 cognoram a parva virgine 26 magnanimam. anne bonum oblita es facinus, quo regium 27 adepta es conjugium, quod non fortior ausit alis? 28 sed tum maesta virum mittens quae verba locuta est!

29

Juppiter, ut tristi lumina saepe manu!

30

quis te mutavit tantus deus? an quod amantes non longe a caro corpore abesse volunt?

31

atque ibi me cunctis pro dulci conjuge divis non sine taurino sanguine pollicita es, si reditum tetulisset. is haut in tempore longo captam Asiam Aegypti finibus addiderat. quis ego pro factis caelesti reddita coetu

32 33 34 35 36 37

137

This my queen taught me by all her complaints, when her groom went forth to fight grim war. But you wept not deserted for your bereaved bed, but for the mournful parting from your dear brother, when deep grief consumed your marrow with pains, how then with your whole breast did your anxious spirit fail, bereft of sense! and yet truly from young girlhood I knew you to be high-spirited. Have you forgotten the noble deed by which you gained your royal marriage, which no stronger one would dare? but in those grieving times when sending off your husband, what words did you utter! By Jupiter, how often did your rub your eyes with your hand! What god has changed you thus? is it that lovers cannot bear to be absent for long from the person they love? And there to all the gods for your sweet husband you offered me not without the blood of bulls, so he should hasten his return. He in no long time had added captured Asia to the borders of Egypt. This being done, I am given as due to the celestial assembly

138

Appendices

........ ...

38

........ ...

........ ...

39

........ ...

. . . σήν τε κάρην ὤμοσα σόν τε βίον ........ ...

40 41

. . . both on your head I swear and on your life ........ ...

........ ...

42

........ ...

........ ...

43

........ ...

ἀμνά]μω[ν Θείης ἀργòς ὑ]περφέ[ρ]ετ[αι, βουπόρος Ἀρσινόης μετρός σεο, καὶ διὰ μέ[σσου Μηδείων ὀλοαὶ νῆες ἔβησαν Ἄθω. τί πλόκαμοι ῥέξωμεν, ὅτ’ οὔρεα τοῖα σιδή[ρωι εἴκουσιν; Χαλύβων ὡς ἀπόλοιτο γένος, γειόθεν ἀντέλλοντα, κακὸν φυτόν, οἵ μιν ἔφηναν πρῶτοι καὶ τυπίδων ἔφρασαν ἐργασίην. ἄρτι[ ν]εότμητόν με κόμαι ποθέεσκον ἀδε[λφεαί, καὶ πρόκατε γνωτὸς Μέμνονος Αἰθίοπος ἵετο κυκλώσας βαλιὰ πτερὰ θῆλυς ἀήτης, ἵππο[ς] ἰοζώνου Λοκριδὸς Ἀρσινόης ἤ[λ]ασε δὲ πνοιῆι με, δι’ ἠέρα δ’ ὑγρὸν ἐνείκας Κύπρ]ιδος εἰσ κόλπους θῆκεν [ἄφαρ καθαρούς.

44

which the bright son of Theia traverses, the ox-piercing cusp of your mother Arsinoe, when the deadly Median ships sailed mid through Athos. What shall we locks of hair do, when such mountains yield to iron? May the race of the Chalybes perish, and he who first showed what springs from the earth, that evil plant, and taught the work of hammers! My sister locks were just now yearning for me, newly severed, when suddenly the kinsman of Ethiopian Memnon, that gentle wind, came forth whirling his spotted wings, the Locrian horse of Arsinoe with the violet girdle: and he drives me with a breeze through the humid air and places me instantly in the pure lap of Cypris.

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Appendices pristina vota novo munere dissolvo.

38

invita, o regina, tuo de vertice cessi,

39

invita: adjuro teque tuumque caput,

40

digna ferat quod si quis inaniter adjurarit: sed qui se ferro postulet esse parem?

41 42

ille quoque eversus mons est, quem maximum in oris

43

progenies Thiae clara supervehitur,

44

cum Medi peperere novum mare, cumque 45 juventus per medium classi barbara navit Athon. 46 quid facient crines, cum ferro talia 47 cedant? Juppiter, ut Chalybon omne genus pereat, 48 et qui principio sub terra quaerere venas 49 institit ac ferri stringere duritiem!

50

abjunctae paulo ante comae mea fata sorores lugebant, cum se Memnonis Aethiopis

51 52

unigena impellens nutantibus aera pennis 53 obtulit Arsinoes Locridis ales equos,

54

isque per aetherias me tollens avolat umbras et Veneris casto collocat in gremio.

55 56

139

and dissolve your former vows with a new offering. Unwillingly, O queen, I was parted from your head, unwillingly, I swear both by you and by your head; by which if anyone should swear vainly let him suffer deservingly: but who can claim to be equal to iron? Even that mountain was overthrown, the greatest on the shores which the bright son of Thia traverses, when the Medes created a new sea, and their youth with their barbarian division sailed mid through Athos. What shall locks of hair do, when such things yield to iron? Jupiter, may all the race of the Chalybes perish, and he, who first searched underground for veins, and pursued to forge the hardness of iron! Separated just before, my sister locks were mourning my fate, when the sole brother of Ethiopian Memnon, striking the air with waving feathers, appeared, Arsinoe’s Locrian winged horse: lifting me he flies through the dark ether and places me in the pure lap of Venus.

140

Appendices

αὐτή μιν Ζεφυρῖτις ἐπὶ χρέο[ς ἧκε . . .

57

κεῖνο Κ]ανωπίτου ναιέτις α[ἰγιαλοῦ, . . . ὄφρα κε] μὴ νύμφης Μινωΐδος ο[ . . . χρύσε]ος ἀνθρώποις μοῦνον ἐπι [ . . . φάες]ιν ἐν πολέεσσιν ἀρίθμιος, ἀλλ[ὰ φανείην καὶ Βερ]ενίκειος καλὸς ἐγὼ πλόκαμ[ος. ὕδατι] λουόμενον με παρ’ ἀθα[νάτους ἀνιόντα Κύπρι]ς ἐν ἀρχαίοις ἄστρον [ἔθηκε νέον· ........ ...

58 59

65

only the golden [crown] upon men. . . . be counted among the many lights, but that I may also shine, even I, the fair lock of Berenice. Bathing me in water and rising among the immortals, Cypris placed a new star among the ancients: ........ ...

........ ...

66

........ ...

πρόσθε μὲν ἐρχόμενον [ . . . Ὠκ]εανόν δε ........ ...

67

Proceeding before. . . . Oceanus

68

........ ...

πάννυχον ἀ]λλ’ εἰ κα[ί με θεῶν πόδες ἐμπατέουσι]ν

69

but though the gods’ feet trample me all night

. . . πολ]ιῆι Τη[θύι. . . .

70

. . . to greying Tethys. . . .

παρθένε, μὴ] κοτέση[ις, Ῥαμνουσιάς· οὔ τ]ις ἐρύξει βοῦς ἔπος . . . ]η[. . . . .. ] βη

71

Be not angry, O Rhamnusian Maiden: withhold no ox [on account of my?] words . . . . . . . ..boldness other stars

. . . . ]ελε[ . . . ] θράσος ἀ[στ]έρες ἄλλοι

60

The Lady of Zephyrium had sent him forth herself for this affair . . . the inhabitant of the Canopitan shores, so that the Minoan bride not. . . . .

61 62 63 64

72 73

Appendices ipsa suum Zephyritis eo famulum legarat 57

grata Canopitis incola litoribus.

58

vario ne solum in lumine caeli

59

ex Ariadnaeis aurea temporibus

60

fixa corona foret, sed nos quoque fulgeremus devotae flaui verticis exuviae,

61

uvidulam a fluctu cedentem ad templa deum me sidus in antiquis diva novum posuit: Virginis et saevi contingens namque Leonis lumina, Callisto juncta Lycaoniae, vertor in occasum, tardum dux ante Booten, qui vix sero alto mergitur Oceano.

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

sed quamquam me nocte premunt vestigia divum,

69

lux autem canae Tethyi restituit

70

(pace tua fari hic liceat, Ramnusia virgo, 71 namque ego non ullo vera timore tegam,

72

nec si me infestis discerpent sidera dictis,

73

141

She had dispatched her attendant, that Lady of Zephyrium, the gracious inhabitant of the Canopitan shores. So that from the various constellations among the lights of heaven not only the golden crown from the temples of Ariadne should be fixed, but that we may also shine, the vowed spoils of your blonde head, wet from a flood, removing me to the abodes of the gods, the goddess placed a new constellation among the ancients: touching the light of the Virgin and the raging Lion, and joining Lycaon’s daughter Callisto, I turn to my setting, leading before slow Boötes, who scarcely late at night dips in deep Oceanus. but though at night the footsteps of the gods tread before me, while by day I am restored to white Tethys (should it be allowed by your approval, O Rhamnusian Virgin, I would say this, for I shall not hide the truth for fear, not even if the constellations shall rend me with their hostile words,

142

Appendices

. . . . ]νδινειε[ . . . ]οσοσο[.]τεκ[..]ω· 74

........ ...

οὐ τάδε μοι τοσσήνδε φέρει χάριν ὅσ[σο]ν ἐκείνης ἀ]σχάλλω κορυφῆς οὐκέτι θιξόμεν[ος, ἧς ἄπο παρ[θ]ενίη μὲν ὅτ’ ἦν ἔτι πολλὰ πέπωκα λιτά, γυναικείων δ’ οὐκ ἀπέλαυσα μύρων. ........ ...

79

these things do not bring me so much pleasure, as that I am vexed that I may no longer touch her head, from which I had no enjoyment of womanly myrrh, though when she was a maiden I drank much plain. ........ ...

........ ...

80

........ ...

........ ...

81

........ ...

........ ...

82

........ ...

........ ...

83

........ ...

........ ...

84

........ ...

........ ...

85

........ ...

........ ...

86

........ ...

........ ...

87

........ ...

........ ...

88

........ ...

ο[. . . . . . . . .. με[. . . . . . . . .. νυ[. . . . . . . . .. το[. . . . .]νθι[. . . . γε[ίτονες.. ἔστ]ωσ[αν . . . ἀλ[λὰξ] δ’ Ὑδ[ροχόος] καὶ[ φάε κ’ Ὠαρίων. χαῖρε] φίλη τεκέεσσι [. . . . .. . . . ]ν[. . . . . . .

89 90 91 92 93 94

75 76 77 78

........ ... ........ ... ........ ... ........ ... [neighbors . . . let them be]. . . . Aquarius and Orion, and shine reversely. 94a Rejoice, dear children. . . . . 94b . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendices condita quin veri pectoris evoluam),

74

non his tam laetor rebus, quam me afore 75 semper, afore me a dominae vertice discrucior, 76 quicum ego, dum virgo quondam fuit omnibus expers unguentis multa bibi.

77 78

nunc vos, optato quas junxit lumine taeda, non prius unanimis corpora conjugibus

79 80

tradite nudantes rejecta veste papillas,

81

quam jucunda mihi munera libet onyx,

82

vester onyx, casto colitis quae jura cubili. 83 sed quae se impuro dedit adulterio,

84

illius a! mala dona levis bibat irrita puluis: namque ego ab indignis praemia nulla peto. sed magis, o nuptae, semper concordia vestras, semper amor sedes incolat assiduus.

85 86 87 88

tu vero, regina, tuens cum sidera divam

89

placabis festis luminibus Venerem, sanguinis expertem non siris esse tuam me, sed potius largis effice muneribus. sidera cur iterent: utinam coma regia fiam:

90 91

proximus Hydrochoi fulgeret Oarion!

94

92 93

143

nay, rather will I unfold the secrets of a true heart), I do not so much rejoice these things, as that I am tortured to be parted, ever parted from the head of my lady, with whom, while she was still a virgin deprived of all nuptial ointments, I drank many plain ones. Now, you, as the torch has joined you with welcome light, surrender not your bodies to your agreeing spouses, baring your breast with cast-off robes, before the onyx jar offers pleasing gifts to me, your jar, which fosters what is rightful in a pure bed. But she who gives herself to foul adultery, ah! let light dust drink her wicked gifts unfulfilled: for I ask no favors from the unworthy. But rather, o brides, may forever concord, forever abiding love inhabit your homes. And you, queen, when gazing at the constellations placate Venus with festal lamps, let me who is yours not be deprived of blood, but rather procure lavish gifts. Wherefore the constellations repeat: would that I were the queen’s lock: then Orion may shine next to Aquarius!

245

246

Year

Jan. 22 Feb. 20 Mar. 21

Jan. 3 Feb. 2 Mar. 3 Apr. 2 May 2 May 31 Jun. 30 Jul. 29 Aug. 28 Sep. 26 Oct. 25 Nov. 24 Dec. 23

07:00 21:03 A 12:00

08:43 01:00 18:13 A 11:10 02:38 16:07 03:46 14:14 00:08 T 09:58 20:03 06:41 18:13

New Moon

Jan. 30 Feb. 28 Mar. 29

Jan. 11 Feb. 10 Mar. 11 Apr. 10 May 9 Jun. 7 Jul. 7 Aug. 5 Sep. 3 Oct. 3 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 Dec. 31

02:53 22:43 15:52

10:52 06:08 21:29 08:52 16:59 22:49 03:35 08:37 15:23 01:15 15:10 09:05 05:41

First Quarter

Jan. 8 Feb. 6 Mar. 7 Apr. 5

Jan. 18 Feb. 17 Mar. 18 Apr. 17 May 16. Jun. 14 Jul. 14 Aug. 12 Sep. 11 Oct. 11 Nov. 9 Dec. 9

06:56 21:14 n 08:41 17:35

21:07 07:48 16:48 p 00:34 07:53 15:49 01:35 14:12 05:56 p 00:09 19:23 14:04

Full Moon

Lunar Phases 246–245 BCE

Jan. 15 Feb. 13 Mar. 14 Apr. 12

Jan. 25 Feb. 23 Mar. 25 Apr. 23 May 23 Jun. 22 Jul. 21 Aug. 20 Sep. 19 Oct. 19 Nov. 17 Dec. 17

10:26 17:23 00:05 07:45

13:51 23:00 09:37 22:14 13:03 05:45 23:31 17:23 10:27 01:58 15:16 02:01

Last Quarter

03:17 18:25 09:04 23:03 12:09 A 00:16 11:31 22:15 08:54

t – Total (Umbral) p – Partial (Umbral) n – Penumbral

T – Total A – Annular P – Partial

May. 5 Jun. 3 Jul. 2 Jul. 31 Aug. 30 Sep. 29 Oct. 28 Nov. 27 Dec. 27

Lunar Eclipse

05:45 16:22 00:10 06:09 11:34 17:57 02:37 14:27 05:31

Solar Eclipse

Eclipse Types

Apr. 28 May. 27 Jun. 26 Jul. 25 Aug. 23 Sep. 21 Oct. 21 Nov. 19 Dec. 19

00:42 07:11 14:20 23:16 n 10:50 01:21 18:36 13:45 09:25

May. 11 Jun. 10 Jul. 9 Aug. 8 Sep. 7 Oct. 7 Nov. 5 Dec. 5

17:23 05:32 20:21 13:38 08:47 04:40 23:39 16:02

Time given is Universal Time (UT=GMT) with a ΔT of 03h42m for ca. 245 BCE—the corresponding local time (LC) at Alexandria (29° 55′ E) equals UT +2hrs Sources: Goldstine 1973, pp. 63–64, nos. 9338–9362; http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phases-0299.html.

Apr. 20 May. 19 Jun. 18 Jul. 17 Aug. 16 Sep. 15 Oct. 14 Nov. 12 Dec. 12

146

Appendices

Time Table, 323–221 BCE 323 c.322/1–299/8 c.305–282 c.305–281 c.300 297–272 c.294/3 286 285 284–282 c.284 284/2 283/1 282–246 c.281–278 281–261 281/0–275 c.279–275 c.278–274 277/6–239 274/3–273/2 273 c.273/2 272–240/39 c.272/1–232/1 c.269/8 269/8–261/0 268 268/7 267–262 267–259 267/6 267/6

June

July

December

Death of Alexander the Great Reign of Chandragupta Reign of Ptolemy I Reign of Seleucus I Magas installed in Cyrene Reign of Pyrrhus of Epirus Marriage of Antiochus I & Stratonice Birth of Antiochus II Birth of Demetrius the Fair Joint-rule of Ptolemy I & Ptolemy II Birth of Apame Marriage of Ptolemy II & Arsinoe I Birth of Ptolemy III Reign of Ptolemy II Birth of Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy II Reign of Antiochus I War of Syrian Succession Birth of Berenice Phernophorus Marriage of Ptolemy II & Arsinoe II Reign of Antigonus II First Syrian War Ptolemaic treaty with Rome Ptolemaic treaty with Carthage Reign of Alexander II of Epirus Reign of Ashoka Maurya Marriage of Magas & Apame Chremonidean War Death of Arsinoe II Magas’ march against Egypt Joint-rule of Antiochus I & Antiochus II Joint-rule of Ptolemy II & “The Son” Marriage Antiochus II & Laodice Birth of Berenice II (cf. introduction, p. 17)

Appendices 266/5 265 264–241 262/1–246 259–253 c.253–252 252 252/1 252/1–250/49 250/49–249/8 249/8–246 246–222 246

Summer

Jan./Feb. July Aug./Sep. Jul.-Nov. October

246–245 Oct./Nov. November

245

244 243 242 241 239

Nov.-Jun. Nov.-Feb. Nov./Dec. Dec./Jan. January Feb./Mar. May Jul./Aug. May/June Jul./Aug. Sep./Oct. Nov./Dec. Jan./Mar.

147

Death of Areus of Sparta Birth of Seleucus II First Punic War Reign of Antiochus II Second Syrian War Betrothal Ptolemy II & Berenice II Marriage of Antiochus II & Berenice Death of Magas Demetrius Affair in Cyrene Cyrenean Republic Ptolemy III installed in Cyrene Reign of Ptolemy III Marriage of Ptolemy III & Berenice II Death of Antiochus II Seleucid succession crisis Poor flood season in Egypt Departure of Ptolemy III from Egypt Third Syrian War Ptolemy III in Coele-Syria Death of Berenice Phernophorus Rising unrest in Egypt Birth of Arsinoe III Dedication of Lock at Zephyrium Ptolemy III in Mesopotamia Ptolemy III besieges Babylon Xanthippus installed as general Ptolemy III returns to Egypt Presentation of Coma Berenices Ptolemaic army retreats from Babylonia Birth of Ptolemy IV Birth of Magas Birth of Alexander Birth of “Lysimachus” (anon. son) Birth of Berenice Parthenus

148 238 222 221

Appendices March

Canopic Synod Death of Berenice Parthenus Succession of Ptolemy IV Death of Berenice II & purge of other royal family members

NOTES

Introduction 1. RE s.v. “Berenice,” no. 11, III(1): 284–286; Macurdy 1932, 130–136; Pomeroy 1984, 20–23; ead. in Fantham et al., 1994, 144–151; Bennett s.v.“B ereniceI I.” 2. Esp., see Quaegebeur 1978; id. 1988; Pomeroy 1984; Koenen 1993; Carney 2000. 3. Carney 1987, 420. 4. Strack 1897; Breccia 1903; Seibert 1967; Ogden 1999. 5. Van Oppen 2007, esp. pts. I –II, pp. 35 –268. 6. Esp., see West 1984; Marinone 1984 = 1997; Koenen 1993, 89–113; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011. 7. Sincere thanks to the late Chris Bennett (1953–2014; formerly Visiting Scholar, University of California, San Diego) for assistance with the calculation. After finishing the draft manuscript of the following essays, I learned with great sadness of Chris’s untimely passing. His death has left us bereft not only of his scholarly involvement but also of his generous spirit. I remain ever grateful for his enduring enthusiasm, his support, and his critical comments.

1

Magas, Apame, and Berenice II

* This first essay developed from my personal correspondence with the late Chris Bennett (1953–2014). 1. For Berenice II, see: Ael. VH 14.43; RE s.v. “Berenice,” no. 11, III(1): 284–286 [Wilcken]; Tarn 1913, 322–323, 376, 450–453; Beloch 1912– 1927, IV(1): 599–600, IV(2): 188–189, 321; Macurdy 1932, 130–136; Seibert 1967, 80–81, 84–85; Pomeroy 1984, 20–23; Koenen 1993, 89–113; Fantham et al. 1994, 144–151; Bacchielli 1995; Ogden 1999, 80–82, 176; Hölbl 2001, 45–47, 85, 94, 96; Huß 2001, 333–335; Adams 2003; Criscuolo 2003, 313–315; Bennett 2003, 66–68; id. s.v. “Berenice II”; Clayman 2014, esp. 14–41. The latter, while acknowledging that “her exact date of birth is not recorded,” confusingly, asserts that Berenice was born “in the late 260s” (p. 14), yet “sometime before 264” (p. 4), that date she extrapolates from the marriage of Berenice to Demetrius the Fair, viz. 250 + 14 = 264 (p. 38).

150

Notes

2. Catul. 66, ll. 25–28: At te ego certe | cognoram a parva virgine magnanimam. | anne bonum oblita es facinus, quo regium adepta es | coniugium, quod non fortior ausit alis? A full translation of the poem is supplied as an appendix. For variant readings, now see: Trappes-Lomax 2007, 208–219. 3. Just. Epit. 26.3; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 246; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 616–617, IV(2): 589; Macurdy 1932, 131; Chamoux 1956, 18, 31, n. 3; Gelzer 1982, 19; Ogden 1999, 81; Huß 2001, 334, n. 13; Bennett 2003, 66; Benedetto 2008; Clayman 2011, 231–232; infra 19, 34. 4. So, too: Gercke 1887, 263; Tarn 1913, 450; cf. Just. Epit. 26.3.3 (who twice calls Berenice “virgo”); Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 200; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 599, IV(2): 189; Macurdy 1932, 131; Chamoux 1956,31. 5. Niebuhr 1828–1843, I: 230, n. 40; Gercke 1887, 266–267; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 186–190; Otto 1928, 76; Bengtson 1937–1952, III: 156; Chamoux 1956, 18–34; Bagnall 1976, 26–27; Laronde 1987, 380; Huß 2001, 333; Bennett 2003, 67–68; id. s.v. “Magas,” no. 1, n. 7; Clayman 2014, 14, 34. 6. For the “high chronology” of Magas’s death, see: Porph. ap. Euseb. I. 237; Thrige, Historia Cyrenses (1819; non vidi); Droysen 1877, II(2): 94, n. 1; Köhler, 1891, 209–210; Niese 1893–1903, II: 145, n. 5; BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, I: 200 (cf. n. 2); Tarn 1913, 449–453; Buttrey 1994, 141–142; Asolati 2011, 27. For Magas, see: RE s.v. “Magas,” no. 2, XIV(1): 293–294; Gercke 1887, 262–267; Strack 1897, 190–191; BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, I: 66–67, 164–167, 171–175, 200–203; Beloch 1912– 1927, IV(1): 584–586, IV(2): 186–189; Bengtson 1937–1952, III: 155–156, 163, 236, no. 153; Chamoux 1956; Laronde 1987, esp. 359–362, 379–380, 440–443; Bennett s.v. “Magas,” no. 1; Clayman 2014, esp. 30–35. 7. Diod. 20.40–43; Just. Epit. 22.7.4; RE s.v. “Ophellas,” no. 1, XVIII(1): 632–635; Gercke 1887, 265–266; Köhler 1891, 207–210; Beloch 1912– 1927, IV(2): 187, 320–321, 252; Bengtson 1937–1952, III: 155–156, 236, no. 152; Chamoux 1956, 20–21; Bagnall 1976, 25–26; Huß 1979, 122–127; Laronde 1987, esp. 42–44, 355–358; Clayman 2014, 30, 64. 8. Cf. Gercke 1887, 266 (who has Alexander instead of Pyrrhus); Köhler 1891, 209–210; Otto 1928, 78, n. 2; Bengtson 1937–1952, III: 155–156; Chamoux 1956, 20–24; Bagnall 1976, 25–26; Laronde 1987, 358; Huß 2001, 202. 9. Niebuhr 1828–1843, I: 231; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 187; Chamoux 1956, 23; Ogden 1999, 180. 10. Pace Niebuhr 1828–1843, I: 236–238. 11. I will refrain from incorporating numismatic evidence at this point, as the absolute chronology of Cyrenean coinage remains inconclusive; for which, see: Tarn 1913, 452–453; Chamoux 1956, 25–26; Buttrey 1994, 137–145; Asolati 2011; Bennet s.v. “Magas,” no. 1, nn. 3, 7. We will, however, have occasion to return to this coinage in the subsequent essay, “The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II,” infra 27–30.

Notes

151

12. Major Rock Edict 13 (= Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum I: 22–25), l. Q: “Amtiyoko nama Yonaraja param ca tena Atiyokena cature 4 rajani Turamaye nama Amtikini nama Maka nama Alikasudaro (the Greek king Antiochus by name, and beyond this Antiochus four other kings, Ptolemy by name, Antigonas by name, Magas by name, Alexander by name)”; Smith 1920, 185–189; Charpentier 1931, 303; Bhattasali 1932, 285–286; Kern 1956, 84–89; A. W. P. Guruge in Seneviratna (ed.) 1994, 73–77. For Ashoka Maurya, see: Hultzsch 1914; Smith 1920; Kern 1956; Seneviratna (ed.) 1994; Kulke, Rothermund 2004, 65–71. 13. Cf. Gercke 1887, 266; Smith 1920, 68, 73, 188; Charpentier 1931; Bhattasali 1932, 287; Chamoux 1956, 30–31; Laronde 1987, 362; Guruge in Seneviratna (ed.) 1994, 74; Huß 2001, 301. 14. Major Rock Edict 5 (= CII I: 8–11); cf. Hultzsch 1914; Smith 1920, 168– 171; Charpentier 1931, 316–317; Bhattasali 1932, 285; Kern 1956, 63–66; Guruge in Seneviratna (ed.) 1994, 72–73. 15. Assuming that Chandragupta’s yr. 1 = 322/1; Chandragupta’s yr. 24 = Bindusara’s yr. 1; Bindusara’s yr. 28 = Ashoka’s yr. 1 = 272/1. Assuming that Chandragupta’s yr. 1 = 321/0; Chandragupta’s yr. 25 = Bindusara’s yr. 1; Bindusara’s yr. 26 = Ashoka’s yr. 1 = 272/1. (The former calculation postulates that the traditional years of the three kings’ reigns are regnal years; the latter calculation postulates that the years are completed, and ignores the supposed interim between Bindusara and Ashoka; they arrive at the same date for Ashoka by moving the accession of Chandragupta; it should be emphasized that these calculations ares peculative). 16. Cf. Hultzsch 1914, 943–951; Smith 1920, 13–20, 72–74; Charpentier 1931, 303–321; Bhattasali 1932, 285–288; Kern 1956, 17–19; Kulke, Rothermund 2004, 61, 64, 66. 17. This date is corroborated by the Greek and Aramaic versions of Ashoka’s Major Rock Edict 4 (CII I: 5–8); see: Burstein 1985, 67–68, no. 50 (with lit.); Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 101–103. 18. According to Justin (Epit. 28.1–2), the death of Alexander II occurred after the First Punic War (264–241), around the time of the accession of Demetrius II of Macedon (r. 239–229). There remains the unsolved problem that Justin also records (26.2.8–3.2) that Alexander II had lost his kingdom during the time of the Chremonidean War and regained it around the time of Magas’s death, which on the low date of the latter’s death means that Epirus was in Antigonid hands for over a decade, ca. 263/2–250/49. Ashoka’s mission cannot be squared with such an interim in Alexander’s reign; cf. Chamoux 1956, 22. 19. It is just possible that news of Antiochus I’s death had not yet reached India by the time the Buddhist envoys were sent to the Hellenistic kings (if indeed they were sent ca. 262/1). If the suggested accession date of Ashoka ca. 272/1 is accepted, the Alikasudaro mentioned in Rock Edict XIII can certainly not be Alexander of Corinth, the son

152

Notes of Craterus (contra Beloch 1912–27, III[2]: 105). I would also wish to note that if the Buddhist mission occurred in the mid-250s, one might expect some mention of Andragoras and Diodotus, the Seleucid satraps who established their independent kingdoms resp. in Parthia and Bactria, who would be closer to India’s interests than either Magas or Alexander. 20. For the dating of Buddha’s lifetime, see: Heinz Bechert (ed.) 1991– 1997, The Dating of the Historical Buddha—Die Datierung des historischen Buddha, 3 vols. (Göttingen); L. S. Cousins 1996, “The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article,” JRAS [3rd. ser.] 6: 67–63. 21. For Apame, see: RE s.v. “Apama,” no. 3, I: 2662–2663; Beloch 1912– 1927, IV(1): 585, 599–600; Macurdy 1932, 79, 131–132; Seibert 1967, 51–53; Laronde 1987, 381, 379–380; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 35–36; Grainger 1997, 38 s.v. “Apama,” no. 1; id. 2010, 82; Carney 2000, 171; Huß 2001, 266, 333–334; Bennett 2003, 66–68; id. s.v “Apama/ Arsinoe”; Clayman 2014, esp. 35–39. 22. Brosius19 96,7 8. 23. Porphyry FGrH 260 F 32.6 (ap. Euseb. Chron. I: 249): “Antiochus Soter had [three] children by Stratonice the daughter of Demetrius; a son Antiochus, and two daughters Stratonice and Apame, of whom the former was married to Demetrius the king of the Macedonians, and the latter [to Magas].” Bennett noted (personal correspondence) that Stratonice was given a higher status marriage, which likewise indicates that she was the elder daughter; infra 165, n. 138. 24. Steph. Byz. s.v. “Ἀντιόχεια”; RE s.v. “Nysa,” no. 10, XVII(2): 1634; Bouché-Leclercq 1913–1914, I: 73–74; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 200; Grainger 1997, 52 s.v. “Nysa”; Ogden 1999, 124–125. 25. Antiochus II married his half-sister Laodice (Polyaen. 8.50: ὁμοπατρία ἀδελφή) around the time of his accession to joint rule with Antiochus I (267/6); their eldest child Seleucus II was born soon after (265); Laodice was thus born before 280/79; if Nysa was Laodice’s mother, Antiochus I must have married her no later than 281/0; cf. Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 200–201; Macurdy 1932, 83; Grainger 1997, 47 s.v. “Laodike,” no. 1; Ogden 1999, 125. 26. We should expect an interval of about two years between the three other children that Stratonice bore to Antiochus: Seleucus (293/2), Stratonice (ca. 290), Antiochus (286; Euseb. Chron. I: 251), Apame (ca. 288 or 284). 27. Niebuhr 1828–1843, I: 229–230, n. 40; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 172, n. 1; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 190; Bennett 2003, 66–68; id. s.v. “Apama/Arsinoe,” nn. 6, 8. 28. For example, see: OGIS 54 (Monum. Adulit.), ll. 1–3: Βασιλεὺς μέγας Πτολεμαῖος, υἱὸς βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου | καὶ βασιλίσσης Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Ἀδελφῶν, τῶν βασιλέω | Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Βερενίκης θεῶν Σωτήρων; ibid. 56 (Canopus Decree),

Notes

153

ll. 7–8: βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος Πτολεμαίου καὶ ᾿Αρσινὸης, θεῶν ᾿ δελφῶν, | καὶ βασίλισσα Βερενίκη ἡ άδελφὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ γυνή, Α θεοὶ Εὐεργέται; Urk. II: 127–128 l. 4: nśwt-bἰtἰ (Ptwlmjś ‘nḫ-ḏt mrἰPtḥ)| sȝ n (Ptwlmjś)| ḥn‘ (Ἰrsἰnȝ.t)| nṯr.wj-śn.wj ḥ‘ ḥḳȝ.t (Brnjḳȝ.t)| śn.t-ḥm.t nṯr.wj-mnḫ.wj; Droysen 1877, III(2): 343–344; Niese 1893–1903, II: 171; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 261, n. 1, 267; Bevan 1927, 192–193; Macurdy 1932, 133–134; Hazzard 2000, 112; Huß 2001, 335. 29. IG IX(1)2 1:56, c.1 (β̣ασίλισσαν Ḅ[ερ]ε̣ν[ίκαν] | βασιλέω̣ς Μάγα); Bennett 2002, 141. 30. Niebuhr 1828–1843, I: 230; cf. RE s.v. “Apama,” no. 3, I(2): 2663. 31. Bennett 2003, 66–68; id. s.v. “Apama/Arsinoe,” nn. 6, 8. 32. Σ Callim. F 110 (= P.Oxy. 20.2258, ed. by P. Lobel 1952). 33. Droysen 1877, III(1): 271, III(2): 333; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 172, n. 1. 34. Carney 2000, 32–34, 62–63, 265–266, nn. 133–138. There is a possibility that Apame, the wife of Seleucus I, was also known as “Antiochis”; see: Steph. Byz. s.v.“ Ἀντιόχεια”; Ogden 1999, 120. 35. As Wilcken emphasized (RE s.v. “Apama,” no. 3, I[2]: 2663), Justin also confused Polyperchon and Craterus (13.8.5), Eumenes and Attalus (27.3.1); as Bennett (s.v. “Arsinoe III,” n. 1) pointed out, Justin even calls Arsinoe III “Eurydice” (30.1). 36. Euseb. (Chron. I: 249), who also mentions the marriage, gives no indication of its date. 37. Pace, for example, Otto 1928, 6; Tarn 1928, 250; Chamoux 1956, 29; infra 158,n .7 6. 38. So, too: Seibert 1967, 52. 39. The full text is supplied as an appendix. 40. Arsinoe II arrived in Alexandria from Samothrace after 280, the Pithom stele (I.Cair. 22.183, l. 15) describes her as the king’s wife in 274; the marriage must thus have taken place somewhere in between those dates; cf. Köhler 1895, 971; Longega 1968, 75–79 (with earlier lit.); Fraser 1972, II: 367; Hazzard 2000, 89–90; Bennett s.v. “Arsinoe I,” nn. 3, 9, s.v. “Arsinoe II,” n. 14 (arguing that Arsinoe I was still married to Ptolemy in 275). 41. Nothing else is known of this Argaeus, unless he is to be identified with the Argaeus who was sent to Cyprus together with Callicrates in support of Menelaus, the brother of Ptolemy I, against king Nicocreon of Salamis, in 310; see: Diod. 20.21 (where, however, he is called φίλος of Ptolemy I); RE s.v. “Argaios,” no. 7, II: 685; Hauben 1970, 21–22. If this Argaeus was indeed a son of Ptolemy I, he would have been born no later than ca. 325 to be assigned such an important task in Cyprus. That dating leaves only Thaïs among the known candidates to be his mother—yet he is not named among her children; see: Athen. 13.37 (576E); Ogden 1999, 68–69. Argaeus perhaps fell victim to Ptolemy II’s efforts to eliminate potential rivals to the

154

Notes

throne either shortly after his accession (282/1) or after his marriage to Arsinoe II; cf. Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 165–166; Burstein 1982, 212; Hazzard 1987, 149; id. 2000, 88; Ogden 1999, 75; Bennett s.v. “Argaeus” (I would like to express my gratitude to Bennett for our correspondence on the matter); van Oppen 2013 (suggesting that Argaeus was the son of Alexander and Thaïs, but adopted and raised by Ptolemy I). 42. Mar. Par. = FGrH 239 F B11; Diod. 18.28.2–4; Strabo 17.1.8 (794); Curt. Ruf. 10.10.20; Paus. 1.6.3; ps-Callisth. 3.34; Bouché-Leclercq 1903– 1907, I: 141; Fraser 1972, II: 31–32, n. 79; Huß 2001, 109–110, 217, 237–238. Evidently, the relocation of Alexander’s body occurred only a few years after the burial in Memphis (321; “paucis post annis,” Curt. loc. cit.), possibly around the time the Egyptian capital was transferred from Memphis to Alexandria; for which, see: Gambetti 2009, 26 (who proposes on the basis of the internal chronology of the Satrap stele that the transfer of the Egyptian capital from Memphis to Alexandria took place around 314; I am grateful to Gambetti for sharing her thoughts on the issue). Pausanias (1.7.1) can be understood to mean that it was either Ptolemy II who moved the body to Alexandria, or that Argeaus was in charge of bringing it from Memphis. If this Argeaus was indeed a son of Eurydice, as Pausanias implies (as he calls the anonymous rebel in Cyprus “another brother born of Eurydice”), he must have been born after 320 and could hardly have been responsible for such an important matter of state until ca. 305/4 (incidentally the time Ptolemy I assumed kingship). Even if the suggestion made in the previous note is correct, and Argaeus was born to Thaïs before 325, he could have been as young as 11 around 314. Whether in 314 or 305/4, Ptolemy II (born 308) could certainly have not been involved. 43. Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 166, n. 1; Hazzard 1987, 149–150, n. 32; id. 2000, 88; Ogden 1999, 68–73; Huß 2001, 305, n. 6; Marquaille 2008, 45, n. 25; Bennett s.v. “Meleager,” and “Unknown son of Ptolemy I.” 44. Infra 159,n .7 6. 45. Infra 159,n .8 0. 46. Infra 154,n .50 . 47. Infra 159,n .8 7. 48. Σ Theoc. 17.128; RE s.v. “Arsinoe,” no. 25, II(1): 1281; ibid. s.v. “Ptolemaios,” no. 19, XXIII(2): 1646; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 182; Macurdy 1932, 109–111; Seibert 1967, 78–79; Ogden 1999, 73–74. 49. Hazzard19 87, 149; id.2 000,8 8. 50. For the First Syrian War, see: RE s.v. “Antiochos,” no. 21, I(2): 2453; ibid. s.v. “Ptolemaios,” no. 19, XXIII(2): 1650–1652; ibid. s.v. “Syria,” suppl. VI: 1169–1170; CAH VII(1)2: 412–418; Droysen 1877, III(1): 271– 276; Köhler 1895, 969–970; Niese 1893–1903, II: 126–128; Lehmann 1903, 496–547; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 150–151, 166–179; id. 1913–1914, I: 66–69; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 585–586, IV(2): 497–502;

Notes

51.

52. 53.

54. 55. 56.

57.

58.

59.

155

Tarn 1926, 155–162; id. 1927, 11–14; Otto 1928, 3–29; id. 1931, 400–416; Will 1979–1982, I: 144–149; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 34–36; Huß 2001, 265–271 (whose confused chronology I cannot follow); Marquaille 2008, 46; Grainger 2010, 73–87. Theoc. Id. 17.90; Syll.3 I: 390 = IG XII, 7:506. As Theocritus’s Encomium celebrates the wedding of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II (terminus ante quem 274), I would argue that the idyll was composed between the two “phases” of the war; infra 157, n. 71. Taking this argument further, it could be suggested that Theocritus performed his poem at the Ptolemaea of 274; for the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II, i.a., see: Rice 1983, esp. 182–187; Hazzard and FitzGerald 1991; Marquaille 2008, 49; Grainger 2010, 83; Bennett 2011, esp. 105–124; infra 163, n. 117. Theoc. Id. 17.89; OGIS 219, though often attributed to Antiochus I, has been dated to the reign of Antiochus III by F. Piejko 1991, 9–50. Heraclea by Latmus, Miletus (I.Milet. III: nos. 123, 139; Syll. Or. 35; Syll.3 322), Halicarnassus, Myndus (SEG I: 363), Caunus, Lissa (Polyaen. 3.16; OGIS 57); Theoc. Id. 17.89; Jer. in Dan. 11; cf. Lehmann 1903, 527– 530, 535–536; Tarn 1926, 155–160; id. 1930, 446–454; Otto 1928, 19–20; id. 1931, 403–408; Hauben 1970, 52–57; Marquaille 2008, 46, nn. 29, 31 (with lit.); Grainger 2010, 77–78; Meadows 2012. Theoc. Id. 17.88–89; Marquaille 2008, 46, n. 32. Theoc. Id. 17 .88. The Pithom stele (I.Cair. 22.183, ll. 12–15) records an expedition into Palestine (Prst.t) in Ptolemy II’s sixth year (co-regency based, 280/79), in which he probably occupied Damascus; cf. Theoc. Id. 17.86–87; Niese 1893–1903, II: 128; Lehmann 1903, 514–521, 528–529, 536–537; Lorton 1971, 160–164; Huß 2001, 267, n. 105; infra 157, n. 68. Trog. Prol. 17; Just. Epit. 17.2.10; RE s.v. “Antiochos,” no. 21, I(2): 2452; Niese 1893–1903, II: 71–72, 74–75; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 150; id. 1913–1914, I: 55–57; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 217, 361; Tarn 1926, 156; Will 1979–1982, I: 135–142; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 29–30; Grainger 2010, 73–77. Memn. FGrH 434 F 9–17; Paus. 10.20.5; App. Syr. 65; Trog. Prol. 24–25; Just. Epit. 24.1.1; RE s.v. “Antiochos,” no. 21, I(2): 2452–2453; Niese 1893–1903, II: 22–23, 73–82; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 150–151, 167–169; id. 1913–1914, 52–65; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 248–249, 561– 570; Tarn 1926, 155–156; Otto 1928, 20–24; Heinen 1972, 65–66; Wörrle 1975, 62–65, 67–68; Will 1979–1982, I: 142–144; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 30–34; Gabbert 1997, 25; Huß 2001, 262, 264–265, n. 83; Grainger 2010, 78–81. Memn. FGrH 434 F 9.1: “Ἀντίοχος πολλοῖς πολέμοις εἰ καὶ μόλις καὶ οὐδὲ πᾶσαν, ὃμως ἀνασωσάμενος τὴν πατρῴαν ἀρχήν”); Jer. in Dan. 11.6 (“[Antiochus] adversus Ptolemaeum Philadelphum . . . gesit bella quamplurima”); cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἄγκυρα (Ptolemaic fleet operating in the Pontus); Niese 1893–1903, II: 85–85, 101–104; Lehmann 1903,

156

Notes

532–535; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 154, 169; id. 1913–1914, I: 58; Tarn 1926, 156; Otto 1931, 408–410; Wörrle 1975, 67; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 34; Huß 2001, 264–265, n. 83; Grainger 2010, 77–78, 91–92; cf. Avram 2003; Psoma 2008 (these last two authors place the Ptolemaic naval activity in the Black Sea in the context of the Second Syrian War; I owe these references to Cathy Lorber). 60. Theoc. Id. 17.87; Agatharch. 1.20 (ap. Phot. 441B 21–22); Diod. 1.37.5, 2.36, 3.12–14; Strabo 16.4.6 (770), 17.1.5 (789); Pliny Nat. Hist. 6.29, 183; SB 5111; Köhler 1895, 968, 974; Niese 1893–1903, II: 115; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 142, 196; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 351–352; Bevan 1927, 76; A. Burton 1972, 137–138; Fraser 1972, I: 175; Hölbl 2001, 55–56; Huß 2001, 290–293; Marquaille 2008, 50; Burstein 2008; supra 17–18; infra 164, n. 120. (My thanks to Bennett for bringing out this point.) 61. To distinguish the first phase from the First Syrian War proper, historians have also dubbed this initial conflict between Ptolemy II and Antiochus I the “Carian War” (Tarn) or the “syrische Erbfolgekrieg” (Otto [trans., “War of Syrian Succession,” although “accession crisis” would seem more appropriate]); cf. Meadows 2012. 62. Niese 1893–1903, II: 127; Lehmann 1903, 496, 521, passim (yet at p. 522 he admits that the Babylonian chronicle indicates that Antiochus was forced into the defensive by a Ptolemaic pre-emptive strike); BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, I: esp. 173 (Antiochus “passa de la défensive à l’offensive”); Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 585–586; Tarn 1926, 161; id. 1928, 250; Huß 2001, 266; Grainger 2010, 84; contra Otto 1928, 10 (“[daß] der Wille, den Krieg in diesem Augenblick [274] zu beginnen, hätte dann bei Antiochus gelegen . . . erscheint mir nicht bewiesen”; yet at p. 24 he speaks of the “Rachekrieg gegen Ptolemaios” in 275/4); Wörrle 1975, 68–69; Marquaille 2008, 45–46. Grainer (2010, 89–90), who argues that when the two parties agreed to a peace at the end of a Syrian War it was honored for life, has to ignore the initial phase of the First Syrian War as a violation of the agreement between Ptolemy I and Seleucus I (Diod. 21.1.5; Paus. 1.7.3). 63. I am indebted to Prof. Bert van der Spek (Free University, Amsterdam) for taking the time elucidating the cuneiform tablet under question: Sachs and Hunger 1988, I: 337–348 [abbr. as AD]; van der Spek 1986, 211–215; id.2 000,30 5–307. 64. I.Cair. 22.813, ll. 15–16; Lehmann 1903, 507–508, 523; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 173; id. 1913–1914, I: 67; Otto 1928, 5; Tarn 1928, 162; Huß 2001,2 69. 65. AD no. -273, rev. ll. 29’–30’: “MU BI LUGAL UDmeš-šú DAM-su u NUN SIG-ú ina KUR {ina} Sa-par-du áš-šú d[u-un]-nun EN-NUN ú-maš-šìr a-na e-ber ÍD ana UGU lúERÍN mi-ṣir | šá ina e-ber ÍD ŠUB-ú GIN-ik-am-ma lúERÍN mi-ṣir ina IGI- šú BAL-ú (That year [38 SE], the king left his , his wife and a famous official in the land of Sardis to strengthen the guard. He went to Syria against the troops

Notes

157

of Egypt | which were encamped in Syria, and the troops of Egypt withdrew before him)”; Hunger ad loc. p. 346: “UD is possibly an error for ERÍN” (the signs are fairly similar); van der Spek 1986, 214; AD no. -273, rev. l. 34’ (recording the return of officials who had been with Antiochus in Sardis since year 36 = 276/5). The tablet also evinces the effects of Antiochus’s military preparations: purchases were made in Greek bronze coins rather than silver shekels (ll. 33’, upper edge 2’), children were sold into slavery, and there was famine, disease, and death among the populace (ll. 33’, upper edge 1’). 66. AD no. -273, rev. ll. 36’–38’; van der Spek 2000, 305–307. After ll. 29’– 33’ (discussing year 38 SE, month XII) the tablet has an inserted line, which seems to indicate a correction of text the scribe neglected to include in the passage above. The next line (34’), however, has “MU-37-KÁM (year 37 SE),” where one would assume “year 38,” although “MU BI (that year)” would have sufficed. In other words, it would appear that, in correcting his initial error, the scribe inadvertently made another slip in the year-date. Otherwise, the following passage (ll. 34’–39’) about “year 37” is inexplicable in a diary explicitly identified as concerning “month VII of year 38 to the end of month XII of year 38 of kings Antiochus and Seleucus ([E]N-NUN šá gi-né-e šá TA DU6 MU-38-KÁM EN TIL ŠE MU-38-KÁM IAn-ti-‘[u]-uk-su u ISe-lu-ku LUGALme[š])” (ibid. upper edge l. 3’; cf. left edge l. 1); cf. Hunger ad loc. p. 348 (indicating that the scribe was redacting historical events from several diaries which resulted in certain inconsistencies); Lehmann 1903, 497; van der Spek 1986, 214–215. 67. AD no. -273, rev. ll. 30’–32’; Otto 1928, 9–11; Huß 2001, 266, 269–270; Grainger 2010, 84. 68. Polyaen. 4.15 (the stratagem has also been attributed to Antiochus III); Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 176; id. 1913–1914, I: 68; Beloch 1912– 1927, IV(2): 323; Otto 1928, 12–13; Tarn 1928, 249; Bengtson 1937–1952, III: 240, no. 178; Bagnall 1976, 12; Huß 2001, 270, n. 123; Grainger 2010,8 6–86. 69. Codex Ursianianus, fol. 6 r° + Naples 1023 + Louvre C 123 = Urk. II: 75–80, ll. 1–6; RE s.v. “Antiochos,” I(2): 2454; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 175–176; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 586; Tarn 1926, 160–161; Thiers 1999; Huß 2001, 267, n. 101; Marquaille 2008, 53; Grainger 2010, 85. 70. In the section subsequent to the passage about Ptolemy’s victory in Asia (col. 7), the stele refers to year 20 (= 266/5), while the inscription itself was set up in the month of Hathyr, year 22 (= 27 Dec. 264–25 Jan. 263; col. 1); Thiers 1999, 436–437. 71. Beloch (1912–1927, IV(2): 501–502) argued that the war must have ended before the death of Arsinoe II (270/68), because she is still alive in Theoc. Id. 17, which has been thought to celebrate Ptolemy’s success during the war; so too: Huß 2001, 270; for the date of Theoc. Id. 17, see: Köhler 1895, 974; Lehmann 1903, 511–512; Otto 1928, 7–8; id.

158

Notes

72. 73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

1931, 413; Huß 2001, 270; Hunter 2003, 3–8; supra 155, n. 51; for the date of Arsinoe’s death, see: van Oppen 2010. However, Lehmann (1902, 348; 1903, 509–510) had already suggested that the restoration projects at Esagila (Babylon), Ezida (Borsippa) in 268 (year 43 SE) indicate that Antiochus’s kingdom was at peace ca. 269/8; infra 162, n. 107. I should add that Antiochus was (still?) encamped in Syria in 271/0; see: AD no. -270B, rev. ll. 18’–19’ (where an ominous event is recorded as well, i.e., many birds; my thanks are due to Van der Spek for indicating the importance of this passage in this context); infra 162, n. 108. Cf. Lehmann 1903, 514–521, 528–529; Otto 1928, 12–13, 15–17; Bagnall 1976, 11–12; Huß 2001, 270–271. Dionys. 10.14; Livy, Perioch. 14 (“Cum Ptolemaeo, Aegypti rege, societas juncta est”); Val. Max 4.3.9; Just. Epit. 18.2.9; Cass. Dio F. 41B; Zonar. 8.6.11; Eutrop. 2.15; Lehmann 1902, 347–348; id. 1903, 537–538, 543–545 (envisioning the formation of two opposing camps in the Mediterranean as the outcome of the First Syrian War—on one side Ptolemy II, Antigonus II, Areus and Rome; on the other side Antiochus I, Magas, Pyrrhus, Tarentum and Carthage); BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, I: 174–175; id. 1913–1914, I: 67; Kolbe 1916, 536; Tarn 1928, 251. Pithom stele (I.Cair. 22.183, ll. 12–15); Diod. 3.36.3, 42.1; Pliny Nat. Hist. 6.159; Köhler 1895, 972–974; Niese 1893–1903, II: 115–117; Lehmann 1903, 511; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 142, 196, 242–243; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 283–285; Tarn 1928, 251; id. 1929, 9–25; Fraser 1972, I: 177, II: 298–299; Huß 2001, 288–290; Marquaille 2008, 50. This also means that Magas cannot have convinced Antiochus to break whatever treaty his father Seleucus I concluded with Ptolemy I during the First Syrian War; cf. Diod. 21.1.5; Paus. 1.7.3 (Μάγας . . . ἔπεισεν Ἀντίοχον παραβάντα ἃς ὁ πατήρ οἱ Σέλευκος ἐποιήσατο συνθήκας πρὸς Πτολεμαῖον); supra 156, n. 62. Droysen 1877, III(1): 269–271; Köhler 1895, 969–970; Niese 1893–1903, II: 126; Lehmann 1903, 521–524; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 164, 169; id. 1913–1914, I: 66–67; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 584–585; Otto 1928, 6, 24, n. 2; Tarn 1928, 250; Chamoux 1956, 29; Seibert 1967, 51–53; Wörrle 1975, 68, n. 43; Will 1979–1982, I: 145–146; Huß 2001, 266, 268; Grainger 2010, 81; Clayman 2014, 14, 31–32. The argument seems to go back to Köhler 1895, 969 (“Ich kann nicht glauben, dass die Darstellung dieser Vorgänge, welche Pausanias bietet, in allen Stücken zutreffend und correct ist”). Magas concluded treaties as basileus in Crete: I.Cret. II: 17 (Lissos), 211–212 (League of Mountainers); SEG IX: 112; Niese 1893–1903, II: 99, 126; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 164–165; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 584–585; Chamoux 1956, 26–27; Will 1979–1982, I: 146; Gelzer 1982, 19; Bile 2005, 19–28; Maquaille 2008, 44, n. 23 (suggesting to date Magas’s treaty in Crete to the time of the Chremonidean War); Grainger 2010,

Notes

159

81–82. Additionally, Magas retouched coins of Ptolemy I into his own: BMC Ptol. 38, nos. 11–12; Sv. nos. 860–861; their scarcity would seem to be an indication of the brevity of his claim to kingship; the presence of the dikeras as control mark on issues preceding Magas’s retouched coins might point to a date after the deification of Arsinoe II (271/0), for whom the double horn of plenty was created. More about these coins in the subsequent chapter, supra2 7–29. 79. Köhler 1895, 969 (“Für Magas wäre es ein zwecklos Wagstück gewesen”); Lehmann 1903, 521–522; cf. Huß 2001, 266 (“Unter den gegebenen Umständen kann dies Ziel nur die Ausschaltung der alexandreiischen Regierung gewesen sein”). 80. Polyaen. 2.28.2; cf. Plut. De cohib. ira 9 (= Mor. 458); Niese 1893–1903, II: 126; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 166; id. 1913–1914, I: 66; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 585, IV(2): 502; Chamoux 1956, 28; Huß 2001, 266, 268; Grainger 2010, 82. 81. Strabo 17.3.23 (838–839); Paus. 1.7.2; ps.-Scyl. 108 (GGM I: 82); RE s.v. “Marmarica,” XIV(2): 1881–1882; Niese 1893–1903, II: 126; BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, I: 166; id. 1913–1914, I: 66; Chamoux 1956, 28–29; Laronde 1987, esp. 219–232; Huß 2001, 268. 82. Callim. Hymn. Del. 165–188; Paus. 1.7.2; Niese 1893–1903, II: 127; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 167; id. 1913–1914, I: 66–67; Chamoux 1956, 29; Gelzer 1982, 20–21; Huß 2001, 268–269, n. 114; Grainger 2010, 82; Barbantani 2011, 194–197. 83. Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 499 (“Daß Antiochos und Magas einen kombinierten Angriff auf Aegypten geplant hatten, liegt in der Natur der Sache”); Seibert 1967, 51 (“Magas und Antiochos I. [hätten] gemeinsam den Plan zum Einfall in Ägypten getroffen”); Wörrle, 1975, 68–69; Huß 2001, 266 (“Ptolemaios II. mußte von nun an mit einem Zweifrontkrieg rechnen.”). Note that Pausanias mentions Magas’s aborted campaign against Egypt (1.7.2) before Magas’s alliance with Antiochus (1.7.3), which does not indicate that they planned a two-front war. 84. Σ Callim. Hymn. Del. 175–187 states that Ptolemy received his Galatian troops from “a friend (τις φίλος)” named Antigonus; Bouché-Leclercq 1913–1914, I: 66, n. 1; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 585, n. 4; Kolbe 1916, 537–538; Chamoux 1956, 29, n. 2; Huß 2001, 268–269, n. 114. 85. Beloch19 12–1927,I V(2):5 86;K oenen19 93,8 2–84. 86. For this date, now see: Byrne 2006/7, 175–179; Osborne 2009, 89, n. 27 (I owe these references to Bennett). Byrne’s argument depends on the assumption that the Metonic Cycle was in operation at the time. 87. For the Chremonidean War, see: IG II(2): 687 = Syll.3 434/5; Athen. 6.57 (250F) (Χρεμονίδος πόλεμος); RE s.v. “Antigonos,” no. 4, I: 2415– 2416; id. s.v. “Ptolemaois,” no. 16, XXIII(2): 1652–1654; Droysen 1877, III(1): 225–248; Köhler 1895, 975–977; Niese 1893–1903, II: 130–132; Lehmann 1903, 170–171; id. 1904, 121–122; id. 1905, 375–391; BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, I: 185–193; id. 1913–1914, 69–70; Ferguson 1911,

160

Notes

176–185; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 588–591, IV(2): 75, 157–158, 502–506; Kolbe 1916, 535–552; Tarn 1927, 14; id. 1934, 26–39; Heinen 1972, 95–213; Habicht 1979, 95–112; Will 1979–1982, I: 219–233; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 280–289; Gabbert 1997, 45–53 (who argues for a short duration of the war, 264–263); Huß 2001, 271–281; Marquaille 2008, 47–48; O’Neil 2008, 65–89. 88. Lehman 1905, 375–391; Ferguson 1911, 176–177; Kolbe 1916, 547, 550; Heinen 1972, 137; Habicht 1979, 108–112; Gabbert 1997, 46–47; Huß 2001, 271–273; O’Neil 2008, 72–74. 89. Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 185–188; Lehman 1905, 375–391; Ferguson 1911, 169–171, 174; Tarn 1913, 313 (“The Chremonidean war was Arsinoe’s war”); id. 1934, 28–29; O’Neil 2008, 68–71; contra Kolbe 1916, 536, 547–551; Heinen 1972, 97–100; Habicht 1979, 108–112; Burstein 1982, 205–210; Hauben 1983, 114–119; Hazzard 2000, 94–95; cf. Huß 2001, 273–274. Statues were set up of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe Philadelphus at the Athenian Odeum (Paus. 1.8.6), in Olympia by Glaucon (Syll.3 462; cf. Paus. 6.16.9) as well as by Callicrates (OGIS 26–27), and in Calauria by the people of the city of Arsinoe on the Peloponnesus (Wallensten and Pakkanen 2010; I owe this reference to Christian Habicht via Dorothy Thompson). 90. For “Ptolemy the Son,” esp. see: RE s.v. “Ptolemaios,” no. 20, XXII(2): 1666–1667; de Groot 1917/18; Huß 1998; Tunny 2000; Bennett s.v. “Ptolemy the Son”; supra 30; infra 170, n. 44. 91. VanOp pen2 010. 92. The only dates that can be ascertained with any amount of plausibility are the beginning of the war (ranging from 269/8 to 265/4), the death of Areus (266/5 or 265/4), and the peace between Antigonus and Athens (from 263/2 to 261/0). If Byrne’s dating (2006/7) of Peithidemus’s archonship to 269/8 is correct, the chronology proposed by Heinen (1972) should probably be moved ahead by one year. 93. Paus. 3.6–4–6; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 589, IV(2): 503; Heinen 1972, 167–170; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 280–281; Gabbert 1997, 47; Huß 2001, 276; O’Neil 2008, 77–80. 94. Paus. 1.1.1, 7.3, 3.6.5; Athen. 8.9 (334A), 14.28 (621A); Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 589; Tarn 1934, 27–28; Heinen 1972, 157–158, 190–191; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 283–284; Gabbert 1997, 47; Huß 2001, 275–276; O’Neil 2008, 66–68, 71–72, 74–77. 95. Hostilities are attested already in the archonship of Peithidemus (269/8); SEG XXIV: 154, l. 22 (πειραταῖς), LI: 105; Paus. 1.30.4; Heinen 1972, 152–167, 189–192; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 283–284; Byrne 2006/7, 179, n. 60. 96. Trog. Prol. 26 (“Ut defectores Gallos Megaris delevit [scil. Antigonus]”); Just. Epit. 26.2.1–6; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 589; Tarn 1934, 27; Heinen 1972, 170–172; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 282; Gabbert 1997, 47; Huß 2001, 277; O’Neil 2008, 80–82.

Notes

161

97. Diod. 20.29.1 (giving 44 years for Areus’s reign); Plut. Agis 3.4 (locating Areus’s death at Corinth); Trog. Prol. 26 (“regemque Lacedaemonium Area Corinthi interfecit”); Just. Epit. 26.2; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 589–590, IV(2): 157–158, 502–503; Tarn 1934, 26–27; Heinen 1972, 173–175; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 282; Gabbert 1997, 48; Huß 2001, 278; O’Neil 2008, 81–82. Since Areus succeeded to the throne in 309/8, his death can be placed either in 266/5 or in 265/4; in light of the proposed chronology (supra 160, n. 92), (late) 266 seems preferable. 98. Trog. Prol. 26; Just. Epit. 26.2.7–12; Euseb. I: 243 (who conflates Pyrrhus and Alexander); Niebuhr 1828–43, I: 228; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 590, IV(2): 504–505; Tarn 1934, 27; Heinen 1972, 175–177; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 285–286; Gabbert 1997, 48; Huß 2001, 279; O’Neil 2008, 82. 99. Trog. Prol. 26; Just. Epit. 26.2.11 (“Huius [scil. Antigoni] filius Demetrius”); Euseb. I: 243. As Demetrius II, the son of Antigonus II, was born ca. 275 (or even later), Justin must have confused him with one of Antigonus’s (half) brothers of the same name, or (as Bennett suggested, pers. corr.) he may not have been an Antigonid at all; cf. Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 505–506; Tarn 1934, 27; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 285, n. 6; Gabbert 1997, 48. 100. The end of the war in Attica is dated to the archonship of Antipater (Apollodor. FGrH 244 F 44), which has been variously placed in 263/2, 262/1, or 261/0; recent scholarship favors 263/2; IG II/III2 668 (= SIG 388, ll. 8–10: ἐφ’ ὑγιείαι καὶ σωτη[ρίαι] . . . [τῶν κ]αρπῶν τῶν ἐν τεῖ χώραι; dd. 266/5), 1217 (= SEG LI: 106); Paus. 3.6.6; Polyaen. 4.6.20; Front. Strateg. 3.4.2; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 502–503; Heinen 1972, 155, 177–189; Habicht 1979, 143, n. 78; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 285–286; Gabbert 1997, 48; Huß 2001, 279–280; O’Neil 2008, 82–83, 85–86; Osborne 2009, 90, n. 29. 101. Teles Περὶ φυγῆς 16.4 (ap. Stob. Anthol. 2.72); Polyaen. 5.18; RE s.v. “Chremonides,” III: 2446; Ferguson 1911, 188, 197; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 590; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 287. 102. Heinen 1972, 186–193. The scope of the present article does not allow for an examination of the battles of Andros and Cos, which have been dated variously in the 260s or 250s; Plut. De se ips. laud. 16.545B; id. Apophth. Regum 183C–D; Athen. 5.44 (209E); Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 193–195; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 506–510; Heinen 1972, 193–197; Hammond and Walbank 1988, I: 291–292; Gabbert 1997, 52; Marquaille 2008, 47–48, n. 39; O’Neil 2008, 84–85. 103. FD III(1): 479 = SEG II: 261 = ISE II: 76; IG XI(2): 114; Beloch 1912– 1927, IV(2): 503–504; Heinen 1972, 139–142, 186–189; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 288–289; Gabbert 1997, 52–53; Huß 2001, 280; O’Neil 2008, 83 (suggesting that the battle of Acrotatus, son of Areus, at Megalopolis took place at this time).

162

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

Notes Perhaps the Delphic recognition of the Ptolemaea belongs in this context. The decree (CID IV: 40 = FD III: 4.357 = SEG LIII(2): 907) is dated to the Pythian archonship of Pleiston (initially placed in 269 or 265, then in 265 or 261). It may be deduced that, after the death of Areus, Athens and Ptolemy sought support in Central Greece, which might then explain why the theater of war moved there after Athens’s surrender. Moreover, if (Ptolemaic) envoys were sent to Delphi, one might further speculate that envoys similarly sought support against Antigonus in Epirus; so, too: Ferguson 1911, 180; O’Neil 2008, 82. For the Amphictyonic decree, cf.: Fraser 1954, 49–62; id. 1961; Bousquet 1958, 77–82; Étienne, Piérart 1975, 51–75; Will 1979–1982, I: 219, 230–231; Nerwinski 1981, 13–18; Lefèvre 1995, 178–179, 208; id. 2002, 26–28, 142; Hazzard 2000, 49; Sánchez 2001, 338–341 (I am once again grateful to Bennett for discussing the matter with me and for pointing me to the relevant literature). Cf. RE s.v. “Antiochus,” no. 21, I: 758; Lehmann 1903, 509 (“Antiochus [hat] gegenüber den Verwickelungen des chremonideischen Krieges nicht dir Rolle des unthätigen Zuschauers gespielt”); id. 1905, 386; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 591; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 36; Gabbert 1997, 46; Huß 2001, 274, n. 161 (“auch waren Antiochus I. und Magas ins Kalkül zu ziehen”—of Ptolemy II’s position during the Chremonidean War); O’Neil 2008, 80–81 (evincing Seleucid support to Antigonus in the form of Galatian mercenaries and elephants). Memn. FGrH 434 F 10; Just. Epit. 25.1.1; Niese 1893–1903, II: 23, 77; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 197–198; id. 1913–1914, I: 62; Tarn 1913, 173–174, 226–227, 247–248; Macurdy 1932, 69–70; Seibert 1967, 33–34; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 280, 282, n. 1; Gabbert 1997, 28; Grainger 1997, 52 s.v. “Phila”; id. 2010, 82; Ogden 1999, 178; Carney 2000, 182–183. For the Second Syrian War, see: RE s.v. “Antiochus,” no. 22, I: 2455–2456; ibid. s.v. “Ptolemaios,” no. 19, XXIII(2): 1654–1656; CAH VII(1)2: 418–420; Tarn 1913, 261–264; id. 1927, 14–15; id. 1952, 17–18; Otto 1931, 416–418; Will 1979–1982, I: 234–243; Hölbl 2001, 43–45; Huß 2001, 271, 281–287; Grainger 2010, 117–136. VR 66; Weissbach 1911, 132–135; ANET3 316–317; Austin 1981, 310– 311, no. 189; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1991, 73–78; ead. 1993, 36–37; cf. BCHP 6 (= BM 32248 + 32456 + 32477 + 32543 + 76–11–17). AD no. -270B, rev. ll. 18’–19’ (“MU BI [41] LUGAL ina e-ber ÍD ŠUB”); supra 157, n. 71. We can only speculate as to the purpose of his military presence in Syria at that time: it may indicate that the First Syrian War was still ongoing; that a peace treaty was concluded that year; that Antiochus remained there to prevent another Ptolemaic attack; or that he was already preparing for another engagement. Lehmann 1902, 348; id. 1903, 171; id. 1903, 509–511, 528; id. 1905, 248; id. 1905, 386; cf. Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1991; M. Stol and

Notes

110.

111. 112. 113.

114.

115. 116. 117.

118. 119.

163

R. J. van der Spek, “The Antiochus Cylinder,” http://www.livius. org/cg-cm/chronicles/antiochus_cylinder/antiochus_cylinder2.html (accessed October 2010). For the cylinder inscription, see: BM 36277 (obv. ll. 25’–30’ “may the overthrow of the country of my enemy, / the achievement of my triumphs, / the predominance over the enemy through victory, / kingship of justice, a reign / of prosperity, years of happiness, / (and) the full enjoyment of very old age be the gift [scil., of Nabû]”; trans. by Stol and Van der Spek); supra 162, n. 107. Even if the passage reads more like a prayer for victory, the unnamed country and enemy are specifically singular, so that a victory over Egypt comes immediately to mind. Modern historians may thus have misunderstood Pausanias’s account, or Pausanias may have conflated two episodes (the Ptolemaic-Seleucid conflict of 274/3–273/2 and Antiochus’s (intended) campaign in 268). Cf. Wörrle 1975, 69–72. This suggestion might then also apply to the great Ptolemaic victory celebrated in the Saïs stele; supra 157, n. 69. I would like to express my gratitude to Cathy Lorber for raising the issue of the Galatian shields in the presentation of Ptolemaic power (pers.c orr.). Callim. Hymn. Del. 181–188 (note, however, that the shields are called “ἀσπίδες,” not “θυρεοί”); Gellzer 1982, 20–21; Barbantani 2011, 197–198. Borchhardt 1991; Stanzl 1999; id. 2003; cf. Plut. Pyrrh. 26.5 (Pyrrhus set up Galatian shields, θυρεοί, in the temple of Athena Itonis). Athen. 5.26, 32 ( 196F, 200F). Fraser 1972, I: 231–232; Koenen 1977, 80, n. 165 (271/0 BCE); Rice 1983, 182–187 (ca. 280–275 BCE; disassociated from Ptolemaea); Foertmeyer 1988, 90–104 (275/4 BCE); Goukowsky 1992, 153–154; Walbank 1996 (279/8 BCE); Hazzard 2000, 59–79 (262/1 BCE); Hölbl 2001, 39 (275/4 BCE); Huß 2001, 320–323 (275/4 BCE); Bennett 2011, esp. 105–124 (July 282 BCE); id. s.v. “Ptolemy I,” n. 6.1. Sv. nos. 547–548; Davesne and Le Rider 1989, 275–276; Chryssanthaki 2005; Wolf and Lorber 2011. (I owe these references to Lorber.) Admittedly, as Lorber points out (pers. corr.), the dating of this issue to the mid-260s rather than the mid-270s further depends on the rhythms of production of Ptolemaic coinage, as well as the nature of the connection between the Galatian-shield coinage that have individual letters over the shield and the Tyrenean issues typified by an individual letter over a club mark; for which, see: Davesne and Yenisoğanci 1992; Davesne 1994; id. 1999 (placing the coinage in the context of the Second Syrian War); Lorber 2012, 38–40. (I am very grateful to Lorber for sharing a draft version of this insightful article.)

164

Notes

120. A hoard of Ptolemaic bronze coins, including Galatian shield issues with monogram, has also been found at Mirgissa in Lower Nubia (Northern Sudan) and illustrates the extent of Ptolemy’s efforts in the region since the 270s BCE; for which, see: Le Rider 1969 (dating the hoard to 266/5 BCE); Hölbl 2001, 55–58; Burstein 2008; supra 13; infra 156,n .6 0. 121. Trog. Prol. 17; Just. Epit. 17.2.12–15. In this passage, Justin apparently refers to three different Ptolemies indiscriminately: Ptolemy I (whose “daughter,” Antigone, was married to Pyrrhus), Ptolemy Ceraunus (who is the main subject of the chapter), and Ptolemy II (who must have been the king supplying the troops under question); cf. Hammond 1988, 405–413; Heinen 1972, 28–29, 69–74, 90–91; Huß 2001, 260–261, n. 51. 122. Arguably, this is why Pausanias mentioned Antiochus’s unsuccessful campaign against Ptolemy and Ptolemy’s insufficient support for Athens practically in one breath. 123. For Ptolemaic relations with Carthage, see: Huß 1979; id. 1985, 170– 175; id.2 001,2 93–294. 124. App. Sicel. 1; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 196; Fraser 1972, I: 152– 153; Huß 1979, 129–130; id. 1985, 240, n. 173; Hauben 1983, 102. 125. Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 175; Huß 1979, 129; id. 2001, 294; Hauben 1983, 102–107. 126. Sall. Jug. 19.79; Polyb. 3.39.2; Diod. 20.41.2; Strabo 2.5.20 (123), 17.3.20 (836); Stad. Mar. Magni 84–88; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 321; Huß 1979, 123–124, 128; id.19 85,17 1–173. 127. Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 200, 245–246; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 599, 615–617, IV(2): 188–189; Tarn 1913, 453; Macurdy 1932, 131–133; Seibert 1967, 80–81; Vatin 1970, 69–70; Pomeroy 1984, 20, 23; Fatham et al. 1994, 145; Ogden 1999, 80–81; Huß 2001, 333; Clayman 2014, 32. 128. Beloch’s comment (1912–27, IV[1]: 599) that Magas merely followed Greek custom by marrying his daughter to her closest male relative (not her father or brother) is irrelevant in dynastic marital relations. 129. Just. Epit. 26.3.2: Magas . . . qui ante infirmitatem Beronicen, unicam filiam, ad finienda cum Ptolomeo fratre certamina filio eius desponderat. 130. Clayman 2014, 14 (stating as fact that “Berenice was their only child”). 131. Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 586; Chamoux 1956, 29–32; Huß 2001, 333; Maquaille 2008, 44. 132. OGIS 22 (“[Βασιλέα Πτ]ολ[εμ]αῖον Σωτήρων | [υἱόν Ἀρ]ίστων Λυσιφάνευς | ἀνέθηκε”); Strack 1897, 273, no. 163; Chamoux 1956, 31; Hazzard 2000, 3–24. Another dedication (OGIS 33 = SEG IX: 357), from Cyrenean Ptolemaïs, should probably be attributed to Arsinoe III rather than Arsinoe II (the combination of basilissa and

Notes

133.

134.

135. 136.

137.

138.

139. 140.

141. 142.

165

thea is known to have been applied to the former, but not to the latter); cf. Droysen 1877, III: 333; Strack 1897, 224 no. 28; Chamoux 1956, 31, n. 5. (If the latter inscription does belong to Arsinoe II it can be dated to the time between her deification as Thea Philadelphus, ca. 270/69, and her death, 268, as she is honored both as basilissa and as thea, then the dedication would precede Magas’s attack against Egypt on the chronology proposed here, and confirm the redating.) Athen. 12.74 (550B); Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 199; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 599; Chamoux 1956, 21, 34; cf. Clayman 2014, 31 (asserting Magas died of natural causes), 196, n. 76 (because she finds the evidence circumspect), 33 (as his connection to the Epicureans may have been responsible for the misrepresentation that he ate himself to death). For Demetrius the Fair, see: Plut. Dem. 53.8; Just. Epit. 26.3.4–8; RE s.v. “Demetrios,” no. 35, IV(2): 2793–2794; Mahaffy 1895, 151, 187; Niese 1893–1903, II: 143; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 200–202; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 599–600, 615–617, IV(2): 189–190; Tarn 1913, 449–453; Macurdy 1932, 131–132; Seibert 1967, 81, n. 31; Vatin 1970, 69–70; Fatham et al. 1994, 145; Ogden 1999, 80–81; Huß 2001, 333–335; Clayman 2011, 232–233; ead. 2014, 36–39; infra 25–26, 167, n.11 . Catul. 66, ll. 25–28; supra 150, n.2 . Just. Epit. 26.3.3 (“Sed post mortem regis mater virginis Arsinoe, ut invita se contractum matrimonium solveretur, misit qui ad nuptias virginis regnumque Cyrenarum Demetrium, fratrem regis Antigoni, a Macedonia arcesserent”). Antiochus II had recently married Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I, at the end of the Second Syrian War, 252; Seleucus II would have been ca. 15 years old in 250/49. In addition to the lit. cit. supra 162, n. 105, see: Beloch 1912–1927, III(2): 93, IV(1): 566, IV(2): 136; Tarn 1913, 348; Macurdy 1932, 70–71, 81–82; Seibert 1967, 35–36; Grainger 1997, 67 s.v. “Stratonike,” no. 1; Ogden 1999, 179; Carney 2000, 184–187. Just. Epit. 26.3.3 (“qui et ipse ex filia Ptolomei procreatus erat”); BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, I: 201; Huß 2001, 334, n. 8. Trog. Prol. 26 (stating that Demetrius occupied Cyrene); Just. Epit. 26.3.4 (“statim a principio superbus regiae familiae militibusque inpotens erat”). Ibid. 26.3.4 (“fiducia pulchritudinis, qua nimis placere socrui coeperat . . . studiumque placendi a virgine in matrem contulerat”). Ibid. 26.3.6–7 (“Quae res suspecta primo virgini, dein popularibus militibusque invisa fuit. Itaque . . . insidiae Demetrio conparantur, cui, cum in lectum socrus concessisset, percussores inmittuntur. Sed Arsinoe audita voce filiae ad fores stantis et praecipientis ut matri parceretur, adulterum paulisper corpore suo protexit”).

166

Notes

143. Ibid. 26.3.6 (“Itaque versis omnium animis in Ptolomei filium”), 8 (“Quo interfecto Beronice et stupra matris salva pietate ulta est et in matrimonio sortiendo iudicium patris secuta”). 144. Cf. Catul. 66.11–14; ps.-Crinag. Anth. Pal. IX: 235; Hyg. Astr. 2.24.2; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 202–203, 245–246; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 617; Gsell 1924–1930, VIII: 218; Macurdy 1932, 132–133; Hauben 1990, 29–30; Whitehorne 1994, 199–200; Huß 2001, 334–335, n. 14; Criscuolo 2003, 325; Bennett s.v. “Berenice II,” n. 10. 145. For the dates of the Third Syrian War, see the last essay, infra 75–78.

2

The Marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenice II

* This essay was originally written separately as a follow-up to the previous chapter. In addition to the persons mentioned in the acknowledgments, I would also like to extend my thanks to several anonymous referees who offered their pertinent comments on earlier versions submitted for consideration in their respective journals. 1. The following paragraphs recapitulates the discussion in the preceding essay, supra 8–10. 2. For Magas, see: RE s.v. “Magas,” no. 2, XIV(1): 293–297; Gercke 1887, 262–267; Strack 1897, 190–191; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 66–67, 164–167, 171–175, 200–203; Tarn 1913, 261–264, 321–322, 449–451; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 584–586, IV(2): 186–189; Bengston 1937–1952, III: 155–156, 163, 236, no. 153; Chamoux 1956; Laronde 1987, 360–379; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, 247–250; Bennett s.v. “Magas,” no. 1. 3. Cf. Gercke 1887, 266 (who has Alexander instead of Pyrrhus); Köhler 1891, 209–210; Otto 1928, 78, n. 2; Bengtson 1937–1952, III: 155–156; Chamoux 1956, 20–24; Huß 2001, 202. 4. Diod. 20.40–43; Just. Epit. 22.7.4; cf. Gercke 1887, 265–266; Köhler 1891, 207–210; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 187, 320–321, 252; Bengtson 1937–1952, III: 155–156, 236, no. 152; Chamoux 1956, 20–21; Bond and Swales 1965, 92. For Ophellas, see: RE s.v. “Ophellas,” no. 1, XVIII(1): 632–635; Bagnall 1976, 25–26; Huß 1979, 122–127; Laronde 1987, 356–358. 5. For this “high” date, see: Thrige, Historia Cyrenses (1819; non vidi); Droysen 1877, II(2): 94, n. 1; Köhler 1891, 209–210; Niese 1893– 1903, II: 145, n. 5; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 200 (cf. n. 2); Tarn 1913, 449–453; Buttrey 1994, 141–142; id. 1997, 39; supra 150, n. 6. 6. For this “low” date, see: Niebuhr 1828–1843, I: 230, no. 40; Gercke 1887, 266–267; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 186–190; Otto 1928, 76; Bengtson 1937–1952, III: 156; Chamoux 1956, 18–34; Bagnall 1976,

Notes

167

26–27; Laronde 1987, 380; Hölbl 2001, 45; Huß 2001, 333; Bennett 2003, 67–68; id. s.v. “Magas,” no. 1, n. 7. 7. Catul. 66, ll. 25–28; Just. Epit. 26.3; cf. Gercke 1887, 263; BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, I: 200, 246; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 599, 616– 617, IV(2): 189, 589; Tarn 1913, 450; Macurdy 1932, 131; Chamoux 1956, 18, 31, n. 3; Ogden 1999, 81; Huß 2001, 334, n. 13; Bennett 2003, 66; supra 7–8. 8. For Berenice II, see: RE s.v. “Berenice,” no. 11, III(1): 284–286; Macurdy 1932, 130–136; Koenen 1993, 89–113; Fantham et al. 1994, 144–151; Bacchielli 1995; Adams 2003; Clayman 2014, esp. 42–77; Bennett s.v. “Berenice II”; supra 149,n .1 . 9. For Ashoka Maurya, see: Hultzsch 1914; Smith 1920; Eggermont 1956; Kern 1956; Seneviratna (ed.) 1994; Kulke and Rothermund 2004, 65–71. For the inscription mentioning Antiochus II, Ptolemy II, Magas and Alexander II of Epirus, see: Major Rock Edict 13 (= CII I: 22–25), l. Q; Gercke 1887, 266; Smith 1920, 185–189; Charpentier 1931, 303; Bhattasali 1932, 285–287; Kern 1956, 84–89; A. W. P. Guruge in Seneviratna (ed.) 1994, 73–77; Huß 2001, 301; supra 9–10. 10. Niebuhr 1828–1843, I: 236–238. This date would still accord with the round number of 50 years for his rule in Cyrene since ca. 300—that is, he would have died in the 49th or 50th year since gaining his governorship. 11. For Demetrius the Fair, see: Plut. Dem. 53.8; Just. Epit. 26.3.4–8; RE s.v. “Demetrios,” no. 35, IV(2): 2793–2794; Mahaffy 1895, 151, 187; Niese 1893–1903, II: 143; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 200–202; Tillyard and Wace 1905, 113–119; Tarn 1913, 323–324, 449–453; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 599–600, 615–617, IV(2): 189–190; Macurdy 1932, 131–132; Seibert 1967, 81, n. 31; Vatin 1970, 69–70; Laronde 1987, 380– 381; Fatham et al. 1994, 145; Ogden 1999, 80–81; Hölbl 2001, 45–46; Huß 2001, 333–335; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, 248; supra 167, n.134 . 12. For Apame, see: RE s.v. “Apama,” no. 3, I: 2662–2663; Tarn 1913, 261, 322–323; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 585, 599–600; Macurdy 1932, 79, 131–132; Seibert 1967, 51–53; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 35–36; Grainger 1997, 38 s.v. “Apama,” no. 1; id. 2010, 82; Carney 2000, 171; Huß 2001, 266, 333–334; Bennett 2003, 66–68; id. s.v “Apama/Arsinoe”; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, 248; Clayman 2014, 35–39; supra 10–12. 13. If the monogram on some koinon issues indeed stands for ΔΗΜ, it should best be understood as referring to Demophanes, rather than Demetrius; cf. Robinson 1927, cxxxvi; Laronde 1987, 406. 14. Catul.6 6, ll. 25–28; Just. Epit.2 6.3.3. 15. Clayman2 014,e sp.38 ,7 8–120 pass. 16. For the Cyrenaican Republic, see: Polyaen. 8.70; RE s.v. “Kyrene,” no. 2, XII(1): 163; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 615; Will 1979–1982, I:

168

Notes

288–291; Laronde 1987, 381–382; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, 248; Clayman 2014, 38–39. Cyrene had a long history of civil strife since the fall of the Battiad dynasty, it appears mostly between oligarchs and democrats, which continued after the death of Alexander the Great: cf. the episode of Thibron (323/2), the revolt against Ophellas (313), and the uprising after his death (308/7). For the history of Cyrene, see: Bagnall 1976, 25–37; Laronde 1987; Clayman 2014, 26–30. 17. Polyb. 10.22.3 (ἔτι δὲ Κυρηναίων αὐτοὺς μεταπεμψαμένων ἐπιφανῶς προύστησαν καὶ διεφύλαξαν αὐτοῖς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν); Plut. Philop. 1.3 (Κυρηναίοις δεηθεῖσι, τεταραγμένων τῶν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν καὶ νοσούντων, πλεύσαντες εὐνομίαν ἔθεντο καὶ διεκόσμησαν ἄριστα τὴν πόλιν); RE s.v. “Ekdemos,” IV(2): 2159; ibid. s.v. “Megalophanes,” XV(1): 143. Their names are variously reported: Polyb. and Plut. give Ἔκδημος (an otherwise unattested name), while Paus. (8.49.2) has Ἔκδηλος; Polyb. gives Δημοφάνης, while Plut. and Paus. have Μεγαλοφάνης. 18. Polyb. 10.22; Plut. Agis 3.7; id. Arat. 4–9; id. Philop. 1.2–3; Paus. 8.27.11, 49.2; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 273, 298, 300, 361. 19. For the Second Syrian War, see: RE s.v. “Antiochus,” no. 22, I: 2455– 2456; ibid. s.v. “Ptolemaios,” no. 19, XXIII(2): 1654–1656; Otto 1931, 416–418; Tarn 1952, 17–18; Will 1979–1982, I: 234–243; Huß 2001, 281– 287; Grainger 2010, 117–136; supra 16. 20. Robinson 1927, cxxxiv–cxxxvii; Bond and Swales 1965, 92; Laronde 1987, 405–406; Asolati 2011, 27–28 (I owe this reference to Cathy Lorber; my thanks to Christel Schollaardt for allowing me access to the only copy in The Netherlands, at the library of the National Numismatic Collection); cf. lit. cit. supra 167,n . 16. 21. Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 615–616;I V(2): 189, 612–615. 22. Poole 1883, xlvi–xvlii; Svoronos 1904–1908, IV: 132, 160, 475; Head 1911, 871–872; MacDonald 1899–1905, III: 575, nos. 62–65; followed, i.a., by: Laronde 1987, 406; Hölbl 2001, 47; cf. Tarn 1913, 452; Robinson 1927, xvi, cxxxiv–cxxxvii; Otto 1928, 76. 23. Tarn19 13,4 52–453. 24. Buttrey 1994; id. 1997, 37–43; cf. Asolati 2011, 27–30 (following the samec hronology). 25. Cf. Poole 1883, xxxi–xxxii, lvii–lviii; Svoronos 1904–1908, I: 119–122; Robinson 1927, clvi–clxii, ccxlviii–ccl; Buttrey 1994; id. 1997, esp. 41–43. 26. Poole 1883, 38; Svoronos 1904–1908, I: 120; Robinson 1927, clviii and 81; RE s.v. “Magas,” no. 2, XIV(1): 297. About these (rare) issues Buttrey (1997, 37) merely states that they were “retooled,” without any explanation, and does not consider their implication for the chronology of the series. 27. Poole 1883, xlvii–xlix; Svoronos 1904–1908, I: 120; Sv. nos. 862–864, pl. 34.17–21; Robinson 1927, cxxxv, 68–71; Buttrey 1997, 40. 28. Poole 1883, lvii–lviii; Svoronos 1904–1908, 137–138; Robinson 1927, 83.

Notes

169

29. For the dates of Arsinoe II’s deification and death, see: van Oppen 2010. For the dikeras as Arsinoe’s attribute, see: Athen. 11.97 (497B–D); D. B. Thompson 1973, 32–33; Kyrieleis 1975, 82; Rice 1983, 202–208; Smith 1988, 91; Plantzos 1992; Ashton 2001a, 151–152; van Oppen 2010, 146–147. 30. Fort hed ateo fM agas’sr evolt, supra 14–15. 31. BMC Ptol. 60, nos. 9–14, pls. 13.7–8; Sv. nos. 314–320, pls. 3.40–41, 44–45, A.40, 42; Kahrstedt 1910, 262–263; BMC Cyr. cxliv, cxlix–clvi, 75–76, nos. 9–13, pls. 29.11–18; DNM Ptol. nos. 429–430; Kyrieleis 1975, 94; Caltabiano 1996 (unconvincingly reasoning that Berenice struck the series in her own name from Alexandria); Clayman 2014, 62; Lorber, CPE no. 729; cf. Asolati 2011, 27 (dating all mints with Magas’s monogram to the time of his reconciliation with Ptolemy II, 261–258). Berenice’s status as basilissa during her father’s governorship isn oteworthy. 32. Poole 1883, xlvii; Kahrstedt 1910, 262–263, 269; Robinson 1927, esp. cli–cliii. 33. BMC Ptol. 60, no. 15; Tarn 1913, 449–451; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011,2 49. 34. BMC Ptol. 59–60, nos. 3–8; Sv. nos. 962–963, 972–973, 978–982, pls. 29.1–11, 17–18; Kahrstedt 1910, 268–269; Kyrieleis 1975, 95. 35. For Arsinoe’s apotheosis, see: Callim. Apoth. Arsin. (F 228); Dieg. 10.10; Macurdy 1932, 127–128; R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, I: 218–222; F. T. Griffiths 1979, 90; Meillier 1979, 207–210, 217–220; Cameron 1995, 433–434. For the catasterism of Coma Berenices, see: Callim. Com. Ber. (F. 110 ≈ Catul. 66), ll. 7–8, 52–56; Dieg. 5.40; Hyg. Astr. 2.24.2; RE s.v. “Βερενίκης πλόκαμοι,” III(1): 289; R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, I: 112–123; F. T. Griffiths 1979, 59; Meillier 1979, 145–149; Schwinge 1986, 70; Zwierlein 1987; Lee 1990, 104–111, 171–172; Gutzwiller 1992, 380; Koenen 1993, 89–113; Austin 2006; Carney 2013, 95–100, 106–110; Clayman 2014, 97–104. The catasterism is the subject of the fourth chapter, “Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices.” 36. For Euesperides-Berenice in Cyrenaica, see: Steph. Byz. s.v. “Βερενῖκαι,” ‘Ἑσπερίς’; RE s.v. “Berenike,” no. 8, III(1): 282; Droysen 1877, III(2): 331; Robinson 1927, xvi, cxciv–cxcvii, 111–112; Bond and Swales 1965, 91–101; Laronde 1987, 383–396; Buttrey 1994; id. 1997, 38–41; Huß 2001, 333– 335. 37. Robinson 1927, xvi, cxcvii; Bond and Swales 1965, 93; Hölbl 2001, 47; cf. Laronde 1987, 392–393; Buttrey 1994; id. 1997, 38–41; Clayman 2014, 39–40. 38. Hanc [Bernicen civitatem] Berenice munivit quae Ptolemaeo tertio fuit nupta et in maiori Syrti locavit; Buttrey 1994, 144 = 1997, 41 (pointing out that Solinus’s identification of Berenice as the wife of Ptolemy III does not perforce imply that the resettlement took place after their marriage).

170

Notes

39. Callim. Ep. 37 (Pf = 17 G-P = Anth. Pal. 13.17); P. Oxy. 220, col. 10, l. 6 (Μενείτας); R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, II: 90; Meillier 1979, 150–152; Voutiras 1994, 27–31; Selden 1998, 307–309; Clayman 2014, 39–41. Callimachus employs the deliberately archaicizing “Lyktos” and “Hesperites” for Cretan “Lyttos” and Cyrenean “Euesperides.” 40. Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 588; Otto 1928, 76; Laronde 1987, 396; cf. Fraser 1972, II: 1004, n. 1. 41. For Ptolemy III, see: RE s.v. “Ptolemaios,” no. 21, XXIII(2): 1667– 1678; Droysen 1877, III(1): 374–452; Niese II: 145–173; Mahaffy 1895, 193–242’ id. 1899, 103–126; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 244–286; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 536–556; Bevan 1927, 189–216; Will 1979– 1982, I: 248–261; Ogden 1999, 80–81; Hölbl 2001, 46–67; Huß 2001, 332–380; Bennett s.v. “Ptolemy III.” 42. Clayman 2014, 76, is adamant that “immediately upon his succession Ptolemy III and his new wife took up residence in the royal quarters of the Palaces.” 43. Cf. Poole 1883, xxix (dating the marriage to 255); Hauben 1990, 29; Criscuolo 2003, 325. 44. For controversial issue of the identity of “Ptolemy the Son,” esp. see: RE s.v. “Ptolemaios,” no. 20, XXIII(2): 1666–1667; de Groot 1917/18; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 588–592; Huß 1998; Tunny 2000; van Oppen 2010, 147–148; Bennett s.v. “Ptolemy the Son.” 45. Mahaffy 1895, 195; id. 1899, 99; Wilcken in RE s.v. “Berenike,” no. 11, III(1): 284; Strack 1897, 25–29; White 1898, 253–254; Niese 1893–1903, II: 145; Breccia 1903, 147–149; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–07, I: 182 n. 2; de Groot 1917/8; Hölbl 2001, 44 and 365 (s.v. “Ptolemy III”); Buraselis 2005, 97–99 (I owe this last reference to Chris Bennett). 46. For example, see: Kornemann 1923; Robins 1983; Carney 1987; Ager 2005; Scheidel 2005; Buraselis 2008. 47. For the death date of Arsinoe II, see: van Oppen 2010. 48. Cf. Bevan 1927, 65–67; Ogden 1999, 79–80; Tunny 2000, 83; Bennett s.v. “Ptolemy the Son,” n. 4. Against the first suggestion, we may object that it seems unlikely that Arsinoe I gave birth to two sons both named Ptolemy (one would have to presume, then, that Ptolemy III assumed the dynastic name upon succession) and we may wonder if there was sufficient time for her to bear four children between her marriage to Ptolemy II (284/2) and her repudiation (if the latter happened ca. 279/8; cf. Bennett 2003, 68–70); against the second suggestion, we can object that Σ Theoc. 17.128 claims that Arsinoe II ἄτεκνος ἀπέθανεν (died without bearing her brother children); against the third suggestion, we may object that Ptolemy II would hardly appoint a bastard to co-regency, and that Bilistiche (the king’s best known mistress) became prominent only in the 260s. 49. Beloch 1913–1927, IV(2): 183–184; Tarn 1913, 291, 315–318, 445–447; id. in CAH VII: 703; Macurdy 1932, 120–123; Hammond and Walbank

Notes

171

1988, 589–592; Huß 1998; van Oppen 2010, 147–148; Bennett s.v. “Ptolemy the Son.” 50. Tarn (followed by Macurdy 1932, 132), who favored the early date for the death of Magas (1913, 449–453) and also accepted the identification of “Ptolemy the Son” as Arsinoe’s child with Lysimachus (1913, 291; CAH VII: 703), does not address the matter. I should also point out that Justin (Epit. 26.3.2) merely states that Magas, before he died, betrothed Berenice, his only daughter, to “the son of his brother Ptolemy” in order to end their strife (Magas . . . qui ante infirmitatem Beronicen, unicam filiam, ad finienda cum Ptolomeo fratre certamina filio eius desponderat), without further indication of this son’s identity. Since Justin shows no awareness of “Ptolemy the Son,” the natural assumption is that he refers to the future Ptolemy III. 51. Huß 2001, 333–334; Criscuolo 2003, 314, 325; S. Pfeiffer 2004, 148; cf. Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, 248–249. 52. Catul. 66, ll. 11–12. 53. It should be noted that, while Callimachus was a contemporary, Catullus was obviously not. The assumption that his translation is faithful, when the original is lost, cannot be proven. With a few notable exceptions (perhaps due to the fact that Catullus translated a different version of Callimachus’s poem), however, comparison of the Greek and Latin versions indicates that Catullus remained as close to the original as possible. 54. Laronde 1987, 382; Buttrey 1994, 139; id. 1997, esp. 42; LlewellynJones and Winder 2011, 248 (stating as fact that Ptolemy II sent the future Ptolemy III effectively to turn Cyrene into an Egyptian protectorate). 55. Cf. Catul. 66.11–14; ps.-Crinag. Anth. Pal. 9.235 (cit. infra); Hyg. Astr. 2.24.2 (cit. infra); Bouché-Leclercq 1903–07, I: 202–203, 245–246; Beloch 1912–27, IV(1): 617; Gsell 1924–1930, VIII: 218; Macurdy 1932, 132–133; Hauben 1990, 29–30; Whitehorne 1994, 199–200; Huß 2001, 334–335, n. 14; Criscuolo 2003, 325; Bennett s.v. “Berenice II,” n. 10. The date of the outbreak of the war is discussed in more detail in the fourth chapter, infra 75–76. 56. Based on the assumption that Arsinoe I was married to Ptolemy II at the time of his co-regency (284), and that Ptolemy III was their firstborn child (ca. 283). 57. IG IX(1)2 1:56; Reinach 1907, 47–48; Blum 1915, 20, n. 2; Oikonomides 1956/7 (non vidi); Fraser 1959; Huß 1975; Bennett 2002; Criscuolo 2003, 325, n. 65; Clayman 2014, 171–178. 58. So far as I am aware there is no study of Hellenistic dynastic naming patterns; cf. Nagy 1979 (Athenian priestesses named “Theano”); Sommerstein 1980 (women in comedy); Golden 1986 (Athens); Hobson 1989, esp. 165–168 (Roman Egypt); Hornblower and Matthews (eds.) 2000 (esp. Hatzopoulos on Macedonia, 99–118; Fraser on ethnics, 149–157). (I owe these references to Elizabeth Carney.)

172

Notes

59. Oikonomides 1956/7, 10–11 (non vidi); Huß 1975, 315–319; Bennett 2002, 143; cf. Plut. Cleom. 33.3; P.Haun.I :6 . 60. For the Delphic monument, see: FD IV(2): no. 233 = Flacelière 1902, 276–278; Bennett 2002; Kosmetatou 2002. For the birth order, cf.: Bennett 2002, 145; id. s.v. “Magas,” no. 2, n. 3. Against Kosmetatou’s objections, I would argue that the position of Arsinoe III on the left and Berenice Parthenus on the right in and of itself indicate that their brothers were placed in descending birth order in between; removing Ptolemy IV from this sequence would not only decrease the dedicatory inscription by 15 letters; it also requires an additional statue on the extreme right to balance the composition and keep the text centered. 61. Criscuolo 2003, 314; cf. Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, 248–249 and 265, n. 7. 62. Criscuolo2 003,32 5; also, see:B runeau19 70,5 19–525. 63. Perhaps Criscuolo was thinking of Apollo’s status as the mythic founder of Cyrene that could explain the connection with the reconstituted Ptolemaea. 64. Huß (2001, 333–334), who dates the death of Magas to 250/48 [sic], similarly leaves unexplained how the republican interregnum fits between Demetrius’s assassination and Ptolemy III’s marriage to Berenice II, which he likewise places in Cyrene, that is, before his accession. 65. Mahaffy 1895, 491; id. 1899, 45, 104; Ogden 1999, 94; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, 250; Bennett s.v. “Berenice II,” n. 10. As Bennett added (pers. corr.), in the case of Ptolemy I, only his sons by Eurydice and Berenice (wives he married after he became satrap of Egypt) were considered as heirs. 66. For Antiochus II, see: RE s.v. “Antiochos,” no. 22, I(1): 2455–2457; Bouché-Leclercq 1913–1914, I: 76–94; Tarn 1913, 315–319, 324–325; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 200–201; Bevan 1927, 69–71; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 37, 63, 80, 106–108, 211; Ogden 1999, 127–132; Huß 2001, 301, 304, 333. For the date of Antiochus’s death, see: BM 35603 = Sp. III: 113; AD II: 70–71, no. -245A, ll. 5–6’; infra 183, n. 16. 67. For Berenice Phernophorus, see: P. Cair. Zen. 59251 (Ptolemaic finance minister Apollonius and his private doctor Artemidorus escorted Berenice to the border, April 252); RE s.v. “Berenike,” no. 10, III(1): 283–284; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 162, 210–211; Tarn 1913, 356; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 131, 182, 186, 201, 543; Bevan 1927, 59, 70–71; Macurdy 1932, 87–90; Bagnall 1976, 13; Ogden 1999, 73–80, 127–132; Hölbl 2001, 35, 44, 48–49; Huß 2001, 338–344; Desanges 2001, 1193–1195 (I owe this reference to Dorothy Thompson); LlewellynJones and Winder 2011, 248, 250–251, 253–254; Clayman 2012 (kindly brought to my attention by Chris Bennett); Bennett s.v. “Berenice Phernophorus.” For Laodice, additionally see: RE s.v. “Laodike,” no. 13, XII(1): 701–705; Bouché-Leclercq 1913–1914, 89–94; Tarn 1913,

Notes

173

348, 356–358; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 200, 205; Macurdy 1932, 82–87; Ogden 1999, 79–80, 124–132; Hölbl 2001, 53–54. 68. In addition to lit. cit. supra nn. 66–67, see: Seibert 1967, 55–57, 79–80; Vatin 1970, 88, 102–103; Pomeroy 1984, 14; Blümel 1992 (SEG 42: 994A + BE 1994, 528); Beyer-Rotthoff 1993, 17–67; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 126; Whitehorne 1994, 75–76; Ogden 1999, 128–131; Hazzard 2000, 110–111; Huß 2001, 287, 301, 304, 333; Hauben 2011, 357–358. 69. RE s.v. “Berenike,” no. 11, III(1): 284–285; Beyer-Rotthoff 1993, 26–28; Pomeroy in Fantham et al. 1994, 148; Hölbl 2001, 47; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, 252–253; contra Hazzard 2000, 111. 70. OGIS 56 (Canop. Decr.), ll. 8–9, 12–19; Urk. II: 128–132 (ll. 4–5, 7–10); P.Hib. II: 198; Poll. IX.85 (Βερενίκειον νóμισμα); Athen. 5.44 (209B); Just. Epit. 27.1.9; Jer. in Dan. 11.8; Mahaffy 1895, 203–205; id. 1899, 112– 118; Peremans 1981, 628–636; Hauben 1990, 29–37; Beyer-Rotthoff 1993, 201–202; Fantham et al. 1994, 151–154; Hazzard 2000, 111–112; Huß 2001, 345, 373–375; S. Pfeiffer 2004, 82–9. 71. For a different portrait of Berenice, see: Vatin 1970, 82–83; Hazzard 2000,113–114 . 72. The subsequent paragraphs draw from parts of my PhD diss. (CUNY GSUC), “The Religious Identification of Ptolemaic Queens with Aphrodite, Demeter, Hathor and Isis” (New York, 2007), esp. 86–87, 131–132, 219–226, 244–251. Callim.’s poem is the subject of the fourth chapter, “Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices.” 73. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) is too fragmentary; Catul. 66, ll. 25–28 (at te ego certe | cognoram a parva virgine magnanimam. | anne bonum oblita es facinus, quo regium adepta es | coniugium, quod non fortior ausit alis); cf. Callim. Hymn. Dian. 206; Niese 1893–1903, II: 143; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 202; Tarn 1913, 323, 450–451; R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, I: 112–113; Gelzer 1982, 19; Schwinge 1986, 68; Laronde 1987, 380; A. S. Hollis 1992, 24–28; Koenen 1993, 97–98; Cameron 1995, 22; Benedetto 2008; supra 150, n.3. 74. Just. Epit. 26.3.2–8; Tarn 1913, 323; A. S. Hollis 1992, 24–28; Huß 2001, 334; Clayman 2014, 98. 75. Hyg. Astr. 2.24 (Alii dicunt hoc amplius Ptolomaeum Berenices patrem, multitudine hostium perterritum, fuga salutem petisse; filiam autem saepe consuetam, insiluisse in equum, et reliquam exercitus copiam constituisse, et conplures hostium interfecisse, reliquos in fugam conjecisse; pro quo etiam Callimachus eam magnanimam dixit); Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) l. 26 (perhaps μεγαλόψυχον or μεγάθυμον); R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, I: 112; Parsons 1977, 45; Pomeroy 1984, 20; A. S. Hollis 1992, esp. 25 (rightly stressing that Berenice’s heroism in battle would not have gained her a royal wedding); Loman 2004, 46; Clayman 2011, 231–232; ead. 2014, 33; Bennett s.v. “Berenice Phernophorus,” n. 2.2. For Hellenistic queens on the battlefield, now see: Pillonel 2008 (non vidi; I owe this reference to an anonymous reader).

174

Notes

76. Catul. 66, ll. 13–14 (dulcia nocturnae . . . vestigia rixae, | quam de virgineis gesserat exuviis); cf. Agath. Anth. Pal. 5.294, ll. 18–19 (σύμβολον ἐννυχίης . . . ἀεθλοσύνης . . . ἐξαλάπαξα φίλης πύργωμα κορείης); Cameron 1995,2 2. 77. Callim. F. 110 (≈ Catul. 66), ll. 57–58; cf. Lee 1972 (suggesting “Ἑλλάς ὀπηδόν πέμψε” for the lacuna). 78. Catul. 66, ll. 5–6 (Triviam furtim sub Latmia saxa relegans | dulcis amor gyro devocet aerio). 79. Ibid. 20–25, 29–38, 83–88 (casto colitis jura cubili . . . impuro adulterio . . . semper concordia . . . semper amor sedes incolat assiduus); cf. Theoc. Id. 17.40–44 (ἦ μὰν ἀντεφιλεῖτο πολὺ πλέον: ὧδέ κε παισὶ | θαρσήσας σφετέροισιν ἐπιτρέποι οἶκον ἅπαντα, | ὁππότε κεν φιλέων βαίνῃ λέχος ἐς φιλεούσης. | ἀστόργου δὲ γυναικὸς ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίῳ νόος αἰεί, | ῥηίδιοι δὲ γοναί, τέκνα δ᾽ οὐ ποτεοικότα πατρί); Gutzwiller 1992,359 –385. 80. Ps.-Crinag. Anth. Pal. 9.235. As Gsell has argued (1924–1930, VIII: 218), this epigram has been wrongly attributed to the Crinagoras who commemorated the death of Cleopatra Selene, daughter of Cleopatra and Antony (Anth. Pal. 7.633); the content of this poem evidently ill suits the marriage of Selene with King Juba of Mauritania (Numidia); cf. BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, II: 362, n. 1; Macurdy 1932, 224–225; Braund 1984; Whitehorne 1994, 199–200; Huß 2001, 334, n. 14; Roller 2003, 88 (with nn. 77–78). Braund’s attempt to reattribute the poem rests on several arguments, incl. that Juba and Selene introduced Egyptian-style coinage and artwork; he does not otherwise address the explicit reunification of Egypt and Libya celebrated in the epithalamium. 81. Their great-great-grandparents were Antiochus I and Stratonice, whose children included Antiochus II and Magas’s wife Apame. 82. Carney 1987, 435–437 (I am grateful to Carney for emphasizing this point [pers. corr.]). 83. In the near future I intend to return to the sibling marriage of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. 84. Jer. in Dan. 11; Niese 1893–1903, II: 139; Breccia 1903, 19; BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, I: 210–211; Tarn 1913, 356, 376; Macurdy 1932, 132; Seibert 1967, 79–80; Beyer-Rotthoff 1993, 17–18; Hölbl 2001, 44; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, 248. 85. Macurdy 1932, 123 (for whom, it should be remembered, Arsinoe’s son with Lysimachus was the same figure as Ptolemy the Son); also, see: Kornemann 1923, 39; Seibert 1967, 82, n. 40; Bennett s.v. “Berenice Phernophorus,” n. 3. 86. Bennett s.v. “Berenice Phernophorus,” n.3. 87. Σ Theoc. 17.128; Strack 1897, 88; Breccia 1903, 17–18; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 183–184; Macurdy 1932, 121–122; Burstein 1982, 202; Ogden 1999, 78–79; Hazzard 2000, 94; Buraselis 2005, 95–96; Bennett 2005, esp. 95–96; id. s.v. “Ptolemy III,” n. 2; van Oppen 2014.

Notes

175

88. Outside Egypt, Berenice’s parentage was recognized, too, insofar as her father’s name is stated explicitly on the exedra of Thermum; IG IX(1)2 1:56, c.1: β̣ασίλισσαν Ḅ[ερ]ε̣ν[ίκαν] | βασιλέω̣ς Μάγα | Μακέταν. 89. Cameron 1995, 107; cf. West 1985, 61–66; Koenen 1993, 90, n. 151; Marinone 1997, 21, 255. The date of the formal presentation of the astronomical discovery and Callimachus’s public reading of his poem will be discussed in the fourth chapter, infrae sp. 87–88. 90. Callim. Vict. Beren. F 383 (= Suppl. Hell. 254) l. 2 (νύμφα, κα[σιγνή]των ἱερὸν αἷμα θεῶν); Σ ad loc. (= P.Lille 82, l. 1; Suppl. Hell. 255: θυγάτηρ τῶ]ν θεῶν ἀδελφῶν, οἵ ε[ἰσιν Πτολεμαῖος καὶ Ἀρ]σινόη ὧν ἀνηγόρευ[ον τὴν Βερενίκην. ἦν δὲ ἐπ’] ἀληθείας θυγάτηρ Μ[άγα τοῦ θείου τοῦ Ε]ὐεργέτου, “daughter of the Sibling Gods, which are Ptolemy and Arsinoe, who proclaimed Berenice. But in truth she was the daughter of Magas the uncle of [Ptolemy] Euergetes”); Σ ad Callim. Com. Ber. 45 (= P.Oxy. ined. C, F 1 recto: Ἀρσινόης μητρ[ός]: κατὰ τιμὴν εἶπεν, ἐπεὶ θυγάτηρ Ἀπάμας καὶ Μάγα, “‘of [your] mother Arsinoe’: said out of honor, because [Berenice was] a daughter of Apama and Magas”); cf. Hom. Il. 4.441, 5.359, 891, 16.432, 18.356; Hymn. Hom. II: Cer. 80, 85, V: Ven. 40, XII: Jun. 3; Theoc. Id. 17.130; R. Pfeiffer 1949– 1953, I: 114–115; Meillier 1979, 17; Gelzer 1982, 16–18; Cameron 1995, 246; Clayman 2014, 145–147; Bennett s.v. “Berenice II,” n. 15.1. 91. OGIS 54 (Monum. Adulit.), ll. 1–3; ibid. 56 (Canop. Decr.), ll. 7–8 = Urk. II: 127–128, l. 4 = S. Pfeiffer 2004, 82–84; cf. OGIS 28, 60, 61, 65; PSI IV: 389, l. 3; Droysen 1877, III(2): 343–344; Niese 1893–1903, II: 171; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 159, 183, 261, n. 1, 267, n. 2; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 320; Bevan 1927, 189, 192–193; Macurdy 1932, 133–134; Pestman 1967, 28; Koenen 1983, 157; id. 1993, 53; Beyer-Rotthoff 1993, 287–300; Hazzard 2000, 94, 112; Minas 2000, 102–106; Hölbl 2001, 46, 93–96; Huß 2001, 335, 379–380; Clayman 2011, 131–132; ead. 2014, 99, 121, 166–168; Bennett s.v. “Ptolemy III,” nn. 2, 7. 92. Σ Theoc. 17.128: ἐπιβουλεύοθσαν δ’ αὐτὴν εὑρὼν . . . αὐτὴν δὲ ἐξέπεμψεν εἰς Κοπτὸν ἢ εἰς τόπον τῆς Θηβαΐδος καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν ἀδελφὴν Ἀρσινόην ἔγημε, “discovering that [Arsinoe I] was plotting against him . . . [Ptolemy II] sent her to Coptus, which is a town of the Thebaïd, and he married his full (lit.: domestic) sister Arsinoe”; Diog. Laert. VII.186; I. Cair. 70031 (= Koptos 20–21, pl. 20; Urk. II: 55–69); PM V: 132; Quaegebeur 1970, 215, no. 47; Vatin 1970, 63–64, 81; Fraser 1972, I: 347, 369; Lloyd 2002, 124; van Oppen 2014, 168–172. 93. IG XII(3): 464; Bennett s.v. “Ptolemy III,” n. 4.1; van Oppen 2014, 173–174. Since the dedicant, Artemidorus of Perga, mentions his services to the father and the grandfather of a recently succeeded king Ptolemy (all without epithets), while Ptolemy V and Ptolemy VI were surely not raised away from court, and Thera was abandoned by Ptolemy VIII, only Ptolemy III or Ptolemy IV qualify as candidates. There is no historical reason to assume that Ptolemy IV was not raised

176

Notes

at court, while there was every reason to keep young Ptolemy III away from court and from his disgraced mother in Coptus. 94. For Ptolemy of Telmessus, see: RE s.v. “Ptolemaios,” no. 13, XXIII(2): 1596–1597; Bennett s.v. “Ptolemy the Son,” n. 10. The date of Ptolemy III’s return to Egypt and his official adoption to Arsinoe II is, or may be, related to the victories of his sister Berenice (Phernophorus) at several pan-Hellenic Games celebrated in Posidippus’s recently discovered Hippica. Berenice is twice called “παῖς (child)” at the time of her Nemean and Isthmian victories (resp. A-B 80 and 82), is accompanied by her father Ptolemy II at the latter, and she is twice described as “παρθένος (maiden, unmarried)” or “παρθένιος (maidenly)” at the time of her Olympic and Nemean victories (resp. A-B 78 and 79). Her Olympic victory is most likely dated to 256 (Ol. 131), while the others must predate 252 and are probably earlier. Berenice’s presence at these Games, in her father’s company, advertising her marital eligibility, implies that her status (as daughter of a repudiated mother) was somehow legitimized. Whether this means that she was at that time officially adopted to Arsinoe II is unclear. I would assume that all of Arsinoe I’s children were simultaneously adopted to Arsinoe II, and that Ptolemy II would have taken such a step only after the end of his joint rule with “Ptolemy the Son” (259), but that remains (for now, at least) no more than conjecture. For the issue, see: Criscuolo 2003, 312; Kosmetatou 2004, 22, n. 18; Bennett 2005, 94–95; Buraselis 2005, 96; D. J. Thompson 2005, 273–279; Clarysse 2007, 203–205; Huß 2008; Clayman 2012 (assigning the victories to Berenice II; kindly brought to my attention by Chris Bennett); ead. 2014, 147–158; Bennett s.v. “Berenice Phernophorus,” nn. 2.1–2. 95. For example, see: P. dem. Louvre 9415 (tȝj-f sn.t tȝj-f ḥm.t tȝ Pr-ʽȝ.t Glwptrȝ.t); OGIS 99 (τὴν ἀδελφὴν βασίλισσαν Κλεοπάτραν), 733 (ἡ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου ἀδελφὴ καὶ γυνή); Strack 1897, 245, no. 71 (βασίλισσης Κλεοπάτρας τῆς ἀδελφῆς); Huß 2001, 535, n. 27. 96. Polyb. 18.51.10, 28.20.9; Livy 33.40.3; OT Dan. 11.17; Jos. Ant. Jud. 12.154–156; App. Syr. 5; Jer. in Dan. 11.17; RE s.v. “Kleopatra,” no. 14, XI(1): 738–739; ibid. s.v. “Ptolemaios,” no. 23, XXIII(2): 1695–1696; Mahaffy 1895, 298, 306; id. 1899, 150–151, 160; Niese 1893–1903, II: 674; Strack 1987, 196; Breccia 1903, 20, 201; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 382–387; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(2): 131; Bevan 1927, 268; Macurdy 1932, 141–142; Seibert 1967, 65–66; Vatin 1970, 59, 64–66; Will 1979–1982, II: 192; Whitehorne 1994, 80–88; Ogden 1999, 82; Hölbl 2001, 140; Huß 2001, 499, 514–514. They were cousins three times removed, for Ptolemy V’s great-grandmother was Apame, the daughter of Antiochus II, who was also Cleopatra I’s great-grandfather. 97. Cf. RE s.v. “Kleopatra,” no. 14, XI(1): 739 (“Nach altägyptischer Sitte”); Mahaffy 1895, 307; Whitehorne 1994, 85 (“she inherited this title from her mother-in-law”); Huß 2001, 535.

Notes

177

98. Huß2 001, 354; contra Hazzard 2000, 112–115. 99. P.dem.Louvre 9415, l. 2 (tȝ-f śn.t tȝ-f ḥm.t); Huß 2001, 535, n. 27. For Anchwennefer (Gk. Chaonnophris or Haronnophris), see: Clarysse 1978; Vandorpe 1986; Pestman 1995; Hölbl 2001, 155–156; Veïsse 2004, 11–26, 84–98, 155–196 (I owe this reference to Chris Bennett); Bennett s.v.“A nkhwennefer.” 100. Beyer-Rotthoff 1993, 286–287; cf. Minas 2005, 135 (drawing a similar conclusion from Berenice’s presentation on temple reliefs; I owe this reference to Katelijn Vandorpe). 101. Vatin 1970, 74; Carney 1991, 154–164. 102. For example, see: Thes. Inscr. 857–858, 863; Urk. II: 122, 206; Pestman 1967, 28, 42 n. d; von Beckerath 1984, 118–121 = 1999, 236–239; Quaegebeur 1978, 254–255; id. 1989a, 98, n. 27; id. 1989b, 102–103; Pomeroy 1984, 23; Troy 1986, 179 (P.5, 7); Huß 1994, 102, n. 154; Hölbl 2001, 85, 167; Tait 2003, 7. 103. Urk. II: 122, l. 3: nj, Ḥr.t (Berenice II); LdR IV: 287 (Cleopatra I); LD IV: 42c (Cleopatra III); LdR IV: 417 (Cleopatra VII); Troy 1986, 139–143, 179, 193–196; Tait 2003, 7; Minas 2005, 135. The title “Sister of the Son of Ra” is the equivalent of “Daughter of Ra”; from Berenice II to Cleopatra Berenice III, queens tend to have either one of these two titles; for example, LdR IV: 304 (Cleopatra II); ibid. 389 (Cleopatra Berenice III). 104. Urk. II: 122, l. 9 (rdἰ n-s Nb.tj rḫjt ḳn); LdR IV: 287 (rdἰ n-s Nb.tj rḫjt n nfr.w); Troy 1986, 179, 197. 105. Urk. II: 122, ll. 10–12 (swśr-s Nt nb Sȝw tn-s Bȝśt.t Mw.t Ḥtḥr m nfr.wsn ȝḫ-sḥ); Troy 1986, 179, 184 (P.5: A4/9; reading ȝḫj, “Marsh?Forecourt”; ȝḫ-sḥ lit. means “splendid/ glorious/ effective hall/ council/ counsel”). I would like to express my thanks to Katelijn Vandorpe and Harco Willems (Louvain) for their assistance with the translation of Berenice’s Two Ladies Name. Maria Nilsson (Gothenburg) adds a more esoteric interpretation (pers. corr.), in which the hieroglyphs of Tatenen (÷) and Mut (ǘ) respectively invoke the primordial Father God and Mother Goddess. 106. LdR IV: 287 (ḳn-s Nt nb.t Sȝw ṯn-s Ḥtḥr m mrw.t-s); von Beckerath 1984, 119, no. 5a = 1999, 238, no. 5a; Troy 1986, 179, 184 (P.7: A4/9). 107. RÄRG s.v. “Sonnenauge,” “Tefnut”; LÄ s.v. “Hathor,” II: 1026; Junker 1911, 1–87; Spiegelberg 1917; J. G. Griffiths 1960, 28–34; Allam 1963, 120–121; Bleeker 1973, 48–51, 65, 120–121; Pinch 1993, 191–197. The priestly synod, likewise, identified Berenice Parthenus with the Solar Eye in the Canopus Decree: Urk. II: 146, l. 28: ἰrt-Rʽ Mḥnt m ḥȝt-f; OGIS 56, ll. 55–56 (ὅτε μὲν βασιλείαν ὅτε δὲ ὅρασιν αὐτοῦ); Koenen 1993, 28, n. 8; S. Pfeiffer 2004, 168–171. 108. OGIS 56 (Canopus Decree), ll. 7–8: βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος κτλ. . . . καὶ βασίλισσα Βερενίκη ἡ άδελφὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ γυνή, θεοὶ Εὐεργέται, διατελοῦσιν πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα εὐεργετοῦντνες

178

109. 110.

111.

112.

Notes κτλ.; Urk. II: 127–128, ll. 4–5: nśwt-bἰtἰ Ptwlmjś . . . ḥnʽ ḥḳȝ.t Brnjḳȝ.t śn.t-ḥm.t nṯr.wj-mnḫ.wj ḥrἰrj mnẖj.w ḳnw.w wr.w; ibid. 130, ll. 8–9: ḥn-f ḏś.f ḥʽ śn.t-f (absent in Gk. text); I. Cair. No. 22186; cf. Athen. 5.44 (209B: Hiero II sent wheat to Alexandria); Mahaffy 1895, 205; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 254–255; Bevan 1927, 196–197, 209; Bernand 1970, I(3): 989–1036, esp. 1008–1009; Huß 1978, 151–156; Peremans 1981, 628–636; Will 1979–1982, I: 253; Hauben 1990, 34–36; Hazzard 2000, 111; Hölbl 2001, 49; S. Pfeiffer 2004, 82–84. OGIS 56, l. 21; Urk. II: 133, ll. 11–12. Quaegebeur 1988, 48–49, figs. 22–23; Minas 2005, 135, fig. 5. For the relief scene of the Canopus Decree (I.Cair. 22.186), see: Roeder 1959–1961, III: 151; Hölbl 2001, 107, fig. 3.6; S. Pfeiffer 2008, fig. 15; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, fig. 3; Clayman 2014, fig. 10. For the relief scene of the Euergetes Gate, see: Clère 1961, pl. 43; S. Pfeiffer 2008, fig. 13; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, fig. 5; Clayman 2014, fig. 9. Bianchi 1978, 95–102; id. 1988, 105; Quaegebeur 1988, 48; Clayman 2014, 162; supra 64. On a stele from Tanis, Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III are shown in identical attire: LBM 1054; Quaegebeur 1971, 201, 216; id. 1983, 115; Bianchi et al. (eds.) 1988, no. 15; Ashton 2001b, 45, fig. 7. Quaegebeur 1978, 254–255; Pomeroy 1984, 23; Hölbl 2001, 85; Minas 2005, 128–133, figs. 1–4.

3

Berenice II in Art and Artifacts

* For (last minute) assistance with the illustrations in this section, I would like to express my gratitude to Anna Bertorelli (Sotheby’s), Anne-Marie Guimier-Sorbets (CEAlex), Cathy Lorber (ANS), Travis Markel (CNG), Robert Lunsingh Scheurleer (APM), and Jeroen Wilde (collector). I would like to thank Bob Bianchi (Fondation Gandur), Vincent Boele (Hermitage, Amsterdam), and Cathy Lorber for reading the essay. 1. For silphium, i.a., see: Hdt. 2.161, 181, 3.131, 4.150–165, 200–205; Strabo 2.5 (33), 11.13 (7), 17.3 (21–23); Pliny Nat. Hist. 19.19, 22.100– 106; Paus. 3.16.1–3; RE s.v. “Silphion” 2nd ser. 3(1): 103–114; Buttrey 1997, 1–66. 2. For example, see: SEG 18: 739 (= SB 8: 10086); SEG 42: 1670; Mohamed and Reynolds 1997, 34–35. 3. Seeal sot hed iscussion supra 27–29. 4. BMC Cyr. no. 77. 5. BMC Cyr. 244–245; SNG Cop.n o.12 39. 6. BMC Cyr. 48, no. 211a–e, pl. 20.10; Naville 1951, 168 (dated to 308–277); cf. Asolati 2011, no. 37c (dating Sosis’s magistracy to 305–300).

Notes

179

7. Sv. 854; BMC Cyr. 82; SNG Cop. 440; Asolati 2011, no. 65 (dated to Ptolemy III); Lorber, CPE no. B483; supra 28, n. 1. 8. Sv. 1152; BMC Cyr. nos. 48–50 (dated to Ptolemy IV–Ptolemy VII); Asolati 2011, nos. 135A–B; Lorber, CPE no. B554; supra 28, no. 7. 9. BMC Ptol. nos. 9–14; Sv. nos. 314–320; BMC Cyr. nos. 9–13, pl. 29.11–18; Lorber, CPE no. 729; supra 169, n. 31. 10. Seea lsot hed iscussion supra 29. 11. Poll. 9.85 (Βερενίκειον νόμισμα); Kahrstedt 1910, 268–269; supra 29, 169, n. 34. 12. Dieg. 10.10, ll. 2–3 (ἀνηρπάσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν Διοσκούρων); for the Dioscuri, see: RE s.v. “Dioskuri,” V(1): 1097–1123; Burkert 1985, 212– 213; supra 108. 13. Eur. Hel. 1662–1669; Cameron 1995, 433–434; van Oppen 2007, 312, 334. 14. Caltabiano 1996; Vagi 1997; Lorber 2000. 15. Sv. 988, pl. 26.2; Hazzard 1995, no. 1052 (dodekadrachm); Vagi 1997; Lorber, CPEn o.7 34. 16. Head 1880, 133 (suggesting that Ephesus was offered as dowry to Berenice Phernophorus on the occasion of her marriage to Antiochus II) and 134 (and that subsequently Ephesus was bestowed upon Berenice II on the occasion of her wedding). 17. Sv.8 99;Lorb er, CPEn o.7 77. 18. Sv. 1113; DNM Ptol. 169; MFA 2348; Lorber, CPE no. 895 (redating post 217 BCE). 19. Sv. no. 982; BMC Ptol. 60, nos. 5–6; Lorber, CPE no. 741. 20. Bosworth 2007; Alonso Troncoso 2013, 262–263. 21. BMC Ptol. xxxix–xlii, 42–44, nos. 2–33, pl. 8.2–5; Sv., for example, nos. 408–410, 419–421, pls. 15–16; Svoronos 1904–1908, IV: 83–96, 104–119, 163–164; Kahrstedt 1910, 264–265; Longega 1968, 109–110; Kyrieleis 1975, 78–80, pls. 70.1–3; Troxell 1983, 35–70, pls. 2–10; Bianchi et al. (eds.) 1988, nos. 61c–d; Smith 1988, 40–43; Hazzard 1995, figs. 7, 109, 113; Carney 2013, 116–117, 122–124, fig. 6.9. 22. Cf. Kyrieleis 1975, 149, n. 608; Winter 1978, 149, n. 4; Smith 1988, 40. 23. Urk II: 40, ll. 1–2; Quaegebeur 1971, 198–200; id. 1978, 258; id. 1988, 45–47, fig. 18; id. 1998; Dils 1998. 24. Urk II: 72, l. 1 (“Daughter of Geb”), ll. 7–8 (“Image of Isis, Beloved of Hathor”); LÄ s.v. “Kronen” III: 812–813; Troy 1986, 126; Dils 1998, 1305, 1307–1308, 1312, pass.;N ilsson 2012. 25. For example, BM 38.443 (bronze statuette in Hellenic style); VMGE 22.682 (colossal granite statue in Egyptian style); van Oppen 2007, 82. 26. RML s.v. “Dione,” 1029; Hist. Num.2 p. 323, fig. 182; LIMC s.v. “Dione,” no.4. 27. LIMC s.v. “Hera,” for example, nos. 133, 145, 149.

180

Notes

28. van Oppen 2007, 80–81( withf urther lit.). 29. Iossif and Lorber 2012; Olivier and Lorber 2013. 30. Alföldi 1977; cf. Smith 1988, 44, pl. 75, ills. 9, 17; Koenen 1993, 73–77; van Oppen 2007, 111–112. 31. Sv. 147; Lorber 2005; ead., CPE no. 93. 32. Sv.4 60; DNM Ptol. 134; Lorber, CPE no. 388. 33. Sv. 1117; DNM Ptol. 196; Lorber, CPE no. 1117 (dating this issue to the Raphiad onative). 34. D. B. Thompson 1973, esp. 69–75; for the best preserved specimen (Antalya Mus. 571), see: ibid. no. 75, pls. B and 25–27; cf. Kyrieleis 1975, 98; Pfeiffer 2008, 62–64, fig. 9; Clayman 2014, 168–171, fig. 4. 35. Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000. 36. D. B. Thompson 1973, 117–124 (for the identification with Agathe Tyche). 37. Ibid., no. 34, pl. 14; Kyrieleis 1975, 104, n. 420. 38. Scheurleer 1974, 265–267; D. B. Thompson 1980; Koenen 1993, 109; van Oppen 2007, 319–322; Clayman 2014, 101; supra 86. 39. For the (erroneously) called “Dress of Isis,” i.a., see: Vandebeek 1946, 18–20; Dunand 1973, I: pls. 7–13, II: pls. 3–8; D. B. Thompson 1973, 30–31; Kyrieleis 1975, pls. 71.1–2, 103.1–2, nos. J.1, M.8; Quaegebeur 1978, 254, figs. C, K, M; Bianchi 1980; id. et al. (eds.) 1988, 170–172, 182–183, nos. 66, 74–75, 101, 132; Walters 1988, esp. 5–18; Ashton 2001b, 45–53; Plantzos 2011, 392–396, figs. 13, 16–17. 40. I am actually at a loss understanding the gesture. Vincent Boele (pers. comm.) suggests a flirtatious connotation. 41. D.B .Th ompson19 73, 165–167, nos. 122–124. 42. Ead. 1980, 183. 43. BM C&M 1978,1021.1; Smith 1988, pl. 75, nos. 15–16; Hazzard 1995, 9–10, figs. 20–21. 44. Ponger 1942, 21, no. 43. 45. Cf. Mollard 1954–1972, III: no. D23. 46. Breccia 1907, 74–76 (Aphrodite); id. 1914, 193; Kyrieleis 1975, 105–106 (Arsinoe III); Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2012, 78–81 (Berenice II). 47. Ponger 1942, pl. 9, no. 43. 48. Leyenaar 1986, no. 55. 49. D. B. Thompson 1973, no. 34, pl. 14; Kyrieleis 1975, 104, n. 420. 50. Scheurleer 1974, figs. 1–2; D. B. Thompson 1980, pl. 61.3. 51. Kyrieleis 1975, 106 (i.a. pointing out that Berenice’s regular corpulence is lacking in the Sarapeum head). 52. For example, in: Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2012, 78. 53. Kyrieleis 1975, 99–100; Bourgeois 2014. 54. Breccia, 1914, no. 30, fig. 24; Kyrieleis, no. L.5, pls. 95–97.1–2; Savvopoulos and Bianchi 2012, no. 22. 55. Kyrieleis 1975, no. K5, pls. 86.4 and 87.

Notes

181

56. Boardman 1975, 92–93; Plantzos 1996, 121; Thoresen and Schmetzer 2013, 204, 209. 57. Spier 1992, 48 (with lit.), nos. 88–92. 58. Cf. Lorber, CPE nos. B457 and B459 (notice the similarly hunched back). As Lorber rightly emphasizes (pers. corr.), there are no numismatic portraits of Arsinoe II without veil. 59. Breccia 1926, 82, no. 4; id. 1924–1933, II: 196, pl. A, and 54; Daszewski 1985, 142–160; id. 1986, 299–309; Clayman 2014, esp. 136. 60. Boardman 1975, no. 59; Plantzos 1996, pl. 22a; Thoresen and Schmetzer 2013, figs. 3 and 16. 61. Daszewski 1985, 142–158, no. 38, pl. A, and 32; id. 1986, fig. 1. 62. Ibid. 158–160, no. 39, pl. B, and 33; id. 1986, fig. 2. 63. Bianchi 1978, 95–102; id. 1988, 105; Quaegebeur 1988, 48; Pfeiffer 2008, 82–85; Clayman 2014, 162; supra 38. 64. Daumas 1969; Aubourg 1995; Pfeiffer 2008, 26. 65. Descr. Eg., Antiquité 4 (1817), pl. 16; PM VI, 79 (257–260); Hölbl 2001, 278–279, fig. 9.11. 66. Cauville 1997; supra 93, 96, 103, 104. 67. Clère 1961, II: pl. 43; Winter 1978, 149, doc. 1; Bianchi et al. (eds.) 1988, fig. 22; Pfeiffer 2008, fig. 13; Clayman 2014, fig. 9. 68. Descr. Eg., Antiquité 4 (1817), pl. 21. 69. For the cult of the Benefactor Gods, for example, see: PSI IV: 389 (Θεοὶ Ἐυεργέται); P.dem. BM Andrews 44 (nṯr.wj mnḫ.wj); Urk. II: 122 (ϓϓ); Otto 1905–8, I: 177–179; Pestman 1967, 28, 134–135; Clarysse and van der Veken 1983, 10–14, nos. 44b–69a; Koenen 1993, 52–54; Minas 2000, 102–103; Hölbl 2001, 92–98, 105–112; Huß 2001, 337–338, 379–380; Hauben 2011; Clayman 2014, 165–168. 70. OGIS 56, l. 9: ἐν τῶι Κανώπωι ἱερῶι τῶν Ἐυεργετῶν Θεῶν. For the decree, see: Pfeiffer 2004. 71. SB 1: no. 585 = I.Delta no. 5; Breccia 1926, 52; Savvopoulos, Bianchi and Hussein 2014, 136–137. 72. ForCan opus, see:G oddio2 007. 73. Fort hep henomenono ft he Σύνναος Θεὸς, see: Nock 1930. 74. Breccia 1926, 52, no. 4, pl. 18.2; Savvopoulos, Bianchi and Hussein 2014, no. 44c. 75. Ex. Ralph H. Booth coll. (Detroit); ex. Arturo Grassi coll. (New York); ex. Henry Pelham-Clinton, Earl of Lincoln (Clumber Park), coll. no. 315; Payne 1957. (An oil painting of the same subject by the same artist is said to have belonged to the collection of Dr. William E. Suida.) 76. Ex. Rouleau coll. (Brussels); ex. Zomzée coll. (Brussels); Hotel Drouot (December 20, 1878), Paris. 77. Ch. Blanc, Les Beaux-Arts à l’Exposition Universelle de 1878 (Paris, 1878), 321–322.

182

Notes

78. Sotheby’s sales cat., 19th & 20th Century European Sculpture (May 17, 2011, London), front cover, 50–53, lot 60.

4 Astronomy and Ideology in the Coma Berenices * The astronomical data presented in this essay were calculated by Teije de Jong (Astronomical Institute “Anton Pannekoek,” Amsterdam) and Mathieu Ossendrijver (Humboldt University, Berlin). This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France; avail. from http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/ (accessed March 2013–August 2014). Few classicist or historians can claim to be well versed in the scientific intricacies of astronomy, ancient or modern. I am therefore immensely grateful for their willingness to assist me on this project. 1. Koenen19 93,9 0. 2. HAMA 34, 54, 160, 292; CIHA esp. 29–41; Gössmann 1950; Swerdlow 1980; Jones 1991; Evans 1998; Rogers 1998, 81–82; Hunger and Pingree 1999, 271–277; Thurston 2002; Hauben 2011, 362–263; Ossendrijver 2012. 3. For Hipparchus, see: RE s.v. “Hipparchos,” no. 18, VIII(2): 1666–1681; HAMA 274–346; ODA s.v. “Hipparchus of Nicaea”; CIHA 39–41; Close 1902; Heiberg 1912, 63–66, 69–70, 81, 83; Swerdlow 1980; Thurston 1994, 123–137; Evans 1998, 245–263; Duke 2002. 4. For the catasterism of Coma Berenices, see: Callim. Com. Ber. (F. 110) ≈ Catul. 66, ll. 7–8, 52–56; Dieg. 5.40; Hyg. Astr. 2.24.2; RML s.v. “Sternbilder,” VI: 956–959; RE s.v. “Βερενίκης πλόκαμοι,” III(1): 289; R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, I: 112–123; F. T. Griffiths 1979, 59; Meillier 1979, 145–149; Gelzer 1982, 22–23; Schwinge 1986, 70; Zwierlein 1987, esp. 274–280; Lee 1990, 104–111, 171–172; Gutzwiller 1992, 380; Koenen 1993, 89–113; Selden 1998, 326–329; C. Austin 2006; Hauben 2011, 363–364. For (early) modern astronomy, see: CIHA 98–112; Hess 1967; Warner 1971; Bakich 1995, 9–10; Evans 1998, 269–272; Dekker 2010. 5. ODA s.v. “Coma Berenices”; Allen 1963, 168–174; Bakich 1995, 184– 185; Evans 1998, 41–43. 6. For Conon, see: RE s.v. “Konon,” no. 11, XI(2): 1338–1340; HAMA 562, 572, n. 4; Heiberg 1912, 50–52, 56, 63; Geison 1967. 7. Ptol. Almag. 7.5 (100 Heib.). 8. Hyg. Astr. 2.24; Erat. Cat. 12; Achill. Isag. 14 (134D). It may be possible that the inclusion of seven stars stems from the fact that many other asterisms also consisted of seven stars: for example, the Starry Wain, the Pleiades, Corona Borealis.

Notes

183

9. Ptol. Almag. 7.5 (100 Heib.): ἐν σχήματι φύλλοθ κισσίνου; cf. Hyg. Astr. 2.24; Erat. Cat. 12 fin.( cit. infra). 10. MUL.APIN 1.1.10: “The dusky stars which stand in the tail of the Lion” (coming closest to incorporating the Coma star cluster into the sign of Leo; trans. by Hunger and Pingree 1989, 21; cf. ibid. 137); Rogers 1998, 24; cf. Erat. Cat. 12 (ὁρῶνται δὲ ὑπερ ἀυτὸν [scil. Λέοντα] ἐν τριγώνῳ κατὰ τὴν κέρκον ἀμαυροὶ ἑπτὰ, οἱ καλοῦνται πλόκαμοι Βερενίκης Ἐυεργέτιδος, “above the Lion by his tail seven faint stars are visible in the shape of a triangle, which are called the Lock of Berenice Euergetis”); RML s.v. “Sternbilder,” VI: 954; Allen 1899 (1963 repr.), 168; Evans 1998, 41. 11. For example, see: Hom. Il. 18.486–489 = Od. 5.272–275; Hes. Op. 417, 572, 587, 609, 615, 620, etc.; id. Scut. 150, 397; Hdt. 2.109; Diod. 2.29–31; Philo De Migr. Abr. 32.177–179; RML s.v. “Sterne,” IV: 1427–1500; ibid. s.v. “Sternbilder,” VI: 867–1071; RE s.v. “Astronomie,” II(2): 1828–1862; Heiberg 1912, esp. 42–72; Lloyd 1975–1988, III: 34–36; Rochberg-Halton 1988; Thurston 1994, 110–177; Riley 1995; Evans 1998; Rogers 1998, 80. 12. For Eudoxus, see: Strabo 9.390–391, 10.465, 14.656; Diog. Laert. 8.86– 91; RE s.v. “Eudoxos,” no. 8, VI(1): 930–950; HAMA 675–696; ODA s.v. “Eudoxus of Cnidus”; CIHA 34–36; Heiberg 1912, eps. 26–30; Baker 1973; Thurston 1994, 117–118; Evans 1998, esp. 21–22, 75–76, 199–204, 305–312. 13. Sen. Nat. Quaest. 7.17.2; Pliny Nat. Hist. 2.23 (93–94), 71 (178); Suet. Caes. 88; Plut. Caes. 69.3; Cass. Dio 45.7; Serv. ad Virg. Aen. 8.681; RE s.v. “Kometen,” XI(1): 1186–1187; Scott 1941; Gurval 1997; Ramsey and Licht19 97. 14. Hyg. Astr. 2.24: quo voto damnatam crinem in Veneris Arsinoes Zephyritidis posuisse templo, eumque postero die non comparuisse. Quod factum cum rex aegre ferret, Conon mathematicus ut ante diximus cupiens inire gratiam regis, dixit crinem inter sidera videri collocatum et quasdam vacuas a figura septem stellas ostendit, quas esse fingeret crinem. 15. For Berenice II, for example, see: Ael. Var. Hist. 14.43; RE s.v. “Berenike,” no. 11, V: 284–286; Macurdy 1932, 130–141; Pomeroy 1984, 20–23; ead. in Fantham et al. 1994, 144–151; Selden 1998, 326– 354; Huß 2001, 333–335; Clayman 2011; ead. 2014; Hauben 2011; supra 149, n. 1. 16. For Antiochus II, see: RE s.v. “Antiochos,” no. 22, I(1): 2455–2457; Ogden 1999, 127–132; supra 172, n. 66. For the date and circumstances of Antiochus’s death, see: BM 35603 = Sp. III: 113; AD II: 70–71, no. -245A, ll. 5–6’; Sachs and Wiseman 1954, 206; Hauben 1990, 30; Clayman 2014, 125–127; Bennett s.v. “Berenice Phernophorus,” n. 7; van der Spek, “Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period.” For the Third Syrian War, see: FGrH 160; OGIS 54 (trans. Bagnall and Derow 1981, no. 26); Val. Max. 9.10 ext.1; Polyaen. 8.50; App. Syr. 65; Just.

184

Notes

Epit. 27.1–2; Jer. in Dan. 11.7–9; RE s.v. “Ptolemaios,” no. 21, XXIII(2): 1668–1672; ibid. s.v. “Syria,” 2nd ser. IV(2): 1614–1615; CAH VII(1)2: 420–421; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 248–259; id. 1913–1914, I: 95–106; Tarn 1913, 375–377, 385–386; Beloch 1912–1927, IV(1): 673–679, IV(2): 536–541; Bevan 1927, 189–204; Otto 1928, 48–75; Will 1979–1982, I: 238–239, 248–261; Piejko 1990, 13–27; Hauben 1990, 29–37; Blümel 1992, 129–132; Koenen 1993, 90, n. 151; Hölbl 2001, 48–51; Huß 2001, 338–354; Grainger 2010, 153–170; Hauben 2011, 357–358; LlewellynJones and Winder 2011, 251. 17. BM 35603= AD II: 70–71, no. -245A, ll.5 –6’. 18. Cf.Ha uben19 90,2 9–30. 19. BM 35603 = AD II: 70–71, no. -245A, ll. 5’–6’. As van der Spek (ad loc.) emphasizes, no king list, astrological diary or chronicle recognized any other king. 20. ForB ereniceP hernophorusa ndL aodice, supra 172, n. 67. 21. Jer. in Dan. 11; Niese 1893–1903, II: 139; Breccia 1903, 19; BouchéLeclercq 1903–1907, I: 210–211; Tarn 1913, 356, 376; Macurdy 1932, 132; Seibert 1967, 79–80; Beyer-Rotthoff 1993, 17–18; Hölbl 2001, 44; Llewellyn-Jones and Winder 2011, 248. 22. BM34 428= B CHP11, o bv. ll.n ’-10’. 23. FGrH 160 (trans. Bagnall and Derow 1981, no. 27). 24. Cf. Hauben 1990, 29–30 (dating the king’s departure to Sept. 246 on the basis of West 1985). 25. RE s.v. “Syria,” 2nd ser. IV(2): 1615; Clay 1920, II: no. 17 (the first contemporary document recognizing Seleucus II, dated to 22 III 67 SE Bab. = July 11, 245 BCE); Wallenfels 2001, 222 (contracts at Uruk specifying payment in staters of Antiochus II until 241/0 would indicate that control over the region remained contested); Bennett s.v. “Ptolemy III,” n. 6; infra 185,n .39 . 26. Just. Epit. 27.1.9 (in Aegyptum domestica seditione revocatus esset, “[Ptolemy] was recalled by domestic unrest in Egypt”); Jer. in Dan. 11.7–9 (audisset in Aegypto seditionem moveri, “[Ptolemy] heard that unrest was brewing in Egypt”); for this “sedition,” see: Droysen 1877, III(1): 388, 403; Mahaffy 1895, 203–205; id. 1899, 112–118; Bouché-Leclercq 1903–1907, I: 253–254; Otto 1928, 68–69; Préaux 1936; Bernand 1970, 989–1036; Huß 1978; Will 1979–1982, I: 253–254; Peremans 1981, 628–636; Hauben 1990, 29–37; Beyer-Rotthoff 1993, 201–202; Fantham et al. 1994, 151– 154; Hazzard 2000, 111–112; Hölbl 2011, 49; Huß 2001, 345, 373–375; S. Pfeiffer 2004, 82–93; Clayman 2014, 128; supra 33–34, 173, n. 70. 27. P.Haun. 6, l. 15 (Ạἰγυπτίων ἀπόσ[τασις]); P.Hib. II: 198; P.Col. Zen. II: 87; Bernand 1970, 1012; Peremans 1981, 632–633. 28. OGIS 56, ll. 8–9, 12–19; Urk. II: 128–132 (ll. 4–5, 7–10); Hauben 1990, 33–34; id.2 011,36 6–367. 29. Préaux 1936, 523–526; Bernand 1970, 1012; Bonneau 1971, 126–130; Will 1979–82, I: 253–254; Hauben 1990, 34; Hölbl 2011, 49.

Notes

185

30. BM 34428 = BCHP 11, obv. ll. 11’-14’: ITI BI UD 24.KAM | /1+en\ l úNUN SIG-ú šá ki-ma LUGAL šá TA KUR Me-luh-ha il-li-ku ina l úERÍN.MEŠ | MAH.MEŠ šá AN.BAR g[išTUKU]L lab-šu-‘ TA URU Si-lu-ki-‘-a URU LUGAL-ú-tú | [š]á ana mu[h-hi] Í[D UD.KI] B.NUN.K[I] /ana\ E.MEŠ KU4.MEŠ-ni, “That month, the 24th day [18 Jan. 245], | a certain renowned prince, a representative of the king, who from the land of Egypt had come, with troops | in great numbers, who were clad in iron (as) panoply, from Seleucia, the royal city, | which is on the Euphrates, arrived at Babylon” (trans. Finkel and van derS pek). 31. Jer. in Dan. 11.7–9 (tradidit, et Xanthippo, alteri duci, provincias trans Euphraten, “and the provinces across the Euphrates [Ptolemy] handed over to Xanthippus, another general”). 32. The proposed chronology places the king’s return to Egypt (or his retreat from Syria) earlier than most previous suggestions; before the publication of the Babylonian Chronicle of Ptolemy III, at any rate, all that historians could offer were educated guesses. 33. If we allow for merely twelve months between births, to be sure, Ptolemy IV could theoretically have been born early 243, and his younger siblings a year apart, viz. Magas (242), Alexander (241), “Lysimachus” (240) and Berenice (239). 34. Catul. 66.11–14 (qua rex tempestate novo auctus hymenaeo | vastatum finis juerat Assyrios, | dulcia nocturnae portans vestigia rixae, | quam de virgineis gesserat exuviis). 35. Ibid. Catul. 66.8–10 (e Beroniceo vertice caesariem | . . . quam multis illa dearum | levia protendens brachia pollicita est); cf. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 7–8 (τὸν Βερείκης | βόστρυχον ὃν κείνη πᾶσιν ἔθηκε θεοῖς). 36. Catul. 66.37–38 (quis ego pro factis caelesti reddita coetu | pristina vota novo munere dissolvo); Clayman 2011, 229–230. 37. Ibid. Catul. 66.36( captam Asiam Aegypti finibus addiderat). 38. Supra 184, n. 25. 39. Supra 183, n. 16. This impression is now confirmed by the Decree of Alexandria (§ 8–9); cf. El-Masry, Altenmüller and Thissen 2012, 91–97, 151–163. 40. Trog. Prol. 27; Just. Epit. 27.2; RE s.v. “Syria,” 2nd ser. IV(2): 1615; CAH VII(1)2: 421; Clay 1920, II: no. 17; Beloch 1912–27, IV(1): 680; Hölbl 2001, 50; Grainger 2010, 169. 41. Theoc. Id. 20.37; Apoll. Rhod. Argon. 4.57; Strabo 14.636; Apollod. Bibl. 1.56; Paus. 5.1.3–5; RML s.v. “Endymion,” I: 1246–1248; RE s.v. “Endymion,” V(2): 2557–2560; LIMC III(1): 726–742; Lee 1990, 171. 42. For lunar phases in antiquity, see: Goldstine 1973, pp. 63–64, nos. 9338–9362 (NB: astron. date -244 = 245 BCE). 43. See the appended table for all lunar phases in 246–245 BCE. 44. Huxley 1980b. 45. Soph. TrGF 4 F 776R (Ἄθως σκιάζει νῶτα Λημνίας βοός).

186

Notes

46. Σ Callim. Com. Ber. 44; also, see: RE s.v. “Obeliskos,” XVII(2): 1705–1714. 47. Koenen19 93,9 8–99. 48. Pliny Nat. Hist. 36.14 (67–69); RE s.v. “Arsinoë,” no. 26, II(1): 1285; Fraser 1972, II: 1024. 49. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 52 (γνωτὸς Μέμνονος Αἰθίοπος); cf. Catul. 66.52–53 (Memnonis Aethiopis | unigena). 50. For the mythological Memnon, for example, see: Hom. Od. 4.187–188, 11.522; Hes. Theog. 984–985; Apollod. Bibl. E.5.3; Paus. 1.42.3, 10.31.5–7; Quint. Smyrn. 2.100–155, 287–387, 452–470; RML s.v. “Memnon,” II(2): 2653–2687; RE s.v. “Memnon,” no. 1, XV(1): 638–649; Gardiner 1961; Koenen 1993, 101–102; Griffith 1998. 51. For the cardinal and seasonal winds, for example, see: Hom. Il. 9.4–5, 16.150, 23.194–196; id. Od. 5.291–295; Hes. Theog. 378–380, 869– 880; Apollod. Bibl. 1.9; RML s.v. “Windgötter,” VI: 511–517; RE s.v. “Winde,” 2nd ser. VIII(2): 2211–2387; Neuser 1982; Burkert 1985, 175. 52. West 1985, 63. 53. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 55 (ἠέρα δ’ ὑγρὸν), 63 (ὕδατι] λουόμενον με παρ’ ἀθα[νάτους ἀνιόντα); cf. Catul. 66.55 (aetherias . . . umbras), 63 (uvidulam a fluctu cedentem ad templa deum me); Zwierlein 1987, 281–284. 54. West 1985, 65, n. 25; also see: R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, I: 120; Marinone 1984, 29–44 = 1997, 247–259; Hauben 2011, 359. 55. P.Oxy. 20: 2258 (ed. Lobel, 1952); cf. R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, I: 120; Marinone 1984, 29–44 = 1997, 247–259; West 1985, n. 25. 56. Only the three main stars (α–γ Com) are included in the calculations, as it is unclear if Conon reckoned any other stars among the asterism. 57. De Jong 2006. 58. Catul. 66.67–68: vertor in occasum, tardum dux ante Booten, | qui vix sero alto mergitur Oceano; cf. Callim. Com. Ber. 67 (πρόσθε μὲν ἐρχόμενον [ . . . Ὠκ]εανόν δε); Hom. Od. 5.272 (ὀψὲ δύοντα Βοώτην, “late-setting Boötes”); Arat. Phaen. 579–589; Hipparch. 1.11.2, 2.5.1, 2.6.1. 59. Hes. Op. 609; Plato Leg. 8.844E; Dem. Lacrit. 35.10; id. Polycl. 50.19; Verg. Georg. 1.43; Strabo 2.5; Pliny Nat. Hist. 2.39; RML s.v. “Sternbilder,” VI: 889. 60. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 59–61 ([ὄφρα κε] μὴ νύμφης Μινωίδος ο[ . . . | χρύσε]ος ἀνθρώποις μοῦνον ἐπι [ . . . | φάες]ιν ἐν πολέεσσιν ἀρίθμιος); Catul. 66.59–61 ( vario ne solum in lumine caeli | ex Ariadnaeis aurea temporibus | fixa corona foret); Hipparch. 2.5.2, 2.6.2. 61. I will refrain from including Aquarius and Orion at this point, as their mention in the poem (l. 94) does not require visibility at the time of the events. They would, to be sure, be (partially) invisible from January through February, and from late April to early July, respectively. 62. Hipparch. 3.3.2, 3.4.2. 63. Ibid. 3.3.3, 3.4.3.

Notes

187

64. Catul. 66.66( Callisto . . . Lycaoniae). [Callim.’s orig. line is lost.] 65. Hom. Il. 18.487 = Od. 5.273 (Ἄρκτόν θ᾽, ἣν καὶ Ἄμαξαν ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν, “the Bear, which is also called by the name of Wagon”); Arat. Phaen. 27 (Ἑλίκη); Theoc. Id. 1.125–126; Hipparch. 1.5.1–13; Hyg. Fab. 177. 66. Goldstine 1973, p. 64, nos. 9354–9356; http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/ phase/phases-0299.html. 67. West 1985, 65 (her calculations are taken from Tuckerman 1962, 210). 68. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 56 ([Κύπρ]ιδος εἰσ κόλπους [θῆκεν ἄφαρ καθαρούς]); Catul. 66.56 (et Veneris casto collocat in gremio); West 1985, n.19 . 69. Hom. Il. 6.136 (Θέτις δ᾽ ὑπεδέξατο κόλπῳ, “Thetis received him in her bosom”), 21.125; id. Od. 4.435, 5.52, 18.140; Pind. Olymp. 13.88; Aristoph. Av. 694; West 1985, 63; Clayman 2011, 239; supra 100–101. 70. The subsequent paragraphs, on hair offerings, draw from van Oppen 2007, esp. 355–360. 71. Aesch. Cho. 6–7, 22–31, 129–131, 149–151, 423–428; id. Pers. 1054–1065; Soph. El. 51–53, 89–91, 448–458; Eur. Hel. 374, 1089; id. Suppl. 51, 71, 826, 1160; id. Tro. 279–280, 1235; Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 100–102, 203–213; figs. 4–5, 11–13, 33; Alexiou 1974, 6; Nachtergael 1981, 603, n. 67; Burkert 1985, 70; Garland 1985, 118, 141, fig. 6; Gutzwiller 1992, 369; Dillon 2002, 275–288, figs. 9.1, 3–5; Clayman 2011, 239; ead. 2014, 100–101. 72. Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 58–61, 76–79, 102–105, pls. 4–5, 11–13, 26–27, 33–38; Vermeule 1979, 11, 16–18, figs. I.6–8A, 10–11, 13–16; Garland 1985, 24–32, figs. 6–8; Spivey 1997, ills. 39, 43; Dillon 2002, 274–281, figs.9 .1–4. 73. Hom. Il. 22.405–407, 430–436, 460–515, 23.45–47, 135–153, 24.723–745, 746–759, 761–775; id. Od. 4.198, 24.46; Eur. El. 90–91, 513–517; id. IT 172–173, 703; id. Or. 96, 128; id. Tro. 480, 1182–1184; Callim. Hymn. Dian. 126; Vermeule 1979, 15–17; Garland 1985, 29–30; Holst-Warhaft 1992, 105–114; Dillon 2002, 268–269. 74. Hdt. 2.36; Diod. 1.18, 84; Pliny Nat. Hist. 8.46 (= 184); Pall. Anth. Pal. 6.60–61; RÄRG s.v. “Haaropfer”; LÄ s.v. “Haar,” II: 924; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 53–54, 268–269, 314–315; A. Burton 1972, 84, 241–242; Dunand 1973, I: 38–39; Lloyd 1975–88, II: 152–154; Staehelin 1978, 77–83; Nachtergael 1981, 587, 597–602; Koenen 1993, 109; Pinch 1993, 216,2 87–288. 75. Ael. Nat. Anim. 10.23; Koptos pl. 22; RÄRG s.v. “Kuh,” 404–405 (Schentait); LÄ s.v. “Klagefrau,” III: 444, “Trauer,” VI: 745; Münster 1968, 171–173; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 314, 450–452; Dunand 1973, I: 17; Nachtergael 1981, 591–595, 598, 604. 76. APM inv. 7583; Scheurleer 1974, 265–267; D. B. Thompson 1980, 182– 183; Koenen 1993, 109; van Oppen 2007, 319–321; Clayman 2014, 101.

188

Notes

77. For example, see: OT Mic. 1.16. Note, however, that OT Lam. contains no mention of the custom. 78. RE s.v. “Haaropfer,” VII(2): 2105–2109; Gutzwiller 1992, 369–373; Koenen 1993, 109. 79. Anth. Pal. 6.59, 155–156, 164, 198, 276–279; also, see: Hdt. 4.34; Diod. 5.24; Paus. 1.43.4, 2.32.1; Poll. 3.38; Burkert 1985, 70; Gutzwiller 1992, 369–370; Dillon 2002, 215. 80. Hdt. 2.65; Diod. 1.83; RÄRG s.v. “Haaropfer,” 267; LÄ s.v. “Haar,” II: 924; A. Burton 1972, 240. The pubescent offering of locks has been attested in Upper Egypt in modern times. 81. Cypria F 1 (ap. Proc. Chrest. I: 104 Allen); Eur. Hipp. 1423–1430; Σ Aristoph. Lys. 645; Gutzwiller 1992, 370–371; Dillon 2002, 225–226. 82. Damag. Epigr. 1 (ap. Anth. Pal.V I:2 77). 83. Burkert19 85, 70. 84. Llewellyn-Jones and Winder2 011,2 51. 85. Hdt. 2.19, 2.25.5, 2.93.5; Diod. 1.38–41; Pliny Nat. Hist. 5.10, 18.47; A. Burton 1972, 139–141; Lloyd 1975–1988, II: 93–98. 86. Bonneau19 64, 29–45; ead.19 71,12 6–130. 87. Cameron19 95, 107. 88. The subsequent section, on poetic themes, incorporates elements from van Oppen 2007, esp. 130–131, 245–246, 316–317, 330–332, 339–340. 89. Athen. 15.38 (689A); Herescu 1957; Skeat 1966; Holmes 1992; Koenen 1993, 107–110; Selden 1998, 329; Jackson 2001; Clayman 2011; ead. 2014, 102–103. Commentators, additionally, debate whether the passage derives from Callim.’s orig. or was invented by Catul. 90. Holmes19 92, 47–50. 91. Callim. Hymn. Pall. 13–32; cf. Hes. Op. 519–524; Friedrich 1978, 70, 206–210; Holmes 1992, 48–49; Koenen 1993, 107–109; J. B. Burton 1995, 91; Jackson 2001, 7; Clayman 2011, 234–237. 92. Koenen19 93, 108. 93. Callim. Ep. 51 (ap. Anth. Pal. V: 146: Τέσσαρες αἱ Χάριτες, ποτὶ γὰρ μία ταῖς τρισὶ τήναις | ἄρτι ποτεπλάσθη κἤτι μύροισι νοτεῖ. | εὐαίων ἐν πᾶσιν ἀρίζαλος Βερενίκα, | ἇς ἄτερ οὐδ᾽ αὐταὶ ταὶ Χάριτες Χάριτες, “Four are the Graces now, for one more was just fashioned beside those three, still moist with perfume. Happy Berenice resplendent among all, without whom even the Graces themselves are not Graces”); cf. id. F 112 ll. 2–4; Petrovic and Petrovic 2003; Clayman 2011,2 41–242. 94. Tondriau 1953, 127–128; Cerfaux and Tondriau 1956, 195–197, 204; Perpillou-Thomas 1993, 154–155. 95. D. B. Thompson 1973, 69–70, 74; Koenen 1993, 110; Perpillou-Thomas 1993, 211–212; Selden 1998, 339; Clayman 2011, 238; ead. 2014, 168–171. Note that Agathe Tyche (Good Luck), with whom the queen is assimilated, is an emphatically different goddess than Tyche (Fate).

Notes

189

96. Scheurleer 1974, 265–267; D. B. Thompson 1980, 182–183; also, see: Vandebeek 1946, 18–20; D. B. Thompson 1973, 30–31, 165–167, nos. 122–124; Bianchi 1980; Walters 1988, esp. 5–18; Koenen 1993, 109; van Oppen 2007, 319–321. 97. Winter19 78;Qu aegebeur19 78; id. 1988, esp. 43–48; Minas 2000. 98. For example, see: BD 105, 3; Hdt. 2.39; RE s.v. “Rauchopfer,” 2nd ser. I(1): 267–286; RÄRG s.v. “Libation,” “Räucherung,” “Reinigung,” “Salben,” “Wein,” “Wohlgeruch”; LÄ s.v. “Räucherung,” V: 83–86, “Reinheit,” 213; Lloyd 1975–1988, II: 174–182; Koenen 1993, 107–111, nn.2 06–222. 99. Schwinge 1986, 67; Lee 1990, 171; Koenen 1993, 97. 100. Catul. 66.13–14 (dulcia nocturnae portans vestigiae rixae, | quam de virgineis gesserat exuviis); cf. Agath. Anth. Pal. 6.294, ll. 18–19 (σύμβολον ἐννυχίης . . . ἀεθλοσύνης . . . ἐξαλάπαξα φίλης πύργωμα κορείης); Cameron 1995, 22. 101. Catul. 66.20–22 (invisente novo proelia torva viro. | . . . luxti . . . | fratris cari flebile discidium). 102. Ibid. Catul. 66.90 (placabis festis luminibus Venerem); Jackson 2001, 2–3. 103. Catul. 66.23–25 (quam penitus maestas exedit cura medullas, | ut tibi tunc toto pectore sollicitae | sensibus ereptis mens excidit). 104. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 51 (ἄρτι [ν]εότμητόν με κόμαι ποθέεσκον ἀδε[λφεαί]); cf. Catul. 66.51–52 (abjunctae paulo ante comae mea fata sorores | lugebant). 105. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 75–76 (οὐ τάδε μοι τοσσήνδε φέρει χάριν ὅσ[σο]ν ἐκείνης | [ἀ]σχάλλω κορυφῆς οὐκέτι θιξόμεν[ος,]); Catul. 66.39 (invita, o regina, tuo de vertice cessi), 75–76 (non his tam laetor rebus, quam me afore semper, | afore me a dominae vertice discrucior,). 106. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 93–94 (γε[ίτονες . . . ἔστ]ωσ[αν . . . ] | ἀλ[λὰξ] δ’ Ὑδ[ροχόος] καὶ [φάε κ’ Ὠαρίων]); Catul. 66.93–94 (sidera cur iterent: utinam coma regia fiam: | proximus Hydrochoi fulgeret Oarion); for the corruptions in both versions, see: Kidd 1970, 45–49; Marinone 1984, 273– 285 = 1997, 221–233; Gutzwiller 1992, 382–383; Koenen 1993, 110–111. 107. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 45 (Ἀρσινόης μετρός σεο); Catul. 66.22 (fratris cari). 108. Supra 35–38. 109. Hes. Theog. 132. 110. Ibid.37 1–374. 111. Ibid.136 ,337 ;C allim. Iamb. 4.52 (F 194). 112. Cypria F 8 (ap. Athen. 8.9 [334B]); Isoc. Hel. 10.59; Erat. Cat. 25; Hyg. Astr. 2.8; Apollod. Bibl. 3.10.7; Paus. 1.33.7; Σ Lycophr. 88; Σ Callim. Hymn. Dian. 232; Skinner 1984, 136–137; Koenen 1993, 107. 113. Callim.’s choice of words is remarkable, as he calls Ariadne evasively “νύμφης Μινωΐδος” (Com. Ber. 52), meaning “Minoan bride (or young wife)”, avoiding her father’s name and that of her husband Theseus.

190

Notes

114. Gelzer 1982, 21; J. B. Burton 1995, 71, 75. 115. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 51–58; cf. Catul. 66.51–58; F. T. Griffiths 1979, 59; Schwinge 1986, 70; Gutzwiller 1992, 380; Koenen 1993, 103. 116. The subsequent section, on astronomical symbolism, partially derives from van Oppen 2007, 327–328, 332–333, 387–388, pass. 117. For the constellation Virgo, see: RML s.v. “Sterne,” III: 1453–1454; ibid. s.v. “Sternbilder,” VI: 959–963; ODA s.v. “Virgo”; Allen 1963, 460–473; Bakich 1995, 306–307. 118. For Nemesis, see: Hes. Theog. 223–224; id. Op. 183, 197–200; Paus. 7.5.3; OGIS 342; RML s.v. “Nemesis,” III: 117–166; RE s.v. “Nemesis,” XVI(2): 2338–2380; Merkelbach 1967, 218; Skinner 1984; Koenen 1993, 106, n. 71. 119. Strabo9 .1.17;P aus.1. 33.2–3,7 .5.3; RML s.v. “Nemesis,” III: 124–12. 120. For Adrastea, see: Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 936; Eur. Rhes. 342–343 (where she is strangely called “ἁ Διὸς παῖς [the daughter of Zeus]”); Callim. Hymn. Jov. 47; Strabo 13.1.13 (588); Apollod. Bibl. 1.1.6; RML s.v. “Adrasteia,” I: 77–78; RE s.v. “Adrasteia,” no. 3, I(1): 406–411. 121. For Astraea, see: Hes. Op. 197–201; Arat. Phaen. 96–136; Ov. Met. 1.149–150; Hyg. Astr. 2.25; Erat. Cat. 9; Juv. Sat. 6.19–20; RML s.v. “Astraia,” no. 1, I: 659; RE s.v. “Astraia,” no. 1, II(2): 1795. 122. Hes. Theog. 135, 191, 256; Plato Leg. 943E; Arat. Phaen. 105; Virg. Georg. 2.474; Hyg. Astr. 2.25; RML s.v. “Dike,” I: 1019; ibid. s.v. “Virgo,” VI: 333–334. 123. Arat. Phaen. 97; Hyg. Astr. 2.25; Erat. Cat. 9; Pliny Nat. Hist. 18.47 (heliacal rising of Spica at Alexandria in mid-September signals end of Etesian winds); Ptol. Almag. 7.5 (102 Heib.). 124. Hdt. 2.17, 6.91, 134; Callim. Aet. 1 (P.Oxy. 2079) l. 10; id. Hymn. Cer. 19; Diod. 1.14, 5.5, 68; Paus. 1.42.6, 2.32.8; RML s.v. “Kora,” II(1): 1329–1333; RE s.v. “Thesmophoria,” VI: 15–28; A. Burton 1972, 75, 114; Detienne 1972, esp. 151–158; Burkert 1985, 242–246; Winkler 1990, 193–202; Versnel 1991–1993, II: 235–260; Foley (ed.) 1994, 72–74; Kledt 2004, 114–147. 125. For the identification of Isis with Demeter, see: Hdt. 2.171; Diod. 1.14, 1.25, 5.5; Apul. Met. 11.3–5; Anth. Pl. IV: 264; RML s.v. “Isis,” II(1): 543–545; ibid. s.v. “Nemesis,” III: 140; RE s.v. “Isis,” no. 1, IX(2): 2095–2098, 2118–2119; J. G. Griffiths 1975, 115–116, 314; id. 1980, 48–92, 309; A. Burton 1972, 59–68, 73–75, 106–111, 124–126; Lloyd 1975–1988, III: 209–211; Tobin 1991; Koenen 1993, 107. 126. EAT III: 209; Davis 1985, 104; Clagett 1989–1999, II: 301, 416, 478, 483–484; Aubourg 1995; Cauville 1997, 23–27; Lull and Belmonte 2009, 181. For ancient Egyptian astronomy, see: HAMA 559–569; CIHA 24–25; Parker 1974; Davis 1985; Thurston 1994, 82–83; Clagett 1989–1999, II: 1–130; Kaper 1995; Etz 1997, esp. 150–152; Selden 1998, 340–344; Conman 2003; Leitz 2006; Lull and Belmonte 2009; Buchwald and Josefowicz 2011.

Notes

191

127. Diod. 5.62; Hyg. Astr. 2.25; RML s.v. “Chrysothemis,” I: 609; RE s.v. “Chrysothemis,” no. 3, III(2): 2521. 128. For Erigone, see: Virg. Georg. 1.33; Hyg. Astr. 2.4, 2.25; id. Fab. 130; Ov. Fast. 6.939; id. Met. 6.124, 10.450–451; Manil. Astr. 2.31–32, 4.542; Stat. Theb. 11.644–647; Ael. Nat. Anim. 7.28; Achil. Tat. 2.2; Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.7; Serv. ad Virg. Ecl. 4.6; Nonn. Dion. 1.254, 47.34–264; RML s.v. “Erigone,” I: 1309; RE s.v. “Erigone,” VI(1): 451–452; LIMC III(1): 823–824; Merkelbach 1963, 469–526; Fraser 1972, II: 903–905, n. 202; Burkert 1985, 255; A. S. Hollis 1991; Rosokoki 1995. 129. Arist. F 515 (Rose); Fest. s.v. “Oscillantes” (194 Müll.); Poll. 4.7.55; Paus. Par. Min. 9 (456–457); Athen. 14.10 (618E-F); Hesych. s.v. “Αἰώρα”; Eustath. ad Hom. 1535 (339); Etym. Magn. s.v. “Αἰώρα”; RML s.v. “Dionysos,” I: 1071; RE s.v. “Aiora,” I(1): 1043–1044; Burkert 1985, 363–364; Versnel 1990–1993, I: 137–146. 130. Callim.F 17 8 ll.3– 4( Pfeif). 131. Strabo 9.1.17; Paus. 1.33.2–3; RML s.v. “Nemesis,” III: 147–155; Ehrhardt19 97. 132. Paus. 1.33.7. For the winged Nike, see: Kenner 1939, 82; Ellinger 1953. 133. MUL.APIN 1.2.10 (mulAb.sín dŠa-la šu-bu-ul-tu4); Rogers 1998, 14, 21, 24. For ancient Babylonian astronomy, see: HAMA 347–555; CIHA 22–29; Aaboe 1974; Sachs 1974; Thurston 1994, 64–81; Evans 1998, 5–17, 56–57, 103–104; Rogers 1998; Ossendrijver 2012. 134. MUL.APIN 1.1.11 (Gub-zu sis-sin-nu dE4-ru6 dZar-pa-ni-tum); Rogers 1998,18 . 135. Hdt. 2.28.1; Plato Tim. 21E; Diod. 1.12.7, 28.4; A. Burton 1972, 69–70, 121; Lloyd 1975–1988, II: 111; El-Sayed 1982; 666–674; infra 193, n. 162. 136. For the constellation Leo, see: Hes. Theog. 326–332; Theoc. Id. 25.153– 281; Hipparch. 3.3.2, 3.4.2; Diod. 4.11.3–4; Hyg. Astr. 2.24; id. Fab. 30; Erat. Cat. 12; Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.1; RML s.v. “Sterne,” III: 1452–1453; ibid. s.v. “Sternbilder,” VI: 954–956; ODA s.v. “Leo”; Allen 1963, 252– 263; Bakich 1995, 226–227. 137. Arat. Phaen. 148–154; Hipparch. 2.1.18 (μετὰ τριάκοντα ἔγγιστα ἡμέρας ἀπὸ τῆς θερινῆς τροπῆς). 138. Rogers 1998, 24. 139. Hyg. Astr. 2.24 (ferarum princeps). 140. MUL.APIN 1.1.9: Mul šá ina Gaba mulUr.gu.la Gub-zu mulLugal (“The star which stands in the breast of the Lion: the King;” trans. by Hunger and Pingree1989, 20); Σ ap. Arat. 147, 152; Pliny Nat. Hist. 18.271; Gem. 3.5; Heph. Astr. 2.18; Rogers 1998, 16–18, 24. 141. Copern. De Revol. 2.14 (104–105 Mul.): in pectore Leonis Basiliscus sive Regulus vocatur. 142. EAT III: 192, 209; Davis 1985, 103; Clagett 1989–1999, II: 301, 478, 482–484; Leitz 1995, 250–252; Cauville 1997, 23–27; Lull and Belmonte 2009, 181.

192

Notes

143. Ferro and Magli 2012 (kindly brought to my attention by Chris Bennett). 144. For the constellation Ursa Major, see: Hom. Il. 18.487; id. Od. 5.273; Hes. Astr. F 3 (ap. Erat. Cat. 1); Arat. Phaen. 25–44; Hyg. Astr. 2.1; id. Fab. 176–177; Ov. Fast. 2.153–192; id. Met. 2.401–531; Apollod. Bibl. 3.8.2; Paus. 8.3.6–7; Serv. ad Virg. Georg. 1.138 fin.; RML s.v. “Sternbilder,” VI: 873–881; ODA s.v. “Ursa Major”; Allen 1963, 419–447; Bakich 1995, 300–301; Rogers 1998, 84–85. 145. Callim. Hymn. Jov. 41 (Λυκαονίης ἄρκτοιο, “of the Lycaonian Bear”); cf. Theoc. Id. 1.125–126 (῾Ελίκας δὲ λίπ᾽ ἠρίον αἰπύ τε σᾶμα | τῆνο Λυκαονίδαο, “leave the tomb of Helice [Callisto] and the high mound of the Lycaonidan [Arcas]”). 146. MUL.APIN1.1. 15( mulMar.gíd.da dNin-líl); Rogers 1998, 16, 18, 21. 147. “The Myth of Enlil and Ninlil,” Corp. Sum. Lit. 1.2.1, ll. 1–53 [avail. from http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ (accessed November 2012). 148. EAT III: 183; Davis 1985, 103; Clagett 1989–1999, II: 115–116, 118–119, 158, n. 139, 228, 248; Cauville 1997, 32–33; Selden 1998, 343–344; Leitz 2006, 292–295; Lull and Belmonte 2009, 188. 149. Pyr. 311, 315, 1927; CT IV: 29; Lee 1985, 103. 150. Pyr. 229, 823, 1543–1550; CT III: 138; Plut. Is. et Osir. 21 (= Mor. 359C); J. G. Griffiths 1960, 108, 127; id. 1970, 373; Lee 1985, 103. 151. Supra 34. 152. For the constellation Boötes, see: Hom. Od. 5.272; Hes. Astr. F 3 (ap. Comm. Suppl. Arat. 547 M 8); id. Op. 566, 610; Arat. Phaen. 91–95; Hyg. Astr. 2.1, 2.4; id. Fab. 176–177; Ov. Fast. 2.153–192; Manil. Astr. 1.313– 318; Apollod. Bibl. 3.8.2, 3.9.1; Paus. 5.1.4, 8.3.6, 8.4.1–2, 8.9.9, 10.9.5; RML s.v. “Sternbilder,” VI: 886–892; ODA s.v. “Boötes”; Allen 1963, 92–106; Bakich 1995, 152–153. 153. Hyg. Astr. 2.4; cf. Hom. Od. 5.125–128; Hom. Hymn. Cer. 491; Hes. Theog. 969–974; Diod. 5.77.1–2; Pliny Nat. Hist. 7.199; Apollod. Bibl. 3.12.1; RML s.v. “Philomelos,” no. 1; III: 2350. 154. Note the effort to weave the various traditions together: ἑλίσσεται (“spirals”) recalls Ἑλίκη (“Helice”); ἐλάοντι (“driving”) anticipates Βοώτης (“Oxen-Driver”); Ἀρκτοῦρος (“Bear-Watcher”) corresponds with Ἀρκτοφύλαξ (“Bearward”); ἁμαξαίης (“wain-like”) invokes Ἄμαξα (“Wain”). 155. Cf. Σ Hom. Il. 18.487; Arat. Phaen. 25–62; Hyg. Astr. 2.2, 2.4; Prop. El. 2.33.24; Erat. Cat.2 . 156. MUL.APIN 1.1.19; Rogers 1998, 16, 21. 157. Clagett 1989–1999, II: 116–119, 125–126, 228–229, 248, 436–450, 478–482, pass.; Leitz 1995, 253–254; id. 2006, 292–294; Cauville 1997, 32–33. Seldon (1998, 343–344) is certainly off when he locates Coma Berenices in Hippopotamus. Coma Berenices, though not depicted on the Dendera Zodiacs, must be equated with the Egyptian asterism called “Cluster of Many”; Clagett 1989–1999, II: 413, 453, n. 19.

Notes

193

158. EAT III: 202; Davis 1985, 104; Clagett 1989–1999, II: 483–484; Leitz 2006, 307–308. 159. Recent Egyptologists allow that the bull-headed figure’s identity remains an unsolved mystery, for which, for example, see: Leitz 2006, 309; Lull and Belmonte 2009, 189. 160. Aubourg 1995, fig.2 . 161. Urk. II: 122, ll. 10–12; cit. supra 177, n. 105. 162. For Neith, see: RÄRG s.v. “Neith,” 512–517; LÄ s.v. “Neith,” IV: 392– 394; El-Sayed 1982; Quaegebeur, Clarysse and Van Maele 1985. 163. For Bastet, see: RÄRG s.v. “Bastet,“ 80–82; LÄ s.v. “Bastet,“ I: 628–630. 164. For the identification of Bastet/Boubastis with Artemis, see: Hdt. 2.59–60, 67, 83, 137–138, 155–156; Lloyd 1975–1988, II: 269; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 545. 165. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 56 ([Κύπρ]ιδος εἰσ κόλπους [θῆκεν ἄφαρ καθαρούς]); Catul. 66.56 (et Veneris casto collocat in gremio); West 1985, 62–63; cf. Friedrich 1978, 80–81; supra 84. 166. Hom. Il. 6.400, 467, 483, 9.570, 22.80; id. Od. 5.50, 15.469; Theoc. Id. 15.134; Apollod. Bibl. 2.4 (Δανάης . . . κόλπους); Anth. Graec. 6.273 (κόλπους . . . Χαρίτων), 6.284 (Ἀγαμήδους κόλπους), 7.387 (κόλπους μητρὸς), 11.220 (κόλπους Ἀρεθούσης). 167. Callim. Hymn. Jov. 15; id. Hymn. Del. 214; cf. Eur. Hel. 1145; Poll. 2.222; Gal. Usu Part.14 .4. 168. West 1985, 63; cf. Hom. Il. 5.6, 18.489; Hom. Od. 5.275. 169. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 63–64 ([ὕδατι] λουόμενον με παρ’ ἀθα[νάτους ἀνιόντα] | [Κύπρι]ς ἐν ἀρχαίοις ἄστρον [ἔθηκε νέον]); Catul. 66.63–64 (uvidulam a fluctu cedentem ad templa deum me | sidus in antiquis diva novum posuit). 170. Catul. 66.70 (lux autem canae Tethyi restituit); cf. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 70 ([πολ]ιῆι Τη[θύι]). 171. Plato Symp. 180D; Xen. Symp. 8.9; Theoc. Ep. 13 (ap. Anth. Pal. 6.340); Orph. Hymn. 55.1; Paus. 1.14.7, 2.23.8, 3.23.1, 6.20.6, 8.32.2; Ael. Nat. Anim. 10.27; Friedrich 1978, 79–80, 82, 149–162; Burkert 1985, 155; Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 433–439. 172. Callim. Apoth. Arsin. (F 228) 5–6 (νύμφα, σὺ μὲν ἀστερίαν ὑπ’ Ἄμαξαν ἤδη | [Ἀνάκων ὕπο κλεπτομέν]α παρέθει σελάνᾳ); Selden 1998, 340; C. Austin 2006, 60–61; van Oppen 2010, 142–143. 173. Koenen19 93, 100. 174. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 54; cf. Sappho F 30.10, 39.5; Alcm. 63; Hesch. s.v . “ἰόζωνος”; R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, I: 117; Koenen 1993, 102–103. 175. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 61 ([φάες]ιν ἐν πολέεσσιν), 63 (παρ’ ἀθα[νάτους]), 64 (ἐν ἀρχαίοις); Catul. 66.7 (caelesti in lumine), 59 (in lumine caeli), 63 (ad templa deum), 64 (in antiquis). 176. For Nut, see: Pyr. 784–785, 1688; RÄRG s.v. “Nut,” 536–537; LÄ s.v. “Himmelsvorstellungen,” no. 3, II: 1216, “Nut,” IV: 535–541; Piankoff

194

177. 178.

179.

180.

181.

182.

183.

184. 185.

186.

Notes 1934; Frankfort 1948, 117–120, 181–185; Bergman 1979, esp. 57–61; S. T. Hollis 1987; Springborg 1990, 155; Lesko 1991, 115–122; Wells 1992; Koenen 1993, 105; Pinch 1994, 25–27; Cauville 1997, 70–75; Evans 1998, 75, fig. 2.1; Billing 2002. Cf. Pyr. 782, 785c; Bergman 1979, 57; Hornung 1982, 61. Pyr. 784b, 1655a–b, 1660 etc.; CT II: 19a, 211b; BD 69; Hdt. 2.144, 156; Manetho Aeg. 1.1.1 (ap. Euseb. Chron. 93 [Arm.]); Diod. 1.13, 27; Plut. Is. et Osir. 12 (= Mor. 355D-F); LÄ s.v. “Nut,” IV: 536; Münster 1968, 84; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 291–308; id. 1980, 47–51; A. Burton 1972, 46, 60, 76, 90–91, 116–117; Bergman 1979, 57; S. T. Hollis 1987, 497; Lloyd 1975–1988, III: 110–111; Hornung 1982, 68. Pyr. 802b; EAT III: pl. 42; LÄ s.v. “Himmelsvorstellungen,” no. 4, II: 1216, “Nut,” IV: 536; Piankoff 1934, 58; Bergman 1979, 57; Selden 1998,340. Pyr. 1688b; EAT I: 60, 68, 81, 93; RÄRG s.v. “Ach,” “Himmel,” “Nut”; LÄ s.v. “Himmelsvorstellungen,” no. 3, II: 1216, “Nut,” IV: 535; Bergman 1979, 57; S. T. Hollis 1987, 497; Lesko 1991, 118; Wells 1992, 307. CT IV: 244–245a; RÄRG s.v. “Hathor,” “Himmel,” “Methyer,” “Nut”; LÄ s.v. “Himmelsvorstellungen,” no. 2, II: 1216, “Nut,” IV: 536–537; Piankoff 1934, 59; Hornung 1971, 94; id. 1982, esp. 58–62, 96–96; id. 1983, 241; Lesko 1991, 118; Selden 1998, 346; Billing 2002, 16–17. Pyr. 508, 1131, 1375b, 1688, etc.; BD 17; Plut. Is. et Osir. 56.9 (= Mor. 374B); Ael. Nat. Anim. 10.27; Rel. Urk. 10, 219; RÄRG s.v. “Himmel,” 302–303, “Kuh,” 402; LÄ s.v. “Hathor,” II: 1028, “Himmelsvorstellungen,” no. 2, 1216; Frankfort 1948, 41; J. G. Griffiths 1960, 13; id. 1970, 450, 511–512; Allam 1963, 82, 99–102; Münster 1968, 120–122; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 511–512; Bleeker 1973, 25, 46–48, 65; Hornung 1982; Pinch 1993, 162, 172, 192, 251; Billing 2002, 17. Hes. Theog. 176–206; Hom. Hymn. VI: Ven.; Diod. 5.55.4; Cic. Nat. Deor. 3.21–23; Orph. Hymn. 55; Friedrich 1978, 57–58; Burkert 1985, 20, 154. Lucret. Rer. nat. 1.84–85 (Aulide . . . Triviai virginis aram Iphianassai, “at Aulis . . . Iphigenia’s altar of the maiden Trivia”). Callim. Hymn. Dian. 109–162, esp. 114, 141; cf. Aesch. Xant. fr 87 = TGF 170; Soph. Oed. Tyr. 207; Cic. Nat. Deor. 2.27, 3.19; Catul. 34.15– 16; Strabo 14.1.6; Paus. 10.32.13–17; Burkert 1985, 176. For Ariadne, see: Hom. Od. 11.320–325; Hes. Theog. 947–949; Arat. Phaen. 71; Apoll. Rhod. Argon. 3.997–1005; Diod. 4.61, 5.51; Hyg. Fab. 42–43, 224; id. Astr. 2.5; Ov. Her. 4.53–66, 10; id. Met. 8.169–182; Plut. Thes. 19–20; Apollod. Bibl. 3.1.2, E.1.7–11; Paus. 1.20.2, 9.40.2, 10.29.2; RML s.v. “Ariadne,” I: 540–546; RE s.v. “Ariadne,” no. 1, II(1): 803–810; LIMC III(1): 1050–1077; Meerdink 1939; Webster 1966; Schavernoch 1983.

Notes

195

187. Catul. 64.63–65 (non flavo retinens subtilem vertice mitram, | non contecta levi velatum pectus amictu, | non tereti strophio lactentis vincta); also, see: Plut. Def. orac. 14 (= Mor. 417c); Firm. Mat. Err. prof. rel. 2.3; Gow 1950, II: 302; Heyob 1975, 55–56. 188. Hom. Od. 11.321–325; Hes. Theog. 947–949; Apoll. Rhod. Argon. 3.997–1004; Diod. 4.61.5, 5.51.4; Catul. 64; Apollod. Bibl. E1.9; Diez del Corral Corredoira 2010. 189. For Tethys, see: Hom. Il. 14.200–210; Hes. Theog. 136, 337–370; Callim. Hymn. Dian. 40; Diod 4.69.1, 4.72.1, 5.66.1; Virg. Georg. 1.31; Hyg. Fab. 177; Ov. Fast. 2.91–192, 5.81; Apollod. Bibl. 1.2, 3, 8; Nonn. Dion. 23.280, 38.108; RML s.v. “Tethys,” V: 394–398; RE s.v. “Thetys,” 2nd ser. V (1): 1065–1069; LIMC Suppl. 1193–1195; supra 91. 190. Hyg. Fab. 177; id. Astr. 2.1; Ov. Fast. 2.189–192; id. Met. 2.508–530. 191. Orph. Hymn.2 1.5. 192. For Aquarius, see: Hyg. Astr. 2.29; Erat. Cat. 26; RML s.v. “Sterne,” III: 1464–1465; ibid. s.v. “Sternbilder,” VI: 974–977; ODA s.v. “Aquarius”; Allen 1963, 45–55; Bakich 1995, 142–143; Rogers 1998, 11, 14,2 5. 193. “Enki and the World Order,” Corp. Sum. Lit. 1.1.3, ll. 89–93, 299–308; “The Flood Story,” ibid. 1.7.4C, ll. 8–9 [avail. from http://etcsl.orinst. ox.ac.uk/ (accessed November 2012)]; RAssyr. s.v. “Sintflut,” XII: 525–527. 194. Cauville, 1997, 23–27; Evans 1998, 39, fig. 1.25; Lull and Belmonte 2009, 181. 195. Hyg. Fab. 153; Ov. Met. 1.125–415; Apollod. Bibl. 1.7.2, 3.8.1–2; Luc. Dea Syr. 12–13; Serv. ad Virg. Ecl. 6.41; Rudhardt 1970; Caduff 1986, 200–224; infra 197, n. 231. 196. Hipparch. 3.3.8, 3.4.8. 197. Gutzwiller 1992, 382–384; Koenen19 93,110 ; supra 189, n. 106. 198. For Orion, see: Hom. Il. 18.485–489; id. Od. 5.121–124; Hes. Astr. F 4; id. Op. 598, 609, 615, 620; Arat. Phaen. 322–327, 634–660; Hipparch. 3.1.9, 3.2.9; Hyg. Astr. 2.34; id. Fab. 195; Ov. Fast. 5.493– 544; id. Met. 8.206–208, 13.292–295; Erat. Cat. 7, 32; Apollod. Bibl. 1.4.3–5; Nonn. Dion. 13.96; RML s.v. “Orion,” III: 1018–1047; id. s.v. “Sternbilder,” VI: 983–989; RE s.v. “Orion,” no. 1, XVIII(1): 1065–1082; id. Suppl. XI: 1300–1303; LIMC VII(1): 78–80; ODA s.v. “Orion”; Allen 1963, 303–320; Fontenrose 1981; Bakich 1995, 254–255; Rogers 1998, 83. 199. Diod. 5.79.1; Plut. Thes. 20.1; Apollod. Bibl. 1.4.3, E.1.9. 200. MUL.APIN 1.2.2; Rogers 1998, 13–18. 201. There may be a distant connection between the Greek and Babylonian constellation myths, in that Orion was also known in Greek as “Ἀλεκτροπόδιον (Cock-Foot)” and was represented in early Babylonian art by the walking bird of Papsukkal; see: Anon. II: Intr. Arat. 116 (ed. Maass); Rogers 1998, 13–14.

196

Notes

202. Pyr. 632c–d; RÄRG s.v. “Ba,” 75; LÄ s.v. “Sothis,” V: 1110–117; Frankfort 1948, 64, 77; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 371; Springborg 1990, 53–54; Selden 1998, 337–339. 203. Pyr. 632a–d, 1635b–1636; CT I: 17d–18b (sp. 6), II: 61a–b, V: 389h–390k, VI: 319a–e; Diod. 1.27.4; Plut. Is. et Osir. 21 (= Mor. Mor. 359C); J. G. Griffiths 1960, 15, 108; id. 1970, 371, n. 5; Merkelbach 1963, 14–19; Münster 1968, 5, 74, 78–79, 153–154; A. Burton 1972, 114– 116; Watterson 1984, 186. 204. Davis 1985, 104; Cauville 1997, 34–35; Leitz 2006, 304–307; Lull and Belmonte 2009, 187. 205. Lament. I: 4, 11–12; cf. CT I: 310k; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 372. 206. Pyr. 632a–d, 1635b–1636b; cf. CT V: 22b–f; Hedyl. HE 1848–1850 (ap. Athen. 11.97 [497D–E]); Diod. 1.36.10; Paus. 10.32.18; Plut. Is. et Osir. 38 (= Mor. 366A); Frankfort 1948, 40; J. G. Griffiths 1960, 15; id. 1970, 353, 445–446; id. 1980, 12, n. 22; Merkelbach 1963, 14–16; id. 1995, 13–14, 107–108; Bonneau 1964, 361–420; Münster 1968, 5; A. Burton 1972, 136; Assmann 1975, 501 (no. 242, l.2 3). 207. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) 93–94 (γε[ίτονες . . . ἔστ]ωσ[αν] . . . ἀλ[λὰξ] δ’ Ὑδ[ροχόος] καὶ[ φάε κ’ Ὠαρίων]). 208. Ibid.9 4a( χ[αῖρε] φίλη τεκέεσσι). 209. The subsequent paragraphs, on deification, are taken from van Oppen 2007, esp. 326–339. 210. Koenen19 93, 109–111;C layman2 014,10 0–101. 211. Pyr. 167–178, 1255–1258, 1280–1282, 1972–1986, 2144–2145; Hymn. Hom. II: Cer. 40–44, pass.; Hdt. 2.61; Theoc. Id. 3.46–48, 20.34–36; Diod. 1.25; Plut. Is. et Osir. 14, 17 (= Mor. 356D, 357D); RML s.v. “Astarte,” I: 645–655; ibid. s.v. “Kora,” II(1): 1284–1379; RE s.v. “Demeter,” IV: 2713–2764; RAssyr. s.v . “Inanna/Ištar,” V: 74–89; ibid. s.v. “Klagelied”; Allam 1963, esp. 38, 52, 58, 67–68, 74; Kramer 1963, esp. 133–163; id. 1969; Münster 1968, esp. 22–71; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 314–315, 331– 334; id. 1980, 49–50, 56–57; A. Burton 1972, 106–110; Bleeker 1973, 42–45; Lloyd 1975–88, II: 276–279; Soyez 1977, 29–35; Friedrich 1978, 166–168, 175–179; Bruschweiler 1987; Slatkin 1991, 88–94; BalzCochois 1992; Pinch 1993, esp. 179–182; Seaford 1993, 115–145; Foley (ed.) 1994, 37–41; Assmann 2000, esp. 27–47; id. 2005, esp. 115–118, 167–168, 268–269, 288–289; Dillon 2002; Fritz 2003; Kledt 2004; van Oppen 2007, 274–295. 212. For the conflict between seriousness and playfulness in Callimachus’s work, see: Hutchinson 1988, 32. 213. I would like to express my gratitude to Kostas Buraselis (University of Athens) for bringing the point into sharper focus that Callimachus presents catasterism not so much as a metaphor, but as a mode of apotheosis (Durham Conference, The Many Faces of a Hellenistic King, 11–12 November 2011). 214. Schwinge 1986,6 7; Lee 1990, 171.

Notes

197

215. Plut. Is. et Osir. 21 (= Mor. 359C: τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἐν οὐρανῷ λάμπειν ἄστρα); RÄRG s.v. “Sterne,” 749–750; LÄ s.v. “Himmelsaufstieg,” II: 1206–1211; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 371; Koenen 1993, 105. 216. For example, see: Pyr. 749, 759–760, 784–785, 820–821, etc.; Piankoff 1934, 57; Wells 1992, 305. 217. Callim. Apoth. Arsin. (F 228) 5–6; supra 193, n. 172. 218. Supra 80. 219. Hes. Theog. 984–985; Quint. Smyr. 2.550–569, 585–587; Proc. Chrest. II: 6–8; Vermeule 1979, 150. 220. Hymn. Hom. VI: Ven. 3 (Ζεφύρου μένος ὑγρὸν ἀέντος). 221. Catul. 66.53 (impellens nutantibus aera pennis); cf. Hom. Od. 4.567–568 (ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ Ζεφύροιο λιγὺ πνείοντος ἀήτας | Ὠκεανὸς ἀνίησιν ἀναψύχειν ἀνθρώπους, “but Oceanus ever sends up winds of sweetblowing Zephyr to refresh men”); Hymn. Hom. 6 Ven. 3 (Ζεφύρου μένος ὑγρὸν ἀέντος, “Zephyr’s moist might is blowing”). 222. Hes. Op. 504–563; Callim. F 548; Paus. 5.19.1; R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, I: 391; Gutzwiller 1992, 380, nn. 59–62. 223. Hom. Od. 5.467; Hes. Scut. 395; Theophr. Hist. Plant. 2.2.6, 3.9.3; Theoc. Id. 16.49; Callim. F 296; Diosc. Mat. Med. 3.1; LSJ9 s.v. “ἄρσην” and “θῆλυς”; cf. ibid. s.v. “θηλάζω” (“suckle, nurse”), “θηλέω” (“flourish, bloom, abound” of plants and infants) and “θηλή” (“teat”). 224. Archil. F 181W (= 92b D) l. 11 (λαιψηρὰ κυκλώσαι πτερά); Zwierlein 1987, 287–288; Koenen 1993, 102. 225. Hom. Il. 16.148–149 (Ξάνθον καὶ Βαλίον, τὼ ἅμα πνοιῇσι πετέσθην, | τοὺς ἔτεκε Ζεφύρῳ ἀνέμῳ Ἅρπυια Ποδάργη), 19.415–416 (νῶϊ δὲ καί κεν ἅμα πνοιῇ Ζεφύροιο θέοιμεν, | ἥν περ ἐλαφροτάτην φάσ᾽ ἔμμεναι); Apollod. Bibl. 3.170; Quint. Smyr. 3.743; Koenen 1993,102 . 226. Callim. Com. Ber. (F 110) l. 55: ἤ[λ]ασε δὲ πνοιῆι με, δι’ ἠέρα δ’ ὑγρὸν ἐνείκας; cf. Catul. 66.55 (per aetherias me tollens avolat umbras); Zwierlein 1987, 280. 227. Cf. Catul. 66.54 (Arsinoes Locridis ales equos); Zwierlein 1987, 284–289. 228. Supra 100. 229. Cf. Ov. Ibis 351–352 (using “Locris” as learned shorthand for Arsinoe); R. Pfeiffer 1949–1953, I: 112; Fraser 1972, II: 1025, n. 106; Huxley 1980a; Hauben 1983, 119–120; Marinone 1984, 193 = 1997, 153; Koenen 1993, 102–103, n. 189. 230. For Locris, see: Strabo 9.2–4; Paus. 2.29.3, 6.19.5, 9.24.5; Nielsen 2004. 231. For Deucalion, for example, see: Hes. Cat. Mul. 2–7; Pind. Ol. 9; Hdt. 1.56; Plato Tim. 22A; Apoll. Rhod. Argon. 3.1086; Virg. Georg. 1.62; Hyg. Fab. 153; id. Astr. 2.29; Ov. Met. 1.313–415; Strabo 9.4.2 (599–600); Apollod. Bibl. 1.7.1–3; Paus. 1.18.7–8, 10.38.1; RML s.v. “Deukalion,” I: 994–997; RE s.v. “Deukalion,” V(1): 261–276; Caduff 1986, 21–23, 80–92.

198

Notes

232. For Epizephyrian Locris, i.a., see: Hdt. 6.23; Pind. Ol. 10.13; Plato Tim . 20A; id. Leg. 638B; Strabo 6.1.5–8; RE s.v. “Lokroi” XIII(2): 1289– 1363; Koenen 1993, 103; Redfield 2003, 201–240; Rousset 2004. 233. Hom. Od. 11.57; Hom. Hymn. II: Cer. 80, 337, 402, 446; Hes. Scut. 227; Pind. Isth. 4.18; Aristoph. Pers. 839 (γῆς ὑπὸ ζόφον); Apoll. Rhod. Argon. 2.1105; NT Ep. Jud. 6; LSJ9 s.v. “ζόφος’; RE s.v. ‘Zephyros,” 2nd ser. IX(2): 235. 234. Hom. Il. 15.191, 21.56; id. Od.11. 155,2 0.356. 235. Hom. Il. 12.240; id. Od. 3.335, 9.26, 13.241; Pind. Nem. 4.69. 236. Hom. Od. 10.190 (ὅπῃ ζόφος οὐδ᾽ ὅπῃ ἠώς). 237. Callim. Ep. 41 Pf (= 4 G-P ap. Anth. Pal. XII: 73), ll. 1–2 (ἥμισύ μευ ψυχῆς ἔτι τὸ πνέον, ἥμισυ δ᾽ οὐκ οἶδ᾽ | εἴτ᾽ Ἔρος εἴτ᾽ Ἀίδης ἥρπασε, πλὴν ἀφανές, “half my soul still breathes, but half I know not whether Eros or Hades snatched it, except that it vanished”); Kenner 1939, 87–89; Vermeule 1979, 145–178. 238. Hom. Il. 16.666–683; Vermeule 1979, 148–150, figs. 5.2–3. 239. MNE L. 2006.10 (formerly MMA 1972.11.10); LIMC 7, pl. 520; CVA no. 187; von Bothmer 1987, 34–39, 63–80, no. 19; Denoyelle 1992, esp. 71, fig. 14. 240. Hes. Theog. 984–985; supra 197, n. 219. 241. Louvre G 115; ARV2 p. 434, no. 74; CVA no. 205119; Kenner 1939, 89. 242. Hom. Il. 23.194–195; Vermeule 1979, 150. 243. Hom. Il. 14.153–353. 244. Ibid. 16.666–683, 23.192–225; Eur. Hel. 1662–1669; Callim. Apoth. Arsin. (F 228); Vermeule 1979, 148–150, figs. V.2–3; Koenen 1993, 101–102. 245. For the Adonis Tableau, cf.: Gow 1938, 180–204; Helmbold, 1951, 17–24; Atallah 1966, 105–135; Dover 1971, 209–210; Horstmann 1976, 18–57; Rist 1978, 134–135; F. T. Griffiths 1979, 65–66, 83; id. 1981, 247– 273; Goukowsky 1992, 159–164; J. B. Burton 1995, 133–154; Cameron 1995, 55–56; Hölbl 2001, 65; van Oppen 2007, 345–350. 246. Theoc. Id. 15.125; cf. ibid. V.51; Gow 1950, II: 103; Vermeule 1979, 145–177; J. B. Burton 1995, 88–89, 141. 247. Theoc. Id. 15.120–122: οἱ δέ τε κῶροι ὑπερπωτῶνται ῎Ερωτες, | οἷοι ἀηδονιδῆες ἀεξομενᾶν ἐπὶ δένδρων | πωτῶνται πτερύγων πειρώμενοι ὄζον ἀπ᾽ ὄζω. 248. Ibid. 15.124. 249. Ibid. 17.128–133. 250. Vermeule 1979, 127–178; also, see: Kenner 1939 (pointing to the frequent presence of winged female figures on wedding scenes); Lefkowitz 2002. On the connection between the Classical winged figures (esp. Nike and Victoria) with the Christian angels, see: Ellinger 1953.

Notes

199

251. Apoll. Rhod. Argon. 4.896–898; Hyg. Fab. 141; Ov. Met. 5.552–563; Vermeule 1979, 169, 201–202, figs. VI.23–25. 252. Eur. Oed. in P. Oxy. 27 (1961): 2455: ὑπό λεοντόπουν βάσιν | ἀποφέρουσ’ ὠκύπτερον; cf. Oedipod. F 3 (ap. Σ Eur. Phoen. 1750); Vermeule 1979, 171–175, figs. V.22–24. 253. Friedrich 1978, 11; Vermeule 1979, 173–174, figs. V.26–27. 254. Hes. Theog. 265–269; Hyg. Fab. 14; Erat. Cat. F 14.31–32; Apollod. Bibl. 1.2.6; RML s.v. “Harpyia,” I: 1842–1847. 255. Hom. Od. 1.241 = 14.371 (ἀκλειῶς ἅρπυιαι ἀνηρείψαντο:), 20.66– 78 (Πανδαρέου κούρας . . . ἅρπυιαι ἀνηρείψαντο); Apoll. Rhod. Argon. 2.234–434; RML s.v. “Pandareos,” III: 1498–1504; Vermeule 1979, 168–171, fig. V.21. 256. Plato Phaedr. 229C–D; Paus. 3.19.5; Luc. Dial. D. 14; id. Salt. 45; Nonn. Dion. 3.155–157; RML s.v. “Hyakinthos,” I: 2760; Vermeule 1979, 248, n.35. 257. For Eos, see: Hes. Theog. 378, 984; Diod. 4.75.4; Ov. Fast. 4.713; Hyg. Fab. pref.; id. Astr. 2.25, 42; Apollod. Bibl. 1.9, 3.147, 181; Paus. 1.3.1; Quint. Smyr. 2.549; Nonn. Dion. 6.18, 37.70, 47.340; RE s.v. “Eos,” V(2): 2657–2669; LIMC III(1): 747–789; Winkler 1990, 202–206; Lefkowitz 2002. 258. Vermeule 1979, 153, fig. V.8. 259. For example, see: Hom. Il. 20.234; Hymn. Hom. ΙΙ: Cer. 19; ibid. V: Ven. 203, 218; Friedrich 1978, 41–44; Vermeule 1979, 162–163; Winkler 1990, 202–203. 260. Zandee 1960, 85–87 (citing Wisdom of Ani IV: 17, “your angel of death comes to take you away” [ṯȝἰ]). 261. Callim. Apoth. Arsin. (F 228) 6; Σ ad loc. 6 (κλεπτομέν· ἡρπασμένη), 38 (ὑπό τῶν Διοσκούρων ἡρπάσθαι); Dieg. 10.10 ll. 2–3 (ἀνηρπάσθαι ὑπό τῶν Διοσκούρων); van Oppen 2010, 143. 262. Σ ad loc. 55 (ἁρπασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζεφέρου); Zwierlein 1987, 280; Koenen 1993, 100 nn. 183–184; cf. Catul. 66.55: tollens (“lifting, elevating”), which bears connotations such as “carrying off, killing,” etc.; LS s.v.“t ollo.” 263. BD 17, 173; Plut. Is. et Osir. 16.1 (= Mor. 357C); Münster 1968, 2, 201– 202; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 328, nn. 1–3; Dunand 1973, I: pls. 2, 4; Le Corsu 1977, 8, pl. 2. 264. Pyr. 785; BD 85; RÄRG s.v. “Ba,” 74; LÄ s.v. “Ba,” I: 88–590; Frankfort 1948, 63–65; Springborg 1990, 52–55. 265. Vermeule19 79, 74–76. 266. Pyr. 632c–d; RÄRG s.v. “Ba,” 75; LÄ s.v. “Ba,” I: 589; Frankfort 1948, 64, 77; J. G. Griffiths 1970, 371; Springborg 1990, 53–54; supra 196, n.2 02. 267. I.Cair. 22.181 ll. 11–12 = Urk. II: 40 ll. 8–10 (śbt 15 ȝbd 1 šmw nṯr.t tn prἰ.s r pt ẖnm.s ḥʽw n [ḳmȝ nfrw.s Hnm, vel sim.; Sethe] . . . prἰ.s m ʽnḫ bȝ,

200

Notes

268.

269.

270.

271.

“15th regnal year, 1st summer month: This goddess ascended into heaven and united her body with [Chnum, who formed her perfection] . . . (she) ascended with her living Ba”); Kamal 1904–1905, I: 159–168; II: pls. 54–55; Bevan 1927, 65; Roeder 1959–1961, I: 168– 188 (esp. 181–182), fig. 26; Sauneron 1960, 96; De Meulenaere and MacKay 1976, 205–206, no. 111; Grzybek 1990, 103–114 (esp. 107– 108); van Oppen 2007, 305–307; id.2 010,139 . RÄRG s.v. “Hathor,” “Mut,” “Sonnenauge”; LÄ s.v. “Horusauge,” III: 48–51, “Re,” V: 157, “Sonnenauge,” V: 1082–1087, “Udjatauge,” VI: 824–826; Junker 1911, esp. 19–21; Spiegelberg 1917; Allam 1963, 120– 121; Daumas 1969, 21–23; Bleeker 1973, 48–51, 65, 120–121; Hornung 1982, 55, 58, 97, 104; Pinch 1993, 191–197; Robins 1993, 18; Darnell 1997; supra 38. I.Cair. 22.186–187; Urk. II(2): no. 30, pp. 124–154; OGIS 56; Kamal 1904–1905, I: 182–183, II: pl. 59; Sauneron 1960, 97–98; Dunand 1980, 287–301; Koenen 1993, 28, n. 8; Köthen-Welpot 1996; Minas 2000, 103–106; van Oppen 2007, 307–309; Hauben 2011, 364–365. Urk. II: 142 l. 24: ʽḳ.s r pt m śḫn; OGIS 56 l. 48: ἐξαίφνης μετελθεῖν εἰς τòν ἀέναον κόσμον. The Gk. ἀέναος κόσμος (“everlasting firmament”) translates the Eg. pet (“sky”) and thus refers to heaven as the abode of the gods. Hauben 2011, esp. 372–374. For his remarks about the calendrical reforms under Ptolemy III, now see: Bennett 2011, esp. 179–186.

Conclusion 1. VanOp pen2 011,8 5–86. 2. Hes. Op. 695–705; Plato Resp. 460E; id. Leg. 721B, 772D, 785B; Arist. Pol. 1335A; Xen. Lac. Pol. 1.6–7; id. Oec. 7.5; Lacey 1968, 106–107, 110– 112; Vatin 1970, 228–237; Davies 1971, 336–337; Pomeroy 1975, 62–65; ead. 1984, 83–123; Just 1989, 40–75; Patterson 1991, 48–61; Bagnall and Frier 1994, 111–159; Blundell 1995, 66–71, 119–124, 198–200. 3. Greenwalt19 88, 93–94. 4. In add. to lit. cit. supra 200, n. 2, cf. Seibert 1967, 123 (Hellenistic princesses could be married off as early as 12 years of age); Bagnall and Frier 1994, esp. 111–116; Pudsey 2011, 68–70; Hin 2011, 111–112. 5. Scheidel 2007. 6. Greenwalt 1988, 94–95. 7. Van Oppen 2011; id. 2012. 8. For example, see: Carney 1987; Ager 2005; van Oppen 2007, esp. 184– 263; Buraselis 2008.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaboe, A. 1974. “Scientific Astronomy in Antiquity.” PTRSL-A 276 (1257): 21–42. Adams, Neil. 2003. “A New Portrait of Berenike II from the Temple of Apollo at Cyrene?” QAL 18: 115–128. Ageno, F. 1929. “Callimaco, Chioma di Berenice v.45.” Aegyptus 9: 153–179. ———. 1932. “Replica a chiusa.” Aegyptus 12: 188–209. Ager, Sheila L. 2005. “Familiarity Breeds: Incest and the Ptolemaic Dynasty.” JHS 125: 1–34. Albini, Giuseppe 1930/31. “Il carme LXVI di Catullo e il nuovo frammento di Callimaco.” RAIB 5: 108–114. Alexiou, Margaret. 1974. Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alföldi, Andrew. 1977. “From the Aion Plutonios of the Ptolemies to the Saeculum Frugiferum of the Roman Emperors (Redeunt Saturnia Regna VI).” In Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory: Studies Presented to Fritz Schachermeyr on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, ed. by K. H. Kinzl, 1–30. Berlin and New York: De Gruiter. Allam, Schafik. 1963. Beiträge zum Hathorkult (bis zum ende des Mittleren Reiches), Münchener ägyptologischeS tudien4 .B erlin: B. Hessling. Allen, Richard Hinckley. 1899. Star Names: Their Lore and their Meaning, repr. 1963. New York: Dover Publications. Alonso Troncoso, Víctor. 2013. “The Diadochi and the Zoology of Kingship: The Elephants.” In After Alexander: The Time of the Diadochi (323–281 BC), ed. by V. Alonso Troncoso and E. M. Anson, 254–270. Oxford: Oxbow. Ardizzoni, Anthos. 1975. “Sulla chioma di Berenice (Callimaco fr. 110 Pf., Catullo LXVI 55–56).” GIF 27: 198–200. Ashton, Sally-Ann. 2001a. “Identifying the Egyptian-style Ptolemaic Queens.” In Cleopatra of Egypt, ed. by S. Walker and P. Higgs, 148–155. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ———. 2001b. Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt: The Interaction between Greek and Egyptian Traditions. BAR S 923. Oxford: Archaeopress. Asolati, Michele. 2011. Nummi Aenei Cyrenaici: Struttura a cronologia della monetazionne bronzea cirenaica di età Greca e Romana (323 A.C.–180 D.C.), Monografie di Archeologia Libica 32. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Assmann, Jan. 1975. Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete. Zurich and Munich: Artemis.

202

Bibliography

Assmann, Jan. 2000. Der Tod als Thema der Kulturtheorie: Totesbilder und Totenriten im Alten Ägypten. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. ———. 2001. Tod und Jenseits im Alten Ägypten. Munich: C. H. Beck; trans. by David Lorton 2005. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, rev. and abr. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Atallah, Wahib. 1966. Adonis dans la littérature et l’art Grecs. Paris: C. Klincksieck. Aubourg, Éric. 1995. “La date de conception du temple d’Hathor à Dendérah.” BIFAO 95: 1–10. Austin, Colin. 2006. “L’apothéose d’Arsinoé (P.Berol. 13417 A = Callim. Fr. 228 Pf.).” In Callimaco cent’ anni di papiri, ed. by G. Bastianini and A. Casanova, 57–68, Florence: Istituto papirologico G. Vitelli. Austin, M. M. 1981. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Avallone, R. 1961. “Il carme 66 di Catullo a la Chioma di Berenice di Callimaco.” Euphrosyne 3: 23–48. Avram, Alexandru. 2003. “Antiochos II Théos, Ptolémée II Philadelphe et la Mer Noire.” CRAI 2003: 1181–1213. Bacchielli, Lidiano. 1995. “Berenice II: la regina della riunificazione fra Egitto e Cirenaica.” In Vicende e figure femminili in Grecia e a Roma, ed. by R. Raffaelli, 239–248. Ancona: Commissione per le pari opportunita tra uomo e donna della Regione Marche. Bagnall, Roger S. 1976. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt. Leiden: Brill. Bagnall, Roger S. and Bruce Frier. 1994. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bagnall, Roger S. and Peter Derow. 1981. Greek Historical Documents: The Hellenistic Period. Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature. Baker, Howard. 1973. “Eudoxus of Cnidus: A Proto-Classical Life.” Sewanee Review 81: 237–281. Bakich, Michael E. 1995. The Cambridge Guide to the Constellations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Balz-Cochois, Helgard. 1992. Inanna: Wesenbild und Kult einer unmütterlichen Göttin.G ütersloh:G .M ohn. Barbantani, Silvia. 2011. “Callimachus on Kings and Kingship.” In Brill’s Companion to Callimachus, ed. by S. Stephens, B. Acosta-Hughes and L. Lehnus, 178–200. Leiden: Brill. Barber, E. A. 1936. “The Lock of Berenice: Callimachus and Catullus.” In Greek Poetry and Life: Essays Presented to Gilbert Murray on His Seventieth Birthday, 342–363. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Barigazzi, Adelmo. 1963. “Callimaco e il frammento astronomico della Chioma di Berenice.” RhM 106: 214–229. Beazley, John D. 1963. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 3 vols., 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.[abbr. as ARV2].

Bibliography

203

Bechert, Heinz (ed.). 1991–1997. The Dating of the Historical Buddha—Die Datierung des historischen Buddha, 3 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Beckerath, Jürgen von. 1984. Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen. Munich; 2nd ed. 1999. Mainz: P. von Zabern. Beloch, Karl Julius. 1912–1927. Griechische Geschichte, 4 vols., 8 parts, 2nd ed. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner. Benedetto, Giovanni. 2008. “‘Bonum facinus’: Catull. 66.25–28 tra Igino e Giustino.” In “Debita dona”: studi in onore di Isabella Gualandri, ed. by P. F. Moretti et al., 33–70. Napels: M. D’Auria. Bengtson, Hermann. 1937–1952. Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit: ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht, 3 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck. Bennett, Christopher J. 2002. “The Children of Ptolemy III and the Date of the Exedra of Thermos.” ZPE 138: 141–145. ———. 2003. “Three Notes on Arsinoe I.” In A Delta-Man in Yebu, ed. by A. K. Eyma and C. J. Bennett, 64–70. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers. ———. 2005. “Arsinoe and Berenice at the Olympics.” ZPE 154: 91–96. ———. 2011. Alexandria and the Moon: An Investigation into the Lunar Macedonian Calendar of Ptolemaic Egypt. Louvain: Peeters. ———. 2012. Ptolemaic Dynasty; available from http://www.tyndalehouse.com/ Egypt/ptolemies/ptolemies.htm; Internet; accessed December 2012 [cit. s.v. individual entries]. Bentley, John. 1825. A Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy, 2 pts. (to Which Are Added—Translations of Certain Hieroglyphics, Called the Zodiacs of Dendera). London: Smith, Elder. Bergman, Jan. 1979. “Nut—Himmelsgöttin—Baumgöttin—Lebensgeberin.” In Religious Symbols and Their Functions, ed. by H. Biezais, 53–69. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Bernand, André. 1970. Le delta égyptien d’après les textes grecs I: Les confins libyques, 4 pts. Cairo: IFAO. Bevan, Edwyn. 1927. The House of Ptolemy: A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Chicago: Ares. Beyer-Rotthoff, Brigitte. 1993. Untersuchungen zur Aussenpolitik Ptolemaios’ III. Bonn: Habelt. Bhattasali, N. K. 1932. “Mauryya Chronology and Connected Problems.” JRAS [n.s.] 42: 273–288. Bianchi, Robert S. 1978. “The Striding Draped Male Figure of Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Das Ptolemäische Ägypten, ed. by H. Maehler and V. M Strocka, 95–102. Mainz: P. von Zabern. ———. 1980. “Not the Isis Knot.” BES 2: 9–31. Bianchi, Robert S., et al. (eds.). 1988. Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies, Brooklyn Mus. exh. cat. New York: Broolyn Museum. Bickel, Ernst. 1941. “ Der Kallimachospapyrus ‘Die Locke der Berenike’ und Catull als Übersetzer.” RhM 90: 81–146.

204

Bibliography

Bickel, Ernst. 1950. “Hymen und Hymenaios bei Kallimachos und Catull.” RhM 93: 96. Bile, Monique. 2005. “Le traité d’alliance entre les ‘Oreioi’ de Crète et le roi de Cyrène Magas.” In Trois mille ans de Libyennes, ed. by F. Poli and G. Vottéro, 19–28. Nancy: A.D.R.A. Billing, Nils. 2002. Nut: The Goddess of Life in Text and Iconography. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press. Bing, Peter. 1988. The Well-Read Muse: Present and Past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic Poets. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Bleeker, C. Jouco. 1973. Hathor and Thoth: Two Key Figures of the Ancient Egyptian Religion. Leiden: Brill. Blum, G. 1915. “Princes hellenistiques.” BCH 39: 17–32. Blümel, Wolfgang. 1992. “Brief des ptolemäischen Ministers Tlepolemos an die Stadt Kildara in Karien.” EA 20: 127–133. Blundell, Sue. 1995. Women in Ancient Greece. London and New York: Routledge. Boardman, John. 1975. Intaglios and Rings: Greek, Etruscan and Eastern: From a Private Collection. London: Thames and Hudson. Bond, R. C. and J. M. Swales. 1965. “Surface Finds of Coins from the City of Euesperides.” LibAnt 2: 91–101. Bonneau, Danielle. 1964. La crue du Nil: Divinité égyptienne à travers mille ans d’histoire (332 av.–641 ap. J.-C.). Paris: C. Klincksieck. ———. 1971. Le fisc et le Nil: Incidences des irrégularités de la crue de Nil sur la fiscalité foncière dans l’Égypte grecque et romaine. Paris: Cujas. Borchhardt, Jürgen. 1991. “Ein Ptolemaion in Limyra.” RA 1991(2): 309–322. Bosworth, A. Brian. 2007. “Rider in the Chariot: Alexander, Ptolemy and the Elephants.” In Alexander and the Hellenistic Kingdoms: Coins, Image and the Creation of Identity. The Westmoreland Collection, Ancient Coins in Australian Collections 1, ed. by K. A. Sheedy, 17–22. Sydney: Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies, Macquarie University. Bothmer, Dietrich von. 1987. Greek Vase Painting. New York: MMA. Bouché-Leclercq, Auguste. 1903–1907. Histoire des Lagides, 4 vols. Paris: Leroux. ———. 1913–1914. Histoire des Séleucides (323–64 avant J.-C.), 2 vols. Paris: Leroux. Bourgeois, Brigitte. 2014. “Ganôsis et réfections antiques de polychromie: Enquête sur le portrait en marbre dit ‘de Bérénice II’ au Musée royal de Mariemont.” Cahiers de Mariemont4 0( forthcoming). Bousquet, J. 1958. “Inscriptions de Delphes.” BCH 82: 61–91. Braund, David. 1984. “Anth. Pal. 9.235: Juba II, Cleopatra Selene and the Course of the Nile.” CQ 84: 175–178. Breccia, A. Evaristo. 1903. Il Diritto dinastico nelle monarchie dei Successori d’Alessandro Magno. Rome: G. Bretschneider. ———. 1907. “Les fouilles dans le Sérapéum d’Alexandrie en 1905–1906.” ASAE 8: 62–76.

Bibliography

205

———. 1914. Alexandrea ad Aegyptum: Guide de la ville ancienne et moderne et du Musée Gréco-Romain. Bergamo: Istituto italiano d’arti grafiche. ———. 1924–1933. Le Musée Gréco-Romain au cours des années, 3 vols. Alexandria: A. Procaccia. ———. 1926. Monuments de l’Égypte gréco-romaine I: Le rovine e I monumenti di Canopo, Bergamo: Istituto italiano d’arte grafiche. Brosius, Maria. 1996. Women in Ancient Persia, 559–331 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon. Bruneau, Philippe. 1970. Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale. Paris: E. de Boccard. Bruschweiler, Françoise. 1987. Inanna, la déesse triomphante et vaincue dans la cosmologie sumérienne: Recherche lexicographique. Louvain: Peeters. Buchheit, V. 1975. “Catullus Literarkritik und Kallimachos.” GB 4: 21–50. Buchwald, Jed Z. and Diane G. Josefowicz. 2011. The Zodiac of Paris: How an Improbable Controversy over an Ancient Egyptian Artifact Provoked a Modern Debate between Religion and Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Buraselis, Kostas. 2005. “Kronprinzentum und Realpolitik: Bemerkungen zur Thronanwartschaf, Mitregentschaft und Thronfolge unter den ersten vier Ptolemäern.” Gerión—Anejos 9: ΔΙΑΔΟΧΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ: La figura del sucesor en la realeza helenística, ed. by V. A. Troncoso, 94–99. ———. 2008. “The Problem of the Sibling Marriage: A Case of Dynastic Acculturation?” In Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, ed. by P. McKechnie and P. Guillaume, 291–302. Leiden: Brill. Burkert, Walter. 1985. Greek Religion, trans. by J. Raffan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Burstein, Stanley M. 1982. “Arsinoe II Philadelphus: A Revisionist View.” In Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage, ed. by W. L. Adams and E. N. Borza, 197–212. Washington: University Press of America. ———. 1985. The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the death of Kleopatra VII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2008. “Elephants for Ptolemy II: Ptolemaic Policy in Nubia in the Third Century BC.” In Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, ed. by P. McKenchie and P. Guillaume, 135–147. Leiden: Brill. Burton, Anne. 1972. Diodorus Siculus, Book I: A Commentary. Leiden: Brill. Burton, Joan B. 1995. Theocritus’s Urban Mimes: Mobility, Gender and Patronage. Berkeley: University of California Press. Buttrey, Th. V. 1994. “Coins and Coinage at Euesperides.” LibStud 25: 137–145. ———. 1997. The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports, ed. by D. White, VI(1): The Coins. Philadelphia: Univeristy Museum. Byrne, Sean G. 2006/7. “Four Athenian Archons of the Third Century BC.” MeditArch 19/20: 169–179.

206

Bibliography

Caduff, Gian A. 1986. Antike Sintflutsagen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Caltabiano, Maria C. 1996. “Berenice II di Cirene: Il primo basileus/donna dell’etàe llenistica.” NAC 25: 177–195. Cameron, Alan. 1995. Callimachus and his Critics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Carney, Elizabeth D. 1987. “The Reappearance of Royal Sibling Marriage in Ptolemaic Egypt.” PP 237: 420–439. ———. 1991. “‘What’s in a Name?’: The Emergence of a Title for Royal Women in the Hellenistic Period.” In Women’s History and Ancient History, ed. by S. B. Pomeroy, 154–172. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press. ———. 1992. “The Politics of Polygamy: Olympias, Alexander, and the Murder of Philip II.” Historia 41: 169–189. ———. 1995. “Women and Basileia: Legitimacy and Female Political Action in Macedonia.” CJ 90(4): 367–391. ———. 2000. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ———. 2004. “Women and Military Leadership in Macedonia.” AW 35(2): 184–195. ———. 2005. “Women and Dunasteia in Caria.” AJP 126: 65–91. ———. 2006. Olympias, Mother of Alexander the Great. London and New York: Routledge. ———. 2011. “Being Royal and Female in the Early Hellenistic Period.” In Creating the Hellenistic World, ed. by A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-Jones, 195–220. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. ———. 2013. Arsinoë of Egypt and Macedon: A Royal Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cauville, Sylvie. 1997. Le Zodiaque d’Osiris. Louvain: Peeters. Cerfaux, Lucien and Julien Tondriau. 1956. Un concurrent du christianisme: Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation gréco-romaine.To urnai: Desclée. Chamoux, François. 1956. “Le roi Magas.” RH 216: 18–34. Charpentier, J. 1931. “Antiochus, King of the Yavanas.” BSOS 6: 303–321. Chryssanthaki, K. 2005. “Les monnaies lagides en Égée.” In L’exception égyptienne? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine, ed. by F. Duyrat and O. Picard, 159–175. Cairo: IFAO. Ciresola, F.. 1957a. “Le due redazioni delle Chioma di Berenice di Callimco.” RIL 91: 123–136. ———. 1957b. “La Chioma di Berenice di Callimaco e la poesia etiologica.” RIL 91: 483–504. ———. 1958. “Gli scoli della Chioma di Berenice di Callimaco nel papiro 2258 della raccolta di Ossirinco.” RIL 92: 269–285. Clarysse, Willy. 1978. “Hurgonaphor et Chaonnophris, les derniers pharaons indigènes.” CE 53(106): 243–253.

Bibliography

207

———. 2007. “A Royal Journey in the Delta in 257 B.C., and the Date of the Mendes Stele.” CE 82: 201–206. Clausen, W. 1964. “Callimachus and Latin Poetry.” GRBS 181–196; repr. 1972. In Approaches to Catullus, ed. by K. Quinn, 269–284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1970. “Catullus and Callimachus.” HSPh 85–94; repr. 1975. “Catull und Kallimachos.” In Kallimachos, ed. by A. D. Skiadas, 388–400. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Clay, Albert T. 1920. Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan II: Legal Documents from Erech, Dated in the Seleucid Era (312–65 B.C.). New Haven: Yale University Press. Clayman, Dee L. 2011. “Berenice and Her Lock.” TAPA 141: 229–246. ———. 2014. Berenice II and the Golden Age of Ptolemaic Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clère, Pierre. 1961. Porte d’Evergète à Karnak, MIFAO 84, 2 vols. Cairo: IFAO. Close, Maxwell H. 1902. “Hipparchus and the Precession of the Equinoxes.” PRIA-C 6: 450–456. Conman, Joanne. 2003. “It’s about Time: Ancient Egyptian Cosmology.” SAK 31: 33–71. Cousins, L. S. 1996. “The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article.” JRAS [3rd ser.] 6: 57–63. Criscuolo, Lucia. 2003. “Agoni e politica alla corte di Alessandria: Riflessioni su alcuni epigrammi di Posidippo.” Chiron 33: 311–333. Daly, Lloyd W. 1952. “Callimachus and Catullus.” CPh 47: 97–99. Darnell, John C. 1997. “The Apotropaic Goddess in the Eye.” SAK 24: 35–48. Daszewski, Wiktor A. 1985. Corpus of Mosaic from Egypt I: Hellenistic and Early Roman Period, Aegyptiaca Treverensia 3, Mainz: P. von Zabern. ———. 1986. “La personnification et la Tyché d’Alexandrie: Réinterprétation de certains monuments.” In Iconographie classique et identités régionales, BCH Suppl. 14, ed. by L. Kahil, C. Augé, and P. Linant de Bellefonds, 299–309. Paris: E. de Boccard. Daumas, François. 1969. Dendara et le temple d’Hathor: Notice sommaire. Cairo: IFAO. Davesne, Alain (1). 1994. “Le trésor d’Aydincik 1974.” In Trésors et circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique, ed. by M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, 37–43. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. ———. 1999. “La deuxième guerre de Syrie (ca. 261–255 av. J.-C.) et les témoignages numismatiques.” In Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts à Georges Le Rider, ed. by M. Amandry and S. Hurter, 123–134. London: Spink. Davesne, Alain (2) and Veli Yenisoğanci. 1992. “Les Ptolémées en Séleucide: Let résord ’Hüseyinli.” RN 34: 23–36. Davesne, Alain and Georges Le Rider. 1989. Le trésor de Meydancıkkale (Cilicie Trachée, 1980). Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations.

208

Bibliography

Davies, J. K. 1971. Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon. Davis, Virginia L. 1985. “Identifying Ancient Egyptian Constellations.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 16: 102–104. De Wilde, Mark. 2008. “Catullus’ ‘Coma Berenices’: An Investigation of a ‘True Interpreter’’s Poetic Licence and its Reception by Apuleius.” In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 14, ed. by Carl Deroux, 144– 176. Brussels: Latomus. Dekker, Elly. 2010. “Caspar Vopel’s Ventures in Sixteenth-Century Celestial Cartography.” Imago Mundi 62: 161–190. Denoyelle, Martine (ed.). 1992. Euphronios peintre: Actes de la journée d’étude. Paris: Documentation française. Desanges, Jehan. 2001. “Bérénice ‘comblée d’or’: La ville ou la princesse?” CRAI 2001(2): 1187–1195. Detienne, Marcel. 1972. Les jardins d’Adonis, with intro by J.-P. Vernant. Paris: Gallimard. Diez del Corral Corredoira, P. 2010. “Ariadne: Dionyos’ Wife and Lover.” In Mazzo di Fiori: Festschrift für Herbert Hoffmann, ed by. D. Metzler, 55–68. Mainz: F. P. Rutzen. Dillon, Matthew. 2002. Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion. London and New York: Routledge. Dils, Peter. 1998. “La couronne d’Arsinoé II Philadelphe.” In Egyptian Religion, ed. by W. Clarysse, A. Schoors and H. Willems, II: 1299–1330. Louvain: Peeters. Dover, K. J. 1971. Theocritus: Select Poems. London: Macmillan. ———. 1974. Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle. Oxford: Blackwell. Dragoni, G. 1983. “245/4 a. C. Resti ottici di supernova in Coma Berenices?” Physis 25: 384–412. Droysen, J. G. 1877. Geschichte des Hellenismus, 3 vols. 2nd ed. Gotha: F. A. Berthes. Duke, Dennis W. 2002. “Hipparchus’ Coordinate System.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 56: 427–433. Dunand, Françoise. 1973. Le culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée, 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1980. “Fête, Tradition, Propagande: Les cérémonies en l’honneur de Bérénice, fille de Ptolémée III, en 238 a.C.” In Livre du Centenaire, 1880– 1980, ed. by J. Vercoutter, 287–301. Cairo: IFAO. Eggermont, Pierre H. L. 1956. The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya. Leiden: Brill. Ehrhardt, Wolfgang. 1997. “Versuch einer Deutung des Kultbildes der Nemesis von Rhamnus.” AK 40: 29–39. Ellinger, Ilona E. 1953. “Winged Figures.” In Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. by G. E. Mylonas and D. Raymond, vol. 2, 1185–1190. Saint Louis: Washington University.

Bibliography

209

El-Masry, Yahia, Hartwig Altenmüller, and Heinz Josef Thissen. 2012. Das Synodaldekret von Alexandria aus dem Jahre 243 v. Chr. Hamburg: Buske. El-Sayed, Ramadan. 1982. La Déesse Neith de Saïs, 2 vols. Cairo: IFAO. Erren, Manfred. 1967. Die Phainomena des Aratos von Soloi: Untersuchungen zum Sach- und Sinnverständnis. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. ———. 1971. Aratos: Phainomena, Sternbilder und Wetterzeichen. Munich: Heimeran. Erskine, Andrew and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones (eds.). 2011. Creating the Hellenistic World. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Étienne, R. and M. Piérart. 1975. “Un décret du Koinon des Hellènes à Platées en l’honneur de Glaucon, fils d’Étéoclès,d ’Athènes.” BCH 99: 51–75. Etz, Donald V. 1997. “A New Look at the Constellation Figures in the Celestial Diagram.” JARCE 34: 143–161. Evans, James. 1998. The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Fantham, Elaine, et al. 1994. Women in the Classical World: Image and Text. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferguson, William S. 1911. Hellenistic Athens: An Historical Essay. Oxford: Clarendon. Ferro, Luisa and Giulio Magli. 2012. “The Astronomical Orientation of the Urban Plan of Alexandria.” OJA 31: 381–389. Finkel, Irving and Robartus J. van der Spek (eds.). (forthcoming). Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period; available from http://www.livius.org/ cg-cm/chronicles/chron00.html; Internet; December 2012 [abbr. as BCHP]. Fischetti, G. 1973/74. “Tre note greche: Callimaco, Catullo—La Chioma di Berenice.” AIV 132: 195–204. Flacelière, Robert. 1954. Fouilles de Delphes III: Inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et de la région nord du sanctuaire. Paris: E. de Boccard. Foertmeyer, V. 1988. “The Dating of the Pompe of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.” Historia 37: 90–104. Foley, Helene P. (ed.). 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fontenrose, Joseph. 1981. Orion: The Myth of the Hunter and the Huntress. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fraenkel, Eduard. 1929. “Kallimachos und Catull: Zu den neuesten Funde.” Gnomon 5: 265–268. Frankfort, Hans. 1948. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fraser, Peter M. 1954. “Two Hellenistic Inscriptions from Delphi.” BCH 78: 49–67. ———. 1961. “The Foundation-Date of the Alexandrian Ptolemaieia.” HThR 54: 141–145. ———. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon.

210

Bibliography

Friedrich, Paul. 1978. The Meaning of Aphrodite. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Fritz, Michael M. 2003. “ . . . und weinten um Tammuz”: Die Götter DumuziAma’ušumgal’anna und Damu. Münster: Ugarit. Gabbert, Janice. 1997. Antigonus II Gonatas: A Political Biography. London and New York: Routledge. Gambetti, Sandra. 2009. The Alexandrian Riots of 38 CE and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction. Leiden: Brill. Gardiner, Alan. 1961. “The Egyptian Memnon.” JEA 47: 91–99. Garland, Robert. 1985. The Greek Way of Death. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ———. 1990. The Greek Way of Life: From Conception to Old Age. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Geison, Gerald L. 1967. “Did Conon of Samos Transmit Babylonian Observations?” Isis 58: 398–401. Gelzer, Thomas. 1982. “Kallimachos und das Zeremoniell des ptolemäischen Königshauses.” In Aspekte der Kultursoziologie: Zum 60. Geburtstag von M. Rassem, ed. by J. Stagl, 13–30. Berlin: Reimer. Gercke, Alfred. 1887. “Alexandrinische Studien.” RhM 42: 262–275, 590–626. Goddio, Franck. 2007. The Topography and Excavation of Heracleion-Thonis and East Canopus (1996–2006). Oxford: Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford. Golden, Mark. 1986. “Names and Naming at Athens: Three Studies.” Échos du Monde Classique 30: 245–269. Goldstine, Herman H. 1973. New and Full Moons, 1001 B.C. to A.D. 1651. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Gössmann, Felix. 1950. Planetarium Babylonicum, oder die sumerisch-babylonischen Stern-Namen. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Goukowsky, Paul. 1992. “Fêtes et fastes des Lagides.” In Alexandrie, IIIe siècle av. J.-C.: Tous les savoirs du monde ou le rêve d’universalité des Ptolémées, ed. by C. Jacob and F. Polignac, 152–165. Paris: Autrement. Gow, A. S. F. (1). 1938. “The Adoniazusae of Theocritus.” JHS 58: 180–204 ———. 1950. Theocritus, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gow, A. S. F. (2), and D. L. Page. 1965. The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grainger, John D. 1997. A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2010. The Syrian Wars. Leiden: Brill. Greenwalt, William S. 1988. “The Marriageability Age at the Argead Court: 360–317 B.C.” CW 82: 93–97. Griffith, R. Drew. 1995. “Catullus’ Coma Berenices and Aeneas’ Farewell to Dido.” TAPA 125: 47–59. ———. 1998. “The Origin of Memnon.” CA 17: 212–234. Griffiths, Frederick T. 1979. Theocritus at Court. Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography

211

———. 1981. “Home before Lunch: The Emancipated Woman in Theocritus.” In Reflections of Women in Antiquity, ed. by H. P. Foley, 247–273. New York: Gordon and Breach. Griffiths, John Gwyn. 1960. The Conflict of Horus and Seth from Egyptian and Classical Sources: A Study in Ancient Mythology. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ———. 1970. Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride, ed. with intro., trans. and comm. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. ———. 1975. Apuleius of Madauros: The Isis-Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI). Leiden: Brill. ———. 1980. The Origins of Osiris and His Cult. Leiden: Brill. Groot, A. W. de. 1917/18. “Ptolemaios der Sohn.” RhM 72: 448–451. Grzybek, Erhard. 1990. Du calendrier macédonien au calendrier ptolémaïque: Problème de chronologie hellénistique. Basel: F. Reinhardt. Gsell, S. 1924–1930. Histoire ancienne de l’Afrique du Nord, 8 vols. Paris: Hachette. Gurval, Robert A. 1997. “Caesar’s Comet: The Politics and Poetics of an Augustan Myth.” MAAR 42: 39–71. Gutzwiller, Kathryn J. 1992. “Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice: Fantasy, Romance, and Propaganda.” AJPh 113: 359–385. Gutzwiller, Kathryn J. (ed.). 2005. The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Habicht, Christian. 1979. Untersugungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Vestiga 30. Munich: C. H. Beck. Hammond, N. G. L. 1988. “Which Ptolemy Gave Troops and Stood as Protector of Pyrrhus’ Kingdom?” Historia 37: 405–413. Hammond, N. G. L. and F. W. Walbank. 1988. A History of Macedonia, vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hansen, P. and Chr. Gorm Tortzen. 1973. “Berenikes Plokamos-Coma Berenices.” MT 20: 29–54. Hansen, William. 2000. “Foam-Born Aphrodite and the Mythology of Transformation.” AJPh 121: 1–19. Harder, M. Annette. 1998. “‘Generic Games’ in Callimachus’ ‘Aetia’.” In Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, ed. by M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, and G. C. Wakker, 95–113. Groningen: Forsten. Hauben, Hans. 1983. “Arsinoé II et la politique extérieure de l’Égypte.” In Egypt and the Hellenistic World, ed. by E. van’t Dack, P. van Dessel, and W. van Gucht, 99–128. Louvain: Peeters. ———. 1990. “L’expédition de Ptolémée III en Orient et la sédition domestique de 245 av. J.-C. ” APF 36: 29–37. ———. 2011. “Ptolémée III et Bérénice II, divinités cosmique.” In More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship, ed. P. P. Iossif, A. S. Chankowski, and C. C. Lorber, 357–388. Louvain: Peeters. Hazzard, R. A. 1987. “The Regnal Years of Ptolemy II Philadelphos.” Phoenix 41: 140–158.

212

Bibliography

———. 1995. Ptolemaic Coins: An Introduction for Collectors. Toronto: Kirk and Bentley. ———. 2000. Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hazzard, R. A. and M. Pim Vatter FitzGerald. 1991. “The Regulation of the Ptolemaieia: A Hypothesis Explored.” JRASC 85: 6–23. Head, Barclay V. 1880. “On the Chronological Sequence of the Coins of Ephesus.” JNS 20: 85–173. ———. 1911. Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press [abbr. as Hist. Num.]. Heiberg, J.-L. 1912. Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik im klassischen Altertum. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner. Heinen, Heinz. 1972. Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.: Zur Geschichte der Zeit des Ptolemaios Keraunos und zum Chremonideischen Krieg. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Helmbold, W. C. 1951. “The Song of the Argive Woman’s Daughter.” CPh 46: 17–24. Herescu, Nicola I. 1957. “Catulle traducteur de grec et les parfums de Bérénice( Catulle 66, 77–78).” Eranos 55: 153–170. Herklotz, Friederike. 2000. “Berenike II.: Königin und Göttin.” In Geschlechterforschung in der Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie, ed. by Angelika Lohwasser, 43–61. Berlin: Humboldt University; available from http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/nilus/net-publications/ibaes2; Internet; accessed October 2012. ———. 2005. “Der Ahnenkult bei den Ptolemäern.” In Genealogie: Realität und Fiktion von Identität, ed. by Martin Fitzenreiter, 155–164. Berlin: Humboldt University; available from http://www2.hu-berlin.de/nilus/ net-publications/ibaes5; Internet; accessed October 2012. Herter, H. 1971. “Die Haaröle der Berenike.” In Medizingeschichte in unsere Zeit, ed. by H.-H. Eulner, et al. 54–68; Stuttgart: F. Enke, repr. 1975. In Kallimachos, ed. by A. D. Skiadas, 185–206. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Hess, Jacob. 1967. “On Some Celestial Maps and Globes of the Sixteenth Century.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 30: 406–409. Heyob, Sarah K. 1975. The Cult of Isis among Women in the Graeco-Roman World. Leiden: Brill. Hin, Saskia. 2011. “Family Matters: Fertility and Its Constraints in Roman Italy.” In Demography and the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches, ed. by C. Holleran and A. Pudsey, 99–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hobson, Deborah. 1989. “Naming Practices in Roman Egypt.” BASP 26: 157–174. Hölbl, Gunther. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, trans. by T. Saavedra. London and New York: Routledge.

Bibliography

213

Holleran, Claire and April Pudsey (eds.). 2011. Demography and the GraecoRoman World: New Insights and Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hollis, A. S. 1986. “The Composition of Callimachus’ Aetia in the Light of P. Oxy. 2258.” CQ 36: 467–471. ———. 1991. “A New Fragment of Eratosthenes’ Erigone?” ZPE 89: 27–29. ———. 1992. “The Nuptial Rite in Catullus 66 and Callimachus’ Poetry for Berenice.” ZPE 91: 21–28. Hollis, Susan T. 1987. “Women of Ancient Egypt and the Sky Goddess Nut.” Journal of American Folklore 100 (398): Folklore and Feminism, 496–503. Holms, Lorna. 1992. “Myrrh and Unguents in the Coma Berenices.” CPh 87: 47–50. Holst-Warhaft, Gail. 1992. Dangerous Voices: Women’s Lament and Greek Literature. London and New York: Routledge. Hoppe, Edmund. 1911. Mathematik und Astronomie im klassischen Altertum. Heidelberg: C. Winter; 2nd ed. 1966. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Hornblower, Simon and Elaine Matthews (eds.). 2000. Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hornung, Erik. 1971. Der Eine und die Vielen: Ägyptische Gottesvorstellungen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. 1982. Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh: Eine Ätiologie des unvollkommenen.F reiburg:U niversitätsverlag. Horstmann, Alex. 1976. Ironie und Humor bei Theokrit. Meisenheim-am-Glan: Hain. Hoskin, Michael (ed.). 1997. The Cambridge Illustrated History of Astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [abbr. as CIHA]. Hoskin, Michael. 1999. The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hultzsch, E. 1914. “The Date of Asoka.” JRAS 24: 943–951. Hunger, Hermann and David E. Pingree. 1989. MUL.APIN: An Astronomical Compendium in Cuneiform. Horn, Austria: F. Berger [abbr. as MUL.APIN]. ———. 1999. Astral Science in Mesopotamia. Leiden: Brill. Hunter, Richard L. 2003. Theocritus: Encomium of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Berkeley: University of California Press. Huß, Werner. 1975. “Die zu Ehren Ptolemaois’ III. und seiner Familie errichtete Statuengruppe von Thermos (IG IX I, I2, 56).” CE 50: 312–320. ———. 1978. “Eine Revolte der Aegypter in der Zeit des 3. Syrischen Krieges.” Aegyptus 58: 151–156. ———. 1979. “Die Beziehungen zwischen Karthago und Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit.” AncSoc 10: 119–137. ———. 1985. Geschichte der Karthager. Munich: C. H. Beck. ———. 1994. Der makedonische Konig und die ägyptischen Priester: Studien zür Geschichte des ptolemäischen Agypten, Historia suppl. 85. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.

214

Bibliography

———. 1998. “Ptolemaios der Sohn.” ZPE 121: 229–250. ———. 2001. Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit, 332–30 v. Chr. Munich: C. H. Beck. ———. 2008. “Die Tochter Berenike oder die Schwiegertochter Berenike? Bemerkungen zu einigen Epigrammen des Poseidippus von Pella.” ZPE 165: 55–57. Hutchinson, G. O. 1988. Hellenistic Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Huxley, G. L. 1980a. “Arsinoe Lokris.” GRBS 21: 239–244. ———. 1980b. “Βουπόρος Ἀρσινόης.” JHS 100: 189–190. Iossif, Panagiotis P. and Catharine C. Lorber. 2012. “The Rays of the Ptolemies.” RN 169: 197–224. Iossif, Panagiotis P., Andrzej S. Chankowski, and Catharine C. Lorber (eds.). 2011. More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Belgian School at Athens, StudHell 51. Louvain: Peeters. Jackson, Steven B. 2001. “Callimachus, ‘Coma Berenices’: Origins.” Mnemosyne 54: 1–9. Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1987. The Harps that Once . . . Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jones, Alexander. 1991. “The Adaptation of Babylonian Methods in Greek Numerical Astronomy.” Isis 82: 440–453. Jong, Teije de. 2006. “The Heliacal Rising of Sirius.” In Ancient Egyptian Chronology, ed. by E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D. A. Warburton, 432–438. Leiden: Brill. Junker, Hermann. 1911. Der Auszug der Hathor-Tefnut aus Nubien. Berlin: Königlich Akademie der Wissenschaften. Just, Roger. 1989. Women in Athenian Law and Life. London and New York: Routledge. Kahrstedt, Ulrich. 1910. “Fraue auf antiken Münzen.” Klio 10: 261–314. Kamal, Ahmed Bey. 1904–1905. Stèles ptolémaïques, CG 22001–22208, 2 vols. Cairo: IFAO [abbr. as I.Cair.]. Kaper, Olaf E. 1995. “The Astronomical Ceiling of Deir el-Haggar in the Dakhleh Oasis.” JEA 81: 175–195. Kenner, Hedwig. 1939.“ Flügelfrau und Flügeldämon.” JOAI 31: 81–95. Kern, F. 1956. Aśoka: Kaiser und Missionar. Bern: Francke. Kidd, D. A. 1970. “Some Problems in Catullus LXVI.” Antichthon 4: 38–49. Kledt, Annette. 2004. Die Entführung Kores: Studien zur athenisch-eleusinischen Demeterreligion. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Koenen, Ludwig. 1977. Eine agonische Inschrift aus Ägypten und frühptolemäische Königsfeste. Meisenheim-am-Glan: Hain. ———. 1983. “Die Adaption ägyptischer Königsideologie am Ptolemäerhof.” In Egypt and the Hellenistic World, ed. by E. van’t Dack, P. van Dessel, and W. van Gucht, 143–190. Louvain: Peeters. ———. 1993. “The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure.” In Images and Ideologies, ed. by A. W. Bulloch, et al., 25–115. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bibliography

215

Köhler, U. 1891. “Über einige Fragmente zur Diadochengeschichte.” SPAW, 207–214. ———. 1895. “Zur Geschichte Ptolemaios’ II. Philadelphos.” SPAW, 965–977. Kolbe, W. 1916. “Die griechische Politik der ersten Ptolemaeer.” Hermes 51: 530–553. Kornemann, E. 1923. “Die Geschwisterehe im Altertum.” Mitteilungen der schlesischen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde 24: 19–84. Kosmetatou, E. 2002. “Remarks on a Delphic Ptolemaic Dynastic Group Monument.” Tyche 17: 103–111. ———. 2004. “Bilistiche and the Quasi-Institutional Status of Ptolemaic Royal Mistress.” APF 50: 18–36. Köthen-Welpot, Sabine. 1996. “Die Apotheose der Berenike, Tochter Ptolemaois’ III.” In Wege Öffnen: Festschrift für Rolf Gundlach zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by M. Schade-Busch, 129–132. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kramer, Samuel Noah. 1963. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1969. The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kromann, Anne and Otto Mørkholm (eds.). 1977. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum 40 Egypt: The Ptolemies. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard [abbr. as DNM Ptol.]. Kulke, H. and D. Rothermund. 2004. A History of India, 4th ed. London and New York: Routledge. Künzl, Ernst. 1996. “Sternenhimmel beider Hemisphären: ein singulärer römischer Astralglobus der mittleren Kaiserzeit.” AW 27: 129–134. Kurtz, Donna C. and John Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Customs. London: Thames and Hudson. Kyrieleis, Helmut. 1975. Bildnisse der Ptolemäer. Berlin: Mann. Lacey, W. K. 1968. The Family in Classical Greece. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Laronde, André. 1987. Cyrène et la Libye hellénistique: Libykai Historiai de l’époque républicaine au principat d’Auguste. Paris: CNRS. Laurens, Pierre. 1988. “Eros Apteros ou la description impertinente.” REG 101: 253–274. Le Corsu, France. 1977. Isis: Mythe et mystères. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Le Rider, Georges. 1969. “Monnaies trouvées à Mirgissa.” RN 11: 28–35. Lee, Guy M. 1972. “Callimachus’ Coma Berenices (Catullus LXVI, 57–58).” ZAnt 22: 98. ———. 1990. The Poems of Catullus, with intro., trans., and notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lefèvre,F rançois ———. 1995. “La chronologie du IIIe siècle à Delphes, d’après les Actes amphictioniques (280–200).” BCH 119: 161–208. ———. 2002. Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes IV: Documents amphictioniques. Athens.

216

Bibliography

Lefkowitz, Mary R. 2002. “‘Predatory’ Goddesses.” Hesperia 71: 325–344. Lehmann, C. F. 1902. “Ptolemaios II und Rom.” Klio 2: 347–348. Lehmann, C. F. 1903. “Zur Chronologie des chremonideischen Krieges.” Klio 3: 170–171. ———. 1903. “Der erste syrische Krieg.” Klio 3: 496–547. ———. 1904. “Nochmals die Chronologie des chremonideischen Krieges.” Klio 4: 121–122. ———. 1905. “Seleukos, König der Makedonen.” Klio 5: 244–254. ———. 1905. “Zur attichen Politik vor dem chremonideischen Kriege.” Klio 5: 375–391. Leitz, Christian. 1995. Altägyptische Sternuhren. Louvain: Peeters. ———. 2006. “Die Sternbilder auf dem rechteckigen und runden Tierkreis von Dendara.” SAK 34: 285–318. Lenchantin de Gubernatis, M. 1929. “Catullo e la Chimoa di Berenice di Callimaco.” SIFC [n.s.] 7: 113–126. Lesko, Leonard H. 1991. “Ancient Egytoian Cosmogonies and Cosmology.” In Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice, ed. by B. E. Shafer, 88–122. London and New York: Routledge. Leyenaar-Plaisir, Paula G. 1986. Griekse terracotta’s uit de collectie van het Haags Gemeentemuseum. The Hague: Haags Gemeentemuseum. Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd and Stephanie Winder. 2011. “A Key to Berenice’s Lock? The Hathoric Model of Queenship in Early Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Creating the Hellenistic World, ed. by A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-Jones, 247–270. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Lloyd, Alan B. 1975–1988. Herodotus: Book II, 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2002. “The Egyptian Elite in the Early Ptolemaic Period: Some Hieroglyphic Evidence” In The Hellenistic World: New Perspectives, ed. by D. Ogden, 117–136. London: Duckworth. Loman, Pasi. 2004. “No Woman No War: Women’s Participation in Ancient Greek Warfare.” G&R 51: 34–54. Longega, Gabriella. 1968. Arsinoe II. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Lorber, Catharine C. 2000. “Large Ptolemaic Bronzes in Third-Century Egyptian Hoards.” AJN 12: 67–92. ———. 2005. “A Revised Chronology for the Coinage of Ptolemy I.” NC 165: 45–64. ———. 2012. “Dating the Portrait Coinage of Ptolemy I.” AJN 24: 33–44. ———. 2015. Coinage of the Ptolemaic Empire. New York: ANS [abbr. as CPE]. Lorton, D. 1971. “The Supposed Expedition of Ptolemy II to Persia.” JEA 57: 160–164. Lull, José and Juan Antonio Belmonte. 2009. “The Constellations of Ancient Egypt.” In In Search of Cosmic Order: Selected Essays on Egyptian Archaeoastronomy, ed. by J. A. Belmonte and M. Shaltout, 155–194. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities Press. MacDonald, George. 1899–1905. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, 3 vols. Glasgow: J. Maclehose.

Bibliography

217

Macurdy, Grace Harriet. 1932. Hellenistic Queens: A Study of Woman-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Maehler, Herwig and Volker M. Strocka (eds.). 1978. Das Ptolemäische Ägypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions, 27.-29. September 1976 in Berlin. Mainz: P. von Zabern. Mahaffy, John Pentland. 1895. The Empire of the Ptolemies. London: Macmillan. ———. 1899. A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. London: Methuen. Manteuffel, G. 1940–1946. “Studia Callimachea.” Eos 41: 81–103. Marinone, Nino. 1984. Berenice da Callimaco a Catullo: Testo critico, traduzione e commento, 2nd rev. ed. 1997. Bologna: Pàtron. ———. 1990. Analecta Graecolatina. Bologna: Pàtron. Marquaille, Céline. 2008. “The Foreign Policy of Ptolemy II.” In Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, ed. by P. McKenchie and P. Guillaume, 39–64. Leiden: Brill. Matthews, Victor J. 2004. “From ‘Coma’ to Constellation: Callimachus, Catullus, and Catasterism.” Eranos 102: 47–57. Mattingly, H. 1950. “Zephyritis.” AJA 1950: 126–128. McKenchie, Paul and Philippe Guillaume (ed.). 2008. Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World. Leiden: Brill. Meadows, Andrew. 2012. “Deditio in Fidem: The Ptolemaic Conquest of Asia Minor.” In Imperialism, Cultural Politics, and Polybius, ed. by C. Smith and L. M. Yarrow, 113–133. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meerdink, Johan. 1939. “Ariadne: Een onderzoek naar de oorspronkelijke gestalte en de ontwikkeling der godin.” PhD dissertation. University of Amsterdam. Meillier Claude. 1979. Callimaque et son temps: Recherches sur la carrière et la condition d’un écrivain à l’époque des premiers Lagides. Lille: Université de Lille III. Merkelbach, Reinhold. 1963. “Die Erigone des Eratosthenes.” In Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni, ed. by L. Ferrero, 469– 526. Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo. ———. 1967. “Kallimachos, Locke der Berenike 69–76.” ZPE 1: 218. ———. 1995. Isis Regina—Zeus Sarapis: Die Griechisch-Ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen Dargestellt. Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Meulenaere, Herman de, and Pierre MacKay. 1976. Mendes II, ed. by E. Swan Hall and B. V. Bothmer. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Minas, Martina. 2000. Die hieroglyphischen Ahnenreihen der ptolemaischen Konige. Mainz: P. von Zabern. ———. 2005. “Macht und Ohnmacht: Die Repräsentation ptolemäischer Königinnenin ägyptischenTe mpeln.” APF 51: 127–154. Mogens H. Hansen and Thomas H. Nielsen (eds.). 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen

218

Bibliography

Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mohamed, Fadel A. and Joyce Reynolds. 1997. “New Funerary Inscriptions from Cyrene.” LibAnt 3: 31–46. Mollard-Besques, S. 1954–1972. Catalogue raisonne des figurines et reliefs en terre-cuite grecs etrusques et romains, Musee National du Louvre, 3 vols. Paris: Muséesn ationaux. Münster, Maria. 1968. Untersuchungen zur Göttin Isis vom Alten Reich bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches. Berlin: B. Hessling. Muth, R. and K. Töchterle. 1986. “Berenike ohne Parfums? Zu Catull 66, 77f.” Latomus 193: 224–227. Nachtergael, Geoorges. 1980. “Berenike II, Arsinoé III et l’offrande de la boucle.” CE 55: 240–253. ———. 1981. “La chevelure d’Isis.” AC 50: 584–606. Nagy, Blaise. 1979. “The Naming of Athenian Girls: A Case in Point.” CJ 74: 360–364. Naville, Lucien. 1951. Les monnaies d’or de la Cyrénaïque de 450 à 250 avant J.-C.: Contribution à l’étude des monnaies grecques antiques. Geneva: Atar. Nenna, Marie-Dominique and Merwatt Seif el-Din. 2000. La vaisselle en faïence d’époque gréco-romaine: Catalogue du Musée gréco-romain d’Alexandrie. Cairo: IFAO. Nerwinski, L. A. 1981. “The Foundation Date of the Panhellenic Ptolemaea and Related Problems in Early Ptolemaic Chronology.” PhD dissertation. Duke University. Durham, NC. Neugebauer, Otto. 1975. A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, 3 vols. Berlin: Springer [abbr. as HAMA]. Neugebauer, Otto and Richard A. Parker. 1969. Egyptian Astronomical Texts, 3 vols. Providence, RI: Brown University Press [abbr. as EAT]. Neuser, Kora. 1982. Anemoi: Studien zur Darstellung der Winde und Windgottheiten in der Antike. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Nicastri, Luciano. 1969/70. “Catullo traduttore del πλόκαμος: il problema dei vv.79–88.” AFLN 12: 5–29. Niebuhr, Barthold G. 1828–1843. Kleine historische und philologische Schriften, 2 vols. Bonn: E. Weber. Nielsen, Thomas H. 2004. “East Lokris.” In An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, ed. by M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, 664–673. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Niese, Benedikt. 1893–1903. Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea, 3 vols. Gotha: Perthes. Nilsson, Maria. 2012. The Crown of Arsinoë II: The Creation of an Image of Authority. Oxford: Oxbow. Nock, Arthur Darby. 1928. “Notes on the Ruler-Cult I-IV.” JHS 48: 21–43; repr. 1972, I: 134–159. ———. 1930. “Σύνναος Θεὸς.” HSCP 41: 1–62; repr. 1972, I: 202–251. ———. 1972. Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, 2 vols., ed. by Zeph Stewart. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bibliography

219

Norsa, M. and G. Vitelli. 1934. Διηγήσεις di poemi di Callimaco in un papiro di Tebtynis. Florence: E. Ariani. O’Neil, James L. 2008. “A Re-Examination of the Chremonidean War.” In Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, ed. by P. McKenchie and P. Guillaume, 65–89. Leiden: Brill. Ogden, Daniel. 1999. Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties. London: Duckworth. Oikonomidès A. N. 1956/57. “Τίς διεδέχθη τον Πτολεμαῖον Γ); Ἡ ἱστορικη σημασία τῶν ἐπιγραφῶν τῆς ἐν Θέρμῳ ἐξέδρας τῶν Αἰτωλῶν (IG IX 12 56).” Polemon 6: 7–16. Olivier, Julien and Catharine C. Lorber. 2013. “Three Gold Coinages of Third-Century Ptolemaic Egypt.” RBN 159: 49–150. Olivieri, A. 1897. Pseudo-Eratosthenis Catasterismi. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Oppen de Ruiter, Branko F. van. 2004. “Arsinoë II Philadelphus.” In Dictionary of World Biography I: The Ancient World, ed. by F. N. Magill and C. J. Moose, 105–108. Pasadena: Salem Press. ———. 2007. “The Religious Identification of Ptolemaic Queens with Aphrodite, Demeter, Isis, and Hathor.” PhD dissertation. The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York. ———. 2010. “The Death of Arsinoe II Philadelphus: The Evidence Reconsidered.” ZPE 174: 139–150. ———. 2011. “The Marriage of Ptolemy I and Berenice I.” AncSoc 41: 83–92. ———. 2012. “The Birth-Date of Arsinoe II Philadelphus.” AncSoc 42: 61–69. ———. 2013. “Argaeus, an Illegitimate Son of Alexander the Great?” ZPE 187: 206–210. ———. 2014. “Notes on Arsinoe I: A Study of a Shadowy Queen.” CE 89: 158–181. Osborne, M. J. 2009. “The Archon of Athens 300/299–228/7.” ZPE 171: 83–99. Ossendrijver, Mathieu. 2012. Babylonian Mathematical Astronomy: Procedure Texts. New York: Springer. Otto, Walter. 1928. Beiträge zur Seleukidengeschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 1931. “Zu den syrischen Kriegen der Ptolemäer.” Philologus 86: 400–418. Parker, Richard A. 1974. “Ancient Egyptian Astronomy.” PTRSL-A 276 (1257): 51–65. Parsons, Peter. 1977. “Callimachus: Victoria Berenices.” ZPE 25: 1–50. Patterson, Cynthia B. 1991. “Marriage and the Married Woman in Athenian Law.” In Women’s History and Ancient History, ed. by S. B. Pomeroy, 48–72. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press. Payne, Elizabeth H. 1957. “A Venetian Portrait in Pastel.” Bulletin DIA 37: 4–5. Pedersen, Olaf. 1993. Early Physics and Astronomy: A Historical Introduction, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

220

Bibliography

Pedersen, Olaf. 1950. “La Chioma di Berenice e il nuovissimo Callimaco.” GIF 2: 193–199. Peremans, Willy. 1981. “Sur la domestica sedito de Justin (XXVII.1.9).” AC 50: 628–636. Perpillou-Thomas, Françoise. 1993. Fêtes d’Égypte ptolémaïque et romaine d’après la documentation papyrologique grecque. Louvain: Peeters. ———. 2011. A Survey of the Almagest, rev. ed. by Alexander Jones. New York: Springer. Pepe, L. 1950. “La Chioma di Berenice e il nuovissimo Callimaco.” GIF 2: 193–199. Pestman, Pieter W. 1967. Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C.-453 ap. J.-C.). Leiden: Brill. ———. 1995. “Haronnophris and Chaonnophris, Two Indigenous Pharaohs in Ptolemaic Egypt (205–186 BC).” In Hundred-Gated Thebes: Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Graeco-Roman period, ed. by S. P. Vleeming, 101–137. Leiden: Brill. Petrovic, Ivana and Andraj Petrovic. 2003. “Stop and Smell the Statues: Callimachus’ Epigram 51Pf. Reconsidered.” MD 51: 179–208. Pfeiffer, Rudolf. 1932. “Βερενίκης πλόκαμος.” Philologus 87: 179–228; repr. 1975. In Kallimchos, ed. by A. D. Skiadas, 100–153. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. 1949–1953. Callimachus, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pfeiffer, Stefan. 2004. Das Dekret von Kanopos (238 v. Chr.): Kommentar und historische Auswertung eines dreisprachigen Synodaldekretes der ägyptischen Priester zu ehren Ptolomaios’ III. und seiner Familie. Munich and Leipzig: De Gruyter. ———. 2008. Herrscher- und Dynastiekulte im Ptolemäerreich. Munich: C. H. Beck. Piankoff, Alexander. 1934. “The Sky-Goddess Nut and the Night Journey of the Sun.” JEA 20: 57–61. Piejko, Francis. 1990. “Episodes from the Third Syrian War in a Gurob Papyrus, 246 B.C.” APF 36: 13–28. ———. 1991. “Antiochus III and Ilium.” APF 37: 9–50. Pighi, G. B. 1944. “Commentariolus electorum ad Aurelium Iosephum Amatucci.” Aevum 18: 14–51. Pillonel, C. 2008. “Les reines hellénistiques sur les champs de bataille.” In Egypte, Grèce, Rome: Les différents visages des femmes antiques, ed. by F. Bertholet, A. Bielman Sanchez, and R. Frei-Stolba, 117–145. Bern: Lang. Pinch, Geraldine. 1993. Votive Offerings to Hathor. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum. ———. 1994. Magic in Ancient Egypt. Austin: University of Texas Press. Pinches, Th. G. 1884. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia V. London: R.E. Bowler [abbr. as VR]. Pirenne-Delforge, Vinciane. 1994. L’Aphrodite grecque: Contribution à l’étude de ses cultes et de sa personnalité dans le panthéon archaïque et classique. Athens and Liege: CIERGA.

Bibliography

221

Plantzos, Dimitris. 1992. “Ἐκθέωσις Ἀρσινόης: On the Cult of Arsinoe Philadelphus.” Archaiognosia 7: 119–134. ———. 1996. “Hellenistic Cameos: Problems of Classification and Chronology.” BICS 41: 115–131. ———. 2011. “The Iconography of Assimilation: Isis and Royal Imagery on Ptolemaic Seal Impressions.” In More than Men, Less than Gods, ed. by P. P. Iossif, A. S. Chankowski, and C. C. Lorber, 389–416. Louvain: Peeters. Pomeroy, Sarah B. 1975. Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. New York: Schocken Books. ———. 1984. Women in Hellenistic Egypt: From Alexander to Cleopatra. New York: Schocken Books. Ponger, S. C. 1942. Katalog der griechischen und römischen Skulptur im Allard Pierson Museum. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij. Poole, Reginald S. 1883. British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins: The Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt. London: British Museum [abbr. as BMC Ptol.]. Pottier, Edmond et al. (eds.). 1922–. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Paris etc.: Champion etc.; available from http://www.cvaonline.org; Internet; accessed November 2012 [abbr. as CVA]. Préaux, Claire. 1936. “Esquisse d’une histoire des révolutions égyptiennes sous les Lagides.” CE 11: 522–552. Prescott, Henry W. 1929. “The New Fragment of Callimachus’ Coma Berenices.” CPh 24: 290–292. Pritchard, J. B. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press [abbr. as ANET3]. Psoma, S. 2008. “Numismatic Evidence on the Ptolemaic Involvement in Thrace during the Second Syrian War.” AJN 20: 257–263. Pudsey, April. 2011. “Nuptiality and the Demographic Life Cycle of the Family in Roman Egypt.” In Demography and the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches, ed. by C. Holleran and A. Pudsey, 60–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quaegebeur, Jan. 1971. “Documents Concerning a Cult of Arsinoe Philadelphos at Memphis.” JNES 30: 239–270. ———. 1978. “Reines ptolémaïques et traditions égyptiennes.” In Das ptolemäische Ägypten, ed. by H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka, 245–262. Mainz: P. von Zabern. ———. 1988. “Cleopatra VII and the Cults of the Ptolemaic Queens.” In Cleopatra’s Egypt, ed. by R. S. Bianchi, et al., 41–53. New York: Broolyn Museum. ———. 1998. “Documents égyptiens anciens et nouveaux relatifs à Arsinoé Philadelphe.” In Le culte du souverain dans l’Egypte ptolémaïque, ed. by H. Melaerts, 73–108. Louvain: Peeters. Quaegebeur, Jan, Willy Clarysse, and Beatrijs Van Maele. 1985. “Athêna, Nêith and Thoêris in Greek Documents.” ZPE 60: 217–232.

222

Bibliography

Ramsey, John T. and A. Lewis Licht. 1997. The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar’s Funeral Games. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Redfield, James M. 2003. The Locrian Maidens: Love and Death in Greek Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rehm, B. 1934. “Catull 66, 1 und der neue Kallimachosfund.” Philologus 89: 385–386. Reinach, A. J. 1907. “Bulletin épigraphique: Grèce du Nord.” REG 20: 46–50. Rice, Ellen E. 1983. The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ridpath, Ian (ed.). 1997. Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [abbr. as ODA]. Riley, Mark T. 1995. “Ptolemy’s Use of His Predecessors’ Data.” TAPA 125: 221–250. Rist, Anna. 1978. The Poems of Theocritus, with intro. and trans. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Robins, Gay. 1983. “A Critical Examination of the Theory that the Right to the Throne of Ancient Egypt Passed through the Female Line in the 18th Dynasty.” Gött. Misz. 62: 67–77. ———. 1993. Women in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Robinson, E. S. G. (ed.). 1927. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyrenaica. London: British Museum [abbr. as BMC Cyr.]. Rochberg-Halton, F. 1988. “Elements of the Babylonian Contribution to Hellenistic Astrology.” JAOS 108: 51–62. Roeder, Günther. 1923. Urkunden zur Religion des alten Ägypten. Jena: Diederichs [abbr. as Rel. Urk.]. ———. 1959–1961. Die ägyptische Religion in Texten und Bildern, 4 vols. Zurich: Artemis. Rogers, John H. 1998. “Origins of the Ancient Constellations.” J.Br.Astron. Assoc. 108: 9–28, 79–89. Roller, Duane W. 2003. The World of Juba II and Kleopatra Selene: Royal Scholarship on Rome’s African Frontier. New York and London: Routledge. Rosokoki, Alexandra. 1995. Die Erigone des Eratosthenes: Eine kommentierte Ausgabe der Fragmente. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Rousset, Denis. 2004. “West Lokris.” In An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, ed. by M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, 391–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rudhardt, Jean. 1970. “Les mythes grecs relatifs à l’ instauration du sacrifice: les rôles corrélatifs de Prométhée et de son fils Deucalion.” Museum Helveticum 27: 1–15. Sachs, A. J. (1). 1974. “Babylonian Observational Astronomy.” PTRSL-A 276(1257): 43–50. Sachs, A. J. and D. J. Wiseman. 1954. “A Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period.” Iraq 16: 202–211.

Bibliography

223

Sachs, A. J. and H. Hunger. 1988. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia I: Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften [abbr. as AD]. Sauneron, Serge. 1960. “Un document égyptien relatif à la divinisation de la reine Arsinoé II.” BIFAO 60: 83–110. Savvopoulos, Kyriakos and Robert S. Bianchi. 2012. Alexandrian Sculpture in the Graeco-Roman Museum, GRM Series 1. Alexandria: Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Savvopoulos, Kyriakos, Robert S. Bianchi, and Yasmine Hussein. 2014. The Omar Toussoun Collection in the Graeco-Roman Museum, GRM Series 2. Alexandria: Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Schavernoch, Hans. 1983. “Die Krone der Ariadne.” AK 14: 36–52. Scheidel, Walter. 2005. “Ancient Egyptian Sibling Marriage and the Westermarck Effect.” In Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest Taboo, ed. by A. P. Wolf and W. H. Durham, 93–108. Stanford: Standford University Press. ———. 2007. “Roman Funerary Commemoration and the Age at First Marriage.” CPh 102: 389–402. Scheurleer, Robert A. L. 1974. “Faïence ptolémaïque: Remarques sur quelquesin édits.” BaBesch 49: 265–267. Schwinge, Ernst-Richard. 1986. Künstlichkeit von Kunst: Zur Geschichtlichkeit der alexandrinischen Poesie. Munich: C. H. Beck. Scott, Kenneth. 1941. “The Sidus Iulium and the Apotheosis of Caesar.” CPh 36: 257–272. Seaford, Richard. 1993. “Dionysus as Destroyer of the Household: Homer, Tragedy and the Polis.” In Masks of Dionysus, ed. by Th. H. Carpenter and C. A. Faraone, 115–145. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Seibert, Jakob. 1967. Historische Beiträge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Selden, Daniel L. 1998. “Alibis.” CA 17: 289–420. Seneviratna, Anuradha (ed.). 1994. King Aśoka and Buddhism: Historical and Literary Studies. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. Sherwin-White, Susan and Amélie Kuhrt. 1991. “Aspects of Seleucid Royal Ideology: The Cylinder of Antiochus I from Borsippa.” JHS 111: 71–86. ———. 1993. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Skeat, T. C. 1966. “A Fragment on the Ptolemaic Perfume Monopoly (P. Lond. Inv. 2859A).” JEA 52: 179–180. Skinner, Marilyn B. 1984. “Rhamnusia Virgo.” CA 3: 134–141. Slatkin, Laura M. 1991. The Power of Thetis: Allusion and Interpretation in the Iliad. Berkeley: University of California Press. Smith, R. R. R. 1988. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford: Clarendon. Smith, V. A. 1920. Aśoka: The Buddhist Emperor of India, 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Sommerstein, Alan H. 1980. “The Naming of Women in Greek and Roman Comedy.” QS 6: 393–418.

224

Bibliography

Soyez, Brigitte. 1977. Byblos et la fête des Adonies. Leiden: Brill. Spek, Robartus J. van der. 1986. Grondbezit in het Seleucidische Rijk. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. ———. 2000. “The Effects of War on the Prices of Barley and Agricultural Land in Hellenistic Babylonia.” In La guerre dans les économies antiques, ed. by J. Andreau, P. Briant, and R. Descat, 293–313. Saint-Bertrand-deComminges: Musée archéologique départemental. ———. Mesopotamian Chronicles; available from http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/ chronicles/chron00.html; Internet; accessed October 2012. Spiegelberg, W. 1917. Der ägyptische Mythos vom Sonnenauge. Strasbourg: Schultz. Spier, Jefferey. 1992. Ancient Gems and Finger Rings: Catalogue of the Collections, the J. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu: J. Paul Getty Museum. Spira, A. 1975. “Die Locke der Berenike: Catull c.66 und Kallimachus fr. 110Pf.” Dialogos: für Harald Patzer zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by J. Cobet, R. Leimbach, and A. B. Neschke-Hentschke, 155–162. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Spivey, Nigel. 1997. Greek Art. Art and Ideas. London: Phaidon Press. Springborg, Patricia. 1990. Royal Persons: Patriarchal Monarchy and the Feminine Principle. London: Unwin Hyman. Staehelin, Elisabeth. 1978. “Zur Hathorsymbolik in der ägyptischen Kleinkunst.” ZÄS 105: 77–84. Stanzl, Günther. 1999. “The Ptolemaion at Limyra and Its Recently Discovered Curvature.” Appearance and Essence: Refinements of Classical Architecture—Curvature, ed. by Lothar Haselberger, 155–172. Philadelphia: University Museum. ———. 2003. “Das Ptolemaion von Limyra: Vom Entstehen eines antiken Bauwerks.” AW 34: 3–14. Strack, Max L. 1897. Die Dynastie der Ptolemäer. Berlin: W. Hertz. Svoronos, Joannos N. 1904–1908. Τὰ νοµίσµατα τοῦ Κράτους τῶν Πτολεµαίων [The Coinage of the Empire of the Ptolemies], 4 vols. Athens: Sakellarios [abbr. as Sv.]. Swerdlow, Noel M. 1980. “Hipparchus’s Determination of the Length of the Tropical Year and the Rate of Precession.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 21: 291–309. Tait, John. 2003. “Cleopatra by Name.” In Cleopatra Reassessed, ed. by S. Walker and S.-A. Ashton, 3–7. London: British Museum. Tarn, William W. 1913. Antigonos Gonatas. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1926. “The First Syrian War.” JHS 46: 155–163. ———. 1927. Hellenistic Civilization. London: E. Arnold. ———. 1928. “Ptolemy II.” JEA 14: 246–260. ———. 1929. “Ptolemy II and Arabia.” JEA 15: 9–25. ———. 1930. “The Date of Milet I, iii, No. 139.” Hermes 65: 446–454. ———. 1934. “The New Dating of the Chremonidean War.” JHS 54: 26–39. ———. 1952. Hellenistic Civilization, 3rd ed. London: E. Arnold and Co. Thierfelder, Andreas. 1941. “Zum Catull-Text des Hyginus.” RhM 90: 272.

Bibliography

225

Thiers, Christophe. 1999. “Ptolémée Philadelphe et les prêtres de Saïs: La stèle Codex Ursinianus, fol. 6 r° + Naples 1034 + Louvre C.123.” BIAO 99: 423–445. Thompson, Dorothy Burr. 1973. Ptolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Faience: Aspects of the Ruler-Cult. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1980. “More Ptolemaic Queens.” In Eikones: Studien zum griechischen und römischen Bildnis: Hans Jucker zum sechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. by R. A. Stucky et al., 181–184. Bern: Francke. Thompson, Dorothy J. 2005. “Posidippus, Poet of the Ptolemies.” In The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book, ed. by K. J. Gutzwiller, 269–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thoresen, L. and K Schmetzer. 2013. “Greek, Etruscan and Roman Garnets in the Antiquities Collection of the J. Paul Getty Museum.” Journal of Gemmology London 33: 201–222. Thurston, Hugh. 1994. Early Astronomy. New York: Springer. ———. 2002. “Greek Mathematical Astronomy Reconsidered.” Isis 93: 58–69. Tillyard, H. J. W. and A. J. B. Wace. 1905. “The History of Demetrius the Fair.” ABSA 11: 113–119. Tobin, Vincent Arieh. 1991. “Isis and Demeter: Symbols of Divine Motherhood.” JACRE 28: 187–200. Tondriau, Julien. 1948. “Princesses ptolémaïques comparées ou identifiées à desd éesses.” BSAA 37: 12–33. ———. 1953. “Quelques problèmes religieux ptolémaïques.” Aegyptus 33: 125–130. Trappes-Lomax, John M. 2007. Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Troncoso, Víctor Alonso (ed.). 2006. ΔΙΑΔΟΧΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ: La figura del sucesor en la realeza helenística. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Troxell, Hyla A. 1983. “Arsinoe’s Non-Era.” ANSMN 28: 35–70. Troy, Lana. 1986. Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth and History. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell. Trypanis, C. A. 1975. Callimachus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tuckerman, Bryant. 1962. Planetary, Lunar and Solar Positions, 601 B.C. to A.D. 1. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Tunny, J. A. 2000. “Ptolemy ‘the Son’ Reconsidered: Are There Too Many Ptolemies?” ZPE 131: 83–92. Vagi, D. L. 1997. “The Ptolemaic Pentakaidekadrachm.” SAN 20(1): 5–10 Vandebeek, G. 1946. De Interpretatio Graeca van de Isisfiguur. Louvain: Peeters. Vandorpe, Katelijn. 1986. “The Chronology of the Reign of Hurgonaphor and Chaonnophris.” CE 61: 294–302. Vatin, Claude. 1970. Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mariée a l’époque hellénistique. Paris: E. de Boccard.

226

Bibliography

Veïsse, Anne-Emmanuelle. 2004. Les “révoltes égyptiennes”: Recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Égypte du règne de Ptolemée III à la conquête romaine. Louvain: Peeters. Vermeule, Emily. 1979. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. SCL 46. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Versnel, Hendrik S. 1990–1993. Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion I: Ter Unus. Isis, Dionysus, Hermes: Three Studies in Henotheism, II: Transition and Reversal in Greek Myth and Ritual. Leiden: Brill. Vitelli, G. 1929a. “Frammenti della Chioma di Berenice di Callimaco in un papiro della Società Italiana.” SIFC 7(1): 3–12. ———. 1929b. “Pap. 1092 della Chioma di Berenice di Callimaco.” Papiri della Società Italiana 9: 148–152. Vogliano, A. 1937. “Διηγήσεις di poemi di Callimaco.” PMilVogl I: 66–145. Voutiras, Emmanuel. 1994. “Wortkarge Söldner? Ein Interpretationsvorschlag zum neuen Poseidippos.” ZPE 104: 27–31. Walbank, Frank W. 1996. “Two Hellenistic Processions: A Matter of SelfDefinition.” SCI 15: 119–130. Wallenfels, Ronald. 2001. “Fourth-Century Babylonian Sealed Archival Texts.” In Seals and Seal Impressions, ed. by W. W. Hallo and I. J. Winter, 215–238. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. Wallensten, Jenny and Jari Pakkanen. 2010. “A New Inscribed Statue Base from the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia.” OAth 35: 155–165. Walters, Elizabeth J. 1988. Attic Grave Reliefs that Represent Women in the Dress of Isis. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Warner, D. J. 1971. “The First Celestial Globe of Willem Janszoon Blaeu.” Imago Mundi 25: 29–38. Watson, Rita and Wayne Horowitz. 2011. Writing Science before the Greeks: A Naturalistic Analysis of the Babylonian Astronomical Treatise MUL.APIN. Leiden: Brill. Watterson, Barbara. 1984. The Gods of Ancient Egypt. London: B. T. Batsford. ———. 1991. Women in Ancient Egypt. Stoud: A. Sutton. Webster, Thomas B. L. 1966. “The Myth of Ariadne from Homer to Catullus.” G&R 13: 22–31. Weissbach, F. H. 1911. Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Wells, R. A. 1992. “The Mythology of Nut and the Birth of Ra.” SAK 19: 305–321. West, Stephanie. 1985. “Venus Observed? A Note on Callimachus fr. 110.” CQ 35: 61–66. White, Rachel E. 1898. “Women in Ptolemaic Egypt.” JHS 18: 238–266. Whitehorne, John E. G. 1994. Cleopatras. London and New York: Routledge. Will, Édouard. 1979–1982. Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (320–30 av. J.-C.), 2 vols., 2nd ed. Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy.

Bibliography

227

Winkler, John J. 1990. The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece. New York: Routlegde. Winter, Erich. 1978. “Der Herrscherkult in den ägyptischen Ptolemäertempeln.” In Das ptolemäische Ägypten, ed. by H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka, 147–160. Mainz: P. von Zabern. Wolf, Daniel and Catharine C. Lorber. 2011. “The ‘Galatian Shield without ’ Series of Ptolemaic Bronze Coins.” NC 171: 7–57. Wörrle, Michael. 1975. “Antiochos I., Achaios der Ältere und die Galater: Eine neue Inschrift in Denizli.” Chiron 5: 59–87. Zandee, Jan. 1960. Death as an Enemy According to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions. Leiden: Brill. Zwierlein, Otto. 1987. “Weihe und Entrückung der Locke der Berenike.” RhM130:2 74–290.

INDEX

Achilles (Homeric hero), 80, 106–7 Acrotatus II of Sparta, 26 Adonis, 107–8 Adrasteia, 93 Adrastus of Argos, 93 Adulis Monument, 36, 114, 121 Aegean, 13, 16, 18, 80, 120 aegis (skin), 28, 42, 50 Agatharchides of Cnidus, 8, 9, 24 Agathe Tyche, 52–3, 188n95 agency, female, 75, 82, 87–8, 92, 110, 112 alabastrum (perfume flask), 54, 56, 86, 89–90 See also perfume Alexander II of Epirus, 9, 10, 16, 24, 25, 120, 146, 151n18, 167n9 See also Rock Edict Alexander birth date, conjectured, 33, 76, 124, 147, 185n33 son of Ptolemy III and Berenice II, 32 Alexander the Great, 12, 21, 32, 47, 49, 96, 132, 146, 154n42, 168n16 Alexandria Arsinoeum (temple), of, 80, 115 capital of Egypt, 12, 16, 17, 26, 34, 66, 96, 113, 115, 129, 154n42 center of learning, 36, 73, 130 court, royal, of, 39, 60, 75, 82, 118–19, 121, 124, 127, 153n40 observation, astronomical, at, 81–6, 103, 107, 110–11, 145 personification of, 64 Sarapeum (temple), of, 55 See also Decree of Alexandria, numismatics (Alexandria), statues (sculpture)

Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam, 54–6, 86 Ammon, 42–3, 49–50 Amun, 50, 64 Anchwennefer, 37 Anne, Queen, 67 Antigonus I Monophthalmus, 8 Antigonus II Gonatas Chremonidean alliance against, 12, 15–16, 120, 132, 160n92, 162n104 death of, 8 dynastic relations with Seleucids, 13, 16, 20 father of Demetrius II, 9, 161n99 king of Macedon, 8 reign of, 146 Rock Edict, mentioned on, 9, 10 See also Chremonidean War, Macedon, Rock Edict, Syrian Wars (Second) Antigonus III Doson, 8, 124 Antioch-on-the-Orontes, 75, 121 Antiochus I Soter alliance with Magas, alleged, 11–12, 14–15, 120–1, 132, 158n75 father of Antiochus II, 10 father of Apame, 10, 123, 132 marriage to Nysa, supposed, 10–11 marriage to Stratonice, 10, 11, 123, 146 son of Seleucus I, 11, 132 stance during Chremonidean War, 16–17, 164n122 war with Ptolemy II, 13–15, 119–20, 122, 132 See also Syrian Wars (First)

230

Index

Antiochus II Theos death of, 33, 75, 109–10, 147, 183n16 divorced from Laodice I, 33, 75, 118, 121, 127 marriage to Berenice Phernophorus, 33, 35, 39, 75, 121, 123–4, 127, 147, 165n137 marriage to Laodice, 123–4, 127, 146, 152n25 Rock Edict, mentioned on, 9, 10 son of Antiochus I and Stratonice I, 10, 123, 146, 174n81 war with Ptolemy II, 26 See also Rock Edict, Syrian Wars (Second) Antiochus III the Great, 11, 37 Antiochus son of Antiochus II and Berenice, 33, 121 Antiochus Hierax, 78, 122 Antony, Mark, 122, 174n80 Anu (god), 103 Apame daughter of Spitamenes, 10, 123 known as Antiochis, 153n34 wife of Seleucus I, 123 See also renaming Apame affair with Demetrius the Fair, 20, 26, 34, 39, 126 birth of, 10–11, 15, 20, 118, 123, 146, 152n26 great-grandmother of Ptolemy V, 176n96 marriage to Magas, 7–22 pass., 24–5, 118, 121, 123, 132, 146 mother of Berenice II, 10–11, 24, 37, 117, 175n90 name, meaning of, 10 parents, Antiochus I and Stratonice I, 10, 123, 152n23, 174n81 position after Magas’ death, 19–21, 25–6, 39, 124, 126, 129 See also renaming

Aphrodite Adonis, on bridal couch with, 107–8 assimilation with Arsinoe II, 71, 74, 91–2, 99–100, 105–6, 109, 111–12 Cypris, epithet of, 80, 84, 89, 92, 99–101, 105, 112, 113–14, 138, 140 identification with Hathor, 89, 99–100, 128 identification with Nut, suggested, 101, 113 sea goddess, supposed, 100 Urania, figuration of, 100–1, 113–14, 128 See also eroticism, Hathor, Nut, Tethys, Venus Apis (bull), 38 Apis (city), 15 Apollo, 15, 19, 33, 41–3, 49, 86, 93–4, 102, 172n63 Apollonius of Rhodes, 26 apotheosis See deification Appian of Alexandria, 11 Aquarius (constellation), 72, 85, 91, 102–4, 114, 128, 142–3 Aratus of Sicyon (statesman), 26 Aratus of Soli (astronomer), 97 Arcadia, 26, 92, 96 Arcas, 96–7, 102, 103 Arcesilaus (philosopher), 26 Archilochus (poet), 106 Arcturus (star), 83, 94, 97 Ares, 108 Areus of Sparta, 16, 18, 120, 146, 160n92, 161n97, 162n103 Argaeus, 12, 132, 153–4nn41–2 Argead dynasty, 11, 125 See also Macedon Ariadne, 92, 102–5 pass., 111, 114, 140–1, 189n113 See also Corona Borealis Ariarathes II of Cappadocia, 13 Aries (constellation), 72, 85

Index Aristodamus of Megalopolis, 26 Armenia, 13 aromatics See ointment, perfume Arsinoe I daughter of Lysimachus, 32, 36 marriage to Ptolemy II, 12, 146, 171n56 mother of Berenice II, alleged, 11 mother of Berenice Phernophorus, 35, 123, 165n137 mother of Lysimachus, 32 mother of Ptolemy III, 32, 124 repudiated by Ptolemy II, 30–1, 36, 127, 132, 175n92, 176n94 Arsinoe II cult of, 80, 87, 112, 160n89 death of, 15–17, 124, 146, 157–8n71, 169n29 identification with Aphrodite, 71, 74, 91–2, 99–100, 105–6, 109, 111–12 identification with Dione, 50 marriage to Lysimachus, 32, 79, 127 marriage to Ptolemy II, 11, 12, 17, 30–1, 35, 132, 146, 153n40 marriage to Ptolemy Ceraunus, 127 mentioned in Decree of Chremonides, 15–16 mother of Berenice II, proclaimed, 6, 11, 36–7, 74, 79, 91, 99–100, 112, 127, 175n90 mother of Ptolemy, son of Lysimachus, 16, 31, 35, 121, 171n50 mother of Ptolemy III, proclaimed, 11, 35–6, 127, 132, 176n94 portrait of, 49–51, 181n58 Zephyritis, 34, 74, 80, 87–92 pass., 99–100, 105, 107, 110, 112, 118 See also deification, Theoi Adelphoi Arsinoe III birth date, conjectured, 33, 76–7, 87–9, 110, 124, 147, 185n33 daughter of Ptolemy III and Berenice II, 32, 39, 76

231

dedicated lock of hair, 86–7 marriage to Ptolemy IV, 54, 87, 125, 127 mother of Ptolemy V, 37 portrait of, possible, 54, 56–8 Arsinoe mother of Berenice II, alleged, 11, 20, 74 Artemidorus, son of Apollonius, 66 Artemis, 33, 86, 96, 101–3, 113, 128 See also Bastet, Selene Ashoka Maurya Buddhist mission to Greek kings, 9, 25 reign of, 9–10, 146, 151nn15, 18, 19 See also Rock Edict Asia Minor, 13–14, 21, 32, 47, 67, 74, 78–9, 114, 119–20, 122, 157n70 Asopus River, 93 Assyria See Syria Astraea, 93, 113 Astraeus, 80, 93, 108 astronomy Babylonian, neo-, 66, 74, 95–9 pass., 102–4 calculations, 78–85 Egyptian, 93–8 pass., 101–4 Greek, 74, 93–7 pass., 102–3 observation, and, 72–3, 81–5, 95, 103, 110 precession, 72–3, 95 retrograde motion, 72, 85 symbolism, 92–104 pass. See also Dendera Zodiac, zodiac Athena, 89, 112 See also Neith Athenaeus of Naucratis, 8, 9 Athens, 12, 15–16, 93–4, 120, 132, 160n92, 162n103, 164n122 See also Attica Athos, Mt., 79–80, 114–15, 138–9 Attica, 16, 18, 93, 108, 120 Aubourg, Éric, 98 autumn See equinox, seasons

232

Index

Ba (soul), 104, 109, 112–14 Babylon, 13–14, 16, 75–6, 78, 110, 119, 121, 147 Babylonian calendar, 6, 75–6 Babylonian documents astronomical diaries, 13, 16, 185n30 chronicles, 16, 75–6, 78, 156n62, 185n32 Cylinder of Antiochus, 16, 163n109 Bactria, 14, 120, 152n19 Balius (horse), 106 Barbarigo, Caterina Sagredo, 70 Bargylia, 70 Bastet assimilation with Berenice II, 38, 89, 98, 112, 128 cat goddess, gentle, 98, 113 identification with Artemis, 89, 98, 113, 193n164 lioness goddess, fierce, 98, 113 personification of ointment, 89, 113 See also Tefnut Battle of Ipsus, 8, 9, 24 Beloch, Karl Julius, 27, 157n71, 164n128 Bennett, Christopher J., 5, 11, 32–3, 149n7, 152n23, 172n65 Berenice I, 27, 29, 37, 55, 123, 127 Berenice II assimilation with Bastet, 38, 89, 98, 112, 128 assimilation with Hathor, 38, 89, 98–9, 112–13, 128 assimilation with Isis, 66 assimilation with Mut, 38, 89, 98, 112–13, 128 assimilation with Neith, 38, 89, 98, 112–13, 128 betrothal to Ptolemy III, 7, 19–21, 26, 29–31, 37, 39, 45, 117, 121, 123, 126, 129, 147, 171n50 birth of, 2, 6, 8, 19, 20, 24, 117–18, 146 cult of, 36, 52, 57, 66, 89–90 Cyrene, position in, 19–20, 26, 29–30, 34, 39, 118

daughter of Apame, 10–11, 24, 37, 117, 175n90 daughter of Arsinoe, alleged, 11, 20, 74 daughter of Magas, 7, 10–11, 117, 175n90 daughter of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, proclaimed, 6, 11, 36–7, 74, 79, 91, 99–100, 112, 127, 175n90 death of, 1, 118, 148 Egypt, position in, 33–4, 37–9, 102, 110, 118–19, 127 grand procession of, suggested, 87, 110, 112, 115, 118 marriage to Demetrius the Fair, 7, 19–20, 25, 102, 117, 124 marriage to Ptolemy III, 2, 8, 23–40 pass., 75–7, 88–9, 102, 113, 118, 124, 126, 129–30, 147 mother of six, 32–3, 36, 39, 76–7, 113, 118, 124, 172n60 parents, 1–2, 10–11, 175n90 portrait of, 29, 33–4, 42, 44–8, 52–66 sister-wife, proclaimed, 1–2, 6, 11, 36, 74, 91, 127 teenager, 7–8, 11, 19–20, 24, 129, 137 titulature, 37–8, 89, 98, 112, 115, 127–8 victories, pan-Hellenic, 36, 39, 118, 130 See also chronology, deification, iconography, ideology, incest, Theoi Euergetai, queenship Berenice Parthenus birth date, conjectured, 33, 76, 124, 147, 185n33 daughter of Ptolemy III and Berenice II, 32, 37 premature death of, 32, 148 See also deification Berenice Phernophorus birth of, 123, 146 daughter of Arsinoe II, proclaimed, 35, 132, 176n94 daughter of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I, 35, 75, 123–4

Index death of, 147 marriage to Antiochus II, 33, 35, 39, 75, 121, 123–4, 127, 147, 165n137 mother of Antiochus, son of Antiochus II, 75, 121 sister of Ptolemy III, 33, 75 victories, pan-Hellenic, 176n94 See also Syrian Wars (Third) Beyer-Rotthoff, Brigitte, 37 Bianchi, Robert S., 57 Bilistiche, 170n48 Bindusara, 9, 10, 151n15 Bissing, F. W. von, 54 Bithynia, 13 Black Sea, 60, 156n59 Blanc, Charles, 70 Boötes (constellation), 74, 83, 92–4, 97–8, 141 Boreas, 80, 106–8 See also winds (gods), Zephyr Borghi, Ambrogio, 69–70 Borsippa, 16, 158n71 Boubastis See Bastet Brahe, Tycho, 73 brigandage, 76 Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), 10 Buttrey, Th. V., 27 Caesar, C. Julius, 74 Caesarion, 64 Callicrates (admiral), 71 Callimachus Apotheosis Arsinoes, 45 characterization of Berenice II, 26, 34, 36 Coma Berenices, 34, 45, 77–115 pass., 127–8, 133–43 interpretation of, 3, 71–2 Epigram 37, 30 Hymnus in Delum, 15, 17 Hymnus in Lavacridum Palladis, 89 Victoria Berenices, 36 See also Catullus

233

Callisto, 92, 96–7, 102, 103, 113, 141 See also Ursa Major Callixenus of Rhodes, 17 Cameron, Alan, 36, 88 Cancer (constellation), 85 Canopus, 66–7 See also Zephyrium Canopus Decree death of Berenice Parthenus, 32, 109 ideology, Lagid, 36, 38, 40, 76, 109, 114, 129 See also relief scenes Cappadocia, 13 Capricorn (constellation), 85, 103 Caria, 13, 70, 79, 115 See also Latmus Carneus See Apollo Carney, Elizabeth D., 2, 3 Carriera, Rosalba, 67–8, 70 Carthage, 18, 19, 21, 121, 146 Castor See Dioscuri catasterism Boötes, of, 97 Coma Berenices, of, 29, 47, 71–4, 79–85 pass., 88, 91–3, 99, 105, 109, 112, 119, 128–9 Corona Borealis, of, 102, 105 Leo, 95 Orion, of, 92, 103, 112 Scorpius, 103 Ursa Major, of, 92, 96–7, 105, 113 Virgo, of, 93–4 Catullus Coma Berenices, 7–8, 31, 34, 67, 77–9, 83, 90–3, 99, 101, 133–43 translation of Callimachus, 3, 71–2, 96, 171n53 See also Callimachus Centaurus (constellation), 98 Cephalus (mythic hero), 108 Ceres See Demeter Chalcidice (peninsula), 79, 115

234

Index

Chandragupta, 9, 146, 151n15 Chonsu, 64 Chremonidean War, 12, 15–18, 20, 24, 120–3, 146 See also chronology Chremonides (stateman), 15–16, 120 chronology astronomical implications, of, 78–86 Berenice’s life, of, 1–2, 20–1, 30–1, 38–9, 77–8, 87–8, 109–11, 117–18, 146–8 Chremonidean War, of, 16, 18, 120, 146, 160n92, 161n100 Magas’s rule in Cyrene, of, 8–9, 14–15, 24, 30–1, 39, 117–18, 120–1, 146–7 Mauryan, 9–10, 146 Syrian War, First, of, 13–14, 19, 146 Syrian War, Third, of, 31, 75–6, 78, 109–10, 117–18, 121–2, 147 Chrysothemis, 93 Cilicia, 13 Clayman, Dee L., 2, 25–6, 149n1, 170n42 Cleitus (mythic figure), 108 Cleopatra I daughter of Antiochus III, 11, 37 great-granddaughter of Antiochus II, 174n81, 176n96 marriage to Ptolemy V, 11, 35, 37 representations of, suggested, 54, 55, 86 sister-wife, proclaimed, 35–7, 39–40 titulature, 37–8 Cleopatra VII, 49, 65, 122, 174n80 Coele-Syria, 8, 16, 24, 75, 78, 110, 121–2 coinage See numismatics Coma Berenices (constellation) asterism, ancient, 73–4, 81, 111, 186n56 asterism, modern, 72–3, 109 See also catasterism, heliacal rising Coma Berenices (poem) See Callimachus, Catullus

Conon of Samos activity in Alexandria, 73, 77, 112, 115, 118 Coma Berenices, discovery of, 71, 74, 82, 90–1, 93, 109–10, 129, 134–5 presentation of, 36, 81, 88, 110, 129 See also Coma Berenices (constellation) consanguinity See incest Copernicus, Nicolaus, 96 Coptus, 11, 36, 175–6nn92–3 Corinth, 16, 120 cornucopia horn of plenty, 29, 36, 45–7, 50, 52, 54, 63, 119 mint mark, 27–9, 42, 45 Corona Borealis (constellation), 83, 92, 102, 110, 182n8 See also catasterism Criscuolo, Lucia, 33, 172n63 Cronus, 50, 101 cult, ruler See deification Cypris See Aphrodite Cyprus, 8, 12, 24, 101, 153–4nn41–2 Cyrene cult of Apollo in, 19, 41–2, 172n63 independence of, 19, 21, 24, 26–7, 121, 126, 132, 168n16, 172n64 pentapolis, Cyrenean, of, 15, 29, 42 Ptolemaic sphere of influence, among, 8–9, 18–19, 24, 27, 30–1, 33–4, 118, 126–7, 132 See also Berenice II, Demetrius the Fair, koinon, Libya, Magas, numismatics, Ophellas, silphium Damagetus (epigrammatists), 86 Damascus, 14, 155n56 dawn, 81–2, 84–5, 101–2, 107, 110, 114 See also Eos, sunrise

Index Decree of Alexandria, 6, 185n39 dedication funerary, 53 Lock of Berenice, of, 34, 74, 77–8, 82, 87–8, 110, 147 locks of hair, of, 86–7 statue(s), of, 19, 66 See also hair (offering), sacrifice deification Arsinoe II, of, 29, 34, 45, 49–50, 91–2, 100, 105–12 pass., 159n78, 169n29 Berenice II, of, 36, 38, 45–7, 57, 64, 66, 72, 89, 91–2, 95, 98–9, 104–6, 111–15, 119, 128–9 Berenice Parthenus, of, 109, 111, 112, 177n107 Caesar, C. Julius, of, 74 See also ideology, lamentation, legitimation Delphic monument, 32–3, 172n60 deluge See flood Demeter, 93–9 pass., 104, 113 See also Isis, Mut Demetrius I Poliorcetes, 20, 24 Demetrius II (Aetolicus), 9, 20, 25 Demetrius brother of Antigonus II, probably, 16, 161n99 Demetrius the Fair affair with Apame, 20, 34, 117, 126 birth of, 146 death of, 7–8, 20, 24, 26, 27, 30–1, 34, 117–18, 126, 172n64 marriage to Berenice II, 7, 19–20, 25, 102, 117, 124 rule in Cyrene, 7–9, 20, 25–6, 117, 126, 147 son of Demetrius I and Ptolemaïs, 20 Demophanes (statesman), 26–7, 39 See also Cyrene, koinon Dendera, 64

235

Dendera Zodiac, 65–6, 93–8 pass., 103–4, 192n57 Deucalion, 103, 106 diadēma (fillet), 28–9, 42, 45–50 pass., 54–5, 60–4 Diana See Artemis Dike, 93 dikeras attribute of Arsinoe II, 29, 159n78 double horn of plenty, 34, 49 mint mark, 27–9, 42 Diodorus of Sicily, 24 Dion (commander), 14 Dione of Dodona, 50 Dionysus, 93, 102, 103, 114 Dioscuri, 29, 34, 45, 47, 100, 107, 108, 112 Douris (vase painter), 107 dusk, 84, 101, 107 See also sunset Ecdemus (statesman), 26–7, 39 See also Cyrene, koinon Eggermont, Pierre, 10 Egypt alliance with Carthage, 18, 19, 21 alliance with Rome, 14, 18, 21 attacked by Antiochus I, 14–17, 119–20 attacked by Magas, 14–17, 120 imperialism, of, 13, 18–19, 38, 62–3, 114–15, 118–22 pass. reunification with Cyrene, 34–5, 118, 126 See also Berenice II, Ptolemy III, Syrian Wars Egyptian documents See Adulis Monument, Canopus Decree, Decree of Alexandria, Dendera zodiac, Mendes stele, Pithom stele, Saïs stele elephants, 14, 18, 49, 120 Elysian Fields, 108 Endymion, 34, 79, 90, 92, 102, 105, 112 See also Latmus, Selene

236

Index

Enki (god), 103 Enlil (god), 96–7 Eos, 80, 85, 91–3, 106–8, 112 See also dawn, Orion, sunrise Ephesus, 33, 47–8, 75 Equinox autumnal, 72 vernal, 72, 84 See also precession Erechtheus of Athens, 108 Erigone, 93–4, 97, 104, 111 Eros, 107 eroticism, 34, 57, 70, 89–90, 100, 106–9, 113 Esagila (temple of Marduk), 16, 158n71 Ethiopia, 34, 114 See also Memnon (Homeric hero) Eudoxus of Cnidus, 74 Euergetes Gate, Thebes, 38, 64–5 Euesperides, 15, 29–30, 39, 42, 44, 118 Euphrates River, 75, 185nn30–1 Euphronius (vase painter), 107 Euripides, 86 Eurydice (wife of Ptolemy I), 12, 20, 124, 132, 154n42 Eusebius of Caesarea See Porphyry Ezida (temple of Nabu), 16, 158n71 faience, 52–4, 56, 90 flood, 33, 38, 76, 87–8, 95, 103–4, 110, 114–15, 119, 128, 147 See also Nile Gaia, 91, 102 Galatians invasion of, 12, 15, 17, 21 mercenaries in Egypt, 12, 15, 17–18, 159n84 mercenaries in Greece, 16, 162n104 See also thyreos Galilei, Galileo, 72 Ganymedes, 108 Geb, 50, 101 Gemini (constellation), 85

Getty Museum, J. Paul, Malibu, 52–3, 60–1 Glaucon (statesman), 16, 160n89 Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria, 55, 57–8, 66–7 Grainger, John D., 119 grief See lamentation Hades, 107 hair corkscrew locks, 42 melon coiffure, 29, 42, 45, 49, 52, 54–5, 60 offering, ritual of, 86–7, 105, 109, 111, 129 See also dedication, lamentation, perfume Hapy, 103 See also Aquarius Harpocrates, 98 Harpy, 106, 108–9 Harsomtus, 64 Hathor assimilation with Arsinoe II, 50 assimilation with Berenice II, 38, 89, 98–9, 112–13, 128 assimilation with Cleopatra I, 38 identification with Aphrodite, 89, 99–100, 128 paragon of queenship, 98–9 sky goddess, 64, 101 See also Aphrodite, Dendera, Isis, Nut, Tefnut Hauben, Hans, 112, 114, 184n24, 200n271 Hecate, 101, 113 See also Trivia Hector (Homeric hero), 86 Helen, 45, 91, 107 heliacal rising, setting calculation of, 72–3 Coma Berenices, of, 81–2, 84–5, 110, 114 Regulus, of, 96

Index Sirius, of, 95, 114 Spica, of, 190n123 See also West, Stephanie Helius, 50, 79–80, 91 Hephaestus, 107 Hera, 50, 102, 107 See also Dione Hercules, 95 Hermopolis Magna, 57, 59 Herodotus of Halicarnassus, 80 Hesiod, 96 Himeros, 107 Hipparchus of Nicaea, 73 Holmes, Lorna, 89 Horn of Plenty See cornucopia, dikeras Horus adversary of Seth, 96 paragon of kingship, 114 son of Isis and Osiris, 104, 114 See also Isis, Osiris Huxley, G. L., 79 Hyacinthus, 108 Hyginus, C. Julius, 11, 34, 74, 75, 93, 97 Hypnos, 107 Iasion, 97 Icarius, 93–4, 97 iconography Arsinoe II, of, 49–50 Berenice II, of, 42–65 pass. See also numismatics, oenochoae, statue (sculpture) Ida, Mt., 93, 107 ideology Coma Berenices, in, 34, 88–92, 99, 104–5, 109, 111, 113–14, 128 euergesia (benevolence), 38–40, 50, 76, 99, 128–30 sacralization, dynastic, of, 36, 52, 72, 89–92, 96, 99, 104–6, 109, 111, 114, 128 sōtēria (salvation), 38, 40, 86–7, 114, 128–30

237

See also deification, incest, lamentation, legitimation, queenship Ihy, 64 incense See ointment, perfume incest ideology of, 36–40, 90–1, 113, 124, 127, 129 royal, 12, 30–1, 35–6, 127 India, 9, 13, 49, 151n19 See also Ashoka inundation See flood Ionia, 13 Iphigenia, 86 Iris, 108 Ishtar, 95, 103, 104 See also Shala Isis assimilation with Arsinoe II, 50 assimilation with Berenice II, 66 daughter of Geb and Nut, 101 Hippopotamus (constellation), as, 97 identification with Demeter, 93, 100, 113, 190n125 mother of Horus, 104, 114 paragon of queenship, 95, 99, 113 Sirius, soul of, 104, 109, 114, 118 sister of Osiris, 101, 104, 108 See also Dendera, Hathor, lamentation James I, King, 67 Jonson, Ben Masque of Queens, The, Berenice in, 67 jubiliation, 89, 104–5, 114, 135, 142 Justin, M. Junianus, 11, 19–20, 24–6, 78, 151n18, 153n35, 164n99, 164n121, 171n50 Justitia See Dike, Nemesis

238

Index

Karnak See Thebes kasignēsia (consanguinity) See incest Knossos, 102 Koenen, Ludwig, 2, 72, 80, 89, 112 koinon (federal republic), 26–7, 28, 30, 31, 39, 40, 117, 126, 147, 167n13, 172n64 See also Cyrene, Demophanes, Ecdemus Kom el-Hisn stele See Canopus Decree Kyrieleis, Helmut, 54, 57 Lagid dynasty, 19–21, 32–3, 35–40, 91, 110, 117, 124, 126–9 lamentation Coma Berenices, in, 77, 90–1, 99, 102, 104–5, 111–13, 137, 139 ideology of, 99, 102, 104–5, 109, 111–14 Isis and Nephthys, of, 104, 108–9 rituals of, 54, 86–7, 109, 111, 129 Laodice I marriage to Antiochus II, 123–4, 127, 146, 152n25 mother of Seleucus II, 75, 152n25 repudiated by Antiochus II, 33, 75, 118, 121, 127 See also Syrian Wars (Third) Laodice daughter of Antiochus I and Stratonice I, supposed, 10 Laodicean War See Syrian Wars (Third) Latmus, Mt., 34, 78–9, 90, 105, 114, 135 See also Endymion, Selene League, Northern, 13 Leda, 91 legitimation dynastic, 33, 35–7, 90–1, 96, 114–15, 124, 127, 176n94 festivals, Ptolemaic, of, 17, 52, 87–90, 110–12, 115, 118, 129

matrilineal descent, of, 91–2, 112 See also deification, ideology, incest Lehmann, C. F., 16–17, 158n71 Lemnos, 79 Leo (constellation), 72, 74, 83–5, 92–3, 95–6, 98, 103, 110, 114, 128, 183n10 Leto, 33 Libra (constellation), 85, 98 Libya (country), 8, 14–15, 25, 27, 34–45, 41, 115, 121, 132, 174n80 See also Cyrene Libya (personification of), 27–8, 42 Limyra Ptolemaeum in, 17 Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd, 87, 98, 113 Locris Epizephyrian, 106–7, 111, 114–15 Opuntian, 106 Lorber, Catharine C., 47, 163nn113, 119, 181n58 Louvre Museum, Paris, 65–6, 107 lunar phases See moon Lycaon, 92, 96–7, 103, 113, 141 See also Callisto Lycia, 13, 107 Lysimachus king of Thrace, 16, 32, 79 father of Arsinoe I, 32, 36, 132 marriage to Arsinoe II, 32, 79, 127 Lysimachus son of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I, 32, 146 Lysimachus birth date, conjectured, 33, 76, 124, 147, 185n33 son of Ptolemy III and Berenice II, suggested, 32 Macedon hegemony of, 15, 120 See also Alexander II, Alexander the Great, Antigonus, Argead dynasty, Demetrius,

Index Lysimachus, numismatics, Philip V, Ptolemy the Son Macurdy, Grace H., 2, 35 Magas alliance with Antiochus I, alleged, 11–12, 14–15, 120–1, 132, 158n75 birth, of, 123 death, 8–9, 19, 25, 30, 117, 126, 165n133 father of Berenice II, 7, 10–11, 175n90 governor in Cyrene, 8, 9, 24, 31 march against Egypt, 12–17 pass., 24, 120 marriage to Apame, 7–22 pass., 24–5, 118, 121, 123, 132, 146 realignment with Egypt, 19, 117, 126 Rock Edict, mentioned on, 9, 10 rule, 50 years of, 8–9, 24–5, 39 son of Philip and Berenice I, 29, 123, 132 See also Antiochus I, Apame, Berenice II, Cyrene, Ptolemy II, Rock Edict Magas birth date, conjectured, 33, 76, 124, 147, 185n33 son of Ptolemy III and Berenice II, 32 Marathus, 14 Marduk, 95, 98, 113 See also Esagila Marmaridae, 15, 121, 132 marriage age at first, 21, 25, 31, 123–6 nubility, 10–11, 15, 19, 25, 86, 118, 120, 123, 125 See also incest media See Persia Megara, 16, 120 Meleager, 12 Melisseus of Crete, 93 Memnon Homeric hero, 80, 84–5, 91, 106–7, 112, 138–9 Theban colossus of, 80, 115

239

Memphis, 12, 132, 154n42 Mendes stele, 109 Mercator, Gerardus, 73 Merope, 103 Mesopotamia, 74, 76, 92, 97–8, 110, 121–2, 147 Minos of Crete, 92, 102 Minotaur, 102 Mnevis, 38 moon lunar phases, 73, 79, 114, 144–5 new, 79, 84, 105, 110–11 See also Selene mosaics, 60, 62–4 mourning See lamentation Mut assimilation with Arsinoe II, 50 assimilation with Berenice II, 38, 89, 98, 112–13, 128 identification with Demeter, 89, 128 paragon of queenship, 98–9, 113 See also Dendera myrrh See perfume naming practices, 10, 32, 36, 123–4 See also renaming Nanna-Sin (goddess), 96 National Etruscan Museum, Rome, 107 Naxos, 102 Nectanebo I, 64 Neith assimilation with Berenice II, 38, 89, 98, 112–13, 128 assimilation with Cleopatra I, 38 identification with Athena, 89, 95, 98, 113, 128 See also Tefnut Nemesis, 91, 93, 95, 113 See also Rhamnusis, Virgo Nephthys, 101, 108 See also Isis, lamentation

240

Index

Nicocles of Sicyon, 26 Nicomedes of Bithynia, 13 Niebuhr, Barthold G., 11, 25 Nike, 95 Nile River, 15, 34, 66, 87–8, 91, 102, 114 See also flood, Hapy Ninlil (goddess), 96–7 Nippur, 96 Nubia, 13, 164n120 numismatics Alexandria, coins minted at, 29, 34, 42, 45–51 Arsinoe II, portrait coinage of, 49–51, 119 Berenice I, portrait coinage of, 27 Berenice II, portrait coinage of, 29, 33–4, 42, 44–8, 118–19, 128 Cleopatra I, portrait coin of, 54 Cyrene, coins minted at, 25, 27–9, 41–5, 129 Ephesus, coins minted at, 47 Euesperides, coins minted at, 29, 42 Libya type, coinage of, 27–8, 42, 44 Macedonian horseman type, coinage of, 42–3 Ptolemy I, portrait coinage of, 27–8, 42, 44, 47, 49, 51 Ptolemy III, portrait coinage of, 50–1 Pyrrhus of Epirus, coinage of, 50 thyreos coinage, 17–18 Zeus-Ammon, coinage of, 42–3 Nut, 101–2, 113–14, 128 See also Aphrodite, Hathor Nysa (wife of Antiochus I, supposed), 10–11 Nyx, 93, 107 obelisk, 80, 115 Oceanus, 83, 91, 93, 102, 140–1 oenochoae (wine pitchers), 52–4, 56, 90 Oenopion of Chios, 103 offer See dedication, hair (offering), sacrifice

oil, scented See ointment, perfume ointment, 89–90, 99, 112–13, 142–3 Olympias (wife of Demetrius the Fair), 124 Olympus, 95–6, 108 Ophellas (governor), 8, 18, 24, 168n16 Ophiuchus (constellation), 103 Oreithyia, 106, 108 Orion (constellation), 74, 91–2, 103–4, 114, 128, 142–3 See also catasterism, Osiris Orion (mythological figure), 103, 108, 112 Orontes III of Armenia, 13 Osiris brother of Isis, 101, 104, 108 father of Horus, 104, 114 Hydreus (Canopus), 66 identification with Dionysus, 114 Orion, soul of, 104, 109, 114, 128 resurrection of, 65, 104, 108, 114 son of Geb and Nut, 101 See also Dendera, Isis, Orion, Sarapis Pamphylia, 13 Papsukkal (god), 103, 195n201 Paraetonium, 14 Pasiphaë, 102 Patroclus (admiral), 16, 120 Patroclus (Homeric hero), 86, 107 Pausanias, 4, 8, 11–12, 14–15, 17, 21–2, 24, 95, 121, 122, 131–2 Peithidemus (archon), 15, 160nn92, 95 Pepi I, 64 perfume, 89–90, 99, 112 See also alabastrum, Bastet, eroticism, sacrifice (libation) Persephone, 86, 108 See also Demeter Persia, 13, 79 Phaethon, 108 Pheidias (sculptor), 95

Index Phila daughter of Seleucus I, 16 wife of Antigonus II, 16, 20 Philip V, 8 Philomelus, 97 Philopoemen, 26 Philotera (princess), 37 Phineus of Thrace, 108 Phoebus See Apollo Phoenicia, 13 pileus (cap), 29, 45 piracy, 16, 76, 120, 132 Pisces (constellation), 72, 85, 103 Piscis Austrinus (constellation), 103 Pithom stele, 13, 153n40, 155n56 Pleiades (asterism), 74, 182n8 Pliny, C., 13 Plutarch, 26 Plutus, 97 Pollux See Dioscuri Polyaenus, 14 Polybius, 26 Pomeroy, Sarah B., 2 Poole, Reginald S., 29 Porphyry of Tyre, 8, 10, 24–5, 126, 152n23 Poseidon, 50 Ptolemaïs (daughter of Ptolemy I), 20, 124 Ptolemy I Soter annexation of Coele-Syria, 8, 119, 122 cult of, 19, 38 father of Ptolemy II, 11 father-in-law of Pyrrhus, 50 joint-rule with Ptolemy II, 146, 155n56, 171n56 married to Berenice I, 27, 33, 127 married to Eurydice, 18, 20, 33, 124 reign of, 12, 132, 146 rule over Cyrene, of, 8, 24, 31 treaty with Seleucus I, 11 See also numismatics (Ptolemy I), statues (Ptolemy I)

241

Ptolemy II Philadelphus alliance with Carthage, 18, 19, 21 alliance with Rome, 14, 18, 21 conflict with Antigonus II, 15–16 conflict with Antiochus I, 13–14 conflict with Magas, 14–15, 24 death of, 6 father of Berenice II, proclaimed, 6, 11, 36–7, 74, 79, 91, 99–100, 112, 127, 175n90 father of Ptolemy III, 11, 12 grand procession of, 17, 155n51 joint-rule with Ptolemy I, 146, 155n56, 171n56 joint-rule with Ptolemy the Son, 16, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 121, 147 marriage to Arsinoe I, 12, 146, 171n56 marriage to Arsinoe II, 11, 12, 17, 30–1, 35, 132, 146, 153n40 realignment with Cyrene, 19–20, 26–7, 29, 117, 121, 126, 147 reign of, 12, 146 Rock Edict, mentioned on, 9, 10 See also Chremonidean War, Syrian Wars (First, Second), Theoi Adelphoi Ptolemy III Euergetes betrothal to Berenice II, 7, 19–21, 26, 29–31, 37, 39, 45, 117, 121, 123, 126, 129, 147, 171n50 birth of, 146 brother of Berenice Phernophorus, 33, 75, 122 death of, 118 father of Arsinoe III, 32, 76 father of Ptolemy IV, 32, 39, 50, 76 governor in Cyrene, 27, 30–1, 33, 117, 126–7, 147 marriage to Berenice II, 2, 8, 23–40 pass., 75–7, 88–9, 102, 113, 118, 124, 126, 129–30, 147 raised on Thera, 36, 38, 121, 175n93 son of Arsinoe II, proclaimed, 11, 35–6, 91, 127, 132, 176n94

242

Index

Ptolemy III Euergetes—Continued son of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I, 11, 12, 32, 124 succession of, 6, 20, 30, 31, 37, 39, 75, 109, 118, 146 See also Euergetes Gate, Syrian Wars (Third), Theoi Euergetai Ptolemy IV Philopator birth date, conjectured, 33, 76–7, 124, 147, 185n33 father of Ptolemy V, 39 marriage to Arsinoe III, 54, 87, 125, 127 son of Ptolemy III and Berenice II, 32, 39, 50, 76 Ptolemy V Epiphanes, 11, 35, 37, 39, 86, 176n96 Ptolemy IX “Lathyrus,” 33, 42 Ptolemy, Claudius, 73 Ptolemy Ceraunus, 13, 127, 164n121 Ptolemy the Son joint-rule with Ptolemy II, 16, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 121, 147 king of Macedon and Thrace, 16 ruler of Telmessus, 36, 176n94 son of Lysimachus and Arsinoe (II), 16, 31, 35, 121, 171n50 son of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I, alleged, 31, 170n48 Punic War First, 18, 21, 121, 147, 151n18 Pyrrha, 103 Pyrrhus of Epirus, 8, 14, 15, 18, 24, 50, 120, 146 Quaegebeur, Jan, 2, 49 queenship authority, of, 37–40, 45, 57, 87, 92, 112, 127–8 ideology of, 34, 89–90, 95, 98–9, 113–14, 128–9 religious role, of, 38, 52, 87, 128–9 See also agency, ideology, legitimation

Ra, 38, 64, 109 See also Amun, Dendera, Solar Eye Ramses II, 64 Red Sea, 14 relief scenes Canopus Decree (Kom el-Hisn stele), of, 38 Dendera temple, of, 64–5 Euergetes Gate (Thebes), of, 38, 64–5, 90 oenochoae, of, 52–3 renaming (of royal women), 11, 153nn33–4 See also naming practices Rhamnusis, 83, 91, 93, 95, 113, 140–1 See also Nemesis, Virgo Rhea, 50, 101 ring, signet, 60–1 Rock Edict 13th Major, of Ashoka, 9–10, 151–2nn12, 17, 19 Rome, 14, 18, 21, 120, 121, 146 Royal Museum of Mariemont, 57, 59 sacrifice animal, of, 89, 105, 109, 111 human, of, 97, 103 libation, 52, 54, 89–90, 94, 105, 111, 129 See also dedication, hair (offering) Sagittarius (constellation), 85 Saïs stele, 14, 120, 157n70, 163n112 Salamis, Battle of, 24 Sarapis, 30, 55, 66 See also Isis, Osiris Sardis, 13, 21, 119, 156–7n65 Sarpedon, 107 Satrap stele, 154n42 scepter, 35, 49–50, 62 Scorpius (constellation), 72, 85 See also catasterism seasons autumn, 75 spring, 80, 83, 106, 110–11, 114 summer, 76, 80, 84, 88, 95, 104, 111, 122 winter, 82–4 pass. See also equinox, solstice, winds

Index Selene, 34, 79, 90–2, 101–2, 105, 112–13 See also Artemis, Trivia Seleucia-on-the-Euphrates, 75, 185n30 Seleucia-on-the-Orentes, 75 Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, 14 Seleucid dynasty, 10, 20, 33, 35, 37, 75, 110, 119–22 pass. Seleucus I Nicator, 11, 13, 119, 123, 124, 132, 146, 156n62, 158n75 Seleucus II Callinicus, 20, 75–6, 121–2, 147, 152n25 See also Syrian Wars (Third) Seleucus III Soter, 32 Sesostris I, 64 Seth, 96, 101 Shala (goddess), 95, 98, 113 Shu-Harueris, 38 sibling marriage See incest Sicyon, 26 silphium mint mark, 27–9, 42, 45 plant, 41–3 Siren, 108–9 Sirius, 74, 104, 114, 128 See also heliacal rising (Sirius), Isis Sokar, 64 Solar Eye, 38, 109, 112, 128, 177n107 See also Tefnut Solinus, C. Julius, 30 solstice summer, 72, 80, 87, 95 winter, 72, 102 See also precession Sopdet See Sirius Sophocles, 79 Sosibius, 118 Sothis See Sirius Southern Cross (constellation), 98 Sparta, 15–16, 18, 26, 66, 120 See also Areus, Chremonidean War sphinx, 64, 108

243

Spica, 93, 95, 113 See also heliacal rising (Spica) Spitamenes, 10, 123 spring See equinox, seasons Starry Wain (asterism) See Ursa Major statue (sculpture) Arsinoe II, 50, 160n89 Arsinoe III, of, 32 Berenice II, of, 32, 55–60, 66, 70 Ptolemy I, of, 19 Ptolemy II, of, 160n89 Ptolemy III, of, 32, 66 Ptolemy IV, of, 32 stephanē (crown), 29, 49, 54 Stratonice I wife of Antiochus I, mother of Apame, 10–11, 123, 146, 152nn23, 26, 174n81 Stratonice daughter of Antiochus I and Stratonice I, 10, 123, 152n23 wife of Demetrius II, 20, 152n23 Strozzi, Bernardo, 67 Succubus, 108 Suda, 8 Sumeria, 72, 95–6, 102–3 summer See seasons, solstice sun sunrise, 80–3, 110, 114 sunset, 79, 81, 83, 85, 114 See also dawn, helical rising and setting, Helius symbolism, 80, 92–109, 112–13, 119, 128 See also astronomy (symbolism), eroticism, ideology, lamentation (ideology), queenship (ideology), Wings of Death Syria, 13–21 pass., 26–7, 31, 33–4, 37, 71, 76–8, 82, 86, 88, 104, 111, 114, 119–20 See also Coele-Syria

244

Index

Syrian Succession War of, 13, 119, 122, 156n61 See also Syrian Wars (First) Syrian Wars First, 11–22 pass., 24, 119–20, 146, 158n75 first phase of, 13, 18, 119, 122, 156n61 second phase of, 13, 18 third phase of, suggested, 121, 162n108 Second, 16, 19, 21, 26, 33, 37, 75, 121, 147, 165n137 Third (Laodicean), 6, 20, 21, 31, 39, 45, 47, 71, 75–6, 78, 88, 90, 118, 121–2, 129, 147 Fifth, 37 See also chronology taenia (headband), 28, 42 Taposiris Magna, 14 Tarn, William W., 27, 156n61, 171n50 Taurus (constellation), 72, 85 Tefnut, 38, 128 See also Solar Eye Tethys, 91–2, 100, 102, 114, 128, 140–1 Thanatos, 107 Thebes (Karnak), 37, 38, 64, 80, 115, 175n92 Theia, 79, 91, 138–9 Themis, 93 Theocritus, 96, 107, 155n51 Theoi Adelphoi “Sibling Gods” (Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II), 6, 17, 36, 64, 113, 175n90 Theoi Euergetai “Benefactor Gods” (Ptolemy III and Berenice II), 6, 36, 38, 52, 57, 66, 74, 118, 128–9, 181n69 Thera, 36, 121 See also Ptolemy III (raised on) Thermum, exedra of, 32, 175n88 Theseus, 102, 107, 189n113

Thesmophorus See Demeter, Isis Thetis, 84 See also Tethys Thmouis, 60, 62–3 Thompson, Dorothy B., 54 Thoth, 98 Thrace, 16, 32 thyreus Galatian shield, 17–18, 163nn113, 119, 164n120 Titans, 93, 102 Tithonus, 80, 106, 108 trident, 29, 45, 50 Trivia, 78–9, 101, 135 See also Hecate, Selene Trogus, Cn. Pompeius, 78 Trojan War, 80, 106–7 twilight See dawn, dusk, sun (-rise, -set) Tyche of Alexandria, 64 unguent See ointment uraeus (cobra), 42, 70 Uranus, 91, 101–2 Ursa Major (constellation), 74, 84, 92, 96–7, 105, 113 See also Callisto, catasterism Ursa Minor (constellation), 96–7 Venus (goddess), 74, 89–90, 99–100, 135, 139, 143 See also Aphrodite Venus (planet), 84–5, 100 See also West, Stephanie Vermeule, Emily, 108 Victoria See Nike Virgo (constellation), 83–5, 93–5, 100–1, 141 See also Rhamnusis Vopel, Caspar, 73

Index West, Stephanie Coma Berenices (constellation), 81, 84–5, 100 Venus (planet), 84–5, 100, 110, 113 Winder, Stephanie, 87, 98, 113 winds (gods), 80, 93, 106 See also Boreas, Zephyr Wings of Death, 107–9 winter See seasons, solstice Xanthippus (governor), 76, 110, 121, 147, 185n31

245

Zarpanitu (goddess), 95, 99, 113 Zephyr, 29, 45, 80, 84–5, 91–3, 99–100, 106–8, 111–12 See also Boreas, winds (gods) Zephyritis See Arsinoe II Zephyrium, Cape, 71, 80, 100, 107, 109, 111, 114–15, 140–1, 147 See also Arsinoe II (Zephyritis) Zeus, 42–3, 49–50, 92–7 pass., 102–3, 106–8 See also Ammon zodiac, 65, 72, 74, 83, 85, 113 See also astronomy, Dendera Zodiac