Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda 9781442676008

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
Abbreviations
1. When Did Ptolemy II Style His Father as Ptolemaios Soter?
2. The Soter Era
3. The Nikouria Decree: A Hypothesis Explored
4. The Grand Procession
5. Arsinoe II and the Importance of Perception
6. Monarchy as Imagination: Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen
Appendices
Bibliography
Index of Ancient Authors

Citation preview

Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda

Scholars have long known that the Ptolemaic monarchy of Egypt underwent a transformation between 323 and 30 BC. The queens of that dynasty started as subordinates of the kings but ended as their superiors. Exactly when and how this change occurred has proven problematic for modern scholars. R.A. Hazzard argues that this change was put in motion by Ptolemy n, who glorified his sister Arsinoe and made acceptable a civilian style of kingship based on piety towards his real and mythical ancestors. Ptolemy's support and elevation of his sister inspired the queens of the line to assert themselves at the expense of their male associates. The process culminated in the absolute rule of Kleopatra vn after 47 BC. Hazzard presents a clear argument based on the numismatic, epigraphical, papyrological, literary, and historical sources. R.A. HAZZARD is a specialist in Ptolemaic history. His articles have appeared in such diverse publications as Revue numismatique, Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, and Harvard Theological Review.

PHOENIX Journal of the Classical Association of Canada Revue de la Societe canadienne des etudes classiques Supplementary Volume xxxvn Tome supplementaire xxxvn

R.A. HAZZARD

Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic

Propaganda

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

www.utppublishing.com (c) University of Toronto Press Incorporated 2000 Toronto Buffalo London Printed in Canada ISBN 0-8020-4313-5

Printed on acid-free paper

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Hazzard, R.A. Imagination of a monarchy : studies in Ptolemaic propaganda (Phoenix. Supplementary volume ; 37 = Phoenix. Tome supplementaire, ISSN 0079-1784; 37) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8020-4313-5 i. Ptolemaic dynasty, 305-30 B.C. 2. Monarchy - Egypt - History. 3. Queens - Egypt. 4. Egypt - Politics and government - 332-30 B.C. I. Title. II. Series: Phoenix. Supplementary volume (Toronto, Ont.) ; 37. 0x92^39 2000

932'.021

C99-93O972-2

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support for its publishing activities of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP).

Canada

To the memory of THOMAS JAMES W A R R E N

The researches of the many antiquarians have already thrown much darkness upon the subject, and it is probable if they continue that we shall soon know nothing at all. MARK TWAIN

CONTENTS

PREFACE

IX

ABBREVIATIONS

xi

i When did Ptolemy II Style His Father as Ptolemaios Soterl The Chronological Question 3 The Kleitarchan Apologetic 7 2 The Soter Era The Evidence and the Control Date The Technical Motive 33 The Political Motive 36

25

3 The Nikouria Decree: A Hypothesis Explored Introduction 47 A Look at the Old Arguments 49 A Hypothesis Explored 53 The Situation in 263 57 4 The Grand Procession Introduction 60 Kallixeinos' Date and Source 62 The Pageant as Propaganda 66 The Consequences of the Pageant 75 5 Arsinoe II and the Importance of Perception Arsinoe's Inglorious Career 82 The Incestuous Marriage 85 The Perspective of Ptolemy n 90 Arsinoe's Role at Court 93

The Scholarly Stand-off 96 The Importance of Perception 99 6 Monarchy as Imagination: Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen Ptolemies i and n 103 Ptolemy ra Euergetes i and Berenike II no Ptolemy iv Philopator and Arsinoe in 115 Ptolemy v Epiphanes and Kleopatra i 122 Ptolemy vi Philometor and Kleopatra n 127 Ptolemy vm Euergetes n and Kleopatra n 130 Kleopatra ra and Her Sons 139 Berenike m and Ptolemy xi Alexander n 144 Ptolemy xn Auletes and Kleopatra Tryphaina 144 Kleopatra vn and Her Male Associates 148 A Summary 154 Appendices i The Date and Purpose of the Marmor Parium 161 2 Ptolemaic Officials and SIG 1.390 168 3 A Dedication to Ptolemy iv Philopator 176 4 A Ptolemaic Chronology to 105 BC 180 Bibliography 189 Indices i Ancient Authors 201 2 Inscriptions 206 3 Greek Papyri and Ostraka 208 4 Demotic Papyri and Ostraka 210 5 Persons and Subjects 211

PREFACE

Aesop told the story of the grasshopper and the ants. One morning in winter when some ants were laying out some grain to dry, a grasshopper begged them for a morsel to eat. 'Why did you not gather food in summer like us?' they asked him. 'I was not idle/ the grasshopper said. 'All summer I sang sweet music.' 'Very well/ they replied, 'since you sang all summer, dance all winter!' Aesop, alas, did not tell the end of the tale. Each returned to his own habitation. The grasshopper groaned about poverty, while the ants groaned about chest pains. The moral of the story is now apparent: if we are going to gather our store - or write a book for that matter - the task had better be worth the inevitable pains! The present author has taken pains to account for the change in the Ptolemaic monarchy between 323 and 47 BC. Scholars have long known that the Ptolemaic monarchy underwent a gradual transformation allowing the queens to assert themselves against their male associates during the second and first centuries BC. This book will propose that the change was largely due to the propaganda of Ptolemy n, who glorified his sister Arsinoe and made popular a civilian style of kingship based on piety towards his real and mythical ancestors. Ptolemy n produced such propaganda for personal and political reasons; he wanted to influence his subjects, his friends at court, and his allies abroad in Greece and Asia Minor. He probably never guessed that his propaganda would have its greatest influence on the monarchy itself and that the two factors - the glorification of Arsinoe n and the civilian style of monarchy - would combine and allow the queens to assert themselves against their male associates during the second and first centuries BC. Without any intention of doing so, Ptolemy ii started a change in the political imagination, one allowing the queens to see themselves in a puissant role and one allowing others to support a

x Preface female ruler. Kleopatra n achieved equality with Ptolemy vm Euergetes n about 139; Kleopatra m achieved dominance over her sons in the period after 116; and Kleopatra vn achieved absolute power over her male associates by 47 BC. Each chapter of the book dwells upon a problem in support of the general thesis. Thus, chapter i investigates the date, the motive, and the rationale for the cognomen of Ptolemy i; chapter 2 details the motives - technical and political - for the commencement of the Soter era in 262; chapter 3 reviews the date of the Nikouria decree or SIG 1.390; chapter 4 discusses the significance of the grand procession of Ptolemy n about the twenty-fifth of January in 262; chapter 5 examines the role and reputation of Arsinoe II at the Ptolemaic court; and chapter 6 surveys the changing roles of the king and queen from 300 to 30 BC. Each chapter builds upon the results of the previous chapter, so that the reader should examine the text in order of presentation, beginning with the first chapter and ending with the last. Finally, the author wishes to thank those whose encouragement, criticism, and patience have proved such a boon in his present undertaking and in his other studies: C.I. Rubincam, A.E. Samuel, and M.B. Wallace of the University of Toronto; D.W. Hobson and P.R. Swarney of York University, Toronto; T.V. Buttrey of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; L. Koenen and C.G. Starr of the University of Michigan; R.S. Bagnall of Columbia University; I.D. Brown of McMaster University; L. van Zelst of the Institut voor Kernonderzoek; G. Reger of Trinity College, Hartford; H. Heinen of the Universitat Trier; S.M. Burstein of California State University; and C. Habicht of the Institute for Advanced Study. To each of them, may the pages of this book provide some insights, but no chest pains. R.A.H Toronto 1999

ABBREVIATIONS

Journal titles are abbreviated to conform with the current edition of L'Annce philologique. Editions of Greek papyri and ostraka follow the forms of J.F. Gates et alv Checklist of Greek and Latin Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (BASF Suppl. 7, 1992), while inscriptions use the forms of Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Abbreviations for ancient authors usually follow the forms of the Oxford Classical Dictionary. References to Ptolemaic coins are from J.N. Svoronos, Die Miinzen der Ptolemder (Athens 1904-8) or from A. Kromann and O. M0rkholm/ Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Egypt: The Ptolemies (Copenhagen 1977).

This page intentionally left blank

Imagination of a Monarchy

This page intentionally left blank

1

When Did Ptolemy n Style His Father as Ptolemaios Sotert

When Ptolemy n ascended the throne in 282, he supported his claims with three important items of propaganda: firstly, he held funeral games and sacrifices in honour of his father in an effort to show some piety towards him and to win the respect of his friends and associates; then, the young king redated his reign from 285 in an effort to stress his nomination that year by Ptolemy i; and finally, the young king brought his parents together as the Theoi Soteres in an effort to stress Berenike's marriage to his father and to discredit the Eurydikean side of the family.1 This act of homage inevitably raises the question of whether Ptolemy n also described his father as Ptolemy Soter, the singular of Soteres, from 282 BC. This chapter will submit that Ptolemy n only started using the locution Ptolemaios Soter in his twenty-third regnal year or 263/2.2 The Chronological Question Let us distinguish at once between linguistic and historical questions, for the issue is not whether Ptolemy n could describe his father as Ptolemy Soter, but whether the king, the courtiers, and the scribes actually did so during the first two decades of his rule. Two analogies may illustrate the difference. Queen Elizabeth n, by virtue of her marriage to Philip Mountbatten, could have described herself as Mrs Philip Mountbatten or as the Duchess of Edinburgh during the first decades of her reign; in fact, thousands of documents suggest that she has never used these styles of presentation. 1 Hazzard, The Regnal Years of Ptolemy n Philadelphos' 150. 2 The locution Ptolemaios Soter was not introduced during the reign of Ptolemy i (below n.i6).

4 Imagination of a Monarchy Similarly, Ptolemy n, by virtue of his deification with his sister as the Theoi Adelphoi, could have described himself as Ptolemy Adelphos from 273/2; in fact, more than a hundred documents from his reign suggest that he never employed that style of presentation.3 We cannot presume, therefore, that Ptolemy n introduced the term Ptolemaios Soter when he deified his parents in 282, so that we shall have to examine his documents for the date of the locution. The documents include dated coins, inscriptions, papyri, graffiti, and ostraka, and one undated text called the Records of the Penteterides (T Kallixeinos of Rhodes, an author of the second century BC, referred to the Records when he detailed a pageant held in Alexandria by Ptolemy n. 4 The document described a crown lying upon the throne of Ptolemy Soter Kallixeinos wrote the Greek phrase, but we shall soon learn that he took it from his source, the Records of the Penteterides.5 His source was a contemporary account of the great pageant of Ptolemy n. W.W. Tarn identified it with the Ptolemaieia of 279/8, while W. Otto identified it with the Ptolemaieia of 27i/o.6 Using astronomical data, R.A. Hazzard and M.P.V. FitzGerald fixed the parade within two days of the twenty-fifth of January in 262.7 No one has challenged this new dating.8 If the new dating is correct - the subject arises again in chapters 2 and 3 - the Records of 262 would be 3 The documents appear in tables i and 2. From Ptolemy n's reign, we have four literary references to Ptolemy i alone, but none of them referred to the old king as Ptolemaios Soter. These references - Theoc. Id. 17.39 ar|d 57; Machon apud Ath. 2423 and 2443 have been excluded from the discussion because they cannot be dated to a precise year. 4 His report of the procession appears apud. Ath. 197C-2O3A. Kallixeinos referred to his source at Ath. 1970. 5 Ath. 2O2B. The transcription is more conveniently discussed in chapter 4. 6 Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas 261, n.io, at first accepted 275/4 as tne date °f tne grand procession, but later argued for 279/8 in The Struggle of Egypt against Syria and Macedon' 703, n.i; in The Date of Milet 1.3, no. 139' 447, n.2; and in Two Notes on Ptolemaic History' 59-60. Otto articulated his proposal in Pricstcr und Tcmpcl in hcllenistischcn Agyptcn 1.153, n-1' m Beitragc zur Sclciikidengeschichte 7; and in 'Zu dem syrichen Kriegen der Ptolemaer' 414, n.27_ Although Otto's date still appears amongst general histories and compendia of ancient sources, this preference is not due to superior argumentation against Tarn, but possibly to Otto's prestige amongst specialists of the Hellenistic period. Examples include Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World 1.407; Volkmann, 'Ptolemaieia' 1583-4; Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World 212; Will, Histoirc politiqiic dn mondc hcllcnistiquc 1.81 and 83; and Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest 361. 7 Hazzard and FitzGerald, The Regulation of the Ptolemaieia.' 8 Because refutation would require a knowledge of astrophysics, no classical scholar has made the attempt.

5 When Did Ptolemy n Style His Father as Ptolemaios Soterl the earliest text bearing the term Ptolemaios Soter. The date of the text January of 262 - fell within the twenty-third Macedonian year of Ptolemy ii or 263/2.9 The coins also bear witness to the introduction of the term Ptolemaios Soter. Some of them show regnal years in the reverse field.10 During the first twenty-two regnal years, Ptolemy n struck silver drachms, silver tetradrachms, and gold pentadrachms bearing his father's portrait on on the reverse. This the obverse and the legend coinage of Ptolemy n glorified his father, just as Ptolemy I's coinage before 300 glorified his predecessor, Alexander the Great.11 At the beginning of the twenty-fifth regnal year or 261/0, the moneyers at Ake-Ptolemais, Sidon, Joppa, and Tyre began striking silver tetradrachms with a new legend, and continued using it until the end of the reign in 246." The tetradrachms, as we shall presently see, are the earliest dated documents bearing the phrase Ptolemaios Soter. We can examine next the Greek and Semitic inscriptions.13 For the period from 282 to 267, nine inscriptions have survived dated at various towns in Asia Minor and Cyprus. Although these inscriptions have ten references to the king's father, not one used the locution Ptolemaios Soter. He is simply called Ptolemy in all of these documents. And lastly, we can look at the Greek and demotic papyri, graffiti, and ostraka.14 From the Egyptian chora, 116 papyri, graffiti, and ostraka have survived referring to Ptolemy i in the opening protocol. We have 24 such 9 Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology 167; Koenen, Line agonistische Inschrift aus Agypten nnd friihptolemaische Konigfeste 94; Grzybek, Du calendrier macedonien an calendrier ptolemaiqiie 185-6. Samuel and Koenen dated the twenty-third Macedonian year between the third of April in 263 and the twenty-third of April in 262, whereas Grzybek dated the same year between the sixth of April in 263 and the twenty-fifth of April in 262. Although the present author believes that January of 262 lay within the twenty-third Macedonian year of Ptolemy n, the terminal dates proposed by Samuel, Koenen, and Grzybek are slightly open to question, because they reckoned their termini from the cycle described in P.dem.Carlsberg 9. We have no contemporary evidence that such a cycle was in operation for the Macedonian calendar under Ptolemy n. 10 See table i. 11 Examples of Ptolemy I's coinage in memory of Alexander include Svoronos 113, 117, 118, 120, etc. 12 Svoronos conjecturally dated no. 786 and 787 to the twenty-fourth regnal year of Ptolemy n or 262/1. Although these tetradrachms from Ake-Ptolemais bore the reverse legend, they did not show a regnal year. Svoronos supposed that they were manufactured just before the introduction of dates in 261/0. Similarly, he placed nos. 701-4 and 757 to the same year. Davesne did not date the same tetradrachms in Davesne and Le Rider, Giilnar. 13 See table 2. 14 See table 2.

6 Imagination of a Monarchy documents dated during the period from 282 to 267 when the protocol read or a demotic equivalent; we have 37 such documents dated during the co-regency from 267 to 259 when the protocol read or a demotic equivalent; and finally, we have 58 such documents dated during the period from 259 to 246 when the protocol read or a demotic equivalent. If we total all the documents used in this study, we have included 295 items - 3 graffiti, 13 ostraka, 11 inscriptions, 100 papyri, and 168 coins derived from different areas of the Ptolemaic realm, written in different languages, and securely dated to different regnal years between 282 and 246. Such a large and varied sample of documents allows us to reckon when Ptolemy n introduced the term Ptolemaios Soter, especially since it did not appear amongst the early poems, inscriptions, and papyri whilst they describe the parents together as the Theoi Soteres.15 Indeed, of the more than seventy-five references to Ptolemy i dated in the first twenty-two regnal years of his son, not one referred to Ptolemy i as Ptolemaios Soter}6 15 Examples include Callim. Del. 165-6, Lucian Hist, conscr. 62, and Koenen, Einc agonistische Inschrift 3-4. There is a reference to the Theoi Soteres in each document. Other references from the reign of Ptolemy n are cited by Eraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 2.367, n.229. 16 See tables 1—2. In Gottmenschentum und gricchischc Stddte 109, Habicht presumed from Paus. 1.8.6 that Ptolemy Soter got his surname from the Rhodians in 304. But Hazzard has exposed the fallacy of the presumption in 'Did Ptolemy i Get His Surname from the Rhodians in 304?' 52-6. Habicht (114 and 115) also speculated that the Milesians recognized Ptolemy i as as early as 314/13 or 294-288, although Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt 173, n.46, dismissed the speculation as unwarranted. Habicht's speculation that the Islanders recognized Ptolemy i as from 287/6 is equally dubious. Both speculations depend on texts written under Ptolemy n - LMilet 1.3.139 (circa 262) and SIG 1.390 (see chapter 3) - and these inscriptions only tell us how Ptolemy i was described during his son's reign. Ptolemy i did not describe himself as Ptolemy Soter during the period from 304 to 282 if we can judge by the documents: P.dem.Berl. 13568, P.dem.Brnxelles 2, P.dem.Cair. 31137, SEG xvra.639, P.dem.Lonvrc 2426 and 2429, P.dem.Mosc. 113, 115 and 116, P.dem.BM 10522, 10524-8, SEG xxvn.929, P.dem.Phil. 5-9, IG n2 650 = SIG 1.367, P.dem.Ryl. 11, l.Delos 4428, line 8, OGIS 1.5 = SB ¥.8847, I.Lindos 2C, lines 111-13, Svoronos 147 and 150-2, etc., Diog. Laert. 5.81, P.Eleph. 2 and 3, IG xn.8.227 = OGIS 1.15 = l.Samothrace 10. Of more than 107 references dated between 304 and 264, not one described Ptolemy i as Ptolemy Soter. Skeat dated SEG ¥111.536 and 537, a pair of dedications urcep pacnXecoc; to Ptolemy I's twenty-second regnal year in 'Reigns of the Ptolemies' Mizraim 6 (1937) 30, but reassigned them to Ptolemy ix Soter n by the time Otto and Bengtson published Znr Geschichte des Niedergang des Ptolemaerrciches 165; another dedication, also on behalf of King Ptolemy the Soter God and dated by

7 When Did Ptolemy n Style His Father as Ptolemdios Soterl The locution first appeared amongst the Records of the Penteterides in 262; it appeared next on the tetradrachms from Ake-Ptolemais, Sidon, Joppa, Gaza, and Tyre in 261. After the revolt of Ptolemy the son in 259, Ptolemy ii decided to drop the son from the protocol of legal documents and to describe himself as the son of Ptolemy Soter The emerging picture, therefore, is not one of the king propagating the locution in all the documents at the same time, but one of him propagating it little by little over at least a four-year span from 263/2 to 259. The Kleitarchan Apologetic We might now ask ourselves: Why did Ptolemy n style his father as Ptolemaios Soter? No official text survives stating the rationale. The only clue for it comes from Kleitarchos of Alexandria, a possible witness to the change and a biographer of Alexander the Great.17 If Kleitarchos lived at Alexandria during the 2605 and the 2508, his comment about the surname should merit our attention. Scholars, alas, could not be more divided than on the question of Kleitarchos' date. Sir William Tarn argued that Kleitarchos wrote under Ptolemy n after 28o,18 whereas Professor Ernst Badian opined that Kleitarchos wrote under Ptolemy i before 308.19 Let us turn to the evidence itself. According to Diogenes Laertios, Kleitarchos studied under Stilpon, a contemporary of Ptolemy i,20 so that we can infer from Diogenes that Kleitarchos flourished sometime during the reign of Ptolemy i or n, and in fact, one can now submit four reasons for dating Kleitarchos to the reign of the second Ptolemy. We shall examine

17 18 19

20

Tsoukalas to Ptolemy I's reign in 164, has been redated to Ptolemy ix Soter n by Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 3.111.1. More recently, E. Bresciani published a demotic text supposedly showing Ptolemy i as Pj Str in 305 - see MDA1K 39 (1983) 104 - but Clarysse has questioned the reading in 'Greek Loan-Words in the Demotic,' 30, n.jS. See n.25. Tarn, Alexander the Great 2.16-28. Badian, 'Alexander the Great 1948-67' 40, argued that: Kleitarchos wrote before Ptolemy's year of publication. Since Badian, ibid, and Studies in Greek and Roman History 258, thought that Ptolemy wrote between 322 and 308 when he was trying to create for himself the image of the true successor, Kleitarchos must presumably date before 308. Diog. Laert. 2.113, who took this datum from Philip the Megarian. As Diogenes is not the most reliable source, his datum is only accepted because it is not contradicted or made dubious by other evidence. Stilpon evidently lived to a very old age; his dates are approximately 380-300. According to Pliny (NH 10.49.10), Kleitarchos was the son of Deinon. The latter wrote a history of Persia about the period of Alexander.

8 Imagination of a Monarchy the very weakest of those arguments first and proceed step by step towards the strongest. Firstly, the rhetorical style of Kleitarchos is more appropriate to the reign of Ptolemy n than to his father, a king most strongly influenced by the Peripatetics, advocates of a clear expository style of writing. Ptolemy i wrote in such a plain style himself that his narrative never reached a wide audience during his lifetime or after his death, whereas Kleitarchos wrote with such rhetorical bombast that his history enthralled and irritated readers into the Roman period. Demetrios, Cicero, Quintilian, Strabo, Quintus Curtius, and the anonymous writer of On the Sublime remarked on the inflated style of Kleitarchos or on the fabulous content of his narrative.21 Certainly his choice of material leaves little doubt about his disregard for historical truth. The queen of the Amazons presenting herself to Alexander, Thais burning the palace of Persepolis, and Ptolemy saving Alexander from the Oxydrakai are only a few of the historical fictions used by Kleitarchos to ply his rhetorical skills.22 'Each daring act surpasses the measure of one's power/ he told his audience.23 His literary work, so far as the evidence allows us to see, marks him as Alexandrine in taste and as Asiatic in style.24 Secondly, A.D. Nock, P. Goukowsky, and other scholars have long argued that Kleitarchos stressed a Dionysiac quality to Alexander's rule, an emphasis more appropriate to the reign of Ptolemy n than to those of Alexander and Ptolemy i.25 Alexander stressed his descent from Herakles,26 and on silver tetradrachms and drachms, the monarch placed the head of Herakles wearing a lion's skin on the obverse but the seated figure of Zeus holding an eagle on the reverse.27 The king, wrote Ephippos, a contemporary if hostile source, often appeared in the guise of a deity on public occasions. Sometimes the king wore the horns, the slip21 Demetrios Eloc. 304, Cic. Brut. 10.10, Quint. Inst. Or. 10.174, Strab. 11.5.4, Q. Curt. 9.5.21, and Longinus De sublimitate 3. At a much later date, J. Tzetzes, Epist. 13, said that was synonymous with 22 Plut. Alex. 46.1, Ath. 5/6E, Arr. Anab. 6.11.8, and Q. Curt. 9.5.21. 23 Stobaios Flor. 4.12.13: 24 Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great 213. 25 Some of the primary sources are as follows: Strab. 15.1.69 and Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 2.904; the palace of Persepolis was supposedly set ablaze by Thais and others while engaged in a Dionysiac komos: Ath. 5/6E, Diod. Sic. 17.72.1-6, Q. Curt. 5.7.1-7, and Plut. Alex. 38.1-4. Only Ath. actually cited his source, but Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great 57, 132, and 178, n.n, and others have long presumed that Kleitarchos is the common source. Also see the comments of Pearson, Lost Histories 217-25. 26 Diod. Sic. 17.1.5; Plut. Mar. 3340 and Alex. 2.1; Q. Curt. 4.2.3. 27 Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaens passim.

9 When Did Ptolemy n Style His Father as Ptolemaios Soter? pers, and the purple robe of Ammon; sometimes he donned the bow and the spear of Artemis; sometimes he bore the winged sandals, the broad-brimmed hat, and the caduceus of Hermes; and sometimes he even bore the lion's skin and the club of Herakles.28 The monarch appeared wearing a helmet on the obverse of some tiny bronzes struck at Memphis between 332 and 323_ 29 Apelles, another contemporary, painted the king riding a horse and holding a thunderbolt, an attribute of Zeus,3° so that when Nock examined all the contemporary evidence, he concluded that it did not suggest that Alexander had felt any special affinity with Dionysos.31 No such association appeared in the years immediately after the monarch's death. Ptolemy i struck silver tetradrachms bearing the portrait of Alexander wearing the horn of Ammon, the aegis of Zeus, and the elephant's skin;32 Goukowsky saw no sign of association here between Alexander on the one hand and Dionysos on the other.33 Ptolemy i worshipped Dionysos, a Macedonian favourite, just as he worshipped the other deities - Athena, Aphrodite, Alexander, and Sarapis - but Zeus had received the greatest attention. Zeus had allegedly saved the future monarch at birth, and on silver tetradrachms struck after 300, Ptolemy i wore the aegis, symbol of Zeus, while the eagle of Zeus blazoned the reverse side. By the time that Ptolemy n held the great pageant, however, Dionysos had taken a much greater role in the king's propaganda than Zeus had taken under Ptolemy i.34 The Dionysiac section of the pageant carried the greatest amount of gold and silver, while the float entitled The Return of Dionysos from India' identified Dionysos with Alexander. Dionysos had conquered India in legend, whereas Alexander had conquered it in fact. Goukowsky observed how the two conquerors had merged into a single myth by the time of the grand procession.35 28 Ath. 53/E. Bosworth, 'Alexander and Ammon' 52-3, argued that Alexander thought of Ammon as the Libyan manifestation of Zeus. 29 Price, Coinage no. 3960. 30 According to Pliny (NH 35.36.92), the painting was housed in the temple of Artemis at Ephesos. 31 Nock, 'Notes on Ruler-Cult, i-iv' 25. Though not feeling competent to judge/ Nock simply accepted Jacoby's floruit for Kleitarchos of 310-300 (27). 32 Svoronos 164-6 etc. In 304, Ptolemy i also issued gold staters with the reverse type of Alexander driving a quadriga and holding a thunderbolt (Svoronos 101-3). Lysimachos of Thrace (323-281 BC) struck silver tetradrachms and drachms showing Alexander wearing the horn of Ammon. 33 Goukowsky, Essai sur les origines dn mythe d'Alcxandrc 2.79. 34 See chapter 4, 'The Grand Procession.' 35 Goukowsky, Essai sur les origines 1.4.

io Imagination of a Monarchy Like the author's style of writing, this stress on the Dionysiac quality of Alexander helps to date Kleitarchos, even if it does not yield precise termini within the reign of Ptolemy n. Kleitarchos, we may presume, could have written his work before the king's pageant and inspired its linkage between Alexander and Dionysos; or Ptolemy n, by contrast, could have held his parade first and put the linkage in Kleitarchos' mind. To get precise termini, we shall have to turn to other evidence. Thirdly, Kleitarchos described Roman envoys greeting Alexander upon his return to Babylon in 324/3.3 Arrian doubted the historicity of this 36 Pliny NH 3.5.57-8. Both Tarn, Alexander the Great 2.21, n.5, and Badian, The Date of Clitarchus' 9-10, submitted the following punctuation: Theophrastus, qui primus externorum aliqua de Romanis diligentius scripsit (nam Theopompus, ante quern nemo mentionem habuit, urbem dumtaxat a Gallis captam dixit, Clitarchus ab eo proximus legationem tantum ad Alexandrum missam, hie iam plus quam e fama) Cerceiorum insulae et mensuram posuit stadia LXXX in eo volumine quod scripsit Nicodoro Atheniensium magistratu qui fuit urbis nostrae CCCCXL anno. Despite Pliny's statement, both Tarn, Alexander the Great 2.22-6 and Hamilton, 'Cleitarchus and Aristobulus' 454, have objected to the possibility of Kleitarchos' mentioning an embassy from Rome. Both scholars observed that Diodoros, who used Kleitarchos as a primary source, did not explicitly refer to Roman delegates, and that Arrian, when he wrote about the alleged presence of the Romans at Babylon, did not cite Kleitarchos, but Aristos and Asklepiades. Tarn further argued, from Arrian's citation of Aristos and Asklepiades, that when Alexander met the Romans, he was so struck by their bearing that he prophesied their future greatness. 'The embassy cannot be separated from Alexander's prophecy, which is an essential part of it,' Tarn submitted. He then associated the prophecy with the famous prophecy of Lykophron in Alexandra, that Rome would be master of land and sea. No prophecy like this could have been made before Rome had defeated Carthage and Macedon. Since he presumed the Greeks were uninterested in Alexander during the second century, but renewed their interest during the last half of the first century BC, an era of prophecies, Tarn dated the story after 50 BC. He thus concluded that it was never told by Kleitarchos writing at the time of Ptolemy n. One could submit several objections to Tarn's arguments. Firstly, as Tarn himself admitted (68-87), Diodoros 17 is at best an epitome, which did not use Kleitarchos at every point, so that we can explain the omission in Diodoros by three hypotheses: (i) Kleitarchos did not mention the Roman envoys - Tarn's conjecture, refuted by Pliny; (2) Kleitarchos did mention them, but Diodoros omitted the story; and (3) Diodoros used another source at this point in his narrative. Secondly, Arrian's citation of Aristos and Asklepiades and his omission of Kleitarchos has no bearing upon what Kleitarchos said. Arrian regarded Kleitarchos' work with such contempt that when he rejected the story of Ptolemy saving Alexander from the Malloi, Arrian did not even cite Kleitarchos as the source of the story. Why should he do so for the one about the Romans, if Aristos and Asklepiades were at least respectable authorities? Thirdly, Tarn produced no reason why the story of Roman envoys should always have been combined with the prophecy of Roman greatness. Stories can grow as well as contract over a period of time: Kleitarchos could have described Romans at Babylon, and some other

ii When Did Ptolemy n Style His Father as Ptolemaios Soterl tale because neither Ptolemy, nor Aristoboulos, nor any Roman writer had mentioned Roman envoys meeting Alexander,37 and most modern scholars have questioned it as well because the Romans had hardly established themselves beyond the Italian peninsula in 323.3 Arrian made a like objection. 'It was not characteristic/ he said, 'for the government of the Romans while it was most free to send envoys to a foreign king so far away, unless it had the compulsion of fear or the hope of gain.'39 Arrian's doubts, along with Rome's lack of involvement in the Near East in 324/3, throw the burden of proof on those who argue for diplomatic contact, especially since Alexander got a role in many popular fables, and since his alleged reception of Romans cast him in a flattering light to Greek readers of the Hellenistic age. The case for diplomatic contact, wrote Braccesi, depends on a tradition preserved by five authors: Ps. Kallisthenes, Memnon of Herakleia, Aristos, Asklepiades, and Kleitarchos of Alexandria.40 The Ps. Kallisthenes composed his romance in the third century after Christ.41 After defeating those opposed to him, landed on Italian soil. By agency of their general Marcus, the Romans sent to him a crown studded with pearls and another with precious stones, saying to him, 'We shall also crown you, Alexander, as king of the Romans and the whole earth.'42

writer - say, Aristos or Asklepiades - could have added the prophecy at a later date. Fourthly, if, as Pliny NH 10.49.10 said, Kleitarchos was still a 'celebratus auctor' in the first century after Christ, then Pliny and many of his readers had read Kleitarchos. Pliny had no motive to misrepresent his famous source. 37 Arr. Anab. 7.15.4. Because Arrian was a sober and cautious historian, his attitude towards Kleitarchos merits our respect. 38 Three important exceptions are Berve, Das Alcxandcrreich anf prosopographischcr Gnmdlagc 1.326, Wilcken, Alexander the Great 228, and Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander 83—93. 39 Arr. Anab. 7.15.6:

40 Braccesi, L'ultimo Alessandro 91. 41 Merkelbach, Die Qiiellcn des griechischcn Alcxanderromans 59. His date was accepted by Ross, Alexander Historatus 5. 42 Ps. Callisthenes 1.29:

The Armenian version (1.28) is equally fabulous: 'And the generals of the Romans sent their representative, Marcus Aemilius, with a crown of gold and pearls, to say to him, "We, too, following Alexander's custom, crown you with this golden crown worth 100 litras."' The Syriac version states: 'He came to Rome. As soon as the inhabitants heard

12 Imagination of a Monarchy Memnon told his version in the first century after Christ. The Romans sent a golden crown of adequate value.43 Aristos and Asklepiades wrote their accounts about the first century BC. And when Alexander met the envoys , he forebode something of their future power.44 ...

None of the aforesaid authors - Ps. Kallisthenes, Memnon, Aristos, or Asklepiades - apparently claimed the status of being an eyewitness or even a contemporary of the event, while all of them put errors into their tales, so that we should have grave reservations about accepting the historicity of their statements. Alexander i of Epiros - not his famous namesake, Alexander the Great - campaigned in southern Italy, where he made contact with the Romans about 333-330. (Just. Epit. 12.2.12). Rome did not offer a crown studded with pearls, as pearls only appeared on the Greek (and later Roman) markets after Alexander had opened the trade routes to Arabia and India;45 the republican Romans, even if they agreed to hail him as their king, could not have made him ruler of the whole earth, before they had gained control of the Mediterranean in the second century BC; nor did they offer a golden crown as a token of their respect, since the presentation of golden crowns was exclusively a Greek honour until the first century BC; M. Acilius Glabrio got forty-five golden crowns from allied Greek states in 190, whereas L. Aemilius Paullus got four hundred such crowns from various Greek states in i68,46 and, if we can believe Pliny (21.4.6), M. Licinius Crassus was the first Roman to award golden crowns in the first century BC; finally, Alexander did not foretell something about Rome's greatness in 324/3; the Greeks and Macedonians had no hint of Rome's future power until at least the beginning of the Pyrrhic war in the 2705. The , they sent to him six hundred talents of gold ... together with the golden crown of Zeus which was in the capital ...' 43 Memnon FGrtiist 434, 18.2: 44 Arr. Anab. 7.15.5: 45 The Red Sea and the Indian Ocean supplied most of the pearls (Ael. N.A 10.13 and 15.8 respectively). Pliny (37.6.12) said that pearls did not become popular at Rome until after Pompey's victory over Mithridates in the first century BC.

46 Pliny 37.46.4 and Livy 38.37.4. See also Millar, The Emperor of the Roman World 141.

13 When Did Ptolemy n Style His Father as Ptolemaios Soterl conclusion now seems inescapable. All this fabulous material is worthless, while those citing it to prove diplomatic contact are making a leap of faith. Only one piece of evidence remains: the statement of Kleitarchos, an author famed in antiquity for rhetoric, hyperbole, and fabrication. Why should we believe him? Why should we suppose that the Romans met Alexander but ignored his successors until the second quarter of the third century? 47 By refusing to cite Kleitarchos, Arrian showed that he considered him such a dubious source that we should reject his tale if we cannot confirm it with evidence from Alexander's own reign. No such evidence exists. Kleitarchos doubtless lied about the king meeting Roman envoys, just as he lied about him meeting the queen of the Amazons. Although Kleitarchos lied about Roman envoys, his tale suggests a date for his floruit, especially since he worked near the court of Ptolemy n, who initiated contact with the Romans after he learnt of their victory over Pyrrhos of Epiros circa 275.48 Dio Cassius (10.41) said that the Romans were very pleased that a monarch so far away regarded them so highly; and in due course, they sent three ambassadors to Ptolemy's court.49 When the king followed diplomatic custom and gave presents to the envoys, they required a special decision of the Senate to accept, as they had no precedent to guide them (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 20.14). This incident, thought Badian, refutes those who posit on slight evidence extensive contact between Rome and the Hellenistic east before the beginning of the Pyrrhic war.50 The king wanted to learn about the Romans, but Greek scholars had not given the subject much study before the Pyrrhic war, although they had 47 Neither Diodoros (18—20) nor Arrian (FGrHist 156) referred to diplomatic contact between Rome and the diadochoi. This would be an extraordinary omission if contact existed, because both of them wrote when Rome was the dominant power in the near east. 48 Livy Per. 14, Dio Cass. 10.41, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 20.14, Val. Max. 4.3.9, Eutropius 2.15, App. Syr. i, and Just. Epit. 18.2.8-9. The Romans may have looked to the Alexandrian mint when they struck the fourth issue of Romano-Campanian didrachms (post-269/8) with the same series of Greek letters appearing on the memorial coinage of Arsinoe n. For the introduction of Roman silver, Thomsen, Early Roman Coinage 1.33-4, gathered together the written sources, whereas M.H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage 1.35-46, discussed fully the hoard evidence. 49 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 20.14; Val. Max. 4.3.9. 50 Badian, Foreign Clientelae 33. Van't Dack, 'Les relations entre 1'Egypte ptolema'ique et Italic' 385, accepted the date of 273 as the first year of contact between Rome and Alexandria. Similarly, Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome 1.62 and 53 and 2.673-6, accepted 273 as the year of contact and gave a full bibliography of the secondary materials. The date is given by Eutr. 2.15.

14 Imagination of a Monarchy made a number of scattered comments.51 The king now ordered translations of Latin materials (Synkellos 516.3), and Greek writers rapidly met the challenge of providing copy to a curious public. Douris described the Roman victory at Sentinum (Diod. Sic. 21.6.1-2); Timaios and Hieronymos mentioned the Romans in their surveys. That Timaios also included spurious detail in an otherwise sober account shows the novelty of the subject for writer and audience (Polyb. 12.46.1). Kallimachos (fr. 106) spoke of Roman courage during the same period; and Kleitarchos, who shared this interest in the Romans, put them into his own history to freshen his material and to flatter his king. The anachronism put Ptolemy and Alexander in like positions: Ptolemy had met Roman envoys at his capital in much the same manner that Alexander had allegedly met them at Babylon. The mention of Roman envoys is thus strong evidence dating Kleitarchos in or after 2/3 BC. 52

Fourthly, Arrian (Anab. 6.11.8) told a story deemed by him to be the greatest error (TO ^sytcrcov 7iXr)u^eXrma) concerning Alexander the Great; namely, that Ptolemy Soter got his surname because he had saved Alexander from the Oxydrakai. Fragments of this tale have turned up in the works of Pausanias, Plutarch, Ps. Kallisthenes, and Stephanos of Byzantion,53 so that we can presume that what Arrian meant by TO laeyicrcov 7iA,r)|aueA,r||a,a was the most commonly repeated error of some very popular writer. Who was this popular writer? Arrian judged him with such contempt that he never mentioned his name throughout the discussion of the fallacy. Almost certainly that popular writer was Kleitarchos of Alexandria, whose text enthralled readers from the date of its composition to Arrian's day, formed the basis of later authors like Diodoros, Curtius, Plutarch, Justin, and Ps. Kallisthenes, and inspired the comments of orators, grammarians, and scholiasts until the sixth century after Christ.54 But Curtius (9.5.21) dispels our last doubts when he rebukes Kleitarchos and Timagenes - both writers from Ptolemaic Alexandria - because they put Ptolemy Soter at the scene 51 Theopompos, Aristotle, and Theophrastos had touched upon the subject. 52 Confronted with the temporal implication of Kleitarchos' mentioning a Roman embassy, Badian, 'The Date of Clitarchus' 10, wondered if anyone would have bothered recording the fact before the 2705. Possibly an Etruscan embassy included Romans, Badian added, confessing that 'this is speculation.' 53 Paus. 1.6.2, Plut. Mor. 3278 and 3440, Ps. Callisthenes 3.4-5 and Steph. Byz. s.v. 'O^uSpaKat. 54 All scholars agree that Kleitarchos produced the most popular account of Alexander. The comments of Pearson, Lost Histories 213; Hamilton, Alexander the Great 17; and Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander 7, are fairly representative.

15 When Did Ptolemy n Style His Father as Ptolemaios Soter? of the famous rescue, whereas Ptolemy placed himself elsewhere in his own narrative. That Kleitarchos alleged how Ptolemy got his cognomen implies a date of authorship after 282,55 for this surname, as we have already seen, did not appear in the documents before Ptolemy n attached it to his parents together in 282 and to his father individually in 263/2. Since Berenike, mother of Ptolemy n, had not helped with the rescue of Alexander, we can presume that the fable did not justify the cult of the Theoi Soteres in 282 but the propagation of the term Ptolemaios Soter between 263/2 and 259. Indeed, until Ptolemy n had focused his piety upon his father - we shall discuss the effort in chapter 2 - and introduced the locution to his peoples, Kleitarchos would not likely associate the surname with the rescue of Alexander. We can now recover the history of the cognomen at the Ptolemaic court. Ptolemy n brought his parents together as the Theoi Soteres in 282 in an effort to discredit the Eurydikean side of the family and to justify his accession to the throne. What apologetic the monarch gave in 282 we do not know, although it possibly alleged that the Soteres guarded their devotees from peril. Sostratos, the courtier, might have alluded to the rationale when he left an inscription on the lighthouse at Pharos: 'Sostratos, son of Dexiphanes, to the Theoi Soteres on 55 Scholars who believed that Arrian alluded to Kleitarchos in Anab. 6.11.8 included Tarn, Alexander the Great 2.26-7; Pearson, Losf Histories 213-14 ; and Brunt, Arrian 2.134, n.5_ On the other hand, Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander 81-2, supposed that Kleitarchos began the fiction of Ptolemy being present at the rescue, but said nothing about Ptolemy saving Alexander or getting an epiklesis for the service. Bosworth's argument took the following shape: (i) Kleitarchos wrote 'during the first generation after Alexander' (2-3); (2) since the surname only came into existence during that period - Bosworth accepted Habicht's dates for the cognomen (304 at Rhodes, 294-288 at Miletos, and 287 for the Island League) - Kleitarchos could not have described Ptolemy's supposed rescue to explain the epiklesis; (3) and therefore, the explanation for the surname must be the work of an author writing 'at a time when the historical origins of the title were forgotten.' One could submit two objections to Bosworth's argument. Firstly, the premise dating Kleitarchos to the first generation after Alexander begs the question of his floruit. Because we are trying to date Kleitarchos, we should begin by looking at what he wrote in order to find chronological clues. Bosworth has reversed this procedure. Secondly, Kleitarchos could have given a false explanation of the surname at any time after Ptolemy n deified his father, especially if the explanation entailed some alleged event in a distant country and at a remote time. Who was around after 282 to contradict Kleitarchos? Who was around to worry about the truth? Kleitarchos wrote for a popular audience; he did not write for scholars, academics, and technicians; the exotic, the unusual, and the fabulous were all worthy subjects of his craft.

16 Imagination of a Monarchy behalf of those who sail d *5- Translation and commentary appear in Naville, 'La stele de Pithom' 66-75, and Roeder, Die cigyptische Gotterwelt 108-28. 32 The deben equalled five silver tetradrachms, so that the sum was 2500 talents. 33 P.Rev., col. 24-37. The legislation, to take effect in 263/2, was discussed at length by Grenfell and Mahaffy, Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphia, and by Preaux, L'economie royale des Lagides 165-81. The native priesthood remained a privileged class, whom the king took care to conciliate with minor concessions, and in PSI iv.44O, the hierodonloi of Boubastis referred to their exemption from liturgical service. 34 Diog. Laert. 5.58; Suidas s.v. 35 Schol. Ap. Rhod. 2.904; Ath. 2OOE-F, 2oiA-c, 6548-0; Diod. Sic. 3.36.3-5 and 7-8; P.Cair.Zen 1.59075; Ael. N^4 9.58, 11.25, and 16.39. 36 From Celsus Med. 22, we learn that Herophilos practised vivisection, such a cruel and controversial method of research that Ptolemy must have granted his protection. 37 Diod. Sic. 1.37.5 an^ 342.1; Strab. 16.4.5 and possibly Pliny NH 9.2.6.

87 Arsinoe n and the Importance of Perception knaves, doubtless reflected the bias of his Greek-speaking audience in the capital, and Patroklos, the admiral, voiced the same bias when he explained his tactics during the Chremonidean war: his crews were composed of inferiors - Egyptians and sailors - and they could hardly fight the tough Macedonians on land (Paus. 3.6.5). A non-Greek wrote to Zenon in 256/5 and complained of maltreatment 'because I am a non-Greek' and 'know not how to act the Hellene'; 38 still later, during the reign of Euergetes i, a priest spoke of a certain cleruch 'holding me in contempt because I am an Egyptian';39 and later again, a certain Herakleides spoke of an assault from an Egyptian woman. 'I beg thee, O king, if it seems good to you, not to overlook the outrage done to me - a Greek and a stranger - by an Egyptian woman.'40 The Ptolemies, proud Macedonians, spoke their native dialect on special occasions and only learnt Egyptian under the last Kleopatra.41 Nor did Ptolemy marry his sister in order to claim Kassandreia, Herakleia, and other towns once controlled by Arsinoe between 284 and 281. This proposal, put forth by J.G. Droysen in the nineteenth century,42 has never attracted the support of many scholars, since the marriage seemed a dubious means of gaining possession of the cities.43 If Ptolemy really wanted those cities, he could always claim them on behalf of his sister or nephew; the difficulty never lay with making a claim, but in getting and securing towns so far from the centre of Ptolemaic power. As far as the evidence allows us to see, Ptolemy never harboured such hopes, since he wedded his sister while he was directing his troops against Antiochos I of Syria.44 J. Kaerst proposed in 1926 that the late Ptolemaic kings had married their sisters in an effort to reduce the number of claimants to the throne.45 Could Ptolemy n have had a similar motive? When S.M. Burstein explored this line of thinking, he concluded that the marriage was part of a plan to unify the descendants of Berenike around the king and to present them as 38 P.Col.Zen 1.66, lines 18, 19, and 21: 39 P.Yale 1.46, line 14: 40 P.Ent. 79, lines 9—10: 41 42 43 44

Paus. 10.7.8; Plut. Ant. 27.4. Droysen, Geschichtc des Hellenismus 3.265. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 118, was an exception to the general consensus. Most scholars have attributed the marriage to Arsinoe's (alleged) ambition and force of character; for example, Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas 262-3, Bevan, History of Egypt 59-60; Gary, History of the Greek World 84, 85, and 250 and Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt 17-20. The date of the marriage is discussed further in the chapter. 45 J. Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus 2.344.

88 Imagination of a Monarchy the legitimate heirs of Ptolemy Soter, who had passed over Eurydike's issue in his act of succession in 285.4 The plan called for the establishment of a cult to the Theoi Soteres and for various signs of dynastic solidarity: the epithet Philadelphos attached to Arsinoe after her marriage or death; her adoption of Ptolemy and Lysimachos, the children of Arsinoe, the first wife; the striking of gold coins honouring the Theoi Soteres on the one side and the Theoi Adelphoi on the other; and the Arsinoeion, built for the glory of Arsinoe n and her parents. 'When these items are taken together with the fact that Ptolemy n conferred virtually identical honours on their only sister Philotera also in the 2/o's, there can be little doubt that one of his goals in marrying Arsinoe was the unification of the royal family - past, present and future - around himself/47 In Burstein's view, such items arose from the continuing threat of the Eurydikean side of the family during the 2705, and his view, in turn, rests upon the assumption that Pausanias (1.7.1) wrote a passage on Ptolemy's crimes in chronological order. Yet this is very unlikely. The first crime, the incestuous marriage, came at the beginning of the passage; next came the murder of Argaios and then the alleged transfer of Alexander's body to the capital, so that Pausanias has mentioned the crimes in order of antipathy, just as Lucian (Icaromenippus 15) did when he put the incestuous marriage before the lesser crimes of murder, adultery, and theft. 48 Ptolemy had cut down two of Eurydike's sons during his first year, and Keraunos had accepted his losses in 281 (Just. Epit. 17.2.9). With Eurydike's offspring cleared away, the marriage to Arsinoe could not further the unity of the governing house, unless Ptolemy wanted to set a precedent for each of his many successors; we might expect, if this were so, that he would direct his eventual heir, the future Euergetes, to take the hand of his sister rather than that of his cousin, the daughter of Magas. Two other events also reveal that Ptolemy was not greatly concerned with dynastic solidarity, after he had got rid of Eurydike's offspring in 282/1. In 267, he raised a younger son over the claims of his legitimate heirs, Ptolemy and Lysimachos, the children of Arsinoe, the first wife, and this act had the potential of causing a breach between the ruler and his legitimate children and of expanding the number of persons claiming the throne after the monarch's death. 49 Furthermore, between 251 and 246 when Bilistiche died, the king 46 47 48 49

Burstein, 'Arsinoe n Philadelphus' 211-12. Ibid. 211. See n.22. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas 445-6, Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 120-3, and Cary, History of the Greek World 390-2, thought that Ptolemy the son and co-regent was the surviving

89 Arsinoe n and the Importance of Perception declared her a goddess in her own right and built several temples to her memory (Plut. Mor. 753E). The emerging picture of his activities, therefore, is not one of him trying to unify the royal household, but one of him trying to honour those persons who pleased him at his court: Arsinoe and Philotera, his sisters (Callim. fr. 228), Ptolemy, his younger son, Bilistiche, his concubine,50 and Kleino, his cupbearer.51 Only one explanation remains, the official explanation, that Ptolemy married his sister to follow the example of Zeus wedding Hera.52 Speaking of the king's incestuous marriage, Theokritos said that 'in the fashion was consummated the holy wedlock of the immortals whom Lady Rhea bare to be the rulers of Olympos/53 A contemporary though anonymous minstrel, whose audience was scandalized by the king's marriage, invoked the same precedent when he quoted a line from Homer: And Zeus called Hera sister and wife.54

A few years later at the mint of Alexandria, Ptolemy n struck a series of gold tetradrachms and oktadrachms bearing the conjugate busts of himself and his sister on the obverse and their parents on the reverse.55 The por-

50 51 52

53

son of Arsinoe and Lysimachos. In 'Ptolemee de Telmessos/ Etudes d'epigraphie ct d'histoire grecquc 3.365-404, a revised article originally published in RPh 18 (1894), Holleaux studied an inscription showing that Ptolemaios, son of Lysimachos, had become the ruler of Telmessos by the reign of Euergetes (246-222 BC). In more recent publications, scholars have disassociated the son of Lysimachos from the co-regent of Egypt: Roos, 'Remarques sur un edit d'Antiochos in, roi de Syrie' 54—63, and Crampa, Labraunda 97-120, but see W. Huss, 'Ptolemaios der Sohn' ZPE 121 (1998) 229-50. Plut. Mor. 753E; she appeared as kanephoros of Arsinoe in P.Cair.Zen. 11.59289 and P.dem.Zen. 6b. Polyb. 14.11.2; Ath. 5/6F. Theoc. Id. 17.131-4, Plut. Mor. 736*, and possibly Theoc. Id. 15.64 and Diod. Sic. 10.31.1. Amongst modern scholars, Welles, Alexander and the Hellenistic World 83, stood almost alone in believing that the precedent of Zeus and Hera might have had some real influence upon the king. Theoc. Id. 17.131-2.

54 Plut. Mor. 736r: from Horn. 11. 17.356. 55 Svoronos 604 (gold tetradrachms) and 605 (gold oktadrachms). Both Newell, Royal Greek Portrait Coins 102, and Brett, The Benha Hoard of Ptolemaic Gold Coins' 6-7, dated these coins to Ptolemy m, but Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, 'Les temoignages numismatiques sur la guerre Chremonidienne' 225 and 226, redated them to the reign of Ptolemy n, since two gold tetradrachms had turned up with about one hundered bronzes of Ptolemy i and n at the site of a military camp near Athens. Kromann and

90 Imagination of a Monarchy traits of Ptolemy i and Berenike look almost identical, while the inscription, 0EQN/AAEAOQN, extends to both sides of the planchet and doubtless alludes to Ptolemy n and Arsinoe on the one hand and to Soter and Berenike on the other. The erroneous statement of a scholiast that Soter and Berenike were siblings possibly started as a vain attempt at creating yet another precedent for the incestuous marriage of Ptolemy n.56 This much seems certain: if the official explanation was germane, he and Arsinoe had to be deities at the time of their marriage, because only then would their wedlock be analogous to Zeus wedding Hera. The date of their deification is no longer in doubt. Before the fourteenth Macedonian year of Ptolemy n, the preamble in the papyri bore the name of the eponymous priest of Alexander, whereas in and after the fourteenth year, the preamble bore the name of the eponymous priest of Alexander and the Theoi Adelphoi (P.Hib. 11.199). The change of the preamble suggests two possibilities: either Ptolemy n and Arsinoe assumed their divine roles during the thirteenth Macedonian year or 273/2, but only changed the protocol at the beginning of the fourteenth year, or, by contrast, they assumed their divine roles and changed the preamble during the course of the fourteenth year. We can thus reckon a terminus post quern of 273/2 for the establishment of the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi and for the celebration of the marriage. The terminus ante quern for the marriage is evident from the Pithom stele, which records a visit by the king and queen on the third day of Thoth in the twelfth Egyptian year, or, in Julian terms, on the first of November in 272 BC.57 Since the priests put Arsinoe's name in a royal cartouche and described her as the King's Wife and Mistress of Two Lands, she had wedded her brother at some point before the visit to Pithom. By using the two termini, we can date the celebration of the marriage to 273/2. The Perspective of Ptolemy II The marriage says nothing about the alleged powers of Arsinoe, although it does suggest much about Ptolemy n and his perceived role in human affairs. M0rkholm, 'Egypt: The Ptolemies/ apparently found this association persuasive as they assigned no. 132-3 to Ptolemy n. Brett is doubtless correct in assigning some very rare oktadrachms of exceptionally fine style to the beginning of the series. These coins differ from the usual issue, because they bear the Theoi Soteres on the obverse and the Theoi Adelphoi and the legend on the reverse (Svoronos plate 28, no. 1-2). The place of the legend therefore is very significant. 56 Schol. Theoc: Id. 17.61. Diod. Sic. 10.31.1 = J. Tzetzes Hist. 1.586-7 stated that Ptolemy, the brother of Berenike, married his sister as Zeus married Hera. 57 LCair. 22183, line 15. See n.3i for translation and commentary.

91 Arsinoe n and the Importance of Perception A creature of the palace, Ptolemy had got his education from Straton and Philetas, and had shunned the life of a military leader; Ptolemy's distance from the thoughts and feelings of the common man was furthered by a large bureaucracy lying between the monarch and his subjects. Even at a public occasion like the Ptolemaieia of 262, the king dined afar at the citadel, where servants attended his special guests, courtiers, and foreign theoroi, whose education and breeding were similar to the king's. In this remote and affected atmosphere, Ptolemy needed a model to guide him, just as Alexander had needed Achilles to set a standard of military prowess.58 That model was sometimes Zeus.59 In olden days, all kings were called Zeus, wrote John Tzetzes (Antehomerica 102-3) working with uncertain materials in the twelfth century after Christ. The Byzantine scholar was possibly thinking of the divine or semi-divine status of kings implied by Homeric Divine Zeus-nurtured epithets - Zeus-born and God-like - or possibly he was thinking of those mythical kings who had referred or compared themselves to the greatest of deities. Salmonaios had done so at Elis. 'He declared that he was Zeus, and withholding sacrifices, he bade men offer them to himself.'60 So did his brother-in-law, Ceyx, son of Heosphoros. 'He declared that his wife was Hera, Alky one said that her husband was Zeus. Zeus changed them into birds, making one a halcyon and the other a ceyx.'6t Acting with equal impiety, Polytechos claimed to love his wife more dearly than Zeus loved Hera (Anton. Lib. 11). Agamemnon, king of Mycene, was identified with Zeus at Sparta;62 so were Amphiliaros at Orphos (Dicaearch. 1.6) and Trophonios at Labadea (Strab. 9.2.38). Ptolemy knew of these precedents. The monarch, who never called himself Zeus, could act piously towards Zeus if he followed the god's example, while courtiers could speak laudably of their king if they compared the attributes of deity and monarch. Thus, when Kallimachos praised Zeus as a god who had left the arts of warfare and hunting to lesser gods, the poet absolved the king from taking a role in military affairs (Callim. Jov. 69-77). When the same poet praised 58 Arr. Anab. 1.12.1 and 7.14.4. According to Wilcken, Alexander the Great 56, Alexander later sought to emulate Herakles and Dionysos, more suitable models for his conquest of India. 59 Ptolemy n was sometimes compared or associated with other deities, wrote Tondriau, 'Rois Lagides compares ou identifies a des divinites,' 129-31. 60 Apollod. Bit/. 1.9.7: 61 Apollod. Bib/. 1.7.4: 62 Lycoph. Alex. 1123-5 and 1369-70.

92 Imagination of a Monarchy Zeus for seizing Olympos from his elder siblings, Hades and Poseidon, he justified Ptolemy for asserting his claims over his elder brothers, Keraunos, Meleager, and Argaios (Callim. Jov. 58-66). According to Theokritos (Id. 17.64-73), a great eagle, attribute of Zeus, soared over the island of Kos at Ptolemy's birth, and Meleager the poet used the same allusion when he told how Kos had nourished him as it had nourished Zeus in olden times;63 the eagle, attribute of Zeus, appeared upon the reverse of Ptolemaic coins and became symbolic of Ptolemy himself.64 Sostratos of Knidos also made the same comparison after his arrival at the Antigonid court. Having beaten Ptolemy's fleet, Antigonos gave a pugnacious answer to Sostratos, then eager to salvage the situation by diplomatic means. Using the words of Iris, Zeus' messenger, Sostratos addressed the king as Poseidon, Lord of the Sea, to remind him that a noble heart does not fear to relent; possibly, Antigonos could appreciate the suggestion that if he were now Poseidon, Lord of the Sea, Ptolemy was still Zeus, the greater deity.65 Arsinoe's presence at the court brought about an extension of the metaphor, as Theokritos, Poseidippos, and other courtiers compared her to Hera, Zeus' sister,66 and these praises apparently solidified in the king's mind and entered into his thinking about his manner of presentation. Just as Zeus and Hera could reign over Olympia, but have their place at Alexandria, Ptolemy's capital, so Ptolemy and Arsinoe could reign over Alexandria, but have their place at Olympia, where Kallikrates of Samos raised statues in their honour after 272.6? Such a scheme of presentation called for the apotheosis of the pair as the Theoi Adelphoi, for the striking of coins bearing their conjugate busts, for the building of shrines to the new deities,68 and for the raising of statues in the native temples (I. Cair. 22183, lme 21)63 Gow and Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 1.216; Sherwin-White first pointed out the allusion in Ancient Cos 368. 64 The eagle remained the reverse type of most Ptolemaic coins until the end of the dynasty, as the reader can see from a cursory glance at Svoronos, Die Miinzen der Ptolemaer. 65 Sext. Emp. Cramm. 1.279. Sostratos quoted from Horn. //. 15.201-3. The interpretation given here follows that of Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas 386-7. 66 Theoc. Id. 17.128-35; Ps. Erato in Plut. Mor. 736F; Posedippos in Milne, Catalogue of Literary Papyri in the British Museum 45-6, no. 60, although Lasserre produced the best text in 'Aux origines de 1'anthologie' 222-47, where he attempted to show it referred to the first Arsinoe. After the death of Arsinoe n in 268, she was identified with Aphrodite (Ath. 3180) and with Isis, observed Eraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 1.240-3 and 2.129, n.93. 67 OGIS 1.26 and 27. Hauben, 'Callicrates of Samos' 34-6, explored the historical context of the inscriptions. 68 Herod. 1.30 (for Alexandria).

93 Arsinoe n and the Importance of Perception In the remote and affected atmosphere of the court, no one apparently warned the monarch that the deification of the royal couple would still not legitimize the marriage amongst the Greek-speaking peoples at home and abroad, so that when Sotades criticized the wedlock, he likely shocked the king and queen with the depth of his hostility; across the sea at Athens, where the king's friends erected statues to the Theoi Adelphoi (Paus. 1.8.6), the audience of the Ps. Erato expressed its disgust at Ptolemy's action (Plut. Mor. 736r). The Athenians and Jews would never accept a marriage between children of the same parents; Alexis and Chremonides kept calling Arsinoe the king's sister,69 and the Ps. Aristeas (41) preferred using that term in the second century BC. Arsinoe's Role at Court Theokritos wrote his fifteenth and seventeenth Idylls at the Ptolemaic court between 273 and 268;7° and in neither work did he ever allude to any important powers for Arsinoe. The poet named her as sponsor of the Adonis festival in his fifteenth Idyll (23-4), although he reserved his praise for Ptolemy ii: Ptolemy n was the affluent king, the benefactor of his people, the keeper of the civil peace (22, 46-50), whereas in the seventeenth Idyll, he was Zeus' favourite, the patron of the arts, the ruler of distant lands and the pious son of Ptolemy i. Since Theokritos ascribed the king's virtues to his parents, the Theoi Soteres, he wrote twenty-one lines on the exploits and ancestry of Soter (13-38), then another twenty-four lines on the beauty and merits of Berenike (34-57); their virtues stood apart from the king's, while Arsinoe's, mentioned in three lines, consisted of devotion to her brother and husband (128-30). To Theokritos, an observer at the court, Arsinoe was subordinate to her brother. The designer of the Adelphoi coinage held the same opinion, as he placed Arsinoe's profile behind the portrait of the king, clearly the more important of the pair.71 Berenike i appeared behind Soter's image on the same series as well as on a cameo,72 and Arsinoe in, sister of Ptolemy iv Philopator, appeared behind her brother on a semi-precious stone.73 Since both she and Berenike i were inferior to the king, the position of Arsinoe n on the coinage implies a subordinate position to her sibling. The scholiast on Theokritos' Idyll 17.128 actually confirmed this relationship, for he said 69 Ath 5028; SIC 1.434/5, nne 1770 Griffith examined the historical context of both works in Theocritus at Court 71-86. 71 See n.5572 Kyrieleis, Bildnisse der Ptolemcier plate 6, no. 3, for the cameo. 73 Ibid, plate 30, no. 5, for the stone.

94 Imagination of a Monarchy that after the king married his sister, he gave her by adoption the children of his first wife, and indeed, the future Euergetes called himself the son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, the Theoi Adelphoi.74 At the same time in Telmessos, Arsinoe's offspring called himself the son of (King) Lysimachos,75 so that we can infer from these patronymics that Ptolemy made his sister adopt the children by his first wife, while he himself did not reciprocate by taking her son by Lysimachos.76 This inequitable arrangement suggests an inequitable marriage with Ptolemy keeping control over his sister. Finally, an ordinance of Ptolemy n implies that he kept control over the civil administration during the years of marriage to his sister. In 271, he forbade the granting of tax exemptions on goods taken down the Nile, unless shippers could produce a licence by a certain Epikydes.77 Ptolemy opened his decree with suggesting that Arsinoe had no power over the bureaucracy. Together with Theokritos, the scholiast, and the designer of the Adelphoi coinage, the ordinance implies that Ptolemy had a dominant position over his sister. Not everyone had this impression of their roles in Ptolemy's own lifetime, and at Athens where one learnt of the king and queen from hearsay or diplomatic report, Chremonides spoke of the king sharing the same attitude as his sister when he sought the common freedom of the Greeks.78 This reference to Arsinoe is significant. To Tarn and Macurdy, it implied that the Chremonidean war had been Arsinoe's war, an attempt by Ptolemy at making Arsinoe's son the ruler of Macedon, part of Lysimachos' kingdom after 285.79 To S.M. Burstein, however, Athens and Sparta had formed their alliance 'in order that, a state of common accord having arisen amongst the 74 OG1S 1.54 and 56; P.Hib. 1.89, 90, 171, etc. 75 OG1S 1.55. Ptolemaios, son of Lysimachos, had employed the same patronymic in an inscription first published and dated by Segre, 'Inscrizioni di Licia' 183, to the period between 265 and 257. Because Ptolemy n appeared in the opening formula as the son of Ptolemy Soter, we can narrow the period to 259-7 (i.e., the twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, or twenty-ninth regnal year). Robert published a better text in Documents de I'Asic mineure meridionalc 55, but his restoration of a line 3 is problematic, since he did not allow sufficient space for the first half of the date. 76 Ptolemy's legitimate children were all less than fourteen years old in 273/2, while Arsinoe's son by Lysimachos was twenty-eight or -nine; this son was already nineteen or twenty when adopted by Keraunos in 281; age apparently made no difference. 77 C.Ord.Ptol 11 = P.Hib. 11.198, lines 141-7. 78 S1G 1.434/5, h"ne *?' but Arsinoe was not even mentioned in SEG xxix.io2, published at Athens in honour of Kallias of Sphettos in 270/69. 79 Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas 293 and 313; Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 119-20.

95 Arsinoe n and the Importance of Perception Greeks against those who are now flouting justice and breaking their oaths with the cities, they shall be eager combatants with King Ptolemy and with each other, and in future, shall preserve harmony and save the cities/80 According to Burstein, Ptolemy shared this limited purpose of the war, since he confined his activities in and around Attica;81 nor did the notion of supporting Greek freedom spring from Arsinoe, for Soter had used this rationale against Antigonos the One-Eyed in 314, against Kassander and Lysimachos in 310, and possibly against Demetrios Poliorketes in 287, so that Burstein agreed with Will that Chremonides' phrase was a formule de courtoisie inspired by the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi and that of Arsinoe Philadelphos.82 The Siphnians confirm the theory. They voted a crown to Perigenes, son of Leontiskos, between 273 and 271, because he had shown good will to the king, the queen, and the city (siq TS TOV paaiXsa TTIV [paaiAiacrav K]CU tf|v 7i6Xi[v] ir]v fmsTSp[a]v). 3 That Arsinoe should appear in the motive formula suggests that she also appeared in honorary formulae originating from the court, and this, in turn, implies that the king honoured her equally during the years of their reign when he built temples, raised statues, and struck coins glorifying the Theoi Adelphoi. After Arsinoe died in 268, Ptolemy set about immortalizing her with additional honours: a separate cult, an eponymous priestess, a temple at Alexandria, another at Memphis, a commemorative coinage in silver and gold, etc.84 To those outside the Ptolemaic court, these tributes so enlarged the impression of her status that the belief in her power and influence likely dates from the reign of her brother, Ptolemy n. Chremonides hints at her power in foreign affairs; Justin speaks of it directly; and modern scholars write of it as fact. E.R. Bevan pointed to the many dedications to Arsinoe in Cyprus, Delos, Amorgos, Lesbos, and Thera to infer that she had been a powerful queen whom men took care to conciliate.85 Certainly, her cult proved popular 80 SIG 1.434/5, lines 32-6:

81 Burstein, 'Arsinoe n Philadelphus' 208; he cited Heinen, Untersiichungen 142-202 as a secondary source. 82 Burstein, 'Arsinoe n Philadelphus' 208; and Will, Histoirc politique 199. 83 IG xii, supp. p. 111 = OG1S 11.730. 84 For a summary of the posthumous tributes bestowed on Arsinoe, the reader can turn to Quaegebeur, 'Documents Concerning a Cult of Arsinoe Philadelphos at Memphis' 242-4. 85 Bevan, History of Egypt 64.

96 Imagination of a Monarchy amongst those persons rich enough to afford these inscriptions - members of the Ptolemaic ruling class86 - but we are wise to remember those sources speaking against her popularity: the hostile tradition of Memnon, Pausanias, Polyainos, and Athenaios, the omission of her cult at the Ptolemaieia of 262, and the resistance to her name at the town of Patara.87 The Scholarly Stand-off Although W. Otto, E. Will, H. Heinen, and other (male) scholars had already questioned the extent of Arsinoe's influence, the real labour of demolition fell to S.M. Burstein, who wrote his important article in 1982.88 One might have thought, once Burstein had made his submission, that no one would still credit Arsinoe with a dominant role, but feminists were loath to reject their image of Arsinoe as a tigress queen. Sarah B. Pomeroy, in particular, reviewed the arguments in 1984 and acknowledged the lack of evidence for Arsinoe's power in the Greek sources;89 turning to the Egyptian sources, she credited the queen with great puissance after 279, since the clerics had called her their nsw-bitj in three inscriptions.90 In 1985, Hans Hauben gave additional arguments, depicting the queen as author of foreign policy at the Ptolemaic court.91 Because scholars have not agreed upon her role and doubtless will not agree in the near future, we might look at their arguments in summary form. On the one hand, those crediting Arsinoe with a dominant role will do so for three reasons. Firstly, she was ambitious and unscrupulous: Memnon, 86 Robert 'Sur un decret d'llion et un papyrus concernant des cultes royaux' 202-12 • gathered and discussed much of the epigraphical evidence, but saw these inscriptions as indicating the popularity of Arsinoe's cult amongst all classes. In 'A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoe in Cilicia' 317-46, Jones and Habicht republished an inscription suggesting that the said city of Arsinoe was established by Aetos, son of Apollonios, a strategos in Kilikia under Ptolemy n. This is the sort of behaviour one would expect from a member of the Ptolemaic ruling class. 87 Strab. 14.3.6. The city was called Patara in P.Mich.Zen. 10 dated in 257. A similar situation occurred at Koresia; Robert, Hcllenica 11-12 (1960) 146-60, has suggested that it was renamed Arsinoe during the Chremonidean war, but reverted to its old name after the weakening of Ptolemaic influence early in the second century BC. 88 See nn.6 and 7. 89 Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt 18-19. 90 Pomeroy accepted the conclusions of Quaegebeur, 'Ptolemee n en adoration devant Arsinoe n,' 202-6, who discussed three posthumous documents, where Arsinoe appeared as nsw-bitj and bltj. He inferred from this title and Chremonides' statement that Arsinoe had governed Egypt with her brother. 91 Hauben, 'Arsinoe n et la politique exterieure de 1'Egypte' 99-127.

97 Arsinoe n and the Importance of Perception Justin, Pausanias, and Polyainos suggest that she would stop at nothing to secure the succession of her son to the throne of Macedon; her acts included the murder of Agathokles and the marriage to Keraunos. Ptolemy n, these scholars agree, appears soft and pleasure-loving, an easy prey for the forceful queen.92 In addition, she received extraordinary honours during her lifetime and after her death, and these extraordinary honours imply extraordinary powers.93 Finally, during her stay in Egypt between 279 and 268, Ptolemaic foreign policy was especially vigorous; Chremonides, in particular, spoke of her influence in supporting the freedom of Greek cities.94 On the other hand, those disassociating the queen from a dominant role can cite seven arguments for doing so. Firstly, although she was ambitious and unscrupulous, so was Ptolemy n, hardly the soft, placid dilettante described by Bevan. Before Arsinoe sailed to Egypt, Ptolemy had already killed two of Eurydike's sons, banished Demetrios of Phaleron, affirmed his father's friendship with Athens, made a pact with Keraunos, and planned a move on Seleukid territory. The greatest period of Ptolemaic prosperity began after the queen's death when the mints of Coele-Syria struck annual staters reflecting an inflow of silver.95 Either the king himself, a keen administrator, or Apollonios the dioiketes devised those policies resulting in this accumulation of bullion,9 and this economic policy resulted in a full treasury and a large military establishment at the time of the king's death in 246 (App. Pro/. 10). Ptolemy, though hardly a charismatic figure, was more than a match for his sister. Secondly, not only did Ptolemy show an aptitude for administration, but he made fairly astute moves for most 92 All scholars who believe in Arsinoe's pre-eminence have used this argument; for example, Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas 262-3; Bevan, History of Egypt 56, 57, and 69-71; Gary, History of the Greek World 84-5; and Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 118-24. 93 This argument is also very popular; for example, Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas 291-2; Bevan, History of Egypt 64; Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt 16-20; and Quaegebeur, 'Ptolemee n' 202-6. 94 Tarn, The Struggle of Egypt against Syria and Macedonia', Antigonos Gonatas

703-8; Bevan, History of Egypt 67-8; Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 119—20; Mattingly,

'Zephyrites,' 126-8; Longega, Arsinoe ll 91-2; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 2.338, n.279; and especially, Hauben, 'Arsinoe n' 114-19. 95 Newell, 'Standard Ptolemaic Silver' 5. The pattern of production is apparent from table i of chapter i, 'When Did Ptolemy n Style His Father as Ptolemaios SoterT 96 Ptolemy n's interest in administration is well documented from the comments of Callim. ]ov. 84-9, Strab. 17.1.45 and App. Pro/. 10; the king visited Cyprus in 282, Pithom in 278 and 272, and Pelousion and the Fayum about 253. We learn from P.Hib. 1.110 that he received a large volume of correspondence; from C.Ord.Ptol. 24 that he personally issued orders on the billeting of soldiers; and from l.Cair. 22183 tnat ne inspected the canal and defences at Pithom.

98 Imagination of a Monarchy of his reign; Arsinoe, by contrast, had shown poor political judgment in Thrace, where she split the court of Lysimachos and married Keraunos over the objections of her eldest son. Thirdly, she was unable to dissuade her eldest son from revolting against her second husband and to dissuade Keraunos, her second husband, from killing her youngest children, even though they were innocent of any crime. Apparently, she lacked great powers of persuasion. Fourthly, the extraordinary honours paid to Arsinoe do not entail extraordinary powers at the court. Ptolemy iv, while following the example of his forefather, paid equal honours to his sister as one of the Theoi Philopatores, but denied her a role in government;97 the granting of the title nsw-bltj by the Egyptian clerics has no bearing on the position of Arsinoe n at the capital; the clerics simply granted every honour as the king requested, and he never grasped the import of the title. Fifthly, the supposed diplomatic vigour of Ptolemy n during the period when Arsinoe was staying in Egypt may be little more than an illusion caused by the random survival of references. We can now see that one of his more vigorous periods was in 263/2 or five years after his sister's death.98 When Chremonides thus spoke of Ptolemy sharing the same attitude as his ancestors (the Theoi Soteres) and his sister, the Athenian used a diplomatic term and expressed a perception of Arsinoe's influence. Against this statement of Chremonides, we can weigh the comments of those writers at or near the Ptolemaic court - Kallimachos, Theokritos, and Sotades - because each of them could view the king and queen at close range. Kallimachos credited the king with the victory over the Gauls circa 274 and for his skill at ruling the country; Theokritos praised him for his maintenance of the civil peace, for his defence of the land from marauders, and for his patronage of the Dionysiac guild;99 Sotades blamed him for the incestuous marriage of 273/2. Since Kallimachos and Theokritos praised Arsinoe for her beauty and devotion,100 while Sotades scolded members of either sex,101 their silence about her alleged powers suggests that Ptolemy had kept his dominant position; the scholiast of Theokritos Idyll 17.128, the phraser of C.Ord.Ptol. 11, and the designer of the Adelphoi coinage 97 Ath. 2/6A who quoted from Eratosthenes' Arsinoe; Polybius (14.11.5) mentioned the influence of Agathokleia, Ptolemy's mistress; Polybius 15 passim mentioned the roles of several important figures, but gave none to Arsinoe in. He said (15.25.9) that she was actually insulted and abused throughout her life. 98 See chapters 3 and 4. 99 Callim. Del. 184-7 and )ov. 84-6; Theoc. Id. 15.46-50, 17.97-101 and 112-14. 100 Theoc. Id. 17.128-30; and Callim. fr. iio, lines 54-8. 101 See n.27.

99 Arsinoe n and the Importance of Perception seem to confirm this inference. And last, as a generalization, the king remained dominant over the queen in those Hellenistic monarchies best documented for the third century BC, so that those proposing a contrary situation - that Arsinoe managed her brother - should carry the burden of argument. The Importance of Perception The final argument rules out the likelihood of anyone making a strong case for Arsinoe's dominance over her sibling. At the same time, however, the positive evidence for Ptolemy managing his own affairs rests on those Alexandrine writers whom Pomeroy has already dismissed for 'suppressing' any reference to Arsinoe's greatness, since the exercise of female power would tend to repel them.102 The evidence, in other words, is simply not strong enough to allow one group of scholars to persuade the other. While both groups will continue debating, they can at least agree on two matters; namely, that the perception of Arsinoe's power was common to those persons outside the court during Ptolemy n's reign - together, the comments of Alexis, Chremonides, the Siphnians, and the Egyptians attest to this - and also that the perception was influential in shaping the queen's role during the second and first centuries BC. Arsinoe n had extraordinary status, and men identified that status with power, especially after the king promoted the cult of Arsinoe Philadelphos throughout his realm in 268. After her death in 268 and into the first century BC, men did not look back to Olympias and Kleopatra, Alexander's relations, in order to find a model for Ptolemaic queenship; men looked to Arsinoe n, whose reputation kept growing from the honours bestowed by her brother and maintained by his many successors: the portrait coinage in silver and gold, the temples at Alexandria and Memphis,103 the streets, districts, and cities named in her 102 Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt 19. 103 The Alexandrine mint, for example, continued striking gold oktadrachms bearing the name and portrait of Arsinoe n until the second century BC (Svoronos 1242, 1374, 1452, 1499, etc.). Pliny NH 34.42.148 stated that Ptolemy was still building the temple at Alexandria at the time of his death in 246. Ronchi, 'II papiro cairense 65445 e 1'obelisco di Arsinoe n' 56-75, discussed the construction of this temple. Quaegebeur, 'Ptolemee n' 239, has assembled much material on the cult of Arsinoe at Memphis, where one family continued holding the title of 'scribe of Ptah and Arsinoe Philadelphos' until at least 76 BC. We know of the shrine of Arsinoe-Aphrodite at Zephyrion from Kallim. (Ath. 3i8B-c), Poseidippos (Ath. 3180), Strab. 17.1.16, and other sources, and of the shrine of Arsinoe at Philadelphia from P.Col.Zen. 1.39 and P.Cair.Zen. ^.59745.

ioo Imagination of a Monarchy memory/04 and the system of dating by her eponymous priestess.105 Men remembered Arsinoe when they prayed before her altars or gazed upon her statues at Athens and Thespiai;106 and men remembered her too on her feast day, as Satyros says, when they marched behind her priestess in the streets or cheered upon the rooftops of their homes.107

104 Longega, Arsinoe 11 115-18, named the cities, while Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 1.237-8 and 2.no, n.276, mentioned the streets. According to Paus. 1.7.3, Ptolemy n renamed the Fayum after his sister. 105 The kanephoros of Arsinoe first appears in P.dem.Louvre 2424 (267 BC) at Alexandria and in P. dem. Mainz7 (185 BC) at Ptolemais in Upper Egypt. Scribes continued dating with the eponymous priestesses at both cities until at least the late second century BC. The sources were brought together by Pestman, 'La chronologie egyptienne d'apres les textes demotiques' 134 and 148, and by Clarysse and van der Veken, The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt,' 6 and 42. 106 Paus. 1.8.6 and 4.31.1. According to Pliny NH 37.32.108, a topaz statue of Arsinoe stood in her temple at Alexandria, while Ath. 4976 said that Ptolemy n took a personal interest in the iconography of these representations. Ptolemy ordered her statues in all the Egyptian temples after her death in 268; the order is mentioned in the Mendes stele, lines 13-14 (l.Cair. 22181). Roeder presented a text and translation in Die dgyptischc Cotterwelt .168—88; Sauneron, 'Un document egyptien relatif a la divinisation de la reine Arsinoe n' 83-109, published an additional fragment of the inscription. 107 Satyros, FGrHist 3C, 631.1; and P.Oxy. xxvn.2465.

6

Monarchy as Imagination: Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen Although Grace Macurdy painted a fanciful picture of Arsinoe's position at the court, she did chronicle the gradual rise of the queens over a period of almost three centuries. At the beginning of the Ptolemaic period, the queen remained subordinate to her husband; by the reign of Kleopatra n and Euergetes (145-116 BC), the queen ruled equally with the king;1 and under the last Kleopatra, the queen emerged greater than her male associates.2 To Macurdy, the Ptolemaic queens had gained their influence by virtue of their strong character and political acumen (cruvsaiq TrpayiaaTiKr] KOU ToA^a);3 she evidently sought no further explanation, even though the queens of Macedon and Syria had also shown skill and courage on several occasions: Olympias, wife of Philip n; Laodike, wife of Antiochos n; and Kleopatra Thea, wife of three Seleukid monarchs. But they, unlike the Ptolemaic queens, never managed to solidify their positions of power or pass them down to other women, because such a political feat required the approval of other members of the court.4 The change thus required a change in the political imagination, one allowing the queens to see themselves in 1 The suggestion originated from Strack, Die Dynastic dcr Ptolcmacr 32, 33 and 75. Both Strack and Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 143-51, dated the achievement of equality to the first half of Philometor's reign (180-145 BC). 2 Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 194-223 and 230. 3 Ibid. 2. She was influenced by the comments of Diod. Sic. 19.67.2. 4 One example will suffice: when Kleopatra Thea assumed control of Syria in 125, she struck silver tetradrachms bearing her portrait and name (BMC 4.85, no.i); in the following year she felt compelled to associate herself with Antiochos vm Grypos, whose portrait then appeared behind the queen's portrait. Kahrstedt, T-rauen auf antiken Miinzen' 276, 277, 279-80, first proposed that her attempt at sole rule was resisted and that her individual coinage was confined to a single year.

1O2 Imagination of a Monarchy THE PTOLEMIES Sovereign rulers of Egypt or Cyprus are indicated in CAPITAL LETTERS. The horizontal lines do not necessarily imply the order of birth. Lagos m. Arsinoe, mistress of Philip n PTOLEMY i [SOTER i] m. Artakama, m. Eurydike, m. Berenike, w. Thais Keraunos

Meleager

Argaios

s.

Lysandra Ptolemais

Lagos

PTOLEMY ii m. Arsinoe i, m. Arsinoe n, w. mistresses

Menelaus Eirene Philotera

Ptolemy the son? PTOLEMY m EUERGETES i m. Berenike n from Cyrenaica PTOLEMY iv PHILPATOR m. Arsinoe in

Magas

Lysimachos Berenike Syra Alexander

s.

Berenike

PTOLEMY v EPIPHANES m. Kleopatra i from Syria PTOLEMY vi PHILOMETOR m. Kleopatra ii Eupator

PTOLEMY vn

Kleopatra Thea

Kleopatra in

PTOLEMY VIII EUERGETES II m. KLEOPATRA II, m. KLEOPATRA III, W. Eirene

Ptolemy Memphites

Ptolemy Apion

s.

PTOLEMY x ALEXANDER i m. unknown, m. Berenike in Ptolemy xi Alexander n

d,

PTOLEMY ix SOTER ii m. Kleopatra iv, m. Kleopatra v Selene, w. concubine(s) BERENIKE III

two s.?

PTOLEMY xii AULETES m. Kleopatra vi Tryphaina BERENIKE iv KLEOPATRA vn w. J. Caesar, w. M. Antonius Ptolemy xv Kaisarion

PTOLEMY OF CYPRUS

PTOLEMY xm Ptolemy xiv

Alexander Helios Kleopatra Selene Ptolemy Philadelphos

103 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen a puissant role and allowing others to support a female ruler. Egypt was unique amongst the Hellenistic kingdoms, for there Ptolemy n put such a change in motion when he glorified his sister Arsinoe and made popular a civilian style of monarchy. Ptolemies I and II Few monarchies present such a startling contrast as those of Ptolemy n and his father. Ptolemy Soter learnt his kingly craft from his training at the Macedonian court and from his reading of philosophical tracts on kingship. Demetrios of Phaleron, himself the author of one study, advised his sovereign to peruse those writings, since he would find there what no one would boldly tell him to his face.5 Although all of these tracts have disappeared for the third century BC, Stobaios quoted from a certain Diotogenes, a neo-Pythagorean who reiterated statements from older works during the second or third century after Christ.6 According to Diotogenes, There are three kingly duties: military leadership, the dispensation of justice, and the honouring of the Gods. Thus, will be able to lead the army if he thoroughly understands the art of warfare, to dispense justice and hear out his subjects if he has studied thoroughly the nature of justice and law, and to worship the Gods piously and fervently if he has reasoned out the nature and excellence of God.7

To perform such duties, the king must rise above the passions of the common people. Wherefore the king must not be conquered by pleasure, but must conquer it; nor must he resemble the masses - but should be different from them - nor make

5 Plut. Mor. 1890; Stob. F/or. 4.7.27. 6 Goodenough, The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship' 64-78, dated Diotogenes to the third century BC; Tarn thought Diotogenes was nearly contemporary with Demetrios Poliorketes in Alexander the Great 2.409-10, although Delatte, Les traites de la royante d'Ecphante, Diotogcnc, ct Sthcnidas 284-5, had already proposed a later dating. Barker, who summarized Delatte's arguments in From Alexander to Constantine 361-3, thought that Diotogenes had ultimately borrowed his three main duties of kingship from Arist. Pol. 3.114.12. 7 Stob. F/or. 4.7.61:

104 Imagination of a Monarchy pleasure his goal, but manly virtue. At the same time, it is fitting that one who wants to rule over others must first be able to rule over his own passions.8

If we can judge by these standards, Ptolemy Soter seems like an ideal king of the Hellenistic period. A military leader, Ptolemy regarded Egypt as a prize of war 9 and probably chose that land because of its natural defences and its accessibility to Greece and Macedon.10 Diodoros described him rallying his troops against Perdikkas in 321/0, steering his fleet towards Cyprus in 313, routing Demetrios at Gaza in 312, seizing Andros, Sikyon, and Corinth in 308, and marching in and out of Coele-Syria in 302." Theokritos (Id. 17.57) thought of him as a great warrior. But Ptolemy was also an administrator of justice; he arrested and killed Kleomenes of Naukratis, Alexander's appointee, who had defrauded the soldiers of their pay and had extorted monies from the Egyptian priests on two occasions and from the citizens of Kanopos on one occasion.12 Unlike Kleomenes, Ptolemy treated the natives with such kindness that they fought beside his regulars at Gaza;13 he was generous and fair and men gathered around him because of his fairness (eTuekeuxv).14 Diodoros (18.28.6) wrote further that the gods saved Ptolemy from many dangers by virtue of the goodness and fairness shown to all of his friends Ptolemy also showed his respect to the Greek and Egyptian deities: upon 8 Stob. F/or. 4.7.62:

9 Diod. Sic. 18.39.5, 43-1; 20.76.7. 10 According to Diod. Sic. 18.14.1, Ptolemy set about building an army of mercenaries upon his arrival in 323. The statement does not exclude the possibility that Ptolemy i was also attracted by the economic resources of Egypt, although the full exploitation of the chora was left to Ptolemy H'S reign. 11 Diod. Sic. 18.34.1-5; Front. Str. 4.7.20; Diod. Sic. 19.79.4, 83.1-84.8, 37.1-2; 20.50.1-52.3, 75.1, 113.1-2. 12 Ps. Arist. Occ. 2.338, c, F, and 34A. According to Paus. 1.6.3, Kleomenes was a friend of Perdikkas; this relationship was an important motive for the execution of Kleomenes by Ptolemy. 13 Diod. Sic. 18.14.1, Just. Epit. 13.6.19 and the satrap stele, published in Sethe, Hicroglyphischc Urkimden der griechischc-romischen Zcit 2.11-22, no. 9. The last translation appeared in Sevan's A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty 28-32. Jouguet considered these and other sources for his article on Ptolemy's treatment of the natives: 'La politique interieure du premier Ptolemee' 513-36. Diod. Sic. 19.80.4 mentioned the Egyptians at Gaza. 14 Diod. Sic. 18.33.3 and 14.1.

105 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen his arrival in Egypt in 323, he lent fifty talents to the priests of Memphis for the purpose of burying the Apis bull; he restored lands and revenues to the gods of Pe and Dep;15 he officiated at games and sacrifices in memory of the god Alexander (Diod. Sic. 18.28.4); ne honoured the deity with a memorial coinage and named Menelaus as priest of the cult some five times;16 he dedicated a golden kylix to the goddess Aphrodite when he landed at Delos in 308 (l.Delos 4426, line 181); he made the appropriate sacrifices upon the withdrawal of Antigonos in 306 and promoted the cult of the god Sarapis.17 While Ptolemy was providing military leadership, the dispensation of justice and piety towards the gods, he was displaying the kingly virtues of moderation and control. Plutarch told a story about the son of Lagos to show his control in the face of provocation: a pedant had made sport of the king's humble ancestry - a sensitive subject for Ptolemy - but Ptolemy kept calm before his guests. 'If it is not a king's role to take a jest, neither is it his role to make one,' he responded.18 Ptolemy was provoked at still another time by the presence of Apelles, a man whom he despised, but calmly inquired who had delivered the false invitation to the painter (Pliny NH 35.36.89). Andronikos, an Antigonid officer, had insulted the future king during the siege of Tyre, but Ptolemy spared the officer's life, showered him with presents, and invited a former foe into his circle of friends (Diod. Sic. 19.86.1-2). Ptolemy prided himself on his simplicity, said Plutarch. 'He owned no more than what was necessary, and used to say that it was more kingly to enrich than to be rich.'19 Ptolemy often dined at the homes of his friends and dressed in the cloak of a simple soldier (Q. Curt. 9.8.23). 15 Diod. Sic. 1.84.8 and the satrap stele (see 11.13). Crawford surveyed the evidence on the Ptolemies' support of the Egyptian cults at Memphis in 'Ptolemy, Ptah and Apis in Hellenistic Memphis' 5-42. 16 Svoronos 18-24, 32~5> 37~49 etc- m 'A Ptolemaic Hoard of "Athena" Tetradrachms at the ANS' 56-7, Zervos dated the Alexander or satrapal coinage before 301, because none of it has been found in Coele-Syria, a Ptolemaic possession after the battle of Ipsos. M0rkholm, 'Cyrene and Ptolemy i/ 157, preferred dating the issue down to 298/7. The appointments of Menalaus are apparent from P.Hib. i.S^A, dated by Rubensohn, Elephantine-Papyri 22, to Soter's fortieth regnal year. 17 Diod. Sic. 20.76.6. Ptolemy i was associated with the cult of Sarapis by Tac. Hist. 4.83-4, by Plut. Mor. 36ir—362E, by Diog. Laert. 5.76, and by St Jerome's entry for the i23rd Olympiad (288-285 BC). A second tradition credited the cult to Ptolemy n: Clem. Alex. Protr. 4.48 and the Armenian version of the Canon of Eusebios (Helm p. 200). 18 Plut. Mor. 458B: ECFTIV.' 19 Plut. Mor. i8iF and Ael. VH 13.13:

106 Imagination of a Monarchy Like Philip n and Alexander the Great, Ptolemy took several wives and concubines: Antakama, a Persian, in 324, Thais, an Athenian, about 323, an Egyptian of high birth about the same year, Eurydike, a Macedonian, in 321, and Berenike, her niece, a few years later.20 None of these women controlled Ptolemy, and none had any power as queen. We can be sure of their lack of power because Diodoros of Sicily, who relied on Hieronymos, ascribed no power to any of these women even though he described the political roles of other women contemporary to Ptolemy Soter: Olympias, Kleopatra, and Phila. Perhaps Berenike, mother of Philadelphos, had secured for her son by Philip the military commission eventually leading to his rule over Kyrene about 300;" Pyrrhos judged her the most influential of Ptolemy's wives (Plut. Pyrrh. 4.4), but Ptolemy might have shoved her aside if he had realized his hopes of wedding Kleopatra in 308 (Diod. Sic. 20.37.3-4). His monarchy was patriarchal and military. When Ptolemy n ascended the throne in 282, he possibly intended to rule his kingdom in much the same fashion as his parent. The young king set about to affirm his father's friendship with Athens and to repress the faction in favour of Keraunos. 22 Ptolemy n banished Demetrios of Phaleron, murdered Argaios, and put to death another half-brother for spreading unrest in Cyprus. During his first year of rule or 282/1, the young king supported his claims with three important items of propaganda: firstly, he held funeral games and sacrifices in honour of old Soter in an effort to show some piety towards him and to win the respect of his friends and associates, men like Sostratos of Knidos and Philokles of Sidon; next, he redated his reign from 285 in an effort to stress his nomination during that year by Ptolemy Soter; Kallimachbs (Jov. 58-66) further justified this act of settlement when he praised the succession of a virtuous Zeus over his elder siblings, Hades and Poseidon, an apt analogy since the king's apologists portrayed their monarch as virtuous while they depicted Keraunos as rash and ill tempered; and lastly, Ptolemy brought his parents together as the Theoi Soteres in an effort to stress Berenike's marriage to the old king; no one could then say that young Ptolemy was an illegitimate son, even if Soter had not wedded Berenike in 308, the year of his son's birth. Ptolemy n was not a military leader, even if apologists tried to present him as one during the 2/os and early 2605. Kallimachos, in particular, tried to credit the king with a victory over the Gauls circa 274, and Theokritos 20 Arr. Anab. 7.4.6; Ath. 576n. 21 Paus. 1.7.1. wrote that Magas got his commission through Berenike's influence. 22 For the crisis of succession, the reader can see Hazzard, The Regnal Years of Ptolemy n Philadelphos' 148-52.

io/ Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen tried to depict him as a great warrior. 23 These poets deceived few people/4 and Ptolemy's lack of prowess led him to implement two important policies for the armed forces. In the first place, the monarch appointed commanders on the basis of loyalty alone rather than technical skill, so that none of them won any important victories for their king - neither Patroklos, Kallikrates, Chremonides, nor Dion - although all of them served him faithfully and found him friendly after their defeats. 25 In the second place, Ptolemy sometimes fought wars by proxy, rather than joining the fray directly and giving a general the chance of winning prestige before the army. During the Ptolemaieia of 262, the king gathered a massive show of force to file before his guests at the stadium, but Ptolemy did not sail these troops abroad to mainland Greece; he preferred to pull the levers of diplomacy,26 to raise a fortress here, to send the navy there, and to let his friends and allies carry the burden of fighting. 27 Indeed, Ptolemy had almost dropped the pretence of being a military leader by 262 when he portrayed himself as the descendant of Dionysos, the least martial of Greek gods, and associated the god with Alexander both in the great pageant of 262 and, through Kleitarchos, in a work on Alexander's life. 28 Ptolemy thus 23 Callim. Del. 185-8 and Theoc. Id. 17.56, 57, and 103. In the Pithom stele, lines 12-15, the Egyptian priests referred to Ptolemy n fighting in Palestine during the First Syrian War. The Babylonian chronicle, published by S. Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon 150-9, mentioned only the withdrawal of the Ptolemaic army. Probably one of Ptolemy's generals conducted the campaign in western Syria, although Lorton presumed otherwise in 'The Supposed Expedition of Ptolemy n to Persia' 160-4. 24 Plut. Aral. 15.2-3; Mor. 34iA. 25 Kallikrates, Patroklos, and Glaukon, Chremonides' brother, served as the priest of Alexander and the Theoi Adelphoi in 272/1, 271/0, and 255/4 respectively. Kallikrates was probably nauarch at the time of the battle of Kos, but remained active in naval affairs until the 2505 (P.Mich.Zcn. 100); Patroklos, wrote Pausanias (1.7.3 anc^ 3-6-4~5)/ was largely ineffective during the siege of Athens, but later appeared in P.Pctr. 111.420 (7) written in 257/6; according to Polyaen. (Strat. 5.18), the Rhodians defeated Chremonides off Ephesos circa 258, but he apparently kept the king's confidence if we can judge by Glaukon's appointment as eponymous priest in 255. The Ptolemaic commander who invaded western Syria circa 274 was equally unsuccessful (see n.23), as was Dion at Damascus (Polyaen. Strat. 4.15). 26 See chapters 3 and 4, The Nikouria Decree' and The Grand Procession.' 27 Some of the archaeological evidence was surveyed by McCredie, 'Fortified Military Camps in Attica,' who believed that Patroklos established military camps at Patrokou Charax, Helioupolis, Rhamnous, and Koroni. Patroklos sailed to Kaunos near Crete, where he arrested Sotades the poet (Ath. 621A). Patroklos' actions do not hide the essential ineffectiveness of Ptolemaic policy. 28 Goukowsky, Essai sur les origincs du mythc d'Alcxandrc 1.5 and 2.81-3. F°r tne date °f Kleitarchos, the reader can review chapter i, 'When did Ptolemy n Style His Father as Ptolcmaios SotcrT

io8 Imagination of a Monarchy changed the monarchy from one stressing its military role to one stressing its civilian or cultural role. In sharp contrast to his father, Ptolemy n narrowed his role as a benefactor to the Egyptian clerics and the Greek-speaking peoples of his own dominions or allied states - he apparently excluded the natives in the chora although this impression of his attitude may change if more demotic papyri should come to light. The king asked Bakchon, the nesiarch, to deliver magistrates from the island of Kos to the city of Naxos, whose citizens lacked judges to mediate their grievances.29 'Folks go about their business without let or hindrance/ wrote Theokritos at the capital between 273 and 268. There are no knaves creeping up in the Egyptian style to mug the passer-by/30 Ptolemy enforced the peace with severe penalties for brigands and their collaborators. Some of his legislation appears in P.Hib. 11.198. And if does not deliver , he shall be liable to the same penalty as the brigand ... Brigands, other criminals, and royal sailors are to be arrested wherever they are, and no one shall protect [them] from arrest; whoever obstructs or [ ] shall be liable to the same penalties as the [brigand] or the deserter from his [ship]. Similarly, receivers of stolen goods from criminals or malefactors or those harbouring them [shall be liable] to the same penalties as set out... 3 1

Violence broke out at the city of Apollonopolis in Upper Egypt when a group of soldiers forced its way into the homes of the residents and threw them into the streets. 'Give orders therefore that this is not to be done in the future/ the king told a certain Antiochos in an effort to mitigate the tension.32 The king described the correct procedure. The oikonomoi of the district should provide the billets to the soldiers if they could not obtain 29 OG1S I.43A. The classic discussion of the text remains that of Holleaux, Etudes d'cpigraphie ci d'histoire grccqucs 3.27-34, who believed that the Naxians had raised their stele circa 280. This date is conjectural, because it depends on the dubious dating of S1G 1.390 and certain other inscriptions of the period. Theoc. Id. 15.47-8: 30 Theoc. Id. 17.97: 31 P.Hib. 11.198, lines 85-6:

32 P. Hal. i, lines 170-1:

109 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen them by peaceful means; vacating troops should leave the billets in good order; soldiers should not use them for storage, let them to others, or seal them up for future occupation. The king possibly wrote his directive at the request of the residents. During his tenure on the throne, Ptolemy got several requests and answered them on generous terms. He gave fifty talents of silver and twenty thousand measures of corn to the Athenians in 282; he exempted the town of Telmessos from becoming a dorea in the same year; he granted a strip of land to the Milesians in 279/8; he provided food and entertainment to the Alexandrians at the Ptolemaieia of 262; and he promised one hundred and fifty talents of silver to the Sikyonians in 250.33 We also know that he provided land for his troops at the end of the Second Syrian War, and that he kept a list of pensioners, including perhaps Aratos of Sikyon, who got an annual stipend of six talents under Ptolemy m.34 To the freeman, the very best paymaster is Ptolemy!' cried Theokritos. 'And like a true king, he gives freely to many and denies no suppliant.'35 At the same time, Ptolemy decreed or confirmed some concessions to the native priesthood, though he exercised greater restraint with the priests than with his Greek-speaking subjects and friends. 'In Egypt/ declared F.W. Walbank, 'the kings exerted some pressure on the priesthood in the early third century: its wealth was curtailed and restricted to what was required for the maintenance of the temples.'36 Some priests wrote to Apollonios the dioiketes in 257 to get a hundred talents of myrrh promised by the king and required by the priests for the burial of the Hesis cow at Aphroditopolis, and two hierodouloi of Boubastis wrote to Zenon, the steward of Apollonios, to claim their exemption from liturgical service.37 Ptolemy visited the temple at Pithom in 278 and 272, and gave it 2500 talents of silver in 265/4.38 By contrast, he seems to have treated the Egyptian laoi with relative indifference: we hear of some sweating in the navy under Patroklos during the Chremonidean war (Paus. 3.6.5), and we hear of others striking on the 33 SEG xxix.102, lines 52-3; SEG xxviii.1224, lines 9-17; I.Milct 1.3.1390, line 30; Ath. 1970-2033; Plut. Arat. 13.4. 34 Clarysse, 'A Royal Visit to Memphis and the End of the Second Syrian War' 83-90. The civil list of Ptolemy n is evident from Ath. 493F-494A. According to Plut. Arat. 41.3 and Cleom. 19.4, Aratos received a pension from the Ptolemaic Crown. and 35 Theoc. Id. 14.58, 63—4: 36 Walbank, 'Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas' 74. 37 PS1 iv.328; P.Cair.Zcn 111.59451. 38 l.Cair. 22183, nnes 7' J5' anc^ 27- Text an^ commentary appear in Naville, 'La stele de Pithom/ 66-75 and Roeder, Die agyptischc Gottcrwclt 108-28.

no Imagination of a Monarchy estate of Apollonios the dioiketes during the harvest of 2j6;39 we never hear of Ptolemy showing his concern or improving the lot of his Egyptian subjects, and we never hear of him raising an Egyptian to high office. The king apparently reserved his justice for the few. While he reserved his justice for the few, Ptolemy succeeded in fulfilling the third duty of kingship - acting piously towards the gods - even if piety for the king was not the same as it was for his father. Ptolemy Soter had revered the old gods - Zeus, Aphrodite, Apis, and Horos - and even the new gods - Alexander and Sarapis - whereas Ptolemy n glorified real and alleged members of his own family: Zeus, Dionysos, Ptolemy Soter, Berenike, the Theoi Soteres, Philotera, and, after 268, Arsinoe Philadelphos. Ptolemy's attempt in 273/2 at extending these divine honours to himself and Arsinoe in marriage had raised a cry of protest throughout much of the Greek-speaking world, just as his effort at glorifying Arsinoe after 268 had raised further doubts for many people, so that the king omitted both cults during the Ptolemaieia of 262, as he presented himself as the descendant of Dionysos and as the dutiful son of Ptolemy Soter.40 Reverence towards Soter proved especially popular. The king started the Soter era in 262, raised the Ptolemaieia to Olympic status, introduced the locution Ptolemaios Soter, and contrived the story on the surname's origin.41 The king expressed his piety again when he wrote to the Amphiktyons and the Milesians.42 After the great celebration of 262, however, he resumed public tributes to Arsinoe, while members of the Ptolemaic ruling class followed his example and set up altars and statues to her memory. These extraordinary honours, as we have seen already, conveyed the impression of Arsinoe having powers at the court.43 The monarchy of Philadelphos was patriarchal and civilian. Ptolemy III Euergetes I and Berenike II Little apparently changed during the reign of his son, Ptolemy m Euergetes (246-222 BC). Shortly after taking the reins of office, Euergetes hurled his army into the Seleukid kingdom to assert his sister's claims against

39 Bingen, 'Grecs et Egyptians d'apres PS/ 502' 25-40. That Ptolemy n did not treat the Egyptians very well was first argued by Peremans from the Greek papyri in 'Ptolemee n Philadelphe et les indigenes egyptiens' 1005-22. 40 See chapter 4, 'The Grand Procession.' 41 See chapter i, 'When did Ptolemy n Style His Father as Ptolemaios Soter?' 42 FD 111.4.357; I.Milet I.3.139A = RC 14. 43 See chapter 5, 'Arsinoe n and the Importance of Perception/

in Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen Laodike. His campaign lasted about two years before he turned his army around and faced a domestic sedition ('domestica seditione'), possibly caused by his absence and by a shortage of grain in Egypt.44 In the Kanopos decree, the priests alluded to a poor inundation, to the king's importation of grain from abroad, and to his remission of taxes at some unspecified time (TTOTE) before 238.45 The problem persisted. The Ptolemies, exporters of grain and importers of silver at the time of Philadelphos, experienced such a decline in their trading surplus under his progeny that the mints stopped dating his coins with regnal years, since little silver entered the Ptolemaic realm to buy grains, oils, and other commodities.46 Euergetes did not enjoy the routine of administration, so that he lowered his expenses rather than pursue a policy of increasing his revenue from greater exploitation in the choral7 He eventually stopped his subventions to Aratos and Kleomenes, and gradually reduced his army and navy to token forces.48 He never lifted his spear again. After Euergetes died in 222, Kleomenes asked the new king for aid in resuming the war against the Antigonids, but the Council declined the request for financial reasons.49 Ptolemy m Euergetes, a civilian monarch, left his kingdom lacking both in monies and in arms. His reputation in antiquity largely depends on his benefactions to his people and his piety towards the gods. At the very beginning of his 44 The phrase is that of Just. Epit. 27.1.9 and Hieronymos In Dan. 11.8. Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies 204-5 and A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty 109-11, first submitted that the revolt was caused by famine and the king's absence. Peremans, 'Sur la domestica scditio de Justin (xxvn.i.g)' 628-36, provided a history of scholarly opinion on the subject. 45 OG/S 1.56, lines 13-19. Ath. 2096 alluded to the famine. Bonneau, Lc fisc ct Ic Nil 119-47, surveyed the evidence on Ptolemaic inundations and dated poor inundations to 245 and especially 240. 46 The problem is further touched upon in Hazzard, Ptolemaic Coins 80-1. Ptolemy in apparently used silver to keep about 25 per cent of his monied accounts, but bronze to keep about 75 per cent of his monied accounts. 47 Polyb. 5.33.5 and Ael. VH 14.43. One Si8n °f Euergetes' sloppiness occurred at Ephesos, where moneyers struck coins bearing the diademed portrait of Euergetes, but the reverse doubtless copied from contemporary tetradrachms legend from Coele-Syria and Egypt. Another sign is his use of four different intercalendar months for the Macedonian calendar during his reign; and a third sign is his lack of determination at reforming the Egyptian year in 238. 48 Polyb. 2.51.2-3 and 63.1. According to Polyb. 5.35.11, Euergetes had concentrated his fleet at Samos and his troops at Ephesos in 222. His son required two years of intensive effort to prepare an army for Raphia in 217. 49 Polyb. 5.35.8. Sosibios also feared that Kleomenes might somehow menace Ptolemaic interests in Greece.

112 Imagination of a Monarchy reign when the king was expecting a lengthy war, he seems to have asked the strategoi to hear petitions from those within their respective names, so that the petitions found at Ghoran and Magdola were addressed to the king, but handled by his strategos.50 By his devolution of authority, his remission of taxes, his importation of grain, his diplomacy, and his pageants at Alexandria and Memphis, Euergetes won the unanimous praise of his contemporaries. The peoples of Itanos praised him for the maintenance of their ancient laws; the soldiers of Hermopolis praised him for his benefactions; Eratosthenes praised him for his fatherly love; the priests of Kanopos praised him for his good government (euvonia) and for his piety towards Apis and Mnevis;51 Ptolemy built the temple of Osiris at Kanopos, another at the capital for Sarapis, and the naos for Isis at Philai; he started the temple of Horos at Edfu and constructions at Assuan and Esneh. He also struck gold oktadrachms bearing the name and portrait of Arsinoe and dated documents with her eponymous priestess, although he did not - and this is significant - initiate a cult in memory of his father. Perhaps Ptolemy m felt some affection for Arsinoe n, his adoptive mother. He named a child in her honour. The name of Berenike n, wife of Ptolemy m, appeared beside her husband's on the plaques to the temple of Osiris at Kanopos and the one to Sarapis at the capital.52 She shared additional honours elsewhere with her husband. Someone mentioned the birthday of the king and queen in a letter to Zenon in 242; the soldiers of Hermopolis raised statues to the Theoi Euergetai; the Samians decreed honours to the royal couple (ton paaiXev KOU tfjt pacnA,iaaT|t); the Samothracians offered first fruits on behalf of the king and queen and the Rhodians established a cult to Ptolemy and Berenike after the earthquake of 227/6.53 If we can judge from these undertakings, Ptolemy m Euergetes i honoured his 50 A somewhat different interpretation was proposed by Turner, 'Ptolemaic Egypt' 160. He presumed that the reform was part of a policy of conciliation introduced by Euergetes at the very beginning of his reign. 51 S1G 1.463; L. Robert, REG 61 (1948) 209, no. 260; OG1S 1.56, lines 13 and 19 respectively. 52 OG/S 1.60 and Rowe, Discovery of the Famous Temple and Enclosure of Scrapis at Alexandria 5-10. 53 P.Cair.Zcn. 111.59358; L. Robert, KEG 61 (1948) 209, no. 260; SEG 1.366, line 33-4; S1G 1.502 = IG xii.8.56 = SEG xv.55i, line 43; M. Segre, Bulletin dc la Socicte royalc d'archcologie d'Alcxandric 34 (1941) 29-30. Other honours include OG/S 1.56, and G. Wagner, B1AO 77 (1977) 257-60.

ii3 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen queen equally during the years of his reign, just as his father had honoured Arsinoe equally as one of the Theoi Adelphoi between 273 and 268. Berenike won the respect of her contemporaries. She murdered her fiance, Demetrios the Fair, for unseemly conduct with her mother, sponsored horse races, and chided Euergetes for neglecting his duties on one occasion.54 Kallimachos flattered her, Sosibios feared her, the Egyptians depicted her prominently in their art.55 Because of these and other tributes, P.M. Heichelheim and S.B. Pomeroy presumed that the queen had played a major role in shaping domestic policy before her death; Heichelheim thought that she had become co-regent with her son,56 and Pomeroy thought that she had governed Egypt with her husband. 'With power like this, there is no need to wonder why she was assassinated by her son Ptolemy iv/57 Grace Macurdy pointed in the right direction, however, when she said that Berenike was subordinate to her husband.58 Firstly, she did not inherit Kyrenaika or any political rights from the Ptolemaic point of view. Kyrenaika, the Ptolemies claimed, had been part of their kingdom since at least 300. Theokritos and the Adoulis inscription expressed the dynastic claim to the territory. Theokritos included it amongst the possessions of Ptolemy n, whereas the Adoulis inscription included it amongst the patrimony of Ptolemy in.59 Berenike n was only a queen because she had married Euergetes. Secondly, she witnessed a revolt so alarming about 245 that Euergetes stopped his campaign at Babylon and marched his troops back to his own kingdom, even though he was meeting every success against Seleukos n and his mother (App. Syr. 65). Berenike apparently lacked the presence of mind, the legal power, the ability or the prestige to bring the subversives to order.60 Next, decrees from Euergetes' reign spoke only of 54 Just. Epit. 26.3.1-8 and Catull. 66.25-8; Parsons, 'Callimachus. Victoria Berenicis' 1—50, and Coppolas, 'Callimachus Senex' 284-5; Ael. VH 14.43. 55 See n.54; Polyb. 5.36.1; Quaegebeur, 'Reines ptolemaiques et traditions egyptiennes' 254-556 P.M. Heichelheim, s.v. Berenice (3) Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford 1970) 165. Cary, A History of the Greek World 323-146 BC 90, expressed a similar view. 57 Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt 23. 58 Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 231. 59 Theoc. Id. 17.87; OGIS 1.54. Both texts used the word Libya in lieu of Kyrenaika. 60 Focusing on the reference to the 'Sister' in the Gurob papyrus (WChr i = FGrHist 2B, 160), Bevan suggested that Berenike n had accompanied her husband to Antioch in A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty 201-2. No one has accepted Bevan's suggestion. Perhaps Polyainos (Sfraf. 8.50) best explained the identity of the sister in the Gurob papyrus. The continued presence of Berenike n in Egypt is implied by Catull. 66.

114 Imagination of a Monarchy c - 6l although they referred the king's authority - p to the king and queen during the second and first centuries BC when the powers of the queen equalled those of the king.62 Similarly during the period from 246 to 222, petitioners appealed to Euergetes alone,63 whereas they phrased their requests to the royal couple during the second and first centuries,64 and, since this plural form of address would reflect the shared sovereignty of the king and queen, the singular would reflect the undivided power of Euergetes. Then Plutarch and Polybios wrote about the doings of Euergetes - his subventions to his allies, Aratos and Kleomenes, his demand for hostages in 227, and his pledge to Kleomenes in 222 - but ascribed no role to Berenike n: she evidently lacked any power or interest in foreign affairs. 5 Finally, we learn from the same authors that she failed to protect her brother-in-law and her youngest son while threatened by Sosibios and the court cabal. The queen, like Kleomenes, who learnt of the plotting,66 lost her own life to the same schemers in 221, since she had no means of turning them aside. Arsinoe n, not Berenike, cast the greater shadow in the years after 246. Ptolemy m honoured his wife, but he honoured Arsinoe still more when he supported her cult, feastday, and priestess. After the death of Arsinoe in 268, his father had coined gold double oktadrachms bearing her head on the obverse and a double cornucopiae on the reverse.67 A round cap surmounted by a star appeared on each side of the double cornucopiae. As these caps and stars symbolized the Dioskouroi, the emblems likely alluded to the passage in Kallimachos (fr. 228), where the poet imagined her spirit being carried away by Kastor and Pollux on the evening of her death. Euergetes used the same symbols and placed them in like positions when he struck gold and silver coins in memory of his sister, Berenike Syra, who had perished at Antioch in 246. Euergetes struck them first on the Attic weight standard 61 C.Ord.Ptol. 27 (237 BC) and probably 28 (229 BC). A bureaucratic memo, P.Hib. 11.198, 62

63 64 65 66 67

lines 1-13, mentioned only the king in 242, and P.Gurob 2, line 42, spoke of matters about 226. dealt with - in P.Tebt. 111.700 The scribes wrote the plural form (about 128/7-124), C.Ord.Ptol. 61 (114 BC), P.Yalc 1.56 (50 BC), but used in BGU vm.i73o = C.Ord.Ptol. 73. P.Entcux 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 18, 25, 27, etc. The petitions included UPZ 1.10 = P.Land. 1.45 (160 BC), UPZ 1.4 = P.Lond. 1.23 (158 BC), and P.Lndg.Bat. xx.9 = P.Rcin. 1.7 (about 139). Plut. Arat. 41.3, Clcom. 19.4, Polyb. 2.51.2 and 2.63.1; Plut. Clcom. 21.3 and 30.1-3. Plut. Clcom. 33.3; Polyb. 5.36.1-2. Bank Leu 20 (25 April 1978) no. 174. M0rkholm illustrated the gold double oktadrachm as no. 308, plate 19, in Early Hellenistic Coinage from the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamca.

115 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen for use in Syria, but later on the Ptolemaic standard for use in his own kingdom.68 By honouring his sister with a coinage, he was following the precedent set by his father for Arsinoe n. Euergetes also encouraged the worship of his sibling.69 That he recalled his adoptive mother while he honoured his sister shows the extent of Arsinoe's prestige in the mid-third century. Arsinoe was the model for other Ptolemaic queens. Ptolemy IV Philopator and Arsinoe III A few years after Berenike n was murdered, Ptolemy iv declared her a goddess in her own right and constructed a temple in her memory.70 The king had wanted her murdered/1 so that he did not grant these tributes in order to show his affection, but to emulate his ancestor, Ptolemy n, who had granted like tributes to his mother before the Ptolemaieia of 262. During the great celebrations of that year, Ptolemy n had stressed his Dionysiac pedigree in an effort to justify his absence from the field of battle;72 Ptolemy ra had confirmed this pedigree (OG/S 1.54), and Ptolemy iv had swallowed whole the entire propaganda of his grandfather. Upon his coming to the throne in 222, Ptolemy iv assumed the character of Dionysos, 68 Svoronos 978-82, 986-7, 989-91, etc. for the Attic weight coins; Svoronos 983, 984, 1113-16, etc. for the Ptolemaic weight coins. Svoronos presumed that the coins featured a portrait of Berenike n, but his suggestion has been questioned by Hazzard, Ptolemaic Coins 5. 69 Jones and Habicht, 'A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoe in Cilicia' 317-46, republished a text in which the Arsinoeis pledged to perform sacrifices (lines 32-3). Habicht (ibid. 336) supposed that Berenike Syra was not the person mentioned in the text, as 'she ceased to belong to the house of the Ptolemies/ so that he associated the Berenike of the inscription with Berenike, the child of Ptolemy HI. The Kanopos decree (OG/S 1.56, lines 47-76) reported her death and deification in February/March of 238, and Habicht proposed to use the date as a terminus post quern for the stele. We have no evidence, however, that Berenike the child had a cult or following outside the priesthood in Egypt. She was a minor member of the dynasty. Berenike Syra, by contrast, figured greatly in the political propaganda of Ptolemy m in and after 246. She provided the rationale for his invasion and plunder of the Seleukid realm; her murder in 246 provided the rationale for the cities of Kilikia and Syria to swear their allegiance to Ptolemy HI. See Euergetes FGrHist 2B, 160, Hieronymos In Dan. 11.7-9, anc^ Justin Epit. 7.1.5-7. The town of Arsinoe lay in Kilikia. Because the peoples there rallied around Ptolemy HI, they probably offered sacrifices to his sister. 70 Zenobios Proverba 3.94. Ijsewijn, De saccrdotibns sacerdotiisque Alexandri Magni et Lagidarum eponymis 121, n.g. 71 Plut. Cleom. 33.8; Just. Epit. 30.1.2. 72 See chapter 4, The Grand Procession.'

n6 Imagination of a Monarchy held Dionysiac routs and pageants, and, like a true Dionysiac king, kept his way clear of foreign adventures (Polyb. 5.34.3-5 and 35.6). Hermias, minister of Antiochos in, seized upon this defensive attitude in 221 to propose the conquest of Coele-Syria from the Ptolemaic monarch (Polyb. 5.42.4), and Kleomenes of Sparta remarked upon the attitude to vent his ire at the king's inaction in foreign affairs. 'I was hoping instead/ he grumbled to Nikagoras, 'that you had come leading sambuca-girls and catamites, for these presently most interest the king/73 Courtiers referred to the king as Dionysos;74 the poet Euphronios wrote a Priapeum describing the monarch as the New Dionysos;75 Ptolemy tattooed his body with ivy-leaves.76 Eratosthenes, the king's tutor, wrote that the king established many festivals in honour of the deity, while Ptolemaios of Megalopolis, another contemporary, wrote that the monarch established an association of sumpotai called the Artists of Laughter (Ath. 2/6A and 246(1). In addition to these establishments, Ptolemy iv passed two pieces of legislation showing his concern for the Dionysiac cult when he regulated the technitai of Dionysos in the country and renamed a tribe at the capital to Dionysias.77 He built a shrine to the deity on a vessel described by Kallixeinos of Rhodes (Ath. 2O5E), and, according to the author of 3 Maccabees, who may have confused the deeds of Ptolemy vm Euergetes with those of his ancestor/8 Ptolemy iv Philopator tried to encourage the mysteries of Dionysos amongst the Jews. So closely did the king emulate his ancestor, Ptolemy n, that we can look upon his effort as conscious policy. Ptolemy n had honoured his

73 Plut. Clcom. 35.2: The wording of Polybios (5.37.10) is slightly different. 74 Clem. Al. Protr. 54.2. For a brief discussion of the statement, the reader can refer to Fredricksfneyer, 'Divine Honours for Philip n' 41-2. Much of the evidence associating Ptolemy iv with Dionysos was collected by Tondriau, 'Les triases dionysiaques royaux de la cour ptolemaique,' 149-56 and 'Rois lagides compares ou identifies a des divinites' 132. 75 The fragment appears in Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina 176. The date was first suggested by Meineke, Analccta Alexandrina 342-4 and 406, and followed by Susemihl, Gcschichtc der griechischcn Litteratur in dcr Alcxandrincrzcit 1.282, n.6o. 76 Etym. Mag. s.v.

77 The king's regulation of technitai was published as ECU vi.izii = C.Ord.Ptol. 29,

while his renaming of the first tribe is known from Satyros, FGrHist 30, 631 and P.Oxy. xxvii.2465. The eight denies of Dionysos were named after the relatives of the deity.

78 3 Maccabees 2.30. Charles, The Apocrypha and the Psendcpigrapha 1.159-60, expressed the prevalent view that the author of Maccabees may have confused the crimes of one king for another, but more recent scholars, such as Charlesworth, The Old Testament Psctidcpigrapha and the New Testament 2.510-11, have rejected the suggestion.

ii/ Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen father publicly at the great celebrations of 262; Ptolemy iv called himself Philopator and issued gold oktadrachms bearing the name and portrait of his predecessor.79 Ptolemy n had raised temples to the Theoi Soteres; his grandson inserted their names in the opening protocol of legal documents between the god Alexander and the Theoi Adelphoi.80 Ptolemy n had encouraged the study of Homer; his grandson built a temple to the poet.81 Philadelphos had promoted the cult of Ptolemy Soter; Ptolemy iv started the priesthood of Ptolemy Soter and the Theoi Philopatores at Ptolemais in Upper Egypt,82 struck silver tetradrachms bearing the name and effigy of Soter, and dated these emissions from the dawn of the Soter era in 262.83 Philadelphos had shown an interest in literary and scientific effort; his grandson composed the play Adonis, entertained Sphairos, and kept Eratosthenes of Kyrene, the greatest polymath of that period.84 Ptolemy n had glorified his sister Arsinoe; his grandson coined gold oktadrachms in her memory and dated documents with her eponymous priestess.85 Ptolemy n had completed the Pharos and other large buildings; his grandson finished the Sema at the capital and continued the building at Edfu until the sixteenth regnal year or 207/6.86 Ptolemy n had built a large navy consisting of over three hundred men-of-war; his grandson constructed 'the forty/ the largest warship in antiquity (Ath 203£-2040). Ptolemy n had introduced side whiskers in the 2705; his grandson revived 79 Svoronos 1117. He also struck gold tetradrachms (Svoronos 1118) and drachms (Svoronos 1119). 80 P.Grad. 10 and P.dcm.Haitsw. 25. Whereas papyri dated in the seventh Macedonian year do not refer to the Theoi Soteres, they are mentioned in documents written in and after the eighth year. 81 Page published the dedication for the temple in Select Papyri 3.449-53, no.105. 82 Ijsewijn, DC saccrdotibus 122-3. Pestman, 'La chronologic egyptienne d'apres les textes demotiques' 136, and Clarysse and van der Veken, 'The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt' 41, note that P.dem.BM 10377 is the first document to refer to the new priesthood. Plaumann, Ptolemais in Oberagypten 35, remarked on the new priesthood earlier to suggest that it was introduced under Ptolemy iv and was distinct from the city-cult of Soter, which, in Plaumann's view, dated from the city's establishment. 83 See chapter 2, 'The Soter Era.' 84 Sch. Aristoph. Thesm. 1059 said that Adonis was suggestive of Euripides; Agathokles wrote a commentary on the play. Ath. 354E and Diog. Laert. 7.177 recorded the visit of Sphairos to Alexandria. The contribution of Eratosthenes is well known: Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship 152-70, presented a survey citing many of the primary sources. 85 Svoronos 1120; Clarysse and van der Veken, 'Eponymous Priests' 14-19. 86 Zenobios Proverba 3.94; O.Tait. 1.41, written in year 16, month of Mesore, was the last text dated with Philopator's years from the Thebaid.

ii8 Imagination of a Monarchy the style by the end of his reign.87 Ptolemy n had married his full sister in 273/2; Ptolemy iv followed the precedent after the battle of Raphia in 217.88 In the Pithom stele of 217, the clerics acknowledged the marriage of Ptolemy iv and his sister, ordered the erection of their statues in the native temples, and regulated the prayers and sacrifices for the royal couple. This equal honouring of the king and queen also becomes discernible from the Greek documents. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts has two finely chiselled heads in the Greek style of Ptolemy iv and his sister, heads that were once complementary parts of statues of the Theoi Philopatores.89 The statue of the queen thus stood side by side the statue of the king in the Hellenistic towns just as it did in the native temples. Arsinoe's name, furthermore, appeared beside her brother's in various dedications from Egypt and Cyprus. At Alexandria, a certain Diodotos, son of Myrtaios, made a dedication on behalf of the king and queen to Sarapis and Isis, gods especially favoured by Philopator; Apollonios, son of Ammonios, dedicated an image on behalf of the king and queen to Demeter, Kore, and Justice; at Thebes, Teos, son of Horos, made a dedication on behalf of the royal couple to some unknown deity; some soldiers in Upper Egypt made a dedication on behalf of the king and queen to Ares Nikephoros Euagros; at Paphos, the ephebes honoured Ptolemaios, son of Pelops, for showing good will towards the king and queen.90 Many other dedications have also come to light.91 Ptolemy v struck small bronzes bearing his mother's portrait on the obverse and the legend on the reverse; and the court cabal, after the death 87 Neither Ptolemy i nor in wore sideburns. Soter's portrait is known from his

contemporary coinage (Svoronos 181-3 etc-) anc^ from the marble mask in the Ny

88

89 90 91

Carlsberg Glypothek, Copenhagen; see Kyrieleis, Bildnisse der Ptolemaer plates 4-5; Ptolemy n's portrait is known from his contemporary gold oktadrachms (Svoronos 603); Ptolemy in Euergetes' portrait is known from contemporary bronzes (Svoronos 997-1000) and silver tetradrachms (Svoronos 894-8, 901-5), and possibly the marble head in the Kyrene Museum (Kyrieleis, plate 19). None show him with sideburns, but some of the posthumous gold oktadrachms struck under Philopator depict the former king wearing whiskers. Ptolemy iv's portrait is known from an early bust in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Kyrieleis, plates 31-2) - this shows no whiskers, but has holes for attachment - and his posthumous coinage showing sideburns (Svoronos 1270, 1273, 1276, etc.). Such is the traditional date for Arsinoe's marriage. She was married to her brother at the time of the Raphia decree of 217, but apparently not married until after the campaign in Coele-Syria, since Polybios (5.83.3, 84.1, and 86.8) referred to her as the sister at the time of the campaign, but as queen at the time of her death (1.25.4). Kyrieleis Bildnisse dcr Ptolcmaer plates 31-2 for Philopator and plate 89 for Arsinoe. The heads were found and purchased together in Egypt. APF 5 (1913) 159, no-3; OG1S 1.83, 85 and 86; LLindos 139. Other dedications include OG1S 1.82, 84, 87, and 88; SEG 11.827, an^ xx.i98.

119 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen of his parents in 205/4, minted two series of gold oktadrachms bearing the individual portraits of Ptolemy iv and his sister.92 But these honours do not imply Arsinoe having powers at the court. She actually endured insults most of her life, wrote Polybios (15.25.9), perhaps drawing his material from Ptolemaios of Megalopolis or Eratosthenes of Kyrene.93 Only once does the queen step from the palace shadows into the light of our literary sources when she stopped a celebrant bearing some olive branches and asked him the name of the coming festival. It was the Lagynophoria, he answered. The celebrants reclined on beds of olive branches and each consumed the victuals and wine brought with him. The queen disliked the arrangement, and once the celebrant had gone his way, she turned to Eratosthenes. 'This must be a sordid party! It means the gathering of a promiscuous crowd serving itself with stale and unseemly food! '94 After voicing her annoyance, Arsinoe steps back into the shadows. She did not figure in the famous decree regulating the technitai of Dionysos; the decree proclaimed the king's authority - and reflected his concern with the Dionysiac cult (BGU vi.i2ii = C.Ord.Ptol. 29). She did not figure in the letter sent by Ptolemy to the Magnesians about 2O5;95 and she did not figure in the pleas and petitions addressed to the king by his subjects.96 Isolated and powerless, Arsinoe was murdered by the court cabal after her brother's death in 205/4. Polybios has influenced the views of ancient and modern writers on the monarchy of Ptolemy iv.97 Not satisfied with charging the king with insobriety, negligence, cruelty, and murder, Polybios accused him of the worst sin for any monarch in the Graeco-Roman world: the sin of being effeminate. 'And did not the whore Agathokleia hold sway over King Ptolemy Philopator - she who overturned his entire kingdom?'98 Athenaios quoted the accusation from Polybios; Strabo and Justin added some minor

92 Svoronos 1160-62 (Arsinoe's bronze), Svoronos 1159, 1169, and 1172 (Arsinoe m's gold oktadrachms) and 1187 and 1189 (Ptolemy iv's gold oktadrachms). These gold coinages are now assigned to the early years of Ptolemy v Epiphanes: Kyrieleis, 'Die Portratmiinzen Ptolemaios v und seiner Eltern' 213-46, and M0rkholm, 'The Portrait Coinage of Ptolemy v' 203-14. 93 John of Antioch, F.G.H. iv, p. 554, fr. 54, preserved the same tradition of abuse. 94 Ath. 2760: 95 96 97 98

RC 33. The king wrote the letter in the first person singular. P.Entcnx. 2, 7-11, 15-17, 20-2, 26, 28-30, etc. Preaux, 'Polybe et Ptolemee Philopator' 364-75. Polyb. 14.11.5:

i2o Imagination of a Monarchy details; and Plutarch elaborated, writing that Agathokleia and her mother had managed the business of state." Polybios would have us believe, moreover, that Ptolemy iv acted foolishly between 222 and 219, astutely between 219 and 217 when he deceived and defeated Antiochos m of Syria, then foolishly again after the battle of Raphia in 217. 'King Ptolemy Philopator, of whom I am now speaking, after the termination of the war for Coele-Syria, abandoned all worthy pursuits and took to a life of dissipation, such as I have just described/100 Not every modern scholar has accepted this version of the facts. Sir John Pentland Mahaffy first questioned it in 1895 when he pointed to the buildings at Philai, Edfu, and Thebes, and to the several dedications praising the king and queen; in Mahaffy's view, scholars would do well to consider this contemporary evidence over the biased tradition in Plutarch and Polybios.101 C. Bradford Welles ascribed the poor reputation of the king to his worship of Dionysos and to his incestuous marriage in 217, but suggested that what historians knew positively about Philopator spoke well of his rule: his energy and resourcefulness between 219 and 217, and his building of the Sema, and the great Sarapion; neither the native revolts nor the great inflation reflected poorly on the monarch, Welles opined, since strikes and rebellions had also occurred under those able rulers, Ptolemies n and m, and since the second Punic war (218-202 BC) had cut off the supply of silver and brought about a rise in domestic prices.102 Next, Werner Huss argued against Polybios 99 Ath. 576?; Strab. 17.1.11; Just. Epit. 30.1.7 and 2.6; Plut. Cleom. 33.1-2. Plutarch repeated the accusation of effeminacy in Mar. $6E. 100 Polyb. 14.12.3:

101 Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies 270-4. Bevan, A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty 250—1, and most other scholars have dismissed Mahaffy's arguments. 102 Welles, Alexander and the Hellenistic World 103-6. In fact the supply of silver into the Ptolemaic realm fell after 241, when the mints in Coele-Syria stopped the yearly production of silver tetradrachms. The inflation (i.e., the rise in domestic prices) under Ptolemy iv was due to three factors: the fall in the weight of the bronze drachm-coin from 72g to perhaps 48g, from 48g to perhaps 24g, and from 24g to 2g; the re-evaluation of the silver tetradrachm from four copper drachms to 16 copper drachms and from that to 500 copper drachms; and the decline in agricultural production. That Ptolemy iv promulgated a new unit of account about 210 - P.M. Heichelheim and T. Reekman inferred as much from the papyri - has been questioned by H. Cadell and G. Le Rider in Prix dit blc ct numeraire 74-93, where they cited the older bibliography. They found, in particular, no sudden leap in prices suggestive of the introduction of a new but smaller unit of account. But see also R.A. Hazzard, The Copper Standard of Account' in Europa nnd Afrika im Antikc: Festschrift fiir Werner Huss (forthcoming).

121 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen (5.34.1-11) to write that Ptolemy had taken an interest in foreign affairs and had kept the possessions won by his ancestors;103 and finally, Sir Eric Turner pointed to the contradiction in Polybios between his account of an apathetic government on the one hand and its vigorous actions on the other.104 This much is evident: Polybios shared with the king's contemporaries a lack of understanding of Ptolemy's model of monarchy. Let us look first at the king's contemporaries. Although Antiochos m and Hermias were facing a rebellion in the eastern half of the Seleukid empire, they planned the conquest of Coele-Syria in 221, since they presumed that a civilian monarch like Ptolemy iv would relinquish the province without a struggle. Antiochos presumed further between 219 and 217 that Ptolemy would sooner surrender his claim to Coele-Syria than summon an army into the field of battle.105 Antiochos erred. Subsequent to his defeat by Ptolemaic forces in 217, Antiochos feared Ptolemy joining Achaios and extending the struggle into the heartland of Syria (Polyb. 5.87.1-2) - a military monarch would do such - but the danger proved illusory as Ptolemy accepted a truce based on the old frontier. Antiochos in of Syria, a military monarch, had badly blundered by using his personal style of kingship to predict the course of the Ptolemaic government. Polybios (5.87.3) showed the same lack of insight, for he condemned the rapid settlement of 217 and ascribed it to Ptolemy's lax and unhealthy style of living when, in fact, the king was simply following the policy of his ancestor, Ptolemy n, who had never tried to wreck the Seleukid realm - as Euergetes tried doing in 245 - but to check its growth in western Asia after the fall of the kingdom of Lysimachos.106 We have already seen a number of parallels between the two Ptolemies, parallels ignored by Polybios even though they suggest an attempt by the king at imitating his illustrious grandfather. Philopator's image of his grandfather differed greatly from the image formed in the minds of modern scholars, especially those scholars working with the Hibeh and Zenon papyri. The papyri depict a shrewd and industrious king: we see in them his reclamation of the Fayum, his taxes, his gathering of livestock, his official correspondence, 103 Huss, Untersuchimgcn zur Aussenpolitik Ptolemaios' iv. 104 Turner, Ptolemaic Egypt 166. 105 Polyb. 5.42.4 and 66.6-7. The envoys of Antiochos had reached the same conclusion. 106 Ptolemy n would naturally suggest that he was following the policy of his ancestors. The present author does not wish to suggest at the same time that Ptolemy iv or his grandfather had any conscious notion of an equilibrium between himself and the Seleukid monarch, although Klose submitted as much in Die Volkerrechtliche Ordnimg dcr hcllcnistischen Staatcnwclt in dcr Zcit von 280-168 v. Chr. 91-9.

122 Imagination of a Monarchy his royal inspections, and his dioiketes working into the evening hours. Yet this is dull stuff, and Ptolemy iv never looked at any of it. He learnt of his grandfather from those writers and poets - Kallimachos, Theokritos, Poseidippos, and others - employed by the second Ptolemy to spread his apologetics and to raise his prestige before the people. Out of this official propaganda, Philopator learnt of the magnificent pageants, the patronage of science and literature, the Dionysiac lineage, the ships, the routs, and the affectations, and out of this official literature and the luxurious setting of Alexandria with its palaces and shrines, he could imagine his model of a worthy king. Like a worthy king, Philopator sought the company of learned men and invited them to his court. One of them, Sphairos, the Stoic critic and philosopher, taught that a wise man could not stoop to hold an opinion, and the monarch, wishing to refute him, had waxen pomegranates served upon a table before his guest.107 When Sphairos reached for them, the monarch cried out gleefully that a wise man had assented to a false presentation. The philosopher disagreed: he had not assented to the proposition that the pomegranates were real, only that he had reasonable grounds for thinking they were real. Absolute certainty and reasonable probability were different conditions, he averred. A certain Mnesistratos later charged the philosopher with denying that Ptolemy was a (good) king, but Sphairos, as author of a treatise on kingship, defended himself by saying that Ptolemy had shown his regal qualities. 'Because Ptolemy is such a person, he is a king.'108 Apparently the philosopher both understood and appreciated Ptolemy's model of kingship. Ptolemy V Epiphanes and Kleopatra I The death of the king and queen in 205/4 left the Ptolemaic house lacking a member who might serve as guardian to the new monarch, Ptolemy v Epiphanes, then a boy about five years old,109 so that the burden of ruling the state fell successively upon three courtiers: Agathokles, Tlepolemos, and Aristomenes. Their terms of office proved difficult for the Ptolemaic kingdom. Philip v of Macedon seized Samos and other towns around the Aegean sea or along the Thracian coast, Antiochos m drove his army back 107 Diog. Laert. 7.177; Ath. 354E told the same story, but said that the waxen food resembled fowls. 108 See n.iO7: 109 Just. Epit. 30.2.6; but Hieronymos (In Dan. 11.13) citing Porphyry said that Epiphanes was four years old.

123 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen into the towns of Coele-Syria from 202 to 198, and the Egyptians continued their revolts in the chora from 204 to 186."° Had the Ptolemaic king remained a general of the Macedonians, Ptolemy v might have died in a plot like Alexander, son of Alexander the Great (310), or Antiochos, son of Antiochos n (246). By the time Coele-Syria fell to the Seleukids, however, the Ptolemaic monarch had reigned as a civil administrator for over two generations, and the loss of the province, while embarrassing, did not bring into doubt the right of the boy to sit on the throne. To rally public support around the child, the court proclaimed him a Theos Epiphanes in 198111 and marked his majority with great pageants at Alexandria and Memphis in 196."2 The government crushed a revolt at Lykopolis in the same year."3 But propaganda and force could not secure the realm against the Seleukids. Antiochos heard a rumour of Ptolemy's death and sailed his forces westward against the island of Cyprus."4 The expedition, though abandoned, induced the Alexandrine court to accept a marriage between Ptolemy v Epiphanes and Kleopatra, Antiochos' daughter, for the purpose of securing the eastern frontier against the Seleukids."5 After celebrating the marriage at Raphia about 193," the royal couple began appearing together in various dedications from Egypt, Cyprus, and Kyrenaika. At Taposiris, a body of private worshippers dedicated a shrine on behalf of Ptolemy and Kleopatra, the Theoi Epiphaneis; Ptolemaios, son of Apollonios, raised a statue of his brother for showing good will to the king and queen; Hermias and his wife dedicated a synagogue on behalf no Philip v first seized Samos in 201, but did not hold it as the Ptolemies were controlling it in 197 (Livy 33.20.12). They lost control permanently in the next decade. Bagnall surveyed the evidence in The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt 80-8. The chronology of the conquest of Coele-Syria was first set out by Holleaux in 1908 and republished as 'La chronologic de la 5° guerre de Syrie/ Etudes d'epigraphic 317-35, but Will, Histoire politiqnc dii mondc hellenistiqtic 2.118-19, expressed uncertainty about the dates. The internal difficulties of Egypt are well known from Polyb. 22.17.4-7. in Hazzard, Theos Epiphanes.' 112 Polyb. 18.55.3-4 gave much of the credit for the proclamation to Polykrates. The coronation at Memphis is known from the Rosetta stone (OG7S 1.90). Wilcken speculated that the Egyptian rites became routine under Ptolemy iv in Grundziigc nnd Chrestomathie dcr Papyruskimde 21, but cited no evidence for them. 113 OGIS 1.90, lines 21-8; Polyb. 22.17.1. 114 Dio Cass. 19.18; App. Syr. 4. Appian erroneously gave the name of the king as Philopator. 115 The Chronican Paschalc dated the betrothal during the consulship of Purpureo and Marcellus or 196; both Polyb. 18.51.10 and Livy 33.40.3 confirmed this date, but Hieronymos dated the betrothal to Epiphanes' seventh Macedonian year or 198/7. 116 Dio Cass. 19.18; Livy 35.13.4.

124 Imagination of a Monarchy of the royal couple; Apollonios, son of Antipater, dedicated a shrine to the Theoi Epiphaneis; at Magdola, another Apollonios raised a dedication to Zeus and the Syrian deities on behalf of the royal couple; and some citizens of Kyrene raised a statue to Philon, son of Kastor, for showing good will to Ptolemy and Kleopatra, the Theoi Epiphaneis.117 In addition to these and other epigraphs,11 the royal couple worded their honours in both names when they visited the clerics at Philai about 184 to dedicate a shrine to Asklepios, the Egyptian Imhotep (OGIS 1.91), and when they sent delegates to Rome in 190 to praise Glabrio for expelling Antiochos from Greece. Because Manius Acilius the consul had driven King Antiochos out of Greece, ambassadors came from Ptolemy and Kleopatra, the rulers of Egypt, to offer congratulations and to ask to send army into Asia: all was confused by fear not only in Asia, but in Syria; the rulers were ready for whatever tbe Senate might order. Thanks were extended to the rulers."9

Macurdy took this passage as good evidence that Kleopatra had equalled her husband in prestige and political power, because Livy had described the royal couple as 'reges Aegypti' at two places in his narrative,120 but in fact, Livy's passage on the envoys, along with other evidence, implies that the queen remained subordinate to her husband until the end of his reign. In the first place, the excerpt shows his malice against Antiochos m of Syria. Ptolemy v had already offered the Romans a large sum of money in 191 to defray their expenses of fighting the war in Greece; subsequently, after Ptolemy had suppressed the native rebellions in 186, he actively planned to seize Coele-Syria from the Seleukid dynasty, so that if we put these items together, we can see a pattern of Ptolemy bearing a grudge against 117 OGIS 1.97 = SB ¥.8873; OGIS l^°°> OG'S "Q* = SB v-8875 = C1J 11.1444; OGIS 11.732 = SB 1.4208; OGIS 11.733 = SB v.8927; SEC ix.55 = SB vm.9940. 118 OGIS 1.96 = SB v.8872; OGIS 1.99 = SB ¥.8294; SB 1.5800; SEG xxiv.1202, etc. 119 Livy 37.3.9-11: Legati ab Ptolemaeo et Cleopatra regibus Aegypti gratulantes, quod M.' Acilius consul Antiochum regem Graecia expulisset, venerunt adhortantesque, ut in Asiam exercitum traicerent: omnia perculsa metu non in Asia modo sed etiam in Syria esse; reges Aegypti ad ea, quae censuisset senatus, paratos fore. Gratiae regibus actae. 120 Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 149. Her statement contradicted her thesis that the equality between the king and queen was achieved in the early years of Ptolemy vi. The phrase 'reges Aegypti' is that of Livy or his literary source, since Ptolemy and Kleopatra never described themselves with a Greek equivalent of the Latin. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy 2.295, and other scholars have long recognized the congratulatory purpose of the mission.

125 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen the Seleukids from 191 until the end of his reign.121 This malice reveals his consort's lack of influence at the court, since Kleopatra did not pursue the war for Coele-Syria once she had taken the reins of power after her husband's death in 180. Next, two letters of instruction, C.Ord.Ptol. 30 and 31, bore Ptolemy's name alone in 184/3; Kleopatra did not figure in these documents, just as earlier queens had not figured in edicts and orders sent by the kings into the chora. At the time of his death in 180, Ptolemy v had sired three offspring, all minors, but had left no younger brother or older uncle, so that the reins of power passed to Kleopatra, the only mature member of the Ptolemaic house. Some possibly welcomed the change, as Ptolemy had not endeared himself to every member of the governing class.122 According to Porphyry, who may be relying on Diodoros, the king was planning to seize his courtiers' funds to finance a war for Coele-Syria; and the courtiers then conspired to poison their king.123 If any truth lies behind the statement - it is clearly conjectural - they breathed a sigh of relief under Kleopatra i, a Seleukid princess uninterested in starting a war against her own family. The change of attitude at the Alexandrine court reveals her powers over the direction of foreign policy. An inscription bore a motive formula also suggesting her great powers because it placed her name before the name of her eldest son, Ptolemy vi:

121 Livy 36.4.2; Diod. Sic. 29.29 and Hieron. In Dan. 11.20. Ptolemy v named his eldest son as co-regent in 181. Since the act was a usual precaution before a war, the nomination of 181 suggests that Ptolemy v was planning the conquest of Coele-Syria from the Seleukids. Ptolemy vi was already in his second Macedonian year when he ascended the throne in 180. For details, the reader can see Hazzard, The Use of the Macedonian Calendar under Ptolemies v and vi' 153-6. 122 According to Diod. Sic. 28.14 and Hieron. In Dan. 11.20, Ptolemy was actually unpopular. He died in September/October of 180. He was still alive in Mesore (September/October) of his twenty-fifth Egyptian year if we can judge from P.Coll.Yontie 1.12, line 7. But he was certainly dead by the beginning of Ptolemy vi's second Egyptian year on the seventh of October in 180. 123 A fragment of the story survived in Diod. Sic. 29.29, whereas Hieronymos elaborated on the authority of Porphyry In Dan. 11.20. Possibly Diodoros and Porphyry used the same historical source. 124 Mitford, 'Ptolemy Macron,' Stndi in onore di Aristidc Caldcrini c Roberto Paribeni 178-80.

iz6 Imagination of a Monarchy That the inscription mentioned the queen before the king implies that she presented herself as sovereign as well as regent. The opening clauses of P.Freib. 111.12—33, actually confirm this inference, as her name and rank appeared before those of her son,125 but even more significantly, the protocol started with a plural participle, again confirming that the queen considered herself a sovereign ruling in her own right. Meanwhile at Ptolemais in Upper Egypt, the queen had established an eponymous priesthood of 'Queen Kleopatra and King Ptolemy her Son' before the day of her death in i/6,126 when the king started dating his documents with a priesthood of 'King Ptolemy and Kleopatra his Mother.'127 Nor does this exhaust the evidence. Bronze fractions from Alexandria further document her claim to power, since they bore on the obverse, the important side of the coin, and the traditional FTTOAEMAIOY on the reverse.128 Together we now possess epigraphical, papyrological, and numismatic evidence suggesting that Kleopatra considered herself ruling in her own right, just as Arsinoe n had supposedly done during her brother's reign.129 A gold oktadrachm implies that Arsinoe n served as a model for Kleopatra in the second century, for Kleopatra put her son's name and portrait on the reverse and her own name and portrait on the obverse.130 The engraver depicted the queen's right profile wearing a stephane and veil, the same attributes appearing on Arsinoe's gold oktadrachms; both types of coin rendered the inscriptions in the same order, KAEOnATPAI BAIIAIZZHI and and these legends allow us to discern between 125 Demotic texts also showed the queen's name preceding the king's. Pestman, 'La chronologic egyptienne' 46-7, cited several examples. P.Ryl. ^.589 (180 BC) began but P.Amh. 11.42 (179 BC) mentioned only the king: 126 P.dcm.BM 10518 dated in April of 176. The unpublished document is mentioned by Thompson, 'Eponymous Priests under the Ptolemies' 33. 127 The earliest papyrus mentioning the new priesthood is P.dcm.Dublin 1660 now dated to July of 176 in, for example, Pestman, Rccucil dc tcxtcs dcmotiqncs et bilingues 2.92 and 95. 128 Svoronos 1380-2. The coins have a monogram P on the reverse; the same monogram appeared on contemporary silver tetradrachms (ANS Syllogc Nnmorum Graecornm: Mcgaris to Egypt, no. 1499) and gold oktadrachms (below n.i3o). All these coins were minted at Alexandria. 129 See chapter 5, 'Arsinoe n and the Importance of Perception.' 130 R.R.R. Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits plate 75, no. 15 and 16; Hazzard, Ptolemaic Coins 9, figure 20.

i2/ Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen the portraits of the two queens. The evidence is official and contemporary. As the iconography cannot be accidental, the likeness between the two portraits implies that Kleopatra shaped her political role after the alleged role of Arsinoe n. Kleopatra said, in effect, 'Everything we have done has been done before by another queen of the line/ Ptolemy VI Philometor and Kleopatra II Kleopatra i might have had two reasons to avoid a war for Coele-Syria. In the first place, she did not want to deprive her brother of an important province of his empire, and then she did not want to give a general the chance of winning prestige and claiming a role in government. Peace and queenly rule went hand in hand. After the queen died, however, the king's guardians changed the policy towards the Seleukids and urged the recovery of Coele-Syria for the Ptolemaic house. In preparation for the war, the guardians proclaimed the majority of Ptolemy vi in 170, named his brother, Euergetes, as heir apparent or co-regent, and commemorated the co-regency with a new succession of regnal years.131 Antiochos iv of Syria (175-164 BC) struck first, shattering the Ptolemaic army near Pelousion and getting hold of Ptolemy vi Philometor a short time later. The Alexandrians now invested Euergetes with sovereign powers, and he and Kleopatra n, Philometor's wife, sent a delegation to Rome in both their names.132 Her rising influence also becomes discernible from her part in trying to reconcile her younger brothers in 169. Philometor then wrote to her in an effort to facilitate his return to Alexandria, and Kleopatra presumed to argue his case before Euergetes (Livy 45.11.6). Together with her influence, the direct correspondence of Philometor and the pleading of his friends (Livy 45.11.1-7), Ptolemy vi effected his return to the capital where he governed with his brother from 169 to 164. A gentle monarch, Philometor remained grateful to Kleopatra throughout his reign, and from this time forward, the queen's name often appeared beside the king's in petitions, decrees, and legal contracts, as well as in the traditional wording of dedications.133 131 Against this view, Skeat, 'Notes on Ptolemaic Chronology, n' 108, suggested that the new system of regnal years was to inaugurate the prospective domination of western Asia. This new system of regnal years was modelled after the Egyptian civil calendar, proposed Hazzard in 'The Use of the Macedonian Calendar' 157-8. 132 Polyb. 29.23.4; Livy 44.19.6. The embassy was sent by Ptolemy vm Euergetes n and Kleopatra n who were then residing at Alexandria (Livy 44.19.8), not by Ptolemy vi, who was still at Memphis. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 150, also took the embassy as evidence that Kleopatra n had achieved equality with Ptolemy vi. 133 The character of Ptolemy vi Philometor was described by Polybios (39.7.1-6).

128 Imagination of a Monarchy Ptolemaic scribes now wrote the queen's name after the king's in the dating formula;134 Ptolemaios, son of Glaukias, promised to pay a penalty to the royal couple if anyone should take legal action against a certain Demetrios; the same Ptolemaios addressed his petitions to the king and queen and mentioned their directive in one of his letters; Marepathis, son of Sisouchos, also phrased his plea to the royal couple when he tried to stop Tesenouphis from using a lawyer in court.135 Bureaucrats and officials used the same phraseology. Dioskourides, the dioiketes, thus referred to the policy of the king and queen in his missive about the methods of the tax farmers (UPZ 1.113); anc^ Onias asked the royal couple if he might build a temple at Leontopolis, a military settlement in the Heliopolite nome.^6 These plural references to the king and queen do not imply, however, that Kleopatra ruled equally with Ptolemy vi during his tenure on the throne, especially if we view them in the light of our literary sources. According to Polybios (29.23.4), a contemporary source, Ptolemy vi came down from Memphis to share the seat of government with his brother the Achaians then expressed their intentions of fighting for Ptolemy vi and Euergetes, 'for both possessed the diadem and the sovereignty';137 according to Livy, who may be relying on Polybios, Antiochos vowed to fight 'the two with greater zeal and enmity than previously against the one';138 Diodoros (3i.i5A.2~3) added that Ptolemy vi later accused Petosarapis of holding him and Euergetes in contempt and of plotting a rebellion against their authority; Ptolemy vi and Euergetes then donned their royal robes and declared their solidarity before the people; and, according to all these authors, Ptolemy vi and Euergetes fought over the kingdom from 164 to 154, while Kleopatra kept her distance from their quarrelling because she did not share in the division of the kingdom.139 She remained the wife and consort of Ptolemy vi throughout these years. We have other signs of her subordinate position. Ptolemy vi remained the leader of the armed forces and head of civil administration from 164 until the end of his reign. He commanded his troops at Lapethos in 154, 134 Strack, Die Dynastic der Ptolemder 33, first made the observation. 135 UPZ 1.31; UPZ 1.10 = P.Lond. 1.45; UPZ 1.14 = P.Land. 1.23; UPZ 1.33-6; P.Amh. 11.33. 136 Jos. A] 13.62-71. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews 175-80, discussed the date and the purpose of the founding of the temple at Leontopolis. 137 Polyb. 29.23.9: 138 Livy 45.11.8: 'adeo est offensus ut multo acrius infestiusque adversus duos quam ante adversus unum pararet bellum.' 139 Polyb. 31.17.1-19.4 and 20.1-6; Livy Per. 47; Diod. Sic. 31.18.2, i7c, 23, and 33.

129 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen ordered them into Coele-Syria in 148/7, and led them across the river Oinoparas in 145.M° As a civil administrator, Ptolemy wrote two surviving letters of instruction upon his return from exile in 163: in the first of these missives, he reminded Dionysios, strategos of Memphis, of the amnesty for crimes committed before the month of Epeiph in the eighteenth year, while in the other, he acknowledged a cession of land to the soldiers at Thera.141 Philometor, like his ancestor Ptolemy m, bore the right of putting his subjects to death for capital offences, although Polybios (39.7.4) could not name any courtier or Alexandrian whom the king had punished in this fashion. Josephos (A] 13.74-9), on tne other hand, said that the king condemned some Samaritans for making false claims about the temple of Gerizim. Similarly, the king exercised the right of arranging his daughters' marriages and of making alliances with their husbands, so that he offered a daughter to Euergetes in 154, delivered Kleopatra Thea to Alexander Balas in 150, and offered her hand to Demetrios n about 146.M2 Next, both sons of Ptolemy and Kleopatra n bore names referring to the father: Eupator, who ruled in Cyprus from 153 to 150, and Neos Philopator, who reigned in Alexandria in 145 when he started his own series of regnal years,143 a privilege not assumed by Kleopatra n until the middle of Euergetes' reign. Together, the evidence presents a picture of the continuing subordination of the queen under Ptolemy vi, but the picture is not a static one. Because of Kleopatra's role in 169 and the gentle manner of her husband, her prestige gradually expanded throughout his reign and into the reign of his successor, Ptolemy vm Euergetes n. The Crown supported the cult of Arsinoe n Philadelphos during the same period. Ptolemy vi struck gold oktadrachms bearing her portrait and name, and the scribes dated legal texts with the name of her eponymous priestess at Alexandria. The cult of Arsinoe remained potent. When the scribes of Upper Egypt started dating with another series of priesthoods in the second century, the texts bore the name of the kanephoros of Arsinoe n at Ptolemais; when Ptolemy vi started funding a cult for Ptolemy n, the 140 Polyb. 39.7.6; i Maccabees 11.1-9; Diod. Sic. 32.90; Strab. 16.2.8; and i Maccabees 11.14-15, the source of Jos. A] 13.116. 141 C.Ord.Ptol. 35, C.Ord.Ptol. 33 = IG xn.3, 327, lines 1-16. 142 i Maccabees 10.57-8 and Jos. A] 13.80-2 and 109; Diod. Sic. 32.27.90; i Maccabees 11.9-12; and Jos. A] 13.110. 143 Strack, APF 3 (1906) 128, and Svoronos 1509. In both the inscription and the coin, the thirty-sixth regnal year of Philometor was equalled to the first year of Neos Philopator on the Macedonian calendar. Newell first attributed the coin to this date in Two Recent Egyptian Hoards' 25-6.

130 Imagination of a Monarchy king attached her surname to his ancestor.144 Writers of the second century - Aristoboulos, Satyros, and Kallixeinos of Rhodes - began referring to the second Ptolemy as Ptolemy Philadelphos.^45 They surely copied official practice. Arsinoe's great prestige, together with the regency of Kleopatra i, provided a model for Kleopatra n after the death of her sire in 145. Ptolemy vm Euergetes H and Kleopatra II Kleopatra n tested her prestige in 145 when she tried to assume the regency for her youngest son, Ptolemy vn Neos Philopator, after the death of his father in northern Syria. Apparently she saw her position as roughly the same as her mother's in 180. But Kleopatra faced difficulties everywhere she turned. Demetrios n broke faith with the Ptolemaic house and marched into the towns of Coele-Syria, while the remnant of Philometor's army fought its way back to the capital;146 Ptolemy vm Euergetes, ruler of Kyrene, still harboured the hope of seizing his brother's throne; and at Alexandria, where Ptolemy vi had never inspired much enthusiasm,147 a substantial body of citizens preferred the claims of Euergetes over the female regent's. These citizens revolted (Jos. Ap. 2.50). Euergetes proclaimed an amnesty in Cyprus and marched his mercenaries towards the capital/48 where Hierax, a friend of Philometor, and Lucius Minucius Thermus, a friend of Euergetes, may have counselled the queen into making concessions in an effort to avoid a conflict with her brother.149 Kleopatra could count upon the support of the Greek intelligentsia and upon Onias and Dositheos, who rushed troops northward from the Heliopolite nome and mediated terms on the queen's 144 The earliest text naming the eponymous priestess of Arsinoe at Ptolemais is P.dcm. Main. 7 (185/4 BC), whereas the earliest text naming the priest of Ptolemy n

Philadelphos is P.dcm.BM 10515 (165/4 BC)- The documents are listed by Clarysse and

145 146 147 148 149

van der Veken, 'Eponymous Priests' 42, and 46 respectively. Aristoboulos apud Euseb. Praep.Evang. 18.12.2; Satyros FGrHist 30, 631 and P.Oxy. xxvn 2465; Kallixeinos apud. Ath. 2036. Diod. Sic. 32.27.90; Jos. A] 13.120; i Maccabees 11.18-19. According to Polybios (39.7.1), Ptolemy vi Philometor remained a controversial king until his death. C.Ord.Ptol. 41 and 42 = SEG xn.548; Jos. Ap. 2.51. According to Diod. Sic. 32.27.90, Hierax feared Demetrios n and offered the crown to Ptolemy vi at Antioch. Presumably, Hierax did not stay inside the Seleukid realm after Ptolemy's death, but fled with the remnant of the army to Alexandria, where he entered into the service of Euergetes n (Diod. Sic. 33.22.1), who eventually put him to death (Ath. 252E). Lucius Minucius Thermus had already served Euergetes' interests (Jos. Ap. 2.50 and Polyb. 33.11.5).

131 Propaganda and the Role of the Ptolemaic Queen behalf (Jos. Ap. 2.50). The queen compromised. A party of Alexandrians approached her brother. Euergetes peacefully entered the city, ascended the throne, and took Kleopatra in marriage (Just. Epit. 38.8.2-3). Euergetes presented himself as a lover of erudition, argued scholarly questions into the evening hours, and articulated his Commentaries in twenty-four books, touching upon a wide variety of subjects: philology, zoology, and history.150 This wide variety of interests, along with one historical error and the anecdotal character of most fragments, seems to indicate that Euergetes did not write a critical piece of scholarship, although the work remained available to scholars until the second and third centuries after Christ when Athenaios spoke of its notorious stories 151 Euergetes submitted an emendation of Odyssey 5.72, from because marchwort will sometimes grow beside celery, but violet will not; he also wrote about the Phasian bird, about a cold stream near Corinth,, and about the fish-life of a stream near Berenike in Libya;152 he sent Eudoxos of Kyzikos to explore the upper regions of the Nile, and then on a later voyage, to explore the sea route to India.153 Of the ten fragments or testimonia from Euergetes' work, eight refer to Hellenistic kings at some point - Ptolemy n, Eumenes n, Antiochos iv, Massinissa, and the author himself - while two deal exclusively with other matters, so that we can get some inkling from Euergetes' work about how he viewed his royal station. According to the Commentaries, some ancestor of his - one presumes Ptolemy n kept a section of the palace for exotic animals including pheasants; this ancestor ate these fowl, although Euergetes did not, guarding them instead like rare treasures; after he sailed to Assos, however, he examined and possibly ate a white pig offered by the inhabitants who had provided the same species of pig to Eumenes n at four thousand drachms per head. From Euergetes, too, we learn that Ptolemy n kept a number of mistresses and that King Massinissa enjoyed the company of small children.154 Euergetes then described the dining arrangements of Massinissa. 'Dinners were prepared in the Roman style and furnished with crockery of solid

150 Plut. Mor. 6oA; Ath. 6540. 151 Ath. 7iB-c, 438o-F, 43E, 549E-55OA, 518?, 2290, and 3750 contained word-for-word excerpts from the Commentaries. Euergetes blundered when he wrote that Agathokleia was the mistress of Ptolemy n (Ath. 576?); Athenaios made his remark at section 6540. 152 Ath. 6ic, 387E, 43D-E, and 718-0. 153 Strab. 2.3.4. Strabo's source was Poseidonios (circa 135-51/50 BC). 154 Ath. 6540, 3750, 576E-F, and 519A.

132 Imagination of a Monarchy silver; he adorned the tables of the second course in accordance with Italic customs; the baskets were of solid gold and were composed of reeds closely intertwined, but he entertained with Greek musicians/155 Euergetes also detailed the extravagant behaviour of Antiochos iv (Ath. 438 D-F), and even more significantly, his own behaviour at Kyrene, where he served as the priest of Apollo for one year. According to the Commentaries, each priest of Apollo would hold a banquet for his predecessors and put before each guest an earthen vessel holding about twenty artabai of cooked meat, fowl, and fish. 'But we abolished such things/ bragged Euergetes, using the plural pronoun. 'We procured phialai of solid silver, each equal in value to we have mentioned , and we gave a horse fully equipped with groom and gilt bridle-ornaments, and invited each to mount upon leaving for home/165 Euergetes' use of the royal style, the first person plural, together with his comments on other kings, suggests an association in his mind between extravagant behaviour on the one hand and regal status on the other. Ptolemaic kings did not always employ the plural pronoun.157 Euergetes resorted to it when he pardoned the Cypriots in 145, but turned to the first person singular when he reported his sojourn at Assos and published his will at Kyrene.158 Similarly, Ptolemies n and iv and possibly v and vi had referred to themselves by using the plural and singular pronouns: plural if they wished to emphasize 155 Ath. 2290:

156 Ath. 55 186, 187 soter god 30, 31, 33 sovereignty: of Ptolemies i and n 182; of Ptolemies vi and vm 128; of Ptolemy vin and Kleopatra n *35 Sparta 58, 73, 91, 94, 183 Spartans 57, 74, 75 Sphairos the Stoic 117, 122, 157 spies 76 sponsor of the Adonis festival 93 spring 34, 57, 76, 174, 175

241 Index of Persons and Subjects stadium (in Alexandria) 35, 64, 66, 68, 72, 73, 107 star 31, 34-6, 68, 72, 78, 79, 114, 183 stater 47, 97, 188 statue: of Agathostratos 77; of Alexander the Great 67; of Apollodoros the nesiarch 170; of Areus i 66; of Arsinoe u 100, no, 183; of Athena 67; of Berenike i 67; of Berenike in 143; of Dionysos 67; of Hera 67; of Kleopatra vn 156; of Philon s. of Kaster 124; of Priapos 67; of Ptolemy I 67; of Ptolemy vin 137, 155; of Ptolemy ix Soter 143, 144; of the Theoi Adelphoi 92, 93, 95; of the Theoi Euergetai 17; of the Theoi Philopatores 118 stele 47, 49-51, 108, 115, 140, 148, 162, 164, 167, 168, 170, 172 stephane 126 stephanephore 51, 85 Stephanos of Byzantion 14 steward 109, 155 Stilpon the Megarian 7 stipend: for Aratos of Sikyon 109; for Sosibios the pedant 43 Stobaios, J. 40, 103 Strabo 8, 77, 119, 131, 140-2, 145, 148, 152 strategos at Ghoran and Magdola 112; at Memphis 42, 129, 143; at Omby 135; in Cyprus 62, 140, 180; in Kilikia 96; in Kyrenaika 181; in the Aegean 173, 174 Straton of Lampsakos 85, 86, 91, 154, 181 Stratonike the mistress 41 strikes 120, 146 stronghold 140, 188

style: art 27; of dress 32; of hair 152; of life 154; of writing 62 subjects: of Berenike iv 147; of Kleopatra vn 149, 151, 152; of Ptolemy n 154; Ptolemy xn Auletes 146, 148 subordinates 135, 171 subservience 152, 155 subvention: to Alexander n 71; to Aratos 111, 114, 184; to Kleomenes m 111, 114, 185; to Pyrrhos 71; to the Romans 186 subversives 113 successors: of Alexander the Great 83; of Ptolemy n 88, 99, 155; of Ptolemy vi 177 Sulla: see Cornelius Sulla Felix, L. summer 34, 57-9, 69, 74, 165, 166, 174, 175, 182 sumpotai 116 supporters: of Kleopatra n 156; of Ptolemy vi 187; of Ptolemy xin 150 surname 140, 141, 177, 179 Svoronos, J.N. 18 symposia 153 synagogue 123 synchronic theory 78 Synkellos 35 synod 157 Syria 56, 74, 84, 87, 101, 107, 115, 121, 124, 130, 138, 147, 149, 154, 162, 184, 187 Syrian War: First 81, 107, 182; Second 57, 74, 109; Third 184, 185 tactics (of Patroklos) 87 talents: of copper 136; of myrrh 109; of silver 64, 71, 86, 105, 145, 146, 148, 156, 184 tapestries 153

242 Index of Persons and Subjects Taposiris 123 Tarn, W.W. 4, 7, 48, 61, 67, 81, 85, 94, 168 Tarsos 153 tax farmers 128 taxes: collected on Alexandrians in the Delta 139; levied by Ptolemy H in the chora 121; levied by Ptolemy n on salt 68; remitted by Ptolemy i at Miletos 44; remitted by Ptolemy n for the Islanders 47; remitted by Ptolemy in in the chora 111; remitted by Ptolemy vni and Kleopatra n in the chora 139 technitai 116, 119; regulation of 116 Telemachos s. of Odysseus 46 Teles the Cynic 41 Telesphoros the general 83 Telmessians: petitioned Ptolemy n 59; presented crown to him 53 Telmessos 89, 94, 109, 182 temple: at Edfu 133; at Hermonthis 151; at Hiera Nosos 149; at Labraunda 52, 169; at Leontopolis 128; at Pithom 182; at Tintyra 151; of Apollo at Delos 51; of Arsinoe-Aphrodite at Zephyrion 69; of Arsinoe n at Alexandria and Memphis 99, 183; of Asklepios at Kos 142; of Berenike n 115; of Bilistiche 89; of Chnum at Elephantine 140; of Homer 117; of Horos at Athribis 143; of Horos at Edfu 112; of Osiris at Kanopos 112; of Sarapis at Alexandria 112; of the Egyptian deities 86, 92, 109, 118, 157; of the Theoi Adelphoi 95; of the Theoi Soteres 43, 68, 117 tension 108

Teos s. of Horos 118 Tertullian 78 Tesenouphis 128 tetradrachms (in gold) 89, 117; (in silver) 5, 7, 8, 18, 19, 27, 28, 54, 62, 86, 101, 111, 117, 118, 120, 126, 133, 137, 138, 145, 147, 148, 152, 184, 185 Thais of Athens 8, 106 thalamegos 62 Thebaid name 117, 136-8, 188 Thebans 143 Thebes 41, 118, 120 theft 88 Theodotos of Chios 149, 155 Theodotos the dioiketes 52, 184 Theodotos the strategos 185 Theoi Adelphoi 4, 39, 40, 50, 68, 71, 72, 88, 90, 92-5, 113, 117, 145, 154, 177, 178, 182 Theoi Epiphaneis 123, 124 Theoi Euergetai 112, 177, 178 Theoi Philopatores 98, 117, 118, 145, T-77,

l8

5

Theoi Soteres 3, 4, 6, 15, 16, 31, 43, 44, 67, 68, 85, 88, 90, 93, 98, 106, no, 117, 145, 177, 182, 185 Theokritos 36, 39, 43-6, 68, 69, 71, 77, 86, 89, 92-4, 98, 104, 106, 108, 109, 113, 122, 157, 182 Theophilos of Alexandria 177 Theophrastos of Eresos 14 Theopompos of Chios 14 Theopropos of Kalynda 59, 60 theoroi 77, 79, 91; had right of passage 57; from Athens to Alexandria 53; presented concerns to Ptolemy n 58, 59; reported his strength in 262 76; saw the grand procession in 262 30 Theos Epiphanes 78, 185

243 In(iex of Persons and Subjects Thera 95, 129 Thespiai 100 Thessalonika 150 Third Syrian War 184, 185 Thrace 40, 70, 82, 84, 98, 163 threats 138 throne of Ptolemy Soter 65, 68 thyrsos 153 Timagenes of Alexandria 14, 16, M7 Timagenes the courtier 83 Timaios of Tauromenion 14, 182 Timarchos the strategos 42, 55, 56, 77' 184 Timokritos of Rhodes 186 Timon the critic 45 Timosthenes the admiral 38, 72 Tinteris 149 Tintyra 151 Tlepolemos the regent 122 tomb 45 Torquatus: sec Manlius Torquatus, T. tourists 72, 152 tracts (about kingship) 103, 157 trade routes 71 tradition 96, 120 treasures 133, 149 treasury: of Kleopatra n 138, 188; of Lysimachos 83; of Ptolemy n 65, 97; of Ptolemy xn Auletes 148 treatise: by Kallixeinos about Alexandria 64; by Satyros about its demcs 63, 70; by Sphairos about kingship 122 tribe 116 tributes: by Ptolemy n for Arsinoe n no; by Ptolemy iv for Berenike ii 115; by the populace in CoeleSyria for Ptolemy iv 178 Trogus, P. 55, 83 Trophonios s. of Erginos 91

troops: as tool of propaganda 74; of Gabinius near Alexandria 149; of Kleopatra n at Alexandria 130; of Ptolemy I in Egypt 104; of Ptolemy n at Alexandria 70, 73, 74, 76,, 107; of Ptolemy n at Apollonopolis 109; of Ptolemy ii in Coele-Syria 87; of Ptolemy ii at Meia 32; of Ptolemy n at Memphis 184; of Ptolemy in at Ephesos in; of Ptolemy in in Syria 113; of Ptolemy vi at Lapethos 128; of Ptolemy vm at Alexandria 134; of Ptolemy ix Soter at Ake-Ptolemais 142; of Ptolemy ix Soter in the Levant 188; of Ptolemy the son at Ephesos 56. Sec also soldiers. troubles 138, 157 Troy 165 truce: between Ptolemy iv and Antiochos in 121; for theoroi 57.58 trumpet 77, 184 Tubias the sheik 72 Tullius Cicero, M. 8, 145, 146, 148 Turner, E.G. 121 tutoring 134, 149, 181 tyrant 56, 134 Tyre 5, 18, 105, 174, 185 Tzetzes, J. 91 unrest 185 Upper Egypt 42, 50, 62, 68, 77, 100, 108, 117, 118, 126, 129, 135, 136, 138, 150, 177, 186 Venus 31, 32, 35, 78 victory: of Antigonos Gonatas 54; of Caesar 151; of Ptolemy n 98, 106; of Ptolemy vm 136, 137

244 Index of Persons and Subjects victuals 119 violence: at Apollonopolis 108; of Crown agents 139 virtue: and happiness 41; of an ideal king 104; of Arsinoe n 93; of Berenike i 93; of Ptolemy i 93, 105; of Ptolemy n 67, 93 visibility 78 visit: of Ptolemy n 38, 42, 90, 117; of the Romans 133 Vitruvius 46 vivisection 86 Vouliagmeni 73 vows 84 Walbank, F.W. 109 war 73, 74, 104; between Alexander and Darios 154; between Antiochos in and Rome 124; between Kleomenes m and Antigonos Doson 111; between Lysimachos and Seleukos i 83; between Mithridates vi and Rome 143; between the satraps and Antigonos i 6; by Kleopatra in 144; by Ptolemy n 38; Chremonidean

55' 58' 67' 75> 87/ 94/ 95' First Syrian 107; for Coele-Syria 125, 127, 155, 186, 187; for Greek independence 70; Fourth Syrian 120; in Syria by the Romans 146; in the Thebaid name 138; Second Syrian 81; Third Syrian 112, 157 warrior 104, 107

warship 117 wealth: of Egypt 72, 76; of Kleopatra in 142; of Ptolemy n 77; of the Egyptian priests 109 weight 152, 183; Ptolemaic 115 Welles, C.B. 120 whiskers 117 whore 119 wife: of Alexander the Great 106; of Philip ii 106; of Ptolemy i 106, 181; of Ptolemy in 36; of Ptolemy vi 187; of Ptolemy vm 134, 138, 139; of Ptolemy ix Soter 141, 144, 188 Will, E. 25, 44, 57, 81, 95, 96 wine 39, 60, 119 winter 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 49, 51, 58 withdrawal 136 workers 139 worshipper 123

Zeno of Kition 41 Zenodotos of Ephesos 45, 86 Zenon the commander 171, 172 Zenon the steward 32, 60, 87, 109, 112 Zepernick, K. 29, 61 Zephyrion 99 Zeus 8, 9, 27, 35, 65, 67, 70, 75, 78, 89-92, 106, no, 124, 158, 185 Zoilos of Amphipolis 46 Zoilos, the ruler of Dora 142 zoology 78, 131

PHOENIX SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUMES

1 Studies in Honour of Gilbert Norwood edited by Mary E. White 2 Arbiter of Elegance: A Study of the Life and Works of C. Petronius Gilbert Bagnani 3 Sophocles the Playwright S.M. Adams 4 A Greek Critic: Demetrius on Style G.M.A. Grube 5 Coastal Demes of Attica: A Study of the Policies of Kleisthenes C.W.J. Eliot 6 Eros and Psyche: Studies in Plato, Plotinus, and Ongen John M. Rist 7 Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism J.A. Philip 8 Plato's Psychology T.M. Robinson 9 Greek Fortifications F.E. Winter 10 Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery Elaine Fantham 11 The Orators in Cicero's 'Brutus': Prosopography and Chronology G.V. Sumner 12 'Caput' and Colonate: Towards a History of Late Roman Taxation Walter Goffart 13 A Concordance to the Works of Ammianus Marcellinus Geoffrey Archbold 14 Fallax opus: Poet and Reader in the Elegies of Propertius John Warden 15 Pindar's 'Olympian One': A Commentary Douglas E. Gerber 16 Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices: The History of a Technology John Peter Oleson

17 The Manuscript Tradition of Propertius James L. Butrica 18 Parmenides of Elea Fragments: A Text and Translation with an Introduction edited by David Gallop 19 The Phonological Interpretation of Ancient Greek: A Pandialectal Analysis Vit Bubenik 20 Studies in the Textual Tradition of Terence John N. Grant 21 The Nature of Early Greek Lyric: Three Preliminary Studies R.L. Fowler 22 Heraclitus Fragments: A Text and Translation with a Commentary edited by T.M. Robinson 23 The Historical Method of Herodotus Donald Lateiner 24 Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100-30 BC Richard D. Sullivan 25 The Mind of Aristotle: A Study in Philosophical Growth John M. Rist 26 Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC Michael Alexander 27 Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age: A Study of Selected Tombs from the Pre-Classical to the Early Imperial Era Janos Fedak 28 The Local Magistrates of Roman Spain Leonard A. Curchin 29 Empedocles The Poem of Empedocles: A Text and Translation with an Introduction edited by Brad Inwood 30 Xenophanes of Colophon Fragments: A Text and Translation with a Commentary J.H. Lesher 31 Festivals and Legends: The Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of Public Ritual Noel Robertson 32 Reading and Variant in Petronius: Studies in the French Humanists and Their Manuscript Sources Wade Richardson 33 The Excavations of San Giovanni di Ruoti, Volume i Alastair M. Small and Robert J. Buck 34 Catullus Edited with a Textual and Interpretative Commentary by D.F.S. Thomson 35 The Excavations of San Giovanni di Ruoti, Volume 2: The Small Finds CJ. Simpson, with contributions by R. Reece and J.J. Rossiter

36 The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus Fragments: A Text and Translation with a Commentary by C.C.W. Taylor 37 Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda R.A. Hazzard 38 Aristotle's Theory of the Unity of Science Malcolm Wilson