Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda 0802043135, 9780802043139

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 XXXVII

R.A. HAZZARD

Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

www.utppublishing.com

©

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; 3 7) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8020-4313-5 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. 1.

DT92.H39 2000

932'.021

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

WARREN

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 ABBREVIATIONS

1

IX Xl

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

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 II 103 Ptolemy III Euergetes I and Berenike II 110 Ptolemy IV Philopator and Arsinoe III 115 Ptolemy v Epiphanes and Kleopatra I 122 Ptolemy VI Philometor and Kleopatra II 127 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and Kleopatra n 130 Kleopatra III and Her Sons 139 Berenike III and Ptolemy XI Alexander II 144 Ptolemy XII Auletes and Kleopatra Tryphaina 144 Kleopatra VII and Her Male Associates 148 A Summary 154 Appendices 1

The Date and Purpose of the Marmor Parium 2 Ptolernaic Officials and SIG 1.390 168 3 A Dedication to Ptolemy IV Philopator 176 4 A Ptolernaic Chronology to 105 BC 180

Bibliography

189

Indices Ancient Authors 201 2 Inscriptions 206 208 3 Greek Papyri and Ostraka 4 Demotic Papyri and Ostraka 210 5 Persons and Subjects 211 1

161

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 II, who glorified his sister Arsinoe and made popular a civilian style of kingship based on piety towards his real and mythical ancestors. Ptolemy II 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 n 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 vn1 Euergetes II about 139; Kleopatra III 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 1 investigates the date, the motive, and the rationale for the cognomen of Ptolemy 1; 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'Annee philologique. Editions of Greek papyri and ostraka follow the forms of J.F. Oates et al., Checklist of Greek and Latin Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (BASP Suppl. 7, 1992), while inscriptions use the forms of Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Abbreviations for ancient authors usually follow the forms of the Oxford ClassicalDictionary. References to Ptolemaic coins are from J.N. Svoronos, Die Miinzen der Ptolemiier (Athens 1904-8) or from A. Kromann and 0. M0rkholm, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Egypt: The Ptolemies (Copenhagen 1977).

Imagination of a Monarchy

1

When Did Ptolemy II Style His Fatheras Ptolemaios Soter?

When Ptolemy II 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 r; 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 II 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 II 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 II, 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 2

Hazzard, 'The Regnal Years of Ptolerny u Philadelphos' 150. The locution Ptolemaios Soter was not introduced during the reign of Ptolerny n.16).

1

(below

4 Imagination of a Monarchy Similarly, Ptolemy II, 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 II 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 (nxt; -roov1tEVTETTJpiocov ypmj>at;).Kallixeinos of Rhodes, an author of the second century BC, referred to the Records when he detailed a pageant held in Alexandria by Ptolemy II. 4 The document described a crown lying upon the throne of Ptolemy Soter (e1tioe -rov TI-roAEµaiou-rou ~co-r~pot;0p6vov ). 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 271/0. 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 1 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 and 57; Machon apud Ath. 242B and 244a have been excluded from the discussion because they cannot be dated to a precise year. 4 His report of the procession appears ap11dAth. 197c-203A. Kallixeinos referred to his source at Ath. 197n. 5 Ath. 202B. The transcription is more conveniently discussed in chapter 4. 6 Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas 261, n.10, at first accepted 275/ 4 as the date of the grand procession, but later argued for 279/8 in 'The Struggle of Egypt against Syria and Macedon' 703, n.1; 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 Priester 11ndTempel in hellenistischen Agypten 1.153, n.1; in Beitriige zitr Seleukidengeschichtc 7; and in 'Zu dem syrichen Kriegen der Ptolemiier' 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 ofthe Ancient World 212; Will, Histoire politiq11cdu monde hellcnistiqtte 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

II

Style His Father as Ptolemaios Soter?

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 nor 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 rr struck silver drachms, silver tetradrachms, and gold pentadrachms bearing his father's portrait on the obverse and the legend TTTOA.EMAIOYBArIAEnr on the reverse. This coinage of Ptolemy u 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 1 the moneyers at Ake-Ptolemais, Sidon, Joppa, and Tyre began striking silver tetradrachms with a new legend, TTTOA.EMAIOYrnTHPOL, and continued using it until the end of the reign in 246. 12 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, Eine agonistische lnschrift aus .Agypten und friihptolemiiische Kiinigfeste 94; Grzybek, Du calendriermacedonien au calendrier ptolemai'que 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 11, 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.Carlsberg9. We have no contemporary evidence that such a cycle was in operation for the Macedonian calendar under Ptolemy 11. 10 See table 1. 11 Examples of Ptolemy r'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 II or 262/i. Although these tetradrachms from Ake-Ptolemais bore the reverse legend, nTOAEMAIOY Il.1THPOI, 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 BacrtA.Euov,oc; 11,oAEµaiou,ou 11,oA.Eµaiouor a demotic equivalent; we have 37 such documents dated during the co-regency from 267 to 259 when the protocol read BacrtA.Euov,oc; Il,OAEµaiou ,ou Il,OAEµaiou Kat ,ou uiou Il,OAEµaiou or a demotic equivalent; and finally, we have 58 such documents dated during the period from 259 to 246 when the protocol read BacrtA.Euov,oc; Il,OAEµaiou ,ou 11,oAEµaiou:Ew,TJpoc; 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 u 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.1 5 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.16 15 Examples include Callim. Del. 165-6, Lucian Hist. conscr. 62, and Koenen, Eine agonistische Inschrift 3-4. There is a reference to the Theoi Soteres in each document. Other references from the reign of Ptolemy II are cited by Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 2.367, n.229. 16 See tables 1-2. In Gottmenschentum 1md griechische Stiidte 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 6 0Eo~ Soteres.' 82 The equal honouring of parents also appeared 79 Ath. 494A-B: 1(i) eauµUcrtE A.UT!KE, eav aq>EAT]s WUL(trtrjprn;to crwKUI WU L(t)CJtytvouc; to m Kut wu Biwvo-; r~v npflltl]V crunup~v Kut n'Jv tEAwmiuv wu 'AnoA.A.(t)viou, EUp~crEtc; crautov U1tElA.TjtAUOEAto-rpsric:;), Divine (L'>toc:;), and God-like (8sos1811c:;, 8sodKsAoc:; or lcr68soc:;) - 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, Alkyone said that her husband was Zeus. Zeus changed them into birds, making one a halcyon and the other a ceyx. 161 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 II was sometimes compared or associated with other deities, wrote Tondriau, 'Rois Lagides compares OUidentifies a des divinites,' 129-31. 60 Apollod. Bibi. 1-9-T EA.EyE yap ECW10V dvm t,fo., KU!11'l-;EKEtVOU eucria,; 6.tAav0pdmco reconciled some with others and persuaded some to grant justice to those who had brought grievances.' 168 This much is evident. Kleopatra II had nothing to lose by presenting her grievances to the Romans, since her brothers had already established the precedent in 163, 162, and 154, when one or the other had appealed to the Romans to judge his dynastic claims. 169 Pointing to the accumulated rights of the queen, to her mother's regency, and to the reputation of Arsinoe II, Kleopatra could have argued for an equal say in the business of state, and, because the Romans took a dim view of Euergetes, whose rule they regarded as weak and oppressive, 170 and because they viewed shared sovereignty in Egypt as lying in the interests of the Roman people, Scipio and his colleagues would have weighed carefully the queen's arguments. But did the Romans intervene? Let us examine the evidence. Ptolemaic notes or letters of instruction written under the first six monarchs always referred to Ptolemy alone, even if dedications and petitions included the names of the king and the queen.1 71 In a circular dated just after the reconciliation of 1391 however, Euergetes and his queens ordered their subordinates to stop their unlawful extractions from the clergy, and four years later in 135, the sovereigns again addressed missives in all their names, one to the strategos at Omby in Upper Egypt and another to members of a gymnasium in the same town. 172 From the evidence presented thus far, we can say that sometime between Philometor's death in 145 and the letter of instruction in 139, Kleopatra assumed a position in government with her brother, and 168 Diod. Sic. 33.28B+ t