Ptolemy IX
Ptolemy IX Soter II1 also known as Ptolemy Lathyrus2, and possibly as Physcon2.1, king of Egypt, son of Ptolemy VIII3 by Cleopatra III4, probably born in year 28 of Ptolemy VIII = 143/25, probably eponymous priest in year 37 = 134/36, not coregent in year 50 = 121/07, governor of Cyprus c. 1188, succeeded 11 Payni year 54 = 28 June 116 as junior coruler with Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III9, incorporated in the dynastic cult with them at that time as the Mother-loving Saviour Gods, Qeoi FilometwreV SwthreV10, senior eponymous priest in at least years 2 though 9 = 116/5 to 109/811, expelled by Cleopatra III and replaced by Ptolemy X in September/October 10712, took control of Cyprus in 10513, recalled to Alexandria to replace Ptolemy X c. May 8814, crowned at Memphis probably Phaophi year 30 = October/November 8815, probably coregent with his daughter Berenice III from shortly before 28 Epeiphi year 36 = 5 August 8116 till his death c. December 8117, succeeded by Berenice III18.
Ptolemy IX's titles as king of Egypt during his first reign were19:
Horus Dsr-mswt-Hna-@pw-anx nTrj-xpr(w) snsn-msxn(t)-nt-zA-Ast20
Two Ladies sxaj-sw-mwt.f-Hr-nst-jt.f jT iwTj-tAwj m mAa-xrw21
Golden Horus nb-&Amrj HoA.f-m-Haaw nb-HAbw-sd-mj-&ATnn-jt-nTrw-nsyt(?) jty-smn-hpw-mj-+Hwtj-aA-aA 22
Throne Name jwa-(n)-nTr-mnx-nTrt-mr-mwt.s-nDt stp-n-PtH jrj-MAat-Ra sxm-anx-Jmn23
Son of Re ptwlmjs anx-Dt mrj-PtH24Ptolemy IX's titles as king of Egypt during his second reign were25:
Horus kA-nxt jty-psD-m-&Amrj-mj-@pw-anx rdj-n.f-HAbw-sd-aSAw-wrw-mj-PtH-&ATnn-jt-nTrw26
Two Ladies (1) wr-pHtj xntj-S-nHH smn-hpw-mj-+Hwtj-aA-aA27
(2) wr-pHtj sxm-WAD-wr jtj-jwa-tAwj-m-mAa-xrw mnx-jb-xr-nTrw-rmTw28
Golden Horus Szp-&Amrj HoA.f-m-Haaw nb-HAbw-sd-aSAw-wrw-mj-jt.f-PtH-&ATnn-smsw-nTrw
Szp.n.f-nsyt-n-Ra-m-onw-nxt (jty-wDa-MAat-Ra smn-hpw-mj-+Hwtj-aA-aA)29
Throne Name jwa-aA-(n)-nTrwj-mnxwj stp-n-PtH jrj-MAat-Ra sxm-anx-n-Jmn30
Son of Re ptwlmjs anx-Dt mrj-PtH31Ptolemy IX had two marriages32 and no known liaisons33.
Ptolemy IX first married his sister Cleopatra IV34, by whom he had at least one son34.1; she is here identified as the mother of Ptolemy XII and Ptolemy of Cyprus35.
Ptolemy IX second married his sister Cleopatra Selene36, who is here identified as the mother of Berenice III37.
[1] PP VI 14554. Gr: PtolemaioV [Filomhtwr] Swthr. The numbering as Ptolemy IX follows the convention of RE and is today standard. He is sometimes numbered as Ptolemy VIII or Ptolemy X in older works. In his first reign he is one of the FilomhtwreV SwthreV. The epithet Swthr ("Saviour") is seen outside Egypt (e.g. in SEG IX.5 from Cyrene from year 10 = 109/8) in his first reign or in his second reign. pOxy 19.2222, a fragmentary kinglist, calls him the second Soter. Modern scholars seem to refer to him as Soter II or Lathyrus about evenly.
Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 171, calls him FiladelfoV in his second reign. This is not clearly documented in any contemporary source, and the passage has several demonstrable errors. This may well be another. A. Bernand restores iGPhilae 40 as referring to the Qe[ou Filadelfou Swt]hroV, arguing that the clear absence of a reference to Cleopatra III means the inscription must belong to the second reign of Ptolemy IX, hence excluding the restoration Filomhtorwu. But Ptolemy X is known as Philometor Soter even after the disappearance of his mother, and is not always called Alexander, so it seems to me that the inscription should probably be assigned to Ptolemy X after the death of Cleopatra III.
M. Chauveau, In Memoriam Quaegebeur 1263, 1275 suggests that the title FiladelfoV may also be connected with his posthumous deification of Cleopatra IV as a Qea FiladelfoV, and citing the example of Ptolemy II who eventually became known as FiladelfoV through the deification of Arsinoe II. This explanation would allow it to be a literary artefact rather than a real epithet. Ý
[2] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13.12.2, Plutarch, Coriolanus 11.3. The name was given in mockery according to Plutarch; it means "Chick-pea". The point of the joke is lost today, though the epithet is still widely used. If it is true that he was also called "Physcon", then it might refer to the way a chickpea swells in water, but this is no more than a guess on my part. Ý
[2.1] He is called Fuskon in his first reign by Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 171. While this may be an error, since Ptolemy VIII, listed on the previous line, is not so called, he is also recorded as "Soter Physcon" in the so-called Capitoline Chronicle (IG 14.1297 = FGrH 252), which is dated AD 16. Ý
[3] Justin 39.3. Ý
[4] Justin 39.3, Pausanias 1.9.1. Notwithstanding the circumstantial accounts in these sources concerning the relationship between Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra III, S. Cauville & D. Devauchelle, RdE 35 (1980) 41 have proposed that Ptolemy IX was in fact the son of Cleopatra II. The evidence cited for this is part of the evidence which they also cite to prove that Cleopatra II reigned until 107, namely that Ptolemy IX is called the son of Ptolemy Euergetes and Cleopatra Philometor Soteira, a title that they argue belongs exclusively to Cleopatra II, with Cleopatra III being called Euergetis, while Ptolemy X is called a son of the gods Euergetai; and that his mother, Cleopatra Philometor Soteira, is called daughter of the gods Epiphanes in some papyri from Pathyris from this period, which is a description appropriate to Cleopatra II. The refutations and difficulties with these points are discussed under Cleopatra II.
M. Chauveau, In Memoriam Quaegebeur 1263 at 1264 n. 6 notes a bas-relief at Edfu (M. Rochemonteix & E. Chassinat, Le temple d'Edfou VI 312) dating from Ptolemy IX's second reign showing him making an offering to his deceased parents. His mother is there called "Cleopatra, royal wife and mother" but not royal sister. Since this relief dates after the death of Cleopatra III, when he was free to describe his true mother, Chauveau argues that it is clear proof that his mother was in fact Cleopatra III, not Cleopatra II.
It seems to me that it is also possible, given that he was born while Cleopatra II was still Ptolemy VIII's wife, that Ptolemy IX was regarded as her official son, even though he was in fact the biological son of Cleopatra III. This was certainly the nature of the "maternal" relationship between Ptolemy III and Arsinoe II, and between Ptolemy XI and Berenice III; it was probably also the relationship between Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra Selene during the first reign of Ptolemy IX. This possibility does not seem to have been considered by any party to the discussion.
J.-Y. Carrez-Maratray, RdE 53 (2002) 61, has recently made the complementary proposal: that Ptolemy IX was the biological son of Cleopatra II but the adoptive son of Cleopatra III. This is essentially a revival of Cauville & Devauchelle's proposal, but with a new set of arguments. In summary, Carrez-Maratray's arguments are as follows:
i) Ptolemy IX was born in 142, before the marriage of Ptolemy VIII to Cleopatra III in 141/0. Therefore he should be seen as the son of Ptolemy VIII's wife at the time, Cleopatra II.
If this were the only piece of evidence we had, it would certainly be interpreted this way. However, the classical sources agree, not only that Cleopatra III was the mother of Ptolemy IX, but that she was in sexual relations with Ptolemy VIII before her marriage to him, which were later presented as rape. Carrez-Maratray dismisses this, in effect, as psychobabble. But there is also the clear contemporary evidence, which Carrez-Maratray does not discuss, of the introduction of Cleopatra III into the dynastic cult in stages over the year or two before her marriage, first as the king's daughter, then as "the beneficient woman", and only then as wife and queen. All this is very consistent with the notion that Ptolemy VIII was pursuing a deliberate strategy of using her as a counterweight or replacement of Cleopatra II, a strategy that only makes sense if he was sure she could produce an alternate heir.
ii) OGIS 130, written around 143/2, was dedicated to "king Ptolemy, queen Cleopatra, the beneficient gods, and their children". He argues that this proves that the royal couple had more than one biological child. He identifies these children as Ptolemy Memphites and Ptolemy IX.
Given that he is elsewhere willing to entertain the possibility of adoptive or step-children, this is an odd argument to make. If you allow the same possibility here (and there seems no reason not to) the children implied by this inscription would cover at least Ptolemy Memphites and Cleopatra III, and possibly also Ptolemy the younger son of Ptolemy VI and, indeed, Ptolemy IX, without implying that two or more of them were biological children of Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II.
iii) He contrasts the name of Ptolemy X, "Alexander", to that of Ptolemy IX, "Soter" and argues that Alexander is a more prestigious name, and therefore would not be the name that Cleopatra III would give to a second son.
This ignores Alexander, probably the third son of Ptolemy III, and certainly not the eldest, which he ought to have been on Carrez-Maratray's theory. Moreover, "Soter" was not Ptolemy IX's name, it was his epiklesis, or official epithet, assumed when he became king.
iv) His main argument is based an a belief that the title "Philometor", when it is applied to a mother, refers to the love that her son bears to her, not the love she may bear towards her own mother. Only this way can he make sense of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX (or Ptolemy X) reigning under the title of Theoi Philometores.
This doesn't seem so hard to me. The immediate succession to Ptolemy VIII was a triumvirate of Cleopatra II, Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX. It would be natural for Cleopatra II to revive the title she had used in her opposition to Ptolemy VIII, and for Ptolemy IX then to become Soter. So long as Cleopatra III was reigning as his coregent, it would seem difficult for her to use another title, even though there is evidence that she was occasionally called by the title Euergetis even in this period.
As proof that the term can mean the love a mother receives from her children, he cites examples where the title "Philometor" is apparently used for Cleopatra I in her relation to Ptolemy VI. He also notes that Pausanias 1.9.1 states that Ptolemy IX had the epithet "Philometor" in mockery, since no son was so hated by his mother -- implying that the term literally described her love for her son, rather than the other way round.
The cited examples for Cleopatra I are very questionable, and I think he is reading too much into Pausanias, who is only saying that Ptolemy IX had the title of loving a mother who detested him -- the joke is ironical, not punning.
He then argues that the title "Philometor Soteira" born by Cleopatra II during her civil war with Ptolemy VIII must therefore reflect her role as the mother of Ptolemy IX Soter.
But "Soter" was not his name, he was never declared king in this period, and Cleopatra II was legitimately a Philometor through her earlier marriage to Ptolemy VI. Moreover, the documentary evidence shows that Cleopatra II ruled alone, unlike Cleopatra I who is clearly a regent for Ptolemy VI.
He notes that in the settlement of 124 as recorded, Cleopatra II only gained an armistice and a return from exile in Syria, and argues that she must also obtained recognition for her son's rights to the throne. He also supposes, in light of the story in Justin 39.3 that Ptolemy VIII gave Cleopatra III the right to choose which son should rule, that Cleopatra II had agreed to give her this right in returning for Cleopatra III adopting Ptolemy IX as her son at this time.
The key question here is not why did Cleopatra II make peace with Ptolemy VIII but why did Ptolemy VIII make peace with her, at a time when she was exiled to a Syria that was falling apart in civil war and no further threat to his rule. The evidence of Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.5, if placed in the context of this civil war rather than the accession of Ptolemy VIII, suggests that the reason is that she controlled both Ptolemy IX and Ptolemy X, leaving Ptolemy VIII without an heir -- a powerful trump card.
If this is the reason, the theory that the settlement included giving Cleopatra III the right to select which son should rule on Ptolemy VIII's death becomes very unlikely. This story is unlikely to be true in any case, though it may well be that she claimed it was.
Finally, Carrez-Maratray addresses the question of why, if he is correct, Cleopatra II did not proclaim Ptolemy IX as king during her rebellion. He suggests that if he was in Ptolemy VIII's control such an action would have resulted in his certain death. He further argues that to do so would be to deny the legitimacy of Ptolemy VIII, the boy's father, as king, while as regent she was only denying the legitimacy of Cleopatra III as mother to the heir to the throne. Any claims she would have as regent would automatically evaporate when Ptolemy IX came of age at 18, which occurred in 124, the time at which Cleopatra II returned to Egypt.
The distinction that Carrez-Maratray draws, between actually disputing Ptolemy VIII's right to rule and only rebelling to ensure the succession of their son and her role of regent on his behalf, strikes me as remarkably fine, and I have no doubt that Ptolemy VIII saw it the same way.
If Ptolemy IX was the son of Cleopatra II and in Ptolemy VIII's control, there is no reason Ptolemy VIII would not have killed him at the same time he killed Ptolemy Memphites. Conversely, if Ptolemy IX was the son of Cleopatra II and in her control, killing Memphites would have removed any impediment to her proclaiming him king with herself as regent.
As noted above, the likelihood is that Ptolemy IX was in fact under Cleopatra II's control during her rebellion. By killing Memphites, Ptolemy VIII would have assured the safety of the sons of Cleopatra III in Cleopatra II's control, since they would then have become her own ultimate heirs, as well as his. However, for her to have proclaimed herself as regent for a son of Cleopatra III would have been to admit that Cleopatra III was a legitimate queen. Hence her only option was to proclaim herself queen regnant, and the evidence -- her use of the title "Philometor Soteira" and her own regnal years -- suggests that that is what she did.
However, Carrez-Maratray's point that Ptolemy IX came of age in 124 is very fair, and probably was a factor in encouraging both sides to reach a settlement, since the prospect of Ptolemy IX leading a rebellion in his own right, rather than for his discredited grandmother, must have then become very real.
Thus, I do not find Carrez-Maratray's case to be compelling on any point. Indeed, if anything, it is easier to explain Cleopatra II's actions, especially her decision not to proclaim herself as regent for Ptolemy IX, if she were not his biological mother.
Even though J.-Y. Carrez-Maratray, RdE 53 (2002) 61 at 64 n. 11 finds the comment "quelque peu expéditif", I remain of the view (Anc. Soc. 28 (1997) 40) that "there is nothing in the Egyptian data which contradicts the classical evidence."
J.-Y. Carrez-Maratray, CdE 81 (2006) 245 has recently revisited the question, in an article attempting to identify the "Isis and Horus" who dedicated two statue bases, iPhilae 10 and iPhilae 12. The first was dedicated to Ptolemy VI, the second to Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II (as Qeoi FilomhtoreV) and their son Ptolemy (assumed to be Ptolemy Eupator). He argued that the two dedications must have been cut at the same time and that the names "Isis and Horus" replaced erasures of an earlier dedicator. He reconstructs the original dedicator as "Qea Filomhwr" (i.e. Cleopatra II during the period of her rebellion against Ptolemy VIII). He explained "Isis and Horus" as Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX on the occasion of their visit to Philae in 115. As a byproduct of this proposal, it follows that "Horus" (Ptolemy IX ) must be a biological son of "Isis" (who cannot be Cleopatra II). Accordingly Carrez-Maratray retracted his earlier proposal.
[5] His Horus name, "Distinguished through his birth together with the living Apis; twin in his birthplace with the son of Isis", appears to associate his birth with that of the Apis bull calf of the cow Kerka II born on 24 Tybi year 28 = 18 February 142 (Louvre 4264). A very similar title is given to Ptolemy VI, but other evidence for that king indicates that the birth need not literally be on the same day, so at best we can tie it down to the same year. The validity of this data for dating the birth of either king has been questioned; the reasons I believe it should be accepted are given under the discussion of the birth of Ptolemy VI. This birth date precedes the marriage of his parents by at least six months, and is held to be implausible by some (e.g. G. Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire 203) for that reason. However, others, e.g. J. E. G. Whitehorne, Cleopatras 114, argue that Ptolemy VIII saw the provision of an alternate heir as an essential prerequisite for his plans to replace Cleopatra II as queen, a proposal I find altogether plausible. Ý
[6] pdem Tebt. 5944, announced in C. di Cerbo, in F. Hoffmann & H. J. Thissen (eds.), Res Severa Verum Gaudiam 109 at 116. See discussion under Ptolemy Memphites. Ý
[7] W. Otto & H. Bengtson, Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemäerreiches note the existence of certain coins -- J. N. Svoronos, Die Münzen der Ptolemäer Nos 1526 (pl. 52b.22), 1565 (pl. 54a.2) and 1613 (unillustrated) -- which appear to be dated to year 50 and year 1, implying a coregency in that year, for which Ptolemy IX is the only known candidate, once Ptolemy Neos Philopator has been identified with Ptolemy, younger son of Ptolemy VI. However, Otto and Bengtson note that the apparent A appearing on Svoronos 1526 (from Paphos) and Svoronos 1613 (from Kition) is matched by a monogram on Svoronos 1565 (from Salamis), and thus is not obviously meant to be an A (i.e. the numeral 1); also that these coins lack the word KAI ("and") which clearly distinguishes Svoronos 1509 (pl. 52a.11,12) as having a double date. They also stress the overall implausibility of such an interpretation, given that we are also told (Pausanias 1.9.1) that Cleopatra III arranged for Ptolemy IX to be sent to Cyprus and (Justin 39.3) that Ptolemy VIII left the choice of son to associate with as ruler up to her. So also G. F. Hill, A History of Cyprus I 198 n. 4. Ý
[8] Pausanias 1.9.1. Pausanias simply says he was "sent" to Cyprus; in what capacity, if any, we are not told. His position, as strategos of Cyprus, is given by OGIS 143 = J. Pouilloux et al., Testimonia Salaminia 2 -- Corpus épigraphique no. 80 which names a "Ptolemy the son of the king" as strategos; this can only be Ptolemy IX, since Ptolemy X, the only other known prince to have been strategos, was the brother of the ruling king. The date of his governorship, however, is uncertain. The terminus post quem is provided by the strategia of Theodorus son of Seleucus, which is dated by T. B. Mitford, Opuscula Atheniensia 1 (1953) 130, at c. 124-118. Essentially, the argument is as follows:
i) Seleucus himself can be dated to the early part of the reign of Ptolemy VIII, with Cleopatra II (the sister) and Cleopatra III (the wife), and has ordinary titles as strategos.
ii) The strategos Crocus, for the most part a contemporary of Ptolemy VIII with Cleopatra III only, has some extraordinary titles, including strategos autocrator and hypermachos, which Mitford interprets as "king's champion". These titles are shared only with Lochos, strategos autocrator of the Thebaid, who was instrumental in the recapture of Alexandria in 127 (OGIS 147). One inscription from Delos (OGIS 140) names Crocus as a contemporary of Ptolemy VIII with both Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III. Therefore Crocus should be dated to the period of the civil war, to some time after the return of Cleopatra II to the ruling triumvirate in 124.
iii) The inscriptions of Theodorus once call him strategos autocrator (OGIS 156+158) but normally only name him as strategos, as a contemporary again of Ptolemy VIII with both Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III. Therefore he governed Cyprus during the transition from a civil war footing back to ordinary rule.
The argument that Theodorus must have become strategos in or shortly after 124 seems very solid. The argument for giving him the bulk of the period between 124 and 116 is less clear: it seems to be the relatively large number of inscriptions for him (Mitford lists 7 compared to 3 for Crocus and 1 for Ptolemy IX). The estimate of 118 for the end of his strategia seems generally accepted, and I have no reason to suggest an alternative here, but it cannot be considered proven.
The key question is whether Theodorus was succeeded directly by Ptolemy IX, making the latter strategos for about two years, or whether the later strategos Helenos was installed for a first term as strategos only to be replaced by Ptolemy IX for a very brief period before his accession as king. T. B. Mitford, in JHS 79 (1959) 94, argued for the latter view, citing the following evidence:
i) pBrussels E.7155 (M. Hombert & C. Préaux, CdE 13 (1938) 139), dated to year 11=8 = 107/6 names Helenos, governor of the island, as priest for the life of Cleopatra Thea Aphrodite, i.e. Cleopatra III. This ensures that Helenos was strategos after the return of Ptolemy X to Egypt in that year.
ii) Mitford document 1 (previously unpublished): a statue base erected by Helenos to a son of the strategos Theodorus. At this time Helenos does not have the title strategos. His patronymic is lost, but another statue base dedicated by Helenos (Mitford document 2 -- JHS 9 (1888) 245 no 81) preserves enough of it to ensure that these documents and pBrussels E.7155 refer to the same man. This demonstrates that Helenos held a senior position on Theodorus' staff before the installation of Ptolemy IX as strategos.
iii) Mitford document 4 (previously unpublished): a statue pedestal erected by Hel[enos as strategos] to a Ptolemy son of king Ptolemy. The inscription was deliberately but erratically erased. The title of strategos is restored, but certain since the title of high priest is also present, and this title was always held by the strategoi. The title arcikunhgoV -- archikynegos (chief huntsman) -- is also present, and is only otherwise attested for a strategos on OGIS 143 = J. Pouilloux et al., Testimonia Salaminia 2 -- Corpus épigraphique no. 80, and on one other document of uncertain date (Mitford document 3, also JHS 9 (1888) no 1), which Mitford also assigns to Helenos, for this reason. This title, combined with the style of the lettering, ensures that the inscription must name a Ptolemy son of Ptolemy VIII after 118.
iv) Mitford document 5 (previously unpublished): the pedestal of a statue erected by the city of Salamis to Helenos. In Mitford's reconstruction, Helenos is the trofea -- trophea (usually translated as "tutor", though I suspect this is not what it actually meant in this context) -- of Ptolemy Alexander. He is not called strategos, or given any other administrative title, and Ptolemy Alexander is not called king. Again, the inscription was deliberately defaced. This reconstruction implies that Helenos was "tutor" to Ptolemy X before the latter became king.
J. Pouilloux et al., Testimonia Salaminia 2 -- Corpus épigraphique 41 no. 82, reconstructs this document rather differently, still naming Helenos as tutor and not as strategos, but to a king Ptolemy, which is the title that Helenos has in most later documents. Ptolemy is not identified as "Alexander" in Pouilloux' reconstruction. Mitford reproduces traces from a squeeze that appear to support his reading of trofea at the start of the second line, and are not obviously consistent with Pouilloux' of bas[i]leoV, but I do agree that Mitford's reconstruction of "Alexander" is not necessary and would not be surprised if Mitford's reading of his squeeze was correct but the original inscription nevertheless somehow referred to Ptolemy X as king. Even though the "tutor" position is reconstructed on Pouilloux' reading, it does seem the most reasonable flling of the gap at the end of line 1, if it is not at the start of line 2 as Mitford suppose. That is, we can, at most, infer from this inscription that Helenos was "tutor" to Ptolemy X before he became strategos under that king.
Pouilloux considers that Helenos was most likely "tutor" to Ptolemy IX, not Ptolemy X. That he was "tutor" to Ptolemy X, not Ptolemy IX, is clear from Mitford's document 9 = Pouilloux no. 81. This document gives Helenos essentially the same titles as he has in pBrussels E.7155, including his title as priest for the life of Cleopatra Thea Aphrodite, and as navarch, omitting only the title "tutor of the king". Hence Mitford 9 = Pouilloux 81 must be dated to about the same time as pBrussels E.7155, and Helenos must be "tutor" to Ptolemy X. We may suppose that the position of "tutor" lapsed shortly after Ptolemy X's return to Alexandria.
v) Mitford documents 6-9: four statue pedestals erected to Helenos as strategos and tutor to king Ptolemy (X). No. 6 is also available as Pouilloux no 83. In document 9 he is also named as priest for the life of Cleopatra Thea Aphrodite, i.e. it is roughly contemporary with pBrussels E.7155. (J. Pouilloux et al., Testimonia Salaminia 2 -- Corpus épigraphique 41 no. 81, suggests that this document could date from c. 118/7, but this would require Helenos to have been "tutor" to Ptolemy VIII!)
In Mitford's view, the central document here is his document 4. He argues that it must name Ptolemy IX before his accession, because Ptolemy X is always distinguished as Ptolemy Alexander in any circumstances that would cause confusion, and since the honoree is named as a son of king Ptolemy, i.e. Ptolemy VIII, Ptolemy Alexander would indeed be confused with his brother if he were the intended honoree. Therefore, Mitford concludes that this document proves that Helenos was twice the strategos of Cyprus, and that Ptolemy IX was only briefly strategos for at best a few months before his accession. While his being named as honoree on document 4 does indicate his presence on the island, in Mitford's view he had been exiled there, perhaps as early as 120, "when he was of such an age that his lack of recognition had become a scandal." He speculates that Ptolemy IX was eventually made strategos through court intrigue at Alexandria by Cleopatra II and her partisans.
In Mitford's documents 3 and 4 Helenos is not named as nauarcoV -- navarch (commander of the Ptolemaic fleet) -- even though this position is recorded for Theodoros, for Ptolemy IX (in OGIS 143), and for Helenos himself in pBrussels 7155 and Mitford document 9. Helenos is also not named navarch in documents 6 to 8, and the title cannot be restored to document 3. Before the publication of this study, Mitford had held that the absence of the position of navarch applied and was appropriate when Cyprus was under the central authority, which appears to be supported by document 9 and pBrussels E.7155; however, by assigning documents 3 and 4 to Helenos in a period when Cyprus was certainly under central control, an additional or alternate explanation for the ansence of the title was required. T. B. Mitford, JHS 79 (1959) 94, 129, speculated that Helenos was not made navarch on his first govenorship by the influence of Cleopatra III in to prevent the possibility of Ptolemy IX gaining control of the fleet; however, when Cleopatra II and her partisans got Ptolemy IX made strategos, they also managed to get him named navarch.
A. Avraamides, Studies in the History of Hellenistic Cyprus 323-80 B.C. 101ff. noted that these difficulties would be avoided if documents 3 and 4 were assigned to Helenos as strategos under Ptolemy X after he had declared himself king. In this scenario, Mitford's original argument is sufficient explanation of why Helenos is not a navarch. He points out that a description of Ptolemy X as "Ptolemy son of king Ptolemy" (document 4) describes him unambiguously in the period after the death of Ptolemy VIII, and by ignoring king Ptolemy (IX) his brother it stresses the legitimacy of Ptolemy X's claim; thus it is only the description of the strategos as archikynegos that ties documents 3 and 4 to Ptolemy IX. But that title could just as easily have been inherited by Ptolemy IX's successor(s) as strategos, and later discarded. It follows from Avraamides' argument that the evidence cited by Mitford is perfectly consistent with a much simpler succession, of Ptolemy IX as strategos immediately following Theodorus in 118, to be succeeded on his accession by the future Ptolemy X, who was in turn succeeded as strategos of Cyprus by Helenos when he took the title of king.
C. Marquaille, pers. comm. (April 2006), reasonably notes that the difficulty with this argument is that document 4 simply names a son of king Ptolemy VIII, whereas if Ptolemy X was seeking to establish distance from Alexandria, as Avraamides supposes, he should himself be identified as the king, or at least be given a title. That is so, but there is a third possibility: that the description of "Ptolemy son of king Ptolemy" is simply a patronymic. In this case we may suppose that Ptolemy X was never strategos, and that Helenos was strategos as successor to Ptolemy IX, and tutor to Ptolemy X.
With this exception, I find Avraamides' arguments to be quite plausible. Apart from the reasons cited by Avraamides, Mitford's dating for documents 3 and 4 forced him into highly speculative reconstructions of events in a power struggle in Alexandria in order to explain why Helenos was not navarch when first strategos, even though Cyprus was still under central control of Ptolemy VIII's government at that time, and also to explain how Ptolemy IX, having apparently been exiled to Cyprus without position, suddenly became both strategos and navarch. There is no independent support for any of these reconstructed changes in power. It nevertheless appears that Helenos was not appointed navarch when he succeeded Ptolemy IX as strategos.
Accordingly, I accept the view that Helenos was only strtategos once. It follows that Ptolemy IX is here dated as strategos of Cyprus in 118, immediately following Theodoros. Ý
[9] See discussion under Cleopatra II. Justin 39.3 says that Ptolemy VIII gave Cleopatra III the right to chose which son should rule. This story is widely accepted by scholars as true. However, it cannot be right if he was succeeded by Ptolemy IX in partnership with Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III. As described by Justin, Cleopatra II is no longer on the scene. It seems to me that the story makes most sense as a fiction concocted by Cleopatra III in an attempt to oust Ptolemy IX after her mother's death. Ý
[10] See discussion under Cleopatra II. Ý
[11] See sources as listed in W. Clarysse, G. van der Veken The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt 34ff. A second eponymous priest is known for years 6 (112/1) and 9 (109/8) and for one other year. Ý
[12] Pausanias 1.9.1, Justin 39.4. For the date, and for the unlikelihood of there having been temporary interruptions before 107, see discussion under Cleopatra III. Ý
[13] On his second attempt -- see Justin 39.4. T. B. Mitford, JHS 79 (1959) 94, 125 n. 108 pointed out that OGIS 166 records the career of one Kallipos, mostly under Ptolemy VIII but culminating as gymnasiarch of Paphos in year 12; the inscription must have been cut shortly thereafter. This can only be year 12 of Ptolemy IX, hence he was king in Cyprus at least in the final part of 106/5. O. Mørkholm, Chiron 13 (1983) 69, pointed out that the last coinage we have for Ptolemy X from Paphos is dated to his year 9 = 106/5 (J. N. Svoronos, Die Münzen der Ptolemäer No 1754-6, pl. 59b.20-21). (Svoronos 1757, unillustrated and not discussed by Mørkholm, is dated to year 10, but was found in Alexandria so is presumably not from Paphos). However, we have coinage for his year 10 = 105/4 from Salamis (J. N. Svoronos, Die Münzen der Ptolemäer No 1784, pl. 60.27) and from Citium (not in Svoronos -- see O. Mørkholm, Chiron 13 (1983) 69 pl 2.11,12). He concludes, I think correctly, that his invasion of Cyprus took place late in the summer of 105. It is unclear where he was based in the meantime, but quite possibly Cyrene. Ý
[14] The evidence on this date is subtle and complex. A. E. Samuel, CdE 40 (1965) 376, noted that the last dated papyrus of Ptolemy X alone is pAmherst 51, dated 28 Mesore year 26 = 6 September 88, from Pathyris. He points out that Porphyry, in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 163ff., says that Ptolemy X had a reign of 26 years but only 18 of them were in Egypt, and describes events of the 19th year, saying that Ptolemy X was expelled from Alexandria by his army, who pursued him abroad when he attempted to collect a new army to return; the citizens of Alexandria then invited Ptolemy IX to return. Further he says that Ptolemy IX reigned for 7.5 years after the expulsion of Ptolemy X, and the evidence suggests that Ptolemy IX had been expelled by Ptolemy X around the turn of his 10th year. Thus, Samuel concluded that Ptolemy X had reigned for almost exactly 18 years.
In support of this he noted the first attestation of Ptolemy IX in his second reign as pdem Strassburg 8 dated 21 Thoth of year 27 (Ptolemy X) = year 30 (Ptolemy IX) = 4 October 88. Thus in Samuel's view Ptolemy IX returned to power in September 88 and died c. March 80. However, O. Mørkholm, ANSMN 20 (1975) noted that: 6 identifiable obverse dies were used in coins from year 25 of Ptolemy X (=90/89) to year 29 of Ptolemy IX (=89/88); one of these was used for year 25 and year 26 of Ptolemy X, and for year 29 of Ptolemy IX, and four of them were used in year 29 of Ptolemy IX. Further, he noted pdem Cairo 30.614 dated 10 Pachons year 26 = year 29 = 21 May 88 (P. W. Pestman, Chronologie égyptienne d'après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C. - 453 ap. J.-C.) 74, 76(b)). He concluded that Ptolemy IX had seized control of Alexandria earlier rather than later in 89/8 and that the two had contended for control of the countryside until early 88/7 at which time the forces of Ptolemy X were defeated, i.e. that Porphyry had greatly simplified the sequence of events.
On reviewing this issue, E. Van't Dack et al., The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Confict of 103-101 B.C., 136ff., noted other evidence supporting Mørkholm's chronology. Some of it, less certain than pdem Cairo 30614, suggests an even earlier date for the return of Ptolemy IX. Possibly the oldest is a demotic stele from Saqqara North (W. B. Emery, JEA 57 (1971) 3, 5-6) dated by Emery to Hathyr year 26 = year 29 = 13 November-12 December 89; however, K.-T. Zauzich, Enchoria 7 (1977) 193 n. 2, states that the seasonal component of the month name in the published photograph is illegible, so that it could date to Phamenoth (=13 March-11 April 88) or even Epeiph (=11 July-9 August 88). OThebes D25, dated 4 Mecheir year 29, was written by Senusert son of Ankhhapi who also wrote oThebes D23, dated to 2 Mesore year 30, and oThebes D1, dated to Mecheir year 35. oThebes D23 was assigned by P. W. Pestman, Chronologie égyptienne d'après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C. - 453 ap. J.-C.) 75 to Ptolemy IX, following H. Thompson in A. H. Gardner et al., Theban Ostraca 45 n. 3, though Thompson thought that the series might alternatively belong to Augustus. If the assignment to Ptolemy IX is correct, oThebes D25 should be dated to 14 February 88.
At this time, we can best estimate Ptolemy IX's return to c. May 88, though it could have been earlier. Ý
[15] M. Rochemonteix & E. Chassinat, Le temple d'Edfou VII, 9, 5-8; S. Cauville & D. Devauchelle, RdE 35 (1984) 31, 52. For the date, pBouriant 12, a letter from the Theban strategos Plato to the people of Pathyris dated 19 Phaophi year 30 = 1 November 88, announcing the arrival of troops led by Heirax to defeat of the Theban rebellion, and noting that the king has just arrived in Memphis. Ý
[16] It is almost universally asserted that Ptolemy IX took on Berenice III as a coregent at the start of his second reign (e.g. P. W. Pestman, Chronologie égyptienne d'après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C. - 453 ap. J.-C.) 74). I have personally made this mistake (C. J. Bennett, Anc. Soc. 28 (1997) 39, 55). In most recent works (e.g. P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria I 124, P. Green, From Alexandria to Actium 553, J. E. G. Whitehorne, Cleopatras 175, G. Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire 212), such a coregency is simply stated without any reference whatsoever to a source datum. So far as I can determine there is absolutely no evidence for it; this is also the opinion of M. Chauveau, In Memoriam Quaegebeur 1263, 1275 n. 41. All the clearly assigned dating formulae of the period refer to Ptolemy Soter alone. R. A. Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy 144 n. 205, noting that "the preambles of Ptolemaic documents only mention Soter II", nevertheless asserts that "the association of Soter and Berenike is presumed from their statues at Athens [mentioned in Pausanias 1.9.3] and her succession in Egypt", both of which are extremely weak arguments for a coregency. J. E. G. Whitehorne, Cleopatras 175, claims that he must have had a queen in order to have been crowned a second time at Memphis, but the coronation of Ptolemy V occurred a couple of years before his marriage to Cleopatra I.
I have found two pieces of evidence referred to in the older literature in support of this coregency. Neither is accepted today as evidence.
i) Inscription SB 1569 was first published by G. Lefebvre, ASAE 9 (1908) 231, 240, who interpreted it as naming king Ptolemy [QeoV] megaloV Filo[mhtor]o[V / kai Fi]ladelfoV. Lefebvre argues that this cannot be restored as Filo[pator]o[V] (i.e. to Ptolemy XII) on the grounds that the title [QeoV] megaloV is not attested for that king, but is attested for Ptolemy IX. He concluded that it shows Ptolemy IX married to Berenice III as his "sister", even though no queen is named. However, L. Mooren, ZPE 17 (1975) 199, notes that Ptolemy IX is never known as FiladelfoV (although there is a possible posthumous example of this title). Also, he was only known as Filometwr in his first reign. Finally, Mooren cites inter alia OGIS 192, in which Ptolemy XII is called basilea megan. Thus there seems no reason to dispute Mooren's conclusion that SB 1569 in fact dates from the reign of Ptolemy XII, probably after the removal of Cleopatra V in 69.
ii) Lefebvre and A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides II 111.1 cite SB 4222 = OGIS 738 as an inscription naming a [king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra] as [Qeon adel]fon Filometorwn Swthrwn, based on the restoration of G. Botti, BSAA 4 (1902) 41, 51. But A. Bernand, Le delta égyptien d'après les textes grecs I 415f accepts the alternate restoration of Schiff, by which the word [adel]fon can be read directly as Qeov , allowing the inscription to be restored as naming [queen Cleopatra and king Ptolemy], i.e. for it to be attributed to Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX.
Further, as M. Chauveau, In Memoriam Quaegebeur 1263, 1266f., points out, the significance of Berenice FiladelfoV is unlikely to be literal, since none of her biological siblings were kings at the time she took the title under Ptolemy X. Chauveau thinks that it very probably refers to her "sisterhood" with her uncle and husband Ptolemy X. Indeed, she later took the title Filopatwr, which she used in her own reign. If the title FiladelfoV does refer to Ptolemy X, then it is most unlikely that she continued to use it in the second reign of Ptolemy IX.
Nevertheless, I think it is likely that there was a short coregency between Ptolemy IX and Berenice III in the last full year of his reign, year 36 = 82/1. Such a coregency would explain the dates of several documents that have otherwise not found a secure chronological home, notably: iGFayum 198, dated to 28 Epeiphi year 36 = year 1, and several documents dated to year 2 = year 1 (pGrenf II 38, dated to 13 Phar?[mo]u(thi) year 2 = year 1; oTait I 52, dated 25 Payni year 2 = year 1; odemBerlin 6179 dated 11 Epeiphi year 2 = year 1; and pTebt. I 202, dated 24 Mesore year 2 = year 1).
iGFayum 198 is usually assigned to the last year of Ptolemy VI, but the date is several weeks after it was known in Thebes that Ptolemy VIII had acceded to the throne. F. Ll. Griffith, Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library III 142, noted that the inscription could refer to Ptolemy IX with Berenice III, but the suggestion seems to have been generally ignored since.
pGrenf II 38 has been dated to year 2 of Berenice IV (assumed = year 1 of Archelaus), but this has been shown to be wrong, since Archelaus did not marry Berenice IV till her year 3. It has also been dated to year 2 of Cleopatra VII = year 1 of Ptolemy XIV, but this is based on a misreading of the date of pBon 10. Grenfell and Hunt, the original editors of pGrenf II 38, dated it to the reign of Berenice III on paleographical grounds, and on the grounds (now known to be mistaken) that SB 9764 = pFayum 151, dated to year 1 = year 3, should be assigned to Berenice IV and Archelaus, thereby ruling out that option. Since both the alternate proposals have now failed, and since it is known on other grounds that Berenice IV and Archelaus were not married in her year 2, the original proposal bears reexamination.
There are objections to this proposal but none of them fatal as far as I can see:
i) It requires Berenice III to succeed in 82/1, but we know that Ptolemy IX died in 81/0. However, a coregency avoids this problem. iGFayum 198, if not dated to the reign of Ptolemy VI, would be consistent with such a coregency, and would date it before 28 Epeiphi year 36 = 5 August 81.
M. Chauveau, Cléopâtre: au-delà du mythe 27, suggests that iGFayum 205, dated to 1 Epeiph year 1 of Cleopatra Philopator, and PSI 10.1098 dated to 29 Mesore year 1 of queen Cleopatra Philopator, should both be assigned to Berenice III, who also took the title Cleopatra Philopator, rather than Cleopatra VII, as is usually assumed. If this were correct then year 1 of Berenice III is unlikely to be a coregency with Ptolemy IX. However, the usual assignment is more likely to be correct. iGFayum 205 is dated three weeks before iGFayum 198, and comes from the same general area. It seems unlikely that an inconsistent regnal dating scheme would be used in these circumstances. See further under Cleopatra VII.
ii) There is at least one later date for Ptolemy IX that does not contain a double year; but this still shows a trace of a coregency. This date is given on a demotic Apis stele at Memphis, H. Gauthier, Livre des Rois IV 356 (XXXIV) = H. Brugsch, ZÄS 24 (1886) 19, 33 no. 51, dated 22 Hathyr year 37 "of the kings, living forever" = 2 December 81. The rulers are not named, but the current Apis is, which makes the identification of Ptolemy IX secure. The use of the plural is remarkable, and, if not an error, can only be explained by supposing that his coregent is Berenice III. But, and especially in light of the double date of iGFayum 198, one would then expect the stele to be dated to year 37 = year 2. However, the association of a daughter on the throne was highly unusual, if not unprecedented (the only possible precedent I can think of is Akhenaten and Meretaten!), and may well have been questioned or ignored by the conservative religious establishment. In this conection, it is perhaps relevant that when Ptolemy XII was deposed by his daughter Berenice IV, he continued to be recognised in Upper Egypt even though he had been expelled from the country.
ii) Under this hypothesis, the second reign period of pGrenf II 38 et al. began at least shortly before 13 Pharmouthi? (pGrenf II 38) and ran to at least shortly before 24 Mesore (pTebt. I 202), i.e. for a minimum period of over 4 months. But the classical evidence, and pOxy 19.2222, gives Ptolemy XI a reign of 18/9 days. Against this, there are two items of evidence which have been argued to name Berenice III jointly with Ptolemy XI, which, if correct, would suggest that he did not kill Berenice III on their wedding day, but rather after a short period of coregency, so the 18/9 days would be those of his independent reign after her death. However, both items are questionable, and so we have no reason to argue that the classical sources have oversimplified the picture. We may therefore suppose that the second reign period refers to year 1 of Ptolemy XII, which is otherwise undocumented. On this theory, the double date does not refer to a coregency, but rather allows the scribes a convenient method of distinguishing year 1 of Ptolemy XII from the immediately preceding year 1 of Berenice III. Ý
[17] Canon of Ptolemy: 36 years, thus dating his death to the year 81/80. The Canon has him succeeded by Ptolemy XII, hence the reigns of Ptolemy IX, Berenice III and Ptolemy XI had all been completed before 1 Thoth = 11 September 80. This is confirmed by BGU 6.1292, dated to year 2, which includes accounting entries for year 36 followed by years 1 and 2, a situation which can only conform to Ptolemy IX followed by Ptolemy XII. Last dated reference to Ptolemy IX is a demotic stele at Memphis, H. Gauthier, Livre des Rois IV 356 (XXXIV) = H. Brugsch, ZÄS 24 (1886) 19, 33 no. 51, dated 22 Hathyr year 37 = 2 December 81. So far as I can determine there is no explicitly dated material from the reign of Berenice III. Thus the only data available for giving a more precise date of death remains the statements of Porphyry, in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 165. According to Porphyry, Ptolemy IX had a total reign of 35.5 years, he reigned for 7.5 years after the expulsion of Ptolemy X, and Berenice III succeeded him for 6 months. Further, he credits Ptolemy X with a reign of 18 full years and discusses the events of his expulsion as happening at the start of his 19th year. While Porphyry normally uses the Olympian calendar, A. E. Samuel, CdE 40 (1965) 376, argues that this entire reckoning must be based on an original account which used the Egyptian calendar, so the first reign of Ptolemy IX annexed the last incomplete year of Ptolemy VIII, and the 7.5 years of the second reign starts at 1 Thoth year 29 = 14 September 89, from which it can be concluded that his death must have occurred in March 80. However, this is all less secure than it might appear: we don't know how precisely Porphyry or his sources understood amounts of "6 months"; we don't know exactly when the reckoning of the 7.5 years of the second reign of Ptolemy IX was supposed to start, since it appears that Ptolemy IX and X were in contention for the better part of a year; and we don't know whether Porphyry was drawing on a single source (apparently favourable to Ptolemy X) or on two sources, one for each king, which might have accounted their reigns slightly differently, or even on different calendars, one Egyptian the other Olympian. Thus the best we can say right now with certainty is that he died between about December 81 and March 80.
Nevertheless, we can perhaps reconcile the data by considering that Porphyry also says that Ptolemy IX reigned for 35.5 years after the death of his father, which if taken literally dates his death to Hathyr or Choiak of year 37 = c. December 81. 7.5 years before this date would give the start of his second reign in c. Pachons of year 29, i.e. the date of pdem Cairo 30.614, the earliest secure date of his second reign. Further, pGrenf II 38 can probably be assigned to Ptolemy XII. This means that the reigns of Berenice III and Ptolemy XI must be complete before Pharmouthi year 2 = April 80. Now, Porphyry gives her a six month reign, and this interval is only 4 months. But Mecheir and Pharmouthi are the sixth and seventh month of the Egyptian year, which would explain Porphyry's number. So, a working estimate of Hathyr year 37 = December 81 is adopted here for Ptolemy IX's death date. Ý
[18] Porphyry, in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 165. Ý
[19] Transliterated from J. von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (2nd edition) 240ff (9), with additional commentary in R. K. Ritner in "Perspectives on Ptolemaic Thebes" (forthcoming); Ritner's notes on the correct transliterations and translations of the Two Ladies Name and the Throne Name are incorporated here. The complete titulary as given here is recorded on a wall of the hypostyle hall at the temple of Edfu (H. Gauthier, Livre des Rois d'Égypte IV 359 (XLIV)), at the chapel of Deir El-Medineh (G. Daressy, BIFAO 6 (1906) 71 = H. Gauthier, Livre des Rois d'Égypte IV 360 (XLVIIIB)), and at the temple of Khonsu at Karnak (C. R. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien III Text 66 = H. Gauthier, Livre des Rois d'Égypte IV 360 (XLIXA)). From the throne name, which includes a translation of his Greek titles Philometor Soter, the king is Ptolemy IX. Additionally, in all three instances, the names follow that of Cleopatra III. Hence the titles must be those of Ptolemy IX in use during his first reign. Ý
[20] "Distinguished through his birth together with the living Apis, godlike at conception, twin in his birthplace with the son of Isis". For the reasoning associating this name with the first reign of Ptolemy IX, see discussion above. Ý
[21] "The one whose mother placed on the throne of his father, who has seixed the inhreitance of the Two Lands in justification". For the reasoning associating this name with the first reign of Ptolemy IX, see discussion above. Ý
[22] "Lord of Egypt who rules in joy, the lord of the Sed festival like Ptah-Tennen the king(?) of the Gods, who determines the laws like the great god Thoth". For the reasoning associating this name with the first reign of Ptolemy IX, see discussion above. Ý
[23] "The heir of the Beneficient God and the Goddess who loves her mother and who saves, the chosen of Ptah, who brings forth the order of Re, the living image of Amun". For the reasoning associating this name with the first reign of Ptolemy IX, see discussion above. Ý
[24] "Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah". For the reasoning associating this name with the first reign of Ptolemy IX, see discussion above. Ý
[25] Transliterated from J. von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (2nd edition) 240ff (9), with additional commentary in R. K. Ritner in "Perspectives on Ptolemaic Thebes" (forthcoming); Ritner's notes on the correct transliteration and translation of the Throne Name are incorporated here. The titles given here are recorded at the Temple of Edfu. The association with the second reign of Ptolemy IX depends on the association of these titles with his second throne name, and with the meaning of one of the Two Ladies names. Ý
[26] "Strong bull, the lord who lights up Egypt like the living Apis, may he be granted many great Sed-festivals like Ptah-Tennen, father of the Gods". H. Gauthier, Livre des Rois d'Égypte IV 359 (XLVA). This Horus name is associated with a Two Ladies name that occurs several times at the Temple of Edfu, and is almost certainly that of his second reign. Hence this Horus name is also that of his second reign. Ý
[27] "Whose might is great, who is pleased over eternity, who determines the laws like the great god Thoth". H. Gauthier, Livre des Rois d'Égypte IV 359 (XLVB). This name occurs in several places in the Temple of Edfu, and is associated with his second Horus name. Since the Two Ladies name of his first reign clearly refers to the role of Cleopatra III, it was certainly replaced during his second reign. Since his other known Two Ladies name was associated with his first Horus name, while this one is associated with his second Horus name, it is probably the name he used during the bulk of his second reign. Ý
[28] "Whose might is great, who has power over the sea, who is conquering his inheritance in the Two Lands in triumph, who is beneficient in the hearts for Gods and men". H. Gauthier, Livre des Rois d'Égypte IV 358 (XLIIA). This name is found only in the basement of the first court at the temple of Edfu. It clearly reflects the circumstances of his final victory over Ptolemy X. It is there associated with his first Horus name and with his second throne name. Therefore it marks a transition point between his first and second titulary, and is probably not the permanent Two Ladies name of his second reign. Ý
[29] "Who, seizing Egypt, rules in joy, the lord of many great Sed festivals like his father Ptah-Tennen, the oldest of the Gods". M. Rochemonteix & E. Chassinat, Le temple d'Edfou V 5. It seems, like one of the Two Ladies names, to reflect his final victory over Ptolemy X. Whether it permanently replaced the Golden Horus name used during his first reign is unclear. It may be a transitional name, like one of his Two Ladies names, in which case the final Golden Horus name of his second reign is unknown. Ý
[30] "Elder heir of the Beneficient Gods, the chosen of Ptah, who brings forth the order of Re, the living image of Amun". H. Gauthier, Livre des Rois d'Égypte IV 358 (XLIIA). The reference to his parents as a deified couple, and to his Greek title Soter, without the element Philometor, shows that the name is that of Ptolemy IX in his second reign; the statement that he was the elder heir stresses his legitimacy over that of Ptolemy X. Ý
[31] "Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah". Ý
[32] It is frequently asserted that Ptolemy IX married his daughter Berenice III during his second reign, e.g. J. E. G. Whitehorne, Cleopatras 175. So far as I can determine, there is no support for this in any ancient author. The only contemporary evidence that I have seen cited is iBucheum 11, which D. Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death 113 n. 152, cites as naming Berenice III (his "Cleopatra V") as the wife of Ptolemy IX. However, while this inscription does indeed named Ptolemy IX (identified by the titles of his first reign) as being married to a queen Cleopatra in or after 101, the reference is very problematic. iBucheum 11 commemorates a Buchis bull who is said to have been born in year 45 of Ptolemy IX, installed in year 51, and died at the age of 24. Clearly, the reigning king at the time of the bull's birth was in fact Ptolemy VIII, the bull being born in 125, and dying in 101 under Ptolemy X. While Berenice III was certainly queen at the time of the bull's death, the reason Ptolemy IX is named as her husband is a bit of a mystery, and H. W. Fairman, the editor of iBucheum 11, simply supposes that an error was made. However, it is hard to see how such an error could have occurred. Possibly the titles of the king were originally left blank (as was done for iBucheum 12), or originally named Ptolemy X, and were filled in or overwritten on the restoration of Ptolemy IX, and the reference to "his wife Cleopatra" was simply left in place for form, or in order to avoid reworking a larger section of the stele.
The theory that Ptolemy IX married his daughter appears to be an assumption based on the equally mistaken idea that she was his coregent for the duration of his second reign. Even if she was a coregent, however, the examples of Cleopatra II, who remained ruling queen after her divorce from Ptolemy VIII, and Cleopatra III, ruling queen as mother of Ptolemy IX and Ptolemy X, show that it was not necessary for a ruling queen to be married to her consort. Ý
[33] It is almost universally asserted that Ptolemy IX had one or more concubines or secondary wives who were the mothers of Ptolemy XII, Ptolemy of Cyprus and/or Cleopatra V. This supposition is based on: the description of Ptolemy XII as a "bastard" (NoqoV -- Prol. Trogus 39); the unwarranted assumption that Cleopatra V was a daughter of Ptolemy IX; and the statement of Pausanias 1.9.3 that Berenice III was his only legitimate child. Specifically, it has been proposed that the mother of Ptolemy XII may have been of a social status considered questionable by some of the Greeks but acceptable for royalty in Egypt. On this basis it has been suggested that she may have been an aristocratic Egyptian, possibly from the family of the High Priests of Memphis (J. R. Barns, Or 57 (1977) 24, R. D. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty and Rome 100-30 B.C. 92f., W. Huss, Aegyptus 70 (1990) 191, 203). D. H. Kelley, JAMS 12 (1995) 25, 36 has further suggested that she may be identical to Ptolemais daughter of Kheperkare supposedly named on an inscription in Akhmim. This theory is by analogy to the likely marriage of Psherenptah II, High Priest of Memphis, to Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy VIII. However, it is essentially speculative, there is no direct evidence for it or against it. The reasons why Ptolemy XII was considered illegitimate, at least by some, are unknown. It is here proposed that Ptolemy XII was a son of Ptolemy IX by Cleopatra IV, and that his alleged illegitimacy reflects the fact that he was born before Ptolemy IX became king. Ý
[34] Justin 39.3. Ý
[34.1] I.e. the son who was eponymous priest in 109/8, ex officio a son of Selene. Ý
[35] See discussions under Ptolemy XII and Ptolemy of Cyprus. Ý
[36] Justin 39.3. Ý
[37] See discussion under Berenice III.
Justin 39.4 asserts that Ptolemy IX had "duos filios" by Cleopatra Selene, who were left behind in Alexandria when he was forced to flee in 107. The phrase is usually understood to mean "two sons", in which case they are here assigned to Cleopatra IV, with Selene being their mother ex officio while she was queen of Egypt; see discussions under Ptolemy XII and Ptolemy of Cyprus. However, there is one direct indication that Selene may indeed have had at least one son by him.
Plutarch, Lucullus 2.5, describes a meeting between Lucullus and "young" (meirakion) Ptolemy in Alexandria in 86. This man is normally identified as Ptolemy IX, and this identification is reinforced a few lines later when Plutarch describes Ptolemy, apparently the same man, as king. However, Ptolemy IX was about 56 at the time. It is therefore tempting to suggest that the individual who greeted Lucullus in Alexandria was actually a son of the king. R. D. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty and Rome 367 n. 7, suggests that this son was Ptolemy XII, but this seems very unlikely: most probably he was a hostage at the court of Mithridates at this time, or, if not, he was at most 10 years old.
Mark Passehl, pers. comm, notes that Plutarch uses the term meirakion to describe Lucullus himself in Plutarch, Lucullus 1.1, in connection with his prosecution of Servilius the augur, which occurred when he was about 20, whereas by the time of the Marsic War in 90/89 (Lucullus 2.1) he was a "young man" (neaniskoV) of about 28. Passehl suggests that Plutarch used the term to indicate late teens and early twenties. He therefore estimates that Ptolemy meirakion was born c. 113-103; since Ptolemy IX was expelled in 107, the range can be restricted to c. 113-107. The eponymous priest of 109/8, probably son of Cleopatra IV, would have been about 30 at this time; even if not, he was most likely in his late twenties. Passehl therefore argues that Ptolemy meirakion was the younger of the two sons of Selene mentioned by Justin.
If accepted, it would follow that the elder son must have died by now, that Ptolemy IX had retrieved at least the younger son from Cos before Mithridates' raid in 88, that this son predeceased Ptolemy IX himself, and that these two sons cannot be identified with Ptolemy XII and Ptolemy of Cyprus. This is not a priori impossible since there are perfectly legitimate arguments for a scenario which has them as younger sons born to a concubine during Ptolemy's exile in Cyprus, the major obstacle being to explain the circumstances behind their engagements to the daughters of Mithridates VI. If this package of arguments are accepted, then we have an alternate family tree for the children of Ptolemy IX as follows:
Genealogical notes on this alternate scenario:
1) The argument that the eponymous priest was a biological son of Cleopatra IV rather than Selene is unaffected by this scenario. However, it does imply that this son had most likely died between 109 and 107.
2) The argument that Berenice III was a daughter of Selene rather than Cleopatra IV is unaffected by this scenario. As M. Passehl, pers. comm., points out, Justin's phrase "duos filios" would then most reasonably refer to a son and a daughter, i.e. Berenice III and Ptolemy "meirakion". (cf. the "duos parvulos" of Theoxena at Justin 23.2.)
3) The argument that Cleopatra V was a daughter of Ptolemy X is unaffected by this scenario
Against this identification of Ptolemy meirakion, formal Greek discussions of the stages of life view youth as being between about 14 and 21, which would give him an earliest birthdate of 107. On this date, and even admitting a certain fuzziness in the transitions between life stages, it is at best barely possible that Ptolemy meirakion was a son of Ptolemy IX by Selene, since evidently both the "duos filios" had been born before Ptolemy IX's expulsion from Egypt in September/October 107.
Moreover, along with most scholars, I find any scenario which assumes that Lucullus was not interacting with the king himself to be quite implausible. It is clear that Lucullus' arrival was expected, since he was greeted by the Egyptian fleet, and since Ptolemy meirakion is said to have treated Lucullus far more lavishly than was usual for visiting dignitaries, including allowing him an expense account, an action which must have required royal approval. But the scenario requires that Ptolemy IX was not in Alexandria when Lucullus arrived, for which there would have to have been a very compelling reason.
Passehl argues that the king was in Upper Egypt, personally involved in the suppression of the Theban rebellion, as described in Pausanias 1.9.3, but pBour. 12, dated 19 Phaophi year 30 = 1 November 88, indicates that operational command was under the Ptolemaic general Hierax. The earliest indication of rebellion is in pdem Berl. 13608, dated 24 Thoth year 24 = 18 September 91; on Pausanias' chronology the rebellion must have been just about over in 88. However, it is argued (e.g. B. McGing, AfP 43 (1998) 297) that pdem Berl. 13608 only describes a common assault. Nevertheless, papyri such as pBour. 10 show that the rebellion was well under way in March 88. Even if the rebellion only started in 89/8, it must have been well under control by 86.
Finally, Lucullus certainly did interact with the king himself, since (Lucullus 3.1) a policy decision was made not to take Rome's side in the upcoming Mithridatic war, but Lucullus was granted an escort from the Ptolemaic fleet while he gathered a Roman fleet from the Levantine cities, and the king gave him an emerald ring carved with his own image.
An important issue here is to consider why Ptolemy IX refused to support Lucullus. The mere uncertainty of the result of the war against Mithridates, given by Plutarch, is not sufficient, since he was in a position to make a considerable difference to that outcome. One likely reason is that Lucullus was Sulla's quaestor. Sulla had been disowned by the Marian/Cinnan faction controlling Italy, and the republic was heading for a state of civil war at this time. To the extent that Ptolemy IX was aware of all this, it was a strong incentive not to take actions that would be seen as choosing sides. He may have had other strong incentives to remain neutral. First, Mithridates held Ptolemy XI, a potential antiking, as a hostage, a threat that would have been completely neutralised by a Roman victory -- though it could certainly be argued that Mithridates would have had no incentive to activate his antiking in the event of victory if Ptolemy IX stayed neutral. If Mithridates also held Ptolemy IX's own heirs as hostage, then a stronger reason for his neutrality immediately becomes apparent, but, if Ptolemy meirakion was his heir, then he held no such threat over him. Second, if the arguments of E. Badian, RhMP 110 (1967) 178 are accepted, Rome had a direct hold over him, in that Ptolemy X had supposedly willed the kingdom to Rome, as surety for a large sum of Roman money which was deposited in Tyre. We know (Cicero, De lege agraria 2.41) that the money was recovered -- and certainly it was in Ptolemy IX's interest that it be recovered; possibly Lucullus was given an Egyptian escort so that he could safely recover the money on this voyage (though it seems that he failed to do so).
I am not willing to postulate the existence of another son in Alexandria in 86 based on a single adjective. It appears that Plutarch made a mistake, or perhaps the adjective requires emendation. Ý
Update Notes:
11 Feb 2002: Added individual trees
25 Feb 2002: Split into separate entry
25 Feb 2002: Added discussion of Bernand's restoration of FiladelfoV in iGPhilae 40, proposing instead to restore it as Filomhetwr and to assign it to Ptolemy X.
26 Feb 2002: Added refutation of Whitehorne's suggestion that a second coronation in 88 implies Berenice III was coregent at that time.
26 Feb 2002: Added argument refining Ptolemy IX's death date to Dec. 81
14 May 2002: Corrected Egyptian date equations as necessary
18 May 2002: Added discussion of the "young" Ptolemy who greeted Lucullus
4 April 2003: Noted the epithet "Physcon" in the Capitoline chronicale dated AD 14 (thanks to Mark Passehl).
18 May 2003: Changed Plutarch Xrefs to the Lacus Curtius edition
18 June 2003: Changed Plutarch Xrefs for Coriolanus to the Lacus Curtius edition
23 Aug 2003: Added Xrefs to online Justin
24 Feb 2004: Added Xrefs to online Prol Trogus
1 March 2004: Added discussion of Carrez-Maratray's revival of the proposal that Ptolemy IX was the son of Cleopatra II.
13 Sep 2004: Add Xref to online Eusebius
20 Oct 2004: Expanded and detailed discussion of Ptolemy meirakion in response to critique by Mark Passehl
8 Dec 2004: Minor corrections to the discussion of the return of Ptolemy IX
13 Jan 2005: Noted that the supposed "year 50=1" coins were originally assigned to Neos Philopator.
11 Mar 2005: Added Greek transcription, links to image of pOxy 19.2222
10 Apr 2005: Added link to online BIFAO article by Daressy
24 May 2005: Added guess as to the point of Lathyrus; split out Physcon discussion
27 Oct 2005: Ptolemy IX's first eponymous priesthood was in year 37 of Ptolemy VIII not year 36 in light of pdem Tebt 5944 (C. di Cerbo, Fs Zauzich, 116)
24 April 2006: Added discusion of Pouilloux' interpretation of Mitford's inscriptions
24 April 2006: Added discussion of the point raised by Cèline Marquaille against Avraamides re the chronology of Helenos and Ptolemy IX in Cyprus
5 Aug 2006: Note Passehl's point that Justin's "duos filios" could refer to a son and a daughter.
16 Sep 2006: Added links to Packard Humanities DB, Canon at Attalus
26 Nov 2006: Note that Cleopatra IV was probably nother of the eponymous priest regardless of his identity with Ptolemy XII
19 Aug 2007: Note Carrez-Maratray's retraction of his proposal that Ptolemy IX was the son of Cleopatra II.
17 Nov. 2007: Adjust titulary to reflect Ritner's corections and commentaryWebsite © Chris Bennett, 2001-2007 -- All rights reserved
