Academic literature on the topic 'Ptolemy III Euergetes'

Summary The main function of Hellenistic queenship is increasingly understood as contributing to the definition of the basileus. The early Ptolemies produced the most peculiar version of the ‘sister queen’, known throughout the Near East as an ideological construct, but taken literally in Egypt from the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (285/282–246) and Arsinoe II Philadelphos (278/275–270), the ‘Sibling-Lovers’. The most famous example of a ‘virgin queen’ is Berenike, the daughter of Ptolemy III Euergetes and Berenike II, best known from the Kanopos Decree, which regulated her posthumous cult (238). Often understood as a merely honorary title for some or potentially all princesses in Alexandria, the basilissa title of unmarried girls has found little scholarly attention so far. Altogether, there are surprisingly few royal daughters for whom we have clear evidence: besides the aforesaid Berenike, her sister Arsinoe III (died 204) and previously Berenike (later known as Phernophoros, died 246), the daughter of the Philadelphoi. Claims that Arsinoe II or her sister Philotera had enjoyed the same status at the court of Ptolemy I Soter (323–282) cannot be substantiated, so that their basilissa titles should be explained by marriage with a king. The phenomenon of virgin queenship was thus of limited duration. It is best interpreted as a ramification of an emphatically endogamous royal dynasty: Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III pledged their most distinguished daughter to the future successor even before he had been chosen from among his brothers.

καλὸν δ᾽ ἐπὶ σήματι σῆμασκέπτεσθαι, μᾶλλον δὲ δυοῖν εἰς ταὐτὸν ἰόντωνἐλπωρὴ τελέθοι, τριτάτῳ δέ κε θαρσήσειας. (Phaen. 1142–4)It is a good idea to observe one sign after another, and if two agree, it is more hopeful, while with a third you can be confident. Appropriately for a poet who is ‘subtly speaking’ (λεπτολόγος), the epithet applied to him by Ptolemy III Euergetes (Suppl. Hell. 712.4), Aratus does not cease offering unexpected material to explore. This statement holds true also for the famous passage containing the acrostic ΛΕΠΤΗ (lines 783–7):

AbstractThis article discusses the origin of the three dynastic settlements, which the Ptolemies (re) founded in Cyrenaica: Arsinoe-Taucheira, Ptolemais near Barca and Berenike near Euesperides. The evidence for the dating of the foundation of Ptolemais is re-examined and a papyrological text introduced, which has so far been ignored by previous scholars. This text unambiguously attests citizens of Ptolemais near Barca as early as 252 BC in Egypt. It refutes the commonly accepted argument that all three Ptolemaic cities were founded under Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-221 BC) and within the same framework of administrative-political concerns. It will be suggested that Ptolemy I Soter had the motifs, opportunity and resources to found Ptolemais as early as the end of the fourth century BC. Several papyri further emphasise that despite the almost simultaneous demise of Euesperides and rise of Berenike nearby, ethnic designations for these two cities were simultaneously in use throughout Ptolemaic Egypt until at least the end of the third century BC.

In this article, I will be focusing on the two artifacts that are now housed in the Greco-Roman Museum of Alexandria. These are two Hellenistic mosaic compositions from the Egyptian city Thmouis, which was located in Mendesian nome (GRMA №№ 21.739; 21.736). Both mosaics depict an armed woman in royal purple and surrounded by the elements of marine entourage. The modern researchers offer three options for identifying this woman: 1) the allegory of Alexandria; 2) Arsinoe II, the second wife of Ptolemy II Philadelphus; 3) Berenice II, the wife of Ptolemy III Euergetes. In the pages of this article, I offer several considerations and the arguments in favor of the identifying the woman from the mosaics of Thmouis as Berenice II. In particular, I assume the probability of the existence of a common denominator between Mendesian nome and the said queen. In my opinion, this common denominator was the production of the aromas. On the one hand, Mendesian nome was famous for making aromatic oils, that were known beyond Egypt. On the other hand, Berenice II showed a great interest in a perfume business. It was this interest that could be one of the reasons that prompted Ptolemy III to develop the southern coast of the Red Sea and to expand the Egyptian sphere of the influence beyond the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. As a result, Egypt gained access to a relatively cheap the vegetal raw materials, that were needed for the production of the perfume. The part of these raw materials, probably with the help of Berenice, could get to the Mendesean perfumers and, accordingly, helped to a improve the welfare of the nome. Thus, the woman represented in the sea mosaics, that were popular in Tmuis, must be Berenice II, as Mendesians associated the supply of cheap overseas aromatic substances with her name. In the same time, it is likely that a Mendesian interpretation of the plot of these mosaics differed significantly from the author's idea, that was related to the promotion of a Ptolemaic naval power.

Eratosthenes (circa 276 B.C.–194 B.C.) is considered a famous scientist of ancient Greece. He was a mathematician and geographer. Born in Cyrene, now Shahhat (Libya), he was appointed to teach the son of the Egyptian King Ptolemy III Euergetes. In 240 B.C., he became the third chief librarian the Great Library of Alexandria. Eratosthenes laid basics for mathematical geography. He was the first to calculate precisely in an original way the Earth meridian's length between Syene and Alexandria. For this purpose he used perpendicular projection of the sun rays during summer solstice (06.22) near the town Syene, now Aswan. His estimation of the length of the Earth's radius (6300 km) is close to present estimation (6371 km). He calculated that a year possesses 365.25 days. He also emphasized the significance of maps as the most important thing in geography. Eratosthenes was the first one to use the term “geographem” to describe the Earth. In this way he legitimized the term of geography. He also put into system geographical information from various sources in order to obtain a map of the world as precise as possible.

Rudolf Pfeiffer (Callimachus, ii.xxxvi–xxxvii) believed that, as a young man, Callimachus wrote four books of Aetia. To these the poet added in his old age a Reply to his Critics (fr. 1), and a slightly revised version of his recent occasional elegy, the Lock of Berenice (fr. 110, now including a nuptial rite which has survived only in the translation by Catullus, 66.79–88); this revised Coma became the last poem in Aetia book 4, to be followed by an Epilogue (fr. 112) which may mark a transition to the Iambi. Pfeiffer's theory generally held the field until the brilliant article of P. J. Parsons, in ZPE 25 (1977), 1–50. With the help of newly recovered papyrus fragments Parsons showed that a previously unplaced elegy celebrating a Nemean victory (fr. 383 Pf.) was connected to the story of Molorchus (frs. 54–9), who entertained Heracles before that hero killed the Nemean lion and instituted the Nemean Games; thus the poem belonged to Aetia book 3. Furthermore, various pieces of evidence converge (Parsons, pp. 46–8) to make it probable, if not wholly certain, that this substantial poem (some 200 lines long) stood first in its book. So it appears that, at least in the final form of the Aetia, books 3–4 were framed by two poems honouring the wife of Ptolemy III Euergetes, namely Victoria Berenices (Parsons' title) and Coma Berenices.Soon afterwards a further important advance was made by E. Livrea (ZPE 34 [1979], 37ff.), who perceived, on grounds of subject-matter as well as papyrology, that the poor man who sets a mousetrap in fr. 177 Pf. must be none other than Molorchus; note particularly the probable mention of Cleonae in fr. 177.37 Pf. = Supplementum Hellenisticum 259.37. Thus a new fragment of 38 lines accrued to the poem.These discoveries have some implications for the composition of the Aetia. Addition of a Coma Berenices (94 lines in Catullus' version) to a pre-existent Aetia book 4 could be countenanced easily enough, but, as Parsons says (p. 50), it would have required a much more radical, and therefore less plausible, revision for Callimachus to have added Victoria Berenices to a pre-existent Aetia book 3. Accordingly Parsons suggested that the original Aetia contained only books 1–2, united by the conversation with the Muses; then in his old age Callimachus compiled two more books, partly at least from poems already composed, and gave them a frame of two poems honouring Queen Berenice. Parsons' view has, I think, been widely accepted; Professor Lloyd-Jones wrote in SIFC 77 (1984), 56 ‘No-one has yet argued against the simple modification of Pfeiffer's theory of the two editions of the Aetia which Mr. Parsons based on this discovery. The first edition comprised two books only.’

While the Third Syrian War was raging, the Koans deployed substantial diplomatic efforts to have the asylia of their Asklepieion and the panhellenic penteteric games recognized throughout the Mediterranean world. In the 1950s, Günther Klaffenbach and Mortimer Cham-bers presented what was to become the consensus chronology: they saw the theoroi visit sev-eral royal courts and many more Greek poleis largely in summer 242 BCE, before the first games were held at Kos around May 241 BCE. This consensus has now been challenged by Dimitris Bosnakis and Klaus Hallof (Chiron 50, 2020, 287–326), who suggest dating the events one year earlier, based on six recently-found documents. These include a letter of king ‘Zigelas’ (sc. Ziaelas of Bithynia), dated to year 39 of an uncertain era. The present article tries to argue instead that the grant of asylia by several kings likely happened in 243, whereas the campaign in support of the Asklepieia unfolded from spring to autumn 242, before the first Asklepieia were held in 241 BCE. This chronological revision has important ramification for other aspects of 3rd-century BCE history, such as the biography of Antigonos Gonatas (whose basileia began in 283/82 BCE) and the start of the first dynastic era of Bithynia (281 BCE). Moreover, queen Laodike, the author of another new letter, should be identified with the wife of Antiochos Hierax, and further with the author of the anonymous royal letter earlier attributed to Seleukos II. The letter previously assigned to the Bosporan king Spartokos IV may rather be from Mithradates II of Pontos. The epigraphic evidence shows the Koans steadfast in their loy-alty to Ptolemy III Euergetes, whereas the second letters from the courts of Nikomedeia and Sardeis may hint at a gradual shift of Ziaelas and Hierax towards Seleukos II.

The koinon synedrion of the Greeks, placed at Plataia, honours the Athenian Glaucon, younger brother of Chremonides (the proposer of the decree IG II/III³ 1, 912), and his descendants with public praise and proedria at the Panhellenic games Eleutheria by virtue of his many merits. Glaucon’s Panhellenic euergetism dates back to the past, when he was in Athens, and subsequently when, being exiled at the end of the Chremonidean war and while in service of Ptolemy II, he made offerings to the sanctuary of Zeus Eleutherios and Homonoia of the Greeks in Plataia and played a part in increasing both the sacrifices on the altar of the two gods and the games Eleutheria (founded at Plataia sometime after the rebuilding of the city by Alexander the Great).

La tesi di dottorato consiste in una ricostruzione del regno di Tolemeo III Evergete d’Egitto dall’assunzione del titolo regale nel 246 a.C. fino alla conclusione della guerra laodicea nel 241 a.C.. Preliminarmente vengono presentate le principali fonti storiografiche, letterarie, papiracee, epigrafiche e numismatiche a nostra disposizione per la ricostruzione del regno dell’Evergete. Un’intera sezione è dedicata esclusivamente alle opere frammentarie di autori collocabili tra la seconda metà del III e la prima metà del II secolo a.C.. Il lavoro procede con una ricostruzione delle vicende biografiche di Tolemeo III fino al 246 a.C., con una discussione circa l’ancora incerta identificazione di quest’ultimo e con una presentazione dei principali membri della famiglia reale lagide e del ruolo politico da essi svolto. Successivamente vengono analizzate nel dettaglio le tappe della guerra laodicea e vengono offerti una visione complessiva dei territori sotto il controllo lagide nel 245 e un bilancio sui rapporti di forza tra le potenze lagide e seleucide al termine del conflitto. Infine, viene esaminata la politica interna di Tolemeo III attraverso la presentazione dei provvedimenti in ambito giudiziario, sociale, amministrativo, fiscale, economico e militare, con un focus particolare sul processo di legittimazione del potere messo in atto dal sovrano.
The aim of this thesis is to reconstruct Ptolemy III’s reign of Egypt, from the assumption of the royal title in 246 BC up to the end of the Laodicean War in 241 BC. First of all, a presentation of the main historiographic, literary, papyracean, epigraphic and numismatic sources at disposal for a reconstruction of Ptolemy III’s reign is made. An entire section is dedicated to the fragmentary works dateable to a range between the second half of the 3rd century BC and the first half of the 2nd century BC. Then, the research focuses on the reconstruction of Euergetes’ biography until 246 BC, the discussed identification of the king and the presentation of the main royal family’s members and of their political role. Furthermore the Laodicean War’s stages are analysed and an overall view of the areas under Lagid control in 245 is offered as well as an assessment of the balance of power between Lagids and Seleucids at the end of the war. Finally, the thesis analyses the measures taken by Ptolemy III in the judicial, social, administrative, fiscal, economic and military fields. A focus is provided on the process of legitimising power implemented by the Euergetes.