times, we seem to come so much nearer to the modern era that we might
look for certain knowledge. The more, as we now have the histories of
early writers, such as Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, etc., to
consult, as well as the coinage, with dates and portraits of kings
and queens, to assist us. But the historical account is frequently
at second hand and not as to matters which the writer has himself
seen and known, and even some of the coins are found to be ambiguous
and referable to different reigns. The relationships, too, are so
mixed and the same names so often repeated that at many points we
are baffled in our search, and various parts of this complex history
remain in darkness, which further investigation may yet lighten, but
which at present give room for the conflicting theories and opinions of
different writers.
The chronology of Egypt, as before said, has always been a subject of
difficulty to students, and their researches lead many to different
conclusions. Even in the time of the Ptolemies, which seems modern
compared to the periods we have been considering, the same problem
confronts us, and the fact that the Olympian and the Julian year do
not coincide makes exact chronology impossible. Constant discoveries
are adding new light, and often in this and other respects proving
earlier conclusions incorrect. Thus even in the Ptolemy period we do
but approximate to some of the dates, etc.
The testimony of the coins is of extreme value, and we feel that like
hard facts they never lie, yet it is difficult to draw the line between
the conventional and the real likeness and between a flattering and
an unflattering presentment. The portraits of the queens, celebrated
in their own times and in succeeding ages as miracles of beauty and
charm, sometimes strikes us with amazement so utterly devoid do they
seem of either. We have to recall the possible potency of coloring and
animation, the fascination of manner and of voice to rehabilitate them,
reflecting how sometimes even in the modern photograph, for which it is
said “the sun cannot lie,” the plain woman sometimes appears beautiful
and the beauty almost plain.
As a rule the women of the Ptolemy family seem to have been handsome,
ambitious, capable, daring and cruel, and, save in the cases of the
three first kings, were in many instances superior to their husbands.
They shared with husbands and brothers the desire to keep the reins of
power in their own hands, and the willingness to do away with those who
stood in their path. Murder and assassination were but the means to an
end and daunted but few of them. Yet here and there we come across an
incident or an anecdote which throws a softer light upon their history,
a touch of amiability or kindness, which reveals “the eternal feminine”
still latent in their hearts.
The long line of Arsinoes, Berenikes and Cleopatras is like a
tangled skein of many colors and most difficult to disentangle and
render distinct. Mother, daughter and sister perhaps bear the same
appellation, and one is reminded of the English fashion of using the
same or very similar names for a whole region, as Highbury, Highbury
Hill, Highbury Crescent, etc., till the stranger is fairly bewildered.
In the division of the vast landed possessions of Alexander the Great,
Ptolemy, son of Lagos and Arsinoe, chose Egypt for his share and
founded a new line of kings. He was one of Alexander’s generals and
allied to him by blood, some say the natural son of his father Philip.
It is probably the eagle on the Ptolemy coins that suggested the
fable or tradition that the first Ptolemy was cared for by an eagle,
as Romulus and Remus by a wolf. Mahaffy, one of the later and most
reliable authorities on the Egypt of this period, says that Ptolemy
was, it is probable, born 367 B. C., and hence was some years older
than Alexander, but still young enough to be associated with him, and
accompanied him into exile, returning to court on his accession.
Whether he went with Alexander to Egypt is not positively known, but it
seems likely that some personal acquaintance with and admiration for
that country dictated his choice. It may be said to have been a love
match between Ptolemy and the land of his adoption, which could hardly
have been the case had he never seen it. Virtually he threw himself
into the arms of this new mistress, who received him with no less
enthusiasm, stiff-necked rebel as she had been against Persian rule. He
and his successors, especially the earlier ones, embraced the Egyptian
theology, built temples to the gods, accepted the manners and customs
of the people and affiliated themselves with them in every way.
They married their nearest relatives in Egyptian fashion and even
surpassed their predecessors in the dubious nature of these unions.
Alternately they seem to have adored the women whom they selected as
partners, to whom they paid special honors, having their portraits
stamped upon the coins (up to this time gold rings had been used as a
medium of exchange) and naming various cities after them or to have
quarrelled with and even murdered them.
To the massive dignity of design in the Egyptian architecture the
Ptolemies added something of the Greek ideal, and the temples erected
in their time are among the most beautiful in the land.
The seat of power and government changed from time to time. First
Memphis, the “City of the Good”; the “White Walled,” founded by Menes,
with its great temple of Ptah, which dominated it like a fortress.
Next “Hundred-gated Thebes,” the “City of Amon”; then Sais, situated
on a hill, with a royal citadel and storied and painted houses. Tanis,
recreated from an earlier settlement and stamped with his signet,
his giant statue, eighty or a hundred feet in height by Rameses the
Great—all these in turn were sovereign in the land and the dwelling
places of the queens. Now under Ptolemies, Alexandria, one of the
masterpieces of the great Macedonian, rose into prominence, vieing
with Athens as a seat of learning and the scene of unrivaled splendor,
magnificence and debauchery.
Deinocrates, the gifted architect of Alexander, created a city of noble
proportions, and inaugurated a new style of architecture, happily
combining the values of the Oriental and the Greek. The so-called
“Pompey’s pillar” is the only one remaining of the forest of columns
which formed part of the Greek temple of Serapis, the platform on the
top reached by a hundred steps, and the walls incrusted with metals
and jewels. It stood high above the city, which was regularly laid
out, with streets cutting each other at right angles, and bordered
with colonnades. Among the other noted buildings of which nothing now
remains, were the Mausoleum of Alexander, the harbor works uniting the
city and island of Pharos, the temple of Pan, and that built by Ptolemy
II, on the outside of one of the city gates, to celebrate the Elusinian
mysteries, the aqueduct and others, of which no trace remains, but of
whose existence we learn from early writers. The present Rue de Rosette
is said to follow the course of the ancient main street, which crossed
the city from the east to the west gates. The paintings still seen on
the walls of Pompeii give us an idea of the decorations of Alexandrine
architecture.
The great museum was a combination of university, club and social
gathering place. The early Ptolemies, especially, were patrons of
learning, and people of all nations met at their brilliant court,
and thus it is said “arose in Egypt the Neo-Greek culture which we
are accustomed to call Hellenism.” Literature, science and sculpture
flourished, and painting took on new forms and woke to new life. The
beautiful head of Alexander in the British Museum and many other fine
examples of sculpture have come down to us from this period.
The goldsmith’s work was also a fashionable art and as Louis XVI of
France amused himself by being a locksmith—and how differently might
life have ended for him had Nature made him of that class—Ptolemy II
amused himself by being a goldsmith.
For several years Ptolemy Sotor I, of the House of Diodachi, reigned
as nominal satrap or governor. He then assumed the title of king,
which he bore for twenty-three years, dying at the advanced age of
eighty-four. His administration was beneficial to the country, and he
attached the people to him by kindness and clemency, in marked contrast
to his Persian predecessors. He had not hesitated to secure his throne
by permitting the murder of the young king, but showed himself, in
general, less cruel and blood-thirsty than many of his contemporaries.
He established wise regulations, encouraged literature and art, and
brought captive Jews to people Alexandria. His title of Sotor or
Saviour was derived from the assistance he lent the people of Rhodes
against their enemies. Though brought up to a military life and often
engaged in war he evidently did not love it for its own sake, and was
not the dashing soldier, but where diplomacy and cautious measures
would serve his purpose, preferred to employ them.
The only portrait of Ptolemy Sotor is on the coins, coinage being
introduced into Egypt under the Ptolemies. Here he appears, like other
members of the family with a full, rounded face, a forehead not high
but fleshy over the eyes, arched brows, a nose rather too short and
with wide nostrils, a firm mouth and a prominent chin. Not so handsome
as Alexander, the Ptolemies, especially the earlier ones, must yet have
had considerable claim to good looks.
The cartouches of Ptolemy I are uncertain and not familiarly known,
while those of Ptolemy XIV and XV had not up to a very recent date been
found.
What is called the throne names of the Ptolemies were as follows:
Ptolemy Sotor, Arsinoe III, and Philip Arridaeus had the same pre-nomen
“chosen of Ra, beloved of Ra.”
Arsinoe IV “Joy of the heart of Amen, chosen of Ra, living image of
Amen.” Ptolemy III and his wife were spoken of as “Fraternal gods,
chosen of Ra, living image of Amen.”
Ptolemy IV was spoken of as “heir of the beneficent gods, chosen of
Ptah, strength of the Ka of Ra, living image of Amen.”
Ptolemy VII as “heir of the (two) manifest gods, form of Ptah, chosen
of Amen, doing the rule of Ra.”
Ptolemy IX, “heir of the (two) manifest gods, chosen of Ptah, doing the
rule of Amen, living image of Ra.”
Ptolemy X, “heir of the beneficent god and of the beneficent goddess,
chosen of Ptah, doing the rule of Ra, living image of Amen.”
Ptolemy XI one cartouch “heir of the (two) beneficent gods, chosen of
Ptah, doing the rule of Amen, living image of Ra.”
A second cartouch reads “Ptolemy, called Alexander, living forever,
beloved of Ptah.” Ptolemy XIII, “heir of the god that saves, chosen of
Ptah, doing the rule of Amen, living image of Ra.”
Various amours are credited to Ptolemy I which at this late date would
be difficult to either prove or disprove, among many with a bad record
he was not notably vicious. Three wives might legally have claimed the
title, but his love was evidently given to the last and probably the
youngest. Doubtless at Alexander’s behest he first took a Persian wife,
the Princess Artakama, the daughter of Artabasus. Only two of these
Persian wives are known to appear in later history, Amestris, daughter
of Oxyartes, and probably a sister or half sister of Roxane, married
to Krateras and subsequently to Lysimachus, and Apame, who married
Seleukas and became the ancestress of the Seleukid dynasty.
Ptolemy I married the Princess Artakama 330 B. C., which would make
him, if born 367 B. C., thirty-seven years of age at his first
marriage. He again wedded Eurydike, daughter of Antipater, nine years
later, and Berenike, evidently his favorite wife, when he was fifty.
All the ladies were doubtless much his juniors. The Princess Artakama
could not properly be called queen, since she passes out of Ptolemy’s
life and history before he assumed the title of king.
The marriage with Eurydike, the daughter of Antipater, who had
subsequently made himself king of Macedon, may have been merely
a matter of policy and not dictated by any motives of affection.
Ptolemy’s subsequent action and marked preference for Berenike seems
to suggest this; but that he lived with her as his legal wife and
acknowledged the children of both is matter of history. Eurydike came
with a retinue to Egypt, in the style of a great princess. It seems to
have been after the death of her father and during the reign of her
brother Cassander, with whom Ptolemy had formed an alliance and wished
to keep on peaceful terms, perhaps this very marriage was a pledge
of their friendship. We judge Eurydike to have been of less fiery
temper and disposition than Roxane, since she seems to have accepted
a successor and rival with comparative equanimity and apparently made
no effort to get rid of or destroy her. In her train came a grand
niece of Antipater, doubtless young and beautiful, a widow with all
the fascinations pertaining to that class, which probably she did not
hesitate to use upon the middle-aged king. The situation bears some
resemblance to that of Catharine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, though less
fatal in its immediate results.
One writer has made Berenike daughter of Lagos and therefore
step-sister of Ptolemy, but Mahaffy says “it is likely he was misled
by the formula ‘wife and sister’ applied to Egyptian queens as a mere
title of honor and which was probably used in many documents regarding
the present princess.” And since Sotor was one of the few Ptolemies who
did not marry his immediate relatives, it is well he should have credit
therefor.
Both ladies appear to have been amiably disposed and Berenike was
evidently a strong character as well, who maintained a life-long
influence over her husband and secured for herself and her children
the first place. She was more strictly speaking the queen, since it
was after this last marriage that Ptolemy assumed the title, and it
was Berenike’s son who succeeded to the throne, as did the son of
Atossa; Eurydike had children, a son Ptolemy Keraunos and others, and
several daughters, whose claims were all set aside for those of the
more favored Berenike. So in 317 B. C. Ptolemy married his chosen
princess and gave her and her children the first place. By her previous
marriage Berenike already had three children, a son, Magas, and two
daughters, Theoxena and Antigone. These three Ptolemy seems to have
accepted almost as his own, using the princesses as the cards or dice
of the great games he was playing, as auxiliaries in cementing his
political alliances. In arranging all these marriages we may infer that
Berenike’s opinions and wishes had weight and who knows but she may
have used her influence to induce Ptolemy himself to assure the title
of King of Egypt. She would be neither the first nor the last wife who
has endeavored to fire her husband with ambition.
To anticipate somewhat, her son, Magas, became King of Cyrene, and
Theoxena was married to Agathocles of Syracuse, who was an upstart
and adventurer, but clever and able and making so much of himself and
his opportunities that he had to be reckoned with by the contesting
powers. “Antigone was married to Pyrrus; Lysandra to Sassander’s son,
Alexander; Lysandra (probably a second of the name), to Agathocles,
son of Lysimachus of Thrace; Arsinoe to Lysimachus himself; Eirene to
Eunostos, king of Soli in Cyprus, and ultimately in 287 B. C., even
Ptolemais to Demetrius.” Thus Ptolemy Sotor utilized his large family,
consisting, it is said, of twelve children, to serve his political
purposes.
Ptolemy Keraunos, the eldest son and rightful heir of his father,
beheld, with bitterness, himself set aside in favor of his younger
brother and continued, during his stormy life, to be a thorn in the
side of the Ptolemy succession. Our line of research is to follow the
domestic histories rather than the public acts of the king, already
made familiar by the pens of many able writers.
The first child of Sotor by his marriage with Berenike was a daughter,
later the well-known Arsinoe II, queen of Egypt. The son Ptolemy
Philadelphus, who succeeded his father, was born in 308 B. C. (on the
island of Kos, a favorite retreat from Alexandria) during one of the
campaigns of Ptolemy in the Aegean, whither Berenike had accompanied
her husband, either from the affection between them which forbade
separation, or the desire on the queen’s part to keep near the king
that she might continue to use her great influence, seeking to bend the
course of events as they arose, to her own purposes. She might well
have earned the title both of Berenike the Ambitious, and Berenike the
Successful, but scarcely those of Berenike the Just or the Generous.
The virtues of self-sacrifice and generosity were sometimes shown under
the ancient moral code, but consideration and Justice were fruits of
the Christian Dispensation.
Ptolemy Sotor did not marry young, but lived to see his children grow
up and to associate with him, on the throne, his son Ptolemy, called
Philadelphus, son of Berenike, and for the last years of his life
seemed to have resigned the regal power into his hands. So large a
family, composed of such diverse elements, would, even in modern times,
have been apt to have difficulties as regards matters of inheritance,
and it is little to be wondered at perhaps that such was supremely the
case in this instance. But, during his lifetime, the arrangements of
Ptolemy Sotor seem to have been accepted, in a great degree, and it was
not till after his death that a fierce conflict broke out among the
rival claimants.
Ptolemy Sotor is said to have eaten with the poor and borrowed plate
from the rich. The use of gold, silver and copper coins had been common
in Phoenicia and other countries before it was introduced into Egypt by
the first Ptolemy, but Poole says “the monograms and symbols indicating
mints are more constant and regular in the coinage of the Ptolemies
than in any other series of Greek regal money.” The pictures of the
kings and queens on the coins, albeit frequently conventionalized,
assist us much in our search for knowledge concerning them. The regular
silver coinage presents the heads of kings and queens on one side,
often those of the gods, eagles, etc., on the other. The place of the
mint name was usually on the reverse side, and, if dated, on opposite
sides of the field. A rare place for the mint name was between the legs
of the eagle. The gold coinage was often not struck in the time of
those whose heads it bears. Thus Philadelphus honored both his parents
after their decease. Queen Berenike I appears on the coins both alone
and with her husband. The face is dignified and beautiful, a straight
Greek nose and regular features. Of her death we find no record, but
she appears to have been loved and honored by both husband and son,
and whichever survived her no doubt she was buried with all possible
respect.
Though many wars occurred during the reign of Ptolemy Sotor, yet it
was so long that he had also much time to spare for the internal
administration and improvement of his kingdom, and some writers believe
that many things of benefit thereto, attributed to Ptolemy Philadelphus
should really be credited, at least in their inception, to Ptolemy
Sotor. He built and added to some of the finest temples, extended and
adorned Alexandria and is said to have written a history of Alexander’s
campaigns, which, unfortunately, has been lost, and showed his
appreciation of mental attainments by surrounding himself with men of
learning and culture.
Queen Eurydike seems to have endured with what grace she might the
secondary place accorded to her and her children, till the younger
Ptolemy was made king, when they all left Egypt, no doubt in bitterness
of soul and resolved if possible to wrest from him, whom they regarded
as a usurper of his elder brother’s rights, his regal powers.
The Ptolemies, called the Lagidae, were a popular race. Ptolemy Sotor
seems to have possessed much suavity and personal charm of manner, and
the Egyptians and other conquered peoples were treated by him and the
earlier Ptolemies with much more consideration and humanity than by
other more ruthless conquerors. Ptolemy Sotor is said to have had at
least twelve children by different wives, as well as by the courtezan
Thais. Statues of him are mentioned by various writers, but have not
been found, and his portrait on the coins is the only one that remains
to us. The three earliest members of the family seem to have a stronger
claim to good looks than their successors, who, both in regularity of
outline and general expression, are distinctly below the ancestral
level.
Eurydike, though probably the elder, may have survived her rival, but
their part was now played on the stage of history and they passed from
the scene, leaving it to a multitude of other actresses, some of whom
excelled them in beauty and celebrity, while others remain to us but as
a shadow and a name.
CHAPTER TWENTY-FOURTH.
ARSINOE II.
The most prominent figure in the long and involved list of Ptolemy
queens, next to that of the famed Cleopatra, is Arsinoe II, daughter of
Sotor and Berenike, and sister and wife of Ptolemy Philadelphus. She is
spoken of on the Mendes stele, now at Gizeh, as “the charming princess,
the most attractive, lovely and beautiful, the crowned one, who has
received the double diadem, whose splendor fills the palace, the friend
of the sacred Ram and his priestess Uta Utaba, the king’s sister and
wife who loves him, the queen Arsinoe.” And of no other queen do we
find so many monuments in various parts of the Greek world.
To the day of Arsinoe’s death she seems to have had the strongest hold
upon her husband’s affections and no token of honor and respect was
too great to lavish upon her while living, or to eulogize her merits
after her decease. The early part of her life was a tragic story, but
she survived the cruel sorrows which might have killed a woman of less
toughness of fibre than that which distinguished all the female members
of the Ptolemy race, and lived through a prosperous and successful
middle life, turning her back on the bitterness of the past and making
the most of the honors and dignity which came to her in the course of
years.
[Illustration: ARSINOE.]
In placing his younger son on the throne, instead of the elder, who
would usually have been considered the rightful heir, Ptolemy Sotor
may have been influenced by the personal character of the two, as well
as by other motives. The elder bore the name of Ptolemy Keraunos, a
soubriquet or nick-name meaning gloomy or violent, and was “of fiery
temper and unsteady life.” Mahaffy suggests that the thunderbolt added
to the Ptolemy coins at the time of his birth possibly gave rise to the
nick-name. History does not chronicle details, but there may have been
actual quarrels between father and son, a state of affairs not unknown
in modern times. Be this as it may, the younger was preferred before
the elder. Neither succession perhaps could have prevented subsequent
bitterness of feeling and strife. Yet peace was outwardly observed
during the life of the old king. Keraunos submitted and left Egypt with
his mother, brothers and sister, while Berenike’s son was made king,
co-ruler with his father (who virtually abdicated in 285-4) with feasts
and rejoicing.
Ptolemy the younger was “fair haired and delicate” in youth, resembling
his father, but with more regular features, and the thick neck
characteristic of many members of the family. His manners were gentle
as well as popular and probably he had already shown an appreciation
of his father’s policy and a taste for intellectual and scientific
pursuits. Few fathers would not take more pleasure in the succession of
a son likely to carry out their views, than in one who seemed disposed
to change and alter all their arrangements.