[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]
The successors of Ptolemy V were, in the historiographic tradition, predominantly portrayed as lawless, wicked, and unable. Ptolemy VIII, in theory the longest reigning king in the whole dynasty, surpassed them all with the reputation of an obese, infanticidal, and rapist king. Accordingly, the period between Ptolemy IV’s victory at Raphia—paradoxically the beginning of the end for the Ptolemies, according to Polybius—and the brief, but brilliant interlude of Cleopatra’s reign has often been considered a mere appendix, or twilight, of the golden age of Ptolemaic power under Ptolemy II.
For Gilles Gorre and Stéphanie Wackenier, the editors of this elegantly entitled conference volume such a picture of late Ptolemaic rule needs radical revision. Shifting the emphasis from the reception of the royal persona to the transformation of the Ptolemaic state, they argue that “this century turns out to be a great deal richer in terms of modernization than in terms of the weakening of these structures” (p. 19). In other words, the Ptolemies made up for the loss of their overseas possessions with the strengthening, in Egypt itself, of royal authority.
For those familiar with the work of the Paris-based AIGYPTOS research group—this book being the proceedings of their ninth meeting— this is hardly breaking news.[1] Indeed the entire span of Egyptian history in the First Millennium BCE, including the “basse époque,” represented a moment of transition, not decline, for the land of the Pharaohs.[2] In the same vein, the volume under review, which originates from a conference held in Paris in November 2015, provides a fine-grained, multidisciplinary analysis of nearly all evidence, including Demotic papyri and Hieroglyphic inscriptions, for the reconstruction of the supposed decline and fall of the Ptolemaic dynasty and, as it were, the latest phase of late Egyptian history. The result is a thought-provoking re-examination of Egypt under the late Ptolemies.
In their introduction, Gorre and Wackenier review some of the key factors traditionally associated with Ptolemaic decline. To be sure, the Ptolemaic kingdom no longer held the same hegemonic position as under their forbears: the realm of Ptolemy VIII, alias Euergetes II, was but the distant shadow of the great empire once controlled by his illustrious predecessor, Ptolemy III Euergetes I. The invasion of Egypt by Antiochos IV was likewise a great shock, yet not without positive effects on the Ptolemaic state, especially the military. Dynastic strife, if anything, brought the greatest instability to a country already undermined by internal revolts.
Eddy Lanciers’ contribution on “The Civil War between Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II” adduces all sources, mostly Greek and Demotic papyri, to illuminate a still poorly understood moment of Ptolemaic history. In his discussion of Ptolemy VIII’s attempt to marginalize his sister Cleopatra II, he exploits the data of eponymous priesthoods found in papyri to suggest that the appointment of Ptolemy VIII’s two sons by Cleopatra III, Ptolemy IX and Ptolemy X in 135/4 and 134/3 BCE respectively was one of the causes for the outbreak of the conflict (p. 26). After a careful review of the chronological and geographical information contained in documents, Lanciers gives a useful timeline of the conflict (p. 53) and cautions against an ethnic interpretation of this “civil war,” as he designates what ancient sources called an amixia (e.g. in P. Tebt. I 72, cited and analyzed p. 44).
In her contribution entitled “« En mariage comme en affaire, nul ne doit s’engager à la légère »,” Aurélie Cuenod sheds new light on the old question of Ptolemaic matrimonial policy. After the marriage between Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I, all Ptolemaic marriages were endogamic: the late Ptolemies were, as a result, “descended from so many royal kings” (to quote Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra) that it often arduous to disentangle the family ties connecting them to one another. In an effort to clarify the issue, Cuenod distinguishes between full-blood sibling marriage and marriage between the king and a member of the elder branch of the line.[3] She concludes that, starting with Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III, a queen, when she became a spouse, did not by the same reckoning share rule with the king, but that the function of reigning queen became structurally distinct from that of a king’s wife. Her thorough analysis of alliances historiographiques (p. 64-68) further demonstrates the problems of reconciling historiographic and papyrological evidence, in particular Justin and the dating protocols of papyri.
Lorenzo Uggetti’s contribution (“Attention aux scribes!”) supplements the preceding paper with an in-depth analysis of the abbreviation of dating protocols in the late second century BCE-early first century BCE. Assuming that model protocols were sent out from Alexandria to notarial offices and were instrumental in disseminating royal ideology among the population, why were some dating protocols abbreviated and others not? Uggetti notices a difference between “local scribes,” writing in Demotic and prone to freely shorten long dating protocols, and the public notaries (agoranomoi) who stuck to established models, arguing that the legally binding character of the documentation accounts for these variations. Finally, he singles out the joint reign of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy X Alexander and the latter’s sole reign as a period of higher heterogeneity in the context of increased political instability.
In her paper, entitled “Splendeurs et misères de Lagides: le pouvoir personnel au service de la construction de l’Etat (milieu IIème-début Ier s.),” Stéphanie Wackenier touches on the complex topic of bureaucratization under the late Ptolemies. More specifically, she makes a case for an increasingly integrated and specialized high administration during this period. Wackenier identifies new administrative posts, such as the “official in charge of revenues,” and points out the transformation of older ones, such as the royal scribe, now in charge of double-checking and counter-signing official orders.[4] She ends her analysis with the so-called amnesty decrees contained in royal ordinances at the end of the reign of Ptolemy VIII, suggesting that to some extent they proved efficient in bringing stability back to the kingdom.
Chronologically, the essay by Gilles Gorre and Anne-Emmanuelle Veïsse (“Birth and Disappearance of the Priestly Synods in the Time of the Ptolemies”) covers a broader span of Ptolemaic history: according to their thorough review of the evidence, known national priestly decrees number between seven and ten, depending on whether a few fragmentary texts are accepted as evidence or not, but were all issued in the reigns from Ptolemy III to Ptolemy V (243-182 BCE). Far from being evidence for the weakening of royal power, as previously argued, the meetings of priests from all Egypt, somewhat inaccurately referred to as synods in scholarship, achieved, the authors claim, “a growing centralization in the relations between the Crown and the temples” (p. 127). Paradoxically, their disappearance under Ptolemy VI was the logical consequence of their success. This argument builds on Gorre’s previous work on the personnel of Egyptian temples and the emergence of a “new elite” starting in the late second century BCE (conveniently summarized p. 132-6). The synodal decrees aimed to reinforce Ptolemaic legitimacy and, in this sense, fulfilled a similar purpose to the dating protocols analyzed by Uggetti (as noted p. 129 n. 61). Before fully accepting this thesis, however, one would like to see more evidence for, and analysis of, the success of the royal cult. One wonders, for instance, how Antiochos IV could be so easily accepted as the new ruler of Egypt—as the editors of the volume themselves pointed out p. 11-14 in the introduction—and perhaps even crowned as king in Memphis if, as the authors claim, the acceptance of the Ptolemaic dynasty by the Egyptian priesthoods had by then become a done deal. The need for “bargaining” between the king and priests never fully stopped, it seems, and more analysis of the relevant data, such as the asylum decrees, remains a desideratum.[5]
The contribution (“Crise, déclin et repli : un monnayage à l’image du royaume ?”) by Julien Olivier provides a compelling and clear overview of Ptolemaic coinage in the second century BCE, summarizing recent research and taking issues with Mørkholm’s past assessment by of this coinage as evidence for Ptolemaic decline. Olivier makes three complex issues—stagnating iconography, declining coin production, and steady debasement—accessible to non-specialists. Graphs, maps, and other illustrations support the argument throughout and make this contribution all the more valuable. If the imitation of older types created under Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II goes back to the mid-third century BCE, coin studies belie the generalization that coin production dramatically decreased in the second century BCE. In addition, the debasement of gold and silver coinage only started in the 130s, at the time of the “civil war” between Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II reconstructed by Lanciers, and continued in the following decades, when dynastic strife intensified.
Full indices will help in the quick consultation of the volume. The misspellings or typos found in the introduction and elsewhere and some missing titles in the bibliography are regrettable. They detract nothing, however, from the considerable merit of this collection of papers. All contributions persuasively convey the picture of a dynamic Egyptian state from Ptolemy VI to the early first century BCE. Along with the conference on Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII held in Heidelberg in 2007 and Peter Nadig’s book on the reception of Ptolemy VIII in ancient historiography published in the same year, this volume represents a new milestone in the study of the Ptolemaic kingdom in the second century BCE.[6]
Table of Contents
Gilles Gorre & Stéphanie Wackenier. “Introduction” (1-20)
Eddy Lanciers. “The Civil War between Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II (132-124): Possible Causes and Key Events” (21-54)
Aurélie Cuenod. “« En mariage comme en affaire, nul ne doit s’engager à la légère ». Remarques sur les alliances matrimoniales et les stratégies dynastiques de Ptolémée VIII Évergète II à Ptolémée X Alexandre” (55-70)
Lorenzo Uggetti. “Attention aux scribes! Variantes, différences et raccourcissements délibérés dans les protocoles des papyrus du IIème – début du Ier siècle” (71-94).
Stéphanie Wackenier. “Splendeurs et misères des Lagides : le pouvoir personnel au service de la construction de l’État (milieu IIème – début Ier s.)” (95-112)
Gilles Gorre & Anne-Emmanuelle Veïsse. “Birth and Disappearance of the Priestly Synods in the Time of the Ptolemies” (113-140)
Julien Olivier. “Crise, déclin et repli : un monnayage à l’image du royaume ? Les émissions d’or et d’argent ptolémaïques entre la fin du règne de Ptolémée V et la mort de Ptolémée IX (vers 193-81)” (141-162)
Notes
[1] Past meetings and publications by the AIGYPTOS research group are listed on their Academia.edu webpage.
[2] On the theme of decline for Egypt and the Near East in the First Millennium BCE, see D. Agut-Labordère, M.-P. Chaufray, & A.-E. Veïsse (eds.), Le thème du « déclin » dans l’historiographie de l’Égypte et de l’Orient ancient, TOPOI 20/1 (2015) 165-280.
[3] Cuenod defines the first type of marriage as “uterine alliance.” Uterine brothers and sisters, however, only share the same mother, unlike the case-studies (Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II, Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra Selene) which she adduces.
[4] On this topic, see also C. Armoni, Studien zur Verwaltung des ptolemäischen Ägypten: Das Amt des „Basilikos Grammateus“ (Paderborn, 2012), which should be added to the bibliography.
[5] On “bargaining” between the Ptolemaic king and Egyptian priests, see J. G. Manning, The Last Pharaohs (Princeton, 2010) 92-3.
[6] A. Jördens & J. F. Quack (eds.), Zwischen innerem Zwist und äusserem Druck: Die Zeit Ptolemaios’ VI. bis VIII.(Wiesbaden, 2011); P. Nadig, Zwischen König und Karikatur: das Bild Ptolmaios’ VIII. im Spannungsfeld der Überlieferung (Munich, 2007).