18 Egypt, 146–31 B.C.

512Alt30°NE”f1 IS ‘ E] SYRIARosettaWV-^^^X,^ / 1\\ /Leontopolis N^^/•Heliopolis 1MemphisS^a’r0 SuezASaqqara* \ X /FAYUM ) / ^>SocnopaeiNesus „./.,, ^. / \<-j^J>^_Philadelphia \ STheadelphia. __%-) ^-i \,Kerkeosiris. *^r/Crocodilopolis \ \Tebtunis- j^i Heracleopolis ) >vOxyrhynchus-f / \ \.yiHermopolis ^\ \^ jPtolemais*] \^.^ ^^pendera LeucosHermonthis(Arrnant) j LuxorPathyris<Gebelen).Y°cod’l0(>0llsLatopolis-VjApollonopolis Magna •( EDFU(•KomOmboElephantinePhilae1Land over 1000 metresLuxor Modern place-names underlined0_ _ 2g0km6 idOmilcsI’SyeneASSUAN/30k ay, msARABIA1 ‘ -L\Berenice*^”\ii EgyptCambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

THE LATER PTOLEMIES 3 I 3where he had murdered Memphites, his son by Cleopatra II. Thesetroubles (ameixia) are used as a key point in the later land surveys ofKerkeosiris in the South Fayum and in the Heracleopolite nomos; landgrants were divided into those made up to Year 39 (132/1 B.C.) and thosefrom Year 40 (131/30 B.C.).9 In her husband’s absence the papyri suggestthat Cleopatra enjoyed some success even as far south as the Thebaid, butEuergetes II soon returned to reside in the old Egyptian capital ofMemphis. With an Egyptian military leader, Paos, in the Thebaid, theking seems largely to have relied on native support. As so often whentrouble broke out in Alexandria, elsewhere in Egypt the age-old rivalriessurfaced in many forms. The conflicts which resulted from the instabilityof Ptolemaic rule might show racial, regional, religious and economicaspects. The breakaway tendency of Thebes and the south may be seen inthe person of Harsiesis, a native ruler of short duration who profitedfrom royal unrest to establish partial control in Thebes, the home ofAmon.10 ‘The Potter’s Oracle’, an apocalyptic work in Greek mostprobably based on a demotic original, may date from these years.Following a period of assorted disasters — famine, murder, the collapseof the moral order, oppression and civil war – all would again be wellwith the Greek power finally destroyed. The Egyptian gods would berestored to Memphis; the city on the coast would be deserted.11By April 129 Euergetes was once again sufficiently in control to beginto settle his Egyptian troops. In the forty-first year of his reign (130/29)the South Fayum village of Kerkeosiris received the first settlementthere of Egyptian troops — eight cavalrymen (one with 30 arourai (7.5hectares) and seven with 20 arourai (5 hectares)) and thirty infantrymenwith 7 arourai (1.75 hectares). In close connexion with these military landgrants 130 arourai of good cultivable land were dedicated to Soknebtunis(the local crocodile-god Souchos, lord of Tebtunis, a neighbouringtown). Troops were thus rewarded, native cults encouraged and royalcontrol upheld. This native settlement was made on land earlierbelonging to substantial Greek cleruchs; immigrants were giving way toEgyptians.Yet in the south the whole decade is marked by sporadic violence andbanditry. The small-scale raids on the local dykes of Crocodilopolis byvillagers from the neighbouring area of Hermonthis at the time of theNile flood in September 123 typify this unrest. The priests of Souchoscomplained to a local official that the land has gone unsown; both theirtemple and the royal interest suffer.12 How far such local disputes, the’ PTebt 60.67, 90; BGU 2441.119.10 Koenen 1959(0 199).11 Koenen 1970 (D 201); Lloyd 1982 (D 206); cf Johnson 1984 (D 197) 116—21; Tait 1977 (D 234)4j-8 for a (later) demotic version. 12 WChrest 11.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

314 8f. EGYPT, 146-31 B.C.replay of age-old rivalries, derive directly from the political instability ofthe period is unknown. What is clear is that when political control fromAlexandria was weak, all forms of abuse flourished. When on 28 April118 the royal rulers, Euergetes II and his two queens, Cleopatras II andIII, uneasily reconciled since 124, issued a decree of amnesty, its scopewas far-reaching.13 With the aim of restoring peace those who had fledwere encouraged to return home. Royal generosity was coupled with anattempt to control the abuse of official power. Debts to the crown and allforms of arrears were remitted, whilst crown farmers, revenue-workers,beekeepers and textile-workers were protected in their professions.What had become the regular concessions were made to the temples andto their priests. The rights of military settlers (deruchs) were increased.The summary arrest and imprisonment of individuals was limited and atall levels officials were restrained and controlled: no illegal levies at thecustoms-posts (or elsewhere), no bribes and requisitioning. Billetingwas severely constrained and, following the troubles, the reconstructionof both temples and private housing was endorsed; planting andagriculture were encouraged. Such decrees of beneficence and bountywere well known in Egypt though this is the most comprehensive of allthat survive. However practices prohibited in its provisions are likely tohave continued and the extent of its coverage serves only to documentthe extent of the prevailing disorder.The uneasy reconciliation of Euergetes II and his two wives was soonended by his death in the summer of 116, in the fifty-fourth year of hisreign. The succession was not clear and once again conflict in the rulinghouse, between the two Cleopatras, had economic repercussions. Thestate of agriculture in the years following Euergetes’ death suggests thenew rulers experienced some difficulty in establishing their control overthe country. At Kerkeosiris in the South Fayum only 24 per cent of thecleruchic land of the military settlers was sown with wheat in 116/15compared with 43 per cent in 119/18, and the derelict land rose from 24per cent to 58 per cent of the area. By 113/12 however a noticeableimprovement had taken place with only 34 per cent of this landregistered as derelict and 34 per cent under wheat, the major crop of thecountry.14 Such detailed records of change, preserved on waste papyrusused to wrap the sacred crocodiles, may of course simply reflect localconditions that are otherwise unknown, but often they can be shown tobe the product of the political state of the country where lack of centralcontrol carried direct consequences for agriculture.The actual succession following the death of Euergetes II is variouslyrecorded; the different versions well illustrate the problem of sources forthis period which lacks a coherent narrative. Of the classical authors the13 PTebt ) = COrdPtol. 53 (118 B.C.) with Bingen 1984(0 174)926-52. •« PTtbt 1 and iv.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

THE LATER PTOLEMIES 3 I 5main source for the alternating reigns of the two surviving sons ofEuergetes II, Ptolemy IX Soter II and Ptolemy X Alexander, isPausanias’ guide to the monuments of Greece which comments on thestatues of the Ptolemies at the entrance to the Odeum in Athens. ForPausanias, as for the later writers Justin and Eusebius, the story is one ofjealousy and scandal, of plots and intrigues, of dastardly deeds of murderand the comings and goings of kings.15 With a strong overlay of moraldisapproval, classical authors ascribe full responsibility for the downfallof the Ptolemaic kingdom to these later kings and queens.16 Andfollowing the death of Euergetes II, her uncle-husband, it is CleopatraIII who dominates the scene, scheming for the succession of the youngerson Alexander. Egyptian sources however, especially the hieroglyphs onthe temple walls at Edfu, have been seen as suggesting a somewhatdifferent course of events. Contrary to the picture of the classical sources,Soter II and Alexander were perhaps only half-brothers, the sonsrespectively of the two wives of Euergetes II, Cleopatra II and herdaughter Cleopatra III, and as competitors for the throne each waschampioned by his mother who, during her lifetime, ruled together withhim.17 All interpretations agree in stressing queenly power in these years;this reached an extreme in 105/4 when Cleopatra III replaced the regularmale priest of the dynastic cult in Alexandria {Sammelbuch 10763). From aPathyrite demotic contract (PKyldem. in 20) it is clear that at least for abrief period following the death of Euergetes II on 28 June 116 the twoCleopatras reigned together with Ptolemy IX Soter II; the queen whothen shared the throne with Soter II was probably Cleopatra III. Theking’s younger brother Alexander was meanwhile based in Cyprus. Bythe end of October 107 Ptolemy X Alexander had supplanted his elderbrother on the throne, whilst Soter II in turn sought refuge in Cyprus.18The joint reign of Cleopatra III and her son continued until her death in101; she was now replaced on the throne by Alexander’s wife CleopatraBerenice, the daughter of Soter II. According to Pausanias, in a tale ofmurder and revenge, Alexander was personally responsible for hismother’s death. Since her husband’s death her position had not beenaltogether secure, and already in 103 it was perhaps a sense of insecuritythat led her to send away to Cos her ‘grandsons’ (in fact two sons of SoterII and one of Alexander) accompanied by the royal treasure. The15 Paus. 1.9.1-3; Just. Spit, xxxix.3.1—2; 4.1-6; 5.1-3; Porph. FGrH 260 F 32 = Euseb. Cbron.1.163-4 (Schoene).16 E.g. Ath. xii.5 jo b, Ptolemy X Alexander rivalled his father in obesity; his agility in after-dinner dancing was remarkable, whilst to relieve himself he needed two to support him.17 Cauville and Devauchelle 1984 (D 178) 47-50, disagreeing with Otto and Bengtson 1938 (D216) 112-93, Volkmann 1959(0242) 1738-48 and Musti 1960(0 214); in arguing that Cleopatra IIcontinued as queen until 107 B.C. they fail to take account of contemporary Greek inscriptions,especially OCIS 739, and the cumulative evidence of demotic protocols, especially those fromThebes. l8 For the date see Boswinkel and Pestman 1982 (D 177) 67-9.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

3 l6 Sc. EGYPT, 146—31 B.C.alienation overseas of royal wealth was to become standard practice inthe first century B.C.; on this first occasion the immediate beneficiary wasMithridates VI of Pontus who in 88 took both the island and theprinces.19With Soter II ruling in Cyprus as an independent king, the wealth andunity of the country were divided. Soon the division became tripartitewhen Soter II, retaining Cyprus alone, was replaced as king in Cyrene byPtolemy Apion. Justin (xxxix.5.2) tells that Apion, a bastard son ofEuergetes II, received this inheritance from his father in 116 B.C. If SO,inscriptions show his father’s will was long ignored with Soter II oustedfrom Cyrene only after his loss of the Egyptian throne. Whether Romehad exercised influence on the will of Euergetes II cannot be known. Theextent however of unofficial Roman penetration may be seen in twoLatin graffiti from Philae in Upper Egypt that are contemporary with theking’s death and dated by the consuls of that year. And when a memberof the Senate visited in 112 official arrangements preceded his tour of thesights.20 In any event, a further blow to Ptolemaic power was sustainedwhen, as a recognized alternative to prolonging dynastic discord, on hisdeath in 96 Ptolemy Apion left Cyrene to Rome. Rome’s lack ofimmediate intervention is of less interest here than the act of legacy itself.Ptolemy X Alexander followed suit, leaving what remained of thePtolemaic kingdom, both Cyprus and Egypt, to Rome.21 Again Romewas to be slow in claiming her legacy but there is no clearer indication ofher pre-eminence in Mediterranean politics than her recurrent nomi-nation as territorial legatee.Alexander survived on the Egyptian throne until 88 when theAlexandrians ejected him. Soter II now returned to take Alexandria,defeating Alexander in the countryside. The younger brother then fledto Myra in Lycia and from there towards Cyprus; the Edfu temple simplyrecords a voyage to Punt, the archetypal ‘foreign parts’. Caught at sea hewas defeated and killed.22 The elder brother, Soter II, in control ofAlexandria still faced the problem of renewed revolt in the Thebaid. Ittook three years finally to crush the home of Amon and ‘he did suchdamage that there was nothing left to remind the Thebans of theirformer prosperity’.23This bare and somewhat confused outline of events may be supple-mented by documents and inscriptions from Egypt. There had been19 App. Mi/A. 4.23.20 SEC XXVIII. 148 5; cf PTeb/ a = WCbrei/ 3 (112 B.C.). Full discussion in van ‘t Dack 1980 (D184) and 1983 (D 186).21 Badian 1967 (D 169) argues convincingly for this identification rather than with Alexander II.22 Euseb. Cbron 1.164 (Schoene) is the main source (cf Porph. FGrH 260 F 32.8-9). Using thenumismatic evidence Morkholm 197; (B 207) 14-1 j modifies the discussion of Samuel 1965 (D 230);see Zauzich 1977 (D 249) 193 for Year 26= 29 of the king outside Egypt. a Paus. 1.9.3.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

THE LATER PTOLEMIES 317unrest in the Thebaid for some years. In 90 B.C. rebels had attacked theLatopolite and Pathyrite nomoi, and in the stasis of 88 Platon, asepistrategos of the Thebaid, had at least one native commander (Nech-thyris) under him. A mosaic of local rivalries emerges with Pathyrissupporting Platon, its priests loyal to Soter II against the neighbouringtemples of Thebes; here it was Hathor opposing Amon.24 Indeed duringboth phases of his reign Ptolemy IX Soter II, who through the nameLathyrus, Chick-pea, was made an object of ridicule to the Greeks,appears to have been well aware of Egyptian sensitivities and, especially,cults. Early in his reign, together with his mother he had madeconcessions to the priests of Chnoum at Elephantine25 and, born in thesame year as an Apis bull, he showed consistent concern for thisparticular cult. In contrast, under his brother Alexander sacred bullstended to suffer. At Hermonthis in Upper Egypt the Buchis bull born inApril 101 B.C., with Alexander on the throne, was not installed untilApril 82, after the restoration of Soter II; it survived only five yearsmore. And in Memphis the Apis bull which had died in his brother’sreign (sometime after June 96) was only given a proper burial in theeleventh year of its successor. This was in 87/6 when the Apis burialprobably accompanied the second coronation of Soter II, now it>hm-bc,’repeating the diadem’ in his celebration at Memphis of a thirty-year Sed-festival, a renewal of power in the old Egyptian style.26 In his long-drawn-out struggle with Thebes Memphis had served as base for Soter IIand the cults of Lower Egypt had supported this sovereign when facedwith the defection of the south.Internal dissension was only one of Egypt’s problems; there wasRome too. At Edfu the great pylon had been started in 116 B.C. Aninscription on the temple enclosure wall from around 88 records itsdecoration with inscriptions and all of the ritual scenes designed to repelstrangers.27 Yet it was in vain that the Egyptians sought for divineprotection. In 87/6 whilst fighting was continuing in the Thebaid agroup of Romans came to Alexandria. Sulla’s quaestor L. LiciniusLucullus was looking for ships to build up a Sullan fleet. His encounterin Alexandria with the newly restored Ptolemy IX Soter II typifies thedifferent modes of Rome and eastern kings. Met by the entire Egyptianfleet Lucullus was offered unprecedented hospitality within the royalpalace. An entertainment allowance four times the norm was made andrich gifts offered him to the value of eighty talents; the statutory touristvisit upriver was arranged. Treated as an equal by an oriental king the24 P Berldem 13.608 (90 B.C.); Sammelbucb 6300; 6644; WCbresI 12 (88 B.C.). On the identificationof those involved see Thomas 1975 (D 237) 117-19. 25 OGIS 168.26 Crawford 1980(0 182) 12-14; Traunecker ‘979 (D 24′)429~3’-21 Cauville and Devauchelle 1984 (D 178) 43.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

THE LATER PTOLEMIES 319the Ptolemies to call himself god, theos, without the use of his name, andin Memphis the high priest Psenptais was appointed his personal priest.29To be pharaoh however was no longer sufficient and finally in 5 9 inreturn for 6,000 talents made over to Caesar and Pompey, the king wasofficially declared ‘friend and ally’ of the Roman people. Even beforethis, the independence of his kingdom was under threat. In 65 when M.Licinius Crassus as censor proposed making Egypt tributary to Rome hewas vigorously opposed by his colleague Q. Lutatius Catulus. In 64/3Pompey was in the East and extended Roman rule right up to the easternborder of Egypt. He did not, however, enter Egypt although thecountry was at variance with its king and the king himself invited him,sending him gifts, riches and clothing for his entire army. It was unclear,Appian records, whether he feared the strength of the kingdom whichstill enjoyed prosperity or the jealousy of his opponents, whether it wasoracles which stopped him or some other reason. Strabo recorded acrown worth 4,000 gold pieces sent to Pompey in Damascus and thewealth of Egypt was becoming even better known at Rome.30 When in63 Cicero spoke out against the Rullan agrarian proposals (ch. 9 below,pp. 349-51) he stressed the prosperity of the country, the bounty of itsfields.31Soon after his recognition in Rome Auletes was driven from hiskingdom by a populace enraged by his passivity. For Cyprus was beingannexed by Rome and lost to Egypt. Probably with a view to paying forhis new free corn distribution of 58, P. Clodius had proposed realizingthe king’s assets in Cyprus. M. Porcius Cato was sent out to put theproposal into effect and by 56 Cyprus was added to the province ofCilicia. As in 75/4 when Cyrene was at last settled by Rome and P.Lentulus Marcellinus successfully reorganized the royal lands whichprovided an income for Rome, so now Cyprus was to benefit the peopleof Rome, to the detriment of Egypt.32 Ptolemy, the brother of Auletes,committed suicide rather than submit. Auletes himself, showing noopposition to the final dismemberment of his kingdom, was forced toflee to Rome where Pompey provided him with credit and temporaryaccommodation. In Egypt Auletes was replaced on the throne by hisdaughter Berenice IV, at first with her sister Cleopatra Tryphaena andlater her new husband Archelaus, a son of Mithridates. Rome tooknotice. A counter-embassy from Alexandria appeared a threat toAuletes’ safety in Rome and he again departed eastwards, to Ephesus29 Porter and Moss 1927- (D 221) for temple-building; 0C1S 186.8-10 (14 May 62 B.C.) ‘kyriosbasileus Theos Neos Dionysos Philopator kai Philadelphos’; cf. the stele BM 886.4 ‘first prophet ofthe lord of two lands’ (ed. Reymond 1981 (D 227) 147).30 App. Milb. 17.114; Strabo in Joseph. A] xiv.55. 31 Cic. Leg. Agr. 11.43.32 Badian 1965 (c 162). For the Roman side of these events see ch. 10 below, p. 379.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

32O Sc. EGYPT, I46—3I B.C.where he found greater security living under the protection of Artemiswithin her temple. Egypt and the fate of the Egyptian king was now aRoman issue with Pompey and his opponents vying for an Egyptiancommand. In 5 7 the consul P. Lentulus Spinther was charged with therestoration of the Egyptian king, but the Sibylline books prevented thedeployment of an army. Events however overtook political decisionsand in the spring of 5 5 Aulus Gabinius, the proconsul in Syria, illegallyleft his province and escorted Auletes back to Alexandria. Cicero recordsGabinius’ fear of the fleet of Archelaus and the growing number ofpirates in the Mediterranean.33 The promises of 10,000 talents from theking cannot have been entirely unconnected. Mark Antony went toAlexandria as Gabinius’ cavalry commander and in Gabinius’ entouragewas Antipater, the Idumaean councillor of Hyrcanus II, high priest ofJerusalem and father of Herod the Great. The Jews of Egypt might be asignificant element in support of a particular sovereign and later, in 47,both Antipater and Hyrcanus were to be influential in gaining supportfor Caesar in the overthrow of Auletes’ heirs. Many of the invadingtroops, the Gabiniani, who came to range themselves in support of thePtolemaic dynasty, stayed on in Egypt — the first Roman troops ofoccupation.Auletes celebrated his return with his daughter’s death and othermurders. His ability to fulfil his financial promises seems to have beensomewhat limited. In Rome Gabinius was tried, fined the sum which hadbeen promised him and went bankrupt. In Egypt Rabirius Postumuswas appointed by the king to the chief financial post of the country, thatoidioiketes, but in spite of abandoning his toga and adopting Greek dresshe failed to recover the money owed to Pompey and other Romans; hewas driven ignominiously from the country. The Alexandrians whoearlier had shown ‘all zeal in looking after those visiting from Italy, keen,in their fear, to give no cause for complaint or war’ now had little timefor Roman interference. Two sons of Bibulus, now governor of Syria,who in 50 were sent to recall the Gabiniani from the attractions ofAlexandria in order to fight the Parthians were summarily put to death inthe city.34 Slaughter in the streets and in the gymnasium had becomeregular features of life in the capital city.Auletes was not long to enjoy his position as king. He died in 51leaving his kingdom to his elder son, Ptolemy XIII now aged ten, and tohis daughter, Cleopatra VII aged seventeen; the news of his deathreached Rome by the end of June.35 The Roman people was named aswitness to his will and a copy sent to Rome for deposit in the aerariumsomehow ended up in Pompey’s hands. Whatever the facts, the will of33 Cic. Rab. Post. 8.20. *• Caes. BCiv. 111.no; Val. Max. IV.I.IJ. 35 Cic. Fam. VIII.4.J.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

THE LATER PTOLEMIES 32IAuletes made open recognition of the overriding power of Rome tocontrol the future of Egypt. Any succession to the Egyptian throne nowtook place under Roman protection.Cleopatra VII however was primarily an Egyptian queen, the first ofher family to speak the language of the country she ruled.36 Ignoring herbrother she sought support within her kingdom. Barely a month afterher accession she travelled upriver to Hermonthis to be present in personat the installation of the Buchis bull on 22 March 51; she was later tobuild a small birth-temple to the god at Hermonthis.37 Likewise, when inthe third year of her reign the Apis died, she herself met part of the cultexpenses, endowing a table of offerings and providing daily rations forthose involved in the rites of burial. Earlier Ptolemies had provided cash;the detail of Cleopatra’s endowment is new and suggests some level ofpersonal involvement in the bull cults of Egypt which had come torepresent the essence of native religion. As the goddess Cleopatra theyounger, philopator, ‘father-loving’, and philopatris, ‘patriotic’ (BGU2376.1 (36/5 B.C.)), she was indeed queen of Egypt.In Rome however civil war intervened and the uncertainty of theoutcome can only have increased the dynastic tensions in Alexandriawhere, as regents, the eunuch Potheinus and general Achillas supportedthe cause of Ptolemy XIII against his elder sister. After PharsalusPompey fled in hope to Egypt where he was beheaded at Pelusium. Thedeed was not welcomed by Caesar when he reached Alexandria threedays later. The Alexandrian War ensued, fought over the winter of 48/7.The rest of the story is well known (see below pp. 433-4). Re-establishedas queen by Caesar at first with Ptolemy XIII as her husband, and later inMarch 47 with her even younger brother Ptolemy XIV, Cleopatra VIIused her scheming intelligence to the full. Cyprus was restored by Caesarto the crown of Egypt; it had served again as a haven for endangeredPtolemies when, together with his sister Arsinoe, the younger son ofAuletes was sent there briefly before being summoned to the throne andmarriage with his elder sister. Caesar dallied shortly, but then he left.Caesarion was born in 47, and in 46 Cleopatra and her son followedCaesar to Rome. She left in 44, soon after the Ides of March. In 41Antony first formed a liaison with the queen, which he was to resumefive years later. It lasted until after Actium and the capture of Alexandriaby Octavian on 3 August 30 (Vol. x2, ch. 1). Soon after, the queen died, aself-inflicted royal death at the bite of an asp, and Octavian was left tomanage the inheritance of the Ptolemies.36 Plut. Ant. 27.3-4.37 Mond and Myers 1934(0 213)11 12; Tarn 1936(0 235) 187-9; Bloedow 1965 (D 175) 91-2; cf.Skeat 1954 (D 233) 40—1 for a more sceptical interpretation.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

322 Sc. EGYPT, 146-31 B.C.II. EGYPT: SOCIETY AND ECONOMYWhat of the Egypt that Octavian was to inherit for Rome? The dynasticstruggles of the last century of Ptolemaic control with constant changesof ruler, significant overseas expenditure by Auletes and, latterly, theabsence of Cleopatra in Rome, had had their effect on the economy ofEgypt. Normally Egypt was a rich country. In cash terms, even underthe poor government of Auletes, Strabo (quoting Cicero) records thatthe annual income of the country was 12,500 talents. Auletes howeverhad been extravagant in the alienation of this wealth: gifts, gold andprovisions for Pompey in 63 B.C., 6,000 talents to Caesar and Pompey in59 and 10,000 to Gabinius in 5 5; and the Alexandrian envoys opposingthe king had equally brought their gold to Rome. The gold sarcophagusof Alexander the Great was even melted down to finance the king’sexpenditure and as dioiketes Rabirius had tried unsuccessfully to collectthe debts owed to individual Romans.38 On arrival in Alexandria in 48Caesar was still owed almost 3,000 talents of which just over sixteentalents were paid towards his army costs; the rest was remitted.39 EvenPtolemaic wealth was running low. The tetradrachm silver coinagewhich had maintained a high degree of fineness throughout the Ptole-maic period began to deteriorate under Auletes, dropping sharply insilver content in the years after his restoration.40 This decline in thequality of the silver coinage is a more reliable reflection of the difficultiesof Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra VII than the vagaries of the copperdrachmae used as units of account within the written documents.41Agriculture however – the pulcherrimi agri, the agrorum bonitas soenvied in Rome — formed the constant basis of Egyptian wealth and well-being. And agriculture, besides needing regular supervision with a closecontrol of the irrigation system, might suffer also from low Niles. Theeffects of both man-made and natural disaster on the cereal production ofthe country shows clearly in a group of Heracleopolite papyri now inBerlin.42 The secession of Thebes and the south soon after the resto-ration of Soter II (pp. 316-17 above) figures also in Middle Egypt as atime of interruption of communications (ameixia) which in 84/3, in theHeracleopolite nomos, resulted in flight from the land and the loss of taxesto the state.43 In the troubled middle years of the century unsettled con-ditions regularly interfered with corn-production and transport. Ship-contractors, naukleroi, might now be grouped in corporations and armed38 Strab. xvn. 1.13; App. MM. 17. ii4;Cic. Rab.Post. 3.6 with Suet. Cats. 54.3; Cic. Pit. 21.48-50;Plut. Ant. 3.2; Strab. xvn.1.8 for the sarcophagus, assuming Pareisactus, the son of Kokke, isAuletes; Dio xxxix. 13.2. 39 Plut. COM. 48.4. *° Walker 1976 (B 256) 150-2.41 Gara 1984 (D 193); on this hypothesis what is normally termed copper inflation (Reekmans1951 (D 226)) is not a true inflation but reflects rather a change in accounting procedures.<2 BGU VIII and xiv. Ai BGU 2370.37-42.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

EGYPT: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY 323guards accompanied the corn-ships down the Nile.44 The early years ofCleopatra’s reign were particularly hard in the countryside as naturaldisaster combined with political problems. Instructions preserved forthe collection of grain from the Heracleopolite nomos from 51/50 have aneven more urgent tone than usual; in the same year, in Hiera Nesos, thelocal priests complain that the royal cult has suffered from the depletionof the local population.45 A failure of the harvest is similarly suggestedby a royal order issued on 27 October 5 o which forbade, on pain of death,the transport of grain and pulses to any destination other than Alexan-dria; a loan contract of the same year foresees the possibility of cornreaching a vastly inflated price.46 A shortage of water, abrochia, in Year 3of Cleopatra VII (50/49 B.C.) led to the desertion of the village of Tinterisby all settlers in the area; the local farmers were unable to pay their taxes.And finally Pliny’s notice of the lowest flood ever in the year of Pharsalus(48 B.C.) suggests not so much the anger of the gods as the culmination ofa flood failure lasting over at least three years, and maybe more.47Peasants of course always complain and official papyrus archives in theirnature preserve these complaints, but the accumulation of evidence doesappear to add up to a picture of widespread disaster in these years.Another first-century papyrus preserves the tantalizing words ‘greed’and ‘Romans’ in a sentence now incomplete.48 Overseas debts wouldappear to have combined with natural catastrophe to oppress both thepopulation of Egypt and the Ptolemaic state. The new trade with Indiawas hardly sufficient to replace the income lost.49 All of Cleopatra’spowers were needed to counteract collapse; the kingdom she ruled wasvery down at heel.To function, the Ptolemaic state depended on its administrativebureaucracy and on the army. Neither was particularly successful inthese years. The last Ptolemaic decree to survive is an attempt to protectfarmers in the Delta who originated in Alexandria from the illegalexactions and harassment of crown officials.50 There is no reason tosuppose that this decree was any more successful than its predecessors;undue pressure from officials would seem one unavoidable consequenceof the unsalaried bureaucracy on which the Ptolemies relied. Centralcontrol was weak and government officials looked first to their owninterests. Loyalty to the Ptolemies, reinforced through the dynastic cult,was not sufficient to counteract the pressures of personal interests.The independence of Egypt depended on its military strength whichby the late second century B.C. was both depleted and as much Egyptianas immigrant. Loyalty of the troops towards the state was variously** BGU 1741-3 + 2368; 1742 (63 B.C). Thompson (Crawford) 1983 (D 238) 66-9.« BGU 1760; 1835. « COrdP/o/yy.PSI 1098.28-9. «7 BGU 1842; Pliny HNv.58.48 BGU 2430.26. ” Strab. xvn.1.13. w COrdPtol 75-6 (12 April 41 B.C).Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

3^4 8*. EGYPT, 146-31 B.C.fostered though ultimately the ability to provide pay was the decisivefactor. Since the early years of the dynasty soldiers had been settled onthe land as cleruchs, and rights over this land, as over housing billets,were gradually extended over the years. In Go B.C. a royal decree recordsthe free testamentary disposition of such holdings and it is clear that bynow even women might inherit cleruchic land.51 (What in such caseshappened to the military obligation is not clear.) Mercenaries too, fromall over the Mediterranean, played an important part in the militaryprotection of the country. In 5 8 Auletes was forced to flee his homebecause he had no mercenary troops;52 the city garrison in Alexandriaand household troops had presumably joined the other side. Since thereign of Philometor mercenary garrisons and their associated civiliancommunities had been regularly organized in politeumata, normallyethnic groupings with their own elected officers, the Idumaeans forexample, the Boeotians or the Cretans; the activities of these groups weresocial and religious.53 In a country where social groupings weretraditional (the guilds for instance of the mummifiers and undertakers ofpre-Ptolemaic Egypt), when times were unsettled the collective instinctgrew more strong. Alongside the associations of goose-herds, donkey-drivers or ship-contractors, in their corporate dealings the mercenarypoliteumata too might protect the interests of their members in relation tothe state.54 And here too, as within the bureaucracy, the dynastic cult hada cohesive function; temples might be dedicated by representatives ofthese politeumata on behalf of the royal family, or influential officialspraised for good will towards the ruling house.A further role of the army should be mentioned. Both throughgarrisons and cleruchic settlement the Ptolemaic army was one of themore important forces for the integration of immigrants within Egyp-tian society. The family archive from 150 to 88 B.C. of Peteharsemtheusson of Panebkhounis or that of Dryton stationed in the garrison atGebelen (Pathyris) show how easily such soldiers intermarried withEgyptian women; their children were bilingual often with both Greekand Egyptian names. Both languages might be used in legal documentsand families who once came from Crete or Cyrene were thus assimilatedinto the society of Egypt.55More generally however changes were taking place in the relationsbetween Greeks and Egyptians in the administration, for instance,where those of Greek extraction would seem at first to have predomi-nated within its upper echelons. From the late second century B.C.51 COrdPtol 71.12-15; BGU xiv Appendix 3. 52 Dio xxxix. 12.2-3.53 Thompson (Crawford) 1984 (D 239).54 IFay 109 (37 B.C.); WCbrist 440 (first cent. B.C.); BGU 1741 —3 + 2368 (63 B.C).55 Pestman 196; (D 218) 47—105; Winnicki 1972 (D 245); Pestman 1978 (D 220) 30-7. Forintermarriage and assimilation of Cyrenaeans in the Fayum earlier see / Fay 2 (224-221 B.C).Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

EGYPT: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY 325however two governor-generals of the Thebaid and a series of rwmosgovernors in the south are found with Egyptian names.56 Whereas theapparent family succession to high administrative office found here mayprimarily reflect the breakaway tendency of the south, it also shows somechange of emphasis and the opening up to Egyptians of the top levels ofthe administration. Similarly the increasingly frequent bi- or trilingualpublication of royal decrees suggests some recognition by the rulingpower of the importance of the Egyptian element in society. FromSaqqara near Memphis a demotic archive with a few Greek documentsshows that by the first century B.C. even those from the most traditionalof Egyptian occupations, the mummifiers, had begun to adapt their waysto those of the ruling race. When in 99 Petesis, undertaker-in-chief of theApis and Mnevis bulls, found himself and his property under attack heappealed to the king for protection. In answer to his request he wasgranted a wooden plaque with an official (but in the event ineffective)warning to trespassers, written in both Greek and Egyptian. When tenyears later his son Chonouphis made a loan, the contract was in Greek;and when his granddaughter Thaues was also named Asklepias this wasthe first Greek name in a family recorded over ten generations.57The process of reciprocal acculturation can be seen only sporadically.Whilst proceeding at different rates in different contexts it affected alllevels of society. On the walls of the great temple at Edfu, Horos dragsSeth around tied by his feet in a positively Homeric scene, and from thenearby cemetery of Hassaia come elaborate epitaphs in both Greek andhieroglyphs celebrating members of a family of senior military officers,who are also priests within the local cults, recorded with both Greek andEgyptian names; the same individuals are recorded in both Greek andEgyptian forms.58 Both the culture of classical Greece expressed inepigrammatic form and the native culture of Egypt with all its religiousovertones are there, in active intercommunication.It was probably the gods and temples of Egypt which togetherremained the single most powerful force in the life of the Ptolemaickingdom for Greek and Egyptians alike. Yet even this was a forcediminished in strength. Greek cult continued for the Greeks, especiallyin Alexandria, yet increasingly behind Greek names Egyptian gods lurkin disguise. (Herakles Kallinikos for instance whose temple at Theadel-phia was linked with that of Isis Eseremphthis may well have beenHarsaphes or possibly Onouris.)59 And for the Greeks too the religion oftheir adopted country proved strong and might be turned against56 De Meulenaere 1959 (D 211) and Shore 1979 (D 232); Thissen 1977 (D 236), Hermonthite.57 UPZ 106-9 (99~98 BC); I25 (89 B.C.); • 18 (83 B.C.).58 Derchain 1974 (D 187) 15-19; Yoyotte 1969 (D 248); Clarysse 1985 (D 179) 62-4.59 Sammelbucb 6z$(i = lFaj 114(708.0.). Bonnet 1952(0 176) 286-7.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

326 Sc. EGYPT, 146-31 B.C.foreign powers. Whilst Amon and the south were often in opposition tothe powers of Lower Egypt, the high priesthood of Memphis remainedconsistently loyal to the Ptolemies and enjoyed strong personal relationswith the ruling house. Ptolemies built Egyptian temples to the nativegods and in return the gods of Egypt and their priesthood wouldsupport their rule. Concessions to the temples and their priests conti-nued to form a regular element of Ptolemaic royal decrees. So in 100 B.C.when Ptolemy X Alexander I ruled with Cleopatra Berenice a royaldecree was promulgated protecting sacred fish.60 From the first centuryB.C. survives a series of decrees recording royal grants of asylum grantedto village temples of Thracian, Greek and Egyptian gods, grants whichrecall those earlier made to the great Egyptian temples of Memphis orBousiris, now in the troubled later years of Ptolemaic rule extended morewidely.61 Sometimes set up bilingually, these decrees may be seen toindicate an extension of violence in the countryside and the relativeweakness of the local shrines. There are however two further respects inwhich they throw interesting light on the period. Firstly in these decrees,bound close to the local village cults, appears the dynastic cult of thePtolemies, with cult images, sacrifices, libations, burnt offerings andsacred lights. Grants made to an Egyptian god like Isis Sachypsis or IsisEseremphthis at Theadelphia might also benefit the royal gods.Secondly they illustrate the role of the army and the Greek militarysettlers in Egypt. These grants of asylum are regularly negotiatedthrough senior army officers who now it seems were established asinfluential members of the local community. In these grants may be seenreflected the interlocking interests of priests, army and crown in thecontinuation and success of the Ptolemaic regime. Finally, however,through the troubled years of the first century B.C. not even the strengthand power of the gods of Egypt could resist the force of Rome.62«> PYale 56.61 Sammtlbuch 620 = COrdPtol64 (96 B.C.);/Fay 152 (95 B.C.); 112-13 (93 B.C.); 114(70 B.C.); 135(69 B.C); 136 (69-68 B.C.); COrdPtol702(63 B.C.); IFaj 116-18 (57 B.C.); COrdPtol^ (46 B.C.); BGU1212 (46 B.C.) with van ‘t Dack 1970 (D 183); Donadoni 1983 (D 188); 0C1S 129 (47-30 B.C.)reaffirming an asylum grant for a synagogue made earlier by Euergetes II. My interpretation is atvariance with that of Dunand 1979 (D 189). 62 This chapter was last revised in 1986.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge

3 l8 %C. EGYPT, 146—31 B.C.Roman quaestor was doubtless expected to reciprocate at some time inthe future. As others were to learn, this was not the Roman way.Lucullus rejected both tour and gifts; he left without the ships hesought.28From Lucullus Sulla will have received a firsthand report on thewealth of Egypt. So on the death of Soter late in 81, although to dateRome had taken no action on his younger brother’s will, now that theAlexandrians lacked a king and Ptolemy X Alexander’s widow was onthe throne, Sulla sent out as king and consort the son of Ptolemy X, herstepson, Ptolemy XI Alexander II. Captured on Cos by Mithridates VI in88, Alexander II had in 84 escaped from Pontus to Sulla and through himto Rome. Exiled from Egypt for the past twenty-three years, the newking did not care for his stepmother-wife whom he speedily hadmurdered. After only three weeks on the throne he in turn perished, atthe hands of the Alexandrians who resented both the interference ofRome and the excesses of Sulla’s nominee. These royal internecineconflicts, the people of Alexandria, and the power of Rome interacted tohasten the collapse of Ptolemaic Egypt.For the moment Rome exercised restraint. The two sons of Soter II,sent like their cousin to safety on Cos in 103 and captured by Mithridates,now returned from Syria to their home. As Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysosthe elder took the throne in Egypt, the younger brother made do withCyprus for his rule. The (interrupted) thirty years of the reign of PtolemyXII, more commonly called Auletes, the Fluteplayer, were fatal for theindependence of the country. Popillius Laenas’ ultimatum at Eleusis in168 B.C. (Vol. vni2, pp. 344-5) and the testament of Ptolemy XAlexander were earlier stages in a process which was to culminate in theannexation of Egypt by Augustus. Under Auletes Egypt becamesubordinate to political issues and personalities in Rome as the kingstruggled to retain his control. His position at home was not unchal-lenged and in 75 two sons of Cleopatra Selene (by one of the Seleuciddynasty) came to Rome in quest of the Egyptian throne. They stayed justover a year before returning empty-handed, and the young Antiochuswho returned via Sicily had bad experiences at the hands of its governorVerres. Meanwhile in Egypt Auletes hung on, cultivating good relationswith the Egyptian hierarchy and sponsoring widespread temple-build-ing. The great Horos temple at Edfu was finished in his reign and he builton to temples at Karnak, Deir el Medina and Medinet Habu in Thebes,Dendera, Kom Ombo, Philae, Dabod, Athribis, Medamud, Hermonthisand on Bigga Island. As always such gifts to the gods demanded somerecognition in return and under Auletes there appears a significantdevelopment in the divinity of the king himself. Auletes was the first of28 Plut. Luc. 2.5-3.1.Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521256032.011Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Claremont Colleges Library, on 04 Oct 2020 at 16:09:28, subject to the Cambridge