Ptolemaeus
Could not find Ptolemaeo in Logeion dictionaries.
Ptolemaeo Proper-name adjective: neuter dative singular, Proper-name adjective: neuter ablative singular, Proper-name noun: masculine ablative singular, Proper-name noun: masculine dative singular, Proper-name adjective: masculine dative singular, Proper-name adjective: masculine ablative singular of Ptolemaeus
Ptolemaeo Proper-name noun: neuter ablative singular, Proper-name noun: neuter dative singular of Ptolemaeum
- Ptolemy, the name of the kings of Egypt after Alexander the Great, Curt. 9, 8, 22; Just. 13, 4, 10; Sil. 11, 383.—Hence, in plur.: Ptolemaeorum manes, Luc. 8, 696.— Hence,
- 1 Ptŏlĕmaeēus, a, um, adj., of or belonging to Ptolemy, Ptolemaean, Egyptian: Pharus, Prop. 2, 1, 30.—
- 2 Ptŏlĕ-maeus (-maeius), a, um, adj., Ptolemaean, Ptolemaic: gymnasium, Cic. Fin. 5, 1, 1.—Subst.: Ptŏlĕmaeum, i, n., the tomb of the Ptolemies, Suet. Aug. 18.—
- 3 Ptŏ-lĕmāïs, ĭdis, f. adj., Ptolemaean, Egyptian: aula, Aus. Idyll. 10, 311: gaza, Sid. Carm. 7, 94.—
- b Subst.
- α Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy Auletes, Luc. 10, 69.—
- β The name of several cities; in Egypt, Cic. Fam. 1, 7, 9; in Phoenicia, formerly Accho, now St. Jean d'Acre, Plin. 5, 19, 17, § 75; Vulg. 1 Macc. 5, 22.—Also called Ptŏlĕmāĭda, ae, f., Vulg. 1 Macc. 5, 15; id. Act. 21, 7.—Their inhabitants are called Ptŏlĕmenses, ĭum, m., Dig. 50, 15, 1; Vulg. 1 Macc. 12, 48; id. 2 Macc. 13, 25.—
- II An astrologer of the time of the emperor Otho, Tac. H. 1, 22.—
- III A king of Mauritania, Tac. A. 4, 23; 24.
➳ d. mss souvent Ptolom-.
(Πτολεμαῖος), the name of two mythical personages, one a son of Peiraeas, who accompanied Agamemnon as charioteer to Troy (Hom. Il. 4.228), and the other a son of Damasichthon, king of Thebes. (Paus. 9.5.8.) [L.S]
(Πτολεμαῖος), minor historical persons. (Several persons of this name, which appears to have been one in its origin exclusively Macedonian, occur among the officers and generals of Alexander the Great, whom it is not always easy to distinguish from one another.)
1. Son of Lagus. [Ptolemaeus I. king of Egypt.]
2. Son of Philip, an officer who commanded the leading squadron of Macedonian cavalry at the passage of the Granicus. (Arr. Anab. 1.14.) It is supposed by Gronovius (ad Arr. l.c.) and by Droysen, that he is the same who was afterwards left by Alexander with a force of 3000 foot and 200 horse to defend the province of Caria, and who subsequently, together with Asander the governor of Lydia, defeated the Persian general Orontobates, B. C. 332. (Arr. ib. 1.23, 2.5.)
3. One of the select officers called Somatophylaces, or guards of the king's person, who was killed at the siege of Halicarnassus, B. C. 334. (Arr. Anab. 1.22.) Freinsheim, in his supplement to Curtius (2.10.13), has assumed this to be the son of Philip, but it is more probable, as already pointed out, that the latter was the governor of Caria.
4. Son of Seleucus, another of the Somatophylaces, who combined with that distinguished post the command of one of the divisions of the phalanx. He was lately married when he accompanied Alexander on his expedition to Asia, B. C. 334, on which account he was selected by the king to command the body of Macedonians, who were allowed to return home for the winter at the end of the first campaign. In the following spring he rejoined Alexander at Gordium, with the troops under his command, accompanied by fresh reinforcements. At the battle of Issus (B. C. 332) his division of the phalanx was one of those opposed to the Greek mercenaries under Dareius, and upon which the real brunt of the action consequently devolved; and he himself fell in the conflict, after displaying the utmost valour. (Arr. Anab. 1.24, 29, 2.8, 10; Curt. 3.9.7.)
5. An officer who commanded a force of Thracian mercenaries, with which he joined Alexander in Bactria, B. C. 329. (Arr. Anab. 4.7; Curt. 7.10.11.)
6. Son of Ptolemy, an officer appointed by Antipater in B. C. 321, to be one of the Somatophylaces of the titular king, Philip Arrhidaeus. (Arr. apud Phot. p. 72a.) Nothing more is known of him, but Droysen conjectures that he was a son of No. 4. (Hellenism. vol. i. p. 154.)
7. Nephew of Antigonus, the general of Alexander, who afterwards became king of Asia. His name is first mentioned as present with his uncle at the siege of Nora in B. C. 320, when he was given up to Eumenes as a hostage for the safety of the latter during a conference with Antigonus. (Plut. Eum. 10.) At a later period we find him entrusted by his uncle with commands of importance. Thus in B. C. 315, when Antigonus was preparing to make head against the formidable coalition organized against him, he placed Ptolemy at the head of the army which was destined to carry on operations in Asia Minor against the generals of Cassander. This object the young general successfully carried out--relieved Amisus, which was besieged by Asclepiodorus, and recovered the whole satrapy of Cappadocia; after which he advanced into Bithynia, of which he compelled the king Zipoetes to join his alliance, and then occupied Ionia, from whence Seleucus withdrew on his approach. (Diod. 19.57, 60.) He next threatened Caria, which was however for a time defended by Myrmidon, the Egyptian general; but the following year Ptolemy was able to strike a decisive blow in that quarter against Eupolemus, the general of Cassander, whom he surprised and totally defeated. (Id. ib. 62, 68.) The next summer (B. C. 313) the arrival of Antigonus himself gave a decided preponderance to his arms in Asia Minor, and Ptolemy, after rendering active assistance in the sieges of Caunus and lasus, was sent with a considerable army to Greece to carry on the war there against Cassander. His successes were at first rapid : he drove out the garrisons of his adversary from Chalcis and Oropus, invaded Attica, where he compelled Demetrius of Phalerus to make overtures of submission, and then carried his arms triumphantly through Boeotia, Phocis, and Locris. Wherever he went he expelled the Macedonian garrisons, and proclaimed the liberty and independence of the several cities. After this he directed his march to the Peloponnese, where the authority of Antigonus had been endangered by the recent defection of his general Telesphorus. (Id. ib. 75, 77,78, 87.) Here he appears to have remained till the peace of 311 suspended hostilities in that quarter. But he considered that his services had not met with their due reward from Antigonus ; and when, therefore, in B. C. 310 the kings of Macedonia and Egypt were preparing to renew the war, Ptolemy suddenly abandoned the cause of his uncle and concluded a treaty with Cassander and the son of Lagus. Probably his object was to establish himself in the chief command in the Peloponnese : but the reconciliation of Polysperchon with Cassander must have frustrated this object : and on the arrival of the Egyptian king with a fleet at Cos, Ptolemy repaired from Chalcis to join him. He was received at first with the utmost favour, but soon gave offence to. his new patron by his intrigues and ambitious demonstrations, and was in consequence thrown into prison and compelled to put an end to his life by poison, B. C. 309. (Id. 20.19,27.) Schlosser has represented this general as an enthusiast in the cause of the liberty of Greece, but there seems no reason to suppose that his professions to that effect were more earnest or sincere than those of his contemporaries.
8. Son of Lysimachus, king of Thrace. He was the eldest of the three sons of that monarch by his last wife Arsinoe, and the only one who escaped falling into the hands of Ptolemy Ceraunus. Having in vain urged his mother not to trust to the friendly professions of the usurper, he himself appears to have made his escape and taken refuge with Monunius, king of the Dardanians, whom he persuaded to take up arms in his cause, but we know nothing of the events of the war. (Just. 24.2; Trog. Pomp. Prol. xxiv.) It is probable, however, that the Ptolemy who is mentioned as establishing, or asserting, a transient claim to the throne of Macedonia, during the period of anarchy which followed the death of Ptolemy Ceraunus (B. C. 280-277), is no other than the one in question. (Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. p. 157; Dexippus, apud Syncetl. p. 267.)
9. Son of Pyrrhus, king of Epeirus, by his wife Antigone, the step-daughter of Ptolemy Lagi. When only fifteen years of age he was left by his father in charge of his hereditary dominions, when Pyrrhus himself set out on his expedition to Italy, B. C. 280. (Just. 18.1.) Of his proceedings during his father's absence we know nothing : but immediately after the return of Pyrrhus, B. C. 274, we find Ptolemy actively co-operating with him, reducing Corcyra with a small force : and after the defeat of Antigonus Gonatas, repulsing him in an attempt to recover his lost kingdom, and inflicting on him a second defeat. He afterwards accompanied Pyrrhus on his expedition to the Peloponnese, B. C. 272, and took a prominent part in the attack on Sparta, but in the march from thence towards Argos, Areus having occupied the mountain passes, a severe combat ensued, in which Ptolemy, who commanded the advanced guard of his father's army, was slain. Young as he was, he had given the most striking proofs of daring courage and personal prowess, and, had his life been spared, would probably have rivalled the renown of his father. (Just. 25.3, 4; Plut. Pyrrh. 28, 30.)
10. Son of Alexander II. king of Epeirus. [Ptolemaeus, king of Epeirus.]
11. An illegitimate son of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, who was appointed by his father to command at Ephesus, when that important city fell into his hands during the war with Antiochus II. Ptolemy was subsequently induced to revolt from his father, in conjunction with Timarchus, tyrant of Miletus, and attempted to establish his own power at Ephesus, but was compelled by a mutiny of his Thracian mercenaries to take refuge in the temple of Diana, where he was slain together with his mistress Eirene. (Trog. Pomp. Prol. xxvi..; Athen. 13.593a.; Niebuhr, Niebuhr. Kl Schrift. p. 268-271.)
12. Son of Chrysennus, an officer high in the confidence of Ptolemy Philopator. He had been for some time on friendly terms with Cleomenes, whom he visited during his confinement; but accidentally betrayed to the latter the true intentions of the king of Egypt in regard to him, and thus gave rise to his attempted insurrection. On the first breaking out of the tumult Ptolemy, having issued forth from the palace, was instantly attacked and put to death by three of the friends of Cleomenes, B. C. 220. (Plut. Cleom. 36, 37.)
13. Another person of the same name was governor of the city of Alexandria at the time of the outbreak of Cleomenes, and having fallen in with the little band of Spartans, was dragged from his chariot and put to death. (Plb. 5.39; Plut. Cleom. 37.)
14. A Macedonian officer of high rank in the army of Philip V. during the Social War, who joined with Leontius and Megaleas in promoting the treasonable designs of Apelles, and was in consequence put to death by Philip, B. C. 218. (Plb. 5.25, 26, 29.)
15. Son of Thraseas, a leader of Greek mercenaries in the service of Ptolemy Philopator, who was appointed, together with Andromachus, to command the phalanx in the war against Antiochus, B. C. 217. (Plb. 5.65.)
16. Son of Aeropus, an officer in the service of Antiochus the Great at the battle of Panium, B. C. 198. (Id. 16.18.)
17. Son of Eumenes, an officer in the service of Ptolemy Epiphanes king of Egypt, who was charged with the duty of arresting Scopas, and bringing him to trial. [Scopas.] (Plb. 18.36.)
18. Son of Sosibius, the minister of Ptolemy Philopator. He was naturally of a haughty and ambitious character, and these qualities were increased by a visit he paid to the Macedonian court during the minority of Ptolemy Epiphanes. Hence, on his return to Egypt, he made common cause with his brother Sosibius, and took a prominent part against Tlepolemus who held the chief direction of affairs. Their intrigues were however defeated, and the party of Tlepolemus prevailed. (Plb. 16.22.)
19. Surnamed MACRON, an Egyptian officer, who was appointed to the government of Cyprus during the minority of Ptolemy Philometor; an office which he discharged with zeal and ability. By prudent economy in the administration of the island, he amassed a large sum of money which he sent to Philometor, on his attaining his majority, and thus secured the favour of the young king (Plb. 27.12, and Vales. ad loc. * This passage is referred by Schweighäuser to Ptolemy son of Agesarchus, to whom it is certainly not applicable.). What led to the change in his policy we know not, but we subsequently find him betraying his trust, and giving over the island of Cyprus to Antiochus Epiphanes. (2 Macc. 10.12.)
20. A rhetorician of Alexandria, who was employed as ambassador by Ptolemy Euergetes II. to Antiochus Epiphanes when the latter was besieging Alexandria, B. C. 170 (Plb. 28.16). He is perhaps the same person with the brother of Comanus, whom we find accompanying that minister on his embassy to Rome in B. C. 162. (Id.31.27.)
21. An Egyptian, surnamed Sympetesis, who was appointed by Ptolemy Euergetes II. to govern Cyrene during his absence, when he went to Rome in B. C. 162, to prefer his complaints in person against his brother Philometor. He subsequently joined in the revolt of the Cyrenaeans against Euergetes, and appears to have commanded the army with which they defeated him near the Catabatlhmus. (Plb. 31.26.)
22. Surnamed Caesarion, a son of C. Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. [Caesarion.]
23. Surnamed PHILADELPHUS, a son of M. Antony, the Triumvir, by Cleopatra. He was the youngest of their three children, and could therefore hardly have been born before B. C. 39. (D. C. 49.32.) In B. C. 34, he was proclaimed by his father king of Syria, including Cilicia, and all the provinces west of the Euphrates (D. C. 49.41; Pint. Ant. 54). After the death of Antony, and the subjugation of Egypt, B. C. 30, his life was spared by Augustus, at the intercession of Juba and Cleopatra, and he was brought up by Octavia with her own children, but we hear nothing more of him. (D. C. 51.15; Plut. Ant. 87.) [E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), a surgeon, one of whose medical formulae is quoted by Celsus (De Med. 6.7. 2, p. 126), and who must, therefore, have lived in or before the first century after Christ. He is perhaps the same person whose opinion on the cause of dropsy is quoted by Caelius Aurelianus (De Morb. Chiron. 3.8. p. 479), and who is called by him a follower of Erasistratus. Perhaps also he is the physician whose medical formulae are quoted by Asclepiades Pharmacion (ap. Galen. De Comepos. Medicam. sec. Loc. 2.2, vol. xii. p. 584; see also ibid. 4.7. p. 789, De Compos. Mlledicam. sec. Gen. 5.14, vol. xiii. pp. 849, 853.) [W.A.G],
(Πτολεμαῖος) of Alorus, regent, or according to some authors king of Macedonia. The circumstances connected with his elevation, and the revolutions in which he took part, are very variously related. Diodorus (15.71) calls him a son of Amyntas II.; but this seems to be certainly a mistake, and Dexippus (apud Syncell. p. 263b.) says that he was a stranger to the royal family. During the short reign of Alexander II., the eldest son of Amyntas, we find Ptolemy engaged in war with that prince, and apparently disputing the throne with him. Their differences were terminated for a time by the intervention of Pelopidas, but the reconciliation was a hollow one, and Ptolemy soon took an opportunity to remove the young king by assassination. B. C. 367. (Plut. Pel. 26, 27; Diod. 15.71; Marsyas apud Althen. xiv. p. 629d.) It seems probable that this murder was perpetrated with the connivance, if not at the instigation, of the queen-mother Eurydice [Eurydice, No. 1.]; and Ptolemy in consequence obtained possession of the supreme power without opposition. But the appearance of a new pretender to the throne, Pausanias, soon reduced him to great difficulties, from which he was rescued by the intervention of the Athenian general Iphicrates, who established the brother of Alexander, Perdiccas III., upon the throne, while Ptolemy exercised the virtual sovereignty under the name of regent. (Aesch. de F. Leg. pp. 31, 32; Corn. Nep. Iphicr. 3.) It was probably after this that the partisans of the late king invoked the assistance of Pelopidas, who invaded Macedonia with a mercenary force, but was met by Ptolemy, who disarmed his resentment by protestations of submission, and obtained the confirmation of his authority as regent, giving hostages for his friendly disposition towards the Thebans. (Plut. Pel. 27.) To this new alliance it may be ascribed that Ptolemy abandoned his friendly relations with the Athenians, notwithstanding the benefits he had received from Iphicrates. (Aesch. l.c. p. 32.) He continued to administer the sovereign power for a period of three years, when he was, in his turn, assassinated by the young king Perdiccas III., B. C. 364. (Diod. 15.77.) Diodorus gives Ptolemy the title of king, and his name is included by the chronographers among the Macedonian kings (Dexippus apud Syncell. I.c. ; Euseb. Arm. pp. 153, 154), but it seems more probable that he assumed the regal authority without its designation. (Compare, in regard to the above facts, Thirlwall's Greece, vol. v. p. 162-165; Flathe, Gesch. Mlacedoniens, vol. i. p. 38-40; and Abel, Makedonien vor König Philipp. p. 217-223.) [E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος Ἀπίων) king of Cyrene, was an illegitimate son of Ptolemy Physcon, king of Egypt, by his mistress Eirene. His father left him by his will the kingdom of the Cyrenaica, to which he appears to have succeeded without opposition, on the death of Physcon, B. C. 117. We know nothing of the events of his reign, but at his death in B. C. 96, he bequeathed his kingdom by his will to the Roman people. The senate, however, refused to accept the legacy, and declared the cities of the Cyrenaica free. They were not reduced to the condition of a province till near thirty years afterwards; a circumstance which has given rise to much confusion, some of the later Roman writers having considered this latter date to be that of the death of Apion, and the accompanying bequest. Hence Sextus Rufus, Ammianus, and Hieronvmus were led to suppose that there were two kings of the name of Apion, an error in which they have been followed by Scaliger, Freinshemius, and other modern writers. The subject has been satisfactorily examined by Valesius in his notes to Ammianus, and by Clinton. (Just. 39.5; Liv. Epit. lxx.; Jul. Obsequens, 100.109 ; Eutrop. vi. ll; Sex. Ruf. 100.13; Amm. Marc. 22.16.24; and Vales. ad loc. ; Hieronym. in Euseb. Chron. Ol. 171. 1, and Ol. 178. 3; Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. p. 389, note.) [E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), surnamed Ceraunus, king of Macedonia, was the son of Ptolemy I. king of Egypt, by his second wife Eurvdice. The period of his birth is not mentioned ; but if Droysen is right in assigning the marriage of Eurydice with Ptolemy to the year B. C. 321 (see Hellenism. vol. i. p. 154), their son cannot have been born till B. C. 320. He must, at all events, have been above thirty years old in B. C. 285, when the aged king of Egypt cane to the resolution of setting aside his claim to the throne, and appointing his younger son, Ptolemy Philadelphus, his successor. (Appian. Syr. 62 ; Julstin. 16.2.) To this step we are told that the old king was led not only by his warm attachment to his wife Berenice and her son Philadelphus, but by apprehensions of the violent and passionate character of his eldest son, which subsequent events proved to be but too well founded. Ptolemy Ceraunus quitted the court of Egypt in disgust, and repaired to that of Lysimachus, where his sister Lysandra was married to Agathocles. the heir to the Thracian crown. On the other hand, Arsinoe, the sister of Ptolemy Philadelphus, was the wife of Lvsimachus himself, and exercised great influence over the mind of the old king. But instead of this being employed against her halfbrother Ceraunus, she appears soon to have made common cause with him; and he not only assisted her in her intrigues against Agathocles, but is even said to have assassinated that unhappy prince with his own hand. (Memnon. 100.8; Justin. xvii. l.) The conduct of Ptolemy in the war that followed between Lysimachus and Seleucus is differently reported : Pausanias (1.16.2) represents him as quitting the court of Lysimachus, and taking refuge with his rival, while Memnon (100.12) states, with more probability, that he adhered to Lysimachus to the last, but after his death made his peace with Seleucus. It is certain, however, that he was received by the latter in the most friendly manner, and treated with all the distinction due to his royal birth. Seleucus, we are told, even held out hopes to him of establishing him on the throne of Egypt, when Ptolemy, probably deeming the crown of Macedonia to be more easily within his grasp, basely assassinated his new patron at Lysimachia, B. C. 280, and immediately assumed the diadem himself. (Appian. Syr. 62; Memnon. 100.12; Just. 17.2; Paus. 1.16.2; Euseb. Arm. p. 157.)
His authority appears to have been acknowledged without opposition by the army, and this enabled him to make himself master, with little difficulty, of the European dominions of Lysimachus. Antiochus, the son of Seleucus, was sufficiently occupied with maintaining his Asiatic and hereditary possessions, and Ptolemy Philadelphus was well contented to see his half-brother established on another throne, which led him to abandon all projects concerning that of Egypt. The usurper had the address to gain over Pyrrhus king of Epeirus, who might have proved his most dangerous rival, by a promise of assisting him with an auxiliary force in his expedition to Italy. Thus his only remaining opponent was Antigonus, the son of Demetrius, who now attempted to recover the throne of his father, and for him Ptolemy was more than a match. His fleet, supported by an auxiliary squadron of the Heracleans. totally defeated that of Antigonus, and compelled the latter to withdraw into Boeotia, while Ptolemy established himself, without farther opposition, on the throne of Macedonia. (Memnon. 100.13; Just. 17.2, 24.1.)
He was now able to fortify himself in his new position by a treaty with Antiochus, who acknowledged him as sovereign of Macedonia. But his jealousy and apprehensions were still excited by Arsinoe, the widow of Lysimachus, who had taken refuge at Cassandreia with her two sons, Lysimachus and Philip; and he endeavoured to decoy them into his power by offering to marry Arsinoe, and share the kingdom with her children. The queen, notwithstanding her previous experience of his character, gave credit to his oaths and protestations and received him at Cassandreia, but Ptolemy took the opportunity, during the nuptial festivities, to seize on the fortress, and immediately caused the two young princes to be assassinated. (Just. 24.1_3.) Their elder brother Ptolemy had, it appears, made his escape, and taken refuge with Monunius, king of the Dardanians, who for a time espoused his cause, and waged war, though without effect, against the Macedonian king. (Trog. Pomp. Prol. xxiv.)
Ptolemy, however, was not destined long to enjoy the throne which he had obtained by so manyt crimes. Before the close of the year which had witnessed the death of Seleucus, he was alarmed by the approach of a new and formidable enemy, the Gauls, who now, for the first time, appeared on the frontiers of Macedonia. Their chief, Belgius, sent overtures for a treaty to Ptolemy, but the Macedonian king haughtily refused them, and rejecting the proffered assistance of Monunius, hastened to meet and give battle to the barbarian host. The result was most disastrous; the Macedonian army was totally routed, and the king, having been thrown from the elephant on which he was riding, fell alive into the hands of the enemy, by whom he was put to death in the most barbarous manner, and his head carried about on the point of a spear, in token of victory. (Just. 24.3_5; Paus. 10.19.7; Memnon. 100.14 ; Diod. xxii. Exc. Hoeschel. p. 495, Exc. Vales. p. 592; Dexippus apud Syncell. p. 266; Plb. 9.35.4.)
Concerning the chronology of these events, sec Clinton (F. H. vol. ii. pp. 237, 238). It seems certain that the death of Ptolemy must have taken place before the end of B. C. 280. and that the period of seventeen months assigned to his reign by Dexippus (I. c.) must be reckoned from the death of Lysimachus, and not from that of Seleucus. [E.H.B]
Πτολεμαῖος), tetrarch of CHALCIS in Syria, the son of Mennaeus. He appears to have held the cities of Heliopolis and Chalcis as well as the mountain district of Ituraea, from whence he was in the habit of infesting Damascus and the more wealthy parts of Coele-Syria with predatory incursions. These Alexan. dra, queen of Judaea, endeavoured to repress by sending against him her son Aristobulus with an army, but without much success. Subsequently, when Pompey came into Syria, B. C. 64, Ptolemy was summoned to answer for his misdeeds, but was able to purchase impunity from the conqueror with a sum of a thousand talents. In B. C. 49, when Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, was put to death at Antioch by the partisans of Pompey, Ptolemy afforded shelter and protection to the brothers and sisters of the deceased prince, and his son Philippion at first married one of the fugitive princesses, Alexandra : but, afterwards, Ptolemy becoming enamoured of her himself, put Philippion to death, and made Alexandra his own wife.
After the battle of Pharsalia Ptolemy was confirmed by Caesar in the possession of his dominions, over which he continued to rule till his death in B. C. 40, when he was succeeded by his son Lysanias. The only occasion on which we meet with his name during this interval is in B. C. 42, when he united with Marion, prince of Tyre, in an attempt to restore Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, to the throne of Judaea. They were, however, both defeated by Herod. (Strab. xvi. p.753 ; J. AJ 13.16.3, 14.3.2, 7.4, B. J. 1.9.2, 13.1.) We learn from his coins that he assumed the title of tetrarch. (Eckhel, vol. iii. p. 264.) [E.H.B]
Πτολεμαῖος Κλαύδιος). A few words will be nec ssary on the plan we intend to adopt in this article. Ptolemy stands before us in two distinct points of view : as a mathematician and astronomer; and as a geographer. There must of course be a separate treatment of these two characters. As an astronomer, it must be said that the history of the science, for a long train of centuries, presents nothing but comments on his writings : to treat the history of the latter would be so far to write that of astronomy itself. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to the account of these writings, their principal contents, and the chief points of their bibliographical annals, without reference to commentators, or to the effect of the writings themselves, on the progress of science. And, though obliged to do this by the necessity of selection which our limits impose, we are also of opinion that the plan is otherwise the most advantageous. For, owing to that very close connection of Ptolemy's name with the history of astronomy of which we have spoken, the accessible articles on the subject are so discursive, that the reader may lose sight of the distinction between Ptolemy and his followers. The two other great leaders, Aristotle and Euclid, are precisely in the same predicament.
Of Ptolemy himself we know absolutely nothing but his date, which an astronomer always leaves in his works. He certainly observed in A. D. 139, at Alexandria; and Suidas and others call him Alexandrinus. If the canon presently mentioned be genuine (and it is not doubted), he survived Antoninus, and therefore was alive A. D. 161. Old manuscripts of his works call him Pelusiensis and Pheludiensis. But Theodorus, surnamed Meliteniota (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. x. p. 411), in the thirteenth century, describes him as of Ptolemais in the Thebaid, called Hermeius. Accordingly, our personal knowledge of one of the most illustrious men that ever lived, both in merits and fame, and who resided and wrote in what might well be called the sister university to Athens, is limited to two accounts of one circumstance, between the uncertainties of which it is impossible to decide, and which give his birth to opposite sides of the Nile. Weidler (Hist. Astron. p. 177) cites some description of his personal appearance from an Arabic writer, who does not state his source of information. Some writers call him king Ptolemy, probably misled by the name, which is nevertheless known to have been borne by private persons, besides the astronomer. On this, and some other gossip not worth citing, because no way Greek, see Halma's preface, p. lxi. Ptolemy is then, to us, the author of certain works; and appears in the character of promulgator of his own researches, and deliverer and extender of those of Hipparchus. In this last character there is some difficulty about his writings. It is not easy to distinguish him from his illustrious predecessor. It is on this account that we have deferred specific mention of Hipparchus, as an astronomer, to the present article. Works
The writings of Ptolemy (independently of the work on geography, which will be noted apart) are as follows :-- 1. Μεγάλη Σύνταξις τῆς Ἀστρονομίας
Μεγάλη Σύνταξις τῆς Ἀστρονομίας, as Fabricius has it, and as it is very commonly called : but the Greek, both in Grynoeus and Halma, begins with μαθηματικῆς συντάξεως βιβλίον πρῶτον. But the Tetrabiblus presently mentioned, the work on astrology, is also σύνταξις, in Fabricius μαθηματική σύνταξις : and the heading Mathematica Syntaxis, in several places of Schweiger, Hoffmann * So far was this appropriation of the word Syntaxis carried, that it was applied to various astrological works having nothing to do with Ptolemy. Hoffman has two works in his list which he supposes to be English translations of the astrological syntaxis, because they bear as titles "the Compost of Phtolomeus." We have one of them; which is a common astrological almanack, having just as much relation to Ptolemy as the current number of Moore, namely, a folly in common with him., &c., would rather puzzle a beginner. To distinguish the two, the Arabs probably called the greater work μεγάλη, and afterwards μεγίστη : the title Almagest is a compound of this last adjective and the Arabic article, and must be considered as the European as well as the Arabic vernacular title. To this name we shall adhere; for though Syntaxis be more Greek, yet, as there are two syntaxes of Ptolemy, and others of other writers, we prefer a well-known and widely-spread word, adopted by all middle Latin writers, and clothed with numerous historical associations. It reminds us, too, of those who preserved and communicated the work in question; and but for whose just appreciation it would have probably been lost.
On the manuscripts of the Almagest, see Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vol. v. p. 281) and Halma's preface, p. xlv. &c. Doppelmayer (we copy Halma) says the manuscript used by Grynoeus, the first therefore printed from, was given to the Nuremberg library by Regiomontanus, to whom it was given (probably as a legacy) by Cardinal Bessarion. De Murr could not find this manuscript at Nuremberg, but only that of Theon's commentary, given by Regiomontanus, as described : but Montignot testifies to having caused it to be consulted for his version of the catalogue. Halma somewhat hastily concludes that there are difficulties in the way of supposing this manuscript to have been used : but public libraries do sometimes lose their manuscripts. This Basle edition may count as one manuscript unknown. Halma corrected its text by various others, in the Royal Library at Paris, principally five, as follows :--First, a Paris manuscript (No. 2389) nearly perfect, cited by some who have used it as of the sixth century, but pretty certainly not later than the eighth. It bears a presentation inscription to John Lascaris, of the imperial family, who is known to have been sent by Lorenzo di Medicis twice to Constantinople, after its occupation by the Turks, to procure manuscripts. Secondly, a Florence manuscript of the twelfth century, marked 2390. Thirdly, a Venice manuscript, marked 313, supposed to be of the eleventh century. Fourthly, two Vatican manuscripts, marked 560 and 184, of about the twelfth century. These Florence, Venice, and Vatican manuscripts were probably returned to their original owners at the peace of 1815. The seizures made by the French in Italy have procured us the only two editions of Euclid and Ptolemy which give various readings. Editions Latin Editions
The first appearance of the Almagest in print is in the epitome left by Regiomontanus, and edited by Grossch and Roemer, Venice, 1496, folio, headed Epytoma Joannis de monte regio in almagestum Ptolomei. The dedication to Cardinal Bessarion calls it the epitome of Purbach, who commenced it, and his pupil Regiomontanus, who finished it. It is a full epitome, omitting, in particular, the catalogue of stars. It was reprinted (Lalande) Basle, 1543, folio; Nuremberg, 1550, folio; and, apparently in the same year, another title was put to it (Halma, preface, p. xliii.). The first complete edition is the Latin version of Peter Liechtenstein, "Almagestum Claudii Ptolemei, Pheludiensis Alexandrini....," Venice, 1515, folio (Lalande and Baily). It is scarce, but there is a copy in the Royal Society's library. Baily says that it bears internal marks of having been made from the Arabic (as was indeed generally admitted), and throws great light on the subsequent Greek editions and versions. Next comes the version of George of Trebizond, "Ptolemaei Almagestum, ex Versione Latinâ Georgii Trapezuntii," Venice, 1525, folio. (Fabricius, who is in doubt as to whether it were not 1527, and confounds it with the former version.) From all we can collect, however, no one asserts himself to have seen an earlier edition of the version of Trapezuntius than that of Venice, 1528, folio (with a red lily in the title page); and Hoffman sets down none earlier. Its title (from a copy before us) is "Claudii Ptolemaei Pheludiensis Alexandrini Almagestum.... latina donatum lingua ab Georgio Trapezuntio.... anno salutis Mdxxvii. labente." This version is stated in the preface to have been made from the Greek * It is a slight matter, but it is difficult to say how small an error is not worth correcting when great names support it. Halma, followed by Baily, says that Trapezuntius got his Greek manuscript from a copy of one in the Vatican, made by order of the abbot Bartolini. But what Gauricus says is "Georg. Trap. magnum hunc Astronomum .... e Graeca in Latinam transtulit linguam. Quem Laurentius Bartolinus .... e Vaticano exemplari .... transcribendum curavit." The quem seems to refer to Trapezuntius, who had long been dead : Gauricus explains how he came by a copy. Andrew Trapezuntius, in his preface to his father's work (which follows that of Gauricus), though dedicating to the pope, does not hint at the manuscript from the pope's library, nor at any manuscript in particular. : the editor was Lucas Gauricus.
The nine books of astronomy by the Arab Geber, edited by Peter Apian, Nuremberg, 1534, folio, and often set down as a commentary on, almost an edition of, the Almagest, have no right whatever to either name, as we say from examination. Halma, observing in the epitome of Purbach and Regiomontanus strong marks of Arabic origin, and taking Geber to be in fact Ptolemy, concludes that the epitome was made from Geber, and reproves them for not naming their original. Halma must have taken Geber's work to be actually the Almagest, for, with the above censure, he admits that the two epitomists have caught the meaning and spirit of Ptolemy. It is worth while, therefore, to state, from examination of Geber (whom Halma had not seen), and comparison of it with the epitome in question, that neither is Geber a commentary on the Almagest, nor the epitome formed from Geber. Greek Editions
The first Greek text of the Almagest (as well as that of Euclid) was published by Symon Grynoeus, Basle, 1538, folio : "Κλ. Πτολεμαιου μεγάλης συνταξέως βιβλ. ιγʼ...." It is Greek only, and contains the Almagest, and the commentary of Theon [Pappus]. Basle, 1541, folio. Jerome Gemusaeus published ".... omnia qtae extant opera (Geographia excepta)...." This edition contains the Almagest, Tetrabiblon, Centiloquium, and Inerrantium Stellarum Significationes of Ptolemy, and the Hypotyposes of Proclus. Except as containing the first professed collection of the works, it is not of note. As to its Almagest, it is Trapezuntius as given by Gauricus. The publisher, H. Petrus, seems to have found reason Mr. Baily, who closely examined all his editions, as will presently be noted, does not even give the name of this one, though to our know ledge it was one of those he tried to make use of. to know that he had been mistaken in his editor. In 1551 (Basle, folio) he republished it as ".... omnia quae extant opera, praeter Geographiam, quam non dissimili forma [double column] nuperrimè edidimus : summa cura et diligentia castigata ab Erasmo Oswaldo Schrekhenfuchsio ...." The contents are the same as in the former edition, with notes added by the new editor. Erasmus Reinbold published the first book only (Gr. Lat. with Scholia), Wittenberg, 1549, 8vo. (Lalande, who gives also 1560), and also 1569 (Halmna). S. Gracilis (Legrêle) published the second book in Latin, Paris, 1556, 8vo. (Lal. Halm.). J. B. Porta gave the first book in Latin, with Theon, Naples, 1588, 4to. (Lal.), and the first and second books in the same way, Naples, 1605, 4to. (Lal. Halm.).
From the time of Galileo, at which we are now arrived, we cannot find that any complete version of the Almagest (Greek edition there certainly was none) was published until that of Halma, to which we now come. We shall not attempt to describe the dissertations by Delambre, Ideler, &c., contained in this splendid collection, but shall simply note the contents of the first four volumes : for the rest see Theon. Of the manuscripts we have already spoken. The descriptions are--Paris, 1813, 1816, 1819, 1820, quarto. The first two volumes contain the Almagest, in Greek and French, with the various readings. The third contains the κανὼν βασιλείων and the φάσεις τῶν ἀπλανῶν of Ptolemy, and the works of Geminus. The fourth contains the ὑποθέσεις τῶν πλανωμένων and the ἀρχαὶ καὶ ὑποθέσεις μαθηματικαὶ of Ptolemy, and the ὑποτύπωσεις of Proclus.
The part of the Almagest which really concerns the modern astronomer, as part of the effective records of his science, is the catalogue of stars in the seventh and eighth books. Of this catalogue there have been several distinct editions. The earliest (according to Lalande, not mentioned by Halma) is a Latin version by John Noviomagus, from Trapezuntius, ".... Phaenomena stellarum 1022 fixarum ad hanc aetatem reducta....," Cologne, 1537, folio, with forty-eight drawings of the constellations by Albert Durer. The next (Baily) is a Greek edition (stated to be furnished by Halley), at the end of the third of the four volumes of Hudson's "Geographiae veteris Scriptores Graeci minores," Oxford, 1698-1712, 8vo. The next (Halma) is a French version by Montignot, Nancy, 1786, and Strasburg, 1787, 4to., translated into German by Bode, Berlin and Stettin, 1795, 8vo. The last, and by far the best, is that given (in Greek) by the late Francis Baily, in his collection of the catalogues of Ptolemy, Ulugh Beigh, Tycho Brahé, Halley, and Hevelius, which forms volume xiii. of the Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, London, 1843, 4to. This edition of the catalogue is the one which should be cited. It gives the readings of the Florence and Paris manuscripts (from Halma), of the Greek of Grynoenus and Halma, and of the Latin of Liechtenstein and Trapezuntius, with corrections from our present astronomical knowledge very sparingly, and we believe very judiciously, introduced. The astronomer might easily make Ptolemy's catalogue what it ought to have been; the scholar, from criticism alone, would certainly place many stars where it is impossible Ptolemy could have recorded them as being. From frequent conversation with Mr. Baily during the progress of his task, we can confidently say that he had no bias in favour of making his text astronomically correct at the expense of critical evidence; but that he was as fully impressed with the necessity of producing Ptolemy's errors as his truths.
Mr. Baily remarks, as to the catalogue, and the same appears as to other parts of the Almagest, that Halma often gives in the text he has chosen readings different from those of all his principal subjects of collation. This means that he has, in a considerable number of cases, either amended his text conjecturally, or preferred the reading of some minor manuscript, without particular mention. This is no great harm, since, as the readings of all his great sources are always given, it amounts to having one more choice from an unnamed quarter. But it is important that the critical reader of the edition have notice of it; and the more so, inasmuch as the readings are at the end of each volume, without * If editors will put the various readings at the end of their volumes, instead of at the bottom of the pages, we should wish, when there are more volumes than one, that the readings for one volume should be inserted at the end of another. It would then be practicable to have the text and its variations before the reader at one and the same moment, when two or three instances come close together, is very desirable. text-reference from the places in which they occur.
On the preceding summary of the bibliographical history of the Almagest, we shall remark that the reader is not to measure the currency of it by the number of its editions. It was the gold which lay in the Bank, while paper circulated on its authority. All the European books on astronomy were fashioned upon it, and it was only the more learned astronomers who went to the common original. Euclid was actually read, and accordingly, as we have seen, the presses were crowded with editions of the Elements. But Ptolemy, in his own words, was better known by his astrology than by his astronomy. We now come to his other writings, on which we have less to say. 2. Τετράβιβλυς σύνταξις
Τετράβιβλυς σύνταξις, generally called Tetrabiblon, or Quadripartitum de Apotelesmatibtus et Judiciis Astrorum. With this goes another small work, called καρπὸς, or Fructus Librorum Suorum, often called Centiloquium, from its containing a hundred aphorisms. Both of these works are astrological, and it has been doubted by some whether they be genuine. But the doubt merely arises from the feeling that the contents are unworthy of Ptolemy. The Tetrabiblon itself is, like the Almagest and other writings, dedicated to his brother Syrus : it refers, in the introduction, to another work on the mathematical theory. Both works If editors will put the various readings at the end of their volumes, instead of at the bottom of the pages, we should wish, when there are more volumes than one, that the readings for one volume should be inserted at the end of another. It would then be practicable to have the text and its variations before the reader at one and the same moment, when two or three instances come close together, is very desirable. Editions
They have been twice printed in Greek, and together ; first, by John Camerarius (Gr. Lat.), Nuremberg. 1535, 4to.; secondly, with new Latin version and preface, by Philip Melancthon, Basle, 1553, 8vo. (Fabricius, Hoffmann). Among the Latin editions, over and above those already noted as accompanying editions of the Almagest, Hain mentions two (of both works) of the fifteenth century; one by Ratdolt, Venice, 1484, 4to.; another by Bonetus (with other astrological tracts), Venice, 1493, fol. There is another, translated by Gogava, Louvain, 1548, 4to. (Hoffmann, Lalande); and there is another attached to the collection made by Hervagius (which begins with Julius Firmicus, and ends with Manilius), Basle, 1533, folio; and all except the Firmicus and Manilius seem to have been printed before, Venice, 1519, folio (Lalande). There is mention of two other editions, of Basle and Venice, 1551 and 1597, including both Firmicus and Manilius (Lalande).
The Centiloquium has been sometimes attributed to Hermes Trismegistus : but this last-named author had a Centiloquium of his own, which is printed in the edition just described, and is certainly not in matter the same as Ptolemy's. Fabricius, mentioning the Centiloquium, says that Ptolemy de Electionibus, appeared (Lat.), Venice, 1509,----. Perhaps this is the same work as the one of the same title, afterwards published as that of the Arab Zahel. The English translation (1701) purporting to be from "Ptolemy's Quadripartite" (Hoffmann), must be from the paraphrase by Proclus, as appears from its title-page containing the name of Leo Allatius, who edited the latter. The usual Latin of the Centiloquium is by Jovius Pontanus: whether the Commentaries attributed to him, printed, Basle, 1531, 4to. (Lalande), &c., are any thing more than the version, we must leave to the professedly astrological bibliographer. It was printed without the Quadripartitum several times, as at Cologne, 1544, 8vo.: and this is said to be with the comment of Trapezuntius, meaning probably the version. The commentaries or introductions, two in number, attributed to Proclus and Porphyry, were printed (Gr. Lat.) Basle, 1559, folio (Lalande). 3. Κανὼν Βασιλέων.
This is a catalogue of Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman sovereigns, with the length of their reigns, several times referred to by Syncellus, and found, with continuation, in Theon. It is considered an undoubted work of Ptolemy. It is a scrap which has been printed by Scaliger, Calvisius (who valued it highly), Petavius and Dodwell; but most formally by Bainbridge (in the work presently cited), and by Halma, as above noticed. 4. φάσεις ἀπλανῶν ἀστέρων καὶ συναγωγὴ ἐπισημασειῶν (De Apparentiis et Significationibus inerrantium.)
This is an annual list of sidereal phaenomena. Editions
It has been printed three times in Greek : by Petavius, in his Uranologion, Paris, 1630, folio; partially in Fabricius, but deferred by Harless to a supplementary volume which did not appear; and by Halma, as above noticed. There are three other works of the same name or character, which have been attributed to Ptolemy, and all three are given, with the genuine one, by Petavius, as above. Two of them are Roman calendars, not worth notice. The third was published, in Latin, from a Greek manuscript, by Nic. Leonicus, Venice, 1516, 8vo. (Fabricius) : and this is reprinted in the collection beginning with Julius Firmicus, above noticed. We have mentioned the versions of the genuine work which are found with those of the Almagest. 5, 6. De Analemmate and Planisphaerium.
These works are obtained from the Arabic. Fabricius, who had not seen them, conjectures that they are the same, which is not correct. The Analemma is a collection of graphical processes for facilitating the construction of sun-dials, grounded on what we now call the orthographic projection of the sphere, a perspective in which, mathematically speaking, the eye is at an infinite distance. The Planisphere is a description of the stereographic projection, in which the eye is at the pole of the circle on which the sphere is projected. Delambre seems to think, from the former work, that Ptolemy knew the gnomonic projection, in which the eye is at the centre of the sphere : but, though he uses some propositions which are closely connected with the theory ofthat projection, we cannot find any thing which indicates distinct knowledge of it. Edition
There is but one edition of the work De Analemmate, edited by Commandine, Rome, 1562, 4to. (Lalande says there is a Venetian title of the same date. He also mentions another edition, Rome, 1572, 4to., perhaps an error of copying). Nothing is told about the Arabic original, or the translator.
The Planisphaerium first appeared in print in the edition of the Geography, Rome (?), 1507, fol. (Hoffmann); next in Valder's collection, entitled "Sphaerae atque Astrorum Coelestium Ratio ...," Basle (? no place is named), 1536, 4to. With this is joined the Planisphaerium of Jordanus. There is also an edition of Toulouse, 1544, fol. (Hoffmann). But the best edition is that of Commandine, Venice, 1558, 4to. Lalande says it was reprinted in 1588. Suidas records that Ptolemy wrote ἅπλωσις ἐπιφανείας σφαίρας, which is commonly taken to be the work on the planisphere. Both the works are addressed to Syrus. 7. Περὶ ὑποθέσεων τῶν πλανωμένων, De Planetarum Hypothesibus.
This is a brief statement of the principal hypotheses employed in the Almagest (to which it refers in a preliminary address to Syrus) for the explanation of the heavenly motions. Simplicius refers to two books of hypotheses, of which we may suppose this is one. Editions
It was first printed (Gr. Lat.) by Bainbridge, with the Sphere of Proclus and the canon above noted, London, 1620, 4to., with a page of Bainbridge's corrections at the end; afterwards by Halma, as already described. 8. Ἁρμονικῶν βιβλία γʼ.
This is a treatise on the theory of the musical scale. Editions
It was first published (Gr. Lat.) in the collection of Greek musicians, by Gogavinus. Venice, 1562, 4to. (Fabricius). Next by Wallis (Gr. Lat.), Oxford, 1682, 4to., with various readings and copious notes. This last edition was reprinted (with Porphyry's commentary, then first published) in the third volume of Wallis's works, Oxford, 1699, folio. 9. Περὶ κριτηρίου καὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ, De Judicandi Facultate et Animli Principatu
A metaphysical work, attributed to Ptolemy. Editions
It was edited by Bouillaud (Gr. Lat.), Paris, 1663, 4to., and the edition had a new title page (and nothing more) in 1681. Other works
In Lalande we find attributed to Ptolemy, "Regulae Artis Mathematicae" (Gr. Lat.),--1569, 8vo., with explanations by Erasmus Reinhold.
The collection made by Fabricius of the lost works of Ptolemy is as follows :--From Simplicius, Περὶ μετρησέως μονόβιβλος, to prove that there can be only three dimensions of space; Περὶ ῥοπῶν βιβλίον, mentioned also by Eutocius; Στοιχεῖα, two books of hypotheses. From Suidas, three books Μηχανικῶν. From Heliodorus and Simplicius, Ὀπτικὴ πραγματεία. From Tzetzes, Περιήγησις ; and from Stephen of Byzantium, Περίπλους. There have been many modern forgeries in Ptolemy's name, mostly astrological.
It must rest an unsettled question whether the work written by Ptolemy on optics be lost or not. The matter now stands thus: Alhazen, the principal Arab writer on optics, does not mention Ptolemy, nor indeed, any one else. Some passagesfrom Roger Bacon, taken to be opinions passed on a manuscript purporting to be that of Ptolemy, led Montucla to speak highly of Ptolemy as an optical writer. This mention probably led Laplace to examine a Latin version from the Arabic, existing in the Royal Library at Paris, and purporting to be Ptolemy's treatise. The consequence was Laplace's assertion that Ptolemy had given a detailed account of the phenomenon of astronomical refraction. This remark of Laplace led Humboldt to examine the manuscript, and to call the attention of Delambre to it. Delambre accordingly gave a full account of the work in his Histoire de l'Astronomie Ancienne, vol. ii. pp. 411-431. The manuscript is headed Incipit Liber Ptholemaei de Opticis sive Aspectibus translates ab Ammiraco [or Ammirato] Eugenio Sicelo. It consists of five books, of which the first is lost and the others somewhat defaced. It is said there is in the Bodleian a manuscript with the whole of five books of a similar title. The first three books left give such a theory of vision as might be expected from a writer who had the work attributed to Euclid in his mind. But the fifth book does actually give an account of refraction, with experimental tables upon glass, water, and air, and an account of the reason and quantity of astronomical refraction, in all respects better than those of Alhazen and Tycho Brahé, or of any one before Cassini. With regard to the genuineness of the book, on the one hand there is its worthiness of Ptolemy on the point of refraction, and the attribution of it to him. On the other hand, there is the absence of allusion, either to the Almagest in the book on optics, or to the subject of refraction in the Almagest. Delambre, who appears convinced of the genuineness, supposes that it was written after the Almagest. But on this supposition,it must be supposed that Ptolemy, who does not unfrequently refer to the Almagest in his other writings, has omitted to do so in this one, and that upon points which are taken from the Almagest, as the assertion that the moon has a colour of its own, seen in eclipses. But what weighs most with us is the account which Delambre gives of the geometry of the author. Ptolemy was in geometry, perspicuous, elegant, profound, and powerful; the author of the optics could not even succeed in being clear on the very points in which Euclid (or another, if it be not Euclid) had been clear before him. Delambre observes, in two passages, "La demonstration de Ptolémée est fort embrouilleé; celle d'Euclide est et plus courte et plus claire," .... "Euclide avait prouvé proposition 21 et 22, que les objets paraissent diminudés dans les miroirs convexes. On entrevoit que Ptolémée a voulu aussi démontrer les mêmes propositions." Again, the refraction apart, Delambre remarks of Alhazen that he is "plus riche, plus savant, et plus géométre que Ptolémée." Taking all this with confidence, for Delambre, though severe, was an excellent judge of relative merit, we think the reader of the Almagest will pause before he believes that the man who had written this last work (which supposition is absolutely necessary) became a poor geometer, on the authority of one manuscript headed with his name. The subject wants further investigation from such sources as still exist : it is not unlikely that the Arabic original may be found. Were we speaking for Ptolemy, we should urge that a little diminution of his fame as a mathematician would be well compensated by so splendid an addition to his experimental character as the credit of a true theory of refraction. But the question is, how stands the fact ? and for our own parts, we cannot but suspend our opinion.
We now come to speak of Ptolemy as an astronomer, and of the contents of the Almagest. And with his name we must couple that of his great predecessor, Hipparchus. The latter was alive at B. C. 150, and the former at A. D. 150, which is of easy remembrance. From the latter labours of Ilipparchus to the earlier ones of Ptolemy, it is from 250 to 260 years. Between the two there is nothing to fill the gap : we cannot construct an intermediate school out of the names of Geminus, Poseidonius, Theodosius, Sosigenes, Hyginus, Manilius, Seneca, Menelaus, Cleomedes, &c. : and we have no others. We must, therefore, regard Ptolemy as the first who appreciated Hipparchus, and followed in his steps. This is no small merit in itself.
What Hipparchus did is to be collected mostly from the writings of Ptolemy himself, who has evidently intended that his predecessor should lose no fame in his hands. The historian who has taken most pains to discriminate, and to separate what be held rather too partial to the predecessor of Ptolemy, those who think so will be obliged to admit that he gives his verdict upon the evidence, and not upon any prepossession gained before trial. He is too much given, it may be, to try an old astronomer by what he has done for us, but this does not often disturb his estimate of the relative merit of the ancients. And it is no small testimony that an historian so deeply versed in modern practice, so conversant with ancient writings, so niggard of his praise, and so apt to deny it altogether to any which has since been surpassed, cannot get through his task without making it evident that Ilipparchus has become a chief favourite. The summing up on the merits of the trite father of astronomy, as the historian calls him, is the best enumeration of his services which we can make, and will save the citation of authorities. The following is translated from the preliminary discourse (which, it is important to remember, means the last part written) of the Histoire de l'Astronomie Ancienne.
"Let no one be astonished at the errors of half a degree with which we charge Hipparchus, perhaps with an air of reproach. We must bear in mind that his astrolabe was only an armillary sphere ; that its diameter was but moderate, the subdivisions of a degree hardly sensible; and that he had either telescope, vernier, nor micrometer. What could we do even now, if we were deprived of these helps, if we were ignorant of refraction and of the true altitude of the pole, as to which, even at Alexandria, and in spite of armillary circles of every kind, an error of a quarter of a degree was committed. In our day we dispute about the fraction of a second; in that of Hipparchus they could not answer for the fraction of a degree; they might mistake * The reader must not think that Delambre says the diameter of the sun is a degree, or near it. By not answering for the fraction of a degree, he means that they could be sure of no more than the nearest degree, which leaves them open to any error under half a degree, which is about the diameter of the sun or moon. by as much as the diameter of the sun or moon. Let us rather turn our attention to the essential services rendered by Hipparchus to astronomy, of which he is the real founder. He is the first who gave and demonstrated the means of solving all triangles, rectilinear and spherical, both. He constructed a table of chords, of which he made the same sort of use as we make of our sines. He made more observations than his predecessors, and understood them better. He established the theory of the sun in such a manner that Ptolemy, 263 years afterwards, found nothing to change for th better. It is true that he was mistaken in the amount of the sun's inequality; but I have shown that this arose from a mistake of half a day in the time of the solstice. He himself admits that his result may be wrong by a quarter of a day; and we may always, without scruple, double the error supposed by any author, without doubting his good faith, but only attributing self-delusion. He determined the first inequality of the moon, and Ptolemy changed nothing in it; he gave the motion of the moon, of her apogee and of her nodes, and Ptolemy's corrections are but slight and of more than doubtful goodness. He had a glimpse (il a entrevu) of the second inequality; he made all the observations necessary for a discovery the honour of which was reserved for Ptolemy; a discovery which perhaps he had not time to finish, but for which he had prepared every thing. He showed that all the hypotheses of his predecessors were insufficient to explain the double inequality of the planets; he predicted that nothing would do except the combination of the two hypotheses of the excentric and epicycle. Observations were wanting to him, because these demand intervals of time exceeding the duration of the longest life : he prepared them for his successors. We owe to his catalogue the important knowledge of the retrograde motion of the equinoctial points. We could, it is true, obtain this knowledge from much better observations, made during the last hundred years : but such observations would not give proof that the motion is sensibly uniform for a long succession of centuries ; and the observations of Hipparchus, by their number and their antiquity, in spite of the errors which we cannot help finding in them, give us this important confirmation of one of the fundamental points of Astronomy. He was here the first discoverer. He invented the planisphere, or the mode of representing the starry heavens upon a plane, and of producing the solutions of problems of spherical astronomy, in a manner often as exact as, and more commodious than, the use of the globe itself. He is also the father of true geography, by his happy idea of marking the position of spots on the earth, as was done with the stars, by circles drawn from the pole perpendicularly to the equator, that is, by latitudes and longitudes. His method of eclipses was long the only one by which difference of meridians could be determined; and it is by the projection of his invention that to this day we construct our maps of the world and our best geographical charts."
We shall now proceed to give a short synopsis of the subjects treated in the Almagest : the reader will find a longer and better one in the second volume of the work of Delambre just cited.
The first book opens with some remarks on theory and practice, on the division of the sciences, and the certainty of mathematical knowledge : this preamble concludes with an announcement of the author's intention to avail himself of his predecessors, to run over all that has been sufficiently explained, and to dwell upon what has not been done completely and well. It then describes as the intention of the work to treat in order:--the relations of the earth and heaven; the effect of position upon the earth; the theory of the sun and moon, without which that of the stars cannot be undertaken; the sphere of the fixed stars, and those of the five stars called planets. Arguments are then produced for the spherical form and motion of the heavens, for the sensibly spherical form of the earth, for the earth being in the centre of the heavens, for its being but a point in comparison with the distances of the stars, and its having no motion of translation. Some, it is said, admitting these reasons, nevertheless think that the earth may have a motion of rotation, which causes the (then) only apparent motion of the heavens. Admiring the simplicity of this solution, Ptolemy then gives his reasons why it cannot be. With these, as well as his preceding arguments, our readers are familiar. Two circular celestial motions are then admitted: one which all the stars have in common, another which several of them have of their own. From several expressions here used, various writers have imagined that Ptolemy held the opinion maintained by many of his followers, namely, that the celestial spheres are solid. Delambre inclines to the contrary, and we follow him. It seems to us that, though, as was natural, Ptolemy was led into the phraseology of the solid-orb system, it is only in the convenient mode which is common enough in all systems. When a modern astronomer speaks of the variation of the eccentricity of the moon's orbit as producing a certain effect upon, say her longitude, any one might suppose that this orbit was a solid transparent tube, within which the moon is materially restrained to move. Had it not been for the notion of his successors, no one would have attributed the same to Ptolemy: and if the literal meaning of phrases have weight, Copernicus is at least as much open to a like conclusion as Ptolemy.
Then follows the geometrical exposition of the mode of obtaining a table of chords, and the table itself to half degrees for the whole of the semicircle, with differences for minutes, after the manner of recent modern tables. This morsel of geometry is one of the most beautiful in the Greek writers: some propositions from it are added to many editions of Euclid. Delambre, who thinks as meanly as he can of Ptolemy on all occasions, mentions it with a doubt as to whether it is his own, or collected from his predecessors. In this, as in many other instances, he shows no attempt to judge a mathematical argument by ally thing except its result : had it been otherwise, the unity and power of this chapter would have established a strong presumption in favour of its originality. Though Hipparchus constructed chords, it is to be remembered we know nothing of his manner as a mathematician; nothing, indeed, except some results. The next chapter is on the obliquity of the ecliptic as determined by observation. It is followed by spherical geometry and trigonometry enough for the determination of the connection between the sun's right ascension, declination, and longitude, and for the formation of a table of declinations to each degree of longitude. Delambre says he found both this and the table of chords very exact.
The second book is one of deduction from the general doctrine of the sphere, on the effect of position on the earth, the longest days, the determination of latitude, the points at which the sun is vertical, the equinoctial and solsticial shadows of the gnomon, and other things which change with the spectator's position. Also on the arcs of the ecliptic and equator which pass the horizon simultaneously, with tables for different climates, or parallels of latitude having longest days of given durations. This is followed by the consideration of oblique spherical problems, for the purpose of calculating angles made by the ecliptic with the vertical, of which he gives tables.
The third book is on the length of the year, and on the theory of the solar motion. Ptolemy informs us of the manner in which Hipparchus made the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes, by observation of the revolution from one equinox to the same again being somewhat shorter than the actual revolution in the heavens. He discusses the reasons which induced his predecessor to think there was a small inequality in the length of the year, decides that he was wrong, and produces the comparison of his own observations with those of Hipparchus, to show that the latter had the true and constant value (one three-hundredth of a day less than 365 1/4 days). As this is more than six minutes too great, and as the error, in the whole interval between the two, amounted to more than a day and a quarter, Delambre is surprised, and with reason, that Ptolemy should not have detected it. He hints that Ptolemy's observations may have been calculated from their required result; on which we shall presently speak. It must be remembered that Delambre watches every process of Ptolemy with the eye of a lynx, to claim it for Hipparchus, if he can; and when it is certain that the latter did not attain it, then he might have attained it, or would if he had lived, or at the least it is to be matter of astonishment that he did not.
Ptolemy then begins to explain his mode of applying the celebrated theory of excentrics, or revolutions in a circle which has the spectator out of its centre; of epicycles, or circles, the centres of which revolve on other circles, &c. As we cannot here give mathematical explanations, we shall refer the reader to the general notion which he probably has on this subject, to Narrien's History of Astronomy, or to Delambre himself. As to the solar theory, it may be sufficient to say that Ptolemy explains the one inequality then known, as Hipparchus did before him, by the supposition that the circle of the sun is an excentric; and that he does not appear to have added to his predecessor at all, in discovery at least.
On this theory of epicycles, we may say a word once for all. The commbn notion is that it was a cumbrous and useless apparatus, thrown away by the moderns, and originating in the Ptolemaic, or rather Platonic, notion, that all celestial motions must either be circular and uniform motions, or compounded of them. But on the contrary, it was an elegant and most efficient mathematical instrument, which enabled Hipparchus and Ptolemy to represent and predict much better than their predecessors had done; and it was probably at least as good a theory as their instruments and capabilities of observation required or deserved. And many readers will be surprised to hear that the modern astronomer to this day resolves the same motions into epicyclic ones. When the latter expresses a result by series of sines and cosines (especially when the angle is a mean motion or a multiple of it) he uses epicycles; and for one which Ptolemy scribbled on the heavens, to use Milton's phrase, he scribbles twenty. The difference is, that the ancient believed in the necessity of these instruments, the modern only in their convenience; the former used those which do not sufficiently represent actual phenomena, the latter knows how to choose better; the former taking the instruments to be the actual contrivances of nature, was obliged to make one set explain every thing, the latter will adapt one set to latitude, another to longitude, another to distance. Difference enough, no doubt; but not the sort of difference which the common notion supposes.
The fourth and fifth books are on the theory of the moon, and the sixth is on eclipses. As to the moon, Ptolemy explains the first inequality of the moon's motion, which answers to that of the sun, and by virtue of which (to use a mode of expression very common in astronomy, by which a word properly representative of a phenomenon is put for its cause) the motions of the sun and moon are below the average at their greatest distances from the earth, and above it at their least. This inequality was well known, and also the motion of the lunar apogee, as it is called; that is, the gradual change of the position of the point in the heavens at which the moon appears when her distance is greatest. Ptolemy, probably more assisted by records of the observations of Hipparchus than by his own, detected that the single inequality above mentioned was not sufficient, but that the lunar motions, as then known, could not be explained without supposition of another inequality, which has since been named the evection. Its effect, at the new and full moon, is to make the effect of the preceding inequality appear different at different times; and it depends not only on the position of the sun and moon, but on that of the moon's apogee. The disentanglement of this inequality, the magnitude of which depends upon three angles, and the adaptation of an epicyclic hypothesis to its explanation, is the greatest triumph of ancient astronomy.
The seventh and eighth books are devoted to the stars. The celebrated catalogue (of which we have before spoken) gives the longitudes and latitudes of 1022 stars, described by their positions in the constellations. It seems not unlikely that in the main this catalogue is really that of Hipparchus, altered to Ptolemy's own time by assuming, the value of the precession of the equinoxes given by IIipparchus as the least which could be ; some changes having also been made by Ptoiemy's own observations. This catalogue is pretty well shown by Delambre (who is mostly successful when he attacks Ptolemy as an observer) to represent the heaven of Hipparchus, altered by a wrong precession, better than the heaven of the time at which the catalogue was made. And it is observed that though Ptolemy observed at Alexandria, where certain stars are visible which are not visible at Rhodes (where Hipparchus observed), none of those stars are in Ptolemy's catalogue. But it may also be noticed, on the other hand, that one original mistake (in the equinox) would have the effect of making all the longitudes wrong by the same quantity; and this one mistake might have occurred, whether from observation or calculation, or both, in such a manner as to give the suspicious appearances.
The remainder of the thirteen books are devoted to the planets, on which Hipparchus could do little, except observe, for want of long series of observations. Whatever we may gather from scattered hints, as to something having been done by Hipparchus himself, by Apollonius, or by any others, towards an explanation of the great features of planetary motion, there can be no doubt that the theory presented by Ptolemy is his own.
These are the main points of the Almagest, so far as they are of general interest. Ptolemy appears in it a splendid mathematician, and an (at least) indifferent observer. It seems to us most likely that he knew his own deficiency, and that, as has often happened in similar cases, there was on his mind a consciousness of the superiority of Hipparchus which biassed him to interpret all his own results of observation into agreement with the predecessor from whom he feared, perhaps a great deal more than he knew of, to differ. But nothing can prevent his being placed as a fourth geometer with Euclid, Apollonius, and Archimedes. Delambre has used him, perhaps, harshly; being, certainly in one sense, perhaps in two, an indifferent judge of the higher kinds of mathematical merit.
As a literary work, the Almagest is entitled to a praise which is rarely given; and its author has shown abundant proofs of his conscientious fairness and nice sense of honour. It is pretty clear that the writings of Hipparchus had never been public property : the astronomical works which intervene between Hipparchus and Ptolemy are so poor as to make it evident that the spirit of the former had not infused itself into such a number of men as would justify us in saying astronomy had a scientific school of followers. Under these circumstances, it was open to Ptolemy, had it pleased him, most materially to underrate, if not entirely to suppress, the labours of Hipparchus; and without the fear of detection. Instead of this, it is from the former alone that we now chiefly know the latter, who is constantly cited as the authority, and spoken of as the master. Such a spirit, shown by Ptolemy, entitles us to infer that had he really used the catalogue of Hipparchus in the manner hinted at by Delambre, he would have avowed what he had done; still, under the circumstances of agreement noted above, we are not at liberty to reject the suspicion. We imagine, then, tnat Ptolemy was strongly biassed towards those methods both of observation and interpretation, which would place him in agreement, or what he took for agreement, with the authority whom in his own mind he could not disbelieve. (Halma and Delambre app. citt. ; Weidler, Hist. Astron. ; Lalande, Bibliogr. Astron. ; Hoffman, Lexic. Bibliogr. ; the editions named, except when otherwise stated ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec., &c.) [A. De M.] The Geographical System of Ptolemy. Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις
The Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις of Ptolemy, in eight books, may be regarded as an exhibition of the final state of geographical knowledge among the ancients, in so far as geography is the science of determining the positions of places on the earth's surface; for of the other branch of the science, the description of the objects of interest connected with different countries and places, in which the work of Strabo is so rich, that of Ptolemy contains comparatively nothing. With the exception of the introductory matter in the first book, and the latter part of the work, it is a mere catalogue of the names of places, with their longitudes and latitudes, and with a few incidental references to objects of interest. It is clear that Ptolemy made a diligent use of all the information that he had access to; and the materials thus collected he arranged according to the principles of mathematical geography. His work was the last attempt made by the ancients to form a complete geographical system; it was accepted as the text-book of the science; and it maintained that position during the middle ages, and until the fifteenth century, when the rapid progress of maritime discovery caused it to be superseded.
The treatise of Ptolemy was based on an earlier work by Marinus of Tyre, of which we derive almost our whole knowledge from Ptolemy himself (1.6, &c.). He tells us that Marinus was a diligent inquirer, and well acquainted with all the facts of the science, which had been collected before his time; but that his system required correction, both as to the method of delineating the sphere on a plane surface, and as to the computation of distances : he also informs us that the data followed by Marinus had been, in many cases, superseded by the more accurate accounts of recent travellers. It is, in fact, as the corrector of those points in the work of Marinus which were erroneous or defective, that Ptolemy introduces himself to his readers; and his discussion of the necessary corrections occupies fifteen chapters of his first book (cc. 6-20). The most important of the errors which he ascribes to Marinus, is that he assigned to the known part of the world too small a length from east to west, and too small a breadth from north to south. He himself has fallen into the opposite error.
Before giving an account of the system of Ptolemy, it is necessary to notice the theory of Brehmer, in his Enldeckungen im Alterthum, that the work of Marinus of Tyre was based upon ancient charts and other records of the geographical researches of the Phoenicians. This theory finds now but few defenders. It rests almost entirely on the presumption that the widely extended commerce of the Phoenicians would give birth to various geographical documents, to which Marinus, living at Tyre, would lave access. But against this may be set the still stronger presumption, that a scientific Greek writer, whether at Tyre or elsewhere, would avail himself of the rich materials collected by Greek investigators, especially from the time of Alexander; and this presumption is converted into a certainty by the information which Ptolemy gives us respecting the Greek itineraries and peripluses which Marinus had used as authorities. The whole question is thoroughly discussed by Heeren, in his Commentatio de Fontibus Geographicorum Ptolemaei, Tabularumque iis annexarum, Gotting. 1827, which is appended to the English translation of his ideen (Asiatic Nations. vol. iii. Append. C.). He shows that Brehmer has greatly overrated the geographical knowledge of the Phoenicians, and that his hypothesis is altogether groundless.
In examining the geographical system of Ptolemy, it is convenient to speak separately of its mathematical and historical portions; that is, of his notions respecting the figure of the earth, and the mode of determining positions on its surface, and his knowledge, derived from positive information, of the form and extent of the different countries, and the actual positions and distances of the various places in the then known world.
1. The Mathematical Geography of Ptolemy.-- Firstly, as to the figure of the earth. Ptolemy assumes, what in his mathematical works he undertakes to prove, that the earth is neither a plane surface, nor fan-shaped, nor quadrangular, nor pyramidal, but spherical. It does not belong to the present subject to follow him through the detail of his proofs.
The mode of laying down positions on the sur face of this sphere, by imagining great circles passing through the poles, and called meridians, because it is mid-day at the same time to all places through which each of them passes; and other circles, one of which was the great circle equidistant from the poles (the equinoctial line or the equator), and the other small circles parallel to that one; and the method of fixing the positions of these several circles, by dividing each great circle of the sphere into 360 equal parts (now called degrees, but by the Greeks "parts of a great circle"), and imagining a meridian to be drawn through each division of the equator, and a parallel through each division of any meridian ;--all this had been settled from the time of Eratosthenes. What we owe to Ptolemy or to Marinus (for it cannot be said with certainty to which) is the introduction of the terms longitude (μῆκος and latilude (πλάτος), the former to describe the position of any place with reference to the length of the known world, that is, its distance, in degrees, from a fixed meridian, measured along its own parallel; and the latter to describe the position of a place with reference to the breadth of the known world, that is, its distance, in degrees, from the equator, measured along its own meridian. Having introduced these terms, Marinus and Ptolemy designated the positions of the places they mentioned, by stating the numbers which repesent the longitudes and latitudes of each. The subdivision of the degree adopted by Ptolemy is into twelfths.
Connected with these fixed lines, is the subject of climates, by which the ancients understood belts of the earth's surface, divided by lines parallel to the equator, those lines being determined according to the different lengths of the day (the longest day was the standard) at different places, or, which is the same thing, by the different lengths, at different places, of the shadow cast hy a gnomon of the same altitude at noon of the same day. This system of climates was, in fact, all imperfect development of the more complete system of parallels of latitude. It was, however, retained for convenience of reference. For a further explanation of it, and for an account of the climates of Ptolemy, see the Dictionary of Antiquities, art. Clima, 2nd ed.
Next, as to the size of the earth. Various attempts had been made, long before the time of Ptolemy, to calculate the circumference of a great circle of the earth by measuring the length of an arc of a meridian, containing a known number of degrees. Thus Eratosthenes, who was the first to attempt any complete computation of this sort from his own observations, assuming Syene and Alexandria to lie under the same meridian * As we are not dealing here with the fucts of geography, but only with the opinions of the ancient geographers, we do not stay to correct the errors in the data of these computations., and to be 5000 stadia apart, and the arc between them to be 1-50th of the circumference of a great circle, obtained 250,000 stadia for the whole circumference, and 6944 stadia for the length of a degree; but, in order to make this a convenient whole number, he called it 700 stadia, and so got 252,000 stadia for the circumference of a great circle of the earth (Cleomed. Cyc. Theor. 1.8; Ukert, Geogr. d. Griech. u. Römer, vol. i. pt. 2, pp. 42-45). The most important of the other computations of this sort were those of Poseidonius, (for he made two,) which were founded on different estimates of the distance between Rhodes and Alexandria : the one gave, like the computation of Eratosthenes, 252,000 stadia for the circumference of a great circle, and 700 stadia for the length of a degree; and the other gave 180,000 stadia for the circumference of a great circle, and 500 stadia for the length of a degree (Cleomed. 1.10; Strab. ii. pp. 86, 93, 95, 125 ; Ukert, l.c. p. 48). The truth lies just between the two; for, taking the Roman mile of 8 stadia as 1-75th of a degree, we have (75 x 8 =) 600 stadia for the length of a degree. It will be observed that we recognise no other stadium than the Olympic, of 600 Greek feet, or 1-8th of a Roman mile. The reasons for this are stated in the Dictionary of Antiquities, art. Stadium
Ptolemy followed the second computation of Poseidonius, namely, that which made the earth 180,000 stadia in circumference, and the degree 500 stadia in length; but it should be observed that he, as well as all the ancient geographers, speaks of his computation as confessedly only an approximation to the truth. He describes, in bk. 1.100.3, the method of finding, from the direct distance in stadia of two places, even though they be not under the same meridian, the circumference of the whole earth, and conversely. There having been found, by means of an astronomical instrument, two fixed stars distant one degree from each other, the places on the earth were sought to which those stars were in the zenith, and the distance between those places being ascertained, this distance was, of course (excluding errors), the length of a degree of the great circle passing through those places, whether that circle were a meridian or not.
The next point to be determined was the mode of representing the surface of the earth with its meridians of longitude and parallels of latitude, on a sphere, and on a plane surface. This subject is discussed by Ptolemy in the last seven chapters of his first book (18-24), in which he points out the imperfections of the system of delineation adopted by Marinus, and expounds his own. Of the two kinds of delineation, he observes, that on a sphere is the easier to make, as it involves no method of projection, but is a direct representation; but, on the other hand, it is inconvenient to use, as only a small portion of the surface can be seen at once : while the converse is true of a map on a plane surface. The earliest geographers had no guide for their maps but reported distances and general notions of the figures of the masses of land and water. Eratosthenes was the first who called in the aid of astronomy, but he did not attempt any complete projection of the sphere (see Eratosthenes, and Ukert, vol. i. pt. 2, pp. 192, 193, and plate ii., in which Ukert attempts a restoration of the map of Eratosthenes). Hipparchus, in his work against Eratosthenes, insisted much more fully on the necessary connection between geography and astronomy, and was the first who attempted to lay down the exact positions of places according to their latitudes and longitudes. In the science of projection, however, he went no further than the method of representing the meridians and parallels by parallel straight lines, the one set intersecting the other at right angles. Other systems of projection were attempted, so that at the time of Marinus there were several methods in use, all of which he rejected, and devised a new system, which is described in the following manner by Ptolemy (1.20, 24, 25). On account of the importance of the countries round the Mediterranean, he kept as his datum line the old standard line of Eratosthenes and his successors, namely the parallel through Rhodes, or the 36th degree of latitude. He then calculated, from the length of a degree on the equator, the length of a degree on this parallel; taking the former at 500 stadia, he reckoned the latter at 400. Having divided this parallel into degrees, he drew perpendiculars through the points of division for the meridians; and his parallels of latitude were straight lines parallel to that through Rhodes. The result, of course, was, as Ptolemy observes, that the parts of the earth north of the parallel of Rhodes were represented much too long, and those south of that line much too short; and further that, when Marinus came to lay down the positions of places according to their reported distances, those north of the line were too near, and those south of it too far apart, as compared with the surface of his map. Moreover, Ptolemy observes, the projection is an incorrect representation, inasmuch as the parallels of latitude ought to be circular arcs, and not straight lines.
Ptolemy then proceeds to describe his own method, which does not admit of an abridged statement, and cannot be understood without a figure. The reader is therefore referred for it to Ptolemy's own work (1.24), and to the accounts given by Ukert (l.c. pp. 195, &c.), Mannert (vol. i. pp. 127, &c.), and other geographers. All that can be said of it here is that Ptolemy represents the parallels of latitude as arcs of concentric circles (their centre representing the North Pole), the chief of which are those passing through Thule, Rhodes, and Meroe, the Equator, and the one through Prasum. The meridians of longitude are represented by straight lines which converge, north of the equator, towards the common centre of the arcs which represents the parallels of latitude; and, south of it, towards a corresponding point, representing the South Pole. Having laid down these lines, he proceeds to show how to give to them a curved form, so as to make them a truer representation of the meridians on the globe itself. The portion of the surface of the earth thus delineated is,in length, awhole hemisphere, and, in breadth, the part which lies between 63° of north latitude and 16 3/12° of south latitude.
2. The Historical or Positive Geography of Ptolemy.-- The limits just mentioned, as those within which Ptolemy's projection of the sphere was contained, were also those which he assigned to the known world. His own account of its extent and divisions is given in the fifth chapter of his seventh book. The boundaries which he there mentions are, on the east, the unknown land adjacent to the eastern nations of Asia, namely, the Sinae and the people of Serica; on the south, the unknown land which encloses the Indian Sea, and that adjacent to the district of Aethiopia called Agisymba, on the south of Libya; on the west, the unknown land which surrounds the Aethiopic gulf of Libya, and the Western Ocean; and on the north, the continuation of the ocean, which surrounds the British islands and the northern parts of Europe, and the unknown land adjacent to the northern regions of Asia, namely Sarmatia, Scythia, and Serica.
He also defines the boundaries by meridians and parallels, as follows. The southern limit is the parallel of 16 3/12° S. lat., which passes through a point as far south of the equator, as Meroe is north of it, and which he elsewhere describes as the parallel through Prasum, a promontory of Aethiopia : and the northern limit is the parallel of 63° N. lat., which passes through the island of Thule : so that the whole extent from north to south is 79 3/12°, or in round numbers, 80°; that is, as nearly as possible, 40,000 stadia. The eastern limit is the meridian which passes through the metropolis of the Sinae, which is 119 1/2 ° east of Alexandria, or just about eight hours : and the western limit is the meridian drawn through the Insulae Fortunatae (the Canaries) which is 60 1/2 °, or four hours, west of Alexandria, and therefore 180°, or twelve hours, west of the easternmost meridian. The various lengths of the earth, in itinerary measure, he reckons at 90,000 stadia along the equator (500 stadia to a degree), 40,000 stadia along the northernmost parallel (222 2/9 stadia to a degree), and 72,000 stadia along the parallel through Rhodes (400 stadia to a degree), along which parallel most of the measurements had been reckoned.
In comparing these computations with the actual distances, it is not necessary to determine the true position of such doubtful localities as Thule and the metropolis of the Sinae; for there are many other indications in Ptolemy's work, from which we can ascertain nearly enough what limits he intends. We cannot be far wrong in placing his northern boundary at about the parallel of the Zetland Isles, and his eastern boundary at about the eastern coast of Cochin China, in fact just at the meridian of 110° E. long. fromm Greenwich), or perhaps at the opposite side of the Chinese Sea, namely, at the Philippine Islands at the meridian of 120°. It will then be seen that he is not far wrong in his dimensions from north to south; a circumstance natural enough, since the methods of taking latitudes with tolerable precision had long been known, and he was very careful to avail himself of every recorded observation which he could discover. But his longitudes are very wide of the truth, his length of the known world, from east to west, being much too great. The westernmost of the Canaries is in a little more than 18° W. long., so that Ptolemy's easternmost meridian (which, as just stated, is in 110° or 120° E. long.) ought to have been that of 128 or 138°, or in round numbers 130° or 140°, instead of 180° ; a difference of 50° or 40°, that is, from 1-7th to 1-9th of the earth's circumference.
It is well worthy, however, of remark in passing, that the modern world owes much to this error ; for it tended to encourage that belief in the practicability of a western passage to the Indies, which occasioned the discovery of America by Columbus.
There has been much speculation and discussion as to the cause of Ptolemy's great error in this matter; but, after making due allowance for the uncertainties attending the computations of distance on which he proceeded, it seems to us that the chief cause of the error is to be found in the fact already stated, that he took the length of a degree exactly one sixth too small, namely, 500 stadia instead of 600. As we have already stated, on his own authority, he was extremely careful to make use of every trustworthy observation of latitude and longitude which he could find; but he himself complains of the paucity of such observations ; and it is manifest that those of longitude must have been fewer and less accurate than those of latitude, both for other reasons, and chiefly on account of the greater difficulty of taking them. He had, therefore, to depend for his longitudes chiefly on the process of turning into degrees the distances computed in stadia; and hence, supposing the distances to be tolerably correct, his error as to the longitudes followed inevitably from the error in his scale. Taking Ptolemy's own computation in stadia, and turning it into degrees of 600 stadia each, we get the following results. The length of the known world, measured along the equator, is 90,000 stadia; and hence its length in degrees is 90,000/600 = 150°; the error being thus reduced from 50° or 40° to 20° 10°. But a still fairer method is to take the measurement along the parallel of Rhodes, namely 72,000 stadia. Now the true length of a degree of latitude in that parallel is about 47' = 47/60 of a degree of a great circle = 47/60 x 600 stadia = 470 stadia, instead of 400; and the 72,000 stadia give a little over 153 degrees, a result lamost identical with the former. The remaining error of 20° at the most, or 10° at the least, is, we think, sufficiently accounted for by the errors in the itinerary measures, which experience shows to be almost always on the side of making distances too great, and which, in this case, would of course go on increasing, the further the process was continued eastward. Of this source of error Ptolemy was himself aware; and accordingly he tells us that, among the various computations of a distance, he always chose then least; but, for the reason just stated, that least one was probably still too great.
The method pursued by Ptolemy in laying down the actual positions of places has already been incidentally mentioned in the foregoing discussion. He fixed as many positions as possible by their longitudes and latitudes, and from these positions he determined the others by converting their distances in stadia into degrees. For further details the reader is referred to his own work.
His general ideas of the form of the known world were in some paints more correct, in others less so, than those of Strabo. The elongation of the whole of course led to a corresponding distortion of the shapes of the several countries. He knew the southern part of the Baltic, but was not aware of its being an inland sea. He makes the Palus Maeotis far too large and extends it far too much to the north. The Caspian he correctly makes an inland sea (instead of a gulf of the Northern Ocean), but he errs greatly as to its size and form, making its length from E. to W. more than twice that from N. to S. In the southern and south-eastern parts of Asia, he altogether fails to represent the projection of Hindostan, while, on the other hand, he gives to Ceylon (Taprobane) more than four times its proper dimensions, probably through confounding it with the mainland of India itself, and brings down the southern part of it below the equator. He shows an acquaintance with the Malay peninsula (his Aurea Chersonesus) and the coast of Cochin China; but, probably through mistaking the eastern Archipelago for continuous land, he brings round the land which encloses his Sinus Magnus and the gulf of the Sinae (probably either the gulf of Siam and the Chinese Sea, or both confounded together) so as to make it enclose the whole of the Indian Ocean on the south. At the opposite extremity of the known world, his idea of the western coast of Africa is very erroneous. He makes it trend almost due south from the pillars of Hercules to the Hespera Keras in 85/12 N. lat., where a slight bend to the eastward indicates the Gulf of Guinea; but almost immediately afterwards the coast turns again to the S. S. W.; and from the expression already quoted, which Ptolemy uses to describe the boundary of the known world on this side, it would seem as if he believed that the land of Africa extended here considerably to the west. Concerning the interior of Africa he knew considerably more than his predecessors. Several modern geographers have drawn maps to represent the views of Ptolemy; one of the latest and best of which is that of Ukert (Geogr. d. Griech. u. Römer, vol. i. pl. 3).
Such are the principal features of Ptolemy's geographical system. It only remains to give a brief outline of the contents of his work, and to mention the principal editions of it. Enough has already been said respecting the first, or introductory book. The next six books and a half (ii.--7.4) are occupied with the description of the known world, beginning with the West of Europe, the description of which is contained in book ii.; next comes the East of Europe, in book iii.; then Africa, in book iv.; then Western or Lesser Asia, in book v.; then the Greater Asia, in book vi.; then India, the Chersonesus Aurea, Serica, the Sinae, and Taprobane, in book vii. cc. 1-4. The form in which the description is given is that of lists of places with their longitudes and latitudes, arranged under the heads, first, of the three continents, and then of the several countries and tribes. Prefixed to each section is a brief general description of the boundaries and divisions of the part about to be described; and remarks of a imiscellaueous character are interspersed among the lists, to which, however, they bear but a small proportion.
The remaining part of the seventh, and the whole of the eighth book, are occupied with a description of a set of maps of the known world, which is introduced by a remark at the end of the 4th chapter of the 7th book, which clearly proves that Ptolemy's work had originally a set of maps appended to it. In 100.5 he describes the general map of the world. In cc 6, 7, he takes up the subject of spherical delineation, and describes the armillary sphere, and its connection with the sphere of the earth. In the first two chapters of book viii., he explains the method of dividing the world into maps, and the mode of constructing each map and he then proceeds (cc. 3-28) to the description of the maps themselves, in number twenty-six, namely, ten of Europe, four of Libya, and twelve of Asia. The 29th chapter contains a list of the maps, and the countries represented in each; and the 30th an account of the lengths and breadths of the portions of the earth contained in the respective maps. These maps are still extant, and an account of them is given under Agathodaemon, who was either the original designer of them, under Ptolemy's direction, or the constructor of a new edition of them.
Enough has been already said to show the great value of Ptolemy's work, but its perfect integrity is another question. It is impossible but that a work, which was for twelve or thirteen centuries the text-book in geography, should have suffered corruptions and interpolations; and one writer has contended that the changes made in it during the middle ages were so great, that we can no longer recognise in it the work of Ptolemy (Schlözer, Nord, Gesch. in the Allgem. Welthistorie, vol. xxxi. pp. 148, 176). Mannert has successfully defended the genuineness of the work, and has shown to what an extent the eighth book may be made the means of detecting the corruptions in the body of the work. (vol. i. p. 174.) Editions Latin Editions
The Geographia of Ptolemy was printed in Latin, with the Maps, at Rome, 1462, 1475, 1478, 1482, 1486, 1490, all in folio : of these editions, those of 1482 and 1490 are the best : numerous other Latin editions appeared during the sixteenth century, the most important of which is that by Michael Servetus, Lugd. 1541, folio. Greek Editions
The Editio Princeps of the Greek text is that edited by Erasmus, Basil. 1533, 4to.; reprinted at Paris, 1546, 4to. The text of Erasmus was reprinted, but with a new Latin Version, Notes, and Indices, edited by Petrus Montanus, and with the Maps restored by Mercator, Amst. 1605, folio; and a still more valuable edition was brought out by Petrus Bertius, printed by Elzevir, with the maps coloured, and with the addition of the Peutingerian Tables, and other important illustrative matter, Lugd. Bat. 1619, folio; reprinted Antwerp, 1624, folio. The work also forms a part of the edition of Ptolemy's works, undertaken by the Abbé Halmer, but left unfinished at his death, Paris, 1813-1828, 4to.; this edition contains a French translation of the work. For an account of the less important editions, the editions of separate parts, the versions, and the works illustrating Ptolemy's Geography, see Hoffmann, Lex. Bibliog. Script. Graec. A useful little edition of the Greek text is contained in three volumes of the Tauchnitz classics, Lips. 1843, 32mo. [P.S]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Cyprus, was the younger brother of Ptolemy Auletes, king of Egypt, being like him an illegitimate son of Ptolemy Lathyrus. Notwithstanding this defect of birth he appears to have been acknowledged as king of Cyprus at the same time that his brother Auletes obtained possession of the throne of Egypt, B. C. 80. But he unfortunately neglected the precaution of making interest at Rome to obtain the confirmation of his sovereignty, and had the farther imprudence to give personal offence to P. Clodius, by neglecting to ransom him when he had fallen into the hands of the Cilician pirates (Strab. xiv. p.684; Appian, App. BC 2.23). He paid dearly for his niggardliness on this occasion, for when Clodius became tribune (B. C. 58), he brought forward a law to deprive Ptolemy of his kingdom, and reduce Cyprus to a Roman province. Cato, who was entrusted with the charge of carrying into execution this nefarious decree, sent to Ptolemy, advising him to submit, and offering him his personal safety, with the office of high-priest at Paphos, and a liberal maintenance. But the unhappy king, though he was wholly unprepared for resistance to the Roman power, had the spirit to refuse these offers, and put an end to his own life, B. C. 57. (Strab. 1. c.; D. C. 38.30, 39.22; Liv. Epit. civ.; Plut. Cat. Mi. 34_36; Appian, App. BC 2.23; Vell. 2.45; Cic. pro Sext. 26-28 ; V. Max. 9.4, ext. § 1.)
We are told that Ptolemy had disgraced himself by every species of vice (Vell. Pat. l.c.), but it appears certain that it was the vast treasures that he possessed, which, by attracting the cupidity of the Romans, became the cause of his destruction, of which his vices were afterwards made the pretext. [E.H.B]
king of Cyrene. [Ptolemaeus Apion.]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Egypt, surnamed SOTER (the Preserver), but perhaps more commonly known as the son of Lagus. His father was a Macedonian of ignoble birth [Lagus], but his mother Arsinoe had been a concubine of Philip of Macedon, on which account it seems to have been generally believed that Ptolemy was in reality the offspring of that monarch (Curt. 9.8.22; Paus. 1.6.2.) This could, indeed, hardly have been the case if Lucian's statement be correct (Macrob. 12), that Ptolemy was eighty-four years of age at the time of his death, as in that case he must have been born in B. C. 367, when Philip was not sixteen years old. But the authority of Lucian on this point can hardly outweigh the distinct assertions of other authors as to the existence of such a belief, and we must therefore probably assign his birth to a later period. Whatever truth there may have been in this report, it is certain that Ptolemy early enjoyed a distinction at the Macedonian court to which his father's obscurity would scarcely have entitled him, and we find him mentioned before the death of Philip among the friends and confidential advisers of the young Alexander. The part which he took in promoting the intrigue for the marriage of the prince with the daughter of Pixodarus, king of Caria, gave great offence to Philip, and Ptolemy was banished, together with all the other persons concerned. (Plut. Alex. 10 ; Arrian, Arr. Anab. 3.6.) On the accession of Alexander, however, B. C. 336, he was immediately recalled from exile, and treated with the utmost distinction. It is remarkable that we do not find him holding any special command, or acting any important part during the first few years of the expedition to Asia, though it is clear that he accompanied the king throughout this period. Indeed, his name is only twice mentioned previous to the year B. C. 330, when he obtained the honourable post of Somatophylax in the place of Demetrius, who had been implicated in the conspiracy of Philotas. (Arr. ib. 2.11, 3.18, 27.) But from this period we find him continually employed on the most important occasions, and rendering the most valuable services.
In the following campaign (329), after the army had crossed the Oxus, Ptolemy was sent forward with a strong detachment, to apprehend the traitor Bessus, whom he seized and brought before Alexander. Again, in the reduction of the revolted province of Sogdiana, and in the attack on the rock-fortress of Chorienes, he is mentioned as taking a conspicuous part, and commanding one of the chief divisions of the army. (Arr. Anab. 3.29, 30, 4.16, 21.) But it was especially during the campaigns in India that the services of Ptolemy shone the most conspicuous; and we find him displaying on numerous occasions all the qualities of an able and judicious general, in command of separate detachments, or of one of the divisions of the main army. In the conquest of the Aspasians and Assacenians, in the reduction of the fortress of Aornos, at the passage of the Hydaspes and the siege of Sangala, as well as in many minor operations, the name of Ptolemy is still among the most prominent. Nor was his personal valour less remarkable than his abilities as a general; and we find him on one occasion slaying with his own hand the chief of one of the Indian tribes in single combat. Some writers also ascribed to him a share in the glory of saving the life of Alexander among the Malli [Leonnatus], but it appears from his own testimony, as reported by Arrian and Curtius, that he was absent at the time on a separate command. (Arr. Anab. 4.24, 25, 29, 5.13, 23, 24, 6.5, 11; Curt. 8.10.21, 13.18_27, 14.15, 9.5.21.)
Numerous evidences occur during the same period of the high favour and personal consideration with which he was regarded by Alexander : we find him constantly in close attendance upon the king's person; and on occasion of the conspiracy of the pages it was he who, by discovering and revealing their treasonable designs, probably became the means of saving the life of his sovereign (Arr. 4.8, 13; Curt. 8.1. §§ 45, 48, 6.22, 9.6.15; Chares ap. Athen. 4.171c.). According to a marvellous tale related by several writers Alexander was soon after able to return the obligation and save the life of his friend and follower when wounded by a poisoned arrow, by applying a remedy suggested to him in a dream. (Curt. 9.8.22-27; Diod. 17.103; Strab. xv. p.723 ; Just. 12.10; Cic. de Divin. 2.66.) During the toilsome march through Gedrosia, Ptolemy once more commanded one of the three principal divisions of the army; and in the festivities at Susa was honoured with a crown of gold, while he obtained in marriage Artacama, a sister of Barsine. (Curt. 9.10.6; Diod. 17.104; Arr. Anab. 7.4; Plut. Eum. 1.) He is again mentioned as accompanying Alexander on his last military enterprize, the winter campaign against the Cosaaeans, B. C. 324. (Arr. it. 7.15.)
From all these facts it is clear that at the death of Alexander few among his friends and generals occupied so prominent a place as the son of Lagus, and Perdiccas appears to have looked upon him from the first as one of his most formidable rivals. But Ptolemy was too prudent to allow his ambition to lead him into any premature demonstrations of enmity. In the first assembly of the generals he had indeed proposed that the government should be administered by a council of officers; but this suggestion being rejected, he attached himself to the party of Perdiccas during the subsequent transactions. But he was far from losing sight of his own interests. It is said to have been by his advice that the different provinces and satrapies were portioned out among the generals, and he took care to secure for himself in the distribution the important government of Egypt, at once the most wealthy and the most secure from foreign invasion. (Curt. 10.6 §§ 13, 16, 7.16; Just. 13.2, 4 ; Arrian apud Phot. p. 69a; Dexippus, ibid. p. 64a; Paus. 1.6.2.) Thither he appears to have hastened as speedily as possible : and one of his first acts on arriving in his new government was to put to death Cleomenes, who had administered the province under Alexander with the title of receiver-general of tributes, and had been expressly appointed by the council of generals to continue as hyparch under Ptolemy. Cleomenes had amassed vast treasures by extortion and rapine, and his execution thus tended to conciliate the minds of the Egyptians at the same time that it removed out of the way of Ptolemy a partisan of Perdiccas, and put him in possession of this accumulated treasure. (Paus. 1.6.3; Arrian, l.c.; Dexippus, 1. c.)
All his efforts were now directed to strengthen himself in his new position : he attached his subjects by the mildness of his rule at the same time that he raised large forces, and concluded a secret league with Antipater against their common enemy, the regent Perdiccas. A still more overt act of disobedience was his persuading Arrhidaeus, who had been entrusted with the funeral of Alexander, to allow his body to be transported to Egypt, instead of conducting it, as originally agreed, to Aegae in Macedonia. (Diod. 18.14, 26, 28 ; Paus. 1.6.3; Arrian, apud Phot. p. 70b.) About the same time (B. C. 322) he took advantage of the civil dissensions at Cyrene to annex that important city and province to his dominions. (Diod. 18.21; Arrian, apud Phot. p. 70a.)
It was not till the beginning of the year B. C. 321 that hostilities actually commenced between Perdiccas and his adversaries. The regent, justly deeming Ptolemy the most formidable of his antagonists, determined to leave Eumenes to make head against his enemies in Asia, while he himself marched against Egypt. The result of his expedition has been already given under Perdiccas [p. 187]. The personal popularity of Ptolemy with the Macedonian army, which had contributed essentially to his success, secured him a welcome reception by the royal forces immediately after the death of Perdiccas, but he wisely declined the office of regent, which was bestowed, by his advice, on Arrhidaeus and Pithon. In the new arrangements at Triparadeisus, he naturally retained possession of Egypt and Cyrene; and it was probably at this period that he strengthened his union with the new regent Antipater, by marrvying his daughter Eurydice. (Droysen, Hellenism. vol. i. p. 154.) But the very next year (B. C. 320) we find him venturing on a bold step, in direct contravention of the arrangements then made, by seizing on the important satrapy of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria, which had been assigned to Laomedon, whom he did not scruple to dispossess by force of arms. (Diod. 18.39, 43; Appian. Syr. 52 ; Arran, apud Pwot. p. 71b.) It was probably during this expedition that he made himself master of Jerusalem, by attacking the city on the Sabbath day. (Josephus, J. AJ 12.1, ad v. Apion. 1.22.)
The death of Antipater (B. C. 319) produced a great change in the relative situations of the different leaders, and Ptolemy was now induced to contract an alliance with Cassander and Antigonus against Polysperchon and Eumenes. He at first fitted out a fleet, with which he repaired to the coasts of Cilicia, and commenced operations against Eumenes, who in his turn threatened Phoenicia (Diod. 18.62, 73); but the war was eventually drawn off to the upper provinces of Asia, and Ptolemy remained a passive spectator of the contest. At length the decisive victory of Antigonus over Eumenes raised the former to a height of power which rendered him scarcely less formidable to his allies than his enemies. and his treatment of Pithon and Peucestes sufficiently betrayed his ambitious designs. Seleucus, who had himself with difficulty escaped from his hands, fled for refuge to Egypt, and by his representations of the character and projects of Antigonus awakened Ptolemy to a sense of the danger, and induced him to enter into an alliance with Cassander and Lysimachus against their common enemy, B. C. 316. (Id. 19.56; Paus. 1.6.4.)
The next spring (315), after ineffectual attempts at negotiation, Antigonus commenced hostilities by the invasion of Syria, quickly recovered most of the cities in Phoenicia which had fallen under the yoke of Ptolemy, and laid siege to Tyre, the most important of all, and the strength of which for a long time defied all his efforts. While he was engaged in this siege, and in the equipment of a fleet, and his nephew Ptolemy was carrying on the war in Asia Minor with great success, the king of Egypt was undisputed master of the sea, of which he availed himself to establish a footing in Cyprus, where he either gained over or subdued almost all the petty princes among whom the island was divided. At the same time he did not neglect the affairs of Greece, whither he despatched a strong fleet under his admiral Polycleitus, and endeavoured to gain over the Greek cities by idle proclamations of liberty. Polycleitus, on his return, defeated Theodotus, one of Antigonus's admirals, at Aphrodisias in Cilicia, and took his whole fleet. But the next year (314) Tyre at length fell into the hands of Antigonus, who now found himself undisputed master of Syria and Phoenicia, and was, consequently, able to turn his own attention towards Asia Minor, leaving his son Demetrius to protect the newly-acquired provinces. The youth of Demetrius would have induced Ptolemy to attempt their recovery, but his attention was occupied during the year 313 by a revolt in Cyrene, and the defection of several of the princes of Cyprus. The former he succeeded in putting down through the agency of his general Agis, while he deemed it necessary to repair in person to Cyprus, with a large force, with which he quickly reduced the revolted cities, and placed the whole island under the command of Nicocreon of Salamis, on whose fidelity he had full reliance. After this he laid waste with his fleet the adjoining coasts of the main land, took the towns of Posideum in Syria, and Mallus in Cilieia, and withdrew again to Cyprus before Demetrius, who hastened to oppose him, could arrive on the spot. But the following spring (B. C. 312) he determined, at the instigation of Seleucus, to oppose Demetrius in the field, and invaded Palestine with a large army. He was met by the young general at Gaza, and a pitched battle ensued, in which Ptolemy and Seleucus were completely victorious, and Demetrius was compelled to evacuate Syria, leaving the whole country open to the Egyptian kings, who recovered almost without opposition all the cities of Phoenicia. after this he sent Seleucus at his own request with a small force against Babylon, where that general succeeded in establishing a permanent footing. [Seleucus.] Meanwhile, Demetrius partly retrieved his disaster by defeating Ptolemy's general Cilles, and soon rival after Antigonus himself advanced into Syria, to support his son. Ptolemy gave way before them, and withdrew into Egypt, where he prepared for defence; but Antingonus did not attempt to follow him, and spent his time in operations in Asia. The next year (B. C. 311) hostilities were suspended by a general peace. (Diod. 19.57_62, 64, 69, 79_86, 90, 93, 105; Plut. Demetr. 5, 6 ; Paus. 1.6.5; Just. 15.1; Appian, App. Syr. 54.)
Of the motives which led to this treaty we have no information, but the probability is that all parties regarded it as little more than a truce. Ptolemy appears to have been the first to recommnence hostilities, and, under pretence that Antigonus had not, pursuant to the treaty, withdrawn his garrisons from the Greek cities in Asia, he sent a fleet to Cilicia under Leonidas, who reduced many towns on the coast, but was again compelled to withdraw by the arrival of Demetrius. The next year (B. C. 309) Ptolemy in person sailed with a large fleet to Lycia, took the important city of Xanthus, as well as Caunus and other places in Caria, and laid siege to Halicarnassus, which was, however, relieved by the sudden arrival of Demetrius. Ptolemy now withdrew to Myndus where he wintered, and the next spring (308) repaired in person to the Peloponnese, where he announced himself as the liberator of Greece, but effected little, beyond the taking possession of the two strongholds of Corinth and Sicyon, which were yielded to him by Cratesipolis ; and having placed garrisons in these he returned to Egypt. (Diod. 20.19, 27, 37; Plut. Demetr. 7.) This year was, however, marked by a more important advantage in the recovery of Cyrene, which had for some years past shaken off the Egyptian yoke, but was now, after the death of Ophellas, reduced once more under the subjection of Ptolemy by the arms of his brother Magas. [Magas.]
The next season (B. C. 307) Demetrius succeeded in establishing his authority over great part of Greece, and drove Demetrius the Phalerean out of Athens, who took refuge at the court of Egypt. Ptolemy appears to have remained inactive during these events, but it is probable that his military and naval preparations at Cyprus gave umbrage to Antigonus, who in consequence recalled Demetrius from Greece, and determined to make a grand effort to wrest that important island from the hands of his rival. It was occupied by Ptolemy's brother Menelaus with a powerful fleet and army, but he was unable to resist the forces of Demetrius, was defeated, and besieged in the city of Salamis, the capital of the island. Ptolemy himself now hastened to his relief with a fleet of 140 ships, and a sea-fight ensued between him and Demetrius-one of the most memorable in ancient history- which terminated, after an obstinate contest, in the total defeat of the Egyptian fleet. Ptolemy was now compelled to withdraw to Egypt, while his brother Menelaus, with his fleet and army and the whole island of Cyprus, fell into the hands of the conqueror. Antigonus was so much elated by this victory as to assume the title of king, an example which Ptolemy, notwithstanding his defeat, immediately followed. B. C. Paus. (Diod. 20.45-53; Plut. Demetr. 15-18 1.6.6; Just. 15.2; Appian, App. Syr. 54.)
But the defeat at Salamis not only entailed upon the Egyptian king the loss of Cyprus, but left his for a time the undisputed master of the sea, an advantage of which Antigonus now determined to avail himself to strike a decisive blow against Egypt itself. For this purpose he himself advanced by land through Syria with a powerful army, while Demetrius supported him with his fleet. Ptolemy did not attempt to meet him in the field or oppose him on the frontiers of Egypt, but contented himself with fortifying and guarding the passages of the Nile, as he had done against Perdiccas : a manoeuvre which proved equally successful on the present occasion. The fleet of Demetrius suffered severely from storm, and his efforts to effect a landing in Lower Egypt were frustrated, while Antigonus himself was unable to force the passage of the river : his troops began to suffer from hunger : many of them deserted to Ptolemy, whose emissaries were active with bribes and promises : and the old king at length found himself compelled to abandon the enterprise and retire into Syria. (Diod. 20.73_76 ; Plut. Demetr. 19; Paus. 1.6.6.) Ptolemy was well contented to have escaped from so great a danger, and doubtless occupied in recruiting his forces, but we do not learn that he ventured to resume the offensive. The next year however (B. C. 305), Demetrius having turned his arms against the Rhodians, Ptolemy assisted the latter with repeated supplies both of troops and provisions. So important, indeed, were his succours on this occasion, that when Demetrius had been at length compelled to raise the siege (304), the Rhodians paid divine honours to the Egyptian monarch as their saviour and preserver (Σωτήρ) a title which appears to have been now bestowed upon Ptolemy for the first time. (Diod. 20.81_88, 96, 98_100; Paus. 1.6.6, 8.6; Athen. 15.696f.)
During the next two years the king of Egypt seems to have been a nearly passive spectator of the contest in Greece, though in the course of it Corinth and Sicyon were wrested from his power by Demetrius : but at length in B. C. 302 the arrogant pretensions of Antigonus once more united Ptolemy and Seleucus with Cassander and Lysimachus in a league against their common foe Still, however, Ptolemy took comparatively little part in the contest, which led to the decisive battle of Ipaus, and after advancing into Code-Syria and making himself master of part of that country and of Phoenicia, he was alarmed by a false report of the victory of Antigonus, and withdrew into Egypt. (Diod. 20.106, 113; Just. 15.2, 4.)
The defeat and death of Antigonus (B. C. 301) altogether altered the relations of the allied monarchs. Seleucus was now become almost as formidable as Antigonus had been, and the possession of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, which were claimed by Ptolemy as the price of his adhesion to the coalition, and by Seleucus as part of the allotted reward of his victory, was near producing an immediate breach between the two. Seleucus appears to have waived his pretensions for a time, but ultimately obtained possession (in what manner we know not) of the disputed provinces. (Diod. xxi. Exc. Vat. pp. 42, 43; Plb. 5.67.) Meanwhile, their mutual jealousy led them to form new alliances with the other monarchs; and while Seleucus married Stratonice, the daughter of Demetrius, Ptolemy sought to strengthen his connection with Lysimachus, by giving that monarch his daughter Arsinoe in marriage. At the same time he did not refuse to be reconciled, in appearance at least, to Demetrius, to whom he even gave Ptolemais, another of his daughters, for a wife. An alliance was at the same time concluded between them, and Pyrrhus, the fugitive heir to the throne of Epeirus, was placed at the Egyptian court by Demetrius, as a hostage for his fidelity.
The young prince quickly rose to a high place in the favour of Ptolemy, who gave him his stepdaughter Antigone in marriage, and conceived the design of raising him up as a rival to Demetrius. His nominal alliance with the latter did not prevent him from furnishing all the support in his power to the Greek cities which were opposed to him, on occasion of the expedition of Demetrius to Greece in B. C. 297 : and the following year he took the opportunity to create a formidable diversion by sending Pyrrhus, at the head of a small force, to Epeirus, where the young prince quickly established himself upon the throne. (Plut. Demetr. 32, 33, Pyrrh. 4, 5; Paus. 1.6.8.)
The next year (B. C. 295) he took advantage of Demetrius being still engaged in the affairs of Greece, to recover the important island of Cyprus. This he quickly reduced, with the exception of Salamis, where Phila, the wife of Demetrius, held out for a long time, but her husband's attention being now wholly engrossed by the prospects which hiad opened to him in Macedonia [Demetrius], he was unable to render her any assistance, and she was ultimately compelled to surrender to Ptolemy. The whole island thus fell into the power of the king, and became from henceforth an integral portion of the Egyptian monarchy. (Plut. Demetr. 35, 38.)
It is not till after the lapse of a considerable interval that we again find Ptolemy engaging actively in foreign war. But he could not remain an indifferent spectator of the events which placed his old enemy Demetrius on the throne of Macedonia : and in B. C. 287 we find him once more joining in a league with Lysimachus and Seleucus against the object of their common enmity. The part taken by Ptolemy in the war that followed was, however, limited to the sending a fleet to the Aegaean : and the defeat and captivity of Demetrius soon removed all cause of apprehension. (Plut. Demetr. 44, Pyrrh. 10, 11; Just. 16.2.) It is probable that the latter years of his reign were devoted almost entirely to the arts of peace, and to promoting the internal prosperity of his dominions. But his advancing age now warned him of the necessity of providing for the succession to his throne.
Ptolemy was at this time the father of three legitimate sons, of whom the two eldest, Ptolemy surinamed Ceraunus, and Meleager, were the offspring of Eurydice, the daughter of Antipater, while the youngest, also named Ptolemy (afterwards surnamed Philadelphus) was the child of his latest and most beloved wife, Berenice. His attachment to Berenice, as well as the favourable opinion he had formed of the character of the young man himself, now led him to conceive the project of bestowing the crown upon the last of these three princes, to the exclusion of his elder brothers. Such a design met with vehement opposition from Demetrius the Phalerian, who now held a high place in the counsels and favour of Ptolemy : but the king, nevertheless, determined to carry it into execution, and even resolved to secure the throne to his favourite son by establishing him on it in his own lifetime. In the year B. C. 285 accordingly, he himself announced to the assembled people of Alexandria that he had ceased to reign, and transferred the sovereign authority to his youngest son, whom he presented to them as their king. His choice was received, we are told, with the utmost favour, and the accession of the new monarch was celebrated with festivities and processions on a scale of unparalleled magnificence, during which the aged monarch himself appeared among the officers and attendants of his son. (Just. 16.2; Athen. 5.196, 203.) Nothing occurred to interrupt the harmony which subsisted between them from this time till the death of the elder Ptolemy, which took place about two years after, B. C. 283. His reign is variously estimated at thirty-eight or forty years, according as we include or not these two years which followed his abdication. (Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. pp. 113, 114; J. AJ 12.2.) He was not only honoured by his son with a splendid funeral; but his body was deposited in the magnificent edifice which had been erected as the mausoleum of Alexander; and divine honours were paid to him in common with the great conqueror. (Theocr. Idyll. 17.16-19; Strab. xvii. p.794.)
The character of Ptolemy has been generally represented in a very favourable light by historians, and there is no doubt that if we compare him with his contemporary and rival potentates he appears to deserve the praises bestowed upon his mildness and moderation. But it is only with this important qualification that they can be admitted : for there are many evidences, such as the barbarous murder of Nicocles [Nicocles], and the execution of Ptolemy, the nephew of Antigonus [see above, p. 565, No. 7], that he did not shrink from any measure that he deemed requisite in order to carry out the objects of his ambition. But the long-sighted prudence, by which he seems to have been pre-eminently distinguished among his contemporaries, led him to confine that ambition within more rational bounds than most of his rivals. He appears to have been the only one among the generals of Alexander who foresaw from the first that the empire of that conqueror must inevitably be broken up, and who wisely directed his endeavours to secure for himself the possession of an important and valuable portion, instead of wasting his strength in idle attempts to grasp the whole.
But whatever were the faults of Ptolemy as an individual, as a ruler he certainly deserves the highest praise. By his able and vigorous administration he laid the foundations of the wealth and prosperity which Egypt enjoyed for a long period, and which even many successive generations of misrule were afterwards insufficient to destroy. He restored order to the finances of the country, encouraged commerce and industry, and introduced a system of administration which appears to have been well suited to the peculiar state of society which had so long existed in Egypt, and to the religious and social prejudices of the nation. (See on this subject Droysen, Hellenismus, vol. ii. pp. 34-52.) Under his fostering care Alexandria quickly rose to the place designed for it by its founder, that of the greatest commercial city of the world. Among other measures for the prosperity of his new capital we find Ptolemy establishing there a numerous colony of Jews, who frequently acted an important part during the reigns of his successors. (J. AJ 12.1.) With this exception, the policy of the king was mainly directed to the prosperity of his Greek subjects, while the native Egyptians, though no longer subjected to the oppressions they had suffered under former rulers, were kept in comparative obscurity. Nor do we find that the first Ptolemy showed any especial marks of favour to their religion, though to him is ascribed the first introduction of the foreign worship of Serapis, and the foundation of the celebrated temple dedicated to that divinity at Alexandria. (Tac. Hist. 4.84; Plut. de Isid. et Osirid. 28.) [Serapis.]
Not less eminent or conspicuous were the services rendered by Ptolemy to the advancement of literature and science. In this department indeed it is not always easy to distinguish the portion of credit due to the father from that of his son : but it seems certain that to the elder monarch belongs the merit of having originated those literary institutions which assumed a more definite and regular form, as well as a more prominent place, under his successor. Such appears to have been the case With the two most celebrated of all, the Library and the Museum of Alexandria. (See Droysen, Hellenism. vol. ii. p. 43; Geier, de Ptolemsaei Layidae Vita, p. 61; Parthey, Das Alexandrinische Museum, pp. 36-49; Ritschl. Die Alexandr. Bibliothek. pp. 14-16.)
The first suggestion of these important foundations is ascribed by some writers to Demetrius of Phalerus, who spent all the latter years of his life at the court of Ptolemy, and became one of his most confidential friends and advisers. But many other men of literary eminence were also gathered around the Egyptian king : among whom may be especially noticed the great geometer Euclid, the philosophers Stilpo of Megara, Theodorus of Cyrene, and Diodorus surnamed Cronus; as well as the elegiac poet Philetas of Cos, and the grammarian Zenodotus. (D. L. 2.102, 111, 115, 5.37, 78; Plut. de Exil. 7, Apophth. Reg. p. 189d; Suid. s. v. Φιλητᾶς and Ζηνόδοτος.) To the two last we are told Ptolemy confided the literary education of his son Philadelphus. Many anecdotes sufficiently attest the free intercourse which subsisted between the king and the men of letters by whom he was surrounded, and prove that the easy familiarity of his manners corresponded with his simple and unostentatious habits of life. We also find him maintaining a correspondence with Menander, whom he in vain endeavoured to attract to his court, and sending overtures probably of a similar nature to Theophrastus. (Suid. s. v. Μένανδρος ; D. L. 5.37.) Nor were the fine arts neglected : the rival painters Antiphilus and Apelles both exercised their talents at Alexandria, where some of their most celebrated pictures were produced. (Plin. Nat. 35.36; Lucian. de Calumn. 2.) Works History of Alexander
But Ptolemy was not content with the praise of an enlightened patron and friend of literature; he sought for himself also the fame of an author, and composed an historical narrative of the wars of Alexander, which is frequently cited by later writers, and is one of the chief authorities which Arrian made the groundwork of his own history. That author repeatedly praises Ptolemy for the fidelity of his narrative and the absence of all fables and exaggerations, and justly pays the greatest deference to his authority, on account of his personal acquaintance with the events which le relates. No notice of his style has been preserved to us, from which we may probably infer that his work was not so much distinguished in this respect as for its historical value. Arrian. expressly tells us that it was composed by hint after he was established on the throne of Egypt, and probably during the latter years of his life. (Arr. Anab. i. prooem. Editions
The other passages in which his authority is cited are collected, and all the information relating to his history brought together by Geier, de Ptolemaei Layidae Vita et Scriptis, pp. 72-77; and in his Scriptores Historiae Alex. Magni, pp. 1-26.
The fragments are also given in the edition of Arrian published by Didot, at Paris, 1846.) Letters
It appears also that the letters of Ptolemy to Seleucus were extant at a later period, and were collected by one Dionysodorus, of whom nothing more is known. (Lucian. Pro Laps. in Salut. 10.) Children
Ptolemy had been three times married : 1. to the Persian princess Artacama [see above, p. 581], by whom he appears to have had no children; 2. to Eurydice, the daughter of Antipater, who had borne him three sons-Ptolemy Ceraunus, Meleager, and one whose name is not mentioned (Paus. 1.7.1.), and two daughters, Lysandra and Ptolenmais; 3. to Berenice, who became the mother of Ptolemy Philadelphus as well as of Arsinoe, the wife of Lysimachus. For further information concerning his children by these marriages, see the articles Arsinoe and Berenice. But besides these, he became the father of a numerous progeny by various concubines, of who the most conspicuous was Thais, the celebrated Athenian hetaera. By her he had two sons, named Leontiscus and Lagus, and a daughter, Eirene, who was married to Eunostus, one of the petty princes of Cyprus. (Athen. 13.576e. ; Paus. 1.6.8.) Another son of Ptolemy, named Argaeus, is also mentioned, who was probably illegitimate, but his mother is unknown. (Paus. 1.7.1.) [E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος) king of Egypt, surnamed Philadelphus, was the son of Ptolemy I. by his wife Berenice. He was born in the island of Cos, whither his mother had accompanied her husband during the naval campaign of B. C. 309. (Theocr. Idyll. 17.58; et Schol. ad loc. ; Callim. H. ad Del. 165-190; Droysen, Hellenism. vol. i. p. 418.) We have scarcely any information concerning the period of his boyhood or youth, though we learn that he received a careful education ; and Philetas, the elegiac poet of Cos, and Zenodotus the grammarian, are mentioned as his literary preceptors (Suid. s.v. Φιλητᾶς and Ζηνίδοτος). But it is probable that his own promising character and disposition combined with the partiality of his father for Berenice, to induce the aged monarch to set aside the offspring of his former marriage in favour of Philadelphus. In order to carry this project into execution, and secure the succession to this his favourite son, the king at length resolved to abdicate the sovereign power, and establish Philadelphus (at this time 24 years of age) upon the throne during his own lifetime. The young prince appears to have been personally popular with the Alexandrians, who, we are told, welcomed the announcement with the utmost joy, and the accession of the new monarch (Nov B. C. 285) was celebrated with festivities and processions of the utmost magnificence. (Just. 16.2 ; Athen. v. pp. 196-203; Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Arm. p. 113.)
It is probable that the virtual authority of king still remained in the hands of Ptolemy Soter, during the two years that he survived this event ; but no attempt was made to disturb his arrangement of the succession. Ptolemy Cerannus and Meleager quitted Egypt, and Philadelphus found himself at his father's death (B. C. 283) the undisputed master of his wealthy and powerful kingdom. His long reign was marked by few events of a striking character, while his attention was mainly directed to the internal administration of his kingdom, and the patronage of literature and science; his foreign policy was essentially pacific, and the few external wars by which his reign was troubled, were not of a nature to affect deeply the prosperity of his dominions. Unfortunately, our historical information concerning his reign is so scanty, that we have the greatest difficulty in arranging and connecting the few notices that have been transmitted to us. Its tranquillity appears to have been first disturbed by hostilities with his half brother Magas, who had governed Cyrene as viceroy under Ptolemy Soter, but on the death of that monarch threw off the yoke, and asserted his independence. Not content with maintaining himself in the possession of the Cyrenaica, Magas even attempted to invade Egypt, and had advanced as far as Paraetonium, when he was recalled to his own dominions by a revolt of the Marmaridae. A formidable mutiny among his Gaulish mercenaries prevented Ptolemy from pursuing suing him (Paus. 1.7. §§ 1, 2; Schol. ad Callim. h. in Del. 170-190). Magas, however, subsequently induced Antiochus II., king of Syria, to make common cause with him against the Egyptian monarch, aud himself undertook a second expedition against Egypt, in which he again advanced to the frontier, and took the fortress of Paraetonium ; but the efforts of Antiochus were paralysed by the address of Ptolemy, and he was able to effect nothing on the side of Syria. At length the war was terminated by a treaty, which left Magas in undisputed possession of the Cyrenaica, while his infant daughter Berenice was betrothed to Ptolemy, the son of Philadelphus. (Paus. 1.7.3; Pulyaen. 2.28; Just. 26.3; Droysen, Hellenism. vol. ii. pp. 244-250.)
It was probably during the continuance of this war that we find Ptolemy also taking an active part in the affairs of Greece, by sending a fleet under Patroclus to the assistance of the Athenians against Antigonus Gonatas [Patroclus]. Nor was he inattentive to the events that were passing in more distant countries. After the defeat of Pyrrhus by the Romans, he had hastened to conclude a treaty with the rising republic, and during the subsequent war between Rome and Carthage, he continued faithful to his new allies, and refused to assist the Carthaginians. (Liv. Epit. xiv. Dio Cass. fr. 146; Zonar. 8.6; Just. 18.2 ; V. Max. 4.3.9; Appian. Sic. 1.)
Of the subsequent relations between Egypt and Syria, we know only in general terms that hostilities between them were frequently interrupted or suspended, and as often renewed; but the wars appear to have been marked by no events of a striking character. It must have been towards the close of the reign of Philadelphus that the long protracted contest was terminated by a treaty of peace, by which Ptolemy gave his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus II. The other stipulations of the peace are unknown to us, but it is certain that Phoenicia and Coele-Syria-the never-failing cause of dispute between the two monarchies-remained in the hands of Ptolemy (Hieron. ad Daniel. 11.6; Droysen, vol. ii. p. 316.) In Greece Ptolemy appears to have continued throughout his reign on unfriendly if not directly hostile terms with Macedonia, and lost no opportunity of assisting the party opposed to that power ; but it was not until a few years defore his death that the successes of Aratus and the rise of the Achaean league opened out to his policy fresh prospects in that quarter. He hastened to support Aratus with considerable sums of money, and received him in the most friendly manner when he visited Alexandria in person. (Plut. Arat. 11, 12.)
But while Ptolemy was thus attentive to the events that were passing among the neighbouring potentates, his chief care was directed to the internal administration of his kingdom, and to the encouragement and extension of its foreign commerce. One of the first measures of his reign was to take effectual steps for clearing Upper Egypt from the robbers and banditti by which it was infested (Theocr. Idyll. 15.46-49, and Schol. ad loc.), and he afterwards carried his arms far into Ethiopia, and established friendly relations with the barbarian tribes of that country. He was also the first to derive from those regions a supply of elephants for war, which had been previously procured solely from India, and so important did he deem this resource that he founded a city or fortress named Ptolemais on the confines of Ethiopia, solely with a view to this object (Agatharchides ap. Phot. p. 441b, 453, a; Hieronym. ad Dan. 11.5; Plin. Nat. 6.34; Diod. 3.36). With Ergamenes, the Greek king of Meroe, he appears to have maintained friendly relations. In order to command the important navigation and commerce of the Red Sea, he founded the city of Arsinoie at the head of the gulf (on the site of the modern Suez), and that of Berenice on the coast almost under the tropic. The former he connected with the Nile by renewing and clearing out the canal which had previously been constructed by Necho, while he opened a high road from Berenice to Coptos on the Nile, which continued for ages to be the route by which all the merchandise of India, Arabia, and Aethiopia was conveyed to Alexandria. Not contented with this, we find him sending Satyrus on a voyage of discovery along the western coast of the Red Sea, and founding another city of Berenice as far south as the latitude of Meroe (Strab. xvii. pp. 770, 804, 815; Plin. Nat. 6.34; Diod. 1.33; Droysen, Hellenism. vol. ii. p. 735-738; Letronne, Rec. des Inscr. p. 180-188). It was doubtless also with a view to the extension of his commerce with India that we find him sending an ambassador of the name of Dionysius to the native princes of that country. (Plin. Nat. 6.21.)
But it is more especially as the patron and promoter of literature and science that the name of Philadelphus is justly celebrated. The institutions of which the foundations had been laid by his father quickly rose under his fostering care to the highest prosperity. The Museum of Alexandria became the resort and abode of all the most distinguished men of letters of the day, and in the library attached to it were accumulated all the treasures of ancient learning. The first person who illed the office of librarian appears to have been Zenodotus of Ephesus, who had previously been the preceptor of Ptolemy : his successor was the poet Callimachus. (Suid. s. v. Ζηνόδοτος ; Parthey, das Alex. Museum, p. 71; Ritschl, die Alex. Bibliothek, p. 19.) Among the other illustrious names which adorned the court and reign of Ptolemy, may be mentioned those of the poets Philetas and Theocritus (the last of whom has left us a laboured panegyric upon the Egyptian monarch, which is of some importance in an historical point of view), the philosophers Hegesias and Theodorus, the mathematician Euclid, and the astronomers Timocharis, Aristarchus of Samos, and Aratus. It was not merely by his munificence, or the honours which he bestowed upon these eminent men that Ptolemy was able to attract them to his court : he had himself received a learned education, and appears to have possessed a genuine love of literature, while many anecdotes attest to us the friendly and familiar terms upon which he associated with the distinguished strangers whom he had gathered around him. Nor was his patronage confined to the ordinary cycle of Hellenic literature. By his interest in natural history he gave a stimulus to the pursuit of that science, which gave birth to many important works, while he himself formed collections of rare animals within the precincts of the royal palace. It was during his reign also, and perhaps at his desire, that Manetho gave to the world in a Greek form the historical records of the Egyptians; and according to a wellknown tradition, which, disguised as it has been by fables, may not be without an historical foundation, it was by his express command that the Holy Scriptures of the Jews were translated into Greek (Joseph. 12.2. For the fuller investigation of this subject, see Aristeas). Whatever truth there may be in this tale, it is certain that he treated the Jewish colonists, many of whom had already settled at Alexandria under Ptolemy Soter, with much favour, and not only allowed them perfect toleration for their religion, but appears to have placed them in many respects on a par with his Greek subjects. (Joseph. I. c.)
The fine arts met with scarcely less encouragement under Ptolemy than literature and science, but his patronage does not appear to have given rise to any school of painting or sculpture of real merit; and we are told that Aratus gained his favour by presents of pictures of the Sicyonic school. (Plut. Arat. 12.) His architectural works, on the contrary, were of a superior order, and many of the most splendid buildings at Alexandria were erected or completed under his reign, especially the museum, the lighthouse on the island of Pharos, and the royal burial place or sepulchre, to which he removed the body of Alexander from Memphis, while he deposited there the remains of his father and mother (Paus. 1.7.1; Strab. xvii. p.791). As a farther proof of his filial piety he raised a temple to the memory of Ptolemy and Berenice, in which their statues were consecrated as tutelary deities of Egypt (Theocr. Id. 17.123). The new cities or colonies founded by Philadelphus in different parts of his dominions were extremely numerous. On the Red Sea alone we find at least two bearing the name of Arsinoe, one called after another of his sisters Philotera, and two cities named in honour of his mother Berenice. The same names occur also in Cilicia and Syria : and in the latter country he founded the important fortress of Ptolemais in Palestine. (Concerning these various foundations, see Droysen, Hellenism. vol. ii. pp. 678, 699, 721, 731, &c.; Letronne, Recueil des Inscr. pp. 180-188.)
All authorities concur in attesting the great power and wealth, to which the Egyptian monarchy was raised under Philadelphus. We are told that he possessed at the close of his reign a standing army of 200,000 foot and 40,000 horse, besides war-chariots and elephants; a fleet of 1500 ships, among which were many vessels of stupendous size; and a sum of 740,000 talents in his treasury; while he derived from Egypt alone an annual revenue of 14,800 talents (Appian. praef. 10; Hieronym. ad Daniel. 11.5). His dominions comprised, besides Egypt itself, and portions of Ethiopia, Arabia, and Libya, the important provinces of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria, together with Cyprus, Lycia, Caria, and the Cyclades : and during a great part at least of his reign, Cilicia and Pamphylia also (Theocrit. Idyll. 17.86-90 ; Droysen, l.c. p. 316). Before his death Cyrene was reunited to the monarchy by the marriage of his son Ptolemy with Berenice, the daughter of Magas.
The private life and relations of Philadelphus are far from displaying his character in as favourable a light as we might have inferred from the splendour of his administration. Almost immediately on his accession he had banished Demetrius Phalereus, the friend and counsellor of his father, who was believed to have advised the latter against altering the succession in favour of his younger son; and it was probably not long afterwards that he put to death his brother Argaeus, who was accused of conspiring against his life. Another of his brothers, who had attempted to excite a revolt in Cyprus, subsequently shared the same fate; and his first wife Arsinoe, the daughter of Lysimachus, was banished to Coptos in Upper Egypt on a similar charge (Paus. 1.7.1; D. L. 5.78; Schol. ad Theocr. Id. 17.128). After her lemy took the strange resolution of marrying his own sister Arsinoe, the widow of Lysimachus ; flagrant violation of the religious notions of the Greeks, and which gave rise to severe animadversions. Though she must have been many years older than himself, he appears to have continued tenderly attached to her throughout her life, and evinced his affection not only by bestowing her name upon many of his newly-founded colonies, but by assuming himself the surname of Philadelphus, a title which some writers referred in derision to his unnatural treatment of his two brothers. After her death he erected a temple to Arsinoe, and caused divine honours to be paid to her memory. (Paus. 1.7. §§ 1, 3; Theocrit. Idyll. 17.130, Schol. ad loc. ; Athen. 14.621.) By this second marriage Ptolemy had no issue : but his first wife had borne him two sons-Ptolemy, who succeeded him on the throne, and Lysimachus; and a daughter, Berenice, whose marriage to Antiochus II., king of Syria, has been already mentioned.
Philadelphus died a natural death before the close of the year B. C. 247; having reigned thirtyeight years from his first accession, and thirty-six from the death of his father (Euseb. Arm. p. 114 ; Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. p. 379). He had been always of a feeble and sickly constitution, which prevented him from ever taking the command of his armies in person; and he led the life of a refined voluptuary, combining sensual and dissolute pleasures with the more elevated gratifications of the taste and understanding. (Strab. xvii. p.789 ; Athen. 13.576.) The great defects of his character as an individual have been already adverted to, but there can be no doubt that his dominions enjoyed the utmost prosperity under his mild and pacific rule, and his skilful policy added as much to the greatness and strength of his empire as could the arms of a more warlike monarch.
The coins of Ptolemy Philadelphus are only to by their dates; none of them bearing the epithet of Philadelphus.
[E.H.B]
(Πολεμαῖος), king of Egypt, surnamed Euergetes, was the eldest son and successor of Ptolemy II., Philadelphus. When a mere child he was betrothed to Berenice, the daughter of Magas; but it was not till after the death of Magas, and the assassination of Demetrius the Handsome, who had made himself master of Cyrene [Berenice, p. 483], that their nuptials were solemnised. The date of these events is uncertain ; but the marriage cannot have long preceded the death of Philadelphus. B. C. 247. On that event Ptolemy succeeded quietly to the extensive dominions of his father; to which he now rennited Cyrene in right of his wife. But a still wider field was soon opened to his ambition. On a learning the death of Philadelphus, Antiochus II king of Syria, put aside his wife Berenice, the daughter of the Egyptian king, and recalled his former wife, Laodice, who soon sacrificed to her resentment both her faithless husband and her rival, Berenice, with her infant son. Ptolemy appears to have taken up arms on receiving the first news of the danger of his sister; but finding that he was too late to save her, he determined at least to avenge her fate. and invaded Syria in person at the head of a numerous army. The cruelties of Laodice, and the unhappy fate of Berenice, had already excited general disaffection ; and many cities voluntarily joined Ptolemy, and neither the youthful Seleucus nor his mother were able to oppose the progress of the Egyptian king, who advanced apparently without opposition as far as Antioch, and made himself master of the whole country south of Mount Taurus. But instead of crossing that ridge, and pursuing Seleucus himself, he turned his arms eastward, crossed the Euphrates, advanced as far as Babylon and Susa, and after reducing all Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Susiana, received the submission of all the upper provinces of Asia as far as the confines of Bactria and India. From this career of conquest he was recalled by the news of seditions in Egypt, and returned to that country, carrying with him an immense booty, comprising, among other objects, all the statues of the Egyptian deities which had been carried off by Cambyses to Babylon or Persia. These he restored to their respective temples, an act by which he earned the greatest popularity with his native Egyptian subjects, who bestowed on him in consequence the title of Euergetes (the Benefactor), by which he is generally known. While the arms of the king himself were thus successful in the East, his fleets reduced the maritime provinces of Asia, including Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Ionia, as far as the Hellespont, together with Lysimachia and other important places on the coast of Thrace which continued for a long period subject to the Egyptian rule. (Monutm. Adulitan. apud Clinlzo. F. H. vol. iii. p. 382; Hieronymv. ad Daniel. 11.7; Justin, 27.1; Appian. Syr. 65; Plb. 5.58.) Concerning the events which followed the return of Euergetes to his own dominions (probably in B. C. 243) we are almost wholly in the dark; but it appears that the greater part of the eastern provinces speedily fell again into the hands of Seleucus, while Ptolemy retained possession of the maritime regions and a great part of Syria itself. He soon obtained a valuable ally in the person of Antiochus Hierax, the younger brother of Seleucus, whom he uniformly supported in his wars against his elder brother, and by this diversion effectually prevented Seleucus from prosecuting active hostilities against Egypt. The war was at length terminated, or rather suspended by a truce for ten years; but the contest between the two brothers soon broke out afresh, and continued until the total defeat of Antiochus compelled him to take refuge in Egypt. Here, however, he was received rather as a captive than an ally; probably because it did not suit Ptolemy to renew hostilities with Syria. (Just. 27.2, 3.)
In regard to the remainder of the reign of Euergetes we have scarcely any information. It appears, however, that in his foreign policy he followed the same line as his father. We find him generally unfriendly to Macedonia, and on one occasion at least in open hostility with that power, as we are told that he defeated Antigonus (Gonatas) in a great sea-fight off Andros (Trog. Pomp. Prol. xxvii.); but the date and circumstances of this action are wholly uncertain. (See on this subject, Niebuhr, Kl. Schrift. p. 297; Droysen, vol. ii. p. 364.) With the same views he continued to support Aratus and the Achaean league, until the sudden change of policy of the former, and his unnatural alliance with Macedonia, led to a corresponding change on the part of Ptolemy, who thenceforth threw all the weight of his influence in favour of Cleomenes, to whom he afforded an honourable retreat after his decisive defeat at Sellasia, B. C. 222. (Plut. Arat. 24, 41, Cleom. 22, 32; Paus. 2.8.5.) We find him also maintaining the same friendly relations as his father with Rome, though he declined the offers of assistance made him by that powerful republic during his war with Syria. (Eutrop. iii. J.) During the latter years of his reign Euergetes took advantage of the state of peace in which he found himself with his neighbours to turn his arms against the Ethiopian tribes on his southern frontier, whom he effectually reduced to submission, and advanced as far as Adule, a port on the Red Sea, where he established an emporium, and set up an inscription commemorating the exploits of his reign. To a copy of this, accidentally preserved to us by an Egyptian monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes, we are indebted for much of the scanty information we possess concerning his reign. (See Buttmann's Museum f. Alterthumswissenschaft, vol. ii. pp. 105-166 ; the inscription itself is also given by Chishull, Antiq. Asiaticae, p. 76, and by Salt in his Travels in Abyssinia (1814), p. 453, as well as by Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. p. 382, note.)
Ptolemy Euergetes is scarcely less celebrated than his father for his patronage of literature and science : he added so largely to the library at Alexandria that he has been sometimes erroneously deemed its founder, and the well-known anecdote of the stratagem by which he possessed himself of the original manuscripts of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, sufficiently attests the zeal with which he pursued this object. (Galen, Comm. ad Hippocr. lib. iii. Epidem. p. 411; Parthey, Das Alex. Mus. p. 88.) Among the distinguished men of letters who flourished at Alexandria during his reign, the names of Eratosthenes, Apollonius Rhodius, and Aristophanes, the grammarian, are alone sufficient to prove that the literature and learning of the Alexandrian school still retained their former eminence.
The reign of Euergetes may undoubtedly be looked upon as the most flourishing period of the Egyptian kingdom. (See Plb. 5.34.) His brilliant military successes in the first years after his accession not only threw a lustre over his reign, but added some important and valuable acquisitions to his territories; while his subjects continued to enjoy the same internal tranquillity as under his predecessors. He appears also to have shown more favour than the two former monarchs towards the native-born Egyptians; and he evinced a desire to encourage their religious feelings, not only by bringing back the statues of their gods out of Asia, but by various architectural works. Thus we find him making large additions to the great temple at Thebes, erecting a new one at Esne, and dedicating a temple at Canopus to Osiris in the names of himself and his queen Berenice. (Wilkinson's Thebes, p. 425; Letronne, Recueil, pp. 2-6.) On the other hand, his foundations of new cities and colonies were much less numerous than those of his father, though that of Berenice in the Cyrenaiica may in all probability be ascribed to him. (See Droysen, vol. ii. pp. 723-726.) Among the last events of his reign may be mentioned the magnificent presents with which he assisted the Rhodians after their city had been overthown by an earthquake; the amount of which is in itself a sufficient proof of the wealth and power which he possessed. (Plb. 5.89.)
The death of Euergetes must have taken place before the end of B. C. 222 : it is clearly ascribed by Polybius (2.71) to natural causes; though a rumour followed by Justin (29.1) asserted that he was poisoned by his son, a suspicion to which the character and subsequent conduct of the young man lent sufficient countenance. He had reigned twenty-five years in uninterrupted prosperity. By his wife Berenice, who survived him, he left three children : 1. Ptolemy, his successor; 2. Magas ; and 3. Arsinoe, afterwards married to her brother Ptolemy Philopator.
Trogus Pompeius twice designates Ptolemy Euergetes by the epithet of Tryphon (Prol. xxvii. and xxx.), an appellation which is also found in Eusebius (p. 165, ed. Arm.). Neither this nor the title of Euergetes appears on his coins, which can only be distinguished from those of his two predecessors by the difference of physiognomy.
[E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Egypt, surnamed Philopator, was the eldest son and successor of Ptolemy Euergetes. He was very far from inheriting the virtues or abilities of his father : and his reign was the commencement of the decline of the Egyptian kingdom, which had been raised to such a height of power and prosperity by his three predecessors. Its first beginning was stained with crimes of the darkest kind. Among his earliest acts, on assuming the sovereign power (B. C. 222), was to put to death his mother, Berenice, and his brother, Magas, of whose influence and popularity with the army he was jealous, as well as his uncle Lysimachus, the brother of Ptolemy Euergetes. In all these murders his minister Sosibius was his ready and dextrous instrument, and probably the first to advise their perpetration. Cleomenes, the exiled king of Sparta, of whose influence with the mercenary troops Sosibius had skilfully availed himself, soon became in his turn an object of suspicion, and was placed in confinement, from which he sought to escape by raising a revolt in Alexandria, and failing in this put an end to his own life. (Plb. 5.34_39; Plut. Cleom. 33_37.)
Having thus, as he conceived, secured himself from all danger from domestic enemies, Ptolemy gave himself up without restraint to a life of indolence and luxury, and to every kind of sensual indulgence, while he abandoned to his minister Sosibius the care of all political affairs. The latter seems to have been as incapable as his master : the discipline of the army was neglected, and the kingdom was allowed to fall into a state of the utmost disorder, of which Antiochus the Great, king of Syria, was not slow to avail himself. The defection of Theodotus, the governor of Coele-Syria under Ptolemy [Theodotus], afforded the first opening to the ambitious designs of the Syrian king, who turned his arms in the first instance against Seleucia in Pieria; and after reducing that important fortress (which had been held by the kings of Egypt since the invasion of Syria by Euergetes) advanced into Phoenicia, where the two strong fortresses of Tyre and Ptolemais were betrayed into his hands by Theodotus. These tidings at length aroused Ptolemy and his ministers from their apathy, and while they sought to amuse Antiochus with pretended negotiations they began to assemble Greek mercenaries, as well as to arm and train Egyptian troops after the Macedonian fashion. With the approach of spring (B. C. 218) they were able to oppose an army under Nicolaus and a fleet under Perigenes to the arms of Antiochus ; but Nicolaus was defeated near Porphyreon, and the Syrian king made himself master, with little difficulty, of great part of Coele-Syria and Palestine. But the next year (B. C. 217) Ptolemy in person took the command of his forces, and set out from Alexandria at the head of an army of 70,000 foot and 5000 horse. He was met by Antiochus with a nearly equal force at Raphia, on the borders of the desert, and a pitched battle ensued, in which the Egyptian army was completely victorious, and Antiochus lost more than 14,000 men. This decisive success was followed by the immediate submission of the whole of Coele-Syria; and Antiochus, apprehensive of farther defections, hastened to sue for peace, which was readily granted by the indolent Ptolemy, who was anxious to return to his life of ease and luxury at home. (Plb. 5.40, 58-71, 79_87; Just. 30.1.)
It was on his return from this expedition that he visited Jerusalem; on which occasion the refusal of the high priest to admit him to the sanctuary of the temple, is said to have excited in his mind an implacable animosity against the Jewish nation, which led him on his return to Alexandria not only to withdraw from the Jews of that city the privileges they had enjoyed under his predecessors, but to subject them to the most cruel persecutions. (iii. Macc.) The tranquillity of Egypt was further disturbed at the same period by a revolt of the native Egyptians - the first that had occurred under their Greek rulers - which appears to have lasted a considerable time, and not to have been suppressed without much bloodshed. (Plb. 5.107, 14.12.)
Meanwhile, the king, after his return from his Syrian expedition, gave himself fip more and more to every species of vice and debauchery. His mistress Agathoclea, and her brother Agathocles, became not only the abandoned ministers of his pleasures, but were admitted to a large share in the direction of affairs, and divided with Sosibius the patronage and distribution of all places of honour or profit. The latter minister, however, continued till near the close of the reign of Ptolemy to preside over the chief administration of the state ; and as he had been the instrument of Ptolemy in the murders which disgraced the early part of his reign, so he again lent him his assistance in putting to death his queen Arsinoe, who had become obnoxious to her profligate husband. (Plb. 14.11, 12, 15.25, 33; Just. 30.1,2.) After her death Ptolemy gave himself up without restraint to the career of vice which probably contributed to shorten his life. He died in B. C. 205, after a reign of seventeen years, leaving only one son, a child of five years old. (Euseb. Arm. p. 114 ; Just. 30.2.)
The character of Ptolemy Philopator-feeble, effeminate, and vicious-is sufficiently attested by ancient authorities; and from his reign may be dated the commencement of the decline of the kingdom of Egypt, which thenceforth proceeded by rapid strides. Externally, however, its decay was not yet visible : it still retained all its former possessions and commanded the respect of foreign powers. We find Ptolemy, during the earlier years of his reign, still following up the policy of his predecessors; in Greece, cultivating the friendship of the Athenians, and interposing his mediation to bring about a peace between Philip and the Aetolians. (Plb. 5.100, 106.) He continued also stedfastly attached to the alliance of the Romans, to whom he furnished large supplies of corn during their struggle with Carthage. (Plb. 9.44 Liv. 27.4.) Philopator is also mentioned as striving to display his wealth and power by the construction of ships of the most gigantic and unwieldy size, one of which is said to have had forty banks of oars. (Athen. v. pp. 203-206.)
Plunged as he was in vice and debauchery, Philopator appears to have still inherited something of the love of letters for which his predecessors were so conspicuous. Not only did the literary schools and institutions of Alexandria continue to flourish under his reign, but we find him associating on familiar terms with philosophers and men of letters, and especially patronising the distinguished grammarian Aristarchus. (D. L. 7.177; Suid. s. v. Ἀρίσταρχος.) He even carried his admiration for Homer so far as to dedicate a temple to him as a divinity. (Ael. VH 13.22.) [E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Egypt, surnamed Epiphanes, was the son and successor of Ptolemy IV.
He was a child of between four and five years old at the death of his father, B. C. 205; and the reins of government were immediately assumed in his name by the favourite and minister of the late monarch, Agathocles. The death of Philopator was even kept a secret for some time by the favourite, in order that he and his sister Agathocleamight possess themselves of the treasures in the palace, and concert measures for defending their power. Tlepolemus, their chief adversary, was absent from Alexandria, but notwithstanding this advantage, they were unable to face the indignation of the populace, and a violent sedition arose, in which Agathocles, his mother and sister, and all their chief supporters, were put to death [Agathoclea]. After this Sosibius (son of the late minister of that name) obtained possession of the young king's person and the custody of his signet ring: but he was soon after compelled to yield them both to Tlepolemus, who assumed the chief administration of affairs. The new minister, however, though popular with the Alexandrians, and having the qualities of a brave soldier, was wholly incompetent for the position in which he was thus placed, and the affairs of the kingdom fell into the utmost disorder (Plb. 15.25_33, 16.21, 22; Just. 30.2). Mean-while the two monarchs, Philip king of Macedonia and Antiochus III. of Syria, had determined to take advantage of the minority of Ptolemy, and entered into a league to dispossess him of the crown, and divide his dominions between them. In pursuance of this arrangement Antiochus invaded Coele-Syria, while Philip reduced the Cyclades and the cities in Thrace which had still remained subject to Egypt. In this emergency the Egyptian ministers had recourse to the powerful intervention of Rome, and sent an embassy to place the young king and his dominions under the protection of the republic. The senate readily accepted the overture, and sent ambassadors to Egypt, one of whom, M. Lepidus, appears to have even assumed the title of guardian of Ptolemy [Lepidus, No. 7], while they commanded both Philip and Antiochus to desist from aggression, and restore the cities they had already conquered. The successes of the Syrian king had, in the meantime, been rapid and important. He defeated Scopas, the general of Ptolemy, in a decisive action at Panium, and shut him up within the walls of Sidon, where he was at length compelled by famine to surrender; and this advantage was followed up by the reduction of Jerusalem and the conquest of all Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Judea. While Antiochus himself was thus wresting from the crown of Egypt the possessions it had so long held in Syria, his generals reduced all the cities in Cilicia and Lycia which had hitherto been subject to the Egyptian monarchy. But his career of conquest was now checked by the Roman embassy, which commanded him to refrain from further hostilities, and restore all the conquered cities. In order to evade this demand without openly opposing the power of Rome, he concluded a treaty with Egypt, by which it was agreed that the young king should marrv Cleopatra. the daughter of Antiochus. and receive back the Syrian provinces as her dower. (Plb. 3.2, 15.20, 16.39, 18.33, 34, 28.17; Justin, 30.2. 3, 31.1; Liv. 31.2, 9 ; Appian, App. Syr. 1-3, Mac. 3; Hieronym. ad Daniel. 11.14-17; J. AJ 12.4.1.)
This treaty took place in B. C. 199, but the marriage was not actually solemnised until six years after. During this interval the peace between Egypt and Syria continued unbroken, while the administration of the former kingdom was placed in the hands of Aristomenes, a man who was every way worthy of the charge. We are told that, under his wise and vigorous government, the taxes were reduced, order restored, and the country recovered, in great measure, from the disorders of the reign of Philopator. Yet the period of his administration was not unmarked by civil troubles: a formidable revolt broke out in Lower Egypt, and it was not till after a long and arduous siege that Lycopolis, where the rebels had established their head-quarters, was taken, and the insurrection suppressed (Inscr. Rosett. pp. 3, 23, ed. Letronne Plb. 15.31; Diod. Exc. Vales. p. 574). At a subsequent period Scopas, the general who had opposed Antiochus, appears to have attempted to follow the example of Cleomenes, and excite a revolt in Alexandria itself, but his designs were discovered, and he was immediately put to death (Plb. 18.36, 37). It was in consequence of this last attempt that the guardians or ministers of the young king determined to declare him of full age, and the ceremony of his Anacleteria, or coronation, was solemnised with great magnificence, B. C. 196. It was on this occasion that the decree was issued which has been preserved to us in the celebrated inscription known as the Rosetta stone, a monument of great interest in regard to the internal history of Egypt under the Ptolemies, independent of its importance as having afforded the key to the discovery of hieroglyphics. (Plb. 18.38; Inscr. Rosett. ed. Letronne, Paris, 1841, published with the Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, by Didot.)
Three years afterwards (in the winter of B. C. 193-192) the marriage of Ptolemy with the Syrian princess Cleopatra was solemnised at Raphia. (Hieronym. ad Daniel. 11.17; Liv. 35.13.) The war between Antiochus and the Romans was at this time on the eve of breaking out, and the former had doubtless hoped to attach the Egyptian king to his cause. But Cleopatra regarded the interests of her husband more than those of her father; and Ptolemy continued steadfast in his alliance with Rome. On the outbreak of the war he sent an embassy to the senate, with a large present of money and offers of assistance, both of which were, however, declined: and again in the following year (B. C. 190) we find him sending a fresh embassy to congratulate the Romans on their victory over Antiochus (Liv. 36.4, 37.3). But though the encroachments of the Syrian king upon his Egyptian neighbour had been one of the pretexts of the war, Ptolemy derived no advantage from the treaty which concluded it, and Antiochus, in defiance of his promise, still retained possession of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia.
We know very little of the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes from the time that he himself assumed the government: but we are told that as long as he continued under the guidance and influence of Aristomenes, his administration was equitable and popular. Gradually, however, he became estranged from his able and virtuous minister, and threw himself more and more into the power of flatterers and vicious companions, until at length he was induced o rid himself of Aristomenes, who was compelled to take poison. Polycrates, who appears to have enjoyed great influence with the king after this period, shared in his vices and encouraged him in his effeminacy, studiously keeping him aloof from all part in military affairs. The only event which is recorded to us of this period is a second revolt ill Lower Egypt, which was successfully put down by Polycrates, and the leaders of the insurrection (who from their names must have been native Egyptians) were barbarously put to death by Ptolemy himself, n.100.185. (Diod. Exc. Vales. p. 574; Plb. 23.16; and see Letronne, ad Inscr. Rosett. p. 23.)
Towards the close of his reign Ptolemy appears to have conceived the project of recovering Coele-Syria from Seleucus, the successor of Antiochus, and had assembled a large mercenary force for that purpose: but having,byan unguarded expression excited the apprehensions of some of his friends, he was cut off by poison in the 24th year of his reign and the 29th of his age, B. C. 181. (Hieronym. ad Danicl. 11.20; Diod. Exc. Vat. p. 71; Porphyr. apud Euscb. Arm. p. 114; J. AJ 12.4.11.)
He left two sons, both named Ptolemy, who subsequently ascended the throne, under the names of Ptolemy Philometor and Euergetes II., and a daughter, who bore her mother's name of Cleopatra. Assessment
The auspicious beginning of his rule and his subsequent degeneracy have been already noticed. His reign was marked by the rapid decline of the Egyptian monarchy, for the provinces and cities wrested from it during his minority by Antioclius and Philip were never recovered, and at his death Cyprus and the Cyrenaica were almost the only foreign possessions still attached to the crown of Egypt. But he had not yet abandoned the part assumed by his predecessors in the affairs of Greece, and we find him still maintaining a close alliance with the Acnaeans, and sending just before his death, to offer them the assistance of an Egyptian squadron. (Plb. 23.1, 7, 25.7.)
[E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Egypt, surnamed Philometor, was the eldest son and successor of Ptolemy.V. He was a mere child at the death of his father in B. C. 181, and the regency was assumed during his minority by his mother Cleopatra, who, by her able administration, maintained the kingdom in a state of tranquillity, and preserved the peace with Anltiochus. But after her death, in B. C. 173, the chief power fell into the hands of Eulaeus and Lenaetus, ministers as corrupt as they were incapable; who had the rashness to engage in war with Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, in the vain hope of recovering the provinces of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, which had been wrested by his father from the Egyptian monarchy. But their presumption met with a speedy punishment; their army was totally defeated by Antiochus, near Pelusium, and this victory laid open to him the whole of Lower Egypt, so that he was able to advance without opposition as far as Memphis, B. C. 170. The young king himself fell into his hands, but was treated with kindness and distinction, as Antiochus hoped by his means to make himself master of Egypt. To this design Philometor appears to have lent himself a willing instrument; but on learning the captivity of his brother, the younger Ptoleny, who was then at Alexandria with his sister Cleopatra, immediately assumed the title of king, tinder the name of Euergetes II., and prepared to defend the capital to the utmost. Antiochus hereupon advanced to Alexandria, to which He laid vigorous siege; but was unable to make much progress, and the intervention of deputies from the Roman senate soon after induced him to retire from before the walls. He established the young Philometor as king at Memphis, while he himself withdrew into Syria, retaining, hos'ever, in his hands the frontier fortress of Pelutsium. This last circumstance, together with the ravages committed by the Syrian troops, awakened Philometor, who had hitherto been a mere puppet in the hands of the Syrian king, to a sense of his true position, ani he hastened to make overtures of peace to his brother and sister at Alexandria. It was agreed that the two brothers should reign together, and that Philometor should marry his sister Cleopatra. But this arrangement did not suit the views of Antiochus, who immediately renewed hostilities, and while he sent a large fleet to reduce Cyprus, advanced in person against Egypt. The two brothers were unable to offer any effectual opposition, and He had advanced a second time to the walls of Alexandria, when he was met by a Roman embassy, headed by M. Popillius Laenas, who haughtily commanded him instantly to desist from hostilities. The arrogance of the Roman deputy produced its effect; the capital of Egypt was saved, and Antiochus withdrew to his own dominions, B. C. 168. (Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. p. 114; Hieronym. ad Daniel. 11.21-30; Plb. 27.17, 28.1, 16, 17, 19, 29.8, 11; Diod. Exc. Vales. p. 579, 580, Exc. Legat. p. 624, Exc. Vat. pp. 75, 76; Liv. 42.29, 44.19, 45.11-13 ; Just. 34.2, 3; Appian. Syr. 66; Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. p. 318-320, 386.)
Shortly after these events we find the two brothers sending a joint embassy to Rome to express their gratitude to the senate for their deliverance (Liv. 45.13; Plb. 30.11). But this concord did not last long: dissensions broke out between them, and Euergetes, who at first obtained the advantage, expelled his brother from Alexandria. Hereupon Philometor repaired in person to Rome, B. C. 164, where He was received by the senate with the utmost honour, and deputies were appointed to accompany him to Egypt, and reinstate him in the sovereign power. This they appear to have effected with little opposition; and ELergetes, whose tyrannical government had alreadv alienated the miniids of the Alexandrians, was dethroned, and fell to the power of his elder brother. Philuomett however, had the magnanimity to pardon him, and it was arranged by the Roman deputies that the two brothers should divide the monarchy; Euergetes obtaining Cyrene as a separate kingdom, wh le Philometor retained Egypt itself. The former, however, could not long remain contented with the portion allotted him: he repaired to Rome in person, and succeeded in persuading the senate, in contravention of their own arrangement, to add Cyprus to his share. Three Roman ambassadors accompanied Euergetes to enforce these new terms, but they prevented that monarch from asserting his claim to Cyprus by arms, and sent him to Cyrene to await the result of their negotiations with Philometor. The latter, however, contrived to amuse the deputies with fair words, and detained them at Alexandria a considerable time without making any concessions. Euergetes meanwhile had assembled an army, and advanced to the confines of Egypt, but an insurrection at Cyrene itself, which nearly cost him both his throne and his life, prevented him from prosecuting his cause by arms. The next year both brothers again sent ambassadors to Rome, but those of Philometor were unfavourably received and ordered to quit the city without delay. Still no effectual support was given to Euergetes, and his own efforts having failed to put him in possession of Cyprus, he again repaired to Rome in a 100.154, to invoke the assistance of the senate. They now proceeded to send with him five legates charged to establish him in Cyprus, but without supporting him with any Roman force. Philometor meanwhile anticipated him, and occupied Cyprus in person with a powerful fleet and army, so that when his brother at length landed in the island at the head of a mercenary force, he was quickly defeated and shut up in the city of Lapethus, where he was soon compelled to surrender. Philometor not only a second time spared his life, but treated him with the utmost kindness, and sent him back to Cyrene on condition that he should thenceforth content himself with that kingdom. Nor did the Romans again interfere to disturb the arrangement thus concluded. (Plb. 31.18, 25_27, 32.1, 33.5, 10.112; Diod. Exc. Vales. pp. 584. 588, Exc. Vat. p. 84, Exc. Legat. p. 626; Liv. Epit. xlvi. xlvii.; Porphyrius, up. Euseb. Arsm. pp. 114, 115)
The attention of Philometor appears to have been, from this time, principally directed to the side of Syria. Demetrius Soter, who was then established on the throne of that country, had sought during the dissensions between the two brothers to make himself master of Cyprus; and in return for this act of hostility Ptolemy now lent his support to the pretensions of Alexander Balas, and when the latter had established himself on the throne of Syria, bestowed on him his daughter Cleopatra in marriage, B. C. 150. But the usurper repaid this favour with the blackest ingratitude. For Demetrius, the son of the dethroned monarch, having landed in Syria to assert his claim to the crown, Ptolemy immediately assembled a large fleet and army, with which he advanced to the support of his son-in-law; but on arriving at Ptolenmas, he was near falling a victim to an attempt on his life, made by Ammonius, the favourite and minister of Alexander, and there is little doubt teat the king himself was a partner in the design. At all events, by protecting his favourite, and refusing to punish him, he justly alienated the mind of Ptolemy, who hastened to conclude a peace with Demetrius, and give him the support of the very forces which he had brought to oppose him. Having taken away his daughter Cleopatra from her faithless husband, he now bestowed her hand on his new ally Delnetrius. The disaffection of the Syrians towards Alexander quickly enabled Ptolemy to subdue the whole country, and he entered Antioch without opposition; where he was himself declared, by the acclamations of the people, king of Syria as well as Egypt. But his natural moderation concurred with policy in leading him to decline the proffered honour, and establish Demetrius on the throne. Meanwhile Alexander, having assembled an army in Cilicia, again invaded Syria. He was met by the combined forces of Demetrius and Ptolemy, and totally defeated; but Philometor himself was thrown from his horse during the battle, and fractured his skull so severely, that he died a few days after, B. C. 146. (Plb. 40.12; Just. 35.1, 2; Joseph. 13.4; Liv. Epit. lii; Appian. Syr. 67; Euseb. Arm. p. 166.) He had reigned 35 years from the period of his first accession, and 18 from his restoration by the Romans. (Porphyr. apud Euscb. Arm. p. 115.)
During the reign of Philometor the number of Jews in Egypt received a large augmentation by the emigration of a numerous body who were driven out of Judaea by the opposite faction, and established themselves at Heliopolis with the permission and under the protection of the Egyptian king. (J. AJ 13.3, B. J. 1.1.1.) We learn also that Philometor followed the example of his predecessors in dedicating new temples, or repairing and augmenting the old ones to the Egyptian divinities. (Letronne, Rec. des Inscr. pp. 10, 24 ; Wilkinson's Thebes, p. 82.)
Philometor is praised for the mildness and humanity of his disposition,qualities which distinguish him not only by comparison with his brother, but even beyond most of his predecessors. Polybius even tells us that not a single citizen of Alexandria was put to death by him for any political or private. offence. In the earlier years of his reign he allowed himself to fall into weakness and indolence, but his subsequent conduct in the wars of Cyprus and Syria shows that he was by no means deficient in. occasional energy. On the whole, if not one of the greatest, he was at least one of the best of the race of the Ptolemies. (Plb. 40.12; Diod. Exc. Vales. p. 594.)
He left three children:
1. A son, Ptolemy, who was proclaimed king after his father's death, under the name of Ptolemy Eupator, but was put to death almost immediately after by his uncle Euergetes.
2. A daughter, Cleopatra, married first to Alexander Bala, then to Demetrius II. king of Syria; and
3. Another daughter, also named Cleopatra, who was afterwards married to her uncle Ptolemy Euergetes. [E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος king of Egypt, bore the surname of Euergetes, whence he is styled Euergetes II., to distinguish him from Ptolemy III., but he is more commonly known by the name of Physcon (Φύσκων), an appellation bestowed on him by the Alexandrians on account of his bloated and unwieldy appearance. He was the second son of Ptolemy Epiphanes, and continued in a private station during the regency of his mother Cleopatra and the first years of the reign of his brother Philometor. But when the latter had fallen into the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Alexandrians declared the younger brother king, and he assumed the title of Euergetes, together with the royal diadem, B. C. 170. The subsequent events--the repulse of Antiochus, the reconciliation of the two brothers, their joint reign, and their subsequent dissensions -- have been already related in the preceding article. From the time of his last defeat in Cyprus, B. C. 154, Ptolemy Physcon appears to have acquiesced in the arrangement then concluded, and remained quiet in the government of Cyrene until the death of his brother Philometor, B. C. 146. On that event Cleopatra, the sister and widow of the late king, proclaimed her infant son king of Egypt, by the title of Ptolemy Eupator, and assumed the reins of government in his name. But her brother immediately assembled an army, and marched against Alexandria. Hostilities were, however, prevented by the intervention of Roman deputies, and it was agreed that Euergetes should obtain the crown of Egypt, and marry his sister Cleopatra. Their nuptials were solemnized accordingly, and on the very day of their celebration the king caused his unfortunate nephew to be put to death. (Just. 38.8.)
A reign thus commenced in blood was continued in a similar spirit. Already during his former brief rule at Alexandria, as well as in his separate kingdom of Cyrene, Euergetes had given abundant proofs of his tyrannical and cruel disposition, which had alienated the minds of his subjects, and led them to term him in derision Kakergetes. But when he found himself established on the throne of Egypt, he gave free scope to his sanguinary disposition. Many of the leading citizens of Alexandria, who had taken part against him on the death of his brother, were put to death without mercy, while the populace were given up without restraint to the cruelties of his mercenary troops, and the streets of the city were repeatedly deluged with blood. Thousands of the inhabitants fled from the scene of such horrors, and the population of Alexandria was so greatly thinned that the king found himself compelled to invite foreign settlers from all quarters to re-people his deserted capital. At the same time that he thus incurred the hatred of his subjects by his cruelties, he rendered himself an object of their aversion and contempt by abandoning himself to the most degrading vices. In consequence of these, he had become bloated and deformed in person, and so enormously corpulent, that he could scarcely walk. (Justin. l.c. ; Diod. xxxiii. Exc. Vales. p. 594; Athen. 4.184c., vi. p. 252e., xii. p. 549. d.)
His union with Cleopatra was not of long duration. At first, indeed, he appears to have lived on good terms with her, and she bore him a son, to whom he gave the name of Memphitis. But he afterwards became enamoured of his niece Cleopatra (the offspring of his wife by her former marriage with Philometor), and he did not hesitate to divorce the mother, and receive her daughter instead, as his wife and queen. By this proceeding he alienated still more the minds of his Greek subjects ; but the abilities and vigour of his general Hierax enabled him for a time to defy the popular discontent. Meanwhile he was careful still to court the alliance of Rome, and received Scipio Africanus and his colleagues, when they visited Egypt, with every demonstration of respect. (Just. 38.8; Diod. Exc. Vales. xxxiii. pp. 593-595, 598, 34.602, Exc. Leg. p. 630 ; Liv. Epit. lix.; Oros. 5.10; Athen. 12.549d.)
At length, however, his vices and cruelties became too much for his subjects to bear. His palace was burnt in a popular tumult, and he deemed it expedient to give way to the fury of the people, and make his escape secretly to Cyprus, B. C. 130. On this the Alexandrians declared his sister Cleopatra queen. Irritated at this, but unable to assail her by open force, Euergetes had recourse to the barbarous expedient of putting to death Memphitis, his son by Cleopatra, and sending his head and hands to Alexandria, where they were presented to his unhappy mother on her birthday. This atrocious act excited the most violent indignation among the Alexandrians, who took up arms for Cleopatra; but that princess had the indiscretion to apply for assistance to Demetrius II., king of Syria, and by so doing alienated the minds of her subjects to such a degree that she was soon after compelled in her turn to fly from Alexandria, and Ptolemy found himself unexpectedly reinstated on the Egyptian throne, B. C. 127. (Liv. Epit. lix.; Just. 38.8, 9 ; Diod. xxxiv. Exc. Vales. pp. 602, 603; V. Max. 9.2, ext. § 5.)
From this time he appears to have adopted a milder and more moderate system of government. His first act of clemency was to pardon Marsyas, who had been the general of the revolted Alexandrians (Diod. Exc. Vales. p. 603); and though we have little information concerning the remaining events of his reign, we do not find that it was again disturbed by any civil disorders. His attention was principally directed to the affairs of Syria, where Demetrius had espoused the cause of Cleopatra, and advanced as far as Pelusium to her support, but was compelled, by the disaffection of his own troops, to retire without effecting anything. In order to revenge himself for this attempt, Ptolemy now set up against him a new pretender in the person of a youth named Zabinas or Zebina, who assumed the title of Alexander II., and with the forces furnished him by the Egyptian king, was able to establish himself for a time on the throne of Syria. But inflated with this success, the usurper forgot his obligations to Ptolemy, and behaved with such haughtiness to his benefactor, that the latter suddenly changed his policy, became reconciled to his sister Cleopatra, whom he permitted to return to Egypt, and gave his daughter Tryphaena in marriage to Antiochus Grypus, the son of Demetrius, whom he also supported with a large auxiliary force. Antiochus was thus enabled to recover possession of the throne of his forefathers, B. C. 125, and from this time the friendly relations between Syria and Egypt continued uninterrupted until the death of Ptolemy. (Just. 39.1,2; J. AJ 13.9; Euseb. Arm. pp. 167, 168.) This took place in the year B. C. 117, ten years after his restoration to the throne, and twenty-nine after the death of his brother Philometor. But he himself reckoned the years of his reign from the date of his first assumption of the regal title at Alexandria, in B. C. 170, and according to this mode of computation, his death took place in the fifty-fourth year of his reign. (Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. p. 115; Clinton. F. H. vol. iii. p. 386.) Works
The character of Ptolemy Physcon has sufficiently appeared from the foregoing narrative. But stained as he was at once by the most infamous and degrading vices, and by the most sanguinary and unsparing cruelty, he still retained in a great degree that love of letters which appears to have been hereditary in the whole race of the Ptolemies. He had in his youth been a pupil of Aristarchus, and not only courted the society of learned men, but was himself the author of a work called Ὑπομνήματα, or memoirs, which extended to twentyfour books. It is repeatedly cited by Athenaeus (ii. p. 43e., 71, b., ix. p. 387, x. p. 438, xiv. p. 654, &c.), but the quotations refer to minute and miscellaneous points from which it is impossible to judge of the general character of the work. It would seem, however, to have been a sort of general natural history, rather than an historical narration of events. Impact upon Literary Life
But even in his patronage of literature Ptolemy displayed his capricious and tyrannical character: and during the first years of his sole reign his cruelties appear to have produced a general consternation among the philosophers and men of letters at Alexandria, many of whom fled from Egypt, and took refuge in other countries, where they opened schools, and thus introduced the learning and science of Alexandria (Athen. 4.184). Ptolemy endeavoured in the later years of his reign to repair the mischief he had thus caused, and again draw together an extensive literary society in his capital. To him also is ascribed, with some probability, the prohibition of the export of papyrus, a measure which was dictated by jealousy of the growing literary riches of the kings of Pergamus, and led, as is well known, to the invention of parchment (Plin. Nat. 13.11 (21)). Some writers, however, refer this statement to Euergetes I. (See Parthey, Das Alex. Museum, p. 48.) Children
Euergetes II. left two sons; Ptolemy, afterwards known as Soter II., and Alexander, both of whom subsequently ascended the throne of Egypt ; and three daughters: I. Cleopatra, already married to her brother Ptolemy; 2. Tryphaena, the rife of Antiochus Grypus, king of Syria; and 3. Helene, who was still unmarried at her father's death. To his natural son Ptolemy surnamed Apion, he bequeathed by his will the separate kingdom of Cyrene [Ptolemaeus Apion]. [E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Egypt, surnamed Soter II., and also Philometor, both of which titles he bears on inscriptions, but more often distinguished by historians by the appellation of Lathyrus or Lathurus (Λάθουρος). He was the eldest son of Ptolemy Physcon, by his niece Cleopatra, and was already of full age at the time of his father's death, B. C. 117. Cleopatra, however, who had been appointed by the will of her late husband to succeed him on the throne, was desirous to associate with herself her younger son, Ptolemy Alexander, to the exclusion of his brother. But the latter was popular with the Alexandrians, and the queen was obliged to give way. She accordingly sent Alexander to Cyprus, while she declared Lathyrus king, with the titles of Soter and Philometor. But, in order to retain her influence over him undivided, she compelled him to repudiate his sister Cleopatra, to whom he had been previously married and was tenderly attached, and marry his younger sister Selene in her stead (Just. 39.3; Paus. 1.9.1). This arrangement seems to have in some degree produced its intended effect; at least the mother and son were able to rule conjointly for near ten years before they came to any open rupture. But they were on many occasions opposed to one another, in their foreign as well as domestic policy, and we find Ptolemy sending assistance to Antiochus Cyzicenus in his wars against the Jews, in direct opposition to the will of his mother, who had uniformly favoured the latter, and had placed two officers of that nation at the head of her army. But Cleopatra could ill brook such resistance to her authority: and by accusing Ptolemy of a design against her life, she excited such an insurrection in Alexandria that the king was forced to seek safety in flight, B. C. 107. (Just. 39.4 ; Paus. 1.9.2; J. AJ 13.10. §§ 2, 4 ; Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. p. 115.)
His brother Alexander now assumed the sovereignty of Egypt, in conjunction with his motherwhile Lathyrus was able to establish himself in the possession of Cyprus. Cleopatra indeed attempted to dispossess him of that island also, but without success, and Ptolemy held it as an independent kingdom for the eighteen years during which Cleopatra and Alexander reigned in Egypt. His wars in Syria are the only events which have been recorded to us of this period. In B. C. 103 he landed in Syria with a large army, in order to support the citizens of Ptolemais and Gaza against Alexander Jannaeus, king of the Jews, defeated that monarch in a great battle on the banks of the Jordan, and made himself master of Ptolemais, Gaza, and other cities. Hereupon Cleopatra hastened with an army to oppose him, and reduced Phoenicia and Ptolema'is, while Lathyrus, after an unsuccessful attempt to march upon Egypt itself, retired to Gaza, and the following spring withdrew to Cyprus, B. C. 101 (J. AJ 13.12, 13). In the subsequent disputes of the Syrian princes he and his mother, as was to be expected, took opposite sides, Ptolemy being in close alliance with Antiochus Cyzicenus, while Cleopatra supported his brother Antiochus Grypus (Just. 39.4), At a later period (in B. C. 94) we find Ptolemy again taking part in the civil wars which followed the death of Antiochus Grypus, and setting up Demetrius Eucaerus, the youngest son of that monarch, as a claimant to the throne. (J. AJ 13.13.4.)
After the death of Cleopatra and the expulsion of Alexander in B. C. 89 [Ptolemaeus IX.], Ptolemy Lathyrus was recalled by the Alexandrians and established anew on the throne of Egypt, which he occupied thenceforth without interruption till his death in B. C. 81 (Just. 39.5; Porphyr. l.c. p. 116). The most important event of this period was the revolt of the once mighty city of Thebes, in Upper Egypt, which was still powerful enough to hold out for nearly three years against the arms of Ptolemy, but at the end of that time was taken and reduced to the state of ruin in which it has ever since remained (Paus. 1.9.3). With this exception the eight years of the second reign of Ptolemy Lathyrus appear to have been a period of internal tranquillity, while his prudent policy regained for him in some degree that consideration abroad which Egypt had nearly lost. We find the Athenians, in return for some benefits which he had conferred upon them, erecting statues to him and his daughter Berenice (Paus. l.c.); and during the Mithridatic war, B. C. 87, Lucullus was sent by Sulla to request from him the assistance of the Egyptian fleet. But Lathyrus was desirous to remain neuter during that contest, and, while he received Lucullus with every demonstration of honour he declined to furnish the required assistance. (Plut. Luc. 2, 3.)
The character of Lathyrus appears to have been mild and amiable, even to a degree bordering upon weakness: but it shows in a favourable light when contrasted with those of his mother and brother, and he appears to have been free from the vices which degraded so many of the Egyptian kings. He reigned in all thirty-five years and a half; ten in conjunction with his mother (B. C. 117-107), eighteen in Cyprus (107-89), and seven and a half as sole ruler of Egypt (Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. p. 116). After his restoration in B. C. 89 he appears to have assumed the additional title of Philadelphus, whence he is sometimes distinguished as Ptolemy Philadelphus II. (Letronne, Rec. des Inscr. pp. 64-66; Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. p. 393.) He left only one daughter Berenice, called also Cleopatra, who succeeded him on the throne: and two sons, both named Ptolemy, who, though illegitimate, became severally kings of Egypt and Cyprus.
[E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος king of EGYPT, surnamed ALEXANDER, whence he is generally distinguished as Alexander I., was the youngest son of Ptolemy VII. by his niece Cleopatra. His mother's partiality led her to desire to place him on the throne in conjunction with herself, on the death of Euergetes, B. C. 1 7, in preference to his elder brother. But the will of the Alexandrians having compelled her to assume Lathyrus as her colleague, she sent Alexander to Cyprus with the title of general or governor of that island. Three years later, however (B. C. 114), he assumed the title of king, on what pretext we know not, and reckoned the years of his reign from this date (Porphyr. apud euseb. Arm. p. 116). But he appears to have remained content with the possession of Cyprus till B. C. 107, when Cleopatra, having expelled Ptolemy Lathyrus, recalled her favourite son to occupy the vacant throne of Egypt. Alexander reigned conjointly with his mother from this time till B. C. 90: but it is probable that her haughty and imperious character left him little real part in the administration of affairs. The only occasion on which we meet with his name in this interval is in B. C. 102, when he commanded the Egyptian fleet which attacked Phoenicia by sea, while Cleopatra with the army marched against Palestine (J. AJ 13.13.1). But at length the violence and cruelties of his mother terrified Alexander to such a degree that He determined to free himself from her power, and made his escape secretly from Alexandria. Hereupon Cleopatra, fearing lest her sons should make common cause against her, sent an embassy to Alexander to entreat his return. With this request he was induced to comply; but soon found reason to suspect that she was forming designs against his life, and immediately determined to anticipate them by causing her to be assassinated, B. C. 90. But he did not long enjoy the fruits of this crime. Cleopatra had been popular with the army, and the soldiers in consequence hated Alexander, who had not reigned alone a year, when he was compelled by a general sedition of the populace and military to quit Alexandria. He however raised fresh troops, and attempted to overcome the insurgent soldiery, but was totally defeated in a sea-fight by the rebels under Tyrrhus, and fled for refuge to Myra in Lycia, B. C. 89. His brother Lathyrus was now recalled by the Alexandrians to Egypt, a circumstance which led Alexander to hope that he might make himself master of Cyprus, and he accordingly assembled some forces, and invaded that island, but was defeated in a naval action by Chaereas, and fell in the battle. (Just. 39.4, 5; Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. p. 116.)
He left two children: a son, Alexander, who afterwards ascended the throne of Egypt, and a daughter, of whom nothing more is known. (Porphyr. l.c.)
[E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Egypt, son of the preceding, bore his father's name of Alexander, whence he is styled PTOLEMAEUS ALEXANDER II. When a mere child, he was sent by his grandmother Cleopatra for safety to the island of Cos, probably as early as B. C. 102 (see J. AJ 13.13.1), where he remained till the year B. C. 88, when that island was taken by Mithridates the Great. On this occasion Alexander fell into the hands of the conqueror, who treated him with the utmost distinction, and retained him at his own court. But the young prince soon after found an opportunity to escape, and took refuge with Sulla, whom He accompanied on his return to Rome. Here he remained till B. C. 81, when the death of Ptolemy Lathyrus without male issue having left the throne of Egypt vacant, Sulla, who was then dictator, nominated the young Alexander (who had obtained a high place in his favour) king of Egypt, and sent him to take possession of the crown. It was, however, agreed, in deference to the claims of Cleopatra Berenice, the daughter of Lathyrus, whom the Alexandrians had already placed on the throne, that Alexander should marry her, and admit her to share the sovereign power. He complied with the letter of this treaty by marrying Cleopatra immediately on his arrival in Egypt, but only nineteen days afterwards caused her to be assassinated: an act of cruelty which aroused the indignation of the Alexandrians, who in consequence rose against their new monarch, dragged him to the gymnasium, and there put him to death, B. C. 80. (Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. p. 117; Appian. Mithr. 23, B. C. 1.102 ; Cic. Frag. Or. de rege Alexandr. p. 352, ed. Orell. ; Trog. Pomp. Prolog. xxxix.)
Much difficulty and perplexity have arisen in regard to an Alexander king of Egypt, who is alluded to in more than one passage by Cicero, as having bequeathed his dominions by will to the Roman people (Cic. de Leg. agrar. 1.1, 2.16, 17 ; Fr. de reg. Alexandrino, p. 350). It appears that the fact of this bequest was by no means very certain, and that it never was acted upon by the Roman senate. But authors are not at all agreed which of the two Alexanders is here meant; and some writers have even deemed it necessary to admit the existence of a third king of the name of Alexander, who died about B. C. 65. The silence of the chronographers seems, however, conclusive against this hypothesis. Niebuhr, on the contrary, conceives Ptolemy Alexander I. to have lived on in exile till the year 65, and to have been the author of this testament: but this is opposed to the direct testimony of Porphyry as to his death. Other writers suppose Alexander II. to be the person designed, and adopt the statement of Trogus Pompeius that he was only expelled by the Alexandrians, in opposition to the authority of Porphyry and Appian, confirmed as they are by a passage in Cicero, in regard to his death. (See on this subject Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. p. 392; Champollion-Figeac, Annales dies Lagides, vol. ii. p. 247 ; Visconti, Iconographie Grecqie, vol. iii. p. 251 ; Niebuhr, Kl. Sc]riften, p. 302; Orelli, Onomast. Tullian. p. 30.) The fragmentary and imperfect nature of our authorities for this period of Egyptian history renders it scarcely possible to arrive at a satisfactory solution of this question. [E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Egypt, assumed the surnames or titles of Neus Dionysus (Νέος Διόνυσος), but is more commonly known by the appellation of Auletes (the fluteplayer). He was an illegitimate son of Ptolemy Lathyrus, and, on account of his spurious birth, his pretensions to the throne appear to have been altogether passed over at his father's death: but when the assassination of Berenice and the death of Alexander II. had completed the extinction of the legitimate race of the Lagidae (B. C. 80), Ptolemy was proclaimed king by the Alexandrians (Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. p. 117). So imperfect is our history of this period that we know nothing concerning the first twenty years of his reign. But of his character in general we are told that he was given up to every kind of vice and debauchery, and his name is associated with those of Philopator and Physcon, as one of the worst rulers of the whole race of the Ptolemies (Strab. xvii. p.796). He appears to have assumed the name of Dionysus as a sort of authority for his orgies, and is said to have been on the point of putting to death the Platonic philosopher Demetrius, for refusing to join in his drunken revels (Lucian, de Calumn. 16). His passion for playing on the flute, to which he owed his popular appellation, led him to institute musical contests, in which he himself condescended to appear as a competitor. (Strab. l.c.; Plut. de Adul. et Amic. 12.)
But it was not his vices alone which served to disgust and alienate the minds of his subjects. It had been a natural object of his desire to obtain the countenance and protection of the Roman senate; but, for some reason or other, it was long before he could obtain their ratification of his title to the crown, and it was not till the consulship of Caesar that he was able to purchase by vast bribes the desired privileges (Suet. Cases. 54). But he had expended immense sums in the pursuit of this object, which he was compelled to raise by the imposition of fresh taxes, and the discontent thus excited combining with the contempt entertained for his character, led to his expulsion by the Alexandrians, in B. C. 58. On this he determined to proceed in person to Rome to procure from the senate his restoration. On his way thither he had an interview at Rhodes with Cato, who endeavoured, but in vain, to dissuade him from his purpose (Plut. Cat. Mi. 35). His first reception was promising, and by a lavish distribution of bribes, combined with the influential support of Cicero, who pronounced an oration in his favour (Pro Rege Alexandrino), he procured a decree from the senate, commanding his restoration, and entrusting the charge of effecting it to P. Lentulus Spinther, then proconsul of Cilicia. Meanwhile, the Alexandrians sent an embassy of a hundred of their leading citizens to plead their cause with the Roman senate : but Ptolemy had the audacity to cause the deputies, on their arrival in Italy, to be waylaid, and the greater part of them murdered, while the rest were prevented, either by threats or bribes, from coming forward against him. The indignation excited at Rome by this proceeding, however, produced a reaction: the tribunes took up the matter against the nobility, while a party in the senate strove to get the commission transferred from Lentulus to Pompey, and an oracle was produced from the Sibylline books, forbidding the restoration of the king by an armed force. The intrigues and disputes thus raised were protracted throughout the year 56, and at length Ptolemy, despairing of a favourable result, quitted Rome in disgust, and withdrew to Ephesus. (D. C. 39.12_16; Cic. Fam. 1.1-7, ad Q. Fr. 2.2, 3, pro Rabir. 2, 3, pro Cael. 10; Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. pp. 117, 118 ; Plut. Pomp. 49.)
Some years afterwards, however, he obtained from private individuals what he had failed in inducing the senate to accomplish: and in B. C. 55 A. Gabinius, who was proconsul in Syria, was induced, by the influence of Pompey, aided by the enormous bribe of ten thousand talents from Ptolemy himself, to undertake his restoration. The Alexandrians had in the meantime placed on the throne of Egypt, Berenice, the eldest daughter of Ptolemy, who had married Archelaus, the son of the general of Mithridates [Archelaus No. 2] ; and they opposed Gabinius with an army on the confines of the kingdom. They were, however, defeated in three successive battles, Archelaus slain, and Ptolemy once more established on the throne, B. C. 55. One of his first acts was to put to death his daughter Berenice, and many of the leading citizens of Alexandria. (D. C. 39.55_58; Liv. Epit. cv.; Plut. Ant. 3; Strab. xvii. p.796; Cic. in Pison. 21, pro Rabir. Post. 8 ; Porphyr. l.c.)
He survived his restoration only three years and a half (Porphyr. ib.); of the events of which period we have no information; but as Ptolemy was now supported by a large body of Roman soldiers who had been left behind by Gabinius for his protection, he was safe from any outbreak of popular discontent. On the other hand seditions and tumults of the soldiery themselves became frequent, and the king was repeatedly compelled to give way to their demands (Caes. Civ. 3.103, 110; D. C. 42.5). The immense sum exacted from him by Gabinius had also involved him in pecuniary embarrassments, and he was compelled to surrender the whole finances of his kingdom into the hands of Rabirius Postumus. (Cic. pro Rabir. 10.)
His death took place in May B. C. 51 (see Cic. Fam. 8.4), after a reign of twenty-nine years from the date of his first accession. He left two sons, both named Ptolemy, and two daughters, Cleopatra and Arsinoe. Two other daughters, Tryphaena and Berenice, had died before him (Porphyr. l.c. p. 118). Besides the titles already mentioned, Ptolemy Auletes bears, in inscriptions, both Greek and hieroglyphic, those of Philopator and Philadelphus. None of these, however. appear on his coins.
[E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Egypt, was the eldest son of Ptolemy XI. Auletes. He is commonly said to have borne the surname of Dionysus, in imitation of his father, but there appears to be no authority for this assertion. By his father's will the sovereign power was left to himself and his sister Cleopatra jointly, and this arrangement was carried into effect without opposition, B. C. 51. Auletes had also referred the execution of his will to the Roman senate, and the latter accepted the office, confirmed its provisions and bestowed on Pompey the title of guardian of the young king (Caes. Civ. 3.108; Eutrop. vi 21). But the approach of the civil war prevented them from taking any active part, and the administration of affairs fell into the hands of an eunuch named Pothinus. It was not long before dissensions broke out between the latter and Cleopatra, which ended in the expulsion of the princess, after she had reigned in conjunction with her brother about three years, B. C. 48. Hereupon she took refuge in Syria, and assembled an army with which she invaded Egypt. The young king, accompanied by his guardians, met her at Pelusium, and it was while the two armies were here encamped opposite to one another, that Pompey landed in Egypt, to throw himself as a suppliant on the protection of Ptolemy; but was assassinated by the orders of Pothinus and Achillas before he could obtain an interview with the king himself. (Caes. Civ. 3.103, 104; D. C. 42.3, 4 ; Plut. Pomp. 77_79; Appian, App. BC 2.84, 85 ; Strab. xvii. p.797.) Shortly after, Caesar arrived in Egypt, and took upon himself to regulate the affairs of that kingdom, and settle the dispute between Ptolemy and his sister. But Cleopatra, who now hastened to return to Alexandria, soon obtained so powerful a hold over the conqueror by the influence of her personal attractions, that it was evident the latter would decide the controversy in her favour. Hereupon Pothinus determined to excite an insurrection against Caesar, and secretly summoned the army from Pelusium under Achillas. Caesar was taken by surprise, and had to maintain his ground with very inadequate forces in a part of the city where he was vehemently assailed both by the army and the populace. Ptolemy himself was at this time in the power of the conqueror, but after the contest had continued for some time, he obtained permission to repair to the camp of the insurgents, under pretence of exercising his authority to reduce them to submission ; instead of which he immediately put himself at their head. Caesar, however, still defied all their efforts; and, meanwhile, Mithridates of Pergamus had assembled an army in Syria, with which he advanced to the relief of the dictator. Ptolemy now turned his arms against this new enemy, and took up a strong position on the banks of the Nile to prevent Mithridates from crossing that river. Caesar himself, however, quickly arrived from Alexandria, landed near the mouth of the Nile, attacked and defeated the forces of the young king, and followed up his advantage by storming his camp. Ptolemy himself endeavoured to escape by the river, but was drowned in the attempt. His death occurred either before the close of B. C. 48, or early in the following year. (Caes. Civ. 3.106_112 ; Hirt. B. Alex. 1-31; D. C. 42.7-9, 34_43 ; Plut. Caes. 48, 49; Liv. Epit. cxii.; Appian, App. BC 2.89, 90; Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. p. 118.)
[E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Egypt, was the youngest son of Ptolemy Auletes. He was declared king by Caesar in conjunction with Cleopatra, after the death of his elder brother Ptolemy XII., B. C. 47: and although he was a mere boy, it was decreed that he should marry his sister, with whom he was thus to share the power. Both his marriage and regal title were, of course, purely nominal: in B. C. 45, Cleopatra took him with her to Rome, but shortly after the death of Caesar she put the poor boy to death, after he had enjoyed his titular sovereignty a little more than three years, B. C. 43. (Porphyr. apud Euseb. Arm. p. 118; Hirt. B. Alex. 33; D. C. 42.44, 43.27; Strab. xvii. p.797; Suet. Jul. 35.)
Concerning the history of the Ptolemies in general, see Vaillant, Historia Plolemaeorum Regum Aegypti, fol. Amstel. 1701; Champollion-Figene, Annales des Lagides, 2 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1815; Letronne, Recherches pour servir à i'histoire d'Egypte, 8vo. Paris, 1823, and Recueil des Inscriptions Grecques en Egypte, 4to. Paris, 1842 ; Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. Appendix, ch. 5. Much light has been thrown upon the history of the earlier Ptolemies by Niebuhr, Kleine Schriften, pp. 179-305, and by Droysen, Hellenismus, vol. ii., but a good history of this dynasty is still a desideratum.
Of the coins of the Ptolemies it may be observed, that most of them can only be assigned to the several monarchs of the name by conjecture ; very few of them bearing any title but those of ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ. Hence they are of little or no historical value. (See on this subject Eckhel, vol. iv. pp. 4-25; Visconti, Iconographie Grecque, vol. iii. chap. 18.) [E.H.B]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Epeirus, was the second son of Alexander II., king of Epeirus, and Olympias, and grandson of the great Pyrrhus. Hie succeeded to the throne on the death of his elder brother, Pyrrhus II., but reigned only a very short time, having set out on a military expedition, during the course of which he fell sick and died. (Just. 28.1, 3; Paus. 4.35.3.) The date of lis reign cannot be fixed with certainty, but as he was contemporary with Demetrius II. king of Macedonia, it may be placed between 239-229, B. C.
[E.H.B]
kings of Macedonia. [Ptolemaeus of Alorus, and Ptolemaeus Ceraunus.]
(Πτολεμαῖος), king of Mauritania, was the son and successor of Juba II. By his mother Cleopatra he was descended from the kings of Egypt, whose name he bore. The period of his accession and the death of his father cannot be determined with certainty, but we know that Ptolemy was already on the throne when Strabo wrote, about 18 or 19, A. D. (Strab. xvii. pp. 828, 840; Clinton. F. H. vol. iii. p. 203.) He was at this time very young, and the administration of affairs fell in consequence, in great measure, into the hands of his freedmen. Great disorders ensued, and many of the Mauritanians joined the standard of the Numidian Tacfarinas, who carried on a predatory warfare against the Romans. But in A. D. 24 Tacfarinas himself was defeated and killed by P. Dolabella, and Ptolemny himself rendered such efficient assistance to the Roman general in his campaign, that an embassy was sent to reward him, after the ancient fashion, with the presents of a toga picta and sceptre, as a sign of the friendship of the Roman people. (Tac. Ann. 4.23_26.) He continued to reign without interruption till A. D. 40, when he was summoned to Rome by Caligula, and shortly after put to death, his great riches having excited the cupidity of the emperor. (D. C. 59.25; Suet. Cal. 26; Senec. de Tranquil. 11.) We learn nothing from history of his character; but from the circumstance that a statue was erected in his honour by the Athenians (Stuart's Antiq. of Athens, vol. iii. p. 55; Visconti, Iconographie Grecque, vol. iii. p. 275), we may probably infer that he inherited something of his father's taste for literature. The annexed coin belongs to this Ptolemy; the curule chair and sceptre, on the reverse, probably refer to the honours decreed him by the Roman senate, as already mentioned.
[E.H.B]
son of Mennaeus. [Ptolemaeus, tetrarch of Chalcis.]
-
…, vetitus est navigare ; quale etiam de Alexandro, quod a te praeteritum esse miror, Quinte. cum Ptolemaeus, familiaris eius, in proelio telo venenato ictus esset eo que vulnere summo cum dolore moreretur, Alexander assidens…
M. Tullius Cicero, De Divinatione
-
…magno domum. quo loco possum dicere id quod vir clarissimus, M. Crassus, cum de adventu regis Ptolemaei quereretur, paulo ante dixit Vtinam ne in nemore Pelio ac longius mihi quidem contexere hoc carmen liceret nam numquam…
Cicero, pro Caelio
-
…Sumturus poenas et grata piacula morti, Missurusque tuum, si non sint tela nec ignes, In famulos, Ptolemaee, caput. Sic barbara Colchis Creditur, ultorem metuens regnique fugaeque, Ense suo fratrisque simul cervice parata Exspectasse…
Lucan, Pharsalia
-
…et oculos simul ludentium infantium incesseret. leue ac frigidum sit his addere, quo propinquos amicosque pacto tractauerit, Ptolemaeum regis Iubae filium, consobrinum suum erat enim et is M. Antoni ex Selene filia nepos et in primis…
Suetonius, Lives
-
…familiarum insignia nobilissimo cuique ademit, Torquato torquem, Cincinnato crinem, Cn. Pompeio stirpis antiquae Magni cognomen. Ptolemaeum, de quo rettuli, et arcessitum e regno et exceptum honorifice, non alia de causa repente percussit ,…
Suetonius, Lives
-
…etiam morti suae superstes, non ad Iugurtham, quem populus Romanus intra annum, quam timuerat, spectavit. Ptolemaeum Africae regem, Armeniae Mithridaten inter Gaianas custodias vidimus ; alter in exilium missus est, alter ut meliore fide…
Seneca, De Tranquillitate Animi
-
…facit. Maiore profecto, Quam metui poterat, discrimine gessimus arma ; Exsilium generique minas Romamque timebam Poena fugae Ptolemaeus erat. Sed parcimus annis, Donamusque nefas. Sciat hac pro caede tyrannus Nil venia plus posse dari .…
Lucan, Pharsalia
-
…dominis. Pudeat plus regia Nili Contulit in leges, et Parthi militis arcus. Ite, o degeneres, Ptolemaei munus et arma Spernite. Quis vestras ulla putet esse nocentes Caede manus Credet faciles sibi terga dedisse, Credet…
Lucan, Pharsalia
-
…menses maximis obsessum operibus, ad extremum Pharsalico proelio fudit et fugientem Alexandriam persecutus, ut occisum deprehendit, cum Ptolemaeo rege, a quo sibi quoque insidias tendi uidebat, bellum sane difficillimum gessit, neque loco neque tempore aequo…
Suetonius, Lives
-
…amicitia manere potuisset, captus bello in custodia socer generi periit a morbo. neque ita multo post Seleucus a Ptolemaeo Cerauno dolo interfectus est, quem ille a patre expulsum Alexandrea alienarum opum indigentem receperat. ipse autem Ptolemaeus ,…
Cornelius Nepos, Vitae
(Πτολεμαῖος), usually called Ptolemy. I. Minor Historical Persons.—(1) The nephew of Antigonus, king of Asia. He carried on war in Greece on behalf of Antigonus, but in B.C. 310 he abandoned the cause of his uncle, and concluded a treaty with Cassander and Ptolemy the son of Lagus. He soon gave offence to the Egyptian king, and was, in consequence, compelled to put an end to his life by poison, B.C. 309.
(2) The son of Lysimachus, king of Thrace. He was the eldest of the three sons of that monarch by his last wife Arsinoë, and the only one who escaped falling into the hands of Ptolemy Ceraunus.
(3) The son of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, by his wife Antigoné, the step-daughter of Ptolemy Lagi. When only fifteen years of age he was left by his father in charge of his hereditary dominions, when Pyrrhus himself set out on his expedition to Italy, 280. At a later time he fought under his father in Greece, and was slain in the course of Pyrrhus's campaign in the Peloponnesus, 272.
(4) Surnamed Philadelphus, son of M. Antony, the triumvir, by Cleopatra. After the death of Antony, B.C. 30, his life was spared by Augustus at the intercession of Iuba and Cleopatra , and he was brought up by Octavia with her own children.
II. Kings of Egypt.—(1) Surnamed Soter, the Preserver, but more commonly known as the son of Lagus, reigned B.C. 323-285. His father Lagus was a Macedonian of ignoble birth, but his mother Arsinoë had been a concubine of Philip of Macedon, on which account it seems to have been generally believed that Ptolemy was in reality the offspring of that monarch. Ptolemy is mentioned among the friends of the young Alexander before the death of Philip. He accompanied Alexander throughout his campaigns in Asia, and was always treated by the king with the greatest favour. On the division of the Empire which followed Alexander's death (323), Ptolemy obtained the government of Egypt. In 321 his dominions were invaded by Perdiccas, the regent; but the assassination of Perdiccas by his mutinous soldiers soon delivered Ptolemy from this danger. In the following year Ptolemy enlarged his dominions by seizing upon the important satrapy of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria. It was probably during this expedition that he made himself master of Jerusalem by attacking the city on the Sabbath. A few years afterwards (316) Ptolemy entered into an alliance with Cassander and Lysimachus against Antigonus, whose growing power had excited their common apprehensions. In the war which followed, Antigonus conquered Coele-Syria and Phoenicia (315-314); but Ptolemy recovered these provinces by the defeat of Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, in 312. In 311 hostilities were suspended by a general peace. This peace, however, was of short duration, and Ptolemy appears to have been the first to recommence the war. He crossed over to Greece, where he announced himself as the liberator of the Greeks, but effected little. In 306 Ptolemy was defeated by Demetrius in a great sea-fight off Salamis in Cyprus. In consequence of this defeat, Ptolemy lost the important island of Cyprus, which had previously been subject to him. Antigonus was so much elated by this victory as to assume the title of king, an example which Ptolemy, notwithstanding his defeat, immediately followed. Antigonus and Demetrius followed up their success by the invasion of Egypt, but were compelled to return to Syria without effecting anything. Next year (305) Ptolemy rendered the most important assistance to the Rhodians, who were besieged by Demetrius; and when Demetrius was at length compelled to raise the siege (304), the Rhodians paid divine honours to the Egyptian monarch as their saviour and preserver (Σωτήρ), a title which appears to have been now bestowed upon Ptolemy for the first time. Ptolemy took comparatively little part in the contest, which led to the decisive battle of Ipsus, in which Antigonus was defeated and slain (301). The latter years of Ptolemy's reign appear to have been devoted almost entirely to the arts of peace, and to promoting the internal prosperity of his dominions. In 285 Ptolemy abdicated in favour of his youngest son Ptolemy Philadelphus, the child of his latest and most beloved wife, Berenicé, excluding from the throne his two eldest sons Ptolemy Ceraunus and Meleager, the offspring of Eurydicé. The elder Ptolemy survived this event two years, and died in 283. His reign is variously estimated at thirty-eight or forty years, according as we include or not these two years which followed his abdication.
The character of Ptolemy has been generally represented in a very favourable light by historians, and there is no doubt that if we compare him with his contemporaries and rivals he appears to deserve the praises bestowed upon his mildness and moderation. But it is only with this important qualification that they can be admitted: for there are many evidences that he did not shrink from any measure that he deemed requisite in order to carry out the objects of his ambition. Yet as a ruler Ptolemy certainly deserves the highest praise. By his able and vigorous administration he laid the foundations of the wealth and prosperity which Egypt enjoyed for a long period. Under his fostering care Alexandria quickly rose to the place designed for it by its founder —that of the greatest commercial city of the world. Not less eminent were the services rendered by Ptolemy in the advancement of literature and science. In this department, indeed, it is not always easy to distinguish the portion of credit due to the father from that of his son: but it seems certain that to the elder monarch belongs the merit of having originated those literary institutions which assumed a more definite and regular form, as well as a more prominent place, under his successor. Such appears to have been the case with the two most celebrated of all—the Library and the Museum of Alexandria. The first suggestion of these important foundations is ascribed by some writers to Demetrius of Phalerus, who spent all the latter years of his life at the court of Ptolemy. But many other men of literary eminence were also gathered around the Egyptian king, among whom may be especially noticed the great geometrician Euclid, the philosophers Stilpo of Megara, Theodorus of Cyrené, and Diodorus surnamed Cronus, as well as the elegiac poet Philetas of Cos, and the grammarian Zenodotus. To the last two we are told Ptolemy confided the literary education of his son Philadelphus. Many anecdotes sufficiently attest the free intercourse which subsisted between the king and the men of letters by whom he was surrounded, and prove that the easy familiarity of his manners corresponded with his simple and unostentatious habits of life. We also find him maintaining a correspondence with Menander, whom he in vain endeavoured to attract to his court, and sending overtures probably of a similiar nature to Theophrastus. (See Alexandrian School; bibliotheca.) Nor were the fine arts neglected: the rival painters Antiphilus and Apelles both exercised their talents at Alexandria, where some of their most celebrated pictures were produced. See Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies (1896).
Ptolemy was himself an author: he composed a history of the wars of Alexander, which is frequently cited by later writers, and is one of the chief authorities which Arrian made the groundwork of his own history.
(2) Philadelphus (B.C. 285-247), the son of Ptolemy I. by his wife Berenicé, was born in the island of Cos, 309. His long reign was marked by few events of a striking character. He was engaged in war with his half-brother Magas, who had governed Cyrené as viceroy under Ptolemy Soter, but on the death of that monarch not only asserted his independence, but even attempted to invade Egypt. Magas was supported by Antiochus II., king of Syria; and the war was at length terminated by a treaty, which left Magas in undisputed possession of the Cyrenaïca, while his infant daughter Berenicé was betrothed to Ptolemy, the son of Philadelphus. Ptolemy also concluded a treaty with the Romans. He was frequently engaged in hostilities with Syria, which were terminated towards the close of his reign by a treaty of peace, by which Ptolemy gave his daughter Berenicé in marriage to Antiochus II. Ptolemy's chief care, however, was directed to the internal administration of his kingdom, and to the patronage of literature and science. The institutions of which the foundations had been laid by his father quickly rose under his fostering care to the highest prosperity. The Museum of Alexandria became the resort and abode of all the most distinguished men of letters of the day, and in the library attached to it were accumulated all the treasures of ancient learning. Among the other illustrious names which adorned the reign of Ptolemy may be mentioned those of the poets Philetas and Theocritus, the philosophers Hegesias and Theodorus, the mathematician Euclid, and the astronomers Timocharis, Aristarchus of Samos, and Aratus. Nor was his patronage confined to the ordinary cycle of Hellenic literature. By his interest in natural history he gave a stimulus to the pursuit of that science, which gave birth to many important works, while he himself formed collections of rare animals within the precincts of the royal palace. It was during his reign also, and perhaps at his desire, that Manetho gave to the world in a Greek form the historical records of the Egyptians; and according to a well-known tradition it was by his express command that the Holy Scriptures of the Jews were translated into Greek. The new cities or colonies founded by Philadelphus in different parts of his dominions were extremely numerous. On the Red Sea alone we find at least two bearing the name of Arsinoë, one called after another of his sisters Philotera, and two cities named in honour of his mother Berenicé. The same names occur also in Cilicia and Syria: and in the latter country he founded the important fortress of Ptolemaïs in Palestine. All authorities concur in attesting the great power and wealth to which the Egyptian monarchy was raised under Philadelphus. He possessed at the close of his reign a standing army of 200,000 foot and 40,000 horse, besides war-chariots and elephants, a fleet of 1500 ships, and a sum of 740,000 talents in his treasury; while he derived from Egypt alone an annual revenue of 14,800 talents. His dominions comprised, besides Egypt itself, and portions of Aethiopia, Arabia, and Libya, the important provinces of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria, together with Cyprus, Lycia, Caria, and the Cyclades, and during a great part at least of his reign Cilicia and Pamphylia also. Before his death Cyrené was reunited to the monarchy by the marriage of his son Ptolemy with Berenicé, the daughter of Magas. The private life and relations of Philadelphus do not exhibit his character in as favourable a light as we might have inferred from the splendour of his administration. He put to death two of his brothers; and he banished his first wife Arsinoë, the daughter of Lysimachus, to Coptos in Upper Egypt on a charge of conspiracy. After her removal Ptolemy married his own sister Arsinoë, the widow of Lysimachus, a flagrant violation of the religious notions of the Greeks, but one which was frequently imitated by his successors. He evinced his affection for Arsinoë not only by bestowing her name upon many of his newly-founded colonies, but by assuming himself the surname of Philadelphus, a title which some writers referred in derision to his unnatural treatment of his two brothers. By this second marriage Ptolemy had no issue: but his first wife had borne him two sons—Ptolemy, who succeeded him on the throne, and Lysimachus; and a daughter, Berenice, whose marriage to Antiochus II., king of Syria, has been already mentioned.
(3) Euergētes (B.C. 247-222), eldest son and successor of Philadelphus. Shortly after his accession he invaded Syria, in order to avenge the death of his sister Berenice. (See Berenice, No. 2.) He met with the most striking success. He advanced as far as Babylon and Susa, and after reducing Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Susiana, received the submission of all the upper provinces of Asia as far as the confines of Bactria and India. From this career of conquest he was recalled by the news of seditions in Egypt, and returned to that country, carrying with him an immense booty, comprising, among other objects, all the statues of the Egyptian deities which had been carried off by Cambyses to Babylon or Persia. These he restored to their respective temples, an act by which he earned the greatest popularity with his native Egyptian subjects, who bestowed on him in consequence the title of Εὐεργέτης (“Benefactor”), by which he is generally known. While the arms of the king himself were thus successful in the East, his fleets reduced the maritime provinces of Asia, including Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Ionia, as far as the Hellespont, together with Lysimachia and other important places on the coast of Thrace which continued for a long period subject to the Egyptian rule. Concerning the events which followed the return of Euergetes to his own dominions (probably in 243) we are almost wholly in the dark; but it appears that the greater part of the eastern provinces speedily fell again into the hands of Seleucus, while Ptolemy retained possession of the maritime regions and a great part of Syria itself. He soon obtained a valuable ally in the person of Antiochus Hierax, the younger brother of Seleucus, whom he supported in his wars against his elder brother. We find Euergetes maintaining the same friendly relations as his father with Rome. During the latter years of his reign he subdued the Aethiopian tribes on his southern frontier, and advanced as far as Adule, a port on the Red Sea, where he established an emporium, and set up an inscription commemorating the exploits of his reign. To a copy of this, accidentally preserved to us by an Egyptian monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes, we are indebted for much of the scanty information we possess concerning his reign.
Ptolemy Euergetes is scarcely less celebrated than his father for his patronage of literature and science: he added so largely to the library at Alexandria that he has been sometimes erroneously deemed its founder. Eratosthenes, Apollonius Rhodius, and Aristophanes the grammarian flourished at Alexandria during his reign—sufficient to prove that the literature and learning of the Alexandrian school still retained their former eminence. By his wife Berenicé, who survived him, Euergetes left three children: (a) Ptolemy, his successor; (b) Magas; and (c) Arsinoë, afterwards married to her brother Ptolemy Philopator.
(4) Philopător (B.C. 222-205), eldest son and successor of Euergetes. He was very far from inheriting the virtues or abilities of his father, and his reign was the commencement of the decline of the Egyptian kingdom, which had been raised to such a height of power and prosperity by his three predecessors. Its beginning was stained with crimes of the darkest kind. He put to death his mother, Berenicé, and his brother, Magas, and his uncle Lysimachus, the brother of Euergetes. He then gave himself up without restraint to a life of indolence and luxury, while he abandoned to his minister Sosibius the care of all political affairs. The latter seems to have been as incapable as his master, and the kingdom was allowed to fall into a state of the utmost disorder, of which Antiochus the Great, king of Syria, was not slow to avail himself. In the first two campaigns (219, 218), Antiochus conquered the greater part of Coele-Syria and Palestine, but in the third year of the war (217), he was completely defeated by Ptolemy in person at the decisive battle of Raphia, and was glad to conclude a peace with the Egyptian monarch. On his return from his Syrian expedition, Ptolemy gave himself up more and more to every species of vice and debauchery. His mistress Agathoclea, and her brother Agathocles, divided with Sosibius the patronage and distribution of all places of honour or profit. Towards the close of his reign Ptolemy put to death his wife Arsinoë. His debaucheries shortened his life. He died in 205, leaving only one son, a child of five years old. We find Ptolemy following up the policy of his predecessors by cultivating the friendship of the Romans, to whom he furnished large supplies of corn during their struggle with Carthage. Plunged as he was in vice and debauchery, Philopator appears to have still inherited something of the love of letters for which his predecessors were so conspicuous. We find him associating on familiar terms with philosophers and men of letters, and especially patronizing the distinguished grammarian Aristarchus.
(5) Epiphănes (B.C. 205-181), son and successor of Ptolemy IV. He was a child of five years old at the death of his father, 205. Philip, king of Macedonia, and Antiochus III. of Syria determined to take advantage of the minority of Ptolemy, and entered into a league to divide his dominions between them. In pursuance of this arrangement, Antiochus conquered Coele-Syria, while Philip reduced the Cyclades and the cities in Thrace which had still remained subject to Egypt. In this emergency the Egyptian ministers had recourse to the powerful intervention of the Romans, who commanded both monarchs to refrain from further hostilities, and restore all the conquered cities. In order to evade this demand without openly opposing the power of Rome, Antiochus concluded a treaty with Egypt, by which it was agreed that the young king should marry Cleopatra , the daughter of Antiochus, and receive back the Syrian provinces as her dower. This treaty took place in 199, but the marriage was not actually solemnized until six years after. The administration of Egypt was placed in the hands of Aristomenes, a man who was every way worthy of the charge. As early, however, as 196, the young king was declared of full age, and the ceremony of his anacleteria, or coronation, was solemnized with great magnificence. It was on this occasion that the decree was issued that has been preserved to us in the celebrated inscription known as the Rosetta Stone (q.v.). a monument of great interest in regard to the internal history of Egypt under the Ptolemies, independent of its importance as having afforded the key to the discovery of hieroglyphics. In 193 the marriage of Ptolemy with the Syrian princess Cleopatra was solemnized at Raphia. Ptolemy, however, refused to assist his father-in-law in the war against the Romans, which was at this time on the eve of breaking out, and he continued steadfast in his alliance with Rome. But he derived no advantage from the treaty which concluded it, and Antiochus still retained possession of CoeleSyria and Phoenicia. As long as Ptolemy continued under the guidance and influence of Aristomenes, his administration was equitable and popular. Gradually, however, he became estranged from his able and virtuous minister, and threw himself more and more into the power of flatterers and vicious companions, until at length he was induced to rid himself of Aristomenes, who was compelled to take poison. Towards the close of his reign Ptolemy conceived the project of recovering Coele-Syria from Seleucus, the successor of Antiochus, and had assembled a large mercenary force for that purpose; but having, by an unguarded expression, excited the apprehensions of some of his friends, he was cut off by poison in the twentyfourth year of his reign and the twenty-ninth of his age (181). He left two sons, both named Ptolemy, who subsequently ascended the throne, under the names of Ptolemy Philometor and Euergetes II., and a daughter who bore her mother's name of Cleopatra. His reign was marked by the rapid decline of the Egyptian monarchy, for the provinces and cities wrested from it during his minority by Antiochus and Philip were never recovered, and at his death Cyprus and the Cyrenaïca were almost the only foreign possessions still attached to the crown of Egypt.
(6) Philomētor (B.C. 181-146), eldest son and successor of Ptolemy V. He was a child at the death of his father in 181, and the regency was assumed during his minority by his mother Cleopatra , who, by her able administration, maintained the kingdom in a state of tranquillity. But after her death in 173, the chief power fell into the hands of Eulaeus and Lenaeus, ministers as corrupt as they were incapable, who had the rashness to engage in war with Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, in the vain hope of recovering the provinces of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. But their army was totally defeated by Antiochus near Pelusium, and Antiochus was able to advance without opposition as far as Memphis, 170. The young king himself fell into his hands, but was treated with kindness and distinction, as Antiochus hoped by his means to make himself the master of Egypt. On learning the captivity of his brother, the young Ptolemy, who was then at Alexandria with his sister Cleopatra , assumed the title of king, under the name of Euergetes II., and prepared to defend the capital to the utmost. Antiochus hereupon laid siege to Alexandria, but he was unable to take the city, and withdrew into Syria, after establishing Philometor as king at Memphis, but retaining in his hands the frontier fortress of Pelusium. This last circumstance, together with the ravages committed by the Syrian troops, awakened Philometor, who had hitherto been a mere puppet in the hands of the Syrian king, to a sense of his true position, and he hastened to make overtures of peace to his brother and sister at Alexandria. It was agreed that the two brothers should reign together, and that Philometor should marry his sister Cleopatra. But this arrangement did not suit the views of Antiochus, who immediately renewed hostilities. The two brothers were unable to offer any effectual opposition, and he had advanced a second time to the walls of Alexandria, when he was met by a Roman embassy, headed by M. Popilius Laenas, who haughtily commanded him instantly to desist from hostilities. Antiochus did not venture to disobey, and withdrew to his own dominions in 168. Dissensions broke out between the brothers, and Euergetes expelled Philometor from Alexandria. Philometor repaired to Rome, and by the influence of the Roman Senate was reinstated in the sovereign power, Euergetes, however, receiving the territory of Cyrené as a separate kingdom. To Cyprus also he soon laid claim, and war broke out once more, ending in the defeat of Euergetes, who from that time remained content with Cyrené as a kingdom. The attention of Philometor appears to have been, from this time, principally directed to the side of Syria. Demetrius Soter having sought during the dissensions between the two brothers to make himself master of Cyprus, Ptolemy now supported the usurper Alexander Balas, to whom he gave his daughter Cleopatra in marriage (150). But when Ptolemy advanced with an army to the assistance of his son-in-law, Ammonius, the favourite and minister of Alexander, formed a plot against the life of Ptolemy; whereupon the latter took away his daughter Cleopatra from her faithless husband, and bestowed her hand on Demetrius Nicator, the son of Soter, whose cause he now espoused. In conjunction with Demetrius, Ptolemy carried on war against Alexander, whom he defeated in a decisive battle; but he died a few days afterwards in consequence of an injury which he had received from a fall from his horse in this battle (146). He had reigned thirty-five years from the period of his first accession, and eighteen from his restoration by the Romans. Philometor is praised for the mildness and humanity of his disposition. Polybius even tells us that not a single citizen of Alexandria was put to death by him for any political or private offence. On the whole, if not one of the greatest, he was at least one of the best of the race of the Ptolemies. He left three children: (a) A son, Ptolemy, who was proclaimed king after his father's death, under the name Ptolemy Eupator, but was put to death almost immediately after by his uncle Euergetes. (b) A daughter, Cleopatra , married first to Alexander Balas, then to Demetrius II. king of Syria; and (c) Another daughter, also named Cleopatra , who was afterwards married to her uncle Ptolemy Euergetes.
(7) Euergĕtes II. or Physcon (Φύσκων), “BigBelly,” reigned B.C. 146-117. His history down to the death of his brother has been already given. In order to secure undisputed possession of the throne, he married his sister Cleopatra , the widow of his brother Philometor, and put to death his nephew Ptolemy, who had been proclaimed king under the surname of Eupator. A reign thus commenced in blood was continued in a similar spirit. Many of the leading citizens of Alexandria, who had taken part against him on the death of his brother, were put to death, while the populace were given up to the cruelties of his mercenary troops, and the streets of the city were repeatedly deluged with blood. Thousands of the inhabitants fled from the scene of such horrors, and the population of Alexandria was so greatly thinned that the king found himself compelled to invite foreign settlers from all quarters to re-people his deserted capital. At the same time that he thus incurred the hatred of his subjects by his cruelties, he rendered himself an object of their aversion and contempt by abandoning himself to the most degrading vices. In consequence of these, he had become bloated and deformed in person, and enormously corpulent, whence the Alexandrians gave him the nickname of Physcon, by which he is more usually known. His union with Cleopatra was not of long duration. He became enamoured of his niece Cleopatra (the offspring of his wife by her former marriage with Philometor), and he did not hesitate to divorce the mother, and receive her daughter instead, as his wife and queen. By this proceeding he alienated still more the minds of his Greek subjects; and his vices and cruelties at length produced an insurrection at Alexandria. Thereupon he fled to Cyprus, and the Alexandrians declared his sister Cleopatra queen (130). Enraged at this, Ptolemy put to death Memphitis, his son by Cleopatra , and sent his head and hands to his unhappy mother. But Cleopatra having been shortly afterwards expelled from Alexandria in her turn, Ptolemy found himself unexpectedly reinstated on the throne (127). His sister Cleopatra fled to the court of her elder sister Cleopatra , the wife of Demetrius II., king of Syria, who espoused the cause of the fugitive. Ptolemy, in revenge, set up against him a pretender named Zabinas or Zebina, who assumed the title of Alexander II. But the usurper behaved with such haughtiness to Ptolemy that the latter suddenly changed his policy, became reconciled to his sister Cleopatra , whom he permitted to return to Egypt, and gave his daughter Tryphaena in marriage to Antiochus Grypus, the son of Demetrius. Ptolemy died after reigning twenty-nine years from the death of his brother Philometor; but he himself reckoned the years of his reign from the date of his first assumption of the regal title in 170. Although the character of Ptolemy Physcon was stained by the most infamous vices, and by the most sanguinary cruelty, he still retained that love of letters which appears to have been hereditary in the whole race of the Ptolemies. He had in his youth been a pupil of Aristarchus, and not only courted the society of learned men, but was himself the author of a work called Ὑπομνήματα, or memoirs, which extended to twenty-four books. He left two sons: Ptolemy, afterwards known as Soter II., and Alexander, both of whom subsequently ascended the throne of Egypt; and three daughters: (a) Cleopatra , married to her brother Ptolemy Soter; (b) Tryphaena, the wife of Antiochus Grypus, king of Syria; and (c) Selené, who was unmarried at her father's death. To his natural son Ptolemy, surnamed Apion , he bequeathed by his will the separate kingdom of Cyrené.
(8) Soter II., and also Philomētor, but more commonly called Lathȳrus or Lathūrus (Λάθουρος), reigned B.C. 117-107, and also 89-81. Although he was of full age at the time of his father's death (117), he was obliged to reign jointly with his mother, Cleopatra , who had been appointed by the will of her late husband to succeed him on the throne. She was indeed desirous of associating with herself her younger son, Ptolemy Alexander; but since Lathyrus was popular with the Alexandrians, she was obliged to give way, and sent Alexander to Cyprus. After declaring Lathyrus king, she compelled him to repudiate his sister Cleopatra , of whose influence she was jealous, and to marry his younger sister Selené in her stead. After reigning ten years jointly with his mother, he was expelled from Alexandria by an insurrection of the people which she had excited against him (107). His brother Alexander now assumed the sovereignty of Egypt, in conjunction with his mother, while Lathyrus was able to establish himself in the possession of Cyprus. Cleopatra, indeed, attempted to dispossess him of that island also, but without success, and Ptolemy held it as an independent kingdom for the eighteen years during which Cleopatra and Alexander reigned in Egypt. After the death of Cleopatra and the expulsion of Alexander in 89, Ptolemy Lathyrus was recalled by the Alexandrians, and established anew on the throne of Egypt, which he occupied thenceforth without interruption till his death in 81. The most important event of this period was the revolt of Thebes, in Upper Egypt, which was still powerful enough to hold out for nearly three years against the arms of Ptolemy, but at the end of that time was taken and reduced to the state of ruin in which it has ever since remained. Lathyrus reigned in all thirty-five years and a half; ten in conjunction with his mother (117-107), eighteen in Cyprus (107-89), and seven and a half as sole ruler of Egypt. He left only one daughter, Berenicé, called also Cleopatra , who succeeded him on the throne; and two sons, both named Ptolemy, who, though illegitimate, became severally kings of Egypt and Cyprus.
(9) Alexander I., youngest son of Ptolemy VII., reigned conjointly with his mother Cleopatra from the expulsion of his brother Lathyrus, B.C. 107 to 90. In this year he assassinated his mother; but he had not reigned alone a year, when he was compelled by a general sedition of the populace and military to quit Alexandria. He, however, raised fresh troops, but was totally defeated in a sea-fight by the rebels; whereupon Lathyrus was recalled by the Alexandrians to Egypt, as has been already related. Alexander now attempted to make himself master of Cyprus, and invaded that island, but was defeated and slain. He left a son, Alexander, who afterwards ascended the throne of Egypt.
(10) Alexander II., son of the preceding, was at Rome at the death of Ptolemy Lathyrus in 81. Sulla , who was then dictator, nominated the young Alexander (who had obtained a high place in his favour) king of Egypt, and sent him to take possession of the crown. It was, however, agreed, in deference to the claims of Cleopatra Berenicé, the daughter of Lathyrus, whom the Alexandrians had already placed on the throne, that Alexander should marry her, and admit her to share the sovereign power. He complied with the letter of this treaty by marrying Cleopatra , but only nineteen days afterward caused her to be assassinated. The Alexandrians thereupon rose against their new monarch and put him to death.
(11) Dionȳsus, but more commonly known by the appellation of Aulētes, “the flute-player,” was an illegitimate son of Ptolemy Lathyrus. When the assassination of Berenicé and the death of Alexander II. had completed the extinction of the legitimate race of the Lagidae, Ptolemy was proclaimed king by the Alexandrians, B.C. 80. He was anxious to obtain from the Roman Senate their ratification of his title to the crown, but it was not till the consulship of Caesar (59) that he was able to purchase by vast bribes the desired privilege. He had expended immense sums in the pursuit of this object, which he was compelled to raise by the imposition of fresh taxes, and the discontent thus excited combining with the contempt entertained for his character, led to his expulsion by the Alexandrians in 58. Thereupon he proceeded in person to Rome to procure from the Senate his restoration. His first reception was promising; and he procured a decree from the Senate commanding his restoration, and intrusting the charge of effecting it to P. Lentulus Spinther, then proconsul of Cilicia. Meanwhile, the Alexandrians sent an embassy of one hundred of their leading citizens to plead their cause with the Roman Senate; but Ptolemy had the audacity to cause the deputies, on their arrival in Italy, to be waylaid, and the greater part of them murdered. The indignation excited at Rome by this proceeding produced a reaction: the tribunes took up the matter against the nobility; and an oracle was produced from the Sibylline Books forbidding the restoration of the king by an armed force. The intrigues and disputes thus raised were protracted throughout the year 56, and at length Ptolemy, despairing of a favorable result, quitted Rome in disgust, and withdrew to Ephesus. But in 55, A. Gabinius, who was proconsul in Syria, was induced, by the influence of Pompey, aided by the enormous bribe of 10,000 talents from Ptolemy himself, to undertake his restoration. The Alexandrians had in the meantime placed on the throne of Egypt Berenicé, the eldest daughter of Ptolemy, who had married Archelaüs, the son of the general of Mithridates, and they opposed Gabinius with an army on the confines of the kingdom. They were, however, defeated in three successive battles, Archelaüs was slain, and Ptolemy once more established on the throne (55). One of his first acts was to put to death his daughter Berenicé, and many of the leading citizens of Alexandria. He survived his restoration only three years and a half, during which time he was supported by a large body of Roman soldiers who had been left behind by Gabinius for his protection. He died in 51, after a reign of twenty-nine years from the date of his first accession. He left two sons, both named Ptolemy, and two daughters, Cleopatra and Arsinoë.
(12) Eldest son of the preceding. By his father's will the sovereign power was left to himself and his sister Cleopatra jointly, and this arrangement was carried into effect without opposition (51). Auletes had also referred the execution of his will to the Roman Senate, and the latter accepted the office, confirmed its provisions, and bestowed on Pompey the title of guardian of the young king. But the approach of the Civil War prevented them from taking any active part in the administration of affairs, which fell into the hands of a eunuch named Pothinus. It was not long before dissensions broke out between the latter and Cleopatra , which ended in the expulsion of the princess, after she had reigned in conjunction with her brother about three years (48). Hereupon she took refuge in Syria, and assembled an army, with which she invaded Egypt. The young king, accompanied by his guardians, met her at Pelusium, and it was while the two armies were here encamped opposite to one another that Pompey landed in Egypt, to throw himself as a suppliant on the protection of Ptolemy; but he was assassinated, by the orders of Pothinus, before he could obtain an interview with the king himself. Shortly after, Caesar arrived in Egypt, and took upon himself to settle the dispute between Ptolemy and his sister. But as Cleopatra 's charms gained for her the support of Caesar, Pothinus determined to excite an insurrection against Caesar. Hence arose what is usually called the Alexandrian War. Ptolemy, who was at first in Caesar's hands, managed to escape, and put himself at the head of the insurgents; but he was defeated by Caesar, and was drowned in an attempt to escape by the river (47).
(13) The youngest son of Ptolemy Auletes. He was appointed by Caesar to reign jointly with Cleopatra after the death of his elder brother Ptolemy XII., 47; and although he was a mere boy, it was decreed that he should marry his sister, with whom he was thus to share the power. Both his marriage and his regal title were of course purely nominal; and in the year 43 Cleopatra put him to death.
III. Other Kings.—(1) Surnamed Alorītes, that is, of Alorus, regent, or, according to some authors, king of Macedonia. He obtained the supreme power by the assassination of Alexander II., the eldest son of Amyntas, B.C. 367, but was, in his turn, assassinated by Perdiccas III., 364.
(2) Surnamed Apion, king of Cyrené (117-96), was an illegitimate son of Ptolemy Physcon, king of Egypt, who left him by his will the kingdom of the Cyrenaïca. At his death in 96, Apion bequeathed his kingdom by his will to the Roman people. The Senate, however, refused to accept the legacy, and declared the cities of the Cyrenaïca free. They were not reduced to the condition of a province till near thirty years afterwards.
(3) Surnamed Ceraunus, king of Macedonia, the son of Ptolemy I., king of Egypt, by his second wife Eurydicé. When his father in B.C. 285 set aside the claim of Ceraunus to the throne and appointed his younger son Ptolemy Philadelphus his successor, Ceraunus repaired to the court of Lysimachus. After Lysimachus had perished in battle against Seleucus (281) Ptolemy Ceraunus was received by the latter in the most friendly manner; but shortly afterwards (280) he basely assassinated Seleucus, and took possession of the Macedonian throne. After reigning a few months he was defeated in battle by the Gauls, taken prisoner, and put to death.
(4) Tetrarch of Chalcis in Syria, the son of Mennaeus. He appears to have held the cities of Heliopolis and Chalcis as well as the mountain district of Ituraea, from whence he was in the habit of infesting Damascus and the more wealthy parts of Coelé-Syria with predatory incursions. He reigned from about 70 to 40, when he was succeeded by his son Lysanias.
(5) King of Cyprus, the younger brother of Ptolemy Auletes, king of Egypt, being like him an illegitimate son of Ptolemy Lathyrus. He was acknowledged as king of Cyprus at the same time that his brother Auletes obtained possession of the throne of Egypt (B.C. 80). He had offended P. Clodius by neglecting to ransom him when he had fallen into the hands of the Cilician pirates; and accordingly Clodius, when he became tribune (53), brought forward a law to deprive Ptolemy of his kingdom, and reduce Cyprus to a Roman province. Cato , who had to carry into execution this nefarious decree, sent to Ptolemy, advising him to submit, and offering him his personal safety, with the office of high-priest at Paphos, and a liberal maintenance. But the unhappy king refused these offers, and put an end to his own life (57).
(6) King of Epirus, the second son of Alexander II., king of Epirus, and Olympias, and grandson of the great Pyrrhus. He succeeded to the throne on the death of his elder brother, Pyrrhus II., but reigned only a very short time. The date of his reign cannot be fixed with certainty, but as he was contemporary with Demetrius II., king of Macedonia, it may be placed between 239 and 229.
(7) King of Mauretania, was the son and successor of Iuba II. By his mother Cleopatra he was descended from the kings of Egypt, whose name he bore. The period of his accession cannot be determined with certainty, but we know that he was on the throne in A.D. 18. He continued to reign without interruption till A.D. 40, when he was summoned to Rome by Caligula, and shortly after put to death, his great riches having excited the cupidity of the emperor.
IV. Claudius Ptolemaeus. A famous Greek mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. He came from Ptolemaïs Hermeiou (ruins at modern Menschie), in Upper Egypt, and lived and worked in the second century A.D. The most important of his writings which have been preserved are: (a) Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις (“instructions for the drawing of maps”), a geographical work in eight books, the first of which contains the principles of mathematical geography, the drawing of maps, and the calculation of the longitudes and latitudes of places in the then known world; books ii.-vii. contain tables of names of places in the maps described, arranged according to degrees and their subdivisions; and book viii. contains an astronomical table of climates. This work is one of the chief sources of our knowledge of ancient geography. It is edited by Nobbe (Leipzig, 1845); and Müller (Paris, 1883). (b) Μεγάλη Σύνταξις τῆς Ἀστρονομίας, usually known by its Arabic name of Almagest. Since the Tetrabiblus, the work on astrology, was also entitled σύνταξις, the Arabs, to distinguish the two, probably called the greater work μεγάλη, and afterwards μεγίστη: the title Almagest (Tabrir al Magesthi) is a compound of this last adjective and the Arabic article. The Almagest is divided into thirteen books. It treats of the relations of the earth and heaven; the effect of position upon the earth; the theory of the sun and moon, without which that of the stars cannot be undertaken; the sphere of the fixed stars, and those of the five stars called planets. The seventh and eighth books are the most interesting to the modern astronomer, as they contain a catalogue of the stars. This catalogue gives the longitudes and latitudes of 1022 stars, described by their positions in the constellations. It seems that this catalogue is in the main really that of Hipparchus, altered to Ptolemy's own time by assuming the value of the precession of the equinoxes given by Hipparchus as the least which could be, some changes having also been made by Ptolemy's own observations. Indeed, the whole work of Ptolemy appears to have been based upon the observations of Hipparchus, whom he constantly cites as his authority. Ptolemy's system of the heavens, which made the earth the fixed centre, was not superseded till the time of Copernicus (A.D. 1473-1543). The best edition of the Almagest is by Halma, 2 vols. (Paris, 1813-16). (c) Τετράβιβλος Σύνταξις, generally called Tetrabiblos, or Quadripartitum de Apotelesmatibus et Iudiciis Astrorum. With this goes another small work, called Καρπός, or Fructus Librorum Suorum, often called Centiloquium, from its containing a hundred aphorisms. Both of these works are astrological, and it has been doubted by some whether they be genuine. But the doubt merely arises from the feeling that the contents are unworthy of Ptolemy. (d) Κανὼν Βασιλέων, a catalogue of Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman sovereigns, with the length of their reigns, several times referred to by Syncellus. (e) Φάσεις ἀπλανῶν ἀστέρων καὶ συναγωγὴ ἐπισημασειῶν, De Apparentiis et Significationibus inerrantium, an annual list of sidereal phenomena. (f, g) De Analemmate and Planisphaerium. These works are obtained from the Arabic. The Analemma is a collection of graphical processes for facilitating the construction of sun-dials. The Planisphere is a description of the stereographic projection, in which the eye is at the pole of the circle on which the sphere is projected. (h) Περὶ ὑποθέσεων τῶν πλανωμένων, De Planetarum Hypothesibus. This is a brief statement of the principal hypotheses employed in the Almagest for the explanation of the heavenly motions. (i) Ἁρμονικῶν βιβλία γ., a treatise on the theory of the musical scale, and the most important ancient work on music next to that of Aristoxenus. Most of the works of Ptolemy are contained in the edition of Halma in 4 vols. (Paris, 1813-28). The principal MSS. are at Vienna, Venice, and Mount Athos. This last is photographed and published by Langlois (Paris, 1866).
- Apollod. E.7.25