David Levene, New York University
Our knowledge of Egyptian political history in the 150s BC is very lacunose, but for the last 100 years its broad contours have been universally accepted. However, one crucial piece of evidence has invariably been ignored, which has significant consequences for our understanding both of Ptolemaic history and Roman-Egyptian relations.
The background is the ongoing decades-long conflict between the two rival brothers who were claiming the throne, both seeking the support of Rome: Ptolemy VI Philometer, and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II. Polybius 31.10 records the Roman-endorsed division of the kingdom in 163 between the two rivals, Philometer getting Egypt proper, Euergetes receiving Cyrene, to which the Romans then added Cyprus. However, the fraternal hatred continued, as is apparent from the famous will made by Euergetes eight years later, in 155 (SEG 9:7), in which he accused his brother of attempting to assassinate him, and also left his kingdom to Rome. In the following year, 154, Euergetes visited Rome; the Romans sent envoys and warships, demanding Philometer restore Cyprus to him (Polybius 33.11). The aftermath is pieced together from Diodorus 31.33 and Polybius’ later obituary of Philometer (39.7): Philometer besieged and defeated his brother on Cyprus, but magnanimously spared his life, and allowed him to remain in possession of Cyrene, though Philometer retained control of Cyprus.
There is, admittedly, a problem with this reconstruction. Diodorus dates the war and reconciliation of the brothers not to 154/3, but to 158/7. This date was accepted long ago by Niese, but, especially since the discovery of Euergetes’ will, it has been argued that Diodorus’ date makes no sense: he appears to be recording a final reconciliation, but manifestly the conflict continued after 157. Accordingly, the universal view is that Diodorus is in error, and the events he records belong afterwards, to 154/3 (so e.g. Holleaux, Winkler, Manni, Cimma, Walbank, Gruen).
However, one vital piece of evidence has been completely overlooked. Livy, Periochae 47 records a treaty between the two brothers. Those few scholars who have mentioned this have assumed that it refers to the original division of the kingdom in 163. But the sequence of the narrative of the Periochae shows that this is impossible: it can only have happened in 158/7 – exactly the same year to which Diodorus dates the brothers’ reconciliation. This independently supports Diodorus’ date, which thus must be correct.
Accordingly, the entire conflict between the two Ptolemies in the 150s must be rethought. The will of Euergetes, and his visit to Rome, was a move to reopen the question of Cyprus after he had been captured and had agreed to surrender it. The subsequent Roman mission to restore Euergetes to Cyprus likewise needs to be seen in a different light: not an intervention in a war, but a diplomatic negotiation which ended up concluding a settlement contrary to what the Senate had ordered. This makes more sense, since the absence of the Romans from the story of the defeat and humiliation of Euergetes should always have raised suspicions.