Predecessors of Cleopatra

by Leigh North

In the study of the Ptolemy period, compared with the dates of earlier times, we seem to come so much nearer to the modern era that we might look for certain knowledge. The more, as we now have the histories of early writers, such as Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, etc., to consult, as well as the coinage, with dates and portraits of kings and queens, to assist us. But the historical account is frequently at second hand and not as to matters which the writer has himself seen and known, and even some of the coins are found to be ambiguous and referable to different reigns. The relationships, too, are so mixed and the same names so often repeated that at many points we are baffled in our search, and various parts of this complex history remain in darkness, which further investigation may yet lighten, but which at present give room for the conflicting theories and opinions of different writers.

The chronology of Egypt, as before said, has always been a subject of difficulty to students, and their researches lead many to different conclusions. Even in the time of the Ptolemies, which seems modern compared to the periods we have been considering, the same problem confronts us, and the fact that the Olympian and the Julian year do not coincide makes exact chronology impossible. Constant discoveries are adding new light, and often in this and other respects proving earlier conclusions incorrect. Thus even in the Ptolemy period we do but approximate to some of the dates, etc.

The testimony of the coins is of extreme value, and we feel that like hard facts they never lie, yet it is difficult to draw the line between the conventional and the real likeness and between a flattering and an unflattering presentment. The portraits of the queens, celebrated in their own times and in succeeding ages as miracles of beauty and charm, sometimes strikes us with amazement so utterly devoid do they seem of either. We have to recall the possible potency of coloring and animation, the fascination of manner and of voice to rehabilitate them, reflecting how sometimes even in the modern photograph, for which it is said “the sun cannot lie,” the plain woman sometimes appears beautiful and the beauty almost plain.

As a rule the women of the Ptolemy family seem to have been handsome, ambitious, capable, daring and cruel, and, save in the cases of the three first kings, were in many instances superior to their husbands. They shared with husbands and brothers the desire to keep the reins of power in their own hands, and the willingness to do away with those who stood in their path. Murder and assassination were but the means to an end and daunted but few of them. Yet here and there we come across an incident or an anecdote which throws a softer light upon their history, a touch of amiability or kindness, which reveals “the eternal feminine” still latent in their hearts.

The long line of Arsinoes, Berenikes and Cleopatras is like a tangled skein of many colors and most difficult to disentangle and render distinct. Mother, daughter and sister perhaps bear the same appellation, and one is reminded of the English fashion of using the same or very similar names for a whole region, as Highbury, Highbury Hill, Highbury Crescent, etc., till the stranger is fairly bewildered.

In the division of the vast landed possessions of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, son of Lagos and Arsinoe, chose Egypt for his share and founded a new line of kings. He was one of Alexander’s generals and allied to him by blood, some say the natural son of his father Philip.

It is probably the eagle on the Ptolemy coins that suggested the fable or tradition that the first Ptolemy was cared for by an eagle, as Romulus and Remus by a wolf. Mahaffy, one of the later and most reliable authorities on the Egypt of this period, says that Ptolemy was, it is probable, born 367 B. C., and hence was some years older than Alexander, but still young enough to be associated with him, and accompanied him into exile, returning to court on his accession.

Whether he went with Alexander to Egypt is not positively known, but it seems likely that some personal acquaintance with and admiration for that country dictated his choice. It may be said to have been a love match between Ptolemy and the land of his adoption, which could hardly have been the case had he never seen it. Virtually he threw himself into the arms of this new mistress, who received him with no less enthusiasm, stiff-necked rebel as she had been against Persian rule. He and his successors, especially the earlier ones, embraced the Egyptian theology, built temples to the gods, accepted the manners and customs of the people and affiliated themselves with them in every way.

They married their nearest relatives in Egyptian fashion and even surpassed their predecessors in the dubious nature of these unions. Alternately they seem to have adored the women whom they selected as partners, to whom they paid special honors, having their portraits stamped upon the coins (up to this time gold rings had been used as a medium of exchange) and naming various cities after them or to have quarrelled with and even murdered them.

To the massive dignity of design in the Egyptian architecture the Ptolemies added something of the Greek ideal, and the temples erected in their time are among the most beautiful in the land.