[43] [Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 624-625. Ramses is the third king in Manetho’s twelfth dynasty.—K. R. H. M.]
[44] This letter, addressed to Alexander von Humboldt, has been printed in the “Preussische Staatszeitung,” of the 9th of February, 1844.
[45] The correction Ἀδελφῆς in this inscription, dated in the thirty-fifth year of Euergetes (136 B. C.), is of importance to some chronological determinations of that period. Letronne (Rec. des Inscr. vol. i. p. 33 sqq. 56) assumed that Cleopatra III. the niece and second wife of Euergetes II., was here mentioned. From this alone he judged that this king only added the name of his wife, Cleopatra III., to his own in the official documents, previous to his expulsion in the year 132 B. C., and therefore placed all the inscriptions, in which after the King, both Cleopatras, the sister and the (second) wife are named, in the period after the return of Euergetes (127-117), e. g. the inscriptions of the obelisk of Philae (Rec. vol. i. p. 333). In this he is followed by Franz (Corp. Inscr. vol. iii. p. 285), who places for the same reason the inscriptions C. I. No. 4841, 4860, 4895, 4896, between 127 and 117 B. C., although he was aware of my correction of the inscription of Pselchis (C. I. No. 5073).
It is always remarkable that only one Cleopatra is mentioned in the inscription of Pselchis, but as it is Cleopatra II., the first wife of the king, whom he always distinguishes from his second wife by the designation of “the sister,” it is not to be concluded that he should have expressly omitted mention of the latter in the documents from the beginning of his second marriage. This is confirmed in the decisive manner by two demotic Papyri of the Royal Museum, in which both Cleopatras are mentioned, although one is of the year 141 B. C., and the other of the year 136 B. C. All the inscriptions, which, according to Letronne (Rec. des Inscr. tome i. No. 7, 26, 27, 30, 31) and Franz (Corp. Inscr. vol. iii. No. 4841, 4860, 4895, 4896) fall between 127 and 117 B. C., for this reason, can therefore be referred with the same probability to the years between 145 and 135 B.C.
[46] [See Bunsen, vol. i. pp. 393-395.—K. R. H. M.]
[47] Compare Letronne Recueil des Inscription Grecques de l’Egypte, tome i. pp. 363 sqq. Ptolemaeus Eupator is not mentioned by the historians. The name was first discovered in a Greek Papyrus at Berlin, written under Soter II. in the year 105 B.C., and indeed foisted in between Philometor and Euergetes. Böckh, who published the Papyrus (1821), referred the surname of Euergetes to Soter II. and his wife, and held Eupator to be a surname of the deified Euergetes II. In the same year Champollion-Figeac treated of this papyrus, and endeavoured to prove that Eupator was that son of Philometer put to death by Euergetes II. on his accession. This view was afterwards accepted by St. Martin, Böckh, and Letronne (Rech. pour serv. à l’Hist. de l’Eg. p. 124). In the meantime the name Eupator had been found in a second papyrus of the reign of Soter II., as also in a letter of Numenius upon the Phileusian obelisk of Herr Bankes of the time of Euergetes II. Eupator was named in both inscriptions, but did not stand behind, but before Philometor, and therefore could not be his son. Letronne now conjectured (Recueil des Inscr. tome i. p. 365) that Eupator was another surname of Philometor. Then, however, it should have been καὶ Θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος τοῦ καὶ Φιλομήτορος, and not καὶ Θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος καὶ Θεοῦ Φιλομήτορος. In a letter to Letronne of the 1st December, 1844, from Thebes, which has been printed in the Revue Archéol. tome i. pp. 678 sqq., I informed him that I had also found in several hieroglyphical inscriptions the name Eupator, and always before Philometor. The same reasons that I alleged against Letronne’s interpretation of the Greek name (that portion of the letter was not printed in the Revue), i. e. the simple recurrence of the Θεοῦ, did also not allow Eupator to be considered another name of Philometor in the hieroglyphical lists. He must have been a Ptolemy recognized for a short time as king, but not mentioned by the historians; and as Franz (Corp. Inscr. vol. iii. p. 285) and Letronne (Rec. vol. ii. p. 536) have recognized an elder brother of Philometor, who died in a few months, and was therefore omitted in the Ptolemaic canon.
The son of Philometor and his sister Cleopatra II., however, mentioned by Justin and Josephus, in which it was formerly thought that the Eupator of the Berlin papyrus had been found, is particularly mentioned in the hieroglyphical inscriptions and of the other Ptolemies, in his place between Philometor and Euergetes, and we thus learn his name, which the historians had not added. He is sometimes called Philopator, sometimes Neos Philopator, and is therefore to be referred to in the series of reigned Ptolemies, as Philopator II. Of fourteen hieroglyphical lists which come down to Euergetes II., seven mention Philopator II.; in four other lists in which he might have been mentioned he is passed over, and these seem all to belong to the first year of Euergetes II., his murderer, which readily explains the cause. That he does not appear in the canon is quite natural, because his reign did not extend over the change of the Egyptian year; but, as might be expected, he is named in the protocolls of the Demotic Papyrus, where those Ptolemies receiving divine honours are enumerated, and in which Young had already properly seen Eupator. In fact, he is mentioned here in all the lists known to me (five in Berlin of the years 114, 103, 103, 99, 89 B.C., and one in Turin of the year 89 B.C.) which are later than Euergetes II., as also in a Berlin papyrus of the fifty-second year of Euergetes himself (therefore in 188 B.C.). A comparison of the Demotic lists manifests that the interchange of the names Eupator and Philometor in the Greek papyrus of the year 105 B.C. (not 106, as Franz, Corp. Inscr. p. 285 writes), is not only a mistake of the copyist, as these and similar interchanges are also not uncommon in the Demotic papyrus. The different purposes of the hieroglyphic and demotic lists render it comprehensible, that in the former such variations were not admissible, as in the latter.
[48] Wilkinson (Modern Egypt and Thebes, vol. ii. p. 275) considers this Cleopatra Tryphæna to be the famous Cleopatra, daughter of Neos Dionysos; Champollion (Lettres d’Egypte, p. 110) to be the wife of Philometor; but the cartouche combined with her name belong neither to Ptolemæus XIV., the elder son of Neos Dionysos, nor to Ptolomæus VI. Philometor, but to Ptolemæus XIII. Neos Dionysos or Auletes, who is always Philopator Philadelphus, on the monuments. Cleopatra Tryphæna was therefore the wife of Ptolemæus Auletes.
[49] The inscription referred to is in the rock-cave of Echmin, and was, without doubt, first engraved under Ptolemæus Philadelphus, with double cartouches and the usual royal titles, but without the surname of Soter; he is mentioned on a stele in Vienna which was erected under Philopator. Here, however, he has another cartouche than at Echmin, and moreover, in a remarkable manner, the same as that which Philippus Aridaeus and Alexander II., under whom Ptolemæus Lagus was Viceroy in Egypt, bore before his time. In like manner he is named on a statue of the king in the ruins of Memphis, where the Horus-name of the king may be found, and which may probably have been made during his reign. Finally, the Soters are sometimes only mentioned by their surnames, at the head of the honoured ancestors of later kings, as in the inscription of Rosetta, and in the bilingual Decrees of Philae written
