Thus tragically was ushered in the reign of the boy-king, Ptolemy V, Epiphanes, the Illustrious, whose dates are 205-182 B. C., and whose pre-nomen or throne name, found on his cartouch, means “heir of the (two) father loving gods, chosen of Ptah, strength of the Ka of Ra, living image of Amen.” Too young to take matters into his own hands, the power seems to have been divided between Tlepolemus as military, and Aristomenes, called the king’s tutor, as civil administrator of affairs. The reign of a minor is apt to be distracted by conflicts of one sort and another, and this proved no exception.

In the case of the youthful son of Alexander the Great it was the generals of his father’s army who wrested from him his inheritance; in that of the young Ptolemy it was the foreign powers, the kings of Macedonia and Syria, who sought to do so. But the Romans proved the instruments of the boy’s salvation, though not for his sake, and conquered in battle and made tributary the men who were his enemies, while the two ministers who had taken his affairs in charge guarded him well at home.

There are also some who maintain that the guardianship of the boy’s rights was offered to the Romans, though the weight of evidence seems against this idea. Certain it is, however, that Ptolemy Epiphanes, or those who acted for him, sent very submissive embassies to this great and growing power, destined eventually to swallow up his country, or rather to become possessed of its sovereignty.

We cannot trace the course of foreign wars or native rebellions, but must return to the more domestic aspect of the history. The little king lived in Alexandria and very early in his life there seems to have been some suggestion of his marriage with the daughter of the king of Syria, and in the seventh year of his reign, when he must have been about twelve, it is said that the betrothal took place. It was of course a political alliance, to cement a good understanding between the two nations. How much greater the privileges and the independence, at least on the question of marriage, of the private individual over the sometimes envied king or queen.

At thirteen or fourteen years of age Ptolemy V was crowned at Memphis and the decree of the Rosetta Stone was issued. It begins “In the reign of the young,” and then goes on to enumerate the king’s ancestors, to name priests and priestesses, and to give a detailed list of the benefits his Majesty had bestowed upon the kingdom, “in requittal of which the gods have given him health, victory, power and all other good things, his sovereignty remaining to him and his children for all time. With propitious fortune. It seemed good to the priests of all the temples in the land to increase greatly the existing honors of the king, Ptolemy, his parents, grand-parents, etc.” As Ptolemy was but in early childhood when he is said to have bestowed so many benefits upon the kingdom it was to his ministers rather than to himself that any such praise was due. Possibly it was a mutual agreement between them and the priests to strengthen his power, since there seemed more chance of dispute in the case of a child than when a full-grown man had ascended the throne.

The Rosetta Stone has been virtually the key which has, in part at least, revealed the mysteries of the Hieroglyphics to Europeans. The inscription was written in Hieroglyphic, the original form of Egyptian writing, in the Demotic, the subsequent and common language of later dynasties, and in Greek, which was of course largely introduced by the Ptolemies. And as the three inscriptions are approximately alike, Greek scholars were able to interpret the two former by the last. The original Rosetta Stone is in the British Museum, but copies of it may be seen in many of the collections abroad, and in the United States, such as the University of Pennsylvania, etc.

Meanwhile the boy-king was growing to manhood and there is record of his being trained to equestrianism and athletic sports. At a certain banquet an ambassador, in speaking of the king, “said a great deal in his praise, quoting anecdotes of his skill and boldness in hunting, as well as his excellence in riding and the use of arms;” and ended by averring in proof of this that “the king on horseback once transfixed a bull with a javelin.”

When Ptolemy Epiphanes was but sixteen or seventeen his marriage took place, the new queen being presumably near his age. With her we enter on the puzzling list of Cleopatras, and she seems to have been a woman of character and ability, and worthy of respect. Her father, Antiochus of Syria, a country with which the inter-marriages of the kings of this dynasty were very frequent, brought her to the bridegroom, with a splendid retinue, and the nuptials were handsomely celebrated at the border town of Raphia. It was here that the mother of the king had ridden before the troops many years previously to encourage them on the eve of the battle between Ptolemy IV. and Antiochus. The dowry of the bride was the taxes of Coele, Syria and Palestine, but not, it is said, the possession of the land.

The young queen loyally accepted the duties and obligations attaching to her new position; “Thy people shall be my people” was the spirit that distinguished her actions, and she stood to this even when her husband’s interests were opposed to those of her native country. It is said of her that she was a “vigorous and prudent woman, and she certainly introduced new blood into a stock likely to degenerate from the constant unions of close blood relations.” Nor do there seem to be any special stories recorded of cruelty on her part, such as we have in other instances of Ptolemy queens. We may presume also that she had more or less claim to beauty and had attractions both of person and mind.

Like his predecessors, Ptolemy V. worked upon the temples, notably that of PhilÆ. The temple of Asklepias was especially credited to this king, and we cannot but suppose that the queen, too, had a great interest. An inscription, the duplicate of the Rosetta Stone, was placed on one of the walls at PhilÆ by Epiphanes, but afterwards carved out by another ruler.

Cleopatra I, like some others of the Ptolemy women, was the superior of the man to whom she was united, yet, as far as we can judge at this distance of time, the marriage was on the whole a harmonious and satisfactory one. At least no special quarrels are recorded and the husband did not make way with his wife in the all too common fashion. She seems to have been joined with her husband in public acts, as were Ptolemy Philadelphus and Arsinoe II, even when these were directed against her father and her native land. Mahaffy says that it is noteworthy that Livy speaks of the king and queen as of equal importance, but perhaps this may have referred to Cleopatra I. and her son when she was regent, rather than to her husband. Livy says “Ambassadors were sent from Ptolemy and Cleopatra, sovereigns of Egypt, with congratulations that Manius Acilius, the consul, had driven King Antiochus from Greece, and advising the Romans to send their army over to Asia, that all Syria as well as Asia was in a panic, that the sovereigns of Egypt were prepared to do whatever the senate desired.” A proof that Egypt was now continually bending before the power of Rome.

Ptolemy wished to secure some of the Syrian provinces and of the queen it is said “she was always striving to spread her influence towards the North.”

Disputes had arisen between the priests and the crown as to the dowries of the late deified queens, which had become part of the temple revenues, and were again absorbed by the throne. This with other causes resulted in a revolution led by the last native prince whose claim preceded that of the Ptolemies, which was put down with much cruelty and broken faith by the king. It is these insurrections, occurring frequently in the reigns of the later Ptolemies, that are believed to be one cause of Egypt’s submissive attitude towards Rome.

Ptolemy Epiphanes seems less odious than his predecessor, but as he grew to manhood, he, too, was accused of cruel murders, among them that of his tutor Aristomenes, to whose care it seems as if he must have owed much. The cartouch of Ptolemy V. is said to be the most rarely found on Ptolemic buildings. He also worked at Edfu and PhilÆ, the “so-called chapel of Aesculapius,” at the latter place having an inscription declaring it to be founded by “Ptolemy Epiphanes and Cleopatra and their son, to Imhotep, the son of Ptah.” In modern times a temple said to be built by them, at AntÆpolis, was undermined and destroyed by the Nile.

The king died, murdered by poison by some of his courtiers, while still a young man, in his twenty-ninth year and twenty-fifth of his reign, and was succeeded by his son under the guardianship of his mother. Whether the queen deeply mourned her husband or whether his increasing vices had alienated her from him we cannot say. She was doubtless an ambitious woman and not averse to holding the reins of power. There are coins of hers issued during her regency. She is there called queen, which is not the case with all the wives of the different kings, and appears as Isis (though with a less conventional face than some), wearing a corn wreath, above which are a globe and horns. A copper coin gives her as Isis with long curls and a band with corn. She seems to have been an able ruler and survived her husband some eight years, dying in 174 B. C. before she had fairly entered on middle life. There were several children of this marriage, and, as if for the bewilderment of students, the sons are called Ptolemy and the daughter Cleopatra. During the queen’s regency Egypt seems to have remained peaceful and we have no revolting tales of murder or general bloodshed.

The matter of succession now became somewhat involved, so often was it disputed and so frequently divided between rival claimants. Mahaffy says, “From henceforth we have almost constantly rival brothers asserting themselves in turn, queen mothers controlling their king sons—intestine feuds and bloodshed in the royal house, till the stormy end of the dynasty with the daring Cleopatra VI.”

Some call Philometer the VI and some the VII. If the latter there was probably an elder brother, Ptolemy Eupator, thus called the VI, who survived his father but for a brief period, being nominally king, and then died. Certain it is that the Syrian Cleopatra I was regent and that one of her sons, Philometor, succeeded to the actual power, 173 B. C. He reverted to the earlier customs and married his sister Cleopatra, who then became the second queen of the name. This union is believed to have taken place a year after the death of his mother in 173 B. C. Perhaps had she lived she might have arranged for a different connection.

The peaceful period of the regency of Cleopatra I. now came to an end and Egypt prepared to seize the lands which had furnished the dowry of the late queen, the three powers, Egypt, Syria and Rome being involved, the two first in active warfare. This resulted in the capture and imprisonment of the Egyptian king by the Syrian monarch, Antiochus IV at a battle which occurred on the borders of Egypt. The people of Alexandria, who it is said spoke more completely the voice of Egypt than Paris does of France, made a counter move by raising to the throne the younger brother, a lad of fifteen or sixteen, who took the name of Euergetes II, later called Physcon, the “pot bellied” or “the fat,” Ptolemy VI, and who in his proportions accentuated the usual liberal outline of the Ptolemy race. The youth proved strong and ambitious enough to hold on to the power thus secured and never willingly relaxed his grasp.

Antiochus then attacked Alexandria with the nominal purpose of restoring Philometer. Through their mother the young kings were of course related to the invader, but the relationship seems to have had little effect in preventing a contest. Different authorities give different names and numbers to the various Ptolemy kings and we have taken Mahaffy, who has devoted much time to the study of this period, as our special guide.

Antiochus IV finally left Philometer at Memphis and returned home. The latter, apparently seeing the folly of a divided sovereignty and realizing that he would no longer be recognized as sole king, made overtures to his brother and, owing, it is said, to the mediation of their sister Cleopatra, they came to terms in 170 B. C. This compact roused Antiochus IV. to a renewed attack. The beseeching embassies of the Ptolemies to Rome, however, finally produced an effect and Antiochus was ordered to withdraw and the powerful Romans virtually held a sort of protectorate over Egypt till they finally and absolutely absorbed it. The embassies of Philometer and Cleopatra II professed that they were more indebted to the Senate and people of Rome, than to their own parents, more than to the immortal gods since by their help they had been relieved from Antiochus, and Rome seemed disposed to keep up the agreeable sentiment, as their embassy is recorded as having brought a purple gown and vest and an ivory chair to King Philometer, and an embroidered gown and a purple robe for Queen Cleopatra II.

The king and queen are spoken of in all solemn datings as “gods Philopatores.” On the walls of the temple at Der el Medineh there are pictures of Ptolemy VII and IX and Cleopatra II, and a Syrian coin of Philometer gives a strong head and face. There are inscriptions relating to Ptolemy Philometer, wife and children, in Nubia. It was after the Romans restored Philometer to Egypt that he and his queen made their solemn progress to Memphis.

Some of the so-called “friends of the king” tried to make trouble between the brothers and to induce the younger to slay the elder, implying that Philometer had designs upon him. But in this instance Euergetes, usually regarded with abhorrence, showed himself at his best and dismissed suspicions and to prove their harmony went with his brother in royal apparel to show themselves to the people. A quarrel, however, eventually broke out between them, Philometer was expelled and threw himself on the protection of the Romans, who were thus continually able to interfere in the affairs of Egypt. The Romans decreed that the kingdom should be divided between the two, which of course gave satisfaction to neither, and Euergetes II went to Rome to protest against the division. An interesting and almost an amusing episode is connected with this visit when, it is said, Euergetes asked Cornelia, the mother of the Gracci, to marry him. The lady, however, declined, “probably,” says one writer, “she held him in such esteem as an English noblewoman now would hold an Indian Rajah proposing marriage.”

The quarrels and fighting between the two brothers continued, but finally Euergetes attacked Cyprus which had been adjudged by the Romans to Philometer, and was forced to surrender. Philometer now showed himself the generous one, for he forgave Euergetes, restored him to Cyrene and for the last eight or nine years of his reign remained at peace with him.