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.

The seat of power and government changed from time to time. First Memphis, the “City of the Good”; the “White Walled,” founded by Menes, with its great temple of Ptah, which dominated it like a fortress. Next “Hundred-gated Thebes,” the “City of Amon”; then Sais, situated on a hill, with a royal citadel and storied and painted houses. Tanis, recreated from an earlier settlement and stamped with his signet, his giant statue, eighty or a hundred feet in height by Rameses the Great—all these in turn were sovereign in the land and the dwelling places of the queens. Now under Ptolemies, Alexandria, one of the masterpieces of the great Macedonian, rose into prominence, vieing with Athens as a seat of learning and the scene of unrivaled splendor, magnificence and debauchery.

Deinocrates, the gifted architect of Alexander, created a city of noble proportions, and inaugurated a new style of architecture, happily combining the values of the Oriental and the Greek. The so-called “Pompey’s pillar” is the only one remaining of the forest of columns which formed part of the Greek temple of Serapis, the platform on the top reached by a hundred steps, and the walls incrusted with metals and jewels. It stood high above the city, which was regularly laid out, with streets cutting each other at right angles, and bordered with colonnades. Among the other noted buildings of which nothing now remains, were the Mausoleum of Alexander, the harbor works uniting the city and island of Pharos, the temple of Pan, and that built by Ptolemy II, on the outside of one of the city gates, to celebrate the Elusinian mysteries, the aqueduct and others, of which no trace remains, but of whose existence we learn from early writers. The present Rue de Rosette is said to follow the course of the ancient main street, which crossed the city from the east to the west gates. The paintings still seen on the walls of Pompeii give us an idea of the decorations of Alexandrine architecture.

The great museum was a combination of university, club and social gathering place. The early Ptolemies, especially, were patrons of learning, and people of all nations met at their brilliant court, and thus it is said “arose in Egypt the Neo-Greek culture which we are accustomed to call Hellenism.” Literature, science and sculpture flourished, and painting took on new forms and woke to new life. The beautiful head of Alexander in the British Museum and many other fine examples of sculpture have come down to us from this period.

The goldsmith’s work was also a fashionable art and as Louis XVI of France amused himself by being a locksmith—and how differently might life have ended for him had Nature made him of that class—Ptolemy II amused himself by being a goldsmith.

For several years Ptolemy Sotor I, of the House of Diodachi, reigned as nominal satrap or governor. He then assumed the title of king, which he bore for twenty-three years, dying at the advanced age of eighty-four. His administration was beneficial to the country, and he attached the people to him by kindness and clemency, in marked contrast to his Persian predecessors. He had not hesitated to secure his throne by permitting the murder of the young king, but showed himself, in general, less cruel and blood-thirsty than many of his contemporaries. He established wise regulations, encouraged literature and art, and brought captive Jews to people Alexandria. His title of Sotor or Saviour was derived from the assistance he lent the people of Rhodes against their enemies. Though brought up to a military life and often engaged in war he evidently did not love it for its own sake, and was not the dashing soldier, but where diplomacy and cautious measures would serve his purpose, preferred to employ them.

The only portrait of Ptolemy Sotor is on the coins, coinage being introduced into Egypt under the Ptolemies. Here he appears, like other members of the family with a full, rounded face, a forehead not high but fleshy over the eyes, arched brows, a nose rather too short and with wide nostrils, a firm mouth and a prominent chin. Not so handsome as Alexander, the Ptolemies, especially the earlier ones, must yet have had considerable claim to good looks.

The cartouches of Ptolemy I are uncertain and not familiarly known, while those of Ptolemy XIV and XV had not up to a very recent date been found.

What is called the throne names of the Ptolemies were as follows: Ptolemy Sotor, Arsinoe III, and Philip Arridaeus had the same pre-nomen “chosen of Ra, beloved of Ra.”

Arsinoe IV “Joy of the heart of Amen, chosen of Ra, living image of Amen.” Ptolemy III and his wife were spoken of as “Fraternal gods, chosen of Ra, living image of Amen.”

Ptolemy IV was spoken of as “heir of the beneficent gods, chosen of Ptah, strength of the Ka of Ra, living image of Amen.”

Ptolemy VII as “heir of the (two) manifest gods, form of Ptah, chosen of Amen, doing the rule of Ra.”

Ptolemy IX, “heir of the (two) manifest gods, chosen of Ptah, doing the rule of Amen, living image of Ra.”

Ptolemy X, “heir of the beneficent god and of the beneficent goddess, chosen of Ptah, doing the rule of Ra, living image of Amen.”

Ptolemy XI one cartouch “heir of the (two) beneficent gods, chosen of Ptah, doing the rule of Amen, living image of Ra.”

A second cartouch reads “Ptolemy, called Alexander, living forever, beloved of Ptah.” Ptolemy XIII, “heir of the god that saves, chosen of Ptah, doing the rule of Amen, living image of Ra.”

Various amours are credited to Ptolemy I which at this late date would be difficult to either prove or disprove, among many with a bad record he was not notably vicious. Three wives might legally have claimed the title, but his love was evidently given to the last and probably the youngest. Doubtless at Alexander’s behest he first took a Persian wife, the Princess Artakama, the daughter of Artabasus. Only two of these Persian wives are known to appear in later history, Amestris, daughter of Oxyartes, and probably a sister or half sister of Roxane, married to Krateras and subsequently to Lysimachus, and Apame, who married Seleukas and became the ancestress of the Seleukid dynasty.

Ptolemy I married the Princess Artakama 330 B. C., which would make him, if born 367 B. C., thirty-seven years of age at his first marriage. He again wedded Eurydike, daughter of Antipater, nine years later, and Berenike, evidently his favorite wife, when he was fifty. All the ladies were doubtless much his juniors. The Princess Artakama could not properly be called queen, since she passes out of Ptolemy’s life and history before he assumed the title of king.

The marriage with Eurydike, the daughter of Antipater, who had subsequently made himself king of Macedon, may have been merely a matter of policy and not dictated by any motives of affection. Ptolemy’s subsequent action and marked preference for Berenike seems to suggest this; but that he lived with her as his legal wife and acknowledged the children of both is matter of history. Eurydike came with a retinue to Egypt, in the style of a great princess. It seems to have been after the death of her father and during the reign of her brother Cassander, with whom Ptolemy had formed an alliance and wished to keep on peaceful terms, perhaps this very marriage was a pledge of their friendship. We judge Eurydike to have been of less fiery temper and disposition than Roxane, since she seems to have accepted a successor and rival with comparative equanimity and apparently made no effort to get rid of or destroy her. In her train came a grand niece of Antipater, doubtless young and beautiful, a widow with all the fascinations pertaining to that class, which probably she did not hesitate to use upon the middle-aged king. The situation bears some resemblance to that of Catharine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, though less fatal in its immediate results.

One writer has made Berenike daughter of Lagos and therefore step-sister of Ptolemy, but Mahaffy says “it is likely he was misled by the formula ‘wife and sister’ applied to Egyptian queens as a mere title of honor and which was probably used in many documents regarding the present princess.” And since Sotor was one of the few Ptolemies who did not marry his immediate relatives, it is well he should have credit therefor.

Both ladies appear to have been amiably disposed and Berenike was evidently a strong character as well, who maintained a life-long influence over her husband and secured for herself and her children the first place. She was more strictly speaking the queen, since it was after this last marriage that Ptolemy assumed the title, and it was Berenike’s son who succeeded to the throne, as did the son of Atossa; Eurydike had children, a son Ptolemy Keraunos and others, and several daughters, whose claims were all set aside for those of the more favored Berenike. So in 317 B. C. Ptolemy married his chosen princess and gave her and her children the first place. By her previous marriage Berenike already had three children, a son, Magas, and two daughters, Theoxena and Antigone. These three Ptolemy seems to have accepted almost as his own, using the princesses as the cards or dice of the great games he was playing, as auxiliaries in cementing his political alliances. In arranging all these marriages we may infer that Berenike’s opinions and wishes had weight and who knows but she may have used her influence to induce Ptolemy himself to assure the title of King of Egypt. She would be neither the first nor the last wife who has endeavored to fire her husband with ambition.

To anticipate somewhat, her son, Magas, became King of Cyrene, and Theoxena was married to Agathocles of Syracuse, who was an upstart and adventurer, but clever and able and making so much of himself and his opportunities that he had to be reckoned with by the contesting powers. “Antigone was married to Pyrrus; Lysandra to Sassander’s son, Alexander; Lysandra (probably a second of the name), to Agathocles, son of Lysimachus of Thrace; Arsinoe to Lysimachus himself; Eirene to Eunostos, king of Soli in Cyprus, and ultimately in 287 B. C., even Ptolemais to Demetrius.” Thus Ptolemy Sotor utilized his large family, consisting, it is said, of twelve children, to serve his political purposes.

Ptolemy Keraunos, the eldest son and rightful heir of his father, beheld, with bitterness, himself set aside in favor of his younger brother and continued, during his stormy life, to be a thorn in the side of the Ptolemy succession. Our line of research is to follow the domestic histories rather than the public acts of the king, already made familiar by the pens of many able writers.

The first child of Sotor by his marriage with Berenike was a daughter, later the well-known Arsinoe II, queen of Egypt. The son Ptolemy Philadelphus, who succeeded his father, was born in 308 B. C. (on the island of Kos, a favorite retreat from Alexandria) during one of the campaigns of Ptolemy in the Aegean, whither Berenike had accompanied her husband, either from the affection between them which forbade separation, or the desire on the queen’s part to keep near the king that she might continue to use her great influence, seeking to bend the course of events as they arose, to her own purposes. She might well have earned the title both of Berenike the Ambitious, and Berenike the Successful, but scarcely those of Berenike the Just or the Generous. The virtues of self-sacrifice and generosity were sometimes shown under the ancient moral code, but consideration and Justice were fruits of the Christian Dispensation.

Ptolemy Sotor did not marry young, but lived to see his children grow up and to associate with him, on the throne, his son Ptolemy, called Philadelphus, son of Berenike, and for the last years of his life seemed to have resigned the regal power into his hands. So large a family, composed of such diverse elements, would, even in modern times, have been apt to have difficulties as regards matters of inheritance, and it is little to be wondered at perhaps that such was supremely the case in this instance. But, during his lifetime, the arrangements of Ptolemy Sotor seem to have been accepted, in a great degree, and it was not till after his death that a fierce conflict broke out among the rival claimants.

Ptolemy Sotor is said to have eaten with the poor and borrowed plate from the rich. The use of gold, silver and copper coins had been common in Phoenicia and other countries before it was introduced into Egypt by the first Ptolemy, but Poole says “the monograms and symbols indicating mints are more constant and regular in the coinage of the Ptolemies than in any other series of Greek regal money.” The pictures of the kings and queens on the coins, albeit frequently conventionalized, assist us much in our search for knowledge concerning them. The regular silver coinage presents the heads of kings and queens on one side, often those of the gods, eagles, etc., on the other. The place of the mint name was usually on the reverse side, and, if dated, on opposite sides of the field. A rare place for the mint name was between the legs of the eagle. The gold coinage was often not struck in the time of those whose heads it bears. Thus Philadelphus honored both his parents after their decease. Queen Berenike I appears on the coins both alone and with her husband. The face is dignified and beautiful, a straight Greek nose and regular features. Of her death we find no record, but she appears to have been loved and honored by both husband and son, and whichever survived her no doubt she was buried with all possible respect.

Though many wars occurred during the reign of Ptolemy Sotor, yet it was so long that he had also much time to spare for the internal administration and improvement of his kingdom, and some writers believe that many things of benefit thereto, attributed to Ptolemy Philadelphus should really be credited, at least in their inception, to Ptolemy Sotor. He built and added to some of the finest temples, extended and adorned Alexandria and is said to have written a history of Alexander’s campaigns, which, unfortunately, has been lost, and showed his appreciation of mental attainments by surrounding himself with men of learning and culture.

Queen Eurydike seems to have endured with what grace she might the secondary place accorded to her and her children, till the younger Ptolemy was made king, when they all left Egypt, no doubt in bitterness of soul and resolved if possible to wrest from him, whom they regarded as a usurper of his elder brother’s rights, his regal powers.

The Ptolemies, called the Lagidae, were a popular race. Ptolemy Sotor seems to have possessed much suavity and personal charm of manner, and the Egyptians and other conquered peoples were treated by him and the earlier Ptolemies with much more consideration and humanity than by other more ruthless conquerors. Ptolemy Sotor is said to have had at least twelve children by different wives, as well as by the courtezan Thais. Statues of him are mentioned by various writers, but have not been found, and his portrait on the coins is the only one that remains to us. The three earliest members of the family seem to have a stronger claim to good looks than their successors, who, both in regularity of outline and general expression, are distinctly below the ancestral level.

Eurydike, though probably the elder, may have survived her rival, but their part was now played on the stage of history and they passed from the scene, leaving it to a multitude of other actresses, some of whom excelled them in beauty and celebrity, while others remain to us but as a shadow and a name.