ELECTRUM * Vol. 8 Kraków 2004
Tomasz Grabowski
The Formation of the Kingdom of Cyrene at the End of the 2nd c. BC
Cyrene came under the rule of the Ptolemies in the first years of Ptolemy I’s govern ment, i.e. at the beginning of the formation of the Ptolemaic empire at the end of the 4th century BC. Next to Cyprus, it was the most valuable Ptolemaic possession outside Egypt. The Mediterranean policy of the initially powerful Ptolemaic empire was be coming increasingly passive already at the end of the 3rd century BC. Multiplying inter nal difficulties accelerated the process of decline, as the state was gradually losing all its external colonies with the exception of Cyprus and Cyrene. Ultimately, however, the Dynasty lost them as well. The circumstances in which an independent state in Cyrene was formed are not altogether clear. The Ptolemaic empire was first divided in 164 BC. That year the es tranged brothers, Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes, formally divided the kingdom. The older brother was to rule Egypt and the younger one Cyrene.1 The following years saw Euergetes’ continuous intrigues aimed at capturing at least Cyprus; his efforts, however, remained unsuccessful. After the death of Ptolemy VI, Cyrene was united with the rest of the Ptolemaic empire as a result of establishing the joint rule of Cleopatra II (Philometor’s widow) and Ptolemy VIII. The period of their joint regency was also filled with intrigues and rivalry sometimes turning into open civil war. When he died in 116 BC, Ptolemy VIII left a peculiar will. In it, he sanctioned the division of his own state and bequeathed the rule of Egypt to a woman - his second wife, Cleopatra III. She was to choose one of her two sons as a joint ruler. The other son was to receive Cyprus, and Ptolemy Apion, Euergetes’ illegitimate son, was to rule Cyrene.2 Cyrene, like Cyprus, was to be an independent kingdom. This is stated clearly
1 Polyb. XXXI 18; Liv. epit. XLV1-XLVII; Pomp. Trog. epit. XXXIV. 2 lust. XXXIX 3, 5. Cyprus is not mentioned in the sources, but Otto/Bengston 1938: 117 proved that the will included a bequest of the island to the son whom the mother would not choose to rule Egypt. 86 Tomasz Grabowski by Justin (XXXIX 5,2): „Frater eius expaelice susceptus, cuipater Cyrenaearum regnum testamento reliquerat, herede populo Romano instituto, decedit However, the situation took a different turn and the will was never executed. Cleopatra III did not manage to deprive the older son, Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros, of power or to gain power herself together with her favourite, Alexander. The latter took possession of Cyprus, but not as an autonomous ruler. We may presume that Ptolemy Apion did not come into possession of Cyrene bequeathed by his father, either. This is indicated by Ptolemy IX Soter II and his wife Cleopatra Selene’s letter to the Cyrenians, dated Phamenoth 24th of the 9th year (i.e. April 10, 108 BC), which does not mention Apion or his rule.3 In 108 BC, Ptolemy Apion was not a sovereign ruler of Cyrene; he was not even a governor, or administrator. This is indicated by the fact that in the above-mentioned letter the king directly addresses regional government representatives. It seems improb able that a governor should have been overlooked if there had been one. This would have been contrary to the practice of the Ptolemaic administration.4 Also the Cyrenaicans’ pséphisma and inscriptions in honour of kings founded by a court official in Cyrene prove that it was Soter II, not Apion, who ruled Cyrene at the time.5 The existence of an independent kingdom of Cyrene is verified in approximately 100 BC. It was at that time that Rome issued a decree ordering the kings of Egypt, Cyprus, Cyrene and Syria to make an effort to prevent any part of their kingdoms from becoming a hotbed of Cilician pirates. The exact dating of this lex depiratispersequendis is also problematic, but it ranges between 101-100 BC.6 Naturally, it is possible that Ptolemy Apion took possession of Cyrene in 116 BC, after his father’s death, and lost it in the subsequent years, prior to 108 BC.7 There is no evidence to either prove or disprove this thesis; however, it seems rather unlikely. We may therefore conclude that Apion came into power in Cyrene only in 108-100 BC. It is difficult to date the event more exactly, since the Dynasty’s history was very compli
3 SEG IX, 5 and Oliverio 1932: 259, no 538: Paai/.EU^ nroZ.Epaio<; Kat PaaiXiaaa KXEOttETpa f] a6fi3.
8 lust. XXXIX 4; Josephus Flavius, Ant. lud. 13, 334-335. Written accounts are very scant. The fact that Ptolemy IX lost the throne both in 110 and 108 BC is indicated by inscriptions and papyruses. One of these events is referred to in Josephus’s account (Ant. Jud. 13, 278): So they returned to Samaria, and shut them again within the wall, till they were forced to sendfor the same Antiochus a second time to help them, who procured about six thousand men from Ptolemy Lathyrus, which were sent them without his mother’s consent, who had then in a manner turned him out of his government. On the situation in Egypt in these years cf. Otto/Bengston 1938: 161-171; van’t Dack et al. 1989; Huss 2001: 627-656. 9 It seems impossible to exclude that it was Ptolemy IX who ruled Cyrene at the time; cf. Bagnall 1976: 27; Laronde 1987: 445-446. 10 As is believed by Huss 2001: 654, who dates Apion’s rule in Cyrene at 103-102 BC and claims that it was Cleopatra III who handed over power to him in the face of Ptolemy IX’s victories. He admits the possi bility that the Romans could have influenced this decision. 11 Also Otto/Bengtson 1938: 187-188; Luzzatto 1941: 282-291; Laronde 1987: 446-455. Cf. also Will 1982: 441-442 contra Oost 1963: 15; Lampela 1998: 228. 88 Tomasz Grabowski worth paying some attention to the Republic’s policy towards the Ptolemies in this period. In the middle of the 2nd century BC, the Roman Republic became the controlling force and arbiter of the Mediterranean world. In 168 BC the Ptolemies kept their posses sions only as a result of Roman intervention, which forced the victorious Antiochus IV to stop the war against them and to evacuate Egypt and Cyprus. It does not seem to have been the beginning of a Roman protectorate over the Ptolemaic monarchy. The Senate did not intend to make the Ptolemies subordinate and Roman interests in the Nile region were still insignificant. For many reasons, Rome did not pursue a consistent policy with regard to Egypt.12 The Senate’s interventions were provoked by the Ptolemies them selves, who played the Roman card in their dynastic feuds. The state was divided in 163 BC; it seems, however, that this was not brought about by the Romans. It was probably the work of Ptolemy VI, victorious at the time, who decided to satisfy his brother’s ambition himself by handing over the rule of Cyrene to him.13 The settlement did not solve the problems, though. Ptolemy VIII’s intrigues and his appeals to Rome led to renewed conflicts between the brothers and even to open war. In its course, Ptolemy VI dared oppose his brother with military force in spite of the fact that Rome clearly took the side of Euergetes.14 We have no reason to believe that the division or weakening of the Ptolemaic Dynasty was the consequence of any consistent Roman policy towards Egypt. As we can see in the example of the rule of Ptolemy VI, Rome avoided military involvement, even if his orders were disobeyd. This does not have to mean, however, that the Roman policy was indecisive and apathetic. In the period discussed, the Senate frequently performed the function of arbiter, which was advantageous for adding to its prestige in the East. Finally, we must remember that Egypt could not pose a real threat to the position of Rome. It is telling that the victorious Ptolemy VI did not dare take Cyrene away from his brother. He could not afford to do so since the Romans would never have allowed the state to reunite. Another factor which merited caution was Ptolemy VIII’s will, which bequeathed Cyrene to Rome in the event of his dying heirless.15
12 On the subject of Roman-Egyptian relations in this period cf. Gruen 1984: 692-716; Lampela 1998: 148-204. 13 Polyb. XXX 10; Pomp. Trog., prolog. XXXIV; Zonar. IX 25, 3 relate this solution as the work of the Romans. On the other hand Liv., per. XLVII reports it to be an agreement between the Ptolemies. Some historians believe this agreement to be the work of the Romans in accordance with the Senate’s intentions: Bevan 1927: 291; Badian 1958: 109 n. 3. Vielmetti 1938: 410 (however, he does not interpret this as due to the Senate’s intention of weakening Egypt). Some believe that the decision agreed with the Senate, which however did not make a ruling on the matter and the Roman Senators acted unofficially: Otto 1934: 92-94; Briscoe 1969: 50 n. 7. Others, on the other hand, do not reckon there was any form of Roman involvement: Will 1982: 360-361; Gruen 1984: 696-698; Huss 2001: 569. We cannot exclude the possibility that the Roman Senators suggested certain solutions. From the manner in which they defended their conduct in Egypt before the Senate we may judge that they were more than passive observers. In any event, Ptolemy VI probably did not need any additional suggestions, and such a solution was not an exception in the history of Hellenistic Egypt (cf. the case of Magas during the reign of Ptolemy I). 14 Polyb. XXXIII 11; XXXIX 7; Diod. XXXI 33. I5S£GIX, 7. The Formation of the Kingdom of Cyrene at the End of the 2nd c. BC 89
Given the scarcity of historical sources, we cannot say much about the Senate’s interest in Egyptian affairs after 145 BC. However, the situation there seems to have evolved according to plan, since the dynastic feuds considerably weakened the kingdom on the Nile. Cleopatra III, like Ptolemy VI, endeavoured not to provoke the Senate’s intervention. The fear of the Roman response seems to have been the reason why, after Euergetes’ death in 116 BC, Cleopatra III tolerated Ptolemy IX despite her strong posi tion and her dislike for him, and did not immediately summon her favourite son, Alexander, from Cyprus. Cleopatra III must have realised that if she and Alexander had taken power, Rome might have demanded that the state should be divided in accordance with Euergetes’ will. It is therefore quite likely that there indeed was a Roman intervention in Apion’s favour, which resulted in his taking the throne of Cyrene. It would have been highly probable particularly in 101 BC, when Alexander took power by himself, after Cleopatra Ill’s murder.16 Until this time Rome had not acted consistently in seeking to weaken Egypt, but it had not been forced to act so either. However, we may suppose that it looked reluctantly at any attempts to strengthen Ptolemaic rule and may have demanded that Cyrene should be given to Apion. Supported by Ptolemy VIII Euergetes’ will, in which he bequeathed this land to Apion, the Romans could act as defenders of justice, which perfectly served the purpose of boosting their prestige in the region. It probably was not accidental that Ptolemy IX did not take any steps to regain the Egyptian throne until 88 BC, although he had made such attempts against his mother, who was a much more dangerous opponent than Alexander. It seems possible that the Romans, interven ing in 101 BC, demanded not only than the state should be divided and Ptolemy Ill’s will should be executed, but also warned against any attempts to change the status quo. The fact that both brothers already had their kingdoms, and Apion was the only injured party, might have been another argument for Rome. It is also worth noting that at that time the Republic successfully removed the Teutonic and Cimbrian threat which had loomed over it for several years; the war with Jugurtha had also ended a short time earlier. The Senate could pay more attention to the Egyptian affairs and take more deci sive steps. Egypt and Cyprus were united only in 88 BC, which was possible due to the internal turmoil in Rome: the newly finished war with allies, the competition between Marius and Sulla, and Mithridates VI Eupator’s attack on Roman colonies in Asia Minor. Another argument for Rome’s involvement in defence of Apion’s interests is the latter’s will, in which he bequeathed Cyrene to the people of Rome.17 We must not forget that it was advantageous for Roman interests that Apion should take possession of Cyrene. The formation of the kingdom of Cyrene meant considerably weaker rulers of Egypt, which gave Rome an additional trump card to play in their relations with the Ptolemies.
16 lust. XXXIX 4. 17 Liv., epit. LXX; lust. XXXIX 5. 90 Tomasz Grabowski
We may therefore presume that is very likely that the Romans contributed to the formation of an independent kingdom of Cyrene in 101 BC. Its establishment meant that the Roman position was reinforced again in their relations with the kings of Egypt.
Bibliography
Badian, E. (1958): Foreign Clientelae (264-270 B.C.). Oxford 1958. Bagnall, R.S. ( 1976): The Administration of Ptolemaic Possesions outside Egypt. Leiden. Bevan, E. (1927): A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. London. Briscoe, J. (1969): Eastern Policy and Senatorial Politics 168-146 B.C., Historia 18: 49-70. Fraser, P.M. (1956-1958): Inscriptions from Cyrene, Berytus 12: 101-128. Giovannini, A., Grzybek, E. (1978): La lex de piratis persequendis, Museum Helveticum 35: 33—47. Gruen, E.S. (1984): The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, vol. I—II. Berkeley-Los Angeles. Hassall, M., Crawford, M., Reynolds, J. (1974): Rome and the Eastern Provinces at the End of the Second Century B.C. The so-called “Piracy Law” and a new inscription from Cnidos, JRS 64: 195-220. Huss, W. (2001): Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332-30 v.Chr. München. Lampela, A. ( 1998): Rome and the Ptolemies of Egypt. The Development of their Political Relations 273-280 B.C. (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 111). Helsinki. Laronde, A. (1987): Cyrène et la Libye hellénistique, Libykai historiai de l’époque républicaine au principat d’Auguste, Etudes d’antiquités africanes. Luzzatto, G.I. (1941): Appunti sul testamento di Tolemeo Apione a favore di Roma (A proposito di una iscrizione cirenaica relativa al. protettorato di Tolemeo Sotere II su Cirene - DAAIII, I, 538). Studia et documenta historiae et iuris 7: 259-311. Oliverio, G. (1932): Documenti Antichi dell’Africa Italiana. I. Cirenaica, Fasc. 1-2. Bergamo. Oost, S.I. (1963): Cyrene 96-74 B.C., CPh 58: 11-25. Otto, W. ( 1934): Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers. Ein Beitrag zur Politik und zum Staatsrecht des Hellenismus. (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, Neue Folge 11 ). München. Otto, W„ Bengtson H. (1938): Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemäerreiches. Ein Beitrag zur Regierungszeit des 8. und 9. Ptolemäers. (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, Neue Folge 17). München. Pohl, H. (1993): Die römische Politik und die Piraterie im östlichen Mittelmeer vom 3. bis 1. Jh. v.Chr. (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 42). Berlin. Roussel, P. (1939): Ptolémée X Sôter et Cyrène, RÉA 41:7-18. Stieglitz, R.R. (1997): Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyrus on Cyprus and the Coast of the Levant, in S. Swiny, R.L. Hohlfelder, H. Wylde Swiny (eds), Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium "Cities on the Sea ", Nicosia, Cyprus, October 8-22, 1994. Atlanta: 301-306. Sumner, G.V. (1978): The “Piracy Law” from Delphi and the Law of the Cnidos Inscription, GRBS 19: 211-225. van’t Dack, E. et. al. (1989): E. van’t Dack, W. Clarysse, G. Cohen, J. Quaegebeur, J. K. Winnicki, The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103-101 B.C. A multilingual dossier concerning the "War of Spec tres ", (Collectanea Hellenistica I). Bruxelles. Vielmetti, C. (1938): Evergete II e la politica di Roma verso l’Egitto, ASNP, serie II, 7: 401-418.