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.<pE. Also see related prostagma-. PaaiXeug Kat PaaD.iaarp; npoara^evratv. Concerning the date see Otto/Bengston 1938: 122-123, 174-175; Roussel 1939: 13; Will 1982:440-442. 4 Cf. Otto/Bengston 1938: 122-123. Cf. also comments on the unlikelihood of Apion acting as a gover­ nor of Cyrene when Euergetes was alive. Cf. also Stieglitz 1997: 301. 5 SEG IX, 5; 62; Oliverio 1932: 71, no 9; Fraser 1956-1958: 113-114, no 7. Psephisma-. Paatz.Ei [njroXcpaicDi Kai paciXiaaai KXcunerpat rat abstapai Ocofg ZojreTtcn Kai rwi uiwi [ajvrwv IIto- 3.epa(coi. Stolos’ inscriptions: 0eov Xwrepa rov ¿k PaaiXxcog nroXEpaiou row Seutepou EvEpyErov oraz Oeov ZatTEpa rov ey Paai3.Ea><; ITtoXEpaiou Osou Emepyetou. Otto/Bengston 1938; 123, 162-163, 174-175 proved that the first two inscriptions must originate from a period prior to 107 BC, most probably 109-108 BC. The third inscription was dated similarly, cf. Fraser 1956-1958: 114. 6 SEG III 378, B 9. An amended version of this inscription from Delphi and a complementary (up to a point) text from Cnidos were published by Hassall/Crawford/Reynolds 1974: 195-220. The most probable date according to the authors is the end of 101 or the beginning of 100 BC. Pohl 1993: 221 convincingly argues for 100 BC. Cf. also Giovannini/Grzybek 1978: 33-47 (early 99 BC); Sumner 1978: 225 (late 100 or early 99 BC). 7 As is believed by Luzzatto 1941: 288, but this version is unlikely. The Formation of the Kingdom of Cyrene at the End of the 2nd c. BC 87 cated at that time. In any event, the chaos that prevailed in Egypt in this period was advantageous for Apion’s claim to his due inheritance. After the death of Euergetes, the feuds for power broke out again. Cleopatra II was victorious over her daughter Cleopatra III. The mother forced the daughter to abandon her plan of sharing the regency with her favourite son, Alexander. However, Cleopatra II soon disappeared from the historical arena. Alexandria was left with an estranged pair: Cleopatra III and her older son, Ptolemy IX Soter II. The mother was the dominant figure, still attempting to establish joint rule with Alexander. The situation in Alexandria deteriorated. In 110 BC Ptolemy IX had to leave the capital, and his brother, Ptolemy Alexander, took the throne. In February 109 at the latest the situation went back to what it had been before; the only difference was that Alexander became an independent king of Cyprus. Ptolemy IX had to escape from Al­ exandria again in 108 BC, when he took shelter in Cyrene, but this time he returned quickly. The letter mentioned above, dated April 10, 108 BC, was written in this period. The third time Cleopatra finally had her own way. Alexander took the Egyptian throne and Ptolemy IX escaped to Cyprus, which had been abandoned by his brother, and managed to keep it despite transitory failures. He seems never to have given up his rights to Egypt. In 103 BC, taking advantage of Cleopatra’s involvement in the dynastic feuds of the Seleucids, he attempted to invade Egypt.8 As we can see, in the years 107-106 BC Cleopatra was triumphant. She expelled Soter from Egypt and even took Cyprus away from him for some time. She had no reason to make a concession to Apion, especially since her behaviour indicated that she was determined to preserve the unity of the kingdom. It is also unlikely that she should have conceded the rule of Cyrene during the feud with Ptolemy IX in the subsequent years. Although she could not stop the return of the hated son to Cyprus, she quickly foiled his attempt to invade Egypt. Her power in Egypt was unthreatened. It is not cer­ tain whether it was her or Ptolemy IX who had control of Cyrene in this period.9 Apion did not necessarily owe Cyrene to the reconciliation with the kings of Egypt (Cleopatra or Alexander).10 More probably, it may have been a result of Roman intervention; Rome may have finally demanded that Euergetes’ last will should be executed.11 It is therefore 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.