CLEOPATRA V TRYPHÆNA AND THE GENEALOGY OF THE LATER PTOLEMIES* According to a fragment of Porphyry, a daughter of Ptolemy X Alexan- der I and Berenice III, of unknown name, accompanied her parents at the time of her father’s deposition and flight in 881. We are told nothing else about her. This paper explores the hypothesis that she was the future Cleopatra V Tryphæna. The discussion touches on several other uncer- tain points in the female genealogy of the later Ptolemies. 1. THE NATURE OF THE SOURCES The evidence for the genealogy of the later Ptolemies falls into two classes. The classical authors provide the bulk of our sources. These works give us a complete genealogy of the line of succession down to Ptolemy X. We are also given the paternity of the remaining rulers — Berenice III, Ptolemy XI Alexander II, Ptolemy XII Auletes, Berenice IV, Cleopatra VII and her brothers — but in none of these cases are we told the names of their mothers. Moreover, much of the classical evi- dence for the later Ptolemies is presented incidentally to the author’s main purpose, not all these authors are fully reliable, nor are they all mutually consistent. Two of the principal sources — Pompeius Trogus and Porphyry — survive only in fragmentary and redacted form, in the works of compilers (Justin and Eusebius, respectively) who lived and wrote several centuries later. The second class of evidence comes from the contemporary inscrip- tions and papyri discovered in Egypt over the last two centuries. These have provided us with a highly refined chronology of changes in the political regime (at least, as seen locally), and have allowed us to track in fine detail changes in royal titulary and the evolution of the royal * I am very grateful to Prof. W. Clarysse for the invaluable research suggestions he has given me in the course of this study. The views expressed are my own, as are any errors or omissions. 1 Porphyry, FGrH 260 F2.8. The later Ptolemies and Cleopatras are numbered in sev- eral different ways. I follow the widely-used convention of RE, and also, where possible, attach a well-known distinguishing epithet on the first introduction of a given ruler. 40 C. BENNETT priesthood. They have also augmented our genealogical knowledge, by providing us the previously-unknown name of Ptolemy XII’s queen, Cleopatra V Tryphæna; two heirs to the throne (Ptolemy ‘the Son’ and Ptolemy Eupator) and possibly a king (Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator)2; and possibly an additional daughter of Ptolemy VIII Physcon, namely Berenice, wife of Psherenptah II, High Priest of Memphis under Ptolemy X3. Attempts to use the Egyptian data to identify errors in the classical sources have been unsuccessful. In 1984, Cauville and Devauchelle argued that the evolution of epithets in the eponymous priesthood shows that Ptolemy IX Lathyros was in fact the son of Ptolemy VIII by his sis- ter Cleopatra II, rather than by her daughter Cleopatra III, as the classi- cal sources would have us believe4. This proposal failed, since it was shown that the pattern of epithets applied to the queens need not be applied consistently, so there is nothing in the Egyptian data which con- tradicts the classical evidence5. An earlier effort to modify the classical genealogy from contemporary Egyptian data was made by Pestman6. In 1967, he proposed that Ptolemy 2 Ptolemy ‘the Son’: W. HUSS, ZPE 21 (1998), p. 229ff.; Ptolemy Eupator: W. HUSS, Pro- ceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen 1994, p. 555ff.; Ptolemy VII: M. CHAUVEAU, BIFAO 90 (1990), p. 135ff.; and the sources therein for each. 3 Stele Vienna 82: E.A.E. REYMOND – J.W.B. BARNS, Or 46 (1977), p. 1ff.; E.A.E. REY- MOND, From the Records of a Priestly Family of Memphis, Wiesbaden 1981, p. 127 no. 9. J. QUAEGEBEUR, in Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis (Studia Hellenistica, 24), Louvain 1980, p. 69 no. 24, objected that the text in question is illegible in the published photo- graph of the stele at the point where Reymond argues that the relationship is given. How- ever, he wrote before the publication of Reymond’s monograph, and was therefore unaware that she based her reading on a comparison of the surviving traces to the undoubted occurrence of snt in another line. D. Devauchelle’s review of her final publica- tion (CE 58, 1983, p. 139) ignores the point and simply repeats Quaegebeur’s objection. The context (E.A.E. REYMOND, op. cit., p. 132) requires either a genealogical relationship or a cultic relationship to Ptolemy X. But no separate cult of Ptolemy X is otherwise known to exist. If the relationship is agreed, by elimination, to be genealogical, then the legibility of the text is irrelevant — the only chronologically acceptable possibility is sisterhood. (Cf. the similar conclusions of W. HUSS, Aegyptus 70, 1990, p. 191ff., esp. p. 200.) In my opinion, Reymond’s case is strong enough that a reexamination of the stele using modern image-enhancement techniques is called for. 4 S. CAUVILLE – D. DEVAUCHELLE, REgypt 35 (1984), p. 31ff. 5 L. MOOREN, in Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Congress of Papyrology, Athens 1988, II, p. 435; J.E.G. WHITEHORNE, Cleopatras, London 1994, p. 123-125. Cauville & Devauchelle also argue that Cleopatra II survived till 107. On this proposal see E. VAN’T DACK, The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103-101 BC: A Multilingual Dossier Con- cerning a “War of Sceptres”, Brussels 1989, p. 19ff.; D.J. THOMPSON, in L. CRISCUOLO – G. GERACI (eds.), Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba, Bologna 1989, p. 693ff. 6 P.W. PESTMAN, Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C. – 453 ap. J.-C.), Leiden 1967, p. 72(e), 76(b). GENEALOGY OF THE LATER PTOLEMIES 41 XI, whose mother is unnamed in the classical sources, was the son of Berenice III, his father’s wife, and briefly his own, even though Por- phyry calls him Berenice’s stepson7. This argument failed because it was shown that the terminology of the sources was consistent with Por- phyry’s statement, since an exactly similar statement exists that Ptolemy III Euergetes was the son of Arsinoe II, when it is undoubted that his mother was Arsinoe I8. This last observation can be generalised. There are several cases where genealogical statements occur in the Egyptian data which conflict with the classical sources: – Ptolemy III: Egyptian: son of Ptolemy II Philadelphos and his sister Arsinoe II; Classical: son of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I, daughter of Lysima- chus9. – Berenice II: Egyptian: sister of Ptolemy III; Classical: daughter of Magas of Cyrene, and so Ptolemy III’s cousin10. – Cleopatra I: Egyptian: sister of Ptolemy V Epiphanes; Classical: daughter of the Seleucid Antiochus III, and so Ptolemy V’s third cousin11. – Cleopatra III: Egyptian: daughter of Ptolemy VIII Classical: daughter of Ptolemy VI Philometor, and so Ptolemy VIII’s stepdaughter12. – Berenice III: Egyptian: sister of Ptolemy X; Classical: daughter of Ptolemy IX, and so Ptolemy X’s niece13. – Ptolemy XI: Egyptian: son of Ptolemy X and Berenice III; Classical: son of Ptolemy X and Berenice III’s stepson14. 7 Porphyry, FGrH 260 F2.11. 8 E. VAN’T DACK, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 151-154. 9 OGIS 54 (Adulis inscription); OGIS 56 (Canopus Decree). Cf. Schol. Theocritus 17.128. 10 OGIS 56. Cf. Justin, 26.3. 11 OGIS 773, P. Louvre 9415. Cf. Appian, Syr. 5. 12 P. dem. Berl. 3090, 3091, 3113. Cf. Justin 38.8. 13 P. dem. Ashm. 10. Cf. Pausanias, I 9.3. 14 P. dem. Turin 6085. Cf. n. 7 supra. 42 C. BENNETT There is a clear and consistent pattern to these apparent contradictions. They are readily resolved by interpreting the Egyptian statements within the context of an ideal royal family, consisting of a king, his sister-wife and their children, being succeeded by their son and his sister-wife15. The model can be extended to include those biologically unrelated mem- bers of the priesthood, the administration and the military, who held genealogical titles such as rÌ nsw (‘royal relative’) and even sn nsw (‘king’s brother’)16. In this light, an unsupported assertion in the Egypt- ian sources of the Ptolemaic period about the genealogy of a member of the royal family must be regarded as suspect17. It is curious therefore that the Egyptian description of Cleopatra V as ‘sister’ of Ptolemy XII is often uncritically accepted as genealogical fact18. Those scholars who have recognised the existence of this diffi- culty have usually accepted the proposal faute de mieux19. I can find only two attempts to proceed further, neither of them recent. Bevan noted the possibility that she could have been a daughter of Ptolemy X, but dismissed it without discussion20. On the other side, Macurdy sug- gested that sisterhood is implied by the fact that Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra V are called philadelphoi21. But we can place no greater faith in the genealogical accuracy of such epithets than in Egyptian titles such as snt nsw. Berenice III, philometor and philadelphos, was granddaughter 15 P.W. PESTMAN, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 2 n. 4, goes even further and supposes that the incestuous marriages of the Ptolemaic kings were mere formalities, without a sexual aspect. He believes they were used as a vehicle to legitimise the children born to other women. But, if this were the case, the point of the exercise would be to select the king and queen of the next generation. One would therefore expect each king to have only one surviving ‘son’ and ‘daughter’ by his ‘sister’.