Arsinoe and Berenice at the olympics

Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Volumn 154, Issue , 2005, Pages 91-96

  Bennett, Chris ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61249648654     PISSN: 00845388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. W. Vollgraff, Inscriptions de Béotie, BCH 25 (1901) 365-375
2. also L'Institut Fernand-Courby, Nouveau choix d'inscriptions grecques: textes, traductions, commentaires (Paris, 1971) No. 22.
3. For "king Ptolemy Philopator" as Ptolemy XII rather than Ptolemy IV, see M. Holleaux, Observations sur une inscription de Lébadeia, BCH 30 (1906) 469-481 at 480-481. The epiklesis dates the victory before his assumption of the title "Neos Dionysios" in the late 60s.
4. Pausanias 5.8.11. The date is given in the Olympic victory list in A. Schoene (ed.), Eusebi Chronicorum Libri Duo (Berlin, 1866/1875) I 207, naming the victor as "Philistiachos", evidently a corruption of "Bilistiche";
5. cf. already A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides I (Paris, 1903) 185 n. 1
6. st. Either he was counting inclusively or he confused Bilistiche's two victories.
7. P. Oxy XVII 2082 F6+7. The entry is heavily reconstructed (cf. the photograph now available online (February 2005) at http://www.papyrology.ox.ac. uk). The event is certain from its position in the list.
8. For the victor as Bilistiche see now E. Kosmetatou, Bilistiche and the Quasi-Institutional Status of Ptolemaic Royal Mistress, AfP 50 (2004) 18-36 at 21. The date depends on the absence of an entry for the pair of colts, an event introduced in 264.
9. Hyginus, De Astronomia 2.24. It seems safe to assume a victory.
10. 2 2316 line 45 (Ptolemy VI). See S. V. Tracy - C. Habicht, New and Old Panathenaic Victor Lists, Hesperia 60 (1991) 187-236.
11. P. J. Parsons, Callimachus: Victoria Berenices, ZPE 25 (1977) 1-50.
12. A. Cameron, Callimachus and His Critics (Princeton, 1995) 106, suggests a date of 243 or 241, favouring the former.
13. Cf. M. Fantuzzi, The Structure of the Hippika in P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309, in B. Acosta-Hughes et al. (eds.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves: Reflections on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309) (Washington D.C., 2004) 212-224 at 220-224.
14. Editto princeps: G. Bastianini - C. Gallazzi (eds.), Posidippo di Pella. Epigrammi, P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309, (Milan, 2001)
15. editio minor (designated AB): C. Austin - G. Bastianini (eds.), Posidippi Pellaei Quae Supersunt Omnia (Milan, 2002);
16. additional critical notes in E. Livrea, Critica testuale ed esegesi del nuovo Posidippo, in G. Bastianini - A. Casanova (eds.), Il papiro di Posidippo un anno dopo. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi Firenze 13-14 giugno 2002 (Florence, 2002) 61-77.
17. Individual epigrams are identified herein by the number assigned in AB. For a recent challenge to the usual identification of Posidippus as the author of these epigrams, see S. Schröder, Skeptische Überlegungen zum Mailänder Epigrammpapyrus (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309), ZPE 148 (2004) 29-73. While Schröder considers that the collection as a whole may be the work of more than one author, he considers at least three of the Hippika epigrams considered here, AB 74, 78, and 79, to be the work of a single author (ZPE 148 at 72).
18. Reconstruction, transcription and translation after AB. Cf. the version of B. Acosta-Hughes and E. Kosmetatou, AfP 50 at 26-27, and the versions at http://www.chs.harvard.edu/classicsat/issue-1/greektext.html (as of June, 2005). The slight differences between these reconstructions do not affect the identification of the royal women involved.
19. E. Kosmetatou, Constructing Legitimacy: The Ptolemaic Familiengruppe as a Means for Self-Definition in Posidippus' Hippika, in Acosta-Hughes et al., Labored in Papyrus Leaves, 225-246 at 232 n. 24.
20. Philo, De Op. Mun. 36 (105), quoting Hippocrates.
21. Isthmian Games: AB 82
22. Nemean Games: AB 79, 80, 81.
23. D. J. Thompson, Posidippus, Poet of the Ptolemies, in K. Gutzwiller (ed.), The New Posidippus. A Hellenistic Poetry Book [to appear];
24. see also L. Criscuolo, Agoni e politica alla corte di Alessandria. Riflessioni su alcuni epigrammi di Posidippo, Chiron 33 (2003), 311-332 at 328-330. My thanks to Dorothy Thompson for providing me an advance copy of her article. Berenice II is assumed in P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309, 206, without discussion.
25. W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers (Munich, 1934) 7;
26. L. Koenen, Die "demotische Zivilprozessordnung" und die Philanthropa vom 9. Okt. 186 vor Chr., AfP 17 (1960) 11-16 at 13-14 n. 2.
27. Most recently, Criscuolo, Chiron 33, passim; cf. R. A. Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda (Toronto, 2000) 57-58, 66-75.
28. P. Bing, Posidippus and the Admiral: Kallikrates of Samos in the Milan Epigrams, GRBS 43 (2002/3) 243-266 at 253 n. 23.
29. Bing, GRBS 43 at 253 n. 23. For critical remarks on the structure of AB 88.
30. see now Schröder, ZPE 148 at 40-42.
31. See n. 2.
32. For 268: E. Grzybek, Du calendrier macédonien au calendrier ptolémaïque: problèmes de chronologie hellénistique (Basel, 1990) 103-112.
33. For 270: most recently, Kosmetatou, AfP 50 at 34-35. While it is far beyond the scope of this article to discuss this controversial issue, my opinion is that none of the numerous objections raised to date against Grzybek's thesis are convincing, either individually or collectively, and that his proposal is more likely than not.
34. So also Bing, GRBS 43 at 253 n. 23.
35. L. Moretti, Olympionikai, i vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici (Rome, 1957) 135-136 nos. 538, 542.
36. On Attalos see also L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (Rome, 1953) 94-99;
37. on Glaucon see also Criscuolo, Chiron 33, 320-322.
38. Hazzard, Imagination, 89-90. The retitling of the priest of the dynastic cult is given in P. Hibeh I 99.
39. On the Julian alignment of Macedonian regnal years see R. A. Hazzard, The Regnal Years of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, Phoenix 41 (1987) 140-158.
40. Pithom Stele (CCG 22183) line 15-16: É. Naville, La stèle de Pithom, ZAS 40 (1902) 66-75;
41. Grzybek, Calendrier macédonien, 69-112.
42. A. E. Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich, 1962) 27-28.
43. J. Teixidor, Ptolemaic Chronology in the Phoenician Inscriptions from Cyprus, ZPE 71 (1988) 188-190
44. C. J. Bennett, Three Notes on Arsinoe I, in A. K. Eyma - C. J. Bennett (eds.), A Delta-Man in Yebu (Parkland FL, 2003) 64-70.
45. Thompson, Poet of the Ptolemies; Kosmetatou, Constructing Legitimacy 232.
46. P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309, 205-206, followed by Criscuolo, Chiron 33 at 312.
47. Schol. vet. Theocritus 17.128, G. H. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens: a study of woman-power in Macedonia, Seleucid, Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt (Baltimore, 1932) 121.
48. The question is surveyed in W. Huß, Ptolemaios der Sohn, ZPE 121 (1998) 229-250
49. with update in idem, Noch einmal: Ptolemaios der Sohn, ZPE 149 (2004) 232.
50. Again, its complexities are beyond the scope of this article. My opinion is that he was Ptolemy, son of Lysimachus and Arsinoe II, adopted by Ptolemy II, and that he later became Ptolemy of Telmessos. He was not Ptolemy Andromachou, who was a son of Ptolemy II by a mistress, most likely Bilistiche (notwithstanding Kosmetatou's assertions to the contrary in AfP 50 at 20 and 23), and who may be identified with the Ptolemy who died at Ephesus. M. Domingo Gygax, Ptolemaios, Bruder des Königs Ptolemaios III. Euergetes, und Mylasa: Bemerkungen zu I. Labraunda Nr. 3, Chiron 30 (2000) 353-366, suggests that Ptolemy "the Brother" of Ptolemy III should be identified with "the Son" rather than Andromachou.
51. E. R. Bevan, The House of Ptolemy (London, 1927) 66;
52. J. A. Tunny, Ptolemy "the Son" Reconsidered: Are there too many Ptolemies?, ZPE 131 (2000) 83-92.
53. P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972) I 474;
54. cf. Huß, ZPE 149 at 232.
55. Huß, ZPE 121 at 240-241.
56. AB 127 = Anth. Pal. V 202; A. Cameron, Two Mistresses of Ptolemy Philadelphus, GBRS 31 (1990) 287-311.
57. Hazzard, Imagination, 44-46, 66-79, etc., has argued that Ptolemy II undertook a number of actions and policy changes intended to revitalize his rule in about 263/2. While some of his arguments are less convincing than others, the general thesis seems plausible. If correct, the adoption probably took place as part of this activity.
58. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 87.