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[349] 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[350] 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[351] 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[352] 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.

[353]

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[354] 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.”

[355]

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............