Ptolemy XIV Philopator Philadelphus1, son of Ptolemy XII2 probably by Cleopatra V3, born in 60 or 594, probably not proclaimed coregent by Cleopatra VII in year 2 = 51/05, or in year 3 = 50/496, was proclaimed coregent with Cleopatra VII end of Martius AUC 707 = early January 477, and probably married her at that time8, probably not attested as a victor at the Basileia in Lebadaeia8.1, died, allegedly poisoned by Cleopatra VII9, between early June and 1 Thoth year 9 = 4 September 4410. He had no known children.
No Egyptian titulary is known for him.
 PP VI 14561. Gr: Ptolemaios Filopatwr FiladelfoV. For the name Ptolemy: Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 167. The numbering as Ptolemy XIV follows the convention of RE and is today standard. He is sometimes numbered as "Ptolemy XIII" or "Ptolemy XV" in older works. The epithet Philopator is attested in pOxy 14.1629, dated to 27 Epeiph year 8 of Cleopatra and Ptolemy Theoi Philopatores; this can only be a reference to Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIV = 26 July 45.
The cult title of Philadelphus is attested more rarely. pBon 10 (imaged here) is dated to a year 7 of the rulers Cleopa[tra and Ptolemy] Philopator and Phila[.....]. O. Montevecchi, the original editor, restored the second title as "Phil[ometor]" and assigned the papyrus to Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XV. She argued against the restoration Philadelphus on the reasonable grounds that the title Philopator Philadelphus is otherwise only attested for Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra V, and that Cleopatra V would not be named first. However, H. Heinen, Rom und Ägypten von 51 bis 47 v. Chr 177ff. pointed out that year 7 of Cleopatra VII falls within her joint reign with Ptolemy XIV. The restoration "Philometor" is implausible for him, but Heinen argued that Philadelphus has the justification that Ptolemy XII called his children the Qeoi Neoi Fildelfoi in OGIS 741 = SB 8933, dated 29 Pachon year 29 = 31 May 52. On this basis, he suggested both Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIV were known as Philopator Philadelphus. In a reexamination of pBon 10, L. Criscuolo (in L. Criscuolo & G. Geraci (eds), Egitto e storia antica dall'ellenismo all'età araba 325, 326f. n. 6, amplified by personal communication, June 2001) noted that there was an oblique stroke in the second title immediately following the l of Fil. Paleographically, this could be an a, l, d or even m, but only an a is possible, which forces the reconstruction Fila[delfwn].
Nevertheless, it should be noted that neither pOxy 14.1629 nor BGU 6.1212 call Ptolemy XIV "Philadelphus", and that Cleopatra VII is also not otherwise attested with this title. (On the assignment of BGU 6.1212 to Ptolemy XIV see E. Van't Dack Anc. Soc. 1 (1970) 53.) The only support for this reconstruction of pBon 10 known to Criscuolo is an unspecified demotic text reported by K. H. Brugsch, Thesaurus inscriptionum Aegyptiacarum V 878f, naming Cleopatra VII with Ptolemy XV, and calling her Philopator and Philadelphus. L. M. Ricketts, ZPE 36 (1979) dated pdem Loeb 63 to Ptolemy XIV and restored the king's name as [Ptolemy] Philopator Phil[adelphus], but H. J. Thissen, ZPE 38 (1980) 244, showed that pdem Loeb 63 should be joined to pdem Loeb 87 and that the result was clearly dated to Ptolemy XII Philopator Phil[adelphus]. Thus, while the restoration seems unarguable, the title was apparently rarely used. The reason for this is unclear.
An independent terminus ante quem is set by the date of the will of Ptolemy XII, which can be inferred from Caesar, Civil Wars 3.108. Caesar says that Ptolemy XII willed the kingdom to "the eldest of the two sons, and his elder daughter" (Latin "ex duobus filiis maior et ex filiabus ea quae aetate antecedebat"). Hence Ptolemy XIV was already living at the time he made the will.
R Westall, REAC 11 (2009) 79, has recently reviewed this matter in detail. He points out that the distinction in form between the "eldest of the two sons" and the "his elder daughter" must imply that Ptolemy XII had more than two daughters living at the time he made the will, since Caesar did not indulge in stylistic variation for the sake of form. In direct support of this he cited ps.-Caesar, Alexandrian Wars 33, written in Caesarian style, which directly contrasts "the eldest of the two boys" ("maiore ex duobus pueris") with "the elder of the two daughters" ("maiorique ex duabus filiis") in 47, when it is certain that only two of the daughters survived. Hence the will must have been made before the exile of Ptolemy XII in c. June 58, when he was replaced by his eldest daughter Berenice IV and his wife Cleopatra V.
Four of the five primary MSS of the Civil Wars read "ex duabus" (the fifth omits the phrase entirely). The reading "ex filiabus" is an emendation by Herzog adopted in the most recent editriion of Carter (in some other editions "ex duabus filiabus"). There seems no reason to doubt it given the stylistic argument: "ex duabus [filiabus] ea quae aetate antecedebat" is wordy and redundant. See R Westall, REAC 11 (2009) 79 at 82-84.
Caesar also says that the will invoked "the treaties he had made at Rome", and that a copy was sent to Rome but was not deposited in the public treasury as was usual because of "the domestic troubles". The "treaties" must refer to the protection agreements to declare Ptolemy XII a friend of the Roman people, passed during Caesar's consulate "ex lege et senatus consulto" in 59 = AUC 695 (Caesar, Civil Wars 3.107). This had not been achieved by Kal. Maius AUC 695 = 12 April 59 (Cicero, Ad. Att. 2.16.2), and hence cannot have been known in Alexandria before c. June 59 (Westall estimates September/October). Hence the will dates from c. June 59 or later. Westall persuasively argues that the "domestic troubles" must refer to the various disturbances during the tribuniciate of P. Clodius which followed Caesar's consulate, hence the copy of the will probably reached Rome in spring of 58. It follows that the will was composed in the winter of 59/8, and Ptolemy XIV must have already been born and deemed healthy at that time. Ý
 O. Montevecchi, the original editor of pBon 10 (imaged here), restored the fragmentary date as "Year 7 [Tybi] 6"; the restoration of Tybi being due to the short space available, and accordingly dated the papyrus to 6 Tybi year 7 of Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIV = 6 January 45. L. M. Ricketts, BASP 16 (1979) 213 argued instead that the dating should be restored as Year 7 [which is year] 6, noting that there was a reference to Phamenoth in the body of the contract. She then linked this reconstructed dual date to pGrenf 2.38, which contains the dating formula 13 Phar?(mo)u?(thi) year 2 = year 1. She proposes that Cleopatra VII temporarily displaced Ptolemy XIII by Ptolemy XIV before March or April 50, and continuing at least until 12 July (odem Berlin 6197, dated 11 Epeiph year 2 = year 1) while retaining her position as senior ruler, but that by 23 Phaophi of year 3 = 27 October 50 Ptolemy XIII had reasserted himself, with dates in year 3 only, as shown in BGU 8.1730, and by the following June had begun his own regnal series with year 1 = year 3, as shown in SB 8.9764 (Payni year 1 = year 3 (= June 49)). Later, when Cleopatra VII was more firmly in control, and Ptolemy XIV was restored as coregent, she occasionally resurrected the double dating system as used in pBon 10.
This rather complex reconstruction did not find much support, largely on the grounds that other material naming Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIV (BGU 6.1212, pOxy 14.1629) is dated only by Cleopatra VII, and also because there is no other hint of Ptolemy XIV becoming a coregent so early. Further we have overlapping material from year 2 that does not mention this epoch: BGU 8.1760 dated 18 Payni year 2 = 19 June 50 and including a decree of 25 Pachon year 2 = 27 May 50, and BGU 8.1761 dated 13 Phamenoth year 2 = 16 March 50 and including a decree of 11 Mecheir year 2 = 12 February 50 (L. M. Ricketts, The Administration of Ptolemaic Egypt Under Cleopatra VII 91ff.) Ricketts argues that the dioiketes Protarchos named in these documents replaced the earlier Theon, who was later clearly in high office, and therefore concludes that Protarchos was associated with Cleopatra VII's opponents. However, while she shows that a Theon had high status in the treasury both in the period 51-49 (BGU 8.1845, dated by association with the strategos Soteles) and after her restoration (e.g. SB 1.3926 (dated ?9 Phamenoth year 6 = ?11 March 46) and SB 4.7337 (dated 14 Pharmouthi year 11 = 13 April 41)), she adduces no evidence that Theon was named as dioketes in both periods, nor that they were in fact the same man.
In a reexamination of pBon 10, L. Criscuolo (in L. Criscuolo & G. Geraci (eds), Egitto e storia antica dall'ellenismo all'età araba 325, 326f. n. 6) noted that the form of the contract corresponded closely to other contracts, notably PSI 10.1098, which allowed more of the text to be reconstructed than had previously been possible; this reconstruction showed that the papyrus also must have contained an internal reference to "year seven" that was not double dated. Thus, whether or not the careers of Theon and Protarchos show evidence of Cleopatra VII's conflicts with her brother's backers in year 2, there is no reason to believe that the year 2 = year 1 double dates should be placed at this time.
 T. C. Skeat, JEA 48 (1962) 98 argues that certain papyri dated year 1 = year 3 represent a coregency between Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIV, since her regnal years, which should be the same as those of Ptolemy XIII, are mentioned second; therefore in Skeat's view the new series must represent Ptolemy XIV. He suggested that Alexandria was held by Ptolemy XIII and Arsinoe IV. However, it seems much more likely to me that these dates represent a breach between Cleopatra VII and the regency regime of Ptolemy XIII and that the year 1 is an ephemeral new series for Cleopatra VII, abandoned after Caesar restored her as primary ruler. See discussion under Arsinoe IV. Ý
 pseudo-Caesar, Alexandrian Wars 33, within days of the death of Ptolemy XIII. Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 167 says that there was a double dating system during his coregency in which year 1 of Ptolemy XIV corresponded to year 5 of Cleopatra VII. However, to date there is no evidence of this in the papyri. Ý
 Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 167 says he died in year 8 = 45/4, therefore he died before 3 September 44. He is named in pOxy 14.1629, dated 27 Epeiph year 8 = 26 July 44; allowing the usual possibility of a lag in the news, he was alive in early June. Ý
11 Feb 2002: Added individual trees
28 Feb 2002: Split into separate entry
12 May 2002: Corrected Roman and Egyptian date equations as necessary
30 June 2002: Corrected Roman and Egyptian date equations again as necessary
18 June 2003: Updated Xrefs to translations of Caesar
13 Sep 2004: Add Xref to online Eusebius
13 Jan 2005: Add Xref to discussion of the "King Ptolemy Philopator" who was a victor at the Basileia.
19 Jan 2005: Update Xrefs on Alexandrian Wars to Forumromanum edition
11 Mar 2005: Added Greek transcription; link to DDBDP transcipt of pOxy 14.1629
16 Sep 2006: Add links to Packard Humanities DB
28 May 2007: Added Xref to BASP paper
7 Dec 2010: Fix broken DDbDP links
16 April 2011: Note Westalls discussion of the date of the will of Ptolemy XII as a terminus ante quem for the birth of Ptolemy XIV.
Website © Chris Bennett, 2001-2011 -- All rights reserved