Ptolemy "the Son"
Ptolemy "the Son"1, coregent of Egypt with Ptolemy II 267-2592, coregency probably terminated due to his revolt with Timarchus at Miletus in 2593, here identified with4 Ptolemy son of Lysimachus and Arsinoe II5, born c. 299/86, claimant to the throne of Macedon probably 2817 and in the period 278-2768, who is also and generally identified with Ptolemy of Telmessos9, ruled Telmessos probably starting c. 259/610, here also identified as Ptolemy "the Brother"10.1; died after 24011, leaving descendants12.
 PP VI 14542. Gr: PtolemaioV; in the papyri he is simply described as "his son Ptolemy" (tou uiou Ptolemaiou). Hence he is usually known as Ptolemy "the Son". Ý
 See discussions here and here under Ptolemy II. Fortunately, no one has yet tried to assign him an ordinal number amongst the Ptolemies. Ý
 Prol. Trogus 26 reports that a son of Ptolemy II's rebelled in Asia sometime between 261 and 243, with a certain Timarchus. A son of Ptolemy II, generally agreed to be Ptolemy "the Son", was in Miletus representing the king and reporting political conditions back to him in c. 262 (iMilet 3, 139C (translated here, at 21)). Timarchus was subsequently tyrant of Miletus, and was removed from there by Antiochus II (261-246), probably early in his reign since he obtained his soubriquet Theos from this event (Appian, Syriaca 11.65). It is generally agreed that these events should be dated to 259, and provide the reason the coregency was terminated.
Athenaeus 13.593a reports the death of a son of Ptolemy II in a revolt at Ephesus (Ptolemy "of Ephesus"). It is frequently supposed that this relates to the same event. It is here argued that this report describes the death of Ptolemy Andromachou, who is not to be identified with Ptolemy "the Son", and that the death occurred after the accession of Ptolemy III. Ý
 The identity of Ptolemy "the Son" is perhaps the most controversial question in Ptolemaic genealogy. The relevant source material is compiled and discussed in W. Huss, ZPE 121 (1998) 229. Alternate positions argued are:
(a) He was the future Ptolemy III (J. Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies 195; A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides I 182 n. 2; G. Hölbl, History of the Ptolemaic Empire 365 (under Ptolemy III); K. Buraselis, GA 9 (2005) 91 at 94-99). Buraselis, having objected to specific arguments for alternative possibilities, concluded that Ptolemy III was the only remaining candidate. Bouché-Leclercq also argued for this by default: he found it impossible to believe that Ptolemy II would have preferred as heir either a bastard son or a step-son (even an adopted one) over his legitimate offspring. He also suggested one item of positive evidence. A. Bouché-Leclerq, Histoire des Lagides I 184 n. 2, notes that the Suda, KallimacoV, dates the accession of Ptolemy III to Ol. 127,2 = 271/0, and suggests that this represents the date at which he became coregent, following the death of Arsinoe II close to the end of that year.
Bouché-Leclerq's argument assumes that Ptolemy III was actually regarded as a legitimate son after the disgrace of Arsinoe I. However, it seems unlikely that this was the case before he proclaimed the posthumous adoption of Ptolemy III and his siblings by Arsinoe II, especially since Ptolemy III himself identified Arsinoe II as his mother. As to the Suda entry, assuming that Arsinoe II did in fact die in 270, not 268, the entry could equally well be interpreted as a garbled memory of the coregency of "the Son", whatever his identity; it is to be noted that Bouché-Leclerq himself did not regard the argument as decisive.
There are several positive difficulties with this proposal.
The first is to explain why he was removed as coregent 12 years before his accession, but retained as heir. Mahaffy and Bouché-Leclerq suggested that he was sent to Cyrene to marry Berenice II, assuming a high chronology for the reign of Magas. However, a low chronology looks much more plausible, not least because the high chronology requires 12 years between the engagement and marriage of Ptolemy III. Further, even if he was sent to Cyrene as a governor, this does not explain why he was removed as coregent.
Alternately, if Ptolemy "the Son" is identified with the son of Ptolemy II who rebelled with Timarchos in 259, which seems agreed on most scenarios, then it must be explained how he came to be reinstated as heir. While I can imagine conditions allowing Ptolemy of Telmessos to survive the failure of the revolt, based on the difficulty of controlling him in Telmessos, the same is not true of Ptolemy III. Buraselis, the most recent proponent of this theory, implies that there had been some form of reconciliation, and suggests that he was retained as heir because there was no alternative, and that, while no longer trusted as coregent, was acceptable as a subordinate in Cyrene. This is not remotely credible: in fact there was an alternative -- his brother Lysimachus -- and Magas had proven that Cyrene could be a base for a rebel as effectively as any base in Asia Minor.
A third objection, that Ptolemy III dated his years from his accession, unlike his father who retroactively dated from his coregency, is less telling. Against this one can cite the example of Ptolemy V, who certainly did not date his years from his formal accession to a partnership in the throne.
However, Schol. Theocritus 17.128 explicitly names the three children of Arsinoe I who Ptolemy II had legally assigned to Arsinoe II, and certainly such a son would also have been so adopted. Tunny notes the point, but suggests that he suffered from damnatio memoriae. This seems unlikely since the Scholia were initially compiled by Theon in the reign of Augustus, when the dynastic politics of Ptolemy II were hardly probative (P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria I 474).
W. Huss, ZPE 149 (2004), 232, dismisses Tunny's argument tout court by quoting the scholium back at her; this is not a sufficient response in my view.
Tunny also makes the interesting point that Lysimachus son of Arsinoe I bears the name of his maternal grandfather and therefore was probably the second son, meaning that, under her hypothesis, Ptolemy III should be a younger son; but she then speculates as to why Lysimachus might have been passed over, rather than accepting that this is another objection to the theory.
But Schol. Theocritus 17.128 and Pausanias 1.7.3 are explicit that Arsinoe II died without bearing Ptolemy II any children. One might try to use Tunny's damnatio memoriae argument here too, but S. M. Burstein (in W. L. Adams & E. N. Borza, Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage 197, esp. 206) further points out that a son of Ptolemy II, presumably Ptolemy "the Son", was in Miletus representing the king and reporting political conditions back to him in c. 262 (iMilet. III 139), when any son of Arsinoe II by Ptolemy II would at best have been a young teenager.
(d) A variant of this theory, proposed by R. A. Hazzard, The Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda 16, is that he was a son younger than those of Arsinoe I by another wife or concubine, chosen by Ptolemy II as he himself had been.
This is open to much the same objection.
(e) He was an illegitimate son of Ptolemy II (J. Crampa, Inscr. Labraunda III 98ff, 120; M. Domingo Gygax, Historia 51 (2002) 49). On Crampa's reconstruction, he was an older son, who commanded the Ptolemaic fleet at the battle of Andros during the Chremonidean war, i.e. in the mid 260s. After repeated failures in Ionia, he revolted, and eventually defected to the Seleucids, who he is seen to be serving under (named as a brother of Ptolemy III) in an inscription from the late 240s found at Labraunda. Domingo Gygax also sees him as an illegitimate older son, based on the Mendes stele (CCG 22181), which states that he "carried the name (Ptolemy) of he who had sired him" [not apparent in the old translation given in the linked article -- see further below], but, for reasons discussed below, does not attempt to link him with Andros or Labraunda.
The implausibility of this entire class of solution is emphasised by W. Huss, ZPE 121 (1998) 239. Such a coregent would have not one but two potential competitors, in the sons of Arsinoe I and Arsinoe II. Crampa argues that this objection ignores "the human motives in the background" of which we know nothing. This is hardly an argument; rather, it is a statement that the theory is so compelling that the objection can be safely ignored. Huss, correctly, reaffirms the objection in response to Domingo Gygax's paper in W. Huss, ZPE 149 (2004) 232.
In support of Crampa's specific reconstruction, he notes that the notice of the battle of Andros in Justin Prol. 27 says that the commander was a certain "Opron". This name is usually interpretated as a corruption of the Seleucid commander "Sophron", who is supposed to have turned his coat, and restored accordingly; Crampa regards it as an abbreviation for o(mo)p(at)r(i)on, i.e. "of the same father" [i.e., presumably, as Ptolemy III, though it is hard to square this with a date in the 260s for Andros, which seems required if Ptolemy "the Son" was in command at Andros.] However, while the date of the battle of Andros is hard to pin down, a date in the 240s (i.e. the Third Syrian War) seems more likely than the 260s. On this date there is no need to identify the commander at Andros with the Son who inspected the city of Miletus.
As to Domingo Gygax's argument, we may note that the Mendes stele also associates him with Arsinoe II, who in this reconstruction was certainly not his mother, unless she had adopted him. There are plenty of examples showing that statements of royal relationships in Egyptian Ptolemaic documents have to treated very carefully, starting with Ptolemy III as the "son" of Arsinoe II. In view of this fact, the statement in the Mendes stele is not sufficient to prove that "the Son" was a biological son of Ptolemy II. The same point is made by W. Huss, ZPE 149 (2004) 232, who cites the example of Berenice II, described on the "Evergetes Door" in Karnak as daughter of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. Huss also notes that the Mendes stele could be interpreted as naming the Gods of Mendes as the parents of "the Son", rather than the royal couple; perhaps so. For an alternate explanation, see discussion below.
(e) A variant of this proposal specifically identifies this bastard with Ptolemy Andromachou (C. Ravazzolo, Studi ellenistici 8 (1984), 123, 131).
This suffers from two additional problems. First, a son of Ptolemy II, generally agreed to be Ptolemy "the Son", was in Miletus representing the king and reporting political conditions back to him in c. 262 (iMilet. III 139). Thus, agreeing with Ravazzolo that Bilistiche is the most likely mother for Andromachou, the proposal requires her to have been Ptolemy II's mistress very early in his reign in order for her son to have been old enough, as Ptolemy "the Son" was, to hold a senior post in Miletus in the 260s, which is not consistent with what we otherwise know of her chronology; in particular that she was canephore in 251/0. In essence, this proposal means that we have to find another mother for Andromachou.
Second, it has Andromachou closely associated with the Ptolemaic court as eponymous priest, also in 251/0, and possibly in command of a Ptolemaic fleet (depending on what date one assigns to the battle of Andros), well after the revolt of Ptolemy "the Son" and his removal as coregent in 259. While I can imagine Ptolemy II reaching an arms-length accommodation with a semi-independent rebel cooped up in Telmessos, whom he was unable to suppress, in order to use him as a counterweight to the Seleucids, I cannot imagine either him or Ptolemy III allowing that rebel such a second chance at the levers of power.
(f) He was the "brother" of Ptolemy III mentioned in iLabraunda 3 (M. Domingo Gygax, Chiron 30 (2000) 353). This argument is essentially negative: he attacks the usually accepted arguments for identifying this commander with Ptolemy Andromachou which leaves Ptolemy "the Son" as the only possible alternative.
The arguments against identifying the "brother" with Ptolemy Andromachou are discussed below. Even if Domingo Gygax is correct, however, and he probably is, he left the genealogical question hanging, since he did not address the identity of Ptolemy "the Son" in that paper. Elsewhere, he argues that Ptolemy "the Son" was an elder illegitimate son of Ptolemy II, an argument I find inherently implausible.
It is curious that he does not even mention the possibility of identifying Ptolemy "the Son" with Ptolemy of Telmessos, which the view preferred here. If one accepts, with Domingo Gygax, that the "brother" was not Ptolemy Andromachou, and that he was not acting as a Ptolemaic governor, then it seems to me that Ptolemy of Telmessos is a very acceptable candidate. The "brotherhood" would then be adoptive, since both he and Ptolemy III were "sons" of Arsinoe II. In the circumstances of the Third Syrian War, with Ptolemy II dead, Ptolemy III firmly on the throne, and with Ptolemy of Telmessos holding a strategically significant dorea in a major theatre of the war, not far from Mylasa, it is not at all impossible that he took the chance to reestablish good relations with Egypt.
The view accepted here is that Ptolemy "the Son" is to be identified with Ptolemy, the son of Arsinoe II by Lysimachus, presumably adopted by Ptolemy II at the time either of their marriage or of her death, and with Ptolemy of Telmessos. This proposal requires that Ptolemy II and Ptolemy "the Son" fairly quickly came to an accommodation after the revolt of 259, one which left Ptolemy, the former Son, in control of Telmessos. Ptolemy "the Son" is here distinguished from Ptolemy Andromachou, who was eponymous priest in 251/0 and who is argued to have died at Ephesus in the service of Ptolemy III.
This reconstruction has the advantages of
(a) explaining what happened to Ptolemy the son of Lysimachus between the failure of his attempts to obtain the Macedonian throne in 276 and his reappearance at Telmessos in 259/6;
(c) providing Ptolemy II with a partner who was a military leader with a motive to resist the growth of Seleucid power in Anatolia under Antiochus I and Antiochus II.
In addition to these circumstantial arguments, it may also be noted that Ptolemy "the Son" is explicitly associated with Arsinoe II, as well as Ptolemy II, in at least two documents: p dem Firenze 7127 and the Mendes stele (CCG 22181 -- P. Derchain, ZPE 61 (1985) 36). This last depicts him as an adult. These documents argue that he was her son, either literally or by adoption.
The proposal is also subject to a number of objections, but in my view they are of no merit:
i) We know (Prol. Trogus 26) that a son of Ptolemy II rebelled in Asia in c. 259. We further know (Athenaeus 13.593a) that a Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy II, was trapped in Ephesus with his mistress Eirene and was killed there by Thracian mercenaries. It is widely assumed that these reports refer to the same event. A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides I 202, who supposed that "the Son" was Ptolemy III, identified this son as a bastard of Ptolemy II. Howver, W. W. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas 445f. held that the son who rebelled was Ptolemy "the Son". On this interpretation, Athenaeus' account describes the rebellion of Ptolemy "the Son" against Ptolemy II, which therefore resulted not only in his removal from the coregency but also in his death, which is therefore also to be dated 259.
Ptolemy, the son of Lysimachus, is quite firmly identified with Ptolemy of Telmessos, from whom we have an inscription dated to Dystros in year 7 of Ptolemy III, i.e. February 240 (OGIS 55 -- M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest 451 (271)). If Ptolemy the Son died in 259 then he cannot be identified with Ptolemy of Telmessos, and hence not with the son of Lysimachus (see e.g. S. M. Burstein (in W. L. Adams & E. N. Borza, Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage 197, esp. 206)).
The problem is best resolved by noting that the report of Athenaeus is undated, and that the little we know of Ptolemy Andromachou includes his death at Ephesus some time after the battle of Andros, which probably occurred in the mid 240s. Thus Athenaeus is almost certainly referring to Ptolemy Andromachou, not to Ptolemy "the Son" (unless they be the same man, on which see above), leaving us with no solid ground (even if they are the same man) to believe a priori that Ptolemy "the Son" died in 259 rather than in the 240s.
ii) M. Wörrle (Chiron 8 (1978) 201, esp. 218 n. 85) noted that Ptolemy of Telmessos is called a son of Lysimachus in an inscription dated in the third decade of Ptolemy II, i.e. between 265/4 and 257/6 (M. Segre, Clara Rhodos 9 (1938) 183ff.). This substantially overlaps the period when Ptolemy "the Son" is called the son of Ptolemy II, and the 2-3 years of non-overlap (259 to 257/6) immediately follow his revolt. Ptolemy II is called the son of Ptolemy Soter in this inscription, which form only appears after Ptolemy "the Son" has been removed as coregent. This confirms that the inscription dates to 259-257/6. Wörrle found it incredible that the rebel would so soon be readmitted to loyalty, and so felt that this inscription proves that Ptolemy "the Son" and Ptolemy of Telmessos must be different individuals.
But (with W. Huss, ZPE 121 247 n. 98) I see no problem in concluding that the two men reached an accommodation fairly rapidly after the revolt, presumably after seeing that it had only led to the aggrandisement of Seleucid power in the region through the capture of Miletus by Antiochus II. With the former Son esconced in Telmessos, he was both out of reach and removed from the centers of Ptolemaic power.
But Ptolemy of Telmessos only appears in the record after the revolt of Ptolemy "the Son". The record proves that he reached an arms-length accord with the Egyptian government. On the assumption that they are the same, this is completely consistent with Ptolemy II's treaty with his step-brother Magas, and his decision to exile, but not to execute, his wife Arsinoe I. The basis for the accommodation would be that Ptolemy of Telmessos had established that he could not be crushed, but that Ptolemy II had equally established that he could not achieve the original goals of his revolt, and that the only party to benefit was Antiochus II. Certainly, an essential condition of any such accommodation would be that Ptolemy of Telmessos would renounce any claims he had to the Egyptian throne, including his role of "son". Thereafter he would naturally revert to using his biological patronymic.
Bevan understood the Scholiast to say "that Arsinoe Philadelphus died without children". But this is incorrect. In fact he says that she did not bear Ptolemy II any children. It was well-known that she had born children to Lysimachus, and we know that Ptolemy of Telmessos survived her. Moreover, the Scholiast focuses on the relationship of Ptolemy's children to Arsinoe II; there is no reason for him to discuss the relationship of Arsinoe's surviving son to Ptolemy II.
v) Bevan also argued (loc. cit.) that despite the fragmentary state of our sources it is "hardly conceivable that no notice of so striking an event as the designation of a son of Lysimachus as heir to the Egyptian throne should appear in any ancient author."
But it cannot be overstressed how fragmentary the sources are. Much of what we know of the family of Ptolemy II comes from a single scholium on an idyll of Theocritus. Much of what we know of his career comes from incidental notes in a tourist guidebook to Athens (Pausanias) and from a discursive history of Macedon (Trogus, redacted in Justin). Ptolemy "the Son" was simply not very relevant. Since he had no independent reign he is also not relevant to the chronologists. Diodorus, who probably did cover these events, is largely lost for this period. Porphyry is in even worse shape.
vi) The postulated adoption of Ptolemy son of Lysimachus creates a dynastic crisis because it repudiates the rights of Ptolemy III (A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides I 182f. n. 2; J. A. Tunny, ZPE 131 (2000) 83).
But this ignores the fact that the future of the dynasty was already in crisis through the alleged treason of Arsinoe I and the death of Arsinoe II without a child by Ptolemy II. As G. H. Macurdy pointed out (Hellenistic Queens 121) the Scholiast states that it was Ptolemy II who had the children of Arsinoe I declared to be legally those of Arsinoe II, because Arsinoe II had died without leaving him a child. In other words the adoption happened after the death of Arsinoe II. Between the exile of Arsinoe I and the adoption, her children were the children of a traitor. How soon the adoption occurred after the death of Arsinoe II is unknown. It is perfectly possible that Ptolemy II only performed the adoption to restore them to legitimate status after the son of Arsinoe II had himself proved to be a traitor through rebellion, when he had no other realistic choice.
vii) The Mendes stele (CCG 22181) describes a visit by the king's son Ptolemy "who had received his name from he who had sired him" [not apparent in the old translation given at the linked site] in year 21 = 265/4. P. Derchain, ZPE 61 (1985) 3, noted that the date implies that this son is Ptolemy "the Son". M. Domingo Gygax, Historia 51 (2001) 49, who accepts that all the above objections are unfounded, argues that this description is proof that Ptolemy "the Son" was nevertheless the biological son of Ptolemy II.
Considered in isolation, this looks like a conclusive disproof. However, other data suggests the statement should be treated with care. There are plenty of examples showing that statements of royal relationships in Egyptian Ptolemaic documents have to treated very carefully, starting with Ptolemy III as the "son" of Arsinoe II. Derchain also noted that the relief on the Mendes stele showed Ptolemy II, Arsinoe II and a third figure with the same titles as Ptolemy II. He argued that this must also be Ptolemy "the Son", i.e. that he was associated here with the deceased Arsinoe II. Yet on Domingo Gygax's reconstruction she was certainly not his mother, unless she had adopted him. In view of these facts, the Mendes statement, while suggestive, is not sufficient to prove that he was a biological son of Ptolemy II. Further, as noted above, Ptolemy, the biological son of Arsinoe II, provided Ptolemy II with a credible adult partner at a time when Arsinoe II had died and his children by Arsinoe I were in all likelihood in disgrace, and so may well have been adopted by him. Such an adoption, making Ptolemy II the "father" of Ptolemy "the Son", appears to me to be sufficient to explain the statement on the Mendes stele (CCG 22181).
W. Clarysse, CdE 82 (2007) 201 at 204f., suggests an alternate explanation of the phrase. He notes that the stele Leipzig inv. 1668, from Leontonpolis (Tell Muqdam), has a Greek graffito with the date "year 3(?) Mecheir 9", and that a letter, pLond 7.1938, was sent to Zenon (who was with the doioketes Apollonius) in Leontonpolis on 9 Mecheir year 28 Ptolemy II = 2 April 257, and was received there 5 days later, shortly before Zenon's departure for Mendes. Regarding the coincidence of dates as unlikely to be random, Clarysse infers that a local festival of the lion god was held on 9 Mecheir. They were in Mendes from 18-27 Mecheir, which overlaps the dates of the local festival of the sacred ram, as given in the Mendes stele, and then went to Memphis. The purpose of this journey is not given, but J. K. Winnicki, JJP 21 (1991) 87 at 97f notes that the journey also covered the celebration of the king's birthday and the Macedonian new year, occasions on which Apollonius would normally have been in Alexandria, and also that the journey occurred very shortly before the outbreak of the Second Syrian War. He concludes that Ptolemy II was also on the tour. Clarysse further infers that this is the undated royal visit mentioned at the end of the Mendes stele, which must therefore be dated to 257 (or later), and that the purpose of the tour was (at least in part) to demonstrate royal support for the local cults of the Delta.
If this is so, then the stele was erected after the fall of Ptolemy "the Son". Clarysse suggests that it was prepared, at least in part, some time earlier, but that it was reworked or completed to replace Ptolemy "the Son" by the future Ptolemy III, by now restored to favour. This explains why the son in the relief is given the same titles as the king, why the son who visited Mendes in 265/4 is called a biological son of the king (as Ptolemy III certainly was), and why the stele concludes with the unusual wish that the king's son would hold the throne in all eternity.
While the case for this dating is entirely circumstantial, it seems to me to be very plausible. In any case, it is clearly dangerous to infer much about the identity of Ptolemy "the Son" from this stele. Ý
 By inference from Justin 24.3, which states that Arsinoe II's second son Lysimachus was 16 at the time of his murder, in winter 281/280, placing his birth at 297/6. Given the date of her marriage, Ptolemy must have been born c. 299/8. Ý
 By inference, as the oldest surviving son of Lysimachus at his death. However, there is no surviving account of events in Macedon between the death of Lysimachus and the assassination of Seleucus. Since Ptolemy was with Arsinoe II at Cassandrea in the winter of 281 it appears that he was not successful at asserting any claim. Ý
 PP VI 14541. Telmessan inscriptions describe Ptolemy of Telmessos as the son of Lysimachus, but it is not self-evident that this Lysimachus is the diadoch, king of Thrace and Macedon, rather than, say, Lysimachus the brother of Ptolemy III. However, M. Holleaux, BCH 28 (1904) 408 restored a section of OGIS 55 (M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest 451 (271)) as referring to "Ptolemy the Epig[one]", i.e. the "heir", who is clearly the same as Ptolemy son of Lysimachus. He then shows that the sons of the Diadochi were widely referred to as the Epigonoi, the heirs, just as they would be in any modern multigenerational dynastic soap opera, and therefore concludes that his father Lysimachus can only be the diadoch, i.e. Lysimachus king of Thrace and Macedon. It is clear from the Telmessan material in general that Ptolemy of Telmessos had an extraordinary degree of autonomy, and was only loosely under the authority of the Ptolemaic kings -- see R. S. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt 109. While it seems unlikely to me that the term "Epigone" was restricted to the heirs of the Diadochi, the totality of the picture makes it seem likely that Holleaux is correct. Ý
 We know that at the start of the reign of Ptolemy II Telmessos was not under the control of Ptolemy of Telmessos (iTelm. 1043 = SEG 28.1224, published in M. Wörrle, Chiron 8 (1978) 201), that he took over control of the city from Ptolemy II (OGIS 55), and that a Ptolemy son of Lysimachus was well in place late in Ptolemy II's third decade (M. Segre, Clara Rhodos 9 (1938) 183ff.). If he is correctly identified with Ptolemy "the Son", then his residency at Telmessos commenced in the period 259-256. Ý
[10.1] Governor in Lycia: iLabraunda 3, letter of Olympichus of Caria to Mylasa. The inscription is dated by H. Bengston, Inschriften von Labranda 17, to before 242/1. It refers to decisions by Sophron, probably identical to Sophron the Seleucid governor of Ephesus at the start of the Third Syrian War in 246, by "Ptolemy, the brother of king Ptolemy" and by Olympichus himself in the reign of Seleucus II. The relationship shows that king Ptolemy was Ptolemy III.
There are two (known) candidates for the identity of Ptolemy "the Brother": Ptolemy Andromachou and Ptolemy "the Son". The problem was most recently studied by M. Domingo Gygax, Chiron 30 (2000) 353. The choice of Ptolemy Andromachou depends on his close presumed association with Sophron who, as a turncoat, was in command of the Ptolemaic fleet at the battle of Andros, in which Ptolemy Andromachou appears to have participated, and in Andromachou's position in Ephesus at the end of his life.
Domingo Gygax marshalls several arguments against this scenario, which seem to me to be persuasive:
1) There is no direct evidence that Sophron ever held a position under the Ptolemies. In particular, the commander of the Ptolemaic fleet named in Trogus Prol. 27 at what is presumed to be the battle of Andros is called "Opron", which is demonstrably a rare but genuine name (pTebt 3.2 890), and not necessarily a corruption of "Sophron". Hence there is no reason to tie the career of "the Brother" with that of Sophron.
2) iLabraunda 3 gives no particular indication of the timing of the letters referred to by Olympichus, nor any particular reason to suppose that Mylasa was ever a Ptolemaic possession in the early years of Seleucus II. Hence there is no reason to suppose that "the Brother" was governor at the same time that Andromachou was active in the region. It is perfectly possible, even likely, that Olympichus is referring to a time when Ptolemy "the Son" had been governor under Ptolemy II, but is identifying the man by his relationship to the current king of Egypt, Ptolemy III.
3) There is no evidence that Ptolemy Andromachou ever held a senior command position. What evidence we have to the age of Andromachou suggests he was probably in his early 20s in the mid 240s. If Trogus Prol. 27 actually describes the battle of Andros then he was subordinate to Opron at that battle, and there is also no suggestion he was actually in command of Ephesus. By contrast, "the Brother" holds a high position in SW Asia Minor, just as Ptolemy "the Son" did.
4) If Ptolemy Andromachou was a bastard of Ptolemy II who was officially supposed to be the son of an Andromachos, it is rather unlikely that he would be officially acknowledged by Ptolemy III as his brother.
Identifying "the Brother" with Ptolemy "the Son" entails none of these difficulties, making him the more likely candidate. Ý
 Date of OGIS 55 (M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest 451 (271)) = Dystros year 7 of Ptolemy son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe the Qeoi Adelfoi (i.e. Ptolemy III) = February 240. Since Ptolemy of Telmessos was 60 years old at this time his death was probably in the next decade.
This date, of course, assumes the identification Ptolemy "the Son" = Ptolemy of Telmessos. J. D. Ray, Enchoria 28 (2002/2003) 89 at 92, suggests that he predeceased Ptolemy II, presumably when he disappears from Egyptian dating formulae in 259, clearing the way for the accession of Ptolemy III. If he is not to be identified with Ptolemy of Telmessos or Ptolemy Andromachou, it might very well be so. Ý
 Son Lysimachus (PP VI 14532): M. Segre, Clara Rhodos 9 (1938) 183ff, estimated date c. 220; grandson Ptolemy II (PP VI 14547): OGIS 224 (trans. C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period 156ff), also Livy 37.56 (dated 189); great grand daughter Berenice, chief priestess in the cult of Laodice wife of Antiochus III (PP VI 14502): OGIS 224. OGIS 224 also describes Ptolemy as a relative of Antiochus III, though this may reflect a court title rather than a genealogical tie. For its date as Seleucid year 118 = 193 BC rather than year 108 = 203 BC see L. Robert, Hellenica 7 (1949) 5, on a virtually identical inscription found at Nehavand in Iran in which the date is intact.
R. A. Billows, Kings and Colonists 103 and n. 65 notes that ID 442B, an inscription dedicating offerings of thanks for the Peace of Apamea in 188 (and other inscriptions from Delos), includes an offering (ll 94-5) from "Ptolemy son of Lysimachus" in association with an "Antipater son of Epigonos". He identifies the first with Ptolemy II of Telmessos. Since Ptolemy "the Son" is also known as Ptolemy the Epigone, he further suggests it is "likely" that Epigonos was his younger son, and Antipater a cousin of Ptolemy II and implies that he may also be descended from Alexander's general Antipater.
Possibly so, although the argument seems extremely thin to me. "Ptolemy son of Lysimachus" is not explicitly identified as having any Telmessan connection. The implication of Livy 37.56 is that Telmessus was in fact turned over to Eumenes II of Pergamum as part of the Peace of Apamea, and that the personal territory of Ptolemy II of Telmessos was disposed of to an unnamed third party (Cibyra?), in which case it is not even obvious why Ptolemy II of Telmessos should be making offerings at Delos. Finally, there is no necessary reason to suppose that "Antipater son of Epigonos" was related to "Ptolemy son of Lysimachus", whoever he was. Ý
10 Feb 2002: Added individual trees
18 Feb 2002: Split into separate entry
9 April 2003: Added dscussion of Domingo Gygax's proposal based on the Mendes Stele that Ptolemy "the Son" was an older biological son of Ptolemy II
23 Aug 2003: Added Xrefs to online Justin
24 Feb 2004: Added Xrefs to online Prol Trogus, Athenaeus and iMilet III 39; colour-coded arguments
24 March 2004: Added Xref to Tunny's online article in ZPE 131
13 Sep 2004: Add Xref to online Eusebius
29 Jan 2005: Added Huss' comments on Domingo Gygax and Tunny papers
5 Feb 2005: Discuss implications of Domingo Gygax's proposal to identify "the Son" with "the Brother" of iLabraunda 3 for the identity of "the Son".
11 Mar 2005: Added Greek transcription, links to Bevan
8 July 2005: Discuss Domingo Gygax's arguments to identify "the Brother" of iLabraunda 3 with "the Son"
10 July 2005: Note Ray's suggestion that he died before Ptolemy II (i.e. probably in 259)
26 Aug 2006: Add link to Holleaux BCH 28 paper
7 Nov 2006: Adjust comments on Mendes stele in light of discussion with Willy Clarysse -- watch this spot....
14 Nov 2006: Note Billows suggestion of Antipatros Epigonou named in ID 442B as a possible grandson of Ptolemy "the Son".
28 May 2007: Note that IG XII,3 464 is evidence against Ptolemy "the Son" being Ptolemy III.
28 Dec 2007: Add discussion of Clarysse's dating of the Mendes stele and its implications for Domingo Gygax's proposal on the identity of Ptolemy "the Son"
21 Nov 2010: Fix broken Perseus & DDbDP & Mendes stele links, Buraselis' support for identifying him with Ptolemy III
24 April 2011: Amplify presentation of Bouché-Leclerq's arguments for Ptolemy III, including the evidence of the Suda, previously overlooked.
Website © Chris Bennett, 2001-2011 -- All rights reserved