Ptolemy Andromachou
Ptolemy Andromachou1, born c. 269/62, probable illegitimate son of Ptolemy II3, probably by Bilistiche4, here distinguished from Ptolemy "the Son"5 and from Ptolemy son of Lysimachus6, eponymous priest year 35 (Mac.) = 251/07, a participant at the battle of Andros c. 2457.1 and a commander at Ephesus8, probably not to be identified with Ptolemy "the Brother" of Ptolemy III9, probably to be identified with Ptolemy "of Ephesus", slain in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus by a revolt of Thracian mercenaries10, date unknown, estimated here to be c. 24311, together with his concubine Eirene12.
[1] PP VI 14544. Gr: PtolemaioV Andromacou. The primary source for the name is the fragmentary papyrus pHaun 6. Ý
[2] Inferred as a consequence of his presumed maternity, coupled with the presumption that Bilistiche became important around the death of Arsinoe II and the apparent fact that Ptolemy Andromachou was old enough to participate in the battle of Andros in the mid 240s. Ý
[3] The identity of Ptolemy Andromachou is almost as controversial as that of Ptolemy "the Son", a closely-related question. The primary source is pHaun 6. This papyrus appears to have contained short biographies of a number of prominent Ptolemaic individuals of the third century, presumably epitomised from other works. The record for Andromachou is usually supposed to be the first that survives, though in some reconstructions a fragment naming Arsinoe II is placed earlier. Andromachou's record appears under a heading which apparently gave his name followed by a numeral 5 and a separator from the following text, as follows:
Ptolema?]ioV
ep]iklhsin Andromacou
eA large roundel immediately under the heading gives the name again as Ptolemaiº / epiklhsin / Androma/cou. Unfortunately, the restoration of the name Ptolemy in the first line is uncertain, and the abbreviation of the name in the roundel leaves it unclear whether the phrase should be understood as PtolemaioV epiklhsin Androma/cou ("Ptolemy known as [the son] 'of Andromachus' "), consistent with the standard reconstruction of the first line, or Ptolemaiou epiklhsin Androma/cou ("of Ptolemy known as 'Andromachus' "). This ambiguity has caused considerable discussion. The following text (lines 4-9) appears to mention a naval action at Andros, after a few lines of uncertain meaning. The surviving record concludes after an apparently blank line, with an apparent mention of a violent death in Ephesus in lines 11-13.
The next record appears to be a summary life of Ptolemy III, and includes mention of the Third Syrian War and the death of Berenice Pheronophorus. The following entries appear to have summarised the careers of Berenice II and Magas, son of Ptolemy III. The remaining fragments do not allow a clear reconstruction, but Arsinoe II and possibly Arsinoe III appear to be mentioned, and one fragment seems to refer to Sosibius, Agathocles and Agothocleia, presumably in connection with the events surrounding the death of Ptolemy IV.
The question of the identity and ancestry of Ptolemy Andromachou has attracted attention from several scholars since pHaun 6 was first published in 1942. The following appear to be the main discussions of the question:
The fragment mentions that the subject of the biography was killed at Ephesus. For this reason, the original editor, T. Larsen, Literarische Texte und ptolemäische Urkunden 44, drew attention to Athenaeus 13.593a, which describes the death at Ephesus of a Ptolemy son of Ptolemy II. He made no further comment on the matter, but clearly implied that in his opinion this referred to the same man and the same incident, widely understood to be the death of Ptolemy "the Son". For reasons that are unclear to me, A. Momigliano, CQ 44 (1950) 107 at 109, understood Larsen to have identified "Ptolemy Andromachos" as the author of the epitome.
P. Maas, in G. B. A. Fletcher (ed.), The Year's Work in Classical Studies 1939-1945, 1 at 2, accepted this equation in a brief discussion, though, without explanation, he described Andromachou as a "stepson" of Ptolemy II. It seems reasonable to infer that he equated Andromachou with Ptolemy "the Son", who, by further inference, he supposed to be the son of Arsinoe II and Lysimachus. He explained the name as indicating that he "distinguished himself in the naval battle near Andros", which, he supposed, the fragment had described him as taking part in.
M. Segre, RPAA 19 (1942/3) 269, undertook the first extended interpretative study of the papyrus. Larsen had suggested that the papyrus was an epitome of a history of Ptolemy IV. However, particularly in view of the entry on Andromachou, who could not have been a contemporary of Ptolemy IV, Segre concluded that the papyrus was a set of biographies of members of the dynasty. As to Andromachou, he accepted Larsen's proposal to identify him with the son named in Athenaeus 13.593a. He noted that if he was also Ptolemy "the Son" who disappears from the papyrological record in 259 then this created difficulties for dating the battle of Andros to the 240s. He argued that he was the son of a concubine, and suggested that the number 5 indicated that he was the 5th son of Ptolemy II, implying the existence of one or two other sons, not currently known. He accepted the interpretation "PtolemaioV epiklhsin Androma/cou", implying that he was a Ptolemaic prince who was also, in some sense, a "son" of a certain Andromachus, whoever he might have been.
A. Momigliano, CQ 44 (1950) 107 argued that the individuals covered by the papyrus and the events narrated for each individual were most likely in chronological order. He supposed that the death in Ephesus was that of Ptolemy "the Son", who rebelled with Timarchus in the early 250s. Since Ephesus was known to be in Seleucid hands by 253, this sets an absolute terminus ante quem for the battle of Andros, and a probable one of 259. He objected that the epithet "Andromachou" was very unlikely to indicate that this Ptolemy was in any sense a "son of Andromachus" since all reconstructions to explain how Ptolemy "the Son" could also be a "son" of Andromachus involved "a considerable amount of romance". Hence he accepted Maas' explanation of the epithet as referring to his participation in the battle of Andros, which he dated to c. 258 and connected to the rebellion of the Ptolemy "the Son" , supposing that he fought there with the support of Antigonus II.
P. M. Fraser, CQ 44 (1950) 116, countered that a "PtolemaioV Andromacou" (here certainly a "son of Andromachus") is named as eponymous priest in Alexandria in 251/0. Accepting that the death in Ephesus is that of Ptolemy "the Son", c. 258, he suggested that lines 4-9 and 11-13 described events in the lives of two different Ptolemies. He argues that the apparent reference to the battle of Andros could be interpeted in other ways by taking "androV" to be the end of a word that began in the lost portion of the previous line, e.g. that the prince lost his ship and crew in some other action, described in the more fragmentary parts of lines 4-9. In favour of identifying Andromachou with the eponymous priest, he noted that the two men were contemporaries with close connections to the crown and that the name Andromachus is rare in third century papyri. Agreeing with the general view that pHaun 6 was a set of biographical sketches of members of the dynasty, he accepted that Andromachou was a Ptolemaic prince, distinct from Ptolemy "the Son", but considered only that he was an "agnate ... of uncertain degree."
J. Crampa, Labraunda III.1, published iLabraunda 3, which named a Ptolemy "brother of" king Ptolemy (III). He identified him with both Andromachou and Ptolemy "the Son", explaining the epithet as an ironical reference to his role in the Ptolemaic defeat at the battle of Andros, citing the analogy of M. Antonius "Creticus", the father of the triumvir, who was so-named because he mismanaged a Cretan War. Since "the brother" was living in the 240s, he cannot have died in Ephesus in the 250s, so Crampa downdated his death to the 230s, supposing that Andromachus/the Son had become a Seleucid turncoat after his defeat at Andros. Essentially the same solution was adopted by W. Huss, ZPE 121 (1998) 229, in a comprehensive survey of the sources related to the problem of Ptolemy "the Son".
The next study to address the question in detail is K. Buraselis, Das hellenistiche Makedonien und die Ägais, 128ff, published in 1982. He argued on papyrological grounds that "andros" could not be the completion of another word, and so must refer to the battle of Andros. He also argued that Andromachou must be the son of Ptolemy II who died at Ephesus according to Athenaeus 13.593a, noting not only the copincidence of name and place but also similarities of form in the two accounts, which suggests they reflect a common source. In favour of interpreting "epiklhsin" Andromachou as "so-called (son) of Andromachus", he noted that exactly this form appears in literary works, e.g. Herodotus 1.114 (Cyrus said to be the son of a cowherd), and that the practice of a bastard royal child being cared for by another man, who became known as his father, is documented for the Ptolemaic dynasty in Pausanias 1.6.2, which records the (probably unhistorical) tradition that Ptolemy I, although biologically a son of Philip II, was known as the son of Lagus, who married his pregnant mother Arsinoe. He concludes that Andromachou was in fact a bastard son of Ptolemy II, that he was the eponymous priest of 251/0, and by implication that he was distinct from Ptolemy "the Son". His relationship to "the Brother" is not considered.
Buraselis' arguments are, to my mind, reasonable and persuasive, and his proposal is accepted here. It has been widely, though not universally, endorsed (cf. e.g. P. M. Fraser, CR 34 (1984) 259 at 260; A. Mastrocinque, Gnomon 56 (1984) 512 at 515 (though cautiously); F. W. Walbank, JHS 106 (1986) 243; W. Heckel, Phoenix 40 (1986), 458 at 460; J. A. Tunny, ZPE 131 (2000) 83 at 87f.).
M. Domingo Gygax, Chiron 30 (2000) 353, distinguished Andromachou from "the Son", and identified "the Brother" with "the Son", not with Andromachou. For more detail see discussion here.
The most recent treatment, by D. Ogden in P. McKechnie & P. Guillaume, Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World, 353 at 376ff., is iconoclastic. He accepts that the epithet Andromachou means he was "called son of Andromachus", but holds that that is exactly who Andromachou was -- the son of an Andromachus. He dismisses the notion that it implies that he was not in fact so as "whimsical" -- ignoring Buraselis' direct attestation of exactly this usage in Herodotus, and failing to cite any examples of the same usage for a man known to be in fact the son of the man "called" his father. On the death in Ephesus, he argues that this could represent the deaths of two separate Ptolemies in two separate incidents -- possible, but an unnecessary supposition, unlikely on its face, and ignoring Buraselis' argument that structural evidence favours the two accounts being derived from a common source. Finally, echoing Momigliano even though he rejects Momigliano's explanation of the epithet, he objects to the "fundamental implausibility of the chain of events implied", claiming that the "notion of a king having one of his own sons adopted by ... a person of at best middling eminence is simply unheard of" -- again ignoring Buraselis' citation of the very well-known story in Pausanias 1.6.2, and also passing a quite unjustified judgement on the career of Andromachus -- whoever he was.
Granted that we lack definitive proof, Ogden's scepticism seems to me to be excessive. It also requires a complete alternate theory of the purpose of pHaun 6. If Andromachou was the son of a nobody why was he included in the papyrus in the first place, since it appears to be -- and is generally accepted as such -- a set of short accounts of (disastrous) events involving members of the dynasty?
Nor is the proposed explanation of "Andromachou" inherently implausible. Ptolemy II is notorious for the number of his mistresses. It is impossible to believe that none of them had children -- yet, with this exception, we do not hear of any of them. They potentially represented a threat to the line of succession. We know that Ptolemy II dealt firmly with all such threats: he killed at least one of his brothers, he exiled Arsinoe I to Coptos and probably exiled her eldest son Ptolemy III to Thera. Yet this last example suggests he was not inclined to murder his children, e.g. by exposure at birth. Unless we suppose they were killed, arrangements must have been made, and those arrangements must have ensured that the children would not be a threat to the main line. Marrying off the mother (in this case, probably Bilistiche) to a courtier, who would then be the official father of the child, would meet these requirements perfectly. And Bilistiche is not the only example -- it is plausibly suggested that something very similar happened to Stratonice.
[4] P. M. Fraser (CQ 44 (1950) 116) notes that a Ptolemy Andromachou is named as eponymous priest in 251/0. If pHaun 6 really describes "Ptolemy said to be [the son] 'of' Andromachus" then he can very reasonably be identified with this priest, and the epithet explained as a legitimising fiction, reflecting the adoption of an illegitimate son of Ptolemy II by an Andromachus to lend him respectability. In this case his mother should be a mistress of Ptolemy II's.
As E. Kosmetatou, AfP 50 (2004) 18 at 23 legitimately points out, in principle any of Ptolemy's mistresses, known or unknown, could then have been Andromachou's mother. However, K. Buraselis, Das hellenistiche Makedonien und die Ägais, 133 and C. Ravazollo, Studi ellenistici 8 (1984) 134 have both pointed out that Bilistiche is the most likely candidate, since she (or a woman of the same name) was associated with him as canephore. I concur. Against this, Kosmetatou asserts that there is "not a shred of evidence" on the matter. D. Ogden in P. McKechnie & P. Guillaume, Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World, 353 at 365 and 376, is equally dismissive, describing the conjecture as having a "wholly arbitrary basis" and as being "categorically, without secure foundation", asserting that "we have no means whatsoever of divining who his mother was, be she queen or courtesan".
That the idea is conjectural is hardly to be denied. But, notwithstanding Kosmetatou's and Ogden's belief to the contrary, there is in fact one solid piece of evidence, one which Ogden notes but makes no attempt to consider: when Andromachou was the eponymous priest, his colleague as canephore was Bilistiche daughter of Philo. This woman is usually identified with the mistress of that name, though E. Kosmetatou (AfP 50 (2004) 18 at 20), objects to it; this objection is discussed here. The identity is accepted by Ogden (loc. cit. 368). Even if she was only a homonym, Andromachou's maternity was certainly known and (if he was in fact an illegitimate son of the king) his paternity very probably rumoured. It seems to me hardly likely that Ptolemy II would "honour" his son by associating him so publicly with a woman who held the name of his most successful mistress unless that mistress was in fact his mother. While neither argument is conclusive proof, I think they establish very reasonable grounds for Bilistiche's candidacy -- if Andromachou was in fact the son of Ptolemy II.
As well as denying that Bilistiche was the canephore, E. Kosmetatou (AfP 50 (2004) 18 at 23) objects that she was apparently at the height of her influence in the 260s and concludes that she was probably very young at the start of that decade, too young to be the mother of Ptolemy Andromachou. However, we have no evidence on Bilistiche's age, and none to date the beginning of the affair: we only know of its prominence after the death of Arsinoe II. Even if it did not begin till then, a son born in the early-mid 260s would be in his late teens in 251/0, and in his 20s at the time Andromachou undertook his military career. This seems eminently reasonable to me. Kosmetatou's objection would be completely valid if Andromachou is identified with Ptolemy "the Son", but in my view that proposal should be rejected, in part for precisely this reason.
Ogden's objection to Bilistiche's maternity is in fact a set of objections to the proposal of Ptolemy II's paternity. These objections are discussed here. Ý
[5] This is the proposal of C. Ravazzolo, Studi ellenistici 8 (1984), 123, 131. Aside from general objections to the notion that Ptolemy "the Son" was an illegitimate son, this particular variant suffers from two specific problems.
First, it has Andromachou closely associated with the Ptolemaic court as eponymous priest in 251/0, and probably active in a Ptolemaic fleet c. 245 (depending on what date one assigns to the battle of Andros). Both dates are well after the revolt of Ptolemy "the Son" at Ephesus and his removal as coregent in 259. I cannot imagine either Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III allowing a rebel such a second chance at the levers of power.
Second, 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 at the start of 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 late 260s, which is not consistent with what we otherwise know of her chronology; in particular that she was at the peak of her influence with Ptolemy II in the 260s, and was quite possibly canephore as late as 251/0. Ý
[6] This is the proposal of W. Huss, ZPE 121 (1998) 229, who also identifies Ptolemy son of Lysimachus with Ptolemy "the Son". I accept the latter equation, but not the former. Ptolemy son of Lysimachus is almost certainly the same as Ptolemy I of Telmessos, who first appears shortly after Ptolemy "the Son" is removed as coregent, and was clearly only loosely under the authority of the Ptolemaic kings. I cannot accept that this semi-independent lord would be given posts so close to the central government as those enjoyed by Andromachou. See also the objections to identifying Andromachou with Ptolemy "the Son". Ý
[7] pCairZen 2.59289; pdem Zeno 6b. Ý
[7.1] pHaun 6. The reference to Andros is not completely unambiguous but seems generally accepted, see the discussions in A. Bülow-Jacobsen ZPE 36 (1979) 91 and in N. G. L. Hammond and F. W. Wallbank in A History of Macedonia III 587ff. As to the date, Plutarch Pelopidas 2 identifies one antagonist as a king Antigonus, hence either Gonatas or Doson, in an anecdote also told (Plutarch Moralia 183c), probably, about the battle of Cos; because of this, it was probably the same Antigonus who fought, and won, both battles. Since Antigonus Doson is formally introduced in Prol. Trogus 28 (W. W. Tarn, JHS 29 (1909) 265), the Antigonus of Trogus Prol. 27 must be Gonatas, placing the battles before his death in 240/39.
Hammond and Wallbank argue that Antigonus Gonatas was unlikely to have fielded a fleet in the Aegean until after he got control of Corinth in 245, and he lost it again in 243. They further adopt a suggestion of K. Buraselis (Das Hellenistische Makedonien und die Ägäis: Forschungen zur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden im Ägäischen Meer und im Westkelinasien 141ff.) that one of the festivals initiated by Gonatas at Delos in 245 and 244, the Paneia and the Soteria, relate to his victory at Andros.
Trogus Prol. 27 further mentions a naval battle between a Ptolemy and an Antigonus in which the Ptolemaic fleet was comanded by an Opron. This is supposed to be the battle of Andros, although the identification cannot be certain. "Opron" is usually interpreted as a garbled form of Sophron the Seleucid governor of Ephesus in 246, who is supposed to have turned his coat, although J. Crampa, Inscr. Labraunda III 98ff, 120 rather implausibly 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, Andromachou's brother]. However, M. Domingo Gygax, Chiron 30 (2000) 353 at 359 n. 30 notes that the name "Opron" is known from line 14 of pTebt 3.2 890, so there is no particular reason to suppose a corruption. In either case, if this battle is in fact the battle of Andros the datum indicates that Andromachou was not in command of the Ptolemaic fleet. Ý
[8] pHaun 6. Ý
[9] While Ptolemy "the brother" is often regarded as Andromachou, the arguments of M. Domingo Gygax, Chiron 30 (2000) 353 that he should be identified with Ptolemy "the Son" seem persuasive to me. Ý
[10] pHaun 6, which states that Andromachou was killed at Ephesus, and Athenaeus 13.593a who states that Ptolemy, a son of Ptolemy II, was killed there. See discussion of his paternity. Ý
[11] The date of this event is unknown, nor is it known whether it led to a restoration of Seleucid control of Ephesus, which was lost shortly after the start of the Third Syrian War in 246. Porphyry says that Seleucus II did not succeed in capturing Ephesus, but that Ptolemy II held it (Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 251). Coins of Seleucus II were minted at Ephesus (E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III no. 1491), but these may have been minted in the brief period between his accession and the return of the city to Ptolemaic control. However, there are some indications that he did at least make the attempt to recapture the city. pBouriant 6 appears also to refer to the career of Andromachou, and apparently refers to Ephesus being under siege (A. N. Oikonomides, ZPE 56 (1984) 148, who however associates this with Ptolemy "the Son" and the events of 258). The letters described in iLabraunda 3 apparently shows Seleucus II with some control in the Carian area.
However, any control Seleucus may have had of Ephesus was endangered after the breach with his brother Antiochus Hierax in c. 243, and was certainly lost after the battle of Ancyra c. 237 (Justin 27.2, Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 251). SEG 1.366 (trans. in M. M. Austin The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest 194ff (113)), of uncertain date but about this period, records Hierax apparently withdrawing from Ephesus to Sardis. I interpret this to reflect the following sequence of events: Ptolemy III, supported by Andromachou, gains control of Ephesus; Ephesus is besieged by Seleucus II; Andromachou is killed in the mutiny during the siege, possibly resulting in the city and certainly the region briefly reverting to Seleucus II; Hierax rebels against Seleucus II and is expelled from or is unable to enter Ephesus, which then reverts again to Ptolemaic control if it had ever been lost, and Seleucid authority collapses in Caria. This is consistent with the interpretation of J. Kobes, EA 24 (1995) 1, of events in Caria. Dates must be guesstimates, within the broad bounds set by the death of Antiochus II in 246 and the rebellion of Hierax c. 3 years later. But this reconstruction is certainly speculative, and others are certainly possible. Ý
[12] Athenaeus 13.593a. Ý
Update Notes:
10 Feb 2002: Added individual trees
18 Feb 2002: Split into separate entry
23 Aug 2003: Added Xrefs to online Justin
24 Feb 2004: Added Xrefs to online Athenaeus, Prol Trogus, iMilet III 139
13 Sep 2004: Add Xref to online Eusebius
30 Nov 2004: Add disucssion of Kosmetatou's objections to Bilistiche as Andromachou's mother -- my thanks to Elizabeth Kosmetatou for offline discussion
11 Mar 2005: Added Greek transcription
7 July 2005: Adjust suggested reconstruction of events to reflect acceptance of Domingo Gygax' argument that Andromachou is not "the Brother"
21 Nov 2010: Fix broken DDbDP link
3 May 2011: Rewrite discussion of Androchou's paternity and maternity to incorporate Ogden's critique of Buraselis' reconstructionWebsite © Chris Bennett, 2001-2011 -- All rights reserved