Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Aegyptiaca et Coptica

Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

A cura di

P. Buzi
D. Picchi
M. Zecchi

BAR International Series 2264

Published by

Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED

BAR S2264

Aegyptiaca et Coptica: Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2011

ISBN 978 1 4073 0835 7

Cover image: Statua a nome di Uahibra, XXVI dinastia (inv.n. MCABo_EG 1820) © Museo Civico Archeologico, Bologna

Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Banbury Road

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from
Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

ROME AND PTOLEMAIC EGYPT: attention was focussed upon the Aegean world. There can
INITIAL CONTACTS * be no doubt that in the alliance (societas) struck between
the Egyptian monarch and the Romans it was the former
Richard Westall who was effectively the more powerful of the two parties.
Hence, the idea that Ptolemy II took the initiative in
establishing diplomatic relations with the Romans is
anachronistic and makes nonsense of what occurred at the
Abstract time. As in the case of Livy’s reflections on Alexander
the Great and the Romans (9.17-19),2 so here too patriotic
In 273 BCE, the Romans entered into an alliance with the constructions have skewed the historiographical record.
Egyptian monarch Ptolemy II Philadelphus. In short, there is discernible need for a critical
Quellenforschung in the first section points to the reassessment of the initial diplomatic contacts between
surviving sources’ deriving from Fabius Pictor and the Egyptian monarch and the Romans.
Hieronymus of Cardia. Quellenkritik in the second
section illustrates the Roman bias of the surviving
sources. Considerations of Realpolitik in the third and I.
final section strongly indicate that the initiative for this
alliance came not from Ptolemy II, but rather from the The sources describing the establishment of diplomatic
Romans themselves in fear of an eventual return of relations and an alliance between Rome and Ptolemaic
Pyrrhus to the Italian peninsula. Egypt are perhaps best divided into three categories. The
basis for such a division is provided by the content of
these sources. Three distinct moments are described, with
overlap occurring only in one instance.
In 273 BCE, the Egyptian monarch Ptolemy II
Philadelphus initiated diplomatic relations with the First, there are those sources concerned explicitly with
Romans by sending ambassadors to Rome. Thus modern the establishment of the alliance in 273 BCE (Eutr. 2.15;
authors on the basis of the ancient historiographical Liv. Per. 14; Dio fr. 41 [= Zonar. 8.6.11]). Secondly, one
tradition.1 Various motivations have been adduced to of the sources focusses upon the action taken in
explain this move on the part of the Egyptian monarch. Alexandria by the three senators comprising the Roman
However, never has anyone dared to question the most embassy to Ptolemy II (Iust. 18.2.9). Third and last, there
basic element informing the tradition as it survives, viz. are those sources that focus upon how these three
the assertion that it was Ptolemy II who initiated the senators behaved subsequent to their returning to Rome
exchange of ambassadors. That is rather surprising for a (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 20.14; Val. Max. 4.3.9; Dio fr. 41
number of reasons. Most obviously, all of the sources are [= Zonar. 8.6.11]). In view of the late and markedly
heavily biased in favour of the Romans, likely under derivative nature of the sources in question, such a
influence from the events that culminated with the division permits a better appreciation of the issues
disappearance of the Ptolemaic dynasty in the first involved in establishing the relationship between literary
century BCE. This bias renders the entire representation and historical event.
historiographical tradition highly suspect. Secondly, it
would appear that all of the evidence for a Ptolemaic Classical Quellenforschung aims to establish a
initiative ultimately derives from Fabius Pictor, who phylogenetic relationship between the various literary
wrote an account of Roman history in Greek later in the sources, so as to allow for the identification and
third century BCE. Indeed, aside from Dionysius of discarding of those that are derivative and have nothing
Halicarnassus, who made direct use of Fabius Pictor in of value to contribute to a reconstruction of the historical
the original Greek, these surviving accounts in all event represented.3 In the present instance, application of
likelihood derived their information from Fabius Pictor this method is not feasible. Only one of the six sources
by way of Livy. Third, there are considerations of involved – the passage by Valerius Maximus –
Realpolitik. Even though the Romans had proved capable unquestionably survives intact, and even this text has
of offering stalwart resistance to Pyrrhus, Ptolemy II clearly been extensively re-fashioned to accommodate the
stood foremost in a group of powerful monarchs whose orator’s needs. The other five sources come from
historiographical works composed upon an epic scale, but
survive only in epitomised versions that display a
* An especial note of gratitude is due to Professor Sergio Pernigotti for preference for the extremely laconic. Hence, they, too,
his timely invitation to publish work my work on C. Caesar of relevance are unreliable guides as to the detailed wording of what
to Ptolemaic Egypt. I would also like to thank Professor Susan M.
Treggiari for looking at the present piece and sharing observations and
queries that are useful as ever. Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Paola
Buzi for her encouragement and the kind invitation to submit this piece. For detailed literary and historical analysis, see Oakley 1998, 3.184-
For detailed analysis accompanied by a thorough review of the 261. For the historical context, now see also Humm 2006, 175-196.
previous literature, see Lampela 1998, 33-51. Cf. Huß 2001, 294; Hölbl Cf. Delz 1997, 51-72, for description of the related field of Textkritik.
1994, 54 and 292. Nothing is added by subsequent, passing references Surprisingly, Quellenforschung is never mentioned in the splendid tome
in Siani-Davies 2001, 2; Ager 2003, 38; Forsythe 2005, 358; Marquaille of which this piece is a chapter and seems to have altogether
2008, 63; Adams 2008, 100. disappeared from the arsenal of those engaged in Altertumswissenschaft.

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

their sources reported. The identification of sources must Created at some point in the fourth or fifth century, or so
proceed rather on the basis of focus and the known it would seem, the periochae preserve the content if not
practices of the authors in question. the language of the original.7 It is, in fact, not
inconceivable that Livy will have used both words –
amicitia and societas – to describe the relationship
A) Alexandrian ambassadors in Rome formally established in 273 BC. It will be remembered
that an ally was officially designated amicus atque socius
Three of the six surviving sources (Eutropius, an populi Romani.
anonymous periocha for Livy, and Cassius Dio) relate
that Ptolemy II Philadelphus sent an embassy to Rome The third source to make specific reference to the
and that the Romans responded favourably to this establishment of a formal agreement and diplomatic
diplomatic initiative in 273 BCE. From their nature and relations between Ptolemy II Philadelphus and the
demonstrated practice, it would appear that these three Romans is Cassius Dio. Writing his account of Roman
sources all derive their information primarily, if not history under the Severan dynasty, Dio composed a
solely, from Livy. That, in turn, allows for the deduction relatively detailed narrative.8 Unfortunately, at this
that Livy wrote of the establishment of a formal alliance juncture it survives only in excerpted form. Yet, what
between the Egyptian monarch and the Romans. there is provides modern readers with the fullest vision of
how this episode was treated by the ancients (Dio fr. 41):
Drawing upon Livy either directly or through an epitome,
the courtier Eutropius composed a brief history of Rome Καὶ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ τῆς Αἰγύπτου βασιλεύς, ὁ
in the late fourth century that extended from the city’s Φιλάδελφος ἐπικληθείς, ὡς τόν τε Πύρρον
foundation to the reign of the emperor Valens.4 Providing κακῶς ἀπηλλαχότα καὶ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους
a precise and accurate consular date (273 BCE) for the αὐξανομένους ἔμαθε, δῶρά τε αὐτοῖς ἔπεμψε καὶ
creation of a treaty,5 he writes in laconic fashion (Eutr. ὁμολογίαν ἐποιήσατο. οἱ οὖν Ῥωμαῖοι ἡσθέντες
2.15): ὅτι καίτοι διὰ πλείστου ὢν περὶ πολλοῦ σφᾶς
ἐπεποίητο, πρέσβεις πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνταπέστειλαν.
C. Fabio Licinio C. Claudio Canina consulibus, ἐπειδή τε ἐκεῖνοι δῶρα παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ μεγαλοπρεπῆ
anno urbis conditae quadringentesimo λαβόντες ἐς τὸ δημόσιόν σφας ἀπέδειξαν, οὐκ
sexagesimo primo, legati Alexandrini a ἐδέξαντο αὐτά.
Ptolomaeo missi Romam venere et a Romanis
amicitiam, quam petierant, obtinuerunt. «Moreover, upon learning that Pyrrhus had been
soundly defeated and that the Romans were
«In the consulate of C. Fabius Licinius and C. increasing in power, the Egyptian king Ptolemy
Claudius Canina (AUC 461), envoys sent from Philadelphus sent gifts to them and established
Alexandria by Ptolemy came to Rome for the an alliance. The Romans sent ambassadors to
first time and received from the Romans the him in turn, since they were favourably
friendship that they sought». impressed by his engaging in this action despite
the great distance separating them. When those
The term amicitia has occasioned needless doubt as to ambassadors received magnificent gifts from him
whether or not this relationship was formally defined.6 and bequeathed them to the state, however, they
The relevant periocha for Livy employs another term, a refused to accept them».
synonym, that dispels any doubt. The Egyptian monarch
entered into a formal alliance with the Romans (Liv. Per. Despite this passage’s brevity and its nature as an
14): excerpt, it illustrates clearly how report was made of the
arrival of Alexandrian representatives of Ptolemy II in
Cum Ptolemaeo, Aegypti rege, societas iuncta Rome, the Senate’s decision to make an agreement
est. (ὁμολογία) with the monarch, the despatch of Roman
ambassadors to Egypt, and the commendable behaviour
«An alliance was established with Ptolemy, the displayed by those ambassadors upon their return home.
king of Egypt».
Various questions supervene. Most pressing is that of
For the figure of Eutropius, see now Burgess 2001, 76-81. As regards whether the excerptor has preserved Dio’s original
Eutropius’ dependence upon Livy for his knowledge of Republican language. The extract in question comes from the tenth-
history, see Gensel 1907, 1523; cf. Bird 1983, xlv-xlvi. century collection De Legationibus ordered by the
For the trustworthiness of this date, see De Sanctis 1907/1923, 2.428
n. 1; pace Niese 1893-1903, 2.66 n. 2; Beloch 1904, 3.1.686 n.1. On the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. Comparison
other hand, as remarked by Bird 1983, 81 n. 23, the ab urbe condita of it with another branch of the indirect tradition, that
date is mistaken. It corresponds to 293 BCE, whereas 273 BCE requires
AUC 481. For a brief listing of other errors of this sort, see Bird 1983,
6 7
Gruen 1984, 62-63, provides the most eloquent case for those in doubt. von Albrecht 1992, 682. For problems with the periochae and
For a complete listing of those who take this position, see Lampela epitomes in general, see Brunt 1980, 477-494.
1998, 34 n. 35. Barnes 1984, 240-255. Cf. Millar 1964, 28-32.

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

transmitted by Zonaras, strongly suggests that Dio’s Lastly, there is the issue of language that implies a formal
ipsissima verba have been preserved here.9 agreement between the Romans and the Egyptian
monarch. Is the expression «agreement» (ὁμολογία)
However, as will shortly be seen in discussion of the consonant with the claims of an informal relationship that
Roman ambassadors’ behaviour once they were home have become fashionable in recent decades? Examination
again, Dio has considerably abbreviated his source. of the passages in which Dio makes use of this expression
Omission of the ambassadors’ names seems to be the indicates that there he made no substantive differentiation
work of Dio himself, rather than an otherwise unattested between «agreement» (ὁμολογία) and «accords»
epitomator mediating between his work and that of his (συνθῆκαι), the latter of which is often said to be the
Byzantine readers. sign-post of a formal agreement or treaty.14 Hence, Dio’s
language provides confirmation of the natural
If it be granted that the excerptor has maintained the interpretation to be given to the evidence cited above
language of Dio’s original, then there occurs the question indicating that Livy wrote of the Egyptian monarch as an
of what source(s) lay behind this version. Did Dio derive amicus atque socius populi Romani.
his account here from Livy or from another author? No
assistance is to be had from what survives of the proem,
wherein Dio opens his Roman history with a grandiose B) Roman ambassadors in Alexandria
claim, that may also serve as a caveat: «I have read
virtually everything written by anybody on the history of As regards the behaviour in Alexandria of the three
Rome, but I have composed an account that is partial and Roman senators who were ambassadors to the court of
includes only what I thought worthwhile».10 In the Ptolemy II in the late 270s, in response to the Egyptian
sequel, he only very rarely and sporadically specifies his initiative as the Roman historiographical tradition would
sources of information.11 have it, only one source gives any explicit report. There
survives the abbreviated testimony of Pompeius Trogus,
Hence, conjecture as regards the source(s) in this who referred to that embassy en passant in the universal
particular instance must rely upon what has been history that he composed during the principate of
observed elsewhere for Dio’s narrative of the first third of Augustus.15 Although this work has been transmitted only
the third century BCE. Agreement between Dio and via the epitome made by Justin very late in the fourth
Dionysius of Halicarnassus at various points would seem century or early in the fifth,16 there does occur mention of
to indicate that the Severan author knew and used his the Roman embassy. Focussing upon the ambassadors’
Augustan predecessor.12 But there is even more evidence actions in Alexandria, Pompeius Trogus as abbreviated
pointing to Dio’s making extensive use of Livy. For by Justin provides us with an aspect not otherwise
instance, Dio seems to rely upon Livy both for his mentioned by the surviving sources (Iust. 18.2.9):
account of various episodes of the war against Pyrrhus
(280-275 BCE) and for his notice of the introduction of Nam missi a senatu Aegyptum legati cum
silver coinage to Rome (269 BCE).13 ingentia sibi a Ptolomaeo rege missa munera
sprevissent, interiectis diebus ad cenam invitatis
Consequently, it would seem best to conclude that Dio aureae coronae missae sunt, quas illi ominis
offers readers a shortened version of what he found in causa receptas postera die statuis regis
Livy as regards the initial diplomatic relations between inposuerunt.
Rome and Egypt.
«Although the ambassadors sent to Egypt by the
Zonar. 8.6.11: Καὶ Πτολεμαῖος δὲ ὁ Φιλάδελφος ὁ τῆς Αἰγύπτου Senate refused the immense gifts that they had
βασιλεύς, τόν τε Πύρρον κακῶς ἀπηλλαχότα μαθὼν καὶ τοὺς ῾Ρωμαίους been offered by king Ptolemy, a few days later
αὐξανομένους, δῶρά τε αὐτοῖς ἔπεμψε καὶ ὁμολογίαν ἐποιήσατο. Καὶ οἱ they accepted for the sake of good omen the
῾Ρωμαῖοι ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἡσθέντες πρέσβεις πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνταπέστειλαν· οἱ golden crowns that were sent to them when they
μεγαλοπρεπῆ δῶρα παρ᾿ ἐκείνου λαβόντες εἰς τὸ δημόσιον ταῦτα
εἰσῆγον. ῾Η δὲ βουλὴ οὐ προσήκατο, ἀλλ᾿ εἴασεν αὐτοὺς ταῦτα ἔχειν. were invited to dinner and they placed them upon
Much of the structure and vocabulary is identical. the king’s statues on the following day».
Dio fr. 1.2: <ἀνέγνων μὲν> πάντα ὡς εἰπεῖν τὰ περὶ αὐτῶν τισι
γεγραμμένα, συνέγραψα δὲ οὐ πάντα ἀλλ᾿ ὅσα ἐξέκρινα. The As transmitted, the passage is embedded within an
emendation is owed to Bekker.
Millar 1964, 34-35. For example, it is only in book 68 that Dio account of Cineas’ failure to bestow Pyrrhus’ gifts upon
explicitly reports making use of Livy! the Romans that he met at Rome, and the Roman
Schwartz 1899, 1693f. It is opportune to reflect upon how Plutarch embassy to Alexandria is cited as another example with
contents himself with citing two sources for casualty figures: explicit reference to the theme of abstinentia that we shall
Hieronymus of Cardia and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The admixture
of primary and secondary sources is typical of ancient historiography, soon see within the accounts dedicated to the Roman
and should warn against assuming a concern to find original sources.
For the war against Pyrrhus, see especially Lévêque 1957, 73;
Lefkowitz 1959, 166 n. 9, 167 n. 18. As for silver coinage at Rome (Liv. Lampela 1998, 35-36; Bung 1950, 36 n. 3; Meltzer 1885, 18 n. 4 (non
Per. 15; Zonar. 8.7), see Hof 2002, 136. This conclusion runs counter vidi). For the contrary view, see inter alios Schultheß 1935, 1158;
to the claim advanced by Schwartz 1899, 1694. However, that scholar’s Holleaux 1921, 63-75; Heuss 1933, 28 n.2; Gruen 1984, 62-63.
views are based upon a consideration of the first decade of Dio as a von Albrecht 1992, 686-687.
whole and fail to look specifically at the period 300-265 BCE. Syme 1988, 358-371.

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

ambassadors’ behaviour upon their returning home: huic as it might provide rhetorical exempla.20 Paradoxically, it
continentiae Romanorum simile exemplum isdem ferme is his account and not that of his source that survives to
temporibus fuit (Iust. 18.2.8). The etiquette of hospitality provide us with what is the fullest description of the
required that the ambassadors accept the crowns, but they welcome accorded to the returning Roman ambassadors
had deftly disposed of this embarrassing gift in suitable (Val. Max. 4.3.9):
fashion on the following day, thus doing honour both to
their host and themselves. Affording an exemplum for Atque huic animi eius iudicio Q. Fabius Gurges
subsequent generations, Roman continence stands in N. Fabius Pictor Q. Ogulnius subscripserunt. Qui
marked contrast to Hellenic luxury. legati ad Ptolomaeum regem missi munera, quae
ab eo privatim acceperant, in aerarium, et
Were it not for the fact that the Roman ambassadors are quidem prius quam ad senatum legationem
reported as having crowned images of Ptolemy II referrent, detulerunt, scilicet de publico
Philadelphus, the source of this exemplum might be ministerio nihil cuiquam praeter laudem bene
sought within a Roman author. Both the verb sprevissent administrati officii accedere debere iudicantes.
and the ambassadors’ diplomatic refusal of the golden Iam illud humanitatis senatus et attentae
crowns offered to them are redolent of the theme of maiorum disciplinae indicium est: data sunt enim
abstinentia favoured by rhetorical and historiographical legatis quae in aerarium reposuerant non solum
traditions at Rome. Livy had already published his patrum conscriptorum decreto sed etiam populi
account of the war with Pyrrhus and the events leading up permissu; eaque leg<e d>ata quaestores prompta
to the first Punic war by the time that Trogus came to unicuique distribuerent. Ita in iisdem Ptolomaei
write his universal history, and his influence is possible.17 liberalitas, legatorum abstinentia, senatus ac
Moreover, if the absence of names be deemed an populi aequitas debitam probabilis facti
impediment, it is to be remembered that this is precisely portionem obtinuit.
the sort of impersonal historiography that was
characteristic of the Origines of the elder Cato.18 But the «Q. Fabius Gurges, N. Fabius Pictor, and Q.
ambiguous nature of the solution and the fact that this Ogulnius were in agreement with that man’s (i.e.
anecdote is situated in Alexandria rather than at Rome L. Aemilius Paulus’) opinion. Having been sent
together point to the likelihood of a Greek author’s being as ambassadors to king Ptolemy, they deposited
its source. Indeed, known to have utilised Hieronymus of within the state treasury the gifts that they had
Cardia elsewhere in order to narrate in detail the events of personally received, even before they reported to
the war against Pyrrhus, Trogus most probably did so in the Senate on their embassy. Clearly they were
this instance as well.19 of the opinion that the only profit that a person
ought to draw from public service is praise for
having performed the task well. Now here is
C) Roman ambassadors back in Rome proof of the humanity of the Senate and of the
scrupulous discipline of our ancestors: what the
Lastly, three of the sources (Valerius Maximus, Cassius ambassadors had deposited in the treasury was
Dio, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus) describe what given to them not only by a decree of the
happened upon the Roman ambassadors’ returning home Conscript Fathers but also with the People’s
from their mission to the court of Ptolemy II assent, and the quaestors took out and assigned
Philadelphus. From their nature and demonstrated these things to each of them as soon as the law
practice, two items of importance emerge: Livy’s had been passed Thus did the generosity of
description of the initial diplomatic relations between Ptolemy, the continence of the ambassadors, and
Rome and Ptolemaic Egypt was elaborate, so as to fit the the fairness of the Senate and People have their
momentous nature of the occasion, and it derived from due share in a laudable act».
the work of Q. Fabius Pictor, the first native historian of
ancient Rome. The moral qualities of liberalitas, abstinentia, and
aequitas/humanitas exemplified by this episode are what
Writing at the height of the principate of Tiberius, interest Valerius Maximus. He is not concerned about the
Valerius Maximus was interested in history only in so far truth of a particular moment in Roman history except to
the extent that it can illustrate a general principle and
thereby provides speakers with a potential exemplum.21

17 20
Particularly suggestive is the fact that both Trogus and Livy provide Val. Max. 1 praef.: Urbis Romae exterarumque gentium facta simul
readers with a review of Carthaginian history prior to embarking upon a ac dicta memoratu digna ... ab illustribus electa auctoribus digerere
narration of the events of the first Punic war. Cf. Iust. 38.3.11. constitui, ut documenta sumere volentibus longae inquisitionis labor
Nepos, Cato 3.4; FRH 3 F 4.11 (= Plin. HN 8.11). Cf. FRH 3 F 4.7a absit. For an introduction to the subject, see now Bloomer 1992;
(= Gell. 3.7.1-19); F 4.13 (= Gell. 10.24.7 = Macr. Sat. 1.4.26) for the Skidmore 1996; Wardle 1998.
expressions dictator Carthaginiensis and magister equitum rather than Moreover, it is difficult to imagine any historian writing the
the proper names Hannibal and Maharbal. For the rationale informing anachronistic sentence with which this excerpt opens. It is worth
this stance, see Conte 19923, 72; cf. Gruen 1992, 82. remarking that the L. Aemilius Paulus in question was the general who
Lévêque 1957, 58-59. defeated the Macedonian king Perseus in 168 BCE. If the claim be

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

This exemplum appears within that section of his Roman history a brief account of the reception accorded
rhetorical handbook dedicated to the themes of to the Roman ambassadors upon their homecoming (fr.
abstinentia and continentia. 41, see section I.A above). As we have had occasion to
remark, Dio’s narrative differs fundamentally from those
The question of the sources employed by Valerius offered by Valerius Maximus and Dionysius of
Maximus is complicated in appearance, but in fact rather Halicarnassus in that these authors do furnish names for
straightforward. He himself refers to «distinguished the three senators constituting the embassy. It would
authors» in the preface to his work, furnishing citations of appear that Dio avoided unnecessary detail by
ten Latin and eleven Greek authors on occasion. These abbreviating what he found within Livy and for that
citations are not necessarily to be taken at face value. For reason the ambassadors’ names are lacking.24
example, the passages in which Valerius Maximus cites
Coelius Antipater (1.7.6) and Plato (1.8.ext.1) derive Dionysius of Halicarnassus is the third and last of the
from Cicero.22 Dissatisfied with such happenstance and sources to describe the homecoming of the Roman
misleading testimony, scholars have delved into the ambassadors. As in the case of Dio, this description has
source question, producing a much more detailed list. not survived intact, but arrives by means of an excerpt
that has perhaps compressed discursive treatment and
However, claims of his extensive reliance upon such simplified the author’s language. Still, the similarities to
sources as Valerius Antias, Q. Aelius Tubero, and the accounts of Valerius Maximus and Cassius Dio are
Diodorus Siculus are vitiated by a manifestly occasional striking. According to the testimony of this excerpt,
use combined with a disregard for items of interest to Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote (Ant. Rom. 20.14):
those authors. Hence, despite both his own claims and
many scholars’ desire to credit him with extensive Νουμέριος Φάβιος Πίκτωρ καὶ Κόιντος Φάβιος
reading, it appears that Valerius Maximus relied chiefly Μάξιμος καὶ Κόιντος Ὀγούλνιος πρὸς τὸν
upon Cicero and Livy for rhetorical exempla relating to Φιλάδελφον Πτολεμαῖον πρεσβεύσαντες καὶ
past generations. δωρεαῖς ἰδίαις τιμηθέντες ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ – ἦρχε δὲ
τῆς Αἰγύπτου δεύτερος μετὰ τὸν Μακεδόνα
Although much has survived, nowhere within the Ἀλέξανδρον – ἐπειδὴ κατέπλευσαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν,
Ciceronian corpus does there occur explicit reference to τά τε ἄλλα ἀπήγγειλαν ὅσα διεπράξαντο κατὰ
the Roman embassy to Ptolemy II. It might be thought τὴν ἀποδημίαν καὶ τὰς δωρεὰς ἃς παρὰ τοῦ
that the lost speech De rege Alexandrino furnishes a βασιλέως ἔλαβον εἰς τὸ δημόσιον ἀνήνεγκαν –
promising context for the anecdote reported by Valerius οὓς ἡ βουλὴ πάντων ἀγασθεῖσα τῶν ἔργων οὐκ
Maximus, for in this work of the late 60s Cicero opposed εἴασε δημοσιῶσαι τὰς βασιλικὰς χάριτας, ἀλλ᾿
the proposal of Roman annexation of Egypt.23 Roman εἰς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν οἴκους ἀπενέγκασθαι τιμὰς
awareness of Egyptian wealth and a desire to avoid its ἀρετῆς καὶ κόσμους ἐκγόνοις.
appropriation are consonant with the spirit of the
anecdote. However, Valerius Maximus can be seen to «Numerius Fabius Pictor, Quintus Fabius
have preferred Livy to Cicero as a source for knowledge Maximus, and Quintus Ogulnius went upon an
of the “day of Eleusis”. Hence, Cicero is probably best embassy to Ptolemy Philadelphus, and each of
excluded. them was honoured by him with gifts. He was
the second to rule Egypt after Alexander of
On the other hand, as we have already had occasion to Macedonia. When they sailed back to the city
see, Livy did mention the establishment of formal (i.e. Rome), they reported all that they had done
relations between Rome and Ptolemaic Egypt in the during their voyage and placed within the state
course of his narrative of the late 270s. It would have treasury the gifts that they had received from the
been easy and natural to include within that historical king. Amazed at all of their actions, the Senate
notice a report of the names and actions of the senators did not permit them to turn the king’s gifts over
sent to Alexandria for that purpose. Even if possible to the state, but rather take them away to their
contamination with other accounts – for example, those own houses as the rewards of their virtue and
of Valerius Antias, Q. Ennius, or Q. Fabius Pictor – adornment for their descendants».
cannot be ruled out altogether, it would seem most likely
that here, too, Livy was the source for the historical The focus is upon the three ambassadors and their correct
exemplum reported by Valerius Maximus. comportment in Rome and its reward. Like Valerius
Maximus, albeit with a reversal of the two Fabii,
Writing not quite two centuries later, in the principate of Dionysius provides the names of the three senators who
Septimius Severus, Cassius Dio included within his constituted the embassy to Alexandria. Moreover, both
authors write of the king’s having made individual gifts
to each of the three ambassadors (munera quae ab eo
allowed, it was Paulus who subscribed to the opinion of his privatim acceperant; δωρεαῖς ἰδίαις τιμηθέντες ὑπ᾿
Bloomer 1992, 62.
For the testimonia and fragments of this speech, see Crawford 19942, 24
Cf. Millar 1964, 43, for Dio’s avoidance of detail in the narrative as
43-56. well in speeches.

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

αὐτοῦ; τὰς δωρεὰς ἃς παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως ἔλαβον), the first two authors and the very likely use of Fabius
without feeling the need to do as Dio and specify that Pictor by the third. Moreover, abbreviated and modified
these were «magnificent» (μεγαλοπρεπῆ) gifts. Unlike though the first two accounts are, they betray the
Valerius Maximus, however, the rectitude of the existence of a larger tapestry, such as what might have
ambassadors is not voiced by the author, but rather been expected of Livy. Lastly, striking similarities
emphasised by focalisation through the Senate, whose between all three accounts indicate that Livy himself
sentiments (ἀγασθεῖσα) and intentions (τιμὰς ἀρετῆς καὶ drew his information from the Roman history of Fabius
κόσμους ἐκγόνοις) are explicitly expressed. Pictor.

But whence came the information for this narrative?

Dionysius is known to have begun composing his account D) Livy, Fabius Pictor, and Hieronymus of Cardia
of Rome’s ancient history after the publication of Livy’s
books dealing with that same period.25 Living and The identification of the three sources that lie behind the
working in Rome, he cannot have avoided knowledge of six surviving accounts to deal with the establishment of
his colleague’s work. Still, knowledge of a work does not diplomatic relations between Rome and Ptolemaic Egypt
signify its use. Dionysius covered the period between constitutes a step forward, for it permits a more precise
Rome’s foundation and the outbreak of the first Punic appreciation of the historical reality described by the
war in 20 books, whereas Livy dedicated 15 books to the literary record. Too often the sources are cited
same period. Moreover, there are many, irreconcilable indifferently, as if there were a democracy of truth.
differences of detail between the narratives of Dionysius
and Livy. All of these differences constitute proof that First, a restatement of the results obtained thus far. It
Dionysius worked with the same sources available to would appear that Eutropius, the Livian periocha,
Livy and arrived at a treatment that was substantially Cassius Dio, and Valerius Maximus derive their
independent. Indeed, it will occasion no surprise that information from Livy. In his turn, Livy as well as
Dionysius rather frequently specifies his sources, but Dionysius of Halicarnassus would appear to draw upon
never mentions Livy. Instead, as was to be expected of Fabius Pictor. Only Pompeius Trogus, as represented by
someone seeking to cut new ground, the annalists loom the epitome of Justin, seems to draw upon a non-Roman
large. Of these authors, many wrote initially in Greek: Q. source, viz. Hieronymus of Cardia.
Fabius Pictor, L. Cincius Alimentus, P. Cornelius Scipio,
C. Acilius, and L. Postumius Albinus. These results permit us to assert without hesitation that
the diplomatic exchange between Rome and Ptolemaic
Within this context, Dionysius’ concluding remark that Egypt belongs to the realm of historical reality. Coming
the Egyptian monarch’s gifts to the ambassadors served out of distinct and opposed historiographical traditions,
as an adornment for those men’s descendants is highly Fabius Pictor and Hieronymus of Cardia together attest to
suggestive. One of those descendants was the historian Q. there having been an exchange of ambassadors. Which is
Fabius Pictor, who composed a history of Rome in Greek not to assert that the claim of an Egyptian initiative, to be
towards the end of the third century BCE. Although no found only within the Roman tradition as it survives, can
more than a surmise, his being the source for the pass uncontested. However, there is every reason to
information provided by Dionysius of Halicarnassus believe that Q. Fabius Maximus, N. Fabius Pictor, and Q.
constitutes the most economic solution and is not without Ogulnius went upon an embassy to Ptolemy II
appeal.26 Indeed, it might also help to explain the odd fact Philadelphus in 273 BCE, so as to consolidate a formal
that the order of the names of the two Fabii differs in alliance between the Lagid monarch and the Roman state.
Dionysius from that furnished by Valerius Maximus. N.
Fabius Pictor (cos. 269) was the historian’s uncle, It remains to examine the quality of the information
whereas Q. Fabius Maximus (cos. 292, 276) was a deriving from the independent testimony of Fabius Pictor
cousin. Artefacts are known to have accumulated stories, and Hieronymus of Cardia, so as to establish the likely
and the explanation of household adornments may well course of events and motives for such an alliance.
have stimulated Rome’s first native historian to write.
Albeit not capable of formal demonstration, the vision is
congenial. II.

To conclude this section, comparison of the accounts of The names of the individuals composing the Roman
Valerius Maximus, Cassius Dio, and Dionysius of embassy to Alexandria provide insight into the ultimate
Halicarnassus points towards the shared use of Livy by source of information for Livy and those authors who
subsequently wrote about this subject. Reflection upon
the focalisation of these narratives can likewise prove
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.7.2. remunerative. Written from the vantage-point of an
It is to be remarked that Dionysius does elsewhere (1.6.2, however
compare 1.7.3) explicitly claim to have read and used Fabius Pictor.
Hence, pace Niese 1896, 481, we must agree with Lévêque 1957, 57 n.
3, that use of Livy as a basis for the narrative is a most problematic

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

external focalisor,27 they are unanimous in their Roman viewpoint to a public far wider than the circle of his peers
bias, despite some differences in detail that may not be in Rome and Latium.34 His work was a response to those
without consequence. critics who favoured Rome’s overt enemies as well as to
those who dismissed Roman successes as due to the blind
Whether the setting for the narrative is Rome (before or or mischievous operation of Fortuna/Tykhê. For example,
after the embassy to Alexandria) or Alexandria (during Philinus had written a pro-Carthaginian history of the
the Roman embassy), there is a common thread in the first Punic war and Hieronymus of Cardia had composed
form of a Roman-centered vision of historical reality. The an account of the war between Pyrrhus and the Romans
Ptolemaic monarch seeks an alliance with the Romans in which the element of chance was given a prominent
because they had defeated Pyrrhus and were becoming an role.35 By his reaction to such critics, however, Fabius
important power within the western half of the Pictor went to the other extreme, merely substituting a
Mediterranean.28 The continence displayed by the Roman Roman version of Tendenz for historical truth.36
ambassadors in the face of the extravagant gifts made to
them by the Ptolemaic monarch on more than one But the Rome-centered vision and consequent bias of our
occasion is a sign of Roman virtue, serving to explain sources are not to be attributed solely to Fabius Pictor. As
why the Romans achieved their pre-eminent position.29 is perhaps most evident in the testimony of Valerius
The ambassadors are named for the sake of their Maximus and Iustinus’ abridgement of Pompeius Trogus,
individual commemoration by posterity, but it is their subsequent authors re-elaborated this material to suit the
corporate behaviour that matters. As a group they needs of their own age. The Roman bias of our sources
represent the Roman state, and it was with that entity that owes not a little to the progress of relations between
Ptolemy II established an alliance. Both alliance and Egypt and Rome that culminated with the end of the
monarch receive mention because they serve as Ptolemaic dynasty.
testimonials to the growing might of the Republic,
whereas the gifts bestowed upon the ambassadors provide Initially the Ptolemaic monarchs’ wealth had represented
occasion for reflection upon those moral qualities that the military power of which they might dispose. By
reputedly contributed to Roman might. dynastic accident and through the gradual growth of
Roman might, that wealth had come to symbolize an
This Rome-centered vision that translates into a Roman effete, corrupt political system incapable of even
bias within the historiography is to be attributed in part to maintaining domestic order. In 168, it fell to the Roman
the chauvinism of Fabius Pictor. This bias was emissary Popilius Laenas to maintain equilibrium within
perceptible even to Polybius, whose Roman ties were the eastern Mediterrean and to prop up the tottering
strong and abiding.30 Polybius affirms that Fabius Pictor Ptolemaic monarchy that was on the point of succumbing
had «failed ... to report the truth as [he] ought to have to the victorious advance of the Seleucid monarch
done» and remarks that in so doing he had «behaved the Antiochus IV Epiphanes.37 Subsequent rulers such as
way men do when they are in love» (Polyb. 1.14).31 Physkon and Auletes – whose sobriquets speak volumes
Belonging to a patrician family that constituted one of the – did little to enhance their dynasty’s public image at
five gentes maiores of the middle Republic,32 Fabius Rome.38 Luxury and wealth tempted Roman intervention,
Pictor had a strong sense of the Roman state as an inevitably leading to entanglement with M. Antonius and
appanage of noble families such as the Fabii. Engaged in the country’s annexation by Octavian. Within this
the embassy to Delphi undertaken in the wake of the historical context the moralizing examples cited by
disaster at Cannae (216 BCE), Fabius Pictor may well Valerius Maximus and Iustinus (Pompeius Trogus) make
have published his account of Roman history while the eminent sense. Ingentia dona (Iust. 18.2.9) and liberalitas
second Punic war was still being fought.33 In any case, he (Val. Max. 4.3.9) belong to the realm of the moralist or
wrote this work in Greek so as to communicate a Roman historical panegyrist.

For this useful concept, which was developed for narratological
purposes, readers are referred to the lucid introduction provided by Bal
1985, 100-115. Most recent and judicious is the judgement of Beck and Walter 2001,
Explicitly stated in Dio fr. 41 (ὡς τόν τε Πύρρον κακῶς ἀπηλλαχότα 58-59; cf. Gruen 1992, 231.
καὶ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους αὐξανομένους ἔμαθε), this perspective has not For Philinus, see Polyb. 1.14; 3.8.1; Meister 1990, 143-144. As for
unnaturally proved congenial to many a modern student of Roman Hieronymus of Cardia, aside from the incisive paragraphs of Meister
history, e.g. Forsythe 2005, 358. 1990, 124-126, see the detailed study of Hornblower 1981.
29 36
It is worthwhile recalling that this conceit had previously been applied Cf. Beck and Walter 2001, 1.133, suggesting that Fabius Pictor may
by the Greeks to themselves and to the Persians in order to explain the be responsible for the highly partisan and misleading chronology
manifest changes of fortune that had occurred in the mid-sixth and early situating the fall of Saguntum and Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps in
fifth centuries. Indeed, Herodotus closes his work with reference to this one and the same year. Naturally, however, there is no reason to endorse
idea. the radical views advanced by Alföldi 1965, 123-175, as regards this
Cf. Dubuisson 1990, 233-243; Ziegler 1952, 1557f. author’s Tendenz.
31 37
Polyb. 1.14.1-2: μὴ δεόντως ἡμῖν ἀπηγγελκέναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν . . . Polyb. 29.27.1-10; Diod. 31.2; Cic. Phil. 8.23; Livy 45.12.3-8; Iust.
δοκοῦσι δέ μοι πεπονθέναι τι παραπλήσιον τοῖς ἐρῶσι. 34.3.1-4; Vell. 1.10.1; Val. Max. 6.4.3; Plin. HN 34.24; Appian., Syr.
Münzer 1999, 94-95. Overall, for this family in the early to mid- 66; Plut. Mor. 202F; Porphyry, FGrHist 260 F 50.
Republic, see idem 1999, 48-93. Huß 2001, 600, 675; van Nuffelen 2009: 93-112, especially 98, 100,
Frier 19992, 236-239; Alföldi 1965, 169-174; Latte and Hanell 1956, and 108. An attempt at remediation, partially successful, was
176ff. undertaken by Siani-Davies 2001, 1-38.

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

Which is not to assert that descriptions of the embassy to an embassy.42 Ethiopian and Indian women were amongst
Alexandria and its aftermath are complete invention. those paraded within the Dionysiac procession of 282, so
Rather, they display a comprehensible accentuation of a as to illustrate the far-reaching nature of the power
characteristic inherent in the narrative of this historical exercised by the Egyptian monarch.43 Although
episode. It is in the re-elaboration of items such as the independent of one another, the latter item helps to
nature of the gifts and the Roman ambassadors’ attitude interpret the former. The Hellenic belief that the god
towards them, both in Alexandria and at Rome, that the Dionysus had once passed triumphantly through
tendency to exalt Rome can be most readily discerned India/Ethiopia provided an ideological reason for the
and counterbalanced. Nevertheless, the recognition of this Ptolemaic monarch to despatch an embassy to that distant
tendency to exalt Rome at the expense of the Ptolemaic region.44 Economic considerations will have strengthened
monarchs gives rise to a fundamental question concerning this resolve, but the original impulse lay elsewhere.
the relationship between historical reality and its Confirmation is to be had from the epigraphic record for
reflection within the sources. Did Ptolemy II embassies sent by Asoka to the foremost of the
Philadelphus initiate the exchange of diplomatic epigonoi.45 Antiochus I, Ptolemy II, Antigonus Gonatas,
courtesies? Or was this, too, re-written to accommodate and Alexander of Epirus received embassies from this
the new self-image being forged by the imperialist Rome ruler of a kingdom situated within the distant Hindu-
of the middle and late Republic? Recognition of the Kush, at the northeastern periphery of the Hellenistic
Roman bias of the surviving sources calls into doubt the world. In the desire to reinforce his position, or so it
very narrative that has been traditionally accepted. would seem, Asoka took the initiative in sending
embassies abroad. Economic considerations were
secondary, and the possibility of political gain was a
III. prerequisite for the decision to undertake such a costly
venture. Whether it was a matter of being able to claim
There remains the perennial problem of why diplomatic close relations with the leading Hellenistic rulers or
relations were initiated that resulted in the first alliance posing as the successor to Dionysus, prestige at the local
between the Romans and the Ptolemaic monarch of level was the primary goal being sought. On that analysis,
Egypt. Naturally, each of the two parties will have had its the putative parallel between Ptolemy II’s diplomacy in
own motivations, which need not have been identical. India and as regards Rome proves illusory.
What mattered is that both contracting parties perceived
the formal relationship of friendship as producing An economic motivation has also been claimed by virtue
benefits. There has been much debate within modern of the Roman introduction of silver coinage imitating that
scholarship as to the nature of these benefits, as well as of Ptolemaic Egypt. Again, however, the assertion does
concerning whether an alliance was actually formed.39 not withstand sustained scrutiny.46 The Ptolemaic coinage
Oddly, however, this debate has been conducted without in question honoured Ptolemy II’s sister-wife Arsinoe II,
any attempt at a Realpolitik assessment of the situation. but cannot have been issued prior to the institution of her
cult in 271/270 and may well be significantly later in
Virtually without exception scholars have accepted the date. Since virtually the same control marks are used
ancient historiographical tradition that it was Ptolemy II upon both this coinage and the didrachms issued by
who initiated the diplomatic exchange resulting in a Rome, the two must be connected in some way.
formal treaty.40 Yet, in view of the likely derivation of However, the time-lag between the formal establishment
this tradition from Fabius Pictor and its manifest bias in of amicitia and the emanation of coins belies the idea that
favour of the Romans, it seems legitimate to inquire there was a direct causal link between the two
whether events unfolded as reported. A chronological phenomena. Nor is there any other evidence to suggest
transposition that makes the Romans the ones to initiate even remotely that economic concerns lay behind the
diplomatic relations is an easy enough rectification of the initial diplomatic relations between Rome and Egypt.
historiographical record. Rooted in Realpolitik, such a Roman relations with Rhodes as of the late fourth century
correction would also provide a convincing solution as to may well have abetted the Romans’ first approach to
why those relations were initiated. Ptolemy II,47 but the sending of a high-level embassy
such as that of the Romans was most extraordinary and
But first a brief review of those solutions proposed to cannot be explained through hypothetical commercial
Plin. HN 6.58; Sol. 52.3.
Proponents of an economic motivation for Ptolemy II 43
Kallixeinos of Rhodes FGrHist 304 F 2 (= Athen. Deipn. 200D-
have remarked the seeming parallel afforded by an 201C) lines 32, 33; Dunand 1981, 18 and 24f.; Huß 2001, 304. Cf.
Theocr. Idyll. 17.87 (cited below); Hunter 2003, 164-165 ad loc.
Egyptian embassy sent to India.41 The astronomer 44
See Rice 1983, 82-99, but especially 83-84 for the complicated
Dionysius is recorded as having been sent to India upon relationship between mythology (perhaps better understood as ancient
history), recent history, and contemporary behaviour as represented by
Dionsysus, Alexander the Great, and Ptolemy II respectively.
39 45
Again, for a review of the literature of this debate, see Lampela 1998, Schneider 1978. For a general appraisal, see Huß 2001, 301, Hölbl
48 n. 112. 1994, 57.
40 46
Sole exception in the twentieth century: Fraser 1967, 3. For what follows, see Gruen 1984, 674-675.
41 47
Huß 2001, 301. Thus Hauben 1983, 104-105 n. 21.

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

contacts for which there exists no literary nor material was not sustainable over the long-term,54 they hoped that
evidence. Ptolemy II might be able to exercise moral suasion over
his erstwhile brother-in-law and convince Pyrrhus to
Hence, the desperate search for allies. It has been confine his activities to the eastern side of the Adriatic.
confidently asserted that Ptolemy II was interested in the Since Arsinoe (and Ptolemy) seem to have financed
possibility of having the Romans as allies for an eventual Pyrrhus’ armed return to the Balkans, such a diplomatic
armed conflict with Pyrrhus within the Aegean.48 That line would have been particularly appropriate. Without
qualifies as Machiavellian, but can hardly suffice. Had approval from Alexandria, Pyrrhus might find himself in
such reasoning informed the decision of Ptolemy II, then a quandary should he wish to repeat the Italian adventure
Roman assistance should have been invoked in the first yet a third time. As is the way with history, the alliance
Syrian war (ca. 274-270 BCE) and the Chremonidean was not put to the test, for events overtook Pyrrhus while
war (ca. 267-261 BCE), not to mention the second (ca. engaged in a campaign in the Peloponnese. Indeed, the
260-255 BCE), third (ca. 246-237 BCE), and fourth (ca. silence that subsequently envelops this alliance furnishes
221-217 BCE) Syrian wars.49 Arsinoe would in fact seem confirmation that its purpose had ceased to exist with the
to have subsidized the army with which her former opportune death of Pyrrhus.
brother-in-law Pyrrhus invaded Macedonia in 273.50 For
her brother-spouse to have entered into an alliance with Corroboration may also come, it should be noted, from
the Romans in that same year for the sake of concerted the fact that an alliance also existed between the
military action against Pyrrhus is unthinkable. Proof is to Carthaginians and Ptolemy II.55 That alliance is perhaps
hand in the fact that the Romans did not send soldiers to best explained as a reaction to the Sicilian adventure of
take part in the conflict that followed Pyrrhus’ Pyrrhus. From a Realpolitik perspective, both the Romans
intervention in Macedonia. Ptolemy II would not appear and Carthaginians had far greater need of Ptolemy II than
to have been unduly concerned by the defeat of he did of them. It was his friendship with Pyrrhus that
Antigonus Gonatas and the prospect of hegemony rendered him an important factor in western
exercised over Macedonia and mainland Greece by Mediterranean politics.
Pyrrhus.51 None could have foretold the Epirote king’s
imminent, inglorious end.52 Nonetheless, the court of ***
Alexandria gave no signs of consternation at the course
events were taking in the Balkans. Writing in praise of Ptolemy II Philadelphus towards 275
BCE,56 Theocritus evoked the monarch’s immense power
On the other hand, the very fact that the future cannot be through a listing of the geographical regions directly
known must be kept in mind. The Romans could not under his sway. The rhetorical device of a list in order
know that the Epirote king would soon be an inoffensive impress the audience is extremely ancient, but no less
corpse. Instead, the successes that Pyrrhus was enjoying effective nor true to life for that reason.57 The lines in
in Macedonia and mainland Greece gave promise of question run thus (Theocr. Idyll. 17.82-92):
renewed warfare within Italy.53 It was reasonable to
speculate that Pyrrhus would attack Rome again once he τρεῖς μέν οἱ πολίων ἑκατοντάδες ἐνδέδμηνται,
had secured his hold upon Macedonia. With augmented τρεῖς δ᾿ ἄρα χιλιάδες τρισσαῖς ἐπὶ μυριάδεσσι,
resources, he might well expect success where it had δοιαὶ δὲ τριάδες, μετὰ δέ σφισιν ἐννεάδες τρεῖς
previously proved elusive. Such must have been the τῶν πάντων Πτολεμαῖος ἀγήνωρ ἐμβασιλεύει.
reflections of more than one senator in the period leading καὶ μὴν Φοινίκας ἀποτέμνεται Ἀρραβίας τε
up to the alliance with Ptolemy II. καὶ Συρίας Λιβύας τε κελαινῶν τ᾿ Αἰθιοπήων,
Παμφύλοισί τε πᾶσι καὶ αἰχμηταῖς Κιλίκεσσι
From such a vantage-point, the attractiveness to the σαμαίνει Λυκίοις τε φιλοπτολέμοισί τε Καρσί
Romans of alliance with the Egyptian monarch emerges καὶ νάσοις Κυκλάδεσσιν, ἐπεί οἱ νᾶες ἀριστοί
with startling clarity. Diplomatic relations serve as much πόντον ἐπιπλώοντι, θάλασσα δὲ πᾶσα καὶ αἶα
to prevent disasters from occurring as to propel nations καὶ ποταμοὶ κελάδοντες ἀνάσσονται Πτολεμαίῳ.
into active warfare. The good relations that Ptolemy II
enjoyed with Pyrrhus were precisely why the Romans «There are 300 cities built [in Egypt]
approached the Egyptian monarch in the wake of their and then 3000 in addition to three times 10,000,
victory over the Epirote ruler. Aware that their position and yet another two triads and lastly another
three enneads:

For a detailed examination of this question as regards subsequent
Lampela 1998, 48-49. For the little evidence that exists for Romans generations, see Brunt 1971. The theme of πολυανδρία was of no little
serving in the Ptolemaic army in the third century BCE, see Vollmer interest to the ancients, precisely because of its intimate relationship to
1990, 23-27; cf. Peremans and Van’t Dack 1972, 666. the question of military power.
49 55
Cf. Gruen 1984, 676. Appian. Sic. 1; Huß 1979, 128-129; Ager 1996, 109-110.
50 56
Tarn 1913, 445. Hunter 2003, 3-7; DNP 12/1 (2002) 360-364 s.v. “Theokritos” (R.
Cf. Gabbert 1997, 36. Hunter), here 360.
52 57
Cf. Lévêque 1957, 606-626. Cf. Kirk 1985, 168-263, for discussion of the Achaean and Trojan
Cf. Iust. 25.4.2f. catalogues to be found in Iliad. 2.

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

over all of these rules courageous Ptolemy. Bibliography

Moreover, he rules over part of Phoenicia and
Arabia, Adams G.W. 2008. The Unbalanced Relationship
Syria and Libya, and the dark-skinned between Ptolemy II and Pyrrhus of Epirus. In P.
Ethiopians; McKechnie, P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus
to all the Pamphylians and Cilician spearmen and his World, 91-102. Leiden, Brill.
he gives orders, as well as to the Lycians and
war-loving Carians Ager S.L. 2003. An Uneasy Balance: from the death of
and Cycladic isles, since their best ships sail the Seleukos to the Battle of Raphia. In A. Erskine (ed.), A
sea Companion to the Hellenistic World, 35-50. Oxford,
on his behalf, and the whole sea and earth Blackwell.
and gurgling rivers obey Ptolemy».
Ager S.L. 1996. Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek
The third century was the golden age of the Ptolemaic World, 337-90 B.C. Berkeley, University of California.
dynasty, and this geographical evocation of power nicely
represents that mental image that would have been Albrecht M. von 1992. Geschichte der römischen
present to those dealing in Realpolitik at the time.58 That Literatur, 2 vols. München, K.G. Saur.
a monarch such as Ptolemy II should have taken the
initiative in opening diplomatic relations with the Alföldi A. 1965. Early Rome and the Latins. Ann Arbor,
Romans is highly implausible, even though they had University of Michigan.
proved resilient in the face of Pyrrhus’ repeated
campaigns in Magna Graecia. Bal M. 1985. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of
Narrative [tr. C. van Boheemen]. Toronto, University of
Recognition that the historiographical tradition for the Toronto.
initial diplomatic relations between the Romans and the
Egyptian monarch derives ultimately from the history of Barnes T.D. 1984. The Composition of Cassius Dio’s
Fabius Pictor, whose grandfather had participated in the Roman History. Phoenix 38, 240-255.
embassy to Alexandria, is essential to recovery of the
truth. Chauvinism lies at the root of a tradition that Beck H., Walter U. (Hrsg.) 2001. Die frühen römischen
reverses the roles that then obtained. The monarch is Historiker 2 vols. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche
depicted as taking the initiative, whereas in fact the Buchgesellschaft.
Romans were in a weaker position and without anything
of great value ardently desired by the Ptolemaic rulers of Beloch J. 1904. Griechische Geschichte 3: Die
Egypt. Once it is seen that the initiative lay with the griechische Welterherrschaft. Strassburg, K.J. Trübner.
Romans, then another significance is assumed by the date
of 273 BCE. Bird H.W. 1983. The Breviarium ab urbe condita of
Eutropius the Right Honourable Secretary of State for
Fearing lest Pyrrhus should return to the attack in Italy General Petitions dedicated to Lord Valens Gothicus
reinforced by his successes in Macedonia, the Romans Maximus & Perpetual Emperor, translation with an
approached Ptolemy II in the hope that the king might introduction and commentary (Translated texts for
prevent such a scenario from taking place. Through his historians 14). Liverpool, Liverpool University.
good relations with Pyrrhus and overall power, Ptolemy
II was in a position to provide the Romans with such Bloomer W.M. 1992. Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric
protection. It would appear that he had already done so of the New Nobility. Chapel Hill, University of North
for the Carthaginians, who had become his allies in Carolina.
similar circumstances just a couple years before. As
fortune would have it, however, Pyrrhus died during a Brunt P.A. 1971. Italian manpower 225 B.C.-A.D. 14.
campaign in the Peloponnese in the following year, and Oxford, Clarendon.
the protection that Ptolemy might offer the Romans was
never put to the test. The same chauvinism that colours Brunt P.A. 1980. On historical fragments and epitomes.
the Roman historiographical tradition regarding Pyrrhus Classical Quarterly 30, 477-494.
also affected the construction of the narrative relating to
the initial contacts between Rome and Ptolemaic Egypt. Bung P. 1950. Q. Fabius Pictor, der erste römische
Through a simple chronological transposition the Annalist. Untersuchungen über Aufbau, Stil und Inhalt
respective roles were reversed, thereby anticipating the seines Geschichtswerkes anhand von Polybius I-II. [Diss.
reversal of roles that was to inform the relationship from phil. Köln 1950].
the infamous “day of Eleusis” onwards.
Burgess R.W. 2001. Eutropius V.C. Magister Memoriae?
Cf. Callim. Hymn. 4.165-170, with its conceit of sovereignty over the Classical Philology 96, 76-81.
whole of what lies between the rising and the setting of the sun (μέχρις
ὅπου περάτη τε καὶ ὁππόθεν ὠκέες ἵπποι Ἠέλιον φορέουσιν).

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

Conte G.B. 19923. Letteratura latina: Manuale storico Hof A. 2002. Die römische Außenpolitik vom Ausbruch
dalle origini alla fine dell’impero romano. Bologna, Le des Krieges gegen Tarent bis zum Frieden mit Syrakus
Monnier. (281-263 v. Chr.) (Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft,
Bd. 14). Hildesheim, Olms-Weidmann
Crawford J.W. 19942. M. Tullius Cicero, The fragmentary
speeches: an edition with commentary. Atlanta, Scholars Hölbl G. 1994. Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches.
Press. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Delz J. 1997. Textkritik und Editionstechnik. In F. Graf Holleaux M. 1921. Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies
(Hrsg.), Einleitung in die lateinische Philologie, 51-73. hellénistiques au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. (Bibliothèque des
Stuttgart und Leipzig, Teubner. écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, fasc. 124). Paris,
E de Boccard.
De Sanctis G. 1907/1923. Storia dei Romani. Firenze, La
Nuova Italia. Hornblower J. 1981. Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford
classical and philosophical monographs). Oxford, Oxford
Dubuisson M. 1990. La vision polybienne de Rome. In H. University.
Verdin, G. Schepens, E. De Keyser (eds.), Purposes of
History: Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to Humm M. 2006. Rome face à la menace d’Alexandre le
the 2nd Centuries B.C. Proceedings of the International Grand. In E. Caire, S. Pittia (éd.), Guerre et diplomatie
Colloquium, Leuven, 24-26 May 1988 (Studia romaines (IVe-IIIe siècles). Pour un réexamen des
Hellenistica 30), 233-243. Leuven, Peeters. sources, 175-196. Aix-en-Provence, Publications de
l’Université de Provence.
Dunand F. 1981. Fête et propagande à Alexandrie sous
les Lagides. In F. Dunand (éd.), La fête, pratique et Hunter R. 2003. Theocritus, Encomium of Ptolemy. Text
discours, 11-40. Paris, Belles Lettres. and translation, with introduction and commentary.
Berkeley, University of California.
Forsythe G. 2005. A Critical History of Early Rome:
From Prehistory to the First Punic War. Berkeley, Huß W. 1979. Die Beziehungen zwischen Karthago und
University of California Press. Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit. Ancient Society 10, 119-
Fraser P.M. 1967. The Alexandrian view of Rome.
Bulletin de la société archéologique, Alexandrie 42, 1-16. Huß W. 2001. Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit: 332-30
v.Chr. München, C.H. Beck.
Frier B.W. 19992. Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum.
The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition. Ann Arbor, Kirk G.S. (ed.) 1985. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume
University of Michigan. I: books 1-4. Cambridge, Cambridge University.

Gabbert J.J. 1997. Antigonus II Gonatas, a political Lampela A. 1998. Rome and the Ptolemies of Egypt: The
biography. London, Routledge. Development of their Political Relations, 273-80 B.C.
(Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 111). Helsinki,
Gensel P. 1907. Eutropius no.10. In A. Pauly, G. Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
Wissowa, W. Kroll (Hrsgg.), Real-Encyclopädie der
classischen Altertumswissenschaft, VIA, coll. 1521-1527. Latte K., Hanell K. (éds.) 1956. Histoire et historiens
Stuttgart, J.B. Metzler,. dans l’antiquité (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 4).
Vandoeuvres-Genève, Fondation Hardt pour l’étude de
Gruen E.S. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming l’Antiquité classique.
of Rome. 2 vols. Berkeley, University of California.
Lefkowitz M.R. 1959. Pyrrhus’ Negotiations with the
Gruen E.S. 1992. Culture and National Identity in Romans, 280-278 B.C. Harvard Studies in Classical
Republican Rome. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University. Philology 64, 147-177.

Hauben H. 1983. Arsinoé II et la politique extérieure de Lévêque P. 1957. Pyrrhos (Bibliothéque des écoles
l’Egypte. In E. Van’t Dack, P. van Dessel, W. van Gucht françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 185). Paris, De Boccard.
(eds.), Egypt and the Hellenistic World (Studia
Hellenistica 27), 99-117. Leuven, Peeters. Marquaille C. 2008. The Foreign Policy of Ptolemy II. In
P. McKechnie, P. Guillaume, (eds.), Ptolemy II
Heuss A. 1933. Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der Philadelphus and his World, 39-64. Leiden, Brill.
römischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit (Klio
Beiheft 31). Leipzig, Dieterich’sche

Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti

Meister K. 1990. Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung: Ziegler K. 1952. “Polybius no. 1,”. In A. Pauly, G.
Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus. Wissowa, W. Kroll (Hrsg.), Real-Encyclopädie der
Stuttgart, Kohlhammer. classischen Altertumswissenschaft 21B, 1440-1578.
Stuttgart, J.B. Metzler.
Millar F.G.B. 1964. A study of Cassius Dio. Oxford,

Münzer F. 1999. Roman Aristocratic parties and families.

[tr. T. Ridley]. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University.

Niese B. 1893-1903. Geschichte der griechischen und

makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea,
3 vols. Gotha, F.A. Perthes.

Niese B. 1896. Zur Geschichte des Pyrrhischen Krieges.

Hermes 3, 481-507.

van Nuffelen P. 2009. The Name Game: Hellenistic

Historians and Royal Epithets. In P. van Nuffelen (ed.),
Faces of Hellenism: Studies in the History of the Eastern
Mediterranean (4th century B.C. - 5th century A.D.).
(Studia Hellenistica 48), 93-112. Leuven, Peeters.

Oakley S.P. 1998. A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X. 3

vols. Oxford, Clarendon.

Rice E.E. 1983. The grand procession of Ptolemy

Philadelphus (Oxford classical and philosophical
monographs). Oxford, Oxford University.

Schneider U. 1978. Die großenFelsen-Edikte

Asokas: kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Analyse der
Texte. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.

Schultheß O. 1935. Συνθήκη. In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa,

W. Kroll (Hrsgg.), Real-Encyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, Suppl. 6, coll. 1158-1168.
Stuttgart, J.B. Metzler.

Schwartz E. 1899. Cassius Dio no. 40. In A. Pauly, G.

Wissowa, W. Kroll (Hrsgg.), Real-Encyclopädie der
classischen Altertumswissenschaft, IIIB, coll. 1684-1722.
Stuttgart, J.B. Metzler.

Siani-Davies M. 2001. Cicero, Pro Rabirio Postumo.

Translation with an introduction and commentary.
Clarendon Ancient History Series. Oxford, Clarendon.

Skidmore C.J. 1996. Practical Ethics for Roman

Gentlemen: the Work of Valerius Maximus. Exeter,
University of Exeter.

Syme R. 1988. The Date of Justin and the Discovery of

Trogus. Historia 37, 358-371.

Tarn W.W. 1913. Antigonos Gonatas. Oxford, Clarendon.

Wardle B. 1998. Valerius Maximus, Book I. Clarendon

Ancient History Series. Oxford, Clarendon.