Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Queens and Their Children: Dynastic Dis/Loyalty in the Hellenistic Period

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Royal Women and Dynastic Loyalty

Part of the book series: Queenship and Power ((QAP))

  • 676 Accesses

Abstract

In a well-argued book, Polygamy, Prostitutes, and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties, Daniel Ogden attributes the instability of the Hellenistic dynasties to “amphimetric strife,” the divisive competition, murder, and ultimately war which resulted from the children of a monarch, born from different mothers, vying for the throne. In this essay, I demonstrate that there was also metric strife, that is to say conflict, murder, and war between mothers and sons. Metric strife can be attributed, in part, to the fact that Ptolemaic and Seleucid royal women obtained unprecedented power as regents, co-rulers, and even as sole rulers in several instances. Thus, Hellenistic queens played an increasingly central role in dynastic tensions, which led to internecine murder and even war.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Abbreviations of ancient authors, works, and collections of documents are those used by the Oxford Classical Dictionary; abbreviations of journals are those found in L’Année Philologique, available at http://www.annee-philologique.com/files/sigles_fr.pdf. Daniel Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties (London: Duckworth with Classical Press of Wales, 1999), passim.

  2. 2.

    Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, x.

  3. 3.

    Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, xiv.

  4. 4.

    Daniel Ogden, “The Royal Families of Argead Macedon and the Hellenistic World,” in A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds, ed. Beryl Rawson (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 92–107.

  5. 5.

    I first began to develop this idea in Postcolonial Amazons: Female Masculinity and Courage in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 222. This essay represents a significant expansion of my brief thoughts on “metric strife” presented therein.

  6. 6.

    I will discuss the possible, albeit brief, sole rule of Cleopatra Thea in the Seleucid kingdom below. Cleopatra I, II, and VII, as well as Berenike III and IV, stand out as examples of women who managed to rule Egypt, or part of it, alone. In many of these cases the women nominally had co-rulers (usually sons or younger brothers), so we must understand their sole power as situational rather than absolute. On these Ptolemaic queens and their power, see Grace Harriet Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens: A Study of Woman-Power in Macedonia, Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1932), 145–70, 172–5, 180–223, 230–2; Sarah B. Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt: From Alexander to Cleopatra (Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 1990), 23–8; R.A. Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), ix–x, 122–58.

  7. 7.

    On this trend in Macedon proper, see Elizabeth Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000), 228–32; on the decrease of polygamy and the increase of endogamy among the third-century Hellenistic dynasties, see Elizabeth Carney, Arsinoë of Egypt and Macedon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 4–5.

  8. 8.

    Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, ix.

  9. 9.

    E. Carney “Foreign Influence and the Changing Role of Royal Macedonian Women,” Ancient Macedonia 5 (1993): 320–1.

  10. 10.

    W.S. Greenwalt, “Polygamy and Succession in Argead Macedonia,” Arethusa 22.1 (1989): 32–3; Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, xvi.

  11. 11.

    Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, ix; see also Daniel Ogden, Alexander the Great: Myth, Genesis, Sexuality (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2011), 112–13.

  12. 12.

    Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, xi.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    Carney, Arsinoë of Egypt and Macedon, esp. 4–5, 18.

  15. 15.

    Carney further notes that succession disputes still occurred with the naming of co-kings, but “now happened during the lifetime of the royal father, rather than after his death.” Ibid., 4.

  16. 16.

    Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy, esp. 156.

  17. 17.

    Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 6, 111–223, 230–2; Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy, 102–59. See also Gunther Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, trans. Tina Saavedra (London: Routledge, 2001), 206.

  18. 18.

    Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt, 18–23. Carney (Arsinoë, 115) notes that Arsinoë’s designation as the “King of Upper and Lower Egypt,” a title ordinarily only held by male pharaohs, “even if posthumous” still identifies her as a ruler.

  19. 19.

    Hazzard (Imagination of a Monarchy, 101) argues that Argead and Seleucid royal women “had shown skill and courage” on several occasions, but “unlike Ptolemaic queens, never managed to solidify their positions of power or pass them down to other women, because such a political feat required the approval of other members of the court.” Macurdy (Hellenistic Queens, 7) notes that among the Seleucids, “[o]nly in exceptional circumstances did a queen have the power of a king…”

  20. 20.

    Although the Antigonids were indeed free from dynastic disputes “for several generations” as Plutarch here notes, Ogden astutely observes that “[t]he coherence of the dynasty was undermined only when the meddling of Rome inflicted upon it a traditional amphimetric legitimacy dispute between Perseus and Demetrius,” which had “devastating effects.” See Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes, and Death, xii; 171–98.

  21. 21.

    Several other examples come to mind that I do not have room to discuss here. The first is the matricide of Thessalonice , the last surviving known child of Philip II, by her son Anti pater. See Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 52–5; Elizabeth Carney, “The Sisters of Alexander the Great: Royal Relicts ,” Historia 37:4 (1988): 385–92; Women and Monarchy in Macedonia, 153–9; Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, 53–7. The second is the so-called “fratricidal war” in which Antiochus Hierax, aided by his mother Laodice, fought against his full-brother Seleucus II for the Seleucid throne (Plut. Mor. 489a). See further Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, 131–2.

  22. 22.

    On Berenice’s life and activities, see Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 130–6; Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt, 20, 23; Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy, 110–15; Dee Clayman, Berenice II and the Golden Age of Ptolemaic Egypt (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014); Branko van Oppen de Ruiter, Berenice II: Essays on Ptolemaic Queenship (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015); Penrose, Postcolonial Amazons, 210–15.

  23. 23.

    Justin’s assertion that Berenice II’s father was Magas is confirmed by Polybius (15.25.2), as well as an inscription on the Exedra of Thermos (IG IX, I2 56c). See Chris Bennett, “The Children of Ptolemy III and the date of the Exedra of Thermos,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 138 (2002), 141–5; Clayman, Berenice II, esp. 1–5, 30, 139; Oppen de Ruiter, Berenice II, esp. 1–2, 32.

  24. 24.

    Clayman notes that Justin probably drew upon Phylarchus of Athens as a source for the story of Berenice’s ordering the execution of Demetrius. Although Polybius (2.56, 63) accuses Phylarchus of exaggeration and carelessness in his history, Callimachus’s Lock of Berenice confirms that Berenice ordered the deed. Berenice II, 5.

  25. 25.

    See Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt, 20; Clayman, Berenice II, 33, 126, 141; Oppen de Ruiter, Berenice II, 34; Penrose, Postcolonial Amazons, 210–15.

  26. 26.

    Despite the fact that she was definitely the child of Magas , Berenice is identified as the daughter of Ptolemy II and Arsinoë II on official inscriptions, such as the Canopus decree (OGIS 56), and she is also called Ptolemy III’s sister. This fictive kinship may have resulted from an adoption. It was used to shore up Berenice’s authority while Ptolemy III was fighting in Syria, or was simply propaganda that furthered the Ptolemaic claim to Berenice II’s dowry, the Cyrenaica. See further Chris Bennett, “Arsinoe and Berenice at the Olympics,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 154 (2005), 92; P.J. Parsons, “Callimachus. Victoria Berenices,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 25 (1977), 7–8; Clayman Berenice II, 114–15, 127–8; Oppen de Ruiter, Berenice II, 35–40. Berenice’s marriage may have occurred before Ptolemy II’s death, as Hyginus’s account suggests, or, as it was written later, she may have ridden to battle with Ptolemy II while engaged to his son. See further Penrose, Postcolonial Amazons, 212; also Clayman, Berenice, 42; Oppen de Ruiter, Berenice II, 23–40.

  27. 27.

    P.W. Pestman, Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques, Pap. Lugd. Bat. XXIIA (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967), 28; Jan Quaegebeur, “Ptolémée II en adoration devant Arsinoé II divinisée,” BIFAO 69 (1970): 204–6; Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt, 19, 23; Branko F. van Oppen de Ruiter, “The Religious Identification of Ptolemaic Queens with Aphrodite, Demeter, Hathor, and Isis,” (Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York, 2007), 248, 463.

  28. 28.

    As suggested in my analysis of historiography on Ptolemaic queens above, the amount of power that both Arsinoë II and Berenice II had in Egypt has been a matter of controversy. See further Gabriella Longega, Arsinoe II (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1968), esp. 15, 83–95; Stanley Burstein, “Arsinoe II Philadelphos: A Revisionist View,” in Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian Heritage, ed. W. Lindsay Adams and Eugene N. Borza (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982), 197–212; Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt, 16–23; Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy, 81–100, 110–15, 154–9; Carney, Arsinoë, esp. 9, 89–95, 111–19. On Arsinoë’s rule over cities and landholdings, which she probably brought into the Egyptian fold upon marrying Ptolemy II, see Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 117–18; Carney, Arsinoë, 36–7. Like Arsinoë II, Berenice II brought a considerable dowry, the Cyrenaica, to her marriage with Ptolemy III. See further Clayman, “Berenice and her Lock,” TAPA 141:2 (2011): 232; Berenice II, esp. 39–41; Oppen de Ruiter, Berenice II, esp. 38–9.

  29. 29.

    On the role of royal women in pre-Ptolemaic Egypt and its relationship to Ptolemaic woman-power, see Elaine Fantham, Helene Peet Foley, Natalie Boymel Kampen, H.A. Shapiro, and Sarah B. Pomeroy, Women in the Classical World: Image and Text (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 138; Sally Ann Ashton, The Last Queens of Egypt (Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2003), esp. 6–13, 51, 141; Carney, Arsinoë, 7–9, 115; Penrose Postcolonial Amazons, 185, 186, 203–7.

  30. 30.

    Ptolemy II had put aside his first wife, Arisinoë I, daughter of Lysimachus, prior to marrying his full sister Arsinoë II. Arsinoë II had furthermore insisted in marriage negotiations with Ptolemy Ceraunus and probably with Ptolemy II that they marry no other women besides herself (Justin 24.2.9). See further Carney, Arsinoë, 68–70.

  31. 31.

    Clayman does note, however, that he had a “power base of his own” and had a led an unsuccessful Ptolemaic invasion of Asia Minor in 223 (P. Haun. 6.1.19, 6.1.28–31). Clayman, Berenice II, 172.

  32. 32.

    Carney argues that “[f]ear tended to be the driving force in succession struggles.” Arsinoë, 23. In this case, fear was the driving force in eliminating potential rivals before such a struggle could occur.

  33. 33.

    Heichelheim suggests that Berenice II was named co-ruler with her son after Ptolemy III’s death. F.M. Heichelheim, s.v. Berenice (3), OCD 2, 165. Similarly, Cary asserts that Berenice II held power over Ptolemy IV after his succession to the throne. M. Cary, A History of the Greek World 323–146 B.C., 2nd edn (London: Methuen, 1951), 90.

  34. 34.

    Justin 36.2; Hyginus Poet. Astr. 2.24; Plut. Cleom. 33 (all of which are discussed immediately above). A fourth possible extant source on this count is found in a fragment of Callimachus (fr. 388, ed. Pfeiffer), which mentions Berenice and appears to suggest that she is holding a weapon. See further Clayman, Berenice II, 33; Susan Stephens, “Battle of the Books,” in The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book, ed. Kathryn Gutzwiller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 241–2. Stephens questions the veracity of Berenice’s martial prowess. If women today can make the rank of Ranger, why could a Hellenistic queen not have led troops?

  35. 35.

    Carney notes that the motives of royal women are generally viewed by ancient historians as private, whereas the motives of royal men are attributed to public, political causes. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia, 12.

  36. 36.

    On Ptolemaic rule in Coele-Syria from 301 to ca. 198, see further Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy, 105 n. 16, 123.

  37. 37.

    Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 98, fig. 5a.

  38. 38.

    E.T. Newell, Late Seleucid Mints in Ake-Ptolemais and Damascus (New York: American Numismatic Society, 1939), 10–13 no. 7, 14 no. 9.

  39. 39.

    U. Kahrstedt, “Frauen auf antiken Münzen,” Clio 10 (1910): 279–80; Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 98–9; Whitehorne, Cleopatras, 160–1; Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, 151, Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy, 101. This assertion is based solely upon numismatic evidence. Berenice II is thought to have minted coins showing solely herself while her father was still alive, and continued to mint coins in her own name after becoming the queen of Egypt, yet she was married to Ptolemy III who was clearly king. See Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, 47 fig. 2.2; Clayman, Berenice II, fig. 1; Oppen de Ruiter, Berenice II, 39, 41–9.

  40. 40.

    Cf. Whitehorne, Cleopatras, 162–3; Bennett, “Ptolemaic Dynasty,” s.v. Cleopatra Thea, available at http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/thea_fr.htm (accessed August 18, 2016).

  41. 41.

    Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, 151.

  42. 42.

    Ogden, Alexander the Great, 112–13, emphasis mine. It should be noted that, in the case of Cleopatra Thea, we are dealing with what may be polyandry, not polygyny, and this is a major contributing factor.

  43. 43.

    Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, 147–52.

  44. 44.

    Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, xi; see also 147–52.

  45. 45.

    As in the Argead dynasty, “internal and external bonds of philia (friendship or alliance)” were “critical to reaching the throne and then keeping it” among Hellenistic dynasts. Carney, Arsinoë, 23. The support of the Alexandrian aristocracy, in accordance with Carney’s observation, was critical to Ptolemy IX’s accession, despite Cleopatra III’s alleged preference for Ptolemy X. Ager asserts that, in giving Cleopatra III the choice of sons with whom to co-rule, Ptolemy VIII created a situation in which both sons “considered that they had a legitimate claim” to rule, which Cleopatra III in turn exacerbated by favoring the younger Ptolemy X. Sheila Ager, “The Power of Excess: Royal Incest and the Ptolemaic Dynasty,” Anthropologica 48 (2006): 165–86.

  46. 46.

    See Whitehorne, Cleopatras, 134–5.

  47. 47.

    See further E. Van’t Dack, W. Clarysse, G. Cohen, J. Quaegebeur, J.K. Winnicki, The Judean–Syrian–Egyptian Conflict of 103–101 BCE: A Multilingual Dossier Concerning a “War of Sceptres” (Brussels: Koninklije Academie, 1989); Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, 208–10; Cédric Pillonel, “Les reines hellénistiques sur les champs de bataille,” in Egypte–Grèce–Rome: les différents visages des femmes antiques, ed. Florence Bertholet, Anne Bielman Sánchez, and Regula Frei-Stolba (Bern: Peter Lang, 2008), 122–3, 129, 137–8.

  48. 48.

    Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death, 84, argues that “the privileging of princesses as specially authorised bearers of the next generation had other effects too: it delivered a great deal of power into the hands of princesses, and it completely undermined the hitherto reliable bonds of loyalty and cooperation between full siblings.”

  49. 49.

    Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 5; Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt, 17–28; Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy, 156–7; Penrose, Postcolonial Amazons, esp. 216–19.

  50. 50.

    Gayle Rubin, “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex,” in Toward an Anthropology of Women, ed. Rayna R. Reiter (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), 157–210.

  51. 51.

    Ptolemy III invaded Syria when his sister, Berenice Phernophorus, was abandoned by Antiochus II in favor of Antiochus’s first wife, Laodice. Unfortunately, he arrived too late, but set a precedent that later Seleucid kings must have taken into consideration.

Bibliography

  • Ager, Sheila. “The Power of Excess: Royal Incest and the Ptolemaic Dynasty.” Anthropologica 48 (2006): 165–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, Sally Ann. The Last Queens of Egypt. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Chris. “Ptolemaic Dynasty,” s.v. Cleopatra Thea. Available at http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/thea_fr.htm. Accessed August 18, 2016.

  • ———. “The Children of Ptolemy III and the Date of the Exedra of Thermos.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 138 (2002): 141–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “Arsinoe and Berenice at the Olympics.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 154 (2005): 91–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, Stanley. “Arsinoe II Philadelphos: A Revisionist View.” In Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian Heritage. Edited by W. Lindsay Adams and Eugene N. Borza, 197–212. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, Elizabeth. “The Sisters of Alexander the Great: Royal Relicts.” Historia 37:4 (1988): 385–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “Foreign Influence and the Changing Role of Royal Macedonian Women.” Ancient Macedonia 5 (1993): 313–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Arsinoë of Egypt and Macedon. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cary, M. A History of the Greek World 323–146 B.C. 2nd ed. London: Methuen, 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayman, Dee. “Berenice and Her Lock.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 141:2 (2011): 229–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Berenice II and the Golden Age of Ptolemaic Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fantham, Elaine, Helene Peet Foley, Natalie Boymel Kampen, H.A. Shapiro, and Sarah B. Pomeroy. Women in the Classical World: Image and Text. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwalt, W.S. “Polygamy and Succession in Argead Macedonia,” Arethusa 22:1 (1989): 19–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazzard, R.A. Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hölbl, Gunther. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. Translated by Tina Saavedra. London: Routledge, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahrstedt, U. “Frauen auf antiken Münzen.” Klio 10 (1910): 261–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longega, Gabriella. Arsinoe II. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macurdy, Grace Harriet. Hellenistic Queens: A Study of Woman-Power in Macedonia, Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, E.T. Late Seleucid Mints in Ake-Ptolemais and Damascus. New York: American Numismatic Society, 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, Daniel. Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties. London: Duckworth with Classical Press of Wales, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “The Royal Families of Argead Macedon and the Hellenistic World.” In A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Edited by Beryl Rawson, 92–107. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Alexander the Great: Myth, Genesis, Sexuality. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppen de Ruiter, Branko van. “The Religious Identification of Ptolemaic Queens with Aphrodite, Demeter, Hathor, and Isis.” Ph.D. dissertation. City University of New York, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Berenice II: Essays on Ptolemaic Queenship. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, P.J. “Callimachus. Victoria Berenices.” Papyrologie und Epigraphik 25 (1977): 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose Jr., Walter. Postcolonial Amazons: Female Masculinity and Courage in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestman, P.W. Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques, Pap. Lugd. Bat. XXIIA. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillonel, Cédric. “Les reines hellénistiques sur les champs de bataille.” In Egypte–Grèce–Rome: les différents visages des femmes antiques. Edited by Florence Bertholet, Anne Bielman Sánchez, and Regula Frei-Stolba, 117–145. Bern: Peter Lang, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomeroy, Sarah B. Women in Hellenistic Egypt: From Alexander to Cleopatra. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaegebeur, Jan. “Ptolémée II en adoration devant Arsinoé II divinisée.” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’Archéologie Orientale 69 (1970): 191–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Gayle. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex.” In Toward an Anthropology of Women. Edited by Rayna R. Reiter, 157–210. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, Susan. “Battle of the Books.” In The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book. Edited by Kathryn Gutzwiller, 229–248. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van’t Dack, E., W. Clarysse, G. Cohen, J. Quaegebeur, and J.K. Winnicki. The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103–101 BCE: A Multilingual Dossier Concerning a “War of Sceptres.” Brussels: Koninklije Academie, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehorne, John. Cleopatras. London: Taylor & Francis/Routledge, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA

    Walter Duvall Penrose Jr

Authors
  1. Walter Duvall Penrose Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

    Caroline Dunn

  2. Department of History, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

    Elizabeth Carney

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Penrose, W.D. (2018). Queens and Their Children: Dynastic Dis/Loyalty in the Hellenistic Period. In: Dunn, C., Carney, E. (eds) Royal Women and Dynastic Loyalty. Queenship and Power. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75877-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75877-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75876-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75877-0

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation