1. As M. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, throughout his detailed treatment of Philadelphus' reign, and especially 1:271–74, 407–11, 415. A recent summary of the structure of Ptolemaic administration within Egypt may be found in R. S. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt (Leiden, 1976), 3–10.

2. CAH^[2] VII.1, 134–59.

3. The bulk of the literature is enormous, and begins with general studies of Macedonian kingship and the monarchy after Alexander. In my view, the overview of monarchy in the eastern Mediterranean elaborated by Claire Préaux in Le Monde hellénistique (Paris, 1978) 181–294, is still by far the fullest and most useful review of the evidence. In English, see F. W. Walbank's discussion in CAH^[2] VII.1, 64–100, the bibliographies there, and Leon Mooren, “The Nature of the Hellenistic Monarchy,” in Egypt and the Hellenistic World, eds. E. Van't Dack, P. Van Dessel, and W. Van Gucht (Louvain, 1983), 205–40, which returns to earlier views of the Macedonian monarchy as the basis for later structures. L. Koenen has recently reviewed the evidence for Egyptian influence over monarchical ideology, in “Ägyptische Königsideologie am Ptolemäerhof,” in Egypt and the Hellenistic World, 143–90, in such matters as accepting the notion of “love” as a “pillar” of ideology, and arguing that Egyptian nomenclature lies behind royal names; but it is noteworthy that any such Egyptian conceptualization is always translated and rendered in Greek, and Koenen admits that the attraction of Egyptian royal ideology in the choice of cult names could only be conceived as occuring “in einer sublimeren Weise” (169).

4. It may have been compiled for the use of the strategus, as R. S. Bagnall suggests, “Some Notes on P. Hib. 198,” BASP 6 (1969): 73–118, a discussion which makes clear the nature of the text as a compendium.

5. Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées, Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, Mémoires 57, pt. 1 (Brussels, 1964).

6. E. g., P. Col. Zen. 9 and 11, the latter a letter of three Kaunians asking Zenon to use his influence with Apollonius; possibly P. Lond. Zen. 2039, a petition to the king, was meant to be handled by Zenon, as the editor argues. See on this the comments of Edgar in the introduction to P. Mich. Zen., pp. 38–40. The existence of enteuxeis (e.g., P. Col. Zen. 83) in general in the archive shows how Zenon was somehow intruded into the judicial process.

7. Cf. also, e.g., P. Col. Zen. 71, which mentions “the stones which you sent to Apollonius, he brought to the king, and they pleased him a great deal” (11.15–19).

8. Remarked by Dorothy Crawford, “The Good Official of Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Das Ptolemäische Ägypten, Akten des internationalen Symposions 27–29 1976 September in Berlin, ed. Herwig Maehler and Volker Michael Strocka, (Mainz am Rhein, 1978), 201.

9. Which helps to explain why even quite early, as in P. Lond. Zen. 2016, 241 B.C., we see cleruchic land quite formally bequeathed. I deal with this matter somewhat more extensively in The Shifting Sands of History, Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians no. 2 (Lanham and London, 1989).

10. From Athens to Alexandria: Hellenism and Social Goals in Ptolemaic Egypt, Studia Hellenistica no. 26 (Lovanii, 1983).

11. For Rostovtzeff's view of the (“alien” to Greeks) concept of the Ptolemaic state as the private property of the kings, and the view that the Greek economic system called for “private property recognized and protected by the state as the basis of society, and the free play of economic forces and economic initiative, with which the state very seldom interfered,” see SEHHW 1: 269–73.

12. See, for remarks along these lines, ibid., 2: 1080.

13. An important cultural gap emphasized by J. Bingen, Le Papyrus Revenue Law: Tradition grecque et adaptation hellénistique, Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vorträge G 231 (Opladen, 1978), 9–11.

14. An exception is Thomas's argument that the offices of dioecetes and nomarch were not Ptolemaic innovations: “Aspects of the Ptolemaic Civil Service: The Dioiketes and the Nomarch,” in Ptolemäische Ägypten, 187–194.

15. In particular, if we accept R. S. Bagnall's persuasive argument that the cleruchs hark back to an influx of soldiers at the time of Ptolemy I (“The Origins of Ptolemaic Cleruchs,” BASP 21 [1984]: 7–20), we might have expected the initial settlement to follow the urban patterns familiar to Greeks.

16. SEG 9, 7.

17. That administrative posts were desirable is demonstrated by the fact that people were willing to pay to get them, as in the payments and required cultivation agreed to by Menches in return for reappointment as komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris in 119 B.C. (P. Tebt. 9 and 10. Cf. Crawford, “Good Official,” 201).

18. In a study of mine for which I had a different focus (“The Greek Element in the Ptolemaic Bureaucracy,” in Acts of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology, Am. Stud. Pap. no. 7 [Toronto, 1970], 450) I found that of the identifiable Greek-speaking individuals of Hibeh, whether or not with Greek names, a significant proportion could be seen to have official billets. The figures: Greek names, minimum individuals identified, 17.4% with official titles; maximum individuals (assuming nonidentity of the same names) 9.5% with official titles; non-Greek names, minimum number of individuals, 13.5% officials; maximum individuals, 9.0% officials. In larger and more important administrative centers, the proportions would obviously increase significantly.

19. See P. Yale 36 and accompanying discussion. The conclusion now seems confirmed by the demotic “Karnak Ostracon,” published by E. Bresciani, “La spedizione di Tolomeo II in Siria in un ostrakon demotico inedito da Karnak,” in Ptolemäische Ägypten, 31–37, which calls for a survey of the agricultural situation.

20. The difference between military and civil administration is illustrated by a story told about Harry Truman. When asked what he thought his successor, General Eisenhower, would find most difficult about the presidency, Truman responded, “When he gives an order, and nothing happens.”

21. For a survey of the overall problem, see Claire Préaux, L'Économie royale des Lagides (Brussels, 1939), 514–33.

22. Ibid., 523–24.

23. Or at least to the reign of Auletes; see T.R.S. Broughton, AJP 106 (1985): 115–16, citing Athen. Deipn. 5.206 c–d, which asserts that Auletes dissipated the “treasure of the Ptolemies.”

24. There is no doubt about the reclamation work in the Fayum, summarized by Rostovtzeff, SEHHW 1:360–362, and illustrated by P. Lille 1, (which L. Criscuolo argues did not relate specifically to Apollonius' dorea at Philadelphia: “I Mariaruri nell' Egitto tolemaico,” Aegyptus 57 [1977]: 109–22). Criscuolo's discussion is concerned to show that the title “ten-thousand aroura holder” relates not to a grant holder but to a manager of a district of that size in the reclamation project of the Fayum. W. Clarysse, “Egyptian Estate-holders in the Ptolemaic Period,” in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 10th to the 14th of April 1978, Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta no. 6, ed. E. Lipinski (Leuven, 1979) 2: 737–93, points out a number of reasons which put P. Lille 1 in the vicinity of Philadelphia.

25. That these oaths are intended to be taken seriously is indicated by the lack of formula in the earliest period. Cf., for example, P. Lond. Zen. 2045, swearing to Zenon “by your tyche and the daimon of the king.” The elaboration of the oath is illustrated by P. Fuad Univ. 3–4.

26. Probably because it has not been as much studied or discussed as we would expect: two and a half pages (96–98) in CAH^[2] VII.l, three (255–57) in Préaux's Monde hellénistique, describing the establishment of the dynastic cult as a cult of Alexander, then the development of the cult of the living sovereigns under Philadelphus and the modifications under subsequent kings. There are studies which try to place the cult in its context in time and place in terms of development and cults of other monarchies: L. Cerfaux and J. Tondriau, Le Culte des souverains dans la civilization gréco-romain (Tournai, 1957), 193–208; F. Taeger, Charisma: Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes (Stuttgart, 1957), 287–309 n. for Egypt. Taeger (297) sees the religious aspect of the cult as “questionable,” and this is a judgment often made, although P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972) 1:225, refuses to dismiss it “as a fiction designed purely to give prestige to holders of paper priesthoods.” This latter is the view of J. Ijsewijn, De sacerdotibus sacerdotiisque Alexandri Magni et Lagidarum eponymis (Brussels, 1961), the only full-dress review of the priests to that date; insofar as Ijsewijn carries through his discussion of specific priests, it shows the priesthoods to have been held by members of the court circle.

27. F. Dunand, “Cultes égyptiens hors d'Égypte: Nouvelles voies d'approche et d'interprétation,” in Egypt and the Hellenistic World (Leuven, 1983), 80–81; Dunand provides a valuable survey of recent scholarship on the spread of the Egyptian cults, while at the same time suggesting approaches to their interpretation.

28. There are many examples, such as the Dresden head, inventory 2600/A28, or Alexandria inventories 22.185 and 19.122.

29. This is the conclusion of Helmut Kyrielis, Bildnisse der Ptolemäer, Archäologische Forschungen no. 2 (Berlin, 1975), 145–48. While Kyrielis may exaggerate the centralizing quality of Philadelphus' reign, and assumes more direction of developments than the king was in fact able to achieve, it is interesting that he sees (158–64) a significant difference in the practice of royal representation in Egypt from that characteristic of the other kingdoms of the period.

30. It is certainly clear that he used the conflict in the Seleucid dynasty in about 280/79 to make acquisitions in the Aegean area, although details are difficult to discern. In the first years of his reign he regained Samos, which had belonged to Lysimachus as late as 282 (cf. OGIS 13 = SIG^[3] 688, and SIG^[3] 390); and he took over Miletus, where in 280/79 Antiochus I was stephanophor, while in 279/8 a gift of Philadelphus is recorded (Milet, vol. 1, part 3, p. 123). Between 274 and 271, it seems, he fought a war with Antiochus I, the First Syrian War. For most of the next decade, Ptolemaic forces were involved in the Aegean in support of Athens and Sparta in the Chremonidean War; then, about 260, they plunged into the Second Syrian War, which lasted perhaps to about 253 and brought various results and troubles, including revolts by “Ptolemy the Son,” which unhinged his control over some of the cities in western Anatolia. We can trace some of the events, like the shift of Ephesus to Ptolemy in about 262, and its return to Seleucid control in about 258; and we are told of important naval battles, Cos and Andros, which Philadelphus' forces lost. These, however, involve serious dating problems, which make for difficulty in tracing the history of Ptolemaic fortunes in the Aegean.

31. Bresciani, “La spedizione di Tolomeo II,” 31–37. The king is either Antiochus I or Antiochus II, depending on how one chooses to date the allusion in the document.

32. CAH^[2] VII. 1, 135–59.

33. Appian, Praef. 10, claims a land army of 200,000 infantry, 40,000 cavalry, 300 elephants, 2,000 armed chariots and an arms store for 300,000 additional troops; plus a naval force of 2,000 punts and small craft, 1,500 triremes of various classes and equipment for double that number, and 800 thalamegas. Callixenus, reported in Athen. Deipn. 203a, states that in the grand procession of Philadelphus, held c. 275, the military parade included 57,600 infantry and 23,200 cavalry, all properly uniformed and armed. Both authors claim documentary sources for their figures: Appian, the so-called basilikai anagraphai; and Callixenus, the graphai penterides, cited as available for further details of the grand procession in Athen. Deipn. 197d. Athenaeus, in a passage between that dealing with the procession and that dealing with the great “40” of Philopator, Deipn. 203d, gives some specific details for Philadelphus' navy, a text that may go back to Callixenus.

34. Id. 17.95–111.

35. Now extensively treated in a commentary by E. E. Rice, The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford, 1983), arguing effectively (124–25, 138–50) for the credibility of the text here and in the description of the enormous tent of Philadelphus in Athen. Deipn. 196a–97c, and the spectacular ships of Philopator in Deipn. 203e–6c.

36. App. Praef. 10. Athenaeus refers to his great wealth in Deipn. 203c.

37. Not only for Ptolemy but also for the other early rulers, G. Herman's analysis of the honorary decrees indicates that “the impression conveyed is that the ties between the honorands and the rulers were informal, casual and uninstitutionalized.” “The ‘Friends’ of the Early Hellenistic Rulers: Servants or Officials?” Talanta 12–13 (1980–1981): 107. Herman argues cogently that the vagueness of the references in the early period reflects a negative attitude toward court officials on the part of citizens of Greek cities, who accord ingly omit these references from decrees intended to honor such men; as attitudes toward the holding of titles changes, so these titles appear in Greek inscriptions with greater frequency. The negative attitude may also reflect Greek civic unfamiliarity with bureau cracy itself, seeing official titles as reflecting servile status rather than office.

38. L. Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt: Introduction and Prosopography, Verhandelingen koninklijke Academie Wetenschappen, Letteren en schone Kunsten van Belvie, Lett. 37 no. 78 (Brussels, 1975).

39. Ibid., p. 2.

40. As Herman remarks, “ ‘Friends,’ ” 116, the early period seems to show a lack of “administrative differentiation or specialization” among these high-ranking officials, a general phenomenon to which the Ptolemaic court conforms.

41. This view of motivation expresses somewhat differently the conclusions reached by L. Mooren in La Hiérarchie du court ptolémaïque, Studia Hellenistica no. 23 (Louvain, 1977), 50–61, which also sees that in essence the hierarchy of titulature has its value in differentiations of rank within the bureaucracy.

42. P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972) 1:101–5 draws the distinction between the court circle (used for administering the empire), and the internal administration of Egypt (that of the “state” as a “dual administration”), which became blended in the second century.

43. We do not know Apollonius' rank, but we do know that the king had direct resort to him.

44. The factions and relationships among the highest personages in the court in this period are detailed by Leon Mooren, “The Ptolemaic Court System,” Chron. d'Ég. 60 (1985): 214–22.

45. It would be gratuitous to cite a vast list of normal documents like P. Par 65 (146 B.C.) and P. Ahm. 35 (132 B.C.) to illustrate the continuing regular work of the bureaucracy in troubled times, but it is worth pointing out the steady flow of tax receipts on ostraca at Thebes before, during, and after the period of greatest turmoil, 132–130 B.C. (e.g., O. Bodl. 168–88, WO 341–52), and to cite the petitions (and other documents) of the third quarter of the century among the Tebtunis papyri which attest the bureaucracy working in its usual way, with the writers suffering the same kinds of troubles and expecting officials to deal with their problems as did petitioners before Egypt had experienced such severe dynastic trouble.

46. W. Chr. 10. There are only a few documents which reflect the unrest in the period, and they are often cited. Others include P. Tebt. 61 (b); the land survey of 118–117 B.C., which mentions land that had been allowed to become dry during the amixia (of unspecified date); P. Tebt. 72.45, referring to land up to the thirty-ninth year (132/1 B.C.) before the amixia.

47. For a discussion and references, see my Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich, 1962), 146–47.

48. As usual, most texts show the bureaucracy functioning normally, but there are the occasional documents which refer to the strife: W. Chr. 11 indicates the existence of armed conflict between the towns of Crocodilopolis and Hermonthis in Upper Egypt in 123, while PSI 171 refers to amixia in the area of Ptolemais in 122–121.

49. M.-T. Lenger, “La Notion de ‘bienfait’ (philanthropon) royal et des ordonnances des rois lagides,” Studi in onore di Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz nel xlv anno del suo insegnamento, M. Lauria et al. eds., vol. 1 (Naples, 1951), points out (485–86) that with one exception (P. Enteux. 81 of 221 B.C.) the royal grants of philanthropa are all later than the third century B.C.; she also notes, however (487–88), the general phenomenon of philanthropa issued by the kings outside Egypt in the third century B.C., as well as the use of the term for benefits requested or received from Ptolemaic officials and important personages. The theoretical or philosophical demand for philanthropia on the part of kings is as late as Aristeas, Letter, 208 (cf. W. Schubart, “Das hellenistische Königsideal nach Inschriften und Papyri,” Arch. Pap. 12 [1937]: 10; for bibliography and connections of “Aristeas” with second-century-B.C. Jewish thought, see D. Mendels, “ ‘On Kingship’ in the ‘Temple Scroll’ and the Ideological Vorlage of the Seven Banquets in the ‘Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates,’ ” Aegyptus 59 [1979]: 127–36); but the appearance of the term with a strong sense of “human benevolence,” or the use of the plural as “benefits” associated with the royal philanthropa as early as the third century B.C. (e.g., Inschr. Ilion 33 = OGIS 221, c. 274 B.C.; SIG^[3] 548, Delphi) as well as the general sense of “favors” (e.g., P. Col. Zen. 9), shows how well the concept was established in usage before the second century B.C. For detailed references, see Lenger, “Notion de ‘bienfait,’ ” 487–88 nn. 30–34.

50. BGU 1185, 60 B.C. = C. Ord. Ptol. 71.

51. C. Ord. Ptol. 76.22–23.