Arsinoe and Berenice at the OlympicsAuthor(s): Chris BennettReviewed work(s):Source: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 154 (2005), pp. 91-96Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20190990 .Accessed: 16/07/2012 04:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

91

Arsinoe and Berenice at the Olympics

Throughout the existence of the Ptolemaic dynasty, its members competed in the chariot events of the

Greek Games. The earliest known victory is that of Lagus, son of Ptolemy I and Tha?s, at the Lycaean

festival of 308/7 (SIG3 314); the latest that of Ptolemy XII in the pair at the Basileia of Lebedeia,

probably in the late 70s or early 60s.1 Pausanias notes an Olympic victory statue of sons of Ptolemy 12

and one of Ptolemy II dedicated by Aristolaus, a Macedonian (6.17.3). He also records that Ptolemy I

won the pair of colts on its introduction in the 69th Pythian Games in 286, the summer of the last full

year of his sole reign (10.7.8), and that Ptolemy IPs mistress Bilistiche won the same race on its

introduction in the 129th Olympics of 264 ? She had very probably been victorious in the quadriga for

colts at the previous Olympics.4 Berenice II also competed at the Olympics, though we do not know

when or with what result.5 Finally, from the Panathenaic victor lists, we learn that Ptolemy VI and

Cleopatra II were both victors, probably in the Panathenaia of 162, and that Ptolemy VI was again

victorious in the next Panathenaia. We also learn that Ptolemy V had been victorious at the Panathenaia

of 182, and that his son, the future Ptolemy VI, was probably a victor at the same games.6 Ptolemaic victories were celebrated by poets of the court, and some of these poems have been

recovered. An encomium written by Callimachus for a Nemean victory of Berenice II was published in

the 1970s.7 The epigrams of P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309, generally attributed to Posidippus, are clearly part

of the same tradition.8 Their discovery has added many new events to our list of the sporting triumphs

of Ptolemy II and his family. Epigram AB 78 is particularly informative:9

1 W. VoUgraff, Inscriptions de B?otie, BCH 25 (1901) 365-375, also LTnstitut Fernand-Courby, Nouveau choix d'ins

criptions grecques: textes, traductions, commentaires (Paris, 1971) No. 22. For "king Ptolemy Philopator" as Ptolemy XII

rather than Ptolemy IV, see M. Holleaux, Observations sur une inscription de L?badeia, BCH 30 (1906) 469-481 at 480

481. The epiklesis dates the victory before his assumption of the title "Neos Dionysios" in the late 60s.

2 Pausanias 6.15.10. Presumably the statue commemorated victories sponsored by his sons in equestrian events rather

than their personal participation in boys' events. It would be interesting to know which sons were involved, and when. The

statue of Ptolemy mounted on horseback mentioned in Pausanias 6.16.9 does not certainly refer to any Ptolemaic king.

3 Pausanias 5.8.11. The date is given in the Olympic victory list in A. Schoene (ed.), Eusebi Chronicorum Libri Duo

(Berlin, 1866/1875) 1207, naming the victor as "Philistiachos", evidently a corruption of "Bilistiche"; cf. already A. Bouch?

Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides I (Paris, 1903) 185 n. 1, and on similar cognates O. Masson, Sur le nom de Bilistich?, favorite

de Ptolem?e II, in Studia in Honorem Uro Kajanto (Helsinki, 1985) 109-112. Pausanias dates the victory to the third

Olympics before the 131st. Either he was counting inclusively or he confused Bilistiche's two victories.

4 P. Oxy XVII2082 F6+7. The entry is heavily reconstructed (cf. the photograph now available online (February 2005) at http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk). The event is certain from its position in the list. For the victor as Bilistiche see now E.

Kosmetatou, Bilistiche and the Quasi-Institutional Status of Ptolemaic Royal Mistress, AfP 50 (2004) 18-36 at 21. The date

depends on the absence of an entry for the pair of colts, an event introduced in 264. This may be less certain than is generally

assumed, since the break between F6 and F7 lies where an entry for that event might have been. The text following the list

apparently covered Roman events. Not much of note happened in 268 (Livy, Per. 15.4-5), while in 264 Rome was fully

engaged in the Mamertine War. However, I have no reason to dispute Hunt's judgement that the fit between F6 and F7 is too

tight to admit extra text, and the date is assumed to be correct in this note.

^ Hyginus, De Astronom?a 2.24. It seems safe to assume a victory.

6 182: IG II2 2314 lines 41 (Ptolemy V), 56 (Ptolemy his son); 162: SEG XLI 115 in Unes 22 (Cleopatra II), 32 (Ptole my VI); 158: IG II2 2316 line 45 (Ptolemy VI). See S. V. Tracy

- C. Habicht, New and Old Panathenaic Victor Lists, Hespe ria 60 (1991) IS1-236.

7 P. J. Parsons, Callimachus: Victoria Berenices, ZPE 25 (1977) 1-50. A. Cameron, Callimachus and His Critics

(Princeton, 1995) 106, suggests a date of 243 or 241, favouring the former.

8 Cf. M. Fantuzzi, The Structure of the Hippika in P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309, in B. Acosta-Hughes et al. (eds.), Labored in

Papyrus Leaves: Reflections on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII309) (Washington D.C., 2004) 212-224 at 220-224. Editio princeps: G. Bastianini - C. Gallazzi (eds.), Posidippo di Pella. Epigrammi (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII309) (Milan, 2001); editio minor (designated AB): C. Austin - G. Bastianini (eds.), Posidippi Pellaei Quae Supersunt

92 C. Bennett

?]?7tOCT?, 710CVT8? OCOlSo?, ?|IOV [k]?,?0C;, e[?] 7Tc[ot' ?p?GK?l

yvcoGx? ?,?y?iv, oti |ioi ?o^[a rca?moyovo?

apiiaxi (lev y?p |noi rcpo7?xTco[p nio??|ii]a?o? ?v[?koc

Ilioaicov ??xxaa? xnnov knx axa[?icov, Kai inynip B?p?v?KT| ?jiot) 7cax[po?* a]p[ji]axi ?' ocmfi?

v?kt|v ?i?? Tcaxfip ?K ?aaiAicptc] ?aa[i]A,?'oc Tcaxpo? ?%cov ovojior ??1)kt[oc? ?'] ?^paxo naoaq

'Apaiv?T) viica? xp?i? ?v?? ?? ??tB?mr

Tiochpo? vov Ti|xco] y?vo? tepov [T)?? yu]vaiKcov

k?[k?,t|hxxi cp?yyo?] rcapO?vio? [?aoiA,i]c.

xaDuMa] fjt?[v ex>%? ?]7i????V 'OA,\)[|Li7r]?a [?? ?]v?? o?kod

apfxaai Kai rcai?cov rca??a? a?0?o(pop9['o]c;

TxGp?TtTCOD ?? X??,??OD OC????T? TOV B?p[?]v?KTj[?

xfj? ?aaiA?DO'oar|c, MaK?xa[i], ax?cpavav.

Tell, all ye bards, of my fame, [if it ever pleases you] to speak of what is known, because my glory [goes back a long way].

My grandfather [Ptole]my [won] with his chariot,

driving his team on the race-courses at Pisa, as did Berenice, my father's mother. Then again with his chariot

my father was victorious, a king son of a king with his father's name. And all three victories for harnessed races

were won by Arsinoe in a single [competition].

[I now honour my father's] sacred clan [and] 'women's [pride']

[is the name I am given] as the virgin [queen].

Olympia saw [these triumphs from] a single house

and the children's children winning prizes with their chariots.

Celebrate, O ye Macedonians, Queen Berenice's crown

for winning with the full four-horse team.

From this we learn that several members of the Ptolemaic royal family had won victories in chariot

events at the Olympic Games. Three of them are readily identifiable as Ptolemy I, Berenice I, and Ptole

my II. Only the victory of Ptolemy II was, arguably, previously known (Pausanias 6.17.3).

The identities of "Arsinoe" and "Berenice" are perhaps not immediately obvious. For each of them

there are two known candidates. For "Arsinoe" we have Arsinoe I and Arsinoe II, the queens of Ptole

my II, while for "Berenice" we have Berenice Syra (or Phernophorus), the daughter of Ptolemy II, and

Berenice II, the queen of Ptolemy HI, who is already known as an Olympic contender and as a victor in

the Nemean games, and who, as queen, was officially known as a daughter of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II.

Omnia (Milan, 2002); additional critical notes in E. Livrea, Critica testuale ed esegesi del nuovo Posidippo, in G. Bastianini - A. Casanova (eds.), IIpapiro di Posidippo un anno dopo. Atti del convegno internationale di studi Firenze 13-14 giugno

2002 (Florence, 2002) 61-77. Individual epigrams are identified herein by the number assigned in AB. For a recent

challenge to the usual identification of Posidippus as the author of these epigrams, see S. Schr?der, Skeptische ?berlegungen

zum Mail?nder Epigrammpapyrus (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309), ZPE 148 (2004) 29-73. While Schr?der considers that the

collection as a whole may be the work of more than one author, he considers at least three of the Hippika epigrams

considered here, AB 74,78, and 79, to be the work of a single author (ZPE 148 at 72). 9

Reconstruction, transcription and translation after AB. Cf. the version of B. Acosta-Hughes and E. Kosmetatou, AfP

50 at 26-27', and the versions at http://www.chs.harvard.edu/classicsat/issue_l/greektext.html (as of June, 2005). The slight

differences between these reconstructions do not affect the identification of the royal women involved.

Arsinoe and Berenice at the Olympics 93

As Kosmetatou has pointed out, Arsinoe I was disgraced as a traitor early in the reign.10 It is very

unlikely that she would be named in any context that included either Berenice, and therefore all but

certain that the "Arsinoe" of AB 78 is Arsinoe II. As to Berenice, while she is called a ?aoitaaaa, both

here and in AB 79 and AB 82, the title is also known for princesses such as Philotera, sister of Arsinoe

II, and Berenice, the infant daughter of Ptolemy III.11 More significantly, she is also called rcocpG?vio?,

indicating that she was a young unmarried woman, and, from other epigrams, we learn that she also won

victories in the Nemean and Isthmian Games as a child (rcoc??), i.e. between about 7 and 14 years old,12

and that she was personally present at least at the latter event, accompanied by her father.13 Noting these

points, and the great chronological difficulties involved in supposing that Berenice II won an Olympic

victory in 248, the only possible occasion between the death of her father Magas, king of Cyrene, and

her marriage to Ptolemy III, Thompson has convincingly argued that the Berenice of AB 78 must be

Berenice Syra.14 These victories were not merely the sporting triumphs of wealthy aristocrats. They played an

important role in dynastic propaganda, publicly demonstrating the legitimacy and power of the dynasty, its good fortune, and its triumphs over adversity. This is particularly clear from the dates of the

Panathenaic victories. The victory of Ptolemy V's son in 182, when the prince was at most four years

old,15 advertised the arrival of a long-awaited heir, while the victories of Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II,

occurring in the year following their brief expulsion by their brother Ptolemy VIII, publicly demon strated their restoration, their legitimacy, and the security of their rule. Ptolemy II was fully aware of

this aspect of the games.16 The dates of the victories celebrated in the epigrams are, therefore, not only of interest to literary history, and conversely we may refine our estimates of the dates by considering the

political circumstances surrounding them.

Bing suggests that the victory of Ptolemy II was at the same Olympics as that of Arsinoe II.17 This

cannot be right, since there were only three chariot events at this time. He also construes AB 88 to mean

that Ptolemy I, Ptolemy II and Berenice I all won victories as rulers in the same Olympics, which must

then be the Games of 284.18 This is an attractive notion, and not impossible, but it reads too much into

the text, which is concerned with the relative merits of the three victories. It does not seem possible to

date any of them. It is even possible that Ptolemy II was not yet king when he won.19 However, the

remaining two victories named in AB 78, those of Arsinoe II and Berenice, can be dated.

Arsinoe's triple triumph must fall between her return to Egypt after the collapse of her disastrous

marriage to her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus in 280/79 and her death. Whether she died in 270 or

10 E. Kosmetatou, Constructing Legitimacy: The Ptolemaic Familiengruppe as a Means for Self-Definition in Posi

dippus' Hippika, in Acosta-Hughes et al., Labored in Papyrus Leaves, 225-246 at 232 n. 24.

11 Philotera: OGIS 35; Berenice daughter of Ptolemy III: OGIS 56 (Canopus decree). 12

Philo,De Op. Mun. 36 (105), quoting Hippocrates. 13 Isthmian Games: AB 82; Nemean Games: AB 79,80,81.

14 D. J. Thompson, Posidippus, Poet of the Ptolemies, in K. Gutzwiller (ed.), The New Posidippus. A Hellenistic Poetry Book [to appear]; see also L. Criscuolo, Agoni e politica alia corte di Alessandria. Riflessioni su alcuni epigrammi di

Posidippo, Chiron 33 (2003), 311-332 at 328-330. My thanks to Dorothy Thompson for providing me an advance copy of her article. Berenice II is assumed in P. Mil. Vogl. VIII309,206, without discussion.

^ W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolem?ers (Munich, 1934) 7; L. Koenen, Die "demotische Zivilprozess

ordnung" und die Philanthropa vom 9. Okt. 186 vor Chr., AfP 17 (1960) 11-16 at 13-14 n. 2. *" Most recently, Criscuolo, Chiron 33, passim; cf. R. A. Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic

Propaganda (Toronto, 2000) 57-58,66-75.

17 P. Bing, Posidippus and the Admiral: Kallikrates of Samos in the Milan Epigrams, GRBS 43 (2002/3) 243-266 at 253 n. 23.

18 Bing, GRBS 43 at 253 n. 23. For critical remarks on the structure of AB 88 see now Schr?der, ZPE 148 at 40-42.

19 Seen. 2.

94 C. Bennett

268,20 only two Olympics are in question: those of 276 and 272.21 Although victors in chariot events

have been proposed in both Games - Attalos, adopted son of Philaeterus of Pergamon in 276, and

Glaucon, son of Eteocles of Athens in 272 - neither date is remotely certain, which prevents us from

further refining the date of Arsinoe's victories by elimination.22 However, we may be sure that she won

them as queen, i.e. after her marriage to her brother.

The date of this event has been much debated. Hazzard has recently argued that it must postdate the

deification of the royal couple, who first appear in the dynastic cult in year 14 (Macedonian) = 272/1.

He suggests that both deification and marriage took place in the previous year.23 This attractive proposal

requires, however, that the earliest dated reference to the pair, 3 Thoth year 12 (Egyptian), must be

equivalent to 1 November 272, using a regnal era based on the death of Ptolemy I. This date is given in

the Pithom stele, which itself is dated to year 21,24 Since this is after Ptolemy II changed the basis of his

regnal era,25 it is more usually assumed that the retrospective date of year 12 is based on the start of his

coregency with his father, which equates it to 2 November 274 26 Whatever the resolution of this

difficulty, the Pithom Stele only provides a terminus ante quern. Fortunately, we also have a terminus

post quern. The Cypriote inscription KAI 43, dated year 11 (Macedonian) = 275/4, includes a reference

to Arsinoe I, which shows that she had not yet been disgraced at the time it was written.27 Hence the

marriage of Arsinoe II must postdate KAI 43, and her Olympic victories must be dated to 272.

The date of Berenice's triumph is less easy to determine. Arsinoe IF s clean sweep rules out the

Olympics of 272, and it is clear from the epigram that Berenice's victory must be later. Thompson and

Kosmetatou recognized that it must predate her marriage to Antiochus II in summer 252 28 Enough of

the victor list of 268 survives in P. Oxy XVII 2082 to exclude a victory for Berenice in that year. It

seems highly unlikely that Ptolemy II, knowing that the pair of colts was a new event that would attract

attention, would have permitted his daughter to risk being upstaged by his mistress, which argues

against the Olympics of 264. We are left with 260 and 256 as possible candidates.

We have two other clues. First, Berenice had previously won victories at the Nemean and Isthmian

games. It has been suggested that she won victories in two different Nemean Games, but the

fragmentary text of AB 81 seems to be more compatible with two victories in a single Games.29 Since

she is said to have been a child at the time of these victories, neither of them can have occurred much

later than 260. Very probably at least three years elapsed between these Games and the Olympics in

question. Second, Ptolemy IF s presence for at least the Isthmian victory, and probably also the Nemean

20 For 268: E. Grzybek, Du calendrier mac?donien au calendrier ptol?ma?que: probl?mes de chronologie hell?nistique

(Basel, 1990) 103-112. For 270: most recently, Kosmetatou, AfP 50 at 34-35. While it is far beyond the scope of this article

to discuss this controversial issue, my opinion is that none of the numerous objections raised to date against Grzybek's thesis

are convincing, either individually or collectively, and that his proposal is more likely than not.

21 So also Bing, GRBS 43 at 253 n. 23. 22 L. Moretti, Olympionikai, i vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici (Rome, 1957) 135-136 nos. 538, 542. On Attalos

see also L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (Rome, 1953) 94-99; on Glaucon see also Criscuolo, Chiron 33, 320-322.

2^ Hazzard, Imagination, 89-90. The retitling of the priest of the dynastic cult is given in P. Hibeh I 99. On the Julian

alignment of Macedonian regnal years see R. A. Hazzard, The Regnal Years of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, Phoenix 41 (1987)

140-158.

24 Pithom Stele (CCG 22183) line 15-16: ?. Naville, La st?le de Pithom, ZAS 40 (1902) 66-75; Grzybek, Calendrier

mac?donien, 69-112.

25 A. E. Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich, 1962) 27-28. 26

E.g. Grzybek, Calendrier mac?donien, 92, who however equates the date to 6 November 274 in error.

27 J. Teixidor, Ptolemaic Chronology in the Phoenician Inscriptions from Cyprus, ZPE 71 (1988) 188-190, C. J.

Bennett, Three Notes on Arsinoe I, in A. K. Eyma - C. J. Bennett (eds.), A Delta-Man in Yebu (Parkland FL, 2003) 64-70.

2^ Thompson, Poet of the Ptolemies; Kosmetatou, Constructing Legitimacy 232.

29 P. Mil. Vogl. VIII309,205-206, followed by Criscuolo, Chiron 33 at 312.

Arsinoe and Berenice at the Olympics 95

one, clearly advertised Berenice as a legitimate daughter of the dynasty, whose prominent position in

the royal family was thoroughly secure.

It was not always so. We are told that Ptolemy II had his children by Arsinoe I posthumously

adopted by Arsinoe II .30 As children of a condemned traitor, their prospects must have been

questionable until this happened. The effect of the adoption was to remove all taint, in effect

relegitimising them, as Ptolemy HI implicitly recognized by naming Arsinoe II as his mother in all his

public documents. We do not know when this adoption occurred, but Berenice's childhood triumphs, and Ptolemy IPs public endorsement of them, could only occur after it. They therefore imply that it too

had occurred before about 260.

The adoption must have had a very considerable impact on succession politics. For most of the

decade after Arsinoe IFs death, Ptolemy "the Son" - whoever he was31 - was coregent and recognized heir. If, as Bevan, and more recently Tunny, have suggested, he was himself a son of Arsinoe I,32 the

adoption would have been a prerequisite for his ascent to the coregency, and we could date it to the

period immediately after Arsinoe IFs death. However, "the Son" is not named amongst her children by the Theocritus scholiast, and, since the scholia were initially compiled by Theon under Augustus, the

omission cannot be due to any damnatio memoriae imposed by Ptolemy II.33 We may therefore exclude

this possibility. For any other background, the adoption of Arsinoe Fs children would have represented a significant threat to "the Son's" position by reintroducing her sons into the line of succession as his

"brothers". It is not stretching credulity to see it as a major factor behind his revolt in 259, which would

imply that it had occurred fairly recently.34

Also, if Cameron has correctly understood another epigram attributed to Posidippus as a satirical

lampoon on Bilistiche's Olympic victory, she was not popular at court.35 One likely reason is that, as

the king's principal mistress, she was in a position in this decade to entertain hopes of emulating his

mother's successful career, and to be accused of doing so, whether or not that was her actual ambition.

The adoption would have made it clear that any such ambitions were unlikely to succeed, and that her

significance to the king was personal, not dynastic. This consideration suggests that the adoption occurred after 264.

All these factors, though circumstantial, point to a date in the late 260s for the adoption,36 and hence

for Berenice's Nemean and Isthmian victories. That is, they were in either 263 or 261, or just possibly 259. While a victory in the Olympics of 260 remains possible, 256 is more likely. Again we may look at

the political circumstances.

3^ Schol. vet. Theocritus 17.128, G. H. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens: a study of woman-power in Macedonia, Seleucid,

Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt (Baltimore, 1932) 121. 31 The question is surveyed in W. Hu?, Ptolemaios der Sohn, ZPE 121 (1998) 229-250, with update in idem, Noch

einmal: Ptolemaios der Sohn, ZPE 149 (2004) 232. Again, its complexities are beyond the scope of this article. My opinion is that he was Ptolemy, son of Lysimachus and Arsinoe II, adopted by Ptolemy II, and that he later became Ptolemy of

Telmessos. He was not Ptolemy Andromachou, who was a son of Ptolemy II by a mistress, most likely Bilistiche (notwith

standing Kosmetatou's assertions to the contrary in AfP 50 at 20 and 23), and who may be identified with the Ptolemy who

died at Ephesus. M. Domingo Gygax, Ptolemaios, Bruder des K?nigs Ptolemaios III. Euergetes, und My lasa: Bemerkungen zu I. Labraunda Nr. 3, Chiron 30 (2000) 353-366, suggests that Ptolemy "the Brother" of Ptolemy III should be identified

with "the Son" rather than Andromachou.

32 E. R. Bevan, The House of Ptolemy (London, 1927) 66; J. A. Tunny, Ptolemy "the Son" Reconsidered: Are there too

many Ptolemies?, ZPE 131 (2000) 83-92. 33 P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972) 1474; cf. Hu?, ZPE 149 at 232. 34 Hu?, ZPE 121 at 240-241. 35 AB 127 = Anth. Pal. V 202; A. Cameron, Two Mistresses of Ptolemy Philadelphus, GBRS 31 (1990) 287-311. 36

Hazzard, Imagination, 44-46, 66-79, etc., has argued that Ptolemy II undertook a number of actions and policy

changes intended to revitalize his rule in about 263/2. While some of his arguments are less convincing than others, the

general thesis seems plausible. If correct, the adoption probably took place as part of this activity.

96 C. Bennett

By this time Berenice was certainly of marriageable age. It may be, as Macurdy once suggested, that Ptolemy II had originally intended that she be married to "the Son", and that this was one of the

reasons he had relegitimised Arsinoe F s children.37 If so, the plan had backfired: "the Son" had rebelled

and was no longer available. At least two, probably three, Ptolemaic princes were available: the future

Ptolemy III, his brother Lysimachus, and their likely half brother Ptolemy Andromachou; but evidently

Ptolemy II had decided not to follow his own precedent by betrothing her to any of her brothers. Given

his poor experience with succession politics - his own disputed succession, the alleged plot of Arsinoe

I, presumably in favour of her eldest son Ptolemy III, and the revolt of "the Son" - it is not surprising that he had decided not to take a step that would tip his hand as to a choice of heir. The same policy

explains the striking omission of his sons from the epigrams attributed to Posidippus.38 One may

therefore interpret Berenice's Olympic prominence, at least in part, as advertising her availability for an

exogamous dynastic marriage. In the event it took four more years to find one, and it too ended badly. I therefore suggest the following chronology for the Olympic victories and the composition of the

Hippika: c. 275 Birth of Berenice

c. 275/4 Disgrace and exile of Arsinoe I

c. 274/2 Deification and marriage of Arsinoe II

272 Triple Olympic victory of Arsinoe II 270/268 Death of Arsinoe II

268 Olympic victory of Bilistiche in the quadriga for colts

264 Olympic victory of Bilistiche in the pair for colts

c. 263/2 Posthumous adoption of Berenice by Arsinoe II

263 and/or 261 Nemean and Isthmian victories of Berenice

259 Revolt of "the Son"

256 Olympic victory of Berenice c. 256-252 Composition of the latest epigrams in the Hippika

252 Berenice's marriage to Antiochus II.39

San Diego Chris Bennett

37 Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, 87.

38 For this reason, among others, I think Criscuolo's suggestion (Chiron 33 at 325) that Ptolemy III married Berenice II

in 249 is quite unlikely. Kosmetatou, Constructing Legitimacy 231-232 suggested AB 78 and AB 88 honoured Ptolemy III

as well as his sister, but this is clearly an error - cf. Kosmetatou, AfP 50 at 26 n. 36.

39 My thanks to Elizabeth Kosmetatou for the discussions that led to this note, and to her, Dorothy Thompson and

J?rgen Hammerstaedt for comments on earlier drafts.