The Female King and βασιλεία
Cleopatra III, arguably the most religiously powerful Cleopatra, managed to wield individual power in a messy tripartite rule, outlast her mother’s hatred, establish a strong political and religious presence, and complicate the family drama herself after her husband Ptolemy VIII’s death. Her acute grasp on dynastic futurity made her “ḥḳȝt (‘the [female] ruler’),” as inscribed at an Egyptian temple (Llewellyn-Jones and McAuley 195). Her gender-bending power challenges the idea of male-dominated Hellenistic rule, but her gendered nomenclature differentiates her rule from that of true male kingship. Evaluating the definition of Hellenistic kingship as “not from either royal descent or formal legitimacy, but rather from the ability to command armies and to govern effectively,” Cleopatra III’s legacy necessitates a new definition of royal rule if she is viewed from both ancient and modern perspectives as a female king (Suda s.v βασιλεία). She fulfills the ideas of military command and effective governance through her war involvement, political relations, maintained relevance, and unprecedented religious sway, but her power in these areas only comes from her dynastic validity as a royal woman associated with a Ptolemy.
Josephus’ accounts of Cleopatra III’s war with her son Ptolemy IX exhibit her strong command over her army, but not in the way of a genuine warrior-king. With full command of the army given to Jewish generals Chelkias and Ananias by Cleopatra III, she “did nothing without their approval,” suggesting that her overall command over her “sea and land force” was validated by the men she employed (Josephus, Jewish Ant. 13.286, 349). She “besieged” Ptolemais when “she herself came… with her entire force,” evidence of her high involvement in military activity that fulfills the definition of Hellenistic kingship (Josephus, Jewish Ant. 13.350). Overriding the behest of her court to seize Alexander Janneus’ belongings and land, “Cleopatra was persuaded [by Ananias] not to do Alexander any wrong, but instead she made an alliance with him” (Josephus, Jewish Ant. 13.355). Therefore, Cleopatra let her military hand be tainted by her generals, but her decision nonetheless shows her balance of military rigor and kingly alliance that corroborates her religious epithet Nikephoros, or “bringer of victory” (Whitehorne 133). Although she displayed attributes of both warrior and king, Cleopatra III was not a true warrior-king in her command of the army because of her ultimate reliance on male associations.
Cleopatra III’s military control and individual influence took decades to cultivate, as her rise to effective governing was precarious in both its familial relations and Egypt’s unrest. Raised to official royal status by marrying her uncle Ptolemy VIII in 141/140 BCE, Cleopatra III had to balance governing amidst sibling animosity, her mother Cleopatra II’s hatred for stealing her wife status, and abhorrence from the populace, who at Ptolemy VIII’s vile deeds “became exiles from their native soil through fear of death” (Whitehorne 125; Justin, Epi. 38.8). She was brought into Hellenistic rule because of her ability to produce an heir, a way of effective female governance by ensuring the futurity of the kingdom. Cleopatra III certainly learned from her husband that to be a Ptolemaic ruler was to act self-servingly, as he took her into exile with him and “made war upon his sister [Cleopatra III] and his country” when the foreigners he invited to fill the “empty houses” turned against him (Justin, Epi. 38.8). An Amnesty Decree in 118 BCE shows how the sibling spouses put their differences aside to reinstate both tripartite rule and economic prosperity by proclaiming “an amnesty to all their subjects” as a way of urging workers to return to Alexandria (Attalus SelPap. 2.210). Cleopatra III, while listed last of the three, is “Queen Cleopatra the wife,” showing that her name and association to Ptolemy VIII held power in an act of governance (Attalus SelPap. 2.210). Cleopatra III managed to emerge victorious from extreme upheaval and unrest by effectively governing through association with Ptolemy VIII, who despite his poor reputation, could maintain his “heavy-handed” governing style as the only male ruler (Whitehorne 126). While her role in joint rule lacked agency, Cleopatra kept herself afloat and set the stage for untapped governance by a female ruler.
Her closest association to kingly power came with the deaths of her co-rulers. For her loyalty to Ptolemy VIII and her continuing of his bloodline, Ptolemy VIII’s will gave Cleopatra III the unprecedented power of choosing which son would be king (Whitehorne 132). From this female agency granted by a man, Cleopatra III unlocked a pathway to kingly effective governance as not a king herself, but as a kingmaker (“Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III”). Even so, the riotous Alexandrians overruled her choice of Ptolemy X as king and had her choose Ptolemy IX, making her rare control an ultimate appeasement to the public and a reluctant show of kingly governance (Whitehorne 132). Again a co-ruler, Cleopatra III controlled her narrative and held immense dynastic sway over texts and art. She saw to it that her mother never received posthumous veneration or even a mention in demotic prescripts. While a frieze at a sanctuary of Nekhbet at El-Kab shows Ptolemy IX at the gateway, he is intentionally farther away from the altar than his mother to connote his lesser religious and political status (Minas-Nerpel 69). Therefore, Cleopatra III determined her own dominance even when met with forced male association.
Beyond propaganda, Cleopatra III’s control over Ptolemy IX’s marriages and divorces shows her effective governance. She used her sway to cement her continued place in Ptolemaic rule as her son married and fathered viable heirs (“Cleopatra III: The Female King?”). Cleopatra Selene’s forced divorce from Ptolemy IX to marry Grypus also emphasizes Cleopatra III’s concern for Seleucid allyship as she battled her son (Whitehorne 139). Cleopatra III’s journey from being hated as wife of Ptolemy VIII, rival of Cleopatra II, and promoter of Ptolemy X’s kingship to being an influential instigator of the Alexandrian mob against Ptolemy IX in 107 BCE proves her command over her people that allowed her actions to have effect (Whitehorne 136). Her savviness in maintaining her relevance as her son rose to power ties her successful dominance to the Hellenistic idea of kingship.
She most powerfully asserted Hellenistic rule through her gender-bending religious depiction. In tripartite rule, Cleopatra III was able to rival her mother’s status and eventually surpass her by establishing her own religious cult of Alexander. By becoming the goddess Isis rather than merely alluding to her as past queens did, Cleopatra III used her venerated footing as propaganda to reinstate herself and Ptolemy VIII as Egyptian rulers when Cleopatra II named herself the sole ruler in 132 (Minas-Nerpel 67–68). Cleopatra retained religious domination after the triple rule by balancing the roles of pharaoh and king as Ptolemy IX’s reluctant co-regent, adopting the androgynous, power-bridging title “The Female Horus, Mistress of Two Lands, Strong Bull” (“Cleopatra III: The Female King?”) This title shows Cleopatra III’s successful control over Alexandrian religion and politics since it exhibits “a ‘masculine’ aggression as a pharaonic and Hellenistic warrior king and a feminine ‘tenderness’ as a mortal mother and a living goddess” (Llewellyn-Jones and McAuley 195). Unprecedented in female Hellenistic rule, Cleopatra III adopted the title of Priest of Alexander, which granted her administration of the royal state and of the Ptolemaic cult (Llewellyn-Jones and McAuley 196). To govern effectively in a kingdom ingrained in religion, Cleopatra III established her authority by prioritizing religious influence in her androgynous titles, deification, and propaganda, successfully fulfilling and exceeding the ideal of Hellenistic kingship.
Cleopatra III further fulfilled the role of effective governor by securing a thriving state amidst civil wars. Even when she, at war with her son, sent “the greater part of her wealth… to Cos for safe keeping” and never retrieved it, she did not sacrifice Egypt’s bustling economy (Josephus 13.349; Llewellyn-Jones and McAulty 203) However, no strong evidence for her active participation in securing prosperity exists due to Ptolemy X’s likely erasure of her positive documentation (Llewellyn-Jones and McAulty 204). What stands the test of time are ancient and modern sources that cannot fathom the kingly attributes of a woman ruler. “She wished by [Ptolemy X Alexander’s] means to make Ptolemy [IX] more afraid of her,” Pausanias argues, rhetorically emphasizing that she is a manipulative mother and an evil force (Description of Greece 13.9.2). Whitehorne at once calls her “shrewd” and asserts her “obtuseness,” painting her with negative contradictions that prove the bias in her scarce sources (122, 131). Even with remaining sources skewed against her, Cleopatra III stands from the sexist evidence as a constant force in a wealthy state while her contemporaries grasped for kingship.
While Cleopatra III successfully fulfills the “ability to command armies and to govern effectively,” her authority born from and augmented by Ptolemaic ties opposes the idea of βασιλεία stemming “not from either royal descent or formal legitimacy” (Suda s.v βασιλεία). By giving birth to a son at the same time as the birth of the Apis bull, Cleopatra III offered Ptolemy VIII a chance at redeeming himself with his Egyptian population and establishing a new bloodline separate from his rival and sister-wife Cleopatra II (Whitehorne 124). Therefore, Cleopatra’s entrance into tripartite rule was only validated by her formal associations with her husband and her son. She emphasized her ruling legitimacy with her Greek, masculine presentation, evident in her full-faced, aggressive depiction and curly hair in the basalt head of Cleopatra III (Head of Cleopatra III, Basalt Sculpture). Cleopatra III had to associate with masculinity to cement her authority. However, her failure to fit this origination aspect of Hellenistic kingship should not invalidate her dominance, necessitating a new configuration of what it means to be a ruler.
While Cleopatra often traversed the line of kingship and was successful in army command and effective government, she could never wield the full authority coupled with masculine rule. Androgynous in her depictions, titles, and authority, sources still boil her down to a homewrecker and a schemer. Justin misogynistically asserts that she “well deserved so infamous an end, since she had driven her mother from the bed of her father” and plotted against her children (39.4). Her failure to assume full masculine power should not discount her royal rule, especially as the Ptolemies around her also fell short of the βασιλεία definition. Ptolemy VIII, for example, put his needs first by adopting the “politics of assassination,” killing family members that threatened his rule and egotistically dampening Alexandria’s intellectual prosperity by sending out artists and thinkers who opposed him (Aneni 159, 166). Surely Ptolemy VIII did not govern effectively or wield power outside of his masculinity and name. The βασιλεία definition is unfit for self-serving, formally legitimate rulers of the Ptolemaic dynasty.
To capture the dynastic legitimacy essential to successful royal rule as proven in Cleopatra III’s legacy, a new definition should highlight the necessity of both male and female power in effective ruling. It should couple religious influence with political sway. It should emphasize that successful royal rule is not achieved alone, whether with joint rule or political alliances. Most importantly, the definition of Hellenistic royal rule should not pride itself as a power unrelated to those who previously wielded it. Instead, it should recognize the dynastic precedence that allowed a ruler such as Cleopatra III to then achieve greater power.
References
Aneni, Monica Omoye. "Politics of the Ptolemaic dynasty." Ogirisi: A New Journal of African Studies, vol. 12, 2016, pp. 146–169, https://doi.org/10.4314/og.v12i1.7.
Attalus SelPap. 2.210.
Head of Cleopatra III, Basalt Sculpture. 2nd century BCE. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Bridgeman Images, https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en-US/egyptian-school-2nd-century-bc/head-of-cleopatra-iii-basalt-sculpture-egyptian-civilisation-ptolemaic-period-2nd-century-bc/nomedium/asset/923834.
Josephus, Jewish Ant. 13.286, 349–350, 355.
Justin, Epi. 38.8, 39.4.
Klokow, Deirdre. “Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III.” February 13, 2024. Lecture.
Klokow, Deirdre. “Cleopatra III: The Female King?” February 15, 2024. Lecture.
Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd, and Alex McAuley. Sister-Queens in the High Hellenistic Period: Kleopatra Thea and Kleopatra III. 1st ed., Routledge, 2022. Taylor & Francis Temporary Ebooks, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315206578.
Minas-Nerpel, Martina. "Cleopatra II and III: The Queens of Ptolemy VI and VIII as Guarantors of Kingship and Rivals for Power." Ägypten zwischen innerem Zwist und äußerem Druck. Die Zeit Ptolemaios’ VI. bis VIII. Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 16.-19.9.2007, edited by Andrea Jördens and Joachim Friedrich Quack, vol. 45, Harrassowitz, 2011, pp. 58–76, https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/4085/1/Minas-Nerpel_Cleopatra_2011.pdf.
Pausanias, Description of Greece 13.9.2.
Suda s.v βασιλεία.
Whitehorne, John. Cleopatras, Taylor & Francis Group, 1994. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utxa/detail.action?docID=169523.