In modern historiography, there is an opinion about the victory of the Ptolemaic power in the First Syrian War. However, the researchers do not take into account the fact that during the aforementioned conflict, the Ptolemies lost control of Cyrenaica. The latter circumstance gives us the right to assert that the First Syrian War ended in a tangible defeat for Alexandria.

Keywords: I Syrian War, Ptolemy II, Magas of Cyrene, Antiochus I, Cyrenaica.

page 34
The First Syrian War (275-272/271, hereafter - BC) marked the beginning of a series of military conflicts between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid states. The cause of these wars, which became known as the Syrian Wars, 1 was the struggle for Celesiria, 2 an area that included the territory of Palestine, southern Syria,and most of Phoenicia. 3
Unfortunately, when speaking about the aforementioned conflict, we still have to recognize the relevance of the remark made by E. Bill at the time: the fragmentary and poor source base does not allow us to learn anything significant about the First Syrian War; in particular, questions related to determining the chronological framework, sequence of events and results of this conflict remain the subject of scientific discussion [Will, 1979, p. 145-146] 4. One of these issues, namely, determining the results of the conflict for the Ptolemaic state, will be discussed in this publication.

First of all, it is necessary to determine the identity of the direct initiator of the first Syrian war. In this regard, I fully share the point of view of such researchers as K. Lehmann, V. D. Zhigunin, J.-K. Vinnitsky, S. Sherwin-White, E. Kurt, and R. Hunter, who consider the rebel governor of Ptolemaic Cyrenaica Magas to be the instigator of the First Syrian War [Zhigunin, 1980, pp. 70-71; Hunter, 2003, p. 164; Lehmann, 1903, S. 496, 537; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, 1993, p. 35; Winnicki, 1989, S. 52-53] 5.

The aforementioned Magas was the stepson of the founder of the Alexandrian dynasty, Ptolemy I Soter.6 He was the son of the Egyptian ruler's favorite wife, Berenice, by his first marriage (Paus. I. VI. 8, VII. 1-2)7. Probably due to the influence of his mother at the court of Alexandria [Huss, 2001, p. 266], he received from his stepfather the governorship of Cyrenaica, otherwise called Pentapolis (Paus. I. VI. 8, VII.1) - a fertile and rich region located to the west of Egypt (Bengtson, 1982, p. 43; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 45).

During the last decades of his stepfather's reign, 8 as well as during the first years of the reign of his half-brother Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Magas was loyal to Alexandria(Bagnall, 1976 (2), p. 207, 209; Beloch, 1927, p.584). However, in the first half of the 270s, the situation changed dramatically. From about 277-276, the governor of Cyrenaica became an independent ruler.9 Probably in 276, Magas married Apama, the daughter of Antiochus I Soter, king of the Seleucid empire potentially hostile to Egypt (Paus. I. VII. 3; P. Oxy. 20.2258; Euseb.

1 For these wars, see [Grainger 2010; Winnicki, 1989].

2 For this geographical term, see Bosworth, 1974, p. 49-50: Grainger, 2010, p. 20; Winnicki, 1989, p. 6-7.

3 For the history of the territorial dispute over Kelesyria, see: (Polyb. V. 67; Diod. XX. 113, XXI. 1; Paus. 1.VI.8), and also: [Bengtson, 1982, p. 49; Zelinsky, 2014(2), p. 83-91; Grainger, 2010, p. 34-35, 37-38; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 22-23; Huss, 2001, s. 198-200; Winnicki, 1989, p.38].

4 For various views on these issues related to the history of the First Syrian War, see: [Zhigunin, 1980, p. 69-74; Bevan, 1927, p. 61-64; Grainger, 2010, p. 81-87; Heinen, 1984, p. 416-417; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 38-40; Huss, 2001, S. 265-271; Lehmann, 1903, S. 496-547; Lorlon, 1971, p. 160-164; Mastrocinque, 1993, p. 35-39; Otto, 1931, S. 400-416; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, 1993, p. 35-36; Tarn, 1926, p. 155-162; Tarn, 1929, p 9-25; Tarn, 1930, p. 446-454; Will, 1979, p. 144-149; Winnicki, 1989, p. 51-57].

5 At the same time, the overwhelming majority of researchers associate the beginning of the first Syrian War with the immediate beginning of hostilities between Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid state (see note 4).

6 For the adoption of Magas by Ptolemy I, see [Clayman, 2014, p. 4. 24; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 20; Huss, 2001, S. 202; Koenen, 1993, p. 97, p. 170].

7 For more information about Magas ' life and work, see [Chamoux, 1956, p. 18-34].

8 Ptolemy I died at the beginning of 282. Cf.: Hoelbl, 2001, p. 27; Huss, 2001, p. 250].

9 At one time, K. Beloch suggested that the relationship between stepbrothers began to deteriorate after the death of their common mother Berenice: [Beloch, 1927, p.584].

10 For the origins of the Ptolemaic-Seleucid feud, see note 3.

page 35
Chron. (ed. A. Schoene). I. 249)11, after which he assumed the royal title [Bevan, 1927, p. 63, 73; Grainger, 2010, p. 81-82; Heinen, 1984, p. 416; Winnicki, 1989, p. 52; cf.: Semenov, 2010, pp. 194-196; Bagnall, 1976(2), p. 207; Barbantani, 2010 (2), p. 239; Capovilla, 1962, p. 33, 96; Capovilla, 1963, p. 143-144; Chamoux, 1958, p. 571-587; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 36, 39 Hunter, 2003, p. 164; Marquaille, 2008, p. 44, n. 23, 63; White, 1976, p. 22; Will, 1979, p. 145-146]. In the following year, 275, the rebellious ruler of Cyrenaica, probably counting on the military support of his father-in-law (compare: [Beloch, 1927, p. 584; Grainger, 1991, p. 60]), went on a campaign to Egypt (Droizen, 1995, p. 185; Zhigunin, 1980, p. 70; Heinen, 1984, p 416; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 39; Will, 1979, p. 145; Winnicki, 1989, p. 52], which marked the beginning of the First Syrian War (see below)12. The goal of this campaign was most likely to conquer Egypt and take over the throne of Alexandria (see [Hoelbl, 2001, p. 39; Huss, 2001, p. 266; Machu, 1951, p. 48; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, 1993, p. 35; Will, 1979, p. 145, 147; Winnicki, 1989, p. 52]) 13.

However, such ambitious plans of the eldest son of Berenice were not destined to be realized. Antiochus was unable to support his son-in-law's initiative in time, invading the Ptolemaic possessions from the northeast. Instead, the Syrian king was forced to concentrate all his forces on fighting the Galatian hordes that dominated Asia Minor [Zhigunin, 1980, p. 67, 70; Barbantani, 2010(1), p. 89-90, 99-100; Heinen, 1984, p. 416; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 38-39; Ma, 1999, p. 34; Mitchell, 1993, p. 14-19; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, 1993, p. 33-35; Will, 1979, p. 142-143, 145-146; Winnicki, 1989, p. 52-53; cf. Coskun, 2012, p. 58]. In addition, being only fifty kilometers from Alexandria (Polyaen. II. XXVIII. 2) 14, Magas received news of an uprising in his own rear by the nomadic Libyan tribe of the Marmarids (Paus. I.VII.2), which forced him to immediately return to Cyrenaica before the end of 275 [Droizen, 1995, p. 185; Zhigunin, 1980, p. 70-71; Bagnall, 1976(2), p. 207; Beloch, 1927, p. 584; Bevan, 1927, p. 63; Buraselis, 2008, p. 300; Cavagna, 2008, p. 173; Grainger, 2010, p. 82-84; Heinen, 1984, p. 416; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 39; Mastrocinque, 1993, p. 35; Will, 1979, p. 145; Winnicki, 1989, p. 52]. From the complete collapse of the Cyrenian ruler was saved only by the rebellion of four thousand Galatian mercenaries who were in the service of Philadelphia, who thwarted the Egyptian offensive (Paus. I. VII. 2; cf. Cal. Hymn. IV. 186-187; Schol. In Cal. IV. 175-187).

As you know, the Egyptian ruler eventually managed to destroy the rebels, luring them to a deserted island near the Sebennite mouth of the Nile [Droizen, 1995,

11 For the date of this event, see: Bengtson, 1982, p. 157; Droizen, 1995, p. 186; Zhigunin, 1980, p. 70; Ager, 2003, p. 38; Bagnall, 1976(2), p. 207-209; Beloch, 1927, p. 584; Bevan, 1927, p 63, 73; Capovilla, 1962, p. 62; Grainger, 2010, p. 81-82; Hicnen, 1984, p. 416; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 39, 68, n. 17; Huss, 2001, S. 266; Lehmann, 1903, S. 496, 521, 523-524; Marquaille, 2008, p. 44; Mastrocinque, 1993, p. 35; Ogden, 1999, p. 160, n. 34; Seibert, 1967, S. 51-53; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, 1993, p. 35; Will, 1979, p. 145-146; Winnicki, 1989, S. 521.

12 It is not impossible that Ptolemy, at the initial stage of the confrontation with Magas, made unsuccessful attempts to reason with his relative. A hint of this fact can be found in the extant passage of the work of the Athenian comedian Philemon (Plut. De Coh. Ira 9; cf.: Plut. De Virt. Mor. 10):

"To you, O Magas, the king has sent a letter;
But poor Magas is not literate."

In this way, the comic poet mentioned above could have played up a joke that was common at the Alexandrian court about Magas ' lack of reaction to letters addressed to him by his half-brother (for possible pro-Alexandrian sympathies, see [Konstantakos, 2008, p. 92, p. 4]).

13 In my view, the political support of Antiochus I was sufficient to establish Magas as an independent ruler of Cyrenaica. Accordingly, an Egyptian campaign involving significant risks would be unnecessary in this case.

14 For the localization of the Chi region mentioned by Polyen (cf. above), see [Scthc, 1899, S. 2274].

15 The location of the Galatian mercenaries in the area of the Sebennite arm of the Nile, which divides lower Egypt almost in half (Herod. 11.17), in my opinion, may indicate that they were part of the rear reserve, which, if necessary, could be transferred both to the west-against Magas, and to the northeast-against Antiochus I, in view of the aggression expected from the latter.

page 36
p. 185], however, the strategic initiative in the fight against Magas had already been lost by that time. Magas ' father-in-law, Antiochus, had by this time managed his Galatians of Asia Minor, winning over them the so-called Elephant Victory (App. Syr. 65; Lucian. Zeux. 8-11, Lucian. Pro Lapsu 9; Suda, sigma, 443) 16, after which he was able to concentrate troops for the invasion of Kelesyria [Zhigunin, 1980, p. 71-72; Ager, 2003, p. 38; Beloch, 1927, S. 585, Bevan, 1927, p. 62; Grainger, 2010, p. 84-85; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 40; Sherwin-White, Kuhrt, 1993, p. 35; Will, 1979, p. 146-147; Winnicki, 1989, S. 53; ср.: Huss, 2001, S. 266-267]. As a result, Ptolemy was forced to concentrate his main forces in the north-eastern direction [Droysen, 1995, p. 186; Will, 1979, p. 146-147; Winnicki, 1989, p.53; cf. Huss, 2001, p. 266-267]. At the same time, Magas, for some unknown reason, did not take advantage of the favorable situation to launch a second strike on Egypt from the west. Perhaps this passivity of the eldest son of Berenice is explained by the emergence of a potential threat from Cyrenaica's western neighbor, Carthage, an alliance with which Philadelphia could buy by returning to the Punians a small coastal territory once captured by Ptolemy I [Zelinsky, 2012, p. 25-27; Huss, 2001, p. 268, Antn. 110, 294; Meltzer, 1879, S. 411-412; cf.: Hoelbl, 2001, p. 68, p. 18] 17.

Virtually nothing is known about the subsequent development of events (see [Heinen, 1984, p. 416; Weber, 1993, p. 312; Will, 1979, p.146]). In particular, we do not know which of the two mentioned rulers of the great Hellenistic powers acted as a formal aggressor, nor about the further development of the military conflict. If we proceed from more than fragmentary information contained in a number of separate, few sources [BM, 36710 + 92688 + 92689 = Chrest. Austyn, N 163; CM, 22183 = Mueller, 2006, p. 192-199; Theocr. Idyl. XVII; Paus. I. VII.3], then we can only come to a conclusion about some military operations that were conducted with varying success in Syria, as well as in the area of the southern coast of Asia Minor [Droizen, 1995, p. 186; Zhigunin, 1980, pp. 71-72; Ager, 2003, p. 38; Beloch, 1927, S. 585, Bevan, 1927, p. 61-62; Grainger, 2010, p. 84-85; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 40; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, 1993, p. 35; Will, 1979, p. 146-147; Winnicki, 1989, p. 53; cf. Huss, 2001, p. 266-267].

As a result, around 272/271, the warring parties concluded a peace agreement that ended the First Syrian War. As can be seen from the contents of the famous encomium dedicated to Ptolemy II by the poet Theocritus (Theocr. Idyl. XVII), in Alexandria, a loud victory was celebrated on this occasion [Heinen, 1984, p. 416-417; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 40; Kuzmin and Ladynin, 2014, p. 120; Will, 1979, p. 147, 149; cf.Winnicki, 1989, p. 54-55]. However, as we will see later, the results of the conflict were not as comforting for Egypt as Ptolemaic propaganda tried to present.

Indeed, Philadelphia not only managed to keep Celesiria in its hands (cf.: [Beloch, 1927, S. 585; Buraselis, 2008, p. 300; Grainger, 2010, p. 86; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 40, 69, n. 26; Huss, 2001, S. 270-271; Sherwin- White, Kuhrt, 1993, p. 35-36; Will, 1979,

16 We are talking about the victory of Antiochus in the general battle with the Galatians, which took place around 275 AD [Gabelko, 2003, p. 76; Heinen, 1984, p. 415-416; Mastrocinque, 1993, p. 37-39; Mitchell, 1993, p.118; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, 1993, p. 34-35; Strootman, 2005, p. 113-116; Will, 1979, p. 142-143; cf.: Coskun, 2012, p. 59-61]. For various suggestions about earlier or later dating options for this event, see: [Barbantani, 2010(1), p. 91-92; Grainger, 2010, p. 80-81; Huss, 2001, S. 274, Anm. 161; Lehmann, 1903, S. 530-531, 533; Ma, 1999, p. 34; Marszal, 1991, p. 52-53; Strobel, 1996, S. 257-264; Weber, 1993, S. 304, Anm. 6; Welles, 1970, p. 480-483; cf.: Abakumov, 2012, pp. 66-67, 89, note. 460, 462-463, 465-467; Coskun, 2012, p. 59-61; Mastrocinque, 1993, p. 37-38]. It should be retaliated that A. Cheshkun in one of his recent studies generally doubted the historicity of the mentioned victory [Coskun, 2012, p. 57-73].

17 For the opposite view, according to which Carthage was allied with Magas during the First Syrian War, see [Lehmann, 1903, p.543, 547].

page 37
p. 147; Winnicki, 1989, pp. 54-55]), but also to take over Seleucid Cilicia. 18 However, this is the end of Ptolemaic achievements.

In particular, according to a number of epigraphic sources, all the other Asia Minor regions located on the southern coast of the peninsula, namely Caria, Lycia and Pamphylia, became part of the Ptolemaic state as early as the first year of Philadelphia's sole rule.19 Thus, their incorporation into the Ptolemaic kingdom has nothing to do with the military conflict we are interested in. If we talk about Ionia, which some researchers refer to as one of the Ptolemaic trophies of the First Syrian War (see, for example, [Huss, 2001, p. 270]), then there is not a single evidence in favor of this assumption. Moreover, this Asia Minor region is not included in the list of Egyptian possessions given by Theocritus in the same encomium to Philadelphia (Theocr. Idyl. XVII.86-90)21.

Speaking about the territorial losses suffered by the Ptolemaic state in the First Syrian War, we should mention a small part of northeastern Caria, where the Seleucid presence was observed from the beginning of the 260s; 22 a strip of the Mediterranean coast to the west of Cyrenaica, transferred to Carthage during the war (see above).;

18 The first indication of this area being part of the Ptolemaic state is found in the aforementioned encomium of Theocritus (Theocr. Idyl. XVII. 88), dated 271/270 (Barbantani, 2010(1), p. 68, p. 4; Bcvan, 1927, p. 62; Huss, 2001, p. 270; compare Zhigunin, 1980, p. 72-73; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 40). If we take into account the presence of quite strong arguments recently expressed against the historicity of the so-called war for the Syrian inheritance [Zelinsky, 2013, p. 16-26; Grainger, 2010, p. 76-77; Huss, 2001, p. 261-262; Mastrocinque, 1993, p. 27-39; Meadows, 2012, p. 117-118], and Nor is the fact that Cilicia has been ruled by the Seleucids since the time of Antiochus I's father (Plut. Demetr. 47) Seleucus 1 Nicator (cf. [Huss, 2001, p. 211]), then the assumption of the transition of this area to the Ptolemaic Empire during the First Syrian War seems to me the most acceptable.

19 That is, in 282 [Zelinsky, 2013, p. 16-26; Meadows, 2012, p. 113-133].

20 At the same time, the Ionian Samos and Miletus previously acquired by Philadelphia [Zelinsky, 2013, p. 21, note. 10; Bagnall, 1976(1), p. 80, 173; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 38; Huss, 2001, p. 262] were not allocated by Theocritus to separate Ionian possessions of Egypt, since from an administrative point of view they could belong to the Cyclades and Caries, respectively. In any case, a similar situation is observed on the example of the Pisidian Termess. Under Ptolemy 11, this polis was part of Pamphylia (Barbantani, 2010(1), p. 97-98; Ma, 1999, p. 40), which probably prevented Theocritus from mentioning Pisidia among the Ptolemaic possessions.

21 There is a circumstance that at first glance allows us to doubt the historicity of the Feokrit list. We are talking about the absence of such an important Ptolemaic possession as Cyprus (see [Barbantani, 2010(1), p. 68; Hunter, 2003, p. 162-163; Weber, 1993, p.312-313]). It is unconvincing to assume that the poet did not distinguish Cyprus from the total number of islands subordinate to Philadelphia, based on the needs of versification (cf.: [Weber, 1993, p. 312-313]). The fact is that in this case Theocritus is not talking about abstract islands, but about the Cycladic archipelago (Theocr. Idyl. XVII. 90), to which the geographically remote Cyprus (as opposed to Samos) seems more than difficult. However, there are at least two plausible explanations for the absence of Cyprus in the passage of Theocritus mentioned above. First, at the time of writing the encomium, the mentioned island may have been in royal disfavor due to the mutiny of one of Philadelphia's half - brothers (Paus. I.VII.1) - most likely Meleager [Zelinsky, 2014 (1), pp. 20, 22, note. 9; Bennett, 2001-2013; van Oppen de Ruiter, 2011, p. 89, n. 36]. Secondly, there is a possibility that after the capture of Cilicia, this region could have formed a common administrative-territorial unit together with neighboring Cyprus for some time (cf.: [Bagnall, 1976(1), p. 38-49; Barbantani, 2010 (1), p. 87; Marquaille, 2008, p 43-44]), as it happened later under Cleopatra VII Bagnall, 1976(1), p. 262; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 241]. Based on this, the Alexandrian court poet may well have focused the attention of his readers and listeners not on Cyprus, which he mentioned earlier [Hunter, 2003, p. 127], but on the newly acquired Cilicia.

22 For example, in the north-east of the Caries, on the site of the future Seleucid colony of Stratonixi, an inscription of 268 was found, dated to the years of the so-called Seleucid era [van Bremen, 2003, p. 9, 12-13; Cohen, 1995, p. 268-269, 270, n. 2; Ma, 1999, p 277; Grainger, 2010, p. 117; Sahin, 1980, p. 211-212; Will, 1979, p. 149]. In the same area, not far from the future Laodicea, an inscription of 267 was discovered, also dated to the years of the Seleucid era [Primo, 2010, p. 69, 76-77]. It is possible that during the same period Antiochus I also controlled the Carian Thralls, and as a result, the mentioned polis was renamed Seleucia [Cohen, 1995, p. 265-266; Grainger, 2010, p. 118].

page 38
and, most importantly, Cyrenaica itself, 23 whose ruler Magas eventually retained the royal title, 24 and thus was finally recognized as an independent ruler [Droysen, 1995, p. 188; Eine, 1972, p. 168; Bevan, 1927, p. 63, 73; Grainger, 2010, p. 86; Lehmann, 1903, S. 537; Will, 1979, p. 145, 243] 25. To this we must add the considerable human and material losses suffered by the population of Ptolemaic Lycia as a result of the devastating Galatian raids, 26 which probably took place in the second half of the 270s [Cavagna, 2008, p. 176; cf. Barbantani, 2007, p.20, 22; Barbantani, 2010(1), p. 73-86, 92, 94-97, 100-102, 117; Chaniotis, 2005, p. 14, 90; Huss, 2001, S. 262, Anm. 61; Ma, 1999, p. 40, p. 51; Mitchell, 1993, p. 18; Strobel, 1991, S. 125-126; Weber, 1993, S. 308, Anm. 1] 27. Although this area was eventually left to Philadelphia [Cavagna, 2008, p. 176; compare Barbantani, 2007, p. 20, 22; Barbantani, 2010(2), p. 236; Barbantani, 2010(1), p. 73-86, 92, 94-97, 100-102, 117] However, it suffered very significantly. In particular, it can be assumed with a high degree of probability that it was precisely because of the Galatian rampage in the region that the most important Lycian port, Patara, actually had to be rebuilt (Strab. XIV.III.6)28.

Thus, although the Egyptian ruler emerged victorious in a direct duel with Antiochus, significant territorial losses in the west, combined with the devastating consequences of Galatian activity in Lycia, and possibly in Egypt itself, 29 turned this very conditional victory into a rather tangible defeat. Of course, this circumstance did not lead the Ptolemaic state to an irreversible collapse, but the loss of control over the economically developed and strategically significant Cyrenaica (cf.: [Bengtson, 1982, p. 43; Hoelbl, 2001, p. 45; Rostovtzeff, 1941, p. 333]) is a factor that is ignored by modern researchers. it was supposed to significantly weaken the foreign policy positions of the Alexandrian ruler.

list of literature

Abakumov A. A. Fighting elephants in the history of the Hellenistic world (the last third of the IV-II centuries BC). Moscow: Kniga Publ., 2012.

Bengtson G. Rulers of the Hellenistic Era, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1982.
Gabelko O. L. O zlokoznennosti Lukiana ili mnosticheskie replik o chariots of the Asian Celts / / Studio Historica. V. III. 2003.

Droysen and. Istoriya hellenizma [History of Hellenism], translated from German: in 3 volumes. Rostov-on-Don: Feniks Publ., 1995.

Eins A. Cyreno-Egyptian relations under the first Ptolemies / / Ancient East and the ancient World. Moscow: Nauka, 1972.

23 Moreover, it is possible that after the end of the first Syrian War, Magas retained the city of Paretonium, captured during the campaign of 275 (Polyaen. II. XXVIII.2; Plut. De Coh. ira 9); cf.: (Plut. Dc Virt. Mor. 10). See also: [Bartson, 1982, p. 475, n. 118; Chamoux, 1956, p. 29].

24 Even the ruler of a distant Indian power, the Mauryan Ashoka, recognized Magas as a royal title (Chamoux, 1956, p. 30-31; Charpentier, 1931, p. 303-321; Huss, 2001, p. 301).

25 K. Belokh expressed a cautious assumption, which was later developed by J. Belokh. Beloch, 1927, pp. 585-586; Machu, 1951, p. 48-51), but this assumption seems unlikely due to its unprovability.

26 It is possible that Antiochus I may have been directly behind these raids [Ma, 1999, p. 40, p. 51; Strobel, 1991, p. 125-126; Barbantani, 2010(1), p. 95-96].

27 In my opinion, the Galatian raids on Lycia should be attributed precisely to the time of the First Syrian War, and not to an earlier or later period, as most researchers do (see: above). In addition, it is possible that in this context it is worth considering the Galatian raid on Milst, reflected in one of the Hellenistic epigrams, as well as based on one of the anecdotes of Parthenius (AP. VII. 492; Parthen. Nar. Amat. See also: Barbantani, 2007, p. 23; Coskun, 2012, p. 58, n. 2; Kistler, 2009, S. 177-179; Mitchell, 1993, p. 17.

28 In any case, the current state of the source database does not contradict the proposed interpretation of Strabo's message (cf.: [Cohen, 1995, p. 329; Zimmermann. 1992, S. 201-205]).

29 For possible additional complications associated with the Galatian revolt in Egypt, see [Grainger, 2010, p. 82, 85].

page 39
Zhigunin V. D. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya hellenisticheskikh gosudarstv v 280-220 gg. B.C. Kazan: Publishing House of Kazan University, 1980.

Зелінський АЛ. Інкорпорація південних областей Малої Азії до складу держави Птолемеїв: нова інтерпретація подій // Східний Світ. 2013. N 4.

Зелінський АЛ. Птолемей Філадельф і Лаг, син Таїс, - реконструкція стосунків між братами // Східний світ. 2014. N 4.

Зелінський АЛ. Птолемей І Сотер як учасник IV війни Діадохів: боягузтво, підступність чи обачність // Доісламський Близький Схід: історія, релігія, культура. Збірник наукових статей / Під ред. M.О. Тарасенка. Київ: Інститут сходознавства НАНУ, 2014.

Зелінський А. Л. Хронологічна локалізація розширення західних кордонів птолемеївської Киренаїки // Вісник КНУ. Історія. Issue 110, 2012.

Semyonov S. V. The Symmachus of King Magas with the Cretan polis and the Patroclus expedition // Proceedings of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2010, No. 2.
Agcr S. An Uneasy Balance: from the Death of Seleukos to the Battle of Raphia // A Companion to the Hellenistic World / Ed. A. Erskinye. Maiden (MA) - Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.

Bagnall R. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.

Bagnall R. Archagathos Son of Agathocles, Epistates of Libya // Philologus. 1976. N 2.

Barbantani S. Supplementum Hellenisticum 969 (PSI inv. 436): in Praise of a Ptolemaic General? // Akten des 23. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Wien, 22.-28. Juli 2001 / Ed. B. Palme. Wien: Verlag der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007.

Barbantani S. The glory of the spear. A powerful symbol in Hellenistic poetry and art. The case of Neoptolemus "of Tlos" (and other Ptolemaic epigrams) // Studi classii e orientait. Vol. 53. 2010(1).

Barbantani S. Ideologie royale et litterature de cour dans l'Egypte lagide // Des Rois au Prince. Pratiques du pouvoir monarchique dans l'Orient hellenistique et romain (IVc siecle avant J.-C. - Ile siecle apres J.-C.) / Ed. I. Savalli-Lestrade, E. Cogitore. Grenoble: Illug, 2010(2).

Barbantani S. Callimachus of Kings and Kingship // Brill's Companion to Callimachus / Ed. B. Acosta-Hughes, L. Lehnus, S. Stephens. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2011.

Bartson L. Cyrenaica in Antiquity: PhD Thesis; Harvard University. An Arbor, 1982.

Beloeh K. Griechische Geschichte: In IV Bdc. Bd. IV T 2. Berlin-Leipzig: Teubner, 1927.

Bennett Ch. Meleager // Egyptian Royal Genealogy. http://www.tyndalchouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/meleagerhtm.

Bevan E. The House of Ptolemy. L.: Methuen Publishing, 1927.

Bosworth A. The Government of Syria under Alexander the Great // The Classical Quarterly. 1974. N 1.

Bremen R. van. Ptolemy at Panamara // Epigraphica Anatolica. Bd. 35. 2003.

Buraselis K. The problem of the Ptolemaic Sibling Marriage: a Case of Dynastic Acculturation? // Ptolemy II Philadelphia and his World / Ed. P. McKcchnic, Ph. Guillaume. Leiden-Boston: E.J. Brill, 2008.

Capovilla G. Callimachea et libyca // Aegyptus. Vol. 42. 1962.

Capovilla G. Callimaco e Cirene storica e mitica // Aegyptus. Vol. 43. 1963.

Cavagna A. L'oro dei Theoi Adelphoi // Quaderni di Acme. Vol. 102. 2008.

Chamoux F. Epigramme de Cyrene en l'honneur du roi Magas // Bulletin de correspondance hellenique. Vol. 82. 1958.

Chamoux F. Le roi Magas // Revue Historique. Vol. 216. 1956.

Chaniotis A. War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History. Oxford: Blackwcll Publishing, 2005.

Charpentier J. Antiochus, King of the Yavana // Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies. 1931. N 2.

Clayman D. Berenice 11 and the Golden Age of Ptolemaic Egypt. Women in antiquity. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Cohen G. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley, LA - Oxford: University of California Press, 1995.

Coskun A. Deconstructing a Myth of Seleucid History: The So-Called "Elephant Victory" // Phoenix. 2012. N 1/2.

Grainger J. Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

Grainger J. The Syrian Wars. Leiden-Boston: E.J. Brill, 2010.

Heinen H. The Syrian-Egyptian Wars and the new kingdoms of Asia Minor // The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. VII. Pt. 1. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Hoelbl G. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. London-New York: Routledge, 2001.

Hunter R. (cd.) Theocritus Encomium of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press, 2003.

Huss W. Aegyplen in hellenistischer Zeit: 332-30 v. Chr. Munchen: C.H. Beck, 2001.

Kistler E. Funktionalisierte Keltenbilder: die Indienstnahme der Kelten zur Vermittlung von Normen und Werten in der hellenistischen Welt. B.: Verlag Antike c. K., 2009.

Koenen L. The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure // Images and Ideologies. Self-definition in the Hellenistic World / Ed. A. Bulloch, E. Grucn, A. Long, A. Stewart. Berkeley, LA - Oxford: University of California Press, 1993.

page 40
Konstantakos I. Accademia Editoriale "Rara coronato plausere thcatra Menandro?" Menander's Success in His Lifetime // Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica. 2008. N 1.

Kuzmin Yu., Ladynin I. Review of: Elizabeth Donnelly Carney, Arsinoe of Egypt and Macedon. A Royal Life, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013 // Eos. Commentarii Soeielatis philologue Polonorum. Vol. 101. 2014.

Lehmann C. Hellenistische Forschungen. Einlcitung: Der erste syrische Krieg und die Weltlage um 275-272 v. Chr. // Klio. Bd. 3. 1903.

Lorton D. The Supposed Expedition of Ptolemy 11 to Persia// The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. Vol. 57. 1971.

Ma J. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Machu J. Cyrcnc: la cite et le souverain a l'epoque hellenistique // Revue Historique. Vol. 205. 1951.

Marquaille C. The Foreign Policy of Ptolemy II // Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World / Ed. P. McKechnic, Ph. Guillaume. Leiden-Boston: E.J. Brill, 2008.

Marszal J. The representation of the Gauls in the Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods: PhD Thesis, Bryn Mawr College. Bryn Mawr, 1991.

Mastrocinque A. "Guerra di successione" e Prima guerra di Celesiria un falso moderno e una questione storica // Ancient Society. Vol. 24. 1993.

Meadows A. Deditio in Fidem: The Ptolemaic Conquest of Asia Minor // Imperialism, Cultural Politics, and Polyhius / Ed. C. Smith, L. Yarrow. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Meltzer O. Geschichte der Karthager. Bd. I. B.: Weidmannsehe Buchhandlung, 1879.

Mitchell S. Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Mueller K. Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistie World. Leuwen: Peeters, 2006.

Nachtergael G. Les Calates en Grece et les Soteria de Delphes. Bruxelles: Palais de Academies, 1977.

Ogden D. Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties. London Swansea: Duckworth-Thc Classical Press of Wales," 1999.

Van Oppen de Ruiter B. The Marriage of Ptolemy I and Berenice I // Ancient Society. V. 41. 2011.

Otto W. Zu den syrischen Kriegen der Ptolemaeer // Philologus. Bd. 86. 1931.

Primo A. Fondazioni di Antioco I Soter in Caria (St. Byz. s.v. ANTIOCHEIA) // Electrum. V 18. 2010.

Rostovtzeff M.I. The Social and economic history of the hellenistic world. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1941.

Sahin M. A Carian and Three Greek Inscriptions from Stratonikcia // Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bd. 39. 1980.

Seibert J. Historische Beitrage zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag, 1967.

Sethe K. Chi // Pauly-Wissowa Realeneyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 1899. Bd. 111. T. 2.

Sherwin-White S., Kuhrt A. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A new approach to the Seleucid empire. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press, 1993.

Strobel K. Die Galater im hellenistischen Kleinasien: Historische Aspekte einer Keltischen Staatenbildung // Hellenistische Studien. Gedenksehriften H. Bengtson / Ed. J. Scibert. Miinchcn: Ed. Maris, 1991.

Strobcl K. Die Galater. Geschichte und Eigenart der keltischen Staatenbildung auf dem Boden des hellenistischen Kleinasien. Bd. 1. B.: Akadcmic Vcrlag, 1996.

Strootman R. Kings against Celts. Deliverance from barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda // The Manipulative Mode. Political Propaganda in Antiquity. A Collection of Case Studies / Ed. K. Encnkcl & I. Pfeijffer. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2005.

Tarn W. The First Syrian War // The Journal of Hellenic studies. Vol. 46. 1926.

Tarn W. Ptolemy II and Arabia// The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 1929. N 1/2.

Tarn W. The date of Milet I, iii, no. 139 // Hermes. Bd. 65. 1930.

Weber G. Dichtung und hofische Gesellschaft. Die Rezeption von Zeitgeschichte am H of der ersten drei Ptolemaeer. Stuttgart: Franz Stcincr Verlag, 1993.

Welles C. Gallic Mercenaries in the Chremonidean War // Klio. Bd. 52. 1970.

White D. Seven Recently Discovered Sculptures from Cyrene, Eastern Libya // Expedition. 1976. N 2.

Will E. Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av. J.-С). Т. I. (2 ed.). Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 1979.

Winnicki J.-K. Operacje wojskowe Ptolemeuszow w Syrii. Warszawa: Wyd-wo Un-tu warszawskiego, 1989.

Zimmermann M. Die Lykischen Haefen und die Handelswege im oestlichen Mittelmeer // Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bd. 92. 1992.

page 41

Permanent link to this publication: