Michael Burgess

The recent discovery of a third coin featuring the portraits of Queen Cleopatra II Selene and one of her sons will prove of great interest to the student of ancient Syrian history and Seleukid numismatics. For the first time, we have before us an example of a bronze coin with a full inscription of these rulers, and with complete and clear obverse and reverse images.

Brian Kritt’s distinguished essay in the April 2002 issue of The Celator, “Numismatic Evidence for a New Seleucid King: Seleucus (VII) Philometor,” carefully explored the extant references for the late history of classical Syria, and I shall try to avoid over-repetition of his citations here. Suffice it to say, all of the ancient sources for the history of early Syria are somewhat deficient, particularly in their accounts of the dynasty’s declining years. No specific history of the House of Seleukos has survived to modern times, if indeed one ever existed; and the remaining references, such as they are, contain numerous contradictions, both internally and with each other, as well as chronological problems in the delineation of the final decades of the ancient Syrian state.

What do we really know of these years?

The ancient historians regarded with evident disgust the series of civil wars that turned one Seleukid pretender against another, tearing apart the fabric of the state and making the continuation of the family’s rule ultimately impossible. The constant internecine warfare drained the region of its resources, and muted the attempts of each succeeding or competing monarch to control the surrounding areas, or to ward off attacks from the major regional powers.

King Antiochos IV’s invasion of Ptolemaic Egypt and his attempt to overthrow the ruling House of Lagos during the early 160s BC would have altered permanently the political climate of the Eastern Mediterranean region had it not been thwarted by a Roman ultimatum in the year 168. The Republic demanded that the king withdraw his forces from Egypt forthwith, a command which he had no choice but to obey. When his nephew, King Demetrios I, succeeded to the throne in 162, the stage was set for the dynasty’s ultimate ruination.

Egyptian King Ptolemy VI, the very monarch who had been forced to beg the Romans for help against Antiochos IV, arranged with Attalos II King of Pergamon to bring forward a pretender who claimed, with an irony that Ptolemy would certainly have appreciated, to be a long-lost son of Antiochos IV. The newly annointed King Alexander I, called Balas, was given King Ptolemy’s daughter, Princess Cleopatra Thea, as a token of the Egyptian monarch’s support, together with sufficient bullion to buy himself a mercenary army.

Demetrios I had spent much of his youth as a hostage in Rome, and was perceived by his Syrian subjects as stern and austere. However, despite his unpopularity at home, the king rallied his forces against Alexander, but was defeated and killed in battle against the upstart in 150. Demetrios’s two young sons fled the country.

Thus began the cycle that continued down to the final years of the dynasty, almost a century later, with pretender succeeding pretender, brother fighting brother, cousin combating cousin. During the time of Demetrios I, Syria was still a major power in the Middle East; at the deposition of the last Seleukid monarch, Antiochos XIII, in 64 BC, it had shrunk to the city of Antioch and an unknown (but small) number of outlying districts and cities lying at the heart of the old Syrian empire.

Ptolemaic interference with the governance of Syria continued throughout the seventy-year period from 150-70 BC, both overtly and covertly, and can be seen specifically with the intermarriage of the various Seleukid monarchs to four royal princesses of the House of Lagos.

Queen Cleopatra I Thea, the first of these imperious ladies, was successively wed to Syrian Kings Alexander I Balas, Demetrios II, Antiochos VII, and again to Demetrios II, before finally arranging to have her final husband and their oldest son, King Seleukos V, murdered within months of each other in 125 BC, whereupon she assumed control of the Syrian state herself. After four years of co-rule with another son, King Antiochos VIII Epiphanes (popularly called Grypos, or “Hook-Nosed”), she attempted to murder him with a poisoned drink, which he refused, forcing her to sip it herself (121/120 BC). She is the ancestress of all of the later Seleukid monarchs.

Queen Cleopatra I Thea had three nieces and first cousins, daughters of Egyptian King Ptolemy VIII (her father’s younger brother) and of her elder sister, Queen Cleopatra III: Tryphaena married Antiochos VIII Epiphanes; Cleopatra (IV) married Antiochos IX Philopator (Epiphanes’s half-brother), popularly called Kyzikenos, the man of Cyzikus; and Cleopatra Selene, the youngest of the three girls, married both Antiochos VIII and IX successively after her sisters’ executions during the ongoing civil war between the two royal siblings. Following her husbands’ deaths, she then wed Philopator’s only surviving son (her nephew), Antiochos X Eusebes, who was almost a generation younger than herself.

Queen Cleopatra II Selene, the focus of the present essay, was known by the ancient authors primarily under the latter name, to distinguish her from her many relatives named Cleopatra, but she did employ her full name officially. As Flavius Josephus states: “Basilissa gar Selênê hê kai Kleopatra kaloumenê,...” which is to say, “For Queen Selene, who [was] also called Kleopatra,...”1 Strabo similarly mentions “...Selênên epiklêtheisan Kleopatran...” (“...Selene surnamed Cleopatra...”). Her three surviving coins also record her reign name (in the genitive case) as “Basilissês Kleopatras Selênês” (“of Queen Cleopatra Selene”). The name “Selênê” in Greek refers both to the moon and to the Moon Goddess, who was said in Greek mythology variously to have been the daughter of Helios (the sun), or of Hyperion or of Pallas.

Selene was likely born in the mid- to late 130s BC2 to Egyptian King Ptolemy VIII and his wife and niece, Cleopatra III (daughter of his brother, Ptolemy VI, and sister of Cleopatra Thea). She was married about the year 115 to her own brother, Ptolemy IX, after her elder sister, Cleopatra IV, had been forcibly divorced from him by their mother. She may also have wed another brother, Ptolemy X Alexander, but this supposition is unproved (see Christopher Bennett’s website on the Ptolemies, cited earlier in this paragraph, for the evidence supporting this notion).

What is certain is that she was then sent by her mother to marry Syrian King Antiochos VIII “Grypos” circa the year 103 BC,3 as part of a political arrangement whereby Queen Cleopatra III attempted to enlist the Grypos faction to help her dominate or even murder her own two sons, and thereby rule Egypt in her own right; Grypos agreed to the arrangement in order to gain Egypt’s assistance in defeating his half-brother, Antiochos IX. After Grypos’s murder circa 98/97 BC by Minister Heracleon, his half-brother Antiochos IX assumed control of Antioch, but was himself dispossessed and killed by King Seleukos VI, Grypos’s eldest son, about the year 95.

Shortly thereafter, Selene married her stepson, Antiochos X Eusebes (“Pious”). As Appian4 tells us, “...emoi de dokousin epi gelôti autô poiêsasthai to onoma hoi Syroi; egême gar outos ho Eusebês Selênên, hê kai tô patri autou egegamêto tô Kyzikênô kai tô Grypô theiô genomenô,” which is to say, “My friends, I think the Syrians gave him the name as a joke; for this ‘Eusebês’ himself wed Selênê, who had been married [previously] to his own father, Kyzikênos, and [before that] to his uncle, Grypos.” In other words, Appian is stating, Antiochos X acted impiously in marrying his own stepmother, who had the legal status of a parent.

Impious or not, Antiochos X’s new wife promptly bore him a son and heir, Antiochos XIII Philadelphos (called “Asiatikos,” or the man of Asia), who became the last generally-acknowledged king of the Seleukid dynasty. He was deposed by Pompey in 64 BC when Rome annexed the kingdom as the newly-constituted province of Syria. A second, unnamed son is mentioned by Cicero in his polemic against Verres, when he notes that both boys had recently been visiting Rome (sometime during the late 70s BC).5 Kritt’s recent discovery of a coin depicting the boy King Seleukos VII Philometor establishes with certainty the name of that sibling.

Although Appian tells us that it was Antiochos X Eusebes whom Armenian King Tigranes II defeated circa 83 BC while assuming control over Syria, Josephus states that the young Seleukid monarch was actually killed, probably much earlier, fighting the Parthians, a more likely tale given the evidence of Antiochos X’s coinage; and most numismatists now accept Eusebes’s years of rule as occurring between 94-92 BC, with a brief break in the year 93, when his cousin Antiochos XI invaded Syria and seized Antioch, before himself meeting his death in a second battle outside the city.

If Josephus is right, then the two sons of Selene had to have been conceived and born no later than 92 BC, when the queen was in her early forties. This is certainly within the realm of physical possibility.

Eusebes had successively defeated three of his first cousins, Seleukos VI in 94 BC, and this king’s siblings, Antiochos XI and his twin brother, Philip I, in 93. After Eusebes’s death, a fourth son of Antiochos VIII, Demetrios III, stepped forward with Philip to claim the Syrian throne. Demetrios had already established himself in Damascus about the year 96 BC with Ptolemaic financial support (his first coins there are dated 97/96 BC).

Philip and his brother Demetrios soon split, however, following the pattern of their family, and continued to trade blows until Demetrios was captured about 87 BC by the Parthians. He was succeeded in Damascus by the youngest of the five brothers, Antiochos XII Dionysos. The latter monarch was killed in battle against a joint army of the Jews and Nabateans circa 83 BC (his last coins are dated 84/83 BC), about the same time that Philip apparently died of natural causes in Antioch (since none of the ancient authors specifically mention Philip’s end, we can only speculate that it was wholly unremarkable; indeed, his coins depict a man who ages very rapidly in little more than a decade). Philip left an underaged heir, Philip II Barypous, who is known to have lived in Cilicia during part of his youth.

We can reasonably assume that Philip Senior and his brother Antiochos XII died within a relatively short time of each other, because both cities, having no surviving adult Seleukids left to claim either throne, promptly turned to foreign monarchs as their saviors against the real threat of attack by the local desert tribes: Damascus to King Aretas III, the Nabatean monarch who had been the city’s sworn enemy just months before, and Antioch to King Tigranes II of Armenia.

But what became of Cleopatra Selene and her sons?

The ancient historians say very little about the fourteen-year reign of Tigranes over Syria from 83-69 BC, but we should not thus presume that the various Seleukid pretenders merely faded away into the dusky landscape. Undoubtedly, following the usual tradition of the House of Seleukos, the young princes were sent away to be educated at a distance, far from danger and the threat of assassination. The usual place for such training was Cilicia, although other, more distant climes were certainly possible (Grypos had earlier been dispatched to Athens).

We do know that Tigranes seized Damascus from Aretas III about the year 72/71, when the former’s dated silver coinage first appears there (Aretas apparently issued no tetradrachms, only scarce, undated bronzes). The ongoing war over the control of Asia Minor between Rome and King Mithridates VI of Pontus, Tigranes’s father-in-law, continued to flare throughout this period.

We also have the evidence of the three known coins of Cleopatra Selene as direct testimony that she made a bid for the Syrian throne on behalf of both herself and her two sons. Since these bronzes appear to depict boys of about the ages of 10-14, we can assume that they were issued shortly after the deaths of both Philip I and Antiochos XII, specifically in order to establish her and her sons’ claim to the unoccupied thrones.

The only corroboration from the ancient authors of her status as a ruling monarch occurs in Josephus, who states, following the passage quoted above, “...Selênê hê...tôn en tê Syria katêrchen...”6 (“...Selênê...who [then] ruled in Syria”). The verb used here, “katarchô,” had in the late classical era the meaning of “to rule” or “to govern,” but was earlier employed in the sense of “to strike someone” or even “to sacrifice”; perhaps Josephus would have been cognizant of this potential double meaning. Since the queen was the second ruling Seleukid monarch with the name Cleopatra, she should now properly be termed Queen Cleopatra II Selene, with her aunt becoming Cleopatra I Thea.

Her rebellion was not universally successful; it seems unlikely, for example, that she ever controlled Antioch for more than brief intervals, if ever, or we would probably have examples of tetradrachms providing some evidence of that fact. Instead, the only known silver coins issued by that city during this decade and a half were minted under the authority of King Tigranes. However, Selene may well have controlled one or more walled citadels along the coasts of Phoenicia or Cilicia throughout all or part of the period from 83-69 BC.

During the mid-70s Selene sent her two sons west to present their claims before the Roman Senate to rule both Syria and Egypt. According to Cicero, the Senate acknowledged the boys’ rights to the Syrian diadem by inheritance from their father, Antiochos X, but declined even to hear their petition to rule in Alexandria (the status of the reigning King of Egypt, Ptolemy XII, the princes’ first cousin, who had recently succeeded to the throne in 80 BC, was questionable due to his illegitimate birth, but he was a known Roman ally at a time when the Senate needed such support in the long fight against Mithridates VI of Pontus). Cicero claimed that the boys returned to the East by separate ships, but Antiochos unfortunately stopped in Sicily, where he was robbed by Roman Governor Verres.

Josephus also tells us of Selene’s ultimate fate. In the same passage mentioned above, the historian notes that early in 69 BC Tigranes was besieging Ptolemais, where he received a delegation from the ruling Queen Alexandra of Judea, who petitioned him not to proceed southward into the Jewish lands. The city fell soon afterwards, and Selene was taken prisoner and later executed, but Tigranes was abruptly called north by reports of the invasion of Armenia proper by Roman General Lucullus, who had been chasing Mithridates VI through eastern Asia Minor. In the ensuing battle the Roman forces prevailed, and the Armenian monarch was ultimately forced to capitulate to Pompey a few years later, his kingdom then being reduced to its traditional homeland.

Selene’s end is also mentioned by Strabo, who says that she was held prisoner for a time by Tigranes at Seleukeia in Commagene, and later executed there.

Within months of Selene’s capture, however, her eldest son, Antiochos XIII Philadelphos, called Asiatikos, had been allowed by Lucullus to take the Syrian throne. He was initially greeted with enthusiasm by the citizens of Antioch, and minted two small series of tetradrachms over the next several years, but soon his expedition against the Arabs went sour, and he found himself fighting a rebellion at home and enemies abroad. He was then kidnapped by King Sampsiceramus of Emesa; in Antioch his detractors brought forth the king’s young second cousin, Philip II, out of his hiding place in Cilicia to claim the vacant throne. Although Antiochos returned for another brief period of rule circa 64 BC, Roman General Pompey had had enough of the Seleukid circus, and annexed Syria outright during his settlement of the political affairs of the Middle East. King Antiochos XIII was deposed, and soon thereafter murdered, perhaps by Sampsiceramus.

The New Coin

The newly discovered bronze of Antiochos XIII and his mother was recently purchased by the author from a well-known Middle Eastern dealer, who in turn obtained it from a vendor located just south of the Jordanian-Syrian border. If the piece was discovered locally, this would imply a possible point of origin somewhere in Coele-Syria or Phoenicia, perhaps even near Ake-Ptolemais, the last known residence of Selene.

(Enlarged photo by the author.)

The coin measures 19.5-20.0 mm, with a depth of 3 mm, weight of 9.15 g, and die axis of 12 o’clock.

Obverse. Female and male heads jugate, the female in front, veiled and wearing a stephane, the male behind, probably wearing a diadem, the front edge of which is barely visible above his forehead. Circle of dots.

Reverse. Nike striding l., holding wreath in extended right arm, her left arm hanging loosely behind her body. Circle of dots.

Inscription to the right of Nike, in three vertical lines:

Basili[ssês]/Kleopatra[s]/Selênês

Inscription between Nike’s draped wings and her body, just beneath her left hand, curved along the flank of her rear left leg:

kai

Inscription to the left of Nike, in two vertical lines and one curved line along the left rim of the coin:

Ba-sileôs/An-tiochou/Phil-omêto[ros]

The inscription exactly parallels that of Kritt’s coin featuring Selene and Seleukos VII, right down to the epithet. The portraits also display the hooked noses and protruding chins common to the House of Lagos and the late Seleukids. The piece is beautifully designed and proportioned, a true masterwork of the celator’s art.

This bronze and the other two known examples of Selene’s coinage were likely issued as propaganda pieces, both to emphasize the princelings’ claims, and also to solidify the queen’s own rule over whatever portion of the ancient Syrian state she actually controlled. It is significant that all three pieces feature very traditional Seleukid themes: the tripod, the god Apollo, and (in this instance) the goddess Nike. Tigranes II had altered the usual appearance of the Syrian tetradrachms and large bronzes to feature Tyche on their reverses instead of Zeus or Apollo, with only a few pieces displaying more accustomed devices; even his own image would have appeared foreign to the citizens of Syria. Here, these new coins proclaim, here are portraits of the true rulers of Antioch, who look and act (and, by inference, will govern) in ways that the people can understand, as demonstrated by the bronzes themselves, with their comfortable, familiar themes.

We might expect eventually to discover a parallel Æ 20 issued by Selene for Seleukos VII, featuring one of the other common elements historically employed on the reverses of Seleukid coins. But until we do, we can only admire the quiet style and haunting grace of this surviving hallmark of the reign of another strong Ptolemaic and Seleukid monarch, Queen Cleopatra II Selene.

A Tentative Chronology of the Late Syrian Empire

About the Author

Michael Burgess, a retired professor in the California State University, is the author of over 100 published books and some thirteen thousand short pieces. His novella, “Occam’s Treasure,” published in December 2002 in the anthology, Crusade of Fire, edited by Katherine Kurtz (Warner Books), features a tetradrachm of Philip Philadelphos as a central plot element.