Talk:Ptolemy XII Auletes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Illegitimate Heir

my name is Walid Osama. I wanted to start a particular discussion which revolves around the topic of King Ptolemy XII's illegitimacy. As you all know, he was believed to be the son of a concubine, and ascended to the throne when no lawful heir was available. I am surprised at how profound this point must be, as this means the last family of pharoahs were unlawfully crowned. I want to know what you all feel about this.

--Walid Osama 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Walid Osama

Well, if you do indeed believe this, that's great. However, for Wikipedia's sake, you are going to need a reference so it is legitimate and not a view of yourself or group of people with no reasonable proof. Walid Osama, use the following format "==Header==" (ex. ==The Illegitimate Heir==") rather than your previous style when creating new talking points on the Talk page. And please sign all posts with the four tildes. Also, ptolemyxll, when replying to a comment, do not create a new section. Use the ":" key to indent and reply. Happy to help you if you need it. Daniel Musto (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This belif is compeltly false.

Also he had only 2 children by Cleopatra V, Cleopatra VI is Cleopatra V.

The illegitimacy of Ptolemy XII is commented on in the literature. Dodson and Hilton mention that Pompeius Trogus referred to the king as a "bastard". Furthermore Pausanias mentions that Berenice III (his sister) was the only legitimate child.
For as far as Cleopatra V vs Cleopatra VI goes: that identification is a theory not a fact. The numbering of the Cleopatras in the literature is not stable. But according to Dodson and Hilton again, Ptolemy XII had 5 children: Berenice IV, Cleopatra VII, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV and Arsinoe IV. And the mother of some of the children is thought to be Cleopatra VI. --AnnekeBart (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleopatra Tryphaena & Cleopatra V were one & the same, mother of Cleopatra VII & more then likely all her siblings. A dedication on the Temple of Edfu from 57 BC inscribes Cleopatra Tryphaena's name alongside Ptolemy XII's, his wife not 'mistress', this would be unlikely had Ptolemy XII's wife died 12 years earlier. Thus historical evidence points to the fact that Cleopatra Tryphaena to be identical with Cleopatra V, & have her living to c. 57 BC. (Angar432 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

ptolemyxll

i can not belive that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.205.85 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian woman?

There is no mention anywhere that the mother of Ptolemy XII was an Egyptian woman. That is a speculation by some modern authors. The fact that the Ptolemies were well known to inbreed with one another makes it highly unlikely that his mother was an Egyptian woman. For the Ptolemies incest was a dynastic signature which highlighted their singularity and above all, their power.

They also followed the matrilinear nature of succession, a system in which one belongs to one's mother's lineage; inheritance of property or titles was through the female line. If the mother of Ptolemy XII was not of Macedonian royal blood he wouldn't have been seen as having sufficient standing within the royal households be recognized as Ptolemy IX's heir.

As for the claim of 'bastard', the term wasn't used in the sense it is used today. The accusations of bastardy are very common in dynastic disputes of the Hellenistic period, one of the most common circumstance involves disputes over the succession between sons of different Ptolemaic mothers(i.e. ethnic Greek-Macedonian Princesses & Queens); Ogden christens these "amphimetric" disputes and argues that the Ptolemies resolve this problem through the institution of incestuous marriage, but in time, as different Ptolemaic princesses married multiple Ptolemaic kings, the problem essentially became resurrected through disputes between the families of different Ptolemaic sisters. This situation is unique amongst Ptolemaic heirs. While officially a son of Cleopatra Selene, the age data for other such princes suggests that Ptolemy XII was in fact the son of Cleopatra IV, sister of Ptolemy IX, born to Ptolemy IX before his accession. The decision by Cleopatra III to force a divorce between Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra IV (Justin 39.3 ~) is why he is known as the 'Bastard'. Cleopatra Selene later married Ptolemy X, and became the mother of Ptolemy XI. In these circumstances, there was a strong incentive for the partisans of Ptolemy X, including Cleopatra Selene to impugn the legitimacy of Ptolemy XII. [~Genealogy of the Ptolemaic House]

The Ptolemies believed that the "sister-born" was a prerequisite of legitimacy and for a Ptolemaic princess to be a recognized sister she must also have been a queen. The biological mother of Ptolemy XII had to have been in a relationship with Ptolemy IX and she also had to have had held sufficient standing within the royalty households for her son to be recognized as Ptolemy IX's heir. The only one who fits this is Cleopatra IV on all accounts:

Cleopatra IV was married to Ptolemy IX and with him in Cyprus when Ptolemy XII was born.
In ca 115 BC their mother Cleopatra III forced Cleopatra IV and Ptolemy IX to divorce, replacing Cleopatra IV with her sister Cleopatra Selene
Since Ptolemy XII was born to Ptolemy IX before his accession and before his mother Cleopatra IV was an official recognized Queens not mention the forced divorced by his grandmother is how the term 'bastard' was forced upon him.

The term doesn't necessarily mean his mother was of Egyptian origins since if she was not from the Ptolemaic bloodline, i.e. an illegitimate off spring of a 'foreigner', would not have held a high enough status to became a Ptolemy King or Queen of the Dynasty. (Angar432 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

References

I noticed that this article doesn't have footnote references of any kind. Something that should be fixed, but I don't know how to flag this article! Iprocomp (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escaped?

Down near the end, it says, "Then he had him escaped." I presume that this means that he either helped or at least allowed the man to escape, but it's not clear, and in any case, escape isn't used that way in English. I'd change it myself, but I'm not sure which way would be most accurate.JDZeff (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ptolemy XII Auletes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not his photo on the coin

Ptolemy XII

When I uploaded the photo to the right, I had my doubts. The site CNG coins did not declare that its Ptolemy XII depicted, only that its a diademed head. I assumed its the head of Ptolemy XII, but after more reading, I find out that its Ptolemy I again, only a refined portrait. As for his actual photo on coins, it exist only on a series of Drachm (never tetradrachm). Those Drachms were minted in Paphos in Cyprus in 54 BC. A sample can be seen on the website of Boston art museum. This is the link Ptolemy XII.

Sadly, the museum does not allow us to use it. But the point is, the coin shown now in the infobox depicts Ptolemy I. The source for the confirmed photo of Ptolemy XII on the coin from the museum is here Portraits of the Ptolemies: Greek Kings as Egyptian Pharaohs by Paul Edmund Stanwick, University of Texas Press, page 225

I asked an experienced user (with photos copyrights) for advice (User_talk:Nikkimaria#copyrights), and it seems that we cant use the photo from the website. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemy XI or XII, take your pick!
Fair enough, we have a replacement image, a scan of a book from 1929 that is now public domain, expired copyright. However, it's a coin that depicts either Ptolemy XI or Ptolemy XII, so it's ambiguous as to which ruler is actually being represented. Still, it's better than a coin that almost certainly depicts Ptolemy I Soter. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is Ptolemy I as well. Ptolemy XII reformed the imagery by idealizing Ptolemy I instead of a crude image used by his predecessors such as Ptolemy VIII which also depicts Ptolemy I (an ugly version of it)
Tetradrachm of Ptolemy VIII depicting Ptolemy I
The thing with the scan is that it says: Ptolemy XI.... However, XI ruled for like three weeks or less and he minted no coins. It looks like a Ptolemy XII coin with the reformed image of Ptolemy I. The bust in the scan is much more similar to the bust of the coin that it replaced in the infobox. Another point, the claimed source does not have the image scaned in it !! link. So, the source given for the scan is not the actual source at all.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well crap. LOL. Thanks for your due diligence here in finding all of this stuff. So I guess we're left with the other pictures in the article. Fair enough. I'll just move one of them into the infobox of the lead section. Pericles of AthensTalk 11:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a coin with Ptolemy XII's portrait on the British Museum website, but it's in debased silver and it's frankly unusable. Svoronos mentions that there is one in "Osnabrück", and another in "Athens, Demetrios". Don't know what that means exactly, and whether the coins are still there. T8612 (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be super awesome if someone could track these things down and photograph them at a museum for Wikimedia Commons, and then just release them into the public domain. Hehe. Some Algerian Wikipedian dudes did me a huge favor in that regard one time by actually agreeing to go to the archaeological museum at Cherchel, Algeria and photographing the current busts that proudly decorate the article for Cleopatra Selene II (daughter of Cleopatra VII). Never doubt the power of Wikipedians living in various places around the world! Some of them are capable of visiting remote places to take invaluable photographs, and for that I am forever grateful. You just gotta put in the effort to find them! ;) Pericles of AthensTalk 02:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Though visiting that museum wont be easy for me, but I did find a free copy of the image from Boston. It is old, but clear.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ptolemy XII.png
Ptolemy XII 1964 image

@Attar-Aram syria: good God man, what are we waiting for! Let's add it to the article right away! Thanks for the wonderful find, it's an invaluable contribution to our encyclopedia. :) Pericles of AthensTalk 01:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have bad news. According to Copyright renewal in the United States: any work copyrighted in the US in 1964 or after had a copyright term of 75 years, whether or not a formal copyright renewal was filed. The source of the photo came exactly in 1964.... I did not find it in the list of old works that did not get their copyright renewed, but thats because it is from 1964. Sorry. This copyright craze is really damaging. Why would a museum wants a photo that can only be used for knowledge to be copyrighted!--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Crap! Okay, okay, I'll remove it from the article. Such a shame. Thanks for being honest, though. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk:. Hello friend, I was wondering if we can use the last photo from 1964 as a fair use. Is there any chance? Otherwise it has to be deleted from commons since it is not free.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the book have a copyright notice? If not, the PD US 1978[1] tag might work... Otherwise fair use could work, but mainly if there are no other free equivalents. FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
just checked. Yes it has a notice... seems that wiki is not gonna get this photo.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe similar photos (or of the same coin) have been published in older sources that can be used? FunkMonk (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find such a publication sadly. I think: "Svoronos, J. Ta Nomismata tou Kratous ton Ptolemaion. (Athens, 1904-08)" (coin number 1838) will have the coin, but I tried to look in it and did not find much, but maybe there are plates for photos attached to the book that were not available online. If this source does not have it, and if the 1964 source can not be fair use, then Im out of ideas.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ptolemy XII Auletes. from 1904 source

@FunkMonk:. Hello. I found the photo in the original source finally. It is from 1904. The quality isnt great. But I uploaded it non the less and it is free now. As an admin in Wikimedia, is it possible that you delete the photo I uploaded from 1964?

As for the 1904 photo, the editors of this article have the freedom to cut and crop it...etc in order for it to be used here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk and Attar-Aram syria: Awesome! I might crop them later, but for now I'm just adding the pic to the article, which desperately needs some sort of coin of his. Thanks for the wonderful find! Pericles of AthensTalk 16:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great detective work! I'll delete the later image. Those archive sites are gold. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the photo of his bust would look better in the infobox than the old plates from Svoronos. If I find a good copyright-free pic of this coin, I'll upload it, but it is so rare we could wait for several years. T8612 (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem a more logical choice, and give a better view of his features. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Векочел: The coin picture you added is a portrait of Ptolemy I, not XII (see the description on Commons). There only one very rare drachm with his portrait, for which no good picture exists (apart from the old plate → on the right). T8612 (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Векочел: Wait, you got rid of the image, which made sense, and then just added it right back to the infobox? Why? Again, per the conversation above, the image depicts Ptolemy I Soter, not Ptolemy XII Auletes, even though it was minted during the reign of Auletes. This needs to be noted in the article, and it certainly shouldn't be the lead image in the infobox. We have other depictions of Ptolemy XII in this article that we can use. Although it is an old crappy photograph, we need to restore the picture with the actual coins that depict Ptolemy XII, not Ptolemy I. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PericlesofAthens: This image does depict Ptolemy XII. See the description here for the fourth image from the top. Векочел (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The description is from a website not an academic source. Its similar to the photo I uploaded a while ago that also depicted Ptolemy I but thought its Ptolemy XII because the cng website did not mention that its Ptolemy I depicted. This image you are using is still a Ptolemy I portrait. Compare the bust with the bust of Ptolemy XII from his coin shown in the museum website and you will see the difference. According to the website, this coin is number 1838 Svoronos. I went to the original source, (this link, page XLVI), and found that the 1838 is a group of coins, and only coins number 22 and 23 depict Ptolemy XII. Both 22 and 23 are in the plate scan, while other coins in the group 1838 do not depict Ptolemy XII himself. (link to the plates)--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Векочел: wildwinds is a compilation of auction sales, not an academic source, so there can be mistakes. The only coins with a portrait of Ptolemy XII are the drachms → here on the right. I agree it should be said in the article that almost all of his coinage uses the portrait of Ptolemy I. T8612 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Ptolemy XII Auletes/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrClog (talk · contribs) 20:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will review the article within 7 days. --MrClog (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First pass

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (
    lists
    )    :
    I fixed some small spelling mistakes. Per MOS:CONSISTENCY, I made sure the article consistently uses British English.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
    Please see comments below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Very good!
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Please take a look at the comments below, and ping me if you fixed one or more, so I'll strike them. --MrClog (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Quite a lot of paraphrasing issues dealt with, but still some way to go. Amitchell125 20:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the only instance left to be dealt with. --MrClog (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MrClog: Seems that the link is copying content from Wikipedia. For instance it uses text from the lede of the Cleopatra article. Векочел (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2b) /Early life/ - Does cite 8 support the claim? "unkown not mentioned on p. 60 "uncertain" not mentioned on p. 60
    • I believe the fact that his birthdate is uncertain is mentioned on p. 60. See the following link: [2] Векочел (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2b) /Family/ - Cite 21 does not mention page number. Anyone know which page number
  • (2b) /Restoration and Second Reign (55–51 BC)/ - Cite 38 has no page 388
  • (2b) Please make sure the citations use |pp= when there are multiple pages (including ranges), and |p= when there is only one page.
  • p./pp. errors corrected. Amitchell125 14:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Succesful "good article" nomination

Now that all concerns above are addressed after the review was put on hold, the article has hereby succesfully passed its GA nomination. Congratulations! --MrClog (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ptolemy I Soter which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ptolemy_XII_Auletes&oldid=1196474126"