584 PTOLEMAEUS. battle of Ipsus, and after advancing into Coele- Syria, and making himself master of part of that country and of Phoenicia, he was alarmed by a false report of the victory of Antigonus, and with- drew into Egypt. (Diod. xx. 106, 113; Justin. XV. 2, 4.) The defeat and death of Antigonus (b. c. 301) altogether altered the relations of the allied monarchs, Seleucus was now become almost as formidable as Antigonus had been, and the pos- session of Coele-Syria and Plioenicia, which were claimed by Ptolemy as the price of his adhesion to the coalition, and by Seleucus as part of the allotted reward of his victory, was near producing an im- mediate breach between the two. Seleucus appears to have waived his pretensions for a time, but ulti- mately obtained possession (in what manner we know not) of the disputed provinces. (Diod. xxi. £xc. Vat. pp. 42, 43 ; Polyb. v. 67.) Meanwhile, their mutual jealousy led them to form new alli- ances with the other monarchs ; and while Seleucus married Stratonice, the daughter of Demetrius, Ptolemy sought to strengthen his connection with Lysimachus, by giving that monarch his daughter Arsinoe in marriage. At the same time he did not refuse to be reconciled, in appearance at least, to Demetrius, to whom he even gave Ptolemais, another of his daughters, for a wife. An alliance was at the same time concluded between them, and Pyrrhus, the fugitive heir to the throne of Epeirus, was placed at the Egyptian court by Demetrius, as a hostage for his fidelity. The young prince quickly rose to a high place in the favour of Ptolemy, who gave him his step- daughter Antigone in marriage, and conceived the design of raising him up as a rival to Demetrius. His nominal alliance with the latter did not prevent him from furnishing all the support in his power to the Greek cities which were opposed to him, on occasion of the expedition of Demetrius to Greece in B. c. 297 : and the following year he took the opportunity to create a formidable diversion by sending Pyrrhus, at the head of a small force, to Epeirus, where the young prince quickly established himself upon the throne. (Plut. Demetr. 32, 33, Pyrrh. 4, 5 ; Paus. i. 6. § 8.) The next year (b. c. 295) he took advantage of Demetrius being still engaged in the affairs of Greece, to recover the important island of Cyprus. This he quickly reduced, with the exception of Salamis, where Phila, the wife of Demetrius, lield out for a long time, but her husband's attention being now wholly engrossed by the prospects which had opened to him in Macedonia [Dkmktrius], he was unable to render her any assistance, and she was ultimately compelled to surrender to Ptolemy. The whole island thus fell into the power of the king, and became from henceforth an integral portion of the Egyptian monarchy. (Plut. Demgfr. 35, 38.) It is not till after the lapse of a considerable interval that we again find Ptolemy engaging actively in foreign war. But he could not remain an indifferent spectator of the events which phiced his old enemy Demetrius on the throne of Mace- donia : and in B. c. 287 we find hira once more joining in a league with Lysimachus and Seleucus against the object of their common enmity. The part taken by Ptolemy in the war that followed was, however, limited to the sending a fleet to the Aegaean : and the defeat and captivity of Dciue- PTOLEMAEUS. triiis soon removed all cause of apprehension. (Plut Demetr. 44, Pyrrh. 10, 11 ; Justin, xvi. 2.) It is probable that the latter years of his reign were devoted almost entirely to the arts of peace, and to promoting the internal prosperity of his dominions. But his advancing age now warned hira of the necessity of providing for the succession to his throne. Ptolemy was at this time the father of three legitimate sons, of whom the two eldest, Ptolemy surnamed Ceraunus, and Meleager, were the off- spring of Eurydice, the daughter of Antipater, while the youngest, also named Ptolemy (after- wards surnamed Philadelphus) was the child of his latest and most beloved wife, Berenice. His attachment to Berenice, as well as the favourable opinion he had formed of the chai-acter of the young man himself, now led him to conceive the project of bestowing the crown upon the last of these three princes, to the exclusion of his elder brothers. Such a design met with vehement opposition from Demetrius the Phalerian, who now held a high place in the counsels and favour of Ptolemy : but the king, nevertheless, determined to carry it into execution, and even resolved to secure the throne to his favourite son by establish- ing him on it in his own lifetime. In the year B. c. 285 accordingly, he himself announced to the assembled people of Alexandria that he had ceased to reign, and transferred the sovereign authority to his youngest son, whom he presented to them as their king. His choice was received, we are told, with the utmost favour, and the accession of the new monarch was celebrated with festivities and processions on a scale of unparalleled magnificence, during which the aged monarch himself appeared among the officers and attendants of his son. (Justin, xvi. 2 ; Athen. v. p. 196,203.) Nothing occurred to interrupt the harmony which subsisted between them from this time till the death of the elder Ptolemy, which took place about two years after, b. c. 283. His reign is variously estimated at thirty-eight or forty years, according as we include or not these two years which followed his abdication- (Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Arm. pp. 113, 114; Joseph. Ant. xii. 2.) He was not only honoured by his son with a splendid funeral ; but his body was deposited in the magnificent edifice which had been erected as the mausoleum of Alexander ; and divine honours were paid to him in common with the great conqueror. (Theocr. Idyll, xvii. 16—19 ; Strab. xvii. p. 794.) The character of Ptolemy has been generally represented in a very favourable light by historians, and there is no doubt that if we compare him with his contemporary' and rival potentates he appears to deserve the praises bestowed upon his mildness and moderation. But it is only with this important qualification that they can be admitted : for there are many evidences, such as the b.arbarous murder of Nicocles [NicocLEs],and the execution of Ptolemy, the nephew of Antigonus [see above, p. 565, No. 7], that he did not shrink from any measure that he deemed requisite in order to carry out the objects of his ambition. But the long-sighted prudence, by which he seems to have been pre-eminently distin- guished among his contemporaries, led him to confine that ambition within more rational bounds than most of his rivals. He appears to have been the only one among the generals of Alexander who foresjiw from the firat that the empire of that conqueror must iu-
