EUERGETES (Thirrygrns ; E,nergetes), 'bene factor,' a title of several Greek kings. Its use is thus referred to in our Saviour's teaching : The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; and they that exercise authority upon them are call ed benefactors' (ehry4rat, Luke xxii. 25). It was bestowed by states upon those who had conferred benefits upon them, and was taken by several kings.
A king of Egypt is mentioned by this title in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, wherein the translator states that, having gone into Egypt in the 38th year of king Euergetes, and been there some time, he found this book by his grandfather ('Ev •yclp TCP byabco cat rptaeoartP fret iirt Tor, Eemp74-rou paatXews rapa-yEpilects ets Aryvirrop, Kai alryxpo picas, etipop Aixpar ratbetas 46uotov. 'Nam in octavo et trigesimo anno temporibus Ptolemmi Euergetis regis,' etc., Vulg.) There can be no question that a king of Egypt is here meant, for though a king of Syria could be intended by this title Alexander I., Antiochus VII., and Demetrius III. being shewn by their coins to have beerf styled Euergetes, no one of them reigned more than a few years. It is more probable, on pined facie grounds, that an Egyptian Euergetes is here spoken of, if the same discrepancy should not he found. Two of the Ptolemies bore this title, Ptolemy III., always known as Euergetes, who reigned twenty-five years, B.C. 247-222 ; and Ptolemy VII. (or IX.), Euergetes ll., more com monly called Physcon, who began to reign jointly with his brother Ptolemy VI. (or VII.), Philome tor, B.C. 170, and became sole king in B.C. 146, dying in his fifty-fourth year, reckoned from the ' former date, and the twenty-ninth year of his sole reign, B.C. 117 (Fynes Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, pp. 382, 383, 386, 399 ; Lepsius, lanifsbuch, Synoptische Tafeln, p. 9). A great difficulty has arisen in the attempt to decide which of these kings is intended. Everything hinges upon the manner in which the reigns were reckoned. There is no satisfactory evidence for supposing that Euer getes I. counted his regnal years from a time be fore his accession ; the evidence of the inscription at Adule, that Fynes Clinton adduces in favour of as high a date as the 27th year, is, we venture to say, wholly inconclusive (pp. 3S2, 383) ; besides, the 27th year is far short of the 3Sth. To ascer tain the official reckoning of the years of Euergetes II., during the latter part of his rule, and thus to determine from what date he then counted his regnal years, we have only to examine the demotic papyri of his reign. From these Dr. Young col
lected a list of dates which appeared thirty years ago in his posthumous Rudinzents of an Dictionary; we are particular in mentioning the time that we may spew how long the commenta tom have neglected this conclusive evidence. These dates are year 29, 34, 45, 46, 47 or 43, 52, 53 (pp. 27-31). It is thus proved incontestably that Physcon counted his years from the commencement of his joint reign with Philometor, without any sepa rate reckoning from his accession as sole king of Egypt. The hieroglyphic inscriptions, as we should expect, follow the same reckoning. Thus one of the ' Apis tablets gives the dates of the 2Sth, 31st, 51st, and 52d years of this king (Lepsius, The 22d Egyptian Royal .Enzasty, trans. by Dr. Bell, p. 41). We must not pass by the idea of Winer s. v. Jesus Sohn Sirachs), and Jahn (Ein/eitun;* , , ii. pp. 930, sem.), that the 38th year refers to the translator's age instead of a king's reign. It would be better to suppose an era. Three occur to us as possible, the era of the Seleucidm and that of Simon the Maccabee, used in Palestine, and the era of Dionysius used in Egypt. The era of the Seleuci dm began B.C. 312, and its 38th year is therefore too early for the reign of Euergetes I. ; the era of Simon the Maccabee began B.C. 143, or a little later, and its 38th year is too late for the reign of Euer getes II. The era of Dionysius commenced B.C. 285 (Lepsius, Zairrksbuch, 1. c.), and its 38th year was therefore the last of Ptolemy II., Euergetes 1. coming to the throne in the next year. The con struction that does not allow the year of the reign of Euergetes to be intended, and thus necessitates some such explanation, is certainly the more cor rect ; but as Dr. Davidson, who has laboriously collected much criticism upon this question that we have shewn to have been needless, observes, we need not here look for correct grammar (Horne', Introduction, 1856, ii. pp. 1026-1028). With this admission, the usual reading cannot be doubted, and the date mentioned would be B.C. 133. Other evidence for the time of the composition of Ecclesi asticus, which, of course, can he approximatively inferred from that of the translation, is rather in favour of the second than the first Euergetes.— R. S. P.