The Ptolemies

Ptolemies Quartet #1

by Duncan Sprott

From a refreshingly antic new voice in historical fiction, this epically entertaining, irresistibly madcap novel re-creates an ancient family whose obsessions and dysfunctions would change the world, for better or worse.

They were the last pharaohs to rule Egypt. Ptolemy Soter (putative half-brother of Alexander the Great–his mother may have been raped by Alexander’s father) begins it all when he takes the kingdom of the Nile as his share of the empire and brings along Alexander’s carefully embalmed corpse for luck. Soon enough, Ptolemy, in a kind of ancient corporate takeover, becomes pharoah, the living god of Egypt, first in what he hopes will be a long line of Ptolemies. Scheming priests, conniving wives, errant sons and daughters (some of whom have a thing for each other), and an epic’s worth of battles and intrigue make for a tale so rich in upheaval and mayhem that perhaps only our narrator, the irreverent and disapproving Thoth, Egyptian god of Wisdom and Patron of Scribes, could do it justice.

Genres: Historical Fiction, Fiction, Egypt, Historical

496 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Duncan Sprott is the author of The Clopton Hercules and Our Lady of the Potatoes, both historical reconstructions, published in the United Kingdom. He lives in Ireland.

Reviews

[Iset · Rating 1 out of 5]

I remembering purchasing this, and the sequel, first and second books in a proposed quartet, soon after they were published, and looking forwards to reading them with great anticipation. I had only just discovered my interest in the Ptolemies, and I was delighted to find these books, seemingly the only novels on the Ptolemies out there. So many books so little time, as they say – these sat on the shelf for years, until recently when, several degrees and specialisms in the Ptolemies later, I picked up this, the first book. And I have to say; what a disappointment. I actually going to have to break this down into points.

The Omniscient Narrator

I’m not just talking about third person here. Sprott’s narrator is Thoth, the Egyptian god of writing and learning, and this was a terrible authorial choice. Thoth kicks off by telling the reader:

“HO!... Ignorant One!... I think YOU know nothing of Ptolemaios – Ptolemy – the Greek who was Pharaoh of Egypt, or of the terrible tragedy of his House. You do not know who Ptolemy is, do you? You have never heard of him, have you? You cannot so much as pronounce his name (do not say the P, Reader!). Truly, what you deserve just now is a beating upon the soles of your feet… Your ignorance is disgraceful – disgraceful – and the only Pharaoh you have ever heard of is the feeble Tutankhamun!... But, idiot that you are, you do not know who is Thoth either, do you?”

Nice going, Thoth. You just insulted someone with a degree in the subject. Kinda puts the lie to the whole omniscient narrator thing you were going for there, doesn’t it? Granted, I realise the majority of readers of the book are probably not going to be Ptolemaic specialists, but even so this breaks one of the cardinal rules of writing: never talk down to your reader. The reader is frequently insulted and treated like a simpleton throughout, and this is incredibly aggravating and irritating.

Spoilers

This leads into my second point. Spoilers. Once again frequently and through the entire book, “Thoth” will straight up say something like; this character will have two tragic marriages in their future, and that character will die before they’re forty. DUDE! SPOILERS! I know I know, having studied the period and all, but like I said, the majority of readers probably won’t. This haphazard throwing about of spoilers everywhere really ruins the storytelling. It sucks all the tension and suspense and possible excitement right out of the plot. I honestly wondered why I should bother reading when I’m being told what happens ahead of time. What’s in it for the reader when there’s no mystery? I completed the book for review purposes, but frankly all the spoilers just suck the soul out of the story entirely.

The Omniscient Narrator Who Isn’t Omniscient

The whole omniscient narrator thing is compounded when Thoth isn’t omniscient. Sometimes, when historical figures disappear from the record, Thoth will say something like; and this character was so forgettable and unobtrusive that nobody knows what happened to them, and then they’re dropped like a hot rock. Wait a minute… didn’t you say in the prologue that you know everything, Thoth? That you know every last deep and dark secret about the Ptolemies, even the ones they keep hidden from themselves? Haven’t you been emphasising just how all-knowing you are by spoiling character’s fates for us? I guess you’re not omniscient after all. Seriously, this is annoying. For starters it’s not internally consistent. If you’re going to have a narrator who is literally all-knowing, then you’re going to have to make up fates for those characters. You can’t just follow their story and then drop them so obviously because the historical record runs out. It’s a writer’s job in historical fiction sometimes to plausibly fill in the gaps. Go do some gap-filling!

Bias

Speaking of gap-filling, sometimes the author does way too much of it. As in, some stuff if just plain made up. But this is just plain hostile stuff, with no plausible framework to ever infer such a thing. I first noticed this in the early chapters where the author cherry-picked incidents from the life of Alexander the Great whilst omitting certain pertinent information to those events. Other events are decidedly spin-doctored; for example the Weddings at Susa. The ancient writer Plutarch describes how Alexander arranged the marriages of the bravest amongst his soldiers to the noblest women amongst the Persians – and paid off the debts of those soldiers out of his own personal pocket, as a sort of wedding gift. Sprott describes it thusly: “he could only lay his hands upon ten thousand Persian women, so that only one man in ten was fixed up with a woman of his own, and the rest were told they must wait”, making it sound like the women were cattle to be shared around all the soldiers, and neglecting to mention the debt-clearing. It gets really bad. Some stuff is created out of whole cloth, such as Alexander “wailed like a woman” and “rolled his body in dung” after Hephaistion’s death, and specifically saying that Alexander married Hephaistion when they visited the oracle at Siwa because “this was the only place in the world where such an abomination was allowed” (none of those are true, for anyone wondering). These are just the worst ones but there were many, many more, and not only was it horribly inaccurate and incredibly hostile to Alexander – but it felt uncomfortably homophobic too. I hate to say it, but it went on at such length as to how disgusting this was and how all Alexander’s companions were secretly disgusted by this. Quite apart from any of that, it doesn’t convince me that the author understood ancient Greek social mores and attitudes at all.

At first I thought perhaps all this ridiculousness was some ham-handed way of elevating Ptolemy by knocking down Alexander. Ptolemy is described as observing Alexander’s abominable behaviour and determining that he would never behave that way as a king. However, many of the Ptolemies are actually treated in a very hostile manner too. Even Ptolemy himself is painted as ignorant, uncaring, and a filthy Greek liar (apparently, according to Thoth, all Greeks are filthy liars and ignorant. Yay, stereotypes). Eurydike is a deranged madwoman. Berenike is a manipulative power-grabber. Keraunos is a bully and a bloodthirsty butcher. Arsinoe II is a reptilian murderess. Yes, some of the Ptolemies were a reprehensible lot, no denying it – though the earlier ones had a far greater ratio of decent to dastardly in the family – but they’re painted as just so completely terrible, with no redeeming features whatsoever, and completely undeserving of any sympathy. According to the narrator, for example, Arsinoe II doesn’t deserve any sympathy at all for being married off as a teen to an old man, or her two young children being murdered. Where there are gaps to be filled, the author seemed determined to fill them to paint the people in the worst possible light. For example, the author explains away Keraunos and Arsinoe II marrying later in life (they were half-siblings, though we don’t actually know if this marriage was ever consummated or just for ceremonial and political reasons), by inserting a whole fictional sequence where when they were teens they developed an illicit lust for each other. Therefore, Arsinoe’s reignited lust is responsible for her foolish decision to later marry her half-brother, resulting in him murdering her children – and so she deserves no sympathy because it was her fault. Except that teenaged illicit passion is completely fictional and so the rest of it doesn’t stand up (for those who are curious, she probably married him because she was seeking out a protector, being surrounded by enemies after her husband’s death, and who better to be trusted to safeguard her interests than family, right?).

There’s surely a difference between filling in gaps, and creating the worst possible scenario in every gap. And frankly this felt deeply unfair to the historical individuals. Not to mention, it really puts you off the characters in the book. With characters this horrible, who cares what happens to them? I don’t want to root for them, or support them, or find out what happens to them. Imagine reading a book where you don’t like anyone in it. Yeah, that was pretty much this book, for me. Why did the author do it? I suspect he thought he was trying to write a tragedy. This book often mentions that the Ptolemies are in for 300 years of bad luck, and that the whole family history is some terrible tale. But in reality it wasn’t like that. In actual fact the Ptolemies were the last survivors amidst all the successor kingdoms from the break-up of Alexander’s empire, and the longest ruling family dynasty in Egypt’s entire history. They had triumphs and achievements as well as tragedies. You can write the Ptolemies with some of them as heroes, some as anti-heroes, and a few as villains – but they weren’t all terrible. And you can’t write them that way because that makes for a pretty unlikable set of protagonists. What’s even more glaring is that the cameos from the native Egyptian family of priests paint them as the perfect family; loving, learned, wise. Basically they can do no wrong. Such was the obviousness of the bias here that I truly detested it.

Myth or Reality?

You’d think it would be obvious that the novel is more grounded in fact than fantasy – after all these were real people, right? But the doubts creep in when the above-mentioned fictions start flying. But there’s a specific type of mythologizing here. That whole thing about the Ptolemies being in for 300 years of bad luck. Not true, obviously. But the author writes that every omen, every oracle in the book, predicts bad things for the Ptolemies and they just blindly ignore it all. As well as being untrue, that seems really stupid. And character stupidity is never a good thing to rely on in a plot. Other weird things are slipped in like the priests in Memphis insisting that Alexander’s body be moved to Alexandria because it brought bad luck. Completely made up. Also, whenever a character is born in the book, the Egyptian priests know exactly the span of their life and the key events therein, and whenever a character sends to an oracle the oracle always knows exactly what then happens to them. Ah, but that’s just what they believed, you cry. Sure, ancient peoples believed in oracles, and we even have some oracles written down that appeared to have come true – though notice how they’re carefully worded to be ambiguous and possible to interpret in any number of ways. But many oracles didn’t. And obviously they didn’t know exactly what was going to happen to people and get it right every time. In this book, they do. And it’s a really dumb mechanic. It adds to the whole spoiler thing mentioned above – telling us exactly what is going to happen and making the unfolding plot boring. Not to mention feeling really weird and unrealistic. It just feels tired and done in far too much hindsight.

No Dialogue

So… the story spoilers its own plot, has no suspense or tension, has a really hostile bias, has really unlikable characters… and it has no dialogue either. That’s right, there’s no dialogue. Occasionally you get the odd bit thrown in like; Eskedi would say to Ptolemy something like such-and-such whenever Ptolemy would ask about XYZ. But there’s no actual live scenes with dialogue. It’s pretty dull, and adds to that sensation of a lack of tension and suspense, because there’s no immediacy, no excitement. You feel really distant from these characters, and it is difficult engaging with them or getting inside their heads. This leads into my final point.

The Wikipedia Effect

The whole writing style feels very distant and brief. Events are summarised and not gone into in depth. It all feels detached. Key incidents are coolly described, in the basic facts, and not explored. Feelings and motivations are rarely mentioned, and as aforementioned there’s no dialogue. Unfortunately the whole thing reads to me like a Wikipedia article; laying out the basic chronology with no actual story. I felt bored. I felt like I wasn’t getting anything I couldn’t have read on Wikipedia.

All in all, I’m afraid I can’t deny that I really don’t like this book. It doesn’t do justice to the Ptolemies, or their exciting story, at all. Spoilers ruin the plot, bias runs rampant, and the bad stylistic choices make the whole thing feel dull and Wikipedia-esque. I’m pretty sure that’s why the quartet is never going to be finished – the first two books just aren’t well-written, and there wasn’t call to complete the series. I’ll read the second book, since I have it, but I think the inherent problems are going to be the same.

2 out of 10

[Rob Atkinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely engrossing historical fiction on the order of Robert Graves's "I, Claudius", "The Ptolemies" (aka "House Of The Eagle") is the lurid story of the founding of Egypt's Ptolemaic dynasty after the death of Alexander the Great. Founder Ptolemy Soter was one of Alexander's generals, and thereby became one of a number of his heirs when the Macedonian conqueror of most of the known world died at age 34, far from home. It then fell to Ptolemy to govern the rich province of Egypt, ruling briefly as Satrap for several weak Macedonian kings -- nominal heirs to Alexander -- before becoming independent and being anointed as Pharaoh. Quintessentially Macedonian himself, he built the new city of Alexandria along Greek lines and set about establishing his dynasty while Alexander's other successors, jealous of Egypt's great wealth, constantly threatened war. But beyond the political intrigue, within Egypt's new royal family a constant melodrama roils, with multiple murders, incest, constant plotting and betrayals making for very juicy reading. Add to this the sometimes unfathomable strangeness and fascination of ancient Egypt's culture and ritual, which the Greek Ptolemy struggles with as he seeks to legitimize his family with the powerful priesthood and his subjects. After Ptolemy Soter's long and eventful reign, his son and successor, Ptolemy Mikros, is threatened by the return of his viper of a sister Arsinoe Beta, ending this installment on a suspenseful note.

Sprott is a very gifted storyteller and he's got a corker of an ancient soap opera to dramatize; fans of Robert Graves, Mary Renault, etc. will happily devour this book, and will want to have the sequel "Daughter Of The Crocodile" on hand as I did, so as not to have to pause once they finish this first volume of the Ptolemies Quartet...

[Chris Fellows · Rating 1 out of 5]

Eugh, I have just been alarmed to find that this book is still on the bookshelf in the dining room. I thought I had thrown it away. Ah, if only the dead could sue for libel! Or better, come back and give varlets a good beating with the flats of their swords. The great names of Hellenistic Egypt are viewed through a 21st century lense of bilious misanthropy and presented as absolutely devoid of any redeeming features. After reading this book I felt like I had been swimming in cold dishwater. I will burn it next time I am burning rubbish so no one else will come across my copy accidentally and have the same unpleasant experience.

Okay, maybe that is a bit extreme. I will keep it around for inspiration the next time I feel like writing something to inspire readers to a loathing for humanity and all its foul works.

[Erika · Rating 5 out of 5]

A delightful journey throughout the reign of Ptolemy Soter in Egypt. The incredible tales of his fractious family will horrify, delight and amaze the reader. I like that Sprott narrates the story as Thoth!

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this novel was tremendous fun, maybe reading it during COVID lockdown helped. The Ptolemies have always attracted over the top presentation - I remember a wildly over-the-top UK TV series about the Ptolemies that was a camp classic - but the Ptolemies were in reality grotesques, at this late date we can't research or even observe the degeneracy their frequent brother sister pairings produced but if you look at the Spanish Habsburg's and what to frequent marriage cousins resulted in it must have been significant.

Some reviewers hate this novel, it probably isn't really that good, but I won't get bogged down in discussing whether the choice of the god Thoth as omniscient narrator was a good or bad idea, this is a fun read, and I found it wonderfully fun.

I'll definitely read, not necessarily buy, the next novel and I'll see if I have more critical things to say then.

[Margaret · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hard going and quite dull compared to the second book.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a first. I have never read a book written by an ancient Egyptian God. Thoth was a pretty good author - a little judgmental at times and he certainly didn't hide his dislike of the Greeks. But when you are dealing with what amounts to be one of the world's greatest dysfunctional families, some of his feelings were justified.

This is the story of Ptolemy, General in Alexander's Macedonian army. Upon the death of the Conquerer and the division of the empire, Ptolemy takes Egypt (along with Alexander's body) and sets up his own empire. He is eventually crowned Pharaoh.

The book is called a historical reconstruction. the real other based the story of what facts we have surrounding this time period and then basally filled in the blanks.

I wish he would have listed some of his sources.

[Steve]

Not doing it for me, so I'll give all my attention to other books. It's okay, but I don't like it enough or care enough about it to continue. The unusual narrator voice is fun for a while, but then the novelty wears off. I'm kind of interested in the actual story of the Ptolemies, but I think a good magazine article or non-fiction book chapter might suit me better. I'll look elsewhere for both my history and my fiction.

[Talya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it...a true storyteller!

[Keely Watling · Rating 4 out of 5]

Captivating!! Greek history written so well that it's horrifically compelling!!

[Katie Tillwick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Liked this one so much, I've read it twice!! An incredible, in depth look at late Egypt, when the Ptolomies became kings. Very good, highly recommend if you can find it.

[Sully Augustine · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read a softbound that's been around here for quite a while. It was a bit of a grind but held my interest and provided a relatively reasonable speculative exposition of the conquest of the Persian Empire, Alexander's death, the subsequent actions by Ptolemy Soter in making himself Pharoah of Egypt, and the machinations of his various children when his younger son by his second wife succeeded him. It was a bit repetitive and the device of having parts narrated by the Egyptian god Thoth was at times annoying. The other comments tell me the author did better with the second novel in the series, so I may try that.

[Dan Ryder · Rating 1 out of 5]

Looking at other reviews, it seems that this book provokes extreme reactions: you love it or you hate it. I pretty much agree with Iset's review (2011). In other words I couldn't stand it (and, I must admit, didn't finish it.) The lack of dialogue, the "wikipedia effect," the style, the flat characters, and most importantly Thoth the narrator all annoyed me.

"The natural successor to Robert Graves and Mary Renault," it says on my cover. I'm a sucker for that sort of thing. Don't get fooled like I did!

[Irene Chooi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm reading this again, for the 4th time. I found it in my secondary school's library and read it twice then, then when I graduated, I tracked the book down and bought it. It might be a little drawn out for some; it's narrated by Thoth and he can be quite repetitive in his attempts to get the reader to trust his account of Ptolemy's history, but all in all, the story is well written and very captivating. I highly recommend it!

[Nosemonkey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gave up on this one about halfway through. Concept was intriguing, period/setting appealing, writing was perfectly fine (albeit incredibly inconsistent with the use of the narrator's voice), but somehow it just dragged.

[Jamie Teller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably could’ve lost a few pages by trimming out some of the repetitions, but that’s part of the feel Sprott was going for. A pretty compelling read, once you adapt to the style, with vividly drawn characters and an intriguing, often witty voice.

[Megan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed the tone of the book, when I didn't find it annoying. The historical information was en pointe, but the book was hard to get into as a novel.

[Ximena Mcintosh · Rating 1 out of 5]

I could not finish. I found the writing style just too annoying. I am curious about Ptolemy's history now so that is a good thing, right? I just need a different book...

[bkwurm · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first of 4 books following the fortunes of the dynasty founded by Ptolemy, one of Alexander the Great's generals, in Egypt.

Narrated from the viewpoint of Thoth, the Egyptian god of Wisdom, the book speeds quickly through Ptolemy's youth and association with Alexander and it is only after Alexander has died, that the story really commences.

The background to Ptolemy's seizure of Egypt is, of course, the struggle among Alexander's generals for power. Formerly comrades, now they make and break alliances with one another in the struggle for supremacy. Ptolemy tries to secure his rule by marrying his children to his former comrades.

In the meantime, Egypt's priesthood tries to persuade Ptolemy to give up his Macedonian ways and become fully Egyptian.

This is a fascinating look at a little known period of history when Alexander's generals battled one another and at the founding of the dynasty that would culminate in Cleopatra.

The choice to use Thoth as a narrator is a little distracting as are the interjections and comments he makes on the events as they unfold but luckily they do not detract too much from the story

[Kayla · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Ptolemies is a historical reconstruction by Duncan Sprott about the first Greek family to rule Egypt after Alexander the Great. Ptolemy became of the men to rule Alexander's kingdom after he died for his crazy brother. This is the story of the journey to becoming a king and the trouble that can cause for a family. The thought of ruling drove Ptolemy's family crazy and brought all of them unlucky. The story is told by the god Thoth the god of knowing all things. He tells the story from all sides. What could have happened, what might have happened and the rumors of what happened. The story is one of murder, lust, war and desire. The story is an interesting one, one that could be true. Although someone repetitive at times the story does tend to jump around some. Yet the story is never a boring one.

[Jess Stretton · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm so sick of half reading books these days because they weren't really worth the effort so I really tried with this book. And I mean I REALLY tried. I tried to read before bed, on the train to work, during lunch. But half way through I couldn't physically force myself to continue reading this book anymore. The style of writing 'Thoth knows all, Thoth could see this coming, Thoth chose to forget that' absolutely DROVE ME NUTS. It gave me a headache. Really. And the way the author revealed bits of the story before it happened or hinted at what was to come left little to look forward to as you were reading. You knew what was coming before it had happened because it had already been told. And I enjoy Greek history, I study it, but I could not enjoy this book. As much as I had tried.

[Rowan Walters · Rating 4 out of 5]

This account of the lives of Ptolemy Soter and his descendants makes Game of Thrones look like Days of Our Lives. Narrated by the Egyptian god Thoth, who explains how the Macedonians came to rule Egypt - Alexander and the wars of the Diadochi before Ptolemy hijacks Alexander’s corpse and inters it in the growing megalopolis Alexandria. For the next three centuries the story of the Ptolemies is brutal, violent and drenched in blood as children and siblings do horrible things to get the throne. My personal favourite is the eldest son of Soter, Ptolemy Keraunos, a wild child whose sociopathic behaviour gets him exiled by his father - before his chaos engulfs two of Alexander’s former generals and their empires.
A roller coaster ride of thoroughly enjoyable historical fiction.

[Muse · Rating 3 out of 5]

Framed well, narrated by the god Thoth, paced well, this family is the most dysfunctional apart from the Julio-Claudians. Starts with Ptolemy in Macedon ends with the lighting of the Pharos. A good read, truly. Note: There aren't any quotation marks, though dialogue is clearly denoted. O-HO Pupil of Thoth!

[Gordon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good enough to keep me occupied for a long plane trip, but not a keeper. A lot of violence, a touch of humour, somewhat repetitive, interesting enough if you like history but it's a stretch to call this a novel.

[Erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

very interesting so far...

[Edward Butler · Rating 1 out of 5]

Tossed after 50 pages.

[Tom Webster · Rating 2 out of 5]

there is something about the style that juat annoys me

[Dana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it!

[Mohamed Moanis · Rating 5 out of 5]

"AS FOR ANY MAN WHO SPEAKS ILL OF THIS BOOK, THOTH WILL FIGHT HIM."
Awesome historical narration and reconstruction.

[Steve Clark]

Edition: New edition