Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic
Egypt, Wayne State University Press, 1984, 1990
pp. 11-28.
THE QUEEN'S ROLE
(p. 11) The role of the Hellenistic queen has never been defined. Grace
Macurdy's Hellenistic Queens remains the standard reference for
the details of the reigns of specific Macedonian, Seleucid, and Ptolemaic
queens, but Macurdy did not attempt to forge out of the details a general
statement that would characterize the role played by a queen. The major
part of the problem is that queenship was not a public office and therefore
cannot be defined except as a private role. Private roles were flexible
and depended upon individual personalities; there was no "typical"
queen. Furthermore, I know of no general sociological study of queenship
applicable to European women even in later historical periods.
Claire Préaux in Le monde hellenistique devotes one chapter of 113 pages to the role of the Hellenistic king. Passages totaling one page deal with queens. In this first attempt to define the role of Hellenistic queens, it is imperative to review the king's role briefly and to determine whether the queen's was similar, or whether, like the Homeric queen, she played a role complementary to the king's. A study of the inequities between the sexes in antiquity leads us to posit that, even if the roles were qualitatively the same, there might be a quantitative difference. For example, a queen may be found to dispense gifts derived from the income from a single city or by occasionally tapping royal revenues, while a king's benefactions could be larger and more frequent, since his income derived from an entire country and was totally at his disposal.
For the king, the immediate role model was Alexander; a close second was Philip II. The Hellenistic period was a time of continual strife. The most important function of the king, therefore, was to assure victory for his country. He not only served as commander in chief of his troops but was a courageous warrior himself. Hellenistic soldiers owed allegiance to a leader, rather (p. 12) than to a nation, and the king had to command their respect. A king enjoyed enormous wealth. A ruling Ptolemy not only owned most of the land of Egypt but derived an income from taxes, royal monopolies, and occasional windfalls in war. With this vast wealth, the king was expected to play the role of generous benefactor. Kings gave gifts to cities, temples, and individuals. Not only wealth but education enabled kings to be leading patrons of the arts. The Ptolemies endowed great cultural institutions, such as the Museum and Library in Alexandria. Poets paid them the compliment of assuming that they could discriminate between their own creations and those of less gifted artists.
The king, of course, wielded supreme political power. He was normally his father's heir apparent, and he, in turn, had the right to designate his own successor among the potential heirs produced by his various marriages. The king was supreme lawgiver and dispenser of justice. He played an economic role by regulating markets and taxes, and minted money in his own name. Moreover, the king had the power to delegate his roles by choosing others to represent him. Within the royal family, he was both king and patriarch. As such, he arranged the marriages of those who were subordinate to his authority and assigned dowries to the women.
In respect to his subjects, the king played the role of a god. By his
very presence he brought fecundity, prosperity, and well being. He was
decked in the symbols of superhuman power, wearing a diadem and a royal
robe. His idealized portrait appeared on the obverse of coins, where previously
the faces of the immortals were portrayed.
No obvious role model presented itself to the wives of Alexander's successors.
Roxane, the wife of Alexander, did not leave a lasting impression on historians-nor,
one suspects, on her contemporaries." Moreover, her misfortunes would
surely have dissuaded any other woman from consciously imitating her.
She and her son were mere victims in the dynastic struggles following
the death of Alexander. The discussion of the grave goods in Macedonian
burials has shown that there were at least two distinct styles of life
available to women who survived at the court: one sharing the experiences
of men in battle, the other involving (p.13) activities in a separate
female sphere. According to Polybius, the ideal Hellenistic king was Attalus
I of Pergamum. He writes that Apollonis of Cyzicus, wife of Attalus, was
also worthy of commemoration and praise for several reasons:
For the fact that, being a commoner, she became queen and maintained this preeminence until the end, without recourse to the persuasive charms of a courtesan, but employing self-control, courteous dignity, and virtue, she deserves to be remembered with honor. And, in addition, having given birth to four sons, she preserved toward all of them an unsurpassable goodwill and affection until the end of her life, although she survived her husband for a substantial amount of time.
Some qualities of the ideal queen appear in a decree issued by Hierapolis in honor of Apollonis sometime between around 167 and 159 B.C. In addition to the virtues cited by Polybius, the decree mentions the queen's piety toward the gods and respect for her parents.
PTOLEMAIC QUEENS
Like Philip II, the first Ptolemy enjoyed both serial and simultaneous liaisons with several women, and this pattern was followed by his successors. The distinction between wife and concubine continued to be as unclear as it had been in the days of Philip. For example, Athenaeus reports that Ptolemy married (egamethe) the famous courtesan Thais. That she held the position of legitimate wife is suggested by the fact that Ptolemy gave his father's name, Lagus, to a son produced by this liaison and gave their daughter in marriage to a minor king. Ptolemy made several marriages for reasons of state, but his choice of his last wife, Berenice I, was dictated by personal inclination rather than by political expediency.
Berenice I exhibited traditional female virtues. Plutarch reports that when Demetrius Poliorcetes was in Egypt he courted Berenice in particular because he observed that, among the wives of Ptolemy, she had very great power (megiston dynamene) (p.14) and was foremost in virtue (arete) and wisdom (phronesis). "Virtue, wisdom, and influence among men had characterized good queens such as Penelope and Arete in the earliest Greek literature, and these traits continued to be displayed by good queens such as Berenice I and Apollonis.
Ptolemy I arranged the first marriage of his daughter Arsinoie II. As was usual for upper-class girls, she was wed at about the age of sixteen. Her sixty year old husband, Lysimachus, king of Thrace, had served with her father in the campaigns of Alexander. His lavish gifts to his young wife, including entire cities in the rich Black Sea region unless they simply fulfilled a marriage contract concluded between Ptolemy I and Lysimachus were symptomatic of the power that she wielded over her elderly husband. Arsinoie came to possess a vast amount of wealth. It is probably fair to say that, overall, the Macedonian queens controlled more wealth than any Greek women before their time, although some royal women in third-century Sparta rivaled them. In some Greek states it was unusual for Greek women to own land (see Chapter 5). However, both Spartans and Macedonians did so. Some Macedonian women had the income from substantial territories at their disposal. They were given these territories as part of their dowries or, as in the case of Lysimachus and Arsinoe II, as gifts. The dowry of Lanassa (daughter of Agathocles) who married Pyrrhus included the island of Corcyra. Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe I, had so lavish a dowry when she married Antiochus II that she was titled Phernophorus ("Dowry-bringer"). When Antiochus II repudiated his first wife, Laodice I, to marry Berenice Phernophorus, he granted territories near Babylon and Borsippa to Laodice. It was especially contrary to the custom of the Ptolemies to grant land to women outright (see Chapter 5). Ptolemy II granted the revenue derived from the fish in Lake Moeris to Arsinoe II. She was to use it for unguents and personal adornment. The value of the daily catch amounted to one silver talent.41 Some royal women held land, which, of course, was cultivated by others. Berenice daughter of either Philadelphus or Euergetes I had a vineyard at Hephaistias in the Arsinoite nome. A princess Cleopatra held land at the end of the second century B.C. at (p.15) Crocodilopolis. Part of the land was reserved for the cultivation of vegetables. An unidentified queen (probably Cleopatra VII) in 51/50 B.C. had land at Heracleopolis on which arakos (a legume) was grown. Cleopatra II owned ships that were used to transport royal grain.
Macedonian queens not only enjoyed great wealth; what is more, they controlled their own resources. Whereas, according to the laws traditional in most Greek states, a woman could manage her own property only with the approval of a male guardian, there were no restraints on these Macedonian queens. Their legal code, whatever it had been, had simply not kept up with women's sudden acquisition of great wealth. There is no evidence that the Macedonian kings were bothered by women's possession of wealth; on the contrary, they were themselves the donors. This lack of concern contrasts sharply with the attitude of the Spartans and Romans in the Hellenistic period, both of whom attempted to limit the wealth held by queens and upperclass women.
The queens employed their resources in many of the same ways the kings did, though mostly on a smaller scale. Gifts to gods and sanctuaries were most common. For example, Olympias had sent a phiale ("cup") to the goddess Hygieia in Athens. Roxane sent a dedication of some bracelets and other items to Athena Polias. Arsinoe II dedicated an entire building, the Arsinoelon at Samothrace, site of a Mystery cult. This structure was the largest walled round building in the Greek world up to that time. After an earthquake at Rhodes, several Hellenistic rulers, including Antigonus Doson, sent donations to relieve the city. Chryseis, the wife of Antigorms, gave 100,000 measures of wheat and 3,000 lead talents in her own name. The acts of Hellenistic queens in two cases differed from those of kings in that beneficiaries of queens' charities were exclusively female: in these cases, they provided dowries for the needy. (In the Classical period, this obligation had often fallen on the male friends and relatives of the poor.) Phila, wife of Demetrius, at her own expense gave away poor girls in marriage. Laodice III established a foundation at lasus to provide dowries for daughters of the poor.14 Laodice was able to employ royal revenues for her (p.16) project, since the funds for the dowries were derived from the sale of grain grown on royal land.
In the Hellenistic period, money bought armies for kings and queens alike. After Lysimachus was killed, Arsinoe II was able to take over troops that remained loyal to her as the widow of Lysimachus as well as to hire her own mercenaries and engage in military struggles in her attempt to ensure a throne for her sons and herself. I will pass quickly over the details, for they are available elsewhere." The episodes of her life sound like a pastiche of mythology. She was married three times. Like Phaedra, she was said to have been attracted to her first husband's young son, and eventually caused Lysimachus to murder him. Like Clytemnestra, she endured to see her children torn from her arms and killed before her eyes. The murderer was her halfbrother and second husband, Ptolemy Ceraunus. (Indisputably, he was a poor choice for a husband, but that a queen might make such a decision for herself in those days of arranged marriages is in itself remarkable.) And like Hera, Arsinoe II married her own full brother, Ptolemy II.
Laws of various Greek states had permitted marriages between half-siblings, although they were uncommon, but marriage between full siblings was outlawed everywhere." It is, in fact, considered incestuous in nearly every known human society. By incestuous marriage, the Ptolemies distinguished themselves from ordinary mortals. Among both Greek and Egyptian gods, brothers and sisters married without censure. Some of the most important divinities-including Zeus and Hera, and Isis and Osiris-married siblings. Moreover, the Greeks apparently believed that there had been precedents for brother-sister marriage among the Pharaohs, and the Ptolemies certainly wished themselves to be considered their successors."
Brother-sister marriage became as normal as exogamy among the Ptolemies. Arsinoe II, Arsinoe II1, Cleopatra II, Cleopatra Selene, Cleopatra VI Tryphaena, and Cleopatra VII were all married to their brothers. That there were no problems with the succession-and that the list ends with one of the most able of all the Ptolemies-indicates, incidentally, that (p. 17) incestuous marriages did not have an adverse effect on the genes of this family.
In virilocal marriage, a bride is isolated at the home of her husband and in-laws. Hellenistic history is studded with tales of wives - such as Berenice Phernophorus, daughter of Ptolemy Il and Arsinoe I - who were murdered at their husband's court. Dynastic marriages were arranged to seal alliances between kings. When the alliance was dissolved, wives might find themselves hostages in a hostile land. In contrast, some of the Ptolemaic princesses who married their brothers could take advantage of an opportunity to consolidate their own power at home. In later generations of Ptolemies, sibling rivalry was common.
The first of the Ptolemaic queens to marry her own brother was Arsinoe II. Both Arsinoe II and Ptolemy II were children of Ptolemy I and Berenice I; when they were wed, they were titled, appropriately, Philadelphus ("sibling-lover"). The question that concerns us here is whether the idea for the marriage came from Ptolemy II or Arsinoe II. An answer to this question would be useful in evaluating Arsinoie's subsequent power and influence over her brother. Grace Macurdy and, more recently, Gabriella Longega have argued that, during the period of her reign in Egypt, Arsinoe was the leading force in the government. Stanley Burstein disputes this theory. The ancient sources yield little information about ArsinoiFs deeds for the five years during which she was queen in Egypt. Therefore, arguments about her power must be based on psychohistorical theory, historical inference, and the use of evidence dating from after her death. On the score of strength of personality alone, Arsinoe appears to have had the advantage. Before returning to Egypt, her life was fraught with calamity. She not only managed to survive, but to become queen of Egypt at its zenith. Ptolemy, on the other hand, simply inherited the throne. Like many an heir of a powerful father, he was a notorious pleasure-lover. Moreover, even in discussions about royalty, the human element should not be ignored. Arsinoe was eight years older than Ptolemy, and, as adults, older siblings often maintain their authority over younger ones, even if the older one is female and the (p.18) younger one male. Further, she had already been married to a half-brother, while Ptolemy had no form of endogamy in his past.
The written evidence, in contrast, supports Burstein's view. It has been argued that there is no reason to believe that Arsinoe was politically astute." The elimination of Agathocles, her first husband's son, and her choice of a second husband were both ill conceived. Ptolemy II, even before Arsinoe's return to Egypt, had some military victories to his credit, so his successes after marrying his sister need not be attributed to her. Four years after Arsinoe's death, in the Chremonides decree Of 268/267 B.C., Ptolemy was recorded as having followed the policy of his ancestors and his sister in his zeal for the common freedom of the Greeks." Grace Macurdy observed that this was the first time among the Macedonians that the political policy of a woman was recorded in a public document." It has been suggested, however, that Ptolemy II was reaping political gain in attributing the policy to his dead sister. Burstein has asserted that, although Arsinoe might have at one time been favorable to the theory of Greek freedom-insofar as she supported traditional Ptolemaic policy-in this particular case the policy was actually detrimental to her ambitions for her surviving son.
The argument about Arsinoe II is reducible to the common question of "the power behind the throne." What did Plutarch mean by describing Arsinoe's mother Berenice I as "having very great power"- The impulse for such power can come from either the married couple together or the wife alone. The Odyssey provides a good example of the former relationship. Odysseus is told that, if Queen Arete thinks well of him, then he can hope to reach his homeland. King Alcinoiis honored Arete as no other woman on earth was honored. She was honored by her children, by Alcinoos, and by the rest of the Phaeacians, who looked on her as a god. She wielded judicial powers and resolved disputes, even among men. The originator of a woman's political influence can also be the woman herself, and such influence is often surreptitious. Historians have detected such an influence among Roman matrons in the late Republic and among Roman empresses. Roman historians have relatively rich sources (p. 19) for their analyses. The literary sources for early Ptolemaic history, in contrast, do not permit us to make a definitive evaluation of this immeasurable component of woman's power. But an awareness that women of the past-even queens---comprise a "muted group" must inspire a historian to look behind the face value -of these sources." Relying on Greek sources alone, it is impossible for a modern historian to evaluate the extent of Arsinoe's influence or even to be specific about the events she affected. But when the queen is in all respects the equal of the king and reigns in her homeland, as did Arsinoe II, then it is simplistic to assign credit for all events to the king, except where an ancient source explicitly attributed them to the queen. To return to an earlier question about whether it was Arsinoe II or Ptolemy who first thought the sibling marriage would be a good idea: if the answer is Arsinoe, then, ipso facto, she is shown to have wielded power over her brother. If the answer is Ptolemy, then historians ought to accept the king's judgment about the advantages of ruling with his sister, for surely he knew her better than we do.
The Egyptian sources give a different picture of Arsinoe's power. She
was designated as a Pharaoh as "King of Upper and Lower Egypt."
This title was, perhaps, conferred on her after her death. Since Ptolemy
II derived no advantage from designating his sister as "king"
and the practice was not continued by his immediate successors-although,
in other respects, the cult of Arsinoe II was a model for the cult of
later queens the title is likely to be an indication of Arsinoe's special
power. Therefore, it appears that the Greek sources consciously or otherwise
suppressed this manifestation of a woman's power, for Greeks in the early
period of Ptolemaic rule were not accustomed to or tolerant of a woman
who played the role of king. The Egyptians, on the other hand, did not
hold such a narrow view of women's proper sphere and, indeed, in the great
Hatshepsut and in Taousert (Nineteenth Dynasty) had historical precedents
for female Pharaohs. Jan Quaegebeur has argued that Arsinoe's title is
a reflection of her influence in the government and that she truly shared
the sovereignty with her brother." (p. 20)
Most scholars using Greek sources would agree that Arsinoe II left her
mark on Hellenistic poetry. Ptolemy I engaged Philetas, a scholar and
poet, as tutor to Ptolemy II. Arsinoe's education was probably the same
as her brother's. Philetas must have given his pupils a taste for the
erudition that is characteristic of the Alexandrian style, for the poet
Theocritus, whose work was influenced by Philetas, managed to obtain the
favor of the royal couple for a time. That he was equally adulatory of
both king and queen is some testimony to Arsinoe's influence in this realm.
As a patron of culture and religion, well able to pay the expenses herself,
Arsinoe sponsored an extravagant entertainment that was presented for
the delectation of the population of Alexandria. Theocritus describes
this event in his fifteenth idyll.
Berenice II of Cyrene (see Plate 1), who married her cousin Ptolemy III, figures in the poetry of Callimachus. She dedicated a lock of hair in the Alexandrian temple of Arsinoe Aphrodite to assure her husband's safe return from Syria. Precedents for the offering of hair existed in both Egyptian and Greek cults. Numerous terracotta heads of women with elaborate coiffures found in Ptolemaic sites (see Plate 2) may have been used in such cults. In the conceit of Callimachus' poem, the hair was taken aloft and became a constellation. "The Lock of Berenice" is known through a version by Catullus. An original fragment of poetry by Callimachus published in 1976 celebrates Berenice's victories in chariot races at Nemea. Berenice's victory at Olympia was already known. Of course, the women of this period whose horses raced at Greek festivals did not personally ride in the races. But their sponsorship of horses reveals a personal interest in equitation rather than a mere desire to exhibit their wealth. It is no accident that the first women whose horses won at Olympia were two Spartans, Cynisca and Euryleonis, and Bilistiche, a mistress of Ptolemy II. Spartan women engaged in athletics and raced in chariots drawn by two horses. The earliest testimony that they rode horseback is a poem by Propertius. Erotic poetry intimates that Bilistiche was also a rider. Berenice II was also a horsewoman. Like her royal predecessors, she is said to have ridden in battle, killed many enemies, and routed the rest. The next (p. 23) women recorded as victors were Zeuxo, wife of Polycrates of Argos, and their three daughters. They won a chariot race at the Panathenaea sometime after 197 B.C. Zeuxo, like Berenice II, came from Cyrene, a land known for horse-breeding.
Berenice is portrayed in Egyptian art as the living companion of her husband, dressed, as he is, in ceremonial attire. In Demotic papyri she is titled "the female Pharaoh."" With power like this, there is no need to wonder why she was assassinated by her son Ptolemy IV.
In the second century B.C., when Egypt was wracked, by foreign attacks and civil unrest, queens began to assume the prerogatives of kings with greater regularity than they had in the preceding century. In successive reigns, the populace increasingly accepted these powers of the queens as legitimate. Dating prescripts of Greek and Demotic papyri record this evolution, although in this turbulent period the same prescripts were not used uniformly throughout Egypt. In some papyri of her regency (180-176 B.C.), the name of Cleopatra I precedes that of her son, implying that she is not merely regent for him but actually sovereign herself. The prescript is: "The Pharaohs Cleopatra [I] mother, the goddess Epiphanes ["Manifest"], and Ptolemy [VI] son of Ptolemy, the god Epiphanes." Cleopatra I even issued coins in her own name.14 Cleopatra I was the daughter of the Seleucid Antiochus the Great. Thereafter, in Ptolemaic history, all the queens who assumed the role of "king" were native Lagids, but descendants of this Seleucid Cleopatra. Although the names of Hellenistic kings are relatively few, only in Egypt were all the males given the same name. This naming pattern was a symptom of dynastic strength and exclusivity. The female Ptolemies had borne several names, including Berenice, Arsinoe, and Cleopatra. At this point in history, the name Cleopatra began to acquire the aura associated with that of Ptolemy. Cleopatra II, daughter of Cleopatra I and Ptolemy V, was married successively to two of her brothers: to Ptolemy VI and, after his death, to Ptolemy, VIII. The dating prescripts from these two reigns name her as Pharaoh: "The Pharaohs Ptolemy [VI, then VIII] and Cleopatra [II]." From the period of her struggle for power against Ptolemy VII (132/131-131/130 B.C.), (p. 24) there are papyri with dating protocols naming Cleopatra II alone. She titled herself Cleopatra Philometor Soteira ("Savior"). Cleopatra III, daughter of Cleopatra II and Ptolemy VI, usurped her mother's office and married her uncle Ptolemy VIII (140/139 B.C.)." She eventually ruled with both of her sons successively. In dating formulas, her name is first."
Beginning in the early second century, the visual arts also reflect the increased political power of the queens. Whereas in the earlier period queens had usually been shown with the stephane ("crown") associated with Aphrodite and the veil worn by goddesses as well as by commoners, the Cleopatras preferred to be portrayed like kings-wearing only the tainia ("headband") as headdress."
Cleopatra Berenice III, daughter of Ptolemy IX, reigned alone for a few months in 80 B.C., before her son Ptolemy XI Alexander II was associated with her. The queen's name precedes her son's in official documents. Following the departure of Ptolemy XII Auletes to Rome in 58 B.C., Egypt was ruled by two sisters, Cleopatra VI Tryphaena and Berenice IV. They were not rulers pro tempore, but were recognized as sovereigns. After the death of Cleopatra VI, Berenice IV ruled alone (58/57-56/55 B.C.). In order to resume the throne when he returned, Auletes was obliged to have his daughter murdered. The assassination of Berenice IV, like that of so many of her royal predecessors, is testimony to her power. Although Auletes left the throne to both Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra VII, Cleopatra ruled alone at first (52/51 B.c.), and then with her brothers successively.
The ancient sources for Cleopatra VII (69-30 B.C.) are not only more abundant than those for any other Ptolemaic queen; they are more hostile. Cleopatra's life intersected with those of some of the greatest Romans during the civil wars at the end of the Republic. She furnished supplies for Pompey and charmed Julius Caesar and Marc Antony, but she was defeated by her enemy Octavian (Augustus), and it was Octavian who had the last word about her.
Viewed in the context of Ptolemaic rather than Roman history, Cleopatra VII does not appear as an anomaly. Like (p. 25) Cleopatra II, she was married to two of her brothers in succession. She finally eliminated all her siblings and became sole ruler, thus bringing to a culmination the long process of historical change that granted a woman the undisputed right to occupy the throne of Egypt. Like her Ptolemaic and, indeed, Macedonian ancestors, Cleopatra VII rode horseback, hunted, and was at home on the battlefield. Like her father, Ptolemy XII Auletes, she attempted to come to terms with Rome.
Cleopatra's relationships with Julius Caesar and Marc Antony may have been romantic liaisons from the Roman point of view, both these men were notoriously attractive to women but from the queen's perspective they were the equivalent of dynastic marriages. Her dowry was Egypt; through her "marriages," she expected to win dominion over the Roman world.
Because Octavian was Caesar's nephew and heir, his propaganda minimized the relationship between Caesar and Cleopatra. They met in 48 B.C. under what have often been described as romantic circumstances. Caesar regulated the tumultuous affairs of Egypt by reinstating Cleopatra on the throne and marrying her to her brother, who was then about eleven. After Caesar's departure, she bore a son, Caesarion. Ancient sources hostile to Cleopatra - emanating from Octavian, whom Caesar designated in his will as heir - as well as modern scholars have argued that Caesarion was not, despite the assertions of Cleopatra and Antony, Caesar's son. The date of Caesarion's birth has been disputed. Plutarch gives conflicting testimony. From his Life of Caesar we learn that Caesarion was Caesar's son and that he was born in 47 B.C. A Demotic text confirms this date. Yet, in his Life of Antony, Plutarch writes that Caesarion appeared to be Caesar's son and was born after Caesar's assassination. Some scholars admit that, if Caesarion was born in 47 B.C., Caesar could have been the father, but, calculating from Caesar's movements, he could not have fathered a child born in 44 B.C. This argument makes the Romans appear extremely credulous. If the dates when Caesar could have had intercourse with Cleopatra were not appropriate to the birthday of the baby, surely the Romans and Egyptians would have figured it out - even if they did believe babies were born only in the eighth or tenth, rather than the ninth, month (p. 26) after insemination. An argument that Caesar's history proves that he was sterile after the birth of Julia (ca. 83 B.C.) is also questionable. That he had no children by Calpurnia indicates merely that she was sterile, or that this specific combination was infertile, or that his long absences worked against reproductive success. With other partners, each one may have proven fertile. Moreover, that no children were produced despite Caesar's numerous extramarital affairs can be attributed to the fact that the upper-class Roman women who were his partners had the means to limit their pregnancies; further, they were often married, so any child would appear to be the offspring of the husband. Cleopatra was unlikely to be having intercourse with a younger brother in the course of her affair with Caesar. Ptolemy XIII was barely old enough to have fathered Caesarion; and he was dead, at any rate, in 47 B.C. Ptolemy XIV was assassinated in 44 B.C. at about the age of fifteen. Yet no one has proposed a candidate other than Caesar for the father, and rumor would have named one if he existed. Rumors about sexual liaisons were rife in Rome in the first century B.C., and the hated Cleopatra would not have been immune from gossip.
Cleopatra was never said to have been sexually promiscuous. From her point of view, it was a great advantage and not a scandal to bear Caesar's child. Previous male Ptolemies had practiced serial monogamy, bigamy, and adultery. Thus, in her marriages, Cleopatra was also following a male pattern. Her marriage to a brother was no deterrent to an association with Caesar. Moreover, Caesar's wife was childless, and it would have been natural for her to hope that her son would be designated Caesar's heir.
That Marc Antony was the father of Cleopatra's other three children was never questioned. Augustan propaganda exploited these children as the product of a liaison that was presented to the Romans as flagrant, obnoxious, and life-threatening. Antony was considered to have been mistaken in opposing Octavian, but he was still a Roman. The real villain was Cleopatra, who had led the virtuous Roman astray. When a declaration of war was made in 32 B.C., it was directed against Cleopatra alone."' Cleopatra was an anomaly among the Romans. There was no category appropriate (p. 27) for her. In sophisticated Roman society, some upper-class matrons dressed and behaved like Hellenistic courtesans. Courtesans, in turn, had dinner with senators. But there was one distinction between the two groups of women that could not be violated: men of the senatorial and equestrian classes married within their class. Courtesans did not supplant wives.
Cleopatra, then, coming like the courtesans from the Hellenized East, was classified with them by her enemies and called "regina meretrix" ("courtesan queen").'" Unlike most courtesans, Cleopatra did not have to be concerned about her means of support. She was able to furnish luxurious settings in which to make her skillful appeals to all of Antony's senses. Reports about her cleverness and his dissipation are reminiscent of traditions about earlier queens and kings in Egypt:
Her beauty was not altogether beyond compare, nor such as would strike those who looked at her; but her companionship was irresistible and spellbinding. Her appearance, added to the persuasiveness of her conversation and to her character - which somehow encompassed her social relationships - had something animating about it. There was sweetness, too, in the sound of her voice, and her tongue, like a many-stringed instrument, she could easily turn to whatever language she wished, so that she very seldom needed an interpreter. When she met with barbarians, she gave her answer to most of them by herself, whether they were Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, or Parthians. She is said to have learned thoroughly the languages of many others, although the kings before her had failed to grasp the Egyptian language, and some had even forgotten their Macedonian dialect.
Cleopatra was reputed to be an expert in the arts and accoutrements of seductive women and to have used these to bewitch Antony. For many generations, Ptolemaic queens, including Arsinoe II and Berenice II, had taken a special interest in perfumes and unguents. These concoctions have affinities with drugs. In fact, Helen of Sparta - who was knowledgeable about drugs (as well as about female adornment) - was reputed to have received instruction in Egypt. After Cleopatra's death, (p. 28) treatises on cosmetics, hair-dressing, and hair-curling were attributed to her.
Cleopatra has been accused of twice betraying Antony, first by abandoning him at the fateful battle of Actium and finally by attempting to come to terms with Augustus after Antony's suicide. She probably did neither, but if she had done so, her motivation need not have been execrable. Both these actions could have been inspired by a monarch's and a mother's desire to save Egypt for her children. Everyone, even her Roman enemies, must have admired her for her suicide, inasmuch as it was elegant, theatrical, and successful. It was surely by design that Cleopatra chose to be killed by cobra's poison, for this animal was an ancient symbol of Pharaonic power. When her handmaiden Charmion described Cleopatra's death perfectly as "fitting for the descendant of so many kings," she used the masculine form of the Greek word for "descendant.""
