Introduction to Cleopatra in Numismatics and Sculpture
4.3. Cleopatra's International Image
Besides the Egyptian and Hellenistic images Cleopatra used to market herself ideologically for local consumption, there are those coins (minted exclusively abroad) and statues which we presume Cleopatra used to portray her image outside of the borders of Egypt and the Ptolemaic kingdom.
The first such example of Cleopatra's international image is found in two silver tetradrachrns (#221- 222), portraying Cleopatra on the obverse and Antony on the reverse. Itappears that between 37-32 B.C., as Cleopatra's and Antony's showdown with Octavian grew inevitably closer, portraits ofthe two lovers were issued (denarii in Alexandria and tetradrachrns elsewhere in the Eastf3 celebrating their union. In the latter half of37 RC. (in that year Cleopatra would have been thirty-three) Mark Antony divorced Octavia, and until his death he remained with Cleopatra. From 37 RC. the Egyptian queen had coins issued, always outside of Egypt - in areas where, by means of monetary policy, Cleopatra wished to promote her political power - with her own image on the obverse and that ofher lover on the reverse. Now Cleopatra's coiffure and clothing are more detailed, with pearls edging the decolletage of her tunic - the somewhat naive construction of her on earlier coins now replaced with an almost imperial bearing.74 The couple are portrayed as almost asexual splitting images ofthe other, each with hooked noses, thick necks, and prominent chins. The queen's Melonenfrisur is stylistic rather than naturalistic, with the braids being tightly confined in a Greek style beneath the diadem. On the obverse Cleopatra is referred to as 'Queen Cleopatra Thea II,' reflecting her desire to be seen possibly as the ruler of both Egypt and Syria. On the reverse, where the issuer ofthe coin is customarily recorded, Antony' s portrait appears, with the legend' Antonius Imperator for the third time and triumvir.' Meadows (2001:234, cat. no. 221-222) comments that the legends are in the nominative case (a generally Roman tradition) instead ofthe typically Greek genitive case, suggesting that the inspiration of these coins is Roman as opposed to Greek. Both the date and place of production are uncertain, yet the construction of the lovers' images (and the message they hoped to represent) on the coins had clearly involved careful thought and planning. That the two wished to be portrayed together is obvious - whetheritwas the romantic union or the political alliance they were celebrating (or both) is less so. Whatever the case, the production ofthese coins was obviously meant
73 Walker (2001: 145).
74 Goudchaux (2001:212).
to augment eastern support for Cleopatra and Antony, in the face of growing opposition from Octavian and Rome. The legends on the coins likewise indicate that the pair wished to be associated with both people (Cleopatra Thea) and positions (triumvir) ofextreme political power, and with East (Egypt) and West (Rome) preparing for war, it was crucial that the two should gather as much support as possible from overseas powers. Thus with the military backing of Egypt guaranteed, Cleopatra turned to the international arena, in which these coins were probably distributed and circulated. As Goudchaux (2001 :212-3) comments, this warlike zeugma of Cleopatra and Antony on these tetradrachms succeeded in portraying her as an omnipotent 'Queen of Kings, ' supported by a Herculean Mark Antony.
But perhaps the two most important international representations surviving of Cleopatra are those termed the' Vatican Cleopatra' and the' Berlin Cleopatra,' so named after the museums in which they are currently housed. Both statues, carved in Greek marble from Paros,75 are associated with findspots not in Alexandria, but near Rome. Both date from c.50-30 B.C., and since both are likely to have originated in sites of villas south of Rome, it is plausible that the statues may have been occasioned by Cleopatra's visit to Rome as the guest ofJulius Caesar, from 46-44 B.C. Furthermore, these marble heads (which have since lost their torsos) reflect that Cleopatra must have been presented as a Hellenistic Greek queen at Rome, where the heads could have well been the work of Greek or Alexandrian artists working from the capital.76 Both the Vatican Cleopatra (# 196) and the Berlin Cleopatra (# 198) portray a youthful queen, which suggests that these may have dated from the earlier years of her reign.
Until 1933, when a German scholar, Ludwig Curtius, published research on the head now termed the Vatican Cleopatra, no authoritative identification of a marble portrait of Cleopatra yet existed.
However, his findings have resulted in scholars claiming confidently that, although this portrait bears none of the features previously seen to be idiosyncratic to Cleopatra in Greco-Egyptian statues, it is nevertheless a positive identification ofthe last ofthe Ptolemaic queens. Although both this head and a body were found at the site of the Villa of the Quintilii on the Via Appia in 1784, and the head was attached to the torso, when Curtius identified the head as belonging to Cleopatra he simultaneously claimed that the two did not belong together, and had them separated.
75 Parian marble was used to represent flesh in Greek and Roman portraits (Walker 2001 :142-43).
76 Walker (2001:142-43).
In this statue, Cleopatra closely resembles the Greco-Roman portraits ofher on coins from Alexandria and Ascalon: her hair is arranged in the Hellenistic Melonenfrisur hairstyle, drawn beneath the broad royal diadem favoured by late Hellenistic rulers, and gathered into a tight bun at the nape of her neck.
As in the coins, her eyes are large and widely-opened, and her mouth is slightly down-turned. A reconstruction of her nose (closely resembling that on her coins) was replaced on the head in the late eighteenth century, but this has subsequently been removed. Curtius, however, maintained that enough of Cleopatra's original nose remained to ascertain, from the bridge, the original angle, and he concluded that it would have been hooked as in the Alexandrian and Ascalon coins.77 Although the features ofthe head resemble earlier Ptolemaic portraits, Higgs (2001 :218, cat. no. 196) explains that the general appearance and technique of the head do not correspond with other products of Alexandrian workshops. While Alexandrian sculptors would typically create a statue pieced together from separate marble sections, the Vatican head is made from one piece of marble, suggesting that it was probably made by a sculptor in Rome. Curtius proposed that the head originated from a copy of the gold statue erected by Julius Caesar in the Temple of Venus Genetrix in Caesar's Forum in Rome, and, furthermore, that it depicted Cleopatra as Venus, with Caesarion as Eros sitting on her shoulder. However appealing this theory sounds, Higgs (2001:218-9, cat. no. 196) dismisses it, stating that the ancient sources do not describe any features ofthe gilded statue from which we might positively link the two pieces.
The Berlin Cleopatra, also dated toc.50-30 RC., depicts a finely carved marble portrait ofCleopatra, now housed in the Antikensammlung in Berlin. This bust(# 198) was excavated in the region of the town of Ariccia on the Via Appia, south of Rome, by a Cardinal D. Antonio Despuig y Damet, sometime between 1786 and 1797. Similarly, it seems unlikely that this portrait was the work of an Alexandrian sculptor: again, the head is carved from one piece of marble, and therefore is not analogous with the style and technique of Alexandrian sculpture. However, as Higgs (2001 :207) remarks, 'we cannot, of course, completely dismiss the idea that the Berlin Cleopatra was the work ofan Alexandrian sculptor....Cleopatra may have taken some of her court sculptors to Rome when she visited in 46 RC.; she may even have taken finished portraits with her, and the Berlin head may be one such example.' Furthermore, this Romanized version ofthe queen' s portrait also bears strong resemblance to the coins of Cleopatra issued at Alexandria and Ascalon, and thus it may well be true
77 Higgs (2001 :204).
that the Berlin statue, although inspired by Alexandrian portraits, because of its Italian provenance, was commissioned for a Roman context, like the Vatican Cleopatra.
The Berlin head, although being slightly more flattering, certainly bears further strong similarities to the Vatican portrait of Cleopatra. The Berlin head similarly portrays Cleopatra with the usual Melonenfrisurhairstyle, drawn beneath the Hellenistic royal diadem. However, here the diadem is set further back on her head, revealing more hair as well as curls which have escaped the formal arrangement ofthe hair. Interms offacial features, the Berlin Cleopatra has the advantage ofhaving retained its nose, which possesses both a tip and nostrils similar to the portraits ofCleopatra on coins.
Thus from these local and international representations identified as belonging to Cleopatra, one can attempt to deduce something of Cleopatra' s priorities and strategies. Certainly, Cleopatra desired to be portrayed in both Hellenistic, Greco-Roman, as well as Egyptian contexts. In the former cosmopolitan and international arena, she is portrayed with the Hellenistic headdress of the broad diadem and theMelonenfrisurhairstyle also depicted on Greco-Roman coins minted in Ascalon and Alexandria. This group ofrepresentations portrays an arguably more realistic rendition ofCleopatra, in that the stylized features of Egyptian statues tend to differentiate between Ptolemaic queens not by their unique physical appearance, but by iconographic symbols (such as the triple uraeus or double cornucopia) associated with each Ptolemaic queen. The Greco-Roman portraits of Cleopatra (the Vatican and Berlin Cleopatras) certainly resemble visual representations of Cleopatra on coins, not simply in the details unique to Hellenistic portrayal (such as the hairstyle and type of diadem) but probably in physical resemblance too. More importantly, though, in the Vatican and Berlin Cleopatras, as well as in the coins produced by local Egyptian mints (but which were no doubt circulated in foreign as well as Egyptian contexts), Cleopatra identifies herselfas a culturally-attuned, powerful Greek queen, a credible force ofcontention - politically, socially and ideologically - in her links with Rome and the rest of the East. Yet as eager as Cleopatra was to be represented in the context ofher native, Hellenistic Greek culture, she was equally keen to be identified as an Egyptian monarch, and the examples ofthe marble statue (#164), the basalt statue (#160), and the limestone stele (# 154), all show, in increasing measure, her identification with her Egyptian heritage. Cleopatra was certainly aware ofher religious duties and divinity imparted through Egyptian religion, and it was in her interests to take care not to alienate the priestly sect in her religio-political strategy. For this reason, then, she, like her Ptolemaic ancestors, respected Pharaonic ritual and represented herself on
temple walls, such as on a wall of the Temple of Hathor at Dendera in Egypt, on which she is illustrated making offerings to the Egyptian gods, wearing a vulture headdress and cobra crown, in the tradition of Egyptian representation.78 As Wyke (2002:202) explains, 'in her Ptolemaic context, Cleopatra was certainly a lover of Egypt, but no seducing meretrix.'
However, the accumulative material which we possess of Cleopatra today in the art, sculpture and (especially) the coinage ofher reign, suggests that in the international spheres oftrade, diplomacy and decorative art, Cleopatra preferred to be acknowledged as a Hellenistic ruler (with roots in Greek culture), whereas in the context ofreligion she was happy to conform to Egyptian representations of her as an Egyptian deified by right of her colonized heritage. This tentative generalization surely offers us some ground to speculate regarding Cleopatra's religious and political strategy. For example, one may tentatively suggest that in the milieu ofreligion, Cleopatra prioritized seeking the affirmation and loyalty of the powerful priests in Egyptian society, and thus promoted associations which assimilated her to Isis, and Antony to OsirislDionysus. Similarly, in the framework of trade relations and monetary matters, Cleopatra was anxious to portray herself as a modem Hellenistic ruler, who could understand the demands of the current world environment, and in response sought to make her coinage, weights and measures compatible with the powerful Roman world that flexed its muscles both outside and within her own country's borders.79
Unfortunately, we are forced to draw such conjectural claims regarding the nature ofCleopatra' s rule and her religious and political strategy, since the extant representations ofCleopatra from the period of her reign are few, and at times even contradictory - as she was. Indeed, this ambiguity inart (in the contrasting Hellenistic and Egyptian manners in which Cleopatra is portrayed) finds echo in the
78 See Figure 3.2, Goudchaux (2001 :138).
79 Alexandria was, of course, the capital of the Hellenistic world, with its famed intellectual centres, the Museum and the Library, both of which Cleopatra patronized. Due partly to Callimachus'Pinakeswhich made its contents accessible, the Alexandrian library (which held nearly 500 000 scrolls) came to rank among the grandest civic institutions in the ancient world, with rivals at Pella, Antioch, and, especially, Pergamum - which, if Plutarch's account (58.9) is to be believed, Antony gave as a gift to Cleopatra, with its 200 000 scrolls(QeDJ, 854-55, s.v.
Library). Similarly, by far the most famous of ancient museums was that in Alexandria, founded by Ptolemy I Soter, and which, like the Library, was located near the palace. Research and lecturing were the main activities of the institution, and in the Ptolemaic period the Museum was famous for scientific and literary scholarship. Although political upheavals in the mid-second century B.C. tarnished the reputation of the Museum, Cleopatra endorsed the Museum by taking part in its discussions (OCD3, 1002-3,S.v. Museum). Cleopatra's own scholarly achievements, confmned by Plutarch, suggest that the queen was an active participant in the intellectual atmosphere of Hellenistic Alexandria.
ambiguity of Cleopatra' s political and social identity. However much she may have desired to have been recognized locally as an Egyptian queen, and however much she assumed positive powers through her identification with the goddess Isis, genetically (disregarding the uncertain identity ofher paternal grandmother, a concubine) Cleopatra had little or no Egyptian blood in her veins.
Conversely, however much she may have wished to be accepted as the prototype of a Hellenistic ruler, she could never escape her' Egyptianness' - her identity being firmly rooted in, and inseparably linked with, the East and the stereotypes ascribed this part of the world, so eloquently portrayed in Shakespeare'sAntony and Cleopatra. She may well have worn the hairstyles fashionable in global Hellenistic trends, and she could even boast a truly Macedonian Greek birthright; however, she had simultaneously chosen to be associated with the Egyptian deities, Isis, Hathor and Osiris, as well as with the theriomorphic aspects of Egyptian religion, such as barking Anubis spat at so contemptuously by the Roman imperial poets. Culturally, Cleopatra faced similar crises in identity:
historically, Egyptian women were normally excluded from positions ofpolitical leadership (especially the leadership ofEgypt), and like Hatshepsut more than a millennium before her, Cleopatra not only assumed the throne unnaturally (by displacing two brothers from the throne) and ran the country single-handedly, but she even publicly denied her feminine identity, portraying herselfin art as a bare- chested and kilted pharaoh. Within Egypt itself, Cleopatra could not attain the credibility to secure fully the loyalty of its native people, for again, even though she became the first ofthe Ptolemies to speak Egyptian, not only was she undeniably the offspring of a colonizing power, but she also threatened (while ironically trying to secure) the fate of Egypt by having an affair with one, and marrying another, Roman, thereby extending her identity to include Roman features.8o No matter how much she attempted to engage and open her Egyptian economy to Rome (through her coinage reforms and self-portrayal as a Hellenistic, Greco-Roman queen), her relationship with Antony encouraged the festering ofRoman propaganda which constructed her asafatale monstrum, a woman who inverted political and social conventions, emasculating Antony and seducing him into the excessive decadence ofthe East. Thus no matter how hard Cleopatra attempted to negotiate between these contradictory political and cultural identities through the construction of her identity in visual media, she could never be fully one or the other - neither Egyptian nor Greek, neither native nor international, neither male nor female.
• 80 Historically, of course, Cleopatra was not the fIrst Ptolemaic queen to marry outside of the family:
Ptolemalc queens before her had also married into the Seleucid family: for example, Cleopatra Thea had married three Seleucid royals - Alexander Balas (150-149 B.C.), Demetrios 11 (146 B.C.) and Sidetes VII (138 B.C.), the latter two being brothers and sons of DemetriosI.
Cleopatra's attempts to manipulate ideology and art to consolidate political power were by no means a novel strategy: carefully deliberated identities were forged by her predecessors such as ArsinoeII,81 and the ideological campaign of Augustus, within the decade following Cleopatra's death, would prove to be the ideal case-study of identity manipulation. Similarly, the ancient sources (written and archaeological) inform us that Cleopatra's portrait was manipulated by the queen herself, Antony, her supporters, and certainly by her enemies, such as Octavian, who, in lieu ofthe queen herself, resorted to having an image ofCleopatra carried in his triumph in Rome.82 In the absence ofCleopatra herself, the visually literate populace of Rome would certainly have appreciated this image as the next best thing, and that Octavian resorted to this representation reveals the importance he himself attached to image-making, to legitimize and confirm his own rule and power.
However, in her own design to negotiate a new and appealing identity which could stand in contrast to her Ptolemaic predecessors, Cleopatra subscribed to both stereotypical and conservative features in art (such as in wearing the diadem coupled with the cornucopia), while simultaneously introducing innovations, such as visually associating herselfwith the inevitable colonizing force ofRoman power, in the figure of Antony. Indeed, this was an age in which the politics of representation wielded the most political power, and not surprisingly, then, it was the tool used by Cleopatra and Octavian to negotiate identities which could be universally understood by the various peoples whose support they most sought.
Finally, in Cleopatra's art, the narratives of Plutarch, the Roman poets and Shakespeare all find a strong reverberation. On the limestone stele and Hellenistic coins we recognize from Plutarch the powerful religious and nationa11eader who was astute enough (or politically shrewd enough) to learn the native language of the land over which she ruled; in the beautiful black basalt statue of an Egyptian Cleopatra, we acknowledge the seductive eastern woman Virgil, Propertius and Horace so feared would corrupt or invert the traditional values of Rome; and in the totality of the pieces examined in this chapter, we recognize the two worlds of Shakespeare's Rome and Egypt - worlds which Cleopatra tried so hard to straddle in her attempts to find love and forge a meaningful identity.
While the study of art certainly enriches our appreciation of this paradoxical queen, it leaves us no more certain of who Cleopatra really was. For as Higgs (2001 :209) concludes, 'the search for the
81 Such as in her 'Egyptianizing' of the Adonia in Theocritus' Idyll 15.
82Plut. Ant. 86.; see also Hor. Carm. 1.37.26-28; Prop. 3.11.53-54.