
Was Cleopatra Beautiful? (1997) - diodorus
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/cleopatra/bust.html
======
Jun8
AFAIK, there's considerable debate whether she was physically exceptionally
beautiful or not, but to me the important bit about her is this (from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Cleopatra_VII](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Cleopatra_VII)):

In contrast, Cleopatra could understand and speak multiple languages by
adulthood, including Egyptian, Ethiopian, Trogodyte, Hebrew (or Aramaic),
Arabic, the Syrian language (perhaps Syriac), Median, Parthian, and Latin,
although her Roman colleagues would have preferred to speak with her in her
native Koine Greek.

She was the first (only?) Ptolemic ruler who bothered to learn Egyptian. In my
book that makes her _incredibly_ attractive!

And consider this: Julius Caesar was no inexperienced youth when it came to
women (some details here: [https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-might-
not-know-abo...](https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-might-not-know-
about-julius-caesar)). Mere beauty would not have been enough to impress him
that quickly.

~~~
xytop
Aren't all those languages, except Latin, are similar and are in fact arabic
dialects?

~~~
PeCaN
No, not at all.

Egyptian is its own branch of the Afro-Asiatic languages, not particularly
close to any Semitic language and today preserved in the form of Coptic as a
liturgical language.

Ethiopian (presumably referring to Ge'ez) is a Semitic language but not
particularly close to Arabic, and certainly not an Arabic dialect.

I don't think anyone knows what Trogodyte was. It may have been related to one
of these other languages or it may have been totally different.

Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic (of which Syriac is a dialect) are all somewhat
close but not mutually intelligible (they're more different than the Romance
languages).

Median and Parthian are both Northwestern Iranian (Indo-European) languages,
but it's not clear how similar they would've been at the time. Regardless,
they're far from "arabic dialects", not sharing any common ancestors with
Arabic within the last ten thousand years or so.

I don't know if you missed that she also spoke Koine Greek, but I think you
probably know it's not an Arabic dialect.

~~~
benbreen
Plutarch apparently corrected "Trogodyte" to "Troglodyte." [1] Which piques my
interest even more -- she spoke "cave dweller" language? Looks like Herodotus
uses the term to refer to a group who lived on the shores of the Red Sea, so
that would make sense geographically.

[1] [http://languagehat.com/polyglot-
cleopatra/](http://languagehat.com/polyglot-cleopatra/)

------
t3f
This was a recent topic [0] on the "Our Fake History" podcast [1] too. Worth a
listen if you're looking for something new.

Wonder if that inspired the OP?

[0]
[http://ourfakehistory.com/index.php/episodes/episode-62-what...](http://ourfakehistory.com/index.php/episodes/episode-62-what-
should-we-believe-about-cleopatra-part-i/)

[1] [http://ourfakehistory.com/](http://ourfakehistory.com/)

~~~
leipert
Probably not, as the linked page is from 1997 ;)

~~~
t3f
I really meant if the OP had listened to the Podcast and sought out more
information.

Additionally, the article can't completely be from 1997, as it references 2010
and 2013 sources.

------
WhompingWindows
The piece itself seems to contradict its own raison d'etre:

"Rather than ask whether Cleopatra was beautiful, a question that cannot be
answered in any event, one should ask whether she was desirable."

Clearly, due to the legacy of her charmingness and communicative powers, the
answer to that is yes. Since "beauty" is a social construct that is somewhat
impervious to even objective analyses, I doubt that any analysis of ancient
sources such as busts or anecdotal accounts could be accurate. We know that
eye-witness testimony is inaccurate and unreliable today, therefore why should
we trust it from ancient times? Well, it's the only source available, which is
both a good and bad excuse. In the end, I think it's sufficient to say:
Cleoparta certainly had a profound effect, whether or not that was due to her
beauty, her charisma, or if mythologized. She has entered the public
consciousness and is unlikely to leave it.

~~~
narag
_Since "beauty" is a social construct..._

When did that happen?

~~~
jerf
There are elements of beauty that are universally shared across the human
species, such as facial symmetry, and there are components that are socially
constructed.

At the risk of saying something slightly controversial, I'd say the
universally shared elements tend to top out relatively early, in the sense
that once one has a symmetrical face and "reasonable" proportions, it's not
like you can just tweak a nose slightly and suddenly you've got someone head
and shoulders above the rest on appearance alone. Or, to put it another way,
there's a very large range of "the best looking people" by sheer appearance
alone and not a lot of objective distinction amongst them. Legendary beauty
pretty much has to contain significant elements above and beyond literal
appearance. Nowadays those elements are "three hours in the makeup chair and a
hefty dollop of expensive CGI", but even within my living memory someone who
desired to be famous for their beauty would still expect to need some other
skills to cut through the crowd, like musical ability or something.

~~~
narag
_There are elements of beauty that are universally shared across the human
species, such as facial symmetry, and there are components that are socially
constructed._

Don't forget the eye of the beholder or, to avoid misunderstandings,
individual taste.

------
godelmachine
What a co-incidence I crossed this question when I am reading "Titans of
History" by Simon Sebag Montefiore.

Here's how he describes her at one point -

"She was probably not beautiful-her nose was aquiline, her chin pointed-but
she possessed a ruthless aura like Caesar himself and shared a taste for
sexual theater and adventurous politics"

------
asdf1234tx
I guess we could speculate that she wasn't bad looking at all, but not drop
dead gorgeous, either.

But I think it's true that in general, personality can make a huge difference
for both men and women. A captivating, engaging personality, combined with
intelligence is a powerful thing.

------
Koshkin
Was G. J. Caesar beautiful? Was he also strong, smart, cunning, wise, etc.?

~~~
daniel-cussen
There's statues of him for you to judge for yourself. He looked alright in my
opinion. Notably, however, he was self-conscious about his baldness. According
to Suetonius, combed his remaining hair all the way forwards sometimes,
perhaps the original "combover."

He also wrote a book called "The Conquest of Gaul" which should give a good
idea about his character.

~~~
ralusek
I think the OPs implication is "why do we care about if Cleopatra was
beautiful, do we likewise care if a male emperor was attractive?"

~~~
coldtea
Because we never signed any contract that said that in society both sexes will
be interested in the same things, including being interested in the same
attributes of the other sex.

~~~
Koshkin
so, sexism is still a thing

~~~
coldtea
So, "sexism" is meaningless as a catch-all accusation. It's a throught
stopper.

Viewing others as sexual objects, for example, is fine when looking for a
sexual encounter (whether you're a man or a woman or non-binary or whatever).
Not every relation has to be "meaningful" or a long-term commitment. This is
something young people revolted to earn in the 50s and 60s, and apparently our
neo-puritan 80s and onwards breathen forgot.

On the other hand, viewing others as sexual objects, is not fine on e.g. a job
interview -- but that's another case altogether.

People of different sexes having different preferences is also a statistical
reality (statistical meaning it's not some property that holds for absolutely
every member of a respective set). We can say they shouldn't, but we can't
finger point and accuse a girl because she reads Cosmopolitan, or to a boy
because he reads some bodybuilding website. Their tastes might be cliche, but
they are what they are. And nobody can objectively measure what's a legitimate
preference and what's not, except by having some non-verified prior that men
and women should absolutely have the same tastes in aggregate, and if they're
not, that's some social distortion right there.

------
gymshoes
Isn't the concept of beauty different in each culture and time period and even
the person who perceives?

This was also a time where media had not set standards for what "beautiful"
should look like

------
nyc111
Interesting subject. We can try to know if Cleopatra was beautiful by
investigating what we mean by “beautiful” today. I think that we are not
talking about beauty but about attractiveness. Or we may say that these words
are synonymes.

So the first thing we notice is that beauty has nothing to do with facial
features. So, Cleopatra’s bust shown in the article, even if it’s her
likeness, is hot much help. Unless a woman has grotesques features as if she
came out of a Goya drawing, any woman can be made bautiful by make up and by
what she wears regardless of the shape of her nose or her lips or her eyes.
This is a given. We know this because there is no standard of beauty as in
Greek sculptures. Such a woman does not exist. Beauty is not a question of
perfect proportions. Look at the pictures of Marie-Antoinette. She had an army
of maids who cared for her hair, her make up, her nails... she was the most
maintenence-extensive woman in the world. Her dresses alone supported many
tailors in Paris. Her perfumes, her jewelry... she was a fashion industry on
her own. But all other women on the land, except other royals and semi royals,
looked like peasants.

And now look at women today. There is a beauty and maintenance industry
serving all women. French revolution democratized beauty industry. Real slogan
of the revolution must have been: Liberté, égalité, fraternité, beauté. What
was only available to Marie-Antoinette is available to every woman today. They
say that French peasant women were the initiary and sole beneficiary of the
French revolution. (Peasant women were in front lines of the crowd who stormed
Bastille.) There is some truth to this. Because women were jealous of Marie-
Antoinette not because she said “let them eat cake” but because she was so
well maintained.

Before Marie-Antoinette there was the oldest certified beauty, the so- called
Knidos Afrodite who was famous for covering her front with her hand in the
most suggestive way. She was the initiator of women’s art of revealing by
hiding. So Marie-Antoinette was beautiful in most expensive and expansive way
but Knidos Afrodite was beautiful in her nakedness. Therefore, a woman can be
beautiful in myriad ways.

Also a woman you are courting may appear so beautiful and attractive and
irresistible but a year after you got married she may lose all of her
attractiveness and became the Mommy. As they say, beauty is in the eyes of the
beholder.

Now I am not sure if Cleopatra used make up. Probably she did. But I’m sure
she used theatrical outfits and made grand entrances. She must have used
exotic perfumes. So in her case too her facial features are not relevant. She
knew how to show herself as attractive.

Furthermore, as much as powerful men are attractive to women, powerful women
are attractive to men. And she was an Egytian queen! You cannot get more
powerful than that?

More importantly perhaps, royals of those times were experts in propaganda.
After all these kings and queens sold themselves to the people as
representatives of Gods on earth. Or they even claimed to be Gods themselves.
Alexander the Great marketed himself as a powerful God destined to conquer the
entire world and he was so succesful that most cities surrendered just by
hearing his name. Similarly, Cleopatra must have marketed herself as the most
beautiful woman on earth. And when men lucky enough to have her intimate
presence no doubt saw Cleopatra the myth rather than an ordinary woman.

Another mystery is that some women have something called “sex appeal.” We
don’t know what this is or how it is obtained. Some women have it, others
don’t. Sophia Loren had it. Maybe Cleopatra had it too, who knows.

Also women at Clopatra’s time were slaves. They were literally men’s slaves.
They were not even allowed to leave the house. They cooked, they cleaned and
gave birth for the man to continue his line. So women were dirty. Their prime
was probably between the age of 14 and 18 after that they were old and ugly.
Don’t forget that they didn’t have dentists then. Even kings and queens had
missing teeth. Women did not wear bras. So women at home, even royal woman at
home in Rome, might not be as well-maintened and attractive as Cleopatra.

Don’t underestimate also the exoticness factor. Consider Matisse’s odalisque
paintings. They were exotic. For Europeans the idea of a harem was exotic.
Therefore, many European men made trips to the east imagining that women there
looked like odalisques in a Matisse paintings. Of course they were
disappointed. Cleopatra was exotic for European men she aimed at. She must
have emphisized her exoticness.

So what about naked Cleopatra? Was she beautiful? Does it matter that she was
or was not beautiful at that stage, in the bedroom? She was -I am sorry to put
it in a slangy way- nothing more than a huge conquest for Ceasar or Mark
Anthony. So beauty appears to be irrelavant. What is relevant is to package
oneself -as a woman- as a prize most difficult to conquer. It’s really
marketing, as all women know. Because women know that, when naked they are
more or less the same. They need to differentiate themselves by creating a
story irresistable to men they target. I’m sure Cleopatra was a master of
manipulation and knew how to use her self-promotion and marketing powers to
get what she wanted.

So, what I’m trying to say is that this is a very complicated subject. But I
believe that attractiveness has nothing to do with facial features. And some
women do not want to be called beautiful or attractive and may be offended if
you call them beautiful.

~~~
rurban
> Also women at Clopatra’s time were slaves. They were literally men’s slaves.
> They were not even allowed to leave the house.

Only in the Roman and Greek culture, probably also the Semites, but certainly
not in Germany, and I doubt in Egyptian and related cultures.

Just read Tacitus account of German women being equal to men. Bachofen did the
studies on the history of the decline of the female power in the greek
cultures, related to the downfall of the importance of agriculture. Also Egypt
and Carthage had a lot of female rulers and queens, which didn't happen in
Greece or Rome.

~~~
nyc111
Thanks, I didn't make that distinction. You are right I was considering Roman
and Greek societies. Wikipedia corroborates what you are saying
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Egypt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Egypt)

Still, I think royals enjoyed a higher level of personal hygene and self
indulgence.

