To restore Cleopatra is as much to salvage the few facts as
to
peel
away
the
encrusted
myth
and
the
hoary
propaganda. She was a Greek woman whose history fell to
men whose futures lay with Rome, the majority of them
officials of the empire. Their historical methods are opaque
to us. They seldom named their sources. They relied to a
great extent on memory. They are by modern standards
polemicists, apologists, moralists, fabulists, recyclers, cut-
and-pasters, hacks. For all its erudition, Cleopatra’s Egypt
produced no fine historian. One can only read accordingly.
The sources may be flawed, but they are the only sources
we have. There is no universal agreement on most of the
basic details of her life, no consensus on who her mother
was, how long Cleopatra lived in Rome, how often she was
pregnant, whether she and Antony married, what transpired
at the battle that sealed her fate, how she died. I have tried
here to bear in mind who was a former librarian and who a
Page Sixer, who had actually set eyes on Egypt, who
despised the place and who was born there, who had a
problem with women, who wrote with the zeal of a Roman
convert, who meant to settle a score, please his emperor,
perfect his hexameter. (I have relied little on Lucan. He was
early on the scene, before Plutarch, Appian, or Dio. He was
also a poet, and a sensationalist.) Even when they are
neither tendentious nor tangled, the accounts are often
overblown. As has been noted, there were no plain,
unvarnished stories in antiquity. The point was to dazzle. I
have not attempted to fill in the blanks, though on occasion
I have corralled the possibilities. What looks merely
probable remains here merely probable—though opinions
differ radically even on the probabilities. The irreconcilable
remains unreconciled. Mostly I have restored context.
Indeed
Cleopatra
murdered
her
siblings,
but
Herod
murdered his children. (He afterward wailed that he was
“the most unfortunate of fathers.”) And as Plutarch reminds
us, such behavior was axiomatic among sovereigns.
1