As the piece in this series of Famous Travelers to Türkiye on the Roman emperor Hadrian demonstrates, what is now Türkiye was of great significance in the Roman era. Since then, some cities that were important have remained so, and in fact grown considerably greater – most notably, Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir.

Others fell into ruin before being subject to excavations and conversion into tourist attractions, as instanced in Ephesus and Pergamon. Yet, there are others which whilst they have increased in size, have declined in significance, being today not even the capitals of provinces, examples of this are Alaşehir, the former Philadelphia, and Tarsus. The apogee of Tarsus belongs to the Roman era, and the fame of its name has lasted for two millennia primarily for being in around 41 B.C. the birthplace of St. Paul, whose impact of nascent Christianity cannot be overstated, and for being the site of a meeting a couple of generations earlier between the Roman general Antony and Egypt's Queen Cleopatra.

Cleopatra in Tarsus

It is true that there is not much to say about Cleopatra VII (70/69-30 B.C.) in Türkiye save for this 41 B.C. visit to Tarsus. Yet, I have decided to include Cleopatra in this series of Famous Travelers to Türkiye. My reason has more to do with issues that this trip raises than simply with a description of it. Nevertheless, the colorful description of the visit by the ancient historian Plutarch is well worth a read and I will quote its most famous part in full. It is from descriptions of this type, however, that Cleopatra is established in the Western literary and artistic tradition as an Oriental femme fatale, and as this trope has been long-lasting, I wish to investigate it. The issue of the femme fatale in turn raises the question of the influence Cleopatra establishes over Antony and whether that is due to her legendary beauty. The exploration of this question also provides a key to understanding a certain aspect of harem politics which in turn makes clearer an often unconsidered element of Ottoman history.

Lastly, as this piece belongs to the arts section which deals with contemporary issues in the world of the arts, I will touch upon the recent controversy stirred up by the new Netflix docudrama series on the Egyptian queen, as it has proved to be a hot topic.

In 41 B.C., Cleopatra is in her late twenties. She is summoned to meet the Roman general Mark Antony, then the most powerful figure in the Roman Republic, and as such, the most powerful figure in the whole Mediterranean region and Europe. The historian Toby Wilkinson feels that the intended summit owes its origin to a meeting of interests – Antony wishing to attack Persia and requiring a base for this in Egypt, and Cleopatra desiring a new powerful foreign backer, that role having previously been played by Julius Caesar up to his assassination which Antony had recently avenged. Cleopatra clearly desires to make an impression upon the great Roman. Thus, as Plutarch reports, in coming to meet Antony at Tarsus, "she made great preparation for her journey, of money, gifts and ornaments of value, such as so wealthy a kingdom might afford" – the typical type of presents that have been used for millennia to sweeten diplomatic missions. Nevertheless, Plutarch adds that the queen also "brought with her the surest hopes in her own magic arts and charms," depicting her already as a seductress.

As for her entrance into the Anatolian scene, Plutarch paints quite a scene:

"(Cleopatra) came sailing up the river Cydnus (the modern Berdan) in a barge with a gilded stern and outspread sails of purple, while oars of silver beat time to the music of flutes and fifes and harps. She herself lay all along under a canopy of cloth of gold, dressed as Venus in a picture, and beautiful young boys, like painted Cupids, stood on each side to fan her. Her maids were dressed like sea nymphs and graces, some steering at the rudder, some working at the ropes. The perfumes diffused themselves from the vessel to the shore."

As may well be imagined, such a sight made quite an impression on the local people. Upon her arrival in the city, Antony invites her to dine with him, but Cleopatra wishing to continue with her theatrics instead insists that Antony take a meal with her on her boat. Antony complies, and as Plutarch reveals:

"He found the preparations to receive him magnificent beyond expression, but nothing so admirable as the great number of lights; for of a sudden there was let down altogether so great a number of branches with lights in them so ingeniously disposed, some in squares, some in circles, that the whole thing was a spectacle that has seldom been equaled for beauty."

Antony is blinded by Cleopatra’s preparations and, as Wilkinson notes, "beguiled by a queen 14 years his junior." The upshot of the meeting is that Antony sails back with Cleopatra to Alexandria, where nine months later, the queen gives birth to their twins.

Oriental femme fatale

Thus the stage has been both metaphorically and literally set for the drama that takes place in William Shakespeare’s 1607/8 play "Antony and Cleopatra." This play, which is mainly set in Alexandria, draws heavily on Plutarch’s subsequent account. Later in the century, Shakespeare’s play itself was adapted by John Dryden into one play of his own with the title "All for Love." In all of these works, Cleopatra is depicted as an Oriental femme fatale, a serious threat to the ethics of Rome. For the model Roman man or "vir" – a word from which the English word "virtue" itself derives – manifests the classical virtues of wisdom, temperance, courage and justice. These virtues seem designed to make life endurable rather than enjoyable, and passion is seen as inimical to them. Thus whilst the model Roman is virtuous, the East, stereotyped as a place of passion, pleasure, dissimilitude and luxury is dissolute. The risk to the Roman vir is that Oriental influence may deflect him from his path of virtue.

This is how Cleopatra’s influence on Antony is set up in Plutarch, even allowing for the fact that Antony has not proved to be much of a vir prior to meeting with her. Plutarch avers that on the one hand, Cleopatra was "to awaken and kindle to fury passions that still lay dormant in his nature" and on the other "to stifle and finally corrupt any elements that yet made resistance in him of goodness and a sound judgment." As such, Cleopatra proves to be his "snare" as his passion for her leads him astray, preventing him from being a vir. This idea is also evident in the plays of Shakespeare and Dryden. In the latter, Antony, aware of this fact, berates himself as a "madman" who has "disgraced/The name of a soldier, with inglorious ease" and is no longer even a "man."

Female beauty, power

This raises the question as to how Cleopatra was able to exert such influence over Antony. But before examining this question, I would like to stress that this is, and ought only to be, a question of historical interest. For, today we are progressing further into a world in which a woman is no longer judged through what she looks like or the man on her arm but rather on her own merit. Nevertheless, this was not often the case in the past, and thus in order to understand the past, the question raised above merits examination.

In the first century B.C. not only were women seen as inferior to men, but Egypt, despite its long impressive history, was far inferior in terms of power to Rome. The traditionally accepted explanation as to how Cleopatra overcame her disadvantages to gain such a hold on Antony is that as an Oriental femme fatale, she was exceptionally attractive. Thus in Shakespeare, she is not simply a figure of "beauty" but one of an exceptional kind, "o’er picturing that Venus where we see/The fancy outwork nature," meaning that she surpasses the beauty of artistic depictions of Venus, the goddess of love herself. Hence, her beauty is spell-binding on Antony. In the context of Shakespeare’s play, it would need to be, as his depiction of Cleopatra with "whom everything becomes to chide, to laugh,/To weep" and who is a figure of "sighs and tears" is otherwise irritatingly petulant and infantile.

However, it proved something of a shock when back in 2007, the study of an ancient coin depicting Cleopatra led to headlines around the world announcing that Cleopatra had actually been "ugly." Nevertheless, Cleopatra may not at least have been exceptionally beautiful, and should not, in fact, have been a surprise at all. Even Plutarch remarks that "her actual beauty, it is said, was not in itself so remarkable that none could be compared with her, or that no one could see her without being struck by it." Plutarch’s following remark demonstrates where instead her power over Antony lies, for he adds that "but the contact of her presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible; the attraction of her person, joining with the charm of her conversation, and the character that attended all she said or did, was something bewitching."

The same lazy way of thinking about beauty can also cause distortions in understanding Ottoman history. For certain women of the harem came to wield considerable influence. Yet, the Moroccan scholar Fatima Merinissi notes that for those who successfully aspired to gain influence over a Muslim ruler, albeit in an Arab context but one that is equally applicable to the Ottoman, "contrary to what one might suppose, youth and physical beauty were not sufficient." Indeed, considering the case of Cleopatra it might not have even been necessary at all. Mernissi notes that "without exception, all the jawari (female slaves) who succeeded in impressing the master to the extent that he shared power with them were women endowed with that analytical intelligence that even today guarantees success to whoever possesses it, whether man or woman."

Thus, the powerful women of the Ottoman harem, such as Hürrem, also known as Roxelana, managed to influence a ruler, Suleiman the Magnificent, whose own power surpassed even Antony’s, not only to give preference to her own children with him but also allegedly to bring about the execution of his eldest son from another woman, must have had a similarly strong and compelling character to Cleopatra.

Moreover, in the latter’s case, there is a great deal of evidence for her strength of mind and character that contradicts Shakespeare’s childish figure. Plutarch paints Cleopatra as a master of languages, in contrast with her monoglot prejudiced forebears. Wilkinson credits the queen as being an astute political mover whose "life would be devoted to maintaining (the) independence of her country." This involves great skill as, Wilkinson also notes, "keeping one’s throne while preserving national sovereignty required the deftest footwork on the narrowest of tightropes." The fact that Cleopatra was able to accomplish this feat for almost 20 years speaks to what Wilkinson calls "her political acumen." It fails her in the end, as it is Octavian, Antony’s rival, who succeeds in defeating Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C.

The fallout of this epoch-making battle leads the two lovers to take their lives and allows Octavian to become Augustus, the founder of the Roman Empire, a polity that, with a relocated capital, lasts all the way down to the Conquest of Istanbul by the Turks in 1453. At the time of Tarsus, though, Antony would clearly have seemed greater than Octavian, and thus Cleopatra’s political slip here can hardly be viewed as a serious flaw. Moreover, although tradition credits Cleopatra’s meddling with responsibility for the disaster at Actium, Wilkinson notes Antony that his "delusions of grandeur were not matched by his tactical ability," placing in doubt his military reputation.

Cleopatra, her race

Finally, as it has been such a hot topic recently, I cannot leave off Cleopatra without touching the question of her race and the issue of the Netflix docudrama series. Dryden depicts Cleopatra as "white" and he may well be right as she is descended from the Macedonian general Ptolemy, who accompanied Alexander the Great on his widespread conquests in the fourth century B.C., before taking control of Egypt following his death.

This fact does not prove that Cleopatra had a European appearance though. For in the many generations that passed from Ptolemy I to Cleopatra VII it is not to be discounted that an admixture of local or foreign blood could have given this dynastic family a darker skin tone. It is to be noted, however, that it is highly unlikely, though not impossible, that she was Black.

In the Netflix series, Cleopatra is portrayed as such, being played by the Black British actor, Adele James. This leads to questions concerning what actors should or should not be allowed to play and what "accuracy" can mean in historical dramas, especially regarding issues that are at least somewhat uncertain. That these questions are raised by the Netflix series is undeniable, but what overshadows a discussion of them is the extreme reaction to James’ casting. Even an obsession with historical accuracy cannot explain the level of offense that James’ portrayal of the Egyptian queen has apparently caused. Egyptian jurists are demanding $2 billion in compensation for the Netflix depiction of Cleopatra. Save in the case of a mass loss of life, the demand for compensation at such a level is incomprehensible. It demonstrates a degree of felt hurt that cannot be accounted for by a historical inaccuracy, and thus that cannot be what is objected to here. It only makes sense if the motivation to seek such ridiculous damages is the deeply prejudiced idea that there is something thoroughly demeaning to the whole of Egypt in the portrayal of one of its famous rulers as Black.

As such, I feel that the actions taken by the jurists and their supporters have misjudged world opinion and tarnished the image of their own country. Moreover, Egypt as an African country with a country with a rich culture and great regional military and economic power, naturally aspires to a position of leadership on the continent. It is thus strange for such extreme offense to be taken from the depiction of Cleopatra by a person with an African appearance, regardless of historical accuracy. In simply pragmatic terms, it can hardly help the image of Egypt in Africa that those aware of this controversy elsewhere on the continent have taken note and formed the only opinion that can be formed in these circumstances.