The Murder of Cleopatra (12 page)

So we can't know if the child was Caesar's through physical appearance. Is there any reason to believe, since it is hardly believable that Caesar and Cleopatra did not sleep together, that he could have a problem fathering her child? Let's see. Caesar was fifty-two years old at the time Cleopatra got pregnant. This is certainly not too old to be able to sire a child, as long as he was capable of doing so, which is something quite frankly not known. Caesar may be “every woman's man and every man's woman,”
4
as one of his detractors (Curio) publicly stated, but we don't know how and when he might have been these things. He could have slowed down in the years before Cleopatra, or he could have resorted to other methods of sexual pleasure than intercourse. He may have had prostate problems and been unable to perform. Or he may have been a stallion in bed. We have no idea. The only bit of evidence that raises eyebrows is that he was only ever known to have fathered one child, Julia, some thirty-six years earlier, with his first wife. He had no children with his second or third wives, nor were any known to have been issued by way of his countless adulterous affairs. Since he never had a son, it would be odd for a man not to want to advertise the ones he did have (even if they were illegitimate, since this was not such a huge matter for the Romans as it was for the Macedonians); and in nearly four decades, Caesar does not link himself to one male heir.

But when Cleopatra has “his” child, he “allows” her to use the name Caesarion but does not brag about “his” son, nor does he put the child in his will. One would think he would be quite thrilled to admit the child was his. It would seem that his lack of acknowledgment
speaks volumes, although some might say he didn't want to admit he had a son with some foreign queen, especially an Egyptian one. But, since Caesar was known to have numerous affairs and he openly spent time with Cleopatra and had her stay in Rome with the child, I hardly think that argument is very strong.

Let's assume Julius Caesar knew full well or at least had a pretty good clue that he couldn't get a woman pregnant or at least suspected he couldn't. I don't know of any man who was told that he absolutely could not father a child and yet is not willing to believe he actually could, even if it was just once in fifty years. This might well be the best argument for why Caesar could possibly have known a child might not be his but might not openly deny it. He would quietly allow Cleopatra to make her claims as to paternity. Impregnating the young Cleopatra makes him look virile, and that in itself is quite an ego boost. He can brag, at least privately, about how he got her pregnant and how he finally has a son. He can also tell friends that he has to keep it to a dull roar due to politics. Not claiming the child in his will, though, is rather a big clue to the likelihood of the child not being his.

“Fathering a son” with Cleopatra has some benefits for Caesar. Along with male bragging rights, having a son born to Cleopatra means that the child will one day become pharaoh. This also means Cleopatra doesn't have to marry and start another contentious and possibly lethal Ptolemaic battle for the throne. Having a son as coruler with Cleopatra, especially a very young son, allows a better possibility for peace in Egypt and a controlled handling of the country by Cleopatra for a long time. Having a son in name as pharaoh in Egypt connects Egypt to Rome in a familial way, ensuring Egypt and its rulers continue to support Rome.

What of Cleopatra? What is in it for her? Well, certainly the protection of Rome would be secured, at least in a relative way. Also, as I stated earlier, Cleopatra wouldn't have to find a husband if she didn't want one (especially another Ptolemy with whom a “till death do us part” marriage usually came sooner than later). She would follow in her
father's footsteps in a strong relationship with Rome, and what better way than to be a consort to Caesar and the mother of his child as well as being the best pharaoh for the job? Cleopatra proved over and over she did not leave things to chance, and she always had a Plan B and C just in case the first one wasn't panning out. She stacked the deck in her favor as often as she could.

If you were Cleopatra and you had only a short time with a man who had fathered a child only once in his four decades of sexual escapades, what would you do? What would you do if you wanted to ensure you were pregnant before he left, that you would have a baby by him, if you had no way of knowing whether or not he was sterile? The only way to make sure you became pregnant would be to add another male to the mix, one who was virile and close enough in looks to either Caesar or oneself for any potential child to not have his or her paternity in question.

There is clearly a top candidate a female Ptolemy would choose under those circumstances: one's brother. Ptolemy XIII must have been a hormone-infested young teen at the time, so what better man or boy to seduce than him? Her brother was available at the palace, and incest wasn't looked down upon by the Ptolemies, so even if Cleopatra changed her mind on naming Caesar as father, the real father was more than acceptable. Ptolemy XIII would look like Cleopatra and was available while Caesar was off being general. In fact, her brother was likely stir crazy from staying in the palace and, in spite of the enmity between Cleopatra and the older of her two brothers, I am sure Cleopatra could easily find a way to entice him into a little sex. And it didn't hurt that Ptolemy XIII then disappeared in the river during the final battle of the Alexandrian War! He certainly couldn't claim paternity from beyond the grave.

The elder Ptolemy brother decided to join his troops when Caesar's backups from Asia (under the leadership of Mithraidates, along with reinforcements from the Nabataeans and the Jews) arrived in Egypt. They came up behind Ptolemy's forces on the Nile, and he supposedly drowned. His body was never found, just his armor,
which for some reason didn't have his body in it, so excuse me for being a bit skeptical. One wonders if Cleopatra had any hand in his death. She eliminated a rival and, possibly, the real father of her son, which left a much more manageable situation for the future.

Since Cleopatra never liked leaving anything to chance if she had any method of controlling or influencing the turn of events, I would bet she added a male Ptolemy to the trysting to be very sure she was pregnant before Caesar went on his way. We will see again and again that she could have simply let events play out, but she did not leave anything to the Fates; she took specific action in an attempt to determine the desired outcome. The Ptolemies married their own siblings to limit any outside influences and incursions on their families; they killed anyone, even their own, if they were a threat. Cleopatra tossed her coregent brother aside as soon as she reached the throne. She ruled with him temporarily again only because Caesar had to appease the Alexandrians. Then by luck or “made” luck, Ptolemy XIII was out of the picture again when he “drowned” in the Nile. Caesar immediately appointed the younger brother, Ptolemy XIV, to rule with Cleopatra (as her second husband). Ptolemy XIV, what a surprise, died (of disease—or was he poisoned?) just two years later, while “she was away on business.” This left Cleopatra and Caesarion as corulers until the end.

I arose early in the Egyptian morning and gazed out of my hotel-room window at the Mediterranean Sea that lay between me and Italy, where I was headed in a few hours. As I packed my bags at the hotel, I thought about how closely connected Alexandria and Rome were for so many years, even though they were on different continents with over a thousand of miles of water between them. No matter how hard Cleopatra worked to hold onto the sovereignty of her country and to extinguish the male threats in her life, she had little choice but to deal with the Roman men who kept coming at her. She handled them all as well as she could, but clearly the Roman general Julius Caesar was her most fortunate encounter; their individual political needs complemented each other, and neither had a problem with (i.e., was threatened by) the existence of the other or their behavior. Caesar was generous and Cleopatra was cooperative. As long as Caesar was in power, Cleopatra was doing well, as was Egypt. She could last for years in relative peace with him as her beneficent dictator. Too bad he was assassinated. Cleopatra was left with the choice of Antony or Octavian; like her brother's dilemma with Pompey and Caesar, she had to pick one of them to woo, bribe, and gain the favor of if she wanted to survive.

At noon, I caught my flight to Rome. I realized halfway there that my hijab was feeling a bit strange in the company of my fellow female passengers, of whom very few had head coverings. I made a quick run
to the airline toilet and pulled it off. Then I ran a brush though my hair and went back to my seat. Even though I now matched more of the ladies on the plane, I felt a bit naked after having my head covered for so long. It took a ride into the center of Rome and seeing all the women in short skirts and blond, red, and black hair before I started feeling comfortable again. Once I checked into my hotel, I changed out of my long skirt, slipped into some jeans and (oh my!) a sleeveless shirt, and went out to tour the city.

Rome is a vibrant, busy, and fascinating mix of old and new, with churches built centuries ago,
Trevi Fountain
, and bridges that are hundreds of years old, but I found it hard to really imagine the world in which the three Roman leaders—Caesar, Antony, and Octavian—occupied, developed their unique perspectives, fought for dominance in the Mediterranean world, and came to blows over the politics of the day in the Senate. As I walked through the city, what I saw left from ancient Rome were some columns and a remaining wall here and there. In one area, my favorite, were the ruins of the Temples of Concord and Saturn, which stood along the side of the road, modern buildings behind them. In spite of the mixture of ancient and modern scenery, following the road, one can imagine walking through Rome in those bygone days. But, unlike Egypt where entire structures exist—like Dendera with its roof intact and fully painted rooms inside or the pyramids that have stood solid for eons, missing only their veneer; or Luxor, which covers a substantial area and still has many soaring walls with reliefs and intact massive statues—what is left of the Rome of Caesar and Antony are mere bits and pieces. To get a real picture of the city as the inhabitants of the time might have seen it, I had to stop and purchase a book with overlays that show what the buildings may have looked like at the time. Only the Coliseum stands as a nearly complete structure in which you can see its magnificence and grand size from inside and out.

From what remains of the city, I understand that Rome was quite a metropolis with its fine architecture, but I couldn't help feeling that Egypt rather outdid the Roman homeland in its heyday, and
this could well be why the Romans were so enamored by Cleopatra's Alexandria. Simply put, Alexandria was richer and grander.

But certainly you can find in Rome a great many statues and busts of all the famous characters of Italian history. While this is pretty much nonexistent in Egypt—there are no public statues of Cleopatra or her father or any of the other Ptolemies—in Rome I could “see” Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, and Octavian. During my last trip to Rome when I was working with Atlantic Productions, we stopped in front of a statue of Octavian, and I was asked to profile the man based on his facial features in marble. I had to laugh. I told them it was not really possible to extract a personality from a simple physical reproduction of someone's face; likewise, in our modern world, one cannot make detailed commentary on a still photo of an individual, decide if he is evil or cruel, capable of a violent crime or not. It is not all that rare to come across a photo of a smiling man posing with his seemingly adoring wife and happy children, only to learn he shot his family to death in their beds a few days after the picture was taken. However, there is something that can be learned from a reproduction of a person if it is verified to relatively accurately depict the person's features. In a wax museum, we can see the height and weight of a person, note their level of attractiveness. What we do see from the statues of our three Roman men is that Mark Antony is a bit of a hunk, strapping and handsome; Julius Caesar appears to be good-looking and rather patrician in appearance; and Octavian is quite effeminate, unimposing, shall I say, a bit wimpy and boyish. Their outward demeanors would indeed affect how they would have seen themselves, how others would have seen them, and how Cleopatra would have seen them. Interestingly, I find the statues to be quite representative of the men after reviewing their behavioral histories.

Just as it was important to examine the history and culture into which Cleopatra was born, our Romans also came into a place and time that influenced their characters and choices and helped shape the men they became. They were all born into a republic; the monarchy of the past had been dismantled by Brutus, who encouraged
the Roman people to depose the king and then establish a democratic system with elected representatives. Although the Roman citizens were members of different social strata and the levels of status these represented, they were expected to recognize their duty as members of the republic. From what I could discern, duty was the most important measuring stick with which they evaluated themselves and against which other Romans judged them. Duty would be a major influencing factor in the success or failure of these men.