Misjudged Monarchs: The Portrayal of Olympias, Arsinoë II, and Cleopatra

Notorious for its obscurity, questionable sources, and confusing timeline, the Hellenistic period is often overlooked—dismissed, even, as unoriginal and unimportant. Few classicists focus on this era so we sadly recognize this time as merely a period of transition. However, Elaine Fantham, former chair of the Department of Classics at Princeton University, highlights that “before the Hellenistic period women were excluded from government and the military throughout Greece.”[1] Though the Hellenistic period is undeniably tricky to analyze, it’s unique as well because “the Hellenistic is the only period in Greek and Roman history defined by the reign of a woman.”[2] On one hand, there are undeniable problems with studying and valuing a historical period based on its major figures—which are typically men. By doing this, we neglect the vast majority of the population and their daily lives, customs, and culture—which can be the components that most fully inform our historical understanding. On the other hand, including women in positions of governance is an indispensably notable shift. With this period being ‘defined’ by women, excluding the role of female leaders, Hellenistic queens, from discussions on who should rule is unfathomable. As a consequence of the time, the concept of queenship—though constantly evolving—brought on judgements of worthiness in each crevice of the Hellenistic world, including Greece, Macedonia, Egypt, and so on. Ultimately, and perhaps unsurprisingly, queens were consistently, and at times detrimentally, judged by how well they conformed to a traditional, male-dominated society.

Gaining a holistic, factually-based understanding of Hellenistic queens would be difficult given how many there were, and given the lack of contemporaneous sources. There are fundamental discrepancies between the sources and their subjects because most accounts of these queens were given by later, Roman authors who have an apparent distaste for anything not Roman that threatened their culture and ideals. Their portrayals—whether positive or negative—were dependent on if their characteristics and actions could be deemed ‘feminine’ by these authors who cannot accurately make judgements or give information on these queens. This is evident when using Olympias, Arsinoe II, and Cleopatra VII as case examples.

In order to gain a hopefully holistic understanding, being made aware of the scholarly works that consider this topic is imperative. These collective sources enable us to recognize how queenship was prevalent during this period, and hugely important. I chose to search for the answers to my questions using Olympias, Arsinoë II, and Cleopatra VII because of the ample amounts of information—though at times unreliable—available on them. Additionally, their reigns span across the Hellenistic period; this will allow me to comprehend how portrayals of queenship evolved with time. Finally, out of all the Hellenistic queens, they possessed the most power and influence.

Delving into these sources, it becomes evident that the queen’s character, beauty, and the virtuosity of her actions, throughout the entire Hellenistic Age and world, was what informed widespread and long lasting opinion. Grace Macurdy, a classics professor at Vassar College, points out that Hellenistic queens are often condemned as “unscrupulous, cruel, and wanting in all the gentler virtues. [Justin] loves to denounce the crimes of queens…[leading to] some modern historians refer[ring] to the whole line of queens or to individuals among them as Megaeras, hyaenas, tigers, and criminals. The crimes of which they are accused are dynastic murder and infidelity to their marriage vows.”[3] This implies that, in order to achieve public approval, and positive accounts, queens needed to possess ‘gentler virtues’. Additionally, ‘Justin’ is a Roman who lived centuries after the women he slanders—this highlights the untrustworthiness of the available ‘primary’ sources. Finally, when it comes to the topic of criminal activity, most will readily agree that it’s generally wrong. Where some disagree is if the same actions committed by a king are sanctioned. Macurdy remarks on this, saying that, when it comes to kings, their “cruelties are often condoned by the words ‘political necessity’.”[4]Furthermore, Macurdy also points out that we have huge reason to doubt the validity of the judgements made on queens’ characters given the sources. Additionally, the negative connotation surrounding Hellenistic queens creates a false stereotype given that some queens did adhere to “feminine ways” and the established traditional “rules of political procedure.”[5]

Fantham concurs with Macurdy, adding that the portrayal of Hellenistic queens compares them to kings and are “devised to present special or ‘deviant’ aspects of women in the ancient world.”[6] Ultimately, this portrayal incited fear, which is important because it spurred the belief that women should not be allowed to wield power because to do so would be ‘deviant’ and would not conform to tradition. Sally-Ann Ashton, Senior Assistant Keeper at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, also remarks upon the fact that women did not typically obtain royal status or importance in their own right. Referencing another scholar she reveals that

“in a Greek context there was no public office of queen - in other words, there was no Hellenistic Greek equivalent to the defined role of Egyptian queen and it is difficult to find a role model as such from the Greek world. In Egypt the queen was either the consort or mother of the pharaoh…[and they] had a clearly defined role to play; this was not the case in the Greek world.”[7]

This allows us to recognize that the concept of queenship is not uniform throughout the Mediterranean, and it also presents us with a question: considering the ubiquitous mindset, how did any woman gain and retain regal power?

Scholars collectively conclude that powerful and influential females reached their position because of a male relative or spouse. Classical queens

“showed a remarkable capacity for ruling in the manner of the kings of whom they were wives and daughters. They possessed to an extraordinary degree, ‘greater than the measure of women’, as is said of them in ancient historians, the qualities of energy, political foresight, daring, and courage…these women has great prestige and influence and in some cases great political power, though this last did not come to them as it came to the men by direct inheritance or by conquest, but through the doorway of marriage, which often afforded them opportunity to act as regent for an absent husband, or for a minor child, or as co-regent with a husband whose weakness of character allowed a queen of strong nature to come forward as co-ruler.”[8]

A queen that certainly possessed a ‘strong character’ was Olympias, Alexander the Great’s mother and “perhaps the most notable and influential of the Macedonian women.”[9]

Olympias broke every standard of conventional female conduct by exhibiting an interest in and a capacity for politics and a tolerance for brutality and manipulation; as a result, she was portrayed unfavorably. Politics are not traditionally feminine interests; still, “Olympias fully embroiled herself in court politics.”[10] Exhibiting an interest in politics was viewed, not only as atypical, but as unnatural and simply wrong. Olympias defies the ubiquitous norms asserted by the Classical Age; and as such she’s remembered as too ambitious, too opportunistic, too power-hungry, and even bloodthirsty. Essentially, she lacked the ‘gentler virtues’ that would have won public approval. As a result, the blame for the political circumstances—which are understood to be chaotic and unstable—was “laid for the most part on Olympias, who was said to have encouraged and exasperated the enraged.”[11] This is also evident in her militancy.

Recall that this is a time of transition from which women are unable to exert governmental or militarial influence. Olympias is the very first Hellenistic queen, and she possesses incredible diplomatic skill and the very influences most were appalled by women having, including military power. She was “the symbolic head of an army that consisted largely of [lent] troops.”[12] Furthermore, this army was loyal to her, which highlights Olympias’ ability to negotiate and gain allies.[13] Most would think these were capabilities a good leader should have, yet rather than skill, her diplomacy was often criticized as seductive persuasion. Thus, Plutarch, as well as other ancient historians, maintain Olympias treated others “inhumanly.”[14] When she “invaded Macedonia [where she] was met by Eurydice…Eurydice was forced to commit suicide.”[15]

Though Olympias was “widely known to have been involved in a number of high-profile assassinations,”[16] so were the other Successors and contenders for the throne, especially Cassander, who, in fact, would condemn her to death.[17] In the political pandemonium that characterizes the Hellenisitc period, many committed the same crimes. “The murdering of rivals in power was regarded as only a safe, natural, and essential precaution for any king…in the interest of his security on the throne.”[18] Regardless, Plutarch recorded that “the whole kingdom raised various complaints and differences between them, which the violence of Olympias, a woman of a jealous and implacable temper, made wider.”[19] From the understanding that women were historically barred from any form of governance, it’s clear that Olympias’s political involvement led to large amounts of blame being placed on her for the chaotic state of the Hellenistic world, with Plutarch stating that ‘the whole kingdom’ had ‘complaints.’ This reveals that ancient historians denounce Olympias in particular as a ‘criminal’, while sanctioning her opponents' crimes. Furthermore, Plutarch is another example of a historian who, living centuries past Olympias, makes a ruinous statement that we now have reason to doubt. The unadulterated hate for Olympias is arguably due to the time in which she reigned, as no female rulers came before, and because during this time, any of the many non-female Successors ruling would have been more traditionally acceptable. From the point of view of the Romans—though they don’t have any basis to make their hateful claims—Olympias was trying to usurp power and a position that was ‘rightfully’ a man’s. This hypocrisy is especially unreasonable considering that, “the main driving ambition for Olympias was the political position of her children and this was quite different to most of the Ptolemaic period, when self-preservation was usually higher on the agenda.”[20] This suggests that Olympias was perhaps the most honorable contender and was simply seeking security. Her negative portrayal, especially surrounding her ‘selfishness’ and ‘ambition’, can be called into question considering that, after Alexander’s death, Polycheron offered Olympias the position as regent for her grandson and she refused.[21] Why would an ‘opportunistic’, ‘power hungry’ person not leap at this proposition? Somehow, Olympias’ “motives” are remembered as being “closely related to her own personal need for authority.”[22] Yet, as we’ve established, her motivations are not reflective of a ‘personal need’. Waterfield states that Olympias’s death “left the world in the hands of men who owed no loyalty except to themselves.”[23] Sadly, as a consequence of the biased accounts, “Olympias [even] with all she had to do in making Epirote and Macedonian history never achieved definite and lasting recognition.”[24]

In glaring contrast to Olympias, Arsinoë II was actually revered because of her beauty and protection from her approving husband, brother, and king. Arsinoë’s “ambitions were destined to a fulfillment beyond the dreams of any Macedonian woman of her time and before it…she was destined in Egypt to be a queen exercising the power of a king…she received honors such as no Greek or Macedonian woman had received before.”[25] To put this approval in context, her reign occurred during a stable time—very different from Olympias’s cutthroat period. She also ruled long after Olympias, giving the world time to adjust the role of women in the government. Some present the view that she received approval because she reigned in Egypt, a place where the position of queen was more defined. Others maintain it was due to her consanguineous marriage to her brother, Ptolemy II.[26] A few even suggest that Arsinoë gained an advantage because her subjects viewed her—and by extension, her decisions—as man-like, due to the fact that her name means “‘The Male-Minded.”[27] This suggestion implies that approval stemmed from male-like qualities. Salisbury notes that the harsh, unforgiving and inaccurate sources “ praise Arsinoë’s beauty, and surviving busts show that she was regularly portrayed…with perhaps an idealized beauty.” [28] This demonstrates that Arsinoë’s beauty helped her achieve endorsement and public idealization. Yet, sources harnessing in on her physical characteristics still diminishes her influence since she was

“in every sense co-ruler. It was largely the result of her diplomatic skill that Egypt won the First Syrian War…The new queen ruled the empire and managed its wars…a woman of great intelligence and mature experience, is thought to have played the dominant role in the formulation of royal policy as long as she lived. Several citites were named for her. Her interest in cultural pursuits led to the founding of a museum at Alexandria…The king erected a monument in her honor in Alexandria known as the Arsinoeum.”[29]

Though this demonstrates Arsinoë’s active involvement in the government and military, she was not acting independently. “Her contemporaries—including her brother-husband—had no doubt about her power.”[30] This, along with the preceding quote make it evident that the king’s approval of Arsinoë led to her being honored and is what boosted her public approval, instead of her numerous accomplishments. “She was instrumental in the planning that led to Egypt’s military victory.”[31] Her success ultimately buttressed her husband’s standing, an effect that ancient historians could deem feminine, and therefore acceptable. “Her temples were centers of agriculture…she built dikes, extended canals and farmland, always spreading her rule outward…she founded numerous cities.”[32]

Somehow, even with these extraordinary accomplishments, historical credit was still given to the king. “Such was her influence that historians grafted her name onto his, and, unfortunately, grafted some of her successes onto his as well.”[33] During the time, even this exalted queen was subject to tradition. The coins made in her image portray her as wife first, queen second, as she’s placed beside her brother. Finally, even with her approval, a lack of Arsinoë’s ‘gentle virtue’ still circulated. “Legends grew up around Arsinoë, including an interesting demise. Preferring battle to lovemaking, she rejected a suitor, who committed suicide as a result. Aphrodite, to punish her for lack of a soft heart, turned her into stone.”[34] This particular legend exhibits a woman suffering death because of a lack of ‘softness’ and for not prioritizing love. It also reinforces the knowledge that women weren’t typically accepted in militarial positions. One historian, Bouché Leclercq—who also did not live during Arsinoë’s time—refers to her as “cette terrible Arsinoe,” maintaining that “the flaw in Arsinoe was…ambition, an overmastering ambition to which she was ready to sacrifice most things.”[35] It was Arsinoë's militant abilities and ‘ambition’ that led her to be remembered “Like Olympias, [as though] was constantly plotting and battling her way to personal glory.”[36] In many ways, Arsinoë was “an important focal point and role model for women of the dynasty.”[37] Her life reinforces that “Hellenistic queens were seldom willing to be far from the centers of power.”[38]

The legacy of Hellenistic queens continues with Cleopatra VII, who is always viewed through a Roman lens. Cleopatra is a “major contender for the title of Egypt’s most famous queen; she and her ancestors were…enthusiastic rulers of Egypt and supporters of Egyptian culture.”[39] Although born in Egypt, Cleopatra was Persian, Macedonian, and Greek. However, even one of the most discussed figures of history “is famed more for her men, her beauty and her death than for her policies. Without her liaisons, however, it is likely that Cleopatra VII would have become as anonymous as her predecessors.”[40] This, once again, shows that a woman's reputation, significance, and worth was contingent upon idealized beauty and her relationships with men. Though Cleopatra, as well as other queens, “received bad press, usually at the hands of Roman authors,” sources consistently remark upon her supreme beauty, and infamous love story that culminated in death.[41] “Plutarch described the young queen as the epitome of beauty, and she obviously had great powers of persuasion…the old general…was charmed by the young queen, and he quickly ordered that Cleopatra be restored to the throne.”[42] This, again, attributes a woman’s success solely to beauty and seduction-dependent persuasion.

Cleopatra’s prominence, though undeniable, is reduced to how she impacted the men around her, instead of through her own successes. Plutarch, in The Parallel Lives, directly states “it was not easy to see how Cleopatra was inferior in intelligence to anyone of the princes who took part in the expedition, she who for a long time had governed so large a kingdom by herself, and by long association with Antony had learned to manage large affairs.”[43] The sole reason he determines that her intelligence isn’t inferior is because of her relationship with Mark Antony. Throughout this book, he maintains that Cleopatra’s leadership skills come from her relationship to Mark Antony, and explicitly compares her to ‘princes,’ praising her beauty while not remarking on her intelligence unless he can attribute it to a man. This alludes to what Hellenistic society looked for in a woman. Cleopatra, just like Olympias, receives blame for causing men to have ‘evil passions.’

“The dire evil which had been slumbering for a long time, namely, his passion for Cleopatra…blazed up again with renewed power as he drew near to Syria…a crowning evil his love for Cleopatra supervened, roused and drove to frenzy many of the passions that were still hidden and quiescent in him, and dissipated and destroyed whatever good and saving qualities still offered resistance.”[44]

This allows her character to be attacked, and her influence reduced to a matter of destructive beauty. Plutarch further slanders Cleopatra, describing how she, driven by her jealousy, “tried many splendid gifts to win the favour of the people.”[45] This implies that her accomplishments and influence is not enough to win ‘favor,’ and that she shallowly depended on gifts.

The portrayal of Hellenistic queens, regardless of where in the Mediterranean or when, was dependent upon their relationship to men, how well their actions and even personalities conformed to standard femininity, and their involvement in governmental and militarial policies. Being ‘feminine’ and ‘appropriately quiet’ wouldn’t satisfy these women as “quiet queens [were] of so little importance for the government of the state that the very names of some of the last are uncertain.”[46] Macurdy depicts how if queens were good rulers they were thought to be ‘bad women.’[47] Simply put, “There was no trace of equality in power between king and queen…Macedonians were in principle opposed to any ‘regiment of women’”[48] With the universal mindset being grounded in this sexist ‘principle,’ biased accounts of the queens are inevitable and countless generalizations have been made. As a result, we too often think of the queens homogeneously, as most of “These queens…are generally reputed to have been wicked.”[49]

Notes

[1] Fantham, Elaine, et al. Women in the Classical World : Image and Text, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 1995. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/phillipsexeter-ebooks/detail.action?docID=728687. Page 81.

[2] Ibid, p. 142.

[3] Macurdy, Grace Harriet, and Vassar College. Lucy Maynard Salmon Fund for Research. Hellenistic Queens : A Study of Woman-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt. The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archeaology, No. 14. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1932. P. 2.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Fantham, p. 8.

[7] Ashton, Sally-Ann. The Last Queens of Egypt (version 1st ed.). 1st ed. Harlow: Pearson/Longman, 2003. P. 13.

[8] Macurdy, p. 1.

[9] Ashton, p. 15.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Plutarch, and Arthur Hugh Clough. Plutarch: Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Oxford: Benediction Classics, 2010. P. 808.

[12] Waterfield, Robin. Dividing the Spoils : The War for Alexander the Great's Empire (version [US only version].). [US only version]ed. Ancient Warfare and Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. P. 89.

[13] Ibid, p. 90.

[14] Plutarch, and Arthur Hugh Clough. P. 808.

[15] Ashton, p. 15.

[16] Waterfield, p. 3.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Macurdy, p. 130.

[19] Plutarch, and Arthur Hugh Clough. P. 806.

[20] Ashton, p. 15.

[21] Jackson-Laufer, Guida M. Women Rulers Throughout the Ages : An Illustrated Guide. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 1999. P. 316.

[22] Ashton, p. 15.

[23] Waterfield, p. 102.

[24] Macurdy, p. 125.

[25] Ibid, p. 116.

[26] Ibid, p. 117.

[27] Salmonson, Jessica Amanda. The Encyclopedia of Amazons : Women Warriors from Antiquity to the Modern Era. 1st ed. New York: Paragon House, 1991. P. 18.

[28] Salisbury, Joyce E, and Mary R Lefkowitz. Encyclopedia of Women in the Ancient World. Abc-Clio E-Books. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2001. P. 15. 29 Jackson-Laufer, p. 37.

[29] Jackson-Laufer, p. 37.

[30] Salisbury, p. 17.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Salmonson, p. 19.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Macurdy, p. 129.

[36] Salmonson, p. 18.

[37] Ashton, p. 58.

[38] Salisbury, p. 16.

[39] Ashton, p. xi.

[40] Ibid, p. 50.

[41] Ibid, p. vii.

[42] Jackson-Laufer, p. 100.

[43] Plutarch. “The Parallel Lives.” Plutarch • Life of Antony. Accessed November 17, 2023. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Antony*.html. P. 267.

[44] Ibid, p. 219.

[45] Ibid, p. 269.

[46] Macurdy, p. 7.

[47] Ibid, p. 130.

[48] Ibid, p. ix.

[49] Macurdy, p. x.

Bibliography

Ashton, Sally-Ann. The Last Queens of Egypt (version 1st ed.). 1st ed. Harlow: Pearson/Longman, 2003.

Boccaccio, Giovanni, and Virginia Brown. Famous Women. Itrl, 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Arsinoë of Egypt and Macedón. A Royal Life by E. D. Carney

Carney, Elizabeth Donnelly. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000.

Heckel, Waldemar, and John Yardley. Alexander the Great : Historical Texts in Translation. Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

Jackson-Laufer, Guida M. Women Rulers Throughout the Ages : An Illustrated Guide. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 1999.

Macurdy, Grace Harriet, and Vassar College. Lucy Maynard Salmon Fund for Research.

Hellenistic Queens : A Study of Woman-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt. The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archeaology, No. 14. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1932.

Mitchell, Lynette G, and C. P Melville. Every Inch a King : Comparative Studies on Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Rulers & Elites, V. 2. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Plutarch, and Arthur Hugh Clough. Plutarch: Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Oxford: Benediction Classics, 2010.

Plutarch. “The Parallel Lives.” Plutarch • Life of Antony. Accessed November 17, 2023. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Antony*.html.

Salisbury, Joyce E, and Mary R Lefkowitz. Encyclopedia of Women in the Ancient World. Abc-Clio E-Books. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2001.

Salmonson, Jessica Amanda. The Encyclopedia of Amazons : Women Warriors from Antiquity to the Modern Era. 1st ed. New York: Paragon House, 1991.

Waterfield, Robin. Dividing the Spoils : The War for Alexander the Great's Empire (version [US only version].). [US only version]ed. Ancient Warfare and Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.