Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
I have never met Stacy Schiff; I have not read her Pulitzer-Prize-winning biography of Vera Nabokov; and I doubt that I ever will. You see, this morning I picked up the Saturday-Sunday review pages of the 23-24 October Wall Street Journal; and after reading one marvelous piece after another, I came upon Ms. Schiff’s article Still under Cleopatra’s Spell – which touches on a subject which I, on occasion, still teach. Based presumably upon Schiff’s forthcoming book Cleopatra: A Life, her article reminds me a bit of the sort of Hollywood movie that takes a classic work of profound insight – say Henry James’s The Bostonians – and twists it into a boring feminist tract.
We remain unnerved by female ambition, accomplishment, and authority,” Ms. Schiff informs us.
The wise woman mutes her voice in order to maintain her political or corporate constituency. She is often cast all the same as a scheming harridan or a threatening seductress. Her clothing budget attracts uncommon scrutiny, by definition either too large or too small. If she is not overly sexual, she is suspiciously sexless.
"Oh, really?" I found myself thinking. Since when have such aspersions generally been cast to real effect on the likes of Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Diane Feinstein, Ella Grasso, Sandra Day O’Connor, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, or Indira Gandhi? All of these women have been subject to attack, of course, but ordinarily not in the fashion that Ms. Schiff imagines – except, of course, when Maureen Dowd is on the prowl. And if Ms. Schiff’s account describes with any accuracy the brickbats frequently thrown at the likes of Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton, perhaps it is because there is some truth in the charges lodged.
When Ms. Schiff turns from generalizations to the putative subject of her new book, her prose becomes breathless:
Cleopatra emerged as stand-in for her occult, alchemical land, the intoxicating address of sex and excess. She wielded power shrewdly and easily, making her that rarest of things: a woman who—working from an original script—discomfited the very male precincts of traditional authority. Two thousand years later, those tensions and anxieties have not relaxed their hold.
And when Ms. Schiff turns to the particulars, she is similarly inclined to exaggeration. “Cleopatra controlled the greatest grain supply in the ancient world,” she rightly observes. Then, she promptly goes off the tracks: “Rome stood at her mercy. She could singlehandedly feed that city. She could equally well starve it if she cared to.” The first and third of these claims are utterly unfounded. To begin with, Ms. Schiff neglects the fact that Rome had other sources of grain in Sicily, Spain, Sardinia, North Africa, Anatolia, and the Crimea, and she fails to mention that, like her father, Cleopatra was a client monarch who ruled at the sufferance of Rome and who possessed no means by which to prevent the Romans from landing an army in Egypt and supplanting her. There was a reason why – when faced with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony – Cleopatra resorted to sexual allure. Seduction is what she had to offer; and, if she exercised power in the Roman world, it was solely through the men that she seduced.
In Cleopatra’s day, Rome was not, as Ms. Schiff claims, “a provincial backwater.” It was a gigantic city – the capital of a vast empire encompassing the entire Mediterranean as well as the region now occupied by Belgium and France. If one wanted a book, it was not generally “difficult to get a copy” at Rome, and there is no evidence that on cultural grounds the Romans “nursed a healthy inferiority complex” vis-à-vis the residents of Alexandria. Nor is there any evidence that “in Egypt female children were not left to die” and that “the Romans marveled” at the fact. Ms. Schiff is no doubt correct when she says that “Egyptian women loaned money and operated barges, initiated lawsuits and hired flute players,” but – when she then adds that “they enjoyed rights women would not again enjoy for another 2,000 years” – she once again goes off the deep end.
Roman women lacked political rights, as did all Egyptians of both sexes (apart from the Ptolemies, their Macedonian overlords). But Roman women did not lack “legal rights,” and Roman widows were perfectly capable of loaning money, operating barges, and initiating lawsuits. Moreover, it is a mistake to assert that in republican Rome – as opposed to, say, Pericles’ Athens – “a good woman was an inconspicuous woman.” Lucretia was, to say the least, conspicuous, and so was Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi – and, at Rome, these two women and those like them were celebrated for their strength. It is, moreover, absurd to say, as Ms. Schiff does, that among the Romans “the allergy to the powerful woman was even sturdier than that to monarchy or to the impure, inferior East.” Octavian’s wife Livia was no shrinking violet. Cleopatra was not a Roman, and when Antony ditched Octavian’s sister and embraced as his consort the Macedonian ruler of Egypt, he was turning his back on his country, and everyone knew it.
As for “the divide between the civilized, virtuous West and the tyrannical, dissolute East,” it did not begin, as Ms. Schiff asserts, in any way “with Rome and its Egyptian problem.” It began centuries before with the Persian Wars, and it is visible in Aeschylus’ Persians and in Herodotus. When Octavian launched his propaganda assault against Mark Antony, he had a well-defined cultural heritage on which to draw.
If Ms. Schiff’s book is anything like the article she has just published, it will reveal a lot more about its author than about its subject – which is, alas, generally in my experience true of feminist writing and, for that matter, feminist film direction.
Just wait, though. Scott Rudin has reportedly bought the film rights; Angelina Jolie has supposedly been cast as Cleopatra; and some African-Americans – forgetful that Cleopatra was Macedonian and not Egyptian, and caught up in the myth that the ancient Egyptians looked like the Bantu peoples of modern, sub-saharan Africa and not as they do today – are reportedly complaining that she is “too white.” Are we going to have Brad Pitt inflicted on us as Mark Antony? I shudder at the thought.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
She got high on Camille Paglia gas. Proper allowance should be made.
Edited on Oct 24, 2010 at 4:31pmMay '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
James Cameron was rumored to be the director too. Imagine if this became a movie as big as Avatar. I'd much rather see feminism try to focus more on Antigone or Lysistrata, there might actually be a good case there and it would be better than the model of Cleopatra or the beloved intellectual Marilyn Monroe.
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Lysistrata, maybe; Antigone, no. I teach the play every year. She is anything but a feminist heroine. In her soliloquy, she makes it clear that her appeal to the unwritten laws of the gods has nothing to do with what she is about. It all turns on her love for her own family. She would not stand up to the city on behalf of a husband or child. She would do it only for a brother.
Aug '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Paul A. Rahe
She [Antigone] would not stand up to the city on behalf of a husband or child. She would do it only for a brother.
That's interesting. Because, much as I love my brother, I would take more of a stand for my husband or child than I would for my brother.
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Paul A. Rahe
She [Antigone] would not stand up to the city on behalf of a husband or child. She would do it only for a brother.
That's interesting. Because, much as I love my brother, I would take more of a stand for my husband or child than I would for my brother. · Oct 24 at 4:39pm
Yes, we all would. Anti-gone means, in Greek, "hostile to procreation." When you read gone, think gonad.
Jun '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Seems to me that Boudicca would be the natural heroine of any feminist, but she's probably too historically obscure for average moviegoers.
May '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
"Rome had other sources of grain...Rome was not...a provincial backwater..."
I am astonished as such gaffes. Did nobody at Little, Brown know enough to correct her, or didn't they care?
Sep '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Thank you for the excellent review...bursting the bubbles of hype-sters is a necessary, if often thankless task. Who had the advertising budget or the will to run ads in the early 2000's disputing the National Association of Realtors false claims about the average appreciation of home values???
I did a quick google search on the author's name and learned that she had written a book on Benjamin Franklin's diplomacy in France "A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France, and the Birth of America" that I had listened to several months ago. Are you familiar with it?
I'm now wondering if I learned a few things from that book that just weren't so...although I do have a dim recollection (or my brain is actively creating false memories as I sit here...hard for the deceived deceiver to know) that she was prone to exaggeration when writing about Franklin. It seemed so on its face even though I wasn't terribly familiar with any of the detailed facts of Franklin's biography or actions on behalf of the Congress.
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Paul Stinchfield: "Rome had other sources of grain...Rome was not...a provincial backwater..."
I am astonished as such gaffes. Did nobody at Little, Brown know enough to correct her, or didn't they care? · Oct 24 at 5:08pm
She won a Pulitzer with her last book; and let's face it: Cleopatra sells. Moreover, the publishers are in trouble financially.
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
CitizenOfTheRepublic: ... I did a quick google search on the author's name and learned that she had written a book on Benjamin Franklin's diplomacy in France "A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France, and the Birth of America" that I had listened to several months ago. Are you familiar with it?
I'm now wondering if I learned a few things from that book that just weren't so...although I do have a dim recollection (or my brain is actively creating false memories as I sit here...hard for the deceived deceiver to know) that she was prone to exaggeration when writing about Franklin. It seemed so on its face even though I wasn't terribly familiar with any of the detailed facts of Franklin's biography or actions on behalf of the Congress. · Oct 24 at 5:09pm
Alas, I knew nothing about her until I read this piece. I wonder whether the book on Nabokov's wife is also full of exaggeration.
Jul '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Boy, I don't know about that Paul. I mean, can we really be sure that Rome could have garnered unanimity at the U.N.? Sure, Octavian had the Gauls in his pocket, but I just don't see the Han Dynasty supporting the use of force in Egypt. Obama Princeps would have had his hands full with a trade war.
One problem with viewing antiquity through the lens of 20th century theory is the likelihood of ascribing contemporary motives to ancient actors.
Jul '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Boy, do I have some great ideas for that screenplay.
Cleopatra, in a vision, foresees an Earth so despoiled by man that the seas will rise to engulf the entire ancient world....
Cleopatra waxes emotional over a childhood girlfriend who died in a back-alley abortion...
Cleopatra passionately denounces the torture of prisoners of war....
Marc Anthony, having come out as gay, is bullied into suicide by homophobic Centurions...
Hey, Rob: can you get me a meeting with James Cameron?
Edited on Oct 24, 2010 at 7:00pmAug '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Paul A. Rahe
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Paul A. Rahe
She [Antigone] would not stand up to the city on behalf of a husband or child. She would do it only for a brother.
That's interesting. Because, much as I love my brother, I would take more of a stand for my husband or child than I would for my brother. · Oct 24 at 4:39pm
Yes, we all would. Anti-gone means, in Greek, "hostile to procreation." When you read gone, think gonad. · Oct 24 at 4:47pm
Hmm... Antigone's behavior may not be an exemplar of feminism, then, but her name sounds like it could be.
Oct '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Obscurity is no problem: historical accuracy is another. Hollywood can just recycle the script from the 5x Academy Award winning Braveheart. Boudicca (Wallace) is just minding her (his) own business when all of a sudden those damned Romans (English) under their evil leader Nero (King Edward I "Longshanks) decided they want to rule the whole world and flog Boudicca, rape her daughters and oppress her people (Kill Wallace's wife and oppress the Scots.) Boudicca (Wallace) becomes so enraged that the inner rage-fuelled unstoppable war machine she (he) has kept beneath her (his) civilized exterior comes out and goes postal. They then rally their local tribesmen and win a string of underdog victories most notably routing a full roman legion sent against them at Colchester (routing a full English army sent against them at Stirling), then proceeding to sack and burn the major city of London (York) Things are looking so bad that the Romans (English) are panicking and thinking of giving up. 1/2
Oct '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Finally those dastardly Romans (English) defeat these rag-tag loveable rebels fighting for their freedom at Watling Street (Falkirk), no doubt through some sneaky betrayal by one a trusted ally who has lost their way (Robert the Bruce). Finally, our hero takes her own life rather than be taken prisoner by the Romans (is tortured and executed by the English) but in a heartwarming dialogue we are reminded that this brave woman fought the largest and greatest empire in the history of the world to a standstill all in the name of freedom and liberty and happy thoughts (or that after Wallace's execution the Scots won their freedom at Bannockburn)
Actually a Boudica movie wouldn't make me as angry as Braveheart did because the history is much less clear so Hollywood would be justified in their inventive shenanigans. Braveheart was one historical inaccuracy after another but that didn't slow it down at the box office or award shows.
They could even use Angelina Jolie.
Aug '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Lucretia was celebrated for committing suicide after being raped -- basically an honor killing mentality. Cornelia was known as the perfect matrona, in part because she refused to remarry after being widowed. These may be conspicuous roles, but conspicuous for their strong conformity to domesticity, especially in the case of Lucretia.
More broadly, we have evidence from gravestone inscriptions and literary evidence that the Republican Romans did indeed see inconspicuousness as appropriate. I don't have my books about me, but I remember something to the effect of "spoke of for neither good nor ill" as being a standard of female virtue.
Aug '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
The NY Daily News article you linked is pretty awful. It never states the simple fact that we know for an absolute fact from mountains of historical evidence that the Ptolemies were Macedonians who did not intermarry with the locals. Rather it plays up changes in our conceptions of Cleopatra -- such as debates about whether she was good-looking or homely -- which may be well and true but is beside the point when reporting on complaints that Jolie as a white woman (rather than a pretty woman) is miscast. With reporting like this that nitpicks on details instead of bluntly refuting ignorance, it's not surprising that Afrocentrist nonsense remains common.
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
anon_academic
Lucretia was celebrated for committing suicide after being raped -- basically an honor killing mentality. Cornelia was known as the perfect matrona, in part because she refused to remarry after being widowed. These may be conspicuous roles, but conspicuous for their strong conformity to domesticity, especially in the case of Lucretia.
More broadly, we have evidence from gravestone inscriptions and literary evidence that the Republican Romans did indeed see inconspicuousness as appropriate. I don't have my books about me, but I remember something to the effect of "spoke of for neither good nor ill" as being a standard of female virtue. · Oct 25 at 1:05am
That last line comes from Pericles' Funeral Oration, which is Greek. You are right that Lucretia and Cornelia are family-focused: so were the men at Rome. But by way of the family they were major public figures. There were no such women in Athens. Think also about the mother of Coriolanus.
Aug '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Paul A. Rahe
anon_academic
I don't have my books about me, but I remember something to the effect of "spoke of for neither good nor ill" as being a standard of female virtue. · Oct 25 at 1:05am
That last line comes from Pericles' Funeral Oration, which is Greek.
Thanks for correcting this mistake and sorry for running my classics together. I was thinking something like Cato the Elder and it makes a big difference that it was actually Thucydides / Pericles, especially for purposes of contrasting Hellenistic to Roman culture.
May '10
Re: Cleopatra Recast as a Feminist Heroine
Paul A. Rahe
CitizenOfTheRepublic:
I'm now wondering if I learned a few things from that book that just weren't so...although I do have a dim recollection that she was prone to exaggeration when writing about Franklin. It seemed so on its face even though I wasn't terribly familiar with any of the detailed facts of Franklin's biography or actions on behalf of the Congress. · Oct 24 at 5:09pm
Alas, I knew nothing about her until I read this piece. I wonder whether the book on Nabokov's wife is also full of exaggeration. · Oct 24 at 5:15
Granted, I'm not an expert on Franklin, but I read this particular book and found it solid. Her presentation of the US diplomatic efforts in Paris, and the figures involved, seemed well presented and broadly accurate. I would recommend it to someone who wanted to learn about the topic.
However, she did spend too much time droning on about Franklin's social life in Paris. I don't know how accurate this portion of the book was, but it was certainly not all that interesting (or, to me, all that relevant).