Cleopatra: A Life

I loved the book. I never suspected so many possibilities I'd never considered to be possible. That's what I loved about this book. It's a fact that nothing could ever be plain fact about Cleopatra VII since her story is told to us by her conquerors that hated and detested everything about her for their belief she personally either some truly 'magically' way or as one of those dangerous Eastern Asiatic Greek Women your mother always warned you about (I'm guessing by the reaction in Rome *wink* ) had used the arts of seduction and sexual prowess to completely enchant, ensnare, and destroy not one but TWO Great Roman Men. Now, you KNOW this is a lie when in Rome after the dust settles and Cleopatra's three younger children by Mark Antony are taken by none other than Octavia--Cleopatra's rival for Antony's affection. The two twins Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene, along with their younger brother Ptolemy Philodelphoi. As of yet I've not heard any satisfactory answer on what happened to the boys. BUT, the daughter was arranged in marriage to another displaced royal child named King Juba who went on to rule modern day Algeria. What is compelling, is to take pity on these children even bringing the boys and not just Cleopatra Selene! Why do that if you're going to murder them later? It doesn't seem likely unless the boys tried revenge or caused trouble. And if they did...it would be memorable one would think. No, the more fascinating event is after blaming Cleopatra VII as the evil temptress to Roman decency.... It is Mark Antony that Octavian Caesar Augustus tries to erase all memory from. And really I believe that is because he is and WAS the only reason for the war. If Cleopatra had not gotten romantically involved with him, she may have found herself a Queen for a while longer. For the pretext to annex Egypt wasn't given. Just like in our world today when politicians want to wage war. They may have less than honorable reasons. Sometimes it may just be a personal vendetta. But they can't gather and muster troops to fight for a cause that week. You can't tax your homeland on that weak excuse to pay for that extraordinary cost of war because you want to eliminate a rival. Or keep one in check. So you have to create a reason through propaganda to get everyone on your side of "RIGHTEOUS PATRIOTISM!" Nobody but Antony and Octavian wanted that war as they seemed to had been trying to find reasons to unleash it. It was important to Octavian to goad Antony into making the first move so he could seem like he was just as surprised and as upset as anyone else. Octavian wanted Egypt as his prize as much as he wanted to rid himself of his rival. But only as a couple romantically attached and bound to each other did Cleopatra make that possible. I can't make myself believe a woman who was so level headed and calculating took a misstep because she thought she could 'rule the roman east' or ludicrously Rome itself. That's propaganda. I think she miscalculated with rose colored glasses of love that no matter what her and Antony were doing, they could handle things if only together. Love can bring the best and worst out of people.

This is a pretty solid introduction to the history of the period, well-researched and serious enough to appeal to any armchair historian, and lively enough to keep anyone with a passing interest in the ancient world engaged. Schiff's point with this was that Cleopatra's myth totally obscured her reality, even in her own lifetime. There are a lot of interesting meditations on fame and power to be had there. Cleopatra died in the wake of a war with Rome, and yet we mainly know Cleopatra from contemporary Roman sources. A few people in other courts left written records of her time, but really her history was written by her enemies. That the old girl has still come off rather well is a testament to how extraordinary her reign really was. I like a good popular history- Schiff's seems very admirable, but I didn't find her prose as lovely as some people apparently did. Still, she makes a solid effort to put a little color into her history; she paints a picture, something I appreciate. It's hard to get both academic rigor and good storytelling into an account. Two thousand years, and it's debatable that anyone has ever topped Cleopatra for either extravagance or power. Imagining her and Antony meeting in Tarsus, announcing herself as "Venus come to revel with Dionysus for the good of Asia", surrounding him and his men with an overabundance of luxury, in apartments bedecked with a king's ransom in flowers, you come to understand why Cleopatra was legend in her own time. That sort of detail and description really helps. Academic history seldom indulges such details, or at least rarely frames them so delectably. Popular history seldom touches on as many legitimate sources as Schiff cites, or points out distinctions between them so regularly. Schiff is also a female historian telling a woman's story, yet mercifully she doesn't dwell too hard on that. We know Cleopatra from Roman writers, who were all dudes with a particular view of women and relationships, and so the expected sexual volleys were launched at a powerful foreign queen. Rome laid the foundation for the next twenty centuries of Western culture, so Cleopatra understandably served as a reliable shorthand for every sort of debauchery in that time. And Schiff pretty much stops there with gender. Good for her. As a queen and product of Ptolemaic Egypt, Cleopatra had a very different view of her own gender than her detractors. Schiff does a smart thing; realizing that we can only view Cleopatra culturally and personally through multiple layers of refraction, she just leaves Cleopatra the woman alone for the most part and focuses on Cleopatra in her role as queen and in her relationships to personal and political counterparts. If, like me, you don't care for histories with an overly obvious modern agenda, have no fear. Schiff did choose to follow a particular narrative of the period. She gives us the broad spectrum of opinions on an event, but I did feel like a lot of the history that's really debatable is presented more or less as fact. We know very little about most of these events. I suppose I'm willing to make that trade-off, even as a historian, for a compelling story. That's something a lot of history people wouldn't say, but I've always thought of history as being closer to literature than science. This may be one reason why I didn't go for a PhD. I am a little concerned, though, that Schiff's account seems so close to HBO's "Rome" Her book came out in 2011, so she would have been either thinking about it or working on it while the show was on in 2005 and 2007. The show is also very well researched in its depiction of Roman life, but takes quite a few liberties with the history. It's hard to say whether I just had HBO's "Rome" on the brain while reading the book, or if the book did seem to cleave suspiciously close to a similar version of events. Granted, there is nothing implausible about Schiff's account based on the sources we have; the actual personalities involved don't seem to warrant much exaggeration. But in honest truth we simply have very few accounts and little evidence of the events of these years. "Rome" and Schiff's "Cleopatra" are both aimed towards an erudite yet popular audience, so it's quite possible that their entertaining yet plausible versions of the story would have many elements in common. What makes for scrupulously documented history is not necessarily what makes for good reading or good television, but anyone partaking of either of either this book or the series will probably have figured that out already. The downside is that while Schiff may have set out to separate myth from truth, in the service of keeping people interested, she may have given us yet another myth. It's a modern myth, and more fair or at least better supported than most of what came before, but ultimately it might not be any more accurate than a hundred others. However, both "Rome" and "Cleopatra: A Life" are largely based the same period sources, so as far as I'm concerned you could do worse for either history or entertainment.

To win one Pulitzer Prize is impressive enough, but to win it twice for nonfiction works on completely unrelated subjects, and to be shortlisted for a third, makes for a considerable feat. Stacy Schiff has achieved just that, and her latest winner, `Cleopatra - A Life' is testament to her extraordinary skills of getting under the skin of a subject and presenting it to the world is a completely fascinating new way. Before I read this book my knowledge of the famous Egyptian queen was limited to the epic film with the sadly late Elizabeth Taylor in the starring role, and to Shakespeare's version of events, most recently enacted wonderfully by Kim Cattrall in Liverpool. (I hasten to add that I have never seen Amanda Barry and Sid James in the Carry On version - and absolutely do not intend to). Here Schiff makes Cleopatra come to life in a vivid and enthralling way, reading between the lines of history, and adding her own intelligent and completely plausible take on this wonderful story. Cleopatra was born into the dynasty of the Ptolemies, where there was a tradition of inter family marriages and incest as a concept just didn't exist. She was a clever girl, who was the first in her family to even bother to learn to speak the native Egyptian language of the seven million people that they ruled under. So there were early signs there of both intelligence and political astuteness. She managed the amazing feat of being the lover and bearing children for both Julius Caesar, and then later the dashing Mark Anthony too. At aged just twenty two, she must have realised that to have a child with Caesar would secure her county's future for a considerable time, and it surely did. Schiff argues that she was not an amazing beauty, as we have come to picture with the Taylor/Burton version of events, but rather she was a complete charmer, and used her alluring character to attract men in a way that was quite something to behold. And not just a relatively pretty face, she is reputed to have practiced alchemy, and to have found a cure for Caesar's baldness too - although as it included burnt mice, burnt horses teeth, bear's grease, and deer marrow, it is easy to see why it didn't really catch on. She was a rich and powerful woman in her own right, but she sought political alliances with Rome, and after Caesars's death, had her heart, or more realistically her head, set on the dashing Mark Anthony. He had a reputation for being something of a bad boy - on one occasion apparently attaching lions to his chariot for a jaunt around Rome just for a laugh. But he stood no chance against the guile and charm of Cleo - she certainly knew how to make an entrance in her golden and jewelled barge. They soon became lovers, and seem to have stayed in love with each other - admittedly through various arguments and spats - until their tragic demise. Schiff gives brilliant detail that makes this story come alive. It is a great read, and a very well argued work. She debunks many myths, and puts so much detail into the narrative that it is baffling just how much research it must have taken to complete this work. If you want a dazzling tale of power, lust, love and tragedy - then look no further.

Stacy Schiff dispels the myths surrounding this most intriguing woman, the last to occupy the throne of Egypt. It is well written and it takes a critical look at what the authors of Antiquity wrote about her and at the role of modern media in perpetuating those myths. A very worthwhile reading to those who love history.

The seller was efficient and the delivery was without problems. About the product: the letters are too tiny, reading it is difficult, not a pleasure but an effort. Possible only by daylight, outdoor or very near a window. I also find the writing very boring and unpleasant. Totally OVERRATED

Ein spannend faszinierendes Buch, so als wäre man dabei. Im Detail Kleidung, Schmuck, Essen, Männer und Macht. Übrigens Cleopatra war keine Ägypterin. Mike Stenzel

Not really sure why this got rave reviews. Rather dull in my opinion.