Did Cleopatra drink poison?

[Elizabeth]

Poison, not snake, killed Cleopatra. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/30/cleopatra.suicide/index.html?hpt=T2)

An interesting theory. I looked up the symptoms of snakebite, and in general it does sound like a pretty terrifying, ghastly death.

Michelle M., what do you think?

[LoveHistory]

Poison works for me.

[annis]

I can't see why she would choose an excruciatingly painful death when she could go for something which would be relatively painless and perhaps leave her looking peaceful - she strikes me as someone who would always be conscious of her dignity and appearance.

I've seen mention of the poison testing somewhere, though can't remember where. Alexandre Cabanel used the idea for his painting, Cleopatra Testing Poison on Condemned Prisoners

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/4750501633_8da83c398a.jpg

[Nefret]

That was an interesting read.

Personally, I think the poison theory was more likely. Who started the snakebite myth then?

[annis]

Basically, even at the time of her death no one was sure how Cleopatra died, though it was agreed that it was by poison. A couple of marks on her arm led to speculation that it might have been by snake bite. This dramatic image was picked up and repeated by Roman writers, and even depicted in Octavian's (later Augustus) triumph.

Although Cleopatra poisoned herself, no-one knew quite how. Dio says that the only marks on her body were slight pricks on the arm (LI.14.1). Some thought that they might be the bite of an asp, which had been hidden in a basket of figs or a water jar (although no snake was found), or a scratch to which poison was applied from a pin used to fasten her hair or hidden in a hollow comb. The bite of a snake would seem more likely (how else to account for the deaths of the two handmaidens) and was the version favored by Octavian. That, at least, is how Cleopatra was depicted in his triumphal procession, with an asp clinging to her image (Plutarch, LXXXVI.3; cf. Dio, LI.21.8, "an effigy of the dead Cleopatra upon a couch was carried by, so that in a way she, too,...was a part of the spectacle and a trophy in the procession").


From The Death of Cleopatra -full article here:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/cleopatra/rixens.html

[andrewoberg]

I remember reading somewhere that the reporting of her death as a snakebite was meant to make people think she had been murdered rather than that she killed herself. Is there anything to that?

[annis]

I believe that there was a Channel Five programme some years ago, called Who Killed Cleopatra? which explored the theory that Octavian had Cleo murdered and faked the suicide by snakebite as a cover-up.

More here:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/WAS+CLEOPATRA+MURDERED%3F+For+2,000+years+her+deat h+was+seen+as+...-a0126018469

Certainly Octavian would have been ruthless enough to arrange Cleopatra's murder, but I can't see that it would have been to his advantage unless he wanted to tie up any loose ends quickly and reduce sympathy for her - it would have looked pretty good for him to have had a captive Cleopatra in his Triumph, and similarly Cleopatra would have found that prospect abhorrent.

[andrewoberg]

I believe that there was a Channel Five programme some years ago, called Who Killed Cleopatra? which explored the theory that Octavian had Cleo murdered and faked the suicide by snakebite as a cover-up.

More here:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/WAS+CLEOPATRA+MURDERED%3F+For+2,000+years+her+deat h+was+seen+as+...-a0126018469

Certainly Octavian would have been ruthless enough to arrange Cleopatra's murder, but I can't see that it would have been to his advantage unless he wanted to tie up any loose ends quickly and reduce sympathy for her - it would have looked pretty good for him to have had a captive Cleopatra in his Triumph, and similarly Cleopatra would have found that prospect abhorrent.

Interesting, thanks. I know very little about Roman politics--how would something like the above have affected Roman-Egyptian relations following the conquest? Or wouldn't that have mattered?

[fljustice]

Interesting, thanks. I know very little about Roman politics--how would something like the above have affected Roman-Egyptian relations following the conquest? Or wouldn't that have mattered?

Cleopatra was universally hated by the Romans. They feared and resented this Eastern Queen's influence over Caesar (and later Anthony.) After their first meeting in Alexandria, she had a son whom she named Ptolemy Caesar. She later brought him to Rome and Caesar set them up in one of his country houses. This was quite a scandal as he was married to a proper Roman lady named Calpurnia, and some believe it contributed to his assassination. Cleopatra and her son fled back to Egypt after Caesar's death.

After the civil wars following Caesar's death, Anthony was in charge of the Eastern provinces and hooked up with Cleopatra (they had three children - twins Cleopatra Selene II and Alexander Helios, and another son, Ptolemy Philadelphus.) Octavian's excuse for invading the East was Anthony's relationship with Cleopatra (Anthony was married to Octavian's sister Octavia Minor) and their apparent plans to set up an Eastern Empire ruled from Alexandria. Egypt was a political plum, rich in gold, grain, and other trade goods, so Octavian probably had more on his mind than his sister's good name when he "deposed" Cleopatra (either through murder or suicide) and ended Egypt's autonomy.

The Romans cheered; the Egyptian's didn't have any choice. Although Octavian had Cleopatra's son by Caesar murdered, he brought Anthony's children back to Rome and his sister raised them.

[annis]

It's interesting how that Roman hatred of the "foreign queen" Cleopatra lingered. It certainly stymied the later relationship of Emperor Titus and his mistress, the immensely wealthy Berenice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenice_(daughter_of_Herod_Agrippa_I)), Queen of Judea. After the Cleopatra scare the Roman public absolutely refused to countenance their marriage.

[Elizabeth]

And what an interesting figure she was! (Berenice, I mean.) I think I have Howard Fast's Agrippa's Daughter packed away in a box somewhere. I'll have to dig it out.

[annis]

I read that a while ago, Elizabeth and found it a great read, though I had some reservations about Howard Fast's sources and as he didn't provide a bibliography I'm no further ahead. I read it in conjunction with Lion Feuchtwanger's novel, Josephus, which covers the same time and place from a different perspective and added depth to my understanding of the period.

I posted a few thoughts on this forum here:
http://www.historicalfictiononline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1383&highlight=agrippa%27s+daughter

[andrewoberg]

Cleopatra was universally hated by the Romans. They feared and resented this Eastern Queen's influence over Caesar (and later Anthony.) After their first meeting in Alexandria, she had a son whom she named Ptolemy Caesar. She later brought him to Rome and Caesar set them up in one of his country houses. This was quite a scandal as he was married to a proper Roman lady named Calpurnia, and some believe it contributed to his assassination. Cleopatra and her son fled back to Egypt after Caesar's death.

After the civil wars following Caesar's death, Anthony was in charge of the Eastern provinces and hooked up with Cleopatra (they had three children - twins Cleopatra Selene II and Alexander Helios, and another son, Ptolemy Philadelphus.) Octavian's excuse for invading the East was Anthony's relationship with Cleopatra (Anthony was married to Octavian's sister Octavia Minor) and their apparent plans to set up an Eastern Empire ruled from Alexandria. Egypt was a political plum, rich in gold, grain, and other trade goods, so Octavian probably had more on his mind than his sister's good name when he "deposed" Cleopatra (either through murder or suicide) and ended Egypt's autonomy.

The Romans cheered; the Egyptian's didn't have any choice. Although Octavian had Cleopatra's son by Caesar murdered, he brought Anthony's children back to Rome and his sister raised them.

Thanks for the great re-cap. Things like the above are exactly why I love reading history! I must read that Ramses series by Jacq...

[Stephanie Dray]

The story of Cleopatra's death, as handed down to us by her conqueror, is that when she learned she was to be paraded through Rome in chains, she killed herself by means of a poisonous snake. According to Suetonius, the stunned young conqueror summoned snake charmers to suck the poison from puncture wounds on her arm...certainly an odd thing to do if she drank a cup of poison. She was depicted in a wax effigy during Octavian's triumph with an asp clutched to her breast and contemporary poets like Virgil also alluded to the snake as the instrument of her death.

It could be that they were all wrong. As Plutarch eventually admits, no one knows the truth of how Cleopatra died. Strabo may have actually been in in Alexandria when she died, and he suggests that she put poison at the end of a needle. But none of the ancients seem to have favored the idea that she might have gulped down a poisonous mixture in the form of a drink, so modern claims like the one made by German historian Christoph Schaefer (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/30/cleopatra.suicide/index.html?hpt=T2) that she drank a poison concoction and "it is certain that there was no cobra" should probably be presented with less certainty.

But then, it's become fashionable lately not just to challenge the manner in which Cleopatra died, but even the reasons. Many historians now claim that Cleopatra may have been murdered or forced to suicide. It's even theorized that Octavian sent Dolabella to the queen with a lie about how she'd be dragged through the streets for the express purpose of convincing her that killing herself was the only way to preserve her dignity.

Adherents to this theory point out that Octavian was a master propagandist. And he was. However, it seems that historians ought to base their conclusions upon more than a belief that Octavian was a liar.

It may well be true that a living Cleopatra was an enormous inconvenience to Octavian. He was undoubtedly better off with her dead than alive. However, it's equally true that there isn't a single ancient source that accuses Octavian of having killed the queen or having encouraged her to kill herself. In fact, Plutarch tells us that Cleopatra was researching painless forms of suicide long before Octavian stepped foot in Alexandria. Moreover, we're presented by an undisputed claim that when Cleopatra was first captured, she was already trying to kill herself with a knife. Even after she was disarmed by Gaius Proculeius, the queen thereupon stopped eating and allowed herself to succumb to illness until Octavian threatened her children. All of this happened much before the much ballyhooed talk with Dolabella, and establishes a pattern of suicidal behavior.

Finally, there is the matter of Octavian trying to revive her. Certainly, Octavian was not above play-acting, but this would seem to fit the pattern of historical sources that tell us the queen's death came as a surprise to him.

Like Plutarch, I'll admit that no one knows the truth of how Cleopatra died. But the preponderance of the evidence still seems to be that she took her fate into her hands and ended her own life...quite possibly with the help of a venomous snake. And for purposes of a historical novelist, suicide by snake was good enough for Margaret George, so it's good enough for me!

[LoveHistory]

Trying to remove snake venom from her arm by suction would have been particularly ineffective if there was no snake involved.

[Stephanie Dray]

Trying to remove snake venom from her arm by suction would have been particularly ineffective if there was no snake involved.

Absolutely true, but if this actually happened as reported by ancient sources then it indicates that those on the scene at the time suspected a snake rather than poison, or at the very least, our perceptions of how she died are not just some story that 'seemed to make sense' as the article suggests, but a calculated effort by Octavian to shape that belief.

Additionally, drinking poison from a cup is unlikely to leave puncture wounds on one's arm.

[Divia]

Death by position seems more plausible. However, death by snake bite is far more interesting.

[LoveHistory]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but isn't it possible it was a snakebite but not a suicide?

[Stephanie Dray]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but isn't it possible it was a snakebite but not a suicide?

The weight of the historical evidence is against an accidental death. Plutarch tells us that Cleopatra actually sent a letter to Octavian asking to be honorably buried beside Antony just before her suicide. Moreover, two of her handmaidens, Iras and Charmian died with her.

[Gabriele Campbell]

so modern claims like the one made by German historian Christoph Schaefer (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/30/cleopatra.suicide/index.html?hpt=T2) that she drank a poison concoction and "it is certain that there was no cobra" should probably be presented with less certainty.


I've seen that TV report. Really, history professors should stay out of the media. ;) Most of the 'research' was done by forensic psychologists working within a 21st century frame, unable to understand any concept of honour from Cleopatra's time, or Roman virtus, for that matter. CSI Cleo. :D

[Stephanie Dray]

I've seen that TV report. Really, history professors should stay out of the media. ;) Most of the 'research' was done by forensic psychologists working within a 21st century frame, unable to understand any concept of honour from Cleopatra's time, or Roman virtus, for that matter. CSI Cleo. :D

I think historians make these unsubstantiated claims with such certainty because it helps get them in the news. Humility doesn't sell :P