1.1 The Subject: Why Cleopatra?

Cassius Dio’s portrayal of Cleopatra, written nearly two centuries after her death, presents a paradoxical figure whose pursuit and preservation of power depended upon psychological manipulation and a strikingly callous treatment of her allies. Based on such accounts, scholars have attempted to pathologize Cleopatra (Orland & Orland Reference Orland and Orland1990), while many modern biographers – often without formal psychological training – have speculated on the motivations underlying her reported actions. These perspectives highlight Cleopatra’s significance as a subject of study, particularly as one of the relatively few female rulers of antiquity. Her story further illuminates the ways in which intersecting social constructs – gender, monarchy, divinity, and cultural identity – were mobilized and negotiated within a patriarchal order. Moreover, aspects of her life resonate with contemporary concerns, including childhood trauma, displacement, dysfunctional family dynamics, intrafamilial violence, and suicide.

During her lifetime, Cleopatra VII (hereafter Cleopatra) fulfilled a variety of roles, navigating ancient African and European cultures as a divine ruler. She was also a daughter, sister, intimate partner, and mother. Her family had ruled Egypt for 236 years prior to her birth. Although originally from ancient Macedonia, the Ptolemies embraced their religious and cultural roles as the Egyptian royal family, and they developed a powerful political and spiritual relationship with the Egyptian priesthoods, with increasing control as Cleopatra’s rule approached (Gorre Reference Gorre and Stavrianopolou2013). This relationship was also a gauge for the dynasty’s popularity and at times had been strained; nevertheless, the priesthood offered a line of support, particularly during times of family conflict. Notorious for their consanguineous marriages and bloodline, women in the dynasty were powerful and consequently vulnerable at the same time (Ager Reference Ager, Carney and Müller2020). Cleopatra III illustrates this phenomenon perfectly. At the age of eighteen, she became part of a ruling triad consisting of her mother (Cleopatra II) and her uncle (Ptolemy VIII). She had two children with her uncle, Ptolemy IX and Ptolemy X. Her relationship with her sons was tempestuous; she exiled the first after their initial reign and the death of Cleopatra II, and after six years of ruling with her younger son, she was murdered by him (Ashton Reference Ashton, Walker and Ashton2003b).

The contemporary sociopolitical structures of the relevant cultures of ancient Egypt, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome were patriarchal but different, especially regarding the position of royal women (Pomeroy Reference Pomeroy1990; Strootman Reference Strootman2023). In Egypt, there were precedents for solo female rulers in Sobekneferu during the Middle Kingdom and Hatshepsut in the New Kingdom (Diamond Reference Diamond2021). More commonly, royal females in ancient Egypt adopted titles and roles that were intertwined with the king or other deities, such as “Great Royal Wife” or “King’s Daughter.” Such positions fulfilled a uniquely female divine role that was essential for the performance of kingship (Troy Reference Troy1986; Robins Reference Robins2002; Bolshakov Reference Bolshakov2022). In this sense, the royal women played a critical and equal role in the religious ideology of kingship that was different rather than inferior to that of the (typically male) ruler. Although evidence for royal women in Macedonian Greece is dependent on outside sources and interpretations, this society also acknowledged the role of royal women. The office of queenship (Carney Reference Carney1995) was recognized as part of the kingship and, perhaps most notably in the case of Alexander the Great’s mother Olympia, the royal women could exercise considerable political power. In contrast, although some Roman women had exercised political power during the Republic, there was no cultural equivalent. The Romans were familiar with client rulers in territories that they controlled, and they dealt directly with the Ptolemies prior to Cleopatra’s succession to the throne. Perhaps because of this history, Cleopatra was recognized as a ‘queen’ by her staunchest Roman critics (Cicero, Letters to Atticus 20). Egyptian cults were also found in Late Republican Rome and had a strong following among the people there (Versluys Reference Versluys2015).

Both ancient and modern biographers are prone to generalizing Cleopatra’s personality and motivations, perhaps most commonly regarding her relationships with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, as illustrated by the excerpt from Cassius Dio’s Roman History at the start of this section. This issue is compounded by the dependency on Roman sources for key events across her life course. A psychiatric assessment offered a new approach and concluded that Cleopatra had Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) (Orland & Orland Reference Orland and Orland1990). However, the authors of this research failed to acknowledge their subject’s bi-cultural heritage and largely ignored key events pertaining to Cleopatra’s childhood, instead citing a paucity of sources. The methodology of using modern criteria to diagnose personality disorders and mental illness for historical figures has been widely criticized as unethical (see Ponterotto Reference Ponterotto2025, pp. 164–165 for discussion of current American Psychiatric Association guidelines). I will not use this approach. The psychological profiling in the title refers more broadly to our understanding of Cleopatra’s self-presentation and the use of modern psychological frameworks to interrogate the accounts of her behavior in the Roman written sources.

1.2 Approach

Writer’s academic background and approach play an important role in historical and psychological research (Savolainen et al. Reference Savolainen, Casey, McBrayer and Schwerdtle2023). I approach Cleopatra as having first studied Ptolemaic Egypt as an undergraduate student in 1992 with my PhD supervisor. My first doctoral thesis focused on the interaction between Greek and Egyptian Ptolemaic royal sculpture and required additional training in ancient Egyptian languages and archaeology. Based on my doctoral research, I was invited to join the curatorial team for an international exhibition on Cleopatra (Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001; Walker & Ashton Reference Walker and Ashton2003). Since then, I have published extensively on her presentation in Egypt (Ashton Reference Ashton2001, Reference Ashton2003a, Reference Ashton, Walker and Ashton2003b, Reference Ashton2008, Reference Ashton and Exell2011, Reference Ashton and Siffert2014; Walker & Ashton Reference Walker and Ashton2006) and I am still regularly contacted to share my research on Cleopatra. In 2014, I began studying psychology and obtained an MSc in investigative psychology, completing a PhD on the impact of psychosocial risk on youth offending behaviors. Since then, my research has focused on violent offending from childhood to early adulthood. My interest in reviewing Cleopatra through a psychosocial historical lens was piqued following my recent involvement in a docuseries on the subject. Subject matter specialists who took part in this program commented on the queen’s emotional and behavioral responses to significant life events outside of an identifiable psychological framework. This observation is also true of many of her biographers.

Biographies of ancient historical figures present a particular challenge because the evidence is so restricted and, in the case of Cleopatra, they are dependent on hostile Roman source materials. In general, Roman writers reveal misogynistic and cultural biases in their attitudes to Cleopatra, as exemplified by Propertius (Elegies 3.11): “Rome, you were almost the slave of a woman, to a woman’s nod you were almost bowed, that woman who dared to raise her Nile-born scepter against Jupiter’s Capitol.”

Cleopatra was identified as a subject because biographers often offer pseudo-psychological assessments of the queen’s behaviors. Primary sources for Cleopatra’s life include archaeological material (such as religious dedications, statuary, relief representations, and coinage) from Egypt, Rome, and overseas territories. Secondary sources are made up of Roman contemporary accounts on the period and Roman historical commentaries. The primary sources are open to interpretation and require knowledge of both Egyptian and Greek material culture and societies. Cleopatra appears in the Roman historical commentaries to illustrate the life stories of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony and is not their primary focus. For this reason, the accounts are subjective and generally draw from earlier historical narratives.

Overall, this study applied a social constructivist approach (Ponterotto Reference Ponterotto2025) by considering how cognitive function is influenced by an individual’s sociocultural landscape and experiences (Vygotsky Reference Vygotsky1978; see Hatano & Wertsch Reference Hatano and Wertsch2001 and Grageda et al. Reference Grageda, Tinapay, Tirol and Abadiano2022 for discussion). A primary objective is to examine Cleopatra’s psychological functioning as articulated through her cultural and religious self-presentation, and to reframe Roman representations of her within the interpretive context of her indigenous cultural background. Psychobiographical research has successfully been applied to African historical figures (see e.g., Fouché et al. Reference Fouché, Burnell and van Niekerk2015; Brunell et al. Reference Burnell, Nel, Fouché, van Niekerk, Mayer and Kovary2019; Swanepoel et al. Reference Swanepoel, Fouché and Naidoo2022). However, the available evidence discounted a psychobiographical approach (Plessis Reference Plessis2017; Ponterotto Reference Ponterotto2025) but did not preclude a psychosocial history. The term psychosocial history (Mazlish Reference Mazlish1971) is used here purposefully on account of the association between psychohistory and a psychoanalytical framework (see Whimpress Reference Whimpress1993 for discussion). In adopting a psychosocial historical approach, the current study aims to examine broader social structures and Cleopatra’s social environment, while including relevant psychological theories to understand the queen’s identity and personal relationships.

Evidence from the following sources for Cleopatra’s self-presentation will be included in this study: (1) Temples (divine patronage and geographical selection, representation on temple reliefs and associated texts, status); (2) Statuary (divine and royal roles, cultural assimilation, appearance, and at home and overseas); (3) Coinage (international policy, international affiliation, international presentation).

Prior knowledge of the available evidence informed the choice of psychological theories. Overall, a cultural psychological approach, embedded within an ancient Egyptian (and so African) framework, was applied to the subject. Cultural psychology seeks to understand how an individual’s culture influences their cognitive, motivational, emotional, and behavioral processes and their self-identity (see e.g., Kitayama & Cohen Reference Kitayama and Cohen2010; Schweder & Sullivan Reference Shweder and Sullivan1993). Within this approach, the research utilizes triangulation between data sources (Poortinga & Fontaine Reference Poortinga and Fontaine2022) and interrogates Roman sources to determine their validity as third-party accounts of Cleopatra’s psychological functioning rather than de facto evidence. Examples of this are whether the Roman accounts accurately describe someone with suicidal ideation (Section 5.4) or whether the diagnostic criteria are present for mental and personality disorders (Section 6.2).

In addition to considering a cultural psychological paradigm, the research utilizes three other psychological frameworks to explore specific themes within the data. Lifespan developmental psychology explores how humans develop and adapt throughout their life course, including physical, cognitive, emotional growth, and personality (APA 2018a). This approach includes genetic, neurological, environmental, psychosocial, and cultural factors. Social psychology (APA 2018b) is used to understand the relationship between the presence of others and Cleopatra’s emotions and behaviors. This complements the cultural psychological approach and includes the impact of societal and cultural factors of status and covers a broad range of relevant subjects relating to how individuals perceive themselves and their social interaction with others. Relevant to Cleopatra is the psychology of self-concept (understanding “the self”), social interaction, cultural identity, and interpersonal attraction (Sections 7.1 and 7.2). It is necessary to consider the social “norms” of her culture and time as a baseline. However, even within those social and temporal boundaries, Cleopatra presents complex and multiple roles (daughter, sister, consort, mother, romantic partner, ruler, and goddess) across multiple cultures (Egyptian, Greek, and Roman).

Sections 3.3, 5.4, and 6.2 utilize an investigative psychological approach (Canter Reference Canter2000; Taylor et al. Reference Taylor, Snook, Bennell and Porter2015), which draws from cognitive, criminal, developmental, environmental, forensic, and social psychological frameworks to understand all areas of criminal and civil investigations. For the purpose of the present focus, investigative psychology offers a rigorous scientific alternative to traditional criminal profiling to explore Cleopatra’s involvement in the deaths of her siblings and the circumstances surrounding her own death.

The archaeological and historical sources were interrogated for psychological salience (Plessis Reference Plessis2017) and coded according to the criteria cited by Alexander (Reference Alexander1990) and Schulz (Reference Schulz and Schultz2005). The following psychological themes were identified from the historical and archaeological records and will provide the focus for individual sections (Table 1). A summary of selected psychological themes relating to Cleopatra’s behaviors and motivations are shown in Table 1. I selected the following psychological themes: social learning, the impact of trauma, psychological well-being, and clinical/forensic diagnoses.

Table 1Psychological themes and data questions

In addition to coding for psychological salience and identifying key themes to emerge from the primary and secondary sources, thematic coding (Braun & Clarke Reference Braun and Clarke2006) was undertaken for each topic. This process is illustrated in the relevant sections using tables to elucidate data. Inferential statistics were also undertaken where appropriate/necessary, to further illuminate these data. After completing Sections 4.1 and 4.2, it was clear that the primary and secondary data would benefit from multidimensional scaling analysis, because the relationships were unclear.

There are several limitations in the research approach. The first is the lack of a voice for Cleopatra. Her story is told by hostile Roman sources. This will be counteracted by considering evidence for the queen’s self-presentation both in Egypt and in an international arena. Cleopatra’s cultural and racialized identity is a contentious issue (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). The following is clear from the historical and archaeological records. First, the Ptolemaic royal family were outsiders who had ruled in Egypt for 236 years prior to the birth of Cleopatra. Second, the royal family continued Egyptian religious traditions and fulfilled the roles associated with rulers in Egypt (Ashton Reference Ashton, McDonald and Riggs2000). Third, the identity of Cleopatra’s grandmother and her mother is unknown (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001). It is possible that these maternal lines were Egyptian (Huß Reference Huß1990); there are examples of elite indigenous families at the Ptolemaic royal court (Rowland Reference Rowlandson, Rajak, Pearce, Aitkin and Dines2007). This would mean that Cleopatra’s father was half Egyptian, and it is possible that Cleopatra had an Egyptian/bi-cultural mother (in addition to her bi-cultural father). Intercultural marriages and children are attested throughout the Ptolemaic period in Egypt (see e.g., Wilimowska Reference Wilimowska2016). For this reason, it is necessary to consider Cleopatra within an ancient Egyptian, and so African, cultural context (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). In this regard, the present study recognizes that modern psychological frameworks are embedded within a predominantly European framework. The relationship between Cleopatra’s culture and her psychological functioning remains at the center of the analysis and interpretation of the evidence. Where possible, secondary source materials will be considered through a critical ideological lens within an ancient Egyptian ethical tradition (Karenga Reference Karenga2003). In the same way, the present volume seeks to explore Cleopatra’s actions within an ancient Egyptian framework.

1.3 Historical Periods

Cleopatra’s life and her relationships fall into four main periods (Table 2). The first stage (Section 2.2) was dominated by family feuds and her father’s dependency upon Rome for the accession to power (Table 3). This period included the deaths of significant family members and a temporary exile in Rome. Events also affirmed her position as a co-ruler and informed her adoption of traditional cult titles with reference to the family, according to Greek and Egyptian religious practices (Sections 7.1 and 7.2).

Table 2Key periods and political alignments

Table 3Key events and relationships from birth to eighteen years of age

* (Chronology after Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001 with amendments and additions)

Each period of Cleopatra’s life included male allies or adversaries, and they played an integral part in her life course. Some of these relationships were imposed upon Cleopatra; others were her choice. The degree of control that she exercised and her autonomy increased from the first to the final period. Although the Romans played an important international role during two out of the four periods, they were absent from her presentation and religious roles in Egypt (Table 2). This is in accordance with the cultural norms of the time. This contrasts with the Roman sources, which are dominated by Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. For this reason, Sections 4.1 and 4.2 consider Rome and the Romans within Cleopatra’s cultural tradition.

The second (in Egypt) and third (relationship to Rome) periods overlap chronologically (Tables 2 and 4). The second period was one of continued political and family turmoil, including a second period of exile, civil war, the death of Cleopatra’s co-ruler and brother Ptolemy XIII, and the banishment of her sister Arsinoe IV. Rome played an integral part in supporting Cleopatra as co-ruler with her younger brother Ptolemy XIV. The third period began with what must have initially appeared to be a more stable phase with a personal and political relationship with Julius Caesar and the birth of their child. This ended with the death of Caesar and Cleopatra’s loss of an ally.

Table 4Key events and relationships from eighteen to twenty-five years of age

* (Chronology after Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001 with amendments and additions)

The fourth and final period replicates some of the circumstances of the second and third (Table 5). Famine struck Egypt at the start of her co-rule with her son. Internally, this phase brought a new role and enhanced power to Cleopatra. In Egypt Cleopatra promoted her son as the king and herself as “King’s Mother,” the “New Isis,” and consort. The title of “King’s Mother” was first documented in the New Kingdom and represented a powerful position (Troy Reference Troy1986). Overseas, Cleopatra entered a personal and political relationship with the Roman general Mark Antony, with whom she subsequently had three further children. After providing initial territorial and political gains for Egypt, Mark Antony became something of a liability for Cleopatra, who was declared an enemy of Rome in 32 bce. The resulting war ended with the death of Cleopatra, the demise of the Ptolemaic royal house, and the Roman occupation of Egypt.

Table 5Key events and relationships from twenty-six years of age until death (thirty-nine years of age)

Footnote * (Chronology after Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001 with amendments and additions)

1.4 Research Aims

The overall aim of this study is to critically examine the salience of psychosocial attributes in the interpretation of Cleopatra’s life and reign. The following research questions will be investigated:

1. (1) Did Cleopatra’s childhood experiences influence her reported adult behaviors?

2. (2) What was the relationship between Cleopatra and her siblings?

3. (3) What was Cleopatra’s relationship to Julius Caesar and Mark Antony?

4. (4) Do the Roman sources offer evidence to support Cleopatra’s reported suicidal ideation?

5. (5) Do the Roman sources offer evidence of Cleopatra’s mental illness or a diagnosis of a personality disorder?

6. (6) What does Cleopatra’s self-presentation reveal about her personality and self-concept?

7. (7) When Cleopatra’s behavior is understood within an appropriate cultural context, do traits that might today be classified as psychiatric disorders indicate culturally appropriate and effective executive responses?

2.1 Family Background

Cleopatra was born into a politically divided family where incestuous relationships and generational trauma had become the norm (Ager Reference Ager2005). In the century prior to her birth, the Ptolemaic royal women played a key, often dominant, role in familial power struggles that sometimes ended in familicide (Ashton Reference Ashton2003a). Her father (who became Ptolemy XII) had an unorthodox, international childhood. Nicknamed nothos (bastard), he was the son of Ptolemy IX and an unknown female and was one of three siblings to be born from this illegitimate union. He spent much of his early life overseas, initially on the island of Kos and later in the royal court of Mithradates VI, who was King of Pontos in modern-day Iran (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001). The future Ptolemy XII and his younger brother, who became Ptolemy of Cyprus, were raised in this foreign court and were considered eligible and strategic prospective husbands for the king’s daughters. However, in 80 bce the ruler of Egypt, Cleopatra Berenike III (who was their cousin), was murdered by her stepson Ptolemy XI following a brief marriage. The Alexandrians responded by killing their king, leaving Egypt in a vulnerable political position with Rome and a difficult position with the Egyptian priests, who required a king for their religion to function. At this point, Ptolemy XII and his brother were recalled to their country of origin; the former was made king of Egypt, and the latter became king of Cyprus. Ptolemy XII later married and ruled alongside his full sister Cleopatra Tryphaina, and the pair had one daughter – (Cleopatra) Berenike IV in 55 bce. Probably to hark back to the more stable family times, he and his sister were referred to as the “New Sibling Gods” (Gauthier Reference Gauthier1916).

We do not know the date of Ptolemy XII’s birth; historians have suggested a range between 117 and 98 bce, making him between twenty-nine and forty-six years old when Cleopatra was born. We can assume that her mother was significantly younger than the upper age range because she had three other children over a ten-year period. Cleopatra was the oldest child from this union, and there were three full siblings: Arsinoe IV (uncertain date of birth), Ptolemy XIII (61 bce), and Ptolemy XIV (59 bce).

Cleopatra’s direct maternal line is uncertain (Figure 1). Some scholars suggest that, like her father, she and her three full siblings were born to a non-royal mother who was possibly a member of the Egyptian elite (Huß Reference Huß1990; Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001). I accept this assumption and posit that Cleopatra should be viewed within an ancient Egyptian (and so African) cultural framework. It is worth noting that if Cleopatra was the daughter of Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra Tryphaina, the psychological conditions that are explored throughout the Element would have been magnified on account of the shared genetics and experiences of generational trauma (see Aneni Reference Aneni2019 for a discussion and modern parallels for the practice).

Figure 1

Cleopatra’s maternal line alternatives

Figure 1 Long description

The first is Ptolemy 12 with Cleopatra Tryphaina as the mother of Cleopatra Berenike 4 and Cleopatra 7. The second shows an unknown non-royal female as the mother of Cleopatra 7, Ptolemy 13, Ptolemy 14, and Arsinoe 4.

Even if their mother was not the formal consort, it appears that Cleopatra and her full siblings were initially raised in the royal palaces in Alexandria. Considering the levels of violence and aggression within the Ptolemaic royal house, being descended from an external line could only have benefited the psychological well-being of both father and daughter. Although these illegitimate unions were not recognized by Greeks (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001), there was a long history of earlier Egyptian kings taking a principal wife as a consort but supporting multiple wives and children within the royal palaces. For the Ptolemies, these multilinear families dominated from the late second century bce and created opposing in- and out-groups that not only defined an individual’s sense of identity (Tajfel & Turner Reference Turner, Brown and Tajfel1979) but also divided people into political allies or rivalries. For at least three generations prior to the birth of Cleopatra, the royal family was associated with extreme levels of violence, including filicide, matricide, and broader familicide. A cross-cultural scoping review on the transmission of intergenerational trauma (Chou & Buchanan Reference Chou and Buchanan2021) highlighted a range of models to explain the transfer of experiences from parent to child. Of relevance to the Ptolemaic royal household are communication patterns (see e.g., Lin & Suyemoto Reference Lin and Suyemoto2016), secondary traumatization, and epigenetics, which are chemical changes to DNA that alter gene activity, such as the impact of environmental factors and parental behaviors (Perroud et al. Reference Perroud, Rutembesa and Paoloni-Giacobino2014). Epigenetic abnormalities are associated with anxiety, depression, and other mental disorders (Archer et al. Reference Archer, Oscar-Berman, Blum and Gold2013; Nestler et al. Reference Nestler, Peña, Kundakovic, Mitchell and Akbarian2016).

Research on modern contemporary polygynous marriage has concluded that the practice is harmful to the health and well-being of the women and children who are involved in such unions (Adedini & Odimegwu Reference Adedini and Odimegwu2017). However, not all negative influences of this practice are relevant to Cleopatra. The division of financial resources was hardly a problem within the Ptolemaic royal household, but conflict and rivalry over position between the different factions is well documented and was extreme (Lawson & Gibson Reference Lawson and Gibson2018). The power struggles between Ptolemy XII and his sister/eldest child must have provided a direct learning example for the young Cleopatra. I will argue throughout this Element that the necessary four stages for social learning (Bandura & Jeffrey Reference Bandura and Jeffrey1973; Bandura Reference Bandura1977) to occur were present in her life. The stages are as follows: observing the behavior, retaining the information, reproducing the behavior through observation and feedback, and acquiring the motivation to replicate the behavior. These elements were present during Cleopatra’s adolescence and may explain her subsequent handling of sibling rivalry. Not only did she experience and observe the challenges to her father’s authority, but she was also likely to have been coached by him during their later co-rule. Motivation to utilize her learning experiences arose after the death of Ptolemy XII, when it was decreed that she would rule alongside her younger brother rather than alone. Her actions may also have been influenced by threat responses when her life and position were jeopardized.

2.2 From Birth to Adolescence

When Cleopatra was eleven years old, family history repeated itself for her father, and he was exiled once again, likely reinforcing any insecurities that he had suffered when he was relocated as a child. Her stepmother and older half-sister seized control of the Egyptian throne, forcing her father, who was probably accompanied by Cleopatra, to leave Egypt. The refugees made their way to Rome via Rhodes and Athens (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001). They would remain there for around a year, until Ptolemy XII had convinced the Romans to provide an army to support him back on the throne in 55 bce. It is possible that this experience influenced Cleopatra’s childhood perception and perhaps explains her later acceptance of foreign support and political reliance on Rome.

The displacement occurred at a critical developmental age for Cleopatra – during her early adolescent years. Joshi and Fayyad (Reference Joshi and Fayyad2015, p. 719) outline the age-connected responses associated with children who have been displaced and note the following: “… teenagers may also become increasingly irritable and defiant and may wish for revenge against the perpetrators who they feel are responsible for their current living status and undue stress.” The authors also go on to note the accumulative impact of multiple traumas on the psychological well-being and development of displaced teenage children. Research has indicated that displacement and experiencing violence can also impact the cognitive development of children, especially their threat assessment mechanisms (Joshi & Fayyad Reference Joshi and Fayyad2015). The fear of further violence upon Cleopatra’s return to her home country was justified. Both the social cues that she learned from her father and her internalized fear of future displacement/violence may have influenced her responses to the threat imposed by her immediate family after the death of Ptolemy XII. This is evidenced through her acceptance of co-rules with her brothers.

There are two further events that occurred during this period that may have influenced Cleopatra’s adult behaviors. The first was Rome’s annex of Ptolemaic Cyprus, which was ruled by Cleopatra’s uncle. Although offered a title and stipend, Plutarch (Parallel Lives 34.4–7) records that Ptolemy completed suicide, by poison, rather than lose his royal status. Shame as a motivation for suicide is recognized in modern societies where a “culture of honor” obligates members to protect their reputation with the use of inter- and intrapersonal violence (Guul et al 2021; Osterman & Brown Reference Osterman and Brown2011). Such honor-motivated suicides were commended in ancient Greek societies (Garrison Reference Garrison1991). This family event was experienced by Cleopatra at the age of eleven and coincided with her expulsion from her home country by a rival family faction. As she entered her teenage years, her father’s political weakness and dependency on the same state that had incited her uncle’s suicide may have become increasingly apparent.

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are potentially traumatic events that occur during childhood and before the age of eighteen years. Contemporary ACE measures (Krinner et al. Reference Krinner, Warren-Findlow, Bowling, Issel and Reeve2021) include both personal (verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and physical neglect) and familial (alcoholic parent, mother a victim of domestic violence, incarcerated family member, a close family member suffering from mental illness/depression/suicidal ideation, and the loss of a parent through divorce, death or abandonment). Although it is impossible to know whether Cleopatra suffered from any personal adverse experiences, the sources imply that she suffered the loss of close family members and that there was a degree of interpersonal aggression/violence within the royal house. A longitudinal study on the relationship between ACEs and the development of personality disorders (Broekhof et al. Reference Broekhof, Nordahl, Eikenæs and Selvik2024) indicated that the presence of any ACE increased the risk. In this study, emotional abuse was the strongest predictor of the development of a personality disorder in adulthood. Including NPD (Ross et al. Reference Ross, Giri and Anyasodor2024), a severe psychological condition that is characterized by a lack of empathy, constant need for admiration, and an inflated sense of self (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition [DSM-5]). The possibility that Cleopatra exhibited signs of such a personality disorder will be considered and ultimately ruled out in detail in Section 6.2. However, it is worth considering the impact of at least two generations of family violence and psychological abuse, including a number of homicides, on interfamily relationships.

A scoping review (Bochicchio et al. Reference Bochicchio, Porsch, Zollweg, Matthews and Hughes2024) demonstrated that individuals who experience four or more ACEs have poorer health outcomes in adulthood. These include a higher chance of developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and anxiety/depression, problematic substance misuse, and self-harm. These are characteristics that have been associated with Cleopatra in the ancient sources in the context of her suicide. Although there have been relatively few studies on ACEs in contemporary African societies, similar results were found in a study on the relationship between suicidal behaviors and ACEs in South Africa (Cluver et al. Reference Cluver, Orkin, Boyes and Sherr2015), suggesting a degree of cross-cultural validity in the risk factors associated with such experiences. Cluver and colleagues (Reference Cluver, Orkin, Boyes and Sherr2015) adapted the American measure in recognition of the higher rates of violence resulting from apartheid and oppression in South Africa (Pandey Reference Pandey2012). These included parental death by homicide and community violence exposure, parental death, or suffering from illness (e.g., AIDS). In many respects, their criteria meet the extremes of the Ptolemaic royal family more appropriately than European/North American ACE tools.

2.3 King’s Daughter

Strabo (Geography 17) and other later writers describe Ptolemy XII as a licentious character who associated himself with the Greek god of wine and revelry, adopting the official title “Neos Dionysos” (New Dionysos). He was also unofficially named as Auletes (flute player) in reference to his musical capabilities. However, it is possible, indeed likely, that the Roman sources misrepresented his motivations and that his behaviors were in accord with his religious affiliations rather than simply debauchery. There is evidence to support devotion to his religious obligations as king. For example, Ptolemy XII was crowned king at Memphis and visited on at least one subsequent occasion (Thompson Reference Thompson1988). No matter whether Ptolemy XII engaged with the Memphite priesthood for political reasons (to obtain their support) or because of religious fervor, he contributed to several temples in the south including local deities at Athribis, Horus at Edfu, Ptah at Karnak, Montu at Armant, Sobek at Kom Ombo, Khnum at Esna, Ptah at Karnak, Dabod (south of Aswan), Isis at Philae, and the foundations for the temple of Hathor at Denderah (Arnold Reference Arnold1999; Ashton Reference Ashton2008). As noted, it is also possible that Ptolemy XII’s mother was an Egyptian and that this direct cultural connection explains his coronation and relatively large-scale Egyptian temple dedications during his reign. Indeed, Cleopatra continued her father’s support of the Egyptian priesthood and a program of temple building in her policies, indicating both cultural and political continuity.

Cleopatra and her father appear to have had a strong bond and allegiance, as demonstrated by their exile together and co-rule. However, the young queen must have recalled the murder of her half-sister following their return to Egypt when Cleopatra was fourteen years of age, which resulted in her father regaining his position on the throne. According to Strabo (Geography 17.1.11), Ptolemy XII executed Berenike IV for her role in the insurgency and his exile, and doubtless because she posed a threat to his future. This served as a reminder of her father’s callousness and the treacherous nature of interfamilial relationships. As Cleopatra approached adulthood, she was made co-regent, and just as her father had used the title “Philopator” (father-loving) to strengthen his claim to the throne, Cleopatra adopted the title “Father-Loving Goddess” (Gauthier Reference Gauthier1916). However, this did not result in her ruling alone after his death. Ptolemy XII’s will stipulated that Cleopatra must rule with her ten-year-old brother rather than gaining sole control of Egypt. The death of her closest ally and the prospect of dealing with political adversaries within the royal palaces at a relatively young age may have seemed overwhelming. Cleopatra, informed by her father’s experiences, had seen that familial relationships were inherently unstable and fraught with potential danger. She had also seen her father deal with this threat by eliminating it.

2.4 King’s Sister

Had her family situation stabilized and had Cleopatra been granted sole control of the throne, her adult life might have been very different. Within two years of her accession to the throne, history repeated itself (Table 4). Sibling rivalry, threat to life, exile, and civil war ultimately required an intervention from Rome to place her back on the throne in Egypt. The threat of a reoccurrence of events presented the motivation for implementing strategies that she had learned from her father, as evidenced by the death and accusation of homicide of Ptolemy XIV. Cleopatra was more patient than her predecessor in that she attempted to co-rule with both brothers over a period of seven years. However, this was probably due to her dependence on the Romans, who sought to respect her father’s will and counteract sibling feuding. Cassius Dio (Roman History 42.44) mentions that Julius Caesar was afraid of the Egyptians rebelling against Cleopatra (as a woman) ruling them. For this reason, Caesar was said to have placed her on the throne with Ptolemy XIV. While this might be true from a European perspective, there were precedents for women ruling Egypt and fulfilling the ceremonial obligations of a male king without interference from the Egyptian elite and priestly classes. Implementing a co-rule between Cleopatra and her younger brother was probably not the best solution. This situation could have led to a heightened threat level for the young queen, based on her childhood experiences and the loss of her father’s supporting role.

Threat processing enables humans to learn, predict, and ultimately avoid danger and can alter neural pathways in the brain (Bentz & Schiller Reference Bentz and Schiller2015). The amygdala is a small mass of gray matter in the medial temporal lobe of the brain that plays a critical role in the processing of fear and emotional responses. It also functions to identify potential threats and in triggering the “fight or flight” response, which can be impacted in adulthood by early life adversities (Hanson & Nacewicz Reference Hanson and Nacewicz2021). Cleopatra’s childhood and late adolescence were filled with events that could have influenced her brain’s development and function, especially when we consider that psychological development continues into the mid-twenties (Shulman et al. Reference Shulman, Harden, Chein and Steinberg2015). For this reason, the reoccurrence of prolonged stress and threat (exile, threat to life, threat to position) that followed her father’s death may have further influenced her psychological and cognitive development. Ultimately, these processes could explain her responses and behavior as a young adult, which will be discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of the Element.

Her position was culturally important to Cleopatra, as evidenced by her continuation of the policies of her father by dedicating to temples in the south of Egypt (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). As sole ruler in 51 bce, she attended the installation of the new Buchis Bull at the complex in Armant and, in doing so, asserted her position as primary ruler of Egypt. After the birth of her son, she dedicated a Birth House at the site (Ray Reference Ray, Walker and Ashton2003; Ashton Reference Ashton2008). Unusually for a female royal, she was depicted alone at a shrine to Geb at Koptos. She can be seen offering incense to Min, Isis, and Horus and is accompanied by the following hieroglyphic text: “Woman of the two lands, Cleopatra Philopator, beloved of Min-Re of Koptos, king’s wife, king’s daughter, the great ruler … who reaches the height of the sky” (Traunecker Reference Traunecker1992). The identity of her consort, who also appears alone, is uncertain (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). The inclusion of “King’s Wife” suggests that the shrine may have been dedicated during her rule with Ptolemy XIII. This interpretation is supported by a fragment from a statue that includes the title “King’s Sister” (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). However, others have interpreted the use of this title as evidence for the shrine dating to the co-reign of Cleopatra and her younger brother Ptolemy XIV (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001). The possibility that the dedication occurred during her trip on the River Nile in 47 bce will be discussed further in Section 4.1. Either way, such acts demonstrate Cleopatra’s continuation of her father’s policy to build in the south. A strategic move given her dependence on the Egyptian priests when she was driven out of Alexandria by the supporters of Ptolemy XIII. They also reveal a high degree of autonomy and willingness to take on the role of Egypt’s primary ruler. Ptolemy XIII is reported to have drowned in the Nile during a battle in 47 bce (Caesar Alexandrian War 31–33; Plutarch Life of Caesar 49). According to Florus (Roman History 2.13.53–60), the deceased king was found “buried in a marsh still wearing his gold breastplate.” He was immediately replaced by the twelve-year-old Ptolemy XIV, who began a co-rule with his twenty-two-year-old sister, even though Cleopatra was in a relationship with Julius Caesar and may possibly have been pregnant with his child at this time. The separation between religiopolitical role and personal life reflected the partition between Egypt and Rome. This phenomenon would be seen later through Cleopatra’s presentation at home and in an international arena.

3.1 The Ancient Evidence

Ancient sources suggest that Cleopatra had an involvement (either direct or indirect) in the deaths of her brother Ptolemy XIV in 44 bce and Arsinoe IV in 41 bce. Section 3.3 will consider whether homicide was a cultural or historical norm and will explore possible motivations for committing fratricide and sororicide. It will also consider the relationship between her childhood and immediate family history and her alleged homicidal behavior. As discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, Cleopatra lost her first sibling at the age of eleven years, when her half-sister Berenike IV was murdered by their father in retribution for her role in the insurgency against him (Strabo Geography 17.1.11). Ironically, the will of Ptolemy XII declared that Cleopatra should co-rule with her brother Ptolemy XIII, creating a toxic family environment. Shortly after assenting to the throne with her new co-ruler, Cleopatra found herself in an equivalent situation to that of her father and Berenike IV. When Cleopatra and her father had been exiled by their family member, the Alexandrians had accepted the rival as their ruler. For this reason, Berenike IV and Ptolemy XIII had to be deposed. The only difference in the circumstances was that Ptolemy XIII was still a child when he was declared sole ruler and was surrounded by a powerful group of court officials, including his own tutor (Cassius Dio Roman History 42.39.1). He was only fourteen years of age when he died by drowning in the Nile during a battle in 47 bce (Caesar Alexandrian War 31–33; Plutarch Life of Caesar 49).

Arsinoe IV was also directly involved in the war against Cleopatra and the Romans. She was reported to have led the Egyptian army and was declared their ruler in 47 bce (Cassius Dio Roman History 42.39.1). After the death of Ptolemy XIII, she was captured and exiled to Ephesus. Evidence for Cleopatra’s involvement in her siblings’ deaths comes from later Roman sources. Josephus (15.89) stated that Cleopatra had poisoned her brother when he was fifteen years of age because he would become king of Egypt, and he also accused her of ordering the death of Arsinoe IV. The Alexandrian War (Caesar Alexandrian War 33) reports that with Ptolemy XIII deceased, Caesar removed Arsinoe to Ephesus in the hope that Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIV would rule together peacefully. Appian (Civil Wars 5) wrote that Cleopatra ordered Mark Antony to send assassins to kill Arsinoe. Although a degree of caution should be aired when using hostile Roman sources as evidence for Cleopatra’s behaviors, familicide was common among the later Ptolemaic rulers. Furthermore, Cleopatra was aware that her father was responsible for the death of her half-sister Berenike IV. Therefore, she had learned to eliminate family threats by removing the individual.

Regarding her suicide, but perhaps also relevant for the death of her brother, Plutarch (Life of Antony 71) described Cleopatra’s interest in poisons and venomous animals. Plutarch presents a meticulous study of poisons and a callousness regarding animal fights and the poisoning of prisoners. If true, this behavior presents an insight into Cleopatra’s personality and shows that she could take a life if she had a reason to do so. In support of this written testimony is the normalization of homicide within her immediate family history. That the Romans refused to allow Cleopatra to rule alone and insisted on co-rules with her brothers could have caused the queen to explore ways to protect herself. Although Plutarch’s description refers to her actions after her defeat at the Battle of Actium, it is possible that her attempt to find a fast-acting and least painful poison could reflect previous experiences of administering a toxic substance. Her uncle was reported to have taken poison as a means of suicide and in both Greece and Egypt the method was a known form of self-administered execution.

This description reveals a degree of callousness but also strategic planning. The story of a snake being used as a means of self-killing is unlikely on account of the difficulty in obtaining the snake, of smuggling it into a guarded area, and of depending on the creature to bite (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). Given her penchant for planning, as revealed in the Roman accounts of her death, it is more likely that the queen utilized a prepared poison.

3.2 Understanding Sibling Homicide

In modern societies, sibling assaults are estimated to represent between 70 and 96 percent of cases of family violence (Relva & Khan Reference Relva, Khan, Geffner, White and Hamberger2021). However, sibling homicide is relatively rare (Relva & Khan Reference Relva, Khan, Geffner, White and Hamberger2021). Perhaps for this reason, when compared to other categories of homicide, it has received relatively little academic attention. Even when considering that a family member accounted for 37 percent of solved homicides in a Canadian sample (Bourget & Gagné Reference Bourget and Gagné2006), only 2 percent involved the murder of a brother or sister. Research on this behavior has concentrated on industrialized Western societies, and there is only one study focused on the phenomenon in Africa (Adinkrah & Jenkins Reference Adinkrah and Jenkins2019). Nevertheless, research has demonstrated some consistency regarding motivations and offender profiles. Fratricides are more common than sororicides in police data (Walsh & Krienert Reference Walsh and Krienert2014, Reference Walsh, Krienert and Ingold2024), and weapons are typically used to commit the offense (Relva & Khan Reference Relva, Khan, Geffner, White and Hamberger2021). Overall, studies have found that both perpetrators and victims are more likely to be adults (Underwood & Patch Reference Underwood and Patch1999; Diem & Pizarro Reference Diem and Pizarro2010), with 37 percent of victims aged between twenty and twenty-nine years and only 2 percent aged twelve to nineteen years (Dawson & Langan Reference Dawson and Langan1994). A study that focused on juvenile perpetrators found that 60 percent were aged between fifteen and seventeen years old (Peck & Heide Reference Peck and Heide2012).

In a study on sibling homicide in Ghana between 1990 and 2017, Adrinkrah and Jenkins (2018) found that most perpetrators were older males and that rivalry, jealousy, and disputes over inheritance were typical motivations. This finding replicates previous studies (Hashim et al. Reference Hashim, Ahmad, Zulkifli and Bahrin2017). The most cited reason for the homicide was an escalation of interpersonal conflict. Of the eighteen cases discussed in the Ghanaian research, 95 percent of the perpetrators were male, and 33 percent were aged between twenty-one and thirty years old. In 95 percent of the cases in this study, the brother killed his sister, and 89 percent of the incidents occurred in the home.

Two psychosocial theories explain sibling homicide (Relva & Khan Reference Relva and Khan2020). Strain theory (Walsh & Krienert Reference Walsh and Krienert2014) is widely used in criminology to explain how societies cause individuals to become frustrated when they are unable to achieve socially acceptable goals (Merton 1938). This framework has been used to elucidate other forms of family violence, including intimate partner violence. It has been suggested that homicide can occur as a response to negative emotions and frustration (Eriksson & Mazerolle Reference Eriksson and Mazerolle2013). In contrast, Hoffman and Edwards (Reference Hoffman and Edwards2004) recognized social learning as a fundamental part of sibling abuse: “Sibling violence and abuse are characteristics of the parents’ relationship, characteristics of the parent-child relationship, characteristics of the sibling relationship, individual attitudes and characteristics, sibling verbal conflict and the dependent variables of physical violence and psychological abuse” (Hoffman & Edwards Reference Hoffman and Edwards2004, p. 190).

Other psychological risks include competition for parental affection during childhood, dysfunctional families, and personality disorders with an emphasis on antisocial and narcissistic traits (Ewing Reference Ewing1997; Peck & Heide Reference Peck and Heide2012). If we consider these theoretical explanations in the case of Cleopatra, there is circumstantial evidence to support all three. Strain theory is relevant to the situation in which Cleopatra found herself for the second time, being forced to rule with one of her brothers. Social learning is applicable because the situation between Cleopatra and her sister reflected that of her father and Berenike IV. Furthermore, all four stages for the implementation of a learned behavior were present. Section 2.1 illustrated that the Ptolemaic royal family was dysfunctional, and not only did siblings compete for parental attention, but also for power, control, and survival.

3.3 The Deaths of Cleopatra’s Siblings

The deaths of both Ptolemy XIV and Arsinoe IV were unexpected and premature. The former was only fifteen years old, and Arsinoe had been relocated to Ephesus for around six years at the time she died. Her age is unknown, but she would have been younger than Cleopatra, who was twenty-eight years old at this time. Skeletal remains found in an octagonal tomb at Ephesus were identified as Arsinoe IV; however, a recent study on the cranium (Weber et al. Reference Weber, Šimková and Fernandes2025) has shown that the skeleton is that of a young male. Therefore, there are no remains to elucidate the method of death. The Roman sources that accuse Cleopatra of involvement in the deaths of her siblings are relatively late and are biased. For this reason, it is worth considering the possible motivations and characteristics of the two deaths in more detail. Table 6 loosely draws upon A => C profiling equations, which offer a scientific base for understanding the relationship between offense actions and offender characteristics (Canter Reference Canter2011; Canter & Youngs Reference Canter and Youngs2009; Youngs Reference Youngs2016). “A” represents action variables that are related to a crime, and “C” represents all characteristics of an offender that are relevant to a criminal investigation. The arrow represents the inferences that are derived from the actions and characteristics (Canter Reference Canter2011). This approach provides a more objective methodology for investigating the death of two of Cleopatra’s siblings than has previously been undertaken.

Table 6A comparison of the homicides of Ptolemy XIV and Arsinoe IV

Table 6 Long description

The first section of the table shows that there were some differences in the actions related to the offences. Ptolemy 15 was poisoned in the Alexandrian palaces as a 15-year-old co-ruler who had a claim to the throne. Arsinoe 4 was professionally executed overseas as an exiled prisoner; like her brother, she had a claim to the throne of Egypt and additionally was an adversary of Cleopatra. The inference derived from the actions indicates that in the case of Ptolemy 14, the style was direct, planned, knowledge of poisons was required, and the primary motivation was the elimination of a threat. In the case of Arsinoe 4, the style of execution was indirect; it was planned, required a criminal network, and the primary motivation was likely revenge. Regarding the characteristics of the perpetrator(s) in the case of Ptolemy 14, they required access to the royal palaces, and in the case of Arsinoe, access to the temple complex where she was held.

Although the information relating to the two homicides is scant, there are notable differences in their descriptions (Table 6). The circumstances surrounding the death of Ptolemy XIV remain uncertain, since it cannot be determined whether he was poisoned or died by some other means. Nor do we know if Cleopatra committed the offense herself or instructed someone within the royal palaces to administer it. The death of Arsinoe, on the other hand, required not only planning and access to assassins but also the support of Rome in its execution. This is something that Appian (Civil Wars, 9) refers to when he states that Cleopatra ordered Mark Antony to have Arsinoe killed. The primary motivations for the two homicides may also be different. Ptolemy XIV posed a direct threat to Cleopatra because he was present in Alexandria, and he was coming of age. He also prevented Cleopatra from taking her son as her co-ruler. Arsinoe was arguably less of a direct threat because she was imprisoned overseas, but nonetheless she had the potential to challenge Cleopatra’s rule. Perhaps more relevant was the history of conflict between the sisters and Arsinoe’s role in the civil war. Unlike her half-sister Berenike IV, Arsinoe had been allowed to live following her part in the revolt.

What connects the homicides of Cleopatra’s full siblings is that the perpetrator required access to protected offense locations and that the victims were both royal siblings who had a claim to the Egyptian throne. Irrespective of the opinion of hostile ancient historians, this motivation associates the two killings with Cleopatra. The timing of the death of Ptolemy XIV, after the birth of Cleopatra’s son, is also a critical variable. Prior to this point, Cleopatra had taken her younger brother with her on her travels to Rome. No doubt this was to prevent a repeat of the events surrounding the civil war and Ptolemy XIII’s insurgency. It was clear from Caesar’s actions that the Romans preferred to have Cleopatra rule with one of her brothers and that Arsinoe should be exiled rather than executed for her part in the war. Cleopatra’s motivations also align with those in contemporary sibling homicides regarding sibling rivalry and inheritance disputes (Adrinkrah & Jenkins Reference Adinkrah and Jenkins2019). Although this offense typically involves male-on-male violence, as the older sibling, the queen also accords with the offender profile.

Importantly, Cleopatra learned that family members who posed a threat to power should be eradicated (Hoffman & Edwards Reference Hoffman and Edwards2004), and there was a history of sibling rivalry during childhood and within a dysfunctional family setting (Ewing Reference Ewing1997; Peck & Heide Reference Peck and Heide2012). In this respect, Cleopatra may have been replicating behavior that she had learned as a child and acting to prevent a future threat to both herself and her newly born son. Data on the characteristics of sibling homicide perpetrators do not support a dominant profile of a female killing a younger male. Although Cleopatra’s circumstances were very different from modern samples, the motivations for sibling homicide and the psychosocial explanations do appear to be relevant to her case. There is a further cultural aspect to homicide in the case of the ancient Egyptian kings (see Campbell Reference Campbell and Osterholtz2020 for discussion). Cleopatra adopted female versions of titles that were associated with kingship, and certainly in her role as an adult ruling with a child, we can assume that she levied considerable control (Troy Reference Troy1986; Ashton Reference Ashton2008). The king’s role was to protect Egypt, and this included the use of violence against any enemy of the king and state (Bestock Reference Bestock2017). Furthermore, the king, as the living embodiment of Horus, was responsible for maintaining order or maat (see Karenga Reference Karenga2003 for a summary). Given the immediate history of her family, Cleopatra may have believed that killing Ptolemy XIV was the appropriate option to maintain Ptolemaic rule in Egypt. These ancient cultural practices were reinforced by the Ptolemaic custom of killing family members who posed a potential threat. There was also a history of committing homicide to cause emotional harm to someone by killing someone they cared for. For example, Ptolemy VIII had his own child with his sister Cleopatra II murdered and dismembered, and sent the body to his exiled sister as a birthday gift (see Ashton Reference Ashton2003a for discussion). Therefore, there were both psychological and cultural motivations for sibling homicides long before Cleopatra’s birth. From a cultural perspective, it could be argued that dispensing with rival siblings was the appropriate response for the ruler. At the same time, some of the modern studies on sibling homicide explain what might have prompted Cleopatra to dispose of Ptolemy XIV and Arsinoe IV, namely rivalry and inheritance disputes (Adrinkrah & Jenkins 2018).

4.1 Julius Caesar

Section 4.1 will investigate the nature of Cleopatra’s relationships with Julius Caesar, and Section 4.2 will focus on Mark Antony. This is necessary because Rome and its generals played an integral part in Cleopatra’s political and personal life. Her first experience of Roman culture occurred as a child, when she accompanied her father to Rome to seek military support from the Senate. However, it is uncertain, but probably unlikely on account of her age, that Cleopatra encountered Caesar during her stay in Italy. The Roman general had a reputation; Suetonius (Twelve Caesars 45–51) described him as a vain womanizer, and his portraits concur with his badling state (Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001, p. 223, no. 199). The references to nightmares may suggest that in addition to epilepsy, he also suffered from trauma or PTSD, which can be explained by his involvement in several wars.

Julius Caesar’s character has long been recognized as one of brilliance and ambition. Plutarch describes him as “unsparing of money for the gratification of his soldiers, his friends, and the masses; but in the pursuit of power his ambition knew no bounds” (Life of Caesar 1–2). Cassius Dio also references the duality of his nature, calling him “most brilliant in war, most ambitious for power, most arrogant in his triumphs” (Roman History 43.44). Collectively, these accounts depict a leader of extraordinary skill and charisma. He was also characterized as markedly vain by Suetonius (Twelve Caesars 45).

We are completely dependent upon the Roman sources for understanding Cleopatra’s interpersonal relationship with Julius Caesar, and they are woefully limited. When the pair met in 48 bce, she was twenty-one years old and had been deposed as co-ruler of Egypt. At this time, Caesar was fifty-two years of age and had been embroiled in his own civil war against the rival Roman general and his former son-in-law Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey). Caesar arrived in Alexandria in pursuit of his adversary, to discover that Pompey had been assassinated by the supporters of Ptolemy XIII. This act was probably an attempt to prevent the Roman general from seizing control of Egypt. A supposition that is supported by their subsequent action against Caesar, who was besieged in the royal palaces and attacked by their army (Plutarch, Life of Caesar, 3.7.49). It was at this point Cleopatra was famously smuggled into the royal palaces to meet with Caesar (Plutarch Life of Caesar 3.7.49).

Cassius Dio (Roman History 42.34–35) and Plutarch (Life of Caesar 49.3.7) reference Caesar’s inability to resist Cleopatra’s physical and intellectual allure. Florus (Roman History 2.13.53–60) also offers Caesar’s mistrust of Ptolemy XIII and his supporters as a reason for his initial support of the queen. There are two contemporary accounts of Caesar’s time in Alexandria: Caesar’s own (Civil War 3) and a second book with the title Alexandrian War, which was officially written by Caesar, but which is accredited to his general Aulus Hirtius. Neither work offers a personal account of Cleopatra and Caesar’s meeting or subsequent relationship. The only reference to their affiliation is regarding Caesar handing over control of Egypt to Ptolemy XIV and Cleopatra who “continued to enjoy his loyalty and support” (Caesar Alexandrian War 33; Jones Reference Jones1971).

There has been considerable research on what attracts one individual to another. If Caesar’s reputation for philandering is accurate, it is of little surprise that he entered a relationship with Cleopatra. Calpurnia, his wife at the time of meeting Cleopatra, was only seven years older than the queen. Suetonius (The Divine Julius Caesar 3.13) mentions that he was involved with another African royal woman. Eunoe, who was the wife of Bogudes of Mauritania (modern Algeria) and is believed to have been of Berber descent (Roller Reference Roller2010). Although it seems that Caesar had a penchant for young royal women, what would attract the young queen, who had just regained her position on the throne of Egypt, to a married man who was thirty years her senior? Perhaps the most obvious reason would be his power. It is also possible that Cleopatra entered a relationship with the Roman to secure her position as ruler. Research has shown that individuals who see social power as an opportunity for personal benefit are more likely to be attracted to someone they perceive as powerful (Sassenberg et al. Reference Sassenberg, Ellemers and Scheepers2012). On two occasions when Cleopatra had been exiled, the Romans had intervened and placed her back on the throne. It is possible that Cleopatra considered their interpersonal relationship as an extension of her exiled father’s payment to Rome when she was a child. What is clear is that Cleopatra sought unconventional partnerships. Evidence from her relationships with Caesar and Mark Antony suggests that this could have been a deliberate move on the queen’s behalf. Neither man served any purpose in her presentation as ruler of Egypt.

The literature on the similarity effect in attraction suggests that individuals are attracted to people who share their personality, attitudes, and values (see Montoya & Horton Reference Montoya and Horton2013 for a summary). Despite their differences in age and ethnicity, Cleopatra and Caesar had some life experiences in common. Both had been involved in wars, and both were powerful in their respective societies. Furthermore, the circumstances in which the pair met may have influenced their feelings toward one another. Emotional arousal from an independent source at the point of contact has been shown to increase attraction toward a new individual (Meston & Frohlich Reference Meston and Frohlich2003).

There was another commonality that the pair shared: Neither had an heir. Julius Caesar had one legitimate child; Julia was born in 76 bce and died in childbirth at twenty-two years of age. Although there was a history of children being born to full sibling marriages in the Ptolemaic royal house, Cleopatra was considerably older than her two brothers. Ptolemy XIII was only fourteen at the time of his death and her second consort was only twelve years old when he ascended to the throne. It was clear from her father’s will and the subsequent order of Caesar that Cleopatra was expected to rule with a male consort. Her early childhood experiences, followed by the actions of Ptolemy XIII, showed that ruling with a sibling left her in a precarious predicament. Having a child would resolve this issue and would expand her royal status as the “King’s Mother”. It would also offer a new divine association with Isis, because the king of Egypt was considered the living embodiment of Horus, her son. It is possible that Cleopatra saw Caesar’s commitment to Rome as an advantage because he did not pose an additional internal threat to her security. Had Cleopatra entered a diplomatic marriage with another royal, she risked the same problems that she had with her immediate family members. Having a child to an absent but powerful foreign ally was an astute political move on her behalf because it enabled her to retain a position of power and control.

Appian (Civil Wars 2) and Suetonius (Deified Julius Caesar 53) refer to a journey south on the River Nile that was taken by Cleopatra and Caesar before he left Egypt. Not all modern historians agree that the event occurred (see Peek Reference Peek2011 for discussion). Although some have interpreted the trip as a romantic sojourn, many scholars have pointed to overt political motivations, supported by the mention of 400 vessels that formed the naval entourage (Appian Civil Wars 2). The event likely served different purposes for the two main actors. For Cleopatra, a journey south would have allowed her the opportunity to offer thanks to the gods and priesthoods who supported her when she was exiled from Alexandria. Her close relationship to the priests at Armant and Memphis is demonstrated by archaeological and epigraphic records (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001). Rather than her focus being on Julius Caesar, the voyage allowed her the opportunity to promote a new co-rule with Ptolemy XIV, and it is possible that this was celebrated with a temple dedication and statue of Cleopatra at Koptos (Peek Reference Peek2011). Although Caesar was the father of her child (probably unborn at the time of the voyage), there was no ceremonial or religious role for him in Egypt as a foreign mortal (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIV were divine rulers and were celebrated as “Sibling Gods”. In addition to providing a means of travel within Africa, the river Nile was sacred to the people of ancient Egypt (Abdalaal et al. Reference Abdalaal, Saleh, Essam, Zeidan and Ally2024). Numerous barque shrines at temples along the banks of the river provided resting posts for deities who were traveling. Such journeys involved elaborate processions whereby images of a god were moved in golden shrines to visit neighboring deities as part of a festival celebration (see e.g., Eaton Reference Eaton2007; Wegner Reference Wegner2017). Cleopatra’s desire to make this journey connected her to her cultural heritage, religious position, and her southern support base.

Indeed, the date of Ptolemy XV’s birth is disputed; he was probably (on account of Caesar being in Egypt the preceding year) born in 47 bce, although it is possible that he was born during Cleopatra’s time in Rome (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). Cassius Dio (Roman History 43.27.3) reported that Cleopatra and her husband (Ptolemy XIV) stayed in a house that was owned by Caesar. The author also added that Caesar was disparaged “on account of both of them,” implying that there were two rather than three visitors. Plutarch (Life of Caesar 49.10) states that Cleopatra was in her seventh month of pregnancy when Caesar returned to Rome (47 bce). Some modern historians believe that the birth date can be confirmed as June 23 of that year, based on a stela from the Sarapis sanctuary at Memphis (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001). However, this interpretation has been disputed by others (Devauchelle Reference Devauchelle2001). Furthermore, if Ptolemy Caesar was not born in 47 bce it is difficult to explain Cleopatra spending a significant amount of time in Rome. If we assume that Ptolemy Caesar was conceived during their initial encounter, then one year after his birth, Cleopatra made a journey to Rome. It is unclear if she remained there constantly until the death of Julius Caesar in 44 bce or whether several trips were made over this period (Gruen Reference Gruen, Braund and Gill2003). Nevertheless, the arrival of Cleopatra in Rome with her son and brother in the summer of 46 bce would seem like a reasonable interval after the birth and allowing for time to travel.

There are no literary accounts to describe Cleopatra’s personal interactions with her children, and there is no clue as to whether her maternal status conformed to cultural expectations, as is expected in so many modern societies (Akujobi Reference Akujobi2011). The archaeological record and the queen’s public response to the birth of her first child demonstrate both religious fervor and political astuteness. Two strong themes emerge from Cleopatra’s presentation of her children: (1) Their function in the acquisition of overseas political power and territories; (2) The role of Ptolemy XV in the elevation of her position in Egypt.

The birth of Ptolemy XV greatly enhanced Cleopatra’s political standing both at home and overseas. Cleopatra’s sojourn in Rome suggests that she was keen to have her son acknowledged by his father and perhaps to take advantage of her new position as the mother of Julius Caesar’s child. Marriages of state had a precedent among Egyptian kings and were also commonly practiced by the Ptolemaic royal house (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001). However, Caesar’s death in 44 bce impeded Ptolemy XV from being celebrated as his heir, and Cleopatra returned to Egypt soon after. The birth of a son and Caesar’s demise did, however, award Cleopatra considerable freedom. It had been upon Caesar’s insistence to honor the will of her father that had resulted in Cleopatra co-ruling with her younger brother. There could be a relationship between Cleopatra’s newfound freedom, through the death of Caesar and the birth of her son and new co-ruler, and the timing of the death of Ptolemy XIV.

There is a somewhat cryptic reference in one of Cicero’s correspondences of 44 bce to “the queen and that Caesar of her’s” regarding the miscarriage of a child (Cicero, Letters to Atticus, 14.20). If the rumor was true, then Cleopatra may have been pregnant with Caesar’s second child. Cicero was a misogynist and xenophobe, who harbored an intense and irrational hatred for Cleopatra by his own admission acknowledged Cleopatra’s royal status by referring to her as “the queen” in several letters (see Bellemore Reference Bellemore2019 for discussion on the identity of the queen ). However, archaeological evidence from her time in Rome suggests that her divine status was also recognized. Caesar made a dedication of a statue of Cleopatra in the Temple of Venus Genetrix in Rome and placed it next to the cult statue. The form of the statue is unknown; it has been suggested that the two posthumous marble portraits of Cleopatra now in the Vatican and Berlin (Higgs Reference Higgs2001; Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001, pp. 218–221, no.’s 196 and 198) may be copies. According to Appian, the representation was still standing in the second century CE (Appian Civil Wars 2) and so, perhaps surprisingly, it survived Caesar’s death. The style of portrait draws from Cleopatra’s Greek representation that is most seen on international coinage. If the two surviving heads are copies of the original statue, she was represented as a royal rather than a goddess. Both heads have a royal diadem rather than a divine stephane (crown). This has led other scholars (Moreno Reference Moreno1994) to suggest that a Roman statue of Venus that was dedicated by Mark Antony’s grandson, the Emperor Claudius, is a likeness of the Cleopatra representation. Gruen (Reference Gruen and Miles2011), on the other hand, suggests that the statue was a spoil of war, taken by Octavian and displayed following his victory at the Battle of Actium, rather than a dedication.

Cleopatra’s divine status was more explicitly celebrated in a fragment of a marble statue of an Egyptian female deity, which was found in a sanctuary of Isis on the outskirts of Rome (Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001, p. 217, no. 194; Ashton Reference Ashton2008). The portrait reveals a young female wearing a traditional Egyptian echeloned hairstyle and the divine symbol of a vulture headdress. The statue is carved according to Hellenistic traditions and is Egyptianizing (made according to Greek traditions with motifs borrowed from Egyptian art) rather than Egyptian (made according to the artistic canons that were established in Egypt) in style, and the head was inserted into a body, perhaps of a different material. It is unclear whether Cleopatra dedicated this statue during her stay or whether a devotee of Isis was inspired by her presence. The association with Isis and Egyptianizing style would be in keeping with Cleopatra’s self-presentation in Egypt. It may be possible that she found sanctity and a reminder of home in this small corner of Rome.

Julius Caesar was murdered in mid-March in 44 bce. Evidently, he allowed his child to be named after him (Suetonius Deified Julius Caesar, 52); however, his will named Octavian as his adopted son and heir (as referenced in Cassius Dio Civil Wars 44). After this announcement, there was little point in Cleopatra and her family staying in Rome. It is worth considering that had Caesar declared their son as his legal successor, the child’s life would doubtless have been threatened. For all intents and purposes, Cleopatra and Caesar maintained their autonomy in their political and state affairs. Cicero (Letters to Atticus, 14.8) makes it clear that Cleopatra departed Rome after the death of Julius Caesar in 44 bce. As soon as she returned to her home country, Ptolemy XIV was replaced by Ptolemy XV Caesar. In 43 and 42 bce the River Nile failed to flood (Seneca 4a 2.16), which caused a famine and an epidemic (Appian Civil Wars 4). Concessions were made to powerful factions throughout Egypt, no doubt to curry favor and patience (Thompson Reference Thompson, Walker and Ashton2003). Aside from the social and economic problems that were associated with the situation, the ruler of Egypt was closely connected with a successful annual inundation. Cleopatra had been absent from her country and divine royal duties, which placed her in a difficult position. It is against this backdrop that she met Mark Antony in Tarsus in 41 bce (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001).

4.2 Mark Anthony

Mark Antony was fourteen years older than Cleopatra and was characterized on the one hand as an ambitious and popular general, and on the other as a womanizing drunk. Plutarch (Life of Antony 4) described him with “a full beard, broad forehead, and aquiline nose contributing to a manly appearance similar to paintings and statues of Hercules.” Since Antony served under the general Gabinius, who helped restore Ptolemy XII to the throne, it is possible that he and Cleopatra met when she was a child (Plutarch Life of Antony 3; Jones Reference Jones1971). One of the most interesting aspects of Mark Antony’s life prior to meeting Cleopatra is his marriage to Fulvia, who was descended from an old aristocratic Roman family. Plutarch (Life of Antony 10.4–6.30) describes Fulvia as something of a feminist trailblazer among Roman women. He commented, “She had no use for women’s work like spinning or housekeeping and was not interested in presiding over a husband who was not in the public eye: rather, she wanted to rule a ruler and command a general. As a result, Cleopatra should have paid Fulvia tuition for schooling Antony to obey women ….” Plutarch was likely using this to illustrate Antony’s weakness. Aside from his strong opinions on appropriate roles for women, Mark Antony’s attraction to two highly independent and politically powerful women is noteworthy. It also sheds light on Cleopatra’s involvement in international affairs. Plutarch (Life of Antony 10.4–6) hypothesized that the Perusine War between Fulvia and Octavian, which started in 41 bce was initiated by Fulvia to encourage Mark Antony to return to Rome. Mark Antony was said to have been angered by her involvement in the war, and after a meeting in Athens in 40 bce Fulvia died of an illness (Welch Reference Welch1995).

Although the initial meetings with Caesar and Mark Antony were under very different circumstances, Cleopatra was in a vulnerable position at both points on account of a civil war and a two-year famine, respectively (Table 7). The meeting at Tarsus offers an insight into how Cleopatra conducted foreign affairs, albeit through a Roman lens. Plutarch (Life of Antony 26) describes the circumstances surrounding their official meeting. Cleopatra had been summoned by Mark Antony and arrived by boat that is described as follows:

It is impossible to know the extent to which this description is Hellenized; however, there is other evidence to suggest that Cleopatra associated herself with Greek deities in the international arena. The most obvious parallel is the image of Cleopatra wearing a divine stephane (crown) and holding Ptolemy Caesar. These coins were minted in nearby Cyprus and have been interpreted as a representation of either Aphrodite and Eros or Isis and Horus the child (see Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001, p. 178, no. 186). Mark Antony’s association with Dionysos was referenced further during Plutarch’s description of the couple’s subsequent antics in Alexandria (Life of Antony 28–29).

Table 7Cleopatra’s relationships with Caesar and Antony

Dating after Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001

The description of Cleopatra and Antony in Alexandria signifies a point of deviation from her previous character, although it is impossible to know how accurately she is represented. It is worth remembering that the focus of Plutarch’s work was Mark Antony and that Cleopatra serves to illustrate Antony’s weakness. The couple is described as living a childish life of decadence, which was doubtless intended as an illustration of Mark Antony’s weaknesses and debauchery (Plutarch Life of Antony 28–29). Certainly, Cleopatra showed more calculated and politically strategic traits after their defeat at the Battle of Actium to save her children’s lives. Her behavior at this time will be discussed in further detail in Section 5.4.

Aside from their revelry, Mark Antony played a pivotal role in three areas of the last decade of Cleopatra’s life. First, their children; second, the acquisition of overseas territories; and third, their deaths. As with Julius Caesar, there was no formal role for Mark Antony within the Egyptian royal house. Cleopatra continued to rule Egypt with Ptolemy XV Caesar and was only shown with her son (Table 7). The couple had three children together: the twins Cleopatra Selene and Alexander Helios, and a younger child who was named Ptolemy Philadelphos. These Greek names give an insight into cult affiliations and the roles intended for the younger children. Cleopatra and Alexander were associated with the moon and sun gods. The youngest child’s title of “Sibling Loving” was, of course, used by Cleopatra when she ruled with her brothers; however, it is unlikely that she would wish to refer to those times. It is more likely a reference to Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II and the golden age of Ptolemaic Egypt. Cleopatra associated herself with Arsinoe II by adopting some of the distinctive iconographic features that were used to celebrate her posthumous deification (Ashton Reference Ashton2008).

Although Cleopatra’s main affiliation was with Ptolemy Caesar in his role as king, Mark Antony attempted to position the other children to reflect his attempt to promote a partnership in international policy. This was described in a ceremony that is now referred to as the Donations of Alexandria, which occurred in 34 bce after Mark Antony’s successful campaign in Armenia. Plutarch (Life of Antony 54.5–9) describes the ceremony in some detail.

This ceremony was at best fanciful and at worst an affront to the Romans. The territories were not Mark Antony’s to give, and the children were too young to rule at six years and two years of age (Chauveau Reference Chauveau2002). Although the description claims that Cleopatra and Mark Antony sat on thrones side by side, the text clearly states that Cleopatra was declared queen of Egypt and ruled with Ptolemy Caesar. This is supported by Cleopatra presenting as Isis and the archaeological and epigraphic evidence from Egypt (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). Indeed, Mark Antony seems not to really play an official role in the proceedings, beyond being associated with Dionysos. Dio Cassius (Roman History 49.41) confirms this when he reports that Antony declared Cleopatra “Queen of Kings” and Ptolemy XV “King of Kings.”

Internationally, Cleopatra and Mark Antony appear together on coinage in some of the Eastern territories. As with the coinage that was minted in Egypt and the Ptolemaic territories of Cyrene and Cyprus, Cleopatra was depicted as a Greek-style queen wearing a royal diadem but was referred to as goddess on some of the mints (see Meadows in Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001 pp. 233–4 for overview). Prior to this, Fulvia had appeared both alone and with Mark Antony on a coin (Meadows in Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001, p. 235). However, as Meadows points out, the portraits were often cast by territories wanting to show support or allegiance with either Cleopatra and/or Mark Antony. In this respect, neither is likely to have directly controlled the presentation of their images. Coinage in the Hellenistic age was really a political tool to remind the armies who paid their wages (Smith Reference Smith1988). Furthermore, before the Late Period, Egypt used an exchange system for buying and selling items, so the idea of a currency was relatively new to the country. On silver denarii that were minted in Cyprus between 34 and 31 bce, Cleopatra appears on the obverse of the coin and Mark Antony on the reverse (Kreuzer Reference Kreuzer2000). Post Actium there is a small prow below the portrait of Cleopatra. The Latin inscription reads “of Cleopatra, Queen of Kings, (and) of (her) sons, who are Kings” (Kreuzer Reference Kreuzer2000, p. 62). Thus, referencing the declarations in the Donations of Alexandria in an international forum.

Some scholars have taken the Roman sources who described Cleopatra as Mark Antony’s wife as evidence for a formal marriage between the pair (see Ager Reference Ager2013 for discussion). After a thorough investigation of the relatively scarce ancient evidence, Ager (Reference Ager2013) concludes that there is nothing to support a formal marriage between Cleopatra and Mark Antony. This is consistent with an Egyptian perspective. Aside from any romantic connection between the two, the donations clearly show that there was no official role for Mark Antony either as king of Egypt or as part of the Ptolemaic family cults. After the death of Fulvia, Mark Antony married the sister of his rival and later adversary, Octavian. He also had two children with his Roman wife: Antonia Major and Antonia Minor, but divorced Octavia in 32 bce. After spending time with Cleopatra overseas (Table 5), Antony sent a letter of divorce to Octavia. Later that year, Cleopatra was declared an enemy of Rome (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001). Irrespective of the picture painted of Antony in the Roman sources, his life was complicated, as evidenced by his two concurrent families. Although Octavian declared Cleopatra an enemy of the Roman state, Mark Antony had become something of a liability to the queen. Post Actium, he was of no political help to Cleopatra’s cause and, as already noted, he served no royal or religious purpose in Egypt.

4.3 Political and Divine Affiliations

It seems accurate to conclude that Cleopatra made the best of any strategic alliances, both within her family and with key Romans. Ptolemies XII and XIII, and Julius Caesar died thus, naturally ending their relationships. However, in the case of Ptolemy XIV, Cleopatra bided her time before replacing him with her son Ptolemy Caesar. In many respects, she exhibited the same behavior in the case of Mark Antony. When it became clear that they were being defeated at the naval Battle of Actium, Cleopatra turned her ships and abandoned Antony (Plutarch Life of Antony 63 and Cassius Dio Civil Wars 33). During the year between the battle and their deaths, Cleopatra was reported to initially appease Mark Antony but then to abandon him for a second time. According to Plutarch (Life of Antony 71–77), the queen began to prepare for preserving her wealth and status and sent word to Antony that she was deceased. Her priorities during this time were very clearly her family and heirs. This accords with her religiopolitical policies of associating with available male family members to promote her own position in both Egyptian and Greek cults.

Cleopatra’s individual affiliations generally operated within clear religious or political boundaries. However, to understand the relationship between the key actors in her life, it is necessary to apply a more rigorous approach. Two multidimensional scaling analyses were undertaken to investigate this matter further (Figures 2 and 3). Multidimensional scaling is a statistical method that shows the similarities or differences between variables in a dataset and is presented as a visual representation of these relationships.

Figure 2

Multidimensional scaling plot indicating key factors in Cleopatra’s relationships

Figure 2 Long description

The lower region of the plot relates to the Romans, and the upper region relates to Cleopatra’s family.

Figure 3

Multidimensional scaling plot indicating Cleopatra’s presentation with Caesar, Mark Antony, and Ptolemy XV

Figure 3 Long description

Cleopatra’s presentations are with Romans and Ptolemy 15. Ptolemy 15 is associated with the Egyptian divine royal presentation. The Roman generals are associated with Cleopatra’s death, a benefit to the queen, and her international presentation.

Figure 2 shows the results of a multidimensional scaling analysis of key factors associated with Cleopatra’s family and the fathers of her children. Variables were selected from Roman sources and, where possible, were triangulated with archaeological or epigraphic evidence. The plot allows a visualization of the relationship between variables (dichotomously coded as present or not present). Items that occur together are clustered on the plot. The analysis revealed a Kruskal stress of 0.09, showing a good ordination with no risk of false inferences. In the upper region of the plot, the variable family is positioned between Egyptian royal and divine presentations that are associated with co-ruling. In the right-hand region of the plot younger family members and conflict cluster with Cleopatra’s involvement with the person’s death. Romans also appeared in this region, but the variable was spatially closer to the international presentation, older than Cleopatra, and of a clear benefit. The analysis reveals a distinct separation between the Romans and family. The former is associated with international and political benefits, and the latter is associated with Cleopatra’s divine roles. These results further our understanding of relationships that often co-existed and show clearly defined positions.

Figure 3 shows the results of a multidimensional scaling analysis of the relationship between Cleopatra’s presentation and her relationships with Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, and Ptolemy XV. Variables were selected from Roman sources and, where possible, were triangulated with archaeological or epigraphic evidence. The plot allows a visualization of the relationship between variables (dichotomously coded as present or not present). Items that occur together are clustered on the plot. The analysis revealed a Kruskal stress of 0.05, showing a good ordination with no risk of false inferences. As with the previous analysis, Ptolemy XV, as a family member, was associated with co-rule, royal presentation, and divine Egyptian. In the lower region of the plot, Mark Antony was associated with Cleopatra being involved with his death. Both Antony and Caesar were associated with benefiting Cleopatra and her international presentation, demonstrating some similarities between the two Romans. Mark Antony and Ptolemy XV were associated with a joint presentation and Greek divinity, representing an overlap between the two outside of Cleopatra’s Egyptian presentation. As with the previous analysis, the plot provides a visualization of the roles of three key figures in Cleopatra’s life. It also reveals a considerable difference between her relationship with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. The latter is more closely associated with Cleopatra’s presentations.

The analyses support Cleopatra’s commitment to her family and her role as a divine ruler. Although the Roman sources reference debauchery and drunkenness, there is little to support this being a dominant part of Cleopatra’s personality. On the contrary, her protection of royal titles and cults for her children and her abandonment of Mark Antony suggest that she was focused on preserving her royal lineage. Her behavior following the Battle of Actium is also consistent and insightful in this regard. Although Cleopatra was coping with considerable stress and anxiety, the sources report that she did her utmost to protect her children and country rather than being concerned with Mark Antony.

5.1 The Psychology of Suicide

Many authors comment on Cleopatra’s state of mind in her final days outside of any sociocultural framework and with no psychological expertise. Understanding the act of Cleopatra’s suicide requires a combination of cultural, critical historical, and psychological perspectives. Sections 5.3 and 5.4 will assess the meaning of Cleopatra’s death from Ancient Greek and Egyptian perspectives. They will also consider her emotional and psychological condition in light of the consequences of the preceding battle and defeat. Although many modern risk factors that are associated with suicide are not relevant to ancient Egypt, there are nevertheless some factors that are relevant to Cleopatra’s case.

Suicide is defined as the act of intentionally killing oneself (Turecki et al. Reference Turecki, Brent and Gunnell2019). It can either occur in the context of a major depressive episode or without a psychiatric disorder, but in the context of situations that are felt to be untenable (APA 2018c). Models to explain suicide recognize the interaction between distal factors (genetics, personality, impulse control, childhood trauma, a family suicide, and neurobiological disturbances) and proximal factors (mental illness, physical illness, crisis, substance use, exposure to suicidal behaviors, and access to lethal means) may contribute to suicidal risk (Ryan & Oquendo Reference Ryan and Oquendo2020). The relationship between the two categories of risk is also pertinent to suicidal ideation and self-killing (Misisak et al. Reference Misiak, Samochowiec, Gawęda and Frydecka2023). Psychiatric risk assessment (Jacobs & Brewer Reference Jacobs and Brewer2004) includes the presence of associated disorders e.g., mood disorders) and behaviors (e.g., self-harm or prior suicide attempts).

Additionally, family history, psychological stressors (loss or situation), and protective factors (family, cultural beliefs, social support) play a role in an individual’s decision to intentionally kill themselves. Findings from a systematic review on the relationship between displaced people and suicide are also relevant to Cleopatra (Cogo et al. Reference Cogo, Murray and Villanueva2022). At the time of her death, she was at risk of being forcibly removed from her country of origin for the third time. Cogo and colleagues (Reference Cogo, Murray and Villanueva2022) found a relationship between exposure to traumatic events and an increase in anxiety or depression was associated with an increase in suicidal behaviors among displaced people.

Developmental factors can also play a key role (O’Neill et al. Reference O’Neill and O’Connor2020; Turecki et al. Reference Turecki, Brent and Gunnell2019). Higher levels of ACEs are associated with an increased suicidal risk during adulthood (Dube et al. Reference Dube, Anda and Felitti2001). However, there are confounding factors over the life course. In one study, self-concept clarity was found to mediate the relationship between ACE score and suicide behaviors, depression, loneliness, perceived stress, and life distress (Wong et al. Reference Wong, Dirghangi and Hart2019). This finding is relevant to Cleopatra, who had experienced childhood trauma and experienced despair prior to completing suicide. Although she had a strong sense of her identity and position (Sections 7.1 and 7.2), the post-Actium circumstances posed a significant risk of loss.

Such factors do not automatically result in suicide, and in this sense the interpersonal theory of suicide (Van Orden Reference Van Orden, Witte and Cukrowicz2010) adds to a clinical understanding of why some individuals progress from the idea to the action of self-killing (Klonsky et al. Reference Klonsky, May and Saffer2016; Chu et al. Reference Chu, Buchman-Schmitt and Stanley2017). Core constructs of the theory include thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, hopelessness, and capability for suicide (see Chu et al. Reference Chu, Buchman-Schmitt and Stanley2017; for summary see Van Orden et al. Reference Van Orden, Witte and Cukrowicz2010). In the case of Cleopatra, we can discern from both her situation and the literary accounts that all three elements were present. The Roman accounts indicate a previously unsuccessful attempt at suicide, indicating that she possessed the capability to self-kill.

A key factor may have been Cleopatra’s attitude to suicide, based on cultural acceptability or neutrality regarding the act of self-killing. According to ancient Egyptian religious beliefs, if a person had lived a good life and could navigate the “Duat”, the realm where people go after they have died, which involved a series of tests. This process involved the imaginary weighing of the heart (the conscience) and standing before forty-two divine judges. Provided that the heart was no heavier than a feather (justice) and they could respond appropriately, they would be reborn in the Afterlife (see Taylor Reference Taylor2001). Essential to this process was the preservation of the body, so that the soul could return and allow the person to come to life for one hour of every night.

Cleopatra was also a divine being who would have transitioned into a newly deified form upon her death, to be worshiped and cared for as part of a funerary cult. According to Roman sources (Tables 8 and 9), Cleopatra had a prepared tomb, which was close to a Temple of Isis. Indeed, there is a colossal dyad showing the ruler and her son, possibly from the site of this funerary sanctuary (see Ashton Reference Ashton2008). The preparation for the Afterlife and her strong desire to be at the tomb at her point of death suggest that she was prepared for her transition to the Afterlife. Indeed, the stressors, according to the Roman accounts, were her concern for her children and royal line.

Table 8Key points leading up to Cleopatra’s death in Plutarch

Table 9Key points leading up to Cleopatra’s death in Cassius Dio

5.2 Self-Poisoning

The Roman sources concur that Cleopatra used poison to kill herself, either by injecting it with a hairpin directly into her bloodstream or by means of a snakebite. Of these two hypotheses, self-poisoning is more credible (Maloney Reference Maloney2010). Self-poisoning is a common method of suicide in the modern world and across cultures (see Albano et al. Reference Albano, Malta and La Spina2022; An et al. 2021). In the US, this finding has been attributed to a rise in opioid prescription drugs (Quick & Davis Reference Quick, Davis and Preedy2016), and data from several African countries have indicated the use of pesticides and other prescription drugs (Mars et al. Reference Mars, Burrows, Hjelmeland and Gunnell2014). This research found that poisoning (either from chemicals or medications) was present in all African countries/districts that met inclusion requirements. Percentages ranged from 83 percent to 8 percent (Mars et al. Reference Mars, Burrows, Hjelmeland and Gunnell2014, p. 10, Table 5), supporting earlier research by Eddleston (Reference Eddleston2000) that recorded 70 percent of suicides in countries of lower economic development were due to poisoning. Modern Egyptian data also indicated that poisoning was the most reported means of suicide (Mars et al. Reference Mars, Burrows, Hjelmeland and Gunnell2014). Research on suicides between 1997 and 2016 in South Africa found that poisoning was among the most common methods for both male and female self-killing (Kootbodien et al. Reference Kootbodien, Naicker, Wilson, Ramesar and London2020). A systematic review on the restriction of access to poison found that a decrease in related suicides was not associated with an increase in alternative methods (An et al. 2021), indicating that many people do not seek a substitution. Indeed, access to a means of suicide is a consistent factor in the literature (Turecki et al. Reference Turecki, Brent and Gunnell2019) and accords with the difficulties in securing poison in the accounts of Cleopatra’s death. In ancient Greece, self-poisoning as a method of execution features in literature pertaining to mythological/fictional characters and for historical figures (Van Hooff Reference Van Hooff1990). It is worth considering that the circumstances at the time of her death may have limited available options. It is also possible that Cleopatra had prepared poisons in case she was forced into a situation where she felt she had no option but to complete suicide.

5.3 Ancient Attitudes to Suicide

Three relevant themes emerge from ancient cultural perspectives: forced suicide, suicide for honor, and suicide on account of depression. Unlike Western cultures, where higher rates of religiosity are associated with lower rates of suicide (Stack Reference Stack2013), self-killing did not violate ancient Egyptian religious beliefs (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). Since Cleopatra seems to have exclusively followed ancient Egyptian religious practices both at home and overseas (Ashton Reference Ashton2008), this method of death would not impact on her ability to transfer to the Afterlife. The critical component for ancient Egyptian people was the preservation of the body and a burial with appropriate items for the individual’s status.

The only detailed account of suicide in ancient Egypt is the case of Cleopatra (Ali and El-Mallakh Reference Ali and El-Mallakh2022). Studies of these third-person accounts of Cleopatra have suggested motivations of shame, loss of status, and escaping captivity (Van Hooff Reference Van Hooff1990). Ptolemy of Cyprus, Cleopatra’s uncle, had reportedly chosen suicide over loss of royal status when the island was annexed by Rome. He did this despite being offered a stipend and priestly role (Hölbl Reference Hölbl2001). The idea of suicide being an honorable death appears in both ancient Greek and Roman literature (Lykouris et al. Reference Lykouras, Poulakou-Rebelakou, Tsiamis and Ploumpidis2013; Laios et al. Reference Laios, Tsoukalas, Kontaxaki, Karamanou and Androutsos2014). Although self-killing was disparaged in ancient Greece and Rome, honor-motivated deaths were generally commended (Garrison Reference Garrison1991; Retterstøl Reference Retterstøl1998; Marks Reference Marks and Bryant2003). Even Horace (Ode 1.37), who was one of Cleopatra’s main contemporary critics, referenced her bravery in the mode of her death.

Suicide also served as a punishment in ancient Egypt, perhaps most famously following the harem conspiracy in the court of Ramesses III, who ruled from around 1184 to 1153 bce. The range of roles of those who completed suicide as part of the harem conspirators, as opposed to those who were impaled as a punishment, was broad and inconsistent. Therefore, it has been argued that the role of individuals in the conspiracy determined their mode of execution (Ali & El-Mallakh Reference Ali and El-Mallakh2022) rather than suicide being a more honorable death (Bedell Reference Bedell1973). In the case of the harem conspirators, the method of self-killing is unknown.

If the Roman accounts offer an accurate representation of the events leading up to her death, grief and despair may also have played a part in Cleopatra’s decision to take her own life (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). The relationship between depression and suicide was recognized in both ancient Egypt and the classical worlds. In Egypt, it was seen as a physical illness affecting the heart and body with symptoms like modern diagnoses for a depressive disorder (Bou Khalil & Richa Reference Bou Khalil and Richa2014; Ali & El-Mallakh Reference Ali and El-Mallakh2022). A first millennium bce papyrus representing a man who is weary, feels worthless, and alone (Ali & El-Mallakh Reference Ali and El-Mallakh2022) offers some parallels to Cleopatra. Importantly, the document provides insight into planning for the Afterlife. It represents a conversation between the man and his “Ba” [spirit] regarding the unification of the physical [body] and the soul [Ba] after death. Behavior and emotions that would today be diagnosed as a depressive disorder were also recognized in ancient Greek and Roman societies as a form of disease (Kazantzidis Reference Kazantzidis and Harris2013). It is perhaps of little surprise then that the authors who recount Cleopatra’s death make an association between hopelessness and her decision to commit suicide.

Although the form of Cleopatra’s tomb is unknown (see Ashton Reference Ashton2008 for discussion of its form and location). Plutarch (Life of Antony 74) states that it was close to a temple dedicated to the Isis. This accords with Cleopatra’s assimilation to the goddess through her role as the mother of Horus and her utilization of the title “New Isis.” Overall, the queen’s divine roles and her presentation in Egypt support her belief in the Egyptian Afterlife. This does not discount religious syncretism, but the journey to the Egyptian Afterlife was more prescriptive than ancient Greek or Roman funerary rites of passage.

5.4 The Roman Version of Events

The deaths of Cleopatra and Ptolemy XV are corroborated by their disappearance from the historical record and by evidence of Octavian/Augustus becoming the nominal ruler of Egypt in both the dating system and policy regarding Egyptian temples (Connor Reference Connor2022). From ancient times until the modern day, there has been much speculation surrounding the death of Cleopatra, including the unsubstantiated suggestion that she was murdered by Octavian (as argued by Brown Reference Brown2013). Ancient and modern historians generally accept the Roman version of her death – that she completed suicide. The most extant editions survive in Plutarch (Life of Anthony) and Cassius Dio (Roman History). Both are considerably later than the event, they are written from a Roman perspective, and their primary focus is Mark Anthony’s story and demise. Furthermore, these representations of Cleopatra are speculative and were adapted to fit each author’s character profile for the queen and their narratives (Pelling Reference Pelling1988). They will be considered in this section for the purpose of understanding whether the descriptions support the occurrence of an act of suicide and whether they are consistent with Cleopatra’s personality and prior behaviors.

Most researchers center their discussion around the death of Cleopatra on the premise that the ancient Roman sources accurately describe the event and offer a caveat of homicide as an aside (see e.g., Tsoucalas & Sgantzos Reference Tsoucalas, Sgantzos and Wexler2014). Perhaps a more appropriate question is whether the Roman accounts are a literary version of the staging of a crime scene. A staged crime scene involves the alteration of evidence with the purpose of misleading an investigation and avoiding arrest (Chancellor & Graham Reference Chancellor and Graham2016). In cases where contemporary staging has been detected, suicide does not feature prominently (see Ferguson & Petherick Reference Ferguson and Petherick2016). Even in cases where suicide is staged to conceal a homicide, poisoning is relatively rare, although this may be because of a lack of detection (Ferguson & Petherick Reference Ferguson and Petherick2016).

It has been suggested that to some extent all suicidal deaths are staged by the deceased (Lester Reference Lester2015). In the case of Cleopatra, the preparation included a suicide note that was prepared for Octavian, she selected the location by requesting to be taken to the tomb where Mark Antony lay, and her choice of clothes and royal insignia. Her method of suicide was likely one of convenience (Clarke & Lester Reference Lester2013). However, there is a reference to a suicide rehearsal (Gunn & Lester Reference Lester2015; Lester Reference Lester2015) in Plutarch (Life of Antony, 71) whereby Cleopatra attempts to stab herself with a concealed weapon. Indeed, there are references in Cassius Dio (Roman History 11) to Octavian attempting to prevent Cleopatra’s suicide by placing her under surveillance and moving her to the royal palaces.

Tables 10 and 11 demonstrate the order of key events and Cleopatra’s responses according to Plutarch and Dio Cassius. The following key themes emerge from the Roman sources: planning, emotions, suicidal behaviors, and motivation/explanation for the suicide. This section will consider whether the accounts are supported by the psychological literature on suicide.

Planning and preparation feature in both accounts, and this is consistent with the literature in several regards. Perhaps most notably in identifying a means of suicide and obtaining access (Albano et al. Reference Albano, Malta and La Spina2022). Then there is the orchestration of the act itself, including where the suicide will occur (Lester Reference Lester2015). This aspect also aligned with Cleopatra’s religious needs in that the location was in her tomb and she was surrounded by the necessary materials to ensure a successful passage to the Afterlife. Plutarch (Life of Antony 74) mentions that she moved her treasure to the tomb. There are other psychological indicators relating to preparedness, including the requests for her children to inherit Egypt upon her death and the failed attempt to send Ptolemy XV to India for his protection. The welfare of her children is related to one of two other suicide motivations that are mentioned by Dio Cassius (Roman History 11–12). The first pertains to the retention of Ptolemaic sovereignty in Egypt and preventing Octavian from seizing the royal treasure. In this respect, Cleopatra sought to protect her legacy. The second motivation related to the threat of being included in Octavian’s triumphal procession in Rome. This would have resulted in a loss of status and control. This situation was new to Cleopatra. All previous encounters with Rome had resulted in support. The prospect of losing everything and of suspecting that Octavian might order her execution (Dio Cassius Roman History, 11) aligns both ancient and current case studies of suicide (Turecki et al. Reference Turecki, Brent and Gunnell2019). Furthermore, Cleopatra had a family precedent as a point of reference regarding the (albeit more favorable) situation that resulted in the suicide of her uncle Ptolemy of Cyprus.

A common sequence of emotions is recorded by both authors. The death of Mark Antony is associated with both hope (on account of Octavian’s proposal to protect Cleopatra if she relinquished her husband) and grief (after his suicide). In contrast, suicidal behaviors and a decline in her mental well-being are linked to Octavian’s treatment of her children. After requesting that her children should inherit Egypt, we are told that Cleopatra attempted to stab herself with a concealed knife (Plutarch Life of Antony 79). Then, following the capture of Ptolemy XV, Cleopatra exhibited several behaviors that are associated with self-killing. These include self-harm, refusing to eat, and threatening suicide (Plutarch Life of Antony 82). When Octavian responded by threatening to harm the other children, Cleopatra is described in a continued state of mental crisis with further self-harm and in attacking a bystander. Plutarch (Life of Antony 83) describes her with hair in disarray and face with a “crazed expression.” Furthermore, in Cassius Dio (Roman History 12), the queen twice asks Octavian to allow her to die, demonstrating intent to commit suicide. Prior suicide attempts are recognized as a risk for self-killing (Turecki et al. Reference Turecki, Brent and Gunnell2019), as is bereavement after the sudden death by suicide of an intimate partner or close family member (Hamdan et al. Reference Hamdan, Berkman, Lavi, Levy and Brent2019).

Cleopatra’s cultural beliefs and preparation for the Afterlife are also referenced in the reports regarding the preparation of her tomb. Indeed, the main tensions appear to be a lack of control and fear regarding her children’s survival. They report a decisive staging of the suicide, including the considerable effort to access the poison and the writing of a note. This is not to say that the Roman accounts offer an accurate depiction of Cleopatra’s psychological state. They do, however, provide a convincing sequence of risk factors that are now recognized to be associated with suicide.

6.1 Psychology and Psychiatry in Ancient Egypt

In 1990 psychiatrists Orland and Orland published an assessment of Cleopatra’s personality and concluded that she suffered from NPD. The evidence that they used for their assessment was limited and relied solely on later historical sources rather than primary materials. Many previous biographers have drawn conclusions in these respects based solely on their opinions and have often ignored either Greek or Egyptian cultural elements. Section 6.2 will consider what was “normal” and “abnormal” behavior historically and culturally and will explore how Cleopatra’s childhood and subsequent experiences might have influenced her development and personality.

Before proceeding it is worth considering how the ancient Egyptians comprehended the brain, emotions, and mental illness. Cognitive impairments such as dementia feature in the Edwin Smith papyrus in the Second Intermediate Period (Nasser Reference Nasser1987) and the slightly later Eber’s papyrus (Okasha Reference Okasha2005). Paraphilias that are now identified as pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia were described by Herodotus (Shalaby & Ibrahim Reference Shalaby and Ibrahim2023). Both positive and negative emotions are also referenced in ritual texts, literature, and personal correspondences (Adeeb & Shalaby 2023; Eicke Reference Eicke2023). The concepts of religion, heka (loosely translated as “magical” powers) and medicine were closely associated (Abdel-Ghany & Ahmed Reference Abdel-Ghany and Ahmed2020). Although there was no equivalent to a psychiatrist in ancient Egypt, the roles of priest and physician were intertwined (Okasha Reference Okasha2005). Temple incubation and sleep were cited as treatments for conditions that today we would recognize as mental illnesses (Asaad Reference Asaad, Chokroverty and Billiard2015; Adeeb & Shalaby 2023). Ancient Egyptian people identified mental illnesses and sought to intervene to support individuals who were suffering (Ebrahim Reference Ebrahim2024).

Relevant to accounts of Cleopatra’s mental well-being at the time of her death, depression was recognized as a sadness of the heart (Hsu Reference HSU, Hsu and Radu2020; Ebrahim Reference Ebrahim2024) and was associated with insomnia, fear, and suicidal ideation (Abdel-Ghany & Ahmed Reference Abdel-Ghany and Ahmed2020). Ancient people tried to access the subconscious mind through the interpretation of dreams (Gnuse Reference Gnuse and Gnuse1996; Tribl Reference Tribl2011). A practice that was also adopted in ancient Greece and Rome (Renberg Reference Renberg and Weber2015). Also pertinent are the accusations of excessiveness by Cleopatra and Mark Antony, since alcoholism and substance abuse were recognized as illnesses in ancient Egypt (Abdelhady Reference Abdelhady2020).

To summarize, there are ancient descriptions of conditions that modern psychiatry recognizes as mental illnesses or disorders. However, undertaking psychiatric or psychological evaluations using only third-party evidence is, at best, problematic (see Ponterotto Reference Ponterotto2025 for guidelines). It is not the intention of Section 6.2 to diagnose Cleopatra with a mental illness or a psychological disorder. This section seeks to critically assess the evidence for prior trait diagnoses before considering a culturally appropriate exploration of Cleopatra’s persona through her self-presentation (Sections 7.1 and 7.2).

6.2 Psychological Profile

Many biographers have depended entirely on Roman descriptions of Cleopatra to understand her personality. Traits that are referenced in these sources include intelligence, charming, manipulative, opportunistic, capricious, callous, calculating, homicidal, and ultimately heroic (suicide). Based on the assumption that the Roman authors offered an accurate description of Cleopatra’s personality traits, Orland et al. (Reference Orland and Orland1990) considered the presence of three cluster B disorders. Cluster B personality disorders being associated with erratic, dramatic and intense behaviors (DSM-5). In this case study the authors discussed antisocial personality disorder (sibling homicide and drinking), Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) (interaction with Roman leaders), and NPD (interaction with Roman leaders). They concluded that there is not enough evidence to support consistent behaviors relating to antisocial and HPDs.

Certainly, in the case of antisocial personality disorder, conduct disorder must be present during childhood. Conduct disorder is defined as a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior that violates the rules of society and the rights of others (DSM-5). There is a dearth of information regarding Cleopatra’s behavior as a child, but her subsequent co-rule with her father would suggest a degree of compliance and self-control. Rather than attempting to diagnose a historical figure, we might consider whether there is sufficient information to support the presentation of someone with HPD in the Roman literature. This method builds on the research in Section 5.4, which showed that the sources accurately depicted someone with suicidal ideation. Table 10 shows the DSM-5 criteria for diagnosing HPD. Five or more of these criteria must be present for a diagnosis. Some of the diagnostic features are also insinuated in the Roman sources (Appian, Dio Cassius, and Plutarch). The first and fifth criteria are unsupported and there is no evidence that her close relationships were not reciprocated. In the case of Mark Antony, the pair were mutually involved in a romantic partnership with three children, and Julius Caesar entertained the queen in Rome as his guest and, according to Dio Cassius, dedicated a divine statue in the Temple of Venus Genetrix. Furthermore, Roman historians suggest that Cleopatra manipulated Mark Antony rather than being influenced by him (criterion 7). Of the remaining four criteria, two (2 and 4) are related to sexual provocation and are attested in the literature in the descriptions of her seduction of Caesar and Antony. The last two (criteria 3 and 6) relate to inappropriate or insincere emotional responses, which are referenced following the Battle of Actium and described at the meeting of Antony and Cleopatra at Tarsus (criterion 6). However, Actium presented an extreme situation and the Roman historians report that Cleopatra acted rationally to retain the rights of her children. In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to support even the Roman sources depicting someone with HPD.

Table 10Diagnostic criteria for histrionic personality disorder and the Roman sources

NPD presents as a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy beginning in early adulthood and existent in a variety of different contexts (DSM-5). For a diagnosis, at least five of the criteria in Table 11 need to be present. The written sources lack enough details to determine whether the attitudes and behaviors were present. Associated features supporting a diagnosis are also largely unsupported, even when taking the Roman sources into account. People with an NPD diagnosis are typically sensitive to criticism or defeat. Rather than behaving in this manner, Cleopatra was reported to have acted strategically to preserve her role and status, and when this became impossible, the survival of her children as the ruler(s) of Egypt. Orland et al. (Reference Orland and Orland1990) rightly observe that any traits seem to be in passing rather than pervasive. However, they fail to take account of her “cultural realm,” even though this is referenced in the paper. Irrespective of Roman opinion, Cleopatra was a ruler and divine being according to ancient Egyptian traditions and later Ptolemaic royal protocols. Assessing attitudinal concepts such as “self-importance” and “uniqueness” is therefore culturally inappropriate. Table 11 shows how Cleopatra’s roles/status negate the diagnosis criteria, rendering the assessment irrelevant.

Table 11Diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder and cultural interpretations

Table 11 Long description

The table lists the diagnostic criteria from DSM–5 for narcissistic personality disorder and offers critical cultural interpretations. Cleopatra’s role as a ruler and goddess can explain the following criteria: 1. Grandiose and manipulative behavior; 2. preoccupation with fantasies of power; 3. Believes she is special and unique; 4. Requires excessive admiration; 6. Takes advantage of others. Her role as ruler required Cleopatra to promote her country above all else which could explain: 5. Unreasonable expectations or favorable treatment; 7. Lacks empathy. Her unique position and cultural roles can also explain any evidence of 8. Believes others are envious and 9. Arrogant and haughty behaviors.

* DSM-5

A key feature of personality disorders is their pervasive and consistent nature. Two further disorders deserve attention. Both Cleopatra (during her relationship with Mark Antony) and her father are associated with excessive alcohol consumption (Orland et al. Reference Orland and Orland1990; for ancient sources see Plutarch Life of Antony). In the case of Ptolemy XII, his drinking was linked to Dionysiac rites and his cult title of the “New Dionysos” (Cristóbal Reference Cristóbal2020). There were wider cultural and religious precedents that negate his behavior (as it is described) from being diagnosed as an alcohol use disorder. Similarly, Cleopatra and Mark Antony’s “Inimitable Livers Club” was associated with Dionysos. In ancient Egypt, alcohol was utilized in a variety of social, religious, and medical contexts (Poo Reference Poo2013; Nielsen 2023). Intoxication was associated with both positive and negative aspects, and the excessive consumption of alcohol was frowned upon (Shebab Reference Shehab2025). As in some contemporary societies, the relationship between drunkenness and violence is attested from the Old Kingdom onwards. However, as Shebab (Reference Shehab2025) points out, intoxication was an essential part of some religious festivals and was associated with certain deities. Therefore, in both Egyptian and Greek cultures, drinking alcohol was an essential aspect of both social and religious activities and a cultural norm.

Cleopatra’s alleged killing of her siblings and her treatment of Mark Antony following the battle of Actium have also led some to suggest a diagnosis of psychopathy or the presence of psychopathic traits (Orland et al. Reference Orland and Orland1990). Psychopathy is a personality trait that combines the characteristics of antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic disorder (Frick & Marsee Reference Frick, Marsee, Patrick and Patrick2006). The personality traits are associated with violent, including homicidal, behaviors (Dinghra & Boduszek 2013). It is relatively stable in adulthood and is genetically determined (Larsson et al. Reference Larsson, Tuvblad and Rijsdijk2007; on psychopathic traits see Williams et al. Reference Williams, Paulhus and Hare2007; Zwets et al. Reference Zwets, Hornsveld, Neumann, Muris and van Marle2015; and Lynam & Miller Reference Lynam and Miller2015 for discussion). Overall, people who score highly on psychopathic traits share reduced neural connections and a lack of empathy, guilt, fear, and anxiety (Anderson et al. Reference Anderson, Steele and Maurer2017). In addition to being antisocial, psychopathic individuals are often charming, have an elevated opinion of their position, will reveal callous behavior in a matter-of-fact way, have no empathy for their victims, and are unable to take responsibility for their behaviors.

Although Roman sources reference some psychopathic traits (namely abandoning Antony, sibling homicide, and the testing of poisons on prisoners), there remains a significant challenge in attributing interpersonal characteristics that are associated with NPD to an individual who was venerated as a divine being. These characteristics are all associated with a particular purpose: Retaining the throne of Egypt and preserving the royal line. Although this could be interpreted as being evidence of the desire for personal gain, this position conformed to cultural and social norms for the period. Furthermore, there is only definitive evidence for one trait in the Roman depictions of Cleopatra: being charming. Charm in isolation does not constitute narcissism; it is the interplay between this characteristic and other traits identified as diagnostic criteria. The accounts of Cleopatra’s suicide show clear signs of emotional responses; there is nothing in her childhood to suggest juvenile delinquency, nor criminal versatility as an adult. Her lifestyle traits were the opposite of those associated with psychopathy; there is no evidence for sexual promiscuity (she had two partners), and Cleopatra had long-term goals to secure her control of Egypt and family lineage.

The traits described by Roman authors and interpreted by modern biographers as evidence of a personality disorder can be attributed to either broader cultural phenomena or the royal and divine roles of Cleopatra. Section 5.4 considered whether the narratives describing the death of Cleopatra contained any references to a depressive disorder. There was almost a year between the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra in August 30 bce. The diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder are listed in Table 12. Five or more of items under criteria A must be present during the same two-week period and represent a change from an individual’s prior functioning (DSM-5). Critically, in the case of bereavement or other significant loss, the presence of the diagnostic criteria may be a normal cultural and psychological response to that occurrence (DSM-5). Following their defeat, Plutarch describes Cleopatra in good spirits, banqueting, and forming a new society called “Partners in Death” to replace the “Inimitable Livers.” Her actions demonstrate that she responded by entering negotiations with Octavian to protect her family and by securing her own position. It is only after the death of Mark Antony that any depressive symptoms emerge, suggesting that her behaviors were a natural response to this loss. Consequently, the Roman sources do not describe someone suffering from a major depressive disorder. Between the defeat at Actium and her death, Cleopatra worked actively to secure a succession and to avoid capture.

Table 12Diagnostic criteria for a major depressive disorder in the Roman sources

Table 12 Long description

The table cites the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder in the D S M-5. Criteria A include the following most of the day, nearly every day: depressed mood; diminished interest in all or most activities; insomnia or hypersomnia; fatigue; feelings of worthlessness; diminished ability to concentrate; and significant weight loss; recurrent thoughts of death or suicidal ideation; diminished ability to concentrate; agitation or slowed down as noted by others. The Roman sources reveal evidence for refusing food/weight loss, recurrent suicidal ideation, and agitation. There is no evidence in the sources for criterion B, which is significant distress or social impairment. Nor is there evidence to meet criterion C, because Cleopatra’s behaviours are mostly attributable to grief.

* DSM-5. †Evidence for symptom as described in Plutarch and Cassius Dio

In summary, descriptions in the Roman sources do not describe either mental or personality disorders. Where violence is alleged, there are both precedents for such responses (social learning) and cultural norms that can account for these behaviors. This conclusion is supported by Cleopatra’s self-presentation (Sections 7.1 and 7.2).

7.1 Representations of Cleopatra

When Cleopatra’s actions are viewed within an appropriate cultural context, characteristics that are now associated with psychiatric disorders can be repositioned as appropriate cultural and executive responses. Cleopatra’s family background and childhood played a critical role in guiding her adult behaviors and defining social norms. Although part of her official persona, Cleopatra’s affiliations, titles, and self-presentation in Egypt offer a unique and alternative insight into her personality and self-concept.

Firstly, there are the expectations that were associated with Cleopatra’s roles as a divine ruler and goddess. Cleopatra’s exile and later apprenticeship as co-ruler with her father taught her that the biggest threat to her status and survival were likely to come from within the family. Ptolemy XII also showed that it was necessary to eliminate such risks when they approached (Sections 2.1 and 2.2). This threat was substantiated after Ptolemy XIII became the center of a successful plot to depose his sister. At this point, Cleopatra did what her father had done in the same situation – she went to the Romans for support. If anything, her three-year co-rule with her younger brother shows a degree of restraint and purpose.

These co-rules were imposed on Cleopatra by her father’s will (Ptolemy XIII) and Julius Caesar (Ptolemy XIV) to keep the peace (Section 3.1). The insistence that Cleopatra required a male consort also represents the patriarchal societies at the time. Royal women had functioned in the role of King of Egypt, and more immediately, Cleopatra Tryphaina and Berenike IV had been co-regents. Cleopatra’s response to the imposed co-rulers offers further evidence of her religious and political character in that she tolerated the relationships and used them to her benefit. It also goes some way to explaining her response to Octavian following the battle of Actium.

In an astute political move to elevate the power of Cleopatra, the co-rule with Ptolemy XIV provided an opportunity to hark back to the first deified Ptolemaic female (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). Arsinoe II was the sister and consort of Ptolemy II. Following a problematic marriage overseas, Arsinoe returned to Egypt to rule with her brother. After a short co-rule Arsinoe died and was deified posthumously, and can be seen on the walls of the Temple of Isis at Philae receiving offerings from Ptolemy II (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). The priests devised a cross-cultural cult of the “Sibling Gods” to celebrate the deification of Arsinoe and to elevate her living brother by association. Cleopatra adopted this same title during her reign with Ptolemy XIV and in doing so evoked a less troubled time and presented her co-rule as a divine celebration of unity. The occurrence also demonstrates.

Cleopatra also promoted her association with Arsinoe II independently. A coin that was minted in Cyprus, sometime after the birth of her first child, shows an image of Cleopatra wearing a stephane (divine crown) and holding a young child. On the reverse of this coin is a Greek inscription reading “Cleopatra Queen” and a double cornucopia (Kreuzer Reference Kreuzer2000). A cornucopia or horn of plenty was filled with fruits and a pyramid cake and was associated with the Ptolemaic queens on coinage and in cult settings, as seen on a series of faience cult vases dating to the third century bce (Thompson Reference Thompson1973; Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001, p. 69, no. 48). Typically, the royal women held a single cornucopia, but Arsinoe II was awarded a double version of the motif on Egyptian-style statuary and the reverse of coins that contained her portrait (Ashton Reference Ashton2001; Minas Nerpel Reference Minas-Nerpel2019). The Egyptian-style statues representing Arsinoe II adopted a double uraeus (royal cobra). A specific iconographic feature that was previously associated with high-ranking royal females to distinguish their position from other women within the royal house (Ashton Reference Ashton, Cooke and Simpson2005). The adoption of the cult title “Sibling Gods” and the use of the double form of the cornucopia strengthened Cleopatra’s position as ruler and goddess. Far from the narcissistic, histrionic traits and antisocial behavior that have been associated with the queen (Section 6.2), her adoption of an appropriate cult title and iconography reveals a calculated move on her behalf to maximize her position. As soon as Cleopatra had an alternative male co-ruler in the form of her first son, Ptolemy XIV was removed as a potential threat. In this way, she was able to protect her own position, her lineage, and her legacy.

Very few statues of Cleopatra are recognized (Table 13). A sequence of six Egyptian-style statues was identified (see Table 6.4; Ashton Reference Ashton2001; Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001), based on the inclusion of the double cornucopia alongside a triple uraeus (Ashton Reference Ashton2001; Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001). The series includes two separate categories of representation: (1) Traditional Egyptian style statues carved from basalt; (2) Two statues carved from marble/limestone that show Cleopatra with a corkscrew hairstyle and knotted garment. Although we do not fully understand how the two forms of statue were used in antiquity, they demonstrate a controlled and consistent image. This was the first time that three cobras were integrated into a royal headdress (Ashton Reference Ashton, Cooke and Simpson2005), supporting a close relationship between Cleopatra and the Egyptian priests who would have advised on royal protocols. It has been proposed that a statue now in the Egyptian Museum, Turin may also represent Cleopatra as goddess (Ashton Reference Ashton2001, no. 42). This representation differs from the other Egyptian style images because the divine vulture headdress (worn by goddesses) is accompanied by either a double uraeus with a central vulture head or a triple cobra. The statues likely represent the multiple roles that Cleopatra occupied and show a carefully planned approach to disseminating her image.

Table 13Self-presentation

Table 13 Long description

Cleopatra dedicated the following temples in Egypt: Temple of Montu at Armant as Thea Philopator and consort; Geb Shrine at Koptos as ruler; Birth House at Armant as a divine mother; Temple of Hathor at Denderah as co-ruler; Temple of Isis in Alexandria as a goddess; and the gateway for the Temple of Merul at Kalabsha as ruler. The following statues show Cleopatra as a ruler: Basalt statue Hermitage Museum 3936; Basalt statue Rosicrucian Museum 1586; Steatite statue Musée du Louvre E13102; Marble statue Metropolitan Museum of Art 89.2.660; Limestone fragment (head) Brooklyn Museum of Art 71.12; Basalt fragment (bust) Egyptian Museum Turin C1385. She is depicted as a co-ruler on a Limestone fragment (crown), Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology UC 14521, and as a goddess on a Granite fragment from a dyad, Musée Royal de Mariemont E49. Overseas, a Marble fragment (head) Musei Capitolini 1154 depicts her as the goddess Isis, and there is a missing depiction of her as a goddess from the Temple of Venus Genetrix in Rome.

Only two provenanced statue fragments survive. One is a crown that belonged to a limestone Egyptian-style statue from Koptos shows the titles “King’s Daughter, King’s Sister, Royal Wife” (Walker & Higgs Reference Walker and Higgs2001; Ashton Reference Ashton2008). This may date to the period of Cleopatra’s co-rule with one of her siblings, perhaps during her Nile voyage in 47 bce (Peek Reference Peek2011). The fragment also contains the triple cobras on the front of a sun disk and a plumed headdress. The occurrence of this motif in conjunction with the titles suggests that the innovation of the triple cobras may have occurred during the queen’s co-rule with Ptolemy XIV, probably to elevate her status in the relationship or to celebrate her new rule (see Ashton Reference Ashton, Cooke and Simpson2005 for discussion). The second statue was found at a sanctuary in Alexandria and represents Isis. This fragment is part of a dyad, and the portrait of the male figure is consistent with that of Ptolemy XV (Ashton Reference Ashton2001, no. 42). Therefore, it has been suggested that Cleopatra is assimilated with the goddess Isis as mother of the young Horus (Ptolemy XV). This is also consistent with Cleopatra’s use of the title “New Isis”, which is an equivalent of her father’s title of the “New Dionysos.” Both statues offer further support for Cleopatra’s commitment to Egyptian religious practices and her desire to be associated with indigenous deities. The Alexandrian statue is an example of her promotion of Ptolemy XV as ruler of Egypt and her assimilation to Isis. This goddess also offered an international persona for the queen because she was recognized and worshipped outside of Egypt. The dedication of a statue depicting Cleopatra in the guise of the goddess in Rome (Section 4.1) is evidence of continuity of presentation and identity.

At no point did Cleopatra adopt a male guise or role (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). This may be explained by the fact that there was no period when Cleopatra ruled alone; she always had a male consort. It is also the case that Egyptian royal women occupied a unique and powerful position. However, after the death of her father, she utilized female versions of titles that were typically reserved for a male king, including “Female Horus, Ruler” (female form), and “Ruler of the Land” (Troy Reference Troy1986; Tait Reference Tait, Walker and Ashton2003). There were precedents for the use of these titles by earlier Ptolemaic queens (Ashton Reference Ashton, Walker and Ashton2003b). A key role of the king of Egypt was the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt – the two lands. Cleopatra’s adoption of titles such as “Mistress of the Two Lands” offers a powerful female equivalent of a traditionally male role and harkens back to the association of this title with the role of a “King’s Mother” as referenced in a Dynasty 17 hymn dedicated to a royal daughter and wife named Ahhotep [I] (Troy Reference Troy1986).

7.2 Temple Patronage

It has been argued that Cleopatra targeted specific deities for her temple dedications (Ray Reference Ray, Walker and Ashton2003). Mapping their location reveals a preference for temples in the South of Egypt, which accords with her fleeing to the Thebaid when she was removed from the throne by Ptolemy XIII and his supporters (Table 13). This also demonstrates a strong allegiance to the traditional Egyptian religion and the priesthoods. Such a commitment to the traditional alongside innovative responses to the different roles that Cleopatra played as a royal and divine being suggests that religion played an important part in her decision-making and presentation. This obligation can perhaps be seen most clearly in her role as a divine royal mother. Her temple dedications offer an insight into this transition.

Relief fragments from the main temple complex at Armant reveal a cartouche enclosing the name Cleopatra with the title “Father Loving” (Ashton Reference Ashton2008). After the death of her father, Cleopatra appears alone in a scene from the Geb shrine, indicating a shift from dependency to independence. Following the birth of Ptolemy XV, her image changed. Perhaps the most extraordinary temple to be constructed during the reign of Cleopatra was the Birth House at Armant/Hermonthis. Although the structure was destroyed in the 1800s, early photographs and drawings of the structure and its relief decoration reveal some of its features (Arnold Reference Arnold1999). Of particular insight is a relief showing the birth of Horus the son (Lepsius Reference Lepsius1849, 59 vol. 4, pl. 60a). Cleopatra is depicted as a royal, rather than a goddess per se, and observes the scene, standing behind Amun and Nekhbet. The scene was unusual because it showed the actual birth scene in addition to the child being nursed.

The birth of Ptolemy XV offered the opportunity for regeneration. After returning to Egypt from her sojourn in Rome and removing the potential threat that Ptolemy XIV posed, Cleopatra was finally free to take control of her presentation. Not only did Ptolemy XV allow Cleopatra a degree of security, but his birth also sanctioned a direct comparison with Isis and the young Horus. This is best illustrated by the dyad from the aforementioned Temple of Isis in Alexandria.

The most well-known depiction of Cleopatra and Ptolemy XV is on the south wall of the Temple of Hathor at Denderah. In many respects, the decorations in this temple offer a unique insight into Cleopatra’s strategic presentation. Firstly, the replacement of the main temple at the site commenced under her father (Cauville Reference Cauville1998). However, Cleopatra chose not to associate herself with her father at the site. Bianchi (Reference Bianchi, Walker and Ashton2003, pp. 14–15) differentiates between the “festive” styles on the south wall and “perfunctory” styles, which are inside the temple. The south wall associates Cleopatra with Hathor and Isis (Ray Reference Ray, Walker and Ashton2003) as she presents her son to the deities who receive their offerings. The outer walls of temples show allegiance to particular gods and were also a reminder for the powerful priesthood and those who served the temple of their benefactor and ruler(s). Cleopatra stands behind her son, who is depicted as an adult king. Although this might be seen as offering a concession of power, the scene strengthens the queen’s divinity. Inside the temple, Cleopatra can be found again behind her son, but there are some occasions where she stands alone, performing a ritual role. These scenes would only have been seen by the priests who served the temple deities, and they present further evidence of the importance of the traditional (Egyptian) religion.

Such a commitment to her religion and her presentation as a royal female and co-ruler could explain her responses to the risk presented by her siblings. Cleopatra may have seen their actions as threats to the country that she, in her role as a divine royal was obligated to protect. There is one other important concept that is pertinent to understanding Cleopatra’s actions during her reign – the ancient Egyptian concept of Maat. At Denderah, Cleopatra is referred to as “Mistress of the Two Lands” (Troy Reference Troy1986; Bianchi Reference Bianchi, Walker and Ashton2003). This title equates Cleopatra to the King, who by maintaining control of upper and lower Egypt ensures the principles of Maat prevail. Maat was a central concept in Ancient Egyptian life and the transition to the Afterlife. Characterized by a female deity who represented order and harmony, Maat was also closely associated with both the political and religious roles of the king of Egypt (Decoeur Reference Decoeur2011). As Karenga (Reference Karenga2003) points out, royal women in the eighteenth and twenty-fifth dynasties played a critical position in political and religious contexts, and this included their role in ensuring the moral ideal prevailed. Although Cleopatra’s family represented foreign rulers, there is an equal possibility that her grandmother and mother were Egyptians. Cleopatra’s commitment to her religion and country goes beyond those of her predecessors. It is possible that Plutarch’s reference to her being the first Ptolemaic ruler to speak the Egyptian language reflects her maternal line.

Cleopatra’s self-presentation adapted throughout her life course, as she positioned herself in increasingly autonomous and powerful roles within the Ptolemaic royal court. It is notable that although the queen enjoyed an international presence, she consistently presented herself within an Egyptian cultural paradigm. The only exception to this observation was her representations on coinage, which depict a Hellenistic royal and were likely intended for a Greek audience. Her commitment to her role as an Egyptian ruler and goddess is evidenced through her presentation as Isis in the capital city of Alexandria, and her targeted patronage of specific deities in the southern region of the country. Perhaps the most striking illustration of her commitment to her position is the absence of representation of the fathers of her children in the archaeological record. It is only following the birth of Ptolemy XV that Cleopatra promoted her consort to be presented by her side, as illustrated by the south wall at the Temple of Hathor at Denderah. This coincided with her apotheosis as the “New Isis” as a celebration of this newfound independence.

Behind the personification of a divine ruler and far from the “pampered little girl” (Orland et al. Reference Orland and Orland1990, p. 170) was a survivor of multiple displacements and experiences of trauma. Cleopatra’s formative years are arguably the most neglected part of her story, and yet may well be the crux to understanding her personality and psychological functioning. Her childhood experiences offered an understanding of how precarious her status and position were, and this was reinforced in early adulthood. She also had the opportunity to observe and learn from her father when deciding how to deal with problematic family members. Beyond survival, her presentation and patronage, according to Egyptian royal traditions, suggest a genuine connection to her religion and culture.