Well, time to reset, or Ctrl/Alt/Delete.
Archeology has once again exposed the fantasized Hollywoodization of history's famous lovers.
Cleopatra - "beautiful seductress with goddess-like looks"?
Far from it and perish the thought.
What about - "a shallow forehead, pointed chin, thin lips and a witch-like nose"?
True, if we are to believe a 2,000 year old coin discovered by archeologists in a bank vault. And the same coin is not that complimentary to Mark Anthony either, who appears prominently on the obverse side. Our Cleopatra is relegated to the reverse side.
Actually, this revelation is nothing new; numismatists have known this fact for over a century. But of course, we continue to purposely revel in our selective blindness brought on by the idealized glare created by such iconic beauties as Vivien Leigh, Sophia Loren, and Elizabeth Taylor, who all played Cleopatra in movies.Let us summarize anyway what we have always known about the legendary queen who vanquished in love two great Romans, Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony, their stories immortalized by the plays of the equally renowned Shakespeare.
Roman and Greek historians have disagreed about the physical looks of Cleopatra, though quite unanimous about her seductive and charismatic voice, knowledge and personality. And maybe, about her body, based on the standards of those times which probably leaned more toward being Reubenesque. An unmistakable sign of affluence and opulence. Even Shakespeare was quite circumspect, describing her as simply possessed of “youthful looks”.
And the artifact evidence itself may be brought into question. It was probably minted by Romans, thus giving Anthony prominence and using cruder means extant during those times. Some say even the image of Cleopatra looked Roman and she does not look any different from the image of Anthony.
Thus, a poorly and hurriedly minted silver coin with little eye to reality and beauty.
So, lovers, hang in there. Or turn to another legendary femme fatale, Nefertiti.
