The Image of Cleopatra in Ioannes Xiphilinos\' Epitome of Cassius Dio: A Reflection of the Empress Eudokia Makrembolitissa?

ACTA BYZANTINA FENNICA VOL. 4 (N. s.) 2015

Suomen Bysantin tutkimuksen seura Helsinki 2015

Contents Antti Lampinen A Helping Hand from the Divine. Notes on the Triumphalist Iconography of the Early Theodosians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Annika Asp-Talwar Constantine Loukites, the Emperors’ Right-hand Man in Fourteenth Century Trebizond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Björn Forsén, Mika Hakkarainen and Brikena Shkodra-Rrugia Blood and Salt: Some Thoughts Evolving from the Topography of the Battle at Dyrrachium in 1081 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Juho Wilskman Conflict and Cooperation: Campaigns on the Peloponnese in 1264. . . . . 85 Kai Juntunen The Image of Cleopatra in Ioannes Xiphilinos’ Epitome of Cassius Dio: A Reflection of the Empress Eudokia Makrembolitissa?. . . . . . . . 123

Contributors Annika Asp-Talwar Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies Arts Building University of Birmingham Edgebaston Birmingham BI5 2TT [email protected] Björn Forsén Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies P.O. Box 59 00014 University of Helsinki [email protected] Mika Hakkarainen Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies P.O. Box 59 00014 University of Helsinki [email protected]

Kai Juntunen Department of World Cultures Ancient Langages and Culture P.O. Box 59 00014 University of Helsinki [email protected] Antti Lampinen School of Classics Swallowgate St Andrews Fife KY16 9AL [email protected] Brikena Shkodra-Rrugia Instituti i Arkeologjise Qendra e Studimeve Albanologjike Sheshi “Nënë Tereza” 1000 Tirana [email protected] Juho Wilskman Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies P.O. Box 59 00014 University of Helsinki juho.wilskman@helsinki

Abbreviations AJPhil. BF BSA CPh CQ DOP GRBS IstMitt JEA JECS JRA JRS JÖB RE RH MDAI(R) MEFRA TAPA T&M

American Journal of Philology. Baltimore (Md.). Byzantinische Forschungen. Amsterdam. The Annual of the British School at Athens. Cambridge. Classical Philology: A journal devoted to research in classical antiquity. Chicago (Ill.) The Classical Quarterly. Cambridge. Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Washington (D.C.). Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies. Cambridge Mass. Istanbuler Mitteilungen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Tübingen. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. London. Journal of Early Christian Studies: Journal of the North American Patristics Society. Baltimore (Md.). Journal of Roman Archaeology: An international journal. Portsmouth (R.I). The Journal of Roman Studies. London. Jahrbuch der Östereichischen Byzantinistik. Wien. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart. Revue historique. Paris. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung. Mainz. Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité. Rome: École française de Rome. Transactions of the American Philological Association. Baltimore (Md.). Travaux et Mémoires (= Centre de Recherche d’histoire et civilisation byzantines) Paris.

Kai Juntunen

The Image of Cleopatra in Ioannes Xiphilinos’ Epitome of Cassius Dio: A Reflection of the Empress Eudokia Makrembolitissa? The eleventh-century Epitome of Cassius Dio by Ioannes Xiphilinos has received relatively little scholarly attention as a distinct work, although it is one of our most important sources for the almost two-hundred year long period after Claudius (i.e. 54-229 CE). The main reason for this neglect is the general judgement that Xiphilinos was primarily just a copyist and not an independent author attempting to write a critical evaluation of the past, and thus his text has been mainly studied as excerpts edited into Cassius Dio’s Roman History.1 For the most part this conclusion is correct, as when one compares these two texts to each other it is clear that large parts of Xiphilinos’ Epitome are just direct quotes taken from Cassius Dio. However, the assumption that Xiphilinos did not bring anything original to his work is unwarranted. Although the task of abbreviating Dio and the material at hand limited Xiphilinos’ options, he was still able on occasion to change the mood of events and even the image of characters from how Dio had originally represented them. It is in the omission of selected events from the longer narrative structures and in the rewriting of certain elements that Xiphilinos’ own contribution to the work becomes apparent. A good case in point is his portrayal of Cleopatra VII, for she appears in a completely different light in Xiphilinos than what she does in Cassius Dio. As a closer examination 1

This generally accepted opinion was first outlined by Millar (1964, 2), but lately a new assessment of the work has been done by Mallan (2013, 611f), which explores Xiphilinos’ writing methods and argues in favour of its independent scholarly merits.

123

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

of this case will show, Xiphilinos was quite capable of distorting Dio’s descriptions for his own purposes when so required. This also serves as a reminder why we should be careful when interpreting those sections of the modern edition of Dio where the original version is no longer extant, but are instead relying on passages taken from Xiphilinos’ interpretation of the original. It is relatively easy to determine how Xiphilinos changed the original narrative, but why he did so requires a bit more exploration, especially if he was just a copyist. It is true that Xiphilinos prefers to stay in the background throughout his Epitome, very rarely commenting on the events or even changing the first-person tense of the narrator from Dio’s original text. This contradiction between the intentional changes in the narrative and the relative inconspicuousness of the epitomizer could be taken as a reflection not only of the constraints to Xiphilinos’ writing process, but also of the contemporary events that occurred at the time. Indeed, as all writers are influenced by their surroundings, it is possible that some descriptions of incidents and characters in the Epitome became unintentionally influenced by contemporary events, while other changes could have been meant as more direct insinuations to his intended reader(s), which in itself provides us a clue regarding the original purpose of Epitome itself.

The Character of Cleopatra in Cassius Dio Roman History by Cassius Dio was a monumental work consisting of 80 volumes and covering the history of Rome from its foundation to Dio’s own day in the early third century. Dio himself was a Roman senator, and his work was written from the aristocratic point of view to an audience

124

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

formed of his peers.2 The style he adapted for his work was highly rhetorical in nature, the language being polished according to the norms of the atticising style and the narrative being interspersed by numerous lengthy speeches. On occasion Dio imitated his literary models (especially Thucydides) so closely that, in some scenes of his work, he reproduced their literary style at the expense of historical facts.3 Not only were rhetorical speeches used to underline specific political topics, but some characters in the narrative were also used to illuminate larger political or cultural tendencies in society. Cleopatra VII (r. 51-30 BCE) is one of these more colourful characters, who clearly serves a more diverse purpose in Dio’s narrative than just representing a narrow historical portrait. This in itself is not surprising, when one thinks of Cleopatra’s role in the Mediterranean world during the last decades of the Roman Republic. Her relationships, first with Iulius Caesar and then with Marcus Antonius, directly influenced the transformation of the Roman world into the principate of Augustus and her actions became the stuff of legends, inspiring literature from Plutarch to Shakespeare. Already in her own lifetime her character took on a life of its own: as an oriental monarch who was also a woman, she became the perfect propaganda weapon for Augustus. He had her portrayed as a foreign despot with questionable morals, as the origin of all the woes of the Roman people and as the true cause of the civil war.4 It is this Augustan propaganda image that is echoed in the pages of Cassius Dio.

2

3 4

The latest critical edition of Cassius Dio was published by Boissevain (1895-1901). For Dio's career and literary intentions, cf. Millar 1964, 5f; Reinhold 1988, 1-4. Millar 1964, 40-46, 78-83; Reinhold 1988, 5-11; Schwartz 1899, 1690f. Green 1990, 678-679; Reinhold 1988, 222-223. The reputation of Cleopatra was vilified especially by the contemporary and later poets, who called her “the Shame of Egypt” (Luc. Phar. 10.59), “the Monster of Doom” (Hor. Carm. 1.37.21), and “the Harlot queen of unchaste Canopus” (Prop. 3.11.39). For a closer examination of her role in the early imperial Epic, cf. Pyy 2011, 77f.

125

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dio first refers to her only in passim (42.3.1) as the antagonist of her brother Ptolemy XIII in the contest over the throne of Egypt. 5 She is properly introduced to the readers at the point when Caesar arrives in Egypt in pursuit of Pompeius Magnus and ends up as the arbitrator of the conflict between the siblings. As Dio discloses the story of the secret meeting between Caesar and Cleopatra (42.34.3-35.1), the theatrics related to her being smuggled into the palace mentioned in Plutarch (Vit. Caes. 49.1-2) are overlooked and instead, it is her physical attributes and her pleasing demeanour that are brought to the forefront of the account: For she was a woman of surpassing beauty, and at that time, when she was in the prime of her youth, she was most striking; she also possessed a most charming voice and knowledge of how to make herself agreeable to everyone. Being brilliant to look upon and to listen to, with the power to subjugate everyone, even a love-sated man already past his prime, she thought that it would be in keeping with her rôle to meet Caesar, and she reposed in her beauty all her claims to the throne. (Dio 42.34.4-5; tr. E. Cary 1916)

The last remark illustrates how Dio (and the pro-Augustan propaganda that he followed) insinuated that the only claim Cleopatra could make to the throne of Egypt was her beauty. His opposition to women in politics and positions of power is obvious from his treatment of Cleopatra. He repeatedly points out how distasteful and shameful it was for the Egyptian people (and to Dio himself seemingly) to be ruled by a mere woman.6 That Dio objected to rule by women in general and not just to Cleopatra is underlined by a further remark that the Egyptians tried to free Ptolemy XIII (who was kept under guard by Caesar) even after they had hailed Arsinoe IV (r. 48-47 BCE) as their queen, because they disliked being ruled by a woman and her eunuch [i.e. Ganymedes] (42.42.1). In a similar manner, 5 6

The civil war in Egypt: Green 1990, 661-664. 42.3.4: How the Egyptians disliked to be delivered as slaves to Cleopatra; 42.34.2: How the Egyptians feared that Caesar would surrender them to Cleopatra; 42.36.3: How the Egyptians rebelled because it was a shame to be ruled by a woman; 42.44.2: How Caesar gave Egypt to joint rule of Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy XIV, so that the country would not be ruled by a woman alone.

126

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the elevation of Caesarion to titular leader of the Egyptians in 30 BCE is explained as an attempt to give courage to the people by giving them the impression that they now had a man as their king (51.6.1). The same theme is repeated later on in the speech of Augustus on the eve of the battle at Actium, in which he reminds his soldiers about the shame that will follow if they are defeated by an Egyptian woman (50.24.3-7), and that on no account are they “to allow a woman to make herself equal to a man” (50.28.3). Dio’s bias against the fairer sex can also be observed in his treatment of Boudicca, although here we are forced to rely solely on the version related by Xiphilinos. In this, Dio laments how the greatest shame occurred to the Romans when they were first defeated by a woman (62.1.1), before further demonstrating his underlying prejudice with the declaration that Boudicca had “more intelligence than can be usually found from a woman” (62.2.2).7 But in the end, one cannot judge Dio as a complete misogynist, in light of the lengthy rhetorical dialogue he created for Livia and her husband Augustus. Here, it is Livia who advises Augustus, after his male companions have not dared to offer their opinions, as to how one should rule the Roman Empire with clemency. This speech defined the very essence of the Roman autocracy (55.14.1-21.4),8 although even here Dio could not resist adding a slight to Livia’s gender in the speech: … I [i.e. Livia] have some advice to give you, – that is, if you are willing to receive it, and will not censure me because I, though a woman, dare suggest to you something ... (Dio 55.16.1; tr. E. Cary 1917).

Cassius Dio did not just object to Cleopatra’s rule because she was a woman; in addition, he constantly attacked both her character and her morals.9 Thus, he states that she was of “insatiable passion and insatiable avarice, and although she was swayed often by laudable ambition, she was also 7 8 9

Boudicca in the classical sources: Hingley and Unwin 2006, 41f. The content of the speech: Millar 1964, 78-77. For the excessive demonization of Cleopatra’s character, cf. Green 1990, 661-662.

127

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

often swayed by overweening audacity” (51.15.4). Already when discussing her relations with Caesar, Dio had mentioned how Cleopatra had completely charmed him (42.35.1), spent all her time with him (42.44.4), and aroused such a passion in him that Caesar was widely censured for it (43.27.3). However, it was in her relations with Marcus Antonius that Dio was really able to defame her. He starts from the moment when they first encountered each other, stating that Marcus Antonius immediately fell in love with her and henceforth did not give any thought to honour. Instead, he became the “Egyptian woman’s slave” and devoted his time to his passion for her. Dio adds that Antonius’ infatuation consequently caused him to do many outrageous things, including dragging Cleopatra’s brothers (sic) out from the temple of Artemis at Ephesus and killing them (48.24.2), thus violating the sanctity of the shrine.10 Throughout the narrative, Dio continues to give examples of how Cleopatra’s influence caused Antonius to become a debased and immoral character, as if Antonius had lived a modest and chaste life until his encounter with the queen of Egypt:11 As for Antony, he was so under the sway of his passion and of his drunkenness that he gave not a thought either to his allies or to his enemies ... but joined Cleopatra, and the Egyptians in general, in their life of luxurious ease until he was entirely demoralized. (Dio 48.27.1-2; tr. E. Cary 1917).

To Dio, the change Cleopatra and the East caused in Marcus Antonius was not just a moral lapse, but something much more profound. More serious than his immoral liaison with Cleopatra was Antonius’ abandonment of his native customs and social norms, including his traditional Roman clothing:

10

11

Appian (B Civ. 5.9) and Josephus (AJ 15.89) provide a more detailed and accurate version of the incident, and state that it was Cleopatra’s sister Arsinoe IV who was killed. For a more detailed analysis of the affair, cf. Green 1990, 671. The early life of Antonius: Huzar 1978, 23f.

128

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For she had enslaved him so absolutely that she persuaded him to act as gymnasiarch to the Alexandrians; and Antony accompanied her on foot along with her eunuchs. ... [He] dressed in a manner not in accordance with the customs of his native land, and let himself be seen even in public upon a gilded couch or a chair of that kind. (Dio 50.5.1-2; tr. E. Cary 1917).12

Dio repeatedly states that the form of Antonius’ infatuation was unnatural, and accuses Cleopatra outright of witch-craft, of using a spell to enslave him (49.34.1; 50.5.1-4). In addition, Dio frequently asserts that Antonius was a mere slave to her (48.24.2; 49.34.1). These accusations are again brought forth in the speech of Augustus on the eve of the battle at Actium, where they are used to suggest that Antonius would not have raised arms against his own country voluntarily, but did so because he was under a spell:13 … for, indeed, I have heard and believed that he has been bewitched by that accursed woman ... being a slave to that woman, he undertakes the war and its self-chosen dangers on her behalf against us and against his country. (Dio 50.26.5; tr. E. Cary 1917).

It should nevertheless be noted that Dio had earlier (50.6.1) stated that the political opponents of Antonius had purposely declared war against Cleopatra alone with the full knowledge that this would lead Antonius to side with her against his countrymen, thus providing them with an additional charge against him. The acknowledgement of this political pretext shows that Dio himself did not believe the official propaganda he was following. However, as he had constructed his historical narrative on pre-set dramatic plot lines that created the main story arcs of his work, a deep political dissection of the events would have disrupted his account and diminished the dramatic effect of the narrative. 14 The charges of witch-craft and questionable morals in her personal relations are not the only accusations 12

13 14

The same accusations are again repeated in the speech of Augustus at Actium (Dio 50.25.3; 50.27.1). Cleopatra’s use of magic: Stratton 2007, 95. Dio's approach to the political realities: Millar 1964, 73-77.

129

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

that Dio raises against Cleopatra. He also asserts that she had potentially treacherous subjects killed (51.5.4) and loot estates and sanctuaries when she was in need of additional revenue (51.5.5). However, Dio’s ultimate charge against her is hubris. He relates how her pride increased as she became ever more successful in wrapping Roman men around her finger, so that eventually she had hopes of ruling over even the Romans: … this more than all else made him [i.e. Antonius] seem to have been bewitched by her through some enchantment. For she so charmed and enthralled not only him but also the rest who had any influence with him that she conceived the hope of ruling even the Romans. (Dio 50.5.3-4; tr. E. Cary 1917).15

The character portrayal of Cleopatra reaches its climax at the battle of Actium. Here Dio describes the reversal of her fortunes and suggests that this was, in large part, due to the natural tendencies of her gender. Already before the battle, she is said to have feared the outcome and to have made preparations with Antonius for flight in case things took a turn for the worse (Dio 50.15.3-4). But, during the actual battle, it is her loss of nerves that is given as the principal cause of defeat:16 The battle was indecisive for a long time and neither antagonist could get the upper hand anywhere, but the end came in the following way. Cleopatra, riding at anchor behind the combatants, could not endure the long and anxious waiting until a decision could be reached, but true to her nature as a woman and an Egyptian, she was tortured by the agony of the long suspense and by the constant and fearful expectation of either possible outcome, and so she suddenly turned to flight ... (Dio 50.33.1-2; tr. E. Cary 1917)

Neither are the last moments of her life depicted in a particularly favourable light, as Dio’s version of events lacks the drama and emotion we find in Plutarch. In Roman History, she is presented as a cold-blooded, cal-

15 16

The charge is repeated again in a different context a little later (Dio 51.9.5-6). For a more detailed analysis of the battle, cf. Lange 2011, 608f.

130

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

culating opportunist, who negotiates in secret with Augustus and then repeatedly betrays Antonius in the hope of retaining her throne. 17 Even the false rumour of her death is claimed to have been a calculated act on Cleopatra’s part, as she was supposedly well aware that it would lead to Antonius’ suicide. Thus, in the pages of Dio, the death of her lover does not cause any remorse or regret, but instead Cleopatra makes haste to report to Augustus of his rival’s death, since she feels confident that the news will lead to the fulfilment of her own desires (51.10.5-9). Dio disparages Cleopatra even at her death, declaring that she vainly believed that Augustus had fallen in love with her after their encounter (51.8.6-7), only to take her own life when she realized her mistake (51.14.1-2). The death is presented without too much drama: indeed, Dio ends her story with a rather cold statement that “Antonius and Cleopatra died after causing many evils to Egyptians and Romans alike” (51.15.1).18 Clearly, this rather one-sided description shows that Cleopatra is just a performer in an elaborate play Cassius Dio has formed. She is depicted just as the Augustan propaganda would have her: seductive, treacherous, and ruthless; the true cause of the civil war, whose behaviour exonerates Augustus from the guilt of spilling Roman blood. But, on occasion, minor inconsistencies in the narrative clearly show that the character of Cleopatra is just a suitable means to an end and that even Cassius Dio himself did not believe her to have been the true origin of Roman calamities. In addition to 17

18

In addition to recounting Cleopatra’s secret negotiations with Augustus (51.6.5-6), Dio also states that she secretly handed over Pelusium to Augustus (51.9.5), prevented the Alexandrians from joining the fight (51.9.6) and caused the fleet to desert (51.10.4). Dio’s rather one-sided sentiment of the causes of these events is not shared by Plutarch. The latter does agree with the sequence of events, but does not blame Cleopatra for their outcome. Thus, in Plutarch’s interpretation of events (Vit. Ant. 74.1-86.5), the troops of Antonius abandon him of their own accord, and although Antonius is said to have blamed Cleopatra for his setbacks, it is explained that it was his uncontrollable anger that caused Cleopatra to hide and spread the rumour of her demise. The suicide of Antonius is shown to have caused lamentations and regret in Cleopatra, while in the ensuing encounter with Augustus, it is not Cleopatra but Augustus who is fooled into a false sense of mastery of the situation, allowing the Egyptian queen to organise her dramatic exit from the stage of the political arena.

131

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

her role as a partial cause of the Roman civil war, Cleopatra was also clearly used as a medium through which Dio promoted his own personal opinions regarding women in a position of power. Ultimately, the stage needed a villain or, in this case, a villainess, whose character would explain both the moral downfall of Marcus Antonius and give justification for Augustus’ actions in the Roman civil war. For Dio, Cleopatra fit the bill perfectly.

The Portrayal of Cleopatra in Ioannes Xiphilinos The rather heavy-handed fashion in which Cassius Dio used Cleopatra (or her character) to make a rhetorical point is not to be found in the late eleventh-century epitome of his work. Ioannes Xiphilinos, the author of this epitome, preferred instead to create a much narrower, but more positive, image of the Egyptian queen. The Epitome itself was much shorter and structurally quite different from Dio’s original book; it was organised by twenty-seven reigns or regnal periods, instead of by the thematically arranged volume-sets that Dio used. Furthermore, it simply omitted much of the rhetoric that one can find in Dio’s work.19 Xiphilinos himself states that his purpose was to concentrate on the memorable deeds and characteristics of Augustus (and the other past emperors), which meant that the role of both Antonius and Cleopatra became much reduced from what it had been in Dio’s narrative.20

19

20

The editio princeps of Xiphilinos’ Epitome was published by R. Stephanus in 1551. Since then, it has been published only by L. Dindorf in 1865, whose edition covered only the first half of the work, and by U. P. Boissevain in 1901, who added a corrected text as an appendix into his monumental edition of Cassius Dio, but his version is lacking an appropriate reference system due to a compressed layout. For the structural content of Xiphilinos’ Epitome, cf. Mallan 2013, 617-625. Although Xiphilinos states in the chapter dealing with the reign of Augustus (R. St. 68.28–69.5 = Dind. 87.1–13), that his intention was to record the memorable deeds of that emperor, this statement naturally also applies to all the reigns outlined in Epitome.

132

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Unlike his source, Xiphilinos has very little negative to say about Cleopatra. Gone are the accusations of scheming, killing and loose morals; instead, a rather rosy picture of the Egyptian queen is provided. Xiphilinos begins the description of her character by quoting Dio’s positive remarks of her, thus stating that Cleopatra was very beautiful and agreeable to everyone due to her charming voice and agreeable character (R. St. 20.4-7 = Dind. 23.9-12). He omits Dio’s caveats, that these were the powers she used to subjugate others under her will and that she based her claim to the throne of Egypt on her beauty alone. Xiphilinos does not have much to say about her personal relations with Caesar, except that he was completely captivated by her after their first encounter (R. St. 20.10-12 = Dind. 23.16-19) and that it was her amours (ἔρωτας) that kept him lingering in Egypt, as he was the most lustful (ἐρωτικώτατος) of men (R. St. 20.2-4 = Dind. 23.69).21 The only other reference to Caesar and Cleopatra’s affair in Xiphilinos can be found in his abridgement of Caesar’s triumph of 46 BCE, where he quotes the jests Caesar’s soldiers made about their general’s love (ἔρωτα) for Cleopatra (R. St. 22.27-31 = Dind. 26.26-31). Although here Xiphilinos did make a minor alteration to Dio’s original narrative construction. In Dio’s version of events Caesar was delighted that his soldiers were so confident about him that they even dared to jest that he might declare himself king (a jest omitted by Xiphilinos), but he was vexed by their insinuations to his past conduct in the court of Nicomedes (43.20.3-4).22 In contrast, Xiphilinos claimed that Caesar was pleased by his soldiers’ frankness when they jested about his affair with Cleopatra, but that he objected the insinuations of his alleged love affair with King Nicomedes (R. St. 23.5-7 = Dind. 27.6-9).23 Other passages in Dio’s original that mentioned Cleopatra, but were not essential to the main narrative, were simply omitted by Xiphilinos. 21 22 23

Caesar’s sojourn in Egypt: Billows 2009, 227; Green 1990, 667. The alleged affair with King Nicomedes: Osgood 2008, 687f. The soldiers jests about Caesar’s triumph: Beard 2007, 247f.

133

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In a similar fashion, Cleopatra’s relations with Antonius do not receive much space in Xiphilinos’ narrative. Their very first encounter at Cilicia is omitted; instead, Xiphilinos simply states that Antonius went from Asia to Egypt because of his love (ἔρωτι) for Cleopatra (R. St. 46.9-13 = Dind. 57.19-24), thus taking it for granted that the reader would already be aware of their love affair. Neither are any of the scandalous events nor the demoralizing effect Cleopatra had on Antonius mentioned; rather, she appears only occasionally as the passive object of Antonius’ deeds, but not as the cause of them.24 It is only at the culmination of the civil war, at the battle of Actium, that Xiphilinos provides her with a much larger role in the narrative. Xiphilinos first states that when Antonius and Augustus began to fall out, they brought accusations against each other. The chief among these was that Antonius intended to make Cleopatra ruler of the Romans, since he was bewitched and enslaved like a war captive by her (R. St. 57.10-16 = Dind. 71.27-72.2). Xiphilinos does not infer that this was an accusation against Cleopatra, but presents it as Augustus’ claim against Antonius. Consequently, Xiphilinos asserts that the war was not declared against Antonius alone, but against Cleopatra as well, thus both reversing the claims in Dio’s original and abandoning all pretence that the war was fought against a foreign enemy instead of being an all-out civil war. Cleopatra is next mentioned as being present at Actium on Antonius’ side (R. St. 58.1620 = Dind. 73.13-18), a fact that Xiphilinos mentions was an offense to some,25 but it is only at the end of the battle that her actions are described as having had more direct consequences on the course of history.

24

25

Such as when Antonius treacherously captured the king of Armenia and presented him to Cleopatra in golden chains (R. St. 56.16-22 = Dind. 70.24-32). The person to whom Xiphilinos referred to was Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (PIR2 D 127), who according to Dio (50.13.6) had a grievance with Cleopatra and died just before the battle due to an illness, while Xiphilinos states that the friend of Antonius died at the time of the battle.

134

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

At this point, Xiphilinos quotes Dio’s description of events verbatim (R. St. 59.18-24 = Dind. 74.26-75.2), thus stating that Cleopatra, as a woman and an Egyptian, lost her nerves and fled during the heat of the battle, thereby causing the defeat. However, in Dio’s version Cleopatra’s flight was only the latest of the charges against her person, whereas, in Xiphilinos, her loss of courage in the heat of battle is the only negative aspect of her character. In this context, we should not see the latter’s description of her flight as a vilification of Cleopatra’s character, but instead more as an expression of his personal opinion that war was not the domain of the fairer sex. This in itself reflects women’s restricted position in the Byzantine society of Xiphilinos’ own era.26 Not surprisingly, all the subsequent actions of both Antonius and Cleopatra were also omitted by Xiphilinos, namely the various escape plans they made and how Cleopatra secretly negotiated with Augustus and undermined Antonius’ attempts to resist his rival’s actions. In fact, the whole affair is covered in a single sentence (R. St. 61.8-14 = Dind. 77.2-6), which rather dryly states that, after the battle at Actium, Antonius fled to Egypt and committed suicide, dying in the arms of Cleopatra. Much more space is given to the encounter of Cleopatra with Augustus upon his arrival to Egypt, as she tried to plead her case and remind him of her past relations with Iulius Caesar, the adoptive father of Augustus: By the time Caesar [i.e. Augustus] had taken charge of Alexandria, and Cleopatra herself was kept under watch unfettered and guarded in the palace, she approached him as a suppliant to come to her presence, as she desired to have a conversation with him. Her head bowed down, she arrayed herself with affected negligence, – indeed, her mourning garb wonderfully became her, – and seated herself upon the couch; beside her she placed many images of his father, I speak of Iulius Caesar, of all kinds, and in her bosom she put all the letters that his father had sent her. When, after this, Caesar entered, she leaped blushing to her feet and cried: ‘Hail, master – for Heaven has granted you the mastery and taken it from me. But surely you can see with your own eyes how your father looked when he visited me on many occasions, and you have heard people tell how he honoured me in various ways and made me queen of the Egyptians. That you may, however, learn something about me from him himself, 26

Women in Byzantine society: James 2008, 643f.

135

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

take and read the letters which he wrote me with his own hand.’ After she had spoken thus, she kept turning her eyes toward Caesar and bewailing her fate in musical accents. She spoke in melting tones, and saying at one time, ‘Of what avail to me, Caesar, are these thy letters?’ and at anyone, ‘But in this man here thou also art alive for me’; again, ‘Would that I had died before thee,’ and still again, ‘But if I have him, I have thee.’ Now Caesar was not insensible to these [words], but he pretended to be; and letting his eyes rest upon the ground, he merely said: ‘Be of good cheer, woman, and keep a stout heart; for you shall suffer no harm.’ (R. St. 61.14-62.5 = Dind. 77.10-78.10)27

Although this lengthy scene is quoted directly from Dio, Xiphilinos did also feel it necessary to omit minor aspects of the encounter, namely some of Cleopatra’s more passionate theatrics, such as when she read Caesar’s love letters aloud, kissed them and did homage to his statues. The general impression is that Xiphilinos wanted to paint a portrait of Cleopatra as a passionate woman, but one who was still within the limits of decency. Cleopatra’s character differs more profoundly between the two narratives when Xiphilinos describes Augustus’ attempt to deceive her and take her to Rome as his captive. He asserts that she understood Augustus’ true intentions as she was “not a naive woman, but efficacious and wise” (R. St. 62.5-10 = Dind. 78.10-16), but no such laudatory comment about the Egyptian queen can be found in the pages of Cassius Dio. As such, Xiphilinos seems to be purposely formulating an alternative description of her character, possibly influenced by Plutarch, whose Parallel Lives he was also acquainted with.28

27

28

The translation has been modified from Ernest Cary’s 1927 translation of Cassius Dio (51.12.1-5), the direct quotes from Dio being set in italics. Xiphilinos’ use of Plutarch, cf. Brunt 1980, 489; Mallan 2013, 625, n. 46. The image of Cleopatra that Plutarch provides is overall quite positive, and includes a number of references to her mental abilities, such as the cleverness of her speech (Vit. Ant. 25.2) and her ability to speak several languages (Vit. Ant. 27.3-4). Plutarch further claims that her intelligence was equal to the other monarchs who sided with Antonius at the onset of the war against Augustus (Vit. Ant. 56.3). It is also possible that Xiphilinos was influenced by a general admiration of Cleopatra in Byzantine society, which can be seen in the work of a number of authors, such as in that of Ioannes Tzetzes (c. 1110-1180), who repeatedly called her wise (Chil. 2.17; 6.279; 6.291; 8.988), and in that of the late seventh-century Ioannes, bishop of Nikiu, who called Cleopatra not only “a very beautiful young girl” (Chron. 64.7), but “the most illustrious and wise amongst women” (Chron. 67.9) as well.

136

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next, Xiphilinos provides a description of Cleopatra’s death, which is again closely styled on Dio’s original, containing the two alternative versions of her demise. These were, namely, that she was either bitten by an asp that had been smuggled in a water jar or she used a poisoned pin that she had hidden on her hair (R. St. 62.9-16 = Dind. 78.14-24).29 After relating how Augustus felt both pity and admiration for Cleopatra, Xiphilinos ends his description of her with a laconic statement that “thus Antonius and Cleopatra died” (R. St. 62.23-27 = Dind. 78.32-79.6). Although this narrative is mostly taken straight from Dio, it is noteworthy that again Xiphilinos chose to discard the original malicious comment that their death occurred “after causing many evils to Egyptians and Romans alike”. Indeed, it is clear that Xiphilinos left out not only the misogynistic aspects of Dio’s narrative, but also all the negative references to Cleopatra’s character in general. There is only one occasion where Xiphilinos retains something of Dio’s anti-Cleopatra sentiment: at the very beginning of his narrative, he quotes Dio that the Egyptians disliked the thought of being subjected as slaves to Cleopatra, and were soon after delivered to the Romans instead (R. St. 18.28-32 = Dind. 21.13-18). But here again Xiphilinos has changed the original undertone of Dio’s narrative, since the latter’s statement was meant to discredit Cleopatra. However, Xiphilinos inserts the addendum that this fate was “a just reward they [i.e. Egyptians] received for their cursed deeds”, and proceeds to implicate them in the murder of Pompeius Magnus. It is interesting that, while both Iulius Caesar and Marcus Antonius are depicted as lustful and flawed in Xiphilinos’ history, Cleopatra emerges as rather innocent by comparison. She is described as having been beautiful, wise and passionate, but still within the limits of decency. Xiphilinos’ portrayal does not suggest anything wrong with her general character; his only critical remark is that she lost her nerves in the heat of battle, but this was 29

Theories regarding Cleopatra’s suicide: Baldwin 1964, 181-182; Griffiths 1961, 113-118; Griffiths 1965, 209-211.

137

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

more likely a general objection to female participation in warfare rather than a slight on her character. Clearly, Xiphilinos was not motivated by the same issues as Dio, and therefore his version of events and their protagonists reflects his own agenda rather than that of Dio.

The Education of the Prince Apparent and the Purpose of the Epitome It is obvious that Xiphilinos purposefully provided a completely different image of Cleopatra than the one portrayed by Dio, which raises the question, what could explain these contrasting images of the Egyptian queen? Some light can possibly be shed on the issue by examining Xiphilinos’ work in its contemporary context. We know from Xiphilinos’ statement that he was writing during the reign of the emperor Michael VII Doukas (r. 1071-1078 CE) and that he was the nephew of the patriarch Ioannes VIII Xiphilinos (1064-1075).30 Since Xiphilinos implies that Michael VII was the sole ruler and that his uncle was still alive, he most likely wrote the Epitome sometime between 1071 and 1075. These were turbulent times in the history of the Byzantine Empire, with the power of Constantinople crumbling in the East after the battle of Manzikert, and the power of the Doukas dynasty likewise diminishing in the capital. 31 At the centre of these events was the empress Eudokia Makrembolitissa, the mother of Michael VII and for a time his co-ruler, and Michael Psellos, the young emperor’s adviser and tutor. Eudokia’s claim to power came through her late husband, Konstantinos X Doukas (r. 1059-1067), with whom she had had seven children, including the future emperor Michael

30

31

R. St. 68.28-69.5 = Dind. 87.1-13. For further analysis and translation of the passage, cf. below. Battle of Manzikert: Haldon 1999, 227-229; Doukas dynasty: Treadgold 2013, 279-280.

138

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

VII.32 At her husband’s death in 1067, she was left in charge of the Byzantine State as regent to Michael, who seems to have been still in his early teens at the time, and thus too young to accede to the throne. 33 By her side was Michael Psellos, whom Konstantinos X had been able to procure as a tutor for his son. Psellos had a strong personal connection with the Doukas family: he was close friends not only with Konstantinos X, but also with his brother the Caesar Ioannes Doukas.34 He was renowned for having reorganised Constantinople’s higher education system, together with his friends Konstantinos Leichoudes (the patriarch of Constantinople 10591063) and Ioannes Xiphilinos (the future patriarch), during the reign of Konstantinos IX Monomakhos (r. 1042-1055). The relationship between Eudokia and Psellos was not merely limited to their shared responsibility for the young prince’s education, since the two were close personal friends as well. In his writings Psellos refers to Eudokia’s father Ioannes Makrembolitissa as his “spiritual brother” and to the empress as his “niece”, but more than anything the close personal ties between the two are testified by the empress’ willingness to become the godmother to Psellos’ grandson.35 Furthermore, while the education of Michael VII was entrusted to Psellos, the paternal uncle of the young prince – the Caesar Ioannes Doukas – assisted in the day-to-day running of the Empire, while Psellos’ closest friend Ioannes Xiphilinos (the Elder) had by now succeeded as the patriarch of Constantinople. 36 As nephew of the patriarch, the younger Xiphilinos would have been ideally positioned at the centre of contemporary events, and, through his uncle’s connections, he

32

33

34 35 36

Five of the children were born before the accession of Konstantinos, while two more were born during his reign, cf. Garland 1999, 169. The precise age of Michael VII in 1067 is uncertain. Konstantinos and Eudokia seem to have married around 1050 and, as Michael was their eldest child, he must have been born in the early 1050s, making him just underage at the time. For the confusion regarding his age, cf. Garland 1999, 171; Treadgold 2013, 279, n. 46. Treadgold 2013, 275, 277-278; Wolska-Conus 1976, 223f. Garland 1999, 169; Kaldellis 2006, 15-16, 157-161. Angold 2008, 608; Garland 1999, 170-172.

139

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

was most likely personally acquainted with these dominant figures in the political, religious and cultural spheres of Constantinople at the time. It is a reasonable assumption that the younger Xiphilinos was influenced by his surroundings and absorbed some of the attitudes and opinions expressed in the social circles to which he belonged. Such social osmosis is natural and affects, to a certain extent, all historians and writers, who will thus end up imbuing the events they write about with the cultural tones of their own times. It is, therefore, interesting to note certain parallels between the character of Cleopatra in Xiphilinos’ Epitome and the treatment of Eudokia Makrembolitissa in Michael Psellos’ Chronographia, especially as both writers show some unusual similarities in their literary constructions and choices of topic. Moreover, in light of the especially close relations between Psellos and the uncle of the younger Xiphilinos, one cannot but wonder whether all these similarities were just caused by cultural osmosis, or whether they resulted from a more direct interaction between these two contemporary authors. Psellos, who was undoubtedly the most prolific literary figure of his time, composed texts on almost every possible subject, ranging from philosophical treatises to didactic poems.37 However, in the field of historiography he is known to have written only two accounts – the Historia Syntomos and the Chronographia – which are stylistically very different. The former concerned the history of the Byzantine Empire and its predecessor, Rome. It began in the time of Romulus and, after covering the reigns of kings and early consuls in a haphazard fashion (753-492 BCE), it jumped to the time of Iulius Caesar (59 BCE). From there, it proceeded to cover the essential details of each successive reign up to Basileios II (r. 976-1025), usually with the aid of some appropriate anecdotes. This work is highly problematic in nature, as it contains a large number of factual errors and, excluding the official title, it does not directly identify its author. This is in

37

Papaioannou 2013, 1-4; Treadgold 2013, 271, 281.

140

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

contrast to Psellos’ other works, in which he shamelessly glorifies his own accomplishments. These issues have led to serious doubts being raised regarding whether or not Psellos actually wrote the work. 38 The main cause for scepticism has been the lack of any reference to this work in Psellos’ later (and more serious) historiographical account, the Chronographia. However, this is based on the assumption that the Historia Syntomos was written as a serious scholarly exercise and intended for a wider audience, while in fact the work contains several aspects that suggest it was intended only for a very limited audience. Of significance is the text’s lack of a proemium, since practically every major work of history in the tenth and eleventh centuries contained one. These were usually very elaborate, introducing not only the author and his subject, but also the person to whom the work was dedicated.39 Instead, the author of the Historia Syntomos reveals the main subject of the work – the actions of past rulers – only when he makes the jump from the consuls of old to the time of Iulius Caesar, while simultaneously revealing his audience: As to the history of the consuls who were chosen yearly, and of the so-called tribunes after them, each in their separate years, I have decided to omit the rest, because it is determinated by that specific form of government and thus lacks the continuity of personal leadership; I shall occupy myself for you with the further history and start from the rule of Caesar Iulius, in order that you may either imitate the good deeds of the emperors, or criticise and despise the bad ones. (Hist. Synt. 15; tr. H.-G. Aerts 1990)

The direct reference to the reader shows that the work was intended to be read by an Emperor or a Prince Apparent. As Treadgold pointed out, at this time the only person who could have addressed an imperial person so directly was Michael Psellos, in his role as Michael VII Doukas’ tutor.40 38

39

40

For the main arguments in this debate, cf. Aerts 1990, IX–XV; Snipes 1982, 53-61; Treadgold 2013, 282–283. These Proemia could sometimes be several pages long, and very elaborate in structure and content, such as can be seen in the case of Ioannes Skylitzes (pp. 1-4 [ed. Thurn]), Michael Attaleiates (pp. 3-6 [ed. Bekker]) and Ioannes Zonaras (pp. 3-16 [ed. Pinder]). Treadgold 2013, 282.

141

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This assertion is supported by the title of the work, which refers to the author as “the extremely famous hypertimos Psellos”, and also by the judgment of a contemporary of the work, Ioannes Skylitzes (c. 1040-1100). He stated that, in his time, “the supremely honourable consul of the philosophers and hypertimos Psellos” was among those who had attempted to write about history, but had ended up providing “little more than calculations of the duration of each reign and reports on who held the sceptre after whom – no more”,41 a description quite accurate of the Historia Syntomos, but not that of the Chronographia. In addition, the Historia Syntomos contains some unusual words and phrases, some of which can only be found in Psellos’ other works, in addition to the more common antiquarian effects, such as Atticisms and the dual number.42 Thus, even with its shortcomings, the Historia Syntomos seems to have too much in common with Psellos’ style not to be counted as one of his works. The numerous factual errors and the sense of haste in completion can, on the other hand, be easily explained by seeing the work as a schoolbook dictated to a scribe for use in the education of young Michael VII. Rather than being a serious scholarly exercise aimed at an adult audience, its content and style show that it was intended to be read and understood by a boy who was possibly not yet in his teens. 43 Furthermore, if Psellos did not consider this work to be a serious study of the subject matter, he clearly would not have wished to advertise it in his other writings. Interestingly, it is these structural and thematic oddities that make a curious link between the Historia Syntomos and Xiphilinos’ Epitome. In addition to the fact that both works essentially deal with the same subject matter – the past

41 42 43

Skyl. p. 3.17-23 [ed. Thurn]. Treadgold 2013, 282-283. Treadgold (2013, 288) dates the Historia Syntomos to around 1061, at which time Michael VII would have been around 8-12 years of age. It is possible that the book was deposited in the imperial library after it was used to educate Michael VII, from where it was found by Ioannes Skylitzes. The fact that only a single copy of this work remains testifies either to its unpopularity or to its specific imperial purpose.

142

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

imperial lives – and are abounding with anecdotes, Xiphilinos’ Epitome also lacks a proemium, the story instead beginning abruptly from the consular elections of 69 BCE. It was only when Xiphilinos reached the reign of Augustus that he decided to add a short comment, quite similar to the one found in the chapter dealing with Iulius Caesar in the Historia Syntomos, which not only explained his intentions but also identified him as the epitomizer: It was in this way that he [i.e. Augustus] administered the empire; I shall relate each and every thing that is necessary, and especially so at the present moment, because a great deal for our lives and regime depends on remembering those critical times. I say this no longer as Dio of Prusa, who lived under the emperors Severus and Alexander, but as Ioannes Xiphilinos, the nephew of the Patriarch Ioannes, compiling this Epitome of Dio’s numerous books under the Emperor Michael Doukas. For truly, Augustus was famous for the manner of his administration and legislation. (R. St. 68.28-69.5 = Dind. 87.1-13)44

Although Xiphilinos does not provide much information about himself in the pages of the Epitome, on occasion he could not prevent himself from commenting on his subject matter. Some of these interpolations were mere notifications – statements of what other classical authors, such as Plutarch or Polybius, had to say about some specific issue. 45 Their function was principally to demonstrate the epitomizer’s own learning, as was the occasional use of more elaborate phraseology or terminology, such as dual numbers.46 However, Xiphilinos’ most interesting incursions into the narrative are his criticisms of Dio’s tendency to include every possible omen and supernatural event, in spite of the fact that these are mostly still included in his Epitome.47

44

45 46

47

For the confusion between Cassius Dio and his namesake Dio of Prusa in the Byzantine times, cf. Gowing 1990, 49-50. Mallan 2013, 617ff. Dual number: R. St. 32.22–25 = Dind. 39.31-40.3 (about Brutus and Cassius). For a list of Xiphilinos’ comments, cf. Treadgold 2013, 311, n. 11. R. St. 41.11-23 = Dind. 51.6-22.

143

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The relative anonymity of the epitomizer and his half-hearted criticism of the subject matter give the impression that the work was commissioned rather than being an independent scholarly exercise. In the latter case, one would expect the author to take more direct credit for his accomplishment and to leave out those supernatural aspects of Dio that he was so critical about. This leads to an interesting hypothesis: namely, that the similarities between the Historia Syntomos and the Epitome, along with the latter’s contradictionary elements, result from the two works being part of the same educational program. If the Epitome was commissioned for the use of Michael Doukas, then this would tie the younger Xiphilinos directly to both Michael Psellos and the Empress Eudokia Makrembolitissa, who were jointly responsible for the education of the heir to the throne.

Eudokia Makrembolitissa: The Model of a Woman in Power? This possible connection also raises another question: how deeply was Eudokia involved in the education of her son? Psellos, at least, suggests that she was intrinsically involved, stating in his other historical account – the Chronographia – that her late husband thought that she was the most qualified person to take care of the education of their children. Thus, if Eudokia was directly involved in the construction of a suitable curriculum and in supervising its enforcement, she would have been in an ideal position to provide a close and personal impression of how a woman with imperial powers could be to the younger Xiphilinos. This would only have reenforced the image of strong women in the mind of our epitomizer, as the eleventh century saw a growing number of women ruling in their own right, as well as those whose literary education matched that of the best of men. 48 48

In addition to Eudokia, eleventh-century Byzantium was famous for its rather independent women. Some, such as the empresses Zoe and Theodora, ruled for a short while in

144

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In light of the increasing prominence of women in politics and culture, the portrayal of Eudokia in Psellos’ Chronographia bears comparison with the depiction of Cleopatra in Xiphilinos’ Epitome. The Chronographia, which dealt with the history of the Byzantine rulers from Basileios II (r. 976-1025) to the early years of Michael VII Doukas, was highly rhetorical in nature and contained the typical hallmarks of Psellos’ shameless self-promotion. These manifested themselves not just in the underlining of his own superior intelligence, but also in the stressing of his close personal ties and influence with the Doukas dynasty.49 Considering the close personal relationship that Psellos had with Eudokia, it is not surprising that he gave a very favourable description of her, but his account goes beyond mere flattery. He does not simply engage in the standard literary practise of praising her beauty and kind nature, but also extols her intelligence and ability to rule in her own right: This lady was also of noble birth, a woman of great spirit and exceptional beauty, [...] In his (i.e. Konstantinos X’s) opinion she was the wisest woman of her time and he thought that no one was better qualified to educate his sons and daughters. [...] When the empress Eudokia, in accordance with the wishes of her husband, succeeded him as supreme ruler, she did not hand over the government to others. Far from choosing to spend most of her life in idleness at home, she assumed control of the whole administration in person. [...] She made herself conversant with all her duties, and wherever it was practicable, she took part in all the processes of government, the choice of magistrates, civil affairs, revenues and taxes. Her pronouncements had the note of authority which one associates with an emperor. Nor was this surprising, for she was in fact an exceedingly clever woman. (Chron. 7 (Konstantinos X) 7, 28; (Eudokia) 1; tr. E. R. A. Sewter 1966)

It should be noted that, although Psellos was writing in hindsight when Eudokia had already been ousted from power, he preferred to maintain a

49

their own right, while others, like Anna Dalassena, the mother of Alexios I Komnenos, served as regents of the State while the emperor was away. The literary achievements of Anna Komnena, for example, show the level of the formal literary education that a Byzantine upper-class woman could acquire; all of this demonstrates the extraordinary ability of strong female characters to break the social restrictions of the day. Cf. Hill 1996, 16-17. Treadgold 2013, 295.

145

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

very positive image of the empress. In itself, this is not completely surprising, since she was still the mother of the ruling monarch, and thus any negative presentation would have also reflected poorly on the emperor. But Eudokia seems to have enjoyed a rather positive image among other historians too, and she is credited with both a taste for literature and a talent for writing.50 She was also said to have a very keen head for politics, as can be seen from her manipulation of the patriarch Ioannes Xiphilinos: she persuaded him to lift the ban on her remarrying, and then circumvented the protests of both Psellos and the Caesar Ioannes Doukas to marry their political opponent Romanos IV Diogenes (r. 1067-1071).51 Although outmanoeuvred by Eudokia here, Psellos nevertheless continued as a tutor to Michael VII and was also made an adviser to Romanos, which in part explains his apologetic account of her motives: 52 I do not know whether any other woman ever set such an example of wisdom or lived a life comparable to hers, up to this point; I will not go so far as to say that she became less wise after this event, only that she lost some of her old precision: her ideas changed as she grew older. I would offer this defence on her behalf, that even if there was some alteration in her, she did not become a slave to pleasure or give way to voluptuous emotions. The truth is, she was very worried over her sons. She feared they might be deprived of the crown, if there were no one to protect and guide them. (Chron. 7 (Eudokia) 4; tr. E. R. A. Sewter 1966)53

While Psellos gives maternal fear as an excuse for Eudokia’s action, other historians state that it was the rising threat of the Seljuq Turks that caused her to remarry.54 In fact, none of our sources accuse her of being 50

51 52 53 54

Attaleiates (Hist. 99-101) introduces her acting in harmonious consort with the Senate in ruling the Empire, while Zonaras (18.9.21) follows Psellos’ statement that from Konstantinos X’s point of view she was the most competent person to educate their children and rule the Byzantine Empire. Eudokia is also credited as having written a poem about Ariadne and a dictionary of gods and heroes titled Ionia, although at least the latter of these is now generally believed to have been a sixteenth-century forgery, cf. Dorandi 2009, 194; Rambaud 1877, 273. Garland 1999, 173. Treadgold 2013, 279. Zonaras (18.10.8) also seems to follow Psellos’ assessment of Eudokia’s motivation. Attaleiates Hist. 99-101.

146

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

overly passionate or driven by her sexual desires, which were charges levelled against some of the previous empresses.55 The contemporary consensus that the living empress did not behave in an overtly promiscuous fashion could thus explain, in part, why Xiphilinos decided to omit Dio’s references to Cleopatra’s notoriously licentious behaviour. In spite of the authorial diplomacy, Eudokia’s remarriage led to serious tensions in the internal politics of Byzantium. These came to a climax when Romanos was captured by Alp Arslan in the battle of Manzikert and Michael VII was subsequently raised as emperor with his mother as coruler. This led to a confused situation, as those backing Michael, who was now of proper age, attempted to have him rule alone and remove his mother, while others tried to retain Eudokia as a shared custodian of power. In his own words, Psellos was left in the middle of this situation, trying to reunite mother and son, but the matter was not resolved until Romanos, having been released by the Seljuqs, suddenly returned to reclaim the throne.56 The ensuing chaos called for strong political decisions, but Eudokia, similarly to Cleopatra at Actium, broke down which effectively sealed her fate as she was consequently forced to step aside and acknowledge Michael VII as a sole ruler: Immediately there was wild confusion in the palace, with comings and goings everywhere. Some professed astonishment at the news, others could not believe it. Eudokia found herself in an embarrassing position. She was unable to decide what to do next. [...] Meanwhile those who were with the empress – and I was one of that number – not knowing what was happening, were almost petrified with fear. We thought that terrible things were about to befall us. The empress did indeed lose her nerve, and pulling her veil over her head she ran off to a secret crypt below ground. (7.18; tr. E. R. A. Sewter 1966)

Psellos’ overarching depiction of Eudokia’s capabilities as ruler is reminiscent to Xiphilinos’ descriptions of Cleopatra. Eudokia’s natural abilities 55

56

The Empress Zoe (1028-1042), in particular, seems to have had a number of consorts, cf. Garland 1999, 138. Angold 2008, 608-609; Garland 1999, 177; Treadgold 2013, 279.

147

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

as an administrator are not questioned; nor is her character, which is presented as having been both even-tempered and wise. The only thing that she lacks is expertise in matters of war and the army, which, due to her gender, she could never master; in fact, her inexperience in these fields seems to have been the very reason why she married Romanos in the first place. So, although women could clearly participate more freely in the administration of the state by the eleventh century, there still existed some restrictions to their gender. Even though one thousand years separated Eudokia and Cleopatra, it was these same limitations that led to both of their downfalls.

Conclusion The reasons why Xiphilinos decided to alter the image of Cleopatra so drastically cannot be explained with absolute certainty. He could have been influenced by the contemporary ideal of Cleopatra, which saw her not just as beautiful, but wise as well, and thus any discernible deviation from the popular image could have left him open to criticism. Moreover, the era when Xiphilinos was writing had its share of strong women, and the idea of a woman as a head of state was no longer as inconceivable as it had been in the third century when Cassius Dio authored his work. As Xiphilinos was writing when Empress Eudokia Makrembolitissa was or had just been at the height of her power, it would make perfect sense that he superimposed the contemporary image of a strong female ruler onto his historical account of Cleopatra. This would make particular sense if the younger Xiphilinos was in personal contact with the Empress, and therefore if his Epitome was part of the larger curriculum intended for the education of Michael VII Doukas. In eleventh-century Byzantine literature, the Historia Syntomos by Michael Psellos and the Epitome by Ioannes Xiphilinos share numerous

148

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

unique similarities that probably should be taken as an indication of a certain level of co-operative intention. If Psellos’ work is understood not as a serious work of scholarship, but instead as a quickly written schoolbook for the adolescent Michael VII, then Xiphilinos’ work could possibly have been meant as a continuation of the educational program, but for a more mature, almost adult Michael. If this is the case, then there is also the possibility that the Epitome by Xiphilinos was commissioned by Michael’s mother Eudokia Makrembolitissa, who is known to have had a deep appreciation of ancient literature, just as Psellos’ Historia Syntomos seems to have been commissioned by Michael’s father Konstantinos X. In effect, all the character traits of Xiphilinos’ Cleopatra can also be found in Psellos’ description of Eudokia. Both are stated to have been not just beautiful, but also wise and capable administrators in their own right. Just as Cleopatra is depicted as having been a strong and passionate woman who did not exceed the limits of decency, so too were Eudokia’s renewed marital relations said to have born out of a desire to protect both her children and the Byzantine State, rather than out of lust. In the end, the only flaw that is laden on their characters is that they were unable to hold their nerve in tight political situations, when steely calm was required from the ruler. As it is, the deliberate changes in the image of Cleopatra should serve as a reminder that we should be careful when interpreting those sections of Cassius Dio that originate from Xiphilinos, as clearly the images of individuals, their motives and even the course of events could well have been distorted from the original.

Bibliography Aerts 1990 = W.J. Aerts, Michaelis Pselli Historia Syntomos (editio princeps), Berlin and New York 1990. Angold 2008 = M. Angold, ‘Belle époque or Crisis? (1025-1118)’, in Shepard 2008, 583-626. Baldwin 1964 = B. Baldwin, ‘The Death of Cleopatra VII’, JEA 50 (1964), 181-182. Beard 2007 = M. Beard, The Roman Triumph, Cambridge and London 2007.

149

KAI JUNTUNEN _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Billows 2009 = R.A. Billows, Julius Caesar: the Colossus of Rome, Abingdon and New York, 2009. Boissevain 1895-1931 = U.P. Boissevain, Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum quae Supersunt, vols. I-V, Berlin 1895-1931. Brunt 1980 = P.A. Brunt, ‘On Historical Fragments and Epitomes’, CQ n.s. 30 (1980), 477494. Dindorf 1865 = L. Dindorf, Dionis Cassii Cocceiani Historia Romana, vol. V, Leipzig 1865. Dorandi 2009 = T. Dorandi, Laertiana: studi sulla tradizione manoscritta e sulla storia del testo delle Vite dei filosofi di Diogene Laerzio, Berlin and New York 2009. Garland 1999 = L. Garland, Byzantine Empresses. Women and Power in Byzantium AD 5271204, London 1999. Gowing 1990 = A.M. Gowing, ‘Dio’s Name’, CPh 85, 49-54. Green 1990 = P. Green, Alexander to Actium. The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1990. Griffiths 1961 = J.G. Griffiths, ‘The Death of Cleopatra VII’, JEA 47 (1961), 113-118. Griffiths 1965 = J.G. Griffiths, ‘The Death of Cleopatra VII: A Rejoinder and a Postscript’, JEA 51 (1965), 209-211. Haldon 1999 = J. Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204, London 1999. Hill 1996 = B. Hill, ‘The Ideal Imperial Komnenian Woman’, BF 23 (1996), 7-18. Hingley and Unwin 2006 = R. Hingley and C. Unwin, Boudica: Iron Age Warrior Queen, London and New York 2006. Huzar 1978 = E.G. Huzar, Mark Antony. A Biography, Minneapolis and Don Mills 1978. James 2008 = L. James, ‘The Role of Women’, in Jeffreys, Haldon and Cormack 2008, 643651. Jeffreys, Haldon and Cormack 2008 = E. Jeffreys, J.F. Haldon and R. Cormack (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Oxford and New York 2008. Kaldellis 2006 = A. Kaldellis, Mothers and Sons, Fathers and Daughters: the Byzantine Family of Michael Psellos, Notre Dame 2006. Lange 2011 = C.H. Lange, ‘The Battle of Actium: A Reconsideration’, CQ n.s. 61 (2011), 608-623. Mallan 2013 = C.T. Mallan, ‘The Style, Method, and Programme of Xiphilinos’ Epitome of Cassius Dio’s Roman History’, GRBS 53 (2013), 610-644. Millar 1964 = F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio, Oxford 1964. Osgood 2008 = J. Osgood, ‘Caesar and Nicomedes’, CQ 58 (2008), 687-691. Papaioannou 2013 = S. Papaioannou, Michael Psellos. Rhetoric and Authorship in Byzantium, Cambridge and New York 2013. Penner and Vander Stichele 2007 = T. Penner and C. Vander Stichele (eds.), Mapping Gender in Ancient Religious Discourses, Leiden 2007. Pyy 2011 = E. Pyy, ‘The Conflict Reconsidered: Cleopatra and the Civil War in the Early Imperial Epic’, Arctos 45 (2011), 77-102. Rambaud 1877 = A. Rambaud, ‘Michel Psellos’, RH 3 (1877), 241-82. Reinhold 1988 = M. Reinhold, From Republic to Principate. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books 49-52 (36-29 B.C.), Atlanta 1988. Schwartz 1899 = E. Schwartz, ‘Cassius (40)’, RE 3 (1899), cols. 1684-1722. Shepard 2008 = J. Shepard, The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, Cambridge and New York 2008. Snipes 1982 = K. Snipes, ‘A Newly Discovered History of the Roman Emperors by Michael Psellos’, JÖB 32.2 = Akten II/3, XVI. Internationaler Byzantinistenkongress (1982), 5361.

150

THE IMAGE OF CLEOPATRA IN IOANNES XIPHILINOS’ EPITOME OF CASSIUS DIO _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stephanus 1551 = R. Stephanus, Dionis Nicaei rerum Romanarum a Pompeio Magno ad Alexadrum Mamaeae, Epitome authore Ioanne Xiphilino, Paris 1551. Stratton 2007 = K.B. Stratton, ‘The Rhetoric of ‘Magic’ in Early Christian Discourse: Gender, Power, and the Construction of ‘Heresy’’, in Penner and Vander Stichele 2007, 89-114. Treadgold 2013 = W. Treadgold, The Middle Byzantine Historians, Houndmills 2013. Wolska-Conus 1976 = W. Wolska-Conus, ‘Les écoles de Psellos et de Xiphilin sous Constantin IX Monomaque’, T&M 6 (1976), 223-243.

151