Interesting subject. We can try to know if Cleopatra was beautiful by investigating what we mean by “beautiful” today. I think that we are not talking about bea

Interesting subject. We can try to know if Cleopatra was beautiful by investigating what we mean by “beautiful” today. I think that we are not talking about beauty but about attractiveness. Or we may say that these words are synonymes. So the first thing we notice is that beauty has nothing to do with facial features. So, Cleopatra’s bust shown in the article, even if it’s her likeness, is hot much help. Unless a woman has grotesques features as if she came out of a Goya drawing, any woman can be made bautiful by make up and by what she wears regardless of the shape of her nose or her lips or her eyes. This is a given. We know this because there is no standard of beauty as in Greek sculptures. Such a woman does not exist. Beauty is not a question of perfect proportions. Look at the pictures of Marie-Antoinette. She had an army of maids who cared for her hair, her make up, her nails... she was the most maintenence-extensive woman in the world. Her dresses alone supported many tailors in Paris. Her perfumes, her jewelry... she was a fashion industry on her own. But all other women on the land, except other royals and semi royals, looked like peasants. And now look at women today. There is a beauty and maintenance industry serving all women. French revolution democratized beauty industry. Real slogan of the revolution must have been: Liberté, égalité, fraternité, beauté. What was only available to Marie-Antoinette is available to every woman today. They say that French peasant women were the initiary and sole beneficiary of the French revolution. (Peasant women were in front lines of the crowd who stormed Bastille.) There is some truth to this. Because women were jealous of Marie-Antoinette not because she said “let them eat cake” but because she was so well maintained. Before Marie-Antoinette there was the oldest certified beauty, the so- called Knidos Afrodite who was famous for covering her front with her hand in the most suggestive way. She was the initiator of women’s art of revealing by hiding. So Marie-Antoinette was beautiful in most expensive and expansive way but Knidos Afrodite was beautiful in her nakedness. Therefore, a woman can be beautiful in myriad ways. Also a woman you are courting may appear so beautiful and attractive and irresistible but a year after you got married she may lose all of her attractiveness and became the Mommy. As they say, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Now I am not sure if Cleopatra used make up. Probably she did. But I’m sure she used theatrical outfits and made grand entrances. She must have used exotic perfumes. So in her case too her facial features are not relevant. She knew how to show herself as attractive. Furthermore, as much as powerful men are attractive to women, powerful women are attractive to men. And she was an Egytian queen! You cannot get more powerful than that? More importantly perhaps, royals of those times were experts in propaganda. After all these kings and queens sold themselves to the people as representatives of Gods on earth. Or they even claimed to be Gods themselves. Alexander the Great marketed himself as a powerful God destined to conquer the entire world and he was so succesful that most cities surrendered just by hearing his name. Similarly, Cleopatra must have marketed herself as the most beautiful woman on earth. And when men lucky enough to have her intimate presence no doubt saw Cleopatra the myth rather than an ordinary woman. Another mystery is that some women have something called “sex appeal.” We don’t know what this is or how it is obtained. Some women have it, others don’t. Sophia Loren had it. Maybe Cleopatra had it too, who knows. Also women at Clopatra’s time were slaves. They were literally men’s slaves. They were not even allowed to leave the house. They cooked, they cleaned and gave birth for the man to continue his line. So women were dirty. Their prime was probably between the age of 14 and 18 after that they were old and ugly. Don’t forget that they didn’t have dentists then. Even kings and queens had missing teeth. Women did not wear bras. So women at home, even royal woman at home in Rome, might not be as well-maintened and attractive as Cleopatra. Don’t underestimate also the exoticness factor. Consider Matisse’s odalisque paintings. They were exotic. For Europeans the idea of a harem was exotic. Therefore, many European men made trips to the east imagining that women there looked like odalisques in a Matisse paintings. Of course they were disappointed. Cleopatra was exotic for European men she aimed at. She must have emphisized her exoticness. So what about naked Cleopatra? Was she beautiful? Does it matter that she was or was not beautiful at that stage, in the bedroom? She was -I am sorry to put it in a slangy way- nothing more than a huge conquest for Ceasar or Mark Anthony. So beauty appears to be irrelavant. What is relevant is to package oneself -as a woman- as a prize most difficult to conquer. It’s really marketing, as all women know. Because women know that, when naked they are more or less the same. They need to differentiate themselves by creating a story irresistable to men they target. I’m sure Cleopatra was a master of manipulation and knew how to use her self-promotion and marketing powers to get what she wanted. So, what I’m trying to say is that this is a very complicated subject. But I believe that attractiveness has nothing to do with facial features. And some women do not want to be called beautiful or attractive and may be offended if you call them beautiful.