6 - 12 September 2001
Issue No.550
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 6 - 12 September 2001 Issue No.550 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
It's mind that matters
In April, a British Museum exhibition of statues and antiques belonging to the Ptolemaic queen prompted Egyptian and British archaeologists to argue about the secret of Cleopatra's influence: was it physical beauty or mental genius? The squabble, blown out of all proportion by the media, was probably no more than a publicity stunt engineered by the British Museum to attract as many visitors as possible. Many followed the dispute with rapt attention, yet four months on it seems a silly anecdote of little relevance to the public. The British authorities, concerned about the decline of tourism in the wake of the mad-cow scare, may indeed have sought to turn a minor incident into newspaper headlines; the decline in tourism had been such that the prime minister ordered his cabinet to spend the Easter holidays in Britain to help compensate the losses incurred.
Still, the philosophical debate that seems to underpin the dispute -- is the body or the mind at the centre of human (and in this case, significantly, female) endeavour? -- is of timeless relevance. In this sense, at least, one can report on both viewpoints from the perspective of philosophical curiosity. What is at stake, put simply, is whether Cleopatra was, as is often reported, extraordinarily beautiful; if not for her beauty, so the thesis goes, how could she have seduced two of the Roman Empire's greatest leaders? But was it really physical beauty? runs the antithesis; wasn't Cleopatra's beauty in essence a metaphor for the majestic intelligence to which both Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony fell prey? Lesser versions of the dichotomy invoke feminine allure vs female shrewdness, intoxicating coquetry vs sobering persuasion... All run along similar lines: was Cleopatra's achievement due to concrete/ physical or abstract/ spiritual reasons?
The Egyptian panel seems to have favoured the beauty thesis. If it did not reflect a disastrously stereotypical thought pattern, the predictability of this position would be amusing. Without a perfectly proportioned body, two appropriately dreamy eyes and an excess of sex appeal, Egyptian men are apt to believe, no woman could attract a powerful man.
Yet surely intelligence and spirit have something to do with attractiveness. In modern times, indeed, the most celebrated seductresses have not necessarily been the most beautiful damsels. Monica Lewinsky, who proved the undoing of President Clinton (a handsome and intelligent as well as a powerful man), has a plain baby face and a figure that could only be judged harshly by the exacting standards of today. In her case, however, intelligence and spirit seem to be equally lacking; had she possessed them in sufficient quantities, she would have kept her job or got her man. Nor was the Duchess of Windsor, for whom the Duke of Windsor abdicated, as beautiful, by conventional standards, as she was intelligent and charismatic. Egypt's greatest authors and intellectuals competed for the attention of writer May Ziyadeh, not because of her feminine allure but because of her intellectual power and literary talent.
Perhaps one could sketch out a possible synthesis. Cleopatra may have been extraordinarily beautiful; but it wasn't her beauty that enabled her to rule Egypt, influencing the course of ancient history and exercising a hold over two of Rome's most intelligent and powerful men.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page