#Part 1/2: Why the statue has traditionally been assumed to have existed and why Caesar might have dedicated it

There are a couple of layers to this question and scholars still debate a lot of the fine points but there is a pretty clear answer to the gist of your question. Your co-worker probably read that somewhere and is basically right on all counts unless certain newer theories about the origin of the statue story are correct.

Firstly, we can be certain that Cleopatra was worshipped and portrayed as a deity while she was alive although she continued to be given divine honours in some Egyptian temples until at least the 4th Century AD. Pharaohs and Ptolemaic royals were considered to be divine, and received divine honours in temples and sanctuaries throughout the Ptolemaic Kingdom which at certain points (including the reign of Cleopatra) extended as far as Greece and Asia Minor. As part of the royal pair, Cleopatra was given epithets like Thea Philopator (the Goddess who loves her Father) which clearly denote her divine status. Artistic and architectural images of her also prominently display divine iconography like the knotted robe of Isis, the cornucopia of Aphrodite, the horns of Hathor, and even the Macedonian diadem which held divine connotations.

Beyond the usual divinity of Ptolemaic kings and queens, Cleopatra was supposedly the living incarnation of Isis, the Egyptian goddess of magic, kingship and marriage. Isis was conflated with the Roman goddess Venus because both were considered to be patrons of marriage, victory, seafaring, among other things. Cleopatra’s individual worship probably never spread to the city of Rome itself, but the Egyptian goddess Isis had been worshipped throughout Italy, and indeed other parts of Europe, for centuries. As a result of the unclear connection between worship of Isis and Cleopatra, many Roman politicians were uncomfortable with the cult’s presence, none more so than Augustus. At the same time it is worth noting that the cult drew criticism for other reasons as well, namely that it was un-Roman and that it was dangerous to Roman society as a result.

Cleopatra’s personal cult did extend into those eastern parts of the Roman Republic that she influenced. On some rare denarii of Antony and Cleopatra, she is styled as Neotera Thea (The Youngest Goddess) and accounts of her meeting with Antony in Tarsus (modern day Turkey) imply that her reputation as a goddess preceded her. On this occasion, the word apparently went out that Venus herself had sailed to Tarsus with the intention of meeting with Dionysius, Antony’s patron deity and one whom the Roman triumvir tried very hard to associate himself with.

Caesar certainly was not afraid of the un-Roman when it suited him, and like many other Roman generals he greatly admired men like Alexander the Great (a divine king), and Venus was Caesar’s personal patron deity. More than that, Caesar claimed that his family was directly descended from Venus through Aeneas, a Trojan demi-god and one of the mythical founders of Rome.

We do have accounts of Julius Caesar placing a gilded statue of Cleopatra in the Temple of Venus Genetrix that he dedicated in 46 BCE. We also have later accounts of authors who personally saw a statue of Cleopatra in the Forum Iulium at Rome. For example, Appian (an unreliable narrator) recounted in the 2nd Century AD that:

He [Caesar] set up a beautiful statue of Cleopatra next to the goddess [Venus]; it still stands there today

We have statues and busts of Cleopatra from Italy that were very likely based on an earlier statue of Cleopatra that would have been commissioned during her lifetime. These include the Esquiline Venus, the Vatican Bust of Cleopatra, and the Berlin Bust of Cleopatra. Additionally, a mural of the Temple of Venus Genetrix which portrays a statue of Venus that bears strong similarities to Cleopatra. These portraits bear many similarities to each other and most notably, the Vatican bust has a lump of marble on Cleopatra’s face where something sizeable was hacked off. The placement of this lump corresponds to where the infant Cupid, theorised to represent Caesarion, is reaching for his mother’s face in the Pompeiian mural. This has led to speculation that the statue of Cleopatra was vandalised to remove Caesarion’s image, an erasure which Octavian is believed to have carried out quite extensively after Cleopatra’s death. This is actually an unusually strong corpus of evidence for a statue that no longer exists but it is not definitive proof.

In “Caesar, Cleopatra, and the Politics of Divinity” Elizabeth Bews pointed out that by placing such a statue in the temple to his ancestress, Caesar was essentially hijacking Cleopatra’s divinity to add prestige to himself. If she was a monarch and a goddess but still deferent to him, than what did that say about his role in the Hellenistic eastern Mediterranean?

The timing of Caesar’s supposed dedication of the statue of Cleopatra is interesting because it coincides with a number of events, some of which make it more likely and some less. This would have occurred during his dedication of the temple in 46 BCE, as thanks to Venus for granting him victory over Pompey the Great. This same conflict was responsible for the meeting of Caesar and Cleopatra, and greatly influenced the shape of the Alexandrian War. Caesar’s triumphal celebrations even included a celebration of his victory over Cleopatra’s rivals Ptolemy XIII and Arsinoe IV in Egypt.

The fact that Cleopatra visited Rome around this time where Caesar very likely met Caesarion, his illegitimate son by her, is also significant. Caesar had originally promised to dedicate the temple to Venus Victrix patron of victory but he ended up dedicating the temple to Venus Genetrix patron marriage and motherhood. Part of Caesar’s motivation for this change was likely honouring his ancestors and highlighting his own aristocratic (and allegedly divine) background, but another factor may have been the birth of Caesarion who is usually thought to be the dictator’s only biological son. At the same time, it is also possible that Caesarion was in fact born after Caesar’s death, having been conceived sometime before the Ides of March. I find that possibility to be less likely given that the majority of the evidence points towards a birth in late 47 BCE but it is possible.

Lastly, and in my opinion least probable, Caesar may have placed a statue of Cleopatra in the Temple of Venus Genetrix as an act of romantic devotion. The historians Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and Plutarch imply that he was infatuated with her and Dio claims that their affair in Rome brought censure on not only them, but their spouses as well. However, these three are the trinity of gossip mills and there was probably not a semi-plausible rumour that went unrepeated by at least one of them. It is far more likely that the relationship between Caesar and Cleopatra was one of realpolitik, albeit an affectionate one. Ultimately the idea of Caesar taking such a step out of love with no consideration of the political and social ramifications is unlikely at best although it has been given attention by modern authors.

Overall, the last few years of Caesar’s life are muddled by rumour, drama and fragmented information. There are many accounts of him acting in an egotistical or power hungry fashion and many accounts of him taking pains to preserve his image as a servant of the Republic. We have plenty of eyewitness accounts or references to eyewitness accounts from those close to him, but even ignoring the outright lying which certainly occurred, we have to deal with the uncertainty of anecdotal accounts. Exactly where one line of propaganda ends and another begins is unclear.

Caesar might well have decided to place a statue of Venus in the Temple of Venus Genetrix for any number of reasons, but it is important to remember that all the speculation in the world will not actually uncover motivations which were left unrecorded.

Continued Below: