Cleopatra. It was a bold act, in such an ode, to praise the victor's
foe. Yet he did it, and his words, which are equivalent to a deed, are
among this greatly misjudged woman's fairest claims to renown.

Unfortunately it proved less potent than the opinion of Dio, who often
distorted what Plutarch related, but probably followed most closely the
farce or the popular tales which, in Rome, did not venture to show the
Egyptian in a favourable light.

The Greek Plutarch, who lived much nearer the period of our heroine than
Dio, estimated her more justly than most of the Roman historians. His
grandfather had heard many tales of both Cleopatra and Antony from his
countryman Philotas, who, during the brilliant days when they revelled in
Alexandria, had lived there as a student. Of all the writers who
describe the Queen, Plutarch is the most trustworthy, but even his
narrative must be used with caution. We have closely followed the clear
and comprehensive description given by Plutarch of the last days of our
heroine. It bears the impress of truth, and to deviate widely from it
would be arbitrary.

Unluckily, Egyptian records contain nothing which could have much weight
in estimating the character of Cleopatra, though we have likenesses
representing the Queen alone, or with her son Caesarion. Very recently
(in 1892) the fragment of a colossal double statue was found in
Alexandria, which can scarcely be intended for any persons except
Cleopatra and Antony hand in hand. The upper part of the female figure
is in a state of tolerable preservation, and shows a young and attractive
face. The male figure was doubtless sacrificed to Octavianus's command
to destroy Antony's statues. We are indebted to Herr Dr. Walther, in
Alexandria, for an excellent photograph of this remarkable piece of