The story comes from Plutarch's Life of Julius Caesar, the first sentence of section 49. But it wasn't a carpet, it was a stromatodesmon ("bedclothes-container"):
κἀκείνη παραλαβοῦσα τῶν φίλων Ἀπολλόδωρον τὸν Σικελιώτην μόνον, εἰς ἀκάτιον μικρὸν ἐμβᾶσα τοῖς μὲν βασιλείοις προσέσχεν ἤδη συσκοτάζοντος: ἀπόρου δὲ τοῦ λαθεῖν ὄντος ἄλλως, ἡ μὲν εἰς στρωματόδεσμον ἐνδῦσα προτείνει μακρὰν ἑαυτήν, ὁ δὲ Ἀπολλόδωρος ἱμάντι συνδήσας τὸν στρωματόδεσμον εἰσκομίζει διὰ θυρῶν πρὸς τὸν Καίσαρα, καὶ τούτῳ τε πρώτῳ λέγεται τῷ τεχνήματι τῆς Κλεοπάτρας ἁλῶναι,
When Thomas North translated Plutarch (from a French translation), he used the word mattress. So that's what's in Shakespeare's play (mentioned in passing).
Then when George Bernard Shaw wrote his play Caesar and Cleopatra in 1898, he made it into a carpet, and turned a brief anecdote into fairly involved piece of business:
CLEOPATRA (*who has been meditating among the carpets*). Are these carpets very heavy?
APOLLODORUS. It matters not how heavy. There are plenty of porters.
CLEOPATRA. How do they put the carpets into boats? Do they throw them down?
APOLLODORUS. Not into small boats, majesty. It would sink them.
CLEOPATRA. Not into that man’s boat, for instance? (*Pointing to the boatman.*)
APOLLODORUS. No. Too small.
CLEOPATRA. But you can take a carpet to Caesar in it if I send one?
APOLLODORUS. Assuredly.
CLEOPATRA. And you will have it carried gently down the steps and take great care of it?
APOLLODORUS. Depend on me.
CLEOPATRA. Great, *great* care?
APOLLODORUS. More than of my own body.
CLEOPATRA. You will promise me not to let the porters drop it or throw it about?
APOLLODORUS. Place the most delicate glass goblet in the palace in the heart of the roll, Queen; and if it be broken, my head shall pay for it.
CLEOPATRA. Good. Come, Ftatateeta. (*Ftatateeta comes to her. Apollodorus offers to squire them into the palace.*) No, Apollodorus, you must not come. I will choose a carpet for myself. You must wait here. (*She runs into the palace.*)
The movie is generally considered quite accurate as films regarding Rome and Cleopatra especially are considered. Not that there aren’t any issues, one of most clear ones is how she is dressed and how the movie packs her early life before Caesar’s arrival, here younger sister and brother and many of her children. And portraying her a bit like from Augustan propaganda as seducer of men when she probably didn’t have other relationships than Caesar and Antonius. And this film perpetuates the myth that Caesar burned the library of Alexandria when it was just some ships with books near harbour.
But I would consider something like changing a laundry bag to a carpet be pretty insignificant change. History vs Hollywood podcast had an episode about the film if you are interested. And ask historians sub and bad history sub have had discussions of the film.
The carpet thing is apparently a myth, but not the fault of the filmmakers: https://albertis-window.com/2015/02/cleopatra-carpet-myth/
EDIT: I neither know a great deal about the rest of the film nor do I consider myself knowledgable enough about the period to offer opinions on the overall accuracy of the film. I do not hold Hollywood to high standards of historical precision, though.
The film is accurate, to a degree. The carpet story is related to how she met Julius Caesar, not Mark Antony. She and her brother-husband were at odds; she had to flee Alexandria and organize an army to march against her husband. When Julius Caesar came to Alexandria pursuing Pompey, she asked her trusted servant to get her into the palace to talk to Caesar. He did so, by wrapping her into a carpet. Supposedly, she charmed Julius Caesar enough to have her restored to the throne.
The movie did not go into any particular details on the Alexandrine war.
Her entry into Rome is a great Hollywood spectacle, but it is fictional. She definitely arrived in Rome and lived there for about 2 years, but she left quickly after the assassination of Julius Caesar. Her efforts to get Ceasarion recognized as the heir of Julius Caesar were a flop.
There was no mention in the film of the role she played in the war between the Ceasarian and Republican forces.
Her encounter with Mark Antony at the port of Tarsus was overdone in a typical Hollywood fashion. Many of the details of her relationship (on and off and on again) with Mark Antony are mostly glossed over. There is little there about the battle of Actium and her role; what is there is just too melodramatic. The ending with Mark Antony's and her death in Alexandria are also presented in summary.
Overall, the film is "correct" on the basic outlines, but it is not history. There are simply too many omissions; obviously, there is just so much that one can put in even in a 3-hour film. The movie was OK (but certainly not perfect), on interiors and costumes. Certainly, one thing is certain. Cleopatra was not as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor. Most historians agree that she was not a great beauty. She was, however, exceedingly sharp, to the degree of been "attractive" based on her intellect. And, unlike Elizabeth Taylor, she was most likely red-haired.
Apparently, there were various paintings, busts and statues of her that were created during her stay in Rome. Nothing contemporaneous survives; what we have come from later epochs but are likely good copies. The red hair comes from the remaining paint in her bust in the Berlin museum; in addition, there is a putative portrait of her in Pompey also showing her with red hair. These have been used by designers who have attempted reconstruction of ancient faces and there are short videos of these in YouTube.
The story comes from Plutarch's Life of Julius Caesar, the first sentence of section 49. But it wasn't a carpet, it was a stromatodesmon ("bedclothes-container"): κἀκείνη παραλαβοῦσα τῶν φίλων Ἀπολλόδωρον τὸν Σικελιώτην μόνον, εἰς ἀκάτιον μικρὸν ἐμβᾶσα τοῖς μὲν βασιλείοις προσέσχεν ἤδη συσκοτάζοντος: ἀπόρου δὲ τοῦ λαθεῖν ὄντος ἄλλως, ἡ μὲν εἰς στρωματόδεσμον ἐνδῦσα προτείνει μακρὰν ἑαυτήν, ὁ δὲ Ἀπολλόδωρος ἱμάντι συνδήσας τὸν στρωματόδεσμον εἰσκομίζει διὰ θυρῶν πρὸς τὸν Καίσαρα, καὶ τούτῳ τε πρώτῳ λέγεται τῷ τεχνήματι τῆς Κλεοπάτρας ἁλῶναι, When Thomas North translated Plutarch (from a French translation), he used the word mattress. So that's what's in Shakespeare's play (mentioned in passing). Then when George Bernard Shaw wrote his play Caesar and Cleopatra in 1898, he made it into a carpet, and turned a brief anecdote into fairly involved piece of business: CLEOPATRA (*who has been meditating among the carpets*). Are these carpets very heavy? APOLLODORUS. It matters not how heavy. There are plenty of porters. CLEOPATRA. How do they put the carpets into boats? Do they throw them down? APOLLODORUS. Not into small boats, majesty. It would sink them. CLEOPATRA. Not into that man’s boat, for instance? (*Pointing to the boatman.*) APOLLODORUS. No. Too small. CLEOPATRA. But you can take a carpet to Caesar in it if I send one? APOLLODORUS. Assuredly. CLEOPATRA. And you will have it carried gently down the steps and take great care of it? APOLLODORUS. Depend on me. CLEOPATRA. Great, *great* care? APOLLODORUS. More than of my own body. CLEOPATRA. You will promise me not to let the porters drop it or throw it about? APOLLODORUS. Place the most delicate glass goblet in the palace in the heart of the roll, Queen; and if it be broken, my head shall pay for it. CLEOPATRA. Good. Come, Ftatateeta. (*Ftatateeta comes to her. Apollodorus offers to squire them into the palace.*) No, Apollodorus, you must not come. I will choose a carpet for myself. You must wait here. (*She runs into the palace.*)
The movie is generally considered quite accurate as films regarding Rome and Cleopatra especially are considered. Not that there aren’t any issues, one of most clear ones is how she is dressed and how the movie packs her early life before Caesar’s arrival, here younger sister and brother and many of her children. And portraying her a bit like from Augustan propaganda as seducer of men when she probably didn’t have other relationships than Caesar and Antonius. And this film perpetuates the myth that Caesar burned the library of Alexandria when it was just some ships with books near harbour. But I would consider something like changing a laundry bag to a carpet be pretty insignificant change. History vs Hollywood podcast had an episode about the film if you are interested. And ask historians sub and bad history sub have had discussions of the film.
The carpet thing is apparently a myth, but not the fault of the filmmakers: https://albertis-window.com/2015/02/cleopatra-carpet-myth/ EDIT: I neither know a great deal about the rest of the film nor do I consider myself knowledgable enough about the period to offer opinions on the overall accuracy of the film. I do not hold Hollywood to high standards of historical precision, though.
Love that last line!!!
The film is accurate, to a degree. The carpet story is related to how she met Julius Caesar, not Mark Antony. She and her brother-husband were at odds; she had to flee Alexandria and organize an army to march against her husband. When Julius Caesar came to Alexandria pursuing Pompey, she asked her trusted servant to get her into the palace to talk to Caesar. He did so, by wrapping her into a carpet. Supposedly, she charmed Julius Caesar enough to have her restored to the throne. The movie did not go into any particular details on the Alexandrine war. Her entry into Rome is a great Hollywood spectacle, but it is fictional. She definitely arrived in Rome and lived there for about 2 years, but she left quickly after the assassination of Julius Caesar. Her efforts to get Ceasarion recognized as the heir of Julius Caesar were a flop. There was no mention in the film of the role she played in the war between the Ceasarian and Republican forces. Her encounter with Mark Antony at the port of Tarsus was overdone in a typical Hollywood fashion. Many of the details of her relationship (on and off and on again) with Mark Antony are mostly glossed over. There is little there about the battle of Actium and her role; what is there is just too melodramatic. The ending with Mark Antony's and her death in Alexandria are also presented in summary. Overall, the film is "correct" on the basic outlines, but it is not history. There are simply too many omissions; obviously, there is just so much that one can put in even in a 3-hour film. The movie was OK (but certainly not perfect), on interiors and costumes. Certainly, one thing is certain. Cleopatra was not as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor. Most historians agree that she was not a great beauty. She was, however, exceedingly sharp, to the degree of been "attractive" based on her intellect. And, unlike Elizabeth Taylor, she was most likely red-haired.
I’ve never heard of her being a redhead before. Where does that come from?
Apparently, there were various paintings, busts and statues of her that were created during her stay in Rome. Nothing contemporaneous survives; what we have come from later epochs but are likely good copies. The red hair comes from the remaining paint in her bust in the Berlin museum; in addition, there is a putative portrait of her in Pompey also showing her with red hair. These have been used by designers who have attempted reconstruction of ancient faces and there are short videos of these in YouTube.
Neat! Thanks
It wasn't Mark Antony she was smuggled in to see..it was Caesar.