Editing Antony and Cleopatra (section)

=== Structure: Egypt and Rome ===

[[File:Cleopatra greets Antony.jpg|thumb|A drawing by Faulkner of Cleopatra greeting Antony]]
The relationship between Egypt and Rome in ''Antony and Cleopatra'' is central to understanding the plot, as the dichotomy allows the reader to gain more insight into the characters, their relationships, and the ongoing events that occur throughout the play. Shakespeare emphasises the differences between the two nations with his use of language and literary devices, which also highlight the different characterisations of the two countries by their own inhabitants and visitors. Literary critics have also spent many years developing arguments concerning the "masculinity" of Rome and the Romans and the "femininity" of Egypt and the Egyptians. In traditional criticism of ''Antony and Cleopatra'', "Rome has been characterised as a male world, presided over by the austere Caesar, and Egypt as a female domain, embodied by a Cleopatra who is seen to be as abundant, leaky, and changeable as the Nile".<ref name="Harris" /> In such a reading, male and female, Rome and Egypt, reason and emotion, and austerity and leisure are treated as mutually exclusive binaries that all interrelate with one another. The straightforwardness of the binary between male Rome and female Egypt has been challenged in later 20th-century criticism of the play: "In the wake of feminist, poststructuralist, and cultural-materialist critiques of gender essentialism, most modern Shakespeare scholars are inclined to be far more skeptical about claims that Shakespeare possessed a unique insight into a timeless 'femininity'."<ref name="Harris" /> As a result, critics have been much more likely in recent years to describe Cleopatra as a character that confuses or deconstructs gender than as a character that embodies the feminine.<ref name="Schafer" />

==== Literary devices used to convey the differences between Rome and Egypt ====

In ''Antony and Cleopatra'', Shakespeare uses several literary techniques to convey a deeper meaning about the differences between Rome and Egypt. One example of this is his schema of the container as suggested by critic Donald Freeman in his article, "The rack dislimns." In his article, Freeman suggests that the container is representative of the body and the overall theme of the play that "knowing is seeing."<ref name="Freeman" /> In literary terms a schema refers to a plan throughout the work, which means that Shakespeare had a set path for unveiling the meaning of the "container" to the audience within the play. An example of the body in reference to the container can be seen in the following passage:

<blockquote><poem>
Nay, but this dotage of our general's
O'erflows the measure ...
His captain's heart,
Which in the scuffles of great fights hath burst
The buckles on his breast, reneges all temper
And is become the bellows and the fan
To cool a gypsy's lust. (1.1.1–2, 6–10)
</poem></blockquote>

The lack of tolerance exerted by the hard-edged Roman military code allots to a general's dalliance is metaphorised as a container, a measuring cup that cannot hold the liquid of Antony's grand passion.<ref name="Freeman" /> Later we also see Antony's heart-container swells again because it "o'erflows the measure." For Antony, the container of the Rome-world is confining and a "measure", while the container of the Egypt-world is liberating, an ample domain where he can explore.<ref name="Freeman" /> The contrast between the two is expressed in two of the play's famous speeches:

<blockquote><poem>
Let Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch
Of the ranged empire fall! Here is my space!
Kingdoms are clay!
(1.1.34–36)
</poem></blockquote>

For Rome to "melt is for it to lose its defining shape, the boundary that contains its civic and military codes."<ref name="Freeman" /> This schema is important in understanding Antony's grand failure because the Roman container can no longer outline or define him—even to himself. Conversely we come to understand Cleopatra in that the container of her mortality can no longer restrain her. Unlike Antony whose container melts, she gains a sublimity being released into the air.<ref name="Freeman" />

In her article "Roman World, Egyptian Earth", critic Mary Thomas Crane introduces another symbol throughout the play: The [[classical element#Classical elements in Greece|four elements]]. In general, characters associated with Egypt perceive their world composed of the Aristotelian elements, which are earth, wind, fire and water. For [[Aristotle]] these physical elements were the centre of the universe and appropriately Cleopatra heralds her coming death when she proclaims, "I am fire and air; my other elements/I give to baser life", (5.2.289–290).<ref name="Crane" /> Romans, on the other hand, seem to have left behind that system, replacing it with a subjectivity separated from and overlooking the natural world and imagining itself as able to control it. These differing systems of thought and perception result in very different versions of nation and empire. Shakespeare's relatively positive representation of Egypt has sometimes been read as nostalgia for an heroic past. Because the [[Aristotle#Physics|Aristotelian elements]] were a declining theory in Shakespeare's time, it can also be read as nostalgia for a waning theory of the material world, the pre-seventeenth-century cosmos of elements and [[Humorism|humours]] that rendered subject and world deeply interconnected and saturated with meaning.<ref name="Crane" /> Thus this reflects the difference between the Egyptians who are interconnected with the elemental earth and the Romans in their dominating the hard-surfaced, impervious world.

Critics also suggest that the political attitudes of the main characters are an [[allegory]] for the political atmosphere of Shakespeare's time. According to Paul Lawrence Rose in his article "The Politics of ''Antony and Cleopatra''", the views expressed in the play of "national solidarity, social order and strong rule"<ref name="Politics" /> were familiar after the [[Absolute monarchy|absolute monarchies]] of [[Henry VII of England|Henry VII]] and [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]] and the political disaster involving [[Mary Queen of Scots]]. Essentially the political themes throughout the play are reflective of the different models of rule during Shakespeare's time. The political attitudes of Antony, Caesar, and Cleopatra are all basic archetypes for the conflicting sixteenth-century views of kingship.<ref name="Politics" /> Caesar is representative of the ideal king, who brings about the [[Pax Romana]] similar to the political peace established under [[Tudor dynasty|the Tudors]]. His cold demeanour is representative of what the sixteenth century thought to be a side-effect of political genius.<ref name="Politics" /> Conversely, Antony's focus is on valour and [[chivalry]], and Antony views the political power of victory as a by-product of both. Cleopatra's power has been described as "naked, hereditary, and despotic",<ref name="Politics" /> and it is argued that she is reminiscent of [[Mary I of England|Mary Tudor's]] reign—implying it is not coincidence that she brings about the "doom of Egypt." This is in part due to an emotional comparison in their rule. Cleopatra, who was emotionally invested in Antony, brought about the downfall of Egypt in her commitment to love, whereas Mary Tudor's emotional attachment to [[Catholicism]] fates her rule. The political implications within the play reflect on Shakespeare's England in its message that Impact is not a match for Reason.<ref name="Politics" />

==== The characterization of Rome and Egypt ====

Critics have often used the opposition between Rome and Egypt in ''Antony and Cleopatra'' to set forth defining characteristics of the various characters. While some characters are distinctly Egyptian, others are distinctly Roman, some are torn between the two, and still others attempt to remain neutral.<ref name="Hirsh" /> Critic James Hirsh has stated that, "as a result, the play dramatises not two but four main figurative locales: Rome as it is perceived from a Roman point of view; Rome as it is perceived from an Egyptian point of view; Egypt as it is perceived from a Roman point of view; and Egypt as it is perceived from an Egyptian point of view."<ref name="Hirsh" />{{rp|p.175}}

===== Rome from the Roman perspective =====
According to Hirsh, Rome largely defines itself by its opposition to Egypt.<ref name="Hirsh" />{{rp|p.167–77}} Where Rome is viewed as structured, moral, mature, and essentially masculine, Egypt is the polar opposite; chaotic, immoral, immature, and feminine. In fact, even the distinction between masculine and feminine is a purely Roman idea which the Egyptians largely ignore. The Romans view the "world" as nothing more than something for them to conquer and control. They believe they are "impervious to environmental influence"<ref name="Crane" /> and that they are not to be influenced and controlled by the world but vice versa.

===== Rome from the Egyptian perspective =====
The Egyptians view the Romans as boring, oppressive, strict and lacking in passion and creativity, preferring strict rules and regulations.<ref name="Hirsh" />{{rp|p.177}}

===== Egypt from the Egyptian perspective =====
The Egyptian worldview reflects what Mary Floyd-Wilson has called geo-humoralism, or the belief that climate and other environmental factors shapes racial character.<ref>Floyd-Wilson, Mary (2003). ''English Ethnicity and Race in Early Modern Drama''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–2. {{ISBN|0-521-81056-6}}.</ref> The Egyptians view themselves as deeply entwined with the natural "earth". Egypt is not a location for them to rule over, but an inextricable part of them. Cleopatra envisions herself as the embodiment of Egypt because she has been nurtured and moulded by the environment<ref name="Crane" /> fed by "the dung, / The beggar's nurse and Caesar's" (5.2.7–8). They view life as more fluid and less structured allowing for creativity and passionate pursuits.

===== Egypt from the Roman perspective =====
The Romans view the Egyptians essentially as improper. Their passion for life is continuously viewed as irresponsible, indulgent, over-sexualised and disorderly.<ref name="Hirsh" />{{rp|p.176–77}} The Romans view Egypt as a distraction that can send even the best men off course. This is demonstrated in the following passage describing Antony.

<blockquote><poem>
Boys who, being mature in knowledge,
Pawn their experience to their present pleasure,
And so rebel judgment.
(1.4.31–33)
</poem></blockquote>

Ultimately the dichotomy between Rome and Egypt is used to distinguish two sets of conflicting values between two different locales. Yet, it goes beyond this division to show the conflicting sets of values not only between two cultures but within cultures, even within individuals.<ref name="Hirsh" />{{rp|p.180}} As John Gillies has argued "the 'orientalism' of Cleopatra's court—with its luxury, decadence, splendour, sensuality, appetite, effeminacy and eunuchs—seems a systematic inversion of the legendary Roman values of temperance, manliness, courage".<ref>Gillies, John (1994). ''Shakespeare and the Geography of Difference''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 118. {{ISBN|0-521-45853-6}}.</ref> While some characters fall completely into the category of Roman or Egyptian (Octavius as Roman, Cleopatra Egyptian) others, such as Antony, cannot choose between the two conflicting locales and cultures. Instead he oscillates between the two. In the beginning of the play Cleopatra calls attention to this saying

<blockquote><poem>
He was dispos'd to mirth, but on the sudden
A Roman thought hath strook him.
(1.2.82–83)
</poem></blockquote>

This shows Antony's willingness to embrace the pleasures of Egyptian life, yet his tendency to still be drawn back into Roman thoughts and ideas.

Orientalism plays a very specific, and yet, nuanced role in the story of Antony and Cleopatra. A more specific term comes to mind, from Richmond Barbour, that of proto-orientalism, that is orientalism before the age of imperialism.<ref>Barbour, Richmond. ''Before Orientalism: London's Theatre of the East 1576–1626''. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.</ref> This puts Antony and Cleopatra in an interesting period of time, one that existed before the West knew much about what would eventually be called the Orient, but still a time where it was known that there were lands beyond Europe. This allowed Shakespeare to use widespread assumptions about the "exotic" east with little academic recourse. It could be said that Antony and Cleopatra and their relationship represent the first meeting of the two cultures in a literary sense, and that this relationship would lay the foundation for the idea of Western superiority vs. Eastern inferiority.<ref>Al-Dabbagh, Abdulla. ''Literary Orientalism, Postcolonialism, and Universalism''. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Print.</ref> The case could also be made that at least in a literary sense, the relationship between Antony and Cleopatra was some people's first exposure to an inter-racial relationship, and in a major way. This plays into the idea that Cleopatra has been made out to be an "other", with terms used to describe her like "gypsy".<ref name="Crane" /> And it is this otherization that is at the heart of the piece itself, the idea that Antony, a man of Western origin and upbringing has coupled himself with the Eastern women, the stereotypical "other".<ref>Gajowski, Evelyn. ''The Art of Loving: Female Subjectivity and Male Discursive Traditions in Shakespeare's Tragedies''. Newark: University of Delaware, 1992. Print.</ref>

==== Evolving views of critics regarding gender characterizations ====
[[File:011-Mark Antony, with Cleopatra VII -3.jpg|thumb|300px|A [[denarius]] minted in 32 BC; on the [[obverse]] is a [[diadem]]ed portrait of Cleopatra, with the [[Latin]] inscription "CLEOPATRA[E REGINAE REGVM]FILIORVM REGVM", and on the reverse a portrait of [[Mark Antony]] with the inscription reading "ANTONI ARMENIA DEVICTA".]]

Feminist criticism of ''Antony and Cleopatra'' has provided a more in-depth reading of the play, has challenged previous norms for criticism, and has opened a larger discussion of the characterization of Egypt and Rome. However, as Gayle Greene so aptly recognises, it must be addressed that "feminist criticism [of Shakespeare] is nearly as concerned with the biases of Shakespeare's interpretors {{sic}}—critics, directors, editors—as with Shakespeare himself."<ref name="Green" />

Feminist scholars, in respect to ''Antony and Cleopatra'', often examine Shakespeare's use of language when describing Rome and Egypt. Through his language, such scholars argue, he tends to characterise Rome as "masculine" and Egypt as "feminine." According to Gayle Greene, "the 'feminine' world of love and personal relationships is secondary to the 'masculine' world of war and politics, [and] has kept us from realizing that Cleopatra is the play's protagonist, and so skewed our perceptions of character, theme, and structure."<ref name="Green" /> The highlighting of these starkly contrasting qualities of the two backdrops of ''Antony and Cleopatra'', in both Shakespeare's language and the words of critics, brings attention to the characterization of the title characters, since their respective countries are meant to represent and emphasise their attributes.

The feminine categorization of Egypt, and subsequently Cleopatra, was negatively portrayed throughout early criticism. The story of ''Antony and Cleopatra'' was often summarised as either "the fall of a great general, betrayed in his dotage by a treacherous strumpet, or else it can be viewed as a celebration of transcendental love."<ref name="Fitz" />{{rp|p.297}} In both reduced summaries, Egypt and Cleopatra are presented as either the destruction of Antony's masculinity and greatness or as agents in a love story. Once the Women's Liberation Movement grew between the 1960s and 1980s, however, critics began to take a closer look at both Shakespeare's characterization of Egypt and Cleopatra and the work and opinions of other critics on the same matter.

Jonathan Gil Harris claims that the Egypt vs. Rome dichotomy many critics often adopt does not only represent a "gender polarity" but also a "gender hierarchy".<ref name="Harris" />{{rp|p.409}} Critical approaches to ''Antony and Cleopatra'' from the beginning of the 20th century mostly adopt a reading that places Rome as higher in the hierarchy than Egypt. Early critics like Georg Brandes presented Egypt as a lesser nation because of its lack of rigidity and structure and presented Cleopatra, negatively, as "the woman of women, quintessentiated Eve."<ref>Georg Brandes, ''William Shakespeare. A Critical Study'', trans. William Archer and [[Diana White (artist)|Diana White]] (New York: F. Unger, 1963): 144</ref> Egypt and Cleopatra are both represented by Brandes as uncontrollable because of their connection with the Nile River and Cleopatra's "infinite variety" (2.2.236).

In more recent years, critics have taken a closer look at previous readings of ''Antony and Cleopatra'' and have found several aspects overlooked. Egypt was previously characterised as the nation of the feminine attributes of lust and desire while Rome was more controlled. However, Harris points out that Caesar and Antony both possess an uncontrollable desire for Egypt and Cleopatra: Caesar's is political while Antony's is personal. Harris further implies that Romans have an uncontrollable lust and desire for "what they do not or cannot have."<ref name="Harris" />{{rp|p.415}} For example, Antony only desires his wife Fulvia after she is dead:

<blockquote><poem>
There's a great spirit gone! Thus did I desire it:
What our contempt doth often hurl from us,
We wish it ours again; the present pleasure,
By revolution lowering, does become
The opposite of itself: she's good, being gone:
The hand could pluck her back that shov'd her on.
(1.2.119–124)
</poem></blockquote>

In this way, Harris is suggesting that Rome is no higher on any "gender hierarchy" than Egypt.

L. T. Fitz outwardly claims that early criticism of ''Antony and Cleopatra'' is "colored by the sexist assumptions the critics have brought with them to their reading."<ref name="Fitz" />{{rp|p.297}} Fitz argues that previous criticisms place a heavy emphasis on Cleopatra's "wicked and manipulative" ways, which are further emphasised by her association with Egypt and her contrast to the "chaste and submissive" Roman Octavia.<ref name="Fitz" />{{rp|p.301}} Finally, Fitz emphasises the tendency of early critics to assert that Antony is the sole protagonist of the play. This claim is apparent in Brandes‘ argument: "when [Antony] perishes, a prey to the voluptuousness of the East, it seems as though Roman greatness and the Roman Republic expires with him."<ref>Georg Brandes, ''William Shakespeare. A Critical Study'', trans. William Archer and Diana White (New York: F. Unger, 1963): 158</ref> Yet Fitz points out that Antony dies in Act IV while Cleopatra (and therefore Egypt) is present throughout Act V until she commits suicide at the end and "would seem to fulfill at least the formal requirements of the tragic hero."<ref name="Fitz" />{{rp|p.310}}

These criticisms are only a few examples of how the critical views of Egypt's "femininity" and Rome's "masculinity" have changed over time and how the development of feminist theory has helped in widening the discussion.