Download Sarah Cohen Ms. Schwartz 12AP English Literature 2 June 2011

Cohen 1
Sarah Cohen
Ms. Schwartz
12AP English Literature
2 June 2011
William Shakespeare’s Language
Out of the ashes a play-write was born, not just any play-write, but William Shakespeare.
The works of Shakespeare are known for their powerful use of language to invoke not only
brilliant imagery but emotions as well. His ability to master language has set him apart from
other play-writes, deeming him as one of the best to ever live, if not the best. Known mostly for
his great tragedies such as Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Macbeth, his plays Julius Caesar and
Antony and Cleopatra are two amazing works of linguistics. Shakespeare was able to take two
historical events and turn them into masterpieces. Within the works, Shakespeare was not only
able to create tragedies out of known world events, but he was also able to implore powerful,
inspiring and grabbing dialogue within the plays. The works not only captivate the reader but fill
him/her with beautiful sights and take over his/her emotions. Shakespeare masters the English
language, not only on paper but also within the body and soul in Julius Caesar and Antony and
Cleopatra.
William Shakespeare was born on April 23rd, 1564 as the son of John Shakespeare and
Mary Arden. As the son of the town’s bailff, equivalent of a mayor, William was able to obtain a
good, free quality education in the local grammar school in Stratford-upon-Avon. While
attending the local grammar school Shakespeare obtained an education composed mostly of
Cohen 2
Latin studies encompassing reading, writing, and speaking in addition to studying Classic
historians, moralists, and poets. After commencement from the local grammar school
Shakespeare never attended a University or obtained a higher education; instead he entered the
working force. However, even lacking a formal University education Shakespeare was able to
obtain works of literature to help him make his works accurate to the times as well as to the
known history (“Shakespeare, William”). For example, the accuracy of the historical events in
Antony and Cleopatra alludes to the possibility that Shakespeare was able to obtain a copy of Sir
Thomas North’s translation of Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans while he was
composing the play (Farley-Hills) further evidence of his careful, detailed, and descriptive
reconstruction of the ancient worlds help to further back this idea as well. Despite this so called
disadvantage, Shakespeare was able to create characters with vivid personalities and faults such
as Cleopatra with her mood swings and lust for power that led to her death and the destruction of
her empire, thus Shakespeare had a keen understanding of human nature, from all view points
(Huso).
From Shakespeare’s mind came two great Roman Tragedies, Julius Caesar and Antony
and Cleopatra. Julius Caesar was first performed in 1599, eight years before Antony and
Cleopatra, and is set in Ancient Rome during the time period before, during, and after the
assassination of Julius Caesar (Lander 360). The second of the Roman Tragedies, Antony and
Cleopatra, was first performed in 1607 and is set approximately four years after the death of
Caesar in both Ancient Egypt and Rome (Lander 364; Brut). After the death of the famous
Caesar an alliance was formed between Antony, Lepidus, and Octavius to put down the
conspiracy started by Brutus and Cassius resulting in the schism of Rome. From this alliance
Antony was given the east, the lands of Egypt and of the beautiful seductress Cleopatra, wherein
Cohen 3
he fell prisoner not only to the luxurious lavish life style of Egypt but in the bed of Cleopatra as
well (Brut).
Shakespeare not only had the ability to make plays out of history or thin air, but also he
had the ability to manipulate language to his every whim. In Elizabethan times important works,
plays, and documents were written in Latin, not the vernacular English. Therefore, he made
everyday language important in society and made more documents accessible to everyone, even
those without a formal education (Huso). Besides placing the vernacular in the forefront of
society, Shakespeare was able to intensify his dialogue due to his high level of creativity.
Additionally, he was a “natural” writer with his ideas and words following from his pen without
end as well as having a perceptive mind that helped his characterization develop past what was
written on the page. Shakespeare’s ability goes beyond that of a grammar school graduate.
However, his lack of education did not hinder him, more importantly his education was of almost
no significance to his works (“Shakespeare, William”). Shakespeare was an individual through
and through and this was seen in his writing. His vocabulary, for example, was original,
distinctive and individualistic. He borrowed words from other languages or he would just make
up new words to fit the situation at hand, but most importantly everyday English speakers
adopted his words. For example take the word “silly” today it means foolish, however when
Shakespeare used it, it meant helpless (Lander 367). Perhaps though, it his brilliant use of
language to create vivid imagery that we all know him for, thus his use of “rich” imagery such as
Cleopatra’s rebuttal to Antony,
“Ah, dear, if I be so, From my cold heart let heaven engender hail, And
poison it in the source, and the first stone Drop in my neck: as it
determines, so Dissolve my life! The next Caesarion smite, Till by
degrees the memory of my womb, Together with my brave Egyptians all,
By the discandying of this pelleted storm, Lie graveless, till the flies and
gnats of Nile Have buried them for prey!” (3.13. 158-67)
Cohen 4
provides the readers with a unique, one-of-a-kind style that is distinctively Shakespeare’s. In
addition to Shakespeare’s ability to create beautiful imagery and his ability to manipulate
language, he was able to turn his voice into two distinctive, individual writing styles found in the
Roman tragedies, the formal concise “Roman” style and the lushes lavish “Egyptian” style
(Farley-Hills).
In addition to pulling from North’s volume of Plutarch for inspiration and details on
Antony and Cleopatra he also found inspiration from Egyptian religion. The relationship
between Antony and Cleopatra is based on the story of Isis and Osiris. Osiris and Isis, siblings
and lovers, ruled over Egypt during a golden age. However, their jealous brother Seth envied
them and plotted to take over the throne. Seth was able to trap Osiris in a coffin and fling it into
the Nile, thus drowning Osiris and creating death in the lands of Egypt. Following the murder,
Isis was able to retrieve Osiris’ body only to lose him to Seth again. Once in control of Osiris’
body once more, Seth dismembered it and spread the parts across the lands of Egypt. Undeterred,
Isis gathered the parts of Osiris’ body and was then able to reassemble his body with help from
Anubis. With the help of her powers and Anubis’ she was able to restore Osiris back to life to
conceive their son Horus, who would challenge his Uncle Seth to the throne. Thus Horus became
King on earth and his father Lord of the Underworld. To Egyptians Osiris gave eternal hope to
the living for an everlasting life in the paradise (Fletcher 120). In Egyptian religion Isis was the
goddess of motherhood, fertility, and magic, all of which are associated with Cleopatra as well as
other similarities (Oakes & Gahlin 275; Fletcher 64). To back this association is the House of
Hathor in temple Dendera in Upper Egypt. The carving of Cleopatra and her son Caesarion on
the back of the temple expresses Cleopatra’s desire to be seen as Isis. Cleopatra, like Isis, was
left alone after the murder of Osiris, Caesar, to raise her son Horus, Caesarion, by herself
Cohen 5
(Fletcher 64: Chris Caldicott photographer). Upon Cleopatra’s death in Act 5 Scene ii, she
finally embraces her desire to been seen as the living Isis, becoming the wife, “Husband, I
come:” (5.2.287), and the mother that she was meant to be, “Peace, peace! Dost thou not see my
baby at my breast, That sucks the nurse asleep?”(5.2. 308-10)
In addition to Cleopatra being viewed as the living Isis on earth, Antony is seen as Osiris
throughout the play. Just like Osiris, Antony represents death, the afterlife, and rebirth. Like
Osiris, Antony’s death and reunion with Cleopatra in the afterlife represents the “eternal hope”
for an “everlasting life in the underworld” while also representing the idea of rebirth after death
(Fletcher 121). Furthermore, just like the Egyptians giving back to Osiris for a chance in the
afterlife, Cleopatra, Octavius, and Enobarbus gave back to Antony. After Enobarbus deserted
Antony to join Octavius he learned that Antony sent all of his possessions to him with no ill will,
upon learning this he committed suicide, thus giving back to Antony (4.5.12-7). While Octavius
gave back to Antony in his own way as well. He allowed Antony to be buried with Cleopatra, in
addition to giving him an honorable Roman burial ceremony along with attending his and
Cleopatra’s funerals (5.2.355-65). After causing Antony to kill himself because of lie she had
told to him, Cleopatra gives back as well to be with her love, her lover, her “husband”, for all
eternity (5.2.287).
In addition to the face value meaning of the allusions used in the play there is a deeper
meaning as well. Besides Cleopatra representing Isis, Antony Osiris, and Caesarion Hours,
Octavius represents Seth. Octavius, just like Seth, is jealous of the power and the land that
Cleopatra and Antony possess; therefore he tries to gain their power and land by destroying them
like Seth tried. However unlike Seth, Octavius does not fail at his task, he is able to destroy the
lovers and gain possessions of Egypt in addition to actually destroying Caesarion, Hours, unlike
Cohen 6
the events in the story of Isis and Osiris. Furthermore, the asp used in Cleopatra’s suicide stands
for the Egyptian cobra. In Egypt power was associated with snakes, especially the cobra. The
crowns and other adornments of the pharaohs of Lower Egypt were covered in cobras. Therefore
as the pharaoh of all of Egypt, Cleopatra’s royal adornments as well contained cobras,
symbolizing her power and authority. Therefore it is only fitting that Cleopatra killed herself
with an asp, considering its relationship to the cobra and its significance in Egyptian culture
(Shaw & Nicholson 67).
Shakespeare just didn’t get inspired from Egyptian religion but Greek religion as well.
For insistence, in Act 5 Scene ii, Cleopatra says “His face was as the heav’ns, and therein stuck
A sun and moon, which kept their course and lighted The little O, th’ earth.” This excerpt eludes
to the Greek god Helios and goddesses Selene. However, these allusions have more meaning
than what is written on the page. Cleopatra and Antony’s twins were named after Helios and
Selene, Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene, thus this quote is an allusion to their children
and how they are always present with them even when they aren’t there (Gregory 192; Greek
Gods and Goddesses).
For Antony and Cleopatra Shakespeare was able to create a style just for the play. Today
the style is known as the “Egyptian” style. The “Egyptian” style is personified by Cleopatra,
private needs, sensual pleasure and festivities (Burt). To sum it up the “Egyptian” style is
elaborate, extravagant, and ostentatious. This lifestyle is expressed in Jean-Leon Gerome’s
painting of “Cleopatra before Caesar”. Gerome’s painting depicts Cleopatra’s first encounter
with Caesar (Gerome). Like Cleopatra, the room and the minute details, are fine pointed and
extravagant, thus emphasizing the luxurious lifestyle of Egypt found in both Gerome’s Cleopatra
and Shakespeare’s.
Cohen 7
Unlike Gerome’s Cleopatra, Shakespeare’s Cleopatra is more complex. In creating
Cleopatra, Shakespeare used his power of rhetoric to create a vivid Pharaoh with a bipolar
personality. For example when Antony is gay, Cleopatra is melancholy, when Antony is
downcast, Cleopatra is merry. Yet Cleopatra acts this way for a reason. She wants to know
“where he is, who’s with him, what he does” so if he is found sad her servant can tell him that
she is “dancing; if in mirth… I am sudden sick.” (1.3.2-5) Additionally, later in the play
Cleopatra decides that, “since, my lord is Antony again, I will be Cleopatra.” Throughout the
play Cleopatra acts like this, changing her moods and actions to fit the circumstances at hand or
to fulfill her every whim. These mood swings of Cleopatra are examples of her “infinite variety”
as called by Enobarbus (Charney). Cleopatra’s “infinite variety” is her magic, her powers; it is
what allows her to be such a domineering figure. Her bipolar mood swings can be connected to
her “infinite variety” since her ability to change her moods and actions to suit her needs at any
given moment allows her to be manipulative and controlling, and that is what she wants, control,
total absolute control. Therefore that is why Cleopatra is constantly in a different mood trying to
manipulate the situation in order for her gain more power, more control. Cleopatra’s “infinite
variety” is what keeps Antony in Egypt to answer her every whim, keeping him from going back
to the Roman way of life (Charney 364).
Throughout Antony and Cleopatra Shakespeare implores language that helps to separate
Antony from the Roman world, drawing him deeper into the realm of Egypt. Throughout the
play Antony abandons the Roman world and ideals of Octavius Caesar for those of Egypt and
Cleopatra. Rome like Octavius focuses on politics and objectives, the polar opposites of Egypt
(Charney 355). Therefore, Antony creates a self-imposed exile from Rome and the Roman
world. In Egypt Antony can leave behind all of his political duties as well as material. While in
Cohen 8
Egypt he engages in an intense affair with Cleopatra while his wife is in Rome dead, and again
when his second wife, Octavia- Octavius’ sister- is in Rome and hears of his unfaithfulness
consecutively with the Roman people. Egypt allows Antony to do what he wants with no
consequences, allowing him to give into all of the desires of his mind, soul, and especially his
body.
In addition to Shakespeare’s distinctive vocabulary, his use of imagery is used
extensively throughout the play. According to Charney, Antony and Cleopatra is ranked third in
volume of imagery contained in a work by Shakespeare (358). Egypt is known as a world full of
luxury, festivities, and opulence; this description of Egypt is present in the imagery found in the
play and is what separates Egypt from Rome. An example of the rich imagery describing Egypt
is from Enobarbus’ description of Cleopatra on her barge in Act 2 Scene ii.
“I will tell you. The barge she sat in, like a burnished throne, urned on
the water the poop was beaten gold urple the sails, and so perfum d
that The winds were lovesick with them; the oars were silver, Which to
the tune of flutes kept stroke and made the water which they beat to
follow faster, As amorous of their strokes. For her own person, It
beggared all descriptions: she did lie In her pavilion, cloth-of-gold of
tissue, O’erpicturing that Venus where we see The fancy outwork nature
on each side her Stood pretty dimpled boys, like smiling Cupids, With
divers-colored fans, whose wind did seem To glow the delicate checks
which they did cool, And what they undid did.”(2.2.196-211)
In addition to the wide use of imagery, the hyperbola is used frequently as well.
Shakespeare incorporated the hyperbola into the play to further express the Egyptian lifestyle of
extravagance and exaggeration. The use of the hyperbola allows the reader go beyond what is on
the page and what is expected of nature therefore encompassing the reader’s full attention
(Charney 362-3). Cleopatra’s dream of Antony: “His face was as the heav’ns, and therein stuck
A sun and moon, which kept their course and lighted The little O, th’ earth.” (5.2.79-81) is a
Cohen 9
great example of the hyperbola found in Antony and Cleopatra. For within this quote Antony
becomes the entire cosmos whereas the earth becomes a “little O” in comparison. This is a dream
that goes “past the size of dreaming” in which the idea presented to the reader is unconceivable
when compared to the real world of actual “Nature”; that is what is a dream and what is reality
(Charney 362-3).
Along with the use of imagery and hyperbola, the use of paradox is also present in the
play and represents the idea of “self-contradictory” (Spencer 374). The concept of “selfcontradictory” helps to explain the relationship between Antony and Cleopatra; most importantly
in the scene with Cleopatra on her barge coming to meet Antony. The barge represents their
relationship; Cleopatra is the barge and Antony is the oars. In representing the barge Cleopatra
has control over the oars actions just she has control over Egypt, thus she can control and
manipulate Antony in doing her biding. Antony on the other hand is a slave to Cleopatra’s orders
and wishes; he moves to fulfill her wishes at once with haste. The line, “The barge she sat in, like
a burnished throne, Burned on the water:”(2.2.196-7) parallels Cleopatra’s authority over Egypt
as Pharaoh as well as a lover’s control over a partner. While the lines, “the oars were silver,
Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke and made the water which they beat to follow faster, As
amorous of their strokes.” (2.2.201-3) parallel Antony’s inability to follow his own orders, thus
he complies willing like a whore to a bed to the desires of Cleopatra. The use of paradox also
allows Cleopatra to mock expectations, which is another example of the “self-contradictory”
(Spencer 374). For example, when Cleopatra is fanned instead of her checks turning back to
normal they turn red (2.2.209-11). Cleopatra is a proud headstrong woman who turns into a
nursemaid upon her deathbed, and a Pharaoh becomes a lover, a wife, and a mother upon
welcoming death into her arms.
Cohen 10
For Julius Caesar, Shakespeare was able to create a style just for the play. Today the
style is known as the “Roman” style. The “Roman” style is based on the concepts of duty,
rationality, and the actual world (Burt). To summarize, the style is highly rigid and formal with a
sharp clarity of words (Charney 367). The “Roman” style can be seen in the marble bust of Julius
Caesar. The bust of Caesar is extremely formal, simple, life like, and unadorned while clearly
pointing out the differences from the lavishness of the Egyptian lifestyle. The simple bust is a
perfect example of what ancient Rome was like; from the bust to everyday life, Roman life was
formal, simple, and clear cut (Caesar, Julius). Just like the bust of Julius Caesar, the play lacks
fluff and extravagance therefore; the play lacks Shakespeare’s distinctive quality of imagery and
figurative language. According to Charney, Julius Caesar ranks 26th in the volume of imagery
found throughout the work (358). In following this “Roman” style of writing, Shakespeare most
likely deliberately limited his imaginative resources relying instead on his ability to write concise
and terse language. Thus he was able to manipulate the language to fit his style at the situation
on hand. Brutus’ rebuttal to Cassius on how to take down Caesar provides examples of
Shakespeare’s use of concise imagery.
“Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius, To cut the head off
and then hack the limbs, Like wrath in death and envy afterward; For
Antony is but a limb of Caesar. Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers,
Caius, We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar, And in the spirit of
men there is no blood. O, that we then could come by Caesar’s spirit,
And not dismember Caesar! But, alas, Caesar must bleed for it. And,
gentle friends, Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully; Let’s carve him
as a dish fit for the gods, Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds. And let
our hearts, as subtle masters do, Stir up their servants to an act of rage,
And after seem to chide 'em. This shall make Our purpose necessary, and
not envious; Which so appearing to the common eyes, We shall be called
purgers, not murderers. And for Mark Antony, think not of him; For he
can do no more than Caesar’s arm When Caesar’s head is off.”
(2.1.162-83)
Cohen 11
“To cut the head off and then hack the limbs…” and “Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the
gods…” are two examples from Brutus’ excerpt that show Shakespeare’s use of limited imagery.
Throughout this excerpt Brutus just speaks about their plot formally with no added fluff to it,
which is unlike Shakespeare, however it is typical of the “Roman” style.
When we look at Julius Caesar in the cannon of Shakespeare’s plays, it contains an large
amount of sharply limited vocabulary as well as the least, therefore it is expected that Julius
Caesar would contain only 2450 lines with a vocabulary containing only 2218 words instead of a
greater number like that of Antony and Cleopatra (Charney 358). Shakespeare’s deliberate limit
of imagery within the work was done on purpose for this play. The “Roman” style was created to
express the Roman world for what is was, a “cold, hard” materialistic world focused on the
“practical use of business of state.” (Charney 359) Therefore this stylistic change for
Shakespeare not only helped him to express the “Roman” style but to express the “clarity of
thought and forthrightness” within the formal political center Rome (Charney 359).
Even lacking high amounts of imagery, Julius Caesar does contain verbal imagery. Yet
the imagery found within the play is fragmented and underdeveloped when compared to Antony
and Cleopatra. The imagery present within the play describes everyday normal objects and
activities, such as in describing the setting or in common day rituals. This use of imagery gives
the reader an insight into the “Roman” style; a form of writing consisting of disciplined use of
limited resources (Charney 356). For example, Brutus’ speech in Act 4 Scene iii contains
examples of Shakespeare’s use of imagery to describe everyday rituals and events.
“It was done, and thou shalt sleep again I will not hold thee long. If I do
live, I will be good to thee. This is a sleepy tune. O murd’rous slumber!
Layest thou thy leaden mace upon my boy, That plays thee music? Gentle
knave, good night; I will not do thee so much wrong to wake thee. If thou
dost nod, thou break’st thy instrument I’ll take it from thee and, good
boy, good night. Let me see, let me see; is not the leaf turned down
Cohen 12
Where I left reading? Here it is, I think. How ill this taper burns. Ha!
Who comes here? I think it is the weakness of mine eyes that shapes this
monstrous apparition. It comes upon me. Art thou anything? Art thou
some god, some angel, or some devil, That mak’st my blood cold, and my
hair to stare? Speak to me what thou are.” (4.3.263-80)
Within his speech Brutus puts an emphasis on the simple normal everyday things that we don’t
normally think about or overlook such as the “sleepy tune” to describe the lullaby, “If thou dost
nod, thou break’st thy instrument” to depict that falling asleep on an instrument will break it,
“leaf turned down Where I left reading?” to figure out where he last left off in his book and
“How ill this taper burns” to declare that the candle creates a poor light.
In addition to the use of sharp unclear imagery, Shakespeare frequently used simile in the
play to exemplify the Roman style and need for order, control and limitation. For example,
Titinius’ description of Cassius after his death compares Cassius to the setting sun. Just like
Cassius’ life has set, the sun has set as well on the Roman Empire. The day for reform and
change from the control of a monarch has left Rome forever now that Cassius is dead for no one
can help them now to get Rome out of the political hole that they have created and started.
“No, this was he, Messala. ut Cassius is no more. O setting sun, As in
thy red rays thou dost sink to night, So in his red blood Cassius’ day is
set! The sun of Rome is set our day is gone; Clouds dews, and dangers
come; our deeds are done! Mistrust of my success hath done this deed.”
(5.3.59-65)
In addition to limiting his stylistic approach to Julius Caesar, Shakespeare was able to
captivate his audience by not only controlling the words spoken but also the emotions of the
audience as well. Through his ability to manipulate language to perform his desire, Shakespeare
was able to write powerful moving speeches for all of those to hear and embrace within their
beings. For instance, in Antony’s funereal speech creating the honorable man Caesar, Antony is
able to move his audience from compassion to love to hurt to paint to hatred to anger and to rage
Cohen 13
that not only leads the people to side with Antony and against the conspirators but additionally
lead the people to kill Cinna the poet in the heat of the moment based off of pure raw human
emotion (Hartsock 61). Antony is able to manipulate the audience into believing the Caesar was
a hero to help him with his own agendas in the Senate, thus Cicero said, “it is a strange-disposed
time: But men may construe things after their fashion, Clean from the purpose of the things
themselves.” (1.2.33-5) Just like the Roman mob, the audience responds only with their pure
emotions, not their thoughts. From the feeling of rage to sorrow, the audience moves with the
mob from feeling to feeling, emotion to emotion until they are forced to react on their emotions
building up inside of them waiting to burst. Besides reacting congruently with the Roman mob,
the audience is on their toes waiting to respond to whoever speaks at any given moment
(Hartsock 61). Hartsock summarizes this point in saying, “we believe what we hear as we hear
it, only to be involved in one emotion or intellectual partisanship after another.” Not only does
the Roman mob and audience follow through on this, so does Shakespeare within his formation
and styling for Antony’s speech.
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury
Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them, The
good is oft interrèd with their bones; So let it be with Caesar. The noble
Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious. If it were so, it was a
grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answered it. Here, under
leave of Brutus and the rest— For Brutus is an honorable man; So are
they all, all honorable men—Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral. He
was my friend, faithful and just to me; But Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man. He hath brought many captives home
to Rome, Whose ransoms did the general coffers fil; Did this in Caesar
seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept;
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. Yet Brutus says he was
ambitious; And Brutus is an honorable man. You all did see that on the
Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice
refuse. Was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And sure
he is an honorable man .I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But
here I am to speak what I do know. You all did love him once, not
without cause; What cause withholds you then to mourn for him? O
judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason!
Cohen 14
Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, And I must
pause till it come back to me. (weeps)” (3.2.74-108)
This above speech is one of the most moving ever written by Shakespeare. Within these lines,
Shakespeare brings the audience to tears by forcing them to remember Caesar as a great leader, a
faithful man who had a fault of being ambitious, but as a Roman took care of his people no
matter how hard or high the problem was to overcome. He placed Brutus and the other
conspirators under the microscope of the people; constantly reminding the people that Brutus “is
an honorable man” thus he must be right. Within his speech he is able to paint Brutus and the
other conspirators as the criminals that tried to tear down and dismantle Rome for their own
personal gain, not for those of the people. Antony speaks the truth or least his truth of what had
happened and how the assignation of Caesar took place. Antony never comes right out and says
that Brutus is the traitor and blames him for the mess currently presiding in Rome, he just gives
his version of the truth that allows him to gain control of the people’s emotions, thus having
them work to his advantage. He reminds the people that they once loved Caesar and would have
done anything for him, and in doing so by showing his own grief and sorrow, especially by
crying and telling them that “my heart is in the coffin there with Caesar”.
“The greatest dramatist ever” was the one, the only, Master William Shakespeare (Huso).
Over the centuries may writers have tried to become the “greatest” ever to live, but that title
belongs to some else. As the son of a middle class man he was able to become one of the most
famous and most wanted play-writes during his time. His abilities didn’t just stay on the page;
they went and traveled into the hearts, bodies, souls, and minds of his audience. He was able to
manipulate language to form beautiful breath taking images while at the same time making one
weep in a word. He commanded not only respect, but language in all forms. From a simple
woman he made immortal in his pen, and like that woman, his pages have been immortalized
Cohen 15
over and over again allowing the world to be affected by his power over and over again until
they can’t take anymore. Master William Shakespeare may be dead, but his legacy lives on.
“Life’s but a walking shadow; a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And
then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”
(Macbeth 5.5.24-8)
Cohen 16
Works Cited
Burt, Daniel S. "Antony and Cleopatra." The Drama 100: A Ranking of the Greatest Plays of All
Time. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2008. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On
File, Inc. 2011. Web. 13 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin=
DRAM017&SingleRecord=True>.
Caesar, Julius: marble portrait bust. Photograph. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web.
29 May 2011. <http://school.eb.com/eb/art-810>.
Charney, Maurice. "Shakespeare's Style in Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra." ELH 26.3
(1959): 355-67. JSTOR. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2871793>.
Farley-Hills, David. "The position of 'Antony and Cleopatra' in the canon." Notes and Queries
40.2 (1993): 193+. General OneFile. Web. 29 May 2011.
<http://find.galegroup.com/gps/infomark.do?&contentSet=IACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&docId=A14001597&source=gale&
userGroupName=nysl_li_seaford&version=1.0>.
Feldman, Kevin. "Julius Caesar." Prentice Hall Literature. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2007. 824-925. Print.
Fletcher, J. Ancient Egypt: Life, Myth and Art. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004. Print.
Fletcher, J. Ancient Egypt: Life, Myth and Art. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004. Print.
Caldicott, Chris. Photographer. Visual.
Cohen 17
Gregory, Kristiana. Cleopatra VII, Daughter of the Nile. New York: Scholastic, 1999. Print.
Gerome, Jean-Leon. Cleopatra before Caesar. 1866. Lost. Fineartlib.info. Web. 26 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.fineartlib.info/gallery/p17_sectionid/24/p17_imageid/600>.
"Greek Goddesses." Greek Gods and Goddesses. Greek Gods and Goddesses, 2010. Web. 22
May 2011. <http://www.greek-gods-and-goddesses.com/greekgoddesses.html#anchor_19>.
Hartsock, Mildred E. "The Complexity of Julius Caesar." PMLA 81.1 (1966): 56-62. Jstor.org.
Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/461308>.
Huso, Deborah. "A man for all time: William Shakespeare's command of language and acute
insight into human nature created an enduring literary legacy." Success (2010): 82+.
General OneFile. Web. 14 Apr. 2011.
<http://find.galegroup.com/gps/infomark.do?&contentSet=IACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=IPS&docId=A239846315&source=gale
&srcprod=ITOF&userGroupName=nysl_li_seaford&version=1.0>.
Lander, Jesse M. The World Book Encyclopedia 2010. Vol. 17. World Book, Inc.: Chicago, IL,
2010. Print.
Oakes, Lorna, Lucia Gahlin, Lorna Oakes, and Lucia Gahlin. Ancient Egypt: an Illustrated
Reference to the Myths, Religions, Pyramids and Temples of the Land of the Pharaohs.
New York: Hermes House, 2002. Print.
Cohen 18
Shakespeare, William. Antony and Cleopatra: with New and Updated Critical Essays and a
Revised Bibliography. New York: Signet, 1998. Print.
“Shakespeare, William" Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School
Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2011.
<http://school.eb.com/eb/article-232445>.
“Shakespeare, William " Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School
Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.
<http://school.eb.com/eb/article-9109536>.
Shakespeare, William. William Shakespeare: the Complete Works. New York: Barnes and
Noble, 1994. Print.
Shakespeare, William, William Rosen, and Barbara Rosen. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar: with
New and Updated Critical Essays and a Revised Bibliography. New York: Signet
Classic, 1998. Print.
Shaw, Ian, and Paul T. Nicholson. "Cobra." The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London: Harry N.
Abrams, 2003. 67. Print.
Spencer, Benjamin T. "Antony and Cleopatra and the Paradoxical Metaphor." Shakespeare
Quarterly 9.3 (1958): 373-78. JSTOR. Web. 17 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2867342>.