Download Binary Oppositions in The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra

德霖學報「第十九期」
民國九十四年六月
Binary Oppositions in The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra
Binary Oppositions in
The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra
Hui-pin Kuo
Lecturer of Applied Foreign Language Department
Abstract
This study aims to classify and analyze various binary oppositions that Shakespeare had constructed in
The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra. The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra is one of Shakespeare’s Roman
plays, and it is well known by its tragic love between the Roman triumvir, Mark Antony, and the Egyptian queen,
Cleopatra. Mark Antony suffered from inner conflicts between personal love and political achievement.
Shakespeare has focused on scene changes and characterization to depict Antony’s ambivalence between passion
and reason, and to form those well-constructed binary oppositions within Antony’s tragedy. These binary
oppositions in this play included conflicts between the West and East, Rome and Egypt, political duty and erotic
attraction, femininity and masculinity, and Caesar and Antony. Therefore, first, I applied the interpretation of
Orientalism to discuss symbolic meanings of Western Rome and Eastern Egypt. And then, the comparison
between Apollonian Caesar and Dionysian Antony will be the second point in this paper. An effeminated Antony
that contrast to the masculine Caesar will be the last part of this study.
Key words: binary opposition, Orientalism, Apollonian, Dionysian, effeminate
〈安東尼與克利歐佩托拉〉劇中之
二元對立結構
郭惠萍
應用外語科講師
摘 要
本研究主旨在分類並分析莎士比亞在〈安東尼與克利歐佩托拉〉劇中所建構之二元對立結構。
〈安東
尼與克利歐佩托拉〉是莎士比亞三大羅馬劇之ㄧ，以羅馬三執政之ㄧ的馬克安東尼與埃及豔后克利歐佩
托拉之間的愛情悲劇聞名。馬克安東尼深陷於個人情感與政治成就之間的掙扎。莎士比亞利用場景轉換
與人物性格描寫來解釋安東尼理智與感情之間的兩難以及二元對立結構之成型。二元對立結構包含東方
與西方、羅馬與埃及、政治與愛情、男性與女性、凱薩與安東尼。因此，首先筆者引用薩依德的東方主
義來分析羅馬與埃及之間的象徵意涵；再者則利用尼采的阿波羅式與酒神式的悲劇英雄來比較凱薩與安
東尼。最後是比較相互對立的安東尼的女性化與凱薩的男子氣慨。
關鍵字：二元對立結構，東方主義，阿波羅式，酒神式，女性化。
133
德霖學報 第十九期
Binary Oppositions in
The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra1
I. Introduction: a well-constructed play by binary opposition
The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra is one of Shakespeare’s Roman plays adapted from
Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans.2 It is a great tragedy consisting with love and
politics under the basis of a historical fact. Mark Antony, one of three pillars of the world, fell in love
with Cleopatra, the Egyptian queen, and then lived in Egypt with Cleopatra and neglected his duty as
one of the triumvirs in Rome. Shakespeare’s Antony underwent inner conflicts between love and duty.
He is a “high mimetic mode” of tragic hero according to Northrop Frye’s fictional modes: “the hero is
a leader. He has authority, passions, and powers of expression far greater than [other people], but what
he does is subject both to social criticism and to the order of nature” (34). Tragically, Antony failed to
make reconciliation between love and duty, and then he committed his downfall and his tragic death.
The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra can be read as a well-constructed tragedy of Mark Antony in
spite of its intense concerns for historical and political questions. This paper aimed to center the play
on Antony’s ambivalence between passion and reason to analyze those well-constructed binary
oppositions within Antony’s tragedy. Binary oppositions in this tragedy can be seen everywhere both
from its settings and the characterization. They included conflicts between the West and East, Rome
and Egypt, political duty and erotic attraction, femininity and masculinity, and Caesar and Antony.
Therefore, I applied the interpretation of Orientalism to discuss symbolic meanings of Western Rome
and Eastern Egypt. And then, the comparison between Apollonian Caesar and Dionysian Antony will
be the second point in this paper. An effeminated Antony that contrast to the masculine Caesar will be
the last part of this study.
II. West vs. East / Rome vs. Egypt: an Orientalism perspective:
Since the story of this tragedy was borrowed from the ancient tragic romance between a Roman
ruler, Mark Antony, and an Egyptian queen, Cleopatra, it is hard to neglect the specialties of both
geographical settings, Egypt and Rome. Both settings presented the primal structure of binary
oppositions in this tragedy. Frank Kermode in his introduction of The Tragedy of Antony and
Cleopatra also denoted that “the bold scene-changes from Rome to Alexandria are now understood as
a reflection of a basic thematic opposition” (Antony and Cleopatra, 1343). Geographically and
politically, Rome was the greatest empire in the Western world at that time ruled by its triumvirs, and
Egypt was a mysterious country in the East ruled by a witching queen. Rome symbolized masculinity,
1
G. Blakemore Evans, ed. “The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra.” The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1974. 1343-1391. The following citations of the play also refer to this edition.
2
Martin Wine. Macmillan Master Guides: Antony and Cleopatra by William Shakespeare. Hong Kong:
Macmillan, 1987. The historical origin of the story of Mark Antony comes from Martin Wine’s introduction in
this book.
134
Binary Oppositions in The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra
duty, and political centered, while Egypt represented femininity, exotic eroticism and pleasure.3
Antony, of course, fell into the trap of the erotic Oriental obsession, and then abandoned his duty in
Rome and insisted to stay in Egypt. Antony confessed his Oriental eroticism after he agreed a political
marriage with Caesar’s sister, “I will to Egypt;/ And though I make this marriage for my peace,/ I’ th’
East my pleasure lies” (II. iii, 39-41). This passage showed the opposite conflicts between Rome and
Egypt, as well as the conflicts within Antony’s mind. When Antony was in Egypt, most news from
Rome was about war. For example, Antony heard from the Roman messenger that his wife, Fulvia,
was having war against his brother, Lucius, and then they joined forces to fight against Caesar. (I. ii,
89-93) Later, he heard another news that Sextus Pompeius, the son of Pompey the Great, was
threatening to invade Rome during Antony’s absence. (I. ii, 183-195) Rome was a place of coup, war,
duty, and politics and with no fun. Even marriage between Antony and Octavia, Caesar’s sister, was a
kind of political scheme suggesting by Agrippa:
To hold you in perpetual amity,
To make you brothers, and to knit your hearts
With an unslipping knot, take Antony
Octavia to his wife,
...
By this marriage,
All little jealousies, which now seem great,
And all great fears, which now import their dangers,
Would then be nothing. . .
(II. ii. 124-132, italics are mine)
The marriage was only an exchange of benefits between Antony and Caesar; Antony got a wife, and
Caesar had military supports from an alliance, Antony. Apparently, the warlike Roman society was
very much different from the peaceful and idyllic life in Egypt. Egypt, on the contrary, was a place of
exotic fantasy and eroticism. In Rome, there were rumors about Cleopatra and about life in Egypt. For
example, most soldiers were eager to learn something about the Egyptian queen, her fantastic banquets
and splendid life. The inquiry they put forward to Enobarbus openly conveyed their curiosity:
Maec.
We have cause to be glad that matters are so
well digested. You stay’d well by’t in Egypt.
Eno.
Ay, sir, we did sleep day out of countenance,
and made the night light with drinking.
Maec.
Eight wild-boars roasted whole at a breakFast, and but twelve persons there; is this true?
Eno.
This was but as a fly by an eagle; we had
much more monstrous matter of feast, which worthily
deserv’d noting.
3
The Western and Eastern comparison comes from the explanation of Said’s Orientalism in A Reader’s Guide to
Contemporary Literary Theory by Raman Selden and Peter Widdowson. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf,
1993. 190-193.
135
德霖學報 第十九期
Maec.
She’s a most triumphant lady, if report be
square to her.
Eno.
When she first met Mark Antony, she
Purs’d up his heart upon the river of Cydnus. (II. ii. 175-185)
Enobarbus’s answer about sumptuous life in Egypt and Cleopatra’s stunning appearance not only
satisfied their curiosity, but also unveiled the exotic Oriental image of Egypt. In the second Act, after
the long conversation and political conspiracy between Roman generals in the first two scenes,
Shakespeare ingeniously shifted the subject from political issues to a visualized ornate description of
Cleopatra and Egyptian life. The question-answer dialogues showed the Westerners, Romans’ typical
standpoint toward the East, Egypt. The shift of scenes from Rome to Egypt reflected the systematical
antithesis of the West and the East.
III. Characterization: Apollonian hero vs. Dionysian hero
Characterization was another celestial devise Shakespeare presented to illustrate the binary
opposition. Talking about Characterization will not leave behind two contrary heroes, Caesar and
Antony. Friedrich Nietzsche had indicated the highest art will be created under the conflicts between
the Apollonian and Dionysian duality.
4
Within the battle between two great heroes, Antony and
Caesar, the essence of Antony’s tragedy was expounded. According to Nietzsche’s definition of tragic
characters, Caesar was certainly the Apollonian hegemonist, and Antony the Dionysian hedonist.
Caesar’s personalities were always restrained and autonomous with the sense of hegemonism, while
Antony would rather stay with his Eastern queen and be a believer of sensualism than become the
stern Western overlord. Caesar was the one who sought for an ideal dream, a realm of order, an Empire.
Apollonian Caesar despised Antony’s pleasure-indulgence, especially his stupidity of giving up a
whole kingdom for an Egyptian: “To give a kingdom for a mirth, to sit/ And keep the turn of tippling
with a slave,/ To reel the streets at noon, and stand the buffet/ With knaves that smells of sweat. … ” (I.
iv. 18-21) He was scheming and ambitious. When he was under the threat of Pompey’s force, he
married his sister, Octavia, to Antony because he needed Antony’s help to intimidate Pompey. Caesar
was so practical that he can sacrifice Octavia to accomplish his goal of world mastery. He broke his
treaty of keeping the world peace among four rulers to achieve the ultimate power of the sole ruler of
the world. Caesar might not be a great soldier so Antony did not believe that Caesar will show up on
the troop: “Can he be there in person? ’Tis impossible/ Strange that his power should be.” (III. vii.
56-57) However, he is definitely an eminent commander. For Caesar, there were no jokes in the armed
forces. In order to defeat Antony, he can be cruel and cunning that he placed the surrenders who came
from Antony’s troop in the front line to insult and to attack Antony: “Plant those that have revolted in
the vant,/ That Antony may seem to spend his fury/ Upon himself” (IV. vi. 8-9). Moreover, after the
death of Antony, he tried to kidnap Cleopatra to Rome because she can be a trophy to flaunt his
4
The Apollonian and Dionysian theory bases on Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy. Trans. Shaun
Whiteside, ed. Michael Tanner. London: Penguin, 1993.
136
Binary Oppositions in The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra
military successes. Apollonian Caesar manipulated others as his pawns to accomplish the
establishment of his dreamland, the Empire. As a historical fact, Caesar did succeed later and be
crowned and named as Augustus, the autocrat of the Roman Empire.
On the hand, Antony represented the drunkenness state for indulging himself in the wild
passions. He flirted exaggeratedly with Cleopatra in front of attendants by saying their love was too
much to measure, and it needed a “new heaven, new earth” to contain their overflowing love. In the
presence of Cleopatra, Antony dismissed a Roman messenger and claimed that he was willing to give
up his kingdom for love:
Let Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch
Of the rang’d empire fall! Here is my space,
Kindgoms are clay; our dungy earth alike
Feeds beast as man; the nobleness of life
Is to do thus [embracing] – when such a mutual pair
And such a twain can do’t, in which I bind
[On] pain of punishment, the world to weet
We stand up peerless.
(I. i. 33-39)
His sensuality overpowered his militaristic judgment, or, in other words, he was bewitched and
frenzied by the Eastern witch. He was then “transformed into a strumpet’s fool” (I. i. 12-13). He
insisted on having wars with Caesar by sea and neglected his comrades’ suggestions of their
advantages by land. The worst was that Antony forgot his honor and duty and escaped from the
battlefield with Cleopatra: “Claps on his sea-wing, and (like a doting mallard),/ Leaving the fight in
heighteh, flies after her” (III. x. 19-20). The once “plated Mars” turned out to “become the bellows and
the fan / Too cool a gipsy’s lust” (I. i. 4, 8-9). Henceforth, the tragedy of Dionysian Antony was fated.
His general and comrades deserted him and went to Caesar’s army. And even his angel and patron left
him: “’Tis the god Hercules, whom Antony/ love’d/ Now leaves him” (IV. ii. 16). The price of leading
a life of pleasure facilitated Antony’s destruction. His love and joy had to transcend into another form
of eternal status; in other words, Antony used death to magnify his great love and to reunite him with
his Egyptian queen in a “new heaven, new earth,” an eternality in death. (I. i. 18)
IV. Antony and Cleopatra: the representative of femininity
Comparing Antony with Caesar can also discover the binary opposition of an effeminated
Oriental figure and a masculine Western imperialist. The particular social and political background of
Rome and his unique personality cultivated Caesar into an Apollonian hero with a masculine
determination to be a sole ruler of the world. Antony was once a masculine hero, too, when he was in
Rome. Nevertheless, when Antony came to Egypt and made his acquaintanceship with Cleopatra,
Antony’s heroism and masculinity vanished. According to the Western notion of Orientalism, if Rome
represented the aggressive masculine West governed by virile and ambitious Caesar, Egypt was the
primitive virgin land ruled by the mother figure, Cleopatra. Thus, being one of the Roman triumvirs,
supposedly, Antony should be the Western invader coming to dominate the Eastern queen. However,
137
德霖學報 第十九期
once Antony neglected his rational responsibility in the Western world, Rome, and turned toward
sensual enjoyment in the erotic Eastern wonderland, Egypt, at the same time, he had already discarded
his masculinity and then incorporated with the Eastern femininity. The “Roman” Antony seemed to be
hypnotized by the Eastern erotic atmosphere and feminine enchantment, and then be assimilated into
“Egyptian” Antony. When in Rome, Antony showed his masculine elements while he was with other
triumvirs. In contrast to that, when Antony was in Egypt, he was effeminated by the charm of the
exotic Egyptian queen. Caesar also commented on Antony’s femininity:
It is not Caesar’s natural vice to hate
[Our] great competitor. From Alexandria
This is the news: he fishes, drinks, and wastes
The lamps of night in revel; is not more manlike
Than Cleopatra; nor the queen of Ptolomy
More womanly than he; hardly gave audience, or
[Vouchsaf’d] to think he had partners. You shall find
there
A man who is th’ [abstract] of all faults
That all men follow.
(I. iv. 2-9, italics are mine)
This Egyptian Antony lost his power, and he was even, in certain aspect, enslaved by the queen
because he had “become the bellows and the fan / Too cool a gipsy’s lust” (I. i. 8-9). Not only Antony
was effeminated by Cleopatra, but also his martial ability was castrated. Antony’s comrade, Enobarbus
once pointed out Cleopatra’s influences on Antony’s judgments:
Your presence needs mist puzzle Antony,
Take from his heart, take from his brain, from ’s time,
What should not then be spar’d.
He is already
Traduc’d for levity, and ’tis said in Rome
That Photinus an eunuch and your maids
Manage this war. (III. vii. 10-15)
Like a response to Enobarbus’ prediction, Antony kept making huge military blunders that caused the
tide of the war situation turn. Moreover, in Egypt, Antony unveiled his feminine elements, such as
jealousy, suspicion and emotionality. For instance, he ignored his duty as a Roman ruler, and refused
to meet the Roman messenger when he was with Cleopatra (in the first scene of the first Act.) Later,
when he saw a herald from Caesar kissing on Cleopatra’s hand, he was so jealous that he punished the
herald: “Take hence this Jack and whip him”(III. xiii. 93). Antony and Cleopatra shared identical
emotional and capricious characteristics. Cleopatra also punished a messenger bitterly when he
reported Antony’s marriage with Octavia: “Hence,/ Horrible villain, or I’ll spurn thine eyes/ Like balls
before me; I’ll unhair thy head,/ Thou shalt be whipt with wire, and stew’d in brine;/ Smarting in
ling’ring pickle” (II. v. 63-65). In order to show her love to Antony, she was an irrational queen who
was willing to “unpeople Egypt” in order to give him “every day a several greeting” (I. v. 76-77).
Antony was as irrational and whimsical as Cleopatra. He determined to accept Cleopatra’s suggestion
138
Binary Oppositions in The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra
of attacking Caesar by sea while his soldiers all tried to reason with him about the advantages of going
by land. Antony’s unreasonableness hurt his comrades’ belief toward him: “Soldier, thou art; but his
whole action grows/ Not in the power on’t. So our leader’s [led],/ And we are women’s men” (III. vii.
68-69. italics are mine).
Unlike the practicable militaristic Caesar, Antony was unmethodical and unmilitary. When
Antony was in Egypt, he was mastered by Cleopatra at the same time; she manipulated Antony’s
emotion and decision. Antony became so womanized and unmanly. When Cleopatra ran away from
the battlefield, Antony who forgot he was fighting his own war followed Cleopatra away and
abandoned his army. His language also delivered a feminine sensitivity which moved his servants into
tears: “What mean you, sir,/ To give them this discomfort? Look, they weep,/ And I, an ass, am
onion-ey’d. For shame,/ Transform us not to women” (IV. ii. 33-36, italics are mine). When Antony
learned that Cleopatra had committed suicide in her monument, though a pretence unknowing by
Antony, he tried to be the mimicker of Cleopatra’s “great deed”:
Since Cleopatra died
I have liv’d in such dishonor that the gods
Detest my baseness. I, that with my sword
Quarter’d the world, and o’ver green Neptune’s back
With ships made cities, condemn myself to lack
The courage of a woman—less noble mind
Than she which by her death our Caesar tells
“I am conqueror of myself.”
(IV. xiv. 55-62, italics are mine)
Being already assimilated with Cleopatra, Antony “condemned” himself without a woman’s courage.
However, Antony’s deeds did show that he was too weak-minded to kill himself. Thus, he ordered
Eros, his man, to “execute” the suicide. Finally, too afraid to hold his sword to kill himself, he “[fell]
on the sword.” (IV. xiv. 103, italics are mine) Antony was womanized by Cleopatra and became a
counterpart of her. Antony and Cleopatra were representatives of femininity opposite to Caesar’s
masculinity.
V. Conclusion
In The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare demonstrated well-constructed binary
oppositions in its settings and characterization. Firstly, symbolic meanings of Rome and Egypt were
means to indicate Antony’s inner conflicts between passion and duty. Moreover, they were distinct
contrasts of the Western imperialism and the exotic Eastern colony. The political strength of Rome, as
well as its ruler, Caesar, represented the masculinity, while the exotic and mysterious Egypt, like its
queen, Cleopatra, stood for the femininity. About the characterization, autocratic Caesar was the
Apollonian hero, and the pleasure-seeking Antony was the Dionysian tragic hero. One main reason for
Antony’s tragedy was his failure of balancing his Herculean and Dionysian characteristics. The god
Hercules was once Antony’s patron, but left him after seeing Antony put too many efforts on courtship
instead of wars. The most interesting comparison was that Egyptian Antony and the Roman Antony.
139
德霖學報 第十九期
Egyptian Antony was effeminated by the feminine queen and her land. Antony tended to show certain
feminine features, such as jealousy, suspicion and emotionality, that all could be seen on Cleopatra.
Owing to the binary opposition, the conflicts between the East and the West were revealed, the
dichotomy of Antony was perceived, and thus the essence of Nietzschean tragedy was evidently
highlighted.
References
Gradesaver.
“Classic Note on Antony and Cleopatra.”
http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/Cleopatra/about.html (Retrieved 30 November
2004)
Bevington, David, ed. Antony and Cleopatra. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990.
Evans, G. Blakemore, ed. “The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra.” The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1974. 1343-1391.
Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Taipei: Bookman, 1987.
Honigmann, E. A. J. “Antony versus Cleopatra.” Shakespeare: Seven Tragedies Revisited The
Dramatist’s Manipulation of Response.
Houndmills: Palgrave, 2002. 150-169.
Kiernan, Victor. “Antony and Cleopatra (1606-08).” Eight Tragedies of Shakespeare: A Marxist Study.
London: Verso, 1996. 154-172.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Trans. Shaun Whiteside, Ed. Michael Tanner. The Birth of Tragedy.
London: Penguin, 1993.
Selden, Raman and Peter Widdowson. “Edward Said.” A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary
Theory.
Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993. 190-193.
Wine, Martin. Macmillan Master Guides: Antony and Cleopatra by William Shakespeare. Hong Kong:
Macmillan, 1987.
140