To basically answer all the questions, I'll post the second Argued Reading I've written in Lit this year. Do note that I haven't gotten it back from the teacher yet (so no idea about how sound it is), and I imagine given that it's my second attempt at the form that it's still not quite what is expected in year 12.
---
Thematically, identity serves as a centrepiece within Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, with the question of who Antony truly is pervading the entirety of the tragedy. Act 1, Scene 4 serves to highlight one viewpoint – that of Octavius Caesar’s – and furthermore establishes that the true construct of Antony’s character may not be so simple as to be defined within only Roman or Egyptian values. Immediately, the scene’s tone is set by juxtaposition; Caesar, the bastion of Roman ideals, holds himself in great regard, utilising the regal pronoun “Our” to emphasise his perceived advantage over the supposedly ignoble Antony.
Antony’s abandoning to Egypt has left him incomprehensible to Caesar. The enumeration within “fishes, drinks and wastes” gives weight to Caesar’s condemnation, emphasising the overindulgent manner in which Antony is living his life and allowing an audience’s understanding of why Antony has lost his standing to the linear-thinking Romans. Against the rationality and duty which Caesar demands, there is simply no compatibility with a being which cannot be simply perceived - the convolution within the parallelism of “not more manlike…[nor] more womanly” reflects that Antony has become enigmatic in his lustful assimilation; he exists outside of the narrow guidelines of Rome.
That Caesar decries Antony extravagantly in calling him – and Egyptian behaviour - “the abstract of all faults” is heavily ironic, given the events at the play’s denouement. In his suicide, Antony does not rekindle himself only with Roman values; the apotheosis he receives within Cleopatra’s embrace suggests that here, Caesar may only be seen as unnecessarily harsh and misunderstanding the implications of passion’s interpolation amidst duty.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to contemporaneously consider Antony as being completely innocent. Antony’s actions at this stage – though perhaps not necessarily against his own nature – are simultaneously irresponsible. Contrasting the image of “the bed of Ptolemy” with “a kingdom” reduces Antony’s status almost to that of the absurd, belittling him in his ignorance. Visions of Antony’s excess in “tippling with a slave” serve to highlight that likewise to Caesar’s one-sidedness in being Roman, there is little to be left but mocking for a man whose sole purpose is pleasure. Calling Antony “rare” is suitable, and furthermore justified as it has left a “great weight” on Rome in the process.
Caesar is then acting intermittently as Shakespeare’s voice in ensuring Antony’s sins do not go unrecognised. Although there is nothing inherently wrong in the giving in to love, that Antony’s passions have overblown his own moderation has left him a woeful human being, and he is not acting true to his own self. Caesar’s relentless, twenty-line long criticism of Antony’s behaviour is thus a fitting reaction in this regard; Antony’s behaviour here deserves nothing less, and his actions are as naïve as that of “boys”, his temperament only being to “rebel to judgement”.
Political intrigue in the form of the Messengers serves to heighten the tension in the situation, furthermore signifying the state in which Antony exists. Antony’s earlier deafness to the Messengers is an essential denial of reality; he is ignoring the threats to his humanity, embodied metaphorically by “Pompey’s [strength] at sea”, or the agent which seeks to upturn the world Antony lives within. Antony is akin to “a vagabond flag upon the stream”, floating aimlessly with no direction only to “rot itself with motion”. The image suggested is Antony being dissolved by Egypt; he will be consumed in his being if he does not address his failings by recognising Rome.
Caesar then begins to reminiscence about Antony in order to reflect what kind of man he in fact was; however, this is preceded by yet another reminder of Antony’s behaviour. The phrase “lascivious wassails” employed here by Caesar is unnecessarily esoteric and far removed, being appropriate for Antony’s own state of isolation from reality and his own self.
Apostrophising, Caesar recalls Antony’s greatest deeds as a soldier, how his astounding endurance as a soldier allowed him to “drink the stale of horses” and “deign the roughest berry on the rudest hedge”. In Caesar’s eyes, the Antony of the past was an ideal; nothing is greater than what was once the pinnacle of the Romans, the soldier who had transcended human capabilities.
And yet, there is perhaps an inherent misunderstanding upon Caesar’s behalf. The Antony depicted in his memories is indeed superhuman; however, Antony himself is simply a man, and man cannot hope to live up to the magnificence of legend. The extreme verbosity Caesar displays in recalling what once was apparently Antony reflects his own excess; the partaking in purely Roman action parallels what Antony has done and what Caesar himself has already disdained. The man who “didst eat strange flesh” cannot exist within Antony just as his consumption in lust will destroy him; this is made apparent throughout the play, as Antony continually fails to live up to the image superimposed onto him by Romans.
It is perhaps somewhat surprising then that in closing the passage with Lepidus, Shakespeare is concentrating the audience’s attention on a man who may be recognised as what he truly is. Lepidus’ apparent acceptance of Antony’s actions in saying he “must not think there are Evils enough to darken all his goodness” functions on one level as a simple undermining of Caesar’s stance, but it furthermore reflects the opinion of a man who is able to stand against a tyrannical desire for order and duty. Thus, Lepidus may be regarded as complete, and his dualism in promising to come “Both what by sea and land” portrays him as a well rounded individual, but also a more realistic one who every facet of the world is able to contain.
Identity is then an abstract founded not within exclusivity of ideals, but rather, an amalgamation. In their idealised living, both Antony and Caesar ignore what it means to be human; they call continually for envisioned worlds where one simply may not function, and in the process lose the essence of self, recognisably apparent in Antony’s foolery and Caesar failing to understand him. Where man lies is not in ethereal values; Antony, in his purest and most recognisable state, can only be a mess of love and honour bound together by reality.
Home
Help
Search
Login
