Explore Shakespeare’s presentation of the two worlds of Rome and Egypt in the play so far.
Shakespeare’s presentation of the two worlds of Rome and Egypt is very important to the whole play itself as each side is set up as a direct antithesis to the other. In many senses we see Antony as a personification of Rome and Cleopatra as a personification of Egypt. Rome and Egypt can also stand alone as personifications of war in Rome’s case and love for Egypt. These contrasting loyalties and values are what eventually leads to the demise of both sides as the embodiment of them both lose their life in the clashing and tearing of their different priorities.
Cleopatra represents an exotic world of bodily pleasures, gluttony, and sex mingled with flamboyant yet frivolous power alongside manipulating influence. Egypt shows a different world of freedom and love which is a refreshing break from society and the rules which it uses to dictate how one lives their life. This is something which we see Antony become so caught up in that he becomes unable to escape from it. The views of Cleopatra vary in accordance to who is speaking of her. If we hear about her from Romans the focus is very much upon objectifying her and criticising her ways.
Cleopatra is referred to as a ‘gypsy’ and a ‘strumpet’ whilst the lifestyle is very critical and focused again on the bodily pleasures indulged within the country ‘we did sleep all day out of countenance and made the night light with drinking’. Gluttony and idleness is referenced to extremely frequently ‘eight wild boars roasted whole at breakfast, but twelve persons there’ and we also hear about how Antony is caught up between it, as if he has been captured by a lifestyle of idleness and the shame of it for Rome seems to be extreme ‘he fishes, he drinks and wastes the lamps of the night in revel’, this Roman view of Egypt shows it as wasteful, irresponsible and sinful.
The Roman speech of Cleopatra is also extremely objectifying, perhaps because of her sex. We see Cleopatra is not spoken of as an intellectual leader, but a temptress who is nothing more than a physical interest to be indulged in as she is spoken of a ‘wonderful piece of work’ which is just about the only form of ‘praise’ we hear of her. This view could be a form of denial of her power as Cleopatra is a powerful figure, yet due to disagreements about what she stands for and her taking Antony from Egypt she cannot be acknowledged as the renowned leader she is.
We see Egypt reflects Aristotle’s lower order pleasures such as eating and sex, whereas the higher order pleasures that reflect intellect are seen in Rome. J.S Mill spoke of the higher and lower order pleasures on an animalistic level. He stated that there was a lack of meaning in the lower order pleasures as they only satisfied you on an animalistic level, not on an intellectual level. Mill famously stated ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question.’ This statement shows a stupidity to those who might indulge in lower order pleasures and a lack of open mindedness. This could also be reflective of the oppressive views towards women at the time. The idea of somebody choosing a lower order existence is seen as abandoning all dignity, something which we see Antony as doing. This could be reflective of a negative modernization or a backward movement away from advancement as an animalistic existence may be simpler and far more indulgent than being ruled by duty alone.
When Cleopatra is spoken of in an Egyptian viewpoint we see her very differently. She is spoken of as a goddess, in the same league as Venus and Isis. Isis was seen as a powerful female law-giver. The name Isis is directly translated to mean ‘Throne’, something which again we see absolute solid connotations of power from. The animal of Isis is the cobra, which again links to similarities with Cleopatra as she commits suicide by applying snakes to herself.
The presentation of both Rome and Egypt as opposites sets the play up for a tragedy. The differences create a void which will eventually create a great issue in the play as both powers cannot remain. Cleopatra is a powerful and iconic female figure, but when looking at her from a 16th to 17th century viewpoint we see that she may not have been an admirable source of power. Women may have more commonly seen her morals, treatment, and dominance over Antony as flawed also. We then must consider that Cleopatra may not have been written to have the same interpretation as we make read her as having today. This brings us back to how different both the powers of Rome and Egypt were, showing that we were quite possibly supposed to side with Rome over Egypt.
The fact that Cleopatra is a female representation of Egypt and Antony a male representation of Rome is also to be explored. The fact that Egypt is a land of love and Rome that of war and duty could perhaps be showing how emotions and love are far more closely linked to women than men. We see in the play how war of powers creates conflict in love also. The splitting of these powers is what creates the conflict as they both must remain powerful, and by doing so neither can step down for the other.
Shakespeare’s presentation of Egypt and Rome in the play so far show both countries as extremely divided. They are set up as dichotomies to each other- as are Antony and Cleopatra- the embodiment of both powers. The life of Egypt is that of the exotic and free, indulging in all forms of lower order pleasures. Rome stands for justice, war and duty. They both stand as opposites in the sense that Egypt seems to remain focused on individual needs and pleasures, whereas Rome focuses on a collective need.
