Keffler 1

Lauren Keffler

Hurley

EN330-01

12 November 2019

Antony and Cleopatra Reaction Paper

It is natural to read Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra as a warning against sensual

indulgence and worldly luxuries; after all both Antony and Cleopatra, who embody decadence in

this play, are often berated by other characters and warned against material pleasures and are the

ones who don’t survive by the end of the play. Antony especially endures wide-spread criticism

for his time spent with Cleopatra in Egypt, not focused on his duties as a leader in Rome; at one

point, Octavius Caesar even claims he is “not more manlike than Cleopatra” (I, iv, ll. 5-6). This

conflict between him and Caesar eventually leads to the war that prompts the deaths of the two

titular characters. In the end, those that were indulgent are gone and Caesar, who was always

critical of their behavior, triumphs.

In this simple reading, the play’s traditional interpretation is shown: Antony and

Cleopatra are warnings that earthly indulgence is the enemy of heroic virtue. However, a deeper

analysis proves that Shakespeare was not so decisive; in fact, the piece seems to take on an

Egyptian view as much as it does a Roman one. For one thing, the victorious Caesar is not the

most honorable man; he is treacherous and manipulative first to Lepidus, and again to Cleopatra

in the final scenes. And throughout the play, Antony and Cleopatra are the ones continually

compared to gods (both Roman Hercules and Venus as well as the Egyptian Osiris and Isis). The

play ends with Caesar himself admitting that Cleopatra was an honorable queen in a “strong toil
 Keffler 2

of grace” (V, ii, l. 348). All this combined with the bold rich language of the play, the incredible

splendor of Cleopatra in the final act, and the ironies introduced against Caesar destroy the

simple moral interpretation given in a casual evaluation of the work and leave the meaning more

ambiguous.