SHAKESPEARE"S _ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA_
SHAKESPEARE"S _ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA_[1]
Coleridge"s one page of general criticism on _Antony and Cleopatra_ contains some notable remarks. "Of all Shakespeare"s historical plays,"
he writes, "_Antony and Cleopatra_ is by far the most wonderful. There is not one in which he has followed history so minutely, and yet there are few in which he impresses the notion of angelic strength so much--perhaps none in which he impresses it more strongly. This is greatly owing to the manner in which the fiery force is sustained throughout." In a later sentence he refers to the play as "this astonishing drama." In another he describes the style: "_feliciter audax_ is the motto for its style comparatively with that of Shakespeare"s other works." And he translates this motto in the phrase "happy valiancy of style."
Coleridge"s a.s.sertion that in _Antony and Cleopatra_ Shakespeare followed history more minutely than in any other play might well be disputed; and his statement about the style of this drama requires some qualification in view of the results of later criticism as to the order of Shakespeare"s works. The style is less individual than he imagined.
On the whole it is common to the six or seven dramas subsequent to _Macbeth_, though in _Antony and Cleopatra_, probably the earliest of them, its development is not yet complete. And we must add that this style has certain special defects, unmentioned by Coleridge, as well as the quality which he points out in it. But it is true that here that quality is almost continuously present; and in the phrase by which he describes it, as in his other phrases, he has signalised once for all some of the most salient features of the drama.
It is curious to notice, for example, alike in books and in conversation, how often the first epithets used in reference to _Antony and Cleopatra_ are "wonderful" and "astonishing." And the main source of the feeling thus expressed seems to be the "angelic strength" or "fiery force" of which Coleridge wrote. The first of these two phrases is, I think, the more entirely happy. Except perhaps towards the close, one is not so conscious of fiery force as in certain other tragedies; but one is astonished at the apparent ease with which extraordinary effects are produced, the ease, if I may paraphrase Coleridge, of an angel moving with a wave of the hand that heavy matter which men find so intractable.
We feel this sovereign ease in contemplating Shakespeare"s picture of the world--a vast canvas, crowded with figures, glowing with colour and a superb animation, reminding one spectator of Paul Veronese and another of Rubens. We feel it again when we observe (as we can even without consulting Plutarch) the nature of the material; how bulky it was, and, in some respects, how undramatic; and how the artist, though he could not treat history like legend or fiction, seems to push whole ma.s.ses aside, and to shift and refashion the remainder, almost with the air of an architect playing (at times rather carelessly) with a child"s bricks.
Something similar is felt even in the portrait of Cleopatra. Marvellous as it is, the drawing of it suggests not so much the pa.s.sionate concentration or fiery force of _Macbeth_, as that sense of effortless and exultant mastery which we feel in the portraits of Mercutio and Falstaff. And surely it is a total mistake to find in this portrait any trace of the distempered mood which disturbs our pleasure in _Troilus and Cressida_. If the sonnets about the dark lady were, as need not be doubted, in some degree autobiographical, Shakespeare may well have used his personal experience both when he drew Cressida and when he drew Cleopatra. And, if he did, the story in the later play was the nearer to his own; for Antony might well have said what Troilus could never say,
When my love swears that she is made of truth, I do believe her, though I know she lies.
But in the later play, not only is the poet"s vision unclouded, but his whole nature, emotional as well as intellectual, is free. The subject no more embitters or seduces him than the ambition of Macbeth. So that here too we feel the angelic strength of which Coleridge speaks. If we quarrelled with the phrase at all, it would be because we fancied we could trace in Shakespeare"s att.i.tude something of the irony of superiority; and this may not altogether suit our conception of an angel.
I have still another sentence to quote from Coleridge: "The highest praise, or rather form of praise, of this play which I can offer in my own mind, is the doubt which the perusal always occasions in me, whether the "Antony and Cleopatra" is not, in all exhibitions of a giant power in its strength and vigour of maturity, a formidable rival of "Macbeth,"
"Lear," "Hamlet," and "Oth.e.l.lo."" Now, unless the clause here about the "giant power" may be taken to restrict the rivalry to the quality of angelic strength, Coleridge"s doubt seems to show a lapse in critical judgment. To regard this tragedy as a rival of the famous four, whether on the stage or in the study, is surely an error. The world certainly has not so regarded it; and, though the world"s reasons for its verdicts on works of art may be worth little, its mere verdict is worth much.
Here, it seems to me, that verdict must be accepted. One may notice that, in calling _Antony and Cleopatra_ wonderful or astonishing, we appear to be thinking first of the artist and his activity, while in the case of the four famous tragedies it is the product of this activity, the thing presented, that first engrosses us. I know that I am stating this difference too sharply, but I believe that it is often felt; and, if this is so, the fact is significant. It implies that, although _Antony and Cleopatra_ may be for us as wonderful an achievement as the greatest of Shakespeare"s plays, it has not an equal value. Besides, in the attempt to rank it with them there is involved something more, and more important, than an error in valuation. There is a failure to discriminate the peculiar marks of _Antony and Cleopatra_ itself, marks which, whether or no it be the equal of the earlier tragedies, make it decidedly different. If I speak first of some of these differences it is because they thus contribute to the individuality of the play, and because they seem often not to be distinctly apprehended in criticism.
1.
Why, let us begin by asking, is _Antony and Cleopatra_, though so wonderful an achievement, a play rarely acted? For a tragedy, it is not painful. Though unfit for children, it cannot be called indecent; some slight omissions, and such a flattening of the heroine"s part as might confidently be expected, would leave it perfectly presentable. It is, no doubt, in the third and fourth Acts, very defective in construction.
Even on the Elizabethan stage, where scene followed scene without a pause, this must have been felt; and in our theatres it would be felt much more. There, in fact, these two and forty scenes could not possibly be acted as they stand. But defective construction would not distress the bulk of an audience, if the matter presented were that of _Hamlet_ or _Oth.e.l.lo_, of _Lear_ or _Macbeth_. The matter, then, must lack something which is present in those tragedies; and it is mainly owing to this difference in substance that _Antony and Cleopatra_ has never attained their popularity either on the stage or off it.
Most of Shakespeare"s tragedies are dramatic, in a special sense of the word as well as in its general sense, from beginning to end. The story is not merely exciting and impressive from the movement of conflicting forces towards a terrible issue, but from time to time there come situations and events which, even apart from their bearing on this issue, appeal most powerfully to the dramatic feelings--scenes of action or pa.s.sion which agitate the audience with alarm, horror, painful expectation, or absorbing sympathies and antipathies. Think of the street fights in _Romeo and Juliet_, the killing of Mercutio and Tybalt, the rapture of the lovers, and their despair when Romeo is banished.
Think of the ghost-scenes in the first Act of _Hamlet_, the pa.s.sion of the early soliloquies, the scene between Hamlet and Ophelia, the play-scene, the sparing of the King at prayer, the killing of Polonius.
Is not _Hamlet_, if you choose so to regard it, the best melodrama in the world? Think at your leisure of _Oth.e.l.lo_, _Lear_, and _Macbeth_ from the same point of view; but consider here and now even the two tragedies which, as dealing with Roman history, are companions of _Antony and Cleopatra_. Recall in _Julius Caesar_ the first suggestion of the murder, the preparation for it in a "tempest dropping fire," the murder itself, the speech of Antony over the corpse, and the tumult of the furious crowd; in _Coriola.n.u.s_ the b.l.o.o.d.y battles on the stage, the scene in which the hero attains the consulship, the scene of rage in which he is banished. And remember that in each of these seven tragedies the matter referred to is contained in the first three Acts.
In the first three Acts of our play what is there resembling this?
Almost nothing. People converse, discuss, accuse one another, excuse themselves, mock, describe, drink together, arrange a marriage, meet and part; but they do not kill, do not even tremble or weep. We see hardly one violent movement; until the battle of Actium is over we witness scarcely any vehement pa.s.sion; and that battle, as it is a naval action, we do not see. Even later, En.o.barbus, when he dies, simply dies; he does not kill himself.[2] We hear wonderful talk; but it is not talk, like that of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, or that of Oth.e.l.lo and Iago, at which we hold our breath. The scenes that we remember first are those that portray Cleopatra; Cleopatra coquetting, tormenting, beguiling her lover to stay; Cleopatra left with her women and longing for him; Cleopatra receiving the news of his marriage; Cleopatra questioning the messenger about Octavia"s personal appearance. But this is to say that the scenes we remember first are the least indispensable to the plot. One at least is not essential to it at all. And this, the astonishing scene where she storms at the messenger, strikes him, and draws her dagger on him, is the one pa.s.sage in the first half of the drama that contains either an explosion of pa.s.sion or an exciting bodily action. Nor is this all. The first half of the play, though it forebodes tragedy, is not decisively tragic in tone. Certainly the Cleopatra scenes are not so. We read them, and we should witness them, in delighted wonder and even with amus.e.m.e.nt. The only scene that can vie with them, that of the revel on Pompey"s ship, though full of menace, is in great part humorous.
En.o.barbus, in this part of the play, is always humorous. Even later, when the tragic tone is deepening, the whipping of Thyreus, in spite of Antony"s rage, moves mirth. A play of which all this can truly be said may well be as masterly as _Oth.e.l.lo_ or _Macbeth_, and more delightful; but, in the greater part of its course, it cannot possibly excite the same emotions. It makes no attempt to do so; and to regard it as though it made this attempt is to miss its specific character and the intention of its author.
That character depends only in part on Shakespeare"s fidelity to his historical authority, a fidelity which, I may remark, is often greatly exaggerated. For Shakespeare did not merely present the story of ten years as though it occupied perhaps one fifth of that time, nor did he merely invent freely, but in critical places he effected startling changes in the order and combination of events. Still it may be said that, dealing with a history so famous, he could not well make the first half of his play very exciting, moving, or tragic. And this is true so far as mere situations and events are concerned. But, if he had chosen, he might easily have heightened the tone and tension in another way. He might have made the story of Antony"s attempt to break his bondage, and the story of his relapse, extremely exciting, by portraying with all his force the severity of the struggle and the magnitude of the fatal step.
And the structure of the play might seem at first to suggest this intention. At the opening, Antony is shown almost in the beginning of his infatuation; for Cleopatra is not sure of her power over him, exerts all her fascination to detain him, and plays the part of the innocent victim who has yielded to pa.s.sion and must now expect to be deserted by her seducer. Alarmed and ashamed at the news of the results of his inaction, he rouses himself, tears himself away, and speeds to Italy.
His very coming is enough to frighten Pompey into peace. He reconciles himself with Octavius, and, by his marriage with the good and beautiful Octavia, seems to have knit a bond of lasting amity with her brother, and to have guarded himself against the pa.s.sion that threatened him with ruin. At this point his power, the world"s peace, and his own peace, appear to be secured; his fortune has mounted to its apex. But soon (very much sooner than in Plutarch"s story) comes the downward turn or counter-stroke. New causes of offence arise between the brothers-in-law.
To remove them Octavia leaves her husband in Athens and hurries to Rome.
Immediately Antony returns to Cleopatra and, surrendering himself at once and wholly to her enchantment is quickly driven to his doom.
Now Shakespeare, I say, with his matchless power of depicting an inward struggle, might have made this story, even where it could not furnish him with thrilling incidents, the source of powerful tragic emotions; and, in doing so, he would have departed from his authority merely in his conception of the hero"s character. But he does no such thing till the catastrophe is near. Antony breaks away from Cleopatra without any strenuous conflict. No serious doubt of his return is permitted to agitate us. We are almost a.s.sured of it through the impression made on us by Octavius, through occasional glimpses into Antony"s mind, through the absence of any doubt in En.o.barbus, through scenes in Alexandria which display Cleopatra and display her irresistible. And, finally, the downward turn itself, the fatal step of Antony"s return, is shown without the slightest emphasis. Nay, it is not shown, it is only reported; and not a line portrays any inward struggle preceding it. On this side also, then, the drama makes no attempt to rival the other tragedies; and it was essential to its own peculiar character and its most transcendent effects that this attempt should not be made, but that Antony"s pa.s.sion should be represented as a force which he could hardly even desire to resist. By the very scheme of the work, therefore, tragic impressions of any great volume or depth were reserved for the last stage of the conflict; while the main interest, down to the battle of Actium, was directed to matters exceedingly interesting and even, in the wider sense, dramatic, but not overtly either terrible or piteous: on the one hand, to the political aspect of the story; on the other, to the personal causes which helped to make the issue inevitable.
2.
The political situation and its development are simple. The story is taken up almost where it was left, years before, in _Julius Caesar_.
There Brutus and Ca.s.sius, to prevent the rule of one man, a.s.sa.s.sinate Caesar. Their purpose is condemned to failure, not merely because they make mistakes, but because that political necessity which Napoleon identified with destiny requires the rule of one man. They spill Caesar"s blood, but his spirit walks abroad and turns their swords against their own b.r.e.a.s.t.s; and the world is left divided among three men, his friends and his heir. Here _Antony and Cleopatra_ takes up the tale; and its business, from this point of view, is to show the reduction of these three to one. That Lepidus will not be this one was clear already in _Julius Caesar_; it must be Octavius or Antony. Both ambitious, they are also men of such opposite tempers that they would scarcely long agree even if they wished to, and even if destiny were not stronger than they.
As it is, one of them has fixed his eyes on the end, sacrifices everything for it, uses everything as a means to it. The other, though far the greater soldier and worshipped by his followers, has no such singleness of aim; nor yet is power, however desirable to him, the most desirable thing in the world. At the beginning he is risking it for love; at the end he has lost his half of the world, and lost his life, and Octavius rules alone. Whether Shakespeare had this clearly in his mind is a question neither answerable nor important; this is what came out of his mind.
Shakespeare, I think, took little interest in the character of Octavius, and he has not made it wholly clear. It is not distinct in Plutarch"s "Life of Antony"; and I have not found traces that the poet studied closely the "Life of Octavius" included in North"s volume. To Shakespeare he is one of those men, like Bolingbroke and Ulysses, who have plenty of "judgment" and not much "blood." Victory in the world, according to the poet, almost always goes to such men; and he makes us respect, fear, and dislike them. His Octavius is very formidable. His cold determination half paralyses Antony; it is so even in _Julius Caesar_. In _Antony and Cleopatra_ Octavius is more than once in the wrong; but he never admits it; he silently pushes his rival a step backward; and, when he ceases to fear, he shows contempt. He neither enjoys war nor is great in it; at first, therefore, he is anxious about the power of Pompey, and stands in need of Antony. As soon as Antony"s presence has served his turn, and he has patched up a union with him and seen him safely off to Athens, he destroys first Pompey and next Lepidus. Then, dexterously using Antony"s faithlessness to Octavia and excesses in the East in order to put himself in the right, he makes for his victim with admirable celerity while he is still drunk with the joy of reunion with Cleopatra. For his ends Octavius is perfectly efficient, but he is so partly from his limitations. One phrase of his is exceedingly characteristic. When Antony in rage and desperation challenges him to single combat, Octavius calls him "the old ruffian."
There is a horrid aptness in the phrase, but it disgusts us. It is shameful in this boy, as hard and smooth as polished steel, to feel at such a time nothing of the greatness of his victim and the tragedy of his victim"s fall. Though the challenge of Antony is absurd, we would give much to see them sword to sword. And when Cleopatra by her death cheats the conqueror of his prize, we feel unmixed delight.
The doubtful point in the character is this. Plutarch says that Octavius was reported to love his sister dearly; and Shakespeare"s Octavius several times expresses such love. When, then, he proposed the marriage with Antony (for of course it was he who spoke through Agrippa), was he honest, or was he laying a trap and, in doing so, sacrificing his sister? Did he hope the marriage would really unite him with his brother-in-law; or did he merely mean it to be a source of future differences; or did he calculate that, whether it secured peace or dissension, it would in either case bring him great advantage?
Shakespeare, who was quite as intelligent as his readers, must have asked himself some such question; but he may not have cared to answer it even to himself; and, in any case, he has left the actor (at least the actor in days later than his own) to choose an answer. If I were forced to choose, I should take the view that Octavius was, at any rate, not wholly honest; partly because I think it best suits Shakespeare"s usual way of conceiving a character of the kind; partly because Plutarch construed in this manner Octavius"s behaviour in regard to his sister at a later time, and this hint might naturally influence the poet"s way of imagining his earlier action.[3]
Though the character of Octavius is neither attractive nor wholly clear, his figure is invested with a certain tragic dignity, because he is felt to be the Man of Destiny, the agent of forces against which the intentions of an individual would avail nothing. He is represented as having himself some feeling of this sort. His lament over Antony, his grief that their stars were irreconcilable, may well be genuine, though we should be surer if it were uttered in soliloquy. His austere words to Octavia again probably speak his true mind:
Be you not troubled with the time, which drives O"er your content these strong necessities; But let determined things to destiny Hold unbewailed their way.
In any case the feeling of fate comes through to us. It is aided by slight touches of supernatural effect; first in the Soothsayer"s warning to Antony that his genius or angel is overpowered whenever he is near Octavius; then in the strangely effective scene where Antony"s soldiers, in the night before his last battle, hear music in the air or under the earth:
"Tis the G.o.d Hercules, whom Antony loved, Now leaves him.
And to the influence of this feeling in giving impressiveness to the story is added that of the immense scale and world-wide issue of the conflict. Even the distances traversed by fleets and armies enhance this effect.
And yet there seems to be something half-hearted in Shakespeare"s appeal here, something even ironical in his presentation of this conflict. Its external magnitude, like Antony"s magnificence in lavishing realms and gathering the kings of the East in his support, fails to uplift or dilate the imagination. The struggle in Lear"s little island seems to us to have an infinitely wider scope. It is here that we are sometimes reminded of _Troilus and Cressida_, and the cold and disenchanting light that is there cast on the Trojan War. The spectacle which he portrays leaves Shakespeare quite undazzled; he even makes it appear inwardly small. The lordship of the world, we ask ourselves, what is it worth, and in what spirit do these "world-sharers" contend for it? They are no champions of their country like Henry V. The conqueror knows not even the glory of battle. Their aims, for all we see, are as personal as if they were captains of banditti; and they are followed merely from self-interest or private attachment. The scene on Pompey"s galley is full of this irony. One "third part of the world" is carried drunk to bed. In the midst of this mock boon-companionship the pirate whispers to his leader to cut first the cable of his ship and then the throats of the two other Emperors; and at the moment we should not greatly care if Pompey took the advice. Later, a short scene, totally useless to the plot and purely satiric in its purport, is slipped in to show how Ventidius fears to pursue his Parthian conquests because it is not safe for Antony"s lieutenant to outdo his master.[4] A painful sense of hollowness oppresses us. We know too well what must happen in a world so splendid, so false, and so petty. We turn for relief from the political game to those who are sure to lose it; to those who love some human being better than a prize, to Eros and Charmian and Iras; to En.o.barbus, whom the world corrupts, but who has a heart that can break with shame; to the lovers, who seem to us to find in death something better than their victor"s life.
This presentation of the outward conflict has two results. First, it blunts our feeling of the greatness of Antony"s fall from prosperity.
Indeed this feeling, which we might expect to be unusually acute, is hardly so; it is less acute, for example, than the like feeling in the case of Richard II., who loses so much smaller a realm. Our deeper sympathies are focussed rather on Antony"s heart, on the inward fall to which the enchantment of pa.s.sion leads him, and the inward recovery which succeeds it. And the second result is this. The greatness of Antony and Cleopatra in their fall is so much heightened by contrast with the world they lose and the conqueror who wins it, that the positive element in the final tragic impression, the element of reconciliation, is strongly emphasised. The peculiar effect of the drama depends partly, as we have seen, on the absence of decidedly tragic scenes and events in its first half; but it depends quite as much on this emphasis. In any Shakespearean tragedy we watch some elect spirit colliding, partly through its error and defect, with a superhuman power which bears it down; and yet we feel that this spirit, even in the error and defect, rises by its greatness into ideal union with the power that overwhelms it. In some tragedies this latter feeling is relatively weak.
In _Antony and Cleopatra_ it is unusually strong; stronger, with some readers at least, than the fear and grief and pity with which they contemplate the tragic error and the advance of doom.
3.
The two aspects of the tragedy are presented together in the opening scene. Here is the first. In Cleopatra"s palace one friend of Antony is describing to another, just arrived from Rome, the dotage of their great general; and, as the lovers enter, he exclaims:
Look, where they come: Take but good note, and you shall see in him The triple pillar of the world transformed Into a strumpet"s fool: behold and see.
With the next words the other aspect appears:
CLEO. If it be love indeed, tell me how much.
ANT. There"s beggary in the love that can be reckoned.
CLEO. I"ll set a bourne how far to be beloved.
ANT. Then must thou needs find out new heaven, new earth.
And directly after, when he is provoked by reminders of the news from Rome:
Let Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch Of the ranged empire fall! Here is my s.p.a.ce.
Kingdoms are clay: our dungy earth alike Feeds beast as man: the n.o.bleness of life Is to do thus.
Here is the tragic excess, but with it the tragic greatness, the capacity of finding in something the infinite, and of pursuing it into the jaws of death.