Antony and Cleopatra: New Critical Essays
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Antony and C leopatra Shakespeare Criticism PHILIP C. KOLIN, General Editor ROMEO AND JULIET Shakespeare’s Sonnets Critical Essays Critical Essays Edited by John F. Andrews Edited by James Schiffer Coriolanus Pericles Critical Essays Critical Essays Edited by David Wheeler Edited by David Skeele Titus Andronicus Henry VI Critical Essays Critical Essays Edited by Philip C. Kolin Edited by Thomas A. Pendleton Love’s Labour’s Lost The Tempest Critical Essays Critical Essays Edited by Felicia Hardison Londre Edited by Patrick M. Murphy The Winter’s Tale Taming of the Shrew Critical Essays Critical Essays Edited by Maurice Hunt Edited by Dana Aspinall Two Gentlemen of Verona Othello Critical Essays New Critical Essays Edited by June Schlueter Edited by Philip C. Kolin Venus and Adonis Hamlet Critical Essays New Critical Essays Edited by Philip C. Kolin Edited by Arthur F. Kinney As You Like It from 1600 The Merchant of Venice to the Present New Critical Essays Critical Essays Edited by John W. Mahon and Edited by Edward Tomarken Ellen Macleod Mahon The Comedy of Errors Julius Caesar Critical Essays New Critical Essays Edited by Robert S. Miola Edited by Horst Zander A Midsummer Night’s Dream Antony and Cleopatra Critical Essays New Critical Essays Edited by Dorothea Kehler Edited by Sara Munson Deats Antony and C leopatra New Critical Essays Edited by Sara Munson Deats ROUTLEDGE NEW YORK AND LONDON Published in 2005 by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 www.routledge-ny.com Published in Great Britain by Routledge 2 Park Square Milton Park, Abingdon Oxon OX14 4RN www.routledgefalmer.com Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis Books, Inc. Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge's collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Shakespeare Criticism, Volume 30 Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 0-203-30794-1 Master e-book ISBN To Gordon My peerless “man of men” Contents Acknowledgments ix 1. Shakespeare’s Anamorphic Drama: 1 A Survey of Antony and Cleopatra in Criticism, on Stage, and on Screen SARA MUNSON DEATS 2. “Above the element they lived in”: 95 The Visual Language in Antony and Cleopatra, Acts 4 and 5 DAVID BEVINGTON 3. Passion and Politics: 111 Antony and Cleopatra in Performance DAVID FULLER 4. Cleopatra’s Sati: 137 Old Ideologies and Modern Stagings DOROTHEA KEHLER 5. “High events as these”: 153 Sources, Influences, and the Artistry of Antony and Cleopatra ROBERT A. LOGAN 6. Rome and Egypt in Antony and Cleopatra 175 and in Criticism of the Play JAMES HIRSH vii viii Contents 7. “He beats thee ’gainst the odds”: 193 Gambling, Risk Management, and Antony and Cleopatra LINDA WOODBRIDGE 8. “Cloyless Sauce”: 213 The Pleasurable Politics of Food in Antony and Cleopatra PETER A. PAROLIN 9. Cleopatra and the Myth of Scota 231 LISA HOPKINS 10. “Immortal Longings”: 243 The Erotics of Death in Antony and Cleopatra LISA S. STARKS 11. Sleep, Epic, and Romance in Antony and Cleopatra 259 GARRETT A. SULLIVAN JR. 12. The Allusive Tissue of Antony and Cleopatra 275 LEEDS BARROLL 13. O’erpicturing Apelles: 291 Shakespeare’s Paragone with Painting in Antony and Cleopatra MARGUERITE A. TASSI 14. Interview with Giles Block, 309 Director of the 1999 Production of Antony and Cleopatra at Shakespeare’s Globe in London GEORGIA E. BROWN Notes on the Contributors 325 Index 327 Acknowledgments This book is the result of many years of reading about and teaching Antony and Cleopatra. Many individuals and institutions have contributed to the completion of this study and I would like to acknowledge at least some of them at this time. First and foremost, my gratitude to my thirteen contributors for their innovative and inspirational essays o’erflows the measure. I am confident that these original essays, written especially for this anthology, through the vari- ety of their subject matter and the diversity of their critical approaches, will significantly expand the critical contexts within which this vast and wonder- ful drama can be read, viewed, and analyzed. I would also like to express my appreciation to the Chairperson of my Department, Phillip Sipiora, who offered continual support, both psychologi- cal and financial, for this project. In addition, I would like to thank the Sab- batical Committee at the University of South Florida, which granted me the research time absolutely necessary for the completion of this endeavor, and the USF Publications Council, which contributed funds to support this pro- ject. David Fuller also would like to acknowledge substantial financial sup- port from the British Academy in carrying out the archival research for his essay. I also am grateful to all of the librarians, curators, and theater personnel who graciously and tirelessly assisted me in finding necessary research mate- rial and illustrations for this collection. These include the library staff of the University of South Florida; Kathleen Coleman of the Harvard Theatre Col- lection; Janet Birkett of the London Theatre Museum; Audrey Hall of the National Museums of Liverpool; Stacy Bemento of the Philadelphia Museum of Art; Sylvia Morris, Marian Pringle, Susan Brock, and Helen Hargest of the Shakespeare Centre Library in Stratford-upon-Avon; Martin Durrant of the ix x Acknowledgments V&A Picture Library in London; Emily Schulze of the Alley Theatre in Houston, Texas; Jo Phillips of the Globe Theatre in London; Amy Richard of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, Oregon; Abigail Jones of the Royal National Theatre in London; David Howells and Jane Ellis of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon; Catherine Taylor- Williams of Shakespeare & Company in Lenox, Massachusetts; Jo-Anne Jor- dan of the Shakespeare Festival of Canada in Stratford, Ontario; and Liza Holtmeier of the Shakespeare Theatre, Washington, DC. Particular thanks go to Giles Block, director of the 1999 production of Antony and Cleopatra for the Globe Theatre, London, who found time from his taxing schedule to grant Georgia E. Brown the interview that concludes this volume. My deepest appreciation also goes to my editors at Routledge, Matthew Byrnie and Prudy Taylor Board, for their beneficial aid and advice throughout this endeavor, and to my superconscientious and organized research assistant, Robin Rogers, who indefatigably searched libraries and the Web for neces- sary materials, checked my multitudinous citations, and scrupulously proof- read and formatted this manuscript. I also am deeply indebted to my friends and colleagues, Shelia Diecidue, Robert A. Logan, and Merry Perry, who labored over the introduction to this collection and offered many valuable and perceptive comments, and also to Philip C. Kolin, general editor of this series, who first enlisted me as the edi- tor of this collection and whose consistent support sustained me throughout the long hours of reading and editing. Finally, most of all, I wish to thank my husband, Gordon Deats, my own paragon of husbands, whose encouragement throughout my scholarly career, like Antony’s bounty, has no winter in it, but grows the more with reaping. 1. Shakespeare’s Anamorphic Drama A Survey of Antony and Cleopatra in Criticism, on Stage, and on Screen SARA MUNSON DEATS MARS OR GORGON Of all Shakespeare’s problematic plays, I find Antony and Cleopatra to be his most anamorphic drama, a judgment validated by 350 years of vehemently conflicting interpretations. For the almost four centuries since its composition, critical controversy has seethed around every aspect of the tragedy—its value, its ethos, its genre, its structure, and its characters.1 First, few of Shakespeare’s tragedies have been both so admired and so disparaged. Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1813–34) extols Antony and Cleopatra as the most wonderful of Shakespeare’s plays and includes it—along with Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth—in Shakespeare’s pantheon of sublime masterpieces. Conversely, A. C. Bradley (1906), who faults the cata- strophe as failing to evoke the requisite pity and terror, excludes the tragedy from his big four. Bernard Shaw (1900) dismisses the play as a study in infat- uation, a theme he deems more appropriate to comedy than tragedy, whereas T. S. Eliot (1920) lauds the tragedy as “Shakespeare’s most assured success” (99), seconded by Bertolt Brecht (1920), who relishes it as a splendid, grip- ping drama, and G. Wilson Knight (1931), who acclaims it as probably Shake- speare’s subtlest and greatest play, perhaps “paragoned only by The Tempest” (199). Furthermore, throughout the centuries, the ethos of the play has been fervently debated. Is Antony and Cleopatra a condemnation of irresponsible lust, as moralistic critics from E. K. Chambers (1907) to Franklin Dickey (1957) and Daniel Stempel (1956) insist? Or is it a celebration of a magnifi- cent passion transcending traditional moral laws, as romantic critics from Horace Howard Furness (1907) to Knight (1931) to Charles Wells (1992) assert? Or is the play, as complementarians like John F. Danby (1949), Maynard Mack (1960), and Norman Rabkin (1967) contend, both and neither, a deliberately ambiguous drama that defies any permanent allegiance to either 1 2 Antony and Cleopatra Rome or Egypt, honor or love? Or does the play, as others like Derek Traversi (1963) and Julian Markels (1968) avow, ultimately reject both sets of values as incomplete, affirming instead a golden mean, or via media,between conflicting polarities? And what of the play’s genre? Responding to Antony and Cleopatra’s departure from standard tragic formulas and its pervasive potpourri of comedy and tragedy, critics have vied to classify this hybrid drama properly.