Subversion in Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra

1466 Words6 Pages
Antony and Cleopatra as a Subversive Play Antony and Cleopatra is a subversive play. It overturns the notion of the tragic hero. Antony does not fit to the role of the coloniser because he is very liberal and a humanist. Towards the end he is embodying weakness but in this there is a new kind of heroism which is not in accordance with the conventional traits such as fortitude, warrior skills and masculinity, but that which depends on the dignity when you are defeated and generosity of spirits when you are facing odds. Their relation is transgressive as there is constant dichotomy of oriental versus discipline. Egypt is connected with heat, fertility and luxury; there is exotic splendour and a kind of submission to pleasure and indulgences. In contradiction stands the austere Roman world which is cold, calculative, disciplined and maintains totalitarianism. The action in the play keeps oscillating from Egypt to Rome and back and so one tends to intrude upon another and the dichotomy tends to fade as well. It is also an excellent example of the theory of the white man’s burden to improve and colonise the native and barbaric “other” that turns Cleopatra into an “object”. Edward Said’s Orientalism talks about this discourse that refers to the attitudes of the west towards the east; how the western empire and consciousness, framed by the political forces looks, interprets the orient and treat them as the alien other who indubitably have to be colonised in order to progress, grow and more essentially survive. Cleopatra and Egypt are seen as amoral, different, inconstant and mysterious because they intrigue the Romans and therefore the reason Egypt is related to feasting, drinking and amusing escapades is because of Cleopatra herself who is seen as a lose character and absolutely not concerned with maintenance of proper monarchy and order. The beginning of the
Open Document