Antony and Cleopatra: An Analysis of Janet Adelman’s Character and Knowledge

Hollie Cummings, 2007

After reading and analyzing The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra by William Shakespeare, Janet Adelman had many things to say. She wrote an essay called, The Common Liar: An Essay on Antony and Cleopatra. This work was very long and covered many topics of this play with detailed analysis and information about every possible aspect of Shakespeare’s play. A few pages of Adelman’s essay were devoted to the Character and Knowledge of the characters presented in the play. Most importantly, she addressed the character, or lack of, of the protagonist.

Adelman tells us that most critics believe that The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra is simply an allegory, and a historical rendition; so clearly, the character of the protagonist is not important. Adelman disputes this. She says that the same critics, who believe character of the protagonist is not important, are the same critics who try to analyze the play for emotions found and motivations (Adelman). This proves that the character of a person is very important. How is one going to find out another’s motives without knowing what type of person he is? It just does not match up, and Adelman calls this to attention.

Adelman also asks many questions of the play and says they cannot be answered, because Shakespeare left them ambiguous. No answers to questions of motives are present in the play and not only does she ask why, but she asks: “Why does Antony marry Octavia is he plans to return to Cleopatra? Does Antony end up returning to Cleopatra out of love or is it because she overpowers his spirit? and lastly, “Did Antony’s ships join Octavius because of Cleopatra’s orders or was someone else, possibly even Antony himself, to blame for Antony’s final betrayal?” (Adelman) These questions are left unanswered for an open interpretation. Adelman says this happens because we can only see the action. We are unable to see what the people are thinking and feeling. She says, “We are left to speculate the meaning” (Adelman).

Adelman truly does make some wonderful points about this play, and she has influenced many other academic writers and critical analyses of The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra, however, a few of the scholars she has influenced go beyond her readings. They claim that the protagonist does have a character presented. They claim that they know who the characters are and they know their motives, sometimes better than the characters know themselves. But, one thing is for sure, they all do agree that The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra is very “dislocated”, as Little suggests, and “metaphoric” as Freeman states(Little, Freeman). There is something in the play that goes beyond the normal realm of reality and that is what they are all trying to find out.

Now, we know Adelman believes that there is no character demonstrated among the protagonist and this leaves us with the ambiguity of him. However, Freeman believes that “readings of [ Antony and Cleopatra] can be incomplete or imprecise” (Freeman). We do not know for sure what Shakespeare’s intentions were, as he is not around to ask, so imprecise may be a little much to conclude. But, Freeman’s ideas could suggest that maybe Adelman made an incomplete reading. Maybe she missed points in the reading that other critics found and analyzed. Apparently, Freeman found that Antony knows himself very well in the play and it is accurately carried forward into our knowledge of him. He comfortably states that Antony is “courageous, passionate and loyal”, especially when he deals with grief (Freeman). He must be reading very deeply into what Adelman missed, or he could be projecting these traits onto Antony and they aren’t really there. Adelman tells us that not only does Antony lack these traits, but also he does not deal with grief at all in the play. That is one of the ambiguous points left to us to decipher (Adelman).

Another reader agrees with Adelman and her views of the ambiguity in the play. However, he places a reason for it that Adelman might be missing. He says that Antony does have character that is demonstrated, but the relationship with Egypt throws it off. He claims that Egypt is a place of “illusions, charms, enchantments, playing, dreaming, and acting” (Ornstein). He claims that not only is Antony’s character thrown off by being here or involved with this place, but also he is never in control of himself when he is there, that is why he feels distant, and shall we say again, ambiguous.

Ornstein even goes further to support this claim, and says that not only is Antony never in control of himself in Egypt, but he isn’t in Rome either. Octavius possesses control over Antony when he is in Rome and Cleopatra when he is in Egypt. Therefore, he claims that it is not the lack of character that is important (because it is there, just not in Antony’s control), but the location which is of importance and Adelman misses this (Freeman). There is an example of this in the play when Cleopatra asks, “What means this/...What does he mean?” (4.4 lines 14,24) Adelman points out that Cleopatra should know Antony best of all and even she has to ask what he means. She also says that if the characters in the play cannot even get a grasp on each other, how is the audience and the readers? However, this is right at the point where control is shifting. If Ornstein is correct, Antony is about to go back under Octavius’ control, which would explain why Cleopatra is questioning. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Antony’s lack of character, but simply a detail of control that Shakespeare wants to bring to our attention.

To sort of chime in with Ornstein, Brower states that the major theme in this play is the “defeat by passion” (Brower). Adelman does not look to see if this is the reason for the ambiguity. Passion makes people crazy and can certainly throw them off balance. For example, in the play, Antony says, “Here I am Antony,/ Yet cannot hold this visible shape, my knave/ I made these wars for Egypt, and the Queen/ Whose heart I thought I had, for she had mine” (4.14 lines 13-16). Adelman would make the argument that Antony is saying even he does not know who he is, which backs up the idea that there is no character within the protagonist. Ornstein would say that Cleopatra has more control over him than just his heart, which he admits. In addition, that he brought the war because Octavius controlled him before. Lastly, Brower could make the claim that Antony said he was in love with Cleopatra, that passion made him lose sense of himself for a moment, and now he is coming back from the illusion. All sides can be backed up by the text, however Adelman’s may be at fault, because the other arguments are sensing something she is missing.

Adelman argues that there is a sort of illusion in all of Shakespeare’s tragedies, but she claims that there is not even a “partial insight” into them like the others (Adelman). Maybe she is just missing it. Maybe the ideas that the other readers brought up is the insight. If she is missing it, it is not because she is not reading closely enough, just simply for the fact that Shakespeare could quite possibly be a detail genius. He has taken everything into consideration, and all the details work together to deliver his message.

As we can tell with the information of these other readers and critics, all of Adelman’s questions that I presented earlier are now answered. Maybe they aren’t as ambiguous as she made them seem to be. Maybe there really was something lying underneath that Shakespeare did intentionally. All of these questions can now be answered when we look at the work from Ornstein, Little, Brower and Freeman. All except one. Who is responsible for the final betrayal of Antony? Adelman’s points could come back to life if we believe that Antony betrayed himself because of the lack of character he possessed. One could make the claim that if Antony knew himself; his allies would know him too. Therefore, he would not have lost Enobarbus and may have won the battle. Or if Antony truly knew himself, Cleopatra could have known him just as well, and there relationship would have been better. Maybe she would have actually come down the tower to give him a kiss because Rome would not have been such a punishment if their love were better.

So, this lack of character could have quite an impact on Antony when it comes to answering this last question of his betrayal. This leads me to believe that it is not a matter of whose research is right or wrong, but it is very interesting how they all play off of each other. Adelman has influenced many studies with her ideas, and other people have branched off of hers and created their own as well. Each have very strong points and bring new information to the board when trying to figure out this master of detail that we all call Shakespeare.

Works Cited

Adelman, Janet. Character and Knowledge. The Common Liar: An Essay on Antony and Cleopatra. Pp 15-24. Yale University Press. New Haven and London, 1973.

Bevington, David. The Necessary Shakespeare.The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra, William Shakepeare. Pearson Longman, 2005. Chicago.

Brower, Reuben. Antony and Cleopatra: The Heroic Context. Shakespeare and the Greco- Roman Heroic Tradition. Pp 346-353. Oxford University Press, 1971.

Freeman, Donald C. “The Rack Dislimns”: Schema and Metaphorical Pattern in Antony and Cleopatra. Poetics Today, 20.3: 443-460, 1999. Porter Institute for Poetics. Project Muse.

http:// www. Muse.jhu.edu/journals/poetics_today/v020/20.3freeman.html

Little, Arthur, L. Shakespeare Jungle Fever: National-Imperial Re-visions of Race, Rape, and Sacrifice. Shakespeare Quarterly 2002. 53.4, 595-598. Project Muse.

Ornstein, Robert. The Ethics of the Imagination: Love and Art in Antony and Cleopatra. Later Shakespeare, Stratford-upon-Avon Studies 8: John Brown and Bernard Harris. Pp 31-46, 1966. Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.

[ Home ] [ Literary Influences ] [ Cultural/Historical Influences ] [ Textual/Performance History ]
[ Critical History ] [ Web Resources ] [ Site Information ]