ABSTRACT
It is a critical commonplace that in Antony and Cleopatra Rome and Egypt are associated with conflicting values or points of view. But the complex implications and ramifications of this conflict have not been fully explored. Most commentators assign a single concept or a small group of concepts to each locale even though over the course of the play each locale exemplifies a multitude of distinct values. Another complexity derives from the fact that how a character views a point of view depends on the character’s point of view. As a result, the play actually dramatizes not two but four main figurative locales: Rome as it is perceived from a Roman point of view; Rome as it is perceived from an Egyptian point of view; Egypt as it is perceived from a Roman point of view; and Egypt as it is perceived from an Egyptian point of view. Rome’s idea of Rome is not the same as Egypt’s idea of Rome; Rome’s Egypt is not the same place as Egypt’s Egypt. Yet another complexity derives from the fact that characters adopt a variety of attitudes toward the conflict in values. Some characters are intensely Egyptian, some uncompromisingly Roman, some deeply divided; some attempt to be neutral; some change loyalties, and so on. The varied responses of characters to the conflict in values have been re-enacted and extended in the commentary on the play. In some cases, a critic openly expresses allegiance to one side in the conflict. In some cases, the position of a critic is only implicit, revealed because the critic’s value judgments in regard to matters other than the conflict itself resemble the value judgments that in the play are associated with either Rome or Egypt. In a few cases, the attitude of a critic exhibited in this way is actually at odds with the critic’s declared position toward the conflict.
