1. How does Shakespeare's version differ from Plutarch's?
2. What does this tell us about Shakespeare's Cleopatra - and Antony?
3. Does it make any difference that Enobarbus is talking?
4. Does this description match our experience of Cleopatra on stage?
5. Do we learn anything from Norman Holland's article comparing the two versions?
I await your answers...
1. Plutarch's version appears to be more centralised more around telling the story and setting the scene in general. Shakespeare tends to be more opinionated about the characters and tends to focus on the power and attraction of Cleopatra and how that affects our senses
ReplyDelete2. Shakespeare emphasises Cleopatra and Antony's relationship - the power struggle between the two and how Antony he stricken; does he stay part of the Roman allegiance and continue in his old ways or return to the, clearly, irresistible Cleopatra.
3.The fact that Enorbarbus is talking, now in verse, proves how Cleopatra's power has altered his perception of reality. He's supposed to be the voice of reason - Cleopatra's power changes everyone.
4. Yes, the Cleopatra on stage appears to be as manipulative as the one Shakespeare intended to portray, which is all part of her persona and power.
5. Norman Holland suggests that Shakespeare plays with our senses, and allows our imagination to control the way we envisage the scene - Plutarch's version sets the scene as if simply telling the story
Some really good comments - especially about the way the description adds to, or modifies, our understanding of Antony and Enorbarbus.
ReplyDeleteI've outlined my own response on my page http://year13shakey.blogspot.co.uk/p/ryan-browne_19.html and added some comment about the use of prose and verse.
ReplyDelete1. Shakespeare’s version is more subjective and poetic. Plutarch’s version is more objective and seemingly factual, whereas Shakespeare makes the information more emotive which is important in emphasising how much of an effect Cleopatra has on people/ Enobarbus. (Presents the change in character in Cleopatra’s presence).
ReplyDelete2. This suggests that Cleopatra’s presence is overwhelming, thus increasing Antony’s struggle between pleasure and duty.
3. Yes, Enobarbus is the ‘voice of reason’ and so you would not expect such poetic language coming from such a character. However since it does, this suggests that Cleopatra can create a change in an individual with just her presence. The dramatic change in Enorbarbus implies that other less closed minded people would experience even more of a change with Cleopatra’s presence.
4. Yes, when Cleopatra is present the atmosphere is never dull; scenes become exaggerated and full of life.
5. Yes, Holland wrote that “many of Shakespeare’s changes animate the inanimate in ways North never does”. Shakespeare brings the whole scene to life, creating an overwhelming atmosphere with Cleopatra’s arrival.
Some clear, well-thought through responses - thanks.
ReplyDelete1. Shakespeare version does differ to Plutarch's version. the most obvious difference is the changed syntax. He adds a lot of imagery too, creating various effects. For example, he adds elements of mystery whilst describing Cleopatra using words like "strange" and "invisible", this makes Cleopatra appear more intriguing. The use of paradoxical oxymorons like "love sick" create a contradictory feel and perhaps foreshadow the destructive side of Cleopatra's seductiveness.
ReplyDelete2. In some ways it does make you feel some level of pity towards Antony as the whole city, even Enobarbus "the voice of reason" cannot help becoming infatuated with Cleopatra. The slightly comical ending of Shakespeare's version reflects their relationship.
3.It highlights the seductive nature of Cleopatra as even the so-called "voice of reason" cannot help being seduced by Cleopatra. He even reverts to verse, whereas usually he would only speak in prose, to describe her.
4. She is the center of attention, everyone is drawn to her as captured in this scene.
5. Holland talks about the "intense attention" paid toward Cleopatra in Shakespeare's version, without any physical description of her. He examines how Shakespeare describes the objects around her, whilst highlighting them as being separate from her.