Antony and Cleopatra

By William Shakespeare

HarperCollins is proud to present its incredible range of best-loved, essential classics.

Hugely ambitious in its historical focus and vast geographical scope, Antony and Cleopatra is one of Shakespeare’s most astonishing tragedies. The drama centres on the relationships between his main protagonists, Octavius Ceasar, Mark Antony and Cleopatra, and the highly charged affair between Mark Antony and the Egyptian queen that forms the backdrop to the pervading theme of struggle between East and West throughout the play.

The internal battle of personal emotion and duty that Antony experiences, and the dynamics of power and sexuality portrayed by Cleopatra, give the play its dramatic tension. Rich and complex in its language and poetic in tone, Shakespeare shows how the politics of Rome ultimately cause disaster for a man who is torn between reason and passion.

• Language: English
• Publisher: HarperCollins UK
• Release date: Sep 12, 2013
• ISBN: 9780007535255

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) is arguably the most famous playwright to ever live. Born in England, he attended grammar school but did not study at a university. In the 1590s, Shakespeare worked as partner and performer at the London-based acting company, the King’s Men. His earliest plays were Henry VI and Richard III, both based on the historical figures. During his career, Shakespeare produced nearly 40 plays that reached multiple countries and cultures. Some of his most notable titles include Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar. His acclaimed catalog earned him the title of the world’s greatest dramatist.

Book preview

THE ALEXANDER SHAKESPEARE

General Editor

R.B. Kennedy

Additional notes and editing

Mike Gould

ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA

William Shakespeare

CONTENTS

Title Page

Prefatory Note

The Theatre in Shakespeare’s Day

Shakespeare: A Timeline

Life & Times

Money in Shakespeare’s Day

Introduction

List of Characters

Act One

Scene I

Scene II

Scene III

Scene IV

Scene V

Act Two

Scene I

Scene II

Scene III

Scene IV

Scene V

Scene VI

Scene VII

Act Three

Scene I

Scene II

Scene III

Scene IV

Scene V

Scene VI

Scene VII

Scene VIII

Scene IX

Scene X

Scene XI

Scene XII

Scene XIII

Act Four

Scene I

Scene II

Scene III

Scene IV

Scene V

Scene VI

Scene VII

Scene VIII

Scene IX

Scene X

Scene XI

Scene XII

Scene XIII

Scene XIV

Scene XV

Act Five

Scene I

Scene II

Shakespeare: Words and Phrases

Copyright

About the Publisher

Prefatory Note

This Shakespeare play uses the full Alexander text. By keeping in mind the fact that the language has changed considerably in four hundred years, as have customs, jokes, and stage conventions, the editors have aimed at helping the modern reader – whether English is their mother tongue or not – to grasp the full significance of the play. The Notes, intended primarily for examination candidates, are presented in a simple, direct style. The needs of those unfamiliar with British culture have been specially considered.

Since quiet study of the printed word is unlikely to bring fully to life plays that were written directly for the public theatre, attention has been drawn to dramatic effects which are important in performance. The editors see Shakespeare’s plays as living works of art which can be enjoyed today on stage, film and television in many parts of the world.

Image Missing

An Elizabethan playhouse. Note the apron stage protruding into the auditorium, the space below it, the inner room at the rear of the stage, the gallery above the inner stage, the canopy over the main stage, and the absence of a roof over the audience.

The Theatre in Shakespeare’s Day

On the face of it, the conditions in the Elizabethan theatre were not such as to encourage great writers. The public playhouse itself was not very different from an ordinary inn-yard; it was open to the weather; among the spectators were often louts, pickpockets and prostitutes; some of the actors played up to the rowdy elements in the audience by inserting their own jokes into the authors’ lines, while others spoke their words loudly but unfeelingly; the presentation was often rough and noisy, with fireworks to represent storms and battles, and a table and a few chairs to represent a tavern; there were no actresses, so boys took the parts of women, even such subtle and mature ones as Cleopatra and Lady Macbeth; there was rarely any scenery at all in the modern sense. In fact, a quick inspection of the English theatre in the reign of Elizabeth I by a time-traveller from the twentieth century might well produce only one positive reaction: the costumes were often elaborate and beautiful.

Shakespeare himself makes frequent comments in his plays about the limitations of the playhouse and the actors of his time, often apologizing for them. At the beginning of Henry V the Prologue refers to the stage as ‘this unworthy scaffold’ and to the theatre building (the Globe, probably) as ‘this wooden O’, and emphasizes the urgent need for imagination in making up for all the deficiencies of presentation. In introducing Act IV the Chorus goes so far as to say:

… we shall much disgrace

With four or five most vile and ragged foils,

Right ill-dispos’d in brawl ridiculous,

The name of Agincourt, (lines 49–52)

In A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Act V, Scene i) he seems to dismiss actors with the words:

The best in this kind are but shadows.

Yet Elizabeth’s theatre, with all its faults, stimulated dramatists to a variety of achievement that has never been equalled and, in Shakespeare, produced one of the greatest writers in history. In spite of all his grumbles he seems to have been fascinated by the challenge that it presented him with. It is necessary to re-examine his theatre carefully in order to understand how he was able to achieve so much with the materials he chose to use. What sort of place was the Elizabethan playhouse in reality? What sort of people were these criticized actors? And what sort of audiences gave them their living?

The Development of the Theatre up to Shakespeare’s Time

For centuries in England noblemen had employed groups of skilled people to entertain them when required. Under Tudor rule, as England became more secure and united, actors such as these were given more freedom, and they often performed in public, while still acknowledging their ‘overlords’ (in the 1570s, for example, when Shakespeare was still a schoolboy at Stratford, one famous company was called ‘Lord Leicester’s Men’). London was rapidly becoming larger and more important in the second half of the sixteenth century, and many of the companies of actors took the opportunities offered to establish themselves at inns on the main roads leading to the City (for example, the Boar’s Head in Whitechapel and the Tabard in South-wark) or in the City itself. These groups of actors would come to an agreement with the inn-keeper which would give them the use of the yard for their performances after people had eaten and drunk well in the middle of the day. Before long, some inns were taken over completely by companies of players and thus became the first public theatres. In 1574 the officials of the City of London issued an order which shows clearly that these theatres were both popular and also offensive to some respectable people, because the order complains about ‘the inordinate haunting of great multitudes of people, specially youth, to plays interludes and shows; namely occasion of frays and quarrels, evil practices of incontinency in great inns …’ There is evidence that, on public holidays, the theatres on the banks of the Thames were crowded with noisy apprentices and tradesmen, but it would be wrong to think that audiences were always undiscriminating and loudmouthed. In spite of the disapproval of Puritans and the more staid members of society, by the 1590s, when Shakespeare’s plays were beginning to be performed, audiences consisted of a good cross-section of English society, nobility as well as workers, intellectuals as well as simple people out for a laugh; also (and in this respect English theatres were unique in Europe), it was quite normal for respectable women to attend plays. So Shakespeare had to write plays which would appeal to people of widely different kinds. He had to provide ‘something for everyone’ but at the same time to take care to unify the material so that it would not seem to fall into separate pieces as they watched it. A speech like that of the drunken porter in Macbeth could provide the ‘groundlings’ with a belly-laugh, but also held a deeper significance for those who could appreciate it. The audience he wrote for was one of a number of apparent drawbacks which Shakespeare was able to turn to his and our advantage.

Shakespeare’s Actors

Nor were all the actors of the time mere ‘rogues, vagabonds and sturdy beggars’ as some were described in a Statute of 1572. It is true that many of them had a hard life and earned very little money, but leading actors could become partners in the ownership of the theatres in which they acted: Shakespeare was a shareholder in the Globe and the Blackfriars theatres when he was an actor as well as a playwright. In any case, the attacks made on Elizabethan actors were usually directed at their morals and not at their acting ability; it is clear that many of them must have been good at their trade if they were able to interpret complex works like the great tragedies in such a way as to attract enthusiastic audiences. Undoubtedly some of the boys took the women’s parts with skill and confidence, since a man called Coryate, visiting Venice in 1611, expressed surprise that women could act as well as they: ‘I saw women act, a thing that I never saw before … and they performed it with as good a grace, action, gesture … as ever I saw any masculine actor.’ The quality of most of the actors who first presented Shakespeare’s plays is probably accurately summed up by Fynes Moryson, who wrote, ‘… as there be, in my opinion, more plays in London than in all the parts of the world I have seen, so do these players or comedians excel all other in the world.’

The Structure of the Public Theatre

Although the ‘purpose-built’ theatres were based on the inn-yards which had been used for play-acting, most of them were circular. The walls contained galleries on three storeys from which the wealthier patrons watched, they must have been something like the ‘boxes’ in a modern theatre, except that they held much larger numbers – as many as 1500. The ‘groundlings’ stood on the floor of the building, facing a raised stage which projected from the ‘stage-wall’, the main features of which were:

a small room opening on to the back of the main stage and on the same level as it (rear stage),

a gallery above this inner stage (upper stage),

canopy projecting from above the gallery over the main stage, to protect the actors from the weather (the 700 or 800 members of the audience who occupied the yard, or ‘pit’ as we call it today, had the sky above them).

In addition to these features there were dressing-rooms behind the stage and a space underneath it from which entrances could be made through trap-doors. All the acting areas – main stage, rear stage, upper stage and under stage – could be entered by actors directly from their dressing rooms, and all of them were used in productions of Shakespeare’s plays. For example, the inner stage, an almost cavelike structure, would have been where Ferdinand and Miranda are ‘discovered’ playing chess in the last act of The Tempest, while the upper stage was certainly the balcony from which Romeo climbs down in Act III of Romeo and Juliet.

It can be seen that such a building, simple but adaptable, was not really unsuited to the presentation of plays like Shakespeare’s. On the contrary, its simplicity guaranteed the minimum of distraction, while its shape and construction must have produced a sense of involvement on the part of the audience that modern producers would envy.

Other Resources of the Elizabethan Theatre

Although there were few attempts at scenery in the public theatre (painted backcloths were occasionally used in court performances), Shakespeare and his fellow playwrights were able to make use of a fair variety of ‘properties’, lists of such articles have survived: they include beds, tables, thrones, and also trees, walls, a gallows, a Trojan horse and a ‘Mouth of Hell’; in a list of properties belonging to the manager, Philip Henslowe, the curious item ‘two mossy banks’ appears. Possibly one of them was used for the

bank whereon the wild thyme blows,

Where oxlips and the nodding violet grows

in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Act II, Scene i). Once again, imagination must have been required of the audience.

Costumes were the one aspect of stage production in which trouble and expense were hardly ever spared to obtain a magnificent effect. Only occasionally did they attempt any historical accuracy (almost all Elizabethan productions were what we should call ‘modern-dress’ ones), but they were appropriate to the characters who wore them: kings were seen to be kings and beggars were similarly unmistakable. It is an odd fact that there was usually no attempt at illusion in the costuming: if a costume looked fine and rich it probably was. Indeed, some of the costumes were almost unbelievably expensive. Henslowe lent his company £19 to buy a cloak, and the Alleyn brothers, well-known actors, gave £20 for a ‘black velvet cloak, with sleeves embroidered all with silver and gold, lined with black satin striped with gold’.

With the one exception of the costumes, the ‘machinery’ of the playhouse was economical and uncomplicated rather than crude and rough,

Reviews for Antony and Cleopatra

[petroglyph_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I found this so-so. Both Antony and Cleopatra are portrayed as fickle individuals absorbed in their love-making to the exclusion of everything else. Cleopatra in particular is whiny and manipulative; Antony plainly gives up on all duties. The play only becomes tragic and imbued with grandeur once I allow myself to not think of these people as, well, humans but as larger-than-life figures, household names straight out of Great (Wo)Man History. I’m not sure I want to do that. The quality picks up towards the end, but the earlier acts contain some good back-and-forth banter and penis jokes.

[rampaginglibrarian · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Not my favorite of the bard's work but he really can't write poorly. I am not as fascinated by this 'epic' love story as some may be.

[coach_of_alva · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Shakespeare here writes about two historical characters far more famous and important that Lear or Macbeth but he doesn't treat them in a monumental tragic fashion. He instead portrays them as rather ordinary mortals: Antony, a pliable politician and unfocused warrior; Cleopatra, a passionate but insecure cougar. The most interesting scene is a on-boat banquet where the shrewd politicos of Rome persuade a young revolutionary to abandon a rebellion he is winning. The most memorable character (to me) is Enobarbus, a close, intelligent friend of Antony who betrays him when he decides he has no chance to win and then cannot live with himself.

[joririchardson · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

*If you actually don't know the story of this play, just a warning, this review will probably contain some spoilers.This Shakespeare play tells the famous love story of Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra VII. Their countries, the crumbling kingdom of Egypt and the rising, powerful kingdom of Rome, are at war, and relations are hostile between them. Despite all this, Antony and Cleopatra, who should have been enemies, are in love. Caesar is beginning to take desperate measures in order to lure Antony back to his homeland, where they need him as a general.This play contained a lot of interesting motives, with the love story between enemies as the most noticeable, of course. Caesar's many efforts to direct Antony's love back to Rome were also interesting - after the man had slighted him, insulted him, and defied him so many times, Caesar remains hopeful, and continues his attempts to reclaim his best general. Besides being in need of a strong commander for his war, Caesar obviously also loves Antony. He has him marry into his family, making Antony officially family, but he clearly thought of the young man as family far before the marriage.Cleopatra was also interesting, and one of those characters who you can't quite predict (besides knowing the story beforehand, that is). She is at times hard and cool, at other times warm. Cruel and kind, angry and happy. With Antony, her mind and moods change like the wind. I wondered, exasperated at times, how he could possibly put up with her. However, Antony seems to view this as evidence of how passionate Cleopatra is, how unique, and how mysterious she is. Antony is fascinated with her, and would have been no matter what.Like many hopeless romances that cannot possibly end well, this one doesn't. The scene where Antony flees from battle to follow Cleopatra was a sad one. On one hand, his ultimate, absolute devotion to her was touching. Being a soldier and a warrior was what he had been trained to do for all his life. Undoubtedly, he dreamed of one day being a general. He knows nothing else, and he has worked for nothing else. He will have had men in his charge on other ships, probably friends, perhaps men he grew up with. Yet he leaves them, to follow Cleopatra's ship. It was a terrible choice that had tragic consequences, one that was neither right nor wrong. Though he does not regret his love for Cleopatra, Antony acknowledges after his desertion from battle that he betrayed his men and himself. Cleopatra understands his shame.A tragic romance from Shakespeare.

[amerynth · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

"Antony & Cleopatra" is definitely not one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. It is a slow starter that sort of meanders about setting the scene for several acts before getting to the meat of the story. The ending, however, is terrific.... it just takes a long while to get there.In the play, Cleopatra has fallen in love with Antony, one of the triumverate of Roman rulers. Of course, the rulers can't see to get along and end up in conflict with each other. War, destruction and death ensue.It's an interesting story but not one of Shakespeare's most entertaining, unfortunately.

[wealhtheowwylfing · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Cleopatra: the fiercest, most fabulous queen in Shakespeare.
Marc Antony: can't even commit suicide right.

[hlselz · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Had to read the play, cause I love the history. Im not a big fan of Shakespeare, but the loved the play because of the charectors.

[katieloucks · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I've never read the play before, and it was really interesting.

[meandmybooks-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Huh. I'd have put money on my having read this before, though quite a while back, but I sure don't remember finding Cleopatra so loathsome before. I've read enough histories that cover the whole Julius Caesar/Mark Antony/Cleopatra/Octavius/death by asps thing that maybe I hadn't read Shakespeare's version before. At any rate, history suggests that Cleopatra was canny, intelligent, and deliberate, but Shakespeare's Cleopatra is a silly, fickle, whining brat. Character after character tells us that she is bewitching, glorious, and desirable, but every time we meet her she is whimpering and simpering, telling silly lies to manipulate Antony, swanning around in a way that would embarrass a sensible teenager, much less a matronly queen. And Antony isn't much better. Far from taking his position in the triumvirate seriously, he tosses his responsibilities to Rome and his family there aside to frisk, puppy-like, around his Egyptian mistress. Yuck. Neither one comes off as grown-up, much less as noble figures whose tragic fates we should find regrettable. And yet...Despite the characters' manifold flaws, the play is deeply compelling. Somehow both Antony and Cleopatra, for all their foolish choices and pettinesses, transcend all and appear, in the end, to be outsize, even archetypal figures. Their bad decisions, which so many other people must pay for, somehow end with a sort of grandeur and mythic feel that, logically, the details don't support. They are so convinced of the earth shattering significance of their lives that they convince us it is so. Having turned these historical figures into melodramatic children Shakespeare uses his art to transform them further into great tragic lovers.Part of my extreme distaste for Cleopatra may be thanks to the very excellent Arkangel recording of the play that I listened to along with my reading of the Arden Shakespeare edition. Estelle Kohler, who plays Cleopatra, doesn't hold back anything in her emotional performance. All the weeping, whining, wheedling, and cattiness is going full throttle. The asp could have showed up in, say, Act 2, and Antony could have settled down with Octavia, who seemed a nice, sensible sort of woman, and things would have been much simpler. But that wouldn't have made much of a story, would it? Marjorie Garber's wonderful essay, in her “Shakespeare After All,” helped me appreciate the play, though she couldn't make the main characters any less annoying. Highly recommended.

[the1butterfly · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

We had a free-choice play for my Shakespeare class, so I thought this would be a good one because Cleopatra is a great character. I also attempted to make a beaded headpiece to wear during my presentation, which didn't entirely work. The play is long and goes all over the place, but it's one of the greatest romances of all time, and worth reading.

[david.alfred.sarkies · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is truly a play of epic proportions, moving from the centre of Rome to her periphery, including places such as Egypt and the borders of Parthia. It is one of Shakespeare's later works, and the skill in which he brings so much together onto the stage simply goes to show how skillful he was at producing historical drama. Now, some scholars like to argue that Shakespeare could not have been responsible for so many plays of such high quality, however I personally find such research and argument to be quite useless. In the end, I tend to, and have always tended to, lean towards the mythological than the scientific, and while it may be the case that Shakespeare was not responsible for the plays, I personally see no benefit in such argument and speculation.One of the things that I struggle with these plays is that they can be difficult to follow at times with the poetical language of the 17th Century and the difficulties in determining which character is who (which in some cases involves flipping back to the dramatis personae). I have also been watching the series Rome, and the characters of Mark Antony and Cleopatra seem to invade my mind from that show making it a little difficult differentiating Shakespeare's characters. The Mark Antony of the TV series is a much more brutal and despotic character than is Shakespeare's. However, we must remember two things, and they are that Shakespeare is not attempting to give us an insight into the culture and lifestyles of Ancient Romans, while Bruno Heller is not trying to produce, or even rewrite Shakespeare. In fact it is very clear that Heller, in his TV series, is giving Shakespeare a very wide berth.I find the topics of Shakespeare's plays quite interesting though because I have noted that Shakespeare seems to steer clear of writing any plays based upon biblical stories, even tragedies (and there are many stories in the bible that a skillful playwright could transform into a tragedy of Shakespearian proportions), but rather he seems to lean much closer to the secular world of Ancient Rome. Further, he does not seem to go to rewrite the ancient tragedies, even those of Seneca (Shakespeare did not know Greek therefore he only had access to Greek texts that had been translated, such as Plutarch's Lives). Even then, Shakespeare only borrowed three stories from Plutarch's Lives, that being Coriolanus, Julius Ceaser, and Mark Antony (even though Julius Ceaser is the tragedy of Brutus).I am almost inclined to suggest that if it was not for this play or for Julius Ceaser, that the characters of Ceaser, Brutus, Antony, and Cleopatra, would probably not be as dominant in our culture as they are. In a way, Shakespeare took one of the defining periods of Roman History, namely the period in which the republic collapsed and was replaced by the empire, and placed them onto the stage. Whether this play is supposed to be a 'sequal' to Julius Ceaser is difficult to determine, though it is interesting to note that Bernard Shaw later wrote a third play, Ceaser and Cleopatra, to turn this into a trilogy.The background of these events is when Ceaser Augustus defeated his enemies and ascended to the throne as the first emperor of Rome. However, it is also interesting that after this we have another great shift in European history: we shift from the west, back to the east, to the birth, life, and death, of the messiah - Jesus Christ. However, this is not mentioned in the play, though there are some hints to the appearance of Herod the Great.It is difficult to tell whether there is truly a fatal flaw in Mark Antony, and it is also difficult to determine whether Cleopatra actually loved him. Her trick at the end of the play, where she feigns death, and as a result Antony kills himself, is not the action of somebody in love, even chivalrous love. In a way she has been testing Antony's love throughout the play, but whether she loved him, or simply lusted after him, is difficult to tell. Many of us like to see this as a love story, but to me, it is not. It is a story about a man who let himself become possessed by a wiry woman which in turn brought about his downfall. Remember two things about Egypt of this period: it was not a part of Rome, rather it was a protectorate, and secondly Cleopatra considered herself a god. While she was subservient to Rome, she still did not recognise Rome as her ruler. As such, by sinking her claws into Antony proved a way of enabling her to shift the balance of power back to her.It is interesting that Shakespeare uses the serpent as the means of her death. It is almost as if the serpent is submitting herself to a serpent. She wrapped her coils around Antony and enchanted him, and in doing so set his downfall in motion (remembering that this is not the Mark Antony that is portrayed elsewhere). Ceaser tries everything to break her spell, including marrying him to his sister, but he fails. In the middle of an important battle with the pirates that are preventing wheat shipments from reaching Rome, Antony deserts and travels to Egypt. In Egypt he finds that his soldiers are deserting him, and even though he wins the first battle, he makes a tactical error, by fighting at sea instead of land, and as a result he is defeated.However, it is interesting that Ceaser does not condemn or punish him for his crimes. It appears that Ceaser understands that it was Cleopatra's whiles that dragged him to this point and has his body carried off in honour and leaves his legacy intact. However Cleopatra, recognising that her life of luxury and as a queen of Egypt is over instead of going into slavery she poisons herself. We hear her speak of being a slave and of watching plays where she is turned into a whore and mocked on stage. It is not her position that leads her to her death, but her legacy. However, this is not the legacy that has come down to us because we, today, know of Cleopatra as the beautiful queen of Egypt.

[shanaqui_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I didn't like Antony and Cleopatra very much at the beginning -- but then, it always seems to take about an act for me to get into the swing of a Shakespeare play. It helps with Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra that I'm familiar with the history it's based on. It took me a while to warm to the characters of Antony and Cleopatra, though, but for all that there's something very human about the way Cleopatra reacts to Antony -- now this, now that -- and how he responds to her.

There are, of course, some beautiful speeches and descriptions here: I was nudged into reading this by reading a reference just yesterday to Cleopatra burning upon the water. I don't think I've seen this one as often quoted as I have the other Shakespeare plays I've been reading lately, though...

[391_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Despite its length and myriads of scene changes and characters to keep track of, I really enjoyed this play. I feel like it's not performed often enough on the Shakepeare circuits, but that helps to keep it fresh for me when I read it. The Folger edition contains footnotes to explain some of the archaic language and references, which is extremely helpful when reading.

[laurochka-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The classical tragic romance.
I found Cleopatra a little annoying but overall enjoyed this doomed tale.

[aliceanna-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Although a classic story, the characters came across to me as very mono-dimensional. I didn't really care about any of them. Antony just seemed whipped and Cleo didn't seem to have anything to inspire his devotion. Too melodramatic without much substance.

[antt-4 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I know it's anathema for an English major, but this play was ho hum to me. Probably the et tu Brute....

[jms001 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Why do men do what they do when they're totally in love with women? Read this to find out...or at least dwell on it. Maybe we'll never come to a conclusion.

[john257hopper · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

First reading of this play. For me it is definitely a play of two halves. The first three acts felt rather tedious and the dialogue unmemorable. But the fourth act, divided into no less than 13 scenes, mostly very short, contained the famous meat of the drama. Act 5 scene 2 also served as a dramatic conclusion.

[leslie398 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Read on my Kindle as part of Shakespeare's "The Complete Works".While the plot of this tragedy had plenty of action, somehow it just didn't work for me. I don't know if it was the language, my mood, or reading it instead of watching a performance... I'll have to try this one again sometime

[jhudsui_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I do like the bit where Antony gives a grandiose speech, stabs himself, and then is mortified with annoyed surprise at the fact that he's still alive afterward.

[thornton37814 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This tragedy features triumvir Mark Antony and Queen of Egypt Cleopatra. She loves him although he is married. Octavius Caesar, the third political figure in the book, keeps the play's action interesting. Based on texts from Plutarch's Lives, we learn a little history of the Roman Republic prior to the time of Christ. It's not my favorite Shakespeare, but I liked it better after reading it this second time. I probably would not have re-read it, if I"d remembered how Cleopatra died. It's a classic, and a great way to share a little ancient history.

[bryndahlquis · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I didn't like it as much as Shakespeare's other plays, probably because, for some reason, I had a harder time understanding it and it took me most of the first half of the play to really get into it. The very last scene is definitely my favorite, and I wish the rest of the play was that good.Cleopatra is probably one of my favorite female Shakespeare characters, though, along with her maids.