Cosmopolitanism, Mobility and Hybridity in Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra

Öz

Detecting divergence in a play that is set in a different country than the one from whose culture its text is nourished, and in a different time that qualifies the text as a piece of historical fiction is a challenge even in the eyes of the playwright’s contemporaries. In Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, every example of divergence is defined with the norm it transgresses and the norms have various sources. Elizabethan conventions of drama make the setting of the play a domain for a political discussion stretching over centuries. Yet, a more socially reflective source of conventional notions is the Elizabethan era itself. The play is set in Alexandria and Rome, foreign destinations to veil the political allegory that exists between the fictional characters and real political figures. Italy and Egypt, therefore, serve to make the audience alien to the physical sphere of the discussion and blur the most direct of these allegories. This essay aims to discuss ways in which Rome and the West are portrayed as opposed to Egypt and the East and to explore how the West and the East consider each other on a mutual basis and how they interact with one another in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. Along with representations of the West and the East, the paper aims to explore political references integrated into the play through the use of concepts like cosmopolitanism, mobility, and hybridity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cosmopolitanism
• Mobility
• East and West
• Hybridity
• Power struggle in Antony and Cleopatra

Kaynakça

1. Alulis, Joseph.“The Tragedy of Politics: Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra.” Perspectives on Political Science, vol. 41, no. 4, 2012, pp. 190-194. Taylor and Francis Online, doi: 10.1080/10457097.2012.713262.
2. Banerjee, Pompa. “Cosmopolitanism and ‘Strange Flesh’ in Antony and Cleopatra.” Parergon, vol. 35, no. 1, 2018, pp. 119-139. Project Muse, doi: 10.1353/pgn.2018.0006.
3. Billy, Christine D. “The Renaissance Theater’s Boy Actresses.” Antony and Cleopatra: Performance History, Humanities Department, Cedar Crest College, https://www2.cedarcrest.edu/academic/eng/lfletcher/ac/cbilly.htm. Accessed 08 June 2021.
4. Cohen, Walter. “Introduction to Antony and Cleopatra.” The Norton Shakespeare, edited by S. Greenblatt et al. New York: Norton. 1997, pp. 2625-2655.
5. Crane, Mary Thomas. “Roman World, Egyptian Earth: Cognitive Difference and Empire in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra.” Comparative Drama, vol. 43, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1-17. Project Muse, doi: 10.1353/cdr.0.0041.
6. Cunningham, Dolora G. “The Characterization of Shakespeare's Cleopatra.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 1, 1955, pp. 9-17. JSTOR, doi: 10.2307/2866047.
7. De Sousa, Geraldo U. “Habitat, Race, and Culture in Antony and Cleopatra.” Shakespeare’s Cross-Cultural Encounters. Palgrave Macmillan, 1999, pp. 129-158.
8. De Sousa, Geraldo U. “Boundaries in a Globalized World: Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra.” Renaissance Papers 2016, edited by Jim Pearce et al., Camden House, 2017, pp. 69-78.

9. Harris, Jonathan Gil. “‘Narcissus in Thy Face’: Roman Desire and the Difference It Fakes in Antony and Cleopatra.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 4, 1994, pp. 408-425. JSTOR, doi: 10.2307/2870964.
10. Haug, Emily. “Local Politics in the Late Republic: Antony and Cleopatra at Patras.” American Journal of Numismatics (1989-), vol. 20, 2008, pp. 405-420.
11. Hirsh, James. “Rome and Egypt in Antony and Cleopatra and in Criticism of the Play.” Antony and Cleopatra: New Critical Essays, edited by Sara Munson Deats. Routledge, 2005, pp: 175-191.
12. “Hybridity.” Oxford Reference. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095952517. Accessed: 08 June 2021.
13. Miller, Anthony. “Varieties of Power in ‘Antony and Cleopatra’.” Sydney Studies in English, vol. 30, 2004, pp. 42-59.
14. Kalmey, Robert P. “Shakespeare’s Octavius and Elizabethan Roman History.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 18, no. 2, 1978, pp. 275-287. JSTOR, doi: 10.2307/450362.
15. Neill, Michael, editor. Introduction. Antony and Cleopatra, by William Shakespeare, Oxford UP, 2008, pp. 1-130.
16. Ritchie, Shannon. “Securing Permanent Power: The Sexism of Self-Otherization in Shakespearean Plays.” Journal of the Wooden O., vol. 14, no. 1, 2015, pp. 43-54.
17. Rose, Paul Lawrence. “The Politics of Antony and Cleopatra.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 4, 1969, pp. 379–389. JSTOR, doi: 10.2307/2868534.
18. Shakespeare, William. Antony and Cleopatra, edited by Michael Neill, Oxford UP, 2008.
19. Tanner, Tony. “Antony and Cleopatra: Boundaries and Excess.” Memoria di Shakespeare: A Journal of Shakespearean Studies, vol. 4, 2017, pp. 1-19. R.O.SA, doi: 10.13133/2283-8759/14466.
20. Tillis, Steve. “East, West, and World Theatre.” Asian Theatre Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, 2003, pp. 71–87.
21. Turner, Frederick. Shakespeare’s Twenty-First Century Economics: The Morality of Love and Money. Oxford UP, 1999.
22. Wortham, Christopher. “Temperance and the End of Time: Emblematic Antony and Cleopatra.” Comparative Drama, vol. 29, no. 1, 1995, 1-37. Project Muse, doi: 10.1353/cdr.1995.0030.
23. Yachnin, Paul. “Shakespeare's Politics of Loyalty: Sovereignty and Subjectivity in Antony and Cleopatra.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 33, no. 2, 1993, pp. 343-363. JSTOR, doi: 10.2307/451003.