WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

THE ROMAN PLAYS

Titus Andronicus
date of composition: probably shortly before January 1594; written (most likely) in collaboration with George Peele. sources: no direct sources. Portraying events supposedly derived from the history of the late Roman empire, but which are entirely fictitious, the play may be labelled a history play and Roman play. It also combines elements of tragedy, without, however, offering its audience catharsis. a revenge tragedy (very popular in the 1590s). characters: Titus Andronicus, a Roman general; his brother, Marcus Andronicus; his sons Lucius, Quintus, Martius, Mutius; young Lucius, Tituss grandson; Lavinia, Tituss daughter; Tamora, Queen of the Goths; her sons Alarbus, Demetrius, Chiron; Aaron, the Moor; Saturninus, son of the late Emperor of Rome; his brother Bassianus, Lavinias husband.

Titus Andronicus
the contest for power: The opening speeches of Saturninus and Bassianus represent a Rome that is deeply divided between tradition (Saturninus) and virtue (Bassianus). Titus steps in on the side of tradition, but in doing so he explicitly refuses to set a head on headless Rome (I.1.186). Romes fractious status is matched by the subsequent dismemberment of the characters (e.g. see Lavinias case in particular). If the play is understood as a systematic deconstruction and critique of Roman society and ways, then this act displays the first crack. the contrast between Roman civilization and Goth barbarism: Roman rituals are considered the bulwark of civilisation. Yet, when Tamora pleads for her sons life, Titus does not hesitate to slay him; moreover, later on, he kills his own son, Mutius, in the name of honour. The seemingly simplistic distinction between the Romans as civilised and the Goths as barbarous is thus complicated, and the play questions the violence at the heart of the Roman civilisation.

Titus Andronicus
the revenge feud between Titus and Tamora: The scenes that present the murder of Bassianus and the rape of Lavinia by Tamoras sons concentrate on the mechanism of revenge. Significantly, Aaron, the villain of the play, is shown as the foremost agent of vengeance. Much of what happens in the play is a direct result of Aarons scheming. Unlike Titus and Tamora, who are given ample reasons for their actions, Aaron is all action and no motivation. Such representation is consistent with the racial stereotype of the Moor. Diabolical vengeance is linked to the wilderness. As opposed to the distinctly factionalized Rome where Bassianus and Saturninus staged their civilised war of rhetoric, the wilderness is a place without walls or dimensions, where desires and motives take on a fluid freedom. What was constrained by the rigidity of the court is given full villainous run here. In pursuing their black ends, humans slide through bestial forms as easily as their desires are realised; this is symbolised in the words of the panicking Lavinia, who sees her attackers as lions, tigers, and ravens. When Titus prostrates himself and makes a plea for his sons life to a nonexistent audience, he represents the ultimate demise of Rome. Together with the consuming sorrow (III.1.61) of the abused Lavinia, this lays the foundation for a plot that increasingly concentrates on a circle of revenge that is rapacious and all-consuming. This all-consuming cycle ultimately finds concrete form in Tituss final scheme for retribution, in which the consuming of men is transformed from the metaphorical to the literal, and Tituss enemies are forced to eat their offspring.

Titus Andronicus
the pit: Aarons bag of gold (later on taken as proof that Tituss sons were going to pay a huntsman to kill Bassianus) is buried underground; Bassianuss corpse is thrown into a pit; Quintus and Martius are trapped in the same pit; and Lavinia has her hole violated. The play draws, paradoxically, on two meanings of the hole: as a mark of death, a sign of the tomb, and as a mark of fertility (Tamora seduces Aaron; Lavinia is raped). There is a certain misogynistic identification of women and their sexual appetites with the mysterious and wild terror of the earth. The terror of the hole, embodied in the earth as a grave, and in the body as a sign of feminine danger, is continued throughout the play, and culminates in the killing mouth of the mother who devours her own sons, becoming the grave and negating her fertility all at once.

Titus Andronicus
Lavinia attacker/victim of rape?: Considering that Lavinia spends most of the play mute, the few words she addresses Tamora when she discovers her in the arms of her lover Aaron are particularly harsh. Some critics even believe that her rape is fitting retribution for the insults she unleashes on Tamora. However, others argue that her behaviour is completely in keeping with the standards and behaviour of ladies during the Elizabethan era, and that taking offence at her coarseness is just the prudish reaction of a contemporary reader. That leads to an overall contradictory representation of Lavinia, as victim and as attacker. Some of the stage directions of Act II read as follows: Enter...Lavinia, her hands cut off, and her tongue cut out, and ravished. If one adds to this the horrifying effects of the literal dramatizations in Elizabethan theatres (with fake blood and stumps), it is easy to see why critics decry Titus Andronicus as a play of uncontrolled and unnecessary excess. Not only is there excess in the atrocities committed upon Lavinia, but this excess is also manifested in the text: the physical body of Lavinia as testament to the rape; the gloating insults of Chiron and Demetrius; the moving speech of Marcus when he encounters his niece. Therefore, there is an excess of language at work which glazes over the horrific effects of this rape.

Titus Andronicus
The scene in which Titus feeds the crippled Lavinia completes the textualisation of her body begun by Marcus in Act II as she is described as a map of woe (III.2.12), whose sign language must be interpreted. Lavinias role is very important and can be considered as a symbol of theatricality in the play. She becomes central to the play (as a reason for revenge) just when she loses her ability to speak and is left with no communicational means but her gestures. This draws our attention to the fact that this is a play to be staged, and that Lavinia is to be looked at and not just heard. The opening scenes of Act IV show how words are used as tools and weapons in the play. The dramatic disclosure of Lavinias rape marks the climax of the concept of her body as text. Her signs are too confusing for her father and uncle, and she must resort to the words of Ovids Metamorphoses to tell the truth. In essence, words and a knowledge of the myths they spin allow the characters to communicate, and thereby to attack, in a world of deceit. In a sense, if heroism is based on anything in this play, it is based on wit and knowledge of the classical texts.

Titus Andronicus
racial difference: Aarons statement that he will have his soul black like his face (III.1.204) can be read in two contrasting ways. It can be seen as locating Aarons evil within his blackness, as popularly accepted in racial stereotypes. Or, it can be taken as proof that his villainy is a deliberate choice rather than the natural characteristic of a Moor. Either his soul is inherently black because he is black, or he decides to make his soul black because he has been treated so badly for simply having black skin. In defending his son, Aaron defends the colour that has for so long caused him to be ostracized: Coal-black is better than another hue / In that it scorns to bear another hue (IV.2.99-100). These lines reveal Aaron as the victim of a racially biased society, and give a possible insight as to why he is set on a path of evil. His immediate attachment to his son, his new and only bond with the rest of the world, proves just how alone he has been throughout the play. Although he has been a lover to the queen, a coach to her sons, and a foe to the Andronici, he has committed his acts solely for his own pleasure. In a sense, there is honour in what he says about the honesty of the black hue: it is one thing that, by its nature, remains itself. While all the other characters are constantly in disguise, shifting alliances for their own interests, Aaron wears his villainy on his sleeve, and is loyal, at least, to that.

Titus Andronicus
parents and children: The play invites comparisons between Aaron, Tamora, and Titus in the matter of parenthood. Tamora wants her lovechild with Aaron eliminated, while Titus has killed some of his children with his own hands. In comparison, Aarons fierce love for his child seems to mark him as a much better parent than both Titus and Tamora. In Act V, Aaron gets an opportunity to flaunt his evil through long, uninterrupted speeches that reveal his blasphemy, his absence of scruples, and his utter lack of regret about anything he has done. Not only does he explain his own part in every atrocity that has been committed, he heaps insult on injury by describing how much he delighted at the suffering of his victims. The excess of his violence is matched by the voracity of his appetite for wrongdoing. This scene can only inspire horror in an audience, effectively erasing any sympathy one might have mustered for Aaron as a paternal figure. the play-within-the-play: Tamoras little costume-show for Titus functions as a play-within-a-play, drawing attention to the theatricality of Titus. What is interesting here is that, in disguising themselves as Revenge, Rape, and Murder, Tamora and her sons in fact assume the abstract roles they have occupied throughout the play. In taking on disguises, Tamora and her sons reveal their true selves, while Titus proves himself a master at hiding his intentions.

Titus Andronicus
the final scene: The last scene is filled with an almost obscene number of corpses, but every one of these deaths is necessary to clear the way for a new Rome. At the end of this scene, Titus is replaced by his eldest son Lucius as the possible new emperor, and the most serious conflicts (Bassianus/ Saturninus and Titus/ Tamora) are no more. Rome has been blasted clean, and the cycle of revenge seems to have destroyed itself. Still, it is hard to tell if Shakespeare means to suggest a positive conclusion or not. Marcus says, O let me teach you how to knit again / This scattered corn into one mutual sheaf, / These broken limbs again into one body (V.3.69-71). This implies that the Rome of this play has been one fragmented body throughout. Does a new Rome empty of body fragments symbolise an intact and complete Rome, or a Rome that has lost its most important parts? Various critics have taken Luciuss lines to herald a better age for Rome, but also as acknowledgement that this is a Rome founded on rape and murder, a recognition that even Young Lucius has been tainted by all the crimes he has witnessed. Luciuss last words, after all, are still concerned with execution.

Julius Caesar (1599-1600)

historical context: In 44 B.C., though the centre of an empire stretching from Britain to North Africa and from Persia to Spain, Rome suffered from constant infighting between ambitious military leaders and the far weaker senators to whom they supposedly owed allegiance. The empire also suffered from a sharp division between citizens, who were represented in the senate, and the increasingly underrepresented plebeian masses. A succession of men aspired to become the absolute rulers of Rome, but only Julius Caesar seemed likely to achieve this status. Those citizens who favoured more democratic rule feared that Caesars power would lead to the enslavement of Roman citizens by one of their own. That led to Caesars assassination, which, however, failed to put an end to the power struggles dividing the empire; so, civil war broke out shortly afterwards.

Julius Caesar
In an age when censorship would have limited direct commentary on the English peoples worries related to Elizabeth Is nearing death and the lack of any heirs, Shakespeare could nevertheless use the story of Caesar to comment on the political situation of his day. sources: Thomas Norths translation of Plutarchs Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans; possibly, the anonymous drama The Tragedy of Caesar and Pompey (1595). characters: Julius Caesar; the Triumvirs Octavius Caesar, Mark Antony and Lepidus; the Senators Cicero, Publius and Pompilius Lena; the conspirators Marcus Brutus, Cassius, Casca, Trebonius, Ligarius, Decius, Metellus Cimber and Cinna; the Tribunes Flavius and Marullus; Cinna the poet; Pindarus, servant to Cassius; Calphurnia, Caesar's wife; Portia, Brutuss wife; a Soothsayer.

Julius Caesar
Brutus. Brutus emerges as the most complex character in Julius Caesar and is also the plays tragic hero. In his soliloquies, the audience gains insight into the complexities of his motives. He is a powerful public figure, but he also appears as a husband, a master to his servants, a dignified military leader, and a loving friend. The conflicting value systems that battle with each other in the play as a whole are enacted on a microcosmic level in Brutuss mind. Even after Brutus got involved in Caesars assassination with the other members of the conspiracy, questions remain as to whether, in light of his friendship with Caesar, the murder was a noble, decidedly selfless act or proof of a truly evil callousness, a gross indifference to the ties of friendship and a failure to be moved by the power of a truly great man. Brutuss rigid idealism is both his greatest virtue and his most deadly flaw. In the world of the play, where self-serving ambition seems to dominate all other motivations, Brutus lives up to Antonys elegiac description of him as the noblest of Romans. However, his commitment to principle repeatedly leads him to make miscalculations: wanting to curtail violence, he ignores Cassiuss suggestion that the conspirators kill Antony as well as Caesar. In another moment of nave idealism, he again ignores Cassiuss advice and allows Antony to speak a funeral oration over Caesars body. As a result, Brutus forfeits the authority of having the last word on the murder and thus allows Antony to incite the plebeians to riot against him and the other conspirators. Brutus later endangers his good relationship with Cassius by self-righteously condemning what he sees as dishonourable fund-raising tactics on Cassiuss part. In all of these episodes, Brutus acts out of a desire to limit the selfserving aspects of his actions; ironically, however, in each incident he dooms the very cause that he seeks to promote, thus serving no one at all.

Julius Caesar
Julius Caesar. The conspirators charge Caesar with ambition, and his behaviour substantiates this judgment: he does vie for absolute power over Rome, revelling in the homage he receives from others and in his conception of himself as a figure who will live on forever in mens minds. However, his faith in his own permanencein the sense of both his loyalty to principles and his fixture as a public institutioneventually proves his undoing. At first, he stubbornly refuses to heed the nightmares of his wife, Calphurnia, and the supernatural omens pervading the atmosphere. Though he is eventually persuaded not to go to the Senate, Caesar ultimately lets his ambition get the better of him, as the prospect of being crowned king proves too glorious to resist. Caesars conflation of his public image with his private self helps bring about his death, since he mistakenly believes that the immortal status granted to his public self somehow protects his mortal body. Still, in many ways, Caesars faith that he is eternal proves valid by the end of the play: in Act V, scene 3, Brutus attributes his and Cassiuss misfortunes to Caesars power reaching from beyond the grave. Caesars aura seems to affect the general outcome of events in a mystic manner, while also inspiring Octavius and Antony and strengthening their determination. As Octavius ultimately assumes the title Caesar, Caesars permanence is indeed established in some respect.

Julius Caesar
Mark Antony. Antony proves strong in all the ways in which Brutus proves weak. His impulsive, improvisatory nature serves him perfectly, first to persuade the conspirators that he is on their side, thus gaining their leniency, and then to persuade the plebeians of the conspirators injustice, thus gaining the masses political support. Not too scrupulous to stoop to deceit and duplicity, as Brutus claims to be, Antony proves himself a consummate politician, using gestures and skilled rhetoric to his advantage. He responds to subtle cues among both his nemeses and his allies to know exactly how he must conduct himself at each particular moment in order to gain the most advantage. In both his eulogy for Caesar and the play as a whole, Antony knows how to tailor his words and actions to his audiences desires. Unlike Brutus, who prides himself on acting solely with respect to virtue and blinding himself to his personal concerns, Antony never separates his private affairs from his public actions.

Julius Caesar
fate versus free will. Cassius refuses to accept Caesars rising power and deems a belief in fate to be nothing more than a form of passivity or cowardice. He urges a return to a more noble, self-possessed attitude toward life, blaming his and Brutuss submissive stance not on a predestined plan but on their failure to assert themselves. Ultimately, the play seems to support a philosophy in which fate and freedom maintain a delicate coexistence. Caesar recognizes that certain events lie beyond human control; to crouch in fear of them is to enter a paralysis equal to, if not worse than, death. It is to surrender any capacity for freedom and agency that one might actually possess. Indeed, perhaps to face death head-on, to die bravely and honourably, is Caesars best course: in the end, Brutus interprets his and Cassiuss defeat as the work of Caesars ghostnot just his apparition, but also the force of the peoples devotion to him, the strong legacy of a man who refused any fear of fate and, in his disregard of fate, seems to have transcended it. public versus private. Julius Caesar is a political tragedy exploring the relation between public and private virtue, between personal morality and political efficiency, between innocence and action. Much of the plays tragedy stems from the characters neglect of private feelings and loyalties in favour of what they believe to be the public good. Similarly, characters confuse their private selves with their public selves, hardening and dehumanizing themselves or transforming themselves into ruthless political machines. Brutus rebuffs his wife, Portia, when she pleads with him to confide in her; believing himself to be acting on the peoples will, he continues to conspire against Caesar, despite their close friendship. Brutus puts aside his personal loyalties and shuns thoughts of Caesar the man, his friend; instead, he acts on what he believes to be the publics wishes and kills Caesar the leader, the imminent dictator.

Julius Caesar
Cassius can be seen as a man who has gone to the extreme in cultivating his public persona. Caesar, describing his distrust of Cassius, tells Antony that the problem with Cassius is his lack of a private lifehis seeming refusal to acknowledge his own sensibilities or to nurture his own spirit. Such a man, Caesar fears, will let nothing interfere with his ambition. Indeed, Cassius lacks all sense of personal honour and shows himself to be a ruthless schemer. Ultimately, neglecting private sentiments to follow public concerns brings Caesar to his death. Although Caesar does briefly agree to stay home in order to please Calphurnia, who has dreamed of his murder, he gives way to ambition when Decius tells him that the senators plan to offer him the crown. Caesars public self again takes precedence. Tragically, he no longer sees the difference between his omnipotent, immortal public image and his vulnerable human body. Just preceding his death, Caesar refuses Artemidoruss pleas to speak with him, saying that he gives last priority to his most personal concerns. He thus endangers himself by believing that the strength of his public self will protect his private self.

Julius Caesar
inflexibility versus compromise. Both Brutus and Caesar are stubborn, rather inflexible people who ultimately suffer fatally for this. In the plays aggressive political landscape, individuals succeed through adaptability, bargaining, and compromise. Brutuss rigid though honourable ideals leave him open for manipulation by Cassius. He believes so thoroughly in the purpose of the assassination that he does not perceive the need for excessive political manoeuvring to justify the murder. Equally resolute, Caesar prides himself on his steadfastness; yet this constancy helps bring about his death, as he refuses to heed ill omens and goes willingly to the Senate, into the hands of his murderers. Antony proves perhaps the most adaptable of all the politicians: while his speech to the Roman citizens centres on Caesars generosity towards each citizen, he later searches for ways to turn these funds into cash in order to raise an army against Brutus and Cassius. Although he gains power by offering to honour Caesars will and provide the citizens their rightful money, it becomes clear that ethical concerns will not prevent him from using the funds in a more politically expedient manner. Antony is a successful politicianyet the question of morality remains. There seems to be no way to reconcile firm moral principles with success in politics in Shakespeares rendition of ancient Rome; thus each character struggles towards a different solution.

Julius Caesar
rhetoric and power. Julius Caesar gives detailed consideration to the relationship between rhetoric and power. The ability to make things happen by words alone is the most powerful type of authority. Early in the play, it is established that Caesar has this type of absolute authority. Words also serve to move hearts and minds. Antony cleverly convinces the conspirators of his desire to side with them: under the guise of a gesture of friendship, Antony actually marks the conspirators for vengeance. In the Forum, Brutus speaks to the crowd and appeals to its love of liberty in order to justify the killing of Caesar. He also makes ample reference to the honour in which he is generally esteemed so as to validate further his explanation of the deed. Antony likewise wins the crowds favour, using persuasive rhetoric to whip the masses into a frenzy so great that they dont even realize the fickleness of their favour. women and wives. Calphurnia and Portia function primarily as symbols of the private, domestic realm. Both women plead with their husbands to be more aware of their private needs and feelings. Caesar and Brutus rebuff the pleas of their wives, however; not only do they prioritize public matters but also actively disregard their private emotions and intuitions. As such, Calphurnia and Portia are powerless figures, willing though unable to help and comfort Caesar and Brutus.

Julius Caesar
misinterpretations and misreadings. Much of the play deals with the characters failures to interpret correctly the omens that they encounter. Thus, the night preceding Caesars appearance at the Senate is full of portents, but no one reads them accurately: Cassius takes them to signify the danger that Caesars impending coronation would bring to the state, when, if anything, they warn of the destruction that Cassius himself threatens. There are calculated misreadings as well: Cassius manipulates Brutus into joining the conspiracy by means of forged letters, knowing that Brutuss trusting nature will cause him to accept the letters as authentic pleas from the Roman people. The circumstances of Cassiuss death represent another instance of misinterpretation. Pindaruss erroneous conclusion that Titinius has been captured by the enemy, when in fact Titinius has reunited with friendly forces, is the piece of misinformation that prompts Cassius to seek death. Thus, in the world of politics portrayed in Julius Caesar, the inability to read people and events leads to downfall; conversely, the ability to do so is the key to survival. With so much ambition and rivalry, the ability to gauge the publics opinion as well as the resentment or loyalty of ones fellow politicians can guide one to success. Antony proves masterful at recognizing his situation, and his accurate reading of the crowds emotions during his funeral oration for Caesar allows him to win the masses over to his side.

Antony and Cleopatra (1607)

main characters: the Triumvirs Mark Antony, Octavius Caesar, and Lepidus; Sextus Pompeius; Antonys closest friend, Enobarbus; Caesars friends, Mecaenas, Agrippa and Dolabella; Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt; Octavia, Caesars sister and Antonys wife; Charmian and Iras, Cleopatras attendants. Antony: The movement to and fro between Rome and Egypt (with Athens in between), the devices Shakespeare uses to suggest that the whole Roman world is involved in Antonys struggle between Roman loyalty and Egyptian magic, the evocative suggestions of the old Antony (in Julius Caesar) contrasting with the Antony in this play the nemesis of the sensual man (Granville-Barker) demonstrate, among other features of the play, Shakespeares superb craftsmanship. From the very beginning, the contrast between the Roman and the Egyptian view is emphasised: seen through Roman eyes, Antony once our general and the triple pillar of the world transformed/ Into a strumpets fool. When summons comes from Rome and he learns of Fulvias death and the coming war, Antony is again struck by a Roman thought and returns to Rome, sealing his alliance with Octavius Caesar by marrying his sister Octavia. Yet, once the military conflict ends in cynical truce, Antony will come back to Egypt: the sensual man belongs in Alexandria.

Antony and Cleopatra

The second movement of the play that follows Antonys return to Cleopatra and the ultimate breach between him and Octavius Caesar shows the aging rou and the temperamental sensualist facing the vengeance of the cold and confident Octavius. There is never any doubt as to who will win: Antony, influenced by Cleopatras foolish exhibitionism, weakly decides to fight by sea instead of on land, and when Cleopatra joins the fleet with her flagship only to flee when the battle begins and draw Antony after, the stage is set for an explosion of passionate self-contempt on Antonys part which shows at last that he has lost his grip. He gives way to self-pity and sentimental speeches to his servants. A temporary improvement of his fortunes brings back the old Antony, but it is short-lived. In the sea fight that follows, Antony believes that Cleopatra has deliberately betrayed him and bursts into impotent rage, only to shift to rich poetry when he receives the fake message of Cleopatras suicide and he realizes that the end has come; in following Cleopatra to the grave he is reconciling Rome and Egypt, for suicide is the Roman way out. When he dies at last in Cleopatras arms, he boasts that he does not basely die,/ Not cowardly put off my helmet to/ My countryman a Roman by a Roman/ Valiantly vanquishd.

Antony and Cleopatra

Cleopatra: When first abandoned by Antony, Cleopatra tries all her tricks to keep him in Egypt, but when she sees he is determined to go, puts on her noblest bearing to become, no longer the shrew or the temperamental lover, but his protecting goddess of Victory. Her lament over Antonys death raises this passion between a middle-aged sensualist and a royal prostitute to a higher level. She realises that the world for her is destroyed and, at the same time, that she is, after all, but a mortal woman with ordinary human passions. Her problem is how to come to terms with what remains of life. Shakespeare does not hurry to elevate Cleopatra to tragic stature. The final movement of the play is Cleopatra against Octavius Caesar: she tries every way of finding out what Caesar means to do with her, and humiliates herself in the process. But at last, she learns from Donabella that she is to be taken to Rome and exhibited there; then and only then does she find the courage to follow Antony in the Roman way. She has played for a while the role of the low trickster apparently interested only in saving what she has left, but now that the game is finally up, she does admit that, without Antony, life is impossible. In that admission and in the splendid poetic gesture of her suicide, she is redeemed at last into tragedy. She finds true pride and dignity, and the quiet humour that sees over the other side of death without panic or self-pity. Yet, she does not lose her original character: the language of her speech becomes ritualistic without losing nothing of its sensuality.

Antony and Cleopatra

The theme of this tragedy is not the conflict between love and duty that John Dryden later made of it in his All for Love. True, Shakespeare makes clear that the fate of the civilised world is involved in Antonys decisions, but the conflict between public duty and private passion is not his major interest, nor is he chiefly concerned with the conflict between the Roman and Egyptian ways of life, though this, too, is an element in the play and one of the themes suggested by the pattern of its imagery. Cleopatra is shown as shrewish, hysterical, sadistic, dishonest, and cowardly, as well as beautiful, queenly, and heroic. Antony is selfish and fatuous as well as generous and noble. Are they great lovers or merely great sensualists? They are both experienced in the ways of sexual pleasure and often talk as though that is all that love involves. Yet this is far from being a disillusioned or a cynical play. We are continually fascinated by the richness and variety of character and the way in which history is bound with psychology. There is little pity or fear in the play, but rather a lively human curiosity throughout. And the poetry keeps enlarging the moment, showing experience as ever livelier and richer. We watch fascinated as Antony, most Roman when most enslaved by Egypt, goes to his self-inflicted death, and then follow Cleopatras twistings and turnings with ever increasing interest and wonder. We make no new moral judgment on either because that is decided at the beginning and is never in question: they are both behaving badly, and their sophisticated passion does not excuse them. But there is a wonder in it all, and Cleopatra in her death finds the objective correlative of that wonder. The sensual life ends in a blaze of ritual pageantry: it has its own amoral nobility.