Shakespeare vs Plutarch - Plagiarism or Improvement?

I thought I'd provide you with another little Shakespeare essay, this one I wrote purely for the fun of it. This time - 'Antony and Cleopatra'

What you will find below is a moderately detailed comparison between the portrayal of Cleopatra by Shakespeare's character Enobarbus within the play, and the portrayal of Cleopatra as portrayed by the Ancient Roman historian Plutarch in his biographical work: 'Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans' (translated by Thomas North).

The essay weighs each account against each other and attempts to justify both the differences and similarities between them.

I hope you find it interesting:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Shakespeare’s 1606 play: ‘Antony and Cleopatra,’ in Act II Scene 2, the character of Enobarbus has two consecutive speeches in which he describes the beauty of Cleopatra on the day that she first met Antony. However, much as Shakespeare was renowned for being a genius and each of his works regarded a masterpiece, we can clearly see here that he was not completely innocent of plagiarism. One of his contemporaries, Thomas North, had in 1579 translated the works of a Greek historian called Plutarch, which also gave an account of when Cleopatra and Mark Antony first met.

Shakespeare actually used North’s Plutarch as the general foundation for the plot of Antony and Cleopatra, most possibly because it was the most recent historical document at that time regarding that period. Shakespeare would have undoubtedly read this work while working on the play, and he has copied several of Plutarch’s phrases, almost word for word, to describe Cleopatra. These phrases include: “the poop was beaten gold” and “pavilion, cloth-of-gold tissue” (these phrases aren’t exact copies, but one can see that they use the same references).

One thing that should be most important to take into account is that the two documents were intended for two entirely different audiences. North’s Plutarch is supposed to be a factual historical document – Plutarch himself was a Greek Historian – and is aimed at other historians, seeking an account of what happened during those times. Antony and Cleopatra is a play, and its audience would have ranged from the very top of the social and intellectual spectrum, to the very bottom, including people who could not read or write. This would point to one possible reason for Shakespeare incorporating parts of North’s Plutarch into his play – to educate people. With the amount of historical plays that Shakespeare wrote, it is safe to assume that he had at least a general interest in history, and would probably have taken this opportunity to inform the general, illiterate public as to what went on during those times.

However, the audience factor must also be taken into consideration when talking about the differences between the two texts. Shakespeare was a playwright, and his job was to entertain his audiences. He did this by taking (presumably) his favourite aspects of North’s Plutarch and rearranging them into a more poetic style, and using slightly grander language. For instance, Shakespeare has written the play (and Enobarbus’ Cleopatra speeches in particular) in blank verse (which uses iambic pentameter). He has replaced certain words in phrases as well, such as the substitution of “Apparelled and attired like the goddess Venus commonly drawn in picture” for “O’erpicturing that Venus.” The reason for this substitution is that the second version is a lot more concise, which allows it to fit better into the meter, and also gets its message across in fewer words, allowing for a greater impression on the audience.

Shakespeare also took parts of North’s Plutarch and enriched them with extra bits of his own. For instance, where Plutarch writes: “on either hand of her, pretty fair boys apparelled as painters do set forth god Cupid, with little fans in their hands with the which they fanned wind upon her,” Shakespeare writes: “On each side of her stood pretty dimpled boys, like smiling cupids, with divers[e]-coloured fans, whose wind did seem to glow the delicate cheeks which did cool.” Plutarch states quite blatantly that “they fanned wind upon her,” which in this case does get the message across in fewer words, but Shakespeare is still more effective because he goes on to describe the event in poetic detail, mentioning the “pretty dimpled boys’” “divers-coloured fans,” and Cleopatra’s “delicate cheeks.” What has clearly happened hear is that Shakespeare has read North’s Plutarch, and liked the idea of the boys being like the god Cupid, but at the same time has developed the idea, making vivid descriptions by using colourful adjectives, making it sound a lot more poetic and thus more entertaining for his audience.

Another way in which Shakespeare has evolved North’s Plutarch for his audience is through the use of personification. For instance, where Plutarch writes: “there came a wonderful sweet savour of perfumes, that perfumed the wharf’s side,” Shakespeare takes the idea one step further and says: “A strange invisible scent hits the sense of the adjacent wharfs,” giving the them a human quality and suggesting the wharfs themselves can actually smell this sweet perfume. The effect that this has is that it allows Shakespeare’s audience to relate to the events a lot more easily, and suggests to them that this perfume really must be something worth experiencing.

He also uses personification in his description of the air. When all the people from the city run to see Cleopatra coming down the river on her barge, Shakespeare writes that Antony is sat “whistling to th’air; which, but for vacancy, had gone to gaze on Cleopatra too, and made a gap in nature.” What this suggests to the audience is that Cleopatra is so beautiful, that even the air has gone to see this magnificent beauty. The line “and made a gap in nature” further confirms that this is most definitely an unnatural event and must be because of something incredibly special. Shakespeare makes it seem as if all the world is there to see Cleopatra, including all its elements, whilst Plutarch states the facts as they are, that people from a city have come to see her.

It is this kind of effect that Shakespeare has on his audiences that allows him to be regarded as a true genius. It is fair enough to suggest that he plagiarised North’s Plutarch to some degree, but it is the sheer poetry that he adds to it that converts it from being a historical document to being an entertaining piece of theatre, making the documents two entirely separate things indeed.