Plutarch's View of the Effect of Cleopatra on Antony - Assignment Example

Robert Alan Roberts PI T8027716 Assignment Part Cleopatra What does this passage1 tell us about Plutarch’s view of the effect of Cleopatra on Antony, and how does this viewpoint relate to the wider Roman perspective on Cleopatra and Egypt? Cleopatra had a profound effect on Antony. He was astonished by what he saw, and seized the opportunity to indulge himself "in the amusements and diversions of a young man with all his future before him". (Plutarch 28) The two were clearly fond of each other as Antony “allowed the queen to carry him off to Alexandria”, and both were extravagant in giving banquets. The story that Plutarch relates of Philotas’ tour of the palace kitchens, the abundant provisions and how meals were prepared, shows that both Cleopatra and Antony were prepared to serve lavish amounts of food at any time, and highlights the hospitality they gave each other. (Plutarch 28) This account is based on what was told to Plutarch’s own grandfather, which no doubt shaped Plutarch’s own view of Cleopatra. That Plutarch was not as impressed as Antony is obvious from his use of words like “squandered” and “incredible extravagance.” (Plutarch 28) Cleopatra’s fame, at least in the Western intellectual tradition, owes to a great extent her encounter with the Romans, and in particular Mark Antony amongst other leaders. This also means that the Roman perspective on Cleopatra and Egypt is shaped as much by these interactions, dealings and visits than other aspects of her rule and kingdom. This fame, however, was coloured by the Romans’ view of her as someone who led great men like Antony astray. She successfully captivated the attention of Antony as with Caesar earlier, but in Rome, for all her hospitality, she became “the victim of a vicious propaganda campaign” (§1.3). At the heart of this unfortunate circumstance for Cleopatra was Octavian’s envy for and conflict with Antony. Thus, there are two opposing perspectives on Cleopatra. One is the affectionate perspective as indulged in by Antony, and the other is the negative picture portrayed by Octavian and much of the rest of Rome. In the end, the defeat of the former at the decisive battle of Actium allowed history to be largely swayed by viewing Egypt as an enemy of Rome, and Cleopatra as a seductress, enemy and loser. This negative characterisation of Cleopatra and Egypt were present in Octavian’s speech delivered before the battle. He gave the impression to his army that Egypt’s way of life was decadent, and that Antony had been “enslaved by [Cleopatra]”. (Cocceianus 54) Although Cleopatra’s effect Antony caused a deep impression and led him to develop close attachment, the wider and more lasting Roman view as promoted by Octavian and Plutarch, was one of enmity. This enmity was not only directed at Cleopatra personally, but served to further Rome’s dominance over Egypt. Plutarch’s viewpoint, although not entirely unsympathetic, shows the wider Roman view of disdain for Cleopatra and her extravagances. As always, empires and civilisations clash, and Cleopatra was merely a pawn in the wider game. It was not in Rome’s nature to be content with having Egypt as an ally. Despite Cleopatra’s attempts, ultimately to safeguard her own kingdom, Egypt had to be subdued. (Word Count: 490) Bibliography Cocceianus, Cassius Dio. The Roman history : the reign of Augustus. Trans. Ian Scott-Kilvert. Hammondsworth: Penguin Books, 1987. Plutarch. Plutarch: Makers of Rome. Trans. Ian Scott-Kilvert. Hammondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965. Assignment 1 Part 2: Cézanne Outline the main differences between Plate 1.3.24, Cézanne’s Jug and Fruit (1885-87) and Plate 1.3.30, Zurbarán’s Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose (1663). Cézanne’s Jug and Fruit and Zurbarán’s Still Life with Lemons, Oranges and a Rose are two superficially similar works of art. However, there are notable differences between the two. At first glance the striking difference is the greater glare in Zurbarán’s painting, especially from the yellow fruit against a dark background, and sharper delineation of all objects making it more life-like. This life-like quality is not as present in Cézanne’s painting, as he uses less contrast and generally gives less attention to detail. However, even similar fruits in Cézanne’s work display considerable variety and gradation, using a greater variety of colours and shades, as well as textures and tones. This difference in tones is obvious as much in the backgrounds of the paintings as in their subject matter. Although Cézanne uses black for outlining, he uses a light blue background in contrast to Zurbarán’s black one. This shows that Cézanne uses lighter tones in general in contrast to Zurbarán’s more balanced use of tones from both ends of the spectrum. Despite the outlining, roughness is apparent in Cézanne’s brushwork showing less blending in stark contrast to Zurbarán who seems to value greater perfection. Much like the use of tones, the variety in texture can be seen in Cézanne’s background wall as well, as opposed to the more modern exuberance in Zurbarán’s painting. It is not that Cézanne displays an inability to reproduce delicate likeness; rather the impression he intends to give is different. His painting skills are apparent in the glazed effect he successfully gives to the stoneware jug. Zurbarán effectively manifests different textures as well, in fact much more so, but in other respects displays more confined use of artistry. Also, the source of light is clearly at opposing ends in both pictures. Light shines from the left in Zurbarán’s work and from the right in Cézanne’s work as evidenced by the lighted areas and shadows. The modelling is different too, with Cézanne sometimes using entirely different colours for shading, as opposed to Zurbarán’s use of darker versions of the same. In terms of placement, Zurbarán’s objects are set an equal distance from the viewer on a glass table giving a draped effect, as does the wall. Cézanne on the other hand, gives a greater sense of perspective through modulating colour, and perhaps entices the viewer not by the focus on and sparkle of the neatly arranged fruit, but by the way it is arranged loosely on the wooden table. Cézanne also slightly distorts perspective by slightly flattening distance, whereas Zurbarán uses an ultra-realistic one in keeping with his painting style. Thus, not only have different artistic techniques been used, but both artists took distinct mental approaches to their tasks. It seems that Zurbarán wanted to please the traditional household whereas Cézanne attempted to display greater individuality or radicalism. Overall, Cézanne’s painting is typical of his “determination to do things differently” (§3.3) and in a more rough manner, whereas Zurbarán followed a more standard approach. (Word Count: 496) Bibliography Read More