Eros In Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra

Introduction

Shakespeare holds an enduring legacy as a master of English literature and romantic themes. Many of his lines about love are well known even to this day, like: «Love is not love, which alters when it alteration finds» (Sonnet 116), or Orsino’s words from Twelfth Night, «Love sought is good, but given unsought is better» (Act 3.1.156). Therefore, I want to explore his ideas about romantic love.

While reading Shakespeare’s plays, I saw various portrayals of romantic love, but Antony and Cleopatra caught my attention the most. In this play, Antony had a servant named Eros, which in English means romantic love or amor in Latin.[1] Therefore, I will explore the meaning of eros and see if its meaning helps me better understand Shakespeare’s idea of romantic love.

First, I will recount Antony’s suicide attempt in Act 4, Scene 14 of Anthony and Cleopatra because it gave me a vivid image of romantic love. Then, I will compare Shakespeare’s scene with the story it is based on: Plutarch’s Life of Marcus Antonius. Afterward, I will analyze the classical meaning of romantic love through the word eros. I will also compare what I find to Plutarch and Shakespeare’s understanding of classical eros. Finally, I will compare the Christian idea of romantic love with Shakespeare’s portrayal in this play to see if Christianity influenced Shakespeare’s notion of eros. My aim is to discover whether Shakespeare combines elements from history, classical Greece and Rome, and his religion through his portrayal of eros in this play.

Chapter 1

Eros in Act 4, Scene 14 of Antony and Cleopatra

 Before this scene in Antony and Cleopatra, Antony is severely beaten by Octavian because Cleopatra’s troops have abandoned his army. Antony begins this scene by discussing these events with Eros, his trusted servant. Then Cleopatra’s servant breaks the news of her death to Antony. Heartbroken, Antony exhorts Eros to kill him and put him out of his misery, calling his servant Eros in this slightly cryptic way:

Eros! —I come, my queen. —Eros! —Stay for me. Where souls do couch on flowers, we’ll hand in hand, And with our sprightly port make the ghosts gaze.

Dido and her Aeneas shall want troops,

And all the haunt be ours. —Come, Eros, Eros![2] (Act 4.14.60-64)

The way Antony invokes Eros seems odd to me. It is easy to think that Antony was merely calling his servant. However, these lines have a double meaning if one knows eros in its original Greek context. So, looking at eros in its original context and Shakespeare’s understanding of this word can help determine whether this scene has any other deeper meanings.

Then, Antony uses these words to coax Eros into killing him:

Thou art sworn, Eros,

That when the exigent should come, which now Is come indeed, when I should see behind me Th’ inevitable prosecution of

Disgrace and horror, that on my command Thou then wouldst kill me.

Do ’t. The time is come.

Thou strik’st not me; ’tis Caesar thou defeat’st. Put color in thy cheek. (Act 4.14.73-80)

However, Eros decides to kill himself instead. These are his last words after he stabs himself:

«Thus I do escape the sorrow of Antony’s death». (Act 4.14.114) Then Antony commends Eros’ courage and falls on his sword. However, he does not die instantly. While he is bleeding out from his wound, Cleopatra’s servant returns to reveal that the queen is still alive. She faked her death to avoid Antony’s wrath. So, the scene ends with Antony, who is badly injured, being carried to Cleopatra.

I want to delve into how Shakespeare’s source, Plutarch, portrays this scene to determine this play’s historicity.

Chapter 2

The Historical Interpretation

Plutarch’s life of Mark Antony seriously influenced Shakespeare’s play. Lydia Baumbach claims that «Plutarch is certainly [Shakespeare’s] main source for Antony and Cleopatra…but [through] the translation of Sir Thomas North, which appeared in 1579»[3]. So, comparing this North’s translation of Plutarch with the last scene from chapter one will help determine how closely Shakespeare follows the original story.

Now he had a man of his called Eros, whom he loved and trusted much, and whom he had long before caused to swear unto him, that he should kill him when he did command him: and then he willed him to keep his promise. His man, drawing his sword, lift’ [lifted] it up as though he had meant to have stricken his master: but turning his head at one side, he thrust his sword into himself, and fell down dead at his master’s foot. Then said Antonius: “O noble Eros, I thank thee for this, and it is valiantly done of thee, to shew me what I should do to myself, which thou couldest not do for me.” Therewithal he took his sword, and thrust it into his belly, and so fell down upon a little bed.[4](Sir Thomas North’s Translation of Life of Marcus Antonius, 41)

Although this excerpt from Plutarch matches well with Shakespeare’s version, it provokes another question: Did Shakespeare base his plays entirely on historical texts and nothing else?

F.S. Boas seems to think so when he claims, «Shakespeare seems to have felt an “obligation to introduce every incident, …mentioned by Plutarch, and the result is a loss of dramatic unity and perspective”»[5]⁵. Joe Roe, however, disagrees: «Shakespeare, if anything, deepens the ‘mystery

and opacity’ in Plutarch’s portraits»[6]⁶. Shakespeare balances his originality and his historical sources. He adds elements to his play, like Eros’ final words, which are not mentioned in Plutarch while keeping many details the same. If Shakespeare’s play balances borrowing from classical texts and his own creativity, perhaps this is true for his concept of eros.

So, does Plutarch also use the Greek word eros symbolically anywhere in this text? Plutarch indeed uses the Greek word eros. However, opinions on his use of eros vary: some view it symbolically, while others believe such an interpretation reads too much into the text. Rather than engaging in that debate, here’s an example from Plutarch’s text that may clarify this issue.

Antonius being thus inclined, the last and extremest mischief of all other (to wit, the love [ἔρως] of Cleopatra) lighted on him, who did waken and stir up many vices yet hidden in him, and were never seen to any: and if any spark of goodness or hope of rising were left him, Cleopatra quenched it straight, and made it worse than before. The manner how he fell in love with her was this.[7] (Sir Thomas North’s Translation of Life of Marcus Antonius, 25)

Regardless of scholars’ opinion of eros’ symbolic meaning, Plutarch uses Eros’ name and the meaning behind it. Shakespeare might have also understood the meaning behind the name Eros. Therefore, finding the classical meaning of eros will be helpful to see whether its meaning sheds any light on Plutarch’s history and Shakespeare’s play.

Chapter 3

Classical Meaning of Eros

 The classical Greco-Roman tradition undoubtedly influenced Plutarch and Shakespeare, so it must also have impacted their conceptions of romantic love. While it is possible they developed their unique perspectives, examining their works alongside antiquity reveals shared influences, particularly from Greek literature and philosophy.

Examining Euripides and Plato will provide stellar examples of the Greek conception of eros. Numerous authors influenced Plutarch, but these two significantly impacted him among the Greek tragedians and philosophers. Therefore, I will compare these two men’s ideas of eros with Plutarch. Then, I will see whether they influenced Shakespeare.

Plutarch’s Relation to Euripides

Plutarch had a vast knowledge of Greek tragedy, but he quotes Euripides the most often. Some may argue that this fact merely proves that Plutarch likes Euripides’ plays or that his plays were the most available for Plutarch. However, Plutarch usually quoted writings from memory.

Furthermore, he quotes Euripides several times in his Erotikos, his essay which discusses eros. Therefore, Euripides’ vision of eros can help us understand Plutarch’s.

Euripides’ Hippolytus provides one of the best comparisons with Plutarch’s Antony. Plutarch quotes Hippolytus various times, but most importantly, he quoted it twice in his Erotikos.[8]⁸ Some may argue that Plutarch quoted other Euripidean plays about eros, such as Medea. However, I found Hippolytus the most relatable with Plutarch’s Life of Mark Antony because one of the characters, Phaedra, also commits suicide. So, this play can help us understand Plutarch’s idea of eros more deeply.

Phaedra’s speech mirrors Antony’s because it also shows the tragic nature of eros. Euripides’s Hippolytus recounts the tragic story of a woman named Phaedra who falls in love with her stepson Hippolytus and then kills herself because he denied her love. Plutarch was familiar with this story because he recounts this scene almost verbatim in his Parallela Minora.[9] Her speech gives her reason for committing suicide: eros. Although Plutarch does not mention this speech explicitly in his writings, his various quotes from Hippolytus show familiarity with the play. So, her speech will provide a fantastic comparison with Plutarch’s portrayal of Antony.

These words summarize Phaedra’s speech quite well: «ἐπεί μ᾽ ἔρως ἔτρωσεν, ἐσκόπουν ὅπως κάλλιστ᾽ ἐνέγκαιμ᾽ αὐτόν». (Hippolytus, 392-393) «When love (ἔρως) wounded me, I contemplated how I would bear it in the best way»[10]. She goes on to list the multiple ways she tries to cope with her rejected love: concealment, self-control, and lastly, death. Some scholars suggest she did not die directly from eros but from the shame and fear that arose from her eros being rejected.[11] However, this shame and anxiety would not have occurred if her eros for her stepson had not been denied. So, both Antony and Phaedra show the terrible effects of eros.

Did eros kill Antony and Phaedra in the same way? Some think eros was the underlying cause of both their deaths, but it manifested in different ways. They believe Phaedra killed herself out of fear and shame, while Antony killed himself out of honor.[12] Others think they both died because they were unable to control their eros or emotions. I believe that both views are compatible because they were not able to control their eros, but the decision to kill themselves developed in different ways. So, both these characters are perfect examples of a martyr for eros.

Thus, Euripides had a considerable influence on Plutarch; however, Euripides also influenced Plato. David Sansone claims, «Plato cites Euripides as often as he cites Aeschylus and Sophocles combined, and he cites Euripides more often than any author except Homer and Simonides»[13].

Some may argue that quoting someone does not determine whether someone has a severe influence over another. Plato, however, communicates his philosophy through storytelling, just like Euripides and the other tragedians did in their tragedies. So, even Greek philosophy drew from Greek literature and tragedy.

Plutarch the Platonist

Despite Euripides’ impact on Plato, Plato’s philosophy had a greater impact on Plutarch than Euripides. Many agree that «Plutarch was a professed Platonist»[14]. Therefore, Plutarch must have been familiar with Plato’s concept of eros.

Plato’s Symposium most clearly shows Plato’s ideal of eros. Although Plutarch’s Erotikos expresses similar ideas to Plato’s Symposium, he does not explicitly reference this work. However, J. R. Mist claims, «it [the Erotikos] is a commentary on what Plutarch takes to be a more or less single and systematic Platonic thesis»[15]. A summary of the story can give some context on how Plato’s thoughts about eros developed.

The Symposium is a Socratic dialogue structured around a drinking party. Since many of the guests were hungover from the previous night’s revelry, Agathon, the host, decided to invite each guest to give a speech about eros. Socrates presented his insights on eros, drawing from lessons he learned from a woman named Diotima. Socrates recounts these words from Diotima in the dialogue:

τὸ μὲν κεφάλαιόν ἐστι πᾶσα ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐπιθυμία καὶ τοῦ εὐδαιμονεῖν ὁ “μέγιστός τε καὶ δολερὸς ἔρως” παντί: ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν ἄλλῃ τρεπόμενοι πολλαχῇ ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, ἢ κατὰ χρηματισμὸν ἢ κατὰ φιλογυμναστίαν ἢ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν, οὔτε ἐρᾶν καλοῦνται οὔτε ἐρασταί, οἱ δὲ κατὰ ἕν τι εἶδος ἰόντες τε καὶ ἐσπουδακότες τὸ τοῦ ὅλου ὄνομα ἴσχουσιν, ἔρωτά τε καὶ ἐρᾶν καὶ ἐρταί. (Plato’s Symposium, 205d)

In general, eros is every desire for good things and being happy; “the mighty and all-treacherous eros”. But those who turn to eros in many other ways, either money making, or gymnastics, or philosophy, are not said to love (ἐρᾶν) nor called lovers (ἐρασταί), while those who eagerly pursue one kind of eros have the name of the whole, and are said to love and are called lovers.[16]

Plato’s insight here captures three critical points about the eros in the relationship between Cleopatra and Antony. First, Plato tells us why romantic love is attractive: it promises good things and happiness. Second, Plato gives an essential aspect of eros: it is directed towards someone. Third, Plato understands the seductive nature of eros or, in his words, the mighty and all-treacherous “ἔρως.” While some may argue that Plutarch derived these ideas from his observations, considering Plutarch’s Platonist leanings, it’s more plausible that he was influenced by Plato, even indirectly. So, Plato’s concept of eros likely underpins Plutarch’s narrative approach.

Plato’s Symposium is another potential source shaping Plutarch’s understanding of eros. While it’s uncertain whether Plutarch directly drew from Plato or his Symposium, Plato articulates facets of eros clearly. Moreover, Plato’s insights on eros resonate with Plutarch, and even broader antiquity, and Western civilization.

Shakespeare’s Notion of the Classical Meaning of Eros

Shakespeare studied much less of the classical tradition than Plutarch. Shakespeare lived a thousand years after classical Greece and Rome and had little direct contact with Greek tragedy or philosophy. Scholars debate the extent of Shakespeare’s classical education, with his texts suggesting some familiarity. Therefore, we can find the nuances of his classical influences by investigating his texts.

Shakespeare did not connect with Plato and Euripides in the same way as Plutarch. Shakespeare mentions no Greek tragedian. The only philosopher he mentions is Aristotle (in The Taming of the Shrew[17] and Troilus and Cressida^18[18]). Many scholars, however, have found similarities between Shakespeare and these two significant figures. For example, Rafael Koskimies says,

«His [Shakespeare’s] thought…completely reflects the ideas of Diotima in the Symposium»[19].

A.D. Nuttall also asserts that «Euripides achieved a strikingly similar transformation of dramaturgy [to Shakespeare] in his Hippolytus»[20] and even considered him

«proto-Shakespearean»[21]. However, the lack of evidence from his works makes it very unlikely that Shakespeare had any direct contact with Plato or Greek tragedy.

Shakespeare was, however, familiar with some classical Latin playwrights such as Ovid,[22] Plautus and Seneca.[23] Furthermore, Shakespeare quotes Seneca’s play Phaedra, which tells the same story as Euripides’ Hippolytus. Phaedra could have introduced Shakespeare to the Euripidean notion of tragic love.[24] Although Euripides is not the only source of this myth, Seneca must have known about Euripides‘ Hippolytus[25]. So perhaps Shakespeare found Greek eros digested through Latin plays.

Furthermore, Shakespeare mentions Virgil’s Aeneid in this scene.[26] Warren Chernaik says, «The ‘felt presence of the Aeneid’ permeates Antony and Cleopatra…Antony recalls the story of Dido and Aeneas as he contemplates a liebestod in Act 4, revising Virgil’s account to reunite the lovers in the underworld»[27]. Although some may question this comparison between Virgil’s Aeneas and Dido and Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare himself alludes to this comparison. So, most likely, Shakespeare found a facet of the classical ideal of eros in the amor of Virgil.

Ben Jonson claimed that Shakespeare had «smalle Latin and lesse Greeke [sic]»[28]. While Shakespeare demonstrated some familiarity with Latin authors and Greek mythology, the absence of Greek authors indicates he had a weaker grasp of Greek. Despite the ongoing debate

about the extent of his classical education, it’s evident that Shakespeare possessed at least a rudimentary understanding of the classics, though the specifics remain a mystery.

Chapter 4

Christian Perspective of Eros

  Christian themes permeate Shakespeare’s plays through sacramental allusions, religious characters, and other Christian ideas. Debates about his religious affiliation persist, with scholars suggesting Anglicanism,[29] Catholicism,[30] or minimal religious influence.[31] Nevertheless, Roy Battenhouse aptly observes, «It is because the implicit understanding with which Shakespeare shapes his plays can be seen to depend on Christian vision that we are entitled to call his plays Christian»[32]. Therefore, a Christian understanding of eros can help us understand Shakespeare’s conception of it even better.

To understand Christian eros comprehensively, I want to examine its development from the Fathers of the Church through Medieval and Renaissance Europe into modern times. Key figures such as St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Peter Chrysologus represent Ancient Christian eros, while

C.S. Lewis provides insights from the Anglican perspective on Medieval and Renaissance scholarship. Finally, Pope Benedict XVI offers modern interpretations of eros based on earlier ideas.

St. Gregory of Nyssa and Christian Eros

 St. Gregory of Nyssa serves as a crucial link between Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism, and early Christianity. As a Christian Platonist[33] in the fourth century AD, he was closer to Plutarch than Shakespeare. Gregory was one of the first theologians to talk about God’s love with the word eros instead of strictly agape. He provides an early example of how Christianity dealt with Greek philosophy in this text from his Homilies on the Song of Songs.

ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν σοφία ἐστὶν ἡ λαλοῦσα, ἀγάπησον ὅσον δύνασαι ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας τε καὶ δυνάμεως, ἐπιθύμησον ὅσον χωρεῖς. προστίθημι δὲ θαρρῶν τοῖς ῥήμασι τούτοις καὶ τὸ ἐράσθητι· ἀνέγκλητον γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ ἀπαθὲς ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσωμάτων τὸ πάθος, καθώς φησιν ἡ σοφία ἐν ταῖς Παροιμίαις τοῦ θείου κάλλους νομοθετοῦσα τὸν ἔρωτα.[34] (Homily 1.23)

Therefore, since Wisdom is the one who speaks, love her as much as you can, from your whole heart and strength; desire her as much as possible. I am bold to add to these words even be passionately in love (ἐράσθητι). For this passion (πάθος), when directed toward incorporeal things, is without reproach and unaffected (ἀπαθὲς), as Wisdom says in Proverbs when she makes love (ἔρωτα) for the beauty of God a law.[35]

St. Gregory of Nyssa and Shakespeare depict eros as potentially leading to ruin when not directed towards eternal things. However, Wilson claims that Antony and Cleopatra «“reflects a Christian attitude without reference to Christian faith…[because it shows] not the love of God but the earthly love of man and woman”»[36]. As Battenhouse points out, «[William] seems unaware that without an implicit love of God there can be no reflection at all of any Christian ethic»[37]. So, Gregory of Nyssa and Shakespeare both seem to show that romantic love cannot bring pure happiness.

St. Peter Chrysologus and Christian Amor

Like Shakespeare, St. Peter Chrysologus demonstrates a cultural background influenced by Latin classical authors. As Andrea Bizzozero said, «The language of [Peter Chrysologus’] sermons…[demonstrates] his cultural background and his knowledge of Latin classical authors»[38]. He is also one of the first Latin Fathers of the Church to use amor to describe God’s love for humanity, a term rarely found in the Vulgate Bible. Here is an example of how St Peter Chrysologus uses amor to describe God’s love for man.

Sed per hæc quæ memorávimus, ubi humána corda flamma divinæ caritátis accéndit, et humánis sénsibus amoris Dei tota se fundit ebrietas, saucia mente cœepérunt Deum carnalibus velle óculis intueri. Deum, quem mundus non capit, angustus quomodo cápere poterat humánus aspéctus? Quid erit, quid débeat, quid possit, non réspicit ius amóris. Amor ignorat iudicium, ratióne caret, modum nescit. Amor non áccipit de impossibilitáte solácium non récipit de difficultáte remédium. Amor, nisi ad desideráta perváserit, necat amántem; et ideo vadit quo ducitur, non quo débeat. Amor parit desiderium, gliscit ardore, ardor ad inconcéssa pertendit. Et quid plura? Amor quod amat non potest non vidére: hinc est quod omnes sancti ómnia quæ meruerant parva duxérunt, si Dóminum non viderent. Hinc est quod amor qui cupit vidére Deum, etsi non habet iudicium, habet tamen studium pietatis.[39] (Sermo 147: 594-595)

But through all these we have recalled, where the flame of divine love (caritas) enkindled human hearts and the intoxication of God’s love (amoris) poured itself totally into the human senses. With their mind wounded by love, they began to long to look upon God with their bodily eyes. Yet how could their narrow human vision capture God, whom the whole world cannot contain? But the law of love (amoris) is not concerned with what will be, what ought to be, what can be. Love (amor) does not know judgment, it lacks reason and knows no moderation. Love (amor) does not accept solace for the impossible and remedy for the difficult. Love (amor) slays the lover unless he can obtain what he loves (amat); and therefore love goes where it is led, and not where it should. Love (amor) bears desire, it swells with ardor, ardor that presses on to forbidden things. And what more? Love (amor) cannot live without seeing what it loves. Because of this reward the holy ones merited nothing for all the things they did if they did not see the Lord. Because of this, love (amor) desires to see God, even if it does not have judgment, nevertheless it has the zeal of piety.[40]

St. Peter Chrysologus contrasts eros with God’s sacrificial love, exemplified by Christ’s selflessness. He describes eros as a force that slays the lover if he cannot attain his desire. This idea resonates with Antony’s tragic fate as he killed himself after believing he would never be reunited with Cleopatra. However, unlike Antony, Christ willingly offers himself for others, embodying the ideal of sacrificial love: «Greater love has no one than this, that a person will lay down his life for his friends»[41]. (Jn 15:13) While some scholars may not explicitly find this Christian concept in Shakespeare’s play, the futility of Antony’s suicide attempt further underscores Shakespeare’s critique of his flawed eros. So, Peter preaches about the fulfillment of amor in God, while Shakespeare hides this idea in Antony and Cleopatra.

C.S. Lewis and Christian Medieval and Renaissance Eros

C.S. Lewis, renowned for his expertise in Medieval and Renaissance literature, offers valuable insights into the concept of eros in Shakespeare’s time. Direct sources from that era are preferable. However, Lewis’s synthesis in The Four Loves, particularly his chapter on eros, provides a solid and concise summary of these Medieval and Renaissance sources.

Lewis defines eros as: «“being in love”; or, if you prefer, that kind of love which lovers are “in”»[42]. (p. 91) Antony, as well as many other characters in Shakespeare’s plays, demonstrate this kind of eros. Lewis continues, “Eros never hesitates to say, «“Better this than parting. Better to be miserable with her than happy without her. Let our hearts break provided they break together.” If the voice within us does not say this, it is not the voice of Eros». (pp. 122-123) I found this idea of eros extremely prevalent in Antony and Cleopatra’s suicide.

Lewis also highlights the dangers of unrestricted eros. He says, «Eros, honoured without reservation and obeyed unconditionally, becomes a demon. And this is just how he claims to be honoured and obeyed. Divinely indifferent to our selfishness, he is also demoniacally rebellious to every claim of God or Man that would oppose him». (p. 127) He repeats this idea in these words: «The real danger seems to me ‘not that the lovers will idolise each other but that they will idolise Eros himself». (p. 128) His conclusion about erotic love is: «Eros is driven to promise what Eros of himself cannot perform». (p. 131) So, like other Christian authors, Lewis speaks about the dangers of unrestricted eros, which Shakespeare portrays in the tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra.

While some scholars may struggle to compare Lewis and Shakespeare, their shared Christian upbringing suggests similarities in their ideas of eros. Despite potential challenges, Lewis’s insights into why Antony’s eros failed underscore the relevance of his perspective.

Pope Benedict XVI and Modern Christian Eros

Pope Benedict XVI received an excellent classical and theological education but lived in modern times. He uniquely integrates Christian and classical elements of eros in a relevant and understandable way for modernity. His beautiful encyclical Deus Caritas Est is an excellent example of this synthesis of the Christian and classical understanding of eros. He never directly quoted Shakespeare, but Benedict XVI’s ideas of eros will help determine how comparable modern Christian eros is with Shakespeare.

Benedict XVI defines eros as, «Love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks»[43]. (Deus Caritas Est 3) Shakespeare’s portrayal of Antony and Cleopatra’s relationship matches Benedict XVI’s claim. Although Benedict XVI begins with a definition of Greek eros, he adds this quote showing the Christian vision of eros.

Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. (Deus Caritas Est, 7)

Benedict XVI’s Christian perspective of eros can help us understand why Antony’s eros ended in a catastrophe. Antony could not ascend to God and increase Cleopatra’s happiness. Some may find this comparison a bit of a stretch. The connection with Christian eros shown in Benedict XVI, however, transcends the similar use of words or ideas but lies deep in the very structure of Shakespeare’s plays. His portrayal of Antony’s disastrous ending highlights the inadequacy of eros, resonating with Benedict XVI’s perspective.

Conclusion

 Act IV, Scene 14 of Antony and Cleopatra piqued my interest because I found this play a wonderful symbol of how romantic love cannot satisfy our hearts’ deepest longings. The best example of this idea is Antony’s suicide, and perhaps even Eros’ suicide. Antony died because he could not find the fulfillment of his eros without Cleopatra, while Eros died because he could not live without Antony.

Then, I found this inability to fulfill one’s desire for eros in Euripides’ Hippolytus, Plato’s Symposium, and all the Christian authors I saw. It is uncertain whether Plutarch or Shakespeare wrote their stories with these ideas of eros in mind. Nevertheless, I wrote this paper because the idea that romantic love is a panacea is rampant in today’s culture.

However, I was surprised to discover that various authors from different cultures could come to similar conclusions about eros. I saw parallel views between different classical authors and other Christian authors. I even saw similar views on eros between classical and Christian authors.

Here are some short examples. Plato’s views about eros in his Symposium are similar to Euripides’s throughout his various plays. Peter Chrysologus and Gregory of Nyssa compared God’s love with eros. CS Lewis and Benedict XVI have matching definitions of classical eros. Finally, Benedict XVI agreed with Plato that the object of eros is happiness. So, it seems that eros is a universal theme with rules that can be noticed by anyone.

Now, this capstone by no means exhausted Shakespeare’s views on eros. Other tragedies like Romeo and Juliet would be interesting subjects for exploring Shakespeare’s ideas about eros. Also, one of Shakespeare’s comedies, like Twelfth Night or Midsummer Dream, might show a more positive view of eros. Finally, I could have looked at other classical, medieval, Renaissance, or Christian works that could have been compared with Shakespeare.

Overall, this capstone helped me understand the significance of humanistic studies. For example, Shakespeare showed me that even with a limited history and knowledge of classical Greece and Rome, one can create something new and beautiful. Furthermore, Shakespeare taught me to

integrate my faith with what I am learning in the humanities. This capstone can also help you grasp Shakespeare’s concept of romantic love and integrate your faith with what you learn in humanities.

[1] Cf. M. ADLER, (edd.), The Great Ideas, A Syntopicon Volume 1, Encyclopedia Britannica, London

1952, 1052:

The ancient languages have three distinct words for the main types of love: eros, philia, agape in Greek;

amor, amicitia (or dilectio), and caritas in Latin. Because English has no such distinct words, it seems

necessary to use such phrases as “sexual love,” “love of friendship,” and “love of charity”.

[2] All Shakespeare Quotations come from: D. BEVINGTON (edd.), The Complete Works of William

Shakespeare, Volume IV, Bantam, New York 1988

[3] L. BAUMBACH «Shakespeare and the Classics», Acta Classica, 28/1 (1985), 80

[4] W. SKEAT (edd.), Shakespeare’s Plutarch, Macmillan and Company, London 1875, 221

[5] T. STROUP, «The Structure of Antony and Cleopatra», Shakespeare Quarterly, 15/ 2 (1964), 289

[6] J. ROE, «Character in Plutarch and Shakespeare: Brutus, Julius Caesar, and Mark Antony», in C.

MARTINSDALE, and A.B. TAYLOR (edd.), Shakespeare and the Classics, Cambridge, New York 2004,

174

[7] W. SKEAT (edd.), Shakespeare’s Plutarch, Macmillan and Company, London 1875, 173-174

Here is Plutarch’s original Greek:

τοιούτῳ δ᾽ οὖν ὄντι τὴν φύσιν Ἀντωνίῳ τελευταῖον κακὸν ὁ Κλεοπάτρας ἔρως ἐπιγενόμενος, καὶ πολλὰ

τῶν ἔτι κρυπτομένων ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἀτρεμούντων παθῶν ἐγείρας καὶ ἀναβακχεύσας, εἴ τι χρηστὸν ἢ

σωτήριον ὅμως ἀντεῖχεν, ἠφάνισε καὶ προσδιέφθειρεν.

[8] Cf. PLUTARCH, Erotikos, 19, 20

[9]Cf. PLUTARCH, Parallela Minora, 34

[10] My Translation

[11] Cf. M. STURGEON, Women of the Classics: With Sixteen Photogravures Presenting Studies of the

Heroines of the Book, Harrap, London (1932), 244

[12] Cf. W. BACON, «The Suicide of “Antony in Antony and Cleopatra”, Act IV, Scene XIV», The

Shakespeare Association Bulletin, 24/3, 1949, 198

[13] Ibid., 41

[14] Cf. G. BRADEN, «Plutarch, Shakespeare, and the Alpha Male», in C. MARTINSDALE, and A.B. TAYLOR (edd.) Shakespeare and the Classics, Cambridge, New York 2004, 195

[15] J. RIST, «Plutarch’s “Amatorius”: A Commentary on Plato’s Theories of Love?», The Classical Quarterly, 51/2 (2001), 558

[16] PLATO, Symposium, 205d; (my translation)

[17] Cf. SHAKESPEARE, The Taming of the Shrew,  Act 1.1.32

[18] Cf. SHAKESPEARE, Troilus and Cressida, Act 2.2.173-176

[19] R. KOSKIMIES, «The Question of Platonism in Shakespeare’s Sonnets», Neuphilologische

Mitteilungen, 71/2 (1970), 267

[20] A.D. NUTTALL, «Action at a Distance, Shakespeare and the Greeks», in C. MARTINSDALE, and

A.B. TAYLOR (edd.), Shakespeare and the Classics, Cambridge, New York 2004, 210

[21] Ibid., 210

[22] Cf. SHAKESPEARE, The Taming of the Shrew, Act 1.1.32

[23] Cf. SHAKESPEARE, Hamlet, Act 2.2.424-425

[24] Cf. B. ARKINS, «Heavy Seneca His Influence on Shakespeare’s Tragedies», Classics Ireland, Vol. 2

(1995), 6

For Titus Andronicus and for other plays, what Seneca offers Shakespeare, above all else, is an inimical

universe in which evil triumphs – as the two direct quotations from Seneca’s Phaedra attest.

[25]Cf. J. J. GAHAN, «“Imitatio and Aemulatio” in Seneca’s “Phaedra”», Latomus, 46/ 2 (1987), 380

[26] Cf. SHAKESPEARE, Antony and Cleopatra, Act 4.14.63-64, (also Cf. p 4 of this paper)

[27] W. CHERNAIK, The Myth of Rome in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, New York 2011, 137-138

[28] B. JONSON, The First Folio, 1623, lines 27-40

[29] Cf. P. MILWARD, Shakespeare’s Religious Background, Loyola University Press, Chicago 1985, 104

«There is no objective evidence, … that Shakespeare attended the services of the Church of England –

apart from the argumentum ex silentio that, unlike his father, he was never indicted for nonattendance, or

recusancy».

[30] Cf. Ibid., 24

«Shakespeare’s parents adhered to the ‘old faith’ [i.e. Catholicism and] would naturally have been

concerned about the religious education of their eldest son».

[31] Cf. R. BATTENHOUSE, «Shakespearean Tragedy as Christian: Some Confusions in the Debate», The

Centennial Review, Shakespeare Quadri-Centennial Issue, 8/1, (1964), 77

«John Masefield [thought]… ‘Orthodox religion, whether as ritual or as dogma seems to have meant

almost nothing’ to Shakespeare».

[32] Ibid., 98

[33] R. NORRIS JR. (edd.), Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on the Song of Songs, Society of Biblical Literature,

Atlanta, Georgia 2012

[34] GREGORY OF NYSSA, Homilies on the Song of Songs, 1.23

[35] (Homily 1.23), My Translation

[36] R. BATTENHOUSE, «Shakespearean Tragedy as Christian: Some Confusions in the Debate», The

Centennial Review, Shakespeare Quadri-Centennial Issue, 8/1, (1964), 94

[37] Ibid., 94

[38] A. BIZZOZERO, «Peter Chrysologus», A. DUPONT, S. BOODTS, G. PARTOENS, J. LEEMANS,

(edd.) Preaching in the Patristic Era, Sermons, Preachers, and Audiences in the Latin West; Brill, Boston

2018, 412

[39] PETER CHRYSOLOGUS, Sermo 147: 594-595

[40] (Sermo 147: 594-595) My Translation

[41] (Sermo 147: 594-595) My Translation

[42] All C.S. Lewis quotes come from: C.S. LEWIS, The Four Loves, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Orlando

1991

[43] I use the translation from: BENEDICT XVI, God is Love: Deus Caritas Est, Encyclical Letter, Ignatius

Press, San Francisco 2006