# data[].attributes.body
The role of messengers doesn’t seem important like the main protagonists, at the beginning of the play. However, later on in the play, the messengers prove to be much like puppet masters. As we read further into the play, they seem to be in control of Antony and Cleopatra’s fate. The role of messengers seems to be ignored until crucial moments arise.  Further into the play, the messengers are identified by their names. In Act 4, scene 13, Mardian arrives with the news of Cleopatra’s death. The news of Cleopatra’s death shocks and causes the further downfall of Antony. This proves my point that the messenger was indeed in control of the situation. It was up to the messenger to announce the news of Cleopatra’s death to Antony, following the outcome. The fact that a messenger is dishonest shows beyond doubt that the messengers can be ambiguous. On the other hand, Caesar’s messengers are loyal and keep him informed with current affairs.  

# data[].attributes.body
essengers ironically show all information is unreliable

# data[].attributes.body
ger to announce the news of Cleopatra’s death to Antony, following the outcome. The fact that a messenger is dishonest shows beyond doubt that the messengers can be ambiguous. On the other hand, Caesar’s messengers are loyal and keep him informed with current affairs.  

# data[].attributes.body
how does Caesar treat his messenger in Antony and Cleopatra

# data[].attributes.body
Although the messengers are named anonymous, it could be
argued that Shakespeare has used them to play a role in catalysing key events throughout
the play. This is evident in the opening scene when a messenger sent by Caesar
informs Antony about his duties to Rome. Antony replies to Cleopatra:

“Let Rome in Tiber melt and the wide arch of the ranged Empire fall!”

Antony is clearly conflicted with his duty to Rome and his affair with Cleopatra. As the play progresses Antony continues to inhabit these conflicts which later lead to his DEATH!!! The messengers could
also represent Caesars power and dominance over the rest of the world,
influencing characters internal and external conflicts.

# data[].attributes.body
There is an issue when saying ‘the messenger in Antony and Cleopatra had a key part in
the play, as it opens up a debate. In some ways the Messengers are significant
character in this play as they are central form of communication between the
main protagonists, they would not be able to interact with each other without
the Messengers. Cleopatra is dependent on her messengers in a way as she uses
them as a device to manipulate Antony. In Act 4.15 Cleopatra tells Mardian to
send a message to Antony informing him of her ‘death’ “go tell him I have slain myself” without this
message being passed on to Antony, Cleo would not be able to see the love he
has for her, resulting in his attempted suicide. In Act 1.2 the longer dialogue
of the Messenger suggests that he has influence and more of a relationship with
Antony. If you look at the dialogue between them the messenger’s dialogue is
sometimes longer than the Antony, maybe this was Shakespeare’s way of showing
the importance of the Messenger’s in the play.In contrast it could be argue by alternative interpretations that the messengers are simply servants they are there to carry out a duty and
are of no importance or significance in the play. Evidence of this occurs in
Act 1 Scene 2 where Antony cuts across his messenger, this illustrates his lack
of respect for the messenger and the fact he believes what he has to say is of
more importance. The scene in which Cleopatra threatens her messenger shows the
power the main characters have over the messengers and the lack of admiration
they have for them. The messenger is simply trying to deliver news of Antony,
and all she does is speak over him, and when he delivers the bad news she ‘strikes him down’  thus reflecting the messengers are
inferior in the play. In this way the messenger have no identity no power they
are the slaves of people in higher power used as form of communication.

# data[].attributes.body
The role of messengers doesn’t seem important like the main protagonists, at the beginning of the play. However, later on in the play, the messengers prove to be much like puppet masters. As we read further into the play, they seem to be in control of Antony and Cleopatra’s fate. The role of messengers seems to be ignored until crucial moments arise.  Further into the play, the messengers are identified by their names. In Act 4, scene 13, Mardian arrives with the news of Cleopatra’s death. The news of Cleopatra’s death shocks and causes the further downfall of Antony. This proves my point that the messenger was indeed in control of the situation. It was up to the messenger to announce the news of Cleopatra’s death to Antony, following the outcome. The fact that a messenger is dishonest shows beyond doubt that the messengers can be ambiguous. On the other hand, Caesar’s messengers are loyal and keep him informed with current affairs.

# data[].attributes.body
Messengers have a significant role to play within Antony and Cleopatra. More so in this play than any other play from the same time period. Bearing in mind the messengers are only small characters within the play, Shakespeare gives them a variety of personalities which is unique to
Antony and Cleopatra. Messengers are easily recognisable in Antony and
Cleopatra due to the way their customers are defined and the way they act. The
messengers consistently have to reveal ‘truth’ in relation to identity and authority
throughout the play, for example in Act 2 when one messenger has to tell
Cleopatra that Antony has married Octavia,and Cleopatra gets angry with the messenger,
yet the messenger still insists that it is important he tells the truth. Truth
is an important theme throughout the play.

# data[].attributes.body
To say that messangers are a large element of truth in the play, i believe would be incorrect, as even though through the majority of the play they speak truth however Mardian is told by Cleopatra to tell Antony she is dead,
"Anthony: Dead Then?
Mardian: Dead."
Mardian leaves almost instantly after giving the message which could illuminate Mardians insensitivity. However it seems that the messengers that are unnamed speak truth. Perhaps Shakespere purposely made this prominent, he could have been highlighting the corruption of more socially 'relevant' characters. Shakespere could be giving an insight to the reader of what the people of a higher social status were like in his time through Mardians, and Cleopatra's lies.
It is clear that the messangers act as a kind of contextual guide, updating the characters and the audience with important information and the messangers are also a vital part for the fulidity of the play.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Mr Duncan in which it is cear that Shakespeare is using the messengers to reprsent the idea of truth. The messengers in Anthony and Cleopatra are ther only characters in the play that speak the truth. Messengers thus help clarify the contrast of two symbollic environments, Rome and Egypt. they are symptomatic of a break down in reliable communications; isolation instability and interruption are essential to the ironies and conflicts of the play, forming barriers in the face of which Anthony and Cleopatra must try to find moments of quiet communication. the uncertainty of knowing whether the messages are true provides moreover a key to the plays own ambiguity.

# data[].attributes.body
Although most of the messengers in the play are nameless, and with no primary function but to carry messages for their masters, the way in which the named messengers (Alexas, Thedias, the Soothsayer and dollabella) are treated by the main protagonists can show the main conflicts in the play. Dollabella, the plays final messenger, differs from the others as his message to Cleopatra is a betrayal of his master Caesar. Despite Dollabella's betrayal not being explained in the play, it could be a result of the massive class differences between the messengers of the play, and their masters. Dollabella's betrayal to Caesar could be the finale of the gradual rise in power and identity of the messengers as they have, throughout the play, become more powerful and been named.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Mr Duncan in which it is cear that Shakespeare is using the messengers to reprsent the idea of truth. The messengers in Anthony and Cleopatra are ther only characters in the play that speak the truth. expect more, sorry sir

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Shakespeare is trying to say that the lower classes and the people who do the dirty work should be valued. They shouldn't have any say in what they are delivering, just to deliver it as quickly as possible. However, in Act 2 Scene 5 Cleopatra is extremely violent towards a messenger who gives her bad news but in Act 3 Scene 3, she rewards a messenger for giving her the news that she is apparently prettier than Antony's new wife. This may show that the Antony and other conquerers' actions have an effect on the normal person, that by taking over a country they may have to defeat vast armies and kill a large number of people who are just defending the territory that they rightfully own. This may also show that the upper classes are blind to the suffering of the people in the Empire, whilst the rich concern themselvses with egotistical, petty quests to ecpand their Empire and their pockets. Towards the end of the play the messengers start to have a greater say in events in the play and are given names which shows that in the end the people will always have a decisive say in worldy events. Even though he is being instructed, a messenger lies to Antony which contributes to his downfall. This could also show how cowardly Cleopatra was that she couldn't face Antony and needed someone else to do it for her.

# data[].attributes.body
The messengers in the play do not only allow Shakespeare to keep the dramatic conflicts amongst the characters, even when divided by the Mediterranean, but also to emphasise the control and power which both Antony and Cleopatra hold. Not only that, Antony and Cleopatra can be said to dehumanise the messengers – they don’t see the person and the message as separate, rather they see the messengers as a personification of the news. The actions of Cleopatra in Act II scene V go to prove this. While the messenger tells her good news, she shows her happiness by way of raising the messenger, promising him gold and thanking him for telling the truth. Yet as soon as the ‘truth’ becomes bad news, she becomes furious, taking out her anger on the messenger by hitting him and threatening him ‘I will boot thee what gift beside thy modesty can beg’. She takes advantage of her power, knowing the messenger cannot fight back.

Similarly, in Act III scene XIII both Antony and Cleopatra channel their emotions towards each other and take them out on the messenger. Cleopatra kisses Thidias’s hand, as if it were Caesar’s, when Antony sees this he decides to whip Thidias mercilessly. The phrase ‘whip him’ and ‘whipped’ are repeated four times, surrounded by a lexical field of aggressiveness and violence – ‘viciousness’, ‘whine aloud’, ‘cringe his face’- This goes to show the destructive nature of Antony and Cleopatra’s relationship, aggression and fury follow them constantly. The power they have gained is inescapable; they feel a constant need to prove themselves worthy by kicking the lower social classes further into the ground. Looking at it from a Marxist perspective, the scene could be interpreted as evoking pity towards the messengers, the innocent are sacrificed for the whims of the powerful. However there is no class struggle that is centralised, the characters are perfectly immobile in their social statuses and there seems to little evidence to show any characters attempting to change that. Does Shakespeare use messengers to make a social comment about the lower classes, or clearly distinguishes the powerful from the powerless, linking destruction with power?

# data[].attributes.body
Yes Comrade Scriven, messengers

are the children of the Revolution.

Link to TGG and CITR?

# data[].attributes.body
Shakespeare's use of messengers could be viewed from a Marxist standpoint to show the rising of the lower classes. In Act 2 scene 5, we see Cleopatra "strike" down a messenger who brings news of Antony's marriage to Octavia, in this scene Shakespeare doesn't give the messenger a name, this could be seen as symbolic of the lack of power the lower classes hold at the beginning of the play, Cleopatra's punishment of the messenger for something he had no involvement in shows how the upper classes manipulate and use those of lower social standing for their own means. However as the play progresses we see the position of the lower classes changing. In Act 3 scene 13 we see Antony ordering a messenger sent from Caesar to be whipped. In this scene we can see the position of the lower class messengers improving as the messenger is given a name "Thidias". The fact Shakespeare gives this messenger a name shows the growing sense of identity of the working classes, the messenger in also seen to plant the 'seeds of betrayal' in Cleopatra's mind as we see her referring to Caesar as a "God". While the messenger is whipped my Antony, the fact he starts the chain of events that leads to Cleopatra's betrayal of Antony shows the increase of power of the working classes: Thidias is causing Antony's downfall. We finally see the rising of the lower classes in Act 5 scene 2 when Charmian acts as 'the final messenger' and delivers the news of Cleopatra's death; when Charmian says Caesar has sent "too slow a messenger" it is almost as if she is mocking him; she had the power to stop Cleopatra but didn't; she prevents Caesar from gaining status leading Cleopatra in "triumph", this could be seen from a Marxist critique as the rising of the lower classes. The messengers gain status throughout the whole play and Charmian, the final messenger, thwarts the highest of them all: Caesar.

# data[].attributes.body
While the messengers at the beginning of Antony and Cleopatra have seemingly unimportant roles in the play, as the plotline thickens they are drawn more into the story and thus have more significant roles. Proven as during the first few Acts messengers remain anonymous, unnoticed or even hated, like in Act 3 Sc. 13 when Cleopatra orders one to be flogged. But as the tale entangles the messengers can’t help but be intertwined with the course of events. Approaching the end of the play messengers are proven to seemingly defy orders, such as in Act 5 Scene 2 when Dollabella is asked the truth of whether Caesar will parade Cleopatra as a war trophy Dollabella replies “Madam, he will. I know ’t.”. This, arguably, is the pivotal point in which Cleopatra chooses to end her life over submitting to the

Empire. When a messenger for Cleopatra lies to Antony of how Cleopatra was “dead” in Act 4 Sc. 13, not only is it evidence of how Egyptian messengers were more loyal than Romans it causes Antony to kill himself as well. The messenger could have rebelled but him choosing not to resulted in the death; once more the apparently insignificant messenger causes the death of a protagonist. While it is quite possible Shakespeare only included the number of messengers he did to highlight the distance between the characters, it is equally as likely that being the radical writer he was, he was making a statement to the poor people at the front of the audience; that despite all the power the high ranking roles possessed, it didn’t help them from being defeated by their mere servants.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Mr Duncan's point about 'truth'. However I believe there is a difference between the two main protagonists and the messengers used to convey their untruthful messages. Where Antony and Cleopatra actually lie - for instance in Act 4 Scene 14 when Antony is told by Mardian that Cleopatra is dead - they are actually creating these lies whereas the messengers are merely transferring a piece of information from one person to another. However, is it morally acceptable for these messengers to do this? Or is it just another way of fulfilling their duty as a messenger and the fact that they are transferring false information is neither here nor there? I believe this is all down to the messengers themselves. As the holders of the information they've received they are, in some respects, put into a position of great power and "with great power comes great responsibility" as a wise man once said. The fact that Shakespeare leaves most of the messengers in Antony and Cleopatra nameless tells me that these messengers are not of any great significance in terms of who they, as a person, are and so would not distort any messages given to them.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with Beth I believe that Shakespeare has used messengers
purely because they live so far away from one another not because they do not
want to face each other with bad news. Even if they were writing letters,
another form of communication, they still would not be facing each other with
the bad news that they need to tell. I also believe that the messengers are
used to show timing in the play. It would take a series of days even weeks to
get from Rome to Egypt, I believe the use of messengers shows how long this
play went on for,
I do however believe that the messengers can be deceitful as they hold the power
to twist whatever they want. We never quite know if the message is lying or not.
E.g. “Fulvia thy wife is dead” (messenger 1.2) Antony after returning back to Rome
never has any other sort of confirmation about his wife’s death only what the
messenger has told him. Other evidence that supports the fact that these
messengers could be liars is that they all know about Cleopatra’s short temper
and changing personality. Cleopatra sends a messenger off to find out what Antony’s
new wife looks like. When the messenger reports back they basically tell
Cleopatra exactly what she wants to hear. “that’s not so good: he cannot like
her long. (Cleopatra 3.3) The messenger agrees with Cleopatra this could be
showing the emotion of scared and feeling intimidated because they know her
personality. Cleopatra also asked the messenger about her face meaning is she
smaller than me however the messenger tells Cleopatra that she has a face is
round, hinting to the audience or the reader of the play like myself that Octavia
is bigger than Cleopatra. Diomedes another messenger goes to tell Antony that
Cleopatra is dead however she isn’t and he knows this. This order he was given
to go and tell Antony of his lover’s death ended up causing a tragedy of deaths
in the play. Antony then felt bad for being so angry at Cleopatra causing her
to ‘kill herself’, so Antony takes it upon himself feeling guilty to then kill
himself. All of these deaths could easily have been avoided if Cleopatra and
Anthony didn’t lie to one another and send these messages out to tell lies.
However I do believe that if they did not tell lies to one another the
messengers still would. These lies I see as a key motif in the play and without
them the play would be Antony and Cleopatra.

# data[].attributes.body
The messengers used in Antony and Cleopatra could be another way of Shakespeare showing the couple’s cowardliness and patheticness as they are unable to face one another with bad news, contradicting the earlier view of
Antony as a “third pillar of the world”(1.1.13) and both him and Cleopatra as
Godly figures, “Venus”(2.2.205). It also questions their true power, as by
giving the messengers such intimate knowledge and details, they are giving them the power instead as they can twist the information in any way they like and hold the ammunition for great drama and warfare. In fact, it is a message from to Antony about Cleopatra’s betrayal and fake death that leads to his own
painful end and a message from Dolabella to Cleopatra suggesting the likelihood of her becoming Caesar’s “Egyptian puppet”(5.2.207) that leads to her own death. The consequence of these messages clearly shows the power the messengers hold, in comparison to the “leaders”, whose actions are dependent on the messengers. This again could be seen as a way for Shakespeare to undermine the, “powerful” figures, as, in actual fact, their fate rests in the words of a common, and poor civilian. Similarly, Gatsby’s use of Jordan as a messenger in Chapter 4 of the Great Gatsby, can also be seen as cowardice, as he lacks the confidence to ask Nick directly for a favour and therefore has to go through a third person, a feature Nick disagrees with “why has it all got to come through Miss Baker?”. The power is clearly in Jordan’s hands as she can determine whether or not he achieves his lifelong dream of meeting Daisy and therefore, despite Gatsby’s wealth and gender, he is the weaker person in this instance. However, it could also represent Gatsby’s alienation from society due to rejection from the social elite that has led him to become withdrawn and nervous when talking to anyone associated with such society. In addition, it could suggest that Gatsby is slightly sexist as he feels more confident conversing with a female than a male, suggesting woman to be increasingly placid and feeble. Nevertheless, it is clear that the messengers reduce the power of the wealthy and thus, increase their own power, reversing the social hierarchy.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Ms Cowan but you are all geeks!

# data[].attributes.body
Mr D - I'd agree with your point about 'truth'.  Cleopatra's childish reaction to the messenger in Act 2 Sc 5 (this is from memory - is this bit where she beats him up?) represents her privileged and by extension (within the logic of the play) 'Eastern' persona.  Messengers represent the utilitarian.  They are responsible for the exchange of information on which both Rome and Egypt depend.  Cleopatra's willingess to intimidate a messenger until he delivers a 'truth' which suits reality as she would like it, is a triumph for 'foreign' self-indulgence and self-deceit.  It is a combination of the two biggest flaws that characters in this play can have: it is un-Roman and Feminine.

How do we feel the audience are supposed to react to it?  Do our sympathies lie with Cleopatra or with the Messenger?  Is she a spoiled child or an empowered monarch suffering with love-sickness?  Does it convince use that her love for Antony is real or that she is a narcissist and a fantasist?  One of the things that is so enduring about this play is this anithetical structure.  The audience is constantly asked to choose between contradictory positions and being unable to do so, the audience is then forced to hold both positions simultaneously.  Cleopatra is like Schroedinger's cat.  In a constant state of quantum uncertainty.  Recognisably human and completely alien and unknowable.

God, I wish I was teaching this again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No cats were harmed in the making of this video. Tweet it - http://bit.ly/qJZry7 Facebook it - http://on.fb.me/rfgo9J minutephysics is now on Google+ - http://bit.ly/qzEwc6 And facebook - http://facebook.com/minutephysics Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute!

# data[].attributes.body
P.S. Mr D: 'It's' should be 'It is'. We are not writing a text message, you know.

# data[].attributes.body
Shakespeare's use of messengers in 'Antony and Cleopatra' highlight once again the theme of dislocation within the play, and allow the audience to be complicit in an understanding that both Antony and Cleopatra have a distorted view of themselves and each other. Besides the messengers representing the physical and political distance between Egypt and Rome, and therefore the sense of characters being in the 'wrong' location, they also provide an optive through which to view Antony and Cleopatra's self-perception and the dislocation of what they believe about themselves, and how they are perceived by others. Fore example, although Antony continuously proclaims his devotion to honour and duty to the triumverate, gallantly swearing that 'If I lose mine honour, I lose myself'(will check ref!), it is through his reaction to the messenger calling him to duty in Act 1 that we see his real lack of resolve and discipline when he lets lust conquer duty by exclaiming 'Let Rome in Tiber melt!'. This melting imagery, coupled Antony's reactions to messengers bearing a call to duty, allow the audience to see the dissolution of the 'warrior' Antony. Therefore the audience see the tension between how Antony sees himself, and how he is seen by others. Arguably, herein lies the tragey of this play. The further and further Antony is 'dislocated' (whether physically or metaphorically) from his role as a Roman leader, the more inevitable becomes his demise. Shakespeare seems to be suggesting that there is a danger inherent in

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting viewpoint, Mr D. However, you need to expand your analysis in order to convince me further. How do the messenger's untruths about Octavia affect our interpretation of how Shakespeare is presenting Cleopatra? If 'truth' is indeed an impossibility, what conclusions does Shakespeare want us to draw about the characters who act on these 'untruths'? Why?

# data[].attributes.body
Messengers in the play are either named or unnamed. While

a simplistic analysis would suggest some messengers are

only dramatic devices, the fact that some are named raises the

theme of "identity". It is interesting to note that the number

of named messengers increases during the play. This inversely

mirrors the destruction of Antony's own identity, which dissolves

before the audience. He is disempowered and emasculated, as

subordinate messengers acquire stronger identities and wills.

Conversely, in The Great Gatsby, Gatsby's own identity is deconstructed

in the later chapters as we learn of his true name, his true origins. Given

the novel form, Fitzgerald relies on his first person narrator Nick Carroway

to report events retrospectively. Linking with an earlier point about truth,

the theme of true identity is conveyed through the messenger in the

Shakespearean play, or messenger-narrator in The Great Gatsby.

# data[].attributes.body
It's clear Shakespeare is using 'the messenger' to represent

his ideas of "truth". Just as the play itself is an art-form, is artificial and not natural, the messengers and their messages show how unreliable information is. This irony mirrors that of the two main protagonists, Antony and Cleopatra. Just as messengers are meant to convey information (but in the play tell mistruths), so too is it ironic that the great soldier Antony can't kill himself in Act 4 Sc 13. Examples of messengers lying or sending unreliable information include the messenger describing Octavia (3.3), Mardian's false news of Cleopatra's death (4.13) and Proculeius  lying to Cleopatra about her fate in Rome (5.1). Shakespeare's own message is that "truth" is impossible, the listener needs careful examination and realisation of this not just in plays, but in life.