A Kiss as an Erotic Gift from Cleopatra: Gift-Giving in Antony and Cleopatra　Sae KITAMURA A Kiss as an Erotic Gift from Cleopatra: Gift-Giving in Antony and Cleopatra Kitamura Sae 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Let’s grant it is not 　　　　　Amiss to tumble on the bed of Ptolemy, 　　　　　To give a kingdom for a mirth［ . . .］.1） Shakespeare’s characters habitually exchange gifts. At times, his metaphors raise gift-giving to an abstract or universal level by treating love, faith, and the world itself as something given or taken as a‘ gift’. When Antony is said‘ ［t］o give a kingdom for a mirth’ in Antony and Cleopatra（ 1.4.13）, gift-giving is clearly not a quotidian affair, but is instead an event that shakes the world. Shakespeare’s metaphors of gift-giving arise from the broad meanings that can be attributed to the word‘ gift’, such as‘ present’ or‘ quality’.2） These meanings have one root, as Lewis Hyde writes in The Gift:‘ common to each of them［ their sense of meaning］ is the notion that a gift is a thing we do not get by our own efforts. We cannot buy it; we cannot acquire it through an act of 　＊ This essay is partly based on a paper read at the 3th Ohsawa Colloquium in Tokyo, 31 May 2003 and another paper read at the 47th Annual Conference of the Shake- speare Society of Japan in Iwate, 11 October 2003. 1） Antony and Cleopatra（ hereinafter AC）, 1.4.16-13. Quotations from Shakespeare re- fer to The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd ed., gen. ed., G. Blakemore Evans（ Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997）. 2） Alexander Schmidt, Shakespeare-Lexicon: A Complete Dictionary of All the English Words, Phrases and Constructions in the Works of the Poet, 3th ed.（ Berlin: Gru- yter, 1962）, 474. 33（3 231） 武蔵大学人文学会雑誌　第46巻第1号 will’.3） A gift-giving economy thus differs from a money-driven economy by be- ing a form of‘ erotic’ commerce - commerce based on‘ eros’, or‘ the principle of attraction, union, involvement which binds together’, which is opposed to‘ lo- gos’, or‘ reason and logic in general, the principle of differentiation in particular’ （xiv）. A wide range of gratuitous exchanges occurs in this economy built on emotional links, from those involving objects to those involving more psycholog- ical values such as gratitude, honour, love, and political support. Antony’s ex- change of the world for a mirth or, more precisely, love can be taken as an act of erotic gift-giving. If this psychological commerce goes well, the giver and the recipient will maintain a harmonious relationship. If it goes awry, its psychological impact will undermine the psychic equanimity or social status of both the giver and the re- cipient. This occurs because whenever one person gives something to another, the recipient is required to reciprocate materially or emotionally. According to Malinowski,‘ pure gifts’, which are given without expecting anything in return, are rare and occur only in the presence of strong ties between the giver and recipient.4） Gift-giving is thus inevitably an experience that bonds the recipient to the giver. This paper focuses on the psychological function of gift-giving in Antony and Cleopatra, especially as it relates to the leading couple’s struggle to main- tain their autonomy while engaging in reciprocal relationships in both the politi- cal and personal spheres. In general, the psychological function of gift-giving has long been argued among scholars. Hyde, Marcel Mauss, and Natalie Zemon Davis emphasise the emotional networking function of the gift, while others, 3） Lewis Hyde, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property（ New York: Vintage Books, 1933）, xi. 4） Bronislaw Malinowski, Argonauts of the Western Pacific（ 1922; repr., New York: Dutton, 1960）, 177-30. 33（7 232） A Kiss as an Erotic Gift from Cleopatra: Gift-Giving in Antony and Cleopatra　Sae KITAMURA such as Jacques Derrida, go so far as to conclude that‘ the gift is the impossi- ble’ because any kind of gift-giving becomes a mere economic exchange as soon as it is recognised as gift-giving.3） Although these critics have influenced a num- ber of studies on gift-giving in Shakespeare’s works,6） only a few mention its role in Antony and Cleopatra. However, as Antony’s words indicate at the be- ginning of this paper, gift-giving in this play involves grand-scale political and psychological commerce. This paper attempts to clarify the functions that gift- 3） Marcel Mauss, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, trans. W. D. Halls（ New York: Norton, 1990）, originally published as Essai sur le don in Sociologie et anthropologie（ Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1930）; Natalie Zemon Davis, The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France（ Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000）; Jacques Derrida, Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money, trans. Peggy Kamuf（ Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992）, 7, originally pub- lished as Donner le temps: 1. La fausse monnaie（ Paris: Galilée, 1991）. About Derri- da and gift-giving, see also The Gift of Death, trans. Davis Wills（ Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1993）, originally published as L’ethique du don: Jacques Derrida et la pensée du don: colloque de Royaumont, décembre 1990, réunis par Jean-Michel Rabaté et Michael Wetzel（ Paris: Métailié-Transition: Diffusion Seuil, 1992）. 6） For example, for Timon of Athens, Ken Jackson adopts Derridean analysis of gift- giving in‘ “One Wish” or the Possibility of the Impossible: Derrida, the Gift, and God in Timon of Athens’, Shakespeare Quarterly 32（ 2001）: 34-66. William N. West also attempts Derridean analysis on The Sonnets in‘ Nothing as Given: Economies of the Gift in Derrida and Shakespeare’, Comparative Literature 43（ 1996）: 1-13. Jyotsna C. Singh refers to Derrida, Mauss, and Hyde in analysing The Merchant of Venice in‘ Gendered“ Gift” in Shakespeare’s Belmont: The Economies of Ex- change in Early Modern England’, in A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare, ed. Dympna Callaghan（ Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2000）, 144-33. There are other pa- pers dealing with gift-giving in Shakespeare’s works: on Timon of Athens, see also Coppélia Kahn,‘ “Magic of Bounty”: Timon of Athens, Jacobean Patronage, and Maternal Power’, Shakespeare Quarterly 33（ 1937）: 34-37 and David Bevington and David L. Smith,‘ James I and Timon of Athens’, Comparative Drama 33（ 1999）: 36-37: on The Merchant of Venice, see also Sylvan Barnet, introduction to Twenti- eth Century Interpretations of the Merchant of Venice: A Collection of Critical Es- says, ed. Barnet（ Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970）, 1-10; Marianne L. Novy, Love’s Argument: Gender Relations in Shakespeare（ Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1934）, ch. 4; and Karen Newman,‘ Portia’s Ring: Unruly Women and Structures of Power’, Shakespeare Quarterly 33（ 1937）: 19-33. 33（6 233） 武蔵大学人文学会雑誌　第46巻第1号 giving fulfils for the leading couple in the multi-faceted political love tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra. This paper consists of two sections. The first section analyses how Antony’s generosity is portrayed and what effect it has on the whole tragedy. The second section examines how Cleopatra is portrayed in con- trast to Antony in the descriptions of gift-giving. I. Antony as a Proud but Failed Giver/Recipient CLEOPATRA If it be love indeed, tell me how much. ANTONY There’s beggary in the love that can be reckon’d. CLEOPATRA I’ll set a bourn how far to be belov’d. ANTONY Then must thou needs find out new heaven, new earth. （AC, 1.1.14-17） Antony is the most generous character in Antony and Cleopatra. At the begin- ning of the play, he suggests that Cleopatra should‘ find out new heaven, new earth’ in order to measure his love. By using not‘ I’ but‘ thou’ as the subject of his speech（ 17）, he implies that it is not he, but Cleopatra, who will obtain such a‘ new heaven, new earth’. His generosity, fuelled by love, becomes almost lim- itless, while Cleopatra wants to‘ set a bourn how far to be belov’d’（ 16）. H. W. Fawkner depicts this lovers’ quarrel as‘ the war between a general economy （here Antony’s） and a restricted one（ here Cleopatra’s）’.7）‘ General economy’, a concept from Georges Bataille, means an economy in which‘ energy, which constitutes wealth, must ultimately be spent lavishly（ without return）’.3） Since critics who mention gift-giving in Antony and Cleopatra deem the whole of 7） Harald William Fawkner, Shakespeare’s Hyperontology: Antony and Cleopatra （London: Associated University Press, 1990）, 32. 3） Georges Bataille, The Accursed Share, trans. Robert Hurley, 2 vols.（ New York: Zone, 1933）, 1: 22. Originally published as La part maudite in 1967. 33（3 234） A Kiss as an Erotic Gift from Cleopatra: Gift-Giving in Antony and Cleopatra　Sae KITAMURA Egypt to be ruled by a spendthrift economy, Fawkner’s interpretation of Cleo- patra’s economy as‘ restricted’ may, prima facie, look odd.9） In fact, the opening conversation between Antony and Cleopatra actually denotes a difference in the couple’s attitudes toward gift-giving: Antony’s limitless generosity against Cleopatra’s moderate one. Because of his munificence, Antony literally attempts to give Cleopatra ‘new heaven, new earth’ in order to reciprocate her love. He promises her ‘［a］ll the East’（ 1.3.46）, and in the middle of the play, he actually makes‘ her ［Cleopatra］ / Of lower Syria, Cyprus, Lydia, / Absolute Queen’（ 3.6.9-11）. In contrast, Cleopatra derides Octavius’ orders for Antony to‘ ［t］ake in that king- dom, and enfranchise that’（ 1.1.23）, and she is not much interested in expand- ing her territory. Antony’s kingdoms are‘ gifts’ in the sense defined by Hyde because Cleopatra acquires them through another’s efforts rather than her own. Antony wants to share his empire not only with Cleopatra, but also with his subjects. Before the outbreak of war, in order to reward only two hours’ service from his servants（ 4.2.32）, he hyperbolically expresses gratitude by tak- ing their hands and stating:‘ make as much of me / As when mine empire was your fellow too, / And suffer’d my command’（ 21-23）. The servants are uncom- fortable with Antony’s deep gratitude（ 19）, and Enobarbus even asks Antony no‘t ［t］o give them this discomfort’（ 34）. Antony tries to‘ ［b］e bounteous’（ 10）, but only confounds his fellows. His excessive generosity not only embarrasses others, but it sometimes becomes even lethal. After Enobarbus’ flight, Antony sends him all of Enobar- bus’ treasure‘ with / His［ Antony’s］ bounty overplus’（ 4.6.20-21）. According to Hyde‘, ［t］he increase is the core of the gift, the kernel’ in reciprocity（ 36）− 9） Terry Eagleton, William Shakespeare（ New York: Blackwell, 1936）, 33-39; and Wil- liam Flesch, Generosity and the Limits of Authority: Shakespeare, Herbert, Milton （Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992）, 191. 33（4 233） 武蔵大学人文学会雑誌　第46巻第1号 that is to say, when the giver materially increases an object of exchange, doing so implies an increase in his/her feelings toward the recipient. This‘ overplus’ as a gift is Antony’s affection itself, unexpectedly given to Enobarbus. Over- whelmed by Antony’s generosity, Enobarbus imagines gifts Antony would have given if he had remained faithful‘: ［H］ow wouldst thou have paid / My better service, when my turpitude / Thou dost so crown with gold!’（ 4.6.31-33）. Guilt- ridden by his inability to reciprocate, Enobarbus drives himself to death in re- turn for Antony’s gift:‘ O Antony, / Nobler than my revolt is infamous, / For- give me in thine own particular’.10） Although he has no ill will for Enobarbus, Antony literally kills him with his kindness. Extraordinarily generous in giving, Antony does not ask much as a re- cipient. What he asks of Cleopatra is only her love, or, more precisely, her kiss. Whenever she hurts him, he seeks her kiss. When Cleopatra entreats Antony, pleading‘, ［f］orgive my fearful sails’（ 3.11.33） after the Battle of Actium, he re- plies,‘ Give me a kiss. / Even this repays me’（ 70-71）. After being inflamed with Cleopatra’s flattery of Octavius, he forgives her, mentioning her kiss:‘ If from the field I shall return once more / To kiss these lips, I will appear in blood’（ 3.13.173-74）. Antony makes a hasty judgment about her mock death and attempts suicide himself, but for him, Cleopatra’s little kiss makes amends even for death:‘ Of many thousand kisses the poor last / I lay upon thy lips’ （4.13.20-21）. Antony is satisfied with a minimum of gifts in return for the king- doms he bestows and does not dwell on the issue of reciprocal gifts. Antony’s generosity is often mentioned in this play. Generally, the Ro- man characters criticise his‘ habit’ of giving kingdoms. Octavius blames Ant- 10） AC, 4.9.13-20. It is not clear whether Enobarbus’s death is a suicide. Jacqueline Vanhoutte, however, is of the opinion that it is a suicide due to Antony’s generosi- ty, because it is, in every sense, self-inflicted. See‘ Antony’s“ Secret House of Death”: Suicide and Sovereignty in Antony and Cleopatra’, Philological Quarterly 79（ 2000）: 133-73. 33（3 236） A Kiss as an Erotic Gift from Cleopatra: Gift-Giving in Antony and Cleopatra　Sae KITAMURA ony for having‘ given his empire / Up to a whore’（ 3.6.66-67）, and Maecenas agrees with Octavius（ 93）. Nevertheless, the Romans do sometimes admit his virtue. A Roman soldier compares Antony with Jove in terms of generosity （4.6.27-23）, and Enobarbus praises Antony as a‘ mine of bounty’（ 4.6.31）. In Egypt, Cleopatra describes Antony as an all-giving, colossal figure who increas- es what nature has given as harvest:‘ For his bounty, / There was no winter in’t; an［ autumn］ it was / That grew the more by reaping’.11） Antony is a genu- ine giver; he increases gifts, gives when someone least expects it, and demands little in return. As Hyde points out, before the arrival of the market economy, a‘ big man’ was someone remarkable in‘ the dispersal of his gifts’（ xiii）. Karl Polanyi also points out that reciprocity had been among the driving forces of the econo- my before the Industrial Revolution.12） Antony - the rarest spirit who‘ ［d］id steer humanity’（ 3.1.31-32） - is the‘ big man’. His generosity is the symbol of both his economic power and his virtue in the world prior to the money-driven market economy, wherein the psychological and social conflict surrounding the gift as an economic driver was greater than it is today. Studies of early modern European culture suggest that men were often preoccupied by the bonds of obligation and gratitude in gift-giving. Davis’s study on gift-giving makes it clear that they were‘ chafed at the humiliation of begging favor and at the dissimulation and extravagant language of request and thanks’（ 123）. For example, Montaigne was tired of committing himself to the giver in a reciprocal relationship filled with obligation and gratitude:‘ I avoid subjecting myself to any sort of obligation, but especially any that binds me by a debt of honor. I find nothing so expensive as that which is given me 11） AC, 3.2.36-33. The bracket is original. 12） Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation（ 1944; repr., Boston: Beacon Press, 1971）, chaps. 4-3. 33（2 237） 武蔵大学人文学会雑誌　第46巻第1号 and for which my will remains mortgaged by the claim of gratitude’.13） As Da- vis points out, it was painful for proud men of letters like Montaigne to flatter others in reciprocal relationships（ 74-73）. They felt deprived of their own au- tonomy because they had to dramatise gratitude even though they were not willing to do so. While Davis mainly focuses on French materials, gift-giving in Renais- sance England was also a custom associated with various social rules, including courtesies and civility.14） Davis finds a typical sixteenth-century quarrel about gift-giving in the first scene of King Lear, during which Cordelia refuses Lear’s demand for limitless obedience in return for his gifts（ 71-72）. Perhaps unsur- prisingly, Shakespeare’s Antony is likewise troubled by reciprocal relationships. For Antony,‘ honor is sacred’（ 2.2.33）. In order to protect honour in gift relations, Antony repays his obligation to Pompey for his kindness toward Ant- ony’s mother, even before waging war against Pompey:‘ I must thank him only, / Lest my remembrance suffer ill report; / At heel of that, defy him’ （2.2.133-37）. Antony’s honour, however, is not due solely to a virtue shown in a reciprocal relationship; honesty is also an essential virtue for him（ 92-94）. As Enobarbus implies（ 2.6.130）, Antony always has his own way, for to sail under false colours is beneath his dignity. To protect his pride, Antony would rather avoid feigning gratitude. Antony’s struggle to maintain his autonomy is clearly shown in his mar- riage to Octavia, given to him as a‘ gift’ by Octavius. Through her, Octavius and Antony build a male reciprocal relationship. Lévi-Strauss equates marriage with the exchange of women‘: ［T］he woman herself is nothing other than one 13） Michael de Montaigne, The Complete Works, trans. Donald M. Frame（ London: Everyman’s Library, 2003）, bk. 3, sec. 9. 14） See also Patricia Fumerton, Cultural Aesthetics: Renaissance Literature and the Practice of Social Ornament（ Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991）, ch. 2. 33（1 233） A Kiss as an Erotic Gift from Cleopatra: Gift-Giving in Antony and Cleopatra　Sae KITAMURA of these gifts, the supreme gift among those that can only be obtained in the form of reciprocal gifts’.13） Following him, Gayle Rubin observes that the ex- change of women is an essential factor upon which the social sex/gender sys- tem is built.16） Antony and Octavius understand that Octavia is a crucial gift needed to sustain their male bond. For Octavius, the marriage of Octavia to Antony is decided by‘ ［t］he power of Caesar, and / His power unto Octavia’ （2.2.142-43）, and she is‘ ［a］ sister I bequeath you’（ 149）. Octavia has no say in this exchange. According to Mauss,‘ the giver has a hold over the beneficiary’ through the gift（ 11-12）. After Octavia is married to Antony, Octavius urges him:‘ You take from me a great part of myself; / Use me well in’t’（ 3.2.24-23）. Even if Oc- tavia is Octavius’ property, he loves his sister‘ so dearly’（ 2.2.130）, and they share a strong emotional bond as the giver and the gift. Antony, however, eventually returns the‘ gift’ in order to maintain his autonomy, even though he understands that the marriage is an‘ act of grace’ （2.2.146）, or the most significant act of gift-giving. He abandons Octavia not only because he does not love her, but also because he is discontented with the reciprocal relationship with Octavius. Antony still loves Cleopatra（ 2.3.41）, but he keeps pretending to love Octavia（ 3.2.62） so long as Octavius shows respect for him. However, when Octavius fails to return his grateful acknowledgement, 13） Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Elementary Structures of Kinship, trans. James Harle Bell, John Richard von Sturmer and Rodney Needham（ Boston: Beacon Press, 1969）, 63. Originally published as Les structures élémentaires de la parenté（ Paris: Mouton, 1967）. 16） Gayle Rubin defines a sex/gender system as follows‘: a“ sex/gender system” is the set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity, and in which these transformed sexual needs are sat- isfied’.‘ The Traffic in Women: Notes on the“ Political Economy”’ in Toward An- thropology of Women, ed. Rayna R. Reiter（ New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973）, 137-210（ 139）. 33（0 239） 武蔵大学人文学会雑誌　第46巻第1号 Antony, usually generous, becomes exceptionally displeased:‘ when perforce he could not / But pay me terms of honor, cold and sickly / He vented［ them,］ most narrow measure lent me’.17） He even implies that it is natural for Octavia to love Octavius more than him（ 3.4.21-22）. Antony, prompted by Octavius’ in- gratitude and Cleopatra’s letters（ 3.3.33; 3.6.63-66）, decides to break off the re- ciprocal relationship and go back to Egypt. Octavius is infuriated because his precious gift, Octavia, has been‘ abus’d’ （3.6.36）. As Mauss says,‘ there is no middle way’ in gift-giving, which means that people have only two choices: to give everything, including their kinswom- en, or to begin hostilities（ 33-34）. Understanding that, Antony prepares for war as soon as he arrives in Egypt（ 3.6.67-76）. However, when Antony chooses war instead of gratitude, his generosity- driven gift economy collapses. Before the war, Cleopatra’s love is far more psy- chologically valuable to him than kingdoms. It seems as though Antony does not cling to his empire, for after his loss in the battle of Actium, he asks Octavi- us‘ ［t］o let him［ Antony］ breathe between the heavens and earth, / A private man in Athens’（ 3.12.14-13）. For him‘, ［k］ingdoms are clay’（ 1.1.33） and, as Cleopatra says,‘ realms and islands were / As plates dropp’d from his pocket’ （3.2.91-92）, or gifts to prove his generosity, not the objects of rule. He gives them to Cleopatra and their children（ 3.6.3-11）. His choice of gift-giving, howev- er, drives him into waging war in order to defend his kingdoms. The empire, which was given generously, is now dearly bought with blood. According to Scarus‘, ［t］he greater cantle of the world is lost / With very ignorance, we have kiss’d away / Kingdoms and provinces’（ 3.10.6-3）. For Antony, Cleopatra’s kiss is worth the empire, but the value of the kiss depreciates in a war econo- my that neglects the psychological value of gifts. 17） AC, 3.4.6-3. The bracket is original, and‘ he’ in the 6th line means Octavius. 34（9 240）