Of all of Shakespeare’s plays, Antony and Cleopatra is the one that most dramatically reveals the battle between cynicism and idealism. In the play, Shakespeare uses Rome as a symbol for cynicism, which he frequently refers to as politics, and Egypt to refer to the notions of idealism. This conflict between Rome and Egypt makes up the central conflict of the play and drives the characters towards most of their actions. “Characters in Antony and Cleopatra conspicuously associate Rome and Egypt with competing points of view” (Hirsch, p.175). This is despite the fact that, obviously, Romans are capable of idealism and Egyptians capable of realism. Though Egypt did not have the same impact on European history that Rome had, to ignore that Egypt had a history of tremendous political power and that its rulers must have been capable of exercising very pragmatic and cynical decisions is to ignore history. It is this very real history that drives the story line in the play. In fact, had Antony and Cleopatra not been rulers of their respective realms, and, therefore, symbols of cynicism and idealism, their love affair would not have been tragic. Antony would not have been censured for falling prey to Cleopatra’s charms, he would not have been expected to marry another woman, and he may have triumphed in the eventual battle to rule Rome. However, by falling in love with Cleopatra, Antony’s Roman cynicism falls prey to idealism, and he can longer be nothing more than a pragmatic politician. Therefore, it is clear that, “Under the pressure of historical necessity Voluptas must lose, whether represented by Cleopatra or Falstaff; but the defeat is not the easy and obvious matter of a morality play” (Kermode, p. 1345). On the contrary, throughout the play, even though the audience knows the outcome, there is a constant tension between idealism and cynicism, and a constant strain about which one should prevail. It is important to understand that many of Shakespeare’s plays concentrated on political notions, and that, even when disguised as histories, they spoke to the socio-political realities of Shakespeare’s time. When viewed in this light, it becomes clear that Shakespeare is not endorsing a view that values cynicism over idealism. Historically, Cleopatra commits suicide and the story of Antony and Cleopatra is a tragedy; Shakespeare has to work within those confines. However, he is not endorsing a triumph of cynicism over idealism. On the contrary, he tries to show both the merits and weaknesses of both positions: In Antony and Cleopatra, representative value lies in most obviously in the competing locations, Rome and Egypt. Any shorthand for what they represent will be partial: politics and love, the material and the spiritual, male and femaleReason and Energythough the ultimate human need may be a marriage of heaven and hell, any given situation is within, not above the contingencies of existence” (Fuller, p.111). In fact, Shakespeare takes an interesting tact by not firmly aligning his title characters with either Rome, cynicism, or Egypt, idealism. Obviously, in a broad sense, Antony symbolizes Rome and Cleopatra symbolizes Egypt. However, they do not always act in expected ways. On the contrary: Alternative ways of valuing the central characters and the attitudes to experience they personify are written into Antony and CleopatraAlthough there is no simple scheme, these alternative ways of valuing tend to be placed: they emerge, that is, from characteristic speakers and positions that are themselves evaluated by the play as a whole” (Fuller, p.111). Take, for example, Antony. He is Roman, but he has been captivated by idealism. His love for Cleopatra, which is widely mocked by other people in the play, seems to have him acting like a starry-eyed lover. Howev