Refiguring an Eloquent Egyptian Queen-Monarch : M.L. Ananchanok Pahnichaputt’s I, Cleopatra

Authors

  • Sanguansri Khantavichian

Abstract

This article seeks to point out that M.L. Ananchanok Pahnichaputt’s poem I, Cleopatra simultaneously draws on and differs from Shakespeare’s portrayal of his heroine in Antony and Cleopatra.  Taking its point of departure in Pahnichaputt’s Cleopatra’s appropriations of Shakespeare’s text, the article examines in some depth the thematic contents and language of I, Cleopatra. Like Shakespeare’s creation, Pahnichaputt’s Cleopatra takes great pride in her royal and semi-divine status. Unlike the Bard’s heroine, however, the disincarnate Cleopatra of this poem set great store on her motherhood, was strong on patriotism, and took great pride in discharging her monarchical duty during her mortal life-span.  This study also seeks to explain how Cleopatra manages to subvert the male colonial ethos and Roman patriarchy through her play on words. A postcolonial-cum-feminist approach is applicable to a close examination of the poem and has been employed. The true concern of this paper, however, is for the most part with the exuberant, rich, and resonant linguistic detail of Pahnichaputt’s I, Cleopatra.

Author Biography

Sanguansri Khantavichian

Sanguansri Khantavichian is an Assistant Professor in the English Department at Chulalongkorn University. A former recipient of the King’s scholarship, she earned an Honours degree in English Studies from Stirling University in 1978. Afterwards she obtained an M.A. in 1981 and a Ph.D. in English and American Literature in 1985 from Tulane University. In 1989, she was elected Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge University, England, where she did postdoctoral research for one year. Her interests include Shakespeare, Romantic poetry, and contemporary writing.

References

Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. Post-Colonial Studies : The Key Concepts. London and New York: Routledge, 2007.

Belsey, Catherine. The Subject of Tragedy : Identity and Difference in Renaissance Drama. London and New York: Methuen, 1985.

Belsey, Catherine, and Jane Moore, eds. The Feminist Reader : Essays in Gender and the Politics of Literary Criticism. Cambridge MA & Oxford UK: Blackwell, 1993.

Crystal, David, and Ben Crystal. Shakespeare’s Words : A Glossary & Language Companion. London: Penguin, 2002.

Cuddon, J.A. “Phallogocentric.” The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. Rev. C.E. Preston. 4th ed. London: Penguin Books, 1999.

Drakakis, John, ed. Antony and Cleopatra : Contemporary Critical Essays. New Casebooks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994.

Escolme, Bridget. Antony and Cleopatra : a Guide to the Text and its Theatrical Life. The Shakespeare Handbooks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Kermode, Frank. Shakespeare’s Language. New York: Farrar, 2000.

Millett, Kate. Sexual Politics. London: Virago, 1977.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Imperialism and Sexual Difference.” Contemporary Literary Criticism : Literary and Cultural Studies. 2nd ed. Ed. Robert Con Davis and Ronald Schleifer. New York and London: Longman, 1989. 517-29.

Thurman, Judith. Cleopatra’s Nose : 39 Varieties of Desire. New York: Farrar, 2007.

Published

2008-01-01

Issue

No. 1 (2008): Thoughts 2008

Section

Articles

License

Copyright by the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.

Photocopying is allowed for internal, non-commercial use only. Photocopying for other uses or for purposes other than indicated must be permitted in writing from the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.

All views or conclusion are those of the authors of the articles and not necessarily those of the publisher or the editorial staff.