Hurlbert 1
Mackenzie Hurlbert
The Spirit Animals of Shakespeare
Antony and Cleopatra’s female protagonist is symbolized throughout the play in many
different forms. For one, Cleopatra is repeatedly compared to Isis, the Egyptian goddess of
fertility and womanhood, and this symbol proves true as Cleopatra speaks of her many children
and her strong sexual appetite. When one studies the other symbol Cleopatra is commonly
compared to, the asp, this analysis of the symbolic connections reveal a deeper understanding of
how Cleopatra’s character is perceived and how she perceives herself as a woman. Through this
symbolic connection, Shakespeare has created what modern readers would call a “spirit animal”
for his character. This theme—of characters aligning with certain animal imagery and traits—is
repeated throughout Shakespeare’s plays, thereby resulting in a multitude of animal identities
that provide further insight on the character as a multi-dimensional creation, and through
studying these symbolic “spirit animals” of Shakespeare’s characters, readers can gain a better
understanding of the social implications and outside perceptions of each character that are
otherwise not noted within the play.
Cleopatra’s symbolic representation as the snake may be the most obvious and most
elaborate of Shakespeare’s spirit animals; however there is more significance to the symbolism
than what is on the surface. Shakespeare was writing this play for a Christian England, so while
the characters in the play are polytheistic, not Christian, Cleopatra and her affinity for snakes
would remind the audience of the Eve and serpent paradigm. This connection would immediately
reinforce the idea of serpents and women as the ruin of men, which is fitting considering the
common interpretation of the play is that Cleopatra was the cause of Antony’s downfall.
Nevertheless, if the reader takes a closer look at the passages, he or she may see a hint of
Shakespeare suggesting that idea to be false. Cleopatra first mentions serpents upon reminiscing
Hurlbert 2
of Antony and his nickname for her: “He’s speaking now, / Or murmuring ‘Where’s my serpent
of old Nile?’/ For so he calls me” (1.4.24-26). In this context, Cleopatra and Antony have
embraced the serpent nickname and not in the context of Eve and deceitfulness, but in the
context of Egyptian religion. The editor’s glossing of these lines reveal that the snake was
associated with Isis, the Egyptian goddess of fertility and womanhood, who Cleopatra often
identified with (921). The serpent is no longer a symbol of trickery, but of fertility, and the
nickname is created out of love, not spite. At the end, this connection of snakes and fertility is
reiterated as Cleopatra views the serpent, her death-bringer as her child. Once again, Shakespeare
could be hinting at the species’ connection to Isis instead of the English-Christian connotation as
Cleopatra says, “Peace, peace. / Dost thou not see my baby at my breast, / That sucks the nurse
asleep?” (5.2.299-301). Here, Shakespeare shows the snake as an innocent baby, not a deceitful
and diabolical incarnation.
Though the serpent is used as an innocent, loving pet-name for Cleopatra, no one can
argue that there is an infamous darker side to the serpent’s role within the play. Again, this may
be taken at surface value as Shakespeare reiterating the Eve and serpent paradigm, but a close
reading of the text provides those contrasting ideas mentioned earlier. In Act five, scene two, the
clown delivers his basket of snakes and reiterates exactly what all Christians have been brain fed
to believe: “There is no goodness in the worm” (5.2.259). He goes on to speak of devils ruining
every five out of ten women, thereby creating a parallel between the lack of goodness in the
serpent and his belief that 50% of women are sinners. The clown character is speaking what
everyone in Shakespeare’s audience at that time would have been thinking, but one must ask,
why is it the clown, the fool of the play, the one speaking the beliefs of the audience? Is
Shakespeare hinting at the overall ignorance behind the labeling of women and serpents as the
Hurlbert 3
ruin of men? It very well could be. Likewise, Cleopatra proves to the audience that she does find
goodness in the serpent because it allows her to outsmart Caesar, avoid public humiliation, and
rejoin her lover Antony through death. Shakespeare may be recreating the symbolic Christian
relationship between women and snakes, but he is doing so to show that in this instance, the
snakes are providing redemption through death, not damnation through sin.
To notice this symbolism is one thing, but to apply it to the character of Cleopatra gives
the reader a greater understanding of her role in the play as a strong, independent, and powerful
woman. She is wise because she has outsmarted Octavius, she is powerful in womanhood
because she identifies with Isis, and she is guiltless because it is not her that has provoked the
fall of Rome as the audience may believe. Instead that guilt lies on the shoulders of Antony’s
rashness and Octavius’ bold ambition. Shakespeare could be hinting at an alternative
interpretation of the snake and woman paradigm, criticizing the beliefs and stereotypes imprinted
in his audience’s mind through the Bible. Cleopatra is a strong, political woman whose
strategizing has allowed her to maintain political sovereignty while under Rome’s control.
Considering she has been historically portrayed as the woman who caused the collapse of noble
Antony, just as Eve and the snake caused the damnation of man, Shakespeare’s Cleopatra
contradicts these ideas, as does Antony’s friend Enobarbus. Cleopatra asks, “Is Antony or [I] in
fault for this?” and Enobarbus responds, “Antony only that would make his will/ Lord of his
reason” (3.13.3-5). In this dialogue alone, a close reader will notice that the stereotypical blameit-on-the-woman response is contradicted by Enobarbus, a noble man and warrior. He insists that
is in Antony’s fault, not Cleopatra’s. Through studying how Cleopatra and her symbolism with
the serpent works, we can pick up hints of Shakespeare subtly combating the ignorance of the
time through his characters and staging.
Hurlbert 4
A more light-hearted animal and character duo would be Benedick, the horse, and their
fight against domestication—or so it seems. The horse was a domesticated animal, tamed for the
use of carrying men and laboring in the field. Benedick’s depressed vision of married life is
reflected in how he uses the animal to describe his own state if married: “Let me be vilely
painted, and in such great letters as they write, ‘Here is good horse to hire,’ let them signify
under my sign ‘Here you may see Benedick the married man’” (1.1.235-238). He talks of the
horse as a used thing, tamed and made meek by domestication as he believes a husband is.
Keeping this in mind, one must look back. Previous to this dramatic vow of bachelorism,
Benedick mentions his own horse while bickering with Beatrice: “I would my horse had the
speed of your tongue, and so good a continuer” (1.1.126-127). In this passage, it is clear that
Benedick owns a horse and therefore has already incorporated the domestic life within his own.
He has possibly embraced the animal and its domestication because it allows him to be a better
fighter, is useful on the field, and provides him transportation. If a reader who has finished the
play takes this symbolism a step further, they may see proof of Shakespeare’s design within
Benedick’s gibe. If Beatrice would add speed to his horse, improving its use as a domesticated
animal, then metaphorically she is benefitting Benedick. This quote may be Shakespeare
foreshadowing their future relationship and the fact that Benedick will become the horse: tamed
and domesticated while remaining heroic, valuable and improved by Beatrice.
Returning to tragedy, Macbeth’s spirit animal could possibly be the bear, as he repeatedly
identifies with bear imagery. Shakespeare may have played quite comically on Macbeth’s guiltinduced insomnia by identifying him with so much bear imagery. When one thinks about it, it is
funny that the character that “sleeps no more” is paired up with an animal that hibernates
throughout winter. The first time Macbeth refers to a bear is upon seeing the ghost of Banquo.
Hurlbert 5
Because of his severe guilt over the betrayal, Macbeth wishes the ghost to take any form other
than that of his diseased and betrayed friend: “Approach thou like the rugged Russian bear,/ The
armed rhinoceros, or the ’Hyrcan tiger” (3.4.99-100). His second use of bear imagery is in
reference to himself as he realizes near the end that he is surrounded and must fight like the
tethered bear in a bear-baiting event: “They have tied me to a stake, I cannot fly,/But bear-like I
must fight the course” (5.7.1-2). In bear-baiting, a bear was chained to a stake and forced to fight
for its life against a pack of dogs. It was seen as a source of entertainment, but usually included
a bloody, violent fight ending with the bear’s death. Macbeth’s quick use of bear imagery may
show some inner connection and symbolism which Shakespeare is trying to display. According
to the Oxford English Dictionary, one use of the word “bear” from the 16th to the 19th century
was to describe someone behaving rudely and roughly, “thereby playing the bear.” One can say
that Macbeth’s plot to kill Duncan and his later tyrannical rampage were rude and rough to say
the least and he has epitomized these traits commonly associated with the animal. What is
different about this example than with the others is that Macbeth, not outside observers, is the
one who sees himself as the animal. This could be due to his guilty conscience because as the
reader has seen, Macbeth is often his worst critic. It is this guilt, over the bear-like acts he has
committed, that causes him to view himself so negatively. He would face a bear before facing the
betrayed Banquo because he is not afraid of them; he sees himself as one. Banquo on the other
hand was an honorable, honest man, and Macbeth fears his ghost most because Banquo was the
one thing Macbeth has not been since encountering the witches—honest and honorable.
In the tragedy of King Lear, Lear’s two oldest daughters, especially Goneril, are
repeatedly associated with carnivorous birds. Once Lear realizes Goneril’s deceitfulness and sees
her overall lack of respect and kindness towards him, he is quick to call her a “detested kite”
Hurlbert 6
(1.4.239), which is a bird of prey native to England. According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
a kite is a symbol for someone who is detestable and preys upon others, which parallels
Goneril’s actions towards her father. She has preyed upon his age and rashness in order to gain
control of the kingdom. This theme of Lear’s daughters represented as flesh-picking birds
continues as Lear refers to Goneril as a “vulture” (2.4.128) and the both of them as “pelican
daughters” (3.4.73). The pelican reference may seem strange to our modern perception of the
bird; however according to the Oxford English Dictionary, in Shakespeare’s era the pelican had a
very mystical connotation. The pelican was thought to use its own blood to revive or feed its
young, and this could apply to the daughters’ betrayal, considering Lear has given them the
blood of royalty and power, which they in turn have used against him. The term pelican was also
used in Shakespeare’s day as a nickname for any bird of unknown origin or uncertain identity.
This alternative definition could reflect Lear disowning his deceitful daughters, saying that they
are of unknown origin, and not knowing who or what they are. Both definitions of this word can
be applied in this instance, and both reveal the complex relationship and mix of feelings Lear has
towards his daughters. He loves them and has given them everything, but he also hates them for
their abusive treatment. He has created them, yet he has disowned them, and when looking on
the situation from this perspective, one can see that both interpretations of the word pelican can
apply. Goneril and Reagan have brutally connived against their own father and picked his
reputation and power to bits. In turn, their spirit animal would be a flesh eating bird, specifically
the mystical and unidentifiable pelican.
Shakespeare may have used the spirit animal concept to capture the character’s traits and
to illustrate them more effectively to the reader. He also uses the spirit animal technique with
only a certain type of character: the rash, the sexual, or the conniving. The idealized characters,
Hurlbert 7
such as Hero, Desdemona, and Cordelia, are not described using animal imagery because they
have drifted above the bestial world, while other characters such as Macbeth, Goneril and
Reagan, Benedick and Cleopatra are more focused on earthly, animalistic desires such as sex,
freedom, greed, or ambition. Characters like Cleopatra and Benedick can be separated from the
other spirit animal characters for the fact that they are generally “good,” but they are still given
these animal identities for their earthly qualities: Benedick’s being his need for freedom and
disgust with domestication while Cleopatra’s is her sexual appetite. These characters would
probably be more relatable to the audience than the perfected characters, who were idealized to
the point of being more god like than human. Maybe by providing the relatable characters with
an animal identity, Shakespeare was not only helping the audience better understand the
character, but also helping them better understand themselves.
Works Cited
"bear, n.1". OED Online. March 2013. Oxford University Press. 28 April 2013 http://0www.oed.com.www.consuls.org/view/Entry/16537?rskey=uXjNg2&result=1&isAdvanc
ed=false.
"kite, n.". OED Online. March 2013. Oxford University Press. 28 April 2013 http://0www.oed.com.www.consuls.org/view/Entry/103752?rskey=ZZolSy&result=1&isAdvanc
ed=false.
"pelican, n.". OED Online. March 2013. Oxford University Press. 28 April 2013 <http://0www.oed.com.www.consuls.org/view/Entry/139847?rskey=03bZLI&result=1&isAdvanc
ed=false>.
Shakespeare, William. Much Ado about Nothing. Penguin Books: Baltimore. (31,33). Print.
Hurlbert 8
Shakespeare, William. “King Lear-Conflated Text.” The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen
Greenblatt. Norton: New York. (775-776, 789, 799). Print.
Shakespeare, William. “Macbeth.” The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. Norton:
New York. (873,895). Print.
Shakespeare, William. “Antony and Cleopatra.” The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen
Greenblatt. Norton: New York. (921, 933, 984-985). Print.
.