In this article, I investigate Antony and Cleopatra through readings within audit culture, affect theory, and race/empire studies to propose that the play portrays empire as a governmentality of measure. In lieu of a technology of subjugation, empire functions as a governmental technology that makes affect calculable, accountable, visible, and judges all accounts; far from an inappropriate behavior, it is the immeasurability of his love for Cleopatra that makes Antony contemptible to the Romans. Although the play is primarily read in terms of the dichotomy between sobriety/decadence, its constant repetition of “measure,” “reckoning,” “sum,” “files,” “report,” and “triumph” reveals a political claim that Roman scorn of Antony’s love cannot be accounted for by inappropriate behavior but relies upon an immeasurable nature that Rome tries to measure and account for. Integrating Shakespearean political criticism, affect studies, audit studies, and early modern race and empire discourse, I suggest that love is seen as an issue of form in Antony and Cleopatra. Antony’s affect remains destabilizing precisely because he is uncontrollable by measurement, while Cleopatra’s spectacle is problematic because it makes room for and challenges the Roman calculation of emotion. Spectacle is cast as a competing sovereignty technology in Enobarbus’s barge speech that commands not through the technology of Roman citizenship but through sight and transport. In Act V, Caesar asserts that spectacle will create a permanent public image of Roman triumph, yet it is through a suicide, framed within the very terms of Roman triumph, that she reinscribes spectacle within her