Coriolanus

1/ Sicinius Velutus and Junius Brutus discuss Caius Marcius (who later becomes Coriolanus): 

“BRUTUS Being moved, he will not spare to gird the gods.

SICINIUS Bemock the modest moon. 

BRUTUS The present wars devour him; he is grown

Too proud to be so valiant. 

SICINIUS Such a nature, 

Tickled with good success, disdains the shadow

Which he treads on at noon…” 

(Act 1 scene 1) 

That reminds me of a line from Ahab: 

“Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me.” (Moby Dick, Ch.36)

2/ This is Marcius’s mother Volumnia, speaking to his wife Virgilia: 

“VOLUMNIA […] If my son were my husband, I should freelier rejoice in that absence wherein he won honor than in the embracements of his bed where he would show most love…” 

(Act 1 scene 3)  

That’s interesting.

Coriolanus is unusual for depicting a mother-son relationship when Shakespeare more often writes about father-daughter relationships. Volumnia has some rather strong ideas about honour. 

“VIRGILIA But had he died in the business, madam, how then?

VOLUMNIA Then his good report should have been my son; I therein would have found issue. Hear my profess, sincerely; had I a dozen sons, each in my love alike, and none less dear than thine and my good Marcius, I had rather had eleven die nobly for their country than one voluptuously surfeit out of action.” 

(ibid.)  

Scary mother.

In his essay, Tony Tanner writes at length about the relationship between Coriolanus and his mother—Coriolanus, in spite of everything, is a mother’s boy. Commenting on Act 5 scene 3, Tony Tanner says: 

“What has she done? She has saved Rome: but in the case of her son, she has both made and marred him; taught him immutability and made him change; ‘manned’ him and unmanned him. Made him steel, turned him silk.” (Introduction) 

This must be one of the greatest depictions of mother-son relationships in literature. 

3/ Coriolanus says to his mother: 

“CORIOLANUS […] Would you have me 

False to my nature? Rather say I play 

The man I am.” 

(Act 3 scene 2) 

She’s persuading him to go back to the marketplace and take back his words to the tribunes and the people. 

“CORIOLANUS Well, I must do’t. 

Away, my disposition, and possess me 

Some harlot’s spirit! My throat of war be turned, 

Which quired with my drum, into a pipe

Small as an eunuch or the virgin voice 

That babies lulls asleep! The smiles of knaves 

Tent in my cheeks, and schoolboys’ tears take up

The glasses of my sight! A beggar’s tongue 

Make motion through my lips, and my armed knees, 

Who bowed but in my stirrup, bend like his 

That hath received an alms! I will not do’t; 

Lest I surcease to honor my own truth,

And by my body’s action teach my mind 

A most inherent baseness.” 

(ibid.) 

Coriolanus is extreme and inflexible—I can see myself in him, I can relate to that inflexibility, that short temper, that inability to flatter. 

When we first see Marcius (Coriolanus), he’s short-tempered and full of curses, a contrast to Menenius Agrippa, who uses arguments and tries to reason with the angry citizens. Marcius is also (said to be) proud. But when we see him in battle, he appears different—he’s a great warrior and believes in honour, and doesn’t want praise or rewards. 

“MARCIUS Pray now, no more. My mother,

Who has a charter to extol her blood, 

When she does praise me grieves me. I have done 

As you have done, that’s what I can; induced 

As you have been, that’s for my country.” 

(Act 1 scene 9)     

Is it an act? Sinicius and Brutus think so. 

“MARCIUS I thank you, general; 

But cannot make my heart consent to take

A bribe to pay my sword. I do refuse it, 

And stand upon my common part with those, 

That have beheld the doing.” 

(ibid.)

I find it interesting that later Shakespeare lets us see that the appearance of modesty comes from great pride—Coriolanus is too proud to show off his wounds, too proud to talk about his bravery and achievements. 

“CORIOLANUS Most sweet voices! 

Better it is to die, better to starve, 

Than crave the hire which first we do deserve. 

Why in this woolvish toge should I stand here, 

To beg of Hob and Dick that does appear 

Their needless vouches?...” 

(Act 2 scene 3) 

Coriolanus, like Troilus and Cressida, has lots of debates, much more than in other Shakespeare plays. There aren’t many soliloquies, but lots of debates, about power and politics—it almost feels like a play of ideas (if that’s a thing). 

Coriolanus is a great warrior, and a hero, but that doesn’t make a good politician.  

“FIRST OFFICER That’s a brave fellow; but he’s vengeance proud, and loves not the common people. 

SECOND OFFICER Faith, there hath been many great men that have flattered the people, who ne’er loved them; and there be many that they have loved, they know not wherefore; so that, if they love they know not why, they hate upon no better a ground. Therefore, for Coriolanus neither to care whether they love or hate him manifests the true knowledge in their disposition, and out of his noble carelessness lets them plainly see’t. 

FIRST OFFICER If he did not care whether he had their love or no, he waved indifferently ’twixt doing them neither good nor harm. But he seeks their hate with greater devotion than they can render it him, and leaves nothing undone that may fully discover him their opposite. Now, to seem to affect the malice and displeasure of the people is as bad as that which he dislikes, to flatter them for their love.” 

(Act 2 scene 2) 

Coriolanus despises common people.  

“CORIOLANUS […] I say again, 

In soothing them, we nourish ’gainst our Senate

The cockle of rebellion, insolence, sedition, 

Which we ourselves have ploughed for, sowed, and scattered, 

By mingling them with us, the honored number; 

Who lack not virtue, no, nor power, but that 

Which they have given to beggars.” 

(Act 3 scene 1) 

Brutus and Sinicius do manipulate people to change their decision, but don’t they have a point? 

“CORIOLANUS […] As for my country I have shed my blood, 

Not fearing outward force, so shall my lungs

Coin words till their decay against those measles, 

Which we disdain should tetter us, yet sought 

The very way to catch them.

BRUTUS You speak o’ th’ people, 

As if you were a god, to punish, not

A man of their infirmity.” 

(ibid.) 

He also refers to common people as crows, and the nobility as eagles. Coriolanus is a rich, fascinating portrait of a brave warrior who places lots of importance on honour but doesn’t want to hear praises, who sheds blood for his country but feels contempt for the people.

But that isn’t all. Our perception of Coriolanus changes again when we see him with his mother. 

“VOLUMNIA At thy choice then. 

To beg of thee, it is my more dishonor

Than thou of them. Come all to ruin! […] 

Do as thou list. […] 

CORIOLANUS Pray, be content: 

Mother, I am going to the marketplace; 

Chide me no more…” 

(Act 3 scene 2) 

Coriolanus is, at heart, still a mother’s boy. 

I think Coriolanus suffers in comparison with Shakespeare’s best plays because, compared to Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello, or Lear, Coriolanus is a killing machine, with no introspection and little self-knowledge. He also doesn’t change. But Shakespeare is still doing something interesting, depicting the self-contradictions in Coriolanus and other characters’ different, conflicting perceptions of him. 

4/ When Coriolanus, now banished from Rome, turns to his old enemy Tullus Aufidius, Aufidius’s speech has an odd bit: 

“AUFIDIUS […] Know thou first, 

I loved the maid I married; never man 

Sighed truer breath. But that I see thee here, 

Thou noble thing, more dances my rapt heart 

Than when I first my wedded mistress saw

Bestride my threshold…” 

(Act 4 scene 5) 

No? Only I find it weird? 

It’s interesting though, that Aufidius and Coriolanus are old enemies but still respect each other (until, you know…).  

Like every other Shakespeare play, there is disguise in Coriolanus, even if Shakespeare doesn’t do anything with it. I’ve noted, however, that there is no comedy in Coriolanus. There is comedy, though often sardonic, in Troilus and Cressida, (perhaps) Shakespeare’s most cynical play. The only other play I’ve read that has no comic relief is Richard II, but that play has greater poetry and more great speeches than Coriolanus. 

Coriolanus also has no subplot, which is unusual. 

5/ What is Coriolanus about? 

I think it’s a play for Shakespeare to explore several ideas. He must have asked himself, why did a hero like Coriolanus deflect to the other side and invade his own city? 

Shakespeare also explores some conflicting ideas about politics: a great warrior and hero doesn’t necessarily make a good politician; he may even be an enemy of the people; but even if Coriolanus is an enemy of the people, Rome still needs him. Related is the question about democracy or government: the common people are easily provoked, easily swayed, easily manipulated, but can politicians ignore public opinion? 

Coriolanus may be a bit hard to like, but it’s in many ways a great play.