You can never be certain of the intentions of an author in their use of specific literary devices and choices. However, we can speculate and surmise the true purpose behind Shakespeare’s characterization of Caius Martius in Act 1 of ‘Coriolanus’.
The story of Coriolanus highlights the state of Rome during its post-monarchy transition after the fall of King Tarquin into the powerful military state it soon becomes. However, Shakespeare spotlights the chaos caused by the power vacuum ensued by the recent changes and the resulting power struggle between all demographics of the population, from the low-class Plebeians to the high-class Patricians. Military strength was one of the ways in which power and respect was gained at the time, a method which is evident in the character Coriolanus.
It is interesting to observe the way Shakespeare has split the character into two different personalities or characters. The setting is an important factor to note with this occurrence as each of those personalities correlates with the existence of the two separate world they live in. The first, we witness the arrogant, proud, ruthless and insulting component of Caius Martius which is witnessed in Rome when he confronts the Plebeians and verbally abuses them and undermines them. He is obviously a powerful character, however; his greatest shortcoming is in his speech. His words are depleted of emotion, elegance, and persuasion and instead are saturated with strong and provocative language, which can be seen when he asserts “I’d make a quarry with thousands of these quartered slaves…” – of course referring to the plebeians. Shakespeare further accentuates this characterization by using Menenius as a foil character with contrasting traits, such as his calm and polished speech and a respect to all.
Later on, however, the reader is swept into a seemingly alternate world and setting; that of the battlefield. Here Coriolanus dominates the script as well as the plot, he uses his firm and forceful diction to plant the seed of fear as well as bravery and unity in his soldier’s hearts. Backed by his military skill, he acts like a true leader would, with power as well as modesty. It’s as if Shakespeare has introduced the readers to a disparate character. Here, we are introduced to what is required to be successful in war and bloodshed and it is clear that Coriolanus maintains and fulfills this persona. However, Shakespeare does not conclude on this characteristic, he relates these two personalities to the overall plot of the play, reminding us that this is a political tragedy. Confident in his military prowess, Coriolanus believes that he can use it to argue for his worth in his election for Consul, but to no avail. The Plebeians recognize his valuable military strength and experience, however, his nature of employing strongly worded speech and his lack of respect towards the people, not only costs him the lucrative position of Consul but also his citizenship to Rome when he is banished. Coriolanus is also characterized by others in the play, most notably his mother Volumnia. It is clear that she has nurtured him in this violent environment and had the intention of shaping and molding him into the ruthless killer he became, dictating that “had I a dozen sons…I had rather had eleven die nobly for their country” and her bloodthirsty nature, envisioning her son with “his bloody brow with his mailing hand then wiping”.
Shakespeare essentially uses this conflict, between Coriolanus and the plebeians to demonstrate that even in Roman politics, military power and ruthlessness, did not necessarily commensurate political power. Shakespeare is also deeming his violent character unfit to rule in politics. Shakespeare also chooses against introducing or mentioning a father in the story at all, this is much in the same sense that Rome had just lost its king, which in this context could be seen as a father figure. Shakespeare is thus comparing the power struggles and unstable politics in Rome with the unstable character of Coriolanus.
It is interesting to see the occasions when shakespeare uses different things to characterize Coriolanus but the question hasn't been answered. What is Shakespeare’s larger purpose in his characterization of Coriolanus in Act I? It would also be interesting to write about how his personalities are contradicting his arrogance with calling the plebs dogs and then being humble by refusing a bigger loot from the war.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post. This sentence stood out to me "His words are depleted of emotion, elegance, and persuasion and instead are saturated with strong and provocative language". I think you did really well on presenting the two different personas of Coriolanus. One thing you could improve on is maybe relating more to just Act 1. Overall, well done.
ReplyDelete