"What he cannot avoid in his Nature, you / consider a Vice in him." 1. This is the reason why it is so difficult, and yet so necessary, to sympathize with Coriolanus. His virtues operate in conjunction with his vices and to a modern reader, with little empathy for the autocratic and warlike states of the Romans or Jacobins, Coriolanus appears little more than a bloodthirsty tyrant, lacking the poetic and emotional depth afforded to Shakespeare's most canonical works. tragic heroes. However, a consideration of the values ​​represented in the text – those of the nobility of war, the dangers of democracy, and the deceptive power of words – and how the character of Coriolanus embodies these values, allows one to recognize his emotional development and value. to the State and therefore truly sympathize with him. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Coriolanus is perhaps one of Shakespeare's most misunderstood characters, the main reason being that he is also one of Shakespeare's least poetic characters. Unlike Hamlet or Lear, Coriolanus is given little opportunity to wax philosophical, and so has none of the deep, emotional eloquence of his tragic predecessors with which to captivate the reader. 2. Furthermore, in Coriolanus' few long speeches, the images from which he draws inspiration are violent and unpleasant. Consider the metaphors he employs when addressing the soldiers at the gates of Corioles, in a speech that is a far cry from Henry V's call to arms, 3. “All the contagion of the South, light upon you, / Ye shames of Rome; you have heard of Byles and plagues, / Plasters, that you may be abhorred / Farther than seen, and one infects another / Against the wind for a mile (I, v, 1-5) Nature contemptuous and the lack of pleasing aesthetics in such language can be seen as distancing the reader from Coriolanus, and since he cannot win us over with his eloquence as even a Shakespearean villain like Richard III or Iago can, it is difficult to understand him. if we take into consideration one of the most important messages of the play – that mere words can be deceptive – we see that what Coriolanus fails to articulate he demonstrates in the nobility of his actions, “His nature is too noble for the world; /he would not flatter Neptune for his trident,/or Jupiter for the thundering power of his heart/of his mouth. (III, i, 249-252) This is a virtue that distinguishes him from the loquacious tribunes and so our sympathy is evoked when he is destroyed by their use of deceptive words to undermine his gains in battle. This is recognized by Harley Granville-Barker who states: Throughout the play action and words are expressly put together... The actual spectacle of Marcius fighting alone "within the gates of Corioles" is a better testimony than this ability of any "hyperbolic acclamation" that somehow knowingly denigrates. 4. Whether it is the delicate manipulation of Menenius' "body" metaphor or the open subversion of the tribunes Brutus and Sicinius, Shakespeare makes it clear that shrewd language has undone the Roman state and is a fickle basis of judgment. So it is because Coriolanus cannot speak falsely that he must be seen as exemplary and it is this integrity that wins our compassion. It is imperative therefore to judge Coriolanus by his actions and decide whether, as a soldier, he can be sympathetic. This is where contextual problems arise, as in modern times where war is neither romantic nor ennobling. Coriolanus' sacking of Corioles and his desire to sack Rome make him seem overly violent, reckless, and single-minded. In fact, Coriolanus is given very littlespace beyond the battlefield: he is a soldier in all aspects of his life as he “was bred in wars since he could draw/a sword.” (III, i, 313-314) Despite this statement, there is much evidence to suggest that Coriolanus shows the potential to move beyond his warrior nature. War may not be romanticized in Coriolanus, but it is seen as necessary to the Roman state, and Coriolanus, as an arm of the state, is equally indispensable. The fact that he is such a courageous, if bloodthirsty, warrior in protecting Rome from the Volscians in Act 1 is the reason for the tragedy: the Roman citizens ungratefully reject his courage because it is apolitical. It is clear therefore that one of Shakespeare's messages in the play is that military heroism is a virtue, and therefore "if Rome's conception of virtue is correct, then Coriolanus is the perfect man". 5. Despite the many differing opinions on Coriolanus' character offered to us throughout the play, what is admitted by both his friends and enemies is that in battle he is courageous, almost transcendent, "a soldier / even to Calve's desire, not fierce and terrible/Only with blows, but with your dark looks, and/The thundering percussion of your sounds." (I, v, 26-30) Taking into account the esteem placed on war and warriors in both Coriolanus and Shakespeare's time, it becomes evident that Coriolanus's role in the play is that of a military hero, and his decision to give up this status in exchange for the safety of Rome makes his fall truly pitiful. The fact that Coriolanus is primarily a soldier has led to suggestions that he is emotionally underdeveloped, and so it is difficult to feel much empathy with someone whose personality beyond the battlefield is given so much. little intuition. Coriolanus is "To be but a thing, not to move/From barrel to pillow, but to command peace/Even with the same austerity and garb/While he controlled war" (IV, viii, 42-45) and it is therefore doubtful that mature during the work. At every crucial stage of the play - when he enters "What happens, you/Dissent thieves" (I, i, 169-170), when he is banished "I banish you" (III, iii, 120) and when he dies "Che like an eagle in a dovecote, I / flattered your Volci to Corioles. / Alone I did it, boy" (V, vi, 113-115) - shows the same incessant volatility and pride, suggesting Coriolanus makes no attempt to correct the defects of his character, and therefore we can believe that his death is rightly deserved. However, in the context of the world Shakespeare creates for Coriolanus, where opinions and loyalties are easily influenced (represented by the fickle crowd), Coriolanus' refusal to change his character and beliefs should be seen as a virtue of constancy rather than a sign of emotional immaturity . This is recognized by Geoffrey Miles who writes that "in a characteristic paradox of this intensely paradoxical play, the passionate traitor Coriolanus is Shakespeare's most self-consciously 'constant' character". 6. Coriolanus' refusal to betray his ideals to gain fame and popularity with the Roman crowd is not a repudiation of self-development, but a single act of honesty in a world dominated by politics. Coriolanus then sacrifices not only the consulship but his life in his desperation to "play/The man that I am" (III, ii, 15-16) and thus becomes a martyr for his simple cause: to be recognized for all that he is, a brave and noble soldier. In one of his most passionate speeches Coriolanus cries: "Let them/Pull all round my ears, present me Death/On the Wheel, or at the heels of Wild Horses, or pile/Ten Hills upon the Tarpeian Rock, that/Precipitation may down stretched / The ray of sight; yet I will still be so / To them.” (III, ii, 1-7) Let it betruly able to endure so many trials while keeping his pride, courage and honesty intact. a strength of character far greater than many of Shakespeare's other tragic heroes. The argument that Coriolanus is unsympathetic because he is emotionally stunted can be extended to incorporate the criticism that Coriolanus does not recognize his humanity and therefore we, as an audience, cannot identify as human beings with him. What has been described as constancy of character could alternatively be seen as a blatant lack of respect for anyone or anything that is alien to his interests. Coriolanus himself declares: "I will never / be so stupid as to obey instinct: but stand / as if a man were his own author, / and knew no other relatives." (V, iii, 34-37). He thus demonstrates this with his contempt for Menenius and Cominius' appeals to their long-standing friendship. It can be argued that Coriolanus is willing to destroy his former compatriots and friends to satisfy his revenge, but for the persuasion of his mother. His submission to his mother's pleas, however, is proof enough that Coriolanus' compassion and mercy have a greater depth than this limited subject. will allow.G. Wilson Knight finds the ending of the play triumphant, since by allowing himself to be conquered by love Coriolanus has been purified. 7. Indeed, Coriolanus displays greater humanity than anyone else in the play as his desire for revenge is overridden by his reverence for his loved ones, as he commits the ultimate act of sacrifice: he dies so that his city and its his family may live: "Oh my Mother, Mother: oh!/You have won a happy victory in Rome./But for your Son, believe it: oh believe it,/With him you have prevailed in the most dangerous way,/if not downright deadly for him." ." (V, iii, 185-189) Perhaps the most common accusation leveled at Coriolanus in modern times is his contempt for democracy and the common people; "where is this Viper,/who would depopulate the City, and/ would every Man be himself?" (III, I, 257-259) Coriolanus is without shame "a true dog for the commonwealth" (I, i, 29-30) and his contemptuous words and his actions aimed at holding back the corn from the people alienate a public imbued with the values ​​of democracy and egalitarianism. However, Coriolanus and his ideas of absolutism must not be judged against such modern political ideals, but against the type of democracy with which Coriolanus himself was confronted: that of the demagogues Sicinius and Brutus. The perception of democracy in the Roman state is that it is irregular, ignorant and dangerous, as Shakespeare's audience would have been. It must therefore recognize that «the representation of the people is part of a dramatic plan '" 8. as Coriolanus can be seen as a necessary tyrant when the alternative is "the changeable/rank-perfumed Meiny" (III, i, 63-64). In this way Coriolanus' contempt for the crowd and desire to take revenge on them is justified because "in attacking them as the embodiment of an inconstant opinion, he calls himself consistent in upholding his fixed beliefs." 9. By using satire to undermine Coriolanus' enemies, Shakespeare ensures that, although he may be difficult to like, he is superior to the other characters in the play. As Menenius observes to the tribunes "in what enormity is Marcius poor, / which you two have not in abundance?" (II, i, 17-18) The nature of Coriolanus' character is well described by Kenneth Burke, who writes "it is impressive how the virtues and vices of the chosen victim work perfectly together, adapting him to his sacrificial function". 10. Therefore the very complexity of Coriolanus' character makes it difficult to sympathize with him, since the virtues that he embodies belong to a different era, those of frankness, of war, of,.333