Heroic Journey Of Coriolanus In William Shakespeare’s Play
In the contemporary world which is currently encumbered in a slew of politically and socially heated debacles, it is relevant in the field of literary analysis to correlate underlying themes within even fictional texts in order to ultimately garner an understanding of how conflicting ideologies can result in both positive and negative outcomes. In the many tragedies produced by Shakespeare, some of which include Antony and Cleopatra, Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet, an abundance of light can be shed on the way the real world is systematically operated. One of the more controversial plays Shakespeare has ever written, being Coriolanus, is particularly unique in its conveying of a wartime hero who with his unredeemable qualities, leads himself towards a spiraling downfall the likes of which can only be summarized as a classic hero tragedy. The following analytical essay will overview how the intrinsic plot elements set out by Shakespeare, such as painting Cauis Martius (Coriolanus) as a hero immediately at the start of the play all lend themselves towards tackling the conundrum of having heroic, yet at the same time demising character traits.
Just as in many of Shakespeare’s other popular plays, Coriolanus fits the mold of a tragic hero. He stands as both the protagonist but likewise one of the main driving forces in many of the antagonist elements of the play’s plot. A tragic hero is a character that is an obvious exemplary embodiment of bravery and selflessness while also facing the eyes of adversity. At the beginning of the play, the reader is introduced to the famine-plagued state of Rome, where commoners or as they were referred to at the time, Plebeians, fought for the basic necessities required for survival. The immediate divide between the lower and upper classes comes abruptly as the Plebeians, also commonly abbreviated as Plebs, take to the streets in a public display of disdain for the upper class. As mentioned in act one scene one, “We are accounted poor citizens, the patricians / good. What authority surfeits on would / relieve us. If they would yield us but the superfluity / while it were wholesome, we might guess they / relieved us humanely. But they think we are too / dear. The leanness that afflicts us, the object of our / misery, is as an inventory to particularize their / abundance; our sufferance is a gain to them” (Shakespeare).
This quote, in particular, also foreshadows towards one of the integral themes in the play that also eventually leads to the downfall of Coriolanus – the struggle for power. Within the same token, it is imperative that Coriolanus is painted as a war hero during the onset of the play, as his slow rise towards leadership and temperament towards the less fortunate transitions Coriolanus from a beloved hero to a political enemy. The Comparative Drama Journal article titled Drama, Politics, and the Hero: “Coriolanus”, Brecht, and Grass which was written by Martin Scofield also chimes in on this subject when it notes, “it was his contention that the emphasis on the hero, particularly in Shakespeare, was a large part of what was wrong with current drama both socially and aesthetically. The conventional way of seeing the hero led in his view to an over-romanticizing, an exaggerated stress on audience identification with the hero, and resulting lack of critical detachment” (Schofield 322). Even so, the overall social implications of the play stretch much further than just the banality of Coriolanus’ character.
Coriolanus once again embodies the traditional heroic journey, lending to the fact that his untimely death at the end of the play is a true tragedy, one of many in which Shakespeare produced. The preliminary call to adventure, being restoring political peace within Rome while also simultaneously fighting off mobs of attackers, is where Coriolanus ultimately gains his commemorations as a hero. One example of the heroic qualities exemplified by Coriolanus early on is such as when the play mentions in act two scene two, “At sixteen years, / When Tarquin made a head for Rome, he fought / Beyond the mark of others. Our then dictator, / Whom with all praise I point at, saw him fight / When with his Amazonian chin he drove / The bristled lips before him. He bestrid / An o'erpressed Roman and i' th' Consul's view / Slew three opposers. Tarquin's self he met / And struck him on his knee” (Shakespeare). Thus, it seems destined for Coriolanus to follow the heroic journey, but the twist employed by Shakespeare is the fact that Coriolanus also has many unlikable qualities, he is inflexible in a way, and especially in the eyes of the Plebs is seen as a tyrant and trader. At one point in the play in act three scene three the Plebs accuse Coriolanus of being a traitor as they state, “We charge you, that you have contrived to take / From Rome all seasoned office and to wind / Yourself into a power tyrannical, / For which you are a traitor to the people” (Shakespeare). It is likely that the Plebs see that Coriolanus perceives them as inferior, and in turn, would not be fit to be a publicly elected political correspondent. The next primary stage in the heroic journey, being transformation, happens when Coriolanus makes his harsh assertions again the Plebeians, designating them as untrustworthy and foolish. It is also apparent at this stage of the play that Shakespeare is attempting to showcase the banality of Coriolanus’ overwhelming pride and for the lack of a better term, arrogance, as one of his crucial pitfalls while again proving the fact that Coriolanus needed to be depicted as a hero early on in the play in order to show his transformation.
At the climax of the plot which also takes place at the end of the play, Coriolanus is framed by the Volscians, another tribe of the Roman Republic, as being a traitor and promoting treason against the city. Tullus Aufidius, who is one of the leaders in place of the Volscian tribe takes a particularly keen interest in the feats accomplished by Coriolanus and beginnings to grow resentment towards him, most likely out of envy and greed and as such is one of the main conspirators in formulating Coriolanus’ execution. The true cementation of Coriolanus’ fate comes after the heated confrontation with Aufidius when Coriolanus shouts in act five scene six, “Measureless liar, / thou hast made my heart / Too great for what contains it. 'Boy'? O slave! / Cut me to pieces, Volsces. Men and lads, / Stain all your edges on me. 'Boy'? False hound! / If you have writ your annals true, 'tis there / That, like an eagle in a dovecote, I / Fluttered your Volscians in Corioles, / Alone I did it. 'Boy'!” (Shakespeare).
The seemingly antagonizing tone of Coriolanus is indoctrinated by many of his character pitfalls, as aforementioned one of them being the overbearing self-pride he has. Evidently, the odds do not work out in Coriolanus’ favor as he is eventually slain without any public discourse. The death of Coriolanus is a tragedy on many forefronts, notwithstanding the fact that his murder came by way of complete fabrication as he was not a traitor but actually trying to actively help the Republic and even the Plebs, the tragedy in many ways speaks volume to the fact that Shakespeare realized politicians need to employ a fake persona which best fits the requirements and wants of voters. Going back to act two scene two, the unelectable qualities Coriolanus had were examined by two officers when they stated “Faith, there had 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 / he has in their disposition and, out of his noble carelessness” (Shakespeare). Coriolanus was expressive in his numerous frustrations, and inevitably the banality of his conceit temperament as many tragic heroes before him had is the exact reason the play was destined to end the way it did – in travesty.
In conclusion, although the play Coriolanus fits the tradition tragedy structure and mold, it is evident that Coriolanus is unique in the fact that it was able to tackle many underlying implications relating to the contemporary world and current politics, as it seems that the inevitably fake persona Coriolanus would have had to conform to in order to not only win the election but also to save his life, is starkly correlated with how politicians today seem to say whatever they see fit to get elected without worrying about fulfilling all of their preconceived notions.
Works Cited
- Shakespeare, William, and R B. Parker. Coriolanus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Print.
- Scofield, Martin. “Drama, Politics, and the Hero: ‘Coriolanus’, Brecht, and Grass. ” Comparative Drama, vol. 24, no. 4, 1990, pp. 322–341. JSTOR, www. jstor. org/stable/41153481.
