Antonio--Good, Bad or Simply Misleading?

Antonio: "I admire it.

In seeking to reduce both state and people

To a fixed order, their judicious king

Begins at home, quits first his royal palace

Of flatt'ring sycophants, of dissolute

And infamous persons, which he sweetly terms

His master's masterpiece, the work of heaven...

(I.1.4-22)

The play opens up with Delio basically singing Antonio's good graces, and ostensibly preparing the audience to accept him as a "good guy." Specifically, Delio praises Antonio for traveling to France to observe and research how nobility should act. Antonio of course responds by saying how great the French king is for ridding the court of "flatt'ring sycophants," and is offering himself to the audience as a trustworthy man. However, I'm interested  in seeing how his character plays out in terms of good vs. evil. Webster has made a concerted effort to convince the audience to be on Antonio's side. Additionally, based on this passage alone, Antonio does appear to be an honest man that may provide an objective viewpoint for other characters in the play; he appears confident and astute in his observations. For instance, he offers the idea that Bosola isn't the greatest of guys near the end of his passage--he's got me hooked already.

Bray vs. Hunt

My initial reaction to Hunt's article was how similar some of his ideas were to Bray's. This might seem like a stretch, and it probably is, but I couldn't help but compare the two documents in terms of "male friendship." After having written the previous paper on the topic of male camaraderie, friendship, etc., I see many of Bray's ideas elucidated by Hunt. Instead of referring to this "tension" between Coriolanus and Aufidius as an unnatural friendship, Hunt characterizes these figures as being complementarity. In class we have discussed the homo eroticism present between the two, and I think Hunt goes one step further by identifying how ironic the situation is. Coriolanus and Aufidius come across as feuding enemies, and then in the end they ambiguously profess affection for one another. 

Too Little Too Late

Aufidius: "My rage is gone,

And I am struck with sorrow. Take him up.

Help, three o' th' chiefest soldiers; I'll be one.

Beat thou the drum, that it speak mournfully.

Trail your steel pikes. Through in this city he

Hath widowed and unchilded many a one,

Which to this hour bewail the injury,

Yet he shall have a noble memory."

(V.6.145-152)

Aufidius ends the play with remorse over the death of Coriolanus. Once again, I find this situation as being extremely frustrating. Aufidius acts as though he had no choice but to kill Coriolanus, and when the deed is done, he begins to feel sorrowful. Many of these tragic endings could be avoided if only people would think before they act. I am curious as to why dramas such as this end with the "villain" feeling sorry for what happened. Moreover, Shakespeare could have concluded the play with the death of Coriolanus, and exclude the input by Aufidius. But I suppose that this situation is similar to Romeo and Juliet: the feuding families, and in this case the feuding towns, may finally have a chance at peace with one another.  

The Ultimate Revenge

Coriolanus: "My birthplace hate I, and my love's upon

This enemy town. I'll enter. If he slay me,

He does fair justice; if he gives me way,

I'll do his country service."

(IV.4.23-26)

Although Shakespeare does not give the reader a heads up so-to-speak concerning Coriolanus's betrayal to his own city, I think it greatly adds to the plot of the story. Thus far, I have thought that the play has been rather slow, and has left me thinking what will actually proceed. Ironically, this point in the play should serve as the climactic moment, and instead it feels as though Shakespeare has merely "slipped" this in. Coriolanus blatantly states that he will take revenge on his own city of Rome and join with Aufidius without showing much emotion. In addition, I can't say I blame Coriolanus for taking such a harsh stance--in all honesty if I was banned from the city that I loved so much, I would have so much anger (this also could allude to me possibly having some anger problems?) Regardless, from here on out I expect a lot of excitement from the play--it is about time.

Suck it up

Coriolanus: "Let them pull all about mine ears, present me

Death on the wheel or at wild horses' heels,

Or pile ten ihlls on the Tarpeian rock,

That the precipitation might down stretch

Below the beam of sight, yet will I still

Be thus to them."

(III.2.1-6)

In my opinion, Coriolanus exemplifies his naivete and immaturity via this passage. He is basically saying that regardless of what the mob does, he will not take back what he said. His ignorance may play a very crucial role in the future of this play. In addition, his overbearing hubris is causing him to form this idea that he is better than everyone else based on his success with the Roman army. Thankfully, his mother steps in and tries to talk him down. She pleads with his stubborn attitude and then finally makes him agree to talk to the plebeians. Volumnia is not only being a good mother in this situation, but to me she is also taking on this pseudo role of being his wife. Moreover, I feel that her ability to talk to him in a sane and comforting manner is something that is often done by a man's lover. Generally, men need women to keep them in check and make sure that they are not out of line. Men have been generalized as being overly egotistic and narcissistic. Coriolanus has fallen right into this category, and thankfully Volumnia has talked some sense into him.

The First Honorable Man I've Seen

Coriolanus: "I do beseech you,

Let me o'erleap that custom; for I cannot

Put on the gown, stand naked, and entreat them

For my wounds' sake to give their suffrage.

Please you that I may pass this doing." 

(II.2.134-138)

This may in fact be the first instance in a drama that we have read where there is this sense of a noble man performing a noble act. Although in the past few tragedies there have been characters seeking vengeance to honor their loved ones, this in my opinion outweighs the former events. Coriolanus has legitimized himself as being an honorable man who actually has the good of the people at heart. Obviously this is a ritual that has been done before, and to see that Coriolanus has the wherewithal to not listen to the others is extremely respectable. I completely agree with his argument as to why he shouldn't show them battle scars. Further, by bragging to the common and poor people about his wounds would be adding insult to injury--it is clear that the peasants have it much worse than any one in the court. 

Where's Our Belly?

Menenius: "The senators of Rome are this good belly,

And you the mutinous members. For examine

Their counsels and their cares, disgest things rightly

Touching the weal o' th' common, you shall find

No public benefit which you receive

But it proceeds or comes from them to you,

And no way from yourselves. What do you think,

You, the great toe of this assembly?"

(Act I.1.146-153).

I really enjoy how Menenius is using this idea of the Senate being a stomach that digests nutrients and returns it back to the people. I chose this passage because I think it is reflective of how a government system should be set up (assuming I am understanding this analogy correctly). Moreover, our government currently doesn't feel that way. The concept of there being a structured higher "power" is to have organization within the community--not just logistically but fundamentally. Considering the current state of our government I find it interesting that I can't really relate what Menenius is saying and apply it to our own higher institution. In fact, I feel that our government is doing the exact opposite of what it should be doing (as everyone already knows and agrees with). But the point of this blog post is not to state the obvious but rather identify how ingenious and effective the Romans actually were hundreds of years ago. Their Senate appeared to be rather democratic and for the people. Maybe I'm wrong.