Steve Kesler
ENG 382
Professor Burton
March 20th, 2013
The
Coriolanus Effect: Nature vs. Nurture in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus
One
of times oldest paradox is that of the chicken and the egg. Which came first?
Though this idea has some comedic
aspects the complexity that it conveys can be compared to
age old literary debate of
nature vs. nurture. Differing from the facetious chicken and egg
argument, which doesn’t pose any
real value the argument of nature vs. nurture, on the contrary,
holds enormous worth. The
ability to distinguish between innate ability and those that abilities
that are fostered and bread into
society allows humankind to better understand the human
relationship that is inherently
shared by everyone. Ideally, the importance that this kind
of comprehension would garner is
a larger capacity for humankind to relate to one another and
recognize the unavoidable
differences that often lead to conflict. (Quote: The importance of
understanding Nature vs.
Nurture). In William Shakespeare’s The
Tragedy of Coriolanus these
ideas are portrayed and
explored. Set in a burgeoning Roman empire the play takes place after
the fall of Tarquin and is semi
historical in that aspect. Much of the conflict that is portrayed in
Coriolanus takes place between the different Roman classes, the
plebeians and the patricians,
during the transition of the
Roman government from monarchy to republic. It is in this setting
that the audience follows the
decisions of Coriolanus and witnesses the enormous downfalls that
accompany that characters
unrelenting pride. It is specifically through the portrayal of pride that
Shakespeare explores the debate
of nature vs. nurture calling into question the origination,
necessity and reason for such a
human trait. In doing this Shakespeare constructs a tragedy that
appears to be a warning of the
hazards of pride however, a closer examination of the text will
reveal that the tragedy is not
wholly the fault of Coriolanus, but occurs on much broader scale.
Though Coriolanus is commonly
seen as a tragedy centered on the downfalls of pride in the
individual the tragedy actually
is found in the faults of a culture and society that cultivates and
relies on such extreme pride to
the extent that it breeds contempt among its people. At the onset of the play
it would be easy for one to view the pride of Coriolanus as a trait that is
entirely his own. This idea can be grounded in the vicious contempt that he
displays towards the plebeians as he bitterly condemns them as useless and famously
refers to them as “fragments” (l.). However, a more compelling view on this
idea can be seen looking through the eyes of the plebeians themselves. As the
play opens the reader is exposed to the ideas of a group of citizens voicing
their disapproval of Coriolanus, in this dialogue the vices of Coriolanus are
detailed and it appears that Shakespeare is attempting to typify his main
character. In doing this, chief among the people’s complaints is the pride that
their countries most feared warrior appears to extol: “Consider you what
service he has done for his country? /Very well; and could be content to give
him good/ report fort, but that he pays himself with being proud/ . . . What he
cannot help in his nature, you account a/ vice in him. You must in no way say
he is covetous” (ll.). Clearly the people do not take kindly to the antipathy
that comes as a result of Coriolanus’s pride and they certainly do not look to
themselves as guilty of planting the seed in his heart. Because these lines are
foremost within the text they are likely to convey and establish the identity
of Coriolanus as someone who innately possesses the fatal flaw of pride. If the
play stopped here this interpretation could very likely be true however, as the
play progresses it becomes readily apparent that there exists a flaw with the
value system that the Roman republic applies to its leaders and that perhaps
the pride that consumes Coriolanus was not solely developed by him alone.
Katherine Stockholder alludes to this destructive kind of nurturing when she
conjectures that Coriolanus is merely playing the part that the people
themselves thrust upon him: “So great is Coriolanus’ need to maintain the
image, reflected in hatred or admiration, of autonomous patriot and warrior . .
. that he ironically becomes braggart, traitor, and boy”(229). With this idea
in mind it is easily seen how the disdain with which the plebeians regard
Coriolanus is actually the root of their own problem as they create the vicious
circle that ultimately leads to Coriolanus’ downfall and nearly their own.
One of the first instances that Shakespeare
gives the audience that Coriolanus’s overbearing pride cannot be wholly
prescribed as a trait that is innate to his unique person is when his wife,
Virgilia, and his mother, Volumnia, are discussing, with excitement, the return
of
Coriolanus from battle with the
Roman nemesis the Volscians. Volumnia, showing an immense
pride of her own, reveals to
Virgilia that even when Coriolanus was young she held the traits of
honor and pride in higher esteem
than even the life of her child. After hearing her mother-in-
law’s extreme point of view
Virgilia exclaims: “But had he died in the business, madam; how
then?” (l.) Volumnia, through
her retort displays her true nature and with it reveals the likelihood
that the cultivation of
Coriolanus’s extreme pride had been in developmental process for the
duration of his life: “Hear me
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/” (ll.). As revealing as this scenario already is
as to the way with which
Volumnia raised her son, she takes these notions even further,
dispelling all doubt that she
did not have a large hand in shaping the tragic flaw that encumbers
her son when, to Virgilia’s
horror at the prospect of her husband being wounded, she exclaims
“Away, you fool! It more becomes
a man/ Than gilt his trophy; the breasts of Hecuba,/ When
she did suckle Hector, look’d
not lovelier than Hector’s forehead when it spit forth blood/ At
Grecian sword” (ll.). Commenting
directly on this aspect of the effects of motherly nurturing
Coppelia Kahn asserts that that
Volumnia: “By thrusting him from dependency and thrusting
onto him a warrior self of her
own devising, Volumnia effectively murdered the babe in
Coriolanus, the loving and
vulnerable self within him” (172). Seeing how much value was
placed on honor and pride and
then instilled in Coriolanus throughout his formative years it is
obvious to ascertain how
Coriolanus developed his fatal flaw as well as a rich contempt for those
in society who do not share his
view.
While
the adverse effects resulting from the intimate relationship that is common
amongst a mother and son are
easily seen as influential in nurturing the prideful disposition of Coriolanus
another destructive relationship can be found in Coriolanus’ relationship to
other leaders within the Roman republic. All of these leaders show an almost
sacred reverie for Coriolanus, building up his pride to unknown heights all the
while unknowingly cultivating in him contempt for the lower Roman classes. It
is in this conflict that the paradox of Roman society exists which allows the
tragedy of Coriolanus to come to fruition. These relationships show the broader nurturing
aspects that Roman society had in its role in cultivating the tragic pride that
is Coriolanus’ downfall and ultimately reveal the real tragedy of the play as
they portray a society that is heavily reliant on the extreme pride and
dominance of its warriors, yet rejects and condemns the affects that often
come, hand in hand, with such traits. An example of this tragic process can be
followed in the play when Coriolanus, after displaying exemplary bravery in
battle is called to the floor of the senate to be recognized and praised for
his valor:
“he stopp’d
the fliers;/ And by his rare example made the coward/ Turn terror into sport .
. . / his sword, death’s stamp,/ Where it did mark, it took. . ./ alone he
enter’d/ The mortal gate of the city, which he painted/ With shunless destiny;
aidless came off,/ And with a sudden reinforcement struck/ Corioli like a
planet: now all’s his:/” (ll. )
This high amount of praise,
though merited, causes an adverse effect on Coriolanus which is shown through
his contempt for all that he deems is beneath him, which, because of excess
praise, is not just a few people. Later in the when the senate decides to make
him a consul to the people and Coriolanus goes, begrudgingly, to seek the
approval of the masses he is unable to hide the contempt that is a result of
his built up pride: “What must I say?/ ‘I Pray, sir’ –Plague upon’t! I cannot
bring/ My tongue to such a pace: -- ‘Look, sir, my wounds!/ I got them in my
country’s service, when/ Some certain of your brethren roar’d and ran/ From the
noise of our own drums.’” (ll. ). This
display of antipathy on the part of Coriolanus completes paradox that causes
the people to disdain their great war hero even though he performs a very
necessary service to their country in, through the shedding of his blood, he
preserves their peace. As the people are
brought to a realization of the scorn with which they were treated they are
quickly incited to reject the man who defends their liberty. Brayton Polka
takes illuminates this paradox even further in his article about contradiction
in the Roman world, in it he takes a somewhat fatalistic view of the Roman way
of life suggesting that the paradox that has just been analyzed is only part of
a far greater contradiction: “They do not know what renders their lives
contradictory. The Romans know no escape from the contradictory (because
finite) one, as both patricians and plebeians, in their endless opposition to
each other, claim oneness with Rome. . . . But the tragedy of Coriolanus, the
tragedy of Rome, is that there is no world elsewhere, beyond Rome, for the
Romans” (n.page).
No comments:
Post a Comment