What do you think?
Rate this book
Coriolanus
After the exotic eroticism of Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare returned to Rome for one of his final tragedies, and the change could not have been more dramatic. Coriolanus is one of Shakespeare's harshest and most challenging studies of power, politics and masculinity, based around the life of Caius Marcius.
Based on the Roman chronicles of Plutarch's Lives and Livy's History of Rome, the play is set in the early years of the Roman Republic. Its famous opening scene, particularly admired by Bertolt Brecht, portrays its citizens as starving and rebellious, and horrified by the arrogant and dismissive attitude of Caius Marcius, one of Rome's most valiant but also political naive soldiers. Spurred on by his ambitious mother Volumnia, Caius takes the city of Corioles, is renamed Coriolanus in honour of his victory, and is encouraged to run for senate. However, his contempt for the citizens, who he calls "scabs" and "musty superfluity" ultimately leads to his exile and destructive alliance with his deadly foe, Aufidius. Despite its relative unpopularity, Coriolanus is a fascinating study of both public and personal life. Its language is dense and complex, as its representation of the tensions built into the fabric of Roman political life. Yet it also contains extraordinarily intimate scenes between Coriolanus and both his mother, who ultimately proves "most mortal" to her own son, and his enemy Aufidius, whose "rapt heart" is happier to see Coriolanus than his own wife. One of Shakespeare's darker and more disturbing plays. --Jerry Brotton
202 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1608
About the author
William Shakespeare
22k books44k followersWilliam Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,276 reviews
October 30, 2019
I not only really like Shakespeare's Coriolanus: I also like the man Coriolanus as he is revealed in the play. Sure, he may be a hothead, an arrogant bully, an immature mama's boy with a proto-fascist personality, but he is also a man of extraordinary physical courage and sincere personal modesty who would like nothing better than to do his warrior's duty and be left alone.
Unfortunately, though, his mother--whose values are also those of the Roman republic--sees her son's patrician duty as including a consulship, and the populist politicking it requires--which a proud and simple man like Coriolanus can only experience as self-abasement--inevitably leads to his shame and eventually to his destruction. He cannot be true both to his mother and his republic and to himself--and that is his tragedy.
The verse of this play is often harsh and crabbed, but it is a monumental crabbedness, an imposing harshness--very much like the personality of its hero.
July 7, 2019
Coriolanus solidified my Shakespeare obsession. I'd become familiar with the canon--Hamlet, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, The Tempest, R&J, etc--but then I read Coriolanus and couldn't believe it. There was this play, rarely talked about, that's as brilliant--if not more brilliant--than all the others so often listed as required reading. It was like discovering life on Mars.
From the first line, I devoured the pages faster than I would a John Grisham novel. Shakespeare's language, sometimes daunting, didn't stand in my way at all, though I did use the aid of footnotes, audio performance, and the occasional sparknotes summary for clarification. As always, Shakespeare develops characters so richly they appear to be on stage even when they're just on page. And the plot, too, contains shocking relevance to our modern society.
Since we borrowed many ideas from their government, I suppose it's not surprising that the Roman plays hit so close to home. Still, it's uncanny. The whole time I kept thinking about how similar the plot was to the Occupy Wallstreet movement and, of course, the 2012 election for president. Now, with all the drama and turmoil in today's politics, it's even more current. Everything about the story is timeless and the execution is truly the experience of a lifetime.
Overall, I do see why Coriolanus isn't a forced-upon text in high school. Unlike the linear progression of Macbeth and Hamlet, there's a more scattered approach to character study and movement of plot. That said, as a Shakespeare nerd, I am shocked that I don't hear more about this play among the scholarly crowd. The language is among Shakespeare's best (I added a good 10 or so quotes to my list of favorites during my read) and the characters endlessly intriguing (especially the mother). Although Ralph Fiennes' wonderful movie gave some much-deserved attention, there still needs to be a day where everyone is as familiar with this play as they are with Shakespeare's other masterworks.
From the first line, I devoured the pages faster than I would a John Grisham novel. Shakespeare's language, sometimes daunting, didn't stand in my way at all, though I did use the aid of footnotes, audio performance, and the occasional sparknotes summary for clarification. As always, Shakespeare develops characters so richly they appear to be on stage even when they're just on page. And the plot, too, contains shocking relevance to our modern society.
Since we borrowed many ideas from their government, I suppose it's not surprising that the Roman plays hit so close to home. Still, it's uncanny. The whole time I kept thinking about how similar the plot was to the Occupy Wallstreet movement and, of course, the 2012 election for president. Now, with all the drama and turmoil in today's politics, it's even more current. Everything about the story is timeless and the execution is truly the experience of a lifetime.
Overall, I do see why Coriolanus isn't a forced-upon text in high school. Unlike the linear progression of Macbeth and Hamlet, there's a more scattered approach to character study and movement of plot. That said, as a Shakespeare nerd, I am shocked that I don't hear more about this play among the scholarly crowd. The language is among Shakespeare's best (I added a good 10 or so quotes to my list of favorites during my read) and the characters endlessly intriguing (especially the mother). Although Ralph Fiennes' wonderful movie gave some much-deserved attention, there still needs to be a day where everyone is as familiar with this play as they are with Shakespeare's other masterworks.
October 31, 2020
Coriolanus, William Shakespeare
Coriolanus is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written between 1605 and 1608. The play is based on the life of the legendary Roman leader Caius Marcius Coriolanus. The tragedy is one of the last two tragedies written by Shakespeare, along with Antony and Cleopatra.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و هفتم ماه مارس سال 2014میلادی
عنوان: کوریولانوس؛ نویسنده: ویلیام شکسپیر؛ مترجم: علاالدین پازارگادی؛ تهران، علمی فرهنگی، چاپ سوم 1392، در 227ص، مصور؛ شابک 9789644454967؛ موضوع داستانهای قهرمانان روم از نویسندگان انگلیسی - سده 17م
کوریولانوس، تراژدی کمتر شناخته شده، و اثری از آثار «ویلیام شکسپیر» است، که در بین سالهای 1605میلادی تا سال 1608میلادی نگاشته شده است؛ این نمایشنامه یکی از دو تراژدیِ واپسینِ شکسپیر (دیگری: «آنتونیوس و کلئوپاترا») است، و داستانی دارد، بر اساس سرگذشت سردار افسانه ای «رومی» «گایوس مارسیوس کوریولانوس»، در سده ی پنجم پیش از میلاد، که پس از کامیابی در نبرد، و سیاست، خواهان رهبری سیاسی نیز هست، ولی برای ناسازگاری اهالی «رم»، با دشمن همپیمان میشود، تا از مردمان «رم» انتقام بگیرد؛ «کوریولانوس»، سرانجام به واسطه ی خواهشهای مادر، و همسرش، از کار خویش پشیمان، و آرام میگیرد، و «رم» آسایش خویش را وامدار زنان میگردد؛ و از این آسودگی «کوریولانوس» را بهره، مرگ است
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 10/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Coriolanus is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written between 1605 and 1608. The play is based on the life of the legendary Roman leader Caius Marcius Coriolanus. The tragedy is one of the last two tragedies written by Shakespeare, along with Antony and Cleopatra.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و هفتم ماه مارس سال 2014میلادی
عنوان: کوریولانوس؛ نویسنده: ویلیام شکسپیر؛ مترجم: علاالدین پازارگادی؛ تهران، علمی فرهنگی، چاپ سوم 1392، در 227ص، مصور؛ شابک 9789644454967؛ موضوع داستانهای قهرمانان روم از نویسندگان انگلیسی - سده 17م
کوریولانوس، تراژدی کمتر شناخته شده، و اثری از آثار «ویلیام شکسپیر» است، که در بین سالهای 1605میلادی تا سال 1608میلادی نگاشته شده است؛ این نمایشنامه یکی از دو تراژدیِ واپسینِ شکسپیر (دیگری: «آنتونیوس و کلئوپاترا») است، و داستانی دارد، بر اساس سرگذشت سردار افسانه ای «رومی» «گایوس مارسیوس کوریولانوس»، در سده ی پنجم پیش از میلاد، که پس از کامیابی در نبرد، و سیاست، خواهان رهبری سیاسی نیز هست، ولی برای ناسازگاری اهالی «رم»، با دشمن همپیمان میشود، تا از مردمان «رم» انتقام بگیرد؛ «کوریولانوس»، سرانجام به واسطه ی خواهشهای مادر، و همسرش، از کار خویش پشیمان، و آرام میگیرد، و «رم» آسایش خویش را وامدار زنان میگردد؛ و از این آسودگی «کوریولانوس» را بهره، مرگ است
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 10/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
August 12, 2018
“There hath been many great men that have flattered the people who ne’er loved them.”
“Coriolanus” is a Shakespeare that I feel is underappreciated. Like in his “Julius Caesar”, the Bard has captured the momentum and the irony of political life in a manner that is celebratory and derisive at the same time.
I gave "Coriolanus” a 4 star rating compared to other Shakespeare, not to literature as a whole. The Bard is in a class of his own.
In this edition the Introduction by Jonathan Crewe includes intriguing ideas about homoerotic hyper masculine warrior culture and also speaks of the play’s significance in a Roman and contemporary (Shakespeare’s contemporary-early 1600s England) context. However, it is a long intro and a little heady at times and not a particularly enjoyable read. But, it was a valuable read.
The plot of this text (in short) is that Coriolanus is a warrior hero of Rome and is in line for the Consulship (leader) of Rome, but tradition has it that he must go to the common folk and ask their permission. This is a task he is loath to do, and the Tribunes of the people use this against him in stirring up the rabble. And the story takes off from there. As I read this play I kept vacillating between being irritated and admiring of Coriolanus’s blunt honesty and his ridiculous unwillingness to temper his words and thoughts for those he considers social inferiors. Shakespeare is asking us in this play what we prefer from our leaders. Do we want their flattering, their disdain (if they have the skills to lead), etc. It is a very relevant question, especially today. Look at the American election of 2016, or the critics of Canada’s Prime Minster who find his policy lacking but his personality thriving. There are many examples all around the world today. Coriolanus is uncompromising. Is that a virtue or vice we are left to decide. Shakespeare gives this character no soliloquies, so we never get in his head. This choice blocks the reader from Coriolanus' private thoughts and we have to accept (or reject) him for what he is.
The text boasts some interesting characters besides the titular Coriolanus. The two Tribunes of the people are manipulative, but their motives could be pure, the Roman senator Menenius Agrippa is a role a skilled actor could leave a mark on, and Coriolanus’s relationship with his archenemy Aufidius is homoerotic in its language. Then there is Volumnia, the mother of Coriolanus who when she is on stage dominates the play. The recent professional production I saw recognized this fact, and Volumnia was clearly an audience favorite. She is another ambiguous, larger than life character in the Shakespeare canon.
The Pelican editions of Shakespeare contain some simple yet informative essays, “Theatrical World” & “The Texts of Shakespeare” that preface every play in this Pelican series. They are worth a read.
As for the Pelican Shakespeare series, they are one of my two favorite editions since the scholarly research is usually top notch and the editions themselves look good as an aesthetic unit. It looks and feels like a play and this compliments the text's contents admirably. The Pelican series was recently reedited and has the latest scholarship on Shakespeare and his time period. Well priced and well worth it.
“Coriolanus” is a Shakespeare that I feel is underappreciated. Like in his “Julius Caesar”, the Bard has captured the momentum and the irony of political life in a manner that is celebratory and derisive at the same time.
I gave "Coriolanus” a 4 star rating compared to other Shakespeare, not to literature as a whole. The Bard is in a class of his own.
In this edition the Introduction by Jonathan Crewe includes intriguing ideas about homoerotic hyper masculine warrior culture and also speaks of the play’s significance in a Roman and contemporary (Shakespeare’s contemporary-early 1600s England) context. However, it is a long intro and a little heady at times and not a particularly enjoyable read. But, it was a valuable read.
The plot of this text (in short) is that Coriolanus is a warrior hero of Rome and is in line for the Consulship (leader) of Rome, but tradition has it that he must go to the common folk and ask their permission. This is a task he is loath to do, and the Tribunes of the people use this against him in stirring up the rabble. And the story takes off from there. As I read this play I kept vacillating between being irritated and admiring of Coriolanus’s blunt honesty and his ridiculous unwillingness to temper his words and thoughts for those he considers social inferiors. Shakespeare is asking us in this play what we prefer from our leaders. Do we want their flattering, their disdain (if they have the skills to lead), etc. It is a very relevant question, especially today. Look at the American election of 2016, or the critics of Canada’s Prime Minster who find his policy lacking but his personality thriving. There are many examples all around the world today. Coriolanus is uncompromising. Is that a virtue or vice we are left to decide. Shakespeare gives this character no soliloquies, so we never get in his head. This choice blocks the reader from Coriolanus' private thoughts and we have to accept (or reject) him for what he is.
The text boasts some interesting characters besides the titular Coriolanus. The two Tribunes of the people are manipulative, but their motives could be pure, the Roman senator Menenius Agrippa is a role a skilled actor could leave a mark on, and Coriolanus’s relationship with his archenemy Aufidius is homoerotic in its language. Then there is Volumnia, the mother of Coriolanus who when she is on stage dominates the play. The recent professional production I saw recognized this fact, and Volumnia was clearly an audience favorite. She is another ambiguous, larger than life character in the Shakespeare canon.
The Pelican editions of Shakespeare contain some simple yet informative essays, “Theatrical World” & “The Texts of Shakespeare” that preface every play in this Pelican series. They are worth a read.
As for the Pelican Shakespeare series, they are one of my two favorite editions since the scholarly research is usually top notch and the editions themselves look good as an aesthetic unit. It looks and feels like a play and this compliments the text's contents admirably. The Pelican series was recently reedited and has the latest scholarship on Shakespeare and his time period. Well priced and well worth it.
January 31, 2023
More of your conversation would infect my brain.
Coriolanus ~~ William Shakespeare
I first read Shakespeare’s Coriolanus my sophomore year of college. While most consider it to be a lesser tragedy, I consider it to be among Shakespeare's greatest works. All these years later, Coriolanus still enthralls me.
Coriolanus is among the last of Shakespeare's work; it isn’t seen all that often today, but has seen a resurgence of popularity over the last 20 years. Coriolanus lacks the heart pounding drama of Hamlet and Macbeth but it is story filled with emotion, and is among the best of the Bard's works.
The plot is simple enough. Coriolanus is a war play that revels in the blood of the battlefield, the Bard's words transports the reader back to the emergence of the republic of Rome.
Caius Martius Coriolanus is a fearless soldier but a reluctant leader. His ambitious, domineering mother attempts to carve him a path to political power, but he struggles to change his nature and do what is required to achieve greatness. In this new city state struggling to find its balance, where the gap between rich and poor is widening every day, Coriolanus must decide who he really is and where his allegiances lie. Coriolanus is a man filled with conflict, doubt and an inability to trust his better judgement.
Eventually through the intervention of his mother, he is finally persuaded to bring peace to his city, but makes the ultimate sacrifice in doing so.
Caius Martius, whose nom-de-guerre is Coriolanus, is a capable and proud man. A bit braggadocios, tremendously confident and successful in nearly everything he does. He is stern in his work for the city state of Rome, but he is fair and honest, even with a concern for the average citizen. Nonetheless, he’s one of those people who you’d have a hard liking; it wouldn’t hurt if he were taken down just a notch or two.
In many ways, Coriolanus reminds me of George Patton ~~ competent, honest, hard-nosed, but arrogant and not wishing or expecting to be told what to do or how to behave.
Coriolanus often parallels our world, notably the dishonor elected officials engage in with their constituents. But more than that, Coriolanus is about family and the lengths to which many people will go to honor their parents ~~ look at Bush Jr. taking us to war to please Bush Sr. As it is said early on in the play, "He did it to please his mother."
Coriolanus ~~ William Shakespeare
I first read Shakespeare’s Coriolanus my sophomore year of college. While most consider it to be a lesser tragedy, I consider it to be among Shakespeare's greatest works. All these years later, Coriolanus still enthralls me.
Coriolanus is among the last of Shakespeare's work; it isn’t seen all that often today, but has seen a resurgence of popularity over the last 20 years. Coriolanus lacks the heart pounding drama of Hamlet and Macbeth but it is story filled with emotion, and is among the best of the Bard's works.
The plot is simple enough. Coriolanus is a war play that revels in the blood of the battlefield, the Bard's words transports the reader back to the emergence of the republic of Rome.
Caius Martius Coriolanus is a fearless soldier but a reluctant leader. His ambitious, domineering mother attempts to carve him a path to political power, but he struggles to change his nature and do what is required to achieve greatness. In this new city state struggling to find its balance, where the gap between rich and poor is widening every day, Coriolanus must decide who he really is and where his allegiances lie. Coriolanus is a man filled with conflict, doubt and an inability to trust his better judgement.
Eventually through the intervention of his mother, he is finally persuaded to bring peace to his city, but makes the ultimate sacrifice in doing so.
Caius Martius, whose nom-de-guerre is Coriolanus, is a capable and proud man. A bit braggadocios, tremendously confident and successful in nearly everything he does. He is stern in his work for the city state of Rome, but he is fair and honest, even with a concern for the average citizen. Nonetheless, he’s one of those people who you’d have a hard liking; it wouldn’t hurt if he were taken down just a notch or two.
In many ways, Coriolanus reminds me of George Patton ~~ competent, honest, hard-nosed, but arrogant and not wishing or expecting to be told what to do or how to behave.
Coriolanus often parallels our world, notably the dishonor elected officials engage in with their constituents. But more than that, Coriolanus is about family and the lengths to which many people will go to honor their parents ~~ look at Bush Jr. taking us to war to please Bush Sr. As it is said early on in the play, "He did it to please his mother."
May 2, 2021
I struggled on and off when reading this. This is my first time reading Shakespeare since high school but I powered through it. There are glossary terms in the footnotes which was helpful. The editor gave a history of the theater in Shakespeare's time and an in-depth analysis of the Coriolanus and themes in the play.
Overall, I liked the concept behind the plot. It is an interesting look at a successful military general turned politician. Things eventually fall around him as he became immersed into a world he knew nothing about.
Coriolanus was a military tactician where his life was black and white, kill or be killed, and going into the political world was his downfall. Coriolanus was seen as the hero to the people but was tragic victim of his own pride and arrogance.
'My rage is gone,
And I am struck with sorrow.'
Tullus Aufidius, Act 5, Scene 6
I liked it and would recommend it because it's a short Shakespeare story. It was turned into a movie in 2011 starring Ralph Fiennes and Gerard Butler. I would recommend both. Thanks!
Overall, I liked the concept behind the plot. It is an interesting look at a successful military general turned politician. Things eventually fall around him as he became immersed into a world he knew nothing about.
Coriolanus was a military tactician where his life was black and white, kill or be killed, and going into the political world was his downfall. Coriolanus was seen as the hero to the people but was tragic victim of his own pride and arrogance.
'My rage is gone,
And I am struck with sorrow.'
Tullus Aufidius, Act 5, Scene 6
I liked it and would recommend it because it's a short Shakespeare story. It was turned into a movie in 2011 starring Ralph Fiennes and Gerard Butler. I would recommend both. Thanks!
November 27, 2017
“Let it be virtuous to be obstinate.”
- William Shakespeare, Coriolanus
I'm a sucker for a revenge play, so this one floats easily just on the heat generated by Coriolanus' anger. I remember being exposed to the Coriolanus story last year when I was reading Plutarch's Lives, Vol 1* and again earlier this year when I was reading Livy I: History of Rome, Books 1-2. So, going into the play I was fairly comfortable with the basic story, but completely unprepared for Shakepeare's viscious tongue. Coriolanus, his mother Volumnia, and his friend Menenius all come packed with amazing lines. I don't think I'd go as far as T.S. Eliot and say it is superior to Hamlet:
"Coriolanus may be not as “interesting” as Hamlet, but it is, with Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare’s most assured artistic success. And probably more people have thought Hamlet a work of art because they found it interesting, than have found it interesting because it is a work of art. It is the Mona Lisa of literature."
Again, I still don't think it is superior to Hamlet, or as my wife would say: "be a wee bit skeptical of the judgement of a man who published Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats".
Still, there is something fierce and yet very human about Coriolanus. Having personally been raised among military men, the martial attitude that combines sacrifice with a large, sharp edge of condescension is still something one sees in high ranking soldiers. The play swims in raging waters of hyper-masculenity and militarism. I have yet to see either the Ralph Fienne's adaption or the Tom Hiddleston version. I'm sure I'll be able to talk my wife into watching either with me.
Favorite Quotes:
"I have some wounds upon me, and they smart
To hear themselves remembered."
- Act 1, Scene 9
"These are the ushers of Martius, Before him
He carries noise, and behind him he leaves tears.
Death, that dark spirit, in's nervy arm doth lie;
Wich, being advanced, declines, and then men die."
- Act 2, Scene 1
“I find the ass in compound with the major part of your syllables.”
- Act 2, Scene 1
“They lie deadly that tell you have good faces.”
- Act 2, Scene 1
"Faith, there hath 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."
- Act 2, Scene 2
"He covets less
Than misery itself would give; rewards
His deeds with doing them; and is content
To spend the time to end it."
- Act 2, Scene 2
“From face to foot,
He was a thing of blood, whose every motion
Was timed with dying cries.”
- Act 2, Scene 2
"Most sweet voices!
Better it is to die, better to starve,
Than crave the hire which first we do deserve."
- Act 2, Scene 3
“Why did you wish me milder? would you have me
False to my nature? Rather say I play
The man I am.”
- Act 3, Scene 2
“I think he'll be to Rome
As is the osprey to the fish, who takes it
By sovereignty of nature.”
- Act 4, Scene 7
"There is differency between a grub and a
butterfly; yet your butterfly was a grub. This Martius is
grown from man to dragon. He has wings; he's more
than a creeping thing."
- Act 5, Scene 4
* Plutarch's Lives is fascinating to read before jumping into Shakepeare's Roman plays (Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus, Julius Caesar, and Titus Andronicus).
- William Shakespeare, Coriolanus
I'm a sucker for a revenge play, so this one floats easily just on the heat generated by Coriolanus' anger. I remember being exposed to the Coriolanus story last year when I was reading Plutarch's Lives, Vol 1* and again earlier this year when I was reading Livy I: History of Rome, Books 1-2. So, going into the play I was fairly comfortable with the basic story, but completely unprepared for Shakepeare's viscious tongue. Coriolanus, his mother Volumnia, and his friend Menenius all come packed with amazing lines. I don't think I'd go as far as T.S. Eliot and say it is superior to Hamlet:
"Coriolanus may be not as “interesting” as Hamlet, but it is, with Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare’s most assured artistic success. And probably more people have thought Hamlet a work of art because they found it interesting, than have found it interesting because it is a work of art. It is the Mona Lisa of literature."
Again, I still don't think it is superior to Hamlet, or as my wife would say: "be a wee bit skeptical of the judgement of a man who published Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats".
Still, there is something fierce and yet very human about Coriolanus. Having personally been raised among military men, the martial attitude that combines sacrifice with a large, sharp edge of condescension is still something one sees in high ranking soldiers. The play swims in raging waters of hyper-masculenity and militarism. I have yet to see either the Ralph Fienne's adaption or the Tom Hiddleston version. I'm sure I'll be able to talk my wife into watching either with me.
Favorite Quotes:
"I have some wounds upon me, and they smart
To hear themselves remembered."
- Act 1, Scene 9
"These are the ushers of Martius, Before him
He carries noise, and behind him he leaves tears.
Death, that dark spirit, in's nervy arm doth lie;
Wich, being advanced, declines, and then men die."
- Act 2, Scene 1
“I find the ass in compound with the major part of your syllables.”
- Act 2, Scene 1
“They lie deadly that tell you have good faces.”
- Act 2, Scene 1
"Faith, there hath 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."
- Act 2, Scene 2
"He covets less
Than misery itself would give; rewards
His deeds with doing them; and is content
To spend the time to end it."
- Act 2, Scene 2
“From face to foot,
He was a thing of blood, whose every motion
Was timed with dying cries.”
- Act 2, Scene 2
"Most sweet voices!
Better it is to die, better to starve,
Than crave the hire which first we do deserve."
- Act 2, Scene 3
“Why did you wish me milder? would you have me
False to my nature? Rather say I play
The man I am.”
- Act 3, Scene 2
“I think he'll be to Rome
As is the osprey to the fish, who takes it
By sovereignty of nature.”
- Act 4, Scene 7
"There is differency between a grub and a
butterfly; yet your butterfly was a grub. This Martius is
grown from man to dragon. He has wings; he's more
than a creeping thing."
- Act 5, Scene 4
* Plutarch's Lives is fascinating to read before jumping into Shakepeare's Roman plays (Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus, Julius Caesar, and Titus Andronicus).
March 8, 2014
There are many gods, and when we organize and rank them we go too far, we ask too much of them.
- "Women and Men", Joseph McElroy
I am certain that had this play been written by anyone other than Shakespeare it would be venerated as a major work; performed and discussed perhaps in the way Hamlet, King Lear or Macbeth are. Written late in The Bard's career (it is the last of the Tragedies and the Histories), Coriolanus is his work that might be the most relevant and relatable to our modern world.
Caius Martius is a Roman general long on military brilliance but short on patience, diplomatic ability and charm. He is bestowed the agnomen Coriolanus after his courageous leadership in the siege of the enemy city Corioles. Upon his return to Rome he is raised up to god-like status - all but given the consulship on a silver platter - and viewed by the fickle populate as the savior of the nation. But Martius never sought these accolades, this power. Once Rome placed him on the pedestal it made him the target of power hungry men bent on his destruction.
This is the only play penned by Shakespeare completely driven by a single character. When Coriolanus isn't on stage steering the action the other players are discussing him directly - they are in his orbit, whether he wishes it or not. I love that Shakespeare chose to title the play after the agnomen of the lead character - a title Martius never sought and clearly didn't care if he had. But it wasn't his place nor decision to choose; the bestowal of the honor becomes the tragic undoing. If you've never read / seen this work performed, you must. The denouement is fascinating.
The UK's National Theater recently staged a performance of this play featuring Tom Hiddleston as Coriolanus. Many movie theaters around the country are showing the performance via NT Live - if you are fortunate enough to be in a city hosting it, please don't miss it! (And if you do see it, please let me know - I tried to see it here in San Francisco and every performance was sold out!)
September 24, 2021
De las tragedias del autor una de las que mas me gusto.
video reseña en:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTncFiwliDG/
video reseña en:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTncFiwliDG/
June 8, 2015
Let the first budger die the other’s slave,
And the gods doom him after. - Caius Marcius Coriolanus
Shakespeare turns to 5th century BC Roman history for a deeply serious drama depicted in combat scenes between fierce enemies, conflicts between patricians and the plebeians, and contrasting perspectives within family. His treatment of war, statesmen, citizens and family life is surprisingly unusual in that the common denominator in all, the hero, is motivated by a powerful mother-son dynamic.
Caius Marcius, a hot-tempered young man of unbridled brute strength, a militant idealist incapable of acting beneath his idea of honor or integrity, who rigidly believes "brave death outweighs bad life, And that his country’s dearer than himself," who has shown no fear but only insensitivity to battle wounds, returns from the Volscian war as the valiant hero in the siege of Corioles, to the only two women of his affection, his mother and his wife. Whereas other men find glory in their unswerving valor, he finds the thrill of glory through his mother's joy, that she should hear him praised and see him crowned: "To a cruel war I sent him, from whence he returned his brows bound with oak."
Volumnia, his mother, part of the feminine - though not the sentimental - strand in the play, stands out as a formidable character: a military mother whose patriotism and pride in the bravery of the family's great soldier reign supreme over the shedding of his blood, even if it would have cost his life, for "then his good report should have been my son. I therein would have found issue. Hear me profess sincerely: had I a dozen sons, each in my love alike, and none less dear than thine and my good Martius’, I had rather had eleven die nobly for their country than one voluptuously surfeit out of action." The honor of this hero reflects greatly on dreams of her own glory.
Newly surnamed 'Coriolanus,' superior as a warrior for that is his nature, he is contemptuous of any life other than on the field or of any occupation but that of battle, who neither fully understands himself nor anyone else for that matter, such that leadership of the populace and compromise are beyond his skill, has not the temperament for a consul position, despising and distrusting of the political role his mother entreats him:
The smiles of knaves
Tent in my cheeks, and schoolboys’ tears take up
The glasses of my sight! A beggar’s tongue
Make motion through my lips, and my armed knees,
Who bowed but in my stirrup, bend like his
That hath received an alms! I will not do’t,
Lest I surcease to honour mine own truth,
And by my body’s action teach my mind
A most inherent baseness.
Against his own judgment, he acquiesces to her wishes but in so doing, reveals how much he hates these people who revolt against the laws, the 'plebs' from whom he must beg for votes; his arrogant lack of understanding for their plight in turn fuels their contempt of him, resulting in a trial and the call for his exile. In his most venomous rebuke in the play, Coriolanus spews:
You common cry of curs, whose breath I hate
As reek o’th’ rotten fens, whose loves I prize
As the dead carcasses of unburied men
That do corrupt my air: I banish you.
And here remain with your uncertainty.
Let every feeble rumour shake your hearts;
Your enemies, with nodding of their plumes,
Fan you into despair! Have the power still
To banish your defenders, till at length
Your ignorance—which finds not till it feels—
Making but reservation of yourselves,
Still your own foes, deliver you
As most abated captives to some nation
That won you without blows! Despising
For you the city, thus I turn my back.
There is a world elsewhere.
Coriolanus's downfall is borne by vengeful wrath as he leaves Rome a turncoat to fight for the opposition alongside his Volscian foil, Aufidius. Alas, the once defender of Rome is eventually betrayed very much in Roman style (when one thinks of Julius Caesar); betrayed by many in Shakespeare's version, but most tragically and unwittingly by one in particular, whom he calls 'mother,' for it is in the midst of Aufidius's camp she beseeches her son to spare their city. His response shows a wilting resolve:
Aufidius, though I cannot make true wars,
I’ll frame convenient peace. Now, good Aufidius,
Were you in my stead would you have heard
A mother less, or granted less, Aufidius?
Shakespeare takes imaginative license in bringing the female influence to the foreground laying blame in part at her feet! Softened by the pleas of the mother he could not deny, blinded so by uncontrolled fury he could not foresee the total effect of his action, Coriolanus is called 'traitor' by Aufidius, is ambushed and stood no chance at all. Thou hast done a deed whereat Valour will weep. A volatile yet sympathetic creature of boyish recklessness lacking perhaps the self-awareness and insight of an adult, falls victim in the end to his tempestuous nature.
Coriolanus actually is not a difficult play to read even with the hero's sharply vituperative dialogue. Shakespeare's theatrical plotting around a piece of Roman history was fairly straight forward, lacking the complexity or twisted scenarios in his more notable plays and therein, not too hard to interpret. Oddly, for that very reason it may be one pick in the canon to read for those initially apprehensive of the great bard.
And the gods doom him after. - Caius Marcius Coriolanus
Shakespeare turns to 5th century BC Roman history for a deeply serious drama depicted in combat scenes between fierce enemies, conflicts between patricians and the plebeians, and contrasting perspectives within family. His treatment of war, statesmen, citizens and family life is surprisingly unusual in that the common denominator in all, the hero, is motivated by a powerful mother-son dynamic.
Caius Marcius, a hot-tempered young man of unbridled brute strength, a militant idealist incapable of acting beneath his idea of honor or integrity, who rigidly believes "brave death outweighs bad life, And that his country’s dearer than himself," who has shown no fear but only insensitivity to battle wounds, returns from the Volscian war as the valiant hero in the siege of Corioles, to the only two women of his affection, his mother and his wife. Whereas other men find glory in their unswerving valor, he finds the thrill of glory through his mother's joy, that she should hear him praised and see him crowned: "To a cruel war I sent him, from whence he returned his brows bound with oak."
Volumnia, his mother, part of the feminine - though not the sentimental - strand in the play, stands out as a formidable character: a military mother whose patriotism and pride in the bravery of the family's great soldier reign supreme over the shedding of his blood, even if it would have cost his life, for "then his good report should have been my son. I therein would have found issue. Hear me profess sincerely: had I a dozen sons, each in my love alike, and none less dear than thine and my good Martius’, I had rather had eleven die nobly for their country than one voluptuously surfeit out of action." The honor of this hero reflects greatly on dreams of her own glory.
Newly surnamed 'Coriolanus,' superior as a warrior for that is his nature, he is contemptuous of any life other than on the field or of any occupation but that of battle, who neither fully understands himself nor anyone else for that matter, such that leadership of the populace and compromise are beyond his skill, has not the temperament for a consul position, despising and distrusting of the political role his mother entreats him:
The smiles of knaves
Tent in my cheeks, and schoolboys’ tears take up
The glasses of my sight! A beggar’s tongue
Make motion through my lips, and my armed knees,
Who bowed but in my stirrup, bend like his
That hath received an alms! I will not do’t,
Lest I surcease to honour mine own truth,
And by my body’s action teach my mind
A most inherent baseness.
Against his own judgment, he acquiesces to her wishes but in so doing, reveals how much he hates these people who revolt against the laws, the 'plebs' from whom he must beg for votes; his arrogant lack of understanding for their plight in turn fuels their contempt of him, resulting in a trial and the call for his exile. In his most venomous rebuke in the play, Coriolanus spews:
You common cry of curs, whose breath I hate
As reek o’th’ rotten fens, whose loves I prize
As the dead carcasses of unburied men
That do corrupt my air: I banish you.
And here remain with your uncertainty.
Let every feeble rumour shake your hearts;
Your enemies, with nodding of their plumes,
Fan you into despair! Have the power still
To banish your defenders, till at length
Your ignorance—which finds not till it feels—
Making but reservation of yourselves,
Still your own foes, deliver you
As most abated captives to some nation
That won you without blows! Despising
For you the city, thus I turn my back.
There is a world elsewhere.
Coriolanus's downfall is borne by vengeful wrath as he leaves Rome a turncoat to fight for the opposition alongside his Volscian foil, Aufidius. Alas, the once defender of Rome is eventually betrayed very much in Roman style (when one thinks of Julius Caesar); betrayed by many in Shakespeare's version, but most tragically and unwittingly by one in particular, whom he calls 'mother,' for it is in the midst of Aufidius's camp she beseeches her son to spare their city. His response shows a wilting resolve:
Aufidius, though I cannot make true wars,
I’ll frame convenient peace. Now, good Aufidius,
Were you in my stead would you have heard
A mother less, or granted less, Aufidius?
Shakespeare takes imaginative license in bringing the female influence to the foreground laying blame in part at her feet! Softened by the pleas of the mother he could not deny, blinded so by uncontrolled fury he could not foresee the total effect of his action, Coriolanus is called 'traitor' by Aufidius, is ambushed and stood no chance at all. Thou hast done a deed whereat Valour will weep. A volatile yet sympathetic creature of boyish recklessness lacking perhaps the self-awareness and insight of an adult, falls victim in the end to his tempestuous nature.
Coriolanus actually is not a difficult play to read even with the hero's sharply vituperative dialogue. Shakespeare's theatrical plotting around a piece of Roman history was fairly straight forward, lacking the complexity or twisted scenarios in his more notable plays and therein, not too hard to interpret. Oddly, for that very reason it may be one pick in the canon to read for those initially apprehensive of the great bard.
March 24, 2019
Not my first time seeing Coriolanus performed, but the performance that I have most enjoyed. This was the Stratford (Ont.) version from 2018. Since I’ll be participating in two elections this year, first provincial, then federal, the nature of leadership and democracy are top of mind right now. The friend who accompanied me to this screening also commented on the timeliness of the theme.
I must say that Lucy Peacock, playing Coriolanus’ mother, was amazing! Who knew that Coriolanus had a Tiger Mother? She played her part in a way that made me laugh as she steered her son exactly where she wanted him to go. Ms. Peacock stole every scene that she was in.
The play had a modern setting, something that I don’t always appreciate in Shakespearean drama, but with this play it worked. A feature that my friend and I both particularly appreciated was a portion of the dialog which was done via text message. It received snickers from our theatre audience and was completely appropriate in its context. While remaining true to the play’s dialog, it was a nifty updating.
If only we could send all of our politicians to see Coriolanus and hope that they would understand how contempt for the electorate does in a great military man!
I must say that Lucy Peacock, playing Coriolanus’ mother, was amazing! Who knew that Coriolanus had a Tiger Mother? She played her part in a way that made me laugh as she steered her son exactly where she wanted him to go. Ms. Peacock stole every scene that she was in.
The play had a modern setting, something that I don’t always appreciate in Shakespearean drama, but with this play it worked. A feature that my friend and I both particularly appreciated was a portion of the dialog which was done via text message. It received snickers from our theatre audience and was completely appropriate in its context. While remaining true to the play’s dialog, it was a nifty updating.
If only we could send all of our politicians to see Coriolanus and hope that they would understand how contempt for the electorate does in a great military man!
October 28, 2023
weird pacing but powerful homoeroticism. rip to caius martius coriolanus that son of a gun really fucking hated poor people
---
2023 reread: the heartwarming story of a man who pissed off everybody around him until he died <3 and he was even gay <3
December 14, 2023
”Let it be virtuous to be obstinate.”
Coriolanus, while not among Shakespeare’s most famous plays, is one of his most highly considered. No less than T.S. Eliot (that pompous twit) claimed it to be superior to Hamlet. Knowing that, no wonder that I hate it!
Granted, it is a well structured play. Shakespeare’s language is razor sharp. But Coriolanus is a nasty piece of work — an arrogant, small minded, bullying, snobbish proto-fascist (no wonder Eliot liked him!) His virtues of bravery and modesty do nothing to soften his essential unsympathetic nature. He lacks the expansiveness of a master villain like Richard III or Macbeth, while not able to seize my sympathies like Hamlet the conflicted soul, or Lear the raging fool. And the play offers no counter to this brutish lout. His mother is an overbearing harpy who obviously shaped him. His enemies and the plebeians that he despises offer little better.
Three stars because it is brilliantly written. But I need to be able to care about someone for a tragedy to work for me, and this work was barren of anyone I could remotely feel for.
Coriolanus, while not among Shakespeare’s most famous plays, is one of his most highly considered. No less than T.S. Eliot (that pompous twit) claimed it to be superior to Hamlet. Knowing that, no wonder that I hate it!
Granted, it is a well structured play. Shakespeare’s language is razor sharp. But Coriolanus is a nasty piece of work — an arrogant, small minded, bullying, snobbish proto-fascist (no wonder Eliot liked him!) His virtues of bravery and modesty do nothing to soften his essential unsympathetic nature. He lacks the expansiveness of a master villain like Richard III or Macbeth, while not able to seize my sympathies like Hamlet the conflicted soul, or Lear the raging fool. And the play offers no counter to this brutish lout. His mother is an overbearing harpy who obviously shaped him. His enemies and the plebeians that he despises offer little better.
Three stars because it is brilliantly written. But I need to be able to care about someone for a tragedy to work for me, and this work was barren of anyone I could remotely feel for.
February 12, 2012
I'm told Coriolanus, the person, is unlikeable, but I happen to like him. I don't even think he's a right-wing bastard, just shy, awkward and misunderstood. It's his severe self-effacement that makes him hate publicity. Who wants to stand in the market and exhibit your wounds in a stupid political stunt? And his thickheadedness, the fact he has no idea when to use that soldierly bluntness and when to keep his trap shut, is a naivety I like against the politics of Rome. He's a soldier, yes, but at least he isn't a politician.
He always was more at home with his enemy. It's a scream how Coriolanus and Aufidius are so wrapped up in each other: they pant for the next instalment of the insult/flattery exchange, 'So what did Aufidius say about me?' 'And Coriolanus mentioned me?' They belong together.
If only he'd stuck to his guns and not called off the march on Rome. The end works as tragedy for me, no question: Coriolanus is destroyed by that which he serves. With a mother like his he never stood a chance. They made him the perfect soldier, and he is, but then they reject him for what he is. There's certainly satire of militarism (the warmonger women of Rome, the infamous butterfly speech), and I think the play says a lot about soldiers and the military, and about civilians' use and abuse of soldiers. I notice that, more than the politics. I'd call it a soldier's tragedy.
He always was more at home with his enemy. It's a scream how Coriolanus and Aufidius are so wrapped up in each other: they pant for the next instalment of the insult/flattery exchange, 'So what did Aufidius say about me?' 'And Coriolanus mentioned me?' They belong together.
If only he'd stuck to his guns and not called off the march on Rome. The end works as tragedy for me, no question: Coriolanus is destroyed by that which he serves. With a mother like his he never stood a chance. They made him the perfect soldier, and he is, but then they reject him for what he is. There's certainly satire of militarism (the warmonger women of Rome, the infamous butterfly speech), and I think the play says a lot about soldiers and the military, and about civilians' use and abuse of soldiers. I notice that, more than the politics. I'd call it a soldier's tragedy.
January 5, 2017
Going into this drama, I did not think that I would like it, because I was never really that much into dramas. I read The Tempest by Shakespeare last year, and I did not enjoy it. Now, when I finished it, it surprises me to say that I actually loved reading it. The story grabbed me at the beginning, and held me 'till the end. I do think that the drama could have been a couple of dozen pages shorter (that's why the 4 stars), but apart from that, I completely loved it. Hopefully my next drama by Shakespeare will be just as enjoyable.
July 30, 2019
Shakespeare yaşasa iddia ediyorum bugünden sonra Cemre'nin Tragedyası diye bir oyun yazardı. Çok kötü bir gün geçirdim ve fazla şey yazmaya mecalim yok. Bu sebeple oyunla ilgili kısaca birkaç şey söylemek istiyorum.
Pek çok sefer belirttim bunu, biliyorum; ama yine söylemek istiyorum ki ben Shakeapeare'i izlemeyi değil okumayı seviyorum. Sahnede bazı şeyler olmuyor gibi hissediyorum ya da belki de ben başarılı bir Shakespeare uyarlamasına hiç denk gelmedim. Buna karşın dediğim gibi Shakespeare'i okumayı çok çok seviyorum, başka bir büyüsü var. Coriolanus'un Tragedyası'nı da çok sevdim. Yönetenlere, yönetme hevesinde olanlara ve yönetilenlere dair, üzerinde düşünülmesi ve de konuşulması gereken bir oyun. Her dönem için güncelliğini koruyacak bir oyun; çünkü teknoloji ne kadar gelişse bilim ne kadar ilerlese de insan hâlâ aynı insan. Aslında değişen şey çevresi, kendisi değil. Hataları aynı, zaafları aynı, arzuları aynı, hırsları aynı. Bu oyunda bunu çok net bir şekilde görmek mümkün.
Çeviri de pek çok Shakespeare oyunu gibi Özdemir Nutku'ya ait. Kendisine denecek söz yok zaten.
Okunmalı.
Pek çok sefer belirttim bunu, biliyorum; ama yine söylemek istiyorum ki ben Shakeapeare'i izlemeyi değil okumayı seviyorum. Sahnede bazı şeyler olmuyor gibi hissediyorum ya da belki de ben başarılı bir Shakespeare uyarlamasına hiç denk gelmedim. Buna karşın dediğim gibi Shakespeare'i okumayı çok çok seviyorum, başka bir büyüsü var. Coriolanus'un Tragedyası'nı da çok sevdim. Yönetenlere, yönetme hevesinde olanlara ve yönetilenlere dair, üzerinde düşünülmesi ve de konuşulması gereken bir oyun. Her dönem için güncelliğini koruyacak bir oyun; çünkü teknoloji ne kadar gelişse bilim ne kadar ilerlese de insan hâlâ aynı insan. Aslında değişen şey çevresi, kendisi değil. Hataları aynı, zaafları aynı, arzuları aynı, hırsları aynı. Bu oyunda bunu çok net bir şekilde görmek mümkün.
Çeviri de pek çok Shakespeare oyunu gibi Özdemir Nutku'ya ait. Kendisine denecek söz yok zaten.
Okunmalı.
June 18, 2023
MARTIUS to COMINIUS : "O, let me clip you
In arms [...] As merry as when our nuptial day was done"
happy pride month everyone 😌
In arms [...] As merry as when our nuptial day was done"
happy pride month everyone 😌
September 2, 2020
This is probably the most frustrating Shakespeare play I’ve read in the sense that it feels like it’s inches away from greatness but it keeps missing the target. The conflict that it sets up is compelling as hell but it takes such an agonizingly long time to get there - there is not one single reason why this needs to be the second longest of his plays; it does not justify its length the same way Hamlet does - that any momentum is lost. Still, the dynamic between Coriolanus and Aufidius is probably one of the most fascinating things Shakespeare ever wrote?
March 13, 2016
“From face to foot,
He was a thing of blood, whose every motion
Was timed with dying cries.”
I recently went to see the Donmar Warehouse production of this play, so of course I read it beforehand. The production was excellent and only heightened my appreciation of it.
Reading this I started out a little weary. It’s one of the lesser known Shakespeare plays, and I’d never heard of it until I found out about the Donmar Warehouse show, so I had no idea even what it was really about. But as I read I kept getting more and more intrigued.
The plot is somewhat straightforward. Despite saving the city from an old enemy, Coriolanus manages to piss of Rome’s political elite as well as the people and is exiled from the city. In his exile he seeks out his former enemy and they plot to bring down the city that so disgraced him.
I ended up loving the play, actually, even before I saw it. None of the characters are very likeable, most of them – especially the major parts – are downright detestable. They’re proud, they’re arrogant, they’re greedy, they’re liars. I love that we’re not supposed to root for these characters, we’re not supposed to pray that they all live and find happy endings. Instead Shakespeare forces the audience to constantly shift their loyalties. The only character actually worth our good opinion is Aufidius, Coriolanus sworn enemy.
However, I love this play because of its dynamics. It’s running wild with tension, whether it be between Coriolanus and the two senators, Coriolanus and the people, Coriolanus and his own family and friends. Wherever Coriolanus goes tension and drama (and possibly bloodshed) follows. He’s a military prodigy, he’s brutal and fearless in battle, and is hailed as a hero by the aristocracy of Rome on his return from defending the city. He knows he’s good, and it makes him arrogant. He’s dismissive of civilians, thinking his success in battle makes him superior to those who have not taken up the sword.
“I talk of you:
Why did you wish me milder? would you have me
False to my nature? Rather say I play
The man I am.”
He’s a douchebag. An honest douchebag, but still. The only time we see a touch of a gentler, better man is when he’s faced with his mother, who's the only one capable of reaching beyond his proud exterior. When faced with her he isn't the arrogant soldier, but the son and the husband.
Two important roles are the two tribunes – the only ones selected by the people – meant to voice the opinion of the people. Aufidius might be presented as the classic antagonist, but in reality its these two. You’d think democratically chosen politicians would actually work for the people, instead of plotting and scheming to protect their own power, but it's never so.
However, the inherent badness of the characters means they can talk about some pretty serious shit and there being no obvious character to agree with, you find yourself considering everyone’s opinion. They’re all right and they’re all wrong at various times. They’re all too much of one thing, and there’s no mediator that can compete with the ego of youth or the allure of power.
Tom Hiddleston was brilliant as Coriolanus, coming off as completely oblivious to his own elitism and arrogance, and utterly uncaring in the face of cowardice, showing no understand for any viewpoint that didn't align with his own. To his credit, he does none of it for adoration, he does it for honor, because he truly believes going into battle is the only worthy duty of a man, and Hiddleston conveys this single-mindedness perfectly, this terrible focus on the task at hand and nothing else. His co-stars were equally stunning in their roles and the sparse stage set-up allowed for greater focus on the lines and, most importantly, the character dynamics.
On a lighter note, it’s also a surprisingly funny play – especially the production I saw. Filled with snark and sarcasm, delivered with perfect timing.
Another, perhaps one of the most, interesting aspects of the play, is the relationship between Coriolanus and Aufidius. Their animosity toward and grudging respect for one another is a fluid line, that at times seems to turn into something else,
“Let me twine
Mine arms about that body, where against
My grained ash an hundred times hath broke
And scarr'd the moon with splinters: here I clip
The anvil of my sword, and do contest
As hotly and as nobly with thy love
As ever in ambitious strength I did
Contend against thy valour. Know thou first,
I loved the maid I married; never man
Sigh'd truer breath; but that I see thee here,
Thou noble thing! more dances my rapt heart
Than when I first my wedded mistress saw
Bestride my threshold.”
Aufidius admits his heart beats faster seeing Coriolanus at his door than when he saw his wife on his wedding night. It’s a very interesting dynamic. Coriolanus and Aufidius are singularly obsessed with each other, their regard for one another perhaps even eclipsing the love they have for their own families, showing exactly where their priorities lie, and how their minds unfailingly falls to combat. Only those who best them there are worthy of consideration. It's this constant circling back to the pursuit of honor and power that disrupts any attempt at a peaceful resolution.
There is real character development for Coriolanus, but, as with all tragedies, it comes in the end, when it's too late.
The Donmar Warehouse production is up for download, so if you have any interest in it I suggest you find it. It’s well worth the watch.
He was a thing of blood, whose every motion
Was timed with dying cries.”
I recently went to see the Donmar Warehouse production of this play, so of course I read it beforehand. The production was excellent and only heightened my appreciation of it.
Reading this I started out a little weary. It’s one of the lesser known Shakespeare plays, and I’d never heard of it until I found out about the Donmar Warehouse show, so I had no idea even what it was really about. But as I read I kept getting more and more intrigued.
The plot is somewhat straightforward. Despite saving the city from an old enemy, Coriolanus manages to piss of Rome’s political elite as well as the people and is exiled from the city. In his exile he seeks out his former enemy and they plot to bring down the city that so disgraced him.
I ended up loving the play, actually, even before I saw it. None of the characters are very likeable, most of them – especially the major parts – are downright detestable. They’re proud, they’re arrogant, they’re greedy, they’re liars. I love that we’re not supposed to root for these characters, we’re not supposed to pray that they all live and find happy endings. Instead Shakespeare forces the audience to constantly shift their loyalties. The only character actually worth our good opinion is Aufidius, Coriolanus sworn enemy.
However, I love this play because of its dynamics. It’s running wild with tension, whether it be between Coriolanus and the two senators, Coriolanus and the people, Coriolanus and his own family and friends. Wherever Coriolanus goes tension and drama (and possibly bloodshed) follows. He’s a military prodigy, he’s brutal and fearless in battle, and is hailed as a hero by the aristocracy of Rome on his return from defending the city. He knows he’s good, and it makes him arrogant. He’s dismissive of civilians, thinking his success in battle makes him superior to those who have not taken up the sword.
“I talk of you:
Why did you wish me milder? would you have me
False to my nature? Rather say I play
The man I am.”
He’s a douchebag. An honest douchebag, but still. The only time we see a touch of a gentler, better man is when he’s faced with his mother, who's the only one capable of reaching beyond his proud exterior. When faced with her he isn't the arrogant soldier, but the son and the husband.
Two important roles are the two tribunes – the only ones selected by the people – meant to voice the opinion of the people. Aufidius might be presented as the classic antagonist, but in reality its these two. You’d think democratically chosen politicians would actually work for the people, instead of plotting and scheming to protect their own power, but it's never so.
However, the inherent badness of the characters means they can talk about some pretty serious shit and there being no obvious character to agree with, you find yourself considering everyone’s opinion. They’re all right and they’re all wrong at various times. They’re all too much of one thing, and there’s no mediator that can compete with the ego of youth or the allure of power.
Tom Hiddleston was brilliant as Coriolanus, coming off as completely oblivious to his own elitism and arrogance, and utterly uncaring in the face of cowardice, showing no understand for any viewpoint that didn't align with his own. To his credit, he does none of it for adoration, he does it for honor, because he truly believes going into battle is the only worthy duty of a man, and Hiddleston conveys this single-mindedness perfectly, this terrible focus on the task at hand and nothing else. His co-stars were equally stunning in their roles and the sparse stage set-up allowed for greater focus on the lines and, most importantly, the character dynamics.
On a lighter note, it’s also a surprisingly funny play – especially the production I saw. Filled with snark and sarcasm, delivered with perfect timing.
Another, perhaps one of the most, interesting aspects of the play, is the relationship between Coriolanus and Aufidius. Their animosity toward and grudging respect for one another is a fluid line, that at times seems to turn into something else,
“Let me twine
Mine arms about that body, where against
My grained ash an hundred times hath broke
And scarr'd the moon with splinters: here I clip
The anvil of my sword, and do contest
As hotly and as nobly with thy love
As ever in ambitious strength I did
Contend against thy valour. Know thou first,
I loved the maid I married; never man
Sigh'd truer breath; but that I see thee here,
Thou noble thing! more dances my rapt heart
Than when I first my wedded mistress saw
Bestride my threshold.”
Aufidius admits his heart beats faster seeing Coriolanus at his door than when he saw his wife on his wedding night. It’s a very interesting dynamic. Coriolanus and Aufidius are singularly obsessed with each other, their regard for one another perhaps even eclipsing the love they have for their own families, showing exactly where their priorities lie, and how their minds unfailingly falls to combat. Only those who best them there are worthy of consideration. It's this constant circling back to the pursuit of honor and power that disrupts any attempt at a peaceful resolution.
There is real character development for Coriolanus, but, as with all tragedies, it comes in the end, when it's too late.
The Donmar Warehouse production is up for download, so if you have any interest in it I suggest you find it. It’s well worth the watch.
December 27, 2015
Generals do not make good politicians
7 November 2013
This is a story about a General who is thrust into the world of politics, namely because he was such a good general. However, while he happpens to be a great general, as a politician he positively sucks. Basically, Gaius Marcius' main flaw (despite the fact that I don't believe in fatal flaws) is that he simply speaks his mind, which is a noble characteristic is most professions, but not in politics. To put it bluntly, Marcius (aka Coriolanus, a name he receives after capturing the city of Coriolai) has absolutely no time for the hoi poloi (namely the great unwashed, the peasantry, the plebeians, or whatever other name you can come up with that describes those of us who are not members of the ruling class) and he does not mince any words regarding this dislike. This is clear right from the beginning for when the people are rioting over the price of grain he basically tells them to bugger off, and no amount of whinging and whining was going to make him release any more grain, because, well, there is not all that much grain to go around, and if they didn't put up and shut up, then he was going to start busting some heads – and this is from the guy that later in the play is being positioned to become consul of Rome, a position equivalent to president.
The thing I like about Coriolanus is that it gives us an idea into the way politics worked in Republican Rome. Okay, it is Shakespeare, and if we want a better understanding we need to go to the ancient sources, however Coriolanus still gives us a pretty good idea of what the system was like. Basically, in Republican Rome, (as in other ancient democracies) the military and the government were intertwined, so it was not uncommon for the members of the senate and the rulers to have been soldiers and generals. This was the case with Julius Ceaser. However, to be a great ruler one generally had to be a great general, be loved by the patricians, and also be loved by the plebeians (or at least tolerated). Now for Coriolanus: he met two of the three conditions, namely he was not loved by the people (and there was a similar situation with Ceaser, but it was the opposite in that he was loved by the people but hated by the patricians).
These days the idea of a general being a president in an advanced democracy generally does not happen, (though it has happened in the United States with George Washington, Ulysses S Grant, and Eisenhower as examples, but generally the military to not go into politics). However, Rome was quite different, namely because the military was so intertwined with civilian life. Civilians would have participated in the military - especially in times of war. In fact many of the middle class citizens had gained their status after stints in the Roman army (it was common for soldiers who had served in the army to be given plots of land to farm after retiring from the army). As such, one of the rewards for being an outstanding soldier (such as Coriolanus) was a nice plump position in government, and the better the soldier you were, the higher up the chain you could get.
However, Coriolanus' problem was that to become Consul, he needed the consent of the people, and while his political allies could sway the people, his political enemies could also sway them the other way, which is what happened. Basically, the tribunes, who represented the people, and could veto rulings on behalf of the people, swayed them away from Coriolanus, and to such an extent that he was forced to go into exile. In doing so, however, he ends up defecting over to his enemy forces, and fuming in anger over being kicked out of his homeland, he leads his new found allies (the Volsces) against Rome and besieges the city.
The problem was that Coriolanus' as at heart a Roman, and while he was angery at his treatment, he could not stay angry at his people for too long, which turns out bad for him because when he signs the peace treaty with Rome on behalf of the Volsces, and withdawls his forces, he ends up angering the Volsces, who then proceed to kill him.
There was a movie recently released based on this play, starring Ralph Finness. This is actually set in a modern setting, and it is a pretty good movie. For a play that is not performed all that much, if you want to actually see a version of this play, I would highly recommend getting your hands on that movie.
I also saw a production of the play by the Donmar Theatre, which I have written up a post on my blog (where I delve into the play in greater depth).
7 November 2013
This is a story about a General who is thrust into the world of politics, namely because he was such a good general. However, while he happpens to be a great general, as a politician he positively sucks. Basically, Gaius Marcius' main flaw (despite the fact that I don't believe in fatal flaws) is that he simply speaks his mind, which is a noble characteristic is most professions, but not in politics. To put it bluntly, Marcius (aka Coriolanus, a name he receives after capturing the city of Coriolai) has absolutely no time for the hoi poloi (namely the great unwashed, the peasantry, the plebeians, or whatever other name you can come up with that describes those of us who are not members of the ruling class) and he does not mince any words regarding this dislike. This is clear right from the beginning for when the people are rioting over the price of grain he basically tells them to bugger off, and no amount of whinging and whining was going to make him release any more grain, because, well, there is not all that much grain to go around, and if they didn't put up and shut up, then he was going to start busting some heads – and this is from the guy that later in the play is being positioned to become consul of Rome, a position equivalent to president.
The thing I like about Coriolanus is that it gives us an idea into the way politics worked in Republican Rome. Okay, it is Shakespeare, and if we want a better understanding we need to go to the ancient sources, however Coriolanus still gives us a pretty good idea of what the system was like. Basically, in Republican Rome, (as in other ancient democracies) the military and the government were intertwined, so it was not uncommon for the members of the senate and the rulers to have been soldiers and generals. This was the case with Julius Ceaser. However, to be a great ruler one generally had to be a great general, be loved by the patricians, and also be loved by the plebeians (or at least tolerated). Now for Coriolanus: he met two of the three conditions, namely he was not loved by the people (and there was a similar situation with Ceaser, but it was the opposite in that he was loved by the people but hated by the patricians).
These days the idea of a general being a president in an advanced democracy generally does not happen, (though it has happened in the United States with George Washington, Ulysses S Grant, and Eisenhower as examples, but generally the military to not go into politics). However, Rome was quite different, namely because the military was so intertwined with civilian life. Civilians would have participated in the military - especially in times of war. In fact many of the middle class citizens had gained their status after stints in the Roman army (it was common for soldiers who had served in the army to be given plots of land to farm after retiring from the army). As such, one of the rewards for being an outstanding soldier (such as Coriolanus) was a nice plump position in government, and the better the soldier you were, the higher up the chain you could get.
However, Coriolanus' problem was that to become Consul, he needed the consent of the people, and while his political allies could sway the people, his political enemies could also sway them the other way, which is what happened. Basically, the tribunes, who represented the people, and could veto rulings on behalf of the people, swayed them away from Coriolanus, and to such an extent that he was forced to go into exile. In doing so, however, he ends up defecting over to his enemy forces, and fuming in anger over being kicked out of his homeland, he leads his new found allies (the Volsces) against Rome and besieges the city.
The problem was that Coriolanus' as at heart a Roman, and while he was angery at his treatment, he could not stay angry at his people for too long, which turns out bad for him because when he signs the peace treaty with Rome on behalf of the Volsces, and withdawls his forces, he ends up angering the Volsces, who then proceed to kill him.
There was a movie recently released based on this play, starring Ralph Finness. This is actually set in a modern setting, and it is a pretty good movie. For a play that is not performed all that much, if you want to actually see a version of this play, I would highly recommend getting your hands on that movie.
I also saw a production of the play by the Donmar Theatre, which I have written up a post on my blog (where I delve into the play in greater depth).
August 6, 2020
Anger's my meat; I sup upon myself,
And so shall starve with feeding
That has become familiar over the last ten days. That mind you, is unusual--I am seldom angry; sure, I can lose it over the Premier League or ideology, but not a fuming rancor.
Well, enough of Covid-driven work stress, I loved this play.
My wife and I went to see the Ralph Fiennes directed film adaptation years ago, largely because it was shot in and around Belgrade. I have watched a few times since and am always moved by its martial poetry. The play focuses on the historical Gaius Marcius, here named Caius Marcius: an aristocratic general with a spectacular talent for war and a simmering loathing for the preterite and all their common-ness (during one rebuke he advises them to wash their faces and clean their teeth). This certainly builds no bridges or aqueducts, when in . . .-- but his military honor places him in the political spotlight and our unapologetic hero won't play nice and many unfortunate things occur. Public caprice is satirized as is the ease in which political agency responds. It would be centuries before the flip itself would be switched. .
And so shall starve with feeding
That has become familiar over the last ten days. That mind you, is unusual--I am seldom angry; sure, I can lose it over the Premier League or ideology, but not a fuming rancor.
Well, enough of Covid-driven work stress, I loved this play.
My wife and I went to see the Ralph Fiennes directed film adaptation years ago, largely because it was shot in and around Belgrade. I have watched a few times since and am always moved by its martial poetry. The play focuses on the historical Gaius Marcius, here named Caius Marcius: an aristocratic general with a spectacular talent for war and a simmering loathing for the preterite and all their common-ness (during one rebuke he advises them to wash their faces and clean their teeth). This certainly builds no bridges or aqueducts, when in . . .-- but his military honor places him in the political spotlight and our unapologetic hero won't play nice and many unfortunate things occur. Public caprice is satirized as is the ease in which political agency responds. It would be centuries before the flip itself would be switched. .
April 29, 2016
This play took me by surprise, I had not heard of it before and only read it because I wanted to watch the adaptation with Tom Hiddleston. And lucky me, this was such an interesting play and this edition was just the right one to give me enough background information and interpretation ways that I could make the most out of the play.
Being thus prepared I could appreciate the adaptation a lot better and enjoyed it tremendously.
I can only recommend it, if you get the chance to watch it.
Being thus prepared I could appreciate the adaptation a lot better and enjoyed it tremendously.
I can only recommend it, if you get the chance to watch it.
February 25, 2010
Caius Marcius Coriolanus on the public he would rule:
He that will give good words to thee will flatter
Beneath abhorring. What would you have, you curs,
That like nor peace nor war? the one affrights you,
The other makes you proud. He that trusts to you,
Where he should find you lions, finds you hares;
Where foxes, geese: you are no surer, no,
Than is the coal of fire upon the ice,
Or hailstone in the sun.
…
The fires i’ th’ lowest hell fold in the people!
His opponents the demagogic tribunes, though usually scheming privately, can also work up a good harangue:
Did you perceive
He did solicit you in free contempt
When he did need your loves, and do you think
That his contempt shall not be bruising to you,
When he hath power to crush? Why, had your bodies
No heart among you?
I sought out Coriolanus because I was in the mood for choler and tirade, for troubles, faction, strife and doom. But as the pages passed I began to regret the scarcity of Shakespeare’s comic prose—his low jokes, his bawdy bonhomie and good-humored stink; “those spicy sentences,” Emerson called them. Coriolanus is harsh and dry, the principals loud and pissed-off (in the 1930s, the play sparked brawls at the Comédie-Française; and for years it was banned in West Germany). The extreme, brazen and thus kindred styles of Coriolanus (ill-educated virtus†) and of his enemies (specious, leveling modestia) dominate both the starveling wit (soon mob fury) of individual plebes
and the prose repartee (soon partisan cursing) of Menenius, a louche raconteur still essentially guided by republican virtue (the best kind of social critic, really):
This portioning of voices, I imagine, reflects an observation: the sufferers and the witty spectators are alike whelmed, dwarfed or duped by the passionate intensity of contending powers. Shakespeare’s last tragedy is another of his insuperable meditations on the humanities of statecraft. The other day in a bookstore I was thumbing through a copy of Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy, and found his reflections on the historical Coriolanus thin stuff next to Old Will.
†
Away, my disposition, and possess me
Some harlot's spirit! my throat of war be turn'd,
Which quired with my drum, into a pipe
Small as an eunuch, or the virgin voice
That babies lulls asleep! the smiles of knaves
Tent in my cheeks, and schoolboys' tears take up
The glasses of my sight! a beggar's tongue
Make motion through my lips, and my arm'd knees,
Who bow'd but in my stirrup, bend like his
That hath received an alms! I will not do't,
Lest I surcease to honour mine own truth
And by my body's action teach my mind
A most inherent baseness.
And his mom, Volumnia, wins the Dam of Sparta award for this line: Thy valiantness was mine, thou suck'st it from me...
He that will give good words to thee will flatter
Beneath abhorring. What would you have, you curs,
That like nor peace nor war? the one affrights you,
The other makes you proud. He that trusts to you,
Where he should find you lions, finds you hares;
Where foxes, geese: you are no surer, no,
Than is the coal of fire upon the ice,
Or hailstone in the sun.
…
The fires i’ th’ lowest hell fold in the people!
His opponents the demagogic tribunes, though usually scheming privately, can also work up a good harangue:
Did you perceive
He did solicit you in free contempt
When he did need your loves, and do you think
That his contempt shall not be bruising to you,
When he hath power to crush? Why, had your bodies
No heart among you?
I sought out Coriolanus because I was in the mood for choler and tirade, for troubles, faction, strife and doom. But as the pages passed I began to regret the scarcity of Shakespeare’s comic prose—his low jokes, his bawdy bonhomie and good-humored stink; “those spicy sentences,” Emerson called them. Coriolanus is harsh and dry, the principals loud and pissed-off (in the 1930s, the play sparked brawls at the Comédie-Française; and for years it was banned in West Germany). The extreme, brazen and thus kindred styles of Coriolanus (ill-educated virtus†) and of his enemies (specious, leveling modestia) dominate both the starveling wit (soon mob fury) of individual plebes
Care for us! True, indeed! They ne'er cared for us yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act established against the rich, and provide more piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and there's all the love they bear us.
and the prose repartee (soon partisan cursing) of Menenius, a louche raconteur still essentially guided by republican virtue (the best kind of social critic, really):
I am known to be a humorous patrician, and one that loves a cup of hot wine with not a drop of allaying Tiber in't...one that converses more with the buttock of the night than with the forehead of the morning: what I think I utter, and spend my malice in my breath. Meeting two such wealsmen as you are--I cannot call you Lycurguses--if the drink you give me touch my palate adversely, I make a crooked face at it...and though I must be content to bear with those that say you are reverend grave men, yet they lie deadly that tell you you have good faces.
This portioning of voices, I imagine, reflects an observation: the sufferers and the witty spectators are alike whelmed, dwarfed or duped by the passionate intensity of contending powers. Shakespeare’s last tragedy is another of his insuperable meditations on the humanities of statecraft. The other day in a bookstore I was thumbing through a copy of Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy, and found his reflections on the historical Coriolanus thin stuff next to Old Will.
†
Away, my disposition, and possess me
Some harlot's spirit! my throat of war be turn'd,
Which quired with my drum, into a pipe
Small as an eunuch, or the virgin voice
That babies lulls asleep! the smiles of knaves
Tent in my cheeks, and schoolboys' tears take up
The glasses of my sight! a beggar's tongue
Make motion through my lips, and my arm'd knees,
Who bow'd but in my stirrup, bend like his
That hath received an alms! I will not do't,
Lest I surcease to honour mine own truth
And by my body's action teach my mind
A most inherent baseness.
And his mom, Volumnia, wins the Dam of Sparta award for this line: Thy valiantness was mine, thou suck'st it from me...
June 19, 2020
This play by Shakespeare set in Ancient Rome was being streamed online by London’s National Theatre a week back, the bit I managed to catch got me reading the rest of the play.
What stood out was the friction caused by how Coriolanus behaves, it’s the only way he knows how to be, he’s one of those WYSWYG guys, for him it’s being blunt, brisk and matter of fact. A few times through the play he expresses how he is not happy to pretend to be someone he’s not, especially to just to please others. To him this is just selling himself short.
I’ve read how this play is about tyranny Vs democracy, the fear of tyranny coming from Coriolanus but I thought this was also about a man who is only regarded and appreciated on a superficial level, and the moment he screws-up becomes an opportunity for those with other agendas to get rid of him. Coriolanus, being a soldier does not have the weapons to stand up to sharp manoeuvres of a politician, this leads to his downfall. He’s stunned when he’s called a traitor after all the fighting he’s done and the wars he’s won to keep his city safe. This is a proud man, and a harsh man not afraid to say people who don’t fight in wars should not demand food, so he takes the taunts like a soldier and accepts the judgement made swallowing the injustice of it. He walks away strong, rejecting other people’s pity and sympathy; leaving behind a broken-hearted wife and mother and an old family friend who has been like a father to him, along with some friends.
Sounds, like the end of the story but there’s more, a lot more with twists and turns as Coriolanus is set on vengeance against his home town, but his soldier-like nature does not foresee the politics (where once again he gets played) and is betrayed.
There’s so much going on in this play, but what spoke to me the most was the underlying debate of nature Vs nurture. My knee-jerk reaction is Coriolanus is an anti-hero, but he’s the only one who stays fixed to his beliefs. When he’s told he’s got to get the people’s vote by speaking to them, he’s not keen almost revealing a vulnerability where he’s begging not have to do it. I thought this was because he understood he could not help but be himself and was aware that this does not always go down well with others. It took me awhile to put this together, as I had to keep going back and forth in the text to understand what was going on, so I didn’t find this easy to read but I still enjoyed it; which I would have missed out on if it was not National Theatre’s online streaming as I’ve never heard of this play before.
What stood out was the friction caused by how Coriolanus behaves, it’s the only way he knows how to be, he’s one of those WYSWYG guys, for him it’s being blunt, brisk and matter of fact. A few times through the play he expresses how he is not happy to pretend to be someone he’s not, especially to just to please others. To him this is just selling himself short.
I’ve read how this play is about tyranny Vs democracy, the fear of tyranny coming from Coriolanus but I thought this was also about a man who is only regarded and appreciated on a superficial level, and the moment he screws-up becomes an opportunity for those with other agendas to get rid of him. Coriolanus, being a soldier does not have the weapons to stand up to sharp manoeuvres of a politician, this leads to his downfall. He’s stunned when he’s called a traitor after all the fighting he’s done and the wars he’s won to keep his city safe. This is a proud man, and a harsh man not afraid to say people who don’t fight in wars should not demand food, so he takes the taunts like a soldier and accepts the judgement made swallowing the injustice of it. He walks away strong, rejecting other people’s pity and sympathy; leaving behind a broken-hearted wife and mother and an old family friend who has been like a father to him, along with some friends.
Sounds, like the end of the story but there’s more, a lot more with twists and turns as Coriolanus is set on vengeance against his home town, but his soldier-like nature does not foresee the politics (where once again he gets played) and is betrayed.
There’s so much going on in this play, but what spoke to me the most was the underlying debate of nature Vs nurture. My knee-jerk reaction is Coriolanus is an anti-hero, but he’s the only one who stays fixed to his beliefs. When he’s told he’s got to get the people’s vote by speaking to them, he’s not keen almost revealing a vulnerability where he’s begging not have to do it. I thought this was because he understood he could not help but be himself and was aware that this does not always go down well with others. It took me awhile to put this together, as I had to keep going back and forth in the text to understand what was going on, so I didn’t find this easy to read but I still enjoyed it; which I would have missed out on if it was not National Theatre’s online streaming as I’ve never heard of this play before.
May 6, 2015
I don't have much to say about Shakespeare that hasn't already been said, and I don't feel worthy of even trying, but essentially, I think Coriolanus has a lot to offer in therms of psychology, especially psychology of the masses. It is hard trying to analyze something that has already been written about in many textbooks, but for me, at least, Coriolanus's leitmotif is the herd behavior. Of course, there are many other sub ideas, but the most interesting thing to read about was the way society accepts and then shuns Coriolanus. The other thing which interested me was his mother and her mania that her son physically bears the mark of war, in order to prove that he is a proper warrior.
Also, I would like to give a strong recommendation to you: Donmar's Coriolanus, starring Tom Hiddleston and Mark Gatiss. Great representation of the story, great performances by the entire cast. Coriolanus was probably the only Shakespeare that I hadn't heard of, but the Donmar's play brought it to my attention, for which I am very grateful. I'm pretty sure it can be found online, since I've talked to many people who saw it on the net. If you can get your hands on it, watch it! That's the role that sold Hiddleston to me as an actor, he is absolutely fantastic and he presents to the public an entire palette of colors and emotions.
Also, I would like to give a strong recommendation to you: Donmar's Coriolanus, starring Tom Hiddleston and Mark Gatiss. Great representation of the story, great performances by the entire cast. Coriolanus was probably the only Shakespeare that I hadn't heard of, but the Donmar's play brought it to my attention, for which I am very grateful. I'm pretty sure it can be found online, since I've talked to many people who saw it on the net. If you can get your hands on it, watch it! That's the role that sold Hiddleston to me as an actor, he is absolutely fantastic and he presents to the public an entire palette of colors and emotions.
January 4, 2014
This play made me realize how good Shakespeare really is. I had honestly never heard of "Coriolanus", and I picked it up to read because the National Theatre Live is broadcasting it live on January 30, 2014.
I have read a few of the basic Shakespeare plays - "Hamlet", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Night's Dream", "Julius Caesar" - the usual suspects. The problem is that I already knew how they would end, more or less. I don't remember a time in my life when I didn't know the plot and ending of "Romeo and Juliet". It has always been a part of my knowledge base, for as long as I can remember.
Of course, you know that the tragedies will end with chaos and death - that's just how it goes. But I came to this play without knowing anything about the plot or the outcome. It made some very interesting points. There was a plot twist in Act III that I didn't see coming. Even though I knew there would be a sad ending, it managed to be extremely surprising and moving because I didn't already know what would happen.
I have never read any critical literature on Shakespeare. If you judge based on popularity, "Coriolanus" is not his best play. It took me a while to get hooked, but, once I hit the half-way point, it was a page turner. The experience of reading this play made me incredibly sad that I will never be introduced to "Romeo and Juliet" or "Hamlet" and be on the edge of my seat wondering how they will end.
I suppose that most great stories - the ones that endure - become such a part of our cultural knowledge that we never truly get to experience them.
I have read a few of the basic Shakespeare plays - "Hamlet", "Macbeth", "A Midsummer Night's Dream", "Julius Caesar" - the usual suspects. The problem is that I already knew how they would end, more or less. I don't remember a time in my life when I didn't know the plot and ending of "Romeo and Juliet". It has always been a part of my knowledge base, for as long as I can remember.
Of course, you know that the tragedies will end with chaos and death - that's just how it goes. But I came to this play without knowing anything about the plot or the outcome. It made some very interesting points. There was a plot twist in Act III that I didn't see coming. Even though I knew there would be a sad ending, it managed to be extremely surprising and moving because I didn't already know what would happen.
I have never read any critical literature on Shakespeare. If you judge based on popularity, "Coriolanus" is not his best play. It took me a while to get hooked, but, once I hit the half-way point, it was a page turner. The experience of reading this play made me incredibly sad that I will never be introduced to "Romeo and Juliet" or "Hamlet" and be on the edge of my seat wondering how they will end.
I suppose that most great stories - the ones that endure - become such a part of our cultural knowledge that we never truly get to experience them.
August 8, 2017
Gurur temasını odak noktasına taşıyan "Coriolanus'un Tragedyası / The Tragedy of Coriolanus", oldukça karmaşık ve antipatik ana karakteriyle diğer tragedyalardan ayrılıyor. Diğerlerine nazaran daha soğuk bir tavrı olan oyunda halktan nefret etmesine rağmen vatan için yanıp tutuşan Coriolanus’un gururu sebebiyle çökü��ü anlatılıyor. Coriolanus öyle bir karakter ki savaştaki başarılarından dolayı övünmekten nefret ediyor ve övülmekten de tiksiniyor. Bu yapısıyla alçakgönüllü bir tavır sergilese de Coriolanus’un asıl olayı annesi dışındaki tüm insanları kendinden küçük gördüğü için onların övgülerinden aşağılanması. Zaman zaman yaptıklarıyla okuyucuya kendini affettirmeye yaklaşsa da ne yazık ki çok da başarılı olamıyor. Öte yandan, Coriolanus’un en büyük düşmanı Aufidius’u pek fazla okuma şansı bulamıyoruz; o yüzden çok da akılda kalıcı bir kötü karakter olduğunu söyleyemeyiz. Yine de Shakespeare’in söz konusu politika olunca gurur ve sevgi kavramlarını bir yana bırakmak gerektiğini etkili bir hikayeyle anlattığını söyleyebiliriz. Eseri okuduktan sonra Ralph Fiennes tarafından 2011 yılında modernleştirilerek uyarlanan filmini mutlaka izleyin.
22.07.2017
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
22.07.2017
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
September 5, 2023
Pre-review rant #1: My highly subjective opinion of Shakespeare's tragedies goes as follows:
Conflicted characters and their dark psyche (Macbeth, Hamlet) >>> political plays (Julius Cesaer; Coriolanus) >>>> Love tragedies (Antony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet) >>>> Whatever the hell Titus Andronicus was.
-----------------------------------
If nobody uses this line as an epigraph and stone basis of their high fantasy series I will.
Review to come.
Conflicted characters and their dark psyche (Macbeth, Hamlet) >>> political plays (Julius Cesaer; Coriolanus) >>>> Love tragedies (Antony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet) >>>> Whatever the hell Titus Andronicus was.
-----------------------------------
"This peace is nothing but to rust iron, increase tailors and breed ballad-makers."
If nobody uses this line as an epigraph and stone basis of their high fantasy series I will.
Review to come.
December 29, 2011
Shakespeare's Coriolanus is both noble and so stiff-necked that he cannot compromise his principles -- and this at a time when tribunes have been chosen to represent the common people that the Roman hero professes to loathe. Despite his heroic victories in the best, the tribunes have him exiled, whereupon he goes straight to Tullus Aufidius of the Volsces, Rome's most bitter enemy. Invading Rome with Aufidius, Coriolanus is stopped dead in his tracks only by his mother Volumnia and his wife and son. As Volumnia says to him:
Perhaps the saddest scene for me was Coriolanus's repudiation of his old friend Menenius Agrippa, a moderate who urged Coriolanus to bend a little before the tribunes broke him.
Thou know'st, great son,Coriolanus is a worthy end to Shakespeare's tragic Roman trilogy, of which the other two plays are Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. The main flaw is that its hero, Caius Martius, is in many ways the architect of his own doom. All that was required of him to be chosen consul was to make some slight accommodation to the plebeians, which he is unable to do. As he is exiled, he spits out in vituperation:
The end of war's uncertain; but this certain,
That, if thou conquer Rome, the benefit
Which thou shalt thereby reap is such a name
Whose repetition will be dogg'd with curses;
Whose chronicle thus writ:—'The man was noble,
But with his last attempt he wip'd it out;
Destroy'd his country, and his name remains
To the ensuing age abhorr'd.' Speak to me, son:
Thou hast affected the fine strains of honour,
To imitate the graces of the gods,
To tear with thunder the wide cheeks o' the air,
And yet to charge thy sulphur with a bolt
That should but rive an oak.
You common cry of curs! whose breath I hateAs his mother Volumnia, who has never compromised when bravery was called for, sees this as a defect in her son:
As reek o' the rotten fens, whose loves I prize
As the dead carcasses of unburied men
That do corrupt my air,—I banish you;
And here remain with your uncertainty!
Let every feeble rumour shake your hearts!
Your enemies, with nodding of their plumes,
Fan you into despair! Have the power still
To banish your defenders; till at length
Your ignorance,—which finds not till it feels,—
Making but reservation of yourselves,—
Still your own foes,—deliver you, as most
Abated captives to some nation
That won you without blows! Despising,
For you, the city, thus I turn my back:
There is a world elsewhere.
Pray be counsell'd;I had read this play many years ago and forgot much of the story. Reading it now, I see it as political dynamite in our own divided political environment -- with Tea Partiers on one side and Occupy Wall Streeters on the other. I can well believe that some recent productions ended in riots. The conflict between the rich and the poor is eternal, as much an issue in Ancient Athens as in Elizabethan England and in our own day.
I have a heart as little apt as yours,
But yet a brain that leads my use of anger
To better vantage.
Perhaps the saddest scene for me was Coriolanus's repudiation of his old friend Menenius Agrippa, a moderate who urged Coriolanus to bend a little before the tribunes broke him.
July 16, 2019
Martius Caius Coriolanus, figura histórica e trágica , descendente de patrícios, recebeu o seu terceiro nome, segundo costume romano, devido à bravura demonstrada no cerco à cidade de Corioli.
Shakespeare inspirou-se na crónica de Plutarco , 'A vida de Martius Coriolanus', para construir esta peça sobre o general da República Romana do séc. V A.C. Deixou-nos um texto complexo: descarnado mas espesso a nível psicológico e político, violento na ação e em palavras , por vezes sarcástico e, outras vezes, com silêncios carregados de significado.
A peça abre com a plebe em tumulto. Mau prenúncio! Há fome em Roma e a multidão exige que lhe seja distribuído trigo. Shakespeare entende a revolta ( ' wise rebellion') , mas o retrato que faz do povo não é favorável. Este é grosseiro, volátil, e facilmente manipulável. São maus soldados - mais hábeis na fuga e na pilhagem do que na luta. Coriolanus, um homem rigoroso, corajoso e educado na honra despreza-os, dirigindo-se e referindo- se a eles sem mesuras - rats ; rogues , curs, crows; fragments; barbarians ; children, rank-scented meinie; rabble, herd, ... ... (um manancial de insultos!)
Apesar de não ser o povo o responsável máximo pelo seu destino, a fraca consistência e consciência política da "matilha" faz com que ela adira a qualquer orador com ' três dedos' de retórica e demagogia. Brutus e Sicinious não querem o recém chegado herói no cargo de Cônsul. Estes tribunos da plebe, ávidos de poder, consideram-no demasiado orgulhoso e centrado em si mesmo. Temem que ambicione a cadeira do poder só para si ( one sole throne, without assistance' ) e que a liberdade acabe para todos.
Coriolanus é, de facto, duro e brusco , colérico e insolente , mas também é honesto e fiel aos seus princípios e convicções. Cresceu a fazer a guerra, cumprindo a vontade de sua mãe , que acreditava que 'sangue é melhor do que ouro', porque o sangue traz a honra e, seguindo o seu rasto vem a fama.
As feridas ao serviço de Roma são marcas de honra e Coriolanus tem, nada mais nada menos, do que 27. Estas, segundo ritual romano da época , deviam ser exibidas ao povo na praça do mercado. Coriolanus recusa-se a essa exibição e também a representar o papel que lhe proporciona os votos necessários para o cargo de Cônsul ( I had rather be their servant in my way / than sway with them in theirs) . A política exige artes mais subtis do que as da espada e Coriolanus não se mostra disposto a trair a sua natureza ( would you have me false to my nature?) pois abomina a mentira, a hipocrisia e a lisonja. Aos apelos de Volumnia, sua mãe, ( the most noble mother of the world ) a quem Coriolanus nada nega e tudo faz para agradar, mostra-se intransigente ( I will not do't).
Coriolanus deveria ter consultado a carta ** que Quintus Cicero escreveu ao seu irmão Marcus Cicero , candidato ao cargo de cônsul, no século I. ;-)
No final fica um incómodo difícil de apaziguar.
**
https://www.tamilnet.com/img/publish/...
Shakespeare inspirou-se na crónica de Plutarco , 'A vida de Martius Coriolanus', para construir esta peça sobre o general da República Romana do séc. V A.C. Deixou-nos um texto complexo: descarnado mas espesso a nível psicológico e político, violento na ação e em palavras , por vezes sarcástico e, outras vezes, com silêncios carregados de significado.
A peça abre com a plebe em tumulto. Mau prenúncio! Há fome em Roma e a multidão exige que lhe seja distribuído trigo. Shakespeare entende a revolta ( ' wise rebellion') , mas o retrato que faz do povo não é favorável. Este é grosseiro, volátil, e facilmente manipulável. São maus soldados - mais hábeis na fuga e na pilhagem do que na luta. Coriolanus, um homem rigoroso, corajoso e educado na honra despreza-os, dirigindo-se e referindo- se a eles sem mesuras - rats ; rogues , curs, crows; fragments; barbarians ; children, rank-scented meinie; rabble, herd, ... ... (um manancial de insultos!)
Apesar de não ser o povo o responsável máximo pelo seu destino, a fraca consistência e consciência política da "matilha" faz com que ela adira a qualquer orador com ' três dedos' de retórica e demagogia. Brutus e Sicinious não querem o recém chegado herói no cargo de Cônsul. Estes tribunos da plebe, ávidos de poder, consideram-no demasiado orgulhoso e centrado em si mesmo. Temem que ambicione a cadeira do poder só para si ( one sole throne, without assistance' ) e que a liberdade acabe para todos.
Coriolanus é, de facto, duro e brusco , colérico e insolente , mas também é honesto e fiel aos seus princípios e convicções. Cresceu a fazer a guerra, cumprindo a vontade de sua mãe , que acreditava que 'sangue é melhor do que ouro', porque o sangue traz a honra e, seguindo o seu rasto vem a fama.
As feridas ao serviço de Roma são marcas de honra e Coriolanus tem, nada mais nada menos, do que 27. Estas, segundo ritual romano da época , deviam ser exibidas ao povo na praça do mercado. Coriolanus recusa-se a essa exibição e também a representar o papel que lhe proporciona os votos necessários para o cargo de Cônsul ( I had rather be their servant in my way / than sway with them in theirs) . A política exige artes mais subtis do que as da espada e Coriolanus não se mostra disposto a trair a sua natureza ( would you have me false to my nature?) pois abomina a mentira, a hipocrisia e a lisonja. Aos apelos de Volumnia, sua mãe, ( the most noble mother of the world ) a quem Coriolanus nada nega e tudo faz para agradar, mostra-se intransigente ( I will not do't).
Coriolanus deveria ter consultado a carta ** que Quintus Cicero escreveu ao seu irmão Marcus Cicero , candidato ao cargo de cônsul, no século I. ;-)
No final fica um incómodo difícil de apaziguar.
**
https://www.tamilnet.com/img/publish/...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,276 reviews