Shakespeare, being the
masterful, prolific author he is, strategically molded the one main character
of the play 'Coriolanus' to seize two diverse identities: one through the body
and nature of 'Caius Martius', who was present in the start of Act 1, and the
other through 'Coriolanus', who was introduced at the end of Act 1 as a result
of a series of events, which purely unveils and affirms Shakespeare's larger
purpose of birthing a complex political play, exposing the two frameworks of
the play that is the setting of the battlefield versus the city and capitol
building, as well as constructing the conflicts of the plot and future visions.
On account of the instantaneous
objection of the citizens of Rome on the shortage of corn, a deleterious relationship
is set off between the commoners and patricians of the senate, where the
immediate social barriers implanted between the lower-class citizens embodied
by plebeians, and higher-class figures mainly epitomized by Martius, hatched an
imbalance of control over both voices and decisions, consequently birthing a
complex political play. The trigger of such imbalance is Martius, in which his
harsh, abrupt words towards the plebeians: "What's the matter, you
dissentious rogues, that rubbing the poor itch of your opinion, make yourself
scabs?" stimulated hate towards him and the burning desire to take him
down; political catastrophes emerged due to Martius's deficient political language
as well as arrogant character, revealing his lack of verbal control and diplomatic
speech.
In
the following scenes during the Roman's battle against the Volsces, the honored
character of Coriolanus arises to uncover Martius's new status as a demi-god,
leader, and hero, consequently creating a contrast from his former image. This
is attributable to his singular significant defeat against Aufidius, in which
left him with bloody scars as evidence for his bravery and determination to
protect Rome. In addition Shakespeare unveils his leader-like qualities as a
result of his commands on positioning and strategies to overthrow the Volsces.
Moreover, after the battle, Coriolanus grows to become very wise and humble, as
he does not ask for a reward; he declared: "But cannot make my heart
consent to take a bribe to pay my sword. I do refuse it and stand upon my
common part with those that have beheld the doing." Thus, he earns a
temporary higher standing in the eyes of the plebeians. Taken as a whole, in
comparison to his first identity as Martius, it is evident that Coriolanus is
better at welfare than politics as he was able to prove his physical power on the
battle field in comparison to his weak political speech and verbal
communication in the city capitol. Shakespeare therefore establishes that being physically strong does not make one
qualified to lead a country or for Martius's case, the city of Rome.
This disproportion in the identity of Martius instigates
the groundwork of the conflict of the plot, as well as foreshadows future
events that occur within the play. The conflict is triggered by the attempt of
electing of Coriolanus as consul, which is dependent upon the votes of the
citizens of Rome. Thus, the plebeians needed to reflect on his ruthless
attitude at the start as well as his brave victory of the battle against the
Volsces, in order to make the decision. Therefore if both contrasting
identities were absent, there would be no conflict because it was the imbalance
of qualities that created questioning on whether or not Coriolanus will become
consul. The conflict derived from the plebeians revoking their votes because Martius's
irresponsibility of words overpowers his heroic victory in the battle. Consequently
his failure leads to him joining forces with Aufidius, fighting against Rome,
then turning back down, and dying. Additionally, Shakespeare characterized Coriolanus
as 'mama's boy', which is shown within act 1, where his mom was his motivation,
as she had set goals for him to fight and win battles. This foreshadows that it
is his mom that convinces him to retrieve from his partnership with Aufidius,
which then leads to his death. Furthermore, due to his weakness in verbal
communication Coriolanus also withholds bad acting skills, which this flaw is
then passed down within the play when his mother convinces him to pretend to
care for the plebeians to obtain their votes. But because he doesn’t have any
internal desires to please the common followers and because he was unable to
act well and was immediately enraged by the commoners, he failed; this also
impacted his collapse of becoming consul, which then led to the following actions
of joining forces with Aufidius and then dying. From this, Shakespeare suggests
that successful political leaders are good actors.
Hence from Shakespeare's characterization of
Martius's contrasting identities that withhold opposing qualities, greater drives
are targeted within the play that in fact impact the conflicts and future
events of the plot, construct the diverse settings, as well as establish its genre as a political play.
