Introspection in Shakespeare's Coriolanus

Alisa Heskin Coriolanus Dr. Sprunger Final Paper 31 May, 2015 The Silent Soliloquy: Introspection in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus “This above all,—to thine own self be true; And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.” (Hamlet I.iii.78-80) While the familiar epigraph above originates from one of William Shakespeare’s most well-known plays, its sentiment can be aptly applied to what is described by R. B. Parker as the central conflict of one of the Bard’s least recognized works, Coriolanus (69). Protagonist and legendary Roman general Caius Martius Coriolanus strives to remain true to his nature, but despite his aspirations, Martius is frequently described as (accused of?) being an inaccessible character and having “the most limited consciousness” of all of Shakespeare’s protagonists (Bloom 577). Indeed, the play rarely makes use of traditional introspective techniques such as the soliloquy, aside, and letter, which would otherwise clarify to what self Martius is trying to be true (Bloom 577). Far from being a shortcoming on Shakespeare’s part, this uncertainty of self is a quality that Martius comes to share with the audience as his pursuit to “Not to be other than one thing” becomes more complex (Bloom 578, IV.vii.42). Analyzing the text in conjunction with three film and stage adaptations demonstrates the versatility by which this disconnection can be approached and accommodated for through cinematic and adapted theatrical techniques. The basic plot of the play deals with the rejection of a fierce and uncompromising Roman general after he attempts to assume a role in the Roman government. This occurs following his victory at the Volscian city of Corioles, where he is awarded the honorific title of Coriolanus and a chance to serve as consul of Rome. The opportunity stirs resistance among the people since Martius is often hostile to the citizens of Rome, and they reciprocate Heskin 2 the feeling. Those on Martius’ side include his wife Virgilia, who will play a key role in a discussion of nonverbal introspection. His mother Volumnia has a name that alludes to the magnitude of her presence, and she frequently imposes her will on Martius. Menenius acts as Martius’ good friend and political advisor but collaborates with Volumnia in shaping his friend’s actions. On the other side, the tribunes Brutus and Sicinius serve as voices of the common people, often influencing the voices they represent in order to excite them against Martius. After being banished, Martius joins with the Volsces, Rome’s enemies led by rival Tullus Aufidius, to attack his home city. Volumnia persuades Martius to discontinue the campaign, and the Volsces kill him in retaliation for his betrayal. Three film and stage adaptations will be included in the discussion. The earliest of the three productions was released in 1984 with Alan Howard in the title role. The film was part of a larger project funded by the BBC to adapt all of Shakespeare’s plays to film. In 2011, Ralph Fiennes directed and starred in a cinematic adaptation of Coriolanus that differs from its counterparts with a gritty, modern setting. Lastly, the 2014 National Theatre Live production at the Donmar Warehouse cast Tom Hiddleston as the Roman general who would “not flatter Neptune for his trident / Or Jove for’s power to thunder” (III.i.258-260). It should also be noted that the 2014 production is a recording of a stage performance. While these are traditionally not categorized as films, it possesses cinematic attributes due to it also being intended for film audiences and incorporating fairly ambitious camerawork, especially in comparison to the minimalist 1984 adaptation. Because the bulk of the analysis in this paper will be centered on voice in Coriolanus, it is first necessary to understand how Shakespeare uses verbal expression to establish character. In Shakespeare’s plays, a character is developed primarily through what he or she says, the voice. To get the full measure of a character, one must synthesize what may be referred to as the outer and inner voices. The outer voice is typically diegetic, meaning that it Heskin 3 is part of the world of the story. Dialogue between characters exemplifies the outer voice, and it establishes a character as he or she is known to other characters within a play. In contrast, the inner voice is often non-diegetic and expressed through techniques such as the soliloquy, aside, and letter. The information conveyed through these methods is typically known only to the audience and not other characters, in a sense creating a dialogue between speaker and audience. Shakespeare excels in shaping characters whose outer and inner voices differ from one another. His skill in constructing that disparity enables the audience’s ability to recognize the gap between public and private expression – dramatic irony – which serves to highlight the audience’s privileged perspective in the narrative and, arguably, invest them in caring about the character. In addressing the soliloquy specifically, it is one of the most direct ways by which an audience gains insight into a character’s psychology. Hamlet’s indecision, Lear’s defiance, and Richard III’s gleeful malice are all revealed to us, undiluted, through this inner voice, whereas these qualities may be less evident or actively concealed in the character’s interactions with others. Due to its nature as an internal monologue, the privacy of the soliloquy is granted a higher level of truth in terms of conveying how a character is thinking and feeling, especially in comparison to the diegetic or outer voice. Whether the stage is literal or metaphoric, the act of introspection depends intrinsically on the self. Generally as a result, private expression is privileged over public expression since the latter also depends on others. The soliloquy in addition to the aside and letter are methods Shakespeare favors for establishing the inner voice, and scholars have noted that Coriolanus rarely utilizes them (Clayton 149), leading to an underestimation of Martius’ dimension as a protagonist (Bloom 577). Martius can hardly be called introspective in a traditional manner, yet one of his defining features is his unflattering honesty that implies his inner and outer voices are equally Heskin 4 authentic and indistinguishable. Essentially, if the outer and inner voices were represented by a Venn diagram, Martius would think of himself as a circle. He seems to have little need for such techniques since “His heart’s his mouth. What his breast forges, that his tongue must vent” (III.i.259-260). For Martius, the integrity of the self is only possible if the outward expression reflects the inward, and the inner voice is only valid if it is expressed outwardly. To act otherwise is, in his words, to “surcease to honour mine own truth, / And by my body’s action teach my mind / A most inherent baseness” (III.ii.123-125). The validation of the inward self through outward expression is all the more evident in Martius’ speech to the Roman soldiers before Corioles where he makes the following challenge: If any such be here— As it were sin to doubt—that love this painting Wherein you see me smeared; if any fear Lesser his person than an ill report; If any think brave death outweighs bad life, And that his country’s dearer than himself, Let him alone, or so many so minded, Wave thus to express his disposition, And follow Martius. (I.vii.68-76) The rallying cry is soon followed with “If these shows be not outward, which of you / But is four Volsces?” (I.vii.78-79) In saying so, Martius implies that to deny confirmation of one’s own nature is to deny its existence entirely to the point that it may as well be mistaken for its opposite. Such an expectation for “language to be immediately denotative” is established in the character’s introduction (Parker 83). The very first lines delivered by this “chief enemy to the people” are contemptuous of their voices since “with every minute you do change a mind, / And call him noble that was now your hate, / Him vile that was your garland” (I.i.7-8, 179-181). Martius’ disdain for the Roman citizens partly stems from what he perceives as the mercurial, and therefore disingenuous, nature of the people. Later, Cominius threatens punishment for a messenger whose outdated news of a Roman retreat is belied by Martius Heskin 5 himself coming to Cominius’ aid, but Martius defends the messenger by saying, “Let him alone. / He did inform the truth” (I.vii.42-43). Martius rarely misses an opportunity to make his feelings known since active affirmation is necessary to maintain authenticity, and failure to do so invites scorn. Considering how ardently Martius subscribes to a policy of uncompromising honesty and truthfulness to self, in a sense, this “most absolute sir” can be initially interpreted as being one big soliloquy (IV.v.137). After all, a soliloquy’s purpose involves the revealing of a character’s true thoughts and feelings, and Martius makes a point of laying these bare despite the consequences and the efforts made by his friends to quiet him.1 Yet, like any affirmation implied in Coriolanus, the idea quickly tempers itself through contradiction. The strength or “thunder-like percussion” of Martius’ voice is undermined throughout the play, which becomes apparent by the language used to describe him, the language he uses in response, the machinations of others to convince him to act against what Martius perceives as his nature, and in the techniques such as the soliloquy, aside, and letter (I.v.32).

Load more