Coriolanus' Purposeful Characterization

What is Shakespeare’s larger purpose in his characterization of Coriolanus in Act I?

Through the gradual unraveling of Act I of the play Coriolanus, Shakespeare impeccably exposes multiple facets of the eponymous hero to ultimately attain the larger purpose of shedding light on elemental concepts—genre, context and future conflicts— that construct the very foundation of the play.

To commence, Shakespeare strategically introduces Caius Martius’ character through the lens of the Plebeians, or the lower class citizens of Rome, who express their deep discontent in regards to prevailing grain shortage for the commonalty whilst the Patricians ostensibly are accused to be instrumental in causing the adversity. More specifically, the Plebeians collectively agree on Martius being the “chief enemy to the people.” Which provokes the readers to internally begin construing a character outline of Martius based on the Plebeians’ perspective. Nevertheless, whilst Shakespeare does essentially use the Plebeians’ initial mutinous event to function as an exposition for the play, in doing so Shakespeare not only indirectly characterizes a facet of Roman general Martius but also captures the hierarchical structure of Rome during the period when the play transpired, hence instilling in the audience a better understanding of the contextual significance of the play. Furthermore, the amplified emphasis on the constitutional configuration of Roman society in Act I essentially cements the notion that the play itself leans toward being more of a political play and not a conventional tragedy, as is common in Shakespeare’s notable literary successes.

The introduction of honorable Menenius, whom the Plebeians address as “worthy” and “honest enough,” establishes an immediate contrast between the two characters on the sole basis of how the two are perceived by the commonalty. Hence, Shakespeare effectually constructs Menenius’ character to act as a foil character in order augment the magnitude of the Plebeians’ dissatisfaction with Martius despite the fact that Menenius also is a noble. Thus, the audience is provoked to deduce that the Plebeians’ complaints concerning Martius must be justifiable and must stem from Martius’ unpleasant demeanor.  Moreover, Menenius’ noteworthy body parable in this Act serves the purpose of reiterating and further elucidating upon the societal hierarchy structure as Menenius allegorically refers to the Senate being the “belly” of a body (which would be Rome) as juxtaposed with the “rash” citizens or the “mutinous members,” who, according to Menenius, are unable to appreciate the labour that the Senate undertakes for the benefit of the people.

Despite the fact that the Shakespeare crafts Martius’ initial impression as a character tainted by an overarching negative connotation, the audience is granted a glimpse into an alternative facet of Martius’ character when he is preparing for and engaging in the Battle at Corioles which exemplifies the dichotomy between the two discrete realms within the play— the battlefield and the city state. Accordingly, Martius is characterized in an entirely different light as he is portrayed to be a valiant warrior and revered leader on the battlefield. Diction plays a critical role in establishing the distinction between these two realms and the subsequent distinction as mirrored in Martius’ character. For instance, through declarative statements like “Now put your shields before your hearts, and fight with hearts more proof than shield.” The reader gains an insight into Martius’ zeal as a determined general and the qualities he possesses as a commanding leader, despite being disliked by the commonalty in the Roman city-state.

Shakespeare also strategically curates Act I to obscurely foreshadow future conflicts that propel the plot of the play. Firstly, the key conflict between the people of the city-state and Martius is established through the Plebeians’ aggressive protestations at the onset of Act. Moreover, through the incorporation of the Tribunes, Brutus and Sicinius’ internal hatred for Martius’ character foreshadows how the two characters could potentially be adversaries for Martius later on in the play. Furthermore, In Scene V of the Act, the audience is acquainted with Martius’ old arch nemesis and general of the Volscians, Tullus Aufidius. Despite the fact that Martius emerges victorious at the battle at Corioles, Aufidius’ vengeful character illustration foreshadows another encounter between the Martius and Aufidius, highlighting another outlet for the rise of conflict within the play.  

Thus, Shakespeare effectually crafts Act 1 of the play to unveil a multitude of elements in direct relation to the genre, context, and possible conflicts within the play. Moreover, the effectiveness of the Act itself is embedded in the fact that Shakespeare seamlessly reveals the aforementioned aspects whilst efficaciously introducing and characterizing the flawed tragic hero of the play, Caius Martius.

Language as Resistance

"I imagine them hearing spoken English as the oppressor’s language, yet I imagine them also realizing that this language would need to be possessed, taken, claimed as a space of resistance. I imagine that the moment they realized the oppressor’s language, seized and spoken by the tongues of the colonized, could be a space of bonding was joyous." 

- Bell Hooks 

Text: Liberty for Slaves (1857 speech by Frances Ellen Watkins Harper) 

The contextual delivery of the speech "Liberty for Slaves" can be established in pertinence to the mid 1800s in the United States, whereby the African American community continued to be suppressed and shackled by slavery under the prevalence of the popular white supremacy ideology. Nevertheless, Harper, born as a free black woman, played a crucial role in the movement promoting the emancipation of slaves as she became an eminent abolitionist speaker, invoking members of her own community to believe in the cause and unite as a whole to defy societal confines and spark a revolution. 

One important element to note in Harper's works is her immaculate articulation of the speech in Standard English as opposed to the expected African American Vernacular that was employed by members of the black community in the times. Subsequently, Harper effectually utilizes her eloquence and command over Standard English as a literary weapon to fortify her resistance against white domination, by therefore adopting the primary language of the people and essentially using it against them.

Through a series of remarkably curated phrases like "The law of liberty is the law of God, and is antecedent to all human legislation," and "trails my womanhood in the dust," Harper solidifies the persuasiveness of her powerful argument crafted in the true essence of Standard English. Moreover, the passionate tone underpinning Harper's speech, as unveiled through her carefully manipulated diction and rhetorical devices, propels the target audience to be empowered and therefore take advantage of the linguistic imperialism they encountered as a community.

To convey her argument, Harper also centralizes majority of her argument on the basis of religious outlooks and weaves in biblical references as a means to highlight the irrationality of racial segregation and more specifically the legitimization of one race to reign supreme. Accordingly the efficacy of the argument is further augmented by Harper's elegant form of linguistic expression and complementing rhetorics including vivid evocative imager, appeal to emotions, logical declarations and thought provoking rhetorical questions. 

Thus, Harper's speech "Liberty for Slaves" effectually embodies the notion of resistance that the African American community had "possessed" in a sense the "oppressor's language" and used it as a space or conduit to empower members of the community.