In many of his portrayals of the parent-child relationship Shakespeare explores the extent She trusts that his discomfort at seeing her humiliated before him will be The relation between Volumnia and Coriolanus raises the question of how. Everything you ever wanted to know about Volumnia in Coriolanus, written by masters of this stuff just for you. Coriolanus to be one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies, as T.S. Eliot puts it Coriolanus Volumnia, as a strong and ambitious woman figure is after victory and success. She is . Trust to't, thou shalt not – on thy mother's womb In conclusion, Coriolanus has been exposed to a dysfunctional relationship with his mother.
Would you have me False to my nature? Rather say I play The man I am. Though faced against one another numerous times in battle, Marcius and Aufidius share a greater similarity with one another, than with their own respective populaces. This likeness between the two men, even leads to the materialization of an erotic disposition: More dances my rapt heart Than when I first my wedded mistress saw 4.
The amatory language provides a Klick 5 heightened sense of brotherhood between the two men. What have you done?
Behold, the heavens do ope, The gods look down, and this unnatural scene They laugh at. O my mother, mother! You have won a happy victory to Rome 5. He acknowledges the paradoxical nature of his situation, but finally resolves to peacefully end his vindictive campaign against Rome.
This undeniable debt to Volumnia is conceivably the only force strong enough to pull Marcius from his exultant life with the Volsci, having already turned down the begging of his friend and Roman Senator Menenius with little emotion. The Volscian general mercifully gave him refuge in his exile, provided him with an army to lead, and extended his love to Marcius, only to be turned down on the brink of victory.
Jealousy arises upon Aufidius, and he becomes blind to the love and trust he once held for Marcius. The revenge is enacted, yet a woeful Aufidius cannot help but pay respect to his ally, enemy, and brother: Beat thou the drum, that it speak mournfully: Trail your steel pikes.
- Post your comment
Caius Marcius and Tullus Aufidius, forever adjoined through combat, present an entertaining narrative as the conclusion leaves one man slain, and the other repentant, even ashamed. Initially united by a loathing for Rome and passion for combat, Marcius and Aufidius provide insight into the potent nature of war. The trust, even love that stems from warfare captivates the souls of the two generals and they are never more content than at the side of the other.
King Lear is likewise unsuccessful in his attempts to exert controlling authority over his daughters and to command their love and care for him in his old age William [ 5 ]. Constance of King John is relentless in her ambition to have her son Arthur crowned king and her single-minded push for his coronation puts in motion events that lead to his death William [ 6 ].
But Hal is all rebellion — at least until it really counts. Though these are all fascinating explorations of parental authority and vicarious ambition, we have chosen here to focus on two contrasting portrayals of the parent-child relationship. Coriolanus and The Merchant of Venice depict distinct, and indeed polarized, failuresof the tiger-mother model. With Jessica the model also fails but in the opposite way.
Thy Valiantness was Mine: First Citizen I say unto you, what he hath done famously, he did it to that end: We are thus aware even before we meet Coriolanus that he is in the thrall of a Tiger-mother. The ensuing scenes reveal a textbook relationship between seemingly successful Tiger-mother and her ultraaccomplished child.
He holds himself to superhuman standards of excellence and she is the push and motivation behind his success. No pain, no gain As a Tiger-mother, Volumnia takes pride, and even pleasure, in the pain and suffering her son endures to achieve military victories for Rome.
Volumnia thrills with pride when she learns that her son has been victorious against the Volsces and has singlehandedly taken the city of Corioli.
And in answer to the question of where her son has been wounded, Volumnia, mindful of the instrumental value of the wounds in promoting his career, enthusiastically replies: The image of the child silently struggling against the demand to practice beyond her own endurance, the teeth marks as evidence of an inward-turning rebellion of a child pushed past her capacity elicits powerful pathos in the reader.
Likewise, Volumnia sees her presumption of invincibility as empowering for her son. By sending him into danger as a young child she signals to her son early on her belief that he is capable of triumphing over extreme adversity.
Nothing is ever enough. Each success, though imperative prior to its attainment, is discounted as soon as it is won and upon attainment is immediately reread as a call to higher glory. Of course, Chua sets her sights on the main hall for her daughter. To see inherited my very wishes And the buildings of my fancy: For her, there is always more that can be done.
And Shakespeare masterfully shows how that maternal insatiability creates the most potentially destructive tensions between the Tiger-mother and her super-kid. It is here that Coriolanus first attempts to assert his will in opposition to Volumnia as he replies: Know, good mother, I had rather be their servant in my way, Than sway with them in theirs [ 10 - 13 ]. For the most part, we dismiss the argument as mere political opportunism on the part of the tribunes.
Coriolanus does not even want to be consul let alone a tyrant.
In Defense of Volumnia's Mothering in Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Coriolanus
As a true Tiger-mother Volumnia believes that she has exclusive access to decisions about what is good for her son. As Chua puts it: The senate readily agrees to his appointment, but the people must ratify the decision. Though they initially vote to confirm his office, soon the people renege on their decision and withdraw their confirmation.
Volumnia demands that he return again to humble himself to the people and win their support William [ 15 ].
He is shocked that his mother would want him to pander to the masses. Coriolanus is stunned by the betrayal. But for Volumnia the game of ridiculing the lower classes stops when winning their support is necessary for advancement.
Coriolanus is very aware of the threat that obeying or giving in to his mother poses to his best interests as he sees them. But Volumnia does not believe either that he is right or even that his estimation of his best interests matters.
She is supremely confident that seeking what is best for him does not entail respecting or supporting his autonomy. His autonomy, his right to be wrong or his right simply to decide on his own has no independent value for her.
In both cases the mother is blindly relentless against all reason, and prevails. For Chua the victory seems to validate the madness of her insistence. Volumnia blames her son and not herself for the failure.
But both mothers skirt the question of whether it was right to stop at nothing to impose their version of the good on their child.
Volumnia does not rest her claim to authoritysolely on this sense of superior knowing. She goes on to buttress this argument for her authority with an argument of indebtedness. Again we see the same sentiment articulated by Chua: Yet rather than divesting the mother of her own strength, the transfer allows her to retain control over the child.
She feeds him and in turn has her desires fed by the glory that his actions produce. Volumnia sustains the rhetoric of reciprocity through out the play, relentlessly grounding her claim to authority over him in the logic of debt. Coriolanus, internalizing this view of his indebtedness to his mother, relents again agreeing to return to the people against his own desire William [ 16 ].
Shakespeare's Coriolanus: An insight into Homo-Social Relationships | Jacques Klick - kd8mq.info
Chide me no more [ 10 - 13 ]. Vicariousness final attribute of the Tiger-mother that Chua andVolumnia share is that they live vicariously through their children.
This aspect of Tiger-mothering is one that Chua vehemently denies. My main evidence is that so much of what I do with Sophia and Lulu is miserable, exhausting and not remotely fun for me [ 1 ]. That a Tiger-mother is willing to endure hardship to make her child perform is no proof that the performance is not primarily for the mother. Shakespeare points to our anxiety around this vicariousnessin a speech by the patrician Menenius. The mother sacrifices her child on the altar of her own vicarious pleasure.
The play depicts the extremes of vicariousness in the parent-child relationship. Democracy and Self-rule In Coriolanus Shakespeare depicts one pathological outcome of the tiger-mother model. What we see most graphically in the play is the tiger-mother producing an adult child who is incapable of selfrule.
He believes himself to be guiltily indebted to her not just for life, but for the impetus to all his achievements. Her aspirations for him trump his own desires. He cannot value his own personal preferences his own estimation of what he should have and do with the same commitment as he values her external preferences for him. This valuation of her desires over his own is what compels Coriolanus always to continue to extend his consent to her authority over him.
After Coriolanus is banished by the people for yet another failed attempt to gain their favour, he leaves the city and joins with his former archenemy the general of the Volsces, TullusAufidius [ 10 - 13 ]. The two plan an attack on Rome together.
But when they arrive to carry out their plan, Coriolanus again faces his mother. She begins by reminding him of what he knows has always been her greatest desire — that he should be extolled in reputation in Rome. Thus he is weakened in his resolve by her argument: Further, in trying to persuade him not to go against Rome she kneels to him — with no softer cushion than the flint, I kneel before thee; and unproperly Show duty, as mistaken all this while Between the child and parent [ 10 - 13 ].
She shames him by humbling herself to him making him feel the unnatural reversal of the hierarchy between mother and child. She trusts that his discomfort at seeing her humiliated before him will be intolerable to him; that he will be compelled to end her debasement by acceding to her demands.
The tactic is dependent upon his internalisation of her claim that he is bound to elevate and obey her. She strikes a posture of self-humiliation only as another means of dominating him [ 10 - 13 ]. As William Hazlitt wrote: The arguments for and against aristocracy or democracy, on the privileges of the few and the claims of the many, on liberty and slavery, power and the abuse of it, peace and war, are here very ably handled, with the spirit of a poet and the acuteness of a philosopher.
The relation between Volumnia and Coriolanus raises the question of how authority structures within the family are replicated in the political sphere.
However, looked at from another angle it is Coriolanus himself who demonstrates the inability of people habituated to authoritarian control to break free from domination and effectively exercise the kind of responsible free will necessary to a functioning democracy. Thus within the character of Coriolanus we see a mirror of the critique of democracy contained in the play.1953, "Coriolanus" full audio recording
In so far as the play is critical of democracy it is the fickleness of the people, their propensity to change their minds and their vulnerability to being manipulated by others that mars democratic rule and makes it seem short sighted and ineffective. When Coriolanus discovers that the people have reneged on their earlier decision to elect him consul he storms: Later we see a caricature of the people as children fluctuating between opposite political opinions depending on the immediate stimulus.
When they hear that Coriolanus is returning from exile to go against Rome they attempt to disclaim responsibility for their actions: The line suggests a lack of comprehension of the very idea of consent and seems to denote an oxymoron.
Consent, as an expression of the will, cannot be against the will. However, though the line elicits contempt for the plebeians its seemingly empty conceptual distinction actually describes perfectly the failure of autonomy to which Coriolanus himself is subject. He is manipulated by her demands and aspirations to forsake his own desires and substitute her wishes for his independent agency. He consents, yet it is against his will.