A C T A U N I V E R S I T Ä T I S L O D Z I E N S I S
F O LIA LITTER A RI A 36, 1994
K rystyna K ujaw ińska-Courtney S H A K E S P E A R E ’S C O R IO L A N U S
- A S U R V E Y O F G E N R E -C O N C E P T S T U D IE S
T he critical theory o f genres “ is stuck precisely w here A ristotle left i t” 1, since th o u g h a great deal has been w ritten on genre and on the allied topics o f form and structure, the genre-concept is still a nebulous literary phenom eno n. Every literary w ork, w hatever its sim ilarities to o the r w orks, is sui generis, b u t the com plexity and the uniqueness o f each w o rk ca n n o t be separated from the generality and the sim plicity o f the gcnre-classification. Ellis S chw artz po ints out:
The genre-concept enables us to classify a work, to understand the general relation between its form and effect, and even to com prehend more fully, its individuality. Yet the genre-concept can never adequately describe any particular play or poem. It can never provide the perception and insight o f a trained literary intelligence. It can, however, provide one o f the conditions necessary for that intelligence to operate efficiently and accurately2.
Indeed, the individuality o f any w ork is m ost m eaningfully established by diffe ren tiatio n, no t by isolation. F o r exam ple th e distinctive qu ality o f a tragedy can be better appreciated by com paring it w ith o th er tragedies, instead o f trea tin g it as if it existed in a literary vacuum . G en re-study does n o t, how ever, assum e th a t there are fixed and finalized categories un der w hich every play o r poem can be assigned.
S trangely enough, there is no agreed equivalent for the genre-concept in E nglish critical vocabulary: “ k in d ” , “ ty pe” , “ fo rm ” and “ g enre” are variously applied. T o avoid confusion it is ad eq uate to begin by accepting
1 N. F r y e , The A natom y o f Criticism, Princeton 1957, N J, p. 13. 2 E. S c h w a r t z , The Forms o f Feeling, New Y ork 1972, p. 74.
one satisfactory definition - the definition offered by R ene W cllek and A u stin W arre n, w ho fo rm u lated th eir distin ction on th e “ o th e r ” and “ in n er” form :
G enre should be conceived [...] as a grouping of literary w orks based theoretically, upon both outer form (specific metre, or structure), and also upon inner form (attitude, tone, purpose-more crudely, subject and audience). The ostensible basis may be one or the other (e.g. “p astoral” and “ satire” for inner form, dipodic verse and Pindaric Ode for the outer) but the critical problem will then be to find the other dimension, to complete the diagram 3.
W ellek an d W arre n ’s definition provokes questions: D oes a theory o f literary kinds involve the supposition th a t every w ork belongs to a kind? H ow fa r is “ intention ” involved in the idea o f genre? H ow fa r is intention involved on the p art o f a pioneer? on the p art o f others?
D o genres remain fixed? Presumably not. With the addition o f new w orks our category shifts [...]. Indeed, one characteristic kind o f critical performance seems the discovery, and the dissemination of a new grouping, a new generic p atter4.
G enerally speaking, the genre-concept, or the problem o f classification o f a w ork o f art, should tak e into consideration the crucial issues - the intention o f the au th o r, and th e response o f the reader. But w hereas it is possible and profitab le to speculate on the in tentions of, say, M ilto n in Paradise L ost or D ryden in A bsalom and A ch itophel5, it is by no m eans possible to state w ith any degree o f certainty S hakespeare’s inten tio n in w riting Troilus and Cressida o r M easure f o r M easure o r Coriolanus. T he response o f th e re ad er in the study, or o f the sp ectato r in the th eatre varies6. E ach critic responds to S hakespeare’s play in his/h er own way, and u p o n this personal response depends his/her final evaluation o f the play. T he richer the play, the m ore com plex the response and the m ore com plicated the in terp re tatio n .
O ne o f the fascinating things ab ou t S hakespearean criticism - especially o f the present century - is the diversity o f the response to his w orks; the issue o f classification has been one o f the chief concerns. C ontroversy still rages aro und his “ P roblem P lays” 7. C an there be a rigid d istinction between “ H isto ry ” and “T ragedy”? I f so, w hat would be the status one accords to his “R o m an Plays” ?
3 R. W e l l e k , A. W a r r e n , Theory o f Literature, London 1954, p. 241. 4 Ibid., p. 234.
5 See the entries in The O xford Companion to English Literature, ed. M. D rabble, O xford 1985, p. 2, 736.
6 F o r the theoretical foundation o f reader-response criticism see: Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism, ed. J. P. Thom pkins, Baltim ore 1988.
1 Vivian Thom as illustrates in his survey of criticism devoted to “ Problem Plays” th at this term has been applied to a great variety o f Shakespeare’s dram atic w orks - in each for a different reason: The M oral Universe o f Shakespeare's Problems Plays Vision, London 1987, p. 1-22.
S uch qu estio ns are especially relevant to Coriolanus. U n p o p u la r thou gh th e play m ay be w ith the general reader, it has received its due sh are o f a tte n tio n from critics8. Som e o f the criticism is quite conv entio nal, based on m o re o r less o th o d ox principles; som e o f it m igh t justifiab ly be described as new - often controversial. G eneric ap pro ac h perm eates m ajo rity o f critical vistas - each opens a different dim ension o f the play: th e tragic, the grotesque, th e heroic, the political, and the satiric.
In a cha rac teristica lly eccentric fashio n, G . B. S haw asserted th a t “ indeed, th e play o f Coriolanus is the greatest o f S hakespeare’s C o m edies” 9. S hak espeare’s F irst F olio E dito rs, how ever, to o k an altog ether differen t view o f th e m a tter. T he Tragedy o f Coriolanus, as Jo h n H cm m ings and H enry C ondell called it, occupies pride o f place in the F irst F o lio , as the first play in the section o f th e Tragedies.
M o d ern critics are by no m eans sure. In excluding the play from S h ak espearean T rag ed y (along w ith the R o m an Plays, and R ichard I I and R ichard III) as “ tragical histories o r historical trage dies” , A . C. B radley explains th a t Shakespeare would have m et criticism o f these plays by “ ap pealing to their h istoric character, and by denying th a t such w orks are to be jud ged by the sta nd a rd o f p ure trag edy ” . W h at B radley finds in Coriolanus, are a good m an y things th at are distatesful. D espite his innate nobility o f ch arac te r, C orio lanu s is an “ im possible” person. H e is too sim ple, and quite ig n oran t o f his ow n n ature: he is a m an “ totally ign oran t o f him self, and stum bling to the destruction either o f his life o r o f his so u l” 10. A s if in answ er to B radley, J o h n D o v er W ilson classifies th e play am on g S h akespe are’s best tragedies. “ Y ou thfuln ess” , think s this critic, accoun ts for m u ch o f the h e r o ’s ch aracter, his self-ignorance and self-deception: “ when a t last the ‘b o y’ falls basely m urdered by traito rs in a foreign lan d, his glory shining all the brigh ter for their perfidy, we shall c on tem p late th a t ‘instan tan eo u s cessation o f en orm ou s energy’ touched n o t only w ith awe, b u t w ith the tenderness o f sorrow and even w ith the pity w hich B radley denies h im ” “ . Irving R ibner is an o th er critic w ho finds the play u p to the s tan d ards o f tragedy. H e describes Coriolanus as a tragedy o f P ride, and
* F or example Theodore Spencer finds the play “ an excellent piece o f dramatic craftsmanship” but adds th at though we adm ire it, we adm ire it in cold blood”, Shakespeare and the Nature o f M an, New Y ork 1943, 198-216. F o r E. K. C h a m b e r s the play is the evidence of “ Shakespeare [...] become tedious” , Shakespeare: A Survey, New York 1925, p. 258. A. R. R о s s i t e r writes: "Coriolanus is the last and greatest o f the Histories. It is Shakespeare’s only great political play; and it is slightly depressing, and hard to come to terms with because it is political tragedy” , Angel with Horns, London 1961, p. 251.
9 Shaw on Shakespeare, ed. E. Wilson, London 1962, p. 215.
10 A. C . B r a d l e y , Shakespeare Tragedy, London 1962, p. 3 and Coriolanus, British A cademy Shakespeare Lecture, London 1912, p. 89-92.
w arns th a t we have to be fully aw are o f the R enaissance significance o f this cardinal sin - “ the m ost terrible o f the M edieval D eadly Sins, the cause o f A d am ’s fall and the debasem ent o f the U niverse and to the R enaissance m oralists, the ultim ate source o f all violation o f degree, civil discorders and calam ities which could befall a com m on w ealth” 12.
W hile agreeing tha t pride is certainly a deep flaw in the h e ro ’s ch aracter, W illard F a rn h am does n o t by any m eans think th at the tragedy is all tha t simple. H e speaks o f an exclusive paradoxical w orld in S hakespeare’s final tragedies - a world o f “ tain ts and h o n o u rs ” . T h e tragic flaw o f C oriolanus is pride, b u t “ the parado x o f C oriolanus is th at in this pride [...] there is n o t only everything bad bu t also everything good by which he com es to be a subject for Shakespearean T ragedy” 13.
K en neth B urke takes an original view o f Coriolanus, beginning w ith the assum ption th a t tragedy “ rcquire[s] som e kind o f symbolic action, in which som e noble form o f victimage is im itated, for the purgation o r edification o f an audience” . Elsewhere in his w ork, B urke com m ents on this aspect o f the trag ic hero as a sacrificial victim. T houg h in con trast w ith the typical sacrificial victims o f G reek tragedy he finds th at C oriolanus ra th e r resembles a ch arac ter in a satyr-play, he does n o t find the to ne of the play as satiric a t all - despite the h ero ’s excesses, m ost of the genuinely “ good ” characters in the play love and adm ire him, and are loyal to him. H ence B urke’s idea th a t “ grotesqu e” w ould be a tru e r description o f the play. H e proceeds in his essay to consider “ C oriolanus’s qualifications as a scapegoat, w hose sym bolic sacrifice is designed to afford and audience p leasure” . T he “ ca th a rtic” function o f the play is given added em phasis and com plexity, by m ak ing family, class and national m otives focus on the inner conflict o f the individual:
[...] the play so sets things up th at Coriolanus maneuvers himself and is maneuvered into a situation whereby this individualistic, mother-motivated, Patrician patriot is all set to attack his own country, which at the beginning o f the play he had defended with signal valour. As Granville-Barker has well said, ‘Play and character become truly tragic only when M artius, to be traitor to Rome, must turn traitor to him self14.
P hilip T h om so n also classifies the play as “ grotesque” . T he n ature o f the G rotesque, w hich according to him , consists of: D isharm ony, the C om ic and the T errifying, E xtravagance and E xaggeration, and A bsurdity, seems to be reflected in the picture th a t C om inius paints o f the hero (IV.vi. 90-96). C oriolanus is at once grand and un n atu ra l, terrible yet absu rd,
12 I. R i b n e r , The Tragedy o f Coriolanus, “English Studies” 1953, N o. 34, p. 1. 13 W. F a r n h a m , Shakespeare's Tragic Frontier, Berkeley 1950, p. 2, 207.
14 K . B u r k e , Coriolanus' and the Delights o f Faction, “ H udson Review” 1966, N o. 19, p. 185 and id ., The Philosophy o f Literary Form, Berkeley 1973, p. 39-40, 198.
com ic yet aw esome; C om inius couches his description in extravagant term s - in a w ord, we deal w ith a “ grotesque traged y” . T h e effects o f th e G rotesqu e, says T h om son , are aggressiveness and A lienation. T en sio n and U nresolvability13.
Y et, to d u b Coriolanus a “ grotesque tragedy” is to oversim plify m atters. T his critical a pproach overlooks the im portan ce o f the political them e; S hakespeare’s cha racte rs are distorted into caricatures, and in general the erro r is com m itted by trying to place an E lizabethan play in a tho roug hly m o d ern context. W hile it is a m easure o f the timelessness o f all great literatu re th at it can be viewed from co ntem porary context, such a view is only one phase o f the play. T he U niversality o f a play ca nn ot be narrow ed dow n. All th a t can be said is th a t there is an elem ent o f the G rotesqu e in Coriolanus.
A no th er relevant and instructive perspective to the genre o f Coriolanus is provided by R euben Brower. A nalyzing the play in the light o f ancient heroism and epic, he arrives at the conclusion th at it is “ the m ost original o f S hakespeare’s heroic d ram a s” . As a key to this m ode, B row er quotes C om iniu s’s encom ium on M artiu s (II,ii, 82-87); “ the core o f this speech is an epic or rath er G rae co-R om an tra d itio n ” . T h e critic continues to give a concise account o f th e R enaissance im age o f the ancient hero, influenced by H om er, Virgil and Seneca - the com plex blend o f which is ideally reflected in th e R enaissance theory o f the H eroic P oem - a theory at once R om an tic and Classical, V irgilian and H om eric, w hich involved a re- -in terp retation o f the ancient im age in the R enaissance term s16.
T he “ heroic im age” is also the key to M atthew N. P roser’s u nd ersta nd ing o f the play. F o r P roser, the tragedy arises out o f the discrepancy betw een this h e ro ’s “ self-im age” and his real nature. C oriolanus and O thello, as soldiers, are placed in situations w ith which their m ilitary tra ining ca nn o t cope. I f C oriolanus is to be tru e to his ow n im age o f him self as the h on ou ra ble soldier, it follows th a t he is never true to w hat lies below th a t im age - his own hu m an natu re. H e tu rns traito r to the people, tra ito r to R om e, tr a ito r to the Volsces, but w hen he turn s tra ito r to him self only to prove tru e to his m o ther, his h ith erto h um anity betrays him to his enemies. A t this stage, w hen he is m ost h um an, his true inner n ature is projected, which proves to be the source o f his own d e stru ctio n 17.
Sim ilarly, E ugene M . W aith sees “ tragic vision” as closely allied to “ heroic vision” . H e draw s the atten tion to the heroic qualities o f C orio lanus - his su perh um an valour, his absolute integrity, his god-like pow er o f
15 P. T h o m s o n , The Grotesque, London 1972, p . 11.
16 Coriolanus, ed. R. B r o w e r , The Complete Signet Class Shakespeare, New Y ork 1972, p. 1319-1320.
destru ction . T hese qualities arc em phatically b roug ht ou t in co ntrast: to the b luff geniality o f M enenius, w ho is ever ready to com prom ise; to the cu nning treachery o f A uftdius, w ho is, like th e T ribu nes, an o pp o rtu nist; an d to th e m an y-v oiced , ev er-shiftin g m u ltitu d e. W a ith even d efend s C oriolanu s on his w eakest point:
It is sometimes thought highly ironic, th at Coriolanus, who prides himself on his constancy, should be guilty o f the supreme inconstancy o f treason to his country. In fact, how ever reprehensible he may be, he is n ot inconstant. Shakespeare m akes it clear that his first allegiance is always to his personal honour.
T herefore, W aith argues th a t it is “ a special variety o f tragic experience [...] we u ndergo in this H eroic T raged y” 18.
N o rth o rp F ry e is also o f the opinion th a t the presence o f the heroic elem ent in a trage d y is w h at m akes the tragic experience p ro fo u n d ly exhilarating. H e thinks th at it m akes no difference to the n ature o f the tragedy, th a t M acb eth o r C oriolanus should be “ go o d” o r “ b a d ” . W ha t m a tters really is th a t b o th o f these characters arc “ heroes” , and arc w orthy o f hav ing traged ies w ritten a b o u t them . F rye classifies C oriolanus as a “T ragedy o f n atu re and fo rtu n e” 19.
In so fa r as it is based on literary tra d itio n , and o n th e h istorical ba ck g ro u nd o f th e classics, this heroic ap proach is essentially a specialized one, and therefore lim ited. But it does provide a valuable perspective on the play, especially in th a t it does n o t seek to deny the tragic q uality o f Coriolanus. Y et, the eno rm o us change in attitud es and appro aches to S h akesp eare an T ra gedy evokes m any q uestion s: H o w d ocs one jud ge a tragedy? O r, w h at is m ore relevant to us? H ow docs one judg e an E lizabethan tragedy in the tw entieth century? W h at are the criteria to be applied? A ristotelian, N ietzschean, H egelian o r B radlcyan? “T rag ed y ” has m ea n t different things to different people thro ug h the ages, and now signifies a com plex art-form , for w hich there can be no simple definition, no fixed criteria” 20.
W ha t is u nique ab o u t the R o m an Plays is S hakespeare’s trea tm en t o f history, w hich gains an ex tra dim ension th ro u g h the p o e t’s tragic vision. T h e plays are p erson al tragedies depicted in a public co n te x t21. T h is
18 E. M . W a i t h , The Herculean Hero, New Y ork 1962, p. 13-14, 134.
15 N. F r y e , The Tragedies o f Nature and Fortune, “Stratford Papers on Shakespeare” 1961, p. 38-51.
20 I. A . R i c h a r d s , Principles o f Literary Criticism, London 1970, p. 247.
21 D . T r a v e r s i says: “The political and the personal elements, which Shakespeare had elsewhere treated w ith varying degrees of emphasis, but which seem always to have been associated in his m aturing thought, are now brought together in a new and distinctly R om an vision, for which Plutarch provided the foundation” ; Shakespeare: The Roman Plays, London 1963, p. 17.
inex trica ble w eaving o f p erso nal m o tives into a b ro a d public con text provokes the question: H ow far are the R om an Plays political? A re they in fact, histories o r tragedies? T his political aspect has been of special interest to several critics, n otab ly in Coriolanus.
W hile grouping Coriolanus with King Lear, M acbeth an d A n ton y and C leopatra u n d er th e title “ G re a t T ra g e d ies ” , L. C . K n ig h ts re m a rk s em phatically th a t Coriolanus is “ the consum m ation o f S h akespeare’s political w isdom ” . H e th inks it a rem arkable featu re o f the play th a t n o distinction can be m ade between history and tragedy:
The fundam ental insight that this play embodies is that political and social forms cannot be separated from, are in fact judged by, the human and moral qualities th at shape them, and the human and moral qualities th at they foster22.
W hile it is undeniably a political crisis which is brew ing in R o m e, one c a n n o t help but see th a t it is the personal disorder o f the hero w hich fans th e flam es. H is personal qualities again, are the direct result o f the social pressures which w ork on him - the P atrician class in general, and his m o th er in partic ular.
A. P. R ossiter, on the o ther h and , feels th at the political them e endangers the trag ic qualities o f the play. W hile believing firm ly th a t the play is ab o u t pow er, ab o u t state, or the sta te” , the critic nevertheless w arns against perversities o f in terpretation - “ passionate political side-tracks” . H e dism isses p artisan appro ach es which m ake o u t the play to be F ascist o r C o m m unist in its leanings. T h e tragic conflict o f the play is n ot in personal, b u t in political life; and th a t aspect o f it w hich catches our m inds first is the conflict between classes23.
F o r a m o re historical ap pro ach, one turns to J. E. P hillips’s b oo k , The State in Shakespeare’s Greek and R om an Plays. H e believes th a t such plays as H enry V, Troilus and Cressida and Coriolanus em body a con cept o f the state - a fu ndam e ntal no tion in S hakespeare’s political ideology. O nly the p ro pe r un derstan d in g o f this basic concept can aid us in solving th e d ra m a tic problem s th a t these plays present. T his docs n o t m ean th a t we locate the political theo ry o f each play and study it in isolation - ra the r, it m eans th a t we study th e dram a tic function in the political concept, an d not its ideological value to Shakespeare. F o r Phillips, Coriolanus is a play ab o u t “ violation o f o rd er and degree” : insofar as it is a tragedy, it is th e tragedy o f a natio n, fo r it dram atizes the disastrous consequences o f violation o f those principles by w hich a healthy political society is m aintain ed . O n the one h an d, the P lebeians w ith their politically am bitious T ribu nes constitute
22 L. C. K n i g h t s , "King L ear" and the Great Tragedy: The Age o f Shakespeare, H arm ondsw orth 1955, p. 249.
a m enace to th e political and social stability o f the state. O n the oth e r h a n d , C o rio la n u s as a p o ten tial ruler, neglects the resp onsibilities o f a governor o r ruling head. O n bo th accounts, orde r is destroyed and R om e is b ro u gh t to the verge o f destruction. Civil w ar and foreign invasion follow. T his is, in fact, “ the principal political lesson” conveyed by the play21.
T h inkin g on sim ilar lines, N orm an R ab kin adm ires the play for its “ great double-vision o f the w orld and m a n ’s place in it” . In the situation th a t S hakespeare has chosen to dram atize is im plicit a question which is as relevant to o u r present society as to th e R om an R epublic. M a rtiu s’s choice in the play is th at o f absolute allegiance to his ideals. W h ether this is right or w rong, the consequences arc disastrous. T he end o f his political career, his banishm ent from R om e, his alliance w ith the Volsces, and his final decision to spare R om e - these events are as m uch his choice as they are his o p p on en ts25.
A n o th er critic faced w ith the sam e am biguity betw een “ political” and “ tragic” is D avid H ale. H e denies th at the F able o f the Belly is crucial to the play’s them e - it is to o sim ple an analogy with which to co m prehand the com plex political situation depicted in the play. F o r him, S hakespeare strikes here a balance betw een personal and political issues, w ith the em phasis changing from tim e to tim e26.
Several attem p ts have also been m ade to interpret th e play in term s o f Jacob ean politics and R enaissance political thinking. T h ere is a com prehensive
ac co un t o f c o n tem p o ra ry political bac k grou n d in respectvely: G o rd o n Z eeveld’s and C lifford D avid so ns’s articles27. Studying the political aspect o f S hakespeare’s plays, creates tw o problem s. O n the one hand , we should avoid the erro r o f extrem e m odernism in in terpre tatio n; and o n the o th er hand we should n o t com m it th e m istak e of supposing th a t S hakespeare’s plays are so m any d ram a tic expositions o f conventional E lizabethan beliefs. L ike all great literature, the plays deal w ith the vital issues o f life. P olitics is one such vital issue, and Shakespeare exam ines it in the context o f his plays. It is m isleading to ascribe any one ch a rac te r’s o pinions to S hakespeare him self. N o r can we suppose th a t S hakespeare was seriously concerned over th e rival m erits o f D em o cracy a nd M o n arc hy a t th e tim e o f w ritin g
24 J. E. P h i l l i p s , The State in Shakespeare's Greek and Roman Plays, New Y ork 1940, p. 169.
25 N . R a b k i n , Coriolanus - The Tragedy o f Politics, “Shakespeare Q uarterly” 1966, N o. 77, p. 195-212; qu otation p. 196.
24 D . H a l e , Coriolanus - The Death o f a Political Metaphor, “ Shakespeare Q uarterly” 1977, N o. 22, p. 197-202.
27 G . Z e e v e l d , "Coriolanus" and Jacobean Politics, M L R 1962, N o. 67, p. 321-334: C. D a v i d s o n , "Coriolanus" - A Study in Political Dislocation, “ Shakespeare Studies” 1968, N o. 4, p. 263-274.
Coriolanus. It so happened th a t the m aterial o f the play raised certain questions o f politics, and Shakespeare d ealt with these questions w ith th a t “ w onderfully philosophic im partiality ” th a t C oleridge adm ired so m uch.
T here is “ political m eanin g” in any S hakespearean play only to the extent th a t we respond to it. T h e weight we give to this political m eanin g depends entirely o n o u r in terp retation o f the play. G re at acto rs from K em ble to O livier have played th e titu a la r role in such a m a n n er as to im press up perm o st in the audience’s m ind the personal tragedy o f th e hero a nd his m o th er, while th e political them e is only given a sec on dary em phasis28. B ut it is there form ing p a rt o f the intellectual co n tent o f the tragedy and any interpretation which fails to take this aspcct into consideration c a n n o t be com plete.
In his essay, Coriolanus: T ragedy o r D ebate?” D . J. E n righ t attem pts to see why th e play ca nn ot be un derstood w ithin the conventional criteria o f tragedy. H e draw s atten tion to the fact th at the play is full o f com m ents by o th er cha racters o n the hero - com m ents which often a m o u n t to explicit judgem ents. T h a t there should be such a great deal o f com m en tary m akes E n rig h t question the depth o f th e hero ’s character. T he fact th a t the hero is described heavily from the outside results in his being som ething o f a disap p oin tm en t to us in reality. C oriolanus is used m uch as a “ subject for argum en t am o ng parties w ho are fundam entall in agreem ent on the subject” , so E n rig h t concludes th a t “ the play has certain qualities o f an intellectual d e b ate ” 29.
I. R. B row ning, in his essay, "Coriolanus": B oy o f Tears proceeds to refute E n rig ht’s idea o f th e play30. But B row ning seems to have m isunderstood the p o in t o f th e discussion, for he takes u p a psychological ap p ro ac h to the h e r o ’s ch a racter, while E n righ t discusses style and tone.
T h e dissatisfaction o f m ost critics with the ton e and spirit o f the play provides the startin g p oin t for O scar J. C am pbell to p rop oun d a different theo ry o f the play, and indeed o f S hakespeare’s tragic art. T h e critic suggests th a t the bitterness o f M easure f o r M easure, Troilus and Cressida, Timon o f A thens and Coriolanus m ay have been “ an artistic device, the p ro d u ct o f a satiric im pulse” . T he satiric form o f Coriolanus provided th e d ra m atist an excellent o pp o rtu n ity to illustrate his political teaching. W h a t we face here is n o t the traged y o f the fall o f a great m an destroyed by forces
28 See: G . C. D . O d e l l , Shakespeare From Betterton to Irving, Vol. 2, New Y ork 1966, p. 104, 258 and S. B e a u m a n , The Royal Shakespeare Company: A H istory o f Ten Decades, O xford 1982, p. 233.
29 D . J. E n r i g h t , "Coriolanus" - Tragedy or Debate?, “The A pothecary S hop” 1957, p. 32, 42 (London).
30 I. R. B r o w n i n g , "Coriolanus" - The Boy o f Tears, “Essays in Criticism” 1955, N o. 5, p. 18-31.
beyond his control. It is rath e r a picture o f social and political chaos caused both by subversive forces o f dem ocracy, and by a m an w ho is tcm perem cntally incapable o f being a good ruler: “T h e d ram a th en, is a satiric rep resentation o f a slave o f passion designed to teach an im p o rtan t political lesson” .
As B radley has do ne earlier, C am pbell draw s the atten tion the difference in trea tm en t betw een C oriolanus and the earlier tragic heroes. T he “ tru ly ” tragic heroes are endow ed with several noble traits; o th er characters in the play are full o f praise for them . T hese heroes are given soliloquies which reveal their inn er struggle and win sym pathy. Even at the verge o f tragic catastro p he, they utter po ignant speeches w hich reveal the loftiness o f their characters; and after the death o f the hero, a n encom ium is delivered on his soul. C am pbell points o u t th a t all these concom itants o f “ tru e ” tragedy are absen t in Coriolanus. T he play is full o f derogato ry com m ents on the hero, som e o f them bitterly derisive; he has no im passioned soliloquies to utter, so m u ch so th a t his n atu re seems p o or and shallow ; his m ost m em orable speeches are nothing bu t bitter vitu peration and abuse; the positive qualities he displays are offensive; he is his m o th e r’s puppet, and is so afraid o f her th a t he is rendered absurd, and ro bbed o f tru e tragic g ran deur and awe. It
gives final emphasis to the satiric view o f Coriolanus. His autom atic response to the artfully arranged provocation has at last entrapped him to his death. His end is the direct result of an over-stimulated reflex mechanism. The catastrophe of such an autom ation is not tragic. [...] it awakens amusement seasoned with contem pt31.
C am p bell’s drastic statem ents on the play ca nn ot stand u p to close scrutiny. B ut he m akes his argum ent plausible enough by stating th a t if we arc n o t to accuse S hakespeare o f artistic ineptitude, we m ust see th at he did n o t m ean Coriolanus to be a tragedy at all, bu t a satire.
T his is indeed an u nusual view point. B ut it is by n o m eans w itho ut supporters. N o rm a n B rittin rem arks th a t
[...] certain characters in w orks nominally tragic may have a tendency to cross over into comic territory. There are no t many; but a few of Shakespeare’s later creations have been given such a tem peram ent and p u t in such situations that they show at times, som ething o f the quality o f comic characters. O f these Coriolanus is the outstanding example32.
Interesting enough, B rittin ’s essay is entitled Coriolanus, A lceste and D ram atic Genres. D raw ing atten tio n to the am biguous response to ch aracters like Shylock and M alvolio who are com ic and tragic, he com pares C oriolanus to Alceste, the hero o f M o liere’s com edy, L e M isanthrope. T his sim ilarity,
31 O. J. C a m p b e l l , Shakespeare's Satire, New Y ork 1925, p. vii-ix and 198-199. 32 N . B r i t t i n , Coriolanus, Alceste and Dramatic Genre, PM LA 1956, No. 71, p. 799-809, quotations p. 799.
accordin g to B rittin, lies in their “ egoistic self-absorption” , and egoism is a fau lt for w hich com ic ch aracters are punished. T hey arc bo th rem arkably alike in several o th er respects too - in their rigid incorruptib ility, severe integrity and blun t honesty th at am ou nts to tactlessness. T hese qualities are in them selves quite adm irable. B ut S hakespeare and M oliere pu t their heroes to test in social situations where they prove quite “ im possible” . W hile we g ran t th a t C oriolanus is blunt, outspo ken and h onest, he proves utterly u na d ap ta b le in a public situation, so th a t w hen he finally consents to subm it to a “ cu sto m ” th a t he loathes, he is pu t in the p osition o f a hypocrite.
T h is lack o f a da p ta b ility , this rigid one-sidcdeness on th e p a r t o f C orio lanus, m akes B rittin regard him as a ch arac ter o f excesses - in sh ort, a “h u m o ro u s” m an . T h e political and social situations in w hich he proves to be an utte r failure, invite detached com ic judgem en t, and as such, to B rittin Coriolanus “ fails to give satisfaction as a trage dy ” . T he critic repeats the by now fam iliar com plaint th at the play lacks “ the custom ary c o n -co m itan ts” o f tragedy. C oriolanus him self seems an unsatisfactory tragic hero, for his “ h u m o u r” renders him ab su rd ” .
T ho ugh Campbell and Brittin readily speak of Coriolanus as “T ragic Satire” , such a co m binatio n o f tw o separate literary form s is difficult to define. S atire itself is a distinct artistic genre with num erous m arked characteristics o f its own. F u rth e r, there are difficultie in ad apting it to the theatre. In his bo ok The Cankered M use, a study o f English satire in the R enaissance, A lvin K ernan observes tha t “the different literary m odes are not, finally, interchangeable ways o f m aking the same statem ent, but distinct perspectives th at reveal the w orld on w hich they open from different angles”34. K ernan think s th a t the R enaissance dra m atists, insofar as they w ere satirists, invariably subord inated satire to tragedy o r com edy. T his raised qu ite a few problem s, for
[...] a hero from one genre is always a failure in another: Satan w ould make an excellent tragic hero, but in the epic world of Paradise Lost he becomes both villain and fool; G regers Werle has all the attributes o f the tragic hero, but in the bitterly comic world o f Ibsen’s The W ild Duck, he is only a trouble-m aker“ .
Is C oriolan us then , a m istif as tragic hero? H is “ unlovely” qualities are obvious enough. H e seems to possess every a ttrib u te th at we associate w ith the satirist - a b lun t, straightforw ard honesty, a fearless d eterm ina tio n to tell the tru th , a m astery o f irony, caricatu re and disabling im agery, and the pow er o f fierce invective and vitup eration. O ne recalls N o rth r o p F ry e ’s rem ark th a t “ genius seems to have led practically every great satirist to
33 Ibid.
34 A . K e r n a n , The Cankered Muse, Yale 1959, p. 145. 35 Ibid., p. 253.
becom e w hat the w orld calls obsccnc” 36. Savagery, despair, hate, pride, intransigence - is th a t all there is to this m uch m aligned Shakespearean hero? M aligned he is, as is clear from C am pbell’s rem ark:
Shakespeare naturally avoids arousing sympathy for a man whom he wishes to deride. The m urder of Coriolanus is no t the moving death of a great hero; it is the deserved result o f a supreme exhibition of his folly” .
C am p bell’s ow n detestation for C oriolanus is quite obvious in this p ronouncem ent. B ut S hakespeare’s detestation is quite an o th er m a tter. C am pbell fails to see the b etter p art o f the tragic charac ter - th a t revealed in his relation ship w ith his wife, his family and friends.
K e rn an places his finger o n the essential difference betw een satire and tragedy, in distinguishing the characteristics o f “ the satirist as h ero” who lacks perception: “ every tragic hero has pronounceed satiric tendencies, bu t he also has additional dim ensions; chief am ong them is his ability to pon der and to change under pressure” 38. B ut does C oriolanus undergo a change? W e can see his tragic self-awareness and the sense of im pending doom in A ct V, scene iii (186-190). In the fury and indignation caused by A ufidiu s’s provocative tau n ts in the final scene, C oriolanus, nevertheless, repeats the fam iliar e rro r o f losing his tem per and m ou n thing his anger, so th a t it seems th a t he m eets his end in utter blindness and ignorance.
A pplying the conventions o f satire to the stage-play, K ern an further rem arks th a t the scene o f satire
[...] is always disorderly and crowded, packed to the very point o f bursting. The deformed faces o f depravity, stupidity, greed, venality, ignorance and maliciousness group closely together [...] and stare boldly at us39.
Y et, this w ould be to o harsh a description to apply to Coriolanus. W hile the m o b in its blind fury can be horrifying, there arc m om en ts when we ca n see them as the sim ple and honest individuals. In Coriolanus is depicted a m ixed w orld - no t only are the lurking treachery o f A ufidius, the cunning o p po rtu n ism o f the T ribunes, and the fickleness o f the populace, b ut also the genial good h um o ur o f M enenius, the h on oura ble a u th o rity o f C om inius, and above all, the w arm th, grace and love o f a w om an like Virgilia. I f we are to view the play as a satire, the w hole seems to suffer a distortion. Stressing the satirical elem ent in the public context o f the play, we are only to o ap t to ignore its hu m an context, th e personal relationships which are so deftly interw oven into the political them e. “ It is nonsense to call it a satire” w rites R ossiter, “ yet th ro u g h ou t there are deft touches o f ironical
36 N . F r y e , op. cit., p. 235.
37 O. J. C a m p b e l l , op. cit., p. 216. 38 A. K e r n a n , op. cit., p. 253. 39 Ibid., p. 7.
suggestion th a t strike the iron dem i-good betw een the jo ints o f the harness [...] Shakespeare [...] is aw are o f a potential absurdity40.
T here is an elem ent o f grim irony ab ou t the tragedy, b ut it is extremely d ange rous to speak o f possibly satirical p ortions o f S hakespeare as certainly satirical, especially w hen this leads on to the conclusion th a t Shakespeare detested and derided som e o f his tragic heroes. U ltim ately, it com es dow n to the qu estion o f S hakespeare’s intention - and th at m ust rem ain the final unansw erable.
As the survey o f the criticism m akes clear, the genre-study o f Coriolanus does n o t lead us straig ht to convenient label for the play. W e can n ot definitely call it - “ grotesque T ra ged y ” , “ Political P lay” or “ tragical S atire” . Indeed, it is n o t the ultim ate end o f genre-study to label w orks o f literature in th a t m a n ne r. G en re-stu dy does n o t m erely d eterm ine the form o f a particu la r w ork; it also show s how th a t w ork “ belongs” to a certain genre, and is yet unique - unique in th at it d eparts from the generic norm to a ce rtain degree. T his is especially true o f Coriolanus w hich critics have found difficult to classify within the conventional norm s o f I ragedy or H istory.
E ach generic ap p ro ach , opens up new dim ensions o f the play. Some o f these approaches deal w ith elem ents o f the “ o u te r” form. F o r instance, D . J. E n rig ht’s analysis o f the play as a D ebate, is based on the assum ption th a t the iron, m etallic quality o f the verse o f Coriolanus is utterly different from the poetry o f the o ther tragedies. T his exam ination allow s the critic to arrive at the conclusion th at the play has the qualities o f an intellectual D ebate. O n the o th er hand. C am pbell’s ap proach is m ore concerned w ith the “ inn er” form - the attitu d e and purpose o f the d ra m atist, and the response o f the audience. H e analyzes w hat he thinks is S hakespeare’s in tentio n to w ards the hero, and outlines w hat he imagines the response o f the audience w ould be like.
B ut it is n o t as if each critic m aintains a rigid distinction betw een approaches to the inner and o uter form. T h e tragic app ro ach to the play does n o t deal essentially w ith inner form . A gain and again the critics see th a t the play lacks those “ custom ary con co m itan ts” o f tragedy such as m oving, im passioned poetry, reflective soliloquies, and the supernatural atm osphere - the elem ents considered as typical ó f the o uter form o f a S hakespearean T ragedy. F ro m th a t po in t o f view, even the d eath o f the protag on ist a t the end o f th e play m ay be seen as an essential part o f the structure of a tragedy - th at aspect which in fact clinches the play as a tragedy. Brittin views C oriolanus’s d eath as a definite snag in his app ro ach to the play as a satire.
W ha t do we gain from the bew ildering variety o f the tw entieth century approaches to this play? C riticism has gone to extrem e lengths as fa r as
Coriolanus is concerned. D over W ilson, for example, asserts em phatically th a t the dea th o f C oriolanus raises in the respondent the truly tragic em otions o f pity, awe and fear; on the o ther end o f the scale we have C am pbell w ho is of the firm opinion th a t the final m ovem ent o f the play arouses n othin g b ut disgust and contem pt. O n the m iddle ground arc critics like B row er w ho sees the play as “ heroic” , while B urke perceives in it the elem ents o f the “ G ro tesqu e” . Y et an o th er set o f critics highlights the political them e o f the play, arguing th a t this aspect is as significant as, or perhap s even m ore significant th an, the tragic aspect.
W hat em erges clearly is th at no single ap proach can answ er the problem s th a t the play raises. W e learn once again th a t Coriolanus, as we should no d o u b t learn with each S hakespeare’s play, th at there can be no single key to the in te rp re ta tio n o f S hakespeare. In the ever-shifting cu rren ts o f tw entieth-century criticism , it is no t possible wholly to apprehend any w ork o f art by m eans o f a single appro ach. T he pluralistic ap pro ach has this advantage in th at it strikingly testifies to the richness and com plexity, no t only o f Shakespeare, but also o f m odern critical thought. N orm an R abkin rem arks:
We are lucky to have many avenues. It is not insignificant that each time a new approach is developed. Shakespeare turns out to be the chief exemplar o f the virtues which that approach recognizes for the first time. Like his continual popularity, this fact is testimony to his enduring greatness41.
The British Research and Studies Center University of Łódź
Krystyna Kujawińska-Courtney K O R IO L A N W ILLIAM A SZEK SPIRA
- STU D IU M P O JĘ C IA GATUNKU LITERACKIEG O
A uto rka artykułu przedstawia kontrowersje w okół pojęcia gatunku literackiego na podstawie anglo-amerykańskich prac krytycznych poświęconych Koriolanowi Williama Szekspira, które ukazały się w krytyce literackiej X X w. Przegląd tych prac klasyfikujących Koriolana jak o tragedię, groteskę, sztukę historyczną, polityczną i satyryczną, doprow adza do konkluzji, że tylko poprzez zastosow anie pluralistycznej metody interpretacji m ożna otrzym ać głębsze i wnikliwsze zrozumienie tekstu dramatycznego. Bogactwo i złożoność idei Szekspira sprzyja tej metodzie i zaświadcza o wielkości jego geniuszu.
