GB&F: Coriolanus Response

2.
Although the ruling class in Rome seems to be of privileged birth they do not seem to fit in with Jefferson’s view of the pseudo aristocracy. In fact I would say that they fit more into the category of Aristotle’s Magnanimous. Key among the examples of this is their feeling that they don’t necessarily need to acknowledge the opinions of those beneath them. This is a clear violation of Jefferson’s belief that all people are equal.
Another example of how the ruling class doesn’t fit in with the pseudo aristocracy is that Coriolanus as well as several other characters such as Menanius and Cominus have some obvious talent at leading. This talent is in conflict with Jefferson’s idea that the pseudo aristocracy only rule through their wealth and not through any virtue or talent. Although Coriolanus is often arguing with both Cominus and Menanius they all seem to have valid ways of dealing with whatever the discussed problem is.
Overall this story seems to point out several flaws with Jefferson’s ideas.

Q5
Scene 4 where Volumnia is asking whether it’s is part of the noble man to remember the wrongs shows flaws and teachings of Aristotle’s Magnanimous person. The first thing Coriolanus does that follow the magnanimous individual is that he ignores Volumnia’s request instantly because it is a trivial thing to begin with given his knowledge and is being neutral to the matter. He follows this idea further when his mother tells him of her request and he responds against it even though it’s coming from his own mother and not biasing toward one side. However he is also going against the magnanimous person because he is a little vain in his rule and thinks he is better than he really is and causes conspirators to assassinate him. He is also swayed at the end, and changes his view which he should have been more neutral on.

Coriolanus portrayed himself as a brave, honorable, and fearless general. Even though he proved himself of these characteristics through his victory against the Volscians and the giving of recognition to those who fought in battle, we see many instances to which Coriolanus proved himself to be arrogant, pigheaded, and immature. Brutus and Sicinius foresaw this, as they believed he was an overly proud enemy to the common people. They feared that Coriolanus would only be elected for consul due his victories. Citizens even discussed Coriolanus’s candidacy, saying that if he were to show his battle wounds and scares, they would make him consul. The plebeians even realized his arrogance, hoping to retract their approval and deny Coriolanus the consulship.

After Coriolanus found out that the plebeians rallied together to deny their vote, he accused Brutis and Sicinius of plotting the common people against him. He then went on to disparage the commoners, he stated that the downfall of the senate will occur if the commoners were given positions as tribunes. He then refused to beg for the people’s pardon, and continued to denounce the plebeians and patricians for ever agreeing to allow them to share in Rome’s governance. After the tribunes accused Coriolanus of treason, Coriolanus fled after the plebeians and tribunes formed a mob against him. After these events, Coriolanus still had no intention of changing his character for the approval of the mob. And once again, Sicinius accused him of planning to tyrannize the Roman state, which caused Coriolanus to become furious, resulting in a launch of tirade against the tribunes and plebeians.

After being banished from Rome forever, Coriolanus turned against the Romans and went to the city of Antium to offer his friendship to Aufidius in support the Volscians. He wanted to become one of Rome’s greatest enemies. After the Romans found that Coriolanus joined the enemy side, they realized that they brought on their own destruction, Rome’s destruction. Coriolanus’ very presence in Rome produced conflict and destruction towards the city. Not only did he offend the common people (those who vote for his consul) but he also offended the Senate as well, for allowing the plebeians to participate as tribunes. He also refused to apologize and continued even more to denounce the people. He gave rise to mobs and launched a tirade against the people. And even after being exiled from Rome, he joined the greatest enemy of Rome, the Volscians, which in turn eliminated peace and caused warfare and struggle. I believe that death is the only physic. Although the Romans suggested execution, they agreed to exile him from Rome. This proved to be unsuccessful as Coriolanus later joined enemy lines which in turn caused more destruction towards the people of Rome. He definitely proves to be a person of persistence.

The situation Volumnia and Thetis found themselves in and their reactions to it are certainly very similar. Both are asking a powerful man to change his course in favor of their own. In the end, Volumnia does succeed in stopping Coriolanus and changing his mind, just like Thetis got Zeus to shift his support. From Aristotle’s view, though, there is an important difference in Volumnia and Thetis’ approach to their task. Thetis is, by Aristotle’s standard, the magnanimous person. Despite the fact that she had once done Zeus a great service which she could have used to call on a favor from Zeus, she knew that Zeus would not want to be reminded that he had been helped. Appropriately, when Thetis went to ask for a favor she acted like a suppliant. Volumnia, on the other hand, worked to guilt Coriolanus into stopping, condemning him for attacking the city that made him and comparing it to attacking his own mother who gave him life. Aristotle would likely not approve of Volumnia’s reminders and attempt to guilt Coriolanus.

Though Coriolanus is often doggedly stubborn in doing what he believes to be right, when faced with the threat of senselessly destroying a city or killing his family, he relents. That his mother’s description of this stops him proves that Coriolanus is not simply a one-track minded person bent on revenge. Volumnia’s appeal to Coriolanus’ honor seems to work well as well. Of the several things she mentions one of her descriptions of honor – that an honorable man forgets that he has been wronged – is very related to the magnanimous man. The fact that Coriolanus listens to her proves both his humanity and nobility.

Had Tocqueville seen this play it would most surely have agreed with his views on equality and ambition. At the end of one of the readings Coriolanus says "Most sweet voices! Better it is to die, better to starve, Than crave the hire which first we do deserve." He says that people should want what they deserve, be more ambitious and that their voices amount to the will of many people, which is very similar to what Tocqueville said in his last writing, that democracy was anti ambition and a revolution is the best way to stir that ambition up.