BB: Coriolanus, Act I

(Podcast recorded and edited by Daniel J. Rowe, Show notes by Eric Jean)

For our second play we dive into the Tragedy of Coriolanus.

Listen to the podcast here.

Bard Brawlers: Andre Simoneau, David Wheaton, Stephanie E.M. Coleman, Eric Jean and Daniel J. Rowe

The first act of Coriolanus is a whirlwind of action and conflict. Scene 1 opens on a mob of hungry Roman citizens who have decided to take by force the food which has been denied them by the patricians. Menenius arrives on the scene and manages to talk them down but soon after Caius Martius (Coriolanus) shows up and he and the citizens exchange insults. (A Brawler favourite, from the mouth of Coriolanus: “What’s the matter, you dissentious rogues, / That, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion, /Make yourselves scabs?”) We learn that a neighbouring city has plans to attack Rome. Martius invites the mob to join the army and earn their corn through service to the state. We also learn that another mob, elsewhere in the city, laid down their arms in exchange for the right to elect five representatives of the common people to government, the tribunes, a concession which Martius finds deplorable. The scene closes with the tribunes Sicinius and Brutus talking about Coriolanus’ prideful nature.

Scene 2 quickly jumps to the Volscian camp. Aufidius hears about the impending Roman counter-attack and vows to fight Martius in single combat until one of them kills the other.

Scene 3 is a domestic scene in which we find Volumnia and Virgilia sewing in Martius’ home. Volumnis extols the virtues of her son. She mocks her daughter-in-law for not taking enough pride in her husband’s military service to Rome and for being overly concerned for his safety. Virgilia’s friend Valeria shows up and tells them that Martius and the others are off to war against Aufidius and the Volscians. Volumnia is happy about the news, Virgilia is not.

Scenes 4 through 10 describe the action-packed battle for the city of Corioli. (Some editions write Corioles.)  By the end of scene 4, Martius is cut off from the rest of the army and locked inside the city with Titus lartius and his men. With the help Martius’ individual efforts, the Romans take the city and Martius leaves Lartius behind (in scene 5 and scene 7) to occupy the town while he rushes to Cominius’ aid. A message reaches Cominius in scene 6 which claims that Martius has been killed but Martius then appears on stage covered in blood (most of it’s Volscian blood of course because Martius is such a badass) and he joins Cominius’ forces. In scene 8 Martius and Aufidius finally square off but they are interrupted by Aufidius’ men who interfere in their duel. Scene 9 opens with the retreat of the Volscian forces. For his role in the fighting, Cominius rewards Caius Martius with an extra share of the spoils and with the surname ‘Coriolanus.’ Coriolanus accepts the title but turns down the loot. Finally, Aufidius vows to kill Coriolanus by any means necessary in scene 10.

As Daniel mentioned on the air, part of the challenge of understanding the relationships and the political stakes within the play comes from our lack of familiarity with Roman titles and customs. (This is in addition to Shakespeare’s own occasional misunderstandings.) To help you map out who’s who in Coriolanus, here’s a short list of some of the titles referred to in the play:

  • Consul: This is a rather complicated title, but in the play it stands for the highest political appointment in Rome. Consulships were granted by election of the people of Rome – patricians and citizens had to give their assent.
  • Patrician: The patricians are the nobility and leaders of Rome, thought to be the descendants of the Roman Republic, foudned following the exile of the Tarquin kings who used to occupy Rome.
  • Citizen or plebeians: These, for the purposes of this play anyhow, are the common, free people of Rome.
  • Tribune: An official elected by the plebeians. It is illegal to threaten them with harm and they have the right to pass judgement on individuals on behalf of the common people of Rome.
  • Aediles: They traditionally guarded and maintained public buildings. In Coriolanus they serve primarily as the plebeians’ police force (They  show up later in the play)

This episode from Roman history occurs at the very dawn of the Republic, less than a generation after the last king gets booted out of Rome (We’re told that Coriolanus fought in that war, in fact, as a teenager). This is important because it helps to explain both Coriolanus’ sometimes unsympathetic disregard for the common people but also the people’s fear of Coriolanus’ authority. Also good to keep in mind: at this point in history, Rome has not yet embarked on its conquest of Italy and the city’s fate is still very much uncertain.

To wrap up, here’s a short list of some of the characters appearing in this (wild!) first act of Coriolanus:

  • Menenius Agrippa: An old patrician and friend of Coriolanus who tries to keep the peace and curb the excesses of Coriolanus’ character.
  • Caius MartiusCoriolanus:” A skilled Roman war hero who makes a better soldier than a politician. He dislikes the common people for their inconstancy.
  • Volumnia: Coriolanus’ mother who pushes her son towards fame and political power.
  • Virgilia: Coriolanus’ young wife.
  • Valeria: one of Virgilia’s friends.
  • Cominius and Titus Lartius: Roman generals under whom Coriolanus serves during the attack on Corioli.
  • Junius Brutus and Sicinius Velutus: These are the newly elected tribunes of the people. They have made it their task to oppose Coriolanus’ rise to power which they see as dangerous for the common people of Rome.
  • Tullus Aufidius: The general of the Volscian army and Coriolanus’ chief military rival.

If you’re looking for a good movie adaption of Coriolanus, check out Ralph Fiennes’s recent adaptation. (While Fiennes does a really good Coriolanus, prepare to get blown away by Vanessa Redgrave as Volumnia. Outstanding.)

Anyhow, hope you enjoy listening to Coriolanus as much as we do!

BB: Merchant of Venice, Act IV

A special treat this week: a studio recording of Act IV, scene 1! The recording was done a few months as a pilot for a radio show. Unfortunately, the show was never picked up but why let the recording go to waste? Hope you enjoy it. (Act IV, scene 2 was recorded this week).

Listen to the podcast here.

Download the podcast.

Act IV, scene 1 takes place in the courtrooms of Venice, presided over which presides the Duke, the ultimate authority of the city. However, as Shylock explains, the Duke doesn’t have the power to free Antonio because to suggest that the laws of Venice can be overturned arbitrarily as the ruler wishes robs these laws of all their power. However, though some clever application of Venetian laws, engineered by Portia in disguise, Shylock is beaten at his own game. When Shylock’s life is placed in Antonio’s hands, he chooses not to have Shylock killed but to be ‘merciful’ and spare Shylock’s life. Antonio’s ‘mercy’ leaves half of Shylock’s wealth to Antonio – who is in dire need of cash at this point – with the rest being turned over to Lorenzo, the man who stole away his daughter. However, it also forces Shylock to convert to Christianity.

The Merchant of Venice is, among other things, about justice and judgement. The play opposes two conceptions of justice. The first model goes something like this: what is just is what is in accordance to the law. The second model, however, sounds more like this: perfect law is not perfect justice but tyranny.

Representing the first form of justice is Shylock. Whatever the moral implications of his demand, Shylock is perfectly within his legal rights to claim his pound of flesh. Both Antonio and the duke recognise that this is the case as well, which is what creates the problem for Antonio in the first place. Representing the second form of justice is Antonio, who stands for the principle of law tempered by mercy. (This parallel, incidentally, can also be thought of as sketching out an Old Testament – Jewish – vs. New Testament – Christian – conception of justice.)

In act IV, scene 2 is when Portia and Nerissa manage to make good on their promise and obtain their rings from Bassanio and Gratiano. There’s not much to say about this scene except that it’s brought about at Antonio’s wish, it seems. Antonio tells Bassanio that he should give the clerk the ring: “My Lord Bassanio, let him have the ring: / Let his deservings and my love withal / Be valued against your wife’s commandment” (IV,1). Basically Bassanio decides that Antonio’s value and love trumps Portia’s wish that he keep his ring. Hell of a catch, this Bassanio…

Throughout Act IV, scene 1 several references are made to the Old Testament prophet, Daniel. Daniel represents the figure of the wise judge, able to see through falsehoods and reach a verdict that is truthful. This reputation is largely inspired from the story of Susanna (from the Book of Daniel).

In the biblical story, Susanna is approached by two old judges while she is bathing in the garden. They tell her that unless she agrees to have sex with them, they will instead tell her father that she had sent away her servants in order to have sex with a young man. Susanna refuses to do so and was brought before her people and sentenced to death. Daniel interrupted the judges, however, and suggested that they be interrogated separately about their testimony. Having questioned them about which type of tree the young man slept with Susanna, he caught them in a lie and they were sentenced to death and Susanna was saved.

You can find a version of the story of Susanna, from the apocrypha of the King james bible, here. (I can also highly recommend reading Wallace Steven’s poem “Peter Quince at the Clavier” which makes use of the story of Susanna in a more explicit way. Peter Quince, some of you might remember, is one of the members of Bottom’s acting troupe in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.)

In a sense, what Antonio’s sentence does is rewrite the ending of that story: given the right to exact his vengeance on Shylock for having sought to kill him, Antonio chooses instead to spare Shylock from the tyranny of law. Shylock should die, but instead he lives. This would certainly have resonated with the contemporary English Protestant idea that it is through divine grace alone, through God’s mercy, that we ourselves are spared despite our having transgressed God’s law.

The Brawlers have discussed the nature of Antonio’s ‘mercy’ at length but we haven’t managed to agree about how we feel about that sentencing. Is Antonio really being merciful? Is he being cruel to Shylock in asking him to give up his ‘Talmudic law’ for ‘Christian mercy’? Why not weight in and tell us what you think about the nature of Antonio’s mercy? We’d love to hear from you!

Bard on!

Stay in touch, Brawlers!

Follow @TheBardBrawl on Twitter.

Like our Facebook page.

Email the Bard Brawl at bardbrawl@gmail.com

BB: Merchant of Venice, Act III

Following a hiatus of a few weeks in which Daniel has much improved his French, the brawlers return en force for The Merchant of Venice, act III.

Listen to the podcast here. Download the podcast.

In act III, scene 1 we have what is probably the most famous speech of the play: “Hath not a Jew eyes…” This comes right after Shylock has heard of his daughter’s disappearance with a good sum of Shylock’s money. It seems unclear from the scene whether he’s more upset at the theft than at Jessica’s eloping with Lorenzo but he is intent on revenge against Antonio. One of Shylock’s friends, Tubal, then arrives with news of Jessica’s activities. It’s never clear if these are just rumours or if this is the truth, which is interesting because what Tubal next tells Shylock – that Antonio’s ships have all been lost –  turns out to be false by the end of the play. We’ll see Tubal again, particularly in courthouse scene, when he’ll seem much less interested in fanning the fire of Shylock’s vengeance. (Another excellent line from this scene: “I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.”)

In act III, scene 2 we have our final casket scene, where Bassanio picks the lead casket and wins the hand of Portia. In true Shakespearean comedic style, Gratiano immediately declares his intention to marry Nerissa during Bassanio and Portia’s ceremony. Their happiness is short lived, however, as Bassanio receives a letter that tells him Antonio is going to die at Shylock’s hands for forfeiting the bond. Portia sends Bassanio to Venice with a bunch of money to pay back Shylock and save Antonio. The women give their paramours each a ring as a sign of their new relationships. These rings will become very important in the next two acts.

After a brief scene in which we Shylock basically tells Antonio he’s a dead man (and Antonio seems not to bothered by his impending death), we see Portia and Nerissa slip away from Belmont. They plan to dress up as boys and make their way to Venice to see what their husbands are up to. Portia is clearly intending to take an active role in the events to come, however, as she sends some letters for legal counsel to a cousin of hers in Padua. (Not sure how she knows she’ll need the help.)

The last scene is a strange (funny? disconcerting?) scene involving Lancelot, Jessica and Lorenzo on the subject Jessica’s conversion. With Bassanio and Portia gone, Lorenzo and Jessica take their place as interim rulers of Belmont and some of the potential cracks in their relationship start to be hinted at.

I wrote in the last post about the source of the three caskets love test in The Merchant of Venice. I mentioned it in general terms, but there are a few interesting differences between the source and its treatment in Shakespeare’s play. In the Gesta Romanorum the lottery is designed to test the virtue of a woman who wishes to marry the king’s son. In The Merchant of Venice, it is the men who are being tested: by the caskets but also – as we’ll see in the following acts – by their wives. If the casket test is a sort of moral test (as it is in the original text), it raises the question of what do we discover about Bassanio’s character? Or about Portia’s? If we look closely at song in act three, scene one, there is a conspicuous rhyming scheme that seems to suggests that Bassanio might have been tipped off…

The principal source for The Merchant of Venice, however, is the tale of “The Merchant of Venice” from Ser Fiorentino’s 14th century collection of stories, Il Pecorone (The simpleton, loosely). Most of the main story elements are found in the original, with some differences. For instance, the Bassanio character needs to win the Portia character by spending the night with her without falling asleep. He’s eventually helped out by the Nerissa character who tells him not to drink the drugged wine. A night of crazy sex ensues and he wins the girl and the kingdom, saving his merchant benefactor in the process. Added bonus, the merchant gets to shack up with ‘Nerissa.’ (As the merchant in this version is also ‘Bassanio’s’ uncle, this is slightly creepy.) The main difference though is Shylock. The Jewish merchant in the original seems to have no personal reason for wanting to harm the merchant, his hatred is stereotypical. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare goes to great lengths to humanize Shylock. The story provides him with ample reasons for despising Antonio: Antonio prevented Shylock from collecting interest on loans by bailing out his friends who were late with their payments, he regularly spits on him (and promises to keep doing so) and he was accessory to his daughter’s elopement. Further, Shakespeare gives Shylock some of the most compelling lines in defense of his actions and feelings.

I’ve mentioned this passage before, and I think it’s worth citing it in its entirety:

SALARINO:  Why, I am sure, if he forfeit, thou wilt not take
his flesh: what’s that good for?

SHYLOCK: To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.

Perhaps most provocatively, as we see in this passage, Shakespeare opposes Shylock’s catalogue of reasons for hatred with Antonio’s one: the Shylock is a Jew. It’s enough to make one wonder at the nature of the Christian charity which ‘triumphs’ at the end of the play.

Keep on brawlin’ on!

(I tried to find an English translation of Il Pecorone online but after about an hour of searching I wasn’t able to find any that included the “Merchant of Venice” story. If anybody finds one, please let me know and I’ll post a link to it.)

Stay in touch, Brawlers!

Follow @TheBardBrawl on Twitter.

Like our Facebook page.

Email the Bard Brawl at bardbrawl@gmail.com

Up ↑