Coriolanus: : History and the Crisis of Semantic Order

Coriolanus: History and the Crisis of Semantic Order Leonard Tennenhouse The dramatic structure of Coriolanus is in many respects unique among those tragedies of Shakespeare which are based on English and Roman history. This uniqueness derives, I be­ lieve, not only from the moment of Roman history which Shake­ speare chose to consider, but also from that point in the unfold­ ing of the political process at which Shakespeare begins the play. With the exception of Coriolanus, all of the English and Roman tragedies center upon the transitional period in an historical process during which the political order of the state permanently changes at the moment when the protagonist is destroyed. The deaths of Richard II, Richard III, Gaesar, and Antony are part of such processes, and their deaths involve the appearance of new political alignments in England and Rome. The political structure which emerges at the end of each play marks a new stage in the history of the state because adherents to the new order possess the kingdom and have established new political eras. No new political alignment or structure comes into being with the destruction of Coriolanus. When he dies, there is no vision of the destruction of evil, no revelation of God’s control of history, no mourning for an old order destroyed, no sense of loss, no sense of regret that the world could not contain so noble a hero. No new political structure comes into being with the death of Coriolanus because at the opening of the play a new political structure has already been established. The creation of the tribunes, which has taken place just moments before the play begins, has introduced a new political force into the state. It has also displaced Coriolanus from his position in society. The presence of the tribunes signifies the presence in the state of a 328 Leonard Tennenhouse 329 populace with a political voice. Words have been let loose among the people, and there is a new basis for both political and semantic authority,l In effect this crisis of semantic order is reflected in the displacement of Coriolanus. In structuralist terms, Coriolanus as the representative of the old order organizes the play, grounds the oppositions, and characterizes the rela­ tion between language and violence that produces the tragedy.2 He is the center of both the play and the historical narrative which the play dramatizes.3 While his presence governs the structure of the historical narrative and the dramatic work, it generates as well the thematic issues of language and politics. These two issues must be seen in their Jacobean contexts if we are to understand the particular urgency the play reflects and the specific anxiety its structure tries to control. The crisis of semantic order in Coriolanus involves political, historical, cultural, and psychological consequences, and it is in political, historical, cultural, and psychological terms that the play has to be read. I Shakespeare’s treatment of the Coriolanus material differs from that of historical traditions in the mode of delineating the character of the hero and in the degree of importance assigned to the tribunes. Plutarch presents Coriolanus as a man who suffered from his mother’s failure to provide a proper educa­ tion. He reports that Coriolanus was eloquent, politic at times, and, of course, the very model of virtus, but finally so uncivil that he was destroyed. Shakespeare removes any hint of a politic Coriolanus, and in place of eloquence, he gives us a man who suffers, when speaking to the plebians, from logorhea.4 Shakespeare’s most significant variation from the traditions re­ lated by Plutarch, Livy, and Florus, however, is his decision to highlight the creation of the tribuni plebis and emphasize their prominence in the political affairs of Rome.5 The Roman his­ torians note the creation of the tribunes only in passing and with approval. For Shakespeare and his audience, the impor­ tance of the creation of the tribunes, the first time in history that an aristocracy was forced to share authority with repre­ sentatives of the citizenry, lay precisely in the emergence of a new balance of power within the state and in the complications that arose...