120

Apstrakt primljen:08.11.2014..

Rad primljen:03.03.2015..03.2015.

THE CONFLICT OF LOYALTIES IN SHAKESPEARE'S CORIOLANUSIvan Stamenkovi 70

Apstrakt:godina zasnovani su na patrijarhalnom principu

z

personalizaciju prirode i njenih ciklusa, simbol ljubavi i tolerancije. Neprekidni ciklusi

im bogovima koji su

principima zapravo osnova ove

***

Abstract: In the past few millennia, the system of belief and the social organizationwere based on the patriarchal principle fathers are considered heads of families, thesupreme gods are male, rulers are men, and women are considerHowever, there is a large obscure period of time beyond the reach written history whichreaches 35,000 years into the past, and which was centered on the female principle. It was asociety which deified the so called Great Goddess, a personalization of nature and its cycles,and the symbol of love and tolerance. The eternal cycles of life, death and rebirth in naturewere deemed universal, so people considered death a single phase in existence and a return tothe womb of the mother, out of which they would be reborn. This world view was forciblychanged by the untouchable male gods residing in the sky, which led to a shift in socialorganization what arose was a society of belligerent kings fighting for power in a systemwhere the minority controlled the majority by calculated methods and where social order

70Prevodilac, email: shubyyo@gmail.com

121

based on the principle of love was superseded by an uncontrollable desire for material gain.The main question in this society is which principle one should be loyal to the humanaspect and its innate righteous moral norms, or the corrupt system which does not valuehuman life and individuality. The works of literature where these conflicts are best explored

er is to analyze certainmotifs and similarities and prove that the theme of the conflict of loyalties to these principlesis the basis of this play by Shakespeare. This is also an excellent starting point for theexpansion of this analysis to other plays, which would finally determine that this motif is not

Keywords: Shakespeare, conflict of loyalties, Coriolanus, mother principle

INTRODUCTION

William Shakespeare is praised as one of the most complex and prolific authors inknown history, and his plays are known to contain many different layers of symbolismintricately interwoven with an elaborate plot. One of the things that few people focus on is

detailed criticism of the unjust socialsystem. Even though the time periods of his plays are different, they all have the sameunderlying topic how do people betray their humanity and subject themselves to an unjustsociety. This speaks in favor of the presumption of this paper that all patrifocal societies(based on the father principle) have essentially been the same throughout history, thwartingthe female principle, based on love, morality and creativity, in favor of a belligerent male-dominated society governed by an uncontrollable desire for material gain. The main questionin this unjust society is which principle should one be loyal to the human aspect and itsinnate righteous moral norms, or the corrupt system which does not value human life andindividuality. The goal of this paper is to analyze certain motifs and similarities and provethat the theme of the conflict of loyalties to these principles is the basis of the play

at caused thisduality that enabled a conflict of loyalties in the first place. This theme will be explored in thefirst section of this paper, while the following part will explore some of the means that theseunjust societies use to control their subjects, i.e., the people. This will be followed by an

examples from the play. The conclusion sums up the main points of the paper andrecapitulates the conclusions reached in the analysis.

1. THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM

Throughout the ages the human social systems and forms of government changed theirnames, slightly modified their methods, but remained essentially the same. However, thisstatement is not entirely correct. It would have been better to say that their essence remained

whatdawn of the patriarchal world view, accompanied with the appropriate shifts in religion andin the social sphere.

However, the social organization present in that period was not the only one that thehuman race was familiar with. During an entire period of 35,000 years before the emergence

122

of the patrifocal systems of social organization, a different kind of world view was present,and it honored the mother instead of the father. [Read and Starhawk 2003] It is obvious whyno one seems to consider this period to be of any importance, or why the majority of peopledo not have any knowledge of its existence it is the simple matter that it provided analternative, which the rulers of the new age wanted to eradicate. If the new system was toprevail, the old system of beliefs had to be erased, forgotten and demonized. The question isthat of what was so appealing in the old division of power that the propagators of the newway found so dangerous. Well, simply the fact that people were happier back then. Namely,the old cult of the mother cherished the Great Goddess of Complete Being, a divinity closelyassociated with the cycles of nature. With this belief, people viewed nature not as a hostileentity, but as a loving mother, the one who created them, provided them with sustenance andshelter. The everlasting cycles of birth and death, and the succeeding rebirth gave the peoplea new meaning in life being the offspring of the Great Mother, they too are immortal. Death

reborn every spring after the death that winter brought. In this harmonious atmosphere therewere no class differences, no blind ambition for ownership and rule, no wars and senselessdestruction, since the only thing that was praised was the pure creativity of the female. [Read1989]

Nevertheless, the arrival of a new age marked a shift from the adoration of the goddessof the earth to the praise of a male god residing in the sky. The world view was very muchopposed to the previous one it was a society of belligerent kings struggling for power justfor the sake of it, a system of the few in power controlling the many by different means, asystem where pure love was replaced with unrestrained desire for ownership and gain. So,ever since it began, it survived throughout the ages in a more or less similar shape, and it isthe history that we all more or less acknowledged as the only possible one. The mythologiessuffered a massive turn in favor of the male. The reigning gods were always male, be they thePagan gods of thunder, or the monotheistic father gods. Women were denied their essentialproperty, the title of creators, and the ability was shifted exclusively to the male, keeping thefemale merely as a conductor of the male creativity. The ultimate defeat of this patriarchalsystem was the instance in Greek mythology when Zeus himself gave birth to Athena fromhis own head, with no participation of the female whatsoever. Essentially, the world of loveand affection was replaced by a universe commanded by pure reason, a cruel and unjust one.

The question that arises in a social organization like this is the issue of loyalty. Thedilemma that has followed people from a very long time ago is whether to be loyal to what ishuman inside you, to the proper moral norms inherent to all human beings and the feminineprinciple which epitomizes the love between people and the devotion to feelings of creativity,or to succumb to the corrupt system which does not value human life and individuality for thesake of its own survival and the benefit of the uppermost classes controlling the masses keptin the dark. The obvious epitome of the latter and the pillars of this conception of the worldare most certainly the state and the church. The state, which emerged as an organizationformed to benefit people, soon became an institution with a sole purpose of controlling theirlives. And the church, first created as a connection between the gods and the people,transformed into a creation trying to establish itself as a god who rules his subjects, oftenperverting the original ideas to serve its purpose. But the state and the church do not actalone, for in their aid comes an entire ideology which often transcends individual states and

123

church organizations the ideology that people have to be ruled, and that sometimes youhave to bring misery to your subjects just to preserve your place at the top. In addition, it isnot so rare that the rulers of the system are often themselves servants servants of thisideology seen in the form of tradition.

2. MEANS OF CONTROLLING THE MASSES

Moreover, the issue of how this ensues is very important. The first noteworthy

older, he/she strives to achieve individuality and personal autonomy. Once that person hasachieved those goals a completely opposite process ensues, that of fear, existential dread, andit normally ensues when a human is faced with the vastness and immortality of nature, which

lessening that existential fear a human being resorts to psychological mechanisms of escape,which basically come down to subduing him/herself to external authority, thus fictionallyregaining the lost unity with the world. This of course is just a weak substitute for the trueoneness man once felt with his biological aspect, and its failure often leads to utterdestructiveness, completely unprovoked. [Fromm 1973] This can clearly be seen in thesocieties throughout the patriarchal history that were mentioned earlier on people blindlysubduing themselves to authority, and in effect giving the few the power to control the many.

Furthermore, the second aspect that must be mentioned are the instruments by whichthe authorities pursue their goals, and the ideal example are the ideas of Louis Althusserregarding the apparatuses that the system uses to control the loyalty of its subjects. The

feel contentin a situation that would never be considered just. ISAs are the most powerful tool that thegoverning structures use even in our age. Yet, if they fail, the mighty few resorts to

to using blatant forceagainst the disobedient. With the help of these two powerful tools the unjust systems sustainthemselves and maintain their existence over a long period of time. [Althusser 1970]

3. SHAKESPEARE AND HIS CRITICISM OF SOCIETY

So, witentire complicated set of issues. By examining the continuity of these same ideas throughouthis plays, we can with almost indubitable certainty conclude that Shakespeare himself waspainfully aware of the injustices present through the entire course of known history. He hasskillfully interwoven the criticism of this corruption in his plays, thus providing us with analternative by letting us see the essence behind the conflicts in his plays. Of course, you canread Shakespeare and not even scratch the surface of his ideas. Many scholars who areunconsciously serving the continuation of this unjust set of values do so even today, focusingon the fairly irrelevant things such as the metre and rhyme patterns only to divert yourattention from the essence, from the core of the problem. Yet, who can blame them since theschools they attended did not encourage them to think, but created worthy servants whoseonly task is to keep the people ignorant of how to truly live.

That brings us back to the conclusion from the very beginning of this paper that claimsthat this unjust culture and system has existed in the world from the beginning of what is

124

known as time, and that it only mutated its form to the very verges of recognition, but

us in an indirect way, to make us understand the injustices we tend not to see and the choiceswe face, and by this urge us to fight for our freedom. By encompassing several periods ofhistory he portrayed plenty of situations through which, if we grasp their essence, we mightfind a recipe how to live a happier, fuller life. The fact that these situations recur in his playsregardless of the time can certainly not be called a coincidence. Even today we see that the

worthy teacher of life. Although the world we live in today has no kings and queens, thesame atrocities and disregard for human life are ever present.

fictitious events. Although loosely based on real historical events, one could always findgreat discrepancies in the timeline and the relationships of the actual historical figures. Many

works. However, after closer analysis, you can see the point he was trying to make, and thatis the universality of the plays. It is exactly because the action does not coincide with the truefacts that the plays are timeless and can be applied in a variety of situations. By presenting uswith this universality, Shakespeare clearly indicates that the problems he so cunninglydepicted are not to be solved overnight, and that we need to employ all of our humanresources that we have available in order to try and find a worthy solution.

CORIOLANUS

Coriolanus, one

blatant criticism of democracy and of what happens when the people are given a certain rolein the government. Even though the criticism of the new, democratic way of rule is obvious,the point is that Shakespeare does not look favorably upon the monarchy either, or at anyform of an unjust system of rule. He successfully managed to contrast these two systems ofgovernment, proving that whatever their name was, whatever means they employed, certainelements of injustice will always be present, and certain goals will be common to all of them

namely that of a minority of people controlling the masses.

a world as vile as that of the previous monarchy. It is quite absurd to talk about the ruling ofthe people in a state whose economy was based on slavery. So, you had democracy for thepeople, but you had people who were considered tools, and whose lives meant nothing.Moreover, women also had no power, thus showing the strict patriarchal basis of the societyand an excellent stage for the continual betrayal of all the feminine principles. Therepresentatives that the people had gained with the changes are nothing more than aristocratsin the making, plotting against others for their own benefit, and betraying the trust that thepeople put in them by electing them and the loyalty to their cause for their own personal endsand advancement. The patricians still abused their positions of power which were onlyslightly checked, and go as far as to let the people starve, while their own granaries areoverflowing with food. All in all, the position of the people had not drastically changed bythe deposition of the monarchy embodied in the last Roman king, Tarquin.

125

remnant of the old autocratic system of power and beliefs, scornful towards anyone who isnot of noble origin, and, being a perfect servant of the oppressive system, he is definitely notready for an attempt to give the people certain power. This is best expressed through hiscomparison of the people to a beast with many heads:

You grave but reckless senators, have you thus

Given Hydra leave to choose an officer,

That with his peremptory 'shall,' being but

The horn and noise o' the monster, wants not spirit

To say he'll turn your current in a ditch,

-1853]

And on the other hand, we find out about his active participation in the overthrowing ofthe tyrannous king Tarquin. This fact is even more astonishing when we take a closer look at

fights battles for his country, which is one of the greatest sacrifices one could possibly make,thus proving his blind faith. Personal glory and the glory of the state go hand in hand, sincehe finds affirmation within the system of values he is ensnared in. By destruction he advanceshis cause, and in doing so commits the ultimate betrayal of humanity itself. In fact, theoverwhelming question could be how a new system of rule which claims to work for thecommon people can be better than the last one if it was achieved by bloody combat and theloss of human lives.

Despite the blind sacrifice and loyalty Coriolanus has shown to the culture that createdhim, he goes unrewarded, since the very institutions that he shed blood for then scorned andabandoned him, betraying him completely. This only shows that even this new society does

swer if you do not obey all of the customs, you are cast away asworthless. Yet, as you behold him committing the ultimate act of revenge against his formerstate, you realize that he has not transcended the corruption at all, since he employs the verymethods that the patriarchal world has taught him. Although the name of the culture isdifferent, it is the same belligerent conception of the world that has already betrayed him, andhe is defeated in his battle either way. Even though he characterizes the frail Roman

thought at first, for only a limited number of people controlled the majority after all.n, because we see how

Coriolanus himself became what he was. Instead of playing with a butterfly, the epitome of apure, harmless being, a product of nature which could do no one any harm, the child kills it ina mock war game.

on: I'll swear,'tis a

very pretty boy. O' my troth, I looked upon him o'

126

Wednesday half an hour together: has such a

confirmed countenance. I saw him run after a gilded 425

butterfly: and when he caught it, he let it go

again; and after it again; and over and over he

comes, and again; catched it again; or whether his

fall enraged him, or how 'twas, he did so set his

teeth and tear it; O, I warrant it, how he mammocked 430

it! [Shakespeare 1996: 422-430]

We see as the child internalizes the same values as his father, and becoming a blindservant. His fate is to fight and bleed for his country, just like his father, and we assume thatif he proves in the least way unfaithful, he will be banished and betrayed. We realize that thefamily ties and the lovnonexistent when the boy vows to fight his father if necessary, only to protect his country, thevery same country that disgraced his father, proving that he was just as brainwashed. Perhapsthis was one of the key reasons that Coriolanus relented in his pursue for revenge, althoughhe knew it would mean his own downfall. Seeing his own son going in his own footsteps, heperhaps commits the first selfless act that was not performed in military service and relents inhis pursuit of revenge, in order for his son to have at least one good example in his life, anexample he most likely did not witness himself. However, the act of Coriolanus changing hismind at the peak of his complete revenge must not be ascribed wholly to his son. Moreover, itmust not be by any means ascribed to the child, since the paramount figure there is

Volumnia is certainly the most intriguing characters of the play, because in her we see awoman and a mother who has betrayed every single principle of motherhood, and who hasinternalized the values of the male-dominated society. Throughout the play one cannot but be

Coriolanus has grown up at all is something that one has to wonder upon closer inspection ofthis play. Instead of letting her son become an individual, as a real, loving mother should,Volumnia has kept him under her iron grip and through him tried to achieve her own personalgoals and aspirations for political power. The system that has divested women of any powerhas created a woman such as Volumnia an extension of the patriarchal values through thefemale, and her betrayal of the principles ascribed to motherwell-being as her top priority, she would rather he had been wounded, just so he would bepraised in the eyes of their culture, indirectly adding to her own personal success. We see herwell versed in the verbal skills needed to fool the ones you want to use to gain power,because by scorning her son for not being good at publicly appealing for consulship, andgiving him experienced advice on how to do it, she proved to be a greater man than he is. Notto mention what impression this leaves of the culture where those who are supposed toloyally lead the people for the good of all win their position by telling lies and clichédexpressions. Nevertheless, the mercy that Coriolanus shows at the end is not at all his victory,or

127

What have you done? Behold, the heavens do ope,

The gods look down, and this unnatural scene

They laugh at. O my mother, mother! O!

You have won a happy victory to Rome;

But, for your son, believe it, O, believe it,

Most dangerously you have with him prevail'd,

[Shakespeare 1996: 3695-3702]

After all, she did leave her son to the mercy of the discontent Volscians to parade thestreets of Rome as a savior and protector. The conclusion of this perverted relationshipbetween mother and child is that Coriolanus and his identity are both a product of a lovelesschildhood that his mother cursed him with, and that his insolent pride is only a reaction to hisactual helplessness in the relationship to his mother, and indirectly, the system.

-in-law,we see displays of true affection towards her husband. While Volumnia wants her son tocome back with wounds, because she knows that would bring him political points, Virgiliashows utter sorrow at the very thought of it, caring for the well-being of her husband. WhenVolumnia wants to go out and meet her son after battle, thus sharing some of his success shecould never achieve, Virgilia is resolved to stay at home and wait for her husband as a loyal

more comfortable sort: if my son were my husband, I

should freelier rejoice in that absence wherein he

won honour than in the embracements of his bed where

he would show most love. When yet he was but

tender-bodied and the only son of my womb, when

youth with comeliness plucked all gaze his way, when

for a day of kings' entreaties a mother should not

sell him an hour from her beholding, I, considering

how honour would become such a person. that it was

no better than picture-like to hang by the wall, if

renown made it not stir, was pleased to let him seek

danger where he was like to find fame. To a cruel

war I sent him; from whence he returned, his brows

128

bound with oak. I tell thee, daughter, I sprang not

more in joy at first hearing he was a man-child

than now in first seeing he had proved himself a

[Shakespeare 1996: 363-380]

It is no wonder Volumnia compares her to Penelope, being the faithful wife that she is.Just as we have Penelope remaining faithful to Odysseus during the twenty years of hisabsence, so do we have Virgilia, a loyal wife displaying true love for her husband. The wayof the Odyssey is sharply contrasted to Volumnia, who seems to have come directly from theIliad, a belligerent world of false loyalties, treason and murder. The two works have alwaysdepicted the two paths one could take in life the way of the warrior kings slaughtering eachother or the way of the wise pacifist Odysseus questing to reunite with his loving wife.

h-nemesis, and later ally, Tullus Aufidius.Their combat seems to reflect a deeply hidden death-wish they both possess, as a means ofescaping the society. They are perfect counterparts since they are both warriors serving theircountries, and their fates are inextricably interwoven. When Aufidius kills Coriolanus, themystery remains whether it was actually that satisfactory for him, for what Coriolanus wasfor the Romans, Aufidius is for the Volscians, and he does not know whether the sane destinycould btriumph at Corioli, is only a witness of how you build up your identity in this unjust culture,

from PeterThe Royal Hunt of the Sun

CONCLUSION

The topics that Shakespeare explored are very much present in the society of today.Even though a lot has evolved in the past several centuries, the essential postulates of societyhave remained the same the world is still centered around the father, power and wealth arestill the top priorities and a measurement of success and happiness, and people are ready togive up their morality and betray their humanity in order to gain the mentioned wealth andpower that the society values so much. War is still considered a legitimate means of imposingwill upon people, while warriors are valued as heroes and role models. Having these values inmind, it is easy to realize that the entire period of known history was built on the samefoundations, regardless of the name the social organizations bore. Upon realizing this, it iseasy to determine that Shakespeare was more than a fantastic playwright he was acommentator and critic of society, even though his plays covered different time periodsencompassing different social organizations. After going under the surface, it becomesobvious that the twisting of moral norms is present throughout the course of moderncivilization. However, he was not able to directly express his discontent with the state ofaffairs, so he had to intertwine these motifs into the foundation of his plays. Such plays oftendeal with the conflict of loyalty that often ensues should one be loyal to his nature and theprinciple of love and morality, or betray it and subdue him/herself to the belligerent wealth-

oriolanus,which was chosen as a representative example. All the characters are torn between the two

129

choice polarities in society, which eventually either turns them into the servants of society, orconsumes them. The situation is not very different in tod

a long way from the original patriarchal societies of old. It is in the essence the very samepower-mad culture where a small social stratum of individuals attempts to exert theirdominance over the rest of the unsuspecting population. Yet, it somehow does not fit in withthe whole idea of democracy the government of the people. Well, to start from its origins,the very idea of democracy was devised in Greece, a society which was much based onslavery, while the women were also given marginal positions. The very idea was forsaken atthe very core, thus enabling us to look at the democratic system as a matter of compromise,which should certainly be excluded if it is to work. Our societies have remained maleoriented, belligerent societies, and even though such institutions as The United Nations wereformed to stop conflicts from ensuing, we see the whole world engulfed in constant wars. Thefreedoms of choice and of vote that are being promoted are just one great illusion, since thereal choices are in the hands of the few who are rich and who hold all the power. Corrupt

aying all of thepromises made if it suits their personal benefit. The true rulers of the world have moved fromthrones into the offices of multinational companies, which control enormous quantities ofmoney, which can be used to manipulate the values of the system to create more money. We

from their headquarters. Human lives are turned into numbers for news statistics, whilestereotypes and bigotry dominate the media.

The question is posed as to what could be the solution to getting humanity of thislethargy. William Shakespeare presented one of the possibilities literature. Literature hasalways had the courage to say what everybody seemed to think. Even though it is a passiveform of protest, it was often an inspiration for great social changes. However, society needssomeone brave enough to state the obvious society is corrupt and needs to get in touch withits human side again if it wants to survive. After all, society and civilization were created forthe benefit of human beings, and not vice versa.

REFERENCESALTHUSSER, L, [1970], Ideology and Ideological State

Goddess Remembered. Directed by READ, D. [1989], Montreal, Studio D, National FilmBoard of Canada.

FROMM, E. [1973], The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, New York, Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

SHAFFER, P., [1968], The Royal Hunt of the Sun, New York, Ballantine Books.SHAKESPEARE, W. [1996], Coriolanus. In: The Complete Works of William Shakespeare,

Ware, Wordsworth Editions Ltd.Signs Out Of Time: The Story of Archaeologist Marija Gimbutas. Directed by READ, D. and

STARHAWK, [2003], San Francisco, Belili Production.

KRATKA BIOGRAFIJA:

Departmanu za anglistiku Filozofskog fakulteta

130