Reading Coriolanus - Cavell

University of California Press
"Who Does the Wolf love?" Reading Coriolanus

Author(s): Stanley Cavell
Source: Representations, No. 3 (Summer, 1983), pp. 1-20
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3043784
Accessed: 26-10-2015 00:04 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Representations.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.203.227.62 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:04:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STANLEY CAVELL
"Who does the wolf love?"

Reading Coriolanus*
SOMETHING THAT DRAWS me to Coriolanus is its apparent disdain of

questionsI have previouslyasked of Shakespeareantragedy,takingtragedyas an
epistemological problem,a refusalto knowor to be known,an avoidanceofacknowl-
edgment,an expression(or imitation)ofskepticism.Coriolanus'srefusalto acknowl-
edge his participationin finitehumanexistencemayseemso obviouslythefactofthe
matterof his play that to note it seems merelyto describethe play, not at all to
interpretit. It may be, however,that this lack of theoreticalgrip itselfproposesa
moral,or offersa conclusion,namelythatCoriolanusis notexactlyto be understood
as a tragedy,thatitsmystery supposingone agreesto something likea mystery in its
events will be located only in locatingits lack or missingof tragedy,hence its
closenessto tragedy.
But systematically to pursuethispossibility wouldrequire fromme following
out a sense that this play presentsa particularinterpretation of the problemof
skepticismas such (skepticismdirectedtoward our knowledgeof the existenceof
others),in particularan interpretation thattakesskepticismas a formofnarcissism.
This interpretation does notin itselfcometo me as a completesurprisesincea book I
publisheda fewyearsago The Claim ofReason beginswithan interpretation of
Wittgenstein's PhilosophicalInvestigations whichtakeshis moveagainsttheidea ofa
privatelanguage (an idea whicharises in his strugglesagainst skepticism)as a move
against a kind of narcissism,a kind of denial ofan existencesharedwithothers;and
mybook ends with a readingof Othelloas a depictionof the murderouslengthsto
whichnarcissismmustgo in orderto maintainits pictureof itselfas skepticism,in
orderto maintainits standof ignorance,its fearor avoidanceofknowing,underthe
colorof a claim to certainty.1 What surprisedme morein Coriolanuswas its under-
standingofnarcissismas anotherfaceof incestuousness, and ofthisconditionas one
in whichlanguagebreaksdownunderthesenseofbecomingincomprehensible, ofthe
sense of oneselfas havinglost the power of expression,what I call in the Claim of
Reason the terrorof inexpressiveness; togetherwith the thoroughnesswith which
Narcissus'sfateis mirroredin thefigureofCoriolanus,a figurewhoseeveryact is, by
thatact,doneto himso perfectly thatthedistinction betweenactionand passionseems
to lose itssense,a conditionin whichhumanexistencebecomesprecarious,ifperhaps
transcendable.I mentiontheseconnections withthephilosophicalissue ofskepticism
notbecause I pursuethemfurther in theessayto followbutonlyto attestmyconvic-
REPRESENTATIONS 3 * Summer 1983 ? THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
tionthata worksuch as a play of Shakespeare'scannotcontributethe help I want
fromitforthephilosophicalissuesI mention,unlesstheplay is grantedtheautonomy
it is one's powerto grant,whichmeans,seen in itsown terms.What does thismean?
What is a play ofShakespeare's?I will tryto say something aboutthesequestions.
Somethingelse also draws me. The way I have been understanding theconflicts
theplay engenderskeepssendingme back overpathsofthoughtthatI believemany
criticshave foundto be depletedofinterest, threepaths,or branchesof
or conviction;
paths,in particular:(1) thosethatlookin a Shakespeareanplay forsomething likean
idea oftheater,as itwerefortheplay'sconceptofitself;(2) thosethatsenseChristian
stirrings and murmurings underthesurfaceofthewords;and (3) eventhosepathsof
thoughtthatanticipatesomethingyou mightcall the originsof tragedyin religious
ritual.I am, I suppose,as drawnto criticalpathsthatothersfindemptyas somepoets
are to wordsthatothersfindflat.But to say fullywhyone is drawnto a work,and its
workofinterpretation, can onlybe thegoal ofan interpretation; and themotiveofan
interpretation, likewhatone mightcall theintention oftheworkit seeks,existsfully
onlyin itssatisfaction.
I expect,initially,generalagreementon two factsabout Coriolanus.First,com-
pared withotherShakespeareantragediesthisone lacks what A. C. Bradleycalled
"atmosphere"(in his BritishAcademyLecture on the play, the decade afterhis
ShakespeareanTragedy).Its language,likeitshero,keepsalooffromour attention, as
withdrawn,austere, as itsrage and itscontempt permit.Second, the play is about the
organizationof the bodypoliticand about how thatbodyis fed,thatis, sustained.I
expect,further, thatreadersfromopposedcampsshouldbe willingtosee thattheplay
lendsitselfequally, or anywaynaturally,to psychologicaland to politicalreadings:
bothperspectives are,forexample,interested in who producesfoodand in howfoodis
distributedand paid for.From a psychologicalperspective(in practicethis has in
recentyearsbeenpsychoanalytic) theplaydirectsus to an interestin thedevelopment
ofCoriolanus'scharacter.Froma politicalperspective theplay directsus to an inter-
estin whetherthepatriciansor theplebeiansare rightin theirconflict and in wheth-
for
er,grantedthatCoriolanusis unsuited political leadership,it is his childishness or
his verynobilitythatunsuitshim.
In the criticaldiscussionsI have read so far,the psychoanalytic perspectivehas
producedmore interesting readingsthan the political.A politicalreadingis apt to
becomefairlypredictableonce you knowwhose side thereaderis taking,thatofthe
patriciansor thatoftheplebeians;and whosesidethereadertakesmaycomedownto
how he or she sees Menenius's fableoftheorganicstate,the Fable ofthe Belly,and
upon whom he or she places the blame forCoriolanus's banishment.If few will
considerit realisticto suppose that Coriolanus would have made a good political
leader,fewerwill denythatin losinghim the cityhas lostits greatestheroand that
thisloss is theexpressionofa timeofcrisisin thestate.It is a timeoffaminein which
thecall forrevoltis mademootbythethreatand thefactofwar and invasion,followed
2 REPRESENTATIONS
by a timein whichvictoryin thewar, and bitternessoveritsconduct,createsthecall
forcounter-revoltby the state's defenderand preserver.In such a period of crisis
everyoneand no one has goodarguments, everyoneand no one has righton theirside.
In Aufidius'sgreatdescription
ofCoriolanusat theend ofAct IV he summarizes:
So ourvirtues
Lie inth'interpretation
ofthetime;...
One firedrivesoutonefire;onenail,onenail;
Rightsbyrights founder,
strengths
bystrengths do fail.
One mightsay thatjust thisdivisionof fireand rightis the tragedy,but would that
descriptionaccountforthe particularturnsofjust theseevents,as distinctfromthe
lossesand ironiesin any revolutionary situation?Even themostcompellingpolitical
interpretationin my experiencethis is given in BertoltBrecht'sdiscussionwith
membersof his theatercompanyof the openingscene of the play2 seemsto have
littlefurtherto add, in theway ofinterpretation,onceitmakesclearthatchoosingthe
side oftheplebeiansis dramaticallyand textuallyviable. This is no small matter.It
shows that Shakespeare'stext or what we thinkof as Shakespeare'shumanity
leaves ample roomfordistinctions amongthe "clusters"of citizens,and it showsthe
weightoftheircommonpositionin oppositiontothatofthepatricians.And I takethis
in turn to show that the politicsof the play is essentiallythe politicsof a given
production,so thatwe shouldnotexpectits politicalissues to be settledby an inter-
pretationofwhatyou mightcall "thetextitself."
ExactlythepowerofBrecht'sdiscussioncan be said to be itssuccessin gettingus
notto interpret, not,above all, to interpretfood,but to staywiththeopeningfactof
theplay,thefactthatthecitizensofRomeare in revoltbecausethereis a famine(and
because of theirinterpretation of the famine).They and theirfamiliesare starving
and theybelieve(correctly, forall we know) thatthe patriciansare hoardinggrain.
Not to interpret thismeans,in practicalor theatricalterms,thatwe cometo see that
this clusteris of human beings,individualhuman beings,who work at particular
trades and who live in particularplaces where specificpeople await news of the
outcomeof theirdangerouscourse in takingup arms. This factof theirordinary
humanityis the mostimpressivefactthatcan be set againstthe patricians'scornof
them a factthatoughtnotto be visiblesolelyto a Marxist,a factthatshowsup the
languageoftheleadersas mysterious and evasive,as subjectto whatone maythinkof
as thepoliticsofinterpretation.
Yetwe also feelthatthepervasiveimagesoffoodand hunger,ofcannibalismand
ofdisgust,do mean something, thattheycall upon us forsomelinesofinterpretation,
and thatthe value of attendingto this particularplay is a functionof the value to
individualhumanbeingsoftracingtheselines.
Psychoanalystsnaturallyhave focussedon the imagesof foodand feedingthat
link Coriolanus and his mother.In a recentessay, " 'Anger'sMy Meat': Feeding,
"Who does the wolflove?" 3
Dependency,and Aggressionin Coriolanus,"3JanetAdelmanhas givenso clear and
fairan accountof some two decades of psychoanalytic of foodand
interpretations
feedingin theplay,in thecourseofworkingout herfurther thatI feel
contributions,
freeto pickand choosethelinesand momentsbearingthisaspectofthingsthatserve
mysomewhatdifferent emphases.
Twice Volumniainvokesnursing.Early she says to Virgilia,rebukingher for
worrying about herhusband:
The breastsofHecuba
WhenshedidsuckleHector,lookednotlovelier
whenitspitforth
ThanHector'sforehead blood
AtGreciansword,contemning.
(I.iii.43-46)
withherson:
And in herfirstintercession
Do as thoulist.
wasmine,thousuck'stitfrom
Thyvaliantness me,
Butowethypridethyself.
(III.ii.127-29)
Both invocationslead one to thinkwhat it is thisson learnedat his mother'sbreast,

whatitis he was fedwith,particularly as we cometo realizethatbothmotherand son
declarethemselvesto be starving.It is afterCoriolanus'sdepartureupon beingban-
ished,when Meneniusasks Volumniaifshe'll sup withhim,thatshe comesout with
Anger'smymeat;I supuponmyself
Andso shallstarvewithfeeding.
(IV.ii.50-51)
As Coriolanusmocksand resiststheritualofaskingforthepeople's voices,his being

one timeas follows:
keepsrevolting,
itis todie,better
Better tostarve,
Than cravethehirewhichfirstwe do deserve.
(II.iii.118-19)
I saythatmotherand son,bothofthem,are starving, and I meanthroughout, always,

I
notjust whentheyhave occasionto say so. takeVolumnia's visionof suppingupon
herselfnotto be a picturesimplyofherlocal angerbutofself-consuming angeras the
presidingpassionofherlife theprimarything,accordingly, she would haveto teach
herson,thethinghe suckedfromher,ofcourseunderthename ofvaliantness.If so,
thenifVolumnia,and henceCoriolanus,are takento exemplify a Roman identifica-
tionofvirtueas valor,theyshouldfurther be takenas identifyingvalorwithan access
to one's anger.It is "in anger,Juno-like,"godlike,thatVolumnialaments(IV.ii.52-
53); and it is thisangerthatthe TribuneSiciniusis remarkingas, in tryingto avoid
4 REPRESENTATIONS
being confrontedby her, he says, "They say she's mad" (IV.ii.9). Along these lines, I
emphasize Coriolanus's statementabout deserving rather than craving not as
Betterit is to die,betterto starve,
Than crave...
as if he is asserting the rightnessof a particular choice forthe future;but as

Betterit is to die,betterto starve,
Than crave...
as if he is reaffirmingor confessinghis settled formof (inner) life. I expect that the

formeris the more usual way of emphasis, but I findit prejudicial.
Coriolanus and Volumnia are I am taking it-starvers, hungerers. They mani-
festthis condition as a name or a definitionof the human, like being mortal. And they
manifest this as a condition of insatiability (starving by feeding, feeding as depriva-
tion). It is a condition sometimes described as the infinitenessof desire, imposing upon
the finitenessof the body. But starving for Volumnia and her son suggests that this
infinitenessis not the cause of human insatiability but is rather its effect.It is the
effectnot of an endless quantity, as though the self had, or is, endless reserves of
desire; but of an endless structure,as though desire has a structureof endlessness. One
picture of this structureis given by Narcissus forwhom what is longed foris someone
longing,who figuresbeauty as longing. Starving by feedingpresents itselfto Coriola-
nus as being consumed by hunger, and his words for hungering are desiring and
craving. And what he incessantly hungers foris ... not to hunger, not to desire, that
is, not to be mortal. Take the scene of interviewby the people:
CORIOLANUS: You know the cause, sir, of my standing here.
THIRD CITIZEN: We do, sir; tell us what hath brought you to't.
CORIOLANUS: Mine own desert.
SECOND CITIZEN: Your own desert?
CORIOLANUs: Ay, not mine own desire.
THIRD CITIZEN: How not your own desire?
(II.iii.66-72)
If you desire to be desireless, is there something you desire? If so, how would you
express it; that is, tell it; that is, ask for it? Coriolanus's answer to this paradox is to
become perfectlydeserving. Since to hunger is to want, to lack something,he hungers
to lack nothing,to be complete, like a sword. My speculations here are an effortto do
justice to one's sense of Coriolanus as responding not primarily to his situation with
the plebeians, as if trapped by an uncontrollable disdain; but as responding primarily
to his situation with himself,as befitsa Narcissus, trapped firstby an uncontrollable
logic. While I will come to agree with Plutarch's early observation or diagnosis in his
Life of Calus Martius Coriolanus that Coriolanus is "altogether unfitfor any man's
conversation," I am in effecttaking this to mean not that he speaks in anger and
"Who does the wolf love?" 5
contempt(anger and contemptare not unjustifiable)but that while under certain
circumstances he can expresssatisfaction, he cannotexpressdesireand to thisextent
cannotspeak at all: the case is notthathe will notask forwhat he wantsbut rather
thathe can want nothingthathe asks. His solutionamounts,as bothpatriciansand
plebeiansmoreor less note,to becominga god. What god? We have to getto this.
Let us forthe momentcontinuedevelopingthe paradox of hungering.To be
consumedby hunger,to feedupon oneself,mustpresentitselfequally as being fed
upon, being eaten up. (To feedmeans bothto give and to take nourishment, as to
sucklemeansbothto giveand to takethebreast.)So theotherfactofCoriolanus'sand
Volumnia'sway ofstarving,oftheirhunger,is theirsenseofbeingcannibalized.4
The idea ofcannibalizationrunsthroughout theplay. It is epitomizedin thetitle
questionI havegivento theseremarks:"Who doesthewolflove?" Meneniusasks this
of the Tribunesof the people at the openingof Act II. One of themanswers,with
undeniabletruth:"The lamb." And Menenius,everthe interpretative fabulist,an-
swers:"Ay,to devourhim,as the hungryplebeianswould the noble Marcius." The
otherTribune's answer "He's a lamb, indeed,that baas like a bear" does not
unambiguouslydenyMenenius'sinterpretation. The shockoftheinterpretation is of
coursethat it is from the the
beginning people, not the patricians,and least of all
Coriolanus,who are presentedas lambs, anywayas foodforpatricianwolves. In
Menenius'sopeningeffort to talkthepeopleoutofrevolthe declaresthat"The helms
o' thestate... care foryou like fathers,"to whichtheFirstCitizenreplies"Care for
us! . . . If thewars eat us notup, theywill; and thereis all thelovetheybear us." This
fantasyis borneout when the generalCominius speaks of Coriolanus's comingto
battleas to a feast(I.ix.10). And the idea of the warriorCoriolanus feedingon a
weakerspeciesmaybe raisedagain in thebattleat Corioliin his threatto any soldier
who holdsback,"I'll take him fora Volsce/ And he shall feelmineedge," allowing
the suggestionof his swordas a piece of cutlery.The idea of an ungovernablevora-
ciousnessis furtheredby Volumnia'sassociationof her son with his son's tearing
aparta butterfly withhis teeth.On theotherhand,whenCoriolanusoffershimselfto
Aufidiusat Antiumhe expresseshis sense of havingbeen devoured,with only the
nameCaius Marcius Coriolanusremaining,devouredby"thecrueltyand envyofthe
people" (IV.v.77-78). And Menenius, whose sense ofjustice is constricted, among
otherthingsby his fearof civildisorder,is accuratein his fears,in the consequences
theyprophesyforRome,and he will repeathis visionofcivilcannibalism:
Nowthegoodgodsforbid
Thatourrenowned Rome,whosegratitude
Towardsherdeserved children is enrolled
In Jove'sownbook,likean unnatural dam
Shouldnoweatup herown.
(III.i.288-92)
6 REPRESENTATIONS
All readers of this aspect of the play will recognize in this description of Rome as
potentially a cannibalistic mother an allusion to Volumnia; and the identificationof
Volumnia and Rome is enforcedin other ways, not least by Volumnia herselfwhen in
the second and final intercessionscene she says to her son:
... thoushaltno sooner

March to assault thycountrythanto tread
(Trustto't,thoushaltnot)on thymother'swomb
That broughttheeto thisworld.
(Viii. 121-24)
It is very much to the point to notice that in Menenius's vision of Rome as an

"unnatural dam" an identityis proposed between a mother eating her child and a
mother eating herself:if Rome eats up all Romans there is no more Rome, for as one
of the Tribunes asks, "What is the citybut the people?" (III.i.198).
The paradox and reciprocityof hungering may be found registeredin the ques-
tion "Who does the wolf love?" If the question is asking for the object of the wolf's
affection,the more nearly correctgrammar would seem to be: "Whom does the wolf
love?"5 But this correctness(call it a patrician correctness,a refinementin which the
plebeians apparently do not see the good) would rule out taking the question also in
its opposite direction,grammatically strictas it stands, namely as asking whose object
of affectionthe wolf is (Who does love the wolf?). The answer given directly,"The
lamb," does not rule out either direction,but as the ensuing discussion demonstrates,
the directionwill be a functionof what or who you take the lamb to be, hence what the
wolf. Both directions,the active and the passive constructionsof the play's focal verbs,
are operative throughout the action. I have mentioned this explicitly in the cases of
feedingand suckling. But it is, I find,true less conspicuously, but pertinently,in such
an odd moment as this:
CORIOLANUS: Let themhang.

VOLUMNIA: Ay,and burn too.
(III.ii.23-24)
One of the functionsin providing Volumnia with this amplification here strikes
me as suggesting her sense of the inevitable reflexivenessof action in their Rome: are
hanging and burning actions done to someone, or something "they" are, or will be,
doing?
The circle of cannibalism, of the eater eaten by what he or she eats, keeps being
sketched out, fromthe firstto the last. You might call this the identificationof narcis-
sism as cannibalism. From the first:at the end of Coriolanus's firstlong speech he
says to the citizens:
You cryagainstthenobleSenate,who
(Under thegods) keep youin awe, whichelse
Would feedon one another.
(Ii. 187-89)
And at the last: Rome devouringitselfis the idea coveredin the obsessiveimagesof
CoriolanusburningRome. It was A. C. Bradleyagain who at theend ofhis British
AcademyLecturepointedup thesuddenand relentlessharping,principallyafterthe
banishment, on theimageoffire,ofRomeburning.Bradleymakesnothingfurther of
thepointbutitis worthnoting,in viewofthethemeofstarvingand cannibalism,that
firein thisplay is imaginedunderthedescription ofit as consumingwhatit burns.
You may say thatburningas a formof revengeis Coriolanus's projectiononto
Rome of what he feltRome was doingto him. This cannotbe wrong,but it so far
picturesCoriolanus,in his revenge,to be essentiallya man like Aufidius,merely
gettingeven;thepicturerequiresrefining. Suppose that,as I believe,in Coriolanus's
famoussentenceof farewell,"I banish you!" (III.iii.123), he has alreadybegun a
processof consumingRome, incorporating it, becomingit. Then when the general
Cominiustriedin vain to plead withhimto save Rome,and foundhimto be "sitting
in gold,his eye / Red as 'twouldburn Rome" (V.i.63-64), he somewhatmisunder-
stoodwhat he saw. He tookCoriolanusto be contemplating somethingin the future
whereas Coriolanus'seye was red withthe presentflamesof self-consuming. Con-
sumingtheliteralRomewithliteralfirewould accordingly onlyhavebeenan expres-
sionofthatself-consuming. Thus wouldthecityunderstandwhatithad doneto itself.
He will give it horribly what it deserves.Thus is the play of revengefurther
interpreted.
These variousunderstandings ofcannibalismall illustratetheancientsentiment
thatman is wolfto man. (The Roman Plautus, to whom Shakespeareis famously
indebted,is creditedwith being the earliestnameable framerof the sentiment.A
pertinentmoderninstanceoccursin Brecht'sThreepennyOpera.) But the question
"Who doesthewolflove?" has twofurther reacheswhichwe musteventuallyconsid-
er. First,thereis therepetitionoftheidea thatdevouringcan be an expressionoflove.
Second,if,as I think,thereis reasonhereto taketheimageofthewolfas thefigureof
themythicalanimal identified withRome,theone who suckledthefoundersof Rome
(Volumniais the reason),thereis reason to take the lamb it is said to love (or that
lovesit) as themythicalanimal identified withChrist.
Beforethis,I shouldmake explicita certainway in whichtheaccountof Corio-
lanus's motivationI have been drivingat is somewhatat odds withthe directionof
psychoanalytic interpretationsummarizedand extendedin Adelman'sessay (above,
p.00). She understandsCoriolanus'sattempttomakehimselfinhumanlyindependent
as a defenseagainsthis horrorofdependence,and his rageas converting hiswishto be
dependentagainstthosewho render him so. A characteristic
turnof her argument
consistsofa readingofsomelinesI have alreadyhad occasionto quote:
8 REPRESENTATIONS
The breastsofHecuba
When she did suckleHector,look'dnotlovelier
Than Hector'sforeheadwhenit spitforthblood
At Greciansword,contemning.
Adelman reads as follows:
Blood is more beautifulthan milk,the wound than the breast,warfarethan peacefulfeed-

ing. . Hector is transformed immediatelyfrominfantilefeedingmouthto bleedingwound.
For the unspokenmediatorbetweenbreastand wound is the infant'smouth:in thisimagistic
transformation, to feed is to be wounded; the mouth becomes the wound, the breast the
sword.... But at the same timeas Volumnia'simage suggeststhe vulnerabilityinherentin
feeding,it also suggestsa way to fendoffthatvulnerability.In herimage,feeding,incorporat-
ing,is transformed intospittingout, an aggressiveexpelling;the wound once again becomes
themouththatspits.... The woundspittingbloodthusbecomesnota signofvulnerability but
an instrument ofattack.(p. 131)
This is very fine and it must not be denied. But the transformationof Hector's
mouth into a wound must not in turn deny two furtherfeaturesof these difficultlines.
First, when Hector contemns Grecian swords, he is also to be thought of as fighting,
as wielding a sword, so the mouth is transformedinto, or seen as, a cuttingweapon:
the suckling motheris presented as being slashed by the son-hero, eaten by the one she
feeds. Suffering such a fantasy would constitute some of Volumnia's more normal
moments. Second, the lines set up an equation between a mother's milk and a man's
blood, suggesting that we must understand the man's spitting blood in battle not
simply as attacking but equally, somehow, as providing food, in a male fashion. But
how? Remember that Coriolanus's way to avoid asking forsomething,that is, to avoid
expressing desire, is by what he calls deserving the thing. His proof of desert is his
valiantness, so his spittingblood in battle is his way of deserving being fed, that is to
say, being devoured, being loved unconditionally. (War and feeding have consistently
been joined in the words of this play. A Plebeian says: "If the wars eat us not up they
will" (I.i.85-86). And Cominius: Coriolanus "cam'st to . .. this feast having fully
dined before" (I.ix.10-1 1); but again Cominius does not get the connectioncomplete.)
To be fed by Volumnia is to be fed to her. But since the right,or effective,bleeding
depends (according to the equation of blood and milk) upon its being a form of
feeding,of giving food, providing blood identifieshim with his mother. His mother's
fantasyhere suggests that the appropriate reciprocation forhaving nourished her son
is for him to become her, as if to remove the arbitrariness in her having been born a
woman; and since it is a way of puttingher into the world it is a way of giving birthto
her. Her son's companion fantasyof reciprocation would be to return Rome's gift,to
nurse Rome with the valiantness he sucked fromit.
This fantasyproduces contradictionswhich are a match forthe furyof contradic-
tions one feels in Coriolanus's position (for example, between the wishes for depen-
dence and forindependence). For he can only returnhis nourishmentif Rome taken
as thepeople deservesit. Hence thepeople's lack ofdesertentailshis lack ofdesert,
entailsthathe cannotdo the thingthatacquires love; he is logicallydebarredfrom
reciprocating. The factthathe bothhas absolutecontemptforthepeople and yethas
an absoluteneed forthemis part of what maddenshim. (This impliesagain thatI
cannotunderstandCoriolanus's emotionstowardthe people as directedsimplyto,
say,theircowardice,theirbeingpoorfighters. I am takingitthathe needstheirdesert
for,so to speak,privatereasonsas muchas public.) The otherpartofwhat maddens
him is that neitherthe people nor his mother neitherof the thingsthat mean
Rome will understandhis position.Neitherunderstandsthathis understanding of
hisvaliantness,hisvirtue,his worth,his deservingness, is ofhimselfas a provider,and
thatthisis the conditionof his receivinghis own sustenance.(This assumesthathe
shareshismother'sfantasyoftheequationofmilkand blood as ifthereis nothingin
her he has nottakenin.) The people,preciselyon thecontrary, maddeninglyaccuse
him of withholdingfood; and his motherpreciselyregardshis heroismpurelyas
toughness,devoidof tenderness;or pure fatherhooddevoidof motherhood;and as
deservingsomething morethanacknowledging whathe provides,morethanthedeli-
catebalance ofhis self-account, as ifbeingmade consulwereindeedsomethingmore.
("Know, good mother,/ I had ratherbe theirservantin myway / Than sway with
themin theirs"[II.i.107-109]). In thesemisunderstandings theyhave bothalready
abandonedhim, weaned him, before the ritualof beingmade consulcomesto grief
and he is formally banished.This priorrejection,notjust oncebutalways,inherently,
would allow theunderstanding ofhis angeras his motherinterprets anger,thatis as
lamentation("Anger'smymeat . .. lamentas I do, / In anger,Juno-like").We may
notcontradict herinterpretation,thoughwe mayinterpret it further. We mightgo on
to interpret it as depression.
I mightcharacterizemyintentionin spellingout what I call thesefantasiesas an
attemptto get at the originof words,notthe originof theirmeaningexactlybut of
theirproduction, ofthevalue theyhave whenand as theyoccur.I have characterized
somethinglike this ambitionof criticismvariouslyover the years,and relatedit to
what I understandas the characteristic procedureof ordinarylanguage philosophy.
(One sucheffort entersintotheopeningpages of"The AvoidanceofLove: A Reading
ofKing Lear.") And do myspellingsout help? Do they,forexample,help compre-
hend Coriolanus'ssubsequentcourse how he justifieshis plan to burn Rome and
how he is talkedout ofhis plan by his mother?It is nothard to encourageoneselfin
the impressionthatone understandsthesethings.To me theyseem mysteries.I will
sketchthe answers I have to thesequestionsand thenconcludeby indicatinghow
these answers serveto interpretour relationto this play, which means to me, to
understandwhata Shakespeareanplay is (as revealedin thisinstance).
I pause, in turningto thesequestions,to make explicitan issue thatat any time
may nag our consciousnessof the play. The mother-relation is so overwhelmingly
presentin thisplay thatwe maynotavoidwondering,at leastwonderingwhetherwe
are to wonder,what happened to the father.The play seems to me to raise this
10 REPRESENTATIONS
questionin threeways,whichI listin decreasingorderofobviousness.First,Menen-
ius is givena certainkindoffatherly role,or a roleas a certainkindoffather,butthe
verydifficulty of conceiving of him as Coriolanus's real father,which is to say, as
Volumnia'shusband and lover,keeps alive our imaginationof what such a figure
mightlook like. Second, Coriolanus's eroticattachmentto battleand to men who
battlesuggestsa searchforthe fatheras much as an escape fromthe mother.This
would affordan explanationforan otherwise,to me, insufficiently explaineduse in
the play of the incidentfromPlutarch'sLife in which Coriolanus asks, exhausted
fromvictoriousbattle,thata man in theconqueredcityofCoriolibe sparedslaveryon
the groundthat Coriolanus had "sometimelay at the poor man's house," a man
whosename Coriolanusdiscovershe has forgotten. The vaguenessoftheman's iden-
in
tityand Coriolanus's expressionof confusion Shakespeare-distinctdifferences
fromthe occurrenceof the incidentsin Plutarch suggestto mymindthatthe un-
namedfigureto whomCoriolanuswishesto providereparationis,vaguely,transient-
ly,an imageofhis father.6
Third, and so littleobviousas to be attributableto mypowersof hallucination,
Coriolanus'sefforts at mythological identification as he sitsenthronedand entranced
beforeRome is an effort if one acceptsone stratumof descriptionI will presently
give of him to come unto the Father.(I will not go into the possibilitieshere,or
fantasies,thata patricianmatronis simultaneously father-mother,or that,in replac-
inghis fatherhe becomeshis own father.)
I was about to ask how we are to grasp Coriolanus'sreturnand his changeof
heart.My answerdependson plottinga relationbetweenhimand theothersacrificial
lamb I have mentioned, thelamb ofGod, Christ.I say plottinga relationbetweenthe
figures,notat all wishingto identify them.I see Coriolanusnotso muchas imitating
Christas competingwith him. These are necessarilyshadowymattersand while
everything dependson accuracyin defining thisrelationall I can do hereis notesome
elementsthatwill have to figurein theplotting.
Earlier I spokeof Coriolanus'ssolutionto theparadox ofhungeringnotto hun-
ger,ofwantingnotto want,of askingnotto ask, as one of becominga god. Now we
maysee thatChristis therightgod because oftheway he understandshis missionas
providingnon-literalfood,foodforthespirit,forimmortality; and becauseit is in him
thatbloodmustbe understoodas food.If one is drawnto thisas a possibility, one may
findsurprisingconfirmation forit in certainof Coriolanus's actionsand in certain
descriptions ofhis actions.(I am notinterested in claimingthatCoriolanusis in some
sense a scapegoat,the way perhaps any tragichero is; but in claimingthat he is a
specificinflection ofthisscapegoat.)
Firsthis actions,twoespecially.Firstis his pivotalrefusalto showhis wounds.I
associatethisgenerallywiththeissue ofChrist'sshowinghis woundsto his disciples,
in orderto show themthe Lord thatis, to provetheresurrection and specifically
withhis sayingto Thomas, who was notpresentat thefirstshowingand who made
seeingthewoundsa conditionof believing,thatis, of declaringhis faith,"Thomas,
becausethouhastseenme,thoubelievst:blessedare theythathave notseen,and have
believed"(John20:29). (Thomas would notbelieveuntilhe can, as he putsit and as
Jesuswill invitehimto, "put minehand intohis side"; Aufidiusdeclaresthewish to
"wash myfiercehand in's heart" (I.x.27). I make no furtherclaimson the basis of
thisconjunction;I can see thatsomegood readersmay feelthatit is accidental.I do
claim that good readingmay be guided,or inspired,by the over-excitement such
conjunctionscan cause.) The secondactionis the secondintercession, in whichVo-
lumnia,holdingherson's son bythehand,togetherwithVirgiliaand Valeriaappear
to CoriolanusbeforeRome. I take thisto invokethe appearance,while Christis on
the cross,ofthreewomenwhose namesbeginwiththesame letterofthealphabet(I
meanbeginwithM's, notwithV's), accompaniedbya male he loves,whomhe views
as his mother'sson (John 19:25-27). (Giving his mothera son presages a mystic
marriage.)
I do not suppose that one will be convincedby these relationsunless one has
antecedently feltsome qualityof what shall I say?-the mythicin thesemoments.
This is somethingI meantin callingtheserelations"shadowymatters":I meantthis
notnegatively but positively.It is a way to understandVolumnia'sadviceto Coriola-
nus that when he makes his appeal to the people he act out the meaningof his
presence:
... forin such business
Actionis eloquence,and theeyesofth'ignorant
More learnedthantheears....
(III.ii.75-77)
I accept this as advice Shakespeare is giving to his own audience, a hint about why the
words of this particular play may strikeone as uncharacteristicallyineloquent.
The second source of confirmationfor Coriolanus's connection with the figureof
Christ lies, I said, in certain descriptions of his actions. I specify now only some
parallels that come out of Revelation. In that book the central figure is a lamb (and
there is also a dragon), and a figurewho sits on a special horse and on a golden throne,
whose name is known only to himself,whose "eyes were as a flame of fire," and who
burns a city which is identifiedas a woman; it is, in particular, the city (Babylon)
which in Christian tradition is identifiedwith Rome. And I associate the opening of
Coriolanus's opening diatribe against the citizens, in which he rebukes their wish for
"good words" from him glad tidings accusing them of liking "neither peace nor
war," with the message Christ dictates to the writerof Revelation: "I know thyworks,
that thou art neither cold nor hot; . .. Therefore, because thou art luke warm, and
neither cold nor hot, it will come to pass that I shall spew thee out of my mouth"
(Revelation 3:15-16). (An associated text from Plutarch would be: "So Martius,
being a stowte man of nature, that never yelded in any respect,as one thinckingthat to
overcomeallwayes, and to have the upper hande in all matters,was a Token of
magnanimities, & of no base and fainte corage, which spitteth out anger from the
12 REPRESENTATIONS
most weake and passioned parte of the harte, much like the matterof an impostume:
went home. . .." Whatever the ambiguities in these words, the general idea remains,
indelibly,of Coriolanus's speech, when angry,as being the spittingforthof the matter
of an abcess.7 This play about food is about revoltednessand disgust. Coriolanus and
Revelation are about figureswho are bitter,disgusted, by those whom they have done
good, whose lives they have sustained.)
Conviction, or lack of it, in these relations is somethingone has naturally to assess
foroneself. Granted that theyare somehow at work, theywork to make comprehensi-
ble what Coriolanus's identificationwith the god is (they are identifiedas banished
providers of spiritual food) and what his justification for destruction is (the people
lack faithand are to sufferjudgment) and why he changes his mind about the destruc-
tion. It is, I think, generally felt that his mother prevails with him by producing
human, family feeling in him, in effectshowing him that he is not inhuman. This
again cannot be wrong, but firstof all he has his access of family feelingthe moment
he sees the four figures approaching (a feeling that does not serve to carry the day),
and second, his feeling,so conceived, does not seem to me to account forCoriolanus's
words of agony to his mother as he relents and "Holds her by the hand, silent."
0 mother,mother!
What have you done? Behold,theheavensdo ope,
The godslook down,and thisunnaturalscene
They laugh at. 0 mymother,mother!0!
You have won a happyvictoryto Rome;
But,foryourson-believe it,0, believeit!-
Most dangerouslyyou have withhimpervailed,
If notmostmortalto him.But let it come.
(Viii. 182-89)
What it means that she may be "most mortal" to him cannot be that he may be
killed-the mere fact of death is hardly what concerns this man. He must mean
somehow that she has brought it about that he will have the wrong death, the wrong
mortality,a fruitlessdeath. Has she done this by showing him that he has feelings?
But Christ, even by those who believe that he is the Lord, is generally held to have
feelings. Coriolanus's speech expresses his agonized sense that his mother does not
know who he is, togetherwith an agonized plea forher belief. She has deprived him of
heaven, of, in his fantasy,sittingbeside his father,and deprived him by withholding
her faith in him, for if she does not believe that he is a god then probably he is not a
god, and certainly nothing like the Christian scenario can be fulfilled,in which a
mother's belief is essential. If it were his fatherwho sacrificedhim forthe cityof man
then he could be a god. But if it is his mother who sacrificeshim he is not a god. The
logic of his situation, as well as the psychology,is that he cannot sacrificehimself.He
can provide spiritual food but he cannot make himself into food, he cannot say, for
example, that his body is bread. His sacrificewill not be redemptive,hence one may
say his tragedyis thathe cannotachievetragedy.He dies in a place irrelevantto his
sacrifice,carvedby manyswords,by hands thatcan deriveno special nourishment
fromhim.It is toosoonin thehistoryoftheRomanworldforthesacrificeto whichhe
aspiresand fromwhichhe recoils.
And perhapsit is too late, as if theplay is betweenworlds.I know I have been
struckby an apparentincorporation in CoriolanusofelementsfromEuripides'Bac-
chae,withoutknowinghow or whethera historicalconnectionis thinkable.Particu-
larly,it seems to me, I have been influencedin my descriptionsby feelingunder
Coriolanus'sfinalplea to his mothertheplea of Pentheusto his mother,outsidethe
city,to see that he is her son and not to tear him to pieces. The Bacchae is about
admitting thenew god to thecity,presentin one who is returning to his nativecity,a
god who in companywithDemeter'sgrainbringsnourishment to mankind,one who
demandsrecognition in orderto vindicateat once his mother'shonorand his being
fatheredby Zeus; the firstin the cityto acknowledgehis divinedescentare two old
men.My idea is thatCoriolanusincorporates bothraging,implacableDionysusand
raging,inconstantPentheusand thatVolumniapartakesbothofthe chasteyetgod-
seduced Semele and of the mad and murderousAgave. Volumnia'sidentifying of
herselfwith Juno (specifically,with Juno's anger) may thus suggesther sensing
herselfas the cause of her curse. It is not essentialto mythoughthere that Shake-
speareknew(of) Euripides'play. It is enoughto considerthathe knewOvid's account
ofPentheus'sstoryand to supposethathe tookit as Euripideshad, as about thekind
of son (one unable to expressdesire)to whomthefailureofhis mother'srecognition
presentsitselfas a senseofbeingtornto pieces.
What is thegoodofsucha tragedyoffailedtragedy?Whichis to ask: What is this
play to us? How is it to do itswork?This is thequestionI have been drivingat and
now thatit is beforeus I can onlystateflatly,withoutmuch detail,myprovisional
conclusionson thetopic.
They can bynowbe derivedfromcertainconsiderations aboutMenenius'stelling
oftheFable oftheBellyin theopeningsceneoftheplay. Everyreaderor participant
has to make somethingofthisextended,mostprominently placed event.Until recent
timesmostcriticshave assumedthatMeneniusis voicinga commonplaceassumption
ofthetimesin whichShakespearewroteand one thatrepresentsShakespeare'sview
ofthestate-the stateas a hierarchicalorganism,understandable on analogywiththe
healthy,functioning body.It is myimpressionthatrecentcriticshave tendednotto
dwell on the fable,as thoughthe conservative way is the onlyway to take it and as
thoughthatvisionis no longeracceptable,or presentable.But this seems to me to
ignorewhat I taketo be thethreeprincipalfactsabout Menenius'stellingofthetale,
the facts,one may say, of the drama in the telling.(1) The fable has competing
interpretations.What the firstcitizencalls its "application" is a question.He and
Meneniusjoke about whetherthepeople or thepatriciansare betterrepresented by
thebelly.(2) The fableis about food,about its distributionand circulation.(3) The
fableis told(by a patrician)to citizenswho are in theact ofrisingin revoltagainsta
14 REPRESENTATIONS
government theysay is deliberatelystarvingthem,hencethepatriciancan be said to
be givingthemwordsinsteadoffood.The firstmystery oftheplayis thatthisseemsto
work,thatthewordsstopthecitizens,thattheystopto listen,as thoughthesecitizens
are themselveswilling,undercertaincircumstances, to takewordsforfood,to equate
them.
Coriolanus'sentranceat theend oftheargumentovertheapplicationofthefable
confirms thisequationofwordsand food:he has fromtheearlylinesoftheplay been
identified as thepeople's chiefenemy,here in particularas chiefofthosewho with-
holdfood;and his openingmainspeechto them,afterexpressinghis disgustbythem,
is to affirmthat he does withholdand will go on withholding"good words" from
them.Accordingly everywordhe speakswill meanthewithholding ofgoodwords.He
will, as it were, have a sword in his mouth.There are othersuggestionsof the
equation of wordsand foodin the play (forexample,the enliveningof the familiar
idea thatunderstanding is a matterofdigesting)butthisis enoughforme,in viewof
myprevioussuggestions, to take the equation as part of the invocationof the major
figureof our civilizationforwhom words are food.The word made fleshis to be
eaten,sincethisis thelivingbread.MoreovertheparablesofJesusare characteristi-
cally about food,and are always meantas food.The words/foodequation suggests
thatwe shouldlook again at Volumnia'sintercession speeches,less fortheircontent
thanfortheplain factoftheirdrama,thattheyare muchthelongestspeechesCorio-
lanus listensto,thattheycause his motherto show himher undividedattentionand
himtogiveherhis silence;he is as iffilledup byherwords.It pleasesme further tore-
memberthatRevelationalso containsa visionofwordsthatare eaten:thereis a book
the writerswallows thattastessweetas honeyin the mouthbut bitterin the belly
(10:10), as if beauty were the beginningof terror,as in, for example, a play of
Shakespeare's.
My conclusionabout theworkingoftheplay,about what kindofplay it is, adds
up thenas follows.I takethetellingoftheFable oftheBellyas a sortofplay-within-
the-play,a demonstration of what Shakespearetakeshis play-named forCoriola-
nus-to be, forCoriolanustoo is a tale about food,with competinginterpretations
requiringapplication,toldbyone man to a cluster,call thisan audience,causingthem
to halt momentarily, to turnaside fromtheirmorepracticalor pressingconcernsin
orderto listen.Here is therelevanceI see in thefactthattheplay is writtenin a time
ofcornshortagesand insurrections. The factparticipatesnotjust in theimageryofthe
play's setting,but in thequestionoftheauthorityand thevirtueofportraying such a
time,at sucha time,forone's fellowcitizens;a questionoftheauthority and thevirtue
in beinga writer.I see in Shakespeare'sportrayaloftheFable oftheBellya competi-
tion(in idea, perhapsin fact)withSir Philip Sidney'sfamiliarcitingofthefablein
his DefenceofPoetry,or a rebukeofit.8 SidneyrecordsMenenius'sapplicationofthe
tale as having"wroughtsuch effectin the people, as I neverread thatonlywords
broughtforthbut then,so sudden and so good an alteration;forupon reasonable
conditionsa perfectreconcilement ensued." But in castinghis partisan,limitedMen-
eniusas thetellerofthetale,and placingitstellingat theopeningoftheplay,where
we have minimalinformation or experienceforjudgingits events,Shakespeareputs
intoquestionboththenatureofthe"alteration"and the"perfection" ofthereconcili-
ation.Sincetheseare thetwochiefelementsofSidney'sdefenseofpoetry,thisdefense
is as such put intoquestion;but hence,since Shakespeareis nevertheless givinghis
own versionofthetellingofthefable,makinghis own storyabout thecirculationof
food,he can be understoodas presentingin thisplay his own defenseofpoetry(more
particularly, ofplays,whichSidneyparticularly attacks).It is in thislightnoteworthy
thatSidneyfinds"Heroical" poetryto be most"[dauntingto] all back-biters,"who
would "speak evil" ofwritingwhichpresents"champions.. . who dothnotonlyteach
and moveto a truth,but teachethand movethto the mosthighand excellenttruth."
But since"the image of such worthies"as presentedin such works"mostinflameth
themindwithdesireto be worthy,"and sinceCoriolanusis a play thatstudiestheevil
in such an inflammation, Shakespeare'splay preciselyquestionsthe groundof Sid-
ney'sclaim that "the Heroical ... is notonlya kind,but the best and mostaccom-
plishedkindof Poetry."
What would this play's defenseof poetrybe, I mean how does it directus to
considerthe question? Its incorporationof the Fable of the Belly I understandto
identify us, theaudience,as starvers,and to identifythewordsoftheplay as food,for
our incorporation. Then we have to ask ofourselves,as we have to ask ofthecitizens:
Why have we stoppedto listen?That is, what does it mean to be a memberof this
audience?Do we feelthatthesewordshave thepowerofredemptionforus?
They are part of an enactmentof a play of sacrifice;as it happens,of a failed
sacrifice.And a feast-sacrifice, whetherin Christian,pre-Christian,Nietzschean,or
Freudianterms, is a matter the foundingand the preservingof a community.
of A
community is thus identifiedas thosewho partakeof the same body,of a common
victim.This strikesCoriolanusas our beingcaughtin a circleof mutualpartaking,
incorporating one another.And thisis symbolized, or instanced,byspeakingthesame
language. A pervasivereason Coriolanus spits out words is exactlythat theyare
words,that theyexist only in a language, and that a language is metaphysically
something shared,so thatspeakingis takingand givingin yourmouththeverymatter
othersare givingand takingin theirs.
It is maddeninglyirrelevantto Coriolanus which party the belly represents.
What matterstohimis that,whoeverrules,all are members,thatall participatein the
same circulation,the same systemof exchange,call it Rome; that to providecivil
nourishment you must allow yourselfto be partakenof. This is not a play about
politics,if this means about politicalauthorityor conflict,say about questionsof
legitimatesuccessionor dividedloyalties.It is abouttheformation ofthepolitical,the
foundingofthecity,aboutwhatit is thatmakesa rationalanimalfitforconversation,
forcivility.This play seemsto thinkofthiscreationofthepolitical,call it thepublic,
as theovercoming ofnarcissism,incestuousness, and cannibalism;as ifit perceivesan
identity amongtheserelations.
16 REPRESENTATIONS
In constructingand contestingwith a hero for whom the circulation of language
is an expression of cannibalism, Coriolanus takes cannibalism as symbolicof the most
human of activities,the most distinctive,or distinguished,of human activities (Sidney
cites the familiar conjunction: " .. . Oratio, next to Ratio, ... [is] the greatest gift
bestowed upon mortality.") Hence I conceive Coriolanus to be incorporating Mon-
taigne's interpretationof literal cannibalism as more civilized than our more sophisti-
cated-above all, more pervasive-manners of psychological torture,our consuming
others alive.9 Montaigne's "On Cannibals" is more specificallypertinentto this play:
its storyof a cannibal prisoner of a cannibal societyvalorously taunting his captors by
reminding them that in previous battles, when he had been victorious over them, he
had captured and eaten their ancestors, so that in eating him they will be consuming
their own flesh-this is virtually the mode in which Coriolanus addresses himself to
the Volscians in putting himself at their mercy. And more variously pertinent: the
essay interprets cannibalism as revenge; and it claims (in one of those moods of
measured hilarity) that when three men from a cannibal society visited Rouen and
were asked what they found most amazing about the ways of Montaigne's country-
men, one of their responses was as follows (I will not comment on it but quote in
Frame's translation):
Second (theyhave a way in theirlanguageofspeakingofmenas halvesofone another),they

had noticedthattherewere among us men fulland gorgedwithall sortsof good things,and
thattheirotherhalves were beggarsat theirdoors,emaciatedwithhungerand poverty;and
theythoughtit strangethattheseneedyhalvescould enduresuchan injustice,and did nottake
theothersby thethroat,or set fireto theirhouses.
Within the experience of such a vision of the circulation of language, a question

not readily formulatable, may press for expression: To what extent can Coriolanus
(and the play that creates him and contests with him) be understood as seeing his
salvation in silence? The theme of silence haunts the play. For example, one of
Coriolanus's perfectlycursed tasks is to ask for"voices" (votes) that he exactly wishes
not to hear. Again, the words "silent" and "silence" are beautifully and mysteriously
associated, once each, with the women in his life: with his wife ("My gracious silence,
hail!"); and with his mother ("(He holds her by the hand, silent)"). Toward both, the
word of silence is the expression of intimacyand identification;but in his wife's case it
means acknowledgment,freedomfromwords, but in a life beyond the social, while in
his mother's case it means avoidance, denial, death, that there is no life beyond the
social. The ambiguities here are drilled through the action of the play by the repeated
calls "Peace, peace"-hysterical, ineffectiveshouts of this particular word forsilence.
The play literalizes this conventional call for silence by implying that speech is war,
as if this is the reason that both words and war can serve as food. But the man forwar
cannot find peace in peace-not merely because he, personally, cannot keep a civil
tongue in his head, but because a tongue is inherently uncivil (if not, one hopes,
inveterately so). Silenceis notthe absenceof language;thereis no such absence for
humanbeings;in thisrespect,thereis no worldelsewhere.
Coriolanuscannotimagine,or cannotaccept,thatthereis a way to partakeofone
another,incorporateone another,thatis necessaryto theformation ratherthanto the
extinctionofa community. (As he cannotimaginebeingfedwithoutbeingdeserving.
This is his precisereversalof Christ'svision,that we cannotin ourselvesdeserve
sustenance,and thatit is forthatreason,and in thatspirit,thatwe have to ask forit.
Thus is misanthropy, like philanthropy, a certainparodyof Christianity.)The play
Coriolanusasks us to tryto imagineit, imaginea beneficial,mutual consumption,
arguingin effect thatthisis whatthe formation ofan audienceis. (As ifvorarewere
nextto orare.)
It seemsto me thatwhat I have been sayingdemonstrates, no doubtsomewhat
comically,thehypothesis oftheoriginoftragedyin religiousritual-somewhatcomi-
cally,because I mustseemratherto have deflatedtheproblem,implyingthatwhether
thehypothesis is truedependson whatis meantby "tragedy,"whatby "origin,"and
whichritualis in mind.10I have,in effect, arguedthatifyouacceptthewordsas food,
and you acceptthecentralfigureas invokingthecentralfigureoftheEucharist,then
you may accept a formulationto the effect(not that the play is the ritual of the
Eucharist,butto theeffect)thattheplay celebrates,or aspiresto,thesame factas the
ritual does, say the conditionof community.(Eucharist means gratitude,precisely
whatCoriolanusfeelsthepeoplewithholdfromhim.This is anotherway to see whyI
am notsatisfiedto saythatCoriolanusis enragedfirstofall bythepeople'scowardice.
Perhapsone may say thatto Coriolanustheircowardicemeans ingratitude.)As for
theidea oforigin,we needonlyappeal to Descartes'sidea thattheoriginofa thingis
thesame thingthatpreservesit. What preservesa tragedy,whatcreatestheeffect ofa
certainkindofdrama,is theappropriationby an audienceofthiseffect, our mutual
incorporation ofitswords.When thesharingofa sacrificeis heldon religiousground,
the ritualitselfassures its effectiveness.When it is shiftedto aestheticground,in a
theater,thereis no such preexistingassurance;the workof art has to handle every-
thingitself.You mightthinkofthisas therebirthofreligionfromthespiritoftragedy.
A performance is nothingwithoutour participationin an audience;and thispartici-
pationis up to each ofus.
To enforcethenecessityofthisdecisionto participate(a decisionwhichofcourse
has its analogue forthe individualreaderwiththe scriptin his or her hands) is the
way I understandthe starknessof the wordsof thisplay,theirrelativeineloquence,
theirlack ofapparentresonance.The playpresentsus withour needforone another's
words by presentingwithholdingwords,words that do not meet us half way. It
presentsus witha famineofwords.This way ofseeingit takesit to fulfilla prophecy
fromtheBook ofAmos(8:12): "Behold,thedayscome,saiththeLord God, thatI will
senda faminein theland,nota famineofbread,nora thirstforwater;butofhearing
thewordsoftheLord."
18 REPRESENTATIONS
Notes
* Deliveredas partofa colloquiumon Coriolanusheld at The HumanitiesInstituteduring

itsmeetingsat StanfordUniversity, Sept. 10-12, 1982.
1. The Claim ofReason (New Yorkand Oxford,1979). The Othellomaterialoccupiesthe
concludingpages of the book (481-96), and appears, differently
situated,underthetitle
"Epistemologyand Tragedy"in Daedalus, Summer1979. The subjectwas broachedin
"The Avoidance of Love: A reading of King Lear" in Must We Mean What We Say?,
reprintedCambridge,England, 1976.
2. See BertoltBrecht,CollectedPlays Volume9, editedby Ralph Manheimand JohnWillett
(New York,1973), pp. 378-94.
3. In RepresentingShakespeare,editedby Murray Schwartzand Coppelia Kahn (Balti-
more,1980).
4. "There seems to be some questionwhetherone's knowingoneselfis somethingactive,
somethingone does . . . or rathersomethingone suffers,
somethingthathappensto one,"
The Claim of Reason, p. 352.
5. A pointemphasizedby the chairmanof the Coriolanuspanel at the Stanfordmeetings,
ProfessorHarry Berger,in his remarksintroducing mypaper.
6. This is notmeantas an alternativeto but as an extensionofthefineperceptionin thelast
noteto Act I, scene ix by the editorof the Ardenedition(Philip Brockbank)that"One
nameis foundin thesceneand anotheris lost."My thoughtis thatbothare namesheldby
Caius Martius Coriolanus.I suppose I am influencedin thisthoughtby a further change
Shakespeare makes in Plutarch'scharacterizationof the man. In PlutarchCoriolanus
speaks of the man as "an old friendand hostof mine"; it is at the analogous momentin
ShakespearethatCoriolanusspeaksoftheman as one at whosehousehe lay.The opening
wordsofPlutarch'sLifeare "The houseoftheMartians,"where"house" ofcoursemeans
"family,"a phraseand passage employedby Shakespeareat the end ofAct II wherethe
TribunesinvokeCoriolanus's biologicaldescentas if to theirsufficient creditforhaving
consideredit,but to Coriolanus'sinsufficient creditforelectionto Consul.
7. I quote fromNorth'stranslationof Plutarch'sbiographyofCoriolanus,whichis givenin
an appendixto theArdeneditionof Coriolanus(London, 1976). The "impostume"pas-
sage occurson p. 133.
Coriolanus's sense of disgustwith the people is more explicitlyconveyedby Shake-
speare throughthesense oftheirfoulsmellthanoftheirfoultaste.Shakespearedoes use
the idea of spittingtwice:once,as cited,to describeHector'sforeheadbleedingin battle,
and the secondtimein Coriolanus's onlyscene of soliloquy,disguisedbeforeAufidius's
house:"Then knowme not/ Lest thatthywiveswithspitsand boyswithstones/ In puny
battleslay me"-so thatbothtimesspittingis linkedwithbattleand withfood.As I have
implied,I understandCoriolanus'svisionofhis deathin Antiumat thehandsofwivesand
boys as a prophecyof the death he actuallyundergoesthere,spittedby the swordsof
strangeboys.
8. The followingremarkson Sidney'stractwerereintroduced, expandedfroman earlierset
on thesubjectthatI had droppedfromthepaper,as a resultofan exchangewithStephen
Greenblattduringthediscussionperiodfollowingmypresentation at Stanford.
9. Findingthewords/foodrepresentation so compelling,I am ignoringherethe path along
whichthecirculationofwordsalso registersthecirculationofmoney(as in "So shall my
lungs/Coinwords" [III.i.77-78]; and in "The price is, to ask it kindly"[II.iii.77]). The
senseofconsumingas expendingwould relateto Coriolanus'sfranticefforts to denythat
his actionscan be recompensed("betterto starvethan cravethe hire"-for example,of
receivingvoicesin return). Money dependsupon the equatingof values; Coriolanus on
theirlack ofequation,on measurelessness, pricelessness.
10. In the discussionperiodat Stanford,Paul AlpersnotedthatI seemedto findsomething
likea comicperspective oftheplay tobe moreextensivethanjust herewhereI am making
itexplicit,and he askedhow farI wishedto go in seekingthisperspective.I findthisa true
responseto myreading,but it goes beyondanythingI can explorenow. I mentionedthen
what I taketo be a startingpointto suchan exploration,Coriolanus'ssensethatas he and
his motherstandsilenttogether"The Gods look down,and thisunnaturalscene/ They
laugh at." Does he feelthegods laugh because motherand son are too closeor too distant
withone another?At leastthesceneis unnaturalbecauseit is social,and becausethesocial
is thesceneofmazes ofmeaningas denseas poetry,in whichitspoor,prosaic,half-human
creaturesare isolated.The comedicperspective I seekpresentsitselftome as a totalization,
or a kindoftranscendentalizing, ofdramaticirony-where theomenor allusionis notof
somespecific,futureevent,butofthetotalityofthepresent,ofeventsas theyare, without
our beingable to specifyin advancewhat individuatesor what relatestheseevents.
20 REPRESENTATIONS

Reading Coriolanus - Cavell

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Reading Coriolanus - Cavell

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

University of California Press

"Who Does the Wolf love?" Reading Coriolanus

"Who does the wolf love?"

SOMETHING THAT DRAWS me to Coriolanus is its apparent disdain of

REPRESENTATIONS 3 * Summer 1983 ? THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

"Who does the wolflove?" 3

Both invocationslead one to thinkwhat it is thisson learnedat his mother'sbreast,

As Coriolanusmocksand resiststheritualofaskingforthepeople's voices,his being

I saythatmotherand son,bothofthem,are starving, and I meanthroughout, always,

as if he is asserting the rightnessof a particular choice forthe future;but as

as if he is reaffirmingor confessinghis settled formof (inner) life. I expect that the

"Who does the wolf love?" 5

... thoushaltno sooner

It is very much to the point to notice that in Menenius's vision of Rome as an

CORIOLANUS: Let themhang.

"Who does the wolf love?" 7

Adelman reads as follows:

Blood is more beautifulthan milk,the wound than the breast,warfarethan peacefulfeed-

"Who does the wolf love?" 9

"Who does the wolf love?" 11

"Who does the wolf love?" 13

"Who does the wolf love?" 15

Second (theyhave a way in theirlanguageofspeakingofmenas halvesofone another),they

Within the experience of such a vision of the circulation of language, a question

"Who does the wolf love?" 17

* Deliveredas partofa colloquiumon Coriolanusheld at The HumanitiesInstituteduring

"Who does the wolf love?" 19

Anda mungkin juga menyukai