Plutarch’s Lives: Life of Coriolanus

by Plutarch, John Dryden (Translator)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Genres: Biography, History

30 pages, Paperback

First published August 20, 2015

About the author

Plutarch (later named, upon becoming a Roman citizen, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus; AD 46–AD 120) was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist, known primarily for his Parallel Lives and Moralia. He is classified as a Middle Platonist. Plutarch's surviving works were written in Greek, but intended for both Greek and Roman readers.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin]

Plutarch excels at describing great deeds, and is at his best when those deeds disclose a great man, whose virtues and flaws together reveal the heart of his character. It is no wonder that the fatherless Coriolanus, raised as a proud patrician by the mother he revered, should have become, in turn, a fierce warrior, a relentless general, an arrogant orator, an inartful politician, and—finally—a traitor to his people, leading a Volscian army against the gates of Rome. And it is no wonder that the Life of Coriolanus is one of Plutarch’s best biographies and the principal source of Shakespeare’s great Roman play.

Usually I read Plutarch in the Dryden translation (revised by Victorian poet Arthur Hugh Clough), but, since this particular life was an inspiration for Shakespeare, this time I chose the version Shakespeare read: Thomas North’s translation of 1579.

Shakespeare’s speeches are often quite close to North’s version. In fact, they are often so similar in diction and arrangement that a modern critic might term the result plagiarism. But then the Elizabethan Age’s attitude toward such things was different from ours, and Shakepeare always improved what he found.

To show you what I mean, I have included two excerpts from the exiled Coriolanus’ speech to the Volscian general Tullus Aufidius, offering his great expertise—and his even greater anger—against his native city of Rome. The prose is North’s, the verse Shakespeare’s, and the similarities are printed in bold:

NORTH:
I am Caius Martius, who hath done to thyself particularly, and to all the Volsces generally, great hurt and mischief, which I cannot deny for my surname of Coriolanus that I hear. For I never had other benefit nor recompence of the true and painful service I have done, and the extreme dangers I have been in, but this only surname: a good memory and witness of the malice and displeasure thou shouldest bear me. Indeed the name only remaineth with me: for the rest the envy and cruelty of the people of Rome have taken from me, by the sufferance of the dastardly nobility and magistrates, who have forsaken me, and let me be banished by the people.

SHAKESPEARE:
My name is Caius Marcius, who hath done
To thee particularly and to all the Volsces
Great hurt and mischief; thereto witness may
My surname, Coriolanus: the painful service,
The extreme dangers and the drops of blood
Shed for my thankless country are requited
But with that surname; a good memory,
And witness of the malice and displeasure
Which thou shouldst bear me: only that name remains;
The cruelty and envy of the people,
Permitted by our dastard nobles, who
Have all forsook me, hath devour'd the rest;
And suffer'd me by the voice of slaves to be
Whoop'd out of Rome.

NORTH:
This extremity hath now driven me to come as a poor suitor, to take thy chimney-hearth, not of any hope I have to save my life thereby for if I had feared death, I would not have come hither to have put myself in hazard: but pricked forward with desire to be revenged of them that thus have banished me; which now I do begin, in putting my person into the hands of their enemies. Wherefore, if thou hast any heart to be wrecked of the injuries thy enemies have done thee, speed thee now, and let my misery serve thy turn, and so use it as my service may be a benefit to the Volsces: promising thee, that I will fight with better good will for all you than I did when I was against you, knowing that they fight more valiantly who know the force of the enemy, than such as have never proved it.

SHAKESPEARE:
Now this extremity
Hath brought me to thy hearth; not out of hope--
Mistake me not-- to save my life, for if
I had fear'd death, of all the men i' the world
I would have 'voided thee, but in mere spite,
To be full quit of those my banishers,
Stand I before thee here. Then if thou hast
A heart of wreak in thee, that wilt revenge
Thine own particular wrongs and stop those maims
Of shame seen through thy country, speed
thee straight,
And make my misery serve thy turn: so use it
That my revengeful services may prove
As benefits to thee, for I will fight
Against my canker'd country with the spleen
Of all the under fiends.

[David Sarkies]

The Shadow of Shakespeare
7 March 2018

As I was reading this life all I could think of was the play by Shakespeare. In fact, the main version of the play that was going through my head was the Ralph Fiennes version which is set in the modern era, basically has machine guns and is actually a pretty awesome movie (but then again I am still waiting for them to do a similar version with regards to Julius Caesar). However, while the play, and the versions of the play, are pretty good, they are sort of somewhat counter-productive to this particular life namely because Coriolanus wasn't running around with an assault rifle, or driving an armoured car when he was launching an attack on Rome.

So, with that elephant out of the room, I am still wondering why it is that Plutarch decided to pair Coriolanus with Alcibaides considering that they aren't anywhere near the same. Well, I guess you could consider them to be competent generals, though as Plutarch points out Coriolanus really didn't win any major battles (though that is incorrect since his name actually comes from the fact that he did win a battle against the city of Corioli). The major difference is that Alcibaides was a man of the people, and was one of those people that could talk his way out of any difficulty, where as Coriolanus not only was a man who didn't mince his words, he also didn't have any time for the plebs, which is what got him into trouble in the first place.

Now, I mentioned this issue where Corionalus got himself into trouble, though this is somewhat of an understatement because he actually got himself kicked out of the city. Sure, he was a great general, but the problem that he faced was that he didn't like the plebeians and the plebeians didn't particularly like him. However, he needed the support of the plebeians to be elected to the position of consul, and despite a lot of coaching, not only was he unable to hide his disdain for them, but he also made enemies of the tribunes, the representatives of the plebeians. Actually, it goes a little deeper than that because he also proposed that he would release grain to the people in return for rolling back some of the pro-plebeian reforms. Needless to say that didn't go down all that well, and the result was exile, so he did what most people in that position did – joined his enemies the Volsci (I guess it shows how much Shakespeare has influence me in this regard).

I have already written a lot about the story of Coriolanus in both my review of the play of the same name, and also in a blog post on a version that I had recently seen (which wasn't the Ralph Fiennes version, but did star none other than Tom Hiddleston of Loki fame), so I won't cover old ground here. However, I can probably appreciate why Shakespeare ended up turning this story into a play, not only because it is pretty bloodthirsty, but also because it is pretty tragic. This is particularly the case that when Coriolanus joins with the Volsci he marches of Rome, and pretty much destroys all opposition and is on the verge of marching into the city when his former colleagues try one last trick – they send his mother, wife, and son, out to plead with him to stand down. Since he, like many people out there, does have a soft side, he relents. The problem is that the Volsci are pretty peeved with this and vote to execute him.

This is something that doesn't really happen with Alcibaides since he spends only a short time in Sparta, hates it, and ends up spending the rest of the time traveling about the Greek world (and even returns to Athens). In fact not only doesn't he launch any major offensives against the Athenians (namely because the Spartans didn't have a navy to make such an offensive practical), but he also supports his old home when the Persian satrap joins with the Spartans and lends them his navy. Sure, Acibaides was ambushed in his castle in Thrace and killed, but that was something that happened quite often in those days.

The interesting thing that I noted with Coriolanus, or at least Plutarch's telling of the story, is that he goes a bit further than Shakespeare (which is not at all surprising considering Shakespeare is turning it into a play, meaning that a lot of things are cut out for simplicity, and time). In Shakespeare we basically end with Coriolanus lying dead on the stage, while Plutarch tells us what happened afterwards, namely that the minute the Volscis executed Coriolanus, was the minute that they needed him, because pretty shortly afterwards they are destroyed by their enemies. Then again, I'm sure many of us have experienced similar things in our lives (in that the minute we get rid of something is the minute we need it).

Oh, and here is a painting of Coriolanus' mother pleading with him.

[image error]

[Isabella Roh]

I read this in preparation for Shakespeare's Coriolanus, and the story of this man's life was absolutely fascinating. In particular, the parallels with David, when he was fleeing Saul, fighting against his home country were fascinating, and I also wondered at the question of why Martius's mother and wife didn't go with him when he left Rome. The tone of this work is also interesting because the narrator does not seem to particularly admire Martius at the beginning, though he clearly respects him, but the admiration seems to slowly develop throughout the work.

[Aaron Michael]

5th century BC

After Rome rejected him, he led the Volsci against the Romans in war until his mother pleaded with him to stop. Compared with the Greek traitor, Alcibiades.

[Cécile de Rousiers]

Plutarque rapproche les vies de Coriolan et d'Alcibiade dans une démarche historique et philosophique. Il s'agit d'un extrait de son œuvre principale, Les Vies Parallèles, qui permettent de réfléchir sur l'antiquité mais aussi sur la duplication de certains profils !