thumbnail of Egoist in tragedy; Shakespeare: Coriolanus, part two
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
What do you see in the standing of the Council and later in his standing his trial. Is something which can be either ordinary common sense or match your belly and as. In the case of a man like us. It may be a kind of dishonor which is incompatible with the existence of his own pride. None of his friends and not even his mother. Are shown and realizing this. For them which possess ordinary people as a prize. Proper conduct for any object if you walk out. The Stand tall but he can act like other men. On trial again.
Try. To think of the drama. This way. He's really like the other side. He's a brave and gallant and in the end you're not doing my stripes. Particular fire is not reserved for the man. Who killed. But for the. Life he had the bravery and the love. Which implies the absolute obvious. Good Sense discretion and resource. Only that there is a tragic vision of the world in which the one side excludes the other. Actually in the play. The law reminds her son that he very often as a soldier exhibits one
campaigning the very virtues which he so signally lacks. Like the virtues of strategy and good sense hesitation. See the campaign is a kind of game which is troops. Can understand the whole of the game. He can see how each of the moves serves a purpose. The central purpose of victory. And this victory has the artificial. Appeal to back to the life of the politician and the civilian. The formlessness of it all. And tell him of the rules of the game don't like the rules of any game. They seem only subject to tricks to aggrandise set. And it kind of. Argues.
The baby aggrandisement. Because he is exactly expendable in our glory which is achieved by him. But somehow personally. If the man can perform. So in the totality of life it's dramatically representing. The qualities he hands the others that he must have to win. In war he can be a kind of artist and victorious. Like account. And so we. Have to. Turn some of the advice of his friends and his mother which have brought him both kinds of failure.
He trying to make out the whole of life. Kind of gave me the kind of gave Elizabeth presentation. And which he understands as the mimic representation before his booking. Room is banished now or dangerously and originally he will join her enemies betray all its conventional loyalties and by his single power crush. The conventional restraints which is urged him to accept a winning civil life. Proved incompatible with the nature of an hour. He will show that he is totally emancipated. Conquered his country as readily as an enemy such a. Coward when. In that Macchiavelli and game. He had shown them all what this failure to wear implying his freedom of outlook.
Which will bring a tremendous and dreadful success in the field where they wouldn't expect it. All work towards the conventional world which is individual pride was a handicap. And it creates a new word in which both his friends and his enemies will finally beg him for mercy. The tribunes were satisfied crowd price is a bad thing. They get punished. So the problem for them. I mean you just believed that to be successful. You have to make. Terms with the trivia you have to allow for. Their pettiness neighboring outta certain ways. I mean he's agreed with the Tribune as if nothing else. Could make victory and happiness impossible for people like guardian angels
unless they do count on the basis of the reasoning is rather different in each case the result is pretty much the same for both manias and the tributes have grown sure are the fairest 15 marks the limits. Of what a man can hope for and dare. The big hole in that belief. Has never entered the consciousness. That the individual liberty is violated cruelly and rudely enough. Might cause all conventional links between himself and his setting. And trying to find his satisfaction in nothing but himself and his own. I think the word traitor are used by the tribunal Coriolanus trial is the spark which can be cured. I think it's exactly the kind of thing that. If the Tribune's can call a traitor. For his impetuosity and his friends. And in the face of the manifest service he has
rendered. Then he is pretty sure. The traitor belongs with all the booze which they've invoked again. The way talks speaks. And if they think that calling him traitor fragmenting. Ultimate reproach. They can be a traitor. Fact. Quite an honor and honor shame and a traitorous greatest offender. When Coriolanus talks to appeal years before when he describes. The baseness of his friend using failing to deal with the rascal Commons. It might be possible to think of representing. The possibility of another kind of political position as to Craddick position. I think that's quite illusory. The
artistic fact Comenius and so are all represented actually as having to deal with the comma split. As in fact the government of James the First had to deal. With a very strong Democratic and a very strong commercial mill. There so forced to do so by circumstances which are not mentioned in the play but are very easily filled in now to English rather than Roman history. The need to maintain for them are. United India. Was emphasized by the minister of Spain and France and this is of course exactly the importance of a thread about it. So it's not the superficial choice which makes meaning as put up and those that they leave it the choice which involves the successful routes are viable in Rome. As a
living unit to which one is. Currently choice while already Jacobean Englishman when translated. Ultimately the individual is. The ultimate man or. It was to assert that nothing even link binding one to one's own country was strong enough to stand against the fulfilment. Dream in the. Past. And so the crucial moment in the play dramatic. Final refusal to factory. And the last minute denial of his own logic. It's worth reminding you here I think the comparison with Philip Davies. And illustrating the similarity in a certain respect. I caught your attention when we talked about the boat and
handling the same theme. Had to play the ultimate conviction. By referring to his patriotism. And Sophocles play. The bagpipes. Touch. In the Shakespearean play the hero is also saying that his determination by a number of appeals. All of which are unavailing except the last night of his mother. In other words. In both of these players both treaties and Coriolanus. The dramatist is explicitly saying the character does not heal because of this and of this but because of this. Explicit statement that action does not feel to COMINIUS. To the claims of friendship and papyrus. But to a dilemma.
Close a trial or two. In each of them. Volumnia as the third element. First willing to abandon his eccentric and violent passion. And follow what seems to be a reasonable course. Which he later failed to carry out. Something in a mutiny against this seeming reasonable. Because first place not the seemingly reasonable toll. A fact which is marked by its presentation bias and his rejection. But simply the relation of his mother to him. From first to last is the overmastering. Complicated way.
This is really why I. Spend such a lot time to. Herself ignorant of nature and what's her advice is totally on. Our from her advice and so exactly suited to overcome. Her power over him and finally turn him from any course. But the direction you are giving is alien to him and for him. In fact what we have here. Is a picture of him. According to research.
The power. Of things. And of course. There are the details. Which are quite personal. They have nothing to do with his General Pak. He can't accept the. General pattern which he really lives out. The son had really framed in her image. And his complete particular admiration. This is where the poor man of Korea comes in you see.
Because this is the indication by Shakespeare that this doesn't merely exist but the whole way around. He would want to pardon the poor man of Korea lay dead. This is part of a generous here. But he's quite incapable of remembering anything accurately enough or seeing his way to a situation well enough. So the one important detail of who the man. Really register. I want to like this by a statement of previous. Years. Perhaps to play an almost. Explicit one by somebody who is looking at it of course you know 50 years is. On the point of laying his plots against him but when you're pretty sure that it's going to. Take Ramadi right. I think. I was asked to the picture by sovereignty of nature.
First. He was an overt servant. But he could not carry it on or even whether it was right which I was a David Corcoran ever happened where the defective chances which he was lowered. Or whether nature not to be of even one thing not to the question but command peace even with the same austerity in the guard was probably. But one of the spices of them all but I guess. So. And so back. But he has a mare to choke him. I've spoken to this. In the figure of the bull. I meant that the destruction. Of a noble savage creature was beauty and
vitality. Resigned in his immediate and deviating response to what his instincts and his powers do. We've seen him turn from those courses by his mother in our mistaken belief in what's best in more ordinary parts. Each time you accept a new direction and he fails to carry out his mother's advice that sense of failure. He doesn't self-conscious. They see any balance between what is interest would have and do and what others said urging them to do. But the last time. I bought appears the supreme moment of the Tracting. He doesn't know. He knows how it will end. For once sending him to what they are. Which will take from him not only life but glory.
Not the sort of debt he wanted her to our dramatic climax with her here but it death misrepresents both sides. About. The man who was temporizing in we can vote. In both times both before and before the traitor is the words used in. This clash. In a flash of insight he accepts and he offers it to his mother. At the sacrifice of everything which is truly upset. Here. Glorious.
The kind of man that. Doesn't bring peace but a sword. Because the truth. The truth the dramatic execution of his imagined. Tears The other reality apart. The reality of compromise acts and ambiguity. And usual form of hero. Probably. Pretty much just a blip quite blind. Eye only. Symbolizing. Time yet. Very rarely. And then I think tragically. Do they realise it only for a moment. The nature of the conflict between their world and the world that surrounds them. For at that moment they
consciously make the sacrifice. Which emulates themselves on the altar of the god. This is moment of illumination and only a moment he goes to do his mother's bidding in this case as in the others and in this case and really others he is tempted by the impetuosity of the temple and he gives his enemies a chance the way. It is significant. The current owner should go not with the words of resignation on his lips with which he parted from the mother. But violently and pointlessly and even cheap play. Perishing by a cheap plot hatched by cheap bridal. Stone to give the fatal offense by his childish Manna Dey. Preserve ideas taught you boy. It's a great deal that I hear the end of Hamlet
isn't any of the climax he'd planned. And he carefully plotted. And rejected. In a moment of honest carelessness. The end of X Factor is not the end of the room. Page. Give me some wine and a drink. The end of any of them. Is no conventional attribute of majesty you. Only the heart of crazy king with his dead daughter in his arms. Point just cause. Your last great tragedies I think Shakespeare's characters dramatic play. A momentous commonplace. You must be married.
And the hero must know was what it implied. But mercifully he mustn't keep the knowledge step by step to the last that. These can be taken quite. Foolish even callously. Spectators to see the symmetry of the act. And not for them to know that once. The hero has understood to the egoist in tragedy is the second in a series of three talks by David Greene poet translator and professor in the committee on social thought at the University of Chicago. Today's programme of Shakespeare's Coriolanus This is the N. AB network.
Egoist in tragedy
Shakespeare: Coriolanus, part two
Producing Organization
University of Chicago
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-s17ss84b).
Episode Description
This program features the second part of David Grene's lecture on Shakespeare's Coriolanus.
Series Description
Three lectures by David Grene, poet, translator, and Professor in the Committee on Social Thought, University of Chicago. He discusses a particular kind of tragedy and focuses on three examples.
Broadcast Date
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Coriolanus.
Media type
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: University of Chicago
Speaker: Grene, David
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 55-12-2 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:22:56
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Egoist in tragedy; Shakespeare: Coriolanus, part two,” 1955-05-08, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed September 23, 2023,
MLA: “Egoist in tragedy; Shakespeare: Coriolanus, part two.” 1955-05-08. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. September 23, 2023. <>.
APA: Egoist in tragedy; Shakespeare: Coriolanus, part two. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from