Shakespeare wrote a number of plays where the mother is conspicuously absent—The Merchant of Venice, King Lear and The Tempest are examples—but only one play where the mother-son conflict is central, Coriolanus. This fact alone would make this play of interest within the frame of reference of this book, but there is yet another reason why the play brings Shakespeare and psychoanalysis closer.
In Coriolanus Shakespeare showed an astonishing understanding of a mother-son relationship. Today, largely under the influence of psychoanalysis, we take it for granted that the early years and the relationship to the parents are decisive in forming our characters, but in Shakespeare's time none of this was known. Even today psychoanalytic patients discover to their astonishment how decisive the father or mother was in the formation of their characters.
Act I, scene three takes place in Coriolanus’ house, between his mother Volumnia and his wife Virgilia.
The phrase, “If my son were my husband” would probably not occur to an ordinary mother, and if it did, it would not be allowed to be told to the daughter-in-law because it betrays a sexualised attitude towards the son. It can pass censorship in this case because the sexuality is negated in the second sentence.
Volumnia goes on, ecstatically visualising how her son terrorises the Volsces even though his brow is bloody. Virgilia objects by saying, “His bloody brow? O Jupiter, no blood!” (I.iii.33).
| VOLUMNIA: | Away, you fool! it more becomes a man Than gilt his trophy. The breasts of Hecuba, When she did suckle Hector, look'd not lovelier Than Hector's forehead when it spit forth blood At Grecian sword, contemning. (I.iii.34–38) |
Shakespeare took the plot for Coriolanus from Plutarch's “Life of Caius Marcius Coriolanus”. Plutarch had already noted the absent father in Coriolanus’ life and that his upbringing was solely due to his mother. Even after his marriage and becoming a father to two children he continued to live with his mother. When such a borrowing takes place we can say that Shakespeare allowed himself to deal with material that was personally difficult by attributing the plot to someone else. The creative act begins passively by borrowing the plot, and deviations from the original version of the story are of special interest because they tell us what was particularly important to the author rewriting the plot. (My comparison is based on the Scott-Kilvert translation of Plutarch).
Plutarch noted that Gaius Marcius (who later becomes known as Coriolanus) lost his father when he was young and was brought up by his mother, who never remarried. Plutarch uses the opportunity to tell his readers that the early loss of the father may impose disadvantages on a boy but it “does not prevent him from living a virtuous or a distinguished life” (Scott-Kilvert, 1965: p. 15). Plutarch, like Shakespeare, portrays the character of Marcius as naturally generous and of noble disposition, but lacking discipline. Plutarch compares him to fertile soil that did not receive the proper tilling. The future Coriolanus achieved much for Rome and he was admired for “his indifference to hardship, to pleasure and to the temptations of money” (ibid.) “but these qualities were combined with a violent temper and an uncompromising self-assertion, which made it difficult for him to cooperate with others” (ibid.). He trained his body so thoroughly for every type of combat that he acquired the speed of an athlete and the muscular strength of a wrestler. “But while other men displayed their courage to win glory for themselves, Marcius's motive was always to please his mother” (Scott-Kilvert, 1965: p. 18). Shakespeare follows Plutarch closely but there is one notable difference: The encounter between Volumnia and Virgilia is absent in Plutarch. We assume that if an author deviates from the sources being followed, the change has a personal meaning. Plutarch's Coriolanus has heroic Roman qualities whereas Shakespeare's Coriolanus is self-destructive because he has an ambivalent relationship with his mother.
In Plutarch the character of Marcius is his very own and it was he who wanted to please his mother, whereas in Shakespeare Marcius / Coriolanus was created by his mother's glorification of his wounds. In Plutarch's version Marcius wants to please his mother while in Shakespeare's retelling his violent life is a response to his mother's unconscious wish to destroy him.
To become consul, Coriolanus is asked to reveal his wounds to the plebeian crowd; this he will not do. He is not the type of man suitable for electioneering, but why does he refuse? The wounds unconsciously may represent his submission to his mother's will; to put it in psychoanalytic terms, he is asked to exhibit his castration and this he refuses to do.
The scene gains significance from the psychoanalytic understanding that he is asked to exhibit himself to the mob and at the very same moment to exhibit his wounds, which are, in psychoanalytic vocabulary, his castration. Having failed to be elected consul, Coriolanus now goes over to the enemy Aufidius. He is without weapons at his enemy's house and since he is thus symbolically castrated he is welcomed.
Often in Shakespeare's plays when someone wishes to convert a former enemy into a lover he offers to let the adversary kill him. Coriolanus gives Aufidius such an opportunity and when Aufidius refuses a bond is established between them.
| CORIOLANUS: | 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. But if so be Thou darest not this and that to prove more fortunes Thou'rt tired, then, in a word, I also am Longer to live most weary, and present My throat to thee and to thy ancient malice; Which not to cut would show thee but a fool, Since I have ever follow'd thee with hate, Drawn tuns of blood out of thy country's breast, And cannot live but to thy shame, unless It be to do thee service. (Coriolanus, IV.v.85–98) |
As a play Coriolanus consists of the interweaving of two different themes: the catastrophic relationship between mother and child and the latent homosexual relationship between Marcius and Aufidius.
The crisis in the mother-son relationship reaches a high point in Act V. The Volces, led by Coriolanus and Aufidius, are at the gates of Rome. They plan to conquer the city and burn it down. First Menenius, a friend whom Coriolanus regards as a father, enters, pleading for him not to destroy Rome, but Coriolanus, with a “crack'd heart”, sends him away even though he recalls being loved by him “above the measure of a father” (V.iii.10).
Next his mother, his wife, his son and Virgilia's friend Valeria enter, all in mourning habits. Coriolanus is deeply shaken by their appearance but remains resolute.
| CORIOLANUS: | But, out, affection! All bond and privilege of nature, break! Let it be virtuous to be obstinate. … but stand, As if a man were author of himself And knew no other kin. … Like a dull actor now, I have forgot my part, and I am out, Even to a full disgrace. (V.iii.24–25, 35–37, 40–42) |
The metaphor of the dull actor does not fit into this very complex situation and represents a moment of Shakespeare the actor's identification with Coriolanus in conflict between his hetero- and homosexual feelings. Once more we note an affinity between Shakespeare and psychoanalysis.
Shakespeare the dramatist is at his very best when he portrays the inner conflict within Coriolanus. The family ties to mother, wife, and child pull him in one direction while his loyalty to his former enemies, his thirst for revenge and the homosexual tie to Aufidius pull him in another.
His mother is also in conflict.
| VOLUMNIA: | Alas, how can we for our country pray. Whereto we are bound, together with thy victory, Whereto we are bound? (V.iii.107–109) |
The difficulty in praying when one is in a conflict-filled situation was already noted by Plutarch. Volumnia, speaking to the assembled voices as well as to her son, says:
| VOLUMNIA: | And even to pray to the gods, which others may find a comfort in their misfortunes, has become impossible for us, since we cannot ask them in the same breath to make our country victorious and to keep you safe. (Scott-Kilvert, 1965: p. 48) |
In Antony and Cleopatra Shakespeare gave the same dilemma to Octavia, Antony's wife and Octavius Caesar's sister when the two men become enemies.
Volumnia tells her son that she will not wait to find out the result of the war between Rome and her son. She will kill herself rather than face the consequences.
| VOLUMNIA: | I purpose not to wait on fortune till These wars determine: if I cannot persuade thee Rather to show a noble grace to both parts Than seek the end of one, thou shalt no sooner March to assault thy country than to tread— Trust to't, thou shalt not—on thy mother's womb, That brought thee to this world. (Coriolanus, V.iii.119–125) |
The attack on Rome was always symbolic matricide; Volumnia makes the symbolic concrete.
Virgilia reminds him that she “brought you forth this boy, to keep your name / Living to time” (V.iii.126–127). Eventually his mother appeals to her son's narcissism: he can gain fame by making peace between the Romans and the Volsces.
| VOLUMNIA: | The end of war's uncertain, but this certain, That, if thou conquer Rome, the benefit Which thou shalt thereby reap is such a name, Whose repetition will be dogg'd with curses; Whose chronicle thus writ: ‘The man was noble, But with his last attempt he wiped it out; Destroy'd his country, and his name remains To the ensuing age abhorr'd’. (V.iii.141–148) |
Volumnia gets increasingly bitter in her denunciation of her son.
| VOLUMNIA: | Thou hast never in thy life Show'd thy dear mother any courtesy, When she, poor hen, fond of no second brood, Has cluck'd thee to the wars and safely home, Loaden with honour. Say my request's unjust, And spurn me back: but if it be not so, Thou art not honest; and the gods will plague thee, That thou restrain'st from me the duty which To a mother's part belongs. (V.iii.160–168) |
It is left to Coriolanus to express the tragedy of the mother-son relationship.
| CORIOLANUS: | O mother, mother! 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, If not most mortal to him. But, let it come. (V.iii.183–190) |
We should note a significant change in the character of Volumnia. On the basis of what we learned about her previously we would have expected her to be on her son's side and be indifferent to her own death as long as she is identified with her son's humiliation at his expulsion and with his subsequent victory over Rome, but we meet a different Volumnia. She is no longer totally allied with her son's injuries to his honour. She shows a concern for her own safety, a love for Rome and a much greater independence from her son. It is the encounter with a different mother that shakes the narcissistic foundation of her son's resolve and will soon bring about his death.
The second subplot of the play, the relationship between Coriolanus and Aufidius
In many plays we have the chance to see that Shakespeare the dramatist is not satisfied to follow one plot but prefers two interacting themes to convey the complexity of life. In this play the relationship between Coriolanus and the general of the Volsces supplies the second plot.
In the first act the news comes that the Volsces are in arms and we learn about a peculiar attitude of almost erotic admiration that Marcius has for Tullus Aufidius, their leader.
| CORIOLANUS: | I sin in envying his nobility, And were I any thing but what I am, I would wish me only he. … he is a lion That I am proud to hunt. (I.i.214–216, 219–220) |
Aufidius reciprocates this sentiment when he says: “‘Tis sworn between us we shall ever strike / Till one can do no more” (I.ii.35–36).
In psychoanalytic work we encounter men who wish to be someone other than who they are. When they find the person who is what they would like to be, this feeling can become transformed into a homosexualised or desexualised attraction. Marcius envies Aufidius’ nobility and comes near to stating that he would like to be him. The next metaphor is particularly interesting, as if the majesty of the lion conveys nobility on the hunter. The relationship deepens when Coriolanus seeks refuge in Aufidius’ house.
Coriolanus leaves it up to Aufidius to avenge himself by killing him or to use him for revenge against Rome, which would punish his banisher for exiling him. The first alternative is masochistic while the second one gratifies his own wishes for revenge.
Coriolanus gives his enemy a choice, but dramatically speaking there was no choice: what kind of plot would it be if Aufidius had decided to kill his helpless guest? Of particular note is the line “Drawn tuns of blood out of thy country's breast” (IV.v.106). Earlier I commented on Volumnia's words when she compared Hector's bleeding head with Hecuba's breasts; now Shakespeare returns to the same fixation point, the mother's breasts, but in this case the mother is the country and Coriolanus accuses himself of drawing blood from them. The metaphor is highly original and once more the hostility between the baby and the nursing mother is affirmed.
The hostility between Aufidius and Coriolanus turns into a friendship or more likely a homosexual love. Aufidius responds to Coriolanus’ overture with deep emotion:
| AUFIDIUS: | O Marcius, Marcius! Each word thou hast spoke hath weeded from my heart A root of ancient envy. If Jupiter Should from yond cloud speak divine things, And say ‘Tis true,’ I'ld not believe them more Than thee, all noble Marcius. (IV.iv.98–103) |
The bond between the two men holds until the scene where Coriolanus yields to his mother's request. Aufidius is present during Coriolanus’ encounter with his family. The relationship between the two men breaks down when the heterosexuality of Coriolanus asserts itself when he meets with his wife. Coriolanus asks Aufidius:
| CORIOLANUS: | Were you in my stead, would you have heard A mother less? or granted less, Aufidius? |
| AUFIDIUS: | I was moved withal. (V.iii.193–195) |
It is in Act V, scene five in Antium that a change takes place in Aufidius. He recognises that he became Coriolanus’ follower and not his partner. The last exchange between the two men is dramatic.
| AUFIDIUS: | Ay, traitor, Marcius! |
| CORIOLANUS: | Marcius! |
| AUFIDIUS: | Ay, Marcius, Caius Marcius: dost thou think I'll grace thee with that robbery, thy stol'n name Coriolanus in Corioli? You lords and heads o’ the state, perfidiously He has betray'd your business, and given up, For certain drops of salt, your city Rome, I say ‘your city’, to his wife and mother; Breaking his oath and resolution like A twist of rotten silk, never admitting Counsel o’ the war, but at his nurse's tears He whined and roar'd away your victory, That pages blush'd at him and men of heart Look'd wondering each at other. |
| CORIOLANUS: | Hear'st thou, Mars? |
| AUFIDIUS: | Name not the god, thou boy of tears! |
| CORIOLANUS: | Ha! |
| AUFIDIUS: | No more. |
| CORIOLANUS: | Measureless liar, thou hast made my heart Too great for what contains it. Boy! O slave! Pardon me, lords, ‘tis the first time that ever I was forced to scold. Your judgments, my grave lords, Must give this cur the lie: and his own notion— Who wears my stripes impress'd upon him; that Must bear my beating to his grave—shall join To thrust the lie unto him. (V.v.88–112) |
The fact that the two turn against each other so vehemently suggests that their previous relationship, although desexualised, was based on homosexual love.
I am certain that many generations of readers who compared Plutarch with Shakespeare have noticed the differences in their use of language. Shakespeare's language is richer in metaphors and more adorned, while Plutarch's account is simple and direct. However, the general conclusion must have been that Shakespeare essentially followed Plutarch's model. It is psychoanalysis that opens our eyes to see the gulf that separates the two interpretations: Plutarch is an educating author who conveys the importance of self-discipline and the Greek virtue of moderation, while Shakespeare tells us of a mother so unfeminine that she raises a son to love battle and eventually, in obedience to her unconscious wishes he must destroy himself. The self-destructive behaviour of the son found temporary relief in a homosexual friendship between two former enemies but the restoration of heterosexual ties doomed the hero of this play.