Again the play
Coriolanus
is a reality event which is dramatized. The drama which is created cannot be separated with the concept of reality; that is
political side. The political side discusses here refers to a tendency to overthrow the system of government which is considered inappropriate with the voice of
people. On the other hand, the ruling government tries to maintain its position. “Shakespeare in
Coriolanus
dramatizes the conflict between communal and private notions of the body. The movement to enclose land is metaphorically
linked to
the constitution
of the
individualistic, enclosed
self” http:extra.shu.ac.ukemls13-1eastcori.htm.
In relevance with the political term and tragic hero, the writer supports criticism from Wain, 1964: 163 which discusses that in political terms, the play
describes a country which falls into the power of a murderer and tyrant. The hero dies as the reason of vengeful pride giving way to heroic sacrifice. Wain shows
that Caius Marcius Coriolanus ’s death is considered as heroic sacrifice. Caius
Marcius Coriolanus has to die to save Roman’s and Volsce’s peace. However,
Doren has another perspective of Coriolanus’ death. At the end of play, there is a
consideration of Coriolanus as a tragic hero because of his personal rivalry with Aufidius.
The death of Coriolanus is inevitable not because of his character or because of his career as we have followed it, but because Aufidius hates
him. This hatred, engraved on the surface of the tragedy as many as seven times, is a sign that cannot be missed, but it has nothing to do with the
essential theme. Its origin is earlier than the play and has to do with a rivalry between two leaders. The central conflict is between the leader and
the led Doren, 1955: 245.
In his criticism, Doren seems to reveal personal problem between the leaders of two cities. The conflicts of the play become sophisticated because it takes wider
problem between Rome and Volsce which are in war. Discussing leadership and power as its main core, it is important to
consider the characteristics of Coriolanus as the Roman military leader. In
Shakespeare without Tears
, Webster 1957: 197 notes that it is useless for us to try to make Coriolanus a dictator. Webster says that Coriolanus hates and
mistrusts the people and the people’s tribunes, but he has no wish to rule them. He
is content to serve under another general; he runs from public commendation of his own deeds and worth; he is not especially elated over the offer of the
consulship; and he cannot bring himself to purchase it by any truckling to the voters or exercise of demagogic arts. Coriolanus just glories in his power as a
fighter and willing, for no reward but the satisfaction of his own pride, to serve in the most austere tradition of the military caste. Webster opposes the possibility of
tyranny and arrogation of power as states by Parlato 2012 in chapter one. From this point, Shakespeare’s
Coriolanus
implies some values inside the qualifications of leadership.
Through this writing, the writer has an attempt to develop an analysis about leadership. From the previous reviews, the writer examines that William
Shakespeare’s
Coriolanus
is not just a play that told the story of history or politics in general. However, in a line with the previous topics which the writer supports is
that this play implies moral values of leadership which considered important to be learned. How Caius Marcius Coriolanus
’ characteristics are described is the first
scope of this research. The first scope of this writing focuses on the way the main character is characterized, of course the way of characterization which covers
Coriolanus’ attitudes and conflicts. After making analysis of the main character’ characteristics, the main point of this writing is to search, to analyze, and to take
the moral values of leadership as seen through main character’s attitudes and
conflicts. Generally, in this writing, there is no discussion of history or politics in detail, but it emphasizes on moral values of leadership. This writing shows some
key points of moral-philosophical discussion in the play.
B. Review of Related Theories
There are some theories which are taken to support the analysis in order to answer the two problems stated previously. Those theories are the theory on
character and characterization, the theory on conflict, the theory on moral and the theory on leadership.
1. Theory on Character and Characterization
A theory about character can be understood as an understanding of people’s action and motivation. This is stated as in the following.
When you pay close attention to character, you will find yourself going from the
what
to the
why
– from people’s words and actions to their motives. Why do people talk and act the way they do? Be prepared to
think about a character’s motivation Guth and Rico, 1997: 69.
Richard Gill 1995:127 in
Mastering English Literature,
states that a character is a person emerged in literary work that has some sort of identity or
characteristics, an identity which is created by appearance, conversation, action,
name and thought existing on the head. In
Understanding Plays Second Edition,
Barranger 1994: 339 argues that “in drama, characters are traditionally defined
by their physical characteristics, speech, and dress; their socioeconomic status; their psychological makeup; and their moral and ethical choices.
” She explains that there are four ways to approach understanding
drama’s characters; first, observing what playwrights say about them in stage directions and, second,
hearing or reading what characters say about one another in dialogue, third, noticing general types such as physical and psychological and fourth, construing
the moral or ethical choices that determine their destinies. Through four ways of understanding drama’s character, the writer is helped to view the characteristics of
the main character through the main character’s attitudes and conflicts faced in
play. Holman and Harmon 1986:81 state that
“the term character includes the idea of the moral constitution of human personality as
Aristotle’s sense of
ethos
. It is the presence of moral uprightness, and the simpler notion of the presence of
creatures in art that seem to be human beings of one sort or another. In literary application, character is a brief descriptive sketch of a personage who typifies
some definite quality. ”
In this case it can be understood that the character is an important element in establishing a story. Further, Arp in
Perrine’s Literature: Structure, Sound and
Sense Tenth Edition,
gives explanation that to analyze characterization is more difficult because there is complexity and variability in human character. Arp and
Johnson write that
Analyzing characterization is more difficult than describing plot, for human character is infinitely complex, variable, and ambiguous. Anyone
can summarize what a person in a story has done, but a writer needs considerable skill and insight into human beings to describe convincingly
who
a person is Arp and Johnson, 2009: 161.
In addition, Harmon and Holman state that characterization is the creation of imaginary persons so that they seem lifelike. Then, there are three fundamental
methods of
characterization
as quoted below 1 the explicit presentation by the author of the character through direct
EXPOSITION, either in an introductory block or more often piecemeal throughout the work, illustrated by action; 2 the presentation of the
character in action, with little or no explicit comment by the author, in the expectation that the reader can deduce the attributes of the actor from the
actions; and 3 the representation from within a CHARACTER, without comment by the author, of the impact of actions and emotions on the
character’s inner self Harmon and Holman, 2009: 94.
Furthermore, in
A Glossary of Literary Terms,
Abrams 2009: 42-43 explains that characters are the person represented in a dramatic or narrative work,
who are interpreted by the reader as possessing particular moral, intellectual, and emotional qualities by inferences from what the persons say and their distinctive
ways of saying it – the dialogue – and from what they do – the action.
The grounds in the character
s’ temperament, desires, and moral nature for their speech and actions are called their motivation. Moreover, a broad distinction is frequently
made between alternative methods for characterizing the persons in a narrative:
showing and telling. In showing
also called “the dramatic method”, the author simply presents the characters talking and acting, and leaves it entirely up to do
the reader to infer the motives and dispositions that lie behind what they say and do. The author may show not only external speech and actions, but also a
character’s inner thoughts, feelings, and responsiveness to events; for a highly developed mode of such inner showing. While in telling, the author intervenes
authoritatively in order to describe, and often to evaluate, the motives and
dispositional qualities of the characters. 2.
Theory on Conflict
The discussion of a character covers also ‘conflict’ as the important aspect
in a play. Abcarian, Klotz and Richardson in
Literature: Reading and Writing the Human Experience
give their argument that Plays often portray oppositions between characters or groups, or even
between two aspects of a cha racter’s personality; this opposition often
takes the form of a
conflict
that drives the plot. More than other forms of literature, plays give physical expression to the social and psychological
conflicts that define us individually and collectively Abcarian, Klotz and Richardson, 1998: 23.
In
A Handbook to Literature,
Holman and Harmon 1986: 107 define conflict as “the struggle that grows out of the interplay of the two opposing forces in the plot.
Conflict provides interest, suspense, and tension. At least, one of the opposing forces is usually a person, or, if an animal or an inanimate object is treated as
though it were a person .” Simply, conflict may be an argument between opposing
forces, like man against man, nature, fate, society or perhaps the internal one between the two opposing parts of man’s personality.
In addition, the writer supports Stanton ’s theory 1965: 16 that conflict
can be
internal conflicts
which are the conflicts between two desires within a character, and
external conflicts
which are the conflict between characters or between a character and his environment. Both conflicts can be in turn
