Revealing moral values of leadership through the analysis of Coriolanus’ attitudes and conflicts in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus

REVEALING MORAL VALUES OF LEADERSHIP THROUGH

THE ANALYSIS OF CORIOLANUS’ ATTITUDES

AND

CONFLICTS IN

SHAKESPEARE’S

CORIOLANUS

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

In English Letters

By

PAULUS JURU

Student Number: 094214002

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2014

i

REVEALING MORAL VALUES OF LEADERSHIP THROUGH

THE ANALYSIS OF CORIOLANUS’ ATTITUDES

AND

CONFLICTS

IN SHAKESPEARE’S

CORIOLANUS

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

In English Letters

By

PAULUS JURU

Student Number: 094214002

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2014

v

“Carpe Diem”

vi

For My Beloved Father and Mother,

and My Lovely Sisters,

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Words cannot express my greatest gratitude to Holy Trinity; the Father,

the Son and the Holy Spirit for blessing me in my whole life and guiding me to

write and to complete my undergraduate thesis.

I express my gratitude to my advisor, Elisa Dwi Wardani, S.S., M.Hum.

I thank her for providing the time to guide me and to share her knowledge with

me. I also thank her for her patience during the process of writing this

undergraduate thesis. I would also like to express my gratitude to my co-advisor,

Dra. A.B. Sri Mulyani, M.A., Ph.D. for giving me such helpful advice and

suggestion in writing this undergraduate thesis.

My thankfulness goes to all lecturers of English Letters. I do thank them

for their worthy shared knowledge during my study in Sanata Dharma University.

My lovely gratitude goes to my beloved parents. I thank them for giving

me their totality to love and support me. My lovely gratitude goes to my lovely

sisters, Ratna and Itin for the love and happiness. I do love you all.

My special thanks, I address to Sahabat-Sahabat SESADO (Seminarium

Sancti Dominici), and KODRAT (Keluarga Olahraga Tarung Derajat) who shapes

me to be a discipline person. I thank my brothers and friends; Pieter, Martin,

Nelis, Adi, Ryan, Abe, Rio, and Evan for their togetherness. I really thank my

Lady Baby who always prays for me.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ……… i

APPROVAL PAGE …..……… ii

ACCEPTANCE PAGE ……….……… iii

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN……… iv

MOTTO PAGE ………. v

DEDICATION PAGE ………... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………. vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………... viii

ABSTRACT ……….… ix

ABSTRAK ...………... x

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ……….... 1

A. Background of the Study ……….. 1

B. Problem Formulation ……….... 4

C. Objectives of the Study ………. 4

D. Definition of Terms ……….. 5

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW ……….. 6

A. Review of Related Studies ……….. 6

B. Review of Related Theories ………... 11 1. Theory on Character and Characterization ……….. 11

2. Theory on Conflict ……….. 14 3. Theory on Moral ……….. 15

4. Theory on Leadership ………. 16

C. Theoretical Framework ………... 19

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ……….. 21

A. Object of the Study ………... 21

B. Approach of the Study ……….. 22

C. Method of the Study ………. 23 CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS ……… 25

A. The Characteristics of Coriolanus ………... 25

B. Moral Values of Leadership ……… 37

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ……… 44

BIBLIOGRAPHY ………. 47

ix ABSTRACT

PAULUS JURU. Revealing Moral Values of Leadership through the Analysis of Coriolanus’ Attitudes and Conflicts in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2014.

The Tragedy of Coriolanus aka Coriolanus was the last play written by William Shakespeare. This drama tells about a Roman soldier’s life named Coriolanus. He is honored because of his heroic deed in military. However, he is disliked because of his bad attitude. The consequences of his attitudes are the conflicts. Finally, those conflicts lead him to tragic end.

Since the use of work of literature is to teach morality, this study has two purposes which are related to that. First is to explain the characteristics of the main character, Coriolanus, including his attitudes and conflicts. Second is to reveal moral values of leadership in Coriolanus’ attitudes and conflicts.

In order to support this undergraduate thesis, the data and theories are collected using library research method. The play The Tragedy of Coriolanus is the primary data in this study. While, books on play criticism, literary theories, moral theories and leadership theories are supportive references in the analysis. This study uses the theory of character and characterization, theory of conflict, theory of moral, and theory of leadership. The Moral-philosophical Approach is used to reveal the moral values of leadership in main character’s attitudes and conflicts.

The analysis of this study shows that Caius Marcius (Coriolanus) is a great soldier of Rome. He has brave attitude which by that he is famous and respected as a kingly leader of Rome. However, Coriolanus is infamous because of his arrogant attitude and egoism. He hates and ignores the rights of lower class people. On the other hand, he cares the rights of patrician class only. Coriolanus’ attitudes cause some conflicts such as confrontation with people and bad relationship. Then, the advance consequences of his conflicts are people’s rejection, his banishment from Rome, and his death as a tragic hero when he makes peace treaty between Rome and Volsce. By analyzing Coriolanus’ attitudes and conflicts, the writer gains some moral values of leadership. Those are serving followers wholeheartedly, balancing and integrating followers, willing to take personal risks and make necessary decisions, and being humble to followers. Those moral values of leadership in the play remain current.

x ABSTRAK

PAULUS JURU. Revealing Moral Values of Leadership through the Analysis of Coriolanus’ Attitudes and Conflicts in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2014.

The Tragedy of Coriolanus dikenal juga dengan Coriolanus adalah drama terakhir yang ditulis oleh William Shakespeare. Drama ini mengisahkan kehidupan seorang tentara Roma bernama Coriolanus. Dia disanjung karena aksi kepahlawanannya di bidang militer. Namun, dia tidak disukai karena perilaku buruknya. Akibat dari perilaku-perilakunya adalah konflik-konflik yang dihadapi. Pada akhirnya konflik-konflik itu membawanya kepada akhir yang tragis.

Karena pengunaan karya sastra untuk mengajarkan moral, studi ini mempunyai dua tujuan yang berkesinambungan dengan hal itu. Pertama adalah untuk menjelaskan karakteristik tokoh utama, Coriolanus, termasuk perilaku-perilaku dan konflik-konflik. Kedua adalah untuk mengungkapkan nilai-nilai moral kepemimpinan seperti terlihat dalam perilaku-perilaku dan konflik-konflik Coriolanus.

Untuk mendukung skripsi ini, bahan-bahan dan teori-teori diperoleh melalui metode penelitian pustaka. Drama The Tragedy of Coriolanus adalah bahan utama dalam studi ini. Sementara, buku-buku kritik drama, teori-teori sastra, teori-teori moral dan teori-teori kepemimpinan merupakan referensi penunjang dalam analisis ini. Studi ini menggunakan teori karakter dan karakterisasi, teori konflik, teori moral, dan teori kepemimpinan. Pendekatan Moral-filosofi digunakan untuk mengungkap nilai-nilai moral kepemimpinan seperti terlihat dalam perilaku-perilaku dan konflik-konflik tokoh utama.

Analisa studi ini menunjukkan bahwa Caius Marcius (Coriolanus) adalah seorang tentara Roma yang hebat. Dia mempunyai perilaku berani yang dengannya ia terkenal dan dihormati seperti seorang raja Roma. Akan tetapi, Coriolanus bernama buruk karena perilaku sombong dan egois. Dia membenci dan mengabaikan hak-hak masyarakat bawah. Di sisi lain, dia hanya mementingkan hak-hak kelas bangsawan. Perilaku-perilaku Coriolanus menyebabkan beberapa konflik seperti pertentangan dengan masyarakat dan relasi yang buruk. Kemudian akibat-akibat lanjut dari konflik-konfliknya adalah penolakan dari masyarakat, pembuangannya dari Roma, dan kematiannya sebagai pahlawan tragis ketika ia membuat perjanjian damai antara Roma dan Volsce. Dengan menganalisa perilaku-perilaku dan konflik-konflik Coriolanus, penulis memperoleh nilai-nilai moral kepemimpinan. Itu adalah melayani pengikut-pengikut dengan sepenuh hati, menyeimbangkan dan menyatupadukan pengikut-pengikut, bersedia untuk mengambil risiko-risiko pribadi dan membuat keputusan-keputusan penting, dan berperilaku rendah hati terhadap pengikut-pengikut. Nilai-nilai moral kepemimpinan dalam drama tersebut tetap mutakhir sampai saat ini.

1 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

The history of leadership existed since human beings started to live in

group or tribe together. They, people of ancient time, chose their leader because

they saw that the person whom they chose had ability and power to lead and to

protect them. The leader of ancient time took role as the chief of the tribe. Being a leader, the chief of the tribe had many responsibilities for the group including protecting, guiding and moral responsibility. Vice versa the leader should know

and should be able to apply moral values of leadership (Durant, 1954:21-71).

The same principle did not change from ancient time until this modern

time. In application, at least every people should be able to lead themselves. That

was why leadership kept becoming an actual lesson for modern people. For those

who wanted to learn about leadership there were thousands of books which

presented leadership teaching. The understanding of leadership was also different

from each other, but those were not far away from the essential point such

morality in leadership. In Sang Pemimpin, Jim Clemmer (2009: 9) wrote that historians, anthropologists, and experts of classical literature said that there were

only some stories repeated in the whole human history. Books and films revealed

various basic of human beings’ stories. It meant also that some basics of human beings remained the same all over the time. Referring to human history, there was

English Renaissance. “The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in England were the time of the Renaissance (or ‘rebirth’ of classical learning) and of the Protestant Reformation” (Guth, 1981: 263). In the time of the Renaissance, stories and themes from Roman and Greek were exposed again. The stories of people and

cultures emerged in the same themes although those were separated by the

distance of time and space, thus with the composition of work of literature such

drama. Drama was a work of literature which grew massively in English

Renaissance.

“As it had been said, from all works of literature, drama grew very fast in Elizabethan era. Drama had reached artistic level, it was not only used to teach

religious or moral fair, but in the first instance it was for showing human’s life” (Samekto, 1976: 19-20). During Elizabethan age, tragedy became the famous

play, which was used to be performed in the theater. Tragedy, originally, was a

sad story. It invited us to be involved emotionally in the story as the conflicts

developed.

In line with English Renaissance which marked the ‘rebirth’ of classical learning, William Shakespeare, the greatest playwright at that time, reflected

classical learning of morality in one of his tragedies. This point fulfilled the

requirement of classical learning or literature in general as the moral teaching

media. “The basic position of such critics is that the larger function of literature is to teach morality and to probe philosophical issues” (Guerin, 2011: 60).

William Shakespeare in his Coriolanus showed moral pictures of classical teaching. Shakespeare’s Coriolanus told about the patrician Roman soldier Caius

Marcius who was offered to be a consul because of his heroic deeds after winning

in a battlefield against Volscian, the enemy country. Caius Marcius was honored

the name ‘Coriolanus’ after defeating Corioli, one of Volscian towns. Meanwhile, he was hated by his people because of his arrogances. Coriolanus’ arrogances were judged as lacks of moral leadership. However, on the other side, his heroic

deeds to protect his country could be considered as patriotism. This could be

viewed that Coriolanus had qualities to be a good leader. Coriolanus was like a

coin, his goodness could not cover his badness then his badness could not cover

his goodness. After a long running dispute, Coriolanus was considered as an

enemy and a traitor of the people and he was exiled. Desiring revenge against

Rome then Coriolanus joined the enemy and attacked Rome. Rome was in panic.

After being incited by his mother, the woman who had important role in

Coriolanus’ life, Coriolanus made a contrary treaty of peace between Rome and Volscian, the enemy country. This treaty made the Volscians angry. He was

considered again as a traitor of Volscians and finally he was murdered. Through

Coriolanus tragic life, Shakespeare portrayed the leadership of that time. As a

leader, Coriolanus’ attitudes and conflicts were inquired whether or not he had qualities of a good leader.

In a purpose to reveal the moral values of leadership, Shakespeare’s

Coriolanus is a good start for the research. Parlato (2012) in his essay states that “Coriolanusis perhaps the most political of Shakespeare’s plays, and it deals with events following the uprising and deposition of Tarquin the Proud and the

of Julius Caesar and the plot also involves the question of possible tyranny and arrogation of power” (http://www.uncleguidosfacts.com /2012/06/ lessonsingovvernanceshakespeares.html). In criticism above the statement that ‘it involves the possible tyranny and arrogation of power’ indicates negative aspect of leadership. On the other hand, it implies an understanding that there are also

possible moral values of leadership. In this writing, the writer does not discuss

politics or historical setting. However, with the help of moral-philosophical

approach, the writer gives analysis of the main character’s attitudes and conflicts in revealing moral values of leadership that can be taken from the play.

B. Problem Formulation

In purpose to get a good order of this analysis and to be able to understand

this play better, therefore, two problems are formulated in following questions.

1. How are the characteristics of the main character described through main

character’s attitudes and conflicts?

2. What moral values of leadership are revealed in the main character’s characteristics?

C. Objectives of the Study

The aim of this research is to reveal the moral values of leadership

reflected in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. This research has two main objectives. The first objective is to view the characteristics of the main character. The second is to

consider the moral values of leadership which reflected in the main character’s

D. Definition of Terms

There are two points of terms that are presented by the writer in this study

before entering the further discussion of the play. The terms that are used are

moral values and leadership. The terms can be explained such following.

1. Moral Values

In The Moral Nature of Man, Garnet (1952:14) gives explanation that the term ‘moral’ may be defined as referring to traditional of right and wrong. Moral is clue how to act in the society in the right way. Moral is to differ what is good

and what is not good.

Gallaher (1985:1) states that moral value is a standard by reference to

which a particular action can be judged morally good or bad. Moral values are

important things that can be learned from human’s actions. It helps us to differentiate what is good and what is not.

2. Leadership

Gary Yulk in Leadership in Organizations Sixth Edition (2006: 10) states that leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about

what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual

6 CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW

A. Review of Related Studies

A fundamental element of understanding and doing a research of a work of

literature is looking for the reviews or criticisms. Reviews can be used as the

references or the starting point to make further study. Noticing how important the

reviews are, in this review of related studies, the writer presents some related

studies which hold the discussions of the author, the work of literature and the

topic. In the discussion of the author, the writer gives some notes about

Shakespeare and his works. Next, the writer presents some criticisms which

related to the same work, notably Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. In the discussion of the related topic, the writer presents a note which discuses the topic of leadership.

For the scholars, especially those who study English Letters, talking about

a person named William Shakespeare has become a friendly discussion. When

considering the record of Shakespeare, the writer supports Samekto’s (1976: 21) note that William Shakespeare is considered as the greatest playwright in English

Literature, even he is considered as one of the prime men of the letters in the

world. How greatest Shakespeare in the history of English Letters can be seen also

in Harrison’s note. In Introducing Shakespeare, Harrison notes that “no household in the English-speaking world is properly furnished unless it contains a copy of

the Holy Bible and one of the Works of William Shakespeare (Harrison, 1959: 11).” It can be said that William Shakespeare and his works had influenced

English society and the world; even those were parallelized with Holy Bible. This

indicates that besides Holy Bible, a work of literature especially Shakespeare’s works can be used to gain messages or values which important and useful for life.

People judge that Shakespeare’s works contain messages and values which can be learned.

Having recognized who William Shakespeare is, there is a work of

literature, notably a play which reveals his brilliant ideas. William Shakespeare’s

Coriolanus is a play that told about politics in relevance with the history of English politics to early modern. Politics becomes important subject during

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in England. This description can be seen in

The End of Absolutism: Shakespeare's Coriolanus and the Consensual Nature of the Early Modern State by Cefalu (2000) such follows.

I have argued that the point of departure for an analysis of the historical relevance of Coriolanus to early modern English politics is an understanding of the non-absolutist, consensual nature of early modern statehood, particularly the integration within the state platform of both negative libertarianism and paternalist centralization. Rather than interpret the play as an allegorical enactment of historically established party and class antagonisms, which did not in fact exist during the early seventeenth century, the class positions in the play should be seen as two unreified manifestations of the duality of the early modern state. Coriolanus is a thoroughly Jacobean play that reflects consensual politics rather than embattled, transitional ideologies

(http://www.hull.ac.uk/renforum/v4no2/cefalu.htm).

The quotation above shows that the play, Coriolanus, is a portrait of English politics when English entered the early modern. Through his play,

Shakespeare implies a criticism about government and politics in the era of King

implied in the play. Thus, the criticism above tries to reveal the matters. The

concept of historical-political scope is emphasized.

Other critic also comments, still, about the historical-political concept in

Coriolanus. In his review, The Rumbling Belly Politic: Metaphorical Location and Metaphorical Government in Coriolanus, Eastman (2007) states that the play, Coriolanus is a work of William Shakespeare which is inspired by a real event in

London. The event is signed by a rebellion from people. The event that is called

‘the Midlands rebels’ is protest to the landowners’ policy of transforming traditionally public, open fields into centralized, fenced-in, private property.

The critical orthodoxy that ties Coriolanus to the Midlands Insurrection has affected the building of strained connections between the play’s social concerns and those of the Midlands rebels, enclosure chief among them; this has in turn left many promising readings of the play unduly concerned with somehow detecting phantom commons in Shakespeare’s Rome (http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/13-1/eastcori.htm).

Eastman implies the criticism of the practice of feudalism which is

inspired Shakespeare’s work. From Cefalu’s and Eastman’s criticisms which hold the discussion of historical-political scope, the discussion indirectly aims at the

important aspect in history and politics affair. History records both Rome and

England passed through some periods of power, war, glory, and destruction.

Those, of course, refer to the role of leaders of each period. Those are also how

leaders of each period determine the way of power, war, glory and destruction. It

is important to argue that politics and leadership generally support each other.

Then if the characteristics of Caius Marcius Coriolanus, the main character, is

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.uk/emls/13-1/eastcori.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

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

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

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 characters’ 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

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 character’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

subordinate to the central conflict, which may be internal, external, or both. Stanton adds that a central conflict lays between fundamental and contrasting

qualities or forces, such as honesty and hypocrisy, innocent and experience, individuality and the pressure to conform.

3. Theory on Moral

Every work of literature has moral lesson as it said before that literature

was the media for teaching moral. The existence of moral values in a work of

literature is the representation of all kinds of human’s aspects. One of the aspects of human beings is a social creature. As a social creature, one cannot live

separately from others. A person needs another person. Laws, norms, values and

customs are needed and those are necessarily useful to secure the relationship.

Those refer to a requirement that someone has to be good person for others. Moral

values are the points in this writing. Wellman (1975: 135) says that the theory of

value holds that what make an act morally good or evil is the value or disvalue of

its actual consequences. Moral value is used in the analysis to help to make

judgment on the goodness of moral conscience that is presented by the main

character through his attitudes and conflicts.

When considering the moral the writer supports Cochrane, Hamn and

Kazepides in The Domain of Moral Education (1979: 7), note that moral thinking is about the fundamental value by which human being process to live. They note

that the word values have meaning that the things we seriously believe in to be worthy pursuing, the ends that we think to be worth realized and the action which

they say that moral is not just about differentiating good or bad but it has a deeper

meaning.

Daniel C. Maguire in The Moral Choice states that “the foundation of morality is the experience of value of persons and their environment” (1978: 72). This statement can be understood that morality is set up by the value of person

and their own environment. The experience that people have in their life has close

relation with the environment as well. The relationship of people and their

environment, of course, cannot be avoided from conflict; that can be personal

conflict and collective conflict. That is why the existence of conflicts makes

morality seems meaningful.

4. Theory on Leadership

a. Theory on Modern Leadership

In this review, the writer uses Gary Yulk’s book entitled Leadership in Organization to discuss the theory on modern leadership. Since the play discusses about a country or nation, the writer considers that the discussion of leadership in

organization refers to the similar basic views. General views of leadership in

organization are presented in the book. In relevance, some theories are taken to

support the purpose of knowing the modern criteria of becoming a good leader.

One of the subjects that important as the complement of a good leader is ethical

leadership. In this discussion the writer supports Gary Yulk (2006: 420) who

person’s values, stage of moral development, conscious intentions, freedom of choice, use of ethical behavior, and types of influence used.

As noted by Yulk (2006: 421), James McGreg or Burns states that a

primary leadership role or function is to increase awareness about ethical issues

and help people resolve conflict values. He explains that transforming leadership

is a process in which ‘leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation’. These leaders seek to raise the consciousness of followers by appealing to ideals and moral values such as liberty, justice, equality,

peace and humanitarianism, not to baser emotions such as fear, greed, jealousy, or

hatred. Followers are elevated from their everyday selves to their better selves.

Another scholar, Ronald Heifetz as quoted by Yulk (2006: 421) proposes

that the primary role of leaders is to help followers confront conflict and find

productive ways to deal with it. The leader must engage people in facing

challenges, changing perspective, and learning new ways to work together

effectively. Leadership is described as both a dyadic and collective process. It is

emphasized that meaning change requires shared leadership, and it cannot be

accomplished by a single, heroic individual.

Gary Yulk (2006:424) suggests some criteria of leadership: first, the use of leader power and influence; second, the handling diverse interest of the multiple stakeholders; third, the development of a vision for the organization; fourth, the integrity of leader behavior; fifth, the risk taking in leader decisions and actions; and sixth, the communication of relevant information operations. Relating to the

moral values the criteria of leadership should be taken or done which considered

as morally acceptable.

Robert Greenleaf still in Yulk (2006: 422) proposes the concept of servant

leadership. Service to followers is the primary responsibility of leaders and the

essence of ethical leadership. Greenleaf adds that service includes nurturing,

defending, and empowering followers. A servant leader must attend to the needs

of followers and help them become healthier, wiser, and more willing to accept

their responsibilities. It is only by understanding followers that the leader can

determine how best to serve their needs. Servant leaders must listen to followers,

learn about their needs and aspirations, and be willing to share in their pain and

frustration. Even the weak and marginal members of society must be treated with

respect and appreciation.

In addition, Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy (1999:101) in Leadership Enhancing the Lessons of Experience state that experience can contribute to the development for better understanding of leadership situation.

b. Theory on Classic Roman Leadership

The purpose of theory on classic Roman Leadership is to know the duties

of classic Roman leader. Theory on classic Roman Leadership refers to the

government of Rome, the leaders, and the citizens or the lead. In Historyof Rome,

Cary (1954:49-63) noted that at the time when the city of Rome was founded, the

prevalent form of government was monarchical. For more than a century, kings

ruled Rome. In Every Day Life in Rome, Treble (1953:139) stated that the kings of Rome had three main duties. They had to deal with all questions concerning

religion, with law and justice, and with warfare. In all religious matters the king

was helped by the priests and by augurs. In all things concerning law and justice,

the king had the advice of the Senate, a council of elderly men, experienced in

public affairs.

Further, Starr, in The World Book Encyclopedia Volume 16 (1971:387), noted that Rome was a republic from 509 to 27 B.C. Two consuls were elected

every year to govern the Roman republic as chief executives. The consuls had

similar duties as the predecessor kings’. In early republic, the social organization divided into two classes. Those were patrician class and plebeian class. Patrician

class included the members of the Roman Senate who controlled the government,

the army, and the state religion. On the other hand, the plebeian class included

freed slaves, peasant farmers, and dependents of patricians (aristocrat). For many

years, the plebeians could not hold public office, vote on laws, or become priest.

Treble in Every Day Life in Rome (1953:139) added that later in 494 B.C. the plebeians found a counter-organization that was called tribune of people to protect

their rights. People, then, had right to vote on election, but still they could not

hold public office.

C. Theoretical Framework

As an avail to discuss the topic of revealing the moral values of leadership

as reflected in main character’s characteristics as seen through main character’s attitudes and conflicts faced in The Tragedy of Coriolanus, the writer provides the theories on character and characterization, conflict, moral and leadership. The

theories on character and characterization, and the theories on conflicts are

applied to help the writer to have an apprehension of how the main character of

the play described. The main character’s appearances, attitudes and notably conflicts faced as the consequences of relations within himself and with others

surround him are analyzed by the writer. Those two theories are to support and to

answer first problem formulation.

The writer uses theories on moral and leadership which are considered as

the main references in this writing. By using the theories on moral and leadership

which support each other, the writer is helped to reveal what moral values of

leadership reflected in the play. Theories on leadership which is modern theories

and classic Roman theories are used to know the relevance between modern and

classic moral values of leadership. Through the dialogue, the description of main

character, including what the main character’s experience and conflicts faced, what the main character does, says and responds, or other characters’ speeches and responds toward what the main character does, says and responds are taken as

examples or suggestion that are reflected the moral values of leadership in the

play. Theories on moral and leadership are used to support and to answer second

21 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

A. Object of the Study

The object of the study in this writing is The Tragedy of Coriolanus

written by William Shakespeare. The play is also known as Coriolanus. The foregoing evidence combining with style and meter indicated a time late in 1608

or early in 1609 as the period of composition. The Tragedy of Coriolanus was first staged in London around the year 1608. This play was taken from book entitled

The Complete Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare edited by William Allan Nelson and Charles Jarvis Hill, published by Houghton Mifflin Company 1942.

The play was first adopted into movie in 1952 by Bertolt Brecht. Then, Ralph

Fiennes, through Hermetof Pictures, BBC Films and Lonely Dragon Production,

adopted again in 2011 with modern concept.

The play consists of five acts and each page is completed with footnote

which helps the writer to understand the play. The Tragedy of Coriolanus is a play that told about the main character, Caius Marcius or Coriolanus, a Roman soldier.

As a soldier, he shows his patriotism to protect his country but he hates his own

people. The consequences, he is expelled from his country Rome and joins the

enemy country, Volsce, to take revenge against Rome. At the end, he makes a

contrary peace treaty which brings him to tragic end. This tragic play is also about

how the main character faces problems and conflicts as the representation of the

B. Approach of the Study

In a purpose to reach a basic understanding of a literary work or to

criticize it, the writer needs an appropriate approach that fits the purpose of the

study, which is to reveal the moral values of leadership reflected in the main

character’s attitudes and conflicts in the play. Therefore, the Moral-philosophical Approach is taken as an approach in a purpose to analyze this play.

The aim of moral-philosophical approach is to know how a work of

literature deals with moral lesson teaching. Guerin et al (2011: 60) in A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature state that “the basic position of such critics is that the larger function of literature is to teach morality and to probe philosophical

issues”. They state that figurative language and other purely aesthetic considerations are considered as secondary teaching. The primary point is the

moral or philosophical teaching.

Guerin et al (2011: 61) state that the critic who employs the

moral-philosophical approach insists on ascertaining and stating what is taught also. It seems reasonable, then, to employ moral philosophical analyses among other

methods in getting at the meaning of literary work seems to call for them. The

statement implies that moral philosophical believes with the moral teaching. The

moral teaching is expected to gives some good effect for the readers.

The strong reason, the writer chooses Moral-philosophical Approach in

this study is because the approach helps to reveal the moral values, notably moral

values of leadership as seen through main character’s attitudes and conflicts faced. Main character’s attitudes and conflicts faced in the play reflect some moral

values of leadership that can be concluded. Therefore, Moral philosophical

Approach is used to reveal the moral values of leadership.

C. Method of the Study

In this thesis, in order to collect the data sources, the writer uses the library

and internet research. It means that the writer studies the documents related to the

topic. The main source of this thesis is the play script of William Shakespeare’s

Coriolanus which taken from book The Complete Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare edited by William Alan Neilson and Charles Jarvis Hill.

The other sources are essays and criticisms which are from the books in

the library and from websites. The books from library are used to support the

theory on character and characterization, theory on conflict, theory on moral and

theory on leadership, the books for theory on character and characterization such

as Perrine’s Literature written by Thomas R. Arp and Greg Johnson and

Understanding Plays Second Edition written by Barranger. Those books help the writer to make a deep analysis on main character’s characterization. The book for conflict such as C. Hugh Holman’s and William Harmon’s A Handbook to Literature, it is used to describe conflicts faced by main character such as conflicts against himself and others.

The book for moral such as The Domain of Moral Education written by Cochrane and Kazepides, and the book for theory on leadership such as Gary Yulk’s Leadership in Organization are extracted to analyze moral values of leadership reflected in the play. Then the book which is used to support

Moral-philosophical Approach is A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature Fifth Edition written by Wilfred L. Guerin et al.

To conduct this study, there were some steps which had already done. The

first step was reading the object of the study, the play Shakespeare’s Coriolanus

with an intention to understand the play. Second, the writer determined the topic

to be discussed in this study which was revealing moral values of leadership.

Analytically Shakespeare with his Coriolanus indicated that there were moral values of leadership reflected through the main character.

The third step was gathering some sources and references to answer the

problem formulations. The writer analyzed the main character’s characteristics through what he said and did using the theory of character and characterization.

Accompanying the analysis of the characteristics of main character, by using the

gathered sources the writer analyzed also some conflicts faced by the main

character. After analyzing the main character’s attitudes and conflicts faced, the writer used the extracted theories of moral and leadership to reveal moral values

of leadership in those two elements. After all, the last step was making a

25 CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

This chapter is divided into two main parts. The first part is to answer the

first problem formulation about the characteristics of the main character and how

the main character is characterized. Still in the first part, the analysis of conflicts

as the consequences of the main character’s attitudes is presented. Then the second part is to answer the second problem formulation which is the revelation of

moral values of leadership as seen through main character’s attitudes and conflicts.

A. The Characteristics of Coriolanus

Coriolanus owns certain characteristics which are expressed through his

attitudes. Coriolanus’ characteristics deal with the characterization. It includes the way the author, Shakespeare, gives the descriptions and the way the author makes

the readers understanding him. By using his imagination, Shakespeare gives

certain characteristics to Coriolanus so that the readers can imagine what

Coriolanus looks like and his personal traits, bad or good person. In the analysis

follows, the writer divides the characteristics of Coriolanus into two parts. Those

are physical characteristics and psychological characteristics.

1. Physical Characteristics of Coriolanus

The main character of the play The Tragedy of Coriolanus is Caius Marcius, then Caius Marcius Coriolanus. In the play, Caius Marcius Coriolanus is

described as a soldier of Rome. Before he is given an honorary name, his name is

only Caius Marcius. He is given an honorary name ‘Coriolanus’ because of his heroic deed after defeating Corioli, one of Volscian towns, the enemy country.

Then he is famous with the name Coriolanus. Physically, Caius Marcius is

described as a bareheaded man. This description can be seen through Coriolanus’ speech. Coriolanus’ expression “my unbarb’d sconce” means “bare head” as noted by the editors of the play. Explicitly through the way of main character’s speech as quoted below, readers can imagine that physically Coriolanus is a

bareheaded man.

CORIOLANUS. Must I go show them my unbarb’d sconce? (Shakespeare, 1942:1313)

Another physical characterization of Coriolanus is that he grows beard.

Through other character’s speech, Shakespeare gives information about physical appearance of the main character. In the play Aufidius, soldier of Volsce, Caius

Marcius’ enemy, through his speech he describes that Marcius grows beard. AUFIDIUS. By th’ elements, if e’er again I meet him beard to beard, he is

mine, or I am his. (Shakespeare, 1942:1298)

When Coriolanus is in the battle field he looks different from any ordinary

soldier. The enemies shrink from him because of his grim look. Coriolanus’ appearance which is described as a man with a grim looked means that as a

grim-looked man, Coriolanus’ facial expression is very serious. That is why he looks so gamely in the war. Thus Coriolanus’ voice which is associated with thunder-like percussion can be considered that his voice is loud when shouting in the

battlefield. This is another thing that makes Coriolanus so special in front of the

enemies.

LARTIUS. O noble fellow! Who sensibly outdares his senseless sword and, when it bows, stand’st up. Thou art left, Marcius; a carbuncle entire, as big as thou art, were not so rich a jewel. Thou wast a soldier even to Cato’s wish, not fierce and terrible only in strokes; but, with thy grim looks and the tunder-like percussion of thy sounds, thou mad’st thine enemies shake, as if the world were feverous and did tremble. (Shakespeare, 1942:1295)

Lartius, through his speech significantly, describes that Coriolanus’ physical appereance affirms that he is a tremendous soldier of Rome. Coriolanus

is so worthy. Rome’s safety depends on Coriolanus. That is proven by Coriolanus through his heroic deed of defeating enemies’ country. Coriolanus’ combat ability is undoubted. This makes him so important for Rome. Lartius describes that

Coriolanus is the most horrible soldier for the enemies. There is no other fear for

enemies especially fear in front of Coriolanus. Coriolanus’ combat ability, face, voice are some elements which is considered of his greatness.

According to information above the writer notes that physically

Coriolanus is a bareheaded man and he grows his beard. His face is described as

serious-looking and he is described as a man with loud voice when talking.

Coriolanus’ physical appearance affirms that he is not only as an ordinary soldier but also recognized as a kingly leader of Rome.

2. Psychological Characteristics of Coriolanus

In this part, the writer presents the analysis of psychological characteristics

of the main character, notably Coriolanus. In the analysis of psychological

characteristics the scope of main character’s attitudes are presented part by part. While in each part of the analysis of main character’s attitudes, the writer includes the analysis of conflicts faced by main character as the consequences of his

attitudes.

a. Arrogant

Coriolanus is described as a person who has arrogant attitude. Shakespeare

intently created Coriolanus with arrogance as his dominant attitude. Coriolanus’ arrogance shows a tendency of his bad side of personality.

In the play, Marcius (Coriolanus) who is described as a soldier and a

Roman patrician has abhorrence to the people of Rome and the people’s tribunes. His abhorrence tends to be a personal abhorrence. Marcius (Coriolanus) shows his

arrogant attitude when he responds the rebel of the people who demand lower

price of corn. Notably people of Rome are starving because of famine which

plagues the entire Roman city. Here, Marcius (Coriolanus) plays a role as the

representative of Roman patrician and as the greatest warrior whom many people

respect. On one hand, he is expected to solve the problem or control the riot. On

the other hand, because of his personal abhorrence to the people, Marcius

(Coriolanus) shows his arrogant attitudes by mocking the people.

MARCIUS. Thanks. What’s the matter, you dissentious rogues, that, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion, make yourselves scabs?

MARCIUS. He that will give good words to thee will flatter beneath abhorring. What would you have, you curs, that like nor peace nor war? (Shakespeare, 1942:1291)

Some words such rogues, scabs, curs which Marcius (Coriolanus) uses to respond the people (citizen) are practically impolite for a patrician to use. Marcius

(Coriolanus) does not respect his own people even he mocks them. This is caused

by his arrogant attitude that he himself feels that he is worthier than others.

Besides mocking another expression which shows that Marcius

(Coriolanus) is really arrogant character is when he underestimates and

discriminates the people.

MARCIUS. They are dissolv’d, hang ‘em! They said they were an-hungry; sigh’d forth proverbs, that hunger broke stone walls, that dogs must eat, that meat was made for mouths, that the gods sent not corn for the rich men only.

(Shakespeare, 1942:1291)

Standing as a representative of the patricians, Marcius (Coriolanus)

defends only rich people to get their rights. While poor people whom he must

primarily concern are ignored. Marcius’ (Coriolanus’) arrogance points to his egoism. Sicinius and Brutus, the tribune of people, criticize Marcius’ (Coriolanus’) attitudes. Sicinius and Brutus imply that the war between Rome and Volsce is only to elevate Marcius’ (Coriolanus’) name as his ability to defeat enemy and so he is welcomed as the warrior of Rome. Marcius’ (Coriolanus’) certainly becomes the most important person who Romans depend on

(Shakespeare, 1942:1302). This is also viewed as the reason why Marcius

(Coriolanus) becomes more arrogant and so egocentric. Tribunes of people are

Moreover, the patricians promote Coriolanus to be a consul. The

patricians promote him to be a consul because they think that he deserves to get it.

However, Coriolanus has to beg the voice of people. Coriolanus can be a consul if

the people vote for him. Now Coriolanus faces his defiance, the people whom he

hates. Before Coriolanus goes to ask people’s voices, his mother Volumnia and his friend Menenius Agrippa advice him to be humble when he meets the people.

Instead of being humble, Coriolanus keeps stubborn and arrogant.

CORIOLANUS. What must I say? “I pray, sir,” –Plague upon’t! I cannot bring my tongue to such a pace, –“look, sir, my wounds! I got them in my country’s service, when some certain of your breathren roar’d and ran from the noise of our own drums.”

MENENIUS. O me, the gods! You must not speak of that. You must desire them to think upon you.

CORIOLANUS. Think upon me! Hang ‘em! I would they would forget me, like the virtues which our devines lose by ‘em.

MENENIUS. You’ll mar all. I’ll leave you. Pray you, speak to ‘em, I pray you, in wholesome manner. Re-enter three of the CITIZENS.

CORIOLANUS. Bid them wash their faces and keep their teeth clean. So, here comes a brace. – You know the cause, sir, of my standing here. 3.CITIZEN. We do, sir; tell us what hath brought you to’t.

CORIOLANUS. Mine own desert. 2.CITIZEN. Your own desert!

CORIOLANUS. Ay, [not] mine own desire. 3.CITIZEN. How not your own desire?

CORIOLANUS. No, sir, ’twas never my desire yet to trouble the poor with begging.

(Shakespeare, 1942:1305)

Coriolanus realizes that he finds it difficult to deal with the people. It

seems to be a far-fetched manner for Coriolanus to be humble as advised by

Menenius. Coriolanus really hates the people and he does not want to be a

hypocrite for only getting people’s voice. Coriolanus is more likely to be egocentric than to obey the people.

Through a deep analysis of the main character, notably Coriolanus’ attitude, the writer gains some points concerning the consequence of Coriolanus’ arrogant attitude. The consequence can be the conflicts that are faced by

Coriolanus. Here in the first part the writer presents some conflicts which are

faced by Coriolanus because of his arrogant attitude.

Coriolanus’ arrogance has the bad impact for his relation with others. Coriolanus confronts with the citizens or the people and the tribunes of people

especially Brutus and Sicinius. Actually the conflict among Coriolanus, the

citizens and the tribune of the people is the conflict between the patricians and

common people. This kind of conflict can be said as Coriolanus’ interpersonal conflict or external conflict. Coriolanus’ external conflict is the concern in the play. At the beginning, the citizens are rebelling against the patricians because the

patricians only grant the grain for themselves while the citizens are starving.

The citizens become more brutal when Coriolanus comes and responds to

them with ire and arrogance. In the one hand, Coriolanus mocks the citizens and

he underestimates them. On the other hand, the citizens rebel against him even

they want to kill him. Hardly can the conflict be avoided between these two sides.

Enter a company of mutinous CITIZENS, with staves, clubs, and other weapons.

1.CITIZEN. Before we proceed any further, hear me speak. ALL. Speak, speak.

1.CITIZEN. You are all resolv’d rather to die than to famish? ALL. Resolv’d, resolv’d.

1.CITIZEN. First, you know Caius Marcius is chief enemy to the people. ALL. We know ’t, we know ’t.

1.CITIZEN. Let us kill him, and we’ll have corn at our own price. Is’t a verdict?

The citizens encourage each other in order to rebel against the ruling

aristocracy or the patricians. The citizens take risk to die in a purpose to reach

their goals. In this case, the citizens express their flare-up as a counter attack

mostly to Coriolanus (Marcius). The citizens bring staves, club and other weapons

in an intention to kill Coriolanus. The conflict between Coriolanus and the

citizens can be considered as a very serious problem.

The conflict that has not ended yet happens again. Coriolanus faces a more

complicated conflict between himself and the citizens. Moreover, Coriolanus’ external conflict can be seen when Coriolanus is offered to be a consul or the

representative of common people. Coriolanus’ decision to gain people’ voice drives him closer to the conflict. Meanwhile, Coriolanus feels that it adds a more

burden for him. Certainly, he will be more egocentric if he becomes a consul.

However, he also faces an uncomfortable situation that he wants to avoid. The

uncomfortable situation is that he really hates the common people. Then its

consequence is that Coriolanus who is asking the voice of people for his effort to

be a consul is rejected by the citizens.

4.CITIZEN. You have deserved nobly of your country, and you have not deserved nobly.

CORIOLANUS. Your enigma?

4.CITIZEN. You have been a scourge to her enemies, you have been a rod to her friends; you have not indeed loved the common people.

(Shakespeare, 1942:1305)

Indeed, Coriolanus deserves to get the admiration from the patricians

because of his track record in military and his great deed to defeat their enemy.

However, that admiration is proper only from the patricians who support him but

because he does not realize about himself and how he is viewed by other people.

Coriolanus is labeled as a scourge and the enemy of the common people.

Brutus and Sicinius, the tribunes of the plebeian class and representatives

of that class mistrust and dislike Coriolanus similarly as their class mistrusts and

dislikes of the patrician class. As having discussed before, Coriolanus is

mistrusted and disliked because of his egoism or arrogance and contempt that he

displays towards the people. Brutus and Sicinius who play important role in the

citizen class provoke the citizens to punish Coriolanus. Sicinius and Brutus who

stand as the authority of the citizens announce that Coriolanus is deserved to death

punishment “SICINIUS. This deserves death…BRUTUS. Marcius is worthy of present death (Shakespeare, 1942, 1310).” The conflicts faced by Coriolanus respectively get to an end to the Coriolanus’ banishment from Rome with the judgment as ‘traitor’ and enemy of the people.

SICINIUS. For that he has, as much as in him lies, from time to time envi’d against the people, seeking means to pluck away their power, as now at last given hostile strokes, and that not in the presence of dreaded justice, but on the ministers that [do] distribute it; in the name o’ th’ people and in the power of us the tribunes, we, even from this instant, banish him our city, in peril of precipitation from the rock Tarpeian never more to enter our Rome gates. I’ th’ people’s name, I say it shall be so.

[CITIZENS.] It shall be so, it shall be so. Let him away! He’s banish’d, and it shall be so.

(Shakespeare, 1942:1315)

Coriolanus is driven out of Rome because Brutus and Sicinius play upon

the plebeians' fears that he will become a tyrant if he is elected as a consul.

“SICINIUS. From Rome all season’d office and to wind yourself into a power tyrannical; for which you are a traitor to the people (Shakespeare, 1942, 1314).”

He even responds to his banishment with arrogance. This makes his future

rehabilitation impossible, and it means that Coriolanus is permanently trapped in

his stubborn arrogance.

b. Brave

Apart from the fact that Coriolanus has predominantly arrogant attitude,

Coriolanus has also brave attitude. Upon knowing that Volsce, Rome’s enemy, has armed itself for war, Coriolanus feels glad to hear that. “MARCIUS (CORIOLANUS). I am glad on’t. then we shall ha’ means to vent our musty superfluity (Shakespeare, 1942:1292).” Taking action in military duty is Coriolanus’ responsibility. Certainly, his fearless response about war is based on his personal bravery. To Coriolanus, if he bleeds he thinks that it is not dangerous

even healthier for him. “The blood I drop is rather physical than dangerous to me (Shakespeare, 1942:1295).” A soldier gives his testimony that Coriolanus faces the enemy alone. “Following the fliers at the very heels with them he enters; who, upon the sudden, clapp’d to their gates. He is himself alone, to answer all the city (Shakespeare, 1942:1295).”

Coriolanus’ track record in military service is undoubted. With his bravery he is able to defeat Rome’s enemy. Coriolanus’ brave attitude is considered as a great deed for his country, Rome.

COMINIUS. I shall lack voice; the deeds of Coriolanus should not be utter’d feebly. It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver; if it be, the man I speak of cannot in the world be singly counterpois’d.

Roman general, Cominius expresses his response toward the deed of

Coriolanus as honorable for Rome. He says that Coriolanus’ bravery cannot be equaled by other person. It cannot be denied that Coriolanus is the warrior of

Rome.

Marcius’ (Coriolanus’) track record in military service can be viewed as patriotism and responsibility. He sacrifices himself for his country. He says that “I have done as you have done, that’s what I can; induc’d as you have been, that’s for my country. He that has but effected his good will hath overta’en mine act (Shakespeare, 1942:1297).”

After he is banished from his country, Rome, Coriolanus joins Volscian

army, basically to revenge against people of Rome who banish him. He intends to

destroy Rome. Since his intention to destroy Rome is also the intention of

Volscian army, Coriolanus is elevated to be Volscian military general. Then he

plays a role as Volscian military general. A unique event happens in the end of the

play, Coriolanus’ decision to make peace between Rome and Volsce is considered as a heroic deed. It is certainly difficult to reconcile those two countries which are

in war. Coriolanus takes advantage after becoming Volscian general to make the

contrary treaty. Coriolanus must risk again of being a traitor of Volsce. Again this

is motivated by his bravery.

Coriolanus’ brave attitude reflects his patriotism and responsibility for his country. However, it should be viewed critically. The reason why the writer

argues that Coriolanus’ bravery should be viewed critically because the writer also gains some points which notify some consequences of Coriolanus’ brave attitude.

In this second part, the writer presents how Coriolanus’ brave attitude also emerges some conflicts.

Other characters have different responses toward Coriolanus’ bravery. To be precise the different responses are the conflict faced by Coriolanus.

Coriolanus’ bravery in military duty is viewed by the tribunes of people as unnecessary act for the people. The people know that Coriolanus is a war

obsessive. The people do not consider his great deed in military as patriotism and

responsibility for Rome. The people think that it is only for his personal

satisfaction.

This situation becomes Coriolanus’ external conflict in dealing with other persons especially the common people. The given view that Coriolanus is not

patriotic and irresponsible is because of the prod or provocation from Sicinius and

Brutus.

BRUTUS. Could you not have told him as you were lesson’d: when he had no power, but was a petty servant to the state, he was your enemy, ever spake against your liberties and the charters that you bear I’ th’ body of the weal; and now, arriving a place of potency and sway o’ th state, If he should still malignantly remain fast foe to th’

plebeii, your voices might be curses to yourselves? (Shakespeare, 1942:1306)

Before Sicinius and Brutus provoke animosity of the people, the people have

already given their trust to Coriolanus as a patriot like what the patricians did.

“1.CITIZEN. Once if he do require our voices, we ought not to deny him (Shakespeare, 1942:1304).” Brutus and Sicinius propose that Coriolanus’ deed is only for his personal satisfaction and to gain the admiration from the patricians

The most difficult situation faced by Coriolanus that can be his internal

conflict is when Coriolanus has to forgive Rome as the consequence of his

personal love to his mother. After Menenius and Cominius, Coriolanus’ Roman friends, are failed to beg Coriolanus’ mercy for Rome, Only Volumnia, Coriolanus’ mother, a person whom Rome depends on the most, goes to Volsce to beg Coriolanus’ mercy. If Coriolanus receives his mother’ request, it means that he forgives Roman people who banish him. On the other hand, it also means that

he betrays Volscians who support him to be their military general.

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. Aufidius, though I cannot make true wars, I’ll frame convenient peace. (Shakespeare, 1942:1328)

Coriolanus’ bravery to love his mother and to forgive Rome leads him to his death. Coriolanus is assasinated by the Volscians with accusation as traitor of

Volsce. However, Coriolanus is remembered as a tragic hero who reconciles

Rome and Volsce from war and enmity.

B. Moral Values of Leadership

Having discussed the characteristics of the main character through the

analysis of main character attitudes and conflicts, in this part the writer presents

the revelation of moral values of leadership from the play. The moral values of

leadership which are analyzed from the characteristics of main character include

Moral-philosophical Approach to reveal moral values of leadership in the play.

Accompanying it, with the assistance of theory of leadership both classic and

modern, the writer is helped to indicate whether or not those moral values have

relevance between the classic ones and the modern ones. This part is also to

answer second problem formulation.

It has been understood before that works of literature have functions to

teach morality. The author of the play, William Shakespeare, has certainly

intention to teach morality through his written or performed play. With an

intention to understand deeply what kind of moral teaching the play contains, the

writer gains some moral values of leadership.

1. Serving Followers Wholeheartedly

A good leader is expected to serve followers wholeheartedly. In the play,

Coriolanus who is described as a kingly leader of Rome is expected to serve his

country wholeheartedly. It means that Coriolanus must serve all people of Rome.

In Coriolanus’ case, by using his power, Coriolanus seems to serve only the patricians of Rome. Coriolanus defends the rights of patricians mostly. When the

rebel happens, Coriolanus stands clearly on the side of the patrician “corn for the rich men only (Shakespeare, 1942:1291).” Coriolanus comprehends that the essential part of a country is only the patricians, but he ignores the common

people. Actually in this context, it is necessary to understand that a country

belongs to whole people in a region, in this case, whole people of Rome and the

Coriolanus’ track record in military is more viewed as to satisfy the goals of the patricians. His successful mission to defeat Corioli, one of enemy’s towns is the ambition of the patricians. It can be said that Coriolanus does not

wholeheartedly serve Rome. Noticing, that Coriolanus’ favor is mostly for the patricians only and that he ignores the common people make it improper to call

him a paragon of a good leader. By the same token, people are afraid if Coriolanus

becomes tyranny and then oppresses them. Thus, from the fact that conflict

happens such as people reject him to be their consul strengthen the argument that

Coriolanus’ lack of the qualification of a good leader. That is how from the play, readers can learn that to be a good leader; one has to apply moral values of

leadership such as serving wholeheartedly. Referring to Gary Yulk’s (2006:424) modern criterion of ethical leadership, moral value of serving followers

wholeheartedly which is revealed from the play has close relation to the use of

power and influence. The play contains moral value that a leader should be able to

use power and influence to serve followers instead of oppressing followers.

2. Balancing and Integrating Followers

Moral value of leadership in Shakespeare’ Coriolanus is concomitant to Gary Yulk’s (2006:424) criterion of handling diverse interest of multiple stakeholders which is reflected in the play. It is important to be known again that

followers in a country include the patricians or government and the common

people. The existence of the patricians and the common people is like a coin

and the common people should support each other in order to reach their country’s goals.

Basically Coriolanus who plays a role as a kingly leader of Rome has

assignment to balance and to integrate his followers. Coriolanus’ assignment to balance his followers means that Coriolanus has to arrange the various interests or

rights of the patricians and common people in compatible way. While his

assignment to integrate his followers means that Coriolanus has to be able to

combine the various interest or rights of the patricians and the common people

through a good agreement.

Coriolanus’ arrogance and abhorrence to the common people shows his disability to balance and integrate his followers. Coriolanus does not take a

negotiable way when he responds to people’s demonstration. He even mocks people “you dissentious rogues (Shakespeare, 1942:1291).” It is certainly notified that Coriolanus cannot balance and integrate the patricians’ interest and the common people’s interest. Moreover, another aspect of leadership that can be analyzed and extracted from the play is the way a leader communicates with

people he leads. A leader’s capability to communicate in a good manner is another essential aspect for a good leadership. In Coriolanus’ case, the way Coriolanus responds to people’s demonstration impolitely is clearly unacceptable “SICINIUS. He cannot temp’rately transport his honours from where he should begin and end, but will lose those he hath won (Shakespeare, 1942:1301)”. This also implies that Coriolanus failed in the process of influencing his followers to

concludes that the moral values of leadership which is revealed from the play remain the current issues of modern leadership. It can be said that the discussion of leadership is not a new object in human life. Even classic Roman period, Renaissance period and modern period are separated in long time but the essential aspect of leadership such as morality does not change.

47 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abcarian, Richard, Marvin Klotz and Peter Richardson. Literature: Reading and Writing the Human Experience. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Abrams, M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms Ninth Edition. Boston: Wadsworth

Cengage Learning, 2009.

Arp, Thomas R. & Greg Johnson. Perrine’s Literature: Structure, Sound and Sense TenthEdition. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009.

Barranger, Milly S. Understanding Plays Second Edition. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, 1994.

Cary, M. A History of Rome. London: Macmillan and Co Ltd, 1954.

Cefalu, Paul. “'The End of Absolutism':Shakespeare's Coriolanus and the Consensual Nature of the Early Modern State.” (2000). <http://www.hull.ac.uk/renforum/v4no2/cefalu.htm.> (26 August 2012) Clemmer, Jim. Sang Pemimpin: Prinsip Abadi untuk Keberhasilan Tim dan

Organisasi. Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 2009.

Cochrane, D.B., C.M. Hamm, A.C. Kazepides. The Domain of Moral Education. New York. Paulist Press, 1979.

Doren, Mark Van. Shakespeare. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1955. Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization I. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954. Eastman, Nate. "The Rumbling Belly Politic: Metaphorical Location and

Metaphorical Government in Coriolanus". Early Modern Literary Studies 13.1 (May, 2007) 2.1-39 <http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/13-1/eastcori.htm.> (26 August 2012)

Gallaher, John. C.S.B. The Basis from Christian Ethics. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1985.

Garnet, Campbell. The Moral Nature of Man. New York: The Ronal Press Company, 1952.

Gill, Richard. Mastering English Literature. London: MacMillan Press, Ltd., 1995.

Guerin, Wilfred L., Earle Labor, Lee Morgan, Jeanne C. Reesman, and John R. Willigam. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature Fifth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Guth, Hans P and Gabriele L. Rico. Discovering Literature: Stories, Poems, Plays Second Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1997.

Guth, Hans P. The Literary Heritage. Lexington: D.C Heath and Co, 1981.

Harmon, William and C. Hugh Holman. A Handbook to Literature Elevent Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009.

Harrison, G.B. Introducing Shakespeare. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1959. Holman, C. Hugh and William Harmon. A Handbook to Literature Fifth Edition.

New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986.

Hughes, Richard L., Robert C. Ginnett and Gordon J. Curphy. Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999.

Maguire, Daniel C. The Moral Choice. USA: Doubledar & Co., Inc., 1978. Parlato, Ron. “Lessons in Governance–Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Coriolanus,

Measure for Measure, and Troilus and Cressida.” (2012). <http://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2012/06/lessons-in-governanceshakespeares.html.> (1 September 2012).

Samekto. Ikhtisar Sejarah Kesusastraan Inggris. Jakarta: P.T. Gramedia, 1976. Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Coriolanus, Written by Himself. 1608. The

Complete Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare. eds. William Alan Neilson and Charles Jarvis Hill. Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1942, pp.1287-1331.

Stanton, Robert. An Introduction to Fiction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1965.

Starr, Chester G. “Roman Empire,” The World Book Encyclopedia Volume 16. Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1971.

Treble, H.A., and K.M. King. Everyday Life in Rome. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1953.

Wain, John. The Living World of Shakespeare: A Playgoer’s Guide. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1964.

Webster, Margaret. Shakespeare without Tears. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1957.

Wellman, Carl. Moral and Ethics. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1975.

Yukl, Gary. Leadership in Organizations Sixth Edition. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.

50 APPENDIX

Summary of William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Coriolanus

Caius Marcius or known as Coriolanus is Roman military general. The time when Caius Marcius occupies the position as Roman military general, Rome is in great famine, the citizens or people demand the right to set lower price for the city's corn supply. In response to their protests, the ruling aristocracy or patricians grant the citizens five representatives or tribunes. A decision that provokes citizens’ anger is because the decision down to arrogant patrician soldier Caius Marcius, who hates the lower classes. At the same time, Romans are in war with their neighbor, the Volscians, who are led by Marcius' great rival, Tullus Aufidius. In the war that follows, the Volscians are defeated, and the Romans takes Corioles. Caius Marcius is thanked because of his heroism and patriotism to save Rome. In recognition of his great deeds, he is granted the name Coriolanus.

When Coriolanus comes back to Rome, he is given a hero's welcome and the Senate offers to make him consul. Because of the rule in order to promote him office, Coriolanus must go out and plead for the votes from the citizens. For the first time the citizens agree to give him their votes, but they later reverse their decision because of the provocation of two clever tribunes, Brutus and Sicinius, who consider Coriolanus an enemy of the citizens. This drives Coriolanus into a fury and he speaks out uncontrolled against citizens. Indeed, his arrogance and abhorrence to the people is truly his personal attitude. Brutus and Sicinius

continue to provoke the citizens and finally they declare Coriolanus as a traitor to the Roman state and bring him into banishment.

Coriolanus is in the top of fury and he desires to revenge against Rome. Coriolanus then goes to his Volscian enemy, Aufidius, in the city of Antium, and be friend with him. Aufidius is planning an attack against the Romans, and he welcomes Coriolanus' assistance. Then, Coriolanus is got promoted to be Volscian military general. Their army breaks Rome and makes Rome fear. Rome's armies are helpless to stop that attack. Aufidius and Coriolanus are successful to encamp outside the city walls. In response, two of Coriolanus’ friends come to plead for mercy; however Coriolanus refuses to hear them. When Coriolanus’ mother, Volumnia comes to incite him to make peace, he relents. Coriolanus uses his chance as Volscian military general to make a peace treaty between Rome and Volsce. The Romans welcome Volumnia as the savior of the city. When Coriolanus returns to Antium, there he meets Aufidius who feels slighted. Then Aufidius declares that Coriolanus is fault because he makes treachery. Coriolanus is again accused as a traitor of Volsce. As the reprisal, some of Aufidius' men assassinate Coriolanus.