Analysis Of The Poem ' Coriolanus '

The author of Oedipus, Sophocles, introduces a worthy rival to the main character Oedipus.Tiresias, who considers himself to be an equal to the Great King. Tiresias admits, “You are a king. But where the argument’s concerned // I am your man, as much as a king as you.// I am not your servant, but Apollo’s.”(Sophocles) While simultaneously trying to defend his honour and bring justice to Thebes, Oedipus argues about the integrity of Creon’s source. Tiresias retorts Oedipus’ impulsive accusations, in a studious, and King like manner.Tiresias’ diligent retaliation is dramatically significant because it develops Oedipus’ character; Oedipus is humanized and revered less as a God because of his flaws. The power dynamic shift causes the audience to become more judgemental of Oedipus since someone is holding him accountable for his behaviour. Additionally, the passage adds to the mystery of the plot and creates suspense, through Sophocles’ use of paradox, and imagery which cause the mood to change and creates a compelling story. Both of these elements cause the audience to pay attention to the drastic changes in character, and mood, to highlight the major theme of pride, power, and fate. Ultimately, the passage is intended to show the ignorance of Oedipus, and the awareness of Tiresias, who are symbols for the pervasiveness of fate.

Volumnia’s character in Coriolanus both supports and breaks the normal gender roles and basis of what is feminine and what is masculine. Since Coriolanus’s father is not around, Volumnia plays both parts of a mother and a father in the family. Volumnia raises her son to be masculine and to exude power despite that she is a woman. She sends him to war and does not think about the consequences or hardships he must face. Unlike a regular mother, she loves seeing Coriolanus’s wounds because they represent strength and show his manly struggles. How Volumnia raises Coriolanus is reflective of herself because she thinks that men who do not fight in the war should not be respected by their country, and furthermore, that one is not a “man” but only a boy before going to war. Like his mother, Coriolanus sees the plebeians as cowards because they have done nothing and have not fought in the war. Because of this, Coriolanus believes he is better than them and that they should respect him and not the other way around. Coriolanus’s masculinity makes him all the more powerful-- his violent and aggressive behavior gives him more power than those men who have not fought in war. Evidently, masculinity is a foundation for power and Volumnia has raised her son to adhere to masculine qualities in order for him to be more powerful. By being a man and fighting for Rome, he is to be made council, giving him power to rule over others. Furthermore, Volumnia acts more as a general to a soldier than is

“Thinking before acting is wisdom, but acting before thinking is regret. (PictureQuotes.com)” This quote relates directly to the main character in The Odyssey, Odysseus, who is trying to get home to his wife and son who are being bombarded by suitors to take her hand in marriage, unknowing of the return of Odysseus. As Odysseus journeys home with his crew, they overcome many obstacles with the help of his leadership and the mythological greek gods, yet lose many crew members along the way. Throughout The Odyssey, Odysseus endangers many people including people he does not even know. As much as people may say that Odysseus was a great leader, there is more evidence that he puts his crew in danger absent-mindedly, risks his family to get revenge, and deals with his problematic people in cruel and idiotic ways, proving he is not, in fact, a morally good man.

For example, when Athena, disguised as Mentês, introduces herself to Telemachus, she says, “My name is Mentês; I am the son of a clever father, Anchialos”.  A name symbolized not only one’s own fame and honor, but also that of one’s ancestry.  If a man’s family was particularly honorable or dishonorable, it was instantly obvious because of the renown and history that stood behind his name.  The name was truly the most important possession of any man in early Grecian culture.  This is probably best evidenced by Odysseus’ encounter with the cyclops, Polyphemos.  In the beginning, Odysseus merely tells Polyphemos that he is Noman, a man with no history or background, about whom the cyclops does not know if he should fear or welcome, a man whom he could never find again.  After he has injured Polyphemos and is away from him, however, Odysseus tells his name, saying, “…your blinder was Odysseus, the conqueror of Troy, the son of Laërtês, whose address is in Ithaca!”  It seems that Odysseus cannot stand the thought of this great victory not being added to the history of his name, and, although it gets him in lots of trouble, thinks it much worse to do a great deed unknown than to suffer the consequences of having it known.  This example clearly summarizes the higher and deeper purpose of a name in ancient Grecian culture, to be a witness for the man himself and his character.

In difficult times, a person's actions that are misconstrued as logical and cautious can lead to dangerous and unfortunate events for many when their actions are really signs of cowardice and convenience. In, Homer’s The Odyssey, Eurylochus, Odysseus’ second-in-command, is often at odds with Odysseus because he always chooses the more cowardly actions to get the crew home safely instead of the more loyal and brave choice. After witnessing Circe’s ability to turn men into swine and telling Odysseus about it, Eurylochus tries to persuade Odysseus to leave. Eurylochus says: “‘Don’t force me back there, captain, king...

Pride is the fatal flaw that is most responsible for Coriolanus’ demise. He allows his “bull-headed pride” to place the plebeians beneath him. Coriolanus has a strong contempt for the plebeians who begin to think that he is, “chief enemy to the people”. His lack of delicacy with the society only wins him unpopularity. Due to his upbringing and position in society, Coriolanus has been shaped, into being very single-minded.

Menenius is a man of words whereas Coriolanus is a man of action. This will be explored with reference to Coriolanus as whole.

Annabeth had figured Polyphemus would still have a grudge about that name, and she was right” (212). Annabeth confronts the cyclops on her own to distract him and uses her wits to think of a way to throw the cyclops off balance. Annabeth rightly believes that using the name Nobody will bring out Polyphemus’s hatred and cloud his mind, thus putting him mentally off balance. The bravery and ingenuity displayed by Odysseus and Annabeth are highlighted as positive traits to have in both Ancient Greece and modern times. The authors want their readers to develop these characteristics as part of their personality, thus they show the positive consequences these traits had for both Odysseus and Annabeth.

Large-scale questions of such ideas are raised in Sophocles’ play, “Oedipus the King”—a story that deals with the tragic hero, Oedipus, and his demise. Oedipus progresses through the play struggling against his own wicked destiny: the prophecy that declares that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Ultimately, Oedipus fulfills this prophecy; in fact, he had completed his fate without his own knowing and before the play even begins. Despite his belief that he was fighting against his prophesized destiny, Oedipus was ironically fulfilling it, and he slowly brings about his own downfall. He becomes a victim of his own fate. In this regard, “Oedipus the King” explores a terrifying concept: Oedipus never had free will—a puppet in every sense to the higher beings that decided his ending for him.

The secrifice of Titus, torn apart by internal conflicts when reprisals appear, and eventually returns to perfection that a conscientious objector has made in his desire to avenge for himself against Authority of law after he has producted everything to his country in the years of defense of Rome and his sons as martyrs in battle against the Goths in honourity, resemble case in Shakespeare' s Coriolanus, where Coriolanus determined Rome to turn against his native and thus violates the law of loyalty, duty and service that led his

This creates a complete contrast to the effect the eye level angle shots. Eye angle shots suggest equality compared to the hyperboles, used in effect to construct Coriolanus as a man who believes himself to be the most prized military possession of the world used by shakespeare in Coriolanus’s retaliation to his banishment. Near the closing of Coriolanus’s retaliation, Coriolanus declares he will find “a world elsewhere” where his military prowess is needed. The same world where without Coriolanus the Romans will be annihilated by their enemies (Volscians) “ That won you without blows”. By choosing to use eye level angle shots Coriolanus and the common people are perceived to be equals. In contrast Coriolanus states boldly with reassurance how the Romans will inevitably be drained from existence without his presence, creating a gap between him and the common people in terms of power and who holds importance. Coriolanus would rather hold power and be banished, as he values power and honour over powerlessness and being a flattering empathetic politician to the people. Coriolanus, born a Roman in Rome holds his beliefs of honour being the utter most important thing to live for with

Coriolanus demonstrates a socially transgressive individualism when he states that ‘Better it is to die, better to starve, / Than crave the hire which first we do deserve’, despite his awareness that ‘Custom calls [him] to’t’ (2.3.107). For him, the consulship is a ‘deserve[d]’, earned right; to adopt an ethos of humility and subjugation, to demonstrate pathos in publicly showing his war-wounds and sharing his stories of war, is to be ‘false to [his] nature’ (3.2.14). Menenius’s defence that Coriolanus ‘has been bred i’th’wars / … and is ill-schooled / In bolted language’ (3.1.322-24) fails, as Coriolanus’s earlier mocking (‘What must I say?’, 2.3.45), and his allies’ urges for him to ‘answer mildly’ (3.2.139), expose Coriolanus’s awareness of socially-expected rhetoric. The problem is not that Coriolanus does not know how to use rhetoric, but that he, like Thersites, struggles to contain his anger, and to perform a role which he perceives as debasing.

In this paper I will argue that both Sicinius and Coriolanus through their language in the passages display their desire for power and control in the play. Sicinius shows this desire when he attempts to fix his lack of control due to emotion as he mentions the power of the Plebeians and Coriolanus' imminent exile. Coriolanus displays his desire for power and control when in his speech, he struggles to keep control of his anger and attempts to use his pride to gain power over his banishment. Sicinuis' speech in this passage is poetry, as he is a Roman tribune and politician. This also indicates the importance of his speech, as he is attempting to guide the interests of the people that look to him for guidance.

Prose symbolizes the internal change in the figure of Menenius, but he remains immature and emotional. Menenius is nimble and tactical. He uses “my son Coriolanus” (V.ii.61) in front of the Volscians to endure his relationship with Coriolanus and to be perceived as his father instead than an ambassador of Rome, even though, he does not longer perceives Coriolanus as a son. His dialogue is more concrete and incontestable. “The glorious god sit in hourly synod about thy particular prosperity” (67), this notorious phrase not only symbolizes the feelings of Menenius, but also his tactic to convince other citizens and that pretends to use it against Coriolanus. Comparing Menenius’ tactics with Trump’s, it is clear that both individuals can penetrate and move masses of

Menenius tries to excuse Coriolanus’ angry attitude when he speaks to the citizens. He says he should be judged for who he is. Not who they want him to be:‘Consider further