Earley 1 Brandon Earley Shakespeare Final Paper Dr. Washington 5/5/15 Metaphors & Metonymy: Fragmenting the Human Identity in William Shakespeare’s Coriolanus The human identity is comprised of numerous aspects and includes many pieces, ranging from physical qualities to mental capacity and everything in between. Many individuals can say they have a solid perception of their identities, but this does not necessarily correlate with how they are perceived by others. This can occur when individuals are not seen for their full identities as humans, but rather as only one portion of themselves. Language plays an intricate role in how individual identities are constructed in many societies around the world. The two figures of speech that facilitate this construction are metaphor and metonymy, and they are extremely reductive in breaking human identity down into fragments. Metaphors and metonymy serve this function in William Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. In this multi-layered tragedy, a war hero, Coriolanus, experiences great victory and an even greater downfall. He and many other characters in this play are deeply connected to the social and political structures that Shakespeare creates, particularly because of the way that others construct their identities with language. Characters in this play are faced with incomplete identities as a result of being identified not only by what they do for others, but what others value in them. Coriolanus communicates the idea that individuals’ identities are not based in humanity. Rather, their identities are simply extensions of the larger institutions to which they belong, and this idea manifests in the identities of Virginia, the citizens of Rome, and Coriolanus himself.
Earley 2 Language fragments identity at various points throughout this Shakespearean play, and it is extremely evident in the dynamics of the institution of marriage in Coriolanus, as it highlights the inequality between the value of men’s words and women’s words. This idea comes to the forefront when it is exposed as an element in Coriolanus and Virgilia’s marriage. Coriolanus’s wife, Virgilia, does not speak frequently in the play, as she is either not in the scene or driven to the sidelines of the conversation by Coriolanus’s mother, Volumnia. However, Coriolanus solidifies the fragmentation of his wife, Virgilia, when he refers to her as, “my gracious silence” (Shakespeare 2.1.175). Virgilia’s identity is fragmented with this statement, as the way Coriolanus refers to her is a metaphor that reduces her to one thing that she provides in their marriage, which is silence. Thus, she becomes a mere part of a larger institution, recognized only for being inactive. Furthermore, Virgilia’s identity is being created out of what Coriolanus values in her, and this is everything she does not say. Rather, his reference to her as his “gracious silence” suggests that he values her for allowing him to be the dominant authority figure in their marriage. She is his wife, and her inferior position in the marital structure defines her identity as a human being to Coriolanus. Juhani Rudanko, author of “On the Form and Function of Epithets in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus,” discusses language in Shakespearean plays and explains the differences between vocative and non-vocative epithets, saying that vocative epithets are those which address the receiver directly and non-vocative epithets “are not predicated to the addressee” (12). Coriolanus’s reference about Virgilia is non-vocative, because he is not saying it to her, but to his mother, Volumnia. Rudanko would call “my gracious silence” a friendly epithet because of the tone implied in Coriolanus’s statement. However, this is not the issue. While Rudanko adequately points out where the epithets exist in Coriolanus, he avoids taking into account what
Earley 3 characters are doing to other characters with their language, and this language implies that their marriage is deeply steeped in gendered roles that make Virgilia subservient to Coriolanus. Coriolanus is ultimately fragmenting Virgilia because he sees her as only one thing, which is a voiceless wife, and he greatly values this quality about her. Regardless of what the nature of Coriolanus’s epithet is, and whether it is vocative or non-vocative, what it does is more important, and what it does is isolate her from being a multi-dimensional character. She is, rather, fragmented and reduced to inferiority. Joo Ying Dittman, author of “Tear Him to Pieces: DeSuturing Masculinity in Coriolanus,” says recognizes “the feminine as the other, the constitutive outside which simultaneously consolidates and threatens the notion of masculinity” (657). This makes it clear as to why Coriolanus wants to keep Virgilia silenced and fragmented.. The fragmentation of identity also occurs to the citizens of Rome throughout Coriolanus. These citizens act and speak as one entity for the duration of the play, and their identities take the form of one character, named “All.” When discussing the role of the people with the Plebeians, Sicinius asks, “What is the city but the people?” to which the Plebeians respond, “True, the people are the city” (Shakespeare 3.1. 202-204). Not only are all of Rome’s citizens represented by one voice throughout the play, but they are also identified as the city itself, which removes any sense that they posses any individuality. The Roman citizens are recognized as a whole entity, but making up that whole entity are individual human beings. These individuals are repeatedly denied recognition by the government and are even referred to as “you fragments” by Coriolanus in the play (Shakespeare 1.1.223). Not only are they fragmented by being identified as the city itself, but they are also blatantly recognized as incomplete human beings. The citizens of Rome are never spoken to individually, and do not respond as such. Here, the use of
Earley 4 metonymy and metaphor in the play’s language is evident, because the people are referred to as something they represent that is larger than they are, but they are also equated with it. The ideas of individual identity and the loss of it are explored in Manfred Weidhorn’s article, “The Relation of Title and Name to Identity in Shakespearean Tragedy.” He examines social roles in Shakepeare’s works and argues that when characters in Shakespearean works become no more than a piece of the society in which they live, it “certifies the metamorphosis of humanity into cattle” (Weidhorn 303). Weidhorn is correct in his own metaphor because, when examining Coriolanus in the context of individual identity, it is clear that the citizens of Rome are nothing more than a faceless, nameless, united voice that speaks when it is spoken to. This speaks to the issue of class, as this is how the characters in Coriolanus are most separated from one another on the social level. Each individual citizen in Coriolanus is not valued for who they are, but rather what they are a part of. They exist as a pathway for the success of those in power. The separate individuals become a herd of fragmented beings, whose identities are fully constructed by the larger institution of which they are a part. In Coriolanus, this institution is Rome. The fragmentation of individual identity arguably occurs most commonly to the lead protagonist of Coriolanus, which is Coriolanus himself. His character is the one on which the play is centered. He is repeatedly broken into compartmentalized portions by other characters throughout the tragedy. It is fitting to begin the examination of his fragmentation with his name. His name is not originally Coriolanus; it is Caius Marcius, and he is a hyper-masculine war hero. Caius Marcius is renamed because of his single-handed victory at the battle of Corioles, where the Romans defeat the Volscians. To honor Marcuis and his bravery at the battle, Cominius says, “For what he did before Corioles, call him, / With all th’applause and clamor of the host, / Caius
Earley 5 Marcius Coriolanus! Bear / Th’addition nobly ever!” (Shakespeare 1.9.62-65). While renaming Marcius is done as an act of respect and honor for his efforts and brave service to Rome in war, it limits his human identity to one specific act in his life. Thus, his entire identity becomes comprised of his war actions. This is even noticed by other characters in the play. Coriolanus’s mother, Volumnia, She states, “he gives my son the whole name of the war” (Shakespeare 2.1.134). Although giving Marcius the name of Coriolanus associates him with something much larger than him, it puts him in a box that keeps him labeled only as a “virtus superbus.”Again, this removes Coriolanus from his individual human identity and fragments him by bestowing him with an identifier that associates him with only one event in his life. Joo Young Dittman explores the ways in which masculinity is magnified and scrutinized in Coriolanus, and he explains that the male identity in Coriolanus is tightly woven into Roman culture. He attributes the events that Coriolanus’s identity and experiences in this tragedy to the Roman expectation of what it meant to embody masculinity. Dittman says, “The Roman notion of virtus played a crucial role in shaping the early modern ideal of masculinity” (656). This makes it very clear as to why the city of Rome would be so willing to associate an entire war with one man’s identity. Coriolanus is a hyper-masculine character because he represents a hyper-masculine culture, and this is reflected in the language used to identify him. However, it reduces him down to one set of characteristics that define him as a whole. Dittman goes on to say that, “Moreover, the notion of masculinity was implicated in the early modern understanding of language and signification” (657). This illuminates the importance of changing Caius Maricus’s name to Coriolanus. It reflects the wider assumptions about men and the ideals of masculinity. Naming Caius Marcius after a war metaphorically identifies him as an accurate symbol of ideal Roman manhood.
Earley 6 Not only is Coriolanus referred to metaphorically in the play, but he is also referred to, and regarded with, metonymy by other characters, and this also shows that his identity is fragmented, yet deeply entwined in hyper-masculinity. After the battle at Corioles, Coriolanus is revered by his fellow soldiers and they celebrate his victory in defeating the Volscians. The stage directions in this scene state, “They all shout and wave their swords, take him up in arms, and cast up their caps” (Shakespeare 1.6). In response to this celebration, Coriolanus says, “Oh, me alone! Make you a sword of me?” (Shakespeare 1.6.76). In this scene, Coriolanus is processing the idea that others are regarding him as the very weapon he uses in battle. Swords represent power, authority, courage, strength, and are even perceived as symbolically phallic. Also, equating Coriolanus with a sword fragments him because it centers his identity on the larger institution of the army. All of the qualities that the sword represents are the qualities that Coriolanus’s fellow soldiers are projecting onto him, and Coriolanus can sense this. His awareness of how others perceive his identity takes form in the language he uses, which involves metonymy, as his identity is being defined by a portion of the whole. Also, Coriolanus being equated with a sword once again shows that his fragmented identity is constructed by masculinity. Once again, in his article, “Tear Him to Pieces” De-Suturing Masculinity in Coriolanus,” Jing Woo Dittman examines the ways in which Coriolanus is a fragmented character, and also how he processes the identity that others perceive in him. Dittman explains that Coriolanus “relentlessly calls the fantasy of wholeness into question” and argues that characters are “symbolically associated with the disseminative power that obscures an original point of reference” (661). This relates to Coriolanus being equated with the sword because, while he is being regarded as powerful, authoritative, and strong, relating him to a powerful, yet inanimate
Earley 7 object can blur the lines when it comes to whether or not his masculinity completes his identity as a human being. Dittman also says, that “the play implies that masculinity is itself a role that must be enacted and performed” and that “masculinity serves as a pervasive fiction through which to contain the spectre of social and linguistic fragmentation” (666). In other words, Coriolanus has a duty to act out and epitomize male masculinity, and within this performance is where fragmentation occurs. In this way, Coriolanus plays an active role in the fragmentation of his identity, and he acts out the role of masculinity as a way to adhere to society’s expectations of what men should embody. Furthermore, he makes the connection between himself and the sword with language, particularly metonymy. In this Shakespearean tragedy, Virgilia, the citizens of Rome, and Caius Marcius aka Coriolanus, all experience fragmentation as a result of language, specifically metaphors and metonymy. The power that these figures of speech contain is evident based on what they are capable of doing to the human identity. They are able to fragment individuals and identify them as only parts of the larger institutions of which they belong, whether they are social or political structures. In Coriolanus, these larger institutions include marriage, the city of Rome, and the Roman army. Metaphors and metonymy serve as ways in which characters are assigned specific roles. They assign Virgilia to silent wifedom, the people of Rome to a lack of individuality, and Coriolanus to the role of a hyper-masculine war hero. While these are all undeniably aspects of these characters’ identities, figures of speech, such as those used in the play, diminish human identity by suggesting that human beings are, or at least can be, only one thing. Fragmentation separates individuals from themselves and denies them the opportunity to experience life as multi-dimensional people and recognize the numerous aspects that human beings possess.
Earley 8 Works Cited Dittman, Joo Young. “Tear Him to Pieces: De-Suturing Masculinity in Coriolanus.” English Studies. 90.6 (2009): 653-72. EBSCOHost. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. Rudanko, Juhani. “On Forms and Functions of Epithets in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus.” Studia Neophilologica. 77 (2005): 11-24. EBSCOHost. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare: Sixth Edition. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print. Weidhorn, Manfred. “The Relation of Title and Name to Identity in Shakespearean Tragedy.” Studies in English Literature. 9.2 (1969): 303-19. EBSCOHost. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.