Welcome to the Shakespeare and Power Politics blog...in other words: who is the biggest machieval?
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Aristotle's take on politics...
After reading Aristotle's piece on revolution in politics, reflect on how Aristotle's argument is reflected in the first two acts of Coriolanus. As always, you need to respond to two others' posts to exceed expectations.
Aristotle's argument is reflected in both of the mob scenes in Coriolanus. In Act 1, scene 1, the mob wants to get rid of Coriolanus because they think he is hoarding grain, while they are starving. This is the inequality that Aristotle says is necessary for revolt in his first paragraph. Also the tribunes actions in Act 2, where they influence the mob to turn against Coriolanus, reflect Aristotle's argument that revolts in aristocracies come from jealousy for personal power, which is what the two tribunes have for Coriolanus.
I definitely agree that the inequality created from the hoarding of the grain incited revolt. Also, you make a good point about how the tribunes are jealous of Coriolanus. This will most definitely lead to a revolt by the tribunes.
The mob scene in the beginning is an excellent example from Coriolanus because it shows Aristotle's argument that unequal wealth with cause a revolution within a aristocracy
It's true, two strong components that Aristotle argues will cause a revolution are seen in Coriolanus' choice to hoard the grain and focus solely on his personal interests. He's not concerned about inequality or his focus on himself, which could ultimately lead to a revolt.
Aristotle identifies exclusion from power, personal ambitions, and great inequality of wealth as the main causes for revolution in an aristocracy. In the first two acts of Coriolanus these three causes for revolution can be found.
The inequality of wealth is seen in the opening moments of the play. The plebeians have taken the streets, protesting the rule of Casius Marcius. They are accusing him of being a grain hoarder, resulting in the starvation of plebeians.
The plebeians have also taken issue with the exclusion of power in the Roman aristocracy. It is apparent that only a handful on individuals are making government decisions and none of them represent the common people.
Personal ambition, while it may not be apparent at this point, will certainly become prevalent as the play progress. Caius Marcius is clearly motivated by bloodshed and the brutality of battle. His personal desire to go to war is sure to cause upset among the commoners.
Caius Marcius' rule has the triple threat, exclusion from power, personal ambition, and inequality of wealth. If Shakespeare was aware Aristotle's theories on revolution it would not be surprising if the plebeians protest escalated to revolt.
In an aristocracy, you make the people below you jealous of what you have. Harry was a prime example of humbling himself to promote the greater being of kind. Coriolanus however is very straightforward and says he is better than everyone else insultingly. This creates much separation between Coriolanus and the common people which may spark a revolution. Revolutions spark from inequalities, and when something flaunts their power people go against him.
I agree. He fails to relate or make any relationships with the common people, similar to King Richard II. He's too obvious about his hotheadedness and focus on personal power, which is certainly asking for trouble.
Aristotle's argument is that revolutions are made from “a numerical mass claiming an equality denied them […] desire of the many for equality […] jealousy of those who have wealth and honor.” This argument relates to Coriolanus’s first two acts because the public complains about the grain amount that is given to them by their superiors. The public wants to set their price for the city’s grain supply. Since the city is under an aristocracy, Aristotle argues that they are more “liable to be revolutionized by external pressure.”
Aristotle identifies how all revolutions are caused by the desire for equality among the people. In Coriolanus, the grain is kept from the people unfairly by the rulers or Rome. The leaders also have imposed unfair prices on the grain, which causes the people to become very angry. The people feel like the ruling class is taking advantage of them, which inspires them to revolt. Also, the government in place at this time in Rome is an oligarchic republic. The power lies in the hands of a dominant class, but the people still have some influence on the proceedings of the government. Aristotle identifies that dissensions among the oligarchical body lead to revolution. In Coriolanus, Sicinius and Brutus are against Coriolanus becoming the consul of Rome. However, the majority of the rest of the oligarchical body supports Coriolanus becoming consul. Although nothing drastic occurs between the two tribunes and the rest of the Roman Senate in the first two acts, I believe that the tribunes will do something extreme to prevent Coriolanus from gaining power. It will be a revolution from within the government. Also, Aristotle identifies how the arrogance of an official will lead to a revolution. Coriolanus is an extremely arrogant man. After the Plebeians offered their support of Coriolanus as consul, they retracted their support of him because of how arrogant they thought Coriolanus was. Clearly, if Coriolanus is elected, the people will rebel. They do not want such an arrogant man in a position of power.
Spot on mark! The government in Coriolanus is definitely an oligarchy. Although the people are responsible for electing some of those in government positions, they have little real power. However, as you mention, these people have great power when it comes to a possible revolution, and will overthrow Coriolanus if he is elected as consul.
marrkk, i agree that the people will rebel if Coriolanus is elected, but if he plays his cards right he might be able to ride out of the flames unscathed. However, this seems improbable because he is not a machiovel. Good mark.
Since Coriolanus would be a much more direct leader, this stirs people to want to revolt. In an aristocracy a revolution comes from the leader not looking out for the people but just for his own interests. The leader, in this case, possible coriolanus, seems to be much more into himself. He doesn't seem to be looking out for the people well being. They leader in an aristocracy is very wealthy, very powerful, and they have a lot of merit. According to Aristotle: Causes of revolution in politics, these are the three main aspects of an aristocratic leaders separation with his people.
I agree. You make a good point about Coriolanus's arrogance. He definitely is not looking out for the people, but rather only for himself. I believe that Coriolanus's arrogance will lead to his downfall
this is very true, Coriolanus does not care for the lower people whatsoever, he despises them and thinks very poorly of them. He does not take any bull and he thinks he is the only important one.
At the end of Act II, the leaders of Rome are experiencing a conflict between the Plebeians and the political promotion of Coriolanus. The Plebeians, after being convinced by Coriolanus’ pomp and impressiveness, vote to give the promotion to Coriolanus. However, once the general leaves the crowd and is on his way to receiving the ceremonial robes, Brutus and Sincinius convince the crowd to rush to the place where Coriolanus is receiving his robes and tells Menenius that they have changed their minds. The crowd remarks in a general consent that Coriolanus is arrogant and pompous. In his argument, Aristotle says that a few of the main causes for all revolutions are “official arrogance…failure of the middle class to maintain balance”. The crowd not only believes that Coriolanus is arrogant, the middle class is also experiencing a food shortage, and therefore is unable to maintain a balance. In both of these ways, Aristotle’s argument is reflected in the first two acts of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus.
I agree. I think that in Coriolanus the middle class is nonexistent. Instead, there are only plebeians and members of the government. Such an extreme imbalance will definitely lead to problems in the near future.
I think you make a good point about his arrogance getting in the way, but what Brutus and Sincinius did was manipulate the masses making them equally a threat to the stability of the government. Through out the two acts there are many things that Aristotle stated that leads a government to revolution.
They are many similarities between Aristotle's "Causes of Revolution in Politics" as well as Shakespeare's "Coriolanus". The first example of a similarity comes as a result of the Roman government's potential grain hoarding policies. Aristotle states that revolutions arise from inequalities. In the case of Coriolanus, an angry mob of plebeians feels the need to revolt because they think that they're being treated unequally by their government. Additionally, in Aristotle's essay, he states that in oligarchies (the type of government in place in Coriolanus,)personal rivalries and abuse of power can lead to revolution. In Coriolanus, a rivalry has developed between Coriolanus and two of Rome's tribunes: Brutus and Sicinius. These two men point out Coriolanus' flaws to Rome's common folk in hopes of preventing them from voting for Coriolanus as consul. Another overlap between Coriolanus and Aristotle's essay is the topic of arrogance. Aristotle states that arrogant leaders are often overthrown. If Coriolanus does end up being consul of Rome, I think his term will be short lived. Coriolanus' overwhelming arrogance will incense his citizens to the point of rebellion. Aristotle also points out that revolutions can arise when popular military chiefs take power; Coriolanus definitely fits this description.
I like your point that to some degree, Sicinius' and Brutus' campaign against Coriolanus is a personal rivalry. I agree with you that if Coriolanus does land a consul position, the people won't tolerate him for long.
Aristotle's argument is seen all throughout act one and two. The poor people of the streets band together to get back the grain they accuse Coriolanus of hoarding. This rebellion represents what Aristotle writes in his article about how in aristocracies people will revolt if their is a great inequality of wealth. He also says the rising of mobs is due to exclusion of power and when leaders only care about their personal ambitions. Coriolanus definitely seems to fit these ideals which I think will ultimately lead to his demise.
I agree with you that Coriolanus seems to care only about his personal ambitions, not the welfare of anyone else. Aristotle says that in oligarchies, abuse of power by individuals and insolence of privilege have to be watched out for.
Aristotle wrote that "Equality in proportion to merit and security of rights are the true conditions of permanence." Coriolanus' self-righteousness threatens both of these conditions in Rome. His insulting remarks about the crowd, which are intended to reduce its merit, deepen the perceived inequality between himself and the crowd. With the crowd's food security also at risk apparently because of Coriolanus, the two conditions of permanence are both ruined by him.
Coriolanus' undoing of the two conditions of governmental permanence also happens to match the actions of a tyrant, who "relies on the material and moral degradation" of his subjects and whose aim is personal gratification.
Aristotle also wrote that "official arrogance" is an inciting occasion for revolution, and this definitely corresponds with Coriolanus' behavior as he tells everyone they're covered in scabs. This in conjunction with "fear of the law's abuse" (fear that an arrogant consul member will lead selfishly, like a tyrant) leads Brutus and Sicinius, and then the crowd, to publicly point out Coriolanus' faults.
In the play, there is some classic mistreatment going on. We have higher powers treating lower powers unfairly, and there is jealousy brewing among those below the highest power. Coriolanus is naturally powerful and rose to the position of leader because of his brutal ways and strong mental attitude. He does not bend on his decisions and there is no one else that can match his war-like mood. The mobs in the beginning of the play display the feelings of unfair treatment and inequalities, this can cause revolution in any environment. Coriolanus's haughty manner suggests that he views himself above everyone else, especially the peasant and people who are rebelling, he calls them dogs. He is excluding others from power and hogging it all for himself. This can cause revolutions in aristocracies according to aristotle. The play shows several instances of factors that can cause revolutions.
It seems like, according to Aristotle, you are saying that the politics in Coriolanus are more of a monarchy-turned-tyranny, not an aristocracy. I'd say more of an aristocracy.
There are multiple similarities between Acts I and II of Coreolanus and Aristotle’s “Causes of Revolution in Politics.” The first and most obvious similarity between Aristotle’s piece and the first act of Coreolanus is in the government’s grain hoarding. Much of Aristotle’s argument is focused on the problems that arise from inequality, and a problem is seen when the angry group of plebians feel they need to revolt because they believe the grain hoarding is unfair. Secondly, Aristotle discusses that in aristocracies, problems “arise from the jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth.” Coriolanus seems very interested in his personal ambitions, while fairly disinterested in the well being of those around him, suggesting some problems in his future.
I see the Aristotle's argument portrayed throughout the first two chapters but specifically in one scene. In the mob scene where the mod wants to get rid of Coriolanus because they suspect him of stealing and hoarding grain is a prime example. In Aristotle's take on politics he says that an inequality very similar to this is a perfect example of a proper time to revolt.
Although this is a good point, I don't think it really relates to the entirety of the play. I think there is more corruption going on within the government, or will be going on within the government then just the inequality of sharing grain.
The mob wants a revolution because they feel that the wealth is not being spread equally. They are particularly interested in grain. The first sentence of Aristotle's essay says that revolutions arise from "a mass claiming an equality denied them." The mob then targets one individual, as Aristotle says they would in an Aristocracy. Aristotle says that revolutions in Aristocracies arise from "jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth." In the instance of the first mob scene, it was primarily the inequality of wealth.
The instigation of a revolt is definitely a product of the wealth not being spread evenly. I like how you state how the mob targets one individual, as they would in an aristocracy.
Aristotle states that “revolutions arise from inequalities”. He then goes on to identify every type of inequality that is possible, and which ones pertain to certain types of government (which is just overkill if you ask me, but alas, no one is). Anyway, at the very beginning of the play Coriolanus, it is clear that the common people of Rome are being taken for a spin by their government due to the fact that they are not only keeping grain from them, but they are also being charged unruly prices to attain it. This makes the common folk angry because firstly they are being taken advantage of, and they are hungry (which makes me quite cranky as well). The common people want to be ruled by a leader who considers them to be equals, but this is not the way that Coriolanus would like to lead. He would rather be dominant and hated, than equal and loved. This is yet another reason why his subjects should not accept him as a leader. Based off of Aristotle’s ideas about inequality, I think he’d agree with my conclusion.
In Aristotle’s piece of Revolution in Politics, he states that revolutions are caused by the desire for equality among people from the majority so it is the inequalities that create the problems. Not everyone wants equality when they have the upper hand. In Coriolanus the inequality comes from the distribution and cost of grain. The upper class is taking advantage of the lower class by controlling the grain because it is in demand. This inequality inspires the people to revolt to get what they want. Coriolanus is written about an oligarchic republic. Due to this, the dominant class controls the decisions made for everyone, but the majority still have some say in their governing. However, dissensions among the oligarchic body can lead to revolution. Aristotle stated many ways oligarchies can inspire revolution, some of them being: abuse of power, personal rivalries, tricks to deceive the masses, oppression of the wealth minority, etc. Coriolanus reflects many of these characteristics. Sicinius and Brutus have a personal rivalry against Coriolanus rising power as Consul of Rome, yet the majority of the oligarchy body supports him. Coriolanus himself is not a good speaker and is quite rude, however, his supporter Cominius talks him up and makes the people believe and respect him, thus manipulating the masses.
Aristotle states that, “in all revolutions, the conditions which leads up to them is the desire of the many for equality”. This is reflected in the first two scenes of Coriolanus, as the villagers are upset with Coriolanus. The anger pointed towards him eventually erupts into revolution. In the play there is also an obvious separation between the common people and Coriolanus, as the common people are upset with the uneven wealth and their unfair treatment. Aristotle also states, “In aristocracies they arise from the jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth.”. These two factors are plainly shown in the first two acts.
Aristotle states that, “in all revolutions, the conditions which leads up to them is the desire of the many for equality”. This is reflected in the first two scenes of Coriolanus, as the villagers are upset with Coriolanus. The anger pointed towards him eventually erupts into revolution. In the play there is also an obvious separation between the common people and Coriolanus, as the common people are upset with the uneven wealth and their unfair treatment. Aristotle also states, “In aristocracies they arise from the jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth.”. These two factors are plainly shown in the first two acts.
Aristotle's argument is reflected in both of the mob scenes in Coriolanus. In Act 1, scene 1, the mob wants to get rid of Coriolanus because they think he is hoarding grain, while they are starving. This is the inequality that Aristotle says is necessary for revolt in his first paragraph. Also the tribunes actions in Act 2, where they influence the mob to turn against Coriolanus, reflect Aristotle's argument that revolts in aristocracies come from jealousy for personal power, which is what the two tribunes have for Coriolanus.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is inequality when the mob wants the grain from the wealthy class.
DeleteI definitely agree that the inequality created from the hoarding of the grain incited revolt. Also, you make a good point about how the tribunes are jealous of Coriolanus. This will most definitely lead to a revolt by the tribunes.
DeleteI agree, Ryan. These are the two main points from the first two acts that show signs of downfall for the great war hero.
DeleteThe mob scene in the beginning is an excellent example from Coriolanus because it shows Aristotle's argument that unequal wealth with cause a revolution within a aristocracy
DeleteIt's true, two strong components that Aristotle argues will cause a revolution are seen in Coriolanus' choice to hoard the grain and focus solely on his personal interests. He's not concerned about inequality or his focus on himself, which could ultimately lead to a revolt.
DeleteAristotle identifies exclusion from power, personal ambitions, and great inequality of wealth as the main causes for revolution in an aristocracy. In the first two acts of Coriolanus these three causes for revolution can be found.
ReplyDeleteThe inequality of wealth is seen in the opening moments of the play. The plebeians have taken the streets, protesting the rule of Casius Marcius. They are accusing him of being a grain hoarder, resulting in the starvation of plebeians.
The plebeians have also taken issue with the exclusion of power in the Roman aristocracy. It is apparent that only a handful on individuals are making government decisions and none of them represent the common people.
Personal ambition, while it may not be apparent at this point, will certainly become prevalent as the play progress. Caius Marcius is clearly motivated by bloodshed and the brutality of battle. His personal desire to go to war is sure to cause upset among the commoners.
Caius Marcius' rule has the triple threat, exclusion from power, personal ambition, and inequality of wealth. If Shakespeare was aware Aristotle's theories on revolution it would not be surprising if the plebeians protest escalated to revolt.
-FORREST PARKER
In an aristocracy, you make the people below you jealous of what you have. Harry was a prime example of humbling himself to promote the greater being of kind. Coriolanus however is very straightforward and says he is better than everyone else insultingly. This creates much separation between Coriolanus and the common people which may spark a revolution. Revolutions spark from inequalities, and when something flaunts their power people go against him.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Coriolanus is very straightforward.
DeleteI agree. Coriolanus creates tension with the people that will probably come back to bite him.
DeleteHe is straightforward, which is a bad thing because he has a bad personality, in my opinion and that of the mob.
DeleteI agree. He fails to relate or make any relationships with the common people, similar to King Richard II. He's too obvious about his hotheadedness and focus on personal power, which is certainly asking for trouble.
DeleteAristotle's argument is that revolutions are made from “a numerical mass claiming an equality denied them […] desire of the many for equality […] jealousy of those who have wealth and honor.” This argument relates to Coriolanus’s first two acts because the public complains about the grain amount that is given to them by their superiors. The public wants to set their price for the city’s grain supply. Since the city is under an aristocracy, Aristotle argues that they are more “liable to be revolutionized by external pressure.”
ReplyDeleteI agree, but I think that in the play that pressure isn't external, but is provided by the tribunes.
DeleteI find it funny that Shakespeare wrote about supply/demand when he was involved in much controversy over grain.
DeleteAristotle identifies how all revolutions are caused by the desire for equality among the people. In Coriolanus, the grain is kept from the people unfairly by the rulers or Rome. The leaders also have imposed unfair prices on the grain, which causes the people to become very angry. The people feel like the ruling class is taking advantage of them, which inspires them to revolt. Also, the government in place at this time in Rome is an oligarchic republic. The power lies in the hands of a dominant class, but the people still have some influence on the proceedings of the government. Aristotle identifies that dissensions among the oligarchical body lead to revolution. In Coriolanus, Sicinius and Brutus are against Coriolanus becoming the consul of Rome. However, the majority of the rest of the oligarchical body supports Coriolanus becoming consul. Although nothing drastic occurs between the two tribunes and the rest of the Roman Senate in the first two acts, I believe that the tribunes will do something extreme to prevent Coriolanus from gaining power. It will be a revolution from within the government. Also, Aristotle identifies how the arrogance of an official will lead to a revolution. Coriolanus is an extremely arrogant man. After the Plebeians offered their support of Coriolanus as consul, they retracted their support of him because of how arrogant they thought Coriolanus was. Clearly, if Coriolanus is elected, the people will rebel. They do not want such an arrogant man in a position of power.
ReplyDeleteSpot on mark! The government in Coriolanus is definitely an oligarchy. Although the people are responsible for electing some of those in government positions, they have little real power. However, as you mention, these people have great power when it comes to a possible revolution, and will overthrow Coriolanus if he is elected as consul.
Deletemarrkk, i agree that the people will rebel if Coriolanus is elected, but if he plays his cards right he might be able to ride out of the flames unscathed. However, this seems improbable because he is not a machiovel. Good mark.
DeleteSince Coriolanus would be a much more direct leader, this stirs people to want to revolt. In an aristocracy a revolution comes from the leader not looking out for the people but just for his own interests. The leader, in this case, possible coriolanus, seems to be much more into himself. He doesn't seem to be looking out for the people well being. They leader in an aristocracy is very wealthy, very powerful, and they have a lot of merit. According to Aristotle: Causes of revolution in politics, these are the three main aspects of an aristocratic leaders separation with his people.
ReplyDeleteI agree. You make a good point about Coriolanus's arrogance. He definitely is not looking out for the people, but rather only for himself. I believe that Coriolanus's arrogance will lead to his downfall
DeleteI agree that Coriolanus is the direct cause of the revolution because of he is so self centered
Deletethis is very true, Coriolanus does not care for the lower people whatsoever, he despises them and thinks very poorly of them. He does not take any bull and he thinks he is the only important one.
DeleteI think the arrogance part has to do with how he just doesn't care about politics. I agree, it's a big factor in why the people want a revolution.
DeleteAt the end of Act II, the leaders of Rome are experiencing a conflict between the Plebeians and the political promotion of Coriolanus. The Plebeians, after being convinced by Coriolanus’ pomp and impressiveness, vote to give the promotion to Coriolanus. However, once the general leaves the crowd and is on his way to receiving the ceremonial robes, Brutus and Sincinius convince the crowd to rush to the place where Coriolanus is receiving his robes and tells Menenius that they have changed their minds. The crowd remarks in a general consent that Coriolanus is arrogant and pompous. In his argument, Aristotle says that a few of the main causes for all revolutions are “official arrogance…failure of the middle class to maintain balance”. The crowd not only believes that Coriolanus is arrogant, the middle class is also experiencing a food shortage, and therefore is unable to maintain a balance. In both of these ways, Aristotle’s argument is reflected in the first two acts of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that in Coriolanus the middle class is nonexistent. Instead, there are only plebeians and members of the government. Such an extreme imbalance will definitely lead to problems in the near future.
DeleteI think you make a good point about his arrogance getting in the way, but what Brutus and Sincinius did was manipulate the masses making them equally a threat to the stability of the government. Through out the two acts there are many things that Aristotle stated that leads a government to revolution.
DeleteThey are many similarities between Aristotle's "Causes of Revolution in Politics" as well as Shakespeare's "Coriolanus". The first example of a similarity comes as a result of the Roman government's potential grain hoarding policies. Aristotle states that revolutions arise from inequalities. In the case of Coriolanus, an angry mob of plebeians feels the need to revolt because they think that they're being treated unequally by their government. Additionally, in Aristotle's essay, he states that in oligarchies (the type of government in place in Coriolanus,)personal rivalries and abuse of power can lead to revolution. In Coriolanus, a rivalry has developed between Coriolanus and two of Rome's tribunes: Brutus and Sicinius. These two men point out Coriolanus' flaws to Rome's common folk in hopes of preventing them from voting for Coriolanus as consul. Another overlap between Coriolanus and Aristotle's essay is the topic of arrogance. Aristotle states that arrogant leaders are often overthrown. If Coriolanus does end up being consul of Rome, I think his term will be short lived. Coriolanus' overwhelming arrogance will incense his citizens to the point of rebellion. Aristotle also points out that revolutions can arise when popular military chiefs take power; Coriolanus definitely fits this description.
ReplyDeleteI like your point that to some degree, Sicinius' and Brutus' campaign against Coriolanus is a personal rivalry. I agree with you that if Coriolanus does land a consul position, the people won't tolerate him for long.
DeleteAristotle's argument is seen all throughout act one and two. The poor people of the streets band together to get back the grain they accuse Coriolanus of hoarding. This rebellion represents what Aristotle writes in his article about how in aristocracies people will revolt if their is a great inequality of wealth. He also says the rising of mobs is due to exclusion of power and when leaders only care about their personal ambitions. Coriolanus definitely seems to fit these ideals which I think will ultimately lead to his demise.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Coriolanus seems to care only about his personal ambitions, not the welfare of anyone else. Aristotle says that in oligarchies, abuse of power by individuals and insolence of privilege have to be watched out for.
DeleteI agree with the fact that the formation and rising of mobs is formed by exclusion. Coriolanus definitely fits the ideals of a bad leader.
DeleteAristotle wrote that "Equality in proportion to merit and security of rights are the true conditions of permanence." Coriolanus' self-righteousness threatens both of these conditions in Rome. His insulting remarks about the crowd, which are intended to reduce its merit, deepen the perceived inequality between himself and the crowd. With the crowd's food security also at risk apparently because of Coriolanus, the two conditions of permanence are both ruined by him.
ReplyDeleteCoriolanus' undoing of the two conditions of governmental permanence also happens to match the actions of a tyrant, who "relies on the material and moral degradation" of his subjects and whose aim is personal gratification.
Aristotle also wrote that "official arrogance" is an inciting occasion for revolution, and this definitely corresponds with Coriolanus' behavior as he tells everyone they're covered in scabs. This in conjunction with "fear of the law's abuse" (fear that an arrogant consul member will lead selfishly, like a tyrant) leads Brutus and Sicinius, and then the crowd, to publicly point out Coriolanus' faults.
I like how all of your quotes back up your ideas perfectly, and your argument is a perfect synthesis of both the Aristotle reading and the play.
DeleteIn the play, there is some classic mistreatment going on. We have higher powers treating lower powers unfairly, and there is jealousy brewing among those below the highest power. Coriolanus is naturally powerful and rose to the position of leader because of his brutal ways and strong mental attitude. He does not bend on his decisions and there is no one else that can match his war-like mood. The mobs in the beginning of the play display the feelings of unfair treatment and inequalities, this can cause revolution in any environment. Coriolanus's haughty manner suggests that he views himself above everyone else, especially the peasant and people who are rebelling, he calls them dogs. He is excluding others from power and hogging it all for himself. This can cause revolutions in aristocracies according to aristotle. The play shows several instances of factors that can cause revolutions.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like, according to Aristotle, you are saying that the politics in Coriolanus are more of a monarchy-turned-tyranny, not an aristocracy. I'd say more of an aristocracy.
DeleteI agree with Noah. More of an aristocracy. "They arise from the jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth"
DeleteThere are multiple similarities between Acts I and II of Coreolanus and Aristotle’s “Causes of Revolution in Politics.” The first and most obvious similarity between Aristotle’s piece and the first act of Coreolanus is in the government’s grain hoarding. Much of Aristotle’s argument is focused on the problems that arise from inequality, and a problem is seen when the angry group of plebians feel they need to revolt because they believe the grain hoarding is unfair. Secondly, Aristotle discusses that in aristocracies, problems “arise from the jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth.” Coriolanus seems very interested in his personal ambitions, while fairly disinterested in the well being of those around him, suggesting some problems in his future.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the grain hoarding. It makes a lot of sense that that would be a situation that could cause serious problems in a time of starvation.
DeleteI see the Aristotle's argument portrayed throughout the first two chapters but specifically in one scene. In the mob scene where the mod wants to get rid of Coriolanus because they suspect him of stealing and hoarding grain is a prime example. In Aristotle's take on politics he says that an inequality very similar to this is a perfect example of a proper time to revolt.
ReplyDeleteyep, revolution= leaders flaunting power
DeleteAlthough this is a good point, I don't think it really relates to the entirety of the play. I think there is more corruption going on within the government, or will be going on within the government then just the inequality of sharing grain.
DeleteThe mob wants a revolution because they feel that the wealth is not being spread equally. They are particularly interested in grain. The first sentence of Aristotle's essay says that revolutions arise from "a mass claiming an equality denied them." The mob then targets one individual, as Aristotle says they would in an Aristocracy. Aristotle says that revolutions in Aristocracies arise from "jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth." In the instance of the first mob scene, it was primarily the inequality of wealth.
ReplyDeleteThe instigation of a revolt is definitely a product of the wealth not being spread evenly. I like how you state how the mob targets one individual, as they would in an aristocracy.
DeleteI like your connection to grain. Maybe they'll get the grain and make bread and sandwiches. Also your quote is great. great quote.
DeleteAristotle states that “revolutions arise from inequalities”. He then goes on to identify every type of inequality that is possible, and which ones pertain to certain types of government (which is just overkill if you ask me, but alas, no one is). Anyway, at the very beginning of the play Coriolanus, it is clear that the common people of Rome are being taken for a spin by their government due to the fact that they are not only keeping grain from them, but they are also being charged unruly prices to attain it. This makes the common folk angry because firstly they are being taken advantage of, and they are hungry (which makes me quite cranky as well). The common people want to be ruled by a leader who considers them to be equals, but this is not the way that Coriolanus would like to lead. He would rather be dominant and hated, than equal and loved. This is yet another reason why his subjects should not accept him as a leader. Based off of Aristotle’s ideas about inequality, I think he’d agree with my conclusion.
ReplyDeleteIn Aristotle’s piece of Revolution in Politics, he states that revolutions are caused by the desire for equality among people from the majority so it is the inequalities that create the problems. Not everyone wants equality when they have the upper hand. In Coriolanus the inequality comes from the distribution and cost of grain. The upper class is taking advantage of the lower class by controlling the grain because it is in demand. This inequality inspires the people to revolt to get what they want. Coriolanus is written about an oligarchic republic. Due to this, the dominant class controls the decisions made for everyone, but the majority still have some say in their governing. However, dissensions among the oligarchic body can lead to revolution. Aristotle stated many ways oligarchies can inspire revolution, some of them being: abuse of power, personal rivalries, tricks to deceive the masses, oppression of the wealth minority, etc. Coriolanus reflects many of these characteristics. Sicinius and Brutus have a personal rivalry against Coriolanus rising power as Consul of Rome, yet the majority of the oligarchy body supports him. Coriolanus himself is not a good speaker and is quite rude, however, his supporter Cominius talks him up and makes the people believe and respect him, thus manipulating the masses.
ReplyDeleteAristotle states that, “in all revolutions, the conditions which leads up to them is the desire of the many for equality”. This is reflected in the first two scenes of Coriolanus, as the villagers are upset with Coriolanus. The anger pointed towards him eventually erupts into revolution. In the play there is also an obvious separation between the common people and Coriolanus, as the common people are upset with the uneven wealth and their unfair treatment. Aristotle also states, “In aristocracies they arise from the jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth.”. These two factors are plainly shown in the first two acts.
ReplyDeleteAristotle states that, “in all revolutions, the conditions which leads up to them is the desire of the many for equality”. This is reflected in the first two scenes of Coriolanus, as the villagers are upset with Coriolanus. The anger pointed towards him eventually erupts into revolution. In the play there is also an obvious separation between the common people and Coriolanus, as the common people are upset with the uneven wealth and their unfair treatment. Aristotle also states, “In aristocracies they arise from the jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth.”. These two factors are plainly shown in the first two acts.
ReplyDelete