#cominius
(My specialty is Julius Caesar so I get excited when it looks like there’s even a small question about it) As far as I understand, it seems Coriolanus takes place near the beginning of the Republic, where there was indeed a tribune named Brutus, who was supposedly an ancestor of the Brutus in Julius Caesar. (Also IIRC the earlier Brutus also appears in the poem the Rape of Lucrece, since he was one of the men who deposed the Tarquin, hence the line “My ancestors did from the streets of Rome the Tarquin drive when he was called a king.”) So if Coriolanus takes place around the time of the founding of the Republic, that Brutus could very well be Lucius Junius Brutus, who actually did exist. @strengthsbystrengths any commentary on the Coriolanus side?I’m reading Coriolanus and, like, what’s Shakespeare’s beef with guys named Brutus? He’s got two dudes named Brutus who overthrow “ambitious” Romans. This is not about historical accuracy. Shakespeare regularly did not give a shit about historical accuracy. Julius Caesar had a goddamn clock. Some Italian boy named Brutus pissed him off and he was like, “you know what’s good name for the guy who’s gonna start a coup? Brutus.”
Uh if this isn’t fully a joke I will argue in defense of the historicity of Julius Caesar, since the play actually follows the events really well.
Don’t worry, I know about Julius Caesar, but there’s academic debate about whether or not Coriolanus’ story was based on a real historical event. The joke was that Shakespeare decided they should both be Brutus. One Brutus is accuracy, two Brutuses is suspicious.
Historical links with the two tribunes is one of my favourite underrated things about Coriolanus so thank you for the tag @percyhotspurand@the-full-shakespearience you’ve just given me the opportunity I’ve been waiting for to ramble about my favourite topic
Because it all ties in that Martius being proud isn’t just a petty jab, but paranoia that he’s going to be like their last king, Tarquin the Proud.
While it compresses seven years together, rearranges some events and is much more critical across the board in terms of characters (the original is much more anti-plebeian, and the play is much more critical of Martius despite him getting arguably a more sympathetic portrayal here) Coriolanus is actually pretty good in terms of historical accuracy, with some of the speeches taken almost directly from Plutarch. While there’s still questions over whether the entire thing is mythological, I think at the time of writing the plays there wasn’t that doubt.
There was actually a second tribune called Brutus, but he only appears in some of the versions of the Coriolanus myth and doesn’t have a full name, while Sicinius appears across the board. He could be inspired by Lucius Junius Brutus, the famous member mentioned in Julius Caesar, and parts of his speeches against Coriolanus could be inspired by his oath to “suffer no man to rule Rome” and causing the people “desirous of a new liberty, not to be swayed by the entreaties or bribes of kings.” He was one of the major players in overthrowing Tarquin after pretending to be loyal and obvious and was against the family prior to the events of the Rape of Lucretia.
But he died leading what looks like the first battle Martius fought at 16 at Silva Arsia (making Coriolanus in his 30s through the compressed timeline of the play), and with the way he’s treated by other characters, particularly in being mocked by Menenius, I doubt he’s supposed to be Lucius. His two sons, Tiberius and Titus, also shared the name Junius Brutus, but they’re also dead by the start of the play: brutally tortured and executed as their father watched after they tried to reinstall the monarchy.
‘Junius Brutus’ is just the family name and title without the first name (like Martius Coriolanus without the Caius; Julius Caesar’s Brutus, Marcus, shares it too), so it feels like he’s been characterised as a mixture of its early members: the sneaky duo trying to gain their own power, and the man willing to sacrifice anything to ensure another tyrant doesn’t become king.
With the republic being little over a decade old at the start of the play, regardless of the specifics of who he is, just being a part of the family ties him straight to the reputations of Lucius, Tiberius and Titus. I’d love to see a production with more distinct tribunes, because they’re histories are so different: at the very least Brutus was a part of one of the most prominent, beloved and honoured patricians families, and Sicinius was a plebeian. Potentially one of the first to come to power, and he personally planned and lead the protests from the beginning of the play (which were actually peaceful successions to a nearby hill). There seems to be more bitterness between him and Coriolanus than Coriolanus and Brutus (he’s the one who wants to throw him off the rock), so a lot of Coriolanus’ hatred towards plebeians can come off as very personal insults.
It also makes how carelessly the tribunes use the people in the play so sad, particularly with how much they adore them in later scenes: Brutus is from a family who swore to protect them, and Sicinius is one of them whose finally managed to give them a voice, perhaps the first to do so.
Speaking of the people and early founders, it also adds a lot to some other characters.
I think Valeria is criminally underused, not only due to her fantastic speech convincing Volumnia to go stop her son, but also due to her family: her brother was another one of the founding members and Martius shows respect to her due to it (calling her the “noble sister of Publicola, the moon of Rome”), but his very title means “friend to the people” and a lot of his career was dedicated to aiding the people and stopping the monarchy: including all rights being forfeited of anyone suspected of restarting the monarchy, as they seem to fear Coriolanus does. He’s in some ways the anti-Coriolanus, publically mourned for a year and having his funeral was payed for by the people (shortly after passing consulship to Menenius Martius is literally the only one of his friends without a consulship Volumnia must be so disappointed). And his reputation for public support precedes him: for Hamilton fans, the Federalist Papers written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay used his name as a pseudonym. Historical Coriolanus is even more blatantly classist, but in the play he actually shares more in common with the plebeians than his fellow patricians, and a lot of their lines mirror each other; it seems ironic he turns down money and customs when they’re the main things separating him from them.
And the paranoia of Coriolanus’ consulship turning into another monarchy could be tied to Cominius as well, who was one of several consuls burned alive on order of the tribunes (different ones) a few years after Coriolanus attacks Rome due to plotting to make a consul king. A lot of the lines from him and the tribunes are very interesting through that lens, either through genuinely plotting to make Coriolanus a puppet king - the tribunes do wonder if his “insolence” can endure to be commanded under Cominius and that a lot of his honours are due to Martius - or whether the tribunes exploit the suspicion for their own gain.
Aufidius’ depiction also could tie into the “King Martius the Proud” undertones. While Shakespeare does use the historical names he’s given and they come from a different root, Tullus does sound a lot like Tullia, the name of both of King Tarquin’s wives. The first and oldest was milder and gentler, while the younger was fierce and ambitious, and after being in-laws the pair murdered Tullia’s husband and sister to marry each other. She also encouraged him to take the throne himself, ordering the assassination of the former king: her own father, who she then ran over in a chariot. While Aufidius does take Martius into his house and give him his army in all versions, the blatant sexual and romantic note to their relationship, and the attention its given in the play, is purely Shakespeares. So its plausible that a lot of Aufidius’ characterisation could have been taken from Tarquin’s life, making him almost a Lady Macbeth type figure and I have another entire Aufidius rant with the fragments of Volscian history/mythology and ties to Homer
But speaking of reoccurring Italian names, it sounds like Shakey might have had a fling with a a sailor called Antonio or five
Livy,Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (VI 72-VIII 62)
