William Shakespeare, Critical Commentary of The Tragedie of Coriolanus
Horace Howard Furness, Jr., A. B.; Litt. D., Ed.

confronting the two Tribunes lets his tongue go on without restraint in a humorous manner of speech—which beautifies neither himself nor them—with complete pleasure to himself. Also in his talk with the Roman matrons he gives expression to his joy over the return of Marcius in the fresh and hearty manner to which prose so aptly lends itself. [See also Notes by Delius, I, i, 5, 6; I, iii, 3.—Ed.]— E. K. Chambers (Warwick Sh.): Menenius, not a very serious politician, nor personally dignified, finds it exceedingly amusing to ‘roast’ the Tribunes. He does not, however, come off without some home-truths in return. Shakespeare is fairly impartial in his analysis of the weaknesses of both parties. To his cynical point of view there is not much to choose between them. And how vivid and characteristic his portraits are! Just so might a genial Pall Mall clubman and a couple of London county-councillors satirize each other today.

Agurer W. A. Wright: Pope altered this to Augur, apparently regarding the speech as verse, but ‘augurer’ is the more common form in Shakespeare. See Jul. Cæs., II, i, 200: ‘The unaccustomed terror of this night, And the persuasion of his augurers.’