[Scene III.]
Sicinius and Brutus Verity (Student's Sh.): The Tribunes are here seen at their worst: frankly treating the people as mere tools, exploiting the advantage which Coriolanus's passionate temperament gives them over him, and showing themselves with the self-importance of the demagogue in office (‘us’ . . . ‘we’ . . . ‘our’).
In this point . . . ne're distributed MacCallum (p. 511): The accusations brought against Coriolanus in Shakespeare are substantially just. He may not seek to wind himself into a power tyrannical if we take tyrant, as Plutarch certainly did but as Shakespeare probably did not, in the strict classical sense of tyrannus, but with his disregard of aged custom and his avowed opinions of the people, there can be no doubt that he would have wielded the consular powers tyrannically, in the ordinary acceptation of the word. For there can be as little doubt about his ill-will to the masses and his abhorrence of the tribunitian system. And it is on these that he is condemned. It is very noticeable that the division of the Antiate spoil, which in Plutarch is the most decisive and unwarrantable allegation against him, is mentioned by Shakespeare only in advance as a subordinate point that may be brought forward, but, as a matter of fact, it is never urged. Shakespeare makes no further use of a circumstance to which Plutarch attaches so great importance that he dwells on it twice over and gives it the prominent place in the narrative of the trial. This piece of sharp practice becomes quite negligible in the play, and the only chicanery of which the tribunes are guilty in the whole transaction is that, as in the Life, but more explicitly, they goad Coriolanus to a fit of rage in which he avows his real sentiments—a tactical expedient that many politicians would consider perfectly permissible. Shakespeare, as has often been pointed out, in some ways shows even less appreciation than Plutarch of the merits of the people; so it is all the more significant that, at the crisis of the play, he softens down and obliterates the worst traits in their proceedings against their enemy. And the second thing we observe is that by all this Shakespeare emphasises the insolence and truculence of the hero. It is Coriolanus's pride that turns his candidature, which begins under the happiest auspices, to a snare. It is still his pride that plays into the Tribunes' hands and makes him repeat in mere defiance his offensive speech. It is again his pride, not any calumny about his misapplying the profits of his raid, that gives the signal for the adverse sentence. Just as in this respect the plebs is represented as, on the whole, less ignoble than Plutarch makes it, so Coriolanus's conduct is portrayed as more insensate. And this two-fold tendency, to palliate the guilt of Rome and to stress the violence that provoked it, appears in the more conspicuous of Shakespeare's subsequent deviations from his authority. [Both Verity and Gordon call attention to the unfairness in bringing forward this question of the spoils of the Antiates.—Ed.]
he affects Tyrannicall power Murray (N. E. D., s. v. Affect. 1.): To aim at, aspire to, or make for; to seek to obtain or attain, 2 Henry VI: IV, vii, 104, ‘Have I affected wealth or honour?’ [Compare also IV, vi, 41 below.]
Inforce him with his enuy to the people That is, urge upon him his malice toward the people. North, in his marginal summary of a paragraph, p. 251, has, ‘The first occasion of the Volsces envy to Coriolanus.’ As the present passage is the only one wherein Shakespeare uses this expression North's summary perhaps led him to it. Schmidt (Lex., s. v. envy, sb. 2) gives many examples of this word in the sense of malice, hatred.—Ed.
And that Abbott (§ 382): As in Latin a verb of speaking can be omitted where it is implied by some other word, ‘And (say) that the spoil,’ etc. got on the Antiats Whitelaw compares ‘I will get me honour upon Pharaoh and all his host,’ [Exodus, xiv, 17].—Schmidt (Coriolanus） remarks on this that a nearer parallelism is to be found in Ant. & Cleo.: ‘My queen and Eros Have by their brave instructions got upon me A nobleness in record,’ IV, xiv, 98. ‘But the figure,’ says W. A. Wright, ‘is different, and “got upon” is equivalent to “begotten upon,” and so, obtained by means of. I would rather refer to I, i, 235, “win upon,” and As You Like It, I, i, 156, “If he do not mightily grace himself on thee,” for an instance of this use of “on.”’
by'th Pole . . . by Tribes Beeching (Henry Irving Sh.): The point of this arrangement is lost upon the reader unacquainted with the passage in North's Plutarch, on which it is based: ‘The Tribunes would in any case (whatsoeuer came of it) that the people should proceed to giue their voyces by Tribes and not by hundreds; for by this means the poore needie people (and all such rabble as had nothing to lose and had lesse regard of honesty before their eyes) came to be of greater force (because their voyces were numbered by the polle) then the noble honest citizens whose persons and purse did dutifully serue the common wealth in their warres' (p. 231). The sentence ‘because . . . polle’ is not in the Greek, and it is not a correct explanation of the Tribunes' preference for voting by tribes. In the case of both centuries and tribes voting was by poll, till the vote of a century or tribe was arrived at, and then the vote of century or tribe was given as a single one. Without going into questions of Roman constitutional history, it will be sufficient to say that in the assembly by centuries (comitia centuriata) the preponderance was given to property. It is more important to notice how carefully Shakespeare follows North, taking from him any details which may give life to the narrative.—E. K. Chambers (Warwick Sh.) likewise notes that the sentence in regard to voting by the poll is an addition of the translator from the Greek. He gives substantially the same explanation of the methods of voting by tribes and by centuries as that by Beeching, and concludes his note thus: ‘Probably Shakespeare has not quite understood the point, even if North did.’ [The parenthetical explanation is perhaps due to Amyot and not North, who translated the French of Amyot, not the original Greek. Langhorne's translation of this incident is: ‘But the first thing they did, after the people were assembled, was to compel them to give their voices by tribes, and not by centuries; thus contriving that the meanest and most seditious part of the populace, and those who had no regard to justice or honour, might out-vote such as had borne arms, or were of some fortune and character.’ A foot-note adds: ‘From the reign of Servius Tullius the voices had been always gathered by centuries. The Consuls were for keeping up the ancient custom, being well apprised, that they could save Coriolanus if the voices were reckoned by centuries, of which the knights and the wealthiest of the citizens made up the majority, being pretty sure of ninety-eight out of a hundred and seventy-three. But the artful tribunes, alleging that, in an affair relating to the rights of the people, every citizen's vote ought to have its due weight, they would not by any means consent to let the voices be collected otherwise than by tribes.’ (vol. ii, p. 190)—Ed.]
i'th Truth a'th Cause Johnson: This is not very easily understood. We might read, ‘o'er the truth o'the cause.’—M. Mason (Comments, etc., p. 257): As I cannot understand this passage as it is pointed, I should suppose that the speeches should be thus divided, and then it will require no explanation: ‘Sic. Insisting on the old prerogative
And power.
Æd. In the truth of the cause
I shall inform them.’
That is, I will explain the matter to them fully. [Rann adopts Mason's division and explanation of this passage, but makes a single line of the two short lines given to the Ædile.—Ed.]—Badham (Criticism Applied to Sh., p. 6): What is the meaning of ‘in the truth of the cause’? In this place it would mean because their cause is true, and assuredly that is not to be the ground of their determination; but, on the contrary, Sicinius wishes to hound them on to his cry of the right and strength of the Commons; the obvious correction is, ‘Insisting on the old prerogative And pow'r i' th' teeth o' th' cause.’ Johnson, as we afterwards found, had so far anticipated this that he saw the meaning required by the context, for he reads ‘o'er the truth o' th' cause,’ which, however, neither signifies what he wishes to express by it nor suits the metre.—Ibid. (Text of Sh., p. 289): The conjecture which I offered many years ago I again repeat, with the most perfect conviction of its truth.—W. A. Wright: That is, the power which the rightfulness of their cause gave them.—Verity (Student's Sh.): An obscure phrase; perhaps ‘according to the justice of their case.’—Case (Arden Sh.): That is, the authority residing in a true cause.—Gordon: I suppose this may mean, ‘the power which they have in the justice of their cause.’ It sounds like the jargon of an overworked politician.
when such time For other examples of this omission of the preposition in adverbial expressions of time see Abbott, § 202.
to haue his worth Of contradiction Warburton: The sense here falls miserably. He hath been used, says the speaker, ever to conquer—And what then?—and to contradict. We should read and point it thus, And to have his word, Off contradiction.—i. e., to have his opinion carry it without contradiction. Here the sense rises elegantly. He used ever to conquer; nay, to conquer without opposition.—Heath (p. 422): When we say a man is used to have his word [see Text. Notes] we mean that he will still have something proper or improper to say on every occasion that offers. What strange English too is Off contradiction? Yet, in spite of the genius of our language, Mr Warburton will have it that these words signify, ‘He has been used to have his opinion carry it without contradiction; nay, to conquer without opposition.’ Surely the tribunes knew better, as well from what had just before passed, as from the other transactions mentioned in the play, the establishment of the tribunitial magistracy, and the distribution of the corn, both which Coriolanus had violently opposed and had been overruled in his opposition. The latter part of Mr Warburton's interpretation, though he understands it as a compliment to Coriolanus out of the mouth of his enemies, is such a one as Coriolanus himself would undoubtedly have interpreted to be an affront. The common reading gives us a very just and a very natural sense. [It is to be remembered that by this Heath means the reading of Rowe, Pope, Theobald, etc., and not the Folio text.—Ed.]: ‘He hath been ever used in war to conquer, and in peace to lay hold of every opportunity to contradict the desires of the people. The first circumstance hath blown up his pride, and the second is so habitual to him that he cannot get the better of it; there is therefore no doubt but, if we can once put him in passion, and off his guard, both those principles of action will display themselves with their usual extravagance.’ The source of Mr Warburton's mistake is evident; he must needs be searching for a climax where none was intended. —Capell, whose text reads, ‘to have his 'worth,’ says: ‘Thus the folios, and rightly; for though 'worth be an uncommon contraction (a singular one, if you will, for no example is met with), the word so understood fits the place and the speaker; and that very contraction has fitted it, for pennyworth had not been tolerable. The sense is, “He hath been us'd to have his full swing of it.”’—[In his Glossary Capell cites the present passage, s. v. 'Worth: Pennyworth.]—Malone's note on this passage does not contain any reference to Capell; but he likewise declares in favour of the Folio reading, and interprets ‘worth’ in the sense of pennyworth, quoting in illustration Rom. & Jul., ‘You take your pennyworth [of sleep] now,’ IV, v, 4.—Collier (Notes & Emendations, etc., p. 358): The following must be allowed to be a valuable emendation of a passage which is thus given in every edition, ancient or recent, ‘—to have his worth Of contradiction.’ Malone gravely says that ‘to have his worth of contradiction’ means to have his pennyworth of it; but the whole figure here is taken from horsemanship. When a restive animal obtains his own way he is said to have his mouth given to him; to give a horse his mouth is to free him from restraint; therefore Brutus, speaking of Coriolanus and of his irritable spirit, remarks: ‘He hath been us'd
Ever to conquer, and to have his mouth
Of contradiction,’ etc.
The old printer confounded m and w, and read mouth ‘worth.’ The necessary letters are written in the margin of the folio, 1632, and struck through in the text.—Singer (Sh. Vindicated, p. 221): Think of Shakespeare writing ‘his mouth of contradiction’!! It does not tend to confirm Mr Collier's presumption that these correctors had access to better authority than we possess, or give a very high idea of their acuteness to propose such a change. The error lies only in a single letter; we should read, ‘to have his word Of contradiction,’ &c. [From Collier's remark that all editions ancient and recent read ‘worth,’ and this proposal by Singer to read word, it would seem that neither of them had examined the earlier texts. In spite of the sting intended by Singer's two exclamation points, he has, I think, been more lenient than is his wont. ‘To have his mouth of contradiction’ is an ill phrase, a vile phrase; how can it, moreover, be made to yield the meaning Collier gives it? It should be: To be given his mouth, if it refer to horsemanship. If it mean anything at all it must be as we speak of a face of woe, an eye of pity, and thus, a mouth full of contradiction.—Ed.]—J. Wetherell (Notes & Queries, 1 Aug., 1868, p. 103) directs us to read this passage: ‘he hath been us'd
Ever to conquer and to heave his wroth
On contradiction’;
but, unfortunately, does not vouchsafe to elucidate. It must, therefore, be left to the patience of the reader to unravel. For his guidance it may be said that Shakespeare uses heave in the sense of lift up, and also to give vent to, as a sigh or moan. The word wroth occurs but once in Shakespeare (Mer. of Ven., II, ix, 78), where it can mean only sorrow, unhappiness. 'Tis too hard a knot for me to untie.—Ed.—Badham (Text of Sh., p. 288): A mere change in the punctuation will supersede the necessity of any further conjecture in this passage. Here some defend ‘worth,’ and others attempt corrections of it, among which the most ridiculous is the MS. corrector's ‘mouth.’ We ought to read: ‘He hath been us'd
Ever to Conquer, and (to have his worth)
Of contradiction being once chaf'd, he cannot
Be reined,’ etc.—
P. A. Daniel (p. 62) proposes ‘and to heat his wrath On contradiction.’— Whitelaw: Not to have the worst of the quarrel; to give as good as he gets.— Schmidt (Coriolanus): The interpretation of Steevens [Malone?] is not in accord with the context. Literally: He is accustomed to have his worthiness, his repute, by means of contradiction; contradiction carries him as far as he intends; that is, he always carries his point.—W. A. Wright: His full quota or proportion as Malone explains it. Coriolanus in opposition has always been accustomed to get the best of the bargain. [As regards Schmidt's interpretation] the point is not that Coriolanus has acquired this character, but that he has always had his own way and cannot brook opposition.—Bulloch (p. 184): ‘Conquer,’ I conjecture, should be canker, a very expressive term for one so given as Coriolanus was to the various qualities of temper and conduct which the speaker attributes to him. ‘Canker’ and ‘cankered’ occur in Shakespeare above a score of times as noun and adjective; in the passage before us it would seem to be a verb. At all events it appears a suitable expression for the tribunes to heap upon the man they hated.— Hudson (ed. ii.): ‘Worth’ seems to me absolutely meaningless here. On the other hand, word seems rather tame for the occasion. Collier's MS. correction is dreadful. Daniel's proposal, though something bold, seems to me well worth considering.—Orger (p. 64): If we change ‘Of contradiction’ to ‘'bove contradiction’ the sense is clear. He has always been accustomed to have his worth regarded so highly, such deference paid him, that he has never been contradicted.— Verity (Student's Sh.): Can this mean ‘to get the better of opposition’? [Malone's interpretation] surely would imply that Coriolanus was used to and could put up with contradiction, whereas Brutus means the exact opposite. [Malone's interpretation, since it does not involve any change in the original text, is now accepted by the majority of modern editors.—Ed.]
Be rein'd . . . to Temperance Tollet: Our poet seems to have taken several of his images from the old pageants. In the new edition of Leland's Collectanea, vol. iv, p. 190, the virtue Temperance is represented ‘holding in hyr haund a bitt of an horse.’—Henley: Mr Tollet might have added that both in painting and sculpture the bit is the established symbol of this virtue.
which lookes . . . his necke Johnson: To ‘look’ is to wait or expect. The sense I believe is, ‘What he has in heart is waiting there to help us to break his neck.’—Steevens: The tribune rather seems to mean, ‘The sentiments of Coriolanus's heart are our coadjutors, and look to have their share in promoting his destruction.’ [This note, with even a slight hint of criticism of Johnson, did not appear until Steevens's own edition in 1793, nearly ten years after the death of his great partner in editorship.—Ed.]—Whitelaw: There is that in his heart— the ungovernable disposition of the man—which means (goes about, makes as if) to combine with us for his destruction. ‘To break his neck.’ Hurl him from the Tarpeian Rock.—Schmidt (Coriolanus): That is, is likely, as ‘to look’ is used elsewhere with adjectival and adverbial expressions, but would certainly not be used with an infinitive. Whitelaw is quite mistaken. ‘With us’ is by us, if expressed in present day speech. There is no need to refer directly to the downfall from the Tarpeian Rock as does Whitelaw.—Case (Arden Sh.): The N. E. D. places this passage under look 8b, To tend to, promise to, as sole example, following upon 8[a]. To show a tendency; to tend, point (in a particular direction), illustrated by several examples, beginning with ‘1647, Power of Kings, iv, 84, The context looketh wholly that way.’ Both Johnson and Steevens obviously connect ‘With us’ with ‘to break,’ etc., but if it is connected with ‘looks,’ the sentiments are not coadjutors, but merely coincide in expectation or tendency.
an Hostler . . . by'th Volume Steevens: That is, would bear being called a knave as often as would fill out a volume.—W. A. Wright: As Niel Blane says in Old Mortality (ch. iii.), ‘Folk in the hostler line maun put up wi' muckle.’ The folios spell the word ‘Hostler’ here, but elsewhere ‘Ostler.’—Miss C. Porter, in a laudable attempt to wrest a meaning from the Folio reading ‘that fourth poorest peece,’ says: ‘Coriolanus is referring to the requisite reining in of Temperence belonging to an Hostler of the lowliest fourth estate, which will enable him to stand being submissive, to beare to any extent; “by the Volume,” the Knave about to ride him.’ The word ‘him’ refers not to the metaphorical hostler here, but to Coriolanus himself, who sees through the scheme of Brutus, ‘the Knave’ who is about to ride him to his ruin.—Ed.
Through our large Temples Theobald: Though this be the reading of all the copies, it is flat nonsense. There is no verb, either expressed or understood, that can govern the latter part of the sentence. I have no doubt of my emendation [see Text. Notes] restoring the text rightly, because Mr Warburton started the same conjecture, unknowing that I had meddled with the passage. [Warburton was not so magnanimous. He pronounced the Folio text ‘rank nonsense,’ but made no mention of his ‘very dear friend’ having proposed the same reading.—Ed.] shewes of peace Malone: The ‘shows of peace’ are multitudes of people peaceably assembled either to hear the determination of causes or for other purposes of civil government.—Steevens: The real ‘shows of peace’ among the Romans were the olive branch and the caduceous; but I question if our author, on the present occasion, had any determinate idea annexed to his words. Mr Malone's supposition, however, can hardly be right; because the ‘temples’ (i. e., those of the gods) were never used for the determination of civil causes, &c. To such purposes the Senate and the Forum were appropriated. The temples indeed might be thronged with people who met to thank the gods for a return of peace.— W. A. Wright: Shakespeare may have had in his mind some occasion like that of Nov. 24, 1588, when Queen Elizabeth went to St Paul's to return thanks for the victory over the Spanish Armada. See Stow's Annals, p. 1260 (ed. 1601).
this present Schmidt (Coriolanus): Either to be taken with a reference to time—now, today—so that no later repetition of the complaint is to be feared; or with reference to the case now under discussion, so that there remains in reserve other points of complaint. Grammatically the first is the more simple explanation, and seems more consistent with the question ‘must all determine here?’— Case (Arden Sh.): At this present time. Some take it as meaning the present charge, referring to the events in III, i, and the attempt to attach him ‘as a traitorous innovator, A foe to th' public weal’ (ll. 207, 208). On the whole, however, time or occasion seems to be intended. Coriolanus had been prepared by Cominius for new and stronger accusations, and had agreed to answer ‘mildly,’ although, in fact, his patience breaks down as soon as he hears the old charge repeated. As Sicinius says there was no need to ‘put new matter to his charge’ (l. 101 post).
the peoples voices E. J. White (p. 413): The different departments of government, now recognised, were not separated at this period of the world's history; it was a fundamental principle of Roman Government that the supreme power was inherent in the people, though it might be delegated by them to elected or hereditary magistrates. All important matters, however, had to be brought before the sovereign people, who could ratify or reject the proposals made to them without discussion. The power of the people, swayed as they were by improper appeals and motives, led to a period of moral and political corruption which was followed by the military despotism of the Cæsars.
holy Church-yard Badham (Criticism Applied to Sh., p. 11): Why holy churchyard? The printer having holy yard (campo santo, Gottes Acker) before him, and not understanding its propriety, supposed that church had been accidentally omitted, and intruded it into the text. It would be an endless task to enumerate the lines where the omission or intrusion of letters or monosyllables has dislocated the verse. [That the present line is an instance is, I think, more than doubtful. The word ‘yard,’ except in composition as above, is not used by Shakespeare in the sense of an open space; when the word occurs by itself its meaning is, in nearly every case, the linear measure.—Ed.—Rolfe: English rather than Roman, of course. Could Bacon have written that?—Case (Arden Sh.): An anachronism, as has been pointed out. We are left at liberty to think of the size, or the number of the wounds, or of the sanctity of the hero's person in the comparison.
His rougher Actions Theobald (Sh. Restored, p. 181): I have no manner of apprehension how a man's actions can be mistaken for words. If I were to do a sawcy thing in company to any one, I should think it very extraordinary if he told me, Sir, you give me very impudent language. There seems to me a manifest corruption in the text, thro' all the copies; and that for the sake of common sense it ought to be corrected thus, ‘His rougher accents,’ etc. [Theobald's note in his edition is substantially as here given. The Text. Notes show the universal acceptance of his correction. Walker (ii, 274) gives several examples wherein c and t are confounded, which are vindications of this change.—Ed.]—Capell, while accepting Theobald's as an emendatio certissima, adds that ‘the maker of it knew not its sense, for he interprets it, the tone of the voice; whereas “accents” and “sounds” both stand for words in this place.’—Malone: His rougher accents are the harsh terms that he uses.
Rather than enuy you Johnson: ‘Envy’ is here taken at large for malignity or ill intention.—M. Mason (Comments, etc., p. 257): According to the construction of the sentence, ‘envy’ is evidently used as a verb, and signifies to injure. In this sense it is used by Julietta in The Pilgrim, ‘If I make a lie To gain your love, and envy my best mistress Pin me against a wall,’ etc. [II, i, p. 23, ed. Dyce. Mason is, I think, undoubtedly right that ‘envy’ is here to be taken as a verb.— Murray (N. E. D., s. v. vb, 2. b.) quotes the foregoing passage from The Pilgrim as the sole example of ‘envy’ in the sense to injure.]—Malone: That is, rather than import ill will to you.—Wright: Rather than express envy or hatred against you.
Com. Well, well, no more Beeching (Falcon Sh.): Cominius perhaps sees that if old Menenius goes on much longer apologising, Coriolanus will burst out in a fury.
I ought so Abbott (§ 63): ‘So’ (original meaning ‘in that way’) is frequently inserted in replies where we should omit it. See II, iii, 272, 273 supra.
all season'd Office Johnson: All office established and settled by time, and made familiar to the people by long use.—W. A. Wright: That is, all office well ripened or matured and rendered palatable to the people by time. For the two senses of ‘season,’ which appear to be combined in this passage, compare Hamlet, III, iii, 86, ‘When he is fit and season'd for his passage’; and I, ii, 192, ‘Season your admiration for a while With an attent ear.’ Mer. of Ven., IV, i, 197, ‘And earthly power doth then show likest God's When mercy seasons justice.’—Rolfe: Schmidt (Lex.) makes ‘season'd’ = ‘qualified, tempered,’ which seems to us favoured by the context. Such limited power is the natural antithesis to power tyrannical. Besides, the office of the tribunes, against which the opposition of Coriolanus was specially directed, was not a long-established one. [Sicinius is not here referring directly to the office of the Tribunes, but rather to the office which the people held in the government; this it was which Coriolanus had always opposed. The words ‘all season'd office’ shows this, I think; had he meant the office of the Tribunes, he would more likely have said ‘a season'd office.’—Ed.]— Kinnear (p. 323): That is, wholesome, that keeps the public weal in healthy life. Compare I, i, 84, ‘they nere car'd for us yet . . . repeale daily any wholesome Act established against the rich, and provide more piercing Statutes daily, to chain up and restrain the poor.’—E. K. Chambers (Warwick Sh.): I prefer Johnson's explanation to Schmidt's. It is true that, although certain popular rights, such as a say in the choice of consul, were of old standing, yet the tribunate was quite an innovation. But the tribunes themselves were the last people to make this distinction.—Verity (Student's Sh.): ‘Season'd’ is, perhaps, ‘established and mature’ from season, ‘to ripen, mature’ (the metaphor of fruit), as in Hamlet, III, iii, 86. One of the main notions of season as defined in the Century Dictionary is ‘to fit for any use by time or habit; habituate; accustom; mature; inure; acclimatise.’ No doubt Sicinius refers primarily to Coriolanus's attitude towards the tribuneship, and it seems in keeping with the Tribune's conceit that he should audaciously apply such a term to his recently-created office. Some take season'd = ‘qualified, tempered’; the force of which I do not see, unless it means that Coriolanus grudges any delegation, however moderate, of the patricians' power to the representatives of the people.—Case (Arden Sh.): The fact that the office of Tribune was not season'd [in the sense given by Johnson] would not hinder Sicinius from so describing it; it is true that by far the majority of the cases in which the verb season occurs arise unmistakably from the idea of flavouring and the related ideas of preserving and of qualifying or tempering [as given by Schmidt], while the few which are usually put down under ‘mature,’ ‘ripen’ may quite well have the same origin. The strongest case for ‘mature,’ ‘ripen’ is Hamlet, I, iii, 81, where Polonius says, ‘my blessing season this in thee!’ but even here it is possible to regard the blessing as the preservative, or as the ingredient making all palatable. In the same play, III, ii, 219, as ripening or preparing takes time, ‘And who in want a hollow friend doth try Directly seasons him his enemy,’ is better explained by flavours, qualifies; and similarly in III, iii, 86, ‘When he is fit and season'd for his passage,’ there can be no question of maturing and ripening, but only of being tempered and qualified at a particular time by the seasoning of repentance. In Timon, IV, iii, 85, the context, with salt and tubs, the concomitants of pickling, not of ripening, surely fix the metaphor. The N. E. D., however, places the present passage under the figurative use of seasoned in sense, ‘fitted for use, matured, brought to a state of perfection,’ etc.
i'th'lowest hell W. A. Wright: See Deuteronomy, xxxii, 22, ‘For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell.’ [This is the reading of the Authorised Version, 1611, two or three years later than Coriolanus; the Bishop's Bible, 1572, and Genevan or Breeches Bible, 1584, read, ‘For fire is kindled in my wrath, and shall burne unto the bottome of hell.’—Ed.] 91. hell. Fould in, etc.] Miss C. Porter (First Folio Sh.): The re-punctuation due to Pope and still followed in the modernized version is doubtful. Coriolanus addresses Sicinius personally, whom his intuition singles out as his malicious enemy. First he growls, ‘The fires i' th' lowest hell.’ Then blazes into fury and contempt at Sicinius as an unworthy Tribune, false shepherd of the people, using them for his own private malice against their real good. ‘You fold in the people (i. e., guard and shield them). Call me their Traitor, thou injurious (i. e., injurydealing and harmful Tribune,’ etc.).
clutcht This was one of the uncouth words which Jonson, in The Poetaster, singled out from the writings of Marston, and which he represented as violently cast up by Crispinus (Marston) under the action of the pill administered by the poet Horace: ‘Cris. O—O—O! Virg. Help him, it sticks strangely whatever it is. Cris. O—clutcht. Hor. Now it is come; clutcht. Cæs. Clutcht! it is well that is come up; it had but a narrow passage.’ (V, i; ed. Gifford, p. 529). ‘Clutch’ in the sense to grasp was somewhat unusual, its more common meaning was to clutch the fist, where we now use clench. Gifford, in a note on this latter expression (Ibid., p. 519), says: ‘Steevens, with his customary disregard of truth in everything which relates to our author [Ben Jonson], declares, in his final remarks on Hamlet, that Jonson has more than once in the Poetaster pointed his ridicule at some of Shakespeare's descriptions and characters, and frequently sneered at his choice of words, of which he instances clutch. I will take upon me to affirm that the play does not contain a single allusion to any character that Shakespeare ever drew, nor an expression that can, by any ingenuity, however malicious, be tortured into a sneer at his language. Clutch, indeed, is used by him (as well as others), and with strict propriety; which can scarcely be said of it as employed by Marston; let the reader judge: “Tis yet dead night, yet all the earth is clutch'd
In the dull leaden hand of snoring sleepe,” Antonio's Revenge, I, i.'—
Murray (N. E. D., s. v. Clutch, II, 5.) quotes the above passage from Marston as the earliest use of the verb in the sense ‘To hold tightly in the bent or closed hand.’ Its novelty, as well as its offensive sound to his poetical ear, evidently caused Jonson to hold this particular word up to ridicule. Steevens thought it might not be generally understood, since in his own edition, 1793, he defines the word as in the present passage, ‘grasp'd. So Macbeth, in his address to the “air-drawn dagger,” “Come let me clutch thee.”’—II, i, 34.—Ed.
Thou lyest vnto thee Schmidt (Coriolanus): It is almost universally understood that ‘unto thee’ is dependent on ‘say,’ and so it may well be; but it may not be impossible that it is connected with ‘liest’: ‘Thou liest before thine own self, thou speakest this with the clearest consciousness of the lie.’
You Gordon: Brutus was better at talking than soldiering. ‘The tribunes,’ says Aufidius (IV, vii, 33), ‘are no soldiers.’ In any case his post was a home-keeping one. It did not permit him to leave Rome.
pent to linger W. A. Wright: The meaning is clear, though the grammatical construction is loose. We may either take ‘pent,’ like ‘clutched’ in l. 94, as equivalent to ‘were I pent,’ or as connected with ‘pronounce’; let them pronounce the sentence of being pent to linger, &c. Compare I, x, 23.
Nor checke my Courage Collier (Notes & Emendations, etc., p. 359): It is most inconsistent with the noble character of the hero to represent him in this way applauding and vaunting his own ‘courage’; the old corrector writes carriage for ‘courage,’ an easy mistake, the setting right of which is an evident improvement. The very same misprint has been pointed out and remedied in the same way in 3 Henry VI: [II, ii, 57, ‘And this soft courage makes your followers faint,’ where the MS. correction is ‘soft carriage.’].—Mommsen (Der Perkins Folio, p. 270): Although carriage is assuredly the better word, and the change natural for the ear, it is at the same time to be considered that ‘courage’ anciently bore a double sense, that is, boldness and character of mind, e. g., Chaucer, Cant. Tales, near the beginning, ‘So pricketh hem nature in hir corages,’ i. e., minds, hearts. Nevertheless in this particular passage in Coriolanus it would have been a rightly conceived and a finer insertion of the MS. Corrector, to guard the hero from misunderstanding, than had he spoken of his bravery, since his pride is customarily represented as quite free from vanity.—Singer (Sh. Vindicated, p. 221): The substitution of ‘courage’ for carriage [sic] in this passage is a good and probable correction, which is countenanced by the same alteration in my copy of the Second Folio, where ou is struck out and ari interlined.—Collier (ed. ii.) remarks on the ‘indisputable substitution’ of carriage for ‘courage,’ and adds: ‘On the other hand, in Beaumont and Fletcher's Island Princess, II, vii. (ed. Dyce, vii, 448), the opposite error found its way into the text, and has never been removed; it is where the Governor of Ternata speaks of “A coward past recovery, a confirm'd coward,
One without courage, or common sense.”
Here, strange as it may seem considering the context, carriage has always kept possession of the place where “courage” ought to have stood.’—Dyce (Strictures, etc., p. 157): The MS. Corrector, whose knowledge of the meaning of words seems to have been as limited as that of Mr Collier, corrupts this passage in Coriolanus just as he has previously corrupted the passage in 3 Henry VI: II, ii. In both places the old lection is the true one; here ‘my courage’ is equivalent to ‘my spirit, mettle’; in Henry VI. ‘this soft courage’ is equivalent to ‘this soft spirit, this soft-heartedness.’ Besides, here the substitution of carriage for ‘courage’ introduces an impropriety of expression; for, though a man may talk of ‘checking his courage,’ he would hardly talk of ‘checking his carriage’ (unless, perhaps, he were speaking of some ‘vehicular conveyance’ which he was rich enough to keep). As the MS. Corrector has corrupted the passage of Coriolanus and the passage of Henry VI. by changing ‘courage’ to carriage, so Mr Collier corrupts the passage of The Island Princess by changing ‘carriage’ to courage: ‘Count me a heavy sleepy fool, a coward,
A coward past recovery, a confirm'd coward,
One without carriage or common sense.’
Would the Governor of Ternata, after three times proclaiming himself a coward, immediately add that he was one without courage? Nobody, I believe, except Mr Collier would suppose so, or would fail to see that ‘one without carriage’ means ‘one without conduct, management.’—Hudson (ed. i.): There is no apparent reason why Coriolanus should speak of his courage in this connection; nor is his courage made any ground of objection against him by the people. We therefore accept the correction found in Mr Collier's second folio. [Hudson, in his ed. ii, influenced by Dyce, returns to the original text, explaining ‘courage’ here as meaning spirit or resolution, but adding that the MS. correction ‘seems not unlikely to be the true reading.’—Ed.]—Rolfe: From the context ‘courage’ here seems to be = fearless utterance. Collier considers it ‘inconsistent with the noble character of the hero to represent him vaunting his own courage,’ but he simply says ‘I will not restrain my boldness of speech,’ just as he has said above that he will fearlessly tell the tribune that he lies, even at the risk of twenty thousand deaths.
For that That is, because he has; for other examples see, if needful, Abbott, § 151, or Shakespeare passim.
Enui'd against the people Steevens: That is, behaved with signs of hatred to the people.—Andrew Becket, whose name has long since been excluded from this edition, proposed, as far back as 1815, that we should here read, ‘Inveigh'd against the people.’ The sole reason for resuscitating Becket is, that to him rightfully belongs, through priority, the credit for this change. In 1856 Badham, in his article The Text of Shakespeare, p. 289, says: ‘For envyed against read enveyed against, or, as Holinshed writes it (I have unfortunately mislaid the reference), invaied, which in our modern orthography would be “inveigh'd.” To envy against a person or thing is foreign to the language, and there was nothing to induce Shakespeare to adopt such a license of construction. Lyly plays upon the resemblance of the two words (Euphues, p. 47): “Although I have been bolde to invay against many, yet am I not so brutish as to envy them all.”’ As will be seen, Badham has no doubts as to the originality of his conjectural reading.— Staunton in 1860, likewise with no hint as to having been anticipated, notes: ‘“Envied” here is, perhaps, only a misprint of Inveighed; so in North's Plutarch (Life of Solon), “But Solon going up into the pulpit for orations, stoutly inveyed against it.”’—Bailey, writing in 1866, is perhaps the most culpable as regards a lack of research in the matter; he says: ‘There is an expression in this tragedy that I do not find has struck any critic as corrupt,’ and then quotes this present line, adding (ii, 60): ‘Surely we ought to read inveigh'd “against the people.” The verb inveigh, it is true, does not occur elsewhere in these plays, although the noun invective is found once. But the verb seems to have been familiarly employed by several writers of the age, such as Drayton and Holland, and the objection of its non-appearance in Shakespeare's writings may be equally adduced against the actual reading. I cannot, in any of them, discover the phrase “envied against,” which, even if it were genuine, must be deemed harsh and unusual, if not unprecedented.’
as now at last Johnson: Read rather ‘has now at last.’—Steevens: I am not certain but that ‘as’ in this instance has the power of as well as. The same mode of expression I have met with among our ancient writers.—Abbott (§ 113) for this passage refers to examples wherein ‘as’ is frequently used (without such) to signify ‘namely.’ Since there is, however, a hint as to time here, the phrase may, perhaps, more fitly be explained by Abbott's following section: ‘As is apparently used redundantly with definitions of time (as ὡς is used in Greek with respect to motion). It is said by Halliwell to be an Eastern Counties phrase: “This is my birthday, as this very day
Was Cassius born,” Jul. Cæs., V, i, 72.
“One Lucio as then the messenger,” Meas. for Meas., V, i, 74.
The as in the first example may be intended to qualify the statement that Cassius was born “on this very day,” which is not literally true, as meaning “as I may say.” Here, and in our Collect for Christmas Day, “as at this time to be born,” as seems appropriate to an anniversary. In the second example the meaning of “as then” is not so clear; perhaps it means “as far as regards that occasion.” Compare: “Yet God at last
To Satan, first in sin, his doom applied,
Though in mysterious terms, judg'd as then best,” Milton, Par. Lost, x, 173,
where “as then” seems to mean “for the present.” So “as yet” means “as far as regards time, up to the present time.” So in German “als dann” means “then,” and “als” is applied to other temporal adverbs. As in Early English was often prefixed to dates, “As in the year of grace,” &c. “As now” is often used in Chaucer and earlier writers for “as regards now,” “for the present”: “But al that thing I must as now forbere,” Chaucer, Knightes Tale, l. 27. In “Meantime I writ to Romeo That he should hither come as this dire night,” Rom. & Jul., V, iii, 247, as perhaps means “as (he did come).”’ In the present passage ‘as now’ may be taken as in Abbott's example and explanation of its use in Chaucer.—Ed.
and that not Johnson: ‘Not’ stands again for not only.—Steevens: It is thus used in 1 Thess., iv, 8, ‘He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God,’ &c.—M. Mason (Comments, etc., p. 257): Johnson says that the word ‘not’ here means not only, which it must do to make sense of the passage as it stands; but as I think it will not bear that meaning, and cannot recollect a single instance of its being used in that sense, I should rather suppose the passage to be corrupt, than agree to this unnatural explanation of it; and should amend it by inserting the word only [after ‘justice’ in the following line. See III, ii, 89, where ‘not’ is apparently also used in this sense, not only. Abbott (§ 54) quotes these two passages as the only examples of this use of ‘not.’—Ed.]
doth Schmidt (Coriolanus): This is altered by all modern editors to do, but the numerous relics of the Anglo-Saxon Flexion ending ad or ath in the 3d person plural, present tense found in Shakespeare make their rejection not so much a correction as an unallowable modernisation. Examples wherein the rhyme shows that we are not confronted by a misprint are: ‘Whiles I threat he lives: Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives,’ Macbeth, II, i, 60; ‘And Phœbus 'gins arise His steeds to water at those springs On chaliced flowers that lies,’ Cymbeline, II, iii, 23.
Eu'n Bayfield (p. 199): The abbreviation, though always gratuitous, is very common in the plays, usually in the form e'ene. In this play this is the only instance, and even, making a resolution, is given five times: I, vi, 38; III, i, 123; III, ii, 87; V, iii, 77; V, vi, 76.
and it shall be so Knight: If we turn to the beginning of the scene we shall find the directions of the Tribunes very precise as to the echo which the people were to raise of their words. When, therefore, Sicinius here pronounces the sentence of banishment, he terminates, as he said he should, with, ‘It shall be so’; and the people, true to the instruction, vociferate, ‘It shall be so.’ They afterwards repeat the cry in the exact words. Perhaps, upon the whole, the common text here presents one of Steevens's most atrocious alterations. [See Text. Notes, l. 135.]
from Rome Theobald: How from Rome? Did he receive hostile marks from his own Country? No such thing. He received them in the service of Rome. So, twice in the beginning of the next Act, it is said of Coriolanus: ‘To banish him that struck more blows for Rome.’
And again, ‘Good man! the wounds that he does bear for Rome!’ [To these examples Dyce (Remarks, p. 162) adds l. 108 above.—Ed.]—Capell (vol. I, pt i, p. 93): That ‘from Rome’ is ambiguous is granted; but if it may be taken in the sense of in Rome's behalf (and why should it not? for blows receiv'd in the behalf of any person or thing are, as it were, receiv'd from them), that very ambiguity is a recommendation of it, as conveying an idea of modesty; a quality that is given this speaker, to set off and make more glaring certain contrary gifts in his friend.—M. Mason (Comments, etc., p. 257), without reference to Theobald, proposes the same reading. Collier's MS. corrector likewise so reads.—Malone: He either means that his wounds were got out of Rome, in the cause of his country, or that they mediately were derived from Rome by his acting in conformity to the orders of the state.— [In the Text. Notes of the Cam. Ed. ii. is recorded the reading 'fore for ‘from’ accredited to Anon., Fraser's Mag., 1853; Delius in his ed. i, 1855, makes the same conjecture, and so also Keightley in his Expositor, 1867.—Ed.]—Schmidt (Coriolanus): ‘From Rome her enemies’ is here for ‘from Rome's enemies,’ an archaism, which indeed not with her, but with his, is quite commonly found in Shakespeare: the king his son, the count his galleys. For her Abbott [§ 217] furnishes one example from Bacon, ‘Pallas her glass,’ [Adv. of Learning, 278].—Leo (Jahrbuch, xv, p. 55): I am quite in accord with Schmidt in his opposition to the editors, but not because I accept his explanation, but rather because the word for is not needed; ‘from’ means here: I have received wounds from (through) Rome because I fought for Rome. Instead of the examples given by Schmidt, I should much rather have found one which in form somehow bore out that wherein he clothes his explanation, I can show marks from Rome her enemies upon me!! 140, 141. I do loue My Countries good, etc.] MacCallum (p. 605): To Volumnia, despite all her maternal preference and patrician prejudice, Rome is the grand consideration, as her deeds unequivocally prove. Nor is she singular; she is only the most conspicuous example among others of her caste. Cominius, too, postpones the family to the state. And this is more or less the attitude of the rest. But Coriolanus reverses the sequence, and gives his chief homage precisely to the most restricted and elementary, the most primitive and instinctive principle of the three [family, State, nobility]. He loves Rome, indeed, fights for her, grieves for her shames, and glories in her triumphs; but he loves the nobility more, and would by wholesale massacre secure their supremacy. He loves the nobility indeed, but when they, no doubt for the common good, suffer him to be expelled from Rome, they become to him the ‘dastard nobles’; and he makes hardly any account of his old henchman and intimate, Menenius, and none at all of his old comrade and general, Cominius. But he loves his family as himself, and though he strives to root out its claims from his heart, the attempt is vain.
My deere Wiues estimate Johnson: I love my country beyond the rate at which I value my dear wife.
You common cry of Curs Horn (iv, p. 17, foot-note): The beginning of this speech is quite in Coriolanus's old style; thus that which directly follows, ‘Let every feeble rumour shake your hearts,’ is the more remarkable, and is a fine preparative to the deeply moving words, ‘I shall be loved when I am lack'd’ (IV, i, 20). cry W. A. Wright: That is, pack. Cotgrave gives: ‘Meute: f. A ken nell, or crie of hounds.’ The word is, of course, derived from the ‘cry’ or note of the hounds. Compare Mid. N. Dream, IV, i, 129, ‘A cry more tuneable Was never hollaed to, nor cheer'd with horn.’ In this passage it is difficult to say whether the word ‘cry’ is used literally or figuratively.
As reeke a'th'rotten Fennes Steevens: So in The Tempest: ‘Seb. As if it had lungs and rotten ones. Ant. Or, as it were perfum'd by a fen,’ [II, i, 47].— Mitford (Gentleman's Maga., Nov., 1844, p. 164): Compare Marlowe, Lust's Dominion, III, vi, ‘This heap of fools, who, crowding in huge swarms, Stood at our court gates like a heap of dung, Reeking, and shouting out contagious breath,’ [ed. Dodsley, p. 148. This play is, however, not by Marlowe, as has long since been decided.—Ed.]
Carkasses W. S. Walker (Vers., p. 245): The plurals of Substantives ending in s in certain instances; in se, ss, ce, and sometimes ge; occasionally too, but very rarely, in sh and ze, are found without the usual addition of s or es, in pronunciation at least, although in many instances the plural affix is added in printing, where the metre shows that it is not to be pronounced. [The present line quoted among other examples. See also, to the same effect, Abbott, § 471.—Ed.]
I banish you Malone: So, in Lyly, Anatomie of Wit, 1580, ‘When it was cast in Diogenes’ teeth that the Sinopenetes had banished him Pontus, yea, said he, I them.’ Our poet has again the same thought in Richard II: ‘Think not the king did banish thee But thou the king,’ [I, iii, 279. The above quotation from Lyly is not in the Anatomy of Wit, but from The Letters of Euphues, ed. Bond, p. 314, l. 20. Malone omits the concluding words of the reply of Diogenes, which should be, ‘yea, said he, I them of Diogenes.’ For the correction of this error I gladly acknowledge my indebtedness to Verity (Reader's Sh., p. 206).—Ed.]— W. A. Wright: [After ‘banish you’] probably a line has dropped out.
Haue the power . . . till it feeles Johnson: Still retain the power of banishing your defenders till your undiscerning folly, which can foresee no consequences, leave none in the city but yourselves, who are always labouring your own destruction. It is remarkable that, among the political maxims of the speculative Harrington, there is one which he might have borrowed from this speech. ‘The people’ (says he) ‘cannot see, but they can feel,’ [No. 5: Political A phorisms.—Ed.]. It is not much to the honour of the people that they have the same character of stupidity from their enemy and their friend. Such was the power of our author's mind that he looked through life in all its relations, private and civil.—Heath (p. 423): I apprehend the sense of this obscure passage is: Till at last your ignorance (which can see no consequences till it actually feels them), reserving yourselves only from banishment, who will still continue to do, as you now do, your enemy's work for him, by helping him to destroy you, deliver you, &c.—Malone: ‘The people’ (to use the comment of my friend Dr Kearney, in his ingenious Lectures on History, quarto 1776) ‘cannot nicely scrutinise errors in government, but they are roused by galling oppression.’ Coriolanus, however, means to speak still more contemptuously of their judgment. Your ignorance is such that you cannot see the mischiefs likely to result from your actions till you actually experience the ill effects of them. 161. Making but reseruation, etc.] Malone: Instead of ‘Making but reservation of yourselves,’ which is the reading of the old copy, and which Dr Johnson very rightly explains, I have no doubt that we should read, as I have printed, ‘Making not reservation,’ etc., which agrees with the subsequent words, ‘still your own foes,’ and with the general purport of the speech; which is, to show that the folly of the people was such as was likely to destroy the whole of the republic without any reservation, not only others, but even themselves, and to subjugate them as abated captives to some hostile nation. If, according to the old copy, the people have the prudence to make reservation of themselves, while they are destroying their country, they cannot with any propriety be said to be in that respect ‘still their own foes.’ These words therefore decisively support the emendation now made. How often not and but have been confounded in these plays has already been frequently observed. In this very play but has been printed, in a former scene, instead of not, and the latter word substituted in all modern editions. See II, iii, 73. [If Malone were not aware that in this emendation he was anticipated by Capell, he should have been. Steevens is more than usually just and properly assigns it.—Ed.]—Collier (ed. ii.): That Capell was right we have the authority of the old Corrector.—Staunton: This, since Capell's edition, has been invariably printed, ‘Making not reservation,’ &c., to the complete destruction of the sense, which manifestly is, Banish all your defenders as you do me, till at last, your ignorance, having reserved only your impotent selves, always your own foes, deliver you the humbled captives to some nation, &c.—Hudson (ed. i.): Coriolanus imprecates upon the base plebeians that they may still retain the power of banishing their defenders, till their undiscerning folly, which can foresee no consequences, leave none in the city but themselves; so that for want of those capable of conducting their defence they may fall an easy prey to some nation who may conquer them without a struggle. If we were to read as Malone would have us—‘Making not reservation of yourselves’—it would imply that the people banished themselves after having banished their defenders.—C. & M. Cowden Clarke (Shakespeare): Capell's change appears to us to destroy the intended meaning of the passage, which is: ‘Have the power still to banish your defenders; till at length your ignorance (which cannot discern until it is made to feel), reserving none but yourselves unbanished (still, your own foes), deliver you as most subdued captives, to some nation that shall have won you without striking a blow.’ By thus telling them that in banishing their defenders and keeping only themselves unbanished they do but the more securely provide for their own ultimate departure from Rome as miserable captives, we think that Coriolanus's sneer at their ‘ignorance’ is made extra pointed.—Whitelaw: Banishing your defenders, the nobles, one by one, till you yourselves remain alone. [With Capell's alteration the meaning is] ‘not sparing even yourselves.’ But Coriolanus says that the mischief is just this, that they spare none but themselves, their own worst enemies.—Schmidt (Coriolanus): Preserving only yourselves, alone remaining, having banished those who would be your defenders. ‘Reservation’ with Shakespeare always has the meaning of preserving, holding for one's self, in contradistinction to releasing or setting free. The alteration of ‘but’ to not is a complete perversion of the sense.— W. A. Wright: Johnson explains the reading of the Folios. But Capell's is more in accordance with what follows, ‘still your own foes.’ That of the Folios would have suited very well had it followed ‘To banish your defenders’; but Coriolanus goes on with ‘till at length’ to describe the final catastrophe in which the people would be involved when their ignorance, after making them defenceless, could not keep them, but handed them over to the enemy.—E. K. Chambers (Warwick Sh.): With the reading of the Folios Coriolanus says, ‘Banish your defenders, and, in your ignorance, which sees no danger till it actually feels it, keep only yourselves, your own worst foes, in the city.’—Verity (Student's Sh.): ‘Not sparing even yourselves.’ Their ignorance, he says, will destroy the State without any reservation, even of themselves, since they are always their own worst enemies. The Folio's reading has been retained by some editors and variously explained. . . . Each interpretation seems to me forced and inconsistent with the general tenour of the passage and the particular description that follows. [Verity quotes, with approval, Malone's reason for accepting the change of ‘but’ to not.—Ed.— Gordon: The effect of the change of ‘but’ to not is to spoil both lines. For the point is, not that they do not spare themselves and no others, and being left to themselves, fall a prey to the first attack. Here is the whole force of ‘Still your own foes,’ that they are so without knowing it. They think in their ignorance that when they have saved themselves they have saved everything. If not be read all this is lost, and ‘Still your own foes’ becomes superfluous. If they do not spare even themselves, it is idle repetition to add that they are their own foes.— Case (Arden Sh.): Retaining ‘but’ the sense of the whole passage is: keep the power to banish those who would defend you, until your ignorant policy (which never perceives consequences till it undergoes them), reserving only yourselves from banishment, and in so doing making you still your own enemies, hand you over, etc. Malone argues inconsistency with the purport of the speech, ‘which is to show that the folly of the people was such as was likely to destroy the whole of the republic without any reservation, not only others, but themselves.’ But the reservation in this case is from banishment, not from destruction, a distinction which also puts out of court his further argument. This being so, the Folio text is here retained, but if Capell's reading had been substituted, it must have appealed for support not to Malone's argument, but to its giving a sense supposed simplest and most readily perceptible, viz., Not even safeguarding yourselves (for you are always your own enemies), deliver you, etc.—Perring (p. 304): There is not the least reason for substituting not for ‘but’ in this line. Coriolanus declares that the end and aim of the plebeian party is to drive from the city every one who is not of their way of thinking, reserving none but themselves—a suicidal policy; for the time would come when their enemies would attack them, and then, having none among them who were possessed of military capacity—for, to use the words of Aufidius, ‘their tribunes were no soldiers’—they would have to succumb without striking a blow, and would be carried away into a mean and miserable captivity.
abated Murray (N. E. D., s. v. 1): Beaten, subdued, cast down. 1548. in Strype: Eccl. Mem., vi, 351: The weakness of his often abated enemies. [The present line also quoted.]
without Abbott (§ 457a): With in ‘without’ seems accented here. [See also Ibid., § 510.]
There is a world elsewhere E. K. Chambers (Warwick Sh.): It will be the object of the next act to bring out the full meaning of this. The veiled threats of Coriolanus's speech show that he has already half-formed a plan what to do.
Our enemy is banish'd S. Brooke (p. 232): So ends the contest between Coriolanus and the Tribunes. They and the people are the victors. And we may fairly conclude that Shakespeare did not despise the cause of the people or its leaders when we find that the leaders are represented throughout as men who have kept their heads; cool, temperate, prudent, but resolute to attain their end; and using steadily and ruthlessly the best means for this end. Having won, they are quite sober and quiet. They indulge in no boasting, but go about their business, congratulating themselves on the quiet of Rome. Their just mastership of the stormy elements of the people keeps down the anger of the partisans of Coriolanus. Every day of quiet makes Coriolanus less missed by his friends, who ‘blush that without him the world goes well.’ Menenius has grown kind to the Tribunes, and talks to them as if they were nobles. He even criticises Coriolanus. Shakespeare has taken pains to lift the struggle of the people into our approval.
vexation W. A. Wright: That is, mortification. Both ‘vex’ and ‘vexation’ had a stronger meaning in Shakespeare's time. In the Authorised Version ‘vex’ is frequently used in the sense of ‘torment.’ See, for instance, Matthew, xv, 22, ‘My daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.’ And in The Tempest, IV, i, 5, we find ‘vexation’ in the sense of torment: ‘All thy vexations
Were but my trials of thy love.’
Compare Deuteronomy, xxviii, 20, ‘The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke,’ where the word rendered ‘vexation’ is elsewhere rendered ‘destruction,’ as Deuteronomy, vii, 23, and ‘discomfiture,’ as 1 Samuel, xiv, 20. Let a guard Attend vs E. K. Chambers (Warwick Sh.): This shows the essential meanness of the Tribunes' natures. Insults for their defeated foe; a guard to enhance their own dignity. [The guard was, perhaps, not so much to enhance their dignity, as a necessary precaution against attack from the party of the Patricians and soldiers; the Tribunes have directed their own partisans, the people, to follow Coriolanus; they are thus left unguarded.—Ed.]