[Scene II.]
Bid them all . . . In his behalfe Lettsom (ap. Dyce, ii.): Something seems to have dropt out of this speech. Quy.: ‘Bid them all home, and give em thanks; he's gone,
And we'll no further.—The nobility
Are vexèd, whom we see have vainly sided
In his behalf.’
In the third line the sense as well as the metre demands some such word as vainly, for the nobility were not vexed because they had sided with Coriolanus, but because they had done so to no purpose. [Is not this almost hypercritical? All that Sicinius means is that the nobles who sided with Coriolanus are vexed not because they did so in vain, but at the outcome of the whole affair.—Ed.]
whom we see For other examples of this confusion of two constructions with ‘whom’ see Abbott, § 410.
If that For other examples of ‘that’ as a conjunctional affix see Abbott, § 287.
Will you be gone? C. & M. Cowden Clarke (Shakespeare): This form of question, now generally used to express desire to have a person gone, here signifies a desire to hinder his going; not meaning, ‘Will you go when I bid you?’ but ‘Are you going, when I say you shall hear me?’ This is explained because, if not understood as here intended, it seems to be contradicted by the words that follow, ‘You shall stay too’; whereas they continue the sense of Volumnia's address to the Tribunes who are trying to pass on.
Virg. You shall stay too Capell (vol. I, pt i, p. 94): Speaking to Brutus, and stopping him, as Volumnia had done by his partner. This is thought unfit for the gentle Virgilia by the Oxford editor [Hanmer]; who, therefore, takes the speech from her, and another at l. 36, giving them to Volumnia; but the gentlest are rouz'd at some times and upon some occasions; nor was it fit that Virgilia should be brought upon the scene to do nothing but cry.
Are you mankinde Johnson: The word ‘mankind’ is used maliciously by the first speaker and taken perversely by the second. A mankind woman is a woman with the roughness of a man, and, in an aggravated sense, a woman ferocious, violent, and eager to shed blood. In this sense Sicinius asks Volumnia if she be mankind. She takes mankind for a human creature and accordingly cries out, ‘Note but this fool.—Was not a man my father?’—Steevens compares Winter's Tale, ‘—a mankind witch,’ [II, iii, 67]. Also Jonson, Silent Woman, ‘O mankind generation!’ [V, i, ed. Gifford, p. 488. Whereon the editor has the following note: ‘That is, simply masculine, always a term of reproach when applied to a female.’ Upton quotes several passages to prove that it means wicked, in every one of which it means mannish. That the word, however, is sometimes used in an ill sense as an augmentative for violent, outrageous, &c., is certain. Cotgrave calls some fierce animal ‘a mankind wild beast’; and Hall (Mass., vol. iv, p. 53) speaks of ‘stripes for the correction of a mankind ass.’]—W. A. Wright: Compare Fletcher's Woman Hater, III, i, ‘Are women grown so mankind, must they be wooing?’ And as it is unnatural for women to be like men, ‘mankind’ came to mean generally unnatural, monstrous, and so, fierce and cruel.— Leo (Coriolanus): There is a malicious and low sense in these words: Volumnia says to Brutus, ‘will you be gone?’ Virgilia to Sicinius, ‘you shall stay too,’ and continues, ‘I would I had the power to say so to my husband.’ The tribune understands quite well the stinging pain of these words, but he prefers to comment on them in a spiteful sense, as expressing the lady's kindness to men, since she wants to retain him and Brutus and have her husband too. And, therefore, he asks, ‘Are you mankind?’ Volumnia has too much of feminine purity to understand the coarse quibble, and answers in the clear sense of the word, calling him and his father a fox. [I forbear comment on the foregoing unnecessarily coarse interpretation; it may, however, be said in passing that no such meaning of ‘mankind’ is recorded in the N. E. D.—Ed.]—Case (Arden Sh.): The New Eng. Dict. treats this word in the sense infuriated, etc., as possibly a perversion of mankeen (used chiefly of animals), fierce, savage, keen to attack men, citing for this form (which has not, however, been found as early as mankind), 1568, Hist. Jacob and Esau, II, ii, ‘What? are you mankene now?’ Of mankind it gives an example as early as 1519, from Horman, Vulgaria, p. 127, ‘He set dogges that were mankynde vpon the man,’ etc. As the N. E. D. points out, mankind = masculine and mankind = fierce, etc. (possibly the same word as mankeen), are sometimes indistinguishable.
Note but this Foole Rev. John Hunter: That is, Only mark what this fool says. Some editors erroneously insert a comma after the word ‘this.’—W. A. Wright: This must be spoken parenthetically, Volumnia turning to the rest. Staunton reads [with comma after ‘this’], and perhaps rightly.
my Father Herwegh (ap. Ulrici's Shakespeare, p. 179): I hold that ‘my’ is here a misprint for thy [see Text. Notes]. Volumnia asks of Sicinius was not a man thy father, or was he some species of fox, that you thus have such sly cunning as to banish, etc. Had'st thou Foxship Johnson: Hadst thou, fool as thou art, mean cunning enough to banish Coriolanus?—Schmidt: ‘Foxship’ is perhaps used in contrast to ‘mankind’ just preceding. The fox was the symbol not only for cunning but also ingratitude. Lear calls his daughters ‘she-foxes,’ III, vi, 24.—W. A. Wright: Hadst thou cunning and ingratitude combined? Wert thou so little of a man, but rather a most ungrateful beast? Compare Lear, III, vii, 28, ‘Ingrateful fox! 'tis he!’ [‘But in both cases,’ replies Deighton, ‘the ordinary attribute of the fox, cunning, is, from the speaker's point of view, quite applicable.’—Ed.]— Case (Arden Sh.): There is possibly a twofold contrast here of the natures of man (in Volumnia) and fox (in Sicinius, implying baseness and ingratitude as well as cunning), and of the fool and fox in Sicinius. [I am inclined to think that Æsop is largely responsible for endowing the fox with the vice of ingratitude. As a character in the Fables he appears more often than any other of the animals or personages. In every case it is by some subtle trick that he outwits the others, and, in many cases, benefits himself at their expense. In the fable of the Countryman and the Fox, where the former deceives the huntsmen in regard to the fox's hiding-place, and thus aids him to escape, the fox departs without a word of thanks, and is rebuked for his ingratitude. In justification of this he replies that the countryman pointed at his place of concealment while he said that he had not seen the fox. Topsell, in his enumeration of the epithets applied to the fox, does not give ‘ungrateful’ as one of them. In the many exploits and adventures of Reynard the Fox, subtlety and craft are the main characteristics of his behaviour; of the many accusations made against him, ingratitude is not mentioned.—Ed.]
wise words Dyce (ed. ii.): Lettsom would here read ‘vile words.’ ‘At any rate,’ he observes, ‘“wise” is preposterous.’—Hudson (ed. ii.): The word ‘wise’ does not seem just right; but I cannot see that vile does much better. I suspect we ought to read ‘mere words.’
yet goe Whitelaw: She will leave it unsaid; then—once more changing her mind—‘Nay, but you shall stay.’ Too—‘after all’=‘and yet I see reasons too why you should stay.’
Nay but thou shalt stay too Delius: These words are not addressed to Sicinius, but to Brutus, who turns as though about to leave.—W. A. Wright, in reference to the foregoing note by Delius, says: ‘But these words are clearly meant for Sicinius, to whom Volumnia had begun to speak her mind, “I'll tell thee what,” then interrupting herself with “yet go,” she resolves that, after all, he shall hear something of her scorn, “Nay, but thou shalt stay too.”’—[Case likewise so interprets this part of Volumnia's remarks.—Ed.]—Wright favors, but does not adopt, Hanmer's assignment of this speech and the next (see Text. Notes), since ‘it is certainly not in keeping with the gentle character of Virgilia.’ He adds: ‘I should be disposed to rearrange the dialogue thus: “Vol. What then!
He'ld make an end of thy posterity,
Bastards and all.
Vir. Good man, the wounds that he does bear for Rome!”
the last line being more appropriate to Virgilia pleading for her husband than to the sterner Volumnia.’ [Delius regards l. 38 as addressed ironically to Sicinius. Schmidt also thus takes it, without referring, however, to Delius.—Ed.]—Page: This speech is by some modern editors given to Volumnia on the ground that it is not in keeping with the gentle nature of Virgilia. But very strong feeling sometimes forces strong language even from gentle natures. [Compare, ‘And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood,’ 3 Henry VI: II, ii, 18; also Ibid., I, iv, 41, ‘So doves do peck the falcon's piercing talons.’—Ed.]—Miss C. Porter (First Folio Sh.): Virgilia is moved to burst out to this effect sympathetically, explaining Volumnia's words, when the smug Sicinius is too obtuse to imagine why he ought to be in Arabia. Apparently Wright does not see the beauty of showing Virgilia thus keyed up to speak; for he approves Hanmer's assignment of the speech to Volumnia (although he does not follow it). Worse still, he proposes giving Volumnia's last line—her final taunt at the unvalorous Sicinius—to Virgilia as her petition to the Tribune for Coriolanus. Imagine Virgilia calling the Cat who banished her husband Good man! Volumnia calls him so in satire, commenting on his official expression of patience under persecution as now acting in all this affair ostensibly for Rome's good. He pretends not to mind these women and to cover his personal annoyance with forced politeness. Hence Volumnia's comment: ‘Good man, the wounds that he does beare for Rome!’ An actor, by start and control of himself, should show this. The short line, ‘Bastards, and all,’ affords the pause for this stage business.
vnknit . . . The Noble knot Steevens: So in 1 Henry IV: ‘will you again unknit This churlish knot of all abhorred war,’ [V, i, 25. Also, ‘Unknit that sorrow-wreathen knot,’ Tit. And., III, ii, 4.—Ed.]—Schmidt (Coriolanus): Not, as usually explained, in reference to the bonds which tied Coriolanus to his country, but rather to be taken as a general metaphor for the demolition of particular works. ‘He shall not knit a knot in his fortunes with the finger of my substance,’ says Page in Merry Wives, [III, ii, 76].—W. A. Wright: That is, the bond by which he bound Rome to him. Compare 1 Henry VI: V, i, 16, ‘Beside, my lord, the sooner to effect And surer bind this knot of amity.’ [In reference to Schmidt's interpretation Wright remarks: ‘Probably Shakespeare had both meanings in view.’]—Miss C. Porter (First Folio Sh.): That is, Himself undo the knot of love wherewith by his own heroic services to his country he had tied Rome to him. Since this was just what they had themselves manœuvred to infuriate him into doing by his outbursts, according to Shakespeare's way of telling the story, their present attitude is hypocritical. It was just before predetermined upon (ll. 6, 7 above), ‘Now we have shewne our power, Let us seeme humbler,’ and Volumnia is a woman of insight, undeceived by the pretense. vnknit For other examples of omission of the ed in the termination of participles of verbs ending in d and t see Abbott, § 342.
Cats Collier (ed. ii.): In the corr. fo. 1632, ‘Cats’ is altered to Curs, with such appearance of probability that we are almost tempted to put the latter in the text. [Collier yielded to the temptation in his ed. iii.—Ed.] It seems unlikely that Volumnia should call either the Tribunes or the mob ‘Cats,’ and few misprints, in the writing of the time, could well be easier than ‘Cats’ for Curs. [‘But,’ says Dyce, ed. i, ‘it is quite evident that here Volumnia is speaking not of the rabble, but of the two tribunes.]—Mommsen (Der Perkins Folio, p. 260): Since Volumnia, in natural resentment, here upbraids the Tribunes for their lack of ability to judge Coriolanus, there seems hardly a more inadmissible word than ‘Cats,’ whose failing is not stupidity (spirito di sette gatti), while the generally hateful word Curs is quite appropriate.—Staunton: This is an odd epithet, whether intended for the Tribunes or the rabble. . . . As Volumnia is here upbraiding them for their lack of perception, we surmise the genuine word was Bats, for which ‘Cats’ is an easy misprint.—R. G. White: [The MS. Corrector forgot] what Shakespeare did not forget, that a woman and a housewife speaks.— Richardson (p. 379): Mighty men may be coarse and offensive; grave senators may, like some of those represented by Otway, be contemptibly sensual; and even an English Princess, agreeably to the representation of Shakespeare, addressed by a deformed and loathsome lover, may spit in his face, and call him ‘hedge-hog.’ A Roman matron, disputing with the tribunes of the people, who were persecuting her son to death, might, with propriety enough, have called them ‘cats.’— C. & M. Cowden Clarke (Shakespeare): We think that ‘cats’ is probably here used in reference to the well-known saying, ‘A cat may look at a king,’ Volumnia inferring that these tribunes are creatures who gaze upon her king-like son, as little capable of appreciating his nature as the animal in the adage is capable of comprehending royalty, and ‘can judge as fitly of his worth,’ &c. A passage in Rom. & Jul., III, iii, 30, ‘—every cat and dog And little mouse, every unworthy thing . . . may look on her,’ contains apparent allusion to the same proverb; and Shakespeare makes mention several times of a ‘cat’ as a repulsive animal, as well as a mean and insignificant one. There is also a passage that, although it seems to be merely a whimsical non-simile (‘No more eyes to see withal than a cat,’ I, ii, 80), may indirectly tend to illustrate the want of perception here in the term ‘cats,’ as flung by Volumnia at the tribunes.—Case (Arden Sh.): So, perhaps, because of their sneaking, stealthy ways. Bertram, in All's Well, IV, iii, 267, 295, 307, is cited as using cat as a contemptuous epithet for the treacherous Parolles. He, however, has a natural antipathy to the animal, ‘I could endure anything before but a cat, and now he's a cat to me.’
Of what lyes heauy too't W. A. Wright: See Macbeth, V, iii, 44, ‘That perilous stuff which weighs upon the heart.’—Schmidt (Coriolanus): Similarly, as to construction, Hamlet, ‘This gentle and unforced accord of Hamlet Sits smiling to my heart,’ [I, ii, 124].
You haue told them home Malone (Supplemental Obs., i, p. 221): I believe we ought to read, You have toll'd them home, i. e., you have rung such a peal of clamorous reproaches in their ears that they are departed home. [As this note is not repeated in any subsequent edition it may, I think, be considered as withdrawn. Malone, in his own ed., compares ‘I cannot speak him home,’ II, ii, 111 ante, which doubtless largely influenced this judicious retraction.—Ed.]
sterue W. A. Wright: This spelling remained in Dryden's time. Compare The Hind and the Panther, pt iii, l. 479 (Clar. Press ed.). sterue with Feeding Steevens: This idea is repeated in Ant. & Cleo., II, ii, [242, ‘she makes hungry Where most she satisfies’], and in Pericles, ‘Who starves the ears she feeds,’ [V, i, 113].—Case (Arden Sh.): Supping upon anger, Volumnia sups upon herself (for all passions waste the strength) and so will sterve with feeding. ‘Sterve’ may or may not be equivalent to die here, for though that was the chief sense, the modern one, ‘to suffer extremely from hunger (or cold),’ also existed. The thought is not quite the same in Pericles, V, i, 113, 114, but it is sufficiently similar to be illustrative.
faint-puling W. A. Wright: That is, whining. Elsewhere used by Shakespeare as an adverb or adjective. Compare Two Gentlemen, II, i, 26, ‘To speak puling like a beggar at Hallowmas,’ And Rom. & Jul., III, v, 185, ‘A wretched puling fool.’ Cotgrave has: ‘Piauler. To peepe, or cheepe (as a young bird); also to pule or howle (as a young whelpe).’ And again: ‘Piuler. To pule, or cheepe like a little chicken.’—Miss C. Porter (First Folio Sh.): This ineffective, inactive lamenting. The verb in the original text is a compound. Taking out the hyphen, following Rowe, as all the modernised editions do, is but a slight change, it is true, but inartistic. This seems to be Shakespeare's one use of ‘puling’ as a verb.
Fie, fie, fie Schmidt (Coriolanus): This exclamation is here probably not addressed to the two women, but rather indicates that Menenius goes out in despondent mood and shaking his head.