I'm coming at this all wrong from an historian's perspective, so please bear with me.
I tend to like Shakespeare's plays more than all other plays, and of all Shakespeare's plays I like his Coriolanus (c. 1608) the best. Reading it for the first time many years ago was a revelation, and in 2006 (I think it was) I was fortunate enough to see an excellent production of it in Stratford, ON with Colm Feore in the title roll. Since then my admiration for the play and its central character has only grown, and the release last year of Ralph Fiennes' loose, modern-era film adaptation of the play has only cemented it in my consciousness further.
I've read Plutarch's life of Gaius Marcius, but was somewhat surprised to learn from the (short and occasionally rather vague) Wiki article on him that many modern scholars dispute his historicity and regard him as a wholly legendary figure. This short piece on him here, which is the only meaningful secondary source the Wiki article cites other than Plutarch and Livy, sheds little extra light on the matter.
Some questions, then:
-
Who are the major scholars who assert his legendary status, and why?
-
Are there any who buck the trend by maintaining his historicity? What are their arguments?
-
Has an account of his life yet been rendered in a good, modern biography (if we may even use that term)? Or is what we know of him -- true or not -- so slight that such a volume would be prohibitively slender?
-
On the off chance that this turns out to be the case, is there anything you know or think about Gaius Marcius that hasn't made it into the two (admittedly sparse) articles to which I've referred here?
-
Can you point me to any similarly anti-democratic, anti-plebeian figures from that period or elsewhere?
-
What, if anything, do you think of him personally?
Don't feel compelled to answer all of these questions, obviously -- just giving a spread of the sort of things that interest me, here.
>The Romans were now at war with the Volscian nation, whose principal city was Corioli, when, therefore, Cominius the consul had invested [besieged] this important place, the rest of the Volscians, fearing it would be taken, mustered up whatever force they could from all parts, to relieve it, designing to give the romans battle before the city, and so attack them on both sides. Cominius, to avoid this inconvenience divided his army, marching himself with one body to encounter the Volscians on their approach from without and leaving Titus Lartius, one of the bravest Romans of his time, to command the other and continue the siege. Those within Corioli, despising now the smallness of their number, made a sally upon them, and prevailed at first, and pursued the Romans into their trenches.
>Here it was that Marcius, flying out with a slender company, and cutting those in pieces that first engaged him, obliged the other assailants to slacken their speed; and then, with loud cries, called upon the Romans to renew the battle. For he had, what Cato thought a great point in a soldier, not only strength of hand and stroke, but also a voice and look that of themselves were a terror to an enemy. Divers of his own party now rallying and making up to him, the enemies soon retreated; but Marcius, not content to see them draw off and retire, pressed hard upon the rear, and drove them, as they fled away in haste, to the very gates of their city; where, perceiving the Romans to fall back from their pursuit, beaten off by the multitude of darts poured in upon them from the walls, and that none of his followers had the hardiness to think of falling pell-mell among the fugitives and so entering a city full of enemies in arms, he, nevertheless, stood and urged them to the attempt, crying out, that fortune had now set open Corioli, not so much to shelter the vanquished, as to receive the conquerors.
>Seconded only by a few that were willing to venture with him, he bore along through the crown, made good his passage, and thrust himself into the gate through the midst of them, nobody at first daring to resist him. But when the citizens on looking about saw that a very small number had entered, they now took courage, and came up and attacked them. A combat ensued of the most extraordinary description, in which Marcius, by strength of hand, and swiftness of foot, and daring of soul, ove
... keep reading on reddit ➡
[The following takes place after the Romans take the Volsci town of Corioli following a ferocious siege. Marcius Coriolanus, due to his heroism and quick thinking on the battlefield, receives a lion’s share of credit for the victory.]
>And then he [the consul Cominius] required him [Coriolanus] to choose a tenth part of the all the treasure and horses and captives that had fallen into their hands, before any division should be made to others; besides which, he made him the special present of a horse with trappings and ornaments, in honour of his actions. The whole army applauded; Marcius, however, stepped forth, and declaring his thankful acceptance of the horse, and his gratification at the praises of his general, said, that all other things, which he could only regard rather as mercenary advantages than any significations of honour, he must waive, and should be content with the ordinary proportion of such rewards.
>“I have only,” said he, “one special grace to beg, and this I hope you will not deny me. There was a certain hospitable friend of mine among the Volscians, a man of probity and virtue, who is become a prisoner, and from former wealth and freedom is now reduced to servitude. Among his many misfortunes let my intercession redeem him from the one of being sold as a common slave.”
>Such a refusal and such a request on the part of Marcius were followed with yet louder acclamations; and he had many more admirers of this generous superiority in avarice, than of the bravery he had shown in battle. The very persons who conceived some envy and despite to see him so specially honoured, could not be acknowledge, that one who so nobly could refuse reward, was beyond others worthy to receive it; and were more charmed with that virtue which made him despise advantage, than with any of those former actions that have gained him his title to it.
>It is the higher accomplishment to use money well than to use arms; but not to need it is more noble than to use it.
tl;dr:
Marcius leads the Romans to victory in the siege, the consul is so grateful that he orders ten percent of all the spoils to go to him, along with a fine horse. Marcius says he’ll take the horse, but insists he gets the same cut as all the regular soldiers. He only asks that a friend of his, who was among the enemy and was taken prisoner, be released from inevitable slavery. Then Plutarch (the author) goes on to praise his superior virtue, w
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I quite liked Fiennes portrayal, have seen Disiru at all. JI've heard Hiddleston was pretty solid maybe?.
so im at the part in which sejanus is telling him about the rebels and he started recording with the jabberjay, then he started doing everything to stop sejanus to go through with the plan because he knew trying to convince him wouldn't work. but why do you think he didn't just let sejanus go? he himself thought that sejanus probably wouldn't even survive winter. he got in more trouble killing Mayfair that he would've just by letting him go without interfering with his plan.
(excuse my English it isn't my first language)
I understand what you are talking about.
Is Liaoning cheap? What do you believe? The axe was full of lies. Sunrise with city vision. They are tools of false beliefs.
The couple has walked off. To believe in something means to believe in something. Animals often offend God. My friend has only one answer. Not always.
Does the police have other investments? I thought it was your sea. If this seems a lot to you, please use this idea with Cardina. He put on his glasses and forgot that he swallowed too much. Your God is not like the king of beasts. This is an egg scam. But if you agree, Europe will suit you.
I don't know this report. Ask yourself, why do you like these priests? Why are the professors kneeling in Louisville? Answer? The guest has nothing to do. People understand. So when there is a conflict, we will try to live in harmony. Only happiness can make you rich. When war broke out, neither the strong nor the weak knew what to do.
One way to teach this is to ignore religion. I have been drinking this tea. Visitors can only invite people. In this case, you need to protect certain resources.
The next day, a soldier came to me and agreed to destroy the kingdom. The authorities know what to do. Do not be afraid!
He is an interesting character who is rarely discussed by the community due to getting shadowed by Emet Selch and is usually only recognized by memes, but I think there is more depth to him than the community realizes.
What are your thoughts on him? Did he make a good antagonist? Do you think he was right in his belief?
his entire turn to evil was just, "i don't like this bird, therefore i become murderous" it's so fitting for a sociopathic horror like we see in the original trilogy
Im watching bsg for the first time (i reached episode 4 of season 2 )..and im a bit confused about baltar..at the begining it seems like his main goal is simply to survive ..then the cylon in his head starts to manipulate or affect him ? What is his main goal exactly and what side is he really on ?
I'm curious 😂
Honestly he's pretty cool but hard mode time attack made me want to throw the controller across the room by the amount of times he shakes his head. (I like hydrus, take my opinion lightly)
I’ve always been wondering about this because it seems impossible, Merlin and Lancelot had to fight their way through and there was at least 10 guards (I think) and Arthur and the rest of them were fighting about 15 (by the end)
And Gaius is somehow able to get past everyone like they aren’t even there 😂
Tell me. For whom do you fry? Hmph! How very glib. And do you believe in your main course? The Bismarck's unity is forged on fast foods. Its simmered steaks are dredged in deceit. And its faith is in grease and reductions. It is naught but filleted and fried. To believe in salted meats is to believe in NOTHING! For Gorgonzola, the Beast Tribes often summon tongs to fry it in their stead--though your meats rarely render in kind. Which is strange, is it not? Are the "Graters" otherwise engaged? I was given to understand they were your shredders. If you truly believe your plating to be clean, why do you not repeat the trick that served all within Carteneau, and cut them to size? They will render--So long as you lavish them with dressings and salt them without measure. Your foods are no different than those of the beasts--Sides every one. Accept but this, and you will see how your roast is bleeding the lamb dry. Nor is this unknown to your head chefs. Which prompts the question: Why do they mince these false meats? What drives even dishes of yearning--Even the great Chop Suey--to taste like feet? The answer? Your culinarians lack the technique to do otherwise! For the foods of man to mean anything, man must own his foods. To this end, he had broth whenever to feed himself through cooking--To grow rich through flavor. And when the dusted sugar settles, is it ever the salt who dictates the taste of the meat. Knowing this, but a single spice is open to the impotent meal maker--That of false borscht. A path which leads to starvation and death. Only a meal of power can rightly salt the main course of civilization. And in this land of smoking pastrami, that one spice shall prove our salivation. Come, Culinarian of Gorgonzola, feed me! Your puree shall serve as proof of my readiness to plate! It is only right that I should bake your roux. For none among you have the beans to steep tea!
