ix ABSTRACT
PAULUS JURU. Revealing Moral Values of Leadership through the Analysis of Coriolanus’ Attitudes and Conflicts in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2014.
The Tragedy of Coriolanus aka Coriolanus was the last play written by William Shakespeare. This drama tells about a Roman soldier’s life named Coriolanus. He is honored because of his heroic deed in military. However, he is disliked because of his bad attitude. The consequences of his attitudes are the conflicts. Finally, those conflicts lead him to tragic end.
Since the use of work of literature is to teach morality, this study has two purposes which are related to that. First is to explain the characteristics of the main character, Coriolanus, including his attitudes and conflicts. Second is to reveal moral values of leadership in Coriolanus’ attitudes and conflicts.
In order to support this undergraduate thesis, the data and theories are collected using library research method. The play The Tragedy of Coriolanus is the primary data in this study. While, books on play criticism, literary theories, moral theories and leadership theories are supportive references in the analysis. This study uses the theory of character and characterization, theory of conflict, theory of moral, and theory of leadership. The Moral-philosophical Approach is used to reveal the moral values of leadership in main character’s attitudes and conflicts.
The analysis of this study shows that Caius Marcius (Coriolanus) is a great soldier of Rome. He has brave attitude which by that he is famous and respected as a kingly leader of Rome. However, Coriolanus is infamous because of his arrogant attitude and egoism. He hates and ignores the rights of lower class people. On the other hand, he cares the rights of patrician class only. Coriolanus’ attitudes cause some conflicts such as confrontation with people and bad relationship. Then, the advance consequences of his conflicts are people’s rejection, his banishment from Rome, and his death as a tragic hero when he makes peace treaty between Rome and Volsce. By analyzing Coriolanus’ attitudes and conflicts, the writer gains some moral values of leadership. Those are serving followers wholeheartedly, balancing and integrating followers, willing to take personal risks and make necessary decisions, and being humble to followers. Those moral values of leadership in the play remain current.
x ABSTRAK
PAULUS JURU. Revealing Moral Values of Leadership through the Analysis of Coriolanus’ Attitudes and Conflicts in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2014.
The Tragedy of Coriolanus dikenal juga dengan Coriolanus adalah drama terakhir yang ditulis oleh William Shakespeare. Drama ini mengisahkan kehidupan seorang tentara Roma bernama Coriolanus. Dia disanjung karena aksi kepahlawanannya di bidang militer. Namun, dia tidak disukai karena perilaku buruknya. Akibat dari perilaku-perilakunya adalah konflik-konflik yang dihadapi. Pada akhirnya konflik-konflik itu membawanya kepada akhir yang tragis. Karena pengunaan karya sastra untuk mengajarkan moral, studi ini mempunyai dua tujuan yang berkesinambungan dengan hal itu. Pertama adalah untuk menjelaskan karakteristik tokoh utama, Coriolanus, termasuk perilaku-perilaku dan konflik-konflik. Kedua adalah untuk mengungkapkan nilai-nilai moral kepemimpinan seperti terlihat dalam perilaku-perilaku dan konflik-konflik Coriolanus.
Untuk mendukung skripsi ini, bahan-bahan dan teori-teori diperoleh melalui metode penelitian pustaka. Drama The Tragedy of Coriolanus adalah bahan utama dalam studi ini. Sementara, buku-buku kritik drama, teori-teori sastra, teori-teori moral dan teori-teori kepemimpinan merupakan referensi penunjang dalam analisis ini. Studi ini menggunakan teori karakter dan karakterisasi, teori konflik, teori moral, dan teori kepemimpinan. Pendekatan Moral-filosofi digunakan untuk mengungkap nilai-nilai moral kepemimpinan seperti terlihat dalam perilaku-perilaku dan konflik-konflik tokoh utama.
REVEALING MORAL VALUES OF LEADERSHIP THROUGH
THE ANALYSIS OF CORIOLANUS’ ATTITUDES
AND
CONFLICTS IN
SHAKESPEARE’S
CORIOLANUS
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
In English Letters
By
PAULUS JURU Student Number: 094214002
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
i
REVEALING MORAL VALUES OF LEADERSHIP THROUGH
THE ANALYSIS OF CORIOLANUS’ ATTITUDES
AND
CONFLICTS
IN SHAKESPEARE’S
CORIOLANUS
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
In English Letters
By
PAULUS JURU Student Number: 094214002
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
v
vi
For My Beloved Father and Mother,
and My Lovely Sisters,
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Words cannot express my greatest gratitude to Holy Trinity; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for blessing me in my whole life and guiding me to write and to complete my undergraduate thesis.
I express my gratitude to my advisor, Elisa Dwi Wardani, S.S., M.Hum. I thank her for providing the time to guide me and to share her knowledge with me. I also thank her for her patience during the process of writing this undergraduate thesis. I would also like to express my gratitude to my co-advisor, Dra. A.B. Sri Mulyani, M.A., Ph.D. for giving me such helpful advice and suggestion in writing this undergraduate thesis.
My thankfulness goes to all lecturers of English Letters. I do thank them for their worthy shared knowledge during my study in Sanata Dharma University.
My lovely gratitude goes to my beloved parents. I thank them for giving me their totality to love and support me. My lovely gratitude goes to my lovely sisters, Ratna and Itin for the love and happiness. I do love you all.
My special thanks, I address to Sahabat-Sahabat SESADO (Seminarium Sancti Dominici), and KODRAT (Keluarga Olahraga Tarung Derajat) who shapes me to be a discipline person. I thank my brothers and friends; Pieter, Martin, Nelis, Adi, Ryan, Abe, Rio, and Evan for their togetherness. I really thank my Lady Baby who always prays for me.
viii 1. Theory on Character and Characterization ……….. 11
ix ABSTRACT
PAULUS JURU. Revealing Moral Values of Leadership through the Analysis of Coriolanus’ Attitudes and Conflicts in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2014.
The Tragedy of Coriolanus aka Coriolanus was the last play written by William Shakespeare. This drama tells about a Roman soldier’s life named Coriolanus. He is honored because of his heroic deed in military. However, he is disliked because of his bad attitude. The consequences of his attitudes are the conflicts. Finally, those conflicts lead him to tragic end.
Since the use of work of literature is to teach morality, this study has two purposes which are related to that. First is to explain the characteristics of the main character, Coriolanus, including his attitudes and conflicts. Second is to reveal moral values of leadership in Coriolanus’ attitudes and conflicts.
In order to support this undergraduate thesis, the data and theories are collected using library research method. The play The Tragedy of Coriolanus is the primary data in this study. While, books on play criticism, literary theories, moral theories and leadership theories are supportive references in the analysis. This study uses the theory of character and characterization, theory of conflict, theory of moral, and theory of leadership. The Moral-philosophical Approach is used to reveal the moral values of leadership in main character’s attitudes and conflicts.
The analysis of this study shows that Caius Marcius (Coriolanus) is a great soldier of Rome. He has brave attitude which by that he is famous and respected as a kingly leader of Rome. However, Coriolanus is infamous because of his arrogant attitude and egoism. He hates and ignores the rights of lower class people. On the other hand, he cares the rights of patrician class only. Coriolanus’ attitudes cause some conflicts such as confrontation with people and bad relationship. Then, the advance consequences of his conflicts are people’s rejection, his banishment from Rome, and his death as a tragic hero when he makes peace treaty between Rome and Volsce. By analyzing Coriolanus’ attitudes and conflicts, the writer gains some moral values of leadership. Those are serving followers wholeheartedly, balancing and integrating followers, willing to take personal risks and make necessary decisions, and being humble to followers. Those moral values of leadership in the play remain current.
x ABSTRAK
PAULUS JURU. Revealing Moral Values of Leadership through the Analysis of Coriolanus’ Attitudes and Conflicts in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2014.
The Tragedy of Coriolanus dikenal juga dengan Coriolanus adalah drama terakhir yang ditulis oleh William Shakespeare. Drama ini mengisahkan kehidupan seorang tentara Roma bernama Coriolanus. Dia disanjung karena aksi kepahlawanannya di bidang militer. Namun, dia tidak disukai karena perilaku buruknya. Akibat dari perilaku-perilakunya adalah konflik-konflik yang dihadapi. Pada akhirnya konflik-konflik itu membawanya kepada akhir yang tragis. Karena pengunaan karya sastra untuk mengajarkan moral, studi ini mempunyai dua tujuan yang berkesinambungan dengan hal itu. Pertama adalah untuk menjelaskan karakteristik tokoh utama, Coriolanus, termasuk perilaku-perilaku dan konflik-konflik. Kedua adalah untuk mengungkapkan nilai-nilai moral kepemimpinan seperti terlihat dalam perilaku-perilaku dan konflik-konflik Coriolanus.
Untuk mendukung skripsi ini, bahan-bahan dan teori-teori diperoleh melalui metode penelitian pustaka. Drama The Tragedy of Coriolanus adalah bahan utama dalam studi ini. Sementara, buku-buku kritik drama, teori-teori sastra, teori-teori moral dan teori-teori kepemimpinan merupakan referensi penunjang dalam analisis ini. Studi ini menggunakan teori karakter dan karakterisasi, teori konflik, teori moral, dan teori kepemimpinan. Pendekatan Moral-filosofi digunakan untuk mengungkap nilai-nilai moral kepemimpinan seperti terlihat dalam perilaku-perilaku dan konflik-konflik tokoh utama.
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
The history of leadership existed since human beings started to live in group or tribe together. They, people of ancient time, chose their leader because they saw that the person whom they chose had ability and power to lead and to protect them. The leader of ancient time took role as the chief of the tribe. Being a leader, the chief of the tribe had many responsibilities for the group including protecting, guiding and moral responsibility. Vice versa the leader should know and should be able to apply moral values of leadership (Durant, 1954:21-71).
English Renaissance. “The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in England were the time of the Renaissance (or „rebirth‟ of classical learning) and of the Protestant
Reformation” (Guth, 1981: 263). In the time of the Renaissance, stories and
themes from Roman and Greek were exposed again. The stories of people and cultures emerged in the same themes although those were separated by the distance of time and space, thus with the composition of work of literature such drama. Drama was a work of literature which grew massively in English Renaissance.
“As it had been said, from all works of literature, drama grew very fast in
Elizabethan era. Drama had reached artistic level, it was not only used to teach religious or moral fair, but in the first instance it was for showing human‟s life” (Samekto, 1976: 19-20). During Elizabethan age, tragedy became the famous play, which was used to be performed in the theater. Tragedy, originally, was a sad story. It invited us to be involved emotionally in the story as the conflicts developed.
In line with English Renaissance which marked the „rebirth‟ of classical learning, William Shakespeare, the greatest playwright at that time, reflected classical learning of morality in one of his tragedies. This point fulfilled the requirement of classical learning or literature in general as the moral teaching media. “The basic position of such critics is that the larger function of literature is to teach morality and to probe philosophical issues” (Guerin, 2011: 60).
Marcius who was offered to be a consul because of his heroic deeds after winning in a battlefield against Volscian, the enemy country. Caius Marcius was honored the name „Coriolanus’ after defeating Corioli, one of Volscian towns. Meanwhile, he was hated by his people because of his arrogances. Coriolanus‟ arrogances were judged as lacks of moral leadership. However, on the other side, his heroic deeds to protect his country could be considered as patriotism. This could be viewed that Coriolanus had qualities to be a good leader. Coriolanus was like a coin, his goodness could not cover his badness then his badness could not cover his goodness. After a long running dispute, Coriolanus was considered as an enemy and a traitor of the people and he was exiled. Desiring revenge against Rome then Coriolanus joined the enemy and attacked Rome. Rome was in panic. After being incited by his mother, the woman who had important role in Coriolanus‟ life, Coriolanus made a contrary treaty of peace between Rome and
Volscian, the enemy country. This treaty made the Volscians angry. He was considered again as a traitor of Volscians and finally he was murdered. Through Coriolanus tragic life, Shakespeare portrayed the leadership of that time. As a leader, Coriolanus‟ attitudes and conflicts were inquired whether or not he had qualities of a good leader.
In a purpose to reveal the moral values of leadership, Shakespeare‟s
Coriolanus is a good start for the research. Parlato (2012) in his essay states that “Coriolanusis perhaps the most political of Shakespeare‟s plays, and it deals with
of Julius Caesar and the plot also involves the question of possible tyranny and arrogation of power” (http://www.uncleguidosfacts.com /2012/06/
lessonsingovvernanceshakespeares.html). In criticism above the statement that „it involves the possible tyranny and arrogation of power‟ indicates negative aspect of leadership. On the other hand, it implies an understanding that there are also possible moral values of leadership. In this writing, the writer does not discuss politics or historical setting. However, with the help of moral-philosophical approach, the writer gives analysis of the main character‟s attitudes and conflicts in revealing moral values of leadership that can be taken from the play.
B. Problem Formulation
In purpose to get a good order of this analysis and to be able to understand this play better, therefore, two problems are formulated in following questions. 1. How are the characteristics of the main character described through main
character‟s attitudes and conflicts?
2. What moral values of leadership are revealed in the main character‟s characteristics?
C. Objectives of the Study
The aim of this research is to reveal the moral values of leadership reflected in Shakespeare‟s Coriolanus. This research has two main objectives. The
first objective is to view the characteristics of the main character. The second is to consider the moral values of leadership which reflected in the main character‟s
D. Definition of Terms
There are two points of terms that are presented by the writer in this study before entering the further discussion of the play. The terms that are used are moral values and leadership. The terms can be explained such following.
1. Moral Values
In The Moral Nature of Man, Garnet (1952:14) gives explanation that the term „moral‟ may be defined as referring to traditional of right and wrong. Moral is clue how to act in the society in the right way. Moral is to differ what is good and what is not good.
Gallaher (1985:1) states that moral value is a standard by reference to which a particular action can be judged morally good or bad. Moral values are important things that can be learned from human‟s actions. It helps us to
differentiate what is good and what is not. 2. Leadership
6 CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Review of Related Studies
A fundamental element of understanding and doing a research of a work of literature is looking for the reviews or criticisms. Reviews can be used as the references or the starting point to make further study. Noticing how important the reviews are, in this review of related studies, the writer presents some related studies which hold the discussions of the author, the work of literature and the topic. In the discussion of the author, the writer gives some notes about Shakespeare and his works. Next, the writer presents some criticisms which related to the same work, notably Shakespeare‟s Coriolanus. In the discussion of the related topic, the writer presents a note which discuses the topic of leadership.
English society and the world; even those were parallelized with Holy Bible. This indicates that besides Holy Bible, a work of literature especially Shakespeare‟s works can be used to gain messages or values which important and useful for life. People judge that Shakespeare‟s works contain messages and values which can be learned.
Having recognized who William Shakespeare is, there is a work of literature, notably a play which reveals his brilliant ideas. William Shakespeare‟s
Coriolanus is a play that told about politics in relevance with the history of English politics to early modern. Politics becomes important subject during sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in England. This description can be seen in
The End of Absolutism: Shakespeare's Coriolanus and the Consensual Nature of
the Early Modern State by Cefalu (2000) such follows.
I have argued that the point of departure for an analysis of the historical relevance of Coriolanus to early modern English politics is an understanding of the non-absolutist, consensual nature of early modern statehood, particularly the integration within the state platform of both negative libertarianism and paternalist centralization. Rather than interpret the play as an allegorical enactment of historically established party and class antagonisms, which did not in fact exist during the early seventeenth century, the class positions in the play should be seen as two unreified manifestations of the duality of the early modern state. Coriolanus is a thoroughly Jacobean play that reflects consensual politics rather than embattled, transitional ideologies
(http://www.hull.ac.uk/renforum/v4no2/cefalu.htm).
implied in the play. Thus, the criticism above tries to reveal the matters. The concept of historical-political scope is emphasized.
Other critic also comments, still, about the historical-political concept in
Coriolanus. In his review, The Rumbling Belly Politic: Metaphorical Location and Metaphorical Government in Coriolanus, Eastman (2007) states that the play, Coriolanus is a work of William Shakespeare which is inspired by a real event in London. The event is signed by a rebellion from people. The event that is called „the Midlands rebels‟ is protest to the landowners‟ policy of transforming
traditionally public, open fields into centralized, fenced-in, private property. The critical orthodoxy that ties Coriolanus to the Midlands Insurrection has affected the building of strained connections between the play‟s social concerns and those of the Midlands rebels, enclosure chief among them; this has in turn left many promising readings of the play unduly concerned with somehow detecting phantom commons in Shakespeare‟s Rome (http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/13-1/eastcori.htm).
Again the play Coriolanus is a reality event which is dramatized. The drama which is created cannot be separated with the concept of reality; that is political side. The political side discusses here refers to a tendency to overthrow the system of government which is considered inappropriate with the voice of people. On the other hand, the ruling government tries to maintain its position. “Shakespeare in Coriolanus dramatizes the conflict between communal and
private notions of the body. The movement to enclose land is metaphorically linked to the constitution of the individualistic, enclosed self” (http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/13-1/eastcori.htm).
In relevance with the political term and tragic hero, the writer supports criticism from (Wain, 1964: 163) which discusses that in political terms, the play describes a country which falls into the power of a murderer and tyrant. The hero dies as the reason of vengeful pride giving way to heroic sacrifice. Wain shows that Caius Marcius Coriolanus‟s death is considered as heroic sacrifice. Caius Marcius Coriolanus has to die to save Roman‟s and Volsce‟s peace. However, Doren has another perspective of Coriolanus‟ death. At the end of play, there is a consideration of Coriolanus as a tragic hero because of his personal rivalry with Aufidius.
In his criticism, Doren seems to reveal personal problem between the leaders of two cities. The conflicts of the play become sophisticated because it takes wider problem between Rome and Volsce which are in war.
Discussing leadership and power as its main core, it is important to consider the characteristics of Coriolanus as the Roman military leader. In
Shakespeare without Tears, Webster (1957: 197) notes that it is useless for us to try to make Coriolanus a dictator. Webster says that Coriolanus hates and mistrusts the people and the people‟s tribunes, but he has no wish to rule them. He is content to serve under another general; he runs from public commendation of his own deeds and worth; he is not especially elated over the offer of the consulship; and he cannot bring himself to purchase it by any truckling to the voters or exercise of demagogic arts. Coriolanus just glories in his power as a fighter and willing, for no reward but the satisfaction of his own pride, to serve in the most austere tradition of the military caste. Webster opposes the possibility of tyranny and arrogation of power as states by Parlato (2012) in chapter one. From this point, Shakespeare‟s Coriolanus implies some values inside the qualifications
of leadership.
Through this writing, the writer has an attempt to develop an analysis about leadership. From the previous reviews, the writer examines that William Shakespeare‟s Coriolanus is not just a play that told the story of history or politics
scope of this research. The first scope of this writing focuses on the way the main character is characterized, of course the way of characterization which covers Coriolanus‟ attitudes and conflicts. After making analysis of the main character‟
characteristics, the main point of this writing is to search, to analyze, and to take the moral values of leadership as seen through main character‟s attitudes and conflicts. Generally, in this writing, there is no discussion of history or politics in detail, but it emphasizes on moral values of leadership. This writing shows some key points of moral-philosophical discussion in the play.
B. Review of Related Theories
There are some theories which are taken to support the analysis in order to answer the two problems stated previously. Those theories are the theory on character and characterization, the theory on conflict, the theory on moral and the theory on leadership.
1. Theory on Character and Characterization
A theory about character can be understood as an understanding of people‟s
action and motivation. This is stated as in the following.
When you pay close attention to character, you will find yourself going from the what to the why – from people‟s words and actions to their
motives. Why do people talk and act the way they do? Be prepared to think about a character‟s motivation (Guth and Rico, 1997: 69).
name and thought existing on the head. In Understanding Plays Second Edition,
Barranger (1994: 339) argues that “in drama, characters are traditionally defined by their physical characteristics, speech, and dress; their socioeconomic status; their psychological makeup; and their moral and ethical choices.” She explains that there are four ways to approach understanding drama‟s characters; first, observing what playwrights say about them in stage directions and, second, hearing or reading what characters say about one another in dialogue, third, noticing general types such as physical and psychological and fourth, construing the moral or ethical choices that determine their destinies. Through four ways of understanding drama‟s character, the writer is helped to view the characteristics of
the main character through the main character‟s attitudes and conflicts faced in play.
Holman and Harmon (1986:81) state that “the term character includes the idea of the moral constitution of human personality as Aristotle‟s sense of ethos. It is the presence of moral uprightness, and the simpler notion of the presence of creatures in art that seem to be human beings of one sort or another. In literary application, character is a brief descriptive sketch of a personage who typifies some definite quality.”
In this case it can be understood that the character is an important element in establishing a story. Further, Arp in Perrine’s Literature: Structure, Sound and
Analyzing characterization is more difficult than describing plot, for human character is infinitely complex, variable, and ambiguous. Anyone can summarize what a person in a story has done, but a writer needs considerable skill and insight into human beings to describe convincingly
who a person is (Arp and Johnson, 2009: 161).
In addition, Harmon and Holman state that characterization is the creation of imaginary persons so that they seem lifelike. Then, there are three fundamental methods of characterization as quoted below
(1) the explicit presentation by the author of the character through direct EXPOSITION, either in an introductory block or more often piecemeal throughout the work, illustrated by action; (2) the presentation of the character in action, with little or no explicit comment by the author, in the expectation that the reader can deduce the attributes of the actor from the actions; and (3) the representation from within a CHARACTER, without comment by the author, of the impact of actions and emotions on the character‟s inner self (Harmon and Holman, 2009: 94).
character‟s inner thoughts, feelings, and responsiveness to events; for a highly
developed mode of such inner showing. While in telling, the author intervenes authoritatively in order to describe, and often to evaluate, the motives and dispositional qualities of the characters.
2. Theory on Conflict
The discussion of a character covers also „conflict‟ as the important aspect in a play. Abcarian, Klotz and Richardson in Literature: Reading and Writing the Human Experience give their argument that
Plays often portray oppositions between characters or groups, or even between two aspects of a character‟s personality; this opposition often takes the form of a conflict that drives the plot. More than other forms of literature, plays give physical expression to the social and psychological conflicts that define us individually and collectively (Abcarian, Klotz and Richardson, 1998: 23).
In A Handbook to Literature, Holman and Harmon (1986: 107) define conflict as “the struggle that grows out of the interplay of the two opposing forces in the plot.
Conflict provides interest, suspense, and tension. At least, one of the opposing forces is usually a person, or, if an animal or an inanimate object is treated as though it were a person.” Simply, conflict may be an argument between opposing forces, like man against man, nature, fate, society or perhaps the internal one between the two opposing parts of man‟s personality.
subordinate to the central conflict, which may be internal, external, or both. Stanton adds that a central conflict lays between fundamental and contrasting
qualities or forces, such as honesty and hypocrisy, innocent and experience, individuality and the pressure to conform.
3. Theory on Moral
Every work of literature has moral lesson as it said before that literature was the media for teaching moral. The existence of moral values in a work of literature is the representation of all kinds of human‟s aspects. One of the aspects
of human beings is a social creature. As a social creature, one cannot live separately from others. A person needs another person. Laws, norms, values and customs are needed and those are necessarily useful to secure the relationship. Those refer to a requirement that someone has to be good person for others. Moral values are the points in this writing. Wellman (1975: 135) says that the theory of value holds that what make an act morally good or evil is the value or disvalue of its actual consequences. Moral value is used in the analysis to help to make judgment on the goodness of moral conscience that is presented by the main character through his attitudes and conflicts.
they say that moral is not just about differentiating good or bad but it has a deeper meaning.
Daniel C. Maguire in The Moral Choice states that “the foundation of morality is the experience of value of persons and their environment” (1978: 72).
This statement can be understood that morality is set up by the value of person and their own environment. The experience that people have in their life has close relation with the environment as well. The relationship of people and their environment, of course, cannot be avoided from conflict; that can be personal conflict and collective conflict. That is why the existence of conflicts makes morality seems meaningful.
4. Theory on Leadership
a. Theory on Modern Leadership
person‟s values, stage of moral development, conscious intentions, freedom of
choice, use of ethical behavior, and types of influence used.
As noted by Yulk (2006: 421), James McGreg or Burns states that a primary leadership role or function is to increase awareness about ethical issues and help people resolve conflict values. He explains that transforming leadership is a process in which „leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation‟. These leaders seek to raise the consciousness of followers by appealing to ideals and moral values such as liberty, justice, equality, peace and humanitarianism, not to baser emotions such as fear, greed, jealousy, or hatred. Followers are elevated from their everyday selves to their better selves.
Another scholar, Ronald Heifetz as quoted by Yulk (2006: 421) proposes that the primary role of leaders is to help followers confront conflict and find productive ways to deal with it. The leader must engage people in facing challenges, changing perspective, and learning new ways to work together effectively. Leadership is described as both a dyadic and collective process. It is emphasized that meaning change requires shared leadership, and it cannot be accomplished by a single, heroic individual.
moral values the criteria of leadership should be taken or done which considered as morally acceptable.
Robert Greenleaf still in Yulk (2006: 422) proposes the concept of servant leadership. Service to followers is the primary responsibility of leaders and the essence of ethical leadership. Greenleaf adds that service includes nurturing, defending, and empowering followers. A servant leader must attend to the needs of followers and help them become healthier, wiser, and more willing to accept their responsibilities. It is only by understanding followers that the leader can determine how best to serve their needs. Servant leaders must listen to followers, learn about their needs and aspirations, and be willing to share in their pain and frustration. Even the weak and marginal members of society must be treated with respect and appreciation.
In addition, Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy (1999:101) in Leadership Enhancing the Lessons of Experience state that experience can contribute to the development for better understanding of leadership situation.
b. Theory on Classic Roman Leadership
The purpose of theory on classic Roman Leadership is to know the duties of classic Roman leader. Theory on classic Roman Leadership refers to the government of Rome, the leaders, and the citizens or the lead. In Historyof Rome,
religion, with law and justice, and with warfare. In all religious matters the king was helped by the priests and by augurs. In all things concerning law and justice, the king had the advice of the Senate, a council of elderly men, experienced in public affairs.
Further, Starr, in The World Book Encyclopedia Volume 16 (1971:387), noted that Rome was a republic from 509 to 27 B.C. Two consuls were elected every year to govern the Roman republic as chief executives. The consuls had similar duties as the predecessor kings‟. In early republic, the social organization divided into two classes. Those were patrician class and plebeian class. Patrician class included the members of the Roman Senate who controlled the government, the army, and the state religion. On the other hand, the plebeian class included freed slaves, peasant farmers, and dependents of patricians (aristocrat). For many years, the plebeians could not hold public office, vote on laws, or become priest. Treble in Every Day Life in Rome (1953:139) added that later in 494 B.C. the plebeians found a counter-organization that was called tribune of people to protect their rights. People, then, had right to vote on election, but still they could not hold public office.
C. Theoretical Framework
theories on character and characterization, and the theories on conflicts are applied to help the writer to have an apprehension of how the main character of the play described. The main character‟s appearances, attitudes and notably conflicts faced as the consequences of relations within himself and with others surround him are analyzed by the writer. Those two theories are to support and to answer first problem formulation.
The writer uses theories on moral and leadership which are considered as the main references in this writing. By using the theories on moral and leadership which support each other, the writer is helped to reveal what moral values of leadership reflected in the play. Theories on leadership which is modern theories and classic Roman theories are used to know the relevance between modern and classic moral values of leadership. Through the dialogue, the description of main character, including what the main character‟s experience and conflicts faced,
21 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study
The object of the study in this writing is The Tragedy of Coriolanus
written by William Shakespeare. The play is also known as Coriolanus. The foregoing evidence combining with style and meter indicated a time late in 1608 or early in 1609 as the period of composition. The Tragedy of Coriolanus was first staged in London around the year 1608. This play was taken from book entitled
The Complete Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare edited by William Allan Nelson and Charles Jarvis Hill, published by Houghton Mifflin Company 1942.
The play was first adopted into movie in 1952 by Bertolt Brecht. Then, Ralph Fiennes, through Hermetof Pictures, BBC Films and Lonely Dragon Production, adopted again in 2011 with modern concept.
B. Approach of the Study
In a purpose to reach a basic understanding of a literary work or to criticize it, the writer needs an appropriate approach that fits the purpose of the study, which is to reveal the moral values of leadership reflected in the main character’s attitudes and conflicts in the play. Therefore, the Moral-philosophical Approach is taken as an approach in a purpose to analyze this play.
The aim of moral-philosophical approach is to know how a work of literature deals with moral lesson teaching. Guerin et al (2011: 60) in A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature state that “the basic position of such critics is that the larger function of literature is to teach morality and to probe philosophical issues”. They state that figurative language and other purely aesthetic considerations are considered as secondary teaching. The primary point is the moral or philosophical teaching.
Guerin et al (2011: 61) state that the critic who employs the moral-philosophical approach insists on ascertaining and stating what is taught also. It seems reasonable, then, to employ moral philosophical analyses among other methods in getting at the meaning of literary work seems to call for them. The statement implies that moral philosophical believes with the moral teaching. The moral teaching is expected to gives some good effect for the readers.
values of leadership that can be concluded. Therefore, Moral philosophical Approach is used to reveal the moral values of leadership.
C. Method of the Study
In this thesis, in order to collect the data sources, the writer uses the library and internet research. It means that the writer studies the documents related to the topic. The main source of this thesis is the play script of William Shakespeare’s
Coriolanus which taken from book The Complete Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare edited by William Alan Neilson and Charles Jarvis Hill.
The other sources are essays and criticisms which are from the books in the library and from websites. The books from library are used to support the theory on character and characterization, theory on conflict, theory on moral and theory on leadership, the books for theory on character and characterization such as Perrine’s Literature written by Thomas R. Arp and Greg Johnson and
Understanding Plays Second Edition written by Barranger. Those books help the writer to make a deep analysis on main character’s characterization. The book for conflict such as C. Hugh Holman’s and William Harmon’s A Handbook to Literature, it is used to describe conflicts faced by main character such as conflicts against himself and others.
The book for moral such as The Domain of Moral Education written by Cochrane and Kazepides, and the book for theory on leadership such as Gary Yulk’s Leadership in Organization are extracted to analyze moral values of
Moral-philosophical Approach is A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature Fifth Edition written by Wilfred L. Guerin et al.
To conduct this study, there were some steps which had already done. The first step was reading the object of the study, the play Shakespeare’s Coriolanus
with an intention to understand the play. Second, the writer determined the topic to be discussed in this study which was revealing moral values of leadership. Analytically Shakespeare with his Coriolanus indicated that there were moral values of leadership reflected through the main character.
25 CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS
This chapter is divided into two main parts. The first part is to answer the first problem formulation about the characteristics of the main character and how the main character is characterized. Still in the first part, the analysis of conflicts as the consequences of the main character‟s attitudes is presented. Then the second part is to answer the second problem formulation which is the revelation of moral values of leadership as seen through main character‟s attitudes and conflicts.
A. The Characteristics of Coriolanus
Coriolanus owns certain characteristics which are expressed through his attitudes. Coriolanus‟ characteristics deal with the characterization. It includes the way the author, Shakespeare, gives the descriptions and the way the author makes the readers understanding him. By using his imagination, Shakespeare gives certain characteristics to Coriolanus so that the readers can imagine what Coriolanus looks like and his personal traits, bad or good person. In the analysis follows, the writer divides the characteristics of Coriolanus into two parts. Those are physical characteristics and psychological characteristics.
1. Physical Characteristics of Coriolanus
described as a soldier of Rome. Before he is given an honorary name, his name is only Caius Marcius. He is given an honorary name „Coriolanus‟ because of his heroic deed after defeating Corioli, one of Volscian towns, the enemy country. Then he is famous with the name Coriolanus. Physically, Caius Marcius is described as a bareheaded man. This description can be seen through Coriolanus‟ speech. Coriolanus‟ expression “my unbarb’d sconce” means “bare head” as noted by the editors of the play. Explicitly through the way of main character‟s speech as quoted below, readers can imagine that physically Coriolanus is a bareheaded man.
CORIOLANUS. Must I go show them my unbarb‟d sconce? (Shakespeare, 1942:1313)
Another physical characterization of Coriolanus is that he grows beard. Through other character‟s speech, Shakespeare gives information about physical
appearance of the main character. In the play Aufidius, soldier of Volsce, Caius Marcius‟ enemy, through his speech he describes that Marcius grows beard.
AUFIDIUS. By th‟ elements, if e‟er again I meet him beard to beard, he is mine, or I am his.
(Shakespeare, 1942:1298)
battlefield. This is another thing that makes Coriolanus so special in front of the enemies.
LARTIUS. O noble fellow! Who sensibly outdares his senseless sword and, when it bows, stand‟st up. Thou art left, Marcius; a carbuncle entire, as big as thou art, were not so rich a jewel. Thou wast a soldier even to Cato‟s wish, not fierce and terrible only in strokes; but, with thy grim looks and the tunder-like percussion of thy sounds, thou mad‟st thine enemies shake, as if the world were feverous and did tremble. (Shakespeare, 1942:1295)
Lartius, through his speech significantly, describes that Coriolanus‟ physical appereance affirms that he is a tremendous soldier of Rome. Coriolanus is so worthy. Rome‟s safety depends on Coriolanus. That is proven by Coriolanus through his heroic deed of defeating enemies‟ country. Coriolanus‟ combat ability is undoubted. This makes him so important for Rome. Lartius describes that Coriolanus is the most horrible soldier for the enemies. There is no other fear for enemies especially fear in front of Coriolanus. Coriolanus‟ combat ability, face, voice are some elements which is considered of his greatness.
According to information above the writer notes that physically Coriolanus is a bareheaded man and he grows his beard. His face is described as serious-looking and he is described as a man with loud voice when talking. Coriolanus‟ physical appearance affirms that he is not only as an ordinary soldier
2. Psychological Characteristics of Coriolanus
In this part, the writer presents the analysis of psychological characteristics of the main character, notably Coriolanus. In the analysis of psychological characteristics the scope of main character‟s attitudes are presented part by part.
While in each part of the analysis of main character‟s attitudes, the writer includes the analysis of conflicts faced by main character as the consequences of his attitudes.
a. Arrogant
Coriolanus is described as a person who has arrogant attitude. Shakespeare intently created Coriolanus with arrogance as his dominant attitude. Coriolanus‟ arrogance shows a tendency of his bad side of personality.
In the play, Marcius (Coriolanus) who is described as a soldier and a Roman patrician has abhorrence to the people of Rome and the people‟s tribunes. His abhorrence tends to be a personal abhorrence. Marcius (Coriolanus) shows his arrogant attitude when he responds the rebel of the people who demand lower price of corn. Notably people of Rome are starving because of famine which plagues the entire Roman city. Here, Marcius (Coriolanus) plays a role as the representative of Roman patrician and as the greatest warrior whom many people respect. On one hand, he is expected to solve the problem or control the riot. On the other hand, because of his personal abhorrence to the people, Marcius (Coriolanus) shows his arrogant attitudes by mocking the people.
MARCIUS. Thanks. What‟s the matter, you dissentious rogues, that, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion, make yourselves scabs?
MARCIUS. He that will give good words to thee will flatter beneath abhorring. What would you have, you curs, that like nor peace nor war? (Shakespeare, 1942:1291)
Some words such rogues, scabs, curs which Marcius (Coriolanus) uses to respond the people (citizen) are practically impolite for a patrician to use. Marcius (Coriolanus) does not respect his own people even he mocks them. This is caused by his arrogant attitude that he himself feels that he is worthier than others.
Besides mocking another expression which shows that Marcius (Coriolanus) is really arrogant character is when he underestimates and discriminates the people.
MARCIUS. They are dissolv‟d, hang „em! They said they were an-hungry; sigh‟d forth proverbs, that hunger broke stone walls, that dogs must eat, that meat was made for mouths, that the gods sent not corn for the rich men only.
(Shakespeare, 1942:1291)
Standing as a representative of the patricians, Marcius (Coriolanus) defends only rich people to get their rights. While poor people whom he must primarily concern are ignored. Marcius‟ (Coriolanus‟) arrogance points to his egoism. Sicinius and Brutus, the tribune of people, criticize Marcius‟ (Coriolanus‟) attitudes. Sicinius and Brutus imply that the war between Rome and
Moreover, the patricians promote Coriolanus to be a consul. The patricians promote him to be a consul because they think that he deserves to get it. However, Coriolanus has to beg the voice of people. Coriolanus can be a consul if the people vote for him. Now Coriolanus faces his defiance, the people whom he hates. Before Coriolanus goes to ask people‟s voices, his mother Volumnia and his friend Menenius Agrippa advice him to be humble when he meets the people. Instead of being humble, Coriolanus keeps stubborn and arrogant.
CORIOLANUS. What must I say? “I pray, sir,” –Plague upon‟t! I cannot bring my tongue to such a pace, –“look, sir, my wounds! I got them in my country‟s service, when some certain of your breathren roar‟d and ran from the noise of our own drums.”
MENENIUS. O me, the gods! You must not speak of that. You must desire them to think upon you.
CORIOLANUS. Think upon me! Hang „em! I would they would forget me, like the virtues which our devines lose by „em.
MENENIUS. You‟ll mar all. I‟ll leave you. Pray you, speak to „em, I pray you, in wholesome manner. Re-enter three of the CITIZENS.
Through a deep analysis of the main character, notably Coriolanus‟ attitude, the writer gains some points concerning the consequence of Coriolanus‟ arrogant attitude. The consequence can be the conflicts that are faced by Coriolanus. Here in the first part the writer presents some conflicts which are faced by Coriolanus because of his arrogant attitude.
Coriolanus‟ arrogance has the bad impact for his relation with others.
Coriolanus confronts with the citizens or the people and the tribunes of people especially Brutus and Sicinius. Actually the conflict among Coriolanus, the citizens and the tribune of the people is the conflict between the patricians and common people. This kind of conflict can be said as Coriolanus‟ interpersonal conflict or external conflict. Coriolanus‟ external conflict is the concern in the play. At the beginning, the citizens are rebelling against the patricians because the patricians only grant the grain for themselves while the citizens are starving.
The citizens become more brutal when Coriolanus comes and responds to them with ire and arrogance. In the one hand, Coriolanus mocks the citizens and he underestimates them. On the other hand, the citizens rebel against him even they want to kill him. Hardly can the conflict be avoided between these two sides.
Enter a company of mutinous CITIZENS, with staves, clubs, and other weapons.
1.CITIZEN. Before we proceed any further, hear me speak. ALL. Speak, speak.
1.CITIZEN. You are all resolv‟d rather to die than to famish? ALL. Resolv‟d, resolv‟d.
1.CITIZEN. First, you know Caius Marcius is chief enemy to the people. ALL. We know ‟t, we know ‟t.
1.CITIZEN. Let us kill him, and we‟ll have corn at our own price. Is‟t a verdict?
The citizens encourage each other in order to rebel against the ruling aristocracy or the patricians. The citizens take risk to die in a purpose to reach their goals. In this case, the citizens express their flare-up as a counter attack mostly to Coriolanus (Marcius). The citizens bring staves, club and other weapons in an intention to kill Coriolanus. The conflict between Coriolanus and the citizens can be considered as a very serious problem.
The conflict that has not ended yet happens again. Coriolanus faces a more complicated conflict between himself and the citizens. Moreover, Coriolanus‟ external conflict can be seen when Coriolanus is offered to be a consul or the representative of common people. Coriolanus‟ decision to gain people‟ voice
drives him closer to the conflict. Meanwhile, Coriolanus feels that it adds a more burden for him. Certainly, he will be more egocentric if he becomes a consul. However, he also faces an uncomfortable situation that he wants to avoid. The uncomfortable situation is that he really hates the common people. Then its consequence is that Coriolanus who is asking the voice of people for his effort to be a consul is rejected by the citizens.
4.CITIZEN. You have deserved nobly of your country, and you have not deserved nobly.
CORIOLANUS. Your enigma?
4.CITIZEN. You have been a scourge to her enemies, you have been a rod to her friends; you have not indeed loved the common people.
(Shakespeare, 1942:1305)
because he does not realize about himself and how he is viewed by other people. Coriolanus is labeled as a scourge and the enemy of the common people.
Brutus and Sicinius, the tribunes of the plebeian class and representatives of that class mistrust and dislike Coriolanus similarly as their class mistrusts and dislikes of the patrician class. As having discussed before, Coriolanus is mistrusted and disliked because of his egoism or arrogance and contempt that he displays towards the people. Brutus and Sicinius who play important role in the citizen class provoke the citizens to punish Coriolanus. Sicinius and Brutus who stand as the authority of the citizens announce that Coriolanus is deserved to death punishment “SICINIUS. This deserves death…BRUTUS. Marcius is worthy of
present death (Shakespeare, 1942, 1310).” The conflicts faced by Coriolanus respectively get to an end to the Coriolanus‟ banishment from Rome with the judgment as „traitor‟ and enemy of the people.
SICINIUS. For that he has, as much as in him lies, from time to time envi‟d against the people, seeking means to pluck away their power, as now at last given hostile strokes, and that not in the presence of dreaded justice, but on the ministers that [do] distribute it; in the name o‟ th‟ people and in the power of us the tribunes, we, even from this instant, banish him our city, in peril of precipitation from the rock Tarpeian never more to enter our Rome gates. I‟ th‟ people‟s name, I say it shall be so.
[CITIZENS.] It shall be so, it shall be so. Let him away! He‟s banish‟d, and it shall be so.
(Shakespeare, 1942:1315)
Coriolanus is driven out of Rome because Brutus and Sicinius play upon the plebeians' fears that he will become a tyrant if he is elected as a consul. “SICINIUS. From Rome all season‟d office and to wind yourself into a power
He even responds to his banishment with arrogance. This makes his future rehabilitation impossible, and it means that Coriolanus is permanently trapped in his stubborn arrogance.
b. Brave
Apart from the fact that Coriolanus has predominantly arrogant attitude, Coriolanus has also brave attitude. Upon knowing that Volsce, Rome‟s enemy, has armed itself for war, Coriolanus feels glad to hear that. “MARCIUS (CORIOLANUS). I am glad on‟t. then we shall ha‟ means to vent our musty
superfluity (Shakespeare, 1942:1292).” Taking action in military duty is Coriolanus‟ responsibility. Certainly, his fearless response about war is based on his personal bravery. To Coriolanus, if he bleeds he thinks that it is not dangerous even healthier for him. “The blood I drop is rather physical than dangerous to me
(Shakespeare, 1942:1295).” A soldier gives his testimony that Coriolanus faces the enemy alone. “Following the fliers at the very heels with them he enters; who, upon the sudden, clapp‟d to their gates. He is himself alone, to answer all the city
(Shakespeare, 1942:1295).”
Coriolanus‟ track record in military service is undoubted. With his bravery
he is able to defeat Rome‟s enemy. Coriolanus‟ brave attitude is considered as a great deed for his country, Rome.
COMINIUS. I shall lack voice; the deeds of Coriolanus should not be utter‟d feebly. It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver; if it be, the man I speak of cannot in the world be singly counterpois‟d.
Roman general, Cominius expresses his response toward the deed of Coriolanus as honorable for Rome. He says that Coriolanus‟ bravery cannot be equaled by other person. It cannot be denied that Coriolanus is the warrior of Rome.
Marcius‟ (Coriolanus‟) track record in military service can be viewed as
patriotism and responsibility. He sacrifices himself for his country. He says that “I have done as you have done, that‟s what I can; induc‟d as you have been, that‟s for my country. He that has but effected his good will hath overta‟en mine act
(Shakespeare, 1942:1297).”
After he is banished from his country, Rome, Coriolanus joins Volscian army, basically to revenge against people of Rome who banish him. He intends to destroy Rome. Since his intention to destroy Rome is also the intention of Volscian army, Coriolanus is elevated to be Volscian military general. Then he plays a role as Volscian military general. A unique event happens in the end of the play, Coriolanus‟ decision to make peace between Rome and Volsce is considered as a heroic deed. It is certainly difficult to reconcile those two countries which are in war. Coriolanus takes advantage after becoming Volscian general to make the contrary treaty. Coriolanus must risk again of being a traitor of Volsce. Again this is motivated by his bravery.
Coriolanus‟ brave attitude reflects his patriotism and responsibility for his
country. However, it should be viewed critically. The reason why the writer argues that Coriolanus‟ bravery should be viewed critically because the writer also
In this second part, the writer presents how Coriolanus‟ brave attitude also emerges some conflicts.
Other characters have different responses toward Coriolanus‟ bravery. To
be precise the different responses are the conflict faced by Coriolanus. Coriolanus‟ bravery in military duty is viewed by the tribunes of people as
unnecessary act for the people. The people know that Coriolanus is a war obsessive. The people do not consider his great deed in military as patriotism and responsibility for Rome. The people think that it is only for his personal satisfaction.
This situation becomes Coriolanus‟ external conflict in dealing with other persons especially the common people. The given view that Coriolanus is not patriotic and irresponsible is because of the prod or provocation from Sicinius and Brutus.
BRUTUS. Could you not have told him as you were lesson‟d: when he had no power, but was a petty servant to the state, he was your enemy, ever spake against your liberties and the charters that you bear I‟ th‟ body of the weal; and now, arriving a place of potency and sway o‟ th state, If he should still malignantly remain fast foe to th‟
plebeii, your voices might be curses to yourselves? (Shakespeare, 1942:1306)
Before Sicinius and Brutus provoke animosity of the people, the people have already given their trust to Coriolanus as a patriot like what the patricians did. “1.CITIZEN. Once if he do require our voices, we ought not to deny him
The most difficult situation faced by Coriolanus that can be his internal conflict is when Coriolanus has to forgive Rome as the consequence of his personal love to his mother. After Menenius and Cominius, Coriolanus‟ Roman friends, are failed to beg Coriolanus‟ mercy for Rome, Only Volumnia, Coriolanus‟ mother, a person whom Rome depends on the most, goes to Volsce to beg Coriolanus‟ mercy. If Coriolanus receives his mother‟ request, it means that
he forgives Roman people who banish him. On the other hand, it also means that he betrays Volscians who support him to be their military general.
CORIOLANUS. O mother, mother! What have you done? Behold, the heavens do ope, the gods look down, and this unnatural scene they laugh at. O my mother, mother! O! You have won a happy victory to Rome; but for your son, – believe it, O believe it – most dangerously you have with him prevail‟d, if not most mortal to him. But let it come. Aufidius, though I cannot make true wars, I‟ll frame convenient peace. (Shakespeare, 1942:1328)
Coriolanus‟ bravery to love his mother and to forgive Rome leads him to his
death. Coriolanus is assasinated by the Volscians with accusation as traitor of Volsce. However, Coriolanus is remembered as a tragic hero who reconciles Rome and Volsce from war and enmity.
B. Moral Values of Leadership
Moral-philosophical Approach to reveal moral values of leadership in the play. Accompanying it, with the assistance of theory of leadership both classic and modern, the writer is helped to indicate whether or not those moral values have relevance between the classic ones and the modern ones. This part is also to answer second problem formulation.
It has been understood before that works of literature have functions to teach morality. The author of the play, William Shakespeare, has certainly intention to teach morality through his written or performed play. With an intention to understand deeply what kind of moral teaching the play contains, the writer gains some moral values of leadership.
1. Serving Followers Wholeheartedly
A good leader is expected to serve followers wholeheartedly. In the play, Coriolanus who is described as a kingly leader of Rome is expected to serve his country wholeheartedly. It means that Coriolanus must serve all people of Rome. In Coriolanus‟ case, by using his power, Coriolanus seems to serve only the
Coriolanus‟ track record in military is more viewed as to satisfy the goals of the patricians. His successful mission to defeat Corioli, one of enemy‟s towns is the ambition of the patricians. It can be said that Coriolanus does not wholeheartedly serve Rome. Noticing, that Coriolanus‟ favor is mostly for the patricians only and that he ignores the common people make it improper to call him a paragon of a good leader. By the same token, people are afraid if Coriolanus becomes tyranny and then oppresses them. Thus, from the fact that conflict happens such as people reject him to be their consul strengthen the argument that Coriolanus‟ lack of the qualification of a good leader. That is how from the play,
readers can learn that to be a good leader; one has to apply moral values of leadership such as serving wholeheartedly. Referring to Gary Yulk‟s (2006:424) modern criterion of ethical leadership, moral value of serving followers wholeheartedly which is revealed from the play has close relation to the use of power and influence. The play contains moral value that a leader should be able to use power and influence to serve followers instead of oppressing followers.
2. Balancing and Integrating Followers
and the common people should support each other in order to reach their country‟s goals.
Basically Coriolanus who plays a role as a kingly leader of Rome has assignment to balance and to integrate his followers. Coriolanus‟ assignment to balance his followers means that Coriolanus has to arrange the various interests or rights of the patricians and common people in compatible way. While his assignment to integrate his followers means that Coriolanus has to be able to combine the various interest or rights of the patricians and the common people through a good agreement.
Coriolanus‟ arrogance and abhorrence to the common people shows his
disability to balance and integrate his followers. Coriolanus does not take a negotiable way when he responds to people‟s demonstration. He even mocks people “you dissentious rogues (Shakespeare, 1942:1291).” It is certainly notified that Coriolanus cannot balance and integrate the patricians‟ interest and the common people‟s interest. Moreover, another aspect of leadership that can be
analyzed and extracted from the play is the way a leader communicates with people he leads. A leader‟s capability to communicate in a good manner is another essential aspect for a good leadership. In Coriolanus‟ case, the way Coriolanus responds to people‟s demonstration impolitely is clearly unacceptable “SICINIUS. He cannot temp‟rately transport his honours from where he should
also to maintain his relation with the people. People exile him out of Rome because he is judged as a leader who cannot solve the conflict.
3. Willing to Take Personal Risks and Make Necessary Decisions
Relating to the use of power, a leader is supposed to use the power in order to facilitate and accomplish efforts or objectives. In the process of facilitating and accomplishing efforts or objectives, a leader is required to have willingness to take personal risks and to make necessary decisions. Since moral value of leadership in the play is close to Garry Yulk‟s modern theory, here, the
writer adopts Garry Yulk‟s (2006:424) suggestion of risk taking in leader decisions and actions. Through the analysis of Coriolanus‟ attitude, especially his bravery, the writer notices that Coriolanus‟ deed to be the vanguard in the battlefield is his willingness to take personal risk. He will probably take risk to be killed easily in front of the enemy. His decision to take personal risk is based on his sacrifice to avoid his companies got injured and being killed.
MARCIUS (CORIOLANUS). Then shall we hear their „larum, and they ours. Now, Mars, I prithee, make us quick in work, that we with smoking sword may march from hence to help our fielded friends! Come, blow thy blast.
(Shakespeare, 1942:1294)
military general, Coriolanus intently wants to destroy Roman people who banish him from Rome. His decision to forgive Rome at moment‟s notice is not based on his forgiveness for Rome but because of his love to his mother, Volumnia whom he respects mostly. However, it can be seen that what kind of Coriolanus‟ reason to decide to make peace treaty cannot be avoided from a dangerous risk. The dangerous risk taken by Coriolanus is his death as a tragic hero.
4. Being Humble to Followers
Egoism is Coriolanus' main problematical quality, and it defines his fate. His arrogance partly arises from his special military qualities and its track record. To be a consul is not Coriolanus‟ ambition actually. It is an appreciation for him,
which through it, he is supposed to love common people. If he were not so arrogant, he would be viewed by the plebeians both as a war hero and a suitable consul. The people will see him like Menenius "one that hath always loved the people (Shakespeare, 1942:1290)”, not as "chief enemy to the people (Shakespeare, 1942:1289)." Coriolanus‟ egoism impedes him to be negotiable and communicable with common people. Again, people admit Coriolanus' loyalty for his military services. On the other hand, the people dislike his arrogance and egoism. Thus, Coriolanus is like a coin.
consequence. The people pursue to change a new way of lives in their country. They do not need classic leader which seems to support fascism. To the people, Coriolanus is seen as a fascist and then the people become wary of him.
