1. 1
‘During his career as a playwright, Shakespeare was increasingly interested in
exploring the nature of violence, and especially acts of violence that are apparently
spontaneous, and that seem to have no motive, or no adequate motive’. With
reference to this quotation, discuss the representation of violence in Shakespeare’s
plays.
It is fair to say that Shakespeare during his career explored the nature of violence. One only has to
look at ​Titus Andronicus​ to see scenes of mutilation and cannibalism, to look at ​Othello​ for scenes
of racial violence and the string of wars in various Shakespeare plays throughout his career. It is
however unfair to call the acts​ ​‘spontaneous’, ones that ‘seem to have no motive, or no adequate
motive’. In reading closely to gain an understanding of violent characters, Richard III in ​Richard III
and Coriolanus in his own eponymous play ​Coriolanus​ , we​ ​learn that these men have violence as an
innate part of them. Coriolanus from the start is presented as a soldier who then gains status within
the Roman senate. As a reverse we see Richard slowly murder his way to kingdom and it is only after
when the ‘additional identity which emerges at the end: Richard as a soldier’ presents itself to the1
audience. In reading these two plays we learn that violence is personal, it is human and it is subject
to the individual. An overview of the plays may conclude in the summation that they are
inadequately motivated acts of violence, but that is an issue of condensing the human condition
equating to a lack of depth in understanding. This essay will look at the representation of violence in
Richard III and ​Coriolanus​ and how the two characters react and live in their violent lands, and their
violent selves.
1
​Baker, Simon. ​War and Nation in the Theatre of Shakespeare And His Contemporaries.
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2007. Pg 122.

2. 2
I want to think about Richard and Coriolanus both as soldiers. Coriolanus is one who dies a
victim of a violent corrupt society and Richard dies as a victim of his own. Yet the path of the
soldier is not direct to death, many a time each character escapes their role as the soldier. Richard
breaks it from the very beginning, his opening soliloquy is self-deprecating ‘Why, I, in this weak
piping time of peace, / Have no delight to pass away the time, / Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
/ And descant on mine own deformity, / And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover.’ , the violence2
is vocal and against himself, Richard is almost the champion of his own naysayers. The soldier is
defeated by himself instead of the enemy. However, reading the opening two scenes, the second
containing Richard’s meeting with Lady Anne, it becomes clear that ‘Richard’s identity as a master
performer becomes the structural principle dramatic action’ , and that the violence is in Richard’s3
character, it is Richard’s method, it becomes him. In meeting Lady Anne Richard’s language is harsh,
‘I’ll make a corpse of him that disobeys’, but it in in this initial violence that Richard controls the
scene with charm and beauty. When Lady Anne exclaims ‘Oh, wonderful, when devils tell the truth!’,
Richard responds with ‘More wonderful when angles are so angry’ , it is the juxtaposition in4
Richard’s response that is smooth because he has manipulated the situation with violence. Lady
Anne calls him out on his violent nature, ‘Thou wast provoked by thy bloody mind, / Which never
dreamt on aught but butcheries. / Didst thou not kill this king?’ and is even given the option to kill5
Richard ‘[​He lays his breast open: she offers at it with his sword] , the violence that is thrown at6
Richard in response to the violence that he throws around ‘Thou art a traitor: / Off with his head!’7
2
​Richard III 1.1.24-28, Greenblatt, Stephen ​ed. The Norton Shakespeare: Third Edition​ .
New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2016
3
​Howard and Rackin eds. Engendering a Nation. Routledge, London, 1997. Pg 111.
4
​Richard III, 1.2.71-72
5
​Richard III, 1.2.96-98
6
​Richard III, 1.2.164
7
​Richard III, 3.4.80-81

3. 3
is a reliance ‘on his theatrical skills and his seductive charm to attain his ends’ : Richard as his own8
character is the counter-balance to his violence, one that only becomes unbalanced when Richard’s
identity fully embodies the soldier at the end of the play when he has to fight Richmond because no
sword or horse can play a reliant substitute for Richard’s bravado.
‘Martius dies not as a result of being changed but as a result of his old behaviour’ ,9
Coriolanus​,​ as Walker argues​,​ dies because of his identity as a soldier. He however is not a man of
violent language, he isn’t much a speaker, he is more of a solider than Richard and it is with violence
that Coriolanus fights violence with. The play opens with riots, a citizen calls Martius out as ‘enemy
of the people’ and rallies for his death, ‘Let us revenge this with / our pikes, ere we become rakes’10
and it is corrupt violent cities that Coriolanus combats throughout the play up until his death11
where the citizens of Corioles under influence from Aufidius kill him with chants of ‘Kill, kill, kill,
kill, kill him! / ​The CONSPIRATORS draw their swords and kill him’. The play makes it clear12
from the beginning that the main violence seeds from the anger of the plebeians towards Caius
Martius, the riots and the civil war give enough motive to understand Shakespeare’s exploration into
the nature of violence, even after Martius has defeated Aufidius in battle Menenius comments ‘Ay,
to devour him, as the hungry plebeians would the noble Martius’ . The unrest could possibly stem13
from ‘The theme of the play is a full length study of the character of an individual who suffered
from intolerable pride’ This pride however is only in existence as a result of violence. The pride is14
8
​Howard and Rackin eds. ​Engendering a Nation. pg 114
9
​Walker, Jarrett. “Voiceless Bodies and Bodiless Voices: The Drama of Human Perception in
‘Coriolanus’”. ​Shakespeare Quarterly 43.2. 1992 pp. 170-185. pg 185.
10
​Coriolanus 1.1.6, Greenblatt, Stephen ​ed. The Norton Shakespeare: Third Edition. New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2016
11
Coriolanus 1.1.19-20
12
​Coriolanus 5.6.127
13
​Coriolanus 2.1.8-9
14
​Harrison, G. B. ​Shakespeare’s Tragedies. Routledge, London, 1966. pg, 228

4. 4
set upon by Volumnia the mother when listing off Coriolanus’ wounds, ‘I’th’ shoulder and i’th’ left
arm. There will be large / cicatrices to show the people when he shall stand for his / place. He
received in the repulse of Tarquin seven hurts / i’th’ body.’ with Menenius adding precision ‘Now15
it’s twenty-seven. Every gash was an enemy’s / grave.’ . Coriolanus is portrayed by the two biggest16
influences in his life as a hero and a soldier. And when Coriolanus asks there to be ‘No more of this’
as it ‘does offend my heart’ one wonders if Coriolanus has forgotten that it was he who fought the
Volsces ‘till they be driven in breathless’. Coriolanus attitude towards himself as a soldier and the
plebeians shy’s from violence, not only that but seemingly from the maternal care and political
capital. Walker calls out Coriolanus as ‘His dominant mode of action is violence because his primary
motive is to reject his own receptivity’, this argues for the innate violent nature within Coriolanus,
the identity of the soldier, but it doesn’t quite argue for Coriolanus to take on the identity of a
violent man outright -​ ​his​ ​language is not that violent, merely his actions, this works against him
though as Coriolanus becomes a through and through solider. Coriolanus let us not forget, ‘has been
bred i’th’ wars / Since ‘a could draw a sword and is ill-schooled’ , he is a man who knows nothing17
other than to fight; Shakespeare in Coriolanus explores the downfall of knowing nothing but to kill.
The extent of Richard’s murders are not fully felt until the fourth act where Queen Margaret
puts everything in the open for the audience to reflect on, ‘If sorrow can admit society, / Tell over
your woes again by viewing mine. / I had an Edward, till a Richard killed him. / I had a Harry, till a
Richard killed him. / Thou hadst an Edward, till a Richard killed him. / Thou hadst a Richard, till a
Richard killed him.’ The listing off of the deceased by Margaret shows the audience the reach of18
15
​Coriolanus 2.1.136-139
16
​Coriolanus 2.1.144-145
17
​Coriolanus 3.2.311-312
18
​Richard III 4.4.35-40

5. 5
Richards violence, he has twisted her into the role of the bereaved mother, is has become a scene
where the female characters assume their tragic roles and where Margery has become less than a
‘dangerous, demonic, Other’ . This is all enough for us to see that nature of Richard’s violence. This19
has all become a consequence of Richard’s goal, ‘Chop off his head, man—somewhat we / will do.
/ And look when I am king’, violence is Richard’s reasoning, it is the corruptness inside of him.
Interestingly though, Barker suggests that the play ‘invites its audiences to regard Richard’s ambition
as the very essence of the world which the Tudors had swept aside.’ giving Shakespeare in writing20
Richard, a character with motive as Shakespeare would have written the violence as historical and
moral over plain gratuity. The play ends with Richard transferring his violent yet charming identity
into the mould of the soldier, into the mould of Coriolanus, ‘Slave, I have set my life upon a cast, /
And I will stand the hazard of the die. / I think there be six Richmonds in the field; / Five have I
slain today instead of him. / A horse, a horse, a kingdom for a horse!’ , these last words of21
Richard’s explore his personal dynamic representation of violence, he will stand in the middle of the
violence and will become a sacrifice, a victim of his own doings. Richard’s death reminds us on
reflection of the play that ‘the fundamental structuration of the tragedy seems to exist to ensure that
revolutionary popular violence is not one of the lessons that could be taken positively from the
theatre out into the wider society.’22
With that last quote in mind we can close looking at ​Coriolanus. It is when Coriolanus
returns to Corioles his final few words see to his death in pride, he jeers the crowd on, he says ‘I /
19
​Howard and Rackin eds. ​Engendering a Nation. pg 106
20
​Baker, Simon. ​War and Nation in the Theatre of Shakespeare pg 125
21
​Richard III 5.4.9-13
22
​Baker, Francis. ​The Culture of Violence: Essays on Tragedy and History. Manchester University
Press, Manchester, 1993. pg 89.

6. 6
Fluttered your Volscians in Corioles. / Alone I did it. “Boy”!’ Coriolanus doesn’t even try to23
subdue the crowd, the soldier is celebrating in the soldier's efforts and he dies leaving the conflict
between the Romans and Volscians open. The violence of the soldier in the tragedy of ​Coriolanus is
reflected on with delight - the soldier does what he does and that is kill and why should he not
celebrate that if he has done his job so well? Shakespeare proves that Coriolanus has clear enough
motive for his violence, he is violent by occupation and he is good at it.
Shakespeare uses the representation of violence in ​Richard III and ​Coriolanus to give depth
to the eponymous characters. We want to understand their violent nature because violence is
typically an attribute of a villain. We live in a society where it is the norm to be​ ​brought up to be
good and behave in a non-violent manner; to see the title characters of the two plays made with
violence at their core opposes our archetypal views on what a title character should be. The
representation of violence makes us look at ourselves.​ ​Shakespeare uses violence to create a
character study, studies that show the ends that violence gives to the characters. Shakespeare gives
violence two large voices and gives them ambition and motive, Shakespeare shows that violence is
natural, and that nature, if anything, can easily be misunderstood.
WORD COUNT: 2131
23
​Coriolanus, 5.6.112-114

7. 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, Francis. ​The Culture of Violence: Essays on Tragedy and History. Manchester University
Press, Manchester, 1993.
Barker, Simon. ​War and Nation in the Theatre of Shakespeare And His Contemporaries. Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh, 2007.
Dollimore, Jonathan. ​Radical Tragedy, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, 1989.

8. 8
Greenblatt, Stephen ​ed. The Norton Shakespeare: Third Edition. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, 2016
Harrison, G. B. ​Shakespeare’s Tragedies. Routledge, London, 1966.
Howard and Rackin eds. Engendering a Nation. Routledge, London, 1997
Walker, Jarrett. “Voiceless Bodies and Bodiless Voices: The Drama of Human Perception in
‘Coriolanus’”. ​Shakespeare Quarterly 43.2. 1992 pp. 170-185.
[Accessed Online] Available from ​http://www.jstor.org/stable/2870880
Bottom of 176-177
185 for argument