The characterisation of Caius Martius

Throughout the play, the character Caius Martius is exhibited to be emphasizing as an anti-hero, possessing qualities of dislike amongst the plebeians. Coriolanus’ first appearance in the play is presented toward the audience with a negative connotation in the play, providing conflict between two social groups of the Plebeians and the Patricians.  The intended audience is for and Elizabethan audience, in which we have discussed in class that this is in fact a political play where the Elizabethan audience would be very familiar with the political motives and situations of Kings James I.

The play starts of with he Plebeians as savages and un educated with how they hold up their pitch forks and weaponry, however we can see this juxtaposition of Coriolanus who walks in being far worse as a Patrician. The political play begins as how the grain isn’t easily distributed amongst the Plebicians, and blame Coriolanus’ social group. We can begin to see that Shakespeare has presented Coriolanus as being a villainous character as the Plebeians resent him and his attitude is seen as very rude and unliked. Perhaps Shakespeare has exhibited Shakespeare in this way due to the contrasting shocking first impression against the end character of Coriolanus, developing this character who embodies a political issue and is seen to change throughout the nature of the play.

Another things Shakespeare has revealed about Caius Martius’ character in the opening of the play is how these two social groups are both effected by this character, showing the development and how the political issue cannot move on without this development through the play as seen in the unsatisfying Roman citizens toward Coriolanus. Perhaps the social party plays part of a systematic society of how the characters are being portrayed in their development as Coriolanus is exhibited as rigorous in the opening in the play in contrast to the last scene.

Martius is also exhibited to clearly establish to the audience that his role in the play is very much separated from the social ranking of the Plebeians as they are in the lower class.  This results in how each character develops off one another, exhibiting that the Plebeians portray him as an anti-hero as in act one he is shown fighting charismatically in war. Coriolanus is a vital part to the opening of this play as Shakespeare clearly emphasizes on the foreshadowing of how the situations of political tension will further heighten to the later major conflicts of this play. His arrogance is something that could perhaps classify him as a classical hero, as many of them were arrogant, presenting to the audience of his three dimensional character.

Lastly, in the outcome of the play, Coriolanus is exhibited as a tragic hero after the development. The character as mentioned above is very important as highly developed throughout this play as they create contrast from the opening scene to the last scene as Shakespeare has used this to develop the key conflicts in this play. Its interesting that Shakespeare has used such a figure represented as a anti hero in the beginning to develop key conflicts within the play.

The only speaker of his tongue

Through this passage “only speaker of is tongue” Malouf illustrates how one language can eliminate another language. This can be seen when the slave talks in english, showing how he is refrained from  speaking his own language because no-one else can speak it. In other words, he cannot converse with another. Unlike how he can speak english with the people surrounding him as it represents a large population. This is portrayed in Malouf’s story of how a language is seen to be dead, because no-one is speaking it anymore. The slave speaks a language that is dead, therefore the metaphorical implement of the slave being silent. 

Although, I do see that although the language isn’t spoken, the language is not exactly dead however just cannot be see and is hidden though his life. This slave has managed to still keep the language alive, and the language and culture still remains within him and the culture is not dead, referring to what I have learnt in previous lessons how culture is interconnected with your language. 

Within this passage, the slave continues on with his work as is seen to be powerless and obedient, perhaps suggesting that he is conforming to the way of speaking english and is powerless to speak up with his own language as no-one around him can speak it, so he has to do the same job and speak the same language. His life is conforming just like the other workers around him and that there is no uniqueness and forces him to be the same like everybody around him. 

What is the value of preserving indigenous languages?

For example: Consider aboriginal languages with rich vocabularies used to describe the natural world.

Aboriginal Languages are diminishing by the second, and evidently in that final moment, a culture is lost forever. Preserving languages in general is important because phrases and traditions are untranslatable in a foreign language. Indeginous languages involve the same idea. Indigenous languages are rarely heard or seen as they are typically dominated by colonial power, in which it is seen as oppressed language. In my opinion, the value of preserving indegenous languages are highly important, because there are many information and discoveries that are within these languages that either are untranslatable or havent yet been discovered by anglo phones. Perhaps it is this way because of their lifestyle, as many aborignals for example work with curing by using herbs and remedies by plantations. Also, through extensive research in the Manchu language for example, indeginous language may preserve past recorded histories. This could potentially be informative and useful to the dominating culture of that specific country. Therfore so far, I have used its importance in terms of history, and medicine/ remedies. Another reason, is that like I stated in the beginning, a culture can be lost forever.

From experience, losing your language can prevent you from maintaining your culture. For instance, a common practice in that specific culture has been said in their language for generations, and the younger future generation won’t comprehend the meaning of why that practice exists because it is no longer said in their langage. Some hidden meanings and way of life and celebrations would be lost in that language.

Lastly, I think the great value in preserving indigenous languages are because in my opinion, that would be considered the mother tongue or root language of the country before colonisation. Therefore, if that indigenous language is lost, then the history of the language would be gone, as the language is connected to the founding of the country, the meaning and way of life would be gone, the the country would be completely foreign and strange to what it once was supposed to be. 

By this, I portray that the language is connected to the root of the country, therefore once another language has been introduced to it, the soul of the country is gone because the language is lost.