 |
 |
Geoffrey Hill was certainly brilliant, (talking about Coriolanus mostly). I liked especially his idea of the fruitful tension in most Shakespeare plays between the fatalistic and the miraculous. But - those who heard the broadcast - wasn't there a sleight of hand in his argument? He started by asking for a polyphonic reading of Shakespeare, but ended by arguing for a single interpretation of the key scene of Coriolanus (where C is persuaded by his mother) and caricaturing as sentimental the response that C is right to give in to maternal pressure. I think that Shakespeare leaves both ethical possibilities open, and the power of the scene comes precisely from the incompatibility of the two responses. By arguing purely for the tough Roman virtues, Hill runs the risk of reducing the scene to something less complex. Hill talked very well about C as the hero who doesn't know who he is. I think it's possible to see his mother as the one who exposes this, and his decision not to destroy the city as at least a step towards recognising who and what he is. George ______________________________________________ George Simmers Snakeskin Poetry Webzine is at http://www.snakeskin.org.uk %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%