Nancy Wallace
In Coriolanus, Shakespeare discusses the gap between how we should act and how people with their own agenda really do act. The play looks insightfully at the flaws of social classes to illustrate why society does not always function in a way that serves the greatest good for the greatest number. In society, leaders gain success through appeasing the masses, making political calculations, and playing to the vulnerabilities of others. An example of this is Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. Coriolanus tried to do what was best for Rome but failed because he did not use moderation, political calculations, or play on the vulnerabilities of others.
First, Coriolanus’ pride does not allow him to make proper judgments. John Palmer notes that when the plebeians (the majority of the Roman population) demanded fair distribution of goods and social justice, Coriolanus viewed their demand as simple ignorance stating, “They said they were an-hungry; sighed 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 (1.1. 204–208).” Coriolanus views Rome’s well-being as corrupted and undermined by the political maneuvers of the tribunes. Indeed, Donald Stauffer suggests that the collective mob’s group effort is nothing more than a political maneuver to destroy Rome.
For this reason, Coriolanus becomes isolated, which ironically is also a consequence of his refusal to give up his principles for any reason. For Coriolanus, being “political” means, “You dishonor that integrity which should becom’t” (3.1.1602).3 True patriotism is one’s aspiration to protect Rome from any kind of chaos, including domestic social unrest. Moreover, Coriolanus believes the tribunes, who were elected by the common people, are mere cliques that come together to promote their self-interest by using the plebeians to gain support. He is also angry at the tribunes’ accusations that he would come to power and ignore all democratic practices. Coriolanus believes Rome’s problems are caused by the self-interest of the tribunes and the cowardice of the plebeians. He perceives the tribunes and the plebeians as a rebellious and ignorant mob and will not compromise his personal code of honor even to pacify them and thereby more effectively lead. The tribunes, on the other hand, consider Coriolanus to be a threat to Rome during peacetime because he refuses all traditional and politically obligatory acts of supplication and does not associate with the commoners of Rome. In other words, no rubber chicken banquets or baby kissing for this politician!
Unfortunately, the tragedy of Coriolanus is that he puts honor and principle above economic and political self-interest and his opponents do the opposite. Impractically, he believes that because of his achievements in battle, he should automatically be accorded the honors and titles of a successful military leader. He believes that the wounds he obtained in battle demonstrate his leadership ability, thereby making him an appropriate consul. For example, in the ceremony where Coriolanus is to be installed consul of Rome, he refuses to wear the required gown of humility and appear before the public. For this reason, he is denied consulship. Because Coriolanus is too individualistic, he does not appeal to the people. It is his individualism that ultimately leads to his demise.
Throughout Coriolanus, the concept of arete is examined. Arete is the Greek concept of excellence. According to Joan Goellnitz, everything from horses to gods to people (both female and male) could achieve “arête.” Arete, according to Homer (who was probably the first to articulate the idea), is defined by acts of great valor in war and great feats in athletics in peace that would acquire kleos (glory). In Greek society, only the aristocratic class could possess arete. Coriolanus, like Homer’s Odysseus, demonstrated his arete through his military achievements. Today, arete can be translated to signify an individual attaining his or her highest human potential; it refers directly to nobility and honor in action and in mind. Arete also means excellence within something. For a runner, arete is speed; for a warrior, arete is bravery and acts of valor. Note, however, that arete is not a moral concept. It does not necessarily mean that a skilled warrior is performing a moral act when he kills his enemy, any more than a tiger is morally virtuous when it kills its prey. In both cases, there is high achievement but not necessarily moral goodness.
Coriolanus possessed arete on the battlefield, but lacked arete when it came to dealing with the masses. Coriolanus’ mistake comes from having military arete but lacking political arete primarily; he passes moral judgment on those whose respect he must gain to be successful.
Through Coriolanus, Shakespeare evaluates the relationship between the rich and the poor. Coriolanus is placed as the main figure in order to illustrate the importance of this class conflict. For example, the play begins in the middle of a civil conflict between the plebeians and the patricians. The opening scene refers to a “mutinous mob” that is threatening to revolt because of a severe grain shortage. One citizen states:
They ne’er cared for us yet. Suffer us to famish, and their storehouses crammed with grain; make edicts for usury and support usurers; repeal daily an wholesome act established against the rich; and provide more piercing statutes daily to chain up and restrain the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will, there’s all the love they bear us. (1.1.77–84)
Coriolanus, however, considers the mob to be untrustworthy and immature. He does not want their support and does not feel he should be forced to ask for it. The plebeians complain there is a need for social reform. While the plebeians values are different from those of Coriolanus, their ultimate goal is the same: the plebeians and Coriolanus want to protect Rome from chaos in order to live in peace. Nevertheless, the differences between these two parties makes it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve success. The most important issue for the plebeians is stability through a fair distribution of wealth. In contrast, Coriolanus’ most important value is to be a good military leader.
Finally, because of Coriolanus’ aristocratic pride, he feels that the common people should be excluded from state business. In contrast to this, the plebeians feel that the state is the people and, therefore, they should have as much involvement as the aristocrats. From Coriolanus’ point of view, the participation of the plebeians can never lead to progress because the common people are unqualified. He further is convinced that Rome’s political success should be strictly an aristocratic effort. He fights against those whom he views as enemies and destroyers of Rome. Coriolanus is presented as the soul of Rome. As a military leader, he is noble and admirable. In his own mind, he is the servant of a state in which all the citizens should be servants. However, he feels that the majority of the citizens want the rewards of his military efforts but that they do not want to help him in his military conquests. Additionally, Coriolanus demonstrates that there is a gap that cannot be bridged between his individual values and public values. Coriolanus is proud, arrogant, and associated with the patrician class. However, Shakespeare suggests that Coriolanus should not be condemned because of these characteristics, because while his characteristics do no work well in peace, they do work well in the time of war.
In the final scene of Coriolanus, Aufidius goes into a rage regarding Coriolanus. Aufidius was once Coriolanus’ arch enemy and fought against Coriolanus when he fought with the Volscians. However, Coriolanus joins the Volscians and fights alongside Aufidius, not against him. Aufidius and his supporters are so enraged by Coriolanus’ boasting that Aufidius kills him. Aufidius is cheered on by all but one. That one lord says that Coriolanus is too noble to have been killed, while Aufidius insists that he was far too dangerous to be left alive. Still, there is sorrow that he is dead; even Aufidius admits that he is struck with sadness. Therefore, they decide to honor Coriolanus’ memory and give him a hero’s funeral. It is evident from this final scene that the emotional complexities of politics can both make and destroy a man. Coriolanus is guilty of pride but, at the same time, he is noble and possesses integrity. Shakespeare created a character wherein his audience could see the revolting, as well as the admirable. In the end, Coriolanus is able to achieve exactly what he desired initially: nobility. Aufidius states that Coriolanus “shall have a noble memory” (5.6.153). Coriolanus who lived according to his principles was hailed as a hero.
Works Cited
Chambers, E. K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
Crew, Jonathan. Introduction. In William Shakespeare, Coriolanus. New York: Penguin Books, 1998.
Goellnitz, Joan. Arete: Excellence, Virtue, Knowledge. New York, New York University Press, 1993.
Kermode, Frank. Writing about Shakespeare. London Review of Literature 21, no. 24, December 9, 1999.
Palmer, John. Political Characters of Shakespeare. London, Macmillan & Co.,1961.
Phillips, James, E. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Coriolanus: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1970.
Wells, Stanley. Shakespeare: A Life in Drama. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1995.
Shakespeare, William. Coriolanus. New York: Penguin Books, 1998.
The Tragedy of Coriolanus. Edited by John Dover Wilson. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969.