Dynamics of Power in Coriolanus

Coriolanus could be seen as a commentary of James I’s England, as the story revolves around the political vacuum Rome is undergoing after transitioning from a monarchy into a democracy. The story’s protagonist is Coriolanus, a military general from Rome who eventually turns against his home city due to his egotistical prideful nature and his inability to balance between military and political power. Coriolanus thus dominates military power but lacks in political strategic understanding, and hence is unable to secure the role of consul because of his inability to gain the support of the lower classes. His fate leads to his death by the hands of his quasi-antagonist, Tullus Aufidius because he was unable to be flexible in his values and to strategize politically on the long term. Aufidius, on the other hand, is a Volsce and is thus enemy to Rome. He is vastly different to Coriolanus because of his understanding of politics, and his ability to be flexible in his values. When Coriolanus comes to offer his service after being banished, Aufidius is able to place his grudges aside to create an alliance that will provide him with the upper hand later in the play. His opportunistic nature makes him powerful. As for Volumnia, Coriolanus’ mother, she is powerful in her disguised political puppeteering of Coriolanus and her matriarchal influence over him. This materializes itself in her ability to convince him to forge a peace treaty with Rome instead of invading it. Consequently, she is venerated at the end of the play. Lastly, Sicinius and Brutus, the tribunes, are politically powerful in their ability to influence and continuously sway the opinion of the citizens and change the course of Roman politics with their votes. 

By analyzing the types of ways in which the different characters are powerful and by looking at their respective outcomes, Shakespeare is implying, first and foremost, that political knowledge, strategizing and flexibility in terms of values is crucial for gaining political power. Secondly, it is implied that an autocratic government is unstable or at least, autocrats that are ignorant to the interests of the lower classes will lead to chaos. In terms of meritocracy, Shakespeare is to an extent criticizing this method of appointing a politician– based on that theory, Coriolanus should have been appointed consul because of all his sacrifices for Rome yet he was killed in the end. Volumnia, on the other hand, was the character that was least likely to rise to power because she was a woman, yet turned out to have the most profitable outcome. This also implies that there is no perfect politician and that the one that acquires power is the one that is aware of the sacrifices and changes that are required in order to get that position.