Larger Purposes Served by Characterization of Martius in Act I

Coriolanus very evidently is characterized as the nearly stereotypical alpha male in the first Act, primarily in how his pride and brute force are his most prominent virtues. Essentially, he is looked upon as a figure of authority due to his physicality and valor, primarily portrayed in how he was able to defeat the Volsces single handedly when he trapped in Corioles. However, this is only one facet of his personality. The other side of the coin that the audience is exposed to is that of his arrogance and condescension, observed in his harsh treatment of the plebeians. Nevertheless, whilst this may show a subtle complexity in his personality, it all serves a larger political purpose. Shakespeare has created a parallel between post-monarchy (King Tarquin) Rome and pre-Civil War England (King James I). Both Coriolanus and King James share coincide in their egotistical treatment of the lower classes, and hence, Shakespeare makes a commentary on what ground should authority be justified and embraced. Simultaneously, however, Shakespeare comments on the hypocrisy politicians can exude as it is seen later in Act 2 how Coriolanus swallows his pride to buy the votes of the plebeians regardless of his intrinsic hate for them. All of this serves as a resonant message of the level of trust that should be deposited in our authorities, and hence, avoid idealizing them. On more political terms, it could also be said that Shakespeare is making a commentary on the use of populism, as often times, those authority figures will adopt that political method in order to gain the support of the lower classes (often the majority), regardless of whether they truly hold their interests at heart. Considering how Coriolanus’ tragic faults observed in his personality foreshadow to his downfall subsequently in the play, it could also be deduced that Shakespeare larger purpose is to criticize authoritarian political regimes as a whole. A parallel is seen in how Coriolanus’ commits treason and creates a chaotic political climate in Rome in the form of a power vacuum, and how King James I authoritarian ruling led to the planting of the seeds of the English Civil War. Collectively considering this, it is thus concluded that authoritarian rulers lead only but to the political breakdown of their respective societies and a complete absence of democracy. 

Shakespeare’s greater purpose in the characterization of Martius in Act 1 is also observed in the contrasts between conflicts experienced in the battlefield and the Capitol. Since Coriolanus interacts with both of these conflicts, it serves to further support that brute strength does not share a interdependent relationship with politics but rather the opposite– it is more wit and social intelligence that account for a successful politician. This is reinforced in the stark contrast between the characterizations of Meninius and Martius, with the former having more patience and understanding of the lower classes’ demands. On a larger scale, it could be said that Coriolanus’ inability to cope with the conflicts of the Capitol (as his brute strength virtues have no value there) serve to foreshadow his downfall as Shakespeare tried to communicate that a successful ruler must be flexible in his virtues and understandings of the society’s demands.