Coriolanus

Act II focuses on Coriolanus’s unsuccessful bid to become the consul of Rome, indicating that his refusal to play political games and his inability to put on a public performance of humility leads to him losing what seemed to be a certain victory. Shakespeare hints at the ways in which popular approval is easy to manipulate, suggesting that it is based more upon flattery than merit. Coriolanus’s refusal to flatter the plebeians is both a fault, denoting his pride, but also a virtue, conveying honesty. Both his virtues and flaws reflect The Role of Personality in Individual Behavior as he attempts to translate his military success into political promotion. 

A key symbol of political flattery is the wounds that Coriolanus receives during battle. While Coriolanus frequently leaves ceremonies where his deeds are praised, saying that his wounds hurt and need to be tended, everyone else is eager to see the wounds. When he returns to the city, his own mother exclaims “O, he is wounded, I thank the gods for ’t” (2.1.125) and his friend Menenius replies, “So do I too, if it be not too much. Brings he / victory in his pocket, the wounds become him” (2.1.126-127). Shakespeare draws attention to the ironic behavior of Coriolanus’s family and friends. A caring mother and friend would not normally wish for him to be injured, but the fact that the wounds are public symbols of his valor that raise his social reputation means that they are actually beneficial to Coriolanus in his pursuit of the consulship.

However, when Coriolanus is asked to display his wounds to the plebeians to win their support for his consulship, he is reluctant to the point of self-sabotage. He does not want to show his wounds, promising that he will only do so in private, and speaking sarcastically when asked to perform humility, declaring: “Look, sir, my wounds! / I got them in my country’s service when / Some certain of your brethren roared and ran / From th’ noise of our own drums” (2.3.55-58). Rather than using his wounds as a political tool to demonstrate his own devotion to the city, he instead uses them to insult the soldiers who retreated during the battle. Coriolanus’s discomfort with showing his wounds to the senate demonstrates his lack of vanity, while his reluctance to show them to the common people communicates pride, disdain, and an unwillingness to appear vulnerable before those he considers to be his social inferiors.

Throughout this Act, various characters discuss the benefits or problems with having a leader who loves the people, hates the people, or who is indifferent to public opinion. The tribunes value being loved by the people, using manipulative tactics and strategies to turn them against Coriolanus. They warn the people of the danger in having a leader who despises them and who might take away their rights, with Brutus claiming that Coriolanus only placated them “When he did need [their] loves,” and asking them, “do you think / That his contempt shall not be bruising to you / When he hath power to crush?” (2.3.223-225).

However, in another conversation between some of the officers of Rome, Shakespeare portrays another perspective. While one officer is worried that Coriolanus seems to hate the people, the second officer claims, “for Coriolanus neither to care whether / they love or hate him manifests the true knowledge / he has in their disposition and, out of his noble / carelessness, lets them plainly see ’t” (2.2.12-15). This perspective suggests that it is beneficial for a leader to be indifferent to his public reputation, as otherwise his decisions will only be made to earn the people’s love, not to benefit the whole nation.

Shakespeare leaves it ambiguous whether or not Coriolanus truly hates the plebeians or whether he is simply indifferent to their opinion, presenting both perspectives through dialogue. This opens the possibility that a critical problem with politics based upon public reputation is the tension between doing what is best and doing what is popular.