Coriolanus

Act III of Coriolanus depicts the main character’s downfall due to his own hubris, once again speaking to The Role of Personality in Individual Behavior. While the tribunes have schemed against his bid for the consulship, Coriolanus is finally undone by his own unwillingness to humble himself before the common people. Despite his success as a military leader, Coriolanus’s pride prevents him from becoming a civic leader, as he is unable to tolerate any slight by a person he perceives as his social inferior. Shakespeare explores the source of this pride throughout Act III, indicating how Coriolanus’s inability to perform humility originates in a fear of destabilizing his own sense of self and individual identity.

At the beginning of the Act, Coriolanus justifies his refusal to reconcile with the tribunes by arguing that their actions are treasonous to Rome, raising the specter of The Dangers of Internal Political Conflict if the commoners and their tribunes hold too much sway. He tells his patrician allies that apologizing to the people will only worsen their rebellion, claiming that, “In soothing them, we nourish ’gainst our senate / The cockle of rebellion, insolence, sedition / Which we ourselves have plowed for, sowed, and / Scattered” (3.1.90-94, emphasis added). Using the agricultural metaphor ties his words back to the original grain riots that created unrest in Rome in Act I, with Coriolanus arguing that rewarding such behavior will lead to even more rebellion by the plebeians. However, he is unwilling to make pragmatic compromises to accomplish his political goals.

Volumnia warns him that it is unwise to publicly express such sentiments until he actually has the power to rein in the people, telling him, “Lesser had been / The thwartings of your dispositions if / You had not showed them how you were disposed / Ere they lacked power to cross you” (3.2.24-27). Coriolanus could have still been a strict ruler over the plebeians if he had not revealed his plan to remove their rights before he actually had the power to legally do so. However, he views such behavior as contrary to his own nature, valuing the maintenance of his individual virtue over anything else.

Coriolanus refuses to apologize to the plebeians because he believes that saying anything he does not fully believe will dishonor him. Volumnia counsels him to say what he must even if he does not believe it, comparing it to a strategy in warfare that would bring him no dishonor:

VOLUMNIA. Now, this no more dishonors you at all

Than to take in a town with gentle words,

Which else would put you to your fortune and

The hazard of much blood.

I would dissemble with my nature where

My fortunes and my friends at stake required

I should do so in honor (3.2.74-80).

Despite this, Coriolanus still holds reservations about acting in a way contrary to his authentic self, further developing the play’s theme of The Role of Personality in Individual Behavior. He worries that if he apologizes, he will “by [his] body’s action, teach [his] mind / A most inherent baseness” (3.2.149-150). This debate between mother and son signifies a key difference between the two of them. While Volumnia has taught her son to value honor, military service, and nobility, Coriolanus finds it impossible to perform anything other than his own true nature. While Volumnia is willing to give off the appearance of humility or gentleness when it is required to achieve her goals, Coriolanus fears that doing so will compromise his own individual identity, turning him into a person that he is not.

By the end of the Act, Coriolanus has failed to win over the love of the people and is banished from the city as a result. His final words to the plebeians and the tribunes indicate his absolute hatred and disregard for their political authority: “You common cry of curs, whose breath I hate / As reek o’ th’ rotten fens, whose loves I prize / As the dead carcasses of unburied men / That do corrupt my air, I banish you!” (3.3.150-153). These words focus particularly on the voices of the people. While in Act II, Coriolanus was required to ask for the voices of the people, with the voice standing in as a symbol of political authority, his insult here signifies his disgust with their influence over Rome.

For Coriolanus, words and identity are one and the same, and he cannot speak what he does not believe. Degrading the voices of the people therefore indicates his complete disregard for public opinion, culminating in his final words that attempt to reverse the balance of power. If he banishes the people rather than acknowledging that they have the legitimate power to banish him, he maintains his own sense of self as an individual, whose actions matter more than the pressures of a community.