Coriolanus: Flawed Tragic Hero

The play Coriolanus is a political tragedy written by Shakespeare, that seems to reverberate themes surrounding the power of language in politics, which accounts for Coriolanus’ downfall. The play overall bestows social and political matters, specifically discussing the rift between political and military power. These themes are shaped through the actions of the protagonist, Coriolanus, who is a man of immense valor and equally great pride. However, he holds flawed traits as he is displayed as an arrogant and stubborn aristocrat. He is a member of the patrician class and is contemptuous of the plebeians. Act 1 is dynamic in terms of Coriolanus’ character development, which ultimately drives the plot and foreshadows his demise.

The play opens with the citizens rioting in the streets of Rome because they are starving and believe the aristocrats bogart the food supply. They particularity blame Coriolanus (Caius Martius) for the meager supply of grain. Coriolanus’ characterization was first revealed as he was indirectly introduced by the acrimonious remarks of the plebeians or common people. This acts as the Coriolanus’ first political conflict, as he is resented and unpopular. This is explicitly stated by the ‘First Citizen’ as he states “…Caius Martius is chief enemy to the people”(1.1.7). A nobleman by the name of Menineus arrives and is able to assuage the plebeians using his potent rhetoric. His garrulous nature led him to introducing “Fable of the Belly” parable, as he uses a metaphor of a “belly” to calm the citizens down. The plebeians refer to him as the “one that hath always loved the people” (1.1.44-45). In arrant disparity, Coriolanus’ enters the scene and displays violent resent towards the plebeians. His first words were “What’s the matter, you dissentious rogues/that, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion/make yourselves scab.” (1.1.164-166). There appears to be a stark juxtaposition between the two characters, which is evident through their lexicon. The audience is immediately stunned by his tawdry attitude towards the common people.  This foreshadows Coriolanus’ downfall and external conflicts in the play, when his political language incapacity betrays him. His arrogance acts as the root to the calamities that appear in the next sequel of events.

In contrast to these flawed traits, moving forward onto the battlefield as he manifests great heroism. A mirror image of Scene One is presented when entering warzone, with Coriolanus as the hero. His character on the battlefield is extremely contradictory to that in a political setting. “Sir, praise me not/my work hath yet not warm’d me: fare you well.” (1.5.590-591) His tone portrays him as a paladin, deeming traits of heroism and chivalry.  

In the battle with the Volsces, Coriolanus displays great heroism, with a hint of arrogance that never seems to fade. Despite this when it comes to boasting of his martial exploits, he cannot bear to be publicly praised. This is one of the qualities that portrays him a complex character, full of contradictions. “Let the first budger die the other’s slave/and the gods doom him after!” (1.8.742-743). The first noticeable thing in the conversation between Coriolanus and Aufidius is the great respect Coriolanus has for him, in comparison to the way he talks to the plebeians.  This can be attributed to the fact that Aufidius is a general, a role of honor and bravery. This means that since Coriolanus respects Aufidius, his enemy, and not his own people, proves that he treats people according to their status; another one of his tragic flaws. He then goes on and says that whoever loses the battle becomes the others’ slave. This describes great esteem and ego in Coriolanus, implying that he values his own honor and power over his own death.

The complexity of his character is extremely fallacious, he displays heroism in spite of his flawed inability when it comes to public relations. He demonstrates aristocratic arrogance and unwillingness to compromise, however this can be interpreted conversely when considering his dedication to his own values. This heroism is grounded in warfare rather than politics, which creates an imbalance and thus begetting his downfall. The first Act embeds foreshadowing of upcoming events leading to his demise.