Plutarch's Lives: Coriolanus

Coriolanus is remembered in our time (when he is remebered at all) thanks to Shakespeare, who told Coriolanus' story in one of his lesser known tragedies. By Plutarch's (and the Bard's) telling, Coriolanus' tragedy was this: while he was a brave and honorable man with much greatness in him, his arrogant personality was ill suited to the demands of politicking in a republic. While the Romans respected and admired him, they did not love him and by the end they were actively at war with him. In the end, Coriolanus - who exemplified many of the best aspects of the Roman character - died the lonely death of the exile.

Coriolanus (nee' Caius Marcius, Coriolanus was a name given later) was born into a noble Roman family and came of age during the transition period between the last of the Roman kings and the birth of the Republic. In fact, Coriolanus first joined the army and fought in battle during the final campaign against the exiled king Tarquinus. Coriolanus was recognized early on as having an aptitude for battlefield tactics and strategy, as well as being personally brave. He also showed himself to be one who was never content to rest on his laurels, and always looked to improve himself and prospects. What set him apart from his fellow patricians, however, was his integrity.

Having established the Republic, the patricians in the senate found the transition from rule by decree to rule by the consent of the governed difficult. The Romans found themselves bedeviled by the same issues that Solon confronted: the demand from the common people for the forgiveness of their debts. After an increasingly hostile debate, the plebians essentially went on strike, refusing to participate in a military call-up when war was declared against the Volscians. Coriolanus led the faction arguing against the forgiveness of debts, vehemently arguing that the behavior of the common people was near treason and would eventually lead to the destruction of Rome once the plebians learned they could vote largesses for themselves out of the treasury. The timeless lament of the conservative! Coriolanus did not win the argument and, for his vehemence, came to be seen by many as a something of an anti-democrat.

The war against the Volscians, however, proved to be coriolanus' greatest moment. He participated in the siege of the city of Corioli. He not only distinguished himself in battle, he led a daring raid that captured the city. He then interrupted the plundering and ordered his men to march to the aid of a second Roman contingent fighting some distance away. Coriolanus rode up, still covered in the blood and sweat from the battle of Corioli and immediately swept into the center of the action, playing a significant part in the Roman victory. For his signal bravery and leadership, Coriolanus was given the name "Coriolanus" to memorialize his victory at the late siege. He was also offered 10% of the spoils from the expedition, but gallantly refused this. For this he was, for once in his life, acclaimed by the common people.

Upon returning to Rome, Coriolanus stood for consul. However, the old controversies between the patricians and plebes - and Coriolanus' opposition to the demands of the people - reared up again. A number of tribunes of the people generated several controversies causing sedition and unrest in the city. The patricians were approached by a city that had been ravaged by a plague and sought to become a Roman colony through repopulation by Romans. The Coriolanus' faction in the senate thought this would be the perfect way to get rid of the rebellious elements in the city, but the plan blew up in their faces when the tribunes began telling wild tales about the patricians plotting to exile varous citizens. The common people also began agitating for government controls on the price of corn, another thing that Coriolanus was against. When a large shipment of corn arrived in Rome, the senate saw this as a temporary way out of the controversy, but Coriolanus argued against distributing the corn at below-market prices.

At this point the relationship between Coriolanus and the people reached its breaking point. Coriolanus was not corrupt or venal. All agreed that he was a noble and honorable man of integrity. He was acclaimed throughout the city as a brave warrior, and exemplary leader. Moreover, he was well regarded for his willingness to sacrifice his own financial and personal interests for the sake of Rome. In fact, this is what caused his rupture with the people. just as he sacrificed for Rome, he expected the people to do so as well. Further, he repeatedly warned in public speeches and in private conversation that the Republic would not be able to survive if the patrician class sought favor from the plebes by granting them their seemingly bottomless demands for wealth from the treasury. Plutarch (and Shakespeare) quotes at length from Coriolanus' speeches on this theme. While he was have been correct in his analysis (certainly the annual disbursement of corn came to be an expensive entitlement that drove Rome into fiscal disarray), he was making an unpopular argument in as impolitic manner as possible. Despite his greatness of character, Coriolanus came to be despised. Finally, he was placed on trial and sentenced to permanent banishment.

Having been exiled, Coriolanus traveled to the land of the Volscians, where he raised an army and began to march on Rome. The Romans found themselves out-generaled by Coriolanus, and the city was in danger of conquest. The Romans sought to placate Coriolanus, but his anger at his banishment was still hot. He declared that he would not withdraw unless the Romans returned the Volscians' wealth and made them Roman citizens. After much debate in the city, Coriolanus' wife and mother, who had remained in Rome, went to him as supplicants and begged him to leave Rome in peace. Coriolanus' anger was finally quelled by the words of these women. He removed the Volscian army from the field and retreated. While the Romans acclaimed Coriolanus for his forbearance, the Volscians were furious. Once he was back in their kingdom, Coriolanus was executed after a short show trial. His family was allowed to mourn him, but he was deprived of the funeral honors that would have normally been his due.

Coriloanus' story is one that has plenty of contemporary resonance for modern-day conservatives who are wondering how best to get their message out. In a word: whatever Coriolanus did, do the opposite! He may have been correct in arguing that a republic should always be careful in its public expenditures, lest the electorate vote increasing subsidies for themselves until the treasury is empty (this is a fundamental conservative position. I believe this is one of the earliest articulations of this basic problem with republican government, so Coriolanus' story should be seen as a totemic conservative). But, Coriolanus' charmless arrogant manner of arguing his position persuaded no one. For all of his greatness, his complete failure in the arts of persuasion was his downfall. Plutarch explicitly compares Coriolanus to Alcibiades, noting that Alcibiades' powers of persuasion were so strong, he was able to return to rule the Greeks even after he had made war against them. 

Plutarch allows that Coriolanus was handicapped by the basic unpopularity of his positions - a politician can always win votes by promising cheap food and the forgiveness of debts, after all. But, plutarch also notes that there were plenty of Roman politicians who managed to put across the Coriolanus position in a much more persuasive manner. As Ronald Reagan could have told Coriolanus: it's the singer, not the song, that is often the most important.