The most difficult situation faced by Coriolanus that can be his internal conflict is when Coriolanus has to forgive Rome as the consequence of his
personal love to his mother. After Menenius and Cominius , Coriolanus’ Roman
friends, are failed to beg Coriolanus ’ mercy for Rome, Only Volumnia,
Coriolanus’ mother, a person whom Rome depends on the most, goes to Volsce to beg Coriolanus’ mercy. If Coriolanus receives his mother’ request, it means that
he forgives Roman people who banish him. On the other hand, it also means that he betrays Volscians who support him to be their military general.
CORIOLANUS. O mother, mother What have you done? Behold, the heavens do ope, the gods look down, and this unnatural scene they
laugh at. O my mother, mother O You have won a happy victory to Rome; but for your son,
– believe it, O believe it – most dangerously you have with him prevail’d, if not most mortal to him. But let it come.
Aufidius, though I cannot make true wars, I’ll frame convenient peace. Shakespeare, 1942:1328
Coriolanus’ bravery to love his mother and to forgive Rome leads him to his death. Coriolanus is assasinated by the Volscians with accusation as traitor of
Volsce. However, Coriolanus is remembered as a tragic hero who reconciles Rome and Volsce from war and enmity.
B. Moral Values of Leadership
Having discussed the characteristics of the main character through the analysis of main character attitudes and conflicts, in this part the writer presents
the revelation of moral values of leadership from the play. The moral values of leadership which are analyzed from the characteristics of main character include
the attitudes and the conflicts. In this analysis, the writer is helped by Moral-
philosophical Approach to reveal moral values of leadership in the play. Accompanying it, with the assistance of theory of leadership both classic and
modern, the writer is helped to indicate whether or not those moral values have relevance between the classic ones and the modern ones. This part is also to
answer second problem formulation. It has been understood before that works of literature have functions to
teach morality. The author of the play, William Shakespeare, has certainly intention to teach morality through his written or performed play. With an
intention to understand deeply what kind of moral teaching the play contains, the writer gains some moral values of leadership.
1. Serving Followers Wholeheartedly
A good leader is expected to serve followers wholeheartedly. In the play, Coriolanus who is described as a kingly leader of Rome is expected to serve his
country wholeheartedly. It means that Coriolanus must serve all people of Rome. In Coriolanus’ case, by using his power, Coriolanus seems to serve only the
patricians of Rome. Coriolanus defends the rights of patricians mostly. When the rebel happens, Coriolanus stands clearly on the side of the patrician
“corn for the rich men only Shakespeare
, 1942:1291.” Coriolanus comprehends that the essential part of a country is only the patricians, but he ignores the common
people. Actually in this context, it is necessary to understand that a country belongs to whole people in a region, in this case, whole people of Rome and the
patricians as government and military.
Coriolanus ’ track record in military is more viewed as to satisfy the goals
of the patricians. His successful mission to defeat Corioli, one of enemy’s towns
is the ambition of the patricians. It can be said that Coriolanus does not wholeheartedly serve Rome. Noticing, that
Coriolanus’ favor is mostly for the patricians only and that he ignores the common people make it improper to call
him a paragon of a good leader. By the same token, people are afraid if Coriolanus becomes tyranny and then oppresses them. Thus, from the fact that conflict
happens such as people reject him to be their consul strengthen the argument that Coriolanus’ lack of the qualification of a good leader. That is how from the play,
readers can learn that to be a good leader; one has to apply moral values of leadership such as serving wholeheartedly. Referring to Gary Yulk
’s 2006:424 modern criterion of ethical leadership, moral value of serving followers
wholeheartedly which is revealed from the play has close relation to the use of power and influence. The play contains moral value that a leader should be able to
use power and influence to serve followers instead of oppressing followers.
2. Balancing and Integrating Followers
Moral value of leadership in Shakespeare’
Coriolanus
is concomitant to Gary Yulk
’s 2006:424 criterion of handling diverse interest of multiple stakeholders which is reflected in the play. It is important to be known again that
followers in a country include the patricians or government and the common people. The existence of the patricians and the common people is like a coin
which has both sides and they cannot be separated from each other. The patrician
and the common people should support each other in order to reach their country’s
goals. Basically Coriolanus who plays a role as a kingly leader of Rome has
assignment to balance and to integrate his followers. Coriolanus’ assignment to
balance his followers means that Coriolanus has to arrange the various interests or rights of the patricians and common people in compatible way. While his
assignment to integrate his followers means that Coriolanus has to be able to combine the various interest or rights of the patricians and the common people
through a good agreement. Coriolanus’ arrogance and abhorrence to the common people shows his
disability to balance and integrate his followers. Coriolanus does not take a negotiable way when he responds to
people’s demonstration. He even mocks people
“you dissentious rogues Shakespeare, 1942:1291.” It is certainly notified that
Coriolanus cannot balance and integrate the patricians’ interest and the common people’s interest. Moreover, another aspect of leadership that can be
analyzed and extracted from the play is the way a leader communicates with people he leads.
A leader’s capability to communicate in a good manner is another essential aspect for a good leadership.
In Coriolanus’ case, the way Coriolanus responds to
people’s demonstration impolitely is clearly unacceptable “SICINIUS. He cannot temp’rately transport his honours from where he should
begin and end, but will lose those he hath won Shakespeare, 1942:1301 ”. This
also implies that Coriolanus failed in the process of influencing his followers to understand and agree with him about their collective goal. Coriolanus is failed
