ABSTRACT
Since antiquity, the historical fiction of Coriolanus, his rise to power, his expulsion by a tribunal of the people, and his tragic death, has provided material for a political theodicy. Much of the story is, of course, sheer invention ( Lehman, 1952). Many of the details of the legend, however, do correspond to historically concrete elements within the Roman state, and, more broadly, to elements of political and social struggle that persist through the emergence of absolutist states and their successors in modern national sovereignties (Anderson, 1974a, 1974b; Guenée, 1985; Nicolet, 1980; Poggi, 1978; Richard, 1978; Strayer, 1970; Yavetz, 1969). The legend articulates a comprehensive vocabulary for the representation of the state. First, Rome is defined as a territory through the story of the war against the Volscians. Second, the internal administrative coherence of the res publica is accomplished through the interaction of three primary sociohistorical categories – Coriolanus, patricians, and plebeians and tribunate – that constitute a typology of political structure. State formation is conceived in terms of enmity and division. The solidarity of the whole is expressed through the compelling distinction between friend and foe (Poggi, 1978; Schmitt, 1976). But within that negatively determined solidarity, relations among men and women are differentiated according to a division of labor that is itself inimical and invidious (Gramsci, 1957; Marx, 1973; Poggi, 1972). Because of this orientation toward struggle, negativity, and historically determinate action, the Coriolanus legend always exceeds the boundaries of any conservative project of simple apologetics for a given historical condition of the Roman res publica or for any of the institutions of political domination that claim succession from this origin.
