Coleridge, in his Notes on Shakespeare (1818, Section IV.), calls attention to the difficulty of Aufidius' speech to his lieutenant:
Here there are puzzling expressions in detail, but they have on the whole been satisfactorily explained, and it is [p. 658] not to them that Coleridge refers.1 He says: “I have always thought this in itself so beautiful speech the least explicable from the mood and full intention of the speaker of any in the whole works of Shakespeare.” It strikes one indeed as a series of disconnected jottings that have as little to do with each other as with the situation and attitude of Aufidius. First he gives reason for expecting the capture of Rome; then he enumerates defects in Coriolanus that have led to his banishment with a supplementary acknowledgment of his merits; next he makes general reflections on the relation of virtue to the construction put upon it, and on the danger that lies in conspicuous power: thereafter he points out that things are brought to nought by themselves or their likes; and finally he predicts that when Rome is taken, he will get the better of his rival. Is there here a mere congeries of thoughts as one chance suggestion leads to another with which it happens to be casually associated; or does one thread of continuous meaning run through the whole? I would venture to maintain the latter opinion with more confidence than I do, if Coleridge had not been so emphatic. In the first place we have to remember what goes before. The report of the Lieutenant confirms the jealousy of Aufidius, who is further embittered by the hint that he is losing credit, but reflects that he can bring weighty charges against Coriolanus, and concludes:All places yield to him ere he sits down;
And the nobility of Rome are his:
The senators and patricians love him too:
The tribunes are no soldiers; and their people
Will be as rash in the repeal, as hasty
To expel him thence. I think he'll be to Rome
As is the osprey to the fish, who takes it
By sovereignty of nature. First he was
A noble servant to them; but he could not
Carry his honours even: whether ‘twas pride,
Which out of daily fortune ever taints
The happy man; whether defect of judgement,
To fail in the disposing of those chances
Which he was lord of; or whether nature,
Not to be other than one thing, not moving
From the casque to the cushion, but commanding peace
Even with the same austerity and garb
As he controlled the war; but one of these-
As he hath spices of them all, not all,
For I dare so far free him-made him fear'd,
So hated, and so banish'd, but he has a merit,
To choke it in the utterance. So our virtues
Lie in the interpretation of the time;
And power, unto itself most commendable,
Hath not a tomb so evident as a chair
To extol what it hath done.
One fire drives out one fire; one nail, one nail;
Rights by rights falter, strengths by strengths do fail.
Come, let's away. When, Caius, Rome is thine,
Thou art poor'st of all: then shortly art thou mine.
He hath left undoneThereupon the Lieutenant meaningly rejoins:
That which shall break his neck or hazard mine,
Whene'er we come to our account.
Sir, I beseech you, think you he'll carry Rome?It is a contingency to be reckoned with, for clearly if Rome falls, any previous mistakes or complaisances alleged against the conqueror will find ready pardon. So Aufidius discusses the matter in the light of these two main considerations: (1) that he must get rid of his rival, and (2) that his rival may do the state a crowning service. He [p. 659] admits that Coriolanus, what with his own efficiency, what with the friendliness of one class in Rome and the helplessness of the remainder, is likely to achieve the grand exploit. How then will Aufidius' chances stand? Formerely Marcius deserved as well of his own country when he had overthrown Corioli, yet that did not secure him. What qualities in himself discounted his services to Rome and may again discount his services to Antium? Pride of prosperity, disregard of his opportunities, his unaccommodating peremptory behaviour — all of these faults which in point of fact afterwards contributed to his death — brought about his banishment, though truly he had merit enough to make men overlook such trifles. This shows how worth depends on the way it is taken, and how ability, even when of the sterling kind that wins its own approval, may find the throne of its public recognition to be, more properly, its certain grave. Thus likes counteract likes; the greater the popularity, the greater the reaction; the great the superiority, the more certainly it will balk itself. So, and this is the conclusion of the whole matter, even when Marcius has won Rome by a greater conquest than when he won Corioli, the result will be the same. His proud, imprudent and overbearing conduct will obscure his high deserts. These will be construed only by public opinion, and the very prowess in which he delights will rouse an adulation, which when he is no longer required, will swing round to its opposite. So his success will correct itself. His very triumph over Rome will be guarantee for Aufidius' triumph over him. If this amplified paraphrase give the meaning, that meaning is coherent enough and is quite suitable to the mood and attitude of the speaker.
