THE MANY-HEADED MULTITUDE: SHAKESPEARE’S VIEWS ON THE POPULACE IN CORIOLANUS AND JULIUS CAESAR

A Thesis

Presented for the

Master of Arts (M. A.) Degree

University of Memphis

William Lucas Patton

April 2009

1

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………....3

Shakespeare’s Influences…………………....5

Plutarch’s Coriolanus…………………….....9

Shakespeare’s Coriolanus…………………...12

Plutarch’s Julius Caesar………………….....29

Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar………………...33

Symbolism and the Populace: Coriolanus.......47

Symbolism and the Populace: Julius Caesar...49

Verdict on the Populace……………………...51

Conclusion……………………………………55

References…………………………………….60

2

The irrational man feeds the multitudinous monster and strengthens the lion.

--Plato

Introduction

William Shakespeare’s plays often contain valuable criticism of political systems.

For example, Shakespeare’s scenes of mob unrest represent his criticism of

Republicanism. Many societies rely on the will of people and its influence on the

government’s actions. The Roman Republic was created with a desire to base its

foundation on the decisions of the people, interpreted by representatives. But what

happens when the poor and the under-represented masses forego order and discipline in

their efforts to gain what they want? What happens when the poor seize control through

violence and become a mob? How does one judge the anarchic personality of a mob

according to the protocols of republicanism? Shakespeare attempted to answer these

questions. In The Tragedy of Coriolanus and The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, the plebeians

of Rome are mostly represented as unruly mobs. The mobs of these plays often act like

children. They barely understand the impact of their decisions and the causes they rally

for often work against their own welfare. Judging from the negative portrayal of the

common people in these plays, one might conclude that Shakespeare was in favor of a

government that relied more on aristocratic representatives and kings for its policies

instead of one directly based upon the will of the people and their representatives. In

other words, one might conclude Shakespeare was something of a conservative by

today’s standards. I say “conservative,” meaning that he strongly favored the system that

3

was presently in place of his country. Thus, one might initially conclude that Shakespeare

strongly supported a monarchy and was wary of radical change in the government’s

policies. This thesis will show otherwise, suggesting that Shakespeare’s portrayals of

Roman mobs contain his criticism of Republicanism as well as Monarchism.

Writing his Roman tragedies, Shakespeare attempted to be true to historical

records, to a degree. However, I will show that he significantly altered certain details

from the records he used as sources for his own historical representations. He did this in

order to convey, in his own unique terms, the message of using wisdom when tampering

with politics. Despite his negative portrayal of the plebeians, he also portrayed the

senators of Rome as equally corrupt as they manipulated the crowds with base flattery for

their own purposes. It seems Shakespeare was intent upon a middle ground in his verdict

on democracy and monarchy. This essay will showcase Shakespeare’s depictions of

plebeian mobs in Coriolanus and Julius Caesar and compare these with his manipulative

senators in order to gather what Shakespeare’s views upon republican rule were. It will

be found that, despite his negative portrayals of the plebeians and the senators,

Shakespeare may have seen problems in full reliance upon either the people or

representatives. Shakespeare had misgivings about both republicanism and monarchism.

Because Shakespeare saw advantages and disadvantages in both systems, he chose not

condemn either, but simply point out their problems.

4

Shakespeare’s Influences

Shakespeare was not the first playwright to use unruly mob scenes; he was just

among the most skillful in his depiction. As I will show later, the mob scenes of

Shakespeare’s plays were part of a long-standing tradition in which the common people

were often painted as savage and ungovernable. This practice was used often to paint a

negative portrait of the ancient governing method of republicanism. When I say

“republicanism,” I refer to any system of governing where decisions are made according

the will of a majority of people who are not politicians or according to representatives

elected by such people. Proof of Shakespeare’s adherence to established convention in

his portrayal of the multitude is presented not only by the mob scenes of his predecessors,

but also by those of his contemporaries. Christopher Marlowe’s The Massacre at Paris

possesses major similarities to the mob scenes of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

Marlowe’s play deals with a mass slaughter of Protestants in Paris. One of the murdering

citizens proclaims, “I swear by this cross, we’ll not be partial / But slay as many as we

can come near” (Marlowe Scene 5.51-52). Plays such as this showed numerous mob

scenes where the people are easily driven to devastating violence. The England of

Shakespeare’s time was under pressure much like ancient Rome. As Britain’s power was

expanding, foreign enemies were everywhere. The populace was constantly in the

process of recovering from great religious persecutions, leading to vast mistrust at home

and abroad. Many believed that the only way to unite the country was to maintain faith in

a strong monarch alone. Thus, the ideology of rule by the masses was discouraged by the

authorities. Some scholars believe that

5

Shakespeare lived in a time when democracy was considered a dangerously

unstable system of government; the ruling class of England (nobles, large

landowners, and great merchants) had very little respect for the opinions or the

needs of the lower classes. Shakespeare demonstrates this in his portrayal of the

Roman mob (Grapko).

When an Elizabethan or Jacobean dramatist demeaned the mob in his text, it is likely that

he was influenced not only by other writers but also by the state of England.

If Shakespeare wished to maintain his tenuous position as a dramatist favored by

the crown, he had to keep his text from being too subversive. Shakespeare had an

audience like us. They demanded a sense of immediacy, of events seeming to unfold in

their own time. Thus, Shakespeare wrote his play set in the past in a way pertaining to

events of his own time. It is clear that Shakespeare was an intelligent writer and wrote for

a thinking audience. He did not shy away from cleverly hinting at his own political

judgments. He judged the monarchs and leaders of his plays just as harshly as he did the

common people. There is even a possibility that Shakespeare scathingly satirized his

present ruler in the form of his tyrants. Shannon Miller suggests that Shakespeare’s

Coriolanus was modeled after King James:

Coriolanus shares King James’ concern with authority and legitimacy; both are

troubled by the vocal presence of the ‘tribunes.’ Coriolanus and James also share

certain personal characteristics, such as their analogous disdain for the people.

The play defines treason as the rejection of the rights of the people and thus

rejects King James’ elevation of kingly prerogative over the people’s power

6

guaranteed by Common Law. My reading of the play suggests that the king could

have been imagined as a traitor to his own nation and to his own crown. (291)

This opinion is significant because, if it is true, it shows Shakespeare writing in a

subversive way, undermining one theory of monarchy. It also shows how Shakespeare

would make his Roman tragedies relevant to his own time. Furthermore this is possible

proof of Shakespeare writing from an anti-monarchical stance.

The prejudice against the populace of a country goes far back before

Shakespeare’s time. And, to some extent, there are credible reasons for a distrust of the

populace. According to Barbara Parker, “Tyranny follows democracy when the insatiable

desire for freedom leads to anarchy, the populace finally taking command of the state. In

Plato’s The Republic, Socrates explains how the citizens ‘chafe impatiently at the least

touch of authority and at length…cease to care even for the laws…; and then they will

have no one over them’”(35). Parker credits Socrates as the first to use the common

phrase, “the many-headed monster.” This phrase would later be used in Shakespeare’s

Coriolanus to condemn the common people. The metaphor links the mob with the

mythical beast, the hydra, and emphasizes the irrationality and unpredictability of the

unwashed masses.

Irrational mobs were a very real danger to British society, even during the

supposedly enlightened Renaissance era. Shakespeare drew inspiration for his tirades

from current events, including the mass persecutions against religious groups and the

Gunpowder Plot. The assassination of Shakespeare’s potential dramatic monarchs has

7

parallels to the assassination attempts against Queen Elizabeth and King James. The

complaint of the plebeians at the beginning of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus had intentional

relevance to a social calamity in Shakespeare’s own time. Barely a year before

Coriolanus’ first performance, “food shortages precipitated serious rioting by the rural

poor in the Midland counties west of London, where Stratford-upon-Avon was located.

The rioters accused the rich of hoarding foodstuffs in hopes of higher prices, and of

having created a dearth by replacing the traditional cultivation of cereal grains with

lucrative sheep” (Maus 938). Before he wrote Julius Caesar and Coriolanus,

Shakespeare also examined mob psychology in Henry VI Part II. In this work he

recounted the infamous Jack Cade rebellion. Yet the mobs of Caesar and Coriolanus are

the most memorable for their sheer lack of logic and their intense bloodlust.

As will be seen, it is easy to view Shakespeare as biased against the Roman

populace. This essay will focus primarily on Shakespeare’s negative portrayal of the poor

Romans. Shakespeare was writing about real history, and he chose to remain true to the

historical accounts to a degree. Despite the intended fairness in the creation of its

republican government, mob violence was constant in Republican Rome. This was

because the populace “suffered under the political decadence of poor leaders and

pernicious election procedures, with bribery rampant and religion a tool of politics. This

created seditious disturbances and violence such as the old monarchical Rome had

seldom known” (Heaton 20). Shakespeare intended to show the actual flaws that led to

the Republic’s downfall. He drew his account from the historian Plutarch. Plutarch’s text

frequently corresponds with Shakespeare’s. Plutarch’s writings helped mold

8

Shakespeare’s underlying attitude to the populace. Before scrutinizing Shakespeare’s

work, it is important to go over the details of Plutarch’s influences on each of the plays.

Since it precedes Julius Caesar by historical setting, both Plutarch’s History of

Coriolanus and the play Coriolanus will be studied first.

Plutarch’s Coriolanus

Plutarch’s Life of Coriolanus has overtones that parallel the political situation of

the Tudor era in England. Tudor theorists who argued in defense of monarchy found a

convincing demonstration of the dangers of democratic government in the history of

Coriolanus’ banishment. Some political scholars saw the incident as proof that “a

democracy is contrary to natural law, and hence to God’s will” (Phillips 147). In the story

of Coriolanus, Shakespeare discovered the disastrous consequences of violating those

principles by which a healthy political society is maintained. The actual occurrence

shows the people to be anarchical in their actions, yet not without reason. Plutarch tells

how, at this time, there arose a mass feeling of rebellion among the plebeians. The feeling

was provoked because both the Senate and usurers favored the nobility over the common

people. When the common people could not pay the usurers, they had to become

bondsmen to their creditors. This began to “sturre up daungerous tumultes within the

cittie” (Plutarch Vol. 8, 148). The moneyed patricians promised easier terms on loans if

the plebeians would agree to fight the nearby Sabines. After the plebeians acquitted

themselves bravely in battle, “the patricians reneged on the agreement and sold into

9

slavery those debtors—many of them war veterans—who were bankrupted by high

interest rates” (Maus 938). The people felt betrayed by the Senate who seemed to do

nothing about this treachery. The people clamored for the Senate to modify the law but

received little response. In Coriolanus, the play, Shakespeare omits this detail of the

reneged bond in order to make the plebeians seem to have fewer legitimate reasons to riot

(Maus 939). When the Volscians attacked, the people refused to defend their city. When

the plebeians received no redress from the Senate for their demands upon the laws, a

large number of them left the city and dwelt for some time upon the holy hill outside

Rome. Shakespeare changes this peaceful demonstration into a murderous riot. Though

their methods harmed their own persons, the people had good reason to protest because

the Senate did nothing to save them from an economic injustice.

The Senate then granted the people the right to elect certain individuals to offices

of representation, as “tribunes.” Those campaigning to become tribunes were able to gain

the people’s voices by offering them money. The people again proved weak and subject

to desire for instant gratification. As was often the case, those who had promised much to

the people ended up taking away more freedoms. Plutarch says that, “He that first made

banckets, and gave money to the common people, was the first that tooke awaye

authorities, and destroyed the commonwealth” (Vol. 8, 159). Coriolanus thought he

might try his hand at courting the people’s election. At first, when Coriolanus showed

them his wounds, the people clamored to support him. Their revulsion against the

patrician class and toward this particular member seemed to have passed. Perhaps they

were willing to graciously overlook Coriolanus’ major faults, but he was not willing to do

that for them. 10

When a large amount of corn was finally gathered to give to the people free of

charge, Coriolanus railed against this, saying the Senate nurtured sedition; he even called

for the removal of the tribunes. The Senate called for the people’s voices but found that

many of the people surprisingly agreed with Coriolanus and were ready to rush violently

upon the Senate. The Senate now accused Coriolanus of stirring up sedition. They

arrested him and put him before the people. They told the people how Coriolanus meant

to harm the Roman state. Once again, thanks to the clever speech of scheming tribunes,

the people switched sides and turned their anger upon Coriolanus. They also briefly

threatened the nobility with their fury. In doing this, the people proved that they didn’t

trust anybody. After Coriolanus was banished, the people celebrated greatly. Yet their

celebration was replaced by pleas on Coriolanus’ behalf when he returned and attacked

Rome. Plutarch’s portrait of the people is of a fickle mass of men that starts out with

rational intentions but is easily driven to uproar by deceitful manipulators.

The Senate of Plutarch at first appears to be a group of selfish, unconcerned

bureaucrats that are indifferent to the people’s cries of hunger. They do see the reason of

giving the people a voice in the government. Yet they realize that they can placate, and

thus manipulate, the people more in the long term by granting them tribunes rather than

gratifying them by immediately addressing the corn crisis. One thing to keep in mind is

that the Senate was made up of a particular caste in the Roman society, the patricians. No

plebeian could run for office; only the patricians were elected to serve as representatives.

And the patricians were basically elected nobles. Remember that it was the money-

hungry nobles who brought about many of the people’s troubles to begin with. The

Senate acted for the common good, but only when extreme circumstances brought about 11

disorder in the society. And so, Plutarch shows a mixed portrait of a society in danger

from within. Both the people and the Senate have negative characteristics. The people are

irrational, but often only under the influence of flatterers and bold speakers. The Senate is

corrupt and scheming but does allow the people the chance to decide their own fates.

Coriolanus is not at all a positive role model for leadership in Plutarch. He is

given power over the city but proves unworthy of it. He is unworthy of this power

because of his total lack of concern for the people’s welfare. He is baffled that they

would dare complain of a lack of food. He only seeks their favor when he must in order

to gain power. Figuratively, Plutarch seems to condemn all the forces of order in Rome,

showing all to be chaotic and unfair if taken to the extreme. Plutarch does not appear to

champion monarchy particularly, but he portrays the concept of Roman democracy as

equally flawed and corruptible. This is something both Plutarch and Shakespeare have in

common.

Shakespeare’s Coriolanus

In Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, the greatest problem with the Roman Republic lies

not with its founding principles or ideals but with the way its laws are carried out. Thanks

to the power of money and the aristocracy, corruption has spread among the government

branches. The people are no longer truly represented or consulted; they are used. They

are poked or prodded to make decisions. They are not allowed to truly understand their

choices. In the case of elections, the virtue and wisdom of potential representatives is no

longer a factor. Instead, what is important is how well one can win over the people with 12

profit or a splendid show. According to Paul Cantor, “the Republic now works on a kind

of merit system and, if it must err in one direction, it does so on behalf of the man on the

way up in the world. The Republic prevents its citizens from growing complacent by

forcing them to compete with each other constantly to see who can serve the city best”

(43). Everything depends upon the people’s voices and appeasing the people’s desire for

a show. When the people decide to go violently beyond their boundaries of political

action, there is little to stand in their way and the whole state is in danger of falling apart:

“We see immediately that Coriolanus is not the tragedy of a ruler alone or of a people

alone, but a picture of the threatened disintegration of an institution including and yet

superior to them both—the state” (Phillips 10). The play is a parable about the danger of

chaos consuming any state. This danger lies chiefly in neglecting the common people,

whose welfare should always be the politicians’ chief concern.

Shakespeare does not hold any one branch completely responsible for the near

downfall that takes place. Rather, he seems to hold all branches responsible. He warns all

who participate in politics of the power they hold and the risks that come with this power.

Shakespeare keenly realizes that there is a tenuous balance upholding the state. He seems

to believe there is a proper chain of command, what James Philips calls “a natural order,”

which preserves the government. Any group or person who oversteps his place in this

order risks toppling the whole structure.

The complaint of the people at the beginning of Coriolanus is perfectly

justifiable. However, the passion of the people is such that it is clear they may do more

harm than they intend. Unlike in Plutarch, Shakespeare’s plebeians do not vacate the city

13

but instead plan a murderous uprising. The alteration is intended to evoke shock in the

audience at the irrationality of the plebeians. Here it is interesting that Shakespeare would

completely alter Plutarch’s reasonable crowd carrying out a defiant yet peaceful

demonstration. He turns this into a mob of citizens who think the only solution to their

problem is murder. This is not the only time Shakespeare shows the populace in a

negative light. Perhaps he is using the unruly mob as a foil to the equally unreasonable

Coriolanus, introduced later. It could be another instance of Shakespeare showing the

possible flaws in republican society. Shakespeare is making the point that no society is

perfect. Another alteration of Plutarch’s history is the motivation of the plebeians.

Shakespeare’s plebeians make only fleeting references to usury. Their main

complaint is simple hunger. Shakespeare’s revision has consequences; it

minimizes the justification of the plebeians’ outrage. There is no hint of any prior

betrayed agreement and no suggestion of unrewarded plebeian military service

(Maus 939).

It is not made explicit that the Senate holds much blame for the people’s

starvation. It is rather the aristocrats who hold more blame. This makes it seem as if the

plebeians have fewer grounds for attacking the Senate which, in this case, does not seem

to be directly at fault for the plebeians’ starvation.

The First Citizen, who leads the uprising, embodies the people’s irrationality and

passion when he illogically says, “The leanness that afflicts us, the object of our /

Misery…Let us revenge this with our pikes / Ere we become rakes; for the gods know I

14

speak this in hunger / For bread, not in thirst for revenge” (Shakespeare The Tragedy of

Coriolanus 1.1.16-20). The plebeian has just spoken a contradiction by first saying he

plans to enact revenge and then saying that he does not desire revenge. Menenius soon

comes on the scene and attempts to reason with the ill-tempered crowd. He cordially

pleas, “Why masters, my good friends, mine honest neighbours, / Will you undo

yourselves?” (1.1.53-54). Indeed, the plebeians’ proposed actions seem to be all passion

and no common sense. The audience is expected to favor Menenius’ desire to sort out this

problem through reasoned discussion and compromise. Menenius is one of the few

objective senators and he manages to maintain a neutral position during the many

conflicts in the play. He is also the figure to whom no one really listens until it is too late.

According to Brents Stirling, “Menenius is a humor character designed for choral

commentary. However, what he thinks and what he utters is intended by Shakespeare as

the truth about the populace” (38). At the same time, the audience is meant to understand

the desperation that is leading the plebeians to start a violent riot. They are, after all,

famished and have received little redress. When men are denied their basic necessities,

the natural response is desperate action. It is worth noting that the mob has given the

Senate prior knowledge of their intended riot, so the riot is not entirely random. It has

been planned and the authorities have been informed ahead of time.

Engaging them in conversation, Menenius realizes that the mob is not completely

devoid of intelligence and tells them a parable, hoping they will understand the appeal of

the analogy. He tells them that their rebellion against the Senate is just like the members

of the body rebelling against the belly when the belly delivers sustenance to each member

15

individually. Though Menenius’ analogy generalizes, his words of moderation carry

some weight. The citizens seem to understand Menenius well enough and even attend to

his speech thoughtfully, yet they remain firm in their indignation.

Menenius’ exchange with the mob is cut off as Coriolanus enters. Coriolanus

immediately shows that he is less willing to attempt to understand the people. In truth, his

accusations against them carry some weight. He says, “Hang ye! Trust ye? / With every

minute you do change a mind, / And call him noble that was now your hate, / And him

vile that was your garland. What’s the matter, / That you cry against the noble senate,

who / Under the gods, keep you in awe, which else / Would feed on another?” (1.1.170-

177). Unsympathetic to the public’s demands, Coriolanus tells the plebeians to go home

but they do not disband until the end of the scene. They seem to be briefly appeased with

the Senate’s offer of supposedly increased representation by the election of tribunes. Yet,

the potential slaughter that is narrowly avoided serves as a warning throughout the play

of how important and how dangerous the plebeians are when provoked. Coriolanus tells

Menenius news of the Senate granting the people a tribunate to represent them. In his

distaste, Coriolanus comments that this “will in time / Win upon power and throw forth

greater themes / For insurrection’s arguing” (1.1.208-15). This, Coriolanus says, will only

nurture more irrational decision-making from the mob. It is hard to disagree with him

because we have just witnessed a scene of the plebeians almost enacting senseless mass

murder against an ultimately undeserving group. We quickly see how much more volatile

and unpredictable the Roman populace can become.

16

The next event relevant to the common people is Coriolanus’ victorious

homecoming from the war with the Volscians. According to a messenger, members of the

people are at first moved by his well-earned glory. Coriolanus’ rebuking of the people is

momentarily forgotten. The people begin to rally around him because of his mighty

stature in battle. The messenger reports, “I have seen / The dumb men throng to see him,

and the blind / To hear him speak. Matrons flung gloves, / …The nobles bended / As to

Jove’s statue, and the commons made / A shower and thunder with their caps and

shouts. / I never saw the like” (2.1.247-54). It is thought that Coriolanus will carry the

election for consul because of the glory of his victory. Officers prepare seats in the

capitols for the contenders and remark on the state of events. The Second Officer sums up

the fickleness of the common people and their representatives thusly, “Faith, there have

been many great men that/ have flattered the people / who never loved them; and there be

/ many that they have loved they know not wherefore” (2.2.7-9). The people seem to have

good intentions but cannot consciously put forth wise decisions for their benefit.

The citizens no longer care about the merits of political wisdom and instead

clamor to uphold military valor. However, some of the citizens are trying to show

fairness. As the Third Citizen says, “Ingratitude is monstrous, and for the multitude to be

ingrateful / were to make a monster of the multitude” (2.3.9-10). The citizen reminds the

group that the Roman people have Coriolanus to thank for the security of their country.

This theme of ingratitude is shared by both Coriolanus and Julius Caesar. It is significant

that this citizen recognizes the monstrous nature his people are capable of and that he

wishes he could steer the citizens away from making unfair judgments. Once again,

17

Shakespeare shows us a mixed picture of the populace. He is showing that the populace

has the potential for both folly and reason and it is up to them which they choose to

follow.

Most of the senators bow to the pressure of the common people and support

Coriolanus’ bid for consul. Initially, Coriolanus is uneasy about the idea but he quickly

comes around as his pride is aroused. But first, Coriolanus must plead his case before the

people so that they might accept him as their consul. Coriolanus acknowledges that he

cannot bring himself to appeal kindly to the poor. Coriolanus asks the First Citizen the

price of the consulship and the First Citizen replies, “The price is to ask it kindly”

(2.3.69). He far too quickly gains the voice of the First Citizen. The Fourth Citizen

remarks wisely of Coriolanus, “You have deserved nobly of your country, and / you have

not deserved nobly” (2.3.80-81). This citizen readily understands Coriolanus’ worth and

his position. He sees both the good and the bad in Coriolanus. Here, Shakespeare shows

us citizens that are not mindless rabble but have individual minds and wisdom. However,

this image of the citizens will later be contradicted and Shakespeare’s divided mindset

will be showcased. The people hope to find Coriolanus their friend and so they eagerly

give him their voices. Yet Coriolanus does not seem to be whole-hearted in his pleas. It

was never his desire to trouble the poor with begging. He feels he is lowering himself by

playing nice and by pleading for the favor of the commoners, whom he feels are no better

than dogs. Strangely, Coriolanus does not show the people his wounds, almost as if he

feels the people do not deserve to see them and know their worth.

18

Finally, the citizens do choose Coriolanus as their consul. Yet as soon as

Coriolanus leaves, the plebeians change their tune. They remark to the senators Brutus

and Sicinius that they now feel Coriolanus mocked them when he solicited their voices.

They realize he was short in his pleas and eager to end the begging. It would be better if

the people were more certain in their decisions. They flock one way, then another. The

envious Brutus and Sicinius now manage to turn the populace against Coriolanus.

Frederick Tupper remarks,

How certain the tribunes are of their hydra, yet how uncertain is the mob-mind! A

few gracious words from Coriolanus would have made the highly suggestible

crowd hail him as its hero; a few ungracious words supplemented by suggestions

of the tribunes make him its victim, and the beast with many heads butts him

away amid hootings and revilings (25-26).

Once again the plebeians show themselves responsive only to the newest speakers and

fickle in their choices. However, it must be admitted that Coriolanus is truly a poor

choice for consul, being more a military man than a political one. As a soldier,

Coriolanus knows no other authority than force; but force alone is not sufficient to govern

a commonwealth. As Phyllis Rackin explains, “To maintain a humble and reasonable

attitude toward the people would require rational self-control; to value his native country

above his personal honor would require true patriotism. Coriolanus possesses neither of

these.” (74). The people become incensed against Coriolanus. The senators, now also

turned against him, usher him toward the market place, where they are setting a trap for

him. They plan to publicly charge him with treason and hope to sentence him with death.

19

It is implied that this is an extreme and hurried punishment delivered upon Coriolanus.

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to simply relieve Coriolanus of his position rather than resort

to murder without just cause? Coriolanus resists the senators, and a company of

plebeians is incited to grapple with him. A fight ensues, yet with the help of Menenius,

Coriolanus is able to escape to his house.

The city seems on the point of upheaval and division over the issue of

Coriolanus’ late rise to power. Coriolanus comes to the marketplace attended by

Menenius and some friendly senators. But the opposing senators are too persuasive and

convince the people to banish Coriolanus from Rome on pain of death. He sets out from

the gates of Rome, hoping to prove that the city cannot survive without him. Little do the

Romans know this will bring harm upon them, as Coriolanus will join with their enemies

to return and attack Rome. The senators and the people come to fear Coriolanus’ wrath

and they ask Menenius to once more intervene and to appeal to Coriolanus to spare Rome

his wrath. An irony occurs and “One of the finest touches in the play is the recantation of

the Roman populace only when they are face to face with the direful consequences of

their banishment of Coriolanus” (Tupper 510). It is only at this moment that they regret

their hasty decisions. “Now the ephemeral, immoral condition is over, they are

unhypnotised, unentranced, and they shrink from the outcome of their mob-self’s frenzy”

(Tupper 26). All too late they wish to retract their actions. And this is only because they

selfishly fear the consequences: “It is almost comical to hear the once mutinous citizens

deny their malice against the hero. They did not mean to send him away. They were

never ungrateful. It was a misunderstanding”(Nyquist). All in all, the people nearly bring

20

about their own destruction because of their fickleness. Though they have good intentions

and wish to protect themselves, they unfortunately do a poor job of it by rushing to

decisions without considering the consequences of the choices granted them.

The Senate in Coriolanus is also difficult to analyze and appreciate. Though they

may not directly deserve the mass slaughter the plebeians originally have in mind, their

vanity and lack of concern makes them a disgrace to their appointed offices. But this is

not only the Senate’s fault. It is also the people’s fault for giving their voices to such

corrupt representatives and following their direction. Menenius tries to make it clear that

the senators sincerely care for the people. At first, we might agree with Brutus’ and

Sicinius’ bias against Coriolanus. Of Coriolanus they rightly judge “he is grown / Too

proud to be so valiant” (1.1.248-49). However, we soon find out that they too can be self-

motivated and manipulative like many of Shakespeare’s politicians. These tribunes will

show themselves deceitful. When Menenius tries to affirm the Senate’s concern for the

people, the First Citizen eloquently expresses the resentment and outrage of his fellow

citizens against the Senate:

Care for us? True, indeed! They ne’er cared for

us yet: suffer us to famish, and their storehouses crammed with

grain; make edicts for usury to support usurers; repeal daily

any wholesome act established against the rich; and provide

more piercing statutes daily to chain up and restrain them.

If the wars eat us not up, they will; and there’s all the love they

bear us. (1.1.70-76)

21

The Citizen’s words have great weight for, in truth, the people are neglected by the

Senate. Menenius characterizes the Senate as a stomach, supplying nourishment to all the

branches of Roman society. But the stomach also hungers. The Senators turn out to be

constantly and greedily hungry for the people’s voices. They turn the commonwealth into

a circus with their internal squabbles. Instead of immediately addressing the people’s

grievances, the patricians are more inclined to poke and prod the violent public for their

own amusement and ambition. Some of them truly do appreciate the services Coriolanus

has done for the Roman state. That is one of the reasons they appoint him to be consul.

Others, however, do so because they are fearful of the people’s mixed response of great

excitement surrounding Coriolanus’ actions, and rightly so. Brutus and Sicinius are the

ultimate in selfish deceitfulness. Shakespeare takes these characters from Plutarch.

According to Plutarch, they ironically earned the office of tribunes after having been

among those that initially stirred the crowd to insurrection. Their action against

Coriolanus is motivated not by a desire for the welfare of the state or their constituents,

but by selfish fear for their own positions lest “our office may/ during his power go

sleep” (2.1.208-09). The tribunes turn the instability and susceptibility of the mob to their

own purposes. Shakespeare uses both the Senate and the appointed officials to

demonstrate how power in the hands of the few, even if appointed by the many, can lead

to corruption in one form or another.

In their ambivalence the Senators nurture rebellion and in provoking the mob

they nearly stir up civil chaos. Yet they are not all corrupt. Cominius and Menenius

attempt to understand all points of view and to advise peace in the face of disorder. It is 22

Menenius who constantly urges on all sides restraint and reason, justice and peace, for the

welfare and preservation of Rome. Menenius advises Coriolanus of his obligations as a

potential ruler, and the people of their duties as governed subjects. The vanity and lack of

concern of his fellow senators causes Menenius to partially lose his faith in the institution

of the Republic. Menenius remains a neutral party, though the most scathing remarks

upon the tribunes do come from him. He calls the tribunes Brutus and Sicinius “a brace

of unmeriting / proud, violent, testy magistrates, alias fools as any in / Rome” (2.1.39-

41). At the same time, Menenius can come off as a naïve figure, who remains neutral to

please all his fellow human beings and to avoid rancor from friends. He can appear

biased toward Coriolanus as a friend who overlooks his faults.

When it is revealed that Coriolanus plans to march on the city with a wrathful

Volscian army, the tribunes come to see their mistake in rushing to action. Cominius and

Menenius regard the impending invasion as the logical consequence of the perverted civil

order in Rome. The tribunes, who have led the people into subversive democratic

activities, must bear the blame. Cominius exclaims, “You have holp to melt the city leads

upon your plates” (4.6.82) and “You have brought / A trembling upon Rome, such as was

never / So incapable of help” (118-20). Menenius sarcastically derides, “You have made

good work” (4.6.95). Menenius seems to have realized how much the tribunes are

personally responsible for the danger Rome is now in. As Rome’s doom descends,

Sicinius prays, “The gods be good unto us!” (4.6.26) Menenius wisely responds, “No, in

such a case the gods will not be good unto us. / When we banished him we respected not

them, and, he / returning to break our necks, they respect not us” (27-29). This statement

23

is a possible reference to the ideology of Divine Right. Menenius speaks as if the gods,

instead of the people, had chosen Coriolanus for consul. This begs the question of

whether Shakespeare believed in the concept of divine right in this case. I believe that he

would consider Menenius naïve in his statement.

Directly responsible for the near-ruin of the Roman state are Coriolanus and the

unworthy tribunes. But, according to Phillips, “from a sixteenth century perspective,

indirectly to blame are those subversive principles of democracy which allow the

unqualified masses to act in a political capacity. The Senate, in granting political power

to the people, has violated due process and brought in the crows to peck the eagles”

(157). They complicate the decision-making process by making the maddened people the

center of all politics. Like many of the patricians, the tribunes want to be honored and are

willing to do public service to attain distinction. According to Paul Cantor,

What makes the tribunes appear a good deal less impressive than Coriolanus is a

certain pettiness, a lack of grandeur in their goals. With their narrower

perspective, they take only the day-to-day affairs of the city more seriously. This

is, in part, because they are so concerned about appearing important in the eyes of

their fellow plebeians. (62)

The Senate’s nomination of Coriolanus results in Rome’s banishing its true defender and

leaving itself a prey to its enemies. Menenius tells the tribunes they lack self-knowledge

since they accuse Coriolanus of being proud without realizing that they are guilty of pride

themselves, condemning him in terms that could just as well be applied to them.

24

The first mention of Coriolanus in the play is as the person the plebeians intend to

murder first. We soon learn why he is the patrician chiefly to earn the citizens’ hate.

Coriolanus believes the plebeians are utterly incapable of comprehending political

realities in Rome and thus their needs should not be greatly considered. He feels the

Senate should treat them like children, restraining their desires against their will.

“Clearly, for Coriolanus, ruling does not involve representing the will of those ruled but

in fact opposing it” (Cantor 58). Coriolanus’ opinions may be offensive, but we must

judge him carefully.

Though Coriolanus has done numerous services in arms for the country, as the

First Citizen says, “he pays himself in being proud” (1.1.28). In the first scene, even as

Menenius tries to counsel the plebeians in their rage, who should show up but the central

figure of their hate, Coriolanus? Coriolanus openly defies the crowd, spewing out his

hatred for the citizens whose city he defends:

Hang em!

They’ll sit by th’ fire and presume to know

What’s done I’ th’ Capitol, who’s like to rise,

Who thrives and who declines; factions and give out….

They say there’s grain enough!

Would the nobility lay aside their ruth

And let me use my sword, I’d make a quarry

With thousands of these quartered slaves as high

As I could pitch my lance.” (1.1.179-82, 185-89)

25

Coriolanus shares some attributes with the Roman populace. He cannot control the mob

because he cannot control his own passions.

The automatic mindless rage of the mob is the exact parallel to his, and the two

collaborate to destroy him. Coriolanus cannot rule his country anymore than he

can rule himself, for although he sees clearly that the lower orders are incapable

of reason and self-determination, he himself is equally incapable (Rackin 74).

Coriolanus is clearly painted as the worst form of a political representative. In this we can

see Shakespeare’s challenge against the principle of representation and leadership by

politicians such as monarchs. However, it must be considered how Coriolanus is also

designed to be the sympathetic hero of Shakespeare’s tragedy.

Despite his obvious distaste for the Roman populace, Coriolanus is a valuable and

dedicated servant of Rome in battle. He is a skilled and fearless warrior; however, it is

clear to some that Coriolanus is not fighting so much for Rome as for himself and to

please his mother (1.1.32-33). It is likely that without Coriolanus’ prowess, Rome might

be at the mercy of the Volscians. Among his admirable traits, Coriolanus appears to have

great modesty when asked to flout his victories. As his soldiers praise his victory over the

Volscians, Coriolanus says, “I have some wounds upon me, and they smart / To hear

themselves remembered” (1.10.28-29). When Cominius tries to pay Coriolanus with a

tenth of the plunder, Coriolanus replies, “I thank you, general, / But cannot make my

heart consent to take / A bribe to pay my sword. I do refuse it, / And stand upon my

common part with those / That have upheld the doing” (37-40). Menenius, Coriolanus’

26

true friend and defender, says of him, “He’s a bear indeed that lives like a lamb” (2.1.11).

When Coriolanus returns victorious, Menenius exclaims, “Now the gods crown thee”

(165). Menenius is among those senators who see Coriolanus as a noble hero, dedicated

to the ideal of virtus and a champion of the Roman culture (Rackin 69). Both Menenius

and Cominius feel Coriolanus would make a fit ruler over the people.

Certain senators appoint Coriolanus for consul. And so he must publicly proclaim

his merits to the very group he despises: the plebeians. He puts on a gown of humility and

speaks of the wounds he has received for his country. Initially reluctant to take the

position of consul, he grows hungry for it as he gains the people’s voices. He feels this is

a challenge he must overcome. He professes to the plebeians, “Your voices! For your

voices I have fought, / Watched for your voices, for your voices bear wounds /…Done

many things, some less, some more. Your voices! / Indeed I would be consul” (2.3.116-

117, 120-121). Coriolanus is “outraged when the tribune Sicinius calls him a traitor, and

he answers with a reckless fury that incites the people to banish him. But as soon as they

do so, he becomes in fact the traitor they have called him” (Rackin 75). This irony will

determine Coriolanus’ fate when he is in the hands of his enemies.

When the tribunes turn the people against Coriolanus, they are basically casting

out the Republic’s most ardent defender and a man who speaks what he feels.

Coriolanus’ greatest crime is foul speech and threats, which is a fault that all honest men

are prone to. Does he truly deserve death or banishment for merely speaking his mind?

Unlike the scheming tribunes, Coriolanus is honest to everyone he meets. He speaks

boldly what he firmly believes. Defiant and unashamed, Coriolanus proclaims, “Let them

27

pull me about mine ears, present me / Death on the wheel or at wild horses’ heels, / Or

pile ten hills on the Tarpeian rock, / That the precipitation might down stretch / Below the

beam of sight, yet will I still / Be thus to them” (3.2.1-6). A vengeful Coriolanus returns

to Rome with an army of Volscians. Truth be told, the people have somewhat earned

Coriolanus’ dangerous wrath. In a way this could be seen as Shakespeare’s justification

of monarchy. Coriolanus’ character is a mixed package. He is a great servant of the

state’s welfare, but his heart is greatly prejudiced against the welfare of the people he

fights for. Were he at liberty, he makes it clear that he would make their lot far worse as

punishment for their rebelliousness. Shakespeare does not intend Coriolanus to exemplify

the model politician to head any state. However, in the play, aside from Menenius, few

figures arise who are altogether more fit to rule than Coriolanus.

In the Rome of Coriolanus, nothing is what it seems. The society of Rome has

become degenerate and no one seems willing to admit it. They just follow procedure and

allow things to continue to get worse. Phyllis Rackin writes that, “Rome is a purely

political world, united only by terror of external enemies and adoration of military valor.

It is a body politic without head or heart, which cannot govern itself or provide for the

needs of its people” (77). Because there is corruption from all sides, no one group can be

judged as completely responsible for Rome’s folly. This has caused critics to have mixed

views of Shakespeare’s plebeians. On his website, Don Shewey writes, “The people in

Coriolanus are stupid and ignorant; they stink and collect stinking rags in battlefields.

The tribunes are little, deformed and deceitful. Coriolanus is brave, great and noble. But

the people are Rome, and Coriolanus is a traitor to his county.” Everyone who interferes

28

with politics in Coriolanus only complicates things further. No group (whether patrician,

consul, or plebeian) seems to be presented as wholly worthy of the political power

granted it. Because all the groups have their flaws, Shakespeare is trying to remind many

political players of the responsibilities they bear to the state as a whole and how rash

actions can lead to the threat of a society’s destruction.

Plutarch’s Julius Caesar

In Plutarch’s history of Julius Caesar, the Roman plebeians show themselves to be

even more susceptible to flattery and corruption. Their favor can easily be bought. Unlike

Coriolanus, Caesar was quick to exploit the people’s desires for his own gain and to play

upon their adoration. Plutarch tells us that Caesar

ever kept a good bourde, and fared well at his table, and was very liberall besides:

the which in deede did advance him forward, and brought him in estimacion with

the people…But in fine, when they had geven him the bridell to grow to this

greatnes, they could not then pull him backe, it would turne one day to the

destruction of the whole state and commonwealth of Rome (Vol.11, 3-4).

Caesar grew in power and esteem by cleverly turning the people against his enemies. The

Senate quickly began to suspect Caesar of scheming to manipulate the people into

following him as a dictator. Caesar became the focal point of all of Rome’s love and hate,

and it was impossible to know what actions the people would take next. When both

Caesar and his rival, Pompey, opted for the office of consul, Caesar used the method

29

instilled in Coriolanus’ time of buying the people’s voices with money. The people were

so aroused by this action that they made many violent demonstrations in the name of

Caesar.

Thereupon, the common people that had sold their voyces for money went to the

marketplace at the day of election, to fight for him that hyered them: not with

their voices, but with their bowes, slings, and swordes. So that the assembly

seldom tyme brake up, but that the pulpit for orations was defiled and sprinckled

with the bloode of them that were slayne in the market place (Plutarch Vol. 11,

30).

The chaotic mobs were dispelling all order in the city. The structure of the Republic was

in danger of toppling. People began to wonder if democracy could help sustain any peace,

or if desperate measures should be exercised. Plutarch goes on to say, “There were many

that were not affraid to speake it openly, that there was no other help to remedy the

troubles of the common wealth, but by the authority of one man only, that should

commaund them all” (Vol. 11, 30). This viewpoint spread quickly across the country as

did various mob uprisings. It was difficult to disagree with such an idea when there was

great disorder in spite of the Republic’s laws. A great and bloody civil war arose as a

result of the rivalry of Caesar and Pompey. The war led Rome into civil disarray and

many lives were lost. When Caesar came out the winner, he was immediately elected

Dictator. As Plutarch interprets, “The Romanes inclined to Caesars prosperity, and taking

the bit in the mouth, supposing that to be ruled by one man alone, it would be a good

meane for them to take breth a little, after so many troubles and miseries as they had

30

abidden in these civil warres: they chose him perpetuall Dictator” (Vol. 11, 57). Here

Plutarch uses animal imagery when describing the people of Rome. He imagines them as

dumb cattle or horses led by a bit in the mouth, and in this case they are willingly

accepting the bit for hopes of order. Shakespeare would later increase animal imagery in

his retelling of the Caesar incidents.

Caesar’s lust for further advancement was insatiable, as was the crowd’s growing

love for him due to his charisma. The best example of their maddening love is the

incident where Mark Antony publicly presented Caesar with a diadem wreathed in laurel.

At the sight of the crown a large shout of joy arose from the crowd. Caesar cunningly put

the crown by. The people applauded even louder. Later, laurel wreaths were found upon

many images of Caesar, placed by the plebeians. The people did not particularly care

about upholding the Republic; they simply wanted a figurehead to lead them one way or

the other.

It was appropriate that Brutus should participate in Caesar’s murder, as his

ancestor was the Brutus who slew the last Roman king, Tarquin, ushering in the era of the

Republic. Brutus was an idealist who felt he was deposing a potential tyrant for the good

of Rome. He and his confederates went among the people to plead their case in the

marketplace. When Brutus spoke to justify his cause, the people listened intently. At first

their response was mixed with sadness over Caesar’s death and reverence for Brutus. The

Senate even pityingly pardoned the conspirators. However, when Caesar’s testament was

opened at the funeral, they found a certain amount of wealth bequeathed to every citizen

of Rome. Antony also spoke boldly of Caesar’s likeable features at the funeral. This

31

quickly changed the people’s opinions. They did not see how the mix of a brilliant

speaker and a large placation easily reversed their ideals. They were lead only by selfish

passion and thus driven to violence. They took the firebrands from Caesar’s pyre and

searched for the conspirators to eliminate. So great was the hysteria that an innocent poet

named Cinna was killed merely because he had the same name as one of the assassins.

The mob overran the city that night and it took a long time to quell its irrational rage, and

so the era of the Republic was brought to an end with the appointment of the Triumvirate

and the later succession of Augustus. Both the Senate and the plebeians eventually lost all

authority. Republicanism was brought down with the help of the very individuals it was

created to serve, the plebeians. Such was the unstoppable force of an incited Roman mob.

In Plutarch, the majority of the Senate is supposedly intent on working for the

people’s good. They seem to know the people better than they do themselves. Still, we

must remember that the manipulative and ambitious Antony is a senator as well. The

other senators seem to be the only ones who understand the situation in Rome sensibly

and feel they know what must be done. Brutus and the other conspirators take matters

into their own hands and fail in their intentions. The truth is the people have grown tired

of the Senate and desire the strength that comes from a single man commanding

attention. And the more irrationally the people act, the more the fears of the Senate seem

to be well-founded. Perhaps the only order with hope of stability would come from one

man delivering a singular course of direction. Though Caesar is clearly portrayed as

ambitious and somewhat treacherous, his legacy brings about an order that does quell the

madness of the populace for a time. It instills oppression as well. Once again the ideals of

32

monarchy and democracy are weighed against one another. The only hope seems to rest

in somehow making the people see reason and hoping for a compromise between the two

governments, if such a compromise is possible.

Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is his most politically nihilistic play.

The populace is far more chaotic and unruly than in Coriolanus. The play intentionally

presents a picture of a society gone mad from all ends and without any true hope for

order. Shakespeare may have written Julius Caesar first but when he wrote Coriolanus,

he was careful to design the themes of the populace so that it seemed they had evolved or

come to fruition in his earlier play. I believe Coriolanus was written in a later time in

Shakespeare’s life when Shakespeare felt a greater amount of trust toward the common

people. However, in Julius Caesar, Shakespeare depicts,

a society without any divine or secular basis of authority. In the arbitrariness of

their will the plebeians are the exact counterpart of the feckless Senate, the

conspiring patricians, and, most importantly, the ambitious Caesar. In Julius

Caesar no trustworthy source of sovereignty arises to direct Rome; there is only

the politics of the marketplace, a confusing cacophony of claims and

counterclaims. (Miola 288)

33

Act One, Scene One of Caesar is similar to Coriolanus in that once again we find a group

of uproarious plebeians accosted by a patrician. In this case, the citizens are celebrating

Caesar’s victory over Pompey. The patricians Flavius and Marullus confront the

plebeians as they are placing scarves over statues of Caesar. Flavius protests that they are

being idle on a work day. The plebeians respond with insolent word play. The Cobbler

shows his wit by making a clever joke: “be not out with me. Yet if / you be out, sir, I can

mend you” (Shakespeare The Tragedy of Julius Caesar 1.1.16-17). The people may be

idle but their major faux pas, according to Flavius, is ingratitude. The same plebeians

who praised Pompey for his achievements are now praising his defeat by Caesar. To

Flavius and Marullus, the people are “cruel men of Rome” (36), “worse than senseless

things” (35), and not for willingly abandoning the republic, but for hard-heartedly

forgetting “great Pompey” (42) and celebrating the defeat of “Pompey’s blood” (51).

Marullus is not angered by the people for neglecting their working duties to Rome, but

for forgetting Pompey and praising Caesar (Blits 45). The people have a right to cheer

multiple parties on and to give praise to ever-changing prestige if they want to, even if

they are idle from work while doing so. These patricians only object to how quickly they

cling to the newest political players without any true loyalty. Of course, not all the

plebeians are motivated by political matters. The Cobbler admits that he leads men out

into the streets on this day to wear their shoes out for his business. This shows a blatant

self-interest in the plebeians. It is also interesting that the decorations hung about

Caesar’s statues reveal how the people already see Caesar as a king in stature, if not in

name.

34

It is the people’s fanatic shiftiness of loyalty that threatens to undo the fabric of

Roman republic society unless it is contained. The first scene is a reminder of the tension

between the patricians and the plebeians, a tension that is in part due to prejudice of class.

Flavius significantly refers to the commoners as “the vulgar” (69), a term that embodied a

disdain for any member of the inferior class of citizenry. Also, the first scene

immediately establishes Caesar as an exalted figure among the masses. Caesar’s prideful

panache is so great and controversial, that the tribunes feel they must check it as much as

they can. They feel they must pluck the trophies on Caesar’s images, saying, “These

growing feathers plucked from Caesar’s wing / Will make him fly an ordinary pitch, /

Who else would soar above the view of men / And keep us all in servile fearfulness”

(1.1.71-74). They fear that Caesar’s fame will soon overshadow all the patricians and

endanger their offices. The memory of the oppressive Tarquin constantly looms in the

background of the Roman Republic. The Tribunes rightly fear that the time of kingly rule

may be returning as the people clamor chaotically over one man as if he were a god.

The throng follows Caesar offstage as Cassius speaks with Brutus about Caesar.

It is not long before they hear great shouts from the people and Brutus tellingly exclaims,

“What means this shouting? I do fear the people / Choose Caesar for their king” (1.2.81-

82). Brutus and Cassius discuss in detail their fears over Caesar’s possible ascension and

the people’s reactions. As Caesar and his train return, they question Casca on what

occurred. Shakespeare completely replicates the Plutarch scene in which Caesar is

offered a crown. Antony offers the crown to Caesar as if he alone has the power to grant

such authority, another instance of Antony’s careless imposing. Casca is greatly hostile

35

towards the populace and his report portrays them as petty and unintelligent. Yet

Shakespeare offers nothing to contradict his report and so we have a darker portrait of the

plebeians than in Coriolanus. Casca tells how after Caesar refused the crown he offered

his throat for the multitude to cut. Caesar swooned and when he had recovered, several

“wenches” forgave him with all their hearts. Casca explains, “If Caesar had stabbed their

mothers / they would have done no less” (289-270). The shocking truth in this retelling is

how the crowd applauds Caesar regardless of his action. As Phillips suggests, “If Caesar

had been only bold enough to set the crown upon his head, the same rabble that

applauded his respect for the law would have been equally ready to applaud his violation

of it” (176). We now see proof of how one man may captivate the populace so much that

they deny the basic beliefs of their society.

What the Rome of Julius Caesar lacks is a Menenius, a man who advises caution

and reasoning before making hasty action. It is a time of mistrust and chaos in the Roman

Republic as enemies scheme from without and from within the fabric of the Roman

republic. As foreign tribes attack Rome’s expanding borders, senators scheme against

one another to gain power. The people will cling to any figure that puts on the semblance

of potentially strong rule and honor. They will do so even though they may completely

misconstrue the intentions of such a figure. The precept of subtle Cicero could easily

apply to the populace of Rome. He says to Casca, “Indeed it is a strange disposed time; /

But men may construe things after their fashion, / Clean from the purpose of the things

themselves” (1.3.33-35). In their desire for security and control, the populace is now

inclined to overlook Caesar’s ambition, which is quite obvious to those who watch him

insightfully. 36

As in Coriolanus, gaining the people’s support is crucial for any political

decision. Even though the respect for the old republican process has slackened, protocol

is maintained. So when Brutus and the conspirators assassinate Caesar on the day of his

potential election as a king, their first thought is to go before the people and justify their

actions. The case is a risky one for the faction. The people dearly loved Caesar, and

Brutus must convince them that he slew him because he was ambitious. Brutus, devoted

to ancient Roman ideals, is nevertheless confident. He believes that as long as they

remain true to their purpose, “We shall be called purgers, not murderers” (2.1.180) by the

common throng. Immediately after Caesar falls, Cinna proclaims, “Run hence, proclaim,

cry it about the streets” (3.1.78). Brutus is chosen to speak for the group. Brutus makes

the mistake of allowing Antony to speak as well. The expert speaker, Antony is prepared

for this chance and over the corpse of his friend and benefactor, Caesar, Antony

prophesies what the reaction of the crowd to his speech will be:

Domestic fury and fierce civil strife

Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;

Blood and destruction shall be so in use,

And dreadful objects so familiar…

All pity choked with custom of fell deeds;

And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge

Shall within these confines with a monarch’s voice

Cry ‘havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war,

That this foul deed shall smell above the earth

With carrion men, groaning for burial. (266-269, 271-278) 37

Antony has already devised a scheme to urge the people to enact civil chaos. When

Antony stands over Caesar’s corpse and makes this prophecy, he is unashamedly

planning to cause great violence in Rome through the power of his words. The picture he

paints is so horrific and, in some ways, accurate that it must be wondered how Antony

can simply decide to bring so much pain upon Rome just for the sake of politics. The

picture here is of a populace gone mad and Antony fully intends to make this prophecy

real and he will succeed. The audience should be just as astonished at the depravity of

Antony as at the foreseen depravity of the mob.

The plebeians hear the news of Caesar’s murder and gather excitedly about the

podium, insistently shouting, “We will be satisfied! Let us be satisfied!” (3.2.1). Their cry

for satisfaction stirs great tension among the patricians, for they begin to realize the true

power the enraged people wield. The crowd is so numerous and strong that if they were

united, and if they really wanted to, they could fulfill Antony’s vision and instill

unstoppable anarchy in Rome.

Brutus feels he can gain ground with the people if he just explains his situation to

them and relates his deeds to their point of view. What he does not realize is that his

position is doomed from the start, for the populace is no longer devoted to the Roman

values he fought for. He does not see the charade of the people and he “offers reason to a

mob with which he has no true common ground of temper or understanding” (Dean 454).

He attempts to remind the people of their duty to their country and their right to freedom,

claiming that Caesar would have become a tyrant had he been appointed king. He asks

the people, “Who / is here so base that would be a bondsman?...Who is here so rude that

would not be a / Roman?...Who is here so / vile that will not love his country? If any, 38

speak, for him have I / offended” (26-31), thus characterizing the people as potentially

base, rude, and vile. He takes a risk and pauses for a reply. Fortunately, he is answered by

an ambiguous “None” (32). For a moment it seems like Brutus has realized his dream of

helping the people rediscover the importance of republican government. But the triumph

is, in fact, a false one. The people praise Brutus himself, not his ideals. They cheer, “Let

him be Caesar. / Caesar’s better parts / Shall be crowned in Brutus” (47-49). It appears

the people have completely missed the point. “Brutus is unintentionally insensitive to the

desires of the Roman mob. He provides a reasoned speech in favor of the assassination,

and it goes over so well that some people want to make him Caesar. Or, maybe not so

well, since the whole point of his speech was that any Caesar is dangerous to

Rome”(Leithart). The plebeians are so hungry for another person to lead them, they

completely misunderstand the idea Brutus is trying to communicate.

Antony’s speech is a prime example of how to manipulate a group of angry

people to do one’s will. He begins by associating himself with the plebeians, calling them

“friends,” and later “masters.” Instead of being straightforward in his views as Brutus

was, Antony uses reverse psychology to make the people think that it is their own free

choice to turn against the conspirators. As Peter Leithart’s website points out,

Antony sets up an obviously faulty syllogism: Caesar was not ambitious, Brutus

says Caesar was ambitious, Brutus would not tell lies. Since these three

statements cannot all be true, the speech edges the crowd towards believing that

the third statement (‘Brutus would not tell lies’) is false. Antony is getting closer

to calling Brutus a liar. He reminds the people of the services Caesar did for

39

Rome and how they once loved him. He even suggests that one moment of faulty

reasoning may have lost them their humanity.

Then Antony puts on a show by weeping publicly. Always ready to be entertained, the

people cry for more. Seeing the emotion, one says “There is not a nobler man in Rome

than Antony” (113). Antony continues the show by reading Caesar’s will. The crowd is

now immediately incited against Brutus and the others. Enjoying his power over them,

Antony eggs the people on by asking them not to riot. The crowd, of course, follows his

reverse psychology and desires further to riot. Antony finishes by reading Caesar’s will

and showing off the wounded corpse. He proclaims the conspirators “traitors,” turning

Brutus’ patriotic tactic against him. To their credit, it takes longer to manipulate the

crowd than in Coriolanus. But once they are incensed their actions top the mob in

Coriolanus greatly. They run amuck, shouting savagely, “Revenge! About! Seek! Burn!

Fire! Kill! Slay!” (196). The people fail to see how they have been tricked into believing

many things at once. They also fail to see the madness of going on a killing spree just

because of some clever words. They won’t listen to reason. The scene that follows

showcases a direct desire to paint the commoners negatively.

The next scene has no particular reason for taking place. It has no direct ties to the

plot of the main characters. Yet it completes and enhances Shakespeare’s portrait of a

society plunging into brutal anarchy. Cinna the poet is cornered by four plebeians and is

assaulted with a barrage of questions. Each one asks separately, at the same time, “What

is your name? / Whither are you going? / Where do you dwell? / Are you a married man

or a bachelor? / Answer every man directly / Ay, and briefly. / Ay and wisely. / Ay, and

40

truly, you were best” (3.3.5-12). Seeking any reason to attack, the plebeians take his

simple answer of “I / am a bachelor” (15-16) as an insult. It is made clear that Cinna is a

simple man who does not concern himself deeply with politics. Like many poets of his

time he prefers to stay on the sidelines of factions and explore universal truths. He lives

by the Socratic ideology of questioning everything. Perhaps Shakespeare is making a

point about the necessity of being impartial and observing the world from all sides of the

spectrum before judgments can be made. But this impartiality is only considered

antagonistic by a mob hungry for attacking any potential enemies. Upon hearing his name

is Cinna, they set upon him viciously as he pleads his innocence. The witty Shakespeare

injects a bit of morbid humor by having the people say, “Tear him for his bad verses”

(29), while killing a poet. Somewhere amidst the confusion, one plebeian realizes that

Cinna is truly innocent and not a conspirator but he is too incensed to stop and proceeds

with the murder:

CINNA: I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet.

FOURTH PLEBEIAN: Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his

Bad verses.

CINNA: I am not Cinna the conspirator.

FOURTH PLEBEIAN: It is no matter, his name’s Cinna. Pluck but

His name out of his heart, and turn him going. (28-33)

The sheer brutality of the mob in this scene is seen in that they are seeking any reason at

all to enact murderous rage. It is no matter that Cinna is not a conspirator. Their actions 41

not only lack rationale but showcase a bloodlust unique among Shakespeare’s crowds.

What marks the scene especially is the fact that Cinna is clearly an innocent man, not the

true culprit the mob seeks.

Act IV opens, revealing the birth of the Triumvirate, a ruling party whose

enforced guidance, elimination of threats and internal squabbling will result in the

establishment of the empire. The audience has to wonder what this new rule will bode for

the people of Rome. As Scene I commences, they are divvying up the proceeds granted

by Caesar’s will, money intended solely for the populace. It is the first sign of a new

order that will leave the common people and eventually the Senate without any say in its

policies. As with many of Shakespeare’s tragedies, the regime that prevails at the end is

to be viewed in a subtly negative light. As the Triumvirate is established in the play, the

tragedy of the Republic becomes evident. The order the Triumvirate restores will be

short-lived. The imperial order that follows will seem more like oppression in the coming

centuries, filled with many mad and cruel leaders. Patricians of the Senate who create the

Triumvirate, such as Antony, showcase what the Republic has become in its decline: a

place where fair or equal votes no longer hold precedence for decision-making. Rome has

become a society where the only way to get what one wants is to take it by force. The

people’s opinions are no longer considered before political actions are carried out. When

the Triumvirate is formed, its members are elected by the Senate, not the people. But

what the Senate shares with the plebeians is that they are not willing to consult the

opinions of others before carrying out major political actions. Instead they seize the

42

moment for themselves and forcefully enact their wills. In this Rome, no one is willing to

put motions to a vote. They simply do as they please.

The Rome that Brutus believes he fights for, where the people have an equal say

in the government, is a thing of the past. In fact, in determining Caesar’s death, Brutus

and the conspirators are ironically exercising the same “Caesarism” that they are hoping

to prevent. They are plotting to violently change the political course of Rome without

consulting the people first. Like Caesar, they believe that they are better judges than the

people of what is right for Rome. There is a division between the Republic’s branches

greater than in Menenius’ time. Brutus alone believes that the plebeians are still worthy

of fair representation. The rest of the senators see the citizens as having degenerated into

a mindless rabble that can easily be pushed any possible direction. They believe that a

show of democracy must be maintained while the truth of their full control must be

exercised. And they believe this show is for the people’s own good. One of the lessons

here is that no republican government can last long without its supervisors, at some point,

carrying out decisions through their own volition, and not consulting the governing body

as a whole. Shakespeare’s view was that the order of republicanism can be easily

compromised by its representatives when they foolishly persuade the common people to

dispel the order.

Among the patricians, Brutus is isolated by Shakespeare. Brutus is clearly the

intended protagonist of Julius Caesar and so Shakespeare desires his audience to

sympathize with him and his ideals. Through Shakespeare’s portrait of Brutus we get a

glimpse of Shakespeare’s faith in republican systems. To some degree, Brutus embodies

43

all that was once good in republican Rome. He is a man who consults his conscience

before acceding to any decision whether made by a group or by one imposing man. He is

everything the Roman Republic could be. Thus it should come as no surprise that he is

self-defeating in his actions like the moribund republic. Shakespeare exalts Brutus not as

a treasonous and anarchical villain, but as the lone rational hero, doomed to fail not by a

lack of virtue but because he fights for a lost cause. His cause is lost because Rome’s

poor have been corrupted by the influence of fear and indifference. His cause is also

flawed because the time has come for the senate to impose their will in order to get any

control of the anarchical plebeians. Brutus fails to see that even if Caesar is eliminated,

another leader will rise in his place to take total control of Rome.

Even Brutus’ opponent, Antony, has to praise him as “the noblest Roman of them

all” (5.5.68). On seeing Brutus’ corpse, Antony makes a point that the other conspirators

performed their crime out of envy of Caesar. Brutus alone participated “in a general

honest thought / And common good to all” (70-71). The tragic sin of Brutus, which he

laments, is that he has to betray his friend to fight for his lost cause. While he certainly

means well, Brutus shares something in common with the Roman mob to which he

appeals. He desperately wants to believe in something and so he is swayed to the cause of

traitorous murder by the conniving and well-spoken Cassius. He too thinks that he can

right wrongs by taking the law into his own hands. Thus, he becomes blind to the

contradictions of his cause and his actions. In writing Julius Caesar, Shakespeare chose

to show that the society of Rome was now so corrupted that it had no place for a man

44

with a conscience. And so Brutus is fated to die because of his virtue, which is also

ultimately compromised.

Caesar’s role is a problematic one. At first glance, one might easily view him as

nothing more than a power-hungry charlatan. A major theme throughout the play is how

politicians have to be actors to be successful. Caesar is the epitome of this use of political

facades. Like Richard III, Claudius, Macbeth and many of Shakespeare’s Machiavellian

politicians, Caesar says one thing and means quite the opposite. He knows how to

effectively manipulate the crowd by making them believe he is devoted to the republican

ideals. He plays on their sympathies by becoming vulnerable at key moments. Caesar

also demonstrates a great deal of vanity. His memorable speech prior to his stabbing

reveals himself as someone desiring to be a god-like human being. It is obvious that

Caesar is ambitious. He refers to the Senate as “his senate.” Initially, it would seem that

the character of Caesar is Shakespeare’s subtle condemnation of prideful absolute rulers.

Yet Caesar is also granted some positive characteristics. When Caesar’s will is

read at his funeral, it is discovered that he has left a large sum to be divided equally

among all the men of the city. Despite his uncanny manipulation of the plebeians, Caesar

clearly cared enough for the populace to provide for them even after his death. Indeed,

what does it profit Caesar’s earthly ambition to provide for the plebeians in the event of

his death? Caesar is a caring husband to Calpurnia and momentarily decides to set aside

his important meeting with the Senate because of her fears. According to Jeffrey Yu,

“Caesar is condemned not for what he is but for what he might become. Consequently,

Caesar is a more ambiguous ‘thing,’ capable of being construed in multiple ways”(86).

45

Caesar is a vain man who secretly believes that he alone is fit to rule Rome completely.

However, from a certain perspective, it is possible to sympathize with him.

The only image of Rome depicted here is one of vast civil disorder, where the

masses and the Senate are at odds and are desperate for any hope of a strong ruler uniting

the land. It is likely that the confident, pragmatic and thorough Caesar is the best man for

the job. Caesar is a dishonest, proud man but he is also a human being with both strengths

and flaws. What makes the spirit of Caesar so mysterious and unshakable is that he is

many things. The spirit of Caesar lives on past Caesar’s actual death. This spirit remains

alive and difficult to fathom because Shakespeare seems to be suggesting that we all have

the spirit of Caesar within us. We all have the potential to become either a saint or a

tyrant. Shakespeare showcases Caesar not so much as a political monster but as noble yet

arrogant man with a dream of conquering what he rightly believes is his. He is a more

likeable potential monarch than Coriolanus. And so, through the depiction of Caesar,

Shakespeare outlines the best and worst components of monarchs. Shakespeare remains

impartial in his judgment of monarchism, yet reminds those individuals who seek

absolute power of the shaky ground they would stand upon and of the weighty

responsibilities essential to such an office.

46

Symbolism and the Populace: Coriolanus

To communicate his views on the populace, Shakespeare used symbolism, which

associates the mob with chaos and rebellion. By studying the symbolism of

Shakespeare’s crowd images, we can gain further understanding of his opinion of

populist gatherings and, by implication, popular rule. In Coriolanus, there are many

images of division. There are constant allusions to things being torn into pieces. This

theme corresponds with Julius Caesar. According to Rackin,

The body politic is dismembered, one faction against another. Human bodies are

cut to pieces by swords, and the human spirit is fatally divided by a ruthless code

in which humanity is defined as manliness and valor is the only virtue. Inevitably,

the greatest hero in that world is a soldier-the instrument, the product, and finally

the victim of its terrible divisions. (68)

Shakespeare conjures images of elements at odds with each other and the world around

them. In the opening of the play, Menenius likens the mob to members of the body

rebelling against their major source of sustenance. This introduces a theme of the body in

turmoil to the play. It also suggests a theme of cannibalism; of beings feeding on their

own kind in a savage and unreasonable manner. This is what the Romans have become:

cannibals. They are ruled by their hunger and they recognize no order. Their hunger is

often directed towards persecuting their fellow human beings.

Coriolanus appears and calls the mob “curs / That like nor peace nor war” (1.1.57-

58). This is the first time of several that Coriolanus likens the mob to animals,

47

particularly wild dogs, or curs. He goes on to call them hares when they should be lions

and geese when they should be foxes; much later, he calls them crows. Animal

symbolism is also used significantly in Julius Caesar. The wild animal symbolism

implies that the mob is lacking judgment and that they will attack any person randomly.

Coriolanus calls many people animals throughout the play and always does so in a

negative light. This is ironic because Coriolanus is actually a more animalistic and savage

character. His violent nature and his stubborn prejudice against the common people show

him as similar to a wild and tenacious animal. He is a “lamb that baas like a bear”

(2.1.10), according to Brutus and “a thing of blood” (2.2.105), as Cominius characterizes

him. Shakespeare is portraying an unfeeling and unmerciful absolute ruler who is less

than human. And of course, we don’t have to believe that Shakespeare’s view of the

populace as lowly animals was the same as Coriolanus’. Yet even the supposedly

impartial Menenius calls the crowd a wolf (4.6.116). According to Coriolanus’ account,

the crowd also calls themselves dogs (1.1.195). When the people drive Coriolanus from

the city, they hoot him out like apes. Shakespeare obviously intends the people to be seen

as animalistic. Indeed, they do seem to follow their leaders and speakers like sheep

follow the shepherd, receiving abuse and direction submissively from anyone who shows

good will regardless of the leader’s intentions.

The other symbol that is evoked in Coriolanus is that of the mythological beast,

the hydra, a many-headed serpent which is here equated with betrayal and wrathfulness.

As Coriolanus bids farewell to Rome, he states that “the beast / With many heads butts

me away” (4.1.1-2). The people have made their decision yet their flightiness shows the

48

truth that they are directed by many heads at once. However, even the citizens admit their

own frustrating inconsistency. When the First Citizen protests of Coriolanus that “he

himself/ stuck not to call us the many-headed multitude” (2.3.14-15), The Third Citizen

replies, “We have been called so of many…our wits are so diversely coloured; / and truly

I think if all our wits were to issue out of one / skull, they would fly east, west, north,

south, and their / consent of one direct way should be at once to all the / points o’ th’

compass” (16, 18-21). The image of Coriolanus exiled to the Tarpeian rock conjures up

the mythological image of the tortured Prometheus, with the crowd as the implied

vulture. Like Prometheus, Coriolanus has himself to blame for his suffering even though

the suffering is initially rather excessive. All in all, Shakespeare likens the people to

animals and mythological beasts in Coriolanus to communicate the threat of trusting to

republican rule to make one clear decision. He also does it to paint the populace as lower

than human beings in their violent moods. At the same time, Shakespeare compares

Coriolanus to an animal to show the dangers of monarchy.

Symbolism and the Populace: Julius Caesar

In Julius Caesar, even more emphasis is put on the inhuman aspect of the crowd.

Shakespeare uses comic wordplay along with imagery. Flavius asks an idle plebeian his

profession. The plebeian responds truthfully that he is a cobbler. Flavius takes this in the

sense of the slang term which means ‘a bungler’ and asks him the question again. Flavius

follows further by assaulting the entire crowd, calling them, “You blocks, you stones, you

49

worse than senseless things! / O, you hard hearts” (1.1.34-35). By likening the populace

to stones, Flavius gives the impression that the people have no true human devotion to

anyone, since they flee immediately from supporting Pompey to Caesar. The people are

unfeeling, impenetrable objects devoid of emotion, and Caesar is just another in a long

line of people to randomly gain the people’s acclaim.

Casca, a patrician with a loathing of the crowd similar to Flavius’, offers a horrid

description of the common people. He tells how “the rabblement hooted, and clapped

their chapped hands, and / threw up their sweaty nightcaps, and uttered such a deal of /

stinking breath…that it had/ almost choked Caesar…And / for mine own part, I durst not

laugh for fear of opening my lips / and receiving the bad air” (1.2.243-248). Once again

the populace is like apes in noise and, this time, in smell. Though Casca is essentially

biased against the rabble, some critics believe that Shakespeare shared Casca’s views.

Georg Brandes, as cited by Stirling, says, “It was in plain words the evil smell of the

populace which repelled Shakespeare. He was the true artist in this respect too, and more

sensitive to noxious fumes than any woman” (65). Animal symbolism creeps up once

again. During his great persuasive speech, Antony exclaims, “O judgment, thou art fled

to brutish beasts” (3.2.109). The implied “beasts” are the people. Then Antony switches

to flattery, saying, “You are not wood, you are not stones, but men” (139) He, of course,

thinks the exact opposite of them. All the negative imagery against the plebeians is used

by deceitful and prejudiced patricians. Yet, Shakespeare shows nothing to contradict this,

for the plebeians are portrayed as essentially savage and inhuman throughout most of the

play. However, the people are not the only ones likened to lowly animals in order to paint

50

a negative portrait. While the people are characterized as sheep (1.3.105), Caesar is

compared to a devouring lion (74) and the conspirators are dogs (3.1.43) or apes (5.1.42).

Once again this addresses the point that all who attempt to seize control of the

government are painted negatively in Julius Caesar.

Verdict on the Populace

The people of Britain often proudly compared their society to Rome. They too

believed that their society was mighty beyond compare and that the entire world was

destined to become a part of it. They believed their people possessed great honor and

virtue. Yet they often overlooked the faults inherent in such a comparison. According to

Peter Leithart’s website, “Ancient Roman history provided examples of morality and

immorality, illustrations of honor and dishonor, parables of political triumphs and

political catastrophes. Learning about Rome was a standard part of an Elizabethan's

moral and political education.” Shakespeare knew when he undertook his portrait of

Rome that he was dramatizing a society that was often held up as a model for the

societies of his day. Yet Shakespeare was a wise and bold writer and it is clear that he

wished to send a message in his play. He was trying to communicate caution to all those

who would take the law into their own hands. And he willingly chose to remain skeptical

to all forms of government. An enraged populace can destroy all the order and peace

hoped for in a republic just as easily as a tyrant. As Jan Blits observes, “In Julius Caesar,

it is ironic that while Rome’s republicanism rests decisively on preserving the sanctity of

51

ancestral conventions, that same pious attachment to fixed forms finally facilitates the

regime’s corruption” (51). Shakespeare looked at the example of Rome and then at the

society of England and concluded that there was the same danger of chaos overtaking his

land. In his plays he sought to remind the people of how easily any society could unravel.

Shakespeare was no democrat. Nor was he a complete monarchist, at least not in

private. His works shows a suspicion of both systems, since they both could produce

mobs and tyrants. But he did have his own opinions of government and he wasn’t just

following tradition. When it came to politics, he chose to remain skeptical of all points of

view. While his portrait of the Roman common people is disturbing, his political leaders

such as Coriolanus and Antony are just as despicable. In Julius Caesar, who is truly at

fault for Cinna’s murder? Antony shares just as much blame as the mob, if not more, for

he is the one who persuades the people to riot. In Coriolanus, instead of correcting their

faults, Coriolanus goads the crowd to anarchy by his hostility and violence. He is just as

responsible as the plebeians for the political debacle.

Critics are split over Shakespeare’s opinion of the Roman people and, by

implication, common people in general. Some critics, such as James Philips, feel that

Shakespeare abhorred the common people and that his Roman plays reveal contempt for

the republicanism which allowed them to act in a political capacity and thus opened the

possibility for mobs forming. Others, such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Annabel

Patterson, recognize that the monarchs and senators of Shakespeare are as treacherous as

the plebeians are violent. A distinction must be made. As Phillips writes,

52

It is not the plebeian as he lives and acts in his own degree but the plebeian

spurred by political ambitions, attempting to rise out of his degree that

Shakespeare ridicules and condemns. When a commoner, alone or in a mob, seeks

to meddle in politics and government in violent and outlandish ways, he becomes

the object of some of the dramatist’s fiercest scorn. Towards the common people

acting peaceably in their appointed vocations Shakespeare shows tolerance and

sympathy; if he is not their champion, he is certainly aware of their rights. Often,

the justice of the people’s grievances is recognized; the course which they take to

redress their wrongs is denounced. (154)

What Shakespeare feared was the capacity of inflamed masses to go too far and to bring

about widespread violence. Shakespeare reminded his audience that while it is easy to be

wary of the tyranny of one, the tyranny of many is just as threatening.

Straddling the middle of the political spectrum is not easy, but this was where

Shakespeare remained in his philosophy. Though remaining in the middle, he did not

shrink from judging politics. His views may seem mixed and awkward because of our

modern perspective. We must remember that our modern republican systems did not exist

in his time. We must be careful about judging Shakespeare’s views according to present

definitions. If anything, Shakespeare’s impartiality makes his views applicable to both

ends of the political spectrum. According to Edward Salmon,

There seems to be little difficulty in deciding what Shakespeare should be labeled

as. If he had lived today he would have perhaps been a Conservative of the best

53

type. In other words, his works make for what may be called Liberal-

Conservatism: he would not have opposed a blank negative to all demands for

reform: neither would he have mistaken the demagogue for a demi-god whose

demands must be satisfied without question. Politicians of all shades of thought

may go to Shakespeare and find texts for the faith that is in them. (24)

The problem with republicanism is it is always subject to many different attitudes

conflicting at the same time. Thus it is difficult to make one concrete decision in the

midst of so many complicated ideas. Also, the fact remains that the majority always wins

over the vote, leaving out the minority’s right to decide. If Shakespeare had been a

political analyst he would have suggested a better compromise between the extremes of

monarchy and democracy. But Shakespeare was not an analyst; he was merely an

insightful poet. And the message of his political dramas is that no system is perfect. Any

government can fall and every society is subject to the failings of its members.

Overall, if it is possible to judge Shakespeare’s personal view on republican rule

based on the mobs of his Roman plays, one is likely to judge that he viewed populist rule

as just as tenuous a system as any other. Anyone, politician or not, can upset the order if

they so choose. He would probably advise caution when dealing with such a system, for

it is all too easy for some, especially critics today, to suppose republican rule as

incorruptible when it is just the opposite. Above everything else, he followed his own

independent morality and realized that what is popular is not always right. Being a

supreme dramatist, he knew much of human nature. And he knew that magistrates and

54

politicians also sin and that governments, though always necessary, can always be

reformed.

Conclusion

In the Roman plays set after Coriolanus and Julius Caesar, the people’s will is

barely attended to. Antony and Cleopatra is all about the self-destruction of the

Triumvirate and the complete formation of the Empire. Titus Andronicus brings up the

people’s will rarely, as when two sons contend over the people’s favor for who should be

emperor. The final choice is instead granted by the patricians to the general Titus

Andronicus. In both of these plays, the people can only stand back and watch as the

imperial families and the patricians savagely tear one another apart in the desire for

revenge and power. The chaos that follows in Titus Andronicus reveals the depths to

which Rome has fallen to, ending with many dead, including the emperor. If the common

people were unfit to rule, the patricians show themselves to be just as unfit. The note of

despair is great as Marcus speaks before an assembly of the people:

You sad-faced men, people and sons of Rome,

By uproar severed, as a flight of fowl

Scattered by winds and high tempestuous gusts,

O, let me teach you how to knit again

This scattered corn into one mutual sheaf,

These broken limbs again into one body;

55

Lest Rome herself be bane unto herself,

And she whom mighty kingdoms curtsy to,

Like a forlorn and desperate castaway,

Do shameful execution on herself. (Shakespeare The Tragedy of Titus

Andronicus 5.3.66-75)

It is doubtful whether the populace of Rome will be able to learn from this catastrophe

and if any future order can be restored that would prevent such atrocities from taking

place. In his Roman tragedies, Shakespeare gives his audience a startling, decadent

portrait of what was believed at his time to be the greatest society that ever existed.

Shakespeare’s plays reminded England of the great faults of Rome and how easily their

realm could also become enveloped in similar disorder. Shakespeare chose to paint a

more honest portrait of Rome and thus warn England of having too much ambition lest it

meet the same fate as Rome. His Rome was basically a society of chaotic faction that was

destined to fall, for any human society can collapse under the weight of its own

corruption.

Shakespeare’s message was not his alone. He was influenced by many writers of

the past who had learned well the folly of Rome. Some political writers would dwell on

the history of the past and would take on a reformer’s spirit. Shakespeare indicates that he

himself possessed a spirit of acceptance. In his impartiality, Shakespeare takes a cue from

Plutarch. Some believe Plutarch’s purpose in chronicling the history of Rome was to

teach future societies to accept some small imperfections in government and to be wary

of plans to improve governments; for in striving to be a more perfect society, we often

draw close to far greater turmoil. Shakespeare held up the Roman Republic as a mirror to 56

those governments who believed they knew best how to deal with representing the

populace. He employed numerous devices in showcasing the vices of those who seize

control of the government forcibly and violently. He compared such people to animals

and mythical beasts. He did this to discourage dissatisfied people from combating order

with brutality and from fighting fire with fire.

Shakespeare’s warnings against mob action are relevant to societies beyond even

his time. History repeatedly shows the danger of underestimating an incensed mob. The

hard truth should be apparent. Often, the worst tyrannies come to be because of

unthinking mobs. Shakespeare’s Roman Plays are very relevant to our own country and

time as well. As our societies today continually strive to be stronger and fairer, it is

important to remember that every revolutionary society carries within itself the seeds of

its own destruction.

From Shakespeare’s perspective, only one solution exists to avoid the madness of

his vision of Rome: looking within oneself. As a poet, what Shakespeare prized was the

individual and self-reflection. He shows this in the moderate Menenius. He has pity for

monarchs, for their job carries so much responsibility that they must consider the welfare

of their country before consulting their own individual wills. He pities the inflamed

crowd even more for its tendency to smother individual will and neglect self-reflection.

The need for self-knowledge and self-examination in dealing with the government is

central to Shakespeare’s stories. According to Dennis Bathory,

The inability of individuals to recognize the important link between self-

knowledge and political knowledge leaves internal strife unaddressed and makes

57

political life sometimes difficult, sometimes tragic, and always confused. The

relationship between the internal and external—both for the individual and the

state—is thus dramatized in these plays and presented as a central political

problem (239).

In Shakespeare’s portrayal, the Romans are so focused on judging outsiders according to

their flaws that the Romans neglect to examine themselves and their own weaknesses.

Instead of thinking for themselves, they allow politicians to control both their opinions

and their actions. They are tied to their physical needs. They change their convictions on

the slightest occasions. Finally, they are governed by fear and are easily led and misled.

Because the common people neglect reflection and inward thinking, they are unprepared

to directly rule the nation. But this is also true of most of the patricians. This does not

mean that Shakespeare hates the plebeians. He knows them to be like most humans,

largely weak but not vicious. The same goes for the patricians. Shakespeare’s text

remains ambiguous and characterizes both ends of the political spectrum as possessing

positive and negative characteristics.

As Shakespeare’s audience today, we have some things in common with the

Roman mob. Like the Roman mob, we applaud one party and then another. As Mildred

Hartsock writes, “We respond to the beauty and power of Shakespeare’s oratory. And, in

the end, we are brought to realize that the truth is what one decides it is” (Hartsock 62).

Shakespeare wants his audience to perceive the dangers of tampering idly with the

government and potential power over the people. Once realizing these dangers, each

person must reflect within himself what the best course of action is. We must heed

58

continually Shakespeare’s warning in order to avoid falling prey to the chaos he depicts.

Only through careful contemplation and consideration for the common good can we

begin to adhere to Shakespeare’s hope for society and begin to build a better world.

59

References

60