1. 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

2. 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

3. 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
3

4. 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
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

5. 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
5

6. a strong monarch alone. Thus, the ideology of rule by the masses was discouraged by the
authorities. Some scholars believe that
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.
6

7. 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
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
7

8. from current events, including the mass persecutions against religious groups and the
Gunpowder Plot. The assassination of Shakespeare’s potential dramatic monarchs has
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
8

9. 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
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
9

10. 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
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
10

11. were willing to graciously overlook Coriolanus’ major faults, but he was not willing to do
that for them.
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-
11

12. 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
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
12

13. 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
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.
13

14. 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
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.
14

15. 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
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.
15

16. 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
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
16

17. 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.
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.
17

18. 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,
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
18

19. 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.
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
19

20. 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.
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
20

21. 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
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
21

22. 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)
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.
22

23. 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
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,
23

24. 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
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)
24

25. 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.
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!
25

26. 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)
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
26

27. 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’
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
27

28. 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
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
28

29. 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
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
29

30. 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
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
30

31. 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
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
31

32. 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
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
32

33. 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
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
33

34. the politics of the marketplace, a confusing cacophony of claims and
counterclaims. (Miola 288)
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
34

35. Caesar’s statues reveal how the people already see Caesar as a king in stature, if not in
name.
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
35

36. such authority, another instance of Antony’s careless imposing. Casca is greatly hostile
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
36

37. inclined to overlook Caesar’s ambition, which is quite obvious to those who watch him
insightfully.
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,
37

38. That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial. (266-269, 271-278)
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
38

39. 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,
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
39

40. 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
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
40

41. 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
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)
41

42. 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
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
42

43. opinions of others before carrying out major political actions. Instead they seize the
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
43

44. glimpse of Shakespeare’s faith in republican systems. To some degree, Brutus embodies
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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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

52. 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

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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

56. 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

57. 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

58. 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

59. 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

60. References
60