literary analyses

"Power, Loyalty, and the Plebeian Voice: A Comparative Study of Caesar, Coriolanus, and the Plebeians in Shakespeare's Political Tragedies"

William Shakespeare’s works Julius Caesar and Coriolanus represent Roman plebeians as political pawns of the Roman Empire. Both works, following a Shakespearan-Freytag dramatic structure, provide insight into the personal and professional life of Rome's powerful historical figure heads, Caesar and Coriolanus. Yet Plebeians are not entirely dominated by these powerful leaders. Emphasized in these works, is Roman governance subjection to change at the hands of fickle mass opinion and critique. Thus plebeians in Shakespeares’ plays, are inextricably bound to the status of politics, agency, and stability within the Roman Empire. This paper will analyze Shakespeare's portrayal of the plebeians and Roman figure heads, which is nuanced and is suggestive a larger theme of Shakespeare's that is apprehensive and skeptical about the so called powerful and powerless. 

Plebeians in Julius Caesar

In Julius Caesar, the plebeians are portrayed as an easily manipulated crowd that idolizes leaders seemingly without much critical thought. This claim can be verified by an examination of three significant plot developments.

The first instance appears within mere seconds of the play’s beginning. Flavius and Murellus, two tribunes, are in conversation with a carpenter and a cobbler, two common folk, inquiring about the celebration occurring within the streets of Rome. Murellus, discontent with the plebeians' celebration of Caesar, demands of them, “Knew you not Pompey?” suggesting the rapidity with which the people’s favor changed (1.1.42). Did the plebeians not climb up walls, chimneys, and peer through windows in awe of Pompey? The change of allegiance to Caesar is seen as quick and fickle. This opening scene establishes the plebeians' characterization as capricious and disloyal throughout the play.

A second prominent example occurs in Act 3, Scene 2. After Caesar’s assassination, Brutus and Antony deliver speeches to the plebeian masses. Brutus seeks to justify the killing by arguing that Caesar was ambitious and would have enslaved Rome, stating, “There is tears for his love; joy for his fortune…” but that he “...loved Rome more” and thus Caesar’s death was necessary (3.2.29-30). At first, it appears that Brutus’ logic resonates with the crowd, as they shout approval: “Give him a statue with his ancestors!” and “Live, Brutus, live, live!” (3.2.50). However, upon closer examination, the plebeians misunderstand Brutus' argument; rather than supporting his call for devotion to Rome, they instead transfer their loyalty to him personally. This mirrors their previous shift from Pompey to Caesar, reinforcing their identity as a fickle and easily swayed populace.

The final instance follows Antony’s speech. In contrast to Brutus' appeals to reason, Antony employs pathos, mourning Caesar and dramatically displaying his corpse. By the time he pauses to weep, the plebeians have already begun to turn against Brutus. Antony further manipulates the crowd by strategically withholding Caesar’s will until they beg to hear it, after which they denounce Brutus and his conspirators as “traitors” and “murderers” (3.2.167). When Antony finally reads the will, which promises wealth and land to the common people, the plebeians erupt into a violent frenzy, crying out, “Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire! Kill! Slay! Let not a traitor live” (3.2.216-217). Here, Antony’s oratory skill decisively overturns Brutus' logic-based appeal, demonstrating how easily the plebeians' allegiance shifts.

This volatility is further exemplified in Act 3, Scene 3, when the plebeians mistake Cinna the poet for Cinna the conspirator and, despite his protests, tear him apart in a senseless act of mob violence. Compared to their earlier passive support for leaders, this scene marks a transformation of the plebeians into an uncontrollable force of destruction. Shakespeare suggests that their malleability makes them dangerous; as they are easily manipulated, they can be driven to both blind adulation and ruthless violence.

Plebeians in Coriolanus

In Coriolanus, the Roman plebeians are again portrayed as an easily manipulable crowd. Shakespeare does not name any plebeians individually, referring to them only numerically, reinforcing their portrayal as an anonymous, interchangeable mass. The play opens with plebeians rioting in protest of famine, blaming the ruling class for their suffering and declaring their willingness to “rather die than to famish” (1.1.4-5). Their demand for control over the price of corn and their calls for “revenge” suggest that, unlike in Julius Caesar, where their volatility was primarily rhetorical, here, the plebeians are willing to take violent action to meet their needs.

Menenius, an aristocrat, attempts to pacify them by telling the fable of the belly, which depicts the ruling class as the stomach and the plebeians as the limbs of a body that must work together. This allegory frames the plebeians as dependent on the elite and incapable of self-governance. Menenius further shifts blame for their suffering away from the state and onto divine forces, urging them to “Strike at the heaven with your staves” rather than rebelling against their rulers (1.1.70). This successful pacification reinforces their characterization as an easily placated mass.

Coriolanus, in contrast to Menenius, openly expresses his contempt for the plebeians, calling them “dissentious rogues” (1.1.174). He views them as fickle and unworthy of political power, a belief confirmed when they initially support him for consul but revoke their votes upon being manipulated by the tribunes. Coriolanus’ discomfort with democratic performance is highlighted when he struggles to “put on the gown” of the consul and is eager to “change these garments” after securing votes (2.2.160; 2.3.160). Shakespeare emphasizes the theatrical nature of politics, showing that the plebeians value appearances over substance, as they are more concerned with seeing Coriolanus' wounds than understanding his character.

Conclusion

What, then, is being suggested by Shakespeare's portrayal of the plebeians as disloyal and fickle? In both Julius Caesar and Coriolanus, the plebeians are swayed by the best orator rather than by independent reasoning. Their rapid shifts in allegiance expose the fragility of popular rule, suggesting that democracy is susceptible to corruption and manipulation. The mutinies in Julius Caesar and Menenius’ allegorical fable in Coriolanus underscore the deceit and instability of the Roman state. Shakespeare ultimately poses a poignant question: if the plebeians' so-called power rests in their ability to be swayed rather than to think independently, were they ever truly free?