Shakespeare has once again presented a play full of layers and perspectives, as Caesar gives us a great many point of view of the incredibly memorable events surrounding the assassination of Julius Caesar. I love taking a look at unconventional outlooks on situations that are generally viewed in a certain light, but I think that seeing the various aspects of the Plebians in Rome at the time tell a great deal about the political climate that doesn’t necessarily give reason to the assassination itself, but the events that followed the murder.
The two big moments in the play that best exemplify the mood of the Plebians at the time are Act I Scene 1 and Act 3 Scene 2. As various workers head to celebrate Caesar’s victory in battle, Mercillus combats the reasons the workers give for leaving their jobs in order to travel to the Capitol, saying
“Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home?
What tributaries follow him to Rome
To grace in captive bonds his chariot wheels?
You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things,
O you hard hearts, you cruèl men of Rome,
Knew you not Pompey? Many a time and oft
Have you climbed up to walls and battlements,
To towers and windows, yea, to chimney tops,
Your infants in your arms, and there have sat
The livelong day with patient expectation
To see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome.” (1.1.33-44)
He is commenting on how Pompey was not some unknown evil foe, but a man that once held great power in Rome. Sure, the state of Rome has declared a victor in this war but who’s to say this won’t happen again. He recognizes the show of it all, and to me this scene is the setup to the reader or viewer on how easily the Plebians were willing to change their opinions and views on people and things so quickly. Mark Antony delivers one of the most powerful political speeches in literature to the Plebians following Caesar’s death in Act 3 Scene 2. Through a mastery of words and emotion, he is able to sway the Plebians to come to a conclusion that Antony basically guides them to through his rhetoric. At the start of his speech, the people are shouting to make Brutus the next Caesar, but after three monologues the Plebians are ready to riot and mob the streets of Rome in search of the now outcasted senators that murdered Julius. The scene that follows shows us just how vicious the common folk can be, as a simple misunderstanding leads very quickly to the murder of an innocent citizen.
These small concentrates of the common people’s actions and views of what’s going on during this time give great insight into the big picture of it all. As we often get sucked up into the drama behind the big catalyst’s in the plot, it’s worth noticing the role that the Plebians play in not only the ousting of the senators but also in allowing these political leaders to gain and lose support so quickly.
I agree that looking at the Plebians in this play is very interesting. I think their reactions are almost more important than the actions of the leading players, because all of the drama in this play revolves around how the people will be ruled. I think this play is the most outright criticism or analysis of the common people that Shakespeare has presented (at least amongst the works we’ve read this semester) because it shows how people behave when the political landscape is up in the air. Particularly your observation about how the react to Antony’s speech is the most poignant, because we clearly see the opinion of the people swayed in a completely opposite direction by just a couple of speeches. This shows us Shakespeares opinion of commonfolk, or what he feels is at the core of human nature. I think he is trying to prove that people are hungry for leadership regardless of what form it comes in. Without stable leadership, as he shows, chaos is likely to erupt.
Jesse,
You bring up a lot of great points in your discussion post. Despite the play being called “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar”, the true focal point of the play is not Julius Caesar, his conspirators, or the ones who defended his honor, but rather the Plebeians, and in that, the play can really be looked as “The Tragedy of the Plebeians of Rome”. I believe that Shakespeare was attempting the illustrate the idea that while one man may have his thoughts and opinions on a certain subject, when there is a collected mass of people who are part of a certain situation, properly formed opinions and thoughts tend to be diluted, and will often turn to a more basic and angry collective view. It reminds me of a quote by George Carlin, who once said, “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” Not to say that the Plebeians lacked any sense of intelligence, but I believe that Shakespeare was attempting illustrate the very concept of how corrupt leaders can easily sway large groups of people with simple, and emotionally charged political rhetoric. It simply depends and how and when they choose to say it.
Upon reading your line, “through a mastery of words and emotion, he is able to sway the Plebians to come to a conclusion that Antony basically guides them to through his rhetoric,” I couldn’t help but think about our Presidential debates and the way in which we monitor the support of the masses during election time. Looking at the play in comparison to our society today conceptually, both our masses and the plebeians have their political support/views/opinions shaped by the rhetoric and speeches of potential candidates for roles of power. While we consider their actions and histories, we mainly base our opinions of leaders on what they prepare and say to the public. This allows for them to make the best out of their spotlight and our readiness to believe them, and craft idealistic versions of themselves and their intentions as leaders. In reality, this leads us to think less about their previous and possibly even wrong actions; much like the speakers in Julius Caesar do.