by Shaun Procaccini, Blogging Circle 2
One thing about Julius Caesar that is both interesting and concerning is its treatment of the masses of Rome. The Plebeians serve a very important function both practically and abstractly in the play as the characters which the conspirators are ostensibly acting on the behalf of. Despite this, they are easily manipulated to turn on the conspirators. In fact, the only consistent thing about the Plebeians appears to be their quickness to be convinced. This is interesting because of the function this plays in the events of the play, but concerning because of the implications of this characterization regarding democratic participants in general.
The Plebeians come in to play in a significant way just after Caesar’s death when Brutus, and then Antony meet them at the pulpit. During Brutus’ interaction with them we do not begin with any textual evidence of the Plebeians being angry with Brutus. Instead they call him “noble” and quiet each other down to calmly listen to him. In the beginning, the only thing that they want is to hear the reasons the conspirators have for killing their beloved leader. This is their only request and they seem perfectly willing to receive it. By the end of Brutus’ short speech, they are ready to name him their new Caesar. It is important to understand that the Plebeians come into this scene with no original opinion on the events of the assassination. They arrive asking Brutus to tell them how to feel and they accept the first suggested outlook. They appear adopt it uniformly as well, seeing as how there is no dissent or disagreement between the Plebeians. They think and act as a single unit with no representation of divergent points of view.
It does not take long, however, for the Plebeians to go from lauding Brutus and calling for his deification, to demanding his death and the deaths of his fellow assassins. I think that the true turning point in Antony’s monologue which changes the minds of the Plebeians happens here:
Have patience, gentle friends: I must not read it.
It is not meet you know how Caesar loved you.
You are nor wood, you are not stones, but men;
And being men, hearing the will of Caesar,
It will inflame you, it will make you mad.
‘Tis good you know not that you are his heirs,
For if you should, oh, what would come of it?
Here Antony states explicitly, although he pretends not to, that the citizens of Rome are the rightful inheritors of Caesar’s land and riches. During the first break in Antony’s speech, the Plebeians calmly mull over what they have heard which is mostly reasons why Caesar was not as ambitious as Brutus makes him sound. At the mention of the will they become much more animated, and with confirmation that Caesar left his estate to them they are whipped into a frenzy. This frenzy is maintained beyond the scene and sees them seek out revenge against the conspirators.
The trouble with this portrayal of the Plebeians is a combination of an absence of original thought in regards to the assassination, the easy filling of this vacuum by Brutus seemingly for no logical reason, and the equally as quick replacement of that narrative by Antony with the mention of material reward. The implications about the frivolity, greed, and susceptibility of the democratic masses are dark and concerning.
Your post seems to suggest a mindlessness of the plebeians and the public which is extremely concerning. I personally think that Julius Caesar is Shakespeare’s argument for a monarch who cares about the people and who shows them that they have nothing to fear. Just because a ruler has total power does not mean that they are secretly seeking to dominate their people and are not out for their best interests. The plebeian class also seems to suggest a class struggle, as Shakespeare seems to be saying here that the public and the masses are uneducated to the point where they need an educated person to tell them what they want almost like a group of sheep like people or “sheeple.”
I really enjoy your post, it brings up a perspective we really do not talk about in classes. The side of the plebeians is often overlooked as they are more irrelevant than everyone else in the play. They are easily convinced as they believe the person they see taking the most charge out of everyone else, this probably explains why they latch on to Brutus’ character so quickly, as he shows authority following Caesar’s death. But when Antony does the same they then go to him, seeking some type of material reward. They seem to pay attention to what they want to hear as opposed to what is actually be said and shown to them. Their king is laying dead in front of them and they seem to overlooked it instantly. If we saw more into their actual viewpoints of their rulers we could have a better explanation of their actions.
Shaun this is a great analysis of the plebiand in Julius Caesar! They are very mindless and consistently minipulable. You emphasize the scene of the play when Antony informs the plebians of their inheritance, and I think that their reaction is fascinating. Upon hearing about the death of Caesar they are rather indifferent. But when they hear of their inheritance, their greed boils over. What does this say about the plebeians then?
This was post was really interesting, Shaun. I do not think I had given the plebeians much thought other than, “really?” throughout my reading of the play. They were so frustratingly oblivious when they did not understand Brutus and the conspirators reasoning for killing Caesar as they tried to crown Brutus on the spot (ahem, plebeians a monarch is the thing the conspirators killed to avoid). Then, we see them so moldable to whomever is speaking to them. Brutus speaks: the plebeians think Caesar was ambitious. A moment later, Marc Antony speaks: the plebeians think Caesar was wrongly killed and we must avenge his death. Their reactions are almost comic relief. But, I do think Shakespeare did this on purpose. I believe Shakespeare was trying to illustrate mob mentality and the stupidity of masses. Now, it is psychologically proven that in mobs people tend to adapt their certain behaviors and become one entity. My thought is that Shakespeare was attempting to show just how idiotic the masses can be and how that influences politics–because that is what the entire plot of this play is about.
Shaun,
Great post. The Plebeians serve as the masses and probably the most important feature of the play. They are Rome, and are precisely what drive Brutus and company to betray their close friend. Your point that the only consistent thing about them is their quickness to be convinced was great and absolutely spot on. We witness them change their minds in no time, which is overly concerning. It proves that Rome does not actually know what it wants, but we are able to question whether that is their fault as citizens or rather the fault of the system. Another great point you made was that the Plebeians came into the scene post-Caesar’s death with no original opinion the assassination. They are waiting to be told what to feel. You would think they would be enraged at the news of their beloved leader’s death, but instead they are waiting for the higher ranked people to tell them what they should feel and what the truth is. I really enjoyed reading your post!
I really like your analysis of the plebeians and the dangers of mob mentality and greed. We see this behavior on the first page of the play, as Flavius and Murellus shame the workers for celebrating Caesar so quickly after he defeats Pompey. They (Flavius and Murellus) claim that just recently the workers were obsessing over Pompey, and now they are so quick to shift their allegiance. The theme continues throughout the entire play, in nearly every scene. It’s shocking how relevant this idea still is in the present day. So many people simply jump on the bandwagon without thinking about the consequences, and it often has drastic effects.
Great job, Shaun–the question of “the commons” in Shakespeare is as important as it is complicated, and your post expresses the same conflict I felt while reading “Julius Caesar”. It’s kind of disconcerting to see “the masses” portrayed as so easily swayed, with few independently-held convictions to speak of–especially in a work by someone who has time and again shown himself to be acutely aware of the realities of classism. (There’s actually a similar situation in “1 Henry VI”; in that play, the allegiance of the common people is manipulated back and forth, to some comedic effect, between two populist leaders with compelling rhetorical skills). In a generous reading of these cases, though, I think there’s an argument to be made that portraying the common people as being an easily-manipulated monolith creates a kind of shorthand that makes it easier to illustrate the ways in which the powerful prey upon the weak. The power dynamic couldn’t be clearer, and neither could the political implications. I think it’s worth considering the simplification of the commons as a device that puts the focus on the (very effective, sometimes horrifying, always consistent) ways in which the fears and hopes of the people are taken advantage of by those in the position to use them to further their own ends.
I also believe that the Plebeians were very easily convinced. First they have dedication to Julius Caesar, then they swap to admiring Brutus, then they jump to Antony’s side. It makes me wonder what this says about the value of their loyalty. Are people truly loyal when they are so easily able to switch sides? I also notice that they aren’t even labeled with names. They are only named by the number order in which they speak, followed by, “plebeian.” I personally think that makes them seem insignificant and not valued enough to be given proper names.
Shaun,
This is a great analysis on the Plebians. I agree that they seem to be swayed by being beneficiaries to Caesar’s will, making them seem more material-minded than concerned with the well-being of their government. When they murder the poet Cinna because he has the same name as the conspirator Cinna, it became clear to me how filled with blood-lust they are. Why make the Plebians so easily swayed? I think Shakespeare was trying to demonstrate how well politics works as performance; whoever puts on the best show will get the best reception. Yet, I think he was also illustrating how easily people are to accept manipulation and how it can get carried away.
Shaun, you make some really interesting points! For instance, the fickleness of the Plebeians is definitely an alarming representation of citizens as a whole, especially in comparison to democracy. Moreover, you pointed out the turning point in the collective minds of the Plebeians during Antony’s monologue; the fact of Antony pretending to reserve the information of Caesar’s will, regarding the inheritance of land to the people, while actually announcing it to the public, really got me thinking. To elucidate, Brutus justifies murdering Caesar because the ruler was ambitious; however, Antony defends Caesar by reminding the Plebeians of Caesar’s rejection of the crown three times: “Was this ambition?” (3.2.94). What I found surprising was that Antony protects Caesar’s reputation by saying that he wasn’t guilty of ambition, yet Antony feeds the ambition of the Plebeians by declaring their heritage so they will join his cause against Brutus and the conspirators. Again, great post, Shaun!
I wrote my blog post on the function of the Plebians as well, and I believe you brought even more into the argument for how important they are as plot points in this play. You’re mentioning of the part of Antony’s speech discussing the publics inheritance of Caesars lands and also how easily swayed they are on such serious political matters was both insightful and worth reflecting on.