Ben Fishburne
ENG 435
Dr. Farrar
7 December 2015
Public Power in Shakespearean Roman Politics
It is said that the census of the ancient Roman Republic, and later Empire, was originally
instituted by the Roman King Servius Tullius in the sixth century B.C. Capite censi, or “those
counted by head” were originally established as a way to keep track of all adult males fit to serve
the Roman military (Oxford). It was usually carried out by officials of the empire every five
years, and it played a crucial role in the determination of taxation, as well as overall
administration of the empire (Alterman 11). The word “census” originated in ancient Rome from
the Latin censere, meaning “to estimate.” Censuses nowadays are used worldwide to determine a
wide variety of factors from population to income to estimated need for social and economic
programs. In ancient Rome, the republic’s census officially introduced the idea of the plebeians
or plebs.
These people were the general body of Rome, and they were defined solely in the early
roman census by their inability to be referred to as patricians or members of the ruling class. At
various times throughout the existence of the Roman Republic, the patricians formed a near
monopoly on social and political institutions and ideals, leaving the plebs excluded from
opportunities to further their social and economic statuses through magistrates and religious
studies. At the onset of the republic, plebeians were not even permitted to know the laws that
ruled over them. The common people found themselves serving in the army but rarely having the
opportunities to become leaders within their own societies (Salmon 171-204). The censuses
showed the great numbers these people had throughout history, and eventually, the plebs realized
what the patricians already knew and harnessed the power they possessed as a collective unit.
Shakespeare’s plays set in ancient Rome often focus on the power these people have over
the collective republic. Both Titus Andronicus and Coriolanus highlight this power in various
ways and illustrate Shakespeare’s focus on the potential power of a unified people in this
republic’s society. Whether the plebs are only thought of by the protagonist or are a direct cause
of action, Titus Andronicus and Coriolanus both illustrate characters that act at various times
based upon whether or not their intentions can be accomplished with or without the people’s
support. In a few cases, the opinion of the public even leads to the direct appointment or
establishment of new order among the higher powers of government.
Once the plebs of ancient Rome had become so overly dissatisfied with their inability to
attain control or opinion regarding their own republic, they organized in a sort of strike against
the empire, a secessio plebis, or Succession of the Plebs. These movements occurred several
times during the republic’s existence, during which the plebeians would withdraw themselves
from Rome and leave the patricians with nobody to govern. This deliberate strategy of
cooperation among the common peoples eventually resulted in the establishment of plebian
elected officials, various laws favoring the rights of the people, higher education for plebeians,
and the rights for plebian-patrician intermarriage (Forsythe 248-266). The common people
established themselves as the true body of the political structure of Rome amidst a government
fixated on suppressing their potential to rise in social or political status. Their power only existed
as a collective unit, but their potential effect to the empire and the people in power heavily
influenced the ways in which patricians and rulers had to approach various circumstances. The
plebs altered their own statuses in ancient Rome to give themselves the opportunity to have a say
in the actions and outcome of their civilization.
In the opening act of Titus Andronicus, we learn of the importance the favor of the people
holds within this Roman government, and we see Shakespeare emphasizing the fact that many
characters base their dialogue and decisions around the knowledge of who has the people’s love
and support. In this instance, the opening scene describes Titus being the one who has the
greatest support from the people:
“Know that the people of Rome, for whom we stand
A special party, have, by common voice,
In election for the Roman empery,
Chosen Andronicus (I.i.20-23)
These lines utter the first mention of Titus Andronicus in the play, and they emphasize the favor
he holds with the people after his decade of military service and sacrifice. They are spoken by
Titus’s brother Marcus, a character who holds the position of Roman Tribune of the People. This
position, which was first introduced to the Roman Empire after the success of secessio plebis, is
the one that ultimately introduces who should be given the power to rule Rome in this opening
act (Forsythe 265). Marcus is aware of the power the voice of the people holds and acts
accordingly throughout the play. While others seek revenge, glory, and power, Marcus remains
one of the only characters to abstain from bloodshed while providing a calm voice of reason
whenever he speaks. He truly acts as the people would desire; he does not take part in the
violence Titus persists on creating and speaks of ending conflicts between the families. He acts
“For peace, for love, for league, and good to Rome” (V.iii.23). He also knows his own
protection. While others are bent on revenge and must act to protect themselves, Marcus knows
that, as an official elected by the people, not even the Emperor would dare challenge his voice or
his life.
When Titus is introduced to the people’s desire to have him serve as emperor, he rejects
the proposal and instead uses his newfound support to relinquish the power that was just
introduced to him. Titus fails to recognize the significance of the people’s support and creates a
situation that eventually leads to his demise and the dissention of the capitol by appointing
Saturninus to the throne (D’Amico 67). When Saturninus first speaks to the masses with
Bassianus, asking the people to determine who should succeed to the throne, he invokes his
believed right to power as the previous Emperor’s first-born son saying, “And, countrymen, my
loving followers, / Plead my successive title with your swords: / I am his first-born son… (I.i.35). Marcus informs the cast, however, that the people favor Titus, and this election surpasses any
divine right or claim Saturninus believes he has in an instant.
We hear discussion pertaining to the Tribunes of Rome throughout the entirety of the
play. These elected officials, like Marcus, also came about through the success of various
Successions of the Plebs (Forsythe 265). Their power and influence both over the masses and the
outcome of political decisions is made prevalent by the ways in which characters from the
smallest positions of power to the emperor recognize the elected members of government as
some of the most well-known people of Rome. They speak only once in the play, when Titus
expresses his desire to appoint someone other than himself: “To gratify the good Andronicus, /
And gratulate his safe return to Rome, / The people will accept whom he admits (I.i.220-222).
Titus fails to recognize the protection and power he holds by having the love of the people. The
instant he relinquishes the plebs’s support and denies Marcus’s offer of the scepter of Rome,
events transpire in discord with Titus’s will. Once appointing Saturninus as Emperor, he must
witness Saturninus debate with Bassianus and Mutius Andronicus over the rights to marry
Titus’s daughter Lavinia. This results in Titus killing his son Mutius and seeing Tamora quickly
rise to power as empress. Within the course of a day, Titus becomes the most powerful man in
Rome, gives his power away, and quickly descends below the rank of many others as he kills his
son, loses influence over his daughter, and witness his most dangerous enemy rise to power. This
opening act illustrates, not only the influence the plebeians have on politics and power, but the
lack of respect one receives when failing to attain or abstaining from the masses’s favor.
Saturninus has lived the entirety of his life in preparation to ascend to power and rule
Rome. Once he achieves this position, he does not take the people’s position on various events
likely. Although the public is seen rarely on stage, they are mentioned often, and having the
favor and love of the people is something that many characters wish to use against their
opponents. Saturninus, however does not have the love of the people, and holds his position only
because the tribunes agreed to trust the misguided recommendation of Titus. Therefore, he must
avoid confrontation with those who could use the voice of the people against him. Once Lucius
is banished from Rome, he seeks alliance with the Goths, a people branded as the savage
enemies of Rome. Once becoming a general with the ranks of the Goths, it become clear that
Lucius plans to attack Rome and avenge his family’s misfortunes. Despite siding with the
enemies of Rome, Lucius has the people’s love. Even in the face of an oncoming war, Saturninus
believes the plebeians would still side with the Lucius, whom he believes the people would
desire over himself:
“'Tis he the common people love so much;
Myself hath often over-heard them say,
When I have walked like a private man,
That Lucius' banishment was wrongfully,
And they have wish'd that Lucius were their emperor (IV.iv.72-76)
Instead of being able to directly face Lucius’s army of Goths with the force of the Roman
Empire behind him, Saturninus is forced to play politics and entrust Tamora’s promise to
persuade Titus to entreat Lucius to desist his attack. “Ay, but the citizens favor Lucius,” states
Saturninus, “and will revolt from me to succor him” (IV.iv.78-79).
Lucius is one of the only characters to have a clear development throughout the play.
While others stick to their vices and remain consistent with their end goals of fashioning revenge
or maintaining power, Lucius eventually parallels Tamora as a bridge between the Romans and
the Goths and transforms from a bloodthirsty youth looking to follow in his father’s footsteps to
an abstemious leader (Dickson 401). As Titus becomes resolved on revenge, less focus is drawn
on the people’s support for him; instead, the Andronici favor lands upon Lucius, who is able to
utilize the plebs’s love to lead an attack on Rome and ultimately become the new emperor. He
has the final say—capturing the unrepentant Aaron and burying him alive and throwing
Tamora’s corpse “forth to beasts and birds of prey” (V.iii.198). The unscarred Lucius and
Marcus are able to stand hand-in-hand at the finale of the tragedy as the people cheer “Lucius, all
hail, Rome’s royal emperor!” and “Lucius, all hail, Rome’s gracious governor!” (V.iii.141, 146).
These two lines in the final scene of the play are the only time we hear the collective voice of the
people speak. Although the cast stands among an almost obscene number of corpses in the wake
of a short-lived murderous outbreak, they cheer, knowing that the deaths have cleared a new way
for Rome. The people’s choice has come into power, and the finale is just as much a victory for
them as it is a defeat for Saturninus. The head of their empire has been rid of the personal
conflicts that have been consuming their patricians, and Marcus ushers in a new emperor and a
new era of hope as the people’s fragmented Rome is able to be unified and intact once again:
“Scatter'd by winds and high tempestuous gusts,
O, let me teach you how to knit again
This scatter'd corn into one mutual sheaf,
These broken limbs again into one body (V.iii.69-72)
Whether Marcus means to imply that Rome can never be completely restored and has lost some
of itself over the course of the play is unclear. This new era has been founded upon rape and
murder, but for the plebs, who had become distanced from the crimes, this new emperor comes
as a victory and an example of the lasting power of the unified plebeians.
Coriolanus depicts the power of the masses in a much more direct manner. The plebeians
are directly featured throughout this play and speak at various times as a collective unit, as well
as through the voices of individual citizens. The play is said to be set in a period when Rome was
not an empire, but just another Italian city fighting for survival in the aftermath of the fall of
Tarquin, the last king of Rome whose name appears several times throughout the text (II.i.167,
II.ii.93,99, V.iv.47). Much of the conflict that arises between the plebs and patricians throughout
this text highlights the difference in opinion the opposing classes have while making the
transition from monarchy to republic. For Caius Martius Coriolanus, these problems arise mainly
by his disability to appreciate the lower class and recognize them without contempt.
At the onset of the play, we see the populace starving in the aftermath of a famine
fighting for the right to set their own price for the city’s grain supply. The patricians recognize
the need to satisfy the unrest in the plebs, who are simultaneously calling for the death of Caius
Martius, a patrician general who they single out as the “chief enemy to the people” (I.i.7-8).
Menenius speaks as the voice of the Senate and allows the plebeians to appoint five tribunes to
speak for them in political matters. From the very beginning, it is clear that Shakespeare has
granted the plebs a significant amount of potential influence on the outcome of Roman politics.
However, Shakespeare also quickly conveys the impression that the citizens are too fickle by
illustrating them as being easily manipulated.
In the middle of this first riot, Menenius displays how he is able to effortlessly distract
the mob with a simple fable about the Senate working as the stomach of the body of Rome. “You
must not think to fob off our disgrace with a tale” remarks one of the plebeians, but this is
precisely what he is able to do (I.i.98-100). Menenius’s behavior towards the mob allows him to
be well liked by the people, who call him “one that hath always loved the people”; they say of
him “...he's one honest enough! Would all the rest were so!”(I.i.49-52). Although Menenius does
not appear to care for the people any more than Martius, he is able to control them because he
fosters his own abilities of public relations out of a need to survive the potential destructive
power of the masses. “While many of Shakespeare’s contemporary dramatists also treated the
public unfavorably, the attitude of most of them is far more generous than Shakespeare’s”
(Patrides 243).
Martius, as opposed to Menenius, never respects this power that the plebs have begun to
establish for themselves and instead challenges their voice at every opportunity. He first enters
the play after Menenius has begun to dissipate the mob and calm the emotions of the plebeians
saying, “Thanks. What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, / That, rubbing the poor itch of your
opinion, / Make yourselves scabs?” (I.i. 169-171). The conflict of the play is set. While
Menenius accepts the changing politics of Rome, Martius simply becomes enraged at the thought
of popular rule. Throughout the play, Martius believes himself to be magnanimous (Holloway
3).He believes himself to be a man of moral experience who is genuinely worthy of great honors,
but his pride disallows him from achieving many of these triumphs. He is able to conquer the
city Coriolanus and have its name bestowed upon him, and when the Senate informs him of his
need to secure the vote of the people to make him consul of the conquered city, he forces himself
to try to adapt to this changing political atmosphere, only to have the people’s minds change by
the persuasion of two tribunes, Brutus and Sicinius, who consider Coriolanus an enemy of the
people. Again, Shakespeare disarms the plebeians by depicting them as a “socially indistinct
mass: a ‘beast / With many heads’ (IV.i.1-2), representing ‘such as cannot rule / Nor ever will be
ruled’ (III.i.42-43)” (Spotswood 61). Despite Shakespeare’s apparent disbelief in total popular
rule, he does not stray from the power the plebs possess. They maintain the ability to unify and
prohibit Coriolanus from becoming Consul and are able to make him so enraged that he speaks
intemperately against the idea of popular rule and incites the people to declare him a traitor of
the state and banish him. Now, the people have the potential for political power, but are blinded
by Brutus and Sicinius who are able to harness the masses and alter their opinions for their own
benefit.
In the end, Coriolanus is meant to be given a hero’s welcome back to the city of
Antium—the praise and glorification that he always believed he deserved. Finally, Martius has
become a favorite of some peoples, despite his complete disregard for their intellect or
significance. When Aufidius accuses Coriolanus of betraying the Antium people and giving into
the desires of Roman women, Coriolanus again loses his temper and again, loses the favor of the
people as Aufidius’s conspirators stir the people against the Roman. It is the favor of the people
that Coriolanus eventually receives that leads to Aufidius’s jealousy and Coriolanus’s death.
Once a people found themselves celebrating the man, another became so jealous of the people’s
love that an assassination had to be plotted. Aufudius uses the inconsistent opinions of the people
to his advantage. The city that was ready to welcome Coriolanus as a hero finds their people
being manipulated in the compete reverse, demanding Coriolanus’s death: “'Tear him to pieces.'
'Do it presently.' 'He kill'd / my son.' 'My daughter.' 'He killed my cousin / Marcus.' 'He killed my
father.'” (V.vi. 121-124).
When Shakespeare provides a closer look at the common people as he does in
Coriolanus, it becomes clear that the bard intended to illustrate the general public as a powerful
force that should not be entrusted with all the power of a complete popular rule. Titus
Andronicus shows the effect the plebeians can have on the politics of Rome without even
presenting themselves before the government and making demands. When Shakespeare shows
the people themselves, however, he depicts a belief that the ideology of popular rule is
inconsistent with the fragmented and easily manipulated mindset of the general populous.
Ancient Rome depicted a period in which the plebs gave themselves a voice out of their own
refusal to remain oppressed beneath the political influence of a higher class. These historical
uprisings inspired areas of some of Shakespeare’s greatest productions, and his representations
of the plebs influences on the patricians of Rome show the potential for change and influence
that can derive from those simply considered the common people.
Works Cited
Alterman, Hyman, (1969). Counting People: The Census in History. Harcourt, Brace &
Company.
D'Amico, Jack. "Shakespeare's Rome: Politics and Theater". Modern Language
Studies (MLS): 22.1 ( 1992 Winter), pp. 65-78.
Dickson, Vernon Guy. “A pattern, precedent, and lively warrant”: Emulation, Rhetoric, and
Cruel Propriety in Titus Andronicus” Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Summer
2009), pp. 376-409.
E.T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge University Press, 1967)
Gary Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War
(University of California Press, 2005)
Holloway, Carson. The Review of Politics. Vol. 69, No. 3, Special Issue on Politics and
Literature (Summer, 2007), pp. 353-374
Levin, Richard. "Who Do the People Love?". Shakespeare Survey: An Annual Survey of
Shakespeare Studies and Production (ShS): 61. (2008), pp. 289-301.
Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 6 September 2015.
Patrides, C. A. "'The Beast with Many Heads': Renaissance Views on the
Multitude". Shakespeare Quarterly (SQ): 16.2 ( 1965 Spring), pp. 241-46.
Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Ed. William James Craig.
Comp. Henry Piironen. N.p.: Amazon Digital Services, 2014.
Spotswood, Jerald W. Texas Studies in Literature and Language. Vol. 42, No. 1, Of Mice and
Men (SPRING 2000), pp. 61-78