The Dramatic Function of the Plebeians in Coriolanus and Julius Caesar

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the conversation of the plebeians in Shakespeare’s two roman plays Julius Caesar and Coriolanus in order to explore the underlying causes or social conflicts that their conversations deliver. Both Coriolanus and Julius Caesar begin with not politicians but the plebeians. It might mean that they are not just supporting role but one of the leading roles in the plays. Therefore, the writer also would like to regard them as one of the leading roles in the plays. But the character of the plebeians is quite different in comparison with two plays. The common people in Julius Caesar have no opinions of their own and are passive and insolent. In addition, they have the habit of being flattered. On the other hand, the plebeians of Coriolanus are people who can think for themselves so it could possibly be said that they have independent personalities. They seem to have generosity even to their opponent, Caius Martius that is to say Coriolanus. At the beginning of Coriolanus, the plebeians started an riot against the patricians because of corn. Famine in Rome is triggering unrest between the plebeians and the patricians. The plebeians thought that the reason why they could not get corn at the price they want, it is because of that fact the patricians have been hoarding grain for no good reason. Besides, the common people resent the arrogant Martius who openly despised the plebeians so they chose him as a target to be removed for their goal. It is because they decided that Martius is responsible for the scarcity of grain. The dialogue between plebeians is also carrying out the function of revealing the tragic flaws of Martius. Consequently, in spite of his heroic and successful contribution to Rome, his tragic flaws lead to his ruin. Through these facts, the writer surmises that there are two important social problems in Rome. Above all, there were some conflicts and distrust between the plebeians and the patricians. It might come from the plebeians’ expectation of being treated as a citizen supporting the country together with the aristocratic class. At the time, they were becoming aware of the importance of they held as members of Roman society. But It is probably why the plebeians thought that they are not respected by the patricians appreciatively. Historically, the common people’s rights of Roman republic were extended in accordance with the growing contributiveness on their nation such as England under the reign of King James I at that time. Secondly, there was also another problem; the distribution of grain did not work fairly. It means Roman society’s economic system was incomplete and biased against the common people. The conversations of two tribunes are also exposing the weaknesses of the tribune system. Basically, the Roman Republic had three principal political institutions; the Senate, consuls and tribunes. Because tribunes were the representative of the plebeians, they had to protect the rights of citizens and try to mediate between the two sides. But they did not do their duties in the plays. Instead of, the most important concern for them is the maintenance of their tribune-ship. In connection with that, it seems that what Shakespeare emphasizes about the tribunes is not their service to the people but their concern for their own office. The tribunes in Coriolanus, they are vile villain who mislead an innocent common people. Their power depends on the people’s hostility toward the patricians and traditional order. In this sense, the writer wants to say their desire could be flourishing only on the soil of the conflicts between plebeians and patricians. As to prove my point of view, in order to use the conflicts between the plebeians and the patricians, the tribunes stir up prejudice and hatred against the aristocrats. Even though the plays are tragedies and the conflicts are serious, we should expect a positive future of their society. It is because the important thing is not the awareness of the conflict itself but the acceptance that an effort to resolve conflicts is needed for a future reconciliation between opponents.