The Myth of the Multitude: “The displeased commons of the citie”

Abstract

Heiner Muller observed that in The break-in of time into play constitutes mythos - by which I understand him to have meant that one possible response to social, political and psychological demands of Shakespeare's context. In 1600 times would press on text and performance of play at many points: politically, succession crisis which faces Denmark haunted Elizabeth's reign for decades; personally, death of playwright's son Hamnet (aged only 11) in 1596 may have felt like a prefiguration of end of Danish Prince. Hamlet's transformation of both social history and individual experience into myth is of its nature tragic: James I and VI (the philosopher king?) and Fortinbras (the soldier) succeed, but Hamnet, like Hamlet, dies, although he, too, was likely, had he been put on,/ To have proved most royal. (5.2.404-405) This is a reminder that the category of myth [even in perhaps special sense suggested here] reflects interests of those who employ it. Myths are imagined rather than revealed. In light of these and further observations, this paper sets out to examine whether or not image and action of crowd in a sequence of Shakespeare's works can be said to achieve anything like dimensions of myth. This project has been inspired and given traction by Peter Titlestad's Hamlet Populist Politician and Kai Wiegandt's Crowd and Rumour in Shakespeare.