The Group & Mercy Otis Warren

The Group by Mercy Otis Warren is technically a satirical play, though it was probably not performed when it was written. It turns out to be more like a dialogue or a series of speeches, as the physical setting is unimportant and there's no actual action or plot, or even a series of events. The characters just carry out discussions between themselves about their political views on the American Revolution.

While reading a particular passage spoken by Judge Meagre near the end, I noticed how the word 'noble' is used in two contrasting ways. The speech I'm referring to is the one we are going to focus on in class on Friday, beginning with "Let not thy soft timidty of heart" and ending with "Who would strike off the rebel neck at once." The first time it is used looks like this: "I hated Brutus for his noble stand Against the oppressors of his injured country." This time, the words have some satirical undertones. It wouldn't make sense for a person to criticize someone for being noble against oppressors. Rather, this seems more like Warren is showing that she thinks what Brutus did was noble, but the character of Meagre, who is a British supporter, hates him for being a revolutionary. This statement is a lot like several others from Meagre, who uses words like generous, utopian, virtue, and ideal to describe the revolutionaries all while going on about how much he hates them and wishes they would be stopped. The speaker in the play may be a Tory, but the actual opinion of the writer is definitely not that of a Tory.

The second place where Meagre uses the word 'noble' is when he's describing someone who could beat down and suppress the American rebels: "If we could keep our foothold in the stirrup, And, like the noble Claudia of old, Ride over the people, if they don't give way." This time, Meagre is talking about someone he agrees with and supports (in other words, exactly the opposite character of Brutus), but yet he uses the same word to describe both. I don't think the word is intended to have some kind of dual meaning, but rather it just shows how there are two speakers and two opinions at every point in the play: one is the character talking, and the other is the author, Warren.