Plebs, Plebs Everywhere
Breanna Poole
The language used in the sections is something that immedailty caught by my eye, especially once Caneulius started with his speech. Much ancient writing is focused on how the poor and uneducated are too blame for the problems of society, since after all the elite and wealthy upper class were the ones traditionally in power.
However, while Rome was a far cry away from the poor and uneducated being in the power of the majority, this writing shows slivers of an idea that the "plebs" were not to blame alone for the problems for society, at one point even claiming that it was in fact the senate's fault for the internal war facing Rome. This was something new that I hadn't been expecting, especially directly following The Republic which seemed to be dismissive of the lower class that would be considered plebs, showing how they needed to be protected by guardians.
Caneulius meanwhile, merely points to where the faults are not alone the plebs, but are the senate for denying things like inter-marriage and plebs getting minimal power for foolish pride, something that seems like it would have been unheard of in Ancient Greece but actually happened in Ancient Rome. And while the plebs never got full political power nor the ability to be elected to the position of Consul, the fact that they were eligible to be tribunes at all says something to me that set Rome apart from other ancient civilizations. Though they were not treated as equals, the plebs and poor had some standing that seems to be have previously unseen in the ancient world.
P.S. I commented on AnnaKate and Dakota's posts.
The language used in the sections is something that immedailty caught by my eye, especially once Caneulius started with his speech. Much ancient writing is focused on how the poor and uneducated are too blame for the problems of society, since after all the elite and wealthy upper class were the ones traditionally in power.
However, while Rome was a far cry away from the poor and uneducated being in the power of the majority, this writing shows slivers of an idea that the "plebs" were not to blame alone for the problems for society, at one point even claiming that it was in fact the senate's fault for the internal war facing Rome. This was something new that I hadn't been expecting, especially directly following The Republic which seemed to be dismissive of the lower class that would be considered plebs, showing how they needed to be protected by guardians.
Caneulius meanwhile, merely points to where the faults are not alone the plebs, but are the senate for denying things like inter-marriage and plebs getting minimal power for foolish pride, something that seems like it would have been unheard of in Ancient Greece but actually happened in Ancient Rome. And while the plebs never got full political power nor the ability to be elected to the position of Consul, the fact that they were eligible to be tribunes at all says something to me that set Rome apart from other ancient civilizations. Though they were not treated as equals, the plebs and poor had some standing that seems to be have previously unseen in the ancient world.
P.S. I commented on AnnaKate and Dakota's posts.
This is coincides with what I wrote about in my blog post. Caneulius mentions how there will never be a solution to the problem if each side is not willing to compromise. The Consul is not willing give some leniency to the plebs on the things they want to do, but the plebs are not too willing to follow some of the rules given by the Consul. While I do believe having one group of people completely over another, this was the social standard of this time period; so it was acceptable back then. Both classes needed to learn to work together and solve the problem. When you have a relaionship with any united group, it doesnt need to be you versus them; it should be you and them verses the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe unique view Livy takes of Rome's problems makes me think he was writing for the people of his time. In his day, the Plebeians had a lot more power, thanks to the populares. Augustus, who was in power at the time Livy was writing, was an avid populares. Augustus always claimed his power was by the people for the people. I think this profoundly impacted Livy's writing. If he was writing back when all this inner turmoil was happening in Rome, he probably would have taken a more favorable view of the senate and the Patricians.
ReplyDeleteI had not thought about that until I read your post, but I completely agree. Especially with the part about the plebeians and the poor coming together because they knew they did not have equal rights. As I can recall, this is one of the first time we have seen people who are seen as the "lower class" stand up for equality and themselves. That is really something interesting and amazing. Why has no other group stood up for themselves before? Is it the fact that they are all educated in Rome? I think that the fact that everyone is educated is one of the main reasons this is the first time or one of the first times we have seen this in our readings about the ancient world.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many other "social injustices" the plebeians began to fight for. Although they didn't exactly have 100% success in their petition for more equal rights, at what point did they stop fighting for equality in other standards? I agree with Eliza's claim about the point of view regarding how Livy wrote. It's clear there was more thought and care put into the lower class in the writings so it was acceptable for Livy to write something other than council propaganda and borderline criticism which I don't think is seen much in that time.
ReplyDeleteIt is strange that a ruling class would admit to being at fault. Are they trying to win plebian favor? stop a revolt? They are giving rights to an angry lower class that wants more freedom and rights as citizens. I too would admit blame on myself to calm the masses. At the end of the day the goal is to keep Rome Rome, right?
ReplyDelete