In light of all you have read so far about patricians and plebeians, why are the historians you know generally plebeians?
Cicero, Juvenal, Martial…… all plebeians.
Why do you think Patricians were not writers? Comments please
(This is Cicero)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roman Historians where generally plebeians because patrician men entered the field of politics. Only the wealthy plebeians would become historian and writers because they needed to be educated. Plebeians would have a broader perspective on things as they were not exposed to many hardships, which the plebeians endured.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of Roman Historians were Plebeians. A reason for this may have been because they were the ones who experianced the hardship of the lower Roman society, and had raw emotions and feelings that made their writing intersting to others. Patricians were, for the most part, not writers as they were the ones who were expected (by other Patricians) to run the political business of Rome.
ReplyDeleteCicero, even though a talented author and lawyer, withstood alot because of his background a plebeian. His enemies within the senate, especially Catillina and Crassus, would make insentive jokes about his background. No matter how successful he was he could never live down his family tree. This to me, defeats the purpose of having the intermarriage law in the first place if plebeians are going to be continually discriminated against well in the 1st cenutry BC.
ReplyDeleteAn insightful observation, Steph. It is true that plebeians who made their way into the senate in the Late Repbulic (Cicero, Marius etc) were discriminated against. Their social staus was held against them whenever it was politically expedient to do so.
ReplyDelete