Archaeology; Civilization, Ancient; Despotism; Greece -- History -- To 146 B.C.; Wealth
In 440 B.C. the plebeians of Ardea, a city about 20 miles S. of Rome,
are described by Livy[1210] as engaged in a struggle with the optimates,
and as getting the worst of it. Thereupon the losing party “quite unlike
the Roman plebs, ... prepared to besiege the city (_i.e._ Ardea) with a
crowd of workmen (opificum), attracted by the prospect of plunder.” The
Latin leaves it possible that the crowd of workmen (opificum) with which
the plebs of Ardea prepared to besiege their city should be understood
as a separate body, conceivably metics or slaves. At Veii in 400 B.C.
the artifices are said to have been slaves[1211]. But though in Etruria
in 400 B.C. this may have been normally the case, in Latin Ardea forty
years earlier we may well have conditions not unlike those that have
been inferred above for sixth century Rome. Even if the opifices of
Ardea are to be understood as slaves, the united body of plebeians and
opifices acting in opposition to the optimates comes nearer to Brutus’
description of the situation at Rome under the Tarquins than does
anything that can be found in our historians’ pictures of Rome in the
fifth century. Livy is thinking of the Roman plebeians of the early
republican period, not of the opifices and lapicidae of the age of the
Tarquins, when he says that the plebs of Ardea was quite unlike the
Roman plebs[1212].
[Sidenote: The rich Veientine employer who became king of his city in
400 B.C.]
In the year 400 B.C. according to Livy the people of Veii, “taedio
annuae ambitionis, regem creauere[1213].” Nothing is said by Livy about
feelings and parties in Veii itself, except this statement that they
were bored with annual elections. All that Livy mentions is the way in
which the appointment was received elsewhere in Etruria. The event, he
says, gave offence to the peoples of Etruria. Their hatred of kingly
power was not greater than that which they felt against the king
personally. He had previously made himself generally unpopular by his
wealth and arrogance (opibus superbiaque). He had once brought a solemn
celebration of the games to a violent conclusion: indignant at having
been rejected by the votes of the twelve peoples in favour of another
candidate for the priesthood, he had suddenly, in the middle of the
performance, withdrawn the workmen (artifices), a great part of whom
were his own slaves[1214].
The result of the Veientine’s wealth had been, according to Livy, to
make him unpopular. But it is a reasonable inference from Livy’s
narrative that he was unpopular only with the aristocrats who continued
to control the government in the other cities of Etruria. His accession
can hardly have been disagreeable to the Veientines who made him king.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account