Populism and Class Division in Livy’s History of Rome
In this speech, Canuleius – whose presentations and appeals to the Senate met with vast opposition – speaks directly to the Roman people, somewhat of an appeal to a higher authority, as they are the ones that do the electing of the Senate itself. This is to his advantage, as these people, who hold some power over the Senate when massed, are the ones being “discriminated” by this lack of intermarriage and ability to hold office. To his disadvantage, Canuleius speaks in a time “frought with difficulties both home and abroad,” in which the public eye is focused outwardly upon external conflicts on the Roman frontier. It also does not help Canuleius that the Senate exaggerated these conflicts, “wagging the dog,” so to speak, in order that they might distract the general public further from the internal affairs at hand.
The speech itself is rooted mainly in the past, building a historical precedent to bolster the ideas being presented, and the reputation of the plebs in general. Canuleius cites the examples of Numa Pompilius, Lucius Tarquinius, and Servius Tullus, all three kings who not only were not of the Roman ruling class, but who were not even Romans at all. He then uses this to springboard his claim to allow plebs to become consuls, saying, “May a foreigner be elected a patrician and then be elected consul, while a citizen of Rome who happens to be a plebian can have no hope of attaining to the highest office?” (220). This foreign inclusion is also cited to counter the argument that plebian intermarriage will muddle bloodlines; he counters that this has already been done by the selective inclusion of foreigners. Canuleius also goes back to the past to invoke somewhat of an intrepid spirit in the face of patrician conservatism: “Someone may say that since the expulsion of the kings no plebian has been consul. This is no real argument. Do they mean nothing new should be tried?…In Romulus’ reign there were as yet no pontiffs, no augurs; Numa Pompilius created them. The state had no census, no divisions by centuries and classes; Servius Tullus created them. There was a time when there were no consuls; they came into being when the kings were expelled” (221). He then carries this dynamism into his own thinking, illustrating that Rome has a venturesome habit which overrides any law that might forbid a plebian from taking office.
These historically-based arguments that comprise a bulk of the speech are also offset by a certain air of demagoguery on the part of Canuleius. This incitation of the public is visible from the start: “Fellow Romans, many times in the past I have been made painfully aware of how much the senators despise you, how unworthy they think you are to live in their company within the same city walls” (219). It extends throughout the speech, making what seem to be ridiculous claims, such as, “[the senate] would, if they could, take the very sunlight from you; they object the fact that you breathe, you speak, you have the outward appearance of human beings” (220). He even lashes out at the patricians, stating that battery of women is “a patrician preserve” uncommon to the plebs (222).
With regard to this issue, Livy himself, although he is objective in that he reveals both the faults and virtues of both sides, it would seem from clues in the narrative that he would rather see Rome ruled by the patricians. He dedicates a speech “transcription” to Canuleius, but to express the point of view of the plebians, he utilizes his own narrative voice, allowing his views and the patricians’ to blur together. This narrative structure places his voice on the side of the patricians, whereas the Canuleius speech is recorded as though he were “outside” the opinions stated; he is more of a casual observer or a simple recorder.
Livy also, in his description of the events transpiring after the approval of Canuleius’ two ideas, shows himself to believe the patrician ruling class to be the better of the two for Rome’s government. He describes the following election as being quite chaotic, with “anyone who had ever said or done anything smacking of sedition, especially former tribunes, donned the white togas of candiates and scurried about the forum soliciting the support of all they met” (224). If the use of the words “smacking,” and “scurried” from Livy are any indicator (and the translational discrepancies notwithstanding), Livy would seem to be describing these newfound candidates as being fairly base, and more than likely unfit for holding office. Also these candidates in their numbers, and the plebian movement almost overwhelm the patrician “incumbents” enough to keep them from running at all – were not the patricians’ pride at stake. The following passage, however, sums up Livy’s feelings on the plebs’ ruling capacity: “The outcome of the election showed that men behave quite differently when they are struggling for freedom and dignity from when the fight is over and the judgement is unbiased. For every tribune elected was a patrician; the people were content that plebians had been allowed to stand. Where might you find nowadays in a single man such self-restraint, fairness, and high-mindedness – qualities that characterized the whole people?” (224). At first glance, this looks like praise for the plebs – which it no doubt is – but it is kind of a consolatory deference. This is because Livy is not praising them for their having stood up for themselves, he is rather praising them for their high-minded civic responsibility, for having the self-restraint to stay out of things which are none of their concern. Livy praises them for knowing that the patricians are better at ruling and electing patricians, revealing his preference for the patricians.
From these things, several inferrences can be assumed about Livy’s relationship with his own time period. In his patrician preferences, he appears to be either cowing to, or showing genuine respect for Caesar Augustus’ empire, which, after all, is even more of a confined oligarchy. This is supported from the handful of praising references that he allots to Augustus as the one who”established peace over land and sea” (24), and “founded and restored all our temples.” He also describes himself to believe it “well-nigh sacreligious to disqualify Caesar” (238). Looking at his other shades of meaning, the ones in which he seems to be praising the plebs and Canuleius, one can infer that this is a trick that is also used by book publishers through to today: pluralizing one’s content so as to not alienate any readers. This could be especially true in that much of Livy’s audience, given that they are more vast in number, are bound to be comprised of plebians. It would be frowned upon to come out against the sovereignty of the people, even though he feels that the patricians are better statesmen.
In his speech, Canuleius manages to convince the people to allow intermarriage amongst the castes, and to allow for plebians to become consuls. However, despite his having transcribed Canuleius’ words and respecting the people’s right to self government, Livy himself is left unconvinced. Perhaps influenced by fear of or respect for Augustus, he takes sides with the patricians, deeming them to be the people that do the better job of maintaining and ruling Rome.
Page notes from: Livy. The Rise of Rome : Books One to Five. Oxford University Press, 1999
