Kaitlyn Sercovich

[kaitlynserc]

I found it interesting to consider how much Vergil’s Aeneid resembles Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad. Aeneas was associated with the founding of Rome long before Vergil wrote, and I think this proves the fact that literature is recreated throughout history. Although there are many differences between the two works, the influence of Homer on Vergil’s work cannot be denied. They portray tales of heroes that emerge from wars, whether that be the Trojan War or the civil wars that led to the collapse of the Roman Republic. Both authors sought to create a national epic poem for the Roman people and to promote culture, literature, and morality among them. They were enjoyed by the people during peace after civil wars. Augustus utilized the Aeneid as a national epic, and the poem even celebrates Augustus and his family. Odysseus and Aeneas are both royalty, and Augustus somewhat compares himself to their royal and heroic natures. Augustus saw himself as a great hero for Rome after the devastating civil wars that were initiated by the First Triumvirate. Both of these works were closely tied to political developments, and they were both laudatory and critical of the politics that had ensued.

[kaitlynserc]

As an architecture major, I found this Friday’s reading and lecture particularly interesting. The plan of the Roman forum, shown above, is very intriguing. Foremost, the angle of the forum directs Romans forward. It forces a perspective or view point, as noted in this plan. Public affairs were of the utmost importance in Roman life. Each of the buildings bordering the central area have their own program: the senate house, temples, basilicas, courts, and shops. The forum was essentially the physical and metaphorical center of Roman life. Romans spent decades building this magnificent area that would house their public activities. As we read Livy, Plutarch, Sallust, and more, it is interesting to consider the language they use when discussing the forum. Important meetings, trials, executions, and more were held here. It gives the reader a physical understanding of the history these authors are presenting. The Roman forum has served as inspiration for architects since its construction. At the center of a civilization, there is social life. The spaces that architects design for the social sphere influence the activities that occur there and provide a catalyst for social advancement. The forum is the perfect example of this. It provided a space for politics, creativity, ideas, discussions, debates, and social justice.

[kaitlynserc]

Something that I found particularly interesting from class this week was the tactics that Cicero utilized in his defense speech, Pro Caelio, in 56 BC. Caelius was on trial due to Atratinus’ accusations that he was inciting violence. Although Caelius broke ties with Cicero earlier in life to support Cataline’s campaign for consul, Cicero still chose to defend Catullus rather than prosecuting him. Why? It seems like he might have done it for political gain or popularity himself. We already know that Cicero was kind of self obsessed, and I think that he saw this as an opportunity to use judicial oratory and success to win more people over to his side. It also would make Caeilus indebted to him. Cicero eloquently succeeded in his defense, and Caelilus was acquitted. Cicero brilliantly chose to use the festival that was occurring at the time of the trial, the Ludi Megalenses festival, to his advantage. The festival was centered on comedy and drama. Cicero used the discourse of comedy to frame the trial as a drama, which was not only entertaining, but aided the success of his defense. In fact, Cicero barely even addresses the charges being brought against Caelius. He focuses on implying that the trial itself is an attempt by the Clodii to take revenge on Caeilus, which entertained the people and led the jury to not prosecute him.

[kaitlynserc]

Roman slavery and slavery in the United States had one striking difference: In ancient Rome, slavery was not racially or ethnically motivated. In Rome, slavery was more circumstantial. If your mother was enslaved, you would also be enslaved, which is also true of slavery in the United States. However, enslaved Romans had more leverage and opportunities to free themselves. As incentive to work harder, Roman slave owners would offer freedom to enslaved people who labored effortlessly and productively. Enslaved Roman women who gave birth to more than three children were also offered freedom. This option was equally beneficial to the slave owner because the children would in turn become slaves, furthering the owner’s investment. In the United States, the main options for enslaved people to gain freedom was by escape or manumission. Although owners did offer to free their slaves if the slaves could purchase their freedom, the price of freedom was impossible for enslaved people to afford because they had no wages. Additionally, enslaved Romans who gained freedom wore a cap that signified their status as a previous slave that is now free. Whereas in the United States, many freed African Americans in the North were captured and sold back into slavery. Rome’s efforts to maintain the freedom of ex-slaves was never matched in the United States, where the fear of being sold into slavery was on the minds of many African Americans in the North during the late nineteenth century.

[kaitlynserc]

This week brought up an important aspect of Roman history: Roman women are not well remembered or detailed in historical accounts unless they are related to or associated with famous and successful men. It is not a surprise that authors like Livy and Plutarch were not feminists, but seriously? Yes, women like Lucretia, Virginia, and Cornelia are discussed, but the focus of the stories is how they served the men in their lives, how the men bettered their lives, or in some cases, how the men in their lives avenged their deaths. It is difficult to imagine the lives of Roman women that have been lost throughout history, and it is likely that their achievements have been re-assigned to men. Why is it that the only achievements of Roman women that we see their purity, devotion to virginity, or influence over the men in their lives? Why is it all about the men? We must consider the contributions that Roman women made to culture and society, specifically religion. I mean, the Oracles of Delphi! They contributed more to Roman culture and religion than any man ever did. They were likely many women left out of historical accounts because the author did not consider them of importance. What a shame. Let’s pour one out for all of the Roman women that history decided to forget.

[kaitlynserc]

While studying the Rise of Rome, I find it particularly interesting to study the social system of the patricians, the plebeians, and the slaves. There is a continuous conflict of orders between these social castes. The plebeians, being the common people, did not have any opportunities in politics until the consulship opened to them in 367 BC. Following this success for the plebs, in 342 BC, it became required that one of the consuls must be pleb. Prior to the Middle Republic, in 287 BC, it was decided that pleb assembly decisions would bind the entire citizen population. This was a massive expansion of power for the plebs, and it is reflected in the establishment of a new Patricio-Pleb mobility. During the conquest of Italy, the plebs had many opportunities to win honor for themselves and their families. In Roman society, the best way to prove one’s self as distinguished is to obtain political power and be successful in the battlefield. This mobility within the social system provided opportunities for social and economic uplift for the plebs, however, over time it became more exclusive. However, the plebs would eventually gain the power to veto new laws from the Roman senate. Studying the rise of the plebs in Rome is a useful way to understand democracy and the role of common people in politics.

[kaitlynserc]

Livy often utilizes his work to portray honorable examples for the Roman people to be inspired by and follow. Lucius Quinctus Cincinattus is one of those examples. He exemplifies the idea of a modest citizen farmer who drops his responsibilities to answer the call of the state. He is elected dictator at the time of war with neighboring peoples. When the representatives come to tell him of this appointment, he is found doing laborious farm work. He immediately tells his wife to fetch his toga, and off he goes to serve Rome. This noble example of putting Rome over one’s self is a motif through Ab Urbe Condita. Lucius defeats the enemy and steps down from the dictatorship, and Livy wants the reader to understand that it is honorable that Lucius was not selfish or power hungry; he fulfilled his duty and released the power. Other leaders in the book, like the Tarquins, would have seized this opportunity to take control forever, yet Lucius recognizes his place and returns to his duties at home. Perhaps Livy knew that there would always be power hungry people and that is why he used this example to demonstrate the proper use of power. If only Livy could see our current leaders and how they misuse their power. Perhaps he would spend the entire book talking about noble men like Lucius.

[kaitlynserc]

Two ideas that struck me from this week’s readings were the emphasis placed on devotion to state and the stressed paternalism and masculinity in Roman society. These themes were present in both Livy and Dionysius’ versions of the story of the Horatii, a set of Roman triplets, and the Curatii, a set of Alban triplets who waged war against one another’s countries as a result of cattle raids on both sides. Livy contrasts this to a civil conflict between parents and children because both societies descended from the Trojans. The Romans won, and the Horatii triplets slayed the Curatii. A treaty was signed before the war giving the winner sovereign over the loser. Horatius, the head of the Roman army, returned home as a war hero. However, a woman, who was the fiancé of the Curatii, burst into sobs at the sight of Horatius because she understood that her fiancé had been killed. Enraged, Horatius stabbed her in the chest for the insult to his pride and victory. His actions were highly debated, however, the court acquitted him because of his noble spirit and leadership in war and because of his young son. This story portrays the Roman’s priority of protecting their society and devotion to state over love. Little sympathy was given to the woman killed for showing her emotions.

[kaitlynserc]

I have studied Rome in various classes in high school and at Tulane (Architecture and Latin classes.) I’m very familiar with Romulus and Remus(enjoy the classic meme above) and the layout of Rome as well as the buildings within the city. However, something I have never really considered is who wrote Roman history. This topic was by biggest takeaway from class this week. In Livy, he treats history as though it were a monument itself, something to admire and remember. Writing Roman history was a tradition, however, it was competitive and required accuracy and artistry. Part of what makes Roman history so compelling is how romantically yet incredibly instructive it was written. Livy also saw it as a way to remind Romans that they should be putting the state’s needs before their own. This aspect of Roman citizenship is also something I’ve never come across. It is extremely notable how Romans valued virtuous behavior and devotion to the state. They preferred living in humble homes because money and resources were meant to benefit the public. Livy used these values in his writing because he was angered by the wealth and greed plaguing Rome during his lifetime. Values like this might have played a role in why Rome was such a successful empire, but I guess we’ll find out!