Violence+and+Disaster+in+Rome

76 In the same year, the Tiber, rising under the incessant rains, had flooded the lower levels of the city, and its subsidence was attended by much destruction of buildings and life. Accordingly, Asinius Gallus moved for a reference to the [|Sibylline Books.]Tiberius objected, preferring secrecy as in earth so in heaven: still, the task of coercing the stream was entrusted to [|Ateius Capito] and [|Lucius Arruntius]. Since Achaia and Macedonia protested against the heavy taxation, it was decided to relieve them of their proconsular government for the time being and transfer them to the emperor.

A show of gladiators, given in the name of his brother Germanicus, was presided over by [|Drusus], who took an extravagant pleasure in the shedding of blood however vile — a trait so alarming to the populace that it was said to have been censured by his father. Tiberius' own absence from the exhibition was variously explained. Some ascribed it to his impatience of a crowd; others, to his native morosity and his dread of comparisons; for Augustus had been a good-humoured spectator. I should be slow to believe that he deliberately furnished his son with an occasion for exposing his brutality and arousing the disgust of the nation; yet even this was suggested.

77 The disorderliness of the stage, which had become apparent the year before, now broke out on a more serious scale. Apart from [|casualties] among the populace, several soldiers and a centurion were killed, and an officer of the Praetorian Guards wounded, in the attempt to repress the insults levelled at the magistracy and the dissension of the crowd. The riot was discussed in the senate, and proposals were mooted that the praetors should be empowered to use the lash on actors. [|Haterius Agrippa], a tribune of the people, interposed his veto, and was attacked in a speech by Asinius Gallus, Tiberius said nothing: these were the phantoms of liberty which he permitted to the senate. Still the veto held good: for the deified Augustus had once remarked, in answer to a question, that players were immune from the scourge; and it would be blasphemy in Tiberius to contravene his words. Measures in plenty were framed to limit the expenditure on entertainments and to curb the extravagance of the partisans. The most striking were: that no senator was to enter the houses of the pantomimes; that, if they came out into public, Roman knights were not to gather round, nor were their performances to be followed except in the theatre; while the praetors were to be authorized to punish by exile any disorder among the spectators.  Questions: 1. What are the Sibylline Books and what is their significance? 2. Who is Drusus? 3. How many people were injured in this disorder? 4. Who is Haterius Agrippa?   Throughout my research, I was able to conclude that Roman society never stays to its stereotype. The emperor Tiberius was never around the public eye and rarely attended any type of function or amusement. The games discussed in this dialogue were presided over by Drusus, Tiberius's son. He loved the violence as his father did too. We can see that many Roman’s enjoyed watching the gladiators fight and that violence was an everyday occurrence. When fights broke out in the theatre at this time, there were many casualties in which no one seemed to really care.

The reading teaches us that Romans were an evolved society and like current governments, a few people in power took care of the population as a whole. The article talks about a natural disaster that hurt the city of Rome and caused great despair. Also like current governments, this article shows us that even in this time period, there was corruption between leaders. The government was torn between two sides and entrusted the job of repairing the damages to two individuals; [|Ateius Capito] and [|Lucius Arruntius]. Two main people in power decided against the heavy taxation, thus relieving the duties of two men.

This article also talks about how in this time period, the form of entertainment was mostly in the theatre. People from all over would come to watch warriors, better known as gladiators, fight to the death to appease the crowd. The article also states that Drusus would have so much excitement over this bloodshed that he had to be censured by his father. The article continues to talk about how the populous would break out in serious fights causing serious causalities and even death. The senate then voted that if needed, extreme force could be used during rioting situations. Augustsus decried against it, and the veto held up, because in these times it would be blasphemous and a terrible decision to defy Augustus’ words. This shows how powerful the senate is.   = The summary of the article is very good on explaining parts of Roman society and how violence was apart of this society. I was a bit curious about the two sides of government led by Ateius and Lucius Arruntius. A brief explanation of the two parties and their political views would aide in why the people removed them from power. Overall a very great summary on the topic of Roman culture. =

Joshua Grow

The summary was intriguing and you explained it well. I was also surious about Ateius and Lucius Arruntius and their backgrounds. The article also shows how the Roman's held their deities in their everyday life and did not want to defy them. Great summary! Alexandra Watkins

I sincerely enjoyed reading your summary. It was very interesting and you put the document into wording that made it not as boring. That being said I think I only saw a few punctuation mistakes. I also like how you made the answers for questions 1 & 4 links instead of writing answers. Very good job. -Troy R.