KCI등재
평민의 철수(Secessio Plebis)와 호민관직의 설치 = The Secessio Plebis and the Creation of the Tribunate
저자
김경현 (한남대학교 사학과)
발행기관
학술지명
권호사항
발행연도
2002
작성언어
Korean
KDC
909.000
등재정보
KCI등재
자료형태
학술저널
수록면
57-75(19쪽)
제공처
소장기관
In 494 BC, the plebs supposedly withdrew from the city en masse to the Sacred Mount (or the Aventine Hill) on account of their own debt, the burdens of military service and taxation, and arbitrary treatment by magistrates. Here they created a kind of alternative state within a state, as Mommsen described it. In other words, they formed their own assembly called the concilium plebis and elected their own officials, the tribuni plebis. However, Diodorus says nothing of the tribunated of 494 BC, although he does state that four tribunes of the plebs were elected in 471 BC (11.68.8). Moreover, much of the narrative of the First Secession, and the appointment of the plebeian tribunes, not only reveals inconsistencies in detail, such as the location of secessio plebis and the numbers and names of tribunes originally elected, but also contains several anachronistic stories such as the parable of Menenius Agrippa and the story of a miserable veteran. These have made scholars doubt the historicity of the First Secession and even of the creation of the tribuneship in 494 BC.
Livy(6.1.2) himself also casts doubts upon the credibility of the history of the Romans from the founding of Rome to the capture of the same by the Gauls in 390 BC at the beginning of his Book 6. Acceptance of the unreliability of accounts of early Roman history has been taken to an extreme and all the tradition of that period has been dismissed as a simple mixture of legend and falsification. Later political and historiographical prejudices must, of course, have allowed and induced the process of reconstruction of the early Roman history. Nevertheless, hypercriticism hinders one from arriving at a reasonable narrative, although it also means an element of fiction. As to the reliability of the annalistic tradition of early Rome, it has been at least partially rehabilitated, mainly through the independent means provided by archaeological materials. We must therefore not only try to free ourselves from the conscious assumptions, but also reinterpret systematically and comprehensively the whole range of sources on a sound methodological basis.
It would be rash, in conclusion, to consider the First Secession and the creation of the tribunate in 494 BC as a mere fiction. Although the annalistic tradition was filled with artificial overemphasis and anachronistic rhetoric, the preconditions of the crisis would be plausible enough and the historical facts on which its related narratives were based would be sill sound. The differences in the detailed narratives such as the site of the secessio or the number and names of plebeian tribunes initially created should not be regarded as evidence which can directly deny the First Secession of the plebeians and the election of the tribunate. On the contrary, they must be understood as derived from a process of constant interpretation and reappraisal, and not from a false invention of later annalists. Since they themselves had experienced a great political and social crisis, in fact later annalists needed to modify and elaborate the explanation of early Roman history to suit contemporary political and historical controversy.
It is certain that the withdrewal to the Mons Sacer (or the Aventine Hill) provided the plebeians with a means to organize their own institution and its peculiar form accorded with the original purpose of establishing the tribunate. The plebeian tribunes were cleary appointed to defend the interests of the plebs from magisterial oppression. Although tribunician duty and power were derived from a lex sacrata, a solemn oath of people, the tribuni plebis could use coerciton (coercion) to compel reluctant citizens to obey their orders and enactments by inflicting punishment: arrest, fine, imprisonment, and even the death penalty. They could also give intercession (veto) as well as auxilium (assistance) to protect their fellow citizens from arbitrary actions by magistrates. This tribunician authority may well have been needed in daily life more than the tradition indicates. It is also worth noting that the door of a tribune's house had always to be open day and night, and tribunes could not spend a night away from the city.
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
학술연구정보서비스(이하 RISS)는 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 | 보유기간 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 파일 | 한국교육학술정보원법 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 |
구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
---|---|---|
KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 김태우 | - 이메일 : lsy@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0439 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 이상엽 | |
RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 대학학술본부 장금연 | - 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)