Of PatriciansandPlebs

Patrick McEvoy-Halston

History323
Dr. Money
 Enlightenedopiniononceconsidereda ladderof progressasan apt modelto capturethe

of socialchangeswithin eighteenthcenturyEngland. The birth of the modernwasa

essence

centuryor two ol4 but it wasthoughtthat only in the eighteenthcentury- with England

sufficientlydistantftom its feudalpastandsufficientlyimmersedwithin a commercialsociety-

that plebeiancustomsandpatricianpaternalismcouldbe shed;asEnglishsocietydistanced

itself, by onemorerung, from its primitive past. Essentially,it wasa view of the centurynot

much different from that from certainquarterslate within that century. For example,in the late

fifties, thejudge Sir MichaelFosterobserves:

seventeen

In the infancyof tradethe Acts of QueenElizabethmight well

Be calculatedfor the public weal;but now, whenit is grownto
that perfectionwe seeit, it might perhapsbe of utility to havethose
laws repealed,astendingto cftlmp andtie down that knowledgeit
wasat first necessaryto obtainby rule. (Hay andRogers,104)

However,accordingto the historiansDouglasHay,NicholasRogersandE.P Thompson,it wasa

point of view which owed its lastingappeallessfrom havingcapturedessentialtruths,andmore

from havingcapturedthe vanity of moderns- who arealwaysat the highestrung of the ladder-

andthe vanity of historians- who preferthe companyof gentrywhetherpastor present. They

believethat the unfortunateendresult is that we havebeenmadeblind to the true natureof the

socialchangesoccurringwithin eighteenthcenturyEngland. In fact, we havegot it backwards:

it wasa time which marksthe descent,andnot the ascent,of mankind.

As part of his attemptto restorethis historicaltruth to the modernmemory,Thompsonusesa

different modelto representthe socialdynamicsof the period: magnets.This modelhelpsmake

Thompson'spoint that we havepreviouslylimited our view of the priod by looking throughthe

 -z-

eyesof only oneof the two centralplayersin the period- thoseof the patricians. But just as a

magnethastwo pot.rln, urgesusto useboth of our eyesandlook moreclosely,andwith more

empathy,at the plebs. What we then finally see- just asmagnetshaveboth positiveand

negativepoles- is ffi"we havedonefar worsethanmerelylimited our vision: focusingon the

patriciansleadsonly to distortion,while focusingon the plebsleadsto the unveilingof honest

reality.
'high above'
Therearetwo reasonsfor not trustingthe patricians.Oneis thatthey look from

andthusthey tendto "confi$e the actualandthe ideal" (Thompsoq24). The other is that we

arenot dealingwith trustworthygentleman;they are insteadNamier's social climbers;expertsat

dressingthemselvesup, anddressingothersdown- skills no doubtnecessary

duringthe

"predatoryphaseof agrarianandcommercialcapitalism"(26),but repugnantnone-the-less.

Paternalismis usefulasa conceptonly becauseit doesemphasizearelationshipbetween

patriciansandplebs,andbecauseit revealsthe kind of linguistic maneuversused{re by the

patriciansto concealtheir horrid deeds.Paternalismsoundsnice - suggesting

kindly attention

from mastersto their flock - but it is a fraudulentterm. It concealsthe real distancingof the

patriciansfrom the plebs;which pickedup asthe centurywent on" leadingfinally to a distancing

of law from custom,andan abandonmentof the plebsby patricianswho no longerneededthem.

Althoughthesehistoriansencourageus to look from the plebeianpoint of view, they do not

believethat plebswerereliably ableto perceivethingsasthey were. Thompsonbelievesthat the

(|.,n'tt*
plebscould sometimesbe fooled by the patriciantheatre;althoughNno fault of their own, but

asan inevitableresultof being on the receivingend of the patricianshegemonicdominance.

But, accordingto Thompson,they are still worthy of our attention;becauseuponcloser

examinationthe termsusedby the patriciansto dressdovrnthe plebs- like barbarianandmob -

 -5-
q
t

]{
areentirely rnisleading.They do not describethe plebl true nature. In fact, the form that the
t;
plebs' oppositiontook - suchasfood riots - is determinedby the particularnatureof the
r$
A_$
patricians'hegemony.Also, we find that theybehaveentirelyunlike a mob:their actionsare

providessupporting
intelligentlytimed,'focusedandorderly. The historianJohnStevenson t I.r
evidencefor this. He notesthat food confiscatedby the plebs washeld only sothat it couldthen r$T
prices. The plebsbelievedthat moralitycouldnot be divorcedfrom
be resoldbut at reasonable

economy;just astheybelievedthat customsshouldnot be divorcedfrom law. Thusthe riots .

serveasevidencenot of plebeianvice,but of plebeiant

I{i
at:
culturewithered- in largepart dueto a lack of patriciansupport- their virtue wasreplacedby

materialisthabitsleavinga legacywhich hauntsus to this very day.

i$]
Without extensivetime spentin the studyof archives(evenhereThompsonaccusesothersof

not havingput in the sametime ashe has- andso,likely, he would us),commonsenseurgesus

to banishthe laddermodelfrom our minds;label it asignorant,'andacceptthe new view as

welcometruth. After all, the olderview seesat a distancethat which canonly be madeplain

seenup close. Howeverowe shouldconsiderif the sameslightof handfor which the patricians

now standaccused,is alsoevidenthere. For what we arebeingaskedto acceptis that sincethe

patriciansshouldnot be trusted,nor, without decoding,the voice of the plebs,that truth is then

+ bestrevealedby archivalresearchfrom historiansthreehundredyearsdistantin time. Surely

thesehistoriansareplacing faith in the sameview from abovefor which the patriciansstand

aremadesuspect.
accused,andfor which their observations

The patriciansarealsoaccusedof bias;asarc the historiansof whomThompsonsays"no one

is more susceptibleto the charmsof gentrytife thanthe historiansof the eighteenthcentur5/"

(17), The historianis misledbecausehe identifiestoo easilywith his sources."He seeshimself

t^al'4(tu"h'^b ru^^r /'^

46 qu*h*" w.,o
--)iL ittff'E on4uv\ $"1*'*\Clryi1
{. tA aeVg+> *+*oln
#'A )>
aAr* , U * frrril" r4l ,na htl,*-(' iL,v,,*pa rzlt
a/,4a,w+a
 - tl-

asat leastseatedat ParsonWoodforde'sgroaningtable" (17). Yet, if this is true shouldwe not

generations
alsosuspectof biashistorianslike Thompsonwho complainthat "successive no

longerstandin an apprenticerelationto eachother" (14) andabout"this remodelingof "need"

andthis raisingof the thresholdof materialexpectations"(14) whenthey studyplebswho they

believewereguilty of neitherof thesesins? Shouldwe accuseThompson,Huy,andRogersof

imaginingcompanypreferableto the mobsof consumersin their own time? If we do, andif bias

distorts,then perhapswe can embraceconsiderableskepticismtowardstheir findingsbefore

spendinga lifetime within the archives.

We might at leastgatherup the courageto askourselvesother questionsof their historical

research.If they are in fact guilty of bias,shouldwe do asthey did with the pauiciansand look

for evidenceof moresordidrealities?Why is it

behindthe plebs'now sparklycleanappearance

that thesehistorianslookedfor redeemingreasonsfor plebeianbehaviorto the point that if not

found,they would follow with yet anotherattempt?Presumably,this is becausethey are armed

with ampleexperiencesof seeminglynastybehaviorturning out to servebenevolent,functional

purposes.Hay andRogersdiscoveredthat " rouglrmusicbelongedto a customaryrepertoireof

commumtyactionthat soughtto regulaterelationsin the eighteenthcentury" 62). Wife sales,

which "at first sight...appear humiliatinglypatriarchal...werereally a form of

aggressively,

populardivorce in an agewhen legal divorceor judicial separationwasbeyondthe reachof the

labouringpoor" (52). Thompsonaddsthat wife saleswereactuallyexotic. Yet, thesesortsof

explanationsarepart of the repertoireof a linguistic prisonwhich enclosesmuch late twentieth

centuryacademicthought. Behavioroutsideone'sown culturejudgedinferior or primitive

andignorance.It invitesa
comparedwith one'sown is a clearsignof both ethnocentrism

putdownsimilar in tone and substanceto Thompson'scriticism that " it is only the short-sighted
 - !t-

historianwho finds the eruptionsof the crowdto be "blind" (66).

But perhapsThompsonis correctin thinkingthat oneway out of a linguisticprisonis

nor historiansoffeasily when

commonsense. Perhapswe shouldneitherlet anthropologists,

they explainawaybehaviorwhich strikesboth them andus asexcessivelyaggressiveand/or

humiliating andthink of ethnocentrismas we areurgedto think of paternalism:asa blandterm

Behaviorlike wife salesandroughmusicmay

which potentiallyconcealsmuchwickedness.

indeedplay a functioni. but a funstion within a barbaricculture.

Concerningfood riots, perhapsthe betterapproachtowardsgraspingtheir naturewould be to

first look for reason,andif not found,to considerunreason.We migtrt find that therewas a bit

of both containedtherein. In fact, this may alreadybe evidentin Stevenson'sfindings. He

discoveredthat food riots did not necessarilyoccurwhen food priceswere at their peak. He

lookedagain,andfound that theseriots often occurredwhenthe rate of increasein food prices

- but a notchless so. It couldsuggesta sensitivrtyto

washigh. This still soundsreasonable

ratherthana wholly consciouslevel of awareness.This

rhythmsandperhapsto an unconscious

may not provetrue; but it is, perhaps,a neededcounterview of the plebsconsideringthey are

presented
to usaswholly, consciously,andunbelievablyrational.

Thompson
s{@o"rpft andHab"n"* iiib his studies;perhaps
heoughtto haveinsluded

Freud. tde, readerswho acceptonly so small a portion of Freud'sthoughtasthe notion

of the icted psyche,will find Thompson,Hay andRogersportrayalsof the plebsastoo

good be true. Intuitively,this is probablythe casefor mostreaders.Let us thenconsider

conceptionof the plebeianpsyche- which fits muchof Thompson'sevidence- but leads

otherconclusionsasto its nature;ourjudgmentof the patricians;andow conceptionof social

in this period.
'&
lryt6t*t
llt$ %6ej I qr,o rr*t Le t*J ^' teAtt*.,t t* ?tu1*q
6ftrrn,l" ) ttr", ul)s [",*, dbntaalvn ,