The Dominant Powers in First Century Rome: The Poetic Analysis on Social Powers in Juvenal Satire 3

...

and power amongst different countries. Codrus did not have marble in his house, but rather clay which he called marble (Sat. 3, p. 41, line, 205). Thus creating a clear inequality.

Individuals in Rome are unable to “stand a Greekized Rome”,(Sat. 3, p. 35, line, 60) they are “[avoided] like the plague…” (Sat. 3, p. 35, line, 59). Though Rome conquered Greece, the Greeks seem to continue having much power. Greeks have “to lie awake, take bribes that you’ll have to surrender, [thus being]... a threat to your mighty patron [Rome]” (Sat. 3, p. 35, lines, 55-56). Satire 3 states that “Greece is a stage, and every Greek is an actor” (Sat. 3, p. 37, line, 97). Many times, in order to be a good actor one has to be a good liar. If one is not a good liar, the audience will not capture the essence as clearly. Juvenal is asking himself “‘What [he] should do in Rome? [He is not] good at lying”, (Sat. 3, p. 35, line, 41) and apparently, in order to succeed you have to have that quality. Ironically, Greeks are presented as the most powerful in Satire 3. Stated is the fact that if a man with many capacities and talents is able to fly to the moon and needed someone to fly him, it would be a man from Athens to do so before anyone else from any other place (Sat. 3, p. 36, lines,76-83). Not Roman, but a Greek.

Several lifestyle practices are known with certainty about the first century in Rome from Satire 3. Latin towns outside of Rome tended to be much cheaper and with a better quality of life. Sora and Faustina offer

a choice of home, at a price [individuals] pay here [in Rome], in one year, renting some hole in the wall. Nice houses, too, with a garden…plenty to water [ones] flower, if needed,…[as well as] willing and able to feed a hundred good vegetarians (Sat. 3, p. 41-42, lines, 224-229).

If the countryside offers many more opportunities to poor individuals, why are there still so many in Rome living under fatal conditions? Perhaps it’s the old Rome that many individuals tend to keep “holding-on-to” rather than observing the current Rome. “Here’s a place, if [ones] taste is for hat-wearing whores, brightly colored!”(Sat. 3, p. 36, line, 66). Rome presents women as a sort of object that a man can attain whenever—a “whore”. While the only true perspective of a Greek is that of the women. “It seems that a woman speaks, not a mask…yet they win no praise at home, for all of their talent”, (Sat. 3, p. 37, lines, 94-96).

Those who live in Rome“…have less today than yesterday, since by tomorrow that will have dwindled still more…” (Sat. 3, p. 34, lines, 23-24). Several points suggest that perhaps by gaining less and less money, it is a strategy to eliminate these individuals from the city. “Poverty’s greatest curse, much worse than the fact of it, is that it makes men objects of mirth, ridiculed, humbled, embarrassed” (Sat. 3, p. 39, lines,152-153). Romans can identify individuals who are poorer than them from many distinct manner, the most common being the attire. Poverty is indeed a “joke”, Romans tend to “laugh if [ones] cloak is dirty or torn, if [ones] toga seems a little bit soiled, if [ones’] shoe has a crack in the leather, or if more than one patch attests to more than one misleading” (Sat. 3, p. 39, lines, 148-151). The only time in space where the individuals seem as equals is “on festive ways when the theater rises…Old familiar plays are staged again…there [one] sees all dressed alike, the balcony and the front rows, even His Honor content with a tunic of simply white” (Sat. 3, p. 40, lines, 172-177). No inequality is observed as to where people sit because everybody looks the same. Unlike any other day where “all the best seats are reserved for the classes who have the most money”, (Sat. 3, p. 39, lines, 158-160) during festivities, the less-wealthy class has to be smart and wear an “elaborate wardrobe” (Sat. 3, p. 40, line, 178).

Romans are working towards an even further separation among the social classes. This separation has resulted in nothing but “frustration” for the lower class while “laughter” for the upper