77. The plebeians.
Below the clients came the plebeians, whose position, as M. Fustel de Coulanges himself points out, corresponded very closely to that of the Sūdras. The plebeians had no religion and no ancestors; they did not belong to a family or a gens.[192] They were a despised and abject class, who lived like beasts outside the proper boundary of the city. The touch of the plebeian was impure.[193] “When tribunes were created a special law was necessary to protect their life and liberty, and it was promulgated as follows: ‘It is forbidden to strike or kill a tribune, as if he was an ordinary plebeian.’ It would appear then that a patrician had the right to strike or kill an ordinary plebeian, or at least that he was amenable to no legal punishment for doing so.”[194] Similarly in the ancient Greek cities the citizens were known as ἀγαθοί or good, and the plebeians as κακοί or bad. This latter class is described by the poet Theognis as having had aforetime neither tribunals nor laws; they were not allowed even to enter the town, but lived outside like wild beasts. They had no part in the religious feasts and could not intermarry with the proper citizens.[195]
This position corresponds exactly with that of the Sūdras and the existing impure castes, who have to live outside the village and cannot enter or even approach Hindu temples.
M. de Coulanges considers that the plebeians were to a large extent made up of conquered and subjected peoples. An asylum was also established at Rome for broken men and outlaws from other cities, with a view to increasing the population and strength of the state. Subsequently the class of clients became absorbed among the plebeians.