Republic in Decline

[caldrail]

A great deal has been written about the decadency of the Roman Empire. Inspired largely by Suetonius, this has long been part of the popular imagination and is illustrated eagerly by film and tv. It isn't entirely fictional given the excesses that did take place. The Republic on the other hand is often given a more saintly image (albeit a ruthless military one), where democratic institutions and the rule of law are paramount. Again, there is some truth to that, but this belies the essential character of the roman people. In social terms, populations do not change character immediately. Any change from a law abiding society to that considered decadent can only occur gradually, with the erosion of public standards and regard for behaviour. The roman people had a system of law instituted by public demand that carried very harsh sentences, indicating a society with little tolerance for aberrant behaviour and a deep desire to see justice done. These principles, indirectly responsible for the birth of the Republic in the first place, were to be eroded by those who no longer desired their restrictions or those who wanted break the boundaries of acceptable behaviour for their own satisfaction. From a stern restrictive society we see a move toward a capitalist bear-pit under the temptations of imperial gain.

 

Theodor Mommsen, a german historian in the late 19th century, studied this decline of the Roman Republic in some detail, and he left us a number of factors that led toward the hedonistic Principate. His viewpoint is particularly interesting since he lived in a time when public standards were high, and he naturally saw events in roman history as indicative of moral degeneration. He wrote his A History of Rome from the perspective that roman history, based on democratic ideals after the rejection of monarchy, finished with the accession of Augustus. Whether or not you agree with that, he made some insightful observations about the Republic in decline.

 

1 - Public Acceptance of Oriental Astrology

In addition to the roman gods, oriental cults were making themselves felt by the end of the Hannabalic War. Compared to roman rites, these provocative displays were adopted by romans almost as a rebellion against the dour nature of republican life, and although Mommsen fails to stress the point, it appears that (understandably) it tended to be the younger element that felt drawn to such cults. The cult of Atargatis is noteworthy as the first semitic divinity to colonise Italy, largely through syrian slaves in rural areas. Indeed, Chaldaean astrologers were making inroads in rural Italy finding customers amongst the poor, to the extent that Cato advised landlords that seeing them off the property was a good idea. Its perhaps no coincidence that a sicilian slave revolt of 134BC was started by a follower of Atargatis, a slave from Apamea.

 

The cult of Bacchus is highlighted specifically by Mommsen. Known for its nocturnal revels this very hedonistic cult was blamed for all manner of lapses in public morality...

 

...spreading like a cancer, had rapidly reached Rome and propagated itself all over Italy, everywhere corrupting families and giving rise to the most heinous crimes, unparalleled unchastity, falsifying of testaments, and murdering by poison. More than 7000 men were sentenced to punishment, most of them to death, on this account, and rigorous enactments were issued as to the future; yet they did not succeed in repressing the system, and six years later (180BC) the magistrate to whom the matter fell complained that more than 3000 men more had been condemned and still there appeared no end of the evil.

A History of Rome - Theodor Mommsen

 

2 - Emancipation of Women

Under roman tradition a woman was either the property of her father, guardian, or husband. She had no property nor rights of management. However, women were increasingly attempting to rid themselves of guardianship and assume responsibility for property. Mock marriages for this purpose were increasingly common. So much wealth had been collected in womens hands that in 169BC the senate ruled against the naming of women as heirs. They were beginning to have a will of their own public matters and statues of women were being erected. To our eyes this all seems a chauvanistic attitude, yet it shouldn't be dismissed since this was a fundamental change in social emphasis, one immediately obvious to a historian in a society yet to adopt the same changes.

 

3 - Availability of Luxury Items

Luxury items, for all their attractiveness, distract attention from more important day to day matters, not to mention the cash it takes to purchase them. Following the defeat at Cannae a law against such things as gold ornaments, colourful clothes, and chariots was passed. After peace was achieved in 195BC these laws were overturned. Furniture, clothes, jewelry, cutlery, carpets, all in increasing opulence were finding their way into roman hands. It was also noticeable that women were a major force in overturning these restrictions. Its highly likely that prices for these items increased with demand.

 

4 - Changes of Eating Habit

The romans had for a long time restricted themselves to one hot meal a day, prepared more often than not by the women of the house. These habits changed after the Punic Wars as increasingly a second hot meal was prepared, increasingly by cooks either hired or resident as slaves. Specialisation of cookery meant that baker-shops were established, and later, this specialisation would remove much of the cookery from even common people in the city of Rome altogether. Literature on the art of good eating emerges in line with importation of foreign delicacies. We also now know just how prevalent roman fast food was to become, and this must have emerged in the late Republic as a convenient way to satisfy hunger for people too busy with business to concern themselves with family meals.

 

5 - Fondness for Gambling

It must be said, the romans were keen gamblers. It is true that dice games were present in roman society very early on, yet after the Punic Wars the extent of such pleasures had reached the point where legislation was drafted against it.

 

6 - Ever More Idleness

It was observed toward the end of the Republic that romans were less willing to work, preferring to remain idle. This must have been accentuated by the influx of unemployed farmers ousted by competition with larger estates and their slave labour. Cato proposed to have the market paved with pointed stones to urge people to follow their direction, and as with so many of his laws, this was not taken seriously by common people. Its an interesting point that if such people were able to live without earning wages, they must have secured an easier source of income. For some this was done via patronage by begging from their social betters. For others, it must have been something less legal or socially acceptable. Mommsen himself stated that - When a man no longer finds enjoyment in work, and works merely in order to attain as quickly as possible to enjoyment, it is a mere accident that he does not become a criminal.

 

7 - Demand For Entertainment

Roman festivals were increasing in length and number. Gladiatorial combat, introduced into the Forum in 264BC, was also more prevalent and so too were private viewings of their fights. These formal dinner parties were now fashionable, a chance to indulge and impress with displays of luxuries. Entertainers were hired for these occasions. Whereas once a sing-song and a poetic recitation were enough, now it was more important to thrill and suprise their guests with novelties. Greek athletes, previously sneered at for their un-roman nakedness, were introduced in 186BC as entertainment alongside the native wrestlers and boxers. The greek style pancration, a form of no-holds-barred fighting, was also finding a firm foothold in roman culture. Hunting foxes and hares, once a rural community pastime, had been transfered to the arena and was beginning to establish the empire-wide commercial enterprise to entertain the public with displays of exotic beasts and their demise.

 

Whereas once a consul of Rome had divorced his wife for attending funeral games in 268BC, by the late Republic laws were enacted prohibiting the importation of wild beats to Rome, and forbidding gladiators from public festivals. Needless to say, commercial pressure and the public demand for entertainment overcame these restrictions. Animal baiting was held back for many years, yet it was noticed that artistic entertainments did not satisfy the public. At triumphal games in 167BC, greek flute players were ordered to down their instruments and begin boxing, to the immense pleasure of their previously bored audience.

 

8 - Love of Money

Paul stated that the love of money was the root of all evil, and in the romans, the desire to be wealthy did indeed flower. With luxuries and influence available it was only a matter of cash to obtain them. For luxuries, this meant a great deal of it, which was another motive for obtaining them, since the display of luxury living was indicative of your wealth and hence standing in the roman community. The definition of social status by wealth was inherited from the greeks with the hoplite citizen army, a system by which a man purchased his own equipment and thus his military status, something further reinforced by the organisation of the popular voting assemblies and the restrictions of entry into the senate. Needless to say, this coloured the attitude of romans and it was reported that more and more marriages were made as financial speculation, so much so that marrriage presents were refused legal validity. The romans believed in caveat emptor (Let the buyer beware) and did so for a reason. It was becoming common practice to 'bend' the law to achieve financial success and even personal relationships were geared to this end. Money had become everything.

 

Notice that violence isn't on the list. It might be that Mommsen considered violence, so endemic in roman character, as a symptom of the roman malaise rather than a cause. Perhaps the most interesting exclusion from this list of factors given by Mommsen is promiscuity. The ready availability and cheap price of prostitutes by the time of the Principate is well known. This must have been true of the late republic too, and its as well to recall that in the slave markets of Delos, some ten thousand people were brought in and sold the same day during that period. Mommsen does mention the increasing possession of child slaves as pets, and although the modern perspective is deeply suspicious of such things there is no direct evidence of sexual intent - though given human nature paedophilia must have existed. Mommsen has outlined how personal relationships of all kinds were changing with free time, wealth, and moral expectation. The family, such a basic foundation in roman culture, was becoming a tool for social and personal advancement in a very cynical manner. Rome had become an enviroment where keeping up with the Jonesii was a primary motivation. As Rome became successful, the potential rewards had made the romans ever more competitive. Is it so suprising then that at the very end of the Roman Republic, when individuals amassed military and financial power, that the temptation to use it for absolute power in contravention of roman tradition became unavoidable?

Edited December 27, 2007 by caldrail

[Segestan]

Certainly the Republic saw moral decay result from Roman expansion; but it was never easy from the beginning for Rome. Being a Roman required a respect of law , a great social responsibility. The Civil Wars, were testimony that the Republic had become unstable, that the Roman system was being tested to the limits of fairness, and the moral decay wasn

[Ursus]

Everything in the list above I would consider either harmless (what people ate or how they had sex) or else beneficient (more consumer goods, increased social freedom for women, more religious options). As far as idleness .... the other side of the coin is that after the civil wars, Italy experienced an economic boom. Surely someone had to be working ...?

 

 

What is austere morality to one is boorish provincialism to another. One could say Rome finally grew up from its rustic Latin roots to become a cosmopolitan empire.

[caldrail]

What Mommsen saw is a civilisation with some high ideals that was losing its way. The introduction of new ideas might be cosmopolitan, but it can also destabilise a society at worst. One view is to assume that new ideas are a good thing - because without them a society can stagnate (something the republic has been accused of sometimes). The reason I posted this is because if you look askance at it, there's a wide parallel with our modern age. For us, the world wars were as delibatating as the Punic Wars were to the romans. We too saw an introduction of luxuries afterward (also due to increasing technology) and have been through a permissive change in society. The role of women has expanded to fill almost every male bastion for instance. We accept this because we're brought up within this enviroment. To our ancestors many of these changes might have been viewed with horror. Remember Enoch Powell warning us of the dangers of immigration? Mommsens viewpoint is from a time before these changes occured which is why I thought it interesting.

 

Personally, I think Rome left its rustic latin roots much earlier than the empire. It remained as a fond folk memory well into later times, the scene of rustic tranquility and honest agricultural labour being very close to roman hearts even after they embraced urban sprawl. Everything the empire was going to become was already present in the late republic and the change was happening over the last two hundred years. The senate recognised these changes with some concern and attempted to hold it back, yet there seems a certain ineptness and lack of will in the senate's actions. They've been accused of being too concerned with their own affairs, engaged in their own tussles for popularity and career, until the point is reached where charismatic individuals are calling for support from the common people directly.

 

Mommsen of course regarded the empire as a 'bad' thing, a degenerate form of government that shared nothing with the high ideals the romans had when they booted Tarquinus off his throne. He has a point, but then, if the rule of tradition breaks down as it did in the late republic, you approach a situation where the law of the jungle prevails, and in the increasing political anarchy the fittest pushed forward and achieved domination.

 

Now since our idea of modern society, since we live in it, is nothing like as bad as Mommsens fears, one has to draw the parallel again and wonder if the romans too decided that the declining restraints on society weren't so bad after all. Idleness for instance means exactly what is does today, that people choose to be unemployed and obtain a living by other means, often at the cost of the state. Gambling brings all manner of social ills with it. Relgion can warp peoples perceptions and make them do some very anti-social things and still believe they are right to do them. The changing of eating habit? Not terrible in its own right, but an indication of a desire for luxury, a sign that the old discipline and manners of what may seem to a golden age is falling away. Sounds familiar?

[M. Porcius Cato]

I agree with Ursus. The factors listed by Mommsen were trivial: how on earth did "eating delicacies" cause Caesar to cross the Rubicon? It's absurd.

 

What Mommsen lists are actually the effects of a strong and growing economy, not the causes of the fall of the republic.

[Pompieus]

Isn't it more likely that the tremendous increase in the wealth and power of individuals, resulting from the spoils of empire, changed their relationship with their fellow citizens and the state; and this was the basic problem that was the root of all the others?

[Gaius Octavius]

*DELETED*

Edited December 28, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Ursus]

Athens inherited a rich empire after a great war, and yet still remained a radical democracy until the impostion of tyranny by a foreign power. I can't buy the idea that imperial wealth alone leads to so-called tyranny from within. There was something in the particular political and social mechanisms of the late Republic that made normal give-and-take of politics impossible, leading to the crisis that could only result in civil war. That "something" has been hashed out repeatedly on these forums...

[Segestan]

What Mommsen saw is a civilisation with some high ideals that was losing its way. The introduction of new ideas might be cosmopolitan, but it can also destabilise a society at worst. One view is to assume that new ideas are a good thing - because without them a society can stagnate (something the republic has been accused of sometimes). The reason I posted this is because if you look askance at it, there's a wide parallel with our modern age. For us, the world wars were as delibatating as the Punic Wars were to the romans. We too saw an introduction of luxuries afterward (also due to increasing technology) and have been through a permissive change in society. The role of women has expanded to fill almost every male bastion for instance. We accept this because we're brought up within this enviroment. To our ancestors many of these changes might have been viewed with horror. Remember Enoch Powell warning us of the dangers of immigration? Mommsens viewpoint is from a time before these changes occured which is why I thought it interesting.

 

Personally, I think Rome left its rustic latin roots much earlier than the empire. It remained as a fond folk memory well into later times, the scene of rustic tranquility and honest agricultural labour being very close to roman hearts even after they embraced urban sprawl. Everything the empire was going to become was already present in the late republic and the change was happening over the last two hundred years. The senate recognised these changes with some concern and attempted to hold it back, yet there seems a certain ineptness and lack of will in the senate's actions. They've been accused of being too concerned with their own affairs, engaged in their own tussles for popularity and career, until the point is reached where charismatic individuals are calling for support from the common people directly.

 

Mommsen of course regarded the empire as a 'bad' thing, a degenerate form of government that shared nothing with the high ideals the romans had when they booted Tarquinus off his throne. He has a point, but then, if the rule of tradition breaks down as it did in the late republic, you approach a situation where the law of the jungle prevails, and in the increasing political anarchy the fittest pushed forward and achieved domination.

 

Now since our idea of modern society, since we live in it, is nothing like as bad as Mommsens fears, one has to draw the parallel again and wonder if the romans too decided that the declining restraints on society weren't so bad after all. Idleness for instance means exactly what is does today, that people choose to be unemployed and obtain a living by other means, often at the cost of the state. Gambling brings all manner of social ills with it. Relgion can warp peoples perceptions and make them do some very anti-social things and still believe they are right to do them. The changing of eating habit? Not terrible in its own right, but an indication of a desire for luxury, a sign that the old discipline and manners of what may seem to a golden age is falling away. Sounds familiar?

 

Much of those habits of luxury living that Romans discovered after the Punic Wars where the direct results of an ever increasing use of slavery. One of the prime reasons that the Greeks managed to advance culturally, was in fact slavery had allowed a greater amount of personal free time. Free Time to achieve at arts , crafts and philosophy that would never have been possible in an labor high society. Unfortunately slavery results in an ever increasing moral decay and self defeats the advancing high culture achievements. This civil conradiction , along with a brutal competition of city-states for slaves defeats the noble ideas of Republicanism. The Empires architects knew full well to give the Roman citizens the allusion of Republican politics. Nothing works as well as having the citizen think he is free.

[caldrail]

The focus on luxury items refers to those with wealth in their pockets, which means a smaller part of roman society. The poor were just as poor despite the burdgeoning economy. They may have had more free time, but did they indulge in art, crafts, and philosophy? I hardly think so. They preferred to remain idle, to gamble, and probably get drunk too although Mommsen doesn't mention that. Also, their way of life was changing. In earlier times it was a custom to have one hot meal a day, as already outlined. Now whereas the increasing tendency for another hot meal during the late republic isn't going to bring the roman world to its knees (thats not what I was suggesting at all, neither does Mommsen, and I do notice a tendency for some people to extrapolate on what I've written to ridiculous lengths). What it does indicate, amongst other factors, is that the restraint of people in earlier times is being discarded. Slavery can account for some of that, but not all. The increase in slavery is also a little illusory. Although there were high points in the slave trade as mentioned, there was always a decline in slave trading after those events bringing in masses. Delos went out of business for instance, despite selling ten thousand or so in a single day in its heyday. Also, the majority of slaves went out on bulk sales and apart from those destined for short term careers in entertainment, a lot of these would have been rural labourers in farms, mills, quarries, and mines whose lifespans weren't likely to be much longer. As for common people, the cost of a slave is probably a bit much. Mommsen does actually indicate that the purchase price of a boy was something close to a barrel of anchovies. Thats a lot of fish for a poor man, many of whom were itinerant labourers ousted from unsuccesful farms and only working long enough to pay for what they needed, which as I mentioned, wouldn't include art, craftwork, or books on philosophy. What Mommsen is suggesting therefore is that the old work ethic was fading away. The wealthy were beginning to buy support for political success by staging entertainments and since these were free, the public were always going to demand more.

 

I'm not sure that slavery as such is automatically resulting in increasing moral decay. After all, under the christianised Rome manumission was increasingly popular to those able to provide it. Now there may be a lot of self interest involved, since this act of freeing a slave allowed the owner to appear a generous man, and also that the former slave often retained his loyalty to his former master as a client under patronage. Nonetheless, in later times the numbers of slaves allowed to be freed in wills were restricted by law. Also, all ancient societies kept slaves to a greater or lesser degree. It wasn't unusual, and no-one at the time thought anything terrible about the fact slavery existed. There were abuses of course, since any market for commodities rears those who want to exploit it without restraint. By the early Principate the rural slave barracks had to be investigated for enslaving travellers illegally, and 'draft-dodgers' were known to hide there pretending to be slaves and therefore not liable for military service. Certainly beats cutting your own thumb off.

 

Therefore the moral decay isn't about the increasing use of slaves, partly because slavery was not ever-increasing. You see, with any society you have a certain proportion of people who want to push the boundaries of behaviour, either for profit or for their own satisfaction. Thats why socieities have laws, to restrain the behaviour of their members to an acceptable level. Notice that by the late republic the senate were making new laws for this very reason and its the common people who increasingly cock a snook at it. The senate lost some credibility by issuing inept laws in the first place, and given they were often too busy competing amongst themselves to be concerned with public behaviour, it became easier to buy the public off with 'bread and circuses' than to enforce restraint. Once a large group of people lose that sense of self discipline and standards of behaviour, it becomes very difficult to reassert them.

 

As for 'architects of Empire', that to me is nonsense. There were no architects of empire, it wasn't a planned development of roman culture. The empire was well in place before the end of the republic (if you understand what I mean), and as for allowing the roman public to think they were free, thats not even close to the situation. The roman authorities weren't that able to control the public, or bread and circuses wouldn't have been necessary or desirable, nor would Cato have felt it necessary to issue anti-sumptuary laws etc etc.

 

Tyranny? Thats down to individual leaders, not wealth. I really don't remember suggesting tyranny was involved.

 

Also, one of the problems of a strong and growing economy is that it allows people to strive for luxury, which as I mentioned, can be a distraction in life. Its the major cause of the work ethic being discarded after all, and once the owrk ethic goes, then the economy begins to stagnate. The 'strong and growing' economy stagnated after all. Imperial wealth boosted it to a considerable degree but over a long period of time this growth was not sustainable, one of the reasons why the west declined.

 

Mommsen listed what he saw as the decline in standards and manners, not the effects of trade and finance.

Edited December 29, 2007 by caldrail

[Kosmo]

I think that the association of slavery and moral decadence has more to do with modern historical discurse rather then antiquity. All societies were before XIX C sclavagist. Were all immoral?

Romans tried to resist the temptations of Orient from Cato to Diocletian. Even Caesar tried to reform the morals thru edicts. They also innovated a lot in the area of immorality from Claudia to Elegabal.

The last moral reform the romans made, christianity, was rather succesfull and killed all fun for a 1000 years ... make that 2000 years.

[caldrail]

Christianity, for all its positive effects, was not a moral reform by romans. far from it, it was more like a marketing exercise by Paul. Modern research has shown some extraordinary parallels with older faiths and its likely that Paul, who never met Jesus and only knew of him by story, added foreign mythology in order to make his cause popular and sell it. The early bishops of Rome weren't averse to taking money from their parishioners either (nothing new there then) and one 4th century roman wrote "Make me a Bishop of Rome and I'll be a christian tomorrow".

 

Its easy to accuse the eastern religions of immorality and there were examples of such, including one whose priestess's were prostitutes pure and simple. Elagabulus is noteworthy for the emperor of the same name. However, there were also semitic/syrian cults with a much more moralistic worship and lifestyle, albeit a bit more relaxed that christianity has been in the past. In that at least, I agree with you!

[Kosmo]

All those people, real or not, from Jesus, Peter and Paul to Constantine and the Chalcedonian bishops were romans. Some from the elite, some not but all took part in the development of this religion that is far more then a marketing exercise. What Paul did was a rebranding but he was not the last one.

[Pompieus]

Athens inherited a rich empire after a great war, and yet still remained a radical democracy until the impostion of tyranny by a foreign power. I can't buy the idea that imperial wealth alone leads to so-called tyranny from within. There was something in the particular political and social mechanisms of the late Republic that made normal give-and-take of politics impossible, leading to the crisis that could only result in civil war. That "something" has been hashed out repeatedly on these forums...

True enough. In democratic Athens the spoils of empire were divided among the masses in the form of salaries for naval and public service, in Rome (due to those particular political and social mechanisms) the wealth of empire went to the senators who commanded the armies and equites who exploited the provinces - not to the peasantry of Italy. In fact the working classes suffered many injuries due to inflation, loss of their land etc.

[caldrail]

Ok, but so much of that wealth was spent on luxury, bribery, patronage gifts and favours, and public entertainment - arguably a waste of these resources. To some extent the luxury market should mean the economy is bouyed up and opens new markets for artisans and merchants etc, and so it did, but so much of this cash found its way abroad to pay for foreign curiosities, silk, spices, animals, etc. The animal trade for the arena was gathering pace in the late republic and this alone became an extraordinary drain on the roman economy. Rome may have become wealthy, but it was a leaking ship.