The Corruption in the late Republic

[Ingsoc]

This recent post got me thinking, it's seem to be a common themes among ancient historians that the Romans of the late republic were corrupted by luxuries and thus lost the virtues of their ancestors who lived during the early of the republic.

 

Now this idea became accepted in modern times by prominent historians as well and it's was often refer as one of the reasons to the republic demise, but is it true? one certainly could say that the lack of luxuries of the Romans in the early republic wasn't due to the fact that they had virtues but to the fact that they were poor and of course all of this change with the Roman rise to be the prominent power in the ancient world.

 

Now I wouldn't say that your amount of wealth decide whatever you have virtues or you are corrupted, we certainly don't lack examples of politicians who "play dirty" during the early republic and we could give an examples to governors of provinces in the late republic (like Cato Minor, Gabinius, Cicero, Brutus) we conducted the affairs of their subject with respect and didn't made an attempt to loot their money.

[Klingan]

I would say corrupted by power not luxuries.

[Maty]

It was a topos (a sort of cliche) amongst the Romans that they were not the men that previous generations had been, and that there was some sort of Golden Age a few generations back when Romans were noble and incorruptible, unlike the romans of the present decadent era (whenever that is). If we are going to argue that the Romans of a particular era were corrupt, we have to define - corrupted how, and in what way, and how their behavior differs from what they (and not we by today's measure) would consider 'correct' behavior.

 

Let us remember that bribery, nepotism and exchanges of favours (for example) which would be considered corrupt in modern society, did not corrupt the Roman system, because in many instances that WAS the system. In the same way, the Romans were passing laws against luxurious living (sumptuary legislation) and worrying about decadence almost from the start. Yet Suetonius remarks that Augustus' house was pretty miserable and cheap by the standards of his own day.

 

So asking if luxury corrupted first century Romans begs the question whether they were corrupt, and if they were, how were they corrupt?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Did "luxuries" corrupt the Romans of the late republic? I don't think so.

 

First, what a "luxury" is in one era is considered a bare necessity in a more advanced era. So, for a paragon of rustic severitas like M. Curius Dentatus (an idol for Cato the Elder), regular baths would have been a luxury--as in his time they were. However, thanks to the aqueducts that were constructed (including one by Dentatus himself), bathing was later considered an indispensable element of civilization--not at all a luxury, but a demarcation between Romans and barbarians. (Did bathing 'corrupt' the Romans? Unless you believe in magic, it's hard to see how regular bathing could wash away one's moral character!) Fast forward another few generations and the process repeats itself. For Cato the Elder, the philosophy of the Greeks is a waste of time and a luxury; for Cato the Younger, philosophy is regarded as an indispensable element of civilization--not at all a luxury, but a demarcation between Romans and barbarians. So now there is a paradox: if a luxury (like bathing or Stoicism) corrupts, by what possible causal mechanism would it corrupt in an earlier age, when it is considered a luxury, but not at a later age, when it is not considered a luxury? The idea makes no sense.

 

Second, luxuries can be incentives for good and bad. Maybe it was greed for luxuries that spurred Chrysogonus to unjustly accuse Sextus Roscius of murdering his father. But wasn't it also greed for luxuries that spurred Cicero to leave his father's business washing togas in piss, to try to make a name for himself as a lawyer, and thus to defend Sextus Roscius from people like Chrysogonus? Why luxuries get the bad rap for Chrysogonus and not the good rap for Cicero isn't objective, but only the bias of Romans who love to extol the simple living of their illustrious forefathers (who, we just saw, would have been castigated by their forefathers for luxurious living!).

 

In my view, the idea that luxuries corrupt is just rustic simple-mindedness that fails to pass even the most elementary logical test.

Edited June 24, 2008 by M. Porcius Cato

[ASCLEPIADES]

This recent post got me thinking, it's seem to be a common themes among ancient historians that the Romans of the late republic were corrupted by luxuries and thus lost the virtues of their ancestors who lived during the early of the republic.

 

Now I wouldn't say that your amount of wealth decide whatever you have virtues or you are corrupted, we certainly don't lack examples of politicians who "play dirty" during the early republic and we could give an examples to governors of provinces in the late republic (like Cato Minor, Gabinius, Cicero, Brutus) we conducted the affairs of their subject with respect and didn't made an attempt to loot their money.

Edited December 2, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Primus Pilus]

Available luxury, convenience, reduction in personal physical labor (via technology, slavery or what have you) may "soften" a society and culture but I don't necessarily believe that softening equates to corrupting. In much the same way that modern day people, over ancestors even of the recent past, may have more access to luxury and convenience while having a reduced direct responsibility to provide for oneself and one's family, this doesn't indicate corruption in and of itself. Rather this is economic and societal specialization.

 

As already suggested, bribery as a legal and electoral practice had always been an important element of the Roman system. Available luxury and territorial expansion did little to influence this as a form of corruption other than to perhaps increase the cost and extent of a bribe.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Available luxury, convenience, reduction in personal physical labor (via technology, slavery or what have you) may "soften" a society and culture .

Salve PP

If "softness" is defined by that measure, it seems "hardest" society and culture were those of the slaves themselves.

[Minerva]

I would say corrupted by power not luxuries.

 

Agreed! It was definitely increasing greed for power that caused political corruption, civil wars and ultimately toppled the republic. Unless you consider "power" a luxury, luxurious living can't be considered the sole or main cause of the republic's corruption. And I don't think that Marius, Sulla, or any member of either triumvirate who made a grab for power considered it a luxury (Spartacus might have though)

[Ingsoc]

I would say corrupted by power not luxuries.

 

Agreed! It was definitely increasing greed for power that caused political corruption, civil wars and ultimately toppled the republic. Unless you consider "power" a luxury, luxurious living can't be considered the sole or main cause of the republic's corruption. And I don't think that Marius, Sulla, or any member of either triumvirate who made a grab for power considered it a luxury (Spartacus might have though)

 

It's actually an important point, as the leaders of the early republic lust after power as well (see for example the Patricians-Plebs struggle) why doesn't the Romans of the late republic could reach compromise without bloodshed like there ancestors? I thing that the reason is obvious, unlike the situation in the early republic when Rome was just another power in Italy in the late republic Roman position as a super power was well assured and there wasn't anyone who could affectedly challenge her since the Second Punic War and thus while a civil war would most likely led to the city downfall in early times the late Romans could "afford" to have a civil war without it taking a tall on Roman power and position in the world.

[Minerva]

"It's actually an important point, as the leaders of the early republic lust after power as well (see for example the Patricians-Plebs struggle) why doesn't the Romans of the late republic could reach compromise without bloodshed like there ancestors?"

 

 

I see several possible answers. At this point it was mainly a case of individuals vying for power. Therefore cessation which was the plebs' weapon would not have worked out. An individual walking out would simply be voluntary exile. Rome had enough militia to afford the threat of even a group of the populance walking out. Plus, The usage to which the tribunes' veto power was put made it impossible to get a political solution legally. And as Marius' army reforms had made private armies possible and in such circumstances violence was the best way to gain power.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Minerva

[Primus Pilus]

Expansion and increasing provincial authority among pro-consulars is the key difference between the eras of the Republic. Autonomous provincial "rule" bred a form of corruption that hadn't been evident in Rome until the middle 3rd century. While those generals responsible for the earliest conquests certainly benefited on a personal level, it was Rome itself which garnered the greatest glory. Each successive opportunity did have a "one-upmanship" mentality effect among some members of the political class that culminated in the imperatorial rivalries of the latest era.

 

Available luxury, convenience, reduction in personal physical labor (via technology, slavery or what have you) may "soften" a society and culture .

Salve PP

If "softness" is defined by that measure, it seems "hardest" society and culture were those of the slaves themselves.

 

Indeed, perhaps so if measured simply by labor. However, while a slave assigned to labor may have been hardest in terms of physical labor, they did not necessarily have the personal responsibility as caretaker for family, business, estate, etc. that others did practice.

 

I do admit to using "softness" in quotations for want of a better term in my earlier post.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Expansion and increasing provincial authority among pro-consulars is the key difference between the eras of the Republic. Autonomous provincial "rule" bred a form of corruption that hadn't been evident in Rome until the middle 3rd century.

 

I agree. Provincial governors could rule like little Tarquins, exploiting their provinces and stirring up war with their neighbors. Still, if Roman voters hadn't been so jacked up about their own maiestas (literally, "betterness"), perhaps they would have begun punishing these little Tarquins when they came home instead of giving them a fine parade and letting them pretend to be god-for-a-day. Is it any wonder these small-minded thugs, puffed up on their own sense of entitlement and temporary power, disdained to follow the rule of law after they'd tasted a triumph?

[Northern Neil]

Is it any wonder these small-minded thugs, puffed up on their own sense of entitlement and temporary power, disdained to follow the rule of law after they'd tasted a triumph?

Maybe this was part of the 'system' anyway - could it be that favours were given such as governorship of a province, whereby the benefactor not only lined his own pockets, but was expected to from the outset? Was Spain not governed like this in republican times?

[Minerva]

Maybe this was part of the 'system' anyway - could it be that favours were given such as governorship of a province, whereby the benefactor not only lined his own pockets, but was expected to from the outset? Was Spain not governed like this in republican times?

 

 

Lining their pokets is one thing but bleeding the province dry or acting like "Tarquin"was simply asking for trouble and thats what governers like Galba did. The treacherous massacre of the Lucitanians by him in his capacity as governer of Spain was a smear on Roman ideals of trust and honour. Small wonder that Cato denounced Galba!

[M. Porcius Cato]

Maybe this was part of the 'system' anyway - could it be that favours were given such as governorship of a province, whereby the benefactor not only lined his own pockets, but was expected to from the outset? Was Spain not governed like this in republican times?

 

Minerva's right to cite the case of Cato v Galba because it shows that in the tail end of the middle republic, exploitation of the provinces was still regarded as inimical to Roman interests. In contrast, when Cato the Younger made the same argument about Caesar's analogous treatment of the Germans, the charges didn't stick.

 

But PP's point, and I agree with it, is slightly different--that is, exploitation of the provinces spread corruption to Rome.