The Corruption in the late Republic

[ASCLEPIADES]

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... and he naturally saw events in roman history as indicative of moral degeneration.

Edited December 2, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

What Mommsen was suggesting was that the change of diet from something basic and mundane to one requiring a sophisticated or demonstrative mindset indicated a change in mindset. He was pointing at the change toward 'appearances', that the dinner becomes an arena for personal status rather than a functional and social event.

 

Obviously eating delicacies did not inspire Caeaar to cross the Rubicon. Thats a ridiculous assertion and one that indicates a failure to observe a sublety in roman culture. The change of diet was a long lasting phenomenon, one resulting from propserity and and the desire to achieve status through the display of wealth. Crossing the Rubicon was a desire for status, political advancement, and personal survival.

 

However, Caesar (although a dominant personality to begin with) was a product of his time. The possibility of wealth, which was undivisible from status in roman eyes, led him to pursue a certain lifestyle and choice of action. Although Caears march on Rome was not the result of what he ate, he was nonetheless a symptom of the same social change that saw people viewing the pursuit of luxury as desirable in its own right. In Mommsens view, that was an indication of the decadence the 19th century wa so fond of describing.

[M. Porcius Cato]

No one disputes that the changes listed (eating delicacies, et al) were part of a larger cultural shift. The question is whether this shift reflected actual moral corruption that led to the toppling of the republic. Sure, some Romans--Cato the Elder among them--thought so. But did their argument make any sense? I don't think so.

 

If we take Cato's narrative at face value, the alleged corruption occurred between the era of M' Curius Dentatus and Cato's own day. So what was the state of the republic during this rise in luxury? Obviously, the state of the republic was never stronger! While the Romans were allegedly being 'feminized' by their love of delicacies and philosophy, somehow they managed to acquire Sicily, defeat Hannibal, subdue Spain, capture Greece, and lead the Roman republic to undisputed mastery of the Mediterranean.

 

So much for the idea that trading porridge for dormice saps Roman virtue.

[caldrail]

But then the people who actually did the capturing weren't the sort of people who were ever likely to afford delicacies anyway. The 'decadence' pointed at by Mommsen and his contemporaries inevitably reflects the tastes of the upper classes. But then again, without that conquest and redistibrution of land, coinage, and resources, where would the cash come from to enjoy those luxuries? The two went hand in hand in the late republic.

 

Further, the romans were always a culture given to conflict, that had been endemic even it its very earliest days. For them conquest was no more than their natural superiority, and if it was necessary to conquer to enjoy the fruits of it, surely that conquest underpins the arrogance that luxury breeds?

 

Roman virtue had indeed waned. Would a character like Julius Caesar been allowed to dominate roman politics in earlier times? I think not. The romans in the early republic were staunchly moralistic and traditional, Caesar was (allegedly) less than moral and most certainly untraditional in his approach to politics by flagrantly ignoring cultural taboos and creating new precedents, not only by crossing the Rubicon but also such simple things as political campaigning amongst the plebs.

[M. Porcius Cato]

You'll get no argument from me that Caesar was a scoundrel and that the Romans who watched him from the sidelines lacked moral fiber. But there's no simply no connection between support for Caesar and taste for delicacies. To take just one prominent example: Brutus was a Stoic, whereas Cassius was an Epicurean.

 

Also, it's probably true that the ones doing the fighting during the expansion weren't delicacy-eating, fish-ponders. Obviously, those people will be relatively few in *any* era, but that only speaks to the base rate, not to the bias. To detect some *bias* caused by luxury, the crucial data is whether those who have the capacity for luxuries yet choose to avoid them are somehow more patriotic or more Roman or more virtuous than those who have the capacity for luxuries yet choose to embrace them. And on this issue, I don't see any connection whatever. With equal facility, we could list off luxury-loving patriots (like Cicero), luxury-loving scoundrels (like Clodius), luxury-hating patriots (like Cato), and luxury-hating scoundrels (like Marius). With all four cells of the matrix filled out nearly equally, I'll bet no bias will be detectable.

[caldrail]

You'll get no argument from me that Caesar was a scoundrel and that the Romans who watched him from the sidelines lacked moral fiber.

Thats the key element. Luxury does sap moral fibre, its warm, comfy, and doesn't involve hard work. You focus too closely on the eating of delicacies as a primary symptom of change, its simply one of many, an indicator tha people were becoming more engrossed in their own lives than the the community.

 

As I've mentioned before, the earliest romans were intensly moral. One rape and a civil insurrection broke out resulting in a new republic and a seriously miffed rapist. Would a rape in the late republic produce sch a reaction? Before Caesar (and I'm only using him as a chronological marker) society would have been scandalised but no insurrection. After Caesar, they raised eyebrows and shook their heads. Once Augustus was running the show it didn't geany worse. For all his hypocrisy he was very keen on moralistic rulings, and you get the impression that he was attempting to halt the decay of roman morals any further - though he does seem to have excepted himself from consideration - typically roman. That was the problem. Roman morality had been decaying for a century or more bfore Augustus came to power. A culture doesn't change mindset instantly, people are naturally conservative as a whole (although there's always a minority pushing the boundary, the 'decay-leaders' if you will) so the process is never instant.

 

Nor is it always a gentle measured change. As recent history shows, chamges in sciety emerge through fashions and scandal. Once someone does something considered immoral, and gets away with it, there's a risk that a group will adopt that behaviour as fashionable. Once that becomes ordinary, accepted in daily life, there's a temptation for ordinary people to adopt these ways in order to appear above the common ruck. In other words, something once considered unacceptable drifts in fits and starts toward something desirable. Even in the media-inspired fast-moving modern world, it took generations for the austere post war world of Britain to develop in the same way Rome had done.

 

The thing is, you admire the republic. Actually I don't blame you, it had some good ideas and was intrinsically conservative. But this political ideal was becoming an impediment to peoples desires in the late republic as the world changed around them. They didn't want to conservative any more, they wanted a good time. They wanted cash to afford it. And yes, a few wanted to eat delicacies, but perhaps you you're only using that as a means to devalue my argument. As it happens, I highlighted certain aspects of Mommsens work because I noticed a parallel between his view of Rome and my view of modern Britain.

 

Come to mention it, there's a fair few delicacies on offer at my local supermarket (and advertised on tv, so its fashionable too). You never saw sushi on sale in Britain in the fifties, and even if the economy had been able to sustain its sale, I doubt it would have been a best selling food item back then. Granted its not a stale part of diet now, but it is on sale, on the shelves. That same change from traditional ways to experiment and fashion happened over the last seventy years for us, and for the romans a shade longer. But then they always were a conservative people.

 

 

Also, it's probably true that the ones doing the fighting during the expansion weren't delicacy-eating, fish-ponders. Obviously, those people will be relatively few in *any* era, but that only speaks to the base rate, not to the bias. To detect some *bias* caused by luxury, the crucial data is whether those who have the capacity for luxuries yet choose to avoid them are somehow more patriotic or more Roman or more virtuous than those who have the capacity for luxuries yet choose to embrace them.

The spread of luxury afflicts a society in insidious ways. To begin with, its expensive, it attracts unfavourable opinion, and most people would shy away from it to prevent public scorn. Those that do brave it make it acceptable, or even desirable, thus to adopt those luxuries allows you to identify with a fashionable group (even if you only play at it on the sidelines). Eventually you become scorned for not involving yourself in this movement. In roman times however the majority were poor. They remained poor despite the changes in society, thus they couldn't change even if they wanted too. Also, roman society being intensely class concious, would a senior roman look kindly upon a lowly member of his community 'aping' his manner and lifestyle?

 

 

And on this issue, I don't see any connection whatever. With equal facility, we could list off luxury-loving patriots (like Cicero), luxury-loving scoundrels (like Clodius), luxury-hating patriots (like Cato), and luxury-hating scoundrels (like Marius). With all four cells of the matrix filled out nearly equally, I'll bet no bias will be detectable.

Your sample size is too small. Four individuals do not a society make.