Ramsay MacMullen’s Social and Political Portrait of Rome

Begs the Question: Does the 99 percent have parallels in

history?

By

The Reckless Thinker (DiMarkco Chandler)

2

The beginning of venality began with a grain of sand, eventually became a shovel full

and when it got to the bulldozer stage…. (The bulldozer took down Rome???)

Porter & Chandler

Chapter One: Rome’s Equivalent 99 Percent

One important objective for the Student of ancient history is to draw humanity intimately

closer to an understanding of the relative realities embedded within past human

experiences. Often what is sought is utility for coping with the present and plotting the

future. Historians venture upon the task of research in order to connect correlative

elements that will illuminate, enhance and support their particular area of inquiry and

position within the argument. The more exceptionally regarded members of this elite

profession are those historians committed to the onerous work of uncovering sparse

terrain and turning scanty fragmented scraps of history into plausible reconstructions of

the past. Ramsay MacMullen is a member of this accomplished group. Dunham Professor

Emeritus of History at Yale University, MacMullen has distinguished himself as arguably

“the finest Roman historian America has produced.”1 The scope of this investigation is

interested in works authored by MacMullen between 1974 and 1988. Specifically,

“Roman Social Relations,” and “Corruption and the Decline of Rome” represent a

considerable effort, by MacMullen, to tell the unglamorous story of Rome’s history,

which includes a glimpse into segments of society unable to speak through the

conventional methods used by Rome’s elite aristocratic class. This analysis will examine

the historical importance of “Roman Social Relations,” and “Corruption and the Decline

3

of Rome,” in the context of modern scholarship and briefly highlight Rome’s ancient

social-economic and political similarities with present day America’s Occupy Movement.

There is a certain kind of historical analysis that is obsessed with sorting out and mending

reticent shreds of jettisoned information and re-examining this overlooked data for its

historical potential. “Roman Social Relations” is a product of this sort of process. It is an

arduous look at the often neglected social relationships that were practiced in Rome

between 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. MacMullen begins his inquiry by first observing Rome’s

rural conditions, and responses to them. He sketches for his audience a general picture,

which depicts the relationship between landowner and the people who tended the upkeep

of their property. MacMullen’s portraits are quite different from the images painted of

Romulus’ struggles with Remus or Cicero’s infamous confrontation with Verres. These

stories are told over and over again for their sensationalistic value, providing immediate

rewards for both the storyteller and his captive audience. However, MacMullen’s brand

of history leaves the more popular portraits and characterizations for others to retell. He

is more interested in the task of providing a plausible generalization of the neglected

social history of Rome’s lower classes. Though greatly inhibited by the meager historical

evidence of this period, MacMullen manages to find ways in which he can infer certain

conclusions from the indirect evidence available. His goal is to recreate a more reliable

historical model. For instance, MacMullen writes:

Anyone who [creates a] mental picture of country life from Vergil’s

Eclogues must plainly re-do its out lines to match real truth. The shepherd

was not his own man but hired to guard someone else’s flocks... and that

someone else might be removed from him by an immense distance,

1 This comment was made by Erich Segal, writer for The Independent.

4

physically, as an absentee landlord, socially, by a wealth that spread its

possessions across whole ranges of hills.2

For shepherds and farmers alike this servile life was common among those that

measurably depended on others. The rural setting also gave way to the criminal element.

MacMullen writes, “No one should build his farmhouse near a main road because of the

depredations of passing travelers…. [In fact], away from centers of population, one

risked being robbed or killed.” 3

In rural Rome, crime was ubiquitous, flourishing and

feeding off the poor as they became helpless in their defenseless poverty. While those of

less fortunate means suffered, the wealthy few continued to increase their land holdings

as well as their gross capital. MacMullen’s best evidence concludes, “In second century

Attica seventeen persons owned fifty-eight properties (and five of the seventeen owned

thirty-one)…. Among the larger, forty-seven are given a specific value, of which in turn

nineteen qualified the owner for the rank of municipal councillor (with 25,000 denarii),

five for the equestrian rank (with 100,000), and four for senatorial (with 250,000

denarii).”4 MacMullen provides further details in other parts of the empire resembling

this sort of absentee ownership. Moreover, where masters of several estates could not

personally visit their own property, they administered them perforce through bailiffs and

accountants. In MacMullen’s view, this impersonal hand’s off approach translated into

the exploitation of “slaves, tenants, hired laborers, and neighbors.” This environment

made it easy for masters to hurt people they would never see face to face.

2 Ramsey MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven and London, Yale University Press 1974), 3

3 (ibid.), 4

4 (ibid.), 5

5

More important to the purpose of this analysis is the fact that rural wealth was

increasingly being concentrated into the hand of a few powerfully rich men. MacMullen

suggests that “More than buyer and seller on a free market were involved, rather a variety

of cruel pressures exerted by the strong against the weak, the arrogant rich, ‘the

powerful,’ against the adjoining farm, villagers, or the ‘poor,’ sometimes by crooked

litigation, sometimes by armed force.” MacMullen further supports this picture, citing a

second century encounter off the coast of Asia where a citizen of Hadrianoutherai was

given an estate by one of his kinsmen. Sometime later while away in Egypt “certain men

of Mysia took it wrongfully [by first] uttering…threat[s] and then resorting to action.”

The situation expanded into chaos: blood was shed and there was a trial, resulting in the

principle attacker going to jail. In this case the Hadrianoutherain citizen was fortunate. In

other cases the results were just the opposite. The picture MacMullen paints arguably

points to the conspicuous methods employed, surprisingly revealing “the existence of

extralegal kinds of power” in the hands of a group of unofficial Roman men “who could

launch a miniature war on their neighbor-and expect to get away with it!”5

Accepting MacMullen’s interpretive characterization of the relationships existing in the

Empire during the period of this study, one can now ask the question: how were these

relatively few able to exercise such influence and power over so many? MacMullen

contends that the answer lies in the influence of the familiar terms: “patron, client and

‘connections’ with those private individuals who had some hold over witnesses,

plaintiffs, clerks, or with jurymen, governors municipal magistrates and friends of the

5 (ibid.), 5-7

6

aggressor.”6 To more accurately understand the significance and application of the terms

mentioned, MacMullen cites ancient inserts found on Egyptian papyri. Though

MacMullen uses several of these inserts to illustrate and bolster support for his argument,

this study will use only one of those illustrations to represent the collective inference

found in them all. This particular one comes “in the form of a complaint registered with

[the] local authorities:

To Dioscorus, overseer of the fifth district, from Isodorus of the

Ptolemaeus from the village of Karanis: I possess over eighty arouras, for

which, though they are not sown, I have for long paid the dues to the

treasury, and for this reason I have been reduced to poverty. For I

experienced great difficulty in sowing, with enormous toil and expense,

only eight of these in corn and two in grass-seed. So, when at the time of

their growth Ammonas son of Capeei, Sambathion son of Syrion, Sotas

son of Achilles and Ptollas son of Ariston let their cattle loose on the corn-

crops and devoured them on that occasion also I sent you a petition on the

subject. But later, when the crops had grown and put forth their fruit and

reached ripeness, before they were harvested, again the same persons,

plotting against me and possessing great influence in the neighborhood

and wanting me to desert my home, set the same cattle upon the crop and

let it be completely devoured so that nothing at all could be found there.

Further, there was Harpalus the shepherd, too: he let his beasts loose on

the grass-crop and the hay that had been cut and lay in the field, and they

devoured it. And therefore I am unable to keep silence, since the headmen

have frequently given instructions that the beasts caught damaging other

people’s corps should be sold and half of the proceeds should go to the

treasury and the other half of the proceeds should go to the victim of the

damage.7

Throughout the body of evidence presented by MacMullen, the deprivation of the poor by

the influential rich was typical, and the plaintiff almost always “alleged an attempt to

drive him clean out of his village.” In his mind “his enemies either wanted land or access

to water, which was scarce.”8 From MacMullen’s perspective, the picture emerging out

of this body of evidence is Mafia like. Extortion and shakedowns appear to touch all

6 (ibid.), 8

7 (ibid.), 8-9

7

levels of the Roman social, political and economic stratification. The situation becomes

more exacerbated when one factors into the equation the role of tax and the tax collector,

viewed by the lower classes as extremely oppressive. More on the significance of taxes

will be discussed later in this study.

Based on MacMullen’s tenacious efforts, a clear development appears to emerge out of

the tumultuous experiences encountered by Rome’s rural society. He shows these

families as crowding together in a single dwelling headed by the father, and as a result of

their condition, the rural community seems to have developed collective units in order to

protect the small amount of honor and substance within their reach. Consequently,

MacMullen reports that it appeared as though “a Farmers’ Collective, [enabled] the

village to [find] tenants to work vacant fields, labor to clear the irrigation system, guards

to watch the crops, or shepherds to lease the common pasturage. Herders, like other

groups engaged in one and the same business, for their part they spontaneously formed

themselves into associations headed by Elders or by similar officers bearing other titles.”

Subsequently, these associations welded great influence on the occupations of its

members. As MacMullen sees it, personal names such as “Carpenter, Taylor, Coward

(Cow-herd), or Weaver resulted out of the need to make themselves accessible by

distinguishing, in terms of a name, one’s geographic location. MacMullen writes that “In

the smallest rural centers, a single urge is discovered at many levels drawing together the

whole or its most prominent and ubiquitous crafts or pursuits into social union.”9 To truly

understand why MacMullen has presented these seemingly inconsequential experiences,

8 (ibid.), 11

9 Ramsey MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven and London, Yale University Press 1974), 18

8

perhaps it would be now appropriate to cross-link these issues to the important role social

developments played within the scope of Rome’s multi-tiered stratification. This is

clearly evident by MacMullen’s very words, which simply states, “Over the course of

centuries…pressure[s] from the state slowly compacted peasants into tighter and tighter

corporations for…purely economic reasons, to wring from them an increasing tribute.”

From this, one can gather that the response of peasants did not develop out of their own

concern for their economic condition. In fact, the historical record reflects that they were

barely literate. Moreover, MacMullen insist that “Any analogy with a medieval guild or

modern labor union is wholly mistaken.” He sees “their purpose as [purely] social in the

broadest sense. The same few hundreds or thousands that the state looked on as a single

whole to yield it taxes looked on themselves as the Village Society that celebrated the

two-day festival of Isis or the ten-day festival of Bacchus.”10

For clarity’s sake, it is important that one understands that villages surrounded the rural

area of the Roman Empire. In fact, villages intrinsically underlined rural Rome.

MacMullen writes, “Connections with the richer outside world were kept up by

villages…through influential patrons. MacMullen’s evidence indicates that the “estate-

owners,” were identified with the village ruling body and by their very status linked

villages to the nearest urban aristocracy.

Lost with all that has been said is the fact that MacMullen frequently reiterates that “the

peasant…seldom speaks for himself. Hence, central to MacMullen’s efforts, is to speak

for this underrepresented marginalized group. In his scholarly opinion, they were a hard

10

(ibid.), 18-19

9

shell xenophobic community. For the most part they were extremely superstitious. They

developed a “respect for patrilineal customs, authority, and position in life, which points

to their conservatism. They were poor and were only rivaled by goatherds and shepherds,

who constituted a separate lower class. They gossiped perpetually as was to be expected

during a period void of televisions, newspapers and radios. They tended to remain

peasants generation after generation and seldom would “a peasant boy [have a] chance

[of]…chang[ing] the work that he did or the place where he lived.”11

Indeed their relationship with the urbanites was just as oppressive for the peasant. This is

contrary to early Roman history, which depicted the Farmer as “honest and simple.”

However, all honorable characterizations of Rome’s poor farmers were a thing of the

past. “Their life, says Cicero, ‘clashes with the more polished elegance of a man.’”

Interesting, but not central to this argument, MacMullen reports an “etymological fact

that from one single Semitic root derived (in Syria, Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew) the

words for boor, idiot, [and] crude ignorant fellow was directly linked to the word rural.

The root means literally ‘outsider,’ but in fact ‘outside the city.’” Essentially, urbanites

viewed peasants as “unmannerly, ignorant beings, in bondage to sordid and wretched

labor and so uncivilized that he could not be called on for the full duties of a citizen”12

Between urban and rural citizens “taxation… [Fell] most heavily on the farmers.”

MacMullen cites tax outbreaks “that required the action of provincial garrison armies.”

Furthermore, he chronologically points out Rome’s strict conquering method: “first,

11

(ibid.), 22 12

(ibid.), 30-32

10

initial conquest by the Romans; next, the rapid confiscation of all hidden weapons: then,

the assessment by the conquerors of what they have gained so as to exploit its riches

methodically; and thereafter recurrent spasms of protest against the weight of tribute

harshly calculated and still more harshly exacted.” Ultimately, Rome’s policy towards

provincial peasants was to extract all that they could.

Clearly, for the historian of ancient history, none of this is new information. The details

might create new images, but, essentially Rome’s oppressive approach toward collecting

taxes is well documented. MacMullen’s descriptions gathered from scattered complaints

depict “beatings with sticks and cudgels”; “blows of the fist”; and other painfully

punishing behavior. It is important to re-state that the brunt of this violence was directed

towards the peasants. MacMullen writes, “On the two sides of the gate, two worlds: one

with a dirt floor, one with a mosaic; one with debts the other with property.”13

In assessing his evidence, MacMullen concludes that “urban wealth lay chiefly in rural

holdings.” He is quick to admit that “among thousands of inscriptions that detail the gifts

made by patrons to guilds, cities, or other groups, only a tiny number indicate where the

donor got his money.” However, what is clear from his research is that these two

societies, urban and rural are “closely symbiotic.” To illuminate this point one need only

to associate the elite aristocracy described earlier in this study and recognized that they

essentially represent Rome’s urban society. However, their distinctions lie in their

extreme wealth and power.

11

MacMullen further characterizes Rome’s urban society with a word, “asteios, literally

“urban” but by extension “fine,” “refined,” “good.” Looking at these two diametrically

opposite characterizations, (rural, meaning “idiot,” “outsider” and urban indicating

“good,”), one is able to grasp a more comprehensive image of their existence during

ancient times.

The sum of MacMullen’s characterizations of these city-dwellers reveals that they had a

thirst for honor to the extent that they popularized it. They appeared to prefer a “man’s

word to [his] property, [his] pledge [over his] deposit. The cement of their daily financial

relationship was people not things. (This consideration is of vital importance and will

weigh heavily in the forthcoming analysis on “Corruption and the Decline of Rome”).

For urbanites, “Disputes could be settled by simple assertion under oath challenging

one’s opponent to swear in turn; a debt could be proved simply by the entry made in

one’s books; and though the warning, “let the buyer beware,” we owe to the Romans

(who certainly took for granted that buying and selling was a game of wits), yet for a

businessman it was money in the bank to be known as honest.”14

In Rome, it meant

everything to be included. MacMullen, using inscription evidence concludes that

“residents of Rome knew exactly where to go to buy dyes, honey-salve, books, clothes or

Jewelry” based on a street name. MacMullen writes that evidence of this is now available

on tombstones and archeological excavations. Rome’s own inscriptions reveals “clusters

of engravers, gem-cutters, goldsmiths, and jewelers in one section, tailors and clothing-

sellers in another, both toward the centers of commerce, while other occupations more

13

(ibid.), 45 14

(ibid.), 65

12

naturally gather near the city’s gates.” MacMullen drives home his argument stating, “A

consistent scale of values emerges, matching cultural and social prejudices with the place

of one’s residence or work. The closer to the heart of the city, the more respectable’ the

farther away, the more scorned, until the suburbs melted into the countryside.”15

In other

words, since occupation also determined location one could easily conclude the social

value of a Roman resident by observing their occupation which would be tied to a

physical location and then further based on relative proximity to the center of the city.

The closer a person was to the heart of the city the higher he would be on the social

ladder.

MacMullen deals with other interesting notions in “Roman Social Relations” such as his

argument on the existence of a Roman middle class, which he might as well not have

answered since his answer was so ambiguous. For instance, he says “statistically, there

was indeed a middle class.” However, else where in his essay he says, “We should guard

against a blind insistence that there must be a middle class…. The absurdity…points to

the difficulty experienced by our modern selves in coming to grips with a world utterly

different from our own."16

All and all “Roman Social Relations” relates the broad differences that distinguished

“urban from rural, slave from free, upper class from lower. Considering these

distinctions, MacMullen poses the question, “why did the peasant or the urban poor,

together a vast majority in the whole empire not rise in revolt, seize all wealth, and rule it

15

(ibid.), 71 16

(ibid.), 89

13

for themselves? Though this question cannot entirely be answered monolithically,

MacMullen proposes the fact that “People at all levels knew their place” as a reasonable

remedy for understanding peasant behavior.

“Corruption and Decline of Rome” arguably appears to be MacMullen’s most brilliant

work of the two considered for this investigation. It is a natural successor to “Roman

Social Relations” because it shows the result and evolution of those relationships as the

more negative values began to dominate society. MacMullen opens this important work

by evaluating statistical information revealing significant trends in intellectual,

philanthropic and historical activities. He also highlights several theories touted by other

historians as to what caused Rome’s ultimate fall. Early in chapter one MacMullen

touches on the Roman opinion that something was wrong with their Empire as early as

133 B.C., which marked the death of Tiberius Gracchus (163-133 B.C.). After a brief

discussion on contemporary views, MacMullen concludes, “We [are] entitled, to make a

choice among the opinions of contemporary observers because we suppose that we are

better judges than they. But we should carry our presumption further, and reject all their

opinions; for all arise from habits of analysis and a base of information quite inadequate

to the task.”17

As one begins to labor with MacMullen material it becomes evident that certain issues

correspond with “Roman Social Relations.” For instance, he points out in the later years

of the empire “government lacked the strength to insure the peace and security on which

commercial inter-course depends, and on which cities depend, too. But large villas

14

proved less vulnerable. It’s ironic that given the oppression that permeated Rome’s rural

peasant population they would be less subject to Rome’s eventual downfall. MacMullen’s

approach to the perennial question of Rome’s decline appears to start at the end of their

decline. Thus, he begins with a probable truth. “The army failed its chief function—

security.” From there, MacMullen looks at the economy, which appeared to be strained.

His observation of the economy primarily focused on taxes. In “Roman Social Relations”

it was a key contributor to Rome’s stability. MacMullen first concludes, “For taxes to

have been an agent in the destruction of the empire’s economy requires then that they be

increased beyond the levels prevalent in “good” times…. They must rise above all

capacity to respond, above all beneficially stimulating levels, to the tyrannous and

oppressive.”18

Moreover, in MacMullens mind taxes alone could not have been the single

cause of Rome’s problem, but if so: How? If taxes were the cause, MacMullen suggest it

must have had a residual affect. In other words, what group on the administrating side of

the dilemma would be more likely to be effected by the distortion here cited? MacMullen

insist, “there should be no problem in finding such a group. A brief survey suggests

councillors, the decurions or curiales were affected. Furthermore, MacMullen points out

that it appeared that the “[whole] empire was suffering from a universal deterioration in

its most crucial part the root cause: taxation. For this, decurions were responsible even

with their own capital, should their efforts at collection fall short of the totals.

MacMullen seems to be meticulously building to a final conclusion. Thus far, it appears

he has combined two principle explanations leading to Rome’s decline: literally seen as

17

Ramsey MacMullen, Corruption and the Decline of Rome (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 1 18

(ibid.), 41-42

15

hemorrhaging of the curias and lack of physical security. Subsequent to the concerns

already cited is the fact that during its last two centuries Rome’s openness and acceptance

of numerous barbaric tribes within its walls was a departure from earlier political

concerns. The significance of this issue will be re-visited as this study attempts to link all

aspects important to Rome’s final outcome.

MacMullen considers power a major factor active throughout Roman relationships. In

fact, he writes:

Much light can be shed on the nature of power in this world through

considering the usage’s of the word dignitas…. The parade of wealth, the

shouting herald who went first in street, the showy costume and large

retinue, the holding of oneself apart…. All this might be called the

substance of dignitas. But the term had a darker side, too. As used by

Cicero, Caesar, or Pliny, it meant the ability to defend one’s display by

force if need be; to strike back at any one who offended one or hurt or

offended one’s dependents.19

Similar to “Roman Social Relations,” MacMullen addresses the distinguishing

characteristics peculiar to Rome’s two classes. In “Social Relations” he classified them as

rural and urban. In “Corruption and the Decline of Rome,” MacMullen uses the term

“Haves and Have-nots.” The “Haves” were typically “those who enjoyed wealth, esteem,

and influence secur[ing] these things ever more completely by asserting them.” On the

other hand, the “Have-nots” were “those who lacked, [and] understood how they must

conduct themselves. [Furthermore the] education of the one or the other sort was no

doubt well begun while they were still children”20

As pointed out in “Social Relations”

these two classes seldom deviated from there social roles. However, MacMullen’s

“Corruption and the Decline of Rome” provides a more complete portrait of the “Haves.”

19

(ibid.),

16

MacMullen suggests that from his evidence, the “Haves” were generally occupied with

the notion of saving face. In fact, they were willing to resort to violence to do so. To them

life revolved around dignitas. In an effort to maintain dignitas, which also meant that they

had to maintain or increase their wealth, the Haves, aggressively looked towards marriage

as a reasonable solution.

MacMullen additionally looks at relationships between patron and client. Historically,

this relationship is very well documented. Tradition places its origins back to the

founding of Rome. One source explains that “it was a duty of the patricians to explain to

their clients the laws…doing everything for them that fathers do for their son…. It was

the duty of the clients to assist their patrons [in a number of ways among them financial

contributions, considered thank-offerings].”21

MacMullen concurs with J. C. Boroja,

who writes “Service and protection, are the reciprocal links which hold a system of

patronage together. At the same time the patron increases his prestige through the

possession of clients, while the client participates in the glory of his patron. Theoretically

it appears that by this definition there are no losers in this relationship. More importantly

for this study is the fact that the client patron relationship created a special respect and an

alliance that the political system was ill equipped to provide. In the latter years of the

empire this institution that united a significant number of Roman citizens would cease to

operate and as a result added to the rapidity of Rome’s decline.

20

(ibid.), 70 21

Nephtali Lewis, Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization, Volume I

17

Ultimately, MacMullen points to what he believes are vital factors responsible for

Rome’s final decay. After he brings the enormous brunt of his knowledge to bare, he then

appears to acquiesce to his reader’s desperate hunger by suddenly presenting his

conclusions (a quarter ways away from the end of his essay). He reiterates that the loss

of a number of members from the decuriae class greatly affected the flow of tax revenue

needed to maintain Rome’s military strength. However, the root cause of the decuriae

dilemma was MacMullens primary concern. He believed that it was responsible for

infecting the entire empire. From MacMullen’s best estimates Rome had been deceived

by greed. For years, venality had been only practice by a faction of the population. By

MacMullen’s own best estimates it was statistically under control. In other words, the

percentage of Roman’s involved in the dirty act of bribery was never high enough to

attract concern. Then, without warning it emerged. And like a disease it began to spread

throughout Rome. “Libanius speaks of bribes being passed on all occasions—at a

festival, at a private party, even in the public baths. Libanius himself cultivated power.

Indeed, he describes with much smugness how he displaced a rival in the esteem of the

governor.22

It was this sort of behavior that had increasingly displaced the high values

once embraced by those that made the difference. What happened to honor? What

happened to those high ideals that once embraced dignitas or fides? Clearly, MacMullens

picture is anything but distorted. His presentation of the facts leads directly to his

conclusions. But what are the facts?

To restate them in another way might perhaps put some closure to MacMullens essay and

also bring to bear a number of unstated facts and conclusions. Thus as MacMullen has

22

(ibid.),

18

already suggested, at some point in the latter part of Rome’s history greed began to eat

away and eventually supplanted the time honored institution centered on the patron client

relationship. But even before that, “In Cicero’s and Verres’ day there existed several

corporations of bureaucrats. They were called decuriae. They performed menial duties for

magistrates, running errands, carrying messages, making announcements, disbursing

money and keeping accounts. These were ordinarily the duties of slaves, and the decuriae

for centuries received such, or rather ex-slaves into their ranks along with the freeborn. In

addition to their tiny stipend from the state (paid through the magistrate they served),

they could count on perquisites (tips).” They held one of four positions: lictor, herald,

summoner or clerk. “The median for the four ranks assisting municipal magistrates…only

matched a ditchdigger’s pay. Nevertheless, candidates were willing to scrimp and save to

buy one of these posts whenever its occupant wished to retire, or when his heirs put it up

for sale.” 23

Essentially what made the decuriae so desirable was perhaps because they

were allowed to profit from their duties. In fact, MacMullen agrees that evidence

indicates that some of them raked in substantial profits. MacMullens theory is that the

decuriae over a period of time corrupted the magistrates they worked for. However, given

Verres’ behavior one might argue that it was the unscrupulous magistrate that corrupted

the decuriae. The evidence presented by MacMullen points to the decuriae group as the

carrier of the infection that doomed Rome. Thus, it did not happen overnight, but

gradually their unchecked avarice developed into full-blown venality. To here

MacMullen tells it, “Rome was for sale.” No one seemed to be immune to this disease.

Even the army appeared to be under venalities seductive spell. And when this happened

the charade was over. It was over before any one realized it.

23

(ibid.),

19

The last factor that appeared to be at issue with Rome’s decline was the curiales.

MacMullen writes, “We need only turn to the practices that allowed curiales to escape.

Bribes were the key…Corruption was rather the rule than the exception…. It [was] even

recognized that the empire as a whole suffered from the prevalence of venality.”24

MacMullen closes this chapter on Roman history describing how soldiers in rural billets

are all on the take, all selling protection under their commanding officer against

collectors of rents and taxes. He, the general, of course gets the bulk of the payoff. The

losers are the curiales who must somehow make up the sums not collected. So, then “the

curiae are hurt by this fine racket, the cities are hurt by the harm done to their curiae, and,

too, the fighting forces are hurt because of the harm done to these latter.” Such protection

rackets were Rome’s enemies.25

The images that emerge from these two extraordinary expositions places MacMullen at

the top of his profession. Unquestionably, he is the historian’s historian. Accolades aside,

it appears within the text of each book that MacMullen had a key word. In “Roman

Social Relations, ‘ubiquitous’ seemed to offer MacMullen the most for his thoughts. In

“Corruption and the Decline of Rome” MacMullen’s key word was venality. In fact, in

“Decline of Rome” MacMullen’s key word played a central role. It is fair to say that both

books were written with the student of history in mind. Anyone other then a student of

history might have given up before reading fifty pages of “Decline of Rome.”

24

(ibid.), 196 25

(ibid.), 196

20

As for MacMullen’s style, and readability this study can only suffice to say that both

books could even frustrate the avid reader due to its generous use of French, German,

Greek and Latin terms. In most cases, MacMullen does not bother to define the numerous

foreign words scattered throughout the text. Interestingly, MacMullen did provide

definitions for some of the foreign language he used. In fact, the only words he did not

translate were those words that had no English equivalent. That said; let’s turn to the

significance of which Ancient Rome’s political and social-economic condition pairs with

modern day America.

The social, economic, and political parallels with Ancient Rome are perhaps too

numerous to include them all in this brief study. However, several characteristics

identified by MacMullen seemed to accurately describe present conditions throughout the

United States of America especially the populous movement called Occupy Wall Street.

This study has described Rome’s political environment as having two distinct social

groups that were aware of the other. MacMullen identified these two groups as urban and

rural, and additionally provided their etymological connections. The term rural he argued,

was geographically acquainted with resident peasants, and was believed to be akin to the

word idiot. Moreover, this group was looked at by social elites: those higher on Rome’s

social ladder, as outsiders. On page 5 of this study, the discussion intimates that farmers

and shepherds alike were employed by rich landowners to oversee their affairs in lands

significantly far from any of Rome’s urban centers. This picture is understandable since

many of the roads leading to Rome’s rural areas and back to their neighboring cities

abounded in abundant crime. Therefore, the task of tending these rural landholdings

21

could only attract poor peasants destined to remain in poverty. As MacMullen pointed

out, proximity from the city determined one’s lot and people of the day were content with

a perfunctory existence, disinterest in challenging the status quo. Urbanites however,

embraced a different set of values that were quite admirable even in today’s mores. They

were thought of as favorable to society; and the term urban implied the idea of goodness

and dignity. A reading of my introductory essay to this study titled “The Historical

Model: The 99 Percent” may engender a more lucid understanding of the terms rural and

urban. I liken them to what I call privilege and marginalized. They are akin to former

presidential candidate John Edwards description of two Americas, and today’s idea which

argues that there is a widening gulf between the haves and have not’s. Attention to this

very real social condition is often classified by some in the “Haves” group, as class

warfare. Nevertheless, as MacMullen has pointed out, rural and urban was just another

name for “Haves and Have not’s”. He seems to tie the class of Have’s directly to the

Empire’s ultimate demise by pointing to the relationship between patron and client.

MacMullen suggests that greed and bribery eventually permeated, like an infection, all of

the Roman Empire. We might understand his conclusions as somewhat identical to

Crony-Capitalism along with a number of unscrupulous practices performed first by the

ruling elite but which seemed to trickle down, eroding values of their constituents.

However, as does many of the conclusion offered by historians since the decline of the

Roman Empire, something is missing. MacMullen knew it; others have struggled with

their own inadequate answers: “What was the primary cause for the downfall of the

Roman Empire?” I believe the answer is quite simple, however, it could not have been

understood until the emergence of the occupied movement; a movement that I will argue

22

in Chapter Two, has its parallels with the period in Ancient Rome that began in 133 B.C.

and ended around 31 B.C... I will argue in the second chapter of this study that the

Empire served as the solution to the problem of mobs in the street as historians will

arguably agree occurred during the Gracchi period. This period of Rome’s history is

uniquely characterized by the assassinations of two leading political figures; two

brothers, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus and has its parallels in the Kennedy

Assassinations.