In his book, “The Cultural History of Ancient Greece and Rome” that was a classic years ago, Polish historian Kazimierz Kumaniecki writes: “‘Accipere’ (‘to receive, to accept’), the verb employed to denote the scale of corruption was the most commonly used technical term. It was a manifestation of the decline of the Roman public life.”
These sentences reflect the reality dating from the first century BCE, around the time of the fall of the Roman Republic. Not long after, a series of civil wars was replaced with the abolition of the Republic, the formation of the Principate and the imperial governance. Accordingly, one involuntarily wants to say “deja vu” when one scrutinises the events that accelerated decline of the Rome of those years. Analogies and similarities are so salient, that it is as if one portrays today’s Azerbaijan with the help of these facts.
We shall explore other characteristics of those years. For instance, “Depraved tastes were passed on to the lower classes of the city and the cavalry as well. They were selling their votes.”
In times when citizens become apathetic towards their own country, corruption and moral erosion spread like metastasis of a malignant tumour. Buying over Roman military leaders and politicians was not a problem even for the foreign enemies. This situation gave ground to the King of Numidia, Yugurtha who described Rome as “a city for sale and doomed to quick destruction, if it should find a buyer”.
Likewise, Egyptian ruler Ptolemy Auletes bribed Caesar and Pompey for the recognition of his claim to the throne with 6000 talents and Aulus Gabinius, proconsul of Syria for the restoration to the throne with 10000 talents.
Courts also were drowning in a corruption swamp. Kumaniecki describes a scandal that broke in 74 BCE and would not be forgotten by Romans for a long time: one of the judges accepted bribes to distribute to the other judges from both plaintiff and defendant.
In an open political polemic, Romans would not be stopped by any ethical barriers and moral limitations and accused their opponents of committing inconceivable crimes and immoralities. Sentencing an innocent person to death was not rare anymore. The courts were turned into the tools for ruining political opponents (Well-known example: Catiline’s trial and Cicero’s “Catilinarians”).
Political struggle was not confined to speeches, brochures and pamphlets and extended to the indictments. A big number of political processes were built upon non-political accusations (As it is currently the case in Azerbaijan). For instance, in 62 BCE poet Aulus Licinius was accused of obtaining Roman citizenship illegally (he was from Antioch in Syria). In reality, he was only guilty of being close to the Lucullus family whilst Pompey, Lucullus’ enemy, stood on the accusing side. In this way, non-political accusations were part of the political disputes.
Accusing someone and succeeding in their conviction (in Azerbaijani slang “işverənlik”) was considered a first step towards a successful political career. Julius Caesar’s rise to power also started with the prosecution of Sulla’s supporters for fraud. Cicero’s career as well (once again Catiline’s trial or Verres’ trial).
Kazimierz Kumaniecki notes: “The last 50 years of Republic were marked by significant increase in usurious capital, financiers and bankers. Though prohibited by law, senators were also engaged in usury”. They used the names of provincial intermediaries in order to bypass the law.
Through successful financial operations and plunder of provinces exceedingly wealthy fortune owners arose in Rome. Previous generations of Romans would not have imagined Pompey’s or Lucullus’ riches.
The same can be seen in today’s Azerbaijan: Omnipotent banking systems, credits, high-ranking government officials generating large personal wealth in business, extreme stratification in wealth distribution, turning the law into a tool for the elimination of political and financial opponents and, of course, the famous term “accipere”…
Kazimierz Kumaniecki draws a number of examples on usurers’ behaviour around the time of the fall of the Roman Republic. For example, Brutus (one of the assassins of Julius Caesar), who took pride in acting upon principles, lent to the city of Salamis in Cyprus a large sum at an excessive interest rate (48%). A person named Scaptius was an intermediary in debt transactions. In return for this debt, at Brutus’ request Scaptius was granted a prefecture in Cyprus. Soon after, Scaptius besieged Salamis town assembly starving five councillors to death in order to recoup the money. These were the methods employed by the Roman financiers.
Cicero wrote: “All provinces shed tears, all nations complain of our covetousness and arbitrariness… Instead of weapons and invaders, Rome must fear complaints, tears and lamentations”.
Large fortunes were accumulated in a short period of time. However, this was also at the time of mass debts. Both lower and upper classes lived beyond their means. Cicero, a man of means, in his letters always complained about financial difficulties. His image of a prominent political figure dictated him to spend and buy as much as he could. For instance, though he owned several estates, in order to keep up with others he borrowed money and bought Crassus’ property on the Palatine.
Cicero was not an exception. Julius Caesar also had large debts of tens of millions of sesterces in the last years of his life. The lenders would determine the direction of political discourse. Owing money to Sulla, Cicero had to defend his laws on violence at courts.
Declining family values were also affecting deformity in political life. First of all, upper class families were shifting from the patriarchal family structure. Women were interfering with their husbands’ political decisions and managing their properties (Cicero’s Terentia). For example, they played a significant role in Catiline’s uprising.
A considerable part of the marriages from that period (1st century BCE) were arranged as political alliances, which meant an increase in the number of unhappy marriages. Kazimierz Kumaniecki provides concrete examples: When the long-time enemies Caesar and Pompey become short-term allies, Caesar without hesitation marries his daughter to him. At that time, she was already engaged to Quintus Caepio and as compensation, Caepio marries Pompey’s daughter (whereas she, too, was someone else’s fiancée). These types of marriages served to protect and enhance political and economic capital. When the parties had to part ways, the marriages would also end in divorce.
While family structures were losing their balance, prostitution was “flourishing” and reaching immeasurable scales. Roman praetors and consuls were openly flaunting their mistresses in public.
Another characteristic of the time was granting liberty to some slaves. After the Spartacus’ rebellion, masters who made this move turned their former slaves into their customers. Former slaves were bringing more profits to their former owners. Sometimes they would even become privileged people. For instance, under Sulla’s rule former slave Chrysogonus had become an influential person. Sulla trusted him and approved of his lack of restraint. Senators would tremble when they saw Chrysogonus and Cicero referred to him as one of the most influential people (Similar examples can be found in today’s Azerbaijan).
“Chrysogonus effect” is the tactics used by all rulers. A slave given power and authority goes further than others in committing atrocities.
Finally, the time of the fall of the Roman Republic was also the time when individuals lost their security rights and their confidence in the state. This threw them into the arms of fraudsters, cults, occultism and astrology. Not only the lower classes but upper classes, too, sought refuge in fraudsters.
You can look at the listed characteristics and find similarities with our current situation. This will help you to see where we are standing today…
Correction: The original version of this article stated that Brutus owed to the city of Salamis, while he actually lent the money. Also, there was a series of civil wars, not one, around the time of the fall of the Roman Republic the author mentions.
