Ramsay MacMullens 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: Romes 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 Romes history, which includes a glimpse into segments of society unable to speak through the conventional methods used by Romes 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 Romes ancient social-economic and political similarities with present day Americas 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 Romes 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. MacMullens portraits are quite different from the images painted of Romulus struggles with Remus or Ciceros 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, MacMullens 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 Romes 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 Vergils Eclogues must plainly re-do its out lines to match real truth. The shepherd was not his own man but hired to guard someone elses 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. MacMullens 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 MacMullens view, this impersonal hands 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 3

Ramsey MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven and London, Yale University Press 1974), 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] utteringthreat[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 MacMullens 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

(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 corncrops 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 peoples 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 MacMullens perspective, the picture emerging out of this body of evidence is Mafia like. Extortion and shakedowns appear to touch all

6 7

(ibid.), 8 (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 MacMullens tenacious efforts, a clear development appears to emerge out of the tumultuous experiences encountered by Romes 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, ones 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 9

(ibid.), 11 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 Romes multi-tiered stratification. This is clearly evident by MacMullens very words, which simply states, Over the course of centuriespressure[s] from the state slowly compacted peasants into tighter and tighter corporations forpurely 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 claritys 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 villagesthrough influential patrons. MacMullens evidence indicates that the estateowners, 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 peasantseldom speaks for himself. Hence, central to MacMullens 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 Romes 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 citizen12

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 Romes strict conquering method: first,

11 12

(ibid.), 22 (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, Romes 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 Romes oppressive approach toward collecting taxes is well documented. MacMullens 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 Romes urban society. However, their distinctions lie in their extreme wealth and power.

11 MacMullen further characterizes Romes 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 MacMullens 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 mans 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 ones opponent to swear in turn; a debt could be proved simply by the entry made in ones 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. Romes own inscriptions reveals clusters of engravers, gem-cutters, goldsmiths, and jewelers in one section, tailors and clothingsellers in another, both toward the centers of commerce, while other occupations more

13 14

(ibid.), 45 (ibid.), 65

12 naturally gather near the citys gates. MacMullen drives home his argument stating, A consistent scale of values emerges, matching cultural and social prejudices with the place of ones 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 absurditypoints 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 16

(ibid.), 71 (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 MacMullens 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 Romes 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. Its ironic that given the oppression that permeated Romes rural peasant population they would be less subject to Romes eventual downfall. MacMullens approach to the perennial question of Romes 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 Romes stability. MacMullen first concludes, For taxes to have been an agent in the destruction of the empires 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 Romes 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 Romes decline: literally seen as

17 18

Ramsey MacMullen, Corruption and the Decline of Rome (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 1 (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 Romes 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 Romes 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 usages 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 ones display by force if need be; to strike back at any one who offended one or hurt or offended ones dependents.19 Similar to Roman Social Relations, MacMullen addresses the distinguishing characteristics peculiar to Romes 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 children20 As pointed out in Social Relations these two classes seldom deviated from there social roles. However, MacMullens 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 lawsdoing 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 Romes decline.

20 21

(ibid.), 70 Nephtali Lewis, Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization, Volume I

17 Ultimately, MacMullen points to what he believes are vital factors responsible for Romes final decay. After he brings the enormous brunt of his knowledge to bare, he then appears to acquiesce to his readers 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 Romes 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 MacMullens best estimates Rome had been deceived by greed. For years, venality had been only practice by a faction of the population. By MacMullens own best estimates it was statistically under control. In other words, the percentage of Romans 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 occasionsat 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 Romes history greed began to eat away and eventually supplanted the time honored institution centered on the patron client relationship. But even before that, In Ciceros 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 magistratesonly matched a ditchdiggers 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 Romes decline was the curiales. MacMullen writes, We need only turn to the practices that allowed curiales to escape. Bribes were the keyCorruption 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 Romes enemies.25

The images that emerge from these two extraordinary expositions places MacMullen at the top of his profession. Unquestionably, he is the historians 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 MacMullens key word was venality. In fact, in Decline of Rome MacMullens 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 25

(ibid.), 196 (ibid.), 196

20 As for MacMullens 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; lets turn to the significance of which Ancient Romes 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 Romes 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 Romes 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 Romes urban centers. This picture is understandable since many of the roads leading to Romes 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 ones 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 todays 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 todays idea which argues that there is a widening gulf between the haves and have nots. 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 nots. He seems to tie the class of Haves directly to the Empires 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 Romes 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.