Roman senators and corruption

[Novosedoff]

Hi,

Attached is a page from Philip Matyszak's "24 Hours in Ancient Rome. A Day in the Life of the People Who Lived There" (2017).

I highlighted a sentence that I found rather curious: "A Roman senator ain't supposed to engage in grubby matters of commerce ". The other interesting aspect of senator's life during the imperial times is having a patron.  So in order to avoid accusations of corruption and solve the problem they would cook up a deal between all 3 involved parties. This chimes with recent discussion about the corruption in the ancient Rome:

I wouldn't say that the book is abundant in analysis, but it still gives some interesting details, stretching as far as Roman baths (btw, recently I read that there had been 170 thermae in Rome alone at the time of Augustus).   

Does anybody know of any other historic evidence of the corruption that would involve Roman senators?

Edited February 11, 2022 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

Romans had less moral objections about using money to further their interests. It is interesting that Roman culture had the limitation on commercial dealing s for the wealthier end of society but they simply used associates with less social restriction to do that for them.

Money was after all the traditional marker for the social status you could claim. It wasn't about bloodline as one fella on another site tried to convince me of. There was more social mobility than that. And then there's the anecdote of a patrician who gave sumptuous dinners to please and impress his peers, so much s that he bankrupted himself and committed suicide.

There's abundant evidence of booty as a military goal, mentioned a lot and with matter-of-fact attitude, such things were just normal practice since soldiers expected to loot and pillage as a reward for risking their lives, and that never changed.

An obvious case of bribery is when an important Roman stages games. A hugely expensive investment but a way of gaining public support for your next career move. It could go disastrously wrong though. Not just deciding the fate of a gladiator to avoid compensation payments against the wishes of a crowd, but as at Fedinae in 27, when some guy had a temporary amphitheatre set up (not an uncommon practice), made of wood, which collapsed killing 20,000 spectators and injuring more. That's one career that went the same way.

Provincial jobs, especially senatorial governors like propraetors and proconsuls, were a lucrative source of income. They weren't there to rule as some assume, but to represent Rome, and as Romans they found ways of extracting wealth. Some were worse than others. Quintilius Publius Varus is especially mentioned for leaving Syria very much the poorer.

But then Augustus taxed the Germans without official annexation or provincialisation. Having used the royal coffers of Egypt to pay his way, he was short of cash to fund his heavy expenditure on things like supporting the military, government, and civic beautification with his own funds.

It's harder to focus on what we would call everyday corruption because it was usually too low scale to get mentioned by the Roman sources, too ordinary an everyday deal. But Tacitus does give away in connection of the Pannonian Mutiny that bribery of military centurions was so commonplace that lists of official bribe levels were issued in camp.

Then we have tax farmers of the republican era who paid taxes for an area themselves then had the people compensate him for the deal, at a respectful markup of course. OR the recruiters of the late empire, bribed by settlements to go away, when they would hire cheaper foreigners instead and keep the change.

Everybody was at it.

[Novosedoff]

 

On 2/12/2022 at 12:49 AM, caldrail said:

but as at Fedinae in 27, when some guy had a temporary amphitheatre set up (not an uncommon practice), made of wood, which collapsed killing 20,000 spectators and injuring more. That's one career that went the same way.

Yeah, I read about that incident too 🙂 I think it was mentioned in a book by Sergeyev, an Ukrainian historian from Kharkiv, who seems to have a profile page on academia.edu.

On 2/12/2022 at 12:49 AM, caldrail said:

A hugely expensive investment but a way of gaining public support for your next career move.

When emperor Constantine restored the institute of 2 Roman consuls, many young wealthy people would spend fortunes to run the public games in order to please the people and emperor himself, and so to gain the chance to become a consul. The institute of consuls survived till AD 536-541 in both Western and Eastern parts of the empire. 

On 2/12/2022 at 12:49 AM, caldrail said:

But then Augustus taxed the Germans without official annexation or provincialisation. Having used the royal coffers of Egypt to pay his way,

Absolutely. It may seem strange that Egypt somehow managed to remain almost intact by Caesar's troops. Marcus Antonius , who lost the civil war, didn't  pillage Egypt either. It was Augustus who squeezed out of Egypt almost everything he could, so some would even say that the proscriptions that let Augustus make his first fortune were nothing compared to what was eventually taken from Egypt.

 

On 2/12/2022 at 12:49 AM, caldrail said:

Everybody was at it.

 

There've been an interesting interview recorded by Ukrainian journalist Dmitry Gordon. He interviewed the former Russian senator and oligarch Sergei Pugachev about 4 months ago. Pugachev was somehow responsible for the transition of power from Boris Yeltsin to Putin. In the interview Pugachev briefly mentions the fact that it cost him 3 mln USD to become a Russian senator. It's a pity you can't watch it in English but I copy a link below just in case. The interview lasts 5 hours, so the only effective way to watch it really is to rewind. Otherwise it uncovers an extremely interesting perspective on how the modern political system works, in fact, not only in Russia, but in Britain as well. Pugachev used to reside in Britain after fleeing Russia. I ain't saying that what Pugachev told in the interview is all true, but according to him, as Kremlin started the legal persecution of his assets in Britain, he would realize that British juries were so unbearibly corrupt in some rather sophisticated ways, he would eventually end up escaping from Britain to France under the umbrella of French "specialists". He's now become a French naturalized citizen btw. So the world still spins as it used to 2 millennia ago, nothing has changed much, so everybody IS at it 🙂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UttgyZCppyA

 

   

Edited February 13, 2022 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

You have a very biased vision of British culture. I've served on juries. There is no corruption. I was not approached or offered a bribe. We don't work like that - it's very illegal. In fact a barrister tried to tell me off in court once because he though I wasn't paying attention. 

But regarding Marc Antony - of course he didn't plunder Egypt, his girlfriend was still that countries queen.

[Novosedoff]

1 hour ago, caldrail said:

You have a very biased vision of British culture. I've served on juries. There is no corruption. I was not approached or offered a bribe. We don't work like that - it's very illegal. In fact a barrister tried to tell me off in court once because he though I wasn't paying attention.

Well, lets say a barrister used to study with a judge at the same law school as student, so they both know each other like for ages. Barrister charges per a few hours of work what the judge makes in a month. Do you find it unlikely that sometimes they would socialize at the same pub and discuss anything besides football or weather? 🙂     

In fact, when I lived in the UK many years ago I had a private chat with a former British solicitor (I wasn't her client) who complained that the only party to win a suit would be almost always the party who paid more money.. 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

There are both legal and moral restrictions on discussing cases outside of court. As a juror, I was not allowed to discuss it either. Also, the issue of hiring more expensive legal representation is about market forces, not corruption. Romans didn't use our system..

[Novosedoff]

In theory, yes. Nonetheless, none of us lives in the perfect world. This is a dissipative system, as physicists say 🙂

[caldrail]

But if anyone found out I was talking about it there might have to be retrial involving a new jury. I might be facing charges like Aiding and Abetting, Conspiracy, Perverting the Course of Justice, or Contempt of Court, especially since as a juror I had made an oath that I was a suitable person to sit in judgement of the accused. The British system is sometimes a little clunky, but it works, because professional honour polices it as much as the system itself. Don't judge Britain by the standards of countries you're familiar with.

Does that sound a little grand? Well, the Romans thought much the same about their system of law for all its faults apparent to the modern age. Rome considered itself the centre of civilisation and it was law above all else that confirmed it in their minds, not the size of their empire or how tough their soldiers were. Their tolerance of dealing were substantially higher than today it must be said.

But then there's an anecdote about a young man of good family. A prostitute preferred charges of Rape against him. Since she was a professional sex worker the Roman magistrate threw out the charge on principle - what did she expect? But, the young man in a drunken rage had broken down her front door to get to her and that was deemed unacceptable, so he was punished. Money made no difference in that case.

[Novosedoff]

removed

Edited February 15, 2022 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

Oh wow. A few bad apples. Hardly enough to condemn is it? Anyway, I thought this thread was about Roman corruption?

[Novosedoff]

fair enough. post is removed

[Novosedoff]

Something to think about (see the attached screenshot) 🙂

[caldrail]

This is not disputed. Provincial representatives of Rome did not go there to rule. They were wise enough to let local tribal inheritance (usually romanised it must be said)  do the actual running of the province. But Romans were about money. It graded their society, it lubricated their activity. And since in provincial service they were the last word in Roman and native law, extracting wealth was an opportunity. Some were worse than others it must be said. Quintilius Publius Varus for instance gets a special mention for getting wealthy at the expense of Syria. Not in any praise either, just mentioned as a particularly greedy example.

Edited February 27, 2022 by caldrail

[Novosedoff]

Yeah, I just recall the correspondence I had with someone 1-2 years ago (was it you?  or perhaps someone else, because you ain't a religious freak). The correspondence was about Pontius Pilate and what happened to him after his resignation from the job in Judeah. Someone tried to convince me that Pilate was retaliated for his deeds  

[caldrail]

Yes he was. He lost his position after the Samaritans complained to the governor of Syria (Judaea was a satellite territory at the time under Syrian jurisdiction). Pilate was recalled to Rome to answer to Tiberius. however, the trial might not have taken place because Tiberius had died. Lucky old Pontius. But his career was over.