Books That Matter: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Yesterday, I finished listening to the Great Courses lecture series, Books That Matter: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire presented by Professor Leo Damrosch of Harvard (I listen to audiobooks while I exercise!).  Although Professor Damrosch summarizes the content of the actual volumes, he is more focused on analyzing the lifestyle and Enlightenment thinking of Edward Gibbon and those he associated with as he wrote the great work.  As a rather impoverished member of Britain's aristocracy, Gibbon apparently thought aristocrats both in ancient Rome and in his late 18th century homeland should be entitled to a life without the drudgery of manual labor so they could explore and discuss ideas and study the writings of other great thinkers as well as the cultures of the past.

I have heard Gibbon frequently criticized by modern historians but Professor Damrosch makes it clear that Gibbon's research was meticulous and he did not shy away from conflicts in religion or fail to salute those individuals of the past that clearly excelled in their endeavors.  One of his main blindspots, though, (according to Damrosch) was Gibbon's dislike of the Byzantine period and his disregard for most of the Byzantine emperors who he described as "feckless" with the exception of Justinian.  I noticed, though, that he did not appear to have addressed the jealous rivalry between Belisarius and Theodora and seems to have welcomed the writings of Procopius as a reliable source. Although Procopius appears to be accurate during his early years on campaign with Belisarius, his later "Secret History" describes such ridiculous events as the emperor's head being able to disassociate itself from his body and float through the halls of the palace in Constantinople.  Maybe one of these days I'll have time to read Procopius in its entirety and I'll try to determine at what point in the narrative he sort of "runs off the rails."  (The hazard of reading for research purposes is that you usually only read the portion of a work that pertains to your inquiry and not the work in its entirety!)

Damrosch also thinks Gibbon was a bit too dismissive of religion in general and the internicene conflicts within the Christian church in particular.  Damrosch said Gibbon essentially attributes the decline and fall of the Roman Empire to barbarian incursions and the "triumph" of religion (not in a positive way). Some scholars call Gibbon an atheist but he was actually more of a theist who simply didn't ascribe to the myriad of divine relationships  identified by various religious sects. Gibbon was far more comfortable explaining events as much as possible by the actions of influential individuals and  factual evidence, as far as can be determined from reliable ancient sources, not by attributing anything to the vagaries of divine preference or will.

Gibbon lived in a time before archaeology was developed into a procedural discipline so his only sources were ancient records, many fragmentary at best. So, obviously, Gibbon may have interpreted some events differently if he had access to some of the analysis of remains we have today.  But, all in all, Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, is considered a masterpiece of both history and literature, and a worthy monument to the twenty years Gibbon spent in this endeavor.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Trade Protectionism in the Roman Empire

"It appears from the newly discovered treatise of Cicero de Republica, that there was a law of the republic prohibiting the culture of the vine and olive beyond the Alps, in order to keep up the value of those in Italy. Nos justissimi homines, qui transalpinas gentes oleam et vitem serere non sinimus, quo pluris sint nostra oliveta nostraeque vineae."  - Footnote from Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

I found this reference interesting because I had not thought about the Romans engaging in trade protectionism before.  I did a little more research and found that the prohibition of the cultivation of grape vines beyond the Alps was actually mandated by the Roman Senate as early as 154 BCE.

Silver wine cup depicting Odysseus from 

Homer's Odyssey Book 11 Lines 26-42,
 Roman 1st century CE.  Photographed
 at the GettyVilla by Mary Harrsch. 

  

But, by the 1st century CE, Roman demand for wine had grown so much that the ban must have either been overturned or was largely ignored as it is reported that by then Italian-produced wine was in such short supply that wine had to be imported from the Iberian peninsula or Gaul.

Mulsum was wine sweetened with honey, mixed in just before drinking (and therefore not like mead) and served as an aperitif at the beginning of the meal. (Conditum had herbs and spices such as pepper added as well.) Often freely dispensed to the plebs at public events to solicit their political support, the demand for mulsum became so great that it was more profitable to sell wine at home than to export it and, by the first century AD, wine had to be imported from Iberia and Gaul.  - Wine and Rome 

The problem of a wine shortage was further exacerbated by Domitian's vine edit in 90-91 CE.

"[Domitian]...thought that the corn-fields were being neglected as a result of too much concentration on vineyards, and issued an edit that no more vines were to be planted in Italy and that vineyards in the provinces were to be cut down, leaving no more than half standing..." - Suetonius, Life of Domitian, 7.2

 Suetonius goes on to point out that Domitian did not initially go through with this measure when a poem appeared depicting him as a vine-eating goat.  But he was later praised by others like Silvae (4.3.11-12) who hailed the legislation saying "to chaste Ceres, restores acres long denied her and a sober countryside", obviously considering the legislation more moral than economic, as did Suetonius and Statius.

"Undoubtedly, he wanted to encourage cereal-production both in Italy and in the provinces for shortages were not unknown.  The vine edit (of c. 90-1) had been issued just before the severe famine in Pisidian Antioch (92-3) but there was more to it than this; the cities of Asia had been growing and their populations expanding for many years, but the emperors were reluctant to allow the local elite to assume complete control over the production of corn [grain], for fear it would result in a concomitant loss of imperial authority.  In fact, what it did produce was famine.  Domitian tried to deal with the problem: hence, perhaps, his popularity amongst the provincials." - Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian 

Furthermore, the cultivation of grapes in the provinces was apparently restricted to Roman citizens until Caracalla conferred citizenship on all free inhabitants of the empire in 212 CE. Then, the last restriction on viticulture, Domitian's edict, was finally overturned in 280 CE.

In researching this aspect of Roman law, I found one other little interesting bit of information.  I knew that Falernian wine (made from grapes grown on the slopes of Mount Falernus on the border between Latium and Campania) was generally considered the best quality.  A wine price list still visible on the wall of a Pompeii tavern declares, " "For one as (a unit of money) you can drink wine; for two, you can drink the best; for four, you can drink Falernian."

"Next in rank were the wines of the Alban Hills southeast of Rome, and Surrentine and Massic (among others) from the Campania. Finally, there was Mamertine from Messina, first brought into favor by Julius Caesar, who had it served at public banquets." -  Wine and Rome 

Apparently Julius Caesar spent lavish sums of money on public banquets but even he did not favor the mob with the best wines Italy had to offer!

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!