Cullen Murphy on … ancient Rome?

Writing at Jewish World Review, Rod Dreher discusses Cullen Murphy’s book, Are We Rome?, which argues that the fall of Rome may be the model for the possible fall of America. Based on Dreher’s quotes of Murphy, Murphy’s views are very superficial. Which is not surprising. Murphy, the former managing editor of The Atlantic, has been writing pieces about food and vacations at that magazine for the last 15 or 20 years, and has never evidenced the slightest interest in any subject of substance, and now suddenly he blooms forth as a historian of civilizations?

There are so many statements of Murphy’s about the parallels between Rome’s decadence and fall and our own decadence and possible fall that are just plain wrong, that one doesn’t know where to begin. But here is just one example. Dreher writes, repeating Murphy:

Under late Rome’s decadent “bread and circuses” regime, the common man satisfied himself with material pleasures, ignoring the betterment of himself and society.

In reality, Rome’s “bread and circuses” regime began in the 2nd century B.C., after the Roman yeoman class was dispossessed following the Second Punic War (circa 218-203 B.C.) by the consolidation of small farms into vast estates, with the former independent farmers pouring into the city and turning into a class of discontented urbanites dependent on government grain handouts and lapping up gladiatorial entertainments.

This massive social change occurred in the second century B.C., leading to violent class divisions, a century of coups and civil wars, the destruction of the Republic, and the saving of Rome in a new, imperial form by Augustus. The fall of the Western Roman empire took place in the fifth century A.D., six hundred years after the commencement of “bread and circuses.”

Without going into more examples, it is evident that Murphy’s treatment of Rome is a collection of cliches lacking historical context.

I’m not saying there are not important parallels between Rome and modern America. Americans have been pointing them out for a long time, going back to the Founding period (though back then the favorite parallel was to the late Roman republic, not the late Roman empire). But from what I glean of Murphy’s treatment of Rome, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 01, 2007 05:46 PM | Send