Just two years after the publication of Roman Luxuria: A Literary and Cultural History (BMCR 2024.08.21), Francesca Romana Berno has returned to the subject of luxuria in the Roman world. This shorter volume is “liberamente ispirato” (p. 11) by the earlier work, though it adopts a more colloquial style, a different structure, and some changes in specific content. Here, the emphasis is on a handful of thematic categories, mainly those identified in the subtitle: banquets and villas, but also “altri eccessi,” including dissolute behaviors, imperial luxury (and its opposition by philosophers), and luxury in theatrical and allegorical contexts. The result is a work that visits many familiar examples of Roman luxury and addresses them with an eye toward the traits that distinguish the term “luxury” from other vices. Readers can expect to gain a strong understanding of the nature of luxuria, and to become familiar with its main characteristics: inversions of normalized boundaries, excessive or exaggerated versions of typical behaviors, softness (often appearing as effeminacy in men), quests for novelty, and moral corruption. Yet, despite its readability and the importance of the topic, this volume remains a work without an obvious audience. The price (a modest €17), the absence of footnotes or endnotes, the short bibliographic essays, and the choice of illustrations all suggest that a popular audience was intended. However, the work still anticipates that readers have substantial prior knowledge of Roman history, and introduces material with only minimal context. The book unfortunately falls somewhere between a scholar’s needs and a layperson’s curiosity. Although enjoyable, it is less successful than Roman Luxuria.
Six thematic chapters follow a short introduction, in which Berno notes the divergent adoption of the Latin word luxuria in Italian and English, and establishes her intention to tell the story of luxuria through the people who embodied the concept for Romans. The first chapter considers translations of luxuria, issues of periodization, and contexts where luxuria was more readily apparent, before discussing the failure of sumptuary laws to inspire its real antidote: satisfaction with what one has.
Chapter two, dedicated to banquets and elite dining culture, establishes the format that the remaining chapters mostly adopt: a short introduction followed by case studies that address individuals who are emblematic of luxuria or its absence. Here, Lucullus, Cleopatra, and Apicius are juxtaposed with Petronius (and Trimalchio) and Quintus Aelius Tubero. Each is a strong choice that draws out important aspects of luxuria. Greek or Eastern influences are emphasized in these examples, as are dissolutions of natural boundaries. As in other chapters, Berno provides quotations of ancient texts in translation and develops some powerful connections and contrasts.
Chapter three addresses villas and resort homes on the Bay of Naples. Here, locations are tied to people, with each section dedicated to the way that the place did or did not corrupt the morals of the figures who stayed there. While some of these figures will be familiar to many readers (Hannibal, Scipio), others (particularly Servilius Vatia) are less well-known. Unfortunately, Berno does little to introduce them, which at times leaves the discussion of luxuria unmoored from its historical context. Moreover, from this chapter on, the extent to which Berno relies on Seneca becomes increasingly apparent. The Neronian period, overall, has an outsized footprint in the volume, a fact that would not be immediately clear to a casual reader, and which isn’t directly addressed in Berno’s introductory material.
Chapter four, on “dissolutezze,” addresses behaviors that are related to luxuria outside banqueting and villa contexts. It moves relatively quickly through the specific examples of Maecenas, a trio of Senecan figures who upset sexual and temporal norms (Hostius Quadra, Acilius Buta, and Sextus Papinus), and a generalized discussion of fathers who party harder than their sons. The discussions make clear that these characters were perverse and ridiculous, bordering on or crossing over into insanity. This is a useful distinction after two chapters that highlight conspicuous consumption. The chapter clarifies that luxuria is not aspirational, it is corrupting. This chapter also brings to the fore the roles of gender and sexuality in luxuria. Berno emphasizes the expectations of Roman masculinity and how their inversion and rejection by these figures is portrayed as a symptom of their luxuria. Later in the work, she returns to this idea through the personification of luxuria as a woman.
Imperial luxury and the relationship between philosophers and luxuria are the subjects of chapter five. This is essentially a chapter on luxury in the 1st century CE, dealing with Caligula, Nero, Seneca, and the Cynic philosopher Demetrius. These are strong examples, but complicated. While Berno manages to capture the nuance present in Seneca’s depiction of himself and Demetrius, her work on the emperors falls somewhat flatter. Both Caligula and Nero are complicated figures and Suetonius’ treatment of them is by no means neutral. Berno notes that they were disliked by later historians. However, and although she mentions that the Flavian Amphitheater was always called the Colosseum after the former Colossus of Nero, she does not mention that Nero was a popular figure in contemporary society. The chapter would have been enriched by a deeper reflection on how imperial luxuria could repel some (often elite) audiences, while others applauded it.
Chapter six concludes the volume with appearances of the personification of Luxuria in drama, satire, and religious allegory. Plautus, Perseus, and Prudentius are the major figures, and serve well to trace changing attitudes over time. The chapter concludes with an expansion of this already-long timescale, briefly considering luxuria as it was understood and appeared beginning in Hellenistic Greece and continuing up through the works of Dante. This retrospective reiterates many of the main points of the book and slightly expands the relatively brief treatment of luxuria by Christian thinkers. Berno finishes by presenting luxuria as an irresistible vice that was increasingly feminine throughout its ancient and medieval history, especially once it was connected to lust in late antique and medieval sources.
After this conclusion, the book includes short bibliographic sections for each chapter. These are lightly annotated and loosely correlate to the subsections of the chapters. Next, there is a collection of 10 high-quality color plates. These images are mostly neoclassical paintings, depicting luxurious scenes of various kinds. These are engaging and beautifully reproduced, but their relevance to the main text is often tenuous. Perhaps the most egregious example is John Singer Sargent’s portrait of Doctor Pozzi, which Berno uses as a visual analog for Maecenas. Although it is a famous painting that would be recognized by many readers, it cannot realistically say much about Augustan Rome without much more explanation.
All told, this is an interesting short introduction to the concept of Roman luxury. It hits many highlights that will be familiar to readers with a vague sense of Roman decadence. The cover image of an opulent Roman banquet is highly appropriate and would have warranted discussion in a chapter on the reception of luxuria. Berno presents useful anecdotes to illustrate luxuria’s tendency to cross natural boundaries, to weaken, and to distract. The Italian text is accessible and free of obvious errors.
The main issue with the work is its intended audience. Berno covers all of Roman literary history and introduces several dozen literary, historical, and even fictional characters, with rarely more than a sentence of identification for each. Closer examination reveals that most are actually Neronian figures, and, within that subset, many are exclusively known from Seneca’s work. Given Seneca’s complicated relationship with luxuria, which Berno presents very convincingly, it is frustrating that the cast of moral reprobates in his letters and speeches is often taken at face value. Perhaps a popular audience does not require such nuance, but Seneca should not be implicitly taken as representative of the majority point of view across this whole period. I suspect that casual readers will note the absence of well-known examples and figures associated with Roman luxuria (Caesar comes to mind), while scholars will be more satisfied by reading Berno’s earlier monograph, Roman Luxuria.