MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2217957154

Review of: Empire of Pleasures: Luxury and Indulgence in the Roman World

2001· article· en· W2217957154 on OpenAlexaff
Max Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndulgenceEmpireArtAncient historyHistoryPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1990, Oswyn Murray suggested that the history of pleasure be "established as an autonomous field of investigation", particularly in terms of pleasure "as an essential motivating force in the development of cultures".1 Murray's student James Davidson has written an exciting history of pleasure in classical Athens, concentrating especially, though not exclusively, on food, drink, and sex.2 Andrew Dalby (D. henceforth), though he does not explicitly place himself within this scholarly tradition, certainly is closely linked to it.D.'s Empire of Pleasures is in a sense a companion volume to his Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece (London and New York 1996) (reviewed by Gwen Compton-Engle at BMCR 96.04.29).Just as the latter is a useful starting point and sourcebook for any investigation into food in ancient Greece, Empire of Pleasures is a solid introductory study of food in the Roman Empire.It is an ambitious, attractive, and sensuous work full of a great deal of very fascinating and wide-ranging material, beautifully presented, nicely written (with lively translations), and extremely well cross-referenced between pages (though a reference to the elusive p. 000 appears at 155, 189, and 241).It is a book which causes one to be hungry and thirsty, and which makes the Roman world come alive as few non-fictional monographs can.In the introduction (Chapter 1) D. explains that his enterprise is an attempt at reconstructing the mental "geography of luxury" as portrayed in the literature of Imperial Rome; thus he is dealing not with how things were but how they seemed or how they were sensed or imagined by the average ancient reader (ix and 2) and how they were portrayed by litterateurs or "generalists" rather than experts (see 228-229 on the poetic imagination).D.'s maxim is "never trust documents" (248).The main sources of the book are thus the poetry and literary prose of the Roman Empire, mostly from about 50 B.C. to A.D. 150 and mainly in Latin and Greek, but also Aramaic (3); other literature (called "secondary" sources) are used to clarify but not, at least ostensibly, supplement this evidence (273, n. 4).In fact this book is on the whole an impressively large collection of sources, and one which often goes beyond a Greco-Roman purview: for instance, we find Arabic (3-4 and 184), Armenian (4 and 185), Anglo-Saxon (13 and 99-101), Indian (14, 191,(194)(195) 188, 194, and 244), and Chinese (199, 268, and 295, n. 9) evidence as well.Chapter 2 (Imperium sine fine) is a brief but interesting look at the general nature of the Roman Empire, including its vastness, uniqueness, and greatness, but also its immorality, greed, and

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207