Talk:Ancient Rome and wine

message: Growing up, my father once told me of a Roman saying, "only a barbarian would drink straight wine" (or something like that). Is there any validity to that? Or is it a little bit of urban legend? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't know the source or validity of the saying itself, the Romans (and Greeks) were quite fond of diluting and mixing their wines with various ingredients. I can see them naturally assuming that anything they do is the "civilized way" with the opposite (drinking the wine straight) being barbaric. AgneCheese/Wine 01:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old saying? 

message: The Apicius, an ancient Roman cookbook, presents many ways the Roman's used wine in food preperation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apicius.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVossen (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Writings on Wine 

message: The phrase "about a bottle of wine per citizen" is misleading. Wine was drunk by slaves on a daily basis, and slaves vastly outnumbered citizens. So the average amount of wine drunk per PERSON is much lower, less than a glass a day. This should be made clear in the article, for accuracy and so prospective alcoholics are not enabled.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.37.103 (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is an older comment, but I felt obliged to reply. That would actually yield a higher volume of wine drunk, not less. Aside from that, it's pretty ridiculous to censor information because you feel it is "enabling alcoholics". The fact is that we know, through both archaeological and textual sources, that people drank fairly liberally throughout most of history. In Tudor England, for example, we know that people were drinking way over a gallon of ale and/or beer per day, of varying strengths (and often to excess in the evening). It lessened with time certainly, but these practises really weren't curbed until fairly recently in history, with the excesses of the past downplayed through historical revisionism (largely as a result of the temperance movement). It's simply historical fact that your average Roman (whether citizen, freeman, or slave) drank more than we would today consider "proper",  though it should be said that these are all rough estimates. Try to be neutral, please. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of Wine drunk per psrson 

message: The article's claim,  "Husbands were legally allowed to kill or divorce their wives if caught committing such an offense" (i.e., drinking wine) is probably based on Aulus Gellius' statement (in Attic Nights 10.23.3) that Cato the Elder "reports that women were not only judged put also punished by a judge no less severely if they had been guilty of drinking wine than if they had been guilty of unchastity and adultery." Once Gellius quotes Cato's own words, however, it becomes clear that Cato said no such thing:
"The husband ... who divorces his wife is her judge, as though he were a censor. ... [I]f she has drunk wine, she is punished; if she has done wrong with another man, she is condemned to death." (Gellius, Attic Nights 10.23.4). Note that Cato nowhere says that women may be killed for drinking wine, only for committing adultery. 
Moreover, we have evidence that women drank wine even in archaic Rome. Brigette Ford Russell, "Wine, Women and the Polis: Gender and the Formation of the City-State in Archaic Rome", Greece & Rome 50.1 (2003) 77-84, esp. 80 and 84, points out that 7th-century women in Latium were buried with "the paraphernalia of feasting and drinking: mixing bowls on folding bronze stands, and Punic amphorae containing imported Sardinian wine" (p. 80). Moreover, the Lucretia story in Livy (1.57.9) shows aristocratic "Roman women of the archaic period, socializing at a sumptuous banquet with their friends (in convivio luxuque cum aequalibus)" (p. 84). Xiphophilos (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (And four years later) Exactly so. Gellius got it wrong - I came across the very same references when working on the Bona dea article. I don't think we need a section in which the sole supporting reference is authored by a non-historian (he's actually trained as a lawyer, and seems to have taken the misogynistic Cato's strictures as law, or at least evidence of custom and mos maiorum). Excessive drinking, and drunks, were not approved regardless of status or gender. Drinking habits should be dealt with under a single subhead, imo. Haploidavey (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman women and wine 

message: I stumbled a bit over this line in the section regarding wine and women: "Some conservative Romans imagined an archaic period of their history when women were forbidden to drink wine at all, but modern writers who claim that there was such a prohibition in historical times are totally mistaken." Not only does it not sound like encyclopedic writing, but it also lacks a source. Trysalandra (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (unindented post above) Quite; and I doubt that many, if any modern historians would make such a claim. "Some conservative Romans imagined an archaic period of their history when women were forbidden to drink wine at all" is enough. See also the previous talk-page section, and the Bona dea, Liber and Venus articles, and their sources. Haploidavey (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Just read the whole article. Some sections, and probably some sources, seem to glide over important matters central to wine as an essential part of Roman culture. Major ommissions include any reference to Rome's wine festivals (including Vinalia): to temeton (sacrificial grade wine) and its uses/misuses: ordinary wine and ritual impurity (spurcum): and the backgound to the supposed prohibitions against women drinking strong wine -- or any wine at all. Going to rewrite certain sections by stages. Haploidavey (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence required 

message: The epitaph quoted on the virtues and vices of wine contains the word "se<t>", presumably indicating that the "t" is missing from the inscription. The Latin word for "but" is however not "set" but "sed" so the restored letter should be "d", not "t". I have there made this correction on the assumption that "t" is an error. However, I have not seen the cited reference. If anyone has, is there some reason to believe that the restored letter should be "t"?Bill (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the actual inscription writes "set", not "sed," as inscriptions often do, and the "t" is not even a conjecture that needs to be put in pointy brackets. An image of the inscription as edited in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL VI, 15258 = CLE 1499 = ILS 8157 = AE 2010.238) can be seen here: http://www.antiquitatem.com/en/baths-wine-sex-hedonism-carmina/ See also https://thepetrifiedmuse.blog/2015/08/10/all-work-and-no-play/ Xiphophilos (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Epitaph

message: Following a query in my user talk, I thought about the below.
I am an experienced home wine maker and I know that it's impossible to make wine with more than about 15% alcohol. Wary of original research, I looked for a source for this. Although the following is not the best source, it bears out what I believed. I have therefore removed the suspect material. --Wubslin (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength of ancient wine 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion