THE EXAMPLE OF ROME 197 



of gaining them. Yet the general course of events was the same. 

 Hence it would seem that we must look farther. 



Many historians have thought that agricultural decline was 

 one of the chief elements in the fall of Rome. Such a decline 

 unquestionably occurred. Some authors ascribe it to competition 

 with other countries, such as Sicily and Spain. That seems unrea- 

 sonable, however, for the Italian soil is as fruitful as that of the 

 other countries. Moreover, the farmer who lives nearest the 

 market has a great advantage, especially where transportation 

 is as primitive as it was in the Mediterranean region two thousand 

 years ago. Others, like Liebig, who was a student of history as 

 well as of chemistry, hold that the depletion of the soil by constant 

 cropping was the main factor. Recently Simkhovitch has ably 

 revived this idea. It seems untenable, however, as I have shown 

 elsewhere. This is chiefly because this theory clashes with the long 

 survival of China and Japan. It also clashes with the sudden 

 decline of Roman agriculture at the same time when agriculture 

 collapsed in many neighboring countries. It is scarcely possible 

 that the soil of all these countries was in the same stage of ex- 

 haustion at one particular time. Moreover, the theory of chemical 

 exhaustion of the soil does not explain the revival during the days 

 of the Roman Empire. Finally, there is no need of such a theory, 

 for everything which may be attributed to the exhaustion of the 

 soil may also be ascribed to a change of climate. There is good 

 evidence of sudden changes of climate, but no evidence of sudden 

 crises in the composition of the soil. Moreover, climatic changes 

 explain much of the loss of physical and moral strength among 

 the Romans, a loss which is not easily explained in any other way. 



It must be remembered that the climatic change which over- 

 whelmed Rome at the end of the third century before Christ may 

 have affected the character of the Roman people in at least three 

 chief ways. First, economic distress may have had a powerful 

 moral and mental effect. A povert^'^-stricken man finds it much 

 harder to be honest than does one who has all that he wants. 



