Veyne, Paul. "Pleasure and excess in the Roman Empire". The Roman Empire Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997. 101-116. When people think of Roman culture, they see violence, lust, and mutual betrayal. This perception is due to the influence of novels, films and television programs that depict such actions. However, like most that revolve around the past, there is more to the cultures of the Roman people. To prove that the culture of Rome is not as it seems, historian Paul Veyne published "Pleasure and Excess in the Roman Empire" to explain to the public more about the culture that he is not fully aware of in the article. But how well does Veyne's explanation carry weight in his book and does he explain these facts quite well? At first glance at the story Veyne appears to organize the thematic paragraphs by topic and break them down before moving on to the next topic, much like a formal essay. . For example, from the first to the second paragraph, Veyne writes about the same topic but divided into different subcategories. The only sources Veyne uses are from his book "Pleasure and Excess in the Roman Empire", as shown at the top of the page. Since the information comes from Veyne's own knowledge, that would make anything he is writing about questionable. However, since he managed to get the book published by such an esteemed institution as Harvard University, there is great confidence that his claims are true. There was a bibliography on the first page and as for footnotes there were plenty. The footnotes were very helpful especially because there are many unfamiliar words and historical figures that may be unknown to the reader. The author of this article, Paul Veyne, a French historian...... in the center of the paper...... the The question to ask is whether Paul Veyne's writing style and the readability of the article they help or hinder him. The first impression of his writing style starts off decently in his introduction and was especially helped when he used a quote. This helps grab the reader's attention and makes them look forward to reading the sequel. Veyne's body paragraphs, however, are a bit confusing. The positive side is that they show the necessary information for each of its topics well, but they are transformed into off-putting sensations. His conclusion is decent but at the same time it seems like he is going to another topic. So the question still remains: Is Veyne's writing style good enough to prove his point? Well, if he changes his paragraph structure to make them flow more smoothly, then Veyne's article would be a great read, but for now it's only decent at best.