A CULTURAL HISTORY

OF FOOD

IN ANTIQUITY
VOLUME 1

Edited by Paul Erdkamp

Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

LON
LON DON
DON • NFEOW
• OX RDDE
•LNH
EWI • YO
N ERW
K YOR K •D SY
• NEW ELHDN
I •EY
SY DN EY
 Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA

www.bloomsbury.com

First published
BLOOMSBURY in 2012
and the Diana logobyare
Berg
trademarks of
Reprinted by Bloomsbury
Bloomsbury Academic
Publishing Plc 2013

Hardback © Fabio
editionParasecoli and Peter
first published Scholliers
in 2012 by Berg 2012
Publishers,
an imprint of Bloomsbury Academic
Fabio Parasecoli
Paperbackand PeterfiScholliers
edition haveinasserted
rst published 2016 bythier right under
Bloomsbury the Copyright,
Academic
Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work.
© Fabio Parasecoli and Peter Scholliers, 2012, 2016
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
anyParasecoli
Fabio form or byandanyPeter
means, electronic
Scholliers haveorasserted
mechanical,
theirincluding photocopying,
right under the Copyright,
recording,
Designs and orPatents
any information
Act, 1988,storage or retrieval
to be identifi system, without
ed as Authors prior
of this work.
permission in writing from the publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
No
anyresponsibility
form or by anyformeans,
loss caused to anyorindividual
electronic mechanical,or organization acting on or
including photocopying,
refraining
recording,from action
or any as a resultstorage
information of the or
material in system,
retrieval this publication
without can
priorbe
accepted by
permission in Bloomsbury
writing fromor thethe author.
publishers.

British
No responsibility Library
for loss caused Cataloguing-in-Publication Data acting on or
to any individual or organization
A catalogue
refraining fromrecord
actionfor
as athis book
result of isthe
available
materialfrom thepublication
in this British Library.
can be
accepted by Bloomsbury or the authors.
ISBN: HB: 978-0-8578-5023-2 (Volume 1)
British Library978-1-8478-8355-1 (set)
Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for ISBN:
this bookHB:is available from the Library of Congress.
978-0-8578-5023-2
HB set: 978-1-8478-8355-1
Typeset PB:by Apex978-1-4742-6990-2
CoVantage, LLC
Printed and bound
PB set: in Great Britain
978-1-4742-7075-5
EPDF: 978-1-3509-9575-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by Apex CoVantage, LLC

 CHAPTER EIGHT

Body and Soul

robin nadeau

For while we do not invariably make use of other resources, life with-
out food is impossible, be we well or ill.
—Galen (On the Properties of Foodstuffs 1.1)

Omnipresent in our lives, food is much more than mere nourishment for
the body. Food choices are often heavily formed by cultures as well as
social and political structures. As the anthropologist Lévi-Strauss wrote:
good food to eat is good food to think.1 To put it briefly, selecting the right
foods involves multiple criteria, each charged with symbolic connotations.
For this reason, we should not ignore the influence of social norms and
religious beliefs on food choices, since what is good to eat is often what
makes the eater not only feel good with him or herself, but also look good
in the eyes of her community. The first part of this chapter will discuss the
concept of dietetics in normative texts, such as medical, philosophical, and
other normative writings in Greek and Roman literature. The second part
will focus on the ethics of eating, mainly as illustrated by philosophers. In
the last section, I will discuss the social, ideological, and symbolic aspects
of food choices, such as religious beliefs, eating restrictions (taboos), and
social projections.
146 BODY AND SOUL

BODY AND HEALTH

In ancient Greece, the word “diet” (diaita) carried a wider range of mean-
ing than the word we use today. In addition to eating choices, the word
could also refer to a way of life. First appearing in literature in works by
such authors as Alcaeus, Pindar, Aeschylus, and Thucydides, it indicated a
way of life or customs for both individuals and entire populations.2 Later,
it tended to have a more restricted and technical signification in medical
literature for health and eating-related choices.3 Beyond the selection of
food and drink for a healthy lifestyle, the word, then, also envelops nu-
merous other behaviors and activities in the context of the classical world:
physical exercise, sexual intercourse, sleep quality, and bath/cleaning habits
(Hippocrates, Regimen in Acute Diseases 66; Ps. Hippocrates, Airs Waters
Places 1; Regimen II 57–66; Regimen III 68; Diocles of Carystus, fr. 182
[van der Eijk]; etc.).
The image of the body is culturally constructed, serving to inform the
community about the relation between the eater and his or her eating
habits. There is thus a direct link between body image and diet. For this
reason, Greek physicians accorded much attention to the study of physi-
cal activities. Furthermore, since the body illustrates a person’s social and
political standing, the perception of bodies tends to change depending on
the social and historical context.4 In archaic and classical Greece, for ex-
ample, the youthful and athletic physique was the ideal representation of
the Greek citizen’s body. Citizens, and above all, members of the elite spent
plenty of time training in the local gymnasium. Like attending the assem-
bly, hunting, going to war, and taking leisure time, physical exercise was
a regular activity of citizens. The normative role of the body is particu-
larly evident in Sparta, where future citizens followed an intensive physi-
cal training program in order to join the citizens’ army. In compliance
with a eugenic ideology which held that mothers in good physical shape
make good babies, Spartan women also had access to physical education
(Plutarch, Lycurgus 14). While the Romans did not praise athletic activity
for citizens as much as the Greeks did, doctors did provide adapted recom-
mendations to those who were unable to exercise (Cicero, On the Orator
2.21; Oribasius, 3.1.10–18). Having considered these specific examples,
the mainstream ideology among the Roman elite could be expressed as
ROBIN NADEAU 147

“mens sana in corpore sano,” having a “sound mind in a sound body”

(Juvenal, Satires 10.356).
Ancient dietetics is based on the principal of the balance of humors.
Established on the medical assumption according to which the human
body is ruled by a flux of humors that must be regulated, sickness is
interpreted as a disturbance in the balance of these elements. Dietetics,
therefore, is the art of maintaining an internal balance of humors. The
discipline appears right from the beginning in medicinal literature: in
the Hippocratic corpus (fifth–fourth centuries b.c.e.), Rufus of Ephesus
(late first century c.e.), Galen (second century c.e.), Oribasius (fourth
century c.e.), and Anthimus (sixth century c.e.), but also in works of
other writers such as Celsus (first century c.e.), Dioscorides (first cen-
tury c.e.), Plutarch (first–second centuries c.e.), Athenaeus of Naucratis
(second–third centuries c.e.), and Ps. Apuleius (fourth–fifth centuries
c.e.), just to mention a few. Health was also a very important question
for philosophers of every school of thought, since it was alleged that the
way a person eats has a lot to do with his or her way of life and beliefs.
A short list of authors who wrote on eating behaviors would include
Epicurus, Seneca (Stoicism), and Plato, Plutarch (Middle Platonism), and
Porphyry (Neoplatonism).
Ancient medicine includes three branches: dietetics, surgery, and phar-
macology. As a medical discipline, dietetics not only aims to cure diseases,
but also to prevent them and to maintain good health. For ancient doctors,
a man who chooses the wrong path will simply become sick. To be healthy,
a person must follow a good diet and lead a healthy lifestyle. If the wealthy
enjoyed the luxury of receiving dietetic counsel (Ps. Hippocrates, Regimen
III 68–69), the majority of the population was often limited to what was
available (or customary) when choosing foods. For these people, engaging
the dietetic services of a physician was simply out of the question (Plato,
Republic 3.406c ff ). Doctors placed themselves in a long tradition of heal-
ing beliefs and techniques like the worship of healing gods. Even though
physicians did not reject divine interventions, they proposed cures that dif-
fered from traditional healing rituals such as incubation and incantations in
sanctuaries of gods like Asclepius.5 But even after the spread of Hippocratic
ideas and techniques, traditional superstitions and curative rituals were still
common among the population.
148 BODY AND SOUL

For ancient doctors, in addition to the nourishment value of food for

the body (trophe), each item of food exercised distinct powers (dunameis)
over the humors and internal parts of the body (Ps. Hippocrates, Regimen
II 39). The physician Diocles says it clearly:

Those, then, who suppose that [substances] that have similar flavours
or smells or [degrees of] hotness or some other [quality] of this kind
all have the same powers, are mistaken; for it can be shown that from
[substances] that are similar in these respect, many dissimilar [effects]
result; and indeed, one should also not suppose that every [substance]
that is laxative or promotes urine or has some other power is like that
for the reason that it is hot or cold or salt, seeing that not all [sub-
stances] that are sweet or pungent or salt or those having any other
[quality] of this kind have the same powers; rather must one think that
the whole nature is the cause of whatever normally results from each
of them; for in this way on will least fail to hit the truth. (fr. 176)6

Sickness is the result of an imbalance in the body’s humors: blood (hot and
humid), phlegm (cold and humid), yellow bile (hot and dry), and black
bile (cold and dry). The ideal diet involved eating foods that will restore
balance to the body. In this way, an individual could neutralize the effect
of an excessive or deficient humor by eating food with an opposite value.
The balance of the humors could be reinstated by a careful modification
in dietary, exercise, or bath regimens, but also with the help of surgery
and drugs for more serious cases. Food items could be hot or cold, dry
or humid, but also digestible or indigestible, wholesome or unwholesome,
laxative or constipating. Consequently, the food that should be eaten helps
the body to regain balance:

But above all things everyone should be acquainted with the nature of
his own body, for some are spare, others obese; some hot, others more
frigid; some moist, others dry; some are costive, in others the bowels
are loose. It is seldom but that a man has some part of his body weak.
So then a thin man ought to fatten himself up, a stout one to thin
himself down; a hot man to cool himself, a cold man to make himself
warmer; the moist to dry himself up, the dry to moisten himself; he
ROBIN NADEAU 149

should render firmer his motions of loose, relax them if costive; treat-
ment is to be always directed to the part which is mostly in trouble.
(Celsus, On Medicine 1.3.13–14)

According to the Hippocratic corpus, skinny individuals should prefer

moister foods and more corpulent individuals, dry foods (Regimen in
Health 2). Each person has a specific condition; therefore, they should
adapt their regime and activities to offset the body’s weaknesses.
Furthermore, gender, age, corpulence, region, and seasons should be
taken into consideration when choosing food, since the body changes with
respect to numerous factors:

The way to discern the situation and nature of various districts is,
broadly speaking, as follows: the southern countries are hotter and
drier than the northern, because they are very near the sun. The race
of men and plants in these countries must of necessity be drier, hotter
and stronger than those which are in the opposite countries. . . . Marshy
and boggy places moisten and heat. They heat because they are hollow
and encompassed about, and there is no current of air. They moisten,
because the things that grow there, on which the inhabitants feed,
are more moist, while the air which is breathed is thicker, because the
water there stagnates. (Ps. Hippocrates, Regimen II 37–38)7

For doctors, it is mandatory that people alter their eating behaviors with
each season of the year in order to offset the effects of the environment on
the human body: in winter, hot, dry, and nourishing foods are better; in
summer, cold, moist, and easy-to-digest products are preferred; and a com-
bination of these properties should be ingested in spring and fall:

The season of the year also merits consideration. In winter it is fitting

to eat more, and to drink less but of a stronger wine, to use much
bread, meat preferably boiled, vegetable sparingly. . . . At that season
everything taken should be hot of heat-promoting. . . . But in spring
food should be reduced a little, the drink added to, but, however, of
wine more diluted; more meat along with vegetables should be taken,
passing gradually from boiled to roast. Venery is safest at this season
150 BODY AND SOUL

of the year. But in summer the body requires both food and drink of-
tener, and so it is proper in addition to take a meal at midday. At that
season both meat and vegetables are most appropriate; wine that is
much diluted in order that thirst may be relieved without heating the
body; laving with cold water, roasted meat, cold food or food which
is cooling. But just as food is taken more frequently, so there should
be less of it. In autumn owing to changes in the weather there is most
danger. . . . A little more food may now be taken, the wine less in quan-
tity but stronger. (Celsus, On Medicine 1.3.34–39)8

Dietary changes should also occur progressively, since any sudden change
would harm the body.
Galen also indicates that country folk are accustomed to hard work
and thus eat food that is more difficult to digest (Galen, On the Properties
of Foodstuffs 1.2). Similarly, the same food products are not fit for every
ethnic group, since the body is conditioned by its surroundings. The
Egyptian’s body, for example, is considered hotter and the German’s body
cooler. Concerning age groups, babies are considered hot and moist, chil-
dren hot and dry, adults, cold and dry, and elderly people, usually cold and
moist. Therefore, foods considered to possess cooling and drying proper-
ties should be given in priority to babies, cooling and moisturizing to chil-
dren, warming and moisturizing to adults, and warming and drying to the
elderly (Ps. Hippocrates, Regimen I 33).
Gender also plays an important role. Females are considered colder
and moister, contrary to males who are hotter and dryer (Ps. Hippocrates,
Regimen I 34)—a dissimilarity that leads, naturally, to different prescribed
regimens. Oribasius cites the work of the doctor Athenaeus of Attaleia on
this topic:

The cold and wet condition of the body of women has to be corrected
by a regime which is weighted towards the hot and the dry. Women
should therefore avoid the cold and the wet, air or places, and choose
foods that are drying rather than moistening, as in any case nature
itself teaches us, since women show very little need of liquid. Women
should take little wine because of the weakness of their nature. (Liber
Incertus 21.1–3)9
ROBIN NADEAU 151

This dietary distinction serves as a reminder of the strong disparity between

the sexes in antiquity, especially in Greece. In many cultures, food is distrib-
uted according to the social hierarchy in force—sometimes taking the form
of a paradox. This is particularly the case in Greece, where despite receiv-
ing less at meal times, women were in charge of managing food resources
within the household. At the same time, however, as wives and mothers,
women were often the agents of their own social subordination, reproduc-
ing and teaching respect for social conventions built on gender inequality.10
Xenophon’s Oeconomicus (“household management”; 7.5–6, 33–43) pro-
vides a relevant example, as the obedient household mistress must accept
her role and moderate her eating habits (see also Oribasius, Liber Incertus
18.10). For their part, young women were taught restraint in their appe-
tites, including sexual desire (Rufus of Ephesus 18.2). Concerning food,
they often received only the “bare necessities” (Xenophon, Constitution
of the Lacedaemonians 1.3; Galen in Orabasius, Liber Incertus 22.13–15),
due to a cultural belief that aimed to give them what they needed with
respect to their social status. As Peter Garnsey notes, this practice mostly
ignored the real nutritional needs of women.11
In the Hippocratic collection, we also learn that the same regime (diaita)
is not appropriate for both healthy and sick people:

For the art of medicine would never have been discovered to begin with,
nor would any medical research have been conducted—for there would
have been no need for medicine—if sick men had profited by the same
mode of living and regimen as the food, drink and mode of living of
men in health, and if there had been no other things for the sick better
then these. But the fact is that sheer necessity has caused men to seek
and to find medicine, because sick men did not, and do not, profit by the
same regimen as do men in health. (Hippocrates, Ancient Medicine 3)

The author of Ancient Medicine pleads in favor of the individuality of

every human being, since, says he, each person reacts differently to food
and drink according to the nature of his or her body. An adapted regime
can help sick individuals regain health, though drugs and surgery may be
more appropriate for serious illness. Of course, it is fundamental for physi-
cians to avoid foods that will worsen a patient’s condition.
152 BODY AND SOUL

The majority of ancient doctors believed that foods, once ingested, were
transformed into liquid in the stomach and then absorbed through the
vessels. The digestive process was associated with cooking, or concoction.
Cooked foods were therefore considered easier to digest, since physicians
thought that the process of concoction had already begun before eating.
Digestion was a form of cooking. Easier to digest and concoct were hot
and humid foods. While the ripening of vegetables was viewed as part of
the concoction process, flesh, associated with putrefaction, required cook-
ing to initiate the concoction process and ease digestion. That said, the
characteristics of foods could change according to several factors, such
as the original environment, preparation, cooking process, and added
condiments (Ps. Hippocrates, Regimen II 56; Galen, On the Properties of
Foodstuffs 3.1).
Numerous health recommendations appear in Greek and Roman lit-
erature. First, physicians provide advice in treatises that seem to address a
well-educated readership. The influence of doctors amongst the Greek and
Roman intelligentsia can be observed in the works of scholars such as
Seneca, Celsus, Plutarch, Athenaeus of Naucratis, and so on. If such trea-
tises helped physicians and members of the well-read elite, who had access
to a wider variety of foods, observe eating recommendations and achieve a
balanced diet, the vast majority of poor urban and rural populations hardly
had access to this dietary advice. In any case, their precarious economic
situation would have obliged them to settle for whatever food was avail-
able, particularly in times of food shortage—which seems to have occurred
frequently.12 In his book On the Properties of Foodstuffs, the physician
Galen acknowledges this cleavage between the social classes in terms of ac-
cess to food, writing about products eaten by the common people, notably
in times of food crises. He alerts his readers that, even though some food
items are not ideal, they can replace other, unavailable foods. The ability
to choose one’s food according to the recommendations of a physician or
any other author was a luxury reserved only for the few—a privilege, we
should note, ridiculed by Horace (Satires 2.4). Still, at least for the elite,
about whom we are best informed, scientific dietetic principles would have
exercised a strong influence upon food choices, although the main objective
of dietetic treatises remained the prevention and healing of minor illnesses
(Seneca, On Anger 1.6.2).
ROBIN NADEAU 153

To sum up, every eater is conditioned by his or her culture. In cultures

with a developing system of writing, such as ancient Greece and Rome,
guidelines that help readers make choices begin to appear. In their socie-
ties, these authors also become authorities, just as food critics do in our
culture today. Food selection is closely knit into the processes of social
representation. Therefore, if a famous and respected author expresses an
opinion, it will influence the reader in his or her food choices.13 One of
the oldest and certainly the most famous of gastronomic guidebooks is
Archestratus’s The Life of Luxury, which gives a glimpse of regional spe-
cialties for gourmets and offers tips on how certain dishes are best prepared.
Its influence in antiquity is attested to in Athenaeus’s Deipnosophists. In
Latin literature, Apicius was a well-known gourmet to which tradition
even associated a recipe book. Pliny the Elder also authored, for instance,
a catalogue of wines, ranking them according to criteria like region or
health benefits. His classification of bons crus (book 14) is, of course,
influenced by his own beliefs and culture, but it also illustrates the typical
desire of Greek and Roman scholars to understand the world within a
scientific discourse marked by well-thought-out categories.

BODY AND MIND

Ancient physicians were influenced by philosophical concepts in their un-

derstanding of nature and the human body. Conversely, philosophers were
also well informed of and influenced by medical work (authors such as
Seneca and Plutarch, for example). As discussed by philosophers, the no-
tion of ethics had a strong impact on doctors. For instance, the ethical
doctrines of the pre-Socratic philosophers greatly influenced the writers
of the Hippocratic books.14 In both ancient dietetics and philosophy, bal-
ance and moderation emerge as central concepts (Galen, On the Properties
of Foodstuffs 1.1)—an unsurprising fact if we remember that medical au-
thors were also well-trained intellectuals in fields like rhetoric, literature,
and philosophy. For physicians and especially for philosophers, all types
of excess are discouraged, including the overindulgences of frugality or
of gluttony, drunkenness or strict abstinence (Celsus, On Medicine 1.2.8;
Horace, Satires 2.2; Seneca, Moral Letters 83.27; On Tranquillity of Mind
17.8–10; Galen, An Exhortation to Study the Arts 11.1–11). Plato, for
154 BODY AND SOUL

example, pleaded for self-control and simplicity in diet (Republic 2.372a–

d; 9.571b–c). In Xenophon’s Memorabilia (3.14.2–4), Socrates eulogizes
the consumption of staple food (sitos) and decries the importance of relish
(opsa), since eating is a vital need that should not serve as source of plea-
sure. In short, according to Socrates, one should eat to live and not live to
eat (Athenaeus 4.158f; Diogenes Laertius 2.34).15 Plutarch, who wrote a
book entitled Advices on How to Keep Well, explicitly praises the benefits
of moderation (metron) in accordance with the tradition of the Platonic
school (Table Talks 1.4.3.621c–d). In his view, knowledge and philosophy
are the best tools to escape the slavery of need and desire (Coriolanus 1.3–4;
How a Man May Become Aware of His Progress in Virtue 8.79c; 15.85b).
Generally speaking, philosophers most often argue for a frugal diet.
In the mind of the Stoic philosopher Seneca, lust and health problems
result from weak moral standards, while the journey to virtue leads to
good health (Moral Letters 78.5, 22–5; 90.14–5, 19; 110.11–13, 18–20;
114.24–27; 122.4–5). His fellow thinker Musonius Rufus even viewed de-
sire as a disease: “I would choose sickness rather than luxury, for sickness
harms only the body, but luxury destroys both body and soul, causing
weakness and impotence in the body and lack of self-control and coward-
ice in the soul.” Seneca argues for the same restriction of corporal desires.
In accordance with the Stoic doctrine, the wise man must ignore hunger
and desire in order to lead a more spiritual life and reach a higher plane of
thought. This philosophical and mystical pursuit is characteristic of some
philosophical movements that we can best describe as sects, as communi-
ties of people sharing the same ideas and rituals.
If schools of thought like Platonism and Stoicism denied desire and plea-
sure, other doctrines like Epicurism or the Cynenaic School took another,
less severe, route (Athenaeus 12.544a ff). Since the classical tradition often
ascribed immoral and decadent lifestyles to followers of these ideologies,
it comes as no surprise that Christians and authors from opposing schools
tried to demonize supporters of these doctrines. Contrary to what is com-
monly thought about the founder of the Epicurean School (named “The
Garden,” after the garden in which his followers met), Epicurus did not
preach the supremacy of pleasure above all else. Instead, according to him,
virtue should be a source of pleasure: “ ‘We should prize the Good and the
virtues and such things as that, provided they give us pleasure; but if they
ROBIN NADEAU 155

do not give pleasure, we should renounce them’; by these statements clearly

making virtue the minister of pleasure” (Epicurus, frag. 123 = Athenaeus
12.546f-547a). However, his message is normally reduced only to the ful-
fillment of desire. For this reason, in the literary tradition we have received,
we see a nearly exclusive emphasis on the quest for pleasure associated with
Epicurean schools (e.g., Baton, fr. 3 and 5 [K.-A.] = Athenaeus 7.279a-c;
Hegesippus, fr. 2 [K.-A.] = Athenaeus 7. 279d).
In his work On Abstinence from Killing Animals, Porphyry offers an
overview of vegetarian beliefs in ancient literature, since, like his master
Plotinus (a Neo-Platonist), he was a vegetarian.16 Skeptical of the funda-
ments of traditional civic religious belief and its customary meat sacrifice,
some philosophical and mystic communities chose to live an ascetic life-
style, and even adopted a vegetarian regimen. In their view, such a diet
purifies the body and allows individuals to lead a spiritual quest, free from
physical need. Believing in the transmigration of the soul, the Pythagoreans
normally refused to sacrifice animals and to eat meat, since it would require
the criminal act of depriving a living being of its soul17—but other tradi-
tions relate that they were able to eat meat, except sheep and plough oxen
(Aristotle, fr. 179 [Rose] = Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 4.11.12; Aristoxenus,
fr. 29a = Diogenes Laertius 8.20; Plutarch, Table Talks 8.728d–730f;
Iamblicus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life 109; Porphyry, On Abstinence
from Killing Animals 3.19, etc.). In general, though, we attribute an ex-
clusive regimen based on vegetarian products to this sect (Plutarch, Numa
8.8; Iamblicus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life 68, 106–8, 225; Diogenes
Laertius 8.22; etc.). Orphism is another religious and spiritual movement
that opted for vegetarianism. Pythagoreans and followers of Orphism were
strictly prohibited from eating beans, since they symbolize the rebirth cycle
and the passing between life and death (Pausanias 1.37.4; Iamblicus, On
the Pythagorean Way of Life 109).18 All of these groups preferred to com-
municate with the gods through nonbloody sacrifices (Diogenes Laertius
8.13), such as burning aromatic herbs and nonanimal foodstuff. In short,
according to them, piety is no excuse for feasting on sacrificed meat.
Although, technically speaking, eating meat never posed an ethical
problem within Christian conceptual thought, which separated the animal
kingdom and human beings, who were “created in God’s image” (Gen.
1:28; Matt. 5), Christian authors were still highly influenced by the ideas
156 BODY AND SOUL

of pagan philosophers on eating. Indeed, the Church fathers were quite

attuned to ancient literature, since they were well versed in paideia and its
branches like rhetoric, philosophy, and medicine. Distancing themselves
from the Torah’s dietary laws, the first Christian authors promoted a di-
etary regime inspired by the Greek intellectual heritage and Greek phi-
losophy (Platonism, Stoicism, Cynicism, Pythagoreanism, etc.).19 Christian
authors such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 c.e.) discredited luxu-
rious food and gastronomic pleasures, instead pleading in favor of frugality
and temperance. He viewed eating more as a moral issue rather than as a
religious concern (Paidagogos 2.1 ff.; see also Origen [c. 185–253 c.e.],
Against Celsus 5.49; Augustine, Confessions 10.31 [46]). For Tertullian
(c. 160–220), these moral recommendations further extend to include
abstinence from consuming blood (Acts 15:20, 29; Apologeticus 9.13–4;
Ieiunio 4; see also Origen, Against Celsus 8.29–31).20
A practice already eulogized by Tertullian, fasting arose as an important
eating model in Christian literature of the fourth century, especially with
the development of monasticism (and the hermit figure) and the promo-
tion of the ascetic ideal. Jerome (fourth century) and Augustine (354–430)
advocated the renouncement of one’s needs (food and sexual urges) and
self-denial (Jerome, Life of Paul 6; Letters 22.11; Augustine, Confessions
10.31 [43–44]). Henceforward, fasting would become an idealized model
of piousness and spiritual life in Christendom.21

FOOD AND SOCIETY

In every civilization, eaters have a general idea about the kinds of food that
can and should be eaten, as well as the context in which these foods can
be consumed without committing any faux pas. Food choices, then, are
also a social statement indicative of a given society’s identity. Spartans were
particularly proud of their famously awful black broth. Generally speaking,
Greeks and Romans considered bread and wine to be symbols of civiliza-
tion, since they require a complex preparation process. Therefore, some
Barbarians, Germans and Numidians, for instance, in addition to certain
fictitious tribes, are pictured as flesh-eating and milk-drinking populations—
and thus disregarded as nonsedentary societies (Odyssey book 9; Varro, On
Agriculture 2.1.3–5; Sallust, Jugurthine War 89; Caesar, Gallic War 6.22).
ROBIN NADEAU 157

Good and bad Roman emperors were often represented in eating situa-
tions, their behaviors symbolizing either their moral integrity or dishon-
esty. In antiquity, a ruler demonstrating a slavish craving for food was seen
as incapable of rational government. The tyranny of the stomach was used
as a metaphor for despotism as a political system. It was also a widely used
ethnographic stereotype attributed to foreign rulers and disgraced Roman
emperors (Herodotus 9.82; Athenaeus 12.513e ff).22 Body fat was also held
to imply moral weakness (Juvenal, Satires 11.35–43; Athenaeus 12.549a
ff). In this context, doctors’ diagnoses were in turn influenced by ethno-
logical presumptions. For instance, in the Hippocratic treatise On Airs,
Waters, and Places (16), Asiatic peoples are presented as delicate, even as
cowards who are often ruled by despots.
As stated earlier, ideas about what is good or bad to eat has as much to
do with health factors as with cultural, social, religious, and symbolic con-
siderations. Humans, despite the high availability of foods in nature, tend
only to take advantage of a small percentage of these foods.23 In fact, what
is potentially good to eat is not necessarily “good to think” for individu-
als, to use Lévi-Strauss’s phrase. Human beings tend to make food choices
according to cultural beliefs, or implicit taxonomic classification systems
that distinguish the edible from the inedible. In other words, human be-
ings choose foods in line with what is socially and symbolically accepted.24
One well-known example is the pork taboo in the Jewish religious system
(Lev. 11; Deut. 14). Animals considered improper for sacrifice and con-
sumption are typically described as anatomically abnormal or as belong-
ing to a species that does not fit with cognitive and cultural paradigms.25
Within a social system, shared beliefs and commensality produce mutual
identity and represent membership to a community. Eating unsuitable
foods or sharing a meal with outsiders could thus be considered improper.
Such situations became a topic of debate within Jewish and early Christian
groups.26 According to Paul of Tarsus, early Christians of Jewish origin,
like Peter and James, did not share meals with gentile Christians in Antioch
because they did not share the same dietary rules (Gal. 2:11–14). The ques-
tion of whether or not (gentile) Christians should adopt Jewish dietary
laws was an important matter of debate in the early Christian Church. For
Paul, all types of food are suitable for consumption, neither is any harm
done in mixing company, whether among Jewish and gentile Christians
158 BODY AND SOUL

or Christians and pagans (1 Cor. 8.4–10; Rom. 14.20; Acts 10. 28–19).
His views, however, were highly debated in the early Church (Ps. Clement,
Homilies 7.3– 4).27
Galen cites several examples of unfit food in Greek culture. Vipers, rep-
tiles, and woodworms are eaten by Egyptians, according to Galen, yet are
ignored by Greeks and Romans (On the Properties of Foodstuffs 3.2). He
is personally disgusted by meat that he does not usually eat:

However, some people also eat the flesh of very old donkeys, which
is most unwholesome, very difficult to concoct, bad for the stom-
ach and, still more, is distasteful as food, like horse and camel meat;
which latter meats men who are asinine and camel-like in body and
soul also eat! Some people even eat bear meat, and that of lions and
leopards, which is worse still, boiling it either once only, or twice. (On
the Properties of Foodstuffs 3.1.)

Hardly concealing his repugnance, he labels as barely comestible the flesh

he is unaccustomed to eating. We find the same kinds of prejudices and
associations in Seneca, who considers all mushrooms as dangerous and
advises his readers to avoid them, since they are an unusual kind of plant
(Letters 95.24–5; see also Galen, On the Properties of Foodstuffs 2.67).
Such taxonomic irregularities cause disgust among these authors, who dis-
courage the consumption of these products and sometimes go as far as ex-
pressing health concerns.28 Rufus of Ephesus advises against eating aquatic
birds and other species that live in marshes, since they come from a humid
environment, and consequently are moister in nature and harder to digest
(De padagra 11). Galen wrote that one should prefer fish caught in the open
sea rather than those from stagnant waters or rivers running through large
cities, as they are contaminated by human pollution (On the Properties of
Foodstuffs 3.24, 26 and 29). Eating dog meat, however, would be perfectly
fine according to Greek doctors, particularly young dogs, which were often
eaten in Greece (Ps. Hippocrates, Regimen II 46; Diocles, fr. 151 [van der
Eijk]; Galen, On the Properties of Foodstuffs 3.1).
The Greeks and Romans identified themselves with the foods they pro-
duced, the grains they harvested, and the animals they kept, sacrificed,
and cooked. They liked to consider themselves civilized due to their active
ROBIN NADEAU 159

preparation and cooking processes (Hippocratus, Ancient Medicine 3 and

5). They believed that sacrificial offerings allowed them to communicate
with the gods and to act as intermediaries between the cosmic forces and
animals. Good “food to think” would then be that which could place them
in relation with the divine forces and nature, but also distinguish them
from other human civilizations, since they considered themselves to be
members of a superior culture.29
In Greece and Rome, eating meat that was not killed expressly for
consumption (like decaying carcasses) was irregular (Porphyry, On Ab-
stinence from Killing Animals 3.18.2). Cannibalism was also out of the
question (Galen, On the Properties of Foodstuffs 3.1). The killing of
animals was regulated by strict religious rituals that, according to the
beliefs of the Greeks and Romans, distinguished them from other eth-
nic groups. The sacred laws (or customs) precisely determined the course
of the ceremony and the characteristics of the sacrificed animal. Any
animal not meeting the standards required for the ritual would be dis-
missed (Plutarch, Obsolescence of Oracles 437b).30 Violations of rules
were believed to carry a heavy price, as illustrated in the Odyssey, when
Odysseus’s companions died for having feasted on helios sacred cat-
tle, disregarding a religious prohibition. Other forbidden animals were
sometimes owned by sanctuaries and devoted to a god’s worship (e.g.,
Xenophon, Anabasis 1.4.9; Mnaseas, fr. 31 [Cappelletto] = Athenaeus,
8.346d–e; Diodorus Siculus 5.3.5–6; Pausanias 1.38.1, 7.22.4; etc.).31 In
some religious rituals, the sacred law prescribed fasting to worshipers
as a cleansing rite before some cults.32 This is the case for the Eleusian
Mysteries, for instance, where custom prescribed abstinence from certain
species of fish and snails before the ceremony (Scholia in Lucian, Dialogi
Meretricii 7.4). According to some testimonies, the consumption of pilot
fish (pompilos) was prohibited (Aelian, On the Characteristics of Animals
15.23; Athenaeus 7.282e ff). In Rome, it was forbidden for the priest of
Jupiter to be in contact with raw flesh, flour, or yeast before cooking, since
they are symbolically linked with corruption (phthora) and fermentation
(zumôsis) (Plutarch, The Roman Questions 109–10). In the end, respect-
ing these rules seems not only to be a religious obligation, but also a state-
ment of identity that separates those who follow rules from those who do
not, that is, Barbarians and noncitizens.
160 BODY AND SOUL

In ancient societies, eating meat played a symbolic and an ideological

role. Furthermore, the sharing of sacrificial meat served to represent the
political system in Greek and Roman cities. This ritual created a dual link:
between the worshipers and the gods, and between the eaters, who thus
asserted their common affiliation to the community.33 Due to their elevated
importance, a flaw in the ritual could be considered extremely impious
(Ps. Demosthenes 59.116–17; Athenaeus 10.420e–f). The calendar of reli-
gious events is structured around the cycle of seasons and economic activi-
ties, such as the end of the harvest period (Eleusian Mysteries), the tasting
of the year’s first wines in spring (Athenaeus 11.465a), or the coming of
fish shoals, for instance (Athenaeus 7.297e). Animals were rarely bred for
consumption, since domestic animals normally provided people with milk,
wool, and work assistance. Still, they could be eaten in periods of food
crisis, and the fodder would then be kept for nourishment in extreme situ-
ations (Galen, On the Properties of Foodstuffs 2.38).
With the spread of Christianity, Greek and Roman ritual sacrifices grad-
ually disappeared.34 Early Christianity evokes a diversity of Eucharistic
meal ceremonies, eating rituals, and food choices. Local and regional cus-
toms were thus socially reproduced, both consciously and unconsciously,
with respect to local beliefs and traditions.35 After its official recognition by
Roman authorities, an organized Christian Church gradually established
a canonical and orthodox etiquette. Thereafter, certain of the numerous
eating rituals within Christian communities were labeled heretical by a
centralized ecclesiastic authority and its effort to standardize beliefs and
rituals.
Eating right often means eating in accordance with social conventions.
How and with whom a person eats is just as significant socially as what
a person consumes. Eating functions as a means of communication and
self-promotion.36 The average eater typically reproduces what he or she
has learned and behaves according to expectations.37 Classical Sparta
provides a good example of social reproduction in this domain. There,
young eaters learned how to behave at mealtime and, consequently, to act
like citizens (Plutarch, Lycurgus 10 and 12; Xenophon, Constitution of
the Lacedaimonians 5). By etymology, the meal (dais in Greek or cena in
Latin) implies sharing. Eating alone with prodigality would be considered
a misbehavior, an act of gluttony (Cicero, Cato 13.45; Plutarch, Lucullus
ROBIN NADEAU 161

40; Table Talks 7.1.697c; 8.6.5.726e). A real meal, then, implied sharing,
a process of social exchange and the creation of social alliances.
Generally speaking, the rich ate the same foods as the poor, but they
would also have access to a wider variety of victuals and be able to buy
superior grains. Celsus tells his readers not to scorn the common people’s
food: “to avoid no kind of food in common use” (On Medicine 1.1.2).
Nevertheless, the rich and the powerful displayed their social status with
food. Fish is normally pictured in Greco-Roman literature as a very ex-
pensive product. Though rare species were considered high-status food
symbols and were condemned by moralists as the most decadent products
of all, the majority of the population could eat fish. Nevertheless, larger
species caught in the open sea were too expensive for the majority. Indeed,
the cost of catching fish one by one, the risk of fishing in far-off seas, the
handling costs for shipping to cities far from the coast, and the conserva-
tion problems for products that had to be rapidly consumed added up to
make these fish an expensive product.38 The wealthiest could also eat more
meat—considered a high-status food because of the high breeding costs—
and had access to imported goods like spices from remote lands. This is
why the warriors of the Trojan War were said to have eaten a high-protein,
meat diet, since animal sacrifice symbolizes piousness, evokes the regimen
of athletes and combatants, and underlines the social status of the eaters,
who were kings and princes. Smaller animals, on the other hand, were
cheaper for the common people and less-desired parts of animals were also
accessible to the poorer classes (Pliny the Elder, Natural History 8.209).
Wine is another indicator of social status, as each social group drank its
characteristic wine. This is particularly evident in ancient Rome, where
slaves drank a beverage made from marc and water (lora), poor citizens
a wine no older than one year (vinum rusticum), and the rich old wine
(vinum vetus sequentis gustus).39
Nevertheless, a paradox seems to exist in ancient Greece and Rome. On
the one hand, it was a moral necessity for hosts to welcome their guests
with lavishness, in order to prove their respect and show their social status.
On the other hand, simplicity was highly valued, particularly among tra-
ditional aristocracies. The Greek Comedy, Theophrastus, and the Roman
Satirists each mock the nouveaux riches who took pleasure in displaying
their wealth with food. Simply being rich and showing it did not suffice,
162 BODY AND SOUL

since real members of the elite tried to behave like true gentlemen accord-
ing to arbitrary codes of conduct.40 This kind of charme distingué is met in
literature as a behavioral model (Horace, Satires 2.2; Athenaeus 12. 544a–
554f). In private life, a model citizen was expected to eat and behave mod-
estly. Particularly in Rome, the frugality of ancestral diets became a literary
topos. However, this stereotype of simplicity should be interpreted in the
context of the Roman Empire’s expansion, the import of wealth to Rome,
and exogenous practices that were not always welcomed by conservative
authors. Still, wealth had already made its way to Rome well before its
condemnation in Greco-Roman literature.41
To sum up, individuals do not always eat and drink what is good for
their bodies. Eaters often settle for what is customary for people of the
same social group or what is available in situations of food crisis. Eating
is a strong economic, social, and political indicator.42 For their part, the
Greeks and Romans not only ate what made them feel good physically,
but also what made them look good in the community’s eyes, what met
social expectations. An impressive similarity joins the Greek and Roman
conceptions of eating; this is largely due to the influence of Greek literature
on Roman values, but also to the fact that the same philosophical beliefs
and medicinal concepts freely travelled between the two cultures, and were
adopted by authors writing in both Greek and Latin. We can safely say that
Greece and Rome shared the same intellectual culture, especially among
members of the elite classes, to whom we owe written testimonies concern-
ing their customs and beliefs. For these privileged groups, a balanced diet
and moderate behaviors were often the keys to a healthy life, but they alone
possessed the means to follow these guiding principles.