Chapter 7
Basic foods
Food and diet provide an obvious direct reference to the environment and nature in antiquity. Food had long been associated with human well-being, and this was reflected in the medical literature. The Corpus Hippocraticum, a collection of medical texts from the fifth to the third centuries BC, contains a document about diet which particularly describes a right lifestyle and also addresses the question of food and knowing what is beneficial for humans:
These things therefore the author must know, and further the power possessed severally by all the foods and drinks of our regimen, both the power each of them possessed by nature and the power given them by the constraint of human art … And it is necessary, as it appears, to discern the power of the various exercises, both natural exercises and artificial, to know which of them tends to increase flesh and which to lessen it; and not only this, but also to proportion exercise to bulk of food, to the constitution of the patient, to the age of the individual, to the season of the year, to the changes of the winds, to the situation of the region in which the patient resides, and to the constitution of the year … If indeed in addition to these things it were possible to discover for the constitution of each individual a due proportion of food to exercise, with no inaccuracy either of excess or of defect, an exact discovery of health for men would have been made.
(Hippocr. vict. 1.2; Loeb)
With regard to food supply in ancient times, the ancient historian P. Garnsey distinguishes between ‘food crises’, which he considers to be endemic, and ‘famines’, which he sees as having appeared only occasionally.1 Moreover, he explains that in cases of food shortages and emergencies, chronic malnutrition or insufficient diet must be assumed. The assumption that the state of health of the population was generally good in Graeco-Roman times is thus called into question. Garnsey accordingly points to illnesses caused by an inadequate diet or vitamin deficiency, such as bladder stones, eye complaints and rickets.2 One should also note the ‘famine food’ mentioned by the Roman doctor Galen (AD 129–c. 216), which could replace or ‘stretch’ the food supply in bad times.3Children and women were particularly affected by poor diet; overall, the urban population was disadvantaged compared with the rural population.
In Greece the community meal of the men had a long tradition, and was tied into a ritualistic framework. Unlike in Rome, women were excluded from it. The meal (deipnon) had a preparatory ritual nature; the ensuing drinking session (symposion) was the central element. As a rule, private homes were equipped with a dining room (andron), where one could recline on klinai/clinae. This is shown particularly well by the so-called row or standard houses in Piraeus, or in Colophon and Olynthus. The best knownsymposion is presumably the one described by Plato in his dialogue of that name; it was reportedly held in 416 BC in the house of the Athenian tragedian Agathon, to celebrate his victory in a tragedy competition. Here, eulogies were held to Eros, and prior resolutions to the contrary notwithstanding, large quantities of wine drunk. Socrates was the only one to come through the effort with no sleep, and got back to his day's work again at dawn.
Prior to a symposion, the hosts would write down the names of the participants, with the date and time, on little wax panels, which were distributed to the guests by a slave. The beginning of the feast was at the ninth hour, and the number of participants limited to approximately nine guests; women were excluded, other than hetaerae, who were permitted to provide entertainment. Nevertheless, a special moral canon prevailed, supervised by a symposiarchos, often a guest selected by lot; it contained regulations regarding the mixing of the wine, the sizes of the vessels, the type of entertainment and so on. The symposion began after the meal had been cleared away. First, flower tendrils were distributed, a libation was offered, a hymn to the gods was sung; then, the drinking session was opened and wine was served.4 There might then be more small servings of food or dessert: cakes and pastries, honey, nuts, cheese and fruits.
The basic foods in Greece, besides wine, were cereals and olive oil. In Attica, while olive trees were plentiful, cereals were hardly sufficient. Since the soil was light and not very thick, barley, which is only half as nourishing as wheat, was the main crop. As mentioned above in connection with agriculture, this shortage of the latter always made imports, primarily from the Black Sea area, necessary. Thanks to Athenian control of the Aegean, this precarious self-sufficiency could, in classical times, largely be compensated, and numerous goods, such as salted fish, imported or exchanged for oil and honey.
Plutarch (c. AD 45–before 125), albeit writing later, in Roman imperial times, provides information about the diet in Sparta (Lyc. 12). Since it is based on a report from around 300 BC (Athen. 4.141c), it can also be used, with caution, for Sparta in earlier days:
They met in companies of fifteen, a few more or less, and each one of the mess-mates contributed monthly a bushel (medimnos) of barley-meal, eight choai of wine, five minas of cheese, two and a half pounds of figs, and in addition to this, a very small sum of money for relishes (opson). Besides this, whenever anyone made a sacrifice of first-fruits, or brought home game from the hunt, he sent a portion to his mess (syssition). For whenever anyone was belated by a sacrifice or the chase, he was allowed to sup at home, but the rest had to be at the mess.
(Loeb, modified by author)
A bushel yields approximately 74.5 litres of flour (or 68 kg of bread); eight measures of wine correspond to approximately 37.2 litres, and five minas of cheese to approximately 3 kg. That works out at almost 2.5 litres of barley and 1.25 litres of wine per day – a generous daily total of well over 6,000 kcal, but we know nothing about its allocation. At all events, cereals appear here too to have been the basic foodstuff, while meat was seen as a rarity, and there is no mention of the notorious blood soup. Self-sufficiency, which was maintained even after the loss of the lands in Messenia in 369 BC, remained a central principle.5
The symbolism of food: beans and fish
In addition to the social aspect, the symbolic content of food and food taboos must also be taken into account; the bean and the fish are particularly important in this respect. The most important bean species in antiquity was the small-seeded broad bean (vicia faba), also known as the horse or field bean. It was frequently prepared as mash, but also used in salads, vegetable dishes and stews. The bean was easily storable, was nourishing and provided a supplement to cereals. Since it was rich in protein, it later also became an important food for gladiators. Finally, as a substitute for meat, it was a meal for poorer people.
Symbolically, the bean had both positive and negative aspects. It was nutritious, but also had a destructive aspect, since it caused flatulence, diarrhoea, stomach cramps, sleeplessness, confusion and attacks of weakness, and was in some cases fatal. Bean poison could lead to favism, a blood disease (haemolytic anaemia). In the area of religious symbolism, the bean embodied the antithesis to the spices which represented the food of the gods and symbolised the golden age.6
For this reason, the bean also appears as a food taboo. The Orphics and the Pythagoreans placed a ban on the bean which the Neopythagoreans continued in Hellenistic and Roman times. At celebrations of the corn goddess Demeter, too, beans were forbidden (Paus. 8.15.3). The Orphics believed in the transmigration of the soul; intermittently, they believed, it was in Hades, and had to pass through a cycle of reincarnations in order to achieve its ultimate liberation from the human body. To this end, it was necessary to observe ascetic rules, particularly the renunciation of meat and the ban on beans. The philosopher Pythagoras promulgated the teaching of the transmigration of the soul at the end of the sixth century BC; he developed the concept of the soul into a dogma.
From this point of view, the bean served as a support and ladder for souls when they returned from Hades to the light of the day; the ‘knotless’ stem symbolised the transition from the lower to the upper world, and created the connection between the world of the dead in Hades and the world of the living (D/K 58 C 3 = fr. 99 M). The real reason for the ban on beans was that the bean was equated with meat, which was also banned. Since the Pythagoreans considered the bean a phenomenon of flesh and blood, compliance with the food taboo was indispensable for reincarnation. However, as vegetarians, the Pythagoreans constituted an exception in antiquity, and had no broad impact. The image of the bean had little effect on its consumption. Prescriptive regulations existed only in a narrow circle of philosophers, or in special religious associations. For these vegetarians, eating meat and performing blood sacrifice were tantamount to murder.
The fish was also seen as a dualistic, strongly contradictory creature. Owing to its negative connotations, it was to some extent treated with disgust, and its consumption banned. The Pythagoreans had a ban on the consumption of goatfish (Diog. Laert. 8.33–4). Nevertheless, fish was relatively frequently eaten, though not necessarily as the main food. For people in ancient times, it was difficult to classify anatomically. According to Anaximander of Miletus (c. 610–545 BC), living beings had arisen from the dampness, the human being, however, in a fish – a smooth shark, since he required lengthy care (D/K 12 A 11, 30 = fr. 28, 26 M). The fact that certain fish could also eat people was threatening. The fish came from the sea, a dangerous anti-world which could turn upon people. Moreover, the sea was regarded as poor, since wealth came from the land – from agriculture. The fisherman was the classic image of a life in poverty: he did not occupy himself with the usual crops, but hunted and gathered – and a kilo of fish contains only two-thirds of the calories of a kilo of cereals.7
However, the fish was also regarded as a symbol of fortune, as the return of the ring thrown into the sea by Polycrates of Samos indicates (Hdt. 3.41ff.). The fisherman was therefore a symbol of dependence on fortune, which was tied to the sea. A real preference for fish only developed in the upper classes. In Roman times aristocrats installed fish ponds (piscinae/vivaria) on their estates, and cared for the fish; this became a symbol for an exquisite lifestyle. Anthony and Cleopatra too went fishing (Plut. Ant. 29). A villa with a view of the water, with fisherfolk, was highly valued. Thus, fish was on the one hand indispensable, particularly in times of scarce resources; on the other, it was a symbol of abundance and cultivation.
Ultimately, too, the fish became a symbol for Jesus Christ, the Greek word for fish, ichthys, being an acronym for Iesous Christos Theou Hyios Soter (‘Jesus Christ, son of God, saviour’). Galilean fishermen were to become ‘fishers of men’ (Matthew 4.19; Mark 1.16–17); baptism was seen as such a ‘fishing expedition’ – as the rescue of believers from the sea of this world. The sharing of fish obtained Eucharistic significance: at Holy Communion, fish, like bread, was a symbol for the body of Christ.
1 Garnsey 1999.
2 Garnsey 1999, 45ff.
3 Garnsey 1999, 36ff.
4 Garland 1998, 95ff.
5 Thommen 2003, 130–1.
6 Garnsey 1998.
7 Purcell 1995.