Roman Dining - Roman Orgies?

        Roman dining is a broad topic, encasing within itself not only the physical customs of eating but also the ritualized dance of social constructs. Many aspects which are true of private dining are not true of public dining and the constructs of funerary and celebratory dining often differ. In general, one could say that to dine was more important than to drink. The convivium differs from the symposium in this way. Cicero speculates that the older age was wise in choosing “convivium” as the word for dining since it means “living together” instead of a word that dealt specifically with dining or drinking. The Romans felt that the act of dining together was more important that the act of eating or drinking. Roman dining was an intensely hierarchal and elaborate dance. There were many customs and rituals to follow and children were instructed upon its idiosyncrasies as part of their upbringing. When you arrived, what food you were served, whether you were permitted to recline or must sit or stand, and what seat in the room you occupied all depended upon your social status. Dining was a way of presenting this status and clearly showed to the guests their relative positions to one another and the host. In this paper I will concentrate first on private family dinners before moving on to private dinner parties, funerary, and public dining.
           The private in-home family dinners of antiquity in Rome were called cena. This meal was the main meal for the day. This meal could have been as simple as bread and as elaborate as several different courses of meat, vegetables, bread, dessert, and wine. In its simplest form, the father might eat alone, as Julius Caesar sometimes did. More often cena would have included the wife and children as well. It was customary for slave attendants to instruct children in proper dining etiquette and many hours would have been spent learning the proper hands to eat certain foods with, the classic dining postures, and moderation of intoxication. Parents often had little to do with their children’s instruction or life until they were older. The infant and child mortality rates were quite high, so many of the children would not survive into adolescence. The lack of attention to these younger children, I speculate, would have saved them grief and heartache if the child did not survive. Indeed, children were brought to their parents in the morning and may not have seen them again until dinner in the evening. Clement of Alexandria wrote his second Paedagogus , which included many things which children and women ought not to do during dinner. This book closely resembles manners books of later years. Many of these etiquette rules echo modern rules, such as eating slowly and neatly, not spitting, not talking with food in the mouth, not scratching your body, etc. As is the case now, these rules were occasionally broken and literary evidence suggests that these were breaches of social custom and behavior. These private family dinners created a practice stage for children to learn the customs and intricacies of entertaining before they would be publically seen. Reputation and status were conveyed in Roman dining, so it would have been important for children to understand these before performing them legitimately.

          Social status was implicit in the very fabric of Roman dining. An elaborate hierarchy is presented in which all male participants are innately aware of their social relationship to one another and the host. Women’s roles are completely separate and will be looked at in length later in this paper. Pliny describes a dinner he attended in which the host serves graded wine and food depended on the status of the guests. Pliny frowns upon this practice, insisting he would lower his own food and wine quality to meet that of his guests. In addition to graded food, arrival times could also depend upon your status. Those whose company is more sought could arrive earlier than those whose company was not so well sought after.
         In order to discuss what is perhaps most important of all the socially determined hierarchies, a digression into the structure of Roman dining rooms must first occur. The dining room, triclinium, did not exist for the Romans until the second century BCE. After the conquests in Etruria and Greece, Romans began building separate dining spaces. At first, these were simple rooms, but as the practice progressed, more elaborate rooms and indeed more rooms began to surface. The three couch set up is unique to the Romans and is not known to have existed anywhere previous to this. The three couches each held three persons reclining. The couch to the right was the lectus summus. The upper couch was lectus medius and the left couch was lectus imus. The standard number of people at a Roman dinner was nine, the number of the muses. Later, a wealthy aristocrat might have many dining rooms and hold larger dinners for many people, but such lavishness was initially frowned upon. The triclinium would have a round, three-legged table in the middle for food and drinks. Courses would be served one at a time. An open space was between the couches and the front wall, leaving room for dancing girls, gladiatorial fights, singing, and recitations. Paintings on the wall often showed dining scenes of mortals or immortals. These frescos are a source for much of the knowledge concerning dining practices, though of course one must consider whether art imitates life or exaggerates upon it.
         The three couches of the triclinium are important because they allow for status suited seating. The place of honor upon the couches would be the leftmost spot on the lectus medius . This is commonly called the “consul’s seat”. The host would sit next to the guest of honor in the furthest seat from the front on the lectus imus. Slaves would be instructed as to where each attending guest should appointed seat and push his way to a more favorable seat, though such an action might ensure that he would not be invited again. All guests reclined with their heads toward the middle of the room and their feet pointing back behind them toward the walls.
      Another way in which Romans determined social status was through reclining. At first, all Romans sat to eat. Reclining came to Greece in the 6th century BCE through the Near East. By the 5th century, it appears in Aristophanes’ plays . By the 3rd century BCE, reclining to eat and drink arrives in Rome. This was adopted from conquests in Southern Italy and the Mediterranean. Reclining to eat was seen as a sign of power and was first implemented by royalty and then by the aristocrats. It filtered down vertically through the social classes. Roman men began to recline, while women were not permitted to do so. To recline with a man was seen as indecorous and signified a sexual connection. In this way, prostitutes were permitted to recline because of the licit sexual union it symbolized. Slaves could only stand, though some isolated incidents occur where slaves could, at the bequest of their masters, recline . A guest who was seated at the beginning might be invited to recline after he had pleased the host with recitations or favorable discussion. In Rome, reclining symbolized power but also enabled social networking. The guests would lie nearly touching one another, which encouraged intimacy and amicitia. Thus, reclining showed social status and further the political and social goals of those attending.
         Though men were always allowed to recline, the same cannot be said for women. Women earlier were not permitted to recline and must abstain from drinking wine as well. As time passed, women were gradually allowed to recline and also to drink in moderation. By the time of Cicero and Caesar, women often attended the convivium with their husbands and aristocratic women often reclined alongside their husbands. For a woman to recline with a man had sociosexual connotations of eroticism. The very positioning of the couches and the close proximity of the diners to one another on the couches encourages this notion. In the later republic and early empire, these restrictions had already begun to break down. Cicero himself even denounced women reclining as shameful and as being evidence of a moral decline in Rome .
It was not only the guests whose social status was marked in banqueting, the host also was judged within the confines of the system. He might be judged by the number of slaves who served the party and how beautiful these male slaves were. He would also be judged by the lavishness of the food and wine and the elaborateness of the furniture. In later years, aristocrats could display their wealth and power with the number of triclinia in their homes and the grandiosity of their dinner parties.

    In contrast to the symposium, convivium were centered around entertainment rather than drinking. While drinking was still involved in their dinner parties, more emphasis was placed on entertaining the guests. Such entertainment could range from dancing girls or recitation of poetry, to erotic satisfaction with the slaves, to seeing a man killed. Entertaining the guests was as important as the food and furniture. A host would be judged alongside his guests, though on a different scale.
            Slaves were important to the social structure in dining. They were largely responsible for the intricacies of the meal and the space. Slaves were expected to stand quietly and obey the commands of the banqueters. Clement, in his rules for dining behavior, outlines that snapping fingers to get the attention of slaves or rudely calling them was frowned upon. It is easy to envision then, that these things were relatively common occurances and that slaves were called to action in this manner. Slaves were also responsible for cleaning up around the room. It was customary to drop the bits of meat and fat and crumbs onto the floor by the table when you had finished eating them. Slaves would have had the task of cleaning this up. As the night progressed and the later drinking party began, puddles of vomit and nastiness would also have needed to be cleaned. Partygoers could call for a bedpan to relieve themselves. Slaves would carry this in and out of the room as it was requested. Semi-public urination was only slightly frowned upon. The more polite aristocrats would leave the room, though this seems to have been as rigidly kept rule as others. Slaves were also kept secondarily as sex objects. The Master or his guests might make use of his slaves at the Master’s discretion. Such activities frequently occurred out of the room, but some more erotic frescos suggest that sexual activities might also have occurred within the triclinium as well. Men were expected to have beautiful male slaves, yet the same is not true for women. Women more often had child slaves whose immaturity and frivolousness delighted them. Slaves were the property of their owners and their treatment depended upon his harshness or leniency.
           In the early Republic, for the simple working families, cena would occur after the day’s labor had ended. This would be a simple meal of porridge, puls, and assorted vegetables, if available. Bread would also have been a part of the meal, as it was given out to the plebians by the Roman government. More wealthy families would have milk, cheese, eggs, honey, and porridge. As trade expanded and imports grew, more exotic and elaborate menus arose. The Romans especially liked pork. One delicacy was the well-known porcus Troianus. This was pig stuffed with sausages. Several Roman recipes survived, including one attributed to an apparently fictional author, Apicius. This cookbook, De Re Coquinaria, included many recipes for pork, seafood, and desserts. During the empire, Greek foods and imports became increasingly popular. Wealthy men would hire chefs to prepare meals. It was still frowned upon to have meat for many courses. Still, there was a plethora of food to choose from and food often varied by season. All the food was eaten by hand, or with the help of a spoon. Forks were not used, though knives were occasionally utilized. Some specialized utensils were implemented for seafood, one was even pronged like a modern fork. In the 2nd century, Galen looked at look from the perspective of diet and nutrition. His works detail what foods did for the body. He much evidence for the kinds of foods they enjoyed. He examined pork and found it to be the most nutritional of meats. Beyond the quality of the food, he did not bother to speculate on the morality or social customs. Part of roman etiquette was knowing when and how to eat each of the foods presented. For some foods, it was proper to eat with the right hand and for others, to eat with the left was expected.
        In addition to these rules for food consumption, there were many others to be adhered to. When arriving at the host’s home, a guest would be greeted by slaves and would remove his shoes. Guests removed their shoes and their feet washed by the slaves. There were special slippers you wore and a special set of clothing which was changed into shortly after arrival. This made the guest clean and ready for dining. Guests would then be escorted to their certain spot on a certain couch. Some entertainers first read or sang or recited before being invited to recline. Conversation would be light and personable. More controversial topics of work or business were less favorable, though some politicians are remembered as having mixed business with the convivium. After each meal, slaves would carry around bowls of scented water to rinse fingers. The beautiful longhaired boy slaves would even use themselves to dry the guests’ fingers. During the more wealthy years of the late republic, guests would eat until they were sick in a special room called the vomitorium. Then, they would continue eating. After the meal, the entertainment would begin. This is the drinking part of the night. A host would be judged on the quality of the wine he served. Sometimes, the guests would be even be socially divided as the quality of wine received. The wine was mixed with water, just as in Greece. The host often dictated the ratio, though sometimes a party guest was appointed. The Romans liked to heat and cool their wine. They would often use ice water or ice and even snow. They even invented an elaborate system that warmed the wine. Mulled honey wine was served in winter to warm the guests at dinner. Wine played a less important role in the convivium, though in the later drinking party, drinking was certainly encouraged.
            The private banquet was clearly an innately socially structured event in the lives of Romans. These private dinners do not encompass all the facets of Roman dining. Equally as important is the Roman funerary dining. When excavating tombs, statues and inscriptions are often found which involve reclining or banqueting. In Hellenistic culture, feasting was appropriate for mourning. The deceased would enjoy the party from the afterlife and sometimes the food is for the deceased one’s use in the afterlife. Roman tombs would be elaborately painted and elaborate drinking and eating vessels would adorn the tombs. Despite the later relaxation of the prohibition against Roman women reclining, it was seen as not proper for a woman to appear reclining or drinking in a funerary sculpture. Of course, in spite of this, there are a number of sculptures which present women doing just that. Men were often depicted in this manner, particularly freedmen who wished more desperately to establish their social status and be remembered as having the wealth to display such things on their tombs. In one controversial sculpture, an inscription tells the reader to enjoy life, for there are not such pleasures in the afterlife. It reads, “I recline here, as you see me, just like I did when I was among the living in the years that Fortune gave to me, I nurtured my little soul and wine was never in short supply”. Boys were normally shown lying on the couch as if dead or dying with standard funerary motifs present, such as eggs, pomegranates, and snakes.
          Feasting certainly took place during a funerary ritual. Couches would be brought and the mourners would gather to eat the food and reminisce. This occurred outside the entrance of the tomb in a temporary tent of sorts. Economic status would have determined what foods were consumed, as more wealthy mourners would no doubt have had more elaborate foods. The food served to aid the dead in their passage to the underworld. The survivors would help this process along in the hopes that the deceased would then reciprocate favorably in the remaining family’s interest and act as a liason in their daily lives. As soon as the body had been removed from its dying place, the heir would clean the house. Then, sacrifices would have to be made on behalf of the deceased. The feast itself was very scripted. A pig had to be slaughtered for the grave to be legal and the foods served were highly ritualized. Eggs, vegetables, lentils, and beans were commonly served. Food and wine were placed in the tomb for the deceased. Anyone caught eating this forbidden food was to be punished.
         There were several days during the year in which Romans were expected to visit the tombs of the deceased to offer prayers and sacrifices. Food was often brought to these, though not served as ostentatiously as for the burial service. If the services for the dead were not completely precisely, the dead could haunt the living until he was given a more suitable burial. Caligula supposedly haunted the imperial grounds after his hasty services until his sisters returned to finish the incomplete rites. For less wealthy Romans, initiation into a Burial Club might have been necessary. These clubs held monthly meetings and collected money in order to bury the deceased club members and their families. These clubs made it easier for lower class citizens to honor their dead. Funerary dining was an important part of those rituals. Without food, the deceased would have no sustenance in the afterlife. Public dining is very similar to private dining in many respects, but on a much grander scale. During elections, it was common for those petitioning for office to hold dinners and games. The more elaborate and festive the dinners, the more favored a candidate was inclined to be. Stringiness was especially frowned upon. Many couches were set up outside, so that all citizens could enjoy the food and company. The food was mass produced and laid out in intervals. Many of the imperial palaces had huge lavish banqueting halls full of permanent couches and elaborately adorned furniture. During these feasts, entertainers would wander around delighting the crowds. During the Saturnalia, the Roman social structure was turned on its head. Slaves could recline and be attended to. Masters were expected to wait upon their slaves. This would be a day looked forward to for the rest of the year. Yet, one must speculate upon the effects this might have had on the relationships between master and slave.
        Dining played a huge role in the social structure of the Ancient Romans. These carefully choreographed dances were elaborate and the attendants must understand the rules of how to be involved. From the little invitation epigrams, it is easy to see that being invited to dine was an honor and one was expected to behave if they wished to be invited again. Those who were not invited to recline would have been missing out on a lot of social networking, not to mention free food, gifts, entertainment, and sexual satisfaction. Dining was what made the days bearable for Romans, for they knew at the end of a long hot day, there would be gladiatorial fights, dancing exotic girls, beautiful slaves, spiced wine, and elaborate food. Romans determined their position in the world from these dinners and this served them in their public and private relationships.