Journal of the AmericanAcademy of ReligionLXV/1

Strife

among

the

Table-Fellows:

of and Medieval Christians toward the Eating of Meat'

Attitudes Conflicting
Dianne M. Bazell

Early

SCHOLARLY attention OF THEEXTENSIVE that (aswell as popular) has been given to the symbolicmeaningsand expressive functionsof towardexamining attitudes food, some has been directedspecifically toward meatasa foodsubstance the and rationales thataregiven,throughout theworld,bothfortheconsumption from of meatandforabstinence it (Fiddes; Adams; Giehl;Singer).2 Dombrowski; Spencer; Regan; Many writers aremotivated ethical thetreatment concerns by modern regarding of animalsand the use and distribution of natural and they resources, base and shape their discussionsaccordingly, turningmore readilyto Greco-Roman andthe religious of India,thanto traditions philosophers the formative periodsof Christian history. on the partof earlyandmedieval mandedextensiveattention Christian andinquisitors-and theologians-monksandcanonists, hagiographers thanthat worldfarless simplistic they oftenreflecta view of the natural withwhichmodern writers thevalue creditthem.Furthermore, generally
given to the practice of permanent abstinence from meat consumption
Dianne M. Bazellis AssistantProfessorof Religionat SyracuseUniversity, Syracuse,NY 13244-1170. I have presentedaspects of this work in variousforms(and portions)at-theAmericanAcademy of Religion annual meeting, the WesternMichiganUniversityConferenceon MedievalStudies, the AmericanAcademyin Rome, the Centerfor the Study of WorldReligionsat Harvard and, University, most recently,the Centerfor Medievaland RenaissanceStudiesat SUNY-Binghamton. A number of people have madesubstantiveand stylisticcontributionsto this study over the course of its development. Key among them areJohn E. Murdoch,Paul Meyvaert,and StanleyJ. Tambiah,in its earlier phases, and more recentlyJamesM. Powell,who has generouslylent his criticaleye and editorialpen to so much of my recentwork. As always,my husband Laurence H. Kantremainsmy most steadfast criticalinterlocutor. 2Older treatments of (an anachronisticnineteenth-centurycoinage) include "vegetarianism" Haussleiterand Alsdorf.

But the use of food, and the consumption of meat in particular, com-

73

74

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

varied considerablyamong Christianwritersin works of the same period and even in some cases in writingsby the same author.Not only was there substancesto be classifiedas meat, but the signifidisagreementregarding cance of eating meat (or permanentlyrefrainingfrom doing so) appears, on examination,to have receivedwidely divergent,and positivelycontradictory, assessments over time. Such contradictory views regarding dietarydiscipline have roots in Christianorigins and subsequentexpressions in specific historicalcontexts. Christianadvice regardingthe practice of fastingand abstinence,as well as condemnationsof the refusalto eat meat as an indication of deviance from orthodox teaching,have each been separatelystudied and documented. Still, these two contradictory attitudestowardmeat-abstinencehave not been examinedtogether,with some attemptto account for the presenceof each in Christianhistory.

The gospels and the letters of Paul and his followersprovidedample citation material for later Christiansto employ, either to defend ascetic dietary restraintor, conversely,to argue against focused preoccupation with food. These conflictingmessages, of course, may be read as reflecting the divergentcontexts out of which they emerged. The fasts undertakenand exhorted by John the Baptistand Jesus, as described by gospel writers (e.g., Matt. 4:2, 6:16-18, 9:14-15; cf. Luke 4:2, 5:33-35; Mark2:18-20), may be understoodin the light of contemporaryJewish practicesand eschatologicalexpectations.And Paul, sharing the expectation of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, advised his correspondents to prepare themselves accordingly for the coming End by disengagement from the world'sentanglementsand by disciplining their bodies, as well as their tempers, in a manner that he compared to one of athletesin training(1 Cor.9:25-27; Rom. 13:11-14; see Wimbush:23-35). In addition to preparing the newly-converted for the End as proclaimed by Jesus, however, Paul, a Jewish member of this new movement, undertook the additionalchallengeof proselytizingto non-Jewish populations outside of Palestine.And it is in the context of ethnic interaction betweenJewish and gentile converts,resultingfromthis latteraim, that we find the scripturalpassages pertainingto food that so forcefully shaped subsequent attitudes,positive and negative,on the part of Christians toward the eating of, or abstinencefrom,meat.3
and understandingof Jewish law is vast, and disagree3Thebibliographyon Paul'sinterpretation ment is rampant.For this discussion, with specific referenceto the relevanceof dietarypurity,I am referringto Segal and to Tomson.It is in attendingto the diverseethnic contexts of this initiallyJew-

Bazell: Strifeamongthe Table-Fellows

75

Seeking a peaceable coordination of customs among an ethnically diverse population, Paul consistentlyminimizedthe significancethat the conflicting dietaryhabits of Jews and gentiles appearedto hold. Regarding matters of food purity, he wrote to the Christiancommunities in Rome, that "nothingis unclean in itself.... [T]hekingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousnessand peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:14,17). Should one's brothers and sisters in this movement observe such restrictions, however, believinga particular food to be unclean, one should, instead of pointedly eating such things (as a way of this intrinsic impurity),specificallyavoid eating what is of"disproving" fensive to others, in the spirit of "peaceand mutual upbuilding"(Segal: 224-253, esp. 234-240). Though nothing is inherentlyunclean in Paul's eyes, "itis unclean for any one who thinks it unclean": Ifyourbrother is beinginjured walkby whatyou eat,you areno longer in love. not So do let what eat the for whom cause ruin of one ing you Christ died.(vv.14-15) To the communities in Corinth who were apparentlyconcerned about the availabilityof pagan sacrificialofferings,Paul wrote, "Foodwill not bring us close to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do." (1 Cor:8:8): is sold in the market withoutraising ... Eatwhatever anyquestionon the groundof conscience. For"theearthandits fullness arethe Lord's." (1 Cor.10:25-26,citingPs.24:1) Any scruples in regardto food had to be for the sake of one'sneighbor's sensibilities and spiritual well-being, not one's own. The only concern that a Christianshould have in this regardwas how another-and in this latter case even a non-Christian-might view his behavior:one should take care not to convey the impressionthat one is consciously participating in a pagan cultic meal (1 Cor. 10:27-29; 8:9-13; cf. Rom. 14:14-23; see Tomson:216-220; Segal:228-233). In each of these situations Paul's concern appears to have been that of irenic communal relations, emblemized and effectuatedby peaceablecommensality.4
ish movement that the passagesin which Jesus describeswhat defiles a human being (Matt. 15:11, 13-18; cf. Mark7:15, 18-19)--often appealedto in a conflatedform by later theologians--may be understood. In the Mattheanversion the issue throughoutthe episode remainsinterpretation of the law pertaining to handwashing. In the Markanversion, however, after preliminarythird-person explanation of the customs of "the Phariseesand all the Jews"to an audience which presumably needs such explanation,the gospel authorconcludes "Thushe declaredall foods clean." 4The directsocial consequencesof food prohibitions(and their repeal)areevident in the account of the apostle Peter's trance, found in Acts 10. Feelinghungrywhile praying,Peterfalls into a trance in which he sees four-footedanimals,reptiles,and birds fallingfromthe sky When he hears a voice commanding him to "kill and eat," he refuses, on the grounds that he has never eaten anything

76

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Thus, in these sources that both reflectthe early developmentof the Christianmovement and directed its subsequent course, one may find the roots of what became a distinctively Christianambivalencetoward the practiceof eating meat or refrainingfromdoing so. On the one hand, dietary discipline is but one aspect of positively regardedbodily disciand "comforting" food, might pline, and meat, as a desirable,pleasurable, well be among the firstitems to be renounced;on the other, no food, in and of itself, may be consideredunclean, and dietaryrestrictions,in and of themselves, have no bearingon salvation

The long and extensive traditionsof Christianmonastic ascetic pracrationales tice, whethereremiticor cenobitic,formulated alongthe former line of thought, construingbodily disciplineas an effectivemeans of training the soul. As one desert maxim had it, "Asthe body grows, the soul becomes weak; the more the body becomes emaciated,the more the soul grows."'Fastingwas always featuredamong the chief ascetic practicesin the accounts of these earlyChristians, and, when meatwas actuallyspeciit was either its to fied, deny consumptionor to note that even to mention meat would be, as Athanasiuswrote in regardto Antony,"superfluous," since meat never figuredin the accountsof "others strivingforvirtue."6 not was meat considered Ironically, only inappropriately delicateand for a of but true Christ" in serious "athlete coddling training,7 it was also in as somewhat a seen, terms, contradictory potent and forcefulstimulant of lust. Quantityof food alone was viewed as bearinga relationto sexual passion on both psychologicaland physiologicalgrounds.Surelya failure to restrainthe hungersof one'sstomachwould find its parallelin a failure to restrain"thehot surge of carnallust,"reasonedCassian(Inst.5.20 [SC
unclean. Threetimes, the voice explains that "WhatGod has made clean, you must not call profane" (vv. 9-16). The episode takes place within the context of a divinely arrangedencounter between Peter and a gentile centurion, and, when they finallydo meet, Peterexplains that, while it is known that "itis unlawful for a Jew to associatewith or to visit a gentile,"still, God has shown him that he "shouldnot call anyoneprofaneor unclean"(v. 28, emphasismine). 'ApothegmataPatrum4 (95), attributedto the Abbot Daniel and appealing to 2 Cor. 12:10, "WhenI am weak, then I am strong"(PG 65:155-156). 6VitaAntonii7 (PG 26:851-854). For discussion of the rationalesgiven for fastingin general,as well as specific food avoidances,see Arbesmannand Musurillo. of the and a milesChristi, and the characterization 'The image of the ascetic as an athletaChristi ascetic endeavor as an agon spiritualisand a pugnainteriorum, permeatesCassian'scorpus (see es[=Inst.]4.1-3, 5.12-19, 7. 20 [CCSL109:122-126, 208-224,322]). For a pecially the Institutiones general discussion of this issue, see Bourguignonand Wenner,and for a comparison between the monasticvow of stabilityin the Ruleof Benedict(=RB)with Romanoaths of militaryservice,see Herwegen (29-32).

theTable-Fellows Bazell: Strife among

77

109:224]). And many agreedthat, given the proximityof the stomach to the genitals, the vice of lust followed that of gluttony through the sheer saw it, "Thesequence pressureexertedby a distendedbelly.As Tertullian of vices parallelsthe arrangement of the bodily members."8 But meat was viewed medically as an especially powerful sexual stimulant, and thus abstinence fromit in particular was seen to dull sexual desire. Galenic medical Humorally-based theory envisioned health as determined by the balance among the four elemental qualities of heat, cold, moisture, and dryness, which could in greatpart be regulatedby appropriate dietaryregimen(Temkin:39-40,85-86, 154-156). The qualitiesof heat and moisture were understood to be conducive to sexual potency and fertility,as well as desire. As a substance believed to generateboth heat and moisture, meat was deemed especially useful in combatting impotence and was seen as actuallyproductiveof blood and semen. Not surprisingly,the diet of Christianmonks, with opposite aims, identified meat, as well as wine and heated foods, as substances to avoid (Rousselle). Evagriusof Pontus simply advised nuns not to eat meat or drink wine, lest they become aroused and endangertheir prospects for salvation.9 Cassian recommended food to his monks "which moderates the heat of burning lust and avoids kindling it,"going on to prescribebread, beans, herbs, and fruits. Recalling Ezekiel'sattribution of the fall of Sodom to its citizens'excessiveintakeof bread,Cassianrhetorically wonwhat effects meat and wine the dire consedered might have, given
quences of bread (Inst. 5.23, 5.6 [SC 109:230-232,

Jerome, counselling Romannoblewomen practicingascetic regimens in their homes, appealed directly to the authorityof Galenwhen he wrote that foods which increase the body's innate heat, such as meat, wine, warm dishes, and beverages, though appropriatefor the elderly, were positively dangerousfor both youths and adult men and women, whose bodies "seethewith innate heat"(Ep.54.9 [CSEL 54:475-476]). Consolidating these elements of thought into one pithy epigram,Jeromeadvised Jovinian that "[in] the eating of meat, and the drinkingof wine, and the fullness of stomach, is the seed-bed of lust.""'1 Tailoringhis advice especially to the reproductiveprocesses of his female advisees, however, and playing on the use of the Latin caro (pl.
8De ieiunio1 (CSEL20:274). Cf. Philo, who describesthe parallelcourse of a filled stomach and the craving for other pleasures (Legum Allegoria3.138, 145 [Loeb 1:392-393, 398-3991). Jerome cites Tertullian's maxim in his letterto Amandus,warningthat "excessis the mother of lust, and genital excitement follows a belly distended with food and flooded with draftsof wine"(Epistola [= Ep.] 55.2 [CSEL 54:4881);cf. Ep. 22.8 [CSEL 54:155]. 9Sententiae ad virgines (PG 40:1283). 2.22 (SC 42:133-134). '0Cf.Collocationes [= Ad.Jov. 2.7 (PL 23:310). "AdversusJovinianum

198-200]).1o And

78

Journalof the American Academy of Religion

carnes) to refer to both meat and corporeal flesh, along with the latter's theological connotations, Jerome provided one of the most graphic and direct correlations between the consumption of meat and the production, not merely of semen, but of new "flesh"in pregnancy. In a letter of consolation to the recently widowed Salvina, worth citing at some length here, he urged her to avoid not only meat but also various forms of fowl: [D]o not therefore think that you are not eating meat if you reject the tasty flesh of hare and venison, and other four-footedcreatures.For they arenot judged accordingto the numberof their feet but accordingto the creasweetness of their flavor.We know the saying of the apostle:"Every ture of God is good, and nothing is to be rejectedif it is received with thanksgiving"(1 Tim. 4:4). But he also says, "Itis good neither to drink wine nor to eat meat"(Rom. 14:21), and in another place, "Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery" creatureof (Eph. 5:18). "Every God is good" (1 Cor. 7:34)--let women who are eager to please their husbands hear this. Let themeat meat who servetheflesh, whoseseething andwhoseworkis procreation passioneruptsin sex, whoare tiedto husbands, and children.Let thosewho are pregnant fill theirwombsand bellieswith meat.(Ep.79.7 [CSEL mine]. [Emphasis 54:95-96])12

One should not neglect to mention the more obvious connection between "rich" foods and wealth, and the asceticrenunciationof both. In a homily on 1 Timothy 4 contrastingChristianpracticeswith those of various pagan or heretical groups, John Chrysostom offered an underoperative)Mosaiccovenant:the removalof excessiveluxury-a rationale which, he explains, had it been openly stated at the time, would never have instilled the fear requisite to enforce compliance.'3And Jerome, again consolidating several of the lines of thought surveyed above, extolled with pride the life of ascetic renunciation: whenyou arecontent withlittle: Great is thesoul's youhavethe rejoicing allits power,feasts,and worldbeneath yourfeet,andyou canexchange forcheapfood,and lusts,forthe sakeof whichrichesareaccumulated,
compensatefor them all with a rough tunic. Takeawaythe feastsand the excess of lust, [and] no one will seek riches whose use is either in the belly, or below the belly (Ad.Jov.2.11 [PL23:3141) lying explanation for the food prohibitions of the (implicitly no longer

These and other early Christian figures and writings served as models and precedents for subsequent Christianmonastic theory and practice.
in coitum,quaeligaemaritis 12 "Comedant carnes,quaecarnilbus] serviunt,quarumferuor despumat fetus, earumet intestinacarnibusinpleantur" generationiac liberisdant operam,quarumuteriportant (italicizedtext). 12.2 (PG 62:561); cf. Novatian,De cibisiudaicis, "3Homilia esp. 4-5 (CCSL4:96-99).

Bazell: Strife among the Table-Fellows

79

The association of meat with the softness, sensuality,and luxury that its consumption appearednot only to reflectbut also to promote rendered its inclusion in a monastic diet especiallyinappropriate. Still, many of the same advocates of ascetic discipline persistently sounded a cautionarytone regardingthe underlyingmotivationfor fasting and abstinence,warningboth againstexcessivepride in asceticprowess and against misplaced abhorrenceof specific substances.As early as the third century Clement of Alexandriacautioned those who avoided sacrificialmeats (or who singled out any foods, for that matter)to do so not out of fear ("forthere is no power in them")but as a discipline, "for by thoroughly mastering pleasure we prevent sexual desires."'4Cyril of Jerusalemlecturedhis catechumensin the fourthcenturyon the "useful reasons for eating and not eating,"explainingthat Christiansabstain fromwine and meat, "notabhoringthem as punishment,but in expectaAnd Cyril's tion of reward."'5 contemporaryin the West, Augustine, disat and length between the disciplinaryutility of tinguished frequently the intrinsic restraint and unimportance of foods themselves. dietary Intent on contrastingmere earthlycustom with practiceshaving eternal significance,he wrote that "Ahabit relatedto the mannerof eating is no impediment to the religiousstate": or life-style to clothing by eachpersonwho adopted Nothingpertaining on this Cityas followsthe faiththatis the way of Godhas anybearing withdivineinstructions. Hence,wheneven long as thesedo not conflict to altertheirmode becomeChristians, theyarenot obliged philosophers The to religion. no hindrance whichoffer of dressor theirdietary habits, is in theirfalseteachings.'6 onlychange required It was the way in which the food was used, and not the food itself, that delightedin analysis,and he apparently providedthe focus forAugustine's on who the craved and gorged plain foods glutton ironicallyjuxtaposing with the temperateconsumer of finerthings.'7Indeed, it was removalof for any food, not eliminationof specificimpurities the Christian's appetite fromthe diet, thatAugustinesaw as the goal of dietarydiscipline.18
2.8.4, 2.9.1 (SC 108:24-27). '4Paedagogus 1Catechesis 4.27 (PG 33:489-490). 2.11 (CCSL44B: '6De civitateDei [= DCD] 19.19 [CCSL48:686]). In Questiones evangeliorum 53-55) he characterizesthe eating of food as merely a matter of conformity to local custom and foods as completelyunwarranted. deems any concern for the natureof particular " De moribusManichaeorum 2.13.30 (PL 32:1358); cf. De doctrinachristiana3.12.19 (CCSL 32:89-90) where he contrastsEsau'seating of lentils with Christ's eating of fish: "Forin all things of this kind we are to be commended or deprecated,not becauseof the natureof the things we use but because of the nature in using them and the way in which they are desired." 10.31 (CCSL27:177-180). '8Confessiones

80

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Julian Pomerius, a fellow North Africanfollowing AugusSimilarly, tine by a generation, advocated "spiritualabstinence"that condemned not the use of certain foods but excessivc desire for them. EchoingJerome'sadmonition of Salvina,Julianwrote: If thosewho abstain fromfour-footed or other creatures enjoypheasants birds or it does not seem to me that curtail their fish, costly bodily they rather, pleasures; theyalterthem.19 was understoodas especiallytasty,a comSo, while meat in particular of "the life" and a sexual stimulant,none of these associaponent good tions could be limited to meatalone as a food-at leastin the eyes of those theologians who made it their business to theorize at length on dietary discipline for Christians.Nor, indeed, could these associationsultimately be located (from a theological, as opposed to a medical, perspective) in meat as a substance. Rather,since the appetite could be directedtoward anythingand pleasure taken in anything,then abstinencefrom no single food substance alone, including meat, could guaranteethe outcome of overcomingone'sappetitesand desires,nor should any dietaryabstinence food. be undertakenwith disdain directedtowarda particular The complexity of the prescribedconceptual relationshipbetween the abstinentChristianand the substanceforegoneis reflectedin two distinct ways in the following two earlymonasticrules. In the sixth-century "Ruleof the Master" (especiallysignificantbecauseit was on this rule that much of Benedict's Rule,discussedbelow,was based), a puzzlingambivalence in connection with the holiday lifting of food restrictionsis found. The abbot must informhis monks that the desire to eat the flesh of birds and four-footed animals is good but that to abstain is even better.20 Monks electing to eat meat during the period between Easterand Pentecost, and between Christmasand Epiphany,will be seated together but apart from the others, "lestthe purity of those who abstainbe sullied by the meat-eaters,though the latterbe well awareof how greatthe distance is between those who are slaves to their desires and those who are masters of their bellies." Further complicating matters is the Christian understanding of animals as creations of God (a point conspicuously overlooked by recent defenders of vegetarian diet). This is spelled out in a seventhcentury monastic rule, whose fifth chapter clearly articulates the sig2.23.1 (PL59:469). contemplativa 20Thisprevalent distinction between "four-footed" and "two-footed" animalswill be discussed and fowl are specified to include both those that fly (volucres) below. In the "Ruleof the Master," those which, though "feathered," remainearth-bound(pinnaeterrenae) magistri53.26-33 (Regulum [SC 106:246-248]). " De vita

Bazell:Strifeamongthe Table-Fellows

81

nificance that the consumption of meat had for early and medieval Christians, while at the same time displaying pragmatic respect for monastic discipline: No [monk]is permitted eitherto tasteor to consume meat,notbecause
we deemany creature but because abstinencefrom meat of Godunworthy,
.21 [Emphasis mine]

is thoughtto be usefuland appropriate formonks,maintained, neverout of consideration forthe sick andthoseon theless,with moderation
long journeys ...

These lines came to be included in Gratian's twelfth-century compilation of ecclesiastical legal rulings known as the Decretumand in this latter legal form became one justification for criticizingone of the new abstinent monastic ordersof the High MiddleAges, the Carthusians.22

Monasticregulationvaried by community for severalcenturies, and dietaryregulationreflecteda multiplicityof rules. One anonymous fifthcentury Irish rule strictly forbademonks' consumption of meat and fish as well as cheese and butter (the latterrestrictionlifted on Sundaysand holidays); while granting some leeway for the sick, the elderly, and monks who were travelling,meat specificallywas categorically forbidden (Holst 2.64). In a rule drawnup c.534 for a communityof nuns, Caesarius of Arles forbademeat (carnes)to the entire community,while allowing chicken (pulles)to the sick; his rule for male monastics,written a few years later, allowed neither meat nor chicken to the healthy but permitted both to the sick.23 Aurelianof Arles,limited Caesarius's contemporary, the diets of both monks and nuns by forbiddingmeat consumption altogether but allowing chicken to be given to the sick.24 The Ruleof Isidore of Seville (d.636) allowed a small amount of meat on holidays to accompany the usual portion of vegetables, cautioning, in any case (in terms recalling patristicrationales),againstsatiatingthe body, "fora full stomach quickly leads to carnal abandon."25 Both versions of Chrodegang's his Rule for cathedral eighth-century community of canons at Metz permitted meat at one of their two daily meals and allowed portions of meat
monachorum 5 (PL88:1102). 2 Fructuosus,Regulum De consecratione, Dist. V,c. 32, in Corpus ed. by A. Friedberg(Graz:Akademische 22 iuriscanonici, 1959 [1879]. Verlagsanstalt, ad virgines17; Regula ad monachos 24 (PL67:1120, 1103). 23Regula ad monachos ad virgines 34-35 (PL68:393, 403). The seventh-centurybishop 51; Regula 21Regula Donatus'srule for nuns also prohibited all meat to the healthy,while allowing the discretion and ad virgines12 [Holst 1:381]). judgement of the prioressin cases of severeillness (Regula 9.4 (PL83:878-879). Regulamonachorum "2

82

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Even rules in which meatwas not or fat during times of food shortage."26 specified varied with respect to the interpretiveleeway provided. One sixth-centuryrule prohibitedno specific foods fromthe diet of its monks, explicitly leaving such matters entirely to the discretion of the prior, while the betterknown Ruleof Columbanus(d.615) permittedonly vegetables, lentil porridge, flour, and a small portion of bread ("lest the stomach be weighted down, and the mind stiffled")-thus relegating meat, by omission, to the categoryof the forbidden,to everyone,well or sick, at all times.27 It was the Ruleof Benedict, written in the mid-sixth century, that came to predominatein the West. Chapters36 and 39 pertainto the conto monks in sumption of meat, forbidding the flesh of "quadrupeds" good health but conceding it to weak or ill members, though not in the refectorybut in the infirmary(RB[SC 182:570-572, 576-578]). This terminology,alreadyencounteredabove, is worth noting more closely,both because the division it recognizescorrespondsso closely to modern distinctions between "red"and "white"meat and because a good deal of both the letterand the spirit subsequent attentionwent into interpreting of the Benedictinestipulation.Even among communitieswishing to base themselvesdirectlyon the Benedictinemodel therewas considerabledisagreementas to what, precisely,constitutedmeat-that is to say,whether "birds" and, if not, whether might be construed a sub-categoryof "flesh" disciplinaryattention should focus on the generic category of carnesor Wide or narrow the more limited, but clearly specified, quadrupedes.28 each could results. yield readings opposite practical Some interpretersof the Rule,like RhabanusMaurus,the mid-ninthcentury abbot of the monastery at Fulda who tried to consolidate and unify monastic theory and practice for his contemporaries,understood the flesh of quadrupeds and fowl (bipedesor volatilia) to be equally species of meat (carnes). He warned against the dangers of delectable fowl in terms recallingJerome'sadvice to Salvinabut interpretedBenedict'sregulationnarrowly, arguingthat the flesh of birds was unspecified The opposite conclusion (because two-footed) and hence permitted.29 was reached by the eighth- and ninth-centurycommentatorsWarnefrid
22 (firstversion), 8 (second version) (PL89:1109, 1102). canonicorum 26Regula coenobialis 3 (PL 80:210-211). 27 Regula as well as many of the 28Afull discussion of this distinctionand its hermeneuticalramifications, literalis in regulam s. p. Benedicti early ascetic rationales,is undertakenby E. Marttne, Commentarius (PL 66:633-642). For extended discussions of attitudestoward fowl in medieval morales,historicus regimes of fasting and abstinence, see Semmler (for the ninth century) and Garrigues(for the twelfth). 2.27 (PL 107:339). institutione 29Declericorum

Bazell: Strife among the Table-Fellows

83

and Hildemar,who, while distinguishingbetween two- and four-footed creatures, felt, as did Jerome, that birds should be avoided precisely because they were so delicate and tasty (Warnefrid:342;Hildemar: 441-442; Schroll:174-177). Hildegardof Bingen, three centuries later, envisioned carnesas a categoryencompassingboth quadrupedsand fowl, and allowed both to the sick. VeeringfromJerome'sline of reasoning, however, she permitted birds to the community at large, not only because, as Rhabanusreasoned, they were never specified by Benedict flavor but also because, unlike Warnefrid, Hildegardfound the "delicate" and potency of fowl comparativelyinnocuous-that is, less likely to incite passion in the consumer than the flesh of quadrupeds.30 Later monastic rules, such as that drawnup in the mid-twelfthcenturyby the with equal latitude Grandmontineorder,interpretedthe notion of "flesh" but requiredof theirmemberspermanentabstinencefromboth meat and birds.31 The opposite understandingof carnescould yield equally divergent of Ariesregardedcarnesas results. As seen above, Aurelianand Caesarius an altogether different substance from "chicken"(pulles) and other "birds" (volatilia),and generallypermittedthe latterwhere they forbade the former(though Caesarius's earlierrule for nuns took a differentturn, prohibiting both to the healthy and grantingboth to the sick). But evidence exists that meat and fowl could also be viewed as differentsubstances though equallyforbidden,as in the accountof an eighth-century saint who was describedas havingeaten neithermeat nor birdshis entire life.32 Monastic regulationrelaxed considerablythroughoutthe ninth and tenth centuriesas Benedictinemonasteriesproliferated, and where Benedict had exempted the "ill"and the "weak" fromthe requirementof perpetual abstinence from meat, subsequent commentatorsincluded both children and the elderly in this loophole. In addition, assorted institutional modifications developed and are recordedin the customariesof individual monastic houses in Englandduring the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The "abbot's table,"identified in Benedict'sRuleas the place where the abbot hosted guests of the monastery for meals (ch. 56), became reenvisioned at Abingdon and Buryto the point where selected monks could join the abbot and his special guests to eat dishes containing meat. At St. Alban'sa special room was set aside, near the refectory but not in the infirmary,where the not-quite-sick-but-not-quite-well
S. Benedicti (PL 197:1059-1060). regulae 30Explanatio Sancti 57 (PL 204:1159A). Regula Stephani 31 ed. by Bollandists,Oct. 111:434). S. Pardulfi 3.8 (ActaSanctorum, 32Vita

84

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

certain could eat meat with impunity.And at Durhamand Peterborough course of were to ten times over the "recreation periods" scheduled-up the year-when monks could get together and eat meat dishes without 168-173). penalty (Bishop;Knowles;Dimier: The controversyinvolving the practicesof the monks of Cluny illustrates how dietary discipline provided the arena for both relaxed standards and reform efforts. The Cluniac reform began in the early tenth century as an innovative effort to guaranteeeach community independence from local authorities,lay and episcopal. Immenselypopularand successful, it grew in both recruitmentand endowment and eventually came to exemplify not only a comfortablebut even a sumptuous way of life, utterly counter to the example of the desert fathersand Benedictine discipline. Some of the most vivid criticism levelled againstthe Cluniac monks focused on their meal-time excesses. Even their own reputedly moderate prior,Peterthe Venerable,beratedhis sub-priorsfor the enormous range and quality of foods consumed in Cluniachouses and especially for theirmeat consumption."Onwhat basis,"he demanded,"canit be claimed that a healthymonk, eatingmeat with healthymen, not be in the wrong? Such behavior opposes the Rule and violates justice" (Ep. 161, 1:390). And among the several monastic reform efforts made during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, a number of new groups, including the better known Cisterciansand Carthusians,as well as the Camaldolese, and the the Premonstratensians, the Vallimbrosans, the Grandmontines, to close attention Carmelites, paid dietary rigor, specifically enjoining abstinence from meat (L6bbel;Bligny). Bernardof Clairvauxdefended the Cistercianway of life by decrying the richness and variety of dishes and the quantityof food consumed by the monks of his day "Oh,how far he we have come from those who lived as monks in the days of Antony!" he in denied he had the Cluniacs and lamented, mind, though clearly that he was singling them out.33And while the Carthusianswere not alone in maintaininga meatless diet, even in the case of illness (a standard of discipline obviously stricter than that stipulated by Benedict), they became renownedand took especialpridein themselves,specifically with regardto their adoption of "perpetual Moreover,the abstinence."34 Bonaventure devoted a chapter of his thirteenth-century theologian defence of the new mendicant (Franciscanand Dominican) orders to
3Apologia9 (PL 182:909-910). 34One twelfth-centurysatiristdescribed them as "homicidesof their sick"(Guiot), and the first West defendinga meatlessdiet was writtenin the earlyfourteenth full-lengthtreatisein the Christian for the Arnaldi opera century on their behalf (Bazell).My criticaledition of the latteris in preparation medicaomnia(Universityof Barcelona Press).

Bazell: Strifeamongthe Table-Fellows

85

their practiceof abstinencefrommeat, relyingheavily on Paulineletters, Jerome,and the desertfathers,and linking this disciplineto the virtuesof chastity,poverty,and obedience (Apol.mend.5:257-266).

Still, while reviewing the long-standing monastic and theological tradition in which abstinence from meat is understood and encouraged as an estimable discipline, we must also acknowledge the compelling amount of evidence indicatingthat, at least in some cases, the refusalto eat meat was met not merely with disapprovalbut, indeed, with severe And for this we should recall not the eschatologicallymotipenalty.35 vated ascesisinspiringearly Christiansand many of their contemporaries but the Pauline missiological strategyof table-fellowship.We have seen of all those that Paul consistentlystressedthe fundamental unimportance Christian comto threatened divide matters that newly-forming dietary While into factions. both of and munities, consisting non-Jews, Jews warning against giving the impression of participationin pagan sacrificial rites (through eating the meat of animals slaughteredfor that purpose) and urging Christians of various ethnic backgrounds to avoid offending each other by overtly eating what their fellows might reject, Paul maintained that there was nothing inherently significantin foods when confrontedby the question of whether genthemselves. Similarly, tile converts should be bound by the obligations observed by Jewish Christians,Paul stressednot the harmfulnessof Jewish law but its irrelevance to non-Jews.Jewish converts could and should fulfill the obligations by which they were by their circumcisionbound (Gal. 5:3; 1 Cor. 7:17-19), but gentile converts in Galatianeed not be circumcised, nor should gentile Christiansin Rome (or anywhereelse) worry about purity laws (Rom. 14). Thus, fromthe incipient formationand developmentof the Christian aboutits promovement,what becamemost distinctiveand idiosyncratic nouncements on food, from scripturalsources onward,was an adamant disavowal of food's intrinsic worth and a rejection of any fundamental And yet, paradoxically,and precisely significance to dietary mores.36 because of this adamantstance, food and diet did come to play a role in shaping Christianidentity.Forwhat served to unite these new Christians as "table-fellows" also distinguishedthem, in turn, fromothersnot seated
as a single, world"This is the sole equation made by Spencer,who writes of "vegetarianism" wide phenomenon promptinga "comprehensive history." '6For disputes regardingdietarylaws and allegorizingtendenciesamongJews and pagansas well as Christians,see Grant.

86

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

at those very tables, so to speak. As Christianssaw themselves as "liberated"from the dietarypracticesand obligationsof their neighbors, they also came to see themselves as non-Jews.And in relation to the laws of came to see themselves as a peopleunencumkashrait especially, Christians kind. frommeat beredby dietaryrestrictions abstinence Furthermore, of any in particularbecame linked by theologianswith dualist groups competing with Christiansfor followers.So that, as we have seen above, while a wide arrayof ascetic discipline-celibacy, vigils, refusalto bathe, as well as fasting,eating less than one'sfill, and abstainingfrommeat and winecould be commended as appropriatetraining of body and soul, still, exhortationsand regulationsto fast and abstainwere often accompanied by cautionaryadmonitionsregardingthe propermotivation-not to fear or disdain any food but simply to abstain for the practicalpurpose of trainingone'sbody. And so it was that Augustinecould, on the one hand, like Paul, treat to dietaryhabitsand mode of dressas mattersof merecustom, "irrelevant the Heavenly City," when addressingthose who took inordinatepride in their ascetic prowess, and yet, on the other, recognize the function of such behavioral featuresas "ethnicdiacritica," or, as Augustine termed which of a community members them, signacula-"little signs"--by to He defended the indicate their mutual affiliation one another. might in was his time understood obligations enjoined (what by Christians by the Old Testament as their no in as) appropriate day,though longer relethat: vant, explaining whether trueor false,unlesstheyaredrawn by somefellowship together of signsorvisiblesacraments. Theforceof thesesacraments is indescribablypotent... .3 Now, while such "visiblesigns"can serve as identifying markersfor mutual members of a group, they can also outline boundaries for the could also benefit of outside observersas well. These behavioralsignacula indicate, by signicativeimplication,metaphysicalpositions held by those with whom one is perhapsnot entirelyfamiliar--beliefs"trueor false"that would otherwise not be immediatelyapparent.And so, while in his in argumentagainstFaustusthe ManicheeAugustinearticulated signacula of group members,in his treatise"On terms of the subjective presentation in contrast,he utilized the Manichees'catethe Ways of the Manichees," for the (unintended) indication, gorical refusalto eat meat as an objective
in 19.11 (CSEL25:510). For discussionsof such "ethnicmarkers" Faustum Manichaeum 7 Contra modem contexts, see Salomoneand Swanson (172) an d Brass(199).

People cannot be brought together .

..

by anything termed a religion,

theTable-Fellows Bazell: Strife among

87

convenience of outsiders, of the heterodoxy of Manichaeanbeliefs and evidence of the speciousnessof theirreasoning,takingthe opportunityto examine the various doctrines that would necessitatethis refusal to eat meat or even to kill animals (such as belief in the inherent evil of fleshly life, belief that pieces of God lie entrappedin vegetationand awaitrelease through being eaten, and belief in the transmigrationof souls) (DMM 2.14-17 [PL32:1358-1361]). And Augustine's notion of such "signalling" behavior subsequentlyfiguredas a memorableprecedentamong medieval Christians,for whom abstinence from meat came to be regardedas a feature of the foreign in their encounters with the various new communities croppingup throughoutWesternEurope. Now it is quite true that verbalcharacterization is an active endeavor, and it may be arguedthat no descriptionis entirelyinnocent of diagnostic inference. All characterizationsreflect the preoccupations of those and the mind of any medievalwriterversed in doing the characterizing, with echoes trained alone a (let Scripture theologian)would reverberate of New Testamentpassages and a traditionof their theological exegesis that underlined freedom from permanentdietary prohibitionsas a distinguishing featureof Christians-a featurecontinually interpreted(by Christians)as reflectingboth a non-dualist ontology, on the one hand, and what they perceived as a "non-legalistic" form of piety,on the other. And this trainingwould qualifywhat such a writerwould select as significant to note when composing his ethnographicaccounts of strangersindeed what he would, in fact, notice. Still, inquisitive observations need not automaticallybe tagged as inquisitorial:descriptionsof strangerson the partof Christianswere not limited to those preoccupiedwith heresy,as late medievaltravelaccounts attest. Adventurers-missionary and otherwise--were quick to describe what was to them the bizarredietary,clothing, and social habits of the And a survey of some of the descriptions foreignersthey encountered.38
missionaries See, for example, the first-handdescriptionsof the Mongolsby Franciscan John of Plano Carpini and William of Rubrick(Dawson:14-17, 97- 98, 100-101). And when MarcoPolo what caughthis eye was theirnakedness,their practiceof sleeping encountered the Jains of Gujarat, on the ground and rubbingthemselveswith cow-dung, their refusalto kill any living creature(plant or animal),the sexual temptationswith which they tested their temple novices, and the factthat they crematedtheir dead. He attributed their longevityto an abstemiousand meatlessdiet (279-281). The involvin the thirteenth-century, following providesan amusingaccountof "participant-observation" ing the convoluted predicamentof a Catholiccleric findinghimself amongsta group of questionable within CatholicEurope,he attemptedto legitimacyin northernItaly.An outsideramong "outsiders" masqueradehis identity by eating their food. In a letter to his archbishop,Yvo of Narbonne wrote that he had found himself among a community of Patarinesin Cremona and "drank... [their] wines, eating their meat-pasties,and other enticing items, deceiving the deceivers, and declaring myself a Patarine,but with God as my witness, in faith,if not in the perfectionof work, remaininga Christian" (Paris,an. 1243, vol. 4:271-272).
S

88

Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion

of these new groups on the part of Catholic Christianinvestigatorsalso reveals some variety,if not in negative connotation at least in practical outcome, of the implicationsof the refusalto consume meat. Some writers, describing the living habits of those communities under question, though not necessarilyofficiallydesignatedas heretics, included a refusal to eat meat, without explanation, among a general account of their customs. One eleventh-century Milanese writer, Landolf, describing a group of suspected heretics in Monteforte outside Turin, reported an interview of the group spokesman conducted by a visiting Catholic bishop. Landolfpresented the testimony of the informant as direct, and the latter described himself and his fellows as, among other things, prizing virginity (even among the married), perpetually abstaining from meat, fasting continuously, holding all property in common, and reading from both Old and New Testamentsdaily (Hist. 2.27).39 Interestingly enough, such behavior, observed among other groups as well, often struck Christianinterrogatorsas similar to that found in the more rigorous and observant monastic orders, and the inevitable conclusion drawn was that such piety on the part of those for whom it was not a recognizedmonastic requirementmust be
fraudulent.40

Anothereleventh-centurychronicler, Anselm of Liege,drew the connection between dietarybehaviorand erroneousscripturalexegesis. He as eschewdepicted a group of unnamed hereticsin Chalons-sur-Marne the of because all believed ing they takingof any aniconsumption meat, mal life to be wrong and based this on the sixth commandment(Exod. 20:13). The tolerantlocal bishop was then shown to explain the inconsistency of this position with these heretics'willingnessto eat grain,vegetables, and fruitof the vine, all of which come fromseeds and have "their own kind of life"(Gesta2.62). Other reportsaccounted for the practiceof abstinenceon the part of suspect communities as aversion to the "products of coition." And whether these testimonieswere directobservationsof ecclesiastical invesor of their own of the statements members made tigators, reports by in or the of confessions former of such commembers groups question, munities, ranging from Milan to the BritishIsles, it was precisely on the
criticalanthologiesof inquisitorialmaterials where some, but not all, of the authorssur39Useful veyed below may be found include that of Wakefieldand Evans and that of Peters. Many of these and Thouzellier. inquisitorsand their subjectsare discussed in Moore,Russell,Borst,Lambert, of before referred a to Chabannes, Landolf, writing shortly group somewhere in SAdhemar and described them as "den[ying]baptism and the cross and whatever is Aquitaine as "Manichees" sound doctrine. Abstaining from foods, they seemed like monks and feigned chastity,but among themselves they engaged in every excess"(Chron. 3.49:173).

Bazell: Strifeamongthe Table-Fellows

89

that they were contrastedwith, basis of this way of living (conversatio) and opposed by, orthodox Christians.41 In other twelfth-centurysources the refusal to consume meat came to be highlighted, not simply as one behavioral aberration(even one merely indicative of metaphysical error) among an array of others. Rather,abstinence from meat shifted to the foregroundin inquisitorial writings, conspicuously featuredon a par with doctrinalstances overtly hostile to Catholic ecclesiasticalauthority.Ralph the Ardent, for example, preached against a group in southern France whom he labelled Unlike the attitudes of irritatedconfusion seen in earlier "Manichees." encounterswith groups whose outwarddiscipline seemed to mimic that of pious monks, these people were obviously to be distinguished from CatholicChristians-and by some interestingcriteria: they refusedto lie, to take oaths, and to eat meat; they also condemned marriage,rejected the sacraments,denied the resurrectionof the body and the validity of the Old Testament,and postulatedthe existence of two Gods.42 on the CatholicFaith againstthe Heretics of Alain of Lille's"Treatise His Time"was directedagainstfour groups-Cathars (simply referredto as "Heretics"), Waldensians,Jews, and Saracens.And here the refusalto eat meat, alone among distinctivebehaviors, was treatedin association with the refusal to accept the physicalityof Christ,the rejection of various sacraments,and a denigrationof the priesthood.Alain characterized the various arguments offered by the "heretics"for their behavior as based on faulty scripturalexegesis and offeredhis corrective:the world and all flesh within is not corrupt and unclean simply because God cursed the earth in Genesis 3:17 (rather,one must distinguish between the inherent nature of a substance and its possible harmful effects); Christ'snever being portrayedas eating meat does not imply that doing so is evil (afterall, there are plenty of other activitieshe is not portrayed
4 I offer here but a few examples: Bonacursus,a Catholic convert from a group of Milanese Cathars,described the beliefs and behaviorof his formerco-religionistsin a confession dating from the last quarterof the twelfth century.Afterdrawingattention to their disdain for patristicauthorities, Bonacursussummarizedtheir dietaryphilosophy:"Ifa person eats meat, or eggs, or cheese, or in a letter to anything of an animal nature, he eats damnationfor himself' (PL 204:777). Similarly, Bernard of Clairvaux, the Premonstratensianprior Eberwin of Steinfeld described heretics in Cologne who claimed to be the only authentic followers of Christ and themselves of apostolic is begotten of coition," and it was in "this descent. They refused all dairy products and "whatever manner of living," he explained, that they opposed Catholic Christiansin good standing (Ad S. Bernardi epistolas,Ep. 472 [wronglymarked482] (PL 182:678). And Ralph,an abbot of the Cisterwho cian monastery at Coggeshallin Essex, describinga group in Reims referredto as "Publicans" were suspected of witchcraft,wrote in terms much like those above: "Theycondemn marriage,and they preachvirginityas a cover for their disgrace.They shrink frommilk and anythingmade fromit, and all food which is producedby sexual generation" (Paris,Chron. maj., 124). 42 Homilia 19 (PL 155:2010-2011). Lambert observes the similarityof the Cathardiet to that of the modem vegan, with the exception of fish (107).

90

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

doing, and one could not infer fromthat thatthey areevil); and saints are depicted as abstainingfrom meat not because it is evil but because they wish to avoid any lust it may provoke.43 Writinga treatiseagainst the ItalianCatharsand Waldensiansin the mid-thirteenth-century,the Dominican inquisitor Moneta of Cremona establisheda distinctionbetween "theHeretics" on this and "theChurch" unambiguous basis: heretics forbidcertainfoods, but Christianswill eat anything! He devoted an entire chapter to the matter of dietary restriction, enumeratingthe reasonsthat "theheretics" gave for rejectingcertain foods (e.g., an appeal to scriptural passages forbidding or discouraging the consumption of specific items, an aversion to the products of coition, the desire to remain faithful to vows alreadytaken, the traditional support the Churchhad given to the practiceof abstinenceamong its more rigorousmonastic orders,and, finally,the fact that when Christ chose to provide food, he did not offer meat). Then he demonstrated forbidden why none of these reasonsimplies that any food is intrinsically to "the Church." Moneta stands out among medieval writers by the degree to which he drew comparisonsbetween CatharsandJews on the basis of the observanceon the partof both of dietaryregulations.Noting that some hereticsjustified their food prohibitionsby appealingto Peter's hesitation (in Acts 10) to consume the animals appearingin his trance, Monetaaccused these groups of "Judaizing." Peterhimself he characterin ized as a "Judaizing" missionary("Cephas" Gal. 2:11-14), criticizedby Paul for observingand promotingJewishdietaryrestrictions among Gentile converts, and Moneta considered the heretics as equally reprehensible. And in this manner he directly linked these medieval efforts to extirpateheresywith those debateswaged centuriesbeforethat had been designed to distinguish early Christians from other religious groups

(2.5).

But the writerwho most directlyand self-consciouslydrew a parallel between the medieval and early Christianattempts to outline demarcations between themselvesand outsiderson the basis of theireatinghabits was another Dominican inquisitor, BernardGui, writing approximately three-quartersof a century after Moneta.And Bernardexplicitly treated the category of meat-abstinenceas not simply a behavioraltrait to be observed among, or even merelyto be associatedwith, those unlikely to be Christian but as a veritable criterion for their identification. In his handbook for inquisitors,the "Guidefor Investigating HereticalDepravof time for those several how-to manuals this devised (one ity" handy by in the field who were trying to detect, in orderto eliminate,heresy), Gui
catholica contra haereticos suitemporis 1.74-76(PL210:305-430). 43Defide

Bazell: Strifeamongthe Table-Fellows

91

dealt with an array of what he deemed to be the key trouble-making Waldensians, groups of his day,includingCathars, Beguines,andJews. In the section on the Beguineshe cited the passagereferredto above from Augustine'sReply to Faustus:"Peoplecannot be broughttogether ... by anything termed a religion, whether true or false, unless they are drawn "Andtheretogether by some fellowship of signs or visible sacraments." fore," Gui continued, "the Beguines have and observe certain kinds of overt behavior,in speech as well as in other actions, bywhichtheymaybe distinguished from others(5.4.4) [emphasismine]. It is especially noteworthy that whereas Augustine, in his treatise with respect to their subagainst Faustus, had defended these signacula mechanismsby which membersof a jective function as group-solidifying group might present themselvesto one another(if not to outsiders), Gui took these "littlesigns"specificallyas devices by which outside observers might distinguish and detect such suspect affiliation-i.e., he used these Meat abstinence did signs as an objective means of detecting "Others." not figure among the distinguishing featuresof Beguines, but Bernard did present it as one of several signa, visible signs, of the so-called "Manichees,"as Cathars had come to be understood. These people, accordingto Gui, nevereat, nor even touch meat,cheeseor eggs, or anything which is born out of fleshthrough the processof generation or coition.Also,on no conditionwill theykill anyanimalor bird,for theysayandbelieve that therearein beastsandevenbirdsthosespiritswhichrecedefrom humanbodies when they have not been receivedinto theirsect and orderthrough the layingon of hands,according to theirrite,andwhich (5.1.1) passfromonebodyto another. "Ifone refusesto eat meat, one is a heretic." Gui articulated the mechanisms of this principleof boundary-drawing more specificallythan anyone else had previously.But the practicalconsequencesof such thinking had reached mortal extremes nearly three centuries earlier. Not only could abstinence flag heresy,but meat-eatingitself could serve, if not to certify orthodoxy, at least minimally to identify those who were sufficiently within its bounds as to acquiesce to meat consumption. In other words, "Ifone is not a heretic,one does not refuseto eat meat":Christians may indeed be identified as those unlimited by food prohibitions of any kind. In an entry for the year 1052, one chroniclerrecountedthe following episode at the court of the reform-minded emperorHenryIII: TheEmperor wentto Goslar atChristmastime, witheveryone's conwhere, certain who (among erroneous otherdepraved sent,he ordered heretics,

92

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

of the Manichees) condemned the eating to be of animal-meat, teachings lest the heretical hangedfroma scaffold, serpentspreadits infectious woundsmorewidely.44 And a thirteenth-centuryhistorian, Stephen of Bourbon, outlining the beliefs and behavior of the Albigensian Cathars(with reference to Augustine'sdescriptionsof the Manichees),added the following tidbit: in the I haveheardthatCatholic in France soldiers examined theheretics in chickthe the Albigensian territory following way:theygave suspects ens or otheranimals to kill,andif theydidnot wishto do so, theydeterminedthemto be heretics, or followers of them.(301-302) Such testing,using such criteria,was not limited to border-lineChristians believed to be "drifting so to speak;it could be appliedto outward," converts purportedlyhaving moved in from the other direction. Documents dating as farback as the seventh centuryprovideevidence that the eating of pork as an indicationof orthodoxywas a well-known technique in dealing with Jewish converts-a test that their conversions had so to speak.45 "taken,"

Reconcilingthe use of forcedmeat-feedingfor the purpose of identifying heretics with the long-standing, and indeed contemporaneous, theological and monastic approbation of abstinence from meat as an appropriate discipline may appear,at firstglance, a tall order.Still, attention to the distinct contexts in which food has functioned to maintain Christianorderand identity allows us to observesome consistency,even in the face of such apparentlyopposing valuations. Renunciationof meat was assumedamong the most renowneddesert ascetics, and its practice provided, along with other disciplinary measures, a favorablestandard for comparison and critique among subsequent monastic orders;indeed, it was one of the featuresof severalorders that began as attemptsat reform.Still, those againstwhom these ascetics were being measured were, indeed, their fellow Christians-whether ones, for whom those in ordersprovided(in theory)objectsof "ordinary" admiration,or other monks themselves.
11 HerrimanAugiensis, Chronicon Germaniae (Monumenta 5.130; Moore:39; Historica, Scriptores Russell:42;Lambert:27). " Salo Baronrefersto an oath requiredof convertedJews by the Visigothicking (Recceswinth,in 654) that included promisesnot to follow various"Jewish rites,"such as Sabbathand paschalobservance, and circumcision (presumablyof one'schildren), and not to make any "distinctions" among of conformity," foods. Businessdealings under King Egica(687-702) requiredsome "demonstration such as recitingthe Lord's or eatingpork (Baron:41-43). DeborahRoothas tracedthe increasPrayer,

Bazell: Strifeamongthe Table-Fellows

93

When the arena of comparison included parties whose Christian identity was at best suspect, however (by those with the power to give such judgements force), the practiceof abstinencefrommeat took on the elements of "foreignness" that Christians,for whom food in principle held no intrinsic significance, deemed both theologically and socially pernicious. When Christiansin authorityfacedwhat they perceivedas a threat of infiltrationby outsiders, their self-conception as a people free from dietary restrictions predominated, and abstinence from meat in such contexts summoned to mind not the desert fathersbut Jews and Manichees. These opposing dynamics so clearly recall the categories of social structurethat MaryDouglas has termed "grid" that we canand "group" not help but refer to them here. The term "grid," as is familiarto most, she employs to indicate the internal organizationof a social body, in which placementwithin a hierarchyand definitionof roles and responsibilities provides the focal interest;the term "group," in contrast,she utilizes to draw attentionto the delineationof boundariesseparating a social from whatever lies outside illustrative it. cases, body Douglasseeks, using to determinea consistent correlationbetween the level of a society'spreoccupation with ritual purity and the relative rigidity or looseness of either or both of these frameworks of social structure,grid and group.46 A social symbolic analysis alone cannot account for the contrasting attitudestowardmeat-abstinence which we have observedon the part of Christians during the same periods and in the same regions: Jerome urged abstinence from meat and wine, while Augustine claimed that foods had no bearingon a Christian's heavenlycitizenship;Peterthe Venerablewondered how any healthymonk could justify eatingmeat, while his nearby contemporary,Alain of Lille, spent his efforts debunking nearby Catharsfor refusingto do just that; and suspected heretics were executed after failing to pass a "meat-eatingtest" while efforts were
ing connections drawn between Christian identity and "Spanishness" (espafiolidad), heresy and during the period of the Spanish Inquisition, observing that "culinarypreferences "Moorishness," were increasinglyutilized to indicate heresy in trialsand came to be see as 'proof'of crypto-Islam" revolt show that the use of forced pork(129). Of course, the events precipitatingthe Maccabbean feeding to enforceculturalconformityand assimilationwas not unique to Christians(2 Macc. 6:187:42). *Referringhere only to the examplepertinentto the materialreviewedabove, she finds that societies most likely to exhibit the greatestdegreeof purityregulationsare those whose outerboundaries among sharplydistinguishthem from other groupsbut who maintainlow-level social differentiation members (viii-ix, 107-124). She is by no means alone in drawing a correlationbetween dietary restrictionsand other social strictures,especiallyregulationsgoverningsexual relations(Goody:119, Dumont:141; Levi-Strauss: drawson and responds 145; Tambiah; 130, 104-105). And Feeley-Harnik of comto Douglas's"group-defining" understandingof dietaryregulationin her own interpretation munity formationand maintenanceamongJews and early Christians(passim,esp. 15, and 91-96).

94

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

underwayto reformmonasticlapses of dietarydiscipline(cf. Russell:209210). Still, Douglas'sconcepts of grid and group do draw illuminating attention to the highly conditional nature of Christianattitudes toward meat-abstinenceand, more broadly, shed light on the contextual,responsive, and even oppositionalnatureof religious(and ethnic) self-definition (De Vos; Barth: 13-14; Brass:237-238).For when abstinencewas viewed as a matterinvolving Christianparticipantsalone, and when its function seems to have been that of distinguishing exemplary Christians from ordinaryones-in other words, to use Douglas'sterms, when the framework of "grid"predominated-then abstinence from meat appears to have provided an acceptable standard of assessment and, indeed, a prominent element of monastic reform.On the other hand, when abstinence was observed among those of questionable Christianstatus, and when the problem at hand seems to have been that of distinguishing Christians from non-Christians, weeding heretics from the orthodoxthat is, when the frameworkof "group"boundary-drawingpredominated-then renunciation of meat itself provided the chief behavioral criterion for such exclusion. This esteemed ascetic discipline, when viewed against the backdrop of non-Christian dietary restriction,was transformedinto a dangeroussign of heresy

We have now seen the historical roots of such ambivalent views towardthe eating of meat. The Christianmovementwas forgedtogether, in part, by means of table-fellowshipamong diners of diversemores.It is no small paradoxthat the effortsexertedto convince these strangetablefellows that no mere dietary practiceshould divide them, in turn, provided a standard by which to identify and dismiss interlopers at the Christianbanquet.

theTable-Fellows Bazell: Strife among

95

ABBREVIATIONS
CCSL= Corpus SeriesLatina, and The Hague, 1953 ff. Turnhout Christianorum, CSEL= Corpus Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna, 1866 ff. Scriptorum monasticarum et canonicarum, ed. by LucasHoist and Hoist = Codexregularum M. Brockie. 6 vols. in 3. Graz: Akademische Druck-und Verlangsanstalt, 1967 [reprintof Vienna, 1759]. PG = Patrologia graeca,ed. by J. P.Migne, 162 vols., Paris, 1857-66. PL= Patrologia latina,ed. by J. P.Migne,221 vols., Paris, 1844-64. SC = Sources Chretiennes, Paris, 1944 ff.

REFERENCES
Adams, CarolJ. 1990 TheSexualPoliticsof Meat:A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York:Continuum.

of Chabannes Chronique. Ed. by Jules Chavanon. Paris: Alphonse Adhemar Chron. Picardet Fils, 1897. und Rindervon Vegetarismus Alsdorf,Ludwig Beitrdgezur Geschichte 1962 verehrung in Indien.Mainz: E Steiner. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Nr. 6, 1961: 549-625. Arbesmann,Rudolph "Fastingand Prophecyin Paganand ChristianAntiq1966 [1929] uity."Traditio 7:1-71. Baron,Salo A Socialand Religious Historyof theJews. 2nd ed., rev. 1957 and expanded.Vol. 3. New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press. andBoundaries: TheSocialOrganization Barth,Fredrik Ethnic Groups of 1969 Cultural Boston: Little Brown. Difference. Bazell,Dianne 1995 "De esu carnium:Amald of Villanova's defence of CarthusianAbstinence." Arxiude textoscatalansantics 14:227-248.

Bishop, Edmund "The Method and Degree of Fasting and Abstinence 1925 of the Black Monks in England before the Reformation." The Downside Review43 [misprintedXLV]/123: 184-237. Bligny,Bernard L'glise et les ordresreligieuxdans le royaumede Bour 1960 gogne aux XIe et XIIe sitcles. Grenoble: Imprimerie Allier.

96

Journalof the American Academy of Religion In Operaomnia.Ed. by AloyBonaventure, Apologiamendicatorum. mend. sius Lauer. Vol 8. 1898. Quarracchi, Apol. Borst,Arno 1953 Die Katharer. Hiersemann. Stuttgart:

de Spiritualite2: Bourguignon,P, "Combat Spirituel."In Dictionnaire and E Wenner 1125-1142. 1953 Brass,Paul 1976 3/3: "Ethnicityand Nationality Formation."Ethnicity 225-241.

toAsia. London:Sheed and Ward. Dawson, Christopher, TheMission ed. 1980 [1955] De Vos, George "EthnicPluralism:Conflict and Accommodation."In and Change.Ed. 1982 EthnicIdentity:CulturalContinuities De and Romanucci-Ross. Vos Lola by George Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress. Dimier,A. 1955 SacriOrdinis Cis"Observances Analecta monastiques." terciensis 11:149-198.

Amherst:Universityof Dombrowksi, ThePhilosophy of Vegetarianism. Daniel A. Massachusetts Press. 1984 New York:PantheonBooks. Douglas, Mary NaturalSymbols. 1982 [1970] TheCasteSystem andItsImplications. Dumont, Louis HomoHierarchicus: L. Dumont, 1980 Complete rev.ed. Trans.by M. Sainsbury, and B. Gulati.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. TheMeaning Table: Feeley-Harnick, TheLord's of Foodin EarlyJudaism Gillian and Christianity. Washingtonand London: Smithson1994 [1981] ian Institution. Fiddes, Nick 1991 Meat:A NaturalSymbol. New York:Routledge.

In StuGarrigues,Marie-Odile "Honorius Augustodunensis,De esuvolatilium." 1986 dia Monastica 28:75-130.

theTable-Fellows Bazell: Strife among Giehl, Dudley 1979 Goody,Jack 1982 Grant,RobertM. 1980

97

A Wayof Life.New York: Vegetarianism: Harper& Row. Cuisine and Class: A Studyin Comparative SociCooking, New York: UniversityPress. Cambridge ology. Jews and Chris"DietaryLaws among Pythagoreans, tians."Harvard Review 73/1-2:299-310. Theological

heretice Gui, Bernard Practica inquisitionis pravitatis.Ed. by Cdlestin Pract. Douais.Paris: 1886. AlphonsePicard,Librairie-tditeur, in derAntike.Berlin:A. T6pelmann. Haussleiter, Johannes Der Vegetarismus 1935 von Braga. KirchenHerwegen, Ildefons Das Paktumdes HI. Fruktuosus 1907 rechtliche Abhandlungen, Heft 40. Stuttgart:Ferdinand Enke. Hildemar Expositio Ed. by R. Mittelmoiller. In Vitaet regregulae. s. ula 3. 1880. Exp. reg. p. Benedicti, Regensburg, Knowles, David 1934 "The Diet of English Black Monks." The Downside Review 52/150:275-290.

Movements Lambert,Malcolm Medieval from the Gregorian Heresy: Popular 1992 Reform to theReformation. 2nd ed. Oxford:Blackwell. Landulf "Landulphi seniorisMediolanensishistoriaelibri quatHist. tuor." Ed. by A. Cutolo. In L. A. Muratori, Rerum italicum New ed. (Bologna,1900), Vol.4, pt. 2. scriptores. Claude Levi-Strauss, 1973 [1962} TheSavage Mind.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

der HeiligeBrunoaus L6bbel,Hermann Der Stifterdes Karthauser-Ordens 1899 Kiln. Vol. 5, pt. 1. Kirchengeschichtliche Studien.Ed. by and in Wien: Scralek. SchrOrs, Kn6pfler, MOinster HeinrichSch6ningh. Monetaof Cremona Adversus Catharos et Waldenses libriV. Rome, 1743. Ad. Cath.Wald. Moore,R. I. 1977 TheOrigins Dissent.New York:St. Martin's of European Press.

98

Journalof the American Academy of Religion Musurillo,Herbert "TheProblemof AsceticalFastingin the GreekPatris1956 tic Writers." Traditio 12:1-64. Paris,Matthew Chronica majora.Ed. by H. R. Luard,Rolls Series 57. Chron. maj. 7 vols. London: 1872-83). Eng. trans. by J. A. Giles, from the Year1235-1273. 3 vols. LonEnglishHistory don, 1852-54. Ed. by Giles ConPeterthe Venerable The Lettersof Peter the Venerable. 2 vols. MA: stable. Harvard University Ep. Cambridge, Press, 1967. Peters,Edward,ed. 1980 in MedievalEurope.Philadephia: Heresyand Authority of Press. University Pennsylvania

Trans.by R. E. Latham.New York:PenPolo, Marco The Travels. 1982 [1958] guin Books. Universityof CaliBerkeley: Regan,Tom TheCase for AnimalRights. 1983 forniaPress, 1983. Root, Deborah "Speaking Christian: Orthodoxy and Difference in 23:118-134. 1988 Sixteenth-Century Spain." Representations Rousselle,Aline 1974 "Abstinence et continence dans les monasteres de gaule meridionale a la fin de l'antiquite et au debut du moyen age. Etude d'un regime alimentaireet de sa fonction." In Hommage& AndreDupont (1897-1972), 239-254. Montpellier: FederationHistoiriquesde Longuedoc Mediterraneen.

in the EarlyMiddleAges. Berkeley: Russell,Jeffrey Dissentand Reform 1965 Universityof CaliforniaPress. Salamone,Frank,and CharlesSwanson 1979 "Identity and Ethnicity: Ethnic Groups and Interactions in a Multi-ethnicSociety."EthnicGroups2/2: 167-183.

in the WarnefridMonasticism as Reflected Schroll, M. Alfred,Sr. Benedictine Commentaries on theRule.New York:Colum1941 Hildemar bia UniversityPress. Segal,Alan E 1990 PaultheConvert: TheApostolate andApostasy of Saulthe Pharisee New Haven:YaleUniversityPress.

theTable-Fellows Bazell: Strife among Semmler,J. 1958

99

zu den benediktinischenConsuetudinesdes "'Volatilia' 9. Jahrhunderts." In Studienund Mitheilungen zur Geschichte desBenediktinerordens 69:163-176

A New Ethic ofAniSinger,Peter AnimalLiberation: for OurTreatment A New YorkReviewBook. 1975 mals New York: Spencer,Colin 1993 A Historyof Vegetarianism. London: TheHeretic's Feast: FourthEstate.

. .. tiresdu recueilineditd'Etienne Stephen of Bourbon Anecdotes historiques Hist. de Bourbon. Ed. by A. Lecoyde la Marche.Paris, 1877. Tambiah,Stanley "Animalsare Good to Think and Good to Prohibit." 1969 Ethnology 8:423-459. Temkin,Owsei 1973 Galenism:Rise and Decline of a Medical Philosophy. Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.

di Studi et Heretiques. Racolta Storiae Letteratura Thouzellier,Christine Heresie 1969 e Testi 116. Rome:Edizionidi Storiae Let- teratura. Tomson, PeterJ. Paul and theJewishLaw:Halakhain the Letersof the 1990 Apostleto theGentiles. FortressPress Minneapolis: Wakefield,Walter, Heresiesof the HighMiddleAges. New York:Columbia and Austin Evans UniversityPress. 1991 [1962] in sanctamregulam diaconiCassinensis Warnefrid,Paul PauliWarnefridi Comm Reg. commentarium. of 1880. Monte Cassino, Abbey Wimbush, Vincent 1987 Paul:TheWorldly Ascetic.Macon, GA:MercerUniversity Press.