Apart From Vomitoriums And Orgies...

[Primus Pilus]

(More of a geo poitical review and a background primer for the release of BBC's Rome than an archaeology story, but a good read nonetheless. - PP)

 

 

The best way to judge a modern recreation of ancient Rome - in film or fiction - is to apply the simple "dormouse test". How long is it before the characters adopt an uncomfortably horizontal position in front of tables, usually festooned with grapes, and one says to another: "Can I pass you a dormouse?"

 

The basic rule of thumb is this: the longer you have to wait before this tasty little morsel appears on the recreated banquet, the more subtle the reconstruction is likely to be. On these terms Rome, the new joint HBO-BBC series, does not do badly. It is not until at least 30 minutes into the first episode that anyone pops the dormouse question....

 

Full article at The Guardian

[Pertinax]

Not bad- a few light hearted rejoinders in no particular order:

They certainly did eat the dormouse with enthusiasm and gusto,if members insist I will post a couple of recipes so the Matron of the House can instruct the cooks as to latest fashions. On the other hand they were even keener on meat from animals killed in the ring (especially by other animals-believing the meat was "tenderised" by "electricity" from the teeth of a predator). Elephants trunk was much sought after ,it tasted lousy but it was craved because its cost was "like eating rare ivory".

The posture on the triclinium was also the posture in which the dead were buried and is aped in funerary monuments through the ages:peristalsis works even if you are upside down though sauces are a problem,sitting at a table was an Etruscan habit (if I recall properly) so the Romans were keen to emphasise they were different .Sitting around a table in a group and using both hands to eat was just gross barbarian stupidity.

In Gladiator, Ridley Scott was keen not to have his plotting senators "eating grapes" and made a passable attempt at a sidewalk cafe.

Vomitoriums:this is tricky -many seemed to enjoy gluttony,what better way to display conspicuos consumption in the midst of subsistence than by being fat? (non -ironic comment) For claims that foods were actually cooked in the residue of the vomitorium (as has been claimed) I have never seen any hint in literature over many years of study.

I cant recall any eating scenes in "Caligula" they were probably obscured by the next orgy,or beheading/stabbing but I believe that particular film proves my theory that any film wishing to be pilloried for inauthenticity must contain at least 3 major classicaly trained British actors in lead roles spouting mockshakespeare.

[Ursus]

Heh, I loved the commentary. Still waiting for "Rome" to come out on DVD.

[Onasander]

So, this Rome series, your saying it's good? I never seen it.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I find Mary Beard's op-ed to be mildly irritating. While it is true that Marcus Aemilius Scaurus issued a sumptuary law (115 bce) prohibiting the consumption of dormice, the practice quite obviously continued apace. Apicius has a recipe for them (no. 397) and the Cena Trimalchionis of the first century CE depicts the creatures being eaten roasted and covered with honey and poppy seeds.

 

I suppose one might argue that the recipe was given by Apicius to satisfy historical curiosity rather than contemporary tastes, and one could plead that the famous banquet scene was meant to depict consipicuous consumption. But those arguments are weak indeed. After all, why would Apicius include just one historical recipe, without giving any indication of the fact? And if we're to take the banquest scene with a grain of salt--why suspect only the dormouse detail? Why not all of it? It seems to me you can't have your dormouse and eat it too.

[P.Clodius]

I was disappointed they didn't have otters noses, badgers earlobes and wolfs nipple chips in the series!

[M. Porcius Cato]

I was disappointed they didn't have otters noses, badgers earlobes and wolfs nipple chips in the series!

 

Or larks' tongues, wrens' livers, chaffinch brains, jaguars' earlobes. If you can get 'em while they're hot, they're lovely.

[Andrew Dalby]

Vomitoriums:this is tricky -many seemed to enjoy gluttony,what better way to display conspicuos consumption in the midst of subsistence than by being fat? (non -ironic comment) For claims that foods were actually cooked in the residue of the vomitorium (as has been claimed) I have never seen any hint in literature over many years of study.

 

Anyone claiming this appears not to know that 'vomitorium' in Latin means 'exit' ... It's true that people sometimes vomit on the way out of taverns, but surely it happens more in modern Britain than in ancient Rome?

[Pertinax]

almost constantly in my personal experience of urban life in Britain!

I think the vomitorium thing is and always was, an anti-rome "ooh how decadent they are !" censurious religious attitude.

[Skarr]

almost constantly in my personal experience of urban life in Britain!

I think the vomitorium thing is and always was, an anti-rome "ooh how decadent they are !" censurious religious attitude.

 

I guess the main problem is association of the word with an action of sorts. In this case, Rome's buildings, especially the Colosseum, had a number of vomitoria, which were simply passages of ingress / egress within a stadium, so that you could go directly to your seat from above or below, depending on where you exited the vomitorium. People didn't vomit here, they just went to their seats.

 

On the other hand, vomiting was not considered a foul habit but was often done in a bathroom, after the guest excused himself. Of course, there were the wilder parties where people would seek the assistance of their slaves, not deigning to leave the couch, in case they missed something important that the Emperor said. By then, it had become a custom to attend parties accompanied by a number of slaves to attend to your personal needs - from grooming, to sanitary to other needs.

 

For one nobleman to meet another, there were a number of slaves who would bar your way unless you knew the master or mistress well and their staff knew it.

 

Where there is a lot of drink, power and women, there are bound to be excesses. Nero's lavish feasts and before him, Caligula's feasts, were decadent displays of power. I'm sure it was all about the power and the flaunting of women and other public displays were probably to show the common herd how 'godly' they were, by sporting openly for their pleasure in ostentatious displays that were meant to dazzle.

 

I think there were more suckers then and a good salesman could probably make a real buck. If you consider how many could actually read, the average salesman of today could easily be on par with the best of the Romans. However, he would still have a hard time in the field, as controlling the legions and ensuring that Rome's military might was felt throughout the world was something reserved only for the Romans. Generals like Pompey, Caesar and others were hard, merciless men who wouldn't have thought twice about killing people on the spot, if they believed they would benefit from it. Those hard decisions have no relevance in modern society and by comparison, our modern leaders, the best of them, would have regarded the real Caesar as an utter barbarian when it came to making decisions.

 

Someone, on another thread, asked us why we are fascinated with the Romans. I think the answer lies in the casual brutality they were capable of and at the same time, their sense of law, order and the way they developed their army, their administrative abilities and the sheer imagination they displayed in their various buildings and monuments, etc.. This contradictory mix that was part of their nature makes us admire them as well as be repelled by their insensibility to things we take it for granted. Like infanticide or slavery or some other forms of humiliation, as there were degrees of slavery too, each incredibly harsher from the other. Sometimes, I think the only difference is a degree of less horror in your daily life.

 

The most brutal horror film you've ever seen would be a picnic compared to the daily existence / life of some of the slaves and professions that were filled in by slaves or people of no mark. Day in and day out, people led a life of sheer torture by the minute and the only release was an equally painful death. By comparison, our worst criminal today lives in a five star hotel.