Bazell-Attitudes of Christians to Eating Meat (JAAR 66.1 [1997])

7/27/2019 Bazell-Attitudes of Christians to Eating Meat (JAAR 66.1 [1997])

1/27

Journal of the AmericanAcademyof ReligionLXV/1

S t r i f e a m o n g t h e Table-Fellows:Conflicting ttitudes o f E a r l ya n d Medieval Christianst o w a r d t h e E a t i n g o f M e a t 'Dianne M. Bazell

OF THEEXTENSIVECHOLARLYaswell aspopular) ttentionhathas been givento the symbolicmeaningsandexpressiveunctionsoffood, some has been directedspecificallyowardexamining ttitudestowardmeatasafoodsubstancend herationaleshataregiven, hrough-out theworld,both fortheconsumptionf meatandforabstinenceromit (Fiddes;Adams;Spencer;Dombrowski; egan;Giehl;Singer).2Manywriters remotivatedymodern thical oncernsegardinghe treatmentof animalsandthe use and distributionf natural esources, ndtheybase and shapetheir discussionsaccordingly,urningmorereadily oGreco-Romanhilosophersnd thereligiousraditionsfIndia, han otheformativeeriodsofChristianistory.Butthe use of food, and the consumptionof meatin particular, om-mandedextensiveattention n thepartof earlyand medievalChristiantheologians-monksandcanonists, agiographersnd nquisitors-andtheyoftenreflecta viewofthenaturalworldfar esssimplistichanthatwithwhichmodernwriters enerallyredit hem.Furthermore,hevaluegiven to the practiceof permanentabstinence frommeat consumptionDianne M. Bazell s AssistantProfessorofReligionatSyracuseUniversity,Syracuse,NY13244-1170.

I have presentedaspectsof this work in variousforms(andportions)at-theAmericanAcademyof Religionannualmeeting,the WesternMichiganUniversityConferenceon MedievalStudies,theAmericanAcademy n Rome,the Center or the Studyof WorldReligionsatHarvardUniversity, nd,most recently, he Centerfor MedievalandRenaissanceStudiesat SUNY-Binghamton.A number ofpeoplehave made substantiveandstylisticcontributions o this studyoverthe course of its develop-ment. Key among them areJohn E. Murdoch,PaulMeyvaert,and StanleyJ. Tambiah,n its earlierphases,andmorerecentlyJamesM.Powell,who hasgenerouslyenthis criticaleye andeditorialpento so much of my recentwork. As always,my husband LaurenceH. Kantremainsmy most steadfastcritical nterlocutor.2Older treatments of "vegetarianism"an anachronisticnineteenth-century coinage) includeHaussleiterand Alsdorf.

73


2/27

74 Journal of the AmericanAcademyof ReligionvariedconsiderablyamongChristianwriters n worksof the sameperiodandeven in some casesinwritingsby the same author.Not onlywastheredisagreement egarding ubstances o be classifiedasmeat,but thesignifi-cance of eatingmeat(or permanentlyrefraining romdoing so) appears,on examination, o have receivedwidelydivergent,andpositivelycontra-dictory, assessments over time. Such contradictoryviews regardingdietarydisciplinehave rootsin Christianoriginsand subsequentexpres-sions in specifichistoricalcontexts. Christianadviceregarding he prac-tice of fastingand abstinence,as well as condemnations of the refusaltoeat meatas an indicationof deviance fromorthodoxteaching,have eachbeen separatelystudied and documented. Still, these two contradictoryattitudestowardmeat-abstinencehave not been examinedtogether,withsome attemptto accountforthe presenceof eachin Christianhistory.

The gospels and the lettersof Paul andhis followersprovidedamplecitation material for later Christiansto employ,either to defend asceticdietaryrestraintor, conversely,to argue againstfocused preoccupationwith food. Theseconflicting messages,of course,maybe read as reflect-ing the divergentcontexts out of which theyemerged.The fastsundertakenand exhortedbyJohn the BaptistandJesus, asdescribedby gospel writers(e.g., Matt.4:2, 6:16-18, 9:14-15; cf. Luke4:2, 5:33-35; Mark2:18-20), maybe understood n the light of contem-poraryJewish practicesand eschatologicalexpectations.And Paul,shar-ing the expectation of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God,advised his correspondentsto preparethemselvesaccordinglyfor thecoming End by disengagementfrom the world'sentanglementsand bydisciplining their bodies, as well as their tempers,in a mannerthat hecomparedto one of athletesin training 1 Cor.9:25-27; Rom.13:11-14;see Wimbush:23-35).In addition to preparingthe newly-convertedfor the End as pro-claimed by Jesus, however, Paul, a Jewish member of this new move-ment, undertookthe additionalchallengeof proselytizing o non-Jewishpopulationsoutside of Palestine.And it is in the context of ethnic inter-action betweenJewishandgentileconverts,resulting romthis latteraim,that we find the scripturalpassagespertainingto food that so forcefullyshapedsubsequentattitudes,positiveand negative,on the partof Chris-tians toward the eatingof, or abstinencefrom,meat.3

3Thebibliographyon Paul'sinterpretation ndunderstandingofJewishlaw is vast,anddisagree-ment is rampant.For this discussion,with specificreference o the relevanceof dietarypurity,I amreferring o Segalandto Tomson.Itis in attending o the diverseethniccontextsof this initiallyJew-


3/27


4/27


5/27

Bazell:Strife mongheTable-Fellows 77109:224]). And many agreedthat,giventhe proximityof the stomachtothe genitals, the vice of lust followed thatof gluttony throughthe sheerpressureexertedby a distendedbelly.As Tertullian awit, "Thesequenceof vices parallels he arrangement f the bodilymembers."8 ut meatwasviewed medicallyas an especially powerful sexual stimulant,and thusabstinence from it in particularwas seen to dull sexualdesire.Humorally-basedGalenicmedicaltheoryenvisionedhealth as deter-mined by the balanceamong the fourelementalqualitiesof heat, cold,moisture,and dryness,which could in greatpartbe regulatedby appro-priatedietaryregimen(Temkin:39-40,85-86, 154-156). Thequalitiesofheat and moisture were understoodto be conducive to sexual potencyand fertility,as well as desire. As a substance believed to generatebothheat and moisture, meat was deemed especiallyuseful in combattingimpotenceand was seen as actuallyproductiveof blood and semen. Notsurprisingly, he diet of Christianmonks, with opposite aims, identifiedmeat, as well as wine and heated foods, as substances to avoid (Rous-selle). Evagriusof Pontussimply advised nuns not to eat meat or drinkwine, lest they become aroused and endangertheirprospectsfor salva-tion.9 Cassianrecommendedfood to his monks "whichmoderatestheheat of burninglust and avoidskindlingit,"going on to prescribebread,beans, herbs, and fruits. RecallingEzekiel's attribution of the fall ofSodom to its citizens'excessive intakeof bread,Cassianrhetoricallywon-dered what effects meat and wine might have, given the dire conse-quences of bread (Inst. 5.23, 5.6 [SC 109:230-232, 198-200]).1o AndJerome,counselling Romannoblewomenpracticingasceticregimensintheirhomes, appealed directlyto the authorityof Galenwhen he wrotethat foods which increase the body'sinnate heat, such as meat, wine,warm dishes, and beverages,though appropriate or the elderly,werepositivelydangerousforboth youths and adultmen andwomen, whosebodies "seethewith innateheat"(Ep.54.9 [CSEL 4:475-476]). Consoli-datingtheseelements of thoughtinto one pithyepigram,JeromeadvisedJovinianthat "[in]the eatingof meat,and the drinkingof wine, and thefullnessof stomach,is the seed-bed of lust.""'1Tailoringhis advice especiallyto the reproductiveprocessesof hisfemaleadvisees, however,and playingon the use of the Latincaro(pl.

8De ieiunio1 (CSEL20:274). Cf.Philo,who describes he parallelcourseof a filledstomach andthe cravingfor other pleasures(LegumAllegoria3.138, 145 [Loeb1:392-393, 398-3991). Jeromecites Tertullian'smaximin his lettertoAmandus,warning hat"excess s the mother of lust,andgen-ital excitement follows a bellydistendedwith food and flooded with draftsof wine"(Epistola=Ep.]55.2 [CSEL 4:4881);cf. Ep.22.8 [CSEL54:155].9Sententiae dvirginesPG 40:1283).'0Cf.Collocationes.22 (SC42:133-134)."AdversusJovinianum=Ad.Jov. 2.7 (PL 23:310).


6/27

78 Journalof the AmericanAcademy f Religioncarnes) to refer to both meat and corporeal flesh, along with the latter'stheological connotations, Jerome provided one of the most graphic anddirect correlations between the consumption of meat and the produc-tion, not merely of semen, but of new "flesh" n pregnancy. In a letter ofconsolation to the recently widowed Salvina, worth citing at some lengthhere, he urged her to avoid not only meat but also various forms of fowl:

[D]o not therefore think thatyou are not eatingmeat if you rejectthetastyflesh of hare andvenison, and otherfour-footedcreatures.Fortheyarenot judged according o the number of their feetbut according o thesweetnessof theirflavor.We know the sayingof the apostle:"Every rea-ture of God is good, and nothing is to be rejectedif it is receivedwiththanksgiving" 1 Tim.4:4). Buthe also says, "It s good neitherto drinkwine nor to eat meat"(Rom. 14:21), and in anotherplace, "Donot getdrunk with wine, forthat is debauchery" Eph.5:18). "Every reatureofGod is good" (1 Cor. 7:34)--let women who are eagerto please theirhusbands hear this. Let themeat meatwho serve theflesh, whoseseethingpassioneruptsnsex,whoare tiedtohusbands,ndwhosework sprocreationand children.Let those who arepregnantill theirwombsand bellieswithmeat. Ep.79.7 [CSEL4:95-96])12[Emphasis ine].One should not neglect to mention the more obvious connectionbetween "rich" oods andwealth,andthe ascetic renunciationof both. Ina homily on 1 Timothy4 contrastingChristianpracticeswith those ofvarious pagan or hereticalgroups,John Chrysostomofferedan under-lying explanation for the food prohibitions of the (implicitly no longeroperative)Mosaiccovenant:the removalof excessiveluxury-a rationalewhich, he explains, had it been openly statedat the time, would neverhave instilled the fear requisite to enforce compliance.'3And Jerome,

again consolidatingseveral of the lines of thought surveyedabove, ex-tolled with pridethe life of ascetic renunciation:Greats thesoul's ejoicing henyouarecontentwith ittle: ouhave heworldbeneath ourfeet,andyoucanexchange ll tspower, easts,andlusts,forthe sakeof whichrichesareaccumulated,orcheap ood,andcompensateforthem all with a roughtunic. Takeawaythe feastsand theexcess of lust, [and]no one will seek riches whose use is either in thebelly,or below the belly (Ad.Jov.2.11 [PL23:3141)

These and other early Christianfiguresand writingsserved as modelsand precedentsfor subsequentChristianmonastictheory and practice.12"Comedantcarnes,quaecarnilbus] erviunt,quarumferuor espumatncoitum,quae igaemaritisgenerationiac liberisdantoperam,quarumuteriportant etus, earumet intestina arnibusnpleantur"(italicized text)."3Homilia2.2 (PG62:561); cf. Novatian,De cibis udaicis, sp. 4-5 (CCSL4:96-99).


7/27

Bazell: Strife among the Table-Fellows 79The associationof meatwith the softness,sensuality,and luxurythatitsconsumption appearednot only to reflectbut also to promoterenderedits inclusion in a monastic diet especially nappropriate.Still, many of the same advocatesof ascetic discipline persistentlysounded a cautionary one regarding he underlyingmotivationfor fast-ing andabstinence,warningboth againstexcessivepridein asceticprow-ess and againstmisplacedabhorrenceof specificsubstances.As earlyasthe third century Clementof Alexandriacautionedthose who avoidedsacrificialmeats (or who singledout any foods, for thatmatter)to do sonot out of fear("for here is no powerin them")but as a discipline,"forby thoroughly mastering pleasure we prevent sexual desires."'4CyrilofJerusalem ecturedhis catechumens n the fourthcenturyon the "use-ful reasons foreatingand not eating,"explainingthat Christiansabstainfromwine and meat,"notabhoring hem as punishment,but in expecta-tion of reward."'5And Cyril's ontemporaryn the West,Augustine,dis-tinguished frequentlyand at length between the disciplinaryutility ofdietary restraint and the intrinsic unimportanceof foods themselves.Intent on contrastingmereearthlycustomwith practiceshavingeternalsignificance,he wrote that"Ahabit relatedto the mannerof eatingis noimpedimentto the religiousstate":

Nothingpertainingoclothing rlife-style dopted yeachpersonwhofollows he faith hat s thewayof Godhasanybearing n thisCityaslongas thesedonotconflictwithdivine nstructions. ence,whenevenphilosophersecomeChristians,heyarenotobligedoalter heirmodeof dressor theirdietary abits,whichoffernohindranceoreligion.Theonly change equireds intheir alse eachings.'6It was the way in which the food was used, and not the food itself, thatprovidedthe focusforAugustine's nalysis,and he apparently elighted nironically uxtaposingthe gluttonwho cravedandgorgedon plainfoodswith the temperateconsumerof finerthings.'7Indeed,it was removalofthe Christian'sappetiteoranyfood, not eliminationof specificimpuritiesfromthe diet, thatAugustinesaw as thegoalof dietarydiscipline.18

'4Paedagogus.8.4, 2.9.1 (SC 108:24-27).1Catechesis .27 (PG33:489-490).'6DecivitateDei [= DCD] 19.19 [CCSL48:686]). In Questionesvangeliorum.11 (CCSL44B:53-55) he characterizes he eating of food as merelya matterof conformityto local custom anddeems any concern for the natureof particularoods as completelyunwarranted."De moribusManichaeorum.13.30 (PL 32:1358); cf. De doctrinachristiana3.12.19 (CCSL32:89-90) where he contrastsEsau's atingof lentils with Christ's atingof fish:"For n all thingsofthis kind we are to be commendedor deprecated,not becauseof the natureof the thingswe use butbecause of the naturein usingthem and the way in which theyare desired."'8Confessiones0.31 (CCSL27:177-180).


8/27

80 Journal of the AmericanAcademyof ReligionSimilarly, ulian Pomerius,a fellow North AfricanfollowingAugus-tine by a generation,advocated"spiritualabstinence" hat condemnednot the use of certainfoods but excessivc desire for them. EchoingJe-rome'sadmonitionof Salvina,Julianwrote:Ifthosewhoabstainrom our-footedreaturesnjoypheasantsrothercostlybirdsorfish, t does not seemto me that heycurtail heirbodilypleasures;ather,heyalter hem.19So,while meatin particularwas understoodasespecially asty,acom-ponent of "thegood life" and a sexual stimulant,none of these associa-tionscould be limited to meat alone as a food-at least n theeyesof those

theologianswho made it their business to theorize at length on dietarydisciplineforChristians.Nor, indeed,could these associationsultimatelybe located (froma theological,as opposed to a medical,perspective)inmeat as a substance.Rather, ince the appetitecould be directedtowardanythingand pleasuretakenin anything,then abstinencefrom no singlefood substancealone, including meat, could guarantee he outcome ofovercomingone'sappetitesanddesires,norshouldany dietaryabstinencebe undertakenwith disdain directedtowarda particularood.The complexity of the prescribed conceptual relationshipbetweenthe abstinentChristianand the substanceforegone s reflected n two dis-tinctways in the followingtwo earlymonasticrules. In the sixth-century"Ruleof the Master"(especiallysignificantbecause t was on this rulethatmuch of Benedict'sRule,discussedbelow,wasbased),a puzzlingambiva-lence in connection with the holiday liftingof food restrictions s found.The abbot must informhis monks thatthe desire to eat the fleshof birdsand four-footed animals is good but that to abstain is even better.20Monkselectingto eat meatduringthe periodbetween Easterand Pente-cost, and between Christmasand Epiphany,will be seated togetherbutapartfromthe others,"lestthe purityof those who abstainbe sulliedbythe meat-eaters, houghthe latterbe well awareof how great he distanceis between those who are slaves to theirdesires and those who aremas-tersof theirbellies."Further complicating matters is the Christian understanding ofanimals as creations of God (a point conspicuously overlooked byrecent defenders of vegetariandiet). This is spelled out in a seventh-century monastic rule, whose fifth chapter clearly articulatesthe sig-

"De vitacontemplativa.23.1 (PL 59:469).20Thisprevalentdistinctionbetween "four-footed" nd "two-footed" nimalswill be discussedbelow. In the "Ruleof the Master,"owl arespecified to include both those that fly (volucres) ndthose which, though "feathered,"emain earth-bound(pinnae errenae)Regulummagistri53.26-33[SC 106:246-248]).


9/27

Bazell:Strifeamongthe Table-Fellows 81nificance that the consumption of meat had for early and medievalChristians, while at the same time displaying pragmaticrespect formonastic discipline:

No [monk]s permittedither o tasteorto consumemeat,notbecausewe deemanycreatureofGodunworthy,ut because abstinencefrom meatis thought o be usefulandappropriateormonks,maintained,ever-theless,with moderation ut of considerationorthe sick andthoseonlong journeys ... .21 [Emphasismine]These lines cameto be includedin Gratian'swelfth-century ompilationof ecclesiasticallegal rulings known as the Decretumand in this latterlegal formbecame one justificationforcriticizingone of the new absti-nent monasticordersof the HighMiddleAges,the Carthusians.22

Monasticregulationvariedby communityfor severalcenturies,anddietaryregulationreflecteda multiplicityof rules. One anonymousfifth-centuryIrish rule strictlyforbademonks'consumptionof meat and fishas well as cheese and butter(the latterrestriction iftedon Sundaysandholidays); while granting some leeway for the sick, the elderly, andmonkswho were travelling,meatspecificallywas categoricallyorbidden(Holst2.64). In a rule drawnup c.534 fora communityof nuns, Caesar-ius of Arlesforbademeat (carnes) o the entirecommunity,while allow-ing chicken(pulles) o the sick;his rule for malemonastics,written a fewyearslater,allowed neither meat nor chicken to the healthybut permit-ted both to the sick.23Caesarius'sontemporary, urelianofArles, imitedthe diets of both monks and nuns by forbiddingmeatconsumptionalto-getherbut allowingchickento be given to the sick.24The Ruleof Isidoreof Seville(d.636) allowed a smallamountof meat on holidaysto accom-pany the usual portion of vegetables,cautioning,in any case (in termsrecalling patristicrationales),againstsatiating he body,"fora full stom-ach quickly leads to carnal abandon."25 othversions of Chrodegang'seighth-centuryRuleforhis cathedralcommunityof canons at Metzper-mitted meat at one of their two dailymealsandallowedportionsof meat

2 Fructuosus,Regulummonachorum (PL88:1102).22De consecratione, ist.V,c. 32, in Corpusuriscanonici, d. byA. Friedberg Graz:AkademischeVerlagsanstalt, 959 [1879].23Reguladvirgines17;Regula d monachos 4 (PL67:1120, 1103).21Regula d monachos 1; Regula dvirgines 4-35 (PL68:393, 403). Theseventh-centurybishopDonatus'srule for nuns also prohibitedall meat to the healthy,while allowing the discretion andjudgementof the prioress n cases of severe llness (Regula dvirgines12 [Holst1:381])."2Regulamonachorum .4 (PL83:878-879).


10/27

82 Journal of the AmericanAcademyof Religionor fatduringtimesof food shortage."26ven rulesin which meat was notspecified varied with respect to the interpretive eeway provided. Onesixth-centuryruleprohibitedno specificfoods fromthe dietof its monks,explicitly leaving such matters entirely to the discretion of the prior,while the betterknownRuleof Columbanus d.615) permittedonly vege-tables, lentil porridge, flour, and a small portion of bread ("lest thestomach be weighted down, and the mind stiffled")-thus relegatingmeat,by omission, to the categoryof the forbidden, o everyone,well orsick, at all times.27It was the Ruleof Benedict,written in the mid-sixth century,thatcameto predominate n the West.Chapters36 and 39 pertain o the con-sumption of meat, forbiddingthe flesh of "quadrupeds"o monks ingood healthbut concedingit to weak or ill members,though not in therefectorybut in the infirmary RB[SC182:570-572, 576-578]). This ter-minology,alreadyencounteredabove,is worthnotingmoreclosely,bothbecause the divisionit recognizescorrespondsso closely to modern dis-tinctions between "red"and "white"meat and because a good deal ofsubsequentattentionwent into interpretingboth the letter and the spiritof the Benedictinestipulation.Evenamongcommunitieswishingto basethemselvesdirectlyon the Benedictinemodel therewas considerabledis-agreementas to what, precisely, onstitutedmeat-that is to say,whether"birds"mightbe construeda sub-categoryof "flesh" nd, if not, whetherdisciplinaryattention should focus on the generic categoryof carnesorthe more limited, but clearly specified, quadrupedes.28ide or narrowreadingseach could yield oppositepracticalresults.Some interpretersof the Rule, ike RhabanusMaurus, he mid-ninth-century abbot of the monasteryat Fulda who tried to consolidateandunify monastic theoryand practicefor his contemporaries,understoodthe flesh of quadrupeds and fowl (bipedesor volatilia)to be equallyspecies of meat (carnes).He warned againstthe dangersof delectablefowl in terms recallingJerome'sadvice to Salvinabut interpretedBene-dict'sregulationnarrowly, rguingthat the flesh of birds was unspecified(because two-footed) and hence permitted.29The opposite conclusionwas reachedby the eighth- and ninth-centurycommentatorsWarnefrid

26Regulaanonicorum2 (firstversion),8 (secondversion) (PL89:1109, 1102).27Regulaoenobialis (PL80:210-211).28A ull discussionof this distinctionand its hermeneutical amifications, swell as manyof theearlyasceticrationales, s undertakenby E. Marttne,Commentariusn regulam. p. Benedictiiteralismorales,historicusPL66:633-642). For extended discussions of attitudes towardfowl in medieval

regimes of fasting and abstinence, see Semmler (for the ninth century) and Garrigues(for thetwelfth).29De lericorumnstitutione.27 (PL107:339).


11/27

Bazell: Strife among the Table-Fellows 83and Hildemar,who, while distinguishingbetween two- and four-footedcreatures, felt, as did Jerome, that birds should be avoided preciselybecause 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's ine of reasoning,however, she permitted birds to the community at large, not onlybecause, as Rhabanusreasoned,they were never specifiedby Benedictbut alsobecause,unlikeWarnefrid,Hildegard oundthe "delicate"lavorand potency of fowl comparatively nnocuous-that is, less likely toincite passion in the consumer than the flesh of quadrupeds.30 Latermonasticrules,such as that drawnup in the mid-twelfthcentury by theGrandmontineorder, nterpreted he notion of "flesh"with equallatitudebut requiredof their memberspermanentabstinence rombothmeat andbirds.31The opposite understandingof carnescould yield equallydivergentresults.As seen above,Aurelianand Caesariusof Ariesregarded arnesasan altogether different substance from "chicken"(pulles) and other"birds"volatilia),and generallypermittedthe latterwhere they forbadethe former(thoughCaesarius's arlierrule for nuns took a different urn,prohibitingboth to the healthyand grantingboth to the sick). Butevi-dence exists that meat and fowl could also be viewed as differentsub-stancesthough equallyforbidden,as in the accountof an eighth-centurysaint who was describedas havingeatenneithermeat nor birdshis entirelife.32Monasticregulationrelaxedconsiderablythroughoutthe ninth andtenth centuries as Benedictinemonasteriesproliferated, ndwhereBene-dict had exemptedthe "ill"and the "weak" rom the requirementof per-petual abstinencefrommeat, subsequentcommentators ncluded bothchildren and the elderly in this loophole. In addition,assorted institu-tional modificationsdeveloped and are recordedin the customariesofindividualmonastic houses in England duringthe eleventhand twelfthcenturies. The "abbot'sable," dentifiedin Benedict'sRuleas the placewhere the abbot hosted guests of the monastery for meals (ch. 56),became reenvisioned at Abingdonand Buryto the point where selectedmonks couldjoin the abbot and his specialguests to eat dishes contain-ing meat. At St. Alban'sa specialroom was set aside, near the refectorybut not in the infirmary,where the not-quite-sick-but-not-quite-well

30Explanatioegulae . BenedictiPL197:1059-1060).31RegulaSanctiStephani 7 (PL 204:1159A).32Vita . Pardulfi .8 (ActaSanctorum,d. by Bollandists,Oct.111:434).


12/27

84 Journal of the AmericanAcademyof Religioncould eat meat with impunity.Andat Durhamand Peterborough ertain"recreation eriods"werescheduled-up to ten times over the course ofthe year-when monks could get togetherand eat meat dishes withoutpenalty (Bishop;Knowles;Dimier: 68-173).The controversy nvolvingthe practicesof the monks of Clunyillus-trates how dietary discipline providedthe arena for both relaxedstan-dards and reformefforts. The Cluniac reformbegan in the earlytenthcentury as an innovativeeffort to guaranteeeach communityindepen-dence from local authorities, ay and episcopal.Immensely popularandsuccessful, it grew in both recruitmentand endowment and eventuallycame to exemplifynot only a comfortablebut even a sumptuousway oflife, utterlycounter to the exampleof the desert fathersand Benedictinediscipline. Some of the most vivid criticism levelledagainstthe Cluniacmonks focused on their meal-time excesses. Even their own reputedlymoderateprior,Peter the Venerable,beratedhis sub-priorsforthe enor-mous rangeand qualityof foods consumedin Cluniachouses and espe-ciallyfortheirmeatconsumption."Onwhatbasis,"he demanded,"can tbe claimed that a healthymonk, eatingmeat with healthymen, not be inthe wrong?Such behavior opposes the Rule and violatesjustice" (Ep.161, 1:390).And among the several monastic reform efforts made during theeleventh and twelfth centuries,a number of new groups, including thebetter known Cisterciansand Carthusians,as well as the Camaldolese,the Premonstratensians,he Vallimbrosans,he Grandmontines, nd theCarmelites,paid close attention to dietaryrigor, specificallyenjoiningabstinence from meat (L6bbel;Bligny).Bernardof Clairvauxdefendedthe Cistercianway of life by decryingthe richnessand varietyof dishesand thequantityof food consumedby the monks of his day "Oh,how farwe have come from thosewho lived as monks in the daysof Antony!"helamented, and he clearlyhad the Cluniacsin mind, though he deniedthat he was singling them out.33And while the Carthusianswere notalone in maintaininga meatlessdiet, even in the case of illness (a stan-dard of discipline obviously stricter than that stipulatedby Benedict),theybecame renownedand tookespecialpridein themselves,specificallywith regardto theiradoptionof "perpetual bstinence."34Moreover, hethirteenth-century theologian Bonaventuredevoted a chapter of hisdefence of the new mendicant (Franciscanand Dominican) orders to

3Apologia9 (PL 182:909-910).34One twelfth-centurysatiristdescribed them as "homicidesof their sick"(Guiot),and the firstfull-length reatise n the ChristianWestdefendinga meatlessdietwas written n theearlyfourteenthcenturyon their behalf(Bazell).Mycriticaleditionof the latter s in preparationor the Arnaldioperamedicaomnia(Universityof BarcelonaPress).


13/27

Bazell:Strife amongthe Table-Fellows 85theirpracticeof abstinencefrommeat,relyingheavilyon Pauline etters,Jerome,and the desertfathers,andlinkingthisdisciplineto thevirtuesofchastity,poverty,and obedience(Apol.mend.5:257-266).

Still, while reviewing the long-standingmonastic and theologicaltraditionin which abstinencefrommeat is understoodand encouragedas an estimable discipline, we must also acknowledgethe compellingamountof evidence indicatingthat,at least in some cases, the refusaltoeat meat was met not merelywith disapprovalbut, indeed, with severepenalty.35And for this we should recall not the eschatologicallymoti-vated ascesis nspiring earlyChristiansand manyof theircontemporariesbut the Paulinemissiologicalstrategyof table-fellowship.We have seenthat Paulconsistentlystressedthe fundamentalunimportance f all thosedietarymatters that threatened o divide newly-formingChristiancom-munities, consisting of both Jews and non-Jews, into factions. Whilewarningagainstgiving the impressionof participation n pagansacrifi-cial rites (through eating the meat of animalsslaughteredfor that pur-pose) and urging Christiansof various ethnic backgroundsto avoidoffending each other by overtly eatingwhat their fellows might reject,Paul maintained that therewas nothing inherentlysignificantin foodsthemselves.Similarly,when confrontedby the questionof whethergen-tile converts should be bound by the obligationsobserved by JewishChristians,Paulstressed not the harmfulnessofJewishlaw but its irrele-vance to non-Jews.Jewish converts could and should fulfillthe obliga-tions by which they wereby theircircumcisionbound (Gal.5:3; 1 Cor.7:17-19), but gentile convertsin Galatianeed not be circumcised,norshould gentileChristiansn Rome(or anywhereelse)worryaboutpuritylaws (Rom. 14).Thus, fromthe incipientformationanddevelopmentof the Christianmovement,what became most distinctiveandidiosyncratic boutits pro-nouncements on food, fromscriptural ourcesonward,was an adamantdisavowal of food's intrinsic worth and a rejectionof any fundamentalsignificance to dietary mores.36And yet, paradoxically,and preciselybecause of this adamantstance, food and diet didcome to playa role inshapingChristiandentity.For what served to unite these new Christiansas "table-fellows"lsodistinguished hem,in turn,fromothersnot seated

"This is the sole equationmadeby Spencer,who writes of "vegetarianism"s a single, world-wide phenomenonpromptinga "comprehensive istory."'6Fordisputes regardingdietary aws andallegorizing endenciesamongJewsand pagansaswellas Christians, ee Grant.


14/27

86 Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religionat those very tables,so to speak.As Christians aw themselves as "liber-ated"fromthe dietarypracticesand obligationsof theirneighbors,theyalso came to see themselves as non-Jews.And in relationto the laws ofkashraitspecially,Christiansametosee themselves s a peopleunencum-beredbydietaryrestrictionsfanykind.Furthermore,bstinence rommeatin particularbecame linked by theologianswith dualistgroupscompet-ing with Christians or followers.So that,aswe have seen above,while awide arrayof asceticdiscipline-celibacy, vigils, refusalto bathe,as wellas fasting,eatingless thanone'sfill,andabstaining rommeat and wine-could be commended as appropriatetrainingof body and soul, still,exhortationsand regulations o fast andabstainwereoftenaccompaniedby cautionaryadmonitionsregardinghe propermotivation-not to fearor disdain any food but simply to abstainfor the practicalpurpose oftrainingone'sbody.And so it was thatAugustinecould, on the one hand, like Paul,treatdietaryhabitsandmode of dress asmattersof merecustom,"irrelevantothe Heavenly City,"when addressing hosewho took inordinateprideintheir ascetic prowess, and yet, on the other, recognizethe function ofsuch behavioral featuresas "ethnicdiacritica," r, as Augustinetermedthem, signacula-"little signs"--by which members of a communitymight indicate their mutual affiliation o one another.He defended theobligationsenjoinedin (whatwas by his time understoodby Christiansas) the Old Testamentas appropriaten theirday,thoughno longerrele-vant, explainingthat:

People cannot be brought together . .. by anythingtermeda religion,whether rueorfalse,unless heyaredrawnogether ysomefellowshipofsignsorvisible acraments.he orceofthese acramentss indescrib-ablypotent .. .3Now, while such "visiblesigns"can serve as identifyingmarkersformutual members of a group, they can also outline boundariesfor thebenefit of outside observersas well. These behavioralsignacula ould alsoindicate,by signicative mplication,metaphysicalpositionsheld by thosewith whom one is perhapsnot entirelyfamiliar--beliefs"trueor false"-thatwould otherwisenot be immediatelyapparent.And so, while in hisargumentagainstFaustusthe ManicheeAugustinearticulated ignaculanterms of the subjectiveresentationf groupmembers,in his treatise"Onthe Waysof the Manichees,"n contrast,he utilized the Manichees' ate-goricalrefusal to eat meatas an objectivendication,orthe (unintended)

7ContraFaustumManichaeum9.11 (CSEL25:510). For discussions of such "ethnicmarkers"nmodem contexts,see Salomoneand Swanson(172) an d Brass 199).


15/27

Bazell:Strife mongheTable-Fellows 87convenience of outsiders,of the heterodoxyof Manichaeanbeliefs andevidence of thespeciousnessof theirreasoning, akingthe opportunity oexamine the various doctrines that would necessitatethis refusalto eatmeat or even to kill animals(such as beliefin the inherent evil of fleshlylife, belief thatpiecesof Godlie entrapped n vegetationand awaitreleasethrough being eaten, and belief in the transmigrationof souls) (DMM2.14-17 [PL32:1358-1361]). AndAugustine's otionof such "signalling"behaviorsubsequentlyfiguredas a memorableprecedentamongmedie-val Christians,for whom abstinence frommeat came to be regardedasa featureof the foreignin their encounters with the various new com-munitiescropping up throughoutWesternEurope.Now it is quitetrue that verbalcharacterizations an activeendeavor,and it maybe arguedthat no description s entirely nnocentof diagnos-tic inference. All characterizations eflect the preoccupationsof thosedoing the characterizing,and the mind of anymedievalwriterversedinScripture let alone a trainedtheologian)would reverberatewith echoesof New Testamentpassagesand a traditionof their theologicalexegesisthat underlined freedomfrompermanentdietary prohibitionsas a dis-tinguishing featureof Christians-a featurecontinually interpreted(byChristians)as reflectingboth a non-dualistontology,on the one hand,and what they perceivedas a "non-legalistic"orm of piety,on the other.And this trainingwould qualifywhatsuch awriterwould selectassignifi-cant to note when composinghis ethnographicaccountsof strangers-indeed what he would, in fact,notice.Still, inquisitive observationsneed not automaticallybe tagged asinquisitorial:descriptionsof strangerson the partof Christianswerenotlimited to those preoccupiedwithheresy,as late medievaltravelaccountsattest.Adventurers-missionary and otherwise--were quickto describewhat was to them the bizarredietary,clothing, and social habits of theforeignersthey encountered.38And a surveyof some of the descriptions

S See, forexample,the first-handdescriptionsof theMongolsby Franciscanmissionaries ohnofPlano Carpiniand William of Rubrick(Dawson:14-17,97- 98, 100-101). And when MarcoPoloencountered theJainsof Gujarat,whatcaughthis eyewas theirnakedness,theirpracticeof sleepingon the groundand rubbingthemselveswith cow-dung,their refusal o kill any livingcreature plantor animal),the sexualtemptationswith which theytested theirtemplenovices,andthe factthattheycremated heirdead.He attributed heirlongevity o anabstemiousandmeatlessdiet (279-281). Thefollowing providesanamusingaccountof "participant-observation"n thethirteenth-century,nvolv-ing the convolutedpredicamentof a Catholicclericfindinghimselfamongsta groupof questionablelegitimacy n northernItaly.An outsideramong"outsiders" ithinCatholicEurope,he attempted omasqueradehis identityby eatingtheir food. In a letter to his archbishop,Yvo of Narbonne wrotethat he had found himself among a community of Patarines n Cremonaand "drank .. [their]wines, eating their meat-pasties,and other enticing items, deceivingthe deceivers,and declaringmyselfa Patarine,but with God as my witness,in faith, f not in the perfectionof work,remainingaChristian"Paris,an. 1243, vol. 4:271-272).


16/27

88 Journal of the AmericanAcademyof Religionof these new groups on the partof Catholic Christianinvestigatorsalsorevealssome variety, f not in negativeconnotation at least in practicaloutcome, of the implicationsof the refusal o consume meat.Some writers, describing the living habits of those communitiesunder question, though not necessarilyofficiallydesignatedas heretics,included a refusal to eat meat, without explanation,among a generalaccount of their customs. One eleventh-centuryMilanesewriter,Lan-dolf, describing a group of suspected heretics in MonteforteoutsideTurin,reportedan interview of the group spokesman conducted by avisiting Catholicbishop. Landolfpresentedthe testimonyof the infor-mant as direct, and the latter described himself and his fellows as,among other things, prizing virginity(even among the married),per-petually abstainingfrom meat, fastingcontinuously,holding all prop-erty in common, and readingfrom both Old and New Testamentsdaily(Hist. 2.27).39 Interestinglyenough, such behavior, observed amongother groups as well, often struck Christian nterrogatorsas similar tothat found in the more rigorousand observant monastic orders, andthe inevitable conclusion drawn was that such piety on the part ofthose for whom it was not a recognizedmonasticrequirementmust befraudulent.40Anothereleventh-centurychronicler,Anselmof Liege,drew thecon-nection between dietarybehavior and erroneousscripturalexegesis.Hedepicteda groupof unnamed heretics n Chalons-sur-Marnes eschew-ing the consumptionof meat,becausetheybelievedall takingof anyani-mal life to be wrong and based this on the sixth commandment(Exod.20:13). The tolerant ocal bishop was then shown to explainthe incon-sistencyof thispositionwith theseheretics'willingnessto eatgrain,vege-tables,and fruitof thevine, all ofwhich come fromseeds and have"theirown kind of life" Gesta2.62).Otherreportsaccountedforthe practiceof abstinenceon the partofsuspect communities as aversion to the "productsof coition." Andwhetherthese testimonieswere directobservationsof ecclesiastical nves-tigators,or their own reports of statementsmade by members of thegroupsin question, or the confessionsof formermembersof such com-munities, rangingfrom Milan to the BritishIsles, it was preciselyon the

39Usefulriticalanthologiesof inquisitorialmaterialswheresome,butnot all, of the authorssur-veyed below may be found include that of Wakefieldand Evansand thatof Peters.Manyof theseinquisitorsand theirsubjectsare discussedin Moore,Russell,Borst,Lambert, ndThouzellier.SAdhemarof Chabannes,writing shortly before Landolf,referredto a group somewhere inAquitaineas "Manichees"nd describedthem as "den[ying]baptismand the crossandwhatever issound doctrine.Abstainingfromfoods, they seemed like monks and feignedchastity,but amongthemselvesthey engagedin everyexcess" Chron. .49:173).


17/27

Bazell:Strifeamongthe Table-Fellows 89basis of this way of living (conversatio)hat they were contrastedwith,and opposed by,orthodoxChristians.41In other twelfth-centurysources the refusalto consume meat cameto be highlighted, not simply as one behavioralaberration(even onemerely indicative of metaphysical error) among an array of others.Rather,abstinence frommeat shifted to the foreground n inquisitorialwritings, conspicuously featuredon a parwith doctrinalstancesovertlyhostile to Catholicecclesiasticalauthority.Ralphthe Ardent,for exam-ple, preached against a group in southern Francewhom he labelled"Manichees."Unlike the attitudes of irritatedconfusion seen in earlierencounterswith groupswhose outwarddisciplineseemed to mimic thatof pious monks, these people were obviously to be distinguishedfromCatholicChristians-and by some interestingcriteria:heyrefusedto lie,to take oaths, and to eat meat;they also condemned marriage,rejectedthe sacraments,denied the resurrectionof the body and the validityofthe Old Testament,and postulatedthe existenceof two Gods.42Alainof Lille's"Treatisen the CatholicFaithagainstthe HereticsofHis Time"was directedagainstfourgroups-Cathars (simplyreferred oas "Heretics"),Waldensians,Jews, and Saracens.And here the refusaltoeat meat, alone among distinctivebehaviors,was treatedin associationwith the refusalto acceptthe physicalityof Christ,the rejectionof vari-ous sacraments,and a denigrationof the priesthood.Alaincharacterizedthe various argumentsofferedby the "heretics" or their behavior asbased on faultyscripturalexegesis and offered his corrective: he worldand all flesh within is not corrupt and unclean simply because Godcursed the earthin Genesis 3:17 (rather,one must distinguishbetweenthe inherent nature of a substance and its possible harmful effects);Christ'sneverbeing portrayedas eatingmeat does not imply thatdoingso is evil (afterall, there areplentyof other activitieshe is not portrayed

4 I offer here but a few examples:Bonacursus,a Catholicconvert from a group of MilaneseCathars,describedthe beliefsand behaviorof his formerco-religionists n a confessiondatingfromthe last quarterof the twelfthcentury.Afterdrawingattentionto their disdainforpatristicauthori-ties, Bonacursus ummarized heirdietaryphilosophy:"Ifa personeats meat,oreggs, orcheese, oranythingof an animalnature,he eats damnation for himself' (PL204:777). Similarly,n a letter toBernard of Clairvaux, the Premonstratensianprior Eberwin of Steinfeld described heretics inCologne who claimed to be the only authentic followers of Christ and themselves of apostolicdescent. They refused all dairy productsand "whatever s begottenof coition,"and it was in "thismanner of living,"he explained, that they opposed CatholicChristians n good standing (AdS.Bernardiepistolas,Ep. 472 [wronglymarked482] (PL182:678). And Ralph,an abbotof the Cister-cian monasteryat Coggeshall n Essex, describinga groupin Reims referred o as "Publicans" howere suspectedof witchcraft,wrotein terms much like those above:"They ondemnmarriage,andthey preachvirginityasa coverfor theirdisgrace.Theyshrinkfrom milkandanythingmade from t,and all food which is producedby sexualgeneration"Paris,Chron.maj.,124).42Homilia 19 (PL155:2010-2011). Lambertobservesthe similarityof the Cathardiet to thatofthe modem vegan,with the exceptionof fish(107).


18/27

90 Journal of the AmericanAcademyof Religiondoing, and one could not infer fromthatthattheyareevil);andsaintsaredepicted as abstainingfrommeatnot becauseit is evil but becausetheywish to avoidany lust it may provoke.43Writinga treatiseagainstthe ItalianCatharsand Waldensians n themid-thirteenth-century,he Dominican inquisitorMonetaof Cremonaestablisheda distinctionbetween "theHeretics" nd "theChurch" n thisunambiguousbasis: heretics forbidcertainfoods,but Christianswill eatanything!He devoted an entirechapterto the matterof dietaryrestric-tion, enumerating he reasonsthat "theheretics"gaveforrejecting ertainfoods (e.g., an appeal to scripturalpassages forbiddingor discourag-ing the consumption of specific items, an aversion to the products ofcoition, the desire to remain faithful to vows alreadytaken, the tradi-tionalsupportthe Churchhad givento the practiceof abstinenceamongits more rigorousmonasticorders,and, finally, he fact thatwhen Christchose to provide food, he did not offermeat). Then he demonstratedwhy none of these reasonsimpliesthatanyfood is intrinsicallyorbiddento "the Church." Moneta stands out among medieval writers by thedegreeto which he drewcomparisonsbetweenCatharsandJews on thebasis of the observanceon the partof both of dietaryregulations.Notingthat some heretics ustifiedtheir food prohibitionsby appealing o Peter'shesitation(in Acts 10) to consume the animalsappearing n his trance,Moneta accused these groupsof "Judaizing."eterhimself he character-ized as a "Judaizing" issionary "Cephas"n Gal.2:11-14), criticizedbyPaul forobservingand promotingJewishdietaryrestrictions mongGen-tile converts, and Moneta considered the heretics as equally reprehen-sible. And in this manner he directly linked these medieval efforts toextirpateheresywith those debateswagedcenturiesbeforethathadbeendesigned to distinguish early Christians from other religious groups(2.5).Butthe writerwho most directlyandself-consciouslydrewa parallelbetween the medievaland earlyChristianattemptsto outline demarca-tions between themselvesandoutsiderson the basisof theireatinghabitswas another Dominicaninquisitor,BernardGui, writing approximatelythree-quartersof a centuryafter Moneta.And Bernardexplicitlytreatedthe category of meat-abstinenceas not simply a behavioraltrait to beobservedamong, or even merelyto be associatedwith, those unlikelytobe Christian but as a veritable criterion for their identification.In hishandbookforinquisitors,the "Guide orInvestigatingHereticalDeprav-ity"(one of severalhandyhow-to manualsdevisedby this time for thosein the field who were tryingto detect,in orderto eliminate,heresy),Gui

43Defideatholicaontra aereticosui emporis.74-76 PL210:305-430).


19/27


20/27

92 Journal of the AmericanAcademyof Religionteachings ftheManichees)ondemnedheeatingofanimal-meat,o behanged roma scaffold,est thehereticalerpent preadts infectiouswoundsmorewidely.44And a thirteenth-centuryhistorian,Stephen of Bourbon,outliningthe beliefs and behaviorof the AlbigensianCathars(with referencetoAugustine'sdescriptionsof the Manichees),addedthe followingtidbit:Ihaveheard hatCatholicoldiersnFrance xaminedhehereticsntheAlbigensianerritoryn thefollowingway: heygave hesuspects hick-ens orotheranimals okill,and f theydidnotwishtodoso,theydeter-mined hem o beheretics, r followers fthem. 301-302)Suchtesting,usingsuch criteria,wasnot limited to border-lineChris-tiansbelieved to be "drifting utward,"o to speak; t could be appliedtoconvertspurportedly havingmoved in fromthe other direction. Docu-ments datingas farbackas theseventhcenturyprovideevidence that theeatingof porkas an indicationof orthodoxywasa well-knowntechniquein dealing with Jewish converts-a test that their conversions had"taken,"o to speak.45

Reconciling he use of forcedmeat-feeding or the purposeof identi-fying heretics with the long-standing, and indeed contemporaneous,theological and monastic approbationof abstinence from meat as anappropriatedisciplinemayappear,at firstglance,a tall order.Still,atten-tion to the distinct contexts in which food has functionedto maintainChristianorder and identityallows us to observesome consistency,evenin the faceof such apparentlyopposingvaluations.Renunciationof meat was assumedamongthe most renowneddesertascetics, and its practiceprovided, along with other disciplinarymea-sures, a favorablestandardfor comparisonand critique among subse-quentmonasticorders; ndeed,it was one of the featuresof severalordersthatbeganas attemptsat reform.Still,thoseagainstwhom theseasceticswere being measured were, indeed, their fellow Christians-whether"ordinary"nes, forwhom thosein ordersprovided in theory) objectsofadmiration,or othermonks themselves.11HerrimanAugiensis, ChroniconMonumentaGermaniaeHistorica, criptores .130; Moore:39;Russell:42;Lambert:27)." Salo Baronrefers o an oathrequiredof convertedJewsby theVisigothicking(Recceswinth,n654) thatincludedpromisesnot to follow various"Jewish ites," uch as Sabbathandpaschalobser-vance, and circumcision(presumablyof one'schildren),and not to makeany "distinctions"mongfoods. BusinessdealingsunderKing Egica(687-702) required ome "demonstrationf conformity,"such as recitingthe Lord'sPrayer, r eatingpork(Baron:41-43).DeborahRoothastraced he increas-


21/27

Bazell:Strifeamongthe Table-Fellows 93When the arena of comparison included parties whose Christianidentity was at best suspect, however(by those with the power to givesuchjudgementsforce),the practiceof abstinence rommeattook on theelements of "foreignness"hat Christians,for whom food in principleheld no intrinsic significance,deemed both theologicallyand sociallypernicious.When Christiansn authority aced what they perceivedas athreat of infiltrationby outsiders,theirself-conceptionas a people freefrom dietary restrictionspredominated,and abstinence from meat insuch contexts summoned to mind not the desert fathersbut Jews andManichees.These opposing dynamics so clearlyrecall the categoriesof socialstructurethatMaryDouglashas termed"grid" nd "group"hat we can-not help but referto them here. The term "grid," s is familiar o most,she employs to indicate the internal organizationof a social body, inwhich placementwithin a hierarchyand definitionof roles and responsi-bilities providesthe focalinterest; he term"group,"n contrast,she uti-lizes to drawattention o the delineationof boundaries eparating socialbody fromwhatever ies outsideit. Douglasseeks,usingillustrative ases,to determinea consistent correlationbetween the level of a society'spre-

occupation with ritual purity and the relativerigidityor looseness ofeither or both of these frameworks f socialstructure,gridand group.46A social symbolic analysisalone cannot account for the contrastingattitudes towardmeat-abstinencewhich we have observedon the partofChristiansduring the same periods and in the same regions:Jeromeurged abstinence from meat and wine, while Augustine claimed thatfoods had no bearingon a Christian'seavenlycitizenship;Peter he Ven-erablewonderedhow any healthymonk couldjustifyeatingmeat,whilehis nearby contemporary,Alain of Lille, spent his efforts debunkingnearbyCathars or refusingto do just that;and suspectedheretics wereexecuted after failing to pass a "meat-eating est"while efforts wereing connections drawn between Christianidentity and "Spanishness"espafiolidad), heresy and"Moorishness," uringthe period of the SpanishInquisition,observingthat "culinarypreferenceswere increasinglyutilized to indicateheresyin trials and cameto be see as 'proof'of crypto-Islam"(129). Of course, the events precipitating he Maccabbean evolt show thatthe use of forcedpork-feedingto enforceculturalconformityand assimilationwas not uniqueto Christians 2 Macc. 6:18-7:42).

*Referringhereonly to the examplepertinent o the material eviewedabove,she findsthat soci-etiesmost likelyto exhibit the greatestdegreeof purityregulationsare thosewhose outer boundariessharplydistinguishthem fromothergroupsbut who maintain ow-level social differentiation mongmembers (viii-ix, 107-124). She is by no means alone in drawinga correlationbetween dietaryrestrictionsand other socialstrictures,especiallyregulationsgoverningsexual relations Goody:119,145; Tambiah;Dumont:141;Levi-Strauss:30, 104-105).And Feeley-Harnik rawson andrespondsto Douglas's"group-defining"nderstandingof dietaryregulation n her own interpretation f com-munityformationand maintenanceamongJewsandearlyChristians(passim, sp. 15, and 91-96).


22/27

94 Journal of the AmericanAcademyof Religionunderwayto reformmonasticlapsesof dietarydiscipline(cf. Russell:209-210). Still, Douglas'sconcepts of grid and group do drawilluminatingattention to the highly conditional nature of Christianattitudes towardmeat-abstinenceand,morebroadly, hed lighton the contextual,respon-sive, and even oppositionalnatureof religious andethnic)self-definition(De Vos;Barth: 3-14; Brass:237-238).Forwhen abstinencewas viewedas a matterinvolvingChristianparticipantsalone,and when its functionseems to have been that of distinguishingexemplaryChristians fromordinaryones-in otherwords, to use Douglas'serms,when the frame-work of "grid"predominated-then abstinence from meat appearstohave provided an acceptable standard of assessment and, indeed, aprominentelement of monastic reform. On the otherhand,when absti-nence was observedamong those of questionableChristianstatus,andwhen the problem at hand seems to have been that of distinguishingChristiansfrom non-Christians,weeding heretics from the orthodox-that is, when the framework of "group"boundary-drawingpredomi-nated-then renunciationof meat itself provided the chief behavioralcriterion for such exclusion. This esteemed ascetic discipline, whenviewed against the backdrop of non-Christiandietaryrestriction,wastransformed nto a dangeroussign of heresy

We have now seen the historical roots of such ambivalentviewstoward the eatingof meat.The Christianmovementwas forgedtogether,in part,by means of table-fellowshipamongdinersof diversemores. t isno smallparadoxthat the effortsexerted to convincethesestrange able-fellows that no mere dietary practiceshould divide them, in turn, pro-vided a standardby which to identify and dismiss interlopersat theChristianbanquet.


23/27

Bazell:Strife mongheTable-Fellows 95ABBREVIATIONS

CCSL= CorpusChristianorum,eriesLatina,Turnhout nd TheHague,1953 ff.CSEL= Corpus criptorum cclesiasticorumatinorum, ienna,1866 ff.Hoist = Codexregularummonasticarumt canonicarum,d. by LucasHoist andM. Brockie. 6 vols. in 3. Graz: Akademische Druck-und Verlangs-anstalt,1967 [reprintof Vienna,1759].PG= Patrologiaraeca,ed. byJ. P.Migne, 162 vols., Paris,1857-66.PL= Patrologiaatina,ed. byJ. P.Migne,221 vols., Paris,1844-64.SC = SourcesChretiennes,aris,1944 ff.

REFERENCESAdams,CarolJ. TheSexualPoliticsofMeat:A Feminist-Vegetarianriti-1990 cal Theory.New York:Continuum.

Adhemarof Chabannes Chronique.Ed. by Jules Chavanon. Paris:AlphonseChron. Picardet Fils, 1897.Alsdorf,Ludwig Beitrdgezur Geschichte on Vegetarismusnd Rinder-1962 verehrungn Indien. Mainz:E Steiner.Akademie derWissenschaften nd derLiteratur, r.6, 1961:549-625.

Arbesmann,Rudolph "Fastingand Prophecy n Paganand ChristianAntiq-1966 [1929] uity."Traditio:1-71.Baron,Salo A SocialandReligiousHistoryof theJews.2nd ed., rev.1957 and expanded.Vol. 3. New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Barth,Fredrik EthnicGroups ndBoundaries:heSocialOrganizationf1969 CulturalDifference. oston:LittleBrown.Bazell,Dianne "De esu carnium:Amald of Villanova's defence of1995 CarthusianAbstinence."Arxiude textoscatalansantics14:227-248.

Bishop,Edmund "TheMethod and Degree of Fastingand Abstinence1925 of the BlackMonks in Englandbefore the Reforma-tion."TheDownsideReview43 [misprintedXLV]/123:184-237.Bligny,Bernard L'glise et les ordresreligieuxdans le royaumede Bour1960 gogne aux XIe et XIIe sitcles. Grenoble: ImprimerieAllier.


24/27

96 Journalof the AmericanAcademy f ReligionBonaventure, Apologiamendicatorum.n Operaomnia. Ed. by Aloy-Apol. mend. sius Lauer.Vol 8. Quarracchi,1898.

Borst,Arno Die Katharer. tuttgart:Hiersemann.1953Bourguignon,P, "CombatSpirituel."In Dictionnairede Spiritualite2:and E Wenner 1125-1142.1953

Brass,Paul "Ethnicityand NationalityFormation."Ethnicity /3:1976 225-241.Dawson, Christopher, TheMission oAsia.London:Sheed and Ward.ed. 1980 [1955]

De Vos,George "EthnicPluralism:Conflict and Accommodation." n1982 EthnicIdentity:CulturalContinuities nd Change.Ed.by GeorgeDe VosandLolaRomanucci-Ross.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Dimier,A. "Observancesmonastiques."AnalectaSacriOrdinisCis-1955 terciensis 1:149-198.

Dombrowksi, ThePhilosophyfVegetarianism.mherst:UniversityofDanielA. MassachusettsPress.1984Douglas,Mary NaturalSymbols.New York:PantheonBooks.1982 [1970]Dumont, Louis HomoHierarchicus:heCasteSystem ndItsImplications.1980 Completerev.ed. Trans.by M. Sainsbury,L.Dumont,and B. Gulati.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

Feeley-Harnick, The Lord'sTable:TheMeaning f Food n EarlyJudaismGillian and Christianity.Washingtonand London: Smithson-1994 [1981] ian Institution.Fiddes, Nick Meat:A NaturalSymbol.New York:Routledge.1991

Garrigues,Marie-Odile "HonoriusAugustodunensis,Deesuvolatilium."n Stu-1986 diaMonastica 8:75-130.


25/27

Bazell:Strife mongheTable-Fellows 97Giehl, Dudley Vegetarianism:Wayof Life.New York:Harper& Row.1979

Goody,Jack Cooking,Cuisine nd Class:A Studyn Comparativeoci-1982 ology.New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.Grant,RobertM. "DietaryLawsamong Pythagoreans, ews and Chris-1980 tians."HarvardTheological eview 3/1-2:299-310.

Gui,Bernard Practicainquisitionis ereticepravitatis.Ed. by CdlestinPract. Douais.Paris:AlphonsePicard,Librairie-tditeur,886.Haussleiter, ohannes DerVegetarismusn derAntike.Berlin:A. T6pelmann.1935

Herwegen,Ildefons Das Paktumdes HI. Fruktuosus on Braga. Kirchen-1907 rechtlicheAbhandlungen, Heft 40. Stuttgart:Ferdi-nand Enke.Hildemar Expositioegulae.Ed.by R.Mittelmoiller.n Vitaet reg-Exp. reg. ulas.p. Benedicti, . Regensburg,1880.

Knowles,David "The Diet of English Black Monks." The Downside1934 Review 2/150:275-290.Lambert,Malcolm MedievalHeresy:PopularMovementsromtheGregorian1992 ReformotheReformation.nd ed. Oxford:Blackwell.

Landulf "LandulphieniorisMediolanensishistoriae ibriquat-Hist. tuor." Ed. by A. Cutolo. In L. A. Muratori,Rerumitalicumscriptores.ewed. (Bologna,1900),Vol.4, pt. 2.Levi-Strauss,Claude TheSavageMind.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.1973 [1962}

L6bbel,Hermann DerStifterdesKarthauser-OrdenserHeiligeBrunoaus1899 Kiln.Vol.5, pt. 1. Kirchengeschichtlichetudien.Ed.byKn6pfler, SchrOrs,and Scralek. MOinstern Wien:HeinrichSch6ningh.Moneta of Cremona AdversusCatharost WaldensesibriV.Rome, 1743.Ad. Cath. Wald.

Moore,R. I. TheOrigins fEuropeanDissent.New York:St. Martin's1977 Press.


26/27

98 Journalof theAmericanAcademy f ReligionMusurillo,Herbert "TheProblemof AsceticalFasting n the GreekPatris-1956 tic Writers."Traditio 2:1-64.

Paris,Matthew Chronicamajora.Ed. by H. R. Luard,Rolls Series 57.Chron.maj. 7 vols. London: 1872-83). Eng. trans.by J. A. Giles,EnglishHistory rom the Year1235-1273. 3 vols. Lon-don, 1852-54.Peter the Venerable The Lettersof Peterthe Venerable.Ed. by Giles Con-Ep. stable. 2 vols. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress,1967.Peters, Edward,ed. HeresyandAuthorityn MedievalEurope.Philadephia:1980 Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.

Polo, Marco The Travels.Trans.by R. E. Latham.New York:Pen-1982 [1958] guin Books.Regan,Tom TheCaseorAnimalRights.Berkeley:Universityof Cali-1983 forniaPress,1983.

Root,Deborah "SpeakingChristian: Orthodoxy and Difference in1988 Sixteenth-Century pain."Representations3:118-134.Rousselle,Aline "Abstinenceet continence dans les monasteres de1974 gaule meridionalea la fin de l'antiquiteet au debutdu moyen age. Etude d'unregimealimentaireet de safonction."In Hommage&AndreDupont(1897-1972),239-254. Montpellier:FederationHistoiriquesde Lon-

guedoc Mediterraneen.Russell,Jeffrey DissentandReformn theEarlyMiddleAges.Berkeley:1965 Universityof CaliforniaPress.

Salamone,Frank,and "Identity and Ethnicity: Ethnic Groups and Inter-CharlesSwanson actions in a Multi-ethnicSociety."EthnicGroups2/2:1979 167-183.

Schroll,M.Alfred,Sr. BenedictineMonasticism s Reflectedn the Warnefrid-1941 HildemarCommentariesn theRule.New York:Colum-bia UniversityPress.Segal,AlanE Paul theConvert:TheApostolatendApostasy fSaul the1990 PhariseeNew Haven:YaleUniversityPress.


27/27

Bazell:Strife mongheTable-Fellows 99Semmler,J. "'Volatilia'u denbenediktinischenConsuetudinesdes1958 9. Jahrhunderts."n StudienundMitheilungenur Ge-schichte esBenediktinerordens9:163-176

Singer,Peter AnimalLiberation: New Ethicfor Our TreatmentfAni-1975 mals New York:A New YorkReviewBook.Spencer,Colin TheHeretic's east:A HistoryofVegetarianism.ondon:1993 Fourth Estate.

Stephenof Bourbon Anecdoteshistoriques.. tiresdurecueil neditd'EtienneHist. de Bourbon.Ed.by A. Lecoyde la Marche.Paris,1877.Tambiah,Stanley "Animalsare Good to Think and Good to Prohibit."1969 Ethnology:423-459.

Temkin,Owsei Galenism:Rise and Decline of a MedicalPhilosophy.1973 Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.Thouzellier,Christine Heresie tHeretiques.toria Letteraturaacoltadi Studi1969 e Testi116. Rome:Edizioni di Storiae Let- teratura.

Tomson,PeterJ. Paul and theJewishLaw: Halakha n the Letersof the1990 Apostle o theGentiles.Minneapolis:FortressPressWakefield,Walter, Heresiesof theHighMiddleAges.New York:ColumbiaandAustin Evans UniversityPress.1991 [1962]

Warnefrid,Paul PauliWarnefridiiaconiCassinensisn sanctamregulamCommReg. commentarium.bbeyof MonteCassino,1880.Wimbush,Vincent Paul:TheWorldlyAscetic.Macon,GA:MercerUniver-1987 sity Press.

Documents

Bazell-Attitudes of Christians to Eating Meat (JAAR 66.1 [1997])