Both Plato and Aristotle had opinions about dinner. Huh? Read on.
‘What’s for dinner?’ Now there is a question many of us have asked. Plato and Aristotle knew that. Both of them recommended ‘meals in common.’ Yes, Plato in The Laws which he wrote when he was in his 80s, and which only in the 19th Century was accepted as a text by Plato. It was long supposed not to be by Plato because it is so different in style, approach, phrasing, and content from The Republic. But he wrote the Republic, especially Book I, when he was much younger, and far less experienced. In that The Laws ‘meals in common’ are recommend as a wise political practice. Equally, Aristotle, who, as a student of Plato’s had an incentive to distinguish himself from his teacher, dissented from most of Plato’s recommendations in The Republic, also recommended ‘meals in common.’ ‘Meals in common’ do figure in Plato’s Republic, but there they are part of a wider communism of family and property for the guardians – the very few. In The Laws ‘meals in common’ are commended for all citizen. Indeed, in The Laws Plato seems to take the importance of ‘meals in common’ for granted, so that they are often referred to, and sometimes in rather pedantic detail about housing and furnishing, they are not subject to any of the one hundred plus laws stipulated in The Laws. Aristotle, too, recommends the practice for all citizens in the best organized state he describes in The Politics.
Wow! Fascinating right? But wait. What are ‘meals in common,’ you ask? Just what it says. In Sparta and in the cities of Crete this method of dining was the practice in Plato’s and in Aristotle’s day. All male citizens took the evening meal (the main, if not the only meal of the day) together at a common table. The tables were probably of about fifteen and had a more or less fixed group of participants for each table. (Remember your days in the school cafeteria?) As needs be there would be several places in the city where these meals were taken. Citizen Joe would belong to one table at one of these places and take his main meal there each day. Each time in the company of the same others.
Sparta and Crete could not be more different for having this practice in common. 
Sparta’s reputation as an austere warrior society, recently reinforced by the trivialization of the cartoon movie “300” (the IMDB link is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/) is well known. Their cuisine rivalled English public schools: blood pudding, barley, and four times a year wine. They were abstemious compared to the Athenians. Crete, by contrast, was the land of lotus eaters and any other delicacy they could get. ‘Crete’ was by-word for luxury and decadence second only to Persia in the world of Plato and Aristotle. There is speculation that the practice came to Crete with pre-historic migrants from the Peloponnesian peninsula (where Sparta is located). (Trivialistas might be curious to know that the motto of the that murder club, the National Rifle Association, in the United States is ‘Malon labe’ from the Greek, reputed to be King Leonides’s response to the Persia appeal to lay down the Spartan weapons and surrender. It means ‘Come and take them.’ There was a time I respected Charlton Heston but no more. Too cryptic? Figure it out.)
Blood pudding still exists, called at times black pudding, at least according to our friend wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pudding
Though these two great minds, mostly in disagreement, agreed on the importance of practice is not something that is emphasized in political theory. I can find no sustained analysis of ‘meals in common’ in the literature of political theory. I have tried journal articles first because they are easiest to search electronically. By the way, the meals had several names in Sparta and Crete over the ages, but the most common in the research literature is syssitia.
Note that in The Republic Plato recommend that women participate in these common meals with the men. He toned down this remarkable recommendation in The Laws by recommending that women, too, have meals in common together: Gender segregation at the table. Aristotle does not recommend meals in common for women under any circumstances.
I am working on an essay on this subject which will canvas the ancient Greek practice, ponder why Plato and Aristotle each recommended it, note the ways in which common meals remain a feature of social life, and speculate on what ‘meals in common’ would be like in our world. Your comments, as always, are most welcome.
Comments
Michael,
There are still examples of common eating. At some city clubs they have "club tables" where you can sit with a stranger as you have lunch.
I lived at St Andrew College when I was a student at Sydney and the communal meals was an excellent opportunity to meet people from other years and degrees to your own.
There were not set areas.
Perhaps you could experiment with a communal table at Manning or somewhere at the university to test your thesis on what would be the benefits today from such an exercise.
Would people speak about politics if put in this eating environment with other students?
Regards,
Alister
Posted by: Alister Henskens | May 16, 2007 12:13 PM
It seems to me that at a basic level the political power of the dining experience, its capacity to build community and support positive social interaction, may have a lot to do with the physical process of mastication. The need to chew food and swallow fluid allows two way dialogue and prevents any single person from completely dominating group discussion. (people sometimes chew and talk with their mouths open, ruining the dining experience and destroying the political harmony of the collective)
The political power of the shared meal may also be attributable to the life and death instinct of prehistoric man to acquire his share of the tribe's food and ensure that his morsels are not devoured by others. For this reason, the modern formal dining experience, in which food is typically abundant and equally allotted, and discourse generally governed by implied social protocols, may soothe anxieties buried deep within the human psyche.
The passive body language generally displayed by those eating at a table may also be a contributing factor. Each individual, seated in a low passive position, mouth closed, arms lowered, hands occupied and inwardly facing, presents a non-threatening figure to his companions. The torso and spine of people sitting down to at a meal is typically shielded by the back of a chair. This may provide extra assurance for those eating a meal and may relax sub-conscious inhibitions.
Posted by: Luke | May 17, 2007 10:00 AM
A number of UK collegiate universities (primarily Oxford and Cambridge but there are others) place great importance on, and find great value in 'dining'.
Earlier this year Graham Gibbs told me that he had recently 'dined' as a guest at St John's College, Oxford.
There is considerable formality around the whole process, starting with full academic dress and continuing throughout the highly prescribed routine.
There were five courses, each one taken in a different room. I think this is an accurate recall because I don't think I could have made it up!
Certainly it was the case that each course was accompanied by a wine from St John's own cellars (presumably stocked from St John's own vineyards in France).
Of course, in common with the mesage of this blog, this 'dining' isn't just about eating. Bonding occurs, values and ethos remembered and strengthened, deals are struck, positions on college, university, national and international issues are explored, and, in some cases. decided upon. Also, in the process, academic and personal reputations are enhanced (and deflated).
For high-level intellectual exchange or scuttlebut, dining is THE thing.
Posted by: Trevor Habeshaw | July 12, 2007 06:51 PM
I have always known black pudding as a Scottish food. It is commonly included on cooked breakfast plates in Scotland and in the north of England. I have included as a recent and local example of its existence a link to a SMH review of an Annandale restaurant Three Clicks West from about a year ago.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/06/26/1151174123406.html
Posted by: Sandra Nicholson | July 25, 2007 11:19 AM
Sir
Interesting commentary. I was wondering if you would care to explane yourself as to the National Rifle Association being a "Murder Club". Is this view based upon some here for to body of research I am not aware of? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you would use such inflamatory language. Can you back it up?
Here in America, firearms are used mostly for sport, by people who are, in the vast majority, MORE law abiding than those who do not.
I would ask that you would put all that expensive education you seem to have to use in informing yourself as to the facts regarding this before you go ahead and wave a red flag in front of the bull that is the body of research that has proven that there is an inverse proportion between crime and gun control. It has been shown so clearly that it is now a non starter for debates here in the states.
Feel free to answer me via personal message.
Dr Evan Gallas, DC
Posted by: Evan Gallas | August 4, 2007 12:57 AM
Great topic in general.
Regarding the NRA as a murder club: "homicide club" would be more accurate. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. A quick look at the NRA.org website shows topics of interest: revolvers, right-to-carry laws, killing of robbers with guns. Killing of humans of course, but making it legal for people to be ready to do so. So homicide, not murder.
Posted by: Carl S | October 9, 2007 01:14 AM