Dining Posture in Ancient Rome: Bodies, Values, and Status (review)

As the author of this volume is quick to point out, a book-length study focusing solely on how the Romans sat, or reclined, at table might not seem like the most compelling reading, even for a specialist reader. Could something so abstruse really warrant such an extensive study? Clearly the author thinks so, and to support his view he starts with some bold claims of what the book promises to accomplish. One of the key aims of the book is to redefine our understanding of Roman dining practices; to challenge the orthodox views presented in the "handbooks" (by which the author seems to mean principally the second edition of Marquardt and Mau's Das Privatleben der Römer, Leipzig 1886) and to replace them with a more measured interpretation of the evidence, not just of the few familiar texts that are often cited in the handbooks but rather of the full range of texts, images, and other source material that contribute in one way or another to what we know about Roman dining. Why do this? Because, Roller argues, the orthodox view is wrong. It depends on too little information, it pays too little attention to the evidence of images, and it fails to see the important link between dining custom and social values. These are bold assertions, the credibility of which can only be judged by comparing the orthodox view of Roman dining practices with the "new" picture of Roman dining given by Roller and by evaluating the methodology he uses to reach his conclusions.

What then is the orthodox view of Roman dining posture? Roller summarizes it as follows (4–5): free adult males reclined, free adult women sat (during the Republic) but later reclined (during the Empire), free children sat, and slaves stood. Fast forward to the end of the book (177) and we find a rather different assessment: "persons of any age, sex or status might actually assume, or be represented as assuming, various positions under different circumstances." What Roller does here is to deconstruct the simplistic assertions of the handbooks and replace them with a more nuanced interpretation of the evidence. However, his conclusions, although different from the standard view, are not an entirely radical departure. As he admits, "normal" dining practices can be detected: "certain postures attach persistently to certain categories of person" (178). Free adult males are "normally" represented as reclining, free adult women and children are "commonly" shown either sitting or reclining, and slaves "normally" stand. But the point Roller makes is that these dining postures are not rigid; they are not rules. Indeed there are so many exceptions to the norms, both in the texts and in the images, that one has to question the veracity of these so-called "normal" patterns of behavior. The more important question, as Roller is at pains to emphasize, is to determine the ideology that underlies the texts and images. Why do the sources show what they show? What is their intended message?

One of the recurring arguments of this book is that reclining as a dining posture in Roman times always marked social privilege. It was a sign of otium. It singled the diner out as a member of the elite, as someone with wealth, leisure, and access to "the good life." References in literature and art to reclining diners provide reinforcement of this privileged status. Elite males set the standard for everyone else. Those who did not belong to this class, particularly the subelites, the people just below the upper crust of Roman society, could express their aspirations to elite status by depicting themselves as reclining at dinner, regardless of whether they actually did so in practice.

A large part of this book is devoted to the question of women at table. It is here that the evidence is the most convoluted; equally it is here that Roller offers some challenging new insights. He argues...