View:
By Section
[1]
Whenever some of the members of a dining-club brought more meat 1 than others, Socrates would tell the waiter either to put the small contribution into the common stock or to portion it out equally among the diners. So the high batteners felt obliged not only to take their share of the pool, but to pool their own supplies in return; and so they put their own supplies also into the common stock. And since they thus got no more than those who brought little with them, they gave up spending much on meat.
Whenever some of the members of a dining-club brought more meat 1 than others, Socrates would tell the waiter either to put the small contribution into the common stock or to portion it out equally among the diners. So the high batteners felt obliged not only to take their share of the pool, but to pool their own supplies in return; and so they put their own supplies also into the common stock. And since they thus got no more than those who brought little with them, they gave up spending much on meat.
[2]
He observed on one occasion that one of the company at dinner had ceased to take bread, and ate the meat by itself. Now the talk was of names and the actions to which they are properly applied. Can we say, my friends, said Socrates, what is the nature of the action for which a man is called greedy? For all, I presume, eat meat with their bread when they get the chance: but I don’t think there is so far any reason for calling them greedy?
No, certainly not, said one of the company.
He observed on one occasion that one of the company at dinner had ceased to take bread, and ate the meat by itself. Now the talk was of names and the actions to which they are properly applied. Can we say, my friends, said Socrates, what is the nature of the action for which a man is called greedy? For all, I presume, eat meat with their bread when they get the chance: but I don’t think there is so far any reason for calling them greedy?
No, certainly not, said one of the company.
[3]
Well, suppose he eats the meat alone, without the bread, not because he’s in training, but to tickle his palate, does he seem a greedy fellow or not?
If not, it’s hard to say who does, was the reply.
Here another of the company queried, And he who eats a scrap of bread with a large helping of meat?
He too seems to me to deserve the epithet, said Socrates. Aye, and when others pray for a good wheat harvest, he, presumably, would pray for a good meat supply.
Well, suppose he eats the meat alone, without the bread, not because he’s in training, but to tickle his palate, does he seem a greedy fellow or not?
If not, it’s hard to say who does, was the reply.
Here another of the company queried, And he who eats a scrap of bread with a large helping of meat?
He too seems to me to deserve the epithet, said Socrates. Aye, and when others pray for a good wheat harvest, he, presumably, would pray for a good meat supply.
[4]
The young man, guessing that these remarks of Socrates applied to him, did not stop eating his meat, but took some bread with it. When Socrates observed this, he cried: Watch the fellow, you who are near him, and see whether he treats the bread as his meat or the meat as his bread.
The young man, guessing that these remarks of Socrates applied to him, did not stop eating his meat, but took some bread with it. When Socrates observed this, he cried: Watch the fellow, you who are near him, and see whether he treats the bread as his meat or the meat as his bread.
[5]
On another occasion he noticed one of the company at dinner tasting several dishes with each bite of bread. Can you imagine, he asked, a meal more extravagant and more ruinous to the victuals than his who eats many things together, and crams all sorts of sauces into his mouth at once? At any rate by mixing more ingredients than the cooks, he adds to the cost, and since he mixes ingredients that they regard as unsuitable in a mixture, if they are right, then he is wrong and is ruining their art.
On another occasion he noticed one of the company at dinner tasting several dishes with each bite of bread. Can you imagine, he asked, a meal more extravagant and more ruinous to the victuals than his who eats many things together, and crams all sorts of sauces into his mouth at once? At any rate by mixing more ingredients than the cooks, he adds to the cost, and since he mixes ingredients that they regard as unsuitable in a mixture, if they are right, then he is wrong and is ruining their art.
[6]
Yet it is surely ridiculous for a master to obtain highly skilled cooks, and then, though he claims no knowledge of the art, to alter their confections? There’s another drawback, too, attaching to the habit of eating many things together. For if many dishes are not provided, one seems to go short because one misses the usual variety: whereas he who is accustomed to take one kind of meat along with one bit of bread can make the best of one dish when more are not forthcoming.
[7]
He used to say too that the term good feeding in Attic was a synonym for eating. The good in the compound implied the eating of food that could harm neither body nor soul and was not hard to come by. Thus he attributed even good feeding to sober livers.
He used to say too that the term good feeding in Attic was a synonym for eating. The good in the compound implied the eating of food that could harm neither body nor soul and was not hard to come by. Thus he attributed even good feeding to sober livers.
Memorabilia. Xenophon. Edgar Carew Marchant (Translator). Cambridge, MA. 1923.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by The Annenberg CPB/Project.