Food and prejudice: a western ambassador in Byzantium

On the 4th of June, 968, Liutprand of Cremona made landfall at Constaninople as ambassador for the German emperor Otto I. His official mission: the arrangement of a nuptial alliance with the basileùs Nicephorus II Phocas. His unofficial mission: the draft of a report on the political framework and the military efficiency of the Byzantine Empire.

The relationships between the parties in question were unstable, to say the least: on the other hand, the Byzantine Empire didn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the imperial title in the West. As a matter of fact, the duke of Saxony had been crowned emperor in Rome in 962 by pope John XII, an event which perpetuated that figure of maximum authority that Charlemagne had performed starting from Christmas Eve 800. The Byzantine emperors maintained that the only legitimate successor to the Caesars could be he who resided in the land where Constantine the great had moved the capital city in 326. The western emperors would constantly try to justify their title, just like the kings of the young Roman-Barbaric kingdoms had attempted to connect the origins of their lineage to ancient heroes. And neither of them should be blamed: after all, the authority of a leader mainly depended on the recognition of his power by his subjects since, as the Romans used to say in the ancient times, people are more glad to be ruled by someone of high birth or by one who is destined to leadership.

In other words, the political and cultural context Liutprand was to cope with is the following: Otto I recognized the authority of Nicephorus II Phocas; this latter did not recognize the imperial title of Otto I. Needless to say, this condition of things had much to do with prejudice. Liutprand himself complained about the insults Leo, brother of Nicephorus, threw at the emperor Otto: Leo used to call him rega (king), not basileùs (emperor).

When historians use the label "Middle Ages", they refer to an age when two main emispheres collided: the Roman and the non-Roman world or, as the Mediterranean intellectuals tended to perceive it, the Barbarian world. In fact, that collision was not just a clash, but also an assimilation, an absorption already in process since the end of the 2nd century. Anyway, whether we are thinking of a collision or a fusion (and they both are probably correct ideas), many Greek and Roman historians of the past such as Herodotus, Caesar and Tacitus, used to identify their (food) culture with three basic products: bread, wine and oil. This necessarily implied that they used to practice agriculture, which, in turn, entailed that they were a sedentary people and dwelled in fortified cities. Generally speaking, this was their concept of civilisation. At the same time, they normally described the Barbarian world surrounding them as underdeveloped and tied to a food culture opposite to their own one: the Barbarians did not cultivate fields, they lived on milk, meat, cheese and fruits that grew spontaneously in nature. They depended on nature, while Greeks and Romans tried to dominate it, inventing food: bread doesn't exist in nature (neither does cheese but, as we've just observed, Mediterranean intellectuals lent a deeper cultural meaning to wheat than milk).

In the Middle Ages, these two emispheres not only came into close contact, but blended with each other. However, we can still identify clear boundary lines between Mediterranean and continental food cultures. When Liutprand, who was born into an aristocratic Lombard family, arrived at Constantinople, the new Rome, two different food traditions met at table. In his Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana, Liutprand didn't hesitate to harshly criticize the unfair shake he received from Nicephorus concerning both words and dishes.

The vexations began even before entering the banquet hall, because Liutprand's companions were not even allowed to get in, while he was seated fifteen places away from Nicephorus: the Byzantine emperor clearly did not consider him to be worthy of a better place.

Things were not to get better on the table. Indeed, Liutprand talks about Nicephorus' wine which, under his point of view, is literally undrinkable (impotabile) since it tastes of pitch, resin and gypsum. In fact, his palate was not lying to him: it was an old Greek custom to coat the insides of amphoras with resin so as to prevent air from seeping through their walls. As in many other cases in history, men made a virtue out of necessity, and obtained a type of wine that is still much appreciated today (Retsina). But, evidently, Liutprand did not like it whatsoever, and thought it was revolting.

However, there was something even worse. Such endless and lewd convivia, Liutprand writes, were sprinkled with oil, drowned in it (oleo debuta), and they were all dressed with a disgusting fish sauce (garum), onion and garlic (definitely not the types of condiments he liked the most). Maybe, his food culture was centred on lard and meat rather than on oil and vegetables, as it was common for northern people. From this perspective, Constantinople seems to echo the classical Mediterranean food culture, while Liutprand the continental, Germanic one: if the former was based on agriculture and the above-mentioned food triad (bread, wine, oil), the latter was the culture of hunting and cattle breeding, where game, cheese, milk, eggs, lard and butter played a fundamental role.

It was not just a matter of what Liutprand liked to eat, though. According to old Germanic traditions, the more one eats, the stronger he proves to be (especially if we are referring to meat). According to this idea, physical power and stamina are strictly connected with the amount of food eaten, and the stereotypical image of the leader is that of the man who eats more than everyone else, because that also means he is the strongest warrior on the battlefield. It's worth noticing that many centuries earlier, in a letter to Parmenion, Alexander the Great wrote that he was absolutely moderate with food: for lunch he used to march, and for dinner he generally ate sparingly.

We should not be surprised, then, if Liutprand describes Otto I as numquam parcus (in other words, "big eater") and a meat lover, and Nicephous as parcus (lacking appetite) and greedy of vegetables, as well as short, ugly, swarthy and sly: thus, according to Liutprand, Nicephorus embodied the cliché of the southern man whose military success was due to cunning (and cowardliness) rather than strength (and courage). Logically, Otto's soldiers, he adds, were eager for war, while Nicephorus' army was embarrassingly weak.

Besides, the bishop of Cremona compares these two different food cultures with two opposite attitudes towards money and, more in general, Christian values: the Greeks don't eat meat because they are avid and prefer selling cattle in order to make money rather than consuming it; this is why they usually eat garlic, onion and leeks. It entails that eating meat does not concern food customs only, but Christian morale as well.

Liutprand loathed Byzantine food, but also the pomp, the ostentation of the banquets he attended at Nicephorus' court. They generally were hours long and obscene, writes the bishop of Cremona; the tables were too tight, and every dish was submerged in oil. There would be a lot to say about ethnic and cultural preconceptions between the Byzantine and the Holy Roman empire and, back in time, between Mediterranean world and what we may call "barbaritas". What we do know is that Liutprand's mission was accomplished, and in 972 Otto II married the Byzantine princess Theophanou; as for what concerns prejudices, though, it is hard to determine if a marriage could really quell them. If we are what we eat, it could possibly be hard to fill distances between a man like Liutprand (or his emperor, Otto I) and the Byzantine basileùs. History teaches that food is not only something we use to survive and live: the moment we swallow it, it becomes part of our body, and part of our mind as well.

You can also find my articles on my Facebook page, HistorEat: facebook.com/historeat