drops of those light wines which the sun seemed to ripen for them at
Tibur, in the environs of Cumæ, and throughout Campania.[XXVIII-148]
After a short time, they braved the Falernian itself--true, they
generally mixed it with iced water or snow;[XXVIII-149] but the boldest
are reported to have risked that dangerous liquor without taking such
timid precautions. Falernian was a noble wine! They began to drink it as
soon as it had reached its tenth year. Then it was possible to bear up
against it. When it was twenty years old, it could only be mastered
after it was diluted with water. If older, it was unconquerable; it
attacked the nerves, and caused excruciating headache.[XXVIII-150] The
ladies struggled a long time for the victory; but, alas! the Falernian
always had the best of it. Tired out, at length, with so many useless
efforts, the wisest of them left it to their husbands, and sought other
beverages which possessed less dangerous charms. Greece and Italy
invented new drinks for them, which had a well-merited vogue,
notwithstanding the discredit into which they have fallen for many
centuries past. Our modern beauties would smile with an air of
incredulity if we were to extol asparagus wine, winter savory wine, wild
marjoram wine, parsley seed wine, or those made from mint, rue,
pennyroyal, and wild thyme; and yet these liquors were the delectable
drinks of the most distinguished women of ancient Rome, of those women
who could never find in the culinary productions of the entire universe
anything sufficiently delicate or rare. Are we, then, to blame their
taste, or question our own?
Leaving aside this knotty question, which we do not feel ourselves
called upon to resolve, let us state that these different drinks were
prepared in a very simple manner. Two handfuls of one of the above-named
plants were put into a butt of wort; a pint of sapa and half a pint of
sea-water were added.[XXVIII-151] This wine was drunk by the Greek and
Roman ladies at breakfast,[XXVIII-152] and was an excellent substitute
for the _silatum_, a drink prepared with ochre, and which we can hardly
believe to have been introduced by sensuality alone.[XXVIII-153]
It frequently happened, after a banquet, that the wearied and palled
stomach refused with loathing the least nourishment. An intelligent
slave failed not, under such circumstances, to present his languishing
mistress with a cup of wormwood wine, before she quitted her couch.
Anon, the livid paleness of her complexion brightened into the rosy hue
of health, the dimmed eye resumed its wonted lustre, and that very
evening the brilliant matron could seat herself fearlessly at a fresh
banquet. That precious wine, that fashionable tonic, which modern
sobriety--be it said to our praise--has rendered almost useless, sold
well in Rome under the reigns of the Emperors. It was composed by
boiling a pound of wormwood in 240 pints of wort until it was diminished
one-third. There was also a more simple method of making it, which was
to throw a few handfuls of wormwood into a butt of wine.[XXVIII-154]
The live wood, or the leaves of the cedar, the cypress, the laurel, the
juniper-tree, or the turpentine-tree, boiled a long time in wort,
produced different bitter liqueurs, to which intemperance complacently
attributed benign qualities and numerous medical virtues.[XXVIII-155]
Equal praise may be accorded to hyssop wine, that famous mixture of
three ounces of the plant in twelve pints of wort.[XXVIII-156] Its
effects were surprising, and the most popular physicians would not have
failed to prescribe it for their languishing patients, whose strength
and gaiety it restored.
But, thank Heaven! our Roman beauties were not always obliged to have
recourse to the gloomy experience of the disciples of Æsculapius; and
when they were in good health, more exhilarating liqueurs lent their aid
to toast their return to health and pleasure. They were then seen
sipping myrtle wine, a mild beverage, the light vapours of which brought
down calm and profound sleep. It was wisdom to drink it; for, alas! not
all that would, can sleep! If the reader be troubled with wakefulness,
he will hail with joy the recipe for this beneficent narcotic. Let him
take young myrtle branches with the leaves, pound them, and boil one
pound in eighteen pints of white wine, until it is reduced to
two-thirds.[XXVIII-157] Let him drink this liqueur of the Roman ladies,
and, without doubt, he will sleep as they did.
The _petites maîtresses_, those delicate women, whose life seemed to be
a tissue of vapours mingled with tears--Rome abounded with them--would
have fainted even at the smell of the wines made up in the manner
indicated above. Their frail, nervous organization, required a different
kind of drink, and one was invented for them,--the _Adynamon_. This
adynamon, or wine without strength, was the most inoffensive of
liqueurs. It was obtained by boiling ten pints of water in twenty pints
of white wort.[XXVIII-158] A small cup of this salutary beverage
restored a debile Cynthia, a sickly Julia, when, negligently seated at
her toilet, a Bœotian slave brought a nosegay of lilies instead of a
crown of roses. These charming creatures would soon have lost the use of
their senses, if the adynamon had not been promptly applied to their
lips. But hardly had they tasted the marvellous liqueur when animation
resumed its calm and peaceful course; nay, after the lapse of a few
seconds, they were enabled, without any inconvenience whatever, to
witness the chastisement of the slave, whose naked shoulders and breasts
were lacerated by their orders with a thong studded with sharp
points.[XXVIII-159] Who, after that, would dare doubt the properties of
the adynamon wine?
The _Œnanthinum_ wine was destined for more vigorous constitutions,
for natures of less exquisite delicacy. The Roman ladies, somewhat fond
of rusticating, who passed a part of the year in their villas, prepared
it by putting two pounds of wild vine flowers into a butt of wort. They
were left there thirty days, and then the liquor was drawn off into
other vessels.[XXVIII-160]
Such were the vinous drinks which fashion formerly brought into repute
in the capital of the world. The women set no bounds to their taste for
these concocted wines; but went on from one excess to another as long as
the empire lasted. These strange habits, now buried under the Roman
colossus, have been replaced by a new order of civilisation. Woman, that
graceful being of whom antiquity was not worthy, now appears such as
Christianity has made her, to reveal to us virtues which ancient Greece
and Italy never knew. Daughter, wife, and mother, she consoles,
encourages, and supports man amid the trials of life. Her sweet smile
welcomes him at the cradle; her prayer accompanies him to the tomb. It
was she who softened the ferocious instincts of the barbarous hordes
that the forests of the north vomited over Europe; and still exercising
her empire over modern society, she is hailed as a queen, whose virtues
and chaste attractions render her the living embodiment of the flower
and the angel, those sweet symbols of love and beauty, between which a
modern poet has gracefully placed her throne.
* * * * *
The primitive inhabitants of Great Britain learned from the Romans to
plant the vine, under the reign of the Emperor Probus. The conquerors
taught them also the art of cutting it, and how to make wine. But, as
Strutt observes, the vine could never be of any great utility in this
country. It was more ornamental than useful, with the exception that it
afforded the means of procuring a cool retreat and shade.[XXVIII-161] However,
some provinces of England became celebrated for their wines. “The county
of Gloucester is renowned for its vines,” says William of Malmesbury;
“and the wines it produces are scarcely inferior to those of
France.”[XXVIII-162]
Saint-Louis was the first who established statutes for the dealers in
wine.[XXVIII-163] New ones were framed in 1585,[XXVIII-164] and the
dealers were then divided into four classes, each of which was
designated by a particular name, viz., the inn-keepers, the publicans,
the tavern-keepers, and the wine-dealers by measure. The inn-keepers had
accommodation for man and horse; the publicans served drink with
table-cloth and plates--that is to say, they might serve food and drink
at the same time; the tavern-keepers served drink alone; and the retail
dealers could only sell it in considerable quantities at one
time.[XXVIII-165] In 1680 these four classes were reduced to
two--wine-merchants and retail wine-dealers.
Under the reign of Louis XIV., a great dispute arose concerning the
relative merits of Burgundy and Champagne wines, and the preference due
to the one or the other. This quarrel originated in a thesis, maintained
at the commencement of the 17th century at the Medical School of Paris,
in which it was asserted, that the wine of Beaune, in Burgundy, was not
only the most agreeable but the most wholesome. This thesis excited no
murmur at the time: from the 13th century the wine of Beaune had always
enjoyed the highest reputation, and no one dreamed of disputing it. But
forty years later they risked a proposition much more rash than the
preceding one: it was maintained, in the same school, that the wines of
Burgundy were not only preferable to those of Champagne, but that the
latter attack the nerves, cause a fermentation of the humours, and
infallibly bring on the gout in persons not naturally subject to it.
They fortified this incredible opinion with the authority of the
celebrated Fagon, chief physician of Louis XIV., who had just forbidden
the king, as they said, the use of Champagne wine.
The Champagne people took fire--it was time--the dangerous heresy
threatened to spread; so they attacked the Burgundians bravely. The
latter defended themselves with equal courage. The battle waxed warm.
Each party sought to crush their antagonists with heavy writings. The
inhabitants of Burgundy pretended that the wine of Champagne owed its
vogue entirely to the influence of Colbert and Louvois, the then
ministers, one of whom was a native of Champagne, and the other in
possession of immense vineyards. The Champagne growers proved that this
assertion was false in every particular. Long before the time of these
two statesmen, said they, the French got tipsy on Champagne wine; ergo,
they valued that exhilarating liquor. This argument was irrefragable.
They might have added that, from the 16th century, the wine of Aï, a
canton of Champagne, enjoyed such renown that the Emperor Charles V.,
Pope Leo X., Henry VIII. of England, and Francis I. of France, were
anxious to possess this nectar, and tradition assures us that each of
these great sovereigns purchased a close at Aï, in which a little house
was built for a vine-dresser, who sent them every year a stock of wine,
which enlivened their repasts.[XXVIII-166]
The epicureans took part in this great discussion, and that they might
give their judgment after mature deliberation, founded on a perfect
knowledge of facts, they have been tasting Champagne and Burgundy wines
these two hundred years. May the vouchers in this suit never fail them!
Wine was long used for presents and fees--a custom established under
Charlemagne. After a baptism, a marriage, or a burial, the priests
received the _vicar’s wine_; before marriage, _wedding wine_ was offered
to the intended bride; after a law-suit, the counsellor was presented
with _clerk’s wine_; the _wine of citizenship_ was given to the mayor of
a town in which any person took up his abode. This present subsequently
took the name of _pot-de-vin_ (bribe), still in great favour. It has
changed its character, certainly, but the variations have multiplied to
infinity.[XXVIII-167]
In the middle ages sober people intoxicated themselves regularly once a
month. Arnaud de Villeneuve examines seriously the advantages of this
Hygienic custom.[XXVIII-168] There was a kind of glory attached to the
swallowing of more wine than any other man without being _non compos
mentis_. There was, however, a means of avoiding these bacchanalian
encounters. It was, to choose a champion who, as in judicial combats,
accepted the challenges for his candidate, to whom the victory or defeat
was attributed, as if he himself had drank.[XXVIII-169]
In the middle ages, and in the 16th century, intoxication was severely
punished in France.
By five ordinances, in the years 802, 803, 810, 812, and 813,
Charlemagne declares habitual drinkers unworthy of being heard before
courts of justice in their own cause, or as witness for
another.[XXVIII-170]
Francis I. decreed, by an edict, in the month of August, 1536, that
whosoever should be found intoxicated was to be imprisoned on bread and
water for the first offence; the second time, flogging in the prison was
added; the third time, he was publicly flogged; and if the offender was
incorrigible, his ears were out off, he was deemed infamous, and
banished the kingdom.[XXVIII-171]
Now every one is free to quench his thirst, and drink more if he
chooses.
“_The Crafte to make Ypocras._--Take a quarte of red wine, an ounce of
synamon, ane halfe an once (ounce) of gynger, a quarter of an unnce
(ounce) of greynes and long pepper, and halfe a pound of suger, and
brose all this (not too small), and then put them in a bage of wullen
clothe, made therefore (for that purpose), with the wire, and it hange
over a vessel tyll the wine be run thorowe
(through).”[XXVIII-172]--Quoted by STRUTT.
The English were extremely partial to a drink they called _Clarey_, or
_Clarre_. According to Arnold[XXVIII-173] it was compounded in the
following manner:--
“For eighteen gallons of good wyne, take halfe a pounde of ginger,
quarter of a pound of long peper, an ounce of safron, a quarter of an
ounce of coliaundyr, two ounces of calomole dromatycus, and the third
part as much honey that is clarifyed as of youre wyne, streyne them
through a cloth, and do it into a clene vessell.”
John, in the first year of his reign, made a law that a tun of Rochelle
wine should not be sold for more than twenty shillings, a tun of wine
from Anjou for twenty-three shillings, and a tun of French wine for
twenty-five shillings, except some that might be of the very best sort,
which was allowed to be raised to twenty-six shillings and fourpence,
but not for more, in any case. By retail, a gallon of Rochelle wine was
to be sold for fourpence, and a gallon of white wine for sixpence, and
no dearer.[XXVIII-174]
XXIX.
REPASTS.
Mortals were formerly remarkably sober, and the gods themselves set them
the example, by feeding exclusively on ambrosia and nectar.[XXIX-1] The
most illustrious warriors in the Homeric ages were generally contented
with a piece of roast beef; for a festival, or a wedding dinner, the
frugal fare was a piece of roast beef; and the king of kings, the
pompous Agamemnon, offered no greater rarity to the august chiefs of
Greece, assembled round his hospitable table. It is true that the guest
to be most honoured received for his own share an entire fillet of
beef.[XXIX-2]
The vigorous but uncultivated appetites of these heroes were hardly
satisfied when everything disappeared, and none of them thought to
prolong the pleasures of good cheer.[XXIX-3] Happy times of ingenuous
and ignorant frugality! what has become of you?
It must not, however, be imagined that they were entirely destitute of
more refined aliments. Homer gives to the Hellespont the epithet of
_fishy_; Ithaca, and several other islands of Greece, abounded in
excellent game;[XXIX-4] but the magiric genius was asleep--it awoke at a
later period.
Beware, however, of a mistake: those men--with so little choice
respecting their viands--all possessed stomachs of astounding
capacity.[XXIX-5] Theagenes, an athlete of Thasos, eat a whole
bull;[XXIX-6] Milo of Crotona did the same thing--at least once.[XXIX-7]
Titormus had an ox served for supper, and when he rose from table, they
say not a morsel remained.[XXIX-8] Astydamas of Miletus, invited to
supper by the Persian, Ariobarzanes, devoured a feast prepared for nine
persons.[XXIX-9] Cambis, King of Lydia, had such an unfortunate
appetite, that one night the glutton devoured his wife![XXIX-10] Thys,
King of the Paphlagonians, was afflicted with voracity nearly
similar.[XXIX-11] The Persian Cantibaris, eat so much and so long that
his jaws were at last tired, and then attentive servants used to press
the food into his mouth.[XXIX-12]
These are facts of which we do not exactly guarantee the truth, for
history--it is no secret--has some little resemblance to the microscope:
it frequently magnifies objects by presenting them to us through its
deceitful prism.
We close this singularly incomplete list of the ancient polyphagists by
adding that the Pharsalians[XXIX-13] and the Thessalians[XXIX-14] were
redoubtable eaters, and that the Egyptians consumed a prodigious
quantity of bread.[XXIX-15]
In more modern times, some men have acquired, by the energy of their
hunger, an illustration they would have vainly demanded from their
genius or their virtues. The Emperor Claudius sat down to table at all
hours and in any place. One day, when he was dispensing justice
according to his own fashion in the market-place of Augustus, his
olfactory nerves scented the delicious odour of a feast which exhaled
from one of the neighbouring temples. It was the priests of Mars, who
were merry-making at the expense of the good souls in the surrounding
locality. The glutton emperor immediately left his judgment-seat, and,
without any further ceremony, went and asked them for a knife and
fork.[XXIX-16] Never, no, never, adds the biographer of this prince, did
he leave a repast until he was distended with food and soaked with
drink, and then only to sleep. Yes, the ignoble Cæsar slept; but still,
the “peacock’s feather,” an unseemly invention of Roman turpitude, was
called into requisition to prepare the monarch for new
excesses.[XXIX-17]
Galba could taste nothing if he was not served with inconceivable
profusion. His stomach imposed limits upon him, but his eyes knew none;
and when he had gloated to his heart’s content upon the magnificent
spectacle of innumerable viands for which the universe had been
ransacked, he would have the imperial dessert taken slowly round the
table, and then heaped up to a prodigious height before the astonished
guests.[XXIX-18]
Vitellius, the boldest liver, perhaps, of the whole imperial crew, and
the most active polyphagist of past times, caused himself to be invited
the same day to several senatorial families. This deplorable honour
often caused their ruin, for each repast cost not less than 400,000
sesterces (£3,200). The intrepid Vitellius was equal to the whole,
thanks to the peacock’s feather, which, doubtless, was cursed more than
once by the unfortunate victims of his dreadful gluttony.[XXIX-19]
True, this poor prince was continually tormented with a hunger that no
aliment seemed capable of satisfying. In the sacrifices, like the
Harpies of whom Virgil speaks,[XXIX-20] he took the half-roasted viands
from the altars, and disputed the sacred cakes with the gods. As he
passed through the streets he seized the smoking-hot food spread out
before the shops and public-houses; he did not even disdain the
disgusting scraps that a miserable plebeian had gnawed the evening
before, and which a hunger-stricken slave would have hardly contested
with him.[XXIX-21]
Such were the masters of the world, the proud Cæsars! before whom
haughty Rome bowed the head and trembled, and from whom it basely
implored a smile, up to that day when some soldiers, tired of their
shameful obedience, kicked the imperial corpse into the Tiber, after
having mutilated it in presence of the populace, who crowded joyously
around the Gemoniæ.[XXIX-22]
These terrific examples of insatiable voracity have become rare and
obscure. A few isolated facts may perhaps be met with at very distant
periods, which remind us of the polyphagic celebrities of Greece and
Italy. There are, however, two which would have merited the attention of
Vitellius himself.
The ingenuous Fuller[XXIX-23] speaks of a man, named Nicholas Wood, to
whom the county of Kent proudly claims the honour of having given birth,
who once eat a whole sheep at one meal. One day three dozen of pigeons
were placed before him, of which he left only the bones. Another day,
being at Lord Wootton’s, and having a good appetite, he devoured
eighty-four rabbits and eighteen yards of black-pudding for his
breakfast. We leave to Fuller the responsibility of the figures. Any
how, the brave Nicholas Wood must have been a vigorous trencher-man!
The second anecdote is from Berchoux:--
Marshal Villars had a house-porter who was an enormous eater. “Franz,”
said he, one day, “tell me, now, how many loins you could eat?” “Ah! my
lord, as for loins, not many: five or six at most.” “And how many legs
of mutton?” “Ah! as for legs of mutton, not many: seven or eight
perhaps.” “And fatted pullets?” “Ah! as for pullets, my lord, not many:
not more than a dozen.” “And pigeons?” “Ah! as for pigeons, not many:
perhaps forty--fifty at most, according to the appetite.” “And larks?”
“Ah! as for that, my lord--little larks--for ever, my lord, for
ever!”[XXIX-24]
A truce to gluttons. Let us speak of epicureans.
It is to them that gastronomic civilization owes the laws by which it is
regulated; they were the legislators of the table: they introduced
regularity and order at repasts. The breakfast, dinner, collation, and
supper were created by those sages. Fashion has often modified the
nomenclature, but assuredly it will never be able to supersede it.
The Greeks submitted to it for many years;[XXIX-25] and then, that
fickle people, whom everything wearied, declined the drudgery of
masticating so frequently. The lower orders and the army eat twice a
day;[XXIX-26] the fashionable people contented themselves with one
repast,[XXIX-27] which some had served at mid-day,[XXIX-28] but the greater
part just before sunset.[XXIX-29] The party of resistance had, as yet,
yielded only on one point--the collation; and they continued bravely to
breakfast, dine, and sup.[XXIX-30] But the monophagists were not sparing
in their jokes, and the new fashion triumphed at last over the
prescription of ancient usages.[XXIX-31] Pagan sobriety was doubtless
far from suspecting that the Book of Ecclesiastes, in accordance with it
on this subject, pronounces an anathema against the kingdom whose
princes eat in the morning.[XXIX-32]
The Greek manners were introduced in Rome, and persons of a certain
rank, who did not make a profession of gluttony, gave themselves up to
the pleasures of the table only once a day.[XXIX-33]
The tyranny of fashion was not, however, such that all persons thought
themselves bound to obey it under pain of being shamed and ridiculed.
Many unscrupulously transgressed its laws, and more than one respectable
Greek of good family, following the example of Ulysses, who prepared his
breakfast at sun-rise,[XXIX-34] had the _acratism_ brought so soon as
the crowing of the cock announced the return of day.[XXIX-35] This
frugal breakfast was composed of bread steeped in pure wine.[XXIX-36]
The adults restricted themselves to this slight repast, but the children
received more substantial nourishment.[XXIX-37]
The Romans, when they were not asleep, breakfasted at three or four
o’clock in the morning.[XXIX-38] A little bread and cheese,[XXIX-39] or
dry fruits,[XXIX-40] enabled them to wait for the solemn hour of the
banquets.
It would appear that the Jews dined at mid-day;[XXIX-41] it was the hour
at which St. Peter was hungry.[XXIX-42] This repast took place also
among the Greeks about the middle of the day,[XXIX-43] if we are to
believe Athenæus. However, Cicero relates that the philosopher Plato
appeared to be very much astonished, when travelling in Italy, to see
the inhabitants eat twice every day.[XXIX-44] It will only be necessary
to repeat that the supper alone formed the rule, and that the breakfast
and dinner were exceptions; they depended entirely upon the casualties
of will.
About mid-day[XXIX-45] the sober Romans had a slight collation.[XXIX-46]
Seneca, who never loses sight of himself in his fastidious treatises on
wisdom, informs us that a little bread and a few figs were all that his
virtue required.[XXIX-47]