expense either for dinner or supper. The priests of Mars, of whom we
have already spoken, set them an example too seductive for them not to
follow it.[XXIX-48] It is to be remarked, by the way, that those worthy
ministers of the god of war took this repast in the most secret part of
their temple, where they hardly allowed any one to come and interrupt
them. This gastronomic quietude was also very much the taste of a
celebrated modern sailor, the Bailiff de Suffrein. He was at dinner in
Achem, India, when a deputation from the town was announced. Being a
witty glutton, he conceived the happy thought of sending word to the
importunate troop that an article of the Christian religion expressly
prohibited every Christian from occupying himself with anything besides
eating, that function being of the most serious importance. This reply
singularly edified the deputation, who retired with respect, admiring
the extreme devotion of the French general.[XXIX-49]
The collation--_merenda_--was little in use. It took place about the end
of the day, before supper, particularly in summer, among the workmen and
farm labourers.[XXIX-50]
We now come to the principal repast, to that which threw such brilliancy
over the latter centuries of Rome, when a culinary monomania, a sort of
gastronomic furor, seemed to have seized the sovereign people, who, no
longer great by their conquests, betrayed a desire to become so by the
number and audacity of their follies.
The Hebrews supped at the ninth hour, that is to say, about three
o’clock in the afternoon.[XXIX-51] Their custom of two repasts would be
sufficiently proved by the fact that, on fast days, they took food only
in the evening.[XXIX-52] Hence, when they did not fast, they also eat at
another hour. Their ordinary aliment was very simple; we shall have to
speak of it hereafter.
In the primitive times, kings prepared their own suppers.[XXIX-53] Beef,
mutton, goat’s flesh--such were the viands which then satisfied the
daintiest palates.[XXIX-54] Baskets, filled with pure wheaten bread,
were carried round to the guests,[XXIX-55] and heaps of salt, placed on
the table, gave proof of the hospitality of those simple and
unsophisticated ages.[XXIX-56]
The fierce warriors of that warlike period never forgot to invoke the
gods before they satisfied their appetites: libations of wine rendered
them favourable.[XXIX-57] This pious duty once fulfilled, they gave
themselves up without restraint, to the joys of good cheer; and the
sounds of the lyre and the buffooneries of mountebanks enlivened the
banquet,[XXIX-58] which again received fresh animation from the copious
healths, which persons the least versed in the forms of society never
forgot.[XXIX-59]
It often happened that each one paid his share, or brought provisions
with him[XXIX-60] to these joyous suppers, of which the last rays of the
setting sun always gave the periodical signal.[XXIX-61] The uncertainty
of these amicable meetings constituted their charm. Pic-nics, as we see,
may be traced rather far back.
It was then that pleasure presided at those repasts; dulness had its
turn when luxury proscribed the supper in open air, and in
common,[XXIX-62] after the manner of the Jews, who assembled in gardens,
or under trees,[XXIX-63] and mingled the sweet harmony of music with the
less delicate seductions of their banquets.[XXIX-64]
The breakfast has always taken place after rising; dinner in the middle
of the day; the collation in the course of the afternoon; and the supper
in the evening. In the 14th century, people dined at ten o’clock in the
morning.[XXIX-65] One or two centuries later, they dined at eleven
o’clock. In the 16th century, and at the commencement of the 17th, they
dined at mid-day in the best houses. Louis XIV., himself, always sat
down to table at that hour.[XXIX-66] This order was not modified until
the 18th century.
The Sicilian cooks taught unheard-of refinements, and were sought after
with strange eagerness.[XXIX-67] The chine of beef and haunch of mutton
of the Homeric epoch, gave way to sumptuous banquets, and a learned
prodigality divided them into two or three acts, or courses,[XXIX-68]
the order and luxurious majesty of which have been adopted in modern
times.
It appears that three or four o’clock in the afternoon--the ninth
hour--was the time invariably fixed for the supper of the
Romans.[XXIX-69] Like the Greeks of yore, they contented themselves at
first with simple aliments, and few in number; subsequently, three
courses, sometimes seven,[XXIX-70] or even many more, appeared to them
to be hardly sufficient to satisfy the ardent voracity of their eyes,
and glut stomachs which odious precautions assimilated to the buckets of
Danaus’s daughters.
These suppers, the details of which always appear to us as bearing the
impress of exaggeration, notwithstanding the authority of the writers
who furnish them, were insufficient for certain prodigies of
extravagance and furious gluttony, who were served at midnight with a
sort of “wake” (_comissatio_),[XXIX-71] at which some of them gave proof
of renewed greed and vigour.
Vitellius was renowned for this kind of nocturnal debauchery;[XXIX-72]
others shone in the second rank, but no one equalled that monarch-cook,
who made the empire a market, and his shameful reign an unceasing
banquet.
Sensual enjoyments, and every variety of barbarity that follows in their
train, were carried to the highest pitch. There was something vast and
monstrous, of which nothing can give us an idea, in the eclipse of mind,
and the depravity of their hearts. All that force of intelligence and
will which, under the influence of Christian spiritualism, has revealed
itself in modern times by so many chivalric inspirations, so many moral
institutions, so many scientific discoveries, so many industrial works,
then ingulfed in the senses, was taxed solely for their gratification.
The sensual organization of man had acquired a development apparently as
vast as that of intelligence, because intelligence had become the
handmaid of the senses: hence those colossal proportions in the tastes,
the banquets, the pleasures of the ancients, when compared with ours,
which make us regard them as an extinct race of giants, if we consider
them in a sensual point of view; and as a race of pygmies, if we measure
them by that power of ideas--that metaphysical and moral elevation--to
which we have attained, and which would make a child of our days the
catechist of all the philosophers of antiquity.[XXIX-73]
Down to the time of the conquest of the north of Europe by the Romans,
the food was very simple. Chopped herbs boiled in cauldrons, served in
wooden bowls on the hide of an ox, spread on the ground, in the midst of
the forest; balls composed of different kinds of flour, and some strips
of meat grilled on the embers--such was the food of our
forefathers.[XXIX-74]
The table at which the Anglo-Saxons took their repasts, was covered with
a very clean cloth. Each one received a horn cup, which contained some
kind of pottage, or ale--the beverage for which they had a
predilection.[XXIX-75] The plates with which Strutt has enriched his
work give a satisfactory idea of the culinary intelligence of the
nation. They had spits, knives, plates, and dishes in abundance. England
was marching with giant strides towards civilization.[XXIX-76]
The Anglo-Saxons were particularly fond of boiled meat. They cut up the
animal they intended to cook, put the pieces into a cauldron, supported
by a tripod, and then lighted a fire on the ground. They stirred their
_ragoût_ incessantly with a long two-pronged fork, which also served
them to take out the meat when it was done.[XXIX-77]
All the deplorable excesses of the Romans ought not to divert us from
the fact, that religion and sound policy seem to have consecrated
repasts in common, as one of the means best calculated to unite men more
closely in the bonds of concord and friendship.[XXIX-78] The Scriptures
furnish us with the first examples. Among the Israelites, the banquets
which followed the sacrifices always took place in an assembly of
relations, neighbours, or friends.[XXIX-79] They eat together and in
public on wedding days and solemn festivals.[XXIX-80]
The first Christians promptly adopted this custom: their love
feasts--their _agapæ_--were served in the church, after the Communion.
The rich contributed to them abundantly; the poor according to their
means; and the indigent who presented themselves with nothing in their
hands, were received and treated as brethren.[XXIX-81] Admirable
association of penury and opulence, which will never be replaced by the
crude Utopias of modern philanthropy!
As an act of justice to Pagan legislators, we are compelled to say that
sometimes they had excellent views, which go far to extenuate many of
their aberrations. The laws of Minos prescribed to the Cretans the
annual levy of an impost, the half of which was to be consecrated to the
nourishment of the people. No one could eat alone; a certain number of
families met together to take their repasts in common.[XXIX-82] At
Lacedæmon, each one brought his share of the provisions necessary for
the supper of the whole;[XXIX-83] or he sent at the commencement of the
month to the steward of the common halls, wine, cheese, figs, a measure
of flour, and a small sum of money to defray other expenses.[XXIX-84]
Friendship, sobriety, and concord presided, without exception, at these
meetings.
Solon decreed that the Athenians should assemble at the Prytanea to eat
together--sometimes one, sometimes another--at the public expense. Each
was invited in his turn, and was expected to be there on the day
named.[XXIX-85] The Prytanea of Athens, Megara, Olympia, and Cyzica,
contained a great number of porticoes, under which were the tables at
which the citizens sat.
The founder of Rome also had the wisdom to ordain that, in certain
cases, the inhabitants of the same ward should take their repasts in
common, as a sign of peace and good feeling; nay, more: he decreed these
suppers to be a part of the religious worship, and they were called
“sacred banquets.”[XXIX-86]
Man abuses every thing. The Romans, tired of eating merely to support
life, and disdaining, little by little, that austere sobriety which
rendered them the masters of the world, gave themselves up at last to
unbridled luxury, which appears to have redoubled during the war of
Italy, and the civil wars of Marius, 83 B.C. Cornelius Sylla assumed the
government, and one of the terrible dictator’s laws (_Lex Cornelia_)
renewed the ancient sumptuary regulations, and fixed the prices of
provisions.[XXIX-87] Julius Cæsar also made great efforts to oppose the
redoubtable invasions of Roman gastronomy. That prince stationed guards
in the markets, with orders to seize whatever they found there in
contravention of the laws. If, through want of vigilance or fidelity,
they allowed anything to escape, it was sure to be confiscated by more
active agents, on the very tables, and in presence of the assembled
guests.[XXIX-88] Resistance only increased the evil. Augustus thought to
render the laws more efficacious by modifying them. He permitted twelve
persons to meet in honour of the twelve great gods, and to spend eight
shillings in ordinary repasts; twelve shillings in the banquets of the
calends, the ides, and the nones; and even two pounds on wedding days
and the day following.[XXIX-89]
Tiberius granted still more. Under his reign, a worthy citizen might
spend for supper the sum of four pounds, without having to fear that any
one would find fault with it.[XXIX-90]
Caligula, Claudius, and Nero--doubtless better judges of liberty than
their predecessors--allowed every one the right to ruin himself as
joyously as he pleased. These good princes, so far from repressing the
luxury of the table, strove to fortify it with the authority of their
examples.[XXIX-91]
Vitellius was by nature a non-reformer. That voracious Cæsar operated on
a large scale; he spent in four months, for his suppers, a little more
than five millions sterling.[XXIX-92] A trifle for a Roman emperor! Did
not the riches and labour of Europe, Asia, and Africa, form his civil
list? It is quite true that out of this modest revenue he had to find
corn to stop the cravings of the proletarians, and provide the games of
the Circus, in order to amuse them in their dangerous idleness. But
Vitellius, who had no other passion than that of good cheer, was royally
equal to the task. And these things cause no surprise when we remember
that a Roman general, Lucullus, spent not less than £1,000 to offer a
little collation to two of his friends, who refused him the time he
required to treat them in a less unceremonious manner.
We find in the history of “_Jack of Newbury_”[XXIX-93] instructions
relative to the manner in which an English tradesman was to feed the
persons in his employment in the 16th century, which would certainly not
be very pleasing now to that useful and laborious class:--
“You feed your folks with the best of beef and the finest of wheat,
which is an oversight; neither do I hear of any knight in this country
that doth it, and, to say the truth, how were they able to bear that
part which they do, if they saved it not by some means? Come thither,
and I warrant you that you shall see brown bread upon the board; if it
be of wheat and rye mingled together, it is a great matter, and bread
most highly commended, but most commonly they eat barley bread, or rye
mingled with peasen or such-like coarse grain, which is doubtless of
small price, and there is no other bread allowed except it be at their
own board; and in like manner for their meat, it is well known that
necks and points of beef is their ordinary fare; which, because it is
commonly lean, they seeth therewith now and then a piece of bacon or
pork, whereby they make their pottage fat, and therewith drive out the
rest with more content: and this you must do. And besides that, the
midriffs of oxen, and the cheeks, the sheep’s heads, and the gathers,
which you give away at your gate, might serve them well enough; this
would be a great spareing to your meat, and by this means you would save
much money in the year, whereby you might better maintain your French
hood and silk gown.”
The following is the style of living at the court of the Dauphin of
France in the 14th century:--
As in all well-regulated houses, there were five repasts, viz.: the
morning (except on fast days), the breakfast; the repast of ten
o’clock,--(_dix heures_, or the _décimheure_; by abbreviation _décimer_,
and by a second abbreviation, _dîner_)--the dinner; the second dinner,
the supper (_souper_), at which they eat no more soup than we do; and
lastly, the night repast, which they called a collation.
As an every-day fare, the Dauphin took for his dinner a rice pottage,
with leeks or cabbage, a piece of beef, another of salt pork, a dish of
six hens or twelve pullets, divided in two, a piece of roast pork,
cheese, and fruit; at supper, a piece of roast beef, a dish of brains,
neat’s feet, with vinegar, cheese and fruit. Other days, other dishes,
which were also pre-arranged with respect to kind and quantity. The
barons of the court had always the half of the quantity of the Dauphin;
the knights, the quarter; the equerries and chaplains, the eighth. The
distributions of wine and bread were made in the same proportions; such
a rank, such weight, such measure; so that the young and delicate
baroness had four pots of wine, while the chorister and the chaplain had
but one.[XXIX-94]
We are indebted to the learned Monteil for the following details
relative to the public repasts of Louis XIV.:--[XXIX-95]
The usher of the court, at the hour named, goes and knocks with his wand
at the door of the hall of the body-guard, and says: “Gentlemen, to the
king’s table!” a guard is dispatched, who follow him to the goblet,
where one of the officers for the service of the table takes the nave.
The guard accompany him, marching by his side, sword in hand.
Having arrived at the dining-room, the officers spread the cloth, try
the napkins, the fork, the spoon, the knife, and the tooth-picks; that
is to say, they touch them with a morsel of bread, which they afterwards
eat.
The usher returns again to the hall of the body-guard, knocks at the
door with his wand, and cries: “Gentlemen, the king’s meat!” Four guards
then follow him to the ambry, where the equerry of the household and the
chief steward, or major-domo, test the dishes, by dipping a piece of
bread, which they eat. After this, the king’s meat is carried, the
guards marching with their drawn swords on either side; the chief
steward, preceded by the usher, walking in front. When he arrives near
the table, he approaches the nave, and makes his obeisance to it; and if
the announcer, or any other person desire also to do it, he may. The
gentlemen-in-waiting place the dishes successively, and the table being
covered with them, the king then enters.
It is to be remarked, that it is always a prince or a great personage
who presents the wet napkin to him with which to wash his hands, whereas
it is a simple valet who presents him with the dry napkin to wipe them.
The king takes his seat.
The equerry-carver carves the viands.
The king serves himself on a plate of gold.
When he asks for drink, the cup-bearer calls aloud: “Drink for the
king!” At the same time he makes his obeisance to him, goes to the
buffet, takes two crystal decanters, one of which is filled with wine,
and the other with water, returns to the king, makes another obeisance,
removes the cover of the glass, and presents it to the king, who pours
out wine and water according to his own pleasure.
During the dinner or supper of the king, a group of lordly courtiers
stand behind his chair, and endeavour--though frequently in vain--to
divert him, and make him laugh; and another group, composed of ladies of
the court, stand behind the queen’s chair, who, on their part, try to
amuse her, and excite a smile.
Whether the king eat in public or private, the table is always served in
the same manner:--
AT DINNER.
TWO LARGE TERRINES OF SOUP.
TWO MIDDLING-SIZED ONES.
TWO SMALL ONES AS SIDE DISHES.
FIRST COURSE. SECOND COURSE.
TWO LARGE DISHES. TWO LARGE DISHES OF ROAST.
TWO MIDDLING-SIZED ONES. TWO MORE, AS SIDE DISHES.
SIX SMALL ONES, AS SIDE DISHES.
AT SUPPER.
_The same number of dishes, only there is but three-fourths of the quantity
of soup._
The king eats only with the royal family and princes of the blood.
Sometimes, however, the Pope’s nuncio has the honour of sitting at his
table, but always at the distance of four places.[XXIX-96]
The luxury of the table was carried so far under Edward III. of England,
that that prince was constrained, in the 17th year of his reign, to
impose sumptuary laws on his subjects, forbidding the common people the
indulgence of costly food and fine wines.[XXIX-97]
The necessity for this measure is demonstrated by the fact, of which we
read in the chronicles of Stow,[XXIX-98] that, “at the marriage of
Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the third son of Edward III., with Violentis,
the daughter of Galeasius II., Duke of Milan, there was a rich feast, in
which above _thirty_ courses were served at the table, and the fragments
that remained were more than sufficient to have served a thousand
people.”
The same chronicler also informs us that King Richard II. held the
Christmas feasts in the great hall of Westminster in 1399, “and such
numbers came, that every day there were slain twenty-six or twenty-eight
oxen and three hundred sheep, besides fowls without number.”[XXIX-99]
Richard Nevil, Earl of Warwick, kept so good a table, that his guests
often eat six fat oxen for their breakfast.[XXIX-100] “In number of
dishes and change of meate,” says Holinshed,[XXIX-101] “the nobilitie of
Englande do most exceede, sith there is no daye in maner that passeth
over their heades, wherein they have not onely beefe, mutton, veale,
lambe, kidde, pork, conie, capon, pigge, or so many of these as the
season yieldeth, but also some portion of the redde or fallow deere,
beside great varietie of fishe and wilde fowle, and thereto sundrie
other delicates, wherein the sweet hand of the portingale is not
wanting.”
So early as the 16th century the inhabitants of the City of London were
remarkable for the astonishing profusion of their repasts, if we are to
believe the poet Massinger--
“Men may talk of country Christmas, and court gluttony,
Their thirty pounds for buttered eggs, their pies of carps’ tongues,
Their pheasants drenched with ambergrise; the carcases
Of three fat wethers bruised for gravy, to
Make sauce for a single peacock:--yet their feasts
Were fasts, compared with the City’s.”[XXIX-102]
The description of one dish will enable us to judge of the others--
“Three sucking pigs, served up in a dish,
Took from the sow as soon as she had farrowed,
A fortnight fed with dates and muskadine,[Z]
That stood my master in twenty marks a piece;
Besides the puddings in their bellies, made
Of I know not what.”[XXIX-103]
Hang thyself, voluptuous Apicius! thou hast never dreamed of such
delicate fare!
In the comedy of the “_Parson’s Wedding_,”[XXIX-104] the captain orders
for his supper “chines fry’d and the salmon calver’d, a carp and black
sauce, red deer in the blood, and an assembly of woodcocks and
jacksnipes, so fat you would think they had their winding-sheets on; and
upon these, as their pages, let me have wait your Sussex wheatear, with
a feather in his cap; over all which let our countryman, general chine
of beef, command. I hate your French pottage, that looks as if the
cook-maid had more hand in it than the cook.”
The luxurious munificence of Norman kings is almost as remarkable as
that of the emperors of degenerate Rome.
William the Conqueror had himself crowned three times in the same year,
and the banquets he gave on those occasions were such that they
impoverished the kingdom.[XXIX-105]
At the dinner given on the marriage of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, and
brother of Henry III., with the daughter of Raymond, Earl of Provence,
more than _thirty thousand_ dishes were served on the table of the bride
and bridegroom.[XXIX-106]
In the year 1252, “John Mansel, the king’s counsellor, gave a stately
dinner to the kings of England and Scotland and their queens; there was
also present Edward, the king’s son, the Bishop of London, and many
earls, barons, knights, and citizens; in short, so large was his
company, that his house at Totehill could not contain them; therefore he
set up tents and pavilions for their reception; _seven hundred_ messes
of meat was not sufficient to serve them for the first
course.”[XXIX-107]
The following details, which we borrow from Monteil’s excellent
work,[XXIX-108] give us some idea of the style of living in the mansions
of France during the 14th century:--
“Whenever there is a dinner of ceremony, the clerks of the church are
requested to bring holy water. The repast is commenced and concluded
with fruit. The bread eaten is in loaves of nine ounces only. Every
bason of meat is surrounded with sage, lavender, or other aromatic
herbs; and on Sunday, or any holiday, negus is given. The sideboard, or
buffet, is always in the middle of the room, covered with jugs and large
drinking cups of gold and silver.
“The cellars, store-rooms, kneading troughs, dairies, and fruit-stores,
are filled and emptied unceasingly--take who will, when he will, and as
much as he will. Provisions of every kind are heaped up with a profusion
that announces magnificence allied with riches.
“The great number of nobles, knights, huntsmen, falconers, pages,
kitchen servants, butlers, bakers, the numerous valets, workmen,
gardeners, harbingers, door-keepers, porters, and guards are not equal
to the task of consuming so much. From all sides come relations, allies,
neighbours, friends, pilgrims, and travellers, all of whom remain or
depart at will, being feasted as if it were the morrow of a wedding, or
a patronal festivity.