At present forks are so necessary at table among polished nations,
that the very idea of eating a meal without them excites disgust. The
introduction of them, however, is of so modern a date, that they have
scarcely been in use three centuries. “Tam prope ab origine rerum
sumus,” says Pliny, in speaking of a thing which, though very new, was
then exceedingly common. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans have any
name for these instruments; and no phrase or expression which, with the
least probability, can be referred to the use of them, occurs anywhere
in their writings. But had forks been known, this could not have been
the case, since so many entertainments are celebrated by the poets or
described by other writers; and they must also have been mentioned
by Pollux, in the very full catalogue which he has given of articles
necessary for the table.
The Greek word _creagra_ signified indeed a fork, but not a fork used
at table. It meant merely a flesh-fork, or that instrument employed by
cooks to take meat from a boiling pot, as is proved by the connexion
of the words in all those passages where it occurs. It is mentioned
by Pollux, and by Anaxippus, in Athenæus[1007], among the utensils of
the kitchen; and the scholiast on Aristophanes says that this fork had
a resemblance to the hand, and was used to prevent the fingers from
being scalded. Suidas quotes a passage where the word denotes a hook
at the end of a long pole, with which people, even at present, draw
up water-buckets from wells and other deep places. This instrument,
therefore, appears sometimes to have had only a hook, but sometimes two
or more prongs. _Creagra_ occurs once in Martianus Capella, a Latin
writer, but in a passage which is not intelligible.
Equally inapplicable to our forks are the words _furca_, _fuscina_,
_fucilla_, _fuscinula_, and _gabalus_, which are given in dictionaries.
The first two were undoubtedly instruments which approached nearly
to our furnace and hay forks. The trident of Neptune also was called
_fuscina_. The _furcilla_ even was large enough to be employed for a
weapon of defence, as is proved by the expressions _furcillis ejicere_
and _expellere_. _Fuscinula_, which in modern times is used chiefly
for a table fork, is not to be found even once in any of the old Latin
writers. The old translation of the Bible only explains the word
κρεάγρα by _fuscinula_. _Gabalus_, according to every appearance, has
given rise to the German word _gabeln_, but it denotes the cross or
gallows, which last word Voscius deduces from it.
A learned Italian, who asserts also that the use of forks is very
new, is of opinion that the Romans often used _ligulæ_ instead of
forks[1008]. This I shall not deny; but the _ligula_ certainly had
more resemblance to a small spatula, or tea-spoon, than to our forks.
According to Martial, many spoons at the other end seem to have been
_ligulæ_[1009]. But the two epigrams must be read in conjunction,
so that the second may appear a continuation of the first; for the
epithets _habilis_ and _utilis_ can be applied to no other term than
_ligula_. Besides, it is certain that the titles of the epigrams, or
at least the greater part of them, were not added by the poet, but by
transcribers. The name also, which originally was _lingula_, gives an
idea of the form. We read likewise that this instrument was used for
scumming, for which purpose nothing is less fit than a fork[1010].
I have, I know not how, a great unwillingness to represent the tables
of our ancestors as without forks; yet this was certainly the case: and
when we reflect on their manner of eating, it will readily be perceived
that they could much easier dispense with the use of them than we can.
All their food, as is still customary in the East, was dressed in such
a manner as to be exceedingly tender, and therefore could be easily
pulled to pieces. It appears however that people, though not in the
earliest periods, employed the same means as our cooks, and suffered
meat to lie some time that it might be easier dressed. We often read
that cooks, in order to provide an entertainment speedily, will kill an
animal, and having cleaned and divided it, roast it immediately, and
then serve it up to their guests. But it is well known that the flesh
of animals newly killed, if cooked before it has entirely lost its
natural warmth, is exceedingly tender and savoury, as we are assured in
many books of travels.
Formerly all articles of food were cut into small morsels before they
were served up; and this was the more necessary, as the company did not
sit at table, but lay on couches turned towards it, consequently could
not well use both their hands for eating. For cutting meat, persons of
rank kept in their houses a carver, who had learned to perform his duty
according to certain rules, and who was called _scissor_, _carpus_,
_carptor_, and by Apuleius is named _diribitor_[1011]. This person used
a knife, the only one placed on the table, and which in the houses
of the opulent had an ivory handle, and was commonly ornamented with
silver[1012].
Bread also was never cut at table. In former times it was not baked so
thick as at present, but rather like cakes, and could easily be broken;
hence mention is so often made of the breaking of bread. Juvenal,
when he wishes to describe old bread, does not say that it could not
be cut, but that it could not be broken[1013]. The ancient form of
bread is still retained in the paschal cake of the Jews, and in the
_knæckbröd_[1014] of the Swedes. The latter, which is almost as brittle
as biscuit, is not cut when used, but broken.
The Chinese, who also use no forks, have however small sticks of ivory,
which are often of very fine workmanship, and inlaid with silver and
gold. A couple of these is placed before each guest, who employs them
for putting into his mouth the meat which has been cut into small bits.
But even this resource was not known two centuries ago in Europe, where
people, as is still done by the Turks, everywhere used their fingers.
As a proof, I shall not quote passages where mention is made of
persons putting their hands or fingers into the dish[1015]; for such a
mode of speaking is yet employed, though forks, as is well known, are
in common use. I shall refer only to one passage in Ovid, which admits
of no doubt[1016], and where the author would certainly have mentioned
these instruments, or rather have communicated to his pupils in the art
of love a precept which at present is given to children, had the former
been taught when young how to make use of forks.
Had they been used by the Romans, they must necessarily have occurred
among the numerous remains of antiquity which have been collected
in modern times. But Baruffaldi and Biörnstähl[1017], who both made
researches respecting them, assure us that they were never able to find
any. Count Caylus[1018] and Grignon[1019] only assert the contrary. The
former has given a figure and description of a silver two-pronged fork,
which was found among rubbish in the Appian Way. It is of exceedingly
beautiful workmanship, and at one end terminates in a stag’s foot.
Notwithstanding the high reputation of this French author, I cannot
possibly admit that everything of which he has given figures is so old
as he seems to imagine. Grignon found in the ruins of a Roman town
in Champagne some articles which he considers as table-forks; but
he merely mentions them, without giving a description sufficient to
convince one of the truth of what he asserts, which, in regard to a
thing so unexpected, was certainly requisite. One fork was of copper or
brass; two others were of iron; and he says, speaking of the latter,
that they seem to have served as table-forks, but were coarsely made. I
however doubt whether he conjectured right in regard to the use of them.
As far as I know, the use of forks was first known in Italy towards
the end of the fifteenth century; but at that time they were not very
common. Galeotus Martius, an Italian, resident at the court of Matthias
Corvinus, king of Hungary, who reigned from 1458 to 1490, relates, in a
book which he wrote in regard to the life and actions of this prince,
that in Hungary, at that time, forks were not used at table, as they
were in many parts of Italy[1020], but that at meals each person laid
hold of the meat with his fingers, and on that account they were much
stained with saffron, which was then put into sauces and soup. He
praises the king for eating without a fork, yet conversing at the same
time and never dirtying his clothes.
That in France, at the end of the sixteenth century, forks even at
court were entirely new, is proved by a book, already quoted in the
present volume of this work, entitled l’Isle des Hermaphrodites. It
will therefore excite no wonder that in the same century forks were not
used in Sweden.
But it must appear very strange that Thomas Coryate, the traveller,
should see forks for the first time in Italy, and in the same year be
the first person who used them in England, on which account he was
called, by way of joke, Furcifer[1021].
In many parts of Spain, at present, drinking-glasses, spoons and forks
are rarities[1022]; and even yet, in taverns, in many countries,
particularly in some towns of France, knives are not placed on the
table, because it is expected that each person should have one of his
own; a custom which the French seem to have retained from the old
Gauls. But as no person would any longer eat without forks, landlords
were obliged to furnish these, together with plates and spoons.
Among the Scotch highlanders, as Dr. Johnson asserts, knives have been
introduced at table only since the time of the revolution. Before that
period every man had a knife of his own as a companion to his dirk or
dagger. The men cut the meat into small morsels for the women, who then
put them into their mouths with their fingers. The use of forks at
table was at first considered as a superfluous luxury, and therefore
they were forbidden to convents, as was the case in regard to the
congregation of St. Maur.
The English, Dutch and French have adopted the Italian names _forca_
and _forchetta_, given to our table-forks; though these appellations,
in my opinion, were used at an earlier period to denote large
instruments, such as pitch-forks, flesh-forks, furnace-forks; because
in the low German, _forke_ is a very old name given to such implements.
The German word _gabel_, which occurs first in dictionaries for these
large instruments, is of great antiquity, and has been still retained
in the Swedish and Dutch. It appears to have been used for many things
which were split or divided into two; at any rate, it is certain that
it is not derived from the Latin word _gabalus_.