LIQUEUR WINE.
It must be owned that the Roman law was, for a long time, tyrannical in the extreme with regard to women. Totally interdict the use of wine! Kill the unfortunate creatures who were unable to resist the seductions of that dangerous liquor! For the Roman history furnishes us with more than one example of that atrocious chastisement inflicted on the guilty thirst of the fair sex. The barbarous Micennius immolated his wife on the butt, at which he caught her one day, quenching her thirst at the tap or the bunghole. The ferocious Romulus thought this act simple and natural: he did not even reprimand the cruel husband.[XXVIII_137]
Another unfortunate creature discovered the place where her husband kept the keys of the cellar. She took them, and had the imprudent curiosity to go and visit the mysterious and inauspicious treasure, to which she was forbidden all access. Her family perceived this innocent larceny, and refused her every kind of food, to punish her for an imaginary crime. She died in the tortures of hunger.[XXVIII_138]
Is it necessary to speak of C. Domitius, that uncourteous judge, who deprived a lady of her marriage portion because she had taken the liberty to drink a spoonful or two of wine unknown to her lord and master?[XXVIII_139] But, let us say it at once—Roman civilisation put an end to such strange manners; and so early as the age of Augustus, Livia, the consort of that emperor, affirmed, when eighty-two years old, that she was indebted to Bacchus for her long existence.[XXVIII_140] Let us remark, by the way, that the great prince, her husband, honoured the labours of the vine-dresser and the serious study of wines,[XXVIII_141] to which little attention had been paid down to his time. It began then to be understood that this grateful drink draws the ties of friendship closer,[XXVIII_142] and all honest people, all generous souls, were eager to taste it.
The good Trajan quaffed off numberless cups every day: of course he became the idol of the human species.[XXVIII_143] Agricola wished to drink before he died.[XXVIII_144] The imbecile Claudius often found some ray of wisdom at the bottom of an amphora.[XXVIII_145] Domitian merited the pardon of his crimes, thanks to the streams of wine which during the night ran from the fountains;[XXVIII_146] and Caligula would, perhaps, have obtained that popularity which always failed him, had he possessed sufficient sense to offer to the Roman people the delicious Falernian wine he allotted to his favourite horse.[XXVIII_147]
The ladies ventured, in the first place, to wet their lips with a few 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]
The senators, the knights, and the luxurious freed-men, spared no 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.
“The kitchen chimney-places are not less than twelve feet in width. One man would not have strength sufficient to use the tongs or the shovels. The andirons do not weigh less than a hundred pounds, the trivets forty pounds; copper saucepans of thirty pounds are common, and so are spits of eleven and twelve pounds. One roast is composed of one, two, or three calves, two, three, or four sheep, besides game, venison, and poultry. The boiling of the saucepans, the exhalations from the grease, render the atmosphere so fat, so thick, that it is only necessary to breathe in it to feed. A person would not dare enter one of those kitchens on the eve of a feast day, for fear, as it were, of breaking his fast.
“In the 16th century persons washed their hands at the commencement of a repast, and a second time when it was concluded. When the master of the house was particular on the point of civility, he had a bason sent round at this second ablution, filled with perfumed water.[XXIX_109]
“When the person seated in the chief place was a guest of distinction, politeness made it indispensable to present him with water to rinse his mouth.[XXIX_110]
“One of the most difficult points of French civility in the 16th century was to drink to a person’s health, or return the compliment in a proper manner.[XXIX_111] A guest at one end of the table held up his glass, and called out: ‘Mr. Such-a-one, to your health!’ He replied: ‘I love it from you!’[XXIX_112] During the whole of the repast, healths were bandied to and fro, in every sense. At the end they touched glasses together at a central point, which created a very singular kind of clash, and, at the same time, the arms underneath formed a sort of fasces of sleeves and cuffs.”[XXIX_113]
XXX.
VARIETY OF REPASTS.
The fertile country inhabited by the Jewish people furnished them with a very great variety of excellent provisions. Those of which they made the greatest consumption, and which we find generally mentioned in the Scriptures, are bread, flour, barley, beans, lentils, wine, raisins, figs, honey, butter, oil, sheep, oxen, fatted calves, &c.[XXX_1]
The fat of animals offered in sacrifice was reserved for the Lord;[XXX_2] but, with this exception, the Hebrews could freely make use of it. They esteemed it much, and when they wished to speak of a rich banquet, they called it “a banquet of fat animals.”[XXX_3] “He that loveth wine and oil,”[R] says Solomon, “shall not be rich.”[XXX_4]
The extreme simplicity of the greater part of the Biblical repasts ought not to induce us to suppose that the Jews were entire strangers to the inspirations of good cheer. “Solomon’s provisions for one day were thirty measures of fine flour, and three score measures of meal, ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and an hundred sheep, besides harts, and roebucks, and fallow-deer, and fatted fowl.”[XXX_5]
That primitive nation also knew different kinds of banquets, which, conformably with their naïve manners, were associated with the celebration of a religious solemnity, a sad or a joyful event, a family festivity or mourning, a victory or a public calamity.[XXX_6]
The Greeks and Romans, skilful masters in the art of good living, were early on the alert to assure the collection of all things necessary for the support of life. “Take care,” said Aurelian to Flavius, “take care, above all things, that the markets of Rome be well supplied: nothing more gay or more peaceful than the people, when they are well fed.”[XXX_7] This remark is much more profound than it at first appears.
At Athens, special officers visited the markets, and only permitted each citizen to purchase and keep in his own house the quantity of provisions necessary for one year.[XXX_8]
The ediles of Rome performed nearly similar functions.[XXX_9] The prefect of the town was invested with the power of making regulations for the markets,[XXX_10] and the prefect of provisions had the inspection of the sale of bread, meat, wine, fish, and all other kinds of aliment required either for the table of the rich or poor plebeian.[XXX_11]
During a long time, in Greece and Italy, the only charm of repasts was, that they furnished an opportunity for the exercise of those duties of kind hospitality, which Apollodorus has described in the following ingenuous style: “As soon as a friend,” says he, “steps on the threshold of his host, the porter receives him with a smiling face; the dog of the house comes immediately to caress him, amicably wagging his tail; then some one runs and presents him a seat without being told.”[XXX_12] This last trait is charming.
But afterwards, they thought much more of honouring the god of good cheer than Jupiter Hospes, and joyous Comus became everywhere the fashionable divinity. One of the ancients describes him in the following manner: “He is seen at the door of an apartment communicating with the banqueting hall; his smiling face is fresh, plump, and ruddy; his head is crowned with roses, and he sleeps standing; his left hand rests on a thyrsus, but sleep makes him loose his hold; he staggers, and the torch will soon fall from his grasp.”[XXX_13]
The Greeks were fervent in their worship of this god, at an epoch when Rome still prided herself on her transcendant sobriety. Conon gave a banquet to all the Athenians after the battle of Cnidos, about four centuries before the Christian era; and his celebrated contemporary, the handsome Alcibiades, conqueror in the Olympic games, magnificently regaled the numerous spectators who had just applauded his triumph.[XXX_14]
The pagan temples themselves often rung with the sound of the music, the chaunts, and the dances which always accompanied the religious banquets. These feasts in honour of the immortals must have been rather unedifying to the truly faithful, for gaiety generally degenerated into extreme licentiousness.[XXX_15]
The conquest of Asia was fatal to the Romans. Their savage rudeness yielded to the effeminate manners of the vanquished; and henceforth, the epicureans of Italy studied but one thing—gastronomic delectation; had but one worship—that of the goddess Victua,[XXX_16] protectress of food, and sovereign of the table.
Luxury made appalling progress. Nearly a century B.C., the Romans did not blush to give 50 denarii (£1 16s.) for a young fatted peacock; 3 denarii at least (more than 2s.) for a thrush;[XXX_17] and, a century later, 4,000 sesterces (£36) were given for a couple of fine young pigeons.[XXX_18]
Worse followed!
Seneca describes in few words the luxury of the table among the voluptuous Romans:—“Behold,” says he, “Nomentanus and Apicius, those happy conquerors of all that is delectable on earth or in the sea. Behold them at table, stretched on their couches, and contemplating innumerable viands. Harmonious songs flatter their ears, a variety of pleasing objects occupy their eyes, and the most exquisite savours captivate their insatiable palates.”[XXX_19]
The genius of gluttony multiplied the banquets by prescribing luxurious gastronomic assemblages, sometimes in honour of the gods, and often for the gratification of simple mortals themselves.
Each year, at the ides of November, a repast was offered to Jupiter in the Capitol (cœna Capitolina). The statue of the god was present at the banquet, reclining on a magnificent couch, with Juno and Minerva seated on either side. These divinities were splendidly served, and, as they touched nothing, in the middle of the night the seven epulary priests joyously eat the supper of the three immortals.[XXX_20]
The cereal banquet (cœna Cerealis) was equally splendid, and Ceres maintained the same frugality.[XXX_21]
A sterile reminiscence of the equality which reigned among men in the golden age, placed the slaves at table by the side of their masters, during the celebration of the Saturnalia (cœna Saturnalis).[XXX_22] This usage was common to the Greeks and Romans.[XXX_23]
The ninth day of the August calends, and the thirteenth day of the November calends, a gastronomic solemnity—a monstrous gala—brought together the Roman pontiffs to celebrate the day of their inauguration (cœna pontificalis). This banquet was worthy of the proverbial delicacy of those sacred stomachs.[XXX_24]
The augurs treated themselves magnificently in their turn (cœna auguralis), when they entered on their functions. The pagan priests of Rome vied one with another in a noble emulation of exquisite refinement and ruinous viands;[XXX_25] but it is said that the ministers of Mars, who had the reputation of being arch-epicureans (cœna saliaris), always won the palm in this struggle of magnificence and voluptuousness.[XXX_26]
The day the Emperor took the title of Augustus, he gave a supper (cœna imperatoria) to the senators and magistrates. The tributes of a year were sometimes hardly sufficient to indemnify the grand master of these imperial orgies.[XXX_27]
The triumphal banquets (cœna triumphalis) were less elegant, no doubt, but they cost the victor who invited the people immense sums.[XXX_28] The guests crowded into the vast inclosure of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus,[XXX_29] or the temple of Hercules.[XXX_30]
They sat down to table to celebrate the anniversary of a birth-day (cœna natalitia),[XXX_31] the happy wedding-day (cœna nuptialis),[XXX_32] the arrival of a friend (cœna adventitia),[XXX_33] the sad day of his departure (cœna viatica).[XXX_34] The melancholy ceremony of interment was followed by a supper (cœna funebris), at which the guests were the relations and friends of the deceased.[XXX_35] They drank to his manes, and, by degrees, the wine not only stifled their laments but called forth joyous smiles. The Romans have bequeathed to certain modern nations more than the remembrance of their funeral repasts.
In the palmy days of Athens, the Greeks evinced more of the epicurean than the glutton—a fact which may be inferred from the description of the supper of Dinias.[XXX_36] The most magnificent of their repasts was, perhaps, that which Alexander the Great had served to ten thousand guests, who received, each one, a present of a golden patera.[XXX_37]
In Greece, as in Rome, the greater part of the events of life occasioned the joyous meeting of relations and friends. At the birth of a child,[XXX_38] a banquet was given in his honour; he was named on the tenth day, and the ceremony terminated with a banquet,[XXX_39] in which they offered the guests cooked Cherso cheese, cabbage boiled in oil, pigeons, thrushes, fish, and brimming cups of excellent wine.[XXX_40] The teething repast took place when the child had attained his seventh month, and the weaning supper when he began to eat.[XXX_41]
These family feasts, more or less sumptuous according to the fortune and rank of the individuals who gave them, were generally signalized by a custom which ridiculous and egotistical vanity could alone authorise and maintain. On the banquet day care was taken to throw the feathers of the poultry before the door of the house, in order to excite the fruitless greed of the poor wretches, who, as they passed,[XXX_42] prayed heartily that the infernal divinities might take the proud amphitryon, his guests, and even the meanest of his servants.
In France, about 1350, the setier (about twelve English bushels) of—[XXX_43]
| £ | s. | d. | |
| Wheat was worth | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Rye | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Oats | 0 | 0 | 2½ |
| Beans | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Peas | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| A Hogshead of Wine | 0 | 4 | 7 |
| A Load of Hay | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| An Ox | 0 | 6 | 10 |
| A Horse | 0 | 11 | 6 |
| A Calf | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| A Sheep | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| A Fat Pig | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| A Gosling | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| A Hen | 0 | 0 | 0¾ |
| 100 Eggs | 0 | 0 | 1½ |
| 1lb of Butter | 0 | 0 | 3½ |
| 1lb of Honey | 0 | 0 | 10½ |
| 1lb of Wax | 0 | 1 | 10 |
Prices of a few articles in France during the 15th century:[XXX_44]
| £ | s. | d. | |
| 1lb of Bread | 0 | 0 | 0¼ |
| 1 Pint of Wine | 0 | 0 | 0¼ |
| 1 Pint of Mustard | 0 | 0 | 0¾ |
| 1 Bushel of Salt | 0 | 0 | 2½ |
| 1lb of Pepper | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 1lb of Cinnamon | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 1lb of Bacon | 0 | 0 | 0¾ |
| A Pair of Pigeons | 0 | 0 | 1¼ |
| A Pair of Partridges | 0 | 0 | 2½ |
| A Cart-load of Wood (une voie) | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| A Sack of Charcoal | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 1lb of Candles | 0 | 0 | 0½ |
In England, under the reign of Edward III., a royal proclamation fixed the price of the following articles:—[XXX_45]
| £ | s. | d. | |
| A Swan | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| A Porcelle | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| An Ewe | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| A Capon | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| A Hen | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| A Pullet | 0 | 0 | 2½ |
| A Poucyn | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| A Coney | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| A Teal | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| A River Mallard | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| A Snipe | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| A Woodcock | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| A Partridge | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| A Plover | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| A Pheasant | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Twelve Eggs | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Twelve Small Birds | 0 | 0 | 1 |
The funeral repast of Sir John Redstone, Mayor of London, who died in 153l, occasioned the following expenses:—[XXX_46]
The following is a correct copy of a monster bill of fare, from a paper found in the Tower of London:—[S]
| 300 Quarters of Wheat. 300 Tuns of Ale. 104 Tuns of Wine. One Pipe of Spiced Wine. 10 Fat Oxen. 6 Wild Bulls. 300 Pigs. 1004 Wethers. 300 Hogs. 3000 Calves. 300 Capons. 100 Peacocks. 200 Cranes. 200 Kids. 2000 Chickens. 4000 Pigeons. 4000 Rabbits. 4000 Ducks. 204 Bitterns. 400 Hernsies. | 200 Pheasants. 500 Partridges. 5000 Woodcocks. 400 Plovers. 100 Curlews. 100 Quails. 1000 Eggets. 200 Rees. 4000 Bucks, Does, and Roebucks. 155 Hot Venison Pasties. 4000 Cold Venison Pasties. 1000 Dishes of Jellies. 2000 Hot Custards. 4000 Cold Custards. 400 Tarts. 300 Pikes. 300 Breams. 8 Seals, and 4 Porpoises. |
At the feast, the Earl of Warwick was steward; the Earl of Bedford, treasurer; the Lord Hastings, comptroller, with many noble officers; servitors, 1000; cooks, 62; kitcheners and scullions, 515.
In France (14th and 15th centuries) the repasts were commonly divided into five parts, called courses, or dishes.[XXX_47]
The first course was composed of cherries, tender fruits, citrons, and salads.[XXX_48]
Milk-porridge, puddings, and pottages followed; it was the second course.[XXX_49]
The third consisted of roast, with various sauces.[XXX_50]
The second roast, or fourth course,[XXX_51] presented the guests with venison and game.
The fifth course took the name of fruit-course. At this they served tarts made with all sorts of herbs, flowers, grains, vegetables, and fruit.[XXX_52]
XXXI.
THE DINING-ROOM.
The cœnaculum (dining-room), properly so called, was the place in the upper part of the house where they eat.[XXXI_1] It was reached by a staircase,[XXXI_2] and thither persons repaired during the summer, particularly in the country. The Roman villas terminated by a platform, on which the Romans often collected at meal-time; the air was not so hot, and the panorama of the neighbouring country-seats was presented without obstruction, to the gaze of the guests.[XXXI_3]
The dining-room was commonly decorated with fasces of arms and trophies,[XXXI_4] which served as a momento of the warlike virtues of the ancestors of the master of the house. Enchanting frescoes stood out marvellously from the obscure shading of the wall, round which were twined fresh garlands of flowers; and a mosaic floor—master-piece of art and patience—harmonised with the fascinating landscape of the ceiling, the site of which varied with every course.[XXXI_5]
The Emperor Nero, who carried this taste for the beautiful rather too far, devised a sort of vault, in the most elegant style, and entirely composed of movable leaves of ivory, which exhaled sweet
DESCRIPTION OF [PLATE No. XXV.]
No. 1. Large vase, or cratère; a vessel which was placed in the banqueting-room, and also on the empty space left on the tables. In it was put wine and water, which was taken out with a simpulum, a kind of small cup, fixed to a very long handle, bent at the extremity as a hook, to fill the cups of the guests. When the cratères were not fixed on tripods (engytheca, or angotheca), which supported them, they only differed from the cups by their size. Some were of such dimensions that Herodotus speaks of two cratères, one containing 300 amphoræ, and the other 600; there vases commonly exceeded ten-fold the size of the cups, to which they were very similar in shape and handles.
No. 2. A glass vase, with two handles, for iced water.
No. 3. Glass bottle, with its cup, placed on the table for each guest.
perfumes, and whence flowers fell on the guests. In another of his dining-rooms admiration was excited by a magnificent dome, the rotary movement of which imitated, day and night, the course of the celestial bodies.[XXXI_6] These prodigies of ancient mechanism adorned the palace that the prodigal Cæsar called “the gilded house.”[XXXI_7] The colossal statue of that prince rose in the middle of the hall: it was 120 feet high![XXXI_8]
Studious people, or those who wished to appear so, covered some part of the dining-room with books; for it was a custom introduced into Rome to have recitations or readings during the repast.[XXXI_9] Atticus had always a reader;[XXXI_10] and Juvenal promises the friend he invites to supper that he shall hear some fragments from Virgil and Homer.[XXXI_11]
The Greeks yielded willingly to this intellectual pastime at the commencement of the banquet, whilst incense and other perfumes filled the room with a light vapour.[XXXI_12]
Opposite the entrance-door stood a buffet, sometimes of iron, but more generally among the Greeks of sculptured wood, bronze, or silver, on which were represented the heads of oxen or satyrs.[XXXI_13] This piece of furniture was placed under the protection of Mercury, and a curtain commonly veiled the front of it. It served for the display of precious plate—vases of silver, silver-gilt, and gold, enriched with magnificent precious stones.[XXXI_14]
The buffet of the Romans,—a sort of sideboard, of rare workmanship,—was appropriated to the same use.[XXXI_15] Sometimes a single foot supported a white marble table, surrounded with a border of vert-antique, and plates and dishes were arranged on two elegant shelves placed above.[XXXI_16] Again, the artist frequently conceived the idea of giving a whimsical form to the buffet, which enhanced its price—it was a ship laden with the vases necessary for the banquet; four enormous amphoræ occupied the deck, on the two sides of the mast; towards the prow was a candelabrum, and at the stern was displayed a large-bellied cantharus, or vase, with mobile handles;[XXXI_17] the main-topmast
DESCRIPTION OF [PLATE No. XXVI.]
No. 1. A glass vase, with two handles.
No. 2. A glass vase, with three handles.
No. 3. Etruscan vase, with three handles, terra cotta.
No. 4. A large silver vase, to hold wine and water; when placed on the table, the liquor was taken out with simpulum, to fill the drinking cups.
No. 5. A large-bellied cantharus—“Herculaneum.”
was replaced by a large urn, and two cups of Bacchus were gracefully balanced at either extremity of the yard,[XXXI_18] along which were suspended craters, or vases, used in drinking wine.[XXXI_19]
The buffet of the Greeks and Romans survived the ruins of those two celebrated nations; we find it again in the middle ages, and even in more modern times. Then also, rich people loved to display their plate on a very apparent piece of furniture, which, being dressed, took the name of “dresser.” Monstrelet, describing the magnificence of the Duke of Burgundy during his sojourn in Paris, relates: “that in the room of his mansion in which he eat was a square dresser (dressoir) with shelves, which dresser was covered and loaded with very rich gold and silver plate.”[XXXI_20]
Sovereigns who affected great munificence had buffets of metal; there were three—one for silver, one for silver-gilt, and one for gold. At the banquet which the King of France, Charles V., gave to the Emperor Charles IV., his uncle, each of the three buffets was of the same metal as the plate it supported.[XXXI_21]
After the birth of a child, ladies, when they received visits, had a dresser placed in their room. Those of countesses and great ladies had three shelves; those of the wives of the younger sons of baronets had two; women well-connected but not titled could have no shelf. Those who enjoyed the honours of the court placed by the side of the buffet a little table, covered with a white cloth, destined for the hippocrass and spiced wine they offered their visitors,[XXXI_22] and which they drank in hanaps, or a kind of chalice of earthenware, gold, or silver. Those of crystal were much esteemed. Charles the Bald gave to the Abbey of St. Denis a hanap, said to have belonged to Solomon. “It was of pure gold, fine emeralds, fine garnets, and the work so marvellous that in all the kingdoms of the world never was there anything so perfect.”[XXXI_23]
The great lords also indulged in metal dressers,[XXXI_24] to which the 16th century gave the name of “buffets.” Under Henry II. of France the court called them crédence, from an Italian word bearing the same meaning,[XXXI_25] and which they have retained.
The Hebrews probably knew nothing of chimneys. When King Jehoiakim burned the book which Jeremiah had written, “he sat in the winter-house in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him.”[XXXI_26]
When, among the Greeks or Romans, they wanted to warm the dining-room, they also had recourse to braziers or bronze furnaces of the dimension of a middling-sized table, resting on lion’s claws. Foliage in copper, bronze, and silver, was artistically incrusted round the edge. The bottom was a very thick iron grating. Above and beneath, brick-work prevented the coal from touching the upper part, or escaping through the interstices.[XXXI_27]
They also made use of two kinds of stoves to warm the dining-room—the one was concealed under ground in the massive wall, and little pipes extended from its orifice to the apartment; the other, portative and light, disappeared whenever it was judged expedient.[XXXI_28]
Among the pagans, the dining-room was lighted by torches made of a resinous wood,[XXXI_29] or tallow candles.[XXXI_30] The rich had lamps, candelabra,[XXXI_31] or magnificent lustres suspended from the ceiling.[XXXI_32] They even knew the luxury of wax candles.[XXXI_33]
In the middle ages, the sovereigns and the great lords had, in the middle of their dining-rooms, fountains playing, which poured fourth wine, hippocrass, and other liquors. Some gave rose-water and divers odoriferous liquids to perfume the banqueting-hall.
Rubruquis found in Tartary a Parisian goldsmith, Guillaume Boucher, who had settled under the sway of the Khan, and had made him one of those fountains.
DESCRIPTION OF PLATE No. XXVI B.
The Duke of Brunswick’s Vase.—This is one of the finest monuments we have yet seen, which has reference to the mysteries and sacrifices of Ceres and Bacchus. It is a precious vase, made of one single piece of onyx, from the cabinet of the Duke of Brunswick, and of the size represented in the engraving. It was published, and learnedly explained, in 1682, by Jean Henry Eggeling, and printed in the same year. This vase is of a singular form; has one handle, and on the other side a spout, which begins at the bottom, and finishes by a bend towards the top, to pour out the liquor. Eggeling believes that this vase is of the number of those the ancients called guttus, because the liquor came out drop by drop: he comes to that conclusion from a passage of Varro—“Quo vinum dabant, ut minutatim funderent, a guttis guttum appellarunt.” The vase is divided in three parts by two bands of gold, by which it is girdled: that of the middle, which forms the largest space, contains also a larger number of figures. The third diminishes towards the foot, and has figures also, all of which represent the mysteries and sacrifices of Ceres and Bacchus.
The reader will probably feel interested how this vase came into the possession of the Duke of Brunswick. It was in the cabinet of the Duke of Mantua. When that city was taken and sacked, in 1629, a soldier, who had possession of the vase, offered it to Francis Albert, Duke of Lower Saxony, his commander, who gave him a hundred ducats as a reward. This prince left it by will to the Princess Christina Marguerite of Mecklenburg, his wife, who left it in the same way to her sister, the Princess Sophia, Duchess of Brunswick. She also gave it by will to her son, Ferdinand Albert, Duke of Brunswick. The lapidaries thought so much of it, that they offered, in turn, from sixty to ninety thousand imperials. In the inventory of the Princess Sophia it was valued at one hundred and fifty thousand imperials.[T]
The municipal bodies adopted them. At the entrance of Charles VII. into Paris, one of this kind was seen in the Rue St. Denis:—“One of the tubes spouted milk, another vermilion-coloured wine, another white wine, and another pure water; and persons stood all round with silver cups to give drink to the passers-by.”
In the 17th century playing fountains were still used at repasts.[XXXI_34]
XXXII.
THE TABLE.
It is pretended, says Athenæus, that in the Homeric times each guest had a table to himself,[XXXII_1] on which he was served with “a saddle-back of beef, or a whole sheep or goat.” It was the custom among the heroes, all men of high lineage, and tolerably aristocratic in their tastes. The burghers of those warlike times and the villeins of the epoch eat their dinner, without form or ceremony, on a heap of grass, which also served them as a seat or couch.[XXXII_2]
Wooden tables—at first very clumsy ones, no doubt—only came into use when the development of human industry had enabled men to understand that they might be preferable to a truss of hay.[XXXII_3] A passage in Homer would seem to show that they were very much like ours.[XXXII_4] Perhaps the circular form was generally preferred.[XXXII_5]
Luxury soon called for the most precious materials, and the Greeks had, at a very early period, tables of bronze,[XXXII_6] and even of fine silver.[XXXII_7] The isle of Rhenea produced magnificent ones,[XXXII_8] and an expensive fashion caused those luxurious pieces of furniture to be prized when they presented delicate incrustations of silver, bronze, or ivory, and rested on lions’ claws or leopards’ feet.[XXXII_9]
Cneus Manlius introduced these rarities into Rome after the conquest of Asia.[XXXII_10] He was also the originator of tables veneered with plates of gold,[XXXII_11] which ere long adorned the dining-rooms of princes and senators, and the excessive price of which was only surpassed by that of tables made of precious woods from distant countries.[XXXII_12] The maple, the whitten, and a species of African lemon-tree occupied the first rank,[XXXII_13] and the prodigious skill of the workmen gave them a value superior to gold and silver.[XXXII_14]
The most beautiful of these tables were spotted or veined to imitate the tiger’s or panther’s skin; but they acquired an exorbitant claim upon the admiration of connoisseurs when they bore the marvellous design of a peacock’s tail. This fantastic play of nature commanded a boundless price.[XXXII_15]
An artist of unrivalled talent, Carvilius Pollio, was the first, according to Pliny,[XXXII_16] who enriched these magnificent woods with buhl-work of ivory and shell in the acme of perfection.[XXXII_17] Under the reign of Nero, the Romans dyed this shell, and thought to increase its primitive value by giving it the tints and accidental shades of the cedar, the maple, and the lemon tree.[XXXII_18]
These splendid pieces of furniture were at first square;[XXXII_19] then round;[XXXII_20] then in the form of a half-circle or half-moon, and this horseshoe-shaped table they called a sigma, from the name of that Greek letter, which resembled our C.[XXXII_21] The guests whom any person wished to honour most were placed at the extremities of this hemicycle,[XXXII_22] overlaid with magnificent covers, which replaced the skins of beasts, formerly used for their adornment; and, in addition, they were spread with tissues of fine linen and rich stuffs elaborately worked.[XXXII_23]
The tables were changed at each course.[XXXII_24] The Greeks cleaned them with sponge;[XXXII_25] the Latins used a sort of thick, plushed, linen cloth.[XXXII_26]
The opulent citizens possessed a great number of tables; some were of ivory,[XXXII_27] others of maple wood, cedar of Mount Atlas,[XXXII_28] or lemon.[XXXII_29][U] Cicero had one of this latter kind of wood which cost him 200,000 sesterces—about £1,480.[XXXII_30] They rested on one, two, or three feet,[XXXII_31] and were called monopedes, bipedes, and tripedes.
The Romans often changed tables only twice during the repast. Fish and flesh appeared on the first, and the fruit was served on the second.[XXXII_32] The same custom was common to the Greeks and the oriental nations. The Hebrews had also two tables in their solemn feasts and sacrificial banquets; on one was served the flesh of the victim, and on the other they placed the cup of benediction, which passed round from one to another, and was called “the cup of praise.”[XXXII_33]
The luxury of Rome seemed to revive after she had become extinct. Saint Rémi, Bishop of Rheims, left to his heirs a silver table, embellished with figures.[XXXII_34] Charlemagne had three made of the same metal—the first represented the ancient capital of the world; the second, Constantinople; the third, every known region of the earth.[XXXII_35] Aymar, Viscount of Limoges, found on his estate a treasure, which consisted of a table, round which were seated an emperor, his wife, and several children—all as large as life, and of massive gold. Richard Cœur-de-Lion pretended that the treasure belonged to him as Lord of Limousin, and went to lay siege to the castle of Chalons, to which Aymar had retired, where the king received a wound, of which he died the 6th of April, 1199.[XXXII_36]
Silver tables still existed in the 17th century. Madame de Sévigné (1689), speaking of persons who, following the example of Louis XIV., sent their plate to the mint, says: “Madame de Chaulnes has sent her table, two guéridons, and her beautiful toilet of silver gilt.”
At some distance from the sigma, on a slightly raised platform, were three kinds of elegant crédences for the cups, wines, and vases.[XXXII_37] The major-domo himself, generally attended to this part of the service.
A very curious old book, cited by Strutt, “The Booke of Kervynge,”[XXXII_38] contains the following instructions as to the manner of laying the cloth for the King of England:—
“Serve your Soverayne with wafers and ypocras. Also loke your composte be fayre and clene, and your ale fyve dayes olde before men drynke it, and be curtays of answere to eche persone; and whan ye laye the clothe, wype the borde clene with a cloute (cloth); then lay a couch (cloth), take your feluwe, that one ende, and holde you the other ende, then drawe the clothe straught, the bought on the utter edge, take the utter parte and hange it even, then take the thyrde clothe, and laye it bought on the inner edge, and laye estat with the upper parte halfe a fote brode, then cover thy cupborde and thyne ewery with the towel of dyaper; than take thy towell about thy necke, and laye that on syde of the towel upon thy lefte arme, and thereon laye your soveraynes napkyn, and on thyn arme seven loves of brede, with thre or foure trenchour loves, with the ende of the towel, in the lefte hande as the maner is; then take thy salte seller in thy lefte hande, and take the ende of the
DESCRIPTION OF [PLATE No. XXVII.]
No. 1. Etruscan flat vase, of terra cotta, with a cover, to hold a particular drink (warm, perhaps).
No. 2. A marble vase, ornamented, for water.
No. 3. A metal vase, to fill the cups of the guests.
No. 4. A Greek Etruscan drinking vase, of terra cotta, in form of a seated Bacchanal.—“Hercul.”
towell in your ryght hand, to bear in spones and knyves; than set your salte on the ryght syde, where your soverayne shall sytte, and on the lefte syde the salte set your trenchoures; than laye your knyves, and set your brede one lofe by another; your spones, and your napkyns, fayre folder besyde your brede, than over your brede, and trenchours, spones, and knyves, and at every ende of the table set a salte seller, with two trenchour loves, and yf ye wyll wrappe youre soverayne’s brede stately, ye must square and proporcyon your brede, and see that no lofe be more than another; and than shall ye make your wrapper manerly; than take a towell of reynes, of two yerdes and an halfe, and take the towell by the endes double, and laye it on the table; than take the ende of the bought a handfull in your hande, and wrape it harde, and laye the ende so wrapped betwene two towells, upon that ende so wrapped laye your brede, bottom to bottom, syx or seven loves; than set your brede manerly in fourm, and whan your soverayne’s table is thus arrayed, cover all other bordes with salt, trenchours, and cuppes; and se thyn ewery be arrayed with basyns and ewers, and water, hote and colde; and se ye have napkins, cuppes and spones; and se your pottes for wyne and ale be made clene, and to the surnape make curtesy, with a clothe, under a fayre double napry; than take the towelle’s ende next you, and the utter ende of the clothe, on the utter syde of the table, and holde these three endes at ones, and folde them at ones, that a plyte passe not a fote brode; than laye it as it should lye: and after mete wasshe with that, that is at the ryghte ende of the table, ye must guyde it out, and the marshall must convey it; and loke on eche clothe, the ryghte syde be outwarde, and draw it streygthe; than must ye reyse the upper parte of the towell, and laye it without ony grouyng, and at every ende of the towell, ye must convey halfe a yarde that the sewer may make reverently and let it be. And whan your soverayne hath washen, drawe the surnape even; than bere the surnape to the myddes of the borde, and take it up before your soverayne, and bere it into the ewery agayne; and whan your soverayne is set, loke your towell be aboute your necke; then make your soverayne curtesy; than uncover your brede, and set it by the salt, and laye your napkyn, knyfe, and spone, afore hym; than knele on your knee till the purpayne passe eyght loves; and loke ye set at your endes of the table foure loves at a messe; and se that every persone have napkyn and spone, and wayte well to the server, how many dysshes be covered, that so many cuppes cover ye; than serve ye forth the table manerly, that every man may speke your curtesy.”