[1005] Though the sal-ammoniac that is made in the East may consist in great part of camel’s urine, yet that which is made in Europe (where camels are rarities) and is commonly sold in our shops, is made of man’s urine.—Nat. Hist. of the Human Blood (Works, iv. p. 188).
[1006] Arnot’s History of Edinburgh. Ed. 1779, 4to, p. 601.
FORKS.
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].