The Forme of Cury | Page 2

had no oil, and we hear nothing of their
butter, they used only sheep and oxen, eating neither hares, though so
greatly esteemed at Rome, nor hens, nor geese, from a notion of
superstition. Nor did they eat fish. There was little corn in the interior
part of the island, but they lived on milk and flesh [11]; though it is
expressly asserted by Strabo that they had no cheese [12]. The later
Britons, however, well knew how to make the best use of the cow,
since, as appears from the laws of _Hoel Dda_, A.D. 943, this animal
was a creature so essential, so common and useful in Wales, as to be
the standard in rating fines, &c. [13].
Hengist, leader of the Saxons, made grand entertainments for king
Vortigern [14], but no particulars have come down to us; and certainly
little exquisite can be expected from a people then so extremely
barbarous as not to be able either to read or write. 'Barbari homines a
septentrione, (they are the words of Dr. Lister) caseo et ferina subcruda
victitantes, omnia condimenta adjectiva respuerunt' [15].
Some have fancied, that as the Danes imported the custom of hard and
deep drinking, so they likewise introduced the practice of gormandizing,
and that this word itself is derived from _Gormund_, the name of that
Danish king whom Ælfred the Great persuaded to be christened, and
called Æthelstane [16], Now 'tis certain that Hardicnut stands on record
as an egregious glutton [17], but he is not particularly famous for being
a _curious Viander_; 'tis true again, that the Danes in general indulged
excessively in feasts and entertainments [18], but we have no reason to
imagine any elegance of Cookery to have flourished amongst them.
And though Guthrum, the Danish prince, is in some authors named
Gormundus [19]; yet this is not the right etymology of our English
word _Gormandize_, since it is rather the French _Gourmand_, or the
British Gormod [20]. So that
we have little to say as to the Danes.

I shall take the later English and the Normans together, on account of
the intermixture of the two nations after the Conquest, since, as lord
Lyttelton observes, the English accommodated them elves to the
Norman manners, except in point of temperance in eating and drinking,
and communicated to them their own habits of drunkenness and
immoderate feasting [21]. Erasmus also remarks, that the English in his
time were attached to _plentiful and splendid tables_; and the same is
observed by Harrison [22]. As to the Normans, both William I. and
Rufus made grand entertainments [23]; the former was remarkable for
an immense paunch, and withal was so exact, so nice and curious in his
repasts [24], that when his prime favourite William Fitz- Osberne, who
as steward of the household had the charge of the Cury, served him
with the flesh of a crane scarcely half-roasted, he was so highly
exasperated, that he lifted up his fist, and would have strucken him, had
not Eudo, appointed Dapiser immediately after, warded off the blow
[25].
_Dapiser_, by which is usually understood _steward of the king's
household_ [26], was a high officer amongst the Normans; and
Larderarius was another, clergymen then often occupying this post,
and sometimes made bishops from it [27]. He was under the _Dapiser_,
as was likewise the _Cocus Dominicæ Coquinæ_, concerning whom,
his assistants and allowances, the Liber Niger may be consulted [28]. It
appears further from _Fleta_, that the chief cooks were often providers,
as well as dressers, of victuals [29]. But _Magister Coquinæ_, who was
an esquire by office, seems to have had the care of pourveyance, A.D.
1340 [30], and to have nearly corresponded with our _clerk of the
kitchen_, having authority over the cooks [31]. However, the _Magnus
Coquus_, _Coquorum Præpositus_, _Coquus Regius_, and _Grans
Queux_, were officers of considerable dignity in the palaces of princes;
and the officers under them, according to Du Fresne, were in the
French court A.D. 1385, much about the time that our Roll was made,
'Queus, Aideurs, Asteurs, Paiges, Souffleurs, Enfans, Saussiers de
Commun, Saussiers devers le Roy, Sommiers, Poulliers, Huissiers'
[32].
In regard to religious houses, the Cooks of the greater foundations were
officers of consequence, though under the Cellarer [33], and if he were
not a monk, he nevertheless was to enjoy the portion of a monk [34].

But it appears from Somner, that at Christ Church, Canterbury, the
Lardyrer was the first or chief cook [35]; and this officer, as we have
seen, was often an ecclesiastic. However, the great Houses had Cooks
of different ranks [36]; and manors and churches [37] were often given
ad cibum and ad victum monachorum [38]. A fishing at Lambeth was
allotted to that purpose [39].
But whether the Cooks were Monks or