|
You are here:
Gastronomy in the guesthouse
(4/6)
Hypocrisy and gluttony
Gerald of Wales suggests that a fundamental difference between the White
Cistercian monks and their Benedictine counterparts, was that whilst
the former made a pretence of observing a frugal diet, and exercised
great abstinence in public, but gorged themselves in secret, the Benedictines
openly indulged in rich foods and drinks. Consequently, most guests
at a Cistercian abbey would have been served a rather meagre spread,
whereas those visiting Benedictine houses were more likely to enjoy
the delicacies served to the monks.
|
Visitors were served a rather frugal
fare in the Cistercian guesthall. For example, eggs and cheese
were not served on Fridays or on customary fast days, and on main
fasts Lenten
bread replaced the superior white bread customarily served.(13) Contemporaries
remarked on this rather Spartan diet. The cleric and man of letters,
John of Salisbury, regarded the Cistercians’ refusal to serve meat
as ‘foreign to all civility, not to say humanity’. He believed
that the White Monks should take a more relaxed approach and make
greater concessions on account of their guests.(14) To
the satirist, Walter Map,
the meagre spread dished up in the Cistercian guesthouse was actually
a reflection of their greed, ‘for one of the hands of avarice is
stinginess’. He argued that they abstained to abound and hoarded
everything.(15) His fellow critic,
Gerald of Wales, argued that the Cistercians’ austerity
was merely a façade. He maintained that although a meagre fare
of herbs, leeks and vegetables was served in public places, such
as the refectory and the guesthall, exquisite foods were gorged
by the monks
and select guests in private chambers, deputed to gluttony.(16)
To
illustrate this hypocrisy, Gerald recounts several characteristically
colourful
anecdotes, including the story of a priest from Hereford, who caught
the monks of one Cistercian abbey that he visited with their hands,
quite literally, in the cookie jar. The aforementioned priest was
accustomed to visit the community to confer goods and benefits,
but on one
such
occasion he was poorly received. After a rather pitiful dinner,
the priest rose from the table and took a stroll through the court,
looking at the
various lodgings and offices. On reaching the innermost chamber,
which was presumably by the infirmary complex, the priest noticed
that the
door was open; he crept in and saw, to his horror, the abbot and
eight or ten of the thirteen brethren gorging themselves in splendour.
The
revellers feasted on meat, capons, geese, good ale and mead, served
from gold and silver vessels. The priest, it seems, cursed the
community and
leapt on his horse, never again to darken their doors or bestow his
largesse.(17)
<back> <next> |