De cibariis et mmptuariis legibus ueterum ad
The Failure of Ancient Sumptuary Laws
The author reviews various Roman laws intended to curb gluttony and luxury, noting their ultimate failure against the persistence of human vice.
On curbing intemperance; the differences between them according to Portunianus; and on the intemperance of Antony, the frugality of Julius Caesar, and on Augustus, Nero, and G. Caligula, Vitellius, and Metellus. The first law for the people was the Orchia law, which prescribed the maximum amount and number of guests; yet it in no way curbed the excess of spending, since it allowed everyone to spend their own wealth on a few people as they pleased. The Fannia law followed, which also set a limit on expenses. A law was also written (the one that followed the Fannia law) for everyone, so that not only city citizens but everyone throughout Italy would be bound by the sumptuary law; for the force of the Didia law consists in this. Added to these was the Licinia law, which set rules for the number of guests, the amount of spending, and cautions regarding places, days, and times; it forbade people from indulging in daily banquets by setting specific days when it was permitted to feast. Therefore, even the sober are restrained in the expenses of their dinners by the prescription of the laws of the age. For the root of luxury began to sprout from the beginning; hence the old saying: Good laws are born from bad morals. The Cornelia sumptuary law was added to those that came before it, though it didn't prohibit lavish banquets or set a limit on gluttony; it simply imposed lower price caps on goods. But on what goods? On what exquisite and almost unknown types of delicacies? He names the fish and the oysters found there, and yet he sets lower prices for them! I would dare to say that the cheapness of these foods encouraged people's minds to prepare an abundance of dishes, and allowed even those with limited means to indulge their gluttony; therefore, anyone who has such great things served at their table—even if they are free—can appear to be extremely luxurious and wasteful. Furthermore, Lucius Sulla, the consul Lepidus, and Anius Restio are said to have passed food laws; for this is what Cato calls sumptuary laws. They differ, however, in that food laws strike at gluttony, while sumptuary laws, as Portunianus says, restrain luxury in a different way. He praises this as a matter of great liberty, because while many laws regarding banquets and expenses were brought before the people, the vigor of that most disciplined law lasted a long time, which has nothing obscene in it because it approves of nothing hidden. He ordered that meals be eaten with the doors wide open, so that the eyes of the citizens might serve as witnesses to curb luxury. Portunianus rightly approves of this, because among a disciplined people—where, unlike in later times, frugality was considered a golden virtue and poverty was neither a source of shame nor contempt—there was no fear that anyone would be emboldened to impudently crash a stranger's dinner. It wasn't considered shameful to show up uninvited to a gathering, but to spontaneously crash a dinner prepared for others is something that even Homer noted with disapproval, whether in his own work or in that of his brother. Yet those laws—whether they were meant to open doors or break them down—even if they were excellent in Portunianus's judgment, were rendered ineffective by the stubbornness of luxury and the unconquerable agreement of vices.
The Excesses of Antony and Cleopatra
The narrative shifts to the extreme indulgence of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, illustrating how power and gluttony corrupt the soul.
Antonius, though he never obeyed any sumptuary law, still passed a law to curb spending; he was a reckless man, but one who was physically weak and entirely given over to luxury. He succeeded Pompey the Great in matters of spending by the decree of Gaius Caesar, a man whom a vile sycophant and a person sordid with vices triumphed over as the conqueror of the world; yet Caesar was captivated by the image of virtue, because he appeared magnificent to the common people through his lavish spending, his gluttonous feasts, and his entourage of thugs and actors. It goes well, therefore, for popular leaders who are forced by necessity to flatter the lowest scoundrels to protect their reputation; for in the Republic, no tyrant approached the prince more closely than Caesar. Although he had oppressed the Republic, the Roman people approved everything he had decreed, perhaps fearing sedition and the recurring agony of civil war. However, the opinion prevailed that because he had been endowed with the highest virtue—that is, clemency—the people approved his statutes as being, for the most part, quite benign. This is why Cicero says in his praise: 'Of all your virtues, none is more admirable or more pleasing than mercy.' Antonius, however, easily undermined a noble heart that possessed the image of such virtue. For he believed that everything produced by sea, land, or even sky was created solely to satisfy his own gluttony, and he would subject it all to his own jaws and teeth. Captivated by this, he wanted to turn the Roman Empire into an Egyptian kingdom, so his wife Cleopatra—who did not think it worthy of her luxury to be conquered by the Romans—challenged him to a wager that she could spend ten million sesterces on a single dinner. This seemed remarkable to Antonius, and he accepted the wager without delay. Numatius Plancus was a fitting judge to be chosen for such an honorable contest. The next day, Cleopatra, testing Antonius, prepared a truly lavish dinner, but it was nothing that would surprise him, since he recognized everything served as coming from his own daily resources. Then the queen, smiling, asked for a goblet, poured some sharp vinegar into it, and in her haste, dropped in a pearl taken from one of her ears; she then drank it down once it had dissolved—as is the nature of that stone. Although she had won the wager with that act—since the pearl itself was worth ten million sesterces without any dispute—she was already reaching for the pearl from her other ear to do the same, had not Numatius Plancus, a very strict judge, promptly declared that Antonius had been defeated. The size of that pearl could be gathered from the fact that the one which remained was later brought to Rome after the queen was defeated and Egypt captured; it was cut in two, and the two pieces were placed on the statue of Venus in the temple called the Pantheon, as items of monstrous size. But through these and similar actions, he proved himself the most intemperate and shameful enemy—not of the Roman people, but of virtue itself—so that the edict he issued during the triumvirate regarding expenditures deserves neither the name nor the force of law.
The Anatomy of Gluttony
The author examines the specific foods and habits that defined Roman gluttony, contrasting ancient standards with the return of such vices in his own time.
That there was a place, or rather a necessity, for food laws is evident from the fact that luxury itself invented the rules for choosing what to eat. Marcus Varro bears witness to this; after listing which parts of Italy produce the best food, he awards the palm to Tiber fish in the eleventh book of his 'Human Affairs' with these words: 'For food, the Campanian land produces the best grain, Falernian the best wine, Cassinum the best oil, Tusculum the best figs, Tarentum the best honey, and the Tiber the best fish.' So says Varro. But among these, the pike held the place of honor, specifically the one caught between the two bridges. Many others show this, as does Gaius Titius, a man of the Lucinian age, in the speech where he argued for the Fannian law; his words are worth including because they serve as testimony not only about the pike caught between the two bridges, but also easily reveal the customs by which most people lived at that time. Describing men who were prodigal, coming into the forum to judge while drunk, and what they usually talked about among themselves, he says: 'They gamble eagerly, drenched in perfumes, surrounded by prostitutes.' When it’s the tenth hour, they order a boy to be called so he can go to the assembly to ask what was done in the forum, who voted for it, who voted against it, how many tribes ordered it, and how many forbade it. From there they head to the forum, so they don't get into a fight; as they go, there isn't a single wine jar in any alley they don't empty, since they're carrying bladders full of wine. They arrive at the forum looking miserable and order those whose business it is to speak. They tell their story. The judge calls for witnesses, but he himself goes off to relieve himself. When he returns, he claims he heard everything. He calls for the records and stares at the writing, barely able to keep his eyes open because of the wine. As he goes to deliberate, he says, 'Why should I deal with these fools when we could be drinking spiced wine mixed with Greek wine instead?' We eat fat thrushes and that fine fish, the bass caught between the bridges. Titius says this. But Pliny, too, elegantly touched upon the subject of gluttony in his own time. For when he was writing about the sturgeon—a fish that, though rare, had lost its value—he added after his previous remarks: "It is held in no honor now; which I find surprising, since it is so rarely found." But this frugality didn't last long. During the reign of Emperor Severus, Samonicus Serenus, a man learned for his age, quoted Pliny and said: "There is no doubt that this fish was held in no honor during the time of Trajan; yet he says it was highly valued among the ancients." I, however, make it clear through evidence—all the more so because I see its popularity at feasts has returned as if by a post-exile restoration—for when I am present at a sacred banquet, I notice with my own indignation that this fish is brought in by crowned servers to the sound of a flute. It would take too long to recount everything that brought about these food laws or what resulted from them; the luxury of morals cannot be captured in words, and there is much unknown to our age that they were able to either express or practice in their customs. Just as conquered Greece captured its fierce conqueror and brought its arts to rustic Latium, so the good and bad customs of all nations have followed the Roman conqueror.
The Vanity of Worldly Magnificence
The author critiques the gathering of worldly goods and foreign customs as a form of vanity, contrasting it with the need for true temperance.
They invoked the spirits of the nations—or rather, their demons—with more superstition than true religion, and they thought they had achieved a great religion simply because they hadn't rejected any falsehood. They stripped their guardian gods from everyone, not through a pious worship but an impious one, so that all of them, gathered into one city, might keep constant watch under its protection. In the same way, they brought into the city whatever they had heard was pleasing in any place, so that there would be a source from which they could provoke the favor and glory of everyone for themselves. King William I of England seemed to do something similar; Normandy, Maine, and eventually Great Britain all yielded to his strength. For once he had taken up the royal crown and settled the peace, he sent envoys to foreign nations so that they might bring back from the most distinguished houses of everyone whatever seemed magnificent or wonderful to them. Everything that could be found of magnificence—or rather, luxury—flowed into that wealthy island, which is almost the only one in the world that is content with its own goods. The intention of that great man was indeed praiseworthy, as he wanted to infuse the virtues of everyone into his own realm. But in my judgment, it would have been more praiseworthy if he had promulgated a law of temperance for the nation he had conquered by arms and whose magnitude had already conquered it with luxury. It would certainly be more fruitful to strengthen this with word and deed than to spread the boldness of self-indulgence by the authority of many great men. Portunianus reports that Gaius Caesar acted differently once peace was restored to the city; following the path of sumptuary law, he decided that a private household—rather than an imperial one—should be content with three standard courses or dishes at the main meal, provided that it was still permissible to add supplementary delicacies as necessity, the dignity of the guests, the exercise of generosity, or the solemnity of the day required. Standard courses are those that apply to everyone, and they’re called 'catholic'—that is, universal—by the Greeks. Supplementary dishes, however, are those that come into the meal for some reason of necessity or courtesy; they’re called this because they’re usually inserted specifically into the standard, or universal, courses. It’s certain that courses don’t consist merely of vegetables or legumes, as is clear from many things, including the fact that the patriarch Isaac ordered a dish to be made for him from his son's hunting. However, 'delicacies' signify every kind of second course, since that’s where things that are more beautiful and refined are usually served. Marcus Varro uses this term, saying: 'Delicacies are those that are most honeyed which are not honeyed at all.' This perhaps can be attributed to the fact that what necessity craves is more pleasing to the user than what the irritation of gluttony invents.
The Shame of Modern Indulgence
The author concludes by condemning the extreme banquets of his own day, noting that what was once considered shameful is now celebrated as sophistication.
But it might seem small-minded to restrict the luxury of a first course this way, or to bring up sumptuary laws in such contexts; yet no one who ruins their character and affairs by indulging their appetite is any greater or more magnificent than Caesar. They give in to luxury, serve vanity, and try to soothe their own wickedness or negligence with the appearance of generosity. Who was more frugal than Caesar Augustus, who, at the very height of his power, was content with secondary bread and the small fish commonly called 'spinatici' or 'ripiliones', and ate only when necessity demanded—or perhaps with a friend? Who was more gluttonous or extravagant than Xerxes? And yet, no wise person will ever consider him great or praiseworthy, any more than G. Caligula or Vitellius were even less so, as they also excessively frequented lunches, dinners, and drinking parties. The most famous dinner, surpassing all others, was the one where he was invited by his brother, featuring two thousand choice fish and seven thousand birds. He even surpassed this himself at the dedication of a platter which, because of its immense size, he called the Shield of Minerva. In it, he mixed the brains of pheasants and peacocks, the tongues of flamingos, and the milt of lampreys, all sourced from every part of the sea. Is the luxurious priest Metellus really greater than Julius or Augustus, when his dinner is easier to describe than it is to comprehend? For he himself made his dinner—or rather, his infamous dinner—and his appetizer, or what Portunianus calls his 'paracenium,' so incredibly lavish that it exceeded not only the splendor of a civilized meal but even the luxury of Egypt. Indeed, he served this: before the main course, sea urchins, all the raw oysters they wanted, pen-shell clams, scallops, thrush with asparagus underneath, a fattened hen, a dish of oysters and pen-shell clams, black dates, white dates, more scallops, Mediterranean slipper lobsters, sea nettles, fig-peckers, bumblebees, capragines, boar's trotters, fattened birds wrapped in flour, fig-peckers, purple murex, and purple dye. At the dinner itself, he served sow's udders, a boar's head, a dish of fish, a dish of udders, ducks, boiled teal, fattened hares, roasted fattened birds, starch, and Piscentine bread. Who could criticize the luxury of others when the priests' dinner was stuffed with so many things? For the very types of food are shameful even to mention, and they are unheard of among our own people, even though they boast far too much about the splendor of their luxury. If anyone wants to know about them, they should review the Saturnalia and run through the civilized customs of Portunianus. Yet, so we don't have to look far for examples of vice, our own age has added its own errors to those of our ancestors. I remember being present in Apulia at the dinner of a certain rich man, which dragged on from about the ninth hour of the day until the twelfth hour of the night, and this during the equinox. The host from Canusium gathered delicacies from Constantinople, Babylon, Alexandria, Palestine, Tripoli, the lands of the barbarians, Syria, and Phoenicia, as if Sicily, Calabria, Apulia, and Campania weren't enough to put together a fancy feast. A man of singular eloquence, who surpasses everyone I've ever seen in his command of three languages, will describe the abundance of the provisions, the discipline of the service, the attentiveness of the staff, and the hospitality of the host more fully and better than I can. That man is John, the treasurer of York; he was there himself. But—and this cannot be said or heard by the faithful without blushing—according to Macrobius, many things that seemed shameful and luxurious to the pagans are things that please our own age and, now that luxury has taken hold, are called magnificent. For in his argument for the Fannian Law, Titius reproaches his own age for bringing 'Trojan pigs' to the table—a name they used because the pig was stuffed with other animals, just as that Trojan horse was stuffed with armed men. If you can, look into the dinner of Trimalchio in Petronius, and you'll be amazed that a pig could be stuffed in such a way, unless perhaps the sheer scale of such unknown and unheard-of luxury takes away your sense of wonder. Indeed, many things that we, taught by use or abuse, don't find surprising, were seen as wonderful, or even astonishing, by our ancestors. For we no longer call the pig 'Trojan' but 'domestic,' and by stuffing it in this way, we make many things 'Trojan.' Hence Marcus Varro says in the third book of his Agriculture: 'This, too, has recently been established: to fatten hares, once they are taken from the warren, by keeping them in cages and enclosed spaces.' Luxury has even made snails fattened. That is what Varro says. Yet luxury no longer carries any stigma for these things; instead, whatever stimulates the appetite is now considered a mark of sophistication.
Read the original Latin
intemperantiam cohercendam; et differentia earum secundumPortunianum; et de intemperantia Antonii et frugalitate lulii Cesaris, de Augusto et Nerone et G. Caligula et Vitellio et Metello. Prima ergo omnium ad populum lex Orchia peruenit, praescribens summam et numerum conuiuarum; uerumtamen immoderationem sumptuum nequaquam cohibuit quin unicuique liceret pro arbitrio bona sua inter paucos consumere. Secuta est ergo lex Fannia, quae etiam sumptibus modum fecit. Scriptaque est (lex quae Fanniam secuta est) in omnes, ut non solum ciues urbani sed omnes ubique Ithaliae lege sumptuaria teneb rentur; nam in eo Didiae legis uis consistit. At istis adiecta est et Licinia, quae numero conuiuarum et quantitati sumptuum et cautioni locorum dierum et temporum ac praescripsit regulam; ne cotidianis liceret exultare conuiuiis, dies certos praefiniens quibus permissum est conuiuari. Ergo etiam sobrii etate seculi praescripto legum cohercetur expensa cenarum. Siquidem ab initio coepit radix luxuriae pullulare; unde et uetus uerbum est: Leges bonae ex malis moribus procreantur.
Lex quoque Comelia suraptuaria est adiecta prioribus, in qua non conuiuiorum magnificentia prohibita est nec gulae modus factus, sed minora pretia rebus imposita. Sed quibus rebus? Quam exquisitis et pene incognitis generibus deliciarum? Quos illic pisces quasque oSulas nominat, et tamen pretia illis minora constituit! Ausim dicere, ut uilitas edulium animos hominum ad parandas obsonionim copias incitaret et gulae seruire etiam qui paruis essent facultatibus possent, Ergo adprime luxuriosus et prodigus uideri potest cui haec tanta in epulis uel gratuita ponantur. Praeterea Lucius Silla, Lepidus consul, Anius Restio leges traduntur tulisse cibarias; sic enim sumptuarias leges Cato appellat. Differunt tamen quod cibariae gulam iugulant, sumptuariae altrimodam, ut ait Portunianus, luxuriam cohibent. Hoc autem magnae libertatis laudibus efFert quod, cum multae leges de cenis et sumptibusferrentur ad populum, castigantissimae illius uigor diu optinuit quae nil obscenum habet quia nil probat occultum.
Praecepit enim ut patentibus ianuis pransitaretur et cenitaretur, ut sic oculis ciuium testibus factis luxuriae modus fieret. Hoc autem ideo tuto probat Portunianus, quia apud populum castigatum et posterioris respectu aureum laudi erat frugalitas, et paupertas non poterat esse contemptui uel rubori; nec uerendum erat ut ad cenam alienam quispiam incitatus impudenter irrueret. Superuenire enim fabulis non euocatos haud equidem turpe existimatur; uerum sponte irruere in conuiuium aliis praeparatum nec Homero sine nota uel in fratre memoratum est. Cetenim leges illae ualuipatae seu ualuifragae, licet Portuniani iudicio optimae fuerint, obstinatione tamen luxuriae et a uitiorum inuicta concordianuUo abrogante irritae factae sunt. Antonius,etsi nulli sumptuariae legi paruerit,legem tamen de cohibendis sumptibus tulit, homo quidem temerarius sed manu inualidus et luxuriae deditus usquequaque. Sumptuumque merito Magno Pompeio successit ex decreto Gaii Cesaris, de quo triumphatore orbis uilis adulator et homo uitiis sordidus triumphauit; captus est tamen Cesar uirtutis imagine, eo quod profusione pecuniae et conuiscerationibus et latronum et histrionum stipatu magnificus uulgariter uidebatur. Ergo bene agitur cum principibus popularibus qui ex necessitate coguntur ad custodiam famae uilissimis nebulonibus adulari; nam in re publica nemo tirannorum Cesare magis accessit ad principem; licet enim rem publib cam oppressisset, populus tamen Romanus omnia quae ipse decreuerat approbauit, forte ueritus seditionem et ciuilis belli reciduam passionem. Opinio tamen praeualuit ut, quia summa uirtute, id est clementia, praeditus fuerat, statuta eius quasi ex maxima parte benigniora populus approbaret.
Vnde in laude eius Cicero ait: NuUa de uirtutibus tuis nec admirabilior nec gratior misericordia est. Pium ergo animum egregiae uirtutis imagine facile supplantauit Antonius, Hic enim, cum quicquid mari aut terra aut etiam celo gigneretur ad satiandam ingluuiem suam natum existimans faucibus ac dentibus suis subderet, eaque re captus de Romano imperio facere uellet Egiptium regnum, Cleopatra uxor, quae uinci a Romanis nec luxuria dignac retur, sponsione prouocauit insumere se posse in unam cenam sextertium centies. Id mirum Antonio uisum, nec moratus sponsione contendit. Dignus culina Numatius Plancus qui tam honesti certaminis arbiter electus est. Altera die Cleopatra, pertentans Antonium,pollucibilem sane parauit cenam, sed quam non miraretur Antonius, quippe qui omnia quae apponebantur ex cotidianis opibus agnosceret. Tunc regina arridens phialam poposcit, cui nonnichil aceti acris infudit, dimisitque festinabunda illuc unionem ex altera aure demptum, et eundem mature dissolutum (uti natura est eius lapidis) absorbuit. Et quamuis eo facto sponsione uicisset, quippe cum ipsa margarita centies sexd tertium sine contentione eualuisset, manum tamen ad alterius auris unionem similiter admouit, nisi Numatius Plancus, iudex seuerissimus, superatum Antonium mature pronuntiasset. Ipse autem unio, cuius fuerit magnitudinis inde colligi poterat quod qui superfuit, postea uicta regina et capta Egipto Romam delatus dissectusque est, et factae ex una margarita duae impositaeque simulacro Veneris ut monstruosae magnitudinis in templo quod Panteon appellatur.
Sed his et similibus demeruit intemperantissimus et flagitiosissimus non populi Romani sed uirtutum publicus hostis ne edictum quod triumuiratus tempore de sumptibus posuit legis nomen habeat aut uigorem. Locum autem a immo et necessitatem legibus fuisse cibariis uel ex eo constat quod cibariorum deligendorum regulam luxuria adinuenit. Testatur hoc Marcus Varro qui enumeratis quae in quibus Italiae partibus optima ad uictum gignantur, pisci Tiberino his uerbis tribuit palmam in libro undecimo Rerum Humanarum: Ad uictum optima fert ager Campanus frumentum, Falemus uinum, Cassinas oleum, Tusculanus ficum, mel Tarentinus, piscem Tiberis. Haec Varro. Sed inter eos praecipuum locum lupus tenuit, et quidem is qui inter duos pontes captus esset. Id ostendunt cum multi alii tum etiam Gaius Titius, uir etatis Lucinianae, in oratione qua legem Phanniam suasit; cuius uerba ideo ponenda sunt, quia non solum de lupo inter duos pontes capto erunt testimonio, sed etiam mores quibus tunc plerique uiuebant facile publicabunt. Describens enim homines prodigos in forum ad iudicandum ebrios commeantes quaeque soleant inter se sermocinari, sic ait: Ludunt alea studiose, delibuti unguentis, scortis stipati. Vbi horae decem sunt, iubent puerum uocari ut comitium eat percunctatum quid in foro gestum sit, qui suaserint, qui dissuaserint, quot tribus iusserint, quot uetuerint.
Inde ad comitium uadunt, ne litem suam faciant; dum eunt, nulla est in angiportu amphora quam non impleant, quippe qui uesicam plenam uini habent. Veniunt in comitium tristes, iubent dicere quorum negotium est. Narrant. ludex testes poscit, ipsus it minctum. Vbi redit, ait se omnia audiuisse. Tabulas poscit, litteras inspicit, uix prae uino sustinet palpebras. Eunti in consilium ibi haec oratio: Quid michi negotii est cum istis nugatoribus potius quam potemus mulsum mixtum cum uino Greco? Edimus turdum pinguem bonumque piscem lupum germanum qui inter pontes captus fuit.
Haec Titius. Sed et Plinius sui temporis eleganter tetigit gulam. Cum enim scriberet de pisce ancipensere, qui licet rarus esset, pretium eius niluerat, post praemissa subiecit: NuUo in honore nunc est; quod equidem miror, cum sit rarus inuentu. Sed non diu stetit haec parsimonia. Nam temporibus Seueri principis Samonicus Serenus, uir seculo suo doctus, subiciens uerba Plinii: Non est dubium, ait, piscem hunc nullo in honore Traiani temporibus extitisse; uerum ab eo dici apud antiquos fuisse in pretio. Ego autem testimoniis palam facio uel eo magis quod gratiam eius uideo ad epulas quasi postliminio rediisse, quippe qui indignatione nostra, cum intersim conuiuio sacro, animaduertam hunc piscem a coronatis ministris cura tibicine introferri. Longum erit si omnia quae leges cibarias induxerunt uel a cibariis legibus nata sunt uoluero enarrare; cum nec luxus morum sermone ualeat comprehendi et sint plurima seculo nostro incognita quae illi uel uerbis exprimere uel exercere moribus potuerunt. Sicut enim Grecia capta ferum uictorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio, sic omnium gentium mores boni et mali Romanum uictorem a persecuti sunt.
Siquidem numina, immo demonia, gentium superstitiosius quam religiosius aduocabant, magnamque sibi uisi sunt assequi religionem quia nullam respuerant faLsitatem. Deos tutelares non tam pio quam impio cultu omnibus subtrahebant, ut omnes in una urbe collecti in illius custodia iugiter uigilarent. Sic et quae ubique locorum placuisse audierant in urbem traiecerunt, ut esset unde possent gratiam omnium in se et gloriam prouocare. Simile aliquid fecisse uisus est rex Anglorum Willelmus primus, cuius uirtuti Normannia Cenomannis et tandem maior Britannia eessit. Assumpto namque regni diademate et paee eomposita legatos misit ad exteras nationes ut a praeclaris omnium domibus quicquid eis magnificum aut mirificum uideretur afferrent. Defluxit ergo in insulam opulentam et quae fere sola bonis suis est in orbe contenta quicquid magnificentiae, immo luxuriae, potuit inueniri. Laudabile quidem fuit magni uiri propositum qui uirtutes omnium orbi suo uolebat infundere. Sed meo arbitratu laudabilius extitisset, si in gentem quam armis uicerat et quam luxuriae praeuicerat magnitudo legem temperantiae promulgasset.
Sane fructuosius esset eam roborare uerbo et opere quam lasciuiendi ab auctoritate multorum magnoc rumque propagare audaciam. Secus egisse Gaium Cesarem pace urbi reformata refert Portunianus, qui, sumptuariae legis insistens uestigio, domum ciuilem potius quam imperatoriam in mensa prima tribus solempnibus pulmentis siue ferculis statuit esse contentam, dum tamen bellaria parentetica pro necessitate aut dignitate personarum et aut exercenda liberalitate aut solemnitate diei primis mensis licuerit immiscere. Solemnia quidem pulmenta sunt quae in omnes pertranseunt et a Grecis catholica, hoc est uniuersalia, nominantur. Parentetica uero quae ex causa necessitatis aut urbanitatis in praeceptam aliqua ratione ueniunt partem; sic dicta eo quod solempnibus, id est uniuersalibus, particulariter soleant interponi. Nec enim pulmenta in olere aut legumine dumtaxat constare certum est cum ex multis tum ex eo quod patriareha Ysaac de uenatione filii sibi pulmentum fieri imperauit. Significant autem bellaria omne genus mensae secundae quoniam ibi solent apponi quae pulchriora sunt et delicatiora. Vtitur autem hoc nomine Marcus Varro: Bellaria, inquit, ea maxime mellita sunt quae mellita non sunt. Quod forte eo referri potest quod utenti gratiora sunt ea quae necessitas appetit quam quae irritatio gulae inuenit.
Sed forte pusilli uidetur animi qui ad hunc modum primae mensae luxuriam cohibet aut qui facit in talibus legis sumptuariae mentionem; nec tamen Cesare maior est aut magnificentior quisquam eorum qui morum rerumque iactura exercent gulam. Luxuriae a obsecuntur, seruiunt uanitati, et nequitiam aut negligentiam suam nituntur liberalitatis imagine consolari. Quis Cesare Augusto frugalior, qui in summo fastigii culmine secundario pane et pisciculis quos uulgo spinaticos uel ripiliones nocant contentus erat et non nisi necessitate urgente comedebat uel amico 'i Quis Xerone gulosior aut sumptuosior? Et tamen hic numquam magnus aut laudatus erit alicui sapienti non magis quam G. Caligula aut Vitellius sed etiam minus; nam et hic prandia et cenas et comesationes immodice frequentabat. Famosissima super ceteras fuit cena in qua inuitatus a fratre fuit, habens duo milia lectissimorum piscium, septem milia auiimi. Hanc quoque exuperauit ipse in dedicatione paterae quam ob immensam magnitudinem clipeum Mineruae appellauit. In hac fasianonim et pauonum cerebella, linguas phoenicopterum, murenarum lactes ex cunctis maris partibus petitarum commiscuit.
Numquid lulio uel Augusto maior est Metellus pontifex luxuriosus, cuius cenam facilius est referre quam intelligere? Nam et ipse famosam, immo infamem fecit cenam et anticenium uel, ut ait Portunianus, paracenium, tanta instruxit luxuria ut non modo splendorem cenae ciuilis sed etiam Egiptium luxum excederet. Siquidem cenam hanc apposuit: ante cenam echinos, ostreas crudas quantum uellent, peloridas, spondilos, turdum asperagos subtus, gallinam altilem, patinam ostrearum peloridum, balanos nigros, balanos albos, iterum spondilos, glicomaridas, urticas, fiscedulas, bumbos capragines, apri ungues, altilia ex farina inuoluta, fiscedulas murices et purpuras; in cena sumina, sinciput aprinum, patinam piscium, patinam suminis, anates, querquedulas elixas, lepores saginatos, altilia assa, amilum, panes Piscentes. Quis tunc luxuriam accusaret aliorum, quando tot rebus farta fuit cena pontificum? Nam et ipsa eduliorum genera uel dictu turpia sunt et nostratibus, licet nimis in luxus splendore glorientur, pro parte inaudita. Si quis ea nosse desiderat, recenseat Saturnalia, percurrat Portuniani ciuilia instituta. Ne tamen uitiorum longe petantur exempla, maiorum erroribus suos nostra etas adiecit. Memini meipsum in Apulia diuitis cuiusdam interfuisse cenae, quae ab hora diei nona fere usque ad duodecimam noctis et hoc quidem tempore aequidiali protracta est.
In hanc itaque Canusinus hospes ConstantinopoKtanas Babilonicas Alexandrinas Palestinas Tripolitanas Barbarorum Sirias Pheniciasque congessit delicias, ac si Sicilia Calabria Apulia Campaniaque non sufficiant conuiuium instruere delicatum. Copiam rerum ministerii disciplinam sedulitatem obsequii, urbanitatem hospitis plenius et melius referet uir singularis eloquii et qui omnibus quos uiderim trium linguarum gratia praestat. Is quidem est lohannes thesaurarius Eboraci; nam et ipse interfuit. Sed, quod sine rubore fidelium dici uel audiri non potest, infidelibus, a teste Macrobio, plura turpia et luxuriosa uidebantur quae seculo nostro placent et optinente luxu magnifica appellantur. Nam Titius in suasione legis Fanniae obicit seculo suo quod porcum Troianum mensis inferant, quem illi ideo sic uocabant quasi aliis inclusis animalibus grauidum sicut Troianus ille equus grauidus armatis fuit. Cenam Trimalchionis apud Petronium, si potes, ingredere, et porcum sic grauidari posse miraberis, nisi forte admirationem multiplex ignota et inaudita luxuria tollat. Et quidem multa, quae nos usu uel abusu edocti non miramur, uisa sunt admiranda immo et stupenda maioribus. Nam et porcum iam non Troianum sed domesticum dicimus et in hunc modum farciendo quam plura facimus esse Troiana.
Vnde Marcus Varro in libro tertio de Agricultura: Hoc quoque nuper institutum est saginari et lepores, cum exceptos e leporario quondam in caueis et loco clauso faciam pingues. Sed et cocleas luxus efFecit saginatas. Haec Varro. Nichil autem istorum luxus iam habet notam sed est ciuilitatis insigne quicquid incentiuum est gulae.
Policraticus companion
Study the argument weekly; pray the tradition daily
Pair the outline with the Chosen Portion app, which serves short daily portions from the same royal devotional tradition — free on iOS.
John of Salisbury argued that rulers must keep the law of God before their eyes daily; Chosen Portion gives modern readers that same daily discipline in five minutes a morning.
- 8 weeks, one book per week, with the 3-4 key chapters flagged in each
- Discussion questions usable for a reading group from week one
- A daily 5-minute companion portion in the app alongside your weekly study