Salve Venetia, gleanings from Venetian history; vol. IICrawford, F. Marion (Francis Marion)
History
Salve Venetia, gleanings from Venetian history; vol. II
Crawford, F. Marion (Francis Marion)
Venice (Italy) -- History
At weddings it was forbidden to give banquets to more than forty guests.
Some years later another regulation was issued on the same subject. It
was decreed ‘that at these wedding dinners there shall not be served
more than one dish of roast meats and one of boiled meats, and in each
of these courses there shall not be more than three kinds of meat.
Chicken and pigeons are allowed.’
For days of abstinence, the magistrates take the trouble to inform
people what they may eat, namely, two dishes of roast fish, two dishes
of boiled fish, an almond cake, and the ordinary jams. Of fish, sturgeon
and the fish of the lake of Garda are forbidden on such days, and no
sweets are allowed that do not come under one of the two heads
mentioned. Oysters were not allowed at dinners of more than twenty
covers. The pastry-cooks who made jumbles and the like, and the cooks
who were to prepare a dinner, were obliged to give notice to the
provveditors, accompanied by a note of the dishes to be served. The
inspectors of the tribunal had a right to inspect the dining-room,
kitchen, and pantry, in order to verify all matters that came under
their jurisdiction.
As if all this were not enough, considerable fines were imposed on those
who should adorn the doors and outer windows of their houses with
festoons, or who should give concerts in which drums and trumpets were
used. In noting this regulation in his journal, Sanudo observes that the
Council of Ten had only succeeded in framing it after meeting on three
consecutive days in sittings of unusual length. One is apt to connect
the Council of Ten with matters more tragic than these; and one fancies
that the Decemvirs may have sometimes exclaimed with Dante--
Le leggi son, ma chi pon mano ad esse?
(‘There are laws indeed, but who enforces them?’)
The Council judged that there was only one way of accomplishing this,
namely, to create a new magistracy, whose exclusive business it should
be to make and promulgate sumptuary laws. For this purpose three nobles
were chosen who received the title of Provveditori delle Pompe.
M. Armand Baschet, whose profound learning in matters of Venetian law is
beyond dispute, is of opinion that the new tribunal helped Venice to be
great, and hindered her from being extravagant. I shall not venture to
impugn the judgment of so learned a writer, yet we can hardly forbear to
smile at the thought of those three grave nobles, of ripe age and
austere life, who sat down day after day to decide upon the cut of
women’s gowns, the articles necessary to a bride’s outfit, and the
dishes permissible at a dinner-party.
‘Women,’ said their regulations, ‘shall wear clothes of only one colour,
that is to say, velvet, satin, damask, of Persian silk woven of one
tint; but exception is made from this rule for Persian silk of changing
sheen and for brocades, but such gowns must have no trimming.’
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account