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)

Reconstructed Cistercian bowl
© Abbey House Museum
<click to enlarge>

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)