HOW THE POPES DINE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume III, Issue 137, 17 December 1875, Page 8

HOW THE POPES DINE.

¥* " There arc no rooks in Rome !" so said a recent writer in the 'Journal des Debats/and tbisis'one of the crimes -which the factors of modern civilization lay to the charge of the' Papacy, with more reason, it lnust'be admitted, than some of their other charges ; perhaps it is the fault of the Popes that an illustrious Frenchman when sojourning in Rome cannot get the sort of dinners he is accustomed to have in Paris. He admits that there is abundance of learning, piety, and so forth, but a lamentable neglect of the science of gastronomy, in which Rome is sadly behind not merely the French cities, but even German and English towns, and this is to be attributed to the long years of Papal Government ! It must be admitted that the defence of the Popes from this charge is not so easy as some others, for they have been models of frugality as far as eating was concerned. Gregory the first thought more of the poor than of coots, and had twelve poor wretches fed at his table daily, and often waited on them himself — an example followed by Adrian!., St. Nicholas, and many other Popes. Innocent 111., too, is much to blanic, for he never allowed more than three dishes to be served at his table, and Paul 111., during his dinner, listened to philosophical and theological disquisitions by learned professors whom he had brought in for the purpose. Marcellus 11., besides using great parsimony in his food, and simplicity in the service of his table, had the Sacred Scripture, and the Holy Fathers read to him all the while be was eating. St. Pius V., too, is blameworthy, for he would not allow the cook to spend more than tenpence for his dinner, and Gregory XIII., magnificent in all else, never allowed more than eighteen-penee. Sixtus V made a meditation during dinner on the suffering caused by famine, and Innocent IX ate only one meal a day, and that in the evening. Clement VIII shared his dinner with a number of poor persons equal to the years of his Pontificate, and Alexander VII during dinner meditated on death, aud every article which he ate or drank, or which contained his i'ood — dishes, plates aud cups — were all ornamented with a painting or engraving of the death' b head and cross bones, and however we may shudder at the thought of such embellishments on our dinner plates, we must as Christians confess that they would have a wholcsoiuo effect tipon our souls. Clement IX was a great abstainer, and Innocent XII spent ouly fifteen pence daily in eating and drinking ; Clement XI placed the same restriction on his daily expenses, and, "besides, fasted often, and had his dinner given to the poor ; Clement XI I. invited the King of the Two Sicilies to dine at the Quirinal, and during dinner caused his chief chaplain to read Bellarmiue's tract tie officio Pruicipis Christiani. The fastings and abstinence of the last Pope are well known. Of the reigning Pontiff it would be unseemly to write publicly. History will show that he did not disgrace the examples of pure living left him by his predecessors. No wonder, then, that the art of cookery, or aY least flesh cooking, should not have made much progress in a kingdom whose sovereigns have been such models of parsimony and mortification. — ' Catholic Review.'