Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

The glitch appeared in an MFK Fisher story, which made me sad. MFK has made me sad before, though. She made me sad after reading her biographies. There are still questions that linger with a different taste in my mind after having read more closely of her life as written by 'objective' observers. And after close thought I've decided that no matter how excellent an author's prose, no matter how astute and brilliant an author's contributions to their genre - that it might be sort of silly to try to erase their living actions in terms of reading their works. We may choose to see what we want to see in all the people we run across in life, but to look in another direction entirely in order to not see what we may not like might be actually choosing to embrace a sort of willful ignorance. My opinion only, of course.

On to the glitch. Why MFK. I don't know. I'm not happy about it. I want to keep her on a pedestal.

The story Garum in the book Serve it Forth is a wonderful story of ancient times. In it, the sauce - Garum - is written of in ways amusing and educational along with the culture that produced it. Let's face it, lots of knowledge of history is gathered not through toting heavy books home from the library but rather through more general readings - from stories from authors we trust.

I've read this story many times. Maybe seven or eight over the years since I first fell across MFKF and fell in love with her writing, her world of food. Why then, didn't I notice in those readings that she mentions a vomitoria as being an architectural piece meant for the use it sounds like it is meant to be used for?

Last night my mind actually kicked in while I was re-reading this story. It reminded me that vomitoria are exits or passageways from a building - not fixtures meant to collect vomit from overeating (which was supposedly the way of the culture at the time, at least among that class of people).

All these years I have had pictures in my head of this purging going on, as she so wonderfully describes it in the story. But now I have to question the entire thing - the entire picture that was created in my mind.

I'm stunned and really do not know what to think. Was this a mistake that slipped by even MFKF's editors and publishers through all the editions of the books sold over the years? Is there some other way to explain this aside from a glitch.

Please advise and set my world right again.

And if you run across other glitches, please let me know. One glitch found alone is a solemn lonely thing. Two, or three, or four or more - that could be a party of glitches and what fun it would be!

Ha Ha! And thank you for not doing such a horrible thing! I do understand now the "intermission" and thank you very much for sharing your epiphany with the rest of the class. Having not read that particular tome, I can only say, your distress will be felt by all of your SE friends.

Ah! Thank you, chgoeditor! My error is not alone now it has company in the form of my own error which may have been a glitch in the way I write!

It may not have been a glitch though, what you mention . . .for I purposely ignored the soft meaning of glitch and used it anyway - rather than the harder, secure, more correct 'error' which would have been correct but not as musical. :(

I need a cookie.

Perhaps it was an oversight due to the lack of instant knowledge available in the days of MKF......see the page I found below...which describes how that word & others similar to it were often misinterpreted:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-vom1.htm

Ha, ha, yes you can sailordave. Even after swallowing your chewing gum which will not sit in your stomach for seven years.

And hopefully you won't have to use a vomitorium after all that exercise on a full stomach (if there were such a thing to use).

mepolo - I thought the same thing originally but MFK was not an unknown little read author like the one mentioned in the link. She also was provided with an excellent higher education (or so I seem to remember. Now I'll have to double-check that too for fear my little brain was not working when reading her once again due to the richness of the prose). Not that that means anything, being provided with an excellent higher education - except for bragging rights. But it does lead one to presuppose that things are learned in Latin class and History of Ancient Rome 101.

How on earth did this get by the editors and publishers who are supposed to check sources and accuracy?! Since . . . 1937? !

I mean - in the grand scheme of things it may be more important to be able to recite the cookie recipe from the latest best-selling cookbook but still I am stunned.

So did those fine overfed Ancient Romans throw up at their banquets where they ate as if the best Chinese All-You-Can-Eat Buffet opened right in their hometown but free of cost or not? And if not, where on earth did MFK get the idea that they did? And what source did the idea that a vomitorium was something other than what it is come from? Did she read the word somewhere and read that the Romans were purging and just put the two ideas together, making whole cloth out of half-assed cloth?

It's a fine bold picture, the vomitorium thing as she writes it - one of the things I like about her is that she reads like fiction though supposedly she is not writing fiction. But where does the real thing end and the other begin?

Questions. I've got 'em.

buffy, I heard there's a new book out (or coming out soon) about how to eat at one of those places. You know, for people who need to be taught how to eat what where, the details. It can apparently take study.

Me, I'd rather worry about some word written wrong 80 years ago than study how to shovel the most food in my face for the cheapest price.

That's why I don't mind waiting to eat my cookie.

Alright, I consider myself a foodie and have read much of MFKF's body of work AND I studied Latin for 4 years. I recall learning "vomitorium" and I recall all the girls recoiling in horror at the implied meaning. Foodvox, you are correct in the definition of the word and while many have erred in the usage of the word, still it is true that Romans were in the habit of vomitting during and after banquets. No, they didn't name rooms after the practice, but they did vomit while imbibing...the old puke and rally...only not at toga party keggers, but at high falutin' fine dining extravaganzas.

Seneca wrote, Cum ad cenandum discubuimus, alius sputa deterget, alius reliquias temulentorum [toro] subditus colligit, "When we recline at a banquet, one [slave] wipes up the spittle; another, situated beneath [the table], collects the leavings of the drunks."

I'm not sure who wrote about a failed assassination attempt on Julius Caesar, but basically Julius Caesar wanted to vomit after dinner and went to his room instead of the bathroom where the assassins were waiting...I don't think Brutus was there...anyway, Caesar lived to be assassinated another day.

How did MFKF get vomitorium/ae mixed up with praying to the porcelain god? Well, it's easy to make a *ahem* visceral connection with the root word "vomit." Oxford English Dictionary cites literary figure Aldous Huxley famously misusing the term. Even today, many well-educated people misassociate the word "vomitorium" in theaters.

Yes, Romans vomitted after lavish meals. Yes, Romans used vomitoriae. No, they did not do the former in the latter.

From what I understand, a lot of the vomiting was done in order to get drunk. Since fermented beverages back in those days had a relatively low concentration of alcohol, it took huge amounts in order to get a good buzz on. So one would drink until full, wait for the alcohol to enter the bloodstream, empty the stomach and repeat.

I've started a new topic on this that more specifically asks for opinion on whether this error on vomitoria is one that should have been corrected at some point in time, or not.

To my mind it should have been, and it should be.

Errors are easy enough to make. Amateurs are allowed them. Professionals are not, so much. Experts should avoid them.

chgoeditor very rightly questioned my use of a a word within a context in this topic within hours of my having posted it. That's what I call things working right. Then it's up to me to answer the question.

I've always respected MFKF. I'd like to have the question answered, about why this clearly incorrect summary of food history is standing extant after all this time.

I'm just curious.
And a bit upset, yes.

wookie - MFK does mention Seneca but apparently she missed reading the important part that you quote from him above. She quotes him on talking about how there are too many cooks.

@Pavlov ~ you could use a little brushing up on your Latin, but life is definitely short - too short, if you get my drift and I believe you do. ;)

ok, something about a pigpen out in the good pasture in the heavens? you are a hoot!

*smile* at last, something that makes sense - when pigs fly *smile*