The Sicilian cooks taught unheard-of refinements, and were sought after with strange eagerness.[XXIX_67] The chine of beef and haunch of mutton of the Homeric epoch, gave way to sumptuous banquets, and a learned prodigality divided them into two or three acts, or courses,[XXIX_68] the order and luxurious majesty of which have been adopted in modern times.

It appears that three or four o’clock in the afternoon—the ninth hour—was the time invariably fixed for the supper of the Romans.[XXIX_69] Like the Greeks of yore, they contented themselves at first with simple aliments, and few in number; subsequently, three courses, sometimes seven,[XXIX_70] or even many more, appeared to them to be hardly sufficient to satisfy the ardent voracity of their eyes, and glut stomachs which odious precautions assimilated to the buckets of Danaus’s daughters.

These suppers, the details of which always appear to us as bearing the impress of exaggeration, notwithstanding the authority of the writers who furnish them, were insufficient for certain prodigies of extravagance and furious gluttony, who were served at midnight with a sort of “wake” (comissatio),[XXIX_71] at which some of them gave proof of renewed greed and vigour.

Vitellius was renowned for this kind of nocturnal debauchery;[XXIX_72] others shone in the second rank, but no one equalled that monarch-cook, who made the empire a market, and his shameful reign an unceasing banquet.

Sensual enjoyments, and every variety of barbarity that follows in their train, were carried to the highest pitch. There was something vast and monstrous, of which nothing can give us an idea, in the eclipse of mind, and the depravity of their hearts. All that force of intelligence and will which, under the influence of Christian spiritualism, has revealed itself in modern times by so many chivalric inspirations, so many moral institutions, so many scientific discoveries, so many industrial works, then ingulfed in the senses, was taxed solely for their gratification. The sensual organization of man had acquired a development apparently as vast as that of intelligence, because intelligence had become the handmaid of the senses: hence those colossal proportions in the tastes, the banquets, the pleasures of the ancients, when compared with ours, which make us regard them as an extinct race of giants, if we consider them in a sensual point of view; and as a race of pygmies, if we measure them by that power of ideas—that metaphysical and moral elevation—to which we have attained, and which would make a child of our days the catechist of all the philosophers of antiquity.[XXIX_73]

Down to the time of the conquest of the north of Europe by the Romans, the food was very simple. Chopped herbs boiled in cauldrons, served in wooden bowls on the hide of an ox, spread on the ground, in the midst of the forest; balls composed of different kinds of flour, and some strips of meat grilled on the embers—such was the food of our forefathers.[XXIX_74]

The table at which the Anglo-Saxons took their repasts, was covered with a very clean cloth. Each one received a horn cup, which contained some kind of pottage, or ale—the beverage for which they had a predilection.[XXIX_75] The plates with which Strutt has enriched his work give a satisfactory idea of the culinary intelligence of the nation. They had spits, knives, plates, and dishes in abundance. England was marching with giant strides towards civilization.[XXIX_76]

The Anglo-Saxons were particularly fond of boiled meat. They cut up the animal they intended to cook, put the pieces into a cauldron, supported by a tripod, and then lighted a fire on the ground. They stirred their ragoût incessantly with a long two-pronged fork, which also served them to take out the meat when it was done.[XXIX_77]

All the deplorable excesses of the Romans ought not to divert us from the fact, that religion and sound policy seem to have consecrated repasts in common, as one of the means best calculated to unite men more closely in the bonds of concord and friendship.[XXIX_78] The Scriptures furnish us with the first examples. Among the Israelites, the banquets which followed the sacrifices always took place in an assembly of relations, neighbours, or friends.[XXIX_79] They eat together and in public on wedding days and solemn festivals.[XXIX_80]

The first Christians promptly adopted this custom: their love feasts—their agapæ—were served in the church, after the Communion. The rich contributed to them abundantly; the poor according to their means; and the indigent who presented themselves with nothing in their hands, were received and treated as brethren.[XXIX_81] Admirable association of penury and opulence, which will never be replaced by the crude Utopias of modern philanthropy!

As an act of justice to Pagan legislators, we are compelled to say that sometimes they had excellent views, which go far to extenuate many of their aberrations. The laws of Minos prescribed to the Cretans the annual levy of an impost, the half of which was to be consecrated to the nourishment of the people. No one could eat alone; a certain number of families met together to take their repasts in common.[XXIX_82] At Lacedæmon, each one brought his share of the provisions necessary for the supper of the whole;[XXIX_83] or he sent at the commencement of the month to the steward of the common halls, wine, cheese, figs, a measure of flour, and a small sum of money to defray other expenses.[XXIX_84] Friendship, sobriety, and concord presided, without exception, at these meetings.

Solon decreed that the Athenians should assemble at the Prytanea to eat together—sometimes one, sometimes another—at the public expense. Each was invited in his turn, and was expected to be there on the day named.[XXIX_85] The Prytanea of Athens, Megara, Olympia, and Cyzica, contained a great number of porticoes, under which were the tables at which the citizens sat.

The founder of Rome also had the wisdom to ordain that, in certain cases, the inhabitants of the same ward should take their repasts in common, as a sign of peace and good feeling; nay, more: he decreed these suppers to be a part of the religious worship, and they were called “sacred banquets.”[XXIX_86]

Man abuses every thing. The Romans, tired of eating merely to support life, and disdaining, little by little, that austere sobriety which rendered them the masters of the world, gave themselves up at last to unbridled luxury, which appears to have redoubled during the war of Italy, and the civil wars of Marius, 83 B.C. Cornelius Sylla assumed the government, and one of the terrible dictator’s laws (Lex Cornelia) renewed the ancient sumptuary regulations, and fixed the prices of provisions.[XXIX_87] Julius Cæsar also made great efforts to oppose the redoubtable invasions of Roman gastronomy. That prince stationed guards in the markets, with orders to seize whatever they found there in contravention of the laws. If, through want of vigilance or fidelity, they allowed anything to escape, it was sure to be confiscated by more active agents, on the very tables, and in presence of the assembled guests.[XXIX_88] Resistance only increased the evil. Augustus thought to render the laws more efficacious by modifying them. He permitted twelve persons to meet in honour of the twelve great gods, and to spend eight shillings in ordinary repasts; twelve shillings in the banquets of the calends, the ides, and the nones; and even two pounds on wedding days and the day following.[XXIX_89]

Tiberius granted still more. Under his reign, a worthy citizen might spend for supper the sum of four pounds, without having to fear that any one would find fault with it.[XXIX_90]

Caligula, Claudius, and Nero—doubtless better judges of liberty than their predecessors—allowed every one the right to ruin himself as joyously as he pleased. These good princes, so far from repressing the luxury of the table, strove to fortify it with the authority of their examples.[XXIX_91]

Vitellius was by nature a non-reformer. That voracious Cæsar operated on a large scale; he spent in four months, for his suppers, a little more than five millions sterling.[XXIX_92] A trifle for a Roman emperor! Did not the riches and labour of Europe, Asia, and Africa, form his civil list? It is quite true that out of this modest revenue he had to find corn to stop the cravings of the proletarians, and provide the games of the Circus, in order to amuse them in their dangerous idleness. But Vitellius, who had no other passion than that of good cheer, was royally equal to the task. And these things cause no surprise when we remember that a Roman general, Lucullus, spent not less than £1,000 to offer a little collation to two of his friends, who refused him the time he required to treat them in a less unceremonious manner.

We find in the history of “Jack of Newbury”[XXIX_93] instructions relative to the manner in which an English tradesman was to feed the persons in his employment in the 16th century, which would certainly not be very pleasing now to that useful and laborious class:—

“You feed your folks with the best of beef and the finest of wheat, which is an oversight; neither do I hear of any knight in this country that doth it, and, to say the truth, how were they able to bear that part which they do, if they saved it not by some means? Come thither, and I warrant you that you shall see brown bread upon the board; if it be of wheat and rye mingled together, it is a great matter, and bread most highly commended, but most commonly they eat barley bread, or rye mingled with peasen or such-like coarse grain, which is doubtless of small price, and there is no other bread allowed except it be at their own board; and in like manner for their meat, it is well known that necks and points of beef is their ordinary fare; which, because it is commonly lean, they seeth therewith now and then a piece of bacon or pork, whereby they make their pottage fat, and therewith drive out the rest with more content: and this you must do. And besides that, the midriffs of oxen, and the cheeks, the sheep’s heads, and the gathers, which you give away at your gate, might serve them well enough; this would be a great spareing to your meat, and by this means you would save much money in the year, whereby you might better maintain your French hood and silk gown.”

The following is the style of living at the court of the Dauphin of France in the 14th century:—

As in all well-regulated houses, there were five repasts, viz.: the morning (except on fast days), the breakfast; the repast of ten o’clock,—(dix heures, or the décimheure; by abbreviation décimer, and by a second abbreviation, dîner)—the dinner; the second dinner, the supper (souper), at which they eat no more soup than we do; and lastly, the night repast, which they called a collation.

As an every-day fare, the Dauphin took for his dinner a rice pottage, with leeks or cabbage, a piece of beef, another of salt pork, a dish of six hens or twelve pullets, divided in two, a piece of roast pork, cheese, and fruit; at supper, a piece of roast beef, a dish of brains, neat’s feet, with vinegar, cheese and fruit. Other days, other dishes, which were also pre-arranged with respect to kind and quantity. The barons of the court had always the half of the quantity of the Dauphin; the knights, the quarter; the equerries and chaplains, the eighth. The distributions of wine and bread were made in the same proportions; such a rank, such weight, such measure; so that the young and delicate baroness had four pots of wine, while the chorister and the chaplain had but one.[XXIX_94]

We are indebted to the learned Monteil for the following details relative to the public repasts of Louis XIV.:—[XXIX_95]

The usher of the court, at the hour named, goes and knocks with his wand at the door of the hall of the body-guard, and says: “Gentlemen, to the king’s table!” a guard is dispatched, who follow him to the goblet, where one of the officers for the service of the table takes the nave. The guard accompany him, marching by his side, sword in hand.

Having arrived at the dining-room, the officers spread the cloth, try the napkins, the fork, the spoon, the knife, and the tooth-picks; that is to say, they touch them with a morsel of bread, which they afterwards eat.

The usher returns again to the hall of the body-guard, knocks at the door with his wand, and cries: “Gentlemen, the king’s meat!” Four guards then follow him to the ambry, where the equerry of the household and the chief steward, or major-domo, test the dishes, by dipping a piece of bread, which they eat. After this, the king’s meat is carried, the guards marching with their drawn swords on either side; the chief steward, preceded by the usher, walking in front. When he arrives near the table, he approaches the nave, and makes his obeisance to it; and if the announcer, or any other person desire also to do it, he may. The gentlemen-in-waiting place the dishes successively, and the table being covered with them, the king then enters.

It is to be remarked, that it is always a prince or a great personage who presents the wet napkin to him with which to wash his hands, whereas it is a simple valet who presents him with the dry napkin to wipe them.

The king takes his seat.

The equerry-carver carves the viands.

The king serves himself on a plate of gold.

When he asks for drink, the cup-bearer calls aloud: “Drink for the king!” At the same time he makes his obeisance to him, goes to the buffet, takes two crystal decanters, one of which is filled with wine, and the other with water, returns to the king, makes another obeisance, removes the cover of the glass, and presents it to the king, who pours out wine and water according to his own pleasure.

During the dinner or supper of the king, a group of lordly courtiers stand behind his chair, and endeavour—though frequently in vain—to divert him, and make him laugh; and another group, composed of ladies of the court, stand behind the queen’s chair, who, on their part, try to amuse her, and excite a smile.

Whether the king eat in public or private, the table is always served in the same manner:—

The king eats only with the royal family and princes of the blood.

Sometimes, however, the Pope’s nuncio has the honour of sitting at his table, but always at the distance of four places.[XXIX_96]

The luxury of the table was carried so far under Edward III. of England, that that prince was constrained, in the 17th year of his reign, to impose sumptuary laws on his subjects, forbidding the common people the indulgence of costly food and fine wines.[XXIX_97]

The necessity for this measure is demonstrated by the fact, of which we read in the chronicles of Stow,[XXIX_98] that, “at the marriage of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the third son of Edward III., with Violentis, the daughter of Galeasius II., Duke of Milan, there was a rich feast, in which above thirty courses were served at the table, and the fragments that remained were more than sufficient to have served a thousand people.”

The same chronicler also informs us that King Richard II. held the Christmas feasts in the great hall of Westminster in 1399, “and such numbers came, that every day there were slain twenty-six or twenty-eight oxen and three hundred sheep, besides fowls without number.”[XXIX_99]

Richard Nevil, Earl of Warwick, kept so good a table, that his guests often eat six fat oxen for their breakfast.[XXIX_100] “In number of dishes and change of meate,” says Holinshed,[XXIX_101] “the nobilitie of Englande do most exceede, sith there is no daye in maner that passeth over their heades, wherein they have not onely beefe, mutton, veale, lambe, kidde, pork, conie, capon, pigge, or so many of these as the season yieldeth, but also some portion of the redde or fallow deere, beside great varietie of fishe and wilde fowle, and thereto sundrie other delicates, wherein the sweet hand of the portingale is not wanting.”

So early as the 16th century the inhabitants of the City of London were remarkable for the astonishing profusion of their repasts, if we are to believe the poet Massinger—

The description of one dish will enable us to judge of the others—

Hang thyself, voluptuous Apicius! thou hast never dreamed of such delicate fare!

In the comedy of the “Parson’s Wedding,”[XXIX_104] the captain orders for his supper “chines fry’d and the salmon calver’d, a carp and black sauce, red deer in the blood, and an assembly of woodcocks and jacksnipes, so fat you would think they had their winding-sheets on; and upon these, as their pages, let me have wait your Sussex wheatear, with a feather in his cap; over all which let our countryman, general chine of beef, command. I hate your French pottage, that looks as if the cook-maid had more hand in it than the cook.”

The luxurious munificence of Norman kings is almost as remarkable as that of the emperors of degenerate Rome.

William the Conqueror had himself crowned three times in the same year, and the banquets he gave on those occasions were such that they impoverished the kingdom.[XXIX_105]

At the dinner given on the marriage of Richard, Earl of Cornwall, and brother of Henry III., with the daughter of Raymond, Earl of Provence, more than thirty thousand dishes were served on the table of the bride and bridegroom.[XXIX_106]

In the year 1252, “John Mansel, the king’s counsellor, gave a stately dinner to the kings of England and Scotland and their queens; there was also present Edward, the king’s son, the Bishop of London, and many earls, barons, knights, and citizens; in short, so large was his company, that his house at Totehill could not contain them; therefore he set up tents and pavilions for their reception; seven hundred messes of meat was not sufficient to serve them for the first course.”[XXIX_107]

The following details, which we borrow from Monteil’s excellent work,[XXIX_108] give us some idea of the style of living in the mansions of France during the 14th century:—

“Whenever there is a dinner of ceremony, the clerks of the church are requested to bring holy water. The repast is commenced and concluded with fruit. The bread eaten is in loaves of nine ounces only. Every bason of meat is surrounded with sage, lavender, or other aromatic herbs; and on Sunday, or any holiday, negus is given. The sideboard, or buffet, is always in the middle of the room, covered with jugs and large drinking cups of gold and silver.

“The cellars, store-rooms, kneading troughs, dairies, and fruit-stores, are filled and emptied unceasingly—take who will, when he will, and as much as he will. Provisions of every kind are heaped up with a profusion that announces magnificence allied with riches.

“The great number of nobles, knights, huntsmen, falconers, pages, kitchen servants, butlers, bakers, the numerous valets, workmen, gardeners, harbingers, door-keepers, porters, and guards are not equal to the task of consuming so much. From all sides come relations, allies, neighbours, friends, pilgrims, and travellers, all of whom remain or depart at will, being feasted as if it were the morrow of a wedding, or a patronal festivity.

“The kitchen chimney-places are not less than twelve feet in width. One man would not have strength sufficient to use the tongs or the shovels. The andirons do not weigh less than a hundred pounds, the trivets forty pounds; copper saucepans of thirty pounds are common, and so are spits of eleven and twelve pounds. One roast is composed of one, two, or three calves, two, three, or four sheep, besides game, venison, and poultry. The boiling of the saucepans, the exhalations from the grease, render the atmosphere so fat, so thick, that it is only necessary to breathe in it to feed. A person would not dare enter one of those kitchens on the eve of a feast day, for fear, as it were, of breaking his fast.

“In the 16th century persons washed their hands at the commencement of a repast, and a second time when it was concluded. When the master of the house was particular on the point of civility, he had a bason sent round at this second ablution, filled with perfumed water.[XXIX_109]

“When the person seated in the chief place was a guest of distinction, politeness made it indispensable to present him with water to rinse his mouth.[XXIX_110]

“One of the most difficult points of French civility in the 16th century was to drink to a person’s health, or return the compliment in a proper manner.[XXIX_111] A guest at one end of the table held up his glass, and called out: ‘Mr. Such-a-one, to your health!’ He replied: ‘I love it from you!’[XXIX_112] During the whole of the repast, healths were bandied to and fro, in every sense. At the end they touched glasses together at a central point, which created a very singular kind of clash, and, at the same time, the arms underneath formed a sort of fasces of sleeves and cuffs.”[XXIX_113]

XXX.

VARIETY OF REPASTS.

The fertile country inhabited by the Jewish people furnished them with a very great variety of excellent provisions. Those of which they made the greatest consumption, and which we find generally mentioned in the Scriptures, are bread, flour, barley, beans, lentils, wine, raisins, figs, honey, butter, oil, sheep, oxen, fatted calves, &c.[XXX_1]

The fat of animals offered in sacrifice was reserved for the Lord;[XXX_2] but, with this exception, the Hebrews could freely make use of it. They esteemed it much, and when they wished to speak of a rich banquet, they called it “a banquet of fat animals.”[XXX_3] “He that loveth wine and oil,”[R] says Solomon, “shall not be rich.”[XXX_4]

The extreme simplicity of the greater part of the Biblical repasts ought not to induce us to suppose that the Jews were entire strangers to the inspirations of good cheer. “Solomon’s provisions for one day were thirty measures of fine flour, and three score measures of meal, ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and an hundred sheep, besides harts, and roebucks, and fallow-deer, and fatted fowl.”[XXX_5]

That primitive nation also knew different kinds of banquets, which, conformably with their naïve manners, were associated with the celebration of a religious solemnity, a sad or a joyful event, a family festivity or mourning, a victory or a public calamity.[XXX_6]

The Greeks and Romans, skilful masters in the art of good living, were early on the alert to assure the collection of all things necessary for the support of life. “Take care,” said Aurelian to Flavius, “take care, above all things, that the markets of Rome be well supplied: nothing more gay or more peaceful than the people, when they are well fed.”[XXX_7] This remark is much more profound than it at first appears.

At Athens, special officers visited the markets, and only permitted each citizen to purchase and keep in his own house the quantity of provisions necessary for one year.[XXX_8]

The ediles of Rome performed nearly similar functions.[XXX_9] The prefect of the town was invested with the power of making regulations for the markets,[XXX_10] and the prefect of provisions had the inspection of the sale of bread, meat, wine, fish, and all other kinds of aliment required either for the table of the rich or poor plebeian.[XXX_11]

During a long time, in Greece and Italy, the only charm of repasts was, that they furnished an opportunity for the exercise of those duties of kind hospitality, which Apollodorus has described in the following ingenuous style: “As soon as a friend,” says he, “steps on the threshold of his host, the porter receives him with a smiling face; the dog of the house comes immediately to caress him, amicably wagging his tail; then some one runs and presents him a seat without being told.”[XXX_12] This last trait is charming.

But afterwards, they thought much more of honouring the god of good cheer than Jupiter Hospes, and joyous Comus became everywhere the fashionable divinity. One of the ancients describes him in the following manner: “He is seen at the door of an apartment communicating with the banqueting hall; his smiling face is fresh, plump, and ruddy; his head is crowned with roses, and he sleeps standing; his left hand rests on a thyrsus, but sleep makes him loose his hold; he staggers, and the torch will soon fall from his grasp.”[XXX_13]

The Greeks were fervent in their worship of this god, at an epoch when Rome still prided herself on her transcendant sobriety. Conon gave a banquet to all the Athenians after the battle of Cnidos, about four centuries before the Christian era; and his celebrated contemporary, the handsome Alcibiades, conqueror in the Olympic games, magnificently regaled the numerous spectators who had just applauded his triumph.[XXX_14]

The pagan temples themselves often rung with the sound of the music, the chaunts, and the dances which always accompanied the religious banquets. These feasts in honour of the immortals must have been rather unedifying to the truly faithful, for gaiety generally degenerated into extreme licentiousness.[XXX_15]

The conquest of Asia was fatal to the Romans. Their savage rudeness yielded to the effeminate manners of the vanquished; and henceforth, the epicureans of Italy studied but one thing—gastronomic delectation; had but one worship—that of the goddess Victua,[XXX_16] protectress of food, and sovereign of the table.

Luxury made appalling progress. Nearly a century B.C., the Romans did not blush to give 50 denarii (£1 16s.) for a young fatted peacock; 3 denarii at least (more than 2s.) for a thrush;[XXX_17] and, a century later, 4,000 sesterces (£36) were given for a couple of fine young pigeons.[XXX_18]

Worse followed!

Seneca describes in few words the luxury of the table among the voluptuous Romans:—“Behold,” says he, “Nomentanus and Apicius, those happy conquerors of all that is delectable on earth or in the sea. Behold them at table, stretched on their couches, and contemplating innumerable viands. Harmonious songs flatter their ears, a variety of pleasing objects occupy their eyes, and the most exquisite savours captivate their insatiable palates.”[XXX_19]

The genius of gluttony multiplied the banquets by prescribing luxurious gastronomic assemblages, sometimes in honour of the gods, and often for the gratification of simple mortals themselves.

Each year, at the ides of November, a repast was offered to Jupiter in the Capitol (cœna Capitolina). The statue of the god was present at the banquet, reclining on a magnificent couch, with Juno and Minerva seated on either side. These divinities were splendidly served, and, as they touched nothing, in the middle of the night the seven epulary priests joyously eat the supper of the three immortals.[XXX_20]

The cereal banquet (cœna Cerealis) was equally splendid, and Ceres maintained the same frugality.[XXX_21]

A sterile reminiscence of the equality which reigned among men in the golden age, placed the slaves at table by the side of their masters, during the celebration of the Saturnalia (cœna Saturnalis).[XXX_22] This usage was common to the Greeks and Romans.[XXX_23]

The ninth day of the August calends, and the thirteenth day of the November calends, a gastronomic solemnity—a monstrous gala—brought together the Roman pontiffs to celebrate the day of their inauguration (cœna pontificalis). This banquet was worthy of the proverbial delicacy of those sacred stomachs.[XXX_24]

The augurs treated themselves magnificently in their turn (cœna auguralis), when they entered on their functions. The pagan priests of Rome vied one with another in a noble emulation of exquisite refinement and ruinous viands;[XXX_25] but it is said that the ministers of Mars, who had the reputation of being arch-epicureans (cœna saliaris), always won the palm in this struggle of magnificence and voluptuousness.[XXX_26]

The day the Emperor took the title of Augustus, he gave a supper (cœna imperatoria) to the senators and magistrates. The tributes of a year were sometimes hardly sufficient to indemnify the grand master of these imperial orgies.[XXX_27]

The triumphal banquets (cœna triumphalis) were less elegant, no doubt, but they cost the victor who invited the people immense sums.[XXX_28] The guests crowded into the vast inclosure of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus,[XXX_29] or the temple of Hercules.[XXX_30]

They sat down to table to celebrate the anniversary of a birth-day (cœna natalitia),[XXX_31] the happy wedding-day (cœna nuptialis),[XXX_32] the arrival of a friend (cœna adventitia),[XXX_33] the sad day of his departure (cœna viatica).[XXX_34] The melancholy ceremony of interment was followed by a supper (cœna funebris), at which the guests were the relations and friends of the deceased.[XXX_35] They drank to his manes, and, by degrees, the wine not only stifled their laments but called forth joyous smiles. The Romans have bequeathed to certain modern nations more than the remembrance of their funeral repasts.

In the palmy days of Athens, the Greeks evinced more of the epicurean than the glutton—a fact which may be inferred from the description of the supper of Dinias.[XXX_36] The most magnificent of their repasts was, perhaps, that which Alexander the Great had served to ten thousand guests, who received, each one, a present of a golden patera.[XXX_37]

In Greece, as in Rome, the greater part of the events of life occasioned the joyous meeting of relations and friends. At the birth of a child,[XXX_38] a banquet was given in his honour; he was named on the tenth day, and the ceremony terminated with a banquet,[XXX_39] in which they offered the guests cooked Cherso cheese, cabbage boiled in oil, pigeons, thrushes, fish, and brimming cups of excellent wine.[XXX_40] The teething repast took place when the child had attained his seventh month, and the weaning supper when he began to eat.[XXX_41]

These family feasts, more or less sumptuous according to the fortune and rank of the individuals who gave them, were generally signalized by a custom which ridiculous and egotistical vanity could alone authorise and maintain. On the banquet day care was taken to throw the feathers of the poultry before the door of the house, in order to excite the fruitless greed of the poor wretches, who, as they passed,[XXX_42] prayed heartily that the infernal divinities might take the proud amphitryon, his guests, and even the meanest of his servants.

In France, about 1350, the setier (about twelve English bushels) of—[XXX_43]

Prices of a few articles in France during the 15th century:[XXX_44]

In England, under the reign of Edward III., a royal proclamation fixed the price of the following articles:—[XXX_45]

The funeral repast of Sir John Redstone, Mayor of London, who died in 153l, occasioned the following expenses:—[XXX_46]

The following is a correct copy of a monster bill of fare, from a paper found in the Tower of London:—[S]

At the feast, the Earl of Warwick was steward; the Earl of Bedford, treasurer; the Lord Hastings, comptroller, with many noble officers; servitors, 1000; cooks, 62; kitcheners and scullions, 515.

In France (14th and 15th centuries) the repasts were commonly divided into five parts, called courses, or dishes.[XXX_47]

The first course was composed of cherries, tender fruits, citrons, and salads.[XXX_48]

Milk-porridge, puddings, and pottages followed; it was the second course.[XXX_49]

The third consisted of roast, with various sauces.[XXX_50]

The second roast, or fourth course,[XXX_51] presented the guests with venison and game.

The fifth course took the name of fruit-course. At this they served tarts made with all sorts of herbs, flowers, grains, vegetables, and fruit.[XXX_52]