1803.] 
ter than rank carrion. When Henry IT. 
entertained his Court at Dublin, at the 
feaft of Chriftmas 1171, the Ivith princes 
and chieftains were aftonifhed at his pro- 
fufion, yet were with difficulty prevailed 
upon by Henry to eat the ficfh of cranes. 
Even fo late as 1575, peacocks were re- 
gularly catalogued in the accounts of fea- 
fonable difhes. But in antient times, or 
rather not above four centuries ago, bit- 
terns, cranes, quails, herons, cygnets, 
and even eagles, occur among the fowls, 
and among the fith the porpoife, at royal 
entertainments. 
The want of forks undoubtedly ac- 
counts for a praétice which all will allow 
to have been a good one——that. of intro- 
ducing a bafin and ewer after dinner.— 
Our prefent citizens of London, 1 believe, 
perfume the water that is introduced at 
the clofe of fome cz their entertainments : 
and perhaps it may countenance their lux- 
ury to fay, that Leland, who wrote in 
thetime of Henry VIII. mentions < da- 
mafke water after dinner.” 
[ thall now prejent your readers with 
4 bill of fare of King Heniy LV.’s co- 
ronatton-dinner, 1349, CQ; Ar from an 
ancient vellum manuieript s the Mufeum, 
(MS. Harl. 279.) 
Eonvicium fate RE Hage oe in Cos 
Le Premier Cours. —Braun en peniarde—Vi- 
aind Ryal—Tefte de fenglere enarmez— 
Graund chiare (flefh, of beef or mutton)— 
Capoun de haut grec-— Fefaunte—Heroun— 
Craftade Lumbarde, (a pye or pafty )—Store- 
joun graunt ect A fotelre. 
Le ij Cours.—Venyfon en furmenty,(Veni- 
fon in broth)—-Gely—Porcelle-farce en fotce, 
(with forced meat )}—Pekoklcys, (peacocks }— 
Cianys, (cranes}—Venyfoun rofte—Conyng, 
(coney)—Byttore, (Bittern)—-Puff endore— 
Graunt tartez—Braun fryez—Leche Lum- 
barde—A fotelte. 
Le iij Cours.—Blaundeforye, (a fort of pot- 
tage)—Quyneys in comfyte—Egretez, (young 
eagles—Curlewes—Pertryche, (partridge }— 
Pyionys, (pigeuns) — Quaylys, (quails) — 
“Snytys, (inipes)—Smal byrdys—Rabettys— 
Pome dorreng, (pomes endorryd) — Braun 
blanke leche—Eyroun Engele—F1ytourys— 
Doucettys, ({weetmeats )—Pety pueux (per- 
veaux, a fparrow)—Egl.~—Pottys of lyly, 
{pots of 1 lies)—A fotelte. 
On one or two of thefe dithes I thall 
pals an obfervation, and detain the read- 
er no longer. 
Braun ea peniarde.—Brawn, i in ancient 
times, meant fichh ; now it is a ppropriat- 
ed to the flefh of the boar ; but formerly 
4 
? 
On the Authenticity of Trogus Pompeius and fuftin. 
119 
even brawn of capons was a common ex- 
preffion. x peniarde means in a fauce 
whofe chief ingredient was the mulberry. 
Viaund ryal, wasa rich mefs of wine, 
honey, fruit, and f{piees, jumbled with 
particular kinds of meat. 
Tefte de fynglere enarmez.—The head 
of a fanglier, oc wild-boar, decorated 
with coats of arms. 
Leche Lumbarde, was a kind of jelly 
made of cream, ifinylafs, fugar, and al- 
monds, named from Lombardy. 
Should the domettic manners of our an- 
ceftors feem to have received any illuflra- 
tion from thefe remarks, 1 fhall be happy 
to take up the pen again, and enter into 
detail upon them in other points of view, 
Iam, Sir, your’s, &c. 
CoQUINARIUS. 
EE 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
ANALYSIS gf TWO MEMOIRS on the Au- 
THENTICITY @zd ORIGINAL MATE- 
RLALS of TROGUS POMPEIUS aud his 
ABRIDGER JUSTIN, READ at @ LATE 
SITTING Of the RoYaL\ SOCIETY of 
SCIENCES at GOTTINGEN, dy M, HEE- 
REN. 
HE obje& of thefe refearches is to 
afcertain, on more folid grounds, 2 
number of interefting paflages of antient 
hiftory, in which Justin is fometimes the 
only, fometimes the principal authority, 
by examining the degree of credit that 
may be allowed him. 2 
In the firft Memoir the author treats of 
the general plan of the great work of Tro- 
gus Pompeius, which contains a hiftory 
of the Macedonian monarchy fiom ifs ori- 
gin until its deftruction, by the conquetts 
of the Romans. 
In the fecound Memoir he Batticnlarizes, 
by reviewing, one after the other, the for-. 
ty-four Boe: of Trogus, according to 
Juttin’s extragys, and by invettigating the 
authorities fr6m which the narration is de- 
rived, 
The author commences wiih fome re- 
fleions on what we ought to expect in 
this cafe. The queftion is of a work thae 
we do not poffels entire, and of which we 
have only certain extracts. Neither ful- 
tin, nor probably Trogus, have once nam- 
ed nor given the flighteft norice of their 
original fources. Thele fources were 
authors whofe works are almoft all loft, 
excepting fome fragments. Nothing elles 
therefore, remained to be done, but frit to 
coll:é&t thofe fragments, and afterwards to 
compare them with’ Jaitin. Lt will be- 
readily 
