All nations, whether savage or civilized, have regarded the pleasures of the table as the occasion of the most agreeable society. This species of enjoyment (abstracted from its susceptibility of abuse) makes but one family of all that it brings together. It levels the distinctions introduced by policy or prejudice, and disposes men to regard one another as brethren. Here people feel the equality established by nature; here they forget the evils of life; extinguish their animosities, and drop their enmities. For this reason Aristotle considers as a breach of the social principle, that custom of the Egyptians of eating apart, and praises the convivial repasts established by Minos and Lycurgus.

We learn from Herodotus, that the ancients had neither cups nor bowls at their feasts, but that they drank out of little horns tipt with silver or gold. The Greeks and Romans kept a domestic, for the purpose of reading during their meals and feasts. Sometimes the chief of the family himself performed the office of reader; and history informs us, that the Emperor Severus often read while his family ate. The time of reading was generally at supper; and guests were invited to a reading as they are now-a-days to play at cards.

The Greeks, in their flourishing times, did not profane, (according to their own expression) the holiness of the table, but rather adorned it with ingenious and elegant conversation: they proposed moral topics, of which Plutarch has preserved a collection. Heroes rarely assembled convivially, without bringing affairs of consequence into discourse, or deliberating upon those that regarded either present events or future contingencies. The Scythians, while at meat, used to make the strings of their bows resound, lest their warlike virtues might be enfeebled or lost in the season of pleasure. People of rank among the Rhodians, by a fundamental law of the state, were obliged to dine daily with those who had the management of affairs, in order to deliberate with them concerning such things as were necessary or useful for the country; and on this account the principal ministers of the kingdom were obliged to keep open table for all who could be of use to the state. The Persians also generally deliberated on business at table, but never determined, or put their determinations in execution, except in the morning before eating.

Among the Romans, the place where they supped was generally the vestibule, that a more retired part of the house might not encourage licentiousness and disorder. There were several laws that restricted their meals to these vestibules. When luxury reigned in Rome, they had superb halls for their entertainments. Lucullus had many, each of which bore the name of some deity; and this name was a mark which indicated to the servants the expense of the entertainment. The expense of a supper in Lucullus's hall of Apollo, amounted to fifty thousand drachmas. Singers, dancers, musicians, stage-players, jesters, and buffoons, were brought into these halls to amuse the guests.

Plutarch informs us, that Caesar, after his triumphs, treated the Roman people at twenty-two thousand tables; and by calculation it would seem, that there were at these tables upwards of two hundred thousand persons. The hall in which Nero feasted, by the circular motion of its walls and ceiling, imitated the revolutions of the heavens, and represented the different seasons of the year, changing at every course, and showering down flowers and perfumes on the guests. The Romans did not, as we do, use but one table at their feasts; they had generally two: the first was for the service of animal food, which was afterwards removed, and another introduced with fruits; at this last they sung, and poured out their libations. The Greeks and eastern nations had the same custom, and even the Jews in their solemn feasts, and at sacrifices. The Romans, in the time of Nero, had tables made of citron-wood brought from Mauritania; they were varnished with purple and gold. Dion Cassius affirms, that Seneca had five hundred of these, which he made use of one after another; and Tertullian tells us, that Cicero had but one. The Romans chose the king of the feast by a throw of the dice. At the conclusion of the feast they drank out of a large cup, as often as there were letters in the names of their mistresses.

Feasting seems to have been the chief delight of the Britons, Germans, Gauls, and all the other Celtic nations; in which they indulged themselves to the utmost, as often as they had opportunity. "Among these nations (says M. Pellontier, in his Hist. Celt. lib. ii. c. 12. p. 463.) there is no public assembly, either for civil or religious purposes, duly held; no birth-day, marriage, or funeral, properly celebrated; no treaty of peace or alliance rightly cemented, - without a great feast." When the Germans, says Tacitus, wanted to reconcile enemies, to make alliances, to name chiefs, or to treat of war and peace, it was during the repast that they took counsel; a time in which the mind is most open to the impressions of simple truths, or most easily animated to great attempts. These artless people, during the conviviality of the feast, spoke without disguise. Next day they weighed the counsels of the former evening: they deliberated at a time when they were not disposed to feign, and took their resolution when they were least liable to be deceived. It was by frequent entertainments of this kind, that the great men or chieftains gained the affections and rewarded the services of their followers; and those who made the greatest feasts were sure to be most popular, and to have the greatest retinue. These feasts, in which plenty was more regarded than elegance, lasted commonly several days, and the guests seldom retired until they had consumed all the provisions and exhausted all the liquors.

Athenaeus describes an entertainment that was given by Arcamnes, a very wealthy prince of Gaul, which continued a whole year without interruption, and at which all the people of Gaul, and even all strangers who passed through that country, were made welcome. At these feasts they sometimes consulted about the most important affairs of state, and formed resolutions relating to peace and war; imagining that men spoke their real sentiments with the greatest freedom, and were apt to form the boldest designs, when their spirits were exhilarated with the pleasures of the table. The conversation at these entertainments very frequently turned on the great exploits, which the guests themselves, or their ancestors, had performed in war; which sometimes occasioned quarrels, and even bloodshed. It was at a feast that the two illustrious British princes, Carbar and Oscar, quarrelled about their own bravery and that of their ancestors, and fell by mutual wounds. - Ossian, vol. ii. p. 8, etc.