bread on the table. Actually, althoughbread is consumed by the Brazilian elite, its lack could be justifiedby the consumption of manioc meal, here presented in the form of an escaldado. Cascudo (2008), in his Anthology of the Brazilian Foods, lists anumber of 19th century foreign writers who endorsed Debrets observationson bread, such as Von Martius and Marcgrave. Others imply that corn flour was anequally good replacement, like Saint-Hilaire and Derby.While thewell-off Caucasians had abundant food on their tables, lower classes, includingpoor Caucasians, enslaved or free Africans, as well as mestizos, had to content themselves with a one-dish meal, aporridge-like food prepared with manioc or corn floor, vegetables and pieces ofmeat, referred to as angu.Interestingly, in Brazilian Portuguese, this word today has a rather pejorativeconnotation, implying something like dog food, or food made haphazardly.Debretsdepiction of a Brazilian dinner is consistent with the description of JohnLuccock (2008), an Englishman who lived in Brazil between 1808 and 1818 andtraveled in the Brazilian countryside. Luccock also points out that maniocwas a substitute for bread on Brazilian tables, and peasants often ate it withtheir hands, making use of a knife only to cut the meat. Tables wereinexistent, for meals were served upon a board set over two trestles, revealingtable manners similar to those in the Middle Ages (Laurioux, 2002).If we comparetodays meal of the upper class with that of 200 years ago, similarities anddifferences could be pointed out. Firstly, it is important to bring out thatwhat Debret calls dinner (diner) isactually an afternoon meal, which would occur as from 12 or 1 pm. As forsimilarities, most of the dishes illustrated would not be a surprise to anyBrazilian. The meats and their techniques, such as stewed or roasted, thevegetables, the hot sauce, the fruit, and above all the omnipresence of themanioc meal, here in form of a puree (although the word pirao is of a more updated usage than escaldado, as used by the author).The strikingdifference, however, is two-pronged. First, the amount of food seems ratherexcessive for two people, as today a couple would not be likely to serve suchsubstantial amounts in an ordinary dinner (or lunch, if terminology is to beadapted). It is conjectured that leftovers would be consumed by the largeentourage, which today is inexistent or at least substantially reduced, orsaved for the next day. Secondly, the variety of food and the combinationthereof is rather out of the ordinary for current standards. It does not seemlikely that soup would be eaten in an afternoon meal nowadays, or shrimp, beef,and poultry be served in the same meal. It seems like the menu presented, andthe order in which it appears has an influence of eating habits of Modern Ages bourgeoisie.Finally, anotherstriking difference is the lack of white rice, which today dominates the sceneon any Brazilian tables. Although rice ispresent on the menu of the BrazilianDinner, it is cooked with chicken and functions more like a main meat dishthan a side dish, as it is normally served today. These observations, despitehaving an anecdotal side, are seconded by the findings of Barbosa (2007), whocarried out substantial research on the Brazilian