MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036392583 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2019.0055

Victorian Funeral Food Customs

2019· article· en· W3036392583 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helen Frisby

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoffinChapelFolkloreHistoryArtAncient historyLawArt historyArchaeologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Victorian Funeral Food Customs Helen Frisby (bio) On 1 July 1893, a funeral took place in the Shropshire town of Market Drayton. As was customary, mourners gathered at the deceased’s home before the funeral. We know what transpired because it happens that one of the mourners later told her friend, Gertrude Hope. Miss Hope belonged to the Folklore Society and subsequently published this account in the society’s journal: The minister of the chapel where the deceased woman had been a regular attendant held a short service in the cottage before the coffin was removed. The lady, who gave me the particulars, arrived rather early, and found the bearers enjoying a good lunch in the only downstairs room. Shortly afterwards the coffin was brought down and was placed on two chairs in the centre of the room, and the mourners having gathered [End Page 221] round it the service proceeded. Directly the minister ended, the woman in charge of the arrangements poured out four glasses of wine and handed one to each bearer present across the coffin, with a biscuit called a “funeral biscuit”. . . . The biscuits were ordinary sponge fingers, usually called “sponge fingers” or “lady’s fingers.” They are, however, also known in the shops of Market Drayton as “funeral biscuits.” The minister, who had lately come from Pembrokeshire, remarked to my informant that he was sorry to see that pagan custom still observed. He had been able to put an end to it in the Pembrokeshire village where he had formerly been. (Hope 292–93) Miss Hope’s account raises several points to be discussed in this essay: the historicity—actual and perceived—of Victorian funeral food customs; the systematic misunderstanding of such customs by those recording them; and the psychosocial functions of funeral food customs generally. The serving of alcohol at British funerals possesses long historical roots. Early records of English funeral hospitality customs, dating from the late Middle Ages, refer simply to “wine.” By the seventeenth century, household account books and undertakers’ bills specify the types of wine—sack, claret, and canary—regularly served at funerals. In 1719, Henri Misson noted of English funeral gatherings that “[b]efore they set out, and after they return, it is usual to present the guests with something to drink, either red or white wine, boil’d with sugar and Cinnamon, or some such Liquor” (91). By the Victorian period, “burnt wine,” “a dark-looking liquid, with a strongly aromatic smell, [which] consisted of ale spiced with cloves, nutmeg, ginger and mace” (Addy 124), featured prominently at funerals. As another Folklore correspondent noted, “[e]ven the poor had one bottle of port, of which everyone must taste” (Thompson 85). Alongside alcoholic beverages, biscuits or cake (the words were often employed interchangeably) were frequently served at affluent funerals prior to the Victorian period. Most fashionable during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were the Naples, or Savoy variety, made with exotic ingredients such as almonds, rosewater, musk, and ambergris. Later, the recipes became simplified, as the custom percolated down the social scale; most commonly (in both senses of the word) consumed at Victorian working- class funerals were crispy sponge fingers or “coffins,” oatcake, and caraway shortcake. Special moulds were sometimes used (fig. 1), these moulds being reserved especially for the preparation of funeral biscuits. Biscuits were also distributed by way of inviting, or “bidding,” guests to the funeral. In some districts, it was customary to bid everyone within a defined geographical area and considered rude to decline without pressing reason (Thompson 85). Pairs of biscuits were wrapped in paper, which [End Page 222] was printed with a black border and suitably lugubrious verses composed to remind the recipients in no uncertain terms of their own mortality. The packets were sealed with black wax, then tied with black ribbon. A bidder wearing mourning would knock on the door and give a packet of biscuits, announcing as they did so, “You are expected to attend John Smith’s burying tomorrow at three o’clock. We bury at [place]” (Brears 189). One such bidder was “Roundlegs,” assistant to George Pearce, confectioner of Sheffield, whose funeral biscuits were so famed locally that they...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicCulinary Culture and TourismFrench-language works237,207