IN some homes it seems out of the question to have a late dinner. There may be several reasons for this. Possibly the mistress of the house does all her own work, and finds it easier to dispose of the bulk of her cooking in the morning than later, since she thus leaves free the afternoon hours for leisure or social duties. Or she may, if she keeps servants, live in a neighborhood where late dinners are so far the exception that she finds it impossible to induce her cook to accede to her desire to change the hour of dinner. Or, still again, it may seem expedient to dine at noon, because that hour better suits her husband and children. In any one of these cases, instead of repining over the inevitable, she should set herself to work to make the best of circumstances, and do all in her power to impart every possible charm to the midday meal.

In some parts of the South a one-o'clock dinner is almost unheard of, while the—to Northerners—singular hour of two, or half after two, or three, is chosen. This has the advantage of giving the children plenty of leisure for eating, as their schools have closed by this hour; but the same necessity for haste is laid upon the head of the house that must always prevail when a busy man is obliged to take the time for dinner out of the most active part of the day. Whenever, for any reason, the meal must be only an interlude in work, instead of coming at the close of the day's labors, it should be made a comparatively simple repast.

There is no doubt that the average American eats too rapidly. No one who has witnessed the feats of deglutition performed by commercial travellers at a railway station will cavil at this assertion. It is safe to attribute the national disease of dyspepsia to this cause fully as much as to the indigestible viands of which the ordinary citizen makes his chief diet. And this haste is not confined to the hotel dining-room or the railway eating-house. In private households as astonishing and disgusting exhibitions of rapid gorging may be seen as are ever witnessed in public restaurants.

No one who had once beheld the spectacle could ever forget the fashion in which meals were conducted in a certain home where wealth and every evidence of outward refinement gave promise of better things. The father, a man of business from his sixteenth year, plainly considered eating the duty to be accomplished at the table, and quite ignored such minor considerations as the interchange of thought or observation, or any of the social features usually connected with the operation of dining. If he could not quite equal Napoleon the First, who was said to have often devoured his entire dinner in six minutes, he did not fall far behind the great warrior. Soup, meat, vegetables, dessert, were swallowed in rapid succession and in almost utter silence. The slight delay inseparable from a change of courses was endured impatiently. Almost before the last mouthful was down, the eager man would push back his chair, spring to his feet, and, with a muttered word of farewell, make a rush for the street. In an instant the slam of the front door would announce that he was on his way back to his office.

His children were not backward in imitating him, and all the pleadings of their refined, care-worn mother were powerless to check the influence of the father's example. With such a rush at meal-times, elegant or even tolerably decent table manners were impossible, and the visitor in the home found eating a difficult business when accompanied by the sight of the haste and habits that often could only be described as revolting.

If the midday meal must be hurried, let it also be simple. There is no rhyme or reason in attempting to dispose of a three or four course dinner in thirty or forty minutes. If only half an hour can be allowed for the repast, let this consist of two courses only, either a soup and a meat course, a meat course and a salad, or a meat course and a dessert. These should be served promptly, but in an orderly fashion, and both the conduct of the dinner and the gastric powers will be benefited by such simplicity.

Upon this point the house mother must insist. Even if her husband will not conform to her wishes in this regard, she should require from servants and children a certain amount of propriety in serving the meal and decorum in its discussion. After seeing that the dinner is punctually served, and that the courses follow one another promptly, she should herself set the example of deliberate eating, and should strive, by the introduction of interesting subjects, to encourage the pleasant chat that is a potent aid to digestion. It will cost an effort to do this when she is weary and harassed by household worries, but she will enjoy her own meal more if her mind is, by any agreeable means, distracted for a little while from her cares.

For the midday dinner the table should be laid as it is at night, and the waiting should be performed in the same fashion. The vegetables should, if possible, be served from the side, although in a family where no waitress is employed they may be set upon the table. The custom of having four or five vegetables at dinner appears rather absurd. Where there are only two courses, several kinds may be desired, but as a rule two vegetables, or at the most three, are quite enough. Only a few of these should ever be served in saucers. Even at the tables of people who ought to know better it is nothing unusual to see two or three or more small sauce-plates given to each person. One will contain pease, another tomatoes, another stewed corn, another pickles or jelly. While there may be some sense in having separate little dishes for holding such semi-fluid compounds as stewed tomatoes, stewed corn, or cranberry sauce, there is no cause for using them for pease, string-beans, spinach, cauliflower, and the like. The appearance of such an array suggests a hotel table, and detracts from the home-look which should always be studied by the housekeeper.

Of course there is no possibility of dressy toilettes at midday, but cleanliness and neatness at least may be attained, and it should be one of the unwritten laws of the home that no one may come to the table looking untidy, or in nÉgligÉ of curl-papers and collarless wrappers for the women and shirt sleeves for the men.

Possibly it may seem strange to many people to learn that there are classes among whom it is considered no breach of etiquette for a man to come to the table not only coatless, but even without his collar, cravat, or vest; this, too, not among farmers alone, but in cities and in ranks of life much above those of the ordinary mechanic or common day laborer. Often in the same families the wives and daughters will appear well-bred, and will dress neatly and tastefully themselves, even while they seem to perceive nothing shocking in the dishabille of the men of the house. Perhaps, since those most interested do not complain, no one else has a right to criticise; and yet it does seem as though the regard for appearances and for the small sweet courtesies of life had some claims.

In most cases where one notes such carelessness, it will be found that the trouble began very far back, when the boys who are now men were allowed a similar license in their parents' homes. For the sake of the families of the future, if for no other reason, the mothers of the rising generation should exact appropriate apparel at meals as well as correct behavior and careful table manners from their growing boys and girls, even if the children's fathers refuse to conform to what they deem over-niceness in dress and demeanor.