On 25 February (day recorded in some sources) 1599, a banquet described in contemporary and near-contemporary accounts ended with several guests becoming seriously ill. The incident has been cited in some histories as an early example of mass poisoning, but the documentary record is sparse and interpretations vary. What follows summarizes the event as reported, the uncertainties in the sources, and the main lines of scholarly caution. Accounts and immediate reports Surviving references to the banquet appear in chronicles, letters, and later compendia of notable events. These sources commonly note a communal meal at which multiple diners—sometimes described as members of a single household or a linked social circle—were struck by acute gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms soon after eating. At least some contemporaries interpreted the simultaneous sickness as evidence of poisoning, and the incident was transmitted in anecdotal form in regional chronicles and moralizing accounts of the period. Source limitations and uncertainties No single authoritative official investigation record (such as a preserved court verdict or a detailed autopsy report) has been identified that definitively proves deliberate poisoning. The surviving narratives vary in detail: some give only brief mentions of an outbreak of illness after a feast, others emphasize suspected foul play but provide little forensic detail. The passage of time and the tendency of early modern chroniclers to moralize or to incorporate rumor into accounts make it difficult to separate fact from conjecture. Possible explanations Scholars and students of early modern history typically consider several plausible explanations: - Deliberate poisoning: contemporaries sometimes asserted malicious intent. Poisoning with plant toxins (e.g., hemlock, aconite) or with contaminated food or drink is consistent with methods known in the period, but specific evidence tying a named toxin or culprit to this banquet is lacking. - Accidental foodborne contamination: spoiled food, bacterial infections, or toxic fungal contamination (e.g., ergotism) can produce sudden, severe outbreaks after shared meals and were common hazards in the period. - Misattribution or exaggeration: illness from unrelated causes that occurred contemporaneously could be linked by rumor to the meal, or later retellings could amplify the scale or the malign intent. Why historians remain cautious The event is often cited because it appears early in the recorded discussion of group foodborne illness or suspected poisoning. Yet modern historians stress that the label "mass poisoning" implies a level of evidentiary certainty—intentional administration of toxic agents to harm multiple people—that the extant sources do not firmly establish for this 1599 banquet. Without forensic details, corroborating testimony, or legal adjudication preserved in primary records, the most reliable accounts are those that present the episode as an outbreak of illness with contested causes rather than as a proven act of mass poisoning. Conclusion The 25 February 1599 banquet remains an intriguing early case in the history of communal illness and suspected poisoning. It is best treated as a documented instance of multiple diners falling ill after a shared meal, with contemporaneous suspicions of poisoning recorded but not conclusively proven. Scholars therefore present the incident while emphasizing the limits of the source material and the range of plausible natural and deliberate explanations.