mediaeval meal times

[sknox]

Those who had land, ate. Even the lowliest cottager would have a kitchen garden of some sort. But there were those who had no land, who were the hired hands, the outlaws (not necessarily bandits, just those outside the law), woodcutters, shepherds, etc. These were among the poorest of the poor in the countryside. I'm pretty certain we have no data at all about how these people ate, still less how often or at what time of day.

In the towns there were also hired hands--we'd call them day laborers. There were also what the city called "the poor" by which was meant those who were too sick or feeble to work, beggars, and urban versions of outlaws. Some of these were on the public dole--the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation, some form of a community chest after. These, too, are beyond our reach wrt dietary practices.

There's been some interesting research of late about sleep patterns--most of the earliest evidence is early modern, with some stray medieval bits. This research says it was commonplace for people to wake up in the middle of the night and stay awake for a couple of hours or so. One of the things they did during the wee hours was have a bite to eat. Evidence for this is largely documentary, so it's going to apply to the better sort. We can only guess about peasants, serfs, and the rural poor.

 

[-K2-]

Those who had land, ate. Even the lowliest cottager would have a kitchen garden of some sort. But there were those who had no land, who were the hired hands, the outlaws (not necessarily bandits, just those outside the law), woodcutters, shepherds, etc. These were among the poorest of the poor in the countryside. I'm pretty certain we have no data at all about how these people ate, still less how often or at what time of day.

In the towns there were also hired hands--we'd call them day laborers. There were also what the city called "the poor" by which was meant those who were too sick or feeble to work, beggars, and urban versions of outlaws. Some of these were on the public dole--the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation, some form of a community chest after. These, too, are beyond our reach wrt dietary practices.

There's been some interesting research of late about sleep patterns--most of the earliest evidence is early modern, with some stray medieval bits. This research says it was commonplace for people to wake up in the middle of the night and stay awake for a couple of hours or so. One of the things they did during the wee hours was have a bite to eat. Evidence for this is largely documentary, so it's going to apply to the better sort. We can only guess about peasants, serfs, and the rural poor.

Though true I suspect, I'm going to argue that a bit further.

Just because you own land, doesn't mean it's productive or that year round you are capable of producing food from it (long term storage/spoilage, another consideration). If the seed you could gather/buy didn't yield what you hoped, or if feed for livestock was insufficient, weather, disease, and so on, would mean basically the end of the line. How do you survive? You sell your land for next to nothing and in six months you're back to starving with no land to sell.

Rural or city, HoH illness means everyone in the household starves. More so, considering that home ownership I suspect was more of a rarity than rent, that means during thin weeks of money, rent gets paid first... then bills that risk incarceration or forced servitude, etc., food rather low on the 'must have' list.

People tend to forget, folks who live 'hand to mouth' usually endure, yet do so by sacrificing their nutrition, health and ultimately their longevity. They will do what it takes to survive, and if what it takes is more than what they have, then they will sacrifice their health, morality, self-esteem. An empty belly for a few days, perhaps risking illness, never considering the years peeled off from their life, is more often than not an easy trade to make when faced with more immediate, worse seeming (in the now), options.

K2

 

[Dragonlady]

It's so easy to forget when you've always lived in comfort and food security just how precarious life can be, reminds me of the slum living history documentary recently, where real families were making decisions about how to pay the rent and eat with only tenuous work.

I'd forgotten I have Le Bon Berger - a book written by a real C14 shepherd, if an apparently well connected one. He mentions food three times -
1. A shepherd should have a scrip to carry bread for himself and his dog
2. In January a shepherd should breakfast on bread and soup from the night before at first light
3. In august a shepherd should breakfast on soup with water or whey first thing, and should only take bread for his dog, not himself.

We can extrapolate that the main meal was the aforementioned soup after the sheep were in their fold at night.

The book as a whole is also a reminder that people of the past had rather different views about logic, nature and common sense - if water is harmful to sheep in March, and colostrum is unhealthy for lambs, what sort of bizarre beliefs did they have about food for people?

 

[Star-child]

According to this:

Chicago, IL | Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament

www.medievaltimes.com

The meal begins at 7:30pm.

 

[nixie]

The older I get the more I wonder were the idea we need three meals a day came from.
I rarely eat breakfast and most days I don't eat a meal until early evening, if I do eat during the day its crisps or fruit. Occasionally I will have soup or a sandwich during day and if I do eat a meal in afternoon I'll skip the evening one

 

[Dragonlady]

@nixie i'm the opposite, I seem to need 5 or 6...

 

[Star-child]

The older I get the more I wonder were the idea we need three meals a day came from.
I rarely eat breakfast and most days I don't eat a meal until early evening, if I do eat during the day its crisps or fruit. Occasionally I will have soup or a sandwich during day and if I do eat a meal in afternoon I'll skip the evening one

Our food is high caloric, though. Lower density foods might require more bulk than just 2 meals can easily deliver.

 

[Overread]

The older I get the more I wonder were the idea we need three meals a day came from.
I rarely eat breakfast and most days I don't eat a meal until early evening, if I do eat during the day its crisps or fruit. Occasionally I will have soup or a sandwich during day and if I do eat a meal in afternoon I'll skip the evening one

A lot of what you need to eat relies upon your bodies needs which is dependent on your age and also lifestyle.

I think the 3 meals a day is aimed mostly at families and specifically for the children. Typically children are high energy users (running, active) and also growing so their bodies are using a lot of resources each day. Thus they have a higher need to consume food to keep healthy and ensure proper development.

For adults I think it relies heavily on what kind of life and work you lead. If you're an office worker who then comes home and watches TV all evening and weekend then chances are 3 full meals a day is too much. Meanwhile if you're a construction worker chances are you're more likely to get at least two larger meals with a lunchbox lunch. A heavyweight boxer might be eating three full large meals a day - even though they are likely using their muscles as much as a construction worker, they have the lifestyle that means they are more likely to be able to sit down for a " proper" midday meal whilst a worker outside is more likely to rely on packed food.


Of course the type of food also comes into it in a big way. Some foods are more energy giving; some more filling etc...



One other thing that is likely very important to highlight in fantasy and ancient times is food seasonality. It doesn't often come up and in the modern age many kids grow up now with almost no concept of seasonal food. You can get pretty much anything you want at any time of the year down at the supermarket or even the local grocers. So the idea that you could only get certain food at certain times of the year even in a developed ancient world is something many often overlook.

 

[-K2-]

Considering @Overread 's post above, it reminds me of another point worth mentioning. Specifically regarding, "Some foods are more energy giving; some more filling etc..."

In Jamaica and elsewhere similar, there is a big push by local radio personalities for people to change their dietary habits. The biggest point being, traditionally due to passed down tastes over generations, many people (primarily the poor majority) are "starving themselves full." In other words, from times when slavery was the norm, the people as a 'treat' were supplied with filling foods that had zero nutritional value. So, though their bellies are full, they're still nutritionally starving themselves.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the very same condition existed in the majority of medieval society. The vast majority essentially poor comparatively. So, as is natural, they tend to gravitate toward 'comfort foods'--in this case the comfort comes from feeling full--and over time those foods become preferred tastes. Beyond that, 'quality meats,' fruit and so on, I suspect were not on the common man's menu. There is a reason in rural areas, lesser cuts and organ meat has evolved into comfort food standards. Items such as heart, tongue, liver, kidneys, intestines, facial meat and so on, were kept to eat because they yielded a much lower selling price. So, those parts were kept for the family and over time became preferred comfort foods.

So, scattered meals, less food, higher priority expenses, low nutrition yet filling foods and so on, all add up to poor diets, yet pertinent to the discussion, less regimentation regarding eating habits. Remember, if you're full (though starving nutritionally), you'll also be less likely to eat.

Considering that the lower classes always make up the vast majority, I'd think a bit on that first before I'd commit to 'two meals per day.'

K2

 

[sknox]

By "had land" I mean to include all who took sustenance from it, whether or not they had legal ownership. After all, even great nobles in England technically didn't own land in the modern sense; they held it of the king. Anyway, even cottagers (who by definition owned no land) still ate from the produce of the land. That still sets them apart from the "landless poor" as they were called in England.

As for those who did live from the land--which was 70% or 80% of the total population in the Middle Ages (at least from the later MA where we have data)--could weather a crop failure. The stereotype sequence ran like this: one year of failure is hard times; two consecutive years and you have to eat your seed corn; three consecutive years and you start to starve. Great lords could sometimes move reserve stocks--it was rare for crops to fail across all Europe, though this did happen in the early 1300s--but they didn't always do so, or do so in time or in sufficient quantities. Food riots could ensue. Millers were often accused of hoarding. People left farms to go to towns in hopes of receiving handouts. If times were really bad, cities would sweep the streets of non-citizens and close the gates, leaving people to starve on their doorsteps.

Eugen Weber has a great book called Peasants into Frenchmen. In the early chapters he paints a vivid picture of rural France in the mid-18thc. Much of what he has to say there one can extrapolate backward in time. Especially if one is a writer of fantasy. <g>

BTW, thanks to @Dragonlady for Jean de Brie. I didn't know about that book!