Talk:Medieval cuisine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Scope

Is this article intended to include the cuisine of Medieval Europe or of the entire world during the Medieval period? siafu 13:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Medieval period" is reasonably applied to Europe only. That's the place that that classification makes sense. There's absolutely no reason to discuss the various cuisines that might be found in the entire wolrd from say, 800-1400 AD, in a single article. - Nunh-huh 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The term is commonly and reasonably applied to many parts of the world (e.g. "medieval Japan", etc.). I suggest renaming the article to Medieval European cuisine. siafu 13:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Our own article on the Middle Ages limits the term quite specifically to Europe. The dictionary definition of "medieval" is synonymous with "Middle Ages" which is exclusively European. "Medieval Japan" (probably more often "feudal Japan") is a rather solitary exception to this usage and I don't believe it merits the suggested disambiguation.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The term as so applied is by analogy, for there is nothing in Japan's history that suggests a "middle ages" between the classical and renaissance period. Nor does the term as so applied correspond precisely to the time period of the Middle Ages in Europe. I imagine that if someone writes an article about "Medieval cuisine" in Japan, we will find a way to disambiguate it, but I suspect that won't actually become necessary. - Nunh-huh 13:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Our own article on the Middle Ages (note, not using the term medieval) actually has this to say:

A medieval era can also be applied to other parts of the world that historians have seen as embodying the same feudal characteristics as Europe in this period. The pre-westernization period in the history of Japan is sometimes referred to as medieval. The pre-colonial period in the developed parts of sub-Saharan Africa is also sometimes termed medieval. Today historians are far more reluctant to try to fit the history of other regions to the European model and these terms are less often used.

More than just Japan, as you can see, and I would indicate that the quote is a overly narrow as I've seen the word "medieval" also used in reference to China, Vietnam, and the Islamic Empire.

Now, I'm presuming that Nunh-huh's comment would indicate a few other non-obvious things about the scope of the article. For example, the cuisine of the Levant would not be included, despite being controlled by medieval Europe at one point. Similarly, the cuisine of medieval Russia would be fair game, at the exclusion of Mongol cuisine, despite their overlordship. How about North African/Berber cuisine? The early medieval vandal kingdom included North Africa, and the Almovarids, Almohads, and Marinids originated in North Africa.

This isn't simply a simple-minded objection, as I originally asked to determine whether Asian, particularly Mongolian or Tatar, cuisine would be eligible for inclusion here. Apparently it is not, and I think that the name should be clarified to make that clear. siafu 14:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article does seem to agree that other uses are metaphorical. By all means, write your article on Mongalian "Medieval" cuisine, and we can easily find a title for it that will not be confusing. - Nunh-huh 14:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Because adding a word to the title is just that untoward a suggestion? siafu 14:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Because we disambiguate when we need to, not preemptively. When you write that article on how different "Medieval" Mongolian cuisine is from other Mongolian cuisine, I'm sure we'll rise to the occasion. - Nunh-huh 15:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The objection was not about disambiguation, but accuracy. Whether people have used the term "medieval" as an analogy or not is irrelevant; the relevant fact is that it is used, and given that the scope of the article is being restricted to Europe, it's not entirely accurate to describe it as simply "medieval". Wikipedia does not define the terms, the outside world does. siafu 16:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would consider the use of "medieval" to describe any other than European cuisine unnecessaraly Euro-centrist. Even the quote posted above clearly states that the use of "medieval" is not particularly appropriate when applying to cultures outside of Europe.

Concerning North African cuisine, it's a valid argument to bring it up, but since the Muslims that controlled European territory during the Middle Ages set up their capitals on European territory (Cordoba, Granada, Toledo, Palermo) and weren't all that influenced by the Berbers I don't think it's merited to include information on it in this article. The Mongol overlordship of Russia isn't relevant either, since the Mongols merely ruled the Slavs from afar rather than completely displacing them. But if I manage to find some sources on medieval Russian cuisine, I can assure you that it would mention that they were influenced by the Mongol rule.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise to know whether or not a title disambiguation is necessary, but I do suggest making the scope clear in the opening sentence. Medieval cuisine, spanning the such-and-such centuries in Europe... or similar. Melchoir 18:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what we've neglected to mention so far is that this is a fantastic article. There's lots of great information that most people wouldn't know without reading the article. In fact, aside from resolving the Euro-centric controversy, I can't think of a single way to improve "medieval cuisine". Why not change the name to "Medieval European cuisine" and put up a redirect from "medieval cuisine" that points to the article? That way we can follow the policy of not pre-emptively disambiguating (since we'll be redirecting, and not disambiguating) while also choosing a title that reflects the consensus of discussion on this talk page.

Invisible Flying Mangoes 16:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm the only real advocate of the name change, I don't think it's correct to say that such a move represents the consensus on this talk page. siafu 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fruit juice

I have read recently that the idea of pressing fruit for juice is rather recent. this made sense to me, as it is wasteful. The article claims otherwise. How sure is the claim? Simon A. 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned frequently as an ingredient in cooking in the literature listed as references, especially as verjuice, but more or less all the recipes that were written at the time were intended for the filthy rich. If they could afford luxuries like imported spices and fine meat, I'm sure fruit juice wasn't a problem. I am, however, aware that the article needs some more mention of the fact that almost all the detailed sources are from the end of the late Middle Ages. I'll try to work on incorporating this in the text somehow.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, someone has just asked me about the availability of fruit juices and other alternative drinks in Roman times. (My answers, for what they are worth, are at la:Disputatio_Usoris:Ioshus_Rocchio#Cato's preferred potion.) Juices were sometimes prescribed by physicians, but in most cases (excepting grape juice) they would be difficult to produce in large quantity with pre-modern methods. In addition, like milk, they would be impossible to store, and grape juice would be the most difficult of all, unless boiled down to syrup. Grape syrup was actually available in certain areas, but so far as I know it was a luxury item and cookery ingredient. I think all this would apply to medieval Europe too. Verjuice is easy enough to get if you want it, and would keep somewhat better, but you wouldn't drink it. The same would apply to lemon juice (and perhaps bitter orange juice: in any case bitter oranges were available in Europe only towards the end of the medieval period).

I have made a couple of small adjustments to the "Drinks" section; and I have changed "fruit juice" to "grape syrup" where sweeteners are discussed, because I believe no other fruit juices would have served. I don't want to interrupt the approval process, and if my changes are unhelpful please revert them.

I worry about the following statement Common folk usually had to settle for a cheap white or rosé from a third pressing, and even then it could have been watered down further by the retailer, but I don't know the source for it. In imagining a commercial distribution via retailers of third-pressing rosé "wine", further watered down by said retailers, are we straying toward fantasy? Andrew Dalby 09:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The adjustments are very helpful, I'd say.

The rosé statement is from Scully p. 142:

The ordinary peasant or bourgeois rarely had a choice among wines. He and she noramlly drank a white or rosé (into which a few grape skins had slipped) from a third pressing.

I don't quite follow the rest of your objection. Why "wine"? Would the results of a third pressing be something else entirely? And if not through merchants, how were wines procured? Did most people make their own?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If Scully says it, fine. As to procurement, yes, as you no doubt know, a great many people in southern Europe make their own or get it from family members (there are more than a million wine producers in Italy, and those are only the ones who are in the statistics). In country areas (which accounted for the great majority of the lower classes), there's no evidence that I know that distribution was more commercial in the past than it is now, rather the contrary.

Second-pressing wine is drinkable, and Roman farmers (for example) gave it to their slaves. But it doesn't keep, because of its low alcohol content, and so it wouldn't work well in a pre-modern commercial distribution network. I must admit I've not yet found it possible to make third-pressing wine (and this has not worried me) because the crust of grape skins has attracted too much interest from flies etc. by the time the second pressing has fermented. In other words, the result of a third pressing in my circumstances would be heavily diluted and contaminated vinegar. But that may not apply to all.

I meant to say before: congratulations on a splendid piece of work. Andrew Dalby 10:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

GA review

While this is an excellent start to the article, I have a number of concerns.

Point 1: Writing quality. Generally good, although occasionally it feels a bit overstrained: "communications and transports of the day," "where famines were" [instead of "when"], and so on. It would benefit from a good re-reading looking for stilted phrases, run-on sentences, and other infelicities. Please use proper en- and em-dashes as well.

Point 2: Accuracy In "Drinks", is the Little Ice Age in any way connected to the planting of grapes, or lack thereof? The material generally looks good to me, but it really needs inline citations, and I'm not just saying that because it's popular at GA right now. There are many assertions in the article that might make the lay reader say, "Huh! I did not know that!" or "Is that so?", and these ought to be appropriately cited.

Point 3: Coverage You can pick and choose from my criticisms here, to some degree; incorporating everything might bump it up to FA status.

At the top, the list of common ingredients feels a bit idiosyncratic: verjuice, almonds, marizpan. There were a great number of other similarities in the use of sauces, eggs, and the like...perhaps this section should go entirely from the top and be discussed in more detail at the bottom.

In the intro, it would be best to explicitly link the distinction between laboring-class and aristocratic foods to the humoral theory — e.g., beef was hot and dry, hence suitable for peasants. Humoral theory could almost be an article in and of itself — certainly a section — but it's probably best either to say that the humors were supposed to be balanced and leave it at that or to do it all the way. If you're interested, I offer three links: http://www.gallowglass.org/jadwiga/SCA/cooking/sauces.html, http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD/The-Saucebook-art.html, http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD/humorl-theory-msg.html from SCAdian sources on humors and food, which suggest that the works of Thomas Scully are a good source for the Galenic basis of medieval cookery.

In the section on "Meals", the "late night dinner" was known as a "reresupper", a term of art it might be nice to introduce. Among other items shared, it should also mention the sharing of trenchers, taillors, or what you will.

Redon, Sabban & Serventi (The Medieval Kitchen) suggest that forks were well-established in Italy by the late 14th century, but took much longer (post-Medieval era) to spread to the rest of Europe, perhaps because they made it easier to eat pasta. That should probably be introduced as a counterpoint to the 11th-century anecdote. They also mention that part of the reason men were expected to help women was that only men would be expected to know how to carve.

The section on fruit and vegetables should probably mention that while medieval cooking lacked the New World vegetables we are familiar with today, it often contained a variety of herbs and greens that have largely fallen out of favor today: borage, pellitory-of-the-wall, and whatnot. Cherries have been omitted from fruit, for some reason.

"Drink" should mention the common practice of watering wine, and the drinking of fresh (rather than stale) ale, as we associate a higher alcohol content with those beverages. An observation on the difficulties of storage and transport would explain the disfavor of dairy products.

It really, really, REALLY needs a section on spices, foremost to refute the old myth about spicing rotten meat. Furthermore, many of the spices then used (galangale, long pepper, grains of paradise, zedoary [..checks cupboard...] and cubeb) have essentially disappeared from Western cuisine, which lends interest.

A few other points for free association: Redon et al. suggest the following outline for a typical banquet: begin with fruit or salad to "open" the stomach (acid foods), were followed by potages and brewets that would take a long time to "cook" in the stomach, then roast meat, then a pause for entertainment, a sweet dessert, and cheese/preserved fruit/small cakes with hypocras to "close" the stomach again. The construction of elaborate subtleties. Candied spices, used like after-dinner mints. Travelling food/campaign rations, for instance meat pies. Surprising array of services available in the larger medieval towns and cities: bakers, pastry cooks, carvers, etc.

The rest of the points are generally satisfactory (admittedly, I'd be hard-pressed to call it stable right now, but I don't think that's a concern once it's been uprated as GA or FA or whatever).

If people here would like me to work on expanding this with what sources I have on hand, I'd be glad to, but you'll have to seek another reviewer. Choess 05:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, Choess. The suggestions provided are very useful and I will try to amend them as best I can. Here some responses:

• Almost all the facts that you've mentioned is in the literature I've acquired in order to write the article and most, if not all, your suggestions are planned additions. I think you're doing a great job reviewing so far, so I would like to see you at it unless you're really excited about working on the article. There's no lack of references with the exception of Eastern European and Scandinavian cuisine.
• The blurbs on the extent of grape cultivation and the statement referring to 5-7,000 kcal/day are not mine. The former seems very credible to me even if I haven't come across it in the literature so far. The latter, however, seems more like speculation and one of my primary concerns is the fact that people in the Middle Ages, especially from the poorer classes, were considerably smaller than today. Both these statements are unreferenced.
• I'm going to hold off any extensive and detailed referencing until the article structure is more stable and I have a better overview of it. I've only cited facts that seem potentially controversial and I'm going to be more concerned with what isn't actually academic consensus than by what I believe is common knowledge among the general readership.
• What I've understood of medieval dietetics from the literature so far is that the rich/poor scale was somewhat independent of the Galenic properties. It seemed that it was more a matter of assigning the coarse, tough and smelly foods to the working peasants and the succulent, exotic and fragrant to the nobility. A separate article might very well be in order.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am responsible for the blurb about wine. I hope I did not go into too much unneeded detail, but felt that the extent of vine growing in medieval time had to be emphasized, because wine was even more sought after than now, and needed everywhere, while productivity was much less than nowadays and transportation capability did not allow much of it to travel far from the area of production, and that was only the best and most expensive, not to mention that it did not keep as well as it does now. As for the ingredient list in the introduction, while it may seem idiosyncratic, and forgets a number of staples, I think it would be better kept, if only as a reminder that our ancestors did eat things that we have mostly forgotten about. --Svartalf 21:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Then it still needs to be fixed. If the purpose is to highlight differences between modern and medieval cuisine, it should cover them appropriately: no New World vegetables, much less beef and sugar or honey, but game birds, pot-herbs and spices from outside the usual repertoire today, verjuice for sour flavor, and wide use of almond milk. Choess 05:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also needs more citations. bibliomaniac15 22:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a source for the statement about extensive wine growing?

Peter ^Isotalo 09:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been over a week since the review and I think I've adressed most of the concerns raised by the reviewer:

1. I can't vouch for the quality of writing since I've written it myself and that makes it very difficult to make proper copyediting passes. Overall it seems like the worst glitches have been ironed out. The lead is still somewhat awkward (at least to me), but I suspect it'll take a lot of wikipedians a lot of time to come up with a really snazzy intro sentence.
2. The entire article is now fully cited, if somewhat generally. I will be working on expanding and probably incorporating other sources. The grape growing comment was taken out since it couldn't be verified. (Not yet, at least.) Information about the Little Ice Age seems very interesting, but I just don't have any sources on it, and it might be best to describe that in the history section of grape rather than here.
3. This is where the most progress has been made, I believe. The following information has been incorporated
   • The reresupper is mentioned.
   • Fork usage in 14th century Italy.
   • More fruit info.
   • "Drink" discussed the rather relatively meek alcohol content and the transporation and conversation problem is described.
   • There's now "Herbs and spices", though the spoiled-meat-'n'-pepper-myth is still to be dealt with.
   • And the ingredient list in the lead has been improved.

Still missing out of the major requests above:

• A thorough discussion of dietetics, which I'm holding off on because it's might require a separate article.
• The outline of a meal and the order in which food was served and eaten. Very important, but from the sources I get the impression that varied over time and from region to region. Overall, I've simply not read up on it enough to write anything.

Again, I must stress that this review have been extremely helpful in writing the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The wine section could maybe use a sentence on the watering of wine, which (I understand), like the use of "fresh" ale, moderated the consumption of alcohol in comparison to modern impressions of "drinking only beer and wine". Regardless, this is a splendid article, and I'm not going to keep you on tenterhooks any longer. Pass as a Good Article, and I hope to see this go to Featured Article as well. Choess 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few words about mixing wine and water -- usefully I hope. Andrew Dalby 20:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Food quantities

This statement was inserted without any reference. To me it seems rather speculative, particularly since it states these facts without without really nuancing it. Any comments?

The overall quantities of food eaten daily varied from person to person, but were typically quite high by modern standards. Peasants and many other common people had to engage in heavy physical labor all day during most of the year, and therefore had very high caloric demands. It was not uncommon for an adult to consume 5000-7000 calories a day. Sugar and many other modern high-calorie foodstuffs either did not exist yet or were too expensive for most people to consume daily. Most of these calories had to come in the form of complex carbohydrates, such as grain.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some references:

Medieval Peasant Diet "A prosperous English peasant in the 14th century would probably consumer 2 - 3 pounds of bread, 8 ounces of meat or fish and 2 -3 pints of ale per day."

Average peasant's diet in Y1K marked the gastronomic dark ages "Food historians estimate First Millennium peasants might have worked off 6,000 calories a day."

Baking for the common good: a reassessment of the assize of bread in Medieval England "Murphy estimated that perhaps 60–75% of daily calories in medieval England were supplied by grain, both bread and ale. " --Itinerant1 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The first link seems to be very speculative. There are valid sources listed in Required Texts, but without any citations. I don't think it should qualify as a reliable source.

The second link does cite one source, but is also a bunch of simplistic and stereotypical rubbish. For example:

...the civilized manners and cuisine they [the Romans] had imported throughout Europe all fell into disuse until about the 14th century when the Renaissance began.

The rest of the text is along the same lines and stresses that the Europeans were unrefined and unwholesome (and presumably unhappy) until the Renaissance arrived. The author also presents frumenty as a dessert, and that it was eaten with cold milk, something highly unlikely in a time when refrigeration was basically unknown and fresh milk was something that was consumed pronto or turned into heavily salted butter or cheese for conservation.

Many internet sources agree that frumenty is a dessert. The American Heritage dictionary defines it as "Hulled wheat boiled in milk and flavored with sugar and spices." Of course, the use of sugar is a recent change, back in Middle Ages people had to use honey. Frumenty is essentially a progenitor of modern pudding. [1] --Itinerant1 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The text you're linking to says it was a dessert in the same sentence where it points out that it was served with venison and there's no mention of sweetening. In the references used I've come across far more accounts of frumenties as being served with meat rather than as a sweetened end of a meal. Fitting the modern concept of dessert into medieval settings is obviously not that easy. Some of the earliest subtleties were sweetened, spiced and brightly colored frumenties, but that doesn't make them dessert, since a subtlety could be anything from a boar's head to a pastry castle.

Sugar wasn't as much an anachronism as it was a rarity (in the Late Middle Ages). Those who could afford it used it generously.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that Fabulous Feasts: Medieval Cookery and Ceremony be checked out. I think a lot was based a on your average popular historical prejudice towards the Middle Ages as being the eternal anus temporis.

The third links seems entirely legit and well-referenced, if extremely detailed. It doesn't speculate much about specific calorie figures, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The first link is a material for a social studies course at Eastern Kentucky University, it's written by their professor. I'd expect it to be legit.

It's hard to find good references online, all serious and relevant texts require subscription to access. I saw a pdf that gave a 5000-6000 cal figure two weeks ago, I'll try to find it again. --Itinerant1 16:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay:

Nutrition and the early-Medieval Diet : "Hagen's overview of Anglo-Saxon pattern of food production and consumption suggested that most of the early English population routinely lived at marginally adequate or outright substandard levels of nutrition ... Michael Rouche, on the other hand, asserted that the typical Carolingian - including the peasants - had access to a monotonous, but abundant, supply of foodstuffs and may have consumed an average of 6,000-9,000 calories per day. Richard Hodges likewise decided that Anglo-Saxon peasants were reasonably well fed"

Feeding the Poor in Medieval Catalonia : "... the 4,700 to 6,882 calories that have been estimated as being typical for medieval religious, or the 3,500 required by the average laborer"

Getting Your Daily Bread—Breads in Medieval Society "each individual in houses of late medieval English nobility received standard daily food ration of 2-3 lbs. of wheat bread and 1 gal. of ale." 2.5 lbs. of wheat bread contain 2500-3500 calories. Don't know about ale, but 1 gallon of typical beer contains 1500 calories.

--Itinerant1 17:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

These are limited to England. Are these figures applicable to the rest of Europe?

Peter ^Isotalo 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The second link is about Catalonia ( part of Spain ). --Itinerant1 17:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, right... I knew that! :-) Well, why not insert a paragraph or two on it?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations?

I came here from GAC and, although I'm not going to fail the article, I would fail it if I made a determination. I like this piece so please add the line references it needs. Durova 05:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is barely 9 days old and was GA nominated (and I had no part in that) after only 3 days. If you're in a hurry, you're always free to fail it. Otherwise, try to keep yer pants on. :-) I'm working on it, but I'm not going to rush anything.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Caption

In proper Latin siligo is a kind of wheat, probably bread-wheat, not rye; and the grain in the first image looks like wheat to me. Am I wrong, or should I change the caption? Andrew Dalby 19:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead, Andrew. I have been hesitant about that one myself, but I haven't been able to tell either way. Pretty much all the images are taken from sources that have conveniently avoided to provide any proper sources, dates or even detailed info, even the ones scanned from The Medieval Cookbook. There might very well be more errors in some of the other captions.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)