Talk:Medieval cuisine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

carrots, vinegar

The (very excellent) article states that orange carrots didn't exist until the 17th Century. While I agree that orange carrots were rare and white skirrets and red pasternakes were the primary carrots eaten, I think the language used is too firm. If it just said that orange carrots weren't available (by inference to the majority) I'd be happy. Or you could claim the rare depictions of orange carrots earlier (that I can't find today, arrgh), being pictorial, represent a different variety of orange carrot.

The statement that "For the poorest (or the most pious), watered-down vinegar would often be the only available choice.", while probably factually true, seems to imply vinegar was only drunken by the poor. This doesn't fit with recipies for flavoured vinegars I've seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.83.216 (talk • contribs) 02:46, June 6, 2007

Flavored vinegars were as far as I know used by the more affluent to flavor food, but never for drinking.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• The statement that "orange carrots didn't exist until the 17th Century" is very easy to refute. Please see my page[1] of examples of orange (and other color) carrots drawn from late medieval paintings - all of which are pre-17th century. --Doc 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• All of these paintings are late Renaissance, not "late medieval" - the earliest is 1567. Still point proven for 33 years at least. Johnbod 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have two issues with the above statement:

1. the definitions of the terms "Renaissance" and "Medieval" are not well agreed upon by historians, and while the 16th century may be "late renaissance" for Italy, it can easily be described as "late medieval" for England. The change from the medieval period to the renaissance didn't happen overnight, but instead took nearly a century. Further, it didn't happen in all areas of interest (architecture, cooking, art) at once. Northern European cooking remained almost unchanged from 1000 to 1500, while the cooking in Italy was changing drastically from 1300 onward.

1. Carrots obviously did not suddenly go from a primitive form to modern. The pace of agricultural development was nowhere near what it is now, and it still takes us decades to put new strains of vegetables into widespread cultivation. Without a doubt the kinds of carrots depicted in Flanders in 1530 (the earliest date on the linked paintings) were in use for many decades before that - which would place them in the end of the 15th century.

The thing about this article that disturbs me the most is that it relies excusively on tertiarty sources, and accepts those sources as being accurate. While scholars like Scully are indeed to be respected, they aren't infallible and are open to misinterpretation. When a tertiary source can be refuted or expanded by using a primary or secondary source (painting, medieval text, or medieval text in translation) then those other sources should be deferred to, otherwise this article is spreading misinformation.

I am removing the incorrect information about carrots. If the original author of that text can point me to a non-tertiary source that conclusively shows the origin and variety of carrots I will be overjoyed. --Doc 16:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You date some carrots painted by Joachim Beuckelaer "after 1530" - well they would be, given that he was born in 1533! In fact he only became a master in 1560, his work before that presumably being signed by his uncle, Aertsen. None of these paintings can possibly be described as "Late medieval" as you did. Why specialist still-life painters must have waited several decades after the introduction of a variety before painting it is beyond me - more likely they would pounce on new and colourful varieties as soon as they emerged. I have restored the passage changing 17th century to 16th, though I agree it needs referencing. Johnbod 18:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"The paintings by Joachim Beuckelaer are late medieval" There, you're obviously wrong in saying that they can't be described as late medieval, since I just described them as such. ;-)

In all seriousness though, what is your definitive end date for the middle ages, and what is your irrefutable source of said date? You're saying that this sort of carrot just sprang into being on the date 1560? Considering how long it took to get modern looking corn, I find that highly doubtful. If you can point to a primary source that discusses the introduction of orange carrots to a particular region of medieval Europe then I'll accept that as fact. If you can point me to information from botanical science that proves the particular phenotype of orange carrots was unlikely to have existed before a given date then I'll accept that.

However, relying on tertiary sources for this only spreads misinformation and brings the credibility of the entire article into (further) doubt. Yes, I'm sure you can find a tertiary source to support this assertion, but I can find tertiary sources (by noted and respected scholars) that state quite clearly that medieval cooks used lots of spices to cover the taste of rotting meat, that the poor didn't eat any meat, that the wealthy ate only meat (which was rotten, but they ate quite a lot of it anyways), and that most of the people in the medieval period died from food poisoning - all of which are demonstrably false.

I am removing the passage again. Go ahead and restore it, but unless it has some kind of documentation to back it up then I'll just remove it again. In my opinion, adding thins kind of unsupported assertion to an article is tantamount to vandalism. --Doc 21:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wherever different authorities put the end of the ME, it is before 1560 just about everywhere. There is still a margin in my version that you reverted of at least 60 years - probably more, as from the costumes the undated paintings look 1570s to me. I note that your new assertion that orange carrots predate the 16th century is itself completely evidence and reference-free. Johnbod 22:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the precise dating of when the Middle Ages ended is pretty irrelevant here. We're talking about an article that covers the whole of Europe, and in such a context we can only settle for the Middle Ages ending "around 1500" and accept that there's a lot of flexibility in that statement. I have many other assertions for carrots being known in the Middle Ages, including etymological information. I don't believe we need to bolster the references on this point.

By a rather amusing coincidence, I saw Christ in the House of Mary and Martha at Nationalmuseum only days before this thread was started and immidiately noticed the carrots. It does seem obvious that orange carrots did exist before the 17th century. Doc is right about removing the 17th century statement, but I reinserted the info about carrot variants.

On a side note to Doc, though, I think there's reason to believe that the great white roots in Cook in front of the Stove and Market Woman with Vegetable Stall are actually daikon radishes rather than carrots. They're certainly of the right size and they have been known in Europe since at least around 1500.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The portion on the varieties of carrots is still incorrect. In primary sources throughout the medieval period, carrots were described as being red, yellow, white, purple, black, and brown. Also, I doubt that those are daikon. Beuckelaer et. al. liked to paint the typical, and I have seen no references to daikon anywhere in the medieval corpus. However, if we can find a botanist who could identify them from shape/size/etc. then I would be very happy to have that additional information. --Doc 15:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about whether they are daikon radishes or not. It was just a suggestion. Now, the article mentions that there were several variants of carrots and then mentions two of them. Other than not specificlally mentioning all variants, how is this incorrect?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have two issuse with the remaining part about carrots: 1. it mentions only two of the unusual forms of carrots without reference to the others, which implies that they were the most common (of which I have seen no evidence), and 2. It states that the yellow-green variety (which I have not seen any reference to) was "less prestigious", again which I've seen nothing to support. Which source did this information come from? --Doc 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The two variants were mentioned in Adamson who is also the source, as is mentioned in the article. The entire section, except the specific mention of German sauerkraut consumption is based on Adamson, Chapter 1.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Legumes

I find the portion of this text on legumes to also be questionable. It says, "Various legumes, like chickpeas, fava beans and peas were also common and important sources of protein. With the exception of peas, they were frowned on by contemporary dietetics, partly because of their tendency to cause flatulence."

The odd things about this is that there are many recipes in medieval cookbooks for these legumes, that I haven't seen much in the medieval dietetic guides that say these were "frowned on", and that flatulence was often seen as desireable in some regions of Europe in the medieval period (I've come across multiple recipes in medicinals on how to aid people who are unable to pass gass). I have most of the sources the author of this article cites. I'd like to know which one in particular he found this information so I can track it all back to its source.

Again, I'd have more faith in this article if it relied more heavily on primary sources. --Doc 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The fruit 'n' veggies section is mainly based on the first chapter of Adamson (2004), where she has information about various foods divided into sections, but my impression is that her conclusions are supported by most of the other sources use for the article. It's difficult to describe all the aspects of all foods in summary style. My impression is that legumes weren't all that popular among dieticians, even if just about any food had a use that was beneficiary in one situation or another. The main point was to contrast it to other foods that were seen as far more nutritious and balanced, most notably chicken or wheat bread. Or more prestigeious for that matter...

I know there are a lot of editors here on Wikipedia like to use primary sources, and even think it is far superior to modern secondary sources, but I am not among them. Interpreting primary sources, particularly pre-modern ones, can be difficult and relying on just one, or even a handful, of texts can easily lead to false conclusions and is in the long run a somewhat risky endeavour. To me, using primary sources as an amateur historian is tantamount to original research, and I am quite decidedly against it.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read primary sources which direct nobles in which kinds of fruits are to preferred, and how they should eat their salads. I have collected primary source recipes for beans, turnips, leeks, onions, etc. - lots of them, showing the nobility ate all of these. There is a notion in the collective conscious that some foods were considered more noble than others. This may have been expressed in one dietetic manual from the time, or it may have sprung from a victorian interpretation of the aristotelian logic used in the medieval period. Either way, I have seen no evidence to support it, and the medieval dietetic manuals all contradict each other on which foods are best to eat.

If you don't want to use primary sources, then you're going to have to compare and aggregate a lot of tertiary sources to make sure you're getting the information correct. A majority of the tertiary sources on the topic of medieval European cooking based their research on Victorian era writings on the subject, and can be way off base on certain topics. Just because you are unwilling to put in the hard work of understanding primary sources does not relieve you of the responsibility of ensuring the statements you make in this article are correct. I have already pointed out a number of places where the article presents incorrect or questionable information as fact - and there are several more. You should either research these points further, verifying them in as many sources as possible, or step aside and allow others to correct misstatements when they find them.

You write quite well, I have no problems with that. You appear to have read a large amount on the subject too. Perhaps you are so close to this article that you feel threatened when others want to change it. --Doc 15:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

AS PI has pointed out already, what you term "hard work", WP terms WP:OR. Johnbod 15:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

With the possible exception of Henisch, I don't know of any one of the sources used for the article being based on Victorian authors. Adamson is, as far as I know, one of the leading figures among modern food scholars and has personally edited and published translations of primary sources in Middle German. Scully frequently quotes sources written by people like Aldobrandino and the authors of the various and varied chapters of the books edited by Adamson all use a wide range of primary sources. Your harsh criticism is clearly somewhat exaggerated.

All that said, I have no problem admitting that I might be off the mark here and there. It's difficult to summarize such a broad topic and condense it properly in one article. I welcome input from other editors and have frequently soliticed it. You should try to improve the article where you see fit, but I would like to ask you to be careful about what you correct, because so far, you seem to be relying a bit too much on your own skills as an interpreter of primary sources rather than trying to summarize scholarly consensus. With the exception of minor details (even the best scholars makes an error here and there), articles have to be written according to what the latest scholarly findings tell us. Dissing Adamson & Co. clearly isn't merited, but it's very possible that I might've misinterpreted them. Why not try to read them yourself?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To make myself clear here, I am not "dissing" anyone here. I am not (intentionally) being critical of scholars such as Adamson or Scully - in fact I hold Suclly in the highest regard. I have read almost every source you list, and have the majority on my bookshelf. I'm not even being (intentionally) critical of your own understanding of the subject. What I am critical of is the number of broad generalizations and unsubstantiated statements in this article. Since you wrote the article, I assumed that you'd be able to cite which of these sources (and where in each) you found particular references as an aid in tightening up and verifying the article. You seem to be relying much too heavily on the thougts of others when even the best of scholars will occasionally let something slip into their work without checking it.

I'll be happy to take the time (when I get it) and dig through each of these texts to figure out where you got the information. Note that if I do this I will also properly footnote the article to allow others to verify the information if they wish, and when appropriate I will track things back to their corresponding primary sources. I will also remove unsupported speculation - no matter how scholarly the speculator - and mark supported speculation as being such.

If you want to work with me on this, great. If not, then get out of the way. --Doc 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already cited my sources. Any information preceding a footnote is very few exceptions referenced with the source specified in that footnote. My style of editing just doesn't include adding a footnote after every other sentence. No one is stopping you and you don't need to anyone's permission to do anything. There's the possibility that you might get questioned or even reverted, but that's something you'll have to live with if you want to be a Wikipedian. When this happens, it's usually a good idea to discuss things calmly and without implying all kinds of incompetence or to tell people to "get out of the way".

Peter ^Isotalo 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't cited sources on any of the statements in this article. You've simply included a bibliography (which is a nice thing in itself, but is not the same). I'll get to work on a revision to the article. --Doc 19:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally spurious? "Any information preceding a footnote is very few exceptions referenced with the source specified in that footnote." You understand what I'm saying here, right? It doesn't amount to a mere bibliography.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Spice Usage

I question the validity of the statement "For the most part, only the wealthy, especially the nobility, could afford imported ingredients such as spices, so their cuisine was more prone to foreign influence than the cuisine of poorer people."

This is certainly a widely held belief, but I'm not convinced that it is accurate. There is a detailed article online[2] by Prof. John H. Munro (University of Toronto) detailing the relative cost of spices in medieval London. A bit of math and I work it out that spices cost about 10x times their current price, based on the wages of the average daily wage of an unskilled laborer. This is indeed high (for example, between $10 to $20 for an ounce of cinnamon), but still not out of the price range of the growing middle class.

Furthermore, considering that it was this same middle class that was managing much of the import business, it is probable that they would be just as exposed (if not more so) to foreign influences that the wealthy. It is this same middle class that was the target of most of the sumptuary laws - to keep them from acting too much like the nobility.

Once again, I ask what documentation the author believes supports his claims. --Doc 21:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

All of them. No dissenters of Munro's kind. Every single source I have read that mentions spices says they were prohibitivly expensive for everyone except the nobility and the more affluent middle class population, but these were still a pretty smal minority. Yes, poor families could theoretically afford spices, but this is no different than poor families today being able to afford foods like truffles or Russian caviar. They might eat it on a very, very special occasion of be treated to it by some generous rich person, but for most it would be an exotic luxury. As for sumptuary laws, I agree that these are clearly a sign that people who were not nobility were getting wealthier, but then we also need to be sure about how big that group was. We might still be talking about the richest percents of the population making up laws to keep another few percentages down while the laws might very well have been irrelvant to the vast majority.

As for clever thought experiments where modern economics and comparisons with modern monetary wages are applied to an pre-modern agrarian society with very limited use of actual money, I am deeply skeptical. It all seems to boil down to whether your average peasant could afford a X grams of pepper per year or not, and this is not in the least relevant in this context.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant. The poor were more than able to afford a few grams, and the middle class was substntially larger than the upper class.

You're perpetuating a victorian myth. Spices were expensive, but you are stating that spices were only used by the wealthy nobiliy - a statement that has no fact to back it up whatsoever. There is also evidence that suggests to the contrary - I'll have to dig up the source again, but I read a few months ago about the tons of spices being imported into London in the 15th century. Why would they be importing such huge quantities if only a handful of nobles were using them? Do you think the nobles were sitting down at dinner to eat a five-pound bag of pepper each night?

"All of them" is not documentation. "Everyone knows the world is flat" is just as accurate. Which sources did you get this claim from? --Doc 14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

When I say "all of them", I mean that literally. Every single one of the sources used for this article that says anything about consumption of spices is in complete agreement; it was a luxury product of the affluent, and the working class consumption of spices was at the very best negligeable. If you want names, try either Adamson, Scully or Henisch. I haven't heard a peep to the contrary from anyone but this Munro guy, and he states quite clearly that he's not a food scholar. I can't recall the exact source right now, but one author mentioned something about a working family of the Late Middle Ages being able to afford perhaps 25 grams of pepper a year, but there's no specification if or what they would have to sacrifice for those measly grams. And we're still talking about the Late Middle Ages, not the period as a whole. In the High Middle Ages, there are accounts of friars giving their close friends pepper on their deathbed, though it was a precious gift. Like I pointed out, even the modern day working poor could theoretically afford luxury foods, but mentioning that theoretical possibility in a general article about modern cuisine would be undue coverage.

And to the best of my knowledge the article doesn't actually say that "only a handful of nobles" ate spices (and neither did I in the last post), but rather that they consumed the lion's share. Yes, there were well-off middle class merchants and the like, but we're still talking about a minority. Perhaps we could tweak the text to point this out, even. However, I am very much opposed to engaging in complicated thought experiments about vague figures concerning spice imports in article space. You may very well argue your point here, but unless you have support by food historians on this, it would be inappropriate to include any mention of the working class eating spices in article space.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Raw Fruit

I removed the following statement:

The practice of eating raw fruit was disfavored by physicians
because of the belief that they were generally too
cold or moist to be eaten uncooked. 

There was no consistency on such dietary recommendations. Some dietetic texts did recommend against eating raw fruit, but others did not. The same can be said for other vegetables, including salads. Further, the reasons given were not consistent in the medieval period. Humoral theory was not consistent itself, and tended to be modified by medieval dieticians to meet their preconceived notions of what was good or not to eat.

Therefore, the removed statemen is not representative of medieval cuisine as a whole. --Doc 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would also like to point out that prejudice against eating raw vegetables and fruits isn't recorded before the mid-1600's; it seems to have been a fad. I can't find anything before 1650. Would love to see any source to the contrary, though. User:Rabbit Fylgja 7 August 2007

Formatting errors, internal inconsistencies

Several statements in the introduction make the information in that section impossible to understand.

The statements are below:

• These, along with the widespread use of honey and sugar (among those who could afford it)
• beef, which required greater investment in land, was less common.
• For the most part, only the wealthy, especially the nobility, could afford imported ingredients, such as spices,
• the upper class of medieval towns
• social hierarchies were brutally enforced
• food was an important marker of social status
• economic unavailability of luxuries, such as spices
• outlawed consumption of certain foods among certain social classes
• sumptuary laws limited the conspicuous consumption among the nouveau riche
• social norms also dictated that the food of the working class be less refined
• manual labor required coarser, cheaper food
• relegating the more odorous, lower-ranked garlic to commoners

Since these sentences are scattered throughout the introduction, it is very hard to tell which type of food is referred to, when you make sweeping generalizations.

For instance:

• Bread was the staple. For which class, the poorest peasants, well-off farmers, the nobility, the craftsmen, the nouveau riche, the city-dwellers? For whom was bread a staple, here? And at what time? In what country?

• gave many dishes a sweet-sour flavor. For which class of people? Was it only the nobility, or was it in the peasants? Was this only among people who couldn't afford spices?

• The most popular types of meat were pork and chicken....Amongst which classes? Did the nobility have to limit their intake because some foods were too expensive? Or are we talking only about merchants and those below them? Or is it only the peasantry?

Now, there are a number of internal consistency errors:

• In the introduction, you state, "The most popular types of meat were pork and chicken, while beef..<snip>..was less common." But in the section on Meats, you state, "mutton and lamb were fairly common, especially in areas with a sizeable wool industry, as was veal." (I notice that you left out venison, entirely, as a food.) This is also a research error; on what are you basing the idea about the frequency of consumption? If you're using period cookbooks, you're talking about the wealthy, and there are as many recipes for mutton as anything else. If you're using tax records, then you're probably talking, mostly, about the agrarian demographic. Knowing what your references are reflecting is important, here; if you're using secondary resources, you will need to know upon what they are basing their conclusions, so that you will know to what section of the populace they are referring. If you look at Asnapium, an account of what was grown on a Charlemagne estate, there were 80 chickens, and (if I'm reading this right) 365 types of hog, pig, or boar. There were also 470 sheep, including ewes, rams, and yearlings. Which would make mutton (at least, theoretically) as common as pork, and MORE common than chicken. (Capitalization for emphasis, only.) And, while some of these sheep were, I believe, "working" animals, and meat from an animal that dies of old age is hardly preferred, it certainly isn't refused, either. At least, not if meat is as rare in the diet of the poor as you seem to imply. (Not that I dispute you, I just don't know.)

• In the introduction, you stated, "Bread was the staple." Not, "bread was A staple," but "Bread was THE staple." Now, keeping in mind that bread was almost necessarily purchased in some places (since some folks didn't have all day to tend a giant oven, and stoke it with wood which needed to be chopped or purchased, to put in a baking oven which they may not have had room for in a small dwelling), one should keep in mind that the poorest sections of humanity would not have been able to buy it (no money, no bread). Sure, there were occasional handouts of trencher bread, but nobles don't feast every day. I can believe that some cereal foods (like frumenty, made of unprocessed, and therefore cheaper, grain) would have been staples for the very poor, and some folks may have made flatbread, or waffles, or something, but there may have been other cheap staples. A large amount of cheese is mentioned in "The Pipe Roll of the Bishopric of Winchester" from 1208-1209. Maybe one could consider this a staple. The point is, the statement "Bread was the staple" is untrue for at least the poorest members of the population, and may have been untrue for the nobility, as well (since they would have had the broadest choices in food, until the late medieval period). The nobility may have based their diet on a number of things, and calling any one element a "staple" implies that that element is either a necessary or fundamental to their diet.

You also make some conclusions that I think are unsupported in fact. Like:

• "Contemporary medicine similarly recommended expensive tonics, theriacs, and exotic spices for the maladies of the nobility, while relegating the more odorous, lower-ranked garlic to commoners." Maybe garlic was only used for medicine for the poor(I haven't checked), but it was used for food by the wealthy, too; I've found references on dishes in cookbooks (made by chefs, and therefore, most likely, for the wealthy) with garlic as an ingredient in France (Le Menagier), England (Forme of Cury), Italy (Apicius), and Germany (Rumpolt). Besides these cookbooks have many "curative" recipes, some of which don't have any complicated spices. Contemporary medicine appears to have included dietary curatives. Everyone from Pliny the Elder to Sir Kenelm Digby seems to have included curative foods in their writings.

• "Common seasonings include verjuice, wine and vinegar. These, along with the widespread use of honey or sugar (among those who could afford it), gave many dishes a sweet-sour flavor." Well, this may be partly true; some dishes may have had a sweet-sour flavor. But the number isn't that significant, as the verjuice, or whatever, would have been overwhelmed by the other ingredients in the recipe, if you're cooking recipes from Le Menagier, Rumpolt, or someone else from this period. If your argument is that it would be more common in recipes for the poor, I'd like to point out that all of the above include either expensive sweeteners, or products of an expensive luxury crop (grapes), and the poor would be able to buy neither. Saying MANY is a pretty serious exaggeration. Remember, there were plenty of other common-use seasonings (even for the non-wealthy, as long as they weren't really poor). Butter seems to be a common part of period recipes, as was garlic and ginger, which would overwhelm the "sour" part of the flavor, unless you put in a truckload of verjuice. Then there's cinnamon, cumin, black pepper, long pepper, and so on, for the nobility.

• "Aside from economic unavailability of luxuries such as spices, decrees outlawed consumption of certain foods among certain social classes, and sumptuary laws limited the conspicuous consumption among the nouveau riche who were not nobility." I have yet to find a significant number of these. Sumptuary laws seem to apply primarily to apparel, jewelry, horses, and such. "Appearance" items. Where are you finding a medieval source with food-based sumptuary laws? Montaigne mentions one, but I can't verify it in extant resources.

Some initial points - 1) Sheep were essentially kept for wool, which was very valuable throughout the period. Probably only surplus males were eaten, or old females. The position with beef (& milk) was probably similar. 2) Neither Pliny or Sir K Digby (b. 1603) are exactly medieval figures. 3) The point you raise re bread is interesting. Braudel strongly emphasises the "staple" quality for townspeople for the late medieval period, but peasants in small villages may not have had it so often, and home ovens were surely not common for them. Johnbod 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Some initial replies - 1) If sheep were kept kept only for wool, then why do we see so many recipes for mutton in period cookbooks? 2) No, Pliny and Digby aren't medieval; but they do bracket the medieval period; my point isn't that I was using them as resources, here. My point was that everyone between them that I can find includes food for sick people as a curative in their cookbooks, and that the practice seems to predate, have been practiced throughout, and continued after the medieval period. Digby is just post-medieval, and Apicius is just pre-medieval (but appears to have been used in medieval times), and both contain many curative foods. Medieval cookbooks with curatives seem to be the rule, rather than the exception; I include Le Menagier (who has a whole section of curatives), Platina (which does include non-recipe information, but has so many recipes, I really think it qualifies), Taillevent, and Harpestraeng. Of course, many collections of manuscripts don't have curatives, but these are presumably just random samplings of what was written down. 3) Thanks, I agree with you; if bread is a staple, even the primary staple, of late-medieval townfolk, then, by all means, make a statement to that effect in the article. By using the word "the" however, and giving no specifics as to a time, place, or particular group, the author is saying that it was the ONLY staple, for all times, places and groups within the medieval period. And that, I think, is obviously false. Rabbit Fylgja 8 August 2007 6:13 am

• "Bread was the staple" is immidiately followed by "followed by other foods made from cereals, such as porridge and pasta." I think that pretty much clears things up. I've read about ovens being owned communally (which is actually mentioned in this article), and while I don't know for sure whether it was common practice, bread can be baked on hot stones, somewhat akin to tortillas, which doesn't require expensive equipment. And as for people having no money to buy bread from bakers, this is a very anachronistic comment, since the majority of all transactions at the time were in kind or produce and most communities somehow managed to work out their dealings without the need for large amounts of cash. People were fed one way or another, and whether this was mostly on gruel and porridge or baked bread, we can never be entirely sure of. But one thing is certain; it was bread that people prayed for from God. A companion (note the etymology) was a close friend or ally. It was almost synonymous with food (or even hospitality) and fulfills most definitions of a staple food, and far moreso than just about any type of food in the Western world today.
• The meat statements are in no way mutually exclusive. Claiming the superior popularity of one food and then also mentioning that other meats were popular is only an internal inconsistency if you ignore the actual wording. Meat is particularly complicated, though, because its eating practices appears to have varied so much over time, and from one region to another. However, citing the produce of one specific early medieval royal estate as some kind of proof against the text is utterly pointless. References for these kinds of facts can't rely merely on qualitative readings of a handful of primary sources.
• Yes, it's correct that many general and less expensive foods were used for medical purposes, but there was also many references to people needing to eat according to their class, and this would include therapeutic food. Spices (including sugar) were among the most highly regarded foods and satisfied the need for the nobility to be exclusive.
• "Many dishes" doesn't appear to me to be particularly exaggerated. At least the fact that there are quite a lot of dishes that call for sour liquids and sweeteners is mentioned very frequently in the sources for provided.
• There are plenty of late medieval sumptuary laws that limit the amount of courses in a meal for certain classes. I don't remember exactly in which sources the statement is in (except the Danish source I used recently in regional cuisines of medieval Europe), but then again, "I haven't found them" doesn't exactly amount to reasonable doubt.

As for the jist of the criticism here, namely generalizations, I willingly admit that they are both very general and very sweeping, but so is the scope of this article. I'm not sure how we should deal with this problem other than try to mention what's appears to be most relevant. We could always just let the article swell to gargantuan proportions and try to tell every detail, but that would cater only to the very people who write articles and not the general readership. We could really use some concrete and constructive suggestions for how to rewrite that which is seen as problematic, rather that attacking general statements with overly specific criticism.

On a final note, we can't go into any major discussions of the interpretation of primary sources because it will be utterly futile. There are way too many sources to consider and though I'm sure there are occasional details that can be corrected by close reading of the primary sources, far-reaching revisions will amount to original research. This is not the place to try to publish major quantitative revisions of the findings of notable scholars, especially when I notice that the references here are being quite studiously ignored.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, saying it that way is equivalent to saying that bread was the sole necessary ingredient to a diet, but that other foods from cereals were served afterwards. If you wished to state that bread was one of the cereal-based foods which were staples, but that bread was the most popular, you could have written, "Foods made from cereals were the primary staple, with bread being foremost, followed by others, such as porridge and pasta." As for bread being baked on hot stones, that is not generally what is understood when the term "bread" is used; the usual term for that item is "flatbread," or "fry bread" or "pancakes;" or if one wishes to be more specific to region, "tortillas," or "lefse" or whatever the local term might be.
• As far as my "anachronistic" comment, I wasn't being anachronistic, at all. Again, you're being too broad. "The majority of all transactions at the time were in kind" is much too broad for talking about a continent over the span of a thousand years; it may be true in places, but it's certainly not true everywhere. Check out the bread assizes in England; there are specifications on how much a farthing loaf should weigh. This implies food purchased for money, not traded for goods. I'm guessing barter might be more common in agrarian areas among the poor, but it's not likely to be possible, everywhere. And a serf who has barely enough to subsist upon is less likely to have money or items to trade, anyway.
• I don't dispute that grain was the largest portion of the diet, manorial records and tax records appear to bear this out. But you didn't say bread was "a staple," or even "the most common staple;" you said "bread was THE staple," which means that there were no others; and grain-based foods of other types (which required no milling nor oven) would be the most likely staple for the lowest of the low (in monetary terms). Saying "bread was the staple, followed by other foods based on cereal," again, does not change or limit the initial statement of "bread was the staple;" you cannot subtract from the initial statement by adding to it. I'm saying that any English teacher will agree, here; you are using the language incorrectly, and ending up with a false statement, because of it. Poor formatting can result in falsehood, after all; this is why it is so important in scholarship to be clear. If I say, "I have a wife; I love chicken," I am not saying that my wife is a chicken, or that I love my wife. Remember, clarity in communication requires writing according to the rules of the language.

Rabbit Fylgja 8 August 2007 4:46 a.m.

• I'm not solely relying on one manor's records. I also made use of tax records, which will reflect relative amounts of crops, livestock, and so on. And cookbooks and collections of recipe manuscripts can also be used to, at least, prove that certain foods were a part of regional cuisine, and can be indicative of amounts (say, if there are only two recipes extant, out of 1000, it's likely that the item was not a significant part of the diet). And, since you note that the situation is complicated, I'd have to say that perhaps less general statements are warranted. Perhaps you should state that some types of food are common, without saying that they are the MOST common. I mean, I can rightly say, "Socrates was a man," and include that statement in a history of Greece, without saying "Socrates was ALL men." (capitalization for emphasis, only) Rabbit fylgja 15:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Rabbit Fylgja 8 August 2007 8:02 a.m.

Sorry for rearranging your replies, but it looked really confusing to have your replies right in the middle of mine.

• If you wish to nuance the statement about bread being the main staple, please do. Your suggestion is good. However, suggesting that flat bread isn't bread is taking the literal interpretation a bit too far. We can't really compare it to pancakes for rather obvious reasons, but there's no doubt that food like tortillas, pita or lefse ("flatbread" according to our own article) are perfectly acceptable forms of bread.
• Medieval society was primarily rural througout the entire period (and right up to the modern period), and referring to primarily urban standardizations of bread prices isn't all that relevant for the big picture. Even if prices were stated in monetary value, it doesn't mean they were actually paid with hard cash. But either way, we're straying off course, and I think being too specific will cause far bigger confusion than being general. The issue was whether bread was seen as the primary form of meal or not, and the impression I have from all scholars so far is that this was the case.
• You're citing primary sources when questioning material that cites secondary sources. Therein lies the problem. If we start arguing based on how we interpret sources like tax records or individual manuscripts, we'll be trying to circumvent what scholars say. It's an interesting debate, but this is not the place for it. By all means, use primary sources to flesh out or support claims, but first you'll have to confirm it by using secondary sources, or it'll most likely be original research.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• That is by far one of the stupidest things I've ever heard said. If a fact is found that clearly disproves or brings into sharp doubt the assertion of a scholar, and if that assertion is presented here, then that assertion can and must be removed from the article. To do otherwise is to actively and intentionally misinform. If you will take a moment to actually read the policy on original research, you might notice that it is a restriction on what may be included in an article, and not what grounds may be used to exclude material from an article. --Doc 19:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of ruleslawyering wikipolicy, but rather that you shouldn't try to draw your own conclusions from a select few primary sources without checking scholarly consensus first. From what I can tell, it seems that none of you guys are actually willing to check the sources provided here before supplanting them with your own interpretations.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bunk. I own most of the sources you list, and have read the rest. Part of the difficulty in checking your "references" is that you've cited the source without noting on which page in the source you found your information. This turns a quick check into a more tedious task of having to re-read the entire source just to find one small reference.

Also, you don't seem to have actually checked your own sources for scholarly consensus. The assertions in this article that are being questioned seem to have been "cherry-picked" from individual works, and are not supported by a broad variety of sources. Can you support each questioned area with three scholarly sources?

Finally, it most certainly is a case of ruleslawyering wikipolicy on your part. You keep falling back on the "No Original Research" stance every time someone uses a primary source and suggests that a given assertion be removed or weakened. As I said above, that policy governs what can be included, not what can be excluded. An incorrect or misleading assertion in any Wikipedia article needs to either be removed or marked as questionable. --Doc 13:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should concentrate on article content a bit more. For example, could you specify exactly what it is you (dis)agree with in this thread? And if there's something you feel is clearly not part of scholarly consensus, why not just cite someone who disagrees?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I usually don't bother with tertiary sources in this field because they frequently contain opinions or over-generalizations that turn out to be incorrect - both of which can sometimes be quickly and easily identified with a reference to a primary source. For a general example of the problem, see J.C. Drummond's "The Englishman and His Food" - which is a root source for the myth that medieval people used lots of spice on their foods to cover the taste of rotting meat. People have been citing Drummond for decades on this, and it turns out that he had no basis in fact for his statement, but was repeating a Victorian misconception.

For an example in the article here: I've been recently looking into the concept of breakfast in medieval Europe, and from the primary sources I've looked at, I'm becoming convinced that Bridget Ann Henisch may be way off the mark with what she wrote in "Fast and Feast: Food in Medieval Society." It looks like she may have confused the fast required before the Eucharist with other forms of fasting in that time period. I've come across a large number of references to breakfasts, with no suggestion of the connotations of "weakness" she says should accompany them.

When I re-read that section of Henisch's book, I note that it has a strong feel of conjecture, where she uses phrases like "it may be" and "presumably", and makes note of some facts that contradict her own thesis. Unfortunately, none of those indications of uncertainty have found their way into the article here.

I can start posting here the information from primary sources I've found so far if you like, though they'd probably take up as much space as this thread has already. Do you have any other sources that support Henisch's conclusions on medieval breakfast?

--Doc 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that breakfast is described as something conspicuously absent from historical menus until well into the early modern period by other authors as well. Ken Albala in Food in Early Modern Europe, for example. I don't remember if Henisch is the only one to describe it as being outright unmanly, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While you are correct that there are few (if any) references to breakfast in historical menus (which is not all that surprising given that such menus were usually for state dinners, weddings and funerals, and religious festivals), there are many detailed accounts of breakfast for both the nobility and the lower classes in serving manuals, household accounts, and dietetic texts - a few of which Henisch herself mentions. However, in none of the references that I've seen has there been any unambiguous suggestion of weakness, or clear religious condemnation of breakfast (other than that fasting must be observed before taking communion).

I think I may have Mr. Albala's email address on my home account. If I do then I'll ask for his thoughts on the matter as well. --Doc 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to avoid any confusion, are we both talking about an early morning meal here, and not just "the breaking of the fast"?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about early morning meals. The medieval church encouraged attendence and worship multiple times a day, and held mass first thing in the morning. --Doc 15:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Monks had to attend their several offices daily; laymen were certainly not expected to do so in any way that would interfere with eating on a normal day (Communion was taken far less frequently than it is by Catholics nowadays - only a few times a year, if that). I'm not sure what you mean by "first thing" - my impression is that Sunday mass was usually held around the middle of the morning as it is now, and I don't believe there was any prescribed time. Johnbod 01:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that throughout the medieval period there was a movement to have the laity perform a set of "watered down" offices - look up information on the Hours of the Virgin for more details. They were encouraged by the church to attend and perform these offices multiple times per day. There seems to be a huge amount of diversity across Europe throughout the middle ages as to frequency of observance of mass & communion.

Modernly there is a requirement of fasting for one hour before taking communion. This was reduced from three hours in the 20th century, and before three hours it had been required from midnight. Communion is therefore given first thing in the morning to accomodate the fasting and to permit people to attend mass before going to work.

There are medieval records and descriptions of daily mass for workers being offered before they went off to work as well. Presumably if they took communion daily (which was done in some parts of Europe in the early middle ages) then they did so at this mass when they were already observing the required fast.

While I agree that this is an oversimplification and generalization of the religious situation of the time, it is no more speculative than the reasoning and support that Henisch herself used to assert that medieval people didn't eat breakfast, that only the weak or infirm ate breakfast, that eating breakfast was seen as a sign of weakness, that people going off to do hard work ate breakfast, and that (oddly enough) many nobles ate breakfast anyways. --Doc 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - The 1911 CE on "Frequent Communion": "Strange to say, it was in the Middle Ages, "the Ages of Faith", that Communion was less frequent than at any other period of the Church's history. The Fourth Lateran Council compelled the faithful, under pain of excommunication, to receive at least once a year (c. Omnis utriusque sexus). The Poor Clares, by rule, communicated six times a year; the Dominicanesses, fifteen times; the Third Order of St. Dominic, four times. Even saints received rarely: St. Louis six times a year, St. Elizabeth only three times...." (continues with efforts to promote more frequent Communion)[3]. Generally people tended to go to Confession before each Eucharist (as the Orthodox still tend to). Johnbod 22:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Breakfast

I just came across yet another reference to (late) medieval breakfast:

(10) Eate three meales a day vntill you come to the age of fourtie yeares: as, your breakefast, dinner, and supper; yet, that betweene breakefast and dinner there be space of foure houres, and betwixt dinner and supper seauen houres: the breakfast must be lesse then supper.

Vaughan's Fifteen Directions for Health (From his Naturall & Artificial Directions for health, 1602, p. 57-63.) [reproduced in Early English Meals and Manners, Frederick J. Furnivall, 1868].

I really think the part of the article on breakfasts needs to be removed until it can be supported by additional sources. It may be true for a specific location and time period within the realm of medieval Europe, but it is certainly not typical of all of Europe throughout the middle ages. --Doc (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a similar reference, again for England, this one from "The Castel of Helth" by Thomas Elyot (1541)

I suppose, that in Englande, yong men, vntil they come to the age of .xl. yeres, may well eate thre meales in one day, as at brekefast, dyner, and supper, so that betwene brekefast, and diner, be the space of foure houres at the lest, betwene diner and supper .vi. houres, & the breke fast lasse than the diner and the dyner moderate, that is to say, lasse than sacietie or fulnesse of bealy, and the drynke thervnto mesurable, according to the drynesse or moystnes of the meate.

Again, I suggest that the portion of the article on breakfasts needs to be removed as it is obviously overgeneralizing. Anyone disagree? If so, I'd like to see much stronger support and more specific detail for that part of the article. --216.196.155.211 (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

None of these sources are medieval. Why are they more applicable than the existing reference?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine Peter, please provide documentation that indicates that two meals a day was typical across Europe throughout the medieval period. --Doc (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Medicine

I removed the comment below for a number of reasons.

1. It had no supporting documentation
2. It did not directly relate to medieval cuisine
3. I have not seen references to theriacs in the medieval medicinals I've looked at, but have seen remedies that included garlic (as well as one that called for cow dung) in a medicinal that belonged to Lady Katherine Gray.

If a strong source can be found to support the statement, then I'll be happy to see it restored to the article. --Doc 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary medicine similarly recommended expensive tonics,
theriacs, and exotic spices for the maladies of the nobility,
while relegating the more odorous, lower-ranked garlic to commoners.

Various pictures - Photography

Hi,

I'm the webmaster of www.medietaz.be, and i want to discuss with the owner of this page... I've a lot of actual picture without anachronism and i think that it will be useful for him... Mail me @ scanxtaz ( at ) gmail.com. Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.151.94 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous editor. I'm Peter, one of the main contributors to this article. This page is not "owned" by me or anyone else, but publically editable to anyone who wishes to improve it. If you feel you have photos of recreated medieval food, please don't hesitate to upload them her to English Wikipedia or Wikipedia Commons. Just keep in mind that the pictures need to be released under a license that makes the pictures available for anyone to use freely.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Almond as important ingredient in medieval times?

Hi! Being pretty uninformed on the subject, I was surprised to read that almonds should have been "universal" in "almost all of Europe". To my knowledge, the climate is/was too cold in most of Europe for almond trees. Is this true? And if so, how could they be so widespread in medieval food, in a time where transportation was not very efficient? User:Nillerdk (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't on the plate of every man, woman and child, but it was very common among the affluent. The transports were certainly inefficient by today's standards, but that didn't prevent every imaginable type of luxury item being shipped from one end of Europe to the other. I've been thinking about inserting some type of caveat section that more clearly discusses the lack of sources for foods of the common people, but I haven't gotten around to it quite yet.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

almonds grow throughout southern europe and of course in turkey. Lgh (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Almonds ship as easily as peppercorns. The cuisine we're discussing in this article is not the common fare, which was not expanded in many parts of Europe until the 20th century.--Wetman (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeated content

In the "The Church" section, the bit about imitation foods and feasts on fast days is repeated in 2 paragraphs. -Oreo Priest ^talk 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I read through the four paragraphs under this section, but I was unable to locate the repetitions. Could you specify this more precisely?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact tagging

(moved from User_talk:Peter Isotalo) Hi. I am doubting the claim that the modern term dry to describe wine comes from the humours. -Oreo Priest ^talk 13:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason? Did you check out Scully? Are there alternative theories?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See below. -Oreo Priest ^talk 06:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Distillates

A fact tag was added for a sentence fragment in the section about distillates, and re-added[4] despite the explanation that the citation covers the two sentences preceding it. The two sentences are clearly connected to one another and none of the other statements have been questioned. The citation (Scully, p. 158-59) covers all of the preceding text, which I know since I added the citation myself. Almost all statements in the article are handled in this manner, so I don't see a reason to duplicate a citation for just one particular sentence fragment.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason you passed FAR with so few citations is that the reviewers (rightly) didn't think much of the material would be challenged. I'm challenging these points, and if they're in Scully, cite them as such. It may be clear to you that all of that information comes from the same two pages of Scully, but it isn't clear to others. The wine section too is especially bad, with only one citation, covering 10 pages of one book, at the end of two long paragraphs.

Having said all that, the article is a pleasure to read and very informative. Keep up the good work! -Oreo Priest ^talk 06:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the second paragraph in the historiography section has a quotation that needs to be attributed to someone. If it was Scully, say what author (or historian or whatever) Terence Scully has called "..." . Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 01:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions

I didn't quite agree on the inclusion of some of the very detailed new info in the lead, so I moved it out under some sub-headings. Some of it could also use some harmonizing with the rest of the content.

I'm also not quite sure what to make of the quotation of Toussant-Samat. In the 1994 edition the full sentence is: "The pheasant did not weigh heavy on anyone's stomach, and the solemn oath was quickly forgotten, the usual outcome of grand banquets serving political ambition rather than gastronomy: today as yesterday." (p. 84). The reference is to banquets in general and the Feast of the Pheasant in particular. I don't really see how any of it proves that banquet food is all that irrelevant to the "mainstream of cuisine". Is the context different in the 2009 edition?

I also noticed that Scully refers to the exact same quote by Toussant-Samat (see Scully, footnote 1, p. 3), but is rather displeased with her conclusions and considers her comments needlessly disparaging.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as the details aren't dropped because they don't 'fit in', where they appear is a matter of logical exposition. Editing is harmonizing is editing.

No, Toussaint-Samat's context remains the same. Does agreeing with Scully motivate the suppressing of Toussaint-Samat's cautionary note regarding descriptions of banquets as not genuinely representative of what the upper classes were normally eating? Wikipedia is a readers' guide. A fuller report of Scully might be a better maneuver. So, does Scully really think roasted peacock was general holiday fare for the nobs? Recipes for its preparation could be marshalled to support the claim, but...

More details to come, as details support the generalities. I'll keep them under their sub-headings in future. Didn't mean to grandstand. --Wetman (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I'm raising concern about more specific examples of generalities is that the article is quite large as it is. I've been thinking quite a while about creating more sub-articles, but I just haven't been able to figure out exactly how to do it. Since you seem interested in adding more details, do you have any suggestions for new sub-articles? I don't mean to imply that all your additions have to be diverted elsewhere. You're quite welcome to switch out existing content for your own if you feel it's appropriate. But I do think that the quality of this general article will be diluted with too much content.

If you want to see what Scully has to say, see this link. As far as I can tell, the passage where the T-S's quote comes from is a somewhat diluted way of saying that banquet fare were somewhat tastless or that they weren't even intended to eat at all, which is why Scully disagrees. If you want to stress that stuffed, redressed and guilded fowl wasn't everyday fare even for the nobility, I think there might be better ways to reference that. And since you bring it up, do you feel that this article gives the impression that banquet food was everyday food?

Peter ^Isotalo 02:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I should be sorry to dilute the article with specifics, dates, places, citations, footnotes. Or to "switch out content for my own", as I intend only to report the published content of others, as my usual practice is. As for confusing banquet food with ordinary upper-class feasting, well, I'm reading "Swans and peafowl were often domesticated, but were only eaten by the social elite..." Peacocks were not "often domesticated" anywhere in Europe. I seem to be treading on your turf, but surely any wikiturf could be cultivated and weeded.

The best way to create sub-articles, if you have been trying to figure it out, is to cut-and-paste sections from this article, expand and improve them as separate articles and insert a hatnote here to direct the reader to the detailed treatment. A final refinement is to re-edit the sub-section here to bring it more accurately into line with the specialized article. Lead on, and I shall follow, editing the sub-articles and just condensing verbiage and focusing generalities in this one.--Wetman (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

More ≠ better. Instead of adding a lengthy counter-statement about the issue of banquet food in a completely different section how about tackling the offending statement head on? I've tweaked away the "often" part concerning the fowl. Is there anything else you feel should be clarified? I'm also still hesitant about using T-S in this case since she seems to be making some rather dubious statements.

I know how to move out content, but I can't come up with sensible new sub-topics that would make sense as separate articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A side note on the eating of peacocks at banquets. One recipe from Du fait de cuisine (France, 14th c.) clearly states that a peacock skin is to be put over a cooked chicken to serve to the lord of the manor, with the implication that he'll like it better. The same recipe notes that the peacock should be dressed in the skin of the chicken, and that the lord be let in on the secret so he can serve it to someone as a sort of cruel trick. The gist of this is of course that they valued peacocks for their plumage, but that they didn't consider them particularly palatable. --Doc (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously needs editing for tone

If you're talking about the way a culture eats, and you use phrases like "regime of stern collectivism" (i.e. it's considered rude to eat away from the rest of the household) and "social hierarchies were often brutally enforced" (compared to other pre-modern societies, e.g. Joseon Korea?), it is fairly evident you are blatantly hostile to that culture. Doesn't using terms like that pretty much define NPOV? Certainly food was a status symbol...unlike every other period in history.

The section on etiquette, especially, needs to be rewritten. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it a problem to describe medieval society as either highly collectivist or even extremely hierarchical? You're right that one shouldn't openly scorn past cultures (as did previous generations of scholars with the spices-on-rotten-meat-myth), but we have to view them from our own vantage point, ie as members of modern, industrialized, largely democratic societies. I have trouble seeing how any of these examples can be considered openly prejudiced or unneutral. The things you mention would be a perfectly natural state of affairs to anyone living at that time, as is evident from contemporary sources.

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret the last sentence, but are you dissatisfied about the article stating the obvious?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You really don't see the problem with characterizing the fact it was considered rude to eat away from the rest of the household as a "regime of stern collectivism"? Aside from "regime of stern collectivism" being incredibly loaded language, it's not even accurate.

The Middle Ages was probably the first era in Western history—probably history generally—to be non-collectivist; it was the first time individuals, rather than clans, owned property, for instance. They didn't simply deny the existence of collectives, as later eras did (with the rise of Calvinism's extremely individualistic theology), but to pretend "not a radical, atomized individualist" is the same as "collectivist" is to assert a false dichotomy. If anything, medievals had the first formulation of a Social Contract idea—an individual owed duties to the groups he had membership in because they gave advantages to him, as an individual.

And the hierarchical element in medieval table manners only comes in with the fact that everyone at a lord's table, apart from his family (which had its own hierarchy) would either be his retainer or servant (i.e. employee), his guest, or his tenant: all of which are hierarchical elements present in the etiquette of our own "largely democratic societies"—if by "democratic" you mean run by industrial and bureaucratic elites rather than military ones. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I do recall reading the occasional comment on how modern, individualist ideas, like capitalism, began to take shape during the (late) Middle Ages. But I've never seen anyone present the period as thoroughly modern as you are doing here. If anything, I believe it flies in the face of the near-axiomatic historiographical view of pre-modern history, which usually is defined as everything before 1650 at the earliest, if not anything before Industrialization. I'm sure there are a lot of differences compared to, say Ancient Egypt, but Id doubt it's quite as unique as you're implying here. And since this is not a comparative study of Ancient and medieval foodways, it seems quite unavoidable that the perspective would be more attuned to that of the reader, ei a member of a thoroughly modern(ized) society. You're welcome to suggest that modern society is basically no more democratic than was the case in the Middle Ages, but then you'd have to ignore some pretty glaring anomalies, like the absence of centralized nation-states, government bureaucracies, professionalization, democratic ideals, rule by law, the separation of public and private, universal suffrage, etc, etc, etc. Our respective opinions on this issue are probably more closely associated modern political debate than what we actually known about medieval society.

That aside, I still believe the article reflects the view of the sources, not merely my own opinions. I could be wrong about that, and I urge you to review the sources yourself to double-check my interpretations. If you think the choice of sources is too selective, it might be a good idea to suggest alternative sources, as per the following policies: WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. That way we won't get bogged down in merely debating our own views on what the most neutral point of view should be.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to act on this issue, but I think the tag might be a tad exaggerated. Does anyone else have any input on this matter?

Peter ^Isotalo 09:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Food before Columbus

Hello, I'm not a specialist of medieval cuisine, but I believe it's interesting and probably studied because it's very different from modern cuisine, and the main explanation of these differences maybe is the discovery of new food in America by Columbus, isn't it? If someone can find reliable sources that support this explanation, I think it should be included to the article's introduction, because it's important to remember it before reading more information.

El Comandante (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned. See the second paragraph. Overall, though, there's a limit to how much one can point out what didn't exist. It's supposed to describe the period in of itself, not merely in comparison with modern cuisines.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

New foods were part of the changes between then and now, but not all of it; there were several centuries of changes in availability of foods, social status and meanings of cetain foods, agricultural and cooking methods, costs, fashions, and tastes that have intervened. If you think about how different, say, American cuisine of the 1900s was compared to American food of this decade, you can start to see the changes that have occurred. A really good book if you want to understand the kind of changes that have taken place is Londoner's Larder: English Cuisine from Chaucer to the Present, by Annette Hope, which talks about exactly this. That said, I agree with Peter that this article isn't really comparative in that way, and plus this is an absolutely enormous topic - trying to cram it into the lede would do neither the topic nor the lede justice. Kate (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)