Ordinary fast days were Friday, in memory of the crucifixion; Wednesday because it was the day Judas accepted money in exchange for his promise to betray Jesus; and Saturday because it was the day consecrated to Mary and the celebration of her virginity. Lent, however, is usually thought of when the subject of fasting comes to mind. It’s length, six weeks, was chosen in imitation of Jesus’ fast of forty days in the wilderness. In the farm year, a tenth of a man’s harvest, a tithe, had to be handed over to his lord or his parish priest. Of the year’s three hundred sixty five days, Lent’s forty made up a generous tenth, and were sometimes called “the tithe days of the year”.

During any other “fast” day of the year, the only difference was a change in the main ingredient from meat to fish. The amount eaten, and the number of meals eaten remained as usual. During Lent, the number of meals to be eaten each day was limited to one, and no proportional increase in the meal’s size was permitted. In Christianity’s early years, the Church ruled that this solitary meal was not to be eaten until the early evening, after the hour of Vespers which marked the end of the ecclesiastical day. According to popular belief, this rule was made to strengthen Lent’s character as an imitation of Jesus’ fast in the wilderness. While Jesus had managed to survive his forty days without eating a morsel, this was impossible for ordinary men, and so dinner time in lent was set in limbo, as it were, between the official end of one day and the official beginning of the next.

Shrove Tuesday falls the day before Ash Wednesday; Lent begins on Ash Wednesday and ends with Easter, and during this time no meat of any kind could be eaten. The formal reason for this had its roots in the significance of the season - Lent was a period of reflection on man’s sin, which could be traced back to Adam’s fall. When God discovered what Adam had done, He said “Cursed is the ground for thy sake”. The earth and the earth’s creatures were flawed by man’s failure, and in memory of that failure, no animal born or bred on land was to be eaten. This rule was strictly enforced and seriously obeyed. The prohibition was often stretched to cover other animal products: butter, cheese, milk and eggs. (Think vegan.)The rules about these were interpreted a bit less strictly than about meat; nevertheless, it was the custom for eggs at least to vanish after Shrove Tuesday, not to reappear until Easter Sunday.

Providentially, fish had escaped the curse by living in the water. Water itself was an element of special sanctity, washing away the sins of the world in Noah’s Flood, and the sins of the individual in baptism, and it’s creatures might be said to share something of it’s virtues.

To the modern diner, raised in an era of “healthy eating”, a meal without beef, pork, chicken or other flesh is not unusual. In the Middle Ages, flesh and other animal products was the mainstay of the meal, and their absence sorely felt. The Emperor Charlemagne explained to sympathetic ears that “he could not go long without food, and...fasting made him feel ill.” A 15th century schoolboy grumbles in his private notebook: “Thou wyll not beleve how wery I am off fysshe, and how moch I desir that flesch wer cum in ageyn...”.

Cooks of the period were expected to provide tempting dishes for their masters regardless of the restrictions of the season, and cookbooks abound with recipes created especially for Lent: Bruet of Almayne in lente, Vyaunde de cyprys in Lente, A Blancmenger of fysshe, Froyse in lente, Eyroun in lente, Ruschewys in lente appear on just 2 pages of the table of contents of a 15th century cookbook.

Preparing “fasting” menues can be enlightening both for the cook and the diner. Rather than punishment, fasting menues can amaze with the quality, quantity and variety of wonderful dishes which may be enjoyed. Even if it is impractical or undesireable to experience the deprivations of Lent for 40 days, a complete “Lenten” or “Fast” meal can add tangibly to a living history experience.

Further reading:

Food and Feast in Medieval Society, Bridget Ann Henisch, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-271-00424-X

An Ordinance of Pottage: An Edition of the 15th C. Culinary Recipes in Yale University’s MS Beinecke 163, Constance Hieatt, Prospect Books, 1988, ISBN 0-907325-38-6

Fabulous Feasts- Medieval Cookery and Ceremony, Madeleine P. Cosman, George Brazillier, 1976, ISBN- 0-8076-0898-X

Daily Life in the Late Middle Ages, Edited by Richard Britnell, Sutton Publishing, Glouchestershire, 1998 ISBN 0-7509-1587-0

The Wars of the Roses- From Richard II to the fall of Richard III at Bosworth Field - as seen through the eyes of their contemporaries, Edited by Elizabeth Hallam, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988, ISBN: 1-55584- 240-2

The Medieval Gentlewoman: Life in a Gentry Household in the Later Middle Ages, Ffiona Swabey, Routledge, 1999 ISBN: 0415925118

It seemed like there was only one thing I would suggest, a small edit to make a certain point more accurate. If I may quote you:

In the Middle Ages, flesh and other animal products was the mainstay of the meal, and their absence sorely felt.

I have been given to understand that such was the case for nobility and not peasantry - hence inserting "nobility" somehow into that sentence may be desirable. But as you must know a lot more about ancient culinary than I do, then you may have information to contrary of which I am unaware.

Anyway, good luck,

--------------------

JLH

--------------------

JLH

Thanks for posting that Gwen!

Notto add contraversy, but it was my impression that even peasants ate meat, although less regularly and of different types than the middle class or the aristocracy (The Nobility had venison as a distinctive meat not readily available to most, and clearly marking their table).

Pottages were definitely the mainstay for those not well off, but there were pork products - sides of bacon and the like,. Chickens as well, to a small extent. And in some locations and situations, it was my impression that taking rabbits or other small vermin was acceptable (and in other locations it could get you hanged).

What are your thoughts Gwen? Clearly it is important to keep laying hens primarily, but old ones, obnoxious or excess roosters, and the like surely ended up in the pot from time to time.

--------------------

I'm speculating here but I think this may be a mostly American view, driven by our meat obsessed culture. Meat is the indisputable mainstay of most American meals, be it a steak the size of a small island, or a huge burger. European portions are generally much smaller, and in Asia meat is nearly a garnish.

Pottages of vegetables could contain a small animal or bird, with everyone having a mouthful or so of meat but more importantly the whole animal being cooked in the pot to enrich the broth with protein and gelatin from the joints, feet, head, etc. Blood was collected for puddings/sausages ('Black Pudding' being a common English breakfast offering, even today. We are 'kishke', a Polish blood sausage in my house growing up).

A quick look at Dyer's 'Standards of Living in the Middle Ages' shows that even in wealthy households (the inventories of Alice de Bryenne of Acton and John de Vere, Earl of Oxford) poultry represented only 9% and 6% (respectively) of the household's meat consumption in the given years of 1418/19 and 1431/2 (respectively).

What intriques me is that Alice's poultry averaged 1.16 lbs, while John's averaged a whopping 2.63 lbs.

While the aged laying hen and the occasional rooster must have made its way into a pot, I would think those same pots would be populated with far more ducks, geese and any number of 'smal byrdys' in addition to pork, which I think was the main meat eaten by the middling and lower orders.

I could poke around a bit more to see what I can find.

Gwen

I generally have the same feel from what I have read (It's been some time since I've read Dyer - time to revisit it), but I have the general feeling that 'pease porrige hot and cold' was pretty much a mainstay. A good thing if you like split pea soup with ham, which I don't think would have been unfamiliar to our ancestors.

It is funny you mention the Asian food, which was what I was thinking along the lines of regarding volume and style of meat eating in regards to the lower orders in the Later Middle Ages. Given every Asian I know from Southeast Asia has felt the real pinch of hunger, and from more than missing a meal once or twice (a Cambodian woman I know had the unpleasant experience of seeing her mother starve to death in front of her eyes under the Khymer Rouge regime), their experiences related to me seem to be strikingly familiar to accounts of famine prior to the Black Death.

Different kinds and style of food, certainly, but volume of meat seems similar in comparison.

--------------------