Fish Bad, Sugar Good… And Other Medieval Ideas About Food

Although medieval ideas about food were very different to our own, its importance was widely recognized. According to Galen, food “is probably the most important of all medical subjects,” and it dominated medieval regimens—many of which consist almost entirely of lists of foods and discussions of their properties and impact on the human body.Article continues after advertisement In order to remain healthy, it was important to know about the qualities of foods, which were categorized as hot/cold and wet/dry, with different qualities having different effects on the body, and bad foods leading to illness. The perceived connection between diet and health was underpinned by medical ideas about digestion, which was thought to be a three-stage process, similar to cooking, distillation and combustion. In the first digestion, which took place in the stomach and intestines, food was turned into chyle, with some superfluities being excreted through defecation. The second digestion happened in the liver, and produced blood, along with black and yellow bile (which were, respectively, stored in the spleen and the gallbladder). In the third and final digestion, the blood was spread around the whole body, providing it with the heat, moisture and vital spirits necessary for life. Thanks to the English physician William Harvey (1578–1657), we now understand that blood circulates around the body, but medieval people believed that the liver was constantly generating new blood—so that digested food was incorporated into the body, and in a very literal sense a person was what they ate. So, what did medieval people eat? Processed cereals such as pottage and bread were the key components of the medieval diet, although the quality of these foods varied with social status. Rich people ate leavened bread made from good quality wheat, while the poor usually had to make do with coarse, dense bread made from barley (which was cold and flatulent) or rye (which produced weak blood and little energy). Nevertheless, it is clear that health was a consideration when preparing a meal. Contrary to popular belief, medieval people also ate fruit and vegetables—though they were rather ambivalent about plants, and considered some of them to be downright dangerous. Brassicas (such as cabbage, cauliflower and broccoli) were an important part of the peasant diet, but caused both melancholy and nightmares; lettuce was dangerous because it was so cold and moist, while turnips and parsnips led to flatulence and lust. There was considerable wariness about beans, which were thought to cause flatulence and bad humours, as well as confusion, dizziness and general malaise; peas were more easily digested, and thus a much better option. Similarly, some fruits were safer than others: citrus fruits improved digestion, especially in hot weather, while raisins were good for the stomach, lungs and liver. And nuts were nutritious and good for the brain. But many common fruits, including apples, peaches and cherries, were viewed with suspicion, because they were cold and moist, and produced putrid humours. They could be made safer by cooking, and it is clear that many people did eat them. When Petrarch’s physician told him to avoid “apples and every kind of fruit from trees,” he declared himself appalled by “this scorn for the most beautiful things that at the same time delight the taste, the touch, the smell and the sight.” The medical advice regarding animal produce was equally complicated. Butter was warm, moist and nourishing, and produced good blood, whereas cheese was a coarse food, hard to digest and likely to cause bladder stones—although a small piece at the end of the meal could improve digestion. Eggs were widely eaten, though the warm, moist yolks were healthier than the cold, moist white. When it came to meat, chicken was widely regarded as the healthiest option: moderately warm, easily digestible and extremely nourishing, it was especially suitable for the delicate stomachs of the wealthy and the sick. Pheasant and quail were less widely eaten but had similar qualities, though the latter was potentially dangerous because of its fondness for feeding on poisonous plants such as hellebore. Pork, lamb and mutton were all seen as nutritious meats, but beef was more problematic. It was cheap and coarse, produced thick blood, and was only really suitable for manual labourers. Duck, goose and venison were hard to digest, produced bad humours, and were best avoided by everyone. But, in sharp contrast to modern ideas, it was cold, wet fish which was seen as a particular threat to health, because it generated large quantities of phlegm. It was, nevertheless, an important part of the medieval diet—partly for religious reasons, partly because it was cheap and partly because people liked it—and medical experts therefore suggested various ways to mitigate the health risks. Most methods aimed to warm and dry the fish, which should ideally be roasted or fried, rather than boiled—which would only make it wetter. Sauces and seasonings would also make it more fit for consumption. Thus the physician Peter of Spain (who later became Pope John XXI) suggested that oil, vinegar, wine and spices should be used to “consume the moisture of the fish.” And Maino de Maineri warned that lamprey (which was “very dangerous,” though “tasty in the mouth”) should be killed by immersion in wine, prepared with a spicy jelly or bread sauce, and cooked very thoroughly. Such recommendations reflected a wider belief that it was possible to make foods healthier through careful preparation and cooking—to the extent that some historians have suggested that medieval cuisine was essentially applied dietetics, with cooks using their knowledge of the properties of individual foods to produce healthy dishes. There is some evidence to support their claims: many recipe collections included dishes especially for the sick, and the famous fourteenth-century English cookbook The Forme of Cury was written in consultation with “maistres of physic.” But it seems likely that only the wealthiest households had access to such expertise, and there were always lots of other considerations at play, such as religion, display and taste. Nevertheless, it is clear that health was a consideration when preparing a meal. For example, it was widely believed that cooking methods could change the properties of a food—so that beef, which was naturally dry, should be boiled (to warm and moisten the meat), whereas moist pork should be dried out by roasting. Most vegetables were dry, and therefore needed boiling, but onions—which were extremely moist—should be fried, to dry them out a little. Fruits were mostly moist, which was why it was safer to eat them cooked (preferably roasted or baked) and thus dried out. Adding flavourings was another popular way to make food both healthier and tastier. Honey was the most common sweetener; its warmth and dryness meant that it was good for old people and those with cold complexions, although it could cause thirst, itching and stomach problems. Sugar was very much a luxury commodity, although it became more widely available from the mid-fourteenth century—and whereas we fret about the dangers of eating too many sweet things, medieval people focused on its warm, moist qualities (which made it good for the lungs, kidneys and bladder), and saw it as a healthy option. But they shared our concerns about salt, which was used for seasoning but was also an important preservative for meat, fish and some vegetables. Warm and dry, in small quantities it could be a useful appetite stimulant and flavouring, but too much would dry the body, burn the blood, dry out the stomach, harm the eyes and brain, and cause itching. Consequently, cooks were warned not to oversalt food, and sometimes soaked preserved goods in water to remove the excess. Herbs were also popular, and many offered significant health benefits. Parsley, for example, generated good blood and provoked urination and defecation; sage was good for the stomach and nerves, and mint warmed the stomach and aided digestion. And spices were much more widely used than we often assume, especially towards the end of the Middle Ages, as they became cheaper and more widely available; even in twelfth-century London, it was possible to buy flavourings such as pepper, cumin and saffron. Medieval elites were particularly fond of saffron (hot and dry, it comforted the heart and liver and aided digestion), while pepper (which was considerably cheaper and therefore more widely used) was very hot and dry, and good for stimulating appetite, improving digestion, dissolving wind and removing phlegm from the chest. Furthermore, digestion was often compared to a cooking process—and just as it is important to follow the recipe when preparing a meal, this meant that foods must be eaten in the right order. Many of these flavourings could be incorporated into sauces, which were extremely popular and had both culinary and medical benefits. They could stimulate appetite, plus they continued to heat food and to assist with digestion after it had been eaten. Sharp, vinegary foods were thought to be especially healthy, and were often used to tempt those with poor appetites to eat: the Salernitan physician Matthaeus Platearius (d. 1161) suggested that hard-boiled eggs chopped up and stirred into mint and vinegar sauce, or toast soaked in vinegar, were good for this purpose. And mixing could be used to modify ingredients, so that dishes which combined sweet and bitter flavours (such as vinegar and honey) were surprisingly common.