5 ms·

My understanding is lower classes historically didn't eat much meat. They couldn't afford it. In a college English class that covered poetry, decades later the

My understanding is lower classes historically didn't eat much meat. They couldn't afford it. In a college English class that covered poetry, decades later the only thing I remember clearly is the professor commenting on how "greasy Jane stirs the pot" meant there was meat, thus this was an upper-class meal, otherwise it wouldn't have been greasy and she was likely a servant. He went on about how elegant it was to convey so much info with a single word but it only does that if you know enough context, which means enough history. So the existence of this pack of cards likely suggests rising wealth generally. It suggests a world in which people who didn't normally eat meat might begin to eat meat enough to need or want written instruction because their associates likely also didn't know how to carve meat or someone would just show them or tell them.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
> My understanding is lower classes historically didn't eat much meat. They couldn't afford it. Depends where and when, but while that may have been likely for the rural poor throughout history, cities were different. For example, as one can learn from commentaries on Chaucer’s society at the time of the Canterbury Tales, the 14th-century London masses were indeed eating lots of meat. Of course, this was largely poultry (and not always the choicest cuts thereof) instead of luxurious meats like beef, but nevertheless it was meat. A couple of centuries later, sausages were a common snack of the proles attending Shakespeare’s plays at the Globe Theater.
- throwaway35590 3y ago
  >Of course, this was largely poultry (and not always the choicest cuts thereof) instead of luxurious meats like beef This comment comes as a surprise to me. My understanding is that historically, before the second world war, chicken was prohibitively expensive and considered a delicacy.
  - Retric 3y ago
    “Chicken was one of the most common meats available in the Middle Ages.[6][7]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_as_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_as_food US cattle prices pre WWII were low because the US had huge tracts of cheap land and rail networks to move that meat into cities. Medieval Europe had a very different logistical situation.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    IIRC eggs were somewhat rare/expensive
    - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      No, eggs, too were commonly consumed in the Middle Ages. In fact, even if the rural poor ate little meat in the sense of cuts off dead animals, they had access to eggs. Have you seen how many eggs are produced by even a modest henhouse next to a village home?
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > Have you seen how many eggs are produced by even a modest henhouse next to a village home? Yes, I do. Which is why I found the prices listed here quite surprising: http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html Two dozen eggs cost the same as two chickens. I would guess they were much more available in the countryside and the cost might have been high in cities because of no refrigeration (while animals were only butchered on the spot more or less)
        OfSanguineFire 3y ago
        That price list puts the cost of two dozen eggs, or two chickens, at the same price as a gallon of ale. And we know that ale was widely consumed. If anything, this only underscores the accessibility of both eggs and chickens to the masses.
        ffgjgf1 3y ago
        If you ignore the average wages at the time then perhaps. This is a pretty interesting answer (the thing I forgot is that chicken laid significantly less eggs back then than modern ones do): https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/afq8jy/how_often_did_medieval_peasants_eat_eggs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/afq8jy/how_o... (It claims that even rural peasants could hardly afford to eat more than an egg or two per week) Regarding ale most poor people probably drank the .75d one and no the one which cost 1.5d. (Also poor people still mainly drank water) e.g. the daily wage for a semi skilled worker was 2-3d. If you have to fed a family that’s not a lot and eating eggs would certainly not be that common.
j7ake 3y ago
That’s essentially the British social class system in a nutshell: very subtle accents, dress, and manners convey how high you are on the social hierarchy. Everything is understated, dressing flashy or bragging is vulgar.
- walthamstow 3y ago
  Agree on everything except accents. If a person is from anywhere in the south of England, I find it really easy to read all kinds of details from their accent. I can hear what kind of area they grew up in, what kind of school they went to, the education level or profession of their father/parents, basically their entire social class. I find it a lot harder with northern accents, though, due to lack of data.
  - rhaps0dy 3y ago
    Are you Professor Higgins?
    - naniwaduni 3y ago
      They're just Br*tish, I think.
nemo44x 3y ago
> So the existence of this pack of cards likely suggests rising wealth generally. Yeah, the article alludes to that and suggests the cards were used by a family that became wealthy enough to serve meat to guests but not so wealthy as to be able to hire a carver/servant.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

> My understanding is lower classes historically didn't eat much meat. They couldn't afford it. Depends where and when, but while that may have been likely for the rural poor throughout history, cities were different. For example, as one can learn from commentaries on Chaucer’s society at the time of the Canterbury Tales, the 14th-century London masses were indeed eating lots of meat. Of course, this was largely poultry (and not always the choicest cuts thereof) instead of luxurious meats like beef, but nevertheless it was meat. A couple of centuries later, sausages were a common snack of the proles attending Shakespeare’s plays at the Globe Theater.

throwaway35590 3y ago
>Of course, this was largely poultry (and not always the choicest cuts thereof) instead of luxurious meats like beef This comment comes as a surprise to me. My understanding is that historically, before the second world war, chicken was prohibitively expensive and considered a delicacy.
- Retric 3y ago
  “Chicken was one of the most common meats available in the Middle Ages.[6][7]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_as_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_as_food US cattle prices pre WWII were low because the US had huge tracts of cheap land and rail networks to move that meat into cities. Medieval Europe had a very different logistical situation.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  IIRC eggs were somewhat rare/expensive
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    No, eggs, too were commonly consumed in the Middle Ages. In fact, even if the rural poor ate little meat in the sense of cuts off dead animals, they had access to eggs. Have you seen how many eggs are produced by even a modest henhouse next to a village home?
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      > Have you seen how many eggs are produced by even a modest henhouse next to a village home? Yes, I do. Which is why I found the prices listed here quite surprising: http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html Two dozen eggs cost the same as two chickens. I would guess they were much more available in the countryside and the cost might have been high in cities because of no refrigeration (while animals were only butchered on the spot more or less)
      - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
        That price list puts the cost of two dozen eggs, or two chickens, at the same price as a gallon of ale. And we know that ale was widely consumed. If anything, this only underscores the accessibility of both eggs and chickens to the masses.
        ffgjgf1 3y ago
        If you ignore the average wages at the time then perhaps. This is a pretty interesting answer (the thing I forgot is that chicken laid significantly less eggs back then than modern ones do): https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/afq8jy/how_often_did_medieval_peasants_eat_eggs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/afq8jy/how_o... (It claims that even rural peasants could hardly afford to eat more than an egg or two per week) Regarding ale most poor people probably drank the .75d one and no the one which cost 1.5d. (Also poor people still mainly drank water) e.g. the daily wage for a semi skilled worker was 2-3d. If you have to fed a family that’s not a lot and eating eggs would certainly not be that common.

j7ake 3y ago

That’s essentially the British social class system in a nutshell: very subtle accents, dress, and manners convey how high you are on the social hierarchy. Everything is understated, dressing flashy or bragging is vulgar.

walthamstow 3y ago
Agree on everything except accents. If a person is from anywhere in the south of England, I find it really easy to read all kinds of details from their accent. I can hear what kind of area they grew up in, what kind of school they went to, the education level or profession of their father/parents, basically their entire social class. I find it a lot harder with northern accents, though, due to lack of data.
- rhaps0dy 3y ago
  Are you Professor Higgins?
  - naniwaduni 3y ago
    They're just Br*tish, I think.

nemo44x 3y ago

> So the existence of this pack of cards likely suggests rising wealth generally. Yeah, the article alludes to that and suggests the cards were used by a family that became wealthy enough to serve meat to guests but not so wealthy as to be able to hire a carver/servant.