Friday, 30 January 2015

How the Tudors Invented Breakfast

England is famous for our 'English breakfast'. Yet in the Middle Ages breakfast in England was a rarity. It was not until 1600 that breakfast become a key part of daily routine.

In historical terms, breakfast is hardly noticeable. Whole books have been written about feasts and banquets, dinners and suppers. This is mostly because feasts and banquets have ritual and theatre, meaning there are hundreds of sources on them. For example a source about the tens of thousands of animals killed for a two-day visit by Queen Elizabeth because accounts had to be compiled to manage the provision of so much meat. Likewise in the medieval royal household, feasts were occasionally described by chroniclers who witnessed the king eating in the company of his courtiers. These sources tell us about seating plans, table arrangements, etiquette and procedure at many formal meals. Cookery books survive to reveal the kind of dishes that were informally served, and poems and stories attest to what poorer folk ate for supper and dinner.

Breakfasts, by comparison, do not have their literature. Chroniclers did not observe monarchs eating breakfast. The first meal of the day is thus one of those features of life that has slipped through the historian’s net.

What historians have known for a long time is that in the late medieval period many people did not eat breakfast. Evidence for this lies in such sources as the household ordinances of the nobility and gentry, which regularly specify who was allowed to eat breakfast and who was not. In 1412–13 only half a dozen of the 20 or so people in the household of Dame Alice de Bryenne were permitted to eat breakfast.

Sixty years later, in the household of Cicely, Duchess of York, the privilege of attending breakfast was extended only “to head officers when they be present, to the ladies and gentlewomen, to the dean and to the chapel, to the almoner and to the gentlemen ushers, to the cofferer, to the clerk of the kitchen and the marshal”. In the ‘Black Book’ of Edward IV, careful attention was paid to the ranks that were allowed to eat breakfast: breakfast was a privilege in the 15th century. Travellers, however, did eat breakfast, but, on the whole, the lack of evidence for breakfasting in the late Middle Ages (by comparison with plentiful references to dining, supping and feasting) leave us with the distinct impression that most people had two means a day; the main meal, dinner, was held at about 10.30 or 11 in the morning, and supper about five hours later.

However this all changed during the Tudor era. In Claudius Hollyband’s book The French Schoolmaster (1573), a maidservant says to a schoolboy: “Ho, Frances, rise and get you to school; you shall be beaten, for it is past seven. Make yourself ready quickly, say your prayers, then you shall have your breakfast.” - i.e. for schoolboys breakfast were now the norm. Thomas More wrote in 1528 “men should go to Mass as well after supper as before breakfast”, and Thomas Elyot recommended eating breakfast four hours before dinner in his popular work The Castell of Health (1539). Lest it be thought that these references only apply to a minority of literate gentlemen, Andrew Boorde in his Dietary of Health (1542) stated that “a labourer may eat three times a day [ie including breakfast] but that two meals are adequate for a rest man”.

Before 1500 non-ceremonial breakfasts were routinely taken by several sections of society. First, breakfast was seen as medicinal: people might be prescribed “a breakfast of…” as a means to sustain them in illness or old age. In 1305, Edward I (then aged 65), employed a cook just to prepare breakfasts. Second, many monks ate breakfast. Old and sick monks, of course, but also some young monks. At Peterborough it was argued that if the young monks did not have a breakfast, they ate so much at dinner they fell asleep in the afternoons.In 1402, Westminster monks having their blood let were provided with breakfasts of bread and ale; and the Norwich jantaculum was traditionally of wine, bread and cheese. Monastic breakfasts are understandable in the context of young men having to get up in the early hours to sing Mass .Labourers working on York Minster in 1352 were permitted to eat their breakfast in part of the building – no doubt due to the long hours they were working.

Manorial tenants were also sometimes entitled to breakfast at harvest time. This was only recorded when the duty for providing the breakfast fell on the lord of the manor, such as at Bicester in 1325, when a customary (written selection of customs) declared the harvest workers should be provided with a breakfast at the expense of the lady of the manor. Some manorial customaries state when the lord was not responsible for paying for a breakfast. On the manor of Chinnor in 1279, for example, all the tenants had to scythe the lord’s fields and cart hay: when carting hay they were provided with a breakfast, but when scything they had to provide their own. 12th and 13th-century manorial breakfasts at harvest time were often bread, cheese and ale.

It seems as if breakfast was often provided for labourers and the gentry in the late 13th and early 14th centuries – but that labourers and men and women of modest means tended to eat breakfast only if they were rising very early, working very long hours, or they were old or sick.

There were also ceremonial breakfasts. For example when Joan de Valence was travelling in 1297, she hosted a jantaculum (breakfast) attended by several noblemen and women and 20 paupers. In 1415 Henry V invited a large number of noblemen to discuss the forthcoming Agincourt campaign with him in a great jantaculum at Westminster. Ceremonial breakfasts were held by a number of guilds and corporations on the admittance of a new member. For example, in 14th-century Reading, new burgesses entering the Guild had to pay 3s 4d for a ceremonial breakfast on top of their entry fee. A similar corporate jantaculum was held at Norwich before the start of the annual procession of St George in the 15th century.

However in the 1600s the idea that breakfast could do you good was no longer considered to apply solely to the sick and old. Indeed, in some quarters, people began to think that the old did not need breakfast at all. In 1602 the physician William Vaughan advised: “Eat three meals a day until you come to the age of 40 years.” The majority of the middle class and many yeomen and labourers were regularly eating breakfast by 1600.

So, why the change? Some historians have attributed the increase in breakfast-eating to the Reformation, or the greater availability of food. However neither of these explanations explain why they affected society’s dining habits as a whole.

The answer is probably due to changing patterns of employment. In the earlier Middle Ages, the majority of people organised their own time. They were not ‘employed’ as such. A manorial tenant had work to do on his lord’s land, but he did not have to get up at the crack of dawn to do it. Only in summer, with haymaking and hay-carting responsibilities to fulfil, did the breakfast become a necessity, because of the long hours in the fields. It was the same for travellers setting off on long journeys: the early start made breakfast a necessity. It was such a long time until dinner at 11am that they needed the sustenance to keep them going. Young monks clearly ate breakfast for the same reason.

What happened in the 16th century was that men increasingly started working for other people, employed for a prescribed set of hours each day. The long hours that employees could be expected to work can be seen in a statute of 1515 which declared that, between mid-March and mid-September, the working day of craftsmen and labourers should begin at 5am and continue to 7 or 8pm with only an hour and a half for dinner.

The consequences are obvious: if a labourer cannot have his supper until 7 or 8pm, he is going to get hungry if he has his dinner at the traditional medieval time of 10.30 or 11am: a nine-hour gap. As mentioned above, Thomas Elyot recommended that dinner and supper be no more than six hours apart. Thomas Cogan echoed this in his 1584 treatise. Thus the old medieval dinner time was pushed back to the later time of luncheon.

Delaying lunch had a knock-on effect on the start of the day. As the time of dinner was pushed back to luncheon, at 12 or 1pm, people needed a solid breakfast to keep them going. As for the gap between breakfast and dinner, Elyot, Cogan and Vaughan all agreed that this should be no more than four hours. Such a shift, based around employment, was thus primarily an urban phenomenon, or one of workers in towns, and areas providing the towns.

The history of breakfasting is thus much more nuanced than the traditional conclusion that, in the Middle Ages, ‘only the rich ate breakfasts’. It is bound up with, and indicative of, our emergence as a people who worked for a living rather than lived off the land.


Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Holocaust Memorial Day

Auschwitz survivor Miroslaw Celka walks out the gate with the sign saying "Work makes you free" after paying tribute to fallen comrades at the "death wall" execution spot in the former Auschwitz concentration camp in Oswiecim, Poland, on the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camp on Jan. 27, 2015.

Auschwitz survivor Miroslaw Celka walks out the gate with the sign saying "Work makes you free" 

Today marks 70 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. At least 1.1 million prisoners died at Auschwitz - the largest extermination camp of Nazi Germany, which was in Poland - around 90 percent of them Jewish; approximately 1 in 6 Jews killed in the Holocaust died at the camp.World leaders joined about 300 survivors to commemorate those who died, and those who survived, the Holocaust. About 1,500 survivors returned in 2005; many of the remaining survivors, now elderly, were children and teens when they were held in Auschwitz. The Soviet army was responsible for liberating the camp in 1945, which opened as a museum just two years later, in 1947.

Today is a day in memory of the victims of the Holocaust. Today the world remembers the 11 million lives lost under the Nazi regime; 11 million people who lived, learned, thrived, struggled, laughed, worked and loved. Those 11 million people were stripped of their individuality and humanity. Days such as today remind me why it is so important to remember the Holocaust, and other tragedies, such as the the Rwandan genocide, Srebrenica Massacre, genocide in Darfur, and others, in order to prevent them ever happening again.

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

The Pen is Mightier than the Sword

The last few days has seen horrific terrorist attacks in France that left 17 dead and several injured. However the attacks were followed by a rally of nearly 4 million people in Paris (including 40 world leaders) in support of free speech and as a show of unity against terror. The Charlie Hebdo attacks have generated a lot of discussion about the importance of free speech and writing, and the rally in Paris this weekend has clearly demonstrated that, despite the cruel murder of 17 innocent civilians, unity, speaking out and standing up for our values is more powerful than the use of violence. I read a very interesting article on the BBC discussing who first said 'the pen is mightier than the sword', a phrase which has often been used when discussing the Charlie Hebdo attacks. I have summarised the article below:

The English words "The pen is mightier than the sword" were first written by novelist and playwright Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839, in his historical play Cardinal Richelieu. Richelieu, chief minister to King Louis XIII, discovered a plot to kill him, but as a priest he was unable to take up arms against his enemies. His page, Francois, told him "But now, at your command are other weapons, my good Lord." To which Richelieu said "The pen is mightier than the sword... Take away the sword; States can be saved without it!"

The saying quickly gained popularity and by the 1840s it was commonplace. Today it is used in many languages, mostly translated from the English. The French version is: "La plume est plus forte que l'epee."

The saying emphasises that thinking and writing have more influence on people and events than the use of force or violence. However Bulwer-Lytton was not necessarily the first to express this thought. Napoleon is often quoted as saying. "Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than 1,000 bayonets." He respected and feared the press, realising the power of literature. Napoleon suppressed most of the newspaper in France, sanctioning just a handful of publications. He also undermined the allies who had defeated him through his memoirs.

Robert Burton, in The Anatomy of Melancholy, published in the early 17th Century, describes how bitter jests and satire can cause distress - and he suggests that "A blow with a word strikes deeper than a blow with a sword" was already, even in his day, an "old saying".

In George Whetstone's Heptameron of Civil Discourses, published in 1582, it says "The dashe of a Pen, is more greeuous then the counterbuse of a Launce." Going back further, the Greek poet Euripides, who died about 406 BC, is sometimes quoted as writing: "The tongue is mightier than the blade."

There was a belief in classical times that the written word had the power to survive and transcend even the bloodiest events, even if they didn't actually prevail against arms in the short term.

The cartoons published in tribute to the murdered Charlie Hebdo staff carry a range of messages - that the pencil will ultimately defeat the gunman, that one pencil when broken will become two, or that every gun will find itself opposed by many pens. The demonstrators holding pencils aloft are signing up to the same set of ideas.

Monday, 5 January 2015

The Spanish Wars of Succession

Dear readers,

I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas and New Years!

I have spent the last few days planning/ researching for my History coursework, which is on Louis XIV and specifically the Spanish Wars of Succession. I have decided to do a short blog on the wars as I find writing things down really helps me get to grips with complex historical events/ processes/ wars.

In the late 1600s it was clear that Carlos II of Spain was going to die without an heir to his empire. France had only just finished the Nine Years War, at a huge cost, and was keen to avoid war over the Spanish succession. William III of England was just as keen to avoid war. Therefore in 1698 Louis XIV and William III signed the First Partition Treaty, giving the main part of the Spanish  inheritance to Joseph Ferdinand, the Elector of Bavaria and diving the Italian possessions between France (the Dauphin) and Austria (Emperor Leopold's second son). Whilst both the Spanish and Austrian courts were outraged at this proposal, Joseph Ferdinand was an ideal candidate as he was neither a Bourbon or Austrian Habsburg and therefore was a good compromise. Unfortunately, Joseph Ferdinand died in early 1699, making the 1698 treaty null.

A Second Partition Treaty was negotiated by William III and Louis XIV in March 1700. It was agreed that the Habsburg Archduke Charles would be given all of Spain apart from Milanais, and the French Dauphin would get the same share of Italy as in the first treaty, plus Milanais. This treaty was unlikely to work as it tried to reconcile too many conflicting interests. No one wanted France to gain Spain as this would create a Bourbon power bloc in Europe. Likewise the Maritime Powers would not let France acquire the Spanish Netherlands. Therefore France could only really acquire Italy, and Spain had to go to a Habsburg. Crucially however, Carlos II refused to accept this treaty as he did not want to divide up the Spanish Empire.

Instead, Carlos II left a will leaving all of the Spanish Empire to Philippe, the great-grandson of Louis XIV, (not the Dauphin), as Carlos II believed Philippe would best be able to preserve his Empire. The will stipulated however that Philippe must give up his claim to the French throne in order that the Spanish and French empires never be united.

When Carlos II died in late 1700 Louis was presented with a problem; accept the Second Partition Treaty which would inevitably lead to war, or accept Carlos's will, which would also likely lead to war. As war seemed almost inevitable, Louis decided to improve his defensive position and accepted the will. He then made three provocative moves that led to a Grand Alliance forming by September 1701 and war in 1702:

1. He occupied fortresses in the Spanish Netherlands
2. He announced that Philippe, as new King of Spain, would not and could not give up his claim to the French throne
3. Louis XIV secured a monopoly on the provision of slaves to the Spanish American colonies (the Asiento), for a French company

This led to a 12 year long bloody and costly war, where France and Spain faced a coalition of more or less the rest of Europe. The most important battle in this war was at Blenheim, 1704 , where the French lost 30,000 troops, an almost unheard of defeat. In 1709 Louis tried to negotiate peace with the Grand Alliance, realising he could not win the war, however the unreasonable demands of the Alliance forced the war to continue until 1713-14, when the treaties of Utretcht and Rastadt were signed. The British and Austrians benefited the most from these treaties, but it could have been a lot worse for France. Louis recognised William III as rightful King of England and ceded overseas territory and the French monopoly on slaves to Britain, however the British and Dutch conceded and allowed for Louis's great-grandson Philippe to inherit the Spanish throne, although he was forced to give up all claim to the French throne. The French 'linear' frontier in the north and east was upheld and France retained Alsace including Strasbourg and the highly profitable fishing rights at the mouth of the St Lawrence. French neither lost nor gained much territory during the war, but it did cost over 2 million French lives and left 2.5 million livres of French debt, leading to almost bankruptcy, which in the long term helped contribute to the French Revolution, 1789.

My essay focuses on the impact of the Spanish Wars of Succession on the power of the French monarchy and the power of France within Europe and I would love to hear your opinions on what you think the impact of the Spanish Wars of Succession had on French power, please feel free to email me.