Unlike beef, fish was not portrayed as a popular food item for consumption during the Early Modern Period. This was partially attributed to the Englishmen’s natural taste preference. However, it was also credited as the result of Protestant England’s tense religious contention. Fish was considered to be the food of Catholics due to Lenten fasting, a Catholic dietary practice in which one abstains from meat, instead using fish as a central source of sustenance. As Protestants sought to separate themselves from Catholics, several prominent figures began to justify the consumption of beef, arguing against these fasting practices. For example, the writer Edward Jennings, in his 1590 work A Breife Discovery, contended that “the eating of flesh …is not any matter or thing concerning salvation of man.”[1]
Seafood was so unpopular, in fact, that there was a pattern of English royals having to instill government-mandated “Fish Days,” in which citizens were forced to refrain from eating meat and rely solely on fish as a central source of sustenance. This was mainly to help stimulate port networks and provide financial aid to English fishermen.
Given this history, it is somewhat surprising to see the results of London House. When examining the records, it becomes apparent that fish was not only consumed but was a consistent, weekly staple of the English diet. What is particularly striking about these findings is the immense variety of fish that were purchased:
Within London House, there are an astonishing eighteen different types of fish. While, of course, this type of variety would not be available to a majority of people in England, it symbolizes a less reluctant consumption of fish than previously understood. With the exotic variety, ranging from flounder, to roches, to red and white herrings, it is possible that fish consumption was actually used as a status symbol, as the larger someone’s dietary variety was, the more affluent they were understood to be.
While there is a huge discrepancy in the amount of money spent on fish in comparison to beef, there is still a clear track of consistent consumption that, somewhat surprisingly, proves it to be an important part of English dietary practices. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the English, out of a desire to display their Protestant faith, portrayed themselves as much more hostile towards fish than they were in reality.
When analyzing fish and beef consumption in isolation, another fascinating discovery occurs: there is a dramatic decrease in beef consumption and a simultaneous increase in fish consumption in the month of March.
While this could be an agricultural phenomenon in which there is either a lack of cows or a necessity to prevent their consumption, this occurrence in March raises suspicion. The replacement of fish for beef speaks to the practices of Lenten dietary practices, just in the month in which they would have occurred. Therefore, though they portrayed themselves as vehemently anti-Catholic, it is plausible that England was still following these deeply religious dietary practices.
[1] Edward Jeninges, A Briefe Discouery of the Damages that Happen.(London:Roger Ward, 1593),27.