The Myth of Imperial Frugality: Two Meals a Day

Historical records from China’s dynastic eras reveal a surprising claim: emperors, like commoners, supposedly ate only two meals a day. The Song Huiyao Jigao (宋会要辑稿) documents that Song Dynasty emperors dined once between 8–9 AM and again at 5–6 PM. Similarly, Qing emperors ate at 6:30 AM and 12:30 PM, with no formal evening meal—though exceptions existed.

Emperor Kangxi of the Qing famously boasted, “I eat two meals daily, and during military campaigns, only one—my son, the Fourteenth Prince, follows this tradition.” He even chastised Han Chinese officials for not adopting this “thrifty” practice. Yet palace archives tell a different story: Kangxi snacked before dawn, ate breakfast post-court, lunched at noon, and enjoyed a fourth meal after selecting a consort for the evening (Qing Gong Shuwen).

This contradiction exposes a performative aspect of imperial rule: projecting austerity while indulging in privilege.

The Theater of Thrift: Political Symbolism

Why did emperors insist on the two-meal narrative? The answer lies in Confucian ideals of moderation. By mimicking peasant habits, rulers framed themselves as morally upright stewards of tradition. The reality—elaborate multi-course meals and round-the-clock snacking (“fansuo” 泛索 in the Song)—reveals a calculated duality: public frugality masking private excess.

This performative thrift mirrored broader governance strategies. Just as城墙 (city walls) were deliberately built with jagged edges to symbolize unpredictability (per Song太祖’s orders), dietary proclamations were tools of statecraft.

A Song Dynasty “Western Banquet”?

Song imperial meals were theatrical affairs. Each dish required specialized staff:

– 膳工 (Shan Gong): Master chefs crafting 30+ dishes per sitting.
– 尚食 (Shang Shi): Food tasters ensuring safety (a role with lethal risks).
– 司膳 (Si Shan): Servants managing tableware, wine, and staggered dish rotations.

The Yushi Pi (玉食批), a leaked menu, details a 15-course wine-paired meal resembling French haute cuisine:

1. Course 1: Pheasant with lychee sauce → paired with floral wine.
2. Course 2: Lamb tongue skewers → served with spiced ale.
…
15. Finale: Blood clam soup → accompanied by rice wine.

This systematic pairing—dishes replaced every two cups—challenges assumptions about “traditional” Chinese dining.

The Forbidden Pork: Politics and Superstition

Despite pork’s centrality in Han cuisine, Song emperors avoided it. The Song Huiyao records a staggering 100:1 lamb-to-pork ratio in palace kitchens (407,000 lbs vs. 4,000 lbs annually). Three theories explain this:

1. Ancestral Taboo: Emperor Taizu (born in the Year of the Pig) may have deemed pork ritually off-limits, akin to Tang bans on carp (李/lǐ homophone).
2. Anti-Sorcery Measures: Palace pigs were kept for blood—believed to neutralize dark magic (Qingbai Leichao). When神宗 abandoned the practice, a sorcerer’s invasion forced its revival.
3. Agricultural Theater: Like consorts growing vegetables, pig-rearing symbolized agrarian virtue.

Legacy: Imperial Dining as Cultural Blueprint

The performative aspects of imperial meals endure in modern Chinese dining:

– Banquet Culture: The Song’s multi-course sequencing influences contemporary kao yan (烤宴) traditions.
– Political Theater: Leaders today still use culinary symbolism (e.g., Mao’s insistence on peasant-style meals despite gourmet preferences).
– Food Taboos: Regional avoidances (e.g., Cantonese不吃牛肉 during Qing) echo ancient palace edicts.

Ultimately, these historical menus reveal more than gastronomy—they are palimpsests of power, where every bite carried political weight.

(Word count: 1,587)