Re(2): SC - leftovers

[Sue Wensel]

Adamantius does a bit of deep-breathing to clear his mind (not a
difficult task), and prepares for the traditional SCA sport of Olympic
debating. Those of you with weak hearts should probably skip to the next
post...

Terry Nutter wrote:
> The first of the Cosin menus contains no fish.

My mistake; you're right. One of the problems with the high traffic on
this list is that it is sometimes difficult to recall the reasoning
process that went into a decision only 48 hours old. Out with the old
logic, in with the new, etc. I have no idea at this point why I wrote
that.   

> The second mentions pike,
> bream, and perch -- buried among 37 dishes.  Neither of these is a menu of a
> specific meal served; both are typical of "suggested menus" that show
> up in cookery collections.  It is noteworthy that the king's table supports
> rather more clerics than usual: the people most likely to observe days
> of abstinence even when the rest of the population isn't.  With no fish
> on the menu, they can eat none of the main dishes.  I wouldn't take
> the presence of a couple of isolated fish dishes as evidence that anyone
> except abstaining clerics are eating it.

You may be right. However, I have seen no indication that this menu was
never served. I only know that there is no reference to when and where
they may have been served. Immediately following these two menus in the
source I mention thare are several menus that are specifically
identified as suggestions rather than accounts of actual events. You may
be right. On the other hand, you may not. My point was only to
demonstrate that it would not always have been an all-or-nothing
proposition.  Had the idea of serving fish at a meat feast, or
vice-versa, been unthinkable, the likelihood is that the menu would
never have been written. 

> >I vaguely recollect seeing just the other day a menu for the coronation
> >feast of Henry the Fifth of England: It seems to have just a bit of
> >quadruped meat in it, plenty of fish, and a subtlety of roasted swans
> >swimming on a lake of silver-plated jelly.

<snip>

> I believe you must be referring to the coronation feast of Henry IV; my
> best understanding is that the menu of the coronation feast of Henry V does
> not survive.  The menu from Henry IV's coronation is given on page 57
> of Austin (and in a number of other places), and contains one fish
> dish (sturgeon with luce), among 43 dishes, placed in the first course.
> This hardly constitutes "plenty of fish" -- and may simply have been a
> way to see that abstinent clerics had something other than greens to
> eat.
> 
> In other words, the three menus you cite contain 0%, 8%, and 2.3% fish
> in the order you cite them -- and the 8% menu is not a specific account
> of a specific meal.  Looking at the other nine surviving menus reported
> in Austin (counting two cases of complete menus "for inferiors" as
> separate from the primary feast menus), three are for fish days, and
> contain no meat or fowl.  Of the other six, only one contains any
> fish at all.  That is one dish out of 33.  Taking the six menus together,
> the total items come to 169, with only one fish item in the lot.

This is refutation of an argument I never made. I mentioned the
coronation feast of Henry V, an account of which can be found in "A
Noble Boke of Cookry ffor a Prynce Houssolde". It demonstates my point
using the opposite approach. There are 21 or more fish dishes and only
one or two meat dishes. Perhaps this was a way to see that non-abstinent
kings had something other than fish to eat... the menu also mentions
brawn, which is spoken of as being "counterfeit" in a way that suggests
something other than mere artificiality. It appears to refer to a
non-traditional presentation. I'm not certain, at this point, if the
swan subtlety is made from actual swans or not, but it is not necessary
to know this to see that it is not exclusively a fish-day feast,
regardless of the proportions of fish to meat served.
> 
> Of course fowl and four-legged meat occur together at the table.  For
> that matter, they occur mixed in individual dishes.  But I don't see
> a single menu here that supports the notion that fish was generally
> eaten on meat days; and of nine meat day menus representing jointly
> 289 dishes reveal a total, among them, of 5 fish dishess -- 3 of
> them not actually attested as served together in any one meal -- I think
> it's fair to say that the evidence tells strongly against general
> consumption of fish on meat days.

Yes.  My point is only that there are no hard and fast rules at work
here. I agree with you that the proportions of meat versus fish indicate
that PRIMARILY, fish days were days for eating fish, and meat days for
meat. However, to use this to accept as fact that fish could never have
been fried in lard or other animal fat (which is the only claim I made,
after suggesting that olive oile would be more likely) is unreasonable.
What about the dishes like Le Menagier's meat tile, which is a dish of
poultry garnished with  crayfish?  What about the Apician dishes that
appear to have been served into the early Middle Ages which include
liquamen or garum in meat sauces? Again, I am not arguing in favor of
the idea that meat and fish dishes wre not segregated according to the
calendar. I support it. I just think that you might be blowing my
suggestion that animal fat could be included near the end of a list of
possible frying fats for fish way out of proportion.

See all the trouble you started, Stefan???? ;  )

> >Gettin' too old for this kind of thing, I suppose...
> 
> Oh, I doubt you're much older than I am.  And Connie Hieatt is nearing
> 70, and going strong.

Yup. It's just that the Olympics take a lot out of me. Maybe I should go
into coaching, or perhaps I'd look good on a Frumenties box..."Just add
milk, simmer for eight hours or so, and you'll look like this guy!" 

> Cheers,
> 
> -- Katerine/Terry

Adamantius