Re(2): SC - Re: sca-cooks V1 #124

[Terry Nutter]

Hi, Katerine here.  Adamantius writes,

>This situation may have something in common with the recent
>fish-outside-of-Lent thread. I suspect one possibility might be that
>butter is something that the lower classes would have eaten whenever
>possible, while the rich, feeling that they had to resort to it on fish
>and/or fast days, might conceivably avoid it on those days when things
>like "greasy seme" of meat might be available. Certainly several recipes
>call for butter to be included, possibly as a substitute for other oils
>or fats. Sawgeat and Hanoney come to mind, both of which are egg dishes,
>which COULD indicate that these are non-meat-day dishes (at least
>sawgeat, when butter is used instead of sausage, falls into this
>category).  

Butter is explicitly suggested as an Ember Day alternative to sausage.
Ember Days are not fish days.  They are specific dieting days that are
less restricted, but that still do not permit flesh.  (Ember days are
also relatively rare; twelve in a year, as I recall.)

I'm not certain that butter was permitted on fish days.  I don't recall
it offhand in any fish dishes through the 15th century.  I do, however,
know of recipes that include both butter and marrow.  If you can use
marrow, you can use white grease (that is, if the religious dietary
restrictions permit the first, they also permit the second).

Butter occurs in custardy dishes reasonably often.  Grease does not.
The strong implication is that it was preferred in those dishes.

Cheers,

- -- Katerine/Terry