SC - Sorry

[Uduido@aol.com]

Didn't his Grace, Cariadoc have an article on how to throw a good feast =
that mentions having like a thousand head of poultry?  Would that have =
meant that chicken may have been a standard, or would that have been =
some other type of poultry.  If I remember correctly the next paragraph =
mentioned having horses to go and get rabbit, venison, pheasant and =
other animals.  I would take this to mean that chicken was served very =
often, at least in noble households.

Murkial

- ----------
From: 	Uduido at aol.com[SMTP:Uduido at aol.com]
Sent: 	Thursday, May 22, 1997 7:22 AM
To: 	sca-cooks at eden.com
Subject: 	SC - Chicken usage

In a message dated 97-05-20 12:52:23 EDT, you write:

<< Do you mean that chickens were not eaten by peasants, or that they =
were
not
 common in upper class cuisine?  The first, I have little information =
on;
 but the second is patently false.  Chicken is the single most common =
form
 of flesh in 13th to 15th century English recipes; the only thing that =
comes
 close to rivaling it is pork.   >>

Because the majority, if not all, of period recipe books were written =
for
noble households, would not the proliferation of chicken recipes =
indicate
that they were in fact not a common food item? Case in point would be =
the
nobleman's desire to impress his guests with his wealth by serving  as =
many
exotics as possible. What better way than to serve chicken. Just a tho't =
but
, IMHO, not an unreasonable one. Conversely the less often an item is
mentioned, the more "common" it may have been. Responce?

Lord Ras (Uduido at aol.com)