SC - RE: Spice cabinet-what do we stock?

[DAVIS, VICTORIA]

LrdRas at aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 7/17/98 7:56:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, troy at asan.com
> writes:
> 
> << Possibly, but the meat available in an urban setting _was_ what the
>  enactors of laws were concerned about... .
> 
>  Adamantius >>
> 
> Asmare the laws that we have in the current middle ages concerning meat
> safety. For instance, there are laws in every state dealing with trichonosis
> in pork. A thousand years from now when these laws are found by then
> "recreations" , is it logical to assume that we had a big problem with
> trichonosis in pork during the later part of the 20th century in the USA?
> 
> If you base your observation on "law", the answer would be a resounding "yes".

Uh, since we're were talking about logic here, no, it is not logical to
assume we have a problem with trichinosis in 20th century America,
unless we interpret the big problem to be one not of frequency, but of
the severity of danger of even a single instance. The severity of laws
against kidnaping and murder are also not an indicator that every person
you pass on the street is guilty of these crimes, but rather that the
crimes themselves (as with messing around with trichinosis) have very
severe social repercussions, so one instance is too many.

<snip>
> Lawmakers in all eras have passed their laws not because of some real
> percieved or widespread danger but rather mostly on the basis of a few
> isolated problems that could have a potential negative effect on the
> population if allowed to continue without check.
> 
> Certainly there were probably isolated communities where butchers had to be
> brought under control by leagal means. However, the existence of such laws do
> not necessarily provide proof that a practice was particularly widespread. As
> an example, a law forbidding the sale of rancid or tainted meat does not
> translate into the conjecture that the population regularly ate tainted or
> rotten meat.

Whoa there, Mr. Jefferson ;  ). I'm not aware of anyone making the claim
that the records of laws about selling unacceptably old meat indicates
that a lot of unacceptably old meat was sold. I coulda sworn that I was
the one who brought the legal aspect up, and my argument was the exact
opposite: old meat probably was _not_ sold very often, at least in
cities where the law was enforced (and I'm glad you raised the
distinction, I should have done so myself) _because_ it was illegal to
do things like washing the old crust off old meat with fresh bloody
juices (one of the legal specifics I remember off the top of my head).
The point behind the laws was to insure that crime did _not_ pay. Maybe
a butcher saved a few silver pennies by selling old meat when he bought
too many kine at once, but the fines, possibility of imprisonment, the
public humiliation and the damage to his reputation as a businessman in
direct proportion to that humiliation, would all suggest that such
practices were not worth the time and effort. In short, the laws were
designed to make selling fresh meat the easier and more preferable
option.  

> In cultures that only recently stepped out of medievalism (this century) such
> as China, India and perhaps the Middle East there is no socialogical or
> historical evidence to support the view that "bad" food was regularly consumed
> by noblemen or the wealthy. In the study of period cookery, it is only these
> calsses that we have any evidence for.

As you know, I shop pretty frequently in markets owned and run by people
from the parts of the world you mention above, and in certain aspects
the way they run their businesses often appears not to have left the
Middle Ages. In general sanitation is not on the top of their priority
lists, but stock turnover is high, so the possible ramifications of a
less-than-sterile cutting board are kept to a minimum. The measures that
the owners of such markets do take, are taken not because of fear of
violating the Bok Gui's laws, but because if they didn't observe a basic
standard of cleanliness, propriety in matters of weight, change
tendering, and product quality, they would have no business. Competition
is an incredibly powerful market force, and it is one which would have
had a great effect on most medieval commercial butchers. 

The evidence we have seems to prove pretty conclusively that the
wealthier classes did not eat meat so old (I'm avoiding terms like
rancid, which has been misused throughout this thread) that it required
heavy spicing to make it palatable, especially since heavy spicing would
have no effect on the toxins produced by salmonella, ptomaine, or what
have you, no matter how spicy or tasty it was. We also have a fair
amount of evidence suggesting it was not commonplace for the poorer
classes to eat such meat either.

BTW, just for the record, I do agree with the statement that if someone
can document by personal experience cases of stale meat being jazzed up
with a lot of spices, then we ought to take the statement as we would
any other form of primary source. I doubt that the idea was meant to
cover meat that was actually putrid or maggoty, but this is an entirely
different situation from the discusson of medieval meat purchasing and
cookery. For example, a lot of the spices used in Caribbean cookery are
grown locally so the entire economic aspect of the situation is
different.  

Adamantius
______________________________________
Phil & Susan Troy
troy at asan.com
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================