SC - Re: Substitution- long

[CBlackwill at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/22/00 8:02:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
phlip at morganco.net writes:

> Back to Medieval times, there are various classifications of various meats.
>  You used substituting pork for beef, or chicken for duck. This, right 
there,
>  is modern thinking! A medieval person might easily substitute fish for 
duck,
>  or chicken for pork. They just didn't classify things the same way we do.

Is there proof that a medieval cook would have substituted fish for duck, 
rather than chicken, or is this merely conjecture?

Balthazar of Blackmoor
(If they can dance on the head of a pin, doesn't that say something about 
their skin?)

Such a strange fascination, as I wallow in waste
That such a trivial victory could put a smile on your face.
                                        - Mark Burgess