SC - COKAGRYS OR COCKENTRICE

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Seton1355 at aol.com wrote:
> 
> This is an entry from the glossary of _Curye on Inglysch_.
> 
> It just occured to me...... why was such a dish condoned by the church?
> Wouldn't this have been seen as tempting the hand of God? Or  'playing god'
> to "create" a new beast?   Any thoughts?
> Phillipa
> 
> COKAGRYS
> the dish later generally called ‘cokantrice'.  A new beast is created   by
> sewing the top of a cock to the hind- quarters of a pig.  This creation is
> then stuffed with forecmeat, boiled roasted and then guilded.

Miscegenation (is that the word I'm thinking of?) or even Mad Animal
Husbandry (as opposed to being a Mad Scientist) might have been viewed
as wrong, but in the case of a cokentryce it's simply an illusion food
based on a known/accepted mythical beast. Or, to answer a question with
a question, would it have been viewed as wrong by the Church to make a
subtlety of a dragon out of, say, sturgeon?

Now, seriously believing in such creatures might have been frowned upon
(Saint Patrick has a thing or two to say about people who believe in
vampires -- not vampires themselves, mind you, just believing in them),
and I expect trying to breed sows with roosters would not have been
considered part of the Almighty[insert name here]'s plan, but that's not
really what's being done in the case of making a culinary presentation
by that name.  

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com