A Request: Different Subjects! (Re: SC - I am So Ashamed! (long))

[Catherine Deville]

mi'Lords and mi'Ladies,
as a courtesy to those of us who try to sort our discussions by topic (this
is a *very* high volume list, as I'm sure we all recognize), please
remember to change your subject lines to something pertinent... this thread
has gone from a concern over a review of a book which might or might not be
about medieval foods, to a thread concerning the nature of the responses to
those reviews which bunny trailed into religious discussions and  humour
(both of which are far enough off topic that many folks would presumably
have absolutely no interest in and wish to delete) to an entirely different
series of threads (such as this one) with a good deal of On Topic substance
that many folks would, i'm sure, hate to miss.  it would be easier to
differentiate those threads if you would change the subject on your
replies.

this is *not* meant in any way to be a chastisement or any type of
list-copping (we have a very competant list manager, so I would never
presume!), but is simply a request from a fellow list member and a gentle
reminder that remembering to do so makes other lives easier.

thanks for your consideration.
I remain, in service to Meridies,
Lady Celia des L'archier
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jenne Heise <jenne at mail.browser.net>
To: <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: SC - I am So Ashamed! (long)


> > Peasants might have had their live animals around their smokey hearth,
but
> > I've been under the impression that there were outer and inner rooms,
or
> > upper and lower rooms, or a pen and hut in order that animals and
people be
> > separate.  They might have had their dead animals hanging in the
rafters to
> > smoke rather than as fresh food storage and once they had chimneys, the
> > carcasses went there.
>
> Interesting. Could you give me a citation for some books on this?
>
> > Cooks in castles had more space, and less liklihood of live or dead
animals
> > being in the same room as food preparation. Sooner than peasants they
would
> > have hearths with chimneys as well as less smokey charcoal braziers and
> > those nifty 'stoves' that had a hole for the pot to sit on with the
fire in
> > a little hearth underneath, placed near a window for smoke to escape.
>
> Hm. Also interesting. Do you have handy any book titles of books,
> especially with pictures (artists impressions or whatnot)? I've been
> puzzling over fried food for  a bit.
>
> > >"We know sketchily what peasants ate and cooked and it was a much
simpler
> > >diet. There were fewer, if any, spices, little meat except just after
> > >harvest and usually chicken or pork.
> > Your honest to goodness dirt grubbing peasant wouldn't have spices
except in
> > whatever largesse of leftover food the hall sent out. As the middle
class
> > developed, more non-nobility had spices in larger amounts.
>
> This one I need documentation for, because peasants could and did have
> small amounts of negotiable cash in some places (ok, the one I now about
> for sure is Silesia). I twould be sinfully extravagant, perhaps, but the
> purchase of small quanitities of spices such as pepper wouldn't
> necessarily be out of the range of possibility for someone who might be a
> 'dirt-grubbing' farmer who sold his crop to pay his cash rent and had a
> bit left over.
> Furthermore, some things that were used for 'spices' (juniper berries,
for
> instance, and mustard), were locally produced.
>
> > As to who ate what meats: Beef was considered coarse food suitable for
> > laborers, while chicken was more digestible and suitable for their
masters.
> > Pork was generally popular from what I understand. Peasants could fish
and
> > trap fowl (and rabbits?) and so could have those meats at any time.
Hunting
> > larger game would be illegal, but not unheard of.
>
> Ok, this is the party line on SCA-Cooks, but I wish someone would write
up
> all the documentary evidence they have, with footnotes to research
> articles and menus. My impression is that, Platina's strictures to the
> side, chicken was not the number-one most popular meat, and that both
> mutton (y'all remember mutton, yes?) and beef were served with
regularity.
> Le Menagier de Paris's menus confirm that suspicion.
>
> Also, in some places, trapping animals was against church law; in others
> peasants got parts of the results of the hunt, and in some casescertain
> peasants appear to have had more access to venison through legal
> entitlements than many court people!
>
> Foods that don't fall in the usual discussion are kid, goat, mutton,
> coney, hare, and the wide variety of small birds. My feeling is that Le
> Menagier at least liked Lagomorph meat as much as he liked poultry... In
> England, peasants were forbideen to trap rabbits at one time, becuase
they
> were an imported animal, kept in special warrens by coneyers who worked
> for landowners!
>
> > This somewhat true for some times and places.  Porridge is easier and
more
> > filling than raised bread or even flat breads. Not that some version of
> > bread was not available to peasants if they had the time and tools.
They did
> > in some times and places.
>
> Gruels and porridges seem to be under-represented in SCA feasting custom,
> for obvious reasons. ;)
>
> --
> Jadwiga Zajaczkowa, mka Jennifer Heise       jenne at tulgey.browser.net
> disclaimer: i speak for no-one and no-one speaks for me.
> "I do my job. I refuse to be responsible for other people's managerial
> hallucinations." -- Lady Jemina Starker
>
>
===========================================================================
=
>
> 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".
>
>
===========================================================================
=