[Sca-cooks] Rotten meat and spices...

[Laura C. Minnick]

At 12:16 PM 4/12/2005, you wrote:

>--- "Laura C. Minnick" <lcm at jeffnet.org> wrote:
>
> > If you are
> > so poor as to be forced to eat rotting meat
> > (and no, I don't buy that-
> > people that poor seldom had meat in their
> > diets) you aren't going to spend
> > what little you have on spices.
> >
> > 'Lainie
>
>I don't buy that either, but on the other hand,
>I don't entirely buy the "the poor seldom had
>meat" way of thinking either.  Yes, probably the
>poor in the cities seldom had meat, but the poor
>in the country had as much meat as they could
>catch.

That of course is much dependent on where and when. Was reading recently 
about the great famine in the early 14th century, and animal life fared 
little better than humans, at least in England. Most of what we know about 
forest laws are English, so here's a bit of Anglo-centric stuff...

It should be remembered that many of these were _managed_ forests, not the 
wild 'woods' that we played in as kids (at least I did- back in the days 
when it was ok to play cowboys and Indians). The boundaries of the Forest 
may acually embrace cultivated land, even homesteads and small townships. 
(This can be a royal pain, as we will see shortly.) The _Dialogus de 
Scaccario_  says that the forests are "the privy places of kings and their 
great delight. Thither they go for hunting, and having laid aside their 
cares, to enjoy a little quiet. There, away from the continuous business 
and incessant turmoil of the court, they may for a little time breathe in 
the gracious freedom of nature. And that is why those who despoil it are 
subject to the royal censure alone... The king's Forest is a safe abode for 
wild animals, not of every sort, but of the sort that dwell in woodland, 
and not everywhere but in places suitable for the purpose... in the wooded 
counties, where wild beasts have their lairs and plentiful feeding grounds."

>   Depending on what they were hunting or
>fishing, some animals, like rabbits, were legal
>for commoners to hunt, and others, like deer
>or boar, were restricted.

In the king's Forest, the beasts of the chase- red deer, fallow deer, roe, 
wild boar- could only be taken by the king or by someone who had an express 
warrant from the king. As to other animals, even if the land was part of a 
homestead or village, if the land fell within the Forest, the tenants were 
restricted to hares and coneys, foxes, wolves, badgers, etc- *AND* only if 
they had a royal license.

The Forest was a wildlife refuge of sorts, but it must be remembered that 
the wildlife was regularly hunted for the purpose of supplying the king's 
table. Laws protecting the habitat of the game are pretty specific, and 
downright annoying for someone, for instance, who lived in a village that 
was within the boundaries of the king's Forest. Gathering firewood and 
cutting timber were tightly regulated (ever wonder why the 'woodcutter' in 
the fairy tales was always so poor? This is why), clearing portions of the 
woods to increase cultivated area was limited. Pigs could be grazed in the 
Forest- *if* they were supervised and the owner had paid the fee. And if 
the deer were fawning- forget it. (Pigs will eat about anything, including 
baby Bambi.) Taking your cart offroad, carrying bow and arrows, letting 
your dogs off leash, were all forbidden (much like getting caught in the 
woods carrying a rifle the weekend before hunting season opens. Just 
sighting it in? Ja, sure.)

>  But, then they
>may still have hunted them otherwise why is
>were there laws against poaching?

Poaching is illegal today, but I don't know of anyone who ignores the laws 
to supply a regular portion of their diet.

There's a reason why the idea of the Sheriff of Nottingham chasing Robin 
Hood sticks so well in the imagination. Because that's... what sheriffs 
did. Forest laws had exceptionally harsh punishments too. (Oddly enough, 
the privilege of clergy did not apply to those offending under Forest 
laws.) These varied from reign to reign. Henry II was noted as being 
considerably more lenient than his grandfather, Henry I, while John was 
known for his harshness.

Personally, I think our preoccupation with meat is in part due to our own 
habits of meat consumption (in general- quite a bit) and for us in 
particular, the fact that the extant menus and recipes are basically those 
of the upper classes, which ate more meat. If Matilda, John the Farmer's 
wife had written down her recipes and menus, we might see a very different 
picture.

Ooh! The rain has stopped (briefly)! I've got to run to the library while I 
can- otherwise I'll need snorkel and find to get home...

'Lainie
___________________________________________________________________________
O it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it 
like a giant--Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II