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

Tue Apr 12 16:05:50 PDT 2005

In researching the poaching idea, I ran across
this book, which I have just ordered:

Manning, Roger B. (Roger Burrow) 
Hunters and poachers : a social and cultural
history of unlawful hunting in England, 1485-1640
/ Roger B. Manning. Oxford [England] : Clarendon
Press ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1993.

xi, 255 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. 
ISBN: 0198203241 (acid-free paper) 

It sounds like an interesting read.

Huette

--- "Laura C. Minnick" <lcm at jeffnet.org> wrote:

> 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  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sca-cooks mailing list
> Sca-cooks at ansteorra.org
>
http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/sca-cooks
> 

Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for 
they shall never cease to be amused.

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/