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

[Sue Clemenger]

Also, what no one seems to be considering (at least, not in the posts I 
read), is that the widow might not have been a free woman? (oh, gack, 
Lainie, help me with the correct term, will you?) 14th century English 
society was a real tangled mess of freemen, serfs, and everything in 
between...I wonder if the widow could have had some use from the 
livestock, but not owned them to the extent that they could have been 
freely butchered.  She also would have had to find a way to purchase 
fodder and other food for the larger animals--I don't recall seeing 
anything in the description of her in Chaucer about her owning or having 
access to fields? Just the grove her house was near? (I suppose the pigs 
could maybe be let loose there, but logistically that would depend on 
local laws and customs.)  I don't recall, either, if Chaucer ever said 
what her husband's occupation was, which could have had a strong effect 
on what she had available for her use after his death.  We don't know if 
she owned the land and cottage outright, or just until her death, for 
instance, or if they'd been given to her as an act of charity....Lots 
and lots of variables! ;-)
It's far more likely, by the way, that she kept the sheep for wool.  A 
more livestock-experienced friend than I says they're pretty difficult 
to milk--wool could be sold to someone as raw goods, or could have been 
spun and sold to local weavers, or even traded.  Cows would be more 
productive (does the middle english specify gender?)...they could be 
bred, and then milked.  3 would have given her at least enough milk to 
make cheese and butter in season, which could be sold.  Pigs, ditto, but 
sold for meat or taxes.  She might get to keep at least some of the 
bacon for herself, but maybe it wasn't considered the best part? It 
would certainly be a valuable source of fat for her and her daughters, 
though.
I don't recall seeing anything in the Chaucer that folks quoted about 
other possible sources of income for the widow and her daughters, and 
I'm just tired enough that I'm being too lazy to go into the other room 
and hunt up one of my copies of _Canterbury Tales_, so I'll go with my 
first impression.  I definitely think the livestock were kept for income 
sources--how else would she pay taxes? Buy grain for herself and the 
animals? Buy household goods? Salt to cure the bacon? Thatching for the 
cottage? Wood for her fire, unless she had rights to wood from the grove?

--Maire, chiming in with a long two pence' worth

Laura C. Minnick wrote:


> Of course it might be easy to look at her modest livestock, and not see 
> it as 'poor', but she really is. She has herself and two daughters to 
> care for. Being a poor widow, she very likely has little to set aside 
> for marriage portion for her daughters, so their chances at marriage are 
> slim. Those animals are all she has between her and starvation. My guess 
> is that she would occasionally barter a piglet for grain or flour- but 
> the dark stuff, no fine white bread on her table. As it is, it's still a 
> pretty mean table.