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

[Laura C. Minnick]

At 09:48 PM 4/12/2005, you wrote:
>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?)

Depending on when and where? serf, villein, early on they were called what 
they really were, which was slaves. The difference between a free tenant 
and a bond tenant (villein) is not much, and sometimes academic- the free 
tenant _could_ go, but where could he go? And with what?

Given the list of stuff she has, I would hazard a guess that she is at best 
a cottager, or small free-holder- however, as a widow, without sons to 
perform the tenancy duties due to the overlord, she probably has given up 
part of what her husband left, in return for alleviation from those duties. 
(This could well explain the missing mention of fields.) Not to mention, 
that there were death taxes- when her husband died, she could not take 
possession without turning over the 'best beast' to the lord as the fee for 
her right of inheritance. She may have only half to two-thirds of what she 
and her husband had when he was alive.

>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.

Unlikely- once she gave up the best beast, the rest were hers.

>   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.)

Actually, there was pasturage in common- the herders (middle-school aged 
boys usually) would drive the animals out to the pasture in the morning, 
and back in the evening. When you really needed fodder was in the winter.

Yes, if there were oaks in the grove, the sows probably fed there (and yes, 
the lords figured out that cash source pretty early- between licenses and 
fines, it was pretty lucrative).

>  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! ;-)

Well, after this brief description, we hear no more of the widow- the story 
is about her cock, Chaunticleer, and his hen, Pertelote.

But think about it like this- for this to have been an effective frame for 
the tale, it would have to be recognizable to the reader- i.e., a familiar 
situation, a poor widow and her children, ekeing out a living on a small 
holding. And it was familiar, given the death rates- if a woman survived 
her childbearing, she was likely to outlive her husband by some years. 
Enough that there is whole sections of law codes devoted to the rights of 
widows to inheritance, to have power over their children, to carry on their 
husband's occupation.

>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

I'll take your word for it. I'll admit that I'm frightened of sheep, and 
really don't want to get that close to one!

>--wool could be sold to someone as raw goods, or could have been spun and 
>sold to local weavers, or even traded.

Yes. Quite readily.

>  Cows would be more productive (does the middle english specify gender?)

Nope. That's one of the things it loses in the change from the Anglo-Saxon. 
There's still vestiges of gendered meanings in borrowed French or Latin 
words, but none in the English. (Fine with me- one less thing to worry 
about gender equity!)

>...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.

Particularly since Chaucer notes her as a dairywoman.

>   Pigs, ditto, but sold for meat or taxes.
<snip>
>I don't recall seeing anything in the Chaucer that folks quoted about 
>other possible sources of income for the widow and her daughters,

Nope, that's where he leaves us- after that he starts talking about 
Chaunticleer.

>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?

Some of these could be obtained by barter- butter in exchange for flour, 
cheese to the boy who drives the cows out and back. Maybe a piglet to the 
carpenter for a new axle on the cart. She might be able to convert some 
livestock or dairy goods into cash- which she needed to pay taxes, to pay 
tithes, and to pay for firewood or a permit to gather. And sooner or later 
she needs money for the girls' futures.

Not to mention a snare to catch that pesky fox!

'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