[Sca-cooks] The rotten meat thread

[Terry Decker]

> There are  bunches more. Just Google "spices" and "rotten meat"
> The arguments  go:
> (1) Rotten meat  makes you horribly ill and you can taste it whether you
> spice it or not.

Define what is "rotten" in terms of a Medieval person.  Truly rotten meat 
will make people ill, but is the "rotten"  a modern exaggeration of a lesser 
state.  Having encountered the idea that frementing food is "rotting," 
question what is actually meant is good practice.

> (2) The law  specified that meat had to be sold within two days after an
> animal was  slaughtered (How about that? A medieval "sell by" date!)> A 
> butcher
> got fined  if he didn't obey the law.

Regulations vary by location.  While not specified in your statement, this 
law can only pertain to fresh meat.  Salted and pickled meat are meant to be 
stored beyond two days.

> (3) Spices were  really expensive, so who in their right mind would use 
> spice
> to cover up rotten  meat?

Which spice?  Where?  When?

> I personally  like the line in one of the articles that says that the list 
> of
> herbs and spices  were not so much recipe instructions to the cooks (who 
> were
> by and large  illiterate) but to the steward who had to know what kinds of
> spices to buy for  specific dishes. The cooks did then what home cooks do
> now--put in enough  spice or herbs until it tastes good.

While this is possible, given the variations in the structure of Medieval 
households, it ignores a number of points.  A cook in a Medieval household 
was not just a hash slinger.  He was a highly paid professional with the 
knowledge to prepare healthy and tasty food.  He might work with his 
patron's physician to plan meals suited to the patron's health.  He might 
present lists of supplies to purchase and be advanced sums to provide for 
those purchase.

In a small household, the spices might be held by the steward, but in a 
large household, they would likely have been retained by the Clerk of the 
Household/Exchequer/Clerk of the Wardrobe who would dispense the spices to 
the cook on a statement of menu and portions and account for them in the 
household ledgers.

> I haven't been  reading medieval cookbooks long, but that's the first
> observation on spices and  their proportions that I've read that makes 
> actual sense
> to me.
> Some cooks had a conversation in a friend's kitchen in  about a chicken 
> dish.
> "Needs mustard," I said, tasting the bland concoction.
> "There's none  listed in the recipe and we want to be authentic," said my
> friend.
> "If there was  mustard in the kitchen, I bet anybody tasting this  dish 
> would
> have  added some," I persisted.
> Next day, I got  an e-mail: "You know, I took some of that chicken for 
> lunch
> and added mustard.  It tastes better that way. It's not authentic, but 
> it's
> good."
> Cheers,
> Elianne

While I don't disagree with you, you are making the assumption that the 
mustard would have been added to improve the taste rather than be left out 
because it would be humorally harmful or inappropriate in the dish.

As for the term authentic, I would point out that both dishes described are 
authentic, but yours is not historically accurate.

Bear