Talk:tucket

tucet
rfv-sense: A steak; a collop. OED claimes error MooreDoor (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Jeremy Taylor wrote of "Cisalpine tucets", which was altered by later editors to . The OED uses the headword, under which this Taylor passage is the only cite, so I am adding that term to the RFV too. This, that and the other (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 1899, Table Talk, page 79, says "Chaucer speaks of a 'tucet' (It. tochetto) which was a ragout of fish with many spices", modern tocchetto. So there's a third food tucet might refer to, which complicates finding citations. Taylor speaks of "Lavinian sausages, and the Cisalpine tucets or gobbets of condited buls flesh", so I can see why some later editors took it to be sucket, but also how other authorities, like the Century Dictionary, accepted it as "steak". An 1892 copy of the Compotus Rolls of the Obedientiaries of St. Swithun's Priory, Winchester, from the Winchester Cathedral Archives, which documents the food there, shows that at multiple times (e.g. on page 326 is April 24 to May 3, 1493), they had such things as "311 eggs, Tuckets as entrée"; the (1892) authors say "The viands used as extras were chiefly fish: as dryling, mussels, herrings [...] minnows, 'rogets,' oysters, thornback, plaice, and haburden; we find also nombles, 'tuckets,' isynge, bursew or browse, rice, figs, letlory, jusselle", which does little to clarify whether in this case fish, steak or sweetmeat is meant. (Chaucer and the 1400s food lists are Middle English, anyway.) - -sche (discuss) 15:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * RFV=failed Br00pVain (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)