When abundance changed the menu
Salmon’s status depended on where it was caught and how quickly it could be moved. Near rivers with plentiful runs, a household might have more fresh fish than it could use. Before reliable refrigeration and fast transport, fresh salmon was perishable: abundance close to the catch could make it ordinary fare even while people farther away regarded it as a delicacy.
That contrast helps explain why servants might object to being served salmon repeatedly. A dish could be valuable in the wider market yet monotonous at the household table when it appeared day after day. Its prestige elsewhere did not make each serving a treat.
A small clause with real leverage
A negotiated limit on salmon meals turned that irritation into a practical term of employment. Household servants depended on the food their employers provided, so specifying how often a much-repeated dish could be served gave them some say over their daily conditions. The clause was not a rejection of salmon as a food; it was a way to keep abundance from becoming an unwanted routine.
The memorable twist is that a food’s luxury status is not fixed. For the people eating it every day, the question was not whether salmon was prized somewhere else, but how often it appeared on their own table.
