food-msg - 12/14/93

History and descript. of various foods.

NOTE: See also the files: food2-msg, fruits-msg, vegetables-msg, fish-msg, seafood-msg, bread-msg, cookbooks-msg, books-food-msg, eggs-msg.

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.

Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

Thank you,
    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous
                                          Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************

From: FSRAD1%ALASKA.BITNET at MITVMA.MIT.EDU (The Barbarian Wench)
Date: 1 Sep 94 05:19:49 GMT
Organization: Society for Creative Anachronism

Greetings unto the Rialto,
I find it interesting that with all the mention of corn and potatoes,
no-one has explained the mention of corn during medeival times. There was
indeed "corn" in Europe and the British Isles, but not the corn we think
of today. Corn was the term used for whatever grain was the primary crop
in a given place. Threfore, corn in one area, might be barley, while in
another area it might be wheat. When white settlers came to the Americas,
the primary grain was maize, which they, of course, called corn. Maize
and it's descendant, sweet corn are most certainly not period, unless
someone wants to stretch the point and say that the Norsemen who landed
on North America were aquainted with it and therefore it might have been
brought back to the old world. To the best of my knowledge, this never
happened.

I remain your humble servant,
Amber the Restless


From: bloch at mandrill.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)
Date: 2 Jul 90 18:21:18 GMT
 
ewright at convex.com (Edward V. Wright) quoteth me: 
>>sprinkle it back 
>>into the cavity in alternating layers with melted butter, honey, 
>>sugar, and a sprinkle of rosewater. 
 
and doth complain: 
 
>I am new to the SCA and, being violently allergic 
>to roses, I think such foods are probably something best avoided. 
 
I've never actually MADE the dish with rosewater, since I had no 
access to it at the time.  I have a bottle of commercial rosewater in my cupboard now, but haven't tried it in anything.

I suspect this is generally true: there are numerous period recipes
that call for rosewater, but people don't always USE it.  Rosewater
may also appear not in the food but in finger-bowls or on scented
towels.  But if you have strange allergies (like a friend of mine
from Atlantia who seemed to be allergic to every herb and spice known
to the sages), be sure to talk to the chef in advance to find out
what dishes have what in them.  Some other ingredients that appear
in SCA cookery but seldom in the cookery of 20th-century America:

hyssop (a kind of mint)
galyngale (a root, vaguely similar to ginger)
saffron (not unknown in these lands, but expensive enough that few
   actually use it)
cubeb (which I've seen described as a cross between pepper and allspice)
chervil (looks like oregano, has a "springlike" or "fresh" scent)
sandalwood (there are at least two varieties -- red and brown -- of
   which the former is used for coloring, the latter for scent)
murri (it's a long story, but any murri you find in SCA cookery
   probably contains anise or fennel, chopped nuts, carob, and I
   forget what else)

There are of course many more -- our forebears were more knowledgeable
about herbs and their uses than we in these benighted times -- but I
have with me neither my spice cabinet (which has all the above) nor my
shopping lists.

Oh, and watch out for whole cloves.  Our uses of them may not be what
you're accustomed to :-)

While we're talking about allergies, let's consider fabrics.  Most SCA
garb is of natural fibers, with occasional polyester to get a silk or
linen look without mortgaging the house.  In particular, wool is
common (increasing with latitude).  There is also a small, but
significant, amount of fabric dyed at home with woad, indigo, madder,
and various other natural vegetable dyes; I don't know how often these
cause allergic reactions.  Any dyers out there?  Allergenists?
--
Stephen Bloch
Joshua ibn-Eleazar ha-Shalib
>sca>Caid>Calafia>St.Artemas
bloch at cs.ucsd.edu


From: haslock at rust.zso.dec.com (Nigel Haslock)
Date: 14 Mar 91 20:13:38 GMT
Organization: DECwest, Digital Equipment Corp., Bellevue WA

Well, I looked it up.

        Sugar was 12 pence a pound for the lowest grade and the Baronesses
        household bought about 56 pounds in a 7 month period.

        I assume that this was loaf sugar and that fine powdered white
        sugar was more expensive.

        Almonds were 12 pence for 5 pounds and the household used 280 pounds
        over a 7 month period. Raisins were the same price.

        12 pence would buy 48 (1 pound) loaves of bread, or between 24 and
        36 gallons of beer, or roughly 200 pounds of barley, or roughly
        100 pounds of wheat. Milling the grain would cost you more.

        The commentary notes that molasses was being imported to England
        towards the end of the century.

                Fiacha
                Aquaterra, AnTir


From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 16 Mar 91 04:01:48 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

"The commentary notes that molasses was being imported to England
towards the end of the century."  (Fiacha)

Molasses (British "treacle") is a byproduct of sugar refining.
According to C. Anne Wilson (Food and Drink in England) they were
originally used for medicinal purposes. At some point after sugar
started to be refined in England (which I think happened in the
sixteenth century), the supply of molasses outgrew the medicinal
demand and they started to be used in cooking. So the culinary use of
molasses in England would date from late sixteenth or early
seventeenth century. They might have been used earlier elsewhere, but
I do not think I have seen any period recipes that mention them.

        Flash: Old World Gourds Discovered (maybe)

As those of you interested in period cooking may know, "gourds"
present something of a puzzle. All of the
gourd/zucchini/squash/pumpkin kinds of things that you find in the
grocery store are New World plants--mostly varieties of Cucurbita
Pepo. But gourds are mentioned in period recipes from before 1492,
both European and Islamic, and there are even pictures of them in
"The Four Seasons of the House of Cerruti." One possible set of
candidates are the Lagenaria genus of gourds, which are apparently
both old and new world. Someone on the Rialto suggested to me the
Italian Edible gourds, which are apparently a Lagenaria and can be
found in some seed catalogs, but we have not yet tried to grow them.

Recently I discovered a new book on food in Chinese history which has
a very careful and scholarly discussion of gourds. Apparently the
Cucurbitae came into China from the New World, probably in the
sixteenth century. There are, however, several other gourds which
were used before then and are still used in Chinese cooking. One of
them, the Bottle Gourd, is a Lagenaria.

Having discovered this, Betty and I checked both of the Chicago
Chinatowns, carrying with us the book, with pictures of the various
gourds. We found a gourd that looks very much like the pictured
Bottle Gourd. Unfortunately, we do not know its Chinese name. Of the
clerks in the store, one thought that what they had was what our
picture showed and one thought that our picture showed something
similar that they sell in the summer. 

Cariadoc


From: dmb at inls1.ucsd.edu (Doug Brownell)
Date: 20 Mar 91 22:23:17 GMT
Organization: Institute for Nonlinear Science
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

Greetings unto the Rialto, and especially unto Renmhir de
Capsicum Inscendens, from Thomas Brownwell.

Joshua ibn Eleazar wrote:
>> I DO have primary-source
>> documentation for live (i.e. biological, rather than acid-base)
>> leavenings at least to the 13th century.

To which Renmhir replied:
What is the distinction between live sourdough and acid-base?  All of
the sourdough I've seen is "live" (you keep a little of the sponge from
each batch you make, keeping the yeasty liquid in a well-capped crock
or something...)

About a year ago Iulstan Sigwealding asked the net for
references to plants which produce natural leavenings, in
particular ammonium-something-or-other, since references to
the plant can be found in period.  The idea is that they
*did* have access to chemicals very similar to our baking
sodas, but didn't start using them as leavening agents until
probably the late 17th century (if memory serves me.  The
ammonium compound was used medicinally, but not in general
purpose baking).  I may be wrong, but I assumed these were
the 'acid based leavenings' Joshua was referring to.

Good day to all, and may your bread rise quickly.

Douglas M. Brownell                     |  Thomas Brownwell
Institute for Nonlinear Science, R-002  |  Anachronist (noun):
University of California, San Diego     |
La Jolla, CA 92093                      |  Out of time;
                                        |
Internet: dmb at inls1.ucsd.edu            |  Gotta go!
          dbrownell at ucsd.edu            |


From: sbloch at euclid.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)
Date: 24 Mar 91 06:43:10 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca

jprod at sagepub.com (Sister Kate) writeth:
>  I like to serve honey with my bread, but it occurred to me recently that
>  there may be a better way of doing it than surreptitiously handing out
>  dollops from the jar. In what kind of dish would honey have been served?
>  Does anyone know? Would it always have been served in the comb? Would it
>  always have been clarified and poured?

My reading on the subject is largely from the cookbooks of al-Andalus.
I do not recall seeing mention of anything served with honey on the
side, but this is perhaps the sort of practice not worthy of mention
in such a scholarly cookbook.  There are, however, copious references
to "honey cleaned of its foam" ("miel limpia de su espuma" in the
Spanish, one translation closer to the original), both as an ingre-
dient in cooking and as a topping to be applied just before serving.
I presume this means the honey is to be not only pressed from the
comb, but clarified by boiling and skimming, before use.

Incidentally, said cookbooks not infrequently call for mixing honey
with melted butter and pouring this mixture over some sort of pastry.
(Yum!)

Stephen Bloch
Joshua ibn-Eleazar ha-Shalib
>sca>Caid>Calafia>St.Artemas
sbloch at math.ucsd.edu


From: ELDREDGE at ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU (Catherine Elizabeth)
Date: 4 Jun 91 14:31:49 GMT
Organization: The Internet

A period solution to the potato question is (ta-da) the PUDDING.  Although
we tend to think of Jello Instant when someone mentions pudding, the recipes
I have read (and tried a Christmas one) are not very sweet.  The Christmas
pudding was made festive by adding dates, and other dried fruits to the basic
bread or batter mixture. Bag puddings are cooked in a cloth bag suspended in
a pot of simmering "fair" (read clean) water.  Other puddings are cooked in
a "pudding basin" in the oven with a pan of water (like a modern custard).
If anyone is interested, I will post a few (no more than 4) period pudding
recipes from a source that I like to use for at least one dish in my feasts.

Catherine Elizabeth                        mka:  Mrs Cynthia Eldredge
Barony of Darkwater                              University of Central Florida
Kingdom of Trimaris                              Orlando, Florida


From: bnostrand at lynx.northeastern.EDU
Date: 4 Jun 91 22:51:15 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Unfortunately for Norsemen and women who wish to nosh on potatoes at their
feasts, the potatoe is indiginous to South America and was a staple of the
Incan Empire.  It was not to the best of my knowledge grown in the corn (maize)
growing region which extended from Central America to what is now central
Canada.  However, their are plenty of other tubers to consider.  For example
Yams are indiginous to Africa and "yam" is derived from a Bantu word.  There
are also varieties of beats, squash and radishes which are also alternatives.
There should be books available on what the norsemen actually ate.

                                Solveig Throndardottir


From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 6 Jun 91 00:52:08 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

"However, their are plenty of other tubers to consider.  For example 
Yams are indiginous to Africa and "yam" is derived from a Bantu word.
 There are also varieties of beats, squash and radishes which are
also alternatives." (Solveig Throndardottir)

Squash (mostly varieties of Cucurbita Pepo) are New World. There are
edible gourds, however, mentioned in period cookbooks and even
pictured in The Four Seasons of the House of Cerruti. They may
possibly have been Lagenaria species. The Bottle gourd (Lagenaria
siceraria) is still used in Chinese cooking, and may be available
from your local chinese grocery store. I have also been told that the
Italian Edible Gourd, seeds for which are available from some seed
stores, is a Lagenaria.

Yams are a different situation. The Oxford English Dictionary gives
the origin of the word as uncertain, so your Bantu derivation may be
just a conjecture. The earliest uses (in English) are from the end of
the sixteenth century, in the context of travelers descriptions of
foreign foods. 

The fact that yams were known in Africa in the late sixteenth century
does not answer the question of where they originated; by that time
several New World plants, introduced by the Portuguese into East
Africa early in the century, had become widely cultivated. According
to Food in China by Frederick J. Simoons, however, yams are old
world, and were being cultivated in South-east Asia at a very early
date--possibly before 8000 B.C.

The relevant question for Society cooks is not whether yams are new
world but whether they would have been served at the sort of feast we
are doing. For a normal Society feast (European pre-1600) I think the
answer is probably no--judging at least by the English quotes in the
OED, they were an exotic that a few people had heard of and almost
nobody had actually eaten. For a period Chinese feast, on the other
hand, if anyone ever does one, they would be entirely appropriate.

Cariadoc


From: martin at adpplz.UUCP (Martin Golding)
Date: 7 Jun 91 18:25:50 GMT
Organization: ADP Dealer Services R&D, Portland, OR

ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman) writes:
>The fact that yams were known in Africa in the late sixteenth century
>does not answer the question of where they originated; by that time
>several New World plants, introduced by the Portuguese into East
>Africa early in the century, had become widely cultivated. According
>to Food in China by Frederick J. Simoons, however, yams are old
>world, and were being cultivated in South-east Asia at a very early
>date--possibly before 8000 B.C.

This one I know about (I'm a food snob :-0 ):

The question of whether yams might have made it from Africa to Europe
before the 1600's is completely irrelevant. The thing sold in the
stores as yams is sweet potato. Period. Very occasionally, in some
obscure ethnic store, for way too much money, it is possible to get
real yams. They are substantially different from sweet potatoes, sticky,
starchy, and generally not particularly popular with anybody I've
inflicted them on. So even if "yams" are period, "yams" aren't what
people really mean when they say "yams".

For an alternative starch, is boiled grain (not just rice) period? I'm
reasonably sure it was popular in the middle east by then, but I have
no idea about western Europe. If so, you would all be quite pleased by
the flavor of rye cooked like rice.

Martin Golding  |  cross            cheerful 
Dod #236        | CHILDREN          CHILDREN 
                |   walk              ride
They tell me I'm {mcspdx,pdxgate}!adpplz!martin or martin at adpplz.uucp


From: trifid at agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks)
Date: 9 Jun 91 01:18:32 GMT
Organization: Open Communications Forum

Ah yes....frumenty!

Not quite what we would consider a direct substitute for potatoes.

"frumenty - hulled wheat boiled in milk, seasoned with sugar;" (Elizabethan
Renaissance; the life of the society). Rather more like what *we* think of as
breakfast food, although they ate it at supper.

(Sounds rather good, actually... :)

By the way, I don't know when this changed, but throughout much of period 
*butter* was considered to be a worthless by-product only fit for peasantry!

From a later passage about excesses..."No doubt this was not true of the lowest
class that lived chiefly on 'white meats, i.e. milk, butter, and cheese,' "etc.

The writer goes on to say the usual lower-class diet also contained fowl, fish,
and other things, and was probably pretty healthy, and it sounds a lot better
than what the upper classes were doing! (Burp!)

I think I'll have frumenty for breakfast tomorrow...

NicMaoilan
trifid at agora.rain.com


From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 8 Jun 91 05:15:53 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

"For an alternative starch, is boiled grain (not just rice) period?
I'm
reasonably sure it was popular in the middle east by then, but I have
no idea about western Europe." (Martin Golding)

1. You are correct about the Middle East. Harisa, which (in period)
is boiled wheat with meat and other stuff in it, appears in at least
three surviving period Islamic cookbooks. 

2. Frumenty is a common dish in 14th-15th century western European
cookbooks, and is basically a wheat gruel. 

Cariadoc


From: trifid at agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks)
Date: 10 Jun 91 02:07:24 GMT
Organization: Open Communications Forum

My copy of "The Medieval Machine" by Gimpel also mentions butter as being only
fit for the lower classes. It was, according to him, a substitute for refined
lard...the difference being that to get lard to refine, you *killed* the beast,
whereas the poor, who couldn't afford to slaughter so much, used butter (a
"renewable resource") more often. This doesn't mean the upper classes *never*
used butter, especially in cooking, but I often wonder if at least *some* of
our translations of recipes haven't been corrupted by some more modern cook's
sensibilities along the way.

(I appologize for not giving an exact quotation from "Machine". I seem to have
lent it out again...)

Anyway, this isn't the only place I've run across this remark about butter.

I'll try to post more references as I run across them...

NicMaoilan
trifid at agora.rain.com


From: sbloch at euler.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)
Date: 9 Jun 91 18:19:26 GMT
Organization: Mathematics  at  UCSD

trifid at agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks) writes:
>"frumenty - hulled wheat boiled in milk, seasoned with sugar;" (Elizabethan
>Renaissance; the life of the society). Rather more like what *we* think of as
>breakfast food, although they ate it at supper.
>(Sounds rather good, actually... :)

Yes, it is; I make frumenty perhaps every other day at Wars, usually
as a breakfast cereal, and not infrequently at home (the only problem
is, it takes longer to cook than Quaker Oats).  I usually use bulgur
wheat as the grain, and for sheer convenience at War I often cheat and
use dry milk powder.  (The fact that this is skim is no problem; at
least one period recipe for frumenty specifically tells you to skim
the milk.)

>By the way, I don't know when this changed, but throughout much of period 
>*butter* was considered to be a worthless by-product only fit for peasantry!

In the Manuscrito Anonimo, a 13th-century Andalusian cookbook, it is
explained that butter is not used in "high cuisine", but is suitable
for various kinds of cakes, as well as "women's foods" (which I take
to mean ordinary, everyday stuff, not what a professional cook would
prepare for a feast).  (I anxiously await the direct Arabic trans-
lation Charles Perry's working on, which should clarify this.)
-- 
Stephen Bloch
mar-Joshua ibn-Eleazar ha-Shalib
>sca>Caid>Calafia>St.Artemas
sbloch at math.ucsd.edu


From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 10 Jun 91 15:39:22 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

"This doesn't mean the upper classes *never* used butter, especially
in cooking, but I often wonder if at least *some* of our translations
of recipes haven't been corrupted by some more modern cook's
sensibilities along the way." (NicMaoilan, defending her claim that
butter was looked down on as food of the lower classes against my
point that it appears frequently in period upper class cookbooks.)

I cannot guarantee that no translations have ever been corrupted, but
two of the sources I checked for my posting were originals, not
translations. They were written in English, so unless you want to
argue that the words "butter" (Proper Newe Booke) and "buttur" (Form
of Cury) really mean "refined lard," I am afraid your explanation
does not solve the problem.

If you really want, I can check what the words are in Latin (Platina)
and French (Menagier), but I doubt it is worth it. Published worked
out recipes (secondary sources) are frequently unreliable in the way
you suggest, but in the case of a straight translation of a period
source it takes a pretty incompetent translator to routinely change
"lard" into "butter." And since butter appears in lots of different
period sources, English and translated, it takes lots of incompetent
translators plus incompetent editors of the English manuscripts,
which does not sound very likely.

"Anyway, this isn't the only place I've run across this remark about
butter." (NicMaoilan)

So far the evidence you have offered is what you remember reading in
secondary sources. Given a conflict between a conclusion in a
secondary source and the actual evidence of a primary source (period
cookbooks), I think the latter is to be preferred. If you could find
the evidence on which the secondary source's conclusion is based,
preferably in the form of quotations from primary sources, that would
be another matter--we could then evaluate the evidence on both sides.
 
In my experience, there are a number of statements about the Middle
Ages that are routinely repeated and provably false. The best example
is the claim that forks were not used in the Middle Ages, or were not
used until late in our period, or ... (many variants). You can find
it lots of places, but it is provably false. I have a pamphlet from
the V&A which discusses the history of forks in some detail,
including a copy of the earliest known picture of people eating with
them. As I recall it is about twelfth century.

Another example, discussed earlier on the Rialto, is the claim that
knights in full plate were essentially immobile, had to be hoisted
onto their horses, etc. Another which I suspect to be false is the
claim that medieval food was routinely overspiced to hide the flavor
of rotten meat. Whether your statement about butter is one of these I
don't know--it is possible that was true of some period cultures at
some times but not of others at other times. Assertions without
evidence are better than nothing, but not much better.

Cariadoc


From: atterlep at vela.acs.oakland.edu (Somebody Else)
Date: 10 Jun 91 20:17:23 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman) writes:
>Another [commonly repeated statement] which I suspect to be false is the
>claim that medieval food was routinely overspiced to hide the flavor
>of rotten meat. Whether your statement about butter is one of these I
>don't know--it is possible that was true of some period cultures at
>some times but not of others at other times. Assertions without
>evidence are better than nothing, but not much better.

  In the second edition of "Food in History," Reay Tannahill suggests that 
medieval food was heavily spiced not to mask a rotten taste, but to mask the
taste of the preservatives (salt and smoke) that were used to keep the food 
from being rotten.  She cites as evidence not only the heavy use of spices but
the instructions for soaking meat to get out the taste of salt.
  Another theory she mentions is that medieval people used many spices because
they were unusual and expensive (and therefore a sign of wealth when used in
quantity.)

                        Lord Alan Fairfax Aluricson
                        Canton of the Riding of Hawkland Moor
                        Barony of Northwoods, Midrealm
                        atterlep at vela.acs.oakland.edu


From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 11 Jun 91 02:28:31 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

"  In the second edition of "Food in History," Reay Tannahill
suggests that medieval food was heavily spiced not to mask a rotten
taste, but to mask the taste of the preservatives (salt and smoke)
that were used to keep the food from being rotten.  She cites as
evidence not only the heavy use of spices but the instructions for
soaking meat to get out the taste of salt." (Lord Alan Fairfax
Aluricson)

The first question is whether the food was heavily spiced. Period
recipes usually do not give quantities, so it requires a good deal of
effort to figure out how much of the spices they used. I do not know
of anyone who has put together enough of such information to justify
a solid conclusion. I did some estimates based on Du Fait de Cuisine
(15th c. French), which starts with a shopping list including
quantities; that makes it possible to estimate ratios of spice to
meat for the whole feast, although not for individual dishes. The
result was about one unit of spice (all spices combined) to a hundred
of meat (by weight) for the whole feast. That is similar to the ratio
in our worked out period recipes, which were done basically to our
taste (since the originals did not have quantities).

My impression is that most of the talk about overspiced food is by
people who have read a few recipes, have not cooked them, and are
simply going by the list of what spices were used (often combinations
that are not standard in modern cooking). Certainly salted meat and
fish were used, but if that were the reason for the spicing you would
expect to see a difference between spicing in recipes that used those
and spicing in recipes that used fresh meat, and so far as I know
there is none. Does Tannahill offer any evidence, or merely a
conjecture?

Cariadoc


From: trifid at agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks)
Date: 13 Jun 91 09:03:04 GMT
Organization: Open Communications Forum

Butter is/isn't period. As your source noted, butter is for women. And peasants.
It probably made high table during Elizabeth's reign, but probably not at her
father's feasts (except as an ingredient of baked goods, <probably baked by
*mere* women> ;-) There are several references that state butter was for peasantfolk, but I've yet to see one that pinpoints *when* this view began to change,
and butter became "respectable" again. Elizabeth's reign would be a *likely*
time, but so far, no real evidence... Meanwhile, I'm not spreading *my* bread
with lard! ;-)

NicMaoilan, (this space for rent) 
trifid at agora.rain.com


From: perkins at msupa.pa.msu.EDU ("corpusculorum velocium perexiguorum
Date: 12 Jun 91 16:05:15 GMT
Organization: The Internet

> My copy of "The Medieval Machine" by Gimpel also mentions butter as being only
> fit for the lower classes. It was, according to him, a substitute for refined
> lard...the difference being that to get lard to refine, you *killed* the beast
> whereas the poor, who couldn't afford to slaughter so much, used butter (a
> "renewable resource") more often. [...]
>
> (I appologize for not giving an exact quotation from "Machine". I seem to have
> lent it out again...)

Since,  from her post, NicMaoilan doesn't have her copy nearby (and I do),
here is the information:

Jean Gimpel, _The_Medieval_Machine:_The_Industrial_Revolution_of_the_
Middle_Ages_, 1976.  First published in French under the title _La_Revo-
lution_Industrielle_du_Moyen_Age_.  USA Publication:  Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York 1976 and (the paperback copy I have) Penguin Books 1977,
which has ISBN 0 14 00.4514 7 ; Lib of Cong Card Cat Num HC41.G5 1977 ; and
is categorized under the Dewey Decimal System as 330.902.

I have been looking through it and find no mention of butter vs refined
lard in the manner of NicMaoilan's comment above;  I've read through the
sections on agriculture, food & diet and skimmed the rest of the book, 
to no avail... Perhaps she is remembering a quotation from another book;
or perhaps (though I doubt it) Gimpel makes this particular point in some
other section of the book  (Mining, Engineering, Environment & Pollution,
Labor Conditions, Clocks, Experimental Science, etc.).

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jeremy de Merstone       George J Perkins    perkins at msupa.pa.msu.edu
 North Woods, MidRealm    East Lansing, MI    perkins at msupa (Bitnet)
 -------------------------------------------------------------


From: trifid at agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks)
Date: 11 Jun 91 04:41:01 GMT
Organization: Open Communications Forum

Please forgive me, Milord Cariadoc. I suppose it is my clumsy way with quotation
marks. The quotation from "The Elizabethan Renaissance:[etc]" was a quote within
a quote. The actual words are the words of William Harrison, a gentleman of
her Majesty's court, not the author of the book. The reference is from said
worthy's own papers.

As another gentle posted, this did not preclude it from appearing in the cooking
of mere women of any class...

NicMaoilan
trifid at agora.rain.com


From: sbloch at euler.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)
Date: 13 Jun 91 16:25:26 GMT

cctimar at athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Charles de Mar) writes:
>although in some part of Spain in the reign
>of Their Majesties Ferdinand and Isabel the Catholic the food of nobles
>may with lard have been cooked, woe betide that cook that dared to use
>lard in the dishes he served to the Moslem Emirs of Spain in three hundred
>years before!  (Mayhap, in those days the oil of olives was preferred.)

Olive oil and sesame oil were in fact commonly used in al-Andalus.
So is butter (my earlier post that "butter was not used in haute
cuisine" is a bit of an interpretation, based on a fuzzy transla-
tion, so don't take it as Gospel).  There are also numerous references
to "fat" or "grease", presumably either from the animal you're cooking
anyway, or from "tail", extracted from fat-tailed sheep.  I suspect
one could make a close equivalent of pork-lard from cattle or sheep.
-- 
Stephen Bloch
mar-Joshua ibn-Eleazar ha-Shalib
>sca>Caid>Calafia>St.Artemas
sbloch at math.ucsd.edu


From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 13 Jun 91 23:10:54 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

"I regret not being better researched, but I did notice in the
controversy over whether butter was used in upper class cooking that
NicMaolin was using southern/Spanish sources while Cariodoc seemed to
be using northern/English source"  (Lyelf the Lame)

As NicMaolin has already pointed out, the evidence she cited
concerned England, not southern Europe. Of the four cookbooks I
cited, one was southern (Platina). Since most of the cookbooks I am
familiar with are English, French, or Islamic, and I was not looking
in the Islamic ones, on the theory that they were irrelevant to the
argument, that provides no evidence for a North/South difference.
Since my previous posting, I have also found butter in a fifteenth
century Portuguese cookbook.

"Butter is/isn't period. As your source noted, butter is for women.
And peasants   It probably made high table during Elizabeth's reign,
but probably not at her father's feasts (except as an ingredient of
baked goods, <probably baked by *mere* women> ;-) There are several
references that state butter was for peasan,  and butter became
"respectable" again." (NicMaoilan)

1. What makes you think that baking was done primarily by women?

2. So far, the only evidence you have offered for your thesis is an
Elizabethan quote that seems to be saying that lower income people
ate butter, cheese, etc. instead of meat, not that upper income
people did not eat butter. I think I have demonstrated that butter
was used in upper class cooking (i.e. it is in lots of recipes in
period cookbooks).

In your original posting, you seemed to be saying that butter was not
used in upper class cooking--at least, you suggested translation
errors as an explanation for my examples of its use. Is what you are
now saying that, as several other people have suggested, butter was
used in upper class cooking but was not used as a spread?

If so, I think you are still overstating the case somewhat. I offer
the following evidence:

Menagier de Paris (late fourteenth C.) describes a number of feasts
in some detail. The only relevant comment I could find, in a
description of a wedding feast, was:

"Platter: butter, none, because it is a meat day."

That seems to suggest that butter would be on the table on days when
meat was forbidden but milk was not. 

C. Anne Wilson, "Food and Drink in Britain," says:

"A cold pie was a means of preserving fish, so such pies were filled
up with clarified butter which set and excluded the air. Medieval
rents were sometimes paid in eel pies; and twenty-four herring pies
made of the first fresh herrings of the season ... were rendered
annually to the king by the city of Norwich." That seems to imply
that the king of England was accustomed to have butter on his table,
although not necessarily on his bread. 

It is a bit beside the point, but she quotes Pliny as saying that
among the barbarians (probably the Celts) "they considered butter
their choicest food, 'the one that distinguishes the wealthy from the
lower orders'..."

"Children were given 'bread smeared with butter in the Flemish
fashion', as a Venetian visitor to England noted shortly before 1500."

That suggests that buttered bread was common in Flanders, exotic in
Venice, and restricted to children in England.

"The poor ate much butter with bread and also with herbs. The
well-to-do viewed it more cautiously, ... . Proverbially, butter was
gold in the morning, silver at noon and lead at night, so that
breakfast was the most suitable meal at which to eat it.

It was however taken as an aperitif before dinner along with ... .
And despite the warnings of the physicians it was eaten extensively
upon fish days."

Talking about "the pattern of butter consumption among the
well-to-do," she writes:

"On ordinary fast days the fish could be fried in clarified butter,
while sweet butter supplied a sauce for salt fish, stockfish, .. . 
Alternatively bread and one or more dishes of butter were laid upon
the table to be eaten with the fasting day fish."

and finally

"Nevertheless butter appeared in a relatively small proportion of the
dishes in medieval recipe books, which were written mainly for and by
the cooks of the nobility. It was only in Tudor times that an
emerging middle class, which did not despise butter as the food of
the por, began to use it liberally in every possible sphere of
cookery, setting a trend that ... "

All of these quotations are from C. Anne Wilson. Assuming, as I do,
that she is a reliable source (I have never caught her in a mistake,
and she gives her sources), the conclusions seems to be:

1. Butter was used in cooking by upper class people, but not nearly
as much as it came to be used by the middle class starting in the
sixteenth century.

2. Physicians thought that butter was bad for you, especially eaten
late in the day, but...

3. Upper class people in fact ate it, not only in baked dishes and
the like but also in fish pies, as a sauce, and on bread on fast days
(of which there were a lot).

All of this applies only to England. The suggestion that butter was
not served because it was a meat day in the Menagier quote I gave
earlier suggests a similar pattern for France. The comment about
Flanders suggests that buttered bread was common there c.
1500--assuming the Venetian in question knew what he was talking
about.

Someone asked what you did with bread if you did not put butter on
it. Le Menagier mentions fried bread slices and bread crusts in milk
with sugar.

"I would like to know if melons and/or gourds were cultivated
anywhere in Medieval Europe and if so what kinds." (Morwenna of
Western Sea)

1. All of the squashes, pumpkins, and gourds now commonly used belong
to three species native to the New World (see Whitaker, below, for a
discussion).   However, we know that there was some kind of gourd
used in Europe before Columbus, both from pictures and from recipes.
One possible candidate is the white-flowered gourd, Lagenaria
siceraria, which is native to the Old World and has been cultivated
for food.  We have been told that the Italian Edible Gourd is a
species of Lagenaria and is available from, among others, J. L.
Hudson, Seedman (P. O. Box 1058, Redwood City, CA 94064 (we have not
yet gotten any).  Also, we recently found that the Chinese bottle
gourd is Lagenaria siceraria (Simoons, p. 152) and that gourds which
look very much like the pictures in the book are available in a
Chinatown grocery storeQand taste good in 15th century Italian
recipes for gourd.  (We are not entirely sure we have the right sort
of gourd, given that the Chinese grocery used only Chinese names.)All
of the squashes, pumpkins, and gourds now commonly used belong to
three species native to the New World (see Whitaker, below, for a
discussion).   However, we know that there was some kind of gourd
used in Europe before Columbus, both from pictures and from recipes.
One possible candidate is the white-flowered gourd, Lagenaria
siceraria, which is native to the Old World and has been cultivated
for food.  We have been told that the Italian Edible Gourd is a
species of Lagenaria and is available from, among others, J. L.
Hudson, Seedman (P. O. Box 1058, Redwood City, CA 94064 (we have not
yet gotten any).  Also, we recently found that the Chinese bottle
gourd is Lagenaria siceraria (Simoons, p. 152) and that gourds which
look very much like the pictures in the book are available in a
Chinatown grocery storeQand taste good in 15th century Italian
recipes for gourd.  (We are not entirely sure we have the right sort
of gourd, given that the Chinese grocery used only Chinese names.)
(by Elizabeth, excerpted from a forthcoming article).

2. A variety of melons were grown in al-Islam, I think including
water melon. I am not sure, but would guess they would have been
grown in suitable climates in Europe.

3. "The Four Seasons of the House of Cerruti" is a reprint of a
period treatise on footstuffs and other things, including pictures of
some of the period gourds and melons.

Cariadoc


From: justin at inmet.inmet.COM (Justin du Coeur MKA Mark Waks)
Date: 14 Jun 91 16:55:35 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Margaret asks:
>or do we view and consume bread in the society in a totally modern
>fashion? Perhaps we should use bread more as trenchers and sops rather
>that as something you eat by itself with a spread on it.

One alternative that Cariadoc didn't mention in his wonderfully
encyclopaedic article on bread & butter (for which I greatly thank him)
is rastyns. This was a somewhat sweetened bread, which one baked, then
cut off the top, tore out the insides, mixed them with some butter, and
replaced in the bread, then rebaked a little. (Assuming I'm remembering
Cury on Inglish correctly.)

We've done this at a number of Carolingian feasts in the past five years,
and it's always been a hit. We've usually cheated and used commercial bread
dough -- one of these days, I'm going to make a batch from scratch, and see
what it tastes like properly sweetened...

(Question for those who've done some real period baking: what sort of
flour would be most appropriate for a period bread? Is there a commercial
type of flour that is reasonably similar to period flours? I'm more a
main-dish person than a baker, so I don't know much about this issue...)

                                -- Justin du Coeur


From: sbloch at euler.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)
Date: 15 Jun 91 15:05:07 GMT

ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman (Cariadoc)) quotes
NicMaoilan:
>"Butter is/isn't period. As your source noted, butter is for women.
>And peasants   It probably made high table during Elizabeth's reign,
>but probably not at her father's feasts (except as an ingredient of
>baked goods, <probably baked by *mere* women> ;-) (NicMaoilan)

and questions:
>1. What makes you think that baking was done primarily by women?

(David has omitted discussions of Islamic sources as not pertinent to
the original question.  I shall not, since I've spent more time with
them than with English or French sources and am thus more familiar
with them.)

In the anonymous Andalusian cookbook, the majority of references to
specific cooks are to men, but several women are mentioned (not
usually by name, but e.g. "the wife of so-and-so invented this dish")
I have also read of (male) Caliphs and Amirs who cooked for themselves;
this is unusual, by the context, but what's unusual seems to be that
such an eminent person doesn't depend entirely on servants, rather
than that a respectable male cooks.  Charles Perry, translating said
cookbook from the Arabic, basically accepts my translation that

"butter is not employed in kitchen dishes because it is only used in
the various kinds of _rafis_ and in some cakes, and in similar foods
of [made by?] women.  It is needed for its oil, over which it quickly
forms a dry crust, and for spicy or vinegary things so that it may cut
their sharpness and make them soft and smooth, and do them great
benefit,"

but deletes my comment "[made by?]" and reassures "certain dishes
were considered to be for women."  He also says the "butter" in this
paragraph is specifically "clarified butter".  (Anyone who's made ghee
will recognize the description of a "dry crust" forming over the "oil"
of butter.)
From the same source...

"Many people eat butter, and add it to bread, while others cannot
bear to smell it, much less to eat it...."

It's not clear whether "add it to bread" means spreading it, or just
putting butter into the dough.  I have seen no unambiguous references
to spreading butter, but many to making dough with butter.  One
example, which is called "A Pie made with Butter", calls for three
pounds of flour and one of butter.  It also calls for leaving the
dough to "ferment", presumably "rise", but (a) it doesn't specifically
mention adding yeast, and (b) a dough with that much butter doesn't
rise much.
-- 
Stephen Bloch
mar-Joshua ibn-Eleazar ha-Shalib
>sca>Caid>Calafia>St.Artemas
sbloch at math.ucsd.edu


From: sbloch at euler.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)
Date: 15 Jun 91 14:16:38 GMT

grm+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Gretchen Miller) writes:
>"we know it was used in cooking, but aren't too sure
>about its use as a spread"
>
>So, (to get to the question part), what spreads WERE used?  Cream
>cheese?  Jelly? Meat paste?
>
>or do we view and consume bread in the society in a totally modern
>fashion? Perhaps we should use bread more as trenchers and sops rather
>that as something you eat by itself with a spread on it.

I haven't specifically researched this, but I don't recall EVER seeing
a period reference to spreading something on bread.  In fact, I
believe the slicing of bread (other than for trenchers) was a late-
period development; I think there are some English laws pertaining to
it.
At feasts, I don't slice bread, nor spread things on it; I either eat
it out of hand with a chunk of cheese, or use it for sops and trenchers.
-- 
Stephen Bloch
mar-Joshua ibn-Eleazar ha-Shalib
>sca>Caid>Calafia>St.Artemas
sbloch at math.ucsd.edu


From: cctimar at athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Cary Timar)
Date: 14 Jun 91 22:30:11 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt U. Student of Numerology

To all the fishers upon the Rialto doth Charles de Mar send greetings.

Justin du Coeur hath written thus:
> (Question for those who've done some real period baking: what sort of
> flour would be most appropriate for a period bread? Is there a commercial
> type of flour that is reasonably similar to period flours? I'm more a

Disclaimer: I have been making an approximation of period bread, but I
cannot claim to be an authority.  Any fact below may be a misguess on my
part, or a misremembering.  The information given is based on a book,
English Bread and Yeast Cookery, (whose author I shall look up when I get
home) which mentions period techniques, but mostly begins with the
Elizabethan era.  I do not have the book with me, so I may not be
representing it fairly.

Of commercially available flours, I believe that unbleached white flour
(not self-rising or cake flour) is most appropriate for the bread of the
upper classes (manchet, I believe).  For more humble bread, mix this with
whole wheat flour and, optionally, a little rye flour, barley flour, oat
meal, mashed turnips, or anything else that would help to make your flour
last a little longer.

In fact, the difference between the different grades of flour was really
that the nobility had their flour ground finer, but you can't accomplish
this unless you are very good friends with a miller.

For greater authenticity, you might try importing flour from Europe.
There are significant differences in "hardness" between wheat from
Britain, France, and America, and this affects the final product.

Also, a note on yeast: bakers' yeast (what you can get today) was
introduced into most of Europe from Hungary (I think) in the 19th century.
Beer yeast had been in use as a leaven in many beer-drinking countries
from the middle of period, but yeast was not used in France until roughly
1600.  The French relied on the flour, when wet, to ferment by itself (it
takes 3-6 days in warm weather, and sometimes stinks).

        -- Charles de Mar, student of numerology, that baketh his own bread


From: kinsey at worf.nas.nasa.gov (Cassandra L. Kinsey)
Date: 16 Oct 91 23:02:37 GMT
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA

Greetings dear gentles

donita at iWarp.intel.com (Donita Thompson) writes:
|> Okay, I'll bite.  Why is it that you can't serve potatoes and tomato sauce
|> at a feast?  
|> 
|> Time to jump into the water.  Hi.  I'm a newbie.

Glad to see you like the water. I still consider myself a newbie after 2 years.

In answer to your question (I learned this at West's Arts & Sciences last July)
the potato and tomatoe are both members of the deadly nightshade family.
People
in period new this fact.  Most poisonous plants are poisonous on all parts of
the plants, but there are a few exception such as the potato and tomatoe.  Only
the ripe root of the potato plant is not poisonous and only the fruit ofthe
tomatoe plant is not poisonous.  You can get very sick eating the greens of
either of these plants, in fact never feed a potato with any green spots on it
to a toddler or an infant they may die from it, the green part contains a neuro-
toxin.  Hence, since people in period new they were poisonous plants why
on earth would they ever want to eat them :) 

|> Most Sincerely,
|> Donita Thompson                                      donita at iwarp.intel.com

Euriol of Lothian
Province of Southern Shores


From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 17 Oct 91 05:38:09 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Donita Thompson asks "Why is it that you can't serve potatoes and
tomato sauce at a feast?"

Euriol of Lothian answers "In answer to your question (I learned this
at West's Arts & Sciences last July) the potato and tomatoe are both
members of the deadly nightshade family. ...  Hence, since people in
period new they were poisonous plants why on earth would they ever
want to eat them"

This is wrong twice over. The reason that tomatoes and potatoes are
inappropriate in a medieval feast is that both come from the new
world, and were therefore unavailable in Europe until after Columbus.
While some people at some point may have believed they were poisonous
(or aphrodisiac--I have seen both claims), tomatoes were being eaten
in Italy by the mid sixteenth century and potatoes in England by
about the end of the century. They do not seem to have gone into use
any more slowly than other new world foods, such as corn, squash and
peanuts, which are not members of the nightshade family.

It is unclear, at least to me, whether either potatoes or tomatoes
(or corn, or peanuts, or chili peppers, or ...) are appropriate at an
SCA feast. All were probably being eaten by someone somewhere in
Europe before 1600. On the other hand, they would presumably have
been rare exotics at first, and I do not know how soon they became
sufficiently common so that they might plausibly have been served at
feasts.

A further problem is the lack of recipes. Off hand, I cannot think of
any period recipes for any of the New World foodstuffs I have listed,
although there are seventeenth century recipes for some of them. A
further consideration is that these are foods you can eat plenty of
in the 20th century. It is more interesting, if one is going to do
period cooking, to concentrate on the things that were different,
instead of looking for excuses to include modern foods that were just
coming into use at the end of our period.

The botanical question seems to be somewhat complicated. According to
my Webster's (Second edition) there are three different groups of
plants called nightshade: Solanum, Henbane, and Belladonna. The
Solanum genus includes potatoes and eggplants. Belladonna (Atropa
Belladonna) is the deadly nightshade. 

According to my (11th edition) Britannica, Belladonna is in the same
order as Solanum, so that does give us some connection between potato
and deadly nightshade, although a rather distant one. Also, according
to the Britannica, there is a common Solanum species whose berries
are at least somewhat poisonous, which gives us an old world
poisonous plant closely related to the potato. On the other hand,
eggplants are an old world food plant eaten long before potatoes
arrived, which makes the idea that people thought anything in the
Solanum genus was poisonous seem somewhat implausible.

 Can anyone better informed on matters botanical correct or expand on
my very superficial researches?

Cariadoc


From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Date: 18 Oct 91 23:41:57 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

"I am not sure of the exact time when they did start eating them but
it probably wasn't until a firm trade route began between the old and
new world, so probably in the late 17th to early 18th century."
(Euriol of Lothian on Potatoes and Tomatoes)

The earliest reference I know of to eating tomatoes is mid-sixteenth
century, in Italy, fried. Potatoes start showing up in English
cookbooks and literary references about 1600; I do not know if they
were eaten substantially earlier elsewhere. References available on
request. As I commented earlier, tomatoes and potatoes do not seem to
have gone into common use any more slowly than other New World foods.

Cariadoc


From: klier at iscsvax.uni.edu
Date: 19 Oct 91 02:49:18 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

kinsey at worf.nas.nasa.gov (Cassandra L. Kinsey) writes:
> I am not sure of the exact time when they did start eating them but it probably
> wasn't until a firm trade route began between the old and new world, so
> probably
> in the late 17th to early 18th century.  The Mistress who was teaching
> the class
> (I have forgotten her name) said that there was I believe a Baron in Poland who
> actually held his peasants at gunpoint to plant potato fields, placed
> armed guards
> around the fields to prevent the peasants from burning the crop and then held
> them at gunpoint to eat the potatos after they had been cooked.  After the
> peasants had eaten them and realized they weren't going to get sick there was
> no problems afterwards growing the crop.
 
Pizarro and his merry band of hooligans undoubtedly encountered potatoes in
the 1530's in Peru.  Apparently the Spanish took some back to Spain as
boat rations, and started growing them there.  They were independently
introduced into England (some say by Sir Walter Raleigh, some by Sir Francis
Drake), and spread from there to the rest of Europe.  The Scots refused to
eat potatoes because they weren't mentioned in the bible; leprosy,
tuberculosis, and rickets were all attributed to eating potatoes.   Gerard
(of Gerard's Herball fame) mentions that they were planted at Jamestown in
1597.  This attribution is apparently in error -- they probably grew
sweet potato (Ipomoea, of the Convolvulaceae, an entirely different family
of plants).

Tomatoes are probably native to the northern Andes, but had spread to
Mexico by the time of the Conquistadores.  Apparent routes in Europe
were to Spain, Italy and other Mediteranean areas: it was first grown as
an ornamental.  The French grew it in the 1600's, called it "Pomme d'amour",
and thought it was poisonous.

Kay Klier  Biology Dept  UNI


From: ciaran at aldhfn.UUCP (Skip Watson)
Date: 20 Oct 91 05:08:27 GMT
Organization: Auldhaefen Associates

Unto the gentles of the Rialto doth Lord Ciaran Fionn MacCuillean send
greetings! 

Another good source for period plants and foods is The Herbal or General
Historie of Plants by John Gerard. A facsimilie reprint of the 1633
edition is available from Dover Publications. The 1633 edition has a list
of all the plants that were added to the 1597 editon. This makes it easy
to tell which were and which weren't period.

According to Gerard both tomatoes and potatoes were being eaten at the end
of the period. 

Red tomatoes were known as Apples of Love and yellow tomatoes were known
as Golden Apples.
"Apples of Love grow in Spaine, Italie, and such hot countries, from
whence my selfe have recieved feeds for my garden, where they do increase
and prosper."
"In Spaine and those hot Regions they use to eat the Apples prepared and
boiled with pepper, salt, and oile: but they yield very little nourishment
to the bodie, and the same nought and corrupt."
"Likewise they doe eat the Apples with oile, vinegar, and pepper mixed
together for sauce to their meat, even as we in these cold Countries doe
Mustard." 

They had both types of potatoes, sweet potatoes (yams) and white potatoes.
"This plant (which is called of some Sisarum Peruvuvianum, or Skyrrets of
Peru) is generally of us called Potatus, or Potatoes."
"The Potato roots are among the Spaniards, Italians, Indians, and many
other nations common and ordinarie meate; which no doubt are of mighty and
nourishing parts, and do strengthen and comfort nature, whose nutriment is
as it were a meane betweene flesh and fruit, but somewhat windie, but
being tossed in the embers they lose much of their windinesse, especially
being eaten sopped in wine."

White potaoes were called Virginia Potatoes.
"Because it hath not onely the shape and proportion of Potatoes, but also
the pleasant taste and vertues of the same, we may call it in English,
Potatoes of America or Virginia."
"The temperature and virtues be referred unto the common potatoes, being
likewise a food, as also a meate for pleasure, equall in goodnesse and
wholesomenesse unto the same, being either roasted in the embers, or
boyled and eaten with oyle, vinegar, and pepper, or dressed any otherway
by the hand of some cunning in cookerie."
"Bauhine saith, That he heard that the use of these roots was forbidden in
Bourgondy (where they call them Indian Artichokes) for that they were
persuaded the too frequent use of them caused leprosie."

So... Are tomatoes and potatoes period? It all depends on where and when
you are from. They are certainly late period for Spain, Italy, other hot
places and, it would appear, certain parts of England (at least in
Gerard's garden) :-).

Ciaran


Chaz Butler
Dani Zweig
Re: Potatos and Tomatoes
24 Oct 91 12:35:26 

I remember at some point David Friedman publishing an article on "period foods".  I have no idea of the reference or where, but at least the following should be addressed as "late period" when preparing a feast.

Hot Mexican Peppers    (Spanish conquistador)
Potatos                (Sir Walter Raleigh)
Tomatoes               (Spanish)
Blackberries           (New England)
Loganberries           (hybrid)
Brazil Nuts            (Spanish/Portuguese)
Pecans                 (New England)
Raspberries            (Jamestown)
Scuppernongs           (Virginia)
Muscadines             (Virginia)
Squashes               (New England)
Melons                 (unsure?)
Popcorn                (New England)
Maize                  (all varieties, originally Mexican)
Vidalia Onions         (hybrid)

Using a 12th century recipe with tomato sauce (unless you are going to call on St. Brendan the Navigator to bless it) would be a no-no.


From: PORTERG at ruby.vcu.EDU (Greg Porter)
Date: 22 Oct 91 19:38:00 GMT
Organization: The Internet

        Greetings to the Rialto:

        Don't have any sources in front of me, but I believe that the taboo
concerning the eating of horse flesh dates back to the 'Christianity vs
the Norse gods' period.  The horse played an important part in the Norse 
religion (see 'Njal's Saga', among other works).  As part of the struggle
for supremacy those supporting Christianity forbid those trappings of the
older faith that they could not absorb.  Forbidding the eating of horse flesh
would hopefully cut down the number of horse sacrifices performed.

        Fare well,

        Morgan Wolfsinger (Catherine DeMott) by my lord's net access

From: storm at hlafdig.stonemarche.ORG (Arastorm the Golden)
Date: 23 Oct 91 16:01:04 GMT
Organization: The Internet

        We planted a "period apple tree" several years ago in a flush
of agrarian authenticity. It is producing now. In my opinion the
Gilliflour (which can be traced back to 1600, and was brought to 
this country by T. Jefferson) is no where near as good as...
         We live in apple country. A local farm grows 52 variety of
apples and I have tasted more than half of them. My favorite apples
(depending on use) include Cortlands, Northern Spys, McCoons, 
Granny Smiths and Red Delicious. It does not include Gillyflours.
The flavor is mild, too sweet, and the pulp is mushy. 
        Sometimes paintings show period fruits. Oranges used to be
half white membrane. According to National Geographic, beets were
solely a leaf crop until the last century. Carrots were also small
enough so that we should really not serve anything but "baby carrots"
at events.
        Remember, the reason that venison was prized was because the
herds were protected, and beef cattle were worked. Food ain't what it once
was, and for this we should be intensley grateful for the hard work
and dilligence of our ancestors.
        By the Way- has anyone got a source for the appropriate pine bark
to grind up and put in one's pease bread?   Arastorm


From: timsmith at oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Date: 24 Oct 91 13:52:33 GMT
Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD

Poklon k Rialto ot Timofeya Ivanovichya!

Cariadoc asked of the Rialto:

>William de Corbie asks about the Swedish prejudice against eating
>horse meat. I believe the same prejudice shows up in the Norse Sagas.
>If I remember correctly, there is passage in one of them where
>someone insults someone else by accusing him of eating mare's meat.
>Does anyone remember where?

This was in chapter 120 of _Njal's Saga_, where Skarp-Hedin Njalsson
makes a hash of his brothers' attempt to find allies at the Althing
by insulting each prospective ally.  From the translation by Magnus
Magnusson and Hermann Palsson, published by Penguin Books (p. 249 in
the 1983 edition I have):

    Thorkel went on, "Who is that big, baleful man, fifth in the line,
    the one with the pale, sharp, ill-starred, evil look?"

    "I am called Skarp-Hedin," he replied, "and you have no cause to
    pick on me, an innocent man, with your insults.  I at least have
    never threatened my own father's life, as you once did, no ever
    fought with him, as you once did.  You have rarely attended the
    Althing or taken part in lawsuits, and you must feel more at home
    milking the cows at Oxarriver with your scanty household.  You would
    be better emplyed picking out of your teeth the bits of mare's arse
    you ate before you came here--your sheperd saw you at it, and was
    amazed at such disgusting behaviour."

Now, I have a related question for those of the Rialto more learned
about the Norsemen than myself.  In _Njal's Saga_, repeated mention
is made of "booths", which are inhabited by landowners and their supporters
during the Althing, and were evidently set up in some way referred to
as "tenting".  What were these?  My impression is of a stone or wood-
walled structure, possibly dug into the earth, with a fabric roof (rather
like Arastorm & Aelfwyn's "longhouse" this last Pennsic.  How close
am I?

Do svedanya,

Timofei Ivanovitch
-- 
--- Tim Smith ---  timsmith at oasys.dt.navy.mil ---- (301)227-1611 ---
--- Code 1522, David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD  20084 ---


From: djheydt at garnet.berkeley.edu
Date: 1 Nov 91 03:08:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

sbloch at euler.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch) writes:
>
>>Carrots were also small
>
>And, according to what I've heard, either white or purple.

So I've heard too--and yet the Menagier de Paris in 1393 or thereabouts
says, "Carrots are the red roots that they sell by the handful at the
market Les Halles, a half-sou a handful."

Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin


From: cat at fgssu1.sinet.slb.COM (CoreDumps`R'Us)
Date: 7 Nov 91 23:05:36 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Thorfinn Halfblind mentioned in his posting on [Tact and Authenticity]
that he had a soapstone pot which was of "a slightly different sort
of soapstone than is found in Iceland."

He then asks if it is safe to eat anything cooked in it.

It's enough to make my hair fall out.  Well, before I run off at the
mouth, please let me qualify myself and point out to people that before
I found my wonderful glorious sit-down-at-a-desk ALL DAY job, I was
gainfully employed as an enviromental geologist.  I did this for 4
years until I got tired of wearing uncomfortable safety gear, logging
rocks and sediments behind a drill rig for long hours.  [I love my
current job - I get to sit down at a desk ALL DAY...]
Anyway, I want to impress upon people that I might know what I'm talking
about concerning the environmental hazards of certain earth materials.

So, climbing up on the soapbox, which I KNOW doesn't belong to me,
let me tell you about "soapstone."

Soapstone in the "art" sense refers  to those members of the serpentine
or chlorite suites of metamorphics (commonly called "greenstone" by
field geologists) which are soft enough to carve.  The stuff that gets
quarried and sold in art stores is a rock containing more than one
serpentinized/chlorotized minerals, like talc, actinolite, serpentine
itself, etc.  It is easy and fun to carve on the stuff.

In the world of risk assessment (a term of which toxicologists are very
fond, and yes, I have had academic enviromental toxicology), sepentinized
rocks are potentially dangerous to your health, especially in long term
exposures.  This isn't to say that a short term exposure won't "get" you,
its just that the odds on the risk are much lower.

The common forms of dying from exposure to these rocks are as follows:

actinolite, chrysotile, serpentine: asbestosis (a lung cancer)
serpentine, chlorite, other phyllosilicates (like the mica suite):
silicosis (another form of lung cancer)
talc (formerly used as a de-humidifying agent in chinese and japanese
rice shipped to the US): stomach cancer

So anyway, is it safe to eat from the soapstone pot?  Hell, if I know
but you wouldn't see me doing it...

[By the way, the Rollin Lake site which the West uses for various crown
events is in the middle of the Melones Fault Zone, and is bisected by
one of the zone's greenstone belts.  Little pieces of greenstone are for
the taking, just lying around on the ground.  I have spent many happy 
at events ar Rollins Lake carving little figurines out of the soft little
stones I picked up along the side of the glade there.]

References: NIOSH Materials Pocket Guide (Red Cover, 1989 ed.)
            Haburt and Klein, Guide to Minerology, 19th Ed., 1980)
            Personal Class Notes from UC Davis

Tux


From: ag1v+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Date: 21 Nov 91 20:38:27 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Gentle readers, I recommend me to you.

Ferdinand and Isabella had supplies of cane sugar coming into their
kingdoms.  It was not refined as it is nowadays.  However, I do believe
that both molasses, and rum came back to their kingdoms as well as a coarse
cane sugar.

In a chronicle I read, it seems that Isabel and her children were very 
fond of cane sugar and ate it seemingly at every meal.  Again, if anyone's
interested I'll find the name of the book in which I read this.  It wasn't
an ordinary history.  It was much more interested in the daily lives of 
Don~a Isabel and Don Fernando.

Su segura servidora,
        Esmeralda la Sabia


From: habura at vccsouth19.its.rpi.edu (Andrea Marie Habura)
Date: 22 Nov 91 13:51:49 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY

I did more research on  availability of sugar in period. All citations
are from the OED.
The word "sugar" first appears in English in 1299. It is referred to only
in inventories (e.g., "7 loaves of sugar") until 1425. There is a recipe
for a cinnamon-sugar dish (probably a dessert) from that date. 
Sugar was first referred to as "white" in 1430, so purification techniques
were in use by then. (There's your molasses, Esmeralda.)
In general, sugars were referred to as being "of" a particular place: Cyprus,
Alexandria, Babylon, Barbary, Crete, and Morocco. The OED says that sugarcane
originated in China, but will grow in any tropical climate; I assume that 
early sugar came from China, and was perhaps grown in warmer areas nearer
Europe later on.
The first literary reference to sugar is in Chaucer's Squire's Tale, and
is mentioned in conjunction with honey, bread and milk. (In other words,
the Good Stuff.)
Period foods using sugar: Sugarcakes (1587, made from sugar, butter, and 
cream), gingerbread (also 1587), sugared almonds (Marlowe mentioned them in 1594), sugar meats (a confection of some sort, 1587) sugar pellets (1591), 
which seem to have been sugar paste; they were served in bowls at feasts,
probably like our after-dinner mints, and sugar water (1450).

The first mention of sugarcane in English is 1568.

Alison MacDermot
*Ex Ungue Leonem*


From: Marion.Kee at a.nl.cs.cmu.EDU
Date: 22 Nov 91 20:04:00 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Greeting to the Rialto from Marian Greenleaf!

Herewith another chunk of my period food summary, this time the section
on sugarcane.  I would like to find out more about the fate of the
by-products of the refining process in our period, such as molasses.
Anyone who's got a line on some good sources for this, could you please
send me private email?

While the summary below does not deal with the question of rum, I have
found references that seem to suggest that it showed up regularly in
Spain during our period.  I don't read medieval Spanish.  Does anyone
know of a source in English regarding medieval/Renaissance Spanish foods?
(Sources in modern Romance languages, or medieval French, I can deal
with, with effort.)
---------------------------

Some Notes on Sugarcane

by Marian Greenleaf, C.M., O.P.
m.k.a Marion Kee, 5615 Hobart St., Pittsburgh, PA  15217 <kee at cs.cmu.edu>
Text copyright 1988, 1990, 1991 by Marion Kee

----------------------------
The sources the following material was largely drawn from are:

Dawson, Thomas; The Good Hus-wives Jewell, E. Allde, London, 1596 
(transcribed by Susan J. Evans, Falconwood Press, 1988.)

Dawson, Thomas; The Second Part of the Good Hus-wives Jewell, E. 
Allde, London, 1597 (transcribed by Master John the Artificer.)

Encyclopedia Brittanica, Fifteenth Edition, Chicago/London, 1977.

Hieatt, Constance B. and Butler, Sharon: Pleyn Delit, University of
Toronto Press, Toronto, 1976.

Hieatt, Constance B.: An Ordinance of Pottage, Prospect Books,
London, 1988.

Murrell, John; A New Booke of Cookerie, John Brown, London, 1615
(transcribed by Susan J. Evans, Falconwood Press, 1988.)

Root, Waverly; Food, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1980.  

Root, Waverly (ed.); Herbs and Spices, Alfred van der Marck Editions, 
New York, 1985.  

--------------------------
(Revision of January, 1991)

[Name:]  SUGAR CANE

[Origins:]  Near the Bay of Bengal, in India.

[In Antiquity:]  Imported by the Persians from India
as a very expensive condiment, fifth century B.C.; 
known to the Greeks and Romans as a medicine,  but not cultivated 
or imported by them.  Mentioned in the Old Testament (cf. Jeremiah 6:20).

[In Period (where/when/as):] 

China / probably throughout period / grown as condiment

Spain / Moorish Conquest (eighth century) / grown as condiment

England / 735 / imported as condiment

Italy / ca. 1200 / regularly imported and widely used as condiment, medicine

France, England, Portugal / fourteenth century / regularly imported and 
widely used as condiment, medicine

New World / sixteenth century / grown and exported to Europe by the 
Spanish in the Caribbean and Mexico; the Portuguese in Brazil; the Dutch 
in the Caribbean and on the South American mainland.

[Comments:]  Imported from India as a rare spice during
the Dark Ages; grown in the Near East by the Arabs, 
as early as the eighth century; imported to Europe
from Egypt during the Middle Ages;  Marco Polo remarked on its abundance
in China; Venice acquired a near-monopoly
during the Italian Renaissance, even importing the raw materials and
refining it in Italy; Columbus took sugarcane to America and established it
as a crop there (on his second voyage, 1494)


From: sbloch at euler.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)
Date: 22 Nov 91 17:21:00 GMT

jschmidt at gambrinus.tymnet.com (John Schmidt) writes:
>We have honey, we have butter, why not combine them?

There is documentation from 13th-century Arabic cookbooks for mixing
honey and butter, but the mix is not spread on bread but rather poured
(molten) over a particular dish to soak into its bready base.

>(Actually, there is only one point here, because in the two
>references I was able to remember, sugar is very much known.

Period English cookbooks call for both "sugre blake" and "sugre
blanche", but not terribly often; white sugar seems to have been used
primarily medicinally in Christian lands.  The Arabic cookbooks often
call for white sugar, as well as specifying the use of raw "sweet
cane".  In fact, the latter seems to have been common enough that one
could make a subtlety that LOOKED like sweet cane but wasn't, and have
it recognized.  Sweet cane is also recommended for stirring things,
presumably to give them just a hint of sweetness.  (BTW, my encyclo-
pedia says sugarcane is native to Asia, but doesn't specify where.)

-- 
Stephen Bloch
Joshua ibn-Eleazar ha-Shalib
>sca>Caid>Calafia>St.Artemas
sbloch at math.ucsd.edu


From: sbloch at euler.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)
Date: 27 Nov 91 17:17:26 GMT

DICKSNR at qucdn.queensu.ca (Heather Fraser (Sarra Graeham)) writes:
>Get one or more of the following books (I will rank them in order of their
>usefulness to us in the past):
>     Hieatt and Butler, _Pleyn Delit_, U. of Toronto Press, 1976.
>     L. J. Sass, _To the King's Taste_, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1975.
>     David Friedman, _Miscellany_, private publication.
>     Katrine de Baille du Chat, _To Cook Forsoothly_, Raymond's Quiet
>        Press, 1979...

Gee, all of these are on my bookshelf.  I must be doing something right...

>Constance Hieatt has another book out, the name escapes me, but it is put
>together the same way as Pleyn Delit, and I am told it is as good.

_An Ordinance of Pottage_, Prospect Books 1988.  It's not QUITE the
same format as Pleyn Delit, but a sort of cross between that and
"scholarly edition": it's a complete, annotated edition of a 15th-
century English cookbook, followed by redactions in modern English
with modern quantities of SOME of the recipes.  A good way to make the
leap from working from other people's redactions to doing your own.

I also recommend Bridget Ann Henisch's _Fast and Feast: Food in
Medieval Society_.  This is not a cookbook per se, but a well-written
book ABOUT food, eating practices, table-setting, etc.  Not all books
on this subject are equally good: _Consuming Passions_, for example, I
felt was rather poorly written.
-- 
Stephen Bloch
Joshua ibn-Eleazar ha-Shalib
>sca>Caid>Calafia>St.Artemas
sbloch at math.ucsd.edu


Subj: cooking from EETS
Date: 24 Feb 92 
From: cozzlab at garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

|I have tried a few recipies from Pleyn Delit, but, now I want to move 
|on to the "real", unadulterated, 99 and 44/100ths% pure medieval 
|english recipies found in Curye on Inglyssch [EETS SS #8] and in Two 
|Fifteenth Century Cookery Books [EETS OS #91], both of which are in my 
|personal library.
|        Does anyone have any experiences they wish to share about 
|figuring out porportions from a recipe that says: Take this and this 
|and this and do this to it. Then take this and do this to it. throw 
|everything together in a big pot and do this to it, then serve it 
|forth.
|
|Layamon le Vavasour.

Yeah.  The problem with medieval cookbooks is that they were shorthand
notes, written by expert cooks, intended for expert cooks.  Think of
your mother saying to your aunt, "Well, it's just a plain poundcake, you
know, butter/sugar/eggs/flour, only you jazz it up with rosewater..."
and your aunt saying back, "Oh, I know that one, and sometimes we do
brandy instead of rosewater, and then we call it 'Joe's Brandy Cake.'"
Expert cooks cook things till they're done, and they know when they're
done because they look or feel or smell done.  Or they're tender when
you poke 'em with a fork, or the broomstraw comes out clean.

It follows that one big help in interpreting medieval recipes is to
know how to cook already (courtesy of Irma Rombauer, Betty Crocker, or
whoever).

Then you can try looking at other people's adaptations--if you're tired
of -Pleyn Delit,- try -Fabulous Feasts- and -To the {King,Queen}'s Taste.-
Eventually you get a feel for what works, how it works, and how much of
it works.  

Never try out a new recipe on guests.

Good luck.

Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin


Date:_14 May 92 
From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

         Vegetables

"Anybody want to talk about the contents of medieval gardens and the
appearance of period vegetables? (Elizabeth Braidwood)

"The Four Seasons of the House of Cerruti" has lots of reproductions
of color pictures of vegetables, I think 14th century.

Cariadoc/David


Date: 23 May 92 
From: ddfr at quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

           History of Rice

Bertram, I think, asked about the history of rice. According to "On
Food and Cooking" by Harold McGee, which seems to be a very careful
and scholarly work:

"Rice ... is a native of the Indian subcontinent (a minor species
that bears red grain is native to Africa) ...  .   It is said that
Alexander the Great introduced rice to Europe around 300 B.C., though
it was not until the 8th century that the Moors first grew large
quantities in Spain."

He also discusses the milling of rice, which is relevant to the
question of whether what was served at a feast would be brown rice or
white rice:

"First the hull is removed, leaving what we call brown rice, or the
intact kernel covered with the bran layers. Next, an abrasive process
removes the bran and most of the germ ... and the result is milled,
unpolished rice. Polishing in a wire-brush machine removes the
aleurone layer which, with its high fat content, would otherwise
limit the storage life of the grain."

It sounds from his discussion of the history as though, prior to
about the 19th century, when mechanical milling and polishing
techniques were developed, white rice "was valued because it was
difficult to produce by hand, was scarce, and kept well ... ." This
suggests that in places like England, where rice was expensive
because it had to be transported a long way, they might well have
used white rice, both because the long shelf life would be especially
important and because the additional labor cost would be less
important with something that was already expensive and used in small
quantities. In the islamic world, on the other hand, where rice was
presumably cheaper and much more widely used, one would expect brown
rice to be the norm and white rice to be used only by wealthy people.

Does anyone have any direct evidence on this? 

Cariadoc/David

<the end>
Edited by Mark S. Harris	food-msg	 of 31