07-04-2004, 03:34 PM
|
|
|
Good King Henry and other 'odd' herbs
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
No, what I wrote is correct. As both of your examples show, there
is a certain amount on what the richer people ate, and what the
peasantry ate for feasting, as well as some rude remarks (verging
on propaganda) about the common diet. But there is effectively
damn-all on either the details of the latter or sufficiently
unbiassed evidence to just what it was really like.
As a modern example, I know some of those 1940s and 1950s cookbooks,
and none of them include the food that was routinely eaten in areas
that I know, and communication with other people indicates that it
was generally true. Most of them were written as attempts to get
the peasantry to improve its diet, after all!
I have begun a repy to this, citing Elizabeth Craig (1948) and when the
right shaped tuit appears, will look for other old cookbooks I have
somewhere.
I can assure you that some of the recipes are very basic indeed!
--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/
|