taverns in the 14th century.

From Beer in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, by Richard W. Unger (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004):

"In fourteenth-century Hamburg, the town formalized the connections between brewery and tavern, ordering that beer could be served for the public only in the house where it was brewed. Such extreme restrictions were rare. Tavern keepers who were not brewers were often poor and had to ge credit from their supplier. Tied by debt to a certain brewer, they also became tied as the seller of that brewer's beer. Since taverns were continuing institutions and often in convenient locations, next to markets or on harbors, they became places to meet and to do business. Tavern keepers were generally legally free businessmen and businesswomen, often invested with certain public functions including the collection of tolls and of taxes, and not just on beer. In Poland, law courts and even moneyers operated, on occasion, in taverns. Polish tavern keepers enjoyed higher status as a result of the varied functions of their institution. Tavern keepers usually operated on what amounted to a license from a lord who let the tavern operate on payment of a fee. Outside of Poland, taverns may not have played such a prominent role in the local and regional economy, but taverns were, at least by the thirteenth century, a common part of life in much of northern and eastern Europe. By the thirteenth century, Polish taverns, as their numbers increased and the economy developed, became more like taverns in England and the Low Countries, existing less as centers of business and administration and more as meeting places for the amusement of farmers and peasants." p.51

Dutch Greens

Ok, finally got a chance to redact this recipe:

From a 15th c. manuscript, middle dutch manuscript, ms UB Gent 1035 "Good and noble food" (formerly "Kitchen book"). Translation by Christianne Muusers http://www.coquinaria.nl/kooktekst/Edelikespijse1.htm
2.15 Greens.
Boil them and cut them. Then bray pepper, sage, parsley and some bread crumbs, tempered with the [boiling]water of the greens. Mix it in a pan and [add] a cup of wine."

I bought about a pound of turnip greens (nice and bland) and cut off the bottom part that was very stemmy (so I probably had 1/2 to 2/3 lb of turnip greens.
Blanched them until they were bright green and cooked through. Pulled them out with a strainer and let them drain.

Mixed about one handful parsley leaves, 5 large sage leaves, 1/2 cup breadcrumbs, 2/3 cup of the water from boiling the greens, and 1 tsp pepper in the food processor and ground it. Then put it in a pan and added 1/2 cup white wine (Glen Ellen). Brought it to a boil which consolidated it. Put the greens in a bowl and poured the sauce over it, mixing until the greens were nicely coated.

Came out pretty good. Not bland. It could have used fresher pepper and desperately needed a bit of salt-- when we added salt the balance was good. (Christopher helped pour stuff, suggest steps, and taste this.)

Michael Gorman, I'm ashamed of you.

Ok, as Librarians, we've all had occasions when our deans, directors or what-have-you administrative supervisor says something that makes us want to hide in the basement behind the 020s until everyone forgets.

But Michael Gorman has done it for the whole profession. His "Revenge of the Blog People" editorial in proves that narrowminded, longwinded professionals can get quite poorly-thought-out things through the printed press. Now, the original article that started the debate, "Google and God's Mind," was a little problematic but well within the restraints of scholarly debate about something that is in the news. (As well as pointing out the well-known issues with relying on electronic media, Gorman complained that Google Print would be problematic because it would provide only snippets of information from books, and allow books to be read and used non-sequentially.)

Some net-addicts with blogs reacted negatively to criticism of Google Print. In his place, I would regard this as a good sign that someone outside the library press had read his work. But the hapless and thin-skinned Gorman decided to dump vitriol on those who blogged criticisms of his statements. He did so in an editorial in LJ, using a broad-brush in a way that was thoroughly unprofessional. He appeared to characterize all blog writers as 'unpublishable' and otherwise unintelligent Blog People. Many librarians with blogs took offense, as well they should. *

Were Mr. Gorman merely the Dean of the Libraries at a school in California, his remarks, which he later characterized as 'satire,' would have been an exercise of the right to make a fool of oneself in print or online as many times as one wishes. However, his publication in LJ was really as the president-elect of the American Library Association.

However, I dispute the idea that a librarian in that position has the right to use LJ, or any other library publication for that matter, as a platform for expressing his personal feelings about people who objected to him. The editors of LJ, and Gorman himself, should have been able to clearly see how offended librarians and their patrons would be by his "rant."

Frankly, if Gorman wanted to say something like this-- the best place would be in his personal blog. With a note above it saying, "The opinions below do not represent other librarians or the American Library Association.

* Links to annoyed librarian bloggers who express themselves far better than I:
http://www.libraryplanet.com/2005/02/gorman http://librarianinblack.typepad.com/librarianinblack/2005/02/michael_gorman_.html
http://freerangelibrarian.com/archives/022405/gorman_on_bloggers.php