![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Moral dilemma
Apr. 10th, 2007 05:54 pmI'm trying to decide whether to include the medieval world volume of the Greenwood Encyclopedia of Daily Life in a list of resources on the middle ages in our library.
I figured I'd better read it over, and so I looked at the area I knew best: food. There are two big quibbles I've got with this:
It's true that I've seen references that suggest the largest proportion of meat consumed in a medieval town was beef (See Feeding A City: York), and the lower serving staff in a great household might still be aristocracy and be fed boiled beef-- but the SCAdian food history buffs tend to follow Scully's assertion that most aristocrats avoided beef in favor of poultry, game and other meats considered more humorally suitable to their tender digestions and lack of physical labor.
Further on, "The range of vegetables was probably less diverse than it is today, especially because of the difficulties of preservation..."
Well, on the one hand I'd say that there are many more varieties of each vegetable we have nowadays than there were in the middle ages, just by the nature of plant breeding, and we do have new world and third world vegetables (bok choy, water chestnut, etc.) that were not available in medieval Europe. But when you consider the vegetables we don't eat anymore-- skirrets, various coleworts, alexanders, as well as the vegetables we seldom eat, I find grounds to dispute.
On the other hand-- dispute, not disprove. I may not agree with the reference book, but not agreeing with their interpretation isn't the same as proving it wrong.
I figured I'd better read it over, and so I looked at the area I knew best: food. There are two big quibbles I've got with this:
"The aristocratic diet included a good deal of meat, principally beef, followed by pork and mutton, with game and poultry as the smallest component . . . Those [commoners] who could afford it ate the same sorts of meats as the aristocracy, although perhaps somewhat less beef and somewhat more pork and mutton."
It's true that I've seen references that suggest the largest proportion of meat consumed in a medieval town was beef (See Feeding A City: York), and the lower serving staff in a great household might still be aristocracy and be fed boiled beef-- but the SCAdian food history buffs tend to follow Scully's assertion that most aristocrats avoided beef in favor of poultry, game and other meats considered more humorally suitable to their tender digestions and lack of physical labor.
Further on, "The range of vegetables was probably less diverse than it is today, especially because of the difficulties of preservation..."
Well, on the one hand I'd say that there are many more varieties of each vegetable we have nowadays than there were in the middle ages, just by the nature of plant breeding, and we do have new world and third world vegetables (bok choy, water chestnut, etc.) that were not available in medieval Europe. But when you consider the vegetables we don't eat anymore-- skirrets, various coleworts, alexanders, as well as the vegetables we seldom eat, I find grounds to dispute.
On the other hand-- dispute, not disprove. I may not agree with the reference book, but not agreeing with their interpretation isn't the same as proving it wrong.
