WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY par-
ticularly dwells on the broad line of
distinction still existing between the southern
English and the folk of the more northerly dis-
tricts in his day, twelve hundred years after
the visit of Caesar. He says that they were
then (about a.d. 1150) as different as if they
had been different races ; and so in fact they
were — different in their origin, in their lan-
guage, and their diet.
In his “ Folk-lore Relics of Early Village
Life,” 1883, Mr. Gomme devotes a chapter
and his Food. 17
to “Early Domestic Customs,” and quotes
Henry’s “ History of Great Britain ” for a
highly curious clue to the primitive mode of
dressing food, and partaking of it, among the
Britons. Among the Anglo-Saxons the choice
of poultry and game was fairly wide. Alex-
ander Neckam, in his “Treatise on Utensils
(twelfth century)” gives fowls, cocks, peacocks,
the cock of the wood (the woodcock, not the
capercailzie), thrushes, pheasants, and several
more ; and pigeons were only too plentiful.
The hare and the rabbit were well enough
known, and with the leveret form part of an
enumeration of wild animals ( animalium
ferarum) in a pictorial vocabulary of the
fifteenth century. But in the very early
accounts or lists, although they must have
soon been brought into requisition, they are
not specifically cited as current dishes. How
far this is attributable to the alleged repug-
nance of the Britons to use the hare for the
table, as Csesar apprises us that they kept it
only voluptatis causd, it is hard to say ; but
the way in which the author of the “ Com-
mentaries” puts it induces the persuasion
c
1 8 The Early Englishman
that by lepus he means not the hare, but the?
rabbit, as the former would scarcely be.
domesticated.
Neckam gives very minute directions for’
the preparation of pork for the table. He;
appears to have considered that broiling om
the grill was the best way ; the gridiron had:
supplanted the hot stones or bricks in more,
fashionable households, and he recommends-
a brisk fire, perhaps with an eye to the skil-
ful development of the crackling. He died
without the happiness of bringing his archi-
episcopal nostrils in contact with the sagee
and onions of wiser generations, and thinks;
that a little salt is enough. But, as we have;
before explained, Neckam prescribed for
great folks. These refinements were unknown:
beyond the precincts of the palace and the castle.
In the ancient cookery-book, the “Menagier;
de Paris,” 1393, which offers numerous points;
of similarity to our native culinary lore, the
resources of the cuisine are represented as;
amplified by receipts for dressing hedgehogs,
squirrels, magpies, and jackdaws — small deer,
which the English experts did not affect,
and Jus Food.
19
although I believe that the hedgehog is fre-
quently used to this day by country folk,
both here and abroad, and in India. It has
white, rabbit-like flesh.
Page 5
Presented as published in 1886. Historical recipes may not meet modern food-safety standards. Cook from the modern interpretation, not the original instructions.
AI-modernized reading of the original text
WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY particularly dwells on the broad line of distinction still existing between the southern English and the folk of the more northerly districts in his day, twelve hundred years after the visit of Caesar. He says that they were then (about a.d. 1150) as different as if they had been different races ; and so in fact they were — different in their origin, in their language, and their diet.
In his “ Folk-lore Relics of Early Village Life,” 1883, Mr. Gomme devotes a chapter
and his Food. 17
to “Early Domestic Customs,” and quotes Henry’s “ History of Great Britain ” for a highly curious clue to the primitive mode of dressing food, and partaking of it, among the Britons. Among the Anglo-Saxons the choice of poultry and game was fairly wide. Alexander Neckam, in his “Treatise on Utensils (twelfth century)” gives fowls, cocks, peacocks, the cock of the wood (the woodcock, not the capercailzie), thrushes, pheasants, and several more ; and pigeons were only too plentiful. The hare and the rabbit were well enough known, and with the leveret form part of an enumeration of wild animals ( animalium ferarum) in a pictorial vocabulary of the fifteenth century. But in the very early accounts or lists, although they must have soon been brought into requisition, they are not specifically cited as current dishes. How far this is attributable to the alleged repugnance of the Britons to use the hare for the table, as Csesar apprises us that they kept it only voluptatis causd, it is hard to say ; but the way in which the author of the “ Commentaries” puts it induces the persuasion
1 8 The Early Englishman
that by lepus he means not the hare, but the rabbit, as the former would scarcely be. domesticated.
Neckam gives very minute directions for the preparation of pork for the table. He appears to have considered that broiling on the grill was the best way ; the gridiron had: supplanted the hot stones or bricks in more, fashionable households, and he recommends a brisk fire, perhaps with an eye to the skilful development of the crackling. He died without the happiness of bringing his archiepiscopal nostrils in contact with the sagee and onions of wiser generations, and thinks that a little salt is enough. But, as we have before explained, Neckam prescribed for great folks. These refinements were unknown: beyond the precincts of the palace and the castle.
In the ancient cookery-book, the "Menagier de Paris," 1393, which offers numerous points of similarity to our native culinary lore, the resources of the cuisine are represented as amplified by receipts for dressing hedgehogs, squirrels, magpies, and jackdaws — small deer, which the English experts did not affect,
and Jus Food.
although I believe that the hedgehog is frequently used to this day by country folk, both here and abroad, and in India. It has white, rabbit-like flesh.