SC - Children's homework weirdness

[grizly at mindspring.com]

sca-cooks at ansteorra.org wrote:
> Hullo, the list!
>>>SNIP>>> However, none of this would suppoort the idea they
didn't eat vegetables at all.
What I am wondering is if I'm missing something obvious here that might explain the assertion that they ate no vegetables, other than a simple bunch of posts asking what kind of moron wrote that... . Could there be some kind of Puritan religious restriction I haven't heard of? Any other reason? Are we in agreement that there are enough recipes calling for vegetables in, say, pottages, tarts, pickles and salads in sources such as Markham to refute the claim? Gerard certainly seems to suggest that many of the plants he writes about in his Herbal are not only edible, but eaten. Any other onions to add to this pot?>>>>>>>

Well, I have a translation of a Dutch cookery book called _The Sensible Cook or good housekeeping_ includeds materials published from around 1589 on in a Shaker-rich society (Netherlands).  It isn't quiate apples to apples, but it references foods ued in the New World and has numerous vegetable recipes including asaparagus, endive, sugar peas, cabbages, chervil, pumpkins and jerusalem artichokes. Shapers aren't Puritans, but this book was printed in New Amsterdam if I read correctly in 1687.

This by no means gives solid evidence, but does give credence that religious orders in the New World ate vegetables.  Finding a connection to the Puritans 50-60 years earlier, I cannot help with.  Maybe a tentatively constructed inferencial argument would suffice for 4th grade?

niccolo difrancesco