Thanks, I just rewrote the Wikipedia entry for fruit fool.

Jean B. wrote:

> 1. *The name "is thought to have been derived from the French
> fouler (to mash)".

This is apparently controversial. I got bashed (well, not really but anyway)
when adding that originally.

> 2. *"[O]ne of the earliest fools Norfolk fool, popular during the
> 17th century, contained no fruit." *I mention this because of the
> name plus the date, although that would not seem to be any sort of
> precedent. *You might also look at white pot/whitepot/whitpot, if
> you are looking for fools regardless of whether they contain fruit
> or not. *Fools with fruit were being made at the same time,
> according to the same source.

I've mentioned the Norfolk fool in there as well. It's in "The accomplisht
Cook" from 1664. Actually there is (possibly) fruit in it - although not as
in "all" the other recipes, but dates (if dates are fruit) are added at the
end of the recipe. Apparently "Trifle" is the same thing as a fool, and I
think I saw a recipe for some trifle or other in my recipe collection -
I'll need to go look it up. I haven't seen a *pot anywhere, will have to go
to look that up as well.

Martin S
--
Old time cookery and brewing:
theoldecookerybook.com

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access