Page 140 - Mocarelli, Luca, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2020. Maize to the People! Cultivation, Consumption and Trade in the North-Eastern Mediterranean (Sixteenth-Nineteenth Century). Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 140
maize to the people!
ed buckwheat?”. The author lists the reasons against the partial replace-
ment of buckwheat with maize. Maize was supposedly demanding for the
soil, which was purportedly less suitable in Carniola. The main argument,
however, was the increased labour intensity of maize production. Should
more maize be sown, peasants would not have the time to work with oth-
er crops. Buckwheat straw with added turnips and leftovers from flax oil
production was supposedly more than sufficient for animal consumption.
Buckwheat was seen as an indispensable component of human nutrition.
“If Carniolan peasants do not produce buckwheat, they will not eat much
bread. Almost all white wheat is spent for holidays, tributes, nobility, and
other purposes – only buckwheat remains at home for cooking and bak-
ing bread.” The shortage of buckwheat would supposedly result in a fam-
ine that maize would be unable to stop. Maize was also discredited because
of the alleged poorer taste of maize bread and its unsuitability for cooking.
Furthermore, maize flour dishes (žganci, a sort of spoonbread or mush,
similar to polenta) purportedly required more lard (dressing) to come any-
where near the taste of buckwheat dishes. “It is true that maize mush with
a lot of lard tastes good, but buckwheat mush tastes even better, does not
require so much dressing, and is also much better with milk.” As frost was
supposedly rare in Carniola, there was no need to reduce the areas dedi-
cated to buckwheat. The author attempted to offset the higher productivity
of maize by referring to the buckwheat yield. He claimed that in the most
favourable circumstances, the ratio of seeds to crops in the case of buck-
wheat was 1 to 16, but he makes sure to refrain from mentioning the ratio
for maize. Allegedly, buckwheat was indispensable because it ensured di-
versification and thus contributed to risk management in case of a poten-
tial shortage of other crops, like cereals or potatoes. The vital importance
of buckwheat for honey production was brought up as well. In conclusion,
the author also listed a few reasons related to the cultural landscape and na-
ture that justified the extensive areas dedicated to buckwheat. Thus, he also
described an idealized image of agricultural land and organization of ag-
ricultural work:
Buckwheat in flower bestows magnificent beauty on the landscape,
as such fields appear to be sprinkled with flowers for weeks. They
have a pleasant scent and provide the hardworking bees with so
much honey and wax that beekeepers can earn quite a bit of mon-
ey. Furthermore, buckwheat contributes and attests to the peas-
ants’ diligence. We often see them plough their fields and sow buck-
138
ed buckwheat?”. The author lists the reasons against the partial replace-
ment of buckwheat with maize. Maize was supposedly demanding for the
soil, which was purportedly less suitable in Carniola. The main argument,
however, was the increased labour intensity of maize production. Should
more maize be sown, peasants would not have the time to work with oth-
er crops. Buckwheat straw with added turnips and leftovers from flax oil
production was supposedly more than sufficient for animal consumption.
Buckwheat was seen as an indispensable component of human nutrition.
“If Carniolan peasants do not produce buckwheat, they will not eat much
bread. Almost all white wheat is spent for holidays, tributes, nobility, and
other purposes – only buckwheat remains at home for cooking and bak-
ing bread.” The shortage of buckwheat would supposedly result in a fam-
ine that maize would be unable to stop. Maize was also discredited because
of the alleged poorer taste of maize bread and its unsuitability for cooking.
Furthermore, maize flour dishes (žganci, a sort of spoonbread or mush,
similar to polenta) purportedly required more lard (dressing) to come any-
where near the taste of buckwheat dishes. “It is true that maize mush with
a lot of lard tastes good, but buckwheat mush tastes even better, does not
require so much dressing, and is also much better with milk.” As frost was
supposedly rare in Carniola, there was no need to reduce the areas dedi-
cated to buckwheat. The author attempted to offset the higher productivity
of maize by referring to the buckwheat yield. He claimed that in the most
favourable circumstances, the ratio of seeds to crops in the case of buck-
wheat was 1 to 16, but he makes sure to refrain from mentioning the ratio
for maize. Allegedly, buckwheat was indispensable because it ensured di-
versification and thus contributed to risk management in case of a poten-
tial shortage of other crops, like cereals or potatoes. The vital importance
of buckwheat for honey production was brought up as well. In conclusion,
the author also listed a few reasons related to the cultural landscape and na-
ture that justified the extensive areas dedicated to buckwheat. Thus, he also
described an idealized image of agricultural land and organization of ag-
ricultural work:
Buckwheat in flower bestows magnificent beauty on the landscape,
as such fields appear to be sprinkled with flowers for weeks. They
have a pleasant scent and provide the hardworking bees with so
much honey and wax that beekeepers can earn quite a bit of mon-
ey. Furthermore, buckwheat contributes and attests to the peas-
ants’ diligence. We often see them plough their fields and sow buck-
138
