Biblical source for "onions and garlic"

[David Bergdahl]

I vote for the Biblical allusion--a perfect match!  "Onions & garlic" = the
spices the Pharaoh supplied in captivity (for which read the king's
charter).  Englishmen under the charter = bondage, but sending for ships and
men = acts of a free people.
-db

On Nov 19, 2007 2:51 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Biblical source for "onions and garlic"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I haven't looked at any Colonial cook-books, but Amy's message
> prompted me to look in EAN (my only quick 18th c. primary source
> accessible from home), and make a fortunate discovery.
>
> An article from the United States Chronicle, Oct. 13, 1785, p. 2, has
> an extract of a letter from Dublin on Ireland's rights independent of
> British control, which includes:
>
> "Can they [I think meaning the British Parliament] suppose that
> Irishmen are so desirous of 'onions and garlic of Egypt,' as to wish
> again to return to their captivity, and to forsake those happy
> prospects which were almost within the grasp of enjoyment."
>
> So I turn to the Torah, Numbers 11:4-6:  "The riffraff in their midst
> felt a gluttonous craving; and the Israelites, moreover, wept and
> said, "If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish that we used
> to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the
> onions, and the garlic. Now our gullets are shriveled. There is
> nothing at all! Nothing but this manna to look to!"
>
> This is surely the allusion, but I need someone wiser and more fluent
> to explicate it for me!  A request as unrealistic in Massachusetts as
> wanting the foods of fertile Egypt in the desert?
>
> For the benefit of anyone interested, I repeat the original
> quotation, circa 1690s:
>
> "the representatives, though they send to the king for ships and men,
> yet address him at the same time for their old charter. That is their
> onions and garlic."
>
> Joel
>
> At 11/19/2007 01:24 PM, Amy West wrote:
> >At the risk of being too literal, how are onions and garlic thought
> >of/treated in colonial cooking? Onions as desirable because they can
> >be carmelized and can add some sweetness to a dish? Garlic less so
> >because it adds sharp aroma/flavor? Is it another version of "carrot
> >and stick" possibly? Or are both undesirable because they're both
> >stinky?
> >
> >---Amy West
> >
> >>  >>"the representatives, though they send to the king for ships and
> men,
> >>>>yet address him at the same time for their old charter. That is their
> >>>>onions and garlic."
> >>>>
> >>>>My only thought is that the writer is using the phrase ironically --
> >>>>while onions and garlic frequently appear together harmoniously in
> >>>>food dishes, here the two messages are not compatible.
> >>>
> >>>I don't know much about it, but of course I can make a perhaps naive
> >>>speculation.
> >>>
> >>>Without knowing the broader context, I would speculate that "onions
> >>>and garlic" form an inseparable unit here, meaning either (1) simply
> >>>"seasonings" or (2) "strong-smelling/piquant/obtrusive seasonings". I
> >>>would not think that "onions" is being opposed to or contrasted with
> >>>"garlic". I.e., I would speculate that "request for ships and men"
> >>>implicitly = "meat [and potatoes/turnips/etc.]" or so (the expected,
> >>>the basics), while "request for the charter" = "[plenty of] onions
> >>>and garlic", an addendum which makes the overall dish more
> >>>"flavorful", perhaps more so than the king would prefer.
> >>
> >>The request from the Assembly (lower house) of the Massachusetts
> >>legislature was for military assistance in fighting the French and
> >>their Indians.  The request for the charter was for restoration of
> >>the original charter (1629) of the Massachusetts Bay colony, which
> >>conferred more power to the people and the Assembly, and thus greater
> >>independence from the king and Parliament, than the current charter
> >>(of 1691).  These two requests would not be an inseparable unit; they
> >>are quite discordant.
> >>
> >>Joel
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org