After being simmered in a brine of water and Bay salt in a fish kettle, lobsters could either be eaten immediately, or kept as long as a quarter of a year, wrapped in brine-soaked rags and buried deep in sand." (p.
Anne Wilson [Academy Chicago: Chicago] 1991 "Lobster, much as today, was considered especially elegant and appropriate food for lovers, being an aphrodesiac.
There is a common perception that lobster was considered a poor man's food, and this many have been in the case in colonial New England but not back in Europe.
Early New Englanders would have been perplexed to find lobsters grouped, as they were by one twentieth-century writer, with caviar and filet mignon...
No delicacy, American lobsters were nonetheless better received than many shellfish.
If you need these ask your librarain to help you find a copy.] "In 1621 Edward Winslow reported to a friend back in England concerning the Plymouth settlement that "our Bay is full of Lobsters all the Summer." In Salem a few years later, Francis Higginson observed that "the least Boy in the Plantation may both catch and eat what he will of" lobters.
Lobsters were not only plentiful in early New England, they were large.In fact English man-about-town Samuel Pepys's diary records than an elegant dinner he thew in 1663 included a fricassee of rabbit and chickens, carp, lamb, pigeons, various pies and four lobsters..Lobster was cooked either by roasting, boiling or by removing the meat from the shell and cooking it separately." ---Food in Early Modern Europe, Ken Albala [Greenwood Press: Westport CT] 2003 (p.They were soon being cooked much the same way as their smaller European counterparts, in sauces for other fish, or as accompaniments to roasts...When not potting lobsters, baking them in pies or using them in sauces, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century New England cooks were apt to stew or fricassee them...People who lived near water (oceans, seas, lakes, rivers) naturally took advantage of the foods offered by these resources.