Useful A Fine Lip Salve

to make lip salve.
(from The Art of Cookery, Made Plain and Easy, by Hannah Glasse, 1774)
1634829163049.png


Ingredients:

2 oz. virgin's wax​
2 oz. hog's lard​
1/2 oz. spermaceti​
1 oz. oil of sweet almonds​
2 drams balsam of Peru​
2 drams alkanet root, cut small​
6 new raisins, shred small​
a little fine sugar​

Instructions:

TAKE two ounces of virgin's wax, two ounces of hog's lard, half an ounce of spermaceti, one ounce of oil of sweet almonds, two drams of balsam of Peru, two drams of alkanet root cut small, six new raisins shred small, a little fine sugar, simmer them all together a little while; then strain it off into little pots. It is the finest lip salve in the world.​


I was wondering if I should post this over in Ladies Tea as it is something ladies use far more often than men, but figured since the recipe is in the "Art of Cookery Made Plain & Easy" by Hannah Glasse in 1774 perhaps the Food Forum was best. For some reason the text in this scanned copy of the book has the letter 's' looking more like an f, so I apologize for its readability. Alkanet root is a powder that acts as dye that is a reddish hue. Perhaps I should rename the recipe tinted lip salve :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It could be in either. I have several Folk Medicine recipes from Ky. They go back to pioneer days. I have been trying to decide if they belong in Food Forum or Medicine Forum. The remedies were usually put together by the women and they would have done so in their kitchens. So could be considered part of Food Forum.
 
The "s" that looks like an "f" is typical of 17th century and earlier printing. I don't know when it went out of practice, or when Americans went for spelling simplification ("honor" and "color" instead of "honour" and "colour"). (Short pause while I mutter unladylike language about autocorrect.) Something more on my list of things to research!
 
The "s" that looks like an "f" is typical of 17th century and earlier printing. I don't know when it went out of practice, or when Americans went for spelling simplification ("honor" and "color" instead of "honour" and "colour"). (Short pause while I mutter unladylike language about autocorrect.) Something more on my list of things to research!

Good question and did a little quick digging. Found an article online from the BBC - Why Did America Drop the 'U' in British Spellings - they claim its all to do with Noah Webster. Another site called the Grammar Girl also notes it was Webster and his desire to simplify English in his books on grammar and spelling.

Autocorrect, both a blessing and curse of modern times. Default spellchecking at the office is for US English but once in a while I have to work on a document from our London office and it's a sea of red squiggly lines drives me batty! :bat:
 
Ah, yes, thanks, Anna Elizabeth! Webster's Blue Back Speller was the standard text in American schools for way over a hundred years! His reader didn't last as long, being superseded by McGuffey's in the 1840s. Interestingly, at least one of his spelling simplifications, substituting "tung" for "tongue," didn't catch on. Webster was also an advocate of strong copyright laws in the early days of the United States. (source: wikipedia article, "Noah Webster")

A quick look for info on "f" and "s": Per the Oxford Dictionaries site: "In genuine old-style printing it can appear that the letter f is used in place of the letter s. However, it is not the letter f, but a long form of the letter s (derived from handwriting styles), which looks very similar to f but does not have a complete cross-bar. It is not used at the ends of words, and in words where there is a double s, it is sometimes paired with a short s (which results in a compound letter like the German double-s (or `sz') symbol `ß'). It fell out of fashion with printers rather suddenly in about 1780." (Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/f-instead-of-s-old-fashioned-spellings)
 
:geek:Oh my tung instead of tongue seems so strange, though I do see Webster's point but it looks so odd since we stuck with the original spelling. And thanks MaryDee for clearing up the mystery of the weird looking letter S. I have seen some Revolutionary War pamphlets with those style S's and thought it was done for effect. :geek:
 
OK, we still have one mystery ingredient: what is "virgin's wax"? Or don't we want to know?

Well don't do what I did and Google it at the office :confused: I've discovered how naive I am apparently :redface:

My best guess since I then used Google on my phone instead and still couldn't find a non-modern usage of wax in this situation. Though I did find refined virgin coconut oil for use in homemade lip balm. So, maybe it's fresh beeswax or something else pure.

I know that candle wax in that era was often mixed other ingredients like tallow, bayberry, myrtle and even spermaceti oil (from the sperm whale). So, maybe pure beeswax was considered virgin wax as it was pure and not mixed with anything else?
 
Well don't do what I did and Google it at the office :confused: I've discovered how naive I am apparently :redface:

My best guess since I then used Google on my phone instead and still couldn't find a non-modern usage of wax in this situation. Though I did find refined virgin coconut oil for use in homemade lip balm. So, maybe it's fresh beeswax or something else pure.

I know that candle wax in that era was often mixed other ingredients like tallow, bayberry, myrtle and even spermaceti oil (from the sperm whale). So, maybe pure beeswax was considered virgin wax as it was pure and not mixed with anything else?
Seriously, I googled it too. I seriously regret my knowledge.

I'm guessing you're probably right, it was pure wax of some kind. But what kind, I wonder?
 
After all that, I just had to do my own googling (fortunately, I'm retired, so I'm at home). I once read a novel taking place in 1740s' Paris in which a French noblewoman induced the British heroine to try this practice! So whether or not such things actually took place in the 18th century depends on how well the book's author did her research. I don't plan to delve further. :redface:
 
Seriously, I googled it too. I seriously regret my knowledge.

I'm guessing you're probably right, it was pure wax of some kind. But what kind, I wonder?

LOL! I know right?! I had no idea Googling that would open such an unusual door :cautious:

After all that, I just had to do my own googling (fortunately, I'm retired, so I'm at home). I once read a novel taking place in 1740s' Paris in which a French noblewoman induced the British heroine to try this practice! So whether or not such things actually took place in the 18th century depends on how well the book's author did her research. I don't plan to delve further. :redface:

Ah, I think we read the same novel - Dragonfly in Amber? :whistling: I do know the author did loads of research for those novels and having read a biography on Marie Antoinette I'd say it may be period accurate :O o: Though I'm with you, no more looking up the term virgin wax for me!
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top