Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PDF Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology Second Edition Kaur Ebook Full Chapter
PDF Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology Second Edition Kaur Ebook Full Chapter
https://textbookfull.com/product/durum-wheat-chemistry-and-
technology-second-edition-abecassis/
https://textbookfull.com/product/sweet-potato-processing-
technology-1st-edition-cheng-wang/
https://textbookfull.com/product/seafood-science-advances-in-
chemistry-technology-and-applications-1st-edition-se-kwon-kim/
https://textbookfull.com/product/potato-staple-food-processing-
technology-1st-edition-taihua-mu/
Technology of Potato Processing 1st Edition William F.
Talburt
https://textbookfull.com/product/technology-of-potato-
processing-1st-edition-william-f-talburt/
https://textbookfull.com/product/barley-chemistry-and-technology-
second-edition-edition-steven-e-ullrich-editor/
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-clinical-
chemistry-1st-edition-gregory-makowski/
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-heterocyclic-
chemistry-112-1st-edition-katritzky/
https://textbookfull.com/product/paradigms-in-green-chemistry-
and-technology-1st-edition-angelo-albini/
Advances in Potato Chemistry
and Technology
This page intentionally left blank
Advances in Potato Chemistry
and Technology
Second Edition
Editors
Jaspreet Singh
Lovedeep Kaur
Riddet Institute and Massey Institute of Food Science and
Technology, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
5. Conclusions�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������498
References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������498
Chapter 17: Mechanisms of Oil Uptake in French Fries��������������������������������������503
Anna Patsioura, Jean-Michaël Vauvre, Régis Kesteloot, Paul Smith, Gilles Trystram
and Olivier Vitrac
1. Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������503
2. Physics of Cooling and Oil Uptake During Cooling��������������������������������������������505
2.1 Oil Uptake is a Problem of Pressure������������������������������������������������������������������� 505
2.2 Variations in Total Pressure During Frying and Postfrying Cooling������������������ 506
2.3 Oil Transport Resulting from Pressure Gradient������������������������������������������������ 508
3. Typology of Defects Provoking Oil Uptake���������������������������������������������������������512
3.1 Natural Defects in Cellular Tissues��������������������������������������������������������������������� 512
3.2 Distribution of Cell Defects’ Radii and Typical Oil Impregnation Profiles�������� 513
3.3 Summary of Defects Creating Pathways to Oil Percolation������������������������������� 513
4. Multiscale Modeling of Oil Uptake����������������������������������������������������������������������514
4.1 Air Transport Mechanisms on the Cellular Scale����������������������������������������������� 515
4.2 Experimental Penetration Kinetics��������������������������������������������������������������������� 515
4.3 Extensions of the Proposed KMC Approach������������������������������������������������������ 518
5. Deviations to Generally Accepted Oil Uptake Mechanisms���������������������������������518
5.1 Experimental Setup��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 518
5.2 Typical Results with t0 = 0 and t1 = 1 min������������������������������������������������������������� 519
5.3 Generalization for t0 > 0 and t1 = 1 min���������������������������������������������������������������� 520
6. Conclusions�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������522
Acknowledgment�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������523
References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������523
Chapter 18: Acrylamide in Potato Products������������������������������������������������������527
Bruno De Meulenaer, Raquel Medeiros and Frédéric Mestdagh
1. Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������527
1.1 Pathways for Acrylamide Formation������������������������������������������������������������������ 527
1.2 Occurrence of Acrylamide in Foods and Dietary Exposure Assessment������������ 530
1.3 Health Risks and Risk Assessment��������������������������������������������������������������������� 532
2. Aspects Affecting Acrylamide Formation in Fried Potato Products
and Possible Mitigation Strategies������������������������������������������������������������������������533
2.1 Potato Cultivar���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 534
2.2 Soil Properties and Fertilization�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 535
2.3 Climatological Conditions and Maturity of the Tuber���������������������������������������� 536
2.4 Potato Storage����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 536
2.5 Quality Control of Incoming Potatoes���������������������������������������������������������������� 537
2.6 Cutting����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 538
2.7 Blanching Process����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 538
2.8 Use of Additives or Processing Aids������������������������������������������������������������������� 539
2.9 Drying����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 546
2.10 Frying������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 546
Contents xiii
List of Contributors
María Dolores Álvarez Torres Department of Characterization, Quality, and Safety, Institute of Food
Science, Technology and Nutrition (ICTAN-CSIC), Madrid, Spain
Silvia Arazuri Department of Agricultural Projects and Engineering, Universidad Pública de Navarra,
Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
Cristina Barsan Université de Toulouse, INP-ENSA Toulouse, Génomique et Biotechnologie des
Fruits, Castanet-Tolosan, France; INRA, Génomique et Biotechnologie des Fruits, Chemin de Borde
Rouge, Castanet-Tolosan, France; Led Academy, Toulon, France
Eric Bertoft Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA
Andreas Blennow Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen,
Frederiksberg C, Denmark
Vaiva Bražinskienė Faculty of Business and Technologies, Utena University of Applied Sciences,
Utena, Lithuania
Fanny Buffetto INRA, UR1268 Biopolymères, Interactions et Assemblages, Nantes, France
Mary E. Camire School of Food and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA
Isabelle Capron INRA, UR1268 Biopolymères, Interactions et Assemblages, Nantes, France
Marie-Christine Ralet INRA, UR1268 Biopolymères, Interactions et Assemblages, Nantes, France
Rosana Colussi Riddet Institute and Massey Institute of Food Science and Technology, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand; Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia Agroindustrial,
Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil
Virginia Corrigan The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Ltd, Palmerston North, New
Zealand
Pablo Cortés Department of Chemical Engineering and Bioprocesses, Pontificia Universidad Católica
de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Stef de Haan International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam
Bruno De Meulenaer NutriFOODchem Unit, Department of Food Safety and Food Quality, Faculty
of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Mendel Friedman United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Western
Regional Research Center, Albany, CA, USA
Kristina Gaivelytė Department of Pharmacognosy, Lithuanian University of Health Science, Kaunas,
Lithuania
Fabienne Guillon INRA, UR1268 Biopolymères, Interactions et Assemblages, Nantes, France
Hanjo Hellmann School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
xvii
xviii List of Contributors
Carmen Jarén Department of Agricultural Projects and Engineering, Universidad Pública de Navarra,
Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
Lachman Jaromír Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources,
Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Salwa Karboune Department of Food Science and Agricultural Chemistry, McGill University,
Ste-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada
Hamouz Karel Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources,
Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Lovedeep Kaur Riddet Institute and Massey Institute of Food Science and Technology, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Régis Kesteloot Régis Kesteloot Conseil, Lambersart, France
Carol E. Levin United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Western
Regional Research Center, Albany, CA, USA
Ainara López Department of Agricultural Projects and Engineering, Universidad Pública de Navarra,
Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
María Salomé Mariotti Department of Chemical Engineering and Bioprocesses, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Orsák Matyáš Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech
University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Owen J. McCarthy Massey Institute of Food Science and Technology, Massey University, Palmerston
North, New Zealand
Marian McKenzie The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Ltd, Palmerston North, New
Zealand
Raquel Medeiros NutriFOODchem Unit, Department of Food Safety and Food Quality, Faculty of
Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Frédéric Mestdagh NutriFOODchem Unit, Department of Food Safety and Food Quality, Faculty of
Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Duroy A. Navarre USDA-ARS, Washington State University, Prosser, WA, USA
Wenceslao Canet Parreño Department of Characterization, Quality, and Safety, Institute of Food
Science, Technology and Nutrition (ICTAN-CSIC), Madrid, Spain
Anna Patsioura INRA, UMR 1145 Ingénierie Procédés Alimentaires, Group Interaction between
Materials and Media in Contact, Massy, France; AgroParisTech, UMR 1145 Ingénierie Procédés
Alimentaires, Massy, France
Franco Pedreschi Department of Chemical Engineering and Bioprocesses, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Reena Grittle Pinhero Department of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Mohamed Fawzy Ramadan Agricultural Biochemistry Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig
University, Zagazig, Egypt
M.A. Rao Cornell University, Geneva, NY, USA
Flor Rodriguez International Potato Center (CIP), La Molina, Lima, Peru
Roshani Shakya USDA-ARS, Washington State University, Prosser, WA, USA
List of Contributors xix
Jaspreet Singh Riddet Institute and Massey Institute of Food Science and Technology, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Rekha S. Singhal Food Engineering and Technology Department, Institute of Chemical Technol-
ogy, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Paul Smith Cargill R&D Centre Europe, Vilvoorde, Belgium
Shrikant A. Survase Food Engineering and Technology Department, Institute of Chemical Technol-
ogy, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Gilles Trystram AgroParisTech, UMR 1145 Ingénierie Procédés Alimentaires, Group Interaction
between Materials and Media in Contact, Massy, France
Jean-Michaël Vauvre INRA, UMR 1145 Ingénierie Procédés Alimentaires, Group Interaction
between Materials and Media in Contact, Massy, France; AgroParisTech, UMR 1145 Ingénierie
Procédés Alimentaires, Massy, France; McCain Alimentaire S.A.S., Parc d’entreprises de la Motte du
Bois, Harnes, France
Olivier Vitrac INRA, UMR 1145 Ingénierie Procédés Alimentaires, Group Interaction between
Materials and Media in Contact, Massy, France; AgroParisTech, UMR 1145 Ingénierie Procédés
Alimentaires, Massy, France
Amanda Waglay Department of Food Science and Agricultural Chemistry, McGill University,
Ste-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada
Rickey Y. Yada Department of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada; Food,
Nutrition, and Health Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
This page intentionally left blank
Foreword
xxi
xxii Foreword
The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) has an annual world production exceeding
376 million metric tonnes (2013), with China being the top producer (FAOSTAT, 2015). Higher
yield per unit area and nutritional value have led to an increase in potato production over past
years compared with other tuber crops. In fact, the potato production from developing
countries exceeds that of the developed countries (FAO, 2010). The potato plant, a perennial
herb belonging to the family Solanaceae, bears white to purple flowers with yellow stamens,
and some cultivars bear small green fruits, each containing up to 300 seeds. The potato tuber
develops as an underground stem (swollen part of a subterranean rhizome or stolon) bearing
auxiliary buds and scars of scale leaves and is rich in starch and storage proteins. Potatoes can
be grown from the botanical seeds or propagated vegetatively by planting pieces of tubers.
The eyes on the potato tuber surface, which are actually dormant buds, give rise to new shoots
(sprouts) when grown under suitable conditions. A sprouted potato is not acceptable for
consumption and processing. But optimum sprouting is a desired attribute when the tubers are
used for propagation. The production potential of potatoes is quite high, as nearly 80% of the
potato plant biomass constitutes economic yield (Osaki et al., 1996).
New cultivars of potatoes with better yield, disease resistance, and desirable end use are being
developed with the help of breeding techniques. In the past many years, several potato cultivars
with desired yield, dry matter, cooking texture (such as waxy, floury), flesh color, and disease
resistance have been developed with the help of breeding. Following the rational development
of genetic engineering, many genetically modified potatoes with very high amylose/amylopectin
content, antioxidant levels, and tuber yield have also been developed. However, these transgenic
varieties of potatoes are not permitted for food use in many countries because of the concerns
related to consumer health and the environment. Until these genetically modified potatoes have
been given proper clearance by the food authorities and acceptance by the consumers, they may
have a good scope for their use in nonfood or other industrial applications.
xxiii
xxiv Chemistry, Processing, and Nutritional Attributes of Potatoes—An Introduction
Morphologically, a potato tuber is usually oval to round in shape, with white flesh and a
pale brown skin, although variations in size, shape, and flesh/skin color are also frequently
encountered, depending on the genetics of the cultivar. The color, size, and texture of potatoes
are the main quality attributes assessed by the consumer for acceptability. Good-quality potatoes
are considered to be relatively smooth, firm, and free from sprouts or any other disorders. In a
potato tuber, about 20% is dry matter and the rest is water. The yield, the dry matter, and the
composition of the dry matter vary among potato cultivars, soil type and temperature, location,
cultural practices, maturity, postharvest storage conditions, and other factors (Burton, 1989).
Starch is the major component of the dry matter, accounting for approximately 70% of the total
solids. The major part of the fresh potato tuber comprises storage parenchyma in which the
starch granules are stored as a reserve material. Potatoes are a rich source of high-value protein,
essential vitamins, minerals, and trace elements. The average range of raw material composition
of a potato tuber is as follows: starch (10–18%) having 22–30% amylose content, total sugars
(1–7%), protein (1–2%), fiber (0.5%), lipids (0.1–0.5%), vitamin A (trace/100 g fresh weight,
FW), vitamin C (30 mg/100 g FW), minerals (trace), and glycoalkaloids (1–3 mg/100 g FW).
The average composition of a potato tuber is presented in Table 1.
In past years, potato breeding programs have targeted only the crop yield and disease resistance;
therefore significant gaps exist in the knowledge of the nutrient range, processability, and
health-related attributes of the new germplasm. The less well-known constituents of potato tuber
are carotenoids and phenolics, which are potent antioxidants. Carotenoid content of potatoes
ranges from 50 to 100 μg/100 g FW in white-fleshed cultivars to 2000 μg/100 g FW in deeply
yellow- to orange-fleshed cultivars. Potatoes also contain phenolic compounds, predominantly
chlorogenic acid, and up to 30 μg/100 g FW of flavonoids in white-fleshed potatoes and roughly
Potato
Water 77 g
Carbohydrates 20.13 g
Energy 87 kcal
Protein 1.87 g
Fat 0.1 g
Calcium 5 mg
Potassium 379 mg
Phosphorus 44 mg
Iron 0.31 mg
Niacin 1.44 mg
Thiamin 0.106 mg
Riboflavin 0.02 mg
USDA, National Nutrient Database.
Chemistry, Processing, and Nutritional Attributes of Potatoes—An Introduction xxv
60 μg/100 g FW in red- and purple-fleshed potatoes. The total anthocyanin content of whole
unpeeled red- and purple-fleshed potatoes may be around 40 mg/100 g FW (Brown, 2005). The
colored potatoes, if processed in a way that does not destroy their anthocyanins and carotenoids,
may help in lowering the incidence of several chronic diseases in humans.
Potato is generally processed through boiling, mashing, frying, etc., before consumption. The
influence of the chemical composition of potatoes during processing is of significance to maintain
the quality of processed potato products. As an example, the texture of potato crisps is dependent
mainly on the starch content of the raw potato tubers. The nonstarch polysaccharides (cell wall)
also play a crucial role in determining the quality of the crisps while contributing to the tuber
fiber content, also. Potatoes with closely packed small and irregular parenchymatous cells have
been observed to be relatively hard and cohesive. In contrast, potatoes with large, loosely packed
cells are generally less hard. The cell wall characteristics of cooked potato also play an important
role in the release of glucose during starch digestion in our body (Singh et al., 2013).
Starch is the major component of potato dry matter and consists of amylose and amylopec-
tin. The structural characteristics and amylose-to-amylopectin ratio of potato starch vary
among cultivars. The nutritional and processing quality of potatoes and potato products
(frozen and dry) are greatly affected by their starch characteristics. Several chemical, physi-
cal, and enzymatic modifications are performed to improve the processing performance of
potato starch. Most of these modifications are listed as generally recognized as safe by the
safety authorities. Several modified potato starches with slow digestibility are being devel-
oped that may provide nutritional benefits for humans. These starches have the potential to
be used for the treatment of certain medical conditions (e.g., glycogen storage disease and
diabetes mellitus).
The total sugars in potato tuber range from 1 to 7 g/kg. The reducing sugars (glucose,
fructose) are at the highest levels in young tubers and decrease considerably toward the end of
the growing season. The starch-to-sugar conversion during postharvest storage also causes
variation in the sugar content of tubers, which is an important consideration in the potato
crisp industry. In the past few years, advanced analytical and instrumentation techniques have
been introduced to evaluate the quality of the potato and its products. These techniques
provide in-depth information about the structure and functionality of potato components,
which helps to tailor potato products for desirable attributes.
Potato is an essential and safe source of energy and dietary fiber for children and pregnant
women. The nutritional characteristics such as starch digestibility, glycemic index, and
relative glycemic impact are important in human health. The microstructure of potatoes,
whether natural or created during processing/storage, plays an important role during digestion
of starch in the gastrointestinal tract and affects the glycemic index of potatoes. The
relationships between the composition of potato tubers and its impact on the release of
glucose in the blood have been studied by various researchers through in vitro and in vivo
xxvi Chemistry, Processing, and Nutritional Attributes of Potatoes—An Introduction
methods. The careful selection of suitable potato cultivars, processing techniques, and storage
conditions can prove helpful in getting better nutritional benefits from potatoes. New formats
of processed potato products suitable for the nutritional needs and taste of various population
groups may help to further increase the consumption of potatoes. Apart from food use,
potato products are being used for nonfood applications such as biodegradable packaging,
fermentation, vaccines, and pharmaceuticals. New applications are being developed for the
utilization of potato by-products and waste, which are otherwise an expensive waste manage-
ment challenge.
References
Brown, C.R., 2005. Antioxidants in potato. American Journal of Potato Research 82, 163–172.
Burton, W.G., 1989. The Potato. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
FAOSTAT, 2015. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.faostat3.fao.org (accessed
17.09.15.).
FAO, 2010. Strengthening Potato Value Chains: Technical and Policy Options for Developing Countries. Food and
Agricultural Organization of United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Osaki, M., Matsumoto, M., Shinano, T., Tadano, T., 1996. A root-shoot interaction hypothesis for high productivity
of root crops. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 42 (2), 289–301.
Singh, J., Kaur, L., Singh, H., 2013. Food microstructure and starch digestion. Advances in Food and Nutrition
Research 70, 137–179.
CHAPTE R 1
1. Introduction
Western South America is the primary center of the origin and diversity of the potato crop and
its wild relatives. Contemporary landrace gene pools occur from 45° south in Chile to 12°
northern latitude in Colombia (Hawkes, 1990). Wild relatives of the potato (Solanum section
Petota; Solanaceae) have a much wider distribution range and occur from northern Patagonia to
the southern US and the western Atacama desert to eastern South America (Hijmans et al.,
2002; Spooner et al., 2004). The genetic diversity of landraces and wild relatives has been and
continues to be an extremely valuable source of variation for genetic enhancement, crop
improvement, and understanding of chemical variability (Brown et al., 2007; Hanneman, 1989;
Jansky et al., 2013; Osman et al., 1978; Väänänen, 2007). At the same time, ongoing evolution
of potato diversity in farmers’ hands is anticipated to allow for adaptation to climate change and
continued food security in extreme agroecologies (Johns and Keen, 1986; Zimmerer, 2014).
The case of the potato in its center of origin is special because landraces are still widely
grown by smallholder farmers in semitraditional and market-oriented production systems.
Predictions regarding landrace loss, genetic erosion, and full-fledged extinction of genetic
diversity (e.g., Fowler and Mooney, 1990; Hawkes, 1973; Ochoa, 1975) have not materialized
in the Andes, because autonomous farming rationales and multiple innovations such as
revaluation of local cuisines, farmers’ markets, and biodiversity seed fairs have renewed local
interest in conservation (de Haan et al., 2010b; Monteros, 2011).
Opportunities to screen and evaluate potato genetic resources to explore chemical profiles,
determine concentration ranges of (anti)nutritional compounds, and test technological innova-
tions are abundant. The extent of the potato gene pool, with its abundant landrace diversity and
numerous wild relatives, offers a wide range of options for prospecting, prebreeding, and niche
market development. At the same time, advancements in biotechnology, genomics, analytical
techniques, and postharvest technologies open up many new possibilities for the enhanced use
of genetic resources (Jo et al., 2014; Singh and Kaur, 2009; Slattery et al., 2010).
The evolutionary origin of the cultivated potato has not yet been conclusively unraveled, and
geneticists, archaeobotanists, and taxonomists alike have explored different hypotheses for
nearly 9 decades (Spooner et al., 2014). However, at a cultivated species level it is well
documented that different species (Solanum tuberosum, Solanum curtilobum, Solanum
ajanhuiri, and Solanum juzepczukii) and groups (S. tuberosum Chilotanum and Andigenum
groups) are the result of unique evolutionary pathways and have different biogeographical
distribution patterns.
Of all cultivated species, the S. tuberosum Chilotanum group (2n = 4x = 48) has contributed most
to the founder effect of the European and North American gene pool and global crop improvement
(Figure 1). According to van der Berg and Groendijk-Wilders (2014), over 99% of European
extant modern cultivars possess Chilean cytoplasm. Yet, the level of intraspecific diversity
within the S. tuberosum Chilotanum group is modest compared with the Andigenum group. Its
contemporary distribution range is basically restricted to the Chiloe Island of south-central
Chile (Contreras and Castro, 2008; Manzur, 2012). Two hypotheses are commonly put forth
regarding the origin of Chilotanum landraces (Spooner et al., 2012). The first suggests that they
originated independently in southern Chile, possibly involving the putative wild ancestor
Solanum maglia (Dillehay, 1997; Ugent et al., 1987) or hybrids of Solanum tarijense (Solanum
berthaultii) (Hosaka, 2003; Spooner et al., 2014). The second sustains an Andean origin with
early introduction into Chile and a gradual adaptation of Andigenum landraces into long-day
adapted Chilotanum landraces (Hawkes, 1990, 1999; Salaman, 1946; Simmonds, 1964, 1966).
The S. tuberosum Andigenum group as proposed in the taxonomic treatments of Ovchinnikova
et al. (2011) and Spooner et al. (2005a, 2014) includes diploid, triploid, and tetraploid
Figure 1
Sample of mixed Chilotanum landraces from the island of Castro, Chile. Photo: S. de Haan.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
79.
80.
81.
82.
“Is no remorce of lyfe, but kill, kill, kill? helasse:
Kill, kill, the English cry, and valiantly they fighte:
What hap had wee to see these mischiues com to
passe?”
“Helas, le sang de nous amis, la mort, helas:”
The maydens cry: the widowes wayle, and aged
mourne,
With wringing hands vplift, and wish them selues
vnborne.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
Iohn Higins.[1881]
[“This knight, my maisters,” quoth one, “came somwhat to late in
order.” “That is maruaile,” quoth maister Ferrers, “it seemes that hee
was forwarde enoughe in seruice.” “Yea,” quoth another, “hee came
the later home for that, and therefore wee must accept his cause.”
“How ere hee came,” quoth M. H.[1882] “hee sayes well, and like a
noble gentleman, as no doubt hee was.” “Hee should haue beene
placed,” quoth one, “after king Iames the first, king of Scots, of
whome wee spake in the yeare 1437.” “Now,” quoth I, “that you talke
of king Iames, I haue king Iames the fourth here, which was slayne
at the batayle of Brampton, or Floddon fielde, but hee is very
rude”[1883] “I like him,” quoth one, “the better: for if hee should bee
otherwise, it would not well beseeme his person, nor the place
whence he comes.” “Reade it,” quoth they, “as it is.” “Thinke then,”
quoth I, “that you see him standing all wounded, with a shafte in his
body, and, emongst other woundes, one geuen by a byll, both
deadly, to say in his rude and faithlesse maner as followeth.”]
[The lamentation of King James the
fourth, King of Scots, slayne at
Brampton, in the fiuthe yeare of King
Henry the eight, Anno Christi, 1513.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
[“King Iames,” quoth one, “wil bee misliked for his Miserere.”
“No,” quod another, “hee cryes Peccaui.” “It is to late,” quoth he,
“there is no man that will like or beleeue him.” “Than,” quod M. H. “he
is still one and the same man: for in life he was neither well liked,
beleeued, nor trusted.” “Why than,” quoth one, “if hee speake as hee
was, let him passe as hee is, and if not, let him bee mended.”
“Mended,” quoth hee, “nay, hee is paste mending, hee is to olde: for
it seemes by the copy, that it was pende aboue fifty yeares agone, or
euen shortly after the death of the sayd king: for I found therewith, in
an olde hand, the copyes of the sayd king Iames’ letters sent unto
king Henry at Turwin, and the king’s aunsweres and letters sent to
him againe, with this lamentation ensuing them: and lastly the sayd
batayle of Floddon fielde, in such verse described, with the order of
the same, and the names of the noble men, knights, and gentlemen,
which serued at the same fielde.” “That would I faine heare,” quoth
one, “it were pity that such particulers should bee lost.” “They would,”
quoth another, “pleasure not only such as write our historyes, but
also encourage our countreymen well, to the like loyall seruice of
their prince, and especially those who should finde therein of their
parents or auncestours to haue bene praysed for valure.” “I pray
you,” quoth hee, “let us haue them.” “There they are,” quoth I, “but I
haue altered the verse, which wee call Intercalaris, because the rest
else would not haue beene well liked; but of the history I haue not
chaunged one word.”]
[The Bataile of Brampton, or Floddon
fielde, faught in the yeare of our
Redeemer 1513, and in the fiuth yeare
of the raygne of that victorious prince,
King Henry the eyght.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Sir Edward Stanley in the rear warde was hee,
A noble knight both wise and hardy,
With many a noble man of the west countrey,
And the whole powre of the earle of Darby,
With a right[1935] retinue of the bishop Elye,
And of Lankeshyre men manly[1936] did fight,
By the helpe of God, and in theyr prince’s right.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
26.
2.
3.