Footnotes in Historical Fiction

Is it acceptible or distracting to have footnotes in a piece of historical fiction? Basically I have hit a slight (probably daft) question where I'm referring to things in the narrative of my book but the names they have now are too modern and aren't what they would be known as back in the 17th century. I know it's meant for modern readers, but my narrative is quite close third person and I've been trying to keep a 'feel' for the period at least. Using the modern name seemed jarring to me. The only other option I could think of though was to use the old name and add a footnote to say what it actually is. (It's a plant, by the way, in case anyone wondered ). Or should I just leave it the old name?

lkp said:

In a case like that, I think a glossary would work better than a footnote. I have read many historical novels that have glossaries at the back.

Click to expand...

Would that still be the same for something that's only mentioned in part of one chapter though? I could understand a glossary being helpful if it was something the plot revolved around (as in military terms if it was a book about the Crusades or such).

Marlys said:

I would try to make the word's meaning clear by context. If I couldn't, I would rethink whether I really needed to use it.

EDIT: Didn't notice the first time that you said it was a plant. That should be fairly easy to make work. She went out the herb garden and picked some ____, the perfect complement to tonight's _____.

Click to expand...

At the moment it's mentioned alongside a couple of other, recognisable plants, so hopefully it's obvious in context what it is, I suppose.

Brighid said:

Is it just a one-time thing, or do you expect to be doing it throughout? If there are several, then perhaps a short list at the beginning would be acceptable.

I find footnotes to be disturbing in non-fiction. . .I would try to keep them to a minimum in a work of fiction.

Click to expand...

I agree, I don't like footnotes in fiction (in non-fiction I don't really mind, in fact in a lot of the articles I've read over the last year I've used the footnotes more than the actual text, weirdly). I don't like things that interrupt the flow of the story. Just at the moment it is a one-off so doing a glossary would be a bit silly. Explaining in context is obviously the best method, where possible.

Actually the issue just disappeared, as I found a different name for the silly thing that is in period and seems to be fairly widely known, and added a couple of details so it's obvious what it is (hopefully).

All this for a bloomin' weed!

Thanks everyone for the replies. If I accrue any more things that might need explanation I think I'll go with the idea of a glossary. Your help is all much appreciated.