SC - 'This the Season, or "Sambucade with fresh elderflowers"

[Stefan li Rous]

Ras, you have utterly confused me with your
comments.  Rereading what I wrote, I don't see
any of the claims made that you are refuting concerning
currants.  It will take me a while to figure out what
you are saying as some of the statements you
insist I made are, in fact,  not what I said and I
am in agreement with YOUR statement.  For instance,
when did I try to extrapolate the term "Raysons of the sun"
back for a thousand years??  I believe I stated clearly
that it was 17th and 18th century usage and perhaps
into the 16th.  50 or 60 years into SCA period is scarcely
1000 years Ras.  I don't think I ever stated that Corinth/
Zante raisins were NOT the dried fruit used extensively
during the Middle Ages.  I certainly made no claim that
Ribes berries were what WERE used in the Middle Ages.
I definately said that the term "Raysons of the Sun" was
in use in late period and for some 2 centuries post
period by the English to distinguish between their term
for currants (Ribes) and the Zante import.  What is wrong
with that?

As to your dictionary data on the etemology:Raison of Coraunte=
raisons of courance=courance=currants, I agree you are
correct, but just WHEN did the ENGLISH switch usage from
"Raison of Coraunte" to "raisons of courance" to just "courance"
to "currans" (you missed a step) to "currants" (which with the
"t" is quite post period).  My statement was just that "Raysons
of the Sun"  probably preceded or was simultaneous with the
use of the term in English of "currans".  I also stated that clearly
that I could be proven wrong on this, meaning I do not hold it
etched in stone.  It was conjecture extrapolatred from the data
I have on hand.  Of course a great deal of MY data is gathered
from botanic history by people trained in the science of botony
rather than authors of culinary history or from plant collectors and
amateurs in the field.

Nanna, I have some further disagreement with some of
your statements as I have sources that contradict your
sources.  It will take some time to sort all this out and I
am not going to get into a pissing contest with Ras over
who said what until I can get it all straight  in my own mind.
But I am fairly certain from my sources that currants were
popularly and importantly gathered from the wild in their natural
range very early and that they were very commonly
planted and cultivated in at least France, Germany
and the North Sea Low countries from the mid 14th
century.  They were immensely popular as fresh berries
and garden ornamentals throughout the Tudor period,
though large scale growing did not catch on until the
time of James I, not several centuries later as you and
Ras seem to be convinced.   Perhaps you both have
confused the culture of gooseberries with currants.

>>>Maybe I´m misunderstanding something (my command
of English isn´t always as good as I´d like to think it is) but
are you saying that currans and other forms of the term originally
meant berries of the Ribes genus? And that any pre-16th century
reference to curran(t)s is to be interpreted as meaning these
berries, never dried grapes?<<<

Oh, no, no....   the earlier terms were certainly dried grapes.
All I was saying was that the term "currans"  in English from
Tudor times on means Ribes genus berries except as confused
by uneducated people of the times.  That's why they tried a
new term for them to try to straighten out the nomenclature
in English usage.  This had no effect on the other cultures usages
as they had less confusion in terms in their own languages.
Heck, we still have a problem right here in this discussion having to
carefully distingish "Ribes" to mean currants and Zante/ Corinth, etc
for the original import from Greece.  I was using Zante as an
identifier because it, as you say, is the major producing area for the
imported fruit to America.   I know it wasn't an early  period term at all.
Have you seen the book 'Uncommon Fruits Worthy of Attention"
by Lee Reich.  He has a P.H.D. in Horticulture and specializes in
fruits.  He has separate, lengthy chapters on both the black currant
and the red and white.  He clearly sorts out that the black currant
as the one Gerard denigged.  According to Reich: " The Ribes
[black] fruits that resembled, in appearance only [to] these raisins
[Corinths], came to be called "bastardes corinthes" and "corans".
To further complicate the nomenclature, in Italy, the small Ribes fruits
have been called "uvetta", meaning "small grape"."

>>>>I´m not sure how old the term Zante currants/raisins is but
I haven´t seen it in any old sources yet. <<<<

It is in the 1633 edition of Gerard in the Appendix section added
by Johnson as "Zant".  To find it you need to consult the mondo
monster unabridged edition.

 I don't think that my efforts in research in this subject
are any less exhaustive than yours and I certainly wouldn't
be crass enough to pronounce yours wrong in toto or in part,
until I have time and an opportunity to read it fully.
I think that in order to make real headway in this argument
I will have to write down my data fully in an extensively
documented paper (which regretably I don't have time
to do at the moment) and get with you and swap
research so we can either come up with a synthesis or
end up hopelessly deadlocked.   I think we have approached
the same subject from different disciplines and are
having trouble meshing in the middle.   I don't think we need
to bore the others on the list with a cuskeynole level
debate on currants.

As to discrediting Lyte or Gerard, it is difficult IMO to decredit
their work because most of what they published was
not their original work, but rather gross plagerism.  The
botanical data in the 1597 Gerard is mostly done by
Rembert Dodoens, much as the Lyle work was mostly
an unscientifically embellished translation of an older
published work.  Neither man was the expert in botony
(as far as the science of botony is concerned) that you
seem to have the impression they might have been.
They were enthuiastic collectors and amateur botonists
with no formal training in the subject.

Nonetheless, the books themselves do contain solid
intrensic values concerning the state of knowledge
at the specific time.  Of course I hold Culpepper with
his voodoo concept of botony in even lower regard.
I do not dismiss works as you may believe an the basis
of a few imperfect observations but from judging the
work as a whole, especially examining the value of the
original thoughts of the authors.  In this respect and
upon that standard, I find Lyte, Gerard and Culpepper
lacking.

Oh yes, though I consider myself an amateur botonist,
I do professionally practice Landscape Architecture
and consider myself to be qualified to judge botanical
data in sources such as historic herbals from more than
a layman's viewpoint.

I hope that we can eventually come to agreement and
collaborate on a useful paper or something.  I apologise
if my clumsy attempts have been unclear on this subject to
both you and Ras.

Akim Yaroslavich
"No glory comes without pain"