SC - Cordials

[R. Del Boccio]

Thanks for the info, Constance (hope you get well very quickly), and thanks
for the support, Adamantius. I have a terrible problem with unilateral "It
ain't period" statements without supporting information, but I don't like to
bash people over the head with screams of "I DEMAND DOCUMENTATION!".

So essentially I *was* hoping someone with their sources to hand or a brain
slightly less sleep-deprived than mine would reply to some of those
unsupported "It ain't period" allegations. So, I was taken literally. Big
Deal. We've all learned something. That's a Good Thing (tm).

You see folks, just becasue someone TOLD you "it" isn't "period" (what a
terrible word we misuse far too often), doesn't mean "it" isn't historical
to our time of study. This just means that "it" hasn't been researched
properly by the  persons in
question. "Becasue I say so" doesn't mean much, in my book. A responsible
statement of historicity (or lack thereof) would contain statements
something like this:
"I've looked into that a little bit (or a lot), and as far as I can
ascertain, "it" doesn't (or does) seem to be historically accurate within
the SCA time
under study. I've looked in sources X, Y and Z. There's a chance that I've
missed something, however. What information do you have, and where did you
find it?"

Congrats, Constance, on some excellent research (I'm so excited for
you---you found that elusive golden grail: fresh, untouched material! I LOVE
it when SCA research alters the body of scholarly information out in the
real world of Medieval and Rennaisance scholarship, where they really don't
take SCA members seriously. Yours is the second I've come across such
potentially scholarship-altering material this month!)!  I look forward to
hearing, or seeing, more information on the subject when you're feeling
better. Sharing knowledge is good.

Cheers

Aoife, definately way up on that high horse today, and wondering how she got
there.

Constance de la Rose wrote:

> Suffice it for now to say that I disagree with
> the assumption that cordials are not period and assert that they were
period
> and were used more than medicinally though I suspect that they were used
less
> than we often use them late at night in the campfire circles at camping
> events. ;)
>
> Constance de la Rose

Well, speaking for myself, I made no assumption other than to say I had
seen no great body of evidence to suggest they were widespread,
especially most of the ones used late at night around campfires at
camping events. I still haven't. As for the quote from Dame Aoife above,
I think perhaps she wasn't expecting to be taken literally.

The tone of the original question seemed to indicate that what was being
asked was whether the vast number of SCA-Peter-Heering-and-Chambourd
clones were in general use in period. If you have some evidence to
suggest that they were, hook me up when you can, if you please. I
confess most of my research into this has been in recipe sources, and
they show a lot of spiced wines, sweetened and un-, spiced meads and
ales, wines with added fruit, and various distillates of spiced wine or
other fermented spirits.

Adamantius