[Sca-cooks] Lemons in Middle English

[Chris Stanifer]

--- Terry Decker <t.d.decker at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> William, you are the one who set the "Middle English" limit. 


No, not really, if you think about it.  The original comment was, in a nutshell, that we would
never find a Middle English mention of the lemon (this was based on a humorous attempt to post a
recipe for Hollandaise in Middle English), implying quite clearly that the author of that post
assumed that lemons were absolutely unused in the era when Middle English was spoken or written
popularly.  That struck me as odd, to begin with, because the countries surrounding England at the
time were lousy with lemons, and I had seen reference to lemons being brought back to England with
the Crusaders.  So, I mentioned this on the list, along with a few other lemon-based factoids,
just to open the discussion on it.  I also mentioned, I believe, that I was going to conduct a bit
more research on it, but that my knowledge of Middle English was...limited...to say the least. 
This was quite clearly evidenced by the lemon/leman post :)


 Middle English 
> is usually meant to be the English in use between 1100 and 1500, which 
> covers the Crusades through the Renaissance.  IIRC, you are also the one who 
> brought the Crusaders into the debate, so trying to reset the debate to a 
> 1300-1400's limit is a little problematic.


Again, the Crusader reference was merely to point out that 'authorities' seemed to believe that
Crusaders had retured from war carrying lemons back to Europe, and this *may* prove that a Middle
English cook *may* have had access to them.  I don't think my original posts were an attempt to
prove that a lemon grove existed on England in the period, merely that lemons were available (or
may have been available) more widely than the original poster implied (which was, apparently, not
at all).





> What these cookbooks suggest is that lemons were not used much in Northern 
> Europe before the 16th Century and that they were introduced into 
> Mediterranean cooking in the 14th Century and popularized in the 15th and 
> 16th Centuries.  The cooks who created these recipes would certainly have 
> used lemons if they were available.  The fact that they are not mentioned 
> leads one to believe that lemons were not available.

Sure.  It leads one to believe that, doesn't it?  But, my point is.... why *not* check into it a
bit deeper?  What is the harm in looking for a bit more info?  I, personally, do not believe that
the few manuscripts we have available contain the entire width and breadth of medieval culture and
custom.  Others apparently do, but that is their opinion.  And to say that the authors would have
certainly included lemons if they had access to them is, quite frankly, an error in culinary
logic.  If the recipes they were producing for print did not require lemons, why would they
'certainly include' them?  I have access to lemons, and I would not include them in my Chocolate
Espresso Cake recipe just because they were there.  If my rcipe worked just fine with verjus
(which I had been using prior to the introduction of the lemon), why would I be required to switch
to lemon juice??  If the recipe works with verjus, and I had been using verjus (or sour oranges)
in the past, why not just write the recipe with verjus?


> While I did provide you with a couple of references, one to lemons being 
> marketed in Paris in the 13th Century and the other to lemons being grown 
> for export in the Azores in 1494, let me remind you of the caveat; I have 
> not seen the sources for those statements.  I offered them not as facts, but 
> as points to research.  Without some supporting documentation, they are 
> merely interesting anomalies. 


Right.  And that's what I'm going to use them as.  However, one cannot deride the reference of
'Crusader Lemons' for not having primary source documentation, and then turn around and support
their own statements without the same.  You see where I'm going with this?

  
> Harrison's Description of Elizabethan England 1577 doesn't mention those 
> great rolling lemon orchards, so I guess he was blind. 


Again, I did not say that there were great rolling lemon orchards.  Merely that I would check
orchard records of the time (if there are any) to see if the lemon is mentioned (either as a cash
crop, which I know is highly unlikely, or as an ornamental or horticultural curiosity).  I believe
it was you who mentioned that lemons simply cannot grow in England (too cold or wet or dry or
something), to which I posted the website which shows, quite clearly, that lemons can be grown in
England.  Yes, it may require a hothouse or special growing conditions, but this is why I said
that I would check *royal* orchard records of the time.  The wealthy seem to collect all manner of
interesting things, don't they?


 > A theory fits all known facts.  Your speculation does not fit the facts we 
> know nor does it adequately answer the questions we have, so we discount its 
> accuracy.


What facts do we know about the lemon??  We know that it wasn't mentioned in a few cookbooks of
the time (which I have addressed above), and we know that it *is* mentioned in a few cookbooks of
the time.  That's about all we know, and no one here has offered up any *facts* about any other
aspect if this topic.  They have offered up speculation contrary to my 'theory', and then accused
me of speculation.  Hey, I don't care if you call it speculation...that's what it is.  However,
don't confuse your own speculation with 'facts', and then accuse me of ignoring those 'facts'.

It's really simple, and kind of silly that it has gotten this far :  I am specualting that lemons
may have been more widely available in a certain period in England than is commonly believed on
this list, and others are speculating that they were not available at all.  I don't see any
'facts' on either side at the moment to prove this one way or the other.  I also don't see why
there is so much opposition to a person's offer to investigate the lemon in period....  Give me a
'fact' proving that there were no lemons in England in the period in question, and I'll check it
out.  But don't give me speculation and call it a fact.


>  Your speculation may have merit,

As may yours.  However, I'm looking into the data, and will get back with you on what I find.



 but it is not up to us to 
> disprove your speculation,


Really?  It seems like that is exactly what you are trying to do.  



> it is incumbent on you to prove your case.

Waitaminnit... you're taking this the wrong way.  I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that
lemons *were* widely available in period England.  Merely that I *think* or I *feel* that they may
have been more widely avaialable than currently assumed.  I'm not trying to prove anything, merely
investigating the possibility, which has enough suspicious evidence to warrant more investigation.


  That 
> means providing the documentation.  And you can't complain you're just a 
> layman and don't have access, 


I think this was in reference to a particular set of documents, which may be difficult for someone
who does not move in those circles to obtain.  I didn't sayI couldn't get the information because
I'm not a professional whatsit...merely that it may be difficult to obtain.  You understand that.


Sheesh... so much wind over the poor, lowly, sour lemon :)  You'd think I had accused the Pope of
sodomy.

William de Grandfort


=====
Through teeth of sharks, the Autumn barks.....and Winter squarely bites me.


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250