[Sca-cooks] Re: Indian Maize in Italy in period??????

[David Friedman]

I'm not sure if the question has come up yet in 
the discussion, but there's an interesting 
account of why maize was called "Indian Corn," I 
think in Finan, John J., Maize in the Great 
Herbals.

Apparently a classical source, I believe Pliny, 
mentions a grain he calls "Indian corn"--from 
India. Some sources misidentified maize with it 
when it first became available in Europe. If 
that's right, the name has nothing to do with 
"American Indians."

Here's the discussion of maize from the Miscellany, some of which is relevant:

---
"Corn," in British usage, refers to grains in 
general--most commonly wheat. The earliest 
reference in the OED to maize, the British name 
for the grain that Americans call corn, is from 
1555. All of the pre-1600 references are to maize 
as a plant grown in the New World. Knowledge of 
maize seems to have spread rapidly; a picture of 
the plant appears in a Chinese book on botany 
from 1562. Pictures appear in European herbals 
from 1539 on. Finan concludes that they represent 
at least two distinct types of maize, one similar 
to Northern Flints, the other similar to some 
modern Caribbean varieties. Grains are variously 
described as red, black, brown, blue, white, 
yellow and purple.

How soon did maize become something more than a 
curiosity? Leonhard Fuchs, writing in Germany in 
1542, described it as "now growing in all 
gardens" [De historia stirpium-cited in Finan]. 
That suggests that in at least one European 
country it was common enough before 1600 so that 
it could have been served at a feast-although I 
know of no evidence that it in fact was, and no 
period recipes for it. On the other hand, John 
Gerard wrote, in 1597: "We have as yet no 
certaine proofe or experience concerning the 
vertues of this kinde of Corne, although the 
barbarous Indians which know no better are 
constrained to make a vertue of necessitie, and 
think it a good food: whereas we may easily judge 
that it nourisheth but little, and is of a hard 
and euill digestion, a more convenient food for 
swine than for man" (Crosby). Gerard's conclusion 
is still widely accepted in Europe. In West 
Africa, however, maize was under cultivation "at 
least as early as the second half of the 
sixteenth century..." and in China in the 
sixteenth century (Crosby). There is also a 
reference to its being grown in the Middle East 
in the 1570's (Crosby).

Before leaving the subject of maize, I should 
mention that there have been occasional attempts 
to argue that it either had an Old World origin 
or spread to the Old World prior to Columbus. 
Mangelsdorf discusses the arguments at some 
length and concludes that they are mistaken.
----

>  > Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 02:47:24 +0100
>>  From: TG <gloning at Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE>
>>  Subject: Re: SC - Corn-Early Modern
>>
>>  There is also a chapter on corn/maize in the herbal of Leonhard Fuchs
>>  1543. He says that it is used to make bread, that it was quite
>>  common in
>>  his time and that it was grown in many gardens ("Dise korn seind
>>  erstlich ... au? der Turckey in vnnser land bracht worden. Bekommen
>>  gern/ darumb sie nun fast gemein seind/ vnd in vilen g?rten gezilt
>>  werden. (...) Man macht aber au? disem korn ¸ber die massen sch?n
>wei?
>>  meel/ vnd becht darnach brodt darau?/ das macht leichtlich
>>  verstopffung"; Fuchs 1543, chap. CCCXX).
>>
>>  Both Bock and Fuchs have pictures.
>>
>>  Th.
>
>      That's interesting -- I have a copy of Fuchs but have never got
>round to looking up his entry on maize.  I see he says maize is from
>Turkey ("This grain was first brought to our land from Turkey," loose
>translation of an above sentence).  Gerard's English _Herbal_ mentions
>maize, too, along with a harangue about how the stuff *isn't* from
>Turkey, it's from the New World ("Virginia" is the place name used, I
>think), and that the popular idea of a Turkish origin is wrong, wrong,
>wrong.  The same entry also says maize *is* edible, but with the
>caveat that it's not very nutritous and is only fit for animals, and
>unfortunate Native Americans who can't get anything better.  I have
>the Johnson edition of the _Herbal_ (Johnson re-edited the whole thing
>in 1633 or thereabouts, adding to and commenting on Gerard's original
>version), but I believe all the above info came from Gerard, which
>would put it in 1597.
>
>                   -- Ruth
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sca-cooks mailing list
>Sca-cooks at ansteorra.org
>http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/sca-cooks


-- 
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com