back
14 comments
I'm not familiar with the medicinal uses of rhubarb, but cinchona is the source for quinine.

Weirdly, the only link I can readily find in the article to a source talking about the medicinal uses of cinnamon is an ancient text where I can't even readily parse what language it is in. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/463727#page/178/mod...

That's perhaps intentional given how up in arms people get if you actually discuss medicinal uses of plants. This article merely discusses the history of the monopoly on "true" cinnamon and some of the reasons for it, not actual medicinal uses.

I find it very weird how uptight people are about this. I mean if you know plants that get used in your diet can have medicinal impact, intentional ignorance on the topic seems to be a really bizarre policy to pursue. Yet that seems to be how the world mostly works in relation to such things.

> is an ancient text where I can't even readily parse what language it is in.

It is Hortus Malabaricus, it is in latin and its not really ancient, it was published in late 17-th century.

The linked page is an image which appears to be labeled with the name of the plant in four different languages, which I would guess are Latin ("Lat."), Malay ("Mal."), Arabic ("Arab."), and Sanskrit ("Bram.", which based on the following page appears to be "lingua Bramanum", which I assume is "the tongue of the Brahmins".)

The text is definitely Latin, but some things about it look odd to me. (I'm looking at page 107, right after the linked drawing.) Do you know what the circumflexes and graves signify?

The E in maximè is long, but so are unmarked Es in habEtur, rubEscente, and diffundEnsque. And the Us in verùm and cùm are short.

The circumflexes appear to be much rarer, but I see "sub eâ". That could be a helpful way to set off the ablative case from the nominative, but later down on the page I see "Folia cùm bina", unmarked.

"Mal." is likely Malayalam, a dravidic language from the indian subcontinent, not Malay (Austronesian language).

My Latin is quite rusty, its been a long time since i studied it. But from what i remember there were several flavors, which had slightly different grammar, orthography and vocabulary.

Wikipedia confirms this - there is at least classical Latin, church Latin, New Latin (16-19c), Contemporary Latin (19c onward). Hortus Malabaricus is written in New Latin.

> "Mal." is likely Malayalam, a dravidic language from the indian subcontinent, not Malay (Austronesian language).

Looks like you're right.

>talking about the medicinal uses of cinnamon

These may be of interest:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/cinnamon-and-diabetes (2017)

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-proven-benefits-of-c... (2018)

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/21/health/cinnamon-prediabet... (2020)

I've had two hours of sleep. I don't know how to say this politely, but I wasn't really asking for sources on cinnamon. (Yes, I realize my comment can be interpreted that way.)

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I guess I'm still with you almost 100 percent then :)
I'm sitting here freaked out that cassia bark, which is either sold by name here, or, is not sold, is what most Americans want as cinnamon, and yet cinnabon. It's the (otherwise) most cinnamon obsessed food culture i know. Cinnamon tea, cinnamon cookies, cinnamon buns. But.. its not cinnamon? Mind. Blown.
Cassia is also in the cinnamon family (Cinnamomum cassia), and the difference is fairly subtle.

But yes, the American obsession with cinnamon is next level. Things like Big Red (cinnamon chewing gum) are pretty much unknown elsewhere.

Anyone here in oz seeking cinnamon sticks, knows to look at the cinnamon sticks carefully. They are sometimes substituted. I hate it when we get the wrong ones.

Long flatter shreds of bark are often cassia. Tight rolls which are clean cut shorter are usually cinnamon. Cassia bark, sold as cassia, I think you can be confident it's cassia: my understanding is, its cheaper to grow, more abundant, hence substitution.

I get "they're all the same family" thing they don't taste the same.

I go to US red cinnamon sweets like licking a 9v battery. Ow! Yuk! Ow! Yuk! Rinse, repeat.

Historians (professional or otherwise) help me out:

Empires rose and fell based on spice trade, and I cannot bring myself to believe it is just because they taste good. Why were they so valuable?

Why were they so valuable?

Most spices have medicinal effects and help kill germs. Even if you don't use that to treat your own health, it de facto acts as a food preservative.

Spices, salt and fermenting were a big deal before we had refrigeration, canning, etc. Famine used to be really common and recipe books often had recipes for combining whatever things were likely still in the cellar at the end of winter when everything was running out, like apples with cabbage.

These were subsistence cultures. Making food stores spoil slower was literally a matter of life and death.

(Edited for clarity.)

When you have salt, you can use less of a spice. Salt used to be rare, so more spices were needed.

If your choice was between "rice and egg with pepper" and "rice and egg without pepper", you would choose with pepper if you could afford it. It simply was that huge of a difference.