SC - pre-1500 cookery

[Philip & Susan Troy]

LrdRas wrote:
> 
> what is the
> fascination with early modern cookery in the SCA as opposed to true medieval
> cookery? Off the cuff, it would appear that early modern is easier therefore a
> natural draw.

That would be one of the first reasons I would give, too. There are some
people who honestly don't have a feel fopr what makes food behave the
way it does, and simply can't cook without a detailed recipe. My
favorite example is that of a friend of mine, who, when confronted by a
pan of lasagna I had made, was simply unable to grasp the fact that it
was possible to make lasgna in a configuration of more, or less, than
three layers. It seems her mother's recipe always turned out to being
three layers. I explained that I had more sheets of pasta and fillings
than three layers would hold, but not enough to make another pan, so I
had made four or five layers. She just couldn't believe that anyone
would, or could, make the stuff in any number of layers than three. I
have since found that such people aren't all that uncommon, and they
have no concept of when, say, the chicken is done, but rather cook it
for the recipe-specified time, at the specified temperature, and then
serve it whether it is done or not. I guess the idea is that it's not
the cook's fault if anything goes wrong, but the recipe's. "What more do
you want? I followed the recipe!"  I expect that one justification for
later-period cookery is that the recipes tend to be in greater
[perceived] detail, as well  as in language closer to what the novice
cook is used to.

> Another reason may be an overwhelming proliferation of late
> period personas.

Hey. My persona was born some time around 425 C.E. They're almost ALL
late period to me.

> Thirdly, the flavors and combinations may be more familiar to
> modern palettes.

Well, yeah. At least in theory. Many people are alarmed by unfamiliar
foods, and anachronistic food is just as unfamiliar to many people as
any "foreign" or (my favorite meaningless expression) "ethnic" dish. The
point is that it is different from what the person is used to eating,
under normal circumstances. I've heard it said by some SCA folk that
much of my cooking verges on the excessively "bizarre", although they
will usually try it anyway, seeing as it's me. They have frequently gone
on to say that the later-period stuff that I've done reminds them of
Thanksgiving or Christmas dinners as they recall them, or envision them,
so that kind of food isn't too weird. I respond that this is an example
of a type of anachronistic food having survived to the present day, and
that the food has no greater, or less, intrinsic quality than
cuskynoles, blancmanger, and mawmenny, which often have flavor and spice
combinations that are still perfectly alive and well in other parts of
the world. This often gets me a sort of blanc stare, and a response of
something like, "Well, mayyyybe, but..." 
 
> The first reason would, IMHO, be valid for the cook who was knowledgable about
> modern cooking and felt comfortable with the ease of doing similar dishes.

I think the biggest reason, and one which I don't believe has been
mentioned explicitly in this thread, is that for many SCAdians, there
simply is no differentiation between periods such as Graeco-Roman or
Classical, Dark Ages, Medieval, Renaissance, and early modern (which
latter period is usually equated with Renaissance anyway). Let's not
even go into the question of whether these periods begin and end in
different years according to geography. What many, many people in the
SCA are concerned with, is period. They want to know if such-and-such a
thing is period. It's a simple question, and they want a simple answer.
If your answer is too complex, they'll ask somebody else, and keep doing
it until they get an answer they like. That answer will then be regarded
as empirical truth.

As for Lord Ras's idea that people who are knowledgable about modern
cookery being more comfortable with that style, I submit Lord Ras
himself, as well as myself, as evidence to the contrary. I suppose if I
have over-interpreted his statement, and it means simply that people
tend to cook from within their experience, rather than outside it, I
could accept that. But--I'd also have to point out that a knowledge of
modern cookery is a useful tool for early-period cooks as well. Food is
still food, and an understanding of how food behaves under given
circumstances pretty well transcends time periods. I've found a good
background in basic (esoteric, too!) cooking is invaluable for
understanding period cookery, either early or late.  

> As
> I am a 14th century Persian, the second reason does not pertain to me.

Me, neither. I don't discriminate against 16th-century Scots, though.
Many of my best friends are...well, you get the idea, of course. The
point is that I've been interested in all forms of historical cookery,
and while the later-period stuff doesn't quite sing to me the same way
as Roman or Gothic / High Middle Ages stuff, the fact is that I've tried
to take a sort of holistic approach to the subject, and you never know
what value some information or experience may or may not have until
you've tried it. Besides, I'm not just cooking for myself, and as Lord
Ras points out, there are a lot of nouvelle-cuisine scarfing personae
out there. 


> Since I
> enjoy more exotic flavors in my food I would not be drawn to a style that
> number 3 would suggest. Ergo, I have never had an interest in studying late
> period cookery a single iota.

Well, here I think we differ. What's exotic? I know people who look with
deep suspicion on any dish that the cook has been seen to add a little
black pepper. Others are a bit more tolerant of things outside their
experience. Late period cookery is different from medieval cookery, but
with significant differences from modern cookery, and with significant
similarities to what came before and after, as well. It represents a
step on the evolutionary ladder from early to modern, and is often a
useful tool in helping supply vital information a sketchy medieval
recipe might lack. Speculative, yes. Shot in the dark, no. I guess the
point is that even if we aren't thrilled by a field of study, we can't
afford to discount the potential value of something we have abandoned as
a resource. 

> The question is what draws one to late period cookery. Since I am writing an
> article for my local Shire newsletter on this subject, I would like to hear
> from those drawn to this particular subject so I can present a relitively
> unbiased aarticle. Thanks in advance.

All I can say about what has occasionally drawn me to do late-period
cookery is that it is based on a culinary technology closer to our own,
and therefore allows the cook to do more, with greater freedom, in the
way of approaching a fine, luxurious meal in the way a modern palate
might have come to expect. In fact, the emulsified butter sauces alone
make it worth a shot, as far as I'm concerned.

On the other hand, I should also point out that I haven't felt the need
to do a really late-period feast for a long time.

Adamantius
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================