SC - Hello & Questions

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Mark Schuldenfrei wrote:
> 
>   > Note that Digby is about fifty years out of period, Markham somewhat less.
> 
>   Noted. I only mention these sources because they represent a style and
>   level of technology substantially unchanged from what is seen in the
>   late 16th-century sources, but seem to be more commonly recognized by
>   most SCAdians.
> 
> Adamantius, this may not be as true as one might hope.
> 
> At least in brewing.  My friends (Morgaine and Muiredach) wrote an article
> on brewing history, showing that Digby was instrumental in the introduction
> of the sealed bottle.  As anyone can figure, a bottle is more air-tight than
> a cask, and there is a resulting impact in recipes, sugar residuals, aging,
> and carbonation.  Making Digby brewing recipes substantively different in
> result than period ones.

Generally, I'm inclined to agree. There's a big difference between 1600
and 1669. However, way back when I referred to Digby as a source (it had
to do with icing cakes) I mentioned him as secondary to Markham and, I
believe, Fettiplace, precisely because of the lateness of the date.
> 
> This does not imply that his cooking techniques have also evolved past the
> period ones.  But it is a small indicia that there is the possibility of
> change.
> 
> As they frequently say about Digby in terms of brewing, "Digby is not just
> post-period, but 3 generations post period.  Lots of things change in three
> generations."

You may be right. But actually Hugh Plat contains instructions for
brewing bottled ale, sixty years before the publication of Digby's work.
> 
>         Tibor (The more I learn, the more cautious I get)

Adamantius, suffering from a surfeit of exposure to Ms. Frizzle and The
Magic Schoolbus, whose motto is something like "Go ahead! Make mistakes!
Get messy!"