SC - Re: "Interpretation" vs. "Redaction"

[RuddR at aol.com]

Greetings,

I've been following this thread with interest; I've often wondered who came 
up with "redaction" to describe what we do to primary sources.  It is an 
accurate term for the act of editing recipes from medieval sources into 
standard modern recipe form.  I'd always used the term "adaptation" before I 
met SCA cooks.  

I was curious as to the terms used to describe the recipes of published 
medieval culinary artists:

Scully & Scully (Early French Cookery, cover): "Sources, History, Original 
Recipes and Modern Adaptations"

Redon, Sabban & Serventi (The Medieval Kitchen, flyleaf):  "Expertly 
reconstructed from fourteenth and fifteenth century sources and carefully 
adapted to suit the modern kitchen."   

Sass (To the King's Taste, cover):  "Richard II's book of feasts and recipes 
adapted for modern cooking."

Black (The Medieval Cookbook, flyleaf):  "This mouth-watering selection of 
eighty recipes has been drawn from medieval manuscripts and adapted for the 
modern kitchen."

McKendry (The Seven Centuries Cookbook, p 8.):  "They have been tested and 
interpreted in terms of modern quantities and methods. . ."

Interestingly, Hieatt and Butler don't really call their redactions anything 
other than recipes they've "worked out".  They use "adapted" to describe the 
work of predecessors in the field:

"A third and slightly overlapping category is that of the historical 
cookbooks which present a selection of medieval recipes 'adapted' for modern 
tastes . . . frequently so drastically adapted as to be along way from 
authenticity." (Pleyn Delit, p viii)

Rudd Rayfield
============================================================================

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".

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