SC - period cooking

[Mordonna22@aol.com]

At 9:45 AM -0400 10/29/99, Kappler, MMC Richard A. wrote:

>When I, for example, do a redaction, I'll typically forward it to Ras and or
>Adamantius for comment before using or publishing it.  Invariably I'll get a
>response along the lines of: "That sounds really good, but here's how I
>would do it, not that yours is wrong...."  Which is the kind of feedback I
>am looking for.  The initial question though, is just how do you know?  Upon
>what does the more experienced period cook base such comments?  I fully
>realize that any redaction that uses the ingredients listed in the period
>recipe could be called correct, particularly if there were no violations of
>procedures etc included in the period recipe.  This, however, would lead us
>to accept a butt-ton of different versions for each recipe.  Sometimes we
>do, take cuskyknowles for example, but in general when one of us presents a
>recipe/redaction to the list, the list will discuss it, offer comments, and
>usually come up with a final answer along the lines of "this is how we, the
>collective, have decided it really should be."  Granted, we never say this
>outright, but we usually reach an accepted consensus.  I ask again, however,
>what leads us to the conclusion that one way is more correct than another?
>We do indeed reach this sort of conclusion almost daily.  I have several
>personal theories, but am interested in hearing what the list thinks.  I am
>of the opinion that it is one of or a combination of the following:
>
>	1.  Experience and training as a period cook within the Society,
>thereby meaning we have established what the SCA thinks period cooking is
>like, albeit not neccessarily what it really was like.
>	2.  Experience and/or training as a modern/mundane cook, thereby
>meaning we aren't really doing period cooking, but rather modern cooking
>using period sources.
>	3.  We have finally developed and researched enough period
>resources, and collated enough of the little bits and pieces and hints that
>we have developed a collective certainty about techniques and tastes in
>period, and can hence combine them to make a general set of tools which we
>apply to newly tried recipes which DON'T give us enough info.

I think there are two different things going on:

1. Correction of possible errors of interpretation:

While some questions, for example quantities, cannot be answered at 
all by looking at the original sources, other questions, such as what 
a word means, or how an unclear sentence is to be interpreted, can be 
answered to some extent. To take an extreme case, when I interpreted 
"lire" as "liver" in one recipe, and concluded that _Pleyn Delite_ 
was wrong in its redaction, I was simply making a mistake, as I 
eventually determined by checking the dictionary and/or glossary. To 
take a more difficult case, my long dispute with Adamantius over 
Cuskynoles was not over which version tastes better--I haven't tried 
his, but assume it tastes fine. It was about which version was more 
nearly consistent with the words and drawing of the original recipe. 
Similarly, various discussions over whether some period recipe is 
really meringue or shortbread or whatever, hinge not on what tastes 
good but on what information can be squeezed out of that recipe, 
similar recipes, and other sources of information. I guess this is 
your 3, save that part of what is uncertain is whether or not the new 
recipe gives us enough information.

2. Reports of how various redactions, consistent with the original, 
taste. Adamantius is a much more experienced mundane cook than I am, 
so if he reports that he did a recipe a certain way and it is 
delicious, that saves me lots of trouble in trying different ways. I 
still don't know that his way is correct, but since my working 
assumption is that the recipe is supposed to taste good, ways that 
turn out to taste good are better candidates than ones that don't. 
And, of course, while part of my objective is to make something 
correctly from a historical standpoint, another part is to make 
something that tastes good--so among equally plausible 
interpretations I prefer the ones that taste better, and would even 
if I didn't think tasting better was some evidence of historical 
accuracy.

So far as your 1 is concerned, my favorite horror story on that 
approach was an article, I think in Rolling Scone, which asserted 
that Worcesteshire sauce was the official substitute for liquamen 
(I'm not sure if "official" was the term, but something along those 
lines). It also cited me as the authority for that claim.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
============================================================================

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".

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