SC - au Gratin

[CBlackwill@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/3/00 3:25:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
ahrenshav at yahoo.com writes:

> No, Bal, we "worship" saffron because it was used in
>  period, not because of "modern" tastes.  Using Yellow
>  #5 is not acceptable because Yellow #5 wasn't even
>  known during period.  And changing a spice from a
>  period recipe to something else just because, isn't
>  good period re-enactment.

Yeah, I knew I was going to catch hell for this post.  Please believe I 
understand the necessity for using saffron to authentically re-create a 
period recipe (and the Yellow #5 comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek).  
I, of course, have no problem with this, and would probably do it myself, 
regardless of my personal preference.  My post was actually more of a 
sympathetic response to the comment that mooncat at in_tch.com left about being 
disappointed by the first use of saffron.  IMO it tastes like dirt (with a 
hint of sweat sock).  Perhaps I should have prefaced my comment with the 
ubiquitous "OT" monicker.  This was not a flame for those good SCA cooks who 
use saffron.  It was a personal belief that we, as a "modern" society tend to 
hold things in high regard for, possibly, the wrong reasons.  That's all.  If 
feelings have been hurt, or toes stepped on, I appologize.  

On the topic of period recipe substitutions, however, I do have some rather 
deep-rooted problems with an apparent unwillingness a good number of people 
in the SCA have for making same.  I understand the "theory" that, in order to 
learn how to "cook in period", we must first establish a firm foundation in 
medieval cookery.  This often means following the recipes and redactions 
which have survived into our time.  That's a given, and good practice, it 
would seem.  But to assume that a medieval cook would not have made 
substitutions himself, and therefore lambasting a "modern medieval" cook who 
does the same, is , in my opinion, a dangerous proposition.  So long as the 
substitution is period, as well, I see no harm in it.  Particularly if it 
improves the palatability of the dish.  The art and history of cuisine is, by 
its very nature, a living and fluid one.  Besides, what proof do we have that 
these so-called "authentic" reciepts we use in the SCA are, in fact, the 
originals?  Who can say, with confidence and physical proof, that these 
recipes were written by the gentleman or lady who actually invented the dish, 
and that the ingredients listed are, in fact, entirely original?  Perhaps 
Pliny the Elder had a jones on for saffron, and so decided to add a pinch to 
so-and-so's recipe before he wrote it down.  Can anyone on this list say this 
did not happen?  Without actually being there at the time, I don't think we 
can.  The obvious exceptions would be those recipes commonly and widely 
attributed to a particular cook for which we have a surviving copy penned in 
his own hand.  
    In my mind, we would be even more "period" if we did make substitutions 
to recipes.  The Romans were notorious for this, as culinary history proves.  
With every ethnic group they conquered, they absorbed and "adapted" their 
subjects local cuisine to fit Roman tastes.  The Greeks, as well, and I am 
sure many other conquering civilizations, did this to great effect.  The 
modern Pizza is a prime example of this.  This product evolved from a flat 
porridge-like paste cooked on hot rocks.  The early inhabitants of Greece 
were doing this in pre-history.  When the Romans came in, they grabbed it.  
Imagine their surprise when the found the Etruscans gnawing on the same 
thing, only with a topping of oils and other Etruscan favorites.  So, too, 
did the Romans adjust the recipe to their liking, and so on...
       Even our own beloved SCA cooks are doing this on this list.  The 
recipe for Sekanjabin (spelling?) posted some time earlier is a great 
example.  The author of this particular post, in the body of the text, offers 
his/her substitutions.  And yes, these were "just because"...just because the 
original did not taste good to him/her, and he/she felt these substitutions 
would improve the palatability of the drink.  Now this, my friends, is 
period!!  Is it authentic?  Probably so.  I'm sure those medieval folks who 
did not care for hot peppers in their chocolate beverage left them out when 
they made it.  Someone who did not care for cinnamon could very well have 
thrown a handful of mace in instead, as well.   Realistically, recipe 
substitutions "should" be a historical given.  Cuisine is not static, and 
never has been.  And, Gods willing, never will be.
    This, of course, is a personal opinion, and does not necesarily reflect 
the opinions of the owner of this list, it's management or advertisers.  Your 
Mileage May Vary.

In Service to (but not chained to) The Dream,
Balthazar of Blackmoor