SC - Re: Gerards Herbal

[ChannonM@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/5/00 4:03:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
ahrenshav at yahoo.com writes:

 To follow the substitutions that
>  the original author mentions is still following period
>  practice.  However, to make your own substitutions
>  based on your personal taste is to take that recipe
>  out of the period context and turn it into a modern
>  adaptation, and not a period recreation. 

Wrong.  So long as the substitutions are period and appropriate, it then 
becomes a "period adaptation", not necessarily a modern one.  Substitution of 
ingredients, as you have just described, IS a period practice.  As I have 
said, it may not be a "blind re-creation" of the recipe, but that does not 
take it "out of period".  Medieval cooks had tastebuds just like we do today. 
 It is logical to assume that they changed and "adulterated" recipes.

To make
>  substitutions without knowing what was done during
>  period is, in my opinion, a more dangerous proposition
>  than not allowing substitutions.  I would recommend
>  that you actually study period recipes before you
>  start spouting theories that you have no
>  substantiation for.

I do not need to study "period recipes" prior to the onset of "spouting".  A 
simple study of cuisine IN GENERAL is sufficient to know that these kinds of 
substitutions were made.  The evolution of Medieval cuisine is no different 
than that of modern cuisine.  Recipes are altered.  Always have been, always 
will be.  The only thing left to do now, is to make sure that those 
substitutions were available and in common use during the recipe authors 
"period".  A simple examination of agriculture and Butchery during the 
"period" in question is sufficient to accomplish this.

>  What you "recommend" is to leave scholarship behind
>  and "do your own thing".  This would be great for your
>  own personal cooking, but not one I want to see happen
>  within the SCA context.  These sorts of notions are
>  what ruins the SCA's reputation as being capable of
>  serious scholarship and brings us down to the level of
>  a "fantasy group".

What kind of Blather is this?  Not once did I "recommend" that we leave 
"scholarship behind and do your own thing".  The question now arises:  Are we 
referring to SCA cooks as true scholars, or simple transcriptionists?  Which 
is a more scholarly approach to medieval cookery: Simply transcribing a 
recipe and blindly following it to its fruition, or examining a recipe, the 
events and environment surrounding its author at the time, and making 
educated, deductive and reasonable extrapolations as to what else was likely 
done to it in its time?  I, personally, think that it is the latter.  To 
accuse me of suggestion the abandonment of scholarly research is ludicrous.  
If anything, I am suggesting the opposite.  The proliferation and EXPANSION 
of research.  I have no axe to grind against the skulls of scholars.  I, 
myself, am quite "into" the study of cuisine.  I have studied it for most of 
my adult life.  My expertise is currently centered in what you would call 
"modern cuisine", but this, I feel, gives me even more reason to "spout".  I 
have studied the origins and alterations to "modern" cuisine, and it seems to 
me that there is a distinct pattern to it.  It is a human pattern, based on 
each cooks personal preference for what should or should not be included in a 
recipe.  And, unless I am very, very mistaken, medieval cooks were also 
human.  It IS safe to assume that these substitutions were made.


>  This smacks of the "theory" that period food tastes
>  bad.  If the dish tastes bad, blame the cook and not
>  the recipe, in my opinion. 

Again, I never said that period food tastes bad.  I was referring to saffron, 
which to me tastes bad.  You have made an incorrect assumption.  It happens.

> >  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?  
>  
>  Yes, we can. There a lots of original cookbooks still
>  in existance.  Many in the original handwriting of the
>  author.  

This does not prove that the original dish is their own creation, and not 
merely a written version of their neighbors favorite recipe.  I could easily 
write the entire contents of the Pleyn Delit in my own hand.  Does this mean 
that I "created" the dishes?  No.  It means I copied them to paper.  Nothing 
more.

>  To question whether the authors were actually the
>  originators of the recipes shows your ignorance of the
>  subject.  In the later cookbooks, the authors
>  frequently borrow recipes from others.  Sometimes they
>  give credit, sometimes they do not

Exactly.  Sometimes they prove that they did not write the recipe, and 
sometimes they leave us guessing.  How can we be sure?  I will not even touch 
the "ignorance of the subject" comment.
.  
>We can study the
>  recipes and the methods and get an idea of what was
>  and what may not have been done.  When you have that
>  knowledge, then you will understand what I am talking
>  about.

Yes.  And when I have that knowledge, then I will be able to make informed 
"period" substitutions to any recipe proffered.  Just as was certainly done 
in medieval times. And PRECISELY what I was suggesting to begin with.  Thank 
you so much for doing the work for me.

>  But to suggest that because they "may not"
>  have been the actual recipe creator and therefore
>  other possibilities are there as spurious an argument
>  as postulating that an Aztec with a boat-load of cacao
>  beans,

Why is this a "spurious" arguement?  It is, in fact, a logical arguement, and 
a "scholarly" one, to boot.  Read a "modern" cookbook sometime.  Thousands of 
them indicate that "this is a replication of a delicious Zimbabwe Beef dish I 
had during my travels to..." or some such.  Cookbook authors do, and have, 
take recipes they discover (not necessarily "create") and set them to pen and 
ink.  It does NOT indicate that they are original, or unmodified.
 
>  If you don't like a particular ingredient, then don't
>  make the recipe.  Choose something else to make.

Why?  Why should I abandon an otherwise good recipe, simply because it 
contains an item or two I do not care for?  It is much easier to SUBSTITUTE.  
And, so long as the substitution (again) is "period and appropriate", then 
why not?  It is the unrelenting, dogmatic attitude listed above which gives 
SCA cooks a bad image to new participants.   Rather than "ordering" someone 
to stop the recipe, why not make a suggestion as to what may be substituted 
to keep it in the "period" time frame?  It was done in period.  It had to be. 
 Substitutions are NOT a modern phenomenon.

>  There are hundreds of existing period recipes to
>  choose from. Why pick a recipe you don't like and then
>  corrupt it?  There is no justification for this.

There is plenty of justification for this, and it is as old as life itself.  
It is called "personal preference".
  
>  >        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.  
>  
>  Prove it.  In my opinion these substitutions make the
>  recipe no longer Sekanjabin and are NOT period or
>  authentic.

Again, it comes down to a matter of nomenclature.  Your idea of "period" 
differs from mine (and obviously the author of the Sekanjabin post cited 
above).  Never the twain shall meet, it appears.

  But I don't have the right to
>  serve it at a banquet and say it is period to do so
>  just because the ingredients may or may not have been
>  used during period.  This is just wrong and should not
>  be encouraged. 

Certainly you have a "right" to do so.  It is not illegal.  Again, if you 
read my posts (which I am beginning to think that you have not), you will 
learn that I am not a proponent of bringing Kentucky Fried Chicken to a feast 
and calling it "period".  I am, however, suggesting that a 14th century 
Saracen dish may still be considered "period", so long as any substitutions 
made are "period and appropriate" to the style of dish being made.

>  
>  I'm sure
>  > those medieval folks who 
>  > did not care for hot peppers in their chocolate
>  > beverage left them out when 
>  > they made it.  
>  
>  I am sure that "medieval folks" knew neither chocolate
>  or hot peppers.  There may be some argument that it is
>  late renaissance, but it definitely isn't medieval.

Maybe not.  This was offered as an analogy (?) and little more.  I think most 
people caught this.  I should have been more precise, saying perhaps "nutmeg" 
and "elderberry".

>  
>  > Someone who did not care for cinnamon
>  > could very well have 
>  > thrown a handful of mace in instead, as well. 
>  
>  Okay.  Prove it.

I, personally, do not care for cinnamon, and have often times substituted 
mace in a recipe.  That is ABSOLUTE proof for my arguement.  Medieval cooks 
had personal tastes, just the way we do today.  To imply that personal 
preference did not come into play during the middle ages flies in the face of 
Sociology.  It always has, and it always will.  That's proof enough.
  
I was hoping to be able to drop this thread and move on.  I know others were 
hoping I would, as well.  But this kind of tyrranical attitude MUST be 
responded to.  Now, can we move on??

Balthazar of Blackmoor

Such a strange fascination, as I wallow in waste
That such a trivial victory could put a smile on your face.