[none]

[Pat Griffin]

OK, I'll try using some of the methodology I learned in college.  

Analize the sources:  Le Menagier, we all know, was written to be a
handbook for an inexperienced wife.  Along with the recipes were essays
on clothes keeping, how not to get ripped off in the marketplace, etc. 
Now for him to feel it necessary to warn her about food adulteration
means that it was happening.  (And we have other sources which confirm
this)  So for him to mention possible substitutions in the recipes
probably means the same thing.  People made substitutions in their daily
cooking.  From what I can see, the other surviving cookbooks are more
like recordings of special events.  If people DID NOT substitute things,
he would have written a diatribe against doing so.

Now I've also noticed something about the names of the dishes.  They are
either descriptions of the ingredients ("apple pie", "stew with chicken
and cabbage", etc) or rather vague words.  For all we know, these could
be the medieval equivalent of "Hot Dish."  (ask someone from
Minnesota--think casserole)

Archeological analysis of the garbage pits could tell us what they were
eating, and that may or may not help with how it was cooked.  It probably
wouldn't be the most exciting read in your life though.

Would it make people feel better if we rename every recipe when we make
even the tiniest change?

Morgana

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.