SC - Re: saffron
CBlackwill at aol.com
CBlackwill at aol.com
Mon Apr 3 16:04:03 PDT 2000
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
More information about the Sca-cooks
mailing list