SC - Re: following faithfully

[LrdRas at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/9/00 11:06:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
kareno at lewistown.net writes:

<< The good Lord Ras know how to
 cook & make us swoon from envy with his skills.  But, is your rendition
 of a period recipe (without ratios/numbers/cooking methods)  more
 "correct" than mine?  Just wondering if I am missing something . . . . .
 
     Still learning  and asking questions
     Caointiarn >>

No. Your recipe redactions are just as accurate as mine or any other 
rendering of the manuscript done by any other cook, IMO. 

I think this is a good point and one that should be emphasized to any budding 
historical cook. if there are no given amounts then any rendering of the 
recipe which uses the techniques given and the closest approximation of the 
ingredients listed should be considered equally valid if no listed amounts of 
ingredients are given. The example I gave recently of the chicken recipe I 
redacted for a newsletter article many years ago was a good example. From 
that recipe I was able to render it as a soup, a casserole or a meat loaf. Of 
the 3 renderings none could be said to be more accurate than any other 
rendering that others might produce.

What I was referring to was specifically substituting cooking techniques 
(e.g., leave out parboiling) or roast instead of grill, etc.). Or 
substituting a totally different ingredient (e.g., carrots for parsnips) 
unless the recipe itself specified what substitutions were appropriate for 
that specific recipe. Such substitutions would make the recipe a period-like 
rendering as opposed to a period rendering at the very least if based on 
supposition. Actually, they would make a modern recipe based on the 
inspiration of a period recipe more accurately, IMO.

A case in point is the Bukkanade recipe, it can be rendered equally tasty as 
a savory dish and, IMO, as a sweet dish. Which is more accurate? I don't 
think we have the resources or information to make a blanket judgment there. 
What is important is that whichever method is chosen the dish tastes good. 
The recipe is after all from a manuscript which was used by the cooks of 
royalty for the most part. And if the rendering of the dish can honestly be 
said as to be fit for a King then I would laud it as a good rendition.  All 
the renditions posted so far regarding that recipe sound extremely tasty so 
all are can be said to be equally 'period.' We simply have no way of knowing 
which is the accurate rendition unless we discover the dish frozen in the 
perma frost somewhere or find a detailed description in period writings from 
the actual time the recipe was written down in the manuscript regarding its 
actual nature. I don't know that such a description exists.

I found your comments to be valid regarding the sugar issue and agree 
completely but I also see another possibility as equally valid. Developing a 
style of cookery uniquely one's own and then applying across board to any 
particular period cookery is what individual cooks are all about. You have a 
distinct style as do I and every other cook. Using that style within the 
bounds of a particular time frame produces dishes that are unique to that 
individual. It does not validate any particular rendition as more accurate 
than another.

Yours in Service to the Dream,

Ras