SC - Re: saffron

[Huette von Ahrens]

- --- CBlackwill at aol.com wrote:

> 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.  

If you were familiar with period recipes, and from
what you have written so far, it appears that you are
not,
then you will know that there are mentions of
substitutions in many recipes, especially in the later
period cookbooks.  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.  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.
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".

> Particularly if it 
> improves the palatability of the dish.  

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.  

> 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?  

Yes, we can. There a lots of original cookbooks still
in existance.  Many in the original handwriting of the
author.  These are available in libraries all over the
world.  UC Santa Barbara and UC Berkeley have quite a
collection of original cookbooks donated to them. The
Library of Congress has even more.  The British Museum
also. There are many other museums and libraries that
have serious historical cookbook collections. They are
available to the public by special appointment. 

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.  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.  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, could have gotten lost and arrived on the
shores of Spain in the 11th century and so therefore
we should use chocolate in our next 11th century
Spanish banquet.
It "could" have happened, but there is no historical
proof of this.

If you don't like a particular ingredient, then don't
make the recipe.  Choose something else to make. 
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.

>        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.  Whether they are tasty becomes a matter of
personal opinion.  Whether they should be used in the
SCA depends on how they are used and whether they are
called a period drink or not.  If I wish to drink Coca
Cola in my pavillion during an event, that is my
choice to do or not do.  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. 

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.

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

Okay.  Prove it.  

Huette




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com