SC - Substitutions (A Light at the end of the tunnel??)

[CBlackwill at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/27/00 7:13:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, LrdRas at aol.com 
writes:

> << Why do you feel that the authors of these recipes had to write 
>   down every possible substitution on every possible recipe?  >>
>  <snip>

>  I agree that cooks are given great leeway in the modern world in playing 
> with 
>  certain recipes but I fail to see how modern culinary practices can be 
>  transposed 400 yrs. Into the past. If your supposition is true (and I am 
not 
>  convinced that it is), the nagging question is why we do not have any 
>  specific instructions from period writings that indicate such a practice 
was 
>  encouraged. 

I don't think anyone was actually "encouraging" the practice in this sense.  
I do, however, feel that the authors of these books knew that such a practice 
was taking place, and offered suggestions for those who did wish to make 
changes.

>  
>  With exception of Le Manegier, the written tomes were set down by 
>  extraordinary men. For instance, Chiquart was a knight as well as the chef 
>  for the Duke of Savoy. Platina was a university professor, a man of 
letters 
>  and the Vatican librarian. Ancient Cookery was written for the use of the 
>  cooks for King Richard. al-Baghdadi was written for the cooks of a Caliph. 
>  All of them, including Le Manegier were written for the purpose of 
providing  
>  instruction for the proper preparation of dishes to be presented in formal 
>  settings.

This is true.  I have no quarrel with this statement.  However, I am not 
convinced that these cooks were as fascist in their demands that the recipes 
be followed exactly.  I believe these recipes were given to provide little 
more than basic methodology for preparing a dish, in many cases at least (or, 
more to the point, in the documentation I have personally read.  You 
certainly have others which I have not had the opportunity to peruse). 

  
>  Such formal settings compare easily with the reproduction of classic 
French 
>  or Italian cuisine today. As an example, if you were to provide a meal for 
>  classic Italian cuisine, would you substitute regular tomatoes for plum 
>  tomatoes in a marinera sauce? I would personally chose a dish that did not 
>  call for plum tomatoes rather than substitute Brandywine tomatoes. I would 
>  not substitute American cheese for the appropriate cheese in Welsh 
Rarebit. 
> I 
>  would use another dish and change the menu instead. I would not substitute 
>  chicken for rabbit in a Hasenpfeffer recipe. I would chose an appropriate 
>  chicken recipe. I might invision that a medieval cook would substitute 
>  embryonic rabbits for unavailable fish in a fish recipe if the fish were 
>  unavailable but I think he would have simply prepared an appropriate 
>  embryonic rabbit recipe instead.

This is a very good example, and probably the most compelling evidence I have 
seen to date.  I may have to ponder this awhile...

>  
>  I hope this clarifies my thinking. My position regarding period recipes 
>  extends only to those found in extant manuscripts. I don't know if they 
did 
>  or did not make drastic alterations to specific recipes in formal 
occasions 
>  but I would bet they did not from the evidence we have. 

There is no doubt in my mind, now, where you stand on this topic.  This post, 
and a private message from another list member, have put your entire 
philosophy into perspective for me with crystal clarity.  Understanding where 
you, and others on this list who share your views, are coming from, I have 
little else to say on the matter.  For you, substitutions are unacceptable 
from a "historical and documentable" aspect, and I cannot argue with that.

So, allow me to suggest that we move on, and free up some much needed 
bandwidth for more "important" culinary matters.  It has been a pleasure (and 
a frustration) debating this topic with you and several others on the list.  
I have learned quite a bit during this discussion, and I thank everyone 
involved.  I would ask, however, that a little softer touch be used when 
someone new to the list offers a suggestion which may not be period.  I will 
continue to be the "glimmer of hope" for those new cooks who are interested 
in persuing period cookery, but are not yet able or willing to jump in with 
both feet.  I will offer "not-so-period" suggestions, which will hopefully 
allow them to ease into the research with a little more confidence.  Of 
course, I fully expect you and the other historians on this list to continue 
to insist on "authenticity" and scholarly research.  Perhaps seeing the 
subject from both sides will better enable the new medieval cook to decide 
just where in the great scheme he or she wishes to place him/herself.

Agreed?  

Balthazar of Blackmoor

Words are Trains for moving past what really has no Name.