SC - Eggplant Neopolitan

[Catherine Deville]

>What evidence do you have to support this supposition? The fact that we do 

>not have written amounts in extant recipes does not indicate that period 
>cooks did not know what amounts were meant. It indicates, IMO, that period

>cooks knew exactly what amounts to use and therefore saw no need to write 

>them down.

Conversely, the fact that a cook knows the amount to use doesn't mean that he
actually measures.  I rarely measure for a recipe I've made many times, or something
similar to a recipe I've made before, or even many other recipes because I'm
good at eyeballing volume.  This doesn't mean I'm just dumping in a random amount.
 I know approximately how much sugar to throw in relative to the amount of flour.
 When I write down recipes, they're like the those we read from period - at
most vague references to amounts (one part this to two parts that and a sprinkle
of another thing.)  This is because a)I know how much to use, and b)I'm always
adjusting for the amount of certain ingredients I have on hand or for the number
of people I'm feeding.  

I'm not saying "why couldn't period cooks do it this way since *I* do," I'm
saying that the recipes I read remind me very much of this habit, and it's a
logical conclusion.  Not measuring isn't just a modern lazy adaptation.  The
stereotype of the lady who knows every recipe in her head and just dumps things
in or measures with a teacup is old.

Whether or not period cooks did literally measure, they didn't write it down
so we're left guess-timating how much to use regardless.

Now, to start a documentation war ;) if there is little documentation for cooks
measuring things (i.e. the recipes don't usually list measurements,) how can
we assume they DID?  And, if we can't assume that they did because no documentation
supports this claim, what assumption are we left with other than that they eyeballed
measurements?

- -Magdalena