SC - Highnesses, Lownesses, and Period Cooking.

[Alderton, Philippa]

At 7:11 AM -0500 2/29/00, Jehanne Argentee wrote:

>Please note the words REQUEST and ENDEAVOR this is not a command. It is
>simply her asking people to TRY... Try what? "all period feasts" This is
>not to say any and all period dishes. This is to say feasts where every
>dish is documented, footnoted, and can't be possibly be mistaken for
>anything other 'weird medieval stuff'.

That might be what she meant, but it is not what she said. A period 
dish is defined as being period, not as being weird.

>  > We do not mind if some removes are of a period nature, however,
>  > we wish other removes of a more easily digested by the
>  > majority-of-the-populace nature!

>However, the Medieval recipes for modern food that people on one of these
lists have been mentioning would easily fall into the second category.

That might be what she meant, but not what she said.  A dish doesn't 
stop being period just because it didn't drop out of use in 1601.

>  > We understand the reason that totally period feasts are cooked,
>  > but in some cases our populace is paying the price for historical accuracy:
>
>I've seen these cases. Worse, I've worked in the kitchen in some of them.
>I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly in Trimarian kitchens... Not sure
>how much blame should lie on volunteers like myself who are following the
>feastcrats recipes.. Not sure how much credit either.

Her Highness didn't say she wanted good feasts instead of bad 
feasts--a sentiment with which nobody would disagree, although it may 
still be worth saying it. She said she wanted feasts that were not 
entirely period, because period food tasted bad and was hard to 
digest (not her precise words, but the clear implication of what she 
wrote--see immediately below).

>  > and their twentieth-century palates (and sometimes tummies) are unable
>  > to appreciate the research and effort that went into cooking that 
>particular
>  > time period.

Two assumptions, both false:

1. That period cooking tastes bad and is indigestible to modern 
people, although it tasted and digested fine for medieval people.

2. That the reason to do period cooking is to satisfy the desire of 
the cook to do period food, at the cost of the people eating it.

>Sad to say, non-period feasts get alot of praise down here. I remember one
>feastcrat who was a professional caterer... did a completely modern dinner,
>down to the Bananas Foster for dessert... and got lots of complements.
>That's not what I want, however.
>
>It's not what her Highness wants either.

I cannot see any evidence for that in what her Highness wrote. 
Nowhere in either version of her statement (newsletter or web) does 
she say anything about wanting even part of the feast to be 
period--merely that she doesn't mind if some of it is. And the web 
page explicitly asks for the sovereigns to be served strikingly out 
of period food.

I appreciate your attempt at peacemaking, and I am sure Her Highness 
had no evil intent. She did, however, actively attempt to discourage 
the practice of a period art (or possibly science), about which she 
seems to know very little (she apparently believes, for example, that 
"remove" is the period term for "course"). That is not something that 
royalty (or other people) ought to do.

It would have been simple enough for her to say that she was in favor 
of good period food, but that the fact that something was from a 
period recipe did not excuse its tasting bad, any more than the fact 
that something was from a modern recipe excused its tasting bad, and 
she therefor hoped that, during her reign, the cooks would make an 
effort to pay attention to both historical accuracy and palatability 
in designing feasts.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/