SC - Highnesses, Lownesses, and Period Cooking.

[Michael F. Gunter]

Since the message to me was cross posted here, I thought I'd post my 
reply.
This will be may last public post on this list on the subject, as I think we
We are beating a dead horse, and preaching to the choir, to mix metaphors
(really mixed metaphor: "Beating a dead choir?" ;->  )

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>   ** The clue phone bit was a bit lame, but again you missed the point. No
> one said that there weren't period dishes and whole feasts that tasted good.
> What it was was a request that the food taste good, whether period or not.
> **

*SIGH*
I was _not_ talking about the words of Her Grace, the Princess of Trimaris.
I was talking about your repeated statements that "Period food = strange and 
unpalatable", even though you have been presented with an extraordinary 
amount of proof that this statement has no founding in reality.  

<sarcasm on>
I guess you must right, then, cause everybody KNOWS that medieval 
people ate rotten gloppy food disguised with lots of spices. 
We are so much more ADVANCED nowadays...
Our tastes MUST be different.
<sarcasm off>

There is no support for the assertion that people ate any thing differently 
then than now. Infact there are definitely analogous foods surviving into
our modern haute cuisine. Sometimes even the very recipes are still the 
same! 

Treat "Period food" as a "regional" cuisine, and an artifact of the culture 
and region that produced it, like Chinese, Thai, or Mexican, and you will 
come closer to the truth of the matter.

The statement that period meals are unpalatable and indegeasible is just 
as unfounded as saying that "All Mexican food is too spicy and greasy"
(is isn't), or that "All Japanese food is raw fish" (it isnt), or even that all of
Florida is swampland.

Blanket statements like this are usually false, to begin with.
Making blanket statements without doing any real research into the matter 
is much more likely to be false.

> ** food is food ? Are you sure you're a cook ? Also, a steak grilled from a
> 5th century cow would taste a bit differently from what you're used to
> today, different feed, etc. 

Would it taste that much differently than the "range fed" beef and buffalo 
that is popular in some of the more upper scale restaraunts? I think not.

> We haven't changed much biologically, but we
> have both socially and psychologically, both of which effect how we percieve
> things like food. **

Have we?
Look at modern French cuisine, or Cajun, or Indian, or Arabian, or Italian.
I bet every one of those "period" ingredients and tastes are still represented 
today. 

> > the myths of "changing tastes"  and u""unpalatqable over spiced glop" are
> > just Hollywood conventions, and have no basis in research or reality
> 
>  ** Tastes in food change with age,  and are effected by what foods you were
> raised on/are used to ( my father liked eating tongue, calf's brains and
> liver, and I definitely do not). 

As I said, Period food is more like a regional food than it is "bad" food.
It is acculturation. Just as I learned to like Indian cuisine, and appreciate the 
flavors, YOU can also learn to enjoy period cuisine, probably with very little 
difficulty.

> As for overspiced glop (french cuisine ?),
> almost any dish, modern or period can suffer that fate. We've all had our
> personal disasters in the kitchen.. **

SO you are admitting that nasty period food is not the fault of the recipe, but 
the kitchen's fault instead? then why are you arguing the point?

> > I would have hoped that SCA Royalty would try to elevate our recreation,
> > not pander to unsubstantiated cultural myths.
> 
>  ** You can't have it both ways, you can't insult them AND expect their
> support at the same time (and yes, I know it goes both ways). **

Never once did I _insult_ Her Highness. 
I did and do maintain that she was/is wrongheaded to post such a blanket
condemnation of Period food. I may hold that opinion and still hold her 
in respect. Having respect for ones superiors does not mean that I cannot 
disagree with them! 

I may choose to disagree with her actions, and even denegrate her 
opinions, but that is a FAR CRY from insulting her, or wishing that the 
inherent nobility of a position such as hers would carry with it the 
responsibility to raise our sights, not sink to the lowest common 
denominator.

>  ** An interesting interpretation of both my words, and corpora. So you're
> saying that to compromise the other side merely has to give in completely to
> your ideas/ideals of what a feast should be ? **

No, but you are hardly meeting us in the middle, either, are you?
There is not one shred of evidence that you regard period food as anything
but an unpalatable nuisance, and will only be tolerated, as long as something 
"more edible" is also on the menu so that Her Highness can refuse to eat
the period food, and not go hungry.

Hardly compromising on her part, is it?

Still, it is incumbent on Her Highness, in her position as Exemplar of 
out society to foster the enhancement of the goals of society events 
and research, not to dismiss it out of hand, as she has done.

> If you want to drink water from a well or
> stream, or sift beer through your teeth, that's fine by me, just don't ask
> me to. 
Sheesh! What unfounded cultural myth did you draw "sifting beer 
through your teeth" from?

So we should let the best be the enemy of the good, then?
Just cause it would be difficult ot uncomfortable to achieve perfect 
recreation we should abandon all but the merest pretense at it?

Faugh!

> Going for period authenticity should after all have some limits. A
> cook whose food displeases a Princess would likely end up on the rack, now
> wouldn't that evoke a Medieval atmosphere ? 

Maybe in Hollywood, not in the Real Middle ages. 

Such a cook would have demoted or simply been let go, and sought 
employment in a different Great House

Read Chiquart. Do some homework.

>  ** If there's never been a bad feast in your area then you folks are
> luckier than most. **

Sure we have bad period feasts...
We also have had bad feasts with modern food.
Badly cooked food is just that badly _cooked_ food!
It has nothing wahtsoever to do with what the source of the recipe may be.


>  **Okay then, instead of calling names and such, why not offer some good
> period recipes already redacted and such, so that even a poor cook such as
> myself can follow them. Or come down here and teach a cooking class, or
> submit your recipe/tips to our Kingdom newsletter, etc. **

Sure. If you had used that approach in the first place...
I have an entire feast on my web site, with sources , translations and redactions.
    http://members.iconn.net/~gedney/Recipes/bdayfeas.htm

There are tons of already worked out receipes in Duke Cariadoc's Miascellany 
and on Stefans Floriligium among others.

Look here for a start:
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/food.html
http://www.florilegium.org 
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/recipe_index.html

>  ** It doesn't make her any more right or wrong for making a request (not an
> order) and stating her opinion in a polite manner than it would you.  I'm
> not a Peer or belted at all, so I guess by not completely agreeing with you
> that makes me wrong without precedence. **

I rather thought it a public condemnation of an entire art form, backed up 
with the weight and status of the Crown. 
She should have realized when she sent in her letter of intent, that elevation 
to the throne changes the way "personal" opinions are taken.

Remember Henry V?
"we are the Makers of manners, Kate. Fashion courtseys to kings..."

As the crown goes so goes the Kingdom. 

Your Princess will have to realize that as long as she has the Awesome status
of Royalty, her every public word will be examined, and taken with great import.
If you are among her retainers, you may need to remind her of this fact.

brandu

"Heavy lies the head..."