SC - Going down for a while.

[Catherine Deville]

Well, you have done an admirable job of figuring out the overall attitude
of the list.  And yes, this subject has been discussed ad nauseum in the
past (Hi, Balthazar!), and to some extent, there is a certain amount of
agreeing to disagree.  However, let me see if I can clarify anything
here:

>I also note that many things which were excepted as true when I was
young and unseasoned (and an active member) have changed.  It may simply
be that some of those things are better researched now than they were
then, it may be that the focus of the SCA has become more focused on
authenticity or it may simply be that this list is overwhelmingly peopled
by serious scholars (and just for clarification, that was a compliment,
not an insult <s>.)

	As you say, there were many things that were done in the early years
that have gone by the wayside as accepted practices.  You have nailed it
on the head about the better research, due in large part to the advent of
the internet.  My lord was just saying yesterday that where you could get
away with a 3x5 card for documentation before, now you had better know
what the period source is and have a quote from it for any serious
documentation.  Mind you, this refers to an A&S setting, when submitting
doucumentation is paramount. 
As far as the SCA being more focused on authenticity, I don't know, (I
have not seen overwhealming evidence of that), but part of the purpose of
this list (as I see it) is to help raise the bar of research and
authenticity, not to mention edibility of feasts and support of better
organized and run kitchens in the SCA.  There are serious scholars here,
professional chefs (current and retired) as well as beginners and
'instinct cooks'.  The whole last week's discussion of Miracle Whip
should disabuse you of the notion that the entire list is purely 
scholarly or serious.  ;)

> To try and be clear where my confusion lies, there seems to be a 
> feel on this list that if I can't find it printed somewhere, then they 
> didn't do it.  Which seems to me to be a practically untenable position
when 
> we're discussing the availability of information on something which was

> poorly documented, where texts are subject to translation error and
where 
> the vast majority of the people of the time simply did not *write
things 
> down*.  

	Not that they didn't do it, but that we can't PROVE that they did it. 
Folks like Cariadoc advocate the idea that there are so many period
recipes that have not been tried yet, there is little reason to change
recipes to suit, when finding a different recipe would be more accurate. 
As I stated before, the availability of texts to the general populace has
increased immensely, and anyone wihth internet access or a good Inter
Library Loan program should be able to find ample sources to work from. 
There are also many good (better than before) secondary sources to help
get folks started.  


> Part of what was stressed to me in my early training was that this 
> was the Society for _Creative_ Anachronism... that we should be
creative in 
> our research. I'm getting the feel from the list that if it isn't based

> on a retraction 

	A quick note here, it is a 'redaction' not a 'retraction'.  I am sure
someone else has the generally accepted definition handy, but basically
we use it to mean a translated or modernized formula based on original
text or evidence. 
	
> of a recipe from a period source that it's not period, it's peri-oid. 
Is this correct?  

	Oh, gee, now here you get into the really LOOONNGG conversations about
what we call what we do.  I'll try to give you a simple definition, and
others will too, I bet.   Basically, if you can be entirely faithful to a
specific recipe (some will say this is impossible, since we don't have
the whole atmosphere, we cannot be entirely faithful), then you can claim
something to be 'period' or 'in a period style'.   When being creative,
unless you have a recipe that states specific substitutions, you are
creating something 'perioid'.  


> So, to clarify, the impression that I'm getting is that if you can't 
> point to a documentable redaction *and* support your reasons for having

> made the decisions that you did in making that redaction based on the 
> documentation available to you, the it's not period, it's "peri-oid".  

	Even if you can support your reasons, someone will still probably be
willing to argue the point with you.  One of the things we do best on
this list is argue the finer points, so just try to look at it as part of
the process of us all trying to understand better, rather than any of us
having all of the "REAL" answers.  

>If you create something from generally accepted period ingredients, or
in some cases modern ingredients which mimic period ingredients and in a
period  style (which you can document) then it might be peri-oid, but
it's not 
 considered "period".  

	Yes, I'd say that was accurate. 


>And if you make a decision based on deductive reasoning  (they
 did 'this' therefore it's reasonable to believe that they may also have
> done 'that') then it's generally considered OOP.  

	No, I would still say you are in the realm of 'perioid' here.  Out Of
Period comes into play when you start using items we know they did not
have, such as New World Foods unless you are specifically doing a New
World Foods Feast, or the use of baking soda or baking powder in recipes.
 

I'm I getting  close?
> What do folks think?

	You are getting very warm....

>  (and, btw, "in period" is defined *how*, now?  it used to be 
> 600-1650 with some dispute of it's being 600-1600... but it was in an
official 
> document (I thought the Corpora, but don't have my old docs so it could
have been any of them, including Meridies Kingdom law.)  I checked the
current Corpora and By-Laws and they now refer only to "pre-17th
century"... 
> so what dates are commonly conceived to be "in period" now?)

	The timeline did change, and where it used to have an early cut-off, it
now says 'pre-17th Century', but it also says in some other part that we
are focused on Western Europe.  So, folks will argue that the early stuff
is OOP, but only if you can't creatively justify how you would have wound
up at a European Court.  I know folks that think that anything after 1450
is no longer the Middle Ages, and folks that think that Cavalier lace is
still appropriate.  Whachagonnado?

> 
> I remain, in service to Meridies,
> Lady Celia des L'archier

	Just keep in mind that there is a whole lot of questions we don't know
the answers to, and in 20 years we will probably look back at the things
we think we know now and shake our heads in bewilderment, thinking how
dumb we really were.  
	The idea that substitutions should be acceptable because we know in our
heart of hearts they did this is one for much more serious debate, (it
has been covered, as I said), and most of us readily admit we will
substitute in our daily cooking routinely, so we know they did, too.  But
we don't know exactly *what* they would have substituted (unless they
tell us), and so we can't put something forward as accurate and 'period'
if we substitute without *proof*.  This does not mean that I will not
play around with a recipe, and even serve it at a feast if I like the way
it turns out, but we want to make sure that it is represented as an
adaptation, not the gospel.  
	
	A hearty "Good For You" for deciphering as much as you have!
	Mistress Christianna
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.