SC - Definitions and Examples: Period, Peri-oid and OOP

[Catherine Deville]

Mistress Christianna, thank you so much for your clear, courteous and
salient response, it was very helpful.  Just a few comments in reply.

The faire Mistress said:
> 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.
...

I had actually recognized this when first looking for research.  When I
first joined the SCA (around 1980-1981) and planned my first feast (around
1982), I was able to find only a few books on medieval cookery, and that
was with access to Vanderbilt University library (at the time they
permitted access to non-students, you just couldn't take the book out of
the library.)  The *best* resource that I was able to find were _To the
King's Taste_, _Fabulous Feasts_ (which I understand is now in much
disrepute) and an SCA published cookbook that I can't remember the title of
but wish that I still had <s>.  As fare as I could tell, I had *no access*
to "primary" sources and wouldn't have known where to look for them if I
had recognized my lack.  Now I am so flooded with references to what seem
to be translations of primary sources which appear to be generally
recognized by everyone that I'm salivating for the money to buy some ;-)

> 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.  ;)

Now, see, *that* makes a great deal of sense.  I guess I was getting the
impression, because people *are* devoted to raising the bar, that the bar
among the general populace might just be raised so far above my head that I
dare not venture into a kitchen for fear of making a faux pas my first time
out (even though I do have a bit of Feastcratting experience.)  I
appreciate your pointing out to me the difference.  It is a good thing to
stretch beyond your reach.  It is a bad thing to be discouraged because you
can't see hte end of the tunnel :-)


> 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.

Yes... and there is also something else out there... *guidance* in helping
the beginner discern which books are a good secondary source and which are
not, something that was also rare back in the "old" days.  Just having the
asistance of the people on this list who have given their informed opinions
on such things has been immensly helpful.  That kind of information could
be difficult to come by back in the 80s, unless you were lucky enough to
have worked your way up to apprenticing under a Laurel or a Master Chef.
(which is very period, I realize, but not as helpful as having this vast
resource of well informed people to provide their opinions.)

> A quick note here, it is a 'redaction' not a 'retraction'.

<blush>... yes, Ma'am...
I got it right the *2nd* time... I just didn't catch the typo the first
time <blush!>

> 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.

I'm hoping so... I'm looking forward to a variety of opinions.

> 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.

Thank you.  That's what I was hoping for.  Historical research if rife with
debate and IMO there *are* no "real" answers.  Which is why I'm interested
in hearing many different viewpoints.  There have always been people who
were above the bar and more focused on serious research and those for whom
"an attempt at period costume" or period anything else was interpreted very
leniently... and then there were those of us in the middle trying to strike
a balance while we enjoyed this marvelous organization, which is (again, of
course, IMO) one of the most wonderous and enjoyable ways to learn and to
teach.  I don't think that will ever change... and IMO it would not be a
good thing if it did.  IMO we all need each other ;-)

> >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.

Now, that was the way that I was taught, except that there are many food
which are New World Foods or which are not in period (such as potatos and
baking soda) which I was not aware of back then. :-)

> 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?

Wow!  So I might get away with some of the recipes out of my Appian Way
(Classical Latin) cook book?  cool <beg>

> 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.

that's to be expected... as long as we keep exchanging ideas and don't
close the doors on them I'm o.k. ;-)

> A hearty "Good For You" for deciphering as much as you have!

<deep courtsey!>

Thank you, Mistress... and thank you again for taking the time to compose
such a thoughtful, gracious and informative reply.

My Deepest Regards, and as always I remain, in service to Meridies,
Lady Celia des L'archier