[Sca-cooks] what are your thoughts on period-style food?

[Philip & Susan Troy]

jenne at fiedlerfamily.net wrote:

>> > Every year I think about teaching a mustard class, to offer an
>> > alternative to dumping in packaged dijon, which definitely has
>> > non-period ingredients.
>>
>>Really? Just out of curiosity, which? (This is neither a loaded nor a
>>leading question; I honestly don't know.)
>>
>
> Careful with those questions, they may turn out to be loaded. Proper Dijon
> mustard, made in Dijon, has only vinegar, brown mustard and salt.
> (A quick survey of mustard recipes online and my memory supplies the idea
> that salt wasn't used in mustard recipes, though it may be added by
> implication...)


I was under the impression that Dijon mustard (or it maybe Dijon-style)
had white wine in addition to vinegar. But this is based on info I
vaguely remember from Larousse, not from any serios research on the
subject. If I have it available in books I don't have to remember it, do
I? As I said, I really didn't know.


>
> However, Dijon-style, which is what I meant, sorry, often has white flour
> in it.  A quick survey of the web shows that there are some Dijon-style
> mustards that include only the ingredients above, or those ingredients
> plus white wine-- my impression was that U.S. Dijon (style) mustards
> included flour.


Again, I didn't know that. My usual impression is that Dijon mustards,
both French and American versions, tend to be too salty for my taste.
While I'm aware of some muustards having various flours added to them, I
was not aware of Dijon being one of them.


>> > But my attitude about making mustard is 'we know what kinds of
>> > spices were used. We know what other ingredients were used. Combine
>> >  to taste.' And I think y'all would be bothered by that, and feel I
>> >  was giving out misinformation and get annoyed.
>>
>>I don't see that happening. If you said something like, "This is a
>>reasonable approximation of mustard for various times and places in the
>>SCA's period," I think most people would say, "Yeah, okay, fine,"
>>because that's exactly what it would be.
>>
>
> Actually, what I would be saying is that period mustard sauce seems to
> have been made with these various ingredients in period. My personal
> theory is that mustard recipes in period were probably at least as
> varied/individual as modern versions of a given sauce.

And I think that the two statements are roughly equivalent, and for
practical purposes harmless. On the other hand, if you said something
like, "This is what period mustard is like," this is an easy statement
to misinterpret, and could "teach" something you did not intend. If
someone did walk away with a wrong impression (say, assuming that a
variant not covered by your guideline criteria for period mustard, but
clearly extant in period, like, say, a mustard made with actual must
-random example, not attempting to put words in your mouth- is _not_
period _because_ it does not fit your description), this wouldn't
necessarily be your fault that this occurred, but knowledge is power,
and as Stan Lee wrote some years ago in some great piece of literature
(Amazing Fantasy #15, to be exact), "With Great Power Comes Great
Responsibility..." I guess my point is that if you have the ability to
prevent people from drawing stupid conclusions from your research, then
you should try to do so.

Adamantius
--
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com

"It was so blatant that Roger threw at him.  Clemens gets away with
things that get other people thrown out of games.  As long as they
let him get away with it, it's going  to continue." -- Joe Torre, 9/98