[Sca-cooks] Tips on Redactions

[Stefan li Rous]

Phlip replied to me with:
> I think what you are misunderstanding here, Stefan, is
> what I believe to be Cariadoc's intent.

Possibly. But I only have what he said to go on.

> I think Cariadoc is saying to use a modern cookbook as
> a jump-off point for dealing with foods in general- in
> other words, to learn at what temperature, for how
> long, a roast should be cooked to be medium rare, or
> that a teaspoon of salt is likely more appropriate for
> a pot of stew, than a cup or two ;-)

Why not get this same info from a good cookbook that is
specific to period cooking? Just because a roast is
should be cooked to "medium rare" today, doesn't mean
that is the way it was done in period.

And yes, I agree on the salt. That is exactly the kind
of thing that I need some help. But why is a modern
cookbook necessarily a better choice than a period one?

> As far as following other peoples' redactions, I think
> he's saying that you should look at the recipe first
> with an unbiased mind, uncolored by what the previous
> person has decided is either an appropriate amount, or
> perhaps an appropriate ingredient.

Yes, I'm not sure we disagree here. However, you take a
chance on schewing your recipe interpretation when you
use a strictly modern cookbook. Why disregard the
interpretation of a period cookbook in favor of one
that is strictly modern recipes? If you are concerned
about biasing yourself by looking at the exact recipe,
look at something similar. Another period stew recipe
is likely to be closer to period stew recipe than is
a modern stew recipe.

> An example might be this:
>
> You look at the recipe, and the transcription might be
> "raysens y corinthus". You might interpret this to
> mean currants, as we have discussed here on Cook's
> List, but someone else with a strong background in
> Spanish and French might have interpreted it to mean
> raisins (or grapes) and coriander. Cariadoc's idea is
> for you to make your own mistakes, rather than
> perpetuating someone elses.

I don't know Spanish (well not enough to use it for this)
or French. Why shouldn't I use the knowledge of someone
who has studied period recipes and knows French and
Spanish, rather than just depending upon my own guesses.

> Another example might be the lardum/bacon confusion in
> the Latin texts- if you weren't aware that one recipe
> specifies lardum from the leg, you might be happily
> putting our modern bacon in every recipe which
> translates lardum as bacon, rather than looking
> closely at both the translation and the rest of the
> dish, to consider options.

And their intrepretation of lardum being bacon is worse
than my initial interpretation of it being lard? If I
have to look it up, the book writer could too. And presumably,
since they are writing a book instead of doing one recipe
they will have spent more time on looking up and cross-
referancing to determine the meaning of "lardum". However,
in some ways this is a bad example, as I'm already aware
that given "bacon" as the interpetation of "lardum", that
this might be a substution chosen for availablity. I
am aware, from this list, that there are different types
of bacon, even today, and that American strip bacon may
not be the best substitute here. I will admit that it is
exactly those kinds of questions that now make me want
to have the original recipe to refer to, even when I'm
using someone else's redaction as a starting point.

--
THLord Stefan li Rous    Barony of Bryn Gwlad    Kingdom of Ansteorra
   Mark S. Harris            Austin, Texas          stefan at texas.net
**** See Stefan's Florilegium files at:  http://www.florilegium.org ****