[Sca-cooks] Tips on Redactions

[Philippa Alderton]

--- Stefan li Rous <stefan at texas.net> wrote:

> 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.

OK, Stefan, you're right. Now if you would be kind
enough to dig into your files, and produce the period
recipe which explains that to cook a roast in a modern
oven, you need to have X lbs of meat, in a precisely Y
(either centigrade or fahrenheit) degrees oven, for
precisely Z amount of time, or until your modern meat
thermometer registers Q degrees for the proper amount
of doneness, I will happily send aspiring Medieval
Cooks to read it in preference to a modern cookbook.

And I'm not saying that Medieval cooks roasted their
meat to medium rare, but unless otherwise specified,
that's where I'm going to cook mine, if I intend to
eat it, unless I'm cooking for other folks who prefer
their meat cooked differently. That falls under the
very specific instruction, "untyl it bee donne".

> 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?

Because unless you're dealing with the Arab cookbooks,
you DON'T have accurate measurements or proportions.
Or do you have a period recipe or two you can direct
me to, which says to use modern cup and tablespoon
measures? Would love to see them.....

> 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?

Because cooking is NOT either precise or formulaic,
with the exception of baking (and how many period
baking recipes do we have? 4 or 5? Bear?). And the
interpretation of the period cookbook has been done,
usually, by someone just as modern as I am- what makes
their judgement any better than mine? In fact,
considering the wider understandings we're gaining of
period cookery through some of the more recently
translated cookbooks, not to mention the ability to
discuss various matters with modern cooking reenactors
on this List, my interpretation might very well be
more accurate. Look at Vehling's Apicius. What he did
was very good, FOR ITS DAY, but if he had had access
to some of the information we now have available, I
rather doubt he'd have put bell peppers or green
peppers into his redactions.

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.

Of course it is. But that still doesn't negate the
usefulness of the modern information that a tablespoon
or two total of fresh herbs might be more appropriate
than 3 or 4 pounds.

> > 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.

Well, I used that example for a reason. "y" in Spanish
means "and" and is very similar to the French "et" in
pronunciation, so here, you have one interpretation
being "A _and_ B" where the other is "A _of_ B", a
modification which means the difference of adding two
ingredients of one type, and one very specific
ingredient of another type- something which could make
quite a difference in the final recipe.

But, hey, if you prefer to use otheer people's
interpretations, go for it. While you're at it, you
can let them cook the food, and eat it as well- that's
up to you.

But, if you want to do your own redactions of period
recipes, then you need to do them yourself. Calling
AAA is NOT changing your own flat tire, although both
should get the car down the road.

> 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".

But did they? And even if they did, what other
information might they have picked up incidently, that
enhances their interpretation and understanding of Med
foodways, that they didn't share, and you missed?

> 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.

Stefan, you're coming into this as a very intelligent
man with an engineer's mindset, who is unfamiliar with
foods and cookery in general, and of course you're
going to try to do this methodically and logically.
Your very innocence of knowledge in this field is a
very valuable resource to me, and others on this List
because you make us think about things we already
know, and go back to basics, actually giving us a
deeper understanding of what we're doing, by teaching
you.

But, if you ask any teacher in any field, every last
one of them will tell you that it's easier to teach
someone who knows nothing about a subject, than
someone who does know a little bit about it because
you have fewer bad habits to break, and
misapprehensions to unlearn.

It's like that with Med cookery. If you start out by
following other folks' redactions, you may very well
pick up their bad habits. Better to develop your own
;-)

Phlip

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/