[Sca-cooks] Foods for Begining SCA Cooks

[Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius]

I wonder if any prior versions of this meta-discussion on this list,  
from any time in the past, oh, nine years or more, have made it into  
the Florilegium. It seems to come up once or twice a year.

On Feb 11, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Celia des Archier wrote:

> In addition, as an SCA cook, unless I'm cooking for an arts  
> competition
> where the requirement is that I be reproducing a redacted recipe as
> accurately as possible, I'm old school about believing that  
> *Creatively*
> anachronistic recipes are acceptable.

See, where the little hairs on the back of my neck rise is the use of  
"acceptable" in this context. I don't really think this game should  
be about what is or is not acceptable. It should be about what's fun.  
Occasionally, though, some people make remarks that can be  
interpreted like "Thou shalt not do X, but do Y, for it shall then be  
acceptable." Which, of course, sounds at first like a way to make the  
game less fun. However, in actual fact, what these remarks often mean  
is more like, "I see you're doing X, which looks like fun. But have  
you tried Y, which is even more fun, for these reasons?" It's a form  
of "authenticity as pushing the envelope", or raising the bar on the  
fun meter, or something on those lines.

I'm not a big fan of A&S competitions, and one reason is they often  
seem to foster the idea that there are two levels of authenticity,  
like "everyday" and "dress" shoes, and that we pursue one level of  
authenticity for fun, and another for competitions, which aren't for  
fun, but which we do anyway. And if competitions aren't fun, why  
would we be in them? Ergo, I think that competition-level  
authenticity can, under the right circumstances, be fun, and that  
pursuing it regularly, even when there's no external prize to win, is  
actually more fun than winning a prize or getting an award.

> My reasoning is this.  Period cooks
> didn't write everything down.  Good cooks, modern or from any period,
> generally don't slavishly follow recipes anyway...

Sounds kinda like a value judgement to me. Does anybody ever apply  
the adverb "slavishly" to "follow recipes" and not mean they think  
it's a bad thing? I think you may be missing the point, or proceeding  
from a defensive and/or counter-offensive position when you're not  
under attack.

Good cooks don't slavishly follow modern recipes unless A) they're  
bakers, and/or B) learn absolutely everything they can from a recipe,  
the whats, whys and wherefores, before deciding to do something else.  
Often people doing attempts at period cooking fail on this point, and  
make changes on processes or ingredients without being really sure  
why they're there in the first place, or, to put it another way,  
without understanding, or, necessarily, achieving what the recipe is  
intended to achieve with this set of ingredients.

> they start with what they
> know and then adapt to the tastes of their diners.  I do the same  
> thing with
> my SCA cooking.  I try to learn as much as I can about period  
> ingredients,
> cooking techniques and common foods as possible, and to stay as  
> close to my
> understanding of period cooking styles and ingredients as possible,  
> but I
> rarely work from a redacted recipe feeling that I can't experiment  
> from
> there.  At most I might begin with a redacted recipe and then  
> modify to my
> tastes and the tastes of my diners (with there being rare  
> exceptions when I
> find something that I don't think should be messed with, like  
> shortbread ;-)

Shortbread's actually a great test case. Why would I not want to mess  
with shortbread? What are the principle criteria for a shortbread  
recipe, the immutables? Well, I guess it has to be short, by which  
most cooks seem to mean rich and tender: tender from sugar, low in  
gluten (often made with no other liquid than the butter itself for  
that very reason), fragile, rich-tasting, and with a buttery mouth  
feel. What changes can I make to shortbread and still have it be  
shortbread? If I use half as much butter, will it be shortbread? Can  
I use Equal instead of sugar (bleah!)? How about adding yeast? It's  
bread, right? Can I add nuts and get away with it? How about a non- 
wheat flour? Without going through each of these in turn, suffice to  
say some of these are either very silly, or at least would result in  
something other than shortbread. I'd have to make shortbread several  
times, and probably from a recipe, or at least a formula, before I  
felt confidently that I knew the ins and outs of shortbread,  and  
what changes I can make and still get successful shortbread. At  
first, I'd want to (dare I say it?) slavishly follow the recipe.

Similarly, I can make bukkenade of veal from a 14th-century source,  
and eventually figure out that it is probably a seasonal dish, with  
ingredients that may or may not be intended to achieve a certain  
seasonally-appropriate balance of humors, but which, coincidentally  
or not, does, in fact, do so. Some later recipes omit the thickening  
of egg yolks, which, for me, is what makes the dish distinctive (like  
a modern fricassee), so presumably I can make changes. But at what  
point does it stop being bukkenade and become something else? Even  
more importantly, at what point do I, as a responsible student and  
teacher, stop saying this dish is inspired by bukkenade, out of  
concern for the people who'll eat it and tell their friends that  
medieval bukkenade had Spam, or whatever, in it? And that they know  
it's true because I, in effect, said so?

> Again, I expect that Celia would have done the same thing in  
> period.  (And
> to me that is the difference, as I explain to people when I'm  
> explaining the
> nature of the SCA, between a recreation group and a reenactment  
> group.) :-)
> And for "Lady Celia", as a feast steward within the SCA, I consider  
> that to
> provide an acceptable level of anachronistic illusion to enhance  
> people's
> SCA experience, at least in most cases.

True. On the other hand, that's not much different from the goals  
behind the typical RennFaire and "Medieval Tymes". Yes, we want to  
enhance the anachronistic illusion, and that's a good thing, but I  
prefer to think of it as being as much an integral part of the  
anachronistic illusion as well-researched clothing or armor, or the  
persona details and names we choose, and to me, this is where we part  
from RennFaire. Where we part from most re-enactment groups is that  
we're fellow travellers from a variety of settings, meeting in a sort  
of timeless Never-Land, where plenty of those present would know the  
customs of 15th-century Normandy, but which is clearly not 15th- 
century Normandy, or April 14th, 1287 in York.

<snipped reference to "An Ordinance of Pottage">

> 	The original on page 71 (number 96)
> 	Cold bruet of rabets." 	
>
> The recipe I used was less complex than that recipe, and didn't  
> include
> vinegar, but had many of the same ingredients and produced what I  
> suspect
> from the recipes are very similar results.  To my mind it makes the  
> original
> recipe that I was working from *reasonably* period in nature, and  
> it makes
> the idea acceptable as a working point to begin with.

Up to a point, yes, but as an example of the kind of thing I mean,  
bruet is pretty much a cognate of broth: they can be thickened, even  
up to the point where they can be used to fill a tart, but eventually  
you realize there's some other dish that would require less  
adaptation or tailoring to get the effect you want. If I make a  
chicken pie, and tell people (or allow them to think) that the dish  
was inspired by a chicken soup recipe, someone who had never had  
chicken soup (say, a time traveller from another country that I met  
at an SCA event) might get some odd ideas about what chicken soup is.  
I might feel, as a responsible cook and amateur scholar, responsible  
for this misapprehension and want to either fix or prevent this.

> b) I didn't have a recipe for the "field bread" at all.  I worked  
> from a
> standard whole wheat bread recipe used in our Barony as the staple  
> bread,
> and then added dried fruit to it.  It would quite probably be more  
> period to
> make a biscotti or other type of biscuit or hard tack, but at that  
> point in
> time (as a novice SCAer in the early '80s,) I pretty much accepted  
> what my
> Mistress told me was o.k. to work with, and since I remembered my  
> Latin
> instructor in high school telling me that soldiers in the Roman  
> army often
> carried a similar 'field bread", I didn't question the idea.

I think if I were in that position, I'd have wondered why people too  
poor or too low in station to eat bolted-flour white bread were  
putting expensive dried fruit in it. But maybe not at my first  
event... ;-)

> If folks want
> to work with the idea but want to be documentably period, they  
> might want to
> check out this article on biscotti (which would also be more  
> portable than
> what I did) in the Florilegium:
> http://www.florilegium.org/files/FOOD-BREADS/biscotti-msg.html
>
>
> c) The stewed fruit was simply dried fruit stewed (apples,  
> apricots, pears
> (when I could find them) and dates) stewed in pear brandy.  I know  
> that
> there's some debate on whether or not brandy is period, but I've  
> seen enough
> arguments that it is (including this argument in the Florilegium
> (http://www.florilegium.org/files/BEVERAGES/Peach-Brandy-art.html )
> to convince me that it's reasonable to use brandy, rather than  
> wine, and
> there are plenty of examples of dried fruit stewed in wine to  
> believe that a
> cook might have taken such a liberty.
>
> So, I'm sorry that it was confusing that I didn't provide stringent
> documentation, but my intent was not to represent my original  
> creations as
> "authentic", and I expected that the ideas would be sufficient  
> starting
> points for the original poster to begin with to find recipes which  
> suited
> her desired level of authenticity.

Well, okay, but if Renata is teaching newbies an introductory course  
about medieval food, why does the question of her desired level of  
authenticity even come up? Should we give her medieval foods, or do  
we give her some medieval foods, and some recipes made up by Madeline  
Pellner Cosman, garnished with red licorice whips, and say, "Renata,  
we threw these ones in just in case you wanted to be inauthentic?"

I mean, with all respect, your position seems to be based on the  
premise that authenticity, in general, somehow equates with "not- 
fun", and maybe "intimidating to newbies". I don't think that's how  
it is.

>
>> Again, are you referring to a specific period recipe for stewed  
>> fruit?
>>
>> Or in other words, you pushed one of my buttons.
>
> With all due respect, my Lord... it's your button, not mine, so you'll
> forgive me if I don't feel the need to cater to it.

I don't think anyone expects you to.

>   It would be different
> if I had posted recipes without documentation, or had claimed that  
> the ideas
> were period, but I didn't.  Renata ask for ideas for " good foods to
> introduce to newbies"

I actually re-checked on this point, and Renata didn't ask for period  
foods, but she did use the words, "historical", "medieval" and  
"Renaissance".

> and I just tossed out ideas which had worked well for
> me, and which were acceptable within my own group (at least at that  
> time).
> I expected her to take those ideas as jumping off points for  
> further study,
> not gospel.
>
> I didn't represent the ideas as authentic and the few times I've  
> posted in
> the past I've made clear my philosophy on the acceptability of perioid
> recipes and the nature of *Creative* Anachronism, so I don't really  
> feel
> required to change that philosophy because you have a button.   
> Since this is
> SCA-cooks and not Authentic Cooks (another SCA cooking list to which I
> belong, where I would not have posted without documentation) and I  
> recall
> discussions of everything from perioiod recipes to such OOP topics as
> mayonnaise or Miracle Whip,

You forgot the Twinkies. But y'see, even on this list we have a fair  
amount of rather serious historical-food discussion, and we try not  
to blur the lines. I don't consider it a big deal that not everything  
you mentioned came from a documented period source, but a little  
caveat to the effect that these things don't all come from period  
sources, but might make the new people start to feel like they were  
in the Middle Ages (or something to that effect) might have been  
helpful.

> I didn't feel it would be inappropriate to toss
> out ideas and allow the person needing the information to make a
> determination on *how* authentically period they wanted to be.  Please
> accept that I did not represent, nor was it my intention to  
> represent that
> these ideas would be documentable (although it seems that it is  
> possible to
> use them to find period recipes which *would* be documentable), nor  
> was it
> my intention to either a) do the other cook's research for her or b)
> interfere with her right to use her own judgment about how  
> authentic and
> documented she wished to be.
>
> So I do sincerely regret having offended you, my Lord, but no  
> offense was
> intended and I hope that any offense that was offered can be  
> forgiven.  And
> hopefully this additional clarification will be sufficient  
> information for
> any Renata (and other cook interested) to determine whether the  
> ideas are of
> value to them and their specific needs or not.

I don't think it's a matter of offense. You're speaking, when you  
speak to His Grace, to something of a religious zealot where  
authenticity is concerned. And religion isn't necessarily a bad  
thing. I've learned myself over the years that his words are not so  
much driven by disapproval of the things I, or others, have done or  
said, or disrespect for anyone in their choices, but rather mild  
disappointment and sorrow that we're clearly not having as much *&% 
$#@ fun as he is. This is the man who responded to a bunch of drunken  
and otherwise chemically-enhanced teens, trying to disorient and  
otherwise freak out anyone they could at one Pennsic War, claiming  
the Venusians were landing, by [presumably pretending to hear] that  
the Venetians were landing, and that his camp must be mobilized for  
the attack of the Doge's forces. Which he proceeded to do, much to  
the bewilderment of the bewilderers. I can't see where anything he  
says is ever about doing away with anybody's fun.

And, having played many versions of this game, I have to say, he  
generally makes an excellent point. I don't think anybody here is  
trying to impose their standards on others; at the most, they're  
trying to show how certain standards can make the game more enjoyable.

Adamantius







"S'ils n'ont pas de pain, vous fait-on dire, qu'ils  mangent de la  
brioche!" / "If there's no bread to be had, one has to say, let them  
eat cake!"
     -- attributed to an unnamed noblewoman by Jean-Jacques Rousseau,  
"Confessions", 1782

"Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy -- or go on Prozac?"
     -- Susan Sheybani, assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry  
Holt, 07/29/04