[Sca-cooks] OOP: Frozen sauces
Tom Vincent
Tom.Vincent at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 3 13:12:04 PDT 2006
Well, I think I'll stick to it as a sauce. It may stand alone as a side
dish, but I see it more as a sauce...'thick' being a very relative term
and all. Make it thick as tomato ketchup and it works as a sauce; Make
it thick as a jam and it works as a side dish.
People are certainly welcome to eat it straight up or pour it over their
pork or chicken as they see fit. I never prepared it as a marinade,
just a sauce.
As a condiment, its resemblance to cranberry relish gives me even more
confidence about its evolutionary path.
Great to read the ideas and revisit an old favorite, though! For a
decade I've had Cindy Renfrow on a pedestal...a little depressing to see
a possible error on the part of one of the Medieval culinary deities.
Oh, well, Who Mourns For Adonis, anyway? :)
Duriel
Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Tom Vincent wrote:
>
>
>> Now, in defense of it as a sauce, if the original category was diverse
>> potages, we're not suggesting that people didn't dip things into their
>> potages, are we? :)
>>
>
> Nope. I think the greatest source of confusion here is the fact that
> people didn't necessarily categorize foods in the same way we do,
> back in the 15th century. I believe I mentioned this in a discussion
> of soups a few weeks ago... this dish is a pottage, and we should
> probably resist the urge to rethink that assessment in modern terms
> and decide that all pottages are soups, except the ones that are
> puddings or sauces. Rather, we should probably stick pretty much with
> what we know, which is that a pottage is eaten from a bowl (by
> necessity) with a spoon.
>
>
>> I know, a rather weak argument...but some have
>> interpreted Harleian 279 as a dessert, Curye on Inglysh has it as a
>> sauce for meat, and the discredited Fabulous Feasts has it as a sauce
>> for birds, correct? Doesn't Pleyn Delit have it listed as a sauce as
>> well? (No, I know it's not valid to bolster one redaction with
>> another :) )
>>
>
> No, it's not. But based on what we know, we've seen some pottages
> that consist of cooked sauces to which chopped, roast meats are
> added, and served in a bowl, more or less like chili, say. Some
> contain no meat, and it might be interpreted that the concept of
> adding roast or boiled meat before service is implicit, while others
> probably aren't intended as anything other than what the recipe
> describes -- what you see is what you get.
>
> My feeling is that if this dish is called a pottage (assuming the
> recipe we have is not recopied and recategorized by some secondary
> scribe, of which there's always a chance), and there are specific
> instructions on how to garnish it, I think we're probably looking at
> something other than a sauce here. I think this gets prepared, put in
> bowls suitable for holding a serving for one or, in some cases,
> possibly two people [a "cover"], garnished and served to diners who
> will eat it with spoons pretty much as presented.
>
> Of course, there's nothing we can find that would prevent people from
> dunking stuff in it (although possibly there's something in a
> contemporary book on table manners that specifically forbids this; I
> dunno offhand), but that doesn't mean it should be categorized in the
> same way as, say, sauce vert or cameline.
>
> Adamantius
>
>
> "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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sca-cooks mailing list
> Sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/sca-cooks-ansteorra.org
>
>
--
***********
Tom Vincent
***********
The new Tom Hanks film is based on a book full of lies, deceit & corruption.
It's also based on Dan Brown's "The daVinci Code"
More information about the Sca-cooks
mailing list