[Sca-cooks] Cut-Off Date for Cookery Books?

[Terry Decker]

While a source text may have a date of publication, the contents of that 
text actually predate the publication date.  In the case of a cookbook, the 
real question is when were the recipes created.  A case in point is Martha 
Washington's cookbook, an 18th Century text, where the oldest identifiable 
recipe in the collection dates to the mid-16th Century (if I remember Hess's 
commentary correctly), suggesting that the book is a generationally iterated 
collection of recipes accreting new recipes with each iteration.

The biography of the author might represent a better determination of 
"period" than the date of publication.  Markham and Murrell were 
Elizabetheans, who gained their skills prior to 1600.  Digby and May did 
not.

I am less sanguine on the post-1650 recipe mentioned in a pre-1600 context, 
unless there is evidence supporting a lack of change.  Recipes evolve. 
While I have used a later dated recipe to fill in for a "period" dish, I try 
to document the facts as I know them and let others form their opinion.

Bear


> Greetings! I'm having a discussion with someone about using cookery books 
> which were printed after 1600 and whether they can be considered "period" 
> or not. We're specifically focused on recipes for confections and 
> banqueting items (aka "desserts").
>
> If we are being anal and fussy, then 1600 is a hard date and several of 
> the books that contain the most recipes for sweets don't fit: John 
> Murrell, "A delightful daily exercise for Ladies and Gentlewomen" (1621); 
> Gervase Markham, "The English Housewife" (1615); Kenelm Digby, "The Closet 
> of Sir Kenelm Digby" (1669); Robert May, "The Accomplisht Cook" 
> (1660/1685).
>
> Would you accept cookery books as "period" up to 1625?
>
> What about those after 1650?
>
> Would you accept a post-1650 recipe if it was for a dish that was 
> mentioned pre-1600 but the recipe was 1660 and there was no other recipe 
> available?
>
> Alys K.