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

[David Friedman]

I don't see it as an issue of "will you accept." The fact that a recipe 
is in a book published before 1600 is very good evidence that the recipe 
existed before 1600. The fact that it is in a book published in 1605 is 
pretty good evidence, but not as good. The fact that it's in Digby, 
which was compiled over a period of several decades prior to his death 
in 1665, is some evidence. These aren't all or nothing questions—any 
more than most issues of "is that period" are.

On 1/29/14, 5:03 AM, Elise Fleming wrote:
> 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.

-- 
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/