Excerpt
from Facebook:
This
is one of those things that I don't think has a right or wrong answer, I'm just
curious about other people's thoughts on the topic ...
Most
(but not all) of the historical culinary manuscripts we use were written by or
for the person who managed the kitchen of a great household ... for a king, a
prince, a duke, a bishop, a pope, etc. The kitchens of such establishments
provided meals for vast numbers of people every day. Sometimes simple, everyday
fare, and sometimes grand meals meant to impress.
If these
"master chefs" of history are the people we emulate in our attempts
at period cooking, should the ability to manage a kitchen to provide good
period food to a large number of people, served at the proper temperature and
with proper timing be a requirement for our own "master chefs" in the
SCA? More simply, must a cooking Laurel be able to manage a feast
well, or just cook individual dishes well?
I
look for responses from those who are not Laurels and those who are Laurels. I
think that voices outside the Laurel council are just as, if not more valuable,
in growing our art. If you are a Laurel, please indicate if your accolade was
all or in part for your culinary abilities. I expect there may be regional
variations as well, so please indicate your kingdom too.
I'm
from the West and next March I will have been a Laurel for cooking and various
other things for 40 years.
Duquesa
Juana Isabella de Montoya y Ramirez
My
opinion on the matter (for what it may be worth). I do believe there is more
than just being able to reproduce individual dishes. Being able to create a
whole feast involves many skills including the ability to work under pressure,
juggle recipes, timing and flavours. Making several individual pieces a whole.
It also
includes the management of time, money and more importantly people. To be able
to have a cohesive kitchen that is producing good (if not better) food that is
filling, tasty and rooted in period example, is a skill and I feel an important
one to being considered for a cooking laurel.
I think
a person who does excellent individual dishes and an amazing amount of research
can still be a laurel, and even still considered a cooking laurel, but I think
then the emphasis is on the research and the excellence of reproduction is the
same as a Textile laurel's creation of a gown or outfit from the 'bottom up'.
I'm not
sure I have ever heard of a textile laurel that was elevated for just doing
underwear (for example). And to me a complete feast is equal to a complete
outfit. Now the feast or feasts do not have to be huge. They could be 30 - 50
people. I think less is not a large enough group to really test but I suppose I
am used to cooking for large numbers as my grandmother and great grandmother
began me on this path and they each fed families of around 10 people at a time.
Not
everything is able to be evaluated across the board when it comes to judging
someone's arts or talents but I do believe we can deconstruct cooking the same
way we look at textile arts. Research, individual assembly and the picture as a
whole. For me, the picture as a whole can only be seen in the context of a
feast.
My first reflection is, could one not become a cooking laurel by only being a "book cook"? That is, only interested in for instance the "food chemistry" of period cooking, reacting finding modern equivalents for ingredients, maybe tracing the development of how some ingredients have changed from what they were then to what they are now, and so on. Basically interested in the theory of cooking and then writing and teaching about that in a society texting. Does one really HAVE to want to cook and administer whole feasts? I mean, if a "book cook" research and for instance redacts recipes and share this with other cooks who then use these recipes in creating feasts, in my mind, the first cook's work is as valuable as the second cook's, and vice versa. My two cents. :)
ReplyDeleteI meant "in a society context" not "in a society texting", of course. :)
DeleteSo real live cooking Laurel here so make of this what you will. I am Thomas Flamanc of Kelsale from Drachenwald and original Lochac)
ReplyDeleteI'd like to think that my Laurel is not for cooking feasts at all, I actually don't like doing that. It was cooking period food over a fire with period technques, for bringing something new in researching those techniques and for bringing those skills out in others. For me a Laurel is about "are you teaching and are you researching and developing something new." Of course I don't actually know why the order actually asked me to join because that isn't something one should ask.
That said I feel there are a myriad of ways that one could join the order of the Laurel for skills the culinary arts. Be it bringing new information to the way menus were formed and then making it happen, being a brewer and bringing new information to the SCA or as it my case cooking period food over the fire in a period way.
So no in my opinion cooking feasts is a great skill but it is not the only way to get a Laurel and in fact is probably not enough in and of itself. I feel you need to bring new information to the party, you need to share the skills and information with others, and you need to behave like a peer.
As with all peerages, a Laurel is more that one thing. It is not enough to be good at something although that is part of it, you needs to bring something new to the SCA, to enrich and provide training to the people of the SCA.
What do we know about under-cooks? For each „senior“ cook coordinating the whole royal feast, how many others were focussed on making just one type of dish, or even just one fancy item? How were they viewed - or even paid - in relation to the head cook?
ReplyDelete