Dr sandra sherman, review of reading and writing recipe books 1550 1800. 1507 date accessed: 15 february, 2016 reading and writing recipe books, 1550–1800 includes 11 rigorously documented essays addressing a genre that began to attract attention following susan leonardi’s 1989 article, ‘recipes for reading: summer pasta, lobster a la riseholme, and key lime pie’. 1 the editors, michelle dimeo and sarah pennell, seek to demonstrate how far the study of medical/culinary recipe books has come in the past 25 years, offering an array of approaches – for example, literary, archaeological, historical, and linguistic – that not only consolidate that progress but also showcase the potential for future research. The product of their efforts is at once fascinating who would have made the connection between recipes and women’s poetic lives? and exasperating let’s hope that reading and writing does not, by its impressive rigor, authorize some approaches over others, and define the field by limiting the enquiries that academics undertake.

In this review, therefore, i would like to describe what is exciting about this collection, but also discuss its limitations, pointing to what has been left out or not sufficiently emphasized with regard to both form and function in the early modern recipe book. First, however, what precisely was a recipe book – and for that matter, a recipe – during the early modern period? the fact that there was no single embodiment of either is crucial for understanding what preoccupies the essays in reading and writing. Which recur continually to basic genre defining issues such as how these texts were produced and what kind of knowledge they encompass. Recipes could be oral, or perhaps inscribed only on fugitive pieces of paper in virtually all cases, they lacked the detailed, careful instructions that today we take for granted. They covered medical, household, and culinary topics, following the ‘huswife’ between stillroom and kitchen. They could be hand written collections passed down within families, citing contributions by numerous individuals and often continually amended in a variety of hands.

They could also be printed, in many cases mimicking – but also seeking to outdo – the manuscript collections beloved by those who owned and trusted them. Hand written texts copied the printed, and vice versa, creating a fluid exchange among the semi private and aggressively public worlds of advice that frequently pivoted on the keeping and revelation of ‘secrets’. The coexistence of manuscript and print, and the diverse motivations and contexts behind each, make the period 1550–1800 fundamentally different from our own ‘reading’ and ‘writing’. Recipe books could thus be vastly more personal insofar as they were hand written and, in the words of the editors, could provide a ‘life register’ of an individual’s and by extension household’s daily life. The printed versions could provide regulatory advice that allowed readers to measure themselves against, and perhaps aspire to, potentially feasible norms.

Noughts And Crosses Critical Essay

They could open up a world of recipes and, like the early novel, tempt readers to accept the word of someone they had never heard of. Given the fluid, expansive compass of the genre, derived in part from routine copying and multiple inscriptions, several essays in reading and writing address the question of ‘authorship’, a perennial enquiry applied to texts of this period. We learn, for example, that manuscript recipe books make it hard to distinguish among those who originated, contributed, and merely owned a recipe, such that calling the compiler of a manuscript its ‘author’ would be anachronistic. We learn further that by studying these texts in context with letters and memoirs, we can establish the compilers’ ‘knowledge networks’, and obtain a more nuanced purchase on the origin and function of recipes in a given text. This is useful information, but how useful in terms of helping define the genre? it uncovers in yet another context what we already knew about this period: authorship is fraught with ambiguity, corresponding only occasionally with originality and often resonating with the authorization of a group it was rarely anything that would have prompted proprietary notions.

Essay on If Water Supply Fails

A few years ago, i taught a copyright course where i showed that 17th and 18th century approaches to authorship were coming back – probably to an enthusiastic reception – in the form of sampling, mash ups, the creative commons, and the wholesale downloading of texts. I used old cookbooks and culinary manuscripts, along with renaissance plays and defoe’s pseudonymous broadsides, to illustrate just how difficult it was to tie any of these texts to a person. From a 21st century point of view – but more importantly, from that of our forebears – the sources of recipes, and the nature of anyone’s proprietary relationship to them, are far less important than reading/writing a text that stands in for the authorizing presence of whomever the compiler knows, trusts, or thinks she ought to trust even if the recipe was flat out copied. Indeed, here is where manuscripts and printed texts converge, since the printed text sought to situate the reader within a community – which she could only imagine – presided over by an expert who collated, vetted, and improved recipes from sources outside the reader’s personal network but within a community of recipe writers with shared domestic interests.

It would also allow one to claim that one is the sum of one’s own experience, continually accessing memory rather than inventing from sudden perhaps suspect inspiration. Thankfully, while some essays in reading and writing may present recipe books generically – more like ‘texts’ than a specific kind of text – in other instances just the opposite is true: they explore how readers in that place at that time would have consumed these books. Thus just as a ‘quintessence’ distillation could be restorative, so poems as ‘recipes’ addressed issues that concerned women: unrequited love, fear of aging, and preservation of one’s reputation. Archer’s analysis offers a version of authorship emanating directly from women’s engagement with recipe books, showing how these books enabled women to address the world even if only one other woman in a new way. This is the best kind of historicizing scholarship, allowing us to understand recipe books as they were actually used. Another essay displaying this sensitivity is anne stobart’s ‘ let her refrain from all hot spices: medicinal recipes and advice in the treatment of the king’s evil in seventeenth century south west england’. Here we read a recipe, never incorporated into a book perhaps because of its outspokenness, in which bridget boscawen 16–1708 openly voices disagreement with her doctors, convinced of what is right in her own case: ‘i complaine of onely of there preprosporous preposterous order of things and concluding of my disses disease and cures according to there own concaites conceits and prescriptions unto which i shuld never yeald’.

It was common for women to use manuscript recipe books to record all manner of household and personal items, but it was highly unusual to record within the confines of a recipe itself one’s objections to its utility. The outcrop of this woman’s strong sense of self – expressed as a desire for self preservation – allows us to see, again, how recipes and their consumers interacted. During this period, recipes and recipe books were intended to instruct readers in how to make something healthful or tasty, albeit they could wander off primarily in manuscript in idiosyncratic directions.