I've heard this kind of question before with regards to musicians, and I'd have to say that it's hard to make any comparison. Quite a lot has changed over the centuries, in both music and cooking, and there's a natural assumption that both have been progressively refined, so that what we're seeing today is the highest form yet achieved in either field.
The thing is, while there have been some technical developments, they're developments based on changes in aesthetics. In other words, the biggest changes have been our tastes. Yes, there are musicians making mathematically-derived music, and yes, there are chefs making foams that taste like asparagus, but these reflect today's sensibilities more than anything else. What people looked for in music and in food 500 years ago would be shaped by a completely different world, and their expectations of what was "good" would be completely different from ours.
/u/agentdcf summed this up wonderfully in a recent thread:
the other day I read Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days. Even this story, published in 1872, betrays a society with radically different values from ours. Phileas Fogg, for example, is a bit of a prick. He's constantly described as showing virtually no emotion at all, and is essentially a kind of embodiment of technological progress and capital, with no actual personality. He also gets credit for things that he didn't actually do, but only that he made decisions about.
...
What's going on here is a story that takes place in a value system radically different from our own. The reader is expected to like certain characters for certain reasons, when those same characters would be deeply unlikeable today.
In the early music world, the audience is a very important part of the challenge to create "authentic" period music. Our perceptions of this music are always going to be from a fundamentally different perspective than that of a person in that period. Striving for authenticity means necessarily understanding that both performer and listener aren't going to understand the music the way it was understood at the time.
When it comes to food (and, of course, ancient music), we're not looking at universals of taste, we're looking at today's prevailing attitudes and expectations about what food should be. If something doesn't meet those expectations, it's not going to be prestigious, and it might be judged inferior - but that says more about us than the food itself, or the people who made it.
I can only really offer sources about music, but it you want to read more about Early Music aesthetics (and social settings for music), I have a couple articles that go in depth on this. I just moved, so most of my stuff is packed away, but I'll post more articles when I can.
Fabian, Dorottya. "The Meaning of Authenticity and the Early Music Movement." International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music 32.2 (2001): 153-67.
O'Grady, Terence J. "Aesthetics, Ideology and Musical Value." College Music Symposium 25 (1985): 152-65.
How would you define 'best,' /u/CunningAllusionment? Are you asking about the knife skills and food sanitation knowledge of these historical chefs, or about their creativity, or if our modern taste buds would likely enjoy their dishes, or something else?
additionally? How would a kings or rich nobles family eat compared to wealthy eaters today? Would a king eat better then than someone eating today on a regular budget? etc. Thanks!
I am no historian, but I am very much into history and cooking. I don't think you're going to get a solid answer as your question is somewhat subjective and also speculative.
To me, there are 3 things to consider when talking about food throughout time:
Availability - This is obvious. You can only consider ingredients available in that area, at that time.
Culture - Consider cultural differences in food in the present day. Similar differences would exist throughout history. Add to that the cultural differences that have developed over time.
Technology - Technology is a big factor. Flour will not be as refined as it is today due to differences in milling technology. Controlling temperature with an electric oven is much easier than cooking with fire. Refrigeration? I could go on!
When you consider technology and availability, the cooks/chefs of the past are at a massive disadvantage. When you start factoring cultural difference, that is where you're going to bring in subjectivity. What is a chef from the 15th century going to think when you give him a chili for the first time? What would he think of a panna cotta? Some of our modern day foods would be so alien in taste and texture that they might be repulsed! I'm sure it would work the other way too!
Can anyone comment on 15th century China? In school, I always read about how we privilege stories and knowledge about the west, and this thread is an unintended example of that. I'd love to know what was going on in China!
This is 16th century, but I recommend looking at Bartolomeo Scappi and his Opera dell'arte del cucinare (there is a good translation by Terence Scully from 2008). He details not only recipes, but also the layout of the kitchens, techniques, and regional specialities/ingredients. It is extensive and demonstrates the cookery knowledge of the mid-1500's well.
I will also link you to here: [October Menus from Scappi] (http://www.medievalcookery.com/helewyse/octobermenus.html) translated by Helewyse de Birkestad. You can see the multitude of things Scappi would have prepared for one meal - some of these would not seem out of place on a modern menu (some, of course, would). There are salads, tarts, roasted birds, pasta, even pizza and caviar. Some of the seasoning would be strange to our palates (for example, far more sugar in what we consider savoury dishes), but the skill would be there.
While well passed the 14th century, there is a really interesting episode of America's Test Kitchen Radio called "Secrets of a Modern Day 18th Century Cook" - they interview a food historian who tries to replicate the methods/ingredients/tools used in historic (European) kitchens - they get to sample some of the techniques... Its well worth listening to!
http://www.wnyc.org/story/secrets-of-a-modernday-18th-century-cook/
(The interview is in the middle of the episode, after some listener questions/taste testing, etc)
I read a lot about medieval food, for a project I did. Some of the chefs that were employed by nobles in during the Late Middle Ages in France, were known to run kitchens big enough to serve at least 200 people, up to a thousand as far as I remember. The conditions were different, they had many firepits, and very little ventilation, since the food was to be served warm, and having a warm room was the way to keep it like that. I would say that to be the "head chef" for a castle back then, would be comparable to modern standards. One chef called Taillevent, even got knighted for being such a good chef. And they had a lot of interesting dishes, too. The only weird thing about medieval cooking, is that they used bread to thicken sauces with, and not flour.
Just as some supporting contextual info, there's a four part miniseries called A Tudor Feast that you might find interesting. Some historians, archaeologists, and a bunch of others try to re-enact an authentic Tudor feast based on historical sources as it would have been done back then. It's about more than just the food, and its focus is 1590, not the 1400s, but it ought to give some good insight and help illustrate why this question would be difficult to answer for any sufficiently bygone century.
They discuss the recipes and trying to understand how to interpret them given that so much of the knowledge was taken for granted and lost to the period, such as cooking times and temps. Some things would just seem gross or alien any way you slice it (e.g. cow udders), but others you just might not be sure of because you're not actually sure how it was done or would have turned out. This period has more influence of new world ingredients and social change than the 1400s, but you can factor those things out and still get lots of good insight. There's also stuff about sourcing the food, kitchen labor, various social dynamics of the period, etc. As I say, it doesn't directly answer the question but helps you flesh it out.
If you're interested in more like this, there's a great series called Tales from the Green Valley, where some of these same historians and archaeologists try to recreate life in full on a farm in the Welsh borders in 1620. It covers a lot more aspects of life than the Tudor miniseries, but also included is cooking, both recipe and method - the method mostly being open hearth cooking.
Because you're asking about modern standards it's not just a question for historians but a modern chef.
The food was different. Spice availability was different. Vegetables and fruit were very restricted by region, weather and cost. Not to mention 500 years of selective breeding and growing of plants and animals has changed our foods a lot. A modern chef with all the assets they have would probably not think highly of anyone who presented to them the food that was eaten in 15th century Europe.
Here's a website that lists things that were commonly available http://www.whiteoak.org/historical-library/the-late-middle-agesearly-renaissance/food-in-the-15th-century/
The big things missing are of course many spices from Asia and North America, corn, tomatoes and potatoes all North American foods that hadn't made it to Europe yet and staples of any modern kitchen. Also keep in mind the animals that were eaten hadn't gone through the level of selective breeding to make them bigger, fatter and meatier that most of our domestic animals have gone through in the last 200 years. Also refrigeration is a large factor in the quality of the foods we eat in the present.
There were some very good foods. Here is a 1575 cook book titled "A Proper New Booke of Cookery" http://www.medievalcookery.com/notes/pnboc1575.txt
You can compare some of the recipes and see there is possibly some good things but also see there are a lot of restrictions and concerns about timeliness that we don't have.
Our modern aesthetics also say that we probably might not enjoy a lot of things present in the 15th century. Our tastes are not necessarily evolved but different. Modern chocolate for instance would probably blow 15th century minds but any child can get a ready supply of the stuff and we can be fairly jaded towards things that are sweet where as it was probably a luxury for most people at that time.
To modern sensibilities, likely not. Cooking at the time had many conventions and limitations that we would find unpalatable.
Most noticeably the use of stale bread to thicken sauces. Leading to very lumpy stews and the like.
Also the flavor profiles tended to favor whatever was expensive, sweeteners and spices mostly.
And finally many modern sauces and techniques simply weren't invented yet. Mayonnaise, hollandaise, bechamel, and demi glaze just didn't exist.
Two Fifteenth century cookbooks is a pretty good primary source
.lv. Iuschelle of Fysshe.—Take fayre Frye of Pyke, and caste it raw on a morter, an caste þer-to gratid brede, an bray hem as smale as þow mayste; & ȝif it be to stondyng, caste þer-to Almaunde mylke, an bray hem to-gederys, an stere it to-gederys, & caste þer-to a littel Safroun & Salt, an whyte Sugre, an putte al in a fayre Treen bolle, & toyle*. [Twille in Douce MS. ] it to-gederys wyth þin hond, an loke þat it be noȝt to chargeaunt, but as a man may pore it out of þe bolle; and þan take a Chafoure or a panne, an caste þer-in fayre grauey of pyke or of Freysshe Samoun, y-draw þorw a straynoure, & sette[leaf 14.] it on þe fyre; þanne take fayre Percely an Sawge, an caste þer-to, an lat it boyle, an caste þer-to a lytil Safroun an Salt; and whan it hath y-boylid a whyle, stere it faste, an caste þe Stuffe þer-to, an stere it euermore; an whan alle is oute of þe bolle, caste a litil an a litil in-to þe chafoure, or þe panne; stere it soffter an sofftere, tylle it come to-gedere; þan gader it to-gederys with a ladelle or a Skymoure, softe, tille it be round to-gedere; þanne take it fro þe fyre, an sette þe vesselle on a fewe colys, an late it wexe styf be hys owne acord; þan serue forth.
I'm reasonably sure the above text is a recipe for sweet fish soup with ginger, cloves, thickened with stale bread.
Related: I would like to cook some recipes from the distant past, either written back in the day or well researched historical reproductions. Googling has just turned up peoples interpretations of what they thought people ate at different times. Anyone have any leads?
I don't know about especially "chef", but during the revolutionnary era there was a very famous patissier (cake maker) that worked for presigious personnalities, it was Antonin Carême. Most of his recipes are still used today/
Bear in mind also that : the restaurant as we know it today didn't existed in the XVth cenutry, it was mostly "private" places like hostels or houses that served classic table food : broth, vegetables, a bit of meat etc...famous chefs were employed as servant by nobilities or wealthy families.
An example of one such chef would Guillaume Tirel, who worked for Charles VI king of France. He wrote a famous book "Le Viandier" which details his recipes. The influence of this book in french cuisine was unparalled before Italian cooks came with Catherine de Médicis. Most recipes include roasted or boilled dishes, with a lof of use of grease and spices, lots and lots of spices. It is often describe as "heavy". some line of the book in old frenc funny it is understanble for me as a french.
One of this recipe is the Potjevleesch which une "viande en pot" or "meat in a pot", a flemish dishes (a big part of the Flandres were under the King of France suzerainity at the time). It is still cooked today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potjevleesch