SC - Needed: Online Recipe Database

[Jack Hubbard]

david friedman wrote:

> >Well, because spreading the filling in one solid, uninterrupted mass 12
> >x 15 inches, or however you choose to interpret the dimensions of the
> >illustrated object, would  ...
> 
> Huh? I just said that smearing it on all of one dole can mean covering all
> of one 3x6 piece--not one 12 x 15 piece--and I thought you agreed that that
> was a possible interpretation. So why is it not consistent with the
> instructions? Do you assume that "smear your paste all of one dole" means
> that you are using all of the filling to do it?

Okay. What we have here are steps built upon other steps, open to
varying interpretations at each level. If you roll out a piece of dough,
cut it into rectangles, separate the rectangles so you can work on them
one at a time, which is at best an implicit step, and then interpret the
illustration as a fairly literal representation of the final product for
one portion, then, yes, the instructions to smear the filling in an
uninterrupted mass could be said to make sense. This is assuming that
you follow the unstated instruction that one portion is to be worked on
at a time, which is a rather silly way of doing the production work
necessary for a feast. Admittedly this was before the day of either Eli
Whitney or Henry Ford, but trial and error on the part of an experienced
cook would  almost certainly suggest to that cook that there was a
better way to do things. Again, I am also concerned with the fact that
absolutely no advice is given the cook as to how the separation of the
portion (again, assuming that that is what you are looking at) into
individual cells is to be accomplished and maintained. 

Not three recipes away in the same collection the author bothers to
state that spices should be ground in a mortar, and something should be
seethed over the fire (as opposed to over the ice?). Why would he omit
something as integral as the method you describe to subdivide the
portion into cells with the back of your knife, which is not a method
that is guaranteed consistent success. The most carefully made filled
pasta will sometimes burst when boiled, even when meticulously sealed
with water or egg, by the hand of a very careful person. I have to
question whether the method of pressing down two layers of [untreated?]
pasta dough, with a heterogeneous filling between them, with the back of
a knife, will produce an even remotely consistent successful seal to
survive boiling, unless they are supported by some kind of deep-frying
basket, and boiled for a very short time indeed. Of course, this is just
speculation. I would have to try this method more than once to be sure. 
> 
> ...
> 
> >I feel that the dots in the illustration
> >indicate that  the filling is to be applied in little, round portions,
> >as with ravioli, which would make a reference to a clean border
> >unnecessary.
> 
> So you are treating the "smearing it on all of ..." passage as a mistake?

No, I am just wondering if it could be interpreted as "all at once", as
in, at the same time, which, again, hangs on the idea that the
illustration is of fifteen portions, rather than one.
 
> Why shouldn't the dots represent the high points of the folded pieces? If
> you look at the picture, the dots are way too small to represent your
> little round portions of filling.

The dots do represent the high points, I'm sure. Do you feel that while
it is reasonable to use a dot to represent a 1/2 or 3/4 inch blob of
filling, it is unreasonable to use a dot to represent a 2 inch blob of
filling? A dot, has, in theory, no area at all, so it is equally
unreasonable to use it to represent either dimension. Since the author
has chosen to do so, the size of what is being pictured as a dot is
undefined. I would be really curious as to how this is illustrated in
the primary manuscript source. I'd bet that larger dots, like little
filled-in circles, are used, not that that helps us with the dimensions.
> 
> ...
> 
> >> But it says "and then fold together in the same manner as this figure" and
> >> gives you the picture.
> >
> >I think the main area where we seem to be in disagreement is exactly
> >what is portrayed in that picture. I am seeing it as the entire recipe,
> >perhaps 8 x 24 inches or so, overall. You appear to be seeing it as one
> >portion.
> 
> Correct.

And while that is certainly possible, I don't feel that it is acceptable
as a given on which to hang the rest of a thesis. Basically, either one
can admit that the recipe does have some implicit instructions, and
proceed from there as best one can, and do a somewhat sketchy
interpretation, or one can take everything literally, which still
results in a sketchy interpretation. In order to turn this recipe into
food, a certain amount of intuition needs to be applied. Intuition is
not always logical, neither for us, nor, especially, for the author of
the source recipe. 

When we first began discussing this recipe, we were in some disagreement
on whether the recipe is clear enough to follow as written. I felt that
it isn't. You appear to have felt that it is, but proceeded to supply
information that the recipe doesn't clearly specify. That's fine, but if
you have to interpret the meaning of certain instructions, and sometimes
add them yourself, then that makes it pretty clear that the recipe
cannot be followed as written. From a logical standpoint, one cannot
always have one's cuskynole and eat it, too.    
 
> Perhaps. As best I recall, I was using something whose texture was more
> like pasta than like pastry. There is no mention of butter or other fat in
> the paste, and I didn't use any; my impression is that when recipes from
> that cuisine intend you to put butter in a dough, they say so. When you say
> "pastry" are you using the term in the modern sense? It would make a large
> difference to the interpretation.

I used the term pastry only because of the sweet filling, and the fact
that it is unleavened. Yes, it starts out as pasta dough, but I figured
that the final product isn't all that much like pasta, after the
roasting. Strudel dough/pastry is another example of what I was thinking
of. Of course, standard short pastry would lack the tensile strength
needed to form these as you describe, and then boil them, unless it was
really bad pastry indeed.

I guess what is bothering me about this situation is that when you
compare the two versions, yours appears, at first glance, to be a
perfectly straightforward interpretation of the text and the
illustration, but in fact, it isn't. Mine isn't, either, but then I
never claimed otherwise. Both are the result of a certain amount of
intuitive fiddling, and are, to me, equally vaulable interpretations.

That being said, however, I feel that the principle of Occam's Razor is
being messed with here. All other things being equal, my interpretation
at least has the advantage of being simpler, I feel. Whether or not this
points in the direction of the way the actual dish was prepared, I
couldn't say.

What I would really, really, like to do at some point is to meet you at
a Pennsic or some similar event, lay aside any preconceived
interpretations of the recipe, and just cook the dish, using only the
primary source recipe and a basic kitchen battery of tools and
ingredients. Even then, we might not get to the bottom of it, but I bet
we'd both have fun.

Adamantius 
______________________________________
Phil & Susan Troy
troy at asan.com


============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================