SC - The Great Cuskynole Debate

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Michael F. Gunter wrote:

> What I'm thinking of
> doing is making two large sheets of the pastry, maybe 6"x 12" and dotting them
> in even rows with the filling. Then carefully placing the other sheet on top and
> then crimping the edges of the squares together, probably by rolling the edge of
> a pot lid along the dough. This should crimp the edges of the squares but maintain
> the total sheet intact. Then I would take the entire sheet and boil it in water in
> a large stock pot. Once the dough has reached the al dente state I would then fry
> it intact on one side on the griddle.
> 
> After the sheet has cooked I might then make small cuts in the lines to assist
> with pulling a ravioli from the sheet.
> 
> If cooking the sheet intact doesn't work I would still roll the pot lid to seal
> the dough and then slice the squares off before boiling and grilling them.  Maybe
> I'm being obtuse but I just don't understand the confusion.

I'm not sure if I can envision a pot lid as the tool for the job. I
assume that it will either work or not work, in which case you will act
accordingly. Other possibilities might include the much-maligned back of
a knife, or perhaps pressing your divisions in with a 1/4 inch wooden
dowel. Anything that will push the top layer of dough through the
filling, without tearing the dough, so that the two layers of dough
touch under pressure to form a seal. Also, while I don't think anyone
has thought to mention this, but it might be a good idea to let these
set a bit, for the various seals to reach their maximum strength.

The confusion basically lies in the fact that the recipe specifically
states that you should cut the dough into pieces roughly 2 1/2" by 6".
The debate, if that's what people want to call it, centers on the
question of whether that %$#@#$ diagram represents one portion, or
fifteen. If it is one portion, then you need to do the thing with the
back of the knife, or the tool of your choice, which would divide the
pictured object into bites, rather than portions. If it is fifteen
portions, then you just have fruit raviolis, which don't even need to be
torn apart for service, since according to the recipe's instructions,
they are already fully cut.   
 
> Do you think my method would have some value?

Of course I do. As a clear compromise, it is well within the realm of
reasonable variations on a dish whose basic essence wouldn't be
seriously compromisedby the change. In other words, while you might end
up with what a fourteenth-century English nobleman might regard as
rather large, oddly shaped cuskynoles, I don't think he would say,
"Those aren't cuskynoles, sirrah!"

Certainly the idea has plenty of value as fun food, with the added zing
of communal dining, as people tear off a square and pass it along. Dang,
we may discover one day that cuskynole is the name of some kind of odd
password game that nobles used to play at table.

I suppose the only problem with the interpretation is that you have to
more or less ignore the instructions of the recipe, to some extent, to
do it that way. This may be one of those concerns that touches on the
"Is the SCA supposed to be Living History?" question, which I really
don't feel like getting into.

I guess the simplest answer I can give is to say that even though it
doesn't really follow the recipe, I'd be happy to see it and eat it at
an event, because it would be a distinct improvement over a lot of what
is out there. I would still like to settle this other question, if
possible, but a man can't think on an empty stomach. How's about some
cuskynoles?

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".

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