SC - cuskynoles

[Philip & Susan Troy]

david friedman wrote:

> Note that the original specifies eggs, not egg yolks.

I stand corrected: I had to rush that post out, and my fingers typed
something they weren't instructed to. I realize it just says to temper
the paste with eggs.
 
> >I still believe that the dough is rolled out into a large sheet, roughly
> >8" by 24", and scored or cut into rectangles as indicated in the recipe,
> >approximately 6" by 2 1/2". The pastry is left in place after cutting.
> 
> How can you reconcile that with the language of the recipe--hew into many
> parts? Doesn't that make it clear that the parts are entirely cut apart?

Easily. Hew into many parts means just that. Whereas, hew into many
parts and spread tham apart means something else. It's perfectly
possible to cut a piece of dough into pieces and leave them on the board
in their original formation, without compromising the fact that they
have been cut.
 
> >The filling is smeared on the portions, all of one dole. To me, this is
> >the main bone of contention. What does that mean? The glossary of Curye
> >on Inglysch says that a dole is the same as a del or dele, meaning a
> >portion. This could be interpreted to mean that the filling is smeared
> >on all at once, forming a mass the size and shape of the rectangle
> >pictured.
> 
> Smearing it on all of one dole can mean covering all of one of the 3x6
> pieces with the filling.

True. We've gone into that. I'm just not satisfied that that is the only
interpretation, or even the best one. This type of discussion always
reminds me of that section of the Passover Haggadah where a deeply
detailed analysis is made of various phrases, and you end up about where
you started. For when Reb So-and-So said to hew it into any parts, he
meant that we should hew it into many parts, by which he meant... .
> 
> And then fold together. Either on itself (make it 2x6 to get the oblong
> after folding) or on another identical piece.

There we're in agreement. I'm inclined to favor the version that
involves folding it upon itself, as no instruction is given indicating
that some of the rolled-out dough should be reserved without being
smeared with farsure. 
 
> >That isn't consistent with the rest of the instructions,
> >though.
> 
> Why not?

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 make it difficult to locate the previously
made cuts, difficult to seal the edges, with the filling coming right to
them edge without a border. 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. 
 
> >I'm all for the idea that some instrcutions are implicit or
> >absent altogether, but this seems like too much of a logical leap. No
> >mention is made of using the back of a knife, or any other utensil, to
> >subdivide each portion into individual bite-sized cells,
> 
> 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. Certainly we have progressed, in the text of the recipe, beyond
the point in the recipe where we are looking at a sheet of cut dough
with blobs of filling. On the other hand, the text gives no indication
of how the point you seem to feel has been reached, has been reached. No
indication is given about subdividing the portion into cells, except for
that illustration, but only if you choose to interpret it that way.
> 
> >and it would
> >take a pretty skilled hand to do that subdividing, be sure it is sealed,
> >using only the inherent stickiness of the filling, and have them stay
> >that way while they boil, as steam inflates the cells.
> 
> Thanks for the compliment, but it was really quite easy.

And well-deserved the compliment was, but in several years as a
professional cook, I haven't been able to develop quite so sure a hand
myself. Applying pressure with the back of a knife, sandwiching a moist
fillng between two pieces of raw pasta dough, to the point where the
cells are sealed off from each other, and from the boiling water, to
avoid either leakage or explosion from steam (it's almost impossible to
get that last bit of air out before sealing!), and all without tearing
the dough, is really quite an accomplishment. I wonder if perhaps this
was due to differences in the pastry used?
 
> But it says to fold together in the manner of the figure, not to lay it out
> for putting the filling on in the manner of the figure.

Agreed. This is one of the things that I said was inconsistent with the
instructions. If you accept the simple instruction that you do whatever
you have to do to create that figure, which is about as specific as the
recipe gets, then there is more than one way to interpret the picture,
and certainly more than one way to accomplish it. I'm inclined, all
other things being equal, to choose the simpler solution, because I
think if the more complex method were intended, it would have been
outlined more specifically in the text. I also believe that what is
pictured in the illustration is all of the pastry (or at least the
bottoms), with the filling laid out on it. 
 
> Try it my way and see if it doesn't taste better. Yours is, I suspect,
> putting too much of the filling together in a glop--like eating jam instead
> of a jam sandwich. Also, I suspect that your thicker version (because the
> individual filled units are much bigger) isn't going to broil as well--but
> try it and see.

The question of taste is entirely subjective. The proportions of the
filling ingredients would largely dictate the effect of eating it with a
relatively large amount of pastry, as in your interpretation, or a
slightly smaller amount in proportion, as in mine. As for the question
of whether my version is thicker, and whether that would affect the
broiling process, I can only say that a pastry only has only as much
filling as the cook chooses to put into it, and that pierogies and guo
tie don't seem to be bothered by this issue.

Certainly the question of overall quality is an important to the modern
consumer, even if our criteria for determining quality may be different
from those of period consumers, and I'll be happy to try it using your
method. I've already tried it using mine, and am quite satisfied.

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".

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