SC - Puck's marzipan

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Ian van Tets wrote:
> 
> OK, seems as though I'm the only one who was not aware of a secular
> use for the term Oblat.  Or are they what I know as Waffeln?

I'm in a position to say, emphatically and unequivocally, maybe. It depends.

> Do we know (and how?) that this term was used for a secular item
> within the period of reference?  I wouldn't use chalice to mean
> goblet, for example, or pyx to mean small plate.  And Oblat did (and
> still does) have other religious connotations too.

I think we can be reasonably sure that the term had secular uses,
especially in late-period Germany. I experienced a crash while typing in
my first response to your note, including the pertinent passage from the
Larousse Gastronomique, and this time I'll jusy say for now that there's
a short essay on what the French call oublies, describing them in some
detail, and also stating that unconsecrated hosts are also called oblaten.
And, of course, one might argue that using the term in connection with
unconsecrated hosts constitutes, by definition, a secular connotation. 
 
> If this is a wafer we are talking about, why line it with paper
> before loading it with marzipan?

I wasn't aware we'd established that. I know there's a reference to
paper, but I recall there was some question as to how it applies. I
don't have Puck's transscribed text handy... .
 
> If inger really does mean Enger (and I can't think of any better
> definition), that implies compression, and we're just going to crush
> the wafer (which is still not attached to the marzipan because it's
> been lined with paper).
> 
> This doesn't really make sense to me, and I think we need to beware
> of automatically assuming that a word used in period had the same
> definition it does now (like Dirne).  Sure it may have, but we need
> to prove that to ourselves first.

Um, perhaps we don't need to get all worked up about terms that depend
from untranslated or unexplained terms. At least not yet. Seeing this as
a sort of flow chart, we might end up with something like "If W, then X,
therefore Y, therefore it stands to reason that Z." Except, we have yet
to establish W. Lining wafers with paper wasn't clear from my initial
reading of the text, as I recall. Perhaps someone could repost the
German recipe or send it to me? The idea of crushing wafers which may or
may not be lined with paper is sort of moot at this point; personally
I'm inclined to think of rolling out a wafer-thin dough, either thin as
paper or on paper. As you say, we can't always be sure a recognizable
term means the same thing in period as it does today. We pretty much
have to take this all with un pou of salt. (Do the old-timers on this
list remember _that_ one?)    
 
> On the other hand, why don't we just fry the rotten things and call
> them cuskynoles?

Boil and then grill! Boil and then grill! Fried ones are rysschews.

We on the cooks' list _feel_ your pain, Lady Cairistiona. Clear your
mind. Relax and chant with me...

"Cus...ky...nol...a...cus...ky...nol...a..."

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".

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