SC - I HAVE A THEORY

[Elaine Koogler]

david friedman wrote:
> 
> At 10:39 PM -0400 6/21/00, Philip & Susan Troy wrote:
> 
> >The differences are more than that. As you say, one is
> >3x3, one is 3x5. One (the 3x3) lacks the mysterious dots found in the
> >other, 3x5 version, which I believe you have interpreted as indicating
> >the presence of filling. Could be. We don't seem to know.
> 
> Assuming that you, like me, are relying on the version published in
> Speculum, I don't think we can make confident statements about the
> details of the figure--as shown it's pretty small. Are images of the
> original manuscript accessible somewhere? We may both be basing
> parts of our argument on how 20th century people decided to represent
> the 13th or 14th c.  figures.

I realize that. By now you should have received a copy of my note to Dr.
Terry Nutter, who may have seen the original, or if not, knows someone
who has. 
 
> Also, suppose we assume that Anglo-Norman doesn't have dots and
> Diursa does. One possibility is that the figure in Diuersa was drawn
> by someone who knew more than we do about what the recipe
> meant--perhaps he had frequently eaten cuskynoles--and was improving
> the figure to make it clearer.

Quite possible. On the other hand, if the dish was so familiar to the
copyist, doesn't it seem like a rather tight window for the dish to have
evolved into and out of existence, so that it appears in two manuscripts
and then vanishes? But yes, it is a possibility that the
copyist had seen the dish. I wonder what he had against the cressee
recipe, then. Could it have been the saffron? 
 
> What strikes me about the comparison between the figures in the two
> sources is that the drawing in Diursa is substantially larger and
> clearer than either of the drawings in Anglo-Norman. But I don't know
> if that is actually a difference in the manuscripts, or only in the
> modern editions. Does anyone else here know?

I eagerly await word from Lady Katerine Rountre on this.
> 
> >One (the 3x3) is
> >clearly not in the proportions stated in the recipe, _unless_ it
> >represents a single unit with the sheet of pastry folded in half over
> >the filling.
> 
> I don't know what the evidence is on the meaning of "hand," but an
> obvious guess seems to be that it is the width of a palm, since that
> way "finger" is a natural subdivision--four fingers to the palm. On
> that reading the piece starts 6 fingers by 3 fingers. You fold it in
> half lengthwise, giving a square 3 fingers by 3 fingers. Then, on my
> interpretation, you press down on that square with the back edge of a
> knife or something similar twice in each direction, giving a 3x3 grid
> of squares, each 1 finger square. You now have a single square piece,
> as shown, with the pattern impressed on it, as shown.

Yes. We agree on this. It clearly doesn't apply to the English version,
though, since it is not a square (or at least, is not portrayed as such.
Why, in your opinion? 
> 
> The 3x3 picture doesn't seem to make any sense if we instead assume
> that the picture represented the dough as cut. If that is what is
> going on,  we should be seeing a 3x6 piece of dough, marked with
> squares (or rectangles if each is going to be folded in half to give
> a square raviole). Nor does it work if we instead assume that the
> figure shows the constructed ravioles sitting in the position in
> which they had been cut. If that is what is going on, either they
> should be 3x6 rectangles (if each raviole is assembled from two
> pieces of dough) or they should be 3x3 squares, separated by 3x3
> blanks, since each 3x6 piece of dough has now been folded in half.

No, I'm fairly confident that the earlier diagram represents one cake. I
have no idea, never did, what the later one represents.
 
> I think you offered both of those conjectures as possibilities in the
> earlier round of the discussion.

Yep.
> 
> >The other (the 3x5) does seem to be in proportion to the
> >hand (or palm) and a half by three fingers,
> 
> Which fits your conjectures better than mine, no? On my theory, the
> pattern is embossed after the dough is folded, and the picture is
> showing the pattern. So the dough has already been folded in half and
> should be square.
> 
> The only way I can think of to fit the 3x5 to the text and my
> interpretation is to assume that you are taking two 3x6 pieces,
> putting bits of filling in a 3x5 pattern on one, putting the other on
> top, and sealing along the lines. I wouldn't describe that as "fold
> together," but then I'm not a native speaker of Middle
> English--perhaps "veld" included sticking things together. I looked
> up "weld" in the OED, but couldn't find any evidence that "veld"
> could be a variant of it.

I'd wondered about that too. Hieatt says veld=fold, but on the barest
definition we then have to assume sealing as implicit. I was under the
impression, though, that you had said that veld might denote sealing
rather than folding, or sealing in addition to folding, and that the
adaptation in the Miscellany called for a sandwich of two pieces of the
dough, cut to that size.
 
> >  but it also bears more
> >resemblance to the illustration in the cressee recipe (in 32085) than it
> >does to
> >the kuskenole recipe (in 32085).
> 
> So you are suggesting that the kuskenole recipe in Anglo-Norman,
> whose picture fits my theory, has the correct picture, while the
> picture in Diursa is miscopied from cressee? That's fine with me.

I'm suggesting it as a possibility, and am aware that it gives rise to
additional questions. I'm trying to find a hypothesis as to why the
drawing has changed as it has, and this is one of a couple that bear investigation.
> 
> But I'm not sure I find it convincing, much as I would like to. It's
> true that the figure in Anglo-Norman for cressee is shown orthogonal
> rather than diagonal, like the figure for cuskynoles in Diursa. But
> it is also true that the figures for cuskynoles in the two
> manuscripts are 3x3 and 3x5, while cressee is 4x8. Miscopying a 3x3
> grid as 3x5 strikes me as at least as likely a mistake as
> simultaneously assigning the figure to the wrong picture and
> miscopying 4x8 as 3x5--probably more likely.

Actually, I doubt that. The use of the word "more", that is. The 3x5 is
certainly simpler than a 4x8, and I also gather that these manuscripts
are fairly small. This is not the Book of Kells we're talking about;
space may have been a consideration.  
 
> And note that the figure with cressee doesn't have dots in the
> squares--at least as shown in Speculum.

True. There has been a significant change, and I'm curious as to why.
The added dots may be decorative, or could even denote places where the
cressee noodles are sealed together. I don't know. The dots may not have
survived in the surviving copy of the earlier Ms., also.
> 
> >Even assuming the illustration is of one
> >kuskenole, rather than several, which I had theorized as a possibility,
> >there is no indication of where the filling is, and whether it is in all
> >nine squares of the 3x3 grid, or simply in the center square. If that's
> >one kuskenole, it's quite possible that the illustration represents a
> >filled square made from a roughly two-inch-by-four rectangle, with egg
> >wash or water brushed on one half of it, the filling added, and the
> >pastry folded over (reducing the measured rectangle to a square,
> >roughly) and crimped around the four sides (leaving four pressure
> >marks/lines from a stick, the edge of a hand, or even the back of a
> >heavy kitchen knife).
> 
> You are now almost to my interpretation. In both our versions, if we
> label vertical lines 0-3, lines 0 and 3 are the edge of the
> cuskynole, while 1 and 2 are linear impressions made by something
> like the back edge of a knife (what I actually use for making
> cuskynoles). But in your version, all of the filling is between lines
> 1 and 2, while in mine it is between 0 and 1, 1 and 2, 2 and 3 (and,
> of course, between the corresponding horizontal lines as well). Yours
> is possible, but there are two problems with it:
> 
> 1. The figure, so far as we can tell (Diursa is clearer, because
> bigger, although I don't know if that represents a difference in the
> manuscript or only the modern publication), shows equally spaced
> lines. That makes sense for my version. But on yours, you would
> expect a close double line along the edge (edge and crimping--between
> lines 0 and 1 and lines 2 and 3), and a significant space between
> lines 1 and 2 where the filling is. Don't you think it odd to use a
> symmetrical drawing for such an unsymmetrical situation?

If a very small drawing in a small manuscript is accurate down to the
last detail, yes, it would be odd. However, my point (or one of them)
for mentioning the differences between the drawings is to point out that
we can't necessarily rely on the drawing to give us a completely
adequate description. 
 
> 2. Your explanation doesn't explain why the figure exists in the
> first place, since the figure isn't telling you anything beyond "fold
> it into a square and seal down the edges." But on my interpretation,
> the figure is actually necessary to explain the pattern of what is
> being done.

Necessary, perhaps. Adequate, no. For example, if I put myself into the
shoes of a moderately experienced cook, someone who can read, boil water
and follow instructions, I see no reason why I couldn't follow the
instructions given in the Miscellany version and get what is portrayed
in the diagram, even without the diagram. How much added text is really
required to express those instructions (a line or two?), and if you
could do that, why couldn't our Anglo-Norman buddies, if they wanted or
needed to? Obviously they could, but didn't. One explanation is that the
process is not intended, and another is that the diagram substitutes for
the textual description.
 
> Finally, coming back to the figure in Diursa, the pattern of dots
> suggest that whoever drew that figure thought all the little squares
> represented the same thing.

Possibly. But A) there are no dots in the earlier version (at least in
what we've seen), which may or may not be considered the more canonical,
Ur-version, and B) there's some question as to how familiar a scribe,
possibly a low-ranking monk, would be with the dish, especially one
which appears in two surviving manuscripts and then vanishes. Compared
to, say, mawmenny or blancmanger.   
 
> >Anyway, what I have, in fact, said with tiresome frequency is not that
> >the illustration should be ignored, but that it does not, could not,
> >depict the recipe (originally we were talking about the early
> >14th-century English version) as written, without a moderately complex
> >set of added instructions helpfully manufactured by His Grace out of
> >thin air. (See? Now I'm doing it.) We are instructed, in His Grace's
> >adapted recipe, to spread the filling onto the dough, either folding it
> >over or adding a second layer, sealing the edges, and then pressing a
> >grid of
> >additional sutures onto the upper surface with the back of a heavy knife
> >(presumably and sensibly so as not to cut the pastry) to subdivide our
> >pop-tart-like structure into something resembling a Cadbury fruit bar, a
> >large rectangle divided into several smaller cells.
> 
> You have accurately rendered my interpretation. But since both
> versions have some form of "fold it together the way the picture
> shows," I don't see anything unreasonable in taking a simple (not
> complex) guess at what the picture is showing.

Agreed. Nor in admitting that we simply don't know for sure.
> 
> >The fact that this
> >is somewhat chancy in a bulk cookery setting (in boiling, the internal
> >seals would have a powerful tendency to burst open, turning the cake
> >back into a single cell),
> 
> Surely that depends on details such as ratio of filling to dough and
> how well the lines are sealed together.

Not to mention humidity, the flour used, what sealant, if any, was used,
whether the cook had had enough sleep the night before, water
temperature and a final roll
of the dice and/or the Will of God.

> I have no objection to the statement "it may have been made another
> way." I only object to "other ways" that either don't fit the figure
> or provide no explanation of why the figure is there in the first
> place.

I can't answer that. If the illustration is supposed to be the guide for
construction, though, I would expect it to be both consistent with the
instructions given (which is, at best, arguably the case) and consistent
between copies (which it is not). 
 
> >Originally, having seen only the later English recipe with the 3x5 grid,
> >I had envisioned the possibility that the illustration depicted several
> >cuskynoles grouped as in the sheet they are cut from. The problem with
> >this is that that would indicate that the instructions aren't followed
> >in sequence (instructions are to roll out dough, cut into pieces, fill
> >and fold/seal). However, since there are other examples in the
> >recipe corpus that show instructions clearly given out of sequence
> >(thicken the sauce with eggs, sprinkle with good spices, serve, don't
> >let the sauce come to a boil, and in Lent you can use almond milk --
> >that sort of thing), I'm prepared to accept a calculated risk, which is
> >exactly what His Grace has done in postulating the whole "back of a
> >heavy knife" thing.
> 
> Except that your version provides no reason why the figure would be
> there--and be specifically referred to in the text of the recipe.

Again, I don't know why it is there, and the use of it to take the place
of some of the instructions is a possibility. It doesn't seem to me,
though, to be the only, or even necessarily the best, possibility,
considering the
number of other possibilities. 
 
> >As it
> >happens, the earlier illustration, despite spurious claims from those
> >who should know better, could not possibly represent the dimensions as
> >stated in the recipe, unless folded (or cut) in half, which is how you
> >would get a near-square from the rectangle described. So, in either
> >case, the "back of the heavy knife" thing is an unnecessary
> >complication. That doesn't mean it's not how it was done. But then
> >Darwinism is not period.
> 
> But the recipe says to fold it. The recipe says to make it 3x6 units
> (assuming a palm is four fingers). Having told you that the piece of
> dough is 3x6 and then told you to fold it like the figure, and given
> a square figure, it seems pretty obvious that you are folding it into
> a 3x3 square.
> 
> Then the remaining problem is why does the square have lines on it. I
> have offered a possible explanation. In this post you offer an
> alternative, although one that (for reasons discussed above) I find
> less plausible. But note that that alternative also requires work
> with the back of a knife or something similar, so is no simpler than
> mine.

Yes, it is, because the work is part of the sealing/crimping process. My
proposal involves four pressure lines, yours involves seven or eight. Or
four versus ten (ten?) in the later, 3x5 version. Which, if folded in
half, still doesn't fit the stated dimensions.
 
> >Bottom line is that I have failed to convince you (Are you shocked? I
> >am shocked!) that the recipe plus illustration _could_ represent
> >_either_ a
> >Cadbury Fruit Bar or something shaped like a ravioli.
> 
> And here you were just getting indignant about my accusing you of
> wanting to interpret it as ravioli.

No, actually I was indignant elsewhere, and I apologize if I failed to
master it. I thought I had (you should see some of my rough drafts).
 
> I apologize if I have misinterpreted you--but after looking through
> the old postings, I don't think I have, although I have certainly
> engaged in rhetorical excess where I thought it would be
> entertaining. I don't really think you plan to interpret cressee as
> Lasagna, for instance. Although I suppose, if one painted a
> basketwork pattern on it with saffron, ...  .
> 
> >  My leaning towards
> >the ravioli interpretation is based on years of experience filling large
> >quantities of pasta sheets and boiling them (question: how many times
> >have you actually cooked this dish?), combined with a fair amount of
> >experience with the ways in which medieval recipes can be incomplete
> >or confusing, and why, along with the most telling argument, that the
> >simplest explanation that can be made to fit a given set of
> >circumstances is, more often than not, the correct one. You have not
> >logically proven
> >this idea wrong, in spite of the fact that I'm perfectly prepared to
> >admit your interpretation is possibly correct, and have never seriously
> >criticized it (well, perhaps not until now) except to say it is not the
> >only viable explanation. Hey,
> >I'm doing some of your work here!
> 
> I agree that I have not proved that your original interpretation
> (ravioli structure, with the picture showing a bunch of ravioli lying
> together in the position in which the dough was cut) is impossible.
> And I agree that you have far more experience than I do in cooking
> for large numbers of people. But my fundamental objection to the
> ravioli version remains--it doesn't explain why the figure is
> provided.

No, it doesn't. I've said I don't know, and you've provided an
explanaton which, while possible, I consider imperfect. I think it still
comes down to taking an informed, 50-50 risk of an inaccurate renditon
of the dish in a tangible form.
 
> >Adamantius, who admits to simply not knowing for sure, but who also is
> >not pathologically terrified that the dish might in some way resemble a
> >modern food
> 
> A Cadbury fruit bar, perhaps? They couldn't use chocolate, so  did
> the best they could with pasta.

Well, at least we know it's not manicotti. Unless Drs Hieatt or Nutter
draw it and send it on as a better portrayal.
 
> My lady wife adds:
> 
> P.S. Many new people on the list have been asking about Cuskynoles.
> Now you know. It went on for weeks last time.

Well, now those same people know why I've been reluctant to pursue it
again. It is not a case of any hostile flaming, and I've seen worse even
on this list, but it can be tiring, physically, to write this stuff,
and, I gather, to read it. After two or three such exchanges the brain
can begin to hurt. People claim there are no sensory nerve endings in
the brain, but that's a lot of mortrews.  

So, Your Grace, does this mean you don't wanna talk about cressee?

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com