SC - Re: Kuskenole - was, Authenticity, philosophy, and advocacy

[ChannonM@aol.com]

At 9:10 AM -0400 6/22/00, Philip & Susan Troy wrote:
>david friedman wrote:

>  > 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?

Where do you get your starting date? We don't have any English or 
French cookbooks early than the Anglo-Norman. So they could have been 
making Cuskynoles for centuries, and we none the wiser.

>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?

I missed that point. Obviously he was a man of good sense, which 
reinforces my argument for taking his dots seriously. Now I need an 
excuse for not taking his 3x5 grid seriously.

>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?

I don't have a good theory. Alternative bad theories:

1. The copyist was working from the Anglo-Norman picture and not 
paying attention.

2. The cuskynoles the copyist had seen started out 6x5 or 10x3 and 
were then folded, and he didn't notice the inconsistency between the 
picture--perhaps he drew it with an uneaten cuskynole sitting in 
front of him--and the dimensions in the text.

3. He is assembling each cuskynole from two 3x6 pieces--which gives 
just about the proportions shown in the figure. That is how I 
interpreted it in the _Miscellany_, probably because I hadn't 
compared the picture in the Anglo-Norman.

One attractive version of that final theory is that it makes the size 
of the little squares about the same in both versions. That makes 
sense--changing from a 3x3 grid to a 3x5 grid is a smaller change in 
the dish then substantially altering the size of the little squares.

Of course, we also don't know the exact connection between the two 
versions--there may be other manuscripts involved.

>  > 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.

Interesting thought. Have you tried doing cressee? I'm tempted. I 
wouldn't think you would have to seal it at points, given the 
tendency of pasta to stick, but I haven't tried.

If what is going on is that all the figures are of comparable size in 
the original and Speculum chose to print them tiny, there might be 
dots in the originals for either or both of the Anglo-Norman figures. 
Hopefully Terry can tell us something useful.

>  > 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.

Including  "press along the lines shown in the figure?" I don't think 
I could substitute for that in any form that takes less space than 
the words plus the Anglo-Norman version of the figure. Especially if 
I didn't know whether my reader was familiar with tic-tac-toe

>  > 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).

You were just arguing that the copyist might not know much about 
cooking. So isn't it sufficient that the earliest version we have 
fits the text, and the later version is a plausible careless copy of 
the earlier?

>  > 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.

Mine involves the same number as yours, if I correctly understand 
your reading. We spread the piece of dough (or possibly half of it) 
with filling. We fold and crimp the thing into a square raviole, 3 
fingers by 3 fingers. We then use the back of the knife to press a 
tic-tac-toe board onto it. We now have a 3x3 grid of miniature 
ravioles, attached at the edges.

And, of course, we now also have an explanation of the origin of tic-tac-to.

>  > 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?

I'll be happy to talk about it, but I'm more interested at the moment 
in trying to make it.

David Friedman
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University
ddfr at best.com
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/