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

[ChannonM at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/22/00 11:03:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
owner-sca-cooks at ansteorra.org writes:

> 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.
>  

This is just an observation;
What if the scribe was trying to figure out/understand what the recipe said 
and drew it out in the manuscript as he/she read the recipe? Subsequently, 
the next copier of the text repeats the drawing , but then doesn't know the 
impetus for the first one.

Kind of like margin notes?

Ignore me, I'm babbling.

Hauviette