[Sca-cooks] Anneys in Counfyte: The Recipe Was Right

Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius adamantius1 at verizon.net
Sat Sep 19 07:31:34 PDT 2009


On Sep 19, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Elise Fleming wrote:

> Adamantius wrote:
>
> >One of the beauties of the 15th century "rough and ragged" confit is
> >the omission of water and the basic absence of certain considerations
> >like sugar height. It's hard crack by default as soon as it is melted
> >-- assuming you don't let it brown, at which point it is becoming
> >caramel.
>
> The recipe refers several times to "decoction" or "decoccioun".   
> This general means a boiling and the dictionaries say that it's a  
> boiling in water, or in a fluid.  Wouldn't this imply that there was  
> water added? The amount of water wouldn't matter because one was to  
> boil the sugar (and water) until it streamed between the thumb and  
> forefinger.  Have you tried just melting sugar and checking to see  
> if it streams between thumb and forefinger?  Or, by the time you  
> could check this, might the sugar have passed to a different stage?

Yes, it does stream. Basically it spins a thread from the get-go, and  
then the threads break after being stretched about an inch or less.  
The real trick, I've found, is to use a good-quality, thick pan (not  
easy to find in a wok), a low, steady flame, and patience. Our  
ancestors may also have had more water in their sugar.

> On re-reading the recipe, I'm not sure if what they wanted was a  
> "rough and ragged" comfit.  It says (put into today's spelling) "and  
> if you see that your anise becomes rough and ragged, give your sugar  
> a lower 'decoction', for high 'decoction' of the sugar makes it  
> rough and ragged."  To me that would say that if the anise became  
> rough, you should lower the sugar temperature, implying that a rough  
> and ragged comfit wasn't desirable.

I agree. The recipe tells us why they are rough and ragged if they are  
(it's all too easy to achieve), and implies what one needs to do to  
avoid it.

> I've not tried this specific recipe but have used the later period  
> ones which contain all the pertinent instructions but do mention the  
> use of water with the sugar.

Yeah, Plat, et al. It probably depends on how dedicated you are to  
getting it "right" on the first shot, or are simply trying to learn  
something about the process (which is usually closer to my intent).  
But the Harleian 2378 recipe is a lot of fun to take on a leap of  
faith (like Markham's similarly vague but equally effective infusion  
mashing instructions). It looks crazy but you never know unless you  
try it, huh?

Now, there's just one thing, regarding the sugar/syrup question, and I  
just noticed this now: if you look at the immediately preceding recipe  
in Harl 2378, it is for clarifying sugar and a syrup is clearly made.  
The last line of the recipe is something like, "and with this you may  
make all manner of confections".

The next step would be to try both recipes together (as in, in  
immediate sequence) and see if you get something more like Plat's  
smooth, large confits.

Adamantius






"Most men worry about their own bellies, and other people's souls,  
when we all ought to worry about our own souls, and other people's  
bellies."
			-- Rabbi Israel Salanter




More information about the Sca-cooks mailing list