cuskynoles-msg - 3/30/08 A medieval fruit-filled ravioli-like pasta dish which was the subject of several long, heated discussions on the SCA-Cooks mail list. One of the few period recipes which includes a diagram. NOTE: See also the files: dumplings-msg, pasta-msg, flour-msg, fruits-msg, fd-Italy-msg. ************************************************************************ NOTICE - This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday. This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter. The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors. Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s). Thank you, Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous Stefan at florilegium.org ************************************************************************ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:17:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Gretchen M Beck <grm+ at andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: Re: SC - Cuskynoles See Constance Hiett's article in Speculum from the mid-1980s -- Anglo-Norman Culinary Collections. They include two recipes--one titled Ravioli and the other Kuskenole-- (of which I failed to copy the originals, but here are the translations): Ravioli -- Here is another kind of dish, which is called ravoili. Take fine flour and sugar and make pasta dough; take good cheese and butter and cream them together, then take parsley, sage, and shallots, chop thenm finely and put them in the filling (i.e. the cheese and butter); put the boiled ravioli on a bed of grated cheese and cover them with more grated cheese, and then reheat them (?) Kuskenole - Here is a dish which is called kuskenole. Make pastry with eggs; then take figs, raisins, pears, and apples, and then dates and almonds; beat together and add good mixed ground spice and whole spices. In Lent, make your pastry with almonds. Roll your pastry out on a table and cut into several pieces, one and a half hands long and three fingers in width; then grease the pastry on one side; then put the filling in, dividing it equally among the cakes; then fold together as this diagram illustrates (presumably folding over the pastry and pressing or crimping the edges together, as with ravioli), then boil in clean water; then brown on a griddle, etc. toodles, margaret Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 15:58:06 -0500 From: "Philippa Alderton" <phlip at bright.net> Subject: Re: SC - cuskinolds Cuskynoles have been a subject of much debate here on the List, leading to almost acrimonius exchanges between two gentles of differing opinions. My opinion is that they are essentially fruit ravioli- here is the recipe from Diuersa Cibaria, # 45, in Hieatt and Butler's1985 edition of Curye on Inglysch, so that you may make your own opinion. (th) as usual, indicates the letter "thorn". A mete (th)at is icleped cuskynoles. Make a past tempred wi(th) ayren, & so(th)(th)en nim peoren & applen, figes & reysins, alemaundes & dates; bet am togedere & do god poudre of gode speces wi(th)innen. & in leynten make (th)i past wi(th) milke of alemaundes, & rolle (th)i past on a bord, & so(th)(th)en hew hit on moni perties, & vche an pertie beo of (th)e leyn(th)e of a paume & an half & of (th)reo vyngres of brede. & smeor (th)y past al of one dole, & so(th)(th)en do (th)i fassure wi(th)innen. | Vchan kake is portiooun. & so(th)(th)en veld togedere o(th)e 3eolue manere, ase (th)eos fugurre is imad: ______________________________________ | . | . | . | . | . | |______|_______|______|______|_______| | . | . | . | . | . | |______|_______|______|______|_______| | . | . | . | . | . | |______|_______|______|______|_______| & so(th)(th) boille in veir water, & so(th)(th) en rost on an greudil: & so(th)(th)en adresse. Have fun ;-) Phlip Caer Frig Barony of the Middle Marches Middle Kingdom Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 21:58:33 -0800 From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com> Subject: Re: SC - cuskinolds At 1:04 PM -0800 12/22/98, Vicki Strassburg wrote: > I, too, missed the great debate! (but >I assume it's along the lines of potatoes and feastocrats). Not at all. It was about whether, when working from the only recipe in the whole corpus of 13th-15th Anglo-Norman cookery to include an illustration, you should ignore the illustration. For the other side, ask Adamantius. Our version of Cuskynoles, from the Miscellany, follows. - --- Cuskynoles Curye on Inglysch p. 52 (Diuersa Cibaria no. 45) A mete that is icleped cuskynoles. Make a past tempred with ayren, & soththen nim peoren & applen, figes & reysins, alemaundes & dates; bet am togedere & do god poudre of gode speces withinnen. & in leynten make thi past with milke of alemaundes. & rolle thi past on a bord, & soththen hew hit on moni perties, & vche an pertie beo of the leynthe of a paume & an half & of threo vyngres of brede. & smeor thy past al of one dole, & soththen do thi fassure withinnen. Vchan kake is portiooun. & soththen veld togedere othe zeolue manere, ase theos fugurre is imad: & soththe boille in veir water, & soththen rost on an greudil; & soththen adresse. Modernized English: A meat that is named cuskynoles. Make a paste tempered with eggs, & so then take pears & apples, figs & raisins, almonds & dates; beat them together & do good powder of good spices within. & in Lent make thy paste with milk of almonds. & roll thy paste on a board, & so then hew it in many parts, & each part be of the length of a palm & a half & of three fingers of breadth. & smear thy paste all on one half, & so then do thy filling within. Each cake is a portion. & so then fold together of the same manner, as this figure is made: [see above] & so then boil in fair water, & so then roast on a griddle; & so then dress. Filling: one ripe pear (7 oz) 4 oz whole, unblanched almonds 1 1/2 t nutmeg one cooking apple (7 oz) 4 oz pitted dates 1 t cloves 4 oz figs 1 1/2 t cinnamon 1/2 t ginger 4 oz raisins Wash and core apple and pear but do not peel. Cut figs into 2 or 3 pieces each. Use a food processor or mortar and pestle to reduce the ingredients to a uniform mush. Pastry: 1 1/2 c flour 1/4 c water 1 beaten egg Stir cold water into flour, stir in egg, stir and knead until smooth. Roll out as two 12"x15" sheets. Cut each sheet into 10 6"x3" pieces. Spread 1 T of filling on one piece and put another piece over it, making a sandwich of dough, filling, dough. Using the back of a thick knife, press the edges together to seal them, then press along the lines shown in the figure, giving a 6"x3" "cake" made up of fifteen miniature fruit filled ravioli, joined at their edges. Boil about 4 minutes, then broil at a medium distance from the burner about 4 minutes a side, watching to be sure they do not burn. David Friedman Professor of Law Santa Clara University Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 07:10:44 -0500 From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com> Subject: Re: SC - cuskinolds david friedman wrote: > It was about whether, when working from the only recipe in the > whole corpus of 13th-15th Anglo-Norman cookery to include an illustration, > you should ignore the illustration. There's no question of ignoring the illustration, merely an attempt to establish a likely scale (since no clear indication is given in the recipe) and a method of accomplishing it (since no clear indication is given in the recipe). It's enough to make one wish for a clear illustration for several other recipes, such as Teste de Turt, for example, but seeing what they accomplished with the cuskynoles recipe, it's understandable they would be a little hesitant. Basically my interpretation calls for one kind of Wishful Thinking(TM), and His Grace's, another. Do you manufacture information that the recipe fails to provide in such a way as to take the recipe in one direction, or another? Each of us feels the other is engaging in Wild Speculation(TM), while we ourselves are serious redactors. Oil and water, cats and dogs, Bugs and Elmer, that sort of thing. If there were genuine equilibrium in the Universe, it would collapse again. > For the other side, ask Adamantius. Aaargghhh! Multi-celled cuskynoles are an affront to god and man! They must be stopped! Foam. Snarl. Snap. Foam. Seriously, though, I'm only trying to describe, as best I can, the nature of our disagreement, without picking it up again. There's nothing new being said here, and I believe the whole thing is archived somewhere. Adamantius stgardr, East Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:39:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Gretchen M Beck <grm+ at andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: Re: SC - period fruit pastries Excerpts from internet.listserv.sca-cooks: 28-Apr-99 Re: SC - period fruit pastries by david friedman at best.com > Cuskynoles are a recipe in _Curye on Inglysche_ from a late 13th c. source. > They are, so far as I know, the only recipe in the whole 13th-15th c. > French/English corpus that come with an illustration, a drawing that is > supposed to show how they are made. The recipe for Cresse in MS. B.L Additional 32085 (from Anglo-Norman Culinary Collections, by Constance Hieatt and Robin F Jones) includes a small diagram for assembling the dish. toodles, margaret Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:14:17 -0700 From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com> Subject: RE: SC - Cuskynoles At 2:58 PM -0400 8/20/99, Mary_HallSheahan at ademco.com wrote: >I would indeed like to see the two interpretations, particularly because I >know the recipe & love the ingredients but was completely bamboozled by the >verbs. Basically, the disagreement is on the construction of a cuskynole. Adamantius thinks it is a ravioli. I think it is what you would get if you took a very large ravioli, containing a thin layer of filling, then pressed the two layers of dough together with the back of a knife or something similar in a gridwork pattern, giving you one "ravioli" made out of about a 3x5 grid of little raviolis attached at the edges. I think his interpretation is inconsistent with the diagram; he doesn't. You can find my version in the Miscellany, available online. David/Cariadoc http://www.best.com/~ddfr/ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:04:11 -0500 From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com> Subject: Re: SC - Introduction BanAvtai at aol.com wrote: > I have always been far too terrified to ask what the C word meant.... It is written: Lo, and there shall come a mighty cuskynole upon the earth, and it shall be made from a thin sheet of dough, cut into many pieces, and a filling shall be made from a mixture of fresh and dried fruits and nuts, crushed in a mortar. And the filling shall be applied to the dough, and the dough shall be wrapped around it and sealed thusly according to a diagram that is hard to reproduce in ASCII text, after which the said cuskies shall be boiled, thereafter roasted on a gridiron, and served forth to the righteous. And in those days giants walked the earth, and there was dissention and strife among them concerning the meaning of the diagram, and the One True Way to make cuskynoles. And the giants fought not once, but many times, over a period of many centuries, uprooting trees and laying waste the land, while men and women cowered behind large rocks (but not Margali's rock) like the little kids in baseball caps in Japanese monster movies... After centuries of bloody war, the giants did reach an accord whereby we Don't Go There, and while many do speak of cuskynoles in whispered voices in the dark of night, no man dares invoke their name in the bright light of day... That's about it, huh, folks? Adamantius Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:50:16 EST From: LrdRas at aol.com Subject: Re: SC - Cuskeynoles Aldyth at aol.com writes: << then thaw them in the morning, boil them >> I would drop them frozen into the boiling water to avoid a gooey mess. Pre-frozen ravioli usually recommend boiling from the frozen state and the end product is much tastier. Cuskynoles are merely fruit filled ravioli, no more, no less. The method of construction may be 'controversial' but the end product is virtually the same either way. Ras Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:46:43 -0600 From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com> Subject: Re: SC - Cuskeynoles At 8:47 PM -0500 2/4/00, Aldyth at aol.com wrote: >BTW, is there a problem with using apricots as a filling for cuskynoles? I >was wondering if there is a corelation between cuskynoles and the fried pies >that my grandma made in Arkansas and Missouri. She tried to tell me they >were english food, from a bunch of people who moved to the south when they >first colonized. Any truth to this? Cuskynoles are from a 14th-century English recipe; apricots are not mentioned in the cookbook they come from, nor in any of the other English 14th-century cookbooks collected in _Curye on Inglisch_. I don't remember any recipes using apricots in any of the other 14th or 15th c. English cookbooks I've run across, either, although there are lots of references to other dried fruit. The earliest mention of apricots grown in England in Anne Wilson's _Food and Drink in Britain_ is 1548 (the writer described it as "an hasty peach", being like earlier-ripening peaches). The actual fruits and nuts specified in the cuskynoles recipe are pears, apples, figs, raisins, almonds, and dates. For everyone who has been asking, here is the original recipe under dispute: A mete that is icleped cuskynoles. Make a past tempred with ayren, & sothen nim peoren & applen, figes & reysins, alemaundes & dates; bet am togedere & do god poudre of gode speces withinnen. & in leynten make thi past with milke of alemaundes. & rolle thi past on a bord, & sothen hew hit on moni perties, & vche an pertie beo of the leynthe of a paume & an half & of threo vyngres of brede. & smeor thy past al of one dole, & sothen do thi fassure withinnen. Vchan kake is portiooun. & sothen veld togedere othe zeolue manere, ase theos fugurre is imad: [the picture in question is a rectangular grid, five rectangles across and three vertically, with a dot in the center of each little rectangle] & sothe boille in veir water, & sothen rost on an greudil; & sothen adresse. [thorns replaced by th's] And for those who prefer their Middle English at least semi-translated: A food that is named cuskynoles. Make a paste [dough] tempered with eggs, & so then take pears & apples, figs & raisins, almonds & dates; beat them together & do good powder of good spices within. & in Lent make thy paste with milk of almonds. & roll thy paste on a board, & so then hew it in many parts, & each part be of the length of a palm & a half & of three fingers of breadth. & smear thy paste all of one deal [half? portion?], & so then do thy filling withinn. Each cake is portion. & so then fold together of the self manner, as this figure is made: [see note above] & so then boil in fair water, & so then roast on a griddle; & so then dress [arrange for serving]. Elizabeth of Dendermonde/Betty Cook Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:33:12 -0400 From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com> Subject: Re: Authenticity, philosophy, and advocacy (was Re: SC - questions) Bonne of Traquair wrote: > Chin up, Morgana, this group has a lot of people who want to make sure > their meaning is absolutely clear, and that they tuly understand what the > other person is saying. That takes a lot of verbage and a lot of bandwidth. > But it never comes to blows. Not even over cuskynoles. (which I beleive is > cooks code for'are we done with this dead horse?') Actually, we're not. Upon looking at the cuskynole recipe in its French form in the 13th century Anglo-Norman BL MS ADD 32085, of which BL Add. 46919 (He), also known as Diuersa Cibaria, appears to be, in part, a translated copy, I see that the text in French seems a great deal more specific, and much clearer in Hieatt's English translation. Also that the illustration in 46919, presumably copied accurately for Curye On Inglysh, looks suspiciously like the illustration from a completely different recipe in the earlier source... . I'll leave you in fearful anticipation until I get a chance to provide more details. I know you can't wait. Adamantius Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:29:02 -0500 From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com> Subject: Re: Authenticity, philosophy, and advocacy (was Re: SC - questions) At 11:33 PM -0400 6/16/00, Philip & Susan Troy wrote: [In his most audacious bluff since the cuskynole heresy began] >Actually, we're not. Upon looking at the cuskynole recipe in its French >form in the 13th century Anglo-Norman BL MS ADD 32085, of which BL Add. >46919 (He), also known as Diuersa Cibaria, appears to be, in part, a >translated copy, I see that the text in French seems a great deal more >specific, and much clearer in Hieatt's English translation. Also that >the illustration in 46919, presumably copied accurately for Curye On >Inglysh, looks suspiciously like the illustration from a completely >different recipe in the earlier source... . > >I'll leave you in fearful anticipation until I get a chance to provide >more details. I know you can't wait. The French text reads: "e pus plier ensemble come cel signe est fet:" [followed by a 3x3 grid]. The English translation reads" "then fold together as this diagram illustrates." The Diuersa Cibaria versions reads: & soththen veld togedere othe zeolue manere, ase theos fuguree is imad": [followed by a 3x5 grid]--"th" for thorn and "z" for the squiggly letter whose name I have forgotten.) The only relevant difference is that one author thinks the grid is 3x3 and one 3x5. You are still left defending the position that, when redacting one of the two recipes in the corpus (I admit I had missed the other) that has a picture of how to make it, we should ignore the picture and make ravioli instead. I eagerly await your redaction of cressee--lasagna perhaps? David/Cariadoc http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:39:01 -0400 From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com> Subject: SC - Kuskenole - was, Authenticity, philosophy, and advocacy david friedman revs up the CD of Steve Martin and Martin Short singing "Playing With The Big Boys Now", and writes in his scariest tones: > At 11:33 PM -0400 6/16/00, Philip & Susan Troy wrote: > [In his most audacious bluff since the cuskynole heresy began] Oh, come now, the night is young! Quoting me: > >Actually, we're not. Upon looking at the cuskynole recipe in its French > >form in the 13th century Anglo-Norman BL MS ADD 32085, of which BL Add. > >46919 (He), also known as Diuersa Cibaria, appears to be, in part, a > >translated copy, I see that the text in French seems a great deal more > >specific, and much clearer in Hieatt's English translation. Also that > >the illustration in 46919, presumably copied accurately for Curye On > >Inglysh, looks suspiciously like the illustration from a completely > >different recipe in the earlier source... . > > > The French text reads: > > "e pus plier ensemble come cel signe est fet:" [followed by a 3x3 grid]. > > The English translation reads" > > "then fold together as this diagram illustrates." Indeed it does. The entire English translation says, discounting bracketted material from Hieatt: "25. Kuskenole [pastries with fruit filling]. Here is a dish which is called kuskenole. Make pastry with eggs; then take figs, raisins, pears, and apples, and then dates and almonds; beat together and add good mixed ground spice and whole spices. In Lent, make your make your pastry with almonds [i.e. almond butter or cream]. Roll your pastry out on a table and cut into several pieces, one and a half hands long and three fingers in width; then grease the pastry on one side; then put the filling in, dividing it equally among the cakes; then fold together as this diagram illustrates [presumably folding over the p[astry and pressing or crimping the edges together, as with ravioli]; then boil in clean water, then brown on a griddle, etc." > The Diuersa Cibaria versions reads: > > & soththen veld togedere othe zeolue manere, ase theos fuguree is > imad": [followed by a 3x5 grid]--"th" for thorn and "z" for the > squiggly letter whose name I have forgotten.) > > The only relevant difference is that one author thinks the grid is > 3x3 and one 3x5. Bzzzt! I'm sorry, I'm afraid that's incorrect, but we have some lovely parting gifts for Your Grace, including the Cuskynole Board Game from Parker Brothers! 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. 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. The other (the 3x5) does seem to be in proportion to the hand (or palm) and a half by three fingers, but it also bears more resemblance to the illustration in the cressee recipe (in 32085) than it does to the kuskenole recipe (in 32085). I would not be at all surprised if some transposition and omission, as described by Rudolf Grewe in connection with copied manuscripts of the Harpestrang cookbook, has taken place, and that what we are seeing is the cressee illustration, or some variant thereof. 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 still left defending the position that, when redacting one of > the two recipes in the corpus (I admit I had missed the other) Quite a magnaninous admission, considering that you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've repeatedly said. (For the folks in our studio audience, please understand that I am a skilled pain in the arse, and that His Grace is a professional argumentative kvetch, who, I gather, produces other professional argumentative kvetches for his livelihood, and that none of the above represents animosity. It is my belief that His Grace would adhere to more strict formal debate methods, which would preclude cheating, i.e. deliberately ignoring what I say and putting words in my mouth to present my POV in the worst possible light, were this a professional situation. Picture us in a bar, arguing over [perhaps too much] beer.) Note also that there are now at least three illustrations in the total corpus, and yes, one appears to be a duplicate of one of the others. The trouble is that there's a fairly good chance that it is a duplicate of the wrong one. 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. 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), added to the fact that no such instructions are given in either recipe, make me suspect that there is perhaps a better interpretation. Note that I'm not saying that the above is not how the dish was made, I'm saying that it _may_ have been made that way, and that it _may_ have been made another way. His Grace, ever resembling Saint Jerome in these matters, politely suggests I am full of poop. 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. > that has a picture of how to make it, we should ignore the picture and > make ravioli instead. See above. With respect, bulldinky. It is true that my finished version does resemble square ravioli in shape, but what you're missing (or rather seeing and pretending not to) is that I have not set out to prove that cuskynoles are ravioli (although you appear to have dedicated a chunk of your life to proving they're not) but rather that there is some inherent confusion, some loose ends, in the total picture of recipe-plus-illustration, and in trying to tie up the loose ends, we are logically led to more than one interpretation. One of which is the possibility that the dish looks like a squarish ravioli. Rather than ignoring the illustration, something I have never done, I simply ask how the instructions as written could produce something that looks like the illustration. You've supplied an extra set of instructions to make it work, I posited the theory that the instructions may be out of order and that the later illustration may not be a single, finished cuskynole. (I'm not alone in this; see Hieatt in both published sources...) 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. 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. 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! Now, an additional piece to ponder is the fact that the illustration has changed between the 13th and 14th-century sources. The newer one is more or less in keeping with the proportions given in the recipe, but it has changed from the earlier version. The earlier one is not in keeping with the stated proportions, but does look like what would happen if you took the measured piece of dough, brushed some sticky stuff on it, added filling, folded it over and sealed it. The later one is conceivably based on an unknown version earlier than either manuscript, and could conceivably be the "correct", canonical version, but we have no real evidence of that, and when combined with the fact that it looks rather like the drawing for the earlier cressee recipe, it seems quite possible it is an error. > I eagerly await your redaction of cressee--lasagna perhaps? Now that, of course, would be far beneath Your Grace's dignity if you weren't joking, but if you'd like to discuss cressee I'm happy to. For example, the recipe says, IIRC, to roll and cut the paste to a finger's thickness, or some such. Is that just a reference to width and not thickness, or does the combination of softer wheats and longer cooking times make this gnocchi-ish pasta a little more of a real possibility? Pehaps this is why some later pasta recipes speak of boiling it for an hour... . 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 - -- Phil & Susan Troy Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:25:00 -0500 From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com> Subject: Re: SC - Kuskenole - was, Authenticity, philosophy, and advocacy 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. 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. 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? >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. 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. I think you offered both of those conjectures as possibilities in the earlier round of the discussion. >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. > 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. 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. And note that the figure with cressee doesn't have dots in the squares--at least as shown in Speculum. >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? 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. 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. >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. >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. >added to the fact that no such instructions >are given in either recipe, make me suspect that there is perhaps a >better interpretation. Note that I'm not saying that the above is not >how the dish was made, I'm saying that it _may_ have been made that way, >and that it _may_ have been made another way. His Grace, ever resembling >Saint Jerome in these matters, politely suggests I am full of poop. 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. >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. >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. >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. 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. >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. 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. David/Cariadoc http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:12:11 -0400 From: "Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius" <adamantius.magister at verizon.net> Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] *Experiment* To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org> On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Stefan li Rous wrote: > Vladimir asked: >> How did that [cuskynoles] debate ever turn out anyway? > > Inconclusive. For a "Reader's Digest" version of the discussion, > see this file in the FOOD section of the Florilegium: > cuskynoles-msg (44K) 8/21/00 A medieval fruit-filled pasta > dish. FWIW, I believe the last word on the subject was, essentially, "Well, maybe we can't be sure after all..." which is pretty much what I had been pushing for (and opting for a simpler but functional approach because of that). Specifically, this was in light of some questions that had been raised about the faithfulness/integrity/accuracy of the decision of the English scribe for the recipe we'd been looking at to associate that particular illustration with that recipe... <takes deep breath for further run-on sentence-spouting>... BECAUSE... we'd found an earlier recipe in a French-language source that A) provided a somewhat different illustration, and B) provided another and more or less unrelated recipe (cressee) which also came with an illustration which looked a lot like the one that Hieatt and Butler included with their edition of the English version of the cuskynole recipe. What we were left with was a need to look at the original manuscripts, since in both cases there appeared to be both some kind of scribal transposition shift of the illustration, and some question of the accuracy of Hieatt's rendering of the illustrations for both the English and French versions of the recipes -- the French edition in Speculum is hand-drawn and the English one in Curye On Inglysch is rendered more or less in some kind of ASCII, and this is all complicated by the fact that the recipe for cressee, the only _other_ known English early medieval recipe that comes with a diagram which, BTW, somewhat resembles the cuskynole illustration, and which appears to be mysteriously absent from the English rendering of the earlier French source. In a nutshell, the conclusion as I understand it is (heavy paraphrasing): C.: This is the only, or one of the only, medieval recipes that comes with a diagram, so why not be faithful to the diagram? A.: I'm not that far off the diagram, and even if I am, how much stock can we place in the illustration when it seems quite possible the illustration was switched at birth for its Evil Twin by a no- account English scribe in the early-to-mid 14th century? And a clumsy attempt to conceal this crime was made? C.: <shrug> Who the h**l knows? Let's get a drink and go back to the original manuscripts. Which is where we left it, as I recall. Perhaps His Grace recalls it differently, but yes, I agree, it was "inconclusive". But don't worry, I was still His Grace's rhetorical and forensic bi-atch. Adamantius <the end> Edited by Mark S. Harris cuskynoles-msg Page 17 of 17