Text 27455, 131 rader
Skriven 2009-08-14 07:40:00 av MICHAEL LOO (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DAVE DRUM
Ärende: Cookbook Haggis 27
==========================
 ML> 1. Haggis isn't a cookbook sort of dish, even though it may
 ML> have been mentioned in a "cooking guide from 1615." 
 DD> Lots of dishes that aren't a "cookbook sort of dish" are codified by
 DD> having recipes written down for them. Many of those recipes posted in
 DD> this forum, too. 

But this forum, and the mindset that justifies it, didn't
exist in 1615. You're not speaking to the point, which is
that nobody would have bothered writing down a procedure
that was as much a commonplace as how to use a shovel.

I don't think it was until the day when mediocrities needed
to find Ph.D. dissertation subjects that a lot of this stuff
started getting overdocumented.

 ML> The Scots-English lady's hypothesis sounds a bit johnny-come-lately,
 ML> or perhaps johnny-on-the-spot, as it applies modern attitudes
 ML> to a not-modern phenomenon.
 DD> So what? She did not live when Jimmy was king. So, she'd have to be a
 DD> Sally-come-lately.

She didn't live when James was king. She is applying her own
prejudices and mindset to a time that she clearly has no idea
about. Can't you get this through your thick head? No, because
you're trapped in the same prejudices and mindset.

 ML> More specifically: the notion that
 ML> an illiterate Highland housewife would have a cookbook at her elbow
 ML> when making haggis is pretty bizarre. More likely she'd have watched
 ML> her mum and her mum's mum making the stuff for a decade or so by
 ML> the time she was ready to start off on her own.
 DD> So you think that some officious person could not have written down a
 DD> recipe and put it in a book even though 98% of the general public was
 DD> illiterate? Give me a break. Bureaucrats and people with a bean counter
 DD> mentality will ALWAYS codify things. And if you think bureaucracy was
 DD> invented in Washington DC, well .........

Such officious persons as you posit would have had better things to do.

No, I think, and know, that no such person did such a thing at
such a time. Bet your life. If you undertake to find an English or
Scottish cookbook written before 1616 that has a recipe for haggis,
I'll gladly buy it for you. The original.

 ML> 2. I used to have a copy of Apicius, as you should know.
 DD> Was it the now superseded Vehling translation?

I know not of translations of Apicius. The dormouse recipe
I translated myself; the others I've posted were quoted from
such sources as Ian, and for all I know were made up by them.

I will take your word for that there is a translation by
someone named Vehling and that it might be considered by
someone to have been superseded by something else. Did you
know of such a translation and its supersession before, say,
last week, or are you cribbing from some unknown source?
 
 DD> I point out further that I did not say anywhere (nor did 
 DD> anyone else) that Jimmy 1st was the originator of the recipe
 DD> nor the author of a cookbook.
 ML> Why bring him and his somewhat literacy in at all, then?
 DD> Why, to point out to anyone with the wit to make the connection that
 DD> there ight
 DD> be a reason that a recipe for a supposedly Scottish dish to have
 DD> appeared in a compendium originating in Blighty, of course. 

Your logic is obscure, as it often is!
 
 ML> You need filler in meatloaf. Crumbs at the least, and preferably eggs.
 ML> Otherwise it becomes something, as Nicholas would put it, the density
 ML> of a white dwarf star.
 DD> Well, Dorothy used eggs ... which I don't consider filler, but binder.

They're both.

 DD> Title: Hungry Boy's Casserole
 DD> From: http://www.recipesource.com

I get the willies when I see stuff with the attributions
so filed off, especially something whose proper credit or
debit is so easy to find. This recipe was created or
something by a Mrs. Roman Walilko, and you could look it
up, though whether you can find her on the Internet, I
don't know. The proper title is hungry boys casserole,
no apostrophe. The reason I happen to know this is because
it won the Pillsbury grand prize the year that walnut
glory cake should have.

Walnut glory cake
cat: cake, perfect
yield: 1

3/4 c all-purpose flour
2 ts cinnamon
1 ts salt
9 egg whites (1 1/4 c)
3/4 c sugar
9 egg yolks
2 ts vanilla
3/4 c sugar
2 c walnuts, chopped as fine as possible

Mix flour, cinnamon, and salt.

Beat egg whites to soft peaks. Gradually add 3/4 c sugar and
beat until very stiff and glossy. Do not underbeat.

Combine egg yolks, vanilla, and 3/4 c sugar. Beat until light and
lemon-colored.

Fold yolk mixture into whites. Fold in walnuts.

Pour into ungreased 10" tube pan.

Bake at 350 for 55 to 65 min or until done when tested. Invert
immediately. Cool completely before removing from pan. Frost
with a vanilla glaze, or sprinkle with 10x sugar, or serve
with whipped cream. Or do as I do and don't frost it at all,
M's note.

This may be the single most perfect cake I've ever had (M's note),
when my sister makes it. The second most perfect cake I've ever had
is when I make it and use hazelnuts for the walnuts.

senior best of class winner by Mr. Umejiro Frank Kuritsubo,
Oakland CA - 1964 Pillsbury Bakeoff
Posted to NCE 5 May 98

___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)