HFF 5.15: T Time

Out of order, but once again caught up on the historic cooking challenges!

The Challenge: "T" Time. Make a light dish or confection suitable for tea. Or anything with the letter "T". I decided to revisit my solo tea party menu, and noticed that I hadn't yet made rusks (and alternative to wigs on the tea table, per Mrs. Crowen's recommendations).

The Recipe: Rusks from The Economical Housekeeper by John Walsh ("assisted by a company of ladies")

The Date/Year and Region: 1860, London

How Did You Make It:  I did the full quantity this time: melted 2 oz of butter and combined with 1 cup milk; mixed 1 lb of all-purpose flour with 2 oz granulated sugar; beat 1 egg, and added it to the flour mixture along with 2.5 tsp active dry yeast (substituting for 2 Tbsp fresh), then mixed in the milk/butter, and let it all rise for an hour. At that point, I had more of a dough than a paste, but I read the instructions to 'work up into a paste' followed by cutting into strips as flattening the dough somewhat. I ended up using my hands rather rolling the dough out flat, but then proceeded to cut it into squares and let them rise another hour (plus the time required to pre-heat the oven). I baked the rusks for 10 minutes at 350F, which produced neat little square buns: cooked through and barely starting to brown. After letting them cool overnight, I again pre-heated the oven to 350F, then promptly turned it off and set the rusks back in to dry. After 40 minutes or so in the cooling oven, they had darkened substantially, so I took them out to avoid overcooking. This batch made 12 palm-sized rolls.

Total Time: About 20-30 minutes total mixing and shaping, a bit over two hours rise time, 10 minutes to bake; overnight cooling time and another 30-60 minutes to bake a second time. Make at least the day before needed; not a ton of active work, mostly lots of waiting time.

Total Cost: About $1 worth of dairy, plus pantry staples.

How Successful Was It?: Despite posible over-cooking on the 'drying' step, they're quite edible. I tried one before the second bake, and found it a rich, fairly light roll. The flavor was slightly insipid: not so much sweet as 'lacking salt'. I found some butter or preserves made up for this deficiency. All told, these remind me of sally lunn buns, but more shelf-stable. I assume the second bake is to promote this stability, so they can be baked a few days in advance rather than the exact same day. 

After the second bake, the rolls were quite dark and crispy on the outside (I think I should have let the over cool a bit more before putting them in). They were still perfectly soft on the inside, and again tasted fine with jam. Just looking at the related recipes in this book ('bread rusks', 'tops and bottoms'), the darker color may be a good sign, but I suspect that a longer bake in a cooler oven is really needed to dry out the interiors. 

I'll need to tweak the cooking time/temperature a little on the second bake, but even so I think that rusks will make a good addition to my receipt rotation. I really like that they can be made in advance, but still have the rich flavor and fine texture of other tea-time rolls and buns. And even if a longer bake changes the crumb, I think the convenience will make these more than worthwhile.

How Accurate Is It?: I used the modern oven and yeast, but my largest qualm is the shaping step. I like the size and appearance of the rusks I got, but don't know how accurate they are. Will likely need to find more sources to refine this in the future. 

Rusks

HFF 5.16: Soup-er Bowl

Going a little out of order in order to catch up. And because the receipt I want to try for #13 would be better over the weekend.

The Challenge: Soup-er Bowl. Make a soup or another dish served by the bowl.

The Recipe: Mulligatawny Soup No. 3 from The Lady's Own Cookery Book

The Date/Year and Region: 1844 (3rd ed.), London

How Did You Make It:  I started by preparing the broth. With no further instruction than that it be "good", I boiled some beef bones with my usual combination of vegetable peelings (carrots, parsnips, celery, onion), whatever dried herbs were on hand (savory, parsley, marjoram), a few whole peppercorns, and a little salt. I let it cool in the fridge overnight, then skimmed off as much of the fat as possible, strained out the solid bits. and decanted the clear broth (to remove the sediment).

The next day, I cut and fried two chicken breasts and 5 chopped onions in ~ 6 Tbsp butter, with ~1/2 Tbsp curry powder. Once they were cooked through, I added the chicken and onions to ~10 cups of the broth and set it to simmer for 3 hours.

Total Time: At least 5 hours on boiling/simmering things, another ~30 min chopping vegetables, ~30 minutes frying chicken, and the overnight cooling period.

Total Cost: About $6 for the beef bones and curry powder, unsure on the chicken; onions, vegetable scraps and herbs were all from my garden or else left-over from other projects.

How Successful Was It?: Tastes fine. There's a lot going on flavor-wise, but it's not overwhelming. There is an odd note to the broth, but I'm pretty sure it's just that I'm not expecting chicken and beef together. Making it again, I'd use a bit less broth for this quantity of chicken (6-8 cups instead of 10), add a pinch more salt near the end, and cut both the meat and onions finer. Also, I'm wishing for some jasmine rice and naan to go with it... This is not something I'm likely to make for myself regularly, but it's perfectly adequate to add to the soup repertoire for future events.

 How Accurate Is It?: I picked this dish because The Illustrated Queen Almanac and Lady's Calendar (1866) lists Mulligatawny as a seasonal soup for February, so the timing is accurate. 

A lot of things I feel less certain of are ones that weren't specified: the process for frying the chicken; what exactly should go into a 'good broth'; whether the curry powder I found at the store is the same spice mixture a Victorian cook in England would have used to emulate Indian cooking. I go back and forth on whether the in-specificity of the instructions makes my improvisations more accurate to the spirit of the receipt or less. After all, I'm not a trained or even an amateur 19th century cook whose skills are a product of the 19th century and whose objective is to prepare edible food: I'm a 21st century historian attempting to mimic those skills, and necessarily relying on books to do so. Book which were mostly written by people who did not learn to cook from books, for people who did not wholly learn to cook from books. End digression.

The two weak points that I'm aware of both relate to the meat. I used the only beef-related bones I could find at the grocery store (labelled 'beef stew bones') instead of the veal-knuckle that was specified. I'm not sure how far off these two things are, or if it would even make a difference to the final product, but it was a conscious 'best I can do for now' decision. I also did purchase a whole chicken carcass so that I could 'joint' it as required, but decided at the last minute to save that dish that requires cooking the chicken whole and use the pre-cuts here. I just don't need that much curry soup at this point, and it's supposed to be cut up before cooking anyway. My best guess is that neither of these things should greatly alter the taste, though the cut of the chicken will affect its texture (another reason I decided what I did).

Mulligatawny Soup #3, c. 1844.

Original: Embroidered Child's Coat, c.1860

Still in a coat/outerwear mood, and February is a good time for cute things:

Child's Wool Coat with Silk Embroidery, c.1860. The Met.