cb-rv-Apicius-msg - 2/22/08
Reviews of various modern cookbooks containing recipes from the medieval Apicius recipe manuscripts.
NOTE: See also the files: Cheap-Apicius-art, fd-Romans-msg, Latin-msg, cookbooks-msg, cookbooks-bib, Roman-Recipes-art. cookbooks-SCA-msg, redacting-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
************************************************************************
From: mike hobbs <llewmike at mail.bright.net>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Preserving meat
Date: 3 Oct 1996 23:01:33 GMT
Organization: BrightNet Ohio
Agreed that Vehling's translations are poor but as Flowers and Rosenbaum point out, they are not based on the earliest available copies of Apicius but a later more humanistically enhanced version from the later Middle Ages. Yes, Flowers and Rosenbaum is the single best translation and I am using it to double check my own Apiciius translations as I have taken on the project of translating De Re Coquinaria for my laurel. Another excellent translation (of at least a small
part) are the translations by Ilaria Gozzini Giacosa in a Taste of Ancient Rome.
LLEWELLYN
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:22:16 -0400
Subject: Re: SC - Epicious (sp?) and decedent roman feasts....
rebecca tants wrote:
> A friend and I are putting in a bid to run this upcoming winter's
> Feast of the Seven Deadly Sins. Another friend thought it
> would be a nice idea for us todo a decedent Roman feast.
>
> Epicious is the obvious reference, but I don't have a copy.
> My first question therefore is where to get one.
Marcus Gavius Apicius is _believed_ to be the person for whom the book
is named. It is called, properly, something like "Apicius De Re
Quoquinaria", and whether anybody named Apicius is tha actual author is
in some question. Probably the best English translation is by Barbara
Flower and Elizabeth Rosenbaum, done in the late 1950's. It gives on one
page the text in Latin, and the English translation on the facing page.
While there are no redactions per se, there are footnotes with a lot of
useful information. There is a text translation by a fellow named
Vehling; you should probably stay away from this one as it has a number
of textual errors: Vehling was a professional cook who was unfortunately
not well educated outside his area of specialization.
One of the most recent books on Apicius is John Edwards' "The Roman
Cookery of Apicius", Hartley and Marks, New York, 1984. It doesn't
really offer a translation of Apicius, but rather a text on Roman
cookery with copious translated recipes, some of which are adapted for
the modern kitchen. It doesn't really adhere to any work style of any
other secondary source I've seen. I'd say it's pretty good, with one
warning: it seems as though a number of the recipes as adapted call for
ingredients that no first-century Roman would bother with. My belief
isn't that Edwards decided that people living to the north of Rome might
have, say, substituted butter for oil when browning meat, but rather
that nobody would care. The distinct possibility is that such
substitutions might have been made by, say, the Romanised British, but
Edwards doesn't mention this possibility, and it's hard to tell
sometimes when he is tinkering with a recipe or presenting it as
originally written.
> My second question is if there are other references that would
> go with this theme. I've been concentrating on northern
> european sources due to the language barrier, but am open to
> suggestions given the 6 months I have to try and figure them out.
The Flower and Rosenbaum Apicius translation includes sections on the
making of such things as amulum (amydoun to you medieval folks), cheese,
bread (I think), wine, and the ubiquitous aged fish sauce called
liquamen or garum. These sections are based on works by people like Cato
the Elder, Columella, and Pliny the Elder.
Another common source for researching this is Petronius' "Satyricon",
which is, as the title suggests, a satire, from around the same time as
Apicius. There is a fairly detailed description of a "decadent Roman
feast", but being satire, it's hard to tell how accurate it is. Bear in
mind that for most of Rome's history as a world power, there were just
as many people trying to preserve the ancient Roman virtues of
motherhood, frugality, and unseasoned porridge ; ), as there were
eating fricaseed hummingbird tongues.
Adamantius
From: "Nick Sasso (fra niccolo)" <grizly at mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:15:49 -0400
Subject: Re: SC - Epicious (sp?) and decedent roman feasts....
> It is called, properly, something like "Apicius De Re
> Quoquinaria", and whether anybody named Apicius is tha actual author
> is
> in some question. Probably the best English translation is by Barbara
> Flower and Elizabeth Rosenbaum, done in the late 1950's.
> .........................
The original title, quoted from the above text, is _Artis Magiricae_.
Indeed credited to Apicius and speculatively so. There is a fine
treatment on the Apicius text called _A Taste of Ancient Rome_ by Ilaria
Gozzini Giacosa (translated by Anna Herklotz). It is a useful mix of
translation, commentary, and redaction. The redactions are well
explained and seem to make sense, a feat in itself. There are also
sections on Banquets, menus, beverages, and food sources. I have found
it a useful source for 'Apician' cookery.
> The Flower and Rosenbaum Apicius translation includes sections on the
> making of such things as amulum (amydoun to you medieval folks),
> cheese,
> bread (I think), wine, and the ubiquitous aged fish sauce called
> liquamen or garum. These sections are based on works by people like
> Cato
> the Elder, Columella, and Pliny the Elder.
As does Giacosa. Both are good references on the same primary (?)
text. I am still in quest of other Roman quisine treatments. I've
found a couple ancient Greek books that I am reviewing, but thise won't
be quite the same (though there will be some similarity). I'll post my
findings when I'm finished reading them.
> Adamantius
- --
In Humble Service to God and Crown;
fra nicolo difrancesco
(mka nick sasso)
From: "Nick Sasso (fra niccolo)" <grizly at mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:19:41 -0400
Subject: Re: SC - Epicious (sp?) and decedent roman feasts....adendum
Oops,
I found among the numerous biliography entries the title to Apicius
referenced.......
_De re coquinaria_ was correct. My appologies.
niccolo
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:55:56 -0400
Subject: Re: SC - Epicious (sp?) and decedent roman feasts....
Nick Sasso (fra niccolo) wrote:
> The original title, quoted from the above text, is _Artis Magiricae_.
> Indeed credited to Apicius and speculatively so. There is a fine
> treatment on the Apicius text called _A Taste of Ancient Rome_ by Ilaria
> Gozzini Giacosa (translated by Anna Herklotz). It is a useful mix of
> translation, commentary, and redaction. The redactions are well
> explained and seem to make sense, a feat in itself. There are also
> sections on Banquets, menus, beverages, and food sources. I have found
> it a useful source for 'Apician' cookery.
You're right about the title; it does appear that way in one of the
manuscripts, and is in an odd place in the Flower/Rosenbaum text, so I
had to look through the Introduction to find it. Apparently the earliest
manuscript known gives the name of another author (perhaps a
scribe/editor?) but says this is Apicius' book, hence the confusion as
to whether Apicius (whoever he may have been) actually wrote it. "De Re
Quoquinaria" is the title of one of the manuscript sources, though.
Sorry to write down the first one I came to, though, which might have
misled some folks.
> As does Giacosa. Both are good references on the same primary (?)
> text. I am still in quest of other Roman quisine treatments. I've
> found a couple ancient Greek books that I am reviewing, but thise won't
> be quite the same (though there will be some similarity). I'll post my
> findings when I'm finished reading them.
I met a man who is active in the Culinary Historians of New York who
referred obliquely to some Byzantine source; I'll have to get more
information from him. I don't believe he was talking about the
physician's letter that I believe His Grace Cariadoc was speaking of...
Adamantius
From: maddie teller-kook <meadhbh at io.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:06:56 -0500
Subject: Re: SC - Epicious (sp?) and decedent roman feasts....
Greetings..
Try to find a copy of "Tastes of Ancient Rome" by Ilaria Giacosa. I have
seen it in paperback at a few bookstores (Borders and BookStop are 2).
It has recipes by Apicius and Cato and an excellent section describing
how a Roman dinner is set up, dishes to serve, entertainment, etc.
meadhbh
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 22:18:11 -0500
From: Maddie Teller-Kook <meadhbh at io.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius-question
Uduido at aol.com wrote:
> << I believe it's somewhere in the Flower/Rosenbuam Apicius translation. >>
>
> This is the translation that I have owned for the last 15 years and the one I
> am most familiar with. I also bought the Vehling translation at War this
> year. My question is which of the 2 translations is most valuable to a
> student of cookery?
>
> Lord Ras
I would have to say the Flowers book is the best one (as translation). I
also use Edwards book and Giacosa's book to verify translation and
consistent ingredients in the recipes.
Flowers/Rosenbaum were Latinists.. therefore, I think there translation
is the best one.
Vehling, IMHO, is not very useful at all. I don't find his recipes
translated as well as those in Flowers/Rosenbaum or Giacosa. I have a
copy, just to have it. I don't use it for any of my Roman cooking.
meadhbh
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:05:04 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius-question
Uduido at aol.com wrote:
> << I believe it's somewhere in the Flower/Rosenbuam Apicius
> translation. >>
>
> This is the translation that I have owned for the last 15 years and the one I
> am most familiar with. I also bought the Vehling translation at War this
> year. My question is which of the 2 translations is most valuable to a
> student of cookery?
Tough call. If I remember Vehling and his translation, he was a
professional cook with an interest in history, while Flower and
Rosenbaum were professional scholars with an interest in cookery. My
general impression is that the ladies practiced their hobby a bit better
than Vehling did his. All in all, I'd have to go with Flower/Rosenbaum.
Adamantius
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:22:44 -0500
From: gfrose at cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu (Terry Nutter)
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius-question
Hi, Katerine here. Lord Ras asked which of the Flower/Rosenbaum and
the Vehling translations of Apicius is more valuable. If your interest
is historical, Flower/Rosenbaum is the clear winner. Vehling was
probably a better cook, and his recipes read more like what one would
find in a cookbook by a fine modern chef. Unfortunately, what they
don't read much like is the recipes Apicius wrote. Some are transformed
pretty well beyond recognition.
There's a longish discussion of the Vehling translation on my web site;
start at http://www.cottagesoft.com/~jtn, follow the link for culinary
history, and from there, follow the link for sources and reviews.
- -- Katerine/Terry
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 18:18:49 -0500
From: Maddie Teller-Kook <meadhbh at io.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius references
chuck_diters at mail.fws.gov wrote:
> Could one of the good and knowledgable gentles who have been
> responding to this thread post complete information for the several
> versions of Apicius that have been mentioned (I have Vehling, but
> others might not--so maybe all four: Vehling, Flower & Rosenbaum,
> Edwards, and Giacosa)?
>
> Bjarni
Of the four Apicius texts, my two favorites are the Giacosa book and the
translation by Flowers/Rosenbaum. Giacosa gives excellent information
with respect to utensils, customs and foods. Flowers/Rosenbaum do an
excellent job of translation. I compare all other translations to
theirs.
meadhbh
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 22:25:09 -0400
From: "Nick Sasso (fra niccolo)" <grizly at mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius references
Maddie Teller-Kook wrote:
> Of the four Apicius texts, my two favorites are the Giacosa book and the
> translation by Flowers/Rosenbaum. Giacosa gives excellent information
> with respect to utensils, customs and foods. Flowers/Rosenbaum do an
> excellent job of translation. I compare all other translations to
> theirs.
>
> meadhbh
Giacosa is also good about explaining WHY she made certain changes in
her redactions or translations as well as fitting foods and recipes into
the overall format of the meal. And the context of the food with the
regions they came from. Even suggestions as to what can be served with
what. Flowers/Rosenbaum will probably be long considered the benchmark
translation.
fra niccolo
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 10:17:29 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius references
chuck_diters at mail.fws.gov wrote:
>
> Could one of the good and knowledgable gentles who have been
> responding to this thread post complete information for the several
> versions of Apicius that have been mentioned (I have Vehling, but
> others might not--so maybe all four: Vehling, Flower & Rosenbaum,
> Edwards, and Giacosa)?
The main books containing Apicius material that I own are:
"The Roman Cookery Book: a critical translation of The Art of Cooking by
Apicius" by Barbara Flower and Elisabeth Rosenbaum, copyright 1958 E.
Rosenbaum, pub. 1958 by George G. Harrap & Co., Ltd., London. Dewey
Decimal number 878.9 A642AR
<Sorry, my copy is pretty ancient (well, 1958, I guess) and contains no
ISBN or LoC number...
"The Roman Cookery of Apicius" by John Edwards, pub. Hartley and Marks,
1984, Point Richards, Washington. Text copyright 1984 John Edwards,
illustration copyright 1984 Hartley and Marks. ISBN 0-88179-008-7
I have heard that there are reprints of the Flower / Rosenbaum text
available, but have no other information about that...
In general I feel the Flower / Rosenbaum text is vastly superior to the
Edwards book, largely because Edwards seems to have been laboring under
the overall English culinary miasma that has really only begun to lift
at around the time his book was published. So, the Edwards text contains
recipes which recommend sauteeing in butter, as being more readily
available than olive oil, and liquamen made from canned salmon...I
suggest anyone use it with caution, although in Edwards' defense I have
to say that most of the really wild departures (i.e. a coconut garnish)
are identified as such.
The main problem for some with the Flower / Rosenbaum text is the fact
that it contains virtually no material redacted for the modern kitchen.
Personally, that doesn't bother me a bit, but it can be intimidating for
some.
Adamantius
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:00:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uduido at aol.com
Subject: Re: SC - Here's the recipe
By the way, don't buy Vehling's book if you are looking for accuracy. It is
way off the mark in many ways including the use of green peppers instead of
green peppercorns and his insistence that green string beans, white and red
kidney beans, ad nauseum were used in Ancient Rome.
More to come later. 'Salem indere memento!' best describes the mind set you
should have when reading his works. :-)
Lord Ras
Date: 5 MAR 98 13:25:02 AES
From: RMcGrath at dca.gov.au
Subject: SC - Apicius
My friend Lesley sent me this address.
http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/food/cenbene.htm
short intro to Apicius. The things I learn from being on this list!
cheers
Rakhel Petrova
Date: 5 MAR 98 13:37:28 AES
From: RMcGrath at dca.gov.au
Subject: SC - More Apicius
At this web site,
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mjw/recipes/ethnic/historical/ant-rom-coll.html
there are the following recipes, hints, etc.
Has anyone visited this site, and tried the recipes?
Contents
Native Roman Ingredients
Conversions
Isicia Omentata (A kind of Roman Burger)
Pepones et Melones (water and honey melons
Patina de pisciculis (souffle of small fishes)
Patina de Piris (pear souffle)
Minutal Marinum (seafood fricassee)
Gustum de Praecoquis (starter with apricots)
Fabaciae Virides et Baianae (Green and Baian Beans)
Pullum Frontonianum (Chicken a la Fronto)
Pullus Fusilis (Chicken With Liquid Filling)
Dulcia Domestica (Housemade Dessert)
Aliter Dulcia (Another Kind of Dessert)
Tiropatinam (A Kind of Soufflee)
Ova Sfongia Ex Lacte (Pancakes with Milk)
In Ovis Apalis (Boiled Eggs)
Vitellina Fricta (Fried Veal)
In Vitulinam Elixam (Boiled Veal)
Aliter Baedinam Sive Agninam Excaldatam(Steamed Lamb)
In Mitulis (Sea Mussels)
Sarda Ita Fit (Tuna)
Scillas (Big Shrimps)
Mustacei (= Must Rolls)
from the perpetually curious
Rakhel Petrova
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 98 03:57:57 -0500
From: Dottie Elliott <macdj at onr.com>
Subject: Re: SC - More Apicius
> Isicia Omentata (A kind of Roman Burger)
Very yummy! Especially cooked on a grill :)
> Pullum Frontonianum (Chicken a la Fronto)
I also liked this a lot. Good flavor, somewhat unusual.
> Vitellina Fricta (Fried Veal)
I did it with beef instead of veal but liked it very much. Good flavor.
Clarissa
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 02:27:59 -0500
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: SC - Apician Web site...
From: Mary Morman <memorman at oldcolo.com>
> nice site! but looing at the pictues, i thought that at roman feasts the
> diners did not recline lengthwise to the table, but widthwise (i.e. not
> with the whole length of the couch alongside the table but with just the
> head of the couch next to the table) any wise romans out there to help me
> out with this?
You're right, under normal circumstances. Usually there would be more
guests, nine in fact, three on a side, so there would only be room for
the couches to be head-on. I've seen illustrations indicating they were
sometime splced diagonally, so as to give greater reach to the right, or
eating, hand of each diner... .
A couple more comments: I don't think you will find any references to
roast lamb being accompanied by small new potatoes anywhere in Apicius.
Also, togas were not worn while reclining at prandium...not only are
there enough specific references to make it clear they were shed before
reclining, but I will add two cents worth of my own experience with
wearing a toga...it's almost impossible to lie down, and then get up,
without seriously disarranging your toga...frightening to think wars
were probably fought to provide slaves for services like this.
Adamantius
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:16:19 -0500
From: "Gedney, Jeff" <Gedney.J at phd.com>
Subject: RE: SC - Apician Web site...
On Friday, March 06, 1998 11:59 AM, Marisa Herzog
> <snip>Also, togas were not worn while reclining at prandium...
> So were they lounging around naked? Or did they have underoos, so that they
> didn't put each other off their feed?
> -brid
Togas were not ALL a Roman wore, they are just most identified with roman dress.
Just like Liederhosen. They are generally worn with other articles of
dress, but we think of them as most identified with certain alpine regions.
Togas go over a tunic type thing. They are not worn by themselves. They
are essentially a wrap, worn over other clothing.
Brandu
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 02:04:02 EST
From: korrin.daardain at juno.com (Korrin S DaArdain)
Subject: SC - Antique Roman Dishes - Collection
Found this in my search for recipes on the WWW.
Antique Roman Dishes - Collection
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mjw/recipes/ethnic/historical/ant-rom-coll.html
Korrin S. DaArdain
Dodging trees in the Kingdom of An Tir.
Korrin.DaArdain at Juno.com
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 14:56:49 -0500
From: maddie teller-kook <meadhbh at io.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius and Fried Chicken
If you can find a copy of the Barbara Flowers translation of Apicius.. it is in
latin and english. She is a latinist and the translation is excellent. Try a
used book store (a friend here found a copy for 2 bucks at Half Price Books...
!!!)
Meadhbh
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:32:51 +1000
From: "Glenda Robinson" <glendar at compassnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius and Fried Chicken
My theory on Vehling's translation of Apicius:
When reading this, you have to take into account that
a) it was originally written in German and
b) it was translated into German in the early twentieth century.
Thus, for example, 'broth' can be taken to mean 'suitable liquid', if you
remember these two things.
I've seen other translations that translate everything Vehling translated
into 'Broth' as 'Liquamen', including stewed pears. I think that wouldn't
work in any period myself.
I've worked from this book for quite a while, and if you look at it with the
two 'Vehling maxims' above in mind, it makes a heck of a lot more sense!
Glenda.
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 10:13:35 -0400
From: Phil & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius and Fried Chicken
Glenda Robinson wrote:
> My theory on Vehling's translation of Apicius:
>
> When reading this, you have to take into account that
> a) it was originally written in German and
> b) it was translated into German in the early twentieth century.
>
> Glenda.
These are certainly useful maxims about Vehling's work. Others to add might be
that Vehling was a working chef, unlike somebody like the vaguely contemporary
Alexis Soyer, who seems to have been the 19th-century culinary equivalent to
Professor Irwin Corey, The World's Foremost Authority (am I showing my age
here?), in that he went around being the World's Foremost Authority, but did
little actual cooking, which is why something like his "Pantropheon" is such a
laff riot at times. Vehling was, as I say, an actual working chef, and
sometimes his desire to turn Apicius' recipes into what a cultured person of
the 19th century would deem viable food outweighed his desire to produce a
good translation or good redactions that would produce something like the
original food. Not only were his goals somewhat different from ours, but he
wasn't much of a Latin scholar, either.
I also think it might be worth realizing that the culinary technology, in the
19th century, for a working chef of a fine restaurant or hotel anywhere in the
Western World would have been pretty much the same through much of the 19th
century, or at least after Careme, anyway.
Personally, I very strongly prefer the Flower and Rosenbaum book as far better
for our purposes, and still by far the best Apicius translation that I've
seen. Wish I could find my copy, it seems to have vanished...
Adamantius
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:35:19 -0500
From: maddie teller-kook <meadhbh at io.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius and Fried Chicken
Phil & Susan Troy wrote:
> Personally, I very strongly prefer the Flower and Rosenbaum book as far better
> for our purposes, and still by far the best Apicius translation that I've
> seen. Wish I could find my copy, it seems to have vanished...
I agree wholeheartedly... The Rosenbaum and Flowers book is the best translation.
I also use "Taste of Ancient Rome" by Giacosa and "The Roman Cookbook" by
Edwards. I then use Rosenbaum and Flowers to verify thier translations. I feel
better checking more than one reference.
Meadhbh
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:17:16 EST
From: Acanthusbk at aol.com
Subject: Re: SC - Cookbook details required
Devra at aol.com writes:
> << There has not been a new translation of the Apicius manuscript(s)
> recently released. >>
> What about Taste of Ancient Rome, trans from Ilaria Giacosa by Herklotz
> (Univ Chicago Press, pb, currently in-print)?
Also not new (1992), and not a complete translation, only selected recipes.
Amanda
Acanthus Books
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:39:46 -0500
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Did medieval cooks read Apicus?
Hullo, the list!
I'm not sure if anyone ever addressed this one; I just ran across it in
my Inbox, looking a bit neglected...
Brian Songy wrote:
>
> I was wondering what ancient (i.e. pre-600A.D.) texts did medieval cooks
> have access to? For example, were copies of Apicus widely available before
> the advent of movable type?
Obviously, if a source is ancient, and we have it today, then at least,
_in theory_, medieval people had access to it. Bearing in mind, of
course, levels of literacy and the cost of books, access for many was
probably impractical, at best.
It seems evident from textual clues that Platina had seen Apicius De Re
Coquinaria, for example, but then he was a senior librarian at the
Vatican library, as I recall. There are also a few faint glimpses from
"dark ages" and Carolingian sources that suggest the cuisine of much of
Europe wasn't too different from the eating patterns of Classical Rome,
with notable exceptions like al-Andalus. I read something a while back
(and of course I now have no clue what or where) that referred to a
favorite dish of some bishop or other in the early Middle Ages as being
made from cooked, chopped olives and dates, and bound/cooked with beaten
eggs like a Roman patina.
As for even earlier sources of recipes, like Athenaeus, Cato the Elder,
and Columella, they probably influenced Apicius more than they
influenced any later cook's efforts, which is not really saying much
when you consider that we don't know how many copies there were of books
we know through manuscript sources. I mean, I think it's a pretty safe
bet that less than one percent (probably a lot less) of cooks in the
early Roman Empire cooked specific dishes from Apicius, but Apicius is
probably a fairly decent guide to what was eaten by the well-to-do in
much of Europe in the early Empire.
Similarly, I think there are five extant copies of Taillevent's
Viandier, and one of _them_ predates the estimated actual lifespan of
Taillevent. How can we guess as to how many copies there were in late
14th-century France?
I think it's pretty likely that most cooks knew, to some extent by
heart, the dishes taught them by whoever taught them the craft, and not
much else in the area of cookbooks. There may even have been the
rationale that one wouldn't need cookbooks if one had cooks to figure
out all that stuff.
Adamantius
¯stgardr, East
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:46:15 -0500
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Roux
Devra at aol.com wrote:
> Re Roux and Vehling--
>
> If his translations are dubious, what do Flower and Taste of Ancient Rome
> say about roux?
>
> Devra
Flower and Rosenbaum translate those recipes Vehling redacts as calling
for roux, as calling for either a thickening of crumbled pastry or a
slurry of amulum, a.k.a. amydoun or wheat starch. Many Roman pastries
consisted of meal mixed into a dough with oil (like in that ham recipe,
f'rinstance), then either baked in an oven or on a griddle. Similar to
roux on a chemical level, perhaps, but not structurally the same. And,
of course, it doesn't come very close to the recipes which call for amulum.
FWIW, Vehling is roughly contemporary to Escoffier, who created a big
stir (yes, pun intended) in the culinary community by suggesting white
or blonde roux could be made with much less fat and cooking time using
what he called fecula, described as the starchy detritus left over from
preparing gluten. In other words, amulum or wheat starch. Some of the
less confident and more hidebound professionals (i.e. non-geniuses who
were not the recognized leader of the field) suggested Escoffier had
finally lost it.
Vehling may have been declaring which side he came out on in this
controversy.
Adamantius
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 10:54:18 -0800
From: Anne-Marie Rousseau <acrouss at gte.net>
Subject: Re: SC - Roux
Hey all from Anne-Marie
Ras sez:
>Vehling uses roux exrensively in his translation of Apicius. Was the technique
>lost or was it an unacceptable method of thickening for noble/wealthy
>households in the MA and therefore not included in the recipes we have
>record of?
well golly shucky gee and whiz...and here I've been going and saying it was
the French who invented it! :)
(for those not in the know, Vehlings work on Apicius, while readily
available, is considered crummy at best by several of us. He takes great
liberties in his translation and has an unfortunate habit of "fixing"
things that "just couldnt be right" becuase *everyone knows* that you dont
(fill in the perfectly approparite historical technique here)") I
personally blame him for much of the confusion on whether or not green
beans are period for medievalists. Hmph.
- --Anne-Marie
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:21:10 +0200
From: Thomas Gloning <Thomas.Gloning at germanistik.uni-giessen.de>
Subject: SC - cod and parrottongues / Apicius
Ana wrote:
>>>
I wonder if someone remember a Roman recipe for parrottongues. They
imported parrottongues from Africa, how did they prepare it? Is it in
Apicius or in other texts?
<<<
As far as I can see, Apicius has no recipe for parrottongues, and the
only passage where parrot (_psittacus_) is mentioned is at the end of
the flamingo recipe in VI 6.1:
"Idem facies et in psittaco"
'The same way you can do it with the parrot'.
Given this close connection between flamingo and parrot, perhaps a
passage from Pliny's Naturalis Historia could be interesting. He says:
"Phoenicopteri linguam praecipui saporis esse Apicius docuit, nepotum
omnium altissimus gurges" (X 133; ed. Mayhoff II, 259,5ff.).
roughly
'Apicius held that the tongue of the flamingo has an excellent taste, he
who was an outstanding gourmet/glutton among all the squanderers'.
In addition Martial has a passage about the phoenicopterus, the
flamingo:
"Dat mihi pinna rubens nomen, sed lingua gulosis
Nostra sapit. Quid si garrula lingua foret?"
Could be something like:
'I have my name from the reddish/coloured feathers, but my tongue is
delicious to the gourmets. (...)'
Alas, these passages do not indicate how the tongues were prepared.
***
Let me add a few words about Apicius and the Apicius-collection.
Ras wrote:
"Apicius although technically a Roman source is available to us from
manuscripts written in period. For all we know it could be a medieval
source (e.g., the manuscripts are certainly medieval) written by someone
using Apicius as a pen name."
The real Apicius was born around 25 B.C. He had a bad reputation in his
time, and his teachings seem to have been widespread in the first
century. Very probably he wrote a general cookbook and a more special
cookbook on sauces. These works are lost now. What has come down to us
under the name of Apicius (henceforth Apicius-collection) was finished
by the end of the fourth century. It seems that about 2/3 of the recipes
in this collection can be said to stem from the two lost works of
Apicius while the rest of the material is taken from different texts on
agriculture, dietetics partly written in Greek. The more luxurious
recipes from the lost works were left out, and thus Pliny could mention
Apicius's statement about flamingo tongues but we do not find a recipe
in the Apicius-collection. [See R. Maier, ed., Das ro"mische Kochbuch
..., Stuttgart 1991, 250f. following E. Brandt, Untersuchungen zum
ro"mischen Kochbuche, 1927.]
Sure, the manuscripts of the Apicius-collection are medieval (9th
century onwards) but this applies to almost every text of classical
literature and, by the way, to many other authors relevant to culinary
history like Cato maior, Columella or Varro. Anyway, I think we would
not say that Homer is a medieval author because there are
Homer-manuscripts from the Middle Ages.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but _if_ this picture is true, the text
of the Apicius-collection we use in our editions and translations is 4th
century and not 'medieval' and cannot easily be used to explore medieval
practice.
Cheers,
Thomas
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:40:36 -0400
From: renfrow at skylands.net (Cindy Renfrow)
Subject: SC - FWD: A new book about Apicius
Hi! Thought some of you might be interested in this.
Cindy
> From: "Matthias Bode" <Bode at stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de>
> Newsgroups: rec.food.historic
> Subject: A new book about Apicius
> Date: 11 Aug 1999 17:21:12 GMT
> Organization: HRZ Uni Marburg
>
> Dear readers,
>
> a few days ago I received the author's copies of my first book. It is a
> study about Apicius and the Roman cookbook, so it may be of interest to
> some list-members, even though it is written in German.
>
> I have attempted a full-length study of Apicius and the late Roman cookbook
> (160 pages). The focus was on the question of who actually used the
> cookbook in different parts of the Empire and in different parts of Roman
> society from the Imperial age to Late Antiquity. I tried to answer this
> question by looking into the availability of different foodstuffs, the
> kitchen equipment mentioned, basic literacy in the Roman Empire and also by
> studying available data concerning tooth decay in Roman times.
>
> But, I have to say that again, the book is in German.
>
> The bibliographical data are:
> Matthias Bode: Apicius - Anmerkungen zum ršmischen Kochbuch.
> Das Kochbuch als Quelle zur Wirtschafts- und
> Sozialgeschichte.
> Scripta Mercaturae Verlag. St. Katharinen 1999.
> ISBN 3 - 89590 - 079 - 6 Price: DM 36,-
>
> Matthias Bode
> Bode at stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 22:08:14 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Books
HŒkan HedrŽn wrote:
> Platina: On Right Pleasure And Good Health
<snip>
> Apicius: Cookery & Dining In Imperial Rome
With regard to Platina and Apicius: I note you have listed the name of
the author of the original source, but titles indicating specific
translations. Do I gather you mean Millham's translation of "De Honesta
Voluptate et Valetudinae", and Vehling's translation of Apicius' De Re
Coquinaria? If so, I highly recommend the Millham translation of
Platina, but advise against sinking any substantial sum into Vehling's
Apicius. By far the best translation of Apicius I've seen is Barbara
Flower & Elisabeth Rosenbaum's "The Roman Cookery Book", done originally
in 1958 but later republished, I believe. Even John Edwards'
translation, entitled, I think, "The Roman Cookery of Apicius" (not my
favorite), is better than Vehling's. Vehling was a highly regarded chef,
but not much of a Latin scholar, and saw no reason why he shouldn't
include the benefits of his own classical French culinary education in
Apicius' recipes. In short, he tried to improve on the original, and,
from the perspective of people doing serious historical recreations, or
at least trying to learn from the past, he failed pretty spectacularly.
For example, he includes pate a choux (cream puff or eclair paste/dough)
in a dumpling/sausage recipe as a substitute for Apicius' use of spelt
grits. Yummy, I'm sure, but not even close to what the original Latin
recipe describes, and ranging somewhere between inaccurate and wildly
irresponsible as a teaching tool for learning what the Romans ate.
Adamantius
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:23:12 +0200
From: Thomas Gloning <Thomas.Gloning at germanistik.uni-giessen.de>
Subject: SC - Apicius
A while ago Phillipa wrote:
<<< I am reading the content of the food site *Cena Bene*. It states the
following: >Apicius was a first century author of De Re Coquinaria<
Am I correct in thinking that Apicius was the author of De Re
Coquinaria? And if so why do we cite "Apicius" and not De Re Coquina?
>>>
Let me repeat a few words about the Apicius-collection from the thread
on the parrottongues:
The real Apicius (the gourmand) was born around 25 B.C. He had a bad
reputation in his time, and his teachings seem to have been widespread
in the first century. Very probably he wrote a general cookbook and a
more special cookbook on sauces. These works are lost now. What has come
down to us under the name of Apicius (henceforth Apicius-collection) was
finished by the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century.
It seems that about 2/3 of the recipes in this collection can be said to
stem from the two lost works of Apicius while the rest of the material
is taken from different texts on agriculture, dietetics partly written
in Greek. [See R. Maier, ed., Das ro"mische Kochbuch ..., Stuttgart
1991, 250f. and -- very important -- E. Brandt, Untersuchungen zum
ro"mischen Kochbuche, 1927.]
The manuscripts of the Apicius-collection are from the 9th (one Codex
Cheltenhamensis and one Codex Vaticanus Vrbinas latinus) and the 15th
centuries (see the list in the edition of Andre p. 22).
Thomas
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:05:45 -0400
From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius
April Abbott wrote:
> Well, I've just been attempting to get rid of books I don't need so I went
> over to my nearby used bookshop to sell a few books and as usual came home
> with more books. :-) One of today's finds was The Roman Cookery of Apicius:
> A Treasury of Gourmet Recipes & Herbal Cookery Translated and Adapted for
> the Modern Kitchen by John Edwards. Have others had experience with this
> particular translation? Comments?
>
> -Sofonisba
Other than the fact that Edwards doesn't seem to consider it really
significant that he's advising, for example, people to brown things in
butter, it's still a better book than Vehling's. The changes Edwards
makes are usually identified as changes made for a reason, whereas
Vehling changes things because he knows more about food than Apicius, or
thinks he does, but he doesn't always bother to state that he's
deviating from the original.
I also like the poetry on the facing pages of Edwards' recipes; I always
was a sucker for Martial's (or was it Juvenal's?) wry lament about how
his cook is trying to bankrupt him... .
Adamantius
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:39:40 SAST-2
From: "Jessica Tiffin" <jessica at beattie.uct.ac.za>
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius
hi, Sofonisba.
> with more books. :-) One of today's finds was The Roman Cookery of Apicius:
> A Treasury of Gourmet Recipes & Herbal Cookery Translated and Adapted for
> the Modern Kitchen by John Edwards. Have others had experience with this
> particular translation? Comments?
It's the only one I've ever managed to get my hands on, actually...
:<. He gives you original recipes and his versions; no way of
checking what his translation is like, since he doesn't give you the
original Latin. (Not that it would help, in my case... oh, well).
His versions of the recipes are somewhat dicey - I tend to ignore
them and go with the original, since he's pretty strong on the
"adapted for the modern kitchen" and the whole, dubious "modern
taste" thing. I went through a major Apicius salad stage - these
massive layered salads with all sorts of ingredients. Edwards is
capable of blithely advising you to serve the vegetable bits on a
buttered roll, rather than layering them with oil-and-vinegar-soaked
bread as the original specifies, because in his opinion the whole
layered with bread effect would be too alienating to a modern taste.
I seem to recollect someone on the list advising me that the actual
translation was OK; just don't trust his reworking of the recipes.
IIRC, he also includes quotes from other Latin works relating to food
and eating - quite a lot of fun. The book is basically a useful
resource since he includes translations of the original Latin
recipes.
Jehanne de Huguenin, called Melisant * Seneschal, Shire of Adamastor, Cape Town (Jessica Tiffin, University of Cape Town)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:34:38 EDT
From: LrdRas at aol.com
Subject: Re: SC - Apicius Question
gwalli at ptc.com writes:
> The Mallinckrodt edition
> has the bonus of a manuscript reproduction on alternate facing pages.
>
> Iasmin
So does F & R...or at least my edition does......
Ras
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:33:54 +0100 (CET)From: Thomas Gloning <Thomas.Gloning at germanistik.uni-giessen.de>Subject: SC - Apicius onlineI found an electronic version of Apicius at the Oxford Text Archive:http://ota.ahds.ac.uk/ota/public/catalogue/catalogue.shtmlThere you must either:- -- search for "cocuinaria" (do NOT try "coquinaria" or "Apicius")- -- or look in the section "D" for "De re cocuinaria"The TEI-header-file to this version does not state on which of the manyApicius-editions the electronic version is based. I had no time up to nowto look at the text, but I am pretty sure someone will find that out...
Thomas
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:00:40 -0800
From: "Stephanie Dale Ross" <aislinncc at mailcity.com>
Subject: SC - Apicius site
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mjw/recipes/ethnic/historical/ant-rom-coll.html
I found this Apicius site through a search engine, and to my joy it mentions the author's opinion of what "must" was and how it is used. Plus all the recipes are wonderful for those of us who are medieval cookbook poor. If any of you posted the URL already, my apologies. I didn't recognise the author as a subscriber to the list.
Aislinn C. C.
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:40:34 +0100
From: Thomas Gloning <gloning at Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE>
Subject: SC - Apicius
<< I have to ask how you manage to gain access to so many Apicius texts?
Do you have a private or public library at your disposal? >>
Both. The ones I quoted I bought in bookstores or at antiquarian
booksellers. I love(d) to stroll around in antiquarian bookstores for
some years and now and then I found something interesting. In my earlier
years I followed a maxim that can be traced to the 16th century humanist
Erasmus of Rotterdam; it goes something like this:
"In the first place buy important books. If there is anything left,
you can buy clothes and food."
(Not a good quotation for a cooks' list, agreed...)
Really important are the critical editions of M.E. Milham (1969) and J.
André (1965). Forget about the Schuch-edition. The Latin-German edition
of Maier is still available for 12 DM (~ 6 $ or so). -- A single public
library usually is not very good in cookbooks. But using the new
electronic catalogues one is able to locate copies of rare items and
then to order microfilms or microfilm reproductions (try
http://copac.ac.uk, for example, or the "Karlsruher Verbundkatalog",
available via most websites of German University libraries).
<< If it's public source, where? >>
I live in Germany. But I am quite sure that, e.g., the Milham edition is
in many libraries in the US too, because this edition is part of a very
famous book series, the "Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum
Teubneriana" (Library of Greek and Roman authors published by Teubner).
The book is all in Latin, even the short introduction! But for all
questions of textual variation and uncertainty, the apparatus criticus
of this edition is most important.
<< spent hours at libraries trying to obtain articles, and other texts
by inter library loan and have ended up being told what I want is not
available. >>
Yes, I know this sad experience very well. Happily, the more important
Apicius books are not THAT rare (but anyway: let me know, if I can do
something for you). At present, I am hunting a very rare catalonian
item:
Llibre del coc de la canonja de Tarragona.
Ed. Mossén Joan Serra i Vilaro. Barcelona 1935.
This one was printed in _105_ copies in 1935 in Catalunya ... Sigh.
I think, we must work on producing digital versions of interesting
texts, to be disseminated via the internet. Each in her or his field.
Thus, German cookbooks being my main field of study, I am preparing new
Rumpolt chapters, Gwen Cat keyed in, for the website at present.
The electronic Apicius text of the Milham edition is available from the
Oxford Text Archive. Good thing! But, alas!, the web version does not
include the apparatus criticus. Which makes me think and leads me to the
statements:
-- "Books are still important"
-- "Once the important _texts_ are available via the internet,
we must also think of providing the more sophisticated parts
of what formerly was part of a printed edition (apparatus
criticus, explanatory notes, glossaries, etc.)"
So much work to do. Back to Rumpolt...
Best,
Thomas
(a lover of - among other things - books and electronic texts;
I am currently working on a more systematic version of my chaotic
bibliography too; here is the passage about Apicius. PLEASE SHARE ANY
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS WITH ME!)
A-APIC || The Apicius cookbook: Sources and studies
Alföldi-Rosenbaum, E. (Hg.): Das Kochbuch der Römer. Rezepte aus der
"Kochkunst" des Apicius. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert von E.
Alföldi-Rosenbaum. Zürich/ München 1970 (Neunte Auflage 1989).
André, J.: Apicius. L'art culinaire, De re coquinaria. Texte établi,
traduit et commenté par J. André. Paris 1965.
André, J.: L'alimentation et la cuisine à Rome. Deuxième edition. Paris
1981.
André, J.: Essen und Trinken im alten Rom. Stuttgart 1998.
Apicii decem libri qui dicuntur De re coquinaria et Excerpta a vinidario
conscripta. Edidit M.E. Milham. Leipzig (Teubner) 1969. -- Mentions the
other publications on Apicius of M.E. Milham and others in the
bibliography too!
Apicius. Apici Caeli de re coquinaria libri decem. Novem codicum ope
adiutus auxit, restituit, emendavit et correxit, variarum lectionum
parte potissima ornavit, strictim et interim explanavit Chr. Theophil.
Schuch. Editio secunda. Heidelbergae 1874.
Apicius, Marcus Gavius: De re coquinaria. Über die Kochkunst.
Lateinisch/ Deutsch. Hg., übersetzt und kommentiert von R. Maier.
Stuttgart 1991.
Apicius: Apicii Coelii De opsoniis et condimentis, sive Arte coquinaria,
libri decem. Cum annotationibus Martini Lister et notis selectioribus,
variisque lectionibus integris, Humelbergii. London 1705. (more
important: the second, enlarged edition 1709.)
Bode, M.: Apicius. Anmerkungen zum römischen Kochbuch. Das Kochbuch als
Quelle zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte. St. Katharinen 1999.
Brandt, E.: Untersuchungen zum römischen Kochbuche. Versuch einer Lösung
der Apicius-Frage. Leipzig 1927 (Philologus, Supplementband 19/3).
Concordantia Apiciana. A concordance to Apicius' »De re coquinaria« and
»Excerpta a vinidario« with an analysis of the lexicon by A. Urbán.
Hildesheim/ Zürich/ New York 1995.
Dierbach, J.H.: Flora Apiciana. Ein Beitrag zur näheren Kenntnis der
Nahrungsmittel der alten Römer; mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Bücher
des Caelius Apicius de opsoniis et condimentis sive de arte coquinaria.
Heidelberg/ Leipzig 1831.
Faltner, M. und G.: An der Tafel des Trimalchio. Antike Rezepte für den
heutigen Gebrauch. Ausprobiert und mit dem Urtext [Rezepte aus Apicius]
herausgegeben. Lateinisch-deutsch. München 1959.
Flower, B./ Rosenbaum, E.: The Roman cookery book. A critical
translation of The art of cooking by Apicius, for use in the study and
the kitchen. London 1958.
Gollmer, R. (Hg.): Das Apicius-Kochbuch aus der altrömischen Kaiserzeit.
Ins Deutsche übersetzt und mit einer Einleitung. Breslau/ Leipzig 1909.
Nachdruck Leipzig o.J. [um 1990].
Maier, R.: Nachwort, Anmerkungen, Glossar. In: Marcus Gavius Apicius, De
re coquinaria, Über die Kochkunst. Lateinisch/ Deutsch. Hg., übersetzt
und kommentiert von R. Maier. Stuttgart 1991.
Milham, M.E.: A preface to Apicius. In: Helikon 7 (1967) 195-204.
Peschke, H.-P. von/ Feldmann, W.: Kochen wie die alten Römer. 200
Rezepte nach Apicius, für die heutige Küche umgesetzt. Zürich 1995.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:41:41 +0200
From: Thomas Gloning <gloning at Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE>
Subject: SC - Apicius
<< So again I ask my original question: when people quote Apicius
typically reference a number like "Apicius 227." If the numbers
reference recipe numbers, which text are they using? >>
As far as I know, there are two different systems of notation:
- -- One system has running numbers from 1 to 428, 468, 478 or so. This
system is used e.g. in the standard edition of Jacques Andre's (the
other Latin standard edition being Milham), in some translations
(Vehling, as Allison pointed out, Gollmer) and older editions (Schuch).
- -- The other system works with the book, the section and the recipe
number in the section, e.g. 7.14.1 refers to the first recipe in the
14th section of book 7. This system is used in the edition of Milham and
Maier.
So, to come back to your question: "which text are they using?" As the
running-number-system is used in different books differently, it depends
_who_ is quoting; all you can do is use the standard way to find out
which text somebody quotes:
look into his/her bibliography or footnotes ;-)
Best,
Thomas
(there is a short Apicius-list at the beginning of
http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~gloning/cookmat.htm)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:51:06 -0600
From: "Terry Decker" <t.d.decker at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Apician Cookbook Question
To: "Cooks within the SCA" <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
> Micaela apparently said:
>> The book I have is edited and translated from Latin by Robert Maier.
>> My humble person only translated the German translations into
>> English. I hope the recipes are still rather near to the originals...
>
> I just did a search on Bookfinder.com for this both in English and
> using the German language option and came up empty. Has anyone
> actually run across this book?
>
> Anahita
Das ršmische Kochbuch des Apicius
VollstŠndige zweisprachige Ausgabe Latein-Deutsch
Herausgegeben, Ÿbersetzt und kommentiert von Robert Maier
(C) 1991 Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., Stuttgart
ISBN 3-15-008710-4
Good enough?
Bear
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:14:56 -0500
From: "Robin Carroll-Mann" <rcmann4 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Apician Cookbook Question
To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
On 9 Nov 2004, at 9:45, lilinah at earthlink.net wrote:
> Micaela apparently said:
>> The book I have is edited and translated from Latin by Robert Maier.
>> My humble person only translated the German translations into
>> English. I hope the recipes are still rather near to the originals...
>
> I just did a search on Bookfinder.com for this both in English and
> using the German language option and came up empty. Has anyone
> actually run across this book?
A Google search turned up this:
http://www.maierphil.de/Apicius/APICIUS.HTM
Brighid ni Chiarain *** mka Robin Carroll-Mann
Barony of Settmour Swamp, East Kingdom
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:38:22 -0500
From: Johnna Holloway <johnna at sitka.engin.umich.edu>
Subject: [Sca-cooks] Apician Cookbook Question
To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
I have been busy again, so I am behind on this thread.
Terry and Robin have provided the title.
What may be of interest to people is that there are a number of German
titles that feature Roman cookery. (No, they aren't being translated
over as yet into English.) If you click on the one Amazon link--- it
goes to
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3150087104/dasromischeko-21/028
-6969076-7150923
That page lower down features a number of these works.
There are also some other editions listed under Apicius in print:
Apicius.
Concordantia Apiciana. 1995. Georg Olms Publishers
3-487-09890-3. vi, 542 pages. German
Apicius - Concordantia et Index in Apicium
Striegan-Keuntje, Iiona Georg Olms Publishers
3-487-09542-4. 1993
See also
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books-
de&field-author=Apicius/028-6969076-7150923
Thomas Gloning has a number of these listed in his Apicius section.
http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~gloning/cookmat.htm
Johnnae
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:50:03 -0400
From: "Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius"
<adamantius.magister at verizon.net>
Subject: [Sca-cooks] Re: (a few excerpts from Apicius)
To: Mad Lard Sean <ElHermosoDormido+scacooks at dogphilosophy.net>, Cooks
within the SCA <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
Also sprach El Hermoso Dormiendo:
> To me, the translations I've seen of Apicius describe a style of food that
> don't seem similar to the documented medieval European styles of food that
> I've seen (with few specific exceptions e.g. fish sauce), so I don't know
> that a practice described in translations of Apicius could be assumed to
> relate to medieval European practices, necessarily. If it's genuine (i.e.
> actually written by Apicius in "Ancient Rome" days) then I wouldn't assume
> that any practice described in it was necessarily carried over 600+ years to
> be continued in medieval Europe. (Some may have, some may have not, some may
> have been "re-discovered" independent of any ancient Roman practices.)
>
> Combining these two thoughts, it does seem plausible that some medieval
> European author could have written a book on what the author thought sounded
> like ancient Roman cuisine (rather than being a "real" book from ancient
> Rome) and simply ascribed it to Apicius...and this amuses me to no end,
> because it brings up the possibility that people of any age always think that
> "primitive" peoples from hundreds of years ago must have been forced to eat
> "rotten" food because they didn't have "modern" (relative to the thinker)
> culinary techniques and materials, rather than assuming that the medieval
> author was dictating common medieval practices into the faked "ancient Roman"
> recipes.
>
> (The latter is pure speculation on my part out of amusement - I've not
> actually seen any documentation to suggest this...except maybe Apicius itself
> if it were to turn out to be a medieval work...didn't I hear somewhere that
> in Renaissance Italy there was a contemporary equivalent to the SCA dedicated
> to recreating "Ancient Rome"?...if so, perhaps had this same loud argument
> over whether or not those poor people so long ago must have had to eat rotten
> food all the time? I guess the saying is wrong, it's not "history" that
> repeats itself, it's "historians"...)
It's possible, I guess, that what we know as De Re Coquinaria is an
Italian Renaissance forgery, but it seems unlikely for various
reasons, unless it was a really elaborate hoax indeed. For instance,
it calls for ingredients that were effectively extinct (think of the
sylphium/laser substitution, for example), and the fact that the
Latin is different from Platina's, which, if they're roughly
contemporary, is kind of odd. I'd think it would take a rather
long-sighted person, even among students of language and history of
the later Middle Ages, to try to imitate an
old-but-not-really-Classical brand of Latin, and pull it off
successfully.
Just a thought...
Adamantius
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pat <mordonna22 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Sca-cooks] Differing translations of Apicius
To: gedney1 at iconn.net, Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
Joseph Dommers Vehling in his ApicianaÓ at the end of his book (which
I suppose is a bibliography of sorts) lists at least nineteen editions
(15 of which are in Latin) published between 1483 and 1933 and multiple
commentaries in various languages. All of which he claims to have at
least reviewed. (Even though his Latin is of the grade school variety
and he does not claim to read or speak any other language but
American.) He was a professional chef.
Barbara Flower and Elisabeth Rosenbaum have an entire chapter giving
the reasoning behind the edition they primarily choose to use. They
explain that all the extant versions most likely come from a 4th or 5th
century compiler who combined a version of the Apicius work (or works,
he apparently wrote two different book on cooking.) along with a book
on agriculture, a Greek book on agriculture, a dietetic cookery-book,
probably also Greek, and from other sources, chiefly medical writings.
About three fifths of the recipes given are actually from Apicius.
This compiler evidently used a later edition, as some of the recipes
are named for emperors who reigned after the First Century when Apicius
wrote his original. Even this compilerÕs work has been lost, and all
we have are a few very rare versions printed in the 15th century and
later.
Barbara Flower was a Classics scholar at Oxford, and Elisabeth
Rosenbaum held doctorates from Berlin and London in the Classics. Both
were amatuer cooks, but researched and reproduced every recipe before
producing he book.
Mordonna
Jeff Gedney <gedney1 at iconn.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
He clearly is reading from a different text from Flowers.
Does Vehling give his sources?
He implies that he is reading from several texts.
The most important aspect of that is that there could ell be copy
errors or changes in the course of the recopying, that furter confuses
the issue.
They are supposed to be the SAME Apicius, but clearly the TEXT differs
from copy to copy.
Which one is the earliest Apicius?
Capt Elias
-Renaissance Geek f the Cyber Seas
<<<<<<
----------
Pat Griffin
Lady Anne du Bosc
known as Mordonna the ook
Shire of Thorngill, Meridies
Mundanely, Millbrook, AL
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:43:32 -0700
From: David Friedman <ddfr at daviddfriedman.com>
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Differin translations of Apicius
To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
> Master Cariadoc replied to me with:
...
>> Vehling has
>> been discussed here before--his "translation" really is close to
>> worthless, since he puts in things that aren't there, and his
>> redactions are perhaps worse.
>
> That is why I wanted, and am happy to see, your quotes of the
> translations of these sections by others. However, even in your
> message, for some of Vehling's translations you showed and commented
> that they were saying essentially the same as the other
> translations. So, not all of his translations are wrong. But it
> certainly seems you have to be careful with them and other
> translations may be more trustworthy.
If there were no other translations available, Vehling might be
useful. But there are. An author whose translation is often wrong
isn't very helpful, since in order to know whether to trust him you
have to either translate the material yourself or check a more
reliable translation. And he is dangerous since an error, once made,
propagates.
--
David/Cariadoc
www.daviddfriedman.com
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:11:12 -0500
From: Johnna Holloway <johnna at sitka.engin.umich.edu>
Subject: [Sca-cooks] New Books
To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>,
"mk-cooks at midrealm.org" <mk-cooks at midrealm.org>
These volumes are now listed on Amazon.co.uk
Apicius: A Critical Edition with an Introduction and English Translation
# Hardcover 448 pages (September 7, 2006)
# Publisher: Prospect Books
# Language: English
# ISBN: 1903018137
and
Spices and Comfits: Collected Papers on Medieval Food
# by Johanna Maria van Winter Hardcover 400 pages (September 7, 2006)
# Publisher: Prospect Books
# Language: English
# ISBN: 1903018455
See http://www.kal69.dial.pipex.com/shop/pages/newtitle.htm for more
information.
Johnnae
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:24:06 -0400
From: "Sharon Gordon" <gordonse at one.net>
Subject: [Sca-cooks] New Apicius books and other new books
To: "Cooks within the SCA" <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
Christopher Grocock and Sally Grainger have a new translation of
Apicius and Sally Grainger has a book to go along with it called
Cooking Apicius. "This is not 'recipes inspired by the old Romans'
but rather a serious effort to convert the extremely gnomic
instructions in the Latin into something that can be reproduced in
the modern kitchen which actually gives some idea of what the Romans
might have eaten."
On another list Sally asked people to get it straight from
Prospectbooks.com rather than amazon, but I couldn't get that website
to work. In a websearch, this seems to be the Prospect bookstore site:
http://www.kal69.dial.pipex.com/shop/system/index.html.
While there I saw some others that look interesting including some
collected papers, one on wine, one on spices and comfits and some I'd
like to know more about on elder flowers/berries, chestnuts, and figs.
Sharon
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:40:11 -0400
From: Johnna Holloway <johnna at sitka.engin.umich.edu>
Subject: [Sca-cooks] Saving the Apicius manuscript
To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>,
"mk-cooks at midrealm.org" <mk-cooks at midrealm.org>
Came across this notice this evening-- Johnnae
Andrew Smith asks Culinary Historians to help save Marcus Apicius! Most
culinary historians know about the cookery manuscript attributed to
Marcus Apicius, the first century Roman gourmand. Containing 500
recipes, the manuscript was assembled and hand copied in the fourth
century. In the ninth century, monks at the Fulda monastery in Germany
recopied the recipes in a simple manuscript adorned by red letters. This
ninth century manuscript has amazingly survived through twelve hundred
years of wars and natural disasters and is believed to be the earliest
copy of Apicius, the only recipe collection we have from the ancient
Mediterranean.
The manuscript eventually was given to the New York Academy of Medicine.
The 1,200 year old manuscript is falling apart and needs to be rebound.
The New York Academy of Medicine approached a professional manuscript
restorer; the estimated cost of rebinding is $15,000. The Culinary Trust
of the International Association of Culinary Professionals has taken on
the task of raising the necessary funds and launching a public relations
campaign focusing on the importance of preserving our culinary heritage.
All funds collected will go directly to restoration projects; all those
who contribute will be invited to the restoration launch event, likely
in the Fall of 2006. Please send contributions to: The Culinary Trust,
304 W. Liberty Street, Suite 201, Louisville, KY, 40202.
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:34:21 -0400
From: Jadwiga Zajaczkowa / Jenne Heise <jenne at fiedlerfamily.net>
Subject: [Sca-cooks] [ian.stevens at dbbcdist.com: Apicius - two new
books, one great offer from DBBC]
To: East Kingdom Cooks Guild <EKCooksGuild at yahoogroups.com>, Cooks
within the SCA <sca-cooks at ansteorra.org>
----- Forwarded message from ian.stevens at dbbcdist.com -----
From: ian.stevens at dbbcdist.com
To: jenne at fiedlerfamily.net
Subject: Apicius - two new books, one great offer from DBBC
Dear Jenne Heise,
One of the best sources, if not the best source, of information
relating to Roman cuisine is Apicius' "De Re Coquinaria", published
as a cookery manual in the 2nd Century AD.
One of our favorite publishers, Prospect Books, has gone Apicius
crazy and has just sent us two new Apicius-related books. One is a
fine new critical edition of the Latin text, with notes, introduction
and English translation. The other is a reworking of Apicius' recipes
for the modern kitchen. Details of both titles are given below.
Naturally, we think that both books should be ordered and we are
encouraging this investment by offering the two together (which have
a combined retail price of $99.95) for a paltry $75.00!
As a digestif to this feast of Apiciana, you may also wish to peruse
this release from the New York Academy of Medicine, whose early
medieval manuscript of Apicius has just been rebound:
http://www.nyam.org/news/2690.html
With best regards,
Ian Stevens
The David Brown Book Company
Tel: 1-800-791-9354
---------------------------------------------------------------------
'Apicius, A Critical Edition with an Introduction and English
Translation' - by Christopher Grocock and Sally Grainger
List Price: US$ 80.00
Link: http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm?ID=61510&MID=9062
'Cooking Apicius: Roman Recipes for Today' - by Sally Grainger
List Price: US$ 19.95
Link: http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm?ID=61362&MID=9062
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:46:53 -0400
From: Johnna Holloway <johnna at sitka.engin.umich.edu>
Subject: [Sca-cooks] Gastronomica on Spice Trade, Apicius and Martino
To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org>,
"mk-cooks at midrealm.org" <mk-cooks at midrealm.org>
The latest issue of Gastronomica 7:2 Spring 2007
features these articles that may be of interest to the list:
The Medieval Spice Trade and the Diffusion of the Chile by Clifford Wright pp. 35-43 The Myth of Apicius by Sally Grainger, pp 71-77.
Two Ways of Looking at Master Martino by Nancy Harmon Jenkins pp 97-103
plus a number of other assorted articles including Gateaux Algeriens
with several marvelous pictures of pastries. B&N and Borders usually carry issues of it.
Johnna
<the end>