Home Page

Stefan's Florilegium

cb-rv-Apicius-msg



This document is also available in: text or RTF formats.

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>



Formatting copyright © Mark S. Harris (THLord Stefan li Rous).
All other copyrights are property of the original article and message authors.

Comments to the Editor: stefan at florilegium.org