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 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 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)" 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)" 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 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 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 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 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 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)" 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 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 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 Subject: SC - Apician Web site... From: Mary Morman > 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" Subject: RE: SC - Apician Web site... On Friday, March 06, 1998 11:59 AM, Marisa Herzog > 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 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" 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 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 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 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 Østgardr, East Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:46:15 -0500 From: Philip & Susan Troy 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 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 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" > 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 römischen 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 Subject: Re: SC - Books Håkan Hedrén wrote: > Platina: On Right Pleasure And Good Health > 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 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 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" 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 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" 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 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. AndrÈ (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. MossÈn 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 Alfˆldi-Rosenbaum, E. (Hg.): Das Kochbuch der Rˆmer. Rezepte aus der "Kochkunst" des Apicius. Eingeleitet, ¸bersetzt und erl‰utert von E. Alfˆldi-Rosenbaum. Z¸rich/ M¸nchen 1970 (Neunte Auflage 1989). AndrÈ, J.: Apicius. L'art culinaire, De re coquinaria. Texte Ètabli, traduit et commentÈ par J. AndrÈ. Paris 1965. AndrÈ, J.: L'alimentation et la cuisine ‡ Rome. DeuxiËme edition. Paris 1981. AndrÈ, 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. ‹ber die Kochkunst. Lateinisch/ Deutsch. Hg., ¸bersetzt 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 rˆmischen Kochbuch. Das Kochbuch als Quelle zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte. St. Katharinen 1999. Brandt, E.: Untersuchungen zum rˆmischen Kochbuche. Versuch einer Lˆsung der Apicius-Frage. Leipzig 1927 (Philologus, Supplementband 19/3). Concordantia Apiciana. A concordance to Apicius' ªDe re coquinaria´ and ªExcerpta a vinidario´ with an analysis of the lexicon by A. Urb·n. Hildesheim/ Z¸rich/ New York 1995. Dierbach, J.H.: Flora Apiciana. Ein Beitrag zur n‰heren Kenntnis der Nahrungsmittel der alten Rˆmer; mit besonderer R¸cksicht auf die B¸cher 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 f¸r den heutigen Gebrauch. Ausprobiert und mit dem Urtext [Rezepte aus Apicius] herausgegeben. Lateinisch-deutsch. M¸nchen 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 altrˆmischen Kaiserzeit. Ins Deutsche ¸bersetzt 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, ‹ber die Kochkunst. Lateinisch/ Deutsch. Hg., ¸bersetzt 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 Rˆmer. 200 Rezepte nach Apicius, f¸r die heutige K¸che umgesetzt. Z¸rich 1995. Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:41:41 +0200 From: Thomas Gloning 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" Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Apician Cookbook Question To: "Cooks within the SCA" > 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 römische Kochbuch des Apicius Vollständige zweisprachige Ausgabe Latein-Deutsch Herausgegeben, übersetzt 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" Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Apician Cookbook Question To: Cooks within the SCA 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 Subject: [Sca-cooks] Apician Cookbook Question To: Cooks within the SCA 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" Subject: [Sca-cooks] Re: (a few excerpts from Apicius) To: Mad Lard Sean , Cooks within the SCA 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 Subject: Re: Sca-cooks] Differing translations of Apicius To: gedney1 at iconn.net, Cooks within the SCA Joseph Dommers Vehling in his Apiciana" 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 compiler's 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 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 Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Differin translations of Apicius To: Cooks within the SCA > 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 Subject: [Sca-cooks] New Books To: Cooks within the SCA , "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" Subject: [Sca-cooks] New Apicius books and other new books To: "Cooks within the SCA" 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 Subject: [Sca-cooks] Saving the Apicius manuscript To: Cooks within the SCA , "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 Subject: [Sca-cooks] [ian.stevens at dbbcdist.com: Apicius - two new books, one great offer from DBBC] To: East Kingdom Cooks Guild , Cooks within the SCA ----- 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 Subject: [Sca-cooks] Gastronomica on Spice Trade, Apicius and Martino To: Cooks within the SCA , "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 Edited by Mark S. Harris cb-rv-Apicius-msg Page 28 of 28