SC - Plaintive whine about sourcing....

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Karen Farris wrote:

> You are right Adamantius,  I did make an error in the reference cited in his
> bibliography.  Dont know if it will make a difference, but I put 'with' instead
> of 'without' Temple Bar.  The recipe was typed correctly but I did omit the
> metric units of measure in the redaction portion.
> 
> Here it goes again...  without abbreviations or typos
> 
> Anon, 'The Boke of Cokery', printed by Richard Pynson without Temple Bar
> (London, 1500) [The only known copy of this work is in the collection of the
> Marquis of Bath, Longleat House].

Please don't trouble yourself about this. There was some question about
the recipe which led people to try to see some facsimile of the
original. No one seemed able to find it in "The Boke of Cokery". It's
possible there is more than one book with this title. I also suggested
that the possibility was that you had mistyped either the title of the
book or some other piece of information vital to those who wanted to see
the recipe in its "primary source" form.

I don't see how changing "with" to "without" makes too much difference
in locating the original recipe, and it isn't your responsibility to
provide this information, either. You were clearly reporting something
you had read, and, ultimately, with a quite respectable level of
accuracy, too.

Whether there was any mistake or misrepresentation in what you read is
no reflection on your good will or your veracity.

Again, please, I'm quite confident that I speak for us all in saying
that there is no need to apologize.

Yours,

Adamantius