SC - Translation, please

[Alderton, Philippa]

> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 23:14:25 -0700
> From: James Prescott <james at nucleus.com>
> Subject: Re: Fw: SC - translation please-

Thorvald wrote, in response to Lady Philippa,

> > : : :  15. And then take of the Lamb's lettuce
> > : : :  16. And of these small birds
> > : : :  17.According to that which you have
> > : : :  18. Seat them in the pastie
> 
> The modern "mâche", meaning "corn salad or lambs' lettuce", 
> makes little culinary sense here (salad greens in a meat pie?).

Personally, I'm inclined to agree. I think the term "machès" doesn't
refer to Lamb's Lettuce, largely because the text is contructed in such
a way as to suggest an implicit "aforementioned": take three partridges,
take six quail, and take a dozen larks, then take the mache and the
small birds, etc. I think the instruction to get hold of some Lamb's
Lettuce would be more explicit if it had been intended. I also don't
know how well salad greens would go in a meat pie.

On the other hand, herbs are herbs, and we have no reason to think that
an herb we automatically relegate to salads would have been so relegated
in period. There are plenty of cases, both in period and today, of such
green leaves being cooked with meat or meat stock. I don't think we can
make the assumption that a perod cook wouldn't have done something
because it seems strange to us.

> Also, one needs to account for the French appearing in the plural.
> Also, the old spelling of "mâche" would probably have been "masche".
> Also, the OED has its earliest citation (1693) reading "a sort of 
> little Sallet..seldom..brought before any noble Company".
> 
> I suggest that one should look further than lambs' lettuce for 
> a translation.  Try the Old French dictionaries in your local 
> university library.  Even 'tidbits', which was an inspired guess 
> but probably off the mark, is much better than lambs' lettuce.

What I think is happening here is that a colloquial expression is being
employed, and sometimes these are hard to translate. My use of "tidbits"
as an alternate term wasn't a guess, though. It was, I felt, the closest
approximation of the alternate definition "to chew", in the form of a
noun. I was going to use "chewings", which I felt didn't really say it
very well. Bites? Better. Maybe morsels? Tidbits may have been
stretching a bit, but wasn't done without careful consideration. Perhaps
you could share with us your best guess, as you don't seem to buy either
mine or Lady Philippa's.

> > : : : : :23.  Se tu le veulx de bonne guise,
> > : : : : :24.  De verjus la grappe y soit mise,
> > : : : : :25.  D'un bien poy de sel soit poudré,
> > : : : : :26.  Si en sera plus savouré.
> > : : :  
> > : : :  23. Oneself it wishes of good pleasing 
> > : : :  24. Of verjuice the grape there be placed
> > : : :  25. Of one good (?poy?- measure?) of salt powder
> > : : :  26. If it will be more savory
> 
> The phrase "un bien poy de" appears in Viandier as the Old French 
> spelling for the more modern "un bien peu de".  In Viandier the 
> meaning would be "just a little salt".

Actually, after an admittedly only moderate riffle through Le Viandier,
I didn't run across that expression. Perhaps you could provide a more
specific reference? I did find several occasions where the term "pou" is
employed, as it is in this recipe, in connection with bacon or pork fat.
This appears to be some small amount, but whether it is a specific unit
or not, I don't know. Since you have translated "poy" in more or less
the same way, do you think the same basic term is being used? If so, can
you account for the varied spelling within a single text?

Also, I wonder if the spelling of the word may provide a clue. For
instance, the term "moy" appears frequently, and we all seem to be in
agreement that it is the equivalent of the modern French "moi". It
occurs to me that over time, the spelling of "poy" may have changed
similarly, giving us "poi", which could easily be a reference to peas,
even if in a roundabout, colloquial way. Certainly a unit the size of a
pea is not inappropriate for the amount of salt involved. When powdered,
this would give our cook about 1/8 - 1/4 teaspoon, and the term would be
universally understood as a fairly consistent unit by all European
cooks.  

> > : : : : :27.  Se tu veulx que du pasté taste
> > : : : : :28.  Fay mettre des oeufs en la paste;
> > : : : : :29.  Les croutes, un poi rudement,
> > : : : : :30.  Faictes de flour de pur froument,
> > : : : 
> > : : : 27. Oneself you wish the pastie tasty
> > : : : 28. Make placed the eggs within the pastry
> > : : : 29. The crusts, one pea harshly
> > : : : 30. Make of the flour of pure grain.
> 
> Similar misinterpretation.  The phrase "un poi rudement" is an old 
> variant spelling for the more modern "un peu rudement".

And similar response. Possibly a colloquial expression. It may well be
that "un poi" is an old variant spelling of the modern "un peu", but so
far all I have is your word for that. I won't dispute your word, but I'm
curious as to exactly how you reached your conclusion. Could you perhaps
direct me to some more concrete documentation for the relation of these
two terms? Please forgive me if I seem to be trying to poke holes in
this claim; I'm not. It's just that when I hear a blanket statement of
fact, like "x is y", with no admitted possibilility for alternate
interpretation, as in "x is probably y", or "x could be y", alarm bells
go off. You appear to clearly know this statement is true. I don't,
probably due to ignorance on my part, since it's obvious I am not a
student of medieval French. So, how do you know this?

Thank you for the information!

Adamantius
______________________________________
Phil & Susan Troy
troy at asan.com
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================