SC - translation please-

[Philip & Susan Troy]

> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 01:30:55 -0700
> From: James Prescott <james at nucleus.com>
> Subject: Re: SC - translation please-

Thorvald wrote:

> At 12:32 -0500 1998-03-09, Philip & Susan Troy wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
<snip>
> 
> Of course.  But it's not the sort of thing that Taillevent does in
> Viandier, nor does Chiquart, nor does Menagier.  So that is at least 
> a hint as to what might be the usual style.
> 
> I myself add salad greens in my modern cooking where others might not, 
> so it isn't actually a strange idea to me.  But it is a strange idea 
> when considered in the context of what I understand of medieval French 
> (and English) cooking.

Understood and agreed. It was not the conclusion I was questioning (I
agree), but the use of the rationale (or one of them, anyway) by which
it was reached. I'd buy the odds being reduced based on a lack of other
contemporary instances a lot more than I'd buy the idea that it is
unlikely to have been done because it is strange.
 
> > 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.
> 
> When I first looked over your translation, I recognized instantly 
> the care with which you had chosen 'tidbits', and could directly
> reconstruct your reasoning.  And perhaps indeed improve on it.

It's possible.

> Whether one starts from one or the other, both of them suggest 
> breaking something into bits.

Yep. The question is, what?
 
> If I were doing an informal translation, I might have ventured
> (and noted as being an inherently unsatisfactory speculation) 
> 'morsels' or 'tidbits' or some word of similar meaning.  So, my 
> informal best guess might in fact have been identical to yours.

Makes sense. I did take great pains to qualify my translation as
extremely tentative for that reason.

> However, if I were doing a formal translation I would decline to 
> guess.  I would go and pay a visit to the dozen or so Old French 
> dictionaries at my local univerity.  If they (and other research 
> and reflection) shed no light on the word, I would leave it 
> untranslated.

Obviously it is academically unethical to present a guess as fact, or
even to allow it to appear you have done so. But, my preference has
always been for practical scholarship rather than purely theoretical
stuff. No pursuit of knowledge is ever wasted, of course. My risk was a
calculated one, as are all my risks (all too frequent, I'm afraid ;  ) 
).

> Since 'machès' is an ingredient in the recipe, it is clearly of
> some importance to try to get a good translation.
> 
> The precision of the rest of the recipe suggests that the author 
> probably had an exact reference in mind.
> 
> The vague-seeming "small birds" that follows in the next line is 
> not a counter-example.  In the 14th century in France the phrase 
> seems to have had a fairly well-understood meaning for a cook or 
> his hunter.

I had assumed the "petis oiselès" to be referring to the small birds, as
with the modern "petits oiseaux", IIRC. In other words, to the larks and
possibly the quail. I had further assumed the partridges would not
qualify as small birds by any stretch. I didn't think "small birds"
either in French or English to be especially equivocal. Small birds of
various types, including larks and sparrows, are eaten both in France
and Italy today, the most commonly known probably being the ortolan,
which is a specific species in theory (a type of bunting), but in fact
is applied to more than one species of bird, which, when plucked or
skinned and beheaded, look a lot alike. 

<snip>
> It may well be that 'machès' is a colloquial reference similar
> in both apparent vagueness and actual precision to the phrase 
> "small birds".

Well, how much more vague can you get between "Lamb's Lettuce" on one
hand and "I dunno" on the other ;  ) ? 

> It might also be, as you suggest, part of an elliptical reference 
> to "the aforementioned ingredients".
> 
> It might also be, as I suggested earlier, a specific type of
> bird not previously mentioned, and not normally included under 
> the head of "small birds".
> 
> I prefer the last only because all of the ingredients otherwise
> mentioned in the first verse, both earlier and later, are birds.
> 
> By the way, the presence of the accent in 'machès' is suspicious.
> It suggests that the later author who is citing the recipe (or
> some intermediate scribe) has altered it, at the very least by 
> adding accents.  The accents were not used in Old French.

The accent may well have been added in 1846 (?), when the passage made
it into Pichon's edition of Le Menagier. This is the type of thing that
makes Victorian scholarship so cringeworthy...
 
> > > 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".

> Yes, I am assuming that 'pou' and 'poy' are variant spellings
> of the same word.
> 
> If you have any familiarity with old texts, you will know that 
> variant spellings, even within a short passage, are one of the 
> sublime 'joys' of the translator.

To some extent, yes, but not nearly as often as many people assume.
Spelling will very often (in fact almost invariably) differ from
manuscript to manuscript, from year to year and from place to place,
but, as I say, such a variation in a single manuscript is comparatively
rare, as rules for spelling in the Middle Ages definitely did exist, if
somewhat different from ours. 
> 
> My small Old French dictionary (Greimas, A.J.  Dictionnaire de
> l'ancien français.  Larousse.  1987.) lists 'poi, pou, pau, poie' 
> as variant spellings with the meaning 'peu'.  Other spellings in 
> Viandier and other cookbooks include 'pol, peu and poy'.  That's 
> seven variant spellings gathered in a quick search.  There may 
> well be others.
> 
> Specific references to the phrase "bien peu" in Viandier (regardless 
> of spelling) are in "Chicken cumin dish", "German meat, rabbit and 
> chicken soup", and "Stuffed chicken" (to stop after the first three
> located).
> 
> The meaning for "bien pou" as "just a little" or "just a bit"
> is from Huguet.  (Huguet, E.  Dictionnaire de la langue française 
> du seizième siècle (7 vols).  Didier.  1961.)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I still feel it is difficult to
support a claim of what old word form corresponds to a modern one, by
citing examples that are regardless of spelling. If one is generally
disinclined to guess, it should be consistent. However, the Huguet
citation is exactly the information I was looking for.

> The spellings 'pois' or 'poys' or 'poes' (meaning peas) appear 
> in Viandier, but do not appear without the 's'.  My Old French
> dictionary gives 'pois' as the singular.  In modern French the 
> singular for 'pea' is 'pois', not 'poi'.  Chopping the 's' off 
> to get 'pea' is arbitrary, and is not supportable.

I'll buy that.
 
> Also, if "bien poy" meant "good pea" (or good anything), then it 
> would have to be "bon poy", since 'bien' is an adverb, even in
> Old French.

Maybe you could be little more clear, then, about the adverb's
relationship to what you have translated as a noun, albeit it appears to
be something other than "pea"...

> > > > : : : 29. The crusts, one pea harshly
> > > > : : : 30. Make of the flour of pure grain.
> 
> I know it isn't your translation, but those last two lines just
> don't read very elegantly, do they?

Poetry is a subjective art, which, frankly, eludes me. Love the stuff,
but apart from the odd limerick...I'll leave it to the pros;  )

> I hadn't wanted to write a thesis, nor create a translation of my
> own, so I had just put in my little suggestions without the supporting 
> evidence.  That's what I meant by "informal suggestions".

Well, you see, that's the problem. While I understand and applaud your
motives, anyone who follows mailing lists like this one, or the
newsgroup rec.org.sca, or any of a number of similar SCA forums, can
tell you that there is a too frequent tendency for people who are in
some position to answer questions like Mistress Sincgiefu's original
request, to completely ignore it until someone else has gone out on a
limb, at which point they jump in with "corrections" which are often
more about making the corrector look good at someone else's expense than
about providing useful information to the public. I'm not suggesting
that this is what you've done, but it does explain some of the reactions
you've received to date. I apologize if my queries were driven by any
other emotion than honest curiosity. I try to keep a level head in these
discussions, with a mixed level of success, I'm afraid. In this case,
though, I thought I was fairly successful.

<snip>
> I should perhaps mention that I do have some relevant previous 
> experience translating Old French recipes.  I cite the first 
> translation into English of Viandier (Prescott, J.  Le Viandier 
> de Taillevent.  Alfarhaugr.  1987-1989.).  It is still in print.  
> I get neither royalties nor any other financial benefit from 
> sales.

Again, I would not consider questioning your qualifications. I just felt
we needed  a bit more information as to how you arrived at some of your
conclusions, and this you have graciously provided.

Please accept my thanks!

G. Tacitus 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".

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