SC - Early recipes (was: New World Foods-rant)

[Thomas Gloning]

Elizabeth/Betty Cook said:

<<<<
Thomas Gloning wrote: 'In respect to these 1000 years, we have thousands
of 15th century recipes, we have -- maybe -- hundreds of 14th century
recipes, we have a few 13th century recipes; some of the early _texts_
are extant only in _later manuscripts_. I would love to see _one_ 7th or
8th or 9th century cookery recipe (30% of the time).'

How about 6th century?

Mustard Greens
Anthimus, De Observatio Ciborum
Mustard greens are good, boiled in salt and oil. They should be eaten 
either cooked on the coals or with bacon, and vinegar to suit the 
taste should be put in while they are cooking. [end of original]

1 1/4 lb mustard greens (including smaller stems)
1 t salt
3 T oil
(...)
>>>>

How about 6th century? Well, there is no 6th century recipe. The recipe
is 20th century, based on an English translation of a certain version of
a 6th century dietetic Latin text.

The 'De observatione ciborum' is not a cookbook with recipes, but a
medical, a dietetic work. It is true, that several kinds of culinary
preparations are mentioned in this text. Mentioning a kind of culinary
preparation within a dietetic text is not the same as giving a recipe.
In some cases, mentioning a kind of preparation in some detail can come
close to giving a recipe. The difference between the two is a difference
in function. The function of a recipe is to describe how to prepare a
dish. The function of a dietetic passage is to give medical information
about the health value of some food stuff depending on the _type_ of
food stuff, the _age_, the _preparation_ [here is where the culinary
aspect comes in], etc.

As far as I can see, the reconstructed recipe you gave us, is yours
(20th century), based on a 6th century dietetic description.

The "original" you quoted in English is not an original, but a
translation. The original is in Latin, and the best edition I know of is
the one of Eduard Liechtenhan (Berlin 1963) in the "Corpus Medicorum [!]
Latinorum" ('Collection of Latin Medical Texts; Collection of Medical
doctors who wrote in Latin').

What comes close to your translation is this piece of Latin text (or
what else is the translation a translation of?):

"Napi boni sunt. elixi in sale et oleo manducentur, siue cum carnibus
uel laredo cocti ita, ut acetum pro sapore in coctura mittatur." (p.21).

What is interesting here among other things is the difference "on the
coals" and the latin "cum carnibus". Looking at the apparatus criticus
of the Liechtenhan edition, [where all the variants of the extant
manuscripts are printed] two of the oldest codices have "carbonibus"
(coals) instead of the "carnibus" of the other manuscripts. Thus, the
translation was based upon a certain _version_ of the Latin text.

To sum up:
- -- Anthimus' 'De observatione ciborum' is a 6th century dietetic text,
not a cookbook with recipes;
- -- However, Anthimus mentions several preparations in some detail so
that one can reconstruct 20th century recipes from his 6th century text;
- -- The earliest manuscripts extant with the 6th century text are from
the 9th century (from St. Gallen and Bamberg);
- -- As always, there is textual variation to some extent in the early
manuscripts (e.g. "cum carnibus"/ "cum carbonibus") that makes it
difficult to decide what exactly is the "kind of preparation" meant.

Why did you choose the version "cum carbonibus", and not "cum carnibus"?
Seem to be very different recipes!

I still believe that the global picture of the short recipe statistics,
you quoted, is not inadequate ("thousands of 15th century recipes, we
have -- maybe -- hundreds of 14th century recipes, we have a few 13th
century recipes").

Thanks a lot for pointing me and others to the _near relatives_ of
cookery recipes in the dietetic texts.

Cheers,
Thomas