SC - Asparagus

[Thomas Gloning]

<< I have to say that although Vehling is off on a lot, sometimes he has
some insight that Flower & Rosenbaum lack. >>

<< ... This is a case where Flower [...] & Rosenbaum appear to have
guessed at an unusual form of a Latin verb, and it seems possible they
simply got it wrong. Actually, what they say about blanching and
recooking asparagus makes perfect sense, but whether the technique is
what was suggested in the original text is questionable. >>

Adamantius, did I miss something here? I think the problem is not so
much the verb ("summittas"), but the adverb ("rursum").

As far as I can see:
- -- Vehling did not have an insight that Flower & Rosenbaum lack, he
simply chose a different translation of "rursum" (without giving reasons
and without mentioning the alternatives).
- -- Flower & Rosenbaum did not get something wrong.
- -- It is not questionable to me that the Latin text _can_ be understood
to suggest something like the F&R technique.

The adverb "rursum" has _three_ meanings in Latin (roughly):
1. 'again, once more',
2. 'back, backward',
3. 'on the other hand'.

Thus, it is clearly in accordance with Latin usage to translate "rursus"
with "again", as Flower & Rosenbaum did. I think, Flower & Rosenbaum
followed a principle that is very important for translators of
cookbooks:
   "If there are several alternative translations possible,
     choose (the) one that makes culinary sense".
Thanks, Adamantius for pointing out, that what they say about blanching
makes sense.

Other scholars have given the same kind of translation in other
languages. E.g., Jacques André in his Apicius-edition of 1965 translated
"rursum" with French "à nouveau" which means 'again, once more'. André
was an eminent Latin scholar who wrote widely on ancient cookery,
botany, and the Latin language.

What did Vehling mean by "to immerse backwards"? Is there a culinary
reason for doing so? "backwards" is not the same as "upright" ("I've
heard of people cooking them upright in a tall pot, like a coffee pot,
though").

Now, there is another problem with the asparagus-passage, due to the
textual history of the Apicius cookbook:

The different codices (manuscripts), in which the Apicius cookbook is
extant, have a different wording here. The word "rursum" is extant in
later manuscripts, while the two earliest manuscripts dating from the
9th century have "sursum"; what is striking: both 9th century
manuscripts seem to have "sursum in calidam" twice. I take this from the
apparatus criticus of the Milham edition of Apicius. In the apparatus
criticus, an editor gives the variants of certain codices or corrections
that differ from the established text of the edition. A very important
means to learn something about the text of the extant codices!

Jaques André in his Apicius-edition of 1965 chose "rursum" and
translated this as "à nouveau" 'again'. "rursum" is also the version in
the Milham edition and of the old Schuch-edition (1874).

Robert Maier, in his Latin-German edition of Apicius chose the version:
"asparagos siccabis, sursum sursum in calidam summittas: callossiores
reddes". He gives the German translation: ' ... und gib sie mehrmals
kurz in heißes Wasser ...'. Roughly: '... and put them into hot water
for a short time and for several times ...' Alas, I did not find an
explanatory note on these textual decisions and the translation. Anyway:
he tried to make sense of the wording "sursus" to be found in the two
oldest codices.

Thus, we not only have the problem HOW to translatate the text, but also
the problem WHICH text: "rursum" or "sursum".

To sum up: Flower's & Rosenbaum's decision, to choose "rursum" and to
translate it with "again" is an impeccable solution in my eyes and I do
not think, Vehling's translation is superior here.

Best,
Thomas