SC - Re: period norse

[Holly A. Youngquist]

Evening, all!

I do want to give a more detailed report of what went on today, but I
think I'll do that tomorrow or Monday. In the mean time, however,

Thomas Gloning wrote:
> 
> The apparatus criticus mentions some variation in the codices, all these
> word forms seem more or less corrupt:
> -- megroario (G = a St. Gallen codex from the 9th century)
> -- in egroario (A = a 17th century London codex, that is based on a 9th
> century codex; P = a Paris codex from the 11th century)
> -- in egroao, with deleted "ri" (?) (H = a 10th century codex now in
> Paris)
> -- in egrario l (l = a London codex from the 11th century)
> -- in egruario (g = another St. Gallen codex)
> 
> Thus, it seems that "in egrogario" is an emendation. Liechtenhan's Index
> says: "egrogarium: i.q. hygrogárion pro hydrogárion Mras 116 ...". That
> means, "hygrogarion" etc. does not appear in any of the old codices, but
> is an attempt of a modern editor to give a reason for an emendation and
> to make sense of the strange word forms of the codices. The version
> "oenogarum" is an emendation that Valentin Rose (an important scholar of
> dietetics) gave in his early 1870 edition. Thus, "oenogarum" too is an
> attempt of this 19th century editior to make sense of the forms of the
> codices.
> 
> The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae only mentions "egroarium" as a "vox dub.",
> a doubtful word with the quotation from Anthimus.
> 
> In this case, it seems best to me to follow Liechtenhan and Mras. After
> all, the recipe seems to be of Greek origin ("Afratus Graece ..."):
> according to Liechtenhan's Index "afrutum" or "afrutus" goes back to
> greek "aphroton".

All right...so essentially we really don't have strong reason to believe
that "garum" is a legitimate root word for this substance name, whatever
it may actually refer to, since there seems to be no known (or even
theorized) point in time at which the alleged "g" in the alleged "garum"
was dropped by some scribe. It's basically a convenient way out of an
otherwise insoluble puzzle. Or do I need to lighten up here?
 
> Liechtenhan in his translation into German says: "in einem mit Wasser
> zubereiteten Fischbrei". (If the latin text of Liechtenhan or his German
> translation would be of help in the matter, let me know.) Not diluted
> garum, but sort of a paste!

Okay, this, I am not sure I accept. We have an unknown word with a vague
structural similarity to "garum", and Liechtenhan seems as if he might
be playing up that similarity to some extent. "Well, what else _could_
it be, darn it!" Reasonable, but not definite. On the other hand, every
editor of this work seems to assume that garum is referenced here in
some way, perhaps by researching deep into a,ogical process that may be
rooted in an arbitrary decision to read this as some kind of garum
derivative. It makes a fair amount of sense, until you realize that in
another recipe Anthimus specifically prohibits fish sauce (which he
calls liquamen!) for all culinary use. Perhaps if this is a Greek dish,
he is harking back to some earlier Greek tradition that he may not
personally approve of. The shame of it is that the dish is _really_ good
made with reduced chicken stock seasoned with diluted fish sauce! <sigh> 
> 
> There is another aspect that might be important: later on in the recipe
> there are alternatives mentioned: "tamen solimus et de pisce bono in
> ipsa opera admiscere" (something like 'however, we also use to put good
> fish into this dish'). "tamen" signifies a contrast. To make sense of
> this passage I think we must assume either (1) that there is no fish in
> the dish at all (the contrast being fish/no fish), or (2) that
> egrogarium is made from fishes that are not so "good" or not so
> expensive (the contrast being good and expensive/not so good and not so
> expensive). -- The version (2) seems plausible to me.

Well, okay. The dish is listed among the section on poultry and eggs,
but he does say he will occasionally include some good fish (which may
simply be a euphemism for "fresh"; less a matter of comparative quality,
since it seems doubtful anyone would interpret this as a recommendation
for "bad" fish...note that later on in the passage, he says he often
uses sea scallops in this way; at one point he mentions "clean"
scallops. Seems redundant or at least unnecessary. Don't want no dirty
scallops! It may simply be a form of emphasis. "There's nothing like a
good fish afratum when you're hungry!" Now, there seems to be some
question as to whether Anthimus is suggesting fish be mixed into the
dish, or if fish flesh is substituted for the chicken. Note, though,
that in the section on fish, Anthimus suggests pike makes a particularly
good afratum, with no mention of mixing it with chicken. I suspect that
"afratum" refers to the culinary process, akin to the making of French
quenelles, which can be made from chicken, or veal, or various fish.

I'm not sure I understand how Liechtenhan can start with what he seems
to feel is a garum product of some kind, to referring to some kind of
fish paste. There are nominal fish pastes that occur as by-products of
garum or liquamen production, these dregs are sometimes called halec,
IIRC. The trouble with this is that if the dish is made with seafood
alone, such as scallops or pike, it seems likely, based on the vague
descriptions as foamy, that minced and pounded chicken or fish are
involved. There could, conceivably, be some confusion between the fish
paste that actually comprises the dish, in large part, and any putative
fish paste in the sauce. Bear in mind, of course, that the dish is
cooked in the steam of the simmering sauce, and making it too thick
could conceivably lead to the likelihood of burning.  
> 
> "aphratum" is also mentioned in Isidor of Sevilla's chapter on dishes:
> "Aphratum, quod Latine spumeum vocatur; aphròs enim Graece spuma
> dicitur" (20.2.29), but there is nothing else mentioned that might be of
> help.

Yes, this seems to be a restatement of the fact that in Greek it is
called afratum, while in Latin it is spumeum.
> 
> Then, there is a passage in another early medical writer, Alexander
> Trallianus, where the word "aphraton" is used in some connection with
> fish, but there is dispute whether or not this passage has something to
> do with the Anthimus-passage (Moriz Haupt, Opuscula III 587 says yes,
> the people of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae say no). I won't touch this
> question.
> 
> To sum up: the editors and philologist made some effort to make sense of
> the somewhat corrupt word forms in the codices. The best proposal to me
> seems "egrogarium" that seems to go back to greek "hygrogárion" or
> "hydrogárion". And that seems to signifie something like a fish paste of
> the not so expensive garum-fishes ("ein mit Wasser zubereiteter
> Fischbrei"). According to André, greek "gáros (gáron)" was used for the
> fishes and the category of fish, that garum was made of. garum/liquamen
> diluted with water would be much more liquid than a paste.

Agreed, if my sleep-fogged brain is getting all this. I'm just not sure
how paste enters this. If the editors are sufficiently confident that a
"g" has been dropped and that this is a garum reference, why not simply
assume garum is meant? Which would work from the standpoint of culinary
technology, and also be of the kind of fish from which garum is made! If
it smells like garum, and tastes like garum, etc., perhaps what it is, is...garum!

One thing that intrigues me is the assumption that "hygro-" and "hydro-"
are interchangable prefixes. In, for example, scientific equipment, the
hydrometer and the hygrometer are very different things, presumably so
named consistently with the idea that "hydro" and "hygro" mean very
different things. 

My own gut (no pun intended) instinct is that this might be garum mixed
with vinegar or otherwise soured. That's not the way we made the dish
today, but I'm looking at "egergario" and thinking, vin aigre is sour
wine, ale gar is sour ale, could eger gario be sour garum? But, if
that's the case, why not simply refer to oxygarum?  

Thanks! This is as much fun as cuskynoles!

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com