SC - Beef Stew With Vegetables!!!

[Thomas Gloning]

Adamantius asked me:
<< In section 34, on afrutum or spumeum [in Anthimus] ... Do you have an
opinion as to which word might appear in a hypothetical Ur-text? I mean,
I'm cooking this stuff, so I ought to have some idea... ;  ) . >>

Difficult question! Liechtenhan puts "in egrogario" in his text, thereby
following Karl Mras: Anthimus und andere lateinische Ärzte im Lichte der
Sprachforschung. In: Wiener Studien 61/62 (1943-47) 98-117, here 116ff.)

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".

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!

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.

"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.

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.

Have fun (and mistrust everything I say)!
I am very much looking forward to your report of the event,
Thomas