SC - Anthimus # 34, was: talk about mincing words... (long)

[Thomas Gloning]

Here is the original Anthimus #34 text, first. Adamantius, could you
please post the English version (to me)? -- The question is, what to do
with the "egrogario" (a form established by the editor) or the corrupt
word forms of the extant manuscripts.

"Afratus Graece quod Latine dicitur spumeo, quod de pullo fit et de
albumen de oua; sed multum albumen ouarum mittatur, ita, ut quomodo
spuma sic deueniat opus ipsut afratu, quod desuper iuscello facto et in
egrogario* in gauata conponatur quomodo monticlos, et sic gauata ponitur
in carbonis et sic uapore ipsius iuscelli coquat ipsut afratu, et sic
ponitur in medio missorio grauata ipsa, et superfunditur modicum mero et
mel et sic cum cocliar uel nouela tenera manducatur. tamen solimus et de
pisce bono in ipsa opera admiscere aut certe de pectenis marinos, quia
et ipsi optimi sunt et satis aput nos abundant. et de ipsos puros
pectenis fient sferae niueae" (Liechtenhan # 34, p. 16).

Adamantius said:
<< 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. >>

There is no extant codex with a word form like "-garium" or "-garum",
yes. I checked again: according to the edition, this recipe is extant in
the codices G, A, l, g, P, p, H, and all these (with exception of p,
which this editor did not see himself) are mentioned in the apparatus
with other word forms. However, the "g" _could have_ been present in
some older source.

<< ... in another recipe Anthimus specifically prohibits fish sauce
(which he calls liquamen!) for all culinary use. >>

You mean the "nam liquamen ex omni parte prohibimus" of section 9, yes?
Do you mean that this is a general statement or a statement that applies
only to the section 9 on pig? -- Where is the second place, where
liquamen is mentioned?

<< 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"; ... 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. >>

The pike-section (# 40) is indeed a strong argument. Thus, the phrase
"tamen solimus et de pisce bono in ipsa opere admiscere" would suggest a
different preparation with fish instead of chicken. Good.

<< 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. >>

If I understand the Liechtenhan-Version correctly, the egrogarium is
used to put the mixture (of chicken and the whites of the eggs) onto it.
The steam is coming from the "iuscellum", the broth. I think the idea is
that the "Fischbrei" (fish paste) is sort of a base for the rest; thus
it cannot be too liquid. -- 

<< 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? >>

Liechtenhan does not explain this, and I do not have the Mras article at
hand. I was trying to make sense of the translation as "Fischbrei" (fish
paste) with André's statement, that greek "garos (garon)" was also used
for the fish. But I see your point: even if a sort of fish was meant,
there is no indication what to do with the water and the fish. Perhaps,
I should get the Mras article and look if there is an explanation for
that.

<< 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. >>

Well, "hydro-" means "water" or "having something to do with water",
"hygro-" means 'wet, moist'. Clearly, they are not interchangable, but
they are not wholly unrelated in sense. Anyway, there is a problem: my
greek dictionary (Pape) does not mention "hygro-garon", while
"hydro-garon" is mentioned as a medical term there, and I even found a
passage in the fragments of Alexander Trallianus using the term. The
same holds for Latin, where "hydrogarum" is well established, while I
found no "hygrogarum" -- Does your Mark Grant translation say anything
about the "hygro"-form?

<< 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? >> 

The problem with "eger gario" or "egregario" is, that there seems to be
no Latin word in the sense of 'sour' to derive it from. At least, I
found nothing and have no idea (which does not mean anything). Could you
explain "egregario (suggesting garum mixed with vinegar...)" from your
first post?

So far on the problems of the Liechtenhan-Version.

<< 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> >>

Well, you could say, that there are culinary reasons why "hygro-" or
rather "hydro-garum" must be meant here in the sense of 'garum with
water'. This was an established usage in several sources mentioned in
the dictionaries (among them twice in Apicius).

What still strikes me is the fact that Liechtenhan did not chose this
version. He did research on Anthimus for over 40 years. He began in
1910, then published the first edition of Anthimus in 1928, and then
published the second edition with the translation in 1963. Here is a
passage from his foreword with a translation:

"Gratia ... et Maximiliani Niedermann magistri, qui anno 1910 in
seminario grammatico Basiliensi de Anthimo tractans primam mihi dedit
instigationem ad illam editionem conficiendam"
Roughly: 'Thanks go ... also to Maximilian Niedermann, my teacher, who
in the year 1910 in a grammatical seminar at Basel University first
encouraged me to undertake this edition'.

I do not mention this as an appeal to authority, only to explain why his
version is important to me.

Best,
Thomas