[Sca-cooks] [Fwd: Re: your draft entry for "pomace" [OED2001062200000052]]

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Ooooh, baby, I'm a Colleague!

I thought people might be interested in knowing that I put my case about
pomys and pomace to the OED support people, and received an almost
immediate, albeit perhaps robotic, response.

Who'd have thought Middle English was a Living Language?

Next stop: a letter to my Congressman!

Adamantius

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: your draft entry for "pomace" [OED2001062200000052]
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:08:20 -0400
From: oed at romnet.com
To: troy at asan.com
References: <3B33585E.4EAD17C at asan.com>

Dear Colleague,

    Thank you for your email. I have forwarded it to the appropriate department.

Regards,

-OED Online Technical Support-


> Hello there...
>
> I was referred to you by Doctor Thomas Gloning of the University of
> Marburg; he and I share correspondence mostly to do with culinary
> history. I had run across an interesting anomaly in a 15th-century
> English source, and in attempting to reason it out have reached a
> conclusion that may be of interest to you in your project.
>
> Here's what the source says (please note that I have substituted
> standard ASCII characters for non-standard ones in some cases for
> simplicity and the convenience of those inexperienced in interpreting them):
>
> From Royal 17. A. iii, f.123v & f.124 :
>
> " 9. To make mede. Take hony combis & put hem into a greet vessel & ley
> (th)ereynne grete stickis, & ley (th)e wei(gh)t (th)eron til it be runne
> out as myche as it wole; & (th)is is callid liif hony. & (th)anne take
> (th)at forseid combis & se(th)e hem in clene water, & boile hem wel.
> After presse out (th)erof as myche as (th)ou may & caste it into
> ano(th)er vessel into hoot water, & se(th)e it wel & scome it wel, & do
> (th)erto a quarte of liife hony. & (th)anne lete it stonde a fewe dayes
> wel stoppid, & (th)is is good drinke.
>
> 10. To make fyn meade & poynaunt. Take xx galouns of (th)e forseid pomys
> soden in iii galouns of fyn wort, & i galoun of liif hony & se(th)e hem
> wel & scome hem wel til (th)ei be cleer inow(gh); & put (th)erto iii
> penywor(th) of poudir od pepir & i penywor(th) of poudir of clowis &
> lete it boile wel togydere. & whanne it is coold put it into (th)e
> vessel into (th)e tunnynge up of (th)e forseid mede; put it (th)erto, &
> close it wel as it is aboue seid."
>
> While some experience with medieval English recipes suggests that the
> "forseid pomys" referred to in the second paragraph (recipe 10) is a
> reference to apples (as in pomys d'or, for example, a glazed meatball
> dish made to resemble apples), the problem lies in the absence of any
> mention of apples in the previous section. In fact, as far as I know,
> there is no reference to apples anywhere in the manuscript source.
>
> This leaves us with the possibility of scribal error, or perhaps an
> intentionally incomplete copy of another manuscript. Alternately, it's
> possible that at some point a scribal error generated the word "pomys"
> where "combis" was intended. Either of these would explain the use of
> "forseid pomys", a term which appears to refer to some previously
> mentioned item, when the assumed item (i.e. apples) is not in fact
> referred to previously.
>
> However, I believe the most likely explanation is that this is a usage
> of the word "pomace", meaning just about anything pressed for liquid,
> ranging from crushed apples, olives, fish, grapes, etc., previously
> unrecorded by the OED and antedating the OED's estimated earliest use
> and citation. In short, the pomace may in this case be honeycombs.
>
> In discussing this matter with both professional academics and amateur
> scholars, the point that is raised most frequently is that if this were
> a use of "pomace", then of course the OED would not cite the earliest
> usage of the term in the 16th century, since this manuscript source
> appears to be late fourteenth century. It is therefore obvious to those
> people that this could not be a late fourteenth century usage of a term
> that originated in the 16th century.
>
> It is as if we're all staring at a screwdriver we've just unearthed from
> an ancient Egyptian tomb, and people are saying, "Well, it couldn't be a
> screwdriver because everybody knows screwdrivers were invented in 1589..."
>
> Well, thank you for your time and attention. I would appreciate any
> light you might be able to throw on this question, and if it is in any
> way helpful to you in your new edition, so much the better.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Philip Troy
> --
> Phil & Susan Troy
>
> troy at asan.com