[Sca-cooks] anthimus

[Johnna Holloway]

Anthimus according to Mark Grant wasn't published and widely distributed 
until 1864.
There are apparently 9 surviving
manuscripts or portions thereof. These include
  one from the 9th century; one 17th century; another that differs written
after 849; another 11th century; a very bad 14th or 15th century one 
that is judged to be useless;
a 10th century one that is partially useful and a partial (first chapter 
and into only) one dating from
the 11th or 12th century.
Ok, so would they have known about him or not? Question would be of 
course did anyone in the
Medieval period or Renaissance talk about him or his works? I don't know 
off hand if any sort
of contemporary 13th or 14th century accounts mention him. My guess is 
that he too vanishes except
as a curiousity of vulgate Latin literature. Grant does say that even 
after he was published in the 19th century,
no one cared about the foods being talked about-- they used him as an 
example of late vulgar Latin.

Johnnae


Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius wrote:

> Also sprach Jadwiga Zajaczkowa / Jenne Heise:
>
>> question: I seem to remember from discussion on this list in the past
>> that people in our period might not have been familiar with Anthimus,
>> but I may have mixed that up with something else. Anyone got input on
>> this.
>
>
> I don't remember the conversation, but after all, Anthimus' treatise 
> _is_ a letter, after all, so it's conceivable it wasn't something that 
> became public knowledge for quite some time. I mean, it's not a book 
> that was published, and while we have plenty of manuscripts that 
> scribes thought worth copying and disseminating, this doesn't 
> necessarily have to be one of them.
>
> On the other hand, if it represents a snapshot of contemporary eating 
> habits, even an incomplete one or one which is not consistent with 
> some as yet undiscovered snapshot/document, it doesn't mean people 
> didn't follow similar foodways to those described by Anthimus.
>
> There's a great variance between extant Roman sources, too, for 
> example, and as far as I know, no really compelling evidence that late 
> Imperial Romans were especially familiar with Apicius. Mostly what we 
> can surmise is that if he is indeed the author, we have a chance to 
> narrow his identity down to two likely contenders, and maybe a long 
> shot or two, which is much of what gives us a sense of when it was 
> originally written.
>
> In short, I don't think the phenomenon you're describing, if I 
> understand you correctly, is all that unusual. Or am I missing 
> something in your question?
>
> Adamantius
>