[Sca-cooks] 14th c Italian cookbook (long)

[Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius]

Also sprach Ariane Helou:
>1) There are a handful of recipes for some kind of vegetables called 
>"senacioni" (singular, "senacione").  I have checked multiple 
>variations of this spelling in three or four dictionaries, and 
>cannot for the life of me figure out what they are.  Any ideas?  Has 
>anyone encountered this before?

This is probably going to be one of those things where you change the 
spelling of the word by one letter and suddenly your pet turtle could 
tell you what it means, because it's so incredibly obvious. A 
four-year-old child could figure it out. Run out and get me a 
four-year-old child because I can't make heads or tails out of it ;-) 
.

>2) There are two recipes -- one for chicken in lemon sauce, one for 
>chicken in pomegranate sauce (which I can post here in case anyone 
>is interested) -- that both call for something called "amido non 
>mondato" to be ground in a mortar.  In modern Italian (and in its 
>most frequent usage), "amido" is starch.  During this period and for 
>some time after, it could also refer to a whole grain: rice, or 
>wheat, or other cereals.  (Florio's Italian-English dictionary of 
>1611 defines it as "a kinde of graine or rise."  A 19th-c. essay on 
>these texts, dated as it is, gives support for the same 
>interpretation.)
>
>If that's the case, what kind of grain might "amido" refer to?  (The 
>only other grain names that crop up in this book are "riso" [rice] 
>and "farro," usually translated as "spelt" although it's often sold 
>under its Italian name too.)  Could be anything -- wheat, barley? 
>Maybe it's a generic term for cereals?

As Cariadoc said, in other cultures (specifically, English), 
"amydoun" is wheat starch, and in Roman recipes, amulum is wheat 
starch. (I was gonna say something about the enzyme amylase, but it's 
too early in the morning). There are also several medieval recipes 
for processing such starch from raw grains, usually involving 
repeated soakings and crushing, and allowing the starch to 
precipitate to the bottom of your container, pouring off the chaff 
and the water, and then letting the starch dry.

Which means that, at some point in its evolution from grain (usually 
a soft wheat) to starch, it's a dry, lumpy cake a bit like a piece of 
white chalk, in a pig ingot shaped like a small bowl, or whatever the 
inside of your container is. Which brings us to...

>3) What is "mondato" doing here?  It can mean either "cleaned" (as 
>in washed), or "peeled" (or skinned, or hulled, etc) depending on 
>its context.  If it's referring to a cereal, what could it mean?  Is 
>there are process of removing layers of a grain?  That's a weird 
>question, I realize, and describes an action that's awkward if not 
>impossible, but I really have no clue in this case.  So what is 
>"amido non mondato" -- a grain that perhaps hasn't been threshed or 
>something?  But then why cook with it?

There may be dust and other impurities in the starch (even weevils, 
for all I know), and it may also still be in lump form, and the 
mondato may refer to all necessary processing, from washing to 
crushing in a mortar. In other words, take unprepared starch and 
prepare it for use. At least, that's one possibility.

>4) In both of these recipes, you're supposed to grind the "amido non 
>mondato" before cooking with it.  So, would something as fine as 
>flour be acceptable?  In the past, I've also given whole wheat or 
>spelt grains a whirl in a food processor, before cooking, to cut 
>them coarsely.  I have no idea what degree of coarseness is used for 
>grain that goes, essentially, in a sauce.  The lemon chicken recipe 
>says to use egg yolks in place of the "amido" as a thickening agent. 
>When I tested the pomegranate chicken recipe, I used rice flour in 
>place of this mystery ingredient, since that was what I had on hand, 
>and seemed like the least far-fetched substitution I could make.

Well, if the starchy grain is there as a thickening (and if one 
substitute for it is egg yolks, I'd say it's an excellent bet), you'd 
probably want it quite fine. As you say, a degree of fineness akin to 
flour would be good, or even finer if you can accomplish it. Think of 
modern cornstarch, which you dissolve into a slurry in water (which 
in this recipe, could conceivably be considered an assumed part of 
the "mondato" instruction).

>Sorry this is so long and a little confusing, but I'd really 
>appreciate some input on this...especially the "amido" business, 
>since I'd very much like to serve one of the recipes that uses it. 
>I'm wondering if this is really a textual problem, or if it's common 
>knowledge and I'm just stumped by it 'cause I haven't encountered it 
>yet. :-)

You might get some commercial wheat starch from an Asian grocery -- 
it's used for dumpling wrappers and such.

>   In any case, thanks in advance for any help (and if you've read 
>all the way to this point in the email, thanks for your patience as 
>well)!

Thass okay, I didn't trim your post, so my reply is even longer. 
Neener neener! ;-)

Adamantius
-- 




"S'ils n'ont pas de pain, vous fait-on dire, qu'ils  mangent de la 
brioche!" / "If there's no bread to be had, one has to say, let them 
eat cake!"
	-- attributed to an unnamed noblewoman by Jean-Jacques 
Rousseau, "Confessions", 1782

"Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy -- or go on Prozac?"
	-- Susan Sheybani, assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry 
Holt, 07/29/04