[Sca-cooks] Trying again: introduction and questions

[Julia Szent-Gyorgyi]

Hello, everyone.

I tried this about a week ago, but other than two unrelated posts
(Orange Fool and Chinese vinegars), I have heard nothing but echoing
silence from this list. Perhaps my message was just too long, and
people's eyes glazed over long before they got to the end?

So, short version: I'm Julia Szent-Györgyi, known in the SCA as
Kolosvari Arpadne Julia. Although I was born in California, my first
language is Hungarian. Blame Glenn Gorsuch for getting me all nicely
entangled in early Hungarian cookbooks and their translations. :-)

I did a quick-and-dirty translation of a short cookbook by
Szentbenedeki Mihály (Michael of St. Benedict), dated to 1601, and
Daniel Myers was kind enough to put it right up on Medieval Cookery
(http://medievalcookery.com/etexts.html?Hungary). Then I found another
short cookbook (item 25: http://digitalia.lib.pte.hu/?p=1455#toc);
like the much longer Transylvanian court cookbook that Glenn & co got
translated, the manuscript is missing its title page, but the 19th
century editor (Radvánszky) dated it to the last decades of the 16th
century, based on orthography and contextual clues.

I've now completed my first pass through this second short cookbook,
going quite a bit more slowly than for the first one, and writing lots
of footnotes. There have been many little decisions along the way, but
the one that's currently on my mind is punctuation.

Judging by the first recipe, which he gives in a close transcription
as well as a modernized one, Radvánszky mostly stuck with the
punctuation (or often, lack thereof) of the manuscript. Do I
more-or-less stick with this style, and the concomitant occasional
utter confusion, or do I try to clarify things a bit with periods and
commas? The first approach has the drawback of confusion, the second
has the drawback that it adds a layer of interpretation. Which is the
lesser of two evils?

Here's that first recipe, in the four versions:

Close transcription:
Az Pauat megh keól sẅtni, leuet igÿ keól czinalni, Tengóri szóló es
Montola keól, ezt ez ketteót iol eószsze keól teórni es hogi megh
teórik uesse borban, ues fa heat, borsot, meezet egi kis szeókfẅuet is
hozza, hogÿ osztán feóni teszeód ezeók mind benne feoienek kiket
feólliẅl megh irtam, az szeókfẅ keues legión, hogÿ megh feónek osztan
szẅrd az sẅlt paua ala az montolat meg nem keól healni, hanem mind
heastul teóriek.

Modernized transcription:
A pávát meg kell sütni, levét igy kell csinálni: tengeri szőlő és
mandula köll, ezt az kettőt jól össze kell törni, és hogy megtörik
vesse borban, vess fahéjat, borsot, mézet egy kis szőkfüvet is hozzá,
hogy oztán főni tesződ, ezek mind benne föjjenek, kiket fölül megirtam
az szökfü kevés legyen, hogy megfőnek oztán szürd az sült páva alá, az
mandulát meg nem kell héjalni, hanem mind héjastúl törjék.

Translation:
The peacock should be roasted, its sauce should be made thus: you need
currants and almonds, mash these two things up well, and after they
are mashed put them in wine, add cinnamon, pepper, honey and a little
cloves as well, and when you put it on to cook, these things that I
listed above should all cook in it the cloves should be scant, after
they have cooked strain it under the roasted peacock, the almonds do
not need to be peeled, but should be mashed peels and all.

Punctuation corrected:
The peacock should be roasted. Its sauce should be made thus: you need
currants and almonds; mash these two things up well, and after they
are mashed, put them in wine. Add cinnamon, pepper, honey, and a
little cloves as well, and when you put it on to cook, these things
that I listed above should all cook in it. The cloves should be scant.
After they have cooked, strain it under the roasted peacock. The
almonds do not need to be peeled, but should be mashed peels and all.

---
Which version would you prefer in a cookbook translation?

Julia
/\ /\
>*.*<