Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

APICIUS

Expand Messages
  • sallygrain@aol.com
    Interesting comments about dating Apicius (which we would write in italics if we could to distinguish the text from the individual - a practice we have adopted
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 15, 2004
      Interesting comments about dating Apicius (which we would write in italics
      if we could to distinguish the text from the individual - a practice we have
      adopted in our forthcoming edition . .

      we doubt very much whether the original Apicius actually wrote any recipes,
      but are sure that his cook did, and knew what the old boy wanted served for
      dinner. . . the approach of the gourmet in Ancient Rome is as likely to have
      been a different from that of his cook as is that of the modern restaurant
      critic and the cook who gets hot in the kitchen! The attitudes which informed
      Roman snobbery on this point are well attested.

      That said, there seems no reason to doubt that the the recipes with the
      Apicius tag go back to him. Some of the other named recipes may be linked to
      individuals later than 180 - as late as the 350s - but there is no way of being
      certain.

      Re. the Latin, we agree that the language we have in the text is
      jargon-laden and we think it is a fine example of expert talking to expert in a kind of
      'code' which you needed at least basic training to understand. Much of it
      uses Greek terms in a way that a modern chef would use French. That said,
      there are many morphological and syntactical features which link it with Late
      Latin. The question is, are these due to a 'late redaction' or are they
      features which may be traced to an earlier period than Brandt said?

      Sorry if any of this has itself sounded jargon-laden . . . Sally's partner
      Chris is responsible

      best wishes to all


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • RM
      Well, if Apicius wrote anything by his own hand or not is hard to find out ... I am sure there was some publication with the name of Apicius on it in the 1st
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 16, 2004
        Well, if Apicius wrote anything by his own hand or not is hard to find out
        ...
        I am sure there was some publication with the name of Apicius on it in the
        1st century. Otherwise it would be hard to explain where Plinius (Nat.Hist.)
        could have had his knowledge of Apician recipes & methods from. On the other
        hand the original edition has certainly been changed a lot in time - at
        least once the edition was manifolded by dictating as we can deduce from
        some orthographical errors. Anyway, it's interesting to follow the destiny
        of the Apician book.

        Best regards

        Robert

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <sallygrain@...>
        To: <apicius@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 7:52 PM
        Subject: [Apicius] APICIUS


        >
        > Interesting comments about dating Apicius (which we would write in italics
        > if we could to distinguish the text from the individual - a practice we
        have
        > adopted in our forthcoming edition . .
        >
        > we doubt very much whether the original Apicius actually wrote any
        recipes,
        > but are sure that his cook did, and knew what the old boy wanted served
        for
        > dinner. . . the approach of the gourmet in Ancient Rome is as likely to
        have
        > been a different from that of his cook as is that of the modern restaurant
        > critic and the cook who gets hot in the kitchen! The attitudes which
        informed
        > Roman snobbery on this point are well attested.
        >
        > That said, there seems no reason to doubt that the the recipes with the
        > Apicius tag go back to him. Some of the other named recipes may be
        linked to
        > individuals later than 180 - as late as the 350s - but there is no way of
        being
        > certain.
        >
        > Re. the Latin, we agree that the language we have in the text is
        > jargon-laden and we think it is a fine example of expert talking to expert
        in a kind of
        > 'code' which you needed at least basic training to understand. Much of
        it
        > uses Greek terms in a way that a modern chef would use French. That
        said,
        > there are many morphological and syntactical features which link it with
        Late
        > Latin. The question is, are these due to a 'late redaction' or are they
        > features which may be traced to an earlier period than Brandt said?
        >
        > Sorry if any of this has itself sounded jargon-laden . . . Sally's partner
        > Chris is responsible
        >
        > best wishes to all
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Post message: Apicius@yahoogroups.com
        > Unsubscribe: Apicius-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > List owner: Apicius-owner@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.