We must not overlook the remarkable intuition displayed by the ancients in giving preference to foods with body- and blood-building properties. For instance, the use of liver, particularly fish liver already referred to. The correctness of their choice is now being confirmed by scientific re-discoveries. The young science of nutrition is important enough to an individual who would stimulate or preserve his health. But since constitutions are different, the most carefully conceived dietary may apply to one particular individual only, provided, however, that our present knowledge of nutrition be correct and final. This knowledge, as a matter of fact, is being revised and changed constantly.
If dietetics, therefore, were important enough to have any bearing at all upon the well-defined methods of cookery, we might go into detail analyzing ancient methods from that point of view. To call attention to the “economy,” the stewardship, or craftsmanship, in ancient methods and to the truly remarkable intuition that guided the ancient cooks is more important. Without these qualities there can be no higher gastronomy. Without high gastronomy no high civilization is possible. The honest and experienced nutrition expert, though perhaps personally opposed to elaborate dining, will discover through close study of the ancient precepts interesting pre-scientific and well-balanced combinations and methods designed to jealously guard the vitamins and dietetic values in dishes that may appear curiously “new” to the layman that would nevertheless receive the unqualified approval of modern science.
We respect the efforts of modern dietitians and food reformers; but we are far removed from the so-called “simple” and “plain” foods advocated by some well-meaning individuals. With the progress of civilization we are farther and farther drifting away from it. Even barbaric and beastly food is not “simple.”
This furtive “intuition” in cookery (in the absence of scientific facts because of the inability of cooks to transform empirical traditions into practical rules emanating from understood principles) still prevails today. It guides great chefs, saves time spent in scientific study.
The much criticized “unnatural union of sugar and meats” of the ancients still exists today in many popular examples of cookery: lamb and mint sauce, steak and catsup, mutton and currant jelly, pork and apples (in various forms), oyster cocktail, poultry and compôte, goose with apple and raisin dressing, venison and Cumberland sauce, mince pie, plum pudding—typical survivals of ancient traditions. “Intuition” is still preceding exact science, and “unnatural unions” as in social, political and any other form of life, seem to be the rule rather than the exception.
Apicius is often blamed for his endeavor to serve one thing under the guise of another. The reasons for such deceptions are various ones. Fashion dictated it. Cooks were not considered “clever” unless they could surprise guests with a commonplace food material so skillfully prepared that identification was difficultor impossible. Another reason was the absence of good refrigeration, making “masking” necessary. Also the ambition of hosts to serve a cheaper food for a more expensive one—veal for chicken, pork for partridge, and so on. But do we not indulge in the same “stunts” today? We either do it with the intention of deceiving or to “show off.” Have we not “Mock Turtle Soup,”Mouton à la Chasseur, mutton prepared to taste like venison, “chicken” salad made of veal or of rabbit? In Europe even today much of the traditional roast hare is caught in the alley, and it belongs to a feline species. “Roof hare.”
There is positive evidence of downright frauds and vicious food adulteration in the times of Apicius. The old rascal himself is not above giving directions for rose wine without roses, or how to make a spoiled honey marketable, and other similar adulterations. Those of our readers with sensitive gastronomic instinct had better skip the paragraphs discussing the treatment of “birds with a goatish smell.” But the old food adulterators are no match for their modern successors.
Too, some of our own shams are liable to misinterpretation. In centuries to come our own modern recipes for “Scotch Woodcock” or “Welsh rabbit” may be interpreted as attempts on our part to hoodwink guests by making game birds and rabbits out of cheese and bread, like Trimalchio’s culinary artists are reputed to have made suckling pigs out of dough, partridges of veal, chicken of tunny fish, andvice versa. What indeed would a serious-minded research worker a thousand years hence if unfamiliar with our culinary practice and traditions make of such terms aspette de nonneas found in many old French cookery books, or of the famoussuttelties(subtleties)—the confections once so popular at medieval weddings?
The ramifications of thelingua coquinariain any country are manifold, and the culinary wonderland is full of pitfalls even for the experienced gourmet.
Like in all other branches of ancient endeavor, cookery had reached a state of perfection around the time of Apicius when the only chance for successful continuation of the art lay in the conquest of new fields, i.e., in expansion, generalization, elaboration and in influence from foreign sources. We have witnessed this in French cookery which for the last hundred years has successfully expanded and has virtually captured the civilized parts of the globe, subject however, always to regional and territorial modifications.
This desirable expansion of antique cookery did not take place. It was violently and rather suddenly checked principally by political and economic events during the centuries following Apicius, perhaps principally by the forces that caused the great migration (the very quest of food!). Suspension ensued instead. The heirs to the ancient culture were not yet ready for their marvelous heritage. Besides their cultural unpreparedness, the cookery of the ancients, like theirhumor, did not readily appeal to the “Nordic” heirs. Both are so subtle and they depend so much upon the psychology and the economic conditions of a people, and they thus presented almost unsurmountable obstacles to the invaders. Still lo! already in the fifth century, the Goth Vinithaharjis, started to collect the Apician precepts.
The usefulness in our days of Apicius as a practical cookery book has been questioned, but we leave this to our readers to decide after the perusal of this translation.
If not useful in the kitchen, if we cannot grasp its moral, what, then, is Apicius? Merely a curio?
The existing manuscripts cannot be bought; the old printed editions are highly priced by collectors, and they are rare. Still, the few persons able to read the messages therein cannot use them: they are not practitioners in cookery.
None of the Apician editors (except Danneil and the writer) were experienced practising gastronomers. Humelbergius, Lister, Bernhold were medical men. Two serious students, Schuch and Wuestemann, gave up academic positions to devote a year to the study of modern cookery in order to be able to interpret Apicius. These enthusiasts overlooked, however, two facts: Apicius cannot be understood by inquiring into modern average cookery methods, nor can complete mastery of cookery, practical as well as theoretical, including the historical and physiological aspects of gastronomy be acquired in one year. Richard Gollmer, another Apicius editor, declares that the results of this course in gastronomy were negative. We might add here that Schuch’s edition of Apicius, apart from the unwarranted inclusion of theexcerptaof Vinidarius is the least reliable of all editions.
Gollmer published a free version of Apicius in German in 1909. If he did not render the original very faithfully and literally, it must be said in all fairness that his methods of procedure were correct. Gollmer attempted to interpret the ancient text for the modern reader. Unfortunately he based his work upon that of Schuch and Wuestemann and Lister. A year or so later Eduard Danneil published a version of his own, also based on Schuch. This editor is a practisingchef,—Hof-Traiteuror caterer to the court of one of the then reigning princes of Germany. Danneil’s preface is dated 1897, though the date of publication is 1911. In view of the fact that Gollmer had covered the ground and that Danneil added nothing new to Apician lore, his publication seems superfluous. Danneil’s translation differs in that the translator adhered literally to the questionable Schuch version whereas Gollmer aspired to a free and readable version for an educated public.
A comparison reveals that the one author is not a cook while the other is not a savant.
Like the scholars who tried their hand at cookery, there are a number of worthy and ambitious practitioners of cookery who have endeavored to reachthe heights of scholarship, among them Carême and Soyer, men of great calibre. Unfortunately, the span of human life is short, the capacity of the human mind is limited. Fruitful achievements in widely different fields of endeavor by one man are rare. This is merely to illustrate the extreme difficulty encountered by anyone bent on a venturesome exploration of our subject and the very narrow chances of success to extricate himself with grace from the two-thousand year old labyrinth of philosophical, historical, linguistical and gastronomical technicalities.
This task will become comparatively easy, however, and surely interesting and with a foreboding of many delights and surprises if we penetrate the jungle aided by the experience of predecessors, steadfastly relying on the “theory of evolution” as a guide, and armed with the indispensable equipment for gastronomical research, i.e., the practical and technical knowledge of cookery, mastery of languages, augmented by practical experience gathered by observations and travel in many lands, and last but not least, if we are obsessed with the fixed idea that so menial a subject is worth all the bother.
We have purposely refrained from presenting here a treatise in the customary scientific style. We know, there are repetitions, digressions, excursions into adjacent fields that may be open to criticism. We really do not aim to make this critical review an exhibition of scholarly attainments with all the necessary brevity, clarity, scientific restraint and etiquette. Such style would be entirely out of our line. Any bookish flavor attaching itself to our work would soon replace a natural fragrance we aim to preserve, namely our close contact with the subject. Those interested in the scholarly work that has been contributed to this cause are referred to modern men like Vollmer, Giarratano, Brandt and others named in the bibliography. Of the older scientists there is Martinus Lister, a man whose knowledge of the subject is very respectable and whose devotion to it is unbounded, whose integrity as a scientist is above reproach. His notes and commentaries together with those of Humelbergius, the editor-physician of Zürich, will be enjoyed and read with profit by every antiquary. The labors of Bernhold and Schuch are meritorious also, the work, time, andespritthese men have devoted to the subject is enormous. As for Torinus, the opinions are divided. Humelbergius ignores him, Gryphius pirates him, Lister scorns him, we like him. Lister praises his brother physician, Humelbergius:Doctus quidem vir et modestus!So he is! The notes by Humelbergius alone and his word:Nihil immutare ausi summus!entitles him to all the praise Lister can bestow. Unfortunately, the sources of his information are unknown.
Lacking these, we have of course no means of ascertaining whether he always lived up to his word that he is not privileged to change. Humelbergius and Lister may have made contributions of value from a philological point of view but their work appears to have less merit gastronomically than that of Torinus. To us the Basel editor often seems surprisingly correct in cases where the gastronomical character of a formula is in doubt.
In rendering the ancient text into English we, too, have endeavored to followHumelbergii example; hence the almost literal translation of the originals before us, namely, Torinus, Humelbergius, Lister, Bernhold, Schuch and the latest, Giarratano-Vollmer which reached us in 1925 in time for collating. We have wavered often and long whether or not to place alongside this English version the original Latin text, but due to the divergencies we have finally abandoned the idea, for practical reasons alone.
In translating we have endeavored to clear up mysteries and errors; this interpretation is a work quite apart and independent of that of the translation. It is merely the sum and substance of our practical experience in gastronomy. It is not to be taken as an attempt to change the original but is presented in good faith, to be taken on its face value. This interpretation appears in the form of notes directly under each article, for quick reference and it is our wish that it be of some practical service in contributing to the general understanding and appreciation of our ancient book.
For the sake of expediency we have numbered and placed a title (in English) on each ancient recipe, following the example of Schuch. This procedure may be counted against us as a liberty taken with the text. The text has remained inviolate. We have merely aimed at a rational and legible presentation—work within the province and the duty of an editor-translator and technical expert.
We do not claim credit for any other work connected with the task of making this most unique book accessible to the English speaking public and for the competition for scholastic laurels we wish to stayhors de combat. We feel we are not privileged to pass final judgment upon the excellent work done by sympathetic and erudite admirers of our ancient book throughout the better part of four centuries, and we cannot side with one or the other in questions philological, historical, or of any other nature, except gastronomical. We are deeply indebted to all of our predecessors and through conversations and extensive correspondence with other modern researchers, Dr. Edward Brandt and Dr. Margaret B. Wilson, we are enabled to predict new developments in Apician research. The debates of the scientists, it appears, are not yet closed.
As a matter of fact, the various differences of opinion in minor questions are of little import to us as compared with the delightful fact that we here possess an Apicius, not only a genuine Roman, but an “honest-to-goodness” human being besides. A jolly fellow is Apicius with a basketful of happy messages for a hungry world. We therefore want to make this work of ours the entertainment and instruction the subject deserves to be. If we succeed in proving that Apicius is not a mummified, bone-dry classic but that he has “the goods,” namely some real human merit we shall have accomplished more than the savants to whom this popularization of our hero has been denied so far.
After all, we live in a practical age, and it is the practical value, the matter-of-fact contribution to our happiness and well-being by the work of any man, ancient or modern, which counts in these days of materialism.
So let us tell the truth, and let us sum up in a few words:
We do not know who Apicius is. We do not know who wrote the book bearinghis name. We do not know when it was written, or whether it is of Greek or of Roman origin. Furthermore, we do not understand many of its precepts!
We do know, however, that it is the oldest work dealing with the food and the cookery of the ancient world’s greatest empire, and that, as such, it is of the utmost interest and importance to us.
In this sense we have endeavored to treat the book.
Past attempts to dine à l’Apicius invariably have ended disastrously. Eagergourmets, ever on the look-out for something new, and curious scholars have attempted to prepare dishes in the manner prescribed by Apicius. Most of such experimenters have executed the old precepts literally, instead of trying to enter into their spirit.
“Das Land der Griechen mit der Seele suchen!” says Goethe. The friends of Apicius who failed to heed this advice, also failed to comprehend the precepts, they were cured of their curiosity, and blamed the master for their own shortcomings. Christina, queen of Sweden, was made ill by an attempt of this kind to regale her majesty with a rare Apician morsel while in Italy as the guest of some noble. But history is dark on this point. Here perhaps Apicius is blamed for a dastardly attempt on the royal lady’s life for this daughter of the Protestant Gustavus Adolphus was in those days not the only crowned head in danger of being dispatched by means of some tempting morsel smilingly proffered by some titled rogue. A deadly dish under the disguise of “Apicius” must have been particularly convenient in those days for such sinister purposes. The sacred obligations imposed upon “barbarians” by the virtue of hospitality had been often forgotten by the super-refined hosts of the Renaissance.
But Apicius continued to prove unhealthful to a number of later amateurs. Lister, with his perfectly sincere endeavor to popularize Apicius, achieved precisely the opposite. The publication of his work in London, 1705, was the signal for a number of people, scholars and others, to crack jokes, not at the expense of Apicius, as they imagined, but to expose their own ignorance. Smollet, Dr. W. King (“Poor starving wit”—Swift), Dr. Hunter and others. More recently, a party of English dandies, chaperoned, if we remember correctly, by the ponderous George Augustus Sala, fared likewise badly in their attempt to stage a Roman feast, being under the impression that the days of Tiberius and the mid-Victorian era may be joined with impunity,à la minute, as it were.
Even later, in one of the (alas! not so many) good books on gastronomy, “Kettner’s Book of the Table,” London, 1877, the excellent author dismisses Roman cookery with a few lines of “warning.” Kettner, admirer of Sala, evidently was still under the baneful influence. Twenty years later, Danneil, colleague of Kettner’s, joined the chorus of “irreverent critics.” They all based their judgment on mere idle conversation, resulting from disappointments in ill-fated attempts to cook in the Apician style. Even the best experts, it appears, fall victims to the mysterious spell surrounding, protecting things of sacredantiquity, hovering like an avenging angel over them, to ward off all “irreverent critics” and curious intruders.
After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This homely solid wisdom is literally true of our good old Apicius. We have tested many of his precepts, and have found them practical, good, even delightful. A few, we will say, are of the rarest beauty and of consummate perfection in the realm of gastronomy, while some others again are totally unintelligible for reasons sufficiently explained. Always remembering Humelbergius, we have “laid off” of these torsos, recommending them to some more competent commentator. Many of the ancient formula tried have our unqualified gastronomic approval.
If our work has not differed from that of our predecessors, if it shows the same human frailties and foibles, we have at least one mark of distinction among the editors in that we have subjected the original to severe practical tests as much as this is possible with our modern food materials. We experienced difficulty in securing certain spices long out of use. Nevertheless, the experience of actually sampling Apician dishes and the sensation of dining in the manners of the Cæsars are worth the trouble we took with Apicius. This is a feeling of partaking of an entirely new dish, met with both expectancy and with suspicion, accentuated by the hallowed traditions surrounding it which has rewarded us for the time and expense devoted to the subject. Ever since we have often dined in the classical fashion of the ancients who, after all, were but “folks” like ourselves.
If you care not for the carnal pleasures in Apician gastronomy—forgulam,—if you don’t give a fig for philology, there still is something healthy, something infinitely soothing and comforting—“educational”—in the perusal of the old book and in similar records.
When we see Apicius, the famous “epicure” descending to the very level of a common food “fakir,” giving directions for making Liburnian oil that has never seen that country....
When we note, with a gentle shudder, that the grafters of Naples, defying even the mighty Augustus, leveled the “White Earth Hill” near Puteoli because an admixture of plaster paris is exceedingly profitable to the milling profession....
When Apicius—celebrated glutton—resorts to the comparatively harmless “stunt” of keeping fresh vegetables green by boiling them in a copper kettle with soda....
When we behold hordes of ancient legislators, posing as dervishes of moderation, secretly and openly breaking the prohibition laws of their own making....
When we turn away from such familiar sights and, in a more jovial mood, heartily laugh at the jokes of that former mill slave, Plautus (who could not pay his bills) and when we wonder why his wise cracks sound so familiar we remember that we have heard their modern versions only yesterday at the Tivoli on State Street....
When, finally, in the company of our respected Horatius we hear him say in the slang of his day:Ab ovo usque ad mala, and compare this bright saying with our own dear “From Soup to Nuts.”...
Then we arrive at the comforting conclusion that we moderns are either very ancient and backward or that indeed the ancients are very modern and progressive; and it is our only regret that we cannot decide this perplexing situation to our lasting satisfaction.
Very true, there may be nothing new under the sun, yet nature goes on eternally fashioning new things from old materials. Eternally demolishing old models in a manner of an economical sculptor, nature uses the same old clay to create new specimens. Sometimes nature slightly alters the patterns, discarding what is unfit for her momentary enigmatic purposes, retaining and favoring that which pleases her whimsical fancy for the time being.
Cookery deals exclusively with nature’s works. Books on cookery are essentially books on nature’s actions and reactions.
In the perpetual search for perfection, life has accomplished one remarkable thing: the development of man, the animal which cooks. Gradually nature has revealed herself to man principally through the food he takes, cooks and prepares for the enjoyment of himself and his fellow men.
The gastronomer is the highest development of the cooking animal.
He—artist, philosopher, metaphysician, religionist—stands with his head bared before nature: overawed, contemplating her gifts, feasting his eyes on beauteous forms and colors, inhaling intoxicating fragrances, aromas, odors, matching them all artistically, partaking only of what he needs for his own subsistence—eternally marveling at nature’s inexhaustible resources and inventiveness, at her everlasting bounty born of everlasting fierce struggles.
The gastronomer is grateful for the privilege of holding the custodianship of such precious things, and he guards it like an office of a sacred rite—ever gratefully, reverently adoring, cherishing the things before him ... ever marveling ... ever alone, alone with nature.
As for the overwhelming majority of the cooking animals, they behave much more “naturally.” They are a merry crowd, ever anticipating a good time, ever jolly, eager, greedy. Or, they are cranky, hungry, starved, miserable, and they turn savage now and then. Some are gluttonous. Many contract indigestion—nature’s most subtle punishment.
If they were told that they must kill before they may cook—that might spoil the appetite and dinner joy of many a tender-hearted devourer of fellow-creatures.
Heaven forbid! Being real children of nature, and behaving naturally, nature likes them, and we, too, certainly are well pleased with the majority.
The only fly in the ointment of life is that we don’t know what it is all about, and probably never will know.
PROŒMII FINIS
Featuring decorated legs and clawed feet
TRIPOD FOR THE GREAT CRATER
Hildesheim Treasure
ORIGINAL TRANSLATION FROM THE TEXTSOF TORINUS, HUMELBERGIUS, LISTERAND GIARRATANO-VOLLMERWITH NOTES AND COMMENTS
“DINNER GONG”
Heavy bronze disk and substantial “knocker” to signal slaves. Found in Pompeii. “Hurry, fellows, the cakes are piping hot!”—Plautus. Ntl. Mus., Naples, 78622; Field M., 24133.
OVAL SERVICE DISH
With two decorated handles. Hildesheim Treas.
I. THE CAREFUL EXPERIENCED COOK. II. MINCES. III. THE GARDENER. IV. MISCELLANEOUS DISHES. V. LEGUMES. VI. POULTRY. VII. FANCY DISHES. VIII. QUADRUPEDS. IX. SEA FOOD. X. FISH SAUCES. THE EXCERPTS OF VINIDARIUS.
[V. The Greek titles of the ten books point to a common Greek origin, indicating that Apicius is a collection of Greek monographs on various branches of cookery, specialization such as highly developed civilizations would produce. Both the literary style and the contents of the books point to different authors, as may be seen from the very repetitions of and similarities in subjects as inVIandVIII, and inIXandX. The absence of books on bread and cake baking, dessert cookery indicates that the present Apicius is not complete.]
Lib. I. Epimeles
[1] FINE SPICED WINECONDITUM PARADOXUM
THE COMPOSITION OF [this] EXCELLENT SPICED WINE [is as follows]. INTO A COPPER BOWL PUT 6 SEXTARII [1] OF HONEY AND 2 SEXTARII OF WINE; HEAT ON A SLOW FIRE, CONSTANTLY STIRRING THE MIXTURE WITH A WHIP. AT THE BOILING POINT ADD A DASH OF COLD WINE, RETIRE FROM STOVE AND SKIM. REPEAT THIS TWICE OR THREE TIMES, LET IT REST TILL THE NEXT DAY, AND SKIM AGAIN. THEN ADD 4 OZS. OF CRUSHED PEPPER [2], 3 SCRUPLES OF MASTICH, A DRACHM EACH OF [nard or laurel] LEAVES AND SAFFRON, 5 DRACHMS OF ROASTED DATE STONES CRUSHED AND PREVIOUSLY SOAKED IN WINE TO SOFTEN THEM. WHEN THIS IS PROPERLY DONE ADD 18 SEXTARII OF LIGHT WINE. TO CLARIFY IT PERFECTLY, ADD [crushed] CHARCOAL [3] TWICE OR AS OFTEN AS NECESSARY WHICH WILL DRAW [the residue] TOGETHER [and carefully strain or filter through the charcoal].
[1]Sextarii.Tor.partes XV; G.-V.pondo XV; List.partes XV ... pondo lib.... qui continent sextarios sex. One sextarius (a “sixth”) equals about 1½ pint English.
[2] Pepper.Piperis uncias IV—ordinarily our black or white pepper grains, but in connection with honey, sweets, and so forth, the term “pepper” may just as well stand for our allspice, or even for any spicing in general.
[3] Charcoal. Still a favorite filterer for liquors.
List. Apicius is correct in starting his book with this formula, as all meals were started with this sort of mixed drink.
Tor. deviates from the other texts in that he elaborates on the cooking process.
[2] HONEY REFRESHER FOR TRAVELERSCONDITUM MELIZOMUM[1]VIATORIUM
THE WAYFARER’S HONEY REFRESHER (SO CALLED BECAUSE IT GIVES ENDURANCE AND STRENGTH TO PEDESTRIANS) [2] WITH WHICH TRAVELERS ARE REFRESHED BY THE WAYSIDE IS MADE IN THIS MANNER: FLAVOR HONEY WITH GROUND PEPPER AND SKIM. IN THE MOMENT OF SERVING PUT HONEY IN A CUP, AS MUCH AS IS DESIRED TO OBTAIN THE RIGHT DEGREE OF SWEETNESS, AND MIX SPICED WINE NOT MORE THAN A NEEDED QUANTITY;ALSO ADD SOME WINE TO THE SPICED HONEY TO FACILITATE ITS FLOW AND THE MIXING.
[1] Tor.Melirhomum;non extat. G.-V. M.perpetuum, i.e., having good keeping qualities.
[2] Tor. reads thus whereas others apply “endurance” to the honey itself. The honey could not be preserved (perpetuum) by the addition of pepper. Any addition, as a matter of fact, would hasten its deterioration unless the honey were boiled and sealed tight, which the original takes for granted.
[3] ROMAN VERMOUTHABSINTHIUM ROMANUM[1]
ROMAN VERMOUTH [or Absinth] IS MADE THUS: ACCORDING TO THE RECIPE OF CAMERINUM [2] YOU NEED WORMWOOD FROM SANTO [3] FOR ROMAN VERMOUTH OR, AS A SUBSTITUTE, WORMWOOD FROM THE PONTUS [4] CLEANED AND CRUSHED, 1 THEBAN OUNCE [5] OF IT, 6 SCRUPLES OF MASTICH, 3 EACH OF [nard] LEAVES, COSTMARY [6] AND SAFFRON AND 18 QUARTS OF ANY KIND OF MILD WINE. [Filter cold] CHARCOAL IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE BITTERNESS.
[1] G.-V.Apsinthium.
[2] The mention of a name in a recipe is very infrequent. Camerinum is a town in Umbria.
[3] Now Saintonge, Southern France.
[4] Black Sea Region.
[5] Weight of indefinite volume, from Thebæ, one of the several ancient cities by that name. List. thinks it is an Egyptian ounce, and that the author of the recipe must be an African.
[6] Wanting in Tor.; G.-V.costi scripulos senos.
[4] ROSE WINE [1]ROSATUM
MAKE ROSE WINE IN THIS MANNER: ROSE PETALS, THE LOWER WHITE PART REMOVED, SEWED INTO A LINEN BAG AND IMMERSED IN WINE FOR SEVEN DAYS. THEREUPON ADD A SACK OF NEW PETALS WHICH ALLOW TO DRAW FOR ANOTHER SEVEN DAYS. AGAIN REMOVE THE OLD PETALS AND REPLACE THEM BY FRESH ONES FOR ANOTHER WEEK;THEN STRAIN THE WINE THROUGH THE COLANDER. BEFORE SERVING, ADD HONEY SWEETENING TO TASTE. TAKE CARE THAT ONLY THE BEST PETALS FREE FROM DEW BE USED FOR SOAKING.
[1] Used principally as a laxative medicine. List. These wines compounded of roses and violets move the bowels strongly.
[5] VIOLET WINEVIOLATIUM
IN A SIMILAR WAY AS ABOVE LIKE THE ROSE WINE VIOLET WINE IS MADE OF FRESH VIOLETS, AND TEMPERED WITH HONEY, AS DIRECTED.
[6] ROSE WINE WITHOUT [1] ROSESROSATUM SINE ROSA
ROSE WINE WITHOUT ROSES IS MADE IN THIS FASHION: A PALM LEAF BASKET FULL OF FRESH CITRUS LEAVES IS IMMERSED IN THE VAT OF NEW WINE BEFORE FERMENTATION HAS SET IN. AFTER FORTY DAYS RETIRE THE LEAVES, AND, AS OCCASION ARISES, SWEETEN THE WINE WITH HONEY, AND PASS IT UP FOR ROSE WINE.
[1] A substitute.
[7] LIBURNIAN OILOLEUM LIBURNICUM
IN ORDER TO MAKE AN OIL SIMILAR TO THE LIBURNIAN OIL PROCEED AS FOLLOWS: IN SPANISH OIL PUT [the following mixture of] ELECAMPANE, CYPRIAN RUSH AND GREEN LAUREL LEAVES THAT ARE NOT TOO OLD, ALL OF IT CRUSHED AND MACERATED AND REDUCED TO A FINE POWDER. SIFT THIS IN AND ADD FINELY GROUND SALT AND STIR INDUSTRIOUSLY FOR THREE DAYS OR MORE. THEN ALLOW TO SETTLE. EVERYBODY WILL TAKE THIS FOR LIBURNIAN OIL. [1]
[1] Like the above a flagrant case of food adulteration.
[8] TO CLARIFY MUDDY WINEVINUM EX ATRO CANDIDUM FACIES
PUT BEAN MEAL AND THE WHITES OF THREE EGGS IN A MIXING BOWL. MIX THOROUGHLY WITH A WHIP AND ADDTO THE WINE, STIRRING FOR A LONG TIME. THE NEXT DAY THE WINE WILL BE CLEAR [1]. ASHES OF VINES HAVE THE SAME EFFECT.
[1] Ex Lister whose version we prefer. He says,Alias die erit candidumwhile Tor. adds white salt, saying,sal si adieceris candidum, same as Tac. This is unusual, although the ancients have at times treated wine with sea water.
[9] TO IMPROVE A BROTH [1]DE LIQUAMINE EMENDANDO[2]
IF BROTH HAS CONTRACTED A BAD ODOR, PLACE A VESSEL UPSIDE DOWN AND FUMIGATE IT WITH LAUREL AND CYPRESS AND BEFORE VENTILATING [3] IT, POUR THE BROTH IN THIS VESSEL. IF THIS DOES NOT HELP MATTERS [4] AND IF THE TASTE IS TOO PRONOUNCED, ADD HONEY AND FRESH SPIKENARD [5] TO IT; THAT WILL IMPROVE IT. ALSO NEW MUST SHOULD BE LIKEWISE EFFECTIVE [6].
[1] List.Liquamen, id est, garum. Goll. Fish sauce.
[2] Tor.Qui liquamen corruptum corrigatur.
[3] Dann. Ventilate it. Goll. Whip the sauce in fresh air.
[4] List., G.-V.si salsum fuerit—if this makes it too salty—Tor.si hoc nihil effecerit.
[5] Tor.novem spicam immittas; List.Move spica; Goll.-Dann. stir with a whip.
[6] A classic example of Apician confusion when one interpreter reads “s” for “f” and “novem” for “move” and another reads something else. Tor. is more correct than the others, but this formula is beyond redemption. Fate has decreed that ill-smelling broths shall be discarded.
[10] TO KEEP MEATS FRESH WITHOUT SALT FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIMEUT CARNES SINE SALE QUOVIS TEMPORE RECENTES SINT
COVER FRESH MEAT WITH HONEY, SUSPEND IT IN A VESSEL. USE AS NEEDED; IN WINTER IT WILL KEEP BUT IN SUMMER IT WILL LAST ONLY A FEW DAYS. COOKED MEAT MAY BE TREATED LIKEWISE.
[11] TO KEEP COOKED SIDES OF PORK OR BEEF OR TENDERLOINSCALLUM PORCINUM VEL BUBULUM ET UNGUELLÆ COCTÆ UT DIU DURENT
PLACE THEM IN A PICKLE OF MUSTARD, VINEGAR, SALT AND HONEY, COVERING MEAT ENTIRELY, AND WHEN READY TO USE YOU’LL BE SURPRISED.
V. Method still popular today for pickling raw meats. The originals treat of cooked meats (Tor.nucula elixa; G.-V.unguellæ coctæ; Tac.nucella cocta). Dispensing with the honey, we use more spices, whole pepper, cloves, bay leaves, also onions and root vegetables. Sometimes a little sugar and wine is added to this preparation which the French callmarinadeand the GermansSauerbraten-Einlage.
[12] TO MAKE SALT MEAT SWEETUT CARNEM SALSAM DULCEM FACIAS
YOU CAN MAKE SALT MEATS SWEET BY FIRST BOILING THEM IN MILK AND THEN FINISHING THEM IN WATER.
V. Method still in practice today. Salt mackerel, finnan haddie, etc., are parboiled in milk prior to being boiled in water or broiled or fried.
[13] TO KEEP FRIED FISHUT PISCES FRICTI DIU DURENT
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEY ARE FRIED POUR HOT VINEGAR OVER THEM.
Dann. Exactly as we today with fried herring and river lamprey.
[14] TO KEEP OYSTERSOSTREA UT DIU DURENT
FUMIGATE A VINEGAR BARREL WITH PITCH [1], WASH IT OUT WITH VINEGAR AND STACK THE OYSTERS IN IT [2]
[1] Tor.vas ascernum, corrected on margin,ab aceto. List.vas ab aceto, which is correct. G.-V.lavas ab aceto; V. the oysters? unthinkable! Besides it would do no good.
[2] Goll. Take oysters out of the shell, place in vinegar barrel, sprinkle with laurel berries, fine salt, close tight. V. Goll’s authority for this version is not found in our originals.
V. There is no way to keep live oysters fresh except in their natural habitat—salt water. Today we pack them in barrels, feed them with oatmeal, put weights on them—of no avail. The only way English oysters could have arrived fresh in Imperial Rome was in specially constructed bottoms of the galleys.
[15] MAKING A LITTLE LASER GO A LONG WAYUT NUCIA[1]LASERIS TOTO TEMPORE UTARIS
PUT THE LASER [2] IN A SPACIOUS GLASS VESSEL; IMMERSE ABOUT 20 PINE KERNELS [pignolia nuts]
IF YOU NEED LASER FLAVOR, TAKE SOME NUTS, CRUSH THEM; THEY WILL IMPART TO YOUR DISH AN ADMIRABLE FLAVOR. REPLACE THE USED NUTS WITH A LIKE NUMBER OF FRESH ONES [3]
[1] List. and G.-V.uncia—ounce. Making an ounce of laser go a long way. Tor.nucea; Tac.nucia. Lister, fond of hair-splitting, is irreconcilably opposed to Tor., and berates Caspar Barthius for defending Tor. List.Quam futilis sit in multis labor C. Barthii ut menda Torini passim sustineat, vel ex hoc loco intelligere licet: Et enim lege modo uncia pro nucea cum Humelbergio, & ista omnia glossemata vana sunt.
V. both readings,unciaornuciaare permissible, and make very little difference. We side with Tor. and Tac. because it takes more than an ounce of laser to carry out this experiment.
[2]Laser,laserpitium, cf.dictionary.
[3] V. This article illustrates how sparingly the ancients used the strong and pungent laser flavor [by some believed to beasa foetida] because it was very expensive, but principally because the Roman cooks worked economically and knew how to treat spices and flavors judiciously. This article alone should disperse for all time all stories of ancient Rome’s extravagance in flavoring and seasoning dishes. It reminds of the methods used by European cooks to get the utmost use out of the expensive vanilla bean: they bury the bean in a can of powdered sugar. They will use the sugar only which has soon acquired a delicate vanilla perfume, and will replace the used sugar by a fresh supply. This is by far a superior method to using the often rank and adulterated “vanilla extract” readily bottled. It is more gastronomical and more economical. Most commercial extracts are synthetic, some injurious. To believe that any of them impart to the dishes the true flavor desired is of course ridiculous. The enormous consumption of such extracts however, is characteristic of our industrialized barbarism which is so utterly indifferent to the fine points in food. Today it is indeed hard for the public to obtain a real vanilla bean.
Cf. also notes regarding flavoring to Nos.276-7,345and385.
[16] TO MAKE HONEY CAKES LASTUT DULCIA DE MELLE DIU DURENT
TO MAKE HONEY CAKES THAT WILL KEEP TAKE WHAT THE GREEKS CALL YEAST [1] AND MIX IT WITH THE FLOURAND THE HONEY AT THE TIME WHEN MAKING THE COOKY DOUGH.
[1] Tor. and Tac.nechon; G.-V.cnecon; Dann.penion.
[17] SPOILED HONEY MADE GOODUT MEL MALUM BONUM FACIAS
HOW BAD HONEY MAY BE TURNED INTO A SALEABLE ARTICLE IS TO MIX ONE PART OF THE SPOILED HONEY WITH TWO PARTS OF GOOD HONEY.
List.indigna fraus! V. We all agree with Lister that this is contemptible business. This casts another light on the ancients’ methods of food adulteration.
[18] TO TEST SPOILED HONEYMEL CORRUPTUM UT PROBES
IMMERSE ELENCAMPANE IN HONEY AND LIGHT IT; IF GOOD, IT WILL BURN BRIGHTLY.
[19] TO KEEP GRAPESUVÆ UT DIU SERVENTUR
TAKE PERFECT GRAPES FROM THE VINES, PLACE THEM IN A VESSEL AND POUR RAIN WATER OVER THEM THAT HAS BEEN BOILED DOWN ONE THIRD OF ITS VOLUME. THE VESSEL MUST BE PITCHED AND SEALED WITH PLASTER, AND MUST BE KEPT IN A COOL PLACE TO WHICH THE SUN HAS NO ACCESS. TREATED IN THIS MANNER, THE GRAPES WILL BE FRESH WHENEVER YOU NEED THEM. YOU CAN ALSO SERVE THIS WATER AS HONEY MEAD TO THE SICK.
ALSO, IF YOU COVER THE GRAPES WITH BARLEY [bran] YOU WILL FIND THEM SOUND AND UNINJURED.
V. We keep grapes in cork shavings, bran and saw dust.
[20] TO KEEP POMEGRANATESUT MALA GRANATA DIU DURENT[1]
STEEP THEM INTO HOT [sea] WATER, TAKE THEM OUT IMMEDIATELY AND HANG THEM UP. [Tor.] THEY WILL KEEP.
[1] Tor.conditura malorum Punicorum; Tac.mala granata; G.-V.mala et mala granata.
[21] TO KEEP QUINCESUT MALA CYDONIA DIU SERVENTUR
PICK OUT PERFECT QUINCES WITH STEMS [1] AND LEAVES. PLACE THEM IN A VESSEL, POUR OVER HONEY AND DEFRUTUM [2] AND YOU’LL PRESERVE THEM FOR A LONG TIME [3].
[1] V. Excellent idea, for the stems, if removed, would leave a wound in the fruit for the air to penetrate and to start fermentation. Cf. also the next formula.
[2] G.-V.defritum, fromdefervitum;defrutumis new wine, spiced, boiled down to one half of its volume.
[3] This precept would not keep the fruit very long unless protected by a closefitting cover and sterilization. Cf. No.24.
[22] TO PRESERVE FRESH FIGS, APPLES, PLUMS, PEARS AND CHERRIESFICUM RECENTEM, MALA, PRUNA, PIRA, CERASIA UT DIU SERVES
SELECT THEM ALL VERY CAREFULLY WITH THE STEMS ON [1] AND PLACE THEM IN HONEY SO THEY DO NOT TOUCH EACH OTHER.
[1] See the preceding formula.
[23] TO KEEP CITRONCITRIA UT DIU DURENT[1]
PLACE THEM IN A GLASS [2] VESSEL WHICH IS SEALED WITH PLASTER AND SUSPENDED.
[1] Tor.conditura malorum Medicorum quæ et citria dicuntur. V. Not quite identified. Fruit coming from Asia Minor, Media or Persia, one of the many varieties of citrus fruit. Probably citron because of their size. Goll. Lemon-apples; Dann. lemons (oranges). List.Scilicet mala, quæ Dioscorides Persica quoque & Medica, & citromala, Plinius item Assyria appellari dicit.
[2] G.-V.vas vitreum; Tac. and Tor.vas citrum; V. a glass vessel could not be successfully sealed with plaster paris, and the experiment would fail; cf. note 3 to No.21.
[24] TO KEEP MULBERRIESMORA UT DIU DURENT
MULBERRIES, IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM, MUST BE LAID INTO THEIR OWN JUICE MIXED WITH NEW WINE [boiled down to one half] IN A GLASS VESSEL AND MUST BE WATCHED ALL THE TIME [so that they do not spoil].
V. This and the foregoing formulæ illustrate the ancients’ attempts at preserving foods, and they betray their ignorance of “processing” by heating themin hermetically sealed vessels, the principle of which was not discovered until 1810 by Appert which started the now gigantic industry of canning.
[25] TO KEEP POT HERBS[H]OLERA UT DIU SERVENTUR
PLACE SELECTED POT HERBS, NOT TOO MATURE, IN A PITCHED VESSEL.
[26] TO PRESERVE SORREL OR SOUR DOCKLAPÆ[1]UT DIU SERVENTUR
TRIM AND CLEAN [the vegetable] PLACE THEM TOGETHER SPRINKLE MYRTLE BERRIES BETWEEN, COVER WITH HONEY AND VINEGAR.
ANOTHER WAY: PREPARE MUSTARD HONEY AND VINEGAR ALSO SALT AND COVER THEM WITH THE SAME.
[1] The kind of vegetable to be treated here has not been sufficiently identified. List. and G.-V.rapæ—turnips—fromrapus, seldomrapa,—a rape, turnip, navew. Tac. and Tor.Lapæ(lapathum), kind of sorrel, monk’s rhubarb, dock. Tor. explaining at length:conditura Rumicis quod lapathon Græci, Latini Lapam quoque dicunt.
V. Tor. is correct, or nearly so. Turnips, in the first place, are not in need of any special method of preservation. They keep very well in a cool, well-ventilated place; in fact they would hardly keep very long if treated in the above manner. These directions are better applied to vegetables like dock or monk’s rhubarb. Lister, taking Humelbergii word for it, accepts “turnips” as the only truth; but he has little occasion to assail Torinus as he does:Torinus lapam legit, & nullibi temeritatem suam atque inscientiam magis ostendit.
Now, if Torinus, according to Lister, “nowhere displays more nerve and ignorance” we can well afford to trust Torinus in cases such as this.
[27] TO KEEP TRUFFLESTUBERA UT DIU SERVENTUR
THE TRUFFLES WHICH MUST NOT BE TOUCHED BY WATER ARE PLACED ALTERNATELY IN DRY SAWDUST; SEAL THE VESSEL WITH PLASTER AND DEPOSIT IT IN A COOL PLACE.
Dann. Clean [peel] the truffles ... in another vessel place the peelings, seal the vessels.... V. this would be the ruin of the truffles, unless they were “processed” in the modern way. Our originals have nothing that would warrant this interpretation.
[28] TO KEEP HARD-SKINNED PEACHESDURACINA PERSICA UT DIU DURENT
SELECT THE BEST AND PUT THEM IN BRINE. THE NEXT DAY REMOVE THEM AND RINSING THEM CAREFULLY SET THEM IN PLACE IN A VESSEL, SPRINKLE WITH SALT AND SATURY AND IMMERSE IN VINEGAR.
[29] SALTS FOR MANY [ILLS]SALES CONDITOS AD MULTA
THESE SPICED SALTS ARE USED AGAINST INDIGESTION, TO MOVE THE BOWELS, AGAINST ALL ILLNESS, AGAINST PESTILENCE AS WELL AS FOR THE PREVENTION OF COLDS. THEY ARE VERY GENTLE INDEED AND MORE HEALTHFUL THAN YOU WOULD EXPECT. [Tor. MAKE THEM IN THIS MANNER]: 1 LB. OF COMMON SALT GROUND, 2 LBS. OF AMMONIAC SALT, GROUND [List. AND G.-V. 3 OZS. WHITE PEPPER, 2 OZS. GINGER] 1 OZ. [Tor. 1½ OZ.] OF AMINEAN BRYONY, 1 OF THYME SEED AND 1 OF CELERY SEED [Tor. 1½ OZ.] IF YOU DON’T WANT TO USE CELERY SEED TAKE INSTEAD 3 OZS. OF PARSLEY [SEED] 3 OZS. OF ORIGANY, 1 OZ. OF SAFFRON [List. and G.-V. ROCKET] 3 OZS. OF BLACK PEPPER [1] 1½ OZS. ROCKET SEED, 2 OZS. OF MARJORAM [List. and G.-V. CRETAN HYSSOP] 2 OZS. OF NARD LEAVES, 2 OZS. OF PARSLEY [SEED] AND 2 OZS. OF ANISE SEED.
[1] In view of the white pepper as directed above, this seems superfluous. White pepper and ginger omitted by Tor.
This is one of the few medical formulæ found in Apicius.
Edward Brandt,op. cit., Apiciana No.29, points out the similarity of this formula with that of the physician, Marcellus, who lived at Rome under Nero, Marcell. med. 30, 51.
[30] TO KEEP GREEN OLIVESOLIVAS VIRIDES SERVARE
TO KEEP OLIVES, FRESH FROM THE TREE, IN A MANNER ENABLING YOU TO MAKE OIL FROM THEM ANY TIME YOU DESIRE JUST PLACE THEM [in brine]. [1] HAVING BEEN KEPT THUS FOR SOME TIME THE OLIVES MAY BE USED AS IF THEYHAD JUST COME OFF THE TREE FRESH IF YOU DESIRE TO MAKE GREEN OIL OF THEM.
[1] The original does not state the liquid in which the olives are to be placed.
Hum.in illud, legendum puto, in muriam.
Hum. is correct. Olives are preserved in brine to this day.
Schuch’s version of this formula (his No. 27) follows our No.28, together with his own No. 28, To Keep Damascene Plums [etc.] which is wanting in List., G.-V., and all the earlier editions because it is from the codex Salmasianus and will be found among theExcerpts of Vinidariusat the end of the Apician recipes.
[CUMINATUM. Hum., List. and G.-V.—Tac. and Tor. at the end of BookI.]
[31] LASER FLAVORLASERATUM
[Tor.] LASER IS PREPARED IN THIS MANNER: LASER (WHICH IS ALSO CALLED LASERPITIUM BY THE ROMANS, WHILE THE GREEKS CALL IT SILPHION) FROM CYRENE [1] OR FROM PARTHIA [2] IS DISSOLVED IN LUKEWARM MODERATELY ACID BROTH; OR PEPPER, PARSLEY, DRY MINT, LASER ROOT, HONEY, VINEGAR AND BROTH [are ground, compounded and dissolved together].
[1] Cyrene, a province in Africa, reputed for its fine flavored laser.
[2] Parthia, Asiatic country, still supplyingasa fœtida.
The African root furnishing laser was exterminated by the demand for it. Cf.Laserin Index.
[32] ANOTHER [LASER]ALITER
[ANOTHER LASER FLAVOR WHICH TAKES] PEPPER, CARAWAY, ANISE, PARSLEY, DRY MINT, THE LEAVES [1] OF SILPHIUM, MALOBATHRUM [2] INDIAN SPIKENARD, A LITTLE COSTMARY, HONEY, VINEGAR AND BROTH.
[1] Tor.Silphij folium; List.Sylphium, folium; G.-V.Silfi, folium, the latter two interpretations meaningsilphium(laser)and leaves(either nard or bay leaves) while both Tor. and Tac. (silfii folium) mean the leaves ofsilphiumplant.
[2]Malobathrum,malobatrum,malabathrum—leaves of an Indian tree, wild cinnamon.
[33] WINE SAUCE FOR TRUFFLESŒNOGARUM[1]IN TUBERA
PEPPER, LOVAGE, CORIANDER, RUE, BROTH, HONEY AND A LITTLE OIL.
ANOTHER WAY: THYME, SATURY, PEPPER, LOVAGE, HONEY, BROTH AND OIL.
[1] AlsoElæogarum.
V. Directions wanting whether the above ingredients are to be added to the already preparedgarum, which see in dictionary. Gollmer gives the following direction forgarum: Boil asextariumof anchovies and 3sextariiof good wine until it is thickpurée. Strain this through a hair sieve and keep it in glass flask for future use. This formula, according to Goll. should have followed our No.9; but we find no authority for it in the original.
Oenogarumproper would be agarumprepared with wine, but in this instance it is the broth in which the truffles were cooked that is to be flavored with the above ingredients. There is no need and no mention ofgarumproper. Thus prepared it might turn out to be a sensible sauce for truffles in the hands of a good practitioner.
Note the etymology of the word “garum,” now serving as a generic name for “sauce” which originally stood for a compound of the fishgarus.
Cf.Garumin index.
[34] OXYPORUMOXYPORUM
[Tor. OXYPORUM (WHICH SIGNIFIES “EASY PASSAGE”) SO NAMED BECAUSE OF ITS EFFECT, TAKES] 2 OZS. OF CUMIN, 1 OZ. OF GINGER [List. 1 OZ. OF GREEN RUE] 6 SCRUPLES OF SALTPETER, A DOZEN SCRUPLES OF PLUMP DATES, 1 OZ. OF PEPPER AND 11 [List. 9] OZS. OF HONEY. THE CUMIN MAY BE EITHER ÆTHIOPIAN, SYRIAN OR LYBIAN, MUST BE FIRST SOAKED IN VINEGAR, BOILED DOWN DRY AND POUNDED. AFTERWARDS ADD YOUR HONEY. THIS COMPOUND, AS NEEDED, IS USED AS OXYPORUM.
Cf. No.111, A Harmless Salad.
Bran.op. cit., p. 25-6, of Greek origin.
[35] HYPOTRIMA [1]HYPOTRIMA
[Tor. HYPOTRIMA, MEANING IN LATIN A PERFECT MESS OF POTAGE, REQUIRES THIS]: PEPPER, LOVAGE, DRY MINT,PIGNOLIA NUTS, RAISINS, DATE WINE, SWEET CHEESE, HONEY, VINEGAR, BROTH, WINE, OIL, MUST OR REDUCED MUST [2]
[1] List. and G.-V.Hypotrimma.
V. This formula, lacking detailed instructions, is of course perfectly obscure, and it would be useless to debate over it.
[2] Tor. and Tac.cariotam; Sch.cariotum; List. and G.-V.carœnum. This (carenum) is new wine boiled down one half of its volume.Cariotumis a palm wine or date wine.
[36] OXYGARUM, AN AID TO DIGESTIONOXYGARUM DIGESTIBILE
[Tor. OXYGARUM (WHICH IS SIMILAR TO GARUM OR RATHER AN ACID SAUCE) IS DIGESTIBLE AND IS COMPOSED OF]: ½ OZ. OF PEPPER, 3 SCRUPLES OF GALLIC SILPHIUM, 6 SCRUPLES OF CARDAMOM, 6 OF CUMIN, 1 SCRUPLE OF LEAVES, 6 SCRUPLES OF DRY MINT. THESE [ingredients] ARE BROKEN SINGLY AND CRUSHED AND [made into a paste] BOUND BY HONEY. WHEN THIS WORK IS DONE [or whenever you desire] ADD BROTH AND VINEGAR [to taste].
Cf. Note to No.33.
[37] ANOTHER [OXYGARUM] [1]ALITER
1 OZ. EACH OF PEPPER, PARSLEY, CARRAWAY, LOVAGE, MIX WITH HONEY. WHEN DONE ADD BROTH AND VINEGAR.
[1] Wanting in Torinus.