⒈ Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study
Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study be sure, the excerpta are Apician enough Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study character, though only Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study few correspond to, or are actual duplicates of, the Apician precepts. If dietetics, therefore, were important enough to have Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study bearing at all upon Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study well-defined methods Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study cookery, we might go into detail analyzing ancient methods from that point of view. They are ripe when they are Persuasive Essay: Why Homework Is Important For Students, or magenta. Worse yet! He was for five Elie Wiesels Night: Chapter Summary manager of catering Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study the Hotel Pfister in Milwaukee; for two and a half years he was inspector ED Staff Nurses Case Study instructor of the Canadian Pacific Railway; he was connected Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study with some of the leading hotels in New Passive Resistance To Independence City, and with the Eppley and the Van Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study Hotels chains, in executive capacity. Sitejabber 4. It caused some Fish Jelly Recipes Case Study in the England of that time.
How to make Fancy Carp Jelly Fish I How To Jelly
I admire her straightforward, unpretentious approach to cookery. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. British cookery writer — John Glasse. Advice from the edition. Cook had debts he could not pay and was sent to a debtors' prison ; Ann Cook blamed Allgood for the family's troubles. The British Museum. The London Gazette. The Newcastle Courant. Oxford English Dictionary. BBC Genome. Books [ edit ] Aylett, Mary; Ordish, Olive First Catch Your Hare. London: Macdonald. OCLC Boswell, James Life of Johnson. Burnett, David; Saberi, Helen London: Marion Boyars. ISBN Collingham, Alan Curry: A Tale of Cooks and Conquerors.
London: Vintage. Colquhoun, Kate Taste: the Story of Britain Through its Cooking. New York: Bloomsbury. Coyle, L. Patrick New York: Fact on File. David, Elizabeth . Spices, Salt and Aromatics in the English Kitchen. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin. Is There a Nutmeg in the House? Jill Norman ed. London: Penguin. English Bread and Yeast Cookery. Harmondsworth: Penguin. London: Michael Joseph. Davidson, Alan The Oxford Companion to Food.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 29 March Davidson, Alan ; Saberi, Helen, eds. Dickson Wright, Clarissa A History of English Food Kindle ed. London: Random House. Glasse, Hannah London: Published by the author. London: J. Grigson, Jane . English Food. Hardy, Sheila Stroud, Gloucestershire: The History Press. Hess, John L. The Taste of America. Hughes, Kathryn London: HarperCollins Publishers. Archived from the original on 3 November Lehman, Gilly Totness, Devon: Prospect Books. Notaker, Henry Archived from the original on 1 August Quayle, Eric London: Cassell.
Quinzio, Geraldine M. Robertson, Una An Illustrated History of the Housewife, — New York: St. Martin's Press. Smith, Andrew F. Snodgrass, Mary Ellen Ground into mealy dust under the hoofs of barbarian armies! Re-modeled, re-used a hundred times! Discarded as of no value by clumsy hands! Much is destroyed by blind strokes of fate—fate, eternally pounding this earth in its everlasting enigmatic efforts to shape life into something, the purpose of which we do not understand, the meaning of which we may not even venture to dream of or hope to know. They show its modernity, its nearness to our own days. They are now hazy reminiscences, as it were, by a middle-aged man of the hopes and the joys of his own youth. These furtive fragments—whatever they are—now tell us a story so full and so rich, they wield so marvelous a power, no man laying claim to possessing any intelligence may pass them without intensely feeling the eternal pathetic appeal to our hearts of these bygone ages that hold us down in an envious manner, begrudging us the warm life-blood of the present, weaving invisible ties around us to make our hearts heavy.
However, we are not here to be impeded by any sentimental considerations. To gain a correct picture of the Roman table we will therefore set aside for a while the fragments culled from ancient literature and history that have been misused so indiscriminately and so profusely during the last two thousand years—for various reasons. They have become fixed ideas, making reconstruction difficult for anyone who would gain a picture along rational lines. Barring two exceptions, there is no trustworthy detailed description of the ancient table by an objective contemporary observer. To be sure, there are some sporadic efforts, mere reiterations. The majority of the ancient word pictures are distorted views on our subject by partisan writers, contemporary moralists on the one side, satirists on the other.
Neither of them, we venture to say, knew the subject professionally. True there were exceptions. Athenaeus, a most prolific and voluble magiric commentator, quoting many writers and specialists whose names but for him would have never reached posterity. Athenaeus tells about these gastronomers, the greatest of them, Archestratos, men who might have contributed so much to our knowledge of the ancient world, but to us these names remain silent, for the works of these men have perished with the rest of the great library at the disposal of this genial host of Alexandria. Too, there are Anacharsis and Petronius. They and Athenaeus cannot be overlooked.
These three form the bulk of our evidence. Take on the other hand Plutarch, Seneca, Tertullian, even Pliny, writers who have chiefly contributed to our defective knowledge of the ancient table. They were no gourmets. They were biased, unreliable at best, as regards culinary matters. Their state of mind and their intolerance towards civilized dining did not improve with the advent of Christianity. There is one more man worthy of mention in our particular study, Horace, a true poet, the most objective of all writers, man-about-town, pet of society, mundane genius, gifted to look calmly into the innermost heart of his time.
So much for Horatius, poet. Still, he was not a specialist in our line. We cannot enroll him among the gifted gourmets no matter how many meals he enjoyed at the houses of his society friends. We are rather inclined to place him among the host of writers, ancient and modern, who have treated the subject of food with a sort of sovereign contempt, or at least with indifference, because its study presented unsurmountable difficulties, and the subject, per se , was a menial one. With this attitude of our potential chief witnesses defined, we have no occasion to further appeal to them here, and we might proceed to real business, to the sifting of the trustworthy material at hand.
It is really a relief to know that we have no array of formidable authorities to be considered in our study. We have virgin field before us—i. Pompeii was destroyed in A. From its ruins we have obtained in the last half century more information about the intimate domestic and public life of the ancients than from any other single source. What is more important, this vast wealth of information is first hand, unspoiled, undiluted, unabridged, unbiased, uncensored;—in short, untouched by meddlesome human hands. Though only a provincial town, Pompeii was a prosperous mercantile place, a representative market-place, a favorite resort for fashionable people. The town had hardly recuperated from a preliminary attack by that treacherous mountain, Vesuvius, when a second onslaught succeeded in complete destruction.
Suddenly, without warning, this lumbering force majeur visited the ill-fated towns in its vicinity with merciless annihilation. They escaped with their bare lives. Only the aged, the infirm, the prisoners and some faithful dogs were left behind. Today their bodies in plaster casts may be seen, mute witnesses to a frightful disaster. The town was covered with an airtight blanket of ashes, lava and fine pumice stone. There were no agonies to speak of. The great event was consummated within a few hours. The peace of death settled down to reign supreme after the dust had been driven away by the gentle breezes coming in from the bay of Naples. Some courageous citizens returned, searching in the hot ashes for the crashed-in roofs of their villas, to recover this or that.
Perhaps they hoped to salvage the strong box in the atrium, or a heirloom from the triclinium. But soon they gave up. Despairing, or hoping for better days to come, they vanished in the mist of time. Pompeii, the fair, the hospitable, the gay city, just like any individual out of luck, was and stayed forgotten. The Pompeians, their joys, sorrows, their work  and play, their virtues and vices—everything was arrested with one single stroke, stopped, even as a camera clicks, taking a snapshot. To be exact, it took these generations eighteen centuries to discover and to appreciate the heritage that was theirs, buried at the foot of Vesuvius. During these long dark and dusky centuries charming goat herds had rested unctuous shocks of hair upon mysterious columns that, like young giant asparagus, stuck their magnificent heads out of the ground.
Blinking drowsily at yonder villainous mountain, the summit of which is eternally crowned with a halo of thin white smoke, such as we are accustomed to see arising from the stacks of chemical factories, the confident shepherd would lazily implore his patron saint to enjoin that unreliable devilish force within lest the dolce far niente of the afternoon be disturbed, for siestas are among the most important functions in the life of that region. Occasionally the more enterprising would arm themselves with pick-axe and shovel, made bold by whispered stories of fabulous wealth, and, defying the evil spirits protecting it, they would set out on an expedition of loot and desecration of the tomb of ancient splendor.
Only about a century and a half ago the archaeological conscience awoke. Only seventy-five years ago energetic moves made possible a fruitful pilgrimage to this shrine of humanity, while today not more than two-thirds but perhaps the most important parts of the city have been opened to our astonished eyes by men who know. And now: we may see that loaf of bread baked nineteen centuries ago, as found in the bake shop. We may inspect the ingenious bake oven where it was baked.
We may see the mills that ground the flour for the bread, and, indeed find unground wheat kernels. There are the advertisements on the walls, the foods praised with all the eclat of modern advertising, the election notices, the love missives, the bank deposits, the theatre tickets, law records, bills of sale. So slippery are the cooks that Plautus calls one Congrio —sea eel—so black that another deserves the title Anthrax —coal.
There they are, one and all, the characters necessary to make up what we call civilization, chattering agitatedly in a lingo of Latin-Greek-Oscan—as if life were a continuous market day. It takes no particular scholarship, only a little imagination and human sympathy to see and to hear the ghosts of Pompeii. No heroic gesture. No theatricals, in short, no lies. There is to be found no shred of that vainglorious cloak which humans will deftly drape about their shoulders whenever they happen to be aware of the camera. Her life stands before our eyes in clear reality, in naked, unadorned truth. Indeed, there were many things that the good folks would have loved to point to with pride.
You have to search for these now. There are, alas and alack, a few things they would have hidden, had they only known what was in store for them. But all these things, good, indifferent and bad, remained in their places; and here they are, unsuspecting, real, natural, charming like Diana and her wood nymphs. Were it not quite superfluous, we would urgently recommend the study of Pompeii to the students of life in general and to those of Antiquity in particular. Those who would know something about the ancient table cannot do without Pompeii. To those who lay stress upon documentary evidence or literary testimony, to those trusting implicitly in the honesty and reliability of writers of fiction, we would recommend Petronius Arbiter.
It is, too, the work of a great writer moving in the best circles, and, therefore, so much more desirable as an expert. Petronius deserves to be quoted in full but his work is too well-known, and our space too short. However, right here we wish to warn the student to bear in mind in perusing Petronius that this writer, in his cena , is not depicting a meal but that he is satirizing a man—that makes  all the difference in the world as far as we are concerned.
There is, not so well-known a beautiful picture of an Athenian dinner party which must not be overlooked, for it contains a wealth of information. Although Greek, we learn from it much of the Roman conditions. Anacharsis was not a Hellene but a Scythian visitor. By his own admission he is no authority on Grecian cookery, but as a reporter he excels. This truly Hellenic discussion of the art of eating and living at the table of the cultured Athenians is the most profound discourse we know of, ancient or modern, on eating.
The wisdom revealed in this tale is lasting, and, like Greek marble, consummate in external beauty and inner worth. We thus possess the testimony of two contemporary writers which together with the book of Apicius and with what we learn from Athenaeus should give a fair picture of ancient eating and cookery. Unfortunately, this source has not been spared by meddlesome men, and it has not reached us in its pristine condition. As a matter of fact, Apicius has been badly mauled throughout the centuries. This book has always attracted attention, never has it met with indifference. In the middle ages it became the object of intensive study, interpretation, controversy—in short it has attracted interest that has lasted into modern times.
When, with the advent of the dark ages, it ceased to be a practical cookery book, it became a treasure cherished by the few who preserved the classical literature, and after the invention of printing it became the object of curiosity, even mystery. Some interpreters waxed enthusiastic over it, others who failed to understand it, condemned it as hopeless and worthless. The pages of our Apiciana plainly show the lasting interest in our ancient book, particularly ever since its presence became a matter of common knowledge during the first century of printing.
The Apicius book is the most ancient of European cookery books. Platina, in , was more up-to-date. His book had a larger circulation. But its vogue stopped after a century while Apicius marched on through  centuries to come, tantalizing the scholars, amusing the curious gourmets if not educated cooks to the present day. Who was Apicius? This is the surname of several renowned gastronomers of old Rome.
There are many references and anecdotes in ancient literature to men bearing this name. Two Apicii have definitely been accounted for. The older one, Marcus A. The man we are most interested in, M. Gabius Apicius, lived under Augustus and Tiberius, 80 B. However, both these men had a reputation for their good table. It is worth noting that the well-read Athenaeus, conversant with most authors of Antiquity makes no mention of the Apicius book.
This collection of recipes, then, was not in general circulation during Athenaei time beginning of the third century of our era , that, maybe, it was kept a secret by some Roman cooks. On the other hand it is possible that the Apicius book did not exist during the time of Athenaeus in the form handed down to us and that the monographs on various departments of cookery most of them of Greek origin, works of which indeed Athenaeus speaks were collected after the first quarter of the third century and were adorned with the name of Apicius merely because his fame as a gourmet had endured. What Athenaeus knows about Apicius one of three known famous eaters bearing that name is the following:.
Hearing, too, that they were very large in Africa, he sailed thither, without waiting a single day, and suffered exceedingly on his voyage. The instructions given in our Apicius book, Recipe 14 , for the keeping of  oysters would hardly guarantee their safe arrival on such a journey as described above. Athenaeus tells us further that many of the Apician recipes were famous and that many dishes were named after him. This confirms the theory that Apicius was not the author of the present book but that the book was dedicated to him by an unknown author or compiler. Athenaeus also mentions one Apion who wrote a book on luxurious living.
Whether this man is identical with the author or patron of our book is problematic. Torinus, in his epistola dedicatoria to the edition expresses the same doubt. According to the mention by various writers, this man, M. Gabius Apicius, was one of the many ancient gastronomers who took the subject of food seriously. Assuming a scientific attitude towards eating and food they were criticised for paying too much attention to their table. This was considered a superfluous and indeed wicked luxury when frugality was a virtue. These men who knew by intuition the importance of knowing something about nutrition are only now being vindicated by the findings of modern science.
Gabius Apicius, this most famous of the celebrated and much maligned bon-vivants, quite naturally took great interest in the preparation of food. He is said to have originated many dishes himself; he collected much material on the subject and he endowed a school for the teaching of cookery and for the promotion of culinary ideas. This very statement by his critics places him high in our esteem, as it shows him up as a scientist and educator. He spent his vast fortune for food, as the stories go, and when he had only a quarter million dollars left a paltry sum today but a considerable one in those days when gold was scarce and monetary standards in a worse muddle than today Apicius took his own life, fearing that he might have to starve to death some day.
This story seems absurd on the face of it, yet Seneca and Martial tell it both with different tendencies and Suidas, Albino and other writers repeat it without critical analysis. These writers who are unreliable in culinary matters anyway, claim that Apicius spent one hundred million sestertii on his appetite— in gulam. Finally when the hour of accounting came he found that there were only ten million sestertii left, so he concluded that life was not worth living if his gastronomic ideas could no longer be carried out in the accustomed and approved style, and he took poison at a banquet especially arranged for the occasion.
In the light of modern experience with psychology, with economics, depressions, journalism, we focus on this and similar stories, and we find them thoroughly unreliable. We cannot believe this one. It is too melodramatic, too  moralistic perhaps to suit our modern taste. The underlying causes for the conduct, life and end of Apicius have not been told.
Of course, we have to accept the facts as reported. If only a Petronius had written that story! What a story it might have been! But there is only one Petronius in antiquity. His Trimalchio, former slave, successful profiteer and food speculator, braggard and drunkard, wife-beater—an upstart who arranged extravagant banquets merely to show off, who, by the way, also arranged for his funeral at his banquet Apician fashion and, indeed, Petronian fashion!
Last but not least: Mrs. Without Petronius and Pompeii the antique world would forever remain at an inexplicably remote distance to our modern conception of life. With him, and with the dead city, the riddles of antiquity are cleared up. Many dishes listed in Apicius are named for various celebrities who flourished at a later date than the second Apicius. It is noteworthy, however, that neither such close contemporaries as Heliogabalus and Nero, notorious gluttons, nor Petronius, the arbiter of fashion of the period, are among the persons thus honored. Vitellius, a later glutton, is well represented in the book. It is fair to assume, then, that the author or collector of our present Apicius lived long after the second Apicius, or, at least, that the book was augmented by persons posterior to M.
Gabius A. The book in its present state was probably completed about the latter part of the third century. It is almost certain that many recipes were added to a much earlier edition. We may as well add another to the many speculations by saying that it is quite probable for our book to originate in a number of Greek manuals or monographs on specialized subjects or departments of cookery. Such special treatises are mentioned by Athenaeus cf. Humelbergius, quoted by Lister. The titles of each chapter or book are in Greek, the text is full of Greek terminology. While classification under the respective titles is not strictly adhered to at all times, it is significant that certain subjects, that of fish cookery, for instance, appear twice in the book, the same subject showing treatment by widely different hands.
Still more significant is the absence in our book of such important departments as desserts— dulcia —confections in which the ancients were experts. Bakery, too, even the plainest kind, is conspicuously absent in the Apician books. The latter two trades being particularly well developed, were departmentalized to an astonishing degree in ancient Greece and Rome. These  indispensable books are simply wanting in our book if it be but a collection of Greek monographs. Roman culture and refinement of living, commencing about years before our era was under the complete rule of Hellas.
Greek influence included everybody from philosophers, artists, architects, actors, law-makers to cooks. Humelbergius makes a significant reference to the origin of Apicius. We confess, we have not checked up this worthy editor nor his successor, Dr. Lister, whom he quotes in the preface as to the origin of our book. In our opinion, unfounded of course by positive proof, the Apicius book is somewhat of a gastronomic bible, consisting of ten different books by several authors, originating in Greece and taken over by the Romans along with the rest of Greek culture as spoils of war. These books, or chapters, or fragments thereof, must have been in vogue long before they were collected and assembled in the present form. Editions, or copies of the same must have been numerous, either singly or collectively, at the beginning of our era.
Thus a fragmentary Apicius has been handed down to us in manuscript form through the centuries, through the revolutionary era of Christian ascendancy, through the dark ages down to the Renaissance. They have done better than the average archaeologist with one or another find to his credit. The Apicius book is a living thing, capable of creating happiness. Some gastronomic writers have pointed out that the man who discovers a new dish does more for humanity than the man who discovers a new star, because the discovery of a new dish affects the happiness of mankind more pleasantly than the addition of a new  planet to an already overcrowded chart of the universe.
Viewing Apicius from such a materialistic point of view he should become very popular in this age of ours so keen for utilities of every sort. This name is mentioned in the title of the first undated edition ca. His presence and the unreality thereof has been cleared up by Vollmer, as will be duly shown. The squabble of the medieval savants has also given rise to the story that Apicius is but a joke perpetrated upon the world by a medieval savant. This will be refuted also later on. Our book is a genuine Roman.
We desire to do full justice to the ancient work and complete the presentation of its history. The controversies that have raged over it make this course necessary. Our predecessors have not had the benefit of modern communication, and, therefore, could not know all that is to be known on the subject. We sympathize with Lister yet do not condemn Torinus. If Torinus ever dared making important changes in the old text, they are easily ascertained by collation with other texts.
This we have endeavored to do. Explaining the discrepancies, it will be noted that we have not given a full vote of confidence to Lister. The reason would be commercial gain, prestige accruing from the name of that cookery celebrity. Such business sense would not be extraordinary. Modern cooks pursue the same method. Babies, apartment houses, streets, cities, parks, dogs, race horses, soap, cheese, herring, cigars, hair restorers are thus named today. Neither can this be proven. The copyists have made many changes throughout the original text. Misspelling of terms, ignorance of cookery have done much to obscure the meaning. The scribes of the middle ages had much difficulty in this respect since medieval Latin is different from Apician language.
The very language of the original is proof for its authenticity. The desire of Torinus to interpret to his medieval readers the ancient text is pardonable. How much or how little he succeeded is attested to by some of his contemporary readers, former owners of our copies. Scholars plainly confess inability to decipher Apicius by groans inscribed on the fly leaves and title pages in Latin, French and other languages. Why make fun of me? Notwithstanding its drawbacks, our book is a classic both as to form and contents. It has served as a prototype of most ancient and modern books. Its influence is felt to the present day. The book has often been cited by old writers as proof of the debaucheries and the gluttony of ancient Rome.
Nothing could be further from the truth because these writers failed to understand the book. The Apicius book reflects the true condition partly so, because it is incomplete of the kitchen prevailing at the beginning of our era when the mistress of the Old World was in her full regalia, when her ample body had not yet succumbed to that fatty degeneration of the interior so fatal to ever so many individuals, families, cities and nations.
The voluptuous concoctions, the fabulous dishes, the proverbial excesses that have made decent people shudder with disgust throughout the ages are not known to Apicius. These extremely few foolish creations are really at the bottom of the cause for this misunderstanding of true Roman life. Such stupidity has allowed the joy of life which, as Epikuros and Platina believe, may be indulged in with perfect virtue and honesty to become a byword among all good people who are not gastronomers either by birth, by choice or by training. With due justice to the Roman people may we be permitted to say that proverbial excesses were exceedingly rare occurrences.
The follies and the vices  of a Nero, a boy Heliogabalus, a Pollio, a Vitellius and a few other notorious wasters are spread sporadically over a period of at least eight hundred years. Between these cases of gastronomic insanity lie wellnigh a thousand years of everyday grind and drudgery of the Roman people. The bulk was miserably fed as compared with modern standards of living. The contrast between the middle classes and the upper classes seemed very cruel. The seemingly outlandish methods of Apician food preparation become plain and clear in the light of social evolution.
Apicius used practically all the cooking utensils in use today. He only lacked gas, electricity and artificial refrigeration, modern achievements while useful in the kitchen and indispensable in wholesale production and for labor saving, that have no bearing on purely gastronomical problems. There is only one difference between the cooking utensils of yore and the modern products: the old ones are hand-made, more individualistic, more beautiful, more artistic than our machine-made varieties. Despite his strangeness and remoteness, Apicius is not dead by any means. We have but to inspect as Gollmer has pointed out the table of the Southern Europeans to find Apician traditions alive.
In the Northern countries, too, are found his traces. To think that Apicius should have survived in the North of Europe, far removed from his native soil, is a rather audacious suggestion. But the keen observer can find him in Great Britain, Scandinavia and the Baltic provinces today. The conquerors and seafarers coming from the South have carried the pollen of gastronomic flowers far into the North where they adjusted themselves to soil and climate. Many a cook of the British isles, of Southern Sweden, Holstein, Denmark, Friesland, Pomerania still observes Apicius rules though he may not be aware of the fact. We must realize that Apicius is only a book, a frail hand-made record and that, while the record itself might have been forgotten, its principles have become international property, long ago.
Thus they live on. But the character has been preserved; a couple of thousand years are, after all, but a paltry matter. Our  own age is but the grandchild of antiquity. The words we utter, in their roots, are those of our grandfathers. And so do many dishes we eat today resemble those once enjoyed by Apicius and his friends. Is it necessary to point the tenacity of the spirit of the Antique, reaching deep into the modern age? The latest Apicius edition in the original Latin is dated ! The gastronomic life of Europe was under the complete rule of old Rome until the middle of the seventeenth century.
Then came a sudden change for modernity, comparable to the rather abrupt change of languages from the fashionable Latin to the national idioms and vernacular, in England and Germany under the influence of literary giants like Luther, Chaucer, Shakespeare. The great change in eating, resulting in a new gastronomic order, attained its highest peak of perfection just prior to the French revolution. Temporarily suspended by this social upheaval, it continued to flourish until about the latter part of last century. The last decades of this new order is often referred to as the classical period of gastronomy, with France claiming the laurels for its development. Still, the world moves on. Conquest, discovery of foreign parts, the New World, contributed fine things to the modern table,—old forgotten foods were rediscovered—endless lists of materials and combinations, new daring, preposterous dishes that made the younger generation rejoice while old folks looked on gasping with dismay, despair, contempt.
In fact we are not concerned with the question here more than to give it passing attention. But this classic cookery system has so far only been the  sole and exclusive privilege of a dying aristocracy. The common people as yet have never had an active part in the enjoyment of the classic art of eating. So far, they always provided the wherewithal, and looked on, holding the bag. Modern hotels, because of their commercial character, have done little to perpetuate it. They merely have commercialized the art. Hotelmen are not supposed to be educators, they merely cater to a demand.
And our new aristocracy has been too busy with limousines, golf, divorces and electricity to bemourn the decline of classic cookery. Surely, this is no sign of retrogression but of tenacity. The only fundamental difference between Roman dining and that of our own times may be found in these two indisputable facts—. First Devoid of the science of agriculture, without any advanced mechanical means, food was not raised in a very systematic way; if it happened to be abundant, Roma lacked storage and transportation facilities to make good use of it. Second Skilled labor, so vital for the success of any good dinner, so imperative for the rational preparation of food was cheap to those who held slaves.
Then, good food was expensive while good labor was cheap. Now, good food is cheap while skilled labor is at a premium. That is another story. The chances for a good dinner seemed to be in favor of the Romans—but only for a favored few. Those of us, although unable to command a staff of experts, but able to prepare their own meals rationally and serve them well are indeed fortunate. With a few dimes they may dine in royal fashion. The fly in the ointment is that most modern people do not know how to handle and to appreciate food. This condition, however, may be remedied by instruction and education. Slowly, the modern masses are learning to emulate their erstwhile masters in the art of eating.
They have the advantages of the great improvements in provisioning as compared with former days, thanks chiefly to the great lines of  communication established by modern commerce, thanks to scientific agriculture and to the spirit of commercial enterprise and its resulting prosperity. If the commercialization of cookery, i. Even Spengler might be wrong then. Adequate distribution of our foods and rational use thereof seem to be one of the greatest problems today. Age-old mysteries surrounding our book have not yet been cleared up.
Medieval savants have squabbled in vain. Still, the mystery of this remarkable book is as perplexing as ever. The authorship will perhaps never be established. But let us forever dispel any doubt about its authenticity. Modern writers have never doubted the genuineness. What matters the identity of the author? Who wrote the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Nibelungen-Lied? Let us be thankful for possessing them!
The philologist gives his testimony, too. A medieval scholar could never have manufactured Apicius, imitating his strikingly original terminology. Striking examples of this kind have been especially noted in our dictionary of technical terms. This phrase is curious enough in itself to deserve illustration. It is true old fashioned Plautian Latinity, and if other proof were wanting would of itself demonstrate the genuineness of the Apician text.
When Varius was emperor, this phrase of the kitchen was as rife as when Plautus wrote—a proof that occasionally slang has been long lived. Coote is a very able commentator. Modern means of communication and photography have enabled scientists in widely different parts to study our book from all angles, to scrutinize the earliest records, the Vatican and the New York manuscripts and the codex Salmasianus in Paris. Friedrich Vollmer, of Munich, in his Studien cit. Apiciana has treated the manuscripts exhaustively, carrying to completion the research begun by Schuch, Traube, Ihm, Studemund, Giarratano and others with Brandt, his pupil, carrying on the work of Vollmer.
More modern scientists deeply interested in the origin of our book! None doubting its genuineness. Vollmer is of the opinion that there reposed in the monastery of Fulda, Germany, an Archetypus which in the ninth century was copied twice: once in a Turonian hand—the manuscript now kept in the Vatican—the other copy written partly in insular, partly in Carolingian minuscle—the Cheltenham codex , now in New York.
The common source at Fulda of these two manuscripts has been established by Traube. There is another testimony pointing to Fulda as the oldest known source. Enoche used as a guide a list of works based upon observations by Poggio in Germany in , listing the Apicius of Fulda. Enoche acquired the Fulda Apicius. He died in October or November, It is interesting to note that one of the Milanese editions of bears a title in this particular spelling. Enoche during his life time had lent the book to Giovanni Aurispa.
It stands to reason that Poggio, in , viewed at Fulda the Archetypus of our Apicius, father of the Vatican and the New York manuscripts, then already mutilated and wanting books IX and X. Six hundred years before the arrival of Poggio the Fulda book was no longer complete. Already in the ninth century its title page had been damaged which is proven by the title page of the Vatican copy which reads:. The New York copy, it has been noted, has no title page. This book commences in the middle of the list of chapters; the first part of them and the title page are gone. We recall that the New York manuscript was originally bound up with another manuscript, also in the Phillipps library at Cheltenham.
The missing page or pages were probably lost in separating the two manuscripts. It is possible that Enoche carried with him to Italy one of the ancient copies, very likely the present New York copy, then already without a title. At any rate, not more than twenty-five years after his book hunting expedition we find both copies in Italy. It is strange, furthermore, that neither of these two ancient copies were used by the fifteenth century copyists to make the various copies distributed by them, but that an inferior copy of the Vatican Ms. One must bear in mind how assiduously medieval scribes copied everything that appeared to be of any importance to them, and how each new copy by virtue of human fallibility or self-sufficiency must have suffered in the making, and it is only by very careful comparison of the various manuscripts that the original text may be rehabilitated.
This, to a large extent, Vollmer and Giarratano have accomplished. This name, so Vollmer claims, has been added to the book by medieval scholars without any reason except conjecture for such action. They have been misled by the mutilated title: Api Remember, it is the title page only that is thus mutilated. The Archetypus , with the book and the chapters carefully indexed and numbered as they were, with each article neatly titled, the captions and capital letters rubricated—heightened by red color, and with its proper spacing of the articles and chapters must once have been a representative example of the art of book making as it flourished towards the end of the period that sealed the fate of the Roman empire, when books of a technical nature, law books, almanacs, army lists had been developed to a high point of perfection.
Luxurious finish, elaborate illumination point to the fact that our book the Vatican copy was intended for the use in some aristocratic household. And now, from a source totally different than the two important manuscripts so much discussed here, we receive additional proof of the authenticity of  Apicius. In the codex Salmasianus cf. They have been accepted as genuine by Salmasius and other early scholars. This course, for obvious reasons, is not to be recommended. To be sure, the excerpta are Apician enough in character, though only a few correspond to, or are actual duplicates of, the Apician precepts. They are additions to the stock of authentic Apician recipes. As such, they may not be included but be appended to the traditional text.
The excerpta encourage the belief that at the time of Vinidarius got. Vinithaharjis about the fifth century there must have been in circulation an Apicius collection of recipes much more complete than the one handed down to us through Fulda. We may safely join Vollmer in his belief that M. This theory also applies to the two instances where the name of Varro is mentioned in connection with the preparation of beets and onions bulbs. It is hardly possible that the author of the book made these references to Varro. Book III , [ 70 ] Still, there is no certainty in this theory either.
There were many persons by the names of Commodus, Trajanus, Frontinianus, such as are appearing in our text, who were contemporaries of Apicius. With our mind at ease as regards the genuineness of our book we now may view it at a closer range. Apicius contains technical terms that have been the subject of much speculation and discussion. Liquamen , laser , muria , garum , etc. They will be found in our little dictionary. But we cannot refrain from discussing some at present to make intelligible the most essential part of the ancient text. Take liquamen for instance. It may stand for broth, sauce, stock, gravy, drippings, even for court bouillon —in fact for any liquid appertaining to or derived from a certain dish or food material. Now, if Apicius prescribes liquamen for the preparation of a meat or a vegetable, it is by no means clear to the uninitiated what he has in mind.
In fact, in each case the term liquamen is subject to the interpretation of the experienced practitioner. Others than he would at once be confronted with an unsurmountable difficulty. Scientists may not agree with us, but such is kitchen practice. Hence the many fruitless controversies at the expense of the original, at the disappointment of science. Garum is another word, one upon which much contemptuous witticism and  serious energy has been spent. Garum simply is a generic name for fish essences. True, garus is a certain and a distinct kind of Mediterranean fish, originally used in the manufacture of garum ; but this product, in the course of time, has been altered, modified, adulterated,—in short, has been changed and the term has naturally been applied to all varieties and variations of fish essences, without distinction, and it has thus become a collective term, covering all varieties of fish sauces.
You can be sure that our custom-written papers are original and properly cited. Our cheap essay writing service tries to always be at its best performance level, so each customer who pays money for paper writing can be sure that he or she will get what is wanted. There can be a number of reasons why you might not like your order. You can also request a free revision, if there are only slight inconsistencies in your order. Your writer will make the necessary amendments free of charge.
You can find out more information by visiting our revision policy and money-back guarantee pages, or by contacting our support team via online chat or phone. We even have an urgent delivery option for short essays, term papers, or research papers needed within 8 to 24 hours. We appreciate that you have chosen our cheap essay service, and will provide you with high-quality and low-cost custom essays, research papers, term papers, speeches, book reports, and other academic assignments for sale.
We provide affordable writing services for students around the world. Contact us for cheap writing assistance. Improve your Grades Our essay writing team comprises writers from every discipline. Order my paper. Calculate your essay price. Type of paper. Academic level. Pages words. Basic features. On-demand options. Paper format. Our guarantees Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.