The seemingly outlandish methods of Apician food preparation become plain and clear in the light of social evolution. "Evolution" is perhaps not the right word to convey our idea of social perpetual motion.
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. Like a living thing--a language, a custom, they themselves may have undergone changes, "improvements," alterations, augmentation, corruption. 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 1922!
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.
All medieval food literature of the continent and indeed the early cookery books of England prior to La Varenne (Le Cuisinier Francois, 1654) are deeply influenced by Apicius. 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 cla.s.sical period of gastronomy, with France claiming the laurels for its development. "Cla.s.sic" for reasons we do not know (Urbain Dubois, outstanding master of this period wrote "La Cuisine cla.s.sique") except that its precepts appeal as cla.s.sical to our notion of eating. This may not correspond to the views of posterity, we had therefore better wait a century or two before proclaiming our system of cookery "cla.s.sical."
Disposing of that old "cla.s.sic," Apicius, as slowly as a conservative cooking world could afford to do, the present nations set out to cultivate a taste for things that a Roman would have p.r.o.nounced unfit for a slave. 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.
Be it sufficient to remark that the older pract.i.tioners of our own days, educated in "cla.s.sic" cuisine again are quite apprehensive of their traditions endangered by the spirit of revolt of the young against the old. Again and again we hear of a decline that has set in, and even by the best authorities alarmist notes are spread to the effect that "we have begun our journey back, step by step to our primitive tree and our primitive nuts" (Pennell. Does Spengler consider food in his "Decline of the West?").
It matters not whether we share this pessimism, nor what we may have to say _pro_ or _con_ this question of "progress" or "retrogression"
in eating (or in anything else for that matter). In fact we are not concerned with the question here more than to give it pa.s.sing attention.
If "cla.s.sic" cookery is dying nowadays, if it cannot rea.s.sert itself that would be a loss to mankind. But this cla.s.sic cookery system has so far only been the sole and exclusive privilege of a dying aristocracy. It seems quite in order that it should go under in the great _Gotterdammerung_ that commenced with the German peasants wars of the sixteenth century, flaring up (as the second act) in the French revolution late in the eighteenth century, the Act III of which drama has been experienced in our own days.
The common people as yet have never had an active part in the enjoyment of the cla.s.sic 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. Beyond exercising ordinary salesmanship, our _maitres d"hotel_ have not educated our _nouveaux riches_ in the mysteries and delights of gastronomy.
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 cla.s.sic cookery.
Most people "get by" without the benefit of cla.s.sic cookery, subsisting on a medley of edibles, tenaciously clinging to mother"s traditions, to things "as she used to make them," and mother"s methods still savor of Apicius. 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. There never were any food supplies on any large, extensive and scientific scale, hence raw materials, the wherewithal of a "cla.s.sic" meal, were expensive.
(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.
Hence, the culinary conditions of ancient Rome were exactly the opposite of today"s state of affairs. Then, good food was expensive while good labor was cheap. Now, good food is cheap while skilled labor is at a premium. Somehow, good, intelligent "labor" is reluctant to devote itself to food. 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. If our much maligned age has achieved anything at all it has at least enabled the working "slave" of the "ma.s.ses" to dine in a manner that even princes could hardly match in former days, a manner indeed that the princes of our own time could not improve upon. 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 ma.s.ses 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.
There are two "Ifs" in the path to humanity"s salvation, at least, that of its table. If the commercialization of cookery, i.e., the wholesale production of ready-made foods for the table does not completely enthrall the housewife and if we can succeed to educate the ma.s.ses to make rational, craftsmanlike use of our wonderful stores of edibles, employing or modifying to this end the rules of cla.s.sic cookery, there really should be no need for any serious talk about our journey back to the primitive nuts. Even Spengler might be wrong then.
Adequate distribution of our foods and rational use thereof seem to be one of the greatest problems today.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF APICIUS
Age-old mysteries surrounding our book have not yet been cleared up.
Medieval savants have squabbled in vain. Mrs. Pennell"s worries and the fears of the learned Englishmen that Apicius might be a hoax have proven groundless. 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. To name but a few who believe in Apicius: Thudichum, Vollmer, Brandt, Vicaire, Rumohr, Schuch, Habs, Gollmer.
What matters the ident.i.ty of the author? Who wrote the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Nibelungen-Lied? Let us be thankful for possessing them!
Apicius is a genuine doc.u.ment of Roman imperial days. There can be no doubt of that!
The unquestionable age of the earliest known ma.n.u.scripts alone suffices to prove this.
The philologist gives his testimony, too. A medieval scholar could never have manufactured Apicius, imitating his strikingly original terminology. "Faking" a technical treatise requires an intimate knowledge of technical terms and familiarity with the ramifications of an intricate trade. We recommend a comparison of Platina"s text with Apicius: the difference of ancient and medieval Latin is convincing.
Striking examples of this kind have been especially noted in our dictionary of technical terms.
LATIN SLANG
H. C. Coote, in his commentary on Apicius (cit. Apiciana) in speaking of pan gravy, remarks:
"Apicius calls this by the singular phrase of _jus de suo sibi_! and sometimes though far less frequently, _succus suus_. This phrase is curious enough in itself to deserve ill.u.s.tration. It is true old fashioned Plautian Latinity, and if other proof were wanting would of itself demonstrate the genuineness of the Apician text."
This scholar goes on quoting from Plautus, _Captivi_, Act I, sc. 2, vv. 12, 13; _Amphitruo_, Act I, sc. q.v. 116 and _ibid._ v. 174; and from _Asinaria_, Act IV, sc. 2, vv. 16 and 17 to prove this, and he further says:
"The phrase is a rare remnant of the old familiar language of Rome, such as slaves talked so long, that their masters ultimately adopted it--a language of which Plautus gives us glimpses and which the _graffiti_ may perhaps help to restore. 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. He has translated in the article quoted a number of Apician formulae; and betrays an unusual culinary knowledge.
MODERN RESEARCH
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 ma.n.u.scripts and the codex Salmasia.n.u.s in Paris.
Friedrich Vollmer, of Munich, in his _Studien_ (cit. Apiciana) has treated the ma.n.u.scripts 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 ma.n.u.script 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 ma.n.u.scripts has been established by Traube. There is another testimony pointing to Fulda as the oldest known source. Pope Nicholas V commissioned Enoche of Ascoli to acquire old ma.n.u.scripts in Germany. Enoche used as a guide a list of works based upon observations by Poggio in Germany in 1417, listing the Apicius of Fulda. Enoche acquired the Fulda Apicius. He died in October or November, 1457. On December 10th of that year, so we know, Giovanni de"Medici requested Stefano de"Nardini, Governor of Ancona, to procure for him from Enoche"s estate either in copy or in the original the book, ent.i.tled, _Appicius de re quoquinaria_ (cf. No. 3, Apiciana). It is interesting to note that one of the Milanese editions of 1498 bears a t.i.tle in this particular spelling. Enoche during his life time had lent the book to Giovanni Aurispa.
It stands to reason that Poggio, in 1417, viewed at Fulda the _Archetypus_ of our Apicius, father of the Vatican and the New York ma.n.u.scripts, 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 t.i.tle page had been damaged which is proven by the t.i.tle page of the Vatican copy which reads:
___ INCP API Cae
That"s all! The New York copy, it has been noted, has no t.i.tle page.
This book commences in the middle of the list of chapters; the first part of them and the t.i.tle page are gone. We recall that the New York ma.n.u.script was originally bound up with another ma.n.u.script, also in the Phillipps library at Cheltenham. The missing page or pages were probably lost in separating the two ma.n.u.scripts. 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 t.i.tle. 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. became the _vulgata_--the progenitor of this series of medieval copies. One must bear in mind how a.s.siduously 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 ma.n.u.scripts that the original text may be rehabilitated.
This, to a large extent, Vollmer and Giarratano have accomplished.
Vollmer, too, rejects the idea invented by the humanists, that Apicius had a collaborator, editor or commentator in the person of Clius or Caelius. 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 t.i.tle: Api... Cae...; Vollmer reconstructs this t.i.tle as follows:
API[cii artis magiri- (or) opsartyti-]
Cae[libri X]
Remember, it is the t.i.tle page only that is thus mutilated. The ten books or chapters bear the full name of Apicius, never at any time does the name of Clius appear in the text, or at the head of the chapters.
The _Archetypus_, with the book and the chapters carefully indexed and numbered as they were, with each article neatly t.i.tled, the captions and capital letters rubricated--heightened by red color, and with its proper s.p.a.cing 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.