engleski

Two South-East European Manuscript Recipe Collections in their 17th-century Historical Context

The two 17th-century recipe collections under scrutiny here do not belong within the usual category of domestic management texts produced by amateurs in a period of increasing literacy in Europe. Moreover, rather than being circulated or printed for a wider audience, the two manuscripts were aristocratic property, destined for the use of narrow circles of the elites. Nikola VII Zrinski’s manuscript was written by a professional cook. The Romanian collection, whose original most probably belonged to Constantin Cantacuzino Stolnicul, may have been written by himself, although that cannot be proved. They are typical for the period not only in form, but also because the food-related material, which makes the bulk of both, is accompanied by other types of household instructions connected to food: pertaining to pomiculture (in the Croatian- Hungarian collection) or for producing household cleaning chemicals and gunpowder (in the Romanian text). Their cookery sections proper do not differ much (although I could not find identical recipes), and both reflect, at least partly, the practices of the Italian cuisine of the Baroque period, with its colourful and well-seasoned dishes. In addition, they mainly draw on major and widely- circulated Italian sources or translated into Italian, the cookery book of Bartolomeo Scappi being used in both cases. In Zrinski’s manuscript, Columella, the Roman writer on agriculture, was used from an Italian edition, as well as Charles Estienne, who established himself in the same domain. In the case of the Romanian text, recipes were inspired by Bartolomeo Stefani's coobook and the very popular “book of secrets” by Leonardo Fioravanti. The wine supplement of the Croatian-Hungarian manuscript also partly draws on Johannes Coler's popular Oeconomia. However, best-selling contemporary books in French seem to be a source of inspiration, too: L’Escole des officiers de Bouche in the Romanian case and perhaps La Varenne’s cookbook in the Croatian-Hungarian case. The recipes were borrowed without acknowledgement, except one source (in one entrance) each manuscript: Columella in the section on pomiculture of Zrinski’s manuscript, and Fioravanti in the chemicals’ section in Cantacuzino’s Romanian compilation. Whereas we know that Zrinski’s well-preserved library (the Zriniana) included all the best-selling volumes which served as sources for the recipe collection, we know much less about Cantacuzino’s dismembered library. However, two of Fioravanti’s books on surgery are listed in a catalogue of the library compiled later. Nevertheless, further research is needed on the sources and origins of many still unidentified recipes in both manuscripts. It is perhaps surprising that in the Romanian collection the Italian influence was much stronger than the impact of cuisines from areas in Greece and the Ottoman world, which were geographically closer. This is perhaps due to the fact that the compilation was produced in the Italianate ethos of Cantacuzino’s environment in the Brâncoveanu era. The Croatian-Hungarian collection also bears the imprint of Austrian- German (and, more generally, Central-European) culinary models, as suggested by a number of recipes identified as “German” and by a number of German terms for ingredients. In contrast, the role of Turkish and Greek culinary terms in the Romanian text appears to be purely lexical, because they cover (as much as we could detect) ingredients and dishes taken from Italian cookbooks. A few ingredient terms of Slavic origin were discovered in both manuscripts. Although it is well-known that plagiarism was not unusual in times when there was no copyright, most probably the two compilers- translators had no intention of publishing their texts. In addition, they also mention in the food sections that they took inspiration from other – unnamed --cooks or cookbook authors, writing down the best recipes after trying them themselves. The two manuscripts -- the earliest known Croatian and Romanian recipe collections and, more generally, South-East European -- should be valued as more than mere derivative works. They are important because they document the existence of a Croatian and a Romanian aristocracy which showed an interest in new, foreign, luxury foodstuffs, in fashionable dishes and alcoholic drinks, as well as in growing their own ingredients and preparing food according to costly Western books. It may well be that Zrinski and Cantacuzino were motivated in their gastronomic pursuits by their personal tastes as affluent, well- educated gourmets. But it is quite possible, too, that both, as promoters of anti- Ottoman policies in the region, understood the culinary art as a vehicle of culture, prestige and even of a “national” and religious identity. It is also important to place the two recipe collections on the culinary map of early modern Europe, although in the 16th-17th centuries the first printed cookery books were published in the central part of the continent: in Czech in 1535, in Polish in 1682, and in Hungarian (in Transylvania) in 1695. The two manuscripts are also valuable as sources for an understanding of the long-term impact of the Italian and Austrian/German cuisines – including their culinary vocabulary – on the food cultures of Eastern Europe in general, and of the Ottoman Turkish and Greek ones in South-East Europe. They are also perhaps the first proofs of French culinary influence in the latter region. Finally, if considered in an even broader context, both could provide insights into the circulation of books and of scientific ideas in a rapidly changing 17th-century Europe.

recipe collections, gastronomy, 17th century, Croatian history, Romanian history, Nikola Zrinski, Constantin Cantacuzino Stolnicul

nije evidentirano