Cookery and Dining in Imperial Rome

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. C{OE}LIUS-CÆLIUS The name of another personality is introduced in connection with the book, namely that of C{oe}lius or Cælius. This name is mentioned in the title of the first undated edition (ca. 1483-6) as Celius. Torinus, 1541, places "Cælius" before "Apicius"; Humelbergius, 1542, places "C{oe}lius" after A. Lister approves of this, berating Torinus for his willful methods of editing the book: "_En hominem in conjecturis sane audacissimus!_" If any of them were correct about "C{oe}lius," Torinus would be the man. (Cf. Schanz, Röm. Lit. Gesch., Müller's Handbuch d. klass. Altertums-Wissenschaft, V III, 112, p. 506.) However, there is no _raison d'être_ for C{oe}lius. 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. Medieval savants have made plenty of Roman "fakes," for sundry reasons. A most ingenious hoax was the "completion" of the Petronius fragment by a scholar able to hoodwink his learned contemporaries by an exhibition of Petronian literary style and a fertile imagination. Ever so many other "fakers" were shown up in due time. When this version of Petronius was pronounced genuine by the scientific world, the perpetrator of the "joke" confessed, enjoying a good laugh at the expense of his colleagues. But we shall presently understand how such a "joke" with Apicius would be impossible. Meanwhile, we crave the indulgence of the modern reader with our mention of C{oe}lius. We desire to do full