Changes

The book in question, first published in 1682, was written by Stanisław Czerniecki (pronounced ''stah-{{small|NEE}}-swahf churn-{{small|YET}}-skee''), a steward and chef at the court of the Princes Lubomirski. He gave it a bilingual, (Latin-Polish, ) title, ''Compendium ferculorum, albo Zebranie potraw'' (''A Collection of Dishes''), but the contents were entirely in Polish (contrary to what Ms. Mary Ellen Snodgrass suggested in her ''Encyclopedia of Kitchen History'', where she described ''Compendium ferculorum'' as Poland's "Latin standard"<ref>{{Cyt

}}</ref>) . Czerniecki was well aware that his was the first cookbook ever published in his native tongue. "As no one before me has yet wished to present to the world such useful knowledge in our Polish language," he wrote in his opening line, "I have dared, {{...}} despite my ineptitude, to offer my {{...}} collection of dishes to the Polish world."<ref>{{Cyt

The recipes, though, are not easy to read or follow. First, they're in Polish, which may be an inconvenience, if you don't speak the language. But even you did speak Polish, you'd still have to wade through 17th-century Polish spelling, interpunction and typeface. Let's tak take the example below. You can could probably make out the name of the dish, printed in roman type, but what about the actual recipe, written in blackletter?

Take a hazel grouse or a partridge, small birds or pigeons, a capon or veal, or whatever [kind of meat] you want; soak in water, put in a pot, salt, bring to boil, debone, cover again with the stock, add parsley; and when boiling, add coulis [thick vegetable sauce], vinegar, sugar, saffron, pepper, cinnamon, both kinds of raisins, and limes; bring to boil and serve in a bowl.

That 's better, isn't it? But I bet you'd still have a hard time actually cooking from this recipe. Where's the list of ingredients? Where are the quantities and proportions? What about caloric contents? Cooking time and temperatures? How many people does it serve? We've got used to taking certain elements of a cooking recipe for granted, but it turns out they just hadn't been invented yet in the 17th century.

<!----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Co więcejAnother thing we take for granted is that it's usually the same person who buys a cookbook, przyzwyczailiśmy się też do tegoreads it and cooks according to its recipes. In the 17th century, że na ogół ta sama osoba kupuje książkę kucharskąthough, czyta ją i&nbsp;gotuje potrawy według jej przepisówit was quite normal for these three roles to be separated. W&nbsp;XVII&nbsp;w. natomiast te trzy role często bywały rozdzieloneThe book would have been purchased by someone who could afford it, that is, a rich nobleman or a magnate (the Polish equivalent of an aristocrat). Książkę kupował ktośOr, kogo było na nią staćrather, czyli magnat lub zamożny szlachcic, a&nbsp;raczej jego żonait would have been his wife, czyli pani jego domuthe lady of the house. Z&nbsp;tym że kupowała ją nie tyle dla siebieShe wouldn't have bought the book for herself, ile dla zatrudnionego przez nią kuchmistrzahowever, który zarządzał całym personelem kuchennym, zamawiał potrzebne składniki u&nbsp;zewnętrznych dostawców i&nbsp;odpowiadał za but for the head chef (or "master cook") she'd had employed. It was the head chef's job tomanage the entire kitchen staff, co znajdzie się na pańskim stole – uzgadniając jadłospis i&nbsp;poziom wydatków z&nbsp;panią domuorder the necessary ingredients from external suppliers and make decisions about what would be served on the lord's table (having agreed the menu and the costs with the lady). Przepisy czytał więc kuchmistrz So the recipes in the cookbook would have been read by the head chef – doświadczony profesjonalistaan experienced professional who didn't need all the proportions, który nie potrzebował proporcjitemperatures and cooking times, czasów i&nbsp;temperaturbecause he already kept this knowledge in his head. But here comes another twist: he would have read the recipes aloud – not to himself, bo but to wszystko miał w&nbsp;głowiethe kitchen staff, who would actually carry the instructions out. I&nbspWe can tell this by the grammatical forms used in the book;czytał zapewne na głos – nie sobieit's always the singular second-person imperative, ale kuchcikomindicating a direct order that you could issue to your subordinate, którzy zawarte w&nbsp;przepisach polecenia faktycznie wykonywali. Skąd but never to wiemy? Chociażby z&nbsp;użytych w&nbsp;książce form gramatycznych a magnate's wife („weźmij”, „daj”, „odwarz”the owner of the book). Czerniecki, „nacedź”)for example, których Czerniecki z&nbsp;pewnością nie użyłby w&nbsp;stosunku do choćby swojej własnej pracodawczyniwould have never addressed his own employer, księżnej Heleny Tekli LubomirskiejPrincess Helena Tekla Lubomirska, do której w&nbsp;dedykacji konsekwentnie zwraca się by the familiar "''perty'' „Wasza Książęca Mość" ("thou"), Pani moja i&nbsp;Dobrodziejka Wielce Miłościwa”but consistently called her "Your Princely Grace, my Most Charitable Lady and Benefactress".

Wróćmy Let's go back to the recipe. What do przepisu. Co my tu właściwie mamywe have here? Mięso zaprawione na kwaśnoStewed meat with sweet, słodko i&nbspsour and spicy seasoning;ostrotaste combinations that most Poles today would consider typical for Indian or Thai cuisines, but never for Old Polish cookery. Większość Polaków zapewne tak wyobraża sobie może kuchnię indyjską czy tajskąAnd yet, ale nie staropolskąthis is exactly the kind of cooking that the Polish lords of yore would have priced the most and this is what we will find throughout Czerniecki's cookbook. A&nbsp;jednakSo does it even make sense to recreate these old recipes, ci Staropolacy, których było na if the final effect may well turn out inedible to stać, takie właśnie połączenia smakowe cenili najwyżej i&nbsp;takich w&nbsp;książce Czernieckiego znajdziemy najwięcej. Czy warto więc męczyć się w&nbsp;odtwarzanie tych przepisów, jeśli efekt może okazać się dla nas zupełnie niejadalnyour modern palates?