Assessing Palaeographic Evidence for Discourse Structuring in Middle English Recipes

              Bo/e/ín Millares Cario
2005-2006, 24-25: 305-325
ISSN: 0211-2140
Assessing Palaeographic Evidencelor Discourse
Structuring in Middle English Recipes
Ruth CARRüLL I
SUMMARY
Previous discoursc-analytical and textual studics orthc structure 01' Middlc English rccipes have
not madc sullícient rclerence to the manuscript evidence (01' lack thereof) 101' textual structuring,
This article demonstrates that the palaeographic evidence shows a contemporary (mcdieval)
perception 01' the Middle English recipe as having only a two-part structure. The article goes on
to reiterate the suitability 01' \loey's concept 01' the 'discourse colony' 1'01' characterising medie­val
recipes, and to propose an additional criterion 01' palaeography/layout to augment Hoey's
apparatus 101' characterising colony texts, The palaeographic evidence is shown to support this
characterisation: the nature of recipe compilations as diseourse colonies explains their palaeo­graphic
fcatures.
Key words: discourse analysis, discourse colony, historical pragmatics, manuscripts: palaeo­graphy,
Middlc English, rccipcs
RESUMEN
Los estudios previos de análisis del discurso y critica textual de la receta inglesa medieval no
tiencn en euenta la evidcncia paleográfica (o la ausencia de ésta) en la cstructuración de 1texto.
Este articulo dcmucstra que cxistia una idea medieval de la estructura de la reccta en dos par­tcs,
si considcramos los clementos paleográficos cmpleados. Sc incide, además, en lo apropia­do
de aplicar la noción dc colonia discursiva' dc Hocy para caracterizar las rccctas medicvalcs,
Estc articulo proponc aumcntar los criterios que evalúan las colonias con la adición de uno
nuevo denominado paleografía/disposición del texto. Este nuevo criterio apoya esta caracteri­¡
ación bimembre dc la reccta: la naturaleza de las compilaciones dc rccctas como colonias dis­cursivas
explica sus caractcristicas paleográficas,
Palabras clave: análisis del discurso, colonia discursiva, pragmática histórica, manuscritos,
paleografia, inglés medio, rccetas.
1 Earlicr vcrsions 01' portions of this papel' wcre prcscntcd al the following eonfcrcnecs: ICE! IL 12
(G!asgow, 2(02), Finsse2 (Tampcrc, 2003), Reeipcs in Early Modern Europe (Oxford, 2(04), ESS!'-7
(Zaragoza, 20(4), and ICEIIL 13 (Vienna, 2(04). 1 am grateflll to all who have eommented on this work,
and also to my universily department and to Turlln Yliopistosüütiü, the University ofTurkll FOllndation, 1'01'
fllnding toward trave! expenses.
305
Rllth Carro// Assessing Pa/aeographic Evidencet"r Discollrse Stmctllring in Midd/e Eng/ish Recipes
l.lNTRODUCTrON
As the field ofhistorical discourse linguistics has emerged and developed, a
number of researchers have written about medieval recipes as a text-type. Of
particular interest for the purposes ofthe present study are those analyses which
make reference to the structuring of infonnation within the recipe text-type
(Stannard 1982, Hunt 1990, G6rIach 1992 and 2004, Taavitsainen 200 1, Alonso
Almeida 2002, Grund 2003, Miikinen 2004), and the assumptions or conclusions
which have been drawn about subsections in the structure of the text-type. This
study shows that although such analyses may be analytically useful, they are
anachronistic, not reflecting contemporary medieval perceptions of the structure
of recipes. As will be shown, the palaeographic evidence does not support pos­tulating
more than two subsections in the medieval English recipe.
This paper is based on my own consultation of cightcen manuscripts and
four complete facsimiles2, as well as reference to pictures, photocopies and
digital images of other manuscripts, and scholarIy commentary and cata­logues.
The paper begins with a presentation of present-day analyses of the
internal structure of the medieval recipc. We then turn to the very different
way in which medieval recipes are presentcd on the manuscript page. A
many-to-one rclationship between form and function is seen in the pragmat­ic
interpretation ofthe palaeographic evidence. Next, the concept ofthe 'dis­course
colony' is introduced, and illustrated by means of a bricf case study
of the medieval culinary collcction Diuersa Servicia. It is dcmonstrated that
the manuscript evidence supports the analysis of medieval recipe collections
as discourse colonies. The paper concludes with calls for a re-evaluation of
sorne of the prototypical characteristics of the discourse colony, the propos­al
of an additional criterion of palaeography/layout to augment Hoey's appa­ratus
for characterising colony texts, and a pica for greater attention to man­uscript
description by scholarly editors of medieval texts.
2. INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE RECIPE
2.1. PRESENT-DAY SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS
In much rccent scholarIy analysis, the internal structure of the recipe is
dividcd into betwecn four and six parts, not all of which are necessarily present
2 The manuseripts l have eonsulted in the eourse ofthis study are: British Library manuseripts IIarley
279. Harley 1605/3. Ilarley 2320. IIarley 540 l. Additional 320K5. Add 33996. Add 46919. Royal K B iv.
Royal 12 C xii. Julius D viii. Sloanc 7. Sloanc 25K4; 130dleian Library manuscripts Douce 257. Rawlinson
D 1222. and Ashmole 1444; and Trinity College. Cambridge. manllscripts 0.2.16.0.7.20. and 0.7.23. The
faesimiles are the Tollemaehe 1300k o/Secret.l. Sloane 25K4. Hm'ley 2253. and Pepys ¡047.
Boletín Millares Cario
2005-2006. 24-25: 305-325
306
Rlllh ('armll Assessin,g Palo('()graphic El'idcncejiJr DisCIJlIlCl'c Slmclllring in Middl!! English Rccip!!,\'
in every recipe, Table 1 is a summary of different researchers' analyses and ter­minology,
Stannard (1982) laid the groundwork for such consideration, although
his study was not primarily about text-structuring, but rather about identifYing
and categorising the sorts of technical or specialist information which can be
found in recipes, He did however identify four clear components of the recipe,
which can serve as a framework of comparison for all subsequent analyses, and
as will be seen, none of them in fact depart radically fram this framework.
*insert table 1 near here*
It was Hunt (1990) who tumed attention to the consistency of form found
in the recipe (in his case, medical recipes),3 He also noted that at least for
Latin recipes or those from a more leamed tradition, the name of the remedy
was distinguished fram the indication, the name being given as a rubric, and
the indication exhibiting variation in placement within the text Gorlach's tre­atment
of what he terms the "standardization of arrangement [of] subsections"
of thc rccipe (1992: 746; 2004: 125) is more cursory, but can be seen to sup­port
Stannard's analysis of the essential components, listing '''title', 'ingre­dients',
'praccdurc', 'how to serve up"',
Taavitsainen does not purport to actually chart the structure of the recipe,
but does make the interesting observation that recipes found in surgical tracts
are lcss standardised in form than those found in remedybooks, For example,
shc finds widc variation in the recipe title, both in its form and placement The
most consistcnt feature shc identifies is the statement of efficacy, which
although an optional component, and onc varying widely in form, is "placed
last in thc ovcrall structure of recipes" (2001: 104). The rcsearch upon which
the present paper is based has been largely restricted to those recipes found in
collcctions or remedybooks, and does not include thosc found in more leamed
tracts, 1t is to be hoped that futurc research will fill examine the extent to
which the conclusions of the prcsent paper also hold for recipes found within
surgical tracts and leamed treatises,
Alonso Almeida (2002) is the only scholar to suggest storage instructions
as a further subsection of the recipe, although he does not list it in his final
summary, and so 1 have marked it as optional. He gives onc example, from an
edition of the medieval Spanish MS Parmense 834: guardarlo en un bote de
vidrio "kecp it in a glass container" (2002: 670-671). He also notes that culi­nary
recipcs may include other components, such as the number of servings
(2002: 655), although this is mentioned only in passing, and is never drawn
into thc tables which diagram his analysis.
1 Atler commenting on lhe "thorough-going multilingualism" of reeipe eolleetions, he goes on lo
poinl out (hat "[s lome eonsislency is achicved, howevcr. in IheJimn of (he medical receipf' (cmphasis in
(he original) (Hun( 1990: 17),
307 Boletín Mil/ares CarIo
2005-2006.24-25: 305-325
ST.'WNARD 1982 HUNT1990 GóRlACH 1992 TAAVlTSAlNEN 2001 AlONSO 2002 GRUND 2003 MAJaNEN 2004
(n~dieval :[.;ci~ s.. c:t:os'i­~
n.:;t:lc :¡U[':.~y)
(A.rtgj,o- Nomun ,.,,, dio 11
t€'c:Íf€ s)
(E"¡;:l,,h cu!í.tUty
.eel?, S, o:.cru:oníc
5lA:\~Y)
(Mid~ ≶li,h "",dioi,."l
t:eeípes, in Sutgt' al tt:acb)
IM"'!'...t..,. ,u>ciy
n"dieviLl :md
Ets,¡;:lúh ..cipe,)
(11th.= Ll ..tip" in
ce C, OxfOtd,
MS 226)
(téO ,,8< téc¡pe
paupru:..el found in
hubd,)
purpose
mtended
nibn"(
¡Ji 'CJf\( dY";\fflt)
~~~2iaril)'lm~~)\tix
v-crJl.lt'lll:u I p"'p,...l:u tf,z.l!j,p'b
mdication
(<- ¡J~titht x tM n J'l\t: ay i:l fllt)
~"'me-ti.m;oJ&1a,",ea M t"hd
ntl"
tltle
(or operunglines)
(x l) 'H:Uul...,. din d ü rm)
ma:,' hl: pu~~~ da)' u:plaJtati.",~
,11 .eifi>:'.1-tjl ... Ji1ppli~ll.ll",i1.
título
~tlb~ tAt: tk.en¡lh:U,tl..: ~(ld
I p\UP"H)
(dt1iil'itd. :tr\t;;'t\u'dy -1.)I¡j'
mlluna1Frl:..:-t"~ T<1;'~
purpose
(W.!\.lAly fl'Wltll.1t"~di tJi
1ltálC,¡ b.e{vu lA"
~p ¡tU m,fxt3,J'j' ':' "":tt~hldi~
W",trt.:ifhlR)
in gre die11l s &
equipment
rules of pro<cedure
(~~ud:i.c:x'b) -"t:itt :E:"ti1'tn
pari .;Ji t>.t: med.kal tacipt"
('lCOu.illy b.fl.UlJ\.il!i tk~
(Wl~M'il1 itVy'1!Jolt')
m&hl.lctiona! p.ut
(110\." lo mak. ti"
'''''''''';1'1.)
(ah: ~. !;;ub mtuttMt
Utglitd.:i.t I'lu",ay \ir
Jme'x'lillx<d ~t e'Jl,;4 .,f 7J:.;ipt:)
ptep aJ:actón
(li.Li Il.t!'. ti\at tku: :í:t d~ .... n :m.ay
Ot {.~1fl,lWt(4 '.Il.&O!
;;'"'''"udiext~ ~t.;tI...,1\
$UbsrmUilS
(& .quiprnw~
N~tXt<Jt~&ri1\,d
i);1;r,,4~{cd4.t~c~:l\.';
procedure
ttlajq.j P:U1: ,,¡ ftl $$t:rt':cipt~
(May ~ '" J'lUi 1'\ n'b '1t op u
6i'ixUl'd,lu,;Lled. Je:lt.Wt"
ingrediems
prore dure
appUcation &
adnti.nistration
explanations O f
"h'Hi! to "etve llP" applicati011
l'I'u.... !lt t".'Uhd ai uciut ~tl,t~~
aplicaCIOll
dMIS, US0, dUt3Clón
m01.Yüt.cl'Ud.e pllzi'blll:
-1pp.h"ltl~l'l!S,; .a1.!S .... ha~
"'rg~!1\il:it''''1J f'1.l.xd~)\
admiJústratíon
al/Jr{1c,,"f)4prif!!JtJ)
(;oto' n"t~ üV:tn.to]'Í1';tt:í)
efi caCla
lefe.rences to S01..l!Ce
~i:lÍ.:p\ m~lt. ,\U.s.1i"JIl fOlUl.d)
! ~~~2::~..:'~,.::rill~~rtr~"'::-.::-:'.~"':..-l---------J VA.riLtlit\ {(I1"i iU'td ~""nkJtt t- (x 1'1 fnM''J.1.:).}~ p)ua::;t)
Aho fUJ{,>cti<ll'CO
"~axl!i\1tl(\ll~)1
::;r,".TEMEN; 01"
mCldcntal data EFf1Cí<.C y
N,f~JI\. a:Lw o'~rl!d byH01.d..ixg
b-ttl1lt:t l1. tlte hnt:r' (pt,t)
~ átd'l"iíD. (¡'j] :atlilit..(t:tu.l
l,jo¡J'~ll1"!\¡j,~i1X~ Z)'}H')i)'m:l¡ JoiMt\(,;
.Ti 01.l.i.1k"1Ii~,, Fl"'Z}t$~ti'" llti".r<t.;
fl'1mlUl1i..: plvct; tÚ
may qe.;wix il.é'il~ tx. t.íiW.w:}\
o, b.. tlt.
# de ,cmer.saJes
(:ttv..rnb.er~~nll: 4)
lable 1 KEI': bold: explicitly s aid to be obli¡; ato ry ot e;;;entia!; CAPo sald to be frequellt; !tidtc e:-:plintly sald to be optional, or lacklt1¡;'; in mm,; lecipes
Ruth Carro!! Assessing Pa!aeographic Evidencejór Discourse c'itn¡cturing in Midd!e English Recipes
Gnmd (2003) gives a detailed explanation ofthe extent to which medieval
English alchemical recipes mirror the structure of other medieval recipes. He
found the procedure to be a larger and more important part of the recipe than
the ingredients, in contrast to Hunt's findings for Anglo-Nonnan medicinal
recipes4. His analysis is perhaps more structurally oriented than those of his
predecessors - he defines the heading as those words preceding the first in­struction
(2003: 459n8), as well as explicitly noting that both the statement of
result and the closing formula carry a linguistic-organisational load, signalling
the end of a section of the recipe or of the text as a whole.
Makinen (2004) returns to Stannard's model in order to point out the clear
difference between recipes in herbals and those found in other medical writing,
i.e. that herbals begin with ingredients, and state the purpose ofthe reeipe only
at the end ofthe text5. The herbal recipes are thus perhaps the most structurally
distinct, with recipes embedded within surgical tracts being so varied that
some easily fit this general pattem and others much less so.
This is the structure present-day seholars have found in the medieval reei­pe.
It is an informational strueturing, but thcre is a strong inclination amongst
seholars to consider these informational categories also as textual units within
the recipe (Hunt eaJIs thcm "eomponents" (1990: 17); Gorlach "subsections"
(1992: 746; 2004: 125». This is justified to a certain extent; it enables detai­led
study of sueh sections (for example, Jones 1998), permits eomparison bet­ween
the ordering of information (as done in Makinen 2004), and allows
observations sueh as the faet that efficacy statements, as well as titles, are more
likely than other sections to be points of code-switching (see, among others,
Pahta 2004: 90-93).
However, there is sorne danger of imposing our present-day expeetations
on the mcdicval tcxt, for exampJe with rcspeet to a distinction betwcen ingre­dients
and procedure. Of course today recipe uscrs expect to find the necessary
ingredients listed separatcly before the actual instructions begin. Such sepa­rate
listing of ingredients can be found as early as the mid-sixteenth century
(in some Gennan rccipes) ~- but to date the present researcher has never seen
such a division in medieval manuscripts. In fact, it is not standard in English,
even in printcd recipcs, even through the mid-cightecnth century6. Both
4 Carroll (2004) shows this contrast lO be valid for culinary rccipcs as wcll.l\nglo~Norman language
recipes require a listing 01' ingredienls. bul not ncccssarily a procedlll"e section. but it is the rcvcrse for
English~language recipes.
5 Both Makincn and Grund also make rcference lo sub-sequences. In Grund's case these are slages
within a long and complieatcd rceipc; in Miikincn's case these are reeipes for the same purposc. and ealling
¡(.l!" lhc same ingredients but t(,llowing ditfcrent proccdures. which are presented as one rccipc, without "an
inlcrrupling 'for the same' or 'anothcr'" (2004: 160).
(> /{ankin's 2004 prcscntation incJuded an illustration 01' a recipc with a scparatc ingrcdicnts section.
dated betwccn 1540 and 1560. 1I0wevcr, lIannah Glassc's Ar¡ o{Coo!ca\' Macle P!ail1 & Eas\' (1747) still
intersperscs ingredicnts listings with preparation. . .
309 Bo/etín Millares Cario
2005-2006,24-25: 305-325
RlIth Carroff Assessing Pafaeographic EvidencefiJr Discollrse Structllring in Middfe Engfish Recipes
Alonso Almeida 2002 and Grund 2003 do make explicit that the ingredients
need not all be listed before the procedure begins; Miikinen 2004 gives
an example of a ShOli medicinal recipe with the structure INGREDIENTS ­PROCEDURE
- INGREDIENTS - PURPOSE (2004: 147). However, it wou1d be more
accurate, according to the palaeographic evidence, to say that for medieval
recipes the ingredients do not constitute a distinct section at alFo
The textual distinction of ingredients from procedure within the medieval
recipe (although it would seem to be supported by many researchers, to a great­er
or lesser extent) is in fact anachronistic. Even more broadly, there is only one
proposed recipe section from table 1 that is a visually distinct entity on thc
manuscript page. There is no palaeographic evidence for the structures of Table
1 having been recognised by either the medieval scribe or thc medieval reader.
2.2. PALAEOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FOR INTERNAL STRUCTURE
Visually, medieval recipes have quite a ditTerent structure from the ones
diagrammed in Table l. Several pages of the fifteenth-century Wagstaff
Miscellany (Yale University Beinecke Library MS 163) can be viewed on-line
at the Yale University Library site, incIuding the opening of a small collection
ofwine recipes (ff. 122v - 123r)8. What is immediately clear from this image
is that the recipc title is a palaeographic reality. lo Hieatt's 1988 editioo of thc
culinary recipes fram this manuscript (ff. 57r - 76v), a facsimile page shows
the titles to be rubricated, under\ined in red. What also becomes clear, how­ever,
is that there is no other apparent hierarchy within the text. The body of
the recipe is presented and perceived holistically.
This is the usual appearance of medieval English recipes in manuscript
fonn. Culinary recipes, medicinal, lace-making, dying recipes: none show
palaeographic evidence for a four-, five-, or six-part structure. At most, and
usually, there is a cIear division into two parts - title and body9. Occasionally,
a third element may be found, in addition to the body and title: a recipe num­ber.
New York Pierpont Morgan Library MS Bühler 36, a manuscript con-
7 One manuscript which provides possible counterevidence against this view is Glasgow MS lIunter
185, in whieh Alonso Almeida has found the punetus serving to separate an ingredients seetion from a prepa­ration
section (2001: 217). However, his analysis is explieitly based on Gorlaeh's 1992 model of recipe
strueture, "[which] may well help us to identify, and predict, particular uses of punctuation marks" (2001:
212). Without the int1uence of Gorlaeh's modeL a different interpretation of this punctus could likely be
found.
x http://highway55.library.yale.eduIPIIOTONEGIMGlscreenIS3271s327630 l.jpg
9 Of course I am not the tirst to draw attention to the highlighting oftitles on the page. For example,
Hargreaves notes, "in most collections there is elear indication, by titles, rubrication, underlining, para­graphing
or marginalmark, that a new reeipe is beginning" (1981: 96). However, his emphasis is rather dif­ferent
from mine here.
Boletín Millares CarIo
2005-2006, 24-25: 305-325
310
RIIIf¡ Carmll /fssessing !Ja!u(!()gruphic 1:~\'id(!J1c(!.t<)r niscoursc Strueturing in lvliddle t.'l1glish Recipes
taining the culinary recipe collection, Forme oj'ClIry, is an example. In addi­tion
to having an extremely cIear division between title and body of recipes
(with a full line skipped both before and aner titles, bodies usually beginning
with a blue initial, and with the titles centred on the page and in a much larger
script than the bodies), Bühler 36 also incIudes marginal numbers to the right
of the recipe titles 1o. Such numbering systems will not be discussed here, but
will be referred to again in section 3.3.
A brieflook at three other images will give an indication of the wide range
of variation found even within this simple textual structure of title and body.
California Huntington Library MS 1336 can be described verbally in terms
very similar to those used for Beinecke 163: thc use of red ink with titles, and
bodies presented holistically; but it appcars significantly different when ex­amined
visually (an image of ff. 12v- 13r is available at the Digital
Scriptorium, on-line) 11. In the collection of medical (and some non-medica!)
recipes found on ff. 2v- 18v and 19r - 34v, titles are rubrics, written in red
ink, not underlined. The titles are not indented or centred, but begin at the len
margino The body 01' the recipe begins immediately following the title, not on
a separate line. In addition to the red ink 01' the recipe title, each new recipc is
signalled by a marginal paraph l2 . The red flourishes filling the ends of lines
after the close of recipe bodies further visually reinforce this scribe's conven­tion
ofbeginning each new recipe (title, followed by body) on a new line.
AIso bound into this manuscript, indeed inserted into this collection, is
another quire containing medical and some non-medical recipes, one page 01'
which (fI9r) is available as an image on-line 13 . This scribe has also made a
clear distinction betwecn titles and bodies ofrccipes, but only by leaving space
for rubricatcd titlcs. Othcrwisc, the use of thc manuscript page is economical:
no blank space is len within thc writing space. Thc title of one recipe begins
wherever thc body 01' the previous recipe ended, and thc body of a recipe
follows immcdiatcly on from its title. However, the effect of the use 01' red ink
for titles clearly distinguishes them from the bodies ofthe recipcs, and makcs
it cntircly cIear whcrc one recipe begins and anothcr ends.
The imagc of Huntington Library MS 58, ff. 4 Iv - 42r (on-line at the
Digital Scriptorium)14 is markedly different from the two collections seen in
111 Thc lJll-lillC calallJgllc rcads "Il11lller'ltiull ill red". but 1have been llnabk tu veril); this with any pub­lished
il1lages. /\ black amI while represenlaliull uf part uf une page ,,1' the l1lanllseript call he seen lJn the
endpapers 01' Sass 1976.
II http://digitalassels.lib.berkcleycdu/ds/ucb/images/heh/ IS0i()O 14SS.jpg
le The paraph sYl1lbol used herc does not resemblc any of thc sYl1lbols illustrating Parkcs's glossary
entry for I",rap/¡ ( 1992: 30 l. 30S l. but is lhe same as Ihat j()lJnd on pIUle 3ii of Parkes 1979. which hc tran­scribes
in print using the traditional paraph symbo! '1 (1979: 3 j.
11 http:! digitalassds.lib.berkeky.edu/ds/ucb/images/heh/ ISO/()O 14S9.jpg
14 hllp: digitalassets.lib.bcrkelcy.cdll!ds/ucb!illlagcs!heh!IS0/002902.jpg
311 Bo/etín J'vli//ares Cario
200S-2006. 24-2S: 30S-32S
RlIlh Carro!! Assessing Pa!aeographic EvidencejiJr Di.lüJl/¡:\'e Slruclllring in Midd!e EI/g!ish Recipes
Huntington 1336, in that it lacks any use of rubrication. However, the two-part
structure of these recipes (title and body) is still cIear: each title is given its
own line(s), on which it is centred or indented. Each title begins a new line,
and each body begins a new line. The titles are cIearIy separated, by their
indentation, and by being alone on a line or lines. The recipe body then begins
with a capital letter (not rubricated or decorated) at the left margino
Recipes often cIose with formulaic phrases such as "and serve it forth" in
the case of culinary recipes, or efficacy phrases in medicinal ones (Jones 1998,
Alonso-Almeida and Cabrera-Abreu 2002). However, such phrases are not set
apart palaeographically; they are not marked as in any way separate from the
rest of the body. Some scholars (incIuding Alonso-Almeida and Cabrera­Abreu,
2002) have interpreted these phrases as markers to signal the end of a
recipe. If so, they are textual or linguistic markers, but not visual ones.
Note also that in addition to the variatíon with regard to whether the title
is technically a rubric, there is variation in whether or not the words ofthe title
indicate purpose. Makinen (2004: 17) is one ofthe researchers who has drawn
attention to the fact that purpose need not be presented in the heading, or even
necessarily early in the recipe. Alonso Almeida (pers. com.) notes a sequence
in Glasgow MS Hunter 185 where a later reader has underlined the phrase
indicating purpose, which is found four lines after the title. Within the same
collections we have seen both titles that did express purpose and those that did
not. For example, in the catalogue transcription of Beinecke 136 we find both
Flor to make ol reede f1Yne White, a clear expression of purpose, and Fjar
Wyne tht saveryth olthe vessell as ir Were rotvn, which pragmatically implies
a remedy but does not explicitly state it.
In their very different ways, each 01' the manuscripts we have seen signals
a cIear distinction between title and body of the recipe, but presents the body
itself as a whole. This layout persists in the English recipe tradition through at
least the mid-eighteenth century. This is the pattem in almost every manuscript
consulted for this study. The division between title and body may be signalled
in a variety ofways, as will be discussed in the next section, but it is extremely
rare to come across a manuscript recipe collection which fails to make a
generally consistent visual distinction between title and body l5, and I have yet
seen no manuscript which runs recipes together so that a page ofrecipes looks
like unbroken prose 16.
15 The Anglo-Nonnan recipc collection in British Library MS Royal 12 e xii is (lile whieh does not
clearly exhibit the two-paJt strueture described here,
11> I al11 no! surprised to be told that sOl11e exist (Kari Ann Rand Schl11idt. pers, COI11.), It seel11s entire­Iy
plausible tha! an oecasional scribe working with lil11itcd space and resourccs. perhaps inexperienced in
the eonsultation of recipes (see section 3,3. bclow), would run recipes together into a visuall11ass, I would
be very surprised, however. to learn that sueh colleetions wcre at all frequent
Boletín Millares Cario
2005-2006,24-25: 305-325
312
RlIlh Car",11 /I.lse.lsing Palaeographie t\'ideneefiJr iJi,\'eolll"e SlrucllIring in Middle English Recipes
2.3 FORM AND FUNCTION
Jacobs and Jucker distinguish between those diachronic pragmatic studies
which begin with a linguistic forrn and analyse its changing functions ("dia­chronic
forrn-to- function mappings") and those which do the opposite, beginning
with a pragmatic function, and studying the different linguistic forrns that mani­fest
it over time (1995). Even synchronically, however, pragmaticians and dis­course
analysts are aware that the mappings of forrn to function and function to
forrn are more often many-to-one than one-to-one. Alonso Almeida has reiterated
this point with regard to the punctuation used in medieval English recipes (2001:
229). It can seen to be true of palaeographic forrns and functions as well.
The scribal means of distinguishing titles from bodies of recipes may
inelude rubrication (as we saw on Huntington HM 1336, f. 19r) and placement
on the page (as we saw on Huntington HM 58, f. 42r). We have also seen thc
combined usc of both rcd ink and the spatial setting apart of titles, in Beinecke
MS 163, where it could be suggested that the red underlining is redundant.
Similarly, MS Bühler 36 uses a larger script for titles, where their placement
alone would have been sufficient to mark them apali.
As more manuscripts are studied, more fonns for this function are found.
Glasgow MS Hunter 185 marks the beginning of a new recipe not with red but
with green ink l7 . The titlcs of the Anglo-Norman culinary recipes in British
Library Additional MS 32085 are given in wide margins next to the body. The
medical recipes found on 10lr- 10lv ofBritish Library Sloane MS 2584 have
their titles underlined in the same ink as the script. The scribe of Bodleian
Library MS Rawlinson D1222 not only left a blank line between titles and
bodies, but allowed largcr ascenders and descenders on thc lctters of the titles
than were used within the body of the recipe text.
Bodies can bc further distinguished from titles, for example, by the use of
initials to begin them. This is the case in Cambridge, Magdalene College MS
Pepys 1047, whose recipe bodies begin with capitals that can be up to twice
thc size of other letters, this in addition to the fact that titles are red, and cen­tred
on thc page, with blank lines before and after them. Sorne indication has
already been given of the range of other forms for thc function of distin­guishing
bodies from titles on the manuscript page - the first letter of the body
may be rubricated with a splash of red, the body may begin on its own linc, or
be markcd with a paraph or double virgule (as is the case in British Library
Additional MS 46919, for example).
17 1am grateful to Francisco Alonso Almeida for this infonnation. He notcs further that sometimes the
green marks thc title ofthe recipe. but at othcr times the title and body are not distinguished and the green
mcrcly serves to distinguish one recipe from another (a situation analogous to the colleetion mentioncd in
footnotc 15 j.
313 Boletín Millares Cario
2005-2006. 24-25: 305-325
RlIth Carmll Assesslng Palacographlc El'ldencelór IJIscollrse Structllrlng In Mlddle English Reclpes
One result of the many-to-one mapping of forms to the function of setting
apart recipe titles from the body of the recipe is that different manuseript ver­sions
of the same text may use different strategies. The Forme of Cury text in
British Library MS Harley 1605/3 has rubric titles found on the same line as the
end ofthe body ofthe preceding recipe, while the version in British Library MS
Additional 5016 also has rubric titles, but a fuIl blank line is left between the end
of the preceding recipe body and the title of the following recipe. The latter
manuscript has numbered the recipes of this collection 18; the former has not.
More problematic for the text linguist than the differing layouts ofthe collec­tions,
however, is the fact that almost no two collections contain preciscly the same
inventory of individual recipes. As will be shown in the next section, this need not
be treated as a problematic feature once it is accepted that it is in fact a proto­typical
feature of the kind of text that a recipe compilation is: a discourse colony.
3. THE LARGER DISCOURSE STRUCTURE: THE DISCOURSE
COLONY
3.1. HOEY'S CONCEPT OF THE DISCOURSE COLONY
Let us now consider the larger context in which recipes are found. It is in one
sense obvious, but in another quite remarkable, that recipe collections are unpro­totypical
as texts. One does not normally read a recipe collection from beginning
to end, as one might a saga, but rather in a hypertextual way, jumping from one
place to another in the text. Moreover, it is far more conceivable for a remedy
book than for an elegy or a sermon that readers would in fact never read the text
in its entirety, but would skip over those recipes for diseases they have never suf­fered
from, or for those dishes they do not care foro It is not inconceivable that
one given reader might only ever choose to consult a single recipe within the
entire text. Pérez Marín (2004) gives the poignant example of a late sixteenth­century
Mexican medical text where the section on venereal disease has been
read and re-read, but many other pages remain to this day uncut.
These obvious but remarkable features of texts such as recipe collections
have been described and analyzed by Hoey (1986,2001), who caIls such texts
'discourse colonies'. Further research has shown that recipes (CarroIl2003)19,
IX A smal! black and white image of one recipc from lhe manllscript can be seen at
http://www.pbm.com/-lindahllfoclFoC035small.html
19 In an article pleading for accurate manllseript descriptions it is only proper that 1 take the opportu­nity
to correet an error in my 2003 articlc. which states that an il!lIstration is fOllnd in both manllseript com­pilations
ofthe lace-making recipes. In fact. that il!lIstration is only present in the Harley manllscript. 1am
grateflll to Nocmi Speiser for noting this.
Boletín Míllares Cario
2005-2006.24-25: 305-325
314
Ru/h Car,.,,11 Assessing Palaeographic El'idence!iJr Discourse S/ruC/uring in Middle English Recipes
and even the scientific and technical books and medicval miscellanies which
may contain them (Alonso Almeida 2005, Carroll 2003), share many of thc
characteristic features of modem English discourse colonies.
Brietly, these characteristic features are as follows: (1) the order of units is
not semantically important; (2) there is a break in continuity between units; (3)
there is a framing context that enables the reader to correctly interpret the text
(in Hoey's analysis this is usually and minimally provided by a name given to
the text); (4) there is no single named author; (5) a reader may choose to read
only one unit at a time, or indeed ever; (6) a unit may be reprinted in another
work; (7) when revising or reprinting the discourse colony, sorne individual
units may be added or removed; (8) the units are in a matching relation with
each other with regard to function (and probably also demonstrate linguistic
parallelism); (9) units are often given a sequencing that is semantically arbi­trary
(such as alphabetical order), which enables ease of reference. Each of
these features is illustrated in section 3.2.
3.2. A BRIEF EXEMPLARY STUDY OF A DISCOURSE COLONY
Oxford Bodleian Library MS Douce 257 is an anonymous commonplace
book, dated to the years around 1381 20. It has been printed by Samuel Pegge,
Richard Wamer, and more recent1y for the Early English Text Society (Hieatt
and Butler 1985). Following Hieatt and Butler, the collection is usually refer­red
to by a titlc, Diuersa Servicia. adapted from its incipit (cited below). Hieatt
and Butlcr list ninety-two rccipes in it, of which over eighty are culinary
recipcs, very similar in style and function. The remainder inc1ude two
remedies for salvaging venison that is going off, one for tood that is too sa1ty,
and general serving suggestions for game birds.
This recipe collcction demonstrates eight of the nine features described by
Hoey as being characteristic of discourse colonies. In Hoey's analysis, the
most prototypical discourse colonies will have all nine characteristics (he
analyzes dictionaries as having all nine)21, hile something like a shopping list,
which he analyzes as having only 5-7 characteristics, is less prototypical as a
discourse colony. Hoey's own analysis of the modem English cookbook
showed it to be less prototypical than Diuersa Servicia, showing only six or
scven features (Hoey 2001: 88).
211 In the diseussion whieh follows 1 use lhe words collccfion. compila/ion, and colon.\' roughly inter­ehangeably,
lo mean a group ofvery shon lexls (in this case. reeipes) brought together into a larger text (in
this case. a medieval cookbook). I am not using compila/ion in the teehnical sense 01' compila/iones (see.
fór examplc. Taavitsainen 2005: 1X5).
21 \Ioey himselfuscs the word cen/ral (200): X7). not prototypical.
315 Bo/etín Mi//ares Car/o
2005-200C,. 24-25: 305-325
Rulh Carro!! Assessing Pa!aeographic EvidencefiJr Di.\'COlllCW! Slrucluring in Midd!e English Recipes
To iIlustrate the applicability of the discourse colony model to the medie­val
recipe, here is a brief summary of Hoey's nine characteristics with refer­ence
to the Diuersa Servicia collection as found in Douce 257. Ofthe ninety­two
Diuersa Servicia recipes, sixteen are also found in the recipe collection of
British Library MS Harley 5401, ff. 95 - 103r (edited by Hieatt in 1996).
However, the order in which they are presented in the two manuscripts is radi­cally
different. Table 2 shows the numbers (following Hieatt and Butler's num­bering)
of the recipes from Douce 257 that are also found in Harley 5401, and
indicates on the lower line of the table the positioning of these same recipes
within the Harley 5401 collection.
Douce 257
corresponds to
Harley 5401
18 25 34 35 40 64 65 67 73 74 76 78 82 83
81 15 16 76 18 71 67 68 72 73 14 74 75 17
Table 2
Two recipes which Douce 257 presents one after another (Sandale and
Apulmose, 34th and 35th respectively in the collection) are in Harley 5401 pre­sented
far apart from each other, with Sandale as the 16th recipe in the collec­tion
and Apulmose the 76th . The recipe for Porreyne, which in Douce 257 is
number 76, sorne fifty recipes after the recipe for Mylk rost (number 25),
actually precedes the Mylk rost recipe in Harley 5401. This illustrates Hoey's
first characteristic, in that the order of presentation of individual recipes is
relatively unimportant to the interpretation of any individual recipe. Their
semantics are unaffected by the shifts.
Such variation in order of presentation is permitted because of the second
characteristic, the break in continuity between units22 . Recipe 19, For to make
fruturs, and recipe 20, For to make charlet, are not read together as continuous
prose, but in fact have no more connections to one another than they do to other
recipes elsewhere in the collection. There does exist a broad organisational
principIe in Douce 257, that recipes for meat are to be found in the first half of
the collection, and recipes for fish in the latter half. After recipe 59 is written,
Explicit seruicium de carnibus; hic incipit seruicium de pissibus (Hieatt and
Butler 1985: 74). Nonetheless, other recipes are mixed in with these, so that
part one includes a recipe for apple fritters (19), as well as other non-meat
22 This break in continuity is also palaeographieally visible. in that a virgula suspensiva is found after
almost every recipe.
Boletín Mí/lares Cario
2005-2006,24-25: 305-325
316
Ruth Carroll Assessing Palaeographic El'idencefiJr Discourse Structuring in Middle English Recipe.\'
dishes made offigs and raisins, or hawthom flowers. Such dishes are also found
in the second half of thc coHection, where a fig dish is foHowed by a recipe for
a rice and apple dish. Still, it is true that no fish recipes are found in the first
section, and no meat recipes in the second. Similar organisational principIes can
be seen in modern discourse colonies, as analyzed by Hoey. For example,
hymnals may group aH hymns suitable for opening a service near the beginning
of the hymnal, and aH Easter hymns in another section; and telephone books
may list corporate subscribers separately fmm private householders.
Hoey's third characteristic is that of the framing context. The framing
context aids in the interpretation of the components of the colony by labe­lIing
them or delineating their validity23. For example, a reader finding a
colony labcHed as a cookbook will know to expect recipes, whereas a colony
labelled as a dictionary can be expected to contain definitions. A bus timeta­ble
is val id only for the city, routes and time period specified. We have al­ready
seen one sentence which might be described as part of the "frame" of
Diuersa Servicia: Explicit seruicium de carnibus; hic incipit seruicium de
pissihus (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 74). In fact, the text is also framed at its
beginning and conc1usion:
l. Hic incipiunt diuersa servicia tam de carnihu." quam de pissibus (Hieatt
and Butler 1985: 62)
2. Explicit de coquina que est optima medicina (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 79)
Although this characteristic is thus shown to be true of Diuersa Servicia,
the medievalist must be cautious to avoid anachronistic assumptions about the
frequency with which texts are given titles. The modern student reading
Beowulj' is oftcn surpriscd to learn that there is no evidence of this "title" for
the text being used either by the poet or the scribe. An incipit, a preface, or
indeed a tablc of contcnts (as is found in British Library MS Additiona1 5016)
does mect some of the expectations of a framing context, but each does so in
a different way.
The fourth characteristic of the modern discourse colony also betrays the
prcscnt-day assumptions behind the formulation of the discourse colony
model: the anonymity or multi-authored nature of thc prototypica1 discourse
colony. Some medieval recipe compilations and other historica1 discourse
colonies are attributed to individuals [Hieatt notes that the compilation in
23 1'he framing function may also be interpreted in another way. and that is that one expeets to tind
such small texts as rccipes. hymns or dictionary detinitions collected together into colony texts or compila­tions.
The recipes discusscd in this paper are found in colo ni es. but there also exist recipes which have been
added to Illargins, tlyleaves, or other scraps of space, not as slllall collections, but in twos or even singly
[Hargreaves refers to them as casual ",ailí' (19X 1: 94)]. The Digital Seriptorium illustrates an example,
Huntington MS IIU lOS\, f. SOv.:
http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/ds/ucb!illlages/heh/ lSO/002431.jpg
317 Boletín Millares CarIo
200S-2006. 24-2S: 30S-32S
RlIlh Carmll Assessing f'alaeographic El'idencefór Discollrse SlrucllIring in Middle English Recipes
Harley 5401 is attributed to a Thomas Awkbarow, for example (1996: 55)], but
in the medieval period the lack of authorial attribution for a compilation is
nothing like as distinctive as it might be in the modem period, when we do
expect novel s, poems, and scientific treatises to be attributed. In other words,
high expectations of authorial identification may be anachronistic for medie­val
texts, Still, for our purposes here we may observe that Diuersa Servicia. in
MS Douce 257, is indeed anonymous.
The fifth characteristic is that a rcader is not expected to read the whole of
the compilation, but in fact may conceivably read only one unit. British
Library MS Sloane 442, on folio 12r, contains one single recipe from the
Diuersa Servicia collection. It is the only recipe from that collection that wc
have any evidence of the Sloane 442 scribe being familiar with.
Hoey anticipates, with regard to this characteristic, a possible objection,
which is that some units in a compilation may cross-reference one another. In
discourse-analytical terms, they may be connected by cohesive tieso Hoey's
analysis is that such ties will tend to be no stronger between adjacent units than
they are between non-adjacent units (2001: 74). This is indeed the case with
Diuersa Servicia.
Following the recipe for .spynete (a pottage ofhawthom flowers) is found
a recipe which cannot be interpreted without reference to the spynete recipe:
3. For to make rosee & ./resee & swau: pey scha/ he ymad in pe se/ue
maner. (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 71)
Another cross-reference in thc collection, though, is between non-adjacent
recipes. Recipe 37 (Murrey), found in the first half of thc text, is referred back
to by recipe 85 (example 4), from the second half of the compilation:
4. For to make morrey, require de carnihus vt supra (Hieatt and Butler
1985: 78)
Hoey's sixth characteristic is that a textual unit from one collection may
come to be found in another. This has already been shown to be true for
Diuersa Servicia. Many ofits recipes are found in Harley 5401, where they are
alongside and mixed in with many recipes from the Forme ofCury collection,
and others as weIl, thus creating the new and diffcrent compilation, neither
Diuersa Servicia nor The Forme o/Cl/I)', but "Thomas Awkbarow's Cookcry
and Confectionary".
The seventh characteristic is the flip side of the coin: recipes may have
some independence from the collection, but collections are not dependent
upon any single recipe either. The population of the "hivc" (Hoey uses an
extended bee-hive or ant-hill metaphor) may change over time. In addition
to Harley 540 I and Sloane 442 thcre are five other manuscripts which con­tain
recipcs from Diuersa Servicia. New York MS Whitney 1, ff.12 - 14v
contains recipes 3-26, 60, 63-69, and 74 (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 59-61).
Bolelín Míllares Cario
2005-2006.24-25: 305-325
318
RlIlh Carro!! A.\.\'L'.";.\'illg Pa!al!ograp!7ic t'\'idellce!()}" Di.'ú'ol!r...;e 5'truc/llring in lvlft/dle Eng/i.'dl ReCf/)(!S
This is not SO much a ncw collcction as a diffcrcnt (shortcr) yersion of the
same collcction - the samc discourse colony but with a smaller "population".
The eighth characteristic of prototypical discourse colonies, suggests
Hoey, is that many or all of thc units will be in a matching relation with cach
other, serying the same functions. Of course the function of almost all culinary
recipes is to givc instructions for preparing a dish. As notcd aboye, this is true
ofmost ofthe Diuersa Servicia recipes. Matching linguistic structures can also
be seen in this collection.
The majority of the recipcs begin with a title of the form For to make NP:
5. For to make bruet olAlmayne (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 68)
6. For to make oystfyn in bruet (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 76)
7. For to make tar(vs offysch out oj'lente (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 78)
This is often followed by an instruction to take the first-needed ingredient
[what Taavitsainen (200 1: 95) calls thc "conventional formula" of the impera­tive
Take]:
8. tak mlllbery & bray hem in a morter (Hicatt and Butler 1985: 69)
9. Nym jJefhmyrs ofjJe hawjJOrn e/ene gadefyd (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 71 )
10. tak a pound OlfYS (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 75)
Further, as has been noted aboye, recipes commonly close with a formula-ic
phrase. In this collection almost all recipes end with one of the following:
11. & messe ytfórjJe (Hieatt and Butlcr 1985: (2)
12. & dresse ytfórjJe (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 63)
13. & serue ytforjJe (Hieatt and Butler 1985: 63)
The tinal characteristic of discourse colonies is the only one that Diuersa
Servicia does not exhibit. If the reader is expected not to read through the en­tire
colony every time it is used, but to skip directly to certain items, then it
makes sense for the colony to be ordered in such a way as to facilitate the find­ing
of required items. They will be given an arbitrary sequencing that does not
renect any semantic ordering but that makes them easy to locate. Hoey lists
thrce such sequences: alphabetic, numeric, and temporal (2001: 86). A fourth
ordering which a medievalist might mention is that found in some medical
recipe collections: the de capite ad pedem sequence.
Several times already, reference has been made to the numbering of rcci­pes
within Diuersa Servicia. However, this numbering is editorial, not con­temporary
with thc text. The compilation as it appears in the Douce manuscript
was not numbered by the scribe. There do exist medieval English recipe
collcctions with original numbering; one, the Bühler 36 version of the Forme
olCllrv, has already been mentioned. A second example is the British Library
Additional MS 5016 version of the samc text, in which the numbers corres­pond
to the table of contents prcceding the collection. Some medieval English
319 Boletín Millares Cario
2005-2006. 24-25: 305-325
Rulh Carro// Asscssing Pa/acographic El'idencejiJr Discoursc Slruclurillg ill Midd/e ElIg/ish Recipe.\
recipe col1ections (such as that in MS 136 of the Medical Society of London
(Dawson 1934)) were alphabetical1y ordered. Strictly speaking, however, the
Douce version of Diuersa Servicia does not exhibit this property.
What is found in MS Douce 257, though, are some marginal notes. Hieatt
and Butler (1985: 79) observe that a later hand had rewritten two titles in the
manuscript margin, with significantly different spel1ing from the original
(hlank de .SY'y > Blank de surre and hallok hroth > Balough Broth). Without
consulting the manuscript, one might assume (as 1 did initial1y) that this was
some sort of correction, but the manuscript shows some later reader to have
evidently added a marginal title for each and every recipe on that page24, thus
making it easier to find (or skip) those recipes again in the future.
This ninth characteristic, then, while not anachronistic, is perhaps too
narrowly defined. What it illustrates is the importance of structuring a dis­course
colony in such a way as to facilitate its use as a colony, allowing the
reader to 'scan' the text for the specitic units which are of interest (see Hoey
200 1: 89-90). It is not only sequencing which contributes to this ability, but
also the text's layout, and even the internal structure of the units themselves.
This is discussed in the following section.
3.3. PALAEOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FOR COLONY STRUCTURING
In the introduction to their edited volume about the problems involved in
defining and classifying medieval miscellanies, Nichols and Wenzel comment
that "the concern with genres has largely been linked to analysis of the texts
contained in the manuscripts rather than the study of the manuscripts them­selves"
(1996: 2). Even in Hoey's present-day analysis of present-day tokens
of the text category he has newly labelled as the discourse colony, there is no
attention paid to typography or layout on the page of such texts.
Yet if a writer, a scribe, or an editor expects and is willing for readers to
pick and choose from amongst the recipes in a col1ection (or the entries in a
dictionary, or the hymns in a hymnal), then one might reasonably expect
efforts to be taken to facilitate that choice. Ifthe titles stand out, it is easier for
the reader to scan the text, either to see what is on offer or to find again a tex­tual
unit that a prior reading showed to be worth returning too
Facilitating the scanning of the text is the obvious function of the number­ing
systems and tables of contents which are found in some manuscripts. AIso
24 There are four reeipes on the page. A third. faint. title. not mentioned by Hieatt and Butler. is visi­ble
in the margino Whether a title for the fourth reeipe on the page was also reeopied into the margin is
extremely hard to determine. due to damage of the page. but seems likely.
Boletín Millares CarIo
2005-2006.24-25: 305-325
320
H/flh Corro// Assessing P%cogrophic t'videncejár Disco/frse Sll'lIcl/fring in Midd/e Eng/ish Recipes
telling is the fact that many originally unnumbered collections acquired num­bers
later (and in sorne cases, cspecially ofbound volumes, tables of contents).
Of course scholarly editions of recipe collections also tend to be editorially
numbcrcd, even when they are editions of collections that are themselves
unnumbered.
Hcrc again, as noted aboye, cven broad manuscript-ordering principies
can also be of use. The general principie that Diuersa Servicia contains no
fish recipes in the first half and no meat recipes in the sccond is a useful fea­ture
for the rcader planning meals on days of fasting: such a reader can focus
thcir scanning on the second half of the compilation. In thc same way thosc
looking for remcdies for headache could restrict their scanning to the early
portion of a mcdical collection which workcd through ailments of the body
from hcad to toco
Any scanning, howcver, is fastcst and easiest when the tit1es can be distin­guished
from thc body of the text, enabling one to ignore the bodies until the
dcsired unit of tcxt is found. Whether by the use of rcd ink, underlining, remo­val
to the margin, or separate lines, any distinguishing ofthe title is better than
none. Just as Hoey says of arbitrary sequencing, thc lack of such distinction
betwcen title and body does not makc a recipe unusable, or negate its status as
a recipe tcxt-type and as a part of a discourse colony - it mcrcly makes it hard­cr
to uSC. This is why, as indicatcd at the end of section 2.2 aboye, although
manuscript collections which run rccipes together as if unbroken prose may
exist, they are presumably very rareo
The prescncc of marginal hands (British Library Sloane MS 7, folio 59v,
for example) of course reinforccs thc idea that at lcast when consulting a
manuscript for the second time, a readcr may skip directly to that point, and
read only that single recipe, or (alternatively or as well) point out to a later
readcr what was felt to be particularly useful or relevant. Again there are other
forms for this function, such as the marginal repctition of key words from the
text or recipe tit1es, as in the example of Douce 257 discusscd aboye. Thus wc
sec collaboration and ncgotiation between the scribe and latcr readers and text
users, especially in the way that such readers appropriate and mark up the text
for thcir own (and subsequent users') use.
4. POTENTIAL PITFALLS IN WORKING WITH EDITIONS
Many historical discourse linguists rely heavily or excIusively on editions.
This is understandable, but it places great responsibility on editors to describe
the manuscript, especially with regard to visual cues to levels of text struc­ture.
Most scholars are well aware of the need to check an editor's policy with
regard to modernising punctuation, for example, and they cxpect to find such
321 Boletín Mí/lares Cario
2005-2006,24-25: 305-325
RlIth Carroll Assessing Palaeographic El'idencejór Di,\'collfCl'e Structllring in Middle English Recipes
information in the introduction to an edition. They are unfortunately less likely
to gain information about the palaeography of the text from the editions they
work with, and may not be as mindful about its potential impact.
Hieatt and Butler's 1985 edition of the Forme of Cury ineludes a single
black and white photograph of folio 107v of British Library MS Harley 1605
part 3. However, this black and white rendering leaves the rcader completely
unaware that thc titles ofthese culinary recipes are distinguished from the reci­pe
bodies by being in red ink, or that the capitals that begin each recipe are
blue, flourished with fine red filigree. These uses of colour in the manuscript
are not mentioned as part of the scholarly apparatus of the edition; such infor­mation
is only available to those scholars able to consult the manuscript itself.
A second very minor point, but a disappointing one, about this photograph is
that no explanation is given of the marginal crosses e1early visible on the page,
crosses which precede two ofthe three recipe titles on that page, and which might
thus be taken to be markers of recipe beginnings. In fact, they are the only two
such crosses in this entire recipe collection. In this manuscript, the title of a new
recipe is given (in red) immediately following the end ofthe previous recipe, that
is, on the second half of the line preceding the body of the recipe to which it
belongs. The bodies, as already notcd, then bcgin with a coloured initial at the Icft
margin of the next linc. However, on folio 107v the second recipe's title, "Ryse
offische daye", is not found in the expectcd place, preceding the rccipc, but at its
end, on thc first halfofthc line which also contains the title for the following reci­pe.
The marks in the margin thus scrve as a literal cross-reference.
Another collection edited in the Hieatt and Butler volume is that found in
British Library MS Additional 46919, the culinary collection that Hieatt and
Butler have callcd Diuersa Ciharia. The recipes are given in the manuscript
with their titles in red, and the body of each recipc in brown ink. As in Harley
1605, the titles have been written into the right-hand side of the pagc, but un­like
the Harley manuscript, they are usually on the same line as the beginning
of the body of the recipe. Thus, the titles are rarely the first words givcn. For
example, reading strictly from left to right, the manuscript shows:
14. milke of alemaundes flour of =1 Blane desire ­IYS
braun of chapoun gygnere itried sucre hwit wyn.
Obviously the recipe is not to be read,jlour ofBlane desire, butflour of
rys. The rubrication sets the title apart sufficiently that it is easy to read the
text correctly. In Hieatt and Butler's edition (1985: 45) the word order ofthis
recipe (for which this was their base manuscript) is the logical one: Blane
desire. milke ofalemaundes, llour ofrys, hraun ofehapoun ... Yet there is no
mention of the rubrication, nor even a footnote to explain the actual word
order of the text or its positioning on the page. Again, the scholar must con­sult
the manuscript.
Bolefín Mí/lares Cario
2005-2006.24-25: 305-325
322
Ruth Carro// Assessing Pa/aeographic EvidencefiJr Discourse Structuring in Midd/e Eng/ish Recipes
Hieatt's 1998 article, "Editing Middle English Culinary Manuscripts"
makes no reference to the desirability of noting such features as rubrication
and marginalia. lt may be that she and her editors fclt this to have been ade­quately
dealt with in othcr chaptcrs of the volume in which it was published.
However, her own (1996) edition of the culinary recipes found in British
Library MS Harley 5401 makes a tantalising reference to "underlining in red"
found in the recipes, but does not cxplain where exactly it is found, nor why it
was done. (In fact, it is the recipe titles which are underlined.)
5. CONCLUSIONS
The present paper reiterates the utility of Hocy's 'discourse colony' as a
means of justifying the textual characteristics of rccipe collections (and mis­cellanies)
which might otherwise be seen as problematic. An addition is pro­posed
to Hoey's listing of colony characteristics: palaeographic choices (or
typography and page layout, in modem texts) which facilitate readers' scan­ning,
such as the setting apart ofkey elements within the textual unit (the title,
in the case of medieval recipes) and a clear demarcation of where one unit
ends and another begins. Concems have also been raised about potential
anachronisms in Hoey's model, particularly with regard to the expectation
that most 'mainstream' (non-colony) texts have conventional titles and
known authors.
The papcr also brings palaeographic insights to bear on existing research
into the structure of the medieval recipe text-type. As useful as it is to distin­guish
bctwccn differcnt kinds of infonnation present in a recipe, it is advised
that care should be taken in postulating "sections" of the recipe. For contem­porary
(medieval) producers and recipients ofthe recipe text-type, the title was
clcarly distinct from the body. There are valid linguistic reasons for us today
to distinguish the efficacy statement, but the distinction between an ingredients
list and a procedure section, evcn when qualified with caveats (like "these sec­tions
may be combincd"), is misleading.
Some of these skewed perceptions of the text-typc could be avoided by
more reference to manuscripts. However, it is also the responsibility of editors
to indicate scribal treatment (or lack thereof) of differcnt parts of the text.
Understandably, an editor such as Hieatt presumably assumes her audience to
be culinary historians rather than historical discourse analysts. Still, it is a pity
not to have information about the manuscripts and their text structuring much
more readily available. I hope this paper, and subsequent work on this topic,
will inspire others to redress the balance.
323 Boletín Mil/ares CarIo
2005-2006.24-25: 305-325
RlIlh Carro// Assessing Pa/aeographic Evidencefór Discollrse Slrllclllring in Midd/e Eng/ish Recipes
REFERENCES
ALONSO-ALMEIDA, F. 2001. Punctuation Practice in a Late Medieval English Medical
Remedybook. Folia Linguistica Historica 22: 207-232.
~~- 2002. Estudio Comparativo de los Textos Receta en Español Medieval y en
Inglés Medieval. In o. SANTANA HENRIQUEZ and V. SANTANA SANJURJO, eds. Studia
Humanitatis in Honorem Antonio Cabrera Perera, Las Palmas: Servicio de
Publicaciones de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 649-76.
~~-. 2005. All Gathered Together: On the Construction of Scientific and Technical
Books in 15th-Century England. Jnlernational Journal ofEnglish Studies 5: 1-25.
ALONSO-ALMEIDA, F. and CABRERA-ABREU, M. 2002. The Fonnulation of Promise in
Medieval English Medical Recipes: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach.
Neophilologus 86: 137-154.
CARROLL, R. 2003. Recipes for Laces: An Example of a Middle English Discourse
Colony. In R. HILTUNEN and J. SKAFFARI, eds. Discollrse Perspectives on English:
Medieval to Modern. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137-165.
~~- 2004. Middle English Recipes: Vemacularization of a Text-Type. In 1.
TAAVITSAINEN and P. PAliTA, eds. Medical and Scientijic Wriling in Lale Medieval
English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GÚRLACH, M. 1992. Text-Types and Language History: The Cookery Recipe. In M.
RISSANEN, O. IHALAINEN, T. NEVALAINEN, and 1. TAAVITSAINEN, eds. HislOfY 01
Englishes. Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter, 736-761.
~~-. 2004. Texl Types and Ihe Hislory ofEnglish. Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter.
GRIFFITHS J. and EDWARDS, A.S.o. 2001. The Tollemache Book ofSecrets: A Descriplive
Jndex and Complele Facsimile wilh an Jntroduction and Transcriplions Together
with Calherine Tollemache:~ Receipts of Pastery, Confectionary &c. [London:] The
Roxburghe Club.
GRUND, P. 2003. The Golden Formulas: Genre Conventions of Alchemical Recipes in
the Middle English Periodo Nellphi/ologische Milteilungen 4: 455-475.
HARGREAVES, H. 1981. Some Problems in Indexing Middle English Recipes. [n A.S.o.
EDWARDS and D. PEARSALL (eds) Middle English Prose: Essays on Bibliographic
Problems. New York: Garland, 91-1 [3.
HIEATT, C.B. 1988. An Ordinance 01 Poltage: An Edition (JI the Fijieenlh-Cenlllry
Culinary Recipes in Yale Universi~v :\' MS Beinecke 163. London: Prospect Books.
~~- 1996. The Middle English Culinary Recipes in MS Harley 5401: An Edition
and Commentary. Medium Aevum 65, 54-71.
~~- 1998. Editing Middle English Culinary Manuscripts. In V. P. MCCARREN and
D. NOFFATT, eds. A Guide lo Editing Middle English. Ann Arbor: The University
ofMichigan Press, 133-140.
HIEATT, C. B. and S. BUTLER eds. 1985. ClIrye on Jnglysch: English ClIlinary
Manuscripts o/Ihe Fourleenlh Cenlwy (Jnc/uding The Fonne of Cury). EETS ss 8.
HIEATT, C. B. and R. F. JONES 1986. Two Anglo-Norman Culinary Collections Edited
from British Library Manuscripts Additional 32085 and Royal 12.C.xii. Speculum
61,859-882.
Boletín Mi/lares Cario
2005-2006,24-25: 305-325
324
RlIfh Carro// Assessing Pu/amgraphic Evidencefár J)iscolll;~e Sfrllcfllring in Midd/e Eng/ish Recipes
HOl'Y, M. 1986. The Discourse Colony: A Preliminary Study of a Neglected Discourse
Type. In M. COULTHARD, ed. Talking about Text: Studies Presented to David Brazil
on his Retirement. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of
Birmingham, 1-26.
--- 200 \. Textual Interaction: An Introduction to w,-itten Discourse Analysis.
London: Routledge.
HUNT, T. 1990. Popular Medicine in Thirteenth-Centwy England: Introduction and
Texts. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.
JACOBS, A. and A. H. JUCKER. 1995. Introduction. In A. JUCKER, ed. Historical Pragmatics:
Pragmatic Developments in the History ofEnglish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
JONES, C. 1998. Formula and Formulation: 'Efficacy Phrases' in Medieval English
Medical Manuscripts. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 99: 199-209.
MAKINEN. M. 2004. Herbal Recipes and Recipes in Herbals - Intertextuality in Early
English Herbals and Other Medical Writing. In 1. TAAVITSAINEN and P. PAHTA, eds.
Medical and Scientific W,-iting in Late Medieval English. Cambridge: CUP, 144-173.
NICIIOLS, S. G. and S. WENZEL eds. 1996. The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on
the Medieval Miscellanv. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
PAHTA, P. 2004. Code-Switching in Medieval Medical Writing. In 1. TAAVITSAINEN and
P. PAlITA, eds. Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medieval English.
Cambridge: CUP, 73-99.
PARKES, M. B. 1979. English Cursive Book Hands: 1250 - 1500. IIkley: Scolar Press.
[Originally published: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.]
--- 1992. Pause and E/lect: An lntroduction to the Historv o( Punctuation in the
West. Aldcrshot: ScoJar Press.
PEGGE, S. ed. 1780. Ancient Cookery. In The Forme O(ClIIY: A Roll ofAncient English
Cookery. London: Society of Antiquaries.
PÉREZ-MARÍN. Y. 2004. The New World Medicine Chest: Points of Contact and of
Departure in the Spanish and Mexican Tradition, 1567-1595. Paper given at the
conference: Rccipcs in Early Modern Europe: The Production of Medicine, Food
and Knowledge. Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine, Oxford (February).
RANKIN, A. 2004. Medicine for thc Uncommon Woman: Noblewomen and
Handwritten Medical Recipes in 16th Century Germany. Paper given at the con­ferencc:
Recipes in Early Modern Europe: The Production of Medicine, Food and
Knowledge. Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine, Oxford (February).
SASS, L. 1976. To the King:~ Taste. London: John Murray. [Originally published: New
York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1975.]
STANNARD,1. J982. Rezeptliteratur as Fachliteratur. Scripta 6: 59-73.
TAAVITSAINEN, 1. 200\. Middle English Recipcs: Genre Characteristics, Text Type
Fcatures and Underlying Traditions of Writing. journal o(Historieal Pragmaties
2, 85-113.
TAAVITSAINEN, 1. 2005. Genres and the Appropriation of Science: Loci Communes in
English in the Late Medieval and Early Modem Periodo In 1. SKAFFARI, M.
PLIKOLA, R. CARROLL, R. HILTUNEN and B. WARVIK eds. Opening Windows on the
Texts and Discourses oj"the Pasto Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
WARNFR, R. ed. 179\. Antiquitatcs Culinariae: Or Curious Traets Relating to the
Culinary A/láirs o(the Old English. London: Blamire.
325 Boletin Millares CarIo
2005-2006,24-25: 305-325