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-CAELIUS

The name of another personality is introduced in connection with the
book, namely that of C{oe}lius or Caelius. This name is mentioned in
the title of the first undated edition (ca. 1483-6) as Celius.
Torinus, 1541, places "Caelius" 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, Roem. Lit. Gesch.,
Mueller's Handbuch d. klass. Altertums-Wissenschaft, V III, 112, p.
506.) However, there is no _raison d'etre_ 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 justice to the
ancient work and complete the presentation of its history. The
controversies that have raged over it make this course necessary.

Our predecessors have not had the benefit of modern communication,
and, therefore, could not know all that is to be known on the subject.
We sympathize with Lister yet do not condemn Torinus. If Torinus ever
dared making important changes in the old text, they are easily
ascertained by collation with other texts. This we have endeavored to
do. Explaining the discrepancies, it will be noted that we hav