is astonishing what a prejudice ordinary people have 0, against soup. The objection is not so universal as it was a few years ago, but still it exists. I cannot but think that one reason of this is that the housekeepers who scorn it do not understand what soup really is. A friend of mine once told me that none oi her girls would touch soup ; they did not care for it at all. 1 was not astonished at this when I discovered that her only idea 6o The Girl’s Own Cookery Book. of making soup was to thicken the liquor in which meat had been boiled with prepared pea-meal. Another lady, who sympathised with the first one in her want of appreciation of culinary delicacies, used to make it by thickening the liquor with oatmeal. On one occasion I v/as privileged to taste the latter preparation. I expected it would be insipid, but it was not ; it was particularly tasty, for it was burnt. I sympathised with the young ladies who did not like it at all, for I decided that I could not have eaten much of that soup if I had been paid for it. One erroneous idea concerning soup is that it is expensive, and that in order to make it good pounds upon pounds of meat must be obtained for it. If these are dispensed with the soup will not be worth drinking. Really, however, soup is an economy. It is a mistake to make it very rich and very strong. When, as is generally the case, it is succeeded by other dishes, it should be light and pleasantly flavoured, but not strong or nourishing enough to furnish a dinner in itself. People usually sit down to dinner tired, hungry, and weary, and it is rather too much of a good thing to put a slice of roast beef or boiled mutton before them straight away. It is giving their digestive organs too much to do ; they need to be set gently to work ; to have light employment given them at first, and to be allowed to go on gradually to the heavy business. Sir Henry Thompson, I think it was, pointed out a little while ago, in some papers he published on food, that light liquid food was most valuable as a restorative. Those who have been accustomed to take soup, and have noticed how quickly it takes away the feeling of exhaustion, and prepares the way for enjoyment of dinner, would be very sorry to do without it. At the same time, they would be equally sony to make it very strong and rich, unless they intended the family to dine upon it entirely. When 1 said soup was an economy, 1 meant that it might be made the means of preventing waste ; also that when used regularly it saves the joint, and partially satisfies the appetite before the most expensive part of the dinner is touched. 1 dare say you have heard of the housekeeper who said to her friend, “We never have soup ; we cannot afford it to which the other replied, “ Ind<ted, Soups, and H<nv to Alake Them. 6i we always have soup ; we cannot afford to do without it.” I certainly think the second housekeeper was the more economical of the two.

AI-modernized reading of the original text

is astonishing what a prejudice ordinary people have against soup. The objection is not so universal as it was a few years ago, but still it exists. I cannot but think that one reason of this is that the housekeepers who scorn it do not understand what soup really is. A friend of mine once told me that none of her girls would touch soup ; they did not care for it at all. 1 was not astonished at this when I discovered that her only idea 6o The Girl’s Own Cookery Book. of making soup was to thicken the liquor in which meat had been boiled with prepared pea-meal. Another lady, who sympathised with the first one in her want of appreciation of culinary delicacies, used to make it by thickening the liquor with oatmeal. On one occasion I was privileged to taste the latter preparation. I expected it would be insipid, but it was not ; it was particularly tasty, for it was burnt. I sympathised with the young ladies who did not like it at all, for I decided that I could not have eaten much of that soup if I had been paid for it. One erroneous idea concerning soup is that it is expensive, and that in order to make it good pounds upon pounds of meat must be obtained for it. If these are dispensed with the soup will not be worth drinking. Really, however, soup is an economy. It is a mistake to make it very rich and very strong. When, as is generally the case, it is succeeded by other dishes, it should be light and pleasantly flavoured, but not strong or nourishing enough to furnish a dinner in itself. People usually sit down to dinner tired, hungry, and weary, and it is rather too much of a good thing to put a slice of roast beef or boiled mutton before them straight away. It is giving their digestive organs too much to do ; they need to be set gently to work ; to have light employment given them at first, and to be allowed to go on gradually to the heavy business. Sir Henry Thompson, I think it was, pointed out a little while ago, in some papers he published on food, that light liquid food was most valuable as a restorative. Those who have been accustomed to take soup, and have noticed how quickly it takes away the feeling of exhaustion, and prepares the way for enjoyment of dinner, would be very sorry to do without it. At the same time, they would be equally sony to make it very strong and rich, unless they intended the family to dine upon it entirely. When 1 said soup was an economy, 1 meant that it might be made the means of preventing waste ; also that when used regularly it saves the joint, and partially satisfies the appetite before the most expensive part of the dinner is touched. 1 dare say you have heard of the housekeeper who said to her friend, “We never have soup ; we cannot afford it to which the other replied, "Indeed, Soups, and How to Make Them. 6i we always have soup ; we cannot afford to do without it.” I certainly think the second housekeeper was the more economical of the two.

The girl's own cookery book