The Latin work of Apicius on the art of cookery is
perhaps sufficient proof that a man may be an actual
gastronomer, and yet be unable to compose even an intel-
ligible work on his favourite subject. We have hazarded
the surmise that the absurdities contained in the work were,
perhaps, in part, later corruptions ; but these also must i
have been added by persons conversant with practice, and j
therefore help to prove the general proposition that mere
practical acquaintance with cookery, maybe of a very high
degree, does not by itself constitute a qualification for even i
limited authorship. Cooks did, and do now, mostly rise |
from the ranks of operatives, and have little or no oppor- I
trinity for developing literary acquirements. They rise by I
personal operative skill or handicraft, more or less aided I
by personal address and appearance. Of course they study |
culinary works for particular purposes, and are in posses- I
* The so-called confectioneries made by native Hindoos in the Indian I
and ColoniHl Exhibition in London were either indifferent to flatness, or j
simply repulsive. We believe even these were deteriorated Humdman I
importations from Turkey, and by no means Hindoo inventions; but the i
drawn sugar (sugar snow) had neither the white beauty nor the excellent I
taste of the Turkish ‘ Ketven helvassy,’ and the stalactite-like pipes made I
of syrup and starch, resembling bullose macaroni, baked in foetid oil, nc
amount of enthusiasm could find attractive, or even consumable. I
OBJECTS AND RESULTS OF COOKERY
7
sion of the keys to practical solutions which they have
obtained from their masters, and which were more fre-
quently preserved as secrets than proclaimed for general
use. But even when we scrutinize these keys, manuscript
collections of recipes, or their elaborate forms in works on
cookery which have been under the correcting, or, at all
events, grammatically modifying, influence of literary skill,
we find them displaying a great number of shortcomings,
mainly arising from the want of the knowledge of scientific
principles. Of this the completely erroneous notions about
hones and their influence in the inoduction of hroth are the
most universal proof. These errors were never discovered,
never even dreamt of by cooks ; maintained by housewives
with rare pertinacity; upheld in all cookery-books with
concerted fallacy, and practised in the smallest kitchens as
well as the richest and highest ones in all lands. It re-
quired a scientific physician and chemist to dispel such
deleterious notions, and put in their place a correct scien-
tific knowledge of the principles which guide the production
of savour, and of the materials which are its foundation.
The history of this error illustrates in a striking manner
that part of the first aphorism of Hippocrates which
enunciates that experience is fallacious and judgment
diflicult.
Some have supposed that women were particularly
qualified to become authoresses of works on cookery. This
conception was so prevalent in the last century that a
medical practitioner, a Dr. Hill, is reported to have pub-
lished a work of his own under the assumed name of
‘ Hannah Glasse.’* This practice was followed in other
Page 14
Presented as published in 1895. Historical recipes may not meet modern food-safety standards. Cook from the modern interpretation, not the original instructions.
AI-modernized reading of the original text
The Latin work of Apicius on the art of cookery is perhaps sufficient proof that a man may be an actual gastronomer, and yet be unable to compose even an intelligible work on his favourite subject. We have hazarded the surmise that the absurdities contained in the work were, perhaps, in part, later corruptions ; but these also must i have been added by persons conversant with practice, and j therefore help to prove the general proposition that mere practical acquaintance with cookery, maybe of a very high degree, does not by itself constitute a qualification for even i limited authorship. Cooks did, and do now, mostly rise | from the ranks of operatives, and have little or no opportunity for developing literary acquirements. They rise by I personal operative skill or handicraft, more or less aided I by personal address and appearance. Of course they study | culinary works for particular purposes, and are in posses- I
* The so-called confectioneries made by native Hindoos in the Indian I and Colonial Exhibition in London were either indifferent to flatness, or j simply repulsive. We believe even these were deteriorated Hindustani importations from Turkey, and by no means Hindoo inventions; but the i drawn sugar (sugar snow) had neither the white beauty nor the excellent I taste of the Turkish ‘ Ketven helvassy,’ and the stalactite-like pipes made I of syrup and starch, resembling bullose macaroni, baked in foetid oil, nc amount of enthusiasm could find attractive, or even consumable. I
sion of the keys to practical solutions which they have obtained from their masters, and which were more frequently preserved as secrets than proclaimed for general use. But even when we scrutinize these keys, manuscript collections of recipes, or their elaborate forms in works on cookery which have been under the correcting, or, at all events, grammatically modifying, influence of literary skill, we find them displaying a great number of shortcomings, mainly arising from the want of the knowledge of scientific principles. Of this the completely erroneous notions about hones and their influence in the production of broth are the most universal proof. These errors were never discovered, never even dreamt of by cooks ; maintained by housewives with rare pertinacity; upheld in all cookery-books with concerted fallacy, and practised in the smallest kitchens as well as the richest and highest ones in all lands. It required a scientific physician and chemist to dispel such deleterious notions, and put in their place a correct scientific knowledge of the principles which guide the production of savour, and of the materials which are its foundation. The history of this error illustrates in a striking manner that part of the first aphorism of Hippocrates which enunciates that experience is fallacious and judgment diflicult.
Some have supposed that women were particularly qualified to become authoresses of works on cookery. This conception was so prevalent in the last century that a medical practitioner, a Dr. Hill, is reported to have published a work of his own under the assumed name of ‘ Hannah Glasse.' This practice was followed in other