‘Flavour said one, nourishment ventured another. No one was right, the appropriate word could not be found, and as the situation was becoming embarrassing the mistress had to give the cue, spelling out slowly “ G-o-o-d ” ‘ “ Goodness !” shouted the class triumphantly. ‘ “ Yes, goodness; to draw the goodness out of the bones, that’s an easier word, isn’t it?” ‘ “ Yes, mistress.” ‘ “ Well, then, we chop up our bones to draw the ” ‘ “ Goodness out,” echoed the class. 20 THE SPIRIT OF COOKERY ‘ Taking up the notebook of the girl sitting next to me, I found the following entry ; ‘ “ To make soupe chop up your bones, or cut up your meat to get the mintriment into it.”’ Who will teach the teachers themselves ? Paire sourire le Pot-au-feu. The French people know better than to attempt to make a pot-au-feu with scraps which cost nothing ; to make this saucepan smile, faire sotirire le pot-aii-feu, it is requisite to put a good piece of meat into it ; this is the true explanation of the metaphor, though it is not contained in any dictionary; even Dumas has not apprehended the genius of his country- men, when he says that faire sourire the national cook- ing vessel meant to keep it boiling slowly for seven hours ; here also the philosophical appreciation of a truly poetical expression has been wanting, and good sense been sent a-beg- ging. At the same time, Dumas retains all the prejudices and errors concerning bones which we have touched upon already in the foregoing. And yet in absolute contradiction to this he proves in detail that bouillon derives its savour solely from meat.* In this case also the existence of such glaring contradiction is made possible only by the want of guiding scientific principles. CHAPTEE II. SKETCH OF THE HISTORIC LITERATURE OF COOKERY. Different Interpretations of Ancient Writers. To collect an intelligible account of the cooking of the ancients from the classics of antiquity is a very diflicult task, because many passages of the texts are liable to widely * As regards the error concerning bones, cf. Dumas’ Dictionary, p. 869 ; and in contradiction that savour comes from meat only, ibid., p. 287. THE HISTORIC LITERATURE OE COOKER} 21 different interpretations. Thus, Rumohr* quotes, as a proof of the deterioration and downfall of Roman cookery, and of its tendency to lose sight of the natural destination of eat- able things, the passage from Horace f given below ; but to our mind this passage proves nothing of the kind. Even supposing, with Rumohr, that the fish alluded to in this passage, the sea-barbel, had been reduced to a mince, or to a pounded and sifted paste, such as we know in our days as puree, or potted meat, and had be'en served as such in single fricandelles or poached quenelles, this would prove to our mind as little a downward tendency of cookery as the use of potted meat and fish, e.g., potted bloater or chicken and ham, is proof of any decay in our days. That the fish was not always served in its natural shape follows from a passage in Apicius but a passage in Seneca, § less open to doubt than that from Horace, seems absolutely to oppose the interpretation of Rumohr. Roman and Greek Culinary Writers. When the work ascribed to Apicius j| was written, the art of cookery must have been greatly developed. But it is * Rumohr, Count, ‘ Geist der Kochkunsb,’ p. 3. f Horace, Sat., ii. 2, 341 :

AI-modernized reading of the original text

‘Flavour said one, nourishment ventured another. No one was right, the appropriate word could not be found, and as the situation was becoming embarrassing the mistress had to give the cue, spelling out slowly “ G-o-o-d ” ‘ “ Goodness !” shouted the class triumphantly. ‘ “ Yes, goodness; to draw the goodness out of the bones, that’s an easier word, isn’t it?” ‘ “ Yes, mistress.” ‘ “ Well, then, we chop up our bones to draw the ” ‘ “ Goodness out,” echoed the class. ‘ Taking up the notebook of the girl sitting next to me, I found the following entry ; ‘ “ To make soupe chop up your bones, or cut up your meat to get the nutriment into it.”’ Who will teach the teachers themselves ? Paire sourire le Pot-au-feu. The French people know better than to attempt to make a pot-au-feu with scraps which cost nothing ; to make this saucepan smile, faire sotirire le pot-aii-feu, it is requisite to put a good piece of meat into it ; this is the true explanation of the metaphor, though it is not contained in any dictionary; even Dumas has not apprehended the genius of his countrymen, when he says that faire sourire the national cooking vessel meant to keep it boiling slowly for seven hours ; here also the philosophical appreciation of a truly poetical expression has been wanting, and good sense been sent a-begging. At the same time, Dumas retains all the prejudices and errors concerning bones which we have touched upon already in the foregoing. And yet in absolute contradiction to this he proves in detail that bouillon derives its savour solely from meat.* In this case also the existence of such glaring contradiction is made possible only by the want of guiding scientific principles. CHAPTEE II. SKETCH OF THE HISTORIC LITERATURE OF COOKERY. Different Interpretations of Ancient Writers. To collect an intelligible account of the cooking of the ancients from the classics of antiquity is a very diflicult task, because many passages of the texts are liable to widely * As regards the error concerning bones, cf. Dumas’ Dictionary, p. 869 ; and in contradiction that savour comes from meat only, ibid., p. 287. different interpretations. Thus, Rumohr* quotes, as a proof of the deterioration and downfall of Roman cookery, and of its tendency to lose sight of the natural destination of eatable things, the passage from Horace f given below ; but to our mind this passage proves nothing of the kind. Even supposing, with Rumohr, that the fish alluded to in this passage, the sea-barbel, had been reduced to a mince, or to a pounded and sifted paste, such as we know in our days as puree, or potted meat, and had be'en served as such in single fricandelles or poached quenelles, this would prove to our mind as little a downward tendency of cookery as the use of potted meat and fish, e.g., potted bloater or chicken and ham, is proof of any decay in our days. That the fish was not always served in its natural shape follows from a passage in Apicius but a passage in Seneca, § less open to doubt than that from Horace, seems absolutely to oppose the interpretation of Rumohr. Roman and Greek Culinary Writers. When the work ascribed to Apicius j| was written, the art of cookery must have been greatly developed. But it is * Rumohr, Count, ‘ Geist der Kochkunsb,’ p. 3. f Horace, Sat., ii. 2, 341 :

The spirit of cookery