He never ate bouillon d’os, and, like the
charity of many of the patrons of good kitchens, his charity
to the poor included this practical sneer of a decoction of
bones.
D’Arcet, who had probably some views in common with
Devaux, applied himself principally to the production of the
bouillon d’os by the treatment of bones with steam, under a
pressure slightly exceeding that of the atmosphere. Sub-
sequently he adopted the process of Herissant, substituting
hydrochloric for nitric acid, and dissolving the gelatinogenous
tissue, which was insoluble in acid, in boiling water. Al-
though Devaux used the publications of previous inquirers on
gelatine without any acknowledgment, yet from ignorance
of all principles of science he misinterpreted their results, aud
came to entirely fallacious conclusions. D’Arcet was more
practical, and advised that all gelatine for the kitchen and
132
THE SPIRIT OF COOKERY
all glue for the arts should be made from bones, freed from
phosphatic earth by hydrochloric acid. But he seems to
have shared to a large extent the errors of Devaux, and
although he was in his confidence provoked a concurrence
(f.c., competition) of his (D’Arcet’s) gelatine with the
hoxdllon d’os. He recommended* the use of gelatine made
by this process for the preparation of soup in hospitals,
poor-houses, and dispensaries, and to reduce the meat by
three - quarters of its former weight ; he pretended to
replace (!) every pound of meat by 5 gros of gelatine, but
added ‘ vegetables.’ The following were the proportions of
ingredients : 50 litres of water, 12 lb. of meat, lb. of dry
gelatine, 4 lb. of salt, 16 to 20 lb. of vegetables and spices✪ Bouillon d'Os ;
total, 192 rations of bouillon, at the cost of 8 c. each, 4 fr.
being allowed for the value of the boiled meat (bouilli).
Differences of opinion on the quality of such broth led to
its abandonment.!
Chevreul properly taxed Devaux with using illogical argu-
ment in this, that he condemned all broth and bouilli of
meat, but recommended roast meat, and yet the bouillon
and bouilli together as eaten do not contain more gelatine
than the roast meat. How can it be explained, exclaimed
this savant, that a man of such inferior quality as Cadet
Devaux can reap such external success from all classes,
municipalities, princes. King, and Pope ? It was, he
replied, because his sham science proceeded under the
mask of jphilanlhroinc 'professions, which all these patrons
made it a business ostentatiously to support.
In 1831 the Academy of Sciences of Paris appointed a
commission consisting of Magendie, Serres, Dupuytren,
D’Arcet, Chevreul, Klourens, and Serullas. Its first per-
formance was an examination of the Bouillon dc la
Comjxujnic Hollandaisc, founded by MM. Bouwens and
* In the 'Aim. de Ohiin.,’ t. 92, p. 300 ; 1810.
t Merat and Duluns, ‘Diet. Mat. Mud.,’ ii. 320.
BOUILLON D' OS
133
Page 93 · 1 recipe record on this page
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
He never ate bouillon d’os, and, like the charity of many of the patrons of good kitchens, his charity to the poor included this practical sneer of a decoction of bones.
D’Arcet, who had probably some views in common with Devaux, applied himself principally to the production of the bouillon d’os by the treatment of bones with steam, under a pressure slightly exceeding that of the atmosphere. Subsequently he adopted the process of Herissant, substituting hydrochloric for nitric acid, and dissolving the gelatinogenous tissue, which was insoluble in acid, in boiling water. Although Devaux used the publications of previous inquirers on gelatine without any acknowledgment, yet from ignorance of all principles of science he misinterpreted their results, aud came to entirely fallacious conclusions. D’Arcet was more practical, and advised that all gelatine for the kitchen and
all glue for the arts should be made from bones, freed from phosphatic earth by hydrochloric acid. But he seems to have shared to a large extent the errors of Devaux, and although he was in his confidence provoked a concurrence (i.e., competition) of his (D'Arcet's) gelatine with the bouillon d'os. He recommended* the use of gelatine made by this process for the preparation of soup in hospitals, poor-houses, and dispensaries, and to reduce the meat by three - quarters of its former weight ; he pretended to replace (!) every pound of meat by 5 gros of gelatine, but added ‘ vegetables.’ The following were the proportions of ingredients : 50 litres of water, 12 lb. of meat, lb. of dry gelatine, 4 lb. of salt, 16 to 20 lb. of vegetables and spices ; total, 192 rations of bouillon, at the cost of 8 c. each, 4 fr. being allowed for the value of the boiled meat (bouilli). Differences of opinion on the quality of such broth led to its abandonment.!
Chevreul properly taxed Devaux with using illogical argument in this, that he condemned all broth and bouilli of meat, but recommended roast meat, and yet the bouillon and bouilli together as eaten do not contain more gelatine than the roast meat. How can it be explained, exclaimed this savant, that a man of such inferior quality as Cadet Devaux can reap such external success from all classes, municipalities, princes. King, and Pope ? It was, he replied, because his sham science proceeded under the mask of philanthropic professions, which all these patrons made it a business ostentatiously to support.
In 1831 the Academy of Sciences of Paris appointed a commission consisting of Magendie, Serres, Dupuytren, D’Arcet, Chevreul, Klourens, and Serullas. Its first performance was an examination of the Bouillon dc la Comjxujnic Hollandaisc, founded by MM. Bouwens and
* In the 'Aim. de Ohiin.,’ t. 92, p. 300 ; 1810.
t Merat and Duluns, ‘Diet. Mat. Mud.,’ ii. 320.
BOUILLON D' OS
Records on this page
Bouillon d'Os