COOES AND COOEING.— Looking back through
the long vistas of culinary history, and comparing modern
cookery with the earliest efforts of which we have any
record, it is interesting to note the circumstances that
have given impetus to improvements, and the simple,
almost imperceptible, changes that have followed each
other in quickening succession, until what probably origi-
nated in an accidental discovery born of a knowledge of
fire, has resulted in an exceedingly fine art. The origin of
the term “ Cook ” can be traced back to the mediaeval
Romans, whose “Coquere”has proved a convenient basis of
this and other words used in our language ; notably, cake,
coke, and concoction. Rome was at one time the mother
of cookery, for the practice was there fostered by lavish
expenditure, and encouraged by love of luxury : that is to
say, in the days when the Empire stood at its highest pin-
nacle, and was preparing for itself the agents of its ulti-
mate ruin. Luxury led to extravagance, extravagance to
unequalled folly and vice ; but for all that, We do not admit
that the downfall of a nation can be encompassed by intro-
ducing high art into its cookery. According to Careme,
the Romans knew little or nothing of the culinary art as
we know it, nor were they by any means gourmets ; on the
contrary, their inclinations, so far as feasting was con-
cerned, were most unrefined, and they washed down patties
of peacocks’ brains with huge goblets of rich, sweet, highly-
spiced, and fruity wines. What manner of gourmet could
he be who would pretend to catch the delicate flavour of an
artistic viand after nourishing his palate with spiced wine
and deluging his stomach with drinking! The Romans,
then, were not gourmets, in spite of their vaunted Apieius,
Lucullus, and Epicurus — the latter giving his name to our
“ epicures.” They were more properly gourmands ; glut-
tonous rather than dainty, estimating the culinary merit
of dishes by their cost. Cleopatra, for instance, is reputed
to have dissolved a priceless pearl in wine to please
Antony ; but as pearls require very strong acid to dissolve
them, and such acids art not pleasing to the taste, it is
doubtful if the story has any foundation in truth. Pro-
bably many other similar stories are equally doubtful.
The French — or Gauls, as they were called in the palmy
days of Rome — were then, as now, famous for their culinary
talents ; so much so, that when the Roman army invaded
and conquered the “ bearded ” Gaul, as told by Caesar in
his “ De Bello Gallico,” many of the captives were carried
to Rome as slaves, and billeted to the kitchens of nobles.
In an old print, preserved in the British Museum, is the
drawing of a Roman kitchen, and therein we see the
bearded Gaul lording it over a few cringing Roman ser-
vants without beards. This peculiarity of the beards and
no beards confirms the story that the Gallic, or French,
slave was the original Roman chef. When Julius Caesar
landed in Britain from the French coast, it is just pro-
bable that he brought some of his French Cooks with him,
as well as the name, for amongst the Anglo-Saxon tra-
ditions we find the word “Kok” for Cook. The Germans
(Caesar’s “ Allemanni”) have also their Koch (Cook), derived
from the Roman Coquere, and so also is the French Cuire,
from which is obtained their Cuisinier.
Page 466
Presented as published in 1890. 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
COOKS AND COOKING.— Looking back through the long vistas of culinary history, and comparing modern cookery with the earliest efforts of which we have any record, it is interesting to note the circumstances that have given impetus to improvements, and the simple, almost imperceptible, changes that have followed each other in quickening succession, until what probably originated in an accidental discovery born of a knowledge of fire, has resulted in an exceedingly fine art. The origin of the term “ Cook ” can be traced back to the mediaeval Romans, whose “Coquere”has proved a convenient basis of this and other words used in our language ; notably, cake, coke, and concoction. Rome was at one time the mother of cookery, for the practice was there fostered by lavish expenditure, and encouraged by love of luxury : that is to say, in the days when the Empire stood at its highest pinnacle, and was preparing for itself the agents of its ultimate ruin. Luxury led to extravagance, extravagance to unequalled folly and vice ; but for all that, We do not admit that the downfall of a nation can be encompassed by introducing high art into its cookery. According to Careme, the Romans knew little or nothing of the culinary art as we know it, nor were they by any means gourmets ; on the contrary, their inclinations, so far as feasting was concerned, were most unrefined, and they washed down patties of peacocks’ brains with huge goblets of rich, sweet, highlyspiced, and fruity wines. What manner of gourmet could he be who would pretend to catch the delicate flavour of an artistic viand after nourishing his palate with spiced wine and deluging his stomach with drinking! The Romans, then, were not gourmets, in spite of their vaunted Apieius, Lucullus, and Epicurus — the latter giving his name to our “ epicures.” They were more properly gourmands ; gluttonous rather than dainty, estimating the culinary merit of dishes by their cost. Cleopatra, for instance, is reputed to have dissolved a priceless pearl in wine to please Antony ; but as pearls require very strong acid to dissolve them, and such acids art not pleasing to the taste, it is doubtful if the story has any foundation in truth. Probably many other similar stories are equally doubtful.
The French — or Gauls, as they were called in the palmy days of Rome — were then, as now, famous for their culinary talents ; so much so, that when the Roman army invaded and conquered the “ bearded ” Gaul, as told by Caesar in his “ De Bello Gallico,” many of the captives were carried to Rome as slaves, and billeted to the kitchens of nobles. In an old print, preserved in the British Museum, is the drawing of a Roman kitchen, and therein we see the bearded Gaul lording it over a few cringing Roman servants without beards. This peculiarity of the beards and no beards confirms the story that the Gallic, or French, slave was the original Roman chef. When Julius Caesar landed in Britain from the French coast, it is just probable that he brought some of his French Cooks with him, as well as the name, for amongst the Anglo-Saxon traditions we find the word “Kok” for Cook. The Germans (Caesar’s “ Allemanni”) have also their Koch (Cook), derived from the Roman Coquere, and so also is the French Cuire, from which is obtained their Cuisinier.