So much for the artists and the ‘ haute cuisine ’ ; but it is also most
necessary that the importance of good cooking be likewise recognised
in ‘ everyday life.’ It is here that cookery in many cases is, owing
to lack of better knowledge, often shamefully mismanaged ; and
as the extravagances and discomforts resulting from bad cooking-
are too well known, the importance of good cooking becomes at once
apparent.
Cookery is eminently experimental ; our knowledge is increased
through our daily experience and practice in the art. As the widest
definition of the objects of cookery, Dr. Thudichum gives ‘ the
preparation of food in such a manner that man shall derive the
greatest nutrition and cesthetical advantage from its consumption .’
‘ In all latitudes,’ he says, ‘ cookery has to accommodate itself in an
infinite variety of ways to the ages, conditions, and fortunes of men ;
it has to consider not only the mere nutritive value of its products,
but their aesthetic value, which may be defined as value arising
from the liking or disliking that various persons with certain
natural or acquired tastes manifest toward certain products and
preparations.’
The difficulties are only increased when we consider the nature
and composition of the several kinds of food, the proper combinations
to produce desired effects — how different articles need different
methods of treatment, and exposure to heat and moisture, in different
ways and at varying degrees of temperature. The action of heat,
chemical action, the processes of fermentation, disintegration, and
concentration — all are of concern in the preparation of food.
Small wonder, then, that failure marks so often our crude
attempts to provide suitable nutriment for delicate organisms § for
cooking, in its higher significance, has become a fine art. A cook’s
business does not merely consist of preparing dishes, nourishing and
THE ART OF COOKERY
15
digestible, it also requires a high, degree of skill in blending colours
and condiments.
A certain amount of theory from the scientific side is good. We
might, however, be able to get along without the latter, but we would
get on very badly without the former, the practical part. I am sorely
afraid that some of. the students of cookery attach too much import-
ance to the science philosophy of cookery at the expense of the
practice, for it is that most assuredly which makes the master of the
art of cooking. We have just now enough philosophy in cookery and
gastronomy to carry on the world’s cookery for the next twenty years,
and only enough real practical science to carry on the world’s work
from day to day, as it were.
Cookery being an exact science, results of which can only be
obtained by methodical operation or work, results, good, bad, and
indifferent, are sometimes produced by accident. Such results are not,
however, satisfactory, and cannot therefore be called uniform, because
a knowledge based on mere chance, which produces result without
substantial ground or reason, must be regarded as extremely dis-
appointing and unsatisfactory, to say the least.
Page 5
Presented as published in 1901. 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
So much for the artists and the ‘ haute cuisine ’ ; but it is also most necessary that the importance of good cooking be likewise recognised in ‘ everyday life.’ It is here that cookery in many cases is, owing to lack of better knowledge, often shamefully mismanaged ; and as the extravagances and discomforts resulting from bad cookingare too well known, the importance of good cooking becomes at once apparent.
Cookery is eminently experimental ; our knowledge is increased through our daily experience and practice in the art. As the widest definition of the objects of cookery, Dr. Thudichum gives ‘ the preparation of food in such a manner that man shall derive the greatest nutrition and aesthetic advantage from its consumption .’ ‘ In all latitudes,’ he says, ‘ cookery has to accommodate itself in an infinite variety of ways to the ages, conditions, and fortunes of men ; it has to consider not only the mere nutritive value of its products, but their aesthetic value, which may be defined as value arising from the liking or disliking that various persons with certain natural or acquired tastes manifest toward certain products and preparations.’
The difficulties are only increased when we consider the nature and composition of the several kinds of food, the proper combinations to produce desired effects — how different articles need different methods of treatment, and exposure to heat and moisture, in different ways and at varying degrees of temperature. The action of heat, chemical action, the processes of fermentation, disintegration, and concentration — all are of concern in the preparation of food.
Small wonder, then, that failure marks so often our crude attempts to provide suitable nutriment for delicate organisms; for cooking, in its higher significance, has become a fine art. A cook’s business does not merely consist of preparing dishes, nourishing and
THE ART OF COOKERY
digestible, it also requires a high, degree of skill in blending colours and condiments.
A certain amount of theory from the scientific side is good. We might, however, be able to get along without the latter, but we would get on very badly without the former, the practical part. I am sorely afraid that some of. the students of cookery attach too much importance to the science philosophy of cookery at the expense of the practice, for it is that most assuredly which makes the master of the art of cooking. We have just now enough philosophy in cookery and gastronomy to carry on the world’s cookery for the next twenty years, and only enough real practical science to carry on the world’s work from day to day, as it were.
Cookery being an exact science, results of which can only be obtained by methodical operation or work, results, good, bad, and indifferent, are sometimes produced by accident. Such results are not, however, satisfactory, and cannot therefore be called uniform, because a knowledge based on mere chance, which produces result without substantial ground or reason, must be regarded as extremely disappointing and unsatisfactory, to say the least.