Chapter I: Part 1

Transcriber’s Notes

Text printed in italics has been transcribed between _underscores_,
small capitals have been changed to ALL CAPITALS.

More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the end of this text.

_Fig. 1._]

Culinary Chemistry,
EXHIBITING
THE
_SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES_
OF
COOKERY,

WITH CONCISE INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING GOOD AND WHOLESOME
PICKLES, VINEGAR, CONSERVES, FRUIT JELLIES,
MARMALADES,
AND VARIOUS OTHER ALIMENTARY SUBSTANCES EMPLOYED
IN

Domestic Economy,

WITH OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHEMICAL CONSTITUTION AND NUTRITIVE
QUALITIES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF FOOD.

_WITH COPPER PLATES._

BY FREDRICK ACCUM,

Operative Chemist, Lecturer on Practical Chemistry, on Mineralogy, and
on Chemistry applied to the Arts and Manufactures; Member of the Royal
Irish Academy; Fellow of the Linnæan Society; Member of the Royal
Academy of Sciences, and of the Royal Society of Arts Berlin, &c. &c.

London:
PUBLISHED BY R. ACKERMANN, 101, STRAND;
1821.

INTRODUCTION.

The publications which I have presented to the world, having been almost exclusively confined to subjects connected with the Fine Arts, I feel it in some measure incumbent on me to explain the cause of my having undertaken to be the publisher of this volume. It has arisen from a distressing event, in which its very ingenious, useful, and elaborate Author, happened to be involved. The work was in some degree of advancement, when the sudden and most unexpected misfortune to which I have alluded, threw him at once into a state of discouragement, that gave a check to all his exertions. I, who had known him long, and had every reason, from a most intimate acquaintance, to think well of him, both in his private as well as professional character, co-operated with many of his friends, some of whom are in the superior ranks of life, to encourage him in the renewal of his former energy--but I could succeed no further than in prevailing upon him to complete this little work on Culinary Philosophy, which promised to be highly useful in some of the leading objects of Domestic Economy. When it was ready for publication, the prejudice which had been excited against him, rendered his former publishers averse from presenting it to the public. I therefore felt myself under a kind of indispensable engagement--nor am I ashamed of it, as the work was brought to a state of publication by my interference, though out of my usual line of business, to become its publisher. I accordingly, under these circumstances, made it my own by purchasing the copy-right. Nor, from its scientific novelty, and promised utility, have I the least hesitation in presenting Mr. ACCUM’S Work to the Public.

R. ACKERMANN.

PREFACE.

LONDON,
COMPTON STREET, SOHO.

The following pages are intended to exhibit a popular view of the philosophy of cookery, to enable the reader to understand the chemical principles, by means of which alimentary substances are rendered palatable and nutritious. The subject may appear frivolous; but let it be remembered that it is by the application of the principles of philosophy to the ordinary affairs of life, that science diffuses her benefits, and perfects her claim to the gratitude of mankind.

The art of preparing good and wholesome food is, undoubtedly, a branch of chemistry; the kitchen is a chemical laboratory; all the processes employed for rendering alimentary substances fit for human sustenance, are chemical processes; and much waste of the materials, as well as labour to the parties, might often be spared, were those who practise this art, made acquainted with some simple chemical truths which invariably would lead to certain results.

I have, in the first place, premised, as introductory to what follows, some general observations on the various kinds of alimentary substances commonly used for food; in which I have noticed their chemical constitution, and comparative nutritive qualities.

After these preliminary statements, I have proceeded to explain the summary processes of the culinary art, as practised in the English kitchen, to render obvious the chemical effects produced by the operations of roasting, boiling, stewing, broiling, frying, and other means employed for dressing food.

I have given concise, but accurate directions for preparing good and wholesome pickles, and other condiments employed in domestic economy.

I have pointed out the rules to be attended to in the art of conserving recent fruits, and other vegetable substances, in the state of what are called preserves, marmalades, fruit jams, and jellies, to enable the reader to prepare those kinds of comfitures with economy and success.

I have given concise directions for preserving butcher’s meat, fish, and fowl, after being cooked, to render them fit for sea store, or domestic use, at a future time.

I have stated the most approved processes for curing bacon, hams, smoked beef, and salted fish; to which I have added instructions for the choice of butcher’s meat, and the best methods of constructing pantries, larders, and meat safes.

I have pointed out the loss of weight which different kinds of meat suffers in the usual operations of cooking.

I have described the most approved methods for preserving recently gathered fruits in their natural state, as nearly as possible, with directions for constructing fruit rooms, and the circumstances to be attended to in storing esculent roots and other vegetables.

I have animadverted on certain material errors, sometimes committed through ignorance or negligence, in the preparation of food, and various delicacies of the table; and I have also given hints that will be found useful, with regard to the practice of making tea and coffee. And lastly, I have made some remarks on the construction of kitchen fire-places, to which I have added designs, exhibiting the most approved cooking apparatus, calculated for the use of private families or public establishments.

In resuming the whole, I have endeavoured (and I hope with some degree of success,) to communicate to those to whom the superintendance of a family is entrusted, such useful culinary information as may lead to beneficial consequences.

FREDRICK ACCUM.

1821.

CONTENTS.

Cookery.

Page

_Preface_ iii

_Contents_ ix

_Cookery is a branch of chemical science_ 1
_Observations on the Food of Man_ 6
_Nations living wholly upon Vegetable Food_ 9
_Nations living wholly upon Animal Food_ 10
_Singular kind of Aliments of various Nations_ 12
_Difference between an Epicure and a Glutton_ 17
_Importance of the Art of Cookery_ 20
_Dietetical remarks on the choice and quantity of Food_ 38
_Extraordinary great Eaters, and observations on Abstinence_ 43
_Remarks on the origin of the custom of Eating Flesh_ 49
_Comparative Alimentary Effects of Animal and Vegetable Food_ 53
_Observations on the various kinds of Animal Substances commonly
used for food_ 59
_Observations on the various kinds of Vegetable Substances
commonly used for food_ 76
_General Operations of Cookery_ 79
_Roasting on a spit_ 80
_Roasting on a string_ 86
_Roasting in an open oven_ 88
_Roasting in a closed oven_ 89
_Broiling_ 93
_Frying_ 99
_Stewing_ 106
_Boiling_ 111
_Comparison of the Chemical Changes produced on Animal and
Vegetable Food, in the different processes of cookery_ 117
_Comparative Diminution of the Weight of Meat in Cooking_ 128
_Primary, or chief Dishes of the English table_ 132
_Broth_ 133
_Soup_ 137
_Pies_ 141
_Puddings_ 145
_Made Dishes_ 146
_Observations on Made Dishes_ 148
_Gravy_ 154
_Sauces_ 157
_Thickening Paste for broth, soup, gravy, and made dishes_ 166
_Colouring for broth, soup, gravy, and made dishes_ 162
_Stock, for making extemporaneous broth, soup, or gravy_ 163
_Observations on the Choice of Meat_ 166
_Keeping of Meat, and best construction of Larders, Pantries and
Meat Safes_ 176
_Preservation of Animal Substances in a recent state_ 182
_Pickling and Dry Salting of Meat_ 183
_Method of Preparing Bacon, Hams, and Hung Beef_ 193
_Smoke-drying, or Curing of Bacon, Hams, and Beef, as practised
in Westphalia_ 195
_Method of Curing Hams, Beef, and Fish, by means of Pyro-ligneous
acid_ 197
_Pickling of Fish_ 204
_Pickled Mackerel_ 207
_Pickled Salmon_ 208
_Collared Eels_ 209
_Best method of Preserving Cooked Butcher’s Meat, Fish, or
Poultry_ 210
_Preservation of Meat by Potting_ 218
_Potted Beef, Game, or Poultry_ 219
_Potted Ham_ 220
_Potted Lobster_ 221
_Preservation of Eggs_ 222
_Preservative Effect of Frost, on Butcher’s Meat, Fish, and Fowl_ 223

Pickles.

_Pickled Red Cabbage_ 234
_Pickled Onions_ 235
_Pickled Walnuts_ 236
_Pickled Cucumbers_ 237
_Pickled Red Beet-root_ 239
_Pickled Mushrooms_ 239
_Pickled Artichoke_ 240
_Sour Kraut_ 241
_Mushroom Catsup_ 244
_Tomata Catsup_ 246
_Walnut Catsup_ 247

Conserved Fruits

_Conservation of Recent Fruits without Sugar_ 249
_Conserved Gooseberries_ 249
_Conserved Orlean Plums_ 249
_Conserved Green Gages_ 249
_Conserved Damsons_ 249
_Conserved Peaches_ 249
_Conserved Nectarines_ 249
_Conserved Bullaces_ 249
_Conservation of Recent Fruits, by means of Sugar, in a liquid
state_ 252
_Conserved Apricots, by means of Sugar_ 252
_Conserved Plums_ 252
_Conserved Damsons_ 252
_Conserved Green Gages_ 252
_Conserved Peaches_ 252
_Conserved Nectarines_ 252
_Conserved Pine Apples_ 254
_Conserved Pears_ 255
_Conservation of Recent Fruits, by means of Sugar, in a solid
form_ 256
_Candied Orange, or Lemon Peel_ 256

Marmalades, Jams, AND Fruit Pastes.

_Black Currant Paste_ 260
_Apricot Paste_ 261
_Peach Paste_ 261
_Plum Paste_ 261
_Cherry Paste_ 261
_Quince Paste_ 261
_Raspberry Paste_ 262
_Orange and Lemon Paste_ 262
_Raspberry Jam_ 263
_Strawberry Jam_ 263
_Currant Jam_ 263
_Gooseberry Jam_ 263
_Mulberry Jam_ 263
_Apricot Jam_ 264
_Orange Marmalade_ 265
_Peach Marmalade_ 266
_Pine Apple Marmalade_ 267
_Apricot Marmalade_ 267
_Fruit Jellies_ 268
_Currant Jelly_ 269
_Raspberry Jelly_ 270
_Barberry Jelly_ 270
_Gooseberry Jelly_ 271
_Apple Jelly_ 271
_Quince and Apricot Jelly_ 272
_Fruit Syrups_ 272
_Lemon Syrup_ 274
_Orange Syrup_ 274
_Mulberry Syrup_ 275
_Raspberry and Currant Syrup_ 275
_Preservation and Storing of Fruit, and Principal requisites of
a good Fruit Room_ 276
_Preservation of recent esculent roots, pot-herbs, and other
culinary vegetables_ 280

Vinegar.

_Method of Making Gooseberry Vinegar_ 289
_Raspberry Vinegar_ 291
_Chilli Vinegar_ 292
_Tarragon Vinegar_ 292
_Mint Vinegar_ 292
_Eschallot Vinegar_ 292
_Burnet Vinegar_ 292

Tea.

_Natural History of the Tea Tree_ 295
_Observations on the art of Making Tea, and singular effects of
different kinds of Tea Pots on the Infusion of Tea_ 299
_Japanese Method of Making Tea_ 301

Coffee.

_Natural History of the Coffee Tree_ 305
_Best Method of Making Coffee_ 308

Kitchen Fire-places, AND Cooking Utensils.

_Saucepans and Stew Pans_ 329
_Preserving Pans_ 330
_Copper Cooking Utensils_ 331
_Wooden Tubs_ 336

Cookery.

COOKERY IS A BRANCH OF CHEMICAL SCIENCE.

Cookery, or the art of preparing good and wholesome food, and of preserving all sorts of alimentary substances in a state fit for human sustenance, of rendering that agreeable to the taste which is essential to the support of life, and of pleasing the palate without injury to the system, is, strictly speaking, a branch of chemistry; but, important as it is both to our enjoyments and our health, it is also one of the least cultivated branches of that science. The culinary processes of roasting, boiling, baking, stewing, frying, broiling, the art of preserving meats, bacon, and hams; the preparations of sauces, pickles, and other condiments; the conserving of fruits; the care and keeping of vegetables; the making of jellies, jams, and marmalades, are all founded upon the principles of this science, and much waste of the material, as well as labour to the parties might often be spared, were those to whom the performance of such tasks is committed, made acquainted with simple chemical truths which would invariably lead to certain results. And, besides, the same knowledge would enable them to attain a much greater degree of perfection in curing and preserving all kinds of animal and vegetable aliments, and in combining the three grand requisites of taste, nutriment, and salubrity, in whatever manner they may be prepared. And, though this art is at present in rude hands, as all branches of chemistry were originally, there is no reason that it should remain so. A kitchen is, in fact, a chemical laboratory; the boilers, stew-pans, and cradle spit of the cook, correspond to the digestors, the evaporating basins, and the crucibles of the chemist. And numerous as the receipts of cookery are, the general operations (like the general process of chemistry) are but few. In some the object aimed at is, to extract the constituent parts of the food, so as to exhibit them in a separate state, or to combine them with other substances, to produce new compounds which differ widely from those from which they originated. In others, the qualities of the substances are simply altered by the action of fire, to render them more palatable and nutritious.

From the multiplicity of circumstances to be attended to in this art, the whole of which is founded upon the principles of chemistry, we may easily see that it must be a very precarious one; and, there is reason to believe, that among the variety of circumstances which produce diseases, the improper modes of cooking food, are often the primary cause. Will it be believed, that in the cookery books which form the prevailing oracles of the kitchens in this part of the island, there are express injunctions to “_boil greens with halfpence, or verdigrise_, in order to improve their _colour_!”[1] That our puddings are frequently seasoned with laurel leaves, and our sweatmeats almost uniformly prepared in copper vessels?[2] Why are we thus compelled to swallow a supererogatory quantity of poison which may so easily be avoided? And why are we constantly made to run the risk of our lives by participating in custards, trifles, and blancmanges, seasoned by a most deadly poison extracted from the _prunus lourocerasus_?[3] Verily, where such detestable systems of cookery are practised, we may exclaim with the sacred historian, that there is “Death in the Pot.”

[1] The Ladies Library, vol. ii. p. 203; and also Modern Cookery, 2nd
Edition, p. 94.

[2] Literary Chronicle, No. xxii. p. 348, 1819.

[3] Philosophical Magazine, No. cclviii. vol. 54, p. 317.

Food badly cooked is wasted to no purpose. It seems to have been a complaint familiar in the mouth of our ancestors, and which we have too often seen reason to re-echo in the present day--“_That God sends good meat, but the devil sends cooks_.”

OBSERVATIONS ON THE FOOD OF MAN.

No animal eats such variety of food as man; he claims, more justly than any other creature, the title of _omnivorous!_ for since he is distinguished beyond all animals, but the capability of living in the most distant parts of the globe, under every variety of climate which the earth affords, his food could not be confined exclusively to either the vegetable or animal kingdom, because he inhabits regions that afford aliments widely different from each other. Cattle content themselves with green vegetables; rapacious animals live on the flesh of other creatures.

Those of the Linnæan order, _glires_,[4] live on grain and fruits; each order of birds, keeps, in the same manner, to one sort of food, animal or vegetable. Fishes, reptiles, and insects, also have each their peculiar and exclusive bill of fare, beyond which even hunger will scarcely force them to wander. But however various each class, and order, and species of animated nature may be in the choice of food, man--all-devouring man, will embrace the whole range of the creation, “scarce a berry or a mushroom can escape him.”

[4] The hare, rabbit, guinea-pig, &c.

With the lion and the wolf he will eat of fresh slain animals; with the dogs and the vulture he will feed on putrid flesh;[5] with the ox and the guinea-pig he will devour raw vegetables, under the name of salads; with the squirrel and the mouse he will feast on nuts and grain; with birds of prey he feeds on fowl of almost every species; with fishes he feeds on fish; and with insects and reptiles he sometimes lives on insects and reptiles. Nor is he satisfied even with this abundant variety, but must go to the mineral kingdom for salt, as a condiment before he can furnish out his meal.

[5] Every person knows in what a putrid state game is often eaten.

NATIONS LIVING WHOLLY UPON VEGETABLE FOOD.

The variety of alimentary substances used not only by individuals, but among whole nations, are prodigiously diversified, and climate seems to have some effect in producing the diversity of taste, though it must in a great measure depend upon the natural productions of particular countries, their religion, and their commercial intercourse.

A vegetable diet seems suitable to the hot countries under the Equator, and we accordingly find nations there, who have completely adopted it, and who abstain so much the more from all animal food, in as much as it is an article of their religious faith.

Potatoes, chesnuts, and the leguminous and cereal seeds, satisfy the want of the Alpine peasant, and numerous tribes solely feed on vegetables and water. In the most remote antiquity, we read of whole nations in Africa, and of the Indian priests, who lived entirely on vegetable substances. Some wandering Moors subsist almost entirely on gum senegal.

NATIONS LIVING WHOLLY ON ANIMAL FOOD.

The nations which live on animal food are very numerous.

The Ethiopeans, Scythians, and Arabians, ate nothing but flesh.

The miserable inhabitants of New Holland lived wholly on fish when that country was first discovered, and other tribes on the Arabian and Persian gulph.

In the Faro islands, in Iceland and Greenland, the food arises from the same source.

The shepherds in the province of Caracas, on the Oronoko, live wholly on flesh. The Tartars in Asia, and some savage nations in North America, live on raw and half putrid flesh, and some barbarous tribes eat their meat raw.

It appears to be the effect of climate and religion that makes the Hindoo adopt vegetable rather than animal food; it is the effect of natural production that makes the Greenlander relish whale-blubber and train-oil. It is to one or other of these causes that we must refer all such diversity of national tastes, though it would be difficult in many cases to separate the influence of each. We see the Englishman enjoying his under-done roast beef and his plum-pudding; the Scotsman his hodge-podge and his haggis; the Frenchman his ragouts, omlets, and fricandeaus; the German his sour-crout, sausages, and smoaked hams, the Italian his maccaroni; and the Tartar his horse-flesh.[6] “_De gustibus non est disputandum._”--There is no disputing about tastes. They are too many, and too various, to be objects of rational discussion.

[6] An article of food which has lately been seriously recommended by
Mr. Grey to Europeans as a most advantageous measure of political
economy.

SINGULAR KIND OF ALIMENTS OF VARIOUS NATIONS.

Besides the before-mentioned diversities of national and individual taste for different kinds of substances, used as aliments, there are other kinds of food which we at least think more singular. Some of the tribes of Arabs, Moors, the Californians, and Ethiopians, eat tad-poles, locusts, and spiders.

In some places the flesh of serpents, that of the _coluber natrix_ for example, is eaten; and the viper is made into broth. Several other reptiles are used as food by the European settlers in America, such as the _rana bombina_ and _rana taurina_, two species of toads.

In the East, the _lacerta scincus_ is considered a great luxury, and also an approdisiac. Even the rattle snake has been eaten, and the head boiled along with the rest of the body of the animal.

The horse, ass, and camel, are eaten in several regions of the earth, and the seal, walruss, and Arctic bear, have often yielded a supply to sailors.

On the singular taste of epicures it is not necessary to speak. Mæcenas, the prime minister of Augustus, and refined patron of Horace, had young asses served upon his table when he treated his friends; and, according to Pliny,[7] the Romans delighted in the flavour of young and well fattened puppies. This strange practice subsists still in China, and among the Esquimaux. Plump, and well roasted bats, laid upon a bed of olives, are eaten in the Levant as a dainty.

[7] 2 Book 29, c. 4.

The Roman luxury, _garum_, which bore so high a price, consisted of the putrid entrails of fishes, (first of the _garum_,) stewed in wine, and a similar dish is still considered as a great luxury, in some parts of the East. Some modern epicures delight in the trail of the woodcock, and even collect with care the contents of the intestines which distill from it in the process of roasting.

“_The Irishman_ loves usquebah,
_The Scot_ loves ale called blue cap,
_The Welshman_, he loves toasted cheese,
And makes his mouth like a mouse trap.”

APICIUS,[8] among other whimsical personages of ancient Rome, presented to his guests ragouts, exclusively composed of tongues of peacocks and nightingales. This celebrated epicure, who instituted a gormandizing academy at Rome, having heard that shrimps and prawns of a superior flavour were to be met with on the coasts of Africa than on the Italian shore, freighted a ship, and sailed in search of these far famed marine insects. This person spent more than £.60,000 merely to vary the taste of culinary sauces.

[8] Three brothers of that name were celebrated at Rome, on account of
their unparallelled love of good eating.

Vitellus was treated by his brother with a dinner, consisting of 2,000 dishes of fish, and 7,000 of poultry--surely this is not doing things by halves.

A Mr. Verditch de Bourbonne[9] is said to have bought 3,000 carps for the mere sake of their tongues, which were brought, well seasoned and _learnedly_ dressed, to his table, in one dish.

[9] Cours Gastronomique.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN EPICURE AND A GLUTTON.

However extravagant and whimsical the rational pleasures of the table may appear to a _sober_ and sensible mind, we must, in justice to epicures, cursorily observe, that there exists a material difference between a _gormand_ or epicure, and a _glutton_.[10] The first seeks for peculiar delicacy and distinct flavour in the various dishes presented to the judgment and enjoyment of his discerning palate; while the other lays aside nearly all that relates to the rational pleasures of creating or stimulating an appetite of the cates, and looks merely to quantity; this, has his stomach in view, and tries how heavy it may be laden, without endangering his health.

[10] _Tabella Cibaria_, a latin poem, relating to the pleasures of
Gastronomy, and the mysterious art of Cooking, page 15.

“The _gormand_ never loses sight of the exquisite organs of taste, so admirably disposed by Providence in the crimson chamber, where sits the discriminating judge, the human tongue.

“The _glutton_ is anathematised in the Scripture with those brutes _quorum deus venter est_. The other appears guilty of no other sin than of too great, and too minute, an attention to refinement in commercial sensuality.”

Our neighbours on the other side of the channel, so famous for indulging in the worship of Comus, consider the epicure again under two distinct views, namely: as a _gormand_, or a _gourmet_. The epicure or _gormand_ is defined--a man having accidentally been able to study the different tastes of eatables, does accordingly select the best food and the most pleasing to his palate. His character is that of a _practioner_. The _gourmet_ speculates more than he practises, and eminently prides himself in discerning the nicest degrees, and most evanescent shades of goodness and perfection in the different subjects proposed to him. He may be designated a man, who, by sipping a few drops out of the silver cup of the vintner, can instantly tell from what country the wine comes, and its age.

The _glutton_ practices without any regard to theory.

The _gormand_, or epicure, unites theory with practice.

The _gourmet_ is merely theoretical.

IMPORTANCE OF THE ART OF COOKERY.

As man differs from the inferior animals in the variety of articles he feeds upon, so he differs from them no less in the preparation of these substances. Some animals, besides man, prepare their food in a particular manner. The racoon (_ursus lutor_) is said to wash his roots before he eats them; and the beaver stores his green boughs under water that their bark and young twigs may remain juicy and palatable.

The action of fire, however, has never been applied to use by any animal except man; not even monkies, with all their knacks of imitation, and all their fondness for the comforts of a fire, have ever been observed to put on a single billet of wood to keep up the fuel.

Domesticated animals, indeed, are brought to eat, and even to relish, food which has been cooked by the action of heat.

The variety of productions introduced by our different modes of preparing and preserving food is almost endless; and it appears particularly so when we compare the usages, in this respect, of various countries.

The savage of New South Wales is scarcely more knowing in the preparation of food, by means of fire, than his neighbour, the kangaroo, if the anecdote told by Turnbull be true, that one of these savages plunged his hand into boiling water to take out a fish.

Some writers have humorously designated man to be “_a cooking animal_,” and he really is so. It is one of the leading distinctions which Providence has seen meet for wise purposes to establish, when it was said that he might eat of the fruit of every tree, and the flesh of every clean beast.

When we contemplate the aliments used by men in a civilized state of existence, we soon become convinced that only a small part of our daily food can be eaten in its natural state. Many of the substances used as aliments, are disagreeable, and some even poisonous until they have been cooked. Few of them are to be had at all seasons, although produced at others in greater abundance than can be consumed.

The importance of a proper and competent knowledge of the true and rational principles of cookery, must be obvious, when it is considered that there is scarcely an individual, young or old, in any civilized country, who has not some time or other suffered severely from errors committed in the practice of this art.

“A skilful and well directed cookery abounds in chemical preparations highly salutary. There exists a salubrity of aliments suited to every age. Infancy, youth, maturity, and old age, each has its peculiar adapted food, and that not merely applicable to the powers in full vigour, but to stomachs feeble by nature, and to those debilitated by excess.”[11]

[11] Ude’s Cookery, p. 25.--Ibid, 23.

Without abetting the unnatural and injurious appetites of the epicure, or the blameable indulgences of the glutton, we shall not perhaps be far out in our reckoning, if we assert, that almost every person is an epicure in his own way.

There are amateurs in boiling potatoes, as particular in the details, as others in dressing beaf-stakes to the utmost nicety of a single turn. Lord Blainey, still more nice, informs us, that hams are not fit to be eaten unless boiled in Champaign. _Helluos_ are not confined to salmon’s bellies, but are to be found among the rudest peasants who love porridge or frumenty--

A salmon’s belly, _Helluo_, was thy fate;
The doctor call’d, declares all help too late;
“Mercy!” cries _Helluo_, “mercy, on my soul!
Is there no hope?--Alas! then bring the jowl.”

_Pope’s Moral Essays._

Precision in mixing ingredients is as often and as closely laid down for the coarsest dish of the peasant as for the most guarded receipe of the Lady Bountiful of the village. The pleasures of the table have always been highly appreciated and sedulously cultivated among civilized people of every age and nation; and, in spite of the Stoic, it must be admitted, that they are the first which we enjoy, the last we abandon, and those of which we most frequently partake.

“Cookery is the soul of every pleasure, at all times and to all ages. How many marriages have been the consequence of a meeting at dinner; how much good fortune has been the result of a good supper, at what moment of our existence are we happier than at table? there hatred and animosity are lulled to sleep, and pleasure alone reigns.”

Pythagoras, in his golden verses, gives complete proof, that he was particularly nice in the choice of food, and carefully points out what will occasion indigestion and flatulency. He is precise in commanding his disciples to “_abstain from beans_.” Apicius, declares that he never knew a philosopher who refused to partake of a feast.

In later times, Dr. Johnson is well known to have been exceedingly fond of good dinners, considering them as the highest enjoyment of human life. The sentiments of our great moralist are a good answer to those who think the pleasures of the table incompatible with intellectual pursuits or mental superiority. “Some people,” says the Doctor, “have a foolish way of not minding, or pretending not to mind, what they eat; for my part, I mind my belly very studiously, and very carefully, and I look upon it that he who does not mind his belly will hardly mind any thing else.” Boswell, his biographer, says of him, “I never knew a man who relished good eating more than he did: and when at table, he was wholly absorbed in the business of the moment.” It was one of the objects which displeased him so much in his Northern tour, that the Scots were rather ignorant of the more refined arts of cookery. A lady in the Isle of Mull, anxious to gratify him for once in a dinner, had an excellent plum-pudding prepared, at some expense, and with the utmost care; but, to her great mortification, the doctor would not taste it, because, he said, “it is totally impossible to make a plum-pudding at all fit to eat in the Isle of Mull.”

Another instance of this philosopher’s illiberal prejudice against Scotch cookery, may also be mentioned. A lady, at whose table the Doctor was dining, enquired how he liked their national dish, the _hotch potch_, of which he was then partaking. “_Good enough for hogs_,” said the surly philosopher. “Shall I help _you_ to a little more of it?” retorted the lady. To Dr. Johnson we can add the names of two distinguished physicians, Darwin, and Beddoes, both of whom were most outrageous in their published works against the pleasures of good living; they followed however a very different practice, from what they prescribed to others, as none were more fond of good dinners than these guardians of health.

Cardinal Wolsey, we should have thought, would have had something else to mind than cooking and good eating. But no person was more anxious than he, even in the whirl of the immense public business which he had to transact, to have the most skilful cooks; for all Europe was ransacked, and no expense spared, to procure culinary operators, thoroughly acquainted with the multifarious operations of the spit, the stew-pan, and the rolling-pin.

Sir Walter Scott, has been most happy in the illustration of our ancient manners with respect to good eating, in the character of Athelstan, in the Romance of Ivanhoe.

Count Rumford has not considered the pleasure of eating, and the means that may be employed for increasing it, as unworthy the attention of a philosopher, for he says, “the enjoyments which fall to the bulk of mankind, are not so numerous as to render an attempt to increase them superfluous. And even in regard to those who have it in their power to gratify their appetites to the utmost extent of their wishes, it is surely rendering them a very important service to shew them how they may increase their pleasures without destroying their health.”

In the olden time, every man of consequence had his _magister coquorum_, or _master cook_, without whom he would not think of making a day’s journey; and it was often no easy matter to procure _master cooks_ of talent.

By a passage of Cicero[12] we are led to understand, that among other miseries of life, which constantly attended this consular personage and eloquent orator, he laboured under the disappointment of not having an excellent cook of his own; for, he says, “_coquus meus, præter jus fervens, nihil potest imitari_.” _Except hot broth, my cook can do nothing cleverly._

[12] _Fam._ ix. 20.

The salary of the Roman cooks was nearly £1000.[13] Mark Antony, hearing Cleopatra, whom he had invited to a splendid supper, (and who was as great a _gormand_ as she was handsome,) loudly praise the elegance and delicacy of the dishes, sent for the cook, and presented him with the unexpected gift of a corporate town.--_Municipium._

[13] Tabella Cibaria, ps. 19 and 20.

Even in our own times great skill in cookery is so highly praised by many, that a very skilful cook can often command, in this metropolis, a higher salary than a learned and pious curate.

His Majesty’s first and second cooks are esquires, by their office, from a period to which, in the lawyer’s phrase, the memory of man is not to the contrary. We are told by Dr. Pegge, that when Cardinal Otto, the Pope’s Legate, was at Oxford, in the year 1248, his brother officiated as _magister coquinæ_, an office which has always been held as a situation of high trust and confidence.

We might defend the art of cookery on another principle, namely--on the axiom recognized in the Malthusian Political Economy, that he who causes two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before, is a benefactor to his country and to human nature. Whether or not Malthus is quite right in this, we are not competent to decide; we leave that to Say, Godwin, Ricardo, and[14] Drummond. But certainly it must in many cases be of the utmost consequence, for families in particular, when embarrassed in circumstances, to make food go twice as far as without the art and aid of rational cookery it could do. We would particularly press this remark, as it is founded on numerous facts, and places the art of cookery in a more interesting point of view than any of the other circumstances which we have been considering.

[14] Principles of Currency, and Elements of Political
Economy--1820.

Cookery has often drawn down on itself the animadversions of both moralists, physicians, and wits, who have made it a subject for their vituperations and their ridicule.

So early as the time of the patriarch Isaac, the sacred historian casts blame upon Esau for being epicurean enough to transfer his birth-right for a mess of pottage.

Jacob is blamed for making savoury meat with a kid for his father, with a view to rob Esau of the paternal blessing.

Diogenes, the Cynic, meeting a young man who was going to a feast, took him up in the street and carried him home to his friends, as one who was running into evident danger had he not prevented him. The whole tribe, indeed, of the Stoics and Cynics, laughed at cookery, pretending, in their vanity and pride, to be above the desire of eating niceties. Lucian, with his inexhaustible satire, most effectually and humourously exposed these their pretences.

In our own times, we have had writers of eminence who have attacked the use of a variety of food as a dreadful evil. “Should we not think a man mad,” says Addison, “who at one meal will devour fowl, flesh, and fish; swallow oil, and vinegar, salt, wines, and spices; throw down sallads of twenty different herbs, sauces of an hundred ingredients, confections, and fruits of numberless sweets and flavours? What unnatural effects must such a medley produce in the body? For my part, when I behold a table set out in all its magnificence, I fancy, that I see gouts and dropsies, fevers and lethargies, and other innumerable distempers, lying in ambuscade among the dishes.”

All this, and the like is, no doubt, very plausible, and very fine, and, like many other fine speeches of modern reformers, it is more fine than just. It is indeed as good a theory as may be, that cookery is the source of most, or all, of our distempers; but withal it is _a mere theory_, and only true in a very limited degree. The truth is, that it is not cookery which is to blame, if we surfeit ourselves with its good dishes; but our own sensual and insatiable appetite, and gluttony, which prompt us to seek their gratification at the expense even of our health.

Savages, whose cookery is in the rudest state, are more apt to over-eat themselves than the veriest glutton of a luxurious and refined people; a fact, which of itself, is sufficient to prove, that it is not cookery which is the cause of gluttony and surfeiting. The savage, indeed, suffers less from his gluttony than the sedentary and refined gormand; for, after sleeping, sometimes for a whole day, after gorging himself with food, hunger again drives him forth to the chace, in which he soon gets rid of the ill-effects of his overloaded stomach. Surely cookery is not to blame for the effects of gluttony, indolence, and sedentary occupations; yet it does appear, that all its ill effects are erroneously charged to the account of the refined art of cooking.

The defence of cookery, however, which we thus bring forward to repel misrepresentation, applies only to the art of preparing good, nutritious, and wholesome food.

We cannot say one word in defence of the wretched and injurious methods but too often practised, under the name of cookery, and the highly criminal practices of adulterating food with substances deleterious to health. On this subject we have spoken elsewhere.[15]

[15] A treatise on adulterations of food, and culinary poisons,
exhibiting the fraudulent sophistications of bread, beer, wine,
spirituous liquors, tea, coffee, cream, confectionary, vinegar,
mustard, pepper, cheese, olive oil, pickles, and other articles
employed in domestic economy, and methods of detecting them.--Third
edition, 1821.

“A good dinner[16] is one of the greatest enjoyments of human life; but the practice of cookery is attended with not only so many disgusting and disagreeable circumstances, and even dangers, that we ought to have some regard for those who encounter them for our pleasure.”

[16] The Cook’s Oracle.--Preface, p. xxxv.

DIETETICAL REMARKS ON THE CHOICE AND QUANTITY OF FOOD.

Almost every person who can afford it, eats more than is requisite for promoting the growth, and renewing the strength and waste of his body. It would be ridiculous to speak concerning the precise quantity of food necessary to support the body of different individuals. Such rules do not exist in nature. The particular state or condition of the individual, the variety of constitution, and other circumstances, must be taken into account. If, after dinner, we feel ourselves as cheerful as before, we may be assured that we have made a dietetical meal.

Much has been said of temperance. The fact is, that there is an absolute determined standard of _temperance_, the point of which must be fixed by every man’s natural and unprovoked appetite, while he continues _in a state of health_. As long as a person who pursues a right habit of life, eats and drinks no more than his stomach calls for and will bear, without occasioning uneasiness of any kind to himself, he may be said to live temperate. The stomach revolts against the reverse of it; indeed, the stomach is the grand organ of the human system, it is the _conscience_ of the _body_, and like that, will become uneasy if all is not right within; it speaks pretty plainly to those who lead an intemperate life.

“We may compare,” says Doctor Kitchener, “the human frame to a watch, of which the heart is the main _spring_, the stomach the _regulator_, and what we put into it, the _key_, by which the machine is set a-going; according to the quantity, quality, and proper digestion of what we eat and drink will be the action of the system: and when a due proportion is preserved between the quantum of exercise and that of excitement, all goes well. If the machine be disordered, the same expedients are employed for its re-adjustment, as are used by the watch-maker; it must be carefully cleaned and then judiciously oiled. To affirm that such a thing is wholesome, or unwholesome, without considering the subject in all the circumstances to which it bears relation, and the unaccountable idiosyncrasies of particular constitutions is, with submission, talking nonsense. Every man must consult his stomach; whatever agrees with that perfectly well, is wholesome for him, whilst it continues to do so whenever natural appetite calls for food.”

Celsus spoke very right when he said that a healthy man ought not to tie himself up by strict rules, nor to abstain from any sort of food; that he ought sometimes to fast, and sometimes to feast. When applied to eating, nothing is more true than the proverb--

“_Bonarum rerum consuetudo pessima est._--SYRUS.

“_The too constant use, even of good things, is hurtful._”

It is certainly better to restrain ourselves, so as to _use_, but not to _abuse_, our enjoyments; and to this we may add the opinion of doctor Fothergil, which the experience of every individual confirms, namely, that “the food we fancy most, sits easiest on the stomach.”

What has been so far stated on the choice and quantity of food to be taken at a time, of course, relates only to persons in a state of health; the diet of the delicate, the sickly, and the infirm, must be regulated by the physician, and even the aged require particular kinds of food.

“Experience[17] has fully convinced me, (says an eminent Physiologist), that the latter stages of human life, are often abridged by unsuitable diet.”

[17] Carlisle on the disorders of Old Age, ps. 2 and 27. This
book exhibits an excellent view of the most suitable diet for aged,
weak, and sickly people.

“The most numerous tribe of disorders incident to advanced life, spring from the failure or errors of the stomach, and its dependancies, and perhaps the first sources of all the infirmities of inability, may be traced to effects arising from imperfectly digested food.”

EXTRAORDINARY GREAT EATERS, AND OBSERVATIONS ON ABSTINENCE.

In some persons, an extraordinary great appetite seems to be constitutional.

_Charles Domery_, aged 21 years, when a prisoner of war, at Liverpool, consumed in one day

4lbs. of Raw Cow’s Udder.
10lbs. Raw Beef.
2lbs. Tallow Candles.
------
Total 16lbs.

and five bottles of porter; and although allowed the daily rations of ten men, he was not satisfied.

Another extraordinary instance has been recorded by Baron Percy:--A soldier of the name of _Tarare_, who, at the age of 17, could devour in the course of 24 hours, a leg of beef weighing 24lbs. and thought nothing of swallowing the dinner dressed for fifteen German peasants. But those men were remarkable not only for the quantity of food they consumed, but also for its quality, giving a preference to raw meat, and even living flesh and blood.

_Domery_, in one year, eat 174 cats, dead and alive; and _Tarare_ was strongly suspected of having eaten an infant.

Man can sustain the privation of food for several days, more or fewer in number, according to circumstances--the old better than the young, and the fat better than the lean. The absolute want of drink can be suffered only a short time, they have been strikingly described by Mungo Park and Ali Bey, as experienced in their own persons.

The narratives of ship-wrecked mariners also prove, with how very little food life may be supported for a considerable length of time; and the history of those impostors who pretend to live altogether without food or drink, display this adaptation of the wants of the body to its means of supply in a still more striking manner; for, even after the deception, in such cases as that of Ann Moore, is exposed, it will be found that the quantity of aliment actually taken was incredibly small.

Captain Woodard has added to his interesting narrative many instances of the power of the human body to resist the effects of severe abstinence. He himself and his five companions rowed their boat for seven days without any sustenance but a bottle of brandy, and then wandered about the shores of Celebes six more, without any other food than a little water and a few berries. Robert Scotney lived seventy-five days alone in a boat with three pounds and a half of meat, three pounds of flour, two hogsheads of water, some whale oil, and a small quantity of salt. He also used an amazing quantity of tobacco. Six soldiers deserted from St. Helena in a boat, on the 10th of June 1799, with twenty-five pounds of bread and about thirteen gallons of water. On the 18th, they reduced their allowance to one ounce of bread and two mouthfuls of water, on which they subsisted till the 26th, when their store was expended. Captain Inglefield, with eleven others, after five days of scanty diet, were obliged to restrict it to a biscuit divided into twelve morsels for breakfast, and the same for dinner, with an ounce or two of water daily. In ten days, a very stout man died, unable to swallow, and delirious. Lieutenant Bligh and his crew lived forty-two days upon five day’s provisions.

In the tenth volume of Hufland’s _Journal_, is related a very remarkable, and well-authenticated case of voluntary starvation. A recruit, to avoid serving, had cut off the fore-finger of his right hand. When in hospital for the cure of the wound, dreading the punishment which awaited him, he resolved to starve himself; and on the 2nd of August began obstinately to refuse all food or drink, and persisted in this resolution to the 24th of August. During these twenty-two days he had absolutely taken neither food, drink, nor medicine, and had no evacuation from his bowels. He had now become very much emaciated, his belly somewhat distended, he had a violent pain in his loins, his thirst was excessive, and his febrile heat burning. His behaviour had also become timid. Having been promised his discharge, unpunished, he was prevailed upon to take some sustenance, but could not, at first, bear even weak soup and luke-warm drinks. Under proper treatment, he continued to mend for eight days, and his strength was returning, when, on the 1st of September, he again refused food and got a wild look. He took a little barley-water every four or five days to the 8th; from that day to the 11th, he took a little biscuit with wine; but again from the 11th September to the 9th October, a period of twenty-eight days, he neither took food, drink, nor had any natural evacuation. From the 9th to the 11th he again took a little nourishment, and began to recruit; but, on the 11th, he finally renewed his resolution to starve himself, and persevered until his death, which took place on the 21st November, after a total abstinence of 42 days.

REMARKS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE CUSTOM OF EATING FLESH.

We are told, that in the first ages of the world, men lived upon acorns, berries, and such fruits as the earth spontaneously produced, and that in the Shepherd state of society, milk, obtained from flocks and herds, came into use. Soon afterwards the flesh of wild animals was added to the food, and the juice of grape to the drink of the human species. Hogs were the first animals, of the domestic kind, that were eaten by men, for they held it ungrateful to eat the animals that assisted them in their labour. “We are happy to find, (says the author of an elegant poem[18]) that it was not on account of the solidity, wholesomeness, delicacy, and other excellent qualities of his flesh, that the ox was worshipped on the banks of the Nile, and in the gorgeous temples of Memphis; for, although professedly friends to gastronomy, moderated by a decided aversion to any thing like sensuality, we are of opinion that man is less fit to feed upon _carnal_ than vegetable substance.”

[18] Tabella Cibaria, p. 33.

“The noble horse, fierce and unsubdued, was still roaming with all the roughness and intractability of original freedom, in his native groves, who already domesticated, the honest steer had willingly lent the strength of his powerful shoulders to the laborious strife of the plough. This had not only raised altars to him under the name of APIS, but even placed him among the first constellations of the Zodiac above the watchful eyes of the Chaldeans. In the reign of Erichtonius, fourth king of Athens, Diomus was offering to Jupiter the first fruits of the earth. Whilst the priests were busied apart in preparing some necessaries to the solemnity, an ox, passing by, browsed of all that had been gathered on the altar for the sacrifice. Diomus, in his disappointment and passion, slew him on the spot. The Gods, instead of countenancing his religious zeal, sent forth immediately all the horrors of a pestilence upon the Athenians, which did not cease until they had instituted a festival called “_The Death of the Ox_.”[19]

[19] Nonius de re Cibaria.

“Porphyrius traces the custom of eating meat to _Pygmalion_, king of Tyre, in Phœnicia. Although the Jews were allowed to eat the flesh of the immolated beasts, in the golden age, man had not found courage and appetite enough to eat the flesh of an innocent animal; but soon after, this cruelty extended to nearly all quadrupeds, except those who were carnivorous. Tradition states, that _Prometheus_ was the first who killed a bullock, _Ceres_ a pig, and _Bacchus_ a goat, for the uses of their tables. It is obvious that pigs, by turning up the new-sown fields for the sake of the grain, and goats browzing the tender sprouts of the vine-tree, were respectively inimical to _Ceres_ and _Bacchus_. As for the killing of the first bullock by _Prometheus_, we leave to other commentators to explain.”

COMPARATIVE ALIMENTARY EFFECTS OF ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE FOOD.

Animal food alone is ill adapted to form the whole of our aliment. The inquiries of physiologists have determined, that animal food is highly stimulant, and like all other stimulants, after the excitement has been brought to its acmé, debility must by necessity succeed. This, however, is not so much the case where fresh meat is used as when the meat is salted; but this may be, because our examples, with regard to fresh meat, are less marked than in the case of salted provision. For few instances occur in which fresh meat forms the whole food, exclusive altogether of fruits or other vegetable aliment. Salted meat often constitutes a great proportion of the food in long sea voyages, in the long dreary winters in Lapland, and amongst the inhabitants of besieged towns.

When this practice is continued for any length of time, oppression and langour begin to be felt, indigestion is brought on, and hurried breathing and a quick pulse on taking the slightest exercise, the gums become soft and spongy, the breath becomes fœtid, and the limbs swoln. Such are the dreadful effects produced by salted provisions, when a proper proportion of vegetable food is not used along with them.

The fact is, that nations, whose food is entirely vegetable, are less active and energetic than those whose diet is more nutritive. The inhabitants of Ireland, in the most humble walks of life, for example, who live almost exclusively on potatoes, are said to be more indolent and sluggish, when compared with their neighbours in England, who would think such diet to be no better than a prison allowance of bread and water.

In the East, where rice forms the great article of food with some tribes, the people are far from being robust or able to undergo much fatigue in labour or in war. The striking fact, that the English soldiers and sailors surpass all those of other nations in bravery and hardihood, is sufficient, we think, to demonstrate the effect of a considerable proportion of animal food.--For, though it be said, that a great number of our soldiers are Irishmen, yet our argument holds good, since, all these when in the army, or navy, live exactly in the same manner as the English themselves. The change of diet, indeed, is in these brave men very obvious; for the Irish and Scots soldiers are often more hardy than the English; not as it is supposed because they have been innured to greater hardships in their youth, but because their diet being more generous than it was at that period, its effects become more obvious than in those who have always had animal food.