It is obvious, then, that we get our word “ Cook ” either direct from Rome, or indirectly through the Anglo alliance with the German Saxon. An amusing writer has observed that the Latin for Gaul I and game-cock are the same — “ Gallus.” The French for cock is Coq, being the first syllable, or root, of coquere ; hence he deems it probable that the term Cook and coquere may have received their origin from the Gallic coq — an argument that appears to gain some sort of confirmation For details respecting Culinary Processes, Utensils, Sauces, Ac., referred to, see under their special heads. 0. .T. CORBLET. C. NORVYAK. MODERN CHEFS. COOKS, AND CONFECTIONERS. C. WILLIN' T. WALLACE. W. A. RAWSON. THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF PRACTICAL COOKERY. 433 Cooks and Cooking — continued. in the confusion that often exists between the words roast and roost. The “ ruler of the roast ” might be the ruler of the roost, according to Chaucer, for he has written, “ A fat swan loved he best of any roost.” Whether, therefore, the name “ Cook ” is synonymous with “ cock ” or not, or roast with roost, concerns us no longer. The term Cook and “ to cook ” conveys to our modern intelligence such a profundity of meaning that we need to consider the art and its professors as we find them to-day, rather than waste precious time in seeking for their origin. Athenseus describes a Cook in very absolute terms. He wrote : To waste some beef, to carve a joint with neatness, To boil up sauces, and to blow the fii-e, Is anybody’s task ; he who does this Is but a seasoner and broth-maker. A. Cook is quite another thing-. His mind Must comprehend all facts and circumstances, Where is the place, and what the time of supper ; Who are the guests, and who the entei-tainer ; What fish he ought to buy, and where to buy it. From which some idea may be gathered of the duties ascribed to the chef de cuisine ; but, with the exception of those whom we may consider masters of their art, such accomplishments are rarely to be found. It would be out of place here to declaim against the sad ignorance that exists amongst Cooks ; we should rather sympathise with those from whom big things are expected from slender means and still slighter attain- ments. How are our Cooks to learn ? Not from the multitude of cookery books, surely, for they can but convey confusion to the student ; not from classes, for in these the members are generally taught that which is beyond either their abilities or necessities, omitting the plain elementary instruction which is so lamentably lacking amongst the Cooks who are entrusted with the care of our kitchens and the providing. It must not be supposed from the foregoing remarks that there are no such practitioners as “ good plain Cooks ” to be found, for experience tells us that there are some about if you can manage to find them ; but the difficulty is to define a good plain Cook, hence the title has been assumed by those who know little or nothing of the art, to the detriment of those who are better informed. By the establishment of a system of examinations and diplomas, good Cooks would be speedily sorted out and the duffers exposed. Such a system should be supported by all those who employ Cooks, and then none should be engaged unless they are duly certificated, either as first, second, or third class.

AI-modernized reading of the original text

It is obvious, then, that we get our word “ Cook ” either direct from Rome, or indirectly through the Anglo alliance with the German Saxon. An amusing writer has observed that the Latin for Gaul I and game-cock are the same — “ Gallus.” The French for cock is Coq, being the first syllable, or root, of coquere ; hence he deems it probable that the term Cook and coquere may have received their origin from the Gallic coq — an argument that appears to gain some sort of confirmation For details respecting Culinary Processes, Utensils, Sauces, Ac., referred to, see under their special heads. 0. .T. CORBLET. C. NORVYAK. MODERN CHEFS. COOKS, AND CONFECTIONERS. C. WILLIN' T. WALLACE. W. A. RAWSON. Cooks and Cooking — continued. in the confusion that often exists between the words roast and roost. The “ ruler of the roast ” might be the ruler of the roost, according to Chaucer, for he has written, “ A fat swan loved he best of any roost.” Whether, therefore, the name “ Cook ” is synonymous with “ cock ” or not, or roast with roost, concerns us no longer. The term Cook and “ to cook ” conveys to our modern intelligence such a profundity of meaning that we need to consider the art and its professors as we find them to-day, rather than waste precious time in seeking for their origin. Athenseus describes a Cook in very absolute terms. He wrote : To waste some beef, to carve a joint with neatness, To boil up sauces, and to blow the fire, Is anybody’s task ; he who does this Is but a seasoner and broth-maker. A. Cook is quite another thing-. His mind Must comprehend all facts and circumstances, Where is the place, and what the time of supper ; Who are the guests, and who the entertainer ; What fish he ought to buy, and where to buy it. From which some idea may be gathered of the duties ascribed to the chef de cuisine ; but, with the exception of those whom we may consider masters of their art, such accomplishments are rarely to be found. It would be out of place here to declaim against the sad ignorance that exists amongst Cooks ; we should rather sympathise with those from whom big things are expected from slender means and still slighter attainments. How are our Cooks to learn ? Not from the multitude of cookery books, surely, for they can but convey confusion to the student ; not from classes, for in these the members are generally taught that which is beyond either their abilities or necessities, omitting the plain elementary instruction which is so lamentably lacking amongst the Cooks who are entrusted with the care of our kitchens and the providing. It must not be supposed from the foregoing remarks that there are no such practitioners as “ good plain Cooks ” to be found, for experience tells us that there are some about if you can manage to find them ; but the difficulty is to define a good plain Cook, hence the title has been assumed by those who know little or nothing of the art, to the detriment of those who are better informed. By the establishment of a system of examinations and diplomas, good Cooks would be speedily sorted out and the duffers exposed. Such a system should be supported by all those who employ Cooks, and then none should be engaged unless they are duly certificated, either as first, second, or third class.

The encyclopædia of practical cookery