Economy. — ^And, in order that the food be pleasing, it is not
necessary that it be expensive. The maxim that "the best is
always the cheapest" does not apply to food. The larger part of
the price of costlier foods is paid for appearance, flavor or scarcity,
and while people who can afford them may be justified in buying,
it is well to remember that the cheaper foods frequently contain as
much if not more nutriment and with a little care can be made
just as pleasing. It is the lazy and unskilled cook who pays
exorbitant prices for food rather than take the trouble to make
the common foodstuffs appeal to the palate.
The remedy for the foolish waste of money in buying costly
foods "will be found," writes Dr. Atwater in a Government Bulle-
tin, "in a better knowledge of cooking and serving food, and in the
acceptance of the doctrine that economy is not only respectable
but honorable." The German housewife's "thrift" may seem a
trifle sordid at times; but the study of the relative costs of foods
should not be beneath the dignity of any woman. Housekeeping
is becoming more and more a matter of science, and the laurels
are bound to fall to the woman who conducts her household in a
business-like way. No man, no matter how wealthy he may be,
5
THE FINE ART OF COOKERY
permits needless waste of money in the management of Ms busi-
ness; no woman should permit waste in the management of the
household, which is her business.
"It is common enough," writes Ida M. Tarbell, "to hear women
arguing that this close grappling with household economy is nar-
rowing, not worthy of them. ^Vhy keeping track of the cost of
eggs and butter and calculating how much your income will allow
you is any more narrowing than keeping track of the cost and
quality of cotton or wool or iron and calculating how much a mill
requires, it is hard to see. It is the same kind of problem. More-
over, it has the added interest of being always an independent
personal problem. Most men work under the deadening effect of
impersonal routine. They do that which others have planned and
for results in which they have no share."
One point is worth mentioning here, and that is that "ready-to-
eat" foods, except perhaps in the case of cereals,where the saving
of fuel is worth considering, are expensive and not always so good
as the old-fashioned dishes prepared in the old-fashioned way.
The cook who is exceedingly pressed for time or the housewife who
does her own cooking may be justified in using instantaneous,
ready-flavored gelatine, for instance; but the result is seldom so
good as gelatme prepared by the old method, and the cost is de-
cidedly greater. Even in the matter of baking powder the house-
wife may, by making the mixture herself, reduce the cost to ex-
actly one-fourth of its present market price.
Page 3
Presented as published in 1913. 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
Economy. — ^And, in order that the food be pleasing, it is not necessary that it be expensive. The maxim that "the best is always the cheapest" does not apply to food. The larger part of the price of costlier foods is paid for appearance, flavor or scarcity, and while people who can afford them may be justified in buying, it is well to remember that the cheaper foods frequently contain as much if not more nutriment and with a little care can be made just as pleasing. It is the lazy and unskilled cook who pays exorbitant prices for food rather than take the trouble to make the common foodstuffs appeal to the palate.
The remedy for the foolish waste of money in buying costly foods "will be found," writes Dr. Atwater in a Government Bulletin, "in a better knowledge of cooking and serving food, and in the acceptance of the doctrine that economy is not only respectable but honorable." The German housewife's "thrift" may seem a trifle sordid at times; but the study of the relative costs of foods should not be beneath the dignity of any woman. Housekeeping is becoming more and more a matter of science, and the laurels are bound to fall to the woman who conducts her household in a business-like way. No man, no matter how wealthy he may be,
permits needless waste of money in the management of Ms business; no woman should permit waste in the management of the household, which is her business.
"It is common enough," writes Ida M. Tarbell, "to hear women arguing that this close grappling with household economy is narrowing, not worthy of them. ^Vhy keeping track of the cost of eggs and butter and calculating how much your income will allow you is any more narrowing than keeping track of the cost and quality of cotton or wool or iron and calculating how much a mill requires, it is hard to see. It is the same kind of problem. Moreover, it has the added interest of being always an independent personal problem. Most men work under the deadening effect of impersonal routine. They do that which others have planned and for results in which they have no share."
One point is worth mentioning here, and that is that "ready-toeat" foods, except perhaps in the case of cereals,where the saving of fuel is worth considering, are expensive and not always so good as the old-fashioned dishes prepared in the old-fashioned way. The cook who is exceedingly pressed for time or the housewife who does her own cooking may be justified in using instantaneous, ready-flavored gelatine, for instance; but the result is seldom so good as gelatme prepared by the old method, and the cost is decidedly greater. Even in the matter of baking powder the housewife may, by making the mixture herself, reduce the cost to exactly one-fourth of its present market price.