FoodNetArchive

The thorough good cook

1895

Page 4

Presented as published in 1895. Historical recipes may not meet modern food-safety standards. Cook from the modern interpretation, not the original instructions.
The explanation of the absurdity is that the compiler of the culinary manual in question has picked up at a bookstall some cookery books written by a famous chef of the past — say Monsieur Vincent de la Chapelle, who was chief cook to the witty Earl of Chesterfield, and published his Livre de Cuisine in three volumes in 1742. A dish of miscellaneous ingredients called an olio was then extremely fashionable, and some of La Chapelle's olio recipes are in a degree as extravagant as the one which for the purpose of illustration I have invented. Finally, throughout " The Thorough Good Cook " I have been intent upon the endeavour to persuade English ladies to bring about in their culinary economy that which I hold to be a long needed and most important reform. My dear Madam, for twenty-five or thirty pounds a year you can get a female cook who is able to make, Ave Avill say, about a dozen soups, and she will serve up about an equal number of ^j^«^s of fish; she will be a good roaster and boiler, xii THE THOROUGH GOOD COOK. and a tolerable adopt with the gridiron and the frying- pan; her pies, puddings, and sweets will be as a rule ir- reproachable, and she will be able to give you a few simple entrees, such as hashed mutton,' stewed rump steak, haricot mutton, veal cutlet and bacon, or minced A'eal. For forty pounds or thereabouts you shall have a cook who will be able to make a bisque of lobster or cray-fish, who can curry tripe or eggs, who will serve u]3, perhaps, twenty differ- ent entrees, who will know the difference between a chicken salad and one a la Riisse, and who will even be able to send up a triiite au bleu, a saumon d la Chainbord, or a dariole of ojT-sters. But unless you have a cook at fifty pounds a year or upwards, I will wager that she will be wholly un- satisfactory as a preparer of vegetables for the table. I am well acquainted with the cant so common in ordinary cookery books about " the boiled potato." The boiled potato, the appearance of which at Enghsh tables dates from about a hundred and thirty years ago, has been the bane of English cooker}" but let that pass. I will grant that your middle- class cook knows how not only to boil but to fry and mash and stew potatoes. Sometimes, but not often, she can saiiter or slightly bro-wTi them. But with regard to other vegetables she is, in general, grossly ignorant. Our miser- able deficiencies in this resfard arise, no doubt, from our stupid and barbarous custom, when the joint is served, of loading the plate with three or four kinds of crudely boiled vegetables : potatoes, carrots, and greens are all mixed up pell-mell by the side of the meat. I have even seen asparagus served with roast mutton. What we fail to understand is that no dish of meat should be served with more than one vegetable on the same dish, and that at least one course should be composed of vegetables alone, carefully and artistically cooked, and not brought to table reeking with the Avater in which they have been boiled. For goodness' sake, dear lady, persuade your cook to deal sensibly with the TO THE LADY OF TEE HOUSE. xiii