Home › Chap. XXVI-French Cookery, and Miscellaneous › Chap. XXVI-French Cookery, and Miscellaneous

Chap. XXVI-French Cookery, and Miscellaneous

RECEIPTS.

SECT. 1. FRENCH COOKERY, AS COMPARED WITH THE ENGLISII SCHOOL. 1118. For many years our opposite neighbours have looked down upon the cookery of this country with the greatest contempt, considering it in a barbarous condition. This low opinion may have been well founded in the last century, but I much question whether at present we may not have it in our power to return the compliment; though I am ready to admit that we owe a great deal to the French for our existing knowledge of the art of cookery. I am not, however, attempting to settle the question depending upon the relative inventive powers of the two nations, but that connected with the present modes of preparing their food. Let any one sit down to a dinner cooked by a first-rate French cook, and say if it is not true that all the dishes worth eating are cooked on English principles, although, perhaps, dignified with high-sounding French names; while, on the other hand, the veritable French dishes, however beautiful and tempting to the eye they may be, are, when tasted, by no means of first-rate flavour. I am not now speaking from my own particular experience, because I know that the taste of an individual is no criterion by which to judge of those belonging to the multitude; but from close observation I should decidedly say, that the large proportion of the English who have the choice of both kinds, prefer genuine English dishes to those of French preparation. Of course, it will happen that those who have only an occasional opportunity of gratifying their fancy for novelty by partaking of strange fare, profess to like what to them is a rarity; but this is no rule to guide in the choice, and it is only needful in reality to consider whether the French have discovered any methods of cookery more economical, more wholesome, or more palatable, than ours. Here issue must join, and I boldly maintain that they have not. I know full well that the French can, and do, live upon less than the English in point of animal food, but they make up for this abstinence by indulging largely in salads and vegetables; and in bulk, as well as most probably in weight, of food they equal, if they do not go beyond, the usual allowance of the English. But do they, or do they not, cook this said animal food in a more wholesome mode than we do? If it is maintained that they do, I must ask in what way? Is it in their soups? We have the same. Is it in their fish? I maintain that plain boiled turbot is more wholesome than a vol-au-vent de turbot. With regard to their entrées and entremets, they are only other names for our side and corner-dishes, confectionery, and sweets-none of which are certainly to be recommended for their suitability to the stomach. If these facts are really what I say, then French cookery can only claim a superiority in point of flavour; and here the matter cannot be settled, since every one will judge for himself. But in every other respect I maintain that, with the aid of the old English cook of the early part of this century, we may live quite as economically, and in a more wholesome way than even by the aid of Soyer himself. To the French system of frying I have given due credit under the section treating of that department, but beyond that I know of little real improvement which they can claim; excepting, perhaps, the mode of boiling their fresh beef (bouilli), which would not bear to be presented in English style. The plan, however, is a good one, and might certainly be adopted in this country with advantage. The English mistake has been, not so much in the poverty of their cookery, as in the abuse of its abundance of good things. If fine meat were more plentiful in Paris, we should see it more frequently produced au naturel; but, with their tough and stringy beef and mutton, and melancholylooking veal, they are compelled to have recourse on all occasions to