440 



COOKERY. 



iiig that son son with "rent success, he returned to 

 Fngland. In 1797, he \\eiit again to Dublin, aiul 

 continued there three years. At length, he made his 

 appearance at Covent-garden theatre, Oct. 31, 1800, 

 in die diameter of Kichard III. His reputation was 

 at once established, as a histrionic performer of the 

 first class ; and, after repeating the part of Kichard 

 III., several times, he acted laeo, Macbeth, Shy- 

 lock, Sir Giles Overreach, Sir Pertinax Macsyco- 

 phant, Kitely, &c., with at least equal applause, if 

 not with equal skill and discrimination. The talents 

 of Cooke were obscured by indulgence in pernicious 

 liabits of intemperance, which ultimately destroyed 

 his popularity. Owing to the irregularity of his 

 conduct, Cooke at length became the plague and 

 terror of English managers, few, if any, of whom 

 probably, regretted his removal to America, where 

 he had formed a theatrical engagement. In Ameri- 

 ca, he displayed the same powerful abilities, and the 

 same vicious weakness, which had distinguished him 

 in his native country. Death, hastened by intem- 

 perance, put an end to his career, March 25, 

 1812. 



COOKERY. It is not great things, but trifles, 

 which principally make up the sum of human hap- 

 piness. Who would not think a dull razor, which 

 draws tears from the eyes every morning, or a creak- 

 ing tavern sign, which disturbs us every night, a 

 mucli greater evil than the single sharp pang occa- 

 sioned oy the drawing of a tooth ? An act, there- 

 fore, like eating, which is repeated several times 

 every day by the millions who inhabit the globe, is 

 a subject worthy of serious investigation. The scien- 

 tific pride, which disdains to dwell on the ordinary 

 affairs of common life, is rapidly vanishing ; and, in 

 an age when utility is the great object 01 the philo- 

 sopher, cookery may hope to engage a share of his 

 attention. It has been asked, Why does man cook? 

 Why does he, unlike the lower animals, transform 

 the materials, which nature gives him for nourish- 

 ment, at least with the exception of some savagS 

 tribes? Some philosophers have ascribed it to a 

 desire innate in man to make clianges in everything 

 that he meets But however philosophers may solve 

 this question, the fact is clear that we cook, and all 

 agree in desiring something palatable on their tables. 

 Mr Frederic Accum has given us a treatise on Culi- 

 nary Chemistry (London, Ackermann, 1821, 8vo) ; 

 but much remains to be done to put cookery on a 

 scientific footing. The maxim, that " people will 

 easily find out what is best for them," is by no means 

 applicable to cookery. Every body who has travel- 

 led, and has observed the manner of cooking among 

 different nations, must have seen, that, with the ex- 

 ception of those countries where man lives chiefly up- 

 on fruits, or in an almost savage state, people gene- 

 rally spoil what nature affords them as nourishment ; 

 and he would be a great benefactor to his nation, 

 who should teach them to adopt a system of cookery 

 which would make their dishes at once palatable and 

 wholesome. How much money would be saved, 

 how many diseases prevented, how much comfort 

 gained, if cookery were placed on a more rational 

 basis, and were accommodated judiciously to the re- 

 spective products of different countries ! Rumford 

 lias attained deserved celebrity for his efforts to im- 

 prove the food of the poor ; and he would be no 

 small benefactor of his species, who should be equal- 

 ly successful in improving the diet of the people at 

 large. Most modern books on cookery are devoted 

 to the preparation of refined dishes ; and a very un- 

 founded prejudice prevails, as if the culinary art 

 were too trivial a matter to engage a reflecting mind. 

 We are acquainted, however, with one book, the 

 editor of which, a gentleman of literary reputation in 



liernmny, lias applied liim,< li'io the investigation of 

 the culinary art, with a view of throwing light upon 

 in; 1 1 iy points in the practice of cookery, which are, in 

 general, but insufficiently understood, and of teaching 

 the preparation of wholesome and palatable dishes 

 within the reach of the people at large. This ex- 

 cellent work, of which we should be glad to see ;i 

 translation, is called fit-ixt der Kochkunst, von Koenig, 

 herausgegeben von 6. F. von Rumohr, Stiittgard, 1822 

 (The Spirit of Cookery, by Koeiiig, edited by the Bar- 

 on von Rumour). 



As arcliitecture is divided into two sorts, the use- 

 ful and the ornamental, so cookery might be divided 

 into the useful and the luxurious ; and ugain, as the 

 pharmacopeia of some countries is divided into a 

 general one, and one for the poor, so useful cookery 

 might also be divided into common and pauper cook- 

 ery. Prizes might be offered for the invention of 

 cheap and wholesome dishes, and more care might be 

 taken to provide good cooks, by setting on foot 

 establishments where particular instruction should 

 be given to girls desirous of becoming cooks. It is 

 a little surprising, that, while so much care is be- 

 stowed on the improvement of the fruits of the earth, 

 and the animals used for food, so little attention, com- 

 paratively speaking, is given to improving the culi- 

 nary processes, which render them fit for affording 

 nourishment. In addition to the work of the baron 

 Rumohr, above mentioned, the best books on this sub- 

 ject are the Cook's Oracle and Housekeeper's Man- 

 ual, by Dr Kitchener ; the French Cook, by Louis 

 Eustache Ude ; and the Cook and Housewife's Man- 

 ual, by Mrs Margaret Dodds of the Cleikum Inn 

 (Mrs Johnstone of Edinburgh). Ude's work is adapt- 

 ed more particularly for those who say, with Voltaire, 

 Qu'un cuisinier est mi mortel divin ! Dr Kitchener's 

 and Mrs Johnstone's Manuals, besides being valua- 

 ble as cookery books, are composed in such a manner 

 as to interest and amuse the mere literary reader. 



The melody of Homer's verse can hardly recon- 

 cile us to the cookery of his countrymen; described 

 in his flowing hexameters. All the beauty of the 

 Ionian dialect cannot give a charm to the process of 

 preparing the pork for the feast of Penelope's suitors. 

 How much the Egyptians, so far advanced in many 

 branches of civilization, had accomplished in the art 

 of cookery, Champollion has not as yet informed us. 

 The early Romans did not disdain to direct then* at- 

 tention, not only to husbandry, but also to cookery. 

 Cato, in his book on agriculture, gives several re- 

 ceipts for dishes of flour and vegetables. The intro- 

 duction or successful cultivation of important vegeta- 

 bles was frequently the occasion of surnames, in the 

 early times of Rome, as Lentulus, Fabius, Cicero. 

 The meals of the Romans consisted generally of 

 three courses : the first contained light food, eggs, 

 oysters, and the like, to excite the appetite ; next, 

 came the brunt of war, as the ancients called it, 

 made up of roast and boiled dishes, of every descrip- 

 tion ; then followed the desert (mensa secunda) ot 

 fruit and pastry. Luxury in eating increased, wher, 

 the Romans became acquainted with Asiatic magni- 

 ficence, to such a degree that laws were required to 

 keep it within bounds. Lucnllus carried epicurism to 

 the extreme. He erected several dining halls in his 

 palaces, and gave to each of them the name of some 

 deity, which was a guide to the steward in regulat- 

 ing the etiquette and the expenses of the banquet : 

 a cana, for example, in the hall of Apollo, commonly 

 cost 50,000 drachms^ or .1060. Under Pompey, 

 M. Aufridius Lurco invented the fattening of pea- 

 cocks, and, in this way, earned, in a short time, 

 60,000 sestertia. During this period, an actor had a 

 dish prepared, which cost .422. It consisted of 

 singing and talking birds, each ^f which was valu- 



