1803.]  Obfervations on the Progrefs of Cookery in England. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
MONG the lovers of good eating 
who orcafionally read your Magazine, 
fume may poflibly be found who will ho- 
nour a few curlory obfervations on the pro- 
gre(s of cookery in England with their pe- 
rufal, 
A. deep writer would perhaps go back 
to inveftigate the culinary knowledge of 
the patriarchs, and a claffical one might 
pofiibly delight in collecting hints of 
cookery foi Homer, Ariltophanes, or 
Athenzeus ; but leaving thefe, and even 
without once confulting the Raman work 
which has been given to Apicius, I fhall 
open my remarks with the S08 of the 
early Britons. Of Britifh cookery, how- 
ever, we know but little. ae ‘ills us 
that the Britons lived chiefly upon milk 
and flefh ; and though milk was fo much 
ufed, yet Strabo has taken particular pains 
toinform us that the Britons were without 
cheefe. In their provifions it feems they 
were much confined, ufing only Wee and 
oxen. Hares, and hens, and geefe, were 
Never eaten, from notions of fuberitition ; 
nor did even fifh rank among their daily 
food. »As they had no great variety of 
provifions, it cannot be fuppofed they had 
much art in preparing them for ule; 
though fome of the Celtic tribes knew how 
to roait both their acorns and other wild 
fruits, grinding them into meal, - and 
making them into a kind of bread. 
Among the Saxons we may expect a 
farther progrefs.. Tacitus tell us of the 
antient Germans, that at their banquets 
their diet was rude, and when they fat 
down to table, every man had his mefs to 
himfelf: their drink was made of barley, 
corrupted into a likenels of wine ; and 
their meats were fimple, as wild-applies, 
frefh venifon, curds, and’cream. Yet, 
though feafting wasthe delight of all the 
Northern nations, and though it was by 
entelftainments that the chieftains both 
gained and preferved the affections of their 
followers, the chef pleature ot the table 
was the drink. 
The Ang!o Saxons and the Danes were 
like their anceXors, anid delighted very 
much in fealting ; and hiftorians of cre- 
dit tell us that they commonly took four 
folid meals a-day. Surely~ this latt cir- 
cumfance tufficiently accounts for what 
fome antiquaries have’ ventured for the 
etymology of gormandize: they derive it 
from Gormund, the Danifh king, whom 
Alired perfuaded to be chrittened. 
Among the Saxons and the Danes, no 
puolic meeting was held, or bufinefs of 
_ Mpportance tranfacted, without a feat : 
2 % 
7 
but thefe feafts were more remarkable for 
their abundance than their elecance.. “The 
Danifh inhabitants of Ni sethumber land, ine 
particular,. were fond of horle-fliih, which 
they devoured in great quantities : the 
Anglo-Saxon and the Danith cookery, of 
ee could not be oe fe: it confiited 
chicfly, if net wholly, of three fimple 
operations, roafting, broiling, and boil- 
ing. The German tafte for large joints 
of roafttd meat prevailed very much 
among the Anglo- Saxons ; and if Henry ~ 
of Huntington is to be believed, (alted 
meats were ufed even at royal entertain- 
ments. That the Anglo-Saxons were 
mot frequently in the habits of roatting 
their meat, is evident from the many an- 
tient illuminat ons of the ninth and tenth 
centuries which relate to entertainments: 
In feveral the Joint appears to have been 
brought to table on the fpit, whence, as 
forks were not in ule, it, was cut into a 
plate without being previoufly touched by 
the hand. From other illuminations it ap- 
pears, the Saxons having killed the ani- 
mal, and cut it into pieces, boiled it ; it 
was put into a cauldron, ufually placed 
upon a fort of trivet, and, when dreffed, 
was taken out with an hook, or fiefh- 
fork, 
And now we arrive at the period when 
the Enolifh, or, I thould rather fay, the 
Saxons, were neceffitated to accommodate 
themf{elves to the manners of the Normans, 
who communicated to them their own ha- 
bits of drankennefs and immouderate feat - 
ins. Matnfoury deteribes the’ Aazlo- 
Norans to have been far more delicate in 
the choice and dreffine of their vidtuals 
than the Anglo-Saxons. It may appear 
fanciful, (fays Dr. oul that the art. 
of cookery was improved by the istroduc- 
tion of feudal tenures, and yet this fug- 
getion is very probable ; for alter the ty 
tenures were introduced, tne office of cook 
in great families became hereditary, and , 
had an eftate annexed unto it 5 which nae - 
turally engaged fathers to in@ruct their 
fons with care. in the knowledgd of an 
art to which they were de! tined. by their 
birth. Weeven meet with etates nh by 
the tenure of drefling fome particular difh 
of meat. Ard bere I think it may not be 
irclevant to ae that among the va- 
riati ns which the Norman conquelt im- 
pole d upon our la inguage, Were, penenaiy 
fpeaking, the names for animal food wh:cn 
had been prepared for the table, as bee!, 
mutton, veal, while to the living animal 
its Saxon name was ftill preferved ; a 
proof, perhaps, that the Normans were 
better fkilled in the art ef the cock than 
of the herd/man. 
William 
