In the Greek house there was no regular cook, though in the establishments of the wealthy several females were kept, to attend to the kitchen. The women, in general, saw to the requirements of the table, and even the lady of the house was not idle. Cooks stood in the market at Athens, ready to be hired for particular occasions; the most cele brated were those of Sicily; they were probably persons of some importance.
In the early days of Rome, a gruel made of barley, and called pu18, was the princi pal food of the people, and with green and other vegetables was, till later times, the usual fare of the inferior classes—meat being used but sparingly. By degrees, however, a taste for better eating crept in; and after the Asiatic conquests luxury was imported. Lucullus introduced habits of epicureanism after his return from Asia; the gourmand Apicius earned for himself a deathless name. The wealthy Romans cared for the ele gant serving of their table, as well as for the quality of viands placed before them. With them, as with the Greeks, fish was a necessary as well as a luxury: they took much trouble to procure their oysters, and gave large sums for other fish. We read of a mul let of 0 lbs. sold for 8,000 sesterces (1:70 16s. 8d.), and of the rhombus or turbot from Ravenna being held in high estimation. They seem to have been as clever as the French in preparing surprises, and in carrying out disovises in their dishes. The pator, who made the bread and pastry, and the structor, who composed artificial figures of fruit or flesh, and who also arranged the dishes, seem to have shared the duties of the cook. We read of dainties, as ring-(loves and fieldfares, hares, capons, ducks, peacocks, pheasants, and the livers of geese; also of such a formidable pace de raddance as a "huge boar, surrounded with sucking pigs made in sweet paste, which were distributed among the guests." The Romans prepared and cooked their food with oil to a great extent. Their meals probably consisted of two courses and a dessert, the first course being of materials intended to sharpen the appetite, and the second the "brunt of war," that is, a joint roasted or baked. The discovery or cultivation of vegetables, perhaps, gave rise to some proper names, as Lentullus, Fabius, etc. It is a Roman saying that the number of per sons at a repast should not be less than that of the graces, nor more than that of the muses. The Greeks and Romans used honey for the purposes for which we use sugar. The sugar-cane probably was cultivated in China, and its manufacture understood there; but the Greeks took it for a kind of concrete honey, and used it only for medicinal pur poses.
Of ancient British C., nothing is known; it was probably of an extremely rude description. Hares, poultry, and fish are said to have been forbidden as food. Wo do not find much mention of the art of C. in the Saxon chronicles. The Danes and Germans appear to have been great drinkers, and to have paid little attention to the preparation of their eatables. The Normans were more curious in these matters; some offices among them were held in the kitchen. In early English C. much use was made of the mortar. Oil and lard were used instead of butler. Several English C. books bear an early date, as The Forme of Cary, by Mr. Pegge, 1390; and others date as follows: Sir J. Elliott's book, 1539; Abraham Veale's, 1575; The Widdoves Treasure. 1625.
The C. of France was probably of an imperfect and rude kind, till the introduction of Italian tastes by the princesses of the house of Medici. The ancient use of oil was modified by the discovery made by the French, of dressing meat in its own gravy. In our own day. there is no denying that the French cook is a true artist. We may, if we please, impute the trouble lie takes with the dressing of his meat to the inferiority of the mate rial, but this can lie said of meat only; the preparation of vegetables and fruits is attended to with equal care, although, probably, the French have some of these things in greater perfection than ourselves. The great difference between French and English
C. consists in the fact, that they cook their meat much longer than we do. They con sider that this renders it more digestible. They are thereby enabled to multiply dishes by altering or annihilating the original taste of the meat, and making it a vehicle for foreign flavors. The variety. daintiness, and grace of form which dishes thus acquire, is advantageously made use of by us, when we admit them at our repasts to mingle with our heavier and radically English joints. But, for ourselves, we desiderate the integrity of the form and flavor of our meats, considering that to be which the French think only sufficient. In the point of economy, the French have a decided superiority over us. The French conk throws nothing away. Instead of going to the butcher for meat for stock, as our English cook does, he uses the trimmings for stock and glaze, and the skimmings of his boiled meats for purposes to which we apply butter or lard; and like a true workman, he produces great results from small means. This requires an education which few mistresses demand and few cooks obtain, but which, when achieved, justifies the expression of Voltaire: The estimation in which the services of a cook are held„ may be known by the large salary attached to the office in great families, hotels, and club-houses. A visit to the kitchens of one of these establishments will teach us what a highly important post is that of chef de cuisine. There must be in such a person not only the necessary knowl edge how things are to be done, but the power to arrange and direct the work of the numerous assistants, as to the exact part they must fulfill at each moment of their long and busy day. These places, indeed, are excellent schools for cooks, where they can undergo that severe training, without which a thorough practical knowledge of the business cannot he attained. It is indeed to be regretted—because a source of so much disappointment, discomfort, and waste—that a knowledge of plain C., at least, is not more desired by mistresses for themselves. That acquirement, and household manage ment generally, are important enough to be made part of the education of all classes. The poorer would thereby be enabled both to lay out their money profitably, and to prepare their food so that it might satisfy and nourish them; and the heads of establishments in the upper classes would be more in a position to direct, appreciate, or, if necessary, condemn the performance of the cook. A cultivated and elegant taste is as much shown in the arrangement of viands as in the furnishing and decoration of the choicest boudoir.
The art of C.. as a branch of female education, has latterly engaged considerable attention in England; and there are in London, Edinburgh, and other places, establish ments where young ladies receive this kind of instruction. Recently, a school of cook ery has been attached to the South Kensington museum. Efforts are also made to teach C. to the humbler classes of girls, but much in this respect remains to be done. For any shortcomings in cooking, however, the taste of the English is in sonic measure accountable. The universal practice of roasting large pieces of meat. which cannot be consumed while hot, causes no little waste, and is obstructive of improvement. The Scotch—who derive some part of their C., along with other usages, from the French— deal more in soup and boiled meat than the English, and their processes, while not less savory, are perhaps more economical.
So numerous are the books on C., that it would be out of our power to name even all the excellent cues. We can only say that Miss Acton's Cookery Book, Webster and Parkes' Encyclopeedia of Domestic Economy, Soyer's work, and that of Francatelli, cook at the reform club, are all good; Meg Dods's Cookery is also excellent. For cheapness and simplicity, we may refer to Chambers's Cookery for Young Houseicires (Is.). The two last mentioned embrace Scotch along with English cookery. See FOOD, BOILING, RoesT ING,