Opinion paperMeat cookery for the 18th century female household cook: An unrecognized influence of Menon's La Cuisiniere Bourgeoise (1746)
Introduction
In mid-18th century France, a minor upheaval occurred in the way cookery in the home was handled. Two crucial elements contributed to this: First, female cooks were beginning to be employed in the household kitchens of the middle class and second, the expansion of meat cookery by such cooks was embraced. Is it possible that the central focus of one of the most widely reprinted cookbooks of the latter half of the 18th century, Menon's La Cuisiniere Bourgeoise (Menon 1746 (a)), a book written for the female cook, has been totally overlooked by food writers as one of the most important stimuli empowering the female chef to engage in meat cookery? This article addresses this question and argues that this publication might have influenced the selection and cooking of meat dishes by female cooks employed in French households of the time.
Menon was one of the most prolific French cookbook writers of the 18th Century and has been referred to by his single surname until very recently. Virtually nothing is known about his life or his dates of birth and death. His name is not shown on the title pages of his books, all of which were anonymously published. His full name was only recently been revealed in his own copy of a La Cuisiniere Bourgeoise dated 1752, currently in the Chateau de Villiers library, in which he had signed his name. The first blank of the book, inscribed 1875, shows the owner to have been Mrs Menon, who passed it on through four generations of the family as inscribed in the book (Menon, 2021). Although we are now able to refer him by his full name: Louis Francois Henri de Menon, in this article “Menon” will be used throughout.
Menon's oeuvre was substantial, his publications being: Nouveau Traité de la Cuisine (Menon, 1739); La Cuisinière bourgeoise (Menon, 1746 (a), 1746 (b); La Science du Maître d’Hôtel cuisinier (Menon,1749); Les Soupers de la Cour (Menon,1755); Traité historique et pratique de la Cuisine (Menon,1758) and Manuel des Officiers de bouche (Menon,1759).
It is Menon's second book of 1746, La Cuisinier Bourgeoise, (The [Female] Bourgeoise Cook), that is the subject of this article. (Fig. 1; Fig. 2). His innovation of addressing a cookbook to the female cook of middle-class families, achieved for this publication a unique place in the history of gastronomy. Braudel points to Menon's La Cuisiniere Bourgeoise as being “a valuable book which, rightly or wrongly, [has] run through more editions than Pascal's Provinciales” (Braudel, 1979).
Surely, then, there is nothing to say about La Cuisinere Francoise that has not been said before? It is the contention of this article that, indeed, there is an important unrecognized dimension to this book which, hitherto, has gone unnoticed or unrecognized. This publication links the decline in meat eating by the bourgeoisie in the first half of the 18th century to the emergence of the solitary female household cook in the mid-18th century household that could well have had a substantial influence on meat cookery of the time. What had been previously ignored by the authors of cookbooks, was the notion that it was feasible to be creative in the household kitchen using foodstuffs which were in short supply, by making dishes which were attractive and tasty, without requiring a cohort of assistants in the kitchen.
The evidence played out below, shows that Menon, with his broad talents, his elite training and his ambitious nature, wished to bring the cookery of meat and poultry to the attention of a broad segment of mid 18th century French society, the upper middle classes. By introducing this to the home kitchen and, specifically, to the female cook employed by the family, his book must surely have been aimed to reinvigorate meat cookery. The detailed arguments to support this contention are outlined below.
Historical information is rarely subject to “proof”. It is impossible to demonstrate cause-and-effect retrospectively. The only way to prove that a particular intervention has an effect or influence on something, is to introduce a change, document the observed effects and then withdraw the intervention. If the effect is thereby reversed, that would come close to “proving” that the observed outcome is caused by the intervention. Given that this is not possible historically, here I assert that a singular publication could well have contributed to a behavioral change in culinary practice. I go further and suggest that this was not coincidental, but rather, intentional on the part of the author.
If Menon wished to encourage meat eating as widely as possible through his writings, he clearly realized that this would only be feasible if he were to address bourgeois household cooks rather than the common target of cookbooks directed to professional chefs or to affluent readers with kitchen staffs. A clear association between Menon addressing the female chef and placing an emphasis on meat cookery, is not one that can be made based upon existing evidence. Since both were innovations in a single publication, it is simply suggested that a female user of the book would be more likely to find her way into meat cookery in this way.
To support the assertion that Menon should be recognized for bringing meat cookery to prominence in the French household, the following “conditions” would be required:
- (a)A clear indication from the title of the book as to its target audience: in this case, the female bourgeois home cook.
- (b)A title which should highlight meat cookery as a primary focus of the book.
- (c)There should be advice to the cook on how to approach each type of meat, including offal, in terms of seasonal availability, cooking, carving and presentation
- (d)A majority of the book's recipes should be focused upon meat and poultry cookery, i.e., the number of entries dedicated to the preparation of meat dishes should outweigh that for dishes of other sorts.
- (e)To assert an “influence”, there should be a historically strong demand for the book in multiple editions over an extended period, suggesting that the cooking of meat had entered the mainstream of household kitchens, possibly under the influence of the publication
Braudel talks of a Norman gentleman who wrote in 1560 “We ate meat every day, dishes were abundent and we gulped down wine as if it were water” (Braudel, 1979). Before the religious wars of 1562–98, the village people of France were well-off, endowed with possessions and with well-furnished homes and well-stocked pantries replete with provisions, poultry and meats. However, things deteriorated over the following century with a substantial decline in meat consumption in the first half of the 18th century. Meat prices had risen in France in mid-18th century, with a consequent increase in the cultivation of grain which replaced raising of stock. The number of butchers in one small town declined from eighteen in 1550 to one in 1778 (Braudel, 1979). Compared with the middle ages, meat consumption had dropped by 80% in both France and Germany. It was not that meat was unavailable in these times. It was simply unaffordable. What is more, it did not escape the notice of the French that while they were eating less meat, the English across the channel were consuming meat daily!
The experiences of Tobias Smollett, an Englishman and wealthy resident in France, provided this account in1766: “I have likewise two small gardens, well stocked with oranges, lemons, peaches, figs, grapes, corinths, salad, and pot-herbs … It is very difficult to find a tolerable cook at Nice. The markets at Nice are tolerably well supplied. Their beef, which comes from Piedmont, is pretty good, and we have it all the year. In the winter, we have likewise excellent pork, and delicate lamb; but the mutton is indifferent. Chickens and pullets are extremely meager. Autumn and winter are the seasons for game; hares, partridges, quails, wild-pigeons, woodcocks, snipes, thrushes, beccasicas, and ortolans. Wild boar is sometimes found in the mountains; it has a delicious taste, not unlike that of the wild hog in Jamaica; and would make an excellent barbecue, about the beginning of winter, when it is in good case: but, when meager, the head only is presented at tables. Pheasants are very scarce. The hares are large, plump, and juicy. The partridges are generally of the red sort; large as pullets, and of a good flavor. In the summer, we have beef, veal, and mutton, chicken, and ducks; of which last are very fat and flabby. All the meat is tough in this season, because the excessive heat and great number of flies, will not admit of its being kept any time after it is killed.” (Smolett, 2021).
Alas, while this abundance was readily available to the well-heeled foreigner, it was not to the middle classes. Vegetables were inexpensive so dominated the daily meals. Fruit was not popular. As fresh meat rations declined, smoked and salted meats increased (based upon the experience of supplying ships on long journeys) (Braudel, 1979). For the peasantry, towards the close of the 18th century the daily food energy intake from grains and cereal alone was about 1800 calories per day; a minimal additional 5% was contributed by game, fish and edible plants (Toutain J-C, 1995). However, access to meat was more a matter of social hierarchy than of geography (Mennell, 1985). Although there was an evolving social trend towards a distaste for cruelty to animals, the reason for a limited meat consumption was based more on economic than on such personal considerations; stock breeding was more wasteful than agriculture which produced more food per acre (Thomas K, 1971).
In France, the contrast between élite professional cookery and everyday cookery, which had been widely different in the early 18th century, narrowed towards the end of the century. Even amongst the wealthy, options were limited, boiling and roasting being the dominant methods being used widely. Well into the 18th century, the cooking of meat was done on an open hearth (Fig. 3), which allowed for pot-boiling and simmering as well as spit-roasting above the fire. The pot could be hung from an iron crossbar high above the fire and later a swiveling arm was devised which allowed the pot to be moved to-and-fro to be filled or stirred. The intensity of the heat was controlled by pothooks of varying length or by moving the pot toward the edge of the fire.
Panfrying could be accomplished using a metal pan to which legs were attached, a “spider”, which could be placed directly over the coals to facilitate even distribution of heat. Recipes requiring its use started to appear in the mid 18th century. Where this was not available, a heated iron shovel was used for the same purpose. Broiling was done using a salamander; this was cast iron instrument with a long handle and a flat round plate at one end (Fig. 4). When heated, it was held above a meat dish to be “browned”. It could also be supported by two legs standing in the coals to support its weight.
The most useful structure in the kitchen was the stewing stove or potager. (Fig. 3). Its great advantage was that it raised the cooking surface to a comfortable working level. Essentially, this was a brick structure with an iron grid placed over a hollow containing the heated coals. Some of the more affluent homes had more than one such stove, allowing cooks to control the heat of their ragouts (stews), potages and sauces simultaneously. The need for ventilation was an imperative and its absence in many households was a key factor limiting its broad adoption.
From a perspective of presentation, carving of meat dishes at the table, which had been the custom since La Varenne onwards (Fine, 2002), was on the decline. There was an increasing tendency towards “made-dishes” being prepared in the kitchen and towards masking the identity of animal component parts (Mennell, 1985).
The enduring influence that Menon had on the social engagement over food for more than a half century, lay, in large part, in his unique focus on the solitary female cook. Talking about cuisine as part of the daily banter was characteristic of the French, who not only enjoyed the culinary process, but were also knowledgeable about the texts which provided directions to aspiring cooks. It must be pointed out however, that for fully half of the French population, the French language was not the lingua franca well into the 18th century, so it must be assumed that the more worldly, urbanized sector of the bourgeoisie was the most likely beneficiary of the writings of Menon.
French food writers had more of an impact on culinary practice and on food tastes than did writers from other nations. They employed storytelling with travel, scientific, medical and philosophical approaches to engage their readers. Ferguson referred to this as a “culinary civilizing process” (Ferguson, 2004). (Later, the style of Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin epitomized this approach and was so engaging, that his Physiologie du Gout (Brillat-Savarin 1826) has never been out of print). La Varenne's Cuisiniere Francois was a prime example of the success of a single cookbook which had an enduring influence on French culinary practice in the 17th century (Fine LG, 2020 (a)). However, even eminent food writers, had differences of opinion on what represented culinary excellence (Fine LG, 2020 (b)).
The first author to introduce the term “cuisine bourgeois” was Francois Massialot in his 1691 publication Le Cuisinier Roial et Bourgeois (Massialot,1691). His recognition that there was a substantial sector of the population which could neither afford to entertain friends and associates nor the requisite culinary skills to do so, were the drivers of his publications. He offered an approach to cooking which was simplified, avoided costly ingredients, required a limited number of steps and yet yielded tasty offerings. However, as may be inferred from the title of his book and his experience in catering the aristocracy, Massialot had a foot in more than one camp and included of dishes for “royalty”, which no doubt satisfied his inner needs and those of his publisher! Indeed, the “bourgeois” style of cooking which he promulgated was a hold-over of that introduced by La Varenne (Fine, 2020a, Fine, 2020b (a)) a half century earlier. Massialot's publications continued to appear well into the 18th century and he was the first to include a dictionary of terms and lists of potages, entrees, entremets etc, ultimately expanding the size and scope of one of his books to 3 vol in 1748 (Willan p 170). His need to pander to the wealthy led to the creation of some menus so extravagant in content, cost and size, that were out of sight even in the most aristocratic households.
Following on the heels of Massialot, was Vincent La Chapelle, who covered French cuisine comprehensively despite working in England and Holland. His Le cuisinièr modern published in 1742 mirrored (copied?) a lot of what Massialot had written. His emphasis on coulis is precisely what Menon was to gently cast aside.
Francois Marin may well be viewed as a “spiritual partner” of Menon. Both came from elevated court circles. Marin was a frequent guest at the table of Louis XV. (Willan, 2014). He published Le Dons de Comus ou delice de la Table (The gifts of Comus or the pleasures of the table) in 1739, the same year that Menon published his first book. In it, he introduced the phrase nouvelle cuisine which emphasized simplicity of cooking methods, fewer ingredients and less embellishment. In the preface to his cookbook, he drew a parallel between cooking processes and chemistry and went further by contending that reducing the complexity of preparation enhanced the health benefits of the food. His clear views sparked the indignation of many traditionalists who could not come to terms with a writer who suggested that synthesizing culinary creativity, chemistry, a concern for the health-sustaining properties of certain foods could ultimately render dishes attractive to the palate (Willan 218). Le Dons was not so much a cookbook as a textbook on how to serve food according to the latest fashion (Mennell, 1985). As the title page states, it was a book “principally for the use of people who are anxious to know how to give dinners and how to be erved tastefully themselves”.
Pinkard points out fundamental differences between the cuisines of Marin and Menon. (Pinkard 2009,178). Marin created recipes, that although scaled down, were just as complex as the original nouvelle cuisine dishes which required a substantial investment of time and effort and which could be achieved in the kitchens of the upper bourgeoisie, where assistance in the kitchen was the norm. Menon, on the other hand, clearly had his eye on the solitary cook which required prior preparation of stocks and other ingredients, prepared in the “office”, a role which he includes in his book. Another important difference, which becomes obvious when comparing the Don de Comus and La Cuisiniere Bourgeoise, is that the former provided lists of recipes with minimal instruction for each, whereas Menon is explicit and succinct in instructions for each dish.
Also worthy of consideration was the readiness or otherwise of the French in preparing and eating offal (those off-cuts of an animal that were usually discarded). Marin's Le Dons de Comus (Marin, 1739) included options for brain, tongue, eyes, liver, heart, lungs, spleen etc, but a substantially longer list is to be found in Menon's La Cuisiniere (Menon, 1756a).
Should we consider Menon to be the cook's prophet of the times? After all, he attended to the health properties of food, understood the currency of medical advice of the time, and advanced the preventative and restorative value of specific foods, a general concept of health promotion, which put him ahead of his times. He saw food as having “medicinal” and nourishing properties, both physical and spiritual. In this regard his philosophy reached it apogee in Science du maître d'hotel cuisinier (Menon,1747).
During Menon's time, supper, the evening meal, came to overshadow the midday dinner as the gathering time for both families and guests, and his cookbook for the female cook addressed the idea of integrating the roles of chef de cuisine (head of the kitchen) and the chef d'office (head of the pantry). The office is where the prepared foods and preserves were made and stored. The title page of La Cuisiniere (Menon, 1756 (a)) makes it clear that book addresses both functions are required to be mastered by an aspiring female cook (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Notaker describes Menon thus: “To judge from his work, he had experience with the culinary arts, but he almost definitely belonged to a higher social group than most cooks” (Notaker, 2017). Menon, who dismissively referred to some of his colleagues as “craftsmen with second-rate knowledge”, did acknowledge that there were some cooks in court circles who knew how to read, but that in the lower ranks, illiteracy was more common (Notaker, 2017). More relevant to female cooks who worked in bourgeois households, was the fact that many were required to be literate as they often took care of purchasing and bookkeeping. Publishers were all too aware that many cookbooks were beyond the reach of the poor and were anxious to produce books across a wide price range to accommodate the demands of the marketplace (Notaker, 2017).
In his later books, Menon synthesized a spectrum of cooking techniques, ingredient selection, health benefits and the enjoyment into the creation of a satisfying and enjoyable meal. He refers to chefs, who were often underrated, as “skillful artists … they need delicate palates like a profound musician needs fine and learned ears. In the preparation of meat as in a piece of music, there are some dissonances which must be prepared and saved with the same level of attention (McDonough, 2009).
Menon lays down the personal qualities and knowledge of an aspiring female cook: “She must be clean in everything she does, careful with wood, coal, and everything else belonging to the kitchen of which she has charge, gentle with the other servants in order to maintain peace in the household, and she must make every effort to please her master and mistress, serving them always at the times they have laid down. It is necessary that she is knowledgeable about the meat and how to disguise it in various ways, about fish and vegetable for fast days, about fruit and dairy products in order to make compôtes and other things for dessert, because she takes charge both of the kitchen and the office; women cooks who do not have these qualities must strive to acquire them, and Masters to retain in their service those who do have them” (Menon, 1756a).
Nouvelle cuisine was well underway when Menon appeared on the scene. He strove for careful section of ingredients, understatement, elegance, harmony, freshness, and precision in his approach to cooking all of which contributed to his purpose of enhancing health while creating fine cuisine. It was this that he wished to bring to the attention of the household cook and as emphasized below, to reinvigorate interest and knowledge about meat cookery which had fallen into a realm of lesser interest.
By pointing out the distinction between the ordinary bourgeois and the bas people (peasantry) Menon was clear that the more expensive cookbooks would promote the use of the most expensive ingredients. He pointed to entrecôte, leg, sirloin, brisket and shank as being what the upper middle class would appreciate (Notaker, 2017), but most of these would be out of reach to the middle classes. In France, it was not about availability but about cost.
La Cuisiniere Bourgeoise was published anonymously in 1746. It “won the popularity sweepstakes, hands down. It was the most reprinted French cookbook for over a century and the only cookbook written before 1789 to be reprinted after 1800. Beyond the reprints, an even greater gauge of Menon's triumph with this work came with a string of knockoffs” (Ferguson, 2004). Even the first edition seems to have been published twice by the same publisher in 1746; one with 346 pages entitled La Nouvelle Cuisiniere Bourgeoise (Menon 1746 (a)) and one with 398 pages entitled La Cuisiniere Bourgeiose (Menon, 1756b).
Various iterations of this book subsequently emerged: La Nouvelle Cuisinière Bourgeoise (1817); Le Plus nouvelle cuisinière bourgeoise (1822); La bonne Cuisinière Bourgeoise (1854); and Nouvelle Cuisinière Bourgeoise (1880) (Ferguson p 40).
Menell opines that the word bourgeoise gives a sense of the “domestic” as well as “middle class” and “town-dweller” and that the gender of the word gives it an unambiguous social meaning. (Mennell, 1985). Only the less well-to-do members of the middle-class would have countenanced a female cook to be in charge of the kitchen. It is of interest that, at this very time, across the pond in England, cookbooks authored by women were appearing, examples being Elizabeth Moxon's “English Housewifery” (Moxon, 1749) and Hannah Glasse's “The art of cookery made plain and easy” (Glasse, 1747).
In the preface to his book, Menon makes it clear that, although drawing from inferences for his experience in aristocratic circles, he departs, in this work, from the complex cuisine of excessive seasoning and rare ingredients, aiming at reducing expenses, simplifying method and presenting ideas about cooking which can handled with little assistance in the kitchen using readily locate ingredients. This approach, he contends, will impact positively on health.
Mennell comments that the repertoire of recipes in La Cuisiniere Bourgeoise are scaled down compared with those of his predecessors and themselves are simplified (Mennell 1985) but this, after all, was Menon's very purpose. This book was to be used in preference to his prior three-volume Traité which contained far more elaborate descriptions. For example, an item central to many recipes of the time had been “coulis”, meaning a sauce added to enhance the flavor of the natural ingredients in a ragout, potage or soup or as a liquid for fruits and desserts. (There were favorites of Massialot). Menon openly departed from this practice. In the Avertissement to the 1756 edition, he says: “I have avoided, as far as I can, coulis, to facilitate the work of those who wish to prepare only two or three dishes per meal. Those who prefer an additional dish, can willingly take the trouble to do so because you will not need much more time, care or sauces than is required for one”.
In a way, Menon was following the example of La Varenne who had advocated for a similar approach a half century earlier (Fine, 2020a, Fine, 2020b (a)). Nouvelle cuisine (a term which Menon used in the title of his subsequent publications) embraced natural, tasty, uncomplicated dishes, with limited (if any) sauces and readily available seasonable ingredients. The health-related and medicinal implications if the approach were addressed by Menon more directly in his later publications.
Clearly, the market for which La Cuisiniere Bourgeoise was targeted, was that sector of the French middle class who were able to read and had a comfortable income which could support a reasonably well-equipped kitchen, preferably one with a stove. It was a departure too from the high reputation that France had garnered across Europe from its haute cuisine. This is not to say that the offerings are overly simple or uninteresting; but they did presuppose some level of sophistication among the bourgeoisie who always had an eye on the practices and styles of the aristocracy. Although fewer in the number of dishes per course, less elaborate and simpler in presentation, the recipes offered by Menon assured a level of comfort rose above the discomfort which food prices might have incurred.
The smaller the household, the more likely it was to have a female cook and the less likely it was that she would have an assistant (Pinkard, 2009, 178). This role required that she did the marketing, which included the decision about which produce to buy, as well as preparing the daily meals, meaning breakfast, dinner and supper, the latter usually requiring multiple courses. All this was clearly not a job for the mistress of the household!
Under the heading “Meat Carving”, Menon addresses his intended reader, the female cook who has to work unaided, with a description of how to prepare meat dishes (Menon. 1756):
“The skill of precisely cutting meats is now of such great use that those who wish to serve guests should not ignore it for the sake of table society. Since we serve the right pieces, if we don't know them, and if many people find the meat tough, be sure to know how to cut it away. The good fashion is to serve a little at a time (so that) by this means the guests eat with more appetite. I will begin with the dissection of boiled & roasted (meats); the way of cutting is always the same, including for other butcher's meats. The cheek is cut across and in the middle; the meat close to the tail bones is the thinnest. The charred piece is cut into thin pieces and crosswise. The breast is cut from the tender part and across. The chuck is cut like the charred piece. The sirloin, after having removed a hard and nervous skin which is above the fillet, that you serve only to those who ask for it, you cut as a thin fillet crosswise to serve it; the meat which is on the other side of the bone and above the tenderloin, is cut in the same way and can satisfy a need for the fillet, when it is well cut. The edge & the heel intersect crosswise. All the tongues, as well as those of the beef, are cut crosswise and in slices; near the big end are the most tender pieces. The mantel, which is of full flesh (with) cartilage and is short, must be well cooked and can be done with a spoon”.
Under the heading “Knowledge of Good Beef” he continues: “The beef is good all year round, the best are from Cotentin. Normandy and Auvergne, I had to choose one with the dark color of crimson red; fatty and well covered, it was necessary to leave it in a mortise four or five days in winter, two or three in Spring and Autumn and for Summer, a day or two, depending on the heat and exposure to the wind and where you place the meat. There are some parts of beef that keep better than others”.
These comments are followed by similar, independent discussions specific to mutton, veal and pork.
To appreciate the diversity of options which Menon offers for a single main ingredient it is sufficient to look at selected examples of how two different meats could be prepared in multiple ways (Menon, 1796):
To dress en hauchepot: served with cooked vegetables in a tureen.
To dress en matelote: cooked with large onions, white wine, anchovy and capers.
To dress à la Sainte Menebould: boiled and then grilled with bread crumbs.
To dress a rump of beef: various options for the best cut.
To boil a piece of beef; boiled then stewed with herbs and thickened sauce and bread crumbs.
To dress à la Braise with Dutch onions: tied and stewed with wine, broth, piece of veal and herbs.
To dress à la cardinale: salt-petre rub, juniper berries, herbs, salt, left for 8 days, then stewed.
To dress à l’Angloise: stewed with vegetables, cabbage leaves with veal pieces, thickened sauce.
To stew in the oven: with herbs in sealed large vessel with white wine, stewed for 5- hours.
To make beef a la mode: stewed for 6 h in gravy, added brandy, served hot or cold.
à la Poele: slow stewed with lemon and served with sauce from pan
à la Guienne: stew between bacon slices, wine, herbs, sauce thickened with egg yolks
à la Marmote: slow-stewed with anchovy, bacon, herbs, served with brandy gravy
à la cuisiniere: stewed in gravy with bacon, sauce of eggs, parsley and vinegar.
Veal cutlets au verd-pré: scallions parsley, wine, garlic, flour and butter, chervil.
Veal cutlets a la Lyonnaise: cut into steaks, bacon, sauce of scallions, shallots, parsley.
Veal Cutlets grilled: butter, mushrooms, grated bread, grill over slow fine.
Veal cutlets with streaked bacon: pan stewed with fat, shallots parsley wine.
Veal cultlets a la Marinard; steep in vinegar, cloves, shallots parsley, fry in new pan.
Veal cutlets au poires: thick sliced, veal and bread force meat in hole, stew.
Veal cutlets en papillotes: thinly sliced in paper bag with herbs, gridiron on slow fire.
Examples of other main ingredients are neat's tongue, beef brains, ox palates, beef udder, beef andouilletes and beef kidneys, with multiple options for preparing each of these.
As stated above, Menon was frugal in his use of sauces (Menon, 1756 9a), but where they were called for, they tended towards a fusion of finely chopped vegetables and herbs sauteed in butter or cream to form a light preparation which often did not include eggs, or roux or thickening agents. Where a more piquant sauce was called for, he used capers, and anchovies which were perfectly suited to a leg of lamb. Where a thickened version was desired, he recommended deglazing the pan used to brown the meat and adding some flour to the juices, to make what we now call a concentrated “gravy”, as opposed to the usual method of preparing a coulis, which simply pureed the basic ingredients in the dish.
Fig. 5 shows an example from Le Cuisiniere Bourgeoise of the “riches that nature provides” in Spring. Outlined are, month-by-month, availabilities of foods and, in addition to legumes, fruits and a variety of fish, there are meats from different regions, which include, game, beef, mutton, veal, boar, goat and poultry. Similar descriptions are provided for each season of the year.
A Spring menu for 5 diners, is shown in Fig. 6. For the second service alone, there are four dishes listed: Beef, Veal, chicken and Pigeon. Similar menus are included in the book for each season and for different numbers of guests, all with a heavy emphasis on meat.
Access through your organization
Check access to the full text by signing in through your organization.
Section snippets
Conclusion
Returning to the “conditions” outlined in the introduction, for making a convincing case that La Cuisiniere Bourgeoise was intended to promote meat cookery by the female household cook, the following points support the criteria made convincingly:
- (1)Title: The book is clearly aimed at the female cook as outlined in its title, although there is no specific allusion to the woman cook within the text.
- (2)Intended focus: It is contended herein that it was Menon's express intention to present La Cuisiniere
Author statement
Leon G Fine. Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Resources, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Software, Project administration.I am pleased to submit a revised manuscript.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the author's home institution, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. The author is grateful to Brenda Fine for her advice and assistance in the organization and presentation of the ideas and information included in this article.
References (29)
The structures of daily life
Physiologie Du Gout
(1826)Accounting for Taste. The Triumph of French Cuisine
(2004)The transformative influence of La Varenne's Le Cuisinier Francois (1651) on culinary practice
Frontiers in Nutrition 7: article
(2020)Gastronomy in early 19th century paris: divergent views of food writers Grimod de La Rayniere and Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin on “the first restaurateur”, Antoine Beauvilliers
Int J Gastronomy and Food Science.
(2020)The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy
(1747)Le Cuisinier Modern
(1742)Les Dons de Comus, ou les délices de la Table
(1739)Le cuisinier royal et bourgeois Chez Charles de Sercy
(1691)The education of a gastronome. Brillat Savarin: the nouvelle cuisine, enlightenment and revolution
Petis Propos Culinaires
(2009)
All Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the Present
(1985)
Nouveau traité de la cuisine
(1739-42)
La Nouvelle Cuisiniere Bourgeoise
(1746)
Cuisinere bourgeoise
Guillyn Paris
(1746)
Cited by (0)
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
