Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "M. JL Esq." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>>>Paul M. Cook > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nobody cooks like that anymore. I mean come on, a half dozen
>>>>Maine lobsters to make sauce for 4 people? Very wasteful and that
>>>>symbolized a lot of the old French style.
>>>
>>>
>>>Entire lobsters? Or just the shells? I could envision a bisque-like
>>>sauce that involved the shells.
>>>
>>>Steve
>>
>>There is also an edition of his book for the home cook where in the
>>amounts are modified for the home cook.
>>
>>The market for cook books was different when it was first published than
>>it is now. But it is still in print.
>>
>>The original was written for the trade. And in amounts more common to
>>commercial establishments or large households with kitchen staff. The man
>>was a military veteran, and a working chef for the rest of his
>>professional life, head Chef of several of the best hotels of his day and
>>iirc responsible for setting up the original kitchens at the Waldorf
>>Astoria in NYC.
>>
>>Anyone familiar with August Escoffier's work knows he decries waste and
>>excess as much as he demands absolute freshness in all his ingredients.
>
>
> His definition of waste would not be the one we recognize today.
>
>
>>His text does contain some historical curiosities where in he starts the
>>recipe with words to the effect that "this recipe is rarely produced today
>>although it was quite common in days gone by"
>>
>>And in his section home made liquors he adds "which is to be much
>>regretted" .... that people don't make these home made liquors any more
>>(circa 1921 c.e.)
>
>
> By waste he meant food that was left to spoil. He did not consider a
> sumptuous feast of ingredients that could feed an entire family of 12 just
> to make a sauce for 2 to be a waste. Now it those ingredients spoiled, that
> was a waste. He cooked for the wealthy who demanded sumptuous and
> extravagant dishes. No expense was spared to that end. Waste as in 20
> pounds of seafood to make a soup for a table of 4 or a whole 100 pound sea
> turtle for soup for the same table was not an offense to their standards.
> Back then there was ample supply and ample money. Waste had a whole
> different definition.
>
> Paul
>
>

But i defy you to find a recipe calling for such things in his works.

In his auto biography he repeats an Careme anecdote about reducing
several oxen, turkey and hams to a thimble full of essence but in his
published Guide Culinaire remarks about essences: it is far better to
add the product itself to the stock during its preparation rather than
to prepare a special essences.

He decries making a special good/strong essence to improve poor quality
food, as was commonly done by chefs of his day. "therefore it is
judged unnecessary to give more than one example of a recipe."

he does give recipes for espangnole and various stocks that can use
upwards of 10 pounds of meats and bones but those can easily be halved
as he knew or at least hoped, many small resturanterurs if not aspiring
chefs would be purchasing his book. He gives recipes using 6 - 7 pounds
of beef in a particular stew, some recipes for some large fish, turkey
and capons, as well as mutton and whole pigs, venison & etc. but even
more do he give recipes for individual servings of meats, and his
portions for soups vary from 5 - 10 cups. His salads don't give much
advice on amounts except for "take equal quantities of" in the rest its
use as much as you need with some slight variations according to type of
vegetable.
--
JL