Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "M. JL Esq." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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.
>>--
>
>
>
> As I recall 5-10 cups was about the yield for his turtle soup which required
> an entire live sea turtle. I sure don't have the recipe handy, no. Is it
> wasteful to kill a sea turtle for a few bowls of soup? In my view it is an
> obscenity. I also seem to remember his recipe for chicken soup which was
> essentially 20 chickens cooked down to 1 quart of base which made about a
> gallon of soup. People were starving to death back then.
>
> Was the soup(s) good? They were probably to die for. I am sure of that.
>
> Paul
>
>

People are starving to death to day.

I saw a comedienne on t.v. last nigh, she had been entertaining the
troops in Afghanistan and one of the military officers there was telling
her how they had built thousands of miles of roads, 20 schools, a dozen
hospitals & such and she replied, "great, when your finished here how
about we go to Detroit?" or one might say east L.A. or various other
parts of Americas great inner city slums.

Plus there here have been a number of translations, some better than others.

I don't recall ever seeing a recipe of his calling for 20 chickens,
several pounds of larks tongue for aspic and several pounds of rose
petals to make ice cream with but other than that, he wrote the Guide to
be used by middle class establishments and cooks. He was less of an
elitist than he has a reputation for, at the worst he was very good and
successful at what he did.

And the idea that an admiration of his life's work is anything other
than just that is just looking for an excuse to argue argue about it.

One of my favourite American cook books is by a student of Escoffier,
Louis de Gouy, who wrote "The Gold Cook Book" (1947) and was head chef
of the Waldor Astoria for many years. He made a special study of
traditional american foods, went to great lengths to track down
authentic regionalisms.
--
JL