The star. (Reynoldsville, Pa.) 1892-1946, 1902-06-25
FASHION IN FOOD.
whales. Grnmpuses and Porpoises Once
Popular as Table Fishes.

Popular as Table Fishes.
Foods have their fashions as well as
clothes. For no clear reason we eat
certain kinds of fish. flesh and vegeta-
BILE and disdain others which might be
edible and pleasing to the taste. Queen
Elizabeth ate the flesh of whales, but
we, today, would turn up our noses at
such dish. Yet why? Is the cetacean
flesh disgusting or tough or tasteless?
We do not know, for we have never
had II on our tables. Fish soup, gram
ruses and porpoises we're dainties to
the English palate before French cooks
invaded the tight little isle and i'm
posed the astronomical modes of
Paris on the British iisine. II is not
very many years since English and
American stomachs revolted at the
delicate legs of frogs, yet we MUNICH
those tender tidbits now with the
steadiest nerves and the incest relish
of their sweetness and flavor.
What untrled dainties are there yet
to be found in the world and intro
duced to our bored stomachs, hungry
for new sensations? II is said that the
French, In spite of occasional periods
of hostility, revere and love the Jesuits
because Jesuit missionaries first
brought the turkey into France and
taught the cooks of Paris its delicious
properties. Why should we not eat
mice and kittens? Shall we always alb
hoi the flesh of fat young puppies? oh,
for an epicurean Columbus to open
new worlds to our appetite! Since we
do not scruple to eat pork-the flesh Of
the filthy hog. and very palatable
flesh, too-why should we choke at
mice. kittens and puppies? One dares
say that If the flesh of puppy were
served under some French nom de
cuisine we wouli praise it nightly and
call for second helping.
In our eating, more, perhaps, than
in anything else, we are slaves of pref
udice. custom and CAPRICE. We do not
venture. Our bill of fare does not
grow with civilization. We have few
staples which we disguise and vary by
means of sauces and French aliases.
We improve the kitchen range. but we
do not improve our dinners. Talley-
rand said that the English had "a re-
| lgions and only one sauce. Since then
the English have multiplied their re-
| ligions, but they have not yet invented
their second sauce. AS people the
English and Americans oppose expan-
sion and innovation in their dining
rooms. When forks were brought over
from Italy to London there were stout
Britons enough to declare that to eat
with a tool, as though pitching hay,
end not with the fingers was to des-
troy the simplicity ard manliness of
old England.
The English speaking peoples have
| stomachs, but no palates. They have
not enthusiasm for an excellent truliie,
they do not feel emotions of pure
pleasure in the memories of good din
ners, long since digested. Who but a
Frenchman could throw up his hands
and exclaim in praise of a certain
green sauce, the recipe for which, alas,
is lost. with this sauce could eat my
grandfather" Brillat-Savarin de-
clared that the man who discovers a
new dish is a greater benefactor of his
race than the man who discovers new
planet This is a truly Gallo opinion,
and Is not shared by our sauceless peo-
pie, but, when one comes to think, 1t
is curious that the only permanent
work of the great soldier-statesman-
ecclesiastic, Armand Richelieu, was the
mayonnaise sauce, which he invented,
and that the only idea Of the brilliant
Cardinal Wolsev. which the world re-
members, and still makes use of, was
his idea-original with him-that
strawberries and cream would go we'll
together.-San Francisco Bulletin.