GAME AND PASTRY.
Game in England is declared to include hares, pheasants, partridges,
grouse, heath or moor game, black game, and bustard. Snipe, quail,
landrail, woodcock, and conies are not game; but they can only be taken
or killed by certificated persons. Game has been always prized amongst
us at table; and it has been a subject of legislation from the Conquest
to the present time. In the time of Queen Mary, there was not only a
keeper of pheasants and partridges to the queen, but likewise a taker.
The kings of England had also, formerly, a swanherd; and Sir E. Coke
makes this office one of his titles in the Fourth Institute.[18] The 17
chap. of Henry VIII. is entitled, “The forfeiture for taking of fesants
and partridges, or the eggs of hawkes or swans.” That the gentry, even
in those early days, were imbued with sound common sense, and could
regard the pleasurable as well as the _palatable and profitable_
side of a question, will appear from the preamble to this statute. It
recites the great injury to lords of manors, not only from the loss of
the pleasure and disport to their friends and servants, but likewise
the loss to their _kitchen and table_. So that in 1494, ideas of
gourmandise and good cheer were just as rife as in 1864.
Falconry, says the Hon. Daines Barrington,[19] first occasioned the
system of game laws; and hence, herons were held in high esteem,
being the noblest bird the falcon could fly at. There can be no doubt
whatever that, less than three centuries ago, herons were eaten both
in England and France. Our ancestors, indeed, were much less delicate
and less particular as to the tenderness of their food than their
descendants, for they ate not only the heron, but the crane, the crow,
the cormorant, and the bittern. In an old cookery book of Taillevant,
who was first cook of Charles VII. of France, there are receipts for
dressing these last-named birds. In the statutes of Bordeaux, made in
1585, with a view to regulate the sale of game, in the regulation of
Henry II. in 1549, for the same object the heron is counted among
the number of birds allowed to be brought to market. When Charles
IX. passed through Amiens, he was offered, among other birds, twelve
herons, six bitterns, and six swans. Bélon, in his history of birds,
written in 1554, says, that the bittern, though of a nauseous taste
at first, “est cependant entre les délices françoises;” and Liebant
calls the heron “une viande royale.” _Héronnières_ were, in his day,
as common among French gentlemen as were _faisanderies_ in 1760 or
1780. Three centuries ago, vultures and falcons, and other birds of
prey, were also eaten in France--now, and for a century and a half, so
_friande_ and dainty in its tastes. In Auvergné, Bélon states that in
winter every one ate of a kind of eagle, named _boudrée_, or _gorian_;
though he admits owls and birds feeding on carrion were not served
at table. It is singular that the very people who then ate herons,
vultures, and cormorants, would not touch young game. They regarded
leverets and young partridges as indigestible, and only partook of old
hares and old birds. Henry Stevens states that the eating of young
game was introduced by the Ambassador of France, who had sojourned at
Venice. Game among our neighbours, the French, is divided into _gros
gibier_ and _menu gibier_. In the _gros gibier_ is comprised the
buck, doe, stag, wild boar, &c.; and the _menu gibier_ comprehends
pheasant, wild duck, teal, larks, ring-doves, partridges, woodcocks,
quails, ortolans, thrushes, grouse, red-breasts, lapwings, &c. French
writers also speak of _le gibier à poil_, in which are comprised
hares, leverets, and rabbits. It will be at once seen that the French
consider as game many small birds on which we set little value. In
the excellence and succulence of our game, and the number of our game
preserves, we beat the world. The only countries that can be compared
to England in the excellence and abundance of game are Hungary, Styria,
Carinthia, and parts of the Basque provinces, Gallicia, and Spanish and
Portuguese Estremadura.
Southey, who visited Spain in 1797, speaks thus in his letters of
having a woodcock for supper at Merida:--“At Merida we had a woodcock
for supper, which we trussed ourselves; but the old woman of the house
brought up the bird sprawling, told us that they had forgot to cut off
the rump and draw it, and then poked her finger in to show how clean
the inside was.”
Nearly thirty years after this date I can myself bear testimony to the
abundance of game in parts of Spain, and to the excellent manner in
which a _salmi_ of partridges is occasionally served in the Peninsula.
It is one of the few dishes in Spanish cookery which an Englishman can
relish.
Game is a light food, and easy of digestion; and there is no country
in the world in which it is plainly roasted so well as in England. But
in _sautés_, _filets_, or cutlets of game, in _salmis_ of game _aux
truffes_, _à la rocambole_, in _crepinettes_, or _à la provençale_, we
are not to be spoken of in the same century with the French. There
are even tolerably simple ways of dressing game _à la française_, in
which some of our French cooks are no adepts. I will not speak of
_perdreau aux choux_, for I deem it profanation to serve cabbage with
so admirable a bird; but you cannot always trust a good English cook
to serve a partridge or a quail _à la financière_. Our game pies, more
especially in country houses, are good, but they are not to be compared
to the _pâté de bécassines aux truffes_, or the _pâtés des cailles
aux fines herbes_, or to the _pâté de godiveau aux champignons_,
or _aux truffes_. The _chévreuil à France_ is very inferior to our
venison, and it is only the sauce _poivrade_, the truffles, or the
_filet à l’italienne_, or _à la Marechale_ that makes it eatable. It
may be asked why we cannot have these dishes in England? There is no
reason why we should not have them, if schools of French cookery are
multiplied, and families will go to the expense of the Madeira and
Malaga wines, the truffles, the morels, the button mushrooms, and the
bunches of sweet herbs. These things are expensive in London; and
there are few so prone to obey the vulgar appetite of the belly--to
use a phrase of the Roman historian, Sallust--that the outlay is not
incurred. Our peers, our country gentlemen, as well as our wealthy
merchants, are quite content to have their game well-roasted, which
means not overdone. It is one of the old canons of cookery to spit the
game when the first course is removed: “Quand le premier service est
fini il faut mettre le gibier à la broche.” I cannot choose but think,
however, that we may easily vary our roast hare and boiled rabbit by
fillets and cutlets of both, by _civets_ of hare, and by _salmis_ and
scollops of pheasant _à la Bourguinotte_, and _à la Richelieu_, or
fillets of _partridge à la Perigird_, or _à la Lucullus_.
Pheasant is often a dry bird in England, and oftener so in France;
but I would not order a woodcock _en salmi_, unless the bird were of
venerable age. Nonius, who wrote about 240 years ago, tells us there
are two sorts of pheasants in France; one is called Royal and the other
is called _bruyant_. Here are his words:--“Galli duplex phasianorum
genus statunt, Regium unum quod prestantius est de quo jam diximus,
alterum quod Bruyant vocant.”[20] But in this the learned writer is
probably mistaken, and confounds _bruyant_ with _Coq de bruyère_.
Grimod de la Reynière says:--“A pheasant should be suspended by the
tail, and eaten when he detaches himself from this incumbrance. It is
thus that a pheasant hung on Shrove Tuesday is susceptible of being
spitted on Easter-day.”
* * * * *
I have not said anything on pastry or cold _entrées_, because the
pastry-cook and the cook constitute, in France and in most continental
countries, two different trades or employments. In England, however,
the cook and the pastry-cook are often, in considerable establishments,
amalgamated; so that the perfect or professed cook should be conversant
with every branch of his or her profession, as few establishments,
even of the highest in rank or the most wealthy, include a cook and a
confectioner, or pastry-cook. Those, therefore, who, in this country,
are anxious to excel in their art, ought to be acquainted with the
various preparations of pastry, by which I mean not merely tarts,
puddings, but _feuilletage_, or puff-paste, and paste for hot and
cold pies, paste for timbals, half-puff paste, and paste for heavy
cakes, &c.
From Carème’s observations on making paste, one may conceive that,
to his thinking, the operation was difficult. “The soul of the
operation,” says he, “consists in having the paste well mingled; for,
should there be any neglect in the preparation, a bad result only can
be obtained: also, if the pastry, when baked, possesses a colour the
least objectionable to the eye of the connoisseur, it will be no less
disagreeable to the palate, being heavy and indigestible; therefore
the manipulation should be perfect, both in the oven and on the
table. It is easier to bake than to make it. The oven claims, it is
true, care, assiduity, and practice; _but the composition permits
not mediocrity--requiring memory, taste and skill_--for, from its
perfect seasonings, and the due amalgamation of the different bodies
of which it is composed, it receives its good or bad qualities. The
oven is one simple and self-same thing--the compositions are varied to
infinity.”
In most moderate establishments, where a regular dinner is given, the
ordinary cook, with the aid of a first-rate man cook, has quite enough
to do in preparing the soup, fish, meats, fowl, and game, without being
embarrassed with patties and pastry. I would therefore suggest that
in establishments where there are not first-rate assistants, and a
sufficient number of them, patties, and all kinds of pastry, jellies,
ices, &c., should be procured from the confectioner. There are many
first-rate confectioners who undertake this duty, such as Gunter,
Grange, Bridgman, Waud, and others. A great deal of trouble will thus
be saved to the host; and unless his kitchen and his servants be all
of a superior description, it is likely the small patties, pastry,
ices, and confectionary, will be better from the confectioner’s than
if prepared at home. Of course, every professed cook ought to know how
to make _pâtés_ of venison and of all sorts of game and fish; but with
what the French call _pâtisserie_ it is different, and entertainers who
wish these articles will do well to order them from a confectioner.
For small family dinners every good cook should know how to make
apricot puffs, orange or rum jelly, _blanc-manger_, _tourtes_, apple
tarts, _soufflés_, iced puddings, _gauffres_, _nougats_, _merlitons_,
_Charlottes à la Russe_, gooseberry and all tartlets; but this is
a widely different thing from undertaking this duty for a dinner of
fourteen, sixteen, or twenty persons, in addition to the two or three
courses. For my own part, I have remarked that the people most in the
habit of dining out eat very sparingly of _pâtés_ and pastry.
Under the head _pâtisseries_, the French in general comprehend, first,
_les pâtés chauds et tourtes d’entrées_. Secondly, _les pâtés froids_,
_les gateaux_, _les pâtisseries sucrées_. Thirdly, _les pâtisseries
seches ou croquantes_, eaten at dessert. In early ages, in France, the
_cabaretiers_, who furnished food to the traveller, furnished also
pastry. Saint Louis, in 1270, regulated this trade by certain statutes;
but there was not a regular company of _pâtissiers_ till 1567. One
hundred and fifty years ago Pithiviers was celebrated for its _pâtés_
of larks; Perigueux, for its _pâtés_ of truffled partridges; Amiens,
for its turkeys and geese; Angers, for its _poulardes_; Versailles, for
its _foies gras_, and Strasbourg and Toulouse, for its _pâtés of foies
d’oies_. It was not till 1780 that a _pâtissier_ of Paris invented
_pâtés de jambon_. When l’Hôpital was Chancellor of France, he forbade
the sale of _petits pâtés_ in Paris, on the ground, “qu’un pareil
commerce favorisait d’un côté la gourmandise et de l’autre la paresse.”
[Illustration]