Estimated Nutrition (whole recipe, rough)
Counts 2 of 3 ingredients — the other 1 aren't in our nutrition table and contribute nothing above, so the real totals are higher.
What these numbers assume — 2 portions →
| Ingredient | Portion assumed | kcal |
|---|---|---|
| Sage | 1 tsp ground (0.7g) | 2 |
| Salt | 1 tsp (6g) | 0 |
| Meat | not in our table | 0 |
Totals for the whole recipe, adding one typical portion per ingredient — listed above. Quantities in the recipe are not counted, so this is a rough guide only — not suitable for medical or dietary planning.
Ingredients
- a piece of meat
- one who in the proud humility of his unrivalled genius is content to rank a good
- one extract
- salt
- sage
Directions
We approach with all due reverence and respect the discussion of the important and mysterious changes effected by the chemical action of that most potent of all galvanic agencies, whose resistless influence is acknowledged by sages, philosophers, and statesmen, and whose sympathetic vibrations finds response in every breast--the _batterie de cuisine_. ‘The Gastronomic Regenerator; a New System of Cookery.’ We have given both the titles, because in so deeply interesting a race, all parties from the Royal duke, whose gracious condescension sanctions the dedication in the title-page, to the humble artisan who sniffs the fragrant perfume as he passes the area of the Reform Club, are entitled to start fair; and to the uninitiated the pronomen would require a greater amount of consideration than accords with good digestion. For ourselves, we can only say, with the cockney lady in the play, “How delightfully unintelligible! how far-fetched! how French!” But we have a shrewd guess that the impracticable title was designed, like some of his _sauces piquantes_, as a cabalistic whet or provocative to the teeming fancies and gustatory glories of the interior, and that pronounced with due emphasis and discretion before a meal, it would “create an appetite under the very ribs of death.” The importance of a good dinner is become almost an axiom in morals and philosophy; with ourselves it has been elevated to the rank of an article of faith. We cannot, therefore, too highly appreciate the labours of distinguished men who, like M. Soyer, sacrifice themselves to a sense of public duty, and present to an admiring and hungry world those treasures of _gastronomie_ which are the very triumph of artistic skill. The ancient proverb has it that “any one can dine,” to which modern political economy has added, “if he have the means,”--happily for the present generation they live in the third era of progressive advancement, when dining has become a science, and the good things which Providence
And then follow some very sage reflections upon the necessity of dining “more or less once a day,” and a pathetic appeal to the “manglers” not to tear to atoms the remains of our benefactors; and with this flourish of the knife enter “directions for carving,” which are extremely brief and simple, and which are wound up with the hint, seldom attended to by even experienced carvers, that nothing is more creditable to a carver than leaving a piece of meat, game, or poultry fit to reappear at table in an inviting state.
One extract more, and we shall terminate our pleasing labours, premising that our selection has been made more with a view to novelty than from any want of more _recherché_ and attractive materials. The _fanfare_ is with reference to the French _pot-au-feu_ (see p. 649).
But here we must pause, for we are almost cloyed with sweets and dainties. With the best appetite and inclination in the world, we are reluctantly compelled to subscribe to our artist’s doctrine, that a man can dine but once a day, and our literary banquet has been already a most seductive and profuse one. We purposed giving the recipe of the far-famed pot-au-feu, but we presume it is already, or shortly will be, in the hands of all the world, and if any of our readers have not yet made up their minds, we advise them to send without loss of time to Simpkin, Marshall, and Co.