her own kitchen and her own traditional row of spice boxes for her flavorings. She has her “kitchen set,” which ordinarily comprises a row of little receptacles labeled “pepper,” “salt,” “cloves,” “allspice,” “ginger,” “cinnamon,” “nutmeg,” and possibly one or two other spices or condiments—rarely more. With these and a bottle each of lemon extract and vanilla, she is satisfied that she is fully equipped as far as flavoring possibilities are concerned.

If she has laid in a box of sage and one of mixed dressing with, perhaps, some paprika and thyme, she views her foresightedness with much complacency. She is supplied with savories.

Then she goes right on sighing, “Oh, for a new meat, instead of the same old round of mutton, pork, beef and fish; fish, beef, mutton and pork,” disclaiming utterly any responsibility for the monotony that is undermining the family health and temper and, quite possibly, its morals.

That is where the American housewife makes her primary and most important mistake. The French, on the other hand, know that there are, literally, hundreds of ways to vary every dish, however ordinary it may be in its primary state. That is their secret of success: unfailing variety coupled with economy.

However, this is not to claim that the American palate would take kindly to all the French cooks' little delicacies, or that it could be cultivated to that degree that makes a Frenchman regard a perfectly balanced meal even as an inspired poem.

Probably Americans, as a class, could never be induced to eat some of the little birds—the mauviettes, the alouettes, the sparrows baked in a pie, that so delight the Frenchman. Also, it is a question whether snails, even if it were possible to obtain the superior Burgundian, fat and juicy and cooked even as our own Oscar used to prepare them for certain Waldorf guests, would ever appeal to the American taste, as even the common hedgerow sort of snail does to the average Frenchman.

It is not that the French dinners of Monte Carlo are necessarily so superior to American shore dinners, or that the little dinners of Paris are so infinitely to be preferred to those, say, of certain places in New Orleans, or that the coppery-tasting oysters of Havre are to be compared with those of our own Baltimore. There is no more to be said, probably, for the woodcock patés of old Montreuil, or the rillettes of Tours, or the little pots of custard one gets at the foreign Montpelier, or the vol-au-vent, which is the pride and boast of the cities of Provence, than there is for grandmother's cookies such as have put Camden, Maine, on the map, or Lady Baltimore cakes, or the chicken pies one goes to northern New Hampshire to find in their glory, or the turkeys that, as much as the Green Mountains, make Vermont's fame.

Still, there is no question but that the American palate would benefit much by being cultivated, not only in the interests of economy, but also with a view to the increase of gastronomic pleasure, for a taste attuned to many variations is as an ear sensitive to the nuances of sweet sounds or an eye trained to perceive delicate tones and tints. It is really a matter for regret that we, as a people, have not been as willing to learn from the French the art of cooking and eating as we have been to acquire from them knowledge of the art of dress. Until we widen our horizon sufficiently to do this, we have not even begun to develop all our food resources or to understand the first principles of true food economy—which is not at all synonymous with “going without.”

FLAVOR, HANDMAID OF VARIETY

It is because he has a multitude of seasonings at his command and knows how to use them that the French cook is enabled not only to send to the table an infinite variety of dishes, but, at the same time, to practice economies that were otherwise impossible. The American buys an expensive cut of meat and, as is right in such a case, treats it as plainly and simply as possible. The Frenchman buys meat of a much lower quality, but so embellishes it that when it comes to the table it is superior, or, at least, equal to that which costs much more.

It may be objected that this is no real economy, because by the time the French cook has sauced and spiced his cheap cut in order to make it palatable, the cost is as great, if not greater than it would have been had he paid more for his meat in the first place. This would be true enough according to the average American's method of procedure. But it is to be remembered that the French cook has already in his kitchen the cooking vinegars, the spices, the dried herbs, the extracts, that in very small amounts—a dash or a few leaves—are used at a time; also, that in a great number of cases, gravies and sauces are made from the by-products of the main dishes—those by-products that in the American kitchen usually go down the sink-drain or into the garbage pail.

Take a peep into the typical French cupboard. There you will find from twenty-five to thirty liquid seasonings such as anchovy extract, tobasco sauce, meat extracts, mushroom catsup, tomato paste, chutney, various vinegars, Worcestershire and many another flavoring designed to give a tang and a zest even to the most unpromising dish, if used aright. There you will find, too, fifty or more dry seasonings, including anise, basil, saffron, savoury, clove or garlic, cassia buds, bay leaf, ginger root, pepper-corns, marjoram, mint, thyme, capers and so on.

Herein lie the “secrets” of French cookery which are, in truth, not secrets at all, but merely the application of common sense to the cuisine. The French have never allowed their taste to be restricted by prejudice, so they hail a new flavor with delight rather than registering an instinctive dislike because it is not familiar. With a little applied education, Americans can bring the charm of the French table to their own homes rather than when they are, as they say, tired of the same old round of “eats,” seeking out a nondescript table d'hôte restaurant and eagerly consuming what is set before them, grateful for a change.

But don't harden your heart against French cookery merely because you have sampled it, as you fondly think, at one or another of the “red-inkeries” of New York or any other city. For the most part the “French” restaurants of the land are in reality not French at all, but Italian for the most part, and whatever Gallic flavor the remainder ever possessed has well-nigh vanished. There may be exceptions but, if there are, their patrons carefully guard the secret.

But to return to our subject: It is the French cook's knowledge of the subtleties, the nuances of seasoning that stands him in good stead. The American woman who has essayed to use some spice or savory unfamiliar to her and has turned out a dish which her family has declared “tasted like medicine” is, naturally enough, discouraged from wandering after that particular strange god again. The truth is that she has overdone the seasoning. She doesn't want to be parsimonious, which is just what the French cook is with his flavors, only he, more scientifically, calls it using good judgment. If he uses garlic in a salad, it doesn't necessarily follow that the entire household must take on the atmosphere of an Italian barber shop, for he uses garlic or onion, not to give their flavor to a dish, but to bring out the flavors of the